Tonight 6.30pm Tues 26 Feb 2008

[PeckhamRose]

I suppose this is an advert as I had a small part to play,

but I profit not from telling you about it,

and it is "a good thing".

Tonight at Clapham Cinema

TAKING LIBERTIES (12A)

Followed by a Q&A session with director CHRIS ATKINS

Tuesday 26 February, 6.30

This is a film that purports to show the shocking truth about the erosion of our fundamental civil liberties by Tony Blair's government. It argues that the five pillars of liberty - the right to liberty, to privacy, to a fair trial and to free speech, plus the prohibition of torture - have been systematically destroyed by New Labour in a climate of fear generated by the government and the media.

Tickets ?8.50 / ?6.50 Members

http://cityscreen.newman.artsalliancemedia.com/static/newsletter/latest/cph.html

[giggirl]

I have seen this film on DVD. If you haven't already seen it then please make the effort. It is VERY shocking when you see all the information laid out before you. I've been a staunch supporter of Amnesty International for years; I have always felt very strongly about people unfortunate enough to be living in countries where they aren't able to voice an opinion contrary to the government of the day. I NEVER dreamt that I would one day be living in such a country - welcome to England. Thanks Tony.

I think that one of the most shocking bits of the film (for me) was a moment when Joanna Lumley was almost arrested for protesting (quietly and peacefully) outside the Houses of Parliament (against the war in Iraq I think). From memory (and I may be wrong) this was on the DVD ?extras? rather than the film itself. I suppose you might say that with all the terrible things happening that it?s a bit lame to be shocked by the potential arrest of Joanna Lovely ? but that?s the whole point ? it is unthinkable that the right to protest has been taken away from ordinary people.

[gerritsmith]

"I have always felt very strongly about people unfortunate enough to be living in countries where they aren't able to voice an opinion contrary to the government of the day. I NEVER dreamt that I would one day be living in such a country - welcome to England. Thanks Tony."

You can voice your opinion on this board. What is it that you want say and are not allowed to say it by this government?

[gerritsmith]

>

I didn't know we protest marches were banned?

[Keef]

Didn't they ban them within a certain radius of paliment? I remember something about this, I was going to go along and join in a human chain around the radius zone, but couldn't really be arsed on a Saturday so watched the footy and got p!ssed instead! :)-D

[mockney piers]

Thanks to the glorification of terrorism in the terrorism act of 2006 there are some pretty dodgy grey areas for free debate on a free forum like this.

I'd be much more concerned if I was of a middle eastern background and trying to have an honest and open debate on current affairs.

Try exercising your right to protest within a kilometre of parliament too. Obviously we can't have the hoi polloi upsetting MPs with much more important things on their plates like farming out 'jobs' to family and ensuring their wives have free and unfettered access to free taxis.

[mockney piers]

Ha ha Keef, that's about as far as I got too. Great idea in theory of course!!

Here you go gerritsmith http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4734665.stm

I'll try and track down the story of the people who sat in parliament square with empty placards, pouring each other cups of tea. Nothing like the British sense of the absurd to point out the absurdity of these laws.

[mockney piers]

I'm no lawyer, but if I read it right, you can go to prison for 51 weeks for organising a protest either within a km of parliament or anywhere the secretary of state doesn't like the idea of you protesting.

If you belong to an organisation that protests in any of the above you're liable to a fine and a criminal record for having done absolutely nowt.

Nice.

132 Demonstrating without authorisation in designated area

(1) Any person who?

(a) organises a demonstration in a public place in the designated area, or

(b) takes part in a demonstration in a public place in the designated area, or

© carries on a demonstration by himself in a public place in the designated area,

is guilty of an offence if, when the demonstration starts, authorisation for the demonstration has not been given under section 134(2).

(7) In this section and in sections 133 to 136?

(a) ?the designated area? means the area specified in an order under section 138,

(b) ?public place? means any highway or any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission,

© references to any person organising a demonstration include a person participating in its organisation,

(d) references to any person organising a demonstration do not include a person carrying on a demonstration by himself,

(e) references to any person or persons taking part in a demonstration (except in subsection (1) of this section) include a person carrying on a demonstration by himself.

138 The designated area

(1) The Secretary of State may by order specify an area as the designated area for the purposes of sections 132 to 137.

(2) The area may be specified by description, by reference to a map or in any other way.

(3) No point in the area so specified may be more than one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square.

136 Offences under sections 132 to 135: penalties

(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 132(1)(a) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under section 132(1)(b) or © is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_12

[cdonline]

I may be wrong but wasn't it the Tories who first banned protests within a mile of Parliament, when it was sitting?

The Labour Government revoked the law, but after protests such as the Country Alliance, who got into Parliament, changed it again.

Protests can happen, just not when Parliament is sitting, there was one on Saturday protesting Human Rights abuses.

[giggirl]

I do really urge the good people of East Dulwich to make an effort to see this - it is shocking. If you can't get to Clapham tonight then get hold of it on DVD.

http://www.noliberties.com/index.htm

"TAKING LIBERTIES is a shocking but hilarious polemic documentary that charts the destruction of all your Basic Liberties under 10 Years of New Labour. Released to coincide with Tony Blair's departure, the film and the book follow the stories of normal people who's lives have been turned upside down by injustice - from being arrested for holding a placard outside parliament to being tortured in Guantanamo Bay."

THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T READ IN THE PAPERS!

THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T SEE ON TV!

AND IT'S HAPPENING TO YOU!

[giggirl]

I don't think we have freedom of speech in the UK any more. Do you remember this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm

Like most people who saw footage of this happening on the nightly news my jaw just hit the ground in horror.

And what about this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article730016.ece

[SeanMacGabhann]

we clearly HAVE freedom of speech - I'd much rather live here than many of the countries I've just been to or near - but it IS being eroded

However if people over-state the case then others will just turn off from the debate and dismiss them as cranks

I'll keep an eye out for the film on DVD - but I'd be surprised if it contained much that WASN'T IN THE NEWSPAPERS or any half decent book collection. TV on the other hand......

[mockney piers]

Of course we still have freedom of speech, but it's that erosion that's so disturbing.

Powers are very rarely relinquished by governments, so these may be the first steps of the thin end of the wedge on a journey to death by a thousand cuts.

Pretty soon we're in a CCTV dominated world, where you can get automated fines dropping through your doormat, where all forms of digital communication are routinely screened for certain keywords, where you can go to prison on hearsay rather than evidence without having been tried by your peers. Where anyone can be held for 28 days without charge and foreign nationals can be interned indefinitely without the right to even hear charges against them. Where you don't have to transgress the law for your DNA to be held on government database...

Doh!!

It's surely our duty to speak out against this and ensure that much of the new legislation is repealed. I lived the first 5 years of my life under a military dictator, I have an Argentinian friend whose father was thrown out of a plane in to the South Atlantic for not toeing the government line in his class. Never be complacent enough to believe it can't happen here.

(ooh, now who's scaremongering, eek)

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

What Mockney said.

[Domitianus]

This just confirms what a close friend of mine said - "Blair is scum!" He is actually very articulate but felt that was the only way to summarise his feelings in this case. He left the UK and moved to an eastern European country for two reasons:

1. He was utterly disgusted at the taxation system in the UK having been harassed and persecuted by it for years.

2. He was utterly disgusted by the complacent way the English allow their politicians to erode their fundamental liberties without a squeak of protest.

Another articulate summary he offered was - "Britain is finished. There is nothing left to do but to get out."

[lozzyloz]

I don't think you're scaremongering. We allegedly went into Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our freedoms yet we have less freedom/liberty than pre 911 and I fear it will definitely get worse. It's not good enough to say if you've got nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear. We're already seeing many cases where this new legislation has convicted and persecuted innocent people on both sides of the pond and when you try and discuss this with anybody involved with forming this legislation, they just clam up and wrap it in a blanket called national security.

[Domitianus]

lozzyloz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think you're scaremongering. We allegedly

> went into Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our

> freedoms yet we have less freedom/liberty than pre

> 911 and I fear it will definitely get worse. It's

> not good enough to say if you've got nothing to

> hide then you've nothing to fear. We're already

> seeing many cases where this new legislation has

> convicted and persecuted innocent people on both

> sides of the pond and when you try and discuss

> this with anybody involved with forming this

> legislation, they just clam up and wrap it in a

> blanket called national security.

Well said, LozzyLoz. I wonder how many of these "What are you worried about if you have nothing to hide?" would kick up a stink if someone put up a CCTV camera pointed directly at the front of their house? I don't imagine they would be quite so comfortable then.

[Domitianus]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> we clearly HAVE freedom of speech - I'd much

> rather live here than many of the countries I've

> just been to or near - but it IS being eroded

>

> However if people over-state the case then others

> will just turn off from the debate and dismiss

> them as cranks

>

> I'll keep an eye out for the film on DVD - but I'd

> be surprised if it contained much that WASN'T IN

> THE NEWSPAPERS or any half decent book collection.

> TV on the other hand......

How can we be said to have freedom of speech when Nick Griffin was prosecuted for offering his personal view of the Islamic faith at a private meeting? I am not championing Mr Griffin's politics or views but from the televised fragments I saw his comments were on the comparatively moderate end of disagreeing with a religious perspective. The worst comment I heard him make was describing Islam as "vile" and there are certainly elements of that religion it could be argued justify such a description - homophobia, female oppression, capital punishment for adultery etc. The government simply decided to step in and abuse inciting religious hatred laws in order to try to quash a political rival. I spoke to a police officer about this and he offered the opinion that the decision to prosecute had almost certainly been influenced from Cabinet level.

You can have freedom of speech as long as you don't say anything really unpopular! Just don't tread on the toes of the PC brigade or an opportunist government. To me that is not really freedom of speech at all - it is permission to articulate an opinion by only through sufferance of the powers that be and that, my friends, is a tyranny!

Thankfully, Mr Griffin was acquitted and, although I am no fan of the BNP, that day was a fantastic day for liberty and justice. I believe it was Voltaire who said, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[mockney piers]

No no, I'm totally with you.

Just because something is unpleasant, doesn't mean it should be suppressed.

Incitement is a tricky enough area, but, like cricketing umpires, we should give the benefit of the doubt as much as possible.

Who was that chap who was a member of that radical islamist group, and then had a change of heart and became a whistleblower and now has death threats against him...I'll dig around.

Aaaaanyway, he said that as distasteful as much of their rhetoric and discussion may be to the average punter, by setting up all these suppressive laws we're just driving their discussions underground where they cannot be challenged by more moderate voices, and he was very much for bringing this all into the open.

Indeed by passing laws to target them, their we-are-the-victim-fight-the-power view becomes somewhat justified, lending extra credence and power to their message upon the dissaffected, influenceable* young'uns they target.

*is that the word I'm looking for?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I agree with you both Dom and MP - but it's nothing new and not a sign of PC or an opportunist government

It was after all Maggie's Farm which surpressed speech from Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness for so long

[Domitianus]

One thing I am curious about is people's views as to whether the Labour government under Blair was able to do so much to damage civil liberties BECAUSE they were a Labour government and therefore perceived as being more liberal than a Conservative government. In other words - were they a wolf in sheep's clothing? It is also interesting to note (and I think this is correct) that Blair's government engaged in armed involvement in more overseas conflicts than any other government in the 20th century. Same is true for Clinton. I remember hearing that the number of overseas military interventions by Clinton's government was more than the ENTIRE TOTAL for all the other US administrations of the 20th century!!!

[Domitianus]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree with you both Dom and MP - but it's

> nothing new and not a sign of PC or an opportunist

> government

>

> It was after all Maggie's Farm which surpressed

> speech from Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness for

> so long

The ban on Sinn Fein and other 'Republican' spokespeople was one of the most ill-conceived acts of political censorship ever. Completely idiotic! What amused me the most about that was that they even banned The Pogues for chrissake!!!! It was one of the main news channels then had to quote (rather than play) the lyrics from one of their protest songs about the Birmingham Six - 'Streets of Sorrow' (a beautiful song, whatever your politics). This was crazy as the song had done nothing but articulate the view (later accepted by the Court of Appeal) that the Birmingham Six were innocent and had been set up by the West Midlands police. The irony was that Chris Mullin, a Labour MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, had already written a well-regarded book arguing eloquently exactly the same point.

[giggirl]

The so called "war against terror" has been used as an excuse to pass new laws which erode our civil liberties. And it is the thin end of the wedge. Once those laws are on the statute book they can be used for whatever purpose they can be made to fit.

And what is this "war against terror" - our parents and grandparents came through two world wars for goodness sake.

[mockney piers]

I'm reminded of this piece of genius from The Day Today

I think it's one of those weird things that it's more often left wing governments who go to war (US and UK) than right wing.

No idea why, and couldn't speak for France; Germany I've an idea it's the other way.

----

Spot on GigGirl!!!

[Domitianus]

Anyone see the film 'V' that came out a couple of years ago. One brilliant line that I think came from that - "The people should not be scared of the government, the government should be afraid of the people."

We have similar scare-mongering going on now about a national DNA data-base. Advocates for this are now telling us that if we had had such a database the raft of recent serial-killers (three or so who have been convicted recently) would have been caught earlier. Yes, perhaps! I don't think that justifies the intrusion on civil liberties that such a data-base would signify. What is the price of a human life, people may ask? I don't know but a national DNA data base is certainly too high in my opinion.

My fundamental view is the least the government know about me, the better.