Should Personal Liberty Be Defended?

[anneteoh]

Not so long ago, a number of terrorists who plotted to blow part of the Uk yet again created a dilemma for the people. There was sufficient evidence to convict the suspects and those who overstayed illegally were deported. There remained one who is a British who the police were unable to deport. Nick Clegg stepped in to defend the country's stand on personal liberty that's written in the constitution. Should this law on personal liberty be amended or repelled in the light of terrorism?
Many people expressed disbelief that their own lives are put at risk while their govt's defending the personal liberty of a traitor and mass murderer. Some people applauded.
One wonders how long we can hold on to such benevolent democracy; and isn't it given to a person who must not have wanted it in the first place?

[beenthere]

Once you start compromising on the principles of democracy and rights you are on the slippery slope that will lead into a pseudo-utopia of guided-"democracy", token opposition and avuncular regimentation of each and every aspect of your life. Seems eerily familiar. And dystopia isn't far from this pseudo-utopia.

[durain]

thank you very much to the UK's human rights act 1998 which has been abused to the core.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Once you start compromising on the principles of democracy and rights you are on the slippery slope that will lead into a pseudo-utopia of guided-"democracy", token opposition and avuncular regimentation of each and every aspect of your life. Seems eerily familiar. And dystopia isn't far from this pseudo-utopia.

Word!

[anneteoh]

Once you start compromising on the principles of democracy and rights you are on the slippery slope that will lead into a pseudo-utopia of guided-"democracy", token opposition and avuncular regimentation of each and every aspect of your life. Seems eerily familiar. And dystopia isn't far from this pseudo-utopia.

This is a great abstract, fine for art but linguistically short of context. Don't worry about speaking up on errants of deomcracy -it's for the social good.
I personally find utopia a more concrete and objective notion than democracy - which surely is contradictory when personal responsibility cannot be counted out as a major component. Is it Uncle Sam or Uncle Everyman?
Democracy does not guarantee free speech either, does it really?
The upshot must be what responsibility is expected of the individual in the different contexts of the principles, which very often do not protect the innocents or vulnerables.

[anneteoh]

thank you very much to the UK's human rights act 1998 which has been abused to the core.

Good politics stand on facts. Who, what, when, how? Funny, but principles are not about why which matters to the lay man.

[road.not.taken]

This is a great abstract, fine for art but linguistically short of context. Don't worry about speaking up on errants of deomcracy -it's for the social good.

I read this three times and still have no earthly idea what it means

[anneteoh]

This is a great abstract, fine for art but linguistically short of context. Don't worry about speaking up on errants of deomcracy -it's for the social good.

I read this three times and still have no earthly idea what it means

Sorry for typo -word's democracy. Simply it means please be explicit and not to worry about speaking up. The naming of which countries and what context regarding utopias, dystopias and avuncular democracies etc - refer to beenthere's post.
Basically, I was'nt sure if he's referring to Britain, Singapore of the US; unless it's a case of 1 size fits all.

[QRM]

This is a great abstract, fine for art but linguistically short of context. Don't worry about speaking up on errants of deomcracy -it's for the social good.

I read this three times and still have no earthly idea what it means

Sorry for typo -word's democracy. Simply it means please be explicit and not to worry about speaking up. The naming of which countries and what context regarding utopias, dystopias and avuncular democracies etc - refer to beenthere's post.
Basically, I was'nt sure if he's referring to Britain, Singapore of the US; unless it's a case of 1 size fits all.

Oh no Anneteoh is having a thesaurus relapse, I have to admit after you short stint away you came back with some good and surprisingly clear topics. Almost like a different person but the last few post WTF?! all I can say is stay off the pipe.

[anneteoh]

[]

Oh no Anneteoh is having a thesaurus relapse, I have to admit after you short stint away you came back with some good and surprisingly clear topics. Almost like a different person but the last few post WTF?! all I can say is stay off the pipe.

You're overpresumptous. Obviously your Thesaurean mindset is not sensitive to nuances. Thats' why your domain's attacking competition rather than incompetence. Mind which forum you're in or go back to the jungle, dystopian. Bet you can't get the rationale in this. LOL

[QRM]

Dont get me wrong I love eccentric people like you, the world (Singapore especially) need more people from different planets. I am grateful you have decided teleport from your era into ours.

Its just simple folks like me cant figure out what you are trying to say, if the nuance are so subtle the average Joe cant follow and continue the dialogue.

[anneteoh]

Dont get me wrong I love eccentric people like you, the world (Singapore especially) need more people from different planets. I am grateful you have decided teleport from your era into ours.

Its just simple folks like me cant figure out what you are trying to say, if the nuance are so subtle the average Joe cant follow and continue the dialogue.

Good thing, an olive branch.

I was just thinking to return to blank out my previous reply, with whatever dignity's left - thinking you're my personal troll.
Hmm...this happens to be a serious discussion which surely must be brought into the open?

Sorry, there're no nuances here - ask the right guy or come out with a specific question.

I suppose if you live in Singapore you wouldn't understand how a terrorist attack, which happened here July 2006 (?) is an issue which has implications with personal liberty and benevolent democracy.

personal liberty - rights of an individual
benevolent democracy - defending the rights of personal liberty regardless of moral, political or social constraints.

Hope this helps, but I think you're still doing gymnastics.

[QRM]

A personal troll? far from it, while I don't think we would ever end up playing footsie under the table, I was highlighting a bit of a language clarity issue.

As to terrorist; I spent a lot of time in London and often had to leg it from shops. My cat and I was blown halfway across my room when the Kensington Israeli embassy was blown up. A neighbour house had a huge bomb defused, I actually heard the people bringing it in at 4am. So quite used to it.

[beenthere]

Hmm... Did I stir up a hornet's (or at least some buzzing insect's) nest?

Anne does have a point in her critique of my post - I was speaking mostly in the abstract with some thinly(?) veiled references. Ok, perhaps I was pushing some buttons to see what kind of a rise I would get. And the bit about dystopia? I just threw that in because it had a nice rhythmic consonance with pseudo-utopia.

I cannot speak for the UK nor can I speak for Singapor (at least not until I start living here). I have only been too these countries as camera toting tourists and all I saw was the gloss and not what's underneath the veneer.

However - as an American, I am seeing a continual erosion of civil liberties post 9/11. Some bothers me and some don't. I think each of us will have a different place as to where to hold the line.

Some are not necessarily erosions of civil liberties - more constraints placed on our day-to-day lives. As long as these are fairly applied and are based on reason, I may be amenable to accept them.

We Americans (like most other countries) do have a history where these "constraints" were applied most unfairly and targeting distinct ethnic/racial/religious groups.

From slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to the WWII Nisei internment, to pushing Native American to remote reservations, to mass detention of Mid-Eastern looking people post 9/11, to the now anti-Hispanic laws being enacted under the guise of stopping illegal immigrations.

Almost every nation on earth has a similar history. To America's credit it is sufficiently open society that issues like these are not thrown under the rug - and that we can and will speak up against what is considered unfair or untenable. Yes, we can speak up. It is when we lose the ability to speak up - our rights will be been eroded so much that we will have lost. No, the terrorists will not have won - we will have lost.

This 15 hours gap in our discourse makes it difficult to have a vibrant discussion - I should be in the same time zone in a couple of months to take up the cudgel more firmly.

[road.not.taken]

This is a great abstract, fine for art but linguistically short of context. Don't worry about speaking up on errants of deomcracy -it's for the social good.

I read this three times and still have no earthly idea what it means

It wasn't the typo, I'm nimble-brained enough to jump that hurdle. It's the lack of actual content without the framework of grammar that have me thrown.

Should personal liberty be defended? Of course. Always. The Bill of Rights is there for a reason and are debated endlessly in the US, which is exactly what, I believe, the framers had in mind. As far as terror suspects are concerned, they either are protected by the Geneva Convention or Habeas Corpus.