Skeddan Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 It is an interesting point - this legislation turns all acts of legitimate resitance into terrorism - terrorists or freedom fighters - always been a troublesome issue, but 911 has given states an excuse to extend their monopoly of violence - fine if you live in a democracy; not so fine in a totalitarian state! there is quite an interesting piece on the definition of terrorism here that you might be interested in - showing how widely this can be interpreted. Potentially a protest at ID cards (should they introduce them) and conducted along the lines of the burning of the passbooks in South Africa could fall under 'serious damage to property' and be an act of terrorism. No no! I'm not inciting anyone to do that if it is introduced! (I might have to get a second account for such possibly subversive statements ) this legislation turns all acts of legitimate resitance into terrorism It's an interesting debate about monopoly of violence, terrorists/freedom fighters etc. However IMO non-violent action is often a more successful as a strategy - e.g. Ghandi was more successful in military terms than the IRA. The guy standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989 was more effective because he didn't have a Kalashnikov. This is going a bit further than 'Fourth Generation War' - maybe 5GW - but there are principles to be learned from 4GW: What "wins" at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted. .... One key to success in 4GW may be "losing to win." http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702 Hence I don't think the legislation turns all legitimate acts of resistance into terrorism. Maybe the guy in Tiananmen Square might be classified as a terrorist (interfering with tanks sent in for 'public safety'), but there are other very effective and legitimate acts of resistance that are non-violent and do not fall under this definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Ooh ooh can we phone up about "the old goat"? what was the number again!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I think what the past few years have taught me [again] is that our establishment is not to be trusted, yet again today the govt caught in the lie with rendition, the manipulation of documents to decieve,politician after politician stealing from the public purse, so when they ask for extra powers, reduced civil liberties for"security reasons" i say piss off, i dont believe the bastards, if we could cope without these new powers throughout the NI troubles, which were more serious than this present problem, then we can cope now without. FFS There has been so many lies and deceptions from this present govt that even a tory govt looks refreshing, and where is the sainted Tone now? flogging his act thru Europe for a second bite at power, which is his only aim, if he has to lie about "representing" people, so be it. I suggest they are not worthy of our continued belief--they are no longer credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 FFS There has been so many lies and deceptions from this present govt that even a tory govt looks refreshing, I think it is worrying that the recent polls are showing more support for the Tories. New Labour might not be that ideologically different from the Tories but the Tories are just that little bit worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Could any of you Brits explain any difference between NuLiebour and The CONservitives besides the accents? For all its faults I think our own system and our politicians are far better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Could any of you Brits explain any difference between NuLiebour and The CONservitives besides the accents? For all its faults I think our own system and our politicians are far better. I don't think the difference are that great other than that the Conservative are slightly more driven by traditionalist attitudes, very slightly more inclined towards the concerns of the more wealthy and middle-class in society, and are more euro sceptic. Or that is from my understanding anyway. But why is the Manx system better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 But why is the Manx system better? 1) MHKs are not controlled by a party mechanism. 2) I can call my MHK and discuss an issue. UK MPs discuss their votes with party whips. 3) MHKs live in or very near to their own constituencies. 4) There are no safe seats where a party can choose the representatives. 5) MHKs don't need to force public employee's into spending more time producing targeting bumpf to prove one parties policies have worked better than another - although departments of government staffed with those used to the UK system frequently do. 6) MHKs mostly use the public services they are responsible for. 7) Politically, MHKs cannot afford to become the like the large orders that dominate UK politics. 8) MHKs don't award gongs to rich backers. 9) MHKs don't have huge election expenses - and so don't have to make promises to wealthy backers. 10) Because MHKs are not organised into parties they are less ideological. 11) Manifesto pledges are made by the individual, not decided for them at a conference (or rally). etc, etc. Maybe BritNats can see some hidden benefit in the UK's system - but it doesn't seem very democratic to me, and, besides the accents I can't see much difference between the big two UK Unionist parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 There pluses and minuses of all democratic systems, but I'm increasingly growing disillusioned with ours. No matter how I voted last time I don't think my vote could have any impact on the way the Island is governed. I voted for who I thought would be elected, and when the new Tynwald was choosing the new CM I e-mailled all my MHK's to give my opinion of the three who were in the running. And then as a fait accompli a fourth person suddenly became CM and formed a government. I had no say in the matter, but worse than that my elected representatives seemed to have no say in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 But why is the Manx system better? 1) MHKs are not controlled by a party mechanism. 2) I can call my MHK and discuss an issue. UK MPs discuss their votes with party whips. 3) MHKs live in or very near to their own constituencies. 4) There are no safe seats where a party can choose the representatives. 5) MHKs don't need to force public employee's into spending more time producing targeting bumpf to prove one parties policies have worked better than another - although departments of government staffed with those used to the UK system frequently do. 6) MHKs mostly use the public services they are responsible for. 7) Politically, MHKs cannot afford to become the like the large orders that dominate UK politics. 8) MHKs don't award gongs to rich backers. 9) MHKs don't have huge election expenses - and so don't have to make promises to wealthy backers. 10) Because MHKs are not organised into parties they are less ideological. 11) Manifesto pledges are made by the individual, not decided for them at a conference (or rally). etc, etc. Maybe BritNats can see some hidden benefit in the UK's system - but it doesn't seem very democratic to me, and, besides the accents I can't see much difference between the big two UK Unionist parties. I think the MHKs are as ideological as in the UK. They don't form parties where there is a supposed ideological theme as in the UK but in terms of a loose definition of political ideology being a set of ideas about society, how it works, and how power is distributed I think MHKs are very ideological. Is it not the case that there is less variation in the political ideologies of the electors? I can see what you mean with the other points. There pluses and minuses of all democratic systems, but I'm increasingly growing disillusioned with ours. No matter how I voted last time I don't think my vote could have any impact on the way the Island is governed. I voted for who I thought would be elected, and when the new Tynwald was choosing the new CM I e-mailled all my MHK's to give my opinion of the three who were in the running. And then as a fait accompli a fourth person suddenly became CM and formed a government. I had no say in the matter, but worse than that my elected representatives seemed to have no say in the matter. That is really bad. But I think even if you could vote for the CM you wanted your imput into way in which the Island is governed is minimal, you are just a spectator until your vote is needed, and even then (as far I am aware) the system is simple majoritarian voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Don't get me wrong - I'm as disillusioned with our government too - but I still think it is better than the UK's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.