There are two parallel branches being executed currently in cracking down on freedom of an unprecedented way: meeting the freedoms of expression, speech and of freedom in general. To understand the importance of what is happening, we need to see these two branches.
The first component is to introduce major exceptions to freedom of "extremist" or "terrorist" anything. If you are an extremist, you have no rights at all. We are basically at that time already.
The second component is to gradually expand the definition of these public-partnership rights appease eliminating keywords until they understand anything and anyone the government does do not like. We are basically at that time already, too
look more closely at these one by one :.
The first component makes exceptions to universal freedom when certain keywords are present. There is no shortage of "terrorist acts" in the world. Basically, none of them make terrorism a crime worse (preparation to cause widespread devastation is already a serious crime in most or all countries); instead, they take the rights to due process for those suspected of such crimes, and frankly, for people in general.
One example is the NDAA, which allows the United States to indefinitely lock someone for nothing without trial. Another example would be the UK law that can put you in jail for five years for refusing to yourself, or for not having the keys that do not exist in the first place incrimination.
This is in an appearance similar to the way the word "communist" was used in the red-scare McCarthy era in the US, where you basically had no rights if someone as you were a communist sympathizer.
More recently, we learn that Automated Web censorship will be applied to all that "extremist" or connotations "hate". This kind of censorship is generally forbidden not only at the legislative level in most countries, but in the constitutional level .
The second component redefines the keywords in question to include anything and everything. There is basically no activity, short of blindly actively support the government, which can not be described as "extremism" or "terrorism"
In the UK, for example, Theresa May -. Then Minister of the Interior (Interior Minister), and is now prime minister - has introduced new powers to strip British citizenship to the people if they were "extremists", "whose continued presence is not not conducive to the public good "
Let's review this time because it is boldly sweeping. An extremist can be someone who is" not conducive to the public good "Putting into words all the simpler days. all that is required to be labeled as the all-terrible "extremist" is that government does not like you .
Secretary Interior issued an order to expulsion on the grounds that his continued presence was "not conducive to the public good."
This is well in line with the peaceful protests outside the London Stock Exchange by Occupy London. whether you approve the message or the actions of Occupy, it should concern you that a peaceful meeting to ask the government for a redress of grievances has been labeled "low level terrorism" and therefore a legitimate target for all and all activities in the fight against terrorism.
we are now at a point where everything and everyone is extremist, terrorist, or both, solely for exercising the freedoms guaranteed to us. And once these keywords are mentioned, we stripped of all rights and freedom.
Privacy remains your own responsibility.
Featured Image from Flickr.
0 Komentar