The Brits will not lose any of their civil rights

[cynatnite]

The UK has a long history of terrorist attacks. They've tolerated Nazi attacks and the IRA made London a target for many years. Looking at the tragedy of today many people invoked memories of 9/11.

9/11 was horrific, but what followed was a loss of civil liberties for scant protection.

In all the years of dealing with attacks, the Brits haven't suffered the loss of their civil rights. I don't know British history all that well, but I have never heard of anyone losing their civil rights in order to better protect themselves.

When Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building it sent a shockwave through the US and around the world. Our civil rights remained. We dealt with it and moved on. With bush in the WH, we get hit again on 9/11 and the patriot act is born costing us civil rights.

History is on our side and it should be obvious to anyone that the patriot act was not necessary. Too bad the american leaders forgot history so quickly.

[madeline_con]

1. Dunblane= loss of rights. (??)

Wouldn't the loss of the right to own firearms be a loss of freedom?

Could Dunblane be considered terrorist activity?

[candy]

2. Good point!

[cynatnite]

3. I thought that there was more restrictions on firearms...not banned

Am I mistaken?

[madeline_con]

9. Apparently, anything over a .22 caliber

is severely restricted. The average Joe doesn't have the right to own a few just because he wants to.

"Hunters" can still own weapons, which seems to mean they're allowed more personal safety at home. (?)

[Cha]

4. Good Points!

I think the bushits have something more in mind than safety when they take away our civil rights. But, it ain't gonna fly. Fuck bush.

[ConfuZed]

5. Dunblane Massacre

The small Scottish town of Dunblane was racked with grief and horror last night as details emerged of the killer who had lived in their midst until yesterday, when he shot dead 16 small children and a teacher in three minutes of carnage in a primary school gym.

Thomas Hamilton, aged 43, a disgraced former Scout master whose behaviour had attracted the attention of the police, turned one of his four guns on himself after killing or injuring all but one of a class of 29 five- and six-year-olds at Dunblane primary school, near Stirling.

Last night three of the 12 children at hospital in Stirling, Falkirk and Glasgow were on the critical list.

As the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition registered their shock and distress at the worst multiple murder this country has seen, there were immediate calls for greater security in schools and tightening of the laws on gun ownership, last addressed after the Hungerford massacre in August 1987.

No obvious motive had emerged yesterday, but the many people who had encountered Hamilton drew a picture of a man who was obsessed with small boys and embittered by rejection. He became a Scout leader in 197...<more>

http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,6051,11...

[cynatnite]

6. Point? n/t

[ConfuZed]

7. I was responding to a post above :S

[cynatnite]

8. oh, okay :) n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. We already have lost some

Look at what Liberty (roughly the British equivalent of the ACLU) have to say about the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Anti Terrorism measures have done little to ensure Britain is safe and secure from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the civil liberties of those living in the UK. And the impact that they have on terrorism is questionable.

The infamous miscarriages of justice which involved Irish suspects and use of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in the 70s and 80s are a reminder of the dangers of rushed anti-terror laws which create a twin-track system delivering poor justice.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 gives the Home Secretary the power to issue 'control orders' to restrict the liberty of individuals. Without any need for a trial, control orders will range from restrictions on communications to house arrest.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism...