Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/22/2005 8:42:40 AM EDT


www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/22/civil_libs_ditch/

Brits happy to ditch civil liberties

By Lucy Sherriff
Published Monday 22nd August 2005 16:03 GMT


Three out of four Brits would happily hand over their civil liberties in exchange for better security against terrorist attacks, according figures from pollsters ICM.

It is interesting to note that this is the same general public that rails against any attempts to make them drive more slowly, or with more care. This is in spite of the fact that in 2004, 671 pedestrians were killed in traffic accidents, and a further 2,550 people died in other road accidents.

The ICM/Guardian-backed survey found that 73 per cent of Brits overall support a trade-off between liberty and security. Tory voters are even keener than average to do so, with 79 per cent of respond ants backing the idea. Labour voters and Lib Dems came in at 72 per cent and 70 per cent in favour, respectively.

Further, 62 per cent of respondents were in favour of deporting foreign radical Islamists, even if that deportation was to a country that used torture. Only 19 per cent directly opposed this idea.

Similarly only 19 per cent opposed calls for terror suspects to be held for three months without charge, with 62 per cent welcoming the proposal. Currently, the upper limit is 14 days.

However, the poll also revealed that a sizeable minority was still in favour of having an independent judiciary.

Although 52 per cent of those polled said judges should not be able to rule against government measures, 40 per cent said they agreed that judges should "protect our civil liberty and continue to overturn anti-terrorist measures if they feel it is right to do so".

A spokesman for Liberty told The Guardian that the results of the poll were a cause for concern, but cautioned against knee jerk legislation.

He added that people would realise that defending our basic values would be a better way to protect our society, rather than passing "counterproductive" and "superficially attractive" security measures.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:03:43 AM EDT
What's all this business about? It's a state of emergency in the UK. They've allowed the ROP to set up terrorist cells throughout their country in the name of multiculturalism, and now they're acting surprised that now the vipers are biting them. Just this weekend their cops uncovered a plot to NERVE GAS parliament.

www.voanews.com/english/2005-08-21-voa22.cfm

People always think that curtailment of civil liberties in a time of war is permanent and irreversable. It's not. We've done it many times before, including interning citizens solely because of their ethnicity. When the threat passed, civil rights were restored. Why do you think it is somehow different this time?

I get angry when these terrorist assholes are cornered and then start screaming "I have rights! I have rights!" But their crimes are so heinous the government's taking the gloves off, political correctness is taking a back seat, and now the rats are fleeing Britain to escape the crackdown.

And you see this as a shame?
Top Top