PDA

View Full Version : 1984 Could it happen



WatsonGlenn
April 13th, 2004, 06:54 PM
I read an op ed piece in the paper today by John Leo that provided some astounding facts about the lengths some governments will go to control speech and even thought. Below is the short version. The link to the full article is here:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040419/opinion/19john.htm

John Leo “Stomping on free speech”


In Canada Bill C-250 makes public criticism of homosexuality a crime. Religious groups say it would become risky for them to teach certain biblical passages. If a student says something that irritates homosexuals in class, the student's parents might be held legally liable.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.

In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.

In Sweden, sermons are explicitly covered by an anti-hate-speech law passed to protect homosexuals. The Swedish chancellor of justice said any reference to the Bible's stating that homosexuality is sinful might be a criminal offense, and a Pentecostal minister is already facing charges.

In Ireland last August, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned that clergy who circulated a Vatican statement opposing gay marriages could face prosecution under incitement-to-hatred legislation.

Iluvatar
April 13th, 2004, 06:57 PM
I don't have time to read the link now, but if this is true, then we are already on the road tto 1984.

chadn737
April 13th, 2004, 08:54 PM
I read the article a few days ago and thought about posting a thread on it. To say the least it shocked me to the bone. I was really frightened by how in Sweden a priest is being charged for preaching the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

sjjs
April 14th, 2004, 03:41 AM
It is here! I don't know the situatin in the US, but in the UK there are hundreds of thousands of CCTV cameras in the streets. I heard a statistic that each time we visit town we're likely to be filmed on 300 different cameras. How true that is I can't verify, but with increasing use of CCTV along with bastard speed cameras certain aspects of Orwell's vision are here without a murmur in the public gallery.

WatsonGlenn
April 14th, 2004, 07:47 AM
In Germany only historians are allowed to own copies of Mein Kampf

chadn737
April 14th, 2004, 04:22 PM
The surveillance abilities of the US govt are on the rise. It is now quite common for cities to have cameras at stoplights. The Patriot Act has also granted the govt the power to track our interent activity without a warrant. Then of course we must remember the military has satellites capable of watching anyone, anywhere, anytime.

FruitandNut
April 15th, 2004, 12:10 AM
It can be argued that aspects of 1984, to one degree or another have 'always' existed in all societies. Control is seen as being necessary to maintain some sort of public peace and cohesion. The problem with 1984 is that it takes these controls to an extreme. Even trying to eliminate private thoughts. A global 1984 is an improbable world, given that so much information and experience, and possibly genetics, 'seeks' to disrupt long term totalitarian ascendancy.

In the UK we have many CCTV type cameras dotted around city centres and throughout department stores, shopping malls, car parks etc.. Whether I see them as intrusive or protective, depends upon personal perception or agenda.

At the moment there is a sometimes heated debate over identity cards. But I would sooner have identity cards, than see another 9-11. The mere fact that we fight for the right to have views and to disagree, means that any '1984' remains a 'localised' phenomenon.

As I think I have mentioned before, Orwell was worried about the domino effect. Much like Oppenheimer and his team thought the 'never ending' nuclear chain reaction a possibility. In both cases it never happened. There are too many contrary forces.

Perhaps it is through IT and a globalised economy that freedom may flourish or be exterminated.

Even GM crops 'seek' to eliminate much that is diversity and 'freedom' in our food. If we are what we eat, then long term, it may have a controlling effect on us?

WatsonGlenn: It is only relatively recently that Wagner's music has been allowed to be played openly in Isreal. There are things that may not be shown on TV before 9pm and others only allowed even later. The key thing to whether as a collective and individually we may speak about these things and be 'heard' without being 'vapourised'.

WatsonGlenn
April 15th, 2004, 12:13 PM
The surveillance abilities of the US govt are on the rise. It is now quite common for cities to have cameras at stoplights. The Patriot Act has also granted the govt the power to track our interent activity without a warrant. Then of course we must remember the military has satellites capable of watching anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Actually the Patriot Act still requiers a warrent.

WatsonGlenn
April 15th, 2004, 12:16 PM
It is only relatively recently that Wagner's music has been allowed to be played openly in Isreal.

Really, thats facinating. I still say the US is the most free country in the World.

chadn737
April 15th, 2004, 02:33 PM
Actually the Patriot Act still requiers a warrent.

Not to survey our internet activity. Also they can dely warrant notice and a few other things they never could do before.

KevinBrowning
April 15th, 2004, 02:39 PM
I don't have time to read the link now, but if this is true, then we are already on the road tto 1984.
Really, we are going back in time? I would love to revisit the 1980s with my current appreciation of classic rock. Seriously though, I agree that invasions of privacy for the purpose of national security are becoming more commonplace. However, this does not equate to Big Brother and the Thought Police. I believe a scenario such as described in '1984' is realistically implausible in the United States, because of our magnificent Constitution and system of checks and balances.

sjjs
April 15th, 2004, 04:17 PM
At the moment there is a sometimes heated debate over identity cards. But I would sooner have identity cards, than see another 9-11.

How on earth do identity cards prevent terrorist hijacking? I fail to see the relevance of them in detering terrorists.

sjjs
April 15th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Really, thats facinating. I still say the US is the most free country in the World.

Based on what criteria? You keep coming up with this jingoist flatulance but I fail to see the evidence. Compare and contrast with other nations, sir!

WatsonGlenn
April 15th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Based on what criteria? You keep coming up with this jingoist flatulance but I fail to see the evidence. Compare and contrast with other nations, sir!

I am not going to respond to you anymore. Your post seem rude to me.

WatsonGlenn
April 15th, 2004, 04:33 PM
Not to survey our internet activity. Also they can dely warrant notice and a few other things they never could do before.

You're wrong. I have read it and it still requires a court order.

sjjs
April 15th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Don't be offended WG, I just wanted to know why you keep making these bald statements without evidence.

Go on, please respond, if not for me for the good of the board.

chadn737
April 15th, 2004, 05:00 PM
You're wrong. I have read it and it still requires a court order.

All that is required is for the govt to tell a judge that their surveillence could lead to information relevent to an investigtion. The judge is obligated to grant this permission and the govt does not have to report back to the judge or ever tell the person spied on. This is far from being a warrant or court order.

WatsonGlenn
April 15th, 2004, 07:33 PM
All that is required is for the govt to tell a judge that their surveillence could lead to information relevent to an investigtion. The judge is obligated to grant this permission and the govt does not have to report back to the judge or ever tell the person spied on. This is far from being a warrant or court order.

The judge is not obligated. He has the final say just like always. Of course the person being surveiled is not told. That has always been the case. Its a court order just like any other.

chadn737
April 15th, 2004, 10:54 PM
The judge is not obligated. He has the final say just like always. Of course the person being surveiled is not told. That has always been the case. Its a court order just like any other.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.htm

2
. Pen/Trap.

Pen/Trap surveillance was based upon the physical wiring of the telephone system. It allowed law enforcement to obtain the telephone numbers of all calls made to or from a specific phone.

Allowed upon a "certification" to the court that the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Court must grant if proper application made
Does not require that the target be a suspect in that investigation and law enforcement is not required to report back to the court.
Prior to USAPA there had been debate about how this authority is to be applied in the Internet context.


Back in Febuary I attended a lecture given by the current NRA President and former Assistant Chief of Police for the City of Des Moines, Kayne Robinson.

He went into detail about the abilities the govt. has aquired since the beggining of the Drug Wars and The Patriot Act. To say the least it frightened me.

WatsonGlenn
April 16th, 2004, 08:50 AM
But its the court that gets to say if the application is proper. No change there.

KevinBrowning
May 6th, 2004, 03:39 PM
I read the article a few days ago and thought about posting a thread on it. To say the least it shocked me to the bone. I was really frightened by how in Sweden a priest is being charged for preaching the bible says homosexuality is wrong.
It is pretty sad and disturbing that God's Word is illegal in some places.