Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

law abiding activist faces deportation from the UK. watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    if it is as you say then they will win on appeal which is why I suspect it is not.
    As clarified up-thread, under Operation Nexus a deportation can be arranged on the grounds of inconducivity to the public good.

    I'm afraid I was under the naive impression that the country still operated under the rule of law.

    Call me an extremist, but I also maintain the naive belief that demanding that politicians address the housing crisis is very much conducive to the public good.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    Indeed. However, it is inescapable that what you describe as right-wing politics involves a smaller state, and what you describe as left-wing involves a larger state which seeks to exercise greater control over individuals. Therefore it is self-evident that left-wing governments are more totalitarian.
    And yet the present Conservative government has proven itself even more totalitarian than the previous Labour government, which was right-wing and which grassroots left-wingers opposed.

    No doubt that communist governments etc were totalitarian. But so are neo-liberal ones.

    Your dogma is not borne out by reality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    You are infuriating, illegaltobepoor. You are infuriating because your Tory hatred is preventing you from seeing that the problem is not the Tory party: no one at the Conservative meeting suggested "yes. What we want is to start deporting cripples". What you are seeing is the corruption of power where the government has too much power and nothing constricting it. The press don't do it. People don't read anymore. The church has been successfully stripped of any legitimacy because "muh irrational skygod" meme. And who wanted the government to have this kind of power? You did.

    You and every other socialist wanted the state to be able to be totalitarian, as long as that meant equality and rainbows. I'm afraid you're going to have to redirect your loathing exclusively from the Tories and spread it to -state power- instead. And then point the finger at yourself.
    word
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    And yet the present Conservative government has proven itself even more totalitarian than the previous Labour government, which was right-wing and which grassroots left-wingers opposed.

    No doubt that communist governments etc were totalitarian. But so are neo-liberal ones.

    Your dogma is not borne out by reality.
    I think your dogma is shaky. If you can remember as far back as May, you might just recall a general election. The Government which was elected a mere five months ago for a five year term, cannot be described as totalitarian. It is entirely false to do so.

    Which party currently has a policy of increasing state ownership, control and spending?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    I think your dogma is shaky. If you can remember as far back as May, you might just recall a general election. The Government which was elected a mere five months ago for a five year term, cannot be described as totalitarian. It is entirely false to do so.

    Which party currently has a policy of increasing state ownership, control and spending?
    That doesn't make any sense. Modern "democracies" (which in reality are oligarchies) are more totalitarian than traditional monarchies by almost any measure you can find.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)

    Yes people have a right to protest in the UK, but if they're not British citizens and are unemployed and not studying or self-sufficient and are causing trouble, then I struggle to sympathise.
    Whether you struggle to sympathise is not the point though is it? The point is that a country that purports to being reputable and advanced enforces laws rigorously and consistently, not in a patchwork, case by case manner akin to banana republic or a crazed police state.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Its not unfounded. It logically follows from socialism and we can numerous occasions in history where socialism has resulted in totalitarianism.

    This government are clearly not really right-wing in any real sense and then are numerous examples of how they aren't. One is that they aren't seriously cutting the state, they aren't socially conservative, they are mostly pro-EU and they believe in democracy which is fundamentally left-wing. We live in a leftist age and this is clear to any objective analysis of history.

    Also on the point of McCarthyist "purges" I would support this but I highly doubt that the Tory party are in any way serious about this. If they are then it is way overdue. McCarthyist isn't exactly a very good insult because documents made public after the fall of the Soviet Union clearly show that he was right all along. Our mistake was not listening to him.
    Well if you don't even believe in democracy I don’t see why I'm bothering really.

    So why is it that you support big state interference such as May's which polices what opinions individuals can hold? Especially when it's clear that extremism is now defined not only as supporting terrorism sponsored by our enemies, but as exercising one's right to protest against domestic issues such as the housing shortage.

    Your support appears to run entirely countrr to the position you are otherwise laying claim to in the thread.

    Are you a hypocrite like other right-wingers who claim to care about individual rights but then stay silent when the state is used to silence those with opposing views? I would have expected such individuals as Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell to speak out against May here, but apparently they are hypocrites too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    That doesn't make any sense. Modern "democracies" (which in reality are oligarchies) are more totalitarian than traditional monarchies by almost any measure you can find.
    Except for the defining fact that they conduct free and fair elections.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Whether you struggle to sympathise is not the point though is it? The point is that a country that purports to being reputable and advanced enforces laws rigorously and consistently, not in a patchwork, case by case manner akin to banana republic or a crazed police state.
    I 'struggle to emphasise', in this case, with the individual being deported in the sense of the government having the right to deport said person (for reasons that I think are legitimate).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    I 'struggle to emphasise', in this case, with the individual being deported in the sense of the government having the right to deport said person (for reasons that I think are legitimate).
    What does a subjective judgement of what is right right now from certain individuals matter? We must have legal judgements, which are rigorously and consistently applied, based on established laws. Not politicians and the state interfering in cases and decisions influenced by media ****storms. If you don't understand that principle, you don't understand our history and think we should behave at no higher level than a banana republic or a police state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    What does a subjective judgement of what is right right now from certain individuals matter? We must have legal judgements, which are rigorously and consistently applied based on established laws. Not politicians and the state interfering in cases and decisions influenced by media ****storms. If you don't understand that principle, you don't understand our history and think we should behave at no higher level than a banana republic.
    Certain government ministers have certain discretionary powers for cases like this and others (e.g. as to whether to allow certain individuals into the country), and the results of such discretion are inevitably influenced by public opinion and the media's portrayal of events/sentiments. If you don't understand that principle, you don't understand our history.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    I think your dogma is shaky. If you can remember as far back as May, you might just recall a general election. The Government which was elected a mere five months ago for a five year term, cannot be described as totalitarian. It is entirely false to do so.

    Which party currently has a policy of increasing state ownership, control and spending?
    Why isn't it? It's not enough just to declare, you must substantiate your opinion. Mine is simple: the present government is more totalitarian than the last, which is more totalitarian than the one before. Political ideology seems at best immaterial, but at worst it is the centre-right who are at it, or if you like the political establishment.

    Why is the latter totalitarian? Totalitarian states do usually ensure they have control over the economy, but it's not a sufficient condition. Totalitarianism also involves control of speech, thought, dissent and social issues in general.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    Certain government ministers have certain discretionary powers for cases like this and others (e.g. as to whether to allow certain individuals into the country), and the results of such discretion are inevitably influenced by public opinion and the media's portrayal of events/sentiments. If you don't that principle, you don't understand our history.
    Well we've only had TV since what, the 50/60's?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    Certain government ministers have certain discretionary powers for cases like this and others (e.g. as to whether to allow certain individuals into the country), and the results of such discretion are inevitably influenced by public opinion and the media's portrayal of events/sentiments. If you don't that principle, you don't understand our history.
    This has been happening more and more though under successive governments with laws drafted in very broad terms. Government ministers thus move closer to autocracy than either our constitution or the British public would like.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    Except for the defining fact that they conduct free and fair elections.
    That doesn't matter in terms of whether the government is totalitarian or not. In fact elections on the basis of universal suffrage make the big state and totalitarianism more likely rather than less.

    Firstly, elections are a sham anyway. Democracy is fundamentally impossible on a national level because the common person is far too ignorant.

    Secondly, why does being elected even matter? When the state has a greater control over economic life, the education of children and over religious life? Monarchies are clearly less totalitarian if you actually look at history.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    That doesn't matter in terms of whether the government is totalitarian or not. In fact elections on the basis of universal suffrage make the big state and totalitarianism more likely rather than less.

    Firstly, elections are a sham anyway. Democracy is fundamentally impossible on a national level because the common person is far too ignorant.

    Secondly, why does being elected even matter? When the state has a greater control over economic life, the education of children and over religious life? Monarchies are clearly less totalitarian if you actually look at history.
    You don't like universal suffrage? Let me guess: only property owners should be able to vote? :rolleyes:

    I am still awaiting a response to my post above calling out your hypocrisy over the big state.

    Someone who apparently doesn't believe people should criticise the government of the day on domestic issues and who opposes universal suffrage ...

    ... purporting to stand up for the individual against the spectre of big-state (and "socialist" of course) totalitarianism!

    You couldn't make it up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    That doesn't matter in terms of whether the government is totalitarian or not. In fact elections on the basis of universal suffrage make the big state and totalitarianism more likely rather than less.

    Firstly, elections are a sham anyway. Democracy is fundamentally impossible on a national level because the common person is far too ignorant.

    Secondly, why does being elected even matter? When the state has a greater control over economic life, the education of children and over religious life? Monarchies are clearly less totalitarian if you actually look at history.
    it only appears that way because the country used to be practically run by the church.
    now everything is run by the government, but it is no less totalitarian, just fairer and more equal. (unless you are a foreign government hating troublemaker of course...)
    Anyway there are plenty of local politicians, you know, the council (that everyone forgets is elected for some reason).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Well if you don't even believe in democracy I don’t see why I'm bothering really.

    So why is it that you support big state interference such as May's which polices what opinions individuals can hold? Especially when it's clear that extremism is now defined not only as supporting terrorism sponsored by our enemies, but as exercising one's right to protest against domestic issues such as the housing shortage.

    Your support appears to run entirely countrr to the position you are otherwise laying claim to in the thread.

    Are you a hypocrite like other right-wingers who claim to care about individual rights but then stay silent when the state is used to silence those with opposing views? I would have expected such individuals as Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell to speak out against May here, but apparently they are hypocrites too.
    Democracy is one of the main reasons we have these overbearing semi-totalitarian governments in the first place. That's what happens when you think that everyone should have an equal voice no matter how irresponsible or ignorant they are. Its also what happens when you give women the right to vote as women place less value on freedom than men. They generally value security first.

    Because its necessary as we can see from the devasting impact that communists and cultural Marxists have had after they successfully infiltrated a number of important institutions in society. As I have already pointed out, McCarthy was actually right and the problem was that we didnt deal with the infiltration.

    I don't believe in total freedom of speech but I do believe in a broadly free society. Allowing communists is covertly advance their cause is always going to end up in less freedom in the end. Communists need to be smashed. That's the only way to deal with them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You're not concerned that the government is deporting people who haven't actually committed a crime?
    Well he's not a British citizen and shouldn't be here. That's a criminal offence.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Democracy is one of the main reasons we have these overbearing semi-totalitarian governments in the first place. That's what happens when you think that everyone should have an equal voice no matter how irresponsible or ignorant they are. Its also what happens when you give women the right to vote as women place less value on freedom than men. They generally value security first.

    Because its necessary as we can see from the devasting impact that communists and cultural Marxists have had after they successfully infiltrated a number of important institutions in society. As I have already pointed out, McCarthy was actually right and the problem was that we didnt deal with the infiltration.

    I don't believe in total freedom of speech but I do believe in a broadly free society. Allowing communists is covertly advance their cause is always going to end up in less freedom in the end. Communists need to be smashed. That's the only way to deal with them.
    You do realise there aren't any communists left any more and that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory term?

    Explain why Mr Godanyi is a communist because he thinks we need more homes built, and why cultural Marxists are the only ones interested in our country following universal suffrage democracy and the rule of law.

    Let the reader decide, I suppose.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 19, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.