Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthYou don't need to apologize. Leftists in this country (and by that, I
don't mean to call YOU a leftist, although I won't hesititate to do so
if I find cause :-) don't understand the individual's right and duty
to defend himself, his family and his property either.
However, you must be aware - unless there's censorship I'm unaware of
- that crime rates have soared since the U.K. banned guns.
It's not so much censorship as spin. As far as crime rates are
concerned, it's really not possible to tell exactly what's happening in
Britain, since the Government will say one thing, and various other
organisations and pressure groups will all say something else.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if crime rates HAVE gone up - certainly
public fear of crime has risen sharply and the media have gone into a
gleeful frenzy in their attempts to generate hysteria - but the cause of
any such upswing would also have to be carefully examined.
Is it down to the banning of guns? I'm pretty certain we can say it's
not. Bear in mind that guns weren't widely available in Britain even
before the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was introduced - they've never
really been a part of our national consciousness, you might say.
Relatively few people possessed weapons (excluding farmers who routinely
keep shotguns and rifles for vermin control); certainly only a small
percentage possessed handguns, and then only for sporting use. The 1997
Act was criticised because it really had very little effect other than to
outlaw handgun shooting as a viable sport in Britain.
Some would suggest that the increase - sorry, the *perceived* increase in
burglaries, car thefts and robberies is down to more widespread
availability of illegal drugs; where violent crime is commonly (and, I
think, justifiably) put down to the increasing inability of the British
to act responsibly with alcohol.
Post by Unpleasant TruthSeptember 19, 2005
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie
A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country
in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be
assaulted than in America.
Perhaps true. But I would ask what the statistics say about the nature
of the assault. While a person in Scotland (or in certain areas of
Scotland) might be more likely to suffer an assault, is that assault more
or less likely to involve a firearm in Scotland than in America?
I think we must both agree that statistics are difficult things to use.
But if I was asked to say what I think was the chief culprit with regard
to the sudden rise in crime levels, I would say that a large part of it
was the result of new police procedures with regard to the reporting of
crime. In the past, the police have always had a certain amount of
discretion as to what crimes they record. They no longer do. With the
new National Crime Recording Standard, and the National Standard of
Incident Recording, crime reports are being generated at a much higher
rate than in previous years. Where a report might once have been created
if there was evidence to suggest a crime had been committed, the approach
now is to create the report unless evidence suggests that a crime has NOT
been committed. A great many of these initial reports are subsequently
marked off as no crime - but by then they have already affected the
statistics.
The result is that there is a sudden rise in recorded crime levels, which
the media leap on as evidence that we are descending into the depths of
lawlessness, in the hope that it will frighten the public half to death,
which unfortunately it does. Thus, a measure taken to try to reassure
the public of a certain standard of service from the police results in
public confidence in the police being severely undermined.
Can we at least agree that the even stricter ban on guns did not REDUCE
crime as expected by its supporters?
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant Truthreason is as obvious as it is simple - where criminals know the
homeowner is legally prevented from being armed, they have far less
incentive to care whether they are home or not than in cases where
they risk being shot and killed.
Under British law, although a person is not permitted to have a gun lying
around the house to use against burglars, a person is entitled to defend
their homes using 'reasonable force'. If the person considers lethal
force to be reasonable, then so be it - but they must subsequently be
able to justify such force in a court of law. Many people have taken to
keeping swords as handy ornaments: "I just grabbed it, officer, I really
wasn't thinking, I was too scared". So far, those groups campaigning for
such weapons - sorry, ornaments - to be banned have been unsuccessful.
Recent clarification on home defence has stated that the use of excessive
force will not necessarily result in a conviction if it can be shown that
the home defender was driven by genuine fear for their own safety or that
of their family.
Post by Unpleasant TruthAnd in the rare instance where a British citizen dreams he still lives
in the land where one's home is one's castle, and has the audacity to
actually defend himself, one can be assured HE, not the criminal, will
serve a long time behind bars.
See above. And please don't presume to judge our standards by those of
your own nation. Britain is a foreign country, and while we may follow
America's lead in almost everything, we are still entitled to form our
own opinions.
Well, it's not "foreign" to YOU. :-)
Of course you're entitled to your opinions. But remember, YOU were the
one who made the charge that "Republicans could not be trusted with [our]
freedom." It seems you should have a better understanding of the issues
here to make such a charge and certainly be able to present more specific
examples.
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthMan Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Yearsprint close
Tue 23 Mar 2004
3:23pm (UK)
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years
By Will Batchelor, PA News
A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed
for
eight years today.
Carl Lindsay, 25
This case is well known, and the article you quote does not offer all the
facts. Carl Lindsay, 25, was a drug dealer who knew that he was likely
to be targeted. He pursued his erstwhile attackers - who by this time
were *running away* - out into the street, caught up with one of them and
stabbed him four times in the back. The court ruled that this did not
qualify as reasonable force in the defence of the home, and strictly
speaking Lindsay should have faced murder charges. The court also found
that he had purchased the sword with the specific intent of using it as a
weapon.
It is a mark of leniency that he was instead charged with manslaughter -
which is a lesser offence called in the US (according to Wikipedia)
'criminally negligent homicide'. In other words, it does not have the
element of premeditation or intent to kill required to support a murder
charge.
Post by Unpleasant TruthTHAT is what freedom loving Americans can't understand.
That is because, if this article is anything to go by, freedom-loving
Americans aren't given all the relevant information.
In that case, perhaps. But I did not - nor would not - base my impression
on a single case. That one just happened to be handy. There are others,
and they can't all involve drug dealers, can they? What about Tony
Martin? http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/News/Index/TonyMartin.asp
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html
Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities'
response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to
advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a
secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the police. They are not
to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might
get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the
burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state. I heartily applaud The
Sunday Telegraph's campaign to end this lamentable state of affairs.
The practical removal of the right to self defence began with Britain's
1920 Firearms Act, the first serious limitation on privately-owned
firearms. It was motivated by fear of a Bolshevik-type revolution rather
than concerns about householders defending themselves against robbers.
Anyone wanting to keep a firearm had to get a certificate from his local
police chief certifying that he was a suitable person to own a weapon and
had a good reason to have it. The definition of "good reason", left to the
police, was gradually narrowed until, in 1969, the Home Office decided "it
should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the
protection of his house or person". Since these guidelines were classified
until 1989, there was no opportunity for public debate.
Self defence within the home was also progressively legislated against.
The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public
place any article "made, adapted or intended" for an offensive purpose
"without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". Any item carried for
defence was, by definition, an "offensive" weapon. Police were given broad
power to stop and search anyone. Individuals found with offensive weapons
were guilty until proven innocent. The scope is so broad that a standard
legal textbook explains that "any article is capable of being an offensive
weapon". The public were told that society would protect them and their
neighbours. If they saw someone being attacked they were to walk on by,
and leave it to the professionals.
Finally, in 1967, tucked into an omnibus revision of criminal law,
approved without discussion, was a section that altered the traditional
standards for self-defence. Everything was to depend on what seemed
"reasonable" force after the fact. It was never deemed reasonable to
defend property with force. According to the Textbook of Criminal Law the
requirement that an individual's efforts to defend himself be "reasonable"
is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it
still forms part of the law". Another legal scholar found it "unthinkable"
that "Parliament should inadvertently have swept aside the ancient
privilege of self defence. Had such a move been debated it is unlikely
that members would have sanctioned it." She was confident that Parliament
would quickly set things right: "In view of the inadequacy of existing law
there is some urgency here." That plea was written 30 years ago, and the
situation is infinitely more urgent now.
At the same time as government demanded sole responsibility for protecting
individuals, it adopted a more lenient approach toward offenders.
Sentences were sharply reduced, few offenders served more than a third or
a half of their term, and fewer offenders were incarcerated. Further, they
were to be protected from their victims. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer
jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole
because he posed a danger to other burglars. "It cannot possibly be
suggested," the government lawyers argued, "that members of the public
cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences" adding, "society can
not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury".
...
Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a
"natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no
government can protect the individual in his moment of need". This
Government insists upon having a monopoly on the use of force, but can
only impose it upon law-abiding people. By practically eliminating self
defence, it has removed the greatest deterrent to crime: a people able to
defend themselves.
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthPost by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthRepublicans don't want to take away my religious freedoms.
Democrat/ACLU types do it all the time.
Is this the freedom to choose which religion you follow, or to choose
none?
Both.
Sorry - this was my lack of clarity. This was one choice: "the freedom
to choose a religion or to choose none", against "the freedom to choose
Christianity".
Post by Unpleasant TruthPlease define "Christian militants" and give us a couple of real world
examples of the behavior you apparently find frightening. I try to
look at foreign news sources once in a while, but of course I cannot
have a feel for what you get as the normal fare.
Well, you might look at the recent case of whether Creatio... sorry,
'Intelligent Design' should be taught in schools. Religious
fundamentalists were portrayed (at least by the British media) as
mounting a campaign to have their religion taught alongside science in
schools, as though it was a viable alternative.
Evolution, as taught here, presents it as a proven fact that life
originated from non-life in a purely materialistic, undirected manner, and
goes on from there. This is simply preposterous, and it does not require
relgion to come to that conclusion. Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist, deemed
evolution to be impossible. And Anthony Flew, a former atheist, has come
to believe in god (not Christianity) partly as a result of the scientific
arguments of intelligent design. It is the evolutionists who insist on
complete censorship of ANY challenge to evolution. But I really don't
care to pursue that argument. I say present both sides.
Post by EC-10The Guardian, in May 2005, reported Tom DeLay's argment against stem cell
research, which he based on the claim that "Jesus of Nazareth" started
life as an embryo.
Perhaps if there had been such a strong pro-life force in Germany in the
1930s, Hilter would not have been able to kill 6 million Jews. To many
here life is too sacred to allow cloning and its cheapening of human life.
Post by EC-10There is a widespread perception amongst British people that, as Bush is
known to be a fundamentalist Christian,
Except, he's not. He's a Methodist. Don't you have those in England too?
Post by EC-10so he is carefully placing those
of similar religious beliefs into position of power and influence in
America to pave the way for policies based on religious ideals rather
than on democratic principles.
Now you're moving into being a leftist. What makes you think there is a
dichotomy between religious ideals and democratic principles? In fact, it
was precisely that devotion to religious ideals that led to Americans
rejecting the tyranical power of a king. King George, III, referred to
the American Revolution as "that Presbyterian revolution."
You should read this:
http://www.mdtaxes.org/NEWS-STORIES-2005/Commentary.David.Gelernter.Americanism&enemies.1.2005.htm
*Americanism-and Its Enemies
David Gelernter
January 2005*
(David Gelernter, by the way, is not a Christian, much less a
fundamentalist. He is a Jew.)
and this:
Bible Illiteracy in America
From the May 23, 2005 issue: A report just issued by the Bible Literacy
Project suggests that young Americans know very little about the Bible.
The report is important, but first things first: A fair number of
Americans don't see why teenagers should know anything at all about the
Bible.
by David Gelernter
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/606lxblg.asp
Post by EC-10You may recall the case of Terri Schiavo - the woman who suffered brain
damage and whose life support was withdrawn following a lengthy case
which could at the very least be described as 'bitter'. Various
political figures interfered with the courts and medical staff during
that case in attempts to prevent the removal of her feeding tube. The
involvement of Jeb and President Bush was widely perceived as being
driven by religious principles - but it was the fact that these people
were attempting to strong-arm the judiciary when they had no real right
to do so that caused surprise in many people here.
And many of us - myself included - oppose executing the handicapped, even
the severely handicapped, by withholding - not extraordinary care - but
simple food and water, especially in this case where there was no
documentation of her desire to be killed in this way, her "husband's"
motives were suspect at best, and where her parents were more than willing
to care for her. We see troubling signs of the elderly being killed
against their will in Europe as "useless eaters."
Post by EC-10I'm not saying that our perception of such situations is correct, any
more than your perception of the Carl Lindsay case was correct. Both our
countries are at the mercy of their media. But suffice to say that
merely the potential for the USA to come under the control of a
theocratic government is enough to cause very serious concern.
Now there you go again. We are nowhere near being a "theocratic
government." In fact, thanks to the ACLU, atheism is very close to being
the official religion, especially in the monopoly government schools which
turn out such poorly educated graduates.
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthI should point out that the abolitionist movement in this country's
19th century was Christian led, and the Civil Rights movement in the
20th century was also. Does that trouble you?
There is a difference, though, between 'Christian' and 'militant
Christian'. I have no problem with anyone choosing the religion they
feel best suits them. But when their choice of religion starts to affect
me, my family, or friends, or colleagues, then I do start to have a
problem. Religions, including Christianity, can be very worthy, and can
achieve great things. But they can also be used to rationalise terrible
things. I am just cautious.
I hate to tell you, but the abolitionists were QUITE militant. And the
end of slavery and the fallout of the Civil Rights movement, especially
the perversion into reverse discrimination, affected many millions of
people negatively. Christians in this country are far more tolerant of
diverse viewpoints than non-Christians.
Please illustrate some of these "terrible things" Christianity has
perpetrated in the past century - contrasted, say, with anti-Christian
Nazism and atheistic communism.
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthThere is NO compulsion of religion anywhere.
There is if national policies are determined based on what the
lawmakers' religion dictates.
So you are basically echoing the leftist idea that if a legislator's
principles are based on religion, he cannot vote for those. But if they
are based on atheism, he can. Where do you get that idea?
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And while the
constitution sets up a secular federal government, every single state
constitution refers to God in some way or another. If you're honestly
interested in this, do read the references I listed above. They're not
long.
The constitution says we cannot establish a national church, as they had
in England. It does not say, as some radical anti-Christians wish, that
only non-Christian principles can be legislated (although one can
understand how people who look at what's been going on here for the past
50 years and think that).
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthBut there is plenty of
compulsion against it. Even voluntary prayers are banned in public
schools. Recently a federal judge ruled a chaplain could not utter
the word "Jesus" in his invocation prior to a session of the Indiana
congress.
And this is where I lose track again. You see, I can see no reason why
prayers need to be made in public, voluntarily or otherwise.
Who determines NEED? You? This is supposed to be a free country. The
First Amendment guarantees the free EXERCISE of religion.
Post by EC-10I certainly
see no reason why they need to be said out loud at a public gathering.
God knows what we are thinking. Making a public ritual out of prayer
seems rather, well, showy, to me.
So now YOU are forcing YOUR VALUES on everyone else. How intolerant of
you.
Post by EC-10I guess this must just be another
cultural thing. Everyone knows we Brits are repressed.
You are. But you have that right. Just don't force that on others. By
contrast, those who do care to say a simple prayer in public are repressed
compared to, say, southern blacks in the way they express their religion.
(I walked into an all-black church one time when I was in Washington, DC.
And although it was the same strict liturgical denomination as the one I
went to in the almost lily-white suburbs of Boston, I guarantee you, it
was like being a different world. :-)
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthCurrently the ACLU's main activity has been running all over the
country tearing down long standing (well over 50 years) displays of
the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are not even exclusive to
Christians, much less "fundamentalists."
They ACLU is even trying to erase every vestige of America's Christian
heritage. Recently they got the county of Los Angeles to remove a
tiny little cross from its seal.- a seal that includes a much, much
larger image of the pagan goddess Pomona, to celebrate the heritage
and importance of agriculture.
Now, is that anti-Christian bigotry or what?
Quite possibly. But again, while you would highlight these examples,
using the wording that you have, the ACLU would no doubt argue that they
are merely trying to be fair, and perhaps present the same cases in a
very different light. And those who support the ACLU would no doubt give
me all sorts of reasons why I should believe that view. As I said, it is
only to be expected that you (and they) will present the information in a
way sympathetic to your politico-religious position - and I do not know
enough about the situation to say "it is not so".
Post by Unpleasant TruthWhat you have experienced is called selective reporting (what else
would you expect from the ALCU's own web site?).
Selective reporting, however, is all I have. From them, and from you.
I
Post by EC-10can expect nothing else, and must simply make a judgement.
Then google is your friend. You can get an extremely wide set of sources
that describe their activities.
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthPost by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthRepublicans don't make up speech codes and racial quotas and censor
speakers that don't agree with their politics, as Bill Gates'
Seattle prep school just did.
I do recall reading about 'free speech zones' around the Republican
campaign presentations... Perhaps this was misrepresented? It just
seems
Post by EC-10a little odd in a country that has built itself around the idea that
the entire nation is nothing other than a 'free speech zone'.
??
Post by Unpleasant TruthI just wonder what you base your assessment that "you can't trust
Republicans with your freedom" on. Based on your assessment of the
ACLU, it's pretty clear you're not getting anywhere near a balanced
picture.
I haven't yet heard your views on these supposed "free speech zones",
either.
Perhaps because I'm not sure what you are referring to. In today's world,
of course, there are security cordons set up around anywhere the president
goes, and a political campaign is certainly within its rights not to have
its message shouted down by others. (The only real "speech free" zone we
have set up by the government, by the way, is a "bubble zone" the Supreme
Court established around every abortion clinic, where no one is allowed to
say a word against abortion. So much for free speech.)
Post by EC-10Post by Unpleasant TruthI should also point out that the ACLU is an extremist organization,
supporting even the distribution of child pornography. It is
currently defending an obnoxious group, called NAMBLA, which
... I'd always thought was straight out of an episode of South Park.
Quietly, I suppose I'd always *hoped* it was just made up.
But, having heard so many people mention it in discussions like this, I
finally gritted my teeth and ran a search in Wikipedia (so I'm expecting
NCIS banging on my door in a few minutes), and lo and behold, it does
appear that this organisation is in fact real.
I'm surprised, I admit. I guess fiction will never be able to beat
reality for the completely depraved - not to mention utterly fatuous -
things that they'll accept.
Still, child pornography is still some way from religion, and it's not a
topic I particularly want to discuss. So, okay, you've told me that ACLU
supports this 'NAMBLA'. Fine. It's your statement, I can't verify it.
You've given me a newspaper report, but as we've seen above, they don't
always paint an accurate picture.
It seems to me a there's a difference between leaving out details, as you
say the Scotsman did (gee, and I thought papers in the U.K. - tabloids
excepted, of course - were better than the ones we have here) and
manufacturing them, which is what you are accusing the Bradenton Herald of
doing.
Post by EC-10Frankly, I don't really want to spend time digging through that sort of
thing, so I can't argue the point with you. So I guess I give up.
Will you accept the ACLU's own (self-serving, of course) admission that it
is in fact defending NAMBLA?
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
(8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the
American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist
Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for
Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for
everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of
all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal
sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA
today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships
between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The
lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of
freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit
says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the
murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The
principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those
who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it
are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many
people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is
most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was
true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
----
Of course, NAMBLA is more than just repulsive - it is criminal. And there
is no free speech protection intended by our constitution for publishing
brochures teaching child molesters how to lure and rape children and get
away with it.