Slashdot Mirror


British Civil Liberties Film Released

An anonymous reader sends us to a BBC article about a British film likely to attract the attention of civil liberties supporters. The film, Taking Liberties , is a documentary about eroding civil liberties in present-day Britain. It will be showing in cinemas in major cities across the UK starting next weekend. From the article: "Director Chris Atkins wants Taking Liberties to shake the British public out of their apathy over what he sees as the dangerous erosion of traditional rights and freedoms. 'This film uses shock tactics. We needed to be unashamedly populist... Once you give up traditional liberties such as free speech and the right to protest you are not going to easily get them back,' says Atkins."

16 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Gah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We needed to be unashamedly populist Are they trying to say that if you have to lie or distort the truth, it is OK because the ends justify the means? I don't doubt that the UK has started to turn into a surveillance state but that doesn't excuse a filmmaker from making populist political propaganda. This will just polarize people rather than help people come to a common decision that these surveillance techniques are extreme. It will be about as useful for changing things as Fahrenheit 9/11 was.
    1. Re:Gah! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't doubt that the UK has started to turn into a surveillance state but that doesn't excuse a filmmaker from making populist political propaganda.

      So, we should just accept all the propaganda that's being shoved our way via Fox News, talk radio (ClearChannel, Salem, TRN)? You don't think that Tom Paine or Ben Franklin wrote "political propaganda"?

      I'm not saying there should be any support for dishonesty, but the best political messages have a little drama. You have to get people's attention before you give them the message, yes?

      When the mainstream media as used by corporate power is putting their resources toward putting people to sleep and hypnotizing them to be good consumers and borrowers, then maybe it's time to WAKE THEM UP. I mean sure, life will go on the day after we are all slaves to corporate power. We'll eat, sleep, fuck, except our souls will have become superfluous. We'll still be able to watch American Idol after work, and we didn't really need to read all that depressing anti-Bush, anti-Growth, anti-Profit nonsense. Did we?

      I'm not going to fault someone who cares about freedom because they used the tools of propaganda to slap these sleepy-assed sheep awake. That's why, in spite of his shortcomings, I think Michael Moore is a patriot, and is doing something very necessary. Of course, the people on the Right will tell you that you shouldn't listen to him because HE'S FAT, but his documentaries are a lot more carefully researched and intellectually honest than anything you'll see come from Rupert Murdoch's sausage-grinder. Sure, it's propaganda, but thank God.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Gah! by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think Michael Moore is a patriot, and is doing something very necessary. He made millions with his films. He's just pushing his own political agenda, in a screechy, one-sided way. If he's a patriot, then so is Rush Limbaugh.

      Of course, the people on the Right will tell you that you shouldn't listen to him because HE'S FAT Now you're acting just like you accuse "the Right" of. I'm sure there are plenty of fat jokes at his expense, but there's more criticism than that. After reading Truth about Bowling for Columbine some years back, I lost all desire to see any of Moore's films.

      but his documentaries are a lot more carefully researched and intellectually honest than anything you'll see come from Rupert Murdoch's sausage-grinder. Sure, it's propaganda, but thank God No thanks. I don't like spin from either the right or the left. I'll take a Frontline documentary. They actually know what the meaning of documentary is.
  2. Re:The Film Would Be Even Longer If Made In The US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The UK is worse. Get back to me when there are talking CCTV cameras in New York and DC.

    We are headed there too, but they're one step ahead of us.

  3. Re:We needed to be unashamedly populist... by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but I've decided it's not really a problem".

    Which is why political change usually comes in the form of War. Most people don't do anything about anything unless they see it as a problem that is costing them more than it would to address the problem. When it comes to regaining eroding freedoms, the cost of getting arrested at a real protest is too high for comfortable middle class folks. Only when things get bad enough that there is no "comfortable middle class" will the masses be likely to deal with the problem of bad government. By that time the only solution is civil war. When a government takes away your freedoms they don't willingly give them back.

    --
    We are all just people.
  4. Re:We need more cameras by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's just that there's no reason *not* to mug people or kick stuff over so it just becomes the normal expectation that those things will happen.


    Do you recall if it was like that there before cameras were installed in the surrounding area?

    -Peter
  5. Re:We need more cameras by CountBrass · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No the trouble has nothing to do with a lack of cameras. There were no CCTVs 20 years ago and you know what, policemen did their job and, shock horror, caught thieves.

    The actual problem is the competence of the police, or lack thereof. They've become over-reliant on the law bullying the populace. Since the beginning of the year littering has become an arrestable offence and if Tony "Uncle Joe Stalin" Blair has his way before he leaves we'll have the "Suss laws" returning: police can arrest and question you on suspicion of doing something.... no evidence, you just have to look a bit shifty, in the police's opnion.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  6. Bad timing by kirun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who's going to go watch a documentary about civil liberties when Big Brother's on TV?

    --
    I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
  7. Nice try by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...but not necessarily because of its content. No, what is interesting is how the film maker will decry the loss of liberties, the encroachments of freedom, and the institution of censorship -- in a film openly distributed and marketed to the general public, and all without the government shutting him down. Nice strawman, but he was warning against the destruction of civil liberties, not claiming that Britain was a police state yet.
    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  8. Re:This film will be enormously interesting... by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yes, we all understand that there are more cameras, modifications of laws to account for acts of terror, etc., but people simply can't see the application of technology or updates of laws for what it is: for the most part, a genuine, honest attempt by persons within free governments Whether or not the attempt was made in good faith, the risk of any such system being misused by any future government is even more important that what this one are likely to do with it. It's a cliche, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Personally, I don't trust the current government very far, but if I did, the same principle applies.

    I find it humorous that the people who live in what are essentially the freest, richest nations that afford them, in general and on balance, the widest variety of personal freedoms Yep. You're damn right that I enjoy and want to keep those freedoms.

    Are there people with ulterior motives and are people in power looking to stay in power? Sure. Absolutely. But the CCTV systems in the UK aren't a part of some larger plot to create a secret police state and keep "the people" down. Perhaps not. But does it carry the risk of being abused for the purpose you describe? Yes? Are there sufficient measures in place to prevent this? No? Then please excuse my scepticism, but I don't trust any system that is reliant upon the goodwill of the people administering it.

    But to paraphrase Churchill, the general systems of what we loosely call "democracy" are a hell of a lot better than any other systems we've seen tried over the centuries. What is your point here? That because these moves have been carried out by a democratically elected government, that they're beyond criticism? Nope. Democracy does not mean being unable to point out the flaws of our elected leaders plans; on the contrary, what's the point of democracy if we're not free to criticise and suggest that things might be done differently, by different people?
    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  9. nice fearmongering, try responsiblity instead. by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So all you have to do is rob people there, since nobody around here is fool enough to intervene

    Ahh. there is your problem. People in that nieghborhood don't give a shit. How did nieghborhoods ever have low crime rates before CCTV? Because they stood by their nieghbors and acted in their own best interest by actually doing something about it themselves. By hiding behind closed doors pretending not to see, they are getting the shitty neighborhood they deserve. Act like a victim, get treated like a victim. I have more than once come out of my apartment into the street and made my presence known, when there is a disturbance on my street.(I live in New York City) Guess what happens when I walk out and look them in the eye? Well usually it's some arguement that is starting to turn physical, but when suddenly there is a witness threats go back to being just words. The one actual mugging that I encountered the guy just ran away.

    --
    We are all just people.
  10. Re:We need more cameras by mormop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not so much a matter of Police competence as it is paperwork. Twenty years ago, the Police didn't have to fill in an hours worth of paperwork for an arrest for a minor offence which is why they were on the streets doing their job in the first place. For each minor arrest, a copper can be kept off the streets for a minimum of 1 hour documenting every detail of the incident. If a kid vandalises a car, robs someone and is picked up on a description the reaction is more likely to be "fuck off you can't prove it" than "I won't do it again".

    And there's the truth of the matter. Everyone in the UK knows their rights but too many have no sense of responsibility and they are fully aware of the fact that some smart arse lawyer who doesn't give a shit about truth because that's not what he's paid for will get them off on some minor procedural technicality. And the worst part is that it's a small section of the Police that bought this situation about. Remember the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad that caused as much crime as they stopped? The Birmingham 6 & Guildford 4 convictions, the Special Patrol Group etc. Normally, when things get out of control there's a swing back towards the other side five years down the line only in this case, the swing has continued to the point where your average thug has the same immunity to consequences that the above had in the 70's and 80's.

    CCTV should not be a necessity. Unfortunately, in this "have your cake and eat it" society it is a sticking plaster over the gaping wound of idiot thuggery that seems trendy at the moment. If you can work out how to make being an evil little tosser uncool then you may have a chance of improving things but sadly it seems to be evil little tossers that run this country seem happy to put up more cameras.

    --
    Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
  11. Re:Right to bear arms? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful
    We in England have never had the right to bear arms, nor the right to arm bears.

    Furthermore, not one British citizen on 10,000 would want anyone to have such a right. the other 9,999 are 100% behind the full enforcement of 7 years jail for anyone posessing a weapon, legally or otherwise. The American right to bear arms is seen as the reason why American deaths from gunshot wounds run at around 100 times the rate here, adjusted for population size. In short, almost everyone in the UK sees weapons as the problem, and none see them as the solution.

    A few criminals have guns, and probably a similar number of country dwellers have them, and perhaps a few who shoot competitively as a sport, but carrying guns is not something many in the UK would consider. Those with a sound legal reason for carrying a gun have very little support here.

    Our police dont normally carry guns, but have still managed to shoot more innocent people than guilty ones. Each time a policeman is shot by a criminal, there is a clamour to arm the police, but I do not recall any incident where this would ahve prevented the policemen being shot. AFAIR 75% of American polise shot are shot with their own gun, or by a colleague.

    How about a right to bare breasts? Now that really would be popular!

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  12. Re:We needed to be unashamedly populist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which is why political change usually comes in the form of War.

    Just like in the Great Woman Wars, when the suffragettes fought their way, rifles in hand, to the ballot box, the Race Wars waged in the '50s under the careful, analytical and ruthless direction of Martin Luther King, and the Gay/Lesbian Guerrillas of the '70s(who still, of course, meet the Christian Right Crusaders in occasional skirmishes).

    Or perhaps there are other ways to change unjust systems in democracies? I'm painfully aware that democracy doesn't work as well as we'd like, but saying that a war is the "usual" way these changes happen seems either overly prematurely defeatist("We can't stop this from devolving into a war"), apathetic("I'm not going to do anything about this until it devolves into a war") or like a survivalist fantasy("Can't wait 'till the war!").
  13. Re:This film will be enormously interesting... by ciggieposeur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, what is interesting is how the film maker will decry the loss of liberties, the encroachments of freedom, and the institution of censorship -- in a film openly distributed and marketed to the general public, and all without the government shutting him down. Yessireee...a police state! That's what we're living in for sure. The jackbooted thugs will be here any minute now...any minute now...I'm sure they're almost here...somewhere. Well, maybe their black helicopters broke down or something, but I'm sure they're on their way!

    That's how the modern police state works, you see. Freedom of speech is still allowed, dissent is still recorded, and people thus think they aren't really living in a police state.

    However, start organizing against the state and see just how quickly you can get shut down. Your activist groups will be infiltrated, investigations into your personal life will begin, and at the slightest hint of significant success at changing the status quo you will be arrested and charged with a bogus crime to end your career as a political radical. Web sites will describe your fate and complacent onlookers will marvel that in their free society -- which is clearly free because people can read these stories -- some people can still go crazy about such fringe political topics.

  14. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We've never had them in the first place, Mr Atkins. In order for there to be inalienable rights like freedom of speech, there must be constitutional limitations on the power of the state, legislature and judiciary, all three of which needing to be subject to the rule of law.

    WTF are you talking about? The UK is a constitutional monarchy. Our constitution is not a written document, but rather spread across several laws. There are indeed limits on state power and recognition of natural rights, going back all the way to the original Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. Since we joined the EU last century, we have further restrictions on state power.

    WE DON'T HAVE SUCH A DOCUMENT. WE DON'T LIVE IN SUCH A STATE.

    50% right, 50% wrong. We do live in such a state, it's just that there's no one singular document that we can point to and say "that's it". It's way more complex than that, mostly because the UK is comprised of a mixture of constituent countries that are a thousand years old.

    I'm getting really fed up with people spouting off these misinformed "factoids" that they heard somewhere, like "Oh, Brits aren't citizens, they are subjects". Nonsense. Don't repeat somebody else's opinion you heard on Slashdot as fact. Not only are you wrong, you are actually spreading ignorance.