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."

18 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. We needed to be unashamedly populist... by Threni · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, but if you overdramatize it people will say "it's not that bad - most of those laws will never negatively affect my life" and whenever they hear about the issue in the future they'll think "Oh, I've considered that - I even saw a film about it once - but I've decided it's not really a problem".

    1. 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.
    2. 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!").
    3. Re:We needed to be unashamedly populist... by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are correct. Where there is a free press and democracy, full on civil war is not required. That's how Ghandi was successful in his pacifist revolution. But also remember that Martin Luther King Jr. was assasinated, and there were many deaths before his in the pursuit of African-American rights (800 dead in the 1919 Elaine Race Riot, alone). Homosexuals have suffered their share of lynchings and violence as well. The Stonewall Riots lasted three nights of 2000 Homosexuals violently confronting 400 armed police. I think one of the main reasons for the lesser (but not absent)violence of Women's Sufferage is that all participants are the wives and daughters of voting men.

      So no, it may not be War, like the American Revolution, but it would still be war, like those pushing the issue have reason to fear for their safety. Still far too much commitment. What Rights are you willing to get beaten with a police baton to protect?

      --
      We are all just people.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. saw it by Teach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure I already saw this movie when it was called V for Vendetta. Or was it Children of Men?

    --
    Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
  5. Re:The Film Would Be Even Longer If Made In The US by CountBrass · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even better. Here in Birmingham (central England) we have Policeman and Traffic Wardens equipped with cameras in their hats/ helmets. Seriously.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. Re:This film will be enormously interesting... by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're absolutely right.

    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 in free societies to protect that system that are no more sinister than the police or the state adopting any other new technology that makes its charge from society easier, or an update to any other law, which we ostensibly value in societies that are based on rule of law.

    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. 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 coupled with the rule of law required to maintain order and stability in society for all, seem to think they're living in rapidly degenerating 1984-style police states.

    We are certainly not perfect. 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. We have the freest flow of information ever, the ability to communicate and share ideas across the globe to nearly anyone instantly, and the ability to produce alarmist films like this without retribution (save by others who disagree with you, which it is also their right to do).

    Sure, be vigilant. Be watchful. But this idea that society-at-large is nothing but consumerist sheep who have been brainwashed into complacency by corporations and government, and only the truly enlightened who see the "truth" that we're in a rapid decline to totalitarianism - and I don't care if it's the US, the UK, or EU in general - are going to save us all is just garbage, and these people really need to get some perspective on things, and perhaps a healthy grip on reality at the same time.

  9. 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).
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. scarier in the U.S. by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just got done sitting on a jury for a drug trial. It was a frightening experience. The evidence was so weak and indirect that I couldn't even believe they had charged these two people with a crime. One of them was a transsexual prostitute who was clearly (to me) just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well, when the jury started to deliberate, there were four of us who all thought it was going to be an open-and-shut not guilty verdict, but we ended up with a hung jury, 8 voting guilty and 4 not guilty. This is the kind of offense that can easily land you in prison for life under California's three strikes laws. And no, you don't have to be a career criminal to fall under three strikes. The prostitute was charged with three felonies from the same night, and that's enough. There's a guy who's in prison for life under three strikes for stealing four chocolate chip cookies. After the trial was over, I visited the place where the cop claimed he'd conducted surveillance from using binoculars. Well, you absolutely cannot see the stuff he claimed to have seen from that location. There are buildings, trees, and walls in the way. I hope these defendants don't have to go to trial again, because next time they might be unlucky in the jury they get.

  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.