Slashdot Mirror
UK Group Fights Arrest Over Refusing To Surrender Passwords At The Border (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes The Guardian:
The human rights group Cage is preparing to mount a legal challenge to UK anti-terrorism legislation over a refusal to hand over mobile and laptop passwords to border control officials at air terminals, ports and international rail stations... The move comes after its international director, Muhammad Rabbani, a UK citizen, was arrested at Heathrow airport in November for refusing to hand over passwords. Rabbani, 35, has been detained at least 20 times over the past decade when entering the UK, under schedule 7 of terrorism legislation that provides broad search powers, but this was the first time he had been arrested... On previous occasions, when asked for his passwords, he said he had refused and eventually his devices were returned to him and he was allowed to go. But there was a new twist this time: when he refused to reveal his passwords, he was arrested under schedule 7 provisions of the terrorism act and held overnight at Heathrow Polar Park police station before being released on bail. He expects to be charged on Wednesday.
Rabbani "argues that the real objective...is not stopping terrorists entering the UK, but as a tool to build up a huge data bank on thousands of UK citizens." And his position drew support from Jim Killock, executive director of the UK-based Open Rights Group. "Investigations should take place when there is actual suspicion, and the police should be able to justify their actions on that basis, rather than using wide-ranging powers designed for border searches."
Rabbani "argues that the real objective...is not stopping terrorists entering the UK, but as a tool to build up a huge data bank on thousands of UK citizens." And his position drew support from Jim Killock, executive director of the UK-based Open Rights Group. "Investigations should take place when there is actual suspicion, and the police should be able to justify their actions on that basis, rather than using wide-ranging powers designed for border searches."
In response to your sig: "Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue"
If the two wolves eat the sheep, what are they going to eat next? They're going to starve because all they know is how to take from others, and the others no longer have anything to give. This is why it takes a large population of prey to support a small number of apex predators, or else the predators starve to death. Note that the prey outnumber the predators by a large number, the 'two wolves and a sheep' is the endgame. The sheep would've had plenty of time to vote the wolves off the island.
Ok, time for less metaphor. The majority hate the minority, and want them to be miserable to their own benefit. Easy solution: slavery. In practice this usually just meant 'less-favorable terms for cost of labor, goods etc.' and law enforcement looks the other way to this. A better option than systematically taking people's stuff and killing them turns out to be to get them to make stuff for you. However, what'd be ideal is if you (as part of the elite) don't have to work at all, just have a stable of untouchables doing the drudgery. That means you need a large number of the minority (sheep) relative to the elite (wolves). In a representative democracy, they can vote you out of power, and vote themselves into power. But of course, they don't want the wrong lizard (wolf (elite)) to win, so they keep voting in lizards (wolves (elites)). In contrast, in a direct democracy, the minority can present a bill that prevents discrimination and requires equal pay for their minority, fines for businesses that exploit them etc. and the (power) majority can't outvote them because the (power) minority has a numerical majority. Assuming the voting isn't rigged.
However, there's a wrinkle: propaganda. The elite will spend LOTS of money to maintain their position, and aren't above using propaganda to control the sheeple. TV advertisements are the most obvious modern incarnation, as well as paying news media to run articles/columns that parrot your talking points or happen to only consult with sources friendly to your position. Factionalization, turning the masses against one another, agents provocateur, organization infiltrators, Uncle Toms, and straight-up soapboxing are less-obvious examples. Think about how many people are against minimum wage increases, saying it'll harm the people it's intended to help, if you want an example of all this (whether or not you think it's true). It's easy to invoke learned helplessness on people raised on the idea that they're inferior and can't do anything except keep their heads down.
Direct democracy is theoretically more liberating to the masses, but undermined by the vastly increased ability of the elites to push propaganda upon them. Wage slavery is pretty much guaranteed in all scenarios, at least for the underclass. Direct democracy has a similar problem with poor laws as representative democracy.
Alice: "You voted AGAINST the Terrorist Disemboweling Act 2018? You disgust me!"
Bob: "It had all the same language and provisions as the Terrorist Disemboweling Act 2017 so I saw no need for it."
Alice: "It's a matter of principle! Have to show we're still tough on terrorism!"
And of course the 2018 version had a rider snuck into the 900-page bill requiring disemboweling of those who hang toilet paper towards the wall, but almost noone noticed until the Great TP Pogrom started.
Almost forgot to address the 'armed sheep will contest the vote' idea. The general sentiment would be 'crazy loose cannons terrorizing normal folks' rather than 'freedom fighters'. Propaganda wins this fight, hands down. Now, a potential alternative way that can go is Hutu vs. Tutsis, and there's no telling which side of the genocide you'd be on.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Have you read about this Cage group? There seem to be many shadows around them http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... For Cage is no collection of isolated loonies. As The Telegraph will describe here, it is part of a closely connected network of extremists relentlessly — and successfully — lying to young British Muslims that they are hated and persecuted by their fellow citizens in order to make them into supporters of terror. Cage has an active outreach programme in mosques, universities and community groups. Even more disturbingly, it continues to be treated as a credible partner by respected and respectable organisations, including Liberty and Amnesty International.