Of course somebody decides. When the police raids my government dissatisfaction assembly and not the thousands of other legitimate meetings taking place around the country, somebody has to make the determination to do that. I don't think it's just that a person could risk losing 2 weeks of their free life because someone wrongly decided that "Pratty's governemnt disatisfaction coffee morning", may be a potential terrorist cell.Antiriad2097 wrote:I welcome these changes. The government does not decide. The law is the law and it will be put to good use protecting citizens, helping to avoid indoctrination as it currently happens. These proposals don't come from nowhere, they are a direct reaction to threats to our safety.pratty wrote:
What about the freedom to assemble, say you want to meet with like minded people and discuss your dissatisifaction with the government, only to have your meetings disrupted by the authorities because the government decides you might be subversive, plotting violence and/or guilty of 'hate speech'.
And that they could arrest you for up to 14 days with no charge under the terrorism act, I would consider wrongful arrest an infringement of freedom.
Even if it doesn't come to that the fear of being watched and under suspicion may be enough to put good people off exercising their freedom of speech and assembly.
Something is not ethically ok just because it happens to be legal, or reprehensible just because it happens to be illegal. As a general rule we shouldn't define what's right and wrong by whether it's the law or not, but rather we should define the law according to what is right and or wrong. And I think freedom of assembly and speech is just, the abuse of that freedom is the price we pay for it.