UK: What Right Do They Have To............?

Ladies and gentlemen of ATS, i have a simple question. What right does the government have to stop us revolting? In the past many great revolutions have brought about positive changes. If a people are annoyed with their government, if they see them as corrupt, then what right does the government have to stop us? How can they possibly use the police to stop us, the army to quash us when replacing our government is the right of a free people!

Once such measures are taken enmasse we must accept we are living, not in a free society, but one where we are allowed freedoms only to a certain point. Once we step out of line we are no longer citizens that the politicians serve but a nuisance to be subdued.

My ill health means i could never physically revolt, the best i can achieve is some letter writing to MP's and snotty comments on an internet forum. However for those who would take to the streets i ask, why can the government subdue any of you? How is this right? How is this correct? How is this freedom? When the masses rise against a government, any government who fights against this does nothing more than show it's true, dictatorial colours.

I hope violent revolution never comes to the country i live in, however, as a last resort it should be allowed. If the police and army are brought in to stop it then it would be more violent, not less.

How can violent revolt be deemed legal? If it comes to that point from a moral standpoint then laws have ceased to matter therefore legislating for it would be futile.

There is no legal right to violent revolt in the UK; why would there be? We have plenty of recourse against government, we can vote them out for one and we can challenge any legislation or action in domestic courts and in European courts. Together those two things, along with freedom of information and press and our legislated rights, gives us a pretty solid ability to keep abreast of what the government is doing and to keep it under control.

reply to post by Mike_A


WOW! Great speech and wonderful sentiments but if that were all possible then you'd have your peaceful revolution years ago.... The UK government seems to be breaking most of their laws themselves, just like almost every other country... Just to keep you protected...

Rgds

There is an old saying, and I think it's true today:

"If you shoot at the king, be certain you don't miss."

Revolution is often a good thing. Much akin to a soapy enema. Sometimes you just have to clear out all the crap.

hmmm intruiging question.

All I can think of to add is that just as you can attempt a revolution the government can attempt to stop that revolution.

The issue now adays is, that alot of our governemnts are so powerful now, it would be REALLY hard to have a succesful revolution. That is not to say it is not possible though.

Originally posted by dooper
There is an old saying, and I think it's true today:

"If you shoot at the king, be certain you don't miss."

Revolution is often a good thing. Much akin to a soapy enema. Sometimes you just have to clear out all the crap.

I agree. Mabye a bit... oddly put, but I agree.

If you revolt, be sure you revolt so hard, they dont have a chance to fight back, otherwise, you better look out!

Now the issue is though, that governments such as the US for example, are so powerful, that such a revolt would be near impossible. Not impossible but NEAR impossible.



[edit on 30-3-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

If one were to proclaim his loyalty to the government of the US, and just consider how one could force a change of government, and a return that government to the original Constitution, and as long as it was discussed as an academic exercise, then no, I don't think it would be very difficult at all.

This assumes that the intent is for the sole purpose of reinstating the Constitution of the United States to its original, hands off approach to government. Not this crap we have now.

When there are too many leaves on a tree to pluck, then one must go for the trunk.

And to take out a tree, you don't even have to cut it down. You can "ring" the tree. Small, narrow slices, and the tree receives no further nourishment. And then it's done for.

Once you identify the key elements of anything, it can be brought down very quickly with minimal effort, maximum efficiency.

Oddly, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and never rescinded that oath. And right now, our greatest threat against the preservation of the Constitution is from those on Capitol Hill.

Originally posted by dooper


Oddly, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and never rescinded that oath. And right now, our greatest threat against the preservation of the Constitution is from those on Capitol Hill.

so very true..I would tend to agree that for a violent relolution to be had with minimal bloodshed,the government would have to do something so out right horendous,that law enforcement and the millitary would have to choose between family and ''work''..there will still be some to uphold the law but for the most part I would have to beleive that there human also and would side on the greater good of the commonwealth..

Originally posted by Redpillblues
so very true..I would tend to agree that for a violent relolution to be had with minimal bloodshed,the government would have to do something so out right horendous,that law enforcement and the millitary would have to choose between family and ''work''..there will still be some to uphold the law but for the most part I would have to beleive that there human also and would side on the greater good of the commonwealth..

I would argue this point. You see once the police put on that black riot gear they are no longer thinking like they usually would. That is why it's designed like it is, uniforms have a very strange effect onn both the wearers of them and the observer. Check out the Standford Prison Experiment as a very good example of this.

There will always be people who do not question, who think they are doing the best for the people as they beat them with clubs and spray them with blinding chemicals. They have done so much training, and so many drills that to subdue the populous will seem to be second nature and the most logical thing when they have it explained to them by a man in a suit that the people are only hurting themselves. They'll happily go along many of them thinking that without subduing people the country would fall into disrepair.

Any revolt will cause instability, that is the nature of a revolt, but afterwards, assuming no dictator makes a grab for power, with the laws back in place and enforced properly, without the government reaching into the lives of everyone, that would be a true democracy again, or a republic if you prefer that (which i would).

they have no right to stop us, they can't stop us and they WILL NOT STOP US.

The people are rising, they're coming to take back the power, to claim back our land and make this world a place of beauty once more. Free from the shackles of the evil corps who "run" things. They are the vampires in charge of the blood bank. We just need to cut the supply of blood (money) bring it down, bring them down.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984



The way I see it is this...

We have a democratic right to vote a leader into office.
But this is only when they say we can...!

Balls to that. We as the people have a right to choose our own destiny, and we even have the technology to do it from our homes. They know it, we know it, they just know that this would get them out of power at the drop of a hat and they don't want that do they?

So the only option, if they won't allow us to decide peacefully, is to force change.

There is a real possibility that this will happen this week. If enough people go to London, and they get there angry (which is likely considering the scandals being leaked from parliament over the last few weeks) they could force change.

And I really hope they do.

We need a new government that actually works for the people, and not for the wealthy elite or for their own profit.
EVERYONE in the UK is seething with anger at our government right now. You find it in every conversation about what is happening. I have not met one person who thinks the G20 meeting is a good thing or will achieve anything.
I've not met one person against the protests in London either, which is unusual.
Most even agree that the bankers and politicians need to be scared, they need to see the anger at them being expressed.
Nothing else has worked, they clearly don't understand that we are angry and that what they're doing is completely wrong.
The people have been patient, we've listened to the speeches and allowed them to try to fix this their way, and it hasn't worked.

We should be protesting, and we do have the right to overthrow the government if they are not working to the will of the British people. Of course, under new "terror legislation" they'd sooner label the entire UK public as "terrorists" for trying to oust the government. But it's just a word, and the British people have really had enough of it.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by Mike_A

 

WOW! Great speech and wonderful sentiments but if that were all possible then you'd have your peaceful revolution years ago....

We did, it was called a general election. Just because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted doesn’t mean it’s not perfectly legitimate.

If you don’t like the government or what it’s doing there are many things you can do about it. When was the last time you legally challenged anything the government has done? Michael Marper did and proved his case in the ECHR thus forcing the government to change its policy on the retention of DNA. No violence needed or involved.

A functioning democratic system makes violent revolution surplus to requirements. Only when a government blocks that system does it become necessary to use force and at that point the legislature is de facto illegitimate and so laws are deemed null and void. Therefore the OP’s question doesn’t really make sense.



detachedindividual,

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

The way I see it is this...

We have a democratic right to vote a leader into office.
But this is only when they say we can...!

That’s not true; if you’re in the US then you have a right to vote in a new leader every four years regardless of what they say. If in the UK then you have that right every five years or less. You’re starting from a falsehood.



If anyone here really wants a bloody revolution go out and start one, if you think that we are at a point now where that is the only option then do it, stop posturing on here, grab a gun and go shoot some bad guys. I have a sneaking suspicion though that you won’t do jack.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by Mike_A
A functioning democratic system makes violent revolution surplus to requirements. Only when a government blocks that system does it become necessary to use force and at that point the legislature is de facto illegitimate and so laws are deemed null and void. Therefore the OP’s question doesn’t really make sense.

Is it really though? The political system is mired in a 2 party only concept. Yes other parties run, but without the funding they don't get as much air time or ad space as the main parties. That in itself is a broken system. I believe the two main parties need to be swept aside so that people can make a better choice, we need parties to have equal funding and at least 8 parties standing on a stage discussing things.

At the moment we have labour and the conservatives, the lib dems occasionally break through but are mostly lost to the white noise of the dominating parties. The other smaller, parties really are non existent, i doubt many people could even name one beyond the BNP (a disgusting party but well known). Maybe the UKIP if pushed.

So yes my original point makes perfect sense. When the parties are not doing what the people want, and when the people seemingly have given up on the democratic process then a violent revolution is what is left and these kinds of revolution tend to shake up politicians into doing what the people want. We have had a labour government pass through laws and treaties which we were promised votes on and we didn't get them, laws that are highly unpopular, laws which invade our privacy. Yet the people still do not use the democratic process, they just moan, roll over and take it.

However the question still stands, what right do they have to stop us? If you think that makes no sense then i don't quite understand because it's a simple question that goes to the law and morals.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


If enough people agree, then, revolt for sure.

The trouble is getting enough people.

The issues you bring up are to do with public apathy rather than a corrupted system. If people have given up or keep voting in a party that pushes intrusive laws or acts in a way that they don’t like then that is their fault and we all suffer for their apathy.

I know plenty of political parties and I know what they stand for, I take the time to watch the news, do my own research and decide for myself what I think is best. I also take part in the system beyond just voting, I have been in contact with MPs, companies and lobby groups many times. If I can do it then anyone can, but they don’t and would rather vote on tradition or some other nonsense; it’d be better if they didn’t vote at all (which is why I’m against compulsory voting btw).


I agree about party funding, the smaller parties do have a harder time but surely you’re not suggesting a civil war over party funding? That argument is ongoing and if you engage with the system you can help introduce more standardized funding for political parties. It doesn’t take a riot to do that.

What you are saying is fundamentally contradictory, if the public were so engaged as to revolt then they would have been using their democratic rights to the fullest extent. That is unless you’re suggesting a minority take it upon themselves to rectify the situation but then the question become what right would they have to make such a choice on behalf of the people?

As for the question, legally it makes no sense; it’s like asking what right do I have to negotiate with my murderer?

Morally, that depends. In my view it is only justified when you have no other reasonable option. We’re a very long way from that in the UK though.

When the masses rise against a government

Not gonna happen. The masses have mortgages and want to buy big TVs on credit- they don't care as long as they can keep consuming, damn what it means for the future.

But hey that's just where "they" want us isn't it?

I don't get it.All this talk of revolution and no one has mentioned abolishing the monarchy.
If there is one thing that sickens me,it's those parasites who declare that god has given them the right to lord it over us.
Yes i know the Queen has no input or say in what parliament does and yes i am aware of the tourist industry blah,blah.
What really drives me nuts is the citizens of this country who bow down and grovel to these elites who have shown they have no empathy or compassion for us.
If you want a revolution start here.......a peaceful one we could sell the windsors to the U.S. they're a disfunctional family should fit in well.

Mike_A

Actually if you just address the legal argument only then the question makes absolute and complete sense. What right does any government have to stop it's people revolting in a democratic system? Are we to say it is not allowed? If we do this then the abuse of democratic systems would lead to a dictatorship clothed in the gown of freedom and no way of getting out of it. So that was my original question, what right do they have to stop it?

You have expanded the debate beyond that initial question, beyond the idea that a government is not allowed to suppress it's people into an argument that whilst related, isn't directly addressing the question. It's an interesting argument though so i'll continue

Originally posted by Mike_A
The issues you bring up are to do with public apathy rather than a corrupted system. If people have given up or keep voting in a party that pushes intrusive laws or acts in a way that they don’t like then that is their fault and we all suffer for their apathy.

Actually my initial question didn't involve either but now my points address both. The system is corrupted, the funding of parties shows this. The lack of air time for other parties also shows this. When the tv channels are so careful not to favour one party over another they fail to mention they barely pay attention to anyone beyond the 2 main parties with the liberals lumped in as an afterthought.

Originally posted by Mike_A
I know plenty of political parties and I know what they stand for, I take the time to watch the news, do my own research and decide for myself what I think is best. I also take part in the system beyond just voting, I have been in contact with MPs, companies and lobby groups many times. If I can do it then anyone can, but they don’t and would rather vote on tradition or some other nonsense; it’d be better if they didn’t vote at all (which is why I’m against compulsory voting btw).

Well i'm the same as you in that regard however it doesn't address the main points. I think people are disillusioned because the parties don't reflect any of their views and they never find out about the smaller ones. Remember that most people just don't see themselves as having the time to research it. They go only on the tv and maybe a newspaper if they pick one up. This is why we need a more equal system.

Originally posted by Mike_A
I agree about party funding, the smaller parties do have a harder time but surely you’re not suggesting a civil war over party funding? That argument is ongoing and if you engage with the system you can help introduce more standardized funding for political parties. It doesn’t take a riot to do that.

I wasn't actually suggesting a violent revolution. If you check my original post you will see that i said i hope violent revolution never comes to my country, did you miss that bit? My entire post was about the right to revolt, but as i say you have expanded it and put a few words in my mouth like here.

Originally posted by Mike_A
What you are saying is fundamentally contradictory, if the public were so engaged as to revolt then they would have been using their democratic rights to the fullest extent. That is unless you’re suggesting a minority take it upon themselves to rectify the situation but then the question become what right would they have to make such a choice on behalf of the people?

Actually that isn't right at all. People can be absolutely ignorant of the politics and still revolt. A violent revolution only takes people to be suffering, or what they perceive to be suffering (people are so pampered here) and they will revolt without any knowledge at all of the politics. A minority couldn't revolt anyway as the public would fight them once violence started.

Originally posted by Mike_A
As for the question, legally it makes no sense; it’s like asking what right do I have to negotiate with my murderer?

Legally it is a very simple question, because if the government sotp a revolt they may be breaking the very essence of a democratic government and as such expose themselves. If they tell everyone that it's illegal to revolt, illegal to ven question then we know what we're dealing with. So the question is important and makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Morally, that depends. In my view it is only justified when you have no other reasonable option. We’re a very long way from that in the UK though.

Are we? I'm not so sure anymore i must admit. When you see police lined up in storm trooper like gear, designed specifically to scare and make the police feel powerful you have to wonder. When you see the government listening in on innocent people, proposals to log all internet traffic, cameras becoming more prevalent and even talk of an ID with over 40 pieces of information, you have to wonder how free we are and how much we can really influence.

It's almost like the people are sleepwalking into a bad government and maybe a little violent revolution would stir them into waking. I'm not saying i want this to happen, i'm still holding onto the hope that people will start voting on the issues and examining the smaller parties not just the big ones. I'm just asking if the government has any right to stop us and the worrying things i see happening that seem to be designed to stop us.

Originally posted by ho chi minh
I don't get it.All this talk of revolution and no one has mentioned abolishing the monarchy.
If there is one thing that sickens me,it's those parasites who declare that god has given them the right to lord it over us.

That's your opinion. I disagree with it and the general lack of support for a republic would suggest that most other do as well or at least don’t care enough to change the situation. But as with anything mentioned in this thread why does it require a revolution? Why can’t it be done through democratic means?



ImaginaryReality1984,

Actually if you just address the legal argument only then the question makes absolute and complete sense. What right does any government have to stop it's people revolting in a democratic system? Are we to say it is not allowed? If we do this then the abuse of democratic systems would lead to a dictatorship clothed in the gown of freedom and no way of getting out of it. So that was my original question, what right do they have to stop it?

If you’re talking about a violent revolt then it still doesn’t make sense, if you’ve taken that step then you have already deemed that the government is not legitimate and law ceases to exist. There is no legal basis defining any party’s legal right to violent revolution at all, either enshrining it as a right or outlawing it as a specific offence.

I don’t know how to put it to get my point across. How would you legislate for this? What would an Act say to make the violent removal of government by the people legal? Just defining the circumstances would tie you in knots; I mean you would have to say that this can only be allowed if the democratic principles have been blocked but if that ever happened why then would such a corrupt government not just throw the Act out?

If we need to revolt it WILL be illegal but no one will care because we’re having a revolution.

Actually my initial question didn't involve either but now my points address both. The system is corrupted, the funding of parties shows this. The lack of air time for other parties also shows this. When the tv channels are so careful not to favour one party over another they fail to mention they barely pay attention to anyone beyond the 2 main parties with the liberals lumped in as an afterthought.

I meant your last post not your first.

If the party funding shows genuine corruption in the legal sense then you are welcome to gather the evidence and present a case against the government.

The lack of airtime is linked to public apathy, if there were more demand then perhaps it would change. You could also work to get parliament to force at least the BBC as a public body to provide equal representation of all political parties of a certain size.

The point being that these options are open to you before you get to using violence.

Well i'm the same as you in that regard however it doesn't address the main points. I think people are disillusioned because the parties don't reflect any of their views and they never find out about the smaller ones. Remember that most people just don't see themselves as having the time to research it. They go only on the tv and maybe a newspaper if they pick one up. This is why we need a more equal system.

But where does violence come into it? Parties can be made to represent people’s views through democratic means, if most don’t want to use those means then that’s just tough for all of us. Those who do engage with the system should also make efforts to get other people to do the same.

All of this can be done before storming the Bastille.

When the parties are not doing what the people want, and when the people seemingly have given up on the democratic process then a violent revolution is what is left and these kinds of revolution tend to shake up politicians into doing what the people want.

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your point but your OP saying that you think specifically violent revolt should be allowed and subsequent quote (“When the parties are not doing what the people want, and when the people seemingly have given up on the democratic process then a violent revolution is what is left and these kinds of revolution tend to shake up politicians into doing what the people want.”) made it seem like violence was what you were specifically talking about.

If not then what kind of revolt are you talking about?

Actually that isn't right at all. People can be absolutely ignorant of the politics and still revolt

I’m not talking about being ignorant of politics I’m talking about people being unwilling to even engage in the first place. Even if ignorant, if they were so aggrieved they would try to educate themselves before becoming violent; otherwise they’re just hooligans.

Are we? I'm not so sure anymore i must admit. When you see police lined up in storm trooper like gear, designed specifically to scare and make the police feel powerful you have to wonder. When you see the government listening in on innocent people, proposals to log all internet traffic, cameras becoming more prevalent and even talk of an ID with over 40 pieces of information, you have to wonder how free we are and how much we can really influence.

When you see members of the public successfully challenging government decisions in court, independent reports criticizing policy and the press reporting on draconian legislation then you know we are free.

Contrast us with Zimbabwe.

It's almost like the people are sleepwalking into a bad government and maybe a little violent revolution would stir them into waking. I'm not saying i want this to happen, i'm still holding onto the hope that people will start voting on the issues and examining the smaller parties not just the big ones.

But if these people are sleepwalking then they’re not going to revolt and they’re going to look upon anyone that does as the enemy.

Originally posted by Mike_A
If you’re talking about a violent revolt then it still doesn’t make sense, if you’ve taken that step then you have already deemed that the government is not legitimate and law ceases to exist. There is no legal basis defining any party’s legal right to violent revolution at all, either enshrining it as a right or outlawing it as a specific offence.

The question however is should the government try to stop it's citizens revolting, are there laws they can abuse to do this, would they do this, etc.

Originally posted by Mike_A
I don’t know how to put it to get my point across. How would you legislate for this? What would an Act say to make the violent removal of government by the people legal? Just defining the circumstances would tie you in knots; I mean you would have to say that this can only be allowed if the democratic principles have been blocked but if that ever happened why then would such a corrupt government not just throw the Act out?

That's the point, i wouldn't legislate for it because it should just be a right that doesn't need legislating. We can always violently revolt, however i fear our government would put a stop to it and that is the basis of my question, what right does a government have to do this?

Originally posted by Mike_A
If we need to revolt it WILL be illegal but no one will care because we’re having a revolution.

Then why is it illegal? A revolt should be the right of every citizen. It shouldn't have to be violent because at the start of it the government should just step aside. If they can't be voted out then they should step aside at the first true signs of a violent uprising. Dictators quell revolts, democracies should welcome them.

Originally posted by Mike_A
If the party funding shows genuine corruption in the legal sense then you are welcome to gather the evidence and present a case against the government.

What do you consider corruption? I see the stark fact that the parties that get most funding tend to be the ones in power. Labour and conservatives have such funding they cannot successfully be contested by a smaller party. Legal corruption no, moral corruption absolutely. Parties should be funded by the tax payer absolutely equally to give them a fair voice.

Originally posted by Mike_A
The lack of airtime is linked to public apathy, if there were more demand then perhaps it would change. You could also work to get parliament to force at least the BBC as a public body to provide equal representation of all political parties of a certain size.

Actually i am working on that, i have written more letters than you can imagine. Nothing comes of it however and that is my point at the moment, very little changes anymore as our democracy seems to be run by a very small group of people who wouldn't allow such an equal system. Powerful people don't like to give up power.

Originally posted by Mike_A
The point being that these options are open to you before you get to using violence.

Indeed there are but the original question was not if these options existed, only what right does a government have to stop a revolt from occurring. As i said earlier you've expanded the topic beyond it's intended bounds. The peaceful options in this day and age though don't seem to be doing anything.

Originally posted by Mike_A
But where does violence come into it? Parties can be made to represent people’s views through democratic means, if most don’t want to use those means then that’s just tough for all of us. Those who do engage with the system should also make efforts to get other people to do the same.

All of this can be done before storming the Bastille.

Ahh but can it? The people take notice of action far more than they take notice of words. However again this kind of segways from the original post about asking the simple question about if it is fair and allowed for a government to quell a revolt in a democracy.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your point but your OP saying that you think specifically violent revolt should be allowed and subsequent quote (“When the parties are not doing what the people want, and when the people seemingly have given up on the democratic process then a violent revolution is what is left and these kinds of revolution tend to shake up politicians into doing what the people want.”) made it seem like violence was what you were specifically talking about.

Actually my original post states very clearly i hope violent revolt never comes to my country. I am simply asking what right a government has to put one down. I guess wishing it never comes wasn't clear enough even when plainly worded.

Originally posted by Mike_A
If not then what kind of revolt are you talking about?

I am only asking about whether the government is allowed to put down a revolt, what right they have to do it etc. I still cannot see why you struggle to stick to that topic and expand it to the democratic process bein involved. It was a very simple question about the governments rights to stop a revolt. Should they stop it? What right do they have? If they did are they no longer a democracy.

Originally posted by Mike_A

I’m not talking about being ignorant of politics I’m talking about people being unwilling to even engage in the first place. Even if ignorant, if they were so aggrieved they would try to educate themselves before becoming violent; otherwise they’re just hooligans.

Sorry no. When it comes to that stage there isn't much time to educate yourself, if we're again talking about a hypothetical. Violent revolution is far more common throughout history than peaceful revolution through education for a very good reason.

Originally posted by Mike_A
When you see members of the public successfully challenging government decisions in court, independent reports criticizing policy and the press reporting on draconian legislation then you know we are free.

Contrast us with Zimbabwe.

I didn't say we're a complete dictatorship yet, i said there are worrying signs. It usually starts with worrying signs that people accept, gets to far and then it's to late. People try and stand up and are put down very quickly.

You talk about independent reports and challenges in court. I can easily counter that with the situation surrounding Dr. David Kelly, what happened with the EU constitution, the increasing surveillance technology and more. We could pretty much reach a stalemate on that one.

Originally posted by Mike_A

But if these people are sleepwalking then they’re not going to revolt and they’re going to look upon anyone that does as the enemy.

When people are losing homes and being mistreated, when they see others standing and loudly fighting, not just trying to peacefully get stuff done, then people tend to wake up.

I would never say go straight to violent revolution, i say when peace fails violence is an option. However my original question was not about trying the peaceful option, it was not about whether the act itself is needed or not. It was about whether the government has any right to quell something like this if it is started. Should a government in a supposed democracy not just step aside?