This is what happens when people stop standing up for their rights

<p>The definition I'm going off of: terrorism is when violence or the threat of violence is used to coerce a population for political or religious ends.</p>

<p>I was not comparing the current state of the U.S. and U.K to Hitlerist Germany at all. But merely using it as an example to show what the end result of a "police state" could be.</p>

<p>But I understand what you're saying Sarah about the way things were going. I think everyone on this forum, and I have faith that most of the populations of these countries, agree that things are going too far in one direction where paranoia and fear are what we use to justify policies and laws. I guess things are going to start finding a balance with the new administration here in the U.S. and hopefully we'll see that there are certain laws that don't benefit society or the individual.</p>

<p> </p>

I lived in the UK from 1973 to 1987. During that time, the IRA was at its most active. I lived in Central London, and I lost count of the major bombings that took place. <p>

 

Here is a list:<p>

 

Date Location Casualty figure<br>

8th Mar 1973 Old Bailey and Scotland Yard 1 killed, 174 injured<br>

10th Sep 1973 King’s Cross and Euston Station 13 injured<br>

22nd Oct 1974 Brook’s Club 3 injured<br.

17th Jun 1974 Houses of Parliament 11 injured<br>

17th Jul 1974 Tower of London 1 killed, 41 injured<br>

5th Sep 1975 London Hilton 2 killed, 63 injured<br>

9th Oct 1975 Green Park Underground 1 killed, 20 injured<br>

12th Nov 1975 Scott’s Restaurant 1 killed<br>

18th Nov 1975 Walton’s Restaurant 2 killed, 23 injured<br>

29th Jan 1976 Selfridges 1 injured<br>

30th Mar 1979 House of Commons 1 killed<br>

20th Jul 1982 Hyde Park and Regent’s Park 11 killed, 50 injured<br>

17th Dec 1983 Harrods 6 killed, 75 injured<br>

20th Jul 1990 Stock Exchange none<br>

10th Apr 1992 Baltic Exchange 3 injured<br>

24th Apr 1993 Bishopsgate 1 killed, 44 injured<br>

9th Feb 1996 Canary Wharf 2 killed, 39 injured<br>

3rd Mar 2001 BBC News Centre 1 injured<br>

6th May 2001 Hendon Post Office 1 injured<br>

3rd Aug 2001 Ealing Broadway 7 injured<br>

 

And yet, the actual level of clampdown would seem mild today, although it was the start of the "slippery slope." One thing that Thatcher's government instigated was a bizarre policy of cutting the sound, during interviews with Sinn Fein <a href"http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFDD1438F937A35753C1A967958260">NYT note on UK government censorship of IRA, and getting around it</a><p>

 

Compared to the insane overreaction of today, it seems like nothing.<p>

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of Western democracy. Without it, our society is nothing, and really without hyperbole, is on the slide toward fascism. One of the reasons Russia, South America, Germany, Japan and others adopted fascism or totalitarianism so easily was the lack of a truly democratic tradition. This tradition can die in our societies too, if it is not kept alive. You have to fight for your freedom, every day, it is not something one can take for granted. And, point taken, it is no use me just ranting on photo.net, preaching to the choir, and refusing to do anything myself.<p>What can I do? That is the question. What can each of us as individuals do? Well, as disunited individuals, not much. But we can join organisations that hold the same values. Organisations have always been the key to change in history. Whether it was the armies of Napoleon or Alexander, or the trades unions in the UK, or the loosely linked militias of George Washington. I think Obama can be the focal point of change in the West. He is smart enough, and has a lot of support. Those who support what is right, such as freedom, and justice should unite and center around him, I think.<p>For my part, I am not involved in politics, but religion, and that is enough for me for the moment. Although this topic has got me thinking about what kind of practical action I can take.

<p>>>> what if your city is becoming a "death camp" right in front of your eyes? is it "silly" then?</p>

<p>Any examples, or just more inflammatory talk? </p>

<p>>>>> A direct quote:<br>

>>> Go talk to some Holocaust survivors and then you might have a better and much more personal understanding of that term.</p>

<p>Indeed a direct quote. And from that you come to the conclusion that is what *you* call a "definition?" As I said, silly... It's an example to point to. Pretty clear...</p>

<p>This post reminded me of Jean Charles de Menezes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm<br>

Descanse em paz Jean!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don't you all think this needs to be put back in context.</p>

<p>There are a few issues getting mixed up here:</p>

<ol>

<li>are your rights as street shooters severely limited? How many times have you been seriously hassled by the police when photographing? I suspect the answer will be not a lot, if at all.</li>

<li>second issue, a political one. The above is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There is a terrorist threat for sure but the threat isn't posed by anyone out there photographing, that definitely isn't the problem. Institutionalised paranoia is for real as much as it is amongst the vox populi. That we should adress, not the symptom.</li>

<li>curtailing of the media. Looking back this seems to a large extent selfimposed especially in the US. They let it happen and should go back to what they are supposed to do. Giving factual and critical account of what's happening out there. Let's not forget there are journalists out there who refuse to operate embedded and thus risking their lives. It should be somewhat easier over here. While it all sounds wonderfull a mass gathering and a protest won't do much good. The media themselves should do that. They are very powerfull if they want to. </li>

<li>I think the incidents, for that they were, are very unfortunate. What's really worrying though is that said amendment will mean that any individual police officer as a result of that can (or has) to operate without a strict guidline so it becomes all a bit muddied and as a result of that more of these incidents might happen. There is far to much room for interpretation while in fact they already have the same powers. The difference is that they now can only act on the basis of a reasonable suspicion which means they can't do it just for the sake of it, for that would be a bit totalitarian.</li>

</ol>

<p>However using words like police state is hardly appropiate, I'm with Brad on this. Nor is the freedom of speech under attack. Cast your vote in the next election because it can make a difference as recent history proved. To name just one excess of the last US administration, namely Guantanamo Bay, will be corrected now. Others will follow.</p>

 

<p>Good point, Sergio. I hope not to read in the news about a poor folk (most likely a foreigner) that was shot down because he was taking pictures and ran away when he saw the police approaching him.</p>

 

<p>"this topic has got me thinking about what kind of practical action I can take."</p>

<p>At the risk of generating more fodder for my watch list file...</p>

<p>Spreading awareness is the first step. It's done by talking about it the way we are doing here. It's also done through demonstrations and protests.</p>

<p>Lobbying our government serves absolutely no purpose. I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and the 24K gold plate luxury pen set. I did it for 5 years -- lots of hard work and zero results. They'll listen, smile, be sympathetic, and then ignore everything we've said as soon as we walk out the door. Instead, the people we should lobby are... the People (see above). (I'm sure it works the same way in the UK.)</p>

<p>Once educated, voters have to demand changes from the politicians and be willing to vote out any politicians who don't comply. That might even mean voting for a Democrat if you're a Republican or a Republican if you're a Democrat.</p>

<p>Build coalitions with other groups with similar interests, as there's strength in numbers.</p>

<p>Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we all have to be thorns in the sides of our governments, to the extent that the path of least resistance for our governments is through the desired change. (Remember Ghandi.)</p>

<p>I have no interest in looking at your pics of cops made because they deliver some cliched interesting juxtaposition.Hire an actor or model and get them to pose for you - there problem fixed.<br>

If you wish to see the world as an ugly place - you will see it as an ugly place. if you wish to see yourself as a victim or a potential victim - that is exactly what you are - I have no interest in teh cult of the oppressed preached almost daily on this forum - which btw is a sad joke as far as photography goes.<br>

When will you people get an education and stop with the New Deal quotes - the New Deal was an economic and social disaster - read some history and quote some facts. Margaret Thatcher was the best thing to happen to that sad sacked dumbed down irrelevant country of yours. The vile anti Thatcherite attitudes are even more boring than your lame street shots with the typical towel headed person screaming whilst holding up some rent-a-crowd stoopid slogan.</p>

 

<p>Peter:</p>

<p>Here, here.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Please explain.<br /> I thought that was pretty clear, but to explain, your odds of being in a terrorist attack are very small-- maybe on the scale of winning the lottery, as you claim an arrest for photography of a policeman would be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK. Thanks for that. I think we both agree that the chances of any of us being either picked on by the police or being involved in terrorism are marginal.</p>

<p>However, it does happen and when it does, we should complain about it however we can.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Margaret Thatcher was the best thing to happen......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very funny.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>......to that sad sacked dumbed down irrelevant country of yours.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh dear. Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? I think you'll find that most countries are irrelevant to every other country.<br>

You sound like one of those Americans who thinks that their country is the greatest in the world and every other country wants to be just like you. Well, it's not the case.</p>

 

 

 

<p>"However using words like police state is hardly appropiate, I'm with Brad on this. Nor is the freedom of speech under attack."<br>

Ton, if England is such a freedom-loving country, how do you explain the fact that it produced George Orwell, author of "Animal Farm" and "1984?" were those seminal works "hardly appropriate" as well?</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ton, if England is such a freedom-loving country, how do you explain the fact that it produced George Orwell, author of "Animal Farm" and "1984?" were those seminal works "hardly appropriate" as well?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They were free to be published without any state opposition or cencorship. That would not have been true of some countries at the time.</p>

<p>@Damon</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That seems a pretty succinct definition. The limitations of protests in London is part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCA) and is used as a catch-all act to stop anyone doing something that police, councils or politicians think is an inconvenience or goes against their way of thinking.<br>

There is a comedian in the UK called Mark Thomas who specialises in showing up the ridiculous nature of some of our State powers and this one (in 3 parts) is for me the cream of the crop. He does everything possible to show how stupid it all is by organising a record number of demonstratons in a day!:<br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8046182D2449D5E">http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8046182D2449D5E</a></p>

 

<p><em>Hire an actor or model and get them to pose for you - there problem fixed.<br /></em><br>

Its difficult to believe anyone would actually say this but they did.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear Orwell dragged into this... Orwell was writing about the nature of communist dictatorships with the Soviet Union as his model; not the England in which he was living. He had plenty to say about his own country but he never confused England of the 40s with the Stalinist regime in the USSR. Just as we shouldn't confuse Oakland (as bad as things seem to be) with Gaza (as bad as they are). Where are the checkpoints? Food shortages? Aerial bombings?<br>

There were 124 homicides in Oakland last year... far too many. This year, for the month of January, there were 3.<br>

The absurdity of life by comparison is that over 1500 (or thereabouts) were killed in Gaza in a few weeks.<br>

By comparing bad situations to catastrophic events you wind up diminishing your grievances.<br>

If we were all living in a police state this thread will be used as evidence against us and there will soon be a knock at each of our doors. Just in case we're really being monitored I'd like to say, "Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player..."</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I have no interest in looking at your pics of cops made because they deliver some cliched interesting juxtaposition.Hire an actor or model and get them to pose for you - there problem fixed.<br />If you wish to see the world as an ugly place - you will see it as an ugly place. if you wish to see yourself as a victim or a potential victim - that is exactly what you are - I have no interest in teh cult of the oppressed preached almost daily on this forum - which btw is a sad joke as far as photography goes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Refreshing point of view...</p>

<p>I have to laugh at the 9:38pm police photo irresponsibly supporting the suggestion that Oakland is becoming a "death camp," words above referencing the Holocaust. Perhaps the police should just let the outside rioters (people not from Oakland, BTW) further trash businesses in the downtown and even more automobiles.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Be vigilant.</p>

<p>>>> i'd agree with you, al--which is where street photography, independent media, and other forms of citizen journalism can play a role in ensuring people don't turn a blind eye to injustice as it happens.</p>

<p>By a role, you mean for example, using your 9:38pm image with your text right above: "what if your city is becoming a "death camp" right in front of your eyes? is it "silly" then?"</p>

<p>There is certainly a role for "citizen journalism," the video of the BART shooting is a great example. </p>

<p>However, when it's employed irresponsibly, like your 9:38pm image and supporting "death camp" suggestion; then it just cheapens what journalism is really about.</p>

<p>It's true that we in the US and in the UK are not living in Gaza or in Hitler's third reich, but I would like to make one observation respectfully:</p>

<p>I've seen these threads come up from time to time (and I've been vocal in them). When I first came here, these issues of rules, regs, policies restricting photographic freedoms and cops harrassing photograhers were almost universally laughed off. They were denied, and those talking about them were dismissed as paranoid kooks. Now that some of these policies are being codified in the UK, the issue is being treated a bit more seriously. I have little doubt the US is next to consider codifying these policies, and I hope the American people will be outspoken enough to keep it from happening.</p>

<p>THIS <strong><em>IS</em></strong> THE SLIPPERY SLOPE. Now the discussion has turned from the question of whether these things exist only in the imaginations of a paranoid few to the questions of whether we've slipped too far and of whether our governments bear too much resemblance to the more egregious fascist states in recent history. Now that we've established the momentum of the situation, are we all comfortable with the direction we're sliding?</p>

<p>Personally, Brad, I don't want to live in the Oakland Eric photographed. I think Eric did an excellent job showing it to us. He of course didn't photograph the police execution that sparked the riots, nor do any of his photographs depict the lack of accountability in the incident that so enraged the rioters. However, I think the incident and his photographs do accurately and fairly reflect a police state.</p>

<p>I have the same trepidation about the incrimental restrictions, Sarah, but I think the pictures reflect a "Police Action" rather than a police state. There is a difference. I've seen similar incidents in Boston... but we're not living under martial law... This isn't denial of such incidents. It's putting it in actual perspective... and, you're right, the question is what is our responsibility as citizens (let alone as photographers) going to be...</p>

<p>>>> However, I think the incident and his photographs do accurately and fairly reflect a police state.</p>

<p>Please be specific on this and elaborate in detail.</p>

<p>So the Oakland police, who actually exhibited a huge amount of restraint, should have let even more locally-owned businesses and vehicles get trashed and burned in the downtown? What is it exactly that you find troubling? How would you have handled the situation (which you seem to know little about). It wasn't the police that enraged the "rioters." And the "rioters" were not the people peacefully protesting the BART shooting (which wasn't by the Oakland police, BTW); but were from out of town.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>that should read: what is our response as citizens (let alone photographers) going to be...<br>

And, yes, this is more intersting than working...</p>

<p>I submit for your interest, in the U.S.A. and abroad, U.S. House resolution 645. Which calls for the establishment of at least SIX FEMA camps on U.S. military bases. Of course the bill says these are "refugee" centers for natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. However we all know that what goes on at a military base is less than transparent...think Guantanamo Bay Cuba. So if you comfort yourself with the belief "They can't lock us all up!" you may not be so comfortable if this bill passes.<br>

<a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-645">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-645</a><br>

We live in "very interesting times" as the old Chinese proverb/curse goes. It's true Orwell was writing about Stalinist Russia in 1948. But he no doubt intended his novel to be a cautionary tale for the future of all societies. I hope that all of our conjecture is just silly paranoia. But I fear it may not be.....</p>