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

[Uhooru]

<p>Reading through this is hilarious. First, my opinion is the law in Britain as explained in the original, which is based on opinion, sounds flawed. It allows for seemingly arbitrairily applied decisions that can lead to some serious penalties. As stated in the materials in the link, it does not discuss intent. I wonder how accurate the original information on this new English "law" is. Another thing, maybe of no import, is England, unlike the U.S. does not have a Bill of Rights, they have common law. Check me if I'm wrong. It makes legal challanges more difficult. Now after that, anyone who equates the wrong doings and injustices that happen in the U.S. to a "police state" don't have a clue of what a police state is. Brad's remark about asking a holocaust victim about what a real police state is like is perfectly valid. It draws a clear contrast to the nonesense being spewed about this topic. So, you might ask, what real "Police States" exist in the world today? Probably Burma as was seen. Some of the African countries have gotten pretty police state like, Zimbabwe, Uganda under Amin, Kenya sometimes etc. Korea, is probably a police state. Really peeps, a police state is the use of physical force to stifle all dissent, and to remove all dissenters. Does anyone think that the U.K. or the U.S. is at all, similar to North Korea? We don't have mass dissapearances, we have plenty and vociferous dissent. The lack of proportionality shown by many here is astounding. Get real. That's just my opinion. That photo with it's caption above is really bad propaganda and totally dishonest. it would never make it off an editor's desk. To create a false sense of what is occuring like that is really pretty dishonest if it is really intended to persuade people to some belief. Wow.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>I'm not sure that Brad's example to ask a Holocaust victim is valid in determining what a police state is or not. Your examples are great, Barry, as the whole population is treated the same and not just a particular race within the culture. If the Holocaust is used to determine what is a police state is or not, then one could very well conclude America is a police state with Guantanamo Bay?</p>

[Brad_]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that Brad's example to ask a Holocaust victim is valid in determining what a police state is or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I said, earlier, to get a feeling for what a police state is like before using the term so trivially, go talk to a Holocaust survivor. Again, for the third time, it was not meant to be an all encompassing definition. However, it certainly was a police state situation. Is there really doubt in your mind about that?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the Holocaust is used to determine what is a police state is or not, then one could very well conclude America is a police state with Guantanamo Bay?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Maybe you were not aware of the German government's systematic repression of a huge population of it's own citizens (occurring much before Jews being taken to the camps). Perhaps you have forgotten or didn't know that. How is that in any way or measure similar to Guantanamo Bay (not that that wasn't an awful situation that shouldn't have happened)?</p>

<p> </p>

[ray .]

<p>I'd like to see where it is set in stone the definition of the term "police state." Some have argued here, and I think this is the fear, that western nations are moving in the direction of a police state. Like with most issues, there are shades of grey. Talk to the relatives and friends of Oskar Grant and see if they think they're living in a police state. Their answer is likely to be different from upper or middle class people who relate to the incident as an event they witnessed through the media. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i think Garrison was simply saying that the Holocaust is not the only relevant example of a police state, and that "talking to a Holocaust survivor" is not the only way to inform oneself about what happens when people stop standing up for their rights.</p>

<p>i would agree with Ray that there are many shades of gray, meaning it's not just a black and white issue. also, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Amin's Uganda, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc., all represent easily-identifiable bogeymen. we can point to them and say,well, we dont have concentration camps or killing fields, and feel better about our own countries (and our own culpability). maybe we are not affected by the water-boarding in Guantanamo, the abuses in Abu Ghraib, or the ethnic cleansing in Darfur in our everyday lives, so we don't necessarily have to think about those who are affected by them...</p>

<p>But that is clearly not the case with the Oscar Grant situation, which hits very close to home for many, many people, and should be a reality check for all of us as a society, in terms of asking ourselves, what are the accountability methods in place for police, government, public institutions, etc., and are they sufficient? if not, and police abuses are allowed to happen without consequences, than at the end of the day, it will not matter what color you are or how you define police state as a term, because by then it will be too late. anyone who has ever been racially profiled, as Oscar Grant was, has been subjected to a police state mentality. But in standing up to these injustices and speaking out for our rights, we still have a chance to prevent that mentality from becoming so pervasive and ingrained that our rights become an afterthought.</p>

<p>I'm not sure whether Barry is referring to my photo of a police officer loading tear gas pellets into his shotgun moments before firing them into a crowd of protestors as "totally dishonest" and "really bad propaganda." if so, then i guess the guy standing in front of the tanks in Tianamen Square would be really REALLY bad propaganda. i shudder to think of Barry's reaction to the video showing Oscar Grant's death, if he thinks a shot depicting what actually happened in Oakland "creates a false sense" of actual events. come to think of it, doesnt CNN and other MSM outlets showing the same guy jumping up and down on a police car over and over again create a "false sense" of what is happening, given that the overall tone of the numerous protests in Oakland since the Grant shooting have been peaceful and focused on demanding accountability?</p>

<p>at the end of the day, i am happy for cel phone cameras and the fact that i could photograph riot cops in action without having my camera taken or being beaten (or worse) myself. and i am grateful for the fact that Internet forums in this country (and the UK) aren't subject to the same kind of censorship as China, Saudi Arabia, or other countries, and as much as i disagree with some of the comments here, i am glad they are protected under the First Amendment right to Free Speech.</p>

 

[jeff_drew4]

<p>Selective enforcement is always an issue with little chance of ever being resolved. IMHO, the debate over photographers rights will continue to boil but for no good reason other than allowing fear to stir the pot. Nearly every cellphone user has a camera out multiple times a day. In the USA, arresting/detaining citizens under the ruse of "homeland security" has been breached and continues without constitutional due process etc.<br>

The "state" is not above fear mongering either!</p>

[trex1]

<p>Here you go lads! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/4640065/Photographers-protest-outside-Scotland-Yard-over-new-anti-terror-law.html</p>

<p>Looks some UK snap happy types took the advice of some on this forum..!</p>

[trex1]

Well, to flip Brad's argument on its head, Nazi Germany emerged from the Weimar Republic, which was arguably more enlightened and democratic than the US today. As for the anti semtism, which is what Brad is talking about, that could very easily emerge in the United States. Jews are not the target of mass imprisonments, extra-judicial shootings, continual harassment and intimidation, in the way blacks are. <p>

 

Surely Brad, if it was Jews that were being treated the way blacks are in today's America, you would feel a little uncomfortable right (albeit we have a black president, which kind of makes the analogy a bit difficult, but this is a very recent development, and remains to be seen if it translates in to the way blacks are treated on the street)?

[ray .]

<p>What kind of similar incidents as the Oscar Grant killing have occurred where a caucasian was the victim? I'm sure there are some, but maybe somebody could point to a specific example or two. Straight question, I honestly don't know.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>What the heck are you talking about, Darius? Have you bothered to read the Nuremberg Laws? Do you know what they were?</p>

<p>Do you know ANYTHING about Oakland? Do you see government sanctioned systematic repression ordered from the top and embodied in law? Feel free to compare and contrast. Do you really know what a police state is?</p>

 

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Amin's Uganda, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc., all represent easily-identifiable bogeymen. we can point to them and say,well, we dont have concentration camps or killing fields, and feel better about our own countries (and our own culpability).</p>

<p>Except no one here (other than yourself) is pointing to bogeymen or concentration camps as the defining police state situation. That's naive in the extreme. Rather, it's about systematic governmental, repressive social control of it's citizens. Such as (and certainly not limited to) not being able to speak against your government openly without consequences, restrictions on where you live/work, loss of citizenship, loss of rights, travel restrictions, unable to associate freely with others, criminalizing marriage between religions/races, employing friends/relatives to spy on it's citizens, censorship, a state-run press that is not free and balanced, being relocated for "re-education," vanishing in the middle of the night, and on and on. </p>

<p>>>> >>> I'm not sure whether Barry is referring to my photo of a police officer loading tear gas pellets into his shotgun moments before firing them into a crowd of protestors as "totally dishonest" and "really bad propaganda." if so, then i guess the guy standing in front of the tanks in Tianamen Square would be really REALLY bad propaganda</p>

<p>Amazing... You're now comparing your photo above that requires explanation (with the loaded and irresponsible "death camp" comment) to the iconic photo of the lone man standing up to the Chinese tank that everyone around the world understood and respected without explanation. My...</p>

<p> <br>

>>> come to think of it, doesnt CNN and other MSM outlets showing the same guy jumping up and down on a police car over and over again create a "false sense" of what is happening, given that the overall tone of the numerous protests in Oakland since the Grant shooting have been peaceful and focused on demanding accountability?</p>

<p>Not true. Most of the video I saw on television was multi-dimensional with interviews and extensively covered the MANY peaceful protests; as well as the investigations into the shooting. There is no false sense of what happened. That's merely your view, one who holds the mainstream media in contempt to bolster their own position of getting it right. </p>

<p>Yet I've failed to see any balance or depth in your photos. Since you're criticizing the msm, and holding yourself out there as a citizen journalist who was actually there and saw what was "really" happened, shouldn't you be held to the same high standard as those you are criticizing? Doing otherwise would be very hypocritical. So, again, where are your photos showing what really happened that you you were eyewitness to?</p>

<p>IMO, the media you hold little regard for did a superb and balanced job. Covering all aspects and sides of the situation in great depth - which is what good journalism is about...</p>

<br />

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> . i shudder to think of Barry's reaction to the video showing Oscar Grant's death, if he thinks a shot depicting what actually happened in Oakland "creates a false sense" of actual events.</p>

<p>You shudder? Can't speak for Barry, but no doubt he's as outraged and disgusted with the shooting as everyone else; myself included. Pretty sad of you casting doubt and suggesting otherwise - especially since Barry didn't comment on that at all. An unwarranted cheap shot.</p>

<p>Once more, as I said way above, that cell phone video was an example of citizen journalism at it's FINEST.</p>

[ray .]

<p>feck, the press is composed of sensationalist ratings grabbers to a great degree... 99% of the press was waving the flag not questioning the US gov't getting into Iraq.. The public has virtually no access to what really went down in Iraq. Flag draped coffins not allowed to be photographed. What main stream media outlet has ever mentioned we killed up to a million Iraqis in that war? And there are restrictions on marriage in the US- witness prop 8 in California.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>Ray, I totally agree with you with respect to Iraq. </p>

<p>Did you see any of the extensive Oscar Grant coverage? Anything that you saw that you felt was unfair or biased?</p>

[ray .]

<p>saw the youtube video, and the clip above, which was well done..</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I was referring to 9:38. "With your city becoming a death camp....etc." It is B.S. period. It's insulting to victims of real "Death Camps". So if you want to be an honest journalist and use your photo in a journalistic vein, you should rain in your hyperbole because it cheapens and trivializes real police state and death camp situations. When every unfortunate incident becomes a harbinger of a death camp, or a police state, the narrative then basically obliterates the real meaning and any meaning the term once had. There have been and currently are real death camps and real police states. Oakland is not one of them.</p>

 

[colin carron]

<p>Here is an interesting article from Times Online. Stella Rimington (Former Head of MI5) says that the UK is being turned into a police state. I think if someone with that much experience of the inner workings of a country thinks this then it should give everyone pause for thought.</p>

<p>I used to think these extra security measures were necessary but now I think the balance has swung and we should be looking to preserve civil liberties. The threat from terrorism has always been marginal in the UK even with the IRA and Al Qaeda doing their worst. Instead we need to maintain the freedoms which our fathers and grandfathers fouht for. The cost of more security is just too high.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5750713.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5750713.ece</a></p>

[trex1]

<p>Colin, you hit the nail on the head. And you know what? I think the most brainwashed of all are the actual police themselves, both in the UK and in the States. People end up believing their own propaganda more than the people it is directed at. It will not be the first time Britain has been turned into a police state. It happened before at the turn of the 19th century, a grim period I made the mistake of taking a course in in college. Police states do not have to look like Nazi Germany.</p>

<p>The real problem, if you ask me, is politicians. People get into politics because they want to control others, and this incipient police statification is all part of that. They need boogey-men to control the public. In the 1950s the Democrats used Communism as a boogey man to get people to acquiesce in ever expanding control over their destinies by the US government. In the name of this boogey man, "Communism," the US was able to get people to pay collosal ammounts of their tax dollars into the creation of the Nuclear Security State, an affront to human dignity if ever there was one. People need to wake up and stop thinking the government is there to look after them and protect them. It seems more and more a kind of cancer that exists only to suck people's money and freedom from their very lives.</p>

<p>I sure hope Obama lives up to his promise of "change we can believe in..."</p>

<p>In any case, in the States, they need dupes to continue the con, you know, like WC Fields said "there's a new one born every minute" (a sucker that is). And in Britain, I think people are a little wiser, but more apathetic.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Brad, you are the Bill Laimbeer/Bruce Bowen of Internet posters. not only are you a cheap shot artist, but you confuse the issues, perhpas intentionally. it's well known that you have a soft spot for cops, so perhaps you should have disclosed your obvious bias from the start.</p>

<p>"Can't speak for Barry, but no doubt he's as outraged and disgusted with the shooting as everyone else; myself included."</p>

<p>can't speak for Barry, huh? you just did!</p>

<p>"Except no one here (other than yourself) is pointing to bogeymen or concentration camps as the defining police state situation. That's naive in the extreme."</p>

<p>well, actually, you started this with your Holocaust reference. perhaps you were unaware of the implications. but its hard to see how you could have meant anything else, as many others have pointed out.</p>

<p>"There is no false sense of what happened. That's merely your view, one who holds the mainstream media in contempt to bolster their own position of getting it right."</p>

<p>the biggest problem i have with this comment is that you keep insisting that you have a better understanding of what transpired from your living room than i had at ground zero.</p>

<p>"So, again, where are your photos showing what really happened that you you were eyewitness to?"</p>

<p>where are YOUR photos, Brad? oh, i forgot, you weren't there...</p>

<p>"You're now comparing your photo above that requires explanation (with the loaded and irresponsible "death camp" comment) to the iconic photo of the lone man standing up to the Chinese tank"</p>

<p>actually, it wasnt initally clear what photo Barry was referring to -- i thought he was talking about the one of the tear gas pellets being loaded. i'm thankful that Barry himself chimed in to clear this up; obviously, he didnt need you to speak for him.</p>

<p>About that photo/comment: in no way was it meant to diminish the actual experience of concentration camps, etc. And i can see how some might think it inflammatory, although there isn't the same standard for objectivity in Internet forums as there is in, say, submitting an article for publication.</p>

<p>Pardon me if i got a little passionate, but this BS has been going on for a long time; there were at least 15 officer-involved killings in Oakland in 2008, and the department is currently under two separate FBI investigations for falsifying search warrants and for the current head of Internal Affairs covering up his involvement in the death of a man due to injuries sustained by a police beating. In addition, it has come out that the OPD detective investigating the murder of journalist Chauncey Bailey had a connection (as yet undetermined) with the man who may have ordered the murder, and may have actually been complicit in the killing, as well as covering up relevant evidence which showed who ordered the "hit." maybe not a death camp per se, but certainly reason for concern about police abuse, to put it mildly.</p>

<p>But explaining the real reasons why Oakland is a deadly environment to many of its residents, and the role of police in that is apparently beyond the parameters of this forum or the comprehension of people who don't live in Oakland.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Well, I was just in Oakland all last weekend and no one was complaining about being in a police state....Also, I think I spoke for myself quite plainly so the statement by Brad is being used as a red-herring, not germaine to the subject at all. Again, facts and cogent argument based on reality would be better.<br>

Colin the artical you cited had a rather polymic headline that did not seem to reflect the fomer minister's actual words. The artical said, in pertinent part, ...<br>

"Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has accused the Government of exploiting people’s fear of terrorism to restrict civil rights."<br>

Ministers risked handing a victory to terrorists who want people to “live in fear and under a police state”, said the former spy, who retired as Director General of the Security Service in 1996."<br>

She does talk about the risk.. she said the government was wrongly restricting civil rights (I agree with this), she said it was the terrorists that are trying to have people living under fear and under a police state." I agree with this too. <br>

She didn't say U.K. is a police state, but warned of dangers to civil liberties. I have no beef with that, I do have a beef with the headline..it's false and leaped to conclusions not stated by the individual they are attributed it to. Almost as shoddy as the Oakland death camp reference above.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Let me also say, I didn't see the video. If it shows that a wrongful use of deadly force occured, i would be as horrified as the next person. Still doesn't make Oakland a "death camp".</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p ><strong>Anti-terror measures worldwide have seriously undermined international human rights law, a report by legal experts says.</strong><br>

After a three-year global study, the International Commission of Jurists said many states used the public's fear of terrorism to introduce measures.<br>

These included detention without trial, illegal disappearance and torture.<br>

<strong>It also said that the UK and the US have "actively undermined" international law by their actions.</strong><br>

BBC News today.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>I believe this is the article to which Graham Thompson refers:</p>

<p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7892387.stm</p>

<p>Note that the report mentioned in the article is available through this link.</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>this sounds like a retread from politico.com.</p>

<p>simple solution: VOTE!</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> well, actually, you started this with your Holocaust reference. perhaps you were unaware of the implications. but its hard to see how you could have meant anything else, as many others have pointed out.</p>

<p>It was very clear what I said: Go talk to a Holocaust survivor to get a feeling of what living in a police state is like. Somehow you are having great trouble understanding that language. If you have refugees from North Korea, or Honecker's E. Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, etc in your neighborhood, you can also talk to them.</p>

<p>>>> actually, it wasnt initally clear what photo Barry was referring to -- i thought he was talking about the one of the tear gas pellets being loaded. i'm thankful that Barry himself chimed in to clear this up; obviously, he didnt need you to speak for him.</p>

<p>Nice try on trying to confuse... I DID NOT speak for him on that point - read my 12:40 am comment above again. Rather your insinuation he would for some reason characterize the Oscar Grant cellphone video as creating a "false sense of actual events." Shameful suggestion on your part. BTW, Barry and I are friends and I understand his values; so no problem coming to a conclusion on my part.</p>

<p>>>> it's well known that you have a soft spot for cops, so perhaps you should have disclosed your obvious bias from the start.</p>

<p>I have a soft spot for all people that I snap on the street - many different professions, walks of life, races, etc. What bearing does that have on suggesting one talk to someone who has actually eperienced firsthand a real police state environment? Or challenging your assertion the mainstream media didn't get the real story; yet you did because you were an eyewitness and saw what really happened; yet have no photos showing what really happened. </p>

<p>Once more, and what this conversation is about, the mainstream media that you so dislike did a SUPERB job in it's Oscar Grant coverage. Especially the breadth covering all aspects over many days in many different environments.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p><br /></p>