- Reaction score
- 25,255
- Points
- 1,090
I was speaking to the concept of applying laws to speech located elsewhere in the world.
Summer 2024: Rioting across UK cities
- Thread starter Blackadder1916
- Start date
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,940
- Points
- 1,040
Any Canadian government that handed a Canadian citizen over to a foreign government - or even attempted to - for a freedom-of-expression crime would deserve whatever punishment people sought fit to administer.
The simple rule of extradition in Canada is we will only extradite someone to face charges for conduct that is criminal in both countries. We also have a step where the court holds a hearing and assesses whether the evidence provided to Canada by the requesting country would be sufficient to bring the person to trial in Canada. The Brits could request extradition of someone for, for instance, willful promotion of hatred or advocating genocide, because those are offences here- though both have a pretty high bar. Simply saying things that are very offensive wouldn't cut it.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,949
- Points
- 1,140
The person subject to extradition from Canada must be facing a sentence of two years or more upon conviction in the receiving state. Also, Canada may refuse to extradite anyone to face charges which could put them in jeopardy of a death sentence.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,443
- Points
- 1,160
A selection of news releases from the UK Crown Prosecution Service referencing some of the on-line agitators as well as the thugs in the street. Swift procedure seems to be the order of the day.
- Reaction score
- 3,471
- Points
- 1,260
The Lucy Connolly case is interesting to watch, given the content in question mentions setting fire to hotels containing refugees.
uk.news.yahoo.com
The Brits best be careful not to apply a “if in doubt, round ‘em up” approach, but if that’s as reported, that’s not just taking the piss out of the government.
Tory councillor’s wife Lucy Connolly remanded in custody on racial hatred charges
Lucy Connolly is accused of stirring up racial hatred on the day three children were killed in Southport
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 969
- Points
- 810
Jailing people for comments like that on social media is likely not a good solution. It’s probable that the overall government will continue to ignore a significant social issue and the purported solution will only clamp down the lid of a pressure cooker making the next explosion even worse by further reducing any trust in government and the national institutions. The issues outlined in the already mentioned article here, won’t be improved by this response.
An authoritarian response to legitimate concerns that have been ignored and poo pooed by a bipartisan consensus for decades is not a good solution.
We can all decry the comments and violence and say it’s not acceptable but we must also then consider what the people’s options are if their concerns are not addressed by any stripe of political party. A rush to authoritarianism will be akin to destroying the nation in order to save it if societies are not careful.
Andrew MacDougall: The long, hard road that brought Britain to these riots
What explains the chaos on British streets? There's a long and a short answer to that. Here's both.www.readtheline.ca
An authoritarian response to legitimate concerns that have been ignored and poo pooed by a bipartisan consensus for decades is not a good solution.
We can all decry the comments and violence and say it’s not acceptable but we must also then consider what the people’s options are if their concerns are not addressed by any stripe of political party. A rush to authoritarianism will be akin to destroying the nation in order to save it if societies are not careful.
- Reaction score
- 3,471
- Points
- 1,260
1000% That said ....
... is there a case to be made that the eye should be drawn to specific cases of "burn 'em in their hotels," "death to the capitalists" or "death to the infidels" and the like? I think we should jump on them all equally, and agree that if one is jumped on, all should be jumped on.
And you've also hit the nail on the head re: radicalization of all kinds: how do you dial down someone who feels fucked over by the system, and doesn't see solutions within the system, but can be influences by simple (too simple?) answers via social media? That IS a harder problem to solve, and it won't be solved by "if in doubt, lock 'em up" approaches.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 969
- Points
- 810
Dialing down individuals is one thing, we may be moving towards seeing political elites trying to dial down portions of society that are very large minorities and who have support of border line majorities although they are still silent.
Arresting, imprisoning and criminalizing the citizens whose tolerance of the system was exceeded first but whose overall sentiments are shared and supported if not their exact actions by a large segment of society will not end well for the nation if the political class fails to recognize that will of the people.
Arrests and convictions may serve to temporarily restore order but unless it’s accompanied by changes in politics and government policies it’s likely only temporary as we aren’t just dealing with individuals but now entire aspects of society.
It requires a fundamental shift in how the problem is approached, ie a problem of radicalized individuals vs a problem of a political and government system that has lost the consent of the people.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,728
- Points
- 1,160
Jailing people for calls for acts of violence on social media is the solution. It's akin to the old analogy of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. The fact that these are right-wingers who feel they have been ignored for decades is no excuse. Ones who feel they have not only been ignored by the system and need to take matters to the streets are the biggest threat. The fact that they feel that their position is legitimate is immaterial to the rightness of their actions. It only increases the likelihood of violent actions.
I've started this by saying "right-wingers" because that's what is occupying the streets in the UK at this time. It seems only proper and fair that the same standards be applied to the left-wingers or religious zealots who make the same calls for violence on social media or even ones who deface works of historic art or impedes the right of way of the public on highways, railroads or public facilities. The rights of a society to function peacefully and undisturbed should be paramount.
A government that ignores one faction over another based on cultural, religious or racial grounds is failing its own society. The solution for such a government, or its security forces is to vote them out of office, not to take to the streets.
I've started this by saying "right-wingers" because that's what is occupying the streets in the UK at this time. It seems only proper and fair that the same standards be applied to the left-wingers or religious zealots who make the same calls for violence on social media or even ones who deface works of historic art or impedes the right of way of the public on highways, railroads or public facilities. The rights of a society to function peacefully and undisturbed should be paramount.
A government that ignores one faction over another based on cultural, religious or racial grounds is failing its own society. The solution for such a government, or its security forces is to vote them out of office, not to take to the streets.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 969
- Points
- 810
The entire argument of any violence not being acceptable rests on there being a replacement political entity that people can support and a clear viable path to power for it inside the democratic process.
That is significant precondition that we can’t ignore if we want violence to remain off limits.
You would be largely correct - but you miss one crucial fact:Jailing people for calls for acts of violence on social media is the solution. It's akin to the old analogy of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. The fact that these are right-wingers who feel they have been ignored for decades is no excuse. Ones who feel they have not only been ignored by the system and need to take matters to the streets are the biggest threat. The fact that they feel that their position is legitimate is immaterial to the rightness of their actions. It only increases the likelihood of violent actions.
I've started this by saying "right-wingers" because that's what is occupying the streets in the UK at this time. It seems only proper and fair that the same standards be applied to the left-wingers or religious zealots who make the same calls for violence on social media or even ones who deface works of historic art or impedes the right of way of the public on highways, railroads or public facilities. The rights of a society to function peacefully and undisturbed should be paramount.
A government that ignores one faction over another based on cultural, religious or racial grounds is failing its own society. The solution for such a government, or its security forces is to vote them out of office, not to take to the streets.
The UK just had an election about 5 weeks ago. In that election the public kicked the Tories out of office because that party had refused to reduce mass immigration to manageable levels and get control of illegal immigration. The Labour party were elected with a historically low winning margin of a historically low turnout.
Since being elected, Labour have signalled that they will follow the Tory plan, and spread the (unvetted) illegals around towns and villages up and down the UK, putting them in taxpayer-paid accomodation. Legal immigration is to be kept at about 700,000 (net) per year.
The resultant outrage was predictable - and it was made considerably worse by Starmer announcing the de facto criminalization of dissent.
The British are reacting like they are in large part because they cannot vote their way out of the problem.
Last edited:
Exactly.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,124
- Points
- 1,140
100% agree. Canada is far too tolerant of people advocating violence - the governments are scared of being branded "racist" or "Intolerant".. It seems only proper and fair that the same standards be applied to the left-wingers or religious zealots who make the same calls for violence on social media or even ones who deface works of historic art or impedes the right of way of the public on highways, railroads or public facilities. The rights of a society to function peacefully and undisturbed should be paramount.
A government that ignores one faction over another based on cultural, religious or racial grounds is failing its own society. The solution for such a government, or its security forces is to vote them out of office, not to take to the streets.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 29,583
- Points
- 1,160
Something to note:
"Whatever the instigators of the riots want their compatriots to believe, Britain is more successful at integrating immigrants than any other country in Europe. Every ethnic group has consistently become less segregated since the census started keeping track in 1991."
IT IS HARD to think of a worse way to remember the three little girls murdered in Southport on July 29th. Ever since that tragedy, indefensible anti-immigration protests have flared across England. Mosques and police officers have been attacked. In Rotherham criminals tried to set fire to a hotel they thought was housing asylum-seekers. Town centres up and down the country have been marred by street battles.
Disturbances of this sort occasionally disfigure British cities. Many of the troublemakers over the past few days have been youngsters drawn by the thrill of mindless violence rather than by a sinister political ideology. Anti-immigrant protesters have sometimes been heavily outnumbered by anti-fascist counter-protesters. Britain is an increasingly liberal country; it has not suddenly become a racist one.
Yet even if this bout of violence fades away, as the London riots did in 2011, the disorder has illuminated three concerns. The first centres on the state of Britain’s criminal-justice system. Mistrust of the police has grown in recent years: less than half of people now think their local force is doing a good or excellent job, down from 63% ten years ago. Britain’s judicial machinery has been badly gummed up since the covid-19 pandemic. Prisons are overflowing and unable to cope with an influx of new inmates. A system that does not command the confidence of the public is more liable to see bad behaviour.
Another concern is the prevalence and power of misinformation. The spark for the first riot, which took place in Southport the day after the murders, was a lie on social media, claiming that the girls’ attacker had been a Muslim who had arrived in Britain illegally on a small boat and who was on a terror watch-list. In fact, the 17-year-old charged with the crime was born to Rwandan parents in Britain.
Many of the wild claims that fire up anti-immigrant protesters are simply untrue. One belief is that senior officers practise “two-tier policing” in which white people are treated less fairly than ethnic minorities. But that is nonsense. In the year ending in March 2023, the police carried out 24.5 stop-and-searches for every 1,000 black people and 5.9 for every 1,000 white people. The story that participants in a separate riot in Leeds in July escaped justice because they were Roma is also wrong; so far there have been at least 27 arrests. Perhaps some people are genuinely gulled by these falsehoods, perhaps they spread them knowing well that they are false. Either way, the truth often seems to count for less than lies that confirm people’s prejudices.
The last concern is that immigration has become a running sore in British politics. The problem is a poisonous mix of real problems and divisive opportunism. The asylum system really is a mess. Politicians are indeed without an easy way to deal with illegal immigration. At the same time, however, gimmicky promises to “stop the boats” are bound to end in disappointment—and thereby feed the belief that immigration is out of control. Dogwhistle language from the likes of Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, about “societal decline” provides cover for hostility to migrants. It would therefore be unwise to treat the riots as if they were a one-off event that can be forgotten as soon as they die down.
The Labour government’s response to the riots needs to be alive to all of these concerns. The prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is right to condemn the use and threat of violence, but he must also face up to the erosion of the state’s capacity to police and punish wrongdoing. That means investing more in the criminal-justice system, which is currently due to see real-terms cuts.
The threat of misinformation requires a faster and more honest response from police and tech platforms. The police have not yet adjusted to the speed with which posts on social media can turn into trouble on the streets. It took them several hours to rebut the rumours about the identity of the Southport attacker. The social-media platforms themselves continue to fall badly short on their promises to stop falsehoods circulating during emergencies.
And the likelihood that immigration will remain a contentious topic requires the prime minister to strike a difficult rhetorical balance. Rather than demonising everyone who takes part in protests, as if they were part of a single movement, he should aim to split far-right agitators and violent thugs from people who are open to politics as usual.
Part of that strategy is to be unequivocal in his condemnation of violence. The handful of people who threaten lives by hurling bricks and lighting fires should face robust action to deter others. Another part of the strategy is to have no truck with lies about two-tier policing. But part also involves hard work long after the riots are over and the debris has been swept away, to talk to local communities about immigration.
Whatever the instigators of the riots want their compatriots to believe, Britain is more successful at integrating immigrants than any other country in Europe. Every ethnic group has consistently become less segregated since the census started keeping track in 1991. Immigrants with foreign qualifications have almost exactly the same employment rate as those with domestic qualifications. The story the far-right tells is not the real one—and the government needs to make that clear. ■
www.economist.com
"Whatever the instigators of the riots want their compatriots to believe, Britain is more successful at integrating immigrants than any other country in Europe. Every ethnic group has consistently become less segregated since the census started keeping track in 1991."
How to respond to the riots on Britain’s streets
The violence demands robust policing, but it also requires cool heads
IT IS HARD to think of a worse way to remember the three little girls murdered in Southport on July 29th. Ever since that tragedy, indefensible anti-immigration protests have flared across England. Mosques and police officers have been attacked. In Rotherham criminals tried to set fire to a hotel they thought was housing asylum-seekers. Town centres up and down the country have been marred by street battles.
Disturbances of this sort occasionally disfigure British cities. Many of the troublemakers over the past few days have been youngsters drawn by the thrill of mindless violence rather than by a sinister political ideology. Anti-immigrant protesters have sometimes been heavily outnumbered by anti-fascist counter-protesters. Britain is an increasingly liberal country; it has not suddenly become a racist one.
Yet even if this bout of violence fades away, as the London riots did in 2011, the disorder has illuminated three concerns. The first centres on the state of Britain’s criminal-justice system. Mistrust of the police has grown in recent years: less than half of people now think their local force is doing a good or excellent job, down from 63% ten years ago. Britain’s judicial machinery has been badly gummed up since the covid-19 pandemic. Prisons are overflowing and unable to cope with an influx of new inmates. A system that does not command the confidence of the public is more liable to see bad behaviour.
Another concern is the prevalence and power of misinformation. The spark for the first riot, which took place in Southport the day after the murders, was a lie on social media, claiming that the girls’ attacker had been a Muslim who had arrived in Britain illegally on a small boat and who was on a terror watch-list. In fact, the 17-year-old charged with the crime was born to Rwandan parents in Britain.
Many of the wild claims that fire up anti-immigrant protesters are simply untrue. One belief is that senior officers practise “two-tier policing” in which white people are treated less fairly than ethnic minorities. But that is nonsense. In the year ending in March 2023, the police carried out 24.5 stop-and-searches for every 1,000 black people and 5.9 for every 1,000 white people. The story that participants in a separate riot in Leeds in July escaped justice because they were Roma is also wrong; so far there have been at least 27 arrests. Perhaps some people are genuinely gulled by these falsehoods, perhaps they spread them knowing well that they are false. Either way, the truth often seems to count for less than lies that confirm people’s prejudices.
The last concern is that immigration has become a running sore in British politics. The problem is a poisonous mix of real problems and divisive opportunism. The asylum system really is a mess. Politicians are indeed without an easy way to deal with illegal immigration. At the same time, however, gimmicky promises to “stop the boats” are bound to end in disappointment—and thereby feed the belief that immigration is out of control. Dogwhistle language from the likes of Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, about “societal decline” provides cover for hostility to migrants. It would therefore be unwise to treat the riots as if they were a one-off event that can be forgotten as soon as they die down.
The Labour government’s response to the riots needs to be alive to all of these concerns. The prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is right to condemn the use and threat of violence, but he must also face up to the erosion of the state’s capacity to police and punish wrongdoing. That means investing more in the criminal-justice system, which is currently due to see real-terms cuts.
The threat of misinformation requires a faster and more honest response from police and tech platforms. The police have not yet adjusted to the speed with which posts on social media can turn into trouble on the streets. It took them several hours to rebut the rumours about the identity of the Southport attacker. The social-media platforms themselves continue to fall badly short on their promises to stop falsehoods circulating during emergencies.
And the likelihood that immigration will remain a contentious topic requires the prime minister to strike a difficult rhetorical balance. Rather than demonising everyone who takes part in protests, as if they were part of a single movement, he should aim to split far-right agitators and violent thugs from people who are open to politics as usual.
Part of that strategy is to be unequivocal in his condemnation of violence. The handful of people who threaten lives by hurling bricks and lighting fires should face robust action to deter others. Another part of the strategy is to have no truck with lies about two-tier policing. But part also involves hard work long after the riots are over and the debris has been swept away, to talk to local communities about immigration.
Whatever the instigators of the riots want their compatriots to believe, Britain is more successful at integrating immigrants than any other country in Europe. Every ethnic group has consistently become less segregated since the census started keeping track in 1991. Immigrants with foreign qualifications have almost exactly the same employment rate as those with domestic qualifications. The story the far-right tells is not the real one—and the government needs to make that clear. ■
How to respond to the riots on Britain’s streets
The violence demands robust policing, but it also requires cool heads
"Every ethnic group has consistently become less segregated since the census started keeping track in 1991"Something to note:
"Whatever the instigators of the riots want their compatriots to believe, Britain is more successful at integrating immigrants than any other country in Europe. Every ethnic group has consistently become less segregated since the census started keeping track in 1991."
How to respond to the riots on Britain’s streets
The violence demands robust policing, but it also requires cool heads
IT IS HARD to think of a worse way to remember the three little girls murdered in Southport on July 29th. Ever since that tragedy, indefensible anti-immigration protests have flared across England. Mosques and police officers have been attacked. In Rotherham criminals tried to set fire to a hotel they thought was housing asylum-seekers. Town centres up and down the country have been marred by street battles.
Disturbances of this sort occasionally disfigure British cities. Many of the troublemakers over the past few days have been youngsters drawn by the thrill of mindless violence rather than by a sinister political ideology. Anti-immigrant protesters have sometimes been heavily outnumbered by anti-fascist counter-protesters. Britain is an increasingly liberal country; it has not suddenly become a racist one.
Yet even if this bout of violence fades away, as the London riots did in 2011, the disorder has illuminated three concerns. The first centres on the state of Britain’s criminal-justice system. Mistrust of the police has grown in recent years: less than half of people now think their local force is doing a good or excellent job, down from 63% ten years ago. Britain’s judicial machinery has been badly gummed up since the covid-19 pandemic. Prisons are overflowing and unable to cope with an influx of new inmates. A system that does not command the confidence of the public is more liable to see bad behaviour.
Another concern is the prevalence and power of misinformation. The spark for the first riot, which took place in Southport the day after the murders, was a lie on social media, claiming that the girls’ attacker had been a Muslim who had arrived in Britain illegally on a small boat and who was on a terror watch-list. In fact, the 17-year-old charged with the crime was born to Rwandan parents in Britain.
Many of the wild claims that fire up anti-immigrant protesters are simply untrue. One belief is that senior officers practise “two-tier policing” in which white people are treated less fairly than ethnic minorities. But that is nonsense. In the year ending in March 2023, the police carried out 24.5 stop-and-searches for every 1,000 black people and 5.9 for every 1,000 white people. The story that participants in a separate riot in Leeds in July escaped justice because they were Roma is also wrong; so far there have been at least 27 arrests. Perhaps some people are genuinely gulled by these falsehoods, perhaps they spread them knowing well that they are false. Either way, the truth often seems to count for less than lies that confirm people’s prejudices.
The last concern is that immigration has become a running sore in British politics. The problem is a poisonous mix of real problems and divisive opportunism. The asylum system really is a mess. Politicians are indeed without an easy way to deal with illegal immigration. At the same time, however, gimmicky promises to “stop the boats” are bound to end in disappointment—and thereby feed the belief that immigration is out of control. Dogwhistle language from the likes of Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, about “societal decline” provides cover for hostility to migrants. It would therefore be unwise to treat the riots as if they were a one-off event that can be forgotten as soon as they die down.
The Labour government’s response to the riots needs to be alive to all of these concerns. The prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is right to condemn the use and threat of violence, but he must also face up to the erosion of the state’s capacity to police and punish wrongdoing. That means investing more in the criminal-justice system, which is currently due to see real-terms cuts.
The threat of misinformation requires a faster and more honest response from police and tech platforms. The police have not yet adjusted to the speed with which posts on social media can turn into trouble on the streets. It took them several hours to rebut the rumours about the identity of the Southport attacker. The social-media platforms themselves continue to fall badly short on their promises to stop falsehoods circulating during emergencies.
And the likelihood that immigration will remain a contentious topic requires the prime minister to strike a difficult rhetorical balance. Rather than demonising everyone who takes part in protests, as if they were part of a single movement, he should aim to split far-right agitators and violent thugs from people who are open to politics as usual.
Part of that strategy is to be unequivocal in his condemnation of violence. The handful of people who threaten lives by hurling bricks and lighting fires should face robust action to deter others. Another part of the strategy is to have no truck with lies about two-tier policing. But part also involves hard work long after the riots are over and the debris has been swept away, to talk to local communities about immigration.
Whatever the instigators of the riots want their compatriots to believe, Britain is more successful at integrating immigrants than any other country in Europe. Every ethnic group has consistently become less segregated since the census started keeping track in 1991. Immigrants with foreign qualifications have almost exactly the same employment rate as those with domestic qualifications. The story the far-right tells is not the real one—and the government needs to make that clear. ■
How to respond to the riots on Britain’s streets
The violence demands robust policing, but it also requires cool heads
I'm not sure what metric is being used to state this - but spending any appreciable time in either London or Birmingham, Blackburn, Leeds or a long list of other of the northern industrial cities will quickly reveal that this is demonstrably not the case for all ethnic groups.
Some groups have integrated well into the wider UK society - others have definitely not.
The problem is that the government saying something is true in no way magically makes it true.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 969
- Points
- 810
That speaks to a fundamental problem for governments now. There is a percentage of citizens that don’t believe their government. In fact they believe their governments are active practitioners of disinformation at worst and mal information at best.
Regardless of which came first, lack of trust in government, misinformation, disinformation and mal information now feed each other.
Politicians of most all stripes practice mal information now as a matter of course and few media outlets present pure facts separately from a narrative driven by ideological bias.
None of this helps, and I suspect that a growing number of citizens in western countries now simply believe nothing they can’t personally perceive and experience
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,728
- Points
- 1,160
So if an element of the Palestinian people in Canada cannot see a viable path to power in this country inside the democratic process, then they are entitled to use acts of violence to cause change. Am I reading you right?
So rather than form a new political party (or find one that will do what they want) and build both public consensus and win the next election, people are now justified to taking to the streets like petulant children and burn buildings and cars and beat up strangers in the streets. Part of representative government is to elect people that represent what the majority (or plurality - whichever) of the people want. Then you let them represent you with whatever legitimate advocacy you can bring to bear. Violence isn't that and deserves criminal sanctions.
Last edited:
I think you don't really understand the political system in the UK. Only two parties can realistically hope to form a government: Labour or the Tories.So if an element of the Palestinian people in Canada cannot see a viable path to power in this country inside the democratic process, then they are entitled to use acts of violence to cause change. Am I reading you right?
So rather than form a new political party )or find one that will do what they want) and build both public consensus and win the next election, people are now justified to taking to the streets like petulant children and burn buildings and cars and beat up strangers in the streets. Part of representative government is to elect people that represent what the majority (or plurality - whichever) of the people want. Then you let them represent you with whatever legitimate advocacy you can bring to bear. Violence isn't that and deserves criminal sanctions.
There are other parties on the peripheries, two of the more significant being the Liberal Democrats and the brand new Reform party.
Reform is the only party that looks likely to actually tackle the illegal immigration problem, and significantly reduce legal immigration to a more manageble number, maybe 100,000 per year - and Reform did receive a bit more than 4 million votes in the election last month.
The problem there is that the system is designed in large part to avoid any party other than Labour or the Tories winning.
As an example, in the most recent election, the Liberal Dems secured 12% of the vote and 72 seats while Reform took 14%, but only five seats.
So there is indeed quite a large disconnect between what kind of policies people want and what kind they get.
I don't think anyone is justified in resorting to violence or promoting violence - I also don't think the current UK government has any authority to criminalize quite legitimate criticism of itself.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 969
- Points
- 810
I am not stating that anyone is or is not entitled to use acts of violence to cause change. I’m stating that regardless of what we might think, if people don’t see a way that is at least plausible to achieve their goals that will lead to significant social and political consequences, whether protests, building a new party, civil disobedience or at the far end yes outright violence.
A few individual’s conducting civil disobedience or violence is a relatively simple issue that can be addressed by the police and criminal justice system. A majority of the population is a radically different problem, that will likely lead to insurrections and civil wars if not addressed by the political system and class.
I would caveat this slightly in terms of the discussion. I think we are generally talking about a functional liberal democracy with a representative government. It is possible that a representative government with a majority could in fact take a path that could be highly immoral and which could justifiably be opposed by force.
To be clear I don’t think that the UK nor any western nation is in such a state but I am not inclined to dismiss what seems to be a global move towards authoritarianism across large segments of various societies.
Similar threads
- Locked
