←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.251s | source
Show context
torginus ◴[] No.45011561[source]
I genuinely do not understand where how the idea of building a total surveillance police state, where all speech is monitored, can even as much as seriously be considered by an allegedly pro-democracy, pro-human rights government, much less make it into law.

Also:

Step 1: Build mass surveillance to prevent the 'bad guys' from coming into political power (its ok, we're the good guys).

Step 2: Your political opponents capitalize on your genuinely horrific overreach, and legitimize themselves in the eyes of the public as fighting against tyranny (unfortunately for you they do have a point). They promise to dismantle the system if coming to power.

Step 3: They get elected.

Step 4: They don't dismantle the system, now the people you planned to use the system against are using it against you.

Sounds brilliant, lets do this.

replies(17): >>45011763 #>>45011799 #>>45011932 #>>45012205 #>>45012358 #>>45012512 #>>45012976 #>>45013249 #>>45013303 #>>45013857 #>>45014035 #>>45014477 #>>45014527 #>>45014559 #>>45016358 #>>45020627 #>>45021408 #
shazbotter ◴[] No.45013857[source]
Simple. The UK is not a pro democracy, pro human rights state.

It might be uncomfortable to admit this, but if your government is a police state that's pretty much mutually exclusive with being a pro human rights state.

replies(3): >>45013945 #>>45014086 #>>45015598 #
femiagbabiaka ◴[] No.45015598[source]
Yeah this applies to nearly all of Europe IMO. Recent events show that the American Bill of Rights is definitely not a panacea, but at least there's some legal standing to push back against Orwellian measure like those put in place by the UK or the EU.
replies(2): >>45015869 #>>45016658 #
tensor ◴[] No.45016658[source]
Given the current situation in the US, it's a huge cautionary tale for how not to do democracy. To non-ironically hold it up as an example at this point of time is truly amazing. No, the rest of us don't want current US style dictatorship in our countries.

While the EU certainly has its issues, its protection of democracy is still one of the best in the world. Democracy is something we need to keep working towards. There is not one simple set of rules that will keep it healthy, at least as far as recently history shows.

replies(2): >>45017020 #>>45018112 #
femiagbabiaka ◴[] No.45018112[source]
> While the EU certainly has its issues, its protection of democracy is still one of the best in the world.

Don’t let defensiveness lead you to say nonsensical things. Nearly every single country in the EU has a worse-than-trumpian party waiting in the wings, or even in power, see Hungary. Ascribing some sort of special property to the EU, a region with absolutely terrible standards for personal liberty, because at the moment there is more respect for liberal democracy there than elsewhere.. well it’s just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

replies(1): >>45018186 #
1. tensor ◴[] No.45018186[source]
Yes, but many places in the EU use proportional representation or something close to it, so even if those parties gain significant traction, there is still protection as they are forced to work together with the rest of the parties.

In contrast, my own country Canada is far more at risk of the rise of an authoritarian adjacent party. A party with majority control has too much power here, and lack of proportional representation also means that majority control can be achieved with less than 50% of the voting population supporting you.

This is why I say the EU has better protections. The existence of parties that want more authoritarian control shouldn't be a measure of the health of a democratic system. In fact, somehow forcing these parties out would be pretty against the principles of democracy and free speech.

I do suppose its worth asking the question of whether democracy should allow the voting down of democracy itself, but I don't think the EU is at risk of that as a whole, even if a few member states are.