Japanese State Secrets Bill

Oxenstierna · Post by **Oxenstierna** » 06 Dec 2013, 19:36

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-0 ... red-hitler

I wonder how much this has been designed to try to silence people who are asking questions about Fukushima?

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 06 Dec 2013, 20:18

Heard on radio today that s.africa has/will pass a secrecy bill too. Seems to be a trend: when the going gets tough, the weak shit their pants, and decide democracy isn't a good idea after all.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 06 Dec 2013, 20:31

Any more questions like that and you'll be doing time.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Dec 2013, 07:43

Maybe it's nothing to with Fukushima, more to do with something else. This could mean !!BOOM!! time for China, or

!!BOOM!! time for Japan.

Some history.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 12 Dec 2013, 06:48

Perhaps the UK government is little better.

At the Imperial College of London, undercover investigators discovered rats being beheaded with guillotines and having their necks broken after experiments. This animal cruelty is bad enough. But even worse, because of Britain's secrecy laws, countless other instances of abuse may be taking place with no one the wiser.

The Freedom of Information Act, which was passed in 2000, should mean that Brits get access to exactly what their tax money is paying for. But many people don't know that there are secrecy clauses that make it a crime to talk about animal experimentation -- no matter how disgusting it is.

Thanks to Section 24, a clause embedded within the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, anyone who talks about the details of animal experiments, even to Parlia ment, risks two' years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Meanwhile, it's perfectly legal to give brain damage to a monkey or force-feed chemicals to dogs until they become sick and collapse. We need to get our priorities straight.

Tell the government to review "Section 24" and allow the public and Parliament to hold labs accountable for their animal cruelty!

received in email from www.care2.com

Oxenstierna · Post by **Oxenstierna** » 14 Dec 2013, 11:54

I'm sure the UK Government is little better - maybe even worse.
Just read this - apparently, campaigning for a republic could be technically illegal...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013 ... e-ministry

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 14 Dec 2013, 16:13

A good job it is. Having a monarcy does reduce the power that undesirable power mongers like Tony Blair and Geo- sorry Gideon Osborne might otherwise have. There are many republics controlled by dictators. Is that what you want?

Oxenstierna · Post by **Oxenstierna** » 15 Dec 2013, 11:19

A good job it is. Having a monarcy does reduce the power that undesirable power mongers like Tony Blair and Geo- sorry Gideon Osborne might otherwise have. There are many republics controlled by dictators. Is that what you want?

So, you think it's ok to suppress political debate using the law under the pretext that we might end up under a dictatorship. Suppressing political debate... isn't that what dictators do?

Also, I'd be interested to learn quite how the monarchy has reduced the "undesirable power" of people like Tony Blair and Osborne. Got any concrete examples?

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 15 Dec 2013, 14:06

Don't tell me what I think. I have no interest in discussions with bullying undertones. Two arch bullies have left recently, unfortunately they'll probably return.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 16 Dec 2013, 14:40

woodburner wrote:A good job it is. Having a monarcy does reduce the power that undesirable power mongers like Tony Blair and Geo- sorry Gideon Osborne might otherwise have. There are many republics controlled by dictators. Is that what you want?

The monarchy is just as self-serving as any PM has been, look at all the interference in legislation to their own benefit. The sooner we can boot them out and replace them with someone elected (and removable) the better.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 16 Dec 2013, 14:48

Mugabe? Kim Jong Un? Vladmir Putin? Bashar al-Assad?...............Let's have an election.

Murf · Post by **Murf** » 16 Dec 2013, 15:13

woodburner wrote:Don't tell me what I think. I have no interest in discussions with bullying undertones. Two arch bullies have left recently, unfortunately they'll probably return.

Have I missed something here? Who was being a bully?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 16 Dec 2013, 15:36

Murf wrote:
woodburner wrote:Two arch bullies have left recently, unfortunately they'll probably return.
Have I missed something here? Who was being a bully?

He comes across as very sensitive does our wb, bless him. Not a criticism btw: a compliment.

I believe he may be referring to Steve Cook and Undercover Elephant, though I may be wrong. I wouldn't have called them bullies ('arch' is a very good word for them though). Sensitive in a slightly different way, more like.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 16 Dec 2013, 16:16

emordnilap wrote:He comes across as very sensitive does our wb, bless him. Not a criticism btw: a compliment.

Maybe not sensitive, but I do expect (forlorn hope perhaps) that people on forums treat others' views with some amount of respect, rather than "My view is the only truth". (Except for me of course

)