Tyranny

"A tyrant is a man who allows his people no freedom. Who is puffed up by pride, driven by the lust of power, impelled by greed, provoked by thirst for fame."

I live in Britain. London is the capital city. Tony Blair is the elected leader of the country, despite my efforts. London got bombed, and then some nuts botched a copycat attack two weeks later. And the elected leader of this fair country responds by saying...

That religious extremists should be deported.

I know we have no constitution in this country; I've always held that it's because we shouldn't need one. If you actually need to write it down in law that people can't be locked up for speaking their minds, you have a very tentative kind of freedom; the sort that is easily re-written. Unwritten freedom is the best, in my view; it's ingrained on your consciousness, and on your conscience, and there's no way to twist out of it.
Now I'm not so sure. Now I think that having it written down in solid stone, letters twenty feet high, plated in gold and set at perfect eye level for the prime minister of this country, would be a mere hint.

You can not do that. You can not say that anybody you think is inciting other people to acts of terrorism should be thrown out of the country. Okay, you can say it, but not if you are the guy in charge, because what you say stands a good chance of becoming what you do.
It's sending shivers down my spine.

Where would it stop? Where would the line be drawn? How dark would we let the grey area get before we're standing very firmly in the black?
Muslim extremists like Abu Hamza? A guy with one eye, a hook for a hand, that extols the virtues of Osama Bin Laden? Yeah, okay, throw him out.
People that have listened to him speaking? After all, they wouldn't listen if they didn't agree, and if they agree then they're a threat.
What about their families? The followers will have spread their opinions, and it's better safe than sorry.
And to make sure the Muslims don't feel victimised, how about some of the nuttier Christians that constantly go on about the immorality of our society?
And the people that have listened to them?
And their families?
What about the people that feel we should perhaps listen to these people, if only to find out what the problem is and try to fix it? They're sympathisers , after all.
So what about the people that criticise the government and its policies of bombing the hell out of people they don't like and victimising entire societies because they got stuck with a bastard as ruler? That's sowing discord, that's incitement; somebody might listen to that and take matters into their own hands and try to blow up Parliament, mightn't they?

How far would it go? How far into the dark would we travel before somebody suggests it might have gone too far?

To have a free society you have to take a few risks. To allow the reasonable majority freedoms, you have to allow the same freedoms to the unreasonable minority. The nuts have to be allowed to be nuts. Right now, the threat of terrorism is the price we're paying, but it's worth it. To have the right to think freely, and speak freely, it's worth having to let a few psychos join in. A free society requires faith in people to be decent human beings, and most of them won't let you down in a big way. But to chase the minority that will, you have to infringe on the freedom of all, and that price is too high.

I don't like the way this country is going right now. I really, truly don't.