Lets get more info from the professionals shallwe?
Graham Marsden, 06 Nov 2005 14:09:48
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> The message I'm getting about Liberty is that their policies and
> ethic are anti-porn, that porn is the lowest priority in free speech
> and that the Art 7 and 14 infringements, never mind the total absence
> of harm caused, is unlikely to persuade them to devote resources.
Why on earth would they think this??
If they support civil liberties they can't (or shouldn't) pick and
choose which liberties they will stand up for and which they won't!
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul Tavener, 06 Nov 2005 18:10:05
I have had a similar experience in the past with Liberty. Part of the problem is that the Government have no respect for fundamental rights and consequently there is wide spread carnage of rights in the UK and an awful lot for Liberty to do.
Another problem is that the group is strapped for cash so have to prioritise their work, but even then there does seem to be an anti porn element at work - the sort of rights we are fighting for are more important than the sort of rights you are attitude.
I once offered to join their group and run a campaign for them just using their name but they weren’t interested. Since then I have ignored them.
Author wrote:
> pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The message I'm getting about Liberty is that their policies and
> > ethic are anti-porn, that porn is the lowest priority in free speech
> > and that the Art 7 and 14 infringements, never mind the total absence
> > of harm caused, is unlikely to persuade them to devote resources.
> Why on earth would they think this??
> If they support civil liberties they can't (or shouldn't) pick and
> choose which liberties they will stand up for and which they won't!
> Cheers,
> Graham.
«No Name Set», 07 Nov 2005 00:02:24
One of the troubles with Liberty - the organisation otherwiseknown as NCCL=National Council for Civil Liberties, that is - isthat many of its members and affiliates sign up because they are
interested in specific single issues primarily, and want a nice
"respectable" umbrella organisation to pursue them under. So you
get the trade unions interested in trade union rights issues,the women's rights issue, the anti-racist people, the gay rightsgroups, the Northern Ireland would-be labour members, etc etc.There are plenty who can talk the rhetoric of general protectionof all our civil liberties/rights, and of course the staff haveto be thiking across the board, but most of the supporters areonly really interested in working on their own patch.
Rosemary
admin@ofwatch.org.uk writes:
I have had a similar experience in the past with Liberty. Part of the probl em is that the Government have no respect for fundamental rights and conseq ue
ntly there is wide spread carnage of rights in the UK and an awful lot fo r Liberty to do.
Another problem is that the group is strapped for cash so have to prioritis e their work, but even then there does seem to be an anti porn element at w or
k - the sort of rights we are fighting for are more important than the s ort of rights you areattitude.
I once offered to join their group and run a campaign for them just using t heir name but they weren’t interested. Since then I have ignored them.
Author wrote:
> pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The message I'm getting about Liberty is that their policies and
> > ethic are anti-porn, that porn is the lowest priority in free speech
> > and that the Art 7 and 14 infringements, never mind the total absence
> > of harm caused, is unlikely to persuade them to devote resources.
> Why on earth would they think this??
> If they support civil liberties they can't (or shouldn't) pick and
> choose which liberties they will stand up for and which they won't!
> Cheers,
> Graham.
--Rosemary