3 ms·

I don't know much about CAGE, and my Googling isn't proving to be terribly enlightening (yet), but: The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one

I don't know much about CAGE, and my Googling isn't proving to be terribly enlightening (yet), but: The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

foldr 9y ago
That's true but not really relevant to the video that I linked to. The issue is that CAGE has at times crossed the line into offering support for what the scoundrels are doing, rather than just defending their legal rights. For example, Asim Qureshi still has kind words for Mohammed Emwazi even after he committed beheadings. As I said, I am not in favour of the security services having these powers. However, from the fact that the powers are excessive and unjust, it does not follow that all of the people targeted are innocent victims.
- bmelton 9y ago
  They may well have. After watching the video you linked, it seems that there is a very blurry, very nuanced line between supporting the rights of the offender and supporting the offenses, and listening to that interview with a blank-slate understanding of the matter, it seemed as though they were mostly talking past each other. Again though, my knowledge is short on the subject, but the Mencken quote felt an appropriate addenda to the video you linked, from a variety of ways. Remember that even if CAGE organizers are sympathetic to the goals of those they defend, once they've defended them, they're still defending civil rights.
  - foldr 9y ago
    It's not a blurry line at all. You defend their legal rights, but you don't support terrorism.
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    That interview was a shambles. It's true that in order to protect rights in general you have to defend shady people - however when asked if you agree with FGM/stoning for adultery/homosexuality is evil/etc. your answer should be a point blank, "No". He had valid points at the beginning of the interview but when pressed he doesn't make himself look very good. >> Remember that even if CAGE organizers are sympathetic to the goals of those they defend, once they've defended them, they're still defending civil rights. While this is a valid point in general, it is not in this context of showing schedule 7 to be overreaching. If the man in the article works for the CAGE and they actually are known as sympathetic to the goals of terrorists it makes perfect sense to detain him after he returns from a 'work' trip as there are likely valid, evidence based suspicions for it.
- laumars 9y ago
  What ever happened to being innocent until proven guilty? Besides if he wasn't innocent then there would be a crime that he could be charged for and/or a warrant produced to search his devices.
  - foldr 9y ago
    >As I said, I am not in favour of the security services having these powers.

foldr 9y ago

That's true but not really relevant to the video that I linked to. The issue is that CAGE has at times crossed the line into offering support for what the scoundrels are doing, rather than just defending their legal rights. For example, Asim Qureshi still has kind words for Mohammed Emwazi even after he committed beheadings. As I said, I am not in favour of the security services having these powers. However, from the fact that the powers are excessive and unjust, it does not follow that all of the people targeted are innocent victims.

bmelton 9y ago
They may well have. After watching the video you linked, it seems that there is a very blurry, very nuanced line between supporting the rights of the offender and supporting the offenses, and listening to that interview with a blank-slate understanding of the matter, it seemed as though they were mostly talking past each other. Again though, my knowledge is short on the subject, but the Mencken quote felt an appropriate addenda to the video you linked, from a variety of ways. Remember that even if CAGE organizers are sympathetic to the goals of those they defend, once they've defended them, they're still defending civil rights.
- foldr 9y ago
  It's not a blurry line at all. You defend their legal rights, but you don't support terrorism.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  That interview was a shambles. It's true that in order to protect rights in general you have to defend shady people - however when asked if you agree with FGM/stoning for adultery/homosexuality is evil/etc. your answer should be a point blank, "No". He had valid points at the beginning of the interview but when pressed he doesn't make himself look very good. >> Remember that even if CAGE organizers are sympathetic to the goals of those they defend, once they've defended them, they're still defending civil rights. While this is a valid point in general, it is not in this context of showing schedule 7 to be overreaching. If the man in the article works for the CAGE and they actually are known as sympathetic to the goals of terrorists it makes perfect sense to detain him after he returns from a 'work' trip as there are likely valid, evidence based suspicions for it.
laumars 9y ago
What ever happened to being innocent until proven guilty? Besides if he wasn't innocent then there would be a crime that he could be charged for and/or a warrant produced to search his devices.
- foldr 9y ago
  >As I said, I am not in favour of the security services having these powers.