8 ms·

The UK will treat images of immigrants crossing the Channel as criminal offence

53 points by mritzmann 4y ago

O__________O 4y ago
Exactly how is taking and/or sharing images of illegal immigrants entering the UK aiding them? If anything, might make identifying them easier. Not to mention seemingly bizarre reasoning given UK only has jurisdiction over content viewed in the UK, which means anyone viewing the content would already be in the UK. If they are suggesting it’s a tool to recruit those in UK to aid illegal immigrants in entering the country, find it hard to believe children are being recruited to help. Using similar reasoning, is anyone donating to an organization to change UK laws to be more immigration friendly is also committing a crime?
- olliej 4y ago
  It’s aiding them because if voters see them the might see that they are people or at least develop some sense of empathy. If your platform is driven by a bunch of anti-immigrant rhetoric that’s not good. Also the irony of England complaining about immigrants when they invaded entire continents will never not be lost on me.
  - ralusek 4y ago
    Your hypothesis is literally the exact inversion of reality.
  - steponlego 4y ago
    Kinda proves the dangers of flooding a nation with foreigners though doesn’t it? I mean if it’s bad when a bunch of Brits come invade some place why isn’t it bad when Pakistanis or “Syrians” do the same? Are you for, or against colonialism?
    - derelicta 4y ago
      "colonialism is when folks whose country I annihilated try to seek shelter somewhere around where I live"
      - steponlego 4y ago
        It’s when outsiders invade some place. So is it good or bad?
    - eynsham 4y ago
      I missed the bit where immigrants had military superiority over us and were in the business of excluding locals from meaningfully exercising political and administrative power without the approval of the competent authority in the metropole.
      - steponlego 4y ago
        Still seems in the interest of the natives to keep foreigners out though eh? They didn’t make the policies after all.
- Zuider 4y ago
  It is the other way around. Any criticism of immigration, even if it is illegal, is now being categorized as racist 'hate speech' supposedly being promulgated by the 'far right.' There is no First Amendment in the UK, and the police have become notoriously active in prosecuting and jailing for 'hate speech' in the last decade, even as they become lax in investigating robbery and assaults. The new Online Safety Bill has a lot of draconian and arguably over-broad measures against what they call 'harmful speech' and 'hate' (who gets to define these things?) and one of them is a prohibition against showing migrants arriving illegally across the English Channel from Calais.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Idea that anti-immigration speech is hate speech is a stretch. Hate speech is hate speech. Yes, there might be a correlation between the two and might even be exploited as an indirect means of expressing hate, but equating anti-immigration speech as equal is deeply flawed.
    - Zuider 4y ago
      It is deeply flawed, but once you introduce the notion of hate speech, the definition can be expanded indefinitely to include any speech that can conceivably cause 'offense,' which is now defined as 'harm.' OFCOM, the British media regulation authority has recently defined 'hate speech' as: ‘All forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, gender, sex, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age.’ It is a good thing that British weather is so variable, because that is pretty much all they will legally be permitted to talk about. Even tea and crumpets is out of bounds because 'tea' might offend the Chinese, and 'crumpets' may offend women.
      - O__________O 4y ago
        Bit of a stretch to call the OFCOM’s definition of hate speech inaccurate. Obviously if someone is going to use slang terms to spew hatred it should not be excusable.
steponlego 4y ago
Don’t speak about it, will be the next law.
olliej 4y ago
Which is why “on device” scanning of images is also nonsense: it has nothing to do with protecting children, “think of the children” is so that they can get the legislation and technology in place to prosecute what they actually care about. Remember by design CSAM hashes, etc are opaque and it is not possible to determine what is present in those lists, there is no audit of those lists, etc.
- clnq 4y ago
  It does seem to be this way, unfortunately. I don't think many people are against CSAM hashes being used to find that type of content on private devices. But when a politically inconvenient photo of an immigrant becomes as illegal as CSAM, it puts the overall purpose of such tech into perspective.
benj111 4y ago
So if it's Illegal to take images of illegal immigrants because of the unsafe boats -> something -> children, is it also illegal to take images of unsafe play equipment? Or photograph a teacher assaulting a child. What about children paddling in the sea? Plenty of kids have drowned? The news shows plenty of unsafe things, perhaps we should get rid of the press?
- O__________O 4y ago
  UK has a long history of the press freely speaking as long as it suits the government, but it has no constitutional guarantee of the freedom of the press. As long as UK remains a constitutional monarchy, this is unlikely to change.
  - benj111 4y ago
    What has constitutional monarchy got to do with it, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. If the ERA protected freedom of the press, we'd have freedom of the press.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Monarchy uses the press bans all the time to hide internal family drama. All the press bans related to UK government, for example, ban of satirical references to government, are done in the name of enabling constitutional monarchy. If not for the monarchy, why else would the people limit their own freedoms for the sake of the government?
      - eynsham 4y ago
        It’s almost as if there are vested bureaucratic interests in Britain’s constitutional democracy as in any other state.
        O__________O 4y ago
        Difference being in some countries they are unable to hide or criminalize sharing information on their hypocrisy — unlike the UK, which is not for the people, by the people. Ignorance is bliss.
sjducb 4y ago
This is absurd. I think it's time to do something. Freedom of speech is dying in the UK.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  https://radicalthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/how-to-win-10-15.pdf https://radicalthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/how-to-...
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  To be fair, the reason that the UK is constantly producing headlines about destroying free speech is that they've been fucking around with this ridiculous online safety bill for 4 years now. They produced a whitepaper in 2019, it took them 2 years to turn it into a bill, that was completely full of holes, then COVID happened and the whole thing got thrown up in the air. Then the UK government decided to play musical chairs and then finally Michelle Donelan got put in charge and stripped out some of the worse bits (the whole "legal but harmful" language)... oh but then Sunak decided to rip up the entire department that is responsible for this bill so it's back up in the air. Oh and don't forget, this whole thing contains a bill to remove age verification for porn sites which is a bit of ridiculous absurdity they passed in 2017 but never enforced. This whole story is less about the UK's over-reaching authoritarianism, it's a story about how totally incompetent they've become, and as a result they aren't actually capable of writing legislation that makes any sense. Thats why we've got all of these silly headlines, because they putting together the legislation without actually thinking about it.
  - CommanderData 4y ago
    Legislation that eventually is passed into law. The recent laws on protests are a good example. They were so ridiculous no one thought it'd happen. But here we are.
anigbrowl 4y ago
This is a very British (and specifically Conservative) approach to problems: just forbid people to talk about them. Britain is well on its way to becoming an authoritarian failed state, there just happens to still be a lot of money washing around and as an island it's relatively easy to limit movement in or out.
- throwawaymanbot 4y ago
  [dead]
darreninthenet 4y ago
The actual quote by the member of parliament talks about pictures/videos that promotes such crossings and puts them in a positive light... and in terms of abusing the law for killing freedom of speech, this doesn't make it any better, but it does put a slightly different light on things, it isn't all "images of immigrants crossing the channel" and thanks to her saying this out loud parliament it does mean when the courts take into account "the will of parliament" it's clear and abusive prosecutions shouldn't succeed.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
I assumed this would be the other way round. As in "show the true numbers and you get banged up".
5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
oi guvna, ave u got a loicense for dem images?
throwawaymanbot 4y ago
[dead]
stuaxo 4y ago
Wow, this law would be a stretch.

53 points by mritzmann 4y ago

Exactly how is taking and/or sharing images of illegal immigrants entering the UK aiding them? If anything, might make identifying them easier. Not to mention seemingly bizarre reasoning given UK only has jurisdiction over content viewed in the UK, which means anyone viewing the content would already be in the UK. If they are suggesting it’s a tool to recruit those in UK to aid illegal immigrants in entering the country, find it hard to believe children are being recruited to help. Using similar reasoning, is anyone donating to an organization to change UK laws to be more immigration friendly is also committing a crime?

olliej 4y ago
It’s aiding them because if voters see them the might see that they are people or at least develop some sense of empathy. If your platform is driven by a bunch of anti-immigrant rhetoric that’s not good. Also the irony of England complaining about immigrants when they invaded entire continents will never not be lost on me.
- ralusek 4y ago
  Your hypothesis is literally the exact inversion of reality.
- steponlego 4y ago
  Kinda proves the dangers of flooding a nation with foreigners though doesn’t it? I mean if it’s bad when a bunch of Brits come invade some place why isn’t it bad when Pakistanis or “Syrians” do the same? Are you for, or against colonialism?
  - derelicta 4y ago
    "colonialism is when folks whose country I annihilated try to seek shelter somewhere around where I live"
    - steponlego 4y ago
      It’s when outsiders invade some place. So is it good or bad?
  - eynsham 4y ago
    I missed the bit where immigrants had military superiority over us and were in the business of excluding locals from meaningfully exercising political and administrative power without the approval of the competent authority in the metropole.
    - steponlego 4y ago
      Still seems in the interest of the natives to keep foreigners out though eh? They didn’t make the policies after all.
Zuider 4y ago
It is the other way around. Any criticism of immigration, even if it is illegal, is now being categorized as racist 'hate speech' supposedly being promulgated by the 'far right.' There is no First Amendment in the UK, and the police have become notoriously active in prosecuting and jailing for 'hate speech' in the last decade, even as they become lax in investigating robbery and assaults. The new Online Safety Bill has a lot of draconian and arguably over-broad measures against what they call 'harmful speech' and 'hate' (who gets to define these things?) and one of them is a prohibition against showing migrants arriving illegally across the English Channel from Calais.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Idea that anti-immigration speech is hate speech is a stretch. Hate speech is hate speech. Yes, there might be a correlation between the two and might even be exploited as an indirect means of expressing hate, but equating anti-immigration speech as equal is deeply flawed.
  - Zuider 4y ago
    It is deeply flawed, but once you introduce the notion of hate speech, the definition can be expanded indefinitely to include any speech that can conceivably cause 'offense,' which is now defined as 'harm.' OFCOM, the British media regulation authority has recently defined 'hate speech' as: ‘All forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, gender, sex, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age.’ It is a good thing that British weather is so variable, because that is pretty much all they will legally be permitted to talk about. Even tea and crumpets is out of bounds because 'tea' might offend the Chinese, and 'crumpets' may offend women.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Bit of a stretch to call the OFCOM’s definition of hate speech inaccurate. Obviously if someone is going to use slang terms to spew hatred it should not be excusable.

steponlego 4y ago

Don’t speak about it, will be the next law.

olliej 4y ago

Which is why “on device” scanning of images is also nonsense: it has nothing to do with protecting children, “think of the children” is so that they can get the legislation and technology in place to prosecute what they actually care about. Remember by design CSAM hashes, etc are opaque and it is not possible to determine what is present in those lists, there is no audit of those lists, etc.

clnq 4y ago
It does seem to be this way, unfortunately. I don't think many people are against CSAM hashes being used to find that type of content on private devices. But when a politically inconvenient photo of an immigrant becomes as illegal as CSAM, it puts the overall purpose of such tech into perspective.

benj111 4y ago

So if it's Illegal to take images of illegal immigrants because of the unsafe boats -> something -> children, is it also illegal to take images of unsafe play equipment? Or photograph a teacher assaulting a child. What about children paddling in the sea? Plenty of kids have drowned? The news shows plenty of unsafe things, perhaps we should get rid of the press?

O__________O 4y ago
UK has a long history of the press freely speaking as long as it suits the government, but it has no constitutional guarantee of the freedom of the press. As long as UK remains a constitutional monarchy, this is unlikely to change.
- benj111 4y ago
  What has constitutional monarchy got to do with it, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. If the ERA protected freedom of the press, we'd have freedom of the press.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Monarchy uses the press bans all the time to hide internal family drama. All the press bans related to UK government, for example, ban of satirical references to government, are done in the name of enabling constitutional monarchy. If not for the monarchy, why else would the people limit their own freedoms for the sake of the government?
    - eynsham 4y ago
      It’s almost as if there are vested bureaucratic interests in Britain’s constitutional democracy as in any other state.
      - O__________O 4y ago
        Difference being in some countries they are unable to hide or criminalize sharing information on their hypocrisy — unlike the UK, which is not for the people, by the people. Ignorance is bliss.

sjducb 4y ago

This is absurd. I think it's time to do something. Freedom of speech is dying in the UK.

anigbrowl 4y ago
https://radicalthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/how-to-win-10-15.pdf https://radicalthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/how-to-...
SilverBirch 4y ago
To be fair, the reason that the UK is constantly producing headlines about destroying free speech is that they've been fucking around with this ridiculous online safety bill for 4 years now. They produced a whitepaper in 2019, it took them 2 years to turn it into a bill, that was completely full of holes, then COVID happened and the whole thing got thrown up in the air. Then the UK government decided to play musical chairs and then finally Michelle Donelan got put in charge and stripped out some of the worse bits (the whole "legal but harmful" language)... oh but then Sunak decided to rip up the entire department that is responsible for this bill so it's back up in the air. Oh and don't forget, this whole thing contains a bill to remove age verification for porn sites which is a bit of ridiculous absurdity they passed in 2017 but never enforced. This whole story is less about the UK's over-reaching authoritarianism, it's a story about how totally incompetent they've become, and as a result they aren't actually capable of writing legislation that makes any sense. Thats why we've got all of these silly headlines, because they putting together the legislation without actually thinking about it.
- CommanderData 4y ago
  Legislation that eventually is passed into law. The recent laws on protests are a good example. They were so ridiculous no one thought it'd happen. But here we are.

anigbrowl 4y ago

This is a very British (and specifically Conservative) approach to problems: just forbid people to talk about them. Britain is well on its way to becoming an authoritarian failed state, there just happens to still be a lot of money washing around and as an island it's relatively easy to limit movement in or out.

throwawaymanbot 4y ago
[dead]

darreninthenet 4y ago

The actual quote by the member of parliament talks about pictures/videos that promotes such crossings and puts them in a positive light... and in terms of abusing the law for killing freedom of speech, this doesn't make it any better, but it does put a slightly different light on things, it isn't all "images of immigrants crossing the channel" and thanks to her saying this out loud parliament it does mean when the courts take into account "the will of parliament" it's clear and abusive prosecutions shouldn't succeed.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago

I assumed this would be the other way round. As in "show the true numbers and you get banged up".

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago

oi guvna, ave u got a loicense for dem images?

throwawaymanbot 4y ago

[dead]

stuaxo 4y ago

Wow, this law would be a stretch.