[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anti-terror legislation is all right wing legislation,

[/ QUOTE ]

I am all for anti-terror legislation. You are against it?

[ QUOTE ]
racial profiling,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really against it. I think it, unfortunately, works to some extent. Is it fair, that's the question. In some situations I have NO problem at all with it. In others, I think its bad policy.

[ QUOTE ]
stop and search for no reason,

[/ QUOTE ]

Examples?

[ QUOTE ]
shoot to kill

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the situation. I am for it in certain situations, against it in the vast majority.

[ QUOTE ]
- people who shuffle to catch trains,

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

[ QUOTE ]
curtailment of freedom of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

Examples?

[ QUOTE ]
The list goes on.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks to me like it stopped...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in favour of anti-terror legislation that has some effect on terrorism, and is not worse for society then terrorism itself. I think racial profiling stinks, but I can't argue against it, other than it's inherent unfairness.

If I am stopped because I am Asian or Black, then that is no more than creeping racism, it isn't a good reason (as discussed above), the police will stop my Black or Asian bank manager and while they talk to him a dozen white car thieves, drug dealers and muggers will walk past.

I am against a blanket shoot to kill policy, it's harder to apply this to the US though because at least your police are more familiar with the concept of making decisions on whether or not to kill someone. The main problem with the UK is that police only shoot a couple of people a year, most of them are carrying table legs or catching a train to work.

We all know radical Muslim clerics are being deported (or will be), due to the content of their sermons. Even though I despise the words they utter, I think this may be a mistake, we are stooping to their level.

Yes it stopped [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], I have limited time here.

Regards Mack