theoreticalboy wrote:
gabrielconroy wrote:
In any case, sounds like an empty hint of a threat. That just won't happen, even if the incumbent government aren't noted for their respect for the rule of law, both national and international.
"This simply will not do. It's just not cricket!"
The very fact of the threat-making shows how beholden the government is to the imperial whims of the United States, which is funny seeing as the latter did everything to destroy the British position of power following both World Wars...
I have been reading your posts and I really think this isnt the place for you to voice your opinions. Its seems very clear to me that balanced, anti-jingoist, pro- democracy views will be shot down by those who refuse to be culturally challenged. Be gone, naysayer!
In 1998 Peter Tatchell interrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter sermon by holding a speech on gay rights. He was fined 18 pounds. Maybe not as spectacular as what Pussy Riot did but on the other hand he did interrupt the Archbishop himself.
Seriously, time served and a fine would have diffused the situation comprehensively. Sure, they would be heroes for a while, but they'd be swiftly forgotten.
What America understands better than every other country in the world is that to truly render dissent ineffective, all you have to do is allow it a few meagre channels of escape; just enough to render enough participants pleased, not enough to mount a sustainable challenge to the status quo.