I am at a loss to understand why we need this level of surveillance to meet current threats when we did not need it to meet the threats from the Soviet Union, China under Mao and the IRA. The first two of these were far more powerful entities than any current group that threatens us and the third was a homegrown "under the radar" entity that was well hidden within its community and able to operate with impunity within its "territory".
What is is about the current sources of terrorism that is so special as to require this?
Since that cruel and evil attitude still exists, nuance is a very tricky thing.
But that makes it even more important to get it right. Get it wrong and you give your opponent a foothold in the argument.
If my action is to rape, burglarize, or commit any other offense against someone, then I am the only one who is responsible for that.
Morally yes - but there is more to it than that. In this particular case there are others to blame. It is the responsibility of the Indian government and of the local transport authority to ensure that it is safe for a woman to ride on a bus without this kind of thing happening.
It is everyone's responsibility to do the things that lie in their power to prevent these kind of events. Only blaming the immediate perpetrator is a recipe for perpetuating the problem.
Dostoevsky had it right when he said "We are all responsible for everyone else—but I am more responsible than all the others."
you are in no way at fault for being burglarized. Only the burglar is to blame for that.
Read my comment carefully. I already said that you are not morally at fauit. However that does not mean that your behaviour was sensible.
The underlying point is that blurring the distinction between moral and practical responsiblity is exactly what those who "blame the victim" are doing. When opposing their argument it is vitally important not to fall into the same error.
All those people who say that it's the victim's fault are guilty of something that is very close to rape as well.
Well, whilst I mostly agree with that, I think one has to be a little careful here. Leaving my house unlocked does not mean that I am in some way morally responsible for the ensuing burglary - but it may mean that I have been unwise not to lock it.
Having said that I would add that it shouldn't (in a civilised society) be even unwise simply to get on a bus.
I don't care to hear any complaints about brutality.
That may be the way they did it in the old testament - cf the story of Susanna, but it is not appropriate now.
A basic principle of modern justice is that victims don't get too closely involved in the process. Otherwise the result is never ending blood feuds. If the victims relatives are involved and a miscarriage of justice occurs then the relatives of the falsely accused will take it out on the original victim's family.
No, we don't appreciate. Copyright is a mess and if it wasn't this would be a clear case where the service provided by freely making it available in multiple platforms clearly outmatches the need for some more profit. BBC will only manage to darken its image.
Since the BBC is funded by the licence fee - which the British public pays. It doesn't need to monetize things that the public has already paid for.
In my experience, people use "liberal" as a boogeyman,
and many other words too - in fact the term "hate speech" itself, anything ending "phobia" and quite a few other terms (fill in your own favourite) are easily used to stigmatize what might actually be valid criticism.
The problem with these words/phrases is that the people who use them are seldom prepared to say clearly what they mean - that way it is easier to categorise anything that you don't like with an emotional slur that is deliberately designed to be difficult to argue against.