back to article British Minister likens Anonymous to fascists and racists

Hacktivist cabal Anonymous has continued its attack on UK government websites in retaliation to the UK’s treatment of Julian Assange, this time hitting former Wales and Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain. Hain told the BBC he feels Anonymous' actions resemble those he experienced in the “anti-apartheid and anti-fascist …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. nuked
    Facepalm

    Oh come on.

    The grossly ignorant rhetoric from Equador is matched only by the continuously poor reporting of the facts around this entire issue - on both sides I might add.

    1. LarsG
      Meh

      That's rich

      Thats rich comming out of the mouth of Peter Hain the 'former' minister who was always out of his depth in politics. Why on earth do people listen to him or give him the time of day.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: That's rich

        Well at least he has an interesting accent ;)

      2. jaduncan

        Re: That's rich

        Actually the irony is that this could as easily be compared to the civil rights protests of the ANC, given that the protest is perceived by Anonymous to be to protect free speech.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That's rich

          Protesting in support of free speech by silencing those they disagree with?

          Pull the other one.

        2. Tapeador
          FAIL

          @ jaduncan Re: That's rich

          The protest by Anonymous comparable with the ANC? Tell that to the generations of black South Africans forced to live a third-class life until the lifting of apartheid.

          And "because the protest is perceived by Anonymouse to be to protect free speech"? Well I perceive myself to be Jesus of Nazareth, therefore my writing this is comparable to the issuing of the gospel, or? Or is there something more than partisan, adolescent, fantastical perception required to form a piece of sound reasoning?

      3. ANAON-ERT
        FAIL

        Re: That's rich coming from a nazi

        he dares to call freedon fighters Nazis - the man is a plank - he has no right brain function

    2. Chris Thomas Alpha
      FAIL

      Re: Oh come on.

      ignorant how?

      they didn't extradite pinochet to france, they ARE trying to extradite assange to sweden...

      where is the ignorance?

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: Oh come on.

        Well the basic mistake of the assange team here is that they didn't help prop up a massively unpopular UK govt in staging a phoney war in the south Atlantic, nor allow their banking system to be used as a live test bed for the new 'I'm alright Jack, Fuck You' political system that thatch was experimenting with at the time. I mean,. be practical about it, whats the civil rights of a few hundred thousand people when set against... the total deregulation of the finance sector, giving us derivatives and sub-prime mortgages, and insider dealing and all of the other wonderful things that issued forth from the cantankerous xenophobic harridan.

        1. Flatpackhamster

          Re: Oh come on.

          A 'phoney war'? Of all the wars Britain could engage in, one to defend its subjects against an aggressive dictatorship is the least 'phoney' war I can imagine. There was no acquisition of territory, no military build-up beforehand, no and certainly no dodgy dossier. Of course I recognise that for some people their swivel-eyed hatred of Mrs Thatcher blinds them to anything she might have done that was right.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Oh come on. @Flatpackhamster

            >A 'phoney war'? Of all the wars Britain could engage in

            Ah, but would it have engaed in war if an election was not nearing? One fears that had an election not been imminent then Thatcher might have taken a more diplomatic course of action and a bloodless resolution found. As it was she saw that there would be nothing more beneficial for an election campaign than a bit of Argy bashing. And if you think that politicains would not sacrifice the lives of soldiers for their own political end then you are truly deluded.

            1. Naughtyhorse

              Re: Oh come on. @Flatpackhamster

              exactly.

              if it had been AFTER the election (skipping over the fact the tories would probably have come third!) then the argies could have BOUGHT the malvinas for a photo of a five pound note and a million pound donation to tory central office

        2. Bumpy Cat
          WTF?

          Re: Oh come on.

          Some ostensibly left-wing people's hatred of Thatcher leads them to this bizarre position. They support a right-wing military dictatorship which threw opponents out of aircraft, alive - over a democratic state with a welfare system. This suggests to me that their left-wing principles are pretty flexible.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re: Oh come on.

            wtf???

            learn to read

            1. Bumpy Cat
              FAIL

              Re: Oh come on.

              @Naughtyhorse: "staging a phoney war in the south Atlantic"

              That's a direct quote from you. In what way was the Falklands war (1) phoney, (2) "staged" by the UK? We were the victims of aggression by a murderous right-wing dictatorship - but somehow because Thatcher was in charge, we were in the wrong.

              1. Naughtyhorse

                Re: Oh come on.

                the falklands was bollocks, could have been sorted diplomatically, but she couldnt resist the pr of waving off out gallant boys... to what exactly? sinking a hospital ship, way outside the theatre, and heading further away. thank god WE were the good guys, and selling our soul to a PROPER evil right wing fuck like pinochet was cheap at half the price.

                Thatcher was in charge, we were in the wrong.

                Thatcher was in charge, she was in the wrong.

                fixed it for you.

                you think 'what about the vegetables' was a joke???

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Oh come on.

                  If the Falklands had been just another old colony that we hadn't got around to freeing and it was the natives that were rebelling, then yes, Thatcher probably would have probably gone the diplomatic route.

                  Since it was actually British sovereign territory, inhabited by nobody but British nationals being invaded by a foreign nation you'd have to be an idiot in the extreme to think there'd be any result other than military intervention, regardless of how close the next election was.

                2. Bumpy Cat
                  WTF?

                  Re: Oh come on.

                  A "hospital ship"?!! The General Belgrano was an armoured battlecruiser, with serious guns. If that ship had got within gun range of the task force, it would have been a massacre. The submarine tailing the Belgrano was about to lose them as they crossed a shallow undersea ridge. It was a completely legitimate sinking, and the fact that the UK paused for thought before sinking it shows a lot more restraint than any other nation.

                  And how could the Falklands have been sorted out diplomatically? What would have persuaded a military dictatorship to leave? Or are you happy to sell out people to right-wing dictatorship if it benefits your political party?

                  Your posts are so light on facts, so twisted against reason, I'm beginning to wonder if you're just a very subtle troll.

        3. paulll Bronze badge

          Re: Oh come on.

          +1 Internet for the most stultifyingly-politically-ill-informed correspondence in the history of news media. Congrats on a truly colossal effort!

    3. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Oh come on.

      "Meanwhile, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said that the standoff regarding Assange as an “unfortunate incident over, after a grave diplomatic error by the British in which they said they would enter our embassy.""

      Did you mean rhetoric like this where the Ecuadorian President granted politcal asylum for Assange so he could skip out on his obligations to face rape charges in Sweden?

      Sweden, really? Isn't that the country where they still believe in death by pressing? Only now instead of piling on rocks, they use members of the 'Swedish Topless Bikini Team' to pile on until the poor sod can't breath along with all of the blood flowing away from his head to his other head?

      Ok, so you get the point. Sweden isn't going to torture the sod, nor does he face any other extradition requests so there was no legal foundation for the Ecuadorian 'rescue'.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hang on, which side did he compare it to? ;)

  3. Graham Dawson Silver badge

    The difference between Pinochet and Assange is jurisdiction: Spain had no claim of jurisdiction over Pinochet. The judge in question was acting on an assumed right to try crimes in another country over which he had no legal title. Assange, meanwhile, is accused of committing a crime in Sweden, against a Swedish citizen. We may argue with the legal merit of that crime but Sweden's law stands (even if might be alien to our own sensibilities) and it has that jurisdictional right to lay charges against the man. The Spanish judge demanding Pinochet's extradition had no such right.

    So they are simply not comparable.

    1. jaduncan

      This is incorrect; torture has universal jurisdiction under both the customary international law concept of jus cogens and, specifically, under the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 5(1)(c).

      "1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:

      (c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate."

      The Spanish court thus had jurisdiction; the question was more if Pinochet should be protected by the immunity traditionally extended to heads of state.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. jaduncan

          You are incorrect:

          "http://www.apt.ch/tld/Overview.pdf:

          "Passive personality jurisdiction

          Article 5(1)(c) UNCAT covers jurisdiction over acts

          committed against the State party’s nationals

          (passive personality jurisdiction), again wherever

          these acts have allegedly been committed. This

          competence is however optional, meaning the State

          is not compelled by the UNCAT to establish such a

          jurisdiction."

          The victims were Spanish. Spain therefore has jurisdiction if it wishes to assert it, regardless of any other state,

      2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        So how come Tony Blair is free to persue a life of crime?

        1. Naughtyhorse

          So how come Tony Blair is free to persue a life of crime?

          cos ite REAL hard to buy a snipers rifle in the UK

          1. Mr_Toad
            Black Helicopters

            Re: So how come Tony Blair is free to persue a life of crime?

            In the last day or so it was announced that Mr Blair will be providing consultancy services to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the state of Sao Paulo, here in Brazil.

            I don't seem to be able to escape from him, no matter how far I travel :)

            http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/noticias/0,,OI6106680-EI306,00-Empresa+de+Tony+Blair+realizara+consultoria+para+o+governo+de+Sao+Paulo.html

    2. Chris 244
      Unhappy

      The difference between Pinochet and Assange is...

      One was supported by the CIA and had thousands of Chilean civilians killed and tens of thousands imprisoned and tortured, the other faces questioning in Sweden over a broken condom or two (and possibly also secretly in the USA for "espionage" aka "embarrassing us on the international stage").

      So yes, the two cases are not really comparable.

      1. Ian Johnston
        Facepalm

        Re: The difference between Pinochet and Assange is...

        So how come Pinochet was let off on laughable not-fit-to-stand-trial grounds, rather than on invalid-extradition-request ones.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The difference between Pinochet and Assange is...

          .. that nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition!

          (that's enough Monty Python, Ed.)

    3. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      Pity.

      BTW, which branch of the servile service do you work for?

      Not that I am being nosey, it's just that I am interested.

    4. BoldMan

      The difference between Pinochet and Assange is that we made a MISTAKE not extraditing Pinochet and we are trying not to make the same mistake with Assange. Just because a previous government (Tony B Liar) fucked up it once does not set a legal precedent where we have to keep fucking up and not extraditing people when requested by another country.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Graham Dawson

      >The difference between Pinochet and Assange is jurisdiction: Spain had no claim of jurisdiction over Pinochet.

      Some of the victims were Spanish so he had a right to seek extradition.

  4. boltar Silver badge
    FAIL

    Anonymous - what a joke

    If the squawking bunch of halfwitted losers I saw being dragged away from outside the embassy by the police last week were representative of anonymous and/or their supporters I don't think the government has much to worry about as their combined IQ was probably less than the largest plods shoe size.

    As for attacking government websites - do these muppets seriously think crashing what are essentially government PR websites is somehow going to bring government to a halt or change policy? If so these kids really need to do some serious growing up.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Anonymous - what a joke

      It's the digital equivalent of scrawling ROMANES EUNT DOMUS...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Pint

        Re: Anonymous - what a joke

        Is that the correct tense*?

        * I may have just screwed up your joke because now I'm not sure if tense was involved...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anonymous - what a joke

          You shall now imediately go and watch Life of Brian. Drop everything you are doing (unless it might actually kill someone, I guess) and go find a copy forthwith.

      2. Anonymous IV
        Thumb Down

        Re: Anonymous - what a joke

        Shows you just how illiterate the Ancient Britons were.

        Try "Romani domum eant" (subjunctive) or "Romani domum ite" (imperative).

        But you're a couple of millennia too late!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anonymous - what a joke

          "Shows you just how illiterate the Ancient Britons were.

          Try "Romani domum eant" (subjunctive) or "Romani domum ite" (imperative)."

          Whoosh!

          That was the sound of the satire of the other Anonymous post whizzing over your head, along with the implicit reference to Life of Brian.

          Anonymous splitters!

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

            Re: Anonymous - what a joke

            "Anonymous splitters!"

            Are you the Julian people's front?

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

              Re: Anonymous - what a joke

              Julian - pronounced 'Ju-lee-an' in this context of course to rhyme with Judean.

              Don't have a go at me for pointing it out, some people really don't get it! Go figure.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wrong Simile

    I've always likened them more to terrorists. Not because what they do is on the same kind of moral scale but because they're angry criminals trying to paint themselves as some kind of heroes representing the populous at large and because they attempt to inflict as much collateral damage as possible since they don't have the capability to attack their targets directly.

    Considering that Hain opposed Assange's extradition on top of the whole Virgin Media/Pirate Bay fiasco they don't really seem to care too much who they attack, as long as they get the headlines.

    1. Chris Thomas Alpha
      FAIL

      Re: Wrong Simile

      a little self centered perhaps ?

      have you considered that they might be thinking they are heroes of the minority, which should have the same level or more protection than the majority, but do not.

      (more protection because the majority would naturally skew in the opposite direction, therefore need greater protection because of the lack of support they would normally enjoy).

      pinochet is actually a war criminal, charged with murdering many many people, UK didn't exactly attempt to bust him did they? assange is accused of bad sexual etiquette and borderline asshole nature, hardly comparable, yet the UK are acting like there is a mass murdering child raping psychopath in the building, armed police? infra-red + heat sensors....

      are they serious??

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC 22:07GMT - Re: Wrong Simile

          Yeah, sure! Like UK was so eager to extradite Pinochet but, Gosh! they had no power to do so. Of course they didn't be cause US told them not to do it, it is as simple as that. Now it's US telling them to do it so of course they have the power to do it. Anyone sees something wrong in this picture ?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wrong Simile

        While I have some sympathy with George Galloway over whether the word "rape" is getting over-used, I think his comments go too far the other way in this case. But whether the particular case would get anywhere in court, none of us can know. As for the people who are pushing the lack of consent line, I have a feeling they're over-focused on the text of the statute. The problem we have is that if Assange doesn't end up in court now, a lot of exploitative sexual chancers are going to carry on as they are.

        There's a term which gets thrown around at times like this as a counter to the idea that Assange didn't do anything serious--"rape culture", they say, labelling the counter-claim that these sexual abuses, and so many others, are really OK. Maybe we should call what Assange is accused of doing sexual abuse. Let the courts decide if it was rape, not the newspapers.

        We men can admit to making mistakes. Apply the "rape" label, and would anyone want to admit anything?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Wrong Simile

          Why don't they Swedes hold a trial inside of the Swedish embassy in Equador and if found guilty, he could be put under house arrest for a year, which is likely to be more that the punishment for the crime and he's already done that so job done.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019