Lockdown in a terrorist, separatist and rebel location is a security measure more than a curbing of Freedom of speech.
It's curbing freedom of speech just as much if it is a security measure. The pretext, however valid it might be, doesn't alter the essential character of the act. Of course, calling a location “terrorist, separatist, and rebel” because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it, and using that to justify suppressive policy targeting the region as a whole is a sure sign of the mindset of—even if the suppressive policies don't yet reach the level of—collective punishment, a war crime in the context of interstate war and a crime against humanity otherwise.
" because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it". You agree? This is to counter the spread of fake news, rumours and minimize the stone pelting. Because all of those things would happen in a place where these elements are growing by the day, infiltrated and brainwashed. and then if you use tear gas, pellet guns and other means to slow down mobs, then people will cry again. I'd rather have people cry like this than some people getting injured, hurt or worst killed, because they became a part of a mob that became impossible to control.
I don't think the Government seeks to make this a lockdown permanent and felicitate any kind of suppression. There's a provision for government the and the place can continue to have it's own powers, just that it can't become bigger than the country itself, which had become the norm.
The context does justify certain restraining measures. What sort of argument is it that claims if you're wrapping someone in a blanket in the summer, it's a crime, not looking at the fact that the person is burning? You have to take certain measures till the situation calms down and people come to the level of responding instead of reacting. If this becomes a constant thing like for years or decades like the two bills had become, then yes, I see your concern. A temporal restrain cannot be exaggerated to "war crimes".
Comments
It's curbing freedom of speech just as much if it is a security measure. The pretext, however valid it might be, doesn't alter the essential character of the act. Of course, calling a location “terrorist, separatist, and rebel” because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it, and using that to justify suppressive policy targeting the region as a whole is a sure sign of the mindset of—even if the suppressive policies don't yet reach the level of—collective punishment, a war crime in the context of interstate war and a crime against humanity otherwise.
" because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it". You agree? This is to counter the spread of fake news, rumours and minimize the stone pelting. Because all of those things would happen in a place where these elements are growing by the day, infiltrated and brainwashed. and then if you use tear gas, pellet guns and other means to slow down mobs, then people will cry again. I'd rather have people cry like this than some people getting injured, hurt or worst killed, because they became a part of a mob that became impossible to control.
I don't think the Government seeks to make this a lockdown permanent and felicitate any kind of suppression. There's a provision for government the and the place can continue to have it's own powers, just that it can't become bigger than the country itself, which had become the norm.
The context does justify certain restraining measures. What sort of argument is it that claims if you're wrapping someone in a blanket in the summer, it's a crime, not looking at the fact that the person is burning? You have to take certain measures till the situation calms down and people come to the level of responding instead of reacting. If this becomes a constant thing like for years or decades like the two bills had become, then yes, I see your concern. A temporal restrain cannot be exaggerated to "war crimes".