Tony Blair To Push Through Police State Before Leaving As PM

by Magnifico
Sun May 27th, 2007 at 05:40:38 AM EST

Tony Blair plans to push through "new anti-terrorism laws" before he leaves office that would give the police "wartime"-like powers "to stop and question people." The "draconian" powers will give the police the ability "to interrogate individuals about who they are, where they have been and where they are going."
Under the new laws, police will not need to suspect that a crime has taken place and can use the power to gain information about "matters relevant" to terror investigations. If suspects fail to stop or refuse to answer questions, they could be charged with a criminal offence and fined up to £5,000.
In an opinion piece for The Sunday Times, Blair attacked the belief that civil liberties come before security:
Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgment.


In context, this is Blair's argument:

As for British nationals who pose a threat to us, we need to be able to monitor them carefully and limit their activities. It is true that the police and security services can engage in surveillance in any event. But this is incredibly time-consuming and expensive, and even with the huge investment we have made since 2001, they simply cannot do it for all suspects. Over the past five or six years, we have decided as a country that except in the most limited of ways, the threat to our public safety does not justify changing radically the legal basis on which we confront this extremism.

Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgment. This extremism, operating the world over, is not like anything we have faced before. It needs to be confronted with every means at our disposal. Tougher laws in themselves help, but just as crucial is the signal they send out: that Britain is an inhospitable place to practise this extremism.

Your papers please.

Blair wants the police to be able to stop anyone, at anytime, ask the person anything they want, and if they fail to comply with police wishes, they will be charged and fined.

Blair and his ministers seek to make the police practically unfettered and unaccountable. Blair laments the "time-consuming" paperwork the police must now do when the stop a person. Such bureaucracy is inconvient when a government is implementing a police state.

Ministers will seek to justify the new powers on the grounds that they will be "useful" for the police and "less intrusive" than the current measure to stop and search, which they will not need to use so often. Officers often have to spend hours filling out paperwork after making stops and searches.

How many years did Britain live with terrorism before the Good Friday Peace Agreement? Was IRA bombings in London any less threatening than today's Islamic extermists? I think no. But Tony Blair would have us believe otherwise.

The Times makes it clearly obvious that this is a power grab by Blair.

No general police power to stop and question has ever been introduced in mainland Britain except during wartime. Civil liberties campaigners last night branded the proposed measures "one of the most significant moves on civil liberties since the second world war".

What poses a greater danger to Britain? Islamic extremists or a prime minister who does not recognize that civil liberties are the foundation of a democratic society?

Effectively, Blair and John Reid, his home secretary that is also leaving, are trying to put into place the same law the British government had in Northern Ireland over all of Britain. This comes at the same time "the stop and question power" is to be repealed there as part of the peace agreement.

So, the big question is will the British parliament show more spine standing up to their lame duck prime minister than the American Congress did standing up to their lame duck president in stopping the Iraq occupation?

I can see no more fitting epitaph for Tony Blair's years as prime minister than The father of Britain's endless war and police state.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
If this passes, Blair and Reid should be questioned every day. See how they like it.
by lychee on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 03:59:43 AM EST
This is the last test of whether the Parliamentary Labour Party is dead or just in  a coma.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 04:14:02 AM EST
You bring the garlic. I'll bring the stake.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 09:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've been looking for garlic like a madman and all I can find is a box of silver bullets.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:51:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well at least you're prepared for Gordon Brown then.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 11:11:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Police officer:  OK, you.  Who are the terrorists?  Where are they living?

Innocent brown man:  Um, I dunno.  I don't know any terrorists.  I'm an accountant.  I was just going to the store.

Police officer:  Store my arse.  We know you're a terrorist.  Or at least that you know something about the terrorists.  You meet them at the mosque.  We know they're around here somewhere.  Now tell us where they are.

Innocent brown man:  No, really, I don't know anything about terrorists.  I'm from Chile!  I'm an atheist!  Honestly, I don't know any terrorists.

Police officer:  A likely excuse.  Where'd you get the fake passport?  And didn't the athiests write some terrorist cookbook where they taught people how to make bombs?  I'm not gonna ask you again, where are the terrorists?

Innocent brown man:  It's not fake.  I really am from Chile.  Ands the anarchists did the cookbook, not the athiests.  And I don't know any terrorists!

Police officer:  Yes, you do.

Innocent brown man:  No, I don't.

Police officer:  Yes, you do.

Innocent brown man:  No, I don't!

Police officer:  That's it.  I've had enough.  We're arresting you for refusing to answer questions.  Come with me.

Innocent brown man:  But I answered the questions!

Police officer:  I didn't like your answers.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 04:32:18 AM EST
Damn, what is up with my spelling?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 04:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd laugh, but your scenario is too close to the truth of what can happen.
by lychee on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 05:21:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 05:36:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I knew something was absurd about the situation but I couldn't quite put my finger on it...

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's see... if we don't like you, but you haven't committed any crime that we can arrest and detain you for, we shall create a new crime that will allow us to arrest essentially anyone.  We shall bring the mountain to... um, you know, that guy, what's-his-name.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 08:17:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean the guy that wrote that terrist manifesto?

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 09:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the one.  Now tell me where he is!  Or else.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:55:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where's the Murdoch Alert?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 05:20:44 AM EST
This is an Op-Ed by Tony Blair himself

He is proud to put in writing that he wants to be a dictator and that he find democracy an inconvenience.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 05:41:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you can go to the article itself and add a comment about this editorial
by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 06:06:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure Blair will read the comments to his piece.

I posted one which was accepted about the war being about oil.  

I would say the same thing to his face, too. And, probably get arrested again  

by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 11:26:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was arrested and held in Canada for refusing to identify myself and answer policemen's questions.  There is no requirement in Canada to carry any identification unless one is driving, and one is not required to answer policemen's questions unless one is suspected of a crime.

In my case, I was walking down the street when a police cruiser pulled up beside me and the policeman started flirting with me.  I rebuffed him and that's when he started treating me like a suspect.

I eventually won my case, but it took me two years and many thousands of dollars to do it.

I have dual Canadian - German citizenship.

by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 06:12:33 AM EST
I heard Canada is one of the most fascist (totalitarian) states in the world where people get arrested for spitting in public place. I wonder why it's so celebrated by human rights agencies. Too many laws, rules is not about democracy.
by FarEasterner (avdavydov@yandex.ru) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:04:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
no, actually it's not.  

Some policemen are bad but overall, it's not a bad place and quite welcoming to immigrants and refugees seeking asylum.  

by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:07:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Welcoming with big book of rules?
by FarEasterner (avdavydov@yandex.ru) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:09:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
no, again.  not at all.  compared to Europe, it's almost libertarian.
by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:14:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What about health nazis? Are they active in Canada?  
by FarEasterner (avdavydov@yandex.ru) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:27:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you mean people who tell you not to smoke and such?

in certain areas they are very active, like in Vancouver.  In the rest of the country, people pretty much leave you alone.  

Canadians are pretty peaceful in general.  Their one big problem is that they hate to see others succeed - the British tradition of "cutting the tallest blade of grass" is endemic in the UK, Australia, NZ and Canada.

by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:47:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes I meant these people. They already banned smoking everywhere except in their homes and will get them there too - as cases with arrests and imprisonment of
marijuana smokers (for medical purpose) proved police and totalitarian society in Canada do not respect privacy of homes.

Overall I do not know much about Canada and don't want to know but after reading (accidentally) Canadian press on the internet I found it horrible - a lots of of scorn pouring at other countries by ignorant columnists.  

by FarEasterner (avdavydov@yandex.ru) on Tue May 29th, 2007 at 05:12:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought that in Toronto you're not allowed to drink a beer on the street. My sis was living there and she told me that. I still did, tho'. Is that a local ordinance or something?
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 08:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Toronto is called Toronto the Good.  enough said.

This thread is about something very important, so let's get back to that, shall we?

by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 09:14:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, so Tony Blair is leaving office as a totalitarian asshole. What are you going to do about it? What can anyone do about this? Get some sense and vote LibDem next time? Take to the barricades? Plea with some NuLabour MPs?

We're living in illiberal times. This is the real problem. The majority of the population is more than willing to trade freedom for security, as they don't see that they will lose both.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:42:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
they already know that they have neither, and that there's a slightly better chance to get security?

Dictatorships (just like feudalim) work because they are an improvement over chaos and lawlessness.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:45:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK is not yet a dictatorship, nor is it chaotic or lawless. I believe the number of car bombs going off in London this year is smaller than one. There is more reason for UK citizens to fear excessive power of the state.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:56:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But there are all those yobs and hoodies, and muslims, and blacks. Don't you read the Daily Mail?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 11:01:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well at least they're consistent

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 11:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the theoretical point: the terror of the state can be larger than the terror of chaos and lawlessness, but the state can perpetuate its rule by using terror as a method. Stalinist Russia in the 30s was not better than Russia during the civil war in the early 20s, for instance.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 11:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We're living in illiberal times. This is the real problem. The majority of the population is more than willing to trade freedom for security, as they don't see that they will lose both.

that's the problem.  Wheras with the threat of Irish terrorism the newspapers encouraged us to carry on and that we would lose something important if we allowed fear to overwhelm us.

Yet now, the newspapers are in cahoots with the government to create a climate of fear where this sort of authoritariansim is presented as an entirely reasonable response. Concerns for civil liberties are seen as weak, unrealistic, girly. A petty concern only of note to the much-despised and easily ignored chattering classes.

These liberties are so precious they need to be taken away and locked up for ever.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 05:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...the policeman started flirting with me.  I rebuffed him and that's when he started treating me like a suspect.

Another potential abuse of the proposed U.K. law.

by lychee on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 01:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A local example from this week

and another sites view

    Welsh PC Richard Bowen is on trial accused
    of masturbating into his handkerchief in front of
    a female suspect during a 240 mile journey in a
    squad car.. twice. Bowen's defence? He "knocked
    one out" before staring work. And put his hankie
    back in his pocket because he was "running late".

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 01:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Animation available from here

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:12:25 AM EST
This animation appears next to Blair's op-ed in The Times... I wonder whether that's intentional.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 01:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I've just fired off a letter to a politician that i nearly knew

here is what I wrote

Dear David
        I don't  live in your constituency, and I don't  usually write to our elected representatives, however you have drawn the short straw on the grounds that I very nearly lived in the same house as you, having been both a boarder and cathedral chorister at Kings leaving  the year before you started.
I am somewhat distressed by the suggestion that there will be an introduction of new stop and search powers for the police. To quote the Times "Under the new laws, police will not need to suspect that a crime has taken place and can use the power to gain information about "matters relevant" to terror investigations. If suspects fail to stop or refuse to answer questions, they could be charged with a criminal offence and fined up to £5,000." This I see as a tremendously regressive step in race relations. Historically whenever stop and search measures have been introduced, they have been used disproportionately against the coloured population of these Islands, and mostly unfairly. In the past, during the Northern Irish situation, similar requests for powers  have been made by the police and security services. Politicians in the past have always had the strength to turn these requests down. Allowing this would be an act of political, ethical, and moral cowardice, and is an act that would obviously fail the Daily Mail test. It would even be an act that appears so negative, that it would be on the wishlist of the British National Party. It is something that would appear to be a betrayal of everything that the Labour party stands for.  I do hope to see you acting apropriately in the near future.



If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 08:59:03 AM EST
Lets get this right. Tony Blair is retiring and as last act he wants to turn the state (which he will not controll anymore) into a police state.

My question is why?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 09:35:52 AM EST
I think Tony Blair is much like the man who is quite rebellious (but not really) when he is young.  He wears his hair long and does a few daring (but not really dangerous) things, like go out with a girl his parents don't approve of.

Then, as he gets older, his views start changing so slowly that it's hardly perceptible.

By the time this person is well established, having a nice and expensive home, he is the biggest Tory around because he doesn't want to pay high taxes (or none at all) and doesn't mind getting stopped by the police for ID, because HE KNOWS HE'LL NEVER BE FOUND GUILTY OF BREAKING ANY EXISTING LAWS.  It's all about those damned dirty hippies and those "smelly" immigrants now.  But you know, he's not prejudiced or anything...

by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:00:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Havign a few drinks along the way is not beaking the law anyway. And neither is having a mistress and cheating on your wife.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:44:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
?
by zoe on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 11:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My question is why?  

His final service to his masters.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Tue May 29th, 2007 at 01:47:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just seen a presenter on Sky news say

"This will allow police to stop suspects, even if there is no reason to have any suspicion of them"

My mind is now spinning trying to join the dots in the logic.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:19:30 AM EST
Anyone who isn't rich and white is a suspect by definition. Or soon will be.

And I wish I was joking.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:35:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bad grammar is enough to make you a suspect!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:42:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not on the official register of state-approved writers who are allowed to use the subjunctive in public.

(Although of course it remains something I aspire to.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 11:26:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Instead of people being stopped because they are suspect, they will be suspect because they were stopped. Innit?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 10:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Kinda reminds my of that fella from Prague. What was his name again - Nafta, Pafka, Kaftan...?

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 01:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Kurt, wasn't it?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 06:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This will allow police to stop suspects, even if there is no reason to have any suspicion of them

Ah, the guantamo rationale (is that a book by robert Ludlum ?). We arrested them, so they must be guilty of something. All we have to do is torture them enough and they'll admit it.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 05:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Something just occurred to me, so the thought isn't very well formed. But-- am I correct in thinking Blair just handed the SNP something they could use to make Scottish independence seem a lot more enticing to the public? ("Vote for independence so we aren't under this totalitarian thumb" sort of thing.)
by lychee on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 01:22:30 PM EST
Steve Bell:



*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 01:33:42 PM EST
Blair and John Reid, his home secretary that is also leaving, are trying to put into place the same law the British government had in Northern Ireland over all of Britain.

In 1972, I was stopped on Oxford Street at 7 pm as I walked calmly towards a Tube station. Two officers in uniform asked me who I was, where I had been and where I was going. They asked me for ID. It happened that I had just got in from Paris and had my passport. They went through it. They asked me to repeat details like my date and place of birth. I was carrying a grip that they searched. They pulled things out and asked me what they were. They wanted full explanations of who I said I was going to see (my dad!). And what was the address again? (Three times that question). They were cold, aggressive, professional, worked as a team, cross-cutting questions. You said you were born in what year again? No, in full, the full date. Your mother's maiden name? (Yes, they asked me that). Spell it. So you came from where? Paris? What were you in Paris for? Do you have any proof you live and work in Paris? Tell me again how you travelled today, you weren't clear about that. And how are you going to that address, what was it again? What Tube are you taking? All right, go.

I was perfectly aware they had no right to do any of this. I also knew I was a long-haired hippie who was going down the station where some dope would be found in his pocket if I didn't cooperate. Later that week, a barrister friend who knew what was going down with respect to the Northern Ireland situation told me I'd been dead right to make that call. "They may have been in uniform, but they were Special Branch," he said.

"wartime"-like powers "to stop and question people." The "draconian" powers will give the police the ability "to interrogate individuals about who they are, where they have been and where they are going."

Of course, all that was under the radar back then. And of course it is intolerable that a Prime Minister should be openly supporting policies of this kind in order to make them "legitimate" and everyday. But I can't help thinking Britain has been on this slope for a very long time.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 02:14:35 PM EST
I was perfectly aware they had no right to do any of this. I also knew I was a long-haired hippie who was going down the station where some dope would be found in his pocket if I didn't cooperate. Later that week, a barrister friend who knew what was going down with respect to the Northern Ireland situation told me I'd been dead right to make that call.

One of the things that allows our societies to function is selective enforcement of laws and regulations. If all our lives were constantly examined to make sure we  are not breaking any rules, life would grind to a halt. But this means is that the choice of which laws to enforce, and who to monitor, is a powerful tool of social control. I am convinced that, if the government were out to "get" anyone, they wouldn't have to wait too long until they commit a traffic violation, fail to meet an administrative deadline, or whatever, and it would be really easy to make their life hell.

In more liberal times, one could hope for public support against such abuses, but Blair's op-ed indicates that the public will accept oppressive selective enforcement or at least that the elite think they can get away with it.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 02:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the public will accept oppressive selective enforcement

For sure, no one looked like they were ready to protest among the passers-by on Oxford Street. As long as the victim is "the Other"...

My legal friend's point was, however, that this was not just a couple of nasty cops stopping a hairy they felt like victimising, but that these were political police out on the anti-terrorist prowl to stop and search (I was carrying a bag). That, if I'd stood my constitutional ground, I'd have gone somewhere worse than the local nick and spent a lot more time there... And that trumped-up charges against me, more serious than possession, were quite possible.

In other words, the "wartime" pretext is already an old one, and the British establishment has never been liberal.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 03:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i heard once thyat, while most modern european countries have between 6-9000 laws on the books, that italy has 350,000; i wonder if anyone here can confirm/deny this?

my dad used to say that was so they could pull in anyone anytime if they wanted to, since waking up in the morning was synonymous with breaking some archaic, unenforced law or another.

i have a hunch lao tzu would have something to say about the most lawless countries needing the biggest number of laws to compensate.

i heard a good friend tell once of his visit to his accountant, who pointed to a tall pile of papers on his desk, saying those were just the 'decreti' of that day to decipher.

i'm starting to think people are subconsciously aware of some cataclysmic changes soon to come down, like animals sensing an earthquake or tsunami, and they want an authoritarian government, as that would be the only way to avoid mass breakdown of social systems and the resultant anarchy that may see them victims of angry hooligans.

also in europe it's been a half century since nazism terrified its citizens into becoming complicit mass murderers, and obviously two generations is all it takes to become sheep again, having forgotten the feeling of the jackboot pressing down on their cervical area.

i used to think those holocaust memorial ceremonies were a bit pathetic, modern events have suddenly changed my mind about this.

are we not complicit in the terrorisation of resource-rich indigenous peoples, and shouldn't we remember the evil we invite by giving too much power up to governments?

bah, people are so ignorant and gullible, so easy to make cower with cheap -and expensive- propaganda.

england never had a popular revolution, and the 5% that own 95% of the country have the technology to keep it firmly that way, now with 'terrorism' as the oh-so convenient stepson of 'communism' to use as scapegoat, while whittling away at peoples' freedom to feel free at all.

it is the excesses of no-holds-barred capitalism which has produced the extreme reactions of communism and islamic terrorism, duh...

what worries me is the amount of lockdown they'd need to keep the lid on literally millions of disaffected people, where will they get that many soldiers. will the affected country turn into one giant armed camp?

anyone see that banned-from-bbc documentary about the aftermath of nuclear war called 'the war game' back in the 60's?

the most traumatic cinema i ever experienced, at 17, to boot.

it has coloured my nightmares ever since.

the main driver to running away as far as hawaii to try and escape the paranoia that film induced....

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 03:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what worries me is the amount of lockdown they'd need to keep the lid on literally millions of disaffected people, where will they get that many soldiers. will the affected country turn into one giant armed camp?

You get the soldiers from the disaffected people, naturally.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 03:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the only reason people haven't hit the streets harder is the drug of consumerism...withhold that, and it's the disaffected using force agin  the equally disaffected...

sounds like a clone of the middle east.

you can't run business-as-usual with a cop/soldier on every corner.

there aren't enough jails to hold the people who won't stand for that.

seems like history has chosen england to be the avant-guarde actor in thjs tech-heavy sci-fi futurist, kinder, gentler totalitarian spy-in-the-sky play.

coulda been japan...i wonder if they have a literary culture that includes a local equivalent of orwell or huxley.

i guess that's what makes tv shows like 'spooks', 'regeneration' etc so fascinating, getting a supposed clue about how surveillance is the new governmental prophylactic of social choice and how deeply it pervades modern, international policing and intelligence work.

computers are truly changing everything

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 05:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first.

Tell that to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes.

by det on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 03:47:07 PM EST
I'm terribly afraid that calling the police to (at least some) account for that killing is precisely the kind of thing Blair means by putting "the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first."
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 04:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Blair would say he's referring to Abu Hamza.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 08:37:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was hoping someone would mention him. He was the first person I thought of while reading.
by Nomad on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 08:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jeb Avenue
London, South West 2
Inglan

Dear Ma Maa,

Good Day

I hope that when these few lines reach you
they may find you in the best of health

Ma Maa I really don' know how to tell yu dis
'cause , I did meck a solemn promise
to teck care a likkle Jim and try
mi best fi look out fi 'im

Ma Maa a really did try mi best
but none de less
mi sorry fi tell yu sey
poor likkle Jim get aress'
it was de middle a de rush 'our
when everybody jus' a hustle an a bustle        
fi go 'ome fi dem evenin' shower

Me and Jim stand up waiting pon a bus
not causing no fuss
when all on a sudden a police man pull up
out jump 3 police man
De 'ole a dem carrying baton

Dem walk up to me and Jim
one a dem 'ole on to Jim
sey 'im teckin 'im in
Jim tell him fi leggo a 'im
fa 'im no do nuttin
an 'im naw tief, not even a button

Jim start to riggle
De police start to giggle

Ma Maa, meck a tell yu weh dem do to Jim
Ma Maa , meck a tell yu we dem do to him

Dem tump 'im in 'im belly
   an' it turn to jelly
Dem lick 'im pon 'im back  
   an 'im rib get pop
Dem lick 'im pon 'im head
   but it tuff like lead
Dem kick 'im in 'im seed
  an it started to bleed

Ma Maa I just couldn't just stan' up
  deh a no do nutten

So mi juck one ina 'im eye  
   an 'im started to cry
Mi tump one in 'im mout  
   an 'im started to shout
Mi kick one pon 'im shin
 an 'im started to spin
Mi tump 'im pon 'im chin  
  an 'im drop pon a bin
       an crash an dead

Ma Maa more police man come down
   an beat me to de ground          

Dem charge Jim fi sus
Dem charge mi fi murder
Ma Ma!  Don't fret
don't get depress an down 'earted
be of good courage

Till I hear from yu

I remain your son

Sonny

-- Linton Kwesi Johnson

by jam fuse on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 04:10:10 PM EST
It's been making me just as much think of know your rights by the Clash

linked here

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 02:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The irony, the US and the UK slowly and steadily eroding the laws that were put in place after WWII to prevent there ever being another Nazi state. Creepy, very creepy.

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 04:44:03 PM EST
An update in the Guardian:

Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, where the powers are already in force, warned the restrictions could become "the domestic equivalent of Guantanamo Bay". But it emerged later that it was the Northern Ireland Office - Mr Hain's own department - that proposed extending the provision across the UK.

It is understood that stop and question powers in Ulster are due to be relaxed as part of the peace process, but officials in the province want to retain them.

Labour chairwoman Hazel Blears told Sky News: "What I understand is that the request has come from the Northern Ireland Office because they have the powers, they want to be able to carry on using them, they find them useful."

There's also this gem at the end:

Counter-terrorism minister Tony McNulty said the measures would not go before Parliament until the autumn, allowing plenty of time for consultation. He insisted they would only be used to tackle terrorism and would not mark a return to the "heavy-handed days of 'sus' law", which permitted police officers to act on suspicion, or "sus", alone.

If that clarified anything about how police are going to figure out who to stop, please explain it to me, because I sure missed something.

by lychee on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 06:07:30 PM EST
This takes me back to the city of Londons Ring of Steel introduced to stop the IRA blowing up the financial districts. I remember although I can't find it at the moment that there was a report on the ethnic breakdown of those stopped and searched at the roadblocks on the edge. Somehow it wasn't seen as utterly embarassing that it showed in excess of 80% were of Afro-Caribean descent.

Why should we expect this to be any different.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 06:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure I've mentioned before that I was stopped outside Canary Wharf while taking photos, and told in no uncertain to stop. (Or get a licence.)

Paunchy men with anoraks, thermos flasks and notebooks are also regularly being stopped and escorted off the premises when out trainspotting - which will be huge relief to anyone who considers people who get excited when they see a certain kind of choo choo train to be a serious terrorist threat.

So it's not just furry brown people. Anyone doing anything a little out of the ordinary - which is taken to mean commuting to and from work like a robot,  and sitting meekly in a cubicle while there - is a possible suspect.

And of course the practical value of this security panto is very close to zero.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 06:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You need a licence to take photos?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well unless you wish to end up like a certain mr Winston Kodogo in the not the nine o'clock news sketch, (which strangely all the links I can find to seem to be to rather right wing sites, which is strange because it's them that aare having the piss taken out of).

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Canary Wharf turns out to be private land which is policed by the public police force. (No, they don't do irony.) There are no signs explaining this in any part of the complex.

If you want official permission to take photos, you'll need to buy it from the Canary Wharf press office.

Photography is becoming increasingly dangerous because of IP laws. It used to be the case that you could take photos of anyone and anything. But stock libraries like Alamy now require a Property Release for major landmarks. If you can't offer a Property Release (and best of luck getting one) anyone who uses that photo runs some risk of being sued for commercial exploitation of the building's image and brand.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 08:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
WTF!

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 05:39:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
well in Quebec, you can't have people's faces in your photo without asking them for permission first.

it seems strange but I really appreciated the law when I was out on the ice teaching a friend from Ghana (on one arm) and one from India (on the other) to ice skate.  all sorts of press photographers wanted to take our picture - you know, the picture of a multicultural Canada ice skating - but of course, my friends didn't want to have a picture of themselves falling on the front page of all the newspapers

by zoe on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 10:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that kind of Anti-Social Behaviour must be stopped. Taking pictures of choo choo trains. Who knows, next time you might use the word "grass".

Can't have that, now can we?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 08:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Paunchy men with anoraks, thermos flasks and notebooks are also regularly being stopped and escorted off the premises when out trainspotting - which will be huge relief to anyone who considers people who get excited when they see a certain kind of choo choo train to be a serious terrorist threat.

Yeah right, they are spying for the evil DoDo...

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 05:36:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
After all these years sucking up to Blair (sucking up to Bush -- what a disturbing picture) the UK has become a has-been country without even a decent opposition party. Of course  a lot of the things Blair is foisting on the Brits are similar to the ways Bush et al have fucked the U.S. The difference is that WE are angrier than Americans have ever been. The British? Not so much.

All this weekend I've been listening to Rufus Wainright's beyond-brilliant Going to a Town. Not sure what this song has to do with the British not caring about their rights, but it does make me proud to hear an American express our national mood so note-perfectly.

(And by the way, if you're sitting smugly in one of those other Old European countries thinking, oh yes, those perfidious Brits, don't. You're ALL Bush-lovers to me.)

by Matt in NYC on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:22:46 PM EST
you have to scroll down to see and hear this video.
by Matt in NYC on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 07:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you. Now, what do you suggest we (all) do about it?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 05:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Move to the U.S. where at least you'll have some company.

Unsnarky answer: Just keep talking and writing here and wherever else someone might listen. Do what you can to support the growth of a European netroots (which I know most of you do, but, as we've seen in the U.S., it takes years of hard work.)

This past week was a setback in the U.S. on many fronts, but I'm pleased and energized by the new levels of anger we're feeling here. Europe seems to be where we were circa 2002, which was pretty much nowhere. I sincerely hope it doesn't take Europeans five years to begin to reclaim their democracies, but if it does, it's a whole lot better than the alternative, which is unthinkable.

by Matt in NYC on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 04:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I agree you have become angry, but it's hard to forget that so many are now angry mostly because they were initially fool enough to believe. Few British ever really believed in the war, but we made our futile protests, were vilified by the ever eager Murdoch and Mail, shrugged our shoulders and went home, knowing full well that nothing would change.

Our politicians are, unlike those in America, largely chosen from a group of professional politicos who have been climbing the greasy pole since university and who know that only those who agree whole-heartedly with their masters will ever get preference. So, each generation is just like the last, sycophantic and incapable of creative thought.

Most of our politicians ;-
attend church,
reflexively support armed conflict (it helps BAE y'know).
instinctively agree that Britains best interests lie in the arms of America (even tho' Europe is next door),
look to america for solutions to problems, even if the american solution on offer has demonstrably failed and better ones exist in europe.

None of these opinions share majority support n the UK. We are ruled by a self serving clique who've largely never rubbed shoulders with the rest of us.

I can criticise america for being a country governed by millionaires for millionaires but we have become a country ruled by fools who know nothing beyond the confines of Westminster. their ignorance of our lives is shocking.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 09:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent Diary. I strongly recommend you watching the three part BBC documentary'The Power of Nightmares' directed by Adam Curtis. It is not available on DVD but can be wathed online on various sites. It is about the ways the US and the UK have used terrorism in which to maintain power and decrease our civil liberties. What Blair is doing was correctly predicted by the show. The following is a link to The Nation review of the documentary:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/bergen

The Power of Nightmares, a three-hour BBC documentary directed by Adam Curtis, is arguably the most important film about the "war on terrorism" since the events of September 11. It is more intellectually engaging, more historically probing and more provocative than any of its rivals, including Fahrenheit 9/11. But although it has been shown at Cannes and at a few film festivals in the United States, it has yet to find an American distributor, and for understandable reasons. The documentary asserts that Al Qaeda is largely a phantom of the imagination of the US national security apparatus. Indeed, The Power of Nightmares seeks nothing less than to reframe the past several decades of American foreign policy, from the Soviet menace of the 1970s to the Al Qaeda threat of today, to argue that neoconservatives in the American foreign policy establishment have vastly exaggerated those threats in their quest to remake the world in the image of the United States.

by An American in London on Sun May 27th, 2007 at 09:21:08 PM EST
The only positive thing I can say is that reaction in the press has been pretty sceptical, bordering on hostile.

Blair and Reid are yesterday's men and they can shout about taking us all on as they're bundled out the door as much as they like, but I think (hope) that the days of the blank cheque on terror are drawing to a close.

I'm sure there are still a lot of sun readers who can be persuaded that all we need to do is lock up a lot more darkies and everything will be alright and there will be council houses for all (blessings on sainted Margaret Hodge), but I think the darkest days are behind us.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 09:22:10 AM EST
I'd guess support for this kind of nonsense comes from the usual Authoritarian Third - who read the Mail and would like to flog darkies with birches because they're all paedophiles and benefit cheats. Unfortunately they're not an insignificant proportion of voters. Fortunately they're nowhere close to being a majority.

Proecedurally, so far as I can tell the plans are 'on the table' and will be 'discussed.'

Deciding whether or not to go ahead with them is going to be the first real test of Brown's regime. It's also going to be interesting to see who replaces Reid at the Home Office.

Reid is pretty much certifiable on the basis of aggressive delusional paranoia. So almost anyone in the world will be a better choice. But Brown's pick will offer a clear sign of whether we're in for some changes, or yet more of the same from Gordo.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 09:53:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Johann Hari has a good essay this morning about gordon Brown's religious beliefs and how they inform his political thinking.

http://johannhari.com/index.php

Brown is, he claims, "listening to the message of the Biblical prophets" when he brilliantly slashes Africa's debts, doubles aid, and increases tax credits for poor kids here at home. (He is presumably defying it when he permits the super-rich to continue jaunting about all-but-untaxed).  


keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 10:04:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]