Revised proposal for terror law
rrrr | 06.10.2005 23:35 | Analysis | Repression | Social Struggles | Terror War
'Glorifying' terror plan revised - a victory for civil rights or part of the plan
A proposed new law which would have criminalised the "glorifying" of so-called terrorist activities has been revised following criticism. The revised proposal apparently means that somebody would have to "intend to incite" future terrorist acts in order to be convicted.
The mainstream media spin is that this change represents a 'Climb-down' by the Home Secretary Charles Clarke. However, I see things a little different. This is all 'double speak', just part of a well rehersed game we have seen over and over again to hoodwink us.
A proposed new law which would have criminalised the "glorifying" of so-called terrorist activities has been revised following criticism. The revised proposal apparently means that somebody would have to "intend to incite" future terrorist acts in order to be convicted.
The mainstream media spin is that this change represents a 'Climb-down' by the Home Secretary Charles Clarke. However, I see things a little different. This is all 'double speak', just part of a well rehersed game we have seen over and over again to hoodwink us.
How often do we hear about outrageous new legislation being proposed and then 'watered down' after challenges? It seems to me that new legislation is deliberately drafted to include extreme implications so that we feel relieve when it is modified to correct the extremes. These 'victorys' don't stop the gradual errosion of our civil liberties and the rights which our ancestors struggled to win.
Mr Clarke says that the new law, as now proposed, would make it an offence to "make a statement glorifying terrorism if the person making it believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that it is likely to be understood by its audience as an inducement to terrorism".
The partners in our pretend democracy back the changes, of course. "It's a climb-down - common sense has finally prevailed", said the Conservative shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten sai, "The new definition is a major improvement.
Regardless off the slight tweaking of the proposal, the fundamental problem remains. This new law that can't differentiate between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. We all know that the word terrorist has lost any useful meaning in the hands of the worlds biggest terrorists so how could we doubt that this new law will be used as a tool of oppression?
Mr Clarke says that the new law, as now proposed, would make it an offence to "make a statement glorifying terrorism if the person making it believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that it is likely to be understood by its audience as an inducement to terrorism".
The partners in our pretend democracy back the changes, of course. "It's a climb-down - common sense has finally prevailed", said the Conservative shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten sai, "The new definition is a major improvement.
Regardless off the slight tweaking of the proposal, the fundamental problem remains. This new law that can't differentiate between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. We all know that the word terrorist has lost any useful meaning in the hands of the worlds biggest terrorists so how could we doubt that this new law will be used as a tool of oppression?
rrrr
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
do I amuse you :)
07.10.2005 16:58
The EXTREME version is used to change the 'rules'- that is to say the rules of what people will think and say. This is a 'softening up act' that lays the ground for future laws. The Mass Media gets to debate in all seriousness ideas that otherwise would have been seen as the ravings of extremist psychopaths.
We saw the same thing with torture (especially from that NY pro-israeli terrorist lawyer- self confessed- who lead the way in legitimising the use of torture against muslims- BTW is that bastard allowed to enter the UK?).
Again, an article posted on this site a few days ago detailed the long genesis of the 7-to-the-head policy.
The thing is this- what we talk about today is where we will be going tomorrow. This is the single greatest reason Blair's goons post on this, and other sites. Words may seem cheap, put it is amazing how quickly than can solidify into actions, once the debate seems 'owned'.
Time for another lesson in psy-ops. You know how when you read the Mass Media, the same old crap gets repeated OVER and OVER and OVER to the seeming point of embarrassment. Take a phrase like 'War on Terror'. NOTICE HOW IT NEVER GETS OLD. Now think about what is happening, and why.
Now consider this. I post here at the moment whenever something catches my attention. Doing so certainly doesn't force anyone to read my words, or approve of them, and CERTAINLY doesn't reduce the ability of others to post too. If anything, speaking out must always encourage others to do likewise, to generate a multiplicity of voices. However, I focus on Blair and his crimes, and A LOT of people here really, really don't like this.
My point is, watch how they attack. First they say that a person who speaks a lot is suspicious. Second they say a person who stays true to the same themes is tedious and guilty of repetition, and should be ignored. Thirdly, they say such a person is trying to 'dominate' even when his action CANNOT suppress anyone else's opinion or voice. Fourthly, they'll use 'control language' by saying (for instance) they find the postings 'AMUSING'. Good word that- as in "very amusing, Mr Bond", or "Do I amuse you??? Do you think I'm here to make you laugh???" (excuse the mis-quotes).
These attacks are used, because by-and-large they are very effective. Good people are easily discouraged from repeating their point, as if once said, it exists for all time. Blair's mass media uses repition for a very good reason. Remember, when they attack you, it is only because you are making some little difference.
If Blair is not removed immediately, you will live to see Blair activate each of his extreme proposals, and others that you could not imagine, even in your worst nightmares. You will live to see concentration camps in Britain, the US and Europe. You will live to see Nuclear and Biological war on a planetary scale. Funny thing is, they've been very honest in describing your future. All you really have to do is listen, and understand that they mean what they say.
Why don't people look into their future with clarity. Simple- if you make the future awful enough, it becomes like staring into the Sun. The concentration of Evil that we face is exactly like that overwhelming brightness, and in diverting our gaze, we foolishly think that what we can't see properly is unlikely to really hurt us. Just like people failing to get their suspected cancer tumour treated until too late, because the horror of the idea of cancer is just too intense to face.
twilight
Agree with the analysis
07.10.2005 18:03
It's also anti-PR for the BBC and demonstrates the failure of the moderate / left wing mainstream media. Where were the BBC, the Guardian, the Mirror or the Independent when the fascist proposals were put forth? In the Guardian's case, cynically morphing from Rusbridger's "left wing niche broadsheet" into an ultra pro-New Labour lifestyle magazine. As for the rest, they basically acquiesced, with a few quips from Rory Bremner and gloom from Radio 4. Now that the precedent has been usefully tested and practically established, we can expect the possibility of further repressive legislation in the future.
anon