When we look at the common factors affecting all of us in Western countries today, we find two things, mainly; That for one reason or another most of us are opposed to our countries' military and imperialistic regime imposal on the poorer and/or less militarily developed countries of the world, and that our governments are ignoring the majority when we say this is something we don't want.

The laws in our countries are being eroded and ignored, so that the fact we don't want to be imperialistic, the fact that we can all see the damage that imperialism does to the world and those directly oppressed by it, no longer constitutes a wake-up call to those in charge. These issues are the most important ones facing us, it seems, above all else. Above environmental issues, above housing, welfare, schooling, hospitals and all the things that help to ice the cake of freedom.

They are more important issues, because without them, none of the rest of the issues will matter. We are promised changes in these issues of home life, and when they are ignored or forgotten, it is because more is at stake; there is a threat of terrorism, there was an act of terrorism, the troops are suffering, there is this or that reason. When you are controlling the world, its hard sometimes to focus on the little things, like who that control benefits. If we have good schools and health services, but our schools are no longer free to teach openly - but must conform to a set of pre-authorized government rhetoric, or if our health service is dealing with terrorist victims or soldiers from the front line, how does that help us?

If the rights of you or me are being 'shaved', if our constant demands for wars NOT to be fought in our name are ignored, for people in foreign countries to be left to live and civilized diplomacy to be used in cases of real mistreatment of civilians (such as in Uzbekistan, or Chechnya, or China, or the US, or in fact, Australia) rather than bombs and bullets, is it any surprise that the same leaders would choose to undermine our rights at home, those things we pay taxes for like hospitals and schools and our fundamental freedoms?

The fact is, when the population stands up to the government to say, 'This thing you are doing is wrong', the government has 2 choices. It must either acknowledge this wrong thing and change it, or it must strengthen the divide between it and the people, so it can no longer hear the people, and so that the people can no longer say such things.

There is a trouble, perhaps, with the former option. If the governments acknowledge one wrong, they will be then forced to acknowledge others which preceded that one, and in all cases (at least, in the US, the UK and Australia, the actions of the governments have seen the leading opposition parties complicitous at all levels; they have been openly in agreeance with the current status quo).

So even to admit gross negligence is to implicate all major players in the political spectrum - they have all been guilty to a greater or lesser extent , whether by agreeing with the party in power on the issues of the wars, or by voting in favour of elements directly tied to such in the houses and senates. It implicates in Australia Kim Beazely as much as it does John Howard, for his unfailing support of the prime minister in relation to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it implicates him now in response to the Anti-Terror legislation which threatens to undermine even the basic precepts of a free democratic state. In the US, John Kerry proved to be every bit the antagonist in terms of his support for Iraqi occupation, implicating him alongside Bush, perhaps even potentially strengthening the resolve for the war that Bush has brought to it, and of course the previous leadership to Bush - the Clinton administration - created many of the bases in lead-up to the current occupation of Iraq, bringing death by sanction and such military tactics as bombing key medical facilities in Sudan to the US defense repertoire.

In the UK of course, there has been as much dual sided support for the invasions - one of the major reasons Blair was voted back in perhaps came from the lingering worry for the British public that under a conservative government the overseas imperialistic mission may prove to be even less merciful than already is the case; one needs only to look to the Falklands War to understand this concept.

Governments of the West cannot back down, to do so will threaten not just their current leadership, but their entire existence. There are just too many lies and deceits waiting to be uncovered. If this were not the case then apologies and expressed regret would almost suffice for many (in the West at least).

Given the probability that Western governments believe themselves too entrenched in terrorist behaviour themselves to risk an admission of guilt on any level (remember, the Hague is waiting), their other choice is to rid themselves of the risk of being convicted, and that means removal of free speech and human rights.

Australia is doing an excellent job of this currently with their new Anti-Terror legislation (currently being rushed through parliament on 'imminent threat of terrorism', despite not having had an attack on Australian soil since WWII), which has the power to detain suspects without charge, impose gag-orders on threat of a 5 year prison sentence, and imprison anyone proven guilty of encouraging hate against the sovereign parliament.

The US is in the process of reforming their policies to allow torture of terrorist suspects off-shore from the US (officially - accounts show it almost certainly already occurs); for the rest of us a frightening prospect, for the US citizens only a step away from imposing the same laws on their own citizens. They have already proven post Katrina just how much certain US citizens mean to them. Why would they stop there?

And the UK is also in the process of approving its own brand of Anti-Terror laws, laws which threaten the public, particularly (at least at the moment) the part of the public that has the misfortune of being muslim or middle-eastern. Under the new act, 'glorifying terrorism' will be a charge punishable by a long prison sentence. Under such vague premises, a dissident of the parliament could soon be guilty of a crime punishable by a sentence. This is not protection from terrorism, except if you include the state.

If the countries of the West do not rise en-masse to put a stop to such infractions of human rights soon, we will not be able to. As Malcolm Fraser - an ex-prime minister of Australia put it,

"one of the first pieces of legislation Hitler's government put into place was something for 'the good order and safety' of the citizens of Germany: preventive detention ...
Some parts of the legislation sound horribly familiar."


The difference is, the new State will not fail if we don't stop it now; Instead of one country's twisted vision for the future as in the case of Germany in WWII, we have many countries (one being the already undisputed super-power of the world) all seeking to dominate, not just the Middle-East, the Persian Gulf, Africa, Asia and South America , but also the people of the West itself.