Politics OnLine UK
Uploaded: 23 September 2004
Justice or oppression?
David Blunkett has announced that he is going to lift the blanket ban on covertly obtained intelligence as evidence in British courts. Good, I thought, perhaps we will see fewer people incarcerated without charge and without trial. That is part of his stated intention.
But hold on there, he goes on to say, he wants a fresh attempt to, "deal with people without putting them in jail", and is interested in creating a new offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism".
"He now believes that anyone found guilty of an association with a terrorist group, or involved in acts preparatory to terrorism should face a civil order that would restrict them having a bank account or from using the internet or computers.
As a war dissenter I have long been aware that to be anti-war is to be considered pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-British. It has been a niggling reality all along. It's been part of the propaganda war of fear waged by Blair and Bush.
May I also remind readers that it is Blunkett who said sharing credible information with us about terrorism was, 'Arrant nonsense'.
The intelligence information used to justify the invasion of Iraq was wrong. The conclusions that the British government drew from the intelligence data was wrong. The British government was wrong to invade Iraq because its stated reasons were wrong. Protesters against arms have been arrested using the new Terrorism Act.
Government is a matter of good faith. We vote, not knowing what a government is going to do, but in good faith that they will be true to their word, usually given in the shape of a manifesto. This government has been faithless and I am afraid that this site may well see its demise in Blunkett's creation of an offense of acts preparatory to terrorism.
Watch this space.
Doubt me? Read this, because what happens in the US soon happens over here.
Guantanmo on the Hudson
© Keith Lindsay-Cameron 2004