Labour isnt wicked - but its doing just what the Nazis did

#1
Labour isn't wicked - but it's doing just what the Nazis did
By Danny Kruger Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 27/03/2006)

Imagine we had a really bad government. I mean morally bad, wicked: a government that wanted to do something terrible, like abduct children from their families or introduce euthanasia of disabled babies. It couldn't happen, right? We wouldn't let it, would we?
This Government isn't morally bad. For all its frequent cock-ups, our ministers are well-intentioned, trying to do right by their own lights. Just now they find themselves caught out in the secular equivalent of simony, the sale of offices and indulgences for cash.
But simony is the natural vice of politics: in the cant phrase, it goes with the territory, where power and money meet. Indeed, the purchase of contracts and peerages used to be part of the normal business of politics, in times when human relationships counted for more than abstract individual merit.
We may think this is wrong, but we cannot think it is new.
The real fault of this Government is not its shady dealings, the tennis parties at Michael Levy's house where "Tony" "drops in".

The proper crime, the actual innovation in turpitude, is happening in plain view - like Poe's purloined letter, it is there before us on the mantelpiece, in the laws that Labour is passing.
Tyranny is sidling in. It is entering with face averted, under cover of a host of laws whose ostensible purpose is the reverse of their actual effect.
The Human Rights Act, for instance, was presented as a means of defending the individual against oppression by the state. Similarly, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, whose stealthy insinuation into British law the Government is conniving at, gives us all entitlements to social and economic "protection".
But these charters comprise sweeping generalisations whose confusion gives judges the power to create legal precedents ex nihilo; and though they may occasionally be used to frustrate the Government's wishes, their effect is to swell the remit and responsibilities of the state.
The old principles of equity and tort law, by which private individuals could accommodate their interests to each other in a natural and rational manner, is giving way to a system of arbitrary and artificial power.

The same inverted logic applies to the ID card scheme. The Home Office minister Andy Burnham, in a letter to the Observer yesterday, asserted that the cards are there "as a protection", to stop "identity theft".
Never mind that the system will use cheap chip-and-pin technology, which has already shown itself vulnerable to fraud. Ministers evidently believe our identities can be protected only if they are owned by ministers themselves.
For ID cards will not belong to us, but to the state: the Home Secretary will be able to revoke any individual's card at any moment, by the touch of a Whitehall button, rendering him or her a non-person, cut off from all the transactions in which freedom consists.
It is not exaggeration to say that the National Identity Register will give the government both knowledge of, and control over, your life. A photo of your face, your fingerprints and a scan of the back of your eye will be recorded, as well as 49 separate pieces of information, including your residence and your religion.
Every outpost of the state, and every outlet that operates under licence from the state (including shops selling cigarettes and alcohol), will have access to the register.
You will be required to acquire and carry a card proving your identity. The scheme will be compulsory, by the sly device of making us get one when we renew our passports: people will be banned from travelling abroad unless they register.
But even within Britain, it will soon be impossible to live a normal life without an ID card. Labour's horrible inversion of logic means that if something can be done, it will be done.
Shops and restaurants selling cigarettes and alcohol will find themselves required to demand ID to prove they have not sold to minors, and to log the sale. Banks will jump at the chance to tap into our doings, compiling exhaustive records of our spending habits that they will then sell on to other companies.
The alternatives will soon be submission to this corporate Leviathan, or setting up a barter economy on a Hebridean island.
And then there is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is presented as a means of repealing red tape and therefore restricting the reach of the state.
But the Bill, quite simply, gives any minister of the Crown the power to "make provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation", meaning "any public general Act", or indeed "any rule of law".
It cannot be used to impose taxation or create criminal offences bearing a prison term of more than two years, and there is also a cursory requirement for debate in committee.
But given that the Bill has been nodded through by pliant MPs - even the Conservatives let it by without a murmur, imposing only a one-line whip on the second reading - we cannot place much trust in the vigilance of our politicians.
For the final twist of the Bill's logic is that it will apply to itself: ministers may use its powers to remove its own limitations, and enable the government to make or repeal any law whatever.
The Regulatory Reform Bill is an Enabling Act, identical in spirit to the one the Nazis passed in 1933. On that occasion, Hitler promised that "the government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...
The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is a limited one." Our Government says much the same about the legislation it is passing today.
But our concern should not be with today or tomorrow, but with the day after tomorrow, when different, nastier politicians might be in power, and the habits of decency and common sense have been even further eroded.
We have already seen how officious policemen have used legislation designed to deal with terrorists to arrest protesters armed with nothing more lethal than placards.

Perhaps I was wrong when I said our Government isn't morally bad - that it wouldn't abduct children or enforce euthanasia of disabled babies.
Already there is legislation going through Parliament to set up state nurseries - "children's centres" - for under-fives. And a Royal College is actively campaigning to let babies born under 25 weeks die, rather than receive costly intensive care.
Both ideas are bad enough. But it is only a small step - a twist of logic of the sort this Government is adept at, and which its laws will make perfectly possible - to make state nursing compulsory, and extend infanticide to babies born with defects.
"Surely some revelation is at hand." Yeats's rough beast is moving its slow thighs, slouching towards Bethlehem to be born.

john
 
#3
And people said I was wasting all my money buying a job lot of tin foil and teaching the children how to make hats from it. :)



J
 
#4
They are wicked - they are using the police to crush anti-Bliar dissent. How many murders, rapes, robberies or drug deals were committed within central London at the time the police were harassing Mr Haw?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article353942.ece

Anti-war protester arrested at parliament
By Martin Hodgson
Published: 27 March 2006
Brian Haw, the anti-war protester who has lived at a one-man peace camp outside Parliament since June 2001, was arrested yesterday on suspicion of obstructing the police.

Mr Haw, 56, and a supporter, Barbara Tucker, 44, were taken to Charing Cross police station before their release last night, pending a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service. Scotland Yard said Ms Tucker was arrested " on suspicion of unlawfully demonstrating in Parliament Square".

Mr Haw said the incident began when police tried to confiscate one of his banners. "It's a beautiful pink banner with large black letters which say 'Bliar War Criminal'." Ms Tucker said: "Because it was Mother's day, I thought I should be down there with Brian, praying for other people's children."

Brian Haw, the anti-war protester who has lived at a one-man peace camp outside Parliament since June 2001, was arrested yesterday on suspicion of obstructing the police.

Mr Haw, 56, and a supporter, Barbara Tucker, 44, were taken to Charing Cross police station before their release last night, pending a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service. Scotland Yard said Ms Tucker was arrested " on suspicion of unlawfully demonstrating in Parliament Square".
Mr Haw said the incident began when police tried to confiscate one of his banners. "It's a beautiful pink banner with large black letters which say 'Bliar War Criminal'." Ms Tucker said: "Because it was Mother's day, I thought I should be down there with Brian, praying for other people's children."
 
#5
BiGbAddAbOOm said:
And people said I was wasting all my money buying a job lot of tin foil and teaching the children how to make hats from it. :)



J
You are wasting your money :lol: tinfoil won't help you.
Non of this is conspiract theories, its real legislation, the laws either all ready exist or are being put through Parliament.
 
#6
Brian Haw, the anti-war protester who has lived at a one-man peace camp outside Parliament since June 2001, was arrested yesterday on suspicion of obstructing the police.
"On suspicion", surely he was or he wasn't.
 
#7
Oberleutnant_vn_Genschler said:
Brian Haw, the anti-war protester who has lived at a one-man peace camp outside Parliament since June 2001, was arrested yesterday on suspicion of obstructing the police.
"On suspicion", surely he was or he wasn't.
That's another example of the questionable use of powers of detention by the police. They use the term 'suspicion' to justify detaining someone and when it's time to let them go and have no evidence to prosecute, they emphasise that it was only suspicion. An easy way to remove someone who is making an uncomfortable protest, without actually charging them with breaking the law!
 
#8
jonwilly said:
Imagine we had a really bad government. I mean morally bad, wicked: a government that wanted to do something terrible, like abduct children from their families or introduce euthanasia of disabled babies. It couldn't happen, right? We wouldn't let it, would we?
A more pertinent point is when would the people stop it? Just how sacred is our 'democratic' system when it's being abused in this way?

Without the checks and balances of an independent House of Lords, plus the regular abuse of the Parliament Act and laws being created that give the government the right to criminalise almost anything, not to mention the ability to legislate for anything, it's obvious that our traditional democratic system no longer exists anyway.

The Great British Public do have a breaking point, as King John and Charles the First found out to their cost, and it won't take too many more straws for the camel to get seriously upset.
 
#9
The Great British Public do have a breaking point, as King John and Charles the First found out to their cost, and it won't take too many more straws for the camel to get seriously upset.
The Ukrainian example is most inspiring - take to the streets (in sub zero temperatures) and stay there until the filthy beasts are toppled! 1-2million people marched down Whitehall in 2003 against a war that was far more dodgy than was believed at the time. If they decided to pitch camp on Parliament Square, there is not much that could be done to shift them.

:twisted:
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#10
Why do I have horrid visions of troops being used to shift them on. If it got to that stage (and it is entirly possible IMHO) how many members of the Forces would refuse on moral grounds. It would lead to a total breakdown on law and order. If the troops refused to play ball with the government, then there really would be trouble, because the police would probably refuse to go in without military support.

Or have I been watching to much TV?
 
#11
Agent_Smith said:
Oberleutnant_vn_Genschler said:
Brian Haw, the anti-war protester who has lived at a one-man peace camp outside Parliament since June 2001, was arrested yesterday on suspicion of obstructing the police.
"On suspicion", surely he was or he wasn't.
That's another example of the questionable use of powers of detention by the police. They use the term 'suspicion' to justify detaining someone and when it's time to let them go and have no evidence to prosecute, they emphasise that it was only suspicion. An easy way to remove someone who is making an uncomfortable protest, without actually charging them with breaking the law!
Well, not really - the bloke is an idiot (in the original, non-trivial sense of the world) and a right pain in the @rse. He needs to be encouraged to move on (go home) by fair means or foul. The guy's like chewing gum in your hair, or the proverbial post-nuclear cockroach. Those who live and work around Westminster have long since ceased to find him amusing.
 
#12
MrPVRd said:
The Great British Public do have a breaking point, as King John and Charles the First found out to their cost, and it won't take too many more straws for the camel to get seriously upset.
The Ukrainian example is most inspiring - take to the streets (in sub zero temperatures) and stay there until the filthy beasts are toppled! 1-2million people marched down Whitehall in 2003 against a war that was far more dodgy than was believed at the time. If they decided to pitch camp on Parliament Square, there is not much that could be done to shift them.

:twisted:
Well, again, apart from a good kicking by Blair II's finest - see Countryside Alliance march.

You need a good old riot to change things - see Toxteth, Tottenham, Trafalgar Sq.
 
#13
MrPVRd said:
The Great British Public do have a breaking point, as King John and Charles the First found out to their cost, and it won't take too many more straws for the camel to get seriously upset.
The Ukrainian example is most inspiring - take to the streets (in sub zero temperatures) and stay there until the filthy beasts are toppled! 1-2million people marched down Whitehall in 2003 against a war that was far more dodgy than was believed at the time. If they decided to pitch camp on Parliament Square, there is not much that could be done to shift them.

:twisted:
But do you really think that 2 million people would get off their arse and head to london en masse? I don't unless there was a REALLY Big issue that united the nation against the government. At the moment i can't see what form that issue would take for the peasants to revolt. Can you guys? :?
 
#14
clownbasher said:
Agent_Smith said:
Oberleutnant_vn_Genschler said:
Brian Haw, the anti-war protester who has lived at a one-man peace camp outside Parliament since June 2001, was arrested yesterday on suspicion of obstructing the police.
"On suspicion", surely he was or he wasn't.
That's another example of the questionable use of powers of detention by the police. They use the term 'suspicion' to justify detaining someone and when it's time to let them go and have no evidence to prosecute, they emphasise that it was only suspicion. An easy way to remove someone who is making an uncomfortable protest, without actually charging them with breaking the law!
Well, not really - the bloke is an idiot (in the original, non-trivial sense of the world) and a right pain in the @rse. He needs to be encouraged to move on (go home) by fair means or foul. The guy's like chewing gum in your hair, or the proverbial post-nuclear cockroach. Those who live and work around Westminster have long since ceased to find him amusing.
Whilst you and i may view his politics with a certain distaste, he sets an important precedent that a government simply cannot legislate to prevent public protest against their policies or actions. For that i commend him!
 
#15
Agent_Smith said:
Whilst you and i may view his politics with a certain distaste, he sets an important precedent that a government simply cannot legislate to prevent public protest against their policies or actions. For that i commend him!
Couldn't really give a monkey's about his politics - as I understand it he is a more or less a gibbering idiot, not much missed by some village - so I don't suppose they are particularly coherent.

What annoys me is the idea of a permanent protest, making the square look like a pikey encampment. We don't extend the right to anyone else to leave an unsightly load of random crap planted in the grass and colonise public space (so yes, mine too), so let's not start here. If they want to come down every day and wave a banner, that's fine by me but leave it there and you ought to expect it to go in the bin.

He and his fruity chums should also be prevented from chanting nonsense through a megaphone all day every day, because it is highly irritating (an "infringement of our rights", indeed!) to those of us who wish to go about our business in peace. If someone was parked outside your place constantly making a racket, I'm sure you would agree that it is quite lliterally a nuisance, regardless of political content.
 
#16
Agent_Smith said:
Whilst you and i may view his politics with a certain distaste, he sets an important precedent that a government simply cannot legislate to prevent public protest against their policies or actions. For that i commend him!
Couldn't really give a monkey's about his politics - as I understand it he is a more or less a gibbering idiot, not much missed by some village - so I don't suppose they are particularly coherent.

What annoys me is the idea of a permanent protest, making the square look like a pikey encampment. We don't extend the right to anyone else to leave an unsightly load of random crap planted in the grass and colonise public space (so yes, mine too), so let's not start here. If they want to come down every day and wave a banner, that's fine by me but leave it there and you ought to expect it to go in the bin.

It has now become a protest against more or less everything and has thus become ridiculous; shades of "Down With This Sort of Thing!"

He and his fruity chums should also be prevented from chanting nonsense through a megaphone all day every day, because it is highly irritating (an "infringement of our rights", indeed!) to those of us who wish to go about our business in peace. If someone was parked outside your place constantly making a racket, I'm sure you would agree that it is quite lliterally a nuisance, regardless of political content.
 
#17
clownbasher said:
Agent_Smith said:
Whilst you and i may view his politics with a certain distaste, he sets an important precedent that a government simply cannot legislate to prevent public protest against their policies or actions. For that i commend him!
Couldn't really give a monkey's about his politics - as I understand it he is a more or less a gibbering idiot, not much missed by some village - so I don't suppose they are particularly coherent.

What annoys me is the idea of a permanent protest, making the square look like a pikey encampment. We don't extend the right to anyone else to leave an unsightly load of random crap planted in the grass and colonise public space (so yes, mine too), so let's not start here. If they want to come down every day and wave a banner, that's fine by me but leave it there and you ought to expect it to go in the bin.

He and his fruity chums should also be prevented from chanting nonsense through a megaphone all day every day, because it is highly irritating (an "infringement of our rights", indeed!) to those of us who wish to go about our business in peace. If someone was parked outside your place constantly making a racket, I'm sure you would agree that it is quite lliterally a nuisance, regardless of political content.
I can see how he could be seen as a nuisance, and that there must be ways to prevent him making a mess and causing inconvenience. Despite this, i still back his right to protest (albeit it in a considerate and responsible manner) at his governments actions and policies.
 
#18
Yes, he just has to go home at night, take all his sh1t with him and respect the rights of those of us who happen to be in the area but not be Members of the House to a bit of peace.
 
#19
clownbasher said:
Yes, he just has to go home at night, take all his sh1t with him and respect the rights of those of us who happen to be in the area but not be Members of the House to a bit of peace.
Thing is though, if he leaves the site and returns, he will be subject to the sweeping new anti-protest legislation that labour brought in to stop his protest. Hence his continued residence :?
 
#20
Agent_Smith said:
clownbasher said:
Yes, he just has to go home at night, take all his sh1t with him and respect the rights of those of us who happen to be in the area but not be Members of the House to a bit of peace.
Thing is though, if he leaves the site and returns, he will be subject to the sweeping new anti-protest legislation that labour brought in to stop his protest. Hence his continued residence :?
On the other hand... if he hadn't made a nuisance of himself then perhaps they wouldn't have been come up with those laws... :)
 

Similar threads

Top