Plan to extend anti-terror laws. Why???

#1
I have just read with interest this article:

More draconian powers

The outgoing PM has also decided to write an article in the Times explaining why he thinks it is all our fault as a society that 3 suspected terrorists have absconded in breech of their control orders. See link below:

The Times article by the PM

I am currently reading through this article and am coming to the conclusion that it is the disjointed, inaccurate rhetorical ramblings of a sociopath. In my pursuit of current affairs I have come across this little gem:

Database to hold all UK populations DNA

Linking all of these stories together and, no doubt, numerous others, it is difficult not to draw a parallel with a control obsessed government seeking to emancipate the electorate.

This government seeks to distance itself from all forms of accountability and to remove the ideology of representative democracy from its political manifesto, yet it wishes the electorate to support it in its quest by exonerating itself of guilt and responsibility by the inclusion of fear.

Democracy is a fragile ideology, which has been eroded to near extinction by this government. By its very nature, democracy must be a compromise. How can the imposition of internment in the UK, stop and search without reasonable cause, DNA registration for all UK nationals uphold democracy? This pending legislation is the very antithesis of the meaning of democracy.

Is this my Sunday paranoia surfacing, or do fellow ARRSERS share my views?

Edited for shite spelling
 
#2
In answer to the question posed in the thread title.

Bliar read 1984, as any good Labour activist should, and immediately decided that it was aspirational as well as inspirational.

He is trying his best to get us all talking Newspeak. Lets face it, Whitehall IS the Ministry of Truth!

:x

Heed
 
#4
mad_mac said:
Linking all of these stories together and, no doubt, numerous others, it is difficult not to draw a parallel with a control obsessed government seeking to emancipate the electorate.

This government seeks to distance itself from all forms of accountability and to remove the ideology of representative democracy from its political manifesto, yet it wishes the electorate to support it in its quest by exonerating itself of guilt and responsibility by the inclusion of fear.

Democracy is a fragile ideology, which has been eroded to near extinction by this government. By its very nature, democracy must be a compromise. How can the imposition of internment in the UK, stop and search without reasonable cause, DNA registration for all UK nationals uphold democracy? This pending legislation is the very antithesis of the meaning of democracy.

Is this my Sunday paranoia surfacing, or do fellow ARRSERS share my views? Edited for shite spelling
I totally share your view on these matters M_M. There is an article in Mail Online that reveals a secret unit was set up last year by the Labour Government, designed to section dissidents under the Mental Health Act as a means of protecting "public figures". This clearly emulates the actions of the Stalinist regime in the USSR at the height of its horrors.

We shall shortly be celebrating three important anniversaries, Falklands Liberation Day (14th June 1982) ; Waterloo Day (18th June 1815) and Battle of Britain Day (15th September 1940) – historic British victories in defence of liberty and sovereignty. A lot has changed since Churchill and "the few" and Margaret Thatcher’s government, each stood firm in defence of freedom.

Many of us feel that Britain is no longer a free country, and that we have ceased to be “an example” or “a beacon of hope” to the world. But, with determination, we can recover our lost British freedom, identity and independence – and restore our traditional role in the world.
 
#5
mad_mac said:
I have just read with interest this article:

More draconian powers...
As the beeb article says:
The new legislation would be similar to that already used in Northern Ireland.
I was going to say I await the diplock courts but:
Until recently the Diplock courts only tried republican or loyalist paramilitaries. In the first case in which a person not associated with the Troubles was tried and convicted, Abbas Boutrab, a suspected al-Qaeda sympathizer, was found guilty of having information that could assist bombing an airliner.[2] A sentence of six years was handed down on December 20, 2005.[3]
What next?
 
#6
Are you trying to say that you are for the way that civil liberties and human rights have taken over our country, that daft policies that place the rights of the criminal before the victim.

Prisons overcrowded: don't reduce the length of sentences double them, make prison a true detterent.

Someone acting suspiciously then the cops should be able to act even if it is on just a hunch. Including stopping motorists who drive in a manner that could indicate no licence therefore no insurance.

DNA database/National ID card: for both of these "got something to hide?" these things protect the civil liberties of the innocent, the right to live in a safe environment. As for an ID card well I, like so many, have carried one for years it's called a MOD F 90. Many other countries seem to manage well with ID cards so why should the UK be any different.

In case you think I'm Bliar's biggest fan, I'm not. Personally speaking he's a t*sser of a smiling assassin.
 
#7
There's an obvious analogy here with a very strict father imposing all sorts of draconian rules on his offspring and then wondering why they're disobeyed. All Phoney Tony's after (and indeed lots of other politicians) is a populace in perpetual fear of putting a foot wrong in the mistaken belief that this will cause all wrong-doing to cease. The GDR tried it too, and we all know how well that worked out.

In an age in which a very large section of the population is as well (if not better) educated as the politicians, the gobment needs to finally bin the self-serving and comfortable attitude that it knows best and begin to include the people it's meant to serve in a meaningful way. That would, however, mean that the likes of Phoney Tony and his ilk would lose some of their advantages and privileges. Thus, it'll never happen. What a shame.

MsG
 
#8
No, but I am sick of hearing the usual defence of 'if you've nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear' - the Nazis used to use that one as an excuse for bringing in draconian laws that, eventually, criminalised everyone. My privacy is very important to me and this does not include being hauled over and my DNA taken 'just to make sure you are who you say you are'.

As has been pointed out many times on this site, dictatorship does not come crashing in the front door wearing a swastika, but stealthily through the back door.
 
#9
mnairb said:
No, but I am sick of hearing the usual defence of 'if you've nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear' - the Nazis used to use that one as an excuse for bringing in draconian laws that, eventually, criminalised everyone. My privacy is very important to me and this does not include being hauled over and my DNA taken 'just to make sure you are who you say you are'.

As has been pointed out many times on this site, dictatorship does not come crashing in the front door wearing a swastika, but stealthily through the back door.
Indeed
... to quote the old saying "All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing"


...at least most of us on arrse are trying to do something!
 
#10
No doubt people have complained about censors and such since the time of the Romans: seeing them as infringement of their civil liberties too.
 
#11
mnairb said:
No, but I am sick of hearing the usual defence of 'if you've nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear' - the Nazis used to use that one as an excuse for bringing in draconian laws that, eventually, criminalised everyone. My privacy is very important to me and this does not include being hauled over and my DNA taken 'just to make sure you are who you say you are'.
Draconian: adj. (especially of laws) excessively harsh and severe.

Do drastic times not merit drastic measures? How many more terrorist cells are out there waiting to kill members of the British public.
 
#12
Bliars article written in the Times in radically flawed:

Bliar wrote:

Our aim is to reach a consensus across the main political parties.
That has never been the governments aim. The imposition of its political will by any means possible, including the Parliament Act if a Bill fails to go through. This was used for the Hunting Bill, hardly a subject of National Security :x

Bliar wrote:

In December 2004 these laws were struck down by the courts. In his famous judgment Lord Hoffmann said there was a greater risk to Britain through the abrogation of the foreign suspect’s civil liberties than through terrorism.
Let us not forget that after John Majors Conservative government was voted out, the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 was on Labours party manifesto. It became law in 2000 incorporating the ECHR Act. Bliar by meddling in European legislative matters sowed the seeds of this disaster.

Bliar wrote:

And, of course, we lost the crucial vote on 90 days’ precharge detention, despite offering a week-by-week court hearing throughout the 90 days.
And was given 28 days instead, more than sufficient time without moving to UK internment.

Bliar wrote:

So the fault is not with our services or, in this instance, with the Home Office. We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first.
No Department is responsible for this disaster except for the British Electorate. What absolute unadulterated rubbish :x

Bliar wrote:

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.
Britain is starting to become an inhospitalble place for all to live in. Criminalisation of the masses is just the starting point.

It should also be noted that control orders include the powers to "stop and search" without reasonable cause. Therefor, why is this Government attempting to introduce legislation for use against the public at large were there is NO cause for suspicion.

Bliar wrote:

When he had finished, I said to him: tell me exactly what they feel angry about. We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them with a United Nations-supervised democratic process and the Muslims in both countries get the chance to vote, which incidentally they take in very large numbers. And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims.
One was removed by downright lies :x .

An oversimplistic and childlike justification. The historical legacy has been one where both countries were covertly supported and funded by democractic countries to control the spread of global communism. After the overthrow of both these countries dictators a weak, thinly veiled democratic puppet government was approved initially by the invading countries. This political vacuity caused the fracture of the countries back to tribal areas and acted as a catalyst for all and sundry to exert their military wil. (No doubt, the terrorists are sponsored by non democratic states: What comes around goes around perhaps).

Bliar wrote:

This extremism can be defeated. But it will be defeated only by recognising that we have not created it; it cannot be negotiated with; pandering to its sense of grievance will only encourage it; and only by confronting it, the methods and the ideas, will we win.
As all forms of terrorism should NOT be negotiated with. Why has he contradicted his principles and negotiated with terrorists in the Province. He has pandered to its sense of grievance and has legitimised terrorism as a means to obtain political power :x
 
#13
GasmaskWilf said:
Do drastic times not merit drastic measures? How many more terrorist cells are out there waiting to kill members of the British public.
I wasn't in the UK during the time of all the IRA attacks, but if I remember correctly, there was no drastic increase in such limitations on freedom. And at that time, there was a real and present danger. It makes you wonder about the true motives behind all this recent activity.

MsG
 
#14
GasmaskWilf said:
Do drastic times not merit drastic measures? How many more terrorist cells are out there waiting to kill members of the British public.
Probably the same amount as 2 to 3 decades ago.

17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17):
Aims to highlight and protest at what it deems to be imperialist and corrupt actions, using violence. Formed in 1974 to oppose the Greek military Junta, its stance was initially anti-Junta and anti-US, which it blamed for supporting the Junta.

Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO):
ANO’s principal aim is the destruction of the state of Israel . It is also hostile to ‘reactionary’ Arab regimes and states supporting Israel .

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG):
The precise aims of the ASG are unclear, but its objectives appear to include the establishment of an autonomous Islamic state in the Southern Philippine island of Mindanao.

Al-Gama'at al-Islamiya (GI):
The main aim of GI is through all means, including the use of violence, to overthrow the Egyptian Government and replace it with an Islamic state. Some members also want the removal of Western influence from the Arab world.

Al Gurabaa:
Al Gurabaa is a splinter group of Al-Muajiroon and diseminates materials that glorify acts of terrorism.

Al Ittihad Al Islamia (AIAI):
The main aims of AIAI are to establish a radical Sunni Islamic state in Somalia, and to regain the Ogaden region of Ethopia as Somali territory via an insurgent campaign. Militant elements within AIAI are suspected of having aligned themselves with the ‘global jihad’ ideology of Al Qaida, and to have operated in support of Al Qaida in the East Africa region.

Al Qaida:
Inspired and led by Osama Bin Laden, its aims are the expulsion of Western forces from Saudi Arabia , the destruction of Israel and the end of Western influence in the Muslim world.

Ansar Al Islam (AI):
AI is a radical Sunni Salafi group from northeast Iraq around Halabja. The group is anti-Western, and opposes the influence of the US in Iraqi Kurdistan and the relationship of the KDP and PUK to Washington. AI has been involved in operations against Multi-National Forces-Itaq (MNF-I).

Ansar Al Sunna (AS):
AS is a fundamentalist Sunni Islamist extremist group based in Central Iraq and what was the Kurdish Autonomous Zone (KAZ) of Northern Iraq. The group aims to expel all foreign influences from Iraq and create a fundamentalist Islamic state

Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armée) (GIA):
The aim of the GIA is to create an Islamic state in Algeria using all necessary means, including violence.

Asbat Al-Ansar ('League of Parisans' or 'Band of Helpers'):
Sometimes going by the aliases of 'The Abu Muhjin' group/faction or the 'Jama'at Nour', this group aims to enforce its extremist interpretation of Islamic law within Lebanon, and increasingly further afield.

Babbar Khalsa (BK):
BK is a Sikh movement that aims to establish an independent Khalistan within the Punjab region of India .

Basque Homeland and Liberty (Euskadi ta Askatasuna) (ETA):
ETA seeks the creation of an independent state comprising the Basque regions of both Spain and France .

Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA):
BLA are comprised of tribal groups based in the Baluchistan area of Eastern Pakistan, which aims to establish an idependant nation encompassing the Baluch dominated areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ):
The main aim of the EIJ is to overthrow the Egyptian Government and replace it with an Islamic state. However, since September 1998, the leadership of the group has also allied itself to the 'global Jihad' ideology expounded by Osama Bin Laden and has threatened Western interests.

Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain (GICM):
The traditional primary objective of the GICM has been the installation of a governing system of the caliphate to replace the governing Moroccan monarchy. The group also has an Al Qaida-inspired global extremist agenda.

Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades:
Hamas aims to end Israeli occupation in Palestine and establish an Islamic state.

Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (HUJI):
The aim of HUJI is to achieve though violent means accession of Kashmir to Pakistan, and to spread terror throughout India. HUJI has targetted Indian security positions in Kashmir and conducted operations in India proper.

Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (Bangladesh) (Huji-B):
The main aim of HUJI-B is the creation of an Islamic regime in Bangladesh modelled on the former Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

Harakat-Ul-Mujahideen/Alami (HuM/A) and Jundallah:
The aim of both HuM/A and Jundallah is the rejection of democracy of even the most Islamic-oriented style, and to establish a caliphate based on Sharia law, in addition to achieving accession of all Kashmir to Pakistan. HuM/A has a broad anti-Western and anti-President Musharraf agenda.

Harakat Mujahideen (HM):
HM, previously known as Harakat Ul Ansar (HuA), seeks independence for Indian-administered Kashmir. The HM leadership was also a signatory to Osama Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa, which called for worldwide attacks against US and Western interests.

Hizballah External Security Organisation:
Hizballah is committed to armed resistance to the state of Israel itself and aims to liberate all Palestinian territories and Jerusalem from Israeli occupation. It maintains a terrorist wing, the External Security Organisation (ESO), to help it achieve this.

Hezb-E Islami Gulbuddin (HIG):
Led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who is in particular very anti-American, HIG desires the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic State in Afghanistan and is anti-Western.

International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF):
ISYF is an organisation committed to the creation of an independent state of Khalistan for Sikhs within India .

Islamic Army of Aden (IAA):
The IAA's aims are the overthrow of the current Yemeni government and the establishment of an Islamic State following Sharia Law.

Islamic Jihad Union (IJU):
The primary strategic goal of the IJU is the elimination of the current Uzbek regime. The IJU would expect that following the removal of President Karimov, elections would occur in which Islamic-democratic political candidates would pursue goals shared by the IJU leadership.

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU):
The primary aim of IMU is to establish an Islamic state in the model of the Taleban in Uzbekistan . However, the IMU is reported to also seek to establish a broader state over the entire Turkestan area.

Jaish e Mohammed (JeM):
JeM seeks the 'liberation' of Kashmir from Indian control as well as the 'destruction' of America and India . JeM has a stated objective of unifying the various Kashmiri militant groups.

Jeemah Islamiyah (JI):
JI's aim is the creation of a unified Islamic state in Singapore , Malaysia , Indonesia and the Southern Philippines.

Khuddam Ul-Islam (Kul) and splinter group Jamaat Ul-Furquan (JuF):
The aim of both KUI and JuF are to unite Indian administered Kashmir with Pakistan; to establish a radical Islamist state in Pakistan; the ‘destruction’ of India and the USA; to recruit new jihadis; and the release of imprisoned Kashmiri militants

Kongra Gele Kurdistan (PKK):
PKK/KADEK/KG is primarily a separatist movement that seeks an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey. The PKK changed its name to KADEK and then to Kongra Gele Kurdistan, although the PKK acronym is still used by parts of the movement.

Lashkar e Tayyaba (LT):
LT seeks independence for Kashmir and the creation of an Islamic state using violent means.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE):
The LTTE is a terrorist group fighting for a separate Tamil state in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

Mujaheddin e Khalq (MeK):
The MeK is an Iranian dissident organisation based in Iraq . It claims to be seeking the establishment of a democratic, socialist, Islamic republic in Iran .

Palestinian Islamic Jihad - Shaqaqi (PIJ):
PIJ is a Shi'a group which aims to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and create an Islamic state similar to that in Iran . It opposes the existence of the state of Israel , the Middle East Peace Process and the Palestinian Authority.

Revolutionary Peoples' Liberation Party - Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi - Cephesi) (DHKP-C):
DHKP-C aims to establish a Marxist Leninist regime in Turkey by means of armed revolutionary struggle.

Teyre Azadiye Kurdistan (TAK):
TAK Kurdish terrorist group currently opperating in Turkey.

Salafist Group for Call and Combat (Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat) (GSPC):
Its aim is to create an Islamic state in Algeria using all necessary means, including violence.

Saved Sect or Saviour Sect:
The Saved Sect is a splinter group of Al-Muajiroon and diseminates materials that glorify acts of terrorism

Sipah-E Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) (Aka Millat-E Islami Pakistan (MIP) - SSP was renamed MIP in April 2003 but is still referred to as SSP) and splinter group Lashkar-E Jhangvi (LeJ):
The aim of both SSP and LeJ is to transform Pakistan by violent means into a Sunni state under the total control of Sharia law. Another objective is to have all Shia declared Kafirs and to participate in the destruction of other religions, notably Judasim, Christianity and Hinduism.

Note: Kafirs means non-believers: literally, one who refused to see the truth. LeJ does not consider members of the Shia sect to be Muslim, hence they can be considered a ‘legitimate’ target

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG):
The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qaida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi.


Proscribed Irish groups

Continuity Army Council
Cumann na mBan
Fianna na hEireann
Irish National Liberation Army
Irish People's Liberation Organisation
Irish Republican Army
Loyalist Volunteer Force
Orange Volunteers
Red Hand Commando
Red Hand Defenders
Saor Eire
Ulster Defence Association
Ulster Freedom Fighters
Ulster Volunteer Force
The introduction of more draconian laws will do little to protect the public.

Increased vigilance and stricter border controls controlled by human operators, not biometric computers will aid protection.

Placing the whole UK under surveillance will hardly further the governments cause, and will certainly have a minimal impact on terrorist activities.
 
#15
Bugsy said:
GasmaskWilf said:
Do drastic times not merit drastic measures? How many more terrorist cells are out there waiting to kill members of the British public.
I wasn't in the UK during the time of all the IRA attacks, but if I remember correctly, there was no drastic increase in such limitations on freedom. And at that time, there was a real and present danger. It makes you wonder about the true motives behind all this recent activity.

MsG
I'm with you there Bugsy - I seem to recall that civpop were reminded to be careful (persec if you like), the only other thing is we were told not to wear uniform off duty (persec again).
 
#16
Bugsy said:
And at that time, there was a real and present danger. It makes you wonder about the true motives behind all this recent activity.

MsG
You have to look at it from the government's perspective. There is currently a real and present danger. The danger is that Labour will lose the next general election.

As I understand the new laws that have been introduced, all Gordo has to do is declare a state of emergency in order to completely bypass parliament and rule by decree.

Lost the election? Ignore it. Cameron breathing down your neck? Jail him. Torygraph not on message? Shut it down. Unfavourable economic data? Slap a D-notice on it.

We are treading on very thin ice indeed.
 
#17
GasmaskWilf said:
Someone acting suspiciously then the cops should be able to act even if it is on just a hunch. Including stopping motorists who drive in a manner that could indicate no licence therefore no insurance.
The police currently have these powers under the first Terrorist Bill and also under the SOCA powers.
 
#18
mad_mac said:
The police currently have these powers under the first Terrorist Bill and also under the SOCA powers.
The Laws

Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984

Section 1 of PACE is the most commonly used power and gives the police power to stop and search people and vehicles for stolen goods and offensive weapons on the basis of reasonable suspicion.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a specific area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that there is the possibility of serious violence or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon.

This law is used mainly to tackle football hooliganism and gang fights.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives police the power to search people for equipment that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so. It is under this law that police conduct random searches in train and tube stations.
 
#19
deleted due to duplicate post.
 
#20
In the House of Lords on Thursday of Last Week, the executive have made it clear that if the rule of law is too inconvenient, they will alter the law to accommodate the inability of the executive to find sufficient evidence to place before a court to secure a conviction. Reid want's mere suspicion to prevail over proof. To that end, his mouthpiece in the Lords, Baroness Scotland, has issued the judiciary with a clear warning that they are to find in the Government's favour in the next round of appeals - or else!

24 May 2007 : Column WS62

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal):
" My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, John Reid, has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
I am today informing Parliament of an ongoing police operation to locate three British citizens who are believed to have absconded from control orders on Monday night.

It is believed that these individuals wanted to travel abroad for terrorism-related purposes. They are not considered at this time to represent a direct threat to the public in the UK. The control orders were therefore designed to prevent travel. Their control orders included obligations requiring them to surrender any travel documents and report each day to a local police station, and two of the individuals were required to phone a monitoring company each night. On the evening of 21 May, these two individuals failed to call the monitoring company. All three individuals failed to report to their local police station on 22 May.

Public safety is the top priority for the Government and the police. Locating these individuals is an operational matter for the police, and an active investigation is under way. On police operational advice, and to assist the investigation, I approached the High Court to lift the anonymity orders for these three individuals and this was agreed late yesterday afternoon. As a result, the police were able to make a public appeal as part of their ongoing investigation.

As I have consistently made clear, control orders are far from 100 per cent effective, but under our existing laws they are as far as we can go.


24 May 2007 : Column WS63

Unfortunately, within these limits, it is very difficult to prevent determined individuals from absconding. Nevertheless, I am already appealing to the House of Lords in several other control order cases about the interpretation of Article 5 ECHR (deprivation of liberty). We will consider other options—including derogation—if we have exhausted ways of overturning previous judgments on this issue."
 

Similar threads

Top