Guilty! New
Labour could arrest self under new terror law
Tony Blair and the
bulk of the Parliamentary Labour Party could (well OK, should) find
themselves qualifying as subjects for control orders, under the sweeping powers
Home Secretary Charles Clarke and, er, Tony Blair are currently asking them to
rush through Parliament.
Their offence?
Involvement in "terrorism-related activity" as it is defined in the
terms of the proposed
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
The notion is of
course absurd, but it neatly illustrates the absurdity of the entire,
outrageous proposal. It considers "the commission, preparation or
instigation of acts of terrorism" as constituting "involvement in
terrorism-related activity", which seems logical enough, but then it
reaches for the broader brush and gets carried away.
Conduct which
"facilitates" terrorism-related activity is included (which could
again be fair, but it rather depends on where the boundaries of facilitation
lie), so is "conduct which gives encouragement" (shouting 'Troops out
of Iraq now!' could count, here), and "conduct which gives support or
assistance to individuals who are known or believed [yes people, believed
- according to the proposed Act, the wording is now "satisfied, on
the balance of probabilities"] to be involved in terrorism-related
activity."
Anyone considered
by the Home Secretary to be covered by any or all of these can have a wide
range range of their liberties curtailed by order of the Home Secretary; do
not pass court, do not have sight of evidence, do not even think of saying
'beyond reasonable doubt'. It seems probable to us that we could bang up
the Labour Party on several of them, but we'll take the last one as an example,
considering funding as constituting "support or assistance".
Hello Gerry Adams
MP. In December 2001, at the behest of Tony Blair, the Parliamentary Labour
Party voted to allow Sinn Fein MPs to draw allowances.
They had previously
been denied these on the basis that they had declined to swear the oath of
allegiance to the Queen, and were (and still are) unable to take their seats in
the Commons. The Labour Government nevertheless gave them access to the
allowances, its flimsy excuse being that this would involve them more closely
in the peace process.
Sherry, Gerry?
More recently, you
will have noticed, that Government has been proposing to suspend these
allowances, has been claiming that the Provisional IRA is responsible for the
recent massive bank raid in Northern Ireland, and that Sinn Fein's
representatives remain closely involved with the Provos, and had knowledge of
the planning and execution of the raid.
Which we think, in
the Government's view, makes them "individuals who are known or believed
to be involved in terrorism-related activity." Voting them money sounds
like support, and inviting them round for chats with the PM doesn't look good.
"Can I support you with another sherry, Mr Adams?"
Obviously Charles
Clarke isn't going to detain the entire Labour Party, or even Sinn Fein, but
the point here is that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill effectively
defines an offence as 'anything we say it is.' And this is supported to
some extent by Charles Clarke's own stance.
He does not at the
moment consider that home detention is necessary, but he may think it is in the
future, based on evidence he says he has but which he will not disclose.
He argues that the
current threat is far greater than the threat of the IRA was, hence the 'need'
for the legislation in the first place, and again this is based on evidence he
professes to have but will not disclose. 'The level of threat is what I say
it is. You'll have to trust me on that.'
So whoever is Home
Secretary can define the points at which the IRA is a threat, or a partner in
talks or any point in between, and neither we nor the legal system can gainsay
him. Note that an important part of the wondrous utility of the legislation is
the facility to choose not to nick people.
This means
troublesome civil rights activists can't use the legislation to pursue, say,
passing members of the US Government who might have a dubious past supporting
Central American or Afghan insurgents.
Clarke's concession
yesterday that home detention powers would not be immediately applied is also
interesting because of the way it switches the immediate purpose of the
legislation over to Blunkett's toy box.
At the moment we
have ten allegedly dangerous foreigners who're being illegally held in
Belmarsh, and without further legislation to detain them they're going to be
let out on 14th March.
This emergency
legislation however is not the emergency legislation that will keep them
detained, so they will indeed be let out. It is therefore the other measures of
the Prevention of Terrorism Bill that are intended to provide adequate
levels of control - they are to be, effectively, lab rats in a control
experiment.
As Clarke is giving
himself powers to move against practically anyone he chooses, balance (the Home
Office describes the proposals as "balanced") surely dictates that he
can restrict them in practically any way he chooses too.
So the
"obligations that may be imposed by a control order... include"
prohibition or restriction on possession of specified articles or substances,
use of specified services or facilities, the carrying on of specified
activities, restrictions on work, place of residence, persons met, places
visited, movement, and so on.
It's basically
'whatever we specify', so although the services and facilities bit could
include use of ISPs, the Internet, email or posting stuff on a web site, it could
also extend to writing letters to The Times on concealed scraps of
toilet paper.
To enforce all this
we have requirements to submit to searches of residence or other premises, and
to "co-operate with specified arrangements for enabling his movements, communications
or other activities to be monitored by electronic or other means." These
include "wearing or otherwise using apparatus approved by or in accordance
with the arrangements".
The Belmarsh
detainees will therefore walk free, but where and how they walk, and what they
do, will be defined by Charles Clarke and enforced by a regime of surveillance
and tagging.
Considering all of
these possibilities, you might feel the 'no home detention' concession is
somewhat academic - and you'd be right, because it isn't exactly what
Clarke has conceded, and the concession he has made is actually to human rights
law rather than to critics. This will become a particularly important area as
the use of electronically enforced non-custodial and extra-judicial restrictions
develops, so it bears examination.
The Prevention
of Terrorism Bill actually says that the Home Secretary "may make a control order
imposing an obligation that is incompatible with the controlled person's right
to liberty under Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention", but there are
conditions that need to be fulfilled.
First there must be a "particular public
emergency", and there must be a designated derogation for that emergency
from Article 5.
Translated, that
means that the UK Parliament must have voted under the terms of the Human
Rights Act 1998 to derogate, or opt out, from Article 5. The Act allows for
this, but only in cases of national emergency.
The European
Convention on Human Rights also allows for this, but the necessary national
emergency is defined as one that "affects the whole population and
constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community of which the state
is composed."
So Clarke has two
problems here, squaring the emergency level with the 1998 Act and the ECHR, and
deciding what constitutes restrictions that are incompatible with the victim's
right to liberty under Article 5
Locking them up, we are all now apparently
agreed, would count, but what else? Clarke himself conceded yesterday that if
sufficient restrictions were imposed on an individual they could in sum be
viewed as interfering with his right to liberty, but there's no
points-weighting system in the Bill, no item is helpfully flagged 'definitely
breaches Article 5', so it will require legal challenges to establish where
the Act and its application breaches the ECHR.
As tagging and
restrictions become more commonplace, there undoubtedly will be such
challenges. The Home Office is perhaps not wonderfully placed to resist these.
Clarke it would appear currently thinks we do not have a qualifying emergency,
while the Home Office's
terror FAQ answers the question, "Does a public state of emergency
exist?" with an emphatic "Yes." Wrong kind of emergency, then...
Terrorwatch
In support of the
Prevention of Terrorism Bill the Home Office published four briefing documents.
These are heavily dependent on evidence they claim to have but won't show us,
but there are a couple of statements of fact that can be readily challenged
from published information.
For example:
"The UK has extensive experience of tracking, disrupting and undermining
the finances of terrorist networks." Which we presume is why the
Provisional IRA's long-standing money-laundering and racketeering activities
are in such manifest bad shape.
Or, in the FAQ, we
are told: "Our 'intelligence' only approach, based on decades of dealing
with terrorism, brings with it uniquely close co-operation between law
enforcement and intelligence agencies." In Northern Ireland, this uniquely
close co-operation is widely suspected to have included stealing one another's
files and burning down one another's offices (more information at Statewatch).
Document 4 throws
us all a lifeline, right at the end. The UK's war on terror, it tells us,
relies heavily "on the public's willingness to get on with everyday life
in the absence of specific threats." So if we understand that it means
we're all holding this ridiculous edifice together by carrying on as if there's
nothing happening when, er, there's nothing happening. Well, it's pretty cold
right now, so tomorrow seems an excellent opportunity for us all just to stay in
bed, and see if the Government falls.
*
* *
MARCH05
*
THE PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
*
Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION
SAY VOTERS
by
Daniel Martin
Political Reporter
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June 18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should drop the
controversial European Treaty in the wake of its rejection in last
week's
IRISH REFERENDUM'
The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in
the
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION OF THE
TREATY.
And
10,000 people
have signed a
PETITION
on the
DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE
within the past few days
JUNE16-2008
, calling on the
GOVERNMENT
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T YOU?]
Downing Street website is
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
*
JUNE 18-2008
|
*
*
The abolition of Britain
by The Reform Treaty
- Second Reading-Passed by majority of 138
*
Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the
absolute necessity of a
REFERENDUM
HEAR HIM ON
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o
*
*
13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the
people of Britain were given
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
-both
EUROPEAN and BRITISH
The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon
the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed
the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The
GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with
BRITISH DOCUMENTATION
-only such as British (not EU) passports,
driving licences and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER
08]
*
|
|
|
|
CHRISTMAS
SPECIAL!
A BLUNT REPLY TO THE
QUEEN'S SPEECH ON CHRISTMAS DAY-25th
DECEMBER ,2007.
*
TIME
FOR DECISION
THE BRITISH
LEGACY-AUSTRALIA-CANADA-NEW ZEALAND-WHY THEY
MATTER.
*
The Act of
Settlement of 1701-WHY IT SHOULD CONCERN
-YOU!
*
The Common Law of
ENGLAND is the LAW of
THE COMMONWEALTH
and AMERICA
*
The
Commonwealth Realms V The Constitution for
Europe- 4-PARTS
*
MESSAGE FROM
AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN
*
WHY WE MUST BE
ALERT AND WITH OUR COMMONWEALTH PATRIOTS
MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
*
YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
BE THE
LAST IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
Will
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU
HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM BECOMING A
PROVINCE OF EUROPE.
OR
WILL
THE QUEEN MAKE IT PLAIN THAT OUR FREE
INDEPENDENT NATION STATE IS SACROSANCT BUT
THAT IF THE PEOPLE WISH TO BECOME SLAVES
-THEN A REFERENDUM THERE MUST BE.
WE BELIEVE
THAT NO ENGLISHMAN SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER
HE WISHES TO BE A SLAVE OR FREE!
THIS
CHRISTMAS WE WILL FIND OUT IF OUR PROTECTOR
OF THE
'Rights and Liberties'
of
Englishmen
Will keep
by HER SACRED OATH
or the
MONARCHY be nothing more than a
THEME
PARK in the future
THIS IS
THE TIME FOR BLUNT SPEAKING AS THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF OUR UNIQUE NATION STATE IS IN
DIRE PERIL.
We are told on the BBC (Brussels
Broadcasting Service) at 11.30 pm on
Saturday the 23rd December, 2007, that the
QUEEN now has a website which has footage of
the Royal Family in the past and that the
QUEEN is NOT
'Stuck in the past'
Well! as
far as many patriotic subjects are concerned
we need to remain in the PAST when it
concerns the protection of our
FREEDOM
and COUNTRY.
Change we
have had and will continue to have but it
must not threaten our very WAY-OF-LIFE our
Common Law of England and all which makes
our country the most unique parliamentary
democracy in the world.
THERE CAN
BE NO SURRENDER!
Should the Monarch fail to protect our
inherited RIGHTS and Liberties then we shall
have to fight for a REPUBLIC as
happened in the 17th century because the
Monarch of the day ignored those very
'Rights and Liberties of Englishmen' which
will still survive in the English Speaking
World today in December 2007. How can the
MOTHER of PARLIAMENTS give away what is
already our and our children's
INHERITANCE which cannot be taken away by
PARLIAMENT or the QUEEN.
If the above publicity
exercise is to be used to soften the impact to
the population of the BETRAYAL of their
CONSTITUTION and COUNTRY then it would be
the greatest TREASON by a Monarch since
James II who wished to sell our COUNTRY to the FRENCH
for MONEY and RELIGION.
WE ASK WHAT PRICE ARE OUR RIGHTS AND
LIBERTIES WORTH?
THEY ARE PRICELESS!
*
*
The
Choice is Yours!-but time is running out
FAST!
6 months to be EXACT!
*
THE EU
WE-AND THEM!
WE are to
join THEM
THEY are not
joining US
WE have more to LOSE
THEY have
more to GAIN
WE have been clear of dictators from EUROPE
for most of our HISTORY
THEY have
been cursed with that abomination for most
of their HISTORY and NOW!
*
Our Queen and the EU Constitution
*
The Spirit of England
by
Winston Churchill
*
THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE
*
MESSAGE TO
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE II
*
We now learn
from the Daily Mail COMMENT on Christmas Eve
that the Queen's Speech will cover the
catastrophic fall in Values and Moral
behaviour since the beginning of her 56
-year reign. This has been brought about by
the actions of HER MINISTERS and the greater
number of those in HER PARLIAMENT who have
placed THEIR CONCERNS before the INTERESTS
of THE PEOPLE and NATION STATE.
As for
the fact that HER PEOPLE feel LOST that has
been the direct result of the actions of HER
SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS and the TRAITOROUS
POLITICIANS including PRIME MINISTERS who
have stealthily over the 56 years of HER
MAJESTY'S REIGN have almost achieved their
aim of ENSLAVING the PEOPLE to a FOREIGN
POWER.
The reason
for the marked drop in the number viewing
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH is no doubt because the
mass of people have realised years ago that
the MONARCH is powerless to PROTECT their
WAY-OF-LIFE and events up to now have PROVED
THEM CORRECT.
There is a well know saying
'Nero fiddled while Rome burned'
Is it the case on
Christmas Day 2007 while the Monarch
talks our Rights and Liberties are
being taken from us under our very
noses?
Of course the QUEEN
under HER CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE can only
'Advise and Warn' HER MINISTERS but when
the matter concerns the very LIFE of an
INDEPENDENT STATE we expect that HER MAJESTY
consider the arrangement to be AT AN END as
it would make a MOCKERY of the PRIME
IMPORTANCE of the MONARCH to protect our
inherited Rights and Liberties which HER
MINISTERS are endeavouring TO GIVE
AWAY.
We as loyal
subjects of the MONARCH who is the living
embodiment of OUR RIGHTS and LIBERTIES
ask at this late stage with only months to
the eradication of a FREE NATION STATE some
veiled comments that HER MAJESTY will
PROTECT our RIGHTS and LIBERTIES.
As for the
MORAL tone of the NATION STATE at this most
crucial time in ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY this matter
should be left to CHURCH LEADERS who's
responsibility it is to CARE for their
FLOCKS particularly at this FESTIVAL of
CHRISTMAS.
IF HER
MAJESTY'S SPEECH has not been pre-recorded
we ask HER MAJESTY to give those MILLIONS of
HER subjects some hope that their PROTECTOR
has NOT FORGOTTEN THEM.
Should this
APPEAL not be answered we can at last
confirm that the MONARCHY is after all
nothing more than a talking shop suitable
for YouTube and therefore nothing more than
a
THEME PARK
*
Hear Tony
Benn's comments about the despotic and
corrupt
EUROPEAN
UNION
and the
need for a
REFERENDUM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o
From a
politician with INTEGRITY and love of
country who has for decades witnessed the
growth of the monstrous creature soon to be
a
UNITED
STATES OF EUROPE.
*
Liberties of Parliament-
Birthright of Subjects of England.
*
[All words/word underlined have a
separate bulletin] |
|
|
|
|
A
CHRISTMAS MESSAGE
TO
ALL OUR
VIEWERS.
WE WISH YOU ALL A
HAPPY
CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY
NEW YEAR
IN
2008
[Since our
Xmas message to you all last year we find
that our sentiments remain the same with the
added emphasise on the coming danger to YOUR
COUNTRY from those many traitors in YOUR
HOUSE of COMMONS who intend to sell YOUR
COUNTRY to a FOREIGN POWER]
We Remember The
Year 2006
The
Spirit of England-Winston Churchill-1953
[We
were warned in 1953 to beware of wreckers of
our Constitution and Way-of- Life but it had
taken Tony Blair just 10 years to do just
THAT while everyone had their minds they
thought on more important matters. Well! in
2007 his predessessor Gordon Brown is
leading you to SLAVERY and only awaits the
final signature of the present holder of the House of Wessex the over 1000 year
PROTECTOR of our inherited
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of ENGLISHMEN
HER
MAJESTY-THE QUEEN
Of the House
of Wessex since King Alfred 'the Shepherd
and Darling of England' in the annals of 893
-897
'We still
leave it to the work of
Alfred the Great
that
England was saved to become the first
individual nation -state which over 1100
years later a member of that same House of
Wessex has already signed away much of those
ancient Rights and Liberties and
fundamentals of justice and Rule of Law and
only awaits a final signature to enslave her
people into a despotic undemocratic godless
police state to call itself a
UNITED STATES
OF EUROPE
It is
within the power of Her Majesty the Queen to
refuse to ratify the New EU TREATY because
whatever lies her ministers have given her
over her long reign the TRUTH is now clear
for ALL TO SEE.
In the
Netherlands a number of years ago their
MONARCH resigned for a day rather than sign
the Bill put before him. The New EU TREATY
is the death of a NATION STATE of over 1200
years in the making. It is the treasonable
actions of HER MINISTERS which has placed
THE QUEEN in the forefront in the protection
of the Rights and Liberties of HER SUBJECTS
as on no one else can HER PEOPLE DEPEND.
GOD SAVE
THE QUEEN
*
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
BE THE LAST IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
*
A
WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND
by
Harry Beckhough
[Author of Germany's Four Reich's]
2004
*
'There'll always Be an ENGLAND'
-NOT any MORE
*
THE EU
OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WILL PORTRAY ITSELF
AS THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD
'Don't tell the voters-or you
will ruin everything '
"...we have to make sure
that there are no discussions taking place
in the open air"
Guenter
Burghardt, a former EU ambassador to the US,
warning that details of the new EU
diplomatic service (officially to be known
as the External Action Service) should not
be discussed in public before the
UK
PARLIAMENT
had
ratified the NEW EU TREATY
and Ireland has held
its TREATY REFERENDUM early next summer
(source: EU Observer on 27th
November ,2007
The EU has also stated
that none of its institutions should rock
the boat until the English have ratified
their TREATY.
Over the next few months
you will hear more than ever the wonderful
benefits of the EU. Whether it is Global
warming or whatever they feel shows them in
a good light and when you have swallowed the
bait you will not know what has hit you.
They intend to show how reasonable they are
and that they are there to make you happy.
If you all fall for this con-trick then you
will deserve the SLAVERY that is in store
for
YOU!
Referendum: how Labour
could still smell of roses.
and
'Money to spare'
when we leave the EU in
2008?
Open Europe says:
or
or
or
Cut petrol
duty by 75 per cent
or
Pay the
total bill for the London Olympics
in less than a year
AND MUCH
MORE
Commons debate
on the European Communities
(Finance) Bill on Monday 19th
November,2007.
REFERENDUM
DAY
will be
RECOMPENCE
DAY?
*
A TIME FOR EUROSCEPTICS TO LEARN
FROM THE PAST-ONLY A TWO-PRONGED ATTACK CAN BRING
VICTORY AND SAVE YOUR FREEDOM -CONSTITUTION AND
COUNTRY.
*
|
www.noliberties.com
[Latest Addition-June07]
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
VOTE
MAY -2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE
TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
Home Rule for
Scotland
WHY
NOT
HOME
RULE
for
ENGLAND
*
MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate
bulletin