House of Commons scores an own goal by its indifference to our hard won Liberties * FREE SPEECH Censured * Daily Mail Friday, December 9, 2005
AS BAD
AS THE
TALIBAN
by Roy Hattersley
The words have to be repeated slowly in order to convince myself that
the story they tell is TRUE.
BUT it is
a fact:
In Britain – the home of
FREEDOM and the cradle of DEMOCRACY – a woman has been prosecuted
by the crime of reciting out loud the names of British servicemen
who have been killed in Iraq, and convicted of holding an unlawful
demonstration.
She was arrested a few yards from the Whitehall Cenotaph – the memorial to the British men and women who have died for their country. The irony seems to have escaped the two police sergeants and 12 constables who escorted 25-year-old Maya Evans from the scene of her so-call crime.
To be fair to the officers, they were only doing their duty.
The police must uphold the law –no matter how bad it may be.
And Maya Evans – almost certainly without realising
it – was committing an offence by staging, within a kilometre
of the Houses of Parliament, a protest which had not been notified
to, and approved by, the police.
Our
complaints should not be against the police constables who made
the arrest or even District Judge Caroline Tubbs , who convicted
the defendant.
THE
CULPRITS – who offended every tradition of British liberty –
are those Members of Parliament who passed the indefensible
Act.
I object to what Parliament did as
a member of the labour Party who has always believed that social
democrats should stand for the FREEDOM of the INDIVIDUAL.
I object to it as a citizen of Great
Britain Who
still believes that my country should be a beacon of liberty
in the world in which too many nations still regard human rights
as second in importance to the convenience of the STATE?
And above all – as a FREE MAN – I reject the notion that laws should dictate what we should think and what we say.
The thought may be ugly and its expression may be equally despicable BUT –in a true DEMOCRACY, that should not lead to arrest, prosecution, conviction and punishment.
THE FUNDAMENTAL
principle having been made clear, it is important to remember
that Miss Evans was not extolling the virtues of Bin Laden,
demanding the release of Saddam Hussein or glorying in the victories
of the insurgents in Baghdad and Basra. She was mourning the death of British soldiers killed
in battle.
The
implication of her lament was certainly clear.
The
war in Iraq is in her estimation unjust and unnecessary. But more than half the British people share
that view.
Prosecution for expressing it is intolerable.
When a nation is under threat – as Britain undoubtedly is from Al Qaeda – it is often necessary to take action, which, in more peaceful times, would be judged to be intolerable.
BUT
It is always essential to safeguard our ancient liberties against authoritarian governments who use the real and present danger as an opportunity to impose their will on the people.
Who can doubt that the ‘anti-terrorist legislation’,
which the Government has claimed to be essential to security,
is – at least in part- the result of the same impatience with
dissent that resulted in elderly party activist Walter
Wolfgang being forcibly ejected from the Labour Party’s
Brighton conference for the sin of heckling the Foreign Secretary?
I believe that plans to hold suspects without
charge for long periods of detention are profoundly wrong.
But I
am absolutely certain that the proposals to limit free speech
are both a denial of FUNDERMENTAL
liberties and a propaganda gift to the terrorists who
seek to undermine our society. I am second to none in my opposition to the
murders who planted the London bombs in July [2005].
BUT
We
do not beat them by copying the conduct of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
They are against free speech.
We should be the DEFENDERS.
It is sad but undeniable fact that the law under which
Miss Evans was convicted – although fundamentally unconnected
to security – would not have edged its way through Parliament
had the House of Commons not been obsessed by the need to protect
Westminster and Whitehall from threat of imminent threat of
terrorist assault.
MPs were in a mood to pass any legislation that claimed to be a protection of their rights to deliberate free from threats, pressure and intimidation. The
result was a silly ban on unauthorised demonstrations.
It is important to note how the demand for such a law began
-
Brian Haw an anti-war protest
in Parliament Square. MPs driving into New Palace
Yard to park their cars, or dropping off a number
24 bus in Whitehall, were faced with a series of posters, which
were as crude in language as they were in construction.
Tony Blair was called a murderer why had lied to the British people. These are accusations which most reasonable people – including those like me, oppose the war – reject.
BUT
That is not the point.
The irresponsibility of Mr Haw’s protest does not justify its suppression. Nor was It the violence of Mr haw’s language, which
prompted Parliament’s main objection to his activities.
The complaint was that he made the place look a mess.
[Well!
The landscape in Iraq
looks decided worse than a few posters and litter as pictures
in the media have shown day after day of the devastated country
and the appalling deaths of many of their citizens which since
the War was declared at an end by George Bush in 2003 the terror
has escalated with almost daily suicide bombings throughout
the Country claiming hundreds of deaths.]
Inevitably, other protesters rallied to the haw campaign. One side of Parliament Square, facing the House of Commons, is now festooned with frayed flags, tattered banners, dirty placards and torn posters.
BUT
libertarians have to grin and bear it.
The right to protest is more important than the tidiness
of our streets – even the most important street in the land.
Were it more appropriate to make a protest than outside
the Houses of Parliament?
The law which was intended to deal with Brian haw was badly
drafted. So he escaped
its clutches and his protest remains.
BUT the SHAME of the LEGISLATION lies less in its inefficiency
than in its origin.
IT WAS THE HOUSEOF COMMONS [Or we should say:
OUR House of Commons -the Guardian of our rights
and liberties]
To continue:
-In theory the defenders of our liberties – not the Government
which wanted to tidy up Parliament Square. The result – as I hope most MPs now realise- is ridicule as well
as outrage.
The
time has come for the Government to lead the way in taking a
long, hard look at our attitude towards civil liberties.
People
in the right minds do not expect ministers to go soft on terrorism.
The regulations which inconvenisnceence our daily lives have
to stay in place. BUT it is essential that the authoritative
spirit – which the fear of terrorism encourages- be held back.
To
require every demonstration within shouting distance of parliament
to obtain permission from the police is in direct contradiction
of the principles, which govern a free society.
Miss
Evans has done the nation a service by demonstrating how ridiculous
the law has become. The
Government should reciprocate by repealing it.
[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]
* * *
[The
greatest danger is that some members of the police force see
themselves as protectors of their direct political masters instead
of the people at large of which they are a part. An incident quite innocent in itself will clarify the
situation.
A
couple on about to leave their vehicle in a car park were in
conversation regarding the necessity a cavalcade of police officers
being despatched to arrest Miss Evans. At that precise time
another couple were leaving their vehicle close by.
The
man caught the eye of the person making the comment and on walking
away continued to look back most earnestly as indication that
their comments were not to his liking.
The
general demeanour and dress of the individual led the person
concerned to believe that he was a police officer.
Of
course, the whole incident could have been misinterpreted but
if the situation was as described it would lead a subject to
fear that the police instead of being the people’s guardian
of Law and Order were merely an instrument of the Government
of the day as has been shown by numerous examples over the last
few years.
We
are hopeful that they are isolated incidents and not the feelings
of the majority of the police force who have already a most
difficult job to do and wish to retain the respect and co-operation
of the public of which they are an integral part.]
* * *
*
* 13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OptoutDetails 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]
* [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
*
FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum * July 18-2007
VOTE MAY -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
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 WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE * WHY NOT
* MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate bulletin
* |
|||