The overruling of a European Court judgement to assert individual privacy, and the anti-democratic rushing of emergency legislation through parliament where no emergency exists, are the antithesis of liberalism. So of course is the jettisoning of all the Lib Dem manifesto pledges on civil liberties.
It is not news that Nick Clegg has become the poster boy for a politics utterly devoid of principle, organised purely around the desire of individual politicians for wealth and power. But even with all that background, I found Clegg’s enthusiastic ratcheting up of the fear factor over the “need” to protect us from virtually non-existent threats, utterly reprehensible.
At his press conference with Cameron, Clegg actually quoted the non-existent “liquid bomb plot to bring down multiple planes” as the reason these powers were needed. He even made a direct claim that telephone intercepts had been instrumental in “foiling” the “liquid bomb plot”. That is utterly untrue. The three men eventually convicted had indeed been under judge approved surveillance for a year. In that year, they made no reference to a plan to bring down airplanes, because there was no such plan. The only “evidence” of a plan to bring down multiple airplanes came from a Pakistani torture chamber. There never was a single liquid bomb. 90% of those arrested in the investigation were released without charge or found not guilty.
The three found guilty had done little more than boast and fantasise about being jihadis. That is not to say they were nice people. They may even have done some harm, though if Clegg were in any sense a Liberal he would not be supportive of imprisoning people in case they one day do some harm. But they had never made a liquid bomb or made a plan to bring down multiple airlines.
The point is, that while any ordinary member of the public could be forgiven for believing in the Liquid Bomb Plot, given all the lies of the mainstream media, Clegg has to be aware that he is spreading deliberate lies and propaganda to justify this “emergency legislation”.
Still more ludicrous was the failure to address the elephant in the room – Snowden’s revelation that the NSA and GCHQ indulge in vast mass surveillance, of the communications of millions of people in the UK, with absolutely no regard for the legal framework anyway.
In the last few weeks there has been a concerted effort to ratchet up the fear of the extremely remote possibility of a terrorist attack. We have seen, as first lead on the news bulletins and front page headlines, the jailing of two young men for “terrorism” for fighting in Syria, when there was no evidence of any kind that they had any intention of committing any violence in the UK. We have the absolute nonsense of the mobile phone in airports charade. We had days of the ludicrous argument that ISIS success in Iraq will cause terrorist attacks in the UK. Now we have the urgent need for this “emergency legislation”.
Why is the fear ratchet being screwed right up just now? What is this leading up to?
Thank you, Ben. As it is called “The House of Commons”, one might assume that it’s purpose is to uphold the common law. More Orwellian inversion? The current name appears to be “The House of Uncommon Interests”.
@John:
I’ve a feeling that the US neocon wing won’t like to see it’s pet project in danger. There will be reprisals. They’ll want to take Crimea back to show their new best friends that they are more powerful than Russia, and I think some of them are probably crazy enough to play a poker game with “we win” and “ww3” as the possible outcomes. Israel must have their noses a bit out of joint with all this shift from them, and the focus on helping Poreshenko, who is probably killing more civilians than they are.
@Peacewisher, anti-terror law is the greatest! It even stops US aggression. In 1992, when the US was going to attack Libya for the Lockerbie bombing, Libya invoked the relevant law, The Montreal Convention, which has dispute settlement provisions. Since the US framed Libya for the Lockerbie bombing, it would have been kind of awkward when that came out, so the rough tough USA backed down like a little sissy bitch and ran home. No war!
Now, the bullshit fake terror legislation that you see in pathetic little totalitarian statelets like North Korea or the UK, that’s different. Laws like that compromise the sovereignty of states. The world can intervene. The international community is obligated to make those shitty little states grow up and accept their responsibilities. The international community exerts mounting pressure, peacefully, through treaty bodies, charter bodies, special procedures and regional or bilateral capacity-building. The pressure is hidden from you as a citizen but you can see the US and the UK squirming and thrashing to escape it, if you know where to look.
“If so, how can a law just get passed by the House of Commons that ignores whether it is compatable with common law? ”
Habeas corpus, a basic of English law, although established in the seventeenth century, goes back in one form or another to the Magna Carta. Even in the late eighteenth century Treason Trials people suspected terrorists/plotters (mostly members of corresponding societies) were never held in captivity for longer than six months without trial. That is what makes recent anti-terror laws so wrong. The one introduced in 2000 shows that there was a plan to target Muslims long before NATO countries initiated 9/11, and it is this act that has just been used to hold a suspect with a USB stick allegedly containing sniper instructions.
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/story/2014-07-11/man-in-court-accused-of-terror-offences/
TTIP is an affront to democracy
By Miriam Ross
Prime minister David Cameron loves to portray himself as the defender of British sovereignty in his dealings with the EU. But as the volume of his anti-EU posturing increases, he is busy pushing for a deal that will hand the sovereignty of his country, and others, to multinational companies.
The next round of negotiations on the EU-US trade deal (also known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP) begin in Brussels on Tuesday 15 July. Talks started last July, and proponents of the deal seem to have hoped to rush it through with as little scrutiny as possible. They have been disappointed, as opposition to the deal has risen rapidly in both sides of the Atlantic.
In the US, trade unions and Democrat congressmen and women have prevented President Obama from fast-tracking the deal. Campaigners in Germany forced the European Commission to open a public consultation on one of the most controversial proposals in the deal – a plan to set up corporate tribunals with the power to override the decisions of elected governments. Some 100,000 people responded to the consultation – the highest number ever recorded. And Belgian MEPs were among dozens of campaigners arrested for protesting against the deal ahead of the European elections.
On Saturday 12 July, towns and cities across Britain will see health campaigners, environmentalists, anti-poverty groups and trade unionists protesting under ‘No TTIP’ banners.
As the diverse array of people lining up to oppose it suggests, the TTIP deal would affect many different aspects of life. But the common thread connecting objections to the deal is this: ,if agreed TTIP would greatly diminish the ability of governments to make decisions for the benefit of their citizens. Democracy itself is under threat.
The part of the deal that has most enraged critics is a plan to set up supra-national corporate courts, in which companies can sue governments over decisions they think might affect their profits – even where governments have clearly acted in the public interest. This may sound like the stuff of fiction, unthinkable to anyone with any faith the democratic progress. In fact, it’s already happening.
Under similar parallel legal systems, tobacco giant Philip Morris is currently suing both the Australian and the Uruguayan governments for, respectively, introducing plain packaging for cigarettes, and daring to print health warnings on packaging. Veolia, the multinational waste and energy company, sued Egypt for introducing the minimum wage. And Argentina was sued for freezing energy prices to protect consumers hit by the country’s financial collapse.
In Britain, campaigners fighting to defend the cherished National Health Service fear that if a future government tried to renationalize the parts of the service that have already been privatized, it would be sued. And the need for companies to even use these courts could melt away – fear of being hit for billions of dollars could prevent governments from implementing policies that might raise the ire of the boardrooms. As well as preventing governments from acting in the public interest in the future, the TTIP deal would also sweep away years of hard-won regulations designed to protect people and the environment. One of the key issues on the table in the Brussels talks will be food standards, which are generally set much higher in Europe than in the United States. US agribusiness wants Europe to drop its ban on hormone-treated beef and pork and chlorine-washed chicken, and the American companies that sell these products have US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on side.
Financial regulation is another major battleground. Following the financial crisis, the US introduced an inadequate smattering of controls on its finance sector in an attempt to prevent another collapse. But the big banks see even this weak regulation as unacceptable, and are pushing for TTIP to knock it on the head.
Over the past few years, more and more of us have started to see our governments as acting in the interests of the rich and powerful. The EU-US trade deal could be seen as something of a test case. If we are to drag governments back to our sides, to be accountable to the people they were elected to represent, the battle to stop the TTIP deal is one we have to win.
http://newint.org/blog/2014/07/11/ttip-democracy-trade/
Iain
You are satisfied that a beaureaucrat logs something somewhere? It’ll make no difference to the law and how it will be used. Really, that’ll do? Could you be rationalising your complete insignificance in a system that you believe in.
So your MP rebels but the law still passes. You will give her your vote and thus vote for the party that enacted this legislation. That is a muddle.
The system is dead! Long live the system!
Clark
Wasn’t the Greenwald/Snowden sh*tfest suppose to make the politicians retreat from the surveillance state? How’s that working out?
Anyway battery flashing red. Time running out. Gotta go.
What is going on in Eastern Ukraine from a more neutral source than those favoured by the useless idiot
“The bulk of the abductions are being perpetrated by armed separatists, with the victims often subjected to stomach-turning beatings and torture. There is also evidence of a smaller number of abuses by pro-Kyiv forces.”
There are no comprehensive or reliable figures on the number of abductions, but the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior has reported nearly 500 cases between April and June 2014. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission for Ukraine has recorded 222 cases of abduction in the last three months. ”
The full report can be read here:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/ukraine-mounting-evidence-abduction-and-torture-2014-07-11
Did anyone notice how many Russians with past or current connections to the Putin regime were involved in the recent Tory fundraising shindig?
“I’ve a feeling that the US neocon wing won’t like to see it’s pet project in danger. There will be reprisals.”
Perhaps. Crimea has long been a naval base of the Russians and they will not let it go easily. Hopefully commonsense will prevail and Poroshenko and the other lunatics will see that they are in an unwinnable position. Eastern Ukraine will hate Kiev for years to come even if they get occupied. As you are a Peacewisher (me too) you will join me in hoping that this is an end to the madness!
Talk of IDS getting the chop in a reshuffle plus Kenneth Clarke and Lansley.
Esther McVey to replace IDS. Gawd help us in that case!
Would you be kind enough to enlighten us all, as to where should we start at?
RD, As you know I do not agree with torture whether it is the Eastern Liberation forces or Pro Kiev forces or your friends in Guantanamo and US Supermax prisons, or Karimov’s regime in Uzbekistan. The psyche behind torture is beyond me. But perhaps it has something to do with retaliation for the killing of civilians by those supportive of various factions.
http://professorsblogg.com/2014/06/03/what-responsibility-does-sweden-have-in-the-massacres-of-civilians-perpetrated-by-ukraine-junta/
Retaliation in the form of torture is abhorrent. I am behind Amnesty in bringing this to our attention. How to stop it, anywhere in the world, is, like recourse to torture itself, beyond me.
Clark
Wasn’t the Greenwd/Snowden fest suppose to curb the surveillance state? How’s that working out?
Peacewisher
“I object very strongly to your mocking of views expressed on this blog that relate to freedom of speech, the UN charter of human rights, what our forebears fought for in ww2, and “British”? principles that go back hundreds of years ”
___________________
Sorry you feel like that, Peacewisher. But I should be more inclined to sympathise with you if you could show me where I’m “mocking” those principles as such, as opposed to mocking the exaggerations, untruths, evasions and sloppy thinking of a good number of the Eminences squatting on this blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“how can a law just get passed by the House of Commons that ignores whether it is compatable with common law?”
______________________
Because statute law, as passed by Parliament, can supersede common law and “compatibility” with common law is not a criterion for statute law.
Sorry repeating myself. Feel free to delete dip and this mods.
“The pressure is hidden from you as a citizen but you can see the US and the UK squirming and thrashing to escape it, if you know where to look.”
It’s an International secret, fedup. All we need is patience.
By the way RD, whenever you get turned over in an argument, which is most of the time, you resort to attacking those who roll you on your back. You’ve done it before. It gains you no brownie points calling me a “useless idiot” but shows you up for what you are. I’ll let you work that one out.
Glad I missed it.
Question Time’s ‘passionate highlander’ is the William Wallace of the Better Together campaign
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/question-times-passionate-highlander-is-the-william-wallace-of-the-better-together-campaign-9599554.html
The whole programme
David Dimbleby presents Question Time from Inverness. Scotland votes on independence in September 2014, and the panel features campaigners for both sides from a range of occupations: singer-songwriter Ricky Ross, Daily Record columnist and agony aunt Joan Burnie, businessman and chairman of Orion Group Alan Savage, and the Scotland and British Lions rugby player Scott Hastings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b049bj5f
Peacewisher
John Goss’s post at 22h02 reinfirces my point, I think. Habeas corpus as it operates today derives not from common law or for that matter i any meaningful sense from the Magna Carta but from various Acts of Parliament, in other words, from statute law.
Well of course I realise the problem and I am merely trying to document the event…We got old..but we didn’t lose our Love and Determination To Make Things That are Good Work…They Haven’t
You Fuckers Are Completely Fucking Useless…
You 50 Year Olds Are Not My Son’s Generation…and You certainly Aren’t Mine…
What a Bunch of Completely Useless Twats…
Nearly Everyone with Any Talent RESIGNED
Smarmy without a Brain Cell Between You.
Craig Murray..just about Crept In..Oh Come On You Can’t seriously Expect Us To Believe This Nonsense
The Kids Are All Right.
Tony
Mary re Question Time
How many more times are you going to preface or end a useless bit of information about a BBC programme (in this case, who was on it) by saying “I did not listen” or “Glad I missed it”?
Again the old question : what is the point??
We might just conceivably be interested in hearing your views about something which may have been said, but why should we be interested to learn that you didn’t listen to a programme?
******************
As I said before, button up a little. Just a little!
@John
Of course I want peace. But in a world containing powerful people who seem to get satisfaction from the spilling of blood, the only lasting peace will be that obtained from a position of strength. Even with that, they’ll come back at you a few years later to test your defences.
I was swayed towards a multilateral position regarding nuclear weapons as this simple fact penetrated my naïve mind. Is Russia strong enough to back up its taking back of Crimea? Even though they broke International Law to do so, I think they had little choice after the US intervened… without Crimea they probably wouldn’t have been strong enough to resist. Why take the risk?
The way to avoid bloodshed regarding East Ukraine would probably have been for Russia to set up a no fly zone, which they probably wouldn’t get UN support for. Very bad for the Donbass people though. Interesting times, and we should always wish for a world where there are secure borders appropriately policed, and no country interferes in the affair of any other country. I think there was a song about this, and I think that song was in Brian Haw’s last hurrah, as he was dying of cancer in Germany.
Thanks, John and Habby. If Statute Law is the more recent wording for Common Law, that gives me a useful place to start… bringing in emergency legislation like this cannot be right.
Nevermind
“Doug, please stop quoting its idiot objections to everything everyone says.”
_____________________
NebelMind, please listen to what your Leader Ba’al said! You’re f***ing up his Habbabreak invention. Pleeeeze!
(Just substitute “Ingo” for “Doug”)
We have never met her..but we know her Dinner Teachers…and She is Watching …Oh Come on and Choose a Song…
Which one would you like???
Forgotten Already..or a song that The Girl..She Herslelf Wrote
Now What Exactly Is Her Name???
Did She Go To The Brit School??
Am I invited to meet her?
At Ruskin House??
Will I Be There???
Or Will Be at a Friend’s BBQ
“Adele – Someone Like You”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLQl3WQQoQ0
Tony
Peacewisher
“If Statute Law is the more recent wording for Common Law,…etc, etc..”
_____________________
“The more recent wording”? You haven’t understood a thing, have you.
Well…. this was considered a “best answer” on Yahoo Answer:
“…
Common law is a mechanism to bind people to a set of mores and traditions that reflect the common attitudes and preferences agreed by or acceptable to that society, statutory law is a mechanism to dictate to people how they will behave in that society whether or not it accords with their attitudes and preferences and whether or not it represents the common or majority view.
Common law is a true expression of a democratic and fair government, Statute law is an expression of authoritarian and dictatorial government.”
Anyone like to disagree with that final sentence?
Peacewisher, every conflict ends up round a table. I agree with what you say about negotiating from a position of strength is what every negotiator wants. What I don’t agree with is that Russia broke international law in taking back Crimea – it was the will of the people by referendum. Stop watching MSM or reading comments by ESLO/Resident Dissident. 🙂 There was also a lot longer period planned before the referendum than Cameron’s 2 day new law demanding that electronics companies retain our personal data to pass on to their governments and unaccountable secret services.
@Habby: Law isn’t my thing. That’s why I’m asking all these dumb questions. And I can’t being wrong in the meantime, so please forgive my lack of understanding. Something just doesn’t seem right about the current legislation – even under statute law – but it’s clearly not right under common law.
By all means correct me again…