Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Teh Terror (part 2)

Read this. At once. Seriously. It's important. It seems that we've all been spun on what the government is actually proposing in the terrorism bill. Part of today's terrorism nonsense is that the government wants to give the police the power to close down websites. Not the judiciary. The police.

I'm going to update this but I'm posting this now because I think you should read that post asap.

Update 1
Read that post.

Update 1 is a quick rant at Blair. At PMQs he said "by weakening our law on terrorism at this time from what is proposed will...". Weakening? It might be trivial but that is frighteningly dishonest. His attempt to avoid a straightforward lie by adding the tortuous "from what is proposed" is hideously disingenuous. Let's be clear. No-one, not a single person, is arguing that we should weaken our law on terrorism. No-one is saying that the current laws need to be repealed. Many people are arguing that the new laws Blair wants are going to far.

This is not "weakening our law on terrorism". To claim that it is, even when adding a feeble attempt at justification, is a dirty, rotten, and quite intentional lie. From a liar. (A liar with an even worse grasp of English grammer than I, and that's saying something.)

Update 2
Read that post.

On the legislation. The Lords want to add a legal definition for the "indirect encouragement" of terrorism.
Lords Amendment 5.
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert - For the purposes of this section, “indirect encouragement” comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.”
The government wants to remove this clause. This will be the first amendment voted on. (Ayes are in support of the government attempt to remove the clause.) As Unity's post, which you've read, makes clear, without a definition of "indirect incitement" this part of the law will be highly nebulous affair and open to political influence.

In the simplest terms, I think it can be described like this: political influence on the workings of the legal system should stop once a bill becomes law. If the ayes carry the day, it will not.

That, of course, also explain why New Labour are so keen to strike down the amendment. They believe the world will fall apart if they don't have a hand in every pie going. It probably doesn't need saying but is a very dangerous belief.

Ah, that's blown it. BBC News alert has just popped up to say that the government has won on this clause. Fu... The time to think about emmigrating is fast approaching.

Edit: I've changed the wording of the first paragraph because I wrote it in a hurry.

Tags: , , , ,

1 comment:

Jeff Fogltance said...

It's no secret people learn through education and teaching. Does it not make sense to curb a small portion of our civil liberties by censoring those who incite terrorism against us to insure our survival? If terrorism is not taught how will it be learned? How do terrorist organize without an open meeting place?