Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:24:57 +0200
How ridiciulous can a government get?
- OK, not content with planning on bringing in identity cards to make finding terrorists easier (presumably you just arrest them when they apply for a card and put 'terrorist' or 'extremist' on their application form...) based on what can only be called seriously flawed technology, but now they have decided that anyone who actually agrees with someone that they have decided is a terrorist is guilty of treason. Now, let us bear in mind that Nelson Mandela was, technically, a terrorist, using todays definitions of the term. Also, of course, the IRA were (are?) terrorists. Just as they lay down their arms, their entire political wing will become guilty of treason because they stand for the same cause as the IRA and are happy to say that they understand the reasons for the armed conflict. So, if I say that I could understand it if the IRA went back on its decision to lay down its arms, and renew the fight because their political representatives have all just been branded criminals, I too would be guilty of treason. So I better not say that. However, I suppose we could note that the Government are, in that way that governments are absolutely not meant to, have said that they have specific people in mind for the new interpretations and new measures being proposed. The fact that these people are all Muslims presumably has impact on whether Blair has just made himself a target of his own recent anti-religious hatred laws. He insists on whipping up a frenzy about how bad the Islamic fundamentalists are, whilst deciding not to apply the same criteria to the Catholic groups responsible for the UK having (probably) the best counter-insurgency troops in the world.
While on the topic, it might be worth thinking about the fact that we are, as far as I am aware, in an ongoing state of emergency in the UK. Consequently, due to some very poorly thought out (one might say knee-jerk) legislation brought into effect last year (the Civil Contingencies act) ministers (and anyone they appoint for the purpose) can make laws up as they go along. So are the things Blair has been saying recently already law? As far as I can tell there is no prescribed wording needed for things to be laws under the Civic Contingencies act, so I guess they are. On a side note of course, this presumably means that if Blairs kids don't go to bed when they are told, they are probably committing criminal offences. But there is nothing new there...
OK, so it looks as though Blair is making the law up as he goes along, having passed a law which lets him do so. Wouldn't it have been sensible to change the law he also just got enacted which makes it a crime to incite religious hatred before starting to incite religious hatred? Maybe that would be too far thinking of him. Anyway, as far as I can see, it no longer makes any difference whether the invasion of Iraq was legal in international terms - Blair is breaking his own laws almost as far as he can make them up. And he plans to retire from parliament. At which point he will no longer have a privileged position, and any cop who fails to arrest him and his co-conspirators should probably be arrested themselves for dereliction of duty.
None of that will happen of course, because the British, in their usual way, will go, "A new law huh? does it make sense? let's see... nope. Then we will just ignore it."
Mind you, I guess GCHQ will now monitor my every electronic footfall weighing up whether I am a deep seated apologist for terrorism. After all, I wear sandals, have long hair and a beard, and have been known to contribute to such scary organisations as GreenPeace. The writing is on the wall... I don't much fancy gaol, or at least I don't much fancy the intimate relations with the other inmates. Gaol itself seems like quite a nice idea, if they will let me have an internet connection...