I'm terrified (of Tony)
Since 9/11, a cynic would say that the single greatest weapon in the political armoury has been fear. Fear of the unknown suicide bomber, the unknown assassin, the unknown terrorist with woolly, undefined objectives to somehow bring an end to the freedom and democracy we enjoy. Keeping the populace scared the thinking goes, will prevent them from asking difficult questions, from challenging the wisdom and diktats handed down from on high. They can also say what a good job they have done in preventing any attack, and it is true there hasn’t been a 9/11 here (but could this be that there isn’t really much of a risk?). Anyone with a liberal disposition such as myself simply see a government obsessed with control, wanting to use whatever means it can in order to deprive citizens of their liberties and the right to keep a check on the executive branch of government.
The weakness in this method of social control is that when you cry wolf, and are proven to have lied, as with Bliar’s WMD claims in the infamous ‘dodgy dossier’ people are loathed to give you a second chance. So with the government’s anti terrorism legislation heading back to the commons this week, they are having to use every trick at their disposal to get us to fall for their lies a second time. This makes the Sir John Stevens story from the weekend all the less credible.
In case you missed it Sir John has stated that secret intelligence information passed to him while he was commissioner of the Met made the hairs on the back of his neck stand up. Further, he claims there are 200 or so Bin Laden trained terrorists wandering around Britain just waiting for orders. Strong stuff and a valid contribution to a Parliamentary debate. Except that Sir John chose not to launch this information onto a sceptical public via a speech in the Lords, but rather through a column in The News of the World. This is the same News of the World whose recent foray into politics, the ‘naming and shaming’ of paedophiles was ended quickly after a paediatrician had ‘paedo’ sprayed across the front of her house and her windows broken. Several people with the same name as those listed in the paper were beaten senseless by angry mobs. I think those facts tell you all you need to know about the paper and its readers.
Sir John, a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was ‘promoted’ by Tony to the House of Lords five or six weeks ago. It was a personal appointment, something within the gift of a Prime Minister, but normally only used to get Bishops into the Lords. Sir John’s ennoblement raised a few eyebrows as it was so unusual, but now the motives are clearer. Like a good lap dog, Sir John has answered his master’s cries in a time of need. Instead of giving a speech in the Lords and then facing his peers and answering their legitimate questions, a column in the popular press allows Stevens to state his viewpoint without being challenged and to receive maximum publicity on a traditionally slow news day. And of course the television news journalists report on the NotW story and the surrounding fuss rather than the facts of the underlying story. Isn't the timing of all this just perfect? An unpopular piece of legislation, savaged in the press, condemned by MP’s and civil liberty groups and today rejected by the Lords (even the former Lord Chancellor and Bliar's law tutor Lord Irvine voted against!). But all the talk on the street (they hope) will be of 200 terrorists. Walking free. Is it him? Or him?
Two major concerns leap out at me. Firstly the reliance on secret intelligence. This will no doubt be the same sort of secret intelligence that allowed Colin Powell and Jack Straw to make such a compelling case for the invasion of Iraq to the UN two years ago. You remember all those charts and maps and photographs of weapons plants, chemical factories, arms dumps. That all turned out to be 100% bang on didn’t it? Who’s being held accountable for that sham? No one. That’s who. By publishing in a newspaper, Sir John can avoid being asked questions like “How do you know there are 200 potential Bin Laden’s walking around? Prove it.” “Why on earth don’t you arrest them if you have the information?” “What about the 10 guys in Belmarsh? The high court has declared their detention illegal. Are they being detained on secret intelligence?”
Secondly we have a raft of anti terror measures on the statute books of this country. It may be disjointed and diverse, but a Bill to unify and clarify it would be very much more welcome and less controversial than a Bill containing a whole new set of undemocratic rules. The decision whether or not to jail someone, especially without trial, must lay with an independent judiciary not an elected politician. The concession of judicial review announced late last week does not apply to all cases but only those which could lead to house arrest. Easy to get round as a ‘suspect’ will simply be charged with something meriting detention. And it will all be done in secret just in case any nasty human rights watchers get wind of it and start making a fuss.
What is the threat from terrorism? That we will be forced to live in fear, scared that every swarthy looking male is a terrorist? Blair is doing the terrorists’ job by feeding irrational and misplaced fears. If he has genuine concerns then he should level with us and tell us.
The weakness in this method of social control is that when you cry wolf, and are proven to have lied, as with Bliar’s WMD claims in the infamous ‘dodgy dossier’ people are loathed to give you a second chance. So with the government’s anti terrorism legislation heading back to the commons this week, they are having to use every trick at their disposal to get us to fall for their lies a second time. This makes the Sir John Stevens story from the weekend all the less credible.
In case you missed it Sir John has stated that secret intelligence information passed to him while he was commissioner of the Met made the hairs on the back of his neck stand up. Further, he claims there are 200 or so Bin Laden trained terrorists wandering around Britain just waiting for orders. Strong stuff and a valid contribution to a Parliamentary debate. Except that Sir John chose not to launch this information onto a sceptical public via a speech in the Lords, but rather through a column in The News of the World. This is the same News of the World whose recent foray into politics, the ‘naming and shaming’ of paedophiles was ended quickly after a paediatrician had ‘paedo’ sprayed across the front of her house and her windows broken. Several people with the same name as those listed in the paper were beaten senseless by angry mobs. I think those facts tell you all you need to know about the paper and its readers.
Sir John, a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was ‘promoted’ by Tony to the House of Lords five or six weeks ago. It was a personal appointment, something within the gift of a Prime Minister, but normally only used to get Bishops into the Lords. Sir John’s ennoblement raised a few eyebrows as it was so unusual, but now the motives are clearer. Like a good lap dog, Sir John has answered his master’s cries in a time of need. Instead of giving a speech in the Lords and then facing his peers and answering their legitimate questions, a column in the popular press allows Stevens to state his viewpoint without being challenged and to receive maximum publicity on a traditionally slow news day. And of course the television news journalists report on the NotW story and the surrounding fuss rather than the facts of the underlying story. Isn't the timing of all this just perfect? An unpopular piece of legislation, savaged in the press, condemned by MP’s and civil liberty groups and today rejected by the Lords (even the former Lord Chancellor and Bliar's law tutor Lord Irvine voted against!). But all the talk on the street (they hope) will be of 200 terrorists. Walking free. Is it him? Or him?
Two major concerns leap out at me. Firstly the reliance on secret intelligence. This will no doubt be the same sort of secret intelligence that allowed Colin Powell and Jack Straw to make such a compelling case for the invasion of Iraq to the UN two years ago. You remember all those charts and maps and photographs of weapons plants, chemical factories, arms dumps. That all turned out to be 100% bang on didn’t it? Who’s being held accountable for that sham? No one. That’s who. By publishing in a newspaper, Sir John can avoid being asked questions like “How do you know there are 200 potential Bin Laden’s walking around? Prove it.” “Why on earth don’t you arrest them if you have the information?” “What about the 10 guys in Belmarsh? The high court has declared their detention illegal. Are they being detained on secret intelligence?”
Secondly we have a raft of anti terror measures on the statute books of this country. It may be disjointed and diverse, but a Bill to unify and clarify it would be very much more welcome and less controversial than a Bill containing a whole new set of undemocratic rules. The decision whether or not to jail someone, especially without trial, must lay with an independent judiciary not an elected politician. The concession of judicial review announced late last week does not apply to all cases but only those which could lead to house arrest. Easy to get round as a ‘suspect’ will simply be charged with something meriting detention. And it will all be done in secret just in case any nasty human rights watchers get wind of it and start making a fuss.
What is the threat from terrorism? That we will be forced to live in fear, scared that every swarthy looking male is a terrorist? Blair is doing the terrorists’ job by feeding irrational and misplaced fears. If he has genuine concerns then he should level with us and tell us.
posted by phylos @ 18:42
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home