|
Blair's dumb gag law
History shows such laws are soon followed by offences like
'being an enemy of the people'
By Eric Margolis
02/19/06 "Canoe"
-- -- LONDON -- Hyde Park Corner is one of the
most famous and hallowed spots in this great city. There, each
Sunday morning, orators, preachers, revolutionaries and crazies
would mount soapboxes and say whatever they pleased.
Nothing was taboo. This was Britain's temple of free speech.
Last week, PM Tony Blair rammed a new law through Parliament
making "glorification of terrorism" a criminal offence.
Meanwhile, Blair's big brother, U.S. President George W. Bush,
is in deep, deep doodoo over the Iraq debacle, mounting
casualties in Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina and the storm of
national ridicule caused by trigger-happy VP Dick Cheney.
Republicans are gasping for air.
The image of Cheney, the warlord who avoided the Vietnam draft,
blasting defenceless little birds and an unlucky friend on a
hunting trip last weekend probably did more damage to the Bush
administration than all its lies about Iraq.
The only area in which Bush still commands favourable public
support is his so-called war on terrorism. Incidentally, the
Pentagon just proclaimed a "long war against terrorism," meaning
an Orwellian endless struggle against a ghostly enemy that
hopefully will keep flag-waving Bible-Belters voting Republican,
and defence plants running three shifts.
Over in Britain, Blair's power is eroding. He has been exposed
as a serial liar over Iraq. In sharp contrast to the lapdog U.S.
media, Britain's feisty press keeps slamming Blair.
How to reverse Labour's waning fortunes? Monkey see, monkey do.
Follow your leader, George W. Whip up the voters over
"terrorism" even though there is no such thing. (As Prince
Hassan of Jordan observed with impeccable logic, "terrorism is a
tactic, not a definable enemy.")
Britons are demanding more security after the July 7 bombings of
London's Underground that killed 52 last year. Tighter security
is certainly in order. Any militant groups -- Muslim radicals,
Tamil Tigers, Sikh separatists, etc. -- who resort to violence
in the U.K. should be jailed for long term, then expelled. No
cause, however noble, justifies attacking civilians.
Reputation undermined
But a vague law mandating prison for "glorifying terrorism"
reeks of totalitarianism and undermines Britain's reputation as
a font of democracy and justice.
To preserve the status quo, the Great Powers decided to brand
all armed struggles against oppression and injustice as
"terrorism": Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation; tiny
bands of Chechen mujahidin fighting Russian genocide in the
Caucasus; guerillas battling communist regimes in Uzbekistan;
Filipino Muslims resisting Christian invaders seizing their
farms; Kashmiris fighting for independence from India, and so
on. All are now "terrorists."
Now, mounting a Hyde Park soapbox to praise the Chechens'
valiant struggle or urging Palestinians or Iraqis or Afghans to
keep resisting foreign occupation will be a crime. Terrorism has
erased the term "justice" from our minds.
The litmus test of free speech is letting people you detest say
what they choose, and defending their right to say things that
may be painfully hateful or deeply stupid.
Tony Blair just trampled this basic British right. Britain now
joins sleazy, third-world despotisms where The Glorious Leader
alone determines what one may and may not say.
Stopping the ravings of a handful of loud-mouthed fanatics like
the recently jailed British imam, Abu Hamza, is not worth
endangering Britain's sacrosanct freedoms.
History shows such gag laws are soon followed by offences like
"insulting the leadership." Then, by crimes like "encouraging
anti-state activities," and, that gulag gate-opener, being "an
enemy of the people."
Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
