
Parliament’s failed us, so let’s challenge Blair’s police state ourselves Iain Macwhirter \|\| February 20, 2006 MENACHEM Begin was a magnificent defender of Israel whose spirit lives on in the settlement movement in Gaza. The heroic Palestinians have a just cause for their intifada on the West Bank. The courageous cadres of Chechnya have no alternative but to fight. Down with Robert Mugabe. The Easter Rising in Dublin is a beacon for Irish liberation from direct rule. Nelson Mandela was a glorious man whose example should be emulated by freedom fighters across the world. Hurrah for the Peshmerga guerrillas and their battle for freedom in Kurdistan! OK, I’ll come quietly. For I have just broken seven times the new law against glorifying terrorism. Each of these statements are actionable under laws passed by Westminster last week because they glorify contemporary terrorism. They indirectly advocate violent action against presently elected governments. For example, the Israeli terrorist-turned-premier, Begin, may be long dead, but linking his Irgun guerrilla activities in the 1940s to Israeli settlers indirectly advocates the use of violence against the elected Palestinian authorities Similarly, applauding the intifada could be interpreted as advocating violence against the Israeli government. The Kurds may be “on our side” in Iraq, but they also fight for independence against Turkey. And it goes on. Such is the absurdity of the new laws that it may be impossible for Madonna to use the iconography of Che Guevara in her pop videos. Jenny Tonge, who was sacked from the Liberal Democrats for expressing support for the Palestinians, could find herself in jail. Even Cherie Blair will have to think carefully in future before saying – as she did three years ago – that “as long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress in the middle East”. Of course, the PM’s wife is most unlikely to be banged up under her husband’s law. But that’s not the point. Self-censorship will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Whenever any person speaks on any liberation struggle , hanging above them will be the threat of prosecution for glorifying terrorism. This is thought crime. The argument that we need these laws to prevent people carrying banners around calling for the beheading of Danish cartoonists is utterly specious. The laws against incitement to murder are already in existence and should have been used against these individuals, just as they were used against Abu Hamza and the British National Party. Yes, I know that Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, managed to get off scot free a few weeks ago for his remarks against Islam. But that is precisely the point. Griffin is a clever man, been to Cambridge, knows how to express his racial hatred obliquely. The jury in his trial could not decide whether he had actually broken the law and they will be even more puzzled if he is prosecuted under the new laws on glorifying terrorism. How is accusing blacks of being sex offenders glorifying terrorism? I suspect that very few juries will ever convict people of this new offence because the concept is subjective and defies legal definition. One man’s glorification is another’s moral evaluation. Take an opera I saw at the Edinburgh Festival last year, Manifest Destiny by Keith Burstein. This compares a Palestinian suicide bomber to Jesus Christ and features her singing a hymn to the death of Israel. Now, the message of this work was meant to be anti-war. But sections of it undoubtedly glorify violence against the state. The government insists that it is not against freedom of expression, merely incitement to terrorism, and that it is absurd to say that it will lead to censorship. But what else can you call it? Blair said that failing to pass the glorifying terrorism measure would “send entirely the wrong message to the world that we were soft on terrorism”. But it isn’t the role of the law to send messages. To do that you can publish a press release or make a speech. Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com The real message is that we are constructing a police state. This was only too apparent when an 82-year-old man was bundled out of the Labour Party conference for heckling the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, over Iraq. When Walter Wolfgang tried to re-enter the conference he was detained under the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act. According to the legal watchdog Liberty, this legislation is frequently used against peaceful protesters outside military bases, against animal rights activists and even squatters. Now we are to have identity cards and detention without charge or trial. The security minister Hazel Blears told us last week that the war on terror was now permanent, and I think we know what she means. The government has decided to abolish habeas corpus, freedom of speech, freedom from arrest, freedom from surveillance. How could such a fundamental erosion of civil liberties be tolerated by the party which has historically defended them? What happened to the Labour backbenches which rebelled so momentously against the 90-day detention provisions last year? It seems they lost heart after the intervention of Gordon Brown, who spoke in favour of identity cards, detention and the glorification statute. Labour’s defeat in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election may also have something to do with it. Brown apologists argue that the Prime Minister in waiting has been refraining from criticising Blair’s policies on Iraq and terror as he cannot be seen to breach collective Cabinet responsibility. However, last week, Brown crossed his own Rubicon. He has unwisely staked his own future on the success of these laws and will now find it very hard indeed to repeal them when he comes to office. The Chancellor has lost a great deal of moral capital by so conspicuously endorsing Blair. As questions are raised about Brown’s electoral popularity following the Dunfermline by-election, we could soon be seeing the start of a reassessment of his fitness to govern among radical supporters in the press and parliament. But for now, the fight must begin against the glorification laws. At this year’s Edinburgh Festival it should be the duty of all writers and producers to test the limits of this law. If the government is sincere, and doesn’t wish to abolish freedom of speech, then let’s test it out. Perhaps someone should compile a list of “beastly beatitudes”, glorifying freedom struggles across the world, and read them out at the Cenotaph in Whitehall. Except, of course, that the last person to do that, Maya Ann Evans, who read out the names of Iraq war dead, was arrested for demonstrating within half a mile of parliament. About KDR \| \| Home \| \| Weekly Features Archive	Weekly Weekly Features Archive
In Depth The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
Archive December January February 2006 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 01 02 03 04 Weekly Features

Parliament’s failed us, so let’s challenge Blair’s police state ourselves

Iain Macwhirter || February 20, 2006

MENACHEM Begin was a magnificent defender of Israel whose spirit lives on in the settlement movement in Gaza. The heroic Palestinians have a just cause for their intifada on the West Bank. The courageous cadres of Chechnya have no alternative but to fight. Down with Robert Mugabe.

The Easter Rising in Dublin is a beacon for Irish liberation from direct rule. Nelson Mandela was a glorious man whose example should be emulated by freedom fighters across the world. Hurrah for the Peshmerga guerrillas and their battle for freedom in Kurdistan!

OK, I’ll come quietly. For I have just broken seven times the new law against glorifying terrorism. Each of these statements are actionable under laws passed by Westminster last week because they glorify contemporary terrorism. They indirectly advocate violent action against presently elected governments.

For example, the Israeli terrorist-turned-premier, Begin, may be long dead, but linking his Irgun guerrilla activities in the 1940s to Israeli settlers indirectly advocates the use of violence against the elected Palestinian authorities

Similarly, applauding the intifada could be interpreted as advocating violence against the Israeli government. The Kurds may be “on our side” in Iraq, but they also fight for independence against Turkey.

And it goes on. Such is the absurdity of the new laws that it may be impossible for Madonna to use the iconography of Che Guevara in her pop videos. Jenny Tonge, who was sacked from the Liberal Democrats for expressing support for the Palestinians, could find herself in jail.

Even Cherie Blair will have to think carefully in future before saying – as she did three years ago – that “as long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress in the middle East”. Of course, the PM’s wife is most unlikely to be banged up under her husband’s law. But that’s not the point.

Self-censorship will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Whenever any person speaks on any liberation struggle , hanging above them will be the threat of prosecution for glorifying terrorism. This is thought crime.

The argument that we need these laws to prevent people carrying banners around calling for the beheading of Danish cartoonists is utterly specious. The laws against incitement to murder are already in existence and should have been used against these individuals, just as they were used against Abu Hamza and the British National Party.

Yes, I know that Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, managed to get off scot free a few weeks ago for his remarks against Islam. But that is precisely the point. Griffin is a clever man, been to Cambridge, knows how to express his racial hatred obliquely. The jury in his trial could not decide whether he had actually broken the law and they will be even more puzzled if he is prosecuted under the new laws on glorifying terrorism. How is accusing blacks of being sex offenders glorifying terrorism?

I suspect that very few juries will ever convict people of this new offence because the concept is subjective and defies legal definition. One man’s glorification is another’s moral evaluation.

Take an opera I saw at the Edinburgh Festival last year, Manifest Destiny by Keith Burstein. This compares a Palestinian suicide bomber to Jesus Christ and features her singing a hymn to the death of Israel. Now, the message of this work was meant to be anti-war. But sections of it undoubtedly glorify violence against the state.

The government insists that it is not against freedom of expression, merely incitement to terrorism, and that it is absurd to say that it will lead to censorship. But what else can you call it? Blair said that failing to pass the glorifying terrorism measure would “send entirely the wrong message to the world that we were soft on terrorism”. But it isn’t the role of the law to send messages. To do that you can publish a press release or make a speech.

Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com

The real message is that we are constructing a police state. This was only too apparent when an 82-year-old man was bundled out of the Labour Party conference for heckling the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, over Iraq. When Walter Wolfgang tried to re-enter the conference he was detained under the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act. According to the legal watchdog Liberty, this legislation is frequently used against peaceful protesters outside military bases, against animal rights activists and even squatters.

Now we are to have identity cards and detention without charge or trial. The security minister Hazel Blears told us last week that the war on terror was now permanent, and I think we know what she means. The government has decided to abolish habeas corpus, freedom of speech, freedom from arrest, freedom from surveillance.

How could such a fundamental erosion of civil liberties be tolerated by the party which has historically defended them? What happened to the Labour backbenches which rebelled so momentously against the 90-day detention provisions last year? It seems they lost heart after the intervention of Gordon Brown, who spoke in favour of identity cards, detention and the glorification statute. Labour’s defeat in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election may also have something to do with it.

Brown apologists argue that the Prime Minister in waiting has been refraining from criticising Blair’s policies on Iraq and terror as he cannot be seen to breach collective Cabinet responsibility.

However, last week, Brown crossed his own Rubicon. He has unwisely staked his own future on the success of these laws and will now find it very hard indeed to repeal them when he comes to office. The Chancellor has lost a great deal of moral capital by so conspicuously endorsing Blair. As questions are raised about Brown’s electoral popularity following the Dunfermline by-election, we could soon be seeing the start of a reassessment of his fitness to govern among radical supporters in the press and parliament.

But for now, the fight must begin against the glorification laws. At this year’s Edinburgh Festival it should be the duty of all writers and producers to test the limits of this law. If the government is sincere, and doesn’t wish to abolish freedom of speech, then let’s test it out.

Perhaps someone should compile a list of “beastly beatitudes”, glorifying freedom struggles across the world, and read them out at the Cenotaph in Whitehall. Except, of course, that the last person to do that, Maya Ann Evans, who read out the names of Iraq war dead, was arrested for demonstrating within half a mile of parliament.

About KDR | | Home | | Weekly Features Archive

Weekly

Weekly Features Archive

In Depth

The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave

Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties