New terror plans

[mrfrapp]

Charles Clarke has published a list of grounds for deporting people who foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence.

• New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record.
  
  
• Amend human rights laws, if necessary, to prevent legal obstacles to new deportation rules
  
  
• Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence
  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179128.stm

Justifying terrorism an offence? What does that mean exactly?

A quick reminder of what Tony Blair said on July 26th

ON WHETHER THE IRAQ WAR MOTIVATED TERRORISM

"They will use Iraq to try to recruit and motivate people, they will use Afghanistan.

"Before Iraq and Afghanistan and September the eleventh, which happened before those things, they used other things.

"But I think most people understand that the roots of this go far deeper, and in any event, where does this argument take us in the end?

"And I want to make one thing very clear to you. Whatever excuse or justification these people use, I do not believe we should give one inch to them."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4718185.stm

So if I claim that the July 7th and 21st bombings were a response to UK involvement in Iraq is that seen as a "justification"? Does it matter that the bombers behind the July 21st admit that it was?

Anti-terror police in the Italian capital say Osman Hussain has told them that the "bombers" watched videos of British and American troops "exterminating" Iraqi women and children before embarking on the attack on London's transport network on July 21

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1707652005

I'm being serious here. I have no idea how far these guidelines are intended to go and given Blair's petulent outbursts last month it makes me wonder if they are trying to silence critics of the Iraq invasion.

Somebody please reassure me that I'm over-reacting.

[malaise]

1. They will try but it won't work

even if they send the pope to Germany to help the right wing there. People will not watch their rights taken away from them. The world already knows that Bush and Blair are liars.

[whatever4]

2. No, you aren't over-reacting

It's censorship of free speech, plain and simple.

Because we're at war

To defend our freedoms

That is, the freedoms we had before the war

[Briar]

3. But

"the times have changed". Apparently our definitions of freedom and human rights must now change too.

Though I don't care to defend the redefined ones.

[whatever4]

5. Yeah

That reminds me of what I wondered the other day. I had said, I can't talk to conservatives much anymore; they seem to be skewed, and uninformed. But...I consider myself a libertarian, and they aren't just conservative, they called "ultra conservative".

For one, I think that's misleading, because socially I think libertarians are progressive. They certainly AREN'T the one's pushing gay marriage bans. I realized then that this admin has forever perverted the concept of a "conservative". They redefined it, in the eyes of the world. I had wondered if libertarians still call themselves "conservative".

Frankly, I'd LOVE to hear one of the BushCo's discuss freedom. It's just like Henry Ford, and his first cars. He said "You can have any color you like, as long as it's black". For them, it's as if "You can be any religion you like, as long as it's a Christian denomination". You can speak freely about anything you like, as long as it's not too negative about the murders currently in power. But...you can quite publicly, as a close friend of the president of the United States, call for the assassination of the president of a foreign nation. Sure.

Free speech is "safe" speech. These monsters have thrown out almost ALL of our ideals of human rights and civil rights.

What kills me is this nation let them. The vampire was invited in.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. I find that when RWers talk about "freedom"

they're usually talking about the "free market" which is worshipped by them before any religion. Everything else including democracy, civil liberties, religious freedoms, social justice rank either secondary or not worth warranting an afterthought.

It is quite telling that many arch-RWers consider Augusto Pinochet's regime in Chile to have been the epitome of "freedom". Again, they're talking about "free markets", whilst Pinochet's authoritarian dictatorship is downplayed.

[Taxloss]

4. Your concern is justified, but remember that this law

will be defined by judges. As with the hopeless "religious hatred" legislation, it will be eviscerated in the courts if they seriously attempt to bring cases.

[non sociopath skin]

6. Indeed, not for the first time will democracy depend on the judges.

Although, of course, it used to be the Conservatives (and Liberals) who threatened it.

The Skin

[Briar]

7. Isn't Clarke threatening a law

which will force judges to interpret certain laws in a pre-determined way?

This government has had enough of judges defending democracy and human rights against their authoritarian dictat.

[non sociopath skin]

8. Then my fiver at Charlie Chisholm's goes on the Beaks ...

... who I suspect will leave the pygmies of the Blairite Front Bench looking like very, very small pygmies.

I seem to recollect that the Cunning Wheeze to get rid of the Lord Chancellorship ended in a hiding to nothing.

The Skin

[wli]

9. given that it's all false flag attacks...

They have other motives for this, like wanting to be dictators.

[moggie]

10. Reporting address?

I'm guessing that they won't provide an easy online method for, ahem, civic-minded citizens to report potential offenders. I hope I'm wrong about that, because it would surely be easy to swamp them with reports.

[fedsron2us]

12. I am all for a crack down on those who justify and glorify violence

in order to achieve their political ends. When do we arrest Blair ?