The Upside Down World Of New Labour
Tony's World is having an Achabe moment as things fall apart. New Labour's sheen of spin over human rights is collapsing faster than a Baghdad mosque.
Naturally, when faced with uncomfortable truths, Tony did his usual trick and blamed everyone else, saying his critics had "the world the wrong way round".
Have we? A read of the Amnesty International report: Human rights: a broken promise (pdf)makes frightening reading. to get a taste of how far down the slippery slope blair has taken us, it starts off with two quotes:
1997 Labour Party’s General Election Manifesto
Should legal obstacles arise we will legislate further, including, if necessary, amending the Human Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, 5 August 2005
The report itself is damning:
People suspected of involvement in terrorism who have been detained in the UK under the new laws have found themselves in a Kafkaesque world. They have been held for years in harsh conditions on the basis of secret accusations that they are not allowed to know
and therefore cannot refute. Amnesty International considers that the UK authorities have effectively persecuted men they have labelled “suspected international terrorists†and a “threat to national securityâ€Â, with devastating consequences for the men and their families.
After the events of 7 and 21 July 2005 in London, more draconian measures were proposed. These included a new Terrorism Bill currently before Parliament. Some of its most sweeping and vague provisions, if enacted, would undermine the rights to freedom of expression, association, liberty and fair trial.
Many of the measures introduced since September 2001 involve punishment of people against whom there is insufficient evidence to present to a court but who the authorities have decided are a threat to national security. Such measures fly in the face of human rights law which demands that people should only be punished if they have been charged with a recognizably criminal offence and tried in fair and transparent proceedings.
Another fundamental principle of criminal law is that offences should be clear so that everyone knows what behaviour is criminalized. The anti-terrorism legislation passed since 2000 has included an increasing number of broad and vague terms, including the government’s definition of “terrorism†itself.
And it goes on for 80 pages, just listing the essential rights and liberties New Labour have taken away.
Amnesty UK's director, Kate Allen has an interesting article on how Labour has betrayed the promises it made in 1997.
This is all shocking stuff and it is clear to us that, for the sake of traditional British freedoms and liberties, New Labour have to go, and go quickly.
You can't believe in liberty and vote Labour. Labour and liberty are incompatible. Choose which one you want to keep.
Blair is completely insane,
Blair is completely insane, claiming that we who oppose torture and abuse have got the world the wrong way round really shows his desperation.
Labour really need to be shown at these upcoming local elections that we've all had quite enough of them, kick them out all over the country, the Labour Party may then actually begin to take some much needed action.
Blair is making the mistake
Blair is making the mistake that the Americans are making. Terrorism usually has the effect of making most people think that their security services should become murder incorporated, hunting down and wiping out terrorists and those who support them, keeping them alive only long enough to get information out of them and using whatever means are necessary in order to do so.
That's the emotional response. What you have to remember is that animals expect to be treated like animals. If, when we capture them, we treat them like human beings, western goverments can shame the terrorists and the cultures that spawn them by making plain the value we place on human life, compared to them. How can the government condemn countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran with the reports of organisations like Amnesty when they themselves are criticised? We will only win the war on terror when we win the war on tyranny which we will only do if we can show that our values are better than theirs. How can we do that if we don't hold true to our values?
They think our values make us weak, they think that living in open societies is a reason why we should be attacked. It isn't, and anyone who thinks that our society should be less open is just doing the job of the terrorists for them. They need to be shown that the fear societies they live in are doomed and that freedom, democracy and human rights are stronger than fear.
If not Labour, who do we
If not Labour, who do we vote for?
like hassan i wonder who to
like hassan i wonder who to vote for - its clear brown isn't going to change the party agenda but cameron has no policies only tactics to woo the disaffected - is there no party in a country of 70m to champion human rights and common sense or one that will join the euro so the UK can get away from its slavish defence of the cross atlantic corporatocracy to prop up the petrodollar hegemony? those who want to champion nationhood, perhaps should focus on building a nation first that can boast a political representation for a significant proportion of its populace
sona, may i suggest the lib
sona, may i suggest the lib dems? those are teir policies
wake up
wake up people,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12018.htm
I challenge anyone to watch those and not believe 911 was an inside job ,the war on terror is as fake as Tony Bliar,,,and that slowly but surely a greater catastrophy is in the making leading to further Darconian laws
While many of the conspiracy
While many of the conspiracy theories are totally wild, doubts are reinforced by the inadequate US Congressional report on 9/11 which chose to ignore many experts', eye witness' and firemen's accounts. There are also question marks as to why the nearby US airforce base didn't get its act together until an hour later when they didn't need to wait for special Executive orders. Close pecuniary ties between the neocon establishment and the bin laden family notwthstanding, the real doubt arises from a neocon policy paper that was written by Wolfowitz before 2000 setting out US foreign policy for the middle east which talked about military invasion of iraq and iran. Wolfowitz outlined the major problem in pursuing such a policy would be US public acquiescence without a 'pearl harbour'. Bush's 2001 State of the Union address clearly sought to justify unprovoked aggressive interventions in foreign countries though this had been happening in south america since the 1970s albeit covertly. What is more worrying though is that these early neocon policy papers also advocated creating a climate of civil strife in iraq to maintain continued US presence there. The US$ is essentially a fiat currency and US current and financial account imbalances are financed by the fact that oil is only marketed against the US$ in both London and New York oil exchanges, helping to maintain international demand for it. Saddam Hussein defied this OPEC undertaking when he obtained UN agreement to sell oil for the euro. Iran is threatening to do the same from 20 march when it opens its oil bourse. Norway meanwhile has been fighting a rearguard battle to get EU agreement to open a Norwegian bourse that trades EU oil for the euro. Once the US$ loses its petrodollar hegemony, the resultant fall in international demand for the US$ and US Fed bonds would lead to a US and global financial meltdown. UK has so far ruled out joining the euro - is this the real reason for New Labour complicity with US aggression?