Pixelated Semantics

Abandoning jurisprudence for intelligence

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's proposed new anti-terrorism law (currently before parliament) would allow that government to place suspects under house arrest "without the need for a trial", grants powers to electronically tag British citizens and foreign nationals, place them under house arrest based on secret intelligence, allow a government minister acting on the advice of Britain's spy agencies to impose curfews, travel bans and bars on using telephones and the internet. It seems that abdicating jurisprudence and ultimately democracy to unaccountable, unelected intelligence figures who have failed time and time again to protect their citizens and the rights of those citizens is the answer to threats of terrorism that may ultimately have been nurtured and neglected strategically by these very same people and organisations for the express purpose of gaining such powers. As Blair said "this is terrorism without limit". Even the Conservatives have opposed the laws", saying "terror" threats do "not mean that we should throw away the civilised standards of which this country has become proud over the centuries". The basis for the law is apparently the carefully crafted and disingenuous notion that "intelligence information [is] too sensitive to make public in court", but is more likely to be very much a product of the British Supreme Court ruling detention without trial is illegal under European human rights legislation. Clearly more so than "terrorism", human rights are the ongoing target of abhorrent campaigns across western governments who seem to feel that fascism deserves another turn around the block. Indeed, questions are rightfully beginning to be asked about the very authenticity of "modern terrorism", for it largely seems to be a pretext for the likes of Blair and Howard to pervert the fundamental decencies of our societies as never before.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 12:09 pm ::