lord of the blog

« Anti-social Behaviour Orders | Main | DNA database »

Monday, January 23, 2006

Responses

A few brief responses

House of Lords. No party can now control the Lords because no party has a majority and we have all given a committment to try and keep it that way.

There will be a debate soon on having a speaker which will give the Lords an opportunity to lead the reform of the House. I hope it takes it. My views on reform have been on this blog several times over the last few years. They haven't changed very much. Track back and have a look.

ASBO's. You can be imprisoned for breach of an ASBO. You can also be imprisoned for breach of a conditional discharge or a fine. Are we suggesting the sentence of the Court should not be enforced?

The problems on legal aid may be leading to more inappropriate use but I want the Courts to have flexibility. Some of the critics should put their names forward as magistrates. Why do so few people volunteer?

CICB. For once I thought Lord Tebitt had a good point about an ongoing payment for the seriously injured. Peter, you should put your views into the review process.

Fear of crime. The figures were quoted in a very short news item in the Guardian on the 18th January. They came form a MORI poll but apparently it was only done in London and therefore only applies to London. I can't find it on the MORI site yet but I haven't looked today.

ID cards. The Government legislation does not make it compulsory to carry ID cards. The legislation would require a debate and vote in Parliament if the information carried on the card was to be increased.

Palestine. I'm not an "appeaser" and I wouldn't know if I'm "deluded" because if I was I would be "deluded"! Cogito ergo sum!

The point is, that if there are signs of movement by Hamas then we need to signal that we have noticed and encourage more movement. That's what we did with the IRA and unionist para military groups in Northern Ireland.

There is a very difficult balance between condemning and  encouraging in such situations and I don't pretend I, or anyone else, gets it right all the time.

You'll love this Clive: http://eclectech.co.uk/swizz.php

Re: ID cards

Who is to monitor the uses information stored is put too? Who watches the watchers?

Will future access to services we currently take for granted require an ID card?

If the service is voluntary and there will be no universal coverage will ID cards be an efficient system in security matters?

Is this a slippery slope? The question can be comfortably answered as yes.

Andrew B: If enough people refuse to participate in this insane scheme, it can be brought down just as the poll-tax was brought down. Around 12,000 have already signed up as refuseniks and many, like me, have no previous criminal convictions - the government intends to criminalise us for protecting our privacy and identity from state intrusion.

Clive will probably say that lots of other states have this kind of scheme - although the database is more extensive than any similar scheme elsewhere in the world. Many democratic states have constitutions that delineate the responsibilities of the state and the rights of civilians, including the right to privacy and freedom of information. There is no codified constitution in the UK, so what rights exist can easily be changed. Already the British government has attempted to rescind the European Convention on Human Rights to detain people without trial under ATCSA, but when it got into legal trouble introduced "control orders" (house arrest) that now British citizens under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

What rights do we have to maintain our privacy and identity from state intrusion? We have no rights and the state has all the power it wants, utilising parliamentary sheep like Clive to push through insane legislation like ATCSA and POTA. The Americans had to locate their camp in Guatanamo to keep their illegal treatment of detainees outside the ambit of US law. In the UK, we have Belmarsh and it is all legal and it is justified by Clive Soley - and no doubt the CIA torture flights will also be justified and reasoned.

Can you trust a government that invaded Iraq on the basis of a pack of lies, used our money that would otherwise be spent on schools and hospitals to pay for it and participated in an occupation that killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children (and humiliated, tortured, raped and murdered hundreds more in places like Abu Ghraib - all to titilate dumb soldiers who joyfully filmed it all)? This was all done in the name of national security, just as ID cards are being introduced.

Can you trust a beast like Blair with your identity and your information, the things that make up who and what you are in modern society? The reassurances are meaningless and the safeguards are pathetic because ultimate responsibility for overseeing this draconian scheme lies with these deceitful politicians, not citizens nor the courts. And the idea that this will be voluntary is nonsense - it will become mandatory by stealth, with services denied as punishment for those who want to live in freedom. The register will be indexed to other official and non-official records through an audit trail, which will record the life history of every individual and all their movements and transactions - even after they die!

It is time people took a stand against the surge in authoritarianism and the Blair government's intrusion into our lives. Break the law, smash the law and get rid of the law on ID cards. It is not necessary and it serves no purpose but to strengthen state power over our lives.

All you have to do is refuse to take an ID card and refuse to participate in this national register - it could be your last chance to strike out against authoritarianism.

Clive: By the way, I was referring to your appeasement of the Iranian regime and your snearing at its opponents - and perhaps a strong Iran is the real reason for your support for the occupation of Iraq. Emma Nicholson benefits from a cosy relationship with Hashemi Rafsanjani. She has prostituted herself to the Islamic Republic and there is always some remunerative interest at stake in such relationships. What benefits have you received?

With regards to Hamas, I think you are either an apologist for terrorism or extremely naive for claiming that an absence of a call for the destruction of Israel in the manifesto represents a move towards peace with Israel. While you praise Hamas' supposed "good faith", you Iranian opposition groups as "dodgy". This reveals where you situated politically.

Dan,

Agreed re:ID cards - you have put a comprehensive argument which cannot in my book be disputed.

Clive - I have tracked back and am aware of your stance in regard to the House of Lords, however you have still not answered the case implicitly put in my last post on that subject. It is apparent to many that the half way house has suited the Blairite wing by retaining a source of patronage to meet the needs to exercise power. The opportunities for reform have been their in 3 parliaments it is not unrealistic to conclude that the ambivalence to the use of patronage has increased as time has gone on and the need/appetitie for reform abated.

As the saying goes - meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

Clive another point - I am beginning to have a creeping ambivalence of my own. I am beginning to have sympathy for the members of the House of Lords when you moan about their coverage of 'old ground' in relation to the costs argument of ID cards.

Perhaps like us on this blog they feel that questions have been asked without adequate response being given. This is an open blog I grant you, however the seemingness of being a democrat is one thing the hard work of it is another. Do you agree?

Hey, Clive, I remember you lauding Musharraf as a great democrat - despite the fact that he traded nuclear secrets, sponsored jihadist terrorism and invaded India. Take a look at his democracy in action in Balochistan: http://www.balochvoice.com/Army_Operation/Children_Killed_28.12.05.html

Seems like Hamas have won the election. While this was very unexpected, I suspect it will force the two sides to meet head on and settle the dispute faster than would have happened if Fateh were elected.

Interesting times ahead I think.

Regs, Andy

If Hamas decides to halt attacks on civilians and recognises Israel's right to exist, then it should be welcomed by the international community as the ruling party of the Palestinians regardless of its past. But I can't see how a Palestinian state could expect to receive funds and support if Hamas continues to maintain its covenant. I think people should recognise why Hamas won. Partly it was frustration over the lack of progress on negotiations and Israel's continued aggression. But also I feel that Fatah's corruption was a decisive factor that led to its defeat as a credible party of government, in contrast to Hamas which has used funds to buy favour through health and education programmes for the poor. Donors such as the EU are responsible for the fact that Fatah failed, due to a complete lack of auditing of grants. The EU ended up funding Arafat's expensive taste in cars, while Palestinians starved. The shame is that the EU and others were too timid to take a stand against corruption. I hope they are less timid with Hamas.

Hi Dan,

'If Hamas decides to halt attacks on civilians and recognises Israel's right to exist, then it should be welcomed by the international community as the ruling party of the Palestinians regardless of its past.'

Hamas could become more 'ligitimate' by doing that.

But would that have much of an effect on the ground.

What I mean by that is, if Hamas were to say 'we will not target civilians, just members of the Israeli military who we decide are a threat to our people', and then try to blow up soldiers in the streets, killing a few civilians as 'colateral damage' like the Israelis do, and if those who did the blowing up were members of a 'ligitimate' PA military, would that be somehow ...... ligitimate?

I think it's much of a muchness, and civilians would still die, under cover of 'ligitimacy'.

Hamas's win has certainly put the cat amongst the pidgeons, and they have gained a measure of 'ligitimacy'. Further 'ligitimacy' will happen, for instance, on the creation of a Palestinian state with a 'ligitimate' military comprising, ala early Israel, of 'terrorists/freedom fighters'.

Suddenly they'll not be 'terrorists' any more, but, as with any other states militaries, 'ligitimate'.

Israel has got to be worried now, not of futher 'terror' strikes, but because the Palastinians are gaining ligitimacy as they did, through 'terror'.

Regs, Shaggy
Regs, Shaggy

Has the election given Hamas legitimacy or has the Palestinian Authority lost its legitimacy? The answer to this lies in Hamas' deeds in government. But Hamas does not distinguish between civilian and military targets. According to its Convenant, all Jews are targets and it views itself as part of a global Islamic struggle. Unless it changes its Covenant, I think it is damaging the Palestinian cause.

What also worries me is that many good political causes that are not violent in nature never receive coverage or solidarity, let alone statehood. When governments talk of promoting democracy and combatting terrorism, why is it that non-violent democrats are never given the support they deserve? Should policy be led by headlines or principles?

Hi Dan,

'Has the election given Hamas legitimacy or has the Palestinian Authority lost its legitimacy'

In the democratic sense, it has given Hamas legitimacy, which is why Dubya and Blair looked so uncomfortable in their post election interviews imv, especially Blair.

Regs, Shaggy

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: