ralpress.org

And now they’re using EU legislation to augment domestic authoritarian measures. This is just shocking (again).

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5439604.ece

So, airport expansion protesters, those who attempt to get their children into schools in the next borough, those who sign petitions calling on the government to reconsider a policy, those who put the wrong type of cardboard in their recycling bins, and all the other seditious riff-raff in this country will be potential targets (I have little faith in the “will only be used for serious crimes” pledge).

No warrants. No transparency. No accountability. How is this compatible with a democratic, open society?

I think our government ministers are wearing latex masks, if we peel them off we’ll realise that they are in fact green-eyed, malicious aliens bent on destroying our freedom. I’m sure of it. What else can explain this (entirely unnecessary) rush to turn Britain into an open-prison?

It would seem that far from being an anti-establishment crazy, Craig Murray is bang on the money when it comes to describing those who are supposed to be looking after the interests of the people of this country.

Sir Ken McDonald, former director of public prosecutions quoted in today’s Guardian talking about the Home Secretary’s plans to introduce measures designed to seriously reduce personal liberty in Britain:

“‘Authorisations for access might be written into statute. The most senior ministers and officials might be designated as scrutineers. But none of this means anything,’ said Macdonald. ‘All history tells us that reassurances like these are worthless in the long run. In the first security crisis the locks would loosen.’”

…

“‘The tendency of the state to seek ever more powers of surveillance over its citizens may be driven by protective zeal. But the notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy which would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile. We must avoid surrendering our freedom as autonomous human beings to such an ugly future. We should make judgments that are compatible with our status as free people.’”

Short of explicitly calling for mass protests on the streets, I’m not sure what else Ken McDonald can do to stir the politically lazy, apathetic population of the UK. We’ve been warned by enough senior figures, most of us studied history at school, and we have our common sense. The rest is up to us.

“For five years I have avoided using the phrase ‘police state’. But the sort of things going on here is what you expect in a police state, a banana state. This is the most extraordinary event of my parliamentary career.” (David Davis)

I find the items on this list extremely disturbing, particularly those which relate to his offices, phone and computer.

The six facts causing Tories alarm about Damian Green

Yes Prime Minister: The Nuclear Deterrent and Salami Tactics

I invite you to consider this very funny but very poignant clip with reference to a “government going bad” type scenario. We’re hearing an increasing amount of discussion these days here in the UK about what we should do, and at what point we should do it, should our current government’s authoritarian direction continue unabated.

Among the problems potential rebels would face (in addition to the small matters of pervasive surveillance, an increasingly aggressive and well-armed police force, and the likely invocation of “anti-terrorist” measures to swat down any politically undesirable behaviour), is the process brilliantly parodied in the Yes Prime Minister clip above. No single slice of salami will ever seem serious enough to get the average bod to go and wave banners in Parliament Square. Well obviously, that’s not likely because they’ve already banned banner-waving there, but somewhere else where democratic protest it is still allowed, like in the middle of a multitude corralled into Oxford Circus and controlled at the point of a taser, for example.

Unless by some means we can arrive at some broad consensus regarding a line or lines that must not be crossed by government (and this, IMO, is where not having a written constitution is a serious disadvantage), we’ll be doomed to experience frog-in-pot syndrome. We’ll all just sit here waiting for some big call-to-action event that never comes, and inevitably, our liberty will end up boiled.

I write this as someone who grew up surrounded by adults who would regularly ask that classic rhetorical question about German citizens in the 1930s “But how could they have let it happen?”. Even as a young child I knew that the smugness was unwarranted. As for the question about how authoritarian government develops without the general public doing much to prevent it, I suspect we’re on our way to finding out.

“The arrest of Damian Green for doing his job of opposing the executive is a step too far in rolling back centuries of democratic achievement. The pretext is the excessive desire of this government to keep all public information secret, and prevent the taxpayer from finding out what has been done in their name and at their expense. This is the most secretive, as well as the most authoritarian, government of the modern era.”

In case you’re wondering, the author is not exactly a natural political ally of the Conservatives:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2008/11/the_jackboots_a.html

(Link seen on Glyn Moody’s blog)

Updates:
Cross-party fury over MP’s arrest
Damien Green arrest ‘like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe’
Damian Green arrest: PM accused of contempt for parliament
The six facts causing Tories alarm about Damian Green

Reading Glyn Moody’s blog earlier reminded me to flag an article I saw last week. Stella Rimmington (former Director General of MI5) on the political response to the threat of terrorism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/18/stella-rimington-9-11-mi5

“[She criticises] politicians including Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, for trying to outbid each other in their opposition to terrorism and making national security a partisan issue.

It all began, she suggests, with September 11. “National security has become much more of a political issue than it ever was in my day,” she says. “Parties are tending to use it as a way of trying to get at the other side. You know, ‘We’re more tough on terrorism than you are.’ I think that’s a bad move, quite frankly.”

Information Commissioner’s Office statement on the Communications Data Bill

“This summer the Information Commissioner called for a public debate on government proposals for the state to retain citizens’ internet and phone records. The Commissioner warned that it is likely that such a scheme would be a step too far for the British way of life. Creating huge databases containing personal information is never a risk-free option as it is not possible to fully eliminate the danger that the data will fall into the wrong hands. It is therefore of paramount importance that proposals threatening such intrusion into our lives are fully debated. We welcome the fact that the government intends to fully consult the public on any scheme it brings forward. Precise details of the plans are unclear at this stage the ICO will be studying the proposals once published and responding to the Government’s consultation in due course.”

Source:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2008/ico_statement_comms_data_bill.pdf

Commentary:
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9533

If you wish to make your voice heard on this matter, sign this petition!

Everyone who buys a mobile telephone will be forced to register their identity on a national database under government plans to extend massively the powers of state surveillance. Phone buyers would have to present a passport or other official form of identification at the point of purchase.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4969312.ece

By any metric the surveillance policies being enacted by the current government are strongly characteristic of both authoritarian and totalitarian governments. This has gone way beyond a matter of polite debate. Our basic freedoms are being systematically destroyed by a coterie of ex-academics, ex-broadcasters, ex-journalists and career politicians i.e. the current government (most of whom really should know better…)