|
|
|
|
|
Blair defends Big Brother Britain Linda S. Heard | April 28 2006 Pre-Blair Britain was perceived as a country where citizens were free to do their own thing. It was admired by people worldwide for its civil liberties, its evolved judicial system and the unalienable right of free speech enjoyed by all. Not so today. Britons, whose movements are monitored by 4.5 million CCTV cameras, are experiencing the slow, unmitigated erosion of their civil rights, privacy and personal freedoms. By 2010, all Britons who apply for a new passport will be forcibly issued with a biometric identity card, loaded with personal information. This information will be available to various governmental and non-governmental entities. Speaking as a Briton, it's an unnerving prospect. This is not because I have anything to hide. There is a principle at stake: the rights of law-abiding individuals to privacy. Behind these Orwellian-like changes is Prime Minister Tony Blair, who admits that his policies are under attack from not only civil rights groups but also opposition parties, as well as members of his own party and Cabinet. Even so, he's sticking to his guns as evidenced by an article in the Observer on Sunday: "Blair savages critics over threat to civil liberties." Blair has been lambasted by former Law Lords for creating an authoritarian state. These revolve around new powers given to the police to hold suspects from up to 28 days and to arbitrarily stop and search individuals, as well as control orders, which can keep suspects housebound indefinitely and banned from having visitors other than close family members. Criminal Offence Most controversial is the new law making it a criminal offence to "glorify terrorism." The problem is "terrorism" hasn't been defined. And does "glorification" mean delving into the reasons behind, which Blair has termed "a slippery slope"? Blair's answer to his critics is there's more to come. Citizens must, after all, be protected from terrorists, criminals and themselves. If Blair gets his wish, anyone stopped by the police carrying sums of cash equivalent to around $2,000 could be liable to having that money seized. And those suspected of being involved with organised crime could be banned from associating with certain people or frequenting certain places. That's fine, you might think, but I would remind you that we are talking about "suspects" and not convicted criminals. Ordinary British people are already being treated like potential money-launderers, drug dealers or supporters of terrorism by their own High Street banks. Did you know that if account holders want to withdraw several thousand pounds of their own money, they have to explain the purpose of such withdrawal to bank employees? Why should anyone have to go cap in hand to their bank manager, saying, "Please sir, can I buy a second-hand car?" Moreover, incoming transfers of fairly modest amounts often elicit accounts being frozen causing immense inconvenience to recipients. This is surely outrageous. People work hard for their savings, are taxed heavily on their income, so they should be allowed the freedom to do what they like with the remainder. Worse, Blair's policies are criminalising British children as young as 10, according to the Independent, quoting Professor Rod Morgan, an adviser on youth crime, for such "offences" as breaking a window or swearing in the playground. In my youth, naughty children would get nothing more than a clip around the ear, but in Blair's Britain, schools call the police and they actually wind up in court. Criminalising Children Some 2,000 British children have been slapped with Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOS), which restrict their movements for up to 10 years. According to Liberty, a human rights organisation, criminalising children in Britain has become "a national obsession." Parents can be fined or criminalized, too, simply for taking their children on holiday during a school term, which is often the only option open to working parents, whose own vacation dates are determined by the boss. This is the nanny state in full swing. You might have sympathy with these policies but shouldn't the accent be on parental responsibilities? Parents should be the ones to decide whether a week in, say, Venice or Cairo, would be more beneficial to their child's overall education than the same period in school. The nanny state further extends to over-the-counter medicines. Before traveling on holiday to London some years ago, a friend in Dubai asked me to bring back three bottles of a well-known cough syrup. I easily found it on the shelves of Boots and placed three bottles in my basket. Imagine my surprise when an assistant asked me what I wanted to do with the medicine. "Alleviate a cough. What else?" She then said I was only allowed to buy one bottle at a time. That was the rule. With a "no smoking" rule in public places shortly to come into effect and talk of all British cars being fitted with a GPS system so that they can be tracked by the government, it's clear that "my Britain" has disappeared into the mists just as surely as the fabled Brigadoon. The sad thing is that unlike Brigadoon, it won't emerge again even in another hundred years. ---------------------------------------------------
Prison Planet.tv: The Premier Multimedia Subscription Package: Download and Share the Truth! Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate. |
