Wearing a T-shirt Makes You a Terrorist - The Guardian

From: Per I. Mathisen (Per.Inge.Mathisen@idi.ntnu.no)
Date: Wed Feb 28 2001 - 13:51:47 MET

  • Next message: Per I. Mathisen: "Menneskekjede mot gjeldsslaveri"

    Den virkelige Big Brother reiser sitt store, stygge hode mens folk flest
    titter på TV-skjermenes vrangbilde av åpenhet.

    Mvh,
    Per

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    The Guardian
    Thursday February 22, 2001

    Special report: human rights in the UK

    Wearing a T-shirt makes you a terrorist

    Anything with a slogan could put you outside the law now

    By George Monbiot

    Britain, Tony Blair announced at Labour's spring conference on
    Sunday, is on the brink of "the biggest progressive political advance
    for a century". To prepare for this brave new world, two days before
    his speech Mr Blair bombed Baghdad. On Monday, the progressive era
    was officially launched, with the implementation of an inclusive
    piece of legislation called the Terrorism Act 2000.

    Terror, in the new progressive age, is no longer the preserve of the
    aristocracy of violence. Today almost anyone can participate, just
    as long as she or he wants to change the world.

    Beating people up, even killing them, is not terrorism, unless it is
    "designed to influence the government" or conducted "for the purpose
    of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". But since
    Monday you can become a terrorist without having to harm a living
    being, provided you believe in something.

    In that case, causing "serious damage to property" or interfering
    with "an electronic system" will do. Or simply promoting or
    encouraging such acts, or associating with the people who perform
    them, or failing to tell the police what they are planning. Or, for
    that matter, wearing a T-shirt or a badge which might "arouse
    reasonable suspicion" that you sympathise with their activities.

    In his speech on Sunday, Tony Blair called for a "revolution" in our
    schools, and spoke of "noble causes...asking us to hear their cry for
    help and answer by action". So perhaps we should not be surprised to
    learn that you can can now become a terrorist by supporting
    government policy.

    British subjects writing pamphlets or giving lectures demanding a
    revolution in Iraq can be prosecuted under the new act for
    "incitement" of armed struggles overseas. The same clause leaves the
    government free to bomb Baghdad, however, as "nothing in this section
    imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or
    holding office under, the crown."

    By such means, our new century of progressive politics will be
    distinguished from those which have gone before. There will be no
    place, for example, for violent conspiracies like the Commons
    Preservation Society. The CPS launched its campaign of terror in
    1865, by hiring a trainload of labourers to dismantle the railings
    around Berkhamstead Common, thus seriously damaging the property of
    the noble lord who had just enclosed it.

    The CPS later split into two splinter groups called the Open Spaces
    Society and the National Trust. Under the new legislation, these
    subversive factions would have been banned.

    Nor will the state tolerate dangerous malefactors such as the woman
    who claimed "there is something that governments care far more for
    than human life, and that is the security of property, and so it is
    through property that we shall strike the enemy" and "the argument of
    the broken windowpane is the most valuable argument in modern
    politics". Emmeline Pankhurst and her followers, under the act,
    could have been jailed for life for damaging property to advance a
    political or ideological cause.

    Indeed, had the government's new progressive powers been in force,
    these cells could have been stamped out before anyone had been
    poisoned by their politics. The act permits police to cordon off an
    area in which direct action is likely to take place, and arrest
    anyone refusing to leave it.

    Anyone believed to be plotting an action can be stopped and searched,
    and the protest materials she or he is carrying confiscated. Or, if
    they prefer, the police can seize people who may be about to commit
    an offence and hold them incommunicado for up to seven days.

    Under the new act, the women who caused serious damage to a Hawk jet
    bound for East Timor could have been intercepted and imprisoned as
    terrorists long before they interfered with what Mr Blair described
    on Sunday as his mission to civilise the world. So could the
    desperados seeking to defend organic farmers by decontaminating
    fields of genetically modified maize.

    Campaigners subjecting a corporation to a fax blockade become
    terrorists by dint of interfering with an electronic system. Indeed,
    by writing articles in support of such actions, I could be deemed to
    be "promoting and encouraging" them. Which makes me a terrorist and
    you, if you were foolish enough to copy my articles and send them to
    your friends, party to my crime.

    I don't believe the government will start making use of these new
    measures right away: after all, as Mr Blair lamented on Sunday,
    "Jerusalem is not built overnight". But they can now be deployed
    whenever progress demands. Then, unmolested by dangerous lunatics
    armed with banners and custard pies, the government will be free to
    advance world peace by bombing Baghdad to its heart's content.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 28 2001 - 13:55:25 MET