Friday, 26 April 2013

May there be life in the Liberal Democrats yet? Is it even possible after the Qutada & human rights sale to potential torturers for "smiles"?

The media report: Nick Clegg blocks Tory plans for a 'snoopers' charter' (as in the headline of a Telegraph article).

It is great to see Mr Clegg acting for a change. I'd love to see much, much more of it. I suppose there might be still some pulses tied to brains within the Liberal Democrats and I wish they could be felt more.

This government espionage charter is exactly the kind of thing the last Labour government were trying hard to bring in. Theresa May shows her colours, as ever, as being exactly the same. She's a real populist, socialist (as in communist, it seems). She really is.

Of course it is cried that the snooping is necesssary to stop terrorism. This is an old Blairite agenda, from the world of his gang's deceits and misleading, brainwashing soundbites: the way to ruin society, to head straight for 1984, to exactly go one more than the terrorists, to get there first, to beat them at their own game, leaving nothing genuine to terrorise.

As regards the pulse of the Liberal Democrats, unfortunately I've just watched Simon Hughes in tonights' BBC Question Time programme go with the "we'll do anything to get Abu Qutada on a flight to Jordan" gang. Just like Clegg did before him.

This issue seems to really test the plebs - they can escape other issues, but this one shows who are plebs and who aren't.

It's so basic:

- there are human rights,

- they are inalienable otherwise they become meaningless if on a pick and choose basis, or "only if you do x" basis,

- it means we do not do the same to murderers & torturers as they do to others, we are above that and value reform in justice,

- Qutada is untried abroad and unless the Crown Prosecution Service finds fault with him here to try on something, by the law a free man - the law being the written law, and not the rabble's salivant desires,

- it is thought not too unlikely Qutada would be tortured in Jordan in order to "gain information" (which evidently couldn't be counted as information, and so, anyway, one couldn't trust the authorities which claim such things are information),

- the disgusting rabble who don't want human rights at all anyway focus on one man (of course - you have to expect that. the rabble REALLY is THE lowest common denominator),

- thanks to people like Theresa May and tabloid editors this one man is Qutada,

- the worst politicians realise how vociferous, stupid and goal orientated (and popular seeming) this rabble is,

- so they choose - "put the untried, unconvicted man on a flight to Jordan - let him be tortured", just as a plea to the rabble - "vote for me, support me". It goes beyond the specific - beyond this Jew of Malta - to the universal as each politician knows they are deciding against the concept of inalienable human rights when they decide for the rabble's one man pursuit.

On Question Time, the topic was raised of that the government has avoided a home trial in the UK of Qutada because, as some people allege they are sure of, it would expose things they could be culpabale of. Such as more general human rights abuse; such as systematic domestic and international systems abuse; such as illegal involvement in extraordinary rendition around the world. Simon Hughes denied this.

I don't think for an instant it is such a wise idea to believe him at all. Why, why would he and the others be so insistent on the stance: "put the untried, unconvicted man on a flight to Jordan - let him be tortured", just as a plea to the rabble - "vote for me, support me"? Does it even make sense?

I am reminded of Annie Machon and David Shaylor, the British secret service agents who left the service and went into hiding after witnessing numerous illegal acts that included what can only be described as murder or acts tantamount to murder and widespread, needless, pointless destruction with no sake. I am reminded that David Shaylor eventually decided to return the the UK of his own volition, and was brought to a court - ALLEGEDLY. Yes, he was arrested on suspicion of breaking laws one would label as treachery laws, and forcibly taken to a court room. But this was not really a court as one understands in the UK. A Kafkaesque, Orwellian court, yes.

But it's horrid to think of it as a British court.

For the judge and jury in the court were instructed

- they may not hear Mr Shaylor's evidence AT ALL for it breached these so-called treachery laws of a certain statute,
- that Mr Shaylor be silenced from being heard in court for he would allegedly be breaking treachery laws if speaking within the so-called "court",
- that, regardless of evidence presented by any side, and regardless of legal arguments presented, and completely regardless of what the judge might feel would ordinarily be the law in the circumstances, the particular treachery laws NECESSITATE that the judge finds Mr Shaylor guilty IN ANY EVENT. The judge was directed by the secret services accompanied by government representatives that there could be no usual court discussion and decisions made whatsoever, but that a guilty verdict - as if of a normal, British court, by law must be found.

The judge, bound by these so-called treachery laws of statute, did indeed forego any arguments and any personal decision making or connection with the circumstances, merely accepting he was legally obliged in any case, as by the letter of the secrecy statute, to deliver a guilty verdict without consideration of acts or circumstance.

Mr Shaylor was "convicted" and imprisoned. Since then it is reported he has become markedly schizophrenic. One wonders exactly what kind of treatment he suffered in imprisonment and, exactly, from or, ordered by, whom.

At times, indeed increasingly more and more, it is hard not to conclude that this nation stinks more than others. Within the 12 months since it chose to proclaim itself to the world as one of the greatest (as it likes to do - while only at least rather bad, at least rather stupid, at least actually rather empty and shallow nations are caught doing this) in the hosting of the Olympics, while even getting the name of the nation wrong live in the opening ceremony publicised around the world. (The event had the national British team enter the arena to the announcement of "Great Britain", which is an island and not the name of any nation, rather than "United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]".) If these people don't even care, it's hard to find it in oneself to care about this country.

No comments:

Post a Comment