There has been a digging away at the core principles of Britain’s system of Law and Justice over the last decade which threatens to undermine it entirely, in my opinion.

So I’ll start with stella Rimington, the former head of MI5 who in 2009 accused the British government of exploiting the fear of terrorism to pass laws intended to restrict our civil liberties.

The Labour government passed 25 Acts of Parliament and 50 individual measures to restrict civil liberties for UK citizens in the name of ‘national security’ in its thirteen year term.

Control Orders were passed in 2005 and gave police the right to place citizens under permanent house arrest with an electronic tag without any judicial intervention, that is, outside of the court system. Between 2005 and 2011 fifty people were made subject to these control orders.

After promising to remove the powers on election, the Coalition government simply replaced them with TPIMS, which amount to the same thing but restricted the orders to a review after two years.

The Terrorism Prevention Act and other legislation give the State the power to detain citizens indefinitely by identifying them as a terror threat, without reference to a judge or a court. This amounts to “protective custody.”

The Coroners and Justice Bill of 2005 which removed the independence of Coroners, and gave the Executive (state) the power to suspend inquests or hold them in secret, even in cases of homicide.

Recently, when British citizens started to be released from Guantanamo Bay and seek justice for their treatment, the UK government first appealed to the courts to block the cases, then to redact information that would show their complicity in torture and rendition, and finally sought to pay people off.

The Justice and Security Bill, which stipulates that in future, all such civil cases will be tried in secret courts. These courts would be blocked to the media and the state would be able to present its argument and evidence to the judge in the absence of the plaintiff in the case.

The Rev Nicholas Mercer, a lieutenant colonel who was the army’s most senior lawyer during the last Iraq war said:

“The justice and security bill has one principal aim and that is to cover up UK complicity in rendition and torture. The bill is an affront to the open justice on which this country rightly prides itself and, above all, it is an affront to human dignity.”

These two pieces of legislation have made it legal for the state to intervene in and end the investigation of suspicious deaths, and lawfully kidnap and imprison its citizens without ever being challenged in an open court.

Now we have a government attacking the disabled, the poor, immigrants, and previously a labour government going on about “British jobs for British workers.”

Recently, undercover agents were used to smear the family of murder victim Stephen Lawrence in efforts to cover up their own racism induced botched investigation, and that GCHQ have been monitoring our personal internet use including reading our emails, messages and listening in on Skype calls for years.

We even find that the disbanded unit of Undercover Police responsible for some of the above, was simply renamed the ‘National Domestic Extremism Unit’, and that more than 9,000 people, most of whom do not have criminal records, have their data on this database – including surveillance. The state is now gathering enormous data, through intrusive means of surveillance.

So Fascist you may ask? Well, if you have a look at the Nazi government in the period between 1933-37, there are quite a lot of stunning similarities when it comes to law and justice.

You don’t prepare your system of law and justice for the best possible government; you prepare them for the worst possible government. If this government hasn’t taken full use of its overwhelming powers, then another might. Only a person with no understanding of history, or grasp of social behaviour would ignore the dangers of a state engaging in protective custody, closed courts, poverty and propaganda on a people. When these forces are combined, they almost inevitably lead to an unstable, embittered and violent society. Britain is on the cusp of such circumstances today.

But of course, “It couldn’t happen here.”

So discuss. No muttering of Godwin, and leave your tin foil hats at the door.

Could you do a snappy 2 sentence summary for those of us with ADHD?

You maybe going a bit far comparing with the NAZI regime, I suggest a comparison with the Stasi is more accurate. I’ll add the elimination of Kelly to your list.

Fascist? Is there any effective difference to the Stasi, or the KGB, or any other secret police unit in any given Communist state?
Think North Korea; Fascist or Communist?

Totalitarian.

No one cares and no one will do anything until the world is ruled by morons. Oh hang on were to late.

Sorry, you seem to have mistakenly logged into the wrong forum

Here’s the one you were looking for:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/

(ps, it’s the reptilians what are to blame for it, its always the reptilians!)

(well, them or the jews!)

Does seem like the state is awarding itself a lot of power in the name of “security”

I indulge myself with buying a euro millions ticket twice a week, yesterday I asked a woman in a shop if the big jackpot had been won and she spat out “yes it was; but it was a bloody foreigner not an english person” I was stunned 🙄

I think there is a drift to the right in this sceptered isle 🙁

you missed out the one where ministers can invent new crimes carrying sentences of up to 6 months in prison without reference to parliament.

Also the ability of ministers to lie about facts figures and statistics without scrutiny or sanction.

Also Chris Grayling’s plans to remove funding to challenge unlawful government actions by judicial review.

The country is being run for the benefit of a political elite and their non taxpaying non resident multinational funders, rather than it’s citizens.

Human Rights Act concerns me more than laws aimed to help protect against “British” Jihadists.

It think the description you are looking for is corporate authoritarianist.

This is a matter that I think should be taken very seriously and the points the OP outlines so eloquently are incredibly worrying. Somehow, the governments have managed to convince everyone that these chanegs are only aimed at nasty “outsiders” whom we all need protetcing from. Yeah, right.

Good post, OP – thanks.

is it safe to respond to the op?

This is a matter that I think should be taken very seriously and the points the OP outlines so eloquently are incredibly worrying.

exactly unfortunately he posted it on STW, summed up by the first response (but hey it made me chuckle) I hope you C&Ped that from a post on a more serious forum, would hate for that effort to be wasted.

Yep all this antiterrorism guff is worrying.

The country is being run for the benefit of a political elite and their non taxpaying non resident multinational funders, rather than it’s citizens.

Difficult for anyone to come up with any credible argument against that statement really

So Fascist you may ask? Well, if you have a look at the Nazi government in the period between 1933-37, there are quite a lot of stunning similarities when it comes to law and justice.

And look at Germany now…Not exactly a doomed nation by any stretch of the imagination.

You maybe going a bit far comparing with the NAZI regime, I suggest a comparison with the Stasi is more accurate. I’ll add the elimination of Kelly to your list.

I could have added a lot more to the list, but people like binners 😉 may not have being able to process the information…

While I can agree with the Stasi comparison, they did after all have the most comprehensive surveillance program running that the world has ever seen, what I’m saying is a democratic state turning towards a fascist state, which Germany did do going from the Weimar republic to the Third Reich. It took an economic crisis to do so…

It’s funny how you should mention the Stasi, as they had a interesting plan to carry on running the east German government after the wall fell. They decided to use the illusion of democracy to govern the country, while running it pretty close to what had gone before.

Funny, when you look at that plan and include Putin and Russia.

All the written history, all the films, the documentation, all this information that this generation has access to, and still we believe that it could not happen again, or it won’t happen here.

My favourtie one recently was where they retrospectively changed the law after the challenge to their workfare scheme was upheld in court, even though they did something wrong they didn’t do anything wrong.

“All the written history, all the films, the documentation, all this information that this generation has access to, and still we believe that it could not happen again, or it won’t happen here”

Entertainment for the masses. It’s an old trick that the Romans used, keep em distracted. If we start to take notice they’ll be planning a war(again).

Great post OP. I agree, there has been a gradual eroding of our civil liberties. It is sneaky, pernicious and deeply worrying….

Will this thread now be under scrutiny? Who of us do you think is the under cover policemen? Could it be El-bent?

Would add the removal of legal aid for people for a range of civil cases including those involving social welfare debt, employment, family problems, clinical negligence, divorce and housing problems.

Good article

This is a thorough post.

As enft demonstrates further up, there will always be people who take the view that any measures of this sort are justified, because there are always enemies, and any measure that harms our enemies must be for the best.

It is vital therefore to acknowledge that we pay a price for our freedom from the intrusive power of “our” state: we run some risk that the enemy whose email wasn’t read, who wasn’t arbitrarily arrested and tortured to keep us safe may harm us.

A certain insouciance towards this possibility is required. Otherwise the logic of the total surveillance state is more-or-less irresistible.

Stella Rimington didn’t have much respect for civil liberties when it came to miners or members of CND.

There may have been a slight eroding of civil liberties in recent years but there was never a halycon age when these were respected in the first place.

Who of us do you think is the under cover policemen? Could it be El-bent?

maybe – is he shagging one or more of us ?

There may have been a slight eroding of civil liberties in recent years but there was never a halycon age when these were respected in the first place.

True to an extent, but it doesn’t mean that because it’s always happened, that we should turn a blind eye.

Who of us do you think is the under cover policemen? Could it be El-bent?

maybe – is he shagging one or more of us ?

Anything that moves, anything that moves. 😉

What’s really changed is the Labour Party. Under Tony Blair’s leadership the Labour Party, which used to proudly describe itself as a “broad church”, was purged of all its democratic processes and reduced into a grotesque Stalinist organization were one man alone decided policy and dissent was met with zero tolerance. This was/is Tony Blair’s most profound and lasting legacy imo.

The 2005 Labour Party Conference provides an example of how authoritarian Labour became under Blair. The Conference, which had once been an exercise in democracy with intense debates, compromises, dissent, “composite resolutions”, etc, was a show-managed stunt which banned delegates from debating the Iraq War – one of the most important issues at the time facing the Labour government.

Walter Wolfgang, a frail 82 year old activist who had been in the Labour Party for almost 60 years and was a former refugee from Nazi Germany, was manhandled by Labour Party goons and forcibly thrown out of the Conference, and then arrested under the Terrorism Act, for having the temerity to casually shout out “nonsense” whilst the Foreign Secretary was speaking.

This authoritarian character was, as one would expect, reflected in government. Because Tony Blair didn’t simply take it upon himself to decide alone Labour Party policy, but he also decided government policy. And he surrounded himself exclusively with yes men and women – Blair Clones and Blair Babes. Dissent meant the end of a ministerial career.

Margret Thatcher, for all her failings, never behaved in a manner anywhere near approaching this. She included in her government all the various strands and wings of the Tory Party – former close associates of Ted Heath, Drys, Wets, aristocrats, non-aristocrats, One-Nation Tories, etc.

She clearly believed that she could maintain discipline with a combination of flirting and stern school mistress bullying tactics. However sadly for her she ultimately failed and her own cabinet in effect sacked her. No such situation could have possibly occurred under Blair’s authoritarian rule.

And this Blairite authoritarianism and contempt for democracy permeated into the legislation and practices of his government – legal or otherwise.

Today the Labour Party has no moral credibility to challenge repressive or undemocratic legislation or practices introduced by a Tory government. The term two cheeks of the same arse comes into mind, and the sooner people realise that Britain is at present a de facto one-party state, the sooner a new mass party which represents ordinary people can be built.

Although to liken the present situation with Fascism is just plain silly – there is no comparison.

imo

Under Tony Blair’s leadership the Labour Party, the Labour Party, which used to proudly describe itself as a “broad church”, was purged of all its democratic processes and reduced into a grotesque Stalinist organization were one man alone decided policy and dissent was met with zero tolerance.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m50rq6BgQg[/video]

…..previously a labour government going on about “British jobs for British workers.”

Erm, no – they didn’t go on about it. New Labour whilst in government cynically exploited East Europeans who were desperate for work as a means of suppressing wage demands due to Gordon Brown’s monetarist obsession with inflation and the claim that only the wage component of a cost should be controlled/manipulated.

So whilst the majority of EU countries initially imposed restrictions on arrivals from new member states New Labour generously permitted an open door policy which quite understandably caused a huge influx of skilled and unskilled labour to pour into the UK. It had the desired effect on wages.

Although also understandably, it caused a certain amount of resentment from traditional Labour voters who believed that a British government should prioritise solving Britain’s unemployment problem and not necessarily Bulgaria’s or Romania’s unemployment problems.

So Gordon Brown, after initially being recorded calling a lifelong Labour voter a “bigoted woman” for having the nerve to express concern, made one speech in a futile attempt to reverse some of the damage in which he speaks of “British jobs for British workers”.

I don’t call that going on about it. Although I do appreciate that you were attempting to make a comparison with the Nazis and available evidence is somewhat sparse 🙂

Look on the bright side,
You don’t live in america…..

In summary then, despite ernie lynches confused ramblings on this thread, we can safely say this country is slightly totallitarianist with a bit of stasi thrown in.

made one speech in a futile attempt to reverse some of the damage in which he speaks of “British jobs for British workers”.

Well he or should I say his “advisor’s” would have known that there was an anti-immigrant attitude within the country, whether it’s said once by labour they knew it would be carried by the media. We still have this going on even now.

Although to liken the present situation with Fascism is just plain silly – there is no comparison.

There are many comparisons. I’ve used the Germany 1933-37 scenario, because it is the period when democracy was overtaken by a particular set of circumstances, some outside it’s control, like the economic crash, others manufactured to instil fear for the purposes of consolidating political power. I suggest you go have a read up of this period.

Hmmm..interesting thread & good topic.
Germany in 1933-37 is a very different place to the UK in the present time so the analogy is a bit tenuous, for example no PM is seen as a redeeming figure of national pride and an economic saviour. Witht he media as it is today, including social, it is unlikely that using the re militarisation of a nation could be used to prop up the economy. This is far more akin to a creeping encroachment of state control, but with some clear differences.

We are reducing our military capacity, there is no active move towards large scale industrial manufacturing to offer large scale employment. The holes in the analogy come thick and fast.

And, whilst I may not agree with Ernesto on many things, he makes a lot of very valid points re Blair’s effect upon the state.

Can I further the debate a little..

I’m under the impression that British society as a whole has kind of apathetically let itself be pulled into the ‘liberty vacuum’ that has been created by these restrictions, and in doing so has let an insidious atmosphere of fear permeate it’s consciousness..

Fear not only of that which we’ve been encouraged to fear, but also fear of that within itself which is different or could be perceived as rocking the boat..

Is that right or am I just paranoid..?

Yunki, see that little helicopter thing hovering outside your window…

This thread and the details of all of it’s posters are already being stored by GCHQ for closer inspection…..
What tyres for????

The holes in the analogy come thick and fast.

In the Weimar republic Judges were independent, bound only by law, protected from arbitrary removal and duty bound by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.

In 1933, with “protective custody” (Schutzhaft) in 1933, police power became independent of judicial controls. In Nazi terminology, protective custody meant the arrest–without judicial review–of real and potential opponents of the regime.

Control Orders in the UK were passed in 2005 and gave police the right to place citizens under permanent house arrest with an electronic tag without any judicial intervention, that is, outside of the court system.

The Terrorism Prevention Act gave the State the power to detain citizens indefinitely by identifying them as a terror threat, without reference to a judge or a court. This amounts to protective custody.

The Nazis set fire to the German parliament building (the Reichstag) in February 1933 and pinned the blame on the Communists in a move which was pivotal in bringing Hitler to power. The point was to provoke such fear that Communists were mounting a coup, that a strong National Socialist was required to quell the rebellion and restore stability. It succeeded.

However, when the suspects were brought before the court, all but one of the suspects (a mentally incapacitated Dutchman who had confessed) were found not guilty. The ruling incensed the regime that within a month they had passed legislation which removed the right to try cases of treason at the Supreme Court. Henceforth, this responsibility would be carried out by the new People’s Court which as we know was no court at all.

When British citizens started to be released from Guantanamo Bay and seek justice for their treatment, the UK government first appealed to the courts to block the cases, then to redact information that would show their complicity in torture and rendition, and finally sought to pay people off.

As the compensation bills mounted, they changed tack and drafted The Justice and Security Bill, which stipulates that in future, all such civil cases will be tried in secret courts. These courts would be blocked to the media and the state would be able to present its argument and evidence to the judge in the absence of the plaintiff in the case.

Ok, to name a few.

for example no PM is seen as a redeeming figure of national pride and an economic saviour.

Some would say Mrs T was that. The point I’m making here is that currently the Government has an extraordinary set of legislation. Control orders came in, and the then opposition said they would remove them, but they didn’t. That sort of power is hard to give up.

All this legislation will be on the books for a very long time to come, do you know what kind of government we will have in the future?

The definition of fascism extends far beyond a few examples of dodgy judicial processes.

If it was that easy never mind about asking whether we are “turning a bit fascist” now, we presumably did 40 years ago with imprisonment without trial, or “internment” without trial, as the PR savvy government liked to call it, and the Diplock courts.

Fascism includes a whole bundle of characteristics including the militarization of society, political militias, state sponsored terror against trade unions and other workers organisations, the indispensable scapegoat with which to instill a unifying fear and hatred within the population, and so on.

And of course the all powerful duce, fuhrer, or caudillo, to whom all citizens must swear unswerving loyalty to. I don’t think someone who was prime minister over 20 years ago until she was sacked by her colleagues fits the bill or suggests that Britain is now in the process of turning a bit fascist.