Partridge
08-24-2005, 01:38 PM
Am I paranoid... I hope so
Kevin Partridge
Partridge.gnn.tv (http://partridge.gnn.tv/blogs/8302/Am_I_paranoid_I_hope_so)
Today the British Home Secretary Charles Clarke published the government’s new deportation rules. Here is what will now be grounds for deportation from Britain:
[W]riting, producing, publishing or distributing material, public speaking including preaching, running a website; or using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader to express views which foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs; seek to provoke others to terrorist acts; foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts; or foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
Clarke also points out that this list is “indicative rather than exhaustive”, which this hack takes to mean that that new offences will be arbitrarily added as the government needs them.
What is not explained is the actual definitions for ‘fomenting, justifying or glorifyng’ terrorism. One can assume from the start that this will obviously not include those who laud the benefits of State Terrorism. We will see no ultra-Zionist Israelis, no pro-Bush Americans, no Pinochistas or pimps for a wider Middle East war deported.
Starting from the government’s point of view (which I don’t endorse) that’s its ‘necessary to deport people to make the majority safe’, even if we take ‘glorifying’ as pretty easy to define – praising the WTC, Madrid, Bali or London attacks and those who carried them out etc – the other two remain problematic. What constitutes ‘fomenting’? Sure, recruiting others, training them, indoctrinating them are all fomenting – but so is publishing critical articles on, for example, the Iraq war. Afterall, in the words of both the British security services, and indeed the failed 21/7 bomber captured in Italy, Iraq was the catalyst for these attacks. Therefore, does it not follow that those who write critical articles, those who distribute videos of grieving Iraqi mothers and children or of Resistance attacks on occupation forces (who are only doing the job the corporate media should be doing, reporting the actuality of the situation in Iraq) are all fomenting terrorism. How? Someone who might see the above mentioned items, might think to themselves “fuck this”, and then might plant a bomb in order to blow some people up.
“What made you do it Mr. Terrorist?”
“Well I read a lot, watched some videos, and felt I had to act.”
“Aha! Jihadi material!”
“No. Just the New Statesman, and a few independent documentaries.”
“Boys, stick them on the list too.”
Does this mean I’m unjustly paranoid? I certainly hope so. But recent developments in the United States won’t let me stop worrying. I’m referring to the latest attempt by the State Department to prevent the publishing of all the Abu Ghraib photographs, using the pretext that they will “incite terrorism”. Leaving aside for a second that its not the photos, but the acts themselves that may incite anger – if this defence is successful it could mean that in the future, should such laws be imported into the UK, a paper which publishes leaked documents that could plausibly cause someone to become angry enough to become a terrorist may find itself guilty of an offence.
Of course, a newspaper can’t be deported, nor can British born journalists. But I suspect that the new deportation criteria is a prelude to new laws for the British-born public that will criminalise the actions outlined by Clarke in his statement – afterall, the majority of those involved in the recent attacks were British born. Is it paranoid to think that such laws will have an effect on the freedom of the press? Could something like the Sunday Times publication of the Downing Street Minutes in future be considered ‘aiding the enemy’? Well it certainly didn’t aid the ‘war effort’ that’s for sure.
This is only one aspect, I’m sure there are many others. Imagine an ISMer coming back from the Occupied Territories, addressing a public meeting, and recounting firsthand experiences of Israeli State oppression to an audience of ex-pat Palestinians. Or a Haitian speaking in favour of armed resistance to the US-puppet coup government. Or indeed, an Iraqi praising the Resistance in his own country. Will these be considered ‘fomenters of terrorism’? I find all this very disturbing.
Also questionable is the ‘justifying of terrorism’. One has to draw a distinct line between ‘justification’ and ‘explanation’. One can explain why the IRA campaign began, why it intensified, and why it ultimately ceased without ‘justifying’ it. But to many rightwingers, explanation and justification are one and the same thing. To such people terrorism happens not because of any social or political reasons – it happens because ‘they’ hate ‘us’, their hatred is ‘irrational’, ‘criminal’ and ‘blind’ and to speak of the injustices which always preclude terrorism is ‘to lend legitimacy’ to terrorists. These people refuse to acknowledge that it is entirely possible to support the demands of a given terrorist organisation, without supporting their actions. To further complicate things – one such as myself supports the Palestinian right to resist oppression by use of force if necessary, but I do not condone attacks within Israel or against civilians. Where does this fall in Mr. Clarke’s spectrum of ‘fomentation, justification and glorification’? Being Irish, does mean that if I ever move back to the UK I could possibly be deported for holding such an opinion? Unfortunately, I think its all too likely – but then I’ve always been a pessimist.
However, worry ye not simple peons, for Mr. Clarke has assured us that the new grounds for deportation will be used “in a measured and targeted way”.
I’d like to ask Jean-Charles de Menezes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes) his opinion on the “measured and targeted” manner in which the British security state conducts itself. Alas, he’s dead and unable to comment.
Kevin Partridge
Partridge.gnn.tv (http://partridge.gnn.tv/blogs/8302/Am_I_paranoid_I_hope_so)
Today the British Home Secretary Charles Clarke published the government’s new deportation rules. Here is what will now be grounds for deportation from Britain:
[W]riting, producing, publishing or distributing material, public speaking including preaching, running a website; or using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader to express views which foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs; seek to provoke others to terrorist acts; foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts; or foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
Clarke also points out that this list is “indicative rather than exhaustive”, which this hack takes to mean that that new offences will be arbitrarily added as the government needs them.
What is not explained is the actual definitions for ‘fomenting, justifying or glorifyng’ terrorism. One can assume from the start that this will obviously not include those who laud the benefits of State Terrorism. We will see no ultra-Zionist Israelis, no pro-Bush Americans, no Pinochistas or pimps for a wider Middle East war deported.
Starting from the government’s point of view (which I don’t endorse) that’s its ‘necessary to deport people to make the majority safe’, even if we take ‘glorifying’ as pretty easy to define – praising the WTC, Madrid, Bali or London attacks and those who carried them out etc – the other two remain problematic. What constitutes ‘fomenting’? Sure, recruiting others, training them, indoctrinating them are all fomenting – but so is publishing critical articles on, for example, the Iraq war. Afterall, in the words of both the British security services, and indeed the failed 21/7 bomber captured in Italy, Iraq was the catalyst for these attacks. Therefore, does it not follow that those who write critical articles, those who distribute videos of grieving Iraqi mothers and children or of Resistance attacks on occupation forces (who are only doing the job the corporate media should be doing, reporting the actuality of the situation in Iraq) are all fomenting terrorism. How? Someone who might see the above mentioned items, might think to themselves “fuck this”, and then might plant a bomb in order to blow some people up.
“What made you do it Mr. Terrorist?”
“Well I read a lot, watched some videos, and felt I had to act.”
“Aha! Jihadi material!”
“No. Just the New Statesman, and a few independent documentaries.”
“Boys, stick them on the list too.”
Does this mean I’m unjustly paranoid? I certainly hope so. But recent developments in the United States won’t let me stop worrying. I’m referring to the latest attempt by the State Department to prevent the publishing of all the Abu Ghraib photographs, using the pretext that they will “incite terrorism”. Leaving aside for a second that its not the photos, but the acts themselves that may incite anger – if this defence is successful it could mean that in the future, should such laws be imported into the UK, a paper which publishes leaked documents that could plausibly cause someone to become angry enough to become a terrorist may find itself guilty of an offence.
Of course, a newspaper can’t be deported, nor can British born journalists. But I suspect that the new deportation criteria is a prelude to new laws for the British-born public that will criminalise the actions outlined by Clarke in his statement – afterall, the majority of those involved in the recent attacks were British born. Is it paranoid to think that such laws will have an effect on the freedom of the press? Could something like the Sunday Times publication of the Downing Street Minutes in future be considered ‘aiding the enemy’? Well it certainly didn’t aid the ‘war effort’ that’s for sure.
This is only one aspect, I’m sure there are many others. Imagine an ISMer coming back from the Occupied Territories, addressing a public meeting, and recounting firsthand experiences of Israeli State oppression to an audience of ex-pat Palestinians. Or a Haitian speaking in favour of armed resistance to the US-puppet coup government. Or indeed, an Iraqi praising the Resistance in his own country. Will these be considered ‘fomenters of terrorism’? I find all this very disturbing.
Also questionable is the ‘justifying of terrorism’. One has to draw a distinct line between ‘justification’ and ‘explanation’. One can explain why the IRA campaign began, why it intensified, and why it ultimately ceased without ‘justifying’ it. But to many rightwingers, explanation and justification are one and the same thing. To such people terrorism happens not because of any social or political reasons – it happens because ‘they’ hate ‘us’, their hatred is ‘irrational’, ‘criminal’ and ‘blind’ and to speak of the injustices which always preclude terrorism is ‘to lend legitimacy’ to terrorists. These people refuse to acknowledge that it is entirely possible to support the demands of a given terrorist organisation, without supporting their actions. To further complicate things – one such as myself supports the Palestinian right to resist oppression by use of force if necessary, but I do not condone attacks within Israel or against civilians. Where does this fall in Mr. Clarke’s spectrum of ‘fomentation, justification and glorification’? Being Irish, does mean that if I ever move back to the UK I could possibly be deported for holding such an opinion? Unfortunately, I think its all too likely – but then I’ve always been a pessimist.
However, worry ye not simple peons, for Mr. Clarke has assured us that the new grounds for deportation will be used “in a measured and targeted way”.
I’d like to ask Jean-Charles de Menezes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes) his opinion on the “measured and targeted” manner in which the British security state conducts itself. Alas, he’s dead and unable to comment.