Moving on
Towards Better Times...?

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

At Last!

Parliament defeats Blair over terrorism law

LONDON (Reuters) –  9th November 2005

Tony Blair suffered his first major parliamentary defeat as prime minister on Wednesday, over plans to let police hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge.

The House of Commons voted by 322 to 291 against the proposal as about 40 Labour MPs refused to support him, raising new questions about his authority.

For the whole article see: msnnewsbox

Note from me:
They passed the 28-day proposal about an hour ago (time is now 18.43)


The day has arrived that free-thinking people in the UK had feared would never be allowed to happen.

Tony Blair has suffered his first defeat in Parliament.  And this could be the first of several.

This was about more than the ’90-day proposal’.  It was about Blair’s style of politics – the assumption that he could steamroller through Parliament anything he wished and that no-one would have the power, or the guts, to defeat him.  It was about him taking us into a war which the vast majority of the British people thought was ill-advised and morally wrong, ignoring our objections, ignoring the fact that young men and women from Britain and countless numbers of men, women and children in Iraq would die as a consequence.  It was about siding with a man who most of the British people see as a dumb-ass and the front-man for those in the US who are hell-bent on establishing and maintaining a US-ruled World.

It was about lies: lies to convince us; lies to cover up the facts; lies to obscure the facts when they finally emerged.  

It was about the real threat to our (albeit already limited) civil liberties, from legislation supported by suspect information and media-enforced propaganda.

It was about our fears that this country could quite easily be turned into a police state, when the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes in July of this year had demonstrated police ineptitude in their ‘abilities’ to ‘keep our country safe’, and had demonstrated the incredible lack of esteem which our state-funded ‘guardians’ held for innocent civilians.   It was about Blair’s openness about siding with the police on this matter and with all police attitudes to ‘public order’, demonstrating his lack of regard for the judiciary and an already well-established rule of law.

It was about presenting 90 days to parliament without supplying facts as to why 90 was this magic figure (apart from saying “this is what the police want”) and expecting MPs to back him without this information, thus paying no heed to their right to be given the facts of the matter before making decisions of national importance.  

It was about a flagrant disregard for anyone’s opinions except his own (and, of course, Bush’s).

But most of all it was about a lack of trust in a man who has lied again and again, made numerous claims and counter claims to ‘hold the truth’ despite clear evidence that he was at least misinformed and, at worst, downright dishonest, and still seemed convinced of his own infallibility as a political leader.

Today Tony you have been reminded that you are not infallible; that you cannot railroad through legislation any more without question; and that you can be defeated.

Your reaction so far has been to attest that you were still doing the right thing; that you had the backing of the British people.  I don’t think you counted anyone in that group who had a brain; who could see you for what you really are.

I hope you take note.  And I hope your reaction in the coming weeks is not more subterfuge, lies and propaganda.

But I won’t hold my breath.

posted by summersun70 at 11:23 AM


Blogger Kathleen Callon said...

Arnold lost today in California. Yeeha. Peace.

11:27 AM  
Blogger foxbat said...

Extract from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000
Part 1 Introduction/Interpretation.

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Check the highlighted sections...
Isn't Tony guilty under his own definitions?

Or is it one rule for them and another for the rest of us>>>

11:51 AM  

Post a Comment

template design by savatoons web design