The Judge RANTS!
Date: 23/05/06
"English Justice Is The Finest In The World, And Britain Is The
Home Of Democracy": Discuss
Study these two pictures:
The man on the left (on this page, if nowhere else):
- Lied to Parliament and the people about the threat to the U.K.
from Iraq
- Had the 'evidence' concocted in order to back up his claim
- Had agreed to the illegal invasion and occupation of another
sovereign country eight months before it happened
- Lied to Parliament (and everyone else) about that as
well, and then totally ignored massive public opposition to the war
- Has therefore been responsible for the deaths of tens of
thousands of Iraqi men, women and children in the last three years,
plus the deaths of over 100 U.K. military personnel during the same
period.
The man on the right:
- Has staged a one-man peaceful protest outside The Mother Of
Parliaments™ for five years
- Has protested in all weathers and circumstances
- Has protested not only the current war, but the previous attacks
on Iraq which have left many thousands terminally damaged by chemical
and radiation weapons used against the civilian population
- Has drawn the support of people from all around the world, of all
political characters and beliefs and none
- Has never killed anyone
Bearing this in mind, please answer this quick question:
Which of these two men:
- Has had his actions declared illegal by the State
- Is considered by those in power as being an ally of terrorism, to
be treated accordingly
- Has suffered continual attention by the police regarding his
activities, with harrassment often taking place under cover of darkness
- Is about to be forcibly removed from his place in Westminster?
Congratulations if you answered "the man on the right".
His name is Brian Haw, and he's a carpenter from the English
midlands.
Since early June 2001, he has maintained a one-man vigil outside
the Palace Of Westminster in protest at the complicity of the U.K. in
the American corporate government's continued assaults against Iraq and
other countries. He has highlighted the illegal use of Depleted Uranium
(DU) and chemical weapons against unarmed people (in this war and the
so-called 'Gulf War' of 1991), and the appalling effects of those
weapons on the health of ordinary people with no means of defending
themselves, and no way even of getting the medical treatment they
desperately need.
As a result of his protests (and the resulting awkward questions
asked by an increasing proportion of the population), the government
(led by the man on the left) passed the Serious Organised Crime
and Police Act (SOCPA) which, amongst other things, criminalised
any form of protest within an 'exclusion zone' of at least one
kilometre of the Houses of Parliament without six weeks prior approval
by the Metropolitan Police (the people who brought you, "Oops! We
Shot A Brazilian Electrician Seven Times In The Head Because We Thought
He Was An Arab Terrorist"). The size of the exclusion zone can be
expanded unilaterally by the State at any time and with no reasons
necessary.
The Act is also being used against people peacefully protesting
elsewhere: two ladies of mature years face up to two years in prison if
convicted of the heinous terrorist offence of walking unarmed onto the
land surrounding a U.S. surveillance centre in Yorkshire, to give just
one example amongst an ever-increasing number.
The man on the left is, of course, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair QC
MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.
He remains at large, free to do much as he pleases, be it imposing
a total surveillance system upon every citizen, sending refugees back
to murderous régimes, or simply recategorising everyone who disagrees
with him as a 'terrorist'.
That he remains at liberty (and surely that word doesn't come into
contact with Mr Blair all that often nowadays, unless in the company of
the word 'remove') is due in no small measure to the weakness of our
democractic process, and the invertebrate nature of those set to rule
over us. In any fully-functioning liberal democracy, Mr Blair would
have been impeached for what the Americans call 'high crimes and
misdemeanours'. Here, he can remain unmolested until he leaves office
at a time of his own choosing, whereupon he can make millions on the
U.S. lecture circuit, and remain untouchable by any arm of what might
be called 'justice'. This largely due to the cowardice of that 'Mother
of Parliaments' we've been propagandised to believe we enjoyed
(although a couple of extra syllables on the first word of that epithet
seems increasingly in order).
Given all this, perhaps you now know what is really wrong with this
country.
