Jun Pang – Policy and Campaigns Officer on 02 Dec 2021 at Liberty
Not content with the already draconian powers in the [Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts] Bill to shut down protests and criminalise people trying to make their voices heard, the Government has recently added amendments to it.
1. LOCKING ON
Locking on only needs to be “capable” of causing serious disruption to “two or more people”. On top of that, no one knows what “serious disruption” means because it’s not defined in the Bill. Instead, the Home Secretary will get to define and re-define it at will.
2. WILFUL OBSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY
The current punishment for someone who wilfully obstructs the highway is a fine. Amendments to the Policing Bill will change it to up to 51 weeks in prison, a fine, or both.
Such heavy punishments will stop people taking to the streets to stand up to power – and will add to existing pressures on courts, prisons, and the probation service.
3. OBSTRUCTION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT WORKS
This is another new offence that a person commits if they obstruct someone from taking any steps connected to the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, or they in any way interfere with “any apparatus” relating to that construction or maintenance.
4. STOP AND SEARCH
The Government’s amendments will also expand stop and search. Police will be able to stop and search a person or vehicle for items intended for use in connection with the offences in the Bill: obstructing the highway, public nuisance, locking on, and obstructing major transport works.
Police will also be able to put orders in place allowing for ‘suspicion-less’ stop and search for these items in a specific location for up to 24 hours (and up to 48 hours, if authorised).
People given a protest banning order will be subject to a set of conditions, including not associating with certain people, going to certain places, carrying certain items, or using the internet in a certain way.
They can last for up to two years, but there is no limit to the number of times a protest banning order can be renewed by the court.
Protest is a fundamental right, but protest banning orders effectively ban people from organising and making their voices heard, striking at the heart of what makes protest meaningful and effective: political community.
These new offences will either deter people from protesting, or drag them into the criminal justice system for doing so. They will further entrench discrimination, with devastating consequences for marginalised communities.
But they are’t law yet, and this Government buckles under public pressure and u-turns time and again.
Theresa May specifically and deliberately ruled out the Committee from questioning any official who might be placed at risk of criminal proceedings – see para 11 of the report. The determination of the government to protect those who were complicit in torture tells us much more about their future intentions than any fake apology.
It is worth reflecting that the Tory government has acted time and time again to protect New Labour’s Tony Blair, David Miliband, Jack Straw and Gordon Brown from any punishment for their complicity in torture, and indeed to limit the information on it available to the public. The truth is that the Tories and New Labour (which includes the vast majority of current Labour MPs) are all a part of the same elite interest group, and when under pressure they stick together as a class against the people.
Despite being hamstrung by government, the Committee managed through exhaustive research of classified documents to pull together evidence of British involvement in extraordinary rendition and mistreatment of detainees on a massive scale. The Committee found 596 individual documented incidents of the security services obtaining “intelligence” from detainee interrogations involving torture or severe mistreatment, ranging from 2 incidents of direct involvement, “13 to 15” of actually being in the room, through those where the US or other authorities admitted to the torture, to those where the detainee told the officer they had been tortured. They found three instances where the UK had paid for rendition flights.
I was hypnotized against my will and without my consent in February 2017. Dr. Bitchy video recorded me while I was hypnotized. I remember her setting up a tripod. I doubt that she filmed me eating onions. I wonder if she’s a Zionist. [26/03/18 I suspect that she is because she writes carefully-crafted letters encoded in English Jewish code (Agrippa). You are welcome to accuse me of anti-Semitism in the comments.]
Strange that any complaints I make about that GP practice get suddenly dropped – Health Service Ombudsmen, ICO, I’ve even had an advocate can’t wait to drop me. Much more emotional and involving when you see it on screen.
7/3/19 I am fiercely independent and not one to raise my arms as though in surrender. Dr. Bitchy has really f’d me over because I did not defer to her class and perceived status.
I was following medical advice and insisted on seeing a doctor urgently because there was the real possibility that I was bleeding internally. She has seen to it that evil lies are spread about me so that people treat me like something nasty that you step in by accident. She’s attacked me while hiding. I’ve recognised part of it because I partially speak that ‘language’.
I’ll be making some remarks on David Cameron’s recent speech on so-called Islamic Extremism. Later on in his speech Cameron says that he wants to do away with this blog under his ‘Extremism Bill’. edit: He doesn’t actually say this blog but
“First, any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it. We must take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories
we should together challenge the ludicrous conspiracy theories of the extremists. The world is not conspiring against Islam; the security services aren’t behind terrorist attacks
Second, as we counter this ideology, a key part of our strategy must be to tackle both parts of the creed – the non-violent and violent.
This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence – but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative.
We must demand that people also condemn the wild conspiracy theories, the anti-Semitism, and the sectarianism too. Being tough on this is entirely keeping with our values.
We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for [Tory values]. These people aren’t just extremists. There are despicable far right groups too. And what links them all is their aim to groom young people and brainwash their minds.
So as part of our Extremism Bill, we are going to introduce new narrowly targeted powers to enable us to deal with these facilitators and cult leaders, and stop them peddling their hatred.
As I said, this is not about clamping down on free speech. It’s just about applying our shared values uniformly.
This blog peddles conspiracy theories and claims that security services are behind terrorist attacks.
It’s great to be here at this outstanding school, Ninestiles School. Your inspiring teachers and your commitment to British values means you are not just achieving outstanding academic success, but you are building a shared community where children of many faiths and backgrounds learn not just with each other, but from each other too.
Politicians giving speeches at schools is out of order. While they’re guaranteed an audience it’s insulting and disrespectful to the school-students involved. There is an authoritarian regime in schools where students are ordered about and they follow those orders. Their human rights are not recognised. The students didn’t realise they could turn around and say “Fuck off! I’m not listening to that asshole” because of course they can’t. It’s lucky no politician tried that while I was at school.
Blair used to do it a lot – probably because he’d never get an audience towards the end of his reign. He’d go to a school and avoid any eye contact with the students – that’s one of the things that put me onto him and his evil ways. Why was he avoiding eye contact?
And that goes right to the heart of what I want to talk about today.
I said on the steps of Downing Street that this would be a ‘one nation’ government, bringing our country together.
That’s total bullshit then. It’s four or five nations for a start. What about the Evel measures Cameron was pursuing? That’s certainly very divisive.
Today, I want to talk about a vital element of that. How together we defeat extremism and at the same time build a stronger, more cohesive society.
My starting point is this.
Over generations, we have built something extraordinary in Britain – a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy. It’s open, diverse, welcoming – these characteristics are as British as queuing and talking about the weather.
It’s not welcoming, is it?
It is here in Britain where different people, from different backgrounds, who follow different religions and different customs don’t just rub alongside each other but are relatives and friends; husbands, wives, cousins, neighbours and colleagues.
It is here in Britain where in one or two generations people can come with nothing and rise as high as their talent allows.
It is here in Britain where success is achieved not in spite of our diversity, but because of our diversity.
I’m letting that pass because it’s trivial.
So as we talk about the threat of extremism and the challenge of integration, we should not do our country down – we are, without a shadow of doubt, a beacon to the world.
Oh come on.
And as we debate these issues, neither should we demonise people of particular backgrounds. Every one of the communities that has come to call our country home has made Britain a better place. And because the focus of my remarks today is on tackling Islamist extremism – not Islam the religion – let me say this.
Hmm, Muslims are the one religion that is seriously discriminated against. I happened across a couple of Muslim school students who were about fourteen the other day. I was cycling through a park and they had to move out of the way for me to pass through the gate to leave the park. We exchanged a few words. They were ashamed. I regret not making an issue of telling them that they had nothing to be ashamed of. This is what it’s all about – it’s young Muslims who will be [ed: relentlessly] bullied by school authorities – they’re not ever going to have a break, are they? That seems to me very much like a way to create extremism rather than defeat it.
26/7/15 I’m going to jump ahead because it’s crap.
I was thinking about whether these “our values” actually exist and who is Cameron to define these “our values”. I was intending to argue that there is no consensus since we are so diverse as Cameron has already said and that I share very few values with Cameron. Values are different from beliefs and I should think that values probably follow from beliefs. It follows that since peoples’ beliefs are different then they have different values. I think that’s about right. What about you?
Take for example a religion that promotes the idea that all other religions are inferior – that all others not following that particular religion are animals or beasts in human form, sub-human. Now if you had accepted such beliefs, wouldn’t values follow? and wouldn’t behaviour follow from those values?
So, my proposition is that there are no such “our values”.
26/7/15 19.30 BST
What are these “our values”?
But you don’t have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish.
Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality.
Surely Cameron must mean pretend-democracy, pretend-freedom and not even pretend sexual equality. Cameron, former PM Tony Blair and former Resident Dubya Bush are Neo-Conservatives. Neo-Conservatives follow the anti-democratic and illiberal philosophy of Leo Straussthat it is necessary to deceive to rule. It would seem that Cameron is proposing that “our values” includes support for an obvious sham-democracy that is maintained through dissembling and deception.
Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation.
Like Cameron’s proposed Extremism Bill.
Ideas – like those of the despicable far right – which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others.
Like the religion I mentioned earlier and this speech and the proposed Extremism Bill and Neo-Conservatives.