Via IanPJ:
The name of a law has little if anything to do with how it will be applied:
The Government used anti-terrorism powers to freeze an estimated £4 billion of British financial assets in Landsbanki, Icesave’s parent bank. A spokesman for the Treasury said that the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act was invoked as a “precautionary measure”. (the Times)
If the law itself, in this case (s4) Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, does not say something along the lines of, “this may only be used against people or organisations reasonably suspected of terrorism, crime or acting against national security” (s4 doesn’t), it will be used against other people or organisations.
Likewise,
“We have had plenty of examples recently of local councils using existing anti-terrorist legislation for completely different purposes than the legislation was ever set up to do,” Tory peer Baroness Hanham said. (the BBC)
Promises that a law will only be used against terrorists are worthless. What matters is what the legislation itself says.
We have problems if legislators don’t understand how legislation works.
We have warned many times on this blog that the majority of the draconian anti terror and rights stripping laws enacted by this government (80% at the behest of the unelected European Commission) over the past 11 years has not really been aimed at terrorists, but have ultimately been designed to be aimed at and used on you, the public.
The examples above merely reinforce that view.
2 comments:
I recently had to explain this simple principle to a not-that-bright guy I know. He was under the impression that as soon as the word "Anti-Terrorist" comes before "Act" or "Law", he is instantly immune from anything it could do. Maybe this delusion is wide-spread? Maybe this has contributed to the so rapid increase of statism in this country?
I don't have that much to add except the observation that 'Panopticon Britain' is an inspired alias. At least I presume it is an alias, or else your parents must have been spectacularly pessimistic and/or foresighted.
Absolutely correct on the 'anti-terrorism' statutes, the ID cards nonsense is just more of the same.
Post a Comment