China

It's interesting how we can overlook this sort of thing if it means we can get cheap T-shirts and consumer electronics. The sad thing is that it's not as if people don't know about the Chinese authorities stamping on democratic movements. If they sell us cheap stuff then hey, they can have our money (even if it's for the skin of executed prisoners for injection into our lips).

What's the solution? I imagine that a total ban on imports would cripple businesses the depend on the near-slave labour available in China, so how about setting a level of duty that rises every month until China does something about its human rights abuses? I'm suggesting we enforce democracy, but we can make trade dependent on their government stopping events like the one in the linked story. If we continue to trade with them without some sort of real pressure then what sort of people does that make us?

Tories reject migrants? Surely not!

OK, so I don't think anyone would be surprised that the Tories don't like Foreigners much. However, they are the friends of industry, so which way do they go on the migrant workers/skills shortage debate? Well, it seems that their xenophobia wins the day when push comes to shove...

Blunkett

Today is one of those days where I feel like singing that song from The Wizard of Oz, "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead". The news that Blunkett has been forced to resign is fantastic isn't it? It also seems very just that the man who is actively campaigning against 'asylum seekers' and immigrants has come unstuck by helping someone through the immigration process. Hmm.. hey David, here's something for you to think about - if we are being 'flooded' with immigrants as you and the Daily Mail suggest, why did you feel the need to get someone in and accelerate the process of doing so? If we are 'flooded' with such people, all of whom are sponging off benefits, why didn't you just select one of those? Could it be because you are actually lying about the whole immigrant thing, or at least exaggerating? Heaven forbid. Anyway, it's interesting that the only people who have anything nice to say about him are the police. I bet they found laws allowing them to lock people up without charge or trial quite useful.

Having said all that, the new Home Secretary Charles Clarke might not be much better. He's almost as authoritarian as Blunkett, although not quite (well, who is?). It doesn't look like he has any plans not to force in compulsory ID cards, but at least he distanced himself from Blunkett's most outrageously Orwellian comments about freedom being 'airy fairy' and so on. We can but hope for a better future.

Surprise surprise, today the Conservatives announced their support for compulsory ID cards. Well we all knew that Howard was a big fan all along of course, seeing as he tried to bring in ID cards himself. Of course back then the Labour party weren't verging on Fascism, so he was rightly challenged. These days the main parties are falling over themselves to see who can take away all of our rights and freedoms fastest of course, so it is natural for the 'opposition' to agree with the government on this. Again.

People need to think very hard, come the general election. Without thinking about it too much they will throw all of our hard-earned freedoms away by voting for one of the main parties, somehow thinking that they are making the sensible choice. I'm afraid that voting Labour or Conservative in the coming election will be a vote for the forces of fear, hatred, denial of rights, and the rise of the far right. The fact that people can't see this is beyond comprehension. Wake up people! Why can't you see what is happening?!

For people who are 'ok' with ID cards because they have 'done nothing wrong'... well, I'm afraid that they are stupid, selfish idiots. There's no other way to say it. It is your duty to protect those in society who are persecuted (as people are in these days without trials and juries). Not to do so is disgusting. We should all bear in mind this quite by the German anti-fascist Martin Niemoller:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Conservative and Labour voters, this is the Britain you are building. Shame on you all.

Peter Hain recently claimed that Britain is 'safer' under Labour as they are the party making all of the 'anti-terror' policies. With that, he has brought the 'fear of terror' issue into party politics. When I first heard this I was slightly worried that the public would fall for it, but seeing views like this one on the BBC from members of the public are greatly reassuring.

The public isn't stupid enough to fall for this line - the tricks that Bush used to win the US election won't work here. Hopefully it will backfire and cost Labour votes when this extra coverage makes people realise that far from protecting us, Labour are simply trying to scare us into believing them. The Tories may be indignant, but they are no better with their support of ID cards and removal of other liberties. Only the LibDems seem to care about freedom these days, and hopefully the public will be aware of this come the election...

Anyone who saw the front page of race-hating bigot rag The Daily Mail today will have seen that a supposed 'terror plot' targeting Canary Wharf has been 'foiled'. Hmm. It is interesting that this has been revealed on the same day that the Queens Speech, outlining the beginnings of a police state as I mentioned yesterday, is taking place. This is a terror plot that has been revealed by 'a senior source', with no proof of any kind. Well, that's good enough for me!

Let's think... if this story was at all newsworthy is it at least possible that the government would capitalise on it a bit more, rather than just smugly sitting back and smiling at panic among Daily Mail readers. Anyway, The Register sums it up quite well.

Blunkett and the police state. Again.

By all rights you should be terrified by Blunkett's proposal to lock people up without trial, and secret trials without juries. No longer would the authorities need a court order to tap your phone - they can listen in whenever they like. Oh, did you mention something about not liking the government? Well, they will be quite entitled to come and lock you up with no evidence. Once there, good luck trying to get out! Without a jury your secret trial could be non-existent, since nobody will be allowed in and would just have to take your word for it.

Why should anyone who has done nothing wrong face this? This quote from Blunkett is scary: "We'd be able to use civil law, like anti-social behaviour orders, to say, 'If you step outside what we've precluded you from doing, if you, for instance, use this particular banking network... then we can move you from the civil into the criminal law', and then we can use the normal criminal justice process, " he said. OK, so if the government decides that I might be using the Internet to organise a group they don't like (for example), they can forbid me from using the Internet at all. If I then do so I can go to prison, despite being completely innocent!

I've never liked Blunkett. He's a power-crazed idiot who would seemingly have been rather at home serving under Hitler. I don't think that's over reacting. Anyone who know about how the Nazis gained control will be able to spot that the government is doing the same thing now. OK, they say 'Islamists' not Jews, but they have the same basic principles. There is a bogeyman out to get us, so we have to do dramatic things to save ourselves. Blunkett is a danger to you, me and society. The man must lose his seat at the next election even if the government stays in. The dead from two world wars didn't die so this fool could throw all of our freedoms away and create a police state.