Yip, thats right. The many many years of slavery, injustice by the white man, hostile take overs by the christian religion and european power has led up to this point. The point at wich there might not be a return for at this stage of "the big plan" it becomes accelerated, throughout the years the weapon the illuminati and freemasons have been using is not haste. The work slowly and carefully, pulling out all the stops. but once a framework for a bigger plan on a huge scale is setup and all bounderies are in place and the systems are go...well then that leaves us a bit trapped and in their power if we allow it. For many years big corporations have been racing south africa for its workforce and natural resources and tourism, creating a country on show to the rest of the world. Problem reaction solution! thats the way in wich many of the plans for the illuminati and freemasons are actually brought into play and its all to do with the public sheep. Many many...many MANY! people in today modern society fall into a trap of wanting to be the lastest flavour or have the best stuff and live the good life, but this is an entire falacy made up by the powers that be in order to keep human kind in a dumd down state of wanting to just work work work in order to pay off the loans and the mortgage and school fees. All of wich changes moods and behavoiurs of people and attitudes. Today we have violence, crimes, death and destruction and society is to blame. In the area of technology, it started with a simple box wich allowed humans the ability to view shows and movies. The only reason the box was created was to allow businesses to stick their mouth right into a families home and for 24hours and 7days a week 364days a years pump propoganda, conditioning, sumliminal advertising and brainwashing material into the public minds. Then the television became color, more people bought tvs. The television today is flat, high definition and there are over a million chanels worldwide...now why would people wanna do anything else? and that the point. television is there to program your daily life and tell you what to do, its how sheep in society get their commands and im being completely literal here. The powers that be actually use certain mind control and subliminal techniques wich cause human beings to react in wich ever way the want. The advancement in the television is a greater way of further controling the masses simply because if ever person on the planet had a tv, wich most do, and they confided in certain shows then if the television advanced they would hav to get the new tv in order to watch what they want. For instance, problem reaction solution, the solution is already thought up because its what the illuminati wich to achieve but it wont be possible to just shift from how every one lives today into a complete prison society so they take little steps, one at a time so no one notices and then by the time they reach their goal, nobody even remembers how things used to be. For example, first in our country came the pass law, requiring all africans to carry one wher ever they went and they were only allowed wher ever their pass allowed them. So the problem is freedom, what do the people do? they revolt, they fight back and they want a solution...thats the reaction. So the powers that be, wich hav struck the bee hive to get the bees away in order to get the honey and hav played the public like fools already having their solution now anounce it to the public and bring it into play. So whats the solution? the solution is a free and equal democracy where no one is treated unfair. well that doesnt sound so bad.........but, what is it realy for the people who have something to gain? its a coallision between the african empire and the european, allowing the white man free range over industries and land in south africa, idetity documents also came into play, first as optional then over time certain thigs required an i.d such s gaining a drivers licence and a passport. so all through the ages there have been men standing the background puppetearing a mass sharade for public eye when mean while no body has any fucking clue what they realy doing. So today in South Africa we prepare for 2010 world cup and because of this our country needs upgrading, what a perfect cover being the 2010? so the country needs to be more fitted for a one world community matrix wher no one need leave their homes for anything. New wiring and construction can be seen all over Cape Town, the wiring is being done for a company caled Neotel and its to allow the 2010 to be beamed accross the world...but what it also allows is no non HD television to view shows, all new shows are coming out HD, films are bing shot in HD and soon if you dont have a high definition tv you will not be able to view any shows beacuse outdated tvs wont be compatible, its the easy way of making the masses buy into the new generation of technology and further entrap themselves. The Neotel wiring also allows better internet access, the kind wich allows Holographic images to be transmitted from the other side of the world. Wow...thats pretty cool you might be thinking but what it means is that in conjuntion with the HD television, the new online virtual shops being created and all the games....human beings will fall into a very nasty matrix spider web and after some time it will be no turning back and quite ereversable. The Public will blindly give in to the new and updated technologies and after some time it becomes a part of their life and then no one will have to travel to a shop or to a mall ever agian because why walk when all i have to do is turn on my computer and step into a hologram of the Shopping centre and literary walk around, pick objects up and view them as if they were real and then pay and buy the items i want. well why would the public not like that? simply because they are ignorant and have been driven into a materialistic life style through propoganda and sumliminal advertising. Why would i not give in to being 'cool' and 'popular' and not buy any of the crap wich will lead to humans demise...simply because humans are meant to be out in nature, in fresh air and enjoying life physicaly. Not in a fantasy realm where all your wishes can come tru!...but in the fantacy realm...not in the real world. The problem wich arises most for me is further generations to come, if people buy into these falacies then it will be become apart of their lives, wich is its goal. Then the generations to come are brought up from infancy, the MOST final learning period of their lives, to behave in a certain way, to watch television, all the kiddies shows with the hidden agenda to turn childen into mindless consumers, the kids grow up in a world wher their parents arnt going to parks or to the beach or even the cinima, they just sit at home and hologram themselves everywher because its easier and the news keeps telling them that their are dangerous ciminals all about and terrorists are always bombing shit up so people driven by false fear stay inside and keep their heads burried under the sand when in actual fact the world is not what they tell you it is on the tv, the world is what you make of it? not right. if you cower inside your home then thats what the world is to you. You you stand up and go out there with determination and a will to change the world and stop it from all the destrcution then nothing can go wrong because we are all here for a reason, not a God reason since god is just another form of control. We are here simply by choosing so, it is our soul wich carried us here for a reason and that reason is not completely known but by fucking cheetah it aint to sit around in a cubicle all day or to make some fat cat a richer mother fucker no! the reason is to learn, what to learn is to each individual but we are all on a constant journey for new knowledge and at this current time the world is in turmoil wich means us humans...the FUCKING gardians of this planet! have to take a stand, we have to stop polluting, stop killing, stop hating and stop doing nothing! we as the mass public must stand and rise together as one, we have to put aside out differences of religion and homeland because all of this only further devides us wich is one fo the BIGGEST goals for the powers that be for if we are devided then we are week but together as one force we can appose those who control us through established forms of authority, behind their walls all thet stands are cowards who lie, cheet, murder, steel and corrupt the world and who are to afraid to show their faces for if they did so i myslef and many others would slice it off with the sharpest blade we could find.
We must unite, forget all our false differences and become one! the color of our skin is not important, if i treat a black man like my brother then he will treat me like his and thats how it works because it aint about black or white, we are all human! and all here for the same reason, to live love and learn and protect this planet. All one must ever strive for and give on to others is Peace, Love, Unity and Respect, with this the world and the living beings on it can never g wrong.
Justin Manik (Bringer of justice wich the system cannot provide)
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Barack Obama uses Bush funding tactics to finance wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
President Barack Obama has requested another $83.4 billion (£57 billion) from Congress to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, using a controversial special troop funding provision that he voted against as a senator.
Antiwar congressman and activists who played a key role in Mr Obama's election campaign criticised him for deploying the same "off the books" funding tactic that were introduced by his predecessor George W Bush.
Mr Bush was accused of trying to mask the overall cost of the two conflicts – which now stands at virtually $1 trillion - by funding them via annual "emergency" supplements rather than through the usual budgetary process.
The White House says the request, placed on Thursday evening, was needed to secure funding for the current fiscal year and that it will be the last made in this form before the first Obama budget kicks in.
"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change," said Robert Gibbs, the president's spokesman.
The request seems certain to be approved comfortably, with support from Republicans. But some liberal Democrats expressed their frustration with the increased funding and Mr Obama's plans for the two conflict zones.
"This funding will do two things – it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey. "Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."
The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 US troops, finance Mr Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000 and provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the US military, the Associated Press reported.
Mr Obama also requested $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the US-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.
Meanwhile, the top US commander in Iraq has given warning that American combat troops may be required to remain in Iraq after Mr Obama's June 20 withdrawal deadline to deal with al Qaeda terrorists in Mosul and Baqubah. Indeed, General Ray Odierno said that troops levels in the two troubled cities might actually rise rather than fall.
Mr Bush was accused of trying to mask the overall cost of the two conflicts – which now stands at virtually $1 trillion - by funding them via annual "emergency" supplements rather than through the usual budgetary process.
The White House says the request, placed on Thursday evening, was needed to secure funding for the current fiscal year and that it will be the last made in this form before the first Obama budget kicks in.
"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change," said Robert Gibbs, the president's spokesman.
The request seems certain to be approved comfortably, with support from Republicans. But some liberal Democrats expressed their frustration with the increased funding and Mr Obama's plans for the two conflict zones.
"This funding will do two things – it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey. "Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."
The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 US troops, finance Mr Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000 and provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the US military, the Associated Press reported.
Mr Obama also requested $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the US-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.
Meanwhile, the top US commander in Iraq has given warning that American combat troops may be required to remain in Iraq after Mr Obama's June 20 withdrawal deadline to deal with al Qaeda terrorists in Mosul and Baqubah. Indeed, General Ray Odierno said that troops levels in the two troubled cities might actually rise rather than fall.
Project Camelot interviews David Icke
A Must-WatchPlease Circulate Far and Wide!
http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/21844
This interview has now had more than 100,000 plays on YouTube alone.
http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/21844
This interview has now had more than 100,000 plays on YouTube alone.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Hollow Earth Theory
This Graph shows the answers to a survey asked around the world starting with the closest country to the Polar openings and ending with the farthest. The quetion asked was - Do you believe humans evolved over time from animals? 
The Two Faces of Barack Obama
One for the masses, one for the power elite
by Justin Raimondo, April 06, 2009
The news from Europe, if you listen to our infatuated media, is that the Euros love President Obama: according to the American reportage, his recent trip there was a cavalcade of photo-ops, cheering crowds, and hugs from the queen of England. Even the French were in awe of him! However, if you look beneath the surface, not that far beneath the gloss and the glam there runs a current of irritation, and, dare I say it, resentment.
Take, for example, his stop in the Czech Republic, where he declared that he was seeking a nuclear-free world – that is, a world free of nuclear weapons. This is a goal the United States has a special moral responsibility to seek, he averred, because we are the only nation that has actually used these weapons. The crowd loved it. What they didn’t at all love, however, was his announcement that
“‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies.’”
"The governments of the Czech Republic and Poland, he added, are ‘courageous’ for ‘agreeing to host a defense against these missiles.’"
One supposes it takes a fair amount of courage to defy the wishes of your own people and obey the dictates of a foreign power, albeit not the sort of courage appreciated by Obama’s audience. As the London Telegraph put it:
"The crowd enthusiastically cheered the more idealistic parts of Mr. Obama’s speech but was relatively subdued when he spoke about his backing for missile defense.
"Petr Sramek, 33, was among those disappointed that Mr. Obama had not dropped a policy that was opposed by more than two thirds of Czechs. ‘I really liked the clear message on nuclear disarmament but I am against the missile defense system. It is more about geopolitical influence then defense against missiles.’
"Arena Protivinska, 30, described herself as a ‘big fan’ of Mr. Obama but accused him of ‘hypocrisy’ for urging world peace while also pushing forward with the missile shield. ‘He sounded like George W Bush saying that we should be afraid in order to justify missile defense.’"
Like Americans, the Europeans want to believe – but they see the two faces of Barack Obama too clearly, and the contrast is too apparent to be denied. The gullible Americans, who take things at face value, still believe their new president represents a real change, a challenge to the status quo, while the more sophisticated Europeans are quick to pick up on Obama’s inconsistencies – made all the more glaring by his habit of pairing two mutually contradictory stances on the same issue.
This includes not only coupling missile "defense" in Eastern Europe with the prospect of a nuclear-free world, but also the recent launching of his "Af-Pak" initiative. Although dressed up as a diplomatic offensive, this is essentially a military offensive aimed at widening the war in Afghanistan to include portions of Pakistan.
The administration and its media lapdogs portrayed the Af-Pak rollout as a definitive break with the bad old days of the Bush White House, when it was all about troop movements. The new regime, we’re told, will initiate substantial diplomatic and humanitarian aid efforts, notably an effort to reach out to dissident elements of the Taliban. However, the real core of the Af-Pak strategy is a radical escalation of the military element, in effect an Afghan "surge" spilling over into Pakistan’s tribal areas: it means the addition of some 21,000 soldiers to U.S. forces, with the prospect of more to come.
The Janus-faced American hegemon speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and in two voices: one for the masses, who delight in his soaring idealism and seeming ability to express their deepest aspirations, and one for the elites, who hear a promise of continuity rather than change.
This two-track narrative framed even his Prague declamation of a nuclear-free world. According to a top White House aide, we are not to take this idea all that seriously:
"Gary Samore, a White House adviser on arms control, indicated that Mr. Obama’s call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons should not be taken too literally. ‘In terms of a nuclear-free world, we recognize this is not a near-term possibility,’ he said. Rather, the call was an attempt to ’seize the moral high ground’ in order to increase pressure on countries such as North Korea and Iran."
Obama giveth with one hand, and taketh away with another – smiling that oil-slick grin the whole time. Although I agree with the sentiments of the Czech woman cited above, the Obama method goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. It is a conscious technique of inverting the true meaning and intent of his policies.
Thus, his launching of an intensified military campaign in Central Asia is portrayed as an effort to "stabilize" the region. His provocation against Russia in Eastern Europe is paired with a call to abolish nuclear weapons. And, of course, this ploy carries over into the domestic arena, as well, where – in the process of giving certain favored sectors of the financial industry trillions in subsidies – he has launched a campaign against "corporate greed" and outrageously extravagant executive salaries and perks. He rails against corporate irresponsibility, yet he has appointed to his administration the very corporate insiders who got us into this mess in the first place.
Obama ran for president as the spokesman for the underdog – the little guy just managing to make ends meet, whose volunteerism and contributions over the Internet catapulted the Illinois senator into the running. Yet the reality is that Obama was corporate America’s candidate from the very beginning, and they showed it by lavishly financing his campaign: the money emanating from Goldman Sachs was quite impressive, and, together with the DNC, Wall Street buried the Republicans, who were outspent by three-to-one [.pdf] (and out of gas in any event). Unsurprisingly, the top echelons of the president’s economic team are filled with former Goldman Sachs officials – and, not coincidentally, that firm is the primary beneficiary of the AIG/bank bailout.
The ruling elites of this country, confronted by the specter of a rising populist anger, have found in President Obama a subtle and skillful anger-management expert. For years they’ve been frustrated in Washington, as their efforts to fight a spreading war met increasing resistance from the American people. Divine Providence smiled down on them, however, as Obama suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Here was an "antiwar" candidate who said we’ve been fighting the wrong war all along – and, upon taking office, immediately rectified that by sending 21,000 more troops to the wilds of Central Asia.
What a godsend to the War Party Barack Obama is! As he moves toward confrontations with Iran, Russia, and Pakistan, and continues to unnecessarily irritate China, Asia’s sleeping giant, the media portray him as the Great Peacemaker. As the mask slips, however, and the reality becomes all too apparent, how will his "progressive" supporters react? Will they rise in protest, or sign on to Obama’s war?
Stay tuned to this space for the answer…
by Justin Raimondo, April 06, 2009
The news from Europe, if you listen to our infatuated media, is that the Euros love President Obama: according to the American reportage, his recent trip there was a cavalcade of photo-ops, cheering crowds, and hugs from the queen of England. Even the French were in awe of him! However, if you look beneath the surface, not that far beneath the gloss and the glam there runs a current of irritation, and, dare I say it, resentment.
Take, for example, his stop in the Czech Republic, where he declared that he was seeking a nuclear-free world – that is, a world free of nuclear weapons. This is a goal the United States has a special moral responsibility to seek, he averred, because we are the only nation that has actually used these weapons. The crowd loved it. What they didn’t at all love, however, was his announcement that
“‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies.’”
"The governments of the Czech Republic and Poland, he added, are ‘courageous’ for ‘agreeing to host a defense against these missiles.’"
One supposes it takes a fair amount of courage to defy the wishes of your own people and obey the dictates of a foreign power, albeit not the sort of courage appreciated by Obama’s audience. As the London Telegraph put it:
"The crowd enthusiastically cheered the more idealistic parts of Mr. Obama’s speech but was relatively subdued when he spoke about his backing for missile defense.
"Petr Sramek, 33, was among those disappointed that Mr. Obama had not dropped a policy that was opposed by more than two thirds of Czechs. ‘I really liked the clear message on nuclear disarmament but I am against the missile defense system. It is more about geopolitical influence then defense against missiles.’
"Arena Protivinska, 30, described herself as a ‘big fan’ of Mr. Obama but accused him of ‘hypocrisy’ for urging world peace while also pushing forward with the missile shield. ‘He sounded like George W Bush saying that we should be afraid in order to justify missile defense.’"
Like Americans, the Europeans want to believe – but they see the two faces of Barack Obama too clearly, and the contrast is too apparent to be denied. The gullible Americans, who take things at face value, still believe their new president represents a real change, a challenge to the status quo, while the more sophisticated Europeans are quick to pick up on Obama’s inconsistencies – made all the more glaring by his habit of pairing two mutually contradictory stances on the same issue.
This includes not only coupling missile "defense" in Eastern Europe with the prospect of a nuclear-free world, but also the recent launching of his "Af-Pak" initiative. Although dressed up as a diplomatic offensive, this is essentially a military offensive aimed at widening the war in Afghanistan to include portions of Pakistan.
The administration and its media lapdogs portrayed the Af-Pak rollout as a definitive break with the bad old days of the Bush White House, when it was all about troop movements. The new regime, we’re told, will initiate substantial diplomatic and humanitarian aid efforts, notably an effort to reach out to dissident elements of the Taliban. However, the real core of the Af-Pak strategy is a radical escalation of the military element, in effect an Afghan "surge" spilling over into Pakistan’s tribal areas: it means the addition of some 21,000 soldiers to U.S. forces, with the prospect of more to come.
The Janus-faced American hegemon speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and in two voices: one for the masses, who delight in his soaring idealism and seeming ability to express their deepest aspirations, and one for the elites, who hear a promise of continuity rather than change.
This two-track narrative framed even his Prague declamation of a nuclear-free world. According to a top White House aide, we are not to take this idea all that seriously:
"Gary Samore, a White House adviser on arms control, indicated that Mr. Obama’s call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons should not be taken too literally. ‘In terms of a nuclear-free world, we recognize this is not a near-term possibility,’ he said. Rather, the call was an attempt to ’seize the moral high ground’ in order to increase pressure on countries such as North Korea and Iran."
Obama giveth with one hand, and taketh away with another – smiling that oil-slick grin the whole time. Although I agree with the sentiments of the Czech woman cited above, the Obama method goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. It is a conscious technique of inverting the true meaning and intent of his policies.
Thus, his launching of an intensified military campaign in Central Asia is portrayed as an effort to "stabilize" the region. His provocation against Russia in Eastern Europe is paired with a call to abolish nuclear weapons. And, of course, this ploy carries over into the domestic arena, as well, where – in the process of giving certain favored sectors of the financial industry trillions in subsidies – he has launched a campaign against "corporate greed" and outrageously extravagant executive salaries and perks. He rails against corporate irresponsibility, yet he has appointed to his administration the very corporate insiders who got us into this mess in the first place.
Obama ran for president as the spokesman for the underdog – the little guy just managing to make ends meet, whose volunteerism and contributions over the Internet catapulted the Illinois senator into the running. Yet the reality is that Obama was corporate America’s candidate from the very beginning, and they showed it by lavishly financing his campaign: the money emanating from Goldman Sachs was quite impressive, and, together with the DNC, Wall Street buried the Republicans, who were outspent by three-to-one [.pdf] (and out of gas in any event). Unsurprisingly, the top echelons of the president’s economic team are filled with former Goldman Sachs officials – and, not coincidentally, that firm is the primary beneficiary of the AIG/bank bailout.
The ruling elites of this country, confronted by the specter of a rising populist anger, have found in President Obama a subtle and skillful anger-management expert. For years they’ve been frustrated in Washington, as their efforts to fight a spreading war met increasing resistance from the American people. Divine Providence smiled down on them, however, as Obama suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Here was an "antiwar" candidate who said we’ve been fighting the wrong war all along – and, upon taking office, immediately rectified that by sending 21,000 more troops to the wilds of Central Asia.
What a godsend to the War Party Barack Obama is! As he moves toward confrontations with Iran, Russia, and Pakistan, and continues to unnecessarily irritate China, Asia’s sleeping giant, the media portray him as the Great Peacemaker. As the mask slips, however, and the reality becomes all too apparent, how will his "progressive" supporters react? Will they rise in protest, or sign on to Obama’s war?
Stay tuned to this space for the answer…
LAUREN BOOTH: Wake up and smell the pepper spray. These 3,609 new laws are to control us, not protect us
^^^A woman is attacked by an officer during the G20 protests in London earlier this month ^^^
I was outside the Bank of England during the G20 protest, not far from where passer-by Ian Tomlinson died after being assaulted by a police officer.
The police presence was as excessive as it was provocative.
The Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group (TSG) are the aggressive offspring of the disgraced Special Patrol Group of the Eighties
The police presence was as excessive as it was provocative.
The Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group (TSG) are the aggressive offspring of the disgraced Special Patrol Group of the Eighties
When policing events, they are issued with ‘Nato’ helmets, flame-retardant overalls, stab vests, gloves, balaclavas and boots. All carry the standard batons, pepper spray and cuffs.
Yet let’s try to remember the last full-on riot in Britain that resulted from a political rally – ah yes, the Poll Tax riots almost 20 years ago.
But the police are still authorised to use Tasers and firearm-trained TSG officers carry pistols or sub-machine guns.
My God, when did we accept that armoured cars, special snatch squads and armed police were the right level of policing for protests against Government policy?
How did we sleepwalk into a situation where our movements, all of our electronic data, even our DNA, is stored on a massive central database?
In fact, it was easy for Blairites to con us into accepting the 3,609 new offences they have created since 1997.
They tapped into our fears and prejudices so we simply ignored the repeal of our rights.
Anti-terror legislation was not too subtly sold as being aimed at evil, dastardly Jihadi-types – not ‘us’.
Yet let’s try to remember the last full-on riot in Britain that resulted from a political rally – ah yes, the Poll Tax riots almost 20 years ago.
But the police are still authorised to use Tasers and firearm-trained TSG officers carry pistols or sub-machine guns.
My God, when did we accept that armoured cars, special snatch squads and armed police were the right level of policing for protests against Government policy?
How did we sleepwalk into a situation where our movements, all of our electronic data, even our DNA, is stored on a massive central database?
In fact, it was easy for Blairites to con us into accepting the 3,609 new offences they have created since 1997.
They tapped into our fears and prejudices so we simply ignored the repeal of our rights.
Anti-terror legislation was not too subtly sold as being aimed at evil, dastardly Jihadi-types – not ‘us’.
Presumably this legislation was intended, then, for people such as my friend Farukh. Farukh is as Brummie as Spaghetti Junction and Tony Hancock.
The only difference is that he is a Muslim. I was on the Viva Palestina convoy with him as he delivered aid directly to grieving, injured, homeless families in the Gaza Strip.
In Britain, he is a care worker who helps to rehabilitate young offenders back into society.
On his return from Palestine, Farukh was held for six hours at a UK airport.
Ever since, his work place, bank manager and other work contacts have received regular visits from Special Branch officers asking about his political beliefs and lifestyle.
Last week he told me: ‘They’re putting untold pressure on me and it just won’t stop.’
I have been shoved and filmed time and again by aggressive police officers for attending meetings such as the alternative Labour Party conference in Manchester in 2006, organised by Stop The War.
But for Muslim Britons who go on marches, raise money for Palestinian charities or dare to express political views of any kind, the consequences are far more serious.
They are monitored, put under pressure, harassed at airports and overtly threatened. I am not likely to suffer the horrors of extraordinary rendition, but Farukh is.
It’s time we all woke up and smelled the pepper spray. These new laws were not created to protect British people but to control us.
Take the case of Malcolm Sleath, chairman of his local park society in Enfield, North London, who was told by police he had breached Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
This law, amended in February, allows police to stop and search anyone they consider a terrorist threat.
What had Mr Sleath done to warrant the threat of ten years in prison? He had filmed the officers driving their police car erratically across the park.
The 62-year-old management consultant said: ‘They are supposed to investigate things on foot, so I wanted to show the picture to their sergeant.’
Their bosses issued an immediate apology. Mr Sleath was lucky – had he been called Mr Patel he could have been subjected to a detailed, unwarranted, long-term investigation.
The question we must ask now is: are any of us ‘good’ enough to be safe from detention and harm imposed by Government bodies, out-of-control councils or bullying TSG officers?
The only difference is that he is a Muslim. I was on the Viva Palestina convoy with him as he delivered aid directly to grieving, injured, homeless families in the Gaza Strip.
In Britain, he is a care worker who helps to rehabilitate young offenders back into society.
On his return from Palestine, Farukh was held for six hours at a UK airport.
Ever since, his work place, bank manager and other work contacts have received regular visits from Special Branch officers asking about his political beliefs and lifestyle.
Last week he told me: ‘They’re putting untold pressure on me and it just won’t stop.’
I have been shoved and filmed time and again by aggressive police officers for attending meetings such as the alternative Labour Party conference in Manchester in 2006, organised by Stop The War.
But for Muslim Britons who go on marches, raise money for Palestinian charities or dare to express political views of any kind, the consequences are far more serious.
They are monitored, put under pressure, harassed at airports and overtly threatened. I am not likely to suffer the horrors of extraordinary rendition, but Farukh is.
It’s time we all woke up and smelled the pepper spray. These new laws were not created to protect British people but to control us.
Take the case of Malcolm Sleath, chairman of his local park society in Enfield, North London, who was told by police he had breached Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
This law, amended in February, allows police to stop and search anyone they consider a terrorist threat.
What had Mr Sleath done to warrant the threat of ten years in prison? He had filmed the officers driving their police car erratically across the park.
The 62-year-old management consultant said: ‘They are supposed to investigate things on foot, so I wanted to show the picture to their sergeant.’
Their bosses issued an immediate apology. Mr Sleath was lucky – had he been called Mr Patel he could have been subjected to a detailed, unwarranted, long-term investigation.
The question we must ask now is: are any of us ‘good’ enough to be safe from detention and harm imposed by Government bodies, out-of-control councils or bullying TSG officers?
All 114 power station protesters released as arrests spark civil liberties row
By David Wilkes
Police have released all 114 environmental protesters arrested for allegedly planning to sabotage one of Britain's biggest power stations.
They had been questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage. All the protesters have been released on bail.
Scores of officers in 20 vans descended on a private primary school and nursery in the early hours of Easter Monday where demonstrators had gathered ahead of what police believed was a planned mass attack on Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire.
Detectives recovered specialist equipment including bolt cutters and locks which they said suggested the group represented a 'serious threat' to the safe running of the coal-fired station, which protesters say is Britain's second-largest producer of carbon-dioxide emissions.
Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power station, near Nottingham, was believed to be the target of the protest
A police officer stands guard outside the school where the protesters were arrested
In all, 114 men and women from across the UK were detained in the joint operation by Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire forces.
A spokeswoman said: 'Police have gathered a large amount of evidence which they are now reviewing.
'From the information gathered, police believe that those arrested were planning a period of prolonged disruption to the safe running of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.'
Police dog handlers and other officers moved in on the protesters at the Iona School, in Sneinton, Nottingham. They have now all been released on bail
The police crackdown before a demonstration has taken place has sparked fears among civil liberties campaigners.
The power station arrests come less than two weeks after police raided 'squats' suspected of being used by protesters on the second day of the G20 summit in London before demonstrations had actually been held that day.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'In the light of the policing of the G20 protests, people up and down the country will want to be confident that there was evidence of a real conspiracy to commit criminal damage by those arrested and that this was not just an attempt by the police to disrupt perfectly legitimate protest.'
It is thought the protests were linked to plans for a new coal-fired power-station in Kingsthorpe, Kent, by E.on, which also runs the Ratcliffe-on-Soar station.
Witnesses saw the group being rounded up at the Iona School in Sneinton, Nottingham, one of only 30 Steiner schools in the UK.
Earlier this month officers arrested people in a London squat before a planned G20 demonstration
Steiner schools controversially advocate freeing children from a rigid educational programme, with spiritual and emotional development as important as the three Rs.
Tess Rearden, who lives near the scene, said: 'We were woken up by the sound of doors slamming and saw all these police vans and riot vans.
'It was bedlam - real bedlam.'
Neighbour Mark Hill, 44, said: 'The first thing I thought was it must be terrorism.
'I couldn't think of anything else that would need so many police. But the police were calm.
'I could hear the people singing "We'll be back again" as they were being led away.'
The school was being searched yesterday, and forensic officers were seen leaving the school with a number of backpacks.
No one at the school was available for comment.
An E.on spokesman said: 'We will be assisting police in their investigations into what could have been a very dangerous attempt to disrupt an operational power plant.'
They had been questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage. All the protesters have been released on bail.
Scores of officers in 20 vans descended on a private primary school and nursery in the early hours of Easter Monday where demonstrators had gathered ahead of what police believed was a planned mass attack on Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire.
Detectives recovered specialist equipment including bolt cutters and locks which they said suggested the group represented a 'serious threat' to the safe running of the coal-fired station, which protesters say is Britain's second-largest producer of carbon-dioxide emissions.
Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power station, near Nottingham, was believed to be the target of the protest
A police officer stands guard outside the school where the protesters were arrested
In all, 114 men and women from across the UK were detained in the joint operation by Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire forces.
A spokeswoman said: 'Police have gathered a large amount of evidence which they are now reviewing.
'From the information gathered, police believe that those arrested were planning a period of prolonged disruption to the safe running of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.'
Police dog handlers and other officers moved in on the protesters at the Iona School, in Sneinton, Nottingham. They have now all been released on bail
The police crackdown before a demonstration has taken place has sparked fears among civil liberties campaigners.
The power station arrests come less than two weeks after police raided 'squats' suspected of being used by protesters on the second day of the G20 summit in London before demonstrations had actually been held that day.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'In the light of the policing of the G20 protests, people up and down the country will want to be confident that there was evidence of a real conspiracy to commit criminal damage by those arrested and that this was not just an attempt by the police to disrupt perfectly legitimate protest.'
It is thought the protests were linked to plans for a new coal-fired power-station in Kingsthorpe, Kent, by E.on, which also runs the Ratcliffe-on-Soar station.
Witnesses saw the group being rounded up at the Iona School in Sneinton, Nottingham, one of only 30 Steiner schools in the UK.
Earlier this month officers arrested people in a London squat before a planned G20 demonstration
Steiner schools controversially advocate freeing children from a rigid educational programme, with spiritual and emotional development as important as the three Rs.
Tess Rearden, who lives near the scene, said: 'We were woken up by the sound of doors slamming and saw all these police vans and riot vans.
'It was bedlam - real bedlam.'
Neighbour Mark Hill, 44, said: 'The first thing I thought was it must be terrorism.
'I couldn't think of anything else that would need so many police. But the police were calm.
'I could hear the people singing "We'll be back again" as they were being led away.'
The school was being searched yesterday, and forensic officers were seen leaving the school with a number of backpacks.
No one at the school was available for comment.
An E.on spokesman said: 'We will be assisting police in their investigations into what could have been a very dangerous attempt to disrupt an operational power plant.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
