Look I know I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but this suppression of terrorism bill, the glorification of terrorism bit, where it says that it is a criminal offence to glorify acts of violence even against a repressive régime; well, we know about the Mandela situation and that’s not really a problem because it’s obvious which side Labour would be on that one, I mean illegal imprisonment and torture on one side, people who might later disapprove of water privatisation on the other - come on! I think people who raise the Mandela situation are being a bit disingenuous. But what worries me is, didn’t George Bush Senior actually suggest to the Southern Shias of Iraq that they made an insurrection (an insurrection cannot be totally non-violent, surely) against their government; before quite properly leaving their government to massacre them. I know the bill doesn’t apply retrospectively, and I’m sure George W has already given explicit instructions to our chap that all Americans are exempt anyway, but even so, it’s sailing a bit close to the wind isn’t it.
1 comment:
Here in Australia it's a lot more specific that you can only go to jail if you suggest violent overthrow of the Australian government. I think you should be allowed to say what you want about what you want. It's a battle of words, and you don't win that by silencing the other side. What's more worrying is that you get five years in clink if you print a story about someone in "preventive detention". Not allowing the press to tell what's happening is a dangerous thing.
Post a Comment