Great Britain's years of dealing with the Irish Republican Army has led the country to adopt, over the course of several years, some of the most stringent anti-terror measures found in all of Europe.
America's Patriot Act pales in comparison to the all-out assault on British civil liberties that have occurred during the last few decades in the guise of Britain's Prevention of Terrorism Act. Worse still, the London bombings have allowed Tony Blair's government to issue spurious and authoritarian revision proposals to the act that would make George Orwell turn in his grave.
Among the proposed changes to the act are several provisions that would render the glorification of terrorism illegal, thereby directly suppressing freedom of expression. According to British Home Secretary Charles Clarke, the new measures apply to any foreigner or non-native born British national who writes, expresses, teaches or preaches - in any format whatsoever - "views, which foment, justify or glorify" terrorist violence, criminal acts or hatred that could incite community violence.
The highest price for violating the new rules would be deportation and revocation of citizenship, unless the guilty party was born in Britain. In differentiating between those born in Britain and those born abroad (including people who already possess British citizenship), Blair established two distinct classes of British citizens to which the state would apply separate rights: British natives and, well, anyone else.
We have our own limitations on freedom of speech here in the United States, but there is one major difference: The rules apply to all citizens, not just the ones who are born here.
Moreover, the new laws are far too general and ambiguous; even authoring a Web site critical of the British government could serve as adequate justification for deportation if the new revisions are enacted.
Additionally, the fact that native British citizens don't face the same punishment for violating the act specifically makes it unjust, misguided and utterly shameful.
Generally, Britons have been rather apathetic toward the issue until recently, when the current provisions granted to British law enforcement were appallingly abused.
During a recent speech about Iraq, delivered by British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, an elderly man in attendance was physically thrown out of the Labour Party conference after shouting "Nonsense!" according to The Economist. Upon attempting to return, the man, Walter Wolfgang, was halted by police officers who cited the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In addition to the indignity Wolfgang experienced, another gentleman who dared question the apparent overreaction by authorities was also removed from the conference.
At 82 years of age, Wolfgang was no physical threat and his forced escort from the conference was ironic, given that much of Straw's utterly dishonest speech focused on the wonders of living in a free state where one is privileged with freedom of expression. It's also at the height of irony that Wolfgang is a survivor of the Nazi Regime that fled Germany in 1937.
Straw's speeches tend to be self-aggrandizing apologies for suspicious government policy and this was no exception by any means. His claim that Britain went into Iraq for purposes of liberation was deemed "nonsense" by Wolfgang, who, for opposing such blatant propaganda, was summarily removed from the audience.
The significance of these events is still unfolding.
Wolfgang has been thrust to the center of national controversy in Britain, which addresses, among other things, the possible consequences of Blair's revisions to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The mistreatment of Wolfgang is also an embarrassment to the Labour Party and is reminiscent of every fascist regime in history that has suppressed dissent.
The fiasco has prompted Labour Party officials, including Blair, to publicly apologize to Wolfgang and, subsequent to the massive media coverage it received, has precipitated a rather indignant response from the British public.
Even though widespread political apathy is prevalent in Britain - as it is in many nations - it has become apparent that the British public will not passively accept the transition to a police state.
It's best they don't.
-Kris Petersen is a political science and music senior.
-This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com. Anonymous letters will not be printed - include your full name, major and year in school.
Be the first to comment on this article!