I have never been very politically aware, as my husband will tell you. But lately, it seems that I cannot help but have an opinion on things political. So I am deviating from the normal topic of poop and commenting on Tony Blair's anti-terrorist measures announced recently. So Tony has allowed Britain to "expel foreigners who preach hatred, close extremist mosques and bar entry to Muslim radicals", and also those who speak, write, or give sermons supporting terrorism. Let me make it clear that I do not support terrorism in any intentional way (even when Tony isn't looking), so I am not making any judgment on his rulings. But it sounds faintly like the Salem Witch Hunts or the Spanish Inquisition, where you could turn in your neighbor or family member for no better reason than you felt like calling him/her a witch/heretic/terrorist. At least this time it does not mean torture or death, just exportation. So where are they going to send these...... infidels? Australia? Or back from whence they came, where they can gain a following, whip up MORE anger and hate, and be living testaments to the oppression that is the free world? I particularly like the following statement, taken from a Reuter's news site:
"Blair said Britain could override human rights laws if courts blocked deportations and London failed to gain assurances from other countries that they will not torture deportees. Britain's courts have in the past thwarted government expulsion measures because the European Convention on Human Rights requires guarantees deportees will not be mistreated.
"The circumstances of our national security have now self-evidently changed ... We can retest it and if necessary we can amend the human rights act and that covers the British court's interpretation of the law," Blair said." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050805/ts_nm/security_britain_dc)
That's nice. In other words, "we tried to deport people before for various reasons and then decided not to because the other country would not make promises it would not keep, but now we are just going to change the law to say we can make them go home if we feel like, even if they are going to be tortured". It looks a little murky to me. I wonder what the Queen thinks of it. Can you see her signing a Royal Proclamation to that extent? Not that I am making a judgment, only that it makes me scratch my head and say, "Hmm. Wonder where THAT is going to lead".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Loved the headline. Yes, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I can't necessarily comment on the law being referred to (though that doesn't always stop me), but if rules are made to be broken, laws are made to be changed. We do the same thing here. Speed limits used to be 70 mph, then with the oil shortage, we dropped them to 55. We made cars safer (and gas cheaper, back in the good ol' days), so we raised them back to 70 (or 75 in parts of the west).
I do question the logic of deporting the troublemakers (keep your friends close, and you enemies closer), though not for the reason other people may be concerned. The people they're talking about deporting, I would think, are almost LESS likely to suffer repercussions, depending on where they're going back to.
Fareed Zakaria (one of my favorite Newsweek columnists) has pointed out that in some ways, Muslim radicals are more of an issue in Europe than here in the US because it's not uncommon for those in the US to enjoy success (doctors, scientists, college professors), whereas they tend to be less integrated into European society. You never hear of Muslim slums in the US.
Tony Blair smells like mushrooms.
Ann, your hair is on fire. I'm so PLEASED!!! Let's get together and feel alright.
Love,
HILARY/CONDY 2008!
Post a Comment