Lazy Guide to Net Culture: Bad IDeas

Published on Monday 20 February 2006 17:10

I am not now nor have I ever been a member of a terrorist organisation.

I feel it's important to make that clear right from the start. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to suggest that we are poised on the brink of a hysterical new McCarthyism that substitutes the word "terrorist" for "communist".

I mean if that were the case then we would face attacks on freedom of speech in the name of patriotism (kind of like John Reid critcising press scrutiny of soldiers in Iraq); or we would see the use of fear to erode civil liberties (kind of like the introduction of utterly ineffective ID cards to keep us "safe" from terrorists or criminals); or we would see the smothering of debate with accusations of disloyalty (kind of like the government banning the glorification of terrorism, whatever the hell that is).

Actually, in light of the above, we are poised on the brink of a hysterical new McCarthyism that substitutes the word "terrorist" for "communist".

So I am writing this article while sporting a natty teeshirt bearing the motto: "I am not now nor have I ever been a member of a terrorist organisation."

I know others have written about this but I feel I have to cover my back given the sweeping majesty of the Terrorism Bill - a piece of law-making destined to be viewed with the same respect as the poll tax and the Soviet Union's penal code.

If you haven't read the Terrorism Act, be afraid. Be very afraid. And then make a mental note to vote against your MP if he or she supported the damn thing.

Here's what the act has to say about glorifying terrorism:

For the purposes of this section the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which -

(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the

future or generally) of such acts or offences; and

(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.

Am I alone in thinking that definition is a tad broad? I only bring this up because I admire William Wallace, who was arguably viewed as the equivalent of a terrorist by the Westminster government of the time.

Am I guilty of "glorifying terrorism"?

The answer to that depends on whether the man in the street belieces I'm saying Wallace's actions should be "emulated in existing circumstances". Now, I'm not suggesting whacking the English with broadswords but I believe people should stand up against oppression, which is what Wallace did. There is a reading of the act where that would be considered glorification of terrorism.

I am not suggesting that this is the intention of Messrs Brown and Blair in the Terrorism Act but the problem is that it is a possible reading and there's not guaranteeing that that loose wording will not be misused by future administrations.

I wonder if the Terrorism Act was drafted by the same genius who created the dodgy dossier? And if it wasn't was this because the wunderkind was concentrating on ID cards?

I mention them because they are a really, really bad idea. If you don't believe me, consider this: you are going to lose the right to walk down your street so that Downing Street can pretend to do something about terrorism.

Rather than address the causes of terrorism, Tony and Co have decided we have to give up our civil liberties … pointlessly. ID cards would not have stopped the 7/7 bombings. They will not stop terrorists or criminals because these groups will forge such documents if they need to. Nevertheless the illusion of security demands we have to carry these things (and they will be compulsory soon, despite all the assurances).

As somebody once said: "Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards … let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local communities."

That person was one Tony Blair, speaking in 1995, before George W Bush scooped his brain out of his skull and replaced it with half his own. (Imagine the sheer power of that organ…)

This is a bad time for us who believe in liberty and free speech. We need to wake up to the fact that our freedoms are being eroded. And we need to do something about it.

Me? I'm preparing denunciations of all my readers.