Farewell to Freedom

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

Cross-posted from my own 'blog…

A very good post by The Devil in his Kitchen yesterday is, as Brian Micklethwait at Samizdata puts it, "a must-read" — and so it is. Especially for Libertarian readers here, I do recommend it regarding some truly frightening consequences of New Labour's corruption of the parliamentary law-making system in this country.

Oh, and unusually for Devil's Kitchen, the language is entirely family-friendly too!

What he is discussing are what he correctly terms Enabling Laws, that instead of being specific laws are effectively open-ended licences for a Government Minister to introduce, without passing it through Parliament. If one thinks about this, this is the closest move to total control by the Executive that we have yet seen. The fact that — as the Devil himself tells us — Labour have introduced "a large number" of such laws demonstrates beyond any remain doubt that it was Labour's intention all along to turn Britain into a totalitarian State.

Oh, they and their mouthpieces will have all the excuses as to why it was "necessary", "desirable" or "more efficient use of parliamentary time" or suchlike; but it doesn't wash as a moment's thought will reveal. Besides anything else, it completely undermines the democratic processes of this country and is treacherous in the least case, and seems almost certain to be intended to enable future (imminent?) actions that would probably be classed by most people as treasonous.

We already know that Labour's Civil Contingencies Act is intended to allow suspension of elections and parliament indefinitely, and we are aware of the moves already being put in place to deal with any public uprisings. I have covered some of these before, such as identifying soldiers who would be prepared to open fire upon British citizens. The wider distribution of tasers within the police that was recently rvealed is part of the same preparations.

Labour are still trying to avoid holding a General Election and staying in office until they have absolute power over us — their goal all along, right back to before they were first elected in 1997. It was always part of the plan, it seems.

I suspect that the timing of Tony Blair's departure from Downing Street (and his staying outside our country for so much of the time since) was in fact dictated by how and when certain mileposts had been reached along this path, ready fro Gordon Brown's "clunking fist" (see, we were warned in advance, in a way) could take over for all the heavy-duty stuff. Blair silkily got all the laws and powers in place, then handed over to his nastier henchman to do the really dirty work.

That's where we are now; and there might be very little we can do about it, especially if the EU has put together a way to use their armed forces and other militia to help quell any uprisings and the inevitable riots that would result. Oh yes: that is undoubtedly one of the reasons for creating suh a large pan-European force upon whih to be able to call. The jigsaw puzzle is now almost complete, and surely everyone can now see what the final picture is going to be.

The Devil has competition for the worst place to be thereafter — his Hell or our Britain.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Comments

3 Responses to “Farewell to Freedom”
Post a Comment | Post Comments (Atom)

banned said...

You will no doubt recall that Charles de Gaulle issued all French conscripts with transistor radios as a kind of keeping in touch with the folks back home sort of thing.
When their Generals attempted insurrection De Gaulle used those radios to appeal directly to his troops for loyalty and it worked.

One wonders if the Governments' concerns about Twitter and other social networks in use by the Armed Forces are not caused by similar worries, in reverse.

3 November 2009 at 23:14
John M Ward said...

That's an intriguing thought!

4 November 2009 at 00:51
Fausty said...

There's much more going on behind the scenes. Yesterday, I chanced upon a debate in the Commons where various changes to the Constitution were being debated between the three main parties.

Aren't our parliamentarians required to put all constitutional changes to a referendum? (Lisbon apart - we're all familiar with that treasonous behaviour).

4 November 2009 at 06:25