I cannot let Tony Blair's latest attempt to explain himself in The Observer pass without comment. In his piece he defends his attack on our liberties and defends his government's record on this. I have to admit though, I do like the way his photo at the head of the article presents Tony in his casual attire. It's almost like he is saying: 'Yes, I am a blood thirsty collaborator with the dark forces of capitalism who should be impeached, but don't I look good in an open top shirt.' Actually, he just looks like what he is: a product of a privileged background who has no idea on modern culture (he invited Noel Gallagher to No 10 for god's sake, how sad and pathetic is that??) and is desperately trying to look cool and down with the kids. Sorry Tone, you look a right tit. Now to the article in hand.
There are at least four things I take issue with here.
- 'This government has introduced..the Freedom of Information Act, the most open thing any British Government has done since the 1830s.'
Ok, fair point, thanks very much Tone. What you neglected to mention, however, was that shortly after it was introduced, that buffoon Lord Falconer was suggesting that some information should not be accessed because it was trivial. You cannot have Freedom of Information on one hand and then state which things are valid. It is, like much of New Labour (a Tory party in all but name, despite what those on the right may say), a contradiction.
- 'People should be prevented from glorifying terrorism.'
Again, seems a fair enough comment. However, I notice he falls short of defining terrorism. Nobody should support the mass murder of individuals for a cause. Having said that, take the example of Zimbabwe. If Mugabe claims that the work against his government amounts to terrorist activity, on whose side do we fall??? If they are working for democracy and demonstrating against the regime are they terrorists or are they freedom fighters?? Would we be locked up for supporting terrorist action against the regime. Terrorism comes in many wide and varied forms, not necessarily resulting in murder. We supported many terrorist organisations in the past (as did the US) in fighting regimes we did not like. Under a certain definition, the French Resistance were terrorists.
- 'On ID cards..most people already have a variety of different cards.'
So why do we need more then Tone??
Finally,
- 'If the nature of the threat changes, so should our policies.'
But in doing so we are giving up the things that, according to you and your cronies, these phantom terrorists hate. We are changing because of them, why can't you see that?? They are forcing us to change our nature and we are doing so willingly. These phantoms, of which you speak, are winning.
Tony, just keep telling yourself:
'I'm not here, this isn't happening.'
Posts
|