The Information Divide - How Government Represses Vital Freedoms

The recent censorship of a performance by Pearl Jam at a festival in the US, is the latest in a long line of attempts by the privileged elite to restrict the flow of information and the right to free speech. Despite the rhetoric about spreading freedom around the globe, the west has been reluctant to grant the same freedoms at home as they claim to export abroad. The British government have been reluctant to allow a culture of free speech, and the past couple of weeks have only gone to reinforce the fact that this is one of the most secretive democracies in the world.

This has ever been so. Back in 1988, the then Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave a speech to the Royal Television Society Conference. In that speech, Hurd said the following:

'The disclosure of certain information was always harmful whether or not it had been published before.'

The Conservative government had shown that they had no intention of allowing a culture to develop that encourages freedom of information, and why should they have? For decades, government had been trying its utmost to ensure that the internal workings of government were not open to public access. The irony was, of course, that the British government at the time of Hurd's address was actually trying to encourage freedom of information in a country that was truly suffering at the hands of censorship. In the same year, Kenneth Baker addressed students at Moscow State University:

'What's the point in having computers and information technology if you are now allowed access to anything more than the contents of a modest library?...The information technology revolution cannot bear fruit without the free flow of information within society and between societies.'

Of course, being in the USSR, Baker would say that. The Conservative government proved that, although they talked of freedom of expression and lobbied their enemies to open up the flow of information, the establishment were reluctant to let go of the reins during the technological revolution. This double-speak continued, even after the Conservative government were finally kicked out of power in 1997.

The election of the Labour government in 1997 brought forth the promise of a more open style of government. Perhaps anticipating how difficult it would be to manage information in the age of the internet, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act heralded a new age of access to information. However, this was not to last. In May 2007, Alastair Darling wrote to Lord Falconer expressing his concerns about the Act. In the letter, he claimed that government may need to:

"redress an apparent imbalance between the 'right to know' and the protection of private space where necessary for good governance".

Once more, the establishment had revealed that it cared little for the concepts of freedom of information, despite the Act. Even before Darling's letter had come to light (courtesy of the BBC by the way. A novelty, eh? A state broadcaster prepared to reveal the true nature of government machinations), MPs had been trying to put through legislation that would have prevented their travel expenses being open to the public.

Two recent actions by the government have also attempted to restrict the flow of information and the rights to free speech. Only today, it has emerged that the police are able to use terror laws to deal with protesters at Heathrow. According to The Guardian:

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.

Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday. The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take direct action on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life.

The police powers will include:


· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters' outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

Remember when the government said that anti-terrorism powers will not be abused? As well as this blatant attempt to suppress free speech, the government has also been cracking down on the military. Only yesterday, The Guardian revealed that the Ministry of Defence has been taking steps to address soldier's rights to free speech. According to the report:

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

They also cannot release video, still images or audio - material which has previously led to investigations into the abuse of Iraqis. Instead, the guidelines state that "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

Despite the fact that this may contravene the Human Rights Act (an act that opponents of free speech have long lobbied to repeal), the government seems willing to continue with a blatant act of censorship to ensure control over the flow of information. But then, should we be surprised given that the government also crippled the BBC after a report that has proven to be factually accurate, yet exposed the truth behind the government. The hounding of the BBC in the wake of the Gilligan report, only laid bare the extent to which the government was willing to suppress information that was harmful to its interests, regardless of the facts.

Meanwhile, as the government continues to control the amount of information about the inner workings at Whitehall, the government is demanding even more information about the general public. Earlier this year, it was revealed that there is an amazing 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK (32 cameras around George Orwell's house alone), ensuring that the government is able to gather information about your movements. Government is also trying to introduce a mass programme of DNA collection from every citizen in the UK, providing important genetic information about the population. Finally, the government has also been pursuing the idea of a national identity card carrying biometric information. So, while the government has been restricting our rights to free speech and our ability to access information, they have been collating more information about us than any other government in this nation's history. And if you think the government won't abuse this mass of information, you only have to look at the abuse of anti-terror legislation that is being deployed by the police at Heathrow to realise that we are heading for desperate times.

This issue of freedom of information is a crucial one. If this country wants to stand as a beacon of freedom across the world, it must do something about the lack of freedom citizens currently enjoy. Whilst the government continues to restrict our access to information, while increasing theirs, the UK will remain a country divided along informational lines. That cannot be a good thing for democracy.

Daily Mail - Fascist Paper Indulging in Political Correctness?

You can always rely on the Daily Mail for a good old fashioned slice of hypocrisy. Clearly revelling in the plight of the BBC (although I have yet to meet anyone who has changed their views of the institution), they really go to town on the alleged pressure from the Queen to prevent the programme from being broadcast. Clearly taking the same view of the palace, their banner headline screams:

The Queen wants BBC's faked film banned
Palace fury at refusal to scrap 'misleading' documentary

And the views of the Mail reading public? Fairly typical of the type of person you would expect to read the Mail. Here are a few examples:

Of course it should not be broadcast, the question does not even need asking. And the enquiry is being led by a ex-beeboid.. Why bother?

- Irxin, South West, England

If the Queen does not want it to be shown after the mis-representation, then it should not be shown. It shows the BBC is still high handed and has not learned anything.

- John, Norfolk UK

It should be banned. Considering the BBC's recent record of duplicity, how can anyone have confidence in this, or any of their documentaries?

- Mr S Perkin, Penzance, Cornwall

Good for Her Majesty. She's not going to put up with the poor standards of the BBC. I'm sure the majority of decent people in this country are behind her and mourn the death of decency of this once-great broadcaster.

- Anon, Haywards Heath, W.Sussex/

She should ban it. She is after all still the Queen of England and deserves respect.

- Steve Jones, Stockport, UK

And it goes on. Yes, calls for censorship are alive and well in the pages of the Daily Mail. I guess this should come as no surprise given that the Mail was one of the key Nazi sympathisers during the 1930s. They just loved that whole censorship ideal. Still, it doesn't stop the fascist hypocrites from claiming to defend free speech. Take this example:

This trampling of free speech

An interesting article, here are a few quotes:

And where blustering officialdom thinks it can "challenge" and "educate" honest citizens whose opinions don't meet with its approval?

Time was when the answer would have been obvious. Such things might happen in banana republics or Communist dictatorships, but never here. Not in tolerant, democratic, free speech Britain.

In a county where violent crime shot up by 17 per cent last year, you might think the force would have better things to do than follow up this outrageous attempt to censor free speech. But no.

But this isn't the first time police have tried to suppress opinions that don't suit the political elite.

Maya Evans too knows all about the new censorship.

Today, politically correct senior commanders seem ready to push their powers to the limit and beyond, if they think it will please the establishment.

But just as worrying is the intolerance of views that don't follow the prevailing fashion. Isn't this supposed to be a country where there is an inalienable right to honest opinions, honestly expressed?

Hmmm. Censorship, it's all in the eye of the beholder. And this beholder is a great believer in censoring material to 'please the establishment'. Hypocrisy? You Decide.

<

Mugabe Opponent Beaten At Airport

Not content with having one opponent beaten, Mugabe has now set upon having another opposition MP beaten. Nelson Chamisa was beaten at Harare airport, on his way to fly to Brussels. From The Guardian:

Mr Chamisa, 28, spoke to the Guardian from hospital where he was awaiting surgery late yesterday. Doctors said he may lose an eye from the assault, which took place in front of frightened travellers.

"Just as I was about to enter the door of the departure area, eight men jumped me and began hitting me with iron bars. I just fell to the ground," said Mr Chamisa. "Nobody is safe in Zimbabwe. There is no security, no rule of law. I am praying for my country."

Pearson Mangofa, an opposition MP who drove Mr Chamisa to the airport, said his assailants shoved away passengers who tried to help him. The men grabbed Mr Chamisa's passport, bags and laptop computer before speeding off in two cars, one without a licence plate.

Seven of them wore suits while one wore an army vest. Mr Mangofa said the attack bore the hallmarks of Zimbabwe's domestic spy agency, the Central Intelligence Organisation.

Thankfully, there are signs of change. Morgan Tsvangirai claimed that:

"Things are bad, but I think that this crisis has reached a tipping point and we could see the beginning of the end of this dictatorship."

Let's hope so. For the sake of those suffering under state repression.

BBC Gagged by Government

From The Guardian:

The BBC was banned last night from broadcasting fresh allegations in the cash for honours investigation.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, obtained an injunction to stop the BBC proceeding with a news story for the 10 O'Clock News after a two-hour hearing in chambers at the royal courts of justice in London.

The BBC could only say last night that it had been prevented from broadcasting a story which it believed was a "legitimate matter of public interest" about an hour before the bulletin went on air.

Two things come to mind. Firstly, does this mean a prosecution is imminent? Secondly, why should we allow the government to censure the press? Don't we live in a society that allows free speech? Isn't that what our leaders keep telling us in the great 'War on Terror'? And if the call for censorship is to prevent prejudicing a court case, why isn't similar action taken against the tabloid press when they print various accusations in the run-up to a court case? I guess it is because this goes to the very core of the corrupt regime that rules over us. The people must not learn the truth.