Monday, June 22, 2009

[sedition] if you blog, you're seditious

There is a blogger, Scaramouche, accessible via Blazing Cat Fur, who wrote:

We have legal constraints--laws protecting people from being libelled and slandered and the state from sedition ...

The context was the human rights bill in Canada, "protecting" people from "hate talk". The one up in arms is called Haroon Sidiqui, who says Muslims are being targeted. Yawn. There are too many real problems at the moment to worry about, without going into that.

Scaramouche was saying, I think, that the law of the country as it stands can take care of "hate talk" without setting up a multi-billion dollar Human Rights Commission under the control of certain pressure groups. Now, in the middle of all that I saw one word - "sedition".

Sedition

Let's look at changes to British law:

First, the RIP Act. You can be spied upon by your government for what, on the face of it, are good reasons (you're a criminal etc.) but there are some appalling reasons there too. Section 22 sets out the reasons you can be spied upon by your own government:

Section 22 says:
It is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection to obtain communications data if it is necessary-

(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g) for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person's physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person's physical or mental health; or
(h) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.
Now section (h) here requires both Houses of Parliament to review the draft order, but what the hell does (c) mean if it's not the same as (b)?

The UK situation with sedition

Legislation under George III for example made it an offence to use any words to excite hatred and contempt of the king, government or constitution, particularly speech that might have a "tendency" to cause disloyalty in the armed forces.

Look at this post and this one. That's sedition, James and James, even though you were pointing out how the government has sold its armed forces down the drain.

You may not criticize the government.

The Treason Felony Act 1848 made it a serious offence, punishable by transportation, to call in print or writing for the establishment of a republic, even by peaceful means. As of 2004 it remained in force (athough last used in 1883), with life imprisonment as the maximum penalty.

You may not criticize the form of government, its composition or advocate ways to make it more responsive to public opinion. If you take up the invitation to write to N10's suggestion box, you are now on file.

They, of course, are allowed to destroy the Lords and stack it with Labour peers, they are allowed to sell Britain out to the EU [which still does not legitimately exist until post-Lisbon 2], they are allowed to sell off Britain's gold reserves for a song but if you start talking proportional representation or doing away with the monarchy, that's sedition, boy!

Now here are two I adore:

# violates the King's wife or the Sovereign's eldest daughter unmarried or the wife of the Sovereign's eldest son and heir", with or without the consent of those women

That's choice. I'll have to try it with the second daughter then.

# "slays the chancellor, treasurer, or the king's justices" while carrying out their duties.

Duties? Er ... like selling out Britain?

Applicability


Of course, this is all largely ceremonial at this time but it is still a useful little arrow to have in the quiver. Let me give a possible scenario:

Lisbon 2 is passed by Ireland. The EU, poised, swoops and officially assumes the organs of power in what was once the UK. The blogosphere erupts and the major bloggers are rounded up and shut down. Remember they're allowed to be waterboarded. How long was the detention for these days?

All of it silently, inexorably put in place - the legal right to snuff out dissent.
Who will actually do all this? Well the traitors in Common Purpose, of course, the socialists who've now been trained to "lead beyond authority" and take over the functions of state during the turmoil.

America

America is a little different - FEMA's your problem there. What it comes down to, quite simply, is this - when American troops, even acting for FEMA, are asked to round up or shoot their own citizens, they have a big problem in their heads.

Many American armed personnel have gone online to say that their loyalty is to the Constitution and the Country, not to Obama or anyone else in Washington. It happened in Vietnam, it happened elsewhere - they'll shoot the officer who gave the order to fire on his own people.

The complication is if he's told, 'If you don't do this, your family gets it.' Then it gets a bit tricky. Yessir, it's a bit tricky in the U.S.A. at this time and the people ain't happy. Not only that but do they really think anyone's going to surrender his gun in the amnesty?
.

9 comments:

  1. OT, OT.
    You've examined this before, but Here is a further twist

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ha, ha. For once I read it before you and it's in the pipeline. Denninger's one of my regular stops now. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I daresay my love for Darya Dadvar and my flower photos will have me in teh Tower before long!

    Flippant comments aside (for once) the erosion of our free speech safeguards are horrifying

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Many American armed personnel have gone online to say that their loyalty is to the Constitution and the Country, not to Obama or anyone else in Washington."

    Absolutely correct; when an American soldier gives an oath of loyalty, it is to the Constitution, not the government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jams - highly suspicious, those vids.

    Bob - I don't think they have any chance, Washington. There'll be another Paul Revere thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The winners write history. So will it be a bunch of treasonous politicians or patriots?

    Government wins, we are all traitors and terrorists. We win they are all traitors.

    It's as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This article marks Obamies surrender to the financial oligarchy that deliberately created the current financial mess.

    But it marks far more than that.

    It marks the end of America as the vision that so many hold.

    It marks a vast increase in financial crime and illegal offshoring of proceeds.

    It marks an increase in the transference from the majority, to the minority, of prodigious amounts of wealth.

    It leaves the UK financial system more exposed to the predations of the EU, which will destroy a significant part of the UK tax base as hedge funds depart London, which currently houses 80% + of global hedge funds.

    It increases the position of the US and partly the UK, as global Pariahs in the financial war mongering, and war mongering, leagues.

    It increases the global determination to be rid of US/UK financial domination, to weaken the US/UK currencies, (whatever short-term protestations may be heard on MSM), to neautralise a system that results in creditor nations being responsible for funding US military hegemony/encirclement, to their own detriment.

    The CFR adherents are clearly winning in the US.

    Whether they will win in the world will create interesting viewing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Damn, I must be seditious!!

    See this link Here, for an explanation of what is coming, and an exposure of the economic crap being written in supposedly reputable publications

    ReplyDelete
  9. which will destroy a significant part of the UK tax base as hedge funds depart London, which currently houses 80% + of global hedge funds

    This one's freaky.

    Lord T - yes.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.