[Source: Google Images]
In November 2016, Britain’s Parliament passed legislation to expand state surveillance of private individuals.
Dubbed the “snoopers’ charter” by civil liberties and Human Rights organisations, the law was intended to require telecommunications companies to keep records of all customers’ emails and web activity for a year, and gives public authorities and officials wide-ranging access to such information.
In effect, this law – had it been left unchallenged and successful, in its enactment – would have also allowed any public official or authority to access any individual’s personal data, whether in the privacy of his/ her home, such as internet browsing history; or mobile phone data; and even medical records and financial transactions.
The law would also allow for computer hacking and of mobile phones.
(The Met police have already admitted to indiscriminately collecting private data, by covert means, under the Regulatory Powers Bill (RIPA)).
Her Majesty’s government has stated that the law will help its authorities in the fight against terrorism and crime.
By this statement, one can assume that the law would target members of Britain’s Muslim communities in particular, as with the Government’s PREVENT strategy, which has previously targeted children as young as five.
However, on Wednesday, the 12 December 2016, the European Court of Justice ruled that governments must not (be permitted to) indiscriminately collect and retain people’s emails and electronic communications.
Presumably, this is because instruments like this, are intended to drive through all citizens’ Universal Human Rights laws, including the right to privacy and data protection rights.
The UK government is said to be disappointed — of course, it would be!
Via the Home Office, it has also stated that the Government intends to appeal the ruling.
Some years ago, the UK Government announced plans to repeal and water down the Human Rights Act, and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.
This is entirely a Tory plan, led by Charlie Elphicke, that does not have the full support of any of the other major political parties in the UK.
In Elphicke’s version of a British (nee Tory) Bill of Rights, the law would allow the Government to avoid its Human Rights obligations; to respect the rights and freedoms of man and woman, effectively placing it (the Government) above the law.
It would also allow the Government to tell the judiciary how to apply this proposed law. Alan Richards explains it in some considerable well researched detail here:
https://thinkinglegally.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/conservative-bill-of-rights-the-state-v-the-people/
In what is, or should be considered, equally as suspicious and contemptible, the Government also proposes to free itself from its Human Rights commitments against foreign nationals and war crimes, including acts of genocide.
In response to the UK Government’s proposed derogation of the from the European Convention on Human Rights regarding military operations, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has called for evidence and submissions.
This proposal, is designed to negate, and deny culpability, of the Government and military personnel, in Human Rights abuses; including, acts of rendition, funding of terror (White Helmets), regime change of foreign heads of state (Libya, Iraq etc), and other covert operations.
—–
The JCHR’s call for submissions (of no more than 3,000 words) are invited from interested groups and individuals, focusing on the following issues:
- What evidence supports the Government’s view that “our legal system has been abused to level false charges against our troops on an industrial scale”?
- What evidence supports the Government’s view that the extra-territorial applicability of the ECHR undermines the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces?
- Are the substantive requirements of Article 15 ECHR likely to be satisfied in the circumstances in which the Government intends to derogate?
- Are there alternatives to derogation which would achieve the Government’s objective of protecting the armed forces against unfounded legal claims?
- Are there any wider implications of the UK derogating from the extra-territorial application of the Convention in military operations, such as effects on other countries or on the European system for the collective enforcement of human rights?
- Should the derogating measures be contained in primary legislation?
- Is it appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to have lead responsibility for a policy the purpose of which is to protect the MoD from legal claims?
Interested parties can submit views through the Government’s proposed derogation from the ECHR inquiry page.
—–
Source: Link above.
Ultimately, the Government’s intentions here, which are both to repeal and lessen the impact of the HRA (including judgments of the European Courts of Justice and Human Rights); and excuse its humanitarian duties and abuses whilst involved in military operations abroad, are to make itself less accountable to and diminish the rights and freedoms of British citizens, as well as those who are or become victims of the Ministry of Defence’s interests and actions in other countries.
If you allow this to happen, kiss goodbye to whatever delusional thread of liberty you thought you ever had in the first place.
By Jason Lee, of the family: Schumann.
Media Representations of Crime and Cultural Stereotypes
29 SepThis blog is in reference to an article published in the Sunday Times on the 15 September 2013, by Camilla Cavendish.
In the article, Ms. Cavendish wrote about the horrific failings to protect Daniel Pelka, the little boy, who was beaten and starved to death by his parents. And who would have probably survived his horrendous ordeal, if Coventry Council’s Social Care Child Protection team had properly carried out their duty to protect him from the harm inflicted upon him by these wicked and pitiful excuses for parents.
In the article, Cavendish makes particular reference to the fact that Daniel’s parents are Polish.
What relevance does the fact that his parents are Polish, you may ask? The answer, is none! That Cavendish was quick to point this fact out, only serves to smear and damage relations between the English and Eastern European immigrants.
Although, I believe unintentional on Cavendish’s part; making reference to the ethnicity or cultural identity of an individual or individuals charged with a particular crime, only serves to perpetuate cultural and ethnic stereotypes. The only exception to making such a reference, is when identity is indeed relevant to the crime; which in this case, it is not.
Cavendish is not the only journalist guilty of this cultural stereotyping. In fact, most journalists do so. Whether intentional or not; I do not know. But, the fact of the matter is, perpetuating cultural and ethnic stereotypes is the outcome, when making reference to an ethnic or cultural identity when identity is not relevant to a particular crime, is damaging to intercultural relations and therefore society as a whole.
It is like saying that all members of the clergy or paedophiles; or that all Muslims are terrorists; or that all football goers are racist hooligans; or that all Black people are muggers; or that all unemployed people are work-shy. Do you get where I am going with this?
All media and journalists have a duty to report the news, but they should do so morally and with consideration to the negative impact their reporting has, or may have, on a particular ethnic, religious or cultural community.
If the media and journalists continue to perpetuate such stereotypes, the misinformed sheep and incapable of society- who continue to believe everything that they read in the newspaper or hear on the tv or radio- without scepticism or independent thought to challenge- will never change their views of those who are culturally or ethnically different. This does not sit well for society and certainly not for inclusion, participation and acceptence of those who are somehow different.
If, as a society, we wish to effect change and aspire to greater equality in challenging prejudices and discrimination, we must remember this. However, as readers and viewers, we also must take responsibility for the media that we digest daily. Sadly, for many of us; this will not happen, because we are more inclined to follow and be led than challenge and lead the case for change. Unfortunately, such unthinking and reckless reporting only serves to breed mistrust. There is much evidence to support the view that a large proportion of people do believe what they read and hear in the media. It is not just a case of the great unwashed, but the great brainwashed, falling into the abyss like lemmings of the cliff. Sad times.
Author: Jason Schumann
Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture, Freedom of Expression, Ethics of Journalism, Moral Panic, identity, Human Progress, Media, Crime and Ethnicity, Politics, Stereotypes, Daniel Pelka, Camilla Cavendish, Sunday Times News Review, racism,
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: Camilla Cavenish, crime and culture, cultural identies, ethics of journalism, media representations, sunday times