Fantastic speech from Parliament from Feb, re: Terrorism debate
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fantastic speech from Parliament from Feb, re: Terrorism debate
Brian Sedgemore, Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch is retiring after god knows how many years at the end of this parliament, this is what was probably his last speech in parliament made in February...
I think no matter what party you support it's hard to argue with his points here.
"As this will almost certainly be my last speech in Parliament, I shall try hard not to upset anyone. However, our debate here tonight is a grim reminder of how the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are betraying some of Labour's most cherished beliefs. Not content with tossing aside the ideas and ideals that inspire and inform ideology, they seem to be giving up on values too. Liberty, without which democracy has no meaning, and the rule of law, without which state power cannot be contained, look to Parliament for their protection, but this Parliament, sad to say, is failing the nation badly. It is not just the Government but Back-Bench Members who are to blame. It seems that in situations such as this, politics become incompatible with conscience, principle, decency and self-respect. Regrettably, in such situations, the desire for power and position predominates.
As we move towards a system of justice that found favour with the South African Government at the time of apartheid and which parallels Burmese justice today, if hon. Members will pardon the oxymoron, I am reminded that our fathers fought and died for liberty-my own father literally-believing that these things should not happen here, and we would never allow them to happen here. But now we know better. The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here.
In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say that they are behaving tyrannically and trying to make nonsense of the House of Lords' decision in A and Others as appellants v. the Home Secretary as respondent because they are frightened, and that the rest of us would be frightened too if only we knew what they will not tell us. They preach the politics of fear and ask us to support political incarceration on demand and punishment without trial.
Sad to say, I do not trust the judgment of either our thespian Prime Minister or our Home Secretary, especially given the latter's performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It did not take Home Office civil servants or the secret police long to put poison in his water, did it? Paper No. 1, entitled "International Terrorism: the Threat", which the Home Secretary produced yesterday and I have read, is a putrid document if it is intended to justify the measure. Indeed, the Home Secretary dripped out bits of it and it sounded no better as he spoke than it read. Why does he insult the House? Why cannot he produce a better argument than that?
How on earth did a Labour Government get to the point of creating what was described in the House of Lords hearing as a "gulag" at Belmarsh? I remind my hon. Friends that a gulag is a black hole into which people are forcibly directed without hope of ever getting out. Despite savage criticisms by nine Law Lords in 250 paragraphs, all of which I have read and understood, about the creation of the gulag, I have heard not one word of apology from the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Worse, I have heard no word of apology from those Back Benchers who voted to establish the gulag.
Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that once one has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, it becomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote to destroy them.
Many Members have gone nap on the matter. They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury in more serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, to create a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes. It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next.I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent into hell, which is not a place where I want to be.
I hope that-but doubt whether-ethical principles and liberal thought will triumph tonight over the lazy minds and disengaged consciences that make Labour's Whips Office look so ridiculous and our Parliament so unprincipled.
It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701 has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace. May the Government be damned for it."
I think no matter what party you support it's hard to argue with his points here.
"As this will almost certainly be my last speech in Parliament, I shall try hard not to upset anyone. However, our debate here tonight is a grim reminder of how the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are betraying some of Labour's most cherished beliefs. Not content with tossing aside the ideas and ideals that inspire and inform ideology, they seem to be giving up on values too. Liberty, without which democracy has no meaning, and the rule of law, without which state power cannot be contained, look to Parliament for their protection, but this Parliament, sad to say, is failing the nation badly. It is not just the Government but Back-Bench Members who are to blame. It seems that in situations such as this, politics become incompatible with conscience, principle, decency and self-respect. Regrettably, in such situations, the desire for power and position predominates.
As we move towards a system of justice that found favour with the South African Government at the time of apartheid and which parallels Burmese justice today, if hon. Members will pardon the oxymoron, I am reminded that our fathers fought and died for liberty-my own father literally-believing that these things should not happen here, and we would never allow them to happen here. But now we know better. The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here.
In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say that they are behaving tyrannically and trying to make nonsense of the House of Lords' decision in A and Others as appellants v. the Home Secretary as respondent because they are frightened, and that the rest of us would be frightened too if only we knew what they will not tell us. They preach the politics of fear and ask us to support political incarceration on demand and punishment without trial.
Sad to say, I do not trust the judgment of either our thespian Prime Minister or our Home Secretary, especially given the latter's performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It did not take Home Office civil servants or the secret police long to put poison in his water, did it? Paper No. 1, entitled "International Terrorism: the Threat", which the Home Secretary produced yesterday and I have read, is a putrid document if it is intended to justify the measure. Indeed, the Home Secretary dripped out bits of it and it sounded no better as he spoke than it read. Why does he insult the House? Why cannot he produce a better argument than that?
How on earth did a Labour Government get to the point of creating what was described in the House of Lords hearing as a "gulag" at Belmarsh? I remind my hon. Friends that a gulag is a black hole into which people are forcibly directed without hope of ever getting out. Despite savage criticisms by nine Law Lords in 250 paragraphs, all of which I have read and understood, about the creation of the gulag, I have heard not one word of apology from the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Worse, I have heard no word of apology from those Back Benchers who voted to establish the gulag.
Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that once one has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, it becomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote to destroy them.
Many Members have gone nap on the matter. They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury in more serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, to create a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes. It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next.I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent into hell, which is not a place where I want to be.
I hope that-but doubt whether-ethical principles and liberal thought will triumph tonight over the lazy minds and disengaged consciences that make Labour's Whips Office look so ridiculous and our Parliament so unprincipled.
It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701 has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace. May the Government be damned for it."
#2
Scooby Regular
Iyt will be sad to see him go, Unfortunately I can't see his sucessor being anything other than another BLiar apologist though
#4
It is to be hoped that an excellent speech like that is given full publicity by the Media, if they have the nerve to do it that is. I also hope that it might stir the consciences of the more honourable members of the old Labour Party.
He has hit the nail on the head and indicated the frightening direction in which NL is pointing this country.
Les
He has hit the nail on the head and indicated the frightening direction in which NL is pointing this country.
Les
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
I agree with every sentiment posted so far.
Unfortunately, I see parallels in the way NL are trying to force this through, with the way they conned parliament and the people over the Iraq war Frighten them with things YOU "know" but "can't tell for reasons of national security", then do as you like.)
I'm also minded that VERY LITTLE of the poor press about hospitals, education etc has been heard or seen since this lot hit the front pages. More spin?
Alcazar
Unfortunately, I see parallels in the way NL are trying to force this through, with the way they conned parliament and the people over the Iraq war Frighten them with things YOU "know" but "can't tell for reasons of national security", then do as you like.)
I'm also minded that VERY LITTLE of the poor press about hospitals, education etc has been heard or seen since this lot hit the front pages. More spin?
Alcazar
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent speech!! This whole new bill really does scare the cr@p out of me with the whole implications it carries with it.... the sad thing is maybe only 0.001% of the Uk population will realise what it means to this country.
Trending Topics
#8
Yes I agree totally with that comment from UB. Shows that a bit of real wisdom from the upper house could save us all from an unmitigated disaster. This is what the House of Lords is there for.
Have to remember that the Queen can prorogue Parliament too if they overreach themselves any more.
Les
Have to remember that the Queen can prorogue Parliament too if they overreach themselves any more.
Les
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Sedgemore
Sad to say, I do not trust the judgment of either our thespian Prime Minister or our Home Secretary, especially given the latter's performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It did not take Home Office civil servants or the secret police long to put poison in his water, did it? Paper No. 1, entitled "International Terrorism: the Threat", which the Home Secretary produced yesterday and I have read, is a putrid document if it is intended to justify the measure. Indeed, the Home Secretary dripped out bits of it and it sounded no better as he spoke than it read. Why does he insult the House? Why cannot he produce a better argument than that?
.....
It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701 has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace. May the Government be damned for it."
.....
It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701 has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace. May the Government be damned for it."
Sorry, just thought those bits were worth repeating...
#10
At last! A leftie who is both honest and has a conscience. Blimey - if only they were all like that.
Shame they're not brave enough to speak up until they're on their way out.
Great speech - and one that could be applied to most of the drivel produced by Labour during the current parliament.
G
Shame they're not brave enough to speak up until they're on their way out.
Great speech - and one that could be applied to most of the drivel produced by Labour during the current parliament.
G
#11
I constructed a really succint and powerful argument on this subject and when I went to post it the fecking BBS software lost my post that I took twenty minutes writing and ensuring its acuracy. Using the backbutton did not bring my text back GRRRrrrr Not the first time it has happened. pissed off........
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by blueone
I constructed a really succint and powerful argument on this subject and when I went to post it the fecking BBS software lost my post that I took twenty minutes writing and ensuring its acuracy. Using the backbutton did not bring my text back GRRRrrrr Not the first time it has happened. pissed off........
Git I know!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post