So Brian Haw has been protesting about the Iraq war for four years. He's been doing this outside the Houses of Parliment, a tad embarrassing but hardly a security risk - and he's been there for so long that if he'd wished to overthrow democracy he'd have had time to do it by now and it would have been easier before the increase in security measures recently introduced.
Anyway. Blair and Co have little else to do right now so they decided to implement a new law which means that anyone wishing to demonstrate or protest within shouting distance of our elected representatives must get a chit from the Met first. This legislation goes by the posh title of the "Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005)" and many think it was aimed directly at getting Mr Haw to sod off home and leave the MPs alone but the legislators messed up when they wrote the law and Brian can stay. The BBC coverage is here. Congratulations Brian!
Anyway. Blair and Co have little else to do right now so they decided to implement a new law which means that anyone wishing to demonstrate or protest within shouting distance of our elected representatives must get a chit from the Met first. This legislation goes by the posh title of the "Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005)" and many think it was aimed directly at getting Mr Haw to sod off home and leave the MPs alone but the legislators messed up when they wrote the law and Brian can stay. The BBC coverage is here. Congratulations Brian!
8 careful considerations:
What is a "chit from the Met"?...I'm a Yankee you know.
"Chit from the met" = Signed authorisation ("a chitty") from the Metropolitan Police :-)
What a hero! I think I will post him a card.
I think a chittling is a type of sausage.
Brian Haw knows the difference between right and wrong and he's prepared to say it, good on him. Strange that the Mother of Parliaments doesn't care a fig about free speech.
Hi Lobster.
I think it's difficult to determine that anyone knows the difference between right and wrong based on a single issue but I agree that he's certainly brave to stand up for what he believes in.
It's also tricky suggesting that the Mother of Parliment's doesn't care about free speech based on a single argument in a single case but I think it's an indicator that the current administration are more interested in spin and style than truth and facts. I'd hate to think that the British Parliment became tainted with the actions of this government any more than it's been tainted by others in the past.
Whoa, steady on here Nogbad. The law has twice been changed to try to remove Brian Haw, and he won his last case in the High Court. It isn't a chance happening that one man is being persecuted, he's a serious embarassment to all in parliament who voted for an unjust war.
Mr Haw is standing alone, in a peaceful manner, for what he thinks is right. That's enough to tell me that he knows the difference between right and wrong.
It's singularly dispicable that this government has done so much to erode civil liberties in the manner that they have. The point I was trying to make, admittedly clumsily, is that Parliment per se is being dragged through the dirt by Blair and co but the antics of one administration shouldn't be allowed to demean the concept of the "Mother of Parliments" - that has to continue in order that we can correct the mistakes being made now.
Well we have to do this by electing representatives who respect and understand issues such as freedom of speech.
Post a Comment