Posted on by qscrisp

The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here.

Below, find MP Brian Sedgemoor's last speech in the House of Commons:

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.

24 Replies to “The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here.”

  2. Dear Q,

    I have been a supporter of OWOS since they were formed in the build up to the Iraq war. The Guardian wrote about them in February 2003 (which is how I heard about them) – calling for an independent inquiry into the reasons for going to war. My understanding is that she is not a ‘patron’. Campaigns I have supported include a ‘Virtual March’ on the US Embassy when George Bush came to the UK, a campaign against the assault on Fallujah, a Valentine’s Day boycott of Altria (formerly Philip Morris) and the campaign to drop the charges against whistle-blower Katherine Gun.

    I have phoned OWOS and been invited to drop into their office (in Brighton), my understanding is that all supporters are welcome to do so. I hope this is helpful.

    Thanks for your interesting and informative journal.

    All the best,
    C

  3. It should be noted that the MP in question was attacking his own party. It’s a sign that things have gone badly wrong. I wish I knew what to do about this kind of thing. All I can do for the moment is try and spread information, such as this, about the true situation, where and when I can. At the very least, the speech deserves to be heard and read.

  5. Not much I can say really. I am just adding this comment so that this post gets on the last commented list then hopefully the most active list so that more people see it.

  6. Q.,
    You may not have time to read the book (though I hope you do) but there’s an interesting, informative, summary on the following website:

    http://www.unionhistory.info/ragged/ragged.php

    Perhaps you can tell me how to indent links to site addresses, so that I can make this happen more efficiently -by helping the reader to just click on and go there- when I am posting a comment or when I am posting a journal entry. Thanks.

  8. You can find a little about the organisation http://www.owos.info/about_owos/about.php">here</a&gt;.

    I have now written them an e-mail advising them to include more information about who they are on their site. Their affilations seem to be basically of the CND Greenpeace ilk. I have subscribed to their newsletter for some time, but actually, I ascribe to a few of these, so I might be getting some details mixed up in my head. I thought they were patronised by Anita Roddick, but I can’t see anything about her on the site, so maybe that was one of the other ones. In other words – I remember her being affiliated, but my memory may be at fault here.

    In order to make links you need to use the pointy brackets. I will replace these with round brackets in order to show you the procedure: (a href=”http://www.owos.info/about_owos/about.php")the bit in the speech marks is the URL, and this is the text that, when clicked, will take you there(/a). Remember, replace round brackets with pointy ones.

  10. No I didn’t. Because my wife wanted to watch the Harold Shipman Horror Show. I applaud what you are doing Q. Your power with the pen, and your sometimes acerbic wit, does not hide your sensitivity to the things that are happening. The day you become indifferent to such things will be the day you have lost all feeling (I feel certain you will never get to that stage). I have not ‘given up on protest’, should my last – lengthy – posting imply otherwise. In fact I have had rather a lot of practice, during my lifetime. E. once remarked, having read one of my journals (see my archives) that my generation had failed her generation and that her generation would fail the next. There is no real answer to that indictment. We did what we thought we had to do. We persisted, noisily, raucously, doggedly If we did not ‘overcome’ the system (Vietnam marches refer) it was not for lack of trying. I am easy with my conscience on that one.

  11. I have been using my vote in UK general elections since I reached my majority,back in 1964. You might suppose that since then I have become immune to shock, abhorrence, and similar emotions, but you would be wrong. Although I am a philosopher by choice and usually attempt to examine most debates rationally and respond in like manner (so I would say), yet I find the continuous ‘creep’, by successive British governments, towards a form of what I can only explain as ‘accepted democratic totalitarianism’ both horrendous and abhorrent.

    Have I just invented an oxymoronic figure of speech there? Let me try to explain what I meant: ‘Accepted’, in the sense that we wring our hands but the majority of us then seem to either ‘shrug’ and mutter ‘What can you do, no one listens?’ or bristle defensively and snap ‘Government’s got to do everything to stop these madmen!'(but one might ask -are the madmen now in government?). ‘democratic totalitarianism’, in the sense that although the first adjective implies the upholding or favouring democracy or the interests of the common people,and the second adjective implies a dictatorial one-party state that regulates every realm of life and, at first sight, both are incompatible together,are we not,in that ‘creep’ stage I spoke of earlier, blending
    from the one into the other, by stealth, on the part of Government,and apathy on the part of the general public or – and the thought is a terrifying one – a ‘willing agreement’ on the part of the public?

    Emily gave a clear, concise, view on what I would describe as the ‘US phenomenon’. That ‘willingness’, that ‘childlike innocence’, that ‘absolute belief’ (so it would,most times,seem) that what the US does (through its President and both Houses) must be right and to criticize it or to defy its statements and actions is both downright ‘un-American’, treasonable and ‘letting down our boys in the field’. How many times have I become aware of this type of ‘rhetoric’, used to justify US policy on a recurring theme, from Korea to Vietnam, from Vietnam to Panama and so on. The list is a long one, only the names have now changed to blur the historical similarities. Is my critique anti-American per se? I would argue that it is not, but to those who hold that so called ‘childlike innocence’ I mentioned earlier it might appear to be so, but then I would simply ask them to open their eyes. To ask pointed questions. To not be afraid. To ‘oppose’ if it seems right to do so when the facts dictate that this would be the rational, justifiable course of action.

    But the present British ‘phenomen’ is another thing altogether. Unlike the USA -from whom we are separated by a common language- we always prided ourselves, so our folklore tells us, as being more discerning than the Americans. We had a different custom, a ‘native instinct’, an ability, as well as a desire, to be radical, to ‘rock the boat’, to raise an eyebrow when something is clearly not what says it is. To be sceptical when the Union flag is waved – for it might be in the hand of a monarchist who never read history, or in the hands of a fascist who wants to relive history. I use the past tense only because I am no longer certain that we are the people described in those terms. We ‘creep’,as I put it earlier, towards the same self destruction of our freedom as our American counterparts do in their infamous ‘Patriot Act’ (but would the Democrats, had they been in Governement, have brought in such an Act? Republicans would most likely say not. Republicans have long described Democrats as ‘Liberals’ which, in American parlance is a scornful term, used as a perjorative by Republicans to denigrate the ‘Opposition’ party). We do all of these things because we are incapable of taking a view unfettered – some would say unchained – by our curious,’sad’, allegiance -similiar to a vassel state- to the USA, to whom we pay homage, diplomatically, politically, economically and,increasingly, culturally.

    Brian Sedgemoors’s speech should be given the widest coverage, but I fear that the speculative explanation I gave in paragraph two,see ‘but one might ask -are the madmen now in government?’, will prove to be true and the course of this Government (UK) will continue unchecked. Their actions are irrational and unreasonable but, most of all their actions are cynical, shameful and undermine our democracy and our freedom.

    ~~lokutus-prime~~

  12. Dear Q,

    This was very depressing to me. It’s clear that the same kinds of problems we’re experiencing here in the US (with the Patriot Act and such) are happening everywhere. I watched and listened to a lot of the discussion (via the very cool link) because I found it completely fascinating. It was shocking and surprising to hear an English politician reminding his fellows that they are functioning in a “post 9/11” era. I mean, no matter who you think was really behind 9/11, (and I’m not going to go into that here), it was still an attack on American soil. The fact that governments other than my own are using it to create “vacuum” systems of injust punishment that allow the punished no recourse, no way to defend themselves makes it all the more apparent what a brilliant tool fear is for controlling people. How could they not jump on board? But what I don’t understand how the “people in charge” could ever justify this kind of thing. What are they being offered that has made it worthwhile to sell out the idea of freedom and individual human sovereignty? No amount of money or power seems like enough. I feel very frightened, but not of Al Qaeda. I fear the unstoppable force of absoute power which has been seized and is being defended by those who falsely purport to have our best interests at heart. The worst part is that there are so many people, at least here in America, who are all to happy to have their rights stripped away because they refuse to believe that their government could ever do anything evil, and because they have been brainwashed into thinking that some brown people in the desert want them dead. Our governments don’t have to take our rights away. We’re relinquishing them freely because we have no foresight, and because all we care about is being able to watch TV and buy new cars and have our insurance companies pay for Viagara. Mass apathy, and distraction and the maintenance of our anxiety – this is the recipe for enslaving an entire nation.It’s terrible, and sad, and unfightable, I think.

    M

  13. Hello Dr. Prime. Thanks for the comment. I am experiencing difficulties with my computer, so this may not be a long reply.

    I would just like to say that I intend to vote Liberal at the next election. I will do this because, it seems to me, there is no other choice. I cannot, in all conscience, bring myself to vote for a war-criminal and shameless liar – Tony Blair – and to vote Conservative would be equally unpalatable. Also, I cannot see by and not register my dissent by not voting. So it has to be the Liberal party.

    Also, if they push through proportional representation, there’s a higher chance of our votes really counting for something in the future.

  14. from http://www.londonist.com/archives/2005/02/i_shall_try_har.php">The Londonist’s post on this story

    Tony Blair (2005): “There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack”.

    Benjamin Franklin (1755): “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    Posted by: Dan

    In Britain, Blair says preservation of life is more important than the preservation of our liberties.

    In Iraq, Tony Blair says liberties are more important than the preservation of Iraqi lives.

    Hmm.
    Posted by: Will

  15. Yes, it’s all exceedingly odd, isn’t it? I have been saying to my wife and kids for some time now, the Libs sound increasingly like the old Labour Party I knew and voted for (and loved) and the NewLabour party sounds like the old Tory party and the present Tory party sounds helpless, as they huddle stark naked wondering where to turn to. Further right looks ok, so long as they can convince everyone that in fact they are left of centre, somewhere.

  16. I appreciate your concerns, and the appearance of the link here is not my personal endorsement of the pressure group in question. Nonetheless, after weighing things up, I decided to sign the petition, post a link here, and send the petition round to some of my friends. I have even made a donation. These are the decisions I personally made, and I only put the links here so that others can make those decisions should they be interested.

    I have read a little about the members, but never having met them, I cannot vouch for them personally.

  20. I don’t know if you saw it, but there was a fairly high profile documentary last night about the system of torture used with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. I found it utterly horrifying, and it only increased my conviction that the very least I can do is sign a petition asking that our own government not kowtow to the government of the USA.

  22. Hello Dr Prime. Thank you for your comments. I shall paste below an e-mail I have just received from OWOS:

    Dear Quentin Crisp

    I was tremendously heartened by the response I received to the email I sent to you on Sunday night. Thanks very much for your kind donation – because of the swift response we received we were able to place a full-page advert in Tuesday’s Independent. You can see a copy at
    http://www.owos.info/documents/OWOSI340x262240205AW4.pdf&gt;

    There is much to be alarmed about. Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker in January this year, said:

    “In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election… The war on terrorism would be expanded…”

    And Scott Ritter, a former leading UN weapons inspectors, said that George Bush has already “signed off” on plans to attack Iran as early as June. There has also been much talk of an attack on Syria.

    It is crucial that this is made a key issue in the election. The fact is that once the elections are out of the way we may find ourselves bounced into supporting a US attack as early as this summer.

    That’s why our Election Campaign will focus on asking the main party leaders to pledge not to support any attacks on Iran, Syria… or any other sovereign state. The more people who sign a message asking the party leaders to make this pledge, the more pressure we can bring to bear.

    Over the next few days, we will putting the campaign online – we’ll let you know as soon as you can take action. In the meantime, you can access a copy of Seymour Hersh’s article, ‘The Coming Wars’, from http://www.ourworldoursay.org

    Thank you again for your generosity and support, which enabled us to launch this campaign so quickly. The views of the British people may have been ignored before the attack on Iraq, but this time, with the election looming, we have a real chance to put Tony Blair and the other
    party leaders in a position where they can’t say ‘yes’ to George Bush.

    With all best wishes

    Simone La Corbinière – for the OWOS team.

  23. Hello Q.,
    Much as I dislike what this government has done, is doing, I am ‘cautious’ about lending active support to any pressure group, unless I am giving an opportunity to see more details on the undererpin, the organization, the members, the ‘main names’. This does not imply I like to both have my cake and eat it. I look for names and identities, for origins and affiliations, in order to see whom I am brushing shoulders with. I am old enough to recall, during my teenage, and then in the sixties, the Marxist ‘moles’ who entered the old Labour Party through various guises – shop stewards for example – and proceeded to undermine the party.

    At the same time there were continual dialectic squabbles in fringe groupings between Trotskyists and Marxists Labour party members – note: these people never stood for party elections under their own ideological banners but called themselves ‘Labour’ candidates. Trojan Horses were everywhere. Read the history of that period and you will see how fractious those times were. Debates and counter debates, arguments on ideology, arguments on ‘shades’, on what the colour of ‘true socialism’ was, or should be. Clashes, between Labour party and Trades Unions (ironic) and so on. Those were gritty, shitty times. Not as romantic as portrayed by some writers (to view a ‘gritty shitty example’ of non-ramantic exposition you may be interested in reading “The Ragged Trousered Philantrophists”, by Robert Tressel. ISBN 0-586-01811-5, first published in Great Britain by Lawrence & Wishart 1955. My copy has an introduction by Alan Sillitoe).

    The essence of what ‘Socialism’ should be (originally clearly laid down by the ‘founding fathers’,in the Constitution together with stated ‘principles’ not aligned with either Marx or Engel) was always being questioned and debated. Very little real progress was made on the things that actually needed to be done; the things that voters had giving them a mandate to do. Strikes were endemic in the motor manufacturing industry, in the coal, steel, & transport (rail) sectors (though I must emphasise that these also took place under Tory Governments as well, culminating -as you will know- in the brutal and bloody suppression, by Margaret Thatcher’s administrationc of the year long Coal miners’ strike in the early 1980s).

    Perhaps the promises were extravagant. Dreams have to be paid for, if they are to be more than just that. Small wonder the Conservatives won more elections up to and including 1979, the Labour party had exhausted itself and the electorate, had lost sight of realistic objectives. The Unions had played a large part in their defeat. Lest you think I speak merely as an academic I must tell you that I have been a member of two unions, at different times; one represented Merchant Navy employees, one represented Broadcasting (TV&Radio) employees and I have insight into how things were run and the ‘games’ played by both sides.

    If I lend support to a cause it is usually because I have seen who and what they are – their ‘prominent’ names, before I had made the decision. Returning to my question ‘….more details on the undererpin, the organization, the members, the ‘main names…’ -Do you have any more information? I cannot see an answer on the site you directed me to.

  24. Hello Charleys. Thank you very much for posting. I’m afraid I’ve been a bit out of touch, so I’ve only just noticed your comment – one month after you posted it.

    Katherine Gun is my hero.

    Well, all the best,

    Quentin.

Leave a Reply