Taking Liberties [Full Film]

by futureproducernet on 31 Dec 2010

The shocking truth about the erosion of our fundamental civil liberties by Tony Blair’s government will be exposed this summer in TAKING LIBERTIES, released on DVD in the UK cinemas by Revolver Entertainment October 15th 2007. Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself. TAKING LIBERTIES uncovers the stories the government don’t want you to hear — so ridiculous you will laugh, so ultimately terrifying you will want to take action. Teenage sisters detained for 36 hours for a peaceful protest; an RAF war veteran arrested for wearing an anti-Bush and Blair T-shirt; an innocent man shot in a police raid; and a man held under house arrest for two years, after being found innocent in court. Ordinary law-abiding citizens being punished for exercising their ‘rights’ — rights that have been fought for over centuries, and which seem to have been extinguished in a decade. — http://www.noliberties.com

Educate Yourself Freely @
http://www.truth.futureproducer.net
http://astrotheology.webs.com
http://crossingtheeventhorizon.webs.com
http://cropcirclestruth.webs.com
http://magicalegypt.webs.com
http://vortexmath.webs.com
http://jiddukrishnamurti.webs.com
http://thegreatwork.webs.com
http://everythingzeitgeist.webs.com
http://thepyramidcode.webs.com
http://feedthefire.webs.com

The media material presented in this production is protected by the FAIR USE CLAUSE of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which allows for the rebroadcast of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and education.

Category:
Education

UNDECLARED WAR ON YOU AND YOURS!!

CCTV….NOTHING TO HIDE- NOTHING TO FEAR………..YET THE VERY SAME FOLK THAT SAY THIS ARE THE FIRST TO RAIL AGAINST NAZI GERMANY FOR HAVING ID CARDS IMPOSED ON THE PEOPLE…

A FILM AFTER THE EVENT- ISN’T MUCH USE = IF YOU’RE DEAD,RAPED,BEATEN UP ETC.

NOTHING TO HIDE- NOTHING TO FEAR….WHEN HITLER DID THIS- WOW HE WAS CALLED FASCIST!

Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Is Britain headed for dictatorship?
In 1933, Adolf Hitler managed to get his Enabling Act through the German parliament, which gave him absolute power over Germany in the event of an emergency. Once this Act was in place, Hitler declared an emergency and the rest is, as they say, history.

Over on Samizdata, David Carr is worried that the British government is pushing through its very own Enabling Act in the form of the Civil Contingencies Bill.

Having read the Bill myself in detail now, it seems to me Carr’s concerns are entirely justified. I find myself wishing I’d paid more attention to this earlier. So what is the cause for concern?

Under this Bill, Cabinet Ministers (and government Whips!) can declare a state of emergency in the UK, or any part of it, orally.

An emergency is defined in a very loose manner that would cover, e.g. the fuel protests of 2001. The conditions for making such a declaration are that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur, that it is necessary to make provision to mitigate, control or prevent the emergency or an aspect of it and that the need for the provision is urgent[see Sections 19 to 21].

Note that a Minister merely needs to be “satisfied” (i.e. believes/thinks that) the conditions apply. There is no test of “reasonableness” that might enable, e.g. a court challenge.

Furthermore, as Spy.org.uk notes, there is no provision for authentication of Ministers’ orders or for punishing the false declaration of an emergency and there is no punishment for abusing emergency powers.

On declaring such an emergency, Ministers acquire the power to make regulations for any of the following purposes [Section 22(2)]:

•protecting human life, health or safety,

•treating human illness or injury,

•protecting or restoring property,

•protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,

•protecting or restoring an electronic or other system of communication,

•protecting or restoring facilities for transport,

•protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health,

•protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions,

•preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or
air,

•preventing, or mitigating the effects of, flooding,

•preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or
destruction of plant life or animal life,

•protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish
Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National
Assembly for Wales, or

•protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.
I.e. just about any purpose imaginable.

Furthermore, the Act explicitly states that regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by Royal Prerogative[Section 22(3)]. Under the British system of government, this is absolute power.

The Act reinforces this by explicitly listing the making of provisions[Section22(3)] to:

•(a) confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers,
on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern Ireland
department, on a coordinator appointed under section 24 or on any
other specified person (and a function conferred may, in particular,
be—

◦(i) a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion;
◦(ii) a power to give directions or orders, whether written or oral);
•(b) provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with
or without compensation);[i.e. everything you or your business owns could be confiscated without compensation]

•(c) provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant
life (with or without compensation);[i.e. everything you or your business owns could be destroyed without compensation]

•(d) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified
place;[i.e. you could be indefinitely imprisonened]

•(e) require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified
place;

•(f) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at
specified places or at specified times;[i.e. banning all forms of protest, but also note that Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are all assemblies!]

•(g) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;

•(h) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;[i.e. banning anything at all!]

•(i) create an offence of—

◦(i) failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
◦(ii) failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under
◦the regulations;
◦(iii) obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or
◦by virtue of the regulations;
•(j) disapply or modify an enactment (other than a provision of this Part) or
a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment;

•(k) require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether
the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether
or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or
compensation);

•(l) enable the Defence Council to authorise the deployment of Her
Majesty’s armed forces;

•(m) make provision (which may include conferring powers in relation to
property) for facilitating any deployment of Her Majesty’s armed
forces;

•(n) confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which may include a tribunal
established by the regulations);[i.e. set up courts/tribunals that bypass the normal legal system!]

•(o) make provision which has effect in relation to, or to anything done in—

◦(i) an area of the territorial sea,
◦(ii) an area within British fishery limits, or
◦(iii) an area of the continental shelf;
•(p) make provision which applies generally or only in specified
circumstances or for a specified purpose;

•(q) make different provision for different circumstances or purposes.

I.e. just about any provision imaginable.

Note that under existing laws, as I understand it, Parliament has to agree a state of emergency, whereas under this Bill it is the senior members of the executive, along with the Queen, who hold the power to declare an emergency without Parliament getting a look in. Once this is done, they have absolute power over us.

This Bill is currently in the Lords and was rushed through Parliament with the third reading “guillotined” so that opposition amendments were not debated and the Bill was passed “on the nod”. The government want it on the statute books before the next Queen’s Speech in November.

Posted by James at 10:29 PM

IT WAS NODDED THROUGH INTO LAW- WITH ONLY ONE OBJECTION- D.HOWARTH LIBDEM.

2 comments:
maggie said…
hello, is this still the case? has this very disturbing law been passed? sorry I am a Chinese living in China, just by accident while searching a topic, ran into this blog. it would be nice to be able to chat with you about this kind of issues. my name is maggie: mettamount@gmail.com. Thank you

6:11 AM
Auto Accident Attorney Houston, Texas said…
This law should not be passed otherwise the complete power will be transferred to the ministers.

http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/2004/10/is-britain-headed-for-dictatorship.html

SHOUT ALL YOU WANT- THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO WHAT THEY WANT- AND THEY DO!!

YOU GAVE IT TO THEM!!!

THE COLD HAND OF BOLSHAVISM- FASCISM-COMMUNISM- NAZISM- BUT CERTAINLY NOT DEMOCRACY!!

Britain prepares its own version of US Patriot Act
By Richard Tyler
21 January 2004
The Civil Contingencies Bill, published on January 7, is meant to serve as a legal veneer for the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair to defend its own existence during an “emergency”. It grants ministers draconian powers to remove fundamental civil liberties.

According to the government, existing legislation is inadequate to deal with the threats posed to Britain post 9/11. The new law will replace earlier Emergency Powers Acts and Civil Defence Acts, drawn up mainly to deal with industrial unrest and a possible Soviet attack.

The bill enables the government to declare a state of emergency without a parliamentary vote. Moreover, ministers are empowered to introduce “emergency regulations” under the Royal Prerogative, again without recourse to parliament. The scope of such regulations is virtually unlimited. They contain the power to “give directions or orders” including the destruction of property, prohibiting assemblies, banning travel and outlawing “other specified activities”.

Failure to comply with the regulations or an order made under them becomes a criminal offence that can be punished by up to three months in jail or a hefty fine.

The new legislation enables the Defence Council—a body comprised of ministers, senior civil servants and military top brass—to deploy the armed services without prior parliamentary debate or approval. Most ominously emergency regulations may be passed “protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty’s Government” effectively allowing the Defence Council absolute power.

Tony Bunyan, from the civil liberties organisation Statewatch, dubbed the legislation “Britain’s Patriot Act”. He warned, “At a stroke democracy could be replaced by totalitarianism …

“The powers available to the government and state agencies would be truly draconian. Cities could be sealed off, travel bans introduced, all phones cut off, and web sites shut down. Demonstrations could be banned and the news media be made subject to censorship. New offences against the state could be ‘created’ by government decree.”

Although the threat of terrorist outrages is being employed to justify the proposed measures, past experience indicates that the concerns of the government are more to do with suppressing domestic opposition to its pro-big business policies.

Since World War I, a state of emergency has been declared in Britain less than a dozen times, the last being in 1974, in each case because of strikes or other industrial action. Most recently, Home Secretary David Blunkett declared a “technical” state of emergency in order to suspend parts of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting detention without trial, to be able to intern foreign “terrorist” suspects.

A state of emergency was not called once as a result of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, despite the 1979 assassinations of former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Mountbatten and shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Airey Neave at the House of Commons and the attempted assassination of almost the entire Conservative cabinet in the 1984 Brighton bombing.

The powers granted to government ministers under existing emergency legislation were already draconian and wide-ranging, including imposing travel bans, food rationing and cutting off communications. Many of these powers are simply transferred to the new legislation.

But as Statewatch notes, earlier legislation like the 1920 Emergency Powers Act was concerned with preserving the “essentials of life” in an emergency, such as the food supply, utilities and transport. In contrast the original draft of the Civil Contingencies Bill, first published last summer, sought to extend the government’s emergency powers to preserve “the political, administrative or economic stability of the United Kingdom or of a part or region.”

This paragraph came in for heavy criticism from many civil liberties organisations, and even from the Labour-dominated parliamentary Joint Committee, since it provides a blank cheque for a government to pass legislation to preserve its own existence in the absence of any real emergency.

The Joint Committee expressed its disapproval in their report on the Bill: “We have grave reservations about allowing enabling legislation to contain exploitable opportunities that could give the government of the day the power to protect its own existence when there may be no other threat to human welfare.”

In its response to the Joint Committee, published at the same time as the redrafted Bill, the government has agreed to remove the specific wording that caused objection. However, the ability to enact emergency laws to preserve “political, administrative or economic stability” remains, according to the government, since any threats to such stability “if they were serious enough to justify use of emergency powers, [would] be captured within the definition of human welfare” set out in the new bill.

The Cabinet Office minister in charge of the legislation, Douglas Alexander, said the government had made some “small changes” to the bill ahead of its passage through parliament and praised many of those who had made submissions: “I am very grateful for the work of the Joint Committee, the Defence Committee and others involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. I am also pleased that so many practitioners took time to contribute to the policy development process. The bill has benefited significantly from their contributions.”

Scandalously, the human rights organisation Liberty said of these superficial amendments, “The government has taken a step in the right direction.”

Liberty’s director, Shami Chakrabarti, told BBC Radio 4, “There has been a real listening and very detailed engagement. There may be further work to be done as the bill goes through parliament, but there is cause to welcome it. I have to give a certain amount of credit to Mr. Alexander and his colleagues.”

Far from being a “step in the right direction”, the Civil Contingencies Bill creates a legal framework for the most far-reaching assaults on basic democratic rights. Since it came to office in 1997 the Labour government has introduced a raft of legislation attacking civil liberties: allowing the indefinite internment of alleged foreign terrorists, ending the right to jury trials for some offences, limiting the “double jeopardy” rule, legalising the mass surveillance of email, to name but a few.

One section of the Civil Contingencies Bill could have been lifted directly from the programme of Ariel Sharon’s government in Israel, one of the world’s most repressive regimes. In permitting ministers or other officials to order the destruction of someone’s property, the new law enshrines a power that has been used with terrible results in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where those deemed to be opponents of the state can have their homes and businesses raised to the ground by armed bulldozers.

* * *

Reference:
Statewatch: UK Civil Contingencies Bill published – Britain’s “Patriot Act”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/patri-j21.shtml

YOU WATCH TV- FOOTBALL- HOLIDAYS-BOOZE-DRUGS-SEX ETC ETC DISTRACTION USED TO BRING INTO LAW ALL THE POWERS THE ZIONIST NEED TO PUT THE BOOT IN!

HAPPY VIEWING….CREATED BY HOLLYWOOD TO OCCUPY YOUR MINDS.

“OUR DEMOCRACY”- HENCE THEY KEEP SAYING IT – IN THE HOPE YOU’LL JUST BELIEVE THE SHIT!

9-11 7-7 INSIDE JOBS!

NEEDED FOR WARS AND TO BRING IN DRACONIAN FASCIST LAWS.

ZOG OF BRITAIN- BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY YOUR FRIENDLY ZIONIST BANKERS.

1917- 2011 On Going.

2 responses to “Taking Liberties [Full Film]

  1. IF YOU DIDN’T KNOW- WHY NOT?

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/patri-j21.shtml

    http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/2004/10/is-britain-headed-for-dictatorship.html

    LBC Radio evening and night shows…presentors are trying to come over as- we know there is a conspiracy b4 we didn’t realise……………but when tested- they quickly end the call…………..last night a lady was on about some guy in prison without charge…7 years so far………..off she was cut….another lady tried later- same case- again off she went.
    So within reason example if the subject is already common knowledge talk is allowed……go deeper down the Rabbit hole and that is where Censorship kicks in.

    Douglas Reed in his book- speaks of the censorship back then in the war years and afterwards…..today it’s normal!
    Reed said…
    Syndicates in USA apparently send our premitted world news….journos are not free if they are owned…media whore’s.

    WARS – ALLOWED WITH THE NOD OF[ MINISTERS BANKER PUPPETS HEADS]

    VOTING MEANS ZILTCH!

    LIBLABCONS FABIAN / ZIONIST OCCUPIED GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN- TOTALITARIAN REGIME!

    TAXING EVERY PENNY YOU OWN- TRANSFERING IT TO THE ELITE FABIAN BANKING FAMILIES – THE PARASITES’ ON BRITAINS BACK!

    NOW ON LIBYAS..HERI LEVY MADE SURE OF THAT AND NATO…

    The Future of Libya
    Posted by Socrates in ‘Middle East’, Cultural Marxism, Israel, Israel – the facts, Libya, Neocons, Socrates, Zionism, democracy, democrazy, tikkun olam, universities at 1:04 pm | Permanent Link
    Ira Goldbergwitz: “Just think, Ben. Soon, Libya will be a pro-Israel democracy filled with fast-food restaurants, shopping malls and rebellious, over-sexed teenagers.”

    Ben Silversteinfeld: “Yes, indeed, Ira. I can see scores of ‘progressive’ universities all over Libya with Jewish professors teaching ‘gender studies’ and ‘queer theory.’ Tikkun olam, Ira – it’s a beautiful thing!”

    [Article].

    http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/20110321/the-future-of-libya/

    Nom de Guerre Says:

    23 March, 2011 at 8:04 am

    We have to admit that Whites as a group are sliding down the scale in terms of intelligence, the will to exist has never been at such a low level. Blame Xtianity for this, this is the culmination of Xtianity maddness, they did the same thing to classical civilization, when they were laughed out of society in general, they went underground and produced a living hell.

  2. THE OPIUM WARS – WAS BRITAINS- RIGHT?

    WRONG- AGAIN TAKING THE BLAME FOR WHAT JEWS DID…

    VIDEO

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5372926994386405906#

    THE TAIWAN QUESTION..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s