In 2015 as home secretary, Theresa May introduced draconian investigatory powers legislation, authorizing enhanced surveillance – on the phony pretext of combating terrorism ruling Tories support.
Sacrificing fundamental freedoms for greater security assures losing both, May at it again as prime minister – ahead of June 8 snap elections.
“I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation,” she roared, her declaration coming 36 hours before polls open.
Muslims are enemies of choice in America, Britain and other European countries, justifying the unjustifiable, waging war OF terror, not on it as claimed.
May favors greater domestic war on Muslims living in Britain, including the right to deport alleged terrorist suspects, even without evidence suggesting it.
In an effort to bolster her sagging support pre-election, she said
“I can tell you a few of the things I mean, (urging) longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offenses.”
“I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.”
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full.”
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
Britain already has draconian tools in place, headed by so-called Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), enhanced for added toughness in September 2011.
They permit forced relocation of individuals to government-owned accommodations elsewhere in the country, based solely on suspicions, nothing indicating they pose a threat – an extrajudicial practice grossly infringing on fundamental civil liberties.
In March 2005, so-called control orders were instituted – a social control system placing suspects under virtual house arrest, including restrictions on movement, association and employment, along with electronic tagging. Forced relocation is permitted.
These orders were issued in closed court hearings, individuals affected and their lawyers not allowed to attend – punishing people unfairly, denying them due process, based on secret “evidence” not subject to appeal.
This practice undermines judicial fairness, the presumption of innocence unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt denied – the defining feature of police state governance.
Control orders were later struck down judicially and abandoned. May wants TPIMs toughened, restoring some or perhaps all abhorrent practices control orders authorized – making Britain more of a police state than already.
Earlier promising not to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), perhaps Tories now have second thoughts.
They could amend or replace the 1998 UK Human Rights Act. Following last Saturday’s London Bridge/Borough Market attack, May promised to introduce new anti-terrorism laws, without elaboration.
In response, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said
“(i)n her years as home secretary, she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut.”
“We have been here before. A kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”
For the moment, focus is on Thursday’s snap elections, polls suggesting a possible hung parliament, coalition governance needed if things turn out this way.
If Tories retain power individually or with a hardline partner, Britain looks headed toward becoming more of a police state than already.
Perhaps other European countries and America will follow the same path.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Featured image: Parliament UK
via Global Reasearch