The Early Days of a Better Nation |
Ken MacLeod's comments. “If these are the early days of a better nation, there must be hope, and a hope of peace is as good as any, and far better than a hollow hoarding greed or the dry lies of an aweless god.”—Graydon Saunders Contact: kenneth dot m dot macleod at gmail dot com Blog-related emails may be quoted unless you ask otherwise.
Emergency Links
LINKS
Self-promotion
The Human Genre Project
Comrades and friends
Colleagues
Genomics
Edinburgh
Writers Blog
Editor Blogs
Publisher Blogs
Brother Blogs
Skiffy
Brits Blog
' ... a treeless, flowerless land, formed out of the refuse of the Universe, and inhabited by the very bastards of Creation'
Amazing Things
Faith
Reason
Evolution
War and Revolution
Mutualist Militants
Democratic Socialists
Impossibilists and Ilk
Viva La Quarta
Communist Parties
Other revolutionaries
Radical Resources
Readable Reds
For the sake of the argument
|
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Oceania, and all its constituent republics including Airstrip One, are strong and free. This undeniable fact is admitted by all progressive and objectively-thinking mankind. A recent work by the homosexual-linked, 'public'-schooled, former colonial-police-agent emigre Blair published in the provisional capital of In Mr. Blair's pornographic depiction, from the contamination of whose foul and depraved fantasies the Ministry of Truth has quite rightly protected the citizens of Oceania, the ludicrous impression is given that freedom of speech does not exist in our country! In Airstrip One - the land of Milton, of Shakespeare, Of particular depravity is 'our' 'free-thinking' author's insinuation that the Ministry of Truth endorses and even practices heinous forms of torture. This allegation, as is well known, directly echoes the propaganda of the Finally, the objective reader cannot fail to note the revolting racially divisive intent of 'our' author's naming of his dubious 'hero': Winston Smith. As is well known, people whose ancestry can be traced to the former slave populations of the former colonial territories of the now-liberated and fully-integrated 'West Indies' enjoy complete and unrestricted equality in rights and privileges with all other citizens of Airstrip One. 28 Comments:Orwell is the gift that keeps on giving, but what's triggered your use of those tropes at this particular point in time? But seriously ... it's not topical. I had the idea many years ago (inspired by Novosti Press Agency pamphlets) and last night I just wrote it on a whim, brought on perhaps by reading The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' from Marx to Lenin by Hal Draper. Just how much credit do you give that line that 'dictatorship' in the sense of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' meant simply a temporary and limited granting of emergency powers, along the lines of similar provisions in ancient Rome? I used to find that convincing enough, now I'm more sceptical. That was the original meaning of 'dictatorship' but Draper's argument in this book (and in his big book, which I haven't read) is that for Marx and Engels 'dictatorship of the proletariat' meant, and was used interchangeably with, expressions like 'workers' state', 'political rule of the working class' and so on. It did not mean to them, as it did mean to the Russian Marxists, a specific dictatorial form of workers' state. It just meant a workers' state, full stop. For their example, they pointed to the Paris Commune.
Yes, well done. Your insides are right, of course. You ARE living in an authoritarian country, aren't you? The cameras are in more places in London and elsewhere. Saying the wrong kind of thing can get you in trouble. Torture's long been allowed, and now the trial by jury and habeas corpus your country pioneered are on the decline. It's all wrong. No, really, Anon: this is not about Britain 2008, it's a parody of the tone of certain Soviet pamphlets.
I did wonder if it was about Britain in 2008, at least for the first few sentences.
The trouble with the d of the p formulation is that it leaves the rhetorical door wide open for minority socialist dictatorship, which Marx was definitely against, and that (more significantly) has turned out rather badly, all things considered.
"Your constitution has long been buggy, lacking the checks, three-way balance, idea of a special level of law, and our bill of rights".
As opposed to 1819 when the government sabered protesters in the street, or the 1917 when the government put people in jail for criticising the war effort, or Thatcher who was, well, Thatcher, especially in NI?
Disappointed to hear it's not topical -- you had me convinced for a minute that Tony'd just made some speech in Brussels admitting to complicity in "extraordinary rendition," till I read a little more closely.
There are advantages to a formal constitution: it can be privileged, in the sense that it is a special law which cannot be easily changed. But that privilege is something we don't have in the UK. Parliament can change anything with equal ease.
Your constitution has long been buggy, lacking the checks, three-way balance, idea of a special level of law, and our bill of rights. It was three-way balanced for a long time, but the King and Lords have since lost their cred. The courts here didn't let Bush get away with taking away habeas corpus here, especially not for citizens.
Ajay wrote: This, presumably, is sarcasm.
No, anonymous, the US constitutional approach did not stop the USA from doing those things to its own citizens; the door has been thrown open there too. It usually hasn't happened so far, but only because it has not been convenient, not because of any actual and effective constitutional obstacles. Google for Glen Greenwald's writings about this.
You trust Glenn Greenwald as a source?????????? Well, I do admire your patience for being able to make it through his writings. Actually, on second thought, of course Greenwald's right. BUT. The number of tortured and/or indefinitely imprisoned citizens appears to be countable on fingers, and the numbers of noncitizens seems to be in the hundreds. I don't believe that's a coincidence. And, SCOTUS has spanked Bush on one of the citizens and ordered Padilla to the justice system with rights. I think P. M. Lawrence's point is that if they can do it once, they can do it again; precedence is a very dangerous thing in the legal world.
Anonymous, do you see the difference between the US constitution actually preventing all those things and the US government not currently doing them very much? It's the latter that is the case, and claiming that the US constitution is effective is a bit like retorting to "we've already settled that question, we're arguing about the price" with "but I haven't done it yet!".
...except, as I just wrote, the Administration LOST the court case, so what are you talking about? And, they stopped doing it after 2-3 cases (maybe after a lawyer told them they'd so lose the Padilla case?). That's some new definition of ineffectiveness that I'm missing.
OK, anonymous, I'll try a metaphor.
No, our constitution's certainly not about perfection, just being rather better, like every other good thing in reality. I pointed out you're decidedly worse off than I am, realistically, which is really the bottom line, isn't it?
I'm no great fan of the British Constitution (other than reflexively opposing any reforms of it) or of the present government, but I don't feel decidedly worse off than Americans.
Well the European Court of Human Rights (I think, or some similar body) found that the UK government was not guilty of torture against internees in the Six Counties in the early 1970s. It was merely guilty of 'cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment'.
|
Pretty good - but no doubt you will still be voting labour at the next election as well. Oh well!
By CopPorn, at Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:08:00 am