Do Brits Have Right of Impeachment?

If not, get ready for the roundup.

Sorry. This is not new. I missed it when it happened in February. It is, however, extremely important, and, well, extreme.

[T]he UK Independent describes the quote [...] as “the creepiest thing David Cameron has ever said.”

  Washington's Blog

Creepy? Creepy would be saying he likes to look in Queen Elizabeth's underwear drawer. This is frightening. The man is the Prime Minister, for gods' sake.

This isn’t how the leader of a major civilized Western so-called “democracy” speaks to the citizenry. It is how a master talks to his slaves. How a ruler addresses his subjects.

Yes, yes. OK. True. But did you not notice that he's saying it's not enough to obey the law?!  And it's not just David Cameron.  There is a bill currently going through British Parliament to codify anti-democratic government authority.  (Here in the US, we do these things covertly.  At least so far.)

Let's back up a minute. Here's excerpts from an RT February article:

Theresa May’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill received royal assent on Thursday, meaning tough new measures to prevent suspected terrorists from traveling to Iraq or Syria will come into force within the next 24 hours.

[...]

They include bolstering existing powers for passport removal, and will allow police to “disrupt” individuals who are suspected of leaving the country to join terror cells abroad and prevent them leaving the country while investigations are carried out.

Rounding up dissidents. Wasn't that what we warned could happen if we didn't go to war with Communism? Wasn't that what we pointed to in our warnings of the terrors of Stalin?

A consultation paper published before Christmas said that universities “must take seriously their responsibility to exclude those promoting extremist views that support or are conducive to terrorism,” and that staff will be expected to refer suspected students to anti-radicalization programs.

[...]

Last week MPs and peers told the Home Secretary that universities should be exempt from these new measures, as they would seriously impede academic freedom of speech.

  RT

So, it's OK if you're at university? "Academic" freedom of speech is ok.  Regular freedom of speech, not so much.  I suspect university enrollment will go up.  Oh, wait.  Er...they should exclude those people.  I guess you already have to be there.  This is kind of complicated, isn't it?

Jump forward to May:

The orders, the product of an extremism task force set up by the prime minister, were proposed during the last parliament in March, but were largely vetoed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of free speech. They were subsequently revived in the Conservative manifesto.

[...]

[The measures] would include a ban on [extremist] broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.

  Guardian

Holy Toledo. The government will now control all information. Let's just say it plainly.

Hatred is OK, though. Because, hell, that's the basis of the government's position.  You can't use hate speech (in public - I guess you're still safe in your own home, but not with neighbors), but not because it provokes hate.

It will also contain new powers to close premises including mosques where extremists seek to influence others. The powers of the Charity Commission to root out charities that misappropriate funds towards extremism and terrorism will also be strengthened.

Cameron will tell the NSC: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values.

“Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality.

“We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.”

Follow that, if you can. Cameron is defining British society by a code of laws that he is advocating turning on its head – permitting only certain values and closing religious organizations that hold others.

"As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together."  By kicking out or rounding up anyone who lobbies for a different government.

It seems less like "actively promoting certain values" than actively discouraging other values.  Freedom of speech is a first casualty - as it has been in all tyrannies.

On June 19, Owen Jones posted this at The Guardian:

[W]e need to challenge and confront perverse ideologies. That means working in partnership with Muslim organisations and communities, not employing a rhetoric of collective blame that does nothing but play into the hands of extremism. And yes, there are a number of factors driving radicalisation, but we should examine all of them, including factors within our control, such as (but not exclusively) western foreign policy and support for dictatorships complicit in the rise of jihadi terrorism. I fear, though, that currently, we are doing exactly what our opponents will us to do.

  Guardian

Which makes your wonder if there was an intentional plan all along. Things couldn't have gone more smoothly toward building a world fascist super block if there had been. To quote Mark Twain (or a quote that is attributed to him, anyway): “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”  Although, I'm leaning toward the latter.

And, now, forward to the current time:

In a speech to be delivered [ed: currently being delivered] to an audience of Muslim men and women in Birmingham, David Cameron is expected to announce that only those in the Muslim community willing to take a stand against jihadist violence will be supported and those who “walk up to the border of illegality” will be denounced.

  UK Independent

”Denounced” is the least of what he has in mind.

“There are Muslims who say they are not advocating violence,” said the source, but who still deny the Holocaust, question Israel’s right to exist, and whether men and women and Jews and Muslims should mix.

Now we're getting to the nib. Israel.

“We have to attack directly this Islamist extremist ideology that is poisoning young minds, including young minds in Britain and America,” he said. The “narrative of extremism” must be defeated, he added.

Ah, yes. Include America.

He sounds rather extremist himself. The irony escapes him, I suppose.

“People who say, ‘Well, of course I don’t support terrorism. But a caliphate, is that such a bad idea?’ Or people who say, ‘Do you know what? Christians and Muslims, we can’t really live together. And suicide bombing [is] alright in Israel, even if it’s not alright in America.’

“These are unacceptable views. We’ve got to call them out and confront them,” said Mr Cameron. “We’ve got to defeat the narrative of extremism, even when it’s not connected to the violence. ”

No caliphates for Britain.

Unacceptable “views”. We are no longer just concerned with violence. We have to root out certain views.

 Round 'em up, boys. Guantánamo is nearly empty.

The Prime Minister’s comments run the risk of alienating British Muslims.

Ya think?

A thorough breakdown of the proposed legislation is set out at the World Socialist web site.

The bill itself and its progress can be found at the UK Parliament website: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/counterterrorismandsecurity.html.

Coming soon to a theater near you.