Come, Lets All Be Hypocritical Bastards

Dominic Lawson, writing in the Independent: 'At times Members of Parliament talk and behave as if they are living in a parallel universe, which co-exists with the one in which the rest of us live – and yet which is not subject to the laws which govern our own lives.'

~

Lawson is writing about a commons statement given by Justice Secretary Jack Straw, and the subsequent parlimentary discussion, in response to the bugging of conversations between alleged terrorist fundraiser, Babar Ahmed, and his MP, childhood friend and ex-lawyer, Sadiq Khan. According to Lawson, MP's aren't concerned about the fact that bugging the conversation may have prejudiced Ahmed's extradition to the US, however they're livid with the fact that one of their own has been bugged.

~

Lawson details how in 1966, following a series of stories in the press about MP's being bugged by security and intelligence agencies, prime minister Harold Wilson introduced what became known as the 'Wilson Doctrine'. The 'Wilson Doctrine' meant that under no circumstances should a member of parliment have their telephone tapped. MP's cited this doctrine in their protests about Khan's bugging. However Lawson says:

~

"The doctrine means that MPs and peers can engage in serious crime or terrorism without running the risk of being investigated in the same way as any other member of the public. It is fundamental to the constitution of this country that no one is above the law or seen to be above the law."

~

Lawson is right. They do live in a parallel universe. Or at least they think they do. They're in parliment, outraged that they could be subject to such intrusive treatment as having their private conversations spied on. But where was that outrage in July 2007, when Jacqui 'Gestapo' Smith passed a law giving 795 public companies free access to not just some but all of our phone calls and text messages? There was none, because the only civil liberties our MP's care about is their own. They're content to inflict all manner of surveillance measures on us, but only so long as they remain exempt. And if their exemption is threatened - as it was recently with the Khan case - they're outraged. Well I'm outraged. We all should be. The duty of government should be to protect the privacy and liberty of its citizens, not the privacy and liberty of itself.

~

Remember: For all you know there could be a file at this very moment with your name on it. It could detail the names of the people you call, how often you call them, what you say, how often you send text messages and their content. And, thanks to the governments secret Celldar project, this file could detail where you were when you made the calls and sent the text messages. Indeed, in so far as you have a mobile phone and have it switched on, it could detail where you are at this very moment. And you will never know.

And just imagine how useful, or rather, profitable such information would be to large corporations - not to mention the government. Imagine the psychological insight that could be garnered from it. Corporations with the technology to profile and marginalise everyone. A government with the lawful ability to spy on anyone that poses a threat to it.

It is not us that should be subject to this kind of treatment. It is the government. It was they, not us, who invaded two countries. It was they, not us, who endorsed the use of hundreds of tons of depleted uranium in Iraq, a viscious toxic substance whose radioactivity will persist for 4,500,000,000 years and will kill and cause suffering to millions all over the world. And they didn't do this, contrary to their lies, in some fight aginst terrorism or because Iraq posed a threat to us. They attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because of profit and power. Which is exactly the same reason why they're imposing all these barbaric surveillance measures on us.