On 2nd February, David Blunkett, British Home Secretary, reports the BBC, announced that he ” wants new anti-terrorism laws to make it easier to convict British terror suspects. He has discussed lowering the standard of proof required by a court and introducing more pre-emptive action.” Mr Blunkett’s “possible” totalitarian proposals consisted of the following:

• “Burden of proof lowered from ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ to ‘on the balance of probabilities’.”
• “Part-secret trials for Britons.” The BBC added, “Evidence in the new trials would be kept secret from the defendants to protect MI5, MI6 and GCHQ intelligence sources, Mr Blunkett said.”
• “Security-vetted judges for sensitive evidence.” They added, “It is about the threshold of evidence and the nature of those involved being accredited and trusted not to reveal the sources.”

The fact that these kinds of proposals are even considered, shows how this government is set on using this “terrorist” opportunity” to extend its powers and change the basis upon which justice is administered in Great Britain. While we have moved away from the old totalitarianism of the eastern block and the USSR, the new brand of totalitarianism is far more dangerous. This is non-revolutionary socialism/statism. It uses the process of law and the political process to gradually manoeuvre its changes into the system and radically re-shape the social order. The dismantling of the House of Lords was a step in the process and doubtless there will be more.

Even the left-leaning Guardian noticed this: “Not that any of what the home secretary is suggesting is original. It used to be standard procedure in the communist regimes of eastern Europe and was copied by, amongst others, Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Whenever the British press reported on one of these trials the word ‘show’ invariably appeared.”

Similarly, opposition to Mr Blunkett’s plans came from many quarters, including lawyer, Baroness Kennedy, who described the proposals as follows “It is as if David Blunkett takes his lessons on jurisprudence from Robert Mugabe,… He really is a shameless authoritarian… it really is an affront to the rule of law.”

What enables this to happen? The basic reason is that most of our people are past caring. Either out of disillusionment with a “democratic system” that is really controlling them, whilst giving them a notional “say” in the ordering of the nation. Or because they have satiated themselves with all of the material benefits and entertainment that the modern world affords. We no longer believe in what is important – we believe in the good life – that’s it.

February 5, 2004