Friday, April 03, 2009
Latest from NO2ID
Although clause 152 of the Coroner’s & Justice Bill has been put behind bars for the time being, continual vigilance is paramount in trying to head off any legislation that further erodes our privacy and rights to freedom of speech from becoming established on the statute books. NO2ID highlight the current campaigns we must concentrate on:
Taking the NO2ID pledge not to comply in disclosing any personal information in relation to the National Identity Register and ID Cards.
Informing our GPs that we do not wish them to participate in ‘the spine’ or Summary Care Record (SCR) scheme which could breach patient confidentiality and allow personal data to be leaked to other organisations outside the NHS or the National Database.
Urging parents to ensure that their children’s personal details are ‘shielded’ on the ContactPoint database.
Ensuring those who have been charged but not convicted of a crime to contact their chief constable to ensure that their DNA, fingerprints and police records be destroyed citing the European Court of Human Rights recent ruling in the Marper case that retention was unlawful.
Constant resistance to these measures is absolutely essential, otherwise they will form a permanent part of the architecture of our incarceration within a police state.
Another piece of semi-transparent legislation has been defeated in the House of Lords. Clause 48 of the Border Citizenship and Immigration Bill would have removed our passport-free zone. If the legislation were to be passed it would require citizens of England, Scotland and Wales to carry passports with them when visiting the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
In Germany opposition has come to the fore over ‘disproportionate’ proposals to record the country’s entire, telephone, mobile, email and Internet usage. The ruling stated that “The court is of the opinion that data retention violates the fundamental right to privacy. It is not necessary in a democratic society. The individual does not provoke the interference but can be intimidated by the risks of abuse and the feeling of being under surveillance [...] The directive [on data retention] does not respect the principle of proportionality guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR, which is why it is invalid."
But knowing the ardent desire for a total database world that our collective governments are being engaged to set up by their ‘élite’ handlers, continual opposition to their plans to implement such legislation might always bring with it the spectre of another false flag event on such a devasting scale (al Qaeda being the excuse again) that they could then use it as a means of forcing these initiatives through on the usual basis of ‘keeping us safe in future’. Don't fall for that one!
PS. My prediction of a possible false flag episode taking place in the cloak of the partial surveillance blackout in the City of Westminster didn’t happen, although the intent of that mysterious armoured vehicle containing police uniforms has never been declared. Yet to identify and broadcast on the web such possible scenarios in which such an inside ‘terror attack’ could take place helps to keep people alert to the kinds of things our masters stage and our very declaration may, in some ‘butterfly effect’ way, help to exorcise such plans.