Day-Glo Danger of UK Gov spam-brained narcissists + OLIVIA NEWTON JOHN

 Ward writes with best of British fervour: (SING 'LET'S GET RID OF EM' TO THE TUNE OF OLIVIA NEWTON JOHN'S 'Physical' (and dig the purple wallpaper)

The draconian Coalition proposals for dealing with 'non-violent extremists' can no longer be described as the Writing on the Wall. This is nascent dictatorship written in Dayglo on a barrage balloon above the Palace of Westminster. The Slog makes a final appeal for concerted and tenacious opposition.

A few days back, the Daily Telegraph obtained a leaked letter written by George Osborne, as a follow-up to the unwise and unacceptable non-violent extremist (NVE) definition put forward by the joint ignorance of David Cameron and Theresa May. This is a brief extract from the quite astonishing letter: (my emphases)

'the ultimate objective would be to eliminate extremism in all its forms....[including] those who spread hate but do not break laws...the new orders will extend to any activities that justify hatred on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.."

These orders are to be called Extremism Disruption Orders or EDOs. They have already attracted strong criticism from dangerous revolutionaries like Keith Porteous of the National Secular Society and Colin Hart of the Christian Institute.

Proving within hours that he hadn't actually read the draft laws, a spokesman for the Conservative Party rejected the criticism, saying, "We have never sought to restrict peaceful protest or free speech, provided it is within the law." The Osborne letter quite clearly contradicts this. Even before the process has got beyond the drawing board, Camerlot sloppiness and/or dissembling is apparent.

I have two serious, substantive issues with these ideas, and the time has come for people of all beliefs and political views to remove backside from sofa to take a stand about them:

1. The minute a Government wants to silence the views of those acting within the law is the moment at which nobody can deny any longer the proposal is unconstitutional. Although it is in scattered bits and pieces from 1215 onwards, there are very obvious parts of our Constitutional conventions or 'Gobbits' that would declare these proposals pejorative to the retention of Citizen Rights.

2. The problem with the Osborne letter, the May statement and the Cameron statement of intent about NVEs and EDOs is that none of them make the slightest effort at any point to define 'extreme'. If you can't discern that this is an open door to dictatorship, then it's time to drag your knuckles back into the cave, there to live on a TV diet of Simon Cowell and pizza. read more (that's not just rhetoric or link)