Civil Contingencies Bill:
comment Bryn
front page
Join us at FAW? Click here!
This Civil Contingencies Bill is nothing more than the Animal Health Bill turned inside out to make innocent humans the new target for New Labour's thirst for total controlling powers.
Lord LUCAS is very alarmed at the concept of the CCB as it stands:
Lord Lucas: "The Government are not averse to gathering enormous powers unto themselves. The draft Civil Contingencies Bill would, in the event of a crisis, have given the Government the power to abolish or tear up legislation and, by ministerial fiat, create any legislation. Perhaps we will see something different when the Bill emerges, but under the draft Bill they would have the power to destroy the constitution -- to abolish judges and Parliament and create a dictatorship...
Lord Lucas, speaking at the second reading of the bill in the House of Lords on 5 July, made this point:
"Are we opening up our system to the equivalent of what happened in Germany in 1933, where it became possible for an extreme party legitimately to hijack a democracy and turn it into something totalitarian? .
---------------------------------------------------
The way Blair, Blunkett, Beckett, Prescott, Morley, Whitty act right now, we are already feeling the cold withering wind of a dictatorship!
July 5 2004
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/40705-23.htm#40705-23_head0
EXTRACTS:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
"The Government recognise that these are significant powers, and that they should not operate in an unfettered way. That is why the Bill contains a much more coherent, transparent and comprehensive package of safeguards than can be found in the 1920 Act. The centrepiece of this is the "triple lock", which ensures that emergency powers will be available only if three conditions are satisfied.
First, it must be the case that an emergency which threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or security has occurred, is occurring or is about [the wording is in fact "may cause" - so it is based on a theoretical possibility eg The Contiguous Cull in 2001 was founded on scientific nonsense, yet performed by those 'following orders' ] to occur�that is to say serious and requiring immediate action.
Secondly, it must be necessary to make provision urgently in order to resolve the emergency [wait until you see the definition of an emergency!] as existing powers are insufficient [ where have we heard that statement before! FMD 2001 ] and it is not possible to bring forward a Bill in the usual way because of the need to act urgently. [we all remember the indecent haste the AHB was enacted]
Thirdly, emergency regulations must be in due proportion to the aspect or effect of the emergency they are directed at. [they do not know the meaning of due proportion!]
They cannot alter any aspects of criminal
They cannot alter any aspects of criminal procedures or create any new offence other than breach of the regulations themselves." [anyone with knowledge of the AHB will draw parallels with this Bill; nobody is allowed to protest against the force of suspect actions by a corrupt government - they will be arrested and thrown in jail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this email is to protest in the strongest fashion against the present construction of this proposed Civil Contingencies Bill and to ask readers to consider writing their own objections and posting them to their MP and/or Peer.
I do NOT like the construction, nor the intent of this Bill, as it invades Human Rights in an insidious and unwelcome manner.
I outline my reasons for protesting against the Bill, as it is nothing more than the Animal Health Bill adapted for humans, under the very slack pretext of an "emergency"!
Please do all you can to dilute the enormous powers contained in this draconian New Labour induced grab for more power over your life's. This Bill seeks control far in excess of democratic principles, or the lawful need process.
Arguments against this CCB
"We now have a definition which we believe to be right. The Bill defines an emergency as an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or national security." That is what the Labour puppet in the Lord's wants you to believe - it is gold-plated tripe.
That is NOT what the Bill defines an "emergency" as!
Ref : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtdcc/184/184we11.htm
(1) In this Part �emergency� means an event or situation which threatens serious damage to�
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens ["serious" is missed out!!!] damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause�
(a) loss of human life,
(b) human illness or injury,
(c) homelessness,
(d) damage to property,
(e) disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(f) disruption of an electronic or other system of communication,
(g) disruption of facilities for transport, or
(h) disruption of services relating to health.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the word "serious" is now left out, and it becomes only "damage"!
This is really kindergarten legislation with holes in it. The definition is plainly far too wide to activate such a powerful Bill (in effect a National State of Emergency) as they cover everyday occurrences that can be adequately dealt with by common sense and existing local emergency plans - Boscastle is an epic example.
Looking at, (3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause� (c) disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.
Are we seriously considering throwing the full force of our abilities to deal with an emergency into something that "may cause" or "threatens" mere damage to plants! This is a ludicrously stupid thing to encapsulate as an Emergency Plan. A herd of cows can cause damage to another farmers field if the gate is left open by a rambler - but it is NOT an emergency. I do not like the 'rider' given here: (6) The event or situation mentioned in subsection (1) may occur or be inside or outside the United Kingdom. Why are we considering what happens outside the UK? This another small buried step to acclimatise and desensitise the UK population to the further insidious encroachment of the EU ethos and laws into our national legislation? That paragraph should be deleted in toto.
snip
Captain Bryn Wayt