Despite expounding the wonders of the horror genre over the last few days I still found myself distinctly unsettled by the real life horror on my TV screen this week: Angry mobs stoning and burning British tanks and British troops rolling, aflame from their vehicles, not to mention a few more Iraqi deaths, (but we don't even really notice those anymore do we?)

Casting my mind back to the run up and beginning of our war against the Iraqi people I was incensed once more by the memory of one particular bit of right wing gibberish that caught hold for while. The rabid rhetoric went that those of us who were pro-peace were anti-troop, 'shut up and get behind our lads' was the flag hugging cry.

Well my reaction to seeing our lads in mortal danger the other day was to think, 'what the hell have we got these guys into?' How dare anyone suggest that the pro-peace camp don't care about our troops when we were the ones wanting to keep them from such an impossible and potentially lethal situation.

This very situation in Basra, among other things, demonstrates the vital nature of well functioning rule of law to a peaceful society. From law making to law enforcement, anything other than the highest standards can lead to chaos and death.

Now in the build up to our illegal war a majority of our elected representatives believed Blair when he said he knew best, they trusted his judgement and that of his government on our behalf. Pretty much everything predicted by critics of the decision has come horribly true but as Labour remained the least worst electable party in most people's eyes they're still there and asking us to trust them again.

Is it really so crazy then that when our Home Secretary wants to lock people up for months on end without charge or throw others out of the country without any judicial process that I can't find it within myself to give him the benefit of the doubt?

There's much debate over whether Gordon Brown will be the next PM but to all intents and purposes Clarke seems to hoping to reinvent the position of Home Secretary as that of a dictatorial ruler. The introduction of catch-all laws to restrict free speech again rely on his own personal judgement as to which law breakers are a threat and so should be prosecuted. What happened to open courts and public justice?

I'll admit I was a little disappointed with the response, or lack of it, to my early call-to-arms post, 'let's do this thing' (1) but I can't be too upset as I've been struggling to come with something myself, the gauntlet I threw down is indeed a heavy one. The idea was to come up with a simple, mass reproducible, humorous graphic that would violate these new laws and demonstrate their absurdity.

I realised that I needed to know a bit more detail about the laws if I were to break them in such a precise manner and so visited the home office website ( www.homeoffice.gov ) and found Clarke's 'list of unacceptable behaviour' ( www.homeoffice.gov.uk/pageprint.asp?item_id=1351 ) These only apply to foreign citizens but that just makes it even more ridiculous, especially given the backgrounds of the men who bombed and attempted to bomb London.

Please do have a look yourself but, to me, the parts most appropriate to this particular endeavour are these, the following actions will be illegal:

"writing, producing, publishing or distributing material" or "running a website"

if they "express views which"

"foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs"

Now it's easy at first glance to see this as being just, right and proper but the devil is, as they say, in the detail. What, exactly, counts as terrorist violence? What, exactly, counts as encouraging, justifying or glorifying it? The problem is that these definitions are to be defined purely by the Home Secretary's own opinion.

Now initially someone like Nelson Mandela would have been defined as a criminal under these laws but such a politically incorrect state of affairs has been avoided by the introduction of a twenty year backward limit. As someone recently pointed out this neatly protects people like Charles Clarke, Jack Straw or Peter Hain from prosecution for the various public protests and statements they all made while at university.

The fact is that words alone do not make a terrorist and gagging those who's opinions we don't like does nothing to remove the predisposition in some that leads to violence. All these laws are doing is dodging the far greater task of looking seriously and honestly within ourselves to try and understanding what it is about ourselves that is producing and inspiring such hatred.

Anyways, back to the matter in hand. Having looked at the info above one of the first things that occurred to me was the vagueness of the phrase, 'particular beliefs'. It would surely be political suicide for the Home Secretary to proclaim certain beliefs, read as certain religions, as being inherently criminal.

This being the case could our graphic perhaps be in the name of some clearly satirical cause? This mean that the image would still be illegal, (or at least it would if it came from some 'dirty foreigner',) but would also make it less likely to alienate people.

Three (of course,) possible examples:

Campaign Against Religious Extremism, C.A.R.E

A group believing that religious extremists are the root of most of the world's problems and so calls for all those with strongly held religious beliefs to blow themselves up asap for the good of humanity.

Conflict Helps Everyone Earn Revenue, C.H.E.E.R

A group believing that, as one of the biggest industries in history, the arms trade brings wealth and prosperity to millions and so calls for the perpetual continuation of war and terror for the good of humanity.

Human Extinction And Rights for Trees, H.E.A.R.T

A group believing that humankind is too great a danger to nature to exist and so calls on all concerned environmentalists, (emphasis on the mentalist,) to blow themselves up asap for the good of the planet.

I hope these initial thoughts and the more detailed framework of Santa's retarded cousin's latest power trip outlined at the Home Office website help inspire someone out there. There's a postcard on the wall behind me that reads: 'when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.' While that is true no-one ever said that duty couldn't be fun.

PS Please feel free to leave comments with your ideas or email me any graphics you come up with, (check my profile for my email address,) do remember though that whatever you come up with may end up being widely copied and distributed for free.

footnote

(1) to read my earlier post, 'let's do this thing', please either scroll back a a few days or follow this ridiculously long link: http://www.blog.co.uk/main/index.php/viewfromthecheapseats?s=let%27s+do+this+thing+%28wutio+Church+Of+Misery%29&sentence=sentence&submit=Search