UK is the first "democracy" in the world to repeal Human Rights!

 UK's (anti)Human Rights Act, National Security Bill, and Online Safety Bill, turn UK into a dangerous parody of a democracy!

 Do you really want UK soldiers in your country - and US s.c. low yield nukes meant for tactical real use?!

 

UK law is given precedence over international law - yet UK always refers to international law and Human Rights when it comes to China - A China that outperforms the West when it comes to Human Rights (even OIC approves of China's re-education of previously home locked uneducated muslim women); privacy law (at least on pair with EU's similar law - and way ahead of US an its puppet UK), meritocratic real democracy from below to the top; China's peaceful belt and road program for trade and progress instead of the West's dangerous militarism and how its master $-freeloader US has initiated a string of senseless bloody wars (incl. in Ukraine where the puppet regime - which now has dictatorially eliminated all opposition parties - committed and commits real genocide against its own Russian people with the help of Nazis supported by the West).

Btw, why does BBC accuse Russia of "defaulting" when $-freeloader US has stopped Russia from paying by using $-freeloader US payment monopoly?!

Would prince Charles have been jailed if the new National Security Bill had been in place when he used public media to spread 'legal but harmful content' that is 'prejudicial' to the UK’s 'safety or interest'? 

The new bill sets no limits to what could be considered 'an interest' or 'legal but harmful content' – only that ministers would get the final say.

Journalists and activists who share leaks of official information to oppose government policies could face imprisonment under the National Security Bill if they belong to organisations that have been given grants by other countries (read China).

And if the UK government decided that the UK’s energy situation required an immediate expansion of fracking or the building of coal fired or nuclear power plants, the use of leaked information which could undermine that policy could be a criminal offence under the bill.

Moreover, the offences are so widely drawn that whistleblowers who reveal a trade secret while raising concerns about fraud or corruption to foreign regulator or law enforcement or to a foreign-owned media outlet could be committing a criminal offence that carries a sentence of life in prison.

The bill doesn't include a public interest defence in the bill, which would allow campaigners and journalists to challenge offences for sharing leaks.

The bill also widens the definition of what information is illegal to share.

The sharing of certain confidential official information is already a criminal offence under the Official Secrets Act 1989 – but only if the data relates to security and intelligence, defence or international relations. The National Security Bill removes these limits. It would make the sharing of any official information for or on behalf of a foreign power (a definition that includes working for an organisation that has received funding from overseas governments) an offence if it is restricted in any way 'for the purpose of protecting the safety or interests of the UK'.

It potentially means that if a media organisation or NGO has ever received funding from a non-UK government, then it cannot share any information that the government hasn’t actively disclosed. Finding and reporting official information that is ‘restricted’ in some way is more commonly known as journalism.

The bill could also be applied to any information that the government has refused to disclose via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, as that refusal would constitute a restriction. The government’s record on disclosing information through FOI has been abysmal.

The bill will allow ministers to decide what information is legal or illegal to share.

The bill would make sharing official information an offence when it is used in a way that is prejudicial to the UK’s “safety or interest”.

In the bill’s explanatory notes, even the government admits that this term is “not defined” – but argues that case law has set a precedent for ministers to determine what is the safety or interest of the UK.

The bill grant ministers and spies immunity from assisting in overseas crimes. So while making it harder for journalists to reveal ministers’ wrongdoing, the bill also perversely grants immunity to ministers or spies who assist in overseas crimes.

The Serious Crime Act, which was passed in 2007, made it an offence to do anything in the UK encouraging or assisting a crime overseas. But the Home Office is proposing an exemption if that assistance was 'necessary for the proper exercise of any function' of the armed forces or UK intelligence services.

The bill would mean officials who provide information to foreign partners leading to someone being tortured or unlawfully killed in a drone strike, for instance, would be shielded from prosecution. Moreover, victims of those crimes could be prevented from seeking justice in court. The bill could also let ministers off the hook if they authorized crimes. 

 

Peter Klevius wonders: Who should arrange a Nuremberg trial against the political leaders of the West and its media leaders who instead of critically reporting about them do the very opposite?