Genetically Engineered Democracy

Ever felt a wee tremble of fear as Blair’s rhetoric turns to talk of ‘treason’ and politicians collude around a new consensus against basic concepts in a free society? Bit by bit our own ethical radar gets confused as laws are introduced in a state of moral panic

Here's an example from our eastern neighbours of what happens when you make laws that start confusing terror and protest. Greenpeace protesters are being prosecuted for a peaceful action against genetically engineered food – under laws introduced to act against terrorism. Two years ago activists scaled the Agriculture Council building in Copenhagen and unfurled a banner, then gave themselves up. As Dan Hindsgaul explains:

"We were trying to bring attention to a hidden fact — that Danish pigs are fed genetically engineered soy — which is information 98% of the Danish population says it wants," said Hindsgaul. "Most major changes against unjust and unpopular laws in the last century have been achieved by these methods of civil disobedience. They are the mark of a free society," said Hindsgaul.

Further to this – after the precedent set in Gleneagles when an attempt to make protest pay an insurance fee collapsed only after the momentum of events proved unstoppable – Danish authorities are also appealing the judgement against Nordic Greenpeace, because they think the fine of 30,00 kroner (about $4,900 US) was too low. "They have set the precedent and will now try to deter us by making the cost of protest too high," said Hindsgaul. Full story at Adbusters here.

Meanwhile today the government's rhetoric and action on human rights and its approach to the "war on terror" is expected to be taken apart today with the publication of a long-awaited report by the European body responsible for human rights. Funnily enough things like abolishing the right to a fair trial and tagging people, and accepting the admission of "evidence" obtained by torture will be criticised. Full story here.

You don't have to be against GM foods to see what the cumulative affect of this is. As Brian Sedgemore said on his final speech to parliament earlier this year:

"Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that once one has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, it becomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote to destroy them.
Many Members have gone to sleep on the matter.

They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury in more serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, to create a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes. It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next. I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent into hell, which is not a place where I want to be."