Motion to Impeach Blair Tabled in Parliament

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Motion to Impeach Blair Tabled in Parliament

Who Is the "Nut"?

Brian: New Legislation and New Website

On Wednesday, November 24, a motion was tabled in the House of Commons calling for the establishment of a Select Committee to investigate and report back to the House on the conduct of Tony Blair in leading Britain into a war of aggression against Iraq.  The motion, which is signed by 23 Members of Parliament, calls on the committee to give particular consideration to:
a) the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group that in March 2003 Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and had been essentially free of them of them since the mid 1990s;
b) the Prime Minister's acknowledgement that he was wrong when in and before March 2003 he asserted that Iraq was then in possession of chemical and biological weapons or was then engaged in active efforts to develop nuclear weapons or was thereby a current threat to the UK national interest or that possession of WMD  then enabled Iraq to inflict real damage upon the region and the stability of the world;
c) the opinion of the Secretary General of the United Nations that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful;
d) whether there exist sufficient grounds to impeach Tony Blair on charges of gross misconduct in his advocacy of the case for war against Iraq and in his conduct of policy in connection with that war.

The motion tabled in Parliament builds on the report A Case To Answer, written by Glen Rangwala and Dan Plesch and published by www.impeachblair.org. This organisation on its website identifies 24 MPs as its supporters: four from Plaid Cymru, five from the Scottish National Party, 11 Conservatives, two Lib-Dems, one from Respect and one independent. No Labour MPs are listed as supporters of this organisation nor are any signatories to the motion tabled in Parliament.  Media reports suggest that "anti-war" Labour MPs have privately confirmed their sympathy for the motion but were unwilling to "put their heads above the parapet for fear of being deselected as candidates at the next election".  Calls were also made to the Labour Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong to "reassure the party's anti-war backbenchers that their careers will not suffer if they sign the motion".

This state of affairs, alone, underlines the anachronistic and undemocratic nature of the present political system based on the coming to power of political parties and the way in which these arrangements frustrate the will of the people. It is a widespread feeling in the country that the present government and its leader in particular should be held to account for their participation in what the judges at the Nuremberg Tribunals described as the "supreme war crime", that of launching an unprovoked war of aggression. However, the "people's representatives in Parliament" are unable to give voice to this sentiment, for fear of being deselected and having their careers ruined by their "party leader". Such is the level of corruption inherent in this system.

The struggle to bring the war criminals to book is a serious one, which the working class and people must pursue to the end. The doctrine of "might is right" cannot be allowed to stand and those who participate in war crimes condemned by humanity must be held accountable.

In an interview with the Evening Standard of Wednesday, November 24, Home Secretary David Blunkett unveiled plans to suppress and curtail protests on Parliament Square.  He said he would introduce new laws which would give police the power to evict the anti-war protesters who have been protesting in Parliament Square against the Anglo-American policy of war and aggression. They would also have the power to issue directives to anyone protesting in the area around Parliament Square, to limit the duration of protests and to order protesters to make less noise.  Protesters could face being banned from the area for three months, being fined up to £2,500 or being imprisoned for up to three months if they are deemed to have organised an illegal demonstration.

Attempting to justify the massive attack on basic democratic rights which his proposals represent, Blunkett declared, "We are trying to restore some sense, so that genuine protests are not driven away by those who make it their life's work and have abandoned going to work in favour of creating a complete mess." He continued, "Tourists are getting a view of a dysfunctional democracy where the environment has been spoiled." Turning his attention to Brian Haw, the anti-war protester who for the last three years has maintained his protest in Parliament Square in opposition to the warmongering policy of the Labour government, Blunkett insulted him, calling him a "nut" and declaring about the new repressive proposals, "Yes, it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but this nut is such that he has caused total havoc."

With this uncouth outburst, Blunkett provides evidence for all to see who the real  "nut" is. For him, launching a war of aggression against a sovereign country, killing over 100,000 people, spoiling Iraq's environment by littering it with depleted uranium weapons, creating a complete mess by destroying whole cities as in Fallujah are as nothing. This is a normal healthy, humane way to conduct life. If, however, someone with a human conscience raises their voice against these barbaric crimes being carried out in their name, then for Blunkett such a person is a "nut". That says more about David Blunkett and the government he represents than it does about those who oppose these crimes. It is clear evidence that Blunkett like his other "Right Honourable Government colleagues" is an unrepentant warmonger with no respect for human life or human rights. The workers cannot reconcile themselves to the state of affairs where such people form the government of the country. The work to build the workers’ opposition and empower the people so that they can be the decision makers must be pushed forward so that the people can come to power and take Britain on a humane and democratic path.

Posting: November 4, 2004

Dear All,

Yesterday the new legislation that the Government will introduce to remove Brian was announced in Parliament. It will be part of the Organised Crime Bill. The article below, from BBC online yesterday, has some of the debate in the Commons yesterday.

I have revamped the http://www.parliament-square.org.uk website. It now has the history of Brian's protest, press releases, articles, etc., as well as current news. There is also a page about defending protest in Parliament Square. If you have photos or any other material about Brian you would like to be included then please send it to me (photos in digital format if poss). Also, if you come across media articles can you forward them to me.

The site isn't complete but I wanted to get it up quickly – its high time there was a site with all this information gathered.

I would be grateful if you could link to the site or advertise in other ways, and encourage people to sign up to be a supporter.

Best wishes Emma

Westminster protests to be banned Anti-war protester Brian Haw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3979477.stm Wednesday, 3 November, 2004, BBC on-line

Mr Haw has been camped in Parliament Square for three years. Plans to end noisy demonstrations outside Parliament and recognise its "unique position" are to be introduced by the government.

Existing laws did not give police the powers they needed to control all protests around Westminster, Commons leader Peter Hain told MPs.

The new laws would mean an anti-war protester camped in Parliament Square for three years would be removed.

Opposition MPs said the moves curtailed the right to free speech.

Mr Hain told MPs: "The [parliamentary procedure] committee recommends that the government should introduce appropriate legislation to prohibit long-term demonstrations and to ensure that the laws about access are adequate and enforceable."

The government was aware of how strongly MPs and Speaker Michael Martin felt about the issue and agreed legislation was needed which recognised Parliament's "unique position", he added.

"We will introduce such legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

"I myself have exercised these rights to protest and would defend to the last the rights of others to so do, including in Parliament Square," he said.

But access to Parliament must be maintained and those working there should be able to do so "free from harassment".

Anti-war protester Brian Haw has been camped out with a collection of placards in Parliament Square, opposite the Palace of Westminster, since 2001.

He often uses a loud-hailer to shout his views at the palace and passers-by.

Mr Hain has described his camp as an "eye-sore" and the Speaker has asked the police to get the protest removed.

But confusion about who has rights over the square opposite the palace had left both the Speaker and the police powerless to act.

The Commons leader said Mr Haw's protest was just a small aspect of the issue but acknowledged that his use of a loud-hailer subjected members to a "persistent bang, bang, bang".

Shadow Commons leader Oliver Heald went further, saying Mr Haw's line of posters was a "fence-like barrier" and dealing with it as a security risk took a lot of police time.

Liberal Democrat Lembit Opik said the fact that Mr Haw's protest had created the whole debate was a credit to him.

Labour's John McDonnell likened any attempt to silence Mr Haw as a bid to remove the "little man's voice".

Westminster Council failed to evict Mr Haw after High Court judge Mr Justice Gray refused to grant an injunction preventing him obstructing the pavements.

The father of seven's solicitor, Michael Schwarz, said: "Brian Haw is peacefully campaigning on perhaps the most significant issue of the day at a place which is supposed to be the very heart of our democracy.

"It is difficult to think of a more compelling example of the employment of the rights to protest."

When Labour came into power, the rules governing protests on Parliament Square were relaxed.

But the chaos caused by the pro-hunting protest in the square in September, as MPs debated the bill to ban hunting with dogs, prompted some MPs to call for demonstrations there to be banned.