I can hear a cod laughing.

(and you actually believe in trolls, whereas we just wish them away…)

I recall that the Dutch government then began making similar noises, and they don’t have our Anti-Terror legislation.

Relax, Brynjar. The point of John Band’s piece was that the “terrorist” meme had been permitted to run unchallenged. I can assure you that there plenty of reasonable voices – not limited to those who’d become unhinged by a war which ended five years ago, but strongly represented there – who were not sympathetic to this seizure.

I took the Potted History to be mainly a parody of the “indigenous inhabitants” in certain other countries, or the endless tripe of “the British” devastating every level of societies everywhere, or the grubby nationalism which is growing in at three of our nations. Note, he did stress the efforts Icelanders to fight with the Allies. I will also pay tribute to those who died in the Merchant Navy.

Perhaps he shouldn’t have said British, as this implies a continued cultural link, but I find mention of the genetic patterns unremarkable and inoffensive. Potted histories are, by default, grossly simplistic.

Oh, what am I saying? Three of my grandparents’ familial lines were firmly placed in coastal regions of northern Scotland and the Isles for centuries at least. My mitochondrial DNA likely resided in someone who was present as Agricola sailed through the Moray Firth!

I have never recovered from the pain of events 1,100 years before I was born where Apartheid was instigated with the arrival of the longboats. My great-great-great-[...]-grandmothers were taken as sexual chattels whilst my great-great-great-[...]-grandfathers were expunged from the Y-chromosomal record in acts of genocide, either murder/killing [delete as appropriate] not seen until the Nazi atrocities of the 20th Century (I may be over-stating my case here) or being transported to Rus and then into slavery at Byzantium. For gold and silver!

In real life, whenever any “anti-terrorism” law is passed, it’ll actually be used for whatever the wording of the law says it can be used for (see also “anti-paedophile”). And you need to assume that’ll happen from the start, rather than getting outraged when the government does something which is entirely permitted under the law that you didn’t object to at the time…

John, by your logic, it would be impossible for legislation to be “anti-terror legislation” unless it was used exclusively against terrorists. It is not enough for you that the government puts anti-terrorism in the title of the bill and that it claims in parliament that the clauses are going to be used against terrorist targets, the moment it uses the legislation against someone else, it becomes just another little executive power to be used at the government’s discretion.

This should underline how ministerial insurances mean jackshit, especially when they are used to justifiy implementing new executive powers (at least ministerial descriptions of ordinary acts can be used by courts to interpret laws when they come before them).

Of course it isn’t. One thing that annoys me intensely is ‘legislation creep’, where government pass laws for specific purposes and subsequently their own bureaucracies or the legal profession then use them for reasons that parliament never intended. Often enough, they, the government, turn a blind eye to this creativity, for want of a better word. Parliament ought to oversee it’s own legislation far better than it actually does. It can be somewhat Nelsonian about the chaos it introduces. I also largely agree with Oliver Letwin, quoted @ 27 above.

There is civil law and there is criminal law. We should apply the appropriate body of law in the appropriate situation, don’t you think?

Personally, if we have determined that HMG did use Criminal Law then I think they were wrong to do so, especially legislation designed to deal with terrorism. If that is the case, then it is completely crazy.

You’ll note, from my previous post, 22, that this whole matter now appears to be resolved.

The Icelandic Government were not prepared to compensate UK fund holders.

HM Government were prepared to use existing legislation to protect UK interests,
I don’t have a problem with that ! Do you ?

GW

I don’t think there’s anything I would disagree with in either UKLiberty or Chris’ comments above. I’ll declare an interest here that I am a lefty. But I will quote Oliver Letwin who spoke in the same debate 15 Oct 2001 immediately after Blunkett:

We share the Government’s view that legislation is required to increase the effectiveness of our counter-terrorist enforcement. However, does the Home Secretary agree that, too often in the past, over-hasty legislation has proved inoperable in practice? Does he agree that the best guard against that danger is detailed scrutiny, which teases out the implications of the legislation to determine both whether it will be effective and whether it poses any undue threat to our fundamental liberties? Can he assure us that those critical measures at this critical time will be debated in detail on the Floor of the House? Is he aware that we will resist using the emergency legislation as a means of addressing problems of law enforcement outside the field of terrorism?

[my emphasis]

I’ll leave it here with my own comment.

The War on Terror: Uzbekistan is your ally – Iceland is your foe.

And: Whatever you say it’s the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001. Note the word terrorism. The British government started this when it tried to puff up/justify yet another piece of authoritarian legislation with a gratuitous reference to terrorism. They used legislation they had described as anti-terrorist against Iceland. That’s a fact.

8 Oct – FT says Terror Law
9 Oct – Guido says We are all terrorists..
9 Oct – by 4pm at the latest Haarde says Terrorists (he is referring to his earlier conversation with Darling)

By 10 Oct the Icelandic Mission in New York said this:

The use of anti-terrorist legislation by the United Kingdom on 9 October 2008 to seize the assets of Icelandic banks was, in the view of the Icelandic government, disproportionate and extreme. The initial measures taken by the British government have since been partially withdrawn.

This was cached on 30th October but has since disappeared:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:OUt5Gf2c3vkJ:www.iceland.org/un/nyc/the-embassy/statements-news/nr/5908

Now we have UK Press then Idiot Savant Blogger wind up Icelandic Government! However I still don’t see any evidence of the opposition parties sticking their oar in.

[October 2001] With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the legislative steps necessary to counter the threat from international terrorism. … we do need specific and targeted measures, which is why I intend to introduce an emergency anti-terrorism Bill. I am determined to strike a balance between respecting our fundamental civil liberties and ensuring that they are not exploited. … Terrorists use organised crime and trade in human misery to finance their activities. The tough new financial controls in the emergency Bill will help us to staunch the flow of terrorist funding.

The emergency legislation will build on the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to deal specifically with terrorist finance through monitoring and freezing the accounts of suspected terrorists.

[November 2001] Parts I and II complement the Proceeds of Crime Bill in stopping organised terrorism and crime being perpetrated through money laundering by organised finance—a subject that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered in Ottawa. We are seeking the ability to freeze assets …

The Government contends that the ATCSA contains many provisions and they rightly say they are not all about terrorism (indeed there is no mention of terorrism in Part II of the Act). But that was not what Parliament was led to believe about Part II.

Anyway, it looks as if we’re all chums again:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9Xgi3jMXDX9eF5D_H-RAw5enugQD94A0P6O1

The UK is a partner in the IMF’s bail-out.

Do you agree that it was Haarde who first used the word “terrorist”?
Do you agree that Haarde used terrorist before Brown’s comment about “completely unacceptable”, and hence the before the diplomatic row blew up?

If we are unable to agree on these simple facts, there is little point in discussing this further and I will withdraw.

“The insult is to hold a debate but not care to finish it.”

Sorry. Sometimes I have other things to do.

“I think I have fairly comprehensively demolished the argument that either the UK opposition parties or the UK media started this meme”

The UK media extensively reported on the action on October 8 and October 9; the right-wing press were getting grumpy *at the time* about “using anti-terror laws against an ally”. Hannan’s piece didn’t come until the following week, but it reflected the standard Tory and SNP line on the situation – and that began on October 8.

“Terror law used for Iceland deposits” – FT, 8th Oct 2008. posted 17:11, last updated 22:54

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/abf583de-9546-11dd-aedd-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

And as for first reference to terrorists, try this, which was posted at 9:27 on the 9th…

Is Guido the only one uncomfortable with this abuse of the law? Aged hecklers first, now foreign bankers. We are all terrorists…

http://www.order-order.com/2008/10/terror-laws-used-against-icelandic.html

“Morons” and “ignorant buffoon” had been wheeled out by sentence two…