THERE are growing concerns over new moves orchestrated by the European Union to start identifying political activists as part of a 'systematic data collection'.This involves discovering who the activists socialise with, family members, psychological traits, religious affiliation, activities, economic status, and statements they make on political issues.
What has worried a number of Nick Griffin's constituents in the North West is the vagueness that actually constitutes being considered to be an 'agent of radicalisation'.
European Union documents on the subject refer to 'extreme right/left, Islamist, nationalist, anti-globalisation' groups as some of those qualifying for surveillance.
In Britain, York University and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are spearheading the development of this project with £10million of Brussels funding.
The Vienna-based EU Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia - which is now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights - once defined opposition to the European single currency as 'monetary xenophobia' - so it would be no surprise that those groups and persons who are opposed to European political union could find themselves defined by EU agencies as being nationalist 'agents of radicalism'.
What is most disturbing about this new EU drive to document and keep tabs on political activists, is the fact that this policy is being executed without any parliamentary or public consultation whatsoever.
Responding to constituents, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield on behalf of the MEP, acknowledged these concerns.
"This is a worrying development which will be of concern to anyone who values the principles of national sovereignty, democracy and individual freedom of expression," she wrote.
"The power and authority of the EU is growing at pace, and its controlling influence pervades almost every aspect of our social, economic and political structures.
"This latest surveillance project is just one of a plethora of new authoritarian initiatives designed to manage the diverse populations within the European Union and facilitate the creation of a European federal 'super-state'.
"Various justifications to legitimise the introduction of these increasingly draconian 'security' measures are articulated, ranging from the need to combat terrorism; through protecting the consumer from theft and fraud; to standardising processes and systems for 'ease and efficiency'.
"Although much public emphasis is placed on the need for such measures to be implemented in order to enhance “public protection”, the reality is that these security initiatives serve a dual purpose.
"The other, far more insidious and (not surprisingly unpublicised) intent behind their implementation is “institutional preservation”. This latest surveillance project is a clear illustration of the utilisation of authoritarian measures to combat resistance, or at the very least to secure acquiescence, to the political status quo. The carrot of 'improved security and public safety' is flourished cynically to camouflage a wealth of undesirable developments in the field of justice and social affairs. If, however, you assess the initiatives outside of the palatable 'security' frame of reference, the ringing of alarm bells for anyone appreciative of freedom of thought and expression is deafening.
"Combating and containing opposition to the construction of a European super-state is no mean task, considering that the majority of European Member State citizens demonstrated their dissent in their refusal to grant their political rulers a mandate for constitutional amalgamation. (That is with the sole exception of Ireland who, most inconveniently for the EU, delivered the 'wrong' answer in the first referendum of the European Constitution, but very obligingly held a second one which generated the required 'Yes' vote).
"The alternative Lisbon Treaty, brought into play following the peoples’ overwhelming rejection of the European Constitution, dispensed with the niceties of electoral endorsement despite containing many of the proposals listed in the original Constitution. Euphemistically described as an attempt to streamline EU institutions to make them function more effectively, the Lisbon Treaty in reality signals a significant shift of power from national governments to the EU in the field of justice and home affairs, a development that facilitates the creation of a European surveillance state.
"Examples of such 'function streamlining', implemented it should be noted without any parliamentary or public consultation, include the EU’s new surveillance initiatives - the “data compilation instrument” and 'Project Indect'. These Brussels-funded projects facilitate the systematic compilation of information on 'agents of radicalisation' (including 'extreme' right and left political groups, nationalist and anti-globalisation groups) and individuals who are perceived to engage in (undefined) 'abnormal behaviour'.
According to Statewatch, the civil liberties body that monitors the EU, this involves investigating who the targeted 'agents' socialise with, their family members, psychological traits, religious affiliation, economic status and their oral comments. The methods employed will include CCTV footage, sensors which comb through web sites, internet discussion forums and individual computers. One might reasonably surmise that the large numbers of people in the various Member States who refused to give a mandate to the European Constitution, and especially those who draw attention to themselves by engaging in political opposition, will provide ample targets for these 'agent' identification and monitoring techniques.
"It is clear that the Labour Government’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty has ensnared Britain within what will, in time, openly evolve into a federal European Super-state, with all the implications for individual liberty and national sovereignty that an unaccountable international bureaucracy entails. As the independent think-tank Open Europe, observes, 'how can citizens expect their fundamental rights to liberty and independence from the state to be protected by unaccountable institutions which have a vested interest in creating more laws?' When you consider that the EU now has the full coercive machinery of a state, only without the accepted democratic controls on power expected in a democracy, and is stealthily constructing a chillingly extensive and intrusive surveillance capability, there really is only one sensible conclusion to reach . . .
"If we are to regain the national sovereignty that allows a nation to be free and independent, and retain the democratic principles that enshrine individual civil liberty, then Britain must extricate itself from the suffocating stranglehold of the European super-state.
0 comments:
Post a Comment