Words equal liquids to mind police 5


From the NorthWest Enquirer

CRAIG Murray failed to unseat Jack Straw in Blackburn at the last general election but the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan has proved something of a thorn in the government’s side since. His book, Murder In Samarkand, details human rights abuses in Uzbekistan under president Islam Karimov and criticises the British government’s support for the regime. The government has more recently fired off lawyers’ letters to prevent him publishing documents on his blog. And earlier this month Murray cast doubt on government claims about the scale and imminence of the alleged plot to blow up ten flights to the US. But the bureaucracy is exacting its revenge. Ben, a contributor to the blog Neweurasia, says he was prevented from taking Murray’s book on a recent flight from Heathrow to Berlin. ‘Is that about terrorism?’ he was asked. ‘I am afraid you cannot take this on board, sir.’


5 thoughts on “Words equal liquids to mind police

  • Alterkocker

    Shouldn't passengers be obliged to empty their bladders in the presence of airport security staff? You never know… After all this is a serious business.

  • ScottSA

    I suggest that next time you attempt to concoct a conspiracy theory out of thin air, you don't make it glaringly obvious that the security guard had no idea who Craig is or what the book contained. If he had to ask what the book was about, that strongly suggests that there is no plot afoot to foil Craig in retribution for the minor fringe stir he's attempting to make.

    Oh, incidentally, has anyone noticed that all sorts of charges have been laid and an alleged "charity" shut down over this faked plot? Wow, they sure are going to some lengths to maintain the charade, eh wot?

  • Craig

    We don't imagine that there is a ports watch out for my book in particular. The point is that they are taking books off people becuase of their content, as though subversive thoughts are a danger to aeroplanes. And it is a definite policy, as witness the fact (from the original eurasia.net story) that the security manager was called to take the decision on the book.

    On the charges, we are used to people being charged – viz the non-existent ricin plot. The question is, wull the evidence sustain the charges?

    Craig

  • prisoner.no.3,559,02

    ScottSA: We all know guys like Murray are poison to guys like your masters. Your willy-nilly use of terms like ad hominem attack and tin foil hat heartens me, it shows you are becoming desperate.

    However, any forum needs a good troll, so keep up the mediocre work.

  • The Lone Gunman

    Frankly I was horrified by the confiscation of the book. I know that during the first weekend of the crazed knee-jerk security over-reaction, they were confiscating EVERYTHING; books, newspapers, even my pen was confiscated!

    But if this book was confiscated in the aftermath, (when the ludicrous restrictions had been lifted), then it smacks of censorship. Whether the official involved was aware of the content of the book or not, (presumably not), the very fact that an "official" is taking it upon themselves to decide what you can read and what you can't is, to my mind, a very serious issue, and should be pursued.

    I have long maintained that the precedent is the only chance you have to object; Once a situation has been established by precedent, you have no chance to reverse it. Couple this with my belief that it is not just the current government that you need to trust when the precedent is created, it is all the governments that follow, and how they might choose to interpret the situation that the precedent creates.

    Allow them to establish the fact that "they" can decide what you read, and we can forget that aspect of free speech from now on.

Comments are closed.