AltNewsMedia brings to your attention what looks to be a classic wolf in sheep’s clothing power grab going on this autumn under the guise of a Stalking Protection Order bill working its way through the UK Parliament.
It is being sold as a female victimhood initiative. No doubt some cases would be used for what most people would deem to be stalking. However, there is already adequate UK legislation that covers that area. The remit of this Bill is much wider and deeper.
Look closely and you will see the bill has a dual use that belies its real intent. As encryption takes over the internet (end to end encryption is now becoming standard for many people), this bill is a backdoor way of monitoring political dissent.
The architect of the bill, arch Remainer Conservative Sarah Wollaston MP writes:
“My Stalking Protection Bill would take the onus off the victim to put in place protection themselves and make it possible to intervene at an earlier stage by introducing Stalking Protection Orders (SPOs).”
Possible translation: If you were to follow the Twitter account of a politician and post facetious replies, you could be monitored. The politician would not have to get their hands dirty by making a complaint themselves. That could make them look unpopular. Instead, some stooge in the shadows can do that for them and the politician will be unanswerable to public opinion for the way you are about to be stitched up.
“The police could apply for an SPO through the magistrates’ courts on behalf of victims. Orders would require the civil standard of proof, but, breach of an order would be a criminal offence, punishable in the most serious cases by a term of up to five years in prison.”
And a second sleight of hand just there. We don’t need criminal standard of proof, just civil ‘balance of probabilities’, which is going to be in the hands of an establishment magistrate. Whose favour do you think a magistrate is going to rule in favour of?
“SPOs could set out requirements prohibiting certain behaviours such as contacting the victim either directly or indirectly, or from going within a certain distance of them.”
And here comes the biggest power grab in the bill:
“The proposed model would also give the courts flexibility to apply appropriate restrictions on internet use, for example, conditions that not only ban the individual from contacting their victims or those around them but could restrict them from accessing the internet from any device unless it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use.”
So anyone displaying public political dissent of any sort can have a civil order thrown on them, not at the behest of a politician, oh, no, it’s all ‘independently’ assessed.
The penalty for breaching the civil order is criminal prosecution. In other words, without ever having had a criminal conviction to your name, all your internet activity must be tracked forever. If you fail to provide a log of your internet history, you face criminal prosecution. No VPN for you.
This is a Private Members’ Bill. Check. In other words, political parties don’t have to carry the can when Joe Public realises what these laws are really for. He just scratches his head and says: ‘Who voted for that?’
It is being cheer-led with what some might see as a wolf in sheep’s clothing ‘victim’ campaign by an establishment newspaper. The Sun. Check.
It has huge cross-party support. Check. AKA It’s a LibLabCon stitch up.
The political establishment know they are facing more and more disillusioned voters and they intend to make dissent all but impossible. The political establishment stands more vulnerable than ever to public excoriation and exposure in this digital age. It doesn’t matter if the dissent comes from left or the right, the establishment is looking for creative ways to crush it.
This bill is really a back door way of removing internet anonymity from anyone expressing political dissent and permanently monitoring them and their contacts. This is not healthy, nor is it a sign of a political class open to examination and challenge. It looks very much like authoritarianism dressed up in the pretty clothes of altruism.