GOVERNMENT SECRECY

Ministers are to keep nearly 150 laws that deny the public a right to information, according to an interim report on a wide-ranging study that was intended to open up the Government and its agencies to greater scrutiny. Freedom of information campaigners warned that the retention of the "secrecy laws" showed that ministers and their civil servants were still wedded to a culture of secrecy. The review is part of a Government-wide initiative to repeal laws that conflict with the new Freedom of Information Act that comes into force on 1 January 2005 and gives everyone a right to access information. But in a report ministers say they want to retain the right of non-disclosure in 147 pieces of legislation. Ministers say they have not made up their minds on whether an additional 70 pieces of legislation should also be added to the list.

The Government's own information watchdog warned that while many of these cases for denying access to information could be justified in the public interest, a significant number could not. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner who polices the Freedom of Information Act, said yesterday that one of the laws the Government intended keeping concerned his own powers. Under the Data Protection Act it is a criminal offence for the Commissioner or any of his staff to disclose information that he has gathered while carrying out his duties in connection with the Act. Ministers have refused Mr Thomas's request to repeal this law.

Mr Thomas, who was a senior lawyer at Clifford Chance, the London law firm, before being appointed Information Commissioner, said, "This has a chilling effect because it can cover any information that comes into my possession. I hope this is still part of an ongoing debate I am having with ministers and that they will change their minds before next year." Under the current law Mr Thomas could be prevented from identifying an individual or company that has been the subject of widespread complaints relating to breaches of data protection laws.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said the Government should have repealed or amended all legislation that conflicted with the Freedom of Information Act rather than conducting a department-by-department review. Mr Frankel said, "The exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act are wide enough to prevent disclosure where it represents an invasion of privacy or is against the national interest. But some of these pieces of legislation that the Government wishes to retain are catch-all bars to disclosure."

He said he could understand why third parties should be barred from finding out about others' personal medical details, but the Government's list included examples that were "absurd or ridiculous". The Anatomy Act 1994 included provisions that could block the disclosure of information relating to a health inspector's investigation into the retention of human organs. The Agriculture Act 1994 appeared to restrict access to information about the preparation of fertilisers. After Alder Hey and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) scandals it is hard to justify how these statutory barriers to information can serve the public interest, Mr Frankel said, "It is clear that some Government departments are more attached to secrecy than others," added Mr Frankel.

A spokesman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said, "The Government has shown real commitment in rolling back the amount of legislation that prohibits the disclosure of information under the Act. There is an ongoing review to repeal or amend legislation, and the detail of this is set out in our progress report. That progress report makes clear the reasons why 147 items to date have been proposed for retention: 24 protect information gathered under compulsion; 54 apply to bodies not covered by the Freedom of Information Act; 23 apply only to specified information and provide for a limited access regime; and 46 implement an international obligation."

Mr X, who had called Jacqui Smith a communist, was stunned to be told that the GP had received a letter from the highly secretive Fixated Threat Assessment Centre following instructions from the Home Secretary herself. The UK government has established a secretive new police unit a la George Orwell with the powers to detain anyone for any length of time without any due process.

The shadowy unit called the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was covertly established in 2006. The unit includes the services of police psychiatrists. Why? For one very good reason, and one reason only: psychiatrists operate above the law. They can detain ANYONE AT ANY TIME AND FOR NO MORE REASON THAN THEIR STATED OPINION THAT THE PERSON MAY BE A DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR TO OTHERS.

Once forcibly detained by a psychiatrist a person can be legally locked away forever and subjected to despicable "treatments" such as psychotropic drug regimes, lobotomies and electric shocking of the brain. They are not entitled to a trial of any sort, they need face no criminal charges.

A person incarcerated by a psychiatrist has no rights whatsoever. Even Stalin had to produce his prisoners in court eventually. The miserable occupants of Guantanamo retain the certainty that one day they will face justice, or at least that they will have their day in court; the occupants of psychiatric prisons have no such comfort.

It is a thin line that separates a rule of law democracy from a totalitarian dictatorship. The FTAC crosses that line. For many years our individual freedoms have been incrementally cut away. The FTAC rips the flesh off freedom and lays bare the bones of repression for all decent and honest people to see. The FTAC represents nothing less that the repeal of Habeas Corpus with its right of trial and its protection from arbitrary state detention.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus orders that a prisoner is to be brought before a court so that the court can then determine whether that person is serving a lawful sentence or should be released from custody. The prisoner, or someone acting on behalf of the prisoner if he/she is being held incommunicado can petition the court or an individual judge for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The justification for the extreme powers of FRAC is of course terrorism. Experience shows that the powers of the FTAC will be quickly exercised in a far wider sphere than even the most skeptical imagine. Once a law is enacted the very fact of its existence gives it respectability and thus acceptability.

For years society casually turned a blind eye to the total lack of Human Rights for anyone labeled "mentally ill", never dreaming that the definition might one day be widened sufficiently to cover not only themselves, but everyone who may for any reason be deemed a threat by those in authority.

In the twenty-first century mental illness is presumed to be the normal circumstance and sanity deemed to exist only after "treatment" by a psychiatrist. We live in a nightmare world that is starting to exceed the imaginings of even George Orwell. Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) tasked to intimidate critics of Jacqui Smith?

A member of the public, who wrote letters and emails calling the Home Secretary a communist and criticising her for creating a police state, has been summoned for an interview with his GP. The individual, who wishes to remain anonymous, said that he was recently surprised to receive a call from his GP asking him to attend the surgery.

Once in front of his doctor, Mr X was stunned to be told that the GP had received a letter from the highly secretive Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) following instructions from the Home Secretary herself. Although embarrassed, the GP understood from the communication that he was required to interview Mr X to establish his "state of mind".

The implications of this incident are extremely serious, as they suggest that anyone who dares to criticise the Home Secretary, or perhaps even the government itself, will be regarded as mentally ill. Clearly for Mr X, Smith’s actions were intended to be a warning and the first step in attempting to brand him mentally ill. (Source: Infowars, May/09)