And I was actually referring to Orwell.
Yes, it's a truly dangerous and awful piece of legislation. I'm assuming at this point that you're British, correct me if I'm wrong. I fear for your country, and I fear for my own.
And I've tried repeatedly to say that you're NOT North Korea, and I will make it clear now that Theresa May is NOT Hitler, she's not Kim Jong Un. She's horrible and dangerous, but I don't think she has genocide or complete repression of the population in mind at all.
Laws like this set the stage for evil. Even if the intent is in some way good (and I don't believe it can be, government has no business engaging in such surveillance of their own population) the outcome will not be. The danger is obvious in misuse of these laws, which is why, no matter the good intentions of the government passing them, they cannot be tolerated. But the danger is there even if these laws are never misused, because they diminish the privacy of everyone. Even if they are never used for truly evil purposes like genocide, the attack on privacy is an evil unto itself.
And no, I'm not as eloquent as Huxley, I'm not a writer at all, I've never written a novel, the entirety of my published writing is a chapter of a book that likely no one ever read, back in the late nineties covering the Macintosh and how to connect it to the internet. There is no point in criticizing my writing, I know I'm quite terrible at it, and I will never attempt to do it for a living.
But I do think the danger in such laws is obvious, and I do think that a comparison to the truly awful regimes of the past is warranted. Not because I believe that in its present form it's as bad as those, but because it moves your country to a point closer to the danger of becoming those. It's a warning of the horrors that could befall, not a statement of the horrors that exist.