12.09.1996

Repressive precedent

British authorities have once again demonstrated that they will not tolerate even the slightest challenge to what they perceive as their god-given right to rule.

The government succeeded in forcing the cancellation of an islamic rally last weekend through the sheer weight of its propaganda. The event - Rally for Islamic Revival - was due to be held at the London Arena in the city’s Docklands. But the organisers had to abandon their plans when they were presented with an additional bill for security, estimated at £14,000, by the venue management.

Some of the speakers planning to address the rally claim to be revolutionaries who want a single islamic state dominating the world. The organisers are particularly hostile to several Middle Eastern regimes, and Egypt and Algeria are among those who have protested strongly about their activities.

Seeing an opportunity to win support among chauvinists, and ‘left’ and liberal opinion alike, the government stepped in. Home office minister Tom Sackville said: “This rally will be monitored, and anyone who breaks the law, whether by their statements or actions, will face prosecution.” He was clearly threatening anyone intending to speak in favour of revolution, and added: “The British government condemns any support for terrorism or calls for violence of any kind.”

Naturally, the British government would never contemplate the use of violence itself, whether against the Irish, Iraqis or internal dissidents, such as strikers or demonstrators. But any violence it employs is ‘legitimate’ of course, and is apparently excluded from the category of “violence of any kind”.

It is not clear under what legislation action would have been taken against speakers who did not meet with Sackville’s approval, but some commentators suggested that they could be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred.

Going out of their way to appear moderation itself, the organisers agreed not to play taped messages from three allegedly ‘terrorist’ organisations, but in the end the concerted propaganda had its effect. Faced with bomb threats and the possibility of demonstrators outside the venue, the islamic groups were forced to call the event off.

The fact that their reactionary message will not be heard does not concern us here. But we will vigorously oppose yet more infringements on our right to campaign against our rulers. The fact that the ‘progressive’ Race Relations Act might have been used should act as a warning to those on the left who think that state infringement of rights is acceptable when it is used against the right.

What the state uses against reactionaries today it will use against us tomorrow. Every additional power it adopts poses another threat against the working class.

Alan Fox