20.01.2000

Tyson - in or out?

Jack Straw has been dominating the headlines over the last week or two. It would be fair to say that many of his recent decisions as home secretary have left him unpopular with many.

First he decided to allow Augusto Pinochet to return to Chile on medical grounds, while refusing to disclose the contents of the doctor's report. Then there has been the steady rumble of discontent over his attempt to effectively sabotage the Freedom of Information Bill (by turning it into its almost exact opposite) and his handling of the Konrad Kalejs case - the alleged Latvian pro-Nazi war criminal who legged it back to Australia under the threat of deportation. On top of all this, Straw attacked "woolly liberals" - particularly lawyers - who live in leafy Hampstead. As part of the "forces of conservatism", the "woolly liberals" of Hampstead and elsewhere object to Straw's proposals to severely restrict the right to trial by jury in the magistrates' courts - ie, to the erection of an explicitly two-tier justice system.

Now we have Mike Tyson. Infamous for biting off the ear of an opponent, Evander Holyfield, in the boxing ring, Tyson was convicted of rape in 1992 and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. It was widely presumed that his scheduled January 29 bout in Manchester with British heavyweight champion Julius Francis would not be allowed to go ahead. British immigration rules prevent anyone who has been sentenced to 12 months or more for a crime that would carry a similar sentence in this country from entering the UK. Tyson's entry would not be conducive to the "common good", as the rules put it, and hence he would be classified as an "undesirable".

But this was not to be the case. Using his executive powers, Straw issued a dramatic 11th-hour edict which enabled Tyson to slip into the country. He avoided reporters and protesters at Heathrow. Straw declared that the "exceptional circumstances" surrounding the Tyson case meant it would be "invidious" for an individual immigration officer to have to weigh up the considerations involved and confront Tyson on the day. Normally such "exceptional" decisions are made on compassionate grounds. In defence of his stance, Straw also maintained that the "common good" law is applied inconsistently and needs urgent reviewing.

Naturally, Straw provoked outrage. Julie Bindel, representing the radical campaign group, Justice for Women, went to the high court on Monday in a bid to challenge Straw's ruling. Justice for Women claims that Straw acted outside the remit of immigration rules by giving Tyson permission to enter the country because of "exceptional circumstances". Bindel's application for a judicial review of the home secretary's decision was rejected. Summing up his position, judge Sullivan stated: "The fact is that Mr Tyson is here. The fight is due to take place on Saturday week. Clearly a great deal of arrangements will have been made by his opponent and by third parties. The court would be bound to have regard to the interests of innocent third parties, along with many thousands of people who have bought tickets. It would be inconvenient that the fight should be cancelled."

The whole affair left Justice for Women fuming. "The government has made it very clear that they take violence against women very seriously," and Bindel, "so this was a huge surprise. The man is a disaster." It is not entirely clear if Bindel is referring to Straw or Tyson. The Observer editorial echoed the views of Justice for Women, declaring that Straw was "wrong to overturn the rule of law in the Tyson case to protect commercial interests" (January 16).

It could hardly be argued that "commercial interests" did not account for Straw's legal volte-face. All 21,000 tickets to the Tyson-Francis match in Manchester have been sold - a lot of potential angry customers. Yet is hard to believe that Straw and Blair are that worried by the financial distress that might be caused to hot dog vendors if the bout were cancelled. Rather, the Blairites are surely far more concerned at the prospect of upsetting very powerful friends - Rupert Murdoch, to name one, and his BSkyB TV network empire. BSKyB has exclusive rights to screen the match. We know that Blair has been assiduously courting Murdoch for years now. So much so that the two had a cosy rendezvous in Singapore in 1997 just before the May general election - which saw The Sun backing New Labour. Given Murdoch's reach and influence, which looks set to expand, not retract, it is a very good idea to keep on his good side. Do not cancel his Tyson match.

The reaction of London mayoral hopeful Glenda Jackson was predictable. She declared, "It would be very good if Tyson were thrown out of the country." Harriet Harman, former social security secretary opined: "For the government to use its discretion to flex the immigration rules to allow in Mike Tyson, despite his convictions, undermines their stance against violence against women and sends out the wrong signals."

For these bourgeois feminists it is "grossly unfair" to allow Tyson entry when thousands of black and Asian people were not allowed into the country for occasions such as family weddings or funerals. Therefore to be consistent, as Glenda and co see it, Tyson should be refused entry alongside the thousands of black and Asian people desperate to enter the UK. Neat, tidy, logical - and of course utterly chauvinistic and reactionary.

Tyson seems to be mentally scarred and often out of control. His conviction for rape seems sound. He has joked about how some of his best punches have been aimed against girlfriends. Many a true word . He delights in making sexist and misogynist comments - on Tuesday he attacked his female critics as "frustrated" people who really "want to be men". Communists of course think that rapists should go to prison and, crucially, be helped. If Tyson committed further acts of violence against women, he would deserve to be put away again.

However, that does not mean we join the chorus to 'kick out Tyson' or want to tighten up the immigration rules. As internationalists we are opposed to all immigration controls - which only serve the interests of nationalism, the bourgeoisie and profit. Jack Straw should have no right to refuse entry to anybody, nor to kick anybody out - irrespective of whether or not they have served a prison sentence. Once they are released, convicted criminals should be as free as anyone else.

We look forward to the day when Straw, along with the class he serves, is swept away by an international revolution. Only then can we create a genuinely human world, as opposed the violent and alienated world we live in now which regularly throws up mini-Mike Tysons in every village, town and city.