15.01.2004
Power to suppress
The government's new Civil Contingencies Bill is a monstrous encroachment on democratic rights, says Jem Jones
1920 was a significant year. It witnessed the formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain and it also saw the insidious Emergency Powers Act become law. Drawn up in the aftermath of the World War I, the act was ostensibly intended to allow parliament to respond quickly and efficiently in response to a threat to Britain's 'security'. Its real purpose was soon revealed. It was first used the very next year, in response to the miners' strike, and then again in 1926. It was used nine times subsequently - five times by the Heath government alone - and on every single occasion it was the organised working class that was the target. Eighty-four years on there is good news and bad news. Good news: the law will soon "cease to have effect". Bad news: it will be replaced by the government's new Civil Contingencies Bill.
The bill, which will get its second reading in the House of Commons on January 19, is purportedly intended to allow the state to respond to a wide range of emergency situations - not least the bourgeoisie's current favourite spectre: terrorist attack. However, the bill defines an emergency using the broadest possible definition. An emergency is anything that "presents a serious threat to human welfare, the environment, political, administrative or economic stability, and the security of the UK or part of it". In response, "senior ministers of the crown" would have the sanctioned authority to bypass parliament and institute emergency measures. The powers they wish to accrue to themselves are vast and far-reaching. The legislation will enable the state to restrict access to "sensitive areas", restrict travel, break up demonstrations and public gatherings, deploy the armed forces and seize property. The bill also allows for local or regional state of emergencies to be declared.
In the face of strong criticism from civil rights groups and opposition politicians, the bill as it currently stands now features a 'triple lock'. A supposed safeguard against misuse of this act, this requires the government to demonstrate that there is an emergency or the threat of such, and that swift action is both necessary and proportionate. This is the sole concession that has been made as a result of the consultation period, and one that can plainly be overcome - witness, for example, the 'compelling evidence' presented in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. The Civil Contingencies Bill formally derives its authority from the monarchy, which grants the queen's power to her ministers. It will enable the state to act without even the cursory and largely illusory 'democratic' approval of parliament. In reality, of course, the democratic rights enjoyed by British subjects are under constant threat. They result from hard fought concessions won by the ongoing struggles of the working class, but for as long as it is the bourgeoisie that controls the state, such rights are in danger of being hollowed out.
This bill enshrines that threat in law. Should we step out of line, the state can, and will, abolish at a stroke any pretence of democracy and any feigned commitment to human rights. Jem Jones