03.03.2005

Don't trust them

Blair's new 'anti-terrorism' legislation cannot be defeated using 'human rights' arguments, writes Peter Manson. The establishment cannot be trusted with powers that could just as soon be used against us

Under the guise of 'defending democracy' against the terrorist threat, Blair's New Labour is continuing its full-scale assault on our democratic rights. As we know, the latest Terrorism Bill currently being rushed through parliament allows for a whole range of 'control orders' to be imposed on individuals whom the authorities claim are connected to terrorists - from tagging and curfews, through restrictions on the use of telephones and the internet, to house arrest. Suspects could be detained indefinitely without charge, trial or even the right to know what allegations are being levelled against them. Their access to lawyers would also be restricted and any breach of their control order would be a criminal offence carrying a penal sentence. The measures have been widely compared to those enacted by the South African apartheid regime, who whipped up fears of "die swaart en rooi gevaar" (black and red danger) in similar terms to the anti-islamist and anti-muslim hysteria now gaining common currency in Britain. Of course, at the time, British bourgeois opinion voiced its hypocritical, finger-wagging disapproval of the Afrikaner administration, holding up house arrest and the banning of individuals as the sort of thing that could never happen over here. The Morning Star had hoped that MPs would get "an injection of steel into their spines to resist a carnival of reaction" (February 24). But Labour backbencher Brian Sedgemore was one of only 32 Labour members to vote against the bill's second reading last week. "It is truly terrifying to think what these MPs will vote for next," he said. The closest these brown-nose sycophants came to a 'rebellion' was when 60 of them voted against the government in support of a cross-party amendment which would have given the power to impose all control orders to a judge, rather than the home secretary. Charles Clarke says he needs the power for himself for most orders, but was prepared to concede during the third reading that, when "deprivation of liberty" (house arrest) was involved, then the decision could be taken by a high court judge (although, in any case, this would need a ministerial order for a 'derogation' from the European Convention on Human Rights). It is likely that further concessions along these lines will be enough to salve the consciences of their lordships when the bill proceeds to its next stage. Both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have been nauseating in their claim to be staunch upholders of civil liberties and the 'separation of powers' (ie, the notion that judicial decisions must not be taken by lawmakers or the government). Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes whinged that getting a judge to do the necessary (for the sake of form, obviously) would not prevent control orders being speedily implemented: "Judges can be called on at any hour of the day, throughout the weekend, at any time." As for Michael Howard, when he was home secretary, he insisted on abrogating to himself powers previously undertaken by the judiciary - the right to set tariffs for prisoners given a life sentence, for example. He was the epitome of the authoritarian-style home secretary - until David Blunkett came along and left him in the shade, that is. But all this is, in any case, of little consequence. Whether it is Clarke or some bewigged bourgeois who signs the order will be almost entirely a technical question. A high court judge, even if he wanted to, would hardly be in a position to check the 'evidence' collated by Blair's 'intelligence services'. Nor will the accused, or their representative, be present to challenge the allegations. In fact those subject to orders will not even be entitled to know on what grounds they are being imposed, let alone be informed of evidential details. Clearly, after Iraq and Saddam Hussein's WMD, no-one should trust Blair or his so-called intelligence. But the same applies to all governments, of no matter what coloration. Under the undemocratic constitutional monarchy system, they are almost entirely unaccountable between elections, and able to legitimately conceal many details of their plans and practice, together with those of the departments they oversee. Claiming reasons of 'national security' or confidentiality, they routinely suppress what is embarrassing or merely inconvenient. High court judges too are hardly to be trusted. Bourgeois and reactionary, in a sense they symbolise the establishment and in general will uphold its 'values' to a tee. They are even less accountable than government ministers - at least we get the chance to vote MPs out every four or five years. For all these reasons, we insist that all those accused of whatever offence must have the right to see and challenge the evidence against them, which must be tested in open court before a jury. If the evidence is insufficient to secure a conviction, the charges must be dropped and the suspect released. Some on the left and amongst the liberal bourgeoisie will go along with that, but would be prepared to see by way of compensation evidence obtained through telephone and internet intercepts being produced in court. Labour MP Alan Simpson argued along those lines in the Morning Star (February 26) and even the pressure group Liberty, belying its own name, thinks it quite acceptable to allow the police or MI5 to snoop on those the establishment takes a dislike to. The state should have no right to listen in on our private conversations. In the interests of control, our rulers want to arrogate whatever information they deem appropriate about the behaviour of those they claim to represent, while simultaneously restricting to the minimum details of what they are doing allegedly on our behalf. According to Tony Blair, ""¦ there will always remain a group of suspects, however small, whom it is simply impossible to prosecute because of the sensitivity of the evidence against them" (The Daily Telegraph February 24). That is why he says control orders are necessary. We are not concerned about ruling class "sensitivity". We are concerned about our democratic rights. But, says Charles Clarke, the situation is so unusual, so urgent, that special measures have to be taken: the threat from al Qa'eda was "qualitatively different" from anything previously experienced, he told the House of Commons. This is poppycock. There have always been determined individuals prepared to die for their cause - and to kill others in large numbers in the process. Al Qa'eda might be an extreme example, but it is hardly unique. Nor are its means particularly sophisticated - on September 11 2001 its militants used mere knives and razor blades as weapons. Since, as a response to the 9/11 attacks, the 2001 Terrorism Act was passed, a total of 701 people have been arrested and detained under its terms up to the end of 2004. Only 17 have been convicted of any offence - and not one of them has been linked to this "qualitatively different" al Qa'eda threat. But well over 600 innocent people have already seen their individual freedom severely curtailed. What we are seeing, in other words, is an assault on democratic rights under cover of the 'war on terror'. Of course, at the present time, it is by and large foreign nationalists and religious militants who are detained, incarcerated in Belmarsh or brought to court using the provisions of the 2001 Terrorism Act. But nobody should be under any illusion that organisations and individuals of the working class can, and will in the future, just as easily become targets. The 2001 act's terms are so broad that already virtually any oppositional action that is considered in some way threatening to social stability can be caught in its net. A fire strike or rail work-to-rule could theoretically fall foul of its clauses. It is the same with the latest bill. Since government agencies are to be allowed free reign to act in secrecy, there is nothing to stop them using the new powers against working class partisans. While the organisation of our forces is hardly giving the ruling class sleepless nights at present, things could change very rapidly - and in the meantime the necessary powers will be in place. The drawing up of special measures to be enacted against the organisations of the working class is certainly not without precedent. It just so happens that on March 1 secret papers from the period 1948-54 were released. According to MI5 files, plans were hatched in 1948 for the indefinite imprisonment without trial of up to 16,000 communists and other 'subversives' should war with the Soviet Union appear imminent. MI5 maintained a secret register - the Everest List - of communists (known or 'suspected'), all of which would be rounded up within 48 hours of the order being given, and herded into concentration camps in North Wales, the Isle of Man and at Ascot racecourse. A combination of emergency legislation and the royal prerogative would have provided the legal cover. These plans were drawn up under the post-war Labour government and kept in reserve by the following Conservative administration. So much for the notion that previous Labour governments were not also driven by the same pro-imperialist, anti-working class agenda that drives Tony Blair. And so much for Tory concern - past or present - for 'human rights'. In fact, as comrade Mike Macnair has pointed out, the 'human rights' argument represents a trap, since the various articles contained in the European Convention on Human Rights are in conflict with one another (see Weekly Worker January 13). While article 5 protects the right to liberty, article 1 protects the right to life. What bigger threat to the right to life is there than a terrorist bomb? Or, as Blair writes, "There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack" (The Daily Telegraph February 24). It is perfectly natural for most people to accept such reasoning. For example, in a YouGov poll published last week, only 14% of those asked thought that the control orders as originally proposed (where the home secretary would have had the power of enforcement in all cases) were "wholly wrong". A further 35% thought that the "present proposal strikes the right balance", 33% wanted orders imposed by judges rather than the government, while 13% said the measures did not go far enough. We should not be surprised at such a reaction. After all, if you believe someone is about to hit you over the head with a sledgehammer, then you will be convinced of the need to act urgently without worrying too much about the 'human rights' of the assailant. That is why it is the political battle to expose the reactionary, pro-imperialist agenda that must be won. These people cannot be trusted because they do not act in our interests. They are not friends of freedom and democracy any more than al Qa'eda. It is their class that poses the biggest danger and is our main enemy.