20.07.2005

Establishment closes ranks

Communists must fight to defeat new onslaught on democratic rights, says Orla Connolly

With a marked change in the political climate, the 'war on terror' has certainly come home. The shadow of state repression looms large, as the government embarks on a major operation to step up its attacks on democratic rights under cover of the July 7 London bombings. Right across the spectrum of mainstream opinion, with a few notable exceptions, there is a docile acceptance of the government plan to continue its suppression of civil liberties. Andrew Rawnsley of The Observer notes that in the aftermath of 7/7 nothing will be the same again and "the first change is to the balance between freedom and authority. The ratchet will move further in the direction of control at the expense of liberty" (July 17). In truth the state already has a surfeit of legal powers to deal with those it considers dangerous. The Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Disorder Act 2001 gave the government far-reaching powers of search, arrest and detention. It is already an offence to incite terrorist acts, or to seek or provide training for terrorist purposes either in Britain or abroad. The state also has at its disposal the controversial control orders - in effect house arrest with major surveillance for anybody considered a threat, but where there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Besides the vast array of criminal laws already in existence, the state has at its disposal immense financial resources, the army, police and the whole apparatus of special branch, MI5, MI6, electronic bugging and eavesdropping. So the state is powerful and overbearing. And now thanks to 7/7 there exist the palpable fear to justify the introduction of new anti-terrorist legislation. The new laws will be used not simply against young muslims, but against all of those the state considers a threat. And historically that has meant working class organisations and the left. To enthusiastic all-party support, home secretary Charles Clarke will now rush through a series of new measures that are unprecedented in their scope. We are entering into a period of immense surveillance and state intrusion. In particular, the population is being urged to watch young muslim men closely. In the words of Sir Ian Blair, the metropolitan police commissioner, "If somebody has gone abroad as a westernised sports lover and come back wearing white robes and talking about the jihad, we need to know about it." Such men can then be held under house arrest with no need to bring charges. Any person who accesses 'terrorist' websites will be guilty of a criminal offence - what marks out a terrorist website is left open, but presumably for the moment this means radical islamic sites. Logging on to such a site will constitute an "act preparatory to terrorism", along with other undefined 'acts'. And most worrying of all is a new crime of "indirectly inciting terrorist offences". Again 'indirect incitement' is deliberately left vague and open to the widest interpretation. When questioned as to the meaning, Hazel Blears, minister of state for policing, security and community safety, struggled to give a clear example - apart from calling suicide bombers 'martyrs'. She did, however, say it would be anything that - even unintentionally - glorifies or condones terrorist acts. Radical islamic preachers and their followers are obviously a target. But so are those who criticise the government's 'war on terror' and the continued occupation of Iraq. Even those who have the temerity to suggest a link between the occupation of Iraq and the bombings could be caught in the net. Blair is trying to make questioning of the US-UK international 'war on terror' beyond the pale. He doggedly insists that the bombers should be seen as simply following an "evil ideology" with no connection to imperialism's wars and brutal occupations. Indeed he has argued that those who raise criticisms are playing into the hands of the terrorists. In a July 19 interview he laid out his position: "Of course, these terrorists will use Iraq as an excuse. They will use Afghanistan. September 11, of course, happened before both those things and then the excuse was American policy on Israel" (www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4695275.stm). And soon making such 'excuses' could be interpreted as "indirectly inciting terrorist offences". And if that was not enough, at a Downing Street meeting on July 19 muslim leaders were drafted into a 'taskforce to combat extremism'. They are being urged to intervene in mosques and community centres and report on those who are becoming too radicalised. There has been clear bullying of mainstream muslim groups and leaders, with any refusal to cooperate interpreted as suspect. And the government has laid down demarcations between the more or less compliant. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) was urged to come on board, but the Muslim Association of Britain was not invited. Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the MCB has raised muted objections to the demands made by Blair - "the imams, the community leaders, are not the police. It is not for us to police or provide intelligence" (The Guardian July 16). But Blair is determined, while he has the initiative, to railroad all into cooperation. Unsurprising therefore that government ministers dismissed the findings of the Economic and Social Research Council published this week. The report, based on five years of research, drew the obvious conclusion that "British lives have been lost because UK foreign policy was seen as 'riding pillion' with the United States" (The Times July 18). This was followed by the publication of a Mori survey showing that two-thirds of those questioned believed Blair was at least partly responsible for the bomb attacks because of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. Again this fell on deaf ears. But the British state has a long history of denying the truth when it comes to its own political objectives. The struggle in Northern Ireland is but one very clear and pertinent example. From Ulsterisation to criminalisation, the object throughout was to mobilise the British population against the national liberation movement. The struggle itself was presented as fundamentally irrational and based on evil. The media went along uncritically with state imperatives and questioning voices were silenced - as, of course, was the voice of Gerry Adams, which was dubbed over on TV and the radio by an actor. This seems very strange today - particularly when you listen to Adams and wonder why it was perceived as such a dangerous thing to hear his nasal tone first-hand! But it does tell a lot about the paranoia and irrationality that can be deliberately engendered to undermine any debate and stop the population thinking. The UK state has a long history of using draconian measures. The 1936 Public Order Act was allegedly introduced to combat the threat of fascism. In fact it was actually used against the Communist Party and its supporters. The 1988 Criminal Justice Act, apparently brought in to deal with Irish republicanism, was used against poll tax demonstrators and many other groups. Riot police trained in Northern Ireland were used against the miners in 1984-85. Even now the government boasts that specialist army surveillance units are being brought in from Northern Ireland to assist M15. Today the British state is ratcheting up the stakes. The Liberal Democrats - who pretended to be the anti-war party (and were unfortunately aided by the Stop the War Coalition with its invite to Charles Kennedy onto the stage of the February 15 2003 demonstration) - are firmly behind the government. The Tories have put aside their posturing criticisms of identity cards and are now lavishing praise on Tony Blair. To dissent from the official line is to risk being tarred with the terrorist brush. But dissent we should. All attacks on democratic rights must be resisted. We have an obligation to defend muslim individuals and communities victimised both by government and far right groups. We must fight to ensure that there is open, democratic debate of the issues at stake. Blair is out to win the ideological battle. We who are genuinely for democratic mass change should struggle to ensure his defeat l Orla Connolly