Taking liberties
New repressive laws are being introduced as part of the ‘war
against terrorism’, writes MANNY THAIN. Shock at the scale of the human
tragedy on 11 September is being used to erode democratic rights won by
working-class people over many decades.
BRITAIN’S HOME SECRETARY, David Blunkett, is rushing
through yet another anti-terrorism bill, with cross-party support, along with a
series of other measures.
Asylum seekers suspected of posing a threat to national
security will be detained if they cannot be deported. Blunkett will restrict
access to judicial review of decisions made by the special immigration appeals
commission. Four ‘accommodation centres’ are being built to house 8,000
asylum seekers, along with an extra 1,200 detention places to speed up
deportations. Identity cards are being introduced for refugees. This will
replace one divisive and humiliating practice – giving refugees vouchers which
have to be exchanged in shops for food and clothes – with another public
display of racial and cultural discrimination.
Black and Asian people will be targeted for ID checks
whether or not they are refugees. People will be held if they fail to produce
the documentation. Once introduced for a specific group, moreover, forcing ID
cards on the rest of society will be easier. Customs officers and police will
have the right to demand the removal of facial covering. Fingerprints taken in
immigration and asylum cases will be retained for up to ten years. These are
immigration policies dressed up as anti-terrorism.
On 11 October, five ‘law lords’ further concentrated
power in the hands of the government. They ruled that the home secretary is best
placed to decide what or whom constitutes a threat to national security and
should enjoy wide discretion in exercising that power. They agreed that foreign
nationals could be deported even if there is no threat to Britain. More asylum
seekers will be refused entry. Others will be deported back to countries under
oppressive regimes, especially where arms, trade and diplomatic deals are
favourable to the British economy and political establishment.
A separate bill is being drafted to allow for EU-wide arrest
warrants and to speed up the extradition of any criminal. Another emergency bill
reinforces the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) which gave law
enforcement agencies extensive powers to monitor internet traffic and e-mails.
After years of anti-asylum seeker propaganda from
establishment political parties, the media and far-right groups, the impression
given is that extradition takes years. The former Chilean dictator, Augusto
Pinochet, is cited as a case in point. In reality, it usually takes a few
months. Even Pinochet was in Britain for only 20 months. The reason he stayed so
long was because his case plunged New Labour into a dilemma. Human rights and
socialist activists tried to prevent Pinochet being returned to the safety of
Chile and wanted him extradited to Spain to stand trial for crimes against
humanity – the torture and death of thousands of socialists, trade unionists
and community activists during and after his CIA-backed military coup in 1973.
It therefore took some time before all the vested interests could manoeuvre
Pinochet’s safe return while avoiding excessive political fallout.
Implementing the new measures requires the suspension of
human rights law. Article III of the European Human Rights Convention –
incorporated into British law during the last parliament – can block the
extradition of suspects if they face capital punishment or torture. Article V
bans illegal detention. Article XV, however, allows a state to opt out of a
particular provision on the grounds of public emergency or a ‘threat to the
life of the nation’. Marcel Berlins, a commentator on legal issues, summed up
the dangers: "What the government is after, I fear, is not just speeding up
the process but diminishing the safeguards". (The Guardian, 2 October)
Measures of social control
BRITAIN ALREADY HAS some of the most draconian legislation
in the northern hemisphere. These latest measures extend existing laws. The
Terrorism Act 2000 – brought in by Jack Straw – established a Britain-wide
counter-terrorism framework, replacing earlier legislation which focused on
Northern Ireland. Terrorism was loosely defined as "the use or threat of
action" to "influence the government or to intimidate the public…
for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause".
It gave the home secretary powers to ban what are deemed to be ‘terrorist’
organisations and covers action directed against persons or property in Britain
or overseas. It became a criminal offence to undertake training with or to raise
funds for proscribed groups, whose assets could be seized.
Anyone causing ‘serious damage to property’, promoting
or encouraging such acts, associating with people who perform them, or failing
to tell the police what is being planned, can be included. Anyone believed to be
plotting an action can be stopped and searched, and protest materials
confiscated. The police can seize anyone who may be about to commit an offence
and hold them incommunicado for up to seven days.
The law can be used against domestic protest groups, such as
animal rights and environmental campaigners. It could be used against the
anti-war movement, against workers on strike, anti-capitalists and other
activists. Straw published a list of 21 proscribed organisations, the majority
of which were Muslim and had not conducted terror campaigns in Britain. The list
can be added to at will.
The Terrorism Act 2000 superseded the 1973 Northern Ireland
(Emergency Provisions) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary
Provisions) Act, which was passed by a Labour government in 1974. The Prevention
of Terrorism Act (PTA) whipped up anti-Irish sentiment throughout Britain. The
whole Irish community came under suspicion. As a result, intimidation, beatings
and imprisonment of Irish people were carried out with impunity. According to
Home Office statistics, 97% of those arrested under the PTA were released
without charge. Included in the 1% who were convicted and imprisoned are some of
the most outrageous injustices in British history. Penny Green, professor of law
and criminology at Westminster University, concludes: "It was a measure of
social control… It was used to repress political activity. A fishing
expedition used for scanning information on a whole community". (The
Guardian, 1 October) Similarly, followers of Islam, and black and Asian people
generally, will be singled out. The PTA was also used widely to arrest trade
union shop stewards and other militant workers.
The PTA was bolstered by the Additional Powers Act (1996).
Then, after 28 people died in the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland in 1998, the
New Labour government rushed through the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and
Conspiracy) Act. These laws threaten any action by workers, communities,
environmentalists and anti-capitalists. The latest measures add to the existing
and wide-ranging legislation, backed up with the state’s hardware.
The Metropolitan Police is looking to increase the number of
armed officers. Currently, 1,750 (out of a force of 26,000) are authorised to
carry guns. More than 1,500 extra officers have been patrolling London’s
streets. Heightened security is costing at least £1 million a week in London
alone.
The Treasury is reported to have released immediately more
than £15 million to MI5 (security service), MI6 (secret intelligence service),
and GCHQ (communications centre). The three agencies expect their bids for extra
funding next year will be met – in addition to the £2.8 billion already
agreed for 2001-04. (Financial Times, 10 October)
Not only is New Labour burying bad news in the wake of the
11 September attacks, it is now cynically burying hard-won civil liberties. It
proves again that any ‘rights’ won by working-class people can and will be
taken back whenever the ruling class gets the opportunity. Racism is divisive.
It weakens working-class action over attacks on living standards and working and
social conditions. Authoritarian laws make it more difficult to organise. Both
need to opposed within the anti-war movement, as well as by working-class and
young people generally.
|