Clamping down on civil liberties
OVER THE last few years the New Labour government has
introduced increasingly authoritarian laws which threaten civil liberties. They
are introduced ostensibly to combat ‘terrorism’ or ‘anti-social behaviour’ or
‘illegal immigration’ but can be, and in some cases already have been, used
against protestors and trades unionists. They have also been used to whip up
prejudice against minorities such as the Muslim community.
Even before 11 September 2001, for example, the Terrorism
Act 2000 extended definitions of terrorism to include ‘the threat’ of ‘serious
damage to property’, in ways ‘designed to influence the government’ for a
‘political cause’. It also gave the police powers to stop and search anyone in a
named area. These powers have been used against people travelling to anti-war
protests, arms fair and anti-capitalist protesters.
As in the USA, the British government used the 11 September
attacks and the ‘war on terror’ as an excuse to strengthen repressive measures
with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This allows internment
without trial of non-UK citizens as ‘suspected’ terrorists where, on safety
grounds, they could not be deported to their own country. There is no
requirement on the part of the authorities to disclose evidence. Since
internment breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the
government claimed there was a ‘national emergency’ as an excuse for derogation
(opting out) of that part of the ECHR. Using this act, the government continues
to detain suspects at Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons.
There was a set-back for the government in December,
however, when the Law Lords ruled that detention without trial was
‘disproportionate’, and also discriminatory against foreign nationals. The
government’s response has been to propose further legislation which will be
extended to include UK citizens. If everyone loses their rights, then no one is
discriminated against!
Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, is proposing new powers to
detain people indefinitely, under house arrest without trial. His ‘control
orders’ will also allow him to use other measures against ‘terrorist suspects’,
such as electronic tagging, preventing access to phones and the internet, and
banning contact with other named people. They will be imposed by the Home
Secretary without recourse to the courts or even referral to a judge, and again
the suspect will not have the right to know the ‘evidence’ against them.
Gareth Pierce, a lawyer who represents some of the
detainees, commented that Clarke "is giving himself the powers of a dictator".
Detentions without trial and house arrest have often been used by brutal
dictatorships.
Large-scale use of these powers against Muslims could add to
the feeling of isolation many already feel. The majority of arrests under
anti-terrorism laws and all of those detained are Muslims. Young Muslims in
particular feel alienated. There was, for example, a 41% rise in the number of
Asians stopped and searched by the Metropolitan Police between 2001 and 2002.
This is a thin end of a wedge. At some stage, anti-terrorism
measures could also be extended to include political activists, trade unionists,
etc. Already The Guardian (9 February) reported Clarke as saying that "in
extreme cases animal rights activists and other forms of domestic terrorism
might be subject to lower levels of control orders".
There has been considerable opposition to this from within
the legal profession. Ian MacDonald QC, who was on a government-appointed panel
of lawyers who represent terrorist suspects, resigned saying: "My role has been
altered to provide a false legitimacy to indefinite detention without knowledge
of the accusations being made and without any kind of criminal charge or trial.
Such a law is an odious blot on our legal landscape and for reasons of
conscience I feel that I must resign".
Even Tory leader, Michael Howard, feeling the pressure, has
questioned it! He and the Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, were set to
meet Tony Blair on the issue but it remains to be seen what concessions, if any,
they get.
These proposals, alongside all the others from the Labour
government, amount to a huge attack on civil liberties. For example, the
proposed ID cards and national ID database could be used to harass individuals
suspected of being ‘terrorists’, ‘illegal immigrants’ or ‘criminals’ and store a
large amount of information on people. Even the Joint Parliamentary Committee on
Human Rights said that it raises "a number of serious questions of human rights
compatibility".
The government’s proposed Serious Organised Crime and Police
Bill could also be used against protestors. It has added the offence of
‘economic sabotage’, aimed initially at animal rights protesters. The Bill also
creates a new criminal offence of trespass on a ‘designated site’ on grounds of
‘national security’.
The Bill also widens Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Asbos),
by allowing more organisations to seek them against individuals. Already,
protesters have being issued with Asbos by the police and local authorities.
Asbos are civil law banning orders, which can be imposed on people without
allowing them the right to defend themselves in court. Breaching an Asbo,
however, is a criminal offence and can result in imprisonment. Asbos, warns
Liberty, can list things "such as being in a certain area or even waving
banners"!
Recently, Blair publicly apologised to those wrongly
convicted of the 1974 Guildford pub bombings. As Shami Chakrabarti, director of
Liberty, said: "On the day when the prime minister apologises for past
miscarriages of justice his government is paving the way for many future
injustices. The proposal to bring in house arrest for those suspected of
terrorism is the latest in a long line of assaults on the right to a fair
trial".
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, introduced in the 1970s,
led to the detention of more than 7,000 people in Britain. Of these, the vast
majority were released without charge. The act was often used to harass trades
unionists and ordinary Irish people. IRA terrorism was the excuse for many
measures that eroded civil liberties: internment without trial, the non-jury
‘Diplock’ courts, and the interrogation methods of the British army in Northern
Ireland.
Labour Peer, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, pointed out in The
Guardian (27 November) how changes in the law in relation to terrorism are then
absorbed into the law in general: "The right to silence was first emasculated in
terrorism cases in Northern Ireland in 1988, but the erosion of the right was
extended into all domestic law in the UK in 1994".
All of these measures represent a threat to trade unionists,
socialists and anyone who may want to protest against governments and big
business in the future. What is used against ‘terrorists’ today can be used
against others tomorrow. As this government attacks the living standards, jobs
and services of workers, it also seems to be bringing in laws that could be used
to repress resistance to those attacks.
The argument that human rights do not apply because we are
in a ‘state of emergency’ (and have been since 11 September 2001) is a very
handy one for any government that might want to suppress political opposition or
workers’ struggles. How much easier it will be for a future government to argue
that a general strike or mass movements were a ‘state of emergency’. Of course,
how much a future government could get away with the use of such powers will
depend on the strength of the movement of the working class.
We have to argue against the government’s use of the fear of
terrorism to push through these measures. Socialists, trade unionists and civil
rights campaigners need to continue to fight all these repressive laws.
Steve Score
|