Using "Terror' To Attack Civil Rights In the wake of the bombings in London, new 'anti-terrorist' laws are being prepared. The first repercussions of these erosions of our democratic rights will be felt within the Muslim and Asian communities. Young Muslim men in particular will experience the harsh realities of the security clampdown. However, there are wider targets, for much of the anti-terror law passed since 2000 could easily be used in the future against other protestors including trade unionists. Here Jane Kelly discusses some of the issues.
Asian man who had n December 2001 a young attended a trade union demonstration in Belgium was detained at Waterloo under the Terrorism Act, 2000. The apparent grounds for suspicion were that he was wearing a Palestine solidarity badge. His passport showed he had travelled to Pakistan on a previous occasion (in fact to visit his grandparents) and to Libya (to attend a socialist youth conference). He was detained until the next day and attempts were made to fingerprint him, injuring his wrists in the process. Fortunately, this 'suspect' was a trainee solicitor, and eventually won compensation for wrongful detention.' campaign, has expressed concern Liberty, the civil rights that laws designed to deal with problems from anti-social behaviour to terrorism are being used against protestors. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to stop and search anyone in a specific area and has been used against those travelling to anti-war demonstrations and anti- capitalist protestors. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOS) are being issued by police and local authorities against protestors, forbidding behaviour such as waving a banner or being in a certain area. Breaching an ASBO is a criminal offence and can result in imprisonment.? Blair's government has adopted from the US many of the legislative attacks on civil liberties. What 9/11 provided for Bush, who was able to get the repressive Patriot Act passed, July 7 may also give to Blair - a heaven-sent opportunity to further undermine rights and liberties, some going back centuries. 3 Before 9/11 But these attacks on civil rights go back to before 9/11 and perhaps they have a deeper cause than the state's immediate requirement to combat terrorism. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act was passed in 1994, and was used against protestors at Gleneagles this year. Section 60 of this act is supposed to be used to search for weapons. 'However it has been used as a blanket authority to stop and search in a manner designed simply to intimidate protestors. For example, everyone attending the protest at Dungavel Detention Centre was subject to a bag search.!" Before 9/11, the Terrorism Act of 2000 criminalised various forms of protest in Britain and the definition of "Terrorism' is widely drawn. Section 1 of the Act, says 'Terrorism' is the 'use' or 'threat' of action that: (i) involves serious violence against any person, (ii) involves serious damage to property endangers life, (ill) creates a serious health/safety risk to a section (iv) of the public, or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously (V) to disrupt an electronic system; (vi) involves firearms or explosives, (vii) is designed to influence the government, or (vil) is designed to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and is for the purposes of advancing a: 'political', 'religious' or 'ideological cause' (my emphases). 1 An example given in the new Briefing Pack for Trade Unionists produced by the Campaign Ägainst Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC). Much of the material for this article comes from here. www.campacc.org.uk For a copy of the Briefing Pack plus an invitation the TU Briefing Seminar please e-mail [email protected] iscussing this in the Guardian (22.2.01), George D Monbiot noted, Under the new act, the women who caused serious damage to a Hawk jet bound for East Timor could have been intercepted and imprisoned as terrorists long before they interfered with what Mr Blair described on Sunday as his mission to civilise the world. So could the desperados seeking to defend the organic farmers by decontaminating fields of genetically modified maize. Campaigners subjecting a corporation to a fax blockade become terrorists by dint of interfering with an electronic system. Indeed, by writing articles in support of such actions, I could be deemed to be "promoting and encouraging" Also under attack now is the right to protest outside Parliament. Supposedly brought in to rid Parliament Square of Brian Haw's four year reminder to Blair of his unlawful attacks on Iraq, The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, 2005 (SOCPA), entails an assault on the right to protest close to Parliament and to Downing Street. Despite Brian Haw's victory in the Appeal Court, from August 1 the law allows the police to impose conditions on any person demonstrating within a kilometre of Parliament encompassing Trafalgar Square, a traditional and important focal point for protests - but including Parliament Square, parts of Millbank, Whitehall, parts of St. James's Park and across the Thames onto the South Bank. Justice, a lawyers' organisation, clarified these conditions in a briefing for the House of Lords, saying: Protest there, even by a single, stationary and silent demonstrator, is an imprisonable offence unless six days' notice (or, if this is not practicable, a minimum of 24 hours' notice), including notice of the duration of the protest, is given to the police. Spontaneous protest is forbidden, even if it is entirely peaceful and carried out in response to the swift pace of political events. Section 137 of the Act also criminalizes the use of loudspeakers by protestors in the designated area....A protest planned to take place in Parliament Square can be moved to another location entirely. An all-night vigil in memory of a political prisoner can be curtailed to twenty minutes and moved into the obscurity of a side-road. A group who want to form a large assembly to demonstrate the breadth of opposition to an unpopular policy can be told that only five of them can attend. A person who wants to protest about a controversial bill during its Commons debate can be told that they can only demonstrate once the debate has concluded. Such restrictions go to the very substance of the rights under Articles 10 and 11 (of the European Convention on Human Rights, the articles concerning freedom of The Campaign Against the Arms Trade points out that street leafleting could be made illegal by Section 125 of the Act which prohibits people from pursuing of conduct which involves harassment of two or more persons; by which he intends to persuade any person; not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or to do something that he is not under any obligation to do'. Harassment is defined as, 'conduct on at least one occasion', 2 http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/right-to-protest.shtml 3 For more on the attacks in the US see, Sam Feeney, War on Terror: Death to Civil liberties', Socialist Outlook 1, Autumn, 2003. 4 G8 LEGAL SUPPORT GROUP on 13th July 2005 (see www.g8legalsupport.info) 5 The Guardian, 22 February 2001 6 See http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/socpa.pdf) 7
'--ea:=- io io or more persons'. George Monbiot says are words, you need only approach someone ase: =e considered to be harassing them, as long as :- "are approached someone else in the same manner'. =:: ca sersuasion can be deemed 'harassment'. The excuse of terrorist attack Sessie more than a decade of attacks on civil liberties, there = -= Joubt that 9/11 gave governments in the US, Britain and = sewhere the excuse they were looking for. Using the climate :: ear created by the attack, The Anti-Terrorism, Crime And Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) was passed in Britain and indefinite detention without trial was introduced. Used against asylum seekers for a decade, it was subsequently adopted for foreign 'terrorist suspects' whom they were unable to prosecute for lack of evidence. After the Law Lords judgement of December 2004, the government replaced these powers with Control Orders. But a number of invidious provisions of the 2001 Act remain in force. The ATCSA 2001 includes: Placing an obligation upon ordinary people to inform the police of any suspect activities or face prison; Forcing communications providers to back up users' data so it can be viewed by the state it they fall into suspicion at • Allowing police to use force to photograph any detainee keep the photos indefinitely and pass them onto foreign police; Allowing police to remove facial coverings in any area where there might be a crime; there is no provision for sensitivity regarding religious articles. The 2001 Act also allows police they have 'reasonable suspicion' that they are involved in crime but without having to give any reason, within certain areas which are 'designated' in advance. The whole of London is such an area, which for example permitted police to harass both demonstrators and journalists at a protest against the DSEI arms fair in Section 17 mandates public bodies to disclose an enormous range of confidential information to law enforcement agencies in connection with (proposed) investigations anywhere in the world. example, a foreign government information about someone resident here, on the pretext that he is a 'terrorist', when in fact all he did was criticise that government or lead a strike when back home, could proceed with the backing of the UK government. Section 117 creates an offence of failing to provide information. It is an offence not to report to the police information which might be of 'material assistance' in preventing acts (this includes the mere threat of terrorism) of terrorism anywhere in the world or which would help detain or convict someone in the UK for acts of terrorism. Information has 8 to be given to the police as soon as 'reasonably practicable' although there is a defence of having a 'reasonable excuse' not to disclose - the definition of this being unclear. While there were very few prosecutions under the old PTA, it was used frequently as a threat to make people become informers or carry out the will of the state. Such legislation can be used to create a permanent state of paranoia in minority A new PTA In April this year, a new act, The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2005 replaced the 2001 provisions for detention in prison without trial, which the Law Lords had challenged. The replacement power to impose 'control orders' entails provisions up to and including house arrest, curfews, restriction of visitors to persons vetted by the Home Office in advance, a ban on pre-arranged meetings with anyone outside the home, and a ban on access to the internet. Inevitably these restrictions apply not only to the detainee himself but also to his family if he has one, including children. Those subject to control orders may also have their homes searched without warning at any time. The ten foreign nationals who were detained in Belmarsh, Britain's 'Guantanamo', reported on the chaotic and cruel new regime they faced upon their release under the new control orders. When the police arrived at the council flat assigned to one detainee, they had to force the door to gain entry, causing the person concerned, who had already made one attempt on his life, to have a further breakdown. Another spent the first day hungry and alone, without food or money. A third man, who has no arms, was unable to make any calls because the phone had not been adapted to his disability. The men have been extremely isolated; those who are unmarried have found the experience more difficult than their time in prison. The confusion over the workings of the control orders and the lack of support led one former detainee to take a severe overdose. After his discharge from hospital, he was consumed by fears of being re-arrested. Terrorist attack provides another opportunity Now, in direct response to the terrorist bombings in London in July, the government is proposing more legislation. So far this includes: • Extending powers to detain suspected terrorists for questioning beyond the existing 14 days; • A new offence of glorifying terrorism in Britain or abroad; • New powers to deport on grounds of fomenting terrorism; • Foreigners to be deported for involvement in listed extremist bookshops, organisations and websites; • Powers to close places of worship • Ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun to be banned • Citizenship to be taken away from naturalised citizens engaged in extremism; • Wider use of control orders to include British nationals advocating terrorism or displaying 'unacceptable behaviour'; • Any asylum seeker who has anything to do with terrorism would be automatically refused.
Ken Livingstone responded by saying that twenty years ago these measures would have meant banning Nelson Mandela or anyone supporting him. The government is threatening to override objections to deportations to countries known to inflict torture or degrading treatment by amending the European Convention on Human Rights. They claim to have agreement from some countries, notably Jordan, that people deported there will not be subject to maltreatment. Already ten individuals have been picked up, with their solicitors denied access to them. At least five of them have serious psychiatric conditions, mostly resulting from their previous indefinite detention. Muslim organisations condemned all these proposals on the grounds that they do not address the main issue, namely that Blair's own foreign policies have radicalised Muslims. They fear for their rights to free speech and to support oppressed peoples in for example Iraq and Palestine. There seems to be a slippage of what is to be criminalised. From the 'indirect incitement', initially proposed by Home Secretary Clarke, to 'justifying or validating' the use of violence. 'Does this mean that anyone seeking to understand - without condoning - the use of violence will be classed as "justifying" it?" Blair may believe that 'the rules of the game have changed' following the London bombings but the right to the freedom of speech, to protest, of dissent will have to be defended. Police try out new powers at G8 The way protestors were treated during the G8 in Scotland shows how the new police powers will be used. It was reported that over 700 people were detained or arrested, many released with no charges filed against them, after having been held for up to four days. Six of those arrested and held in Glasgow's Baird Street police station started a three-day hunger strike after demands for basic human rights were ignored. When not denied food, these prisoners were served sub-standard food and toilet water that resulted in sickness. They were kept in dirty, excrement- smeared isolation cells. They were awoken hourly in their isolation cells for 73 hours, depriving them of sleep. Now we have discovered after the execution of the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in South London, that as in Northern Ireland, the police have a shoot-to-kill policy on the streets of our cities. Even parts of the establishment balk at such powers. Some time before this killing George Churchill- Coleman, 7 Tony Bunyon of Statewatch in The Guardian, August 5 2005 former head of the Anti-Terrorist Squad, is reported as saying, 'I have a horrible feeling that we are sinking into a police state. What we are seeing is not simply a piecemeal reaction to the threat of terrorism and the requirements to protect the public, but a sustained attack on democratic rights some of which were gained centuries ago. It is imperative that we recognise the dangers and mobilise against this slide into authoritarianism. The Muslim Association of Britain's recent call for the formation of a broad coalition to defend our civil liberties and freedoms is to be welcomed. campaign against criminalising communities fringe meeting 'We are all suspects now... 14 September, 7-9pm Sussex Arts Club, 7 Ship Street, Brighton
'AWKWARD SQUAI)'? Changes in the unions in Britain today The shape of the trade unions and workplace organisation has been radically transformed since 1979 when Labour was last in office. Fred Leplat looks at how the trade unions need to respond to the crisis. When Thatcher gut clected. 135 there were million union members while todas 7.3 stands membership al million: collective bargaining covered 70 percent of the workforce while toda" It covers only 36 percent, and the number of shop stewards has fallen from 500.000 to 230.000. Membership participation in the unions today is low. judged br attendance at union meetings. and in the turnout for national executive elections.' The age profile is also alarming. The average age of members of UNISON. the largest union with 1.3 million members. is 47 years. But the level of strikes illustrates the greatest contrast between the two periods. In 1979 there were 29.5 million days lost while in 2004 there were 904.000 days lost. having dipped to 242,000 (the lowest since records began) in 1999. the year after New Labour got elected. The average days lost in strike since These statistics indicate the level of confidence of the working class and its willingness to take action to defend its gains or to go on the offensive for improvements. The high points of strike action in the last 100 vears are: 1921: 86 million days lost: 1926: (general strike) 162 million: 1984/85: (miners' strike) 27 million: 1944: (strikes illegal) 3.7 million. Historic Defeats? The low level of strikes does not mean that trade union movement has suffered a historic defeat or that it will take decades to recover. Indeed there are a number of large recent strikes that have achieved important victories. notably at British Airways and in the Post Office. There is still good union organisation. especiall! in the public sector 10 What future for the and some privatised services and industries. There is also now a small but noticeable increase in union recognition agreements. But the occastonal large strike and modest improvements are realistic understand MATT WRACK - FBU independently of their leaderships Thatcherism the demoralisation of trade unionists taking action against cuts in public services and jobs. carried out by the Labour government implementing an IMF austerity package. A 'social contract had previous!! been agreed between the union leaders and the Labour government to maintain industrial peace. but this was blown out of the water as the IMF cuts caused deep wounds. When elected. Thatcher seized the initiative by introducing anti-union laws that shackled the prevented effective unions and bi the banning orgamsation of closed-shops and effective strike action by imposing long drawn-out balloting procedures. Solidarity action and strikes against government legislation were also banned. The union leaders caved in and obered the lans so as to the bureaucrac!. - cheap transport using cheap labour across the membership and of only part of the picture which overall is of decline since 1979. Socialists need to ring the alarm bells about this decline so as to work out a strategy for recover! We need an honest and assessment to has what happened in the last 25 years. The statistics of the strength of the unions and the level of strikes is only a symptom of the political crisis that the unions are in. and the lack of confidence of or leam meetings. the members to take action The conservative victon of 1979 was due partiy to BOB CROW - RMT protect the tabric of the union. in other words Combined with this legal shackling of the unions, Thatcherembarked on a re-organisation and closure of traditional industries such as steel. mining. printing and shipbuilding. This coincided with the beginning of globalisation 1 Only 8 percent hothered to vete in this year's UNISON NEC elections. world, allowed British coal to be replaced with imports from Poland and South Atrica during the miners strike. Privatisation of public services and industries as well as out-sourcing in private industry broke up union organisation as well as creating a flexible workforce and driving down pay and conditions. From having one national employer ten years ago on the rail. there are now over 500 bargaining units. The full force of the state. both at the legislative and the policing level. was used to crush union organisation where it mas traditionally strong (print. mines. P&O). Employers took on each industry separately with the full backing of the state and government. while the TUC and union leaders refused to organise solidarity action for fear of sequestration of the union assets. The Tories encouraged employers to bring in new management techniques' in both the public and private sector. These included quality circles mission statements and business objectives. service level agreements and internal markets. Trade union leaders adopt 'New Realism' Union leaders adapted to the political shift to the right set by Thatcher. This strateg! mas theorised and became known as New Realism'. Fearing the law they backed away from national strike action and supporting Labour's defeatism argued it mas unelectable because of the bad old days when the country was held to ransom by the unions. Union members and activists mere told to be patient and work hard for the eventual return of a Labour government. Some unions ment into partnership agreements. some. like the EEPTU offering single-union. no-strike deals, even recruiting scabs to break the print umions during the Sun and Times dispute at Wapping. The softer version of partnership was responsible' negotiations. co-operation' with the new management techniques. now common ever where. and offering services to members such as insurance. travel and credit cards. Trade unions today The election of New Labour in 1997. with Blair as prime minister. was not the result of this union strategy. Rather is was the exhaustion of the Tories. wracked by scandal and split
over Europe. In fact the strategy of partnership between employers and the unions continued after 1997, with leaders calling on members to support the New Labour government despite it its adoption of Tory monetary polic! during its first term, maintaining the anti-union laus and extending privatisation on a scale not eren dared by the Tories. Even today; the response of Tony Woodler. General Secretary of the TGWU, over Rover car factory is typical of partnership. The TGWU failed abysmally when the Phoenix + closed the plant after stripping it of its assets and lining their pockets with fat pensions. They did not call for nationalisation and for the plant to be converted for the production of public transport vehicles, nor did it call for the monies given to the Phoenis + lo be returned. The workforce was left demoralised. How awkward is the '