ployer. In 1990, solidarity ('secondary') action was rendered unlawful, though secondary picketing had been outlawed in the early anti- union laws.
While nothing legally stops a union organising 100% of workers in a given workplace, the old system of 'closed shop' agreements have been ended, not least by the 1988 legislation which made unions liable if they took action to force an employer to discriminate against non-union members.
Recognition
However, employers are not obliged to recognise trade unions, and increasing numbers of firms, led by publishing houses and newspaper bosses, have gone onto the offensive, withdrawing collective agreements, refusing to negotiate with union reps or officials, and imposing 'individual contracts' aimed at dividing up staff.
In the NHS, ambulance Trusts have gone so far as to withdraw recognition from UNISON, representing over 90% of crews, and instead recognise the small scab union APAP with a handful of members.
These laws add up to a massive, and cynically-planned straitjacket on the British labour Movement To survive, the unions must mobilise their membership and take action: and — as this year's NUT conference has recognised - this now almost inevitably means breaking the law.
The fight must be stepped up at union conferences this summer for the right to strike, and for policies of defiance where necessary of Tory legislation designed to smash union strength."
Sections taking action must be given the full support of the labour movement, while the political fight is waged to force Labour's timid leaders to pledge a full restoration of union rights once the Tories have been removed. what you say may be given in evidence' These famous words Criminal Justice Bill passes through parliament and becomes law, reports HELEN SHAW. THE CIVIL liberties organisation Liberty says, 'the ancient right to silence exists because historical experience shows that to compel answers to questions leads to repression, injustice and ultimately to tyranny.
The sweeping measures proposed by Home Secretary Michael Howard will undoubtedly lead to more miscarriages of justice.
Howard intends to ignore the advice of two Royal Commissions (1981 and 1993) and abolish the right to silence which both felt was an essential safe• guard against miscarriages of justice. Removing the right to silence demolishes the presumption of innocence in the current criminal justice system.
As victims of miscarriage of justice still languish in jail, the racist police still fail to solve racist crimes and continue to harass the black community, the Tories talk up the rise in crime to create a climate of fear and obscure the real causes of collapsing social structure in society.
Their solution is to introduce the Criminal Justice Bill. It will be debated in parliament on April 12 and contains a plethora of draconian measures which attack fundamental civil liberties and rights.
Particular groups of people and activities have been targeted including squatters and travellers, ravers, festival goers and new proposals have major implications for the trade union and labour movement and on the rights of black communities.
An amendment to the bill was announced on Friday 8 April by Home Office Minister David McLean, ostensibly to deal with weapon-carrying gangs, amounts to a new style 'sus' law.
Police will be given powers to stop and search people within a limited area for 24 hours which can be extended for 6 hours if violence breaks out. Records will be kept by the police of people stopped and searched.
Currently the European Convention on Human Rights insists that there must be "just cause' before searching an individual. The specific individual needs to be suspected of a crime.
This amendment gives police blanket power to use their judgement about the likelihood of violence breaking out. This will be open to abuse and used to justify the harassment of the black community as were the 'sus' laws.
Included in the Bill are many public order provisions which criminalise dissent and diversity. New offences of aggravated trespass and holding or attending trespassory assemblies will be created. These proposals criminalise legitimate forms of dissent, undermine the right to peaceful public protest and breach international human rights law.
Knock-on effect Whilst many of the clauses in the Bill are targeted at particular activities they have knock on effects for other activities. Clauses aimed at stopping the activities of hunt saboteurs and curbing activities like the Stonehenge festival - in themselves a bad enough attack - could also be used to stop pickets of workplaces, protests outside foreign embassies, local protests outside hospitals or town halls.
Clause 54 provides that an order can be obtained to ban assemblies which are likely to be held without the permission of in the 'serious disruption to the life of the community'.
By its very nature most protest involves disruption. Large scale demonstrations in London, such as those organised by the labour movement or by antiracist organisations may be particularly vulnerable to the proposals.
In practice these measures could be easily used by the police to arrest and detain people, even if they are not subsequently charged. This will deter people from participating in legitimate protests. The potential applicaEyes far right: it's Mr Howard tion of these proposals to such a wide range of protests makes them particularly dangerous.
Although they might not be used against most forms of peaceful protest, a law which in practice relies on police discretion is a bad law. The police will be in the position to act as arbiters of what is and is not acceptable protest.
The clauses relating to 'aggravated trespass' are even more alarming. Under these provisions neither the police of the prosecution have to prove that disruption or obstruction of lawful activities or intimidation of people engaged in them actually took place merely that there was the intentionto do so.
For example if you organise a peaceful picket on land outside your workplace (but owned by the employer), to protest about job losses, and with the aim of dissuading people (by talking to them) from entering the workplace, and encouraging them to support a strike, you could be guilty of aggravated trespass.
Three months As a result, you could go to prison for up to three months, even if the protest is well-mannered, good humoured, and involves just a handful of people.
If you stand on the town hall steps to protest about the reduction of nursery facilities, you could be guilty of aggravated trespass and go to prison for up to three months.
There is no requirement of proof that actual disruption took place - only the police judgement that it is your intention to disrupt.
Clause 55 gives the police powers to stop people whom the "reasonably believe' to be on their way to an assembly which they 'reasonably believe' is likely to be prohibited under Clause 54.
They can direct them not to proceed. This effectively rubberstamps the illegal police road blocks mounted during the miners strike of 1984/5, in which they excluded people- thought to be striking miners -certain areas.
Bail conditions
In addition some of the proposals on bail conditions have implications for anyone likely to be involved in political protest.
The Bill gives the police new powers to impose bail conditions if they consider someone might not surrender to custody, commit and offence, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The response from Labour has been lamentable, with the front bench going along with many of the recommendations.
But better late than never: a fightback against this legislation must begin now,: if not we might find increasing numbers of labour movement and political activists unwittingly winding up as guests of Her Majesty.
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No.60, April 16 1994, Page 10
may well be a thing of the past if the