The London Blasts: Media Review

ONE MONTH ON

DAY 32: Monday 8 August 2005

REPRESSION AND REGRESSION

TWO POLES OF THE DEBATE

Tony Blair's raft of repressive laws, announced on Friday with the words 'the rules of the game are changing', has evoked various responses. (The BBC video of the briefing is available here.)

Today, we have Shami Chakrabarti, head of the British civil liberties group Liberty, denouncing the plans in the Guardian, and we have David Blunkett, former Home Secretary (clearly still pining for his old post as he languishes in 'Work and Pensions') threatening judges who might raise some objection to the unlawful elements in Mr Blair's draconian package.

Shami Chakrabarti makes a number of points:

On the impact on the Muslim community: 'Far from inspiring or reassuring them, Friday's neo-McCarthyite hectoring has rattled many moderates who had previously begun to rally in vigorous defence of their families, faith and country of birth or adoption - Britain. However, Muslims should not be alone in their fears for the future. If Mr Blair is allowed to construct the Britain that he has mapped out, it is not the rules that will have changed, but our society. We will be just that little bit less distinguishable from the violent, hateful and unforgiving theocrats, our democracy undermined from within in ways that the suicide bombers could only have dreamed of.'

On the deportation of political 'undesirables' to repressive countries: 'The right in question is not to be tortured or sent to a place of torture. This is one of the few absolutes in our human-rights framework and, unsurprisingly, critics of these values are drawn to it like moths to a flame.'

On free speech: 'Mr Blair also promised to criminalise the "condoning, glorifying or justification" of terrorism anywhere in the world - a shockingly broad speech offence that the home secretary had previously tried to narrow down to the still broad concept of "indirect incitement to terrorism". Such a law could criminalise all kinds of debates that have nothing to do with direct incitement. Readers of this newspaper may have to be more careful at dinner parties. Writers of this newspaper ... it doesn't bear thinking about.'

On the banning of groups such as 'Hizb ut-Tahrir': 'it is anathema to democracy to ban non-violent political organisations, however extreme. Surely it is unwise to emulate the banning tendencies of Middle Eastern regimes that radicalised generations of dissenters by similar policies. In months and years to come, will we see the banning of extreme rightwing or leftwing political parties?'

For his part, Mr Blunkett insisted that the Government and Parliament should have the last say on this matter: 'We obviously have the right to go back to parliament and to say "We, the sovereign body who are elected, are the only ones in the end who are answerable for the protection of security and stability in our country. We will make the decision".'

So much for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act.

TREASON!

As everyone knows, one of the proposals now floating about is the use of the Treason Act against 'Islamic extremists who have voiced support for terror'.

The Guardian reports: 'The director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, will meet senior Scotland Yard officers to discuss the cases of Omar Bakri Mohammed, founder of al-Muhajiroun, who has said he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause; Abu Izzadeen, spokesman for al-Ghurabaa - "the Strangers" - who said the suicide bombers in London were "completely praiseworthy"; and Abu Uzair of the Saviour Sect, one of the successor organisations to al-Muhajiroun, who has claimed that the "banner has been risen for jihad inside the UK".'

The most accessible online dictionary defines treason in the following terms:

'Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family'

The phrase 'betrayal of trust' evokes immediate memories of a certain political leader rather than a handful of untrusted extremists (who are all part of the same group/network under its different names).

As for the second meaning of the word, none of the acts attributed to these three men falls into these categories.

The Treason Act of 1795 has been repealed recently (as discussed on the Today programme), but the Treason Act of 1351 continues in force:

'Item, whereas divers opinions have been before this time in what case reason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the request of the lords and of the commons, hath made a declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir; or if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife the King's eldest son and heir; or if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition:. . . and if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices: and it is to be understood, that in the cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged treason which extends to our lord the King, and his royal majesty:.'

Incidentally, the 1795 Act was passed after an anti-war protest involving stoning (and later wrecking) the royal carriage, and was accompanied by a ban on large political meetings, the consequence of which was the splintering of the popular movements, and their continuation in underground conspiratorial networks, according to a BBC history site.

Giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemies of the royal ruler still carries a life sentence, apparently.

What of those who strengthen the credibility of the enemies of the state? Or those who consciously engage in actions that will 'heighten' the risk of attack by the enemies of the state? Or those who provide propaganda material for the enemies of the state?

What of those who alienate potential allies and make them more likely to join the camp of the enemies of the state, by demonizing an entire community rather than seeking to undo the causes of war?

What of those who refuse even to admit that their policies are driving recruits towards the enemies of the state?

Those who refuse point blank to alter those policies in order to reduce the flow of volunteers to the enemy camp?

Are they not also giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemies of the state?

THE INTRIGUE BEHIND THE REPRESSION

Yesterday, the Observer carried a long, detailed and revealing account of the genesis of these new legal proposals, which apparently 'caught the Home Office on the hop too: only a fortnight ago, officials had been busily ruling out some of the ideas floated by Blair, and suggesting it would take much of August to ponder the perfect package.'

'By Friday morning, everything had changed - so fast that Home Office officials did not receive their media 'lines to take', usually prepared well before an announcement, until hours after it had been made.'

Once again, the Prime Minister had launched an initiative without consultation even within his own government.

The Observer records the following recent meeting and discussions between Mr Blair and his officials:

'For those of the small group assembled in Tony Blair's study that July morning who did not know him well, it was something of an eye-opener. Banging the table with a frustrated fist, as the Home Secretary and his two startled opposition counterparts looked on, the Prime Minister was demanding to know 'why the fuck' it was so impossible to rewrite human rights legislation to allow decisive action against a terrorist threat.'

' "He just kept saying, 'Why can't we do this?' and looking at his officials for answers," says one source from the meeting. "And they were just shrugging their shoulders." By the time the meeting broke up, Blair appeared no nearer getting his answer. But those closer to him could have predicted how it would end...'

'... serious questions remain over the scramble - egged on by the Sun, with its vocal campaign for holidaying MPs to come back and do something about 'lawless Britain' - to publish a full anti-terror manifesto within a month of the fatal attack.

'Downing Street sources insist the frenzy of last-minute phone calls between it and the Home Office were 'no more than the usual to-ing and fro-ing' expected in the middle of a crisis. But the negotiations have exposed growing differences between the cautious civil servant's son Clarke, and his hyper-vigilant master...'

' "It's a process we've seen before: the PM pushing and saying, 'There's great public concern here, we have not got to let previous assumptions regulate us'," says a senior Downing Street source.'

' "You get a process of challenging by the Prime Minister and the department saying, 'Well, it's all very difficult', and him saying, 'You have got to understand things have changed'.".'

The tensions behind the scenes between Charles Clarke (new Home Secretary) and the Prime Minister have apparently led to a series of briefings and counter-briefings between and about the new Home Secretary.

More tomorrow.

JNV welcomes feedback.