|
|
 |
| |
| Clarke is casting aside centuries
of hard work |
Charles Clarke’s terror legislation
reminds Professor Bill Bowring of measure that led to the infamous
Peterloo Massacre
|
Charles Clarke
Professor Bill Bowring
|
HISTORY is repeating itself in Britain. Whether it will repeat
itself as farce, only time will tell. One thing is certain; Tony
Blair and Charles Clarke are trying to put in place the most reactionary
legislation in modern times.
The second reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill on October
26 revealed a stark contradiction at the heart of the government’s
proposals.
During a 75-minute speech, Mr Clarke was adamant on the broad principle
that Britain had pioneered many of the modern world’s liberties,
but also insisted that Britain would have to “fight for democracy”
using unprecedented means to defeat the nihilistic demands of Islamist
terrorism (Guardian, October 27).
The third term of the syllogism was missing. In order to bring about
his desired victory, his “broad principle” will have to
be destroyed. When he opened the debate the previous day, he used
a chilling phrase. He claimed that opponents of his Bill would leave
Britain fighting terrorism with “one legal hand tied behind
our back”.
In fact, the strong rope which so far binds Mr Clarke is the Human
Rights Act 1998, based on the European Convention on Human Rights
of 1950. It should be noted that the Convention sets out the basic
principles which were considered to be an essential statement of
the West’s understanding of essential rights in the context
of the Cold War.
We should remind ourselves what is at stake. Not only is Mr Clarke
determined to win his new offence of “glorifying terrorism”;
he has made it clear that if he cannot get a full 90 days to hold
terrorist suspects without charge, then the least he might settle
for is 28 days. This would certainly violate the Convention and
the Act. To our shame, Britain would once more have to derogate
from her responsibilities under the Convention.
Mr Clarke is not yet responsible for a massacre, although the government’s
anti-terror policies have already claimed victims, notably those
already detained for long periods without charge who have suffered
mental disorder as a result.
But the words of Percy Bysshe Shelley are irresistibly called to
mind, words in his poem The Mask of Anarchy, written after the massacre
carried out by the British government at Peterloo, Manchester, in
1819, during another period of reaction in Britain, following victory
in the Napoleonic Wars.
The present reaction directly follows – and the terrorism in
Britain which it seeks to contest is the direct consequence of –
the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Coalition of
the Willing. That is, the great victory over Saddam Hussein.
Shelley wrote:
“I met Murder on the way –
He had a mask like Castlereagh –
Very smooth he looked, yet grim;
Seven blood-hounds followed him:
All were fat; and well they might
Be in admirable plight, For one by one, and two by two,
He tossed them human hearts to chew
Which from his wide cloak he drew.”
Robert Stewart, Lord Castlereagh, when affected by his growing unpopularity,
he cut his throat with a pen-knife in 1822.
The parallel with Charles Clarke, however, is as follows. In 1817
Britain endured an economic recession. Unemployment, a bad harvest
and high prices produced riots, demonstrations and a growth in the
‘Hampden Club’ movement. In November 1817, as leader of
the House of Commons, Castlereagh introduced the scandalous bill
for the suspension of habeas corpus, which was in fact suspended
for the following year. Habeas corpus is held up, of course, as
the shining star of British civil liberties. The Manchester Meeting
in 1819, which we know as the Peterloo Massacre, called for Parliamentary
reform, to prevent a repeat of Castlereagh’s action.
It is curious that the Hampden after whom the ‘Hampden Clubs’
were named was none other than John Hampden (1594-1643), famous
for resisting Charles I’s ‘Ship Money’ tax, a leading
Parliamentarian politician. This leads me back to Mr Clarke. His
new offence of “glorifying terrorism” will make it a criminal
offence to support a “terrorist” movement anywhere in
the world. On October 11, at the Home Affairs Select Committee,
he said: “I cannot myself think of a situation in the world
where violence would be justified to bring about change,” (Guardian,
October 12). At the meeting, Mr Clarke was asked whether he might
have been caught by such legislation as a student politician supporting
Nelson Mandela’s struggle in South Africa.
He regarded the question as impertinent. At the second reading debate,
John Denham, the committee’s chairman raised the following
question: “If an Uzbek, living in Uzbekistan, supported the
destruction of a statue as a symbol of opposition to the tyrannical
regime in that country, they would be guilty of an offence…
and liable to prosecution and seven years’ imprisonment should
they come to this country.” Clarke had no coherent answer.
All the anti-colonial movements, all the 20th century’s movements
for national liberation, must now be re-categorised as “terrorist”.
Castlereagh’s reaction ended in tragedy – his own. Clarke’s
reaction is extraordinarily dangerous. It no doubt contributes as
well to the continuing farce of the self-destruction of New Labour.
• Professor Bill Bowring is the international secretary
of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers and lectures at the
London Metropolitan University in Islington. |
|
Bordeaux's merits are worth keeping
IF supermarket wines seem less attractive, where should we look for
our wines?
FULL STORY
We should get on our bikes and ride
CROSS country athletes will tramp across Hampstead Heath in the London
Championships later this month.
FULL STORY
|
