Tory Legislation on ‘Extremism’
- This topic has 121 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Alb, that sounds like the establishment line. Do you really believe that . If the state has a law to shut revolutionaries up and stop them communicating, it will.Miners were charged en masse with criminal damage, riot, breach of the peace, assault and obstruction, to name a few. The Government will use existing laws against the workers' organisationsAnt-terrorist laws have been used against dog fouling and I seem to remember evictions. "NEW figures show that anti-terror legislation has been used hundreds of times in Scotland over the last 3 years for minor offences like parking breaches and dog fouling." Daily Record. https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/countering-terrorism/overview-terrorism-legislation Ever thought why you feel 'protected' Is that because of our own actions or those you perceive will behead you if we don't shut them up and kill them first? Who's side are we on? I personally feel sympathy for the suffering of palastinian people , is it a great stretch of the imagination to think under the proposed law I may be criminalised for speaking out? And supporting Islamic 'terrorism' ?Are we not as a revolutionary movement 'stirring it up'
ALB wrote:Denounce it? Why not? As it's aimed at "non-violent extremists" it is an infringement of the principle of free speech which we have always upheld.Join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law? I don't think so, especially as the most vocal of them will be supporters of Islamist extremists like the SWP crying "Islamophobia". And remember of course that the Islamist extremists if they got power wouldn't simply ban us; they'd behead us.(Even so we defend their right to say we should be beheaded, but drawing the line at them actually doing it.) Best leave this sort of thing to Liberty. That's what they're for.I agree with Adam that the proposed legislation is very unlikely to be used against socialists. It would backfire spectacularly on the Tories if they tried to do so. Question is – what are socialists to do or say about it? While I don't think we should in some formal sense "join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law", merely "denouncing" it hardly seems adequate either. There is surely some middle position to be adopted here. For instance, joining in a mass demo or march against the proposal. It is not relevant to the question that some opponents of the proposal – like the SWP – adopt a position that is ultimately hypocritical. That is their problem, not the problem of revolutionary socialists. The question is how do we bring about or safeguard a political environment in which the right to free speech is entrenched. We cannot just passively sit on the fence; we have to actively participate in the shaping of that political environment even if we are not alone in wanting to do this. You can't really have an effective socialist movement without the minimal trappings of bourgeois democracy so it would be foolish not to agitate for these. And, no, that is not "reformism" either….
We pick our battles and we try and choose the time and place…It is the only way we have a chance of making an impression as The Socialist Party with intervention…. which may well be a unique event in our history, if we actually did make a stand with others. However, is this issue right now the appropriate moment, or do we wait for another? Personally, when the Marines go into action to sink the migrants boats (albeit disguised as some humanitarian act against people traffickers) is when i would unfurl our banners and demonstrate our opposition and signal our sympathy with fellow workers from all lands. A socialist hand of solidarity being extended. And when the TUC eventually launches a "Defend the Unions" protest, i'm very happy for the Party to march alongside trade unionists plus, inevitably, all the factions of the Left, to oppose anti-union and anti-strike laws, a necessary and integral component of the class staggle and the extraction of the workers' share of surplus value. On this issue of civil liberties being eroded in the alleged "war against terror", i 'll be content with a Party statement signed by the EC explaining our position and highlighting the possible (or as Vin correctly indicated the probable) abuse of the legislation. This circulated as a press release. ( even an Socialist Standard editorial would satisfy me….at the moment …to be perfectly honest)But as a Party, i think we should take the precaution of sleeping with one eye open – so to speak – and monitor the situation closely (as Robbo correctly warns us of the consequences that may happen to our general freedoms)
ALB wrote:Join with some of our opponents to try to stop the proposal becoming law? I don't think so, especially as the most vocal of them will be supporters of Islamist extremists like the SWP crying "Islamophobia".Many groups including Stalinists say they oppose Capitalism. Are we joining them by opposing capitalism, too?
Sorry but I don't follow the logic of your argument. The Stalinists whatever they say are not opposed to capitalism, so in opposing capitalism we are not joining with them. The SWP, on the other hand, will be genuinely opposed to the proposed Tory laws though for quite different reasons to ours. Also of course, as is being suggested, we don't have to join with anybody to oppose the proposed law. We just (say we) oppose it.
Just seen on the news that Russia has just recently introduced restrictions on foreign NGOs operating within the country – like Amnesty International – which has predictably elicited a response from the British government via its embassy along the lines that this amounts to a curtailment of free speech. Oh the hypocrisy of it all! But I guess inter-capitalist rivalries is something else that needs to be factored into the equation. In much the same way as economic competition is supposed to be good because it brings down the price of commodities, so political competition between capitalist states over their claims to represent the interests of their subject might not be a bad thing either. In a way bourgeois democracy is the Achilles heel of capitalism though the Left as usual can't seem to see this
Vin wrote:Alb, that sounds like the establishment line. Do you really believe that . If the state has a law to shut revolutionaries up and stop them communicating, it will.Miners were charged en masse with criminal damage, riot, breach of the peace, assault and obstruction, to name a few. The Government will use existing laws against the workers' organisationsOf courese as long as the capitalist class control the state that's par for the course. But the lesson is not that we should join with some people who support capitalism to try to stop those in control of the state trying to give it new powers of repression but to emphasise the need for workers to win control of the state so that it can't be used againstthem and us. That's what we should be stirring up ! Unfortunately we seem to be on our own about this as nearly all the other genuine socialists around are opposed to trying to take control of the state out of capitalist hands.
ALB wrote:Sorry but I don't follow the logic of your argument.We are not 'joining' our enemies by opposing the same thing as our enemies.
Do we seek to end 'parliamentary democracy ' ? The 'freedom of the market' ? Do we not seek the revolutionary overthrow of Britain and 'British values'? The legistlation would give the state the power and the legal means to shut the party down. Whether they use that power we will have to wait and see. See if 'our enemies' defend us.
Vin wrote:Do we seek to end 'parliamentary democracy ' ?No.
Vin wrote:The 'freedom of the market' ?Yes, but where does the proposed legislation say it will be a crime to advocate the end of the "freedom of the market"?
Vin wrote:Do we not seek the revolutionary overthrow of Britain and 'British values'?Yes.
Vin wrote:The legistlation would give the state the power and the legal means to shut the party down.They've already got that legal power.
Vin wrote:Whether they use that power we will have to wait and see. See if 'our enemies' defend us.Oh dear, all is lost !
ALB wrote:Vin wrote:The legistlation would give the state the power and the legal means to shut the party down.They've already got that legal power.
Where? How? If they have, why are they bothering with new legislation?What was the point of the anti union laws, If they could fine unions anyway? I would add: Do we stand to transfer private property out of the hands of the owners? Do we not intend to 'disposses' the capitalists? Is that not illegal?
Before the scaremongering and speculation here gets out of hand, here's a more balanced view of what is likely to be proposed:http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/prospector-blog/what-does-theresa-mays-extremism-crackdown-involve Extremism as "the ideology which drives terrorists". Hardly a definition that could include us by any strength of the imagination. Still an infringement of free speech, though.
ALB wrote:Before the scaremongering and speculation here gets out of hand, here's a more balanced view of what is likely to be propose.Fascists and Nazis to be outlawed and criminalised? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmnvczX5wdk&feature=youtu.be
"The bosses who own and control the resources of society are an undemocratic class; whatever power the workers they exploit possess has been won in struggle. The first trade unionists were crushed by the coercion of the state, and only when the bosses learnt that wage slaves could not be stopped from organising were trade unions recognised. Free speech –that much cherished right which workers in Britain are urged to receive with gratitude from their employers –was won (to the limited extent it has been won) only after long struggle by workers who understood the value of democracy." Socialist Standard July 86 Was free speech won through workers' struggles?
Yes. And it's maintained by their continuing support for it. The ruling class can't just switch it off. Political democracy is not just a matter of laws. It's a reflection of a level of political consciousness already attained.By the way, what's that Nazi site you refer us to? I agree they should be concerned about these new laws being used against them. We'd oppose that too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.