Britain 2009
Originally published at Tilting at Windmills16 February 2009
This is not the piece I wanted to write! I wanted to write something short and sharp. This piece is neither of those.I wanted to write a simple piece about the new powers the police have today been given. This piece isn't that either.For there were simply too many elements; too much of a scattered jigsaw that had to be assembled for the larger picture to become clear.I wouldn't blame you if your attention wandered halfway through, but I hope you'll find it worthwhile to keep at it to the very end; although I have to forewarn you, this is a
long
article! And I think I'm more disturbed now, having written it, than I was when I started.
- mike langridge16 February 2009
Sections
Suggest to the ordinary "man in the street" the notion that this country's well along the path to becoming a police stateand likely as not he'll laugh at you.
Ask the ordinary "man in the street" what role he believes the police play in society and likely asnot he'll answer something along the lines of "maintaining law and order".Put to him the notion that this country's well along the path to becoming a police state and likely asnot he'll laugh at the suggestion.The following's a fairly standard definition of a police state:
"a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and sociallife usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures"- from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary [http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/police+state]
Or perhaps you'd prefer this one, from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state]:
"The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between thelaw and the exercise of political power by the executive.The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic."
Well, obviously we don't move from being a relatively free and unrestricted society into a regime of repressive controls overnight. Its a
process of transition
, and a gradual one at that.So where would we be likely to observe this process occurring first? Most likely over the "freedom to express or communicate political or other views". Why? Because it seems to me that would be the most obvious and necessary first step in the development of a politically repressive regime.Okay, let's put the issue of a police state
per se
onto the back burner for the moment and move on to consider something else.
Shut ITT - A mass demo against Brighton's weaponsfactory, EDO-MBM/ITT. Wednesday 15th October '08
Freedom to Protest
That something else being, well, not too far removed from the foregoing... the "freedom toexpress or communicate political or other views". All too often significant sections of the Great British Public find themselves in fundamentaldisagreement with government policy, or find themselves deeply concerned about a serious socialor environmental issue that has failed to engage the population as a whole.The "accepted" means of registering such disagreement, with the obvious and clear intention of seeking to effect some sort of change, has traditionally been through letters to the Press, or toone's Member of Parliament, or even to a Government Minister. All too often however such efforts result in, at best, a dismissive response or, not unusually, apatronising nothing at all.Ramp up the action a bit then, and we have signatures collected on a petition and delivered to therelevant authority. Effectiveness? Well, if one's lucky there'll be a mention in the media, followed by... frequently a patronising nothing at all. Which is where we move into the grand British tradition of a protest or demonstration; customarily a march, sometimes a picket or other static"demo"... a form of expression much favoured by those who feel themselves ignored, overlooked, or sidelined in the prevailing political climate.In exceptional cases, or where the cause rouses sufficiently deep passions and where no noticeable effect has been achieved by lesser means, weenter the rather more contentious realm of "direct action". Which can take many forms, but generally entails some form of civil disobedience oreven acts that may fall foul of the law...though not necessarily of the ideal of Justice!That said though, even direct action has a worthy tradition and a certain sense of legitimacy; I'm reminded, for example, of the Suffragettes.Indeed, the very institution of Parliament that we so affectionately regard as our own has its roots in, albeit rather extreme, direct action! Such isthe nature of protest in this country. Were such freedom to protest curtailed, what other recourse would the public have when they perceive themselves as largely disenfranchised by what is often seen as a mockery of a genuinely representative political system, that our "leaders" still glibly refer to as "democracy"? Yet that freedom to protest, so lovingly and unthinkingly embraced by all manner of political activists and advocates of social causes has, overthe past few years, come under increasing threat.The most obvious and public example of this was the rendering illegal of protests and demonstrations within a specified distance of the Housesof Parliament absent police approval! And since when, one might ask, is it necessary to secure police approval of a demonstration in a supposedly "free" society? Does that not already constitute, in essence, one of the elements of a repressive regime in which the police can arbitrarily dictate, without consultation and withoutaccountability, which protests are considered "acceptable" (and would that be "politically acceptable" perchance?) to the State?However, there are other far more insidious trends at work that threaten our freedom to protest in a much more fundamental way than having toseek police permission before demonstrating outside Parliament. And though insidious, the effects of those trends are becoming increasingly apparent.Its still only February and already this year seems to have witnessed a larger number of protests than a comparable period in previous years... allof which, in my role as freelance photographer/photojournalist specialising in covering protests and demonstrations (which is, if you like, my own personal form of "activism"), I somehow appear to have missed. And quite a few of those protests "occupations" and "sit-ins" (many of them in response to another attack by Israel on the population of Gaza)have seen quite significant, and sometimes violent, clashes with the police.That's item two for the back burner.
"Anti-Terror" Legislation
To my mind something of a seachange occurred in the direction our society was moving followingthe long-to-be-remembered events of 9/11.
For me personally it certainly represented a watershed in my interests and activities, causing me to become much more socially aware and marking my re-engagement with, for want of a better
phrase, the "protest movement"
via
the massively supported, and ultimately ignored, antiwarcampaign.Lets not dwell overmuch on the incredible dishonesty of some of the world's leaders (principally those of the US and the UK) that brought about the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq,and all the problems that has since caused.Nor let us dwell too much on the fact that those who were truly culpable for that naked (andarguably illegal) aggression have
still
not been properly called to account. So much for the Rule of Law.
The Greenwash Guerillas at the Business DesignCentre, London. 16 July 2008Stop the War rally and march, London, 8th October2007
But parallel with those events other things were occurring that will have repercussions for us all, probably much further-reaching than the fatethat befell Iraq.For 9/11 also seemed to trigger a spate of new legislation that for convenience can be bulked together under the term "Anti-Terrorism Laws".Undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction (initially at least) to the tragedy that occurred in America. And undoubtedly ill-conceived and poorly worded(for its stated purpose at least). But now law nevertheless.However, I'm not entirely certain that it was
all
a knee-jerk reaction, nor indeed that much of it hadn't been some years in the brewing. Andthere can be no doubt that more recent additions and amendments to the "Anti-Terrorism Laws" are no longer just knee-jerk reactions to thatterrible event.One of the things that has always puzzled me about this whole raft of new legislation is
why
we needed it anyway. Surely
any
terrorist act is also,
per se
, a criminal act, and could just as well be dealt with by the criminal law that was existing pre-9/11?
Far as I can recollect, we seemed to deal adequately enough using existing criminal law with the "terrorist threat" posed by the IRA... didn't we?But there is a difference between the two "sets" of laws. Moreover, a difference of fundamental importance, and one that has major implicationsfor the sort of future we may
all
have to look forward to.Throughout most, if not all, of these new "Anti-Terrorism Laws" (whether they be called by that name or not) there appears to be a commonthread... the erosion of what have come to be regarded as basic "human rights" and "civil liberties", and a shifting of the emphasis away from thenotion of "innocent until proven guilty" and toward "guilty by default unless the accused can prove their innocence".Back burner again, and let's reach for the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
The Misuse of "Anti-Terror" Legislation
Who remembers Walter Wolfgang? The OAP who was kicked out of a Labour Party conference forheckling (
heckling
, be it noted... a time-honoured tradition in British politics) and then refusedre-entry on the basis of powers invoked under Section 44 of... guess what? Yep... the
Preventionof Terrorism Act
!In the long-to-be-cherished phrase of a mate of mine... WTF?!!!September 2005 that was. See http://www.ft.com/indepth/labour2005 for a write-up of the
ridiculous incident, more suited to a Tom Sharpe novel than the real world.But by then I was already beginning to suspect that the police were using (or should that bemisusing?) all their lovely shiny new "anti-terrorist" powers in entirely inappropriate situations. And why does Section 44 of the Terrorism Act ring bells I wonder? Ah yes, I remember... just mull this over from The Guardian[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/13/humanrights.armstrade] of 2003:
"Demonstrators at this week's London arms fair yesterday were given permission for a full high court hearing into the legality of the police's use of anti-terrorist legislation to arrest and stop and search protesters.Mr Justice Maurice Kay said the application for judicial review from the campaign group Liberty raised a 'serious issue' which should be heard assoon as possible after October 1. Liberty brought the case against the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir John Stevens, and the home secretary,David Blunkett, on behalf of Kevin Gillan, a student from Sheffield. He was stopped by police outside the Defence Systems and EquipmentInternational exhibition in London under the Terrorism Act 2000."
There was also a bit about it in, amongst other papers, The Telegraph [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1441139/Terror-laws-used-on-arms-protesters.html].Now I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there's a world of difference between someone strapping explosives on themself and wandering into a crowded public place, and someone peacefully protesting against an arms fair (that is, an exhibition where one can see ondisplay - and indeed buy if one's "credentials" are "right", which is to say, approved by the State - all the things manufactured to kill people with).Then there was this, from greatreporter.com [http://greatreporter.com/mambo/content/view/820/5/], in August 2005...
"
'UK police use anti-terror Bill against protesters'
Five protestors are arrested in a vigil outside Parliament, as the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill (SOCPB) is enforced for the first time inLondon"
It seems to me there's a world of difference between someone loading bombs into a car and then leaving said vehicle outside of, say, the BBC,and someone participating in an "unauthorised" though peaceful demonstration outside Parliament. A demonstration, moreover, that was
"...designed to highlight the intrusion of civil liberties and highlight how the laws to tackle terrorism are now being used against peacefulprotestors."
Nor is the above simply cherry-picking from a limited number of instances.Its becoming increasingly common (in my experience at least) to find the police using some form or another of this body of new "Anti-TerrorismLaws" (some of which masquerade under another name, as for example the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act that, so the just-quotedarticle claims, was "designed to tackle
terrorism
and organised crime") when policing protests, particularly where there is a likelihood of someform of direct action occurring.
The CAAT March to Custom House. Disarm DSEi protest,London 2007
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Britain 2009
Is Britain becoming a Police State? An article exploring the misuse of "Anti-Terrorist" legislation against legitimate protest and dissent, the attempted marginalisation of protesters by the police, and related matters.
967
Reads
3
Readcasts
3
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
