As to whether the anti-terrorism law could be used against the Communist Party in the UK. Well it could except that the Communist Party of Great Britain (I kid you not) has been committed to constitutional action for many years now, and has in the last ten, dissolved itself, mostly to join the ruling Labour party. Several government advisors have Communist of fellow-travelling backgrounds - I mention this, I hasten to add, not because they should not be allowed to work for the ruling elite, but rather in the hope that they would prefer not to. Comically, considering that we always thought that membership was compulsory, British Military Intelligence recently decided that Communist Party membership was not incompatible with employment in the secret services!
Even Irish republicans - formerly the principle target of the secret services - are now collaborating with MI5 in tracking down their few recalcitrant former comrades in the 'Real IRA' (I'm not making that up either).
No, the anti-terrorism law is expected to be used principally against organised crime, the far right and animal rights activists. Now, while I would happily see all those groups defeated, I would defend them all against the attentions of the secret services.
In message <F216pB9pbKWZfEAkqBi0000496e at hotmail.com>, Justin Schwartz
<jkschw at hotmail.com> writes
>That's unhappy, but loophole is as loophole does. I mean, the courts have to
>interpret the law. There are various potential loopholes in the First
>Amendment that are huge, but the courts are unlikey to let anyone drive
>through them. For example, the Dennis case, upholding the conviction of the
>CPUSA leaders for (I am not kidding) conspiring to advocate the overthrow of
>the government (really! but this would pass muster under the Brit
>antiterrorism law) is still technically good law; it has never been
>expressly vacated or overruled. But no court in the country would allow such
>a conviction to stand today. If Brit courts read the ECHR protections
>strongly and the ringed the loopholes with hurdles, then they might have
>teeth. It's a point to bear in mind with civil libertarian litigation there.
>
>Trying (sometimes successfully) to divide the left by sneaking right wing
>policies through on the grounds that they can be used against an enemy of
>some segment of the left is a common strategy. When I was at Michigan, there
>was campus organizing against a code of nonacademic conduct designed to
>repress student protest. We had a good cross-racial, all-activist coalition
>with broad support. Then some moron used the campus radio station to make
>ethnic jokes. The U used this to peel off the minority support and ran
>through the code. It was of course promptly used on student activists, as
>predicted.
>
>--jks
>
>
>> >Jim,
>> >
>> >The state of free speech in England is becoming alarming. First, the new
>> >terrorism law, now this harassment theory. Probably I could be liable in
>> >England for something for saying this. For all the manifold defects of
>> >American constitutionalism, it makes me want to go out and give the First
>> >Amendment a great big hug. Is there any protection from the new laws in
>>the
>> >EU, which has made some supranational right enforcveable in the courts of
>> >member states?
>> >
>> >--jks
>>
>>There is the European Convention on Human Rights, to which UK is a
>>signatory and has now incorporated into British law. Unfortunately the
>>ECHR is the product of a rather different age than the American
>>constitution. The rights set out there are muscular indeed, but the
>>qualifications in the subsequent paragraphs - inserted by cautious
>>ruling elites, self-conscious of the need to repress dissent - often
>>negate the rights entirely. Most contain caveats about national
>>security, public morals and welfare, which loopholes are bigger than the
>>rights themselves. A few people (including myself, but perhaps more
>>plausibly Conor Gearty) have argued that the application of the ECHR
>>creates a sum reduction of liberty.
>>
>>The harassment/stalking laws have caught a lot of people unawares
>>because they are framed in terms that those enlightened liberals amongst
>>us are likely to sympathise with - such as the need to stop violence
>>against women. (That said, Amnesty spokesman Conor Foley once pointed
>>out once that the anti-stalking law had been used most often against
>>hunt saboteurs!).
>>
>>--
>>James Heartfield
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
-- James Heartfield