The Police surrounding Kingsnorth Climate Camp were issued a booklet entitled “Policing Protest” by the sinister sounding National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit. Indymedia brings us a dropped booklet - and very englightening it is too. The pamphlet is very vague in places, with key terms defining what precisely constitutes an offence left to individual judgement and whatever’s considered, “ordinary,” by the office (see p7).

So, are there any dangerous extremists at Kingsnorth? I think it’s time to consult the booklet. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 states:

An offence is committed:

I if a person uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

II Distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

So, in short - if an individual frightens another individual with the threat of violence. Did that happen at Kingsnorth? Why yes, comrades. You see that snarling man in the centre wearing a fluorescent jacket brandishing what looks to be a blunt object, as though he’d do violence against those unarmed citizens; he looks to be just such a dangerous extremist. And don’t those unarmed civilians look scared?

Note also that provocation to unlawful violence is an offence - one the Police already stand accused of. Baton charges and full riot gear aren’t usually deployed against pacifists and vegans. It’s uneccessary, and smacks of an attempt to intimidate said vegans. So when those baton charges are carried out, they become offences under Section 4A of the same Act:

An offence is committed if with intent to cause a person intentional harassment, alarm or distress, a person:

I uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
II displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Not looking good, is it? Similar offences took place under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Unless, of course, smashing the windows of supply vans and the confiscation of materials essential to basic hygiene isn’t an attempt to harrass protestors.

Perhaps the Kent Police will fare better under Section 12 of the Public Order Act, which deals with public processions. It states that conditions may be imposed on activity if it might result in:

I serious public disorder

II serious damage to property

III serious disruption to the life of the community

IV the purpose of procession is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.

Let’s treat the columns of police vans that made their way to Kingsnorth as a procession. They’re guilty of all four offences, I’m afraid, thus:

I Baton charges rather count, I think.

II See exhibit A; note also the theft of soap, crayons, board games, essential building materials, etc.

III We can treat the Climate Camp as a community; it has its own food supplies, kitchens, and even neighbourhoods. The Police have surrounded this community, search anyone who wants to enter it, cut off its food supplies and stolen numerous personal possessions (see II). This seems likely to have disrupted the community.

IV Peaceful Protest is a right guaranteed under the Human Rights Act. The protestors haven’t yet perpetrated violence, so can be assumed to be peaceful; they’ve thus a legal right to do as they have. The Police have interrupted their protest, and so compelled them not to do an act they have a right to do.

Section 14 concerns spontaeneous protest, so we’ll let them off here; the Police have clearly planned this for a while.

We move onto the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 now. Section 42 concerns harrassment of the individual within their home. It states directions may be given should:

I that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual ( “the resident”) as his dwelling;
II that individual believes, on reasonable grounds, that that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the resident or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the resident or such another individual that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do or
that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do;
III that individual also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person (either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the resident; or is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident.

We’ve already defined the Climate Camp as a settlement; it follows that tents and shelters contained in that settlement should be defined as (temporary) dwellings. The Police have entered into that settlement, patrolled outside the dwellings within, and taken possessions from those dwellings. That smacks of harrassment - and so, another offence against their own rules.

There follow a long string of inapplicable sections, before we reach Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It states an offence is committed if an individual trespasses and, “does anything to intimidate persons on that land,” to deter them from any legal activity. So - how does entry into a private tent and taking soap, with the immediate intent to prevent protestors from engaging in the legal activity of washing, and the wider intent of making legal protest less attractive, sound? Like an offence, that’s what.

The section regarding Offence by Harrassment is obscured. But, given that we’ve already shown harrassment has taken place, we can assume the police are culpable here, too. Likewise Section 4 of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, which makes it an offence to, “pursue a course of conduct, ” which, “causes fear,” that violence will be used against them; that Baton Charges were threatened and occured incriminates the Police here. Preventing food supplies reaching the camp almost certainly required a public highway to be obscured; an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980.

So, that makes the Police at Kingsnorth guilty (at least) of offences under the Public Order Act 1986; the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 and the Highways Act 1980. Quite a charge sheet. But where will we keep them all while they’re on trial?

The Police can only justify their existence when they protect liberty. And yet, at Kingsnorth, they’ve demonstrably abused the law - and broken it on numerous occasions. The Climate Camp protestors have exercised their democratic right to protest, and the police have tried to stop them. In a more firebrand mood (or when drunk), I’d denounce them - and their masters at Westminster - as enemies of popular freedoms who fully deserve to be torn apart in a wild and bloody revolution as the people reclaim their rights. As it is, I’ll merely shake my head and say that I really do worry…

(Hat-tips for evidence: Indymedia, JimJay, Coventry Greens, Stuart Jeffrey)

It isn’t a great week for the Home Office, is it? First, overt abuse of police power at Kingsnorth; and now the Lords splatter 42 Days. It’s just a shame it’s in August, where it’s easier for them to ignore the obvious by sitting on a beach…

Quite why am I reading Robespierre? Specifically, his Justification of the Use of Terror. It’s terrifying (hah…):

It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s despotism against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?

Emphasis mine. The doublethink inherent here boggles the mind. State-terror is justified should it be directed at enemies of liberty, he cries. That this terror requires a basic negation of liberalism appears beyond him. If some people are legitimate target of oppression, and others are not, then clearly freedom from that oppression cannot be a universal value. If that freedom isn’t a universal value, then we clearly aren’t born equal or free - and so on. Robespierre’s words are those of a tyrant.

They represent an extreme perversion; the enabling state gone bad. He posits that we must rid ourselves of tyrants to be free. True enough. But here he falters, with crashing rhetoric demanding an outright tyranny against tyrants. That requires a universal negation of liberty - and a restoration of tyranny. The enabling state exists to make basic freedoms viable for all. When, in order to create liberty, those basic freedoms are cut off - very literally, in Robespierre’s case - that concept ceases to make sense.

Now, let’s put this arcane rambling into a modern context. Quoth Robespierre:

Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people’s mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonour the people’s cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

Emphasis mine. The same principles abound as before; some are permissible targets for Terror, and so liberty isn’t a universal value. We can kill some of you to make the rest free, and you’d better appreciate it or you’ll be next.

And guess where that logic crops up today? Substitute, “terrorism,” or, “anti-social behaviour,” for, “counterrevolution,” and it becomes clear. The same clear logic of the, “Justification of the Use of Terror,” runs through virtually all modern counter-terrorist thought.

Even the rhetoric matches, give or take the linguistic drift of 214 years and translation. Take that last question - on whether the servants of tyrants are as guilty as those tyrants. Doesn’t that sound just like Bush’s axiom that, “if you feed a terrorist, or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist?” It’s exactly the same principle; if you’ve any connection with terrorism/counter-revolution, you are a terrorist or counter-revolutionary.

Thus, Melanie Phillip’s, “terrorist nation.”  A wall around the West Bank because Hamas exists there, regardless of the blameless children who also happen to exist there. Because, in this system, they’re not blameless.

And it goes beyond that. The enabling state and the values of positive liberty again become perverted. The 42 Days detention farce serves as the perfect example. Labour claims it protects the basic freedoms of life and liberty by introducing the measures; but effectively jeopardises those basic freedoms by allowing the police to grab a citizen off the street and hide them away for 6 weeks without telling them why. In a perverse twist of illogic whereby liberty becomes tyranny for liberty’s sake, liberty loses. And so do we.

It’s absurd to equate Revolutionary Terror with the present situation. But it’s the same thought that underlies both; freedom must be restricted for its own sake. It’s a perverse step which attacks the real purpose of the Enabling State. Certain intervention can make greater liberty available to all - but not when that liberty is undermined at a basic level. Modern politicians would do well to learn that, or face the consequences of their own petty tyranny.

Brown appears not to understand the concept of civil liberties. Quoth the OED on the term:

civil liberty n freedom of action and speech subject to laws established for the good of community

Legal bods could make the definition more nuanced - but that’s almost good enough. Civil liberties are what Berlin termed negative freedoms; ones which exist and cut down upon, not those created by the state.

Which is why Brown today insisted that:

Gordon Brown has defended the use of CCTV, ID cards and the DNA database - saying they protect civil liberties.

And, moving on to the speech:

“New technology is giving us modern means by which we can discharge these duties, but just as we need to employ these modern means to protect people from new threats, we must at the same time do more to guarantee our liberties,” he said.

“Facing these modern challenges, it is our duty to write a new chapter in our country’s story - one in which we both protect and promote our security and our liberty, two equally proud traditions.”

And so on. Notice what Brown’s missed, though: the fact that he wants to create liberty through state intervention. That doesn’t represent the negative freedom characterised by a lack of restraint typically associated with “civil liberties.”

The state can do a great deal to promote and protect liberties. Intervention isn’t in itself evil at all; the enabling state’s list of achievements is huge. But when the state itself becomes the danger to liberty - as it does with proposals to allow it to lock people up for 6 weeks without charge - then it can’t guard against oppression. Brown would do well to realise that…

Yesterday, I wrote that Labour would duck the issue of 42 Days, either by not standing in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, or running on a full slate if they did.

Kelvin MacKenzie might stop that. In preparing to stand if Labour don’t, he’s forced a choice on them. They might not stand - in which case he will. That’ll humiliate them by demonstrating their cowardice, and it’ll force an argument on 42 Days anyway. MacKenzie says he’d stand solely on 42 Days and authoritarian platform - so there will be a debate, and Labour won’t be able to stop it.

The alternative is that Labour stand - and get forced into an argument on 42 Days, and get hammered. So, that’s the choice of humiliation or even more humiliation for Labour. Or, as it’s otherwise known: not a real choice at all.

Indeed, so potentially damaging is this to Labour’s preferred strategy of hiding in the Commons toilet and lobbing shit (”irresponsible,” etc) at Davis that it’s hard to see why MacKenzie’s doing this. Murdoch and his minion MacKenzie are well known for their shared penchant for an authoritarian approach to everything. And yet their plan could well lead to humiliation for the government.

Perhaps MacKenzie wants to force Labour to stand a candidate and have an argument he thinks should happen. Perhaps he thinks he can make that argument better than Labour himself, and can win. He’d be wrong if that were the case. All his threat to stand has done is strengthen the opposition. He and Murdoch, like much of the media, are apparently at odds with much of the public over Davis resignation: just read some of the comments even appearing on the Sun’s website.

And MacKenzie’s candidature might forge together a coalition for Davis that Labour wouldn’t. Most lefties and liberals loathe both Davis and MacKenzie in general. But when one agrees with you for once, and the other doesn’t, then the choice is clear - support the candidate running on 42 Days, and make it clear the race is about 42 Days and nothing else. He’s hated more, and has positioned himself on the opposite side of the barricades. So you shout at him, regardless of who else joins you. Observe this, for example:

Yes, yes, Davis is a distinctly unreliable “libertarian” with some nasty socially conservative stances, but who can resist the idea of kicking Rupert Murdoch in the nuts? For myself, I’m glad I don’t live close enough to face this particular dilemma. MacKenzie’s decision is partly conditional on Labour not standing, it seems, but my feeling is that momentum - and strong-arming from his boss - will carry him into standing whether Labour field a candidate or not (and, increasingly as the hours tick by, it looks like not). Here’s his positive manifesto for a bright future:

MacKenzie may just have added a few LibDems, Greens (?), independents and maybe even discontented Labour activists to the campaign buses.

So - the public appear touched by Davis’ apparent statement of princple, and there may even be a unified campaign for him. Regardless of the propaganda Murdoch churns out for MacKenzie, he’ll find it hard to win.

But on the off chance he does, will the last person to leave Haltemprice and Howden please turn out the lights?

There is also the matter of Nick Clegg’s reaction. Ali suggested that this was simply another example of his inadequacy, another botched response to bad circumstance. However I consider Davis not to be the only one who comes out favourably from a comparison with Jacqui Smith, consider this:

David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned.

where she seemingly fails to even acknowledge the possibility of acting out of principle to this:

I think it is right from time to time to signal as a party leader that we are capable of setting aside the pursuit of narrow party-political advantage in the name of that wider principle.

where Clegg realises that this is what has occurred and follows suit. I was expecting the standard opportunism from the Liberal Democrats over this matter, as they delight in by-elections, but instead I witness a non-partisan response that will let the debate Davis requested be carried out with total clarity. The Liberal Democrats were unlikely to win anyway and the minor chance of acquiring another MP {much as they deserve one, having been entirely unfairly disadvantaged by First Past The Post} would not have outweighed the damage done to the public interest by the distraction of the Liberal Democrat candidate.

A Noble Endeavor

I agree with Ali entirely over the following:

I do not exaggerate when I suggest that this, if handled correctly, could give Labour the chance to race ahead again. It is of monumental proportions

but over effectively everything else we differ.

I must firstly emphasise further the point made aptly by Ali, as there is little other place to start: this is a stunning move which I can think of no precedent for. It is unquestionably an exercise in grand-standing and as far as can be determined was entirely unexpected by anyone save Davis himself. I also feel that it would be hard for Davis to return to the high standing he achieved, but differ in there being much uncertainty over whether the Tories will offer support, given that Cameron has wished him luck but has apparently pledged no assistance.

Ali suggests that this makes a mockery of the principle of parliamentary democracy, but I would suggest that yesterday’s vote made it clear that the Labour Party was not interested in winning the argument but instead enforcing Brown’s will. Quite simply I doubt severely that the number of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who were opposed to the measure numbered 37, just as strongly as I doubt that the government’s announcement of a vast increase spending on Northern Ireland was coincidental.

What brought Brown victory yesterday was not winning the argument, indeed it was not even the public electing a set of petty authoritarians to act as their representatives. The problem lay with the Whip System, which results in an over-powered executive capable of forcing through even this, the most sinister and muddled piece of legislation to encounter parliament since Blair’s attempt to make it 90 days. Quite simply the executive being able to bring about the ruination of all within the party that oppose it gives it an excessive quantity of power, allowing it to threaten all those that wish for advancement with their hopes being dashed should they opt to follow principle rather than party.

Ali suggests that Parliamentary votes are a matter of conscience. I argue that they should be.

So David Davis decided not to let the matter stand and took a radical approach anticipated by no one. This certainly unsettles many, but I do not consider this to be an instance of egoism on the part of Davis, nor do I consider it “disgraceful”. No egoist in their right mind would abandon the second most powerful position in a party almost certain to reach power on account of a law which could be over-turned upon them reaching power. No, Davis has clearly been affected by the mood of the nation seemingly being in favour of the measure and intends this campaign to be one of scrutiny being placed upon the relationship of state and people. Although this was certainly of interest to Cameron regardless it is worth considering to what extent Davis shaped this distinct focus of theirs and worth observing how things shift now that he has departed.

My respect for David Davis was great after witnessing his firm and robust defence of our liberty during the debate but now my feelings have solidified into outright admiration. It is at moments such as this that I am pleased not to be a partisan. This is certainly an approach that anyone bearing their own political positioning in mind first and foremost would not have taken, but others would do well to follow. Are we to understand that the doyenne of the hopeful leftists, David Miliband, who recently wrote an article for The Times about radical liberalism and social democrats truly was in favour of this draconian piece of vicious statism? Far more likely that he and many others like him were wary of destroying their professional futures by opposing something which was pledged in no manifesto {as Davis mentioned in his fine speech} that somehow became a key policy over which there could be no negotiation.

This is the sort of system that is antithetical to earnest liberalism: the collective body subsumes the individual and this system exploits human self-interest at the cost of liberty. As any liberal knows the appropriate response to such tyranny is to overthrow it and we can but hope that Davis is the spearhead of such a revolution. I even find myself able to forgive him for using a slippery slope fallacy in his speech, for what have the government done save witness a 28 day detention approved and then attempt to force through a lengthier period that lasts six weeks? They used the original as a launch pad rather than accepting defeat over the matter and given this the only plausible response is that the government wishes to be able to imprison people without trial for as long as they could get away with in parliament.

Their motivations may be benign, they could have our national interest at heart, but this is not the appropriate approach to take to the relationship of state and individual. If there is any truth in human rationality this will be revealed in the further national discussions which occurs as a consequence of Davis’ noble and bold move.

The following 36 Labour MPs rebelled against the 42 Days Vote:

Diane Abbott; Richard Burden; Katy Clark; Harry Cohen; Frank Cook; Jeremy Corbyn; Jim Cousins; Andrew Dismore; Frank Dobson; David Drew; Paul Farrelly; Mark Fisher; Paul Flynn; Neil Gerrard; Ian Gibson; Roger Godsiff; John Grogan; Dai Havard; Kate Hoey; Kelvin Hopkins; Glenda Jackson; Lynne Jones; Peter Kilfoyle; Andrew MacKinlay; Bob Marshall-Andrews; John McDonnell; Michael Meacher; Julie Morgan; Chris Mullin; Douglas Naysmith; Gordon Prentice; Linda Riordan; Alan Simpson; Emily Thornberry; David Winnick; Mike Wood.

Note the abscence of one particular figure from this list: Jon Cruddas, erstwhile rising star of the Party left.

That left-wing of the Labour Party needs to wake up and realise how impotent it’s become. Nobody listens to them anymore. Their last tangible achievements were in the 90s with the minimum wage and devolution; since then, nothing. Not on Iraq, not on civil liberties, not on privatisation. They claim they stay in the party because it’s the only way they’ll have influence - but they have no influence in the party.

The government went over their heads today by cutting a deal with the DUP. Those with power in the party would now prefer to deal with a party consisting of conservative nationalists and religious extremists than with secular, socially liberal democratic socialists. And now even their usual allies in the Compass group MPs and Jon Cruddas abandoned them for fear of the whips today.

Shouldn’t that tell the Labour-left something? It has no influence; New Labour stopped listening when it realised how responsive MPs were to threats from the Whips. If it ever wants that power back, there would need to be a grassroots revolution in the party. Activists and constituency parties would need to seize power back from the creaking and undemocratic hierarchy and deselect MPs who voted for measures like this. They’d have to deselect them, find suitable candidates and win the constituency for that new face. And this in the face of great pressure from the national machine that hands out funding and support. Can you imagine how fast that funding would dry up if local activists deselected one of Gordon’s favourite faces and replaced them with a snarling (yet wonderfully bearded) socialist calling for his immediate impeachment for economic heresy? The cash would just go (if, of course, it’s not already gone to pay off the party’s debts…). So - the revolution could happen, but it’d be slow.

The other alternative would be to jump party and head somewhere else. The current fringe socialist parties - the SWP/Left List, RESPECT Renewal, the Socialist Party, blah - are sectarian basket cases who’d destroy those MPs’ careers. The Lib Dems wouldn’t have proper socialists. That leaves joining the Greens - who’d welcome the support and funding and seats. But whether they could persuade their local support bases to come with them is another question.

But the other choice is founding another party. This would be difficult. Every attempt to found a new socialist party since the inception of the Labour party itself has died of Trotskyite infilitration and sectarian squabbles. The SWP might well enter as a bloc and break the new party in the way they did Socialist Alliance. And funding and ground support might prove an issue if local Labour parties didn’t move with the MPs. Not to mention First Past the Post…

That’s why any attempt to set up a new party would need great care. The MPs would have to go to their local parties and make the case for change. Some of the unions would have to go with them - and that’s possible, given the recent discontent from the GMB and other left-leaning groups. And they’d have to go as a concerted group; if they immediately formed a unified parliamentary body when they defected, they’d have a parliamentary record to stand on next election, and would be less vulnerable to sectarian collapse. It’d be difficult, but it could work. Just so long as they keep the SWP out, of course.

The Labour Left has several options. It can find another party, or it can establish its own. Either way, they’d have more of a voice than their current whisper. The government seems more frightened of other parties eating up its votes all round. Just as triangulation against the Tories constantly drove New Labour to the right, perhaps a threat from the left will pull them back again. And they’d have more luck in the Commons judging by recent events; Brown was more willing to deal with another, small party than his own MPs.

The Labour Left has no influence now, and needs to move on. If anyone doubts that, I’ll remind them of the results in the 42 Days debate. For: 315. Against: 306. The difference between those numbers: 9. Number of DUP MPs for: 9.

Number of Labour MPs against: 36.

Get out before it’s too late, rebels.

The bill to extend the period of detention without charge to 42 Days passed the Commons.

315 MPs voted for.
306 MPs voted against.

Note that there are 9 DUP MPs. Who, I’m told, voted for.

So now we know. What were they offered to stick with the government? Perhaps Gordon agreed that any homosexuals detained under the bill would be entered for “re-education” while imprisoned…

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. The DUP has never been known for its attachment to liberalism - or anything approaching it. The government doubtless offered concessions to them, as it was a perfect opportunity to levy something, but had their votes not been so important, they might have gone this way as it is.

Which, of course, says nothing for the DUP.

The Lords will now be crucial. They’ll reject it, I suspect; but will the government use the Parliament Act? It’d be drastic, but it could happen. There’s a lot riding on the Bill, after all. If the government gets defeated on it, they’ll sink from barely treading water to drowning, such is the emphasis they’ve laid on it.

And they might just get away with forcing it through the Lords this time. Their Commons majority was tiny - but it was there. More importantly, they can claim to have the support of the public; that poll showing 80% public support (I worry…) for the measure may see some air again soon.

But would it be in their interests? A devious voice in the back of the mind says the government might not want the bill to pass the Lords. Ministers may well know the bill will have disastrous effects for which they’ll be clobbered in key marginals at the next election. They couldn’t back down from a Commons fight without losing face. But if the Lords reject it, they can blame that for the bill’s defeat and scurry away without as much of a dent to the reputation. I do wonder, at least…

Until then, I’m off to seethe…

This is of course the sort of moment that Shami Chakrhabarti lives for and she hasn’t failed to deliver. Liberty being against such things is to be anticipated, but the extent of their influence is considerable.

I suspect, though, that the reason they have come so close to killing this measure and the reason they assisted so greatly in Blair’s single defeat was the total alteration in the relationship of executive and those around it caused by the “45 minute” claim. As we were told in total confidence that weapons existed capable of causing carnage on a national level {albeit a nation other than our own, a fact often lost in the whirlwind of controversy and repetition} and this later turned out to be a fabrication at best how is it possible for any government to be entirely trusted again?

We must be wary that this proto-cynicism does not develop into the full thing, but this is perhaps one of the most notable features of the Blair legacy and well worth noting.