Tory Legislation on ‘Extremism’
- This topic has 121 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:J Surman wrote:"Reference to a 'parasitic minority' could be used as 'hate speech'"Surely 'reference to a parasitic minority' would be simply a statement of fact?
I agree, and I use it often, but in relation to the legislation it may be interpreted as 'hate language'We are trying to turn one class against another.
Yes I would endorse that too. Though I very much doubt that such legislation will be brought to bear against organisations like the SPGB – the SPGB lawyers would probably have a field day in court getting any muzzling or banning order overturned and the publicity the case would generate would be unprecedented ("Government fails in its bid to ban Britain's oldest socialist party") – we should not overlook the ideological function of such legislation which is to intimidate and to bully and promote what it calls core "British values". The very vagueness of the key terms it uses goes to assist that purpose. Cameron foolishly let the cat out of the bag in his speech to the NSC when he said:“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values."On the face of it , this is a recipe for creeping totalitarianism, a kind of quasi Stalinist form of social engineering and a significant departure from the tradition of so called liberal bourgeois democracy which asserted that, providing you stayed within the law, you were free to espouse whatever ideas or values you wanted to. Of course that is a lie because the state has never stood neutral between different values; it has always promoted certain values such as patriotism. In any event, the idea that revolutionary socialists share such "British values" with Mr Cameron – there is nothing "British" about , democracy for example and it it is not confined to "Britain" – is preposterous so on paper we too would fall victim to such legislation but as I say this is most unlikely to happen. Appearance and reality are two different things….On paper, such legislation is supposed to be directed against "terrorism" – not just the practicioners of violence against the state but the against the ideologists who preach hate or advocate violence but do not themselves commit acts of violence. That would certainly seem to mean that any organisation advocating the violent overthrow of capitalism would be muzzled or banned and that includes quite a few far left organisations. The hypocrisy of it all is, of course, stunning beyond belief. So its OK for a state or members of the government to preach hate against another state (Iraq, Syria etc etc) and even to inflict violence on the latter, but the citizens of the country who elected that government to power are not permitted to do the same. Thus, we have a government that is sending out that message, on the one hand, that violence is justified and moreover works and on the other , condemning those citizens that take this message to heart and start to practise what this government itself actually preaches As I say, unbelievable…
Whilst its true we're against 'British values' I think it would be a tough sell to ban a political party that's been in existence since 1904, and was never proscribed in that time. Also, our commitment to the use of the ballot box gives us significant protection (although we are against Parliamentary democracy). Technically, we've been in breech of previous laws. I've stood in Hyde Park inciting hatred of religion, but never been arrested yet…
The Socialist Standard was banned for export in World War 1 and had to be very careful not to criticise the war during World War 2. Then again the government suspended general elections during World War 2. So who is undermining democracy?
If they planned to introduce something like the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878 in Germany that would be something to get worried about. It starts off:
Quote:Societies [Vereine] which aim at the overthrow of the existing political or social order through social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors are to be prohibited. This applies also to societies in which social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors aiming at the overthrow of the existing political or social order are manifested in a manner dangerous to the public peace, and, particularly to the harmony among the classes of the population.That would cover us explicitly.Actually, while it caused great inconvenience to the German Social Democratic movement it didn't work to suppress it and was eventually repealed in 1890, largely because they couldn't stop more and more people voting for the SPD. That's what would (hopefully) happen if they tried it on the socialist movement here at a later stage.
jondwhite wrote:The Socialist Standard was banned for export in World War 1 and had to be very careful not to criticise the war during World War 2. Then again the government suspended general elections during World War 2. So who is undermining democracy?General elections were also suspended during WW1; none were held between January 1911 and December 1918. And whilst the Defence of the Realm Act of 1914 ushered in various authoritarian social control mechanisms including censorship, flying kites, starting bonfires, buying binoculars and feeding wild animals bread, the Socialist Standard continued to be published, fairly unfettered, throughout both World Wars.
We could also be said to be attempting to radicalise young people because we are attempting to radicalise the whole working class.
rodshaw wrote:We could also be said to be attempting to radicalise young people because we are attempting to radicalise the whole working class.Well rumour has it they executed Socrates for 'corrupting the young' and failing to acknowledge the same gods (capitalism?) as the other mortals, and for "introducing new deities" (Socialism?).Perhaps the Tories have been reading Greek philosophy for inspiration.Waiting to be corrected by DJP
ALB wrote:If they planned to introduce something like the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878 in Germany that would be something to get worried about. It starts off:Quote:Societies [Vereine] which aim at the overthrow of the existing political or social order through social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors are to be prohibited. This applies also to societies in which social-democratic, socialistic, or communistic endeavors aiming at the overthrow of the existing political or social order are manifested in a manner dangerous to the public peace, and, particularly to the harmony among the classes of the population.That would cover us explicitly.Actually, while it caused great inconvenience to the German Social Democratic movement it didn't work to suppress it and was eventually repealed in 1890, largely because they couldn't stop more and more people voting for the SPD. That's what would (hopefully) happen if they tried it on the socialist movement here at a later stage.
Would that not be because the SPD soft pedalled their maximum programme at the time as a way of protecting themselves from the authorities – that is to say, by putting greater emphasis on their minimum programme which then had the effect of drawing more workers to the SPD which, in turn, resulted in the maximum programme fading into the background and eventual disappeaing altogether as the Party converted into a fully fledged capitalist reformist organisation. Bismarck seemed to have cottoned on to the idea and began introducing his own "socialistic" programme of reforms when he realised their electoral appeal However, the SPGB would be in a quite different position if something similar happened in the UK and Cameron and his ilk decided to go the whole hog and ban all revolutionary socialist organisations. In that event, the SPGB would not be able to camouflage itself behind a minimum programme and I guess under those circumstances the Party would have to go underground or something. Not that I imagine for one moment that things will come to that. Cameron may be an idiot but he is not that stupid.
When we consider the experience of the real world, we should be very concerned about where it can all lead. We have already seen existing anti-terrorist laws being used against protesters and political activists with no regard to any supposed terror threat context. . We know that the State has revived and resurrected obscure age-old laws.The law on religious officials influencing election, recently cited on the forum, originally brought in to counter Catholic church priests from influencing the Irish vote, now being applied to Muslim imams.We see strikes obstructed by injunctions and by the police enforcing rarely used laws to stop the movement of pickets during the Miner Strike.Our blog explains how Canada is using a small amendment to have a great effect on their "hate crime" law to stop the BDS campaign against Israel. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2015/05/free-speech.htmlALB very appropriately highlights the anti-union laws proposals which may well extend to the internet and social media freedoms to comment and express support and solidarity. It should also all be linked to the Tory intention to withdraw from international law obligations and re-write human rights the way they want it to applyThe issue for us as a party and as individuals is how far should we oppose what is the start of a slippery slope, the thin edge of the wedge and all the other cliches.Should it be the last straw that breaks the back of our anti-reformism passivity?We rightly place much weight upon our democracy but will we defend it? I recall from my reading of of our party history (the experts can perhaps fill in the details) that we were active in protecting free speech in Hyde Park, Glasgow Green and other open-air forums when the authorities sought to close them down. Could we cooperate with others in opposing the ongoing curtailment of our freedoms as workers and citizens to organise without mounting threats to that? Or does our hostility clause trumps all?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Could we cooperate with others in opposing the ongoing curtailment of our freedoms as workers and citizens to organise without mounting threats to that?No, that would be the thin end of the slippery slope that would lead to the end of our party as a distinct socialist party (as you well know). We'd attract people who were more interested in that than in socialism and end up at best as a group merely opposing the worst aspects of capitalism.The sort of thing we should do is denounce these measures ourselves, along the lines of what we did about 1994 Criminal Justice Act over which a similar fuss was made before it came in.:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1995/no-1085-january-1995/criminal-justice-act-icing-cake
So, as in your case that the Tories even passed specific laws against the existence of socialist parties, perhaps under the pretext of hate speech and advocacy of class war that doesn't preclude violence if necessary, we would be unable to share a platform, be co-signatures to any statement or co-operate in anyway with rival parties groups to campaign against restrictions on democracy.Are we so insecure in our identity and the strength of our case that we have to always be separate and isolated, even to the point of sacrificing our actual existence as a party, for the very obvious reason that our own feeble voice of resistance and insignificant opposition certainly won't be suffice to succeed on its own. But i suppose our extinction would be for the greater good in the end…or so it might be argued by some.
Quote:"Socialism is concerned with justice. Capitalism is concerned with law and order…when the power or privilege of capitalism is threatened, when its property is endangered, when the 'peace' or 'order' it needs to carry out its extraction of profits from the labour of the working class, then . . .capitalism becomes our armed thug ! In such circumstances the whole power of the capitalist state can be used against the working class without compunction. The friendly "bobby" can become a club-wielding fiend; the children's party-giving soldiers can become cold machine murderers."By working with others to expose and protect our class and our party from this "Iron Heel" scenario , is it really the same as getting elected on a policy of reforms and being held prisoner of the non-socialists who supported only the reforms and not the goal? Again are we saying that we have a working class so ignorant that they are unable to understand the nuances of our position and tactics in day-to-day class struggle, one separate from an election campaign.
ALB wrote:No, that would be the thin end of the slippery slope that would lead to the end of our party as a distinct socialist party (as you well know). We'd attract people who were more interested in that than in socialism and end up at best as a group merely opposing the worst aspects of capitalism.Our case would have to be changed radically if we refused to join in the call for free expression and democracy. We would look foolish advocating the ballot box if there were no elections for example.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:"Socialism is concerned with justice. …"It certainly is not! But that is for another thread.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.