CAMPACC

Mark Thomas on the Terrorism Act

When people ask the question "What can direct action actually achieve?" there is an instant answerÓ- "Seattle", since a mixture of teamsters, anarchists and people dressed as turtles shut down the World Trade Organisation. To bring the WTO"s agenda to a mass public attention, to prevent the most important trade liberalising talks from reaching an agreement, to empower representatives from developing countries and activists alike, and all of this during a visit from the US President, has to be seen as a result. Even more so for those dressed in aquatic flippers and shells.

Of course there are hundreds of other examples where challenging and breaking the law has brought about change, from Ghandi to the Poll Tax, most of which New Labour would like to see politely airbrushed from history. In New Labour and media circles it is fashionable to forget that people like Emmeline Pankhurst not only broke the law but also was arrested for her beliefs. Were she alive today the Sunday Times Insight team would have sent a journalist to a public meeting, and then run "Undercover reporter infiltrates secret feminist cell". The Daily Mail would be doing a classic "radical is middle class" type piece with "Panks Posh Past", The Mirror would go with "Hanky Panky", The Sun "Bitch" and New Labour would denounce her for daring to have a vagina and an independent mind.

Although New Labour are resolutely pro big business and pro globalisation, they like to present the party as the only viable way of introducing progressive social change. They naturally hate the direct action movement. Yet if campaigners, activists and working people had merely kept within the limits of the law we would not only be without the vote, we would more than likely still be eating gruel and sending children up chimneys. Labour"s corporate agenda has led to the Terrorism Act, which targets the direct action movement by including "damage to property" as part of the legal definition of terrorism. The Actôs definition of a "terrorist" is so vague that not only would most GM crop protesters now be classed terrorists, but so would Jesus. Jesus physically threw the moneylenders out of the temple and upset their tables. That action is clearly "violence against any person or property" which involves its "use or threat, for the purpose of advancing political, religious or ideological cause." This would also "create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public." All of which is the Act"s definition of a "terrorist". Thus Jesus is a "terrorist" and his disciples supporters. Only Judas would be clear of any legal challenge as he reported Jesus to the authorities and therefore correctly disclosed information. Presumably Interpol will be putting up WANTED posters with pictures of the Turin Shroud on them, Special Branch will be interviewing anyone with a crucifix and Billy Bragg will locked up for attempting to sing a rebel version of Kumbaya. Indeed anyone who attended church over Easter could be liable to investigation, especially if you helped with the collection, which would be "terrorist fund raising." Ironically one of the groups that did not take part in this Easter Terrorist event was Usama Bin Laden and his merry gang of Muslim extremists.

Although the Act will affect groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the initial targets for the Act - with Mayday coming up - are likely to be groups like Reclaim The Streets. It was RTS who initiated the J18 Carnival against Capitalism two years ago, which cost the City £2 million in damages. It wasn"t the cost that hurt the City; after all they probably spend £2 million a month taking clients to lap dancing clubs. They saw it as part of a rising tide of protest against corporate activity and more alarmingly a protest movement that was becoming global. New "anti terrorist" legislation (comparable to the UK"s) is being passed all over the world and in many ways reflects the success of the anti globalisation movement from Seattle to Prague.

Britain"s financial reasons for the Terrorism Act are nowhere more apparent than in the proscribing of overseas organisations like the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party.) Since being made a banned organisation, membership to the PKK is illegal; they canôt fundraise or organise meetings, not even to discuss why they shouldnôt be banned. In fact under Clause 13-(1) (a) and (b) anyone wearing a T shirt that has images or symbols that support the PKK is liable to 6 months in prison. I agree that there should be some punishment for certain fashion items, particularly Pringle sweaters, but surely making the offender attend London Fashion Week is far more suitable measure than incarceration.

The PKK has had a declared cease-fire for over a year so how can they be a terrorist group? More importantly how can the PKK be terrorists and the Turkish state not? Turkey"s human rights record is appalling; they have been found guilty of village destructions, extra judicial killings, death in custody, torture and systematic rape. The real reason the PKK is banned is to pander to Turkish bigotries in the hope that we will get even more business with them. The Act is unlikely to curb real terrorist activity; if anything it is more likely to urge otherwise innocent citizens to assassinate Jack Straw. Though to be fair if the thought hasn"t crossed your mind by this stage of the game, it probably never will. Happy Mayday!