Defend the Rights of All!

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, a Government Bill introduced to the Commons by Home Secretary Theresa May, is set for its final reading in the Lords on January 27, after which it will be returned to the Commons for consideration of the Lords’ amendments.

The government summarises this catch-all Bill as containing “a variety of measures to protect the public, including from antisocial behaviour, dangerous dogs, forced marriage, sexual harm and illegal firearms used by gangs and in organised crime. It also includes changes to improve the provision of services to victims and witnesses. In addition, the Bill will take forward further police reform, to enhance the public’s confidence in police integrity and continue modernising police pay and conditions, as well as improving the effectiveness of our extradition arrangements and the efficiency of the criminal justice system.”

The overarching theme of the Bill is to further move away from the established arrangements of “checks and balances” by bestowing police and authorities with increased powers with reduced accountability such that they can act with impunity. Such an all-round attack on the established arrangements has generated widespread opposition, despite the lack of coverage in the media, and has caused unease amongst the Lords. It has led to the bill being dubbed as a law to stop you doing almost anything.

The Bill creates the conditions for criminalising protest and imposing measures to preserve order in the context of driving through the programme of austerity, and furthers the trend of treating the problems and deteriorating conditions faced by the youth, deprived sections of society and national minorities as issues of law and order to be dealt with by swift justice. A case in point is Clause 91 of the Bill, which gives authorities the power to evict tenants who have been convicted of an offence during a riot, a response to the unrest sparked by the shooting of unarmed Mark Duggan by police in 2011. This clause met with significant opposition in the Lords, going to a vote, which however was won by the government with a majority of 33.

One major area of controversy was the clause to introduce Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNAs), a replacement for the infamous Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) introduced by the Blair Labour government in 1998, as a means of criminalising the youth at that time. Rather than abolish this anti-youth legislation, IPNAs were to move further along the direction set by ASBOs in the current conditions.

The fundamental change brought about by the Bill in this respect was not only to broaden, but also to change the focus of what could lead to the imposition of an order away from “antisocial behaviour” to a situation where “on the balance of probabilities” a person might “engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”. Aside from its extreme vagueness, this would have represented a development from the criminalisation of youth to straightforward criminalisation of dissent. The Bill also specified draconian conditions and consequences of breaching the new injunctions.

The clause introducing IPNAs was amended in the Lords on January 8 in a vote of 306 to 178 during the report stage. The amendment, tabled by Lord Dear, blocked the use of the phrase “nuisance and annoyance” in most instances, reverting it to “harassment, alarm or distress” as currently used for ASBOs. As a result, the government dropped the new injunctions on January 23.

Another controversial clause has been that to create new Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), which repeat the pattern of widening definitions while abandoning “checks and balances”. Again, the aim of restricting protest is clear.

PSPOs introduce sweeping new powers to prevent public assembly. They can be used to restrict a very vaguely defined set of activities: those that are “carried on or likely to be carried on in a public place will have or have had a detrimental effect of life of those in the locality”. They can apply to “all persons or only to persons in specified categories”. The discriminatory, including racist, potential is obvious.

Again, the orders require less consultation and local authorities can use them. They can be put into force for up to three years, after which they can be continued for another three. Punishments for violating the orders include arrest and imprisonment, as well as on-the-spot fines, which in themselves diminish accountability by their very nature.

Similarly, the Bill introduces new dispersal powers under which the police, including Community Support Officers, can order a person or group to leave an area and not return for as long as the constable or officer specifies, up to two days, backed by the threat of fines or as much as three months in prison for non-compliance. Such orders can be issued when there are “reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality... is likely to contribute to members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed”, and other such vague situations.

The government was defeated in the Lords over its attempt to erode the presumption of innocence through its proposal to change the grounds on which a person wrongly convicted of an offence can claim compensation. The Bill introduces the requirement for newly discovered evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person is innocent. An amendment overturning this part of the Bill tabled by the crossbench QC Lord Pannick was passed by 245 to 222.

This Bill underscores the growing urgency of defending the rights of all in the face of stepped-up attempts to abandon the old arrangements, norms and notions. It reflects the ruling class even abandoning its own theory, which no longer serves its interests. These arrangements are not being abandoned in favour of something representing the new, but in favour of a pragmatic set of arrangements that prop up the monopolies and recognise no rights of the working class and people as a whole, and where organising to defend these rights and the general interests of society is not tolerated. There is already growing opposition to Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill and this must be stepped up.

The Save Withybush Action Team (SWAT) in Pembrokeshire, Wales, is fighting the closure of A&E, maternity and many other services at Withybush Hospital.

A militant demonstration of over 1,000 on January 26 marched to safeguard the future of the hospital services. This is the second such demonstration in a short space of time. Chris Overton, the chair of the Save Withybush Action Team (SWAT), said the turnout showed the strength of feeling, adding it was “unbelievable” that Health Minister Mark Drakeford thought the new system would be a safe service. “I’ve coined a new phrase, the ‘Sutton test’ – after Kate Sutton from Johnston near Haverfordwest who lost her baby and nearly died herself,” he said. “I ask whether someone in a similar position will be safe when the new system is in place. I don’t think they would be. I think everyone is concerned more and more across the county that these services are going to be cut.” Mr Overton, who is a consultant obstetrician at Withybush, said of the health board’s plans: “They are making a very foolish mistake and people are going to lose their lives.”

Message of solidarity sent from the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign

Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign sends our total support and we congratulate you on your demonstration today. Exactly one year ago, on January 26, 2013, 25,000 people marched in Lewisham in South London in opposition to the government’s plans to close down all the acute services at Lewisham Hospital. So similar to your fight, we were facing closure of maternity services, the A&E department and all acute medical and surgical services for children and for adults, including the frail and elderly. With a tremendous sense of solidarity across our community – including Lewisham pensioner forum, our “Buggy Army”, faith groups, health staff, GPs and local politicians – we marched in defence of the hospital and the right to accessible, safe and high quality hospital care. The very next week the government ignored our community voice and decided to close Lewisham. We vowed to fight on until victory, buoyed up by the strength of our community campaign. Eventually we have won, with the government losing its appeal in October against our
Judicial Review victory in July. Lewisham Hospital has – for now – been saved!

We know what you are going through: the fear and the anger at the prospect of losing your essential hospital services; we faced lies, misinformation, deceits and a disgraceful failure to assess the health needs of the community – especially vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, problems in pregnancy, and those with mental health problems, and disabilities who were totally ignored. We faced denials about the risks to health caused by increased travel times following closures of local services. Consultation was dishonest and decisions had already been made.

We hope that our victory lends encouragement to your endeavour. We send solidarity to your demonstration today and wish you every success in your campaign in every quarter, including your own Judicial Review application. We hope your health staff and doctors, and your trade unions link arms with your community and local groups. We join you from 250 miles away in saying: Save Withybush Hospital – Save Our NHS!

Thank you.

Tony O’Sullivan, Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign, (children’s doctor, Lewisham)

See this video about the Withybush campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJO88v0JDU8

Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign website:
http://www.savelewishamhospital.com/