The 22 general secretaries of trade unions issued a statement on July 15 to formally voice their disapproval of the charges levied against officers comprising the Stop the War Coalition (STWC). Their rebuke was targeted at the decision of the Metropolitan Police to press charges against well-known union members and anti-war activists, connected to an assemblage in London’s hub on January 18 of the same year. The general secretaries’ communiqué underscored that the charges represent a blatant encroachment on their fundamental right to protest. They emphasized the pivotal importance of protest rights in the realms of trade unions and the wider movement, along with the freedom to organize, assemble, and express oneself, and the imperative need to safeguard these liberties.
However, an audacious appeal to defend these freedoms, which appear to be facing an onslaught from the state, was glaringly absent from the union leaders’ decree. The call was chiefly for the dismissal of charges against Alex Kenny, previously an executive member of the National Education Union; Sophie Bolt, the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND); Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign; and Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition.
This particular censure by union leaders was made public following an Open Letter, which came out on July 13. This letter was endorsed by loads of public figures, artists, and campaigners incensed at the Labour government’s decision to label Palestine Action as a terror group on July 4. The proscription earned a harsh rebuke, termed as a ‘significant assault on our freedoms’ and a worryingly growing trend towards criminalising direct action.
The letter, while outwardly admonishing the proscription, reserves explicit criticism only to express ‘deep concern’ over the charges levelled against the January 18 protest’s participants and to state the necessity of defending the right to protest. This seemingly disinclined stance appears designed to avert any direct skirmish with Starmer’s administration.
On the fateful day of January 18, the police clampdown led to the arrest of 77 protesters. Frightening accounts of police high-handedness came to light, reporting the indiscriminate kettling of a wide demographic of protestors, including minors, the expectant mothers, and senior citizens. This unchecked use of force against peaceful protestors reflects a growing trend towards state control over the right to free expression.
Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 give the police broad powers to suppress or disband demonstrations under the thinly veiled excuse of ‘nuisance’, and to pre-emptively make arrests. This controversial law has been central to several high-profile police crackdowns on peaceful protests and has drawn widespread condemnation from human rights groups.
Underlining the seriousness of the situation is the Birmingham bin workers’ seven-month strike action, undertaken by 400 workers defending their jobs and protesting against steep pay cuts — this was the most remarkable labor mobilization since Starmer’s administration assumed power in the previous July. During this industrial action, Section 14 was used to disperse the picketing workers, raising serious concerns about the erosion of democratic rights.
Covering this capitulation were strategically planned ‘mega-pickets’ in May and the subsequent one scheduled for July 25. These have served to somewhat deter attention from the alarming repression. The demonstration in July labelled ‘Stop the War’ led to the arrest of many people who publicly supported Palestine Action.
The Socialist Equality Party analyzed the partially troubling development, setting forth an articulate query, ‘[I]if non-violent sabotage by individual protestors is designated as terrorist activity, then what is the classification of strikes leading to a boycott of the supply of weapons and other equipment to the Israeli war machine, as has been achieved by French, Greek, and Italian dockers?’
It’s clear, the crux of the matter is not merely an earnest declaration of ‘concern’ by union officiators. What’s fundamentally needed is the working class’s independent mobilization. But realizing this objective mandates a break free from the insipid influence of union bureaucracy, which has staunch allegiance to Labour and appears fearful of formidable working-class resistance.
International observers including United Nations officials, legal experts, and civil rights organizations have raised a red flag about the ‘chilling effects’ of the policies forged under Starmer’s government that significantly undermine core democratic rights. They warn that these measures could potentially lead to an authoritarian regime.
However, they also emphasize that only the working class, when organized and politically driven, can effectively thwart a drift toward autocratic forms of governance. These experts believe that the mobilization of the working class is the most potent weapon against systemic repression and erosion of democratic rights.
Altogether, the call to arms and the measures proposed to halt the repression of the democratic right to protest is drawing attention from differing quarters. Reinforcing this stand becomes pivotal in safeguarding democratic rights within the socio-political landscape.
Encapsulating the overarching argument is the dawning realization that the right to protest is a democratic necessity, rather than an optional privilege. Beyond the rhetoric and declarations of concern, what is needed is a palpable demonstration of opposition to the state’s increasingly authoritarian tactics.
Building this formidable resistance will necessitate solidarity from all workers, irrespective of their trade affiliations. A united front against the erosion of democratic rights will not only strengthen the workers’ movement but also help to reclaim the democratic essence in the face of escalating autocratic trends.
It is crucial that this introspective look into the erosion of democratic rights not just remain confined as an aspect of intellectual debate but transforms into tangible actions. This will require rigorous efforts from all corners of society, particularly from the hardworking class that remains at the heart of these discussions and bears the brunt of these measures.