No Substitute

by Michael Mansfield

It came as no small surprise to me that this magazine is a recent invention. I had fondly imagined that it was as old as the Society itself, which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary. The first edition was, in fact, in the winter of 1986. Of course, this misapprehension could be written off as merely my grey matter turning white, or worse. But I feel it is a tribute to the way the magazine has rapidly developed, adapted and forged a crucible of ideas to meet a global challenge of injustice. It is difficult to imagine how the society ever survived without Socialist Lawyer. Given the information highway brought about by the universality and accessibility of internet technology, hardcopy magazines run the risk of becoming expensive and unnecessary luxuries.

Whatever advances, however, there may be in IT, with blogs, online forums, debates, directories and archives, none of these are any substitute for a magazine of this calibre. The website user does not engage in the same way as a magazine reader, particularly if the presentation and range of material is compelling. Added to all this, a magazine provides a physical focal-point for the many activities and functions sponsored by Haldane The first edition, in 1986, was one third the size of the current one, and was far more heavily concerned with domestic issues, although not exclusively.

John Hendy wrote a stirring piece about labour laws with a Labour government; the TUC’s policy statement ‘New Rights and New Responsibilities’ endorsed by the Labour Party at its conference in 1986; and the Haldane’s Worker’s Charter. He said ‘we must seek a frame-work of labour law which moves the goal-posts of legitimacy in every sphere in which people work... the labour movement needs a Labour government’. He was right, but not the one we got.

Nicholas Hall was equally correct in his defence of the right of peremptory challenge during jury selection. His conclusion was that: ‘its proposed abolition is a politically-motivated device...taking away the right to peremptory challenge is one way of undermining the subtle balance that underpins the criminal justice system. Its result will be diminished respect for the fair administration of justice.’ He was right, but unhappily it was abolished.

Tony Gifford’s Pritt Memorial Lecture entitled ‘Can the Legal System be reformed?’ was set out in full, and he began his analysis of the meaning of a socialist programme with a commitment to the rule of law. Presciently, he argued for a Ministry of Justice – now in place; and for an extended network of legal services epitomised by the Law Centre network, now threatened by the Carter Reform.

Ben Emmerson reported on the Haldane Conference debate concerning the difficulties facing socialist lawyers. Without question, these remain and are ever more present, bearing in mind successive Labour governments that have paid scant regard to the rule of law internationally [Iraq – Guantanamo]; to the rules of natural justice internally [Belmarsh – control orders- 42 days] and to the paramount need for a system of Legal Aid that provides ready access to justice for all.

We are steadily descending into George Orwell’s 1984 dystopic state Oceania, where there is detention without warrant, without access to legal advice and without court hearings. Torture is legitimised in Room 101, and intrusive blanket surveillance is the order of the day. The latest instrument contemplated by the Government appears to be the Communications Data Bill, by which it is intended to monitor everyone’s phone calls and internet communications. Mind-boggling in concept and mind-blowing in practice. Most of the information will probably be left on the seats of railway compartments, in briefcases in cars, or sent by pigeon –post!

Telling but shameful

‘The impetus behind the 42 day proposal is essentially political – not security. The Government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to overrule the Lords. It has no democratic mandate to do this – for 42 days was not in its manifesto. Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least. But purely for political reasons, this Government is going to do that. And because the generic security arguments relied on will never go away, technology development and complexity, we will next see 56 days, 72 days, 90 days etc. But, in truth, 42 days is just one – perhaps the most salient example – of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.’

Thus spake David Davis. What is extraordinary about this is not what he said, but the fact that it did not come from the lips of the majority of Labour lawyers in the House of Commons. Save for one or two shining exceptions, like Emily Thornberry and Bob Marshall-Andrews, the rest voted in favour. Shameful considering many of them were elected on a civil liberties platform. I did not see any of them willing to sacrifice their seats to promote a just cause. I suggested at the recent Haldane benefit on 12th June, where Mark Steel entertained us enormously, that every single Labour lawyer who voted in favour of 42 days should receive a letter from the Haldane Society asking for their personal justification, which should then be published in this magazine.

Before everyone goes dewy-eyed for DD, however, it has to be remembered that he did vote in favour of 28 days without this kind of clamour, and his views on capital punishment would mean that a large number of innocent people, the victims of miscarriages – the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Tottenham Three, Cardiff Three, etc – would have gone to the gallows.

On the international front, the issue of the environment is undoubtedly top of the agenda. The way in which governments misuse and abuse resources are far from being under control. With regard to food, an area of land the size of five football pitches [10 hectares] will grow enough meat to feed two people; or maize to feed 10; or grain to feed 24 and soya to feed 61. Growth, however, is the bedrock of consumerism and

there is a scramble on for the remaining resources – especially oil. This is clear in Iraq, in Afghanistan – the gateway to several other oil-rich smaller countries – there is genocide in Darfur in order to expedite oil exploration and the latest disgrace is Gordon Brown’s announcement that he wishes to support the Nigerian Government against those protesting about the oil industry in the Niger Delta. Since the late 1950s more than $200 billion worth of oil and gas has been pumped from beneath the villages of the Delta population. Everyone will remember the courageous leadership of Ken Sara Wiwa against this exploitation which destroys their environment, leaves it feet thick with oil burnt crust and for which there is no compensation. Non-violent resistance has led to massacres and, in Ken’s case, execution. I was happy to do as much as I could at the time to support the movement in support of his objectives. There is now another movement for the emancipation of the Niger Delta [MEND]. It is making basic demands for compensation, for an interest in oil pumped out of their land, and the release of their leaders. Because they have been so effective, and because the West is desperate for oil, Gordon Brown has chosen the side with vested interests. The role for socialist lawyers is, therefore, clearly mapped out by these examples.

Michael Mansfield QC is President of the Haldane Society

This article can be found in the print edition of Socialist Lawyer number 50, September 2008.