Serious nation
Sir: I scarcely believed my eyes when I read Paul Johnson's comments this week. In a serious nation,' he writes (The press, 26 January), `Scargill would long since have been behind bars, and the strike over. It is no answer to say that there is no legal case against him. The whole point of having a huge parliamentary majority is its capacity to push through emergency legis- lation to deal with social enemies who threaten the public interest.' The whole point of a liberal democracy Is that we don't pass new laws which single out individuals for special treatment by the criminal courts. Arbitrary law-making is the first step to despotism. Existing law — on Incitement and conspiracy — is wholly adequate to deal with violent intimidation, on or off the picket lines, masterminded by a trade union leader. The problem, In Scargill's case, is to find the evidence to make the charges stand up. The agencies of the state do not appear so far to have set out with any urgency to find evidence of verbal or written instructions from Scargill to his union's officers or members which have led to acts of violence. It may be that the evidence isn't there. But it is out- rageous to suggest that the law ought to be manipulated by a party with a majority in Parliament to bypass the inertia of its law Officers and to get round the rules of evidence. Johnson's ulterior motive seems to be, not the desire to exact retribution for
or end violent crime, but the wish to terminate a strike which, in his view, is economically damaging. This is not, in this society, an appropriate reason for jailing a trade union leader. It is telling that, as his argument reaches its climax, its language loses its lustre in a sea of loose abstrac- tions, like 'social enemies' and 'public interest'. 'Social' in this context is a real weasel word (as Hayek has pointed out elsewhere). Mrs Thatcher's supporters ought to learn to distinguish between the moral case against pithead violence, where they enjoy near-universal support, and the economic case against the strike, where they have to make out their case. The tone of Johnson's language, especially the menacing phrase which begins 'In a serious nation . . .', is dangerously close to Fasc- ism, and Johnson is no Fascist. I can only assume that his temper has run away with his judgment.
Robert Silver
11 Stanwick Road, London W14
Previous page
