Why Militant is wrong on courts

Scan page 12

BOB Fine (letters, SO 114) is demagogic about what I said on the administration of justice in Britain, but misses, or least ignores, the main point 1 made against Militant's use of the courts.

In referring to "a high level of justice and impartiality within existing laws", I was in fáct giving Militant the strongest case possible so as to focus on what is wrong with their whole approach.

'A high level' does not mean adequately high.

But does Bob deny that the existing British system generally gives - by the standards of what has existed in history so far, and what exists in most of the world today - a high level of impartial administration of existing laws?

To tell that to the Brixton youth is not to tell them that they have had their fair share of it, but to help them identify precisely what is unjust in their treatment -from violent policemen who he through their teeth in court, to biased and unfair interpretation of the law by judges, and to the class bias and content of the law, the role of the state as instrument of the capitalist class - and define a programme of working class action to change it all Our job is to analyse the system, show the links between the different levels of its operation, and then to criticise it both rationally and concretely.

Criticise To define what exists is not to glorify it: on the other hand, if we want to improve it for to go about revolutionising it), then we must criticise what really exists and not some caricature image in our heads of a regime in Britain now of lawless arbitrary rule and courts which merely rubber-stamp what the government decides Bourgeois rule is, for now, more subtle, and revolutionaries who can remain revolutionaries only by closing their eyes to reality' will be ill-equipped to fight it.

Too often they fall into a mish-mash of populism, nihilism, etc. which, because it leads to political blind alleys, actually helps to perpetuate the injustices.

Bob would not draw such conclusions: but many who would automatically agree with him, as an expression of alienation from the existing system, would also have little time for the idea of the rule of law (working class law) after a socialist revolution.

Many on the left fail fully and consistently to condemn Stalinism or to defend dissidents because of a confused notion of the regime after a socialist I AM writing to object to a statement in the article in SO 112 by John O'Mahony, 'Why Militant are wrong to use courts"

He says: 'True, the courts in a long-stable bourgeois democracy such as Britain normally dispense a high level of justice and fair and impartial dealing - within the existing laws"

"Fair and impartial"! Even in a "democracy" bourgeois laws are for the defence of property. Not only do they operate against the working class in general, but also they are racist, sexist and antiyouth.

Could O'Mahony User. revolution as a 'dictatorship' in the common sense of the word, the permanent rule of Committee of Public Safety.

Bob does not take up the main point I made, which is not that it is unprincipled to go to court, or even always to take other socialists to court, but that it is unprincipled to make the courts the arbiter of the affairs of the labour movement:

Authority I doubt that Lenin would have supported socialists who tried to bring in the courts in such a role. Without knowing exactly what Lenin was referring to, Bob's quote is (uncharacteristically) just an appeal to 'authority' , useless as an aid to thinking about the issue.

JOHN O'MAHONY, London.

sexisin iously repeat these words to black youth who have come under racist attack and victimisation : in the courts, or to women told they have not been raped because they did not keep their legs shut, or were wearing short skirts or hitching lifts and "asked for it" - would he say that these were not racist and sexist attacks but impartial British justice?

I hope the ridiculous statement is withdrawn and we stick to our assessment of the class content of the courts. They are no more impartial than the police or the army.

KEVIN RILEY Oxford