Since the ancient Greeks, philosophers have struggled to find a definition of democracy, and now "new" Labour has succeeded where Aristotle failed. A democratic society, assert its ministers, is a country without the right to protest. Jack Straw was quite adamant on this point during the G8 meeting in Genoa. The coverage of the demonstrations was "invidious", he said, because it "insinuated that there is some moral equivalence between protesters, including violent protesters, and democratically elected governments".

There are many cheap shots that one could aim at the Foreign Secretary for this performance. It would be easy to say that the most doltish thug in the anti-capitalist movement would be hard-pressed to match the immorality of the G8 governments, which flood the developing world with arms - and that it might be wiser, therefore, to avoid arguments about moral equivalence. We might glance at the democratic credentials of Tony Blair (elected with the votes of a mere one in four adults) or George W Bush (elected with fewer votes than his opponent) and note that, in any case, the citizens of the third world had no opportunity to vote for any of the G8 leaders who met to determine whether they would suffer or prosper.

But what is truly worrying about Mr Straw - and the Prime Minister and the International Development Secretary, Clare Short, who share his rage at contradictory voices - is his conflation of peaceful and violent demonstrators, and the implication that the arguments of both can be overridden by the superior legitimacy of the powerful.

Examine Mr Straw's logic. Democratically elected governments are morally superior because they are democratically elected; therefore, those who protest against their actions are immoral elitists who seek to usurp the power of the sovereign people. Such contempt for democracy puts them on a par with terrorists, and that is therefore how the law must deal with them.

From here, it is but a small step to bringing in anti-terrorist legislation that deals effectively with protest, and this is precisely what Jack Straw, as Home Secretary, did last year. His Prevention of Terrorism Act allowed the police to treat any protester who "threatens" violence, or is a "risk" to the public, as a terrorist, even if the threat or risk turned out to be illusory. The "new Labour" concept of terrorism was extended to cover demonstrators who couldn't conceivably endanger life or limb. They just had to be a "threat" to put them on a par with Carlos the Jackal.

Exiles who plotted against foreign dictatorships were in the same boat. When a bunch of peaceful, cheerful Kurds - whose families are persecuted by an Iraq with which Britain is all but at war - occupied the Greek embassy last year, the Metropolitan Police announced that they would be held under the anti-terrorism act. The Met backed down only when it became clear that the Kurds were guilty of little more than folk dancing in public.

You may have no wish to hurt anyone or anything and have no interest in foreign affairs. You may merely wish to draw attention to your local cause. Your modest intentions will not save you. If you protest on private land, the police can arrest you for aggravated trespass. If you march down the street, charges for obstructing the highway can follow. If you join a march of more than 20 people, you are legally obliged to do what the police tell you.

The formal penalisation of protest is just an aperitif. Animal rights activists who organised pickets outside furriers' were prosecuted under the anti-stalking legislation that was required, parliament had been assured, to protect women being hounded by sinister men.

But in a society that demonises dissenters, even benign legislation can be wheeled in to deal with protest. Earlier this year Lindis Percy, a peace campaigner, was tried at Harrogate Crown Court on charges of racial assault. Her crime was to have protested outside RAF Menwith Hill - now being geared up for the Son of Star Wars programme. Across the road outside, she had draped a Stars and Stripes flag on which she had written "George W Bush . . . oh dear". A military vehicle drove over the flag, and the driver became the victim of "a racially motivated crime". Although trained to cope with the stress of battle, he had been reduced to "visible distress", explained the prosecution, when he inadvertently soiled his national emblem. Ms Percy was thankfully acquitted.

In such a political environment, and with global capitalism widely perceived as beyond political control, our remonstrating ministers are unlikely to make much headway in wooing dissenters to their version of the democratic cause. When ministers belittle their critics as undemocratic thugs or "well-meaning" fools who should shut up and get in line, they must not be surprised when they are greeted with a resounding "Basta!".

Who knows where it will end?

Poor Paula Dobriansky. She had the task in Bonn of explaining the US administration's position on the Kyoto Protocol. Her efforts to tone down the language that President George W Bush has been using, and to make him sound a man of wise caution rather than the thug he is, failed totally. When she rose to announce that her boss took the issue of climate change very seriously, she was rewarded with boos.

This may not be the language of international diplomacy, but what did the US expect? It has bullied and brazenly lied over global warming, with Bush maintaining an idiotic pretence that the science wasn't proven, his reward to the powerful oil interests that got him to the White House. The deal reached by the 186 original signatories is weak - weaker even than the one John Prescott thought he had brokered in the Hague last year. But the journey of a thousand miles must begin, etc... Most importantly, the world has said "yah boo" to the playground bully. Next challenge: Star Wars.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website