As the government's Terrorism Act hit the statute books earlier this year, over twenty overseas political groups with bases in the UK found themselves outlawed. In one stroke, the criminalisation of immigrant communities reached new levels.
But it's not only aimed at them. There's no doubt the new "anti-terrorist" proposals are not simply aimed at political refugees from abroad. Already police can "demand the removal of facial covering or gloves", clearly targeting anti-capitalist and anti-GMO activists.
The Act has also already widened the definition of terrorism to include "interfering with an electronic system" or causing "serious damage to property" if it's "for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". So if you smash a McDonald's window because you're drunk, you're just a drunk. If you do it because McDonald's are, well, the personification of everything that's worst about today's world, you're a terrorist.
But those tireless warriors for freedom in the Cabinet aren't content with that. Also on the big scary table are new powers for the police and other agencies of the state to monitor bank accounts and financial transactions, as well as our communications data including e-mails, faxes, Internet usage and mobile phone calls.
Hidden in the small print of these proposals is a new definition of "terrorist" that has received surprisingly little publicity. The new terrorist will be someone who aims to "seriously alter the political, economic or social structure". Sure, all terrorists want to do that, but so does every person involved in politics, from Tories who want to reform the EU, to anti-capitalists who want to create a world that does not reward and encourage greed.
Within days of the September 11 attack, ministers were clamouring for the introduction of ID cards and increased police surveillance powers. All these laws pose a genuine and immediate threat to the very freedoms they claim to defend. But there are campaigns underway to reverse this corrosive legislation, often run by the outlawed groups themselves. It could be time for the direct action movement to work out how far to extend solidarity to outlawed groups.