Alan Sillitoe's letter in your issue of 30th January 1970, and your reply to it raise several important issues which must confront any socialist who is interested in the problems of Ene Middle Last Sillitoe refers to Fath as "tools of Arab imperialism" and pirates and butchers". Surely the point here is whether the Palestinians have a right to struggle for their self-determination. Dwarf rightly criticizes Sillitoe for failing to mention this.
Whether a Palestinian nation has been in existence since the lime of the Mandate. or if it is only now in the process of struggle that this nation is being born is relevant. ne fact that the Palestinian people are fighting for recognition as a nation is enough for us to admit that they are a nation. 53 Rutland Rd., Ilford. Essex.
HARD CRITICISM
Comrades, The article on the tenants struggle in your last ISSUe was counter-revolutionary Your correspondent Chris Rawlence, after describing Tenants movement. declares it a victory! He acclaims a growing movement as he describes a shrinking one; and like all workerist dreamers he capitulates. strong word but I'm afraid it is true, spontaneism. He says that the Tenants Care strong because they have rejected all politics, , even revolutionary politics. and have faith n themselves and their own self determination. Faith is a poor substitute for strength, and how can there be working class self-determination without organised politics?
Kawience ends by acclaiming grass roots action - but his prairies have been fired and are burnt out.
Fraternally George Ritz usually nas unc last sav in making u Kut was has to keep itself informed on the dirty work Inal us grandpas did in ine past. An importan article on the law and squatters appeared in a magazine not noica for its mass appeal: The Chartered Auctioneer and Estate Agent and immediately drew the attention of the Property Journal whose circulation is restricted to owners and exploiters or nousing and offices In 47 long legal paragraphs a leading Counsel deals with such practical questions as what to charge squatters with, and when, how to get the police to throw them out, whether or not one can sue squatters for damages. It is a model exer cise in how to use the law—if you are a property owner.
The owner, poor man, wno nas naa nis pro rty suddenly taken from his hands and used i those who need a roof, has four problems: How does he identify the particular squatters. How does he obtain evidence that he can use against them.
"How far is it financially worthwhile to pursue any civil remedies against people who may be 'men of straw". *How far it is politically expedient tp press the criminal law to its limits"
This last problem concerns how the ruling class uses the law politically. The lawyer is very clear on this. He says that in certain recent cases it would always certainly have been correct to invoke the formidable criminal charges that could probably have been laid: conspiracy, forcible detainer even riot. But whatever the merits •ongina arzument ine reichoo is not now remembered as a notable triumph for the forces of law and order.
Having set out the general class position the leading counsel lists the five main charges that may be laid against squatters. They are: Burglary Malicious damage Conspiracy rorcibie entry or detainer Our Victorian ancestors, says the lawyer, took are to provide sociely with defence agains anarchv • They did indeed. "It is hard to see how some recent Squatter activities * he continues "do not amount to the offence of riot, defined in traditional form. Many have certainly been convicted of this charge within the last half century, in respect of less violent activities.
His "Practical Conclusions are: "It should certainly be possible, where small groups of Squatt ers are involved, to prove them guilty of the humbler offences like burglary and malicious damage-since it would be hard for any individual member of a small group to show that he was not jointly responsible any damage committed.
With larger Squatter groups, it would ur of vandalism. But ringleaders-particularly if they boast of their responsibility as such-could almost certainly be convicted of conspiracy. In le same way, such people could probably b onvicted—in respect of a large-scale violer seizure or propertyor rol.
The practical limitations to these clear conclusions of law arise only from:
"The difficulty, in smaller cases, of securing sufficiently clear evidence; Hites as ainst forgue then the Matieval Statutes against that squatters have often used to defend them selves, can in fact be turned against them. For "there is no doubt that many of the modern squatting mischiefs are precisely those at which he statutes of 1381 and 1623 are aimed"—al history is the history of class struggle Our Leading Counsel ends by calling for a specific change in the law which will allow prop erty owners to stick a writ on a building, and then stand back whilst the police empty it for him.
But the chief message of the piece, ominous given the developments in Italy, is that even relatively small actions such as squatting start the ruling class discussing and reminding each other of the fearsome repressive statutes that make up the British Constitution. Percy Ingrams
----- pull-quotes -----
loubtedly be hard to prove the guilty responsit ility of particular individuals for particular acts