From Dr George Hewitt Sir: Radio reports today of the latest Russian massacre of Chechens in Semashki were followed immediately by

From Dr George Hewitt

Sir: Radio reports today of the latest Russian massacre of Chechens, in Semashki, were followed immediately by notice of the 50th anniversary of the liberation by British troops of the Nazi concentration camp Bergen- Belsen.
Speaking on 20 January, Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd described the bombing of civilians in Grozny with needle- and cluster-bombs as “a setback on the road to reform”, adding that Boris Yeltsin deserves our continuing support because of his bravery in mounting a tank during the attempted coup in 1991.The only world leader enthusiastically to support Yeltsin’s actions in Chechnya is Eduard Shevardnadze, the leader of Georgia, who said at Chatham House in February that separatism had to be put down with “all prompt and necessary measures, heedless of the cost and criticism”. The organisations that originated and, in the early days, led the protest movement have no answer to their present predicament.The protesters are now out of control, leaderless and without a coherent strategy, blundering from one act of frustration and anger to another, their own, and their cause’s, worst enemy.Yours sincerelyJ E BRADSHAWPhoenix AviationRugby,Warwickshire13 April. These can only be described as attempts to subvert democracy by the use of violence.The protesters’ disenchantment and frustration with Parliament’s approach to legislation is entirely understandable, but it was their decision to abandon the constitutional route in favour of “direct action” that brought about yesterday’s judgment with its concentration on public order issues. Animal export is a case where public sensitivities have been offended, but the resultant strength of feeling has routinely spilled over into unlawful activity of many kinds, including death threats, physical assault, criminal damage, dummy letter bombs and malicious telephone calls, aimed at intimidating participants in the trade until they give in. But not only is all violent conduct unlawful; so too is any activity which substantially inconveniences the public at large and disrupts the rights of others to go about their lawful business.That should answer your question about the relationship between lying down in the road in front of a lorry and riot.You apparently have not noticed that this became an issue of public order months ago, because of the animal rights people themselves and no one else. The first page in the judgment set the tone:
The precise point at which the right of public demonstration ends and the criminal offence of public nuisance begins is difficult to detect. Perhaps the fascinating spectacle of demonstrations manned by the middle- aged burghers of Brightlingsea and the pensioners of Shoreham, as you put it, has simply blinded you.

Or were you so shocked to see their activities damned as “mob rule” that you failed to read the rest of the judgement? Anyone in the front line will tell you that the reality is considerably less idealistic than you describe it, and the judges acquired in a few days a clearer understanding of the issues than you have in as many months. Sir: Your leader today (“Long hot summer on the docks”, 13 April) took too genteel a view of the animal rights protests to permit a proper assessment. If Mr Blair is to be believed in his promise to deliver a government in the national, not sectional, interest, the public needs to see that he can deliver a renewed party without resorting to back-stage deals with sectional interests It would be better to lose than do that He needs not only to win, but to win cleanly That would be the most symbolic change of all.. If the squeeze continues, they may be much higher up the agenda by the next general election.

Issues that traditionally have plagued Labour governments – public-sector pay, for example – are beginning to boil again under this year’s tight public spending round. Only for the leadership can it insist that unions ballot their members, and only for the leadership and national executive elections that constituencies ballot theirs. As a result, despite the party nationally footing most of the bill, a quarter of constituencies will not be holding votes on the new Clause IV.Externally, however, Mr Blair needs to win without having been seen to compromise other parts of Labour policy to achieve his goal. When used for national executive elections at last year’s conference, for example, it saw Dennis Skinner restored to the NEC and Diane Abbott elected, a result which almost certainly reflected more honestly the balance of Labour members’ views than the constituency section elections the year before, which saw only “modernisers” elected.At present, Labour cannot enforce such ballots on policy and constitutional issues.

This is an argument about internal party democracy, not simply an argument for those who believe it would make it easier for Mr Blair to get his way. Murky deals now would raise fears of murky deals again under a Labour government.Internally, the present row shows the need to take Labour’s constitutional changes to the logical conclusion that Neil Kinnock foresaw, but which John Smith ducked – to create a party where, on key issues, individual members in both the constituencies and trade unions are balloted, and where the weight of their votes at party conferences reflects the balance of opinion among those balloted. Yesterday there was an encouraging sign that he will resist – Donald Dewar, a leading member of the Shadow Cabinet, declaring “there is no question of smoke- filled rooms, or compromises or retreats” over the new Clause IV.This matters because what is being defined in the current battle is not just the wording of a once obscure and largely ignored part of Labour’s constitution, which no one is likely to refer to much again after it has been changed, but the public’s perception of how Labour will handle the unions once in power. It is the unions and constituency parties that have used the old-style methods of democratic centralism – where executives or delegate conferences decide the issue without any formal consultation with their members – that are clinging to the old Clause IV.There are already predictable demands from those unions opposed to change for concessions from Mr Blair on other issues as a possible quid pro quo for a change of mind – a clear commitment to a £4-an-hour minimum wage, for example, or a dilution of Labour’s promise to close failing schools and reopen them with new governors and staff, or a more full-blooded commitment to oust the private sector from the NHS.Mr Blair must resist such demands, deciding these issues on their merits rather than as part of any bargaining for the new Clause IV.