ject of his tirade, InS time.
wowes speech. coming after the press uproar about overseas students sponging! off the British taxpayer and immigrant workers entering the country without Iwork permits was carefully timed. It was clearly intended to whip up racial prejudice by suggesting that the real cause of the high jobless total was the influx of black.workers. ne response ine cabour leaders to his attack was shameful, if predictible. ev meek.v admitted a clerical error been made and promised not to repeat it. This spineless attitude is not new or course but stretches back to 1964 when, shocked by the deteat or a prominant Labour MP in the midlands due to an anti-back camba on inev nurse iedly introduced a White Paper limiting black immigration to 8400 a year.
Immigration Since that time the main aim of the Labour leaders has been to out - ory ine ories. iniroaucing ever more restrictive laws.
• tor examo e. vames Callaghan went further by intro ducing the Immigration Act which he 'defended against Powell by PAPER OF THE LEAGUE FOR SOCIALIST ACTION Vol1. No 3.
In early January, Enoch Powell hit the headlines once again. The subwas the government's alleged covering up! for the fact that it had exceeded immigration quotas in early 1973.
saying it had kept out more blacks than any Tory laws.
Immigration Aci, passea by ine Tory government, ineretore. mere v ine most vistious in a long series of such Acts. introduces clear bar on entrv into Britain! & ensures that those few blacks get past ine immigration officers are denied rents. nev can. be arrested without a warrant & had deportea wiinour ran or appeal simply for being inreat to the dublic cood The fact that Labour has collaboralea in introaucing restrictions over Act - has created a climate of legalised racism in which speeches of Powell appear increasingly realistic!. after all, with his talk of tighter merely taking the racist implications of these ineir locical conclusion.
Dangers The danger of these policies is becoming only too clear today with mass unemployment on the cards.
By backing down before racists Campaign to repeal the Immigration Act racist backlash.
The present ated a in 1971, is, as noticeable by its colour. 'colour foreign teachers to teach elementary catering industry. considered a Sibility. the years - 8 the 197 challenge, the root out racism, Powell is, built up over intlamed.
Acts to Challenge It is for this reason that campaign launched by SO Vildle Well are trying to tighten provide a powerful focal point tor strucine within the about in ceneral.
blacks entering on the Last February, in the House of decided, abortion Bill.
MPs' thinking. 1967 Act.
Set-back such as Powell - the Labour leaders have laid the around for a of the nev nave. more orecisely creclimate that could lead to a split in the workers! movement the real cause of social problems attention is turned away from It has, evidence by by creating a scapegoat only too This has already begun to happen in the refusal by the NUT to allow their opinions.
immi- NAC's decision, grant children or by Harry Unwin's recent call for no foreign workers to be allowed in the The fact that such an attitude is beginning to spread in the labour movement means that socialists on the streets -are faced with a heavy responsUnless it can meet this unless it can turn Its verbally anti-racist stance into a concrete and erective campaign to Ine prejudices the 1967 centuries of imperalist rule will be ever more with an 'CRIA* is serious struggle to all the work done, repeal the 1971 Immigration Act, which the right wing around Pow can Lessons movement against racist attitudes The 1971 Act not only excludes -DasIs or colour but ensures. that those few in a free votel Commons, by a large majority, re-establish the Select Committee to investigate James Whitels antiThe decision to set up the committee represents a major concession to the anti-abortion lobby (SPUC) which, in the preceding period, launched a mass 60, 000 Strong demonstration to influence This re - establishment of the Select Cttee - which has already made proposals to curb abortion rights - is clearly a major setback tor women in this country. I is a major set-back because, under its terms of reference. its only course of action can be to determine how far to go in undermining the rights women won under the i was undoubteav ins wnich prompted the 6 pro-abortion MPs to resign trom the Cttee. They rightly pointed out there was no Doin barlicipaling in a body undi was already firmly biased against The 'alarm! felt by the proabortion MPs is quite genuine. The only proposals to emerge out Select Committee will be those forcing women, once again, to undergo the dangers and humiliation of back-street abortions.
already, enored all ine the Lane Committee in favour of the 1967 Act & there is no indication that the further evidence will make them alter ineretore, not to participate in the fraud of giving evidence and to concentrate on building a mass campaign force the government to abolish the committee is to be welcomed. Now more than ever mass action countering the pressure from SPUC which has been able to 'posture' as representing majority opinion - is key. to reverse the present trend. Fighting to defend the gains o Act (let alone calling tor tree abortion on demand) is going to present NAC, however, uphil struggle. IT Is to be able to 'draw in! enough support to halt further restrictit must draw on the lessons from the past. First of all, it is important to determine why, after we are sull faced with the same threat tha we came together to confront.
There is no doubt that the governmentls decision to allow a tree vote on there - convening of the Sábina Roberts speaking at Colchester NAO APRIL 76 10p Select Cttee was not only due t the pressure of SPUC and those inroads it has made into the Par iamentary Labour Party. It was also due to the fact that, follov ing on the promising demonstratic last June, which drew out 25, 00 on the streets, NAC remained pa alysed for almost 6 crucial month and was unable to otter any re policy.
The lack of any action gave th government a free hand and, the same time, helped demoralis the broad forces working in NAC which. inerearter. becan to decrease in both size and influence Such inactivity, that gave SPUd the chance to masquerade as rep resentine malor ly oinion. MUS be laid firmly at the door of those tencencies which rouent. Inroug! out that period of time, against a The IMG, i forms of mass action. particular, at steering committe after steering committee, opposed the call by the LSA (supported b IS and others) for a mass demonstration in the Autumn.
That demonstration was central for a number of reasons. First, it was necessary to provide a na ional focus for the groups which were being set up nationally; sec ondly, it was important to draw in new forces and, above all, i was vital to show the government just before the 'free vote! was to he ned that sue represented nothing more than a bigoted and /ocal minority. Single Issue The reason, of course, groups like IMG were opposed to a national action was simply that they were trying to turn NAC from a campaign in defence of women's rights into one opposing the cuts on the N. H. S. Once the focal point! of the campaign became a struggle against the cuts, mobilising mass action against the government became unimportant besides local, fragmented activ ities around hospitals.
It was this political error • of trving to subordinate the NAC to other issues - which was the ke! reason why NAC was paralysed for six months and why the anti-abortionists won a major victory The danger today is that it appears the IMG has not learnt from its earlier mistakes.
The main thrust, the IMG says, in building the tribunal NAC is calling is for local groups to enquire 'how the cuts in the NHS have affected abortion rights' in order to work out a plan for the health service that caters for the needs of women as well as the whole working class.
(Cont page 8) larch for