Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:08:43.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Civil Liberties Lobby: a Comparative Analysis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Robert Benewick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTIC OF BOTH THE AMERICAN CIVIL Liberties Union and the National Council for Civil Liberties (hereafter ACLU and NCCL) is their attempt to be comprehensive in coverage. Both organizations are concerned with spectrums of civil liberties questions and civil rights issues at different levels of discourse and practice. These may range from the promotion and protection of freedom of speech and assembly as fundamental rights to their particularist application in regard to demonstrators and demonstrations, from insuring due process of law to seeking equality before the law, from advocating citizens' rights for more information from government to protecting their rights to privacy. They may also be involved in issues that are not concerned with civil liberties, a priori, but have implications for civil liberties. On any given question, there may be other civil liberties spokesmen with whom they may cooperate, compete or confront. In carrying out their brief both the ACLU and the NCCL engage in public campaigns, litigation, lobbying, case work, direct representations, educational and research activities.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , 01 October 1975 , pp. 415 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 According to the lobbyist of the ACLU of Southern California ‘About one fifth of all proposed legislation, 1,000 bills per year, is followed for its actual or potential impact on civil liberties’. Coleman A. Blease, ‘ACLU Legislative Activity in California: the Making of Policy’, paper submitted to the ACLU Biennial Conference, June 1974.

3 The ‘civil liberties’ lobby is derived from the titles of the two organizations. ‘Lobby’ is preferred to pressure or interest group because of its collective connotation. See Finer, S. E., Anonymous Empire, London, Pall Mall Press, Second Edition, 1966, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

4 Barker, Anthony and Rush, Michael, The Member of Parliament and His Information, Allen and Unwin, London, 1970, p. 98.Google Scholar

5 Presthus, Robert, Elites in the Policy Process, Cambridge University Press, 1974, 525 pp.Google Scholar; Joel Barnett, Malcolm, The Politics of Legislation, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1969, 295 pp.Google Scholar

6 Pym, Bridget, Pressure Groups and the Permissive Society, David and Charles, London, 1974, p. 114.Google Scholar

7 Dearlove, John, The Politics of Policy in Local Government, Cambridge University Press, 1973, Ch. 8.Google Scholar

8 See Schardt, Arlie, et al, Amnesty?, Sun River Press, Lawrence, Massachusetts, 1973, 148 PP.Google Scholar

9 Smythe, Tony, ‘The Role of the National Council for Civil Liberties’, in Benewick, Robert and Smith, Trevor (eds.), Direct Action and Democratic Politics, Allen & Unwin, London, 1972, p. 275.Google Scholar The emphasis on response is not peculiar to the civil liberties lobby or to third‐world pressure groups. See Grant, W. P. and Marsh, D., ‘The Confederation of British Industry’, Political Studies, vol. xix, no. 4, 12 1971, pp. 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 The Policy Guide of the American Civil Liberties Union, 1970. This is a house document containing 530 policy statements and is currently under revision.

11 For a strong plea for constitutional reform see SirScarman, Leslie, English Law ‐ the New Dimension, Stevens, London, 1975, 88 pp.Google Scholar

12 NCCL advocacy of reform of the conspiracy laws is based in part on its own experience in case work. See Robert Hazell, Conspiracy and Civil Liberties (a Memorandum submitted to the Law Commission by the Cobden Trust and the National Council for Civil Liberties). G. Bell and Sons, Occasional Papers on Social Administration No. 55, 1974, 129 pp.; Robertson, Geoff, Whose Conspiracy?, NCCL, 1974, 53 pp.Google Scholar; Humphrey, Derek, The Cricket Conspiracy, NCCL, 1975, 139 pp.Google Scholar

13 For an attempt to classify groups according to their relationship to the state see Benewick, Robert ‘Politics Without Ideology; the Perimeters of Pluralism’, in Benewick, Robert, et al. (eds.), Knowledge and Belief in Politics, Allen and Unwin, London, 1973, pp. 130–50Google Scholar; Benewick, Robert, ‘British Pressure Group Politics: The National Council for Civil Liberties’, The Annals, vol. 413, 05 1974, pp. 145–57.Google Scholar

14 ACLU, Annual Report, July 1971‐June 1972, pp. 14–16; Annual Report July 1970‐June 1971, pp. 27–8.

15 Murphy, Paul L., ‘Communities in Conflict’, in Reitman, Alan (ed.), The Pulse of Freedom, W. W. Norton, New York, 1975, p. 26.Google Scholar

16 NCCL, Annual Report 1974–75, p. 15.

17 ACLU, Annual Report 1972–73, in Civil Liberties, January 1974, p. 12.

18 A list of American organizations and groups would be even more extensive. Civil liberties orientated groups alone include the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, the NAACP, the National Council of Black Lawyers and the Committee for Public Justice.

19 On the plus side there was the abolition of capital punishment, abortion, divorce and homosexual law reforms, prohibition of discrimination in housing and employment and local authority sites for gypsies. On the minus side there were further restrictions placed on immigration, majority jury verdicts and stop and search powers through drug legislation.

20 See The Policy Guide of the American Civil Liberties Union, 1970, ‘Policy No. 527’. During the 1970 general election, the NCCL campaigned for civil liberties on the basis of an assessment of the election manifesto of the three major parties. Neither the ACLU nor the NCCL have tax exemption status and have set up foundations for their educational and research work.

21 ACLU, Constitution (as revised 1969), section 2.

22 Lament, Corliss (ed), The Trial of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn by the American Civil Liberties Union, New York, Monthly Review Press, 1969 edition, 224 pp.Google Scholar

23 Alan Reitman, ‘Past, Present, and Future’, in Alan Reitman (ed.), op. cit. pp. 193–233.

24 The following account is based on Paul L. Murphy, ‘Communities in Conflict’, in Alan Reitman (ed.), op. cit., pp. 23–50; see also Markham, Charles Lam, The Noble Cry , St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1965, 464 pp.Google Scholar

25 This was a response to President Harding’s appointment of a United States Coal Comission which the ACLU thought was pro‐management. The ACLU and the League for Industrial Democracy sponsored a joint Committee of Inquiry on Coal and Civil Liberties.

26 ACLU, ‘The Fight for Free Speech’, Annual Report, no. 1, 1920–21, pp. 4–5.

27 Mepol. 2/3104 (Public Record Office; Mepol, 2/3112 (Home Office 502 735/265, 25 June 1937) (Public Record Office).

28 For the first see NCCL, Report of an NCCL Commission of Inquiry Appointed to Examine the Purpose and Effect of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts (Northern Ireland) 1922 and 1933, 1936, 1972. The device was also being employed by the Left.

29 This is in sharp contrast to Britain where civil liberties are incidental rather than integral to law courses, where ‘civil liberties’ lawyers form a tiny minority of the legal profession and where lawyers willing to represent defendants in bomb trials have been criticized from the bench and by the police. The Times, 19 March 1975; The Observer, 16 and 23 March 1975.

30 Actual memberships were about 205,000 but about 30% of these were joint husband/wife therefore totalling 275,000. An increase of 25,000 memberships is claimed for the year.

31 ACLU, Annual Report 1972–75, op. cit. Income and expenditure is for the ACLU and all its affiliates and the ACLU Foundation.

32 NCCL, Annual Report, 1974, p. 22. Actual income was reported as $pD46,492 subject to audit.

33 Aryeh Neier, ‘Protest Movements Among the Disenfranchised,’The Civil Liberties Review, vol. 1, no.1, Fall 1973, p. 73. Neier who is Executive Director of the ACLU also notes that the tax‐deductable status of many legal organizations was a deterrent.

34 The converse is also true and pressure groups like Common Cause are beginning to look to the courts. Charles Morgan Jr., Hope Eastman and Arlie Schardt, ‘The ACLU and National Legislative Activity,’ paper presented to the ACLU Biennial Conference, June 1974.

35 The ACLU testifies before 20 to 30 Congressional Committees each year. This is seen as comparable to an amicus curiae brief versus direct pleading. Charles Morgan Jr., et al., ibid.

36 California is divided into two affiliates each with its own lobbyist but with a single legislative programme and office in the state capital.

37 Civil Liberties in New York, vol. XIX, no. 6, September 1971, p. 1; vol. XX, no. 9, June 1973, p. 8. It is claimed that the latter figure represents household memberships.

38 Kenneth Norwick, Legislative Director of the NYCLU, Interview, 15 August 1974.

39 Civil Liberties in New York, vol. XIX, no. 6, September 1971, p. 8.

40 Kenneth Norwick, Interview, 15 August 1974.

41 Civil Liberties in New York, vol. XXII, no. 9, June 1974. No attempt is made to weigh the bills and absences are taken into account by writing to each legislator requesting that he state his vote for the record.

42 Ibid., vol. XIX, no. 6, September 1971; vol. XX, no. 1, May 1972; vol. XX, no. 8, June 1973.

43 Alice Belgray, ‘Citizens Lobby Grows’, ibid., vol. XXII, no. 9, p. 7.

44 ACLU, Watergate and Civil Liberties, New York, 11 July 1973, 23 pp.

45 For a chronology of ACLU involvement see Civil Liberties, no. 304, September 1974.

46 The ACLU had called for the removal of Alabama judge, James Herndon, for his refusal to place the national Democratic Party on the ballot.

47 The Policy Guide of the American Civil Liberties Union, 1970. Policy No. 526 states that the ACLU does not support or oppose candidates for elective or appointed office but they can criticize public officials when they violate civil

In New York State, the basis for grass‐roots activity already existed through the Citizens Lobby and impeachment committees were established in thirty‐eight of the state’s thirty‐nine liberties. No mention is made of removal and the ACLU had earlier expressed opposition to a Nixon nominee for the Supreme Court.

48 ACLU, Why President Nixon Should Be Impeached, Public Affairs Press, Washington, D.C. 1973, pp. 9–10.

49 Ibid., 56 pp.; ACLU, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: What They Are, What They Aren’t, Washington, D.C., ACLU, I974(?), 29 pp. and appendix.

50 Civil Liberties, no. 304, September 1974.

51 Affiliates as far away as Florida and Illinois sent delegations to Washington to lobby. This included an estimated 375 people from Pennsylvania and 40 people from New York City who saw 16 Congressmen and 54 aides. Arlie Schardt, Interview, 25 August 1974.

52 Norman Siegel, Interview, 21 August 1974.

53 John Murphy, 17th Congressional District, Lower Manhattan: The Staten Island Advance, 3 February 1974.

54 Civil Liberties, no. 304, September 1974.

55 Ibid.

56 Anna Coote and Lawrence Grant (eds.), Civil Liberty: The NCCL Guide, Penguin Books, 1972, p. vii.

57 Daily Herald, 19 March 1936; NCCL, ‘Note of Meeting,’ 9 July 1936.

58 Correspondence between D. N. Pritt and Ronald Kidd, 11 March 1939, 13 March 1939.

59 The Times, 20 April 1953.

60 James B. Christoph, Capital Punishment and British Politics, Allen and Unwin, 1962, pp. 29, 37, 110; S. A. Walkland, ‘The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee’, I, II, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. XVII, Summer and Autumn, 1964, pp. 308–20, 389–402; S. A. Walkland, The Legislative Process in Britain, Allen and Unwin, London, 1968, pp. 77–8; S. E. Finer, op. cit., 47, 60; Stewart, J. D., British Pressure Groups, Oxford University Press, 1958,Google Scholar ch. 8.; Potter, Allen, Organised Groups in British National Politics, Faber, London, 1961, pp. 280–5;Google Scholar Eckstein, Harry, Pressure Group Politics, Allen and Unwin, London, 1960, pp. 77–8.Google Scholar Age Concern is another example of a third world group with an all party parliamentary group.

61 Fred Willey has remained chairman under the Labour government and the present structure of the group is under consideration.

62 The number of MPs is based on a compilation of responses to questionnaires sent out following the general elections of 1970 and February 1974. It may exclude some Conservatives who did not join because they held office and it should exclude Labour members now holding office. The membership of peers is based on 1972.

63 Of the 98 MPs as of July 1974–76 were Labour; 15 Conservative; 6 Liberal; and 1 Republican Labour.

64 Minutes of the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group; Minutes of the Executive Committee of the NCCL; Smythe, Tony, Interview, 23 09 1974;Google ScholarPubMed Ennals, Martin, Interview, 14 10 1974.Google Scholar

65 King, Michael with Jackson, Christine, Bail or Custody, Cobden Trust, 1971, 104 Google ScholarPubMed pp.; one MP wrote to the NCCL referring to the use he made of the report during the Committee stage of the bill.

66 Rolph, C. H., ‘The National Council for Civil Liberties,’New Law Journal, 11 04 1974, pp. 347–8.Google Scholar

67 Correspondence dated 16 July 1973, 11 September 1973.

68 NCCL, Special General Meeting: Report of the Conference and Elections Committee, 22 October 1974.

69 Martin Ennals, Interview, 14 October 1974, Tony Smythe, Interview, 23 September 1974.

70 882 H. C. Deb. (25 November 1974), col. 35.

71 882 H. C. Deb. (28 November 1974), col. 634.

72 NCCL, Annual Report 1974/75, P. 10.

73 See above p. 416.

74 For the effectiveness of the amending process see J. A. G. Griffith, Parliamentary Scrutiny of Government Bills, Allen and Unwin for PEP and the Study of Parliament Group, 1974, 285 pp.; In 1939, emergency powers legislation was passed in one afternoon.

75 The Observer, 1 December 1974; The Sunday Times, 8 December 1974.

76 The Observer, 24 November 1974; The Sunday Times, 8 December 1974.

77 882 H. C. Deb (29 November 1974), cols. 797–823, 939–42. The government withdrew a clause which deemed a person a member of a proscribed organization if he possessed a document of or relating to that organization that was addressed to him; see also the commentary in The Sunday Times, 8 December 1974.

78 The AFL‐CIO eventually pronounced in favour of impeachment but did not undertake a public campaign. Common Cause advocated better laws.

79 Aryeh Neier, ‘Priorities ‐ Future Directions’, paper presented to the ACLU Biennial Conference, June 1974.

80 For a guide to citizen lobbying on censorship see Norwick, Kenneth P., Lobbying for Freedom, New York, 1974, 72 Google Scholar pp.

81 The Home Secretary received a deputation from the NCCL on 9 December 1974. This had been arranged, however, prior to the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. But see NCCL, Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. A Report on the First 4 Months Operation of the Act, April 1975, 43 PP.