THE
GAOLING OF CLARRIE O’SHEA
BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER
A Collection by Humphrey McQueen, May 2019
Among the several remarkable features of
the 1960s struggles against the Penal Powers is that no full-length account has
been published. These folders offer a mass of secondary
sources, mostly academic and legal. There are also a few primary sources. There are no archival material and none of
the parliamentary debates. Even so, there is far, far more here than
most activists will have time to digest. However, the folder headed ‘Clarrie - a
short course’ is a good start! The collection makes it easier for
everyone to access items otherwise available in a small number of libraries. Some throw backward glances into the 1950s
but most from after 1960. Readers are invited to forward other items
or links to enrich the site.
Marxists provide a revolutionary approach
to critically analysing the past, in part, by our recognising that the present
is ‘history’. In that spirit, the importance of
collecting these materials flows from the coming struggles to do more than
‘change the rules’ by changing who is cling toing the perks of office. The balance of class forces has to be moved
away from dominance by global capital and its warfare states.
The items underline that there was nothing
spontaneous about the upsurge in May ’69. Success depended on years of hard
slog around worksites. The C.P.A. (M.-L.) conceived a strategy while
making adjustments to tactics. For instance, why did Clarrie decide to
appear at the Industrial Court on 15 May? Once there, why did he refuse to take the
oath? And why did he respond to questioning in a
so polite yet unyielding manner? The answer to all three was to hold the
support that the campaigners had won. At the same time, they had to win over
those workers – and their officials - who were less than certain about how they
would act when push came to shove.
The legal items document a web of
illegalities way beyond the penal clauses in the Commonwealth Conciliation and
Arbitration Act. The Common Law offences of ‘conspiracy’ and of ‘torts’ could
not be erased by parliament. Moreover, it has to be remembered that
until 1987, certain judgements of the High Court of Australia could be appealed
to the Privy Council in London. Even today, British – and to a lesser
extent U.S. – precedents are invoked. And if all that were not enough to try the
patience of even the most tame-cat union official, judges are not able to agree
with each other on a specific case, and still less over time. As H.V. Evatt summed up in the title to his
book on the 1834 trial of the Tolpuddle martyrs, one result is Injustice Within the Law. The proven way
to redress such wrongs remains what it has always been: break bad laws.
Every victory for our class holds back the assaults
from agents of capital, whether in the state or corporations.
Only the self-emancipation of our class will decide
who rules.
|
