As the FT notes this morning:

Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the Rebellion Act of 1807 to deploy troops to American cities, intensifying a stand-off with Democratic-led states resisting his use of the army on US soil.

The president sounded the warning as his efforts to ship federal troops to quash protests in a number of cities have had blended ends in the courts, with one blocking the deployment of the army to Oregon and one other permitting it in Illinois.

The issue for Trump is that there isn’t any revolt. In Portland, Oregon, for instance, round 20 folks protest every evening in opposition to the actions of ICE. That is it. The suggestion from Trump that it’s a warzone is so removed from he reality it’s absurd. However absurdity has by no means stopped Trump or some other fascist decided to ship what their playbook calls for of them. And so he’s contemplating utilizing the Rebellion Act, handed in 1807 for an entirely completely different period.

The worrying risk is that info don’t come into this. As Robert Reich has written on Substack in a single day:

Mates,

The path we’re going is both martial regulation or civil warfare.

Individuals from so-called “crimson” states, with the backing of their Republican governors and legislatures, are on the point of utilizing deadly power in opposition to Individuals in so-called “blue” states, whose Democratic governors and legislatures strongly oppose the strikes.

I pray we do not come near this, however Trump has now ordered the deployment of 400 members of the Texas Nationwide Guard to a number of states, together with Oregon and Illinois — ostensibly to guard ICE brokers and amenities from protesters. The primary group of Texas Guard troops is anticipated to reach in Chicago tomorrow.

Having famous exactly why Trump is searching for to incite what he can name an revolt, after which why we’re nowhere close to such a scenario, he concluded:

As I stated, I hope we do not come close to to this. I hope the federal courts, together with the Supreme Court docket, cease Trump’s plan. However I imagine it is Trump’s plan (the main points of which have been labored out by the troika of Vance, Miller, and Vought), and they’re implementing it as shortly as they’ll.

I do not need to unduly alarm you, however you want to pay attention to this imminent hazard. It is unfolding very quickly.

I’ve little doubt he’s proper. America is nearing civil warfare, with its forces being turned on these on the left.

However then, so too are we, albeit a bit of behind the US, however nonetheless on the identical path.

A Guardian publication this morning is predicated on a dialogue with LSE-based human rights lawyer Dr Richard Martin  and examines why new legal guidelines on protest are being put in place within the UK, and are focused solely on the left, saying:

The federal government put out an announcement on Sunday, saying it could amend sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to additional impose situations on public protests and assemblies.

The adjustments to the regulation would enable cops to think about the cumulative impression of protest when deciding whether or not or not they’re lawful, that means they might probably re-route or completely shut down protest they imagine may trigger critical disruption to native communities.

The time period ‘critical disruption’ is, in fact, completely subjective and open to any police officer to interpret. I’ve little doubt that that is deliberate.

And why is that this focused on the left? Because the piece notes:

Do these new legal guidelines actually characterize a critical distinction?

Martin thinks they do – however extra as a vibe shift than anything. “Crucially, the federal government is attempting to ship a sign to the police: to get more durable, much less tolerant and to place extra weight on the opposite aspect of the scales,” he stated. “What occurs subsequent relies on how inclined senior cops are to the temper music.”

The police are, in fact, notoriously right-wing.

Then this was famous:

I ask Martin why these similar legal guidelines aren’t being instructed to police far-right rallies, notably given the federal government justification of desirous to make it possible for communities really feel protected and free from intimidation.

“I believe we must be upfront about what’s prompted this,” he stated. “It is not far-right rallies. The goal to start with was Extinction Rise up, and now it is Palestine Motion.” He thinks that it’s the shared tactic of those two teams – which he outlined as “a marketing campaign of attrition the place you retain protesting to successfully exhaust the police, to fill the custody suites” – that the federal government laws is definitely focused at.

“Their strategy … will probably be met by police step by step breaking that approach down,” Martin defined. “It is going to imply there could also be a larger variety of arrests, the stakes for these arrested will probably be greater and we might nicely see much less protest.”