Yes, you are exactly right- a 'bad' law will be used and abused by BOTH sides against their 'enemies', real or imagined.
I do not know if the term gerrymandering works in the UK or not but very basically, it is the act of drawing district lines (lines that encompass groups of voters for the purposes of electing officials usually) such that it works to the best advantage of the party currently in power. You probably have it in the UK also, unfortunately. All very well explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AYNow, gerrymandering is a 'bad' thing for the party not being in the majority but a wonderful thing for the party that is in the majority. The minority party always rallies against it but never, ever actually tried to remove it because doing so, while they are in the minority, would freeze the district voting lines in a place not advantageous to them and ALSO remove their ability to again move them to a more advantageous place when THEY are again in the majority. So the broken system goes on and on with no end in sight because both sides want the ability to misuse it when it is again 'their turn'.
As it is with restrictive laws: in the end, the power rests with the people, the gov't or a combination of both. As the gov't gains power through the loss of individual rights, they are not likely to ever be returned no matter which party is in power. So it is not a case of the right vs. the left, it is a case of personal liberty vs. gov't control. And that see- saw only tips one way, toward the gov't, always, as it must in order to maintain order (working under the theory that there are more and more ways to reduce or remove order as humans progress). I cannot speak for Gary (gpink) but I believe what he is resisting is the overall loss of individual freedoms to gov't control in general, not for any or either particular political party, group, etc. I know that is my stance: when it comes to the loss of individual rights and freedoms, it should only be done when not doing so would result in 'serious and immediate danger'. Which, BTW, is the litmus test used by most of our Supreme court justices.
But slipping sideways and introducing new limits and controls to ill- defined 'groups' of people, done under the guise of safety for 'all' or even the best intentions of any kind is always the method used by all gov't's to gain more control over all people, for all time. Only the words change, the intent is always the same and it is almost always negative overall, certainly on balance.
We have First Amendment to guarantee our rights of free speech extremely clearly, and further states that the US Congress 'shall make no law' with regard to religion, free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and the right to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances. But that same Congress also passed the Sedition Act of 1918, which wiped out all the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment and further, made complaining about the Sedition Act a crime in and of itself. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
The steps to any totalitarian government may be large or small but all should be resisted IMO.
Brian
That's as may be but if it was passed by due process is there anything in there that says it only applies to right wing white supremacist domestic terrorists?
As it is written it applies equally to any domestic terrorist group be they left, right, black, white, yellow or even one legged and could quite easily be used by the Republicans without any amendments 
