Defend democracy and the Diversity of Annual Conference

We are writing to express our opposition to the decision to significantly cut delegation sizes to NUS Annual Conference. NUS Annual Conference 2009 agreed to increase the representation of part-time students whilst freezing the budget for conference, and allow the new Democratic Procedures Committee (DPC) to set a delegate entitlement. Many of us feared at the time this would be used as a pretext for major cuts in delegation sizes, and were accused of exaggeration and paranoia.It seems we were right.

The recently passed proposals have halved the delegate entitlement of most HE institutions. Many FE institutions have seen cuts too, even though they were led to believe they would get greater representation through the new part-time student ratio. This will lead to a significant reduction in representation of Liberation and other minority groups and their opinions. The Black Students' and LGBT Campaigns both have policy to increase their representation within all levels of NUS, including at Annual Conference. These cuts will set back years of work to increase participation of Liberation groups at NUS events, and follow the lack of completion of an Equality Impact Assessment on the new constitution that was demanded by an Extraordinary Conference last November.

These proposals will also create even more of a sabbatical dominated conference, with even less of a voice for grass-roots student activists. The plurality of annual conference is its greatest strength, and this will severely limit that. NUS Annual Conference should reflect the full diversity of our movement, not simply the sabbatical elite.

We, the undersigned oppose the decision made by the Democratic Procedures Committee and ask that;

1. The DPC re-considers its decision

2. The DPC opposes any further proposals that decrease representation

3. Any further changes to the composition of Annual Conference are debated properly at every level of NUS"

Signed Queen Mary Students’ UnionSOAS Students’ UnionNUS Black Students’ CampaignNUS LGBT CampaignNUS Women’s CampaignDaf Adley, NUS LGBT Officer (Open Place)Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy, NUS Black Students' OfficerOlivia Bailey, NUS Women’s OfficerLucy Brookes, NUS LGBT Officer (Women’s Place)Saima Yousaf, NUS International Students' OfficerEstelle Hart, NUS Wales Women’s OfficerTrevor Dallimore-Wright, NUS Part-Time Students' OfficerJames Haywood, NUS NECPhemie Matheson, NUS NECFraser Nesbitt, NUS NECNaa-Anyima Quaye, NUS NECMadalena Ngongola, NUS NEC Daniel Randall, NUS Trustee BoardMarya Ahmed, Co-President Welfare & Education SOAS Students' UnionVicki Baars, AP Diversity Leeds Met Students' Union Assed Baig, President Staffordshire Students' UnionAlan Bailey, NUS LGBT Committee Sarah Burton, President Castle College Students’ UnionSarah Goodwill, NUS Women’s CommitteeHannah Greenslade, Community Officer Leeds University UnionCraig Griffiths, Environment & Ethics Officer UCL UnionGabriel Hassan, General Secretary Manchester Students' UnionNatalie Heppenstall, NUS Women's Committee Elly James, NUS Women's Committee Annabel Jones, Campaigns Officer Queen Mary Students' UnionHollie Jones, NUS Women’s Committee Jennifer Jones, Campaigns Officer Goldsmiths Students' UnionHazel Kent, Women's Officer Manchester Students' UnionAaron Kiely, Ethical and Environmental Officer Kent Union Tara Kitten, LGBT Officer (Women’s Place) Liverpool Guild of StudentsHanif Leylabi, Welfare Assembly Chair Leeds University Union Sebilio Lillo, Co-President Finance & Comms SOAS Students' UnionChris Marks, VP Education, Hull University UnionMas Naina, NUS Black Students' Committee Sean McHale, Post Graduate Assembly Chair Leeds University Union Guy Mitchell, Democracy & Comms Assembly Chair Leeds University Union Jenny Okojie, NUS Women's Committee Tami Peterson, Executive Chair Birkbeck Students' UnionAnil Joshua Sachdeo, NUS Further Education Zone CommitteeUrsula Sam, NUS LGBT Committee Beccy Sawbridge, NUS Mature Students' Committee Ben Sellers, Co-President Sports & Socs SOAS Students' UnionKanja Sesay, Media & Ents Officer Bradford Students' UnionScott-Austin Shaw, Welfare Officer Queen Mary Students' Union Lev Taylor, LGBTUA+ Officer Warwick Students' Union Sami Wannell, Welfare Officer Warwick Students' Union

Obamania Sweeps the Press but will Change only be Skin Deep?

Change we can believe in. That was one of the primary slogans of the Obama-Biden Campaign. Enthusiasm grips half of the American nation and much of the worlds press who gleefully claim the ushering in of a new era in a American politics. No one can claim that things will be exactly the same. But what change can we really expect from Obama and the Democratic Party, an organisation which represents a huge section of corporate America? And who will really be responsible for real change?

While this certainly is the most celebrated President Elect since Roosevelt in the 1930s, Obama is not the first Democrat in recent decades to be elected on a wave of hope. After years of hard right Republicanism under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, many Americans were filled with optimism upon the election of Bill Clinton in 1993. One look at his record though, highlights the fact that the Democrats are not, and have never been, the Party of working people, the discriminated against, the oppressed. Most notoriously in 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the Republican made Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act promising to 'end welfare as we know it.' It certainly did that, some of the basic aims are listed below.

• Ending welfare as an entitlement programme
• Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
• Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
• Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.

The bill also cut funding for teenage mothers and terminated funds altogether to many programmes which helped immigrants both illegal and legal.

Some critics, such as Barbara Ehrenreich point to a degree of misogyny and racism in the lead up to PRWORA, claiming that advocates for workfare rehashed stereotypes that had been around for centuries. Through the demonisation of single mothers, Ehrenreich sees welfare reform as stigmatizing "unpaid, family-directed labor" and believes that the reform put many women into exploitative situations:

"Stigmatizing unemployment obviously works to promote the kind of docility businesses crave in their employees. TANF requires recipients to take whatever jobs are available, and usually the first job that comes along. Lose the job – for example, because you have to stay at home with a sick child or because you tell the boss to stop propositioning you – and you may lose whatever supplementary benefits you were receiving. The message is clear: Do not complain or make trouble; accept employment on the bosses’ terms or risk homelessness and hunger."

The application of the federal death penalty was expanded under the Democratic Presidency to include crimes not resulting in death, such as running a large-scale drug enterprise, by Clinton’s 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. During Clinton's re-election campaign he boasted,

"My 1994 crime bill expanded the death penalty for drug kingpins, murderers of federal law enforcement officers, and nearly 60 additional categories of violent felons."

Not to mention that Clinton oversaw more wars than his previous two predecessors put together. On all fronts the Democrats work on behalf of a tiny section of American society whose
interests are opposed to those of the majority of Americans. They may less aggressive than the Republicans and have some important differences on LGBT rights and abortion (some of the time) but at the end of the day they take the country in the same direction.

Now Obama is a Democrat but he is also of course not Bill Clinton and while we must look at the history of Democratic attacks on minorities and vulnerable people, we have to also judge Obama on his own merits. Yet it seems this analysis also paints a less hopeful picture than we are led to believe.

On foreign policy, which has dogged the Bush administration most over the last eight years, there is a change of tone in regards to Iraq, no one can seriously deny this. But is this enough to signify a 'change' in US foreign policy direction?

Obama has pledged to withdraw US troops but within a time frame lasting 16 months, promising no 'dramatic' troop withdrawals, and many of these troops wouldn't be home long as he supports a troop surge in Afghanistan. Most worrying of all he has refused to rule out a military strike on Iran which could set the world on fire. And on the ever present conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian people Obama has declared:

'Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel.'

No reason for hope on the streets of Palestinian refugee camps then. Most recently he described the Russian slaughter in Georgia as 'evil.' Now I would agree. But I also think that the slaughter of civilians in South Ossetia by US ally Georgia was evil, yet where is Obama's condemnation?

So all in all the prospects for real change in foreign policy do not look high on Obama's agenda.

It is perhaps the socially reactionary policies of many Republicans which make many people recoil. It is certainly welcome, therefore that Obama supports, to some extent, a woman's right to choose. However he also believes in teaching teenagers abstinence and Vice President elect Biden, while supporting the legal right of a woman to choose has stated:

"My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion," and "I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion." He is also against late term abortions.

On gay rights again, there is some improvement on the position of Republicans but both Obama and Biden oppose gay marriage with Obama stating quite clearly:

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Once more are these the policies and views of people who are going to bring great change or are we just talking shades of grey?

On immigration too, Obama has far from a great record

He voted for the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” which approved the construction of an additional 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and called for increased surveillance on all U.S international borders.

In March of this year, Obama also voted for the “Immigration Enforcement and Employer Sanctions Amendment,” which Project Vote Smart—a non-partisan organisation that researches candidates’ voting records—summarised this way:

“Vote to adopt an amendment that allows the Senate Budget Committee Chairman to raise spending levels to increase border security, expand enforcement of immigration laws, increase penalties against employers who hire undocumented immigrants, deploy National Guard troops to the southern and northern borders of the United States, and identify and deport non-citizen immigrants in prisons, provided that such spending would not increase the budget deficit.^"

There seems little doubt in my mind that on his record, his statements, and the record of his Party we can expect small changes here and there but fundamentally, more of the same. His recent signing of the $700 billion bail out for Wall Street also points in this direction.

Does this mean nothing has changed or that the election of Barack Obama means nothing for progress? Of course not. This would be a ridiculous and ultra left position to take and one which would severely damage the ability of the left to relate to millions of Americans hungry for real change.

The grassroots nature of Obama's campaign and especially the participation of such a high number of minority groups is cause for optimism. The economic crisis has led many people the world over to question the previously common sense belief for many that the free market led to a successful and sustainable economy. That millions of people in the US feel more confident in their ability to come together collectively and make a difference, however misplaced I believe much of that to be, is to be welcomed by anyone who believes every reform in this system is won from struggles from ordinary people from below. And of course the fact that a black man can win enough votes to become President of the USA is testament to the blood, sweat and tears lost by civil rights activists for over a century.

It is the job of socialists to relate to these Americans through anti war movements, anti racism movements and anti bailout actions. With agitation and organisation a powerful social force can be built which can force Obama to honour the limited promises he has made, successfully push for more reforms, and open more room up on the left for a more radical political realignment in the States.

Yes We Can.

People Not Profit - Fightback Friday

As the capitalist system once more shows its inherent weaknesses and unsustainability, the opportunity for socialists to present an alternative view of the world is great. The scope for industrial resistance, student action and popular protest is large but resistance is not inevitable.

We must start now in our work places, schools and colleges to help expose the reasons why the financial crisis has come about. We need to agitate for action to make sure that we don't pay for their crisis. The resistance might be small at first but the possibilities for it to explode are great.

The March on the Bank of England was a first step, a small step but an important step.

Another World Is Possible

Have a problem with natives? Don't move to their land!

Wah-Chay

I was fortunate enough to get the chance to travel to the majority Cree community of Moosonee and the Moose Factory First Nation island. Like the Native peoples of many colonised countries, Canadian Natives have been effective second class citizens in their own land. Their children have fewer education rights, they suffer from higher levels of unemployment, drug and alcohol addiction and lose many of their women to the hands of murderers posing as looking for sex workers.

These facts, coupled with the fact that white Canadians have only been here a few generations at most would, you would think, lead to an understanding of the need for helping Canada's native communities being a top priority for any new government. But redneck racism lives on.

I knocked on a door in Moosonee (80%+ Cree) and a white man answered. Upon hearing I was calling on behalf of Charlie Angus and the New Democrats, he remarked 'Charlie Angus only ever comes here to talk to white people when there's an election on.'

Your ancestors quite possibly took part in the disappropriation of Native land, you are living in a Cree community and you obviously feel that the community has something to give you or you would have chosen to live there given it is not accessible by roads! People like that should be on their knees begging the Cree people for forgivness or at the very least giving them some respect.

Meeg-Witch

International Jewish anti-Zionist Network

Founding Charter of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

Thursday, 2 October, 11am

Crossroads Women’s Centre , 230a Kentish Town Road, NW5 2AB
(Entrance on Caversham Rd , Kentish Town , wheelchair accessible)

---

The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) is launching its founding Charter in continental Europe, India , Israel , Latin America, Morocco , the US , Canada and the UK .

For the past two years IJAN has been building an international network of anti-Zionist Jews to support Palestinian resistance and seed new Jewish anti-Zionist organizing:

Our commitment is to the dismantling of Israeli apartheid, the return of Palestinian refugees, and the ending of the Israeli colonization of historic Palestine .

Selma James, one of the international co-ordinators of IJAN, said:

We intend to contribute to a growing international voice that challenges Zionism and its claim to speak on behalf of Jews worldwide; and to contribute to the movement to defeat US-backed Israeli imperialism, occupation and ethnic cleansing.

The movement against Zionist apartheid must be as uncompromising as was the movement against South African apartheid. Anti-Zionism is part not only of the movement against racism but also the movement against war. We are convinced that we speak to a great unexpressed, in fact censored sentiment of support for this perspective, including among Jewish people.

Professor Moshe Machover, co-founder in 1962 of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist Organization, said:

I welcome this initiative in the name of those Israelis who, together with their Palestinian comrades, are struggling against Zionist oppression and for the de-Zionisation of Israel and the establishment of a progressive commonwealth, in which Arabs and Israeli Jews live together in peace and equality.

Michael Kalmanovitz (IJAN) said:

We are challenging the common myth that Israel wants peace. Zionists deny the truth: that the state of Israel was established by its massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people and this continues to be its policy. We therefore join the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel which the Palestinian resistance movement has called for.

The launch is part of a Month of Action < Confront Zionism – Divest from Israel > in a number of countries, to strengthen support for BDS by targeting Israeli goods.

The UK Charter launch the will take place on Friday, 24 October, 7-9.30pm, Trinity United Reformed Church, Buck St , London NW1 ( Camden Town ). The distinguished Professor Moshe Machover will be one of the speakers.

Taken from the IJAN website

Muppets

http://www.searchles.com/channels/show/5463

Who the fuck are the Republican Guard? Oh my god! Thick as ....

Canada - Poverty and Power in the blink of an eye

One of the things that will strike you most when discovering Canadian politics is how much they copied off the British system! The Queen as head of State, a Prime Minister, a bicameral system, first past the post. They even have the front benches two swords lengths away from each other! And of course the parliament building is basically a cross between the Houses of Parliament London, and Disney Land Paris. Very pretty, especially when viewed from the Ottawa river which separates the provinces of Ontario and Québec.

The Queens head is on all coins, as well as the $20 note. The police have a big fat crown in their logos and they spell 'labour' with a 'u.'

Another striking similarity is the close proximity of the seat of political power and chronic poverty. I remember standing on a delapidated, high rise tower block in London's east end during the local elections in 2006 and turning round to face the City with its skyscrapers and plush apartments. The lavish excess of the City couldn't contrast more with the over crowded, unsafe and under repaired tower blocks. The contradictions of capitalism in the blink of an eye.

Ottawa is no different. When I walk the 5 minutes to the local supermarket I pass through the local neighbourhood. Chronic drug use, homelessness and prostitution are rife (though in an area limited to a few blocks) The wretched sit and lie on the floor, their faces eaten away by crystal meth and their limbs weak and bent by lack of access to medical care. Then, when I look up and slightly to my right, the peak of Parliament tower dominates the modest downtown skyline. A few blocks more and the financial heart of the district where suited men and women hob nob at lunch time, discussing the various ills of the financial crisis as they sip their decaffinated coffee. Fair trade of course.

The winds of change are starting to blow. And I'm not talking about Obama. The reality of the failings of the capialist system is becoming clearer and clearer every week. People are looking for an alternative. Trade union struggle and anti war sentiment in the west, the successes of the resistance to imperialism in the middle east and beyond, and the progress made by the people of Latin America gives hope to the poor and exploited the world over. Another world is possible.

Neither Moscow, nor NATO nor Tblisi

It's unsurprising that British news coverage of the conflict in the North Caucuses has been skewed and biased. The USA has been portrayed as a level headed and peaceful nation, seeking not to exclude post USSR Russia from the global elite while at the same time calling for an end to the violence. For the sovereigntiy and territorial integretiy of independent countries lies at the heart of the Bush regime of course.

NATO is mentioned in passing as if it were a benign group of countries seeking only closer ties. Its true nature as an extension of US imperialism across the world is denied or, mostly, ignored. For wasn't it NATO which bombed Serbian towns, cities, hospitals and schools from the skies, killing thousands of civilians in the process? Isn't it NATO member states and aspiring member states who are granting use of their territory for US ballistic missiles? Isn't it NATO countries who are allowing US military bases on their soil? And is it just a coincidence that the US is pushing for countries like Georgia to join when they are so geopolitically important situated just a few miles from massive reserves of oil and gas?

US imperialism is the most powerful and therefore destructive in the world and its support for countries like Georgia must be seen in relation to this fact. Or we do believe that George Bush has a genuine passion for protecting the lives of the people of the region? I would bet he'd be hard placed to locate Georgia on a map!

This doesn't mean Russian imperialism is condoned or ignored and the bulk of the radical left in Britain certainly isn't doing that. Only cynical and rather dumb right wingers (the kind who like smugly accuse the SWP of 'continuing and undying support for Russia', oh the irony!) accuse us of having such a position.

Just like the US, Russia has imperial interests in the region, and for the last 5 years she has been adopting the idea that it is time to reassert hegemony in her 'back yard.' Russian media and establishment politicians have been berating Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili as a barbarian who opposes the fundamental right of self determination. I can't remember Messrs Putin and Medvedev being so bothered when it came to Kosovo or Chechnya. Imperialist hypocrisy stinks no matter who the perpetrator.

Finally the hypocrisy of pro-western Georgia. Not only have Georgian troops participated in the occupation of a sovereign and independent state (Iraq) they have also committed themselves to regaining control of the breakaway and de facto independent regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, by force if necessary. The lives of women and children in these countries are not, it seems of any value to Mr. Saakashvili. And to the directors of the British media; there is nothing 'plucky' about a country shelling civilian towns and cities.

The tension of this conflict finds large part of its origins in the expansion of NATO. The shelling of South Ossetia was merely a trigger factor. Therefore continued opposition to the most dangerous force in the world today, US imperialism, and understanding the link between this conflict and the war on terror must be central to the fight for an end to national oppression and the loss of life in the caucuses.

The control of resources of the world must lie in the hands of those who would plan its distribution according to human need and not the profit of American and Russian companies. Supporting NATO against Russian aggression in Georgia would do nothing to help achieve this aim.

Civillians Pay for US and Russian Imperialism

Over 2,000 people have been killed in the recent fighting in the Caucasus after Georgia declared war on Russia over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. These regions have never wanted to be part of Georgia and the treatment of minorities within Georgia's borders has always been a problem.But the fighting is also the result of an imperial power attempting to secure the energy and resources of another country through military force, and it must condemned. The US has responded to the fighting by accusing Russia of wanting "regime change" in Georgia. The hypocrisy of this accusation is astounding, given that the goal of the US in Iraq was nothing less than regime change. Yet for the US administration this is an unacceptable goal for other imperial powers to have.Russia shares this hypocrisy. While Russia moved against Georgia on what it claims are humanitarian grounds, arguing that because many South Ossetians have Russian citizenship they must be protected, the real reason is to secure its geopolitical interests. Russian aggression has little to do with humanitarian principles. It claims that if the US can recognise Kosovo as independent, it can make moves to ensure that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are under its sphere of influence. Russia also wants to prevent Georgia from joining NATO, and has demonstrated it will use military force to do so. The region is heavily contested between Russia and the US, and each have interests in securing their domination of the untapped oil reserves. Pipelines are being built from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, with strong political support from the US. The situation has undoubtedly escalated tensions between the US and Russia, not seen since the end of the Cold War. The US administration referred to a "significant long-term impact" on US-Russian relations if Russia continued to attack the Georgians disproportionately. But this is exactly the way the US is fighting in Iraq; through disproportionate attacks.It is unacceptable that both powers are using military force to secure their interests, without concern for civilians. The Left Alternative opposes the fighting and calls on all sides to end hostilities. We also call on Britain to refrain from supporting the US and break with US foreign policy.