left now!

Free Edson Cosmas! - Stop Deportations!

2011-05-26T10:05:00.000Z

Tanzanian LGBT rights activist Edson Cosmas has had his asylum claim rejected by the home office. Despite being a well known fighter for equality, and despite the fact that Tanzania still has life imprisonment on the statute books for homosexuality, he is apparently not gay enough for the Home Office. According to the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, a strong 95% of Tanzania residents said that homosexuality should be rejected by society, making it among the highest rejection of homosexuality in the 44 countries surveyed.

Edson's claim was rejected on the basis that he was 'too vague' in explaining how he met men for sex. How can it be possible to meet men for sex in such a conservative society asks the judge. The logic of the questioning is that either Tanzania isn't actually that bad a place to be LGBT or Edson is lying about his sexuality. The judge outrageously implies the latter.

The reality of the situation is that LGBT people all over the world have a human need and a human right to express intimacy and experience love. These desires are so fundamental to the vast majority of human beings, that most of us would take great risks to make them realities. Even in countries like Iran where people have been executed for homosexuality, LGB people exist, they live and they do their best to meet other people with the same desires. The fact that some of them manage to do this without being killed or beaten doesn't mean that it's 'not that bad' to be LGBT in a country that has homophobic laws. The widespread reports of violence, rape institutional homophobia and transphobia against LGBT people are testament to this.

What you can do IMMEDIATELY:
Sign the Online Petition: http://bit.ly/j1GRQf

FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO http://WWW.BAMN.COM OR http://WWW.MOVEMENTFORJUSTICE.ORG

On Violence

2011-05-14T12:41:00.000Z

There has been much discussion in regard to alleged 'violence' on some of the student demonstrations over the past year. I am under no illusions that smashing windows will stop cuts or reverse the decision on fees. But I have a real problem with using the word violence. How can you equate violence towards people and 'violence' towards inanimate, unfeeling objects? How can the consequences of smashing a window and smashing someone's future be equated? Some may say that this is mere hyperbole. But to the working class kid from an estate, the scrapping of EMA is the scrapping of their future. To the terminal cancer patient, the dismissal of cancer nurses is the dismissal of their right to dignity. To the partially mobile pensioner, closing their local library is closing the door on their access to mental stimulation. This is violence. This is attacking peoples lives. This is a collective wound on the body of society. This makes us bleed.

Windows at Tory Party HQ can be replaced in a couple of days. How long will it take to rectify a generation of lives whose potential has been stunted by the drive to maintain profits and bankers bonuses? To use the same word to describe what the Tories are doing to us to describe what happened at Millbank is obscene. So yes, I condemn the violence. But the only violence I see is at the hands of this coalition of cutters perpetrated against the mass of ordinary people in this country.

Why I cannot rejoice at Bin Laden's Alleged Death

2011-05-04T02:49:00.000Z

So we have been finally been told that American forces have executed the most wanted man in the world: Osama Bin Laden. The news was greeted by elation on the American street, with crowds of flag waving people chanting "USA USA." It could have been a baseball game.

However, I didn ot cheer. Not because I have any sympathy for Bin Laden. I abhor his reactionary ideology, and shed no tears at his apparent demise. But such an event is a symbolic opportunity for us to reflect on the 'War on Terror' which has raged from Pakistan to Somalia for a decade. Many tens of thousands of civilians dead, hundreds of thousands more wounded, millions more displaced, civil liberties decimated and our tax money spent on bombs in an age of impending austerity. The death of no one man could possibly compensate for the aforementioned trail of destruction to generate a cheer from me.

And let's not pretend that Bin Laden's death will bring an end to terrorism and war. The same alienation, desperation and poverty that drives people to support groups like the Taleban still exists. Imperialist powers still prop up dictatorships with terrible human rights records, western armies still occupy foreign lands, and whole swathes of the world's population live in poverty. Until this swamp of grievances is drained the world shall not have its peace.

Libya: No-fly zone is not the answer

2011-03-17T17:42:00.000Z

What seemed like a unstoppable advance from anti-Gaddafi rebels has been turned into a series of defeats at the hands of forces loyal to the Colonel. Widespread reports of civilian deaths, and executions within Gaddafi's own ranks, have caused outrage across the world. Calls have grown for the imposition of a no fly zone by western states, particularly in Britain and France and NATO. However the countries who would lead any no fly zone, including the afore-mentioned Britain and France, along with the United States have a less than impressive history of intervention.

Since Gaddafi agreed to abandon his alleged nuclear programme and desisted from supporting militant groups across the world, many countries have done their best to welcome him back into the fold of leaders of the ineternational community. As recently as 2009 Libya received around £150 000 in British 'aid.' And British oil firms have been deeply involved in multi-million pound contrats in the country's energy sector. Even more damning is the military cooperation between Britain and Gaddafi's regime including a promise by former Prime Minister Tony Blair "in the training of specialised military units, special forces and border security units”. Need we ask how that expertise is now being put to use?

At the present time too, the west is engaged in supporting some of the most abhorrent regimes on earth. We hear much about the (very real) problems faced by women in Iran as a result of misogynist laws. Yet the government of Saudi Arabia, which has a record on women's rights unparallelled anywhere in the world, is armed to the teeth by the west. Britain is the second biggest seller of arms in the world and half of that goes to Saudi Arabia. Some of that weaponry could be being deployed against unarmed Bahraini democracy activists as we speak.

From the Contras to the Taleban, western states have backed and funded unsavoury groups when it has suited them. More specifically to the Middle East and North Africa, various despots have been staunch allies of the west. Saddam Hussein, the Pahlavi Shahs of Iran, Hosni Mubarak, the House of Saud, the list is long. This support for dictators has been motivated by attempts to secure natural resources and geopolitically strategic areas of the world. Why should anyone think that the motivation for a no fly zone in White Hall and the Pentagon are motivated by anything different?

Imperialism is the weapon nation states use to increase their dominance on the world or their region. It leads to military occupations, wars, dictatorships, civil strife, ethnic cleansing and apartheid amongst others. The crisis in the region is a crisis of imperialism and has no quick fix. There is no magic wand that can be waived which will stop the killings tomorrow. This was the same in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is the same in Palestine and Egypt. In order to avoid such bloodshed and death in the future it is vital to oppose imperialism and capitalism.

In the meantime solidarity with the Libyan people is vital, as well is isolating Gaddafi. The progressive/anti-war/socialist movement in Britain must debate the best way to deliver such practical solidarity as a matter of urgency. But what is absolutely clear, is that the very last place we look to is the western governments who have spent so much time and money supporting regimes who butcher their own people. A speedy, peaceful resolution to this crisis cannot be guaranteed. Only a fool or a liar would claim this to be the case. But it can be said for certain, that there will be only one loser if the oil thirst backers of Israel and the House of Saud get a secure their grip on North Africa. The Libyan People.

Why We Need More George Lansburys

2011-02-24T11:17:00.000Z

In 1921, as mayor of Poplar, one of the poorest boroughs in the country, Lansbury and all 29 other councillors were jailed for refusing to hand over what they saw as an unfair tax. Instead, they used money collected in rates to build homes with better sanitation and to introduce equal pay for male and female council workers on a minimum wage far in excess of the market rate.

Labour Party Member Paul Cotterill wrote a piece recently on Liberal Conspiracy on why Labour Councillors should vote in favour of damaging cuts to public services. He cites reasons ranging from the fact that the government will force cuts through anyway to claims that Labour cuts can be different from tory cuts.
However these arguments and the other ones listed fundamentally miss the point. A point I would have expected a member of the socialist Labour Representation Committee to grasp.

None of these points refer to the potential of a mass movement to stop the cuts. A mass movement involving unity between working class people, students, disabled people, LGBT people, women and others. A mass movement which can mobilise many hundreds of thousands onto the streets and, crucially, a movement that has at its heart millions of workers ready and willing to strike. Britain has witnessed mass movements in the last two decades. From anti-capitalist movement to the movement against climate change and from the Stop the War Coalition, to the impressive resistance over student fees. What we haven't seen is mass, militant industrial action. This is a legacy of the defeat the British working class suffered when Thatcher crushed the National Union of Mineworkers which led to subsequent attacks on workers. A decline in manufacturing and the emergence of insecure and temporary work with bad working conditions has eroded working class confidence and led to a declining union membership. The failure of the education system to provide for those young people once guaranteed a job in a factory, mine or assembly line has led to mass youth unemployment, a generation of people on the dole and the demonisation of the working class as 'chavs,' and 'scroungers.'

However recent years has seen an upswing in workers struggle. The Vestas occupation, wildcat strikes in Linday and the all out Leeds Bin Workers strike all point to the potential of the sleeping lion that is the British working class. It is vital that the confidence lost in the 80s and 90s is won back. The Labour Party has a key role to play in this. As the Party most workers still vote for, still look to to represent them, the organisation can galvanise the movement against the cuts.

One Labour council refusing to vote for cuts could lead to another and another and another. A political crisis would emerge with Labour Councillors being the voice of our anti-cuts movement in the council chambers. The energy, impetus and confidence this would give to workers and trade unionists would be immeasurable. The potential benefit for Labour Councils refusing to impliment cuts comes not in the bureaucratic tussel which would ensue, but in the fact that it could act as a spark for a tidal wave of opposition to austerity which could bring this government down.

In the Past 2 months we have seen ongoing revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and governments from Algeria to Bahrain have been shaken by mass protest. The fuel for these popular movements was the massive discontent simmering under the surface of these societies for years. The spark was the self immolation of a twenty six year old Tunisian man, Mohamed Bouazizi, in protest at dictatorship. Labour councils opposing cuts could be the spark which ignites the British labour movement and burns down the Coalition of Cutters. The question is: as Labour Councillors, do you believe that the working class, with its position as the creater of profit, the lifeblood of capitalism, has the power to stop the cuts? I hope the answer is yes.

Still Not Good Enough

2011-02-24T10:33:00.001Z

Blogger Owen Jones has conducted what he plans to be the first of a series of interviews with National Union of Students Presidential hopefuls. Nominations close tomorrow (Friday 25th February). So far three candidates have thrown their hats into the ring. Liam Burns President of NUS Scotland, Shane Chowen NUS Vice President for Further Education and Mark Bergfeld a member of the NUS National Executive Council.

It is certainly encouraging that Liam acknowledges some home truths. NUS was wrong to take such an oppositional line toward grassroots student groups such as the Education Activist Network and the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts. NUS was also wrong to peddle the blatant lie that students taking part in occupations were merely trots and anarchists. However I reckon Liam's vision for NUS and education finding still leaves a lot to be desired. Here's why:

"I am behind a graduate tax with the right conditions."

A graduate tax is not progressive. It is a tax on knowledge. Liam correctly points out that graduates on a high wage should contribute more of their income in tax. But why should they pay more than people on comparable salaries who did not go to university? Why should a doctor or lecturer pay a higher percentage of income tax than Richard Branson does? Free Higher and Further Education is a possibility in this country in the 21st century. A fairer tax system, a crack down on tax evasion and the scrapping of Trident Nuclear weapons are all possible avenues for generating the necessary funds to pay for education. Afterall an educated population is a national investment. Hands up if you've never used a nurse, doctor or teacher?!

"I have got sympathy for the idea of directly electing NUS officers as it should really shift what candidates have to talk about. But in reality, I’m convinced it is logistically not possible. Turnout would be tiny and you would open the door wider open for factional control."

Could turnout really be any tinier than the 0.01% of NUS members who currently elect their national officers? Almost a quarter of a million UNITE members voted in their elections for General Secretary, thats a turnout of 15%. This would only dilute factional control, which, as anyone who has spent more than a day in NUS knows, is rampant. How many NUS Presidents in the last 30 years have been members of the National Organisation of Labour Students? I'd guess near the 90% mark. Student Union general meetings do not elect their sabbatical officers, it's done by cross campus ballot. If we are to truly reconnect with our membership then every member must count, every member must have a vote.

Mark Bergfeld has been a consistent fighter for free education and universal grants along with some of the brilliant NUS Liberation Campaigns. He has championed NUS democracy from the word go, opposing the undemocratic governance review and helping to coordinate broad opposition to damaging cuts to delegate entitlement to National Conference. I shall be giving him my 100% support in NewcastleGateshead and I hope you will too.

NUS President Aaron Porter says he won't restand

2011-02-23T22:16:00.001Z

This week NUS President Aaron Porter announced that he would not seek re election at the organisations annual conference in NewcastleGateshead in April. This is unprecedented, at least in the recent history of NUS where incumbents are expected to contest and win a second term in office. Aaron cites the 'changed landscape,' following the decision by parliament to pass a tripling of top up fees into law. This new landscape poses new challenges and requires new leadership.

I think it's fair to say that what forced Aaron to make this decision was a wave of discontent over his leadership. His failure to back grassroots student action including a wave of university occupations, led to him being viewed as a rather sorry ally indeed by students fighting fees and cuts. This was compounded by his broken promise to provide legal support to occupations following an admission that he had been (in his own words) 'spineless,' and 'dithering.'

To imagine that the fight against a ConDem government can be won with one national demonstration, a vigil and some letter writing is naive. Women struggled for the vote for decades in Britain and the struggle for black civil rights in the US took longer still. Civil disobedience, occupations and direct action were all used as tactics to win a more progressive society. The fear of radical action and the years of demonising anything the left in NUS said meant that Aaron and other members of the NUS leadership have been incapable of ever supporting these tactics. Despite claims that he supports peaceful occupations in principle, no concrete support materialised. Aaron failed to put his money where his mouth is.

While I would not have egged any NUS officers and do not support making them feel their safety is in danger, the anger felt by students who feel let down by Aaron and let down by their national union is entirely justified. This has to be the starting point for activists. The decision for the NUS leadership to dismiss this anger as the hyperbole of 'trots and anarchists,' simply made the students' rage worse. To over moralise about some broken eggs does not solve the problem even if it is right to have a comradely discussion with people about what tactics are politically expedient and which are not.

NUS must move on from the failure of this year, regroup and understand that it can reverse government attacks. If Egyptians, ruled by an iron fist, facing down bullets, can bring down a dictator of 30 years, we can break this ConDem coalition. If mass campaigning could bring down Thatcher's poll tax, we can stop cuts and reinstate EMA. Don't let them tell you we can't do it.

At NUS Conference this year I'll be supporting left-candidates including Mark Bergfeld NEC for National President. We need a fighting NUS that can engage with the new mass movement that has risen around it. Mark is the person for the job and I hope you all support him too.

Don't over simplify the Green Movement

2011-02-16T12:57:00.005Z

Some sections of the British left and even larger sections of the Arab left have been deeply suspicious if not downright hostile to the Green Movement for democracy in Iran. It has been compared to the pro-US March 14th movement in Lebanon and to the counter-revolutionary anti-Chavez bloc in Venezuela. Both of these assertions are false. The people who propound these arguments cite various reasons as their rationale behind holding these views, such as perceived anti-Palestinian chanting or the less aggressive tone of Mousavi and Karroubi on foreign policy. However, in my opinion, it is usually a deep rooted romantic vision of the hardliners as a bulwark against the 'big' imperialism of the USA, which means they often look for reasons not to support the Green Movement.(Though this isn't the case in the blog I reference below)

This argument flared up again recently with a cordial but frank exchange on twitter. The arguments have been repeated at the Angry Arab Blog In this case, the perceived anti-Arab sentiment of the Green Movement is the main reason for the author declaring that, in his view, the Green Movement is worthy of 'nothing but scorn.' The author was particularly angered by a chant he describes as 'no to Gaza,' being heard on pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran. I have not, by any means, heard all the chants on demonstrations in Iran and have not been there during the crisis. But I have followed the events carefully and have never heard of a chant that merely says 'no to Gaza.' What I have heard is a chant that says 'Not Gaza, Not Lebanon I sacrifice myself for Iran.' I suppose this can also be translated as 'No to Gaza, no to Lebanon, I sacrifice myself only for Iran.' This may seem like mere semantic difference however I believe the context means that there is significant difference between the latter chants and simply 'no to Gaza.'

Iranians are used to hearing about the oppression of the Palestinians at the hands of Israel. Their plight is constantly portrayed on Iranian television, in films, in children's programmes, cartoons, radio shows and news. The annual Jerusalem Day March attracts hundreds of thousands of participants across Iran and the world. Palestinian and Lebanese resistance groups receive hundreds of millions of Iranian oil dollars of aid every year. Personally I don't have a problem with this. I have never lived in Iran so don't want to try and portray myself as an authentic Iranian voice. But if I lived, worked or studied there I would be happy with my government showing solidarity with the Palestinians in this way. Why? Because I come from a political family and was educated about the oppression of the Palestinians from a young age. My motivations for supporting Palestine comes from my leftist beliefs. However most Iranians are not leftists. And they are not Arabs. So many do not have an ideological or ethno-national attachment to the Palestinian cause. This doesn't mean they do not support Palestinian human rights. Just like I'd guess most people in Britain do. But it means many of them believe it is wrong for Iranian money to be spent abroad when there is so much to improve in Iran. Something I have heard several times is that there are 38 000 road deaths in Iran every year, far more than Israel kills. People often say, until our roads are fixed the money should be spent here. In other words charity begins at home.

I categorically reject this view. Clearly Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israel are very different to road deaths in Iran. They are as a result of imperialism, which is part of the global capitalist system which damages people across the world. Every defeat for Israel is a victory for those seeking democracy in Iran. But this view stems from my ideological outlook as a revolutionary socialist. The simple fact of the matter is that most people in Iran are not so, and therefore many (though not necessarily most) do not see imperialism in the same way. Even some of those who do see imperialism in this way have justified the perceived anti-Palestinian chants on demonstrations. Close relatives of mine absolutely 110% support the Palestinian cause, but also say "let's stop the oppression in Iran before we try and stop oppression elsewhere." I think this unnecessarily counterposes the two. But it doesn't make them racist or anti-Palestinian.

Undoubtedly there is a small minority of pro-Israeli people in Iran. Perhaps a greater minority than the uneducated western observer would think (due to constant propaganda showing screaming Iranians burning flags) but very small nonetheless. But rogue minorities should never be used to judge a movement which put a million people on the streets. It's also unhelpful to cherry pick those chants, while ignoring chants such as 'Che Iran, Che Gazzeh, Koshtane Mardom Base,' 'whether in Iran or Gaza, enough of killing people.' Civil society in Iran has grown a lot over the last 20 years and there are unofficial pro-Palestinian gatherings held by people who are part of the democracy movement. Mothers for Peace held such a gathering outside the Palestinian embassy following the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. What did the regime do? Brought in some goons to out chant then so it looked like an official demo! This forced the women to move to the other side of the road. How THAT is pro-Palestinian I will never know.

I've made it clear that financial solidarity to the Palestinians and Lebanese resistance is something I have no problem with whatsoever. If people want to improve infrastructure and living standards in Iran then targeting the Islamic Bonyads should be the first step to wealth redistribution. There's plenty to go around frankly. I also strongly disagree with the view that the Green Movement is anti-Palestinian. However, I have to ask this question. If a group of Iranians wanted to come into the streets, unarmed, chanting slogans suggested Palestine wasn't 'their problem,' should they be faced with beatings, imprisonment, torture, rape, murder and execution?

The Green Movement has internal contradictions. Class, ideology, religion, party affiliation and views on the Islamic system as a whole vary as in any mass movement. But any pro-Palestinian government in Tehran has to be organic. Not to give critical but unconditional support to the Green Movement in its very basic demands for democracy is, in my opinion, the same abstract position held by a tiny minority of the left in Britain who refuse to give such support to the Palestinian resistance. Abstract and based on emotion rather than a difficult political choice that has to be made in the absence of a strong organised working class left.

The Balance of Forces is Key

2011-02-08T13:10:00.005Z

The experience of the EDL mobilisation in Luton on 5th February reinforces a significant lesson that some anti-fascists need to learn. That is that the balance of forces on the day is the principle variable which determines how militant a counter mobilsatiion can be. Without adequate numbers, talk of physically no platforming fascists is nothing more than potentially dangerous dogmatic rhetoric.

I have been on on several different anti-EDL mobilisations over the last year and on every single one certain people and certain groups have advocated the same rigid tactic of attempting to breakthrough police lines and attack the EDL. Regardless taking into account whether or not the counter mobilisation had the capacity to successfully no platform the EDL. This approach will only lead people down a blind alley and risk unecessary arrest or injury. The consequences of this can be demoralisation and smaller subsequent mobilisations.

The task for militant anti fascists is therefore two-fold. How can we build a genuinely broad, diverse campaign which involves reformist workers and their organisations while at the same time making principled arguments for more militant action? Clearly, if we do not do the first we cannot do the second. If we cannot attract those who are committed to fighting fascism but are to our political right in the labour movement, then we have no one with whom to argue for militant anti fascism. It is absolutely correct, therefore that organisations like UAF seek to be broad and inclusive. No united front can claim to be serious if it does not seek to achieve the maximum unity with trade unions and sections of the Labour Party. Afterall, these organisations retain the alleigance of most workers in this country at this time. Inclusive, dynamic counter mobilisations which include things like music and entertainment are therefore a correct part of UAF's strategy.

As militant anti fascists within united fronts it is our duty to agitate for physical no platform WHEN possible. In Luton, a broad coalition had been created including most unions and support from local MPs, MEPs and councillors. It was possible to agitate for more militant action and significant sections of the crowd took up this call, including breaking through police lines and blockading Luton train station. Many people on the train to Luton were unaware that this might happen and many people in the crowd at the square did not come with pre conceived plan to break through police lines. But the agitation of militants on the ground made this possible. This flies in the face of the more conservative elements who fear-monger about such action alienating the majority. Having said this, a significant section of the crowd at the square chose not to join in the more militant action and militant anti fascists must seek to relate to and engage with these people rather than dismissing them.

This doesn't mean revolutionaries should tail reformist leaders. Indeed that would be a disaster. However without a working class rank and file that is willing to go beyond union and Labour Party leaders, substitutionism is a real danger. And far left groups are no substitute from a vibrant rank and file. The downturn in workers struggle after the 1980s and Margaret Thatcher's smashing of the unions seriously dented the ability of the anti fascist movement to mobilise mass demonstrations aganst the fascists. The majority of resistance to fascism and indeed the most militant resistance has always come from the organised working class. Any serious attempt to smash the EDL off the streets has to be linked to concerted efforts to rebuild the rank and file in the trade unions from the bottom up. Now is the time to do this. The murmurs of resistance began with actions like the Leeds refuse workers all out strike and the Vestas occupations. The possibility of coordinated strike action and a shift to the left in major unions (demonstrated by the results of the UNITE elections) presents us with a real opportunity. The explosion of the previously dormant student movement shows just how quickly things can change.

I urge everyone, therefore to register for two important events.

The Peoples' Convention organised by Right to Work, the Labour Representation Committee and Disabled People Against the Cuts

United Against Fascism National Conference

Breaking windows won't stop the cuts, but occupations, strikes and mass action can

2011-02-08T13:01:00.004Z

An estimated 50 000 students and lecturers marched through the streets of London yesterday on the biggest march in defence of the education system for years and years. The turnout and the broad range of people represented showed the depth of feeling against the cuts and the presence of workers rights groups, pensioners organisations and others reflected popular public support and solidarity for our cause. This is the biggest acheivement of the National Union of Students in my five and a half years of studying and all those who made yesterday possible should be congratulated. The principle of maximum, practical unity was utilised yesterday to great effect. Next time we can make it bigger and better.

However unity also has to be principled and based on a stragetic and tactical consensus. That's why we have to be open and honest about the difference that exist in our movement over which tactics can win. To reduce this debate to redbaiting, lies and slurrs is a diservice to our membership, as many of whom need to be involved in this discussions. We cannot let the different points of view be obscured by hysteria. We need to keep this political.

According to the BBC five to six thousand students broke away from the main march and took their message directly to the governing party at millbank tower with a portion of them occupying the building to cheers from the onlooking crowd. The tactics of occupation and mass direct action are entirely legitimate as was Tory HQ as a target.

Movements throughout history have used mass direct action and have employed the power of numbers to force governments to backdown over plans to attack students and working people. From the suffragettes, to the Stonewall riots and from the Battle of Cable Street to the Miner's Strike ordinary people have been forced to defend themselves when the law and parliament won't and can't.

Many of these movements are looked on with nostalgia and by pride by some of the very people condemning the occupation of Millbank as 'despicable.' I'm sure most of the NUS leadership would see the historic struggles of LGBT people, women and workers for their rights as part of our tradition of activism. Yet I wonder, if they had been alive at the time, would they have been amongst those who criticised these movements for breaking the law, risking public support and for damaging 'respectability?' It appears that may well be the case.

History has shown that when the ruling class use all the tools at their disposal they are a formidable force. The judiciary, parliament, the police, the army and the media are all utilised against ordinary people. But there is one force that is more powerful even than this. That is mass solidarity between workers and students based on the broadest and most militant action possible.

The Stop the War movement was Britain's biggest mass movement. It radicalised a whole generation of people, made Tony Blair one of the most unpopular PMs in British history and undoubtedly helped to prevent further wars. It was only able to do this because of mass mobilisations, student occupations, walk outs and sit ins. But it didn't stop the invasion of Iraq. The conditions for widespread industrial action which could have brought down the government and brought the country to a standstill were not right. The situation now is very different. The cuts will directly affect the lives of tens of millions of workers, students and others in a way the War in Iraq couldn't. This means the scope for widespread industrial action is much larger. And the legacy of activism from the Stop the War campaign means there is a layer of activists with experience of agitating for action. If a Labour government could ignore up to two million people marching against the war, a tory government can surely ignore 50 000 students marching against cuts and fees. What they cannot ignore is mass civil disobedience, occupations and a general strike.

And this is not rhetoric or hyperbole. These tactics have won. In France when the government attempted to bring in laws which would have given employers the right to sack those under 25 without notice or reason, the student and workers movement rolled into action. Universities were occupied, workers struck and 3 million took to the streets. The government backed down.

In Greece mass occupations and an all out strike by the lecturers union succeeded in forcing the social democratic PASOK to withdraw their support for a bill which would have led to the privatisation of universities. The youth wing of PASOK voted with the radical left in universities and took part in militant action. This belies the claim that mass militancy and direct action cannot not involve broad forces. In fact these tactics can only be successful when broad forces are incorporated. No organisation or group can win battles on behalf of students or workers. Their respective movements have do this.

It is true that not all occupations and strikes win. The miners strike was one of the most magnificent examples of mass militant class anger in this country and the solidarity from women, ethnic minorities, religious groups, other workers and LGBT people was outstanding. But the refusal of the TUC and the leadership Labour Party to support the people it claimed to represent, fatally wounded the miners cause. Had the full might of the TUC been used, had a general strike been called or even if only the steal workers had gone on all out strike history could well have taken a different turn and the Thatcherite legacy of unemployment, poor housing and social exclusion may never have been.

This is why it is crucial for those on the left to work within NUS and its sections, despite our differences. Only maximum, principled unity can win. The NUS and the student left have great responsibilities and need to be accountable. NUS needs to step up and sound the call for coordinated, hard hitting action with the labour movement against savage cuts and fees. The student left needs to warn against substitutionism and continue to fight for the involvement of the largest number of students and workers.

Previous attempts to stop fees by marches and lobbying haven't been enough and as shown by historical and contemporary examples militant tatics have. So why does the NUS leadership refuse to back a strategy that can win for students? The answer appears to be simple, because the fundamental logic underpinning 90% of their political work is that everything will be ok if we vote Labour. We must remember that it was Labour who introduced tuition fees and top up fees. It was Labour who abolished grants and it was Labour who introduced means testing which leaves many students out in the cold. The Labour government announced it was to slash hundreds of millions from the HE budget which led to some universities like the University of Leeds pre empting the cuts by threatening compulsory redundancies. NUS was nowhere to be seen in the fight against Labour cuts. It's actions like this which make it hard for many students to really believe that NUS opposes cuts and not just Tory cuts. Indeed the NUS leadership consistently voted down proposals to oppose fees and even proposals to oppose all education cuts!

As a member of the Socialist Workers' Party I voted Labour in the last election in the absence of any left of Labour candidate and I would do so again at the next election. But this is nowhere near enough. We need to create a movement which shows it means business in order to stop ConDem cuts but also to show to the Labour government that, while most of us might vote for you over the blue and yellow tories, we are prepared to bring you down if you try and bring students down. Anything else is putting the interests of your party before the interests of students. The youth wing of the Greek equivelant to Labour did it and they won. This isn't about small far left groups fighting and winning the battles. We can't and the serious ones understand this.

Slavish subservience to Labour governments and the shouting down of anything that would challenge Labour in power has gotten us nowhere. It has landed us with more debt. The same is true for the unions. Thatcher's anti trade union laws remain in place, New Labour ministers decried striking firefighters as 'fascist bastards,' and part privatisation has laid the ground for the wholesale sell off of much of our public services. We need a mass movement not only to get rid of the tories and their dirty yellow mates, we need a mass movement to force Labour to the left. This means the strategy cannot be to mobilise people just to march and vote. We need to movement that can survive and thrive beyond a future Labour victory. We need to march, occupy, vote, lobby and strike.

I couldn't be at the demonstration but from what I could gather from the television reports, the media was hellbent on portraying the Millbank demonstration as the action of a few violent extremists. It is true that smashing windows will not stop the cuts and those advocating militant tactics must maintain that a strategy of individual acts of violence is not political and does not move us forward. However a couple of smashed windows is not what the demonstration at millbank was about and the NUS leadership MUST accept this fact even if they maintain their disagreement with the diversion a significant minority on the demonstration chose to take.

There may have been a few anarchists involved in some of the window smashing that i don't see as particularly helpful. But the anger displayed at Millbank was the righteous anger of young people infuriated with Tory plans to condemn them to worse education and lower living standards than their parents, Wile fat cat bankers in the city make millions. Even now there is a gap of up to 10 years in terms of life expectancy between the poorest and richest in society. Does this not warrant rage? Isn't it understandable that, in a time of massive attacks on students, some of this rage manifests itself in some broken glass? As I have previously said I don't think breaking windows will stop the cuts. But for Aaron Porter and other NUS NEC members to condemn the Millbank demonstration in the same terms they do the tory government is nothing short of obscene. What is more violent? The smashing of the education and public services of tens of millions for a generation or the smashing of a handful of windows at Tory HQ?

And under no circumstances should NUS be calling for any student or worker on the demonstration to face legal action as Aaron Porter has implied. To line up with the likes of Boris Johnson will not make students confident in their national union. If NUS really wants to make sure that our campaign is successfull with political aims and wants to minimise expressions of rage which may occasionally not help our cause, then it needs to take a real lead. It needs to run workshops on what an occupation is and isn't. It needs to have activist training days which equip people with the skills for the fight ahead. And it needs to give all its sections as voice at national events like the demo including Liberation campaigns even when they disagree over Free Education.

Yesterday was a success. It was a success in mobilising a broad range and large number of diverse students and it was a success in the sense that a significant minority raised militant tactics. NUS leaders must build on these successes and look at history for guidance and inspiration. Sharing best practise is a phrase you hear a lot at training events. Well let's do just that and employ tactics that have already won for students, workers, women, ethnic minorities, LGBT people and others. They are coming for us with everything they have. Let's show them what power really means

Why Wafa Sultan is Wrong

2011-02-08T12:52:00.001Z

Wafa Sultan styles herself as a critic of Islam and the Muslim world. The reality is, her arguments are of the calibre of the most fantastical neo-conservatives. An hysterical rehash of the already flawed Clash of Civlisations Theory propounded by Samuel P Huntingdon, along lines similar to the worst elements of the right wing American media.

Her (understandable) bitterness at some attitudes towards secularism and women in her native Syria and in the wider Muslim world have, either seriously damaged her analytical skills, or led her to a position where she is preprared to lambast the downtrodden of the world for celebrity appearances on television and all expenses paid trips to conferences. A gift to the Islamophobes and arch Zionists of the world, she is an authentic useful idiot.

I will attempt now to deal with a number of her spurious and ahistorical assertions.

1) Suicide Bombings are due to Islamic Teachings

a) The most obvious problem with this is that suicide bombings are not confined to Muslims. If we look in modern times there are examples of Vietnamese suicide bombers, Japanese Kamikaze pilots and Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers. The latter group in fact has carried out more suicide attacks than any contemporary Islamic group. The secular Syrian National Socialist Party and the leftist PKK have also carried out such attacks.

b) If the claim was true then clearly we'd see a lot more suicide bombings in Muslim conflicts across the world. The Islamic Republic of Iran fought an 8 year long war with Iraq and suicide bombings were not used. What other society on earth was more driven by radical Islamic ideology than Iran after the revolution? This is because unlike many of the groups who use suicide bombings, Iran had an army and did not need to resort to such desperate tactics.

2) Jews did not blow themselves up in German restaurants

a) This is a superficial comparison which doesn't stand up to even a few minutes analysis. Germans were not seen as colonisers in Germany because it was where they were already living. Jews in Israel however were seen as colonisers who employed terrorist tactics to force hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians to flee from their homes. One nation had seemingly ethnically cleaned another nation and stolen their land. This is very different to the example of the holocaust. This wasn't the same as one or two of your Jewish neighours being taken from your street by a regime many Germans did not agree with and certainly did not elect. This is the equivilent of the whole street being forced out and occupied by people who had arrived from thousands of miles away. Those people are seen as occupiers and settlers not civilians.This has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the experience of ethnic cleansing in this particular form. I do not condone attacks on unarmed civilians. But if the occupation is ugly, do you expect the resistance to be pretty?

b) The myth that Jews did not take up arms against the Nazis is one some zionists are keen to perpetuate. The Warsaw uprising is a shining example of human resistance in the face of adversity. It didn't involve suicide attacks on Polish civilians as it was not the Polish civilians who had caused their predicament but in the eyes of many Palestinians it was mass aggressive Jewish immigration and land grabs which had caused the Nakba.

c) Nazi laws meant that Jews couldn't live in Germany for much of their reign of terror. After a certain point they were rounded up and shot. This cannot be said about the Palestinians who form 20% of the Israeli population and live and work close to or amongst many Israelis. The capacity therefore for Jewish people to organise resistance was tiny compared to that of the Palestinians. Who knows what tactics would have been employed by a people threatened with destruction if they had more of a chance.

d) The first Palestinian suicide bombing was less than 20 years ago. The Nakba happened over 60 years ago. The Nazis were in charge for less than 15 years. It is therefore unscientific to equate Jewish resistance under the Nazis after 10 or 12 years of Nazi rule, to Palestinian resistance under the Israelis after over 40 years of occupation. The nature and form of the two types of ethnic cleansing are quite distinct from each other and therefore will logically not lead to the same patterns of resistance. This is one reasons why sweeping and general comparisons of the Israeli state to the Nazi state are inaccurate and unehlpful in my opinion.

3) We are involved in a clash of civilisations between good west and evil east. Between modernity and Barbarism.

a) What is modern about the electric chair? What is good about the atomic bomb dropped on hiroshima? What is humane about the napalm sprayed onto innocent Vietnamese civilians? What is progressive about scuppering democracy via CIA backed coups in country after country? What is liberated about people being made to feel so shit about the way they look they pay huge sums of money to be cut and sliced by plastic surgeons? What is egalitarian about a recent history of empire, slavery, racial segregation and wage exploitation?

The gains we have won in the west have been won in spite of the states and powers that rule us. In spite of the civilisation of the ruling class. The gains we have won have been won by mass movements of ordinary people. And these movements stand shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinian child, the Afghan mother, and the Iraqi man who came home from work one day to find the bloodied bodies of of family crushed beneath the rubble of their home.

You can take your civilisation and you can shove it up your arse Ms. Sultan.

Defend democracy and the Diversity of Annual Conference

2009-11-07T01:40:00.001Z

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?

2008-11-05T19:40:00.009Z

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

2008-10-12T01:47:00.003Z

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!

2008-10-12T01:20:00.004Z

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

2008-10-06T23:41:00.002Z

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

2008-09-28T19:48:00.002Z

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

2008-09-28T13:59:00.002Z

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

2008-08-17T14:18:00.007Z

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

2008-08-11T16:56:00.003Z

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.

DUP Bigot at it Again

2008-08-01T01:08:00.003Z

That charming loyalist Iris Robinson of the lovely Democratic Unionist Party has been at it again. Spreading her message of tolerance and inclusion in the divided 6 counties she said I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both.

Her Party colleagues stuck by her of course; Sammy Wilson, an MP and Northern Ireland's environment minister said that Robinson is being harassed by the media and is entitled to express her views.

We believe Christian values should be upheld in our society he told the BBC.
Gregory Campbell MP also claimed the media is picking on Mrs Robinson.
Whatever you say about the gay rights camp, they do have rights and they are protected in law he told the Londonderry Sentinel.
I and my colleagues are in favour of upholding the law. Homosexuals have rights and so do heterosexuals.
One of our rights is to say that they are wrong.

'They are wrong.' What on earth does this mean? They as human beings are 'wrong' because they happen to be attracted to the same sex? Surely then this means God is wrong? And maybe the Bible is wrong? Maybe even homophobia is wrong eh?

I suppose Catholics are wrong too, but personally I'd go for incense and idols any day.

Lovely too isn't it how a Labour government bought the votes of these characters in order to curtail our civil liberties?

I'd give the same advise to Iris as Martina Anderson of Sinn Fein. Take yourself away and sort your life out. And if the act of homosexuality repulses you so much then don't do it and block the porn channels. One can only imagine what your pay per view bills must come to...

More than 13,000 people have already signed a petition on the Downing St website asking the Prime Minister to reprimand Mrs Robinson.

Fat Cats Profit as Fuel Prices Rocket - Sign the People Before Profit Charter

2008-07-31T12:58:00.006Z

A BBC fuel price analyst (not sure if that was his precise title) hit the nail on the head when he said a few hours ago people need to realise that banks and companies are not out there to look after our interests. We live in a capitalist system and their duty is to make money for their shareholders.After British Gas hike gas prices by 35%, this creeping realisation has even found its way to the BBC!

The announcement was met by widespread anger from the public who have already been hit by real term pay cuts and the ever increasing cost of food. British Gas defended their actions against allegations of getting rich while pensioners froze to death by claiming that their actions were necessary in order to to restore "reasonable profitability". Apparantly £992 million in the first 6 months of 2008 isn't enough.

A society where the means of production are controled by those whose first aim is to make profit and not meet the needs of people whose lives depend on the vital services they provide can only mean a society where profit comes before people, where war comes before peace and where false divisions come before working class unity.

The People Before Profit Charter puts forward demands that would stop ordinary people sinking deeper into poverty.

As well as the demands to tax corporate profits, the charter calls for an end to Brown’s 2 percent pay limit on public sector workers, the abolition of tax on fuel and energy for old people and the poor, and the restoration of the link between state pensions and average earnings.

Making sure that workers don’t pay for the crisis means building resistance on the ground. The People Before Profit Charter can help mobilise that resistance.

Sign the People Before Profit Charter
Inflation and recession are now tightening their grip on the economy with every day that passes. Working people face rapidly increasing prices, especially for food and fuel; government led pay restraint; rising unemployment and a disastrous housing crisis.

At the same time the super-rich continue to enjoy huge profits, salaries and bonuses – yet pay less tax than under the Tories.

The desperation felt by many is having equally serious political effects: the resurgence of the Tories and an increase in anti-immigrant and fascist arguments.

We need a coordinated response to these threats. As part of this response please add your name to this Charter and then move support for the Charter at your trade union, party or campaign organisation.

Wage increases no lower than the rate of inflation as given by the Retail Price Index. No to the government’s 2 percent pay limit.
Increase tax on big companies. Introduce a windfall tax on corporation superprofits, especially those of the oil companies.
Repeal the Tory anti-union laws. Support the Trade Union Freedom Bill.
Unsold houses and flats should be taken over by local councils to ease the housing crisis. No house repossessions. For an emergency programme of council house building.
Stop the privatisation of public services. Free and equal health and education services available to all.
End the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and use the money to expand public services. Stop the erosion of civil liberties.
Abolish tax on fuel and energy for old people and the poor. Re-establish the link between wages and pensions.
No to racism. No to the British National Party. No scapegoating of immigrants.
Reintroduce grants and abolish tuition fees for students.
Increase the minimum wage to £8.00 an hour.

Many workers and trade unionists are now engaged in strikes and protests to defend their pay, jobs and services.

We pledge ourselves to support their action and to support the campaigns that are dedicated to protecting working people, including:

Unite Against Fascism
Public Services not Private Profit
Defend Council Housing
Stop the War Coalition
Keep Our NHS Public

Email your name to peoplebeforeprofitcharter@gmail.com

The Myth of the Golden Age of the Pahlavis

2008-07-29T11:37:00.004Z

Some people seem to have a rather rose tinted view of pre revolution Iran. They seem to see it as a relatively equal society with relatively few curbs on political freedom and relatively few executions. A prosperous, modern and liberal society.

Well I'd like to set the story straight.

The Pahlavis were cruel dictators who introduced censorship, practised torture and massacred thousands. Here's some facts and quotes from farious sources about Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza Shah and SAVAK, the feared and loathed secret police service backed, funded and armed by the CIA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newspapers were closed and liberals imprisoned under Reza Shah. He also used his power to vastly increase his fortune, becoming the biggest landowner in Iran, proprietor of nearly three thousand villages, as well as many factories and enterprises.

By the late 1930s, Reza Shah had become increasingly despotic and disliked. The parliament assented to his decrees the free press was suppressed, and swift incarceration of the political leaders like Mossadegh and murder of some like Teymourtash, and Davar halted the formation of any democratic process.

SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses. The United States reinforced its position as the Shah's protector and supporter, sowing the seeds of the anti-Americanism that later manifested itself in the revolution against the monarchy.1
---
The 5,000-member Iranian secret police force SAVAK (a contraction of the Farsi words for security and information organization) has long been Iran's most hated and feared institution. With virtually unlimited powers to arrest and interrogate, SAVAK has tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents.2
---
The Shah used imprisonment and torture to maintain power. Amnesty International estimated the Shah's political prisoners at 60,000 to 100,000 in number 3

---

According to Polish author Ryszard Kapuściński, the regime was responsible for

Ayatollah Saidi, death by torture (burning on a large griddle)
Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani's death after the revolution in September 1979 due to complications of removal of eyelids while being forced to watch the rape of his daughter[disputed]
Execution of Khosrow Golsorkhi and his friend Keramat Daneshian (or Denachian)
Banning of Shakespeare and Molière
Censorship of press, books and films.

---

$100 million spent on a military parade in an impoverished country
---
Despite widespread corruption and mismanagement, the policies of economic nationalism coupled with Iran’s considerable resources have improved living standards for the poorest layers of society. The proportion of the population living under the poverty line has fallen from 47 percent in 1978 to 15.5 percent today.

Substantial gains also have been made in public welfare and health.

Conditions have improved for the rural population and the urban poor. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 91.6 per 1000 before the revolution to 26 per 1000. Life expectancy is now 69.8 for males and 71.5 for females, compared to 59 and 63 before the revolution. There are now nearly three times as many physicians per 1000 as there were 20 years ago.

In addition, literacy rates for boys and girls are now almost equal. Over 64 percent of college students are female. (UN Development Program Report, 2005)4
---

Lastly the proportion of urban people living on less than $2 dollars a day has dropped from 0.25 in 1978 to 0.1 in 2003(the graph doesn't exaplain exactly what the numbers on the vertical axis means but it clearly representes a drop) and for rural people a drop from 0.425 in 1978 to 0.175 in 2003.5

So Iranians were largely worse off while being a US sattelite state. And even the liberal freedoms enjoyed before 1979 were largely enjoyed by the urban rich in larger cities and less religious areas. You wouldn't find many poor girls from South Tehran going to nightclubs in mini skirts for example!

This isn't a defence of the Iranian regime.The struggle for freedom and democracy goes on and the social movements in Iran act like beacons of hope to tens of millions inside Iran and millions more in the diaspora. But don;t let anyone fool you that everything went wrong in 1979. It was rotten before.

1 http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/index.html
2 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912364,00.html
3 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8603
4 http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=174
5 http://www.filebox.vt.edu/users/salehi/Iran_poverty_trend.pdf (p25)

Killed by a Knife but Failed by the System

2008-07-24T12:00:00.003Z

Jackie Ranger tells the story of her son Leon’s life and tragic death and in her second article argues that we must stop the demonisation of young people if we are to find solutions to violent crime.
Leon Francis was just 24 years old when he was fatally stabbed in December last year.
He was a bright young man, adored by his family and treasured by his friends.
Yet life had not been easy for Leon.
He was excluded from his Birmingham school aged 15, and without proper help he drifted into crime and then a prison sentence.
On release, Leon was determined to turn his life around and plan a future away from crime.
But every effort Leon made to do this was met with failure or contempt by the very bodies that were supposed to help him.
Following Leon’s death some of the press chose to demonise him.
This week Jackie Ranger, Leon’s mother, speaks to Socialist Worker to set the story straight.
My eldest child Leon was only 24 when he was stabbed to death in December last year. Our family and friends are still devastated at his untimely death, but we are campaigning for justice for Leon, and to make sure that his name is not discredited.
We want him to be remembered for the person he was. Sadly Leon’s story is indicative of the destructive paths that some of our young people find themselves trapped on.
My son was no angel. He made some mistakes throughout his short life, but it is important to know that 2007 had been a year of reflection and transition for him.
He realised that he had to change and he kept trying to turn his life around right until the day that he died.
Leon brought joy and laughter throughout his life and was a popular young man with a potentially bright future ahead of him.
He was extremely loyal to his family and friends and greatly valued his close relationships. His troubles began when he was permanently excluded from school aged 15. Sadly it was a downward spiral from there.
Exclusion
Inadequate post exclusion support contributed to the choices that Leon made. He blindly entered a life of crime and went to prison for five years for attempted armed robbery.
To this day I question if Leon really understood the seriousness of the offence that he committed and the consequences it would have on his life – he was after all still a child at the time.
Leon’s imprisonment was an extremely traumatic period for all his family, but more so for Leon himself.
He often tried to mask the pain of the injustice he felt at being excluded from school, and subsequently excluded from society.
As a parent it was important that I did not allow him to minimise his responsibility for what he had done, while acknowledging the way social factors contributed to his predicament.
Leon himself understood he had done wrong and was remorseful. During his sentence Leon was transferred between prisons more than 15 times.
He was also placed in some difficult situations – a poignant and most insensitive ordeal was being jailed on the same wing as the man who killed his fiancée’s brother.
Nonetheless, Leon remained extremely resilient, striving to remain positive about the future.
While incarcerated he gained some qualifications and was determined to lead a more productive life after his release in 2006.
Due to the nature of his offence, and the political climate around “gangs” at the time, Leon was released with extremely strict conditions about where he could go and what he could do which impacted on his human rights.
In April 2007 he was wounded after being shot in the head while in his “exclusion zone”.
He reluctantly offered the police information about the incident and was assured he would be treated like a victim, but instead he was sent back to prison.
This led to an irretrievable loss of trust in the police. When he was released again in August 2007, Leon fought to maintain his focus of rehabilitation.
He was on the verge of beginning a new life outside Birmingham and had secured a place on a BTEC music technology course.
Leon was excited about his fiancée’s pregnancy and the thought of becoming a father. He was looking forward to 2008 with an increasing sense of maturity – he had everything to live for!
However he became increasingly concerned that his efforts appeared not to be taken seriously by those responsible for assisting his rehabilitation.
He was sick of the differential treatment and outcomes for people of African heritage in education and the criminal justice system.
A series of incidents in October last year meant Leon was in breach of his residency conditions, and as a result he went on the run.
His family urged him to give himself up, but Leon was adamant that he would never go back to prison.
On 27 December 2007 Leon was fatally stabbed.
Quite rightly there is national uproar when the victims of knife crime are innocent. However, when the victim is involved in a gang or caught up in violence it is a different story.
The press demonises them, and their families are further victimised, humiliated and treated with disrespect.
There is no opportunity to present an accurate picture of their loved one.
Yet my pain is no less than the mothers of “innocent” victims. My son is also dead. My family have the same feelings of grief, sorrow, regret and frustration that the family of all other victims share.
Leon was also somebody’s son, somebody’s fiancé, somebody’s father, somebody’s brother and somebody’s friend.
He was my child and I love him and miss him dearly. He was my friend, my confidant, and my heartbeat.
Statistics about exclusions, violence and black deaths belie human tragedies, and Leon is yet another tragic victim that can all too easily be forgotten.
However, both his life and his death emphasise the drastic and urgent need for more preventative, innovative and timely measures to be developed for all young people who have been excluded from school or who are subject to anti-social behaviour measures.
Myths
We should not fall for the myths of poor parenting, absent fathers, family breakdown or demonise our youth like the media often does.
Instead we must try to understand the complex reality of young people’s struggles and provide them with proactive support and an earned second chance. That is their right!
I want to reach out to all the families, and especially the mothers, who have lost someone to gun, gang or knife crime – particularly those who have been made to feel ashamed that their child was involved in a gang, and it is said that they only ever did terrible things.
Now our children are dead, and there is little sensitivity towards us. We have to stop demonising people and look behind the myths that stop us from acting to change things.
Leon left us with a beacon of hope, his beautiful daughter Princess who was born five months after his death. She symbolises life, youth, opportunity, hope and light.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forget the catchy “get tough” policies from politicians, we need to tackle poverty, deprivation and insecurity, writes grieving mother Jackie Ranger
Not a day passes without a story about gun and knife violence featuring in the news. Politicians and political parties believe they will win or lose power depending on how well the public think they will deal with the issue of crime.
Tory David Cameron talks of a “broken society”. Labour minister Tony McNulty says knife crime has become part of young people’s “collective DNA”.
The Metropolitan Police chief compares violent crime to the threat of terrorism, and London mayor Boris Johnson informs us there is “a culture of stabbing”.
The needless death of a young person is a terrible and emotive crime. But the impact is far greater today when young people have become the focus of so many of our insecurities.
Politicians often pay lip service to the fact that “fear of crime” is far more widespread than crime itself.
Their answer, however, is to try to calm public fears by staging high-profile law and order “crackdowns” that do little to alter anything and only confirm our worst fears.
New Labour’s repeated attempts to restrict access to knives is a pointless exercise and the mayor of London’s latest stunt – supporting the installation of hi-tech scanners known as “knife arches” at train stations – will stand as a physical symbol of an unsafe capital city.
Prison
MPs talk about longer prison sentences being a deterrent.
But we need only look back to see what longer prison sentences have achieved.
We imprison at a far greater rate – and we jail more children – than any other western European country.
But it’s not improving our society. It’s not stopping our children carrying guns and knives and killing each other.
None of the politicians really seek to understand what is happening, nor do they ask what
do those young men need – those who carry knives, those who really do fear for their lives, and those who have got themselves into a life of violence and crime.
What are we actually doing about communicating with young men and trying to understand their complex lives? What support can be offered to help eradicate their offending behaviour?
The number of young people who carry knives shows the human consequences of a society that allows so many of its youth to grow up without hope, while at the same time selling a consumer dream in which anyone can become rich and famous.
We alienate our youth in the media – an estimated 71 percent of press stories about young people are negative. Social exclusion is widespread and starts as early as nursery school.
The reality is that British society has failed far too many of our young people, and in particular Black young people.
The former prime minister Tony Blair located the problem within the black community, calling on us to mobilise and denounce gang culture – as if we haven’t been doing this for years.
The eradication of funding over the years has seen huge cuts in frontline work with young people.
Underfunded or unfunded community organisations are now doing the work that should be done by statutory bodies.
Some of our young lack a sense of identity and belonging, and have low aspirations.
They have no confidence in the police, and accuse them of being racist. So we should not be surprised that they find another way of ensuring their own safety – carrying knives or guns.
All these issues, and many more, have a part to play in the rise of violent knife and gun crime.
To challenge it we need a strategy that combats racism, but also challenges poverty, deprivation and structural inequality.
Communities need confidence and a real sense of partnership with statutory service providers, that meet their needs and treat them with respect.
Of major importance is the inclusion of the young men who find themselves caught between a life of poverty, alienation, self-destruction and despair.
We need cultural identity programmes and leadership programmes for young people, and parenting programmes that strengthen families and communities.
Deprivation
These will be far more effective than the heavy handed solution suggested by Gordon Brown.
A study by the Medical Research Council showed that the murder rate in Glasgow is nearly three times that of Scotland as a whole, and concluded that the high murder rate in the city is likely to be linked to deprivation.
So answers to what we can be done lie not only within the criminal justice system but must address the type of society that we have become.
As the criminologist and former prison governor David Wilson argues, “Instead of dreaming up new penalties for carrying knives, communities that want to be safe from them – or indeed guns for that matter – would be far better off investing in good schools, with well-paid and qualified teachers, and in ensuring that young people, especially young men, feel valued and included and have jobs and training equipping them to lead purposeful lives.”
To really address knife-related offending, we need a coherent strategy that recognises the deeper structural causes of inequality, poverty and social disaffection.
A strategy that innovates and enables young people to be key drivers in the process of change.

Jackie Ranger is an educationalist, community activist and trade unionist

Turkey

2008-07-17T16:51:00.004Z

İ'm sure you'll all be incredibly interested to know how İ'm doing in Turkey.

First off, it's hot. Very hot. 41 degrees in fact. And İ love it!

This resort (Side) seems to have a particular double pricing problem. Europeans are charged one price for food etc and Turks are charged a few Lira less. İ found this out to my shock when İ was charged 7 lira for a Kebab (with actual meat not the mash of ears and noses you get in England) That's 3 quid. A rip off for Turkey. İ mean İ get the whole credit crunch thing :-) but that's just rude! So İ tried pretending to be Turkish and ordered the same thing the next day. 4 lira. Well from now on its Türkçe all the way!

There are probably more important things happening here like the court's attempts to ban the ruling AK Party but sometimes its the small things that really get to you. Especially if you love et döner as much as me.

A elderly Turkish man yesterday asked me if İ was Russian in Russian to which İ replied 'no' in Russian which must have confused him. İ then told him İ was in fact a Geordie but apparantly İ didn't look English (GET İN!) and he was adamant İ had foreign blood in me. So İ told him İ was half İranian. His reply caught be off guard 'Saddam Hüseyn very good man.' Was he being rude İ though? Was he deliberately trying to enrage or upset me? Apparantly not, he had forgotten about the war (İ wish İranians and İraqis could) and just thought Saddam was a good bullwark agaınst US imperialism. There seems to be a trend of forgetting about or not knowing about neighbouring countries in Turkey. İf one more Turkish waiter says 'Ahlan wa Sahlan' to me and the extended family upon learning from whence we hail İ think İ'll have to make an scream FREE ÖCALAN or BIJI BIJI KURDESTAN! Even a Kurdish waiter thought İranians spoke Arabic. İt really does say something about education here. Sort it out!!!

Anywayz İ'm off to apply aftersun now as İ have absolute lobster face.

p.s.

This internet cafe charges about 40p an hour!

Gay Bishop Heckled by complete toss pot

2008-07-13T19:25:00.004Z

Seriously what an absolutely pathetic arsewipe. That's all I can say. Do you scream at Catholics in the street? Or Jews or anyone else non christian? Or is it only gay people you think have departed from the gospels and need to 'repent, repent!?' Get a life.

One of my less intellectual entries but he really should crawl under a rock and die.

Galloway calls for vote to New Labour

2008-07-12T17:24:00.004Z

More proof that the RESPECT Renewal project represents a rightward shift amongst the leadership came to light 5 days ago as George Galloway MP called for a vote to New Labour's Margaret Curran.

Describing her as 'soft-blonde idealist, a working class Catholic with a big heart' (!!!) he doesn't even mention the fact that Solidarity (an organisation he is supposed to support and which is fighting to build a socialist alternative to New Labour) is standing.

And we're not talking about a progressive Labour candidate here:

On 26 June, as minister for communities, she published a paper, 'Putting Our Communities First'. Its main proposals are:

- Electronic tagging to ensure that children aged 12-16 conform to curfews and exclusion from certain areas
- Antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts for young people under 16
- Powers for police to disperse groups of three or more persons
- Fixed penalties for minor vandalism and graffiti
- Parenting orders to ensure that parents control their children’s behaviour with the possibility of prison if they do not comply

Well, well, well. So much for Galloway being a defender of the founding principles of RESPECT. Last time I checked sending working class parents to prison, electornically tagging poor young people and curtailing freedom of assembly had nothing to do with respecting the values of equality, socialism, or community.

If he thinks he can make an argument for voting for New Labour to keep our the SNP in Glasgow East, surely the argument can also be made to vote New Labour to keep out the Tories in Poplar and Limehouse?

I wonder what his sycophants have to say...

VOTE TRICIA McLEISH SOLIDARITY ON 24TH JULY

Marxism 2008: a Festival of Resistance

2008-07-12T13:59:00.004Z

Every year we in the Socialist Workers' Party host the annual Marxism festival in London the largest gathering of its kind in Europe. From lectures, to debates, to comedy, to music, to poetry to drama to a free crèche, you name it, Marxism has it.

This year was no exception and featured activists from around the world including Zimbabwe, South Africa and Lebanon as well as Black Panther David Hiliard and Marxism regular Tony Benn.

Despite being around for a few years, this was my first Marxism and what an amazing week it was. Around 4 100 people from around the world attended the event held in central London. I myself met people from America, Canada, Venezuela, Ireland, France, Holland, Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Turkey and Iran and managed to hear speakers from Egypt, Palestine and Italy too.

The Internationalism of the event was as impressive as the range of meetings and debates. Marxism covered topics on everything from Marxist Economics and Leninist organisation to Obesity, art and literature to anti-imperialism and the tradition of the IST to debates on autonomism. There was cultural entertainment with art exhibitions, drama performances, gigs and film showings. Something for everyone and lots of things for most people!

It was an inspiring week and people in this country are lucky to have this event in their capital.

It also made me even more proud of being a member of the SWP, an organisation committed to fighting for a society free from capitalist exploitation, an organisation committed to reaching out to ordinary people and the only revolutionary organisation capable of building successful united fronts along side others in the labour movement.

A special mention must go to Pat Carmody, Yunus Bakhsh, Karen Reisman and other trade unionists who have been victimised for simply being at the forefront of struggles to improve the lives of workers.

Another mention must go to Mark Serwotka General Secretary of the PCS union for his consistently principled approach to building a left of Labour alternative.

And last but not least Hannah Dee Marxism's organiser in chief who has done a brilliant job once again.

I'm now counting down the days till Marxism 2009 where I will be one of the very first to sign up and I hope you all will be too!

The Zionist State of Israel prepares for Attacking Iran

2008-06-21T12:56:00.002Z

The Israeli army has conducted large scale military exercises which appear to have been a rehearsal for an attack on Iran. More than 100 Israeli fighter jets took part in operations over the Mediterranean which covered around the same distance as from Israel to Iran's Nuclear base in Natanz.

It is clear that the Imperialists and their Zionist allies are stepping up their demonisation of Iran as well as their plans for military intervention. It is imperative on everyone who loves peace to unite in a single, strong message that will reverberate around the world

DON'T ATTACK IRAN!

To get involved visit the Stop the War Coalition and Campaign Iran.

Official SWP Response to Ruqayyah Collector

2008-06-19T22:25:00.001Z

The election of a member of the Nazi BNP to the London Assembly and the revival of the Tories make the fight against racism especially urgent. From the Anti Nazi League to Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) today, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) has always been at the forefront of challenging racism and fighting for liberation. That is why we were shocked to read the outrageous slander about our involvement in the NUS Black Students campaign by the current officer.

Our approach reflects the growing resistance to racism and the potential to build this new movement. Hundreds of thousands have taken part in Love Music Hate Racism activity across the county including the massive LMHR London carnival. That has become a reference point for further education and school students across London bringing popular culture together with the struggle against racism. Our comrades have been engaging with debates across the country about how to best challenge the rise of the Nazi’s and racist right by building for the Unite against Fascism demonstration on the 21st June and taking LMHR into the BNP’s strongest areas in places like Stoke and Rotherham.

Now Tory Mayor Boris Johnson has announced that the “Rise against Racism” festival will be about “communities” rather then racism killing its political content. The SWP will be central to building resistance to this attack as we have been over every attempt to deny the issue of racism in society. We have campaigned for justice in response to the racist murders of Stephen Lawrence, Christopher Alder and Antony Walker. Our members are at the forefront of organising migrant workers from Eastern Europe in the trade unions. In the late 60’s it was an SWP member on the docks who leafleted against the march in support of Enoch Powell while other dockers were caught up in Powell’s racist hysteria.

It is this alliance between socialists and an emerging anti-racist movement we hope to bring into the NUS Black Students Campaign. We reject Ruqayyah’s contention that democratising the campaign and opening it up to activists on the ground will benefit the rightwing of the student movement. A left wing student movement can only be based on democratic, campaigning groups on every campus. Attempts to build the left by manipulation and locking down democratic structures are bound to fail.

Ruqayyah implies that we oppose Black self organisation. In fact we have always defended the right of black students to organise independently. But independent organisation does not, as she argues, defend against “opportunism”. Avoiding opportunism requires a mass democratic movement controlled from the bottom-up fighting both racism and the system that breeds it. Our real difference is that we want a radical and democratic campaign controlled from below while the Broad Left wants a campaign tightly controlled from above.

The SWP believes in a complete over throw of society and the creation of a socialist society with equality for all. Therefore we support all efforts to organise against oppression regardless of the blocks thrown up by capitalism. Only a movement comprising of the whole working class, black and white, that can over come the power of the system which propagates racism and is built on their exploitation.

Our position at NUS Black Students Conference was clear. We organised with and supported Assed Baig and other Student Respect supporters to get the most radical candidates elected and policy passed. We succeeded in affiliating the campaign to LMHR for the first time and elected several people to the committee. We advocated (alongside Student Respect) a second vote for the Student Broad Left.

The Student Broad Left is heavily involved in Galloway’s split from Respect and are trying to draw parallels. The politics and choice is similar – an erosion of principled methods and policy for electoral gain or a focus on building the broadest and most radical movement against the horrors of war, racism and exploitation

Socialist Workers' Party

Lies, Damn Lies and Hypocrisy - A Response to Ruqayyah Collector

2008-06-19T19:43:00.004Z

There is so much to say about this. So much that I don't know how to begin. I must say when I first read Ruqayyah's blog I laughed, I mean come on, Student Broad Left (SBL) throwing around corruption allegations!

But seriously, this represents a baseless attack on one of the best Black student activists in the country and has come about due to the demise of SBL and their stranglehold on the Black Students' Campaign (BSC).

I am going to refute Ruqayyah's ridiculour claims point by point, but will leave details of SBL corruption in the BSC to others who have been more involved in the campaign.

Lie number 1) Assed stood fraudulently as Student RESPECT

Assed Baig was democratically chosen to be Student RESPECT's candidate for Black Students Officer following successful committee election results at BSC Conference 2007. Assed has been a Student RESPECT activist for a number of years and is also a member of the Student RESPECT National Committee. How then, exactly, is his standing under the Student RESPECT banner fraudulent? The simple fact of the matter is Ruqayyah Collector has done nothing to build Student RESPECT, has never been to a committee meeting, never been to a conference and has shown no interest in participating in our democratic structures. Indeed she has consistently supported candidates against Student RESPECT (and fellow BSC members so much for black self organisation!) including Bryony Shanks against Hind Hassan for Block of 12 at NUS Conference 2008 and Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy against Assed Baig for Black Student's Officer, also in 2008.

We are open and honest about our political affiliations. This can hardly be said about Ruqayyah Collector who limits admitance of her membership of SBL to manifesto small print. Not only this but she also claimed she was not a member of a political party at Presidential hustings at NUS Conference 2008. This is despite after having joined the George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob cult of personality known as RESPECT Renewal.

Lie Number 2) Student RESPECT and the Left List are synonnymous with the SWP

This smear has been used all the way through the existence of RESPECT by right wingers and opportunists, so its no surprise to hear it again. But let's look at the facts. Student RESPECT is much larger than the Socialist Workers' Student Society. It had twice as many delegates at the end of NUS Conferenc 2008 than SWSS had before the creation of Student RESPECT. SWP members were in a minority not only in Assed's Campaign team but in the Student RESPECT delegation to BSC itself. Assed himself is not in the SWP and neither is NEC member Hind Hassan. And anyone who has ever met Hind or Assed knows that they are not subbordinate to the SWP. All this it seems is sour grapes at the fact that despite the leadership of RESPECT Renewal trying to split Student RESPECT, it didn't happen.

Lie Number 3) Assed/Student RESPECT made a deal with the right wing Organised Independent (OI) faction.

Ruqayyah claims that Assed made a deal with the OIs yet describes this imaginary alliance as one between the SWP and the OIs. Given Assed is not a member of the SWP she is essentially accusing him of taking SWP orders. This is incredibly patronising to Assed and everyone who campaigned for him. Perhaps Ruqayyah finds it hard to understand that Assed does not take orders from the SWP and that Student RESPECT is a genuinely dynamic and democratic organisation because she is so used to a) taking orders from the shadown sect of Socialist Action (see Peter Leary and George Woods) and b) being part of an incredibly elitist top down organisation.

For the record, the Student RESPECT line was to transfer to Bell to ensure that the BSC remained anti-war, pro-Palestinian and anti-governance amongst a few things.

Lie Number 4) SWP members have said they want an alliance with the OIs

Who exactly?

Anyone who knows been involved in NUS this year knows that SWSS members within Student RESPECT took a leading role in the Save NUS Democracy campaign being vocal in our opposition to the OI initiated governance review from the beginning. This cannot be said for Ruqayyah for SBL who did not take one speech against the review at Extraordinary conference and showed no interest at all in working with other forces in the campaign.

On the central issues of a radical campaign for Free Education and antiwar activity it was also Student RESPECT who took the lead with SBL taking aback seat, not wanting to speak on controversial issues for fear of losing voters. Electoral opportunism at its worst. No wonder they're jumping ship to RESPECT Renewal.

In the LGBT campaign it was SWP members in Student RESPECT who were central to overturning right wing policy on means testing and right wing cuts on HIV prevention for Gay and Bisexual men in London. On almost every front the politics of the SWP and the politics of the OIs have clashed. To suggest the SWP are pushing for an alliance with the OIs is therefore plainly ridiculous.

Ruqayyah claims that the stronger partner in any such alliance would be the OIs. But the truth of the matter is that Student RESPECT and its progressive allies is the main threat to SBLs domination in the BSC, not the OIs and that is the real motivating factor behind Ruqayyahs disappointing slurs.

Lie Number 5) The SWP has labelled Salma Yaqoob a reactionary

This is a downright lie. In making building RESPECT we faced many problems. How can we build a pluralistic, broad and radical alternative to New Labour while resisting those forces who would seek to put electoral success above principled politics. In Tower Hamlets and Birmingham we saw the spectacle of one person bringing in scores of completed membership forms and a wadd of cash the day before the deadline for the right to attend candidate selection meetings. We saw people who refused to see that in a city the size of Birmingam it was unacceptable not to have one single female amongst our local election candidates (this included Salma Yaqoob) We saw people trying to refuse entry to Muslim women in East London candidate selection meetings with some being told to go into their homes 'where they belonged.' This is reactionary and it is something the SWP is proud to have argued against time and time again and many times we won with several people not being allowed to join RESPECT because of their political track record. This has led many Muslim RESPECT members to join the SWP. So it is utterly false for Ruqayyah to paint a picture of the SWP tarring the Muslim community with the brush of biggotry.

Even when we lost some of the internal struggles, we did not split from the organisation. Not only did we not split, but we put every effort into getting candidates elected. Without the SWP many candidates (which might not have been the SWPs preferred choice) would not have been victorious such as Abjol Miah. It is only when George Galloway and others in RESPECT who placed electoralism above principles realised that the SWP would never stop arguing for a 'from below' type strategy did they begin the witch hunt against the left wing of the coalition.

Ruqayyah is right that the BSC has had to fight hard and defend hard the rights it has won. She is right to say that the worst outcome for the BSC would for it to fall into the hands of the NUS right. But if she thinks that underhand and ridiculous allegations against Student RESPECT are going to stop us from campaigning for a radical, democratic, transparent and grassroots BSC then she is sorely mistaken. If she thinks that Stalinoid accusations of racism and imaginary alliances with the right are going to hoodwink Black Students then she is wrong. Black Students are beginning to wake up to the corrupt cabal who have controlled the BSC for too long. Most Radical Black Students at NUS Conference 2008 chose Hind Hassan over Bryony Shanks and they chose a radical independent left candidate for National Council Rep (over Ruqayyah Collector!!!) at BSC Conference 2008. Ruqayyah holds up Bell's victory as an impressive result. No one can deny it was a clear victory (see Assed Baig's response for details of how the conference was rigged in Bell's favour) but the simple fact of the matter is that the SBL vote has dropped by over 1/3 in just a year.

Student RESPECT and the SWP are proud of working with broad forces and we will continue to work with all those opposed to war, racism and the destruction of our environment, including SBL and RESPECT Renewal. Despite our differences we have not taken a sectarian line, evidenced by our decision to support Ruqayyah Collector for NUS President 2008 believeing that this was the best option for left unity, despite coming under criticism from other sections of the left.

Black Students must unite ahead of important struggles against the BNP, the governance review, and a possible attack on Iran. But unity does not mean ignoring the behaviour of some in our own campaign which is detrimental to the struggle for Black Liberation.

Put Xenophobic language in context of 'laddish humour' says Director of Valleys Race Equality Council

2008-06-19T18:16:00.003Z

Yet Another Tory MP has made some offensive Xenophobic comment which has made the news. Tory AM Alun Cairns described Italian men as 'greasy wops,' (as if people actually talk like that!) It wasn't this that surprised me however. I mean this does happen pretty much all the time with the Tories after all. What really struck me were the comments of Ron Davies the Director of the Valleys Race Equality Council.

Tucked away at the bottom of the article the seemingly acceptable statement of Ron Davies is as follows: "These comments he has made are inexcusable but we have to put them in the context of what was a light-hearted discussion around football and was meant, I'm sure, as laddish humour."

The same 'laddish humour,' that degrades women? The same 'laddish humour' that vilifies LGBT people? The same 'laddish humour,' which ridicules the disabled?

Of course it is important to distinguish between those who have racist and discriminatory views because they have unfortunately, to some degree, fallen for the scapegoating of people who are different and hard core racists and promoters of a racist system. But this 'laddish' humour he speaks of does not stem , for example, from genuine concerns about housing and or immigration for example. It stems from the very worst conditioning of people by the reactionary system system we live under.

It seems to me much worse for a right wing Tory toff to make a racist comment due to 'laddish' humour than a working class person having racist views towards asylum seeks because they have worries over the housing situation in this country.

That a Director of Racial equality can make such a flawed statement worries me a great deal.

Discuss, I'm very interested in what others think on this one.

NUS Conference 2008

2008-04-10T22:50:00.006Z

NUS Annual Conference 2008 took place last week in the charming Lancashire resort of Blackpool. It was my third Annual conference, my most important so far and one I will never, ever forget.

The main topic of debate was of course the NUS Governance Review. A new constitution hailed as the saviour of the National Union by the leadership and criticised as an undemocratic stitch up by the left. The review had been passed once at an Extraordinary Conference (mentioned below) consisting of mostly unelected delegates and needed another 2/3 majority at Annual to be adopted as the new constitution. I'll not revisit, in too much detail, the arguments for and against as I frankly can't be bothered!

Firstly I'll give a little summary of events that happened before the vote. The Defend NUS Democracy Campaign was designed to coordinate and organise the resistance to the right wing proposals. Student RESPECT, the Education Not For Sale (including the Young Greens) network and the Federation of Student Islamic Societies were the only organisations to take a consistently principled position on the governance review and were committed to the Defend NUS Democracy campaign. Student Broad Left while opposing the review officially, made no effort to speak against it at Extraordinary Conference and took a back seat approach right up to Annual Conference. Then, in a completely sectarian and opportunistic move they, under the guise of the Black Students' Campaign, organised a 'Defend NUS Democracy Rally,' in the hour before conference floor opened for the last time before the vote. The last hour in which everyone should have been speaking to as many undecided delegates as possible and getting out as much anti-governance material as possible. This shows how much SBL care about the movement compared to profiling their election candidates. Yes other parties were invited to speak, but if they were serious about left unity on vital issues like this, if they were serious about putting the interests of students first then surely they would have put proposals for such a rally before the elected steering committee of the Defend NUS Democracy Campaign? Or, at least, consulted with other left factions which represent the majority of the left at NUS Conference?

This left bureaucratic folly was surpassed only by that of the right wing bureacrats. When Ruqayyah Collector, black students officer and SBL Presidential candidate requested space in the Winter Gardens for the rally (where the conference was being held) she was told that there was no space and that pre conference events were not permitted in NUS rules. Less than a week later, a counter rally supporting governance was granted space in the winter gardens! Unashamed hypocrisy. What's worse is that Ruqayyah received no reply from the NUS Leadership when she asked in an open letter for the double standards to be explained. The NUS Leadership showed utter contempt for the Black Students Campaign and should be deeply ashamed about this disgraceful behaviour.

Finally conference floor opens and Gemma Tumelty gives her opening remarks peppered with the word 'change.' But it was a civil speech quite unlike the alienating one at Extraordinary conference. This was followed by an extraordinary presentation by the man who started the One Water Scheme which installs play pumps in Africa. Play pumps are like large horizontal wheels which are connected to under ground water supplies via a large spoke. The idea is that as the children play with the wheel by pushing it round, clean water it pumped up into a storage tank. This provides water for the community. Bottle One Water is then sold on a non for profit basis with all proceeds going to build more play pumps. Hardly a revolutionary idea as it is, but then we learn that the scheme is sponsored, in some cases, by multinational oil and gas companies! It would be laughable if it was not so obscene! And of course, as expected and directed, the guy rounded off the speech by urging us all to support the governance review.
(As a side note I actually proposed a motion at LUU to get one water installed before I realised that it was sponsored by companies who are quenching their thirst with the blood of Iraqi Children)

The debate kicked off and thankfully it wasn't cut short. There were many speeches for and against one of which I took which I was extremely pleased about as I ended up missing my only allocated speech of the whole conference! With such little time neither side could delve deeply into the details of the review but i certainly tried talking about substance, quoting from the White paper itself. The debate was markedly better than that of Extraordinary conference though still mostly rhetoric. Finally the debate was over. The vote was upon us. My general feeling before conference and during the debate was that we had very narrowly lost it. When I saw the hands go up I thought the same thing. It's impossible to judge a 2/3 vote when it's close even from the stage as demonstrated by Chair Kat Stark (genuinely lovin' the new hair by the way!) when she called for a count only after saying 'That's clearly two thirds.' So the tellers went round and my heart was literally in my throat.
So much of my year had been taken up with the governance review. The preparation around Extraordinary conference, the massive amount of effort put into the Leeds Uni Referendum (students rejected the review by 500 votes) the insults the red baiting, the lies, the accusations the bad atmospheres, the dreading going into uni, the sleepless nights and the preparation for Annual Conference.
The votes were in and all eyes were on Kat's face which we saw falter as she was handed the results. She probably just did that on purpose to hide a smile I thought (the perpetual pessimist) 'The ratification needed 717 votes to pass. The number of yes voters were...692' (long pause as we couldn't believe what we had heard) ...'that ratification falls.' Needless to say I jumped for joy grabbed Dom in a mad hug and began skipping around conference floor like a grasshopper on speed. And so we had saved NUS Democracy for the time being.

There was a speech after by the National President Gemma Tumelty which many delegates found unhelpful and counterproductive. However emotions were running high and the governance review was something Gemma had worked unbelievably hard at. I disagree sharply with her on this and most of the other big issues in NUS but of course she was angry and upset. We are all human and with a few exceptions genuinely believe what we are doing is for the benefit of the student movement at large.

Governance was only one part of conference though, next off the education debate. Like most things at conference the result was stitched up from the beginning with all the left wing text pushed down the agenda. Although NUS once again essentially voted to abandon the principle of free education and do nothing even about the raising of the cap for another term at least, some positive amendments were passed. A national speaking tour on Education in a Neo Liberal World designed to engage students in the Education Funding debate followed by a weekend conference with elected delegates, international activists and UCU lecturers will now be initiated by NUS.
Unfortunately during this debate our comrades in the student movements of Europe where radical defences of free education have beaten their government were insulted and belittled by right wing true blue tory delegates. The contempt shown for grassroots action and for brave and victorious students in France, Greece and elsewhere shocked even the NEC. While I'm thankful that the NEC did publically show their disagreement with the tory rubish being spouted from the platform its interesting to note that more than a few of those cheering during those vile speeches were wearing 'Wes 4 Pres,' (in support for Labour Student Wes Streeting) T Shirts. The NUS leadership, by pandering to the right has indeed let the genie out of the bottle. And he's voting Boris for Mayor! (The genie that is!)

The next highlight was, for me, the best speech of conference by miles. Hind Hassan who I have enjoyed an eventful friendship now for three years gave a fiery left wing speech for the position of VP Welfare going on the offensive against the bigots in our midsts and smashing the lie and hypocrisy that demonstrating makes us looks stupid. If I can get the speech on video file I'll upload it, it was brilliant. I was in the count for Hind's election and was so proud when she received 40% of the vote in the final round the largest left vote for a left of centre candidate for three years and the largest vote for a left candidate for many many more.

Most if the rest of conference was taken up with passing motions which essentially said things like 'disease is a bad thing,' 'let's have strong unions as that will be a good thing.' Noticeably the Student RESPECT delegation was getting bigger everyday with fresh faces at our caucuses and new people pledging support for the block of 12 elections. It was clear that Student RESPECT had emerged as the leader of the opposition and the only credible left force in NUS capable of leading the fight for a radical, campaigning and democratic union. This was to be confirmed on the last day of conference.

Another brilliant speech by Hind and a typically on the ball one from Rob left me in no doubt that this would be the year we got two on the block. After myself and Adam Lambert finally located where the ballot boxes had been taken (remember what happened in Flordia, I bet the CIA had a hand in that too!) the count began in the Savoy Hotel and my high hopes were proven right. To my absolute delight Rob and Hind's stacks of votes (the word piles wouldn't be approporiate) were very large indeed and Hind was elected first with 93 votes. I was then doubly delighted to find that 1/3 of Hind's votes transferred to Rob. We had effectively gained over 30 extra Student RESPECT delegates by the end of conference. What a week!

Unfortunately I didn't get back in time to speak on Iran but the text went through anyway. In the event of an attack on Iran NUS as to call for occupations in Student Unions accross the country! The cherry on the cake of a very good week for Student RESECT.

Unfortunately the rest of the left didn't do too well. SBL lost their place on the block, I believe for the first time, as did the AWL. The half hearted, opportunistic and sectarian approach of SBL lost them that election. This is confirmed by the fact that the AWL scored more first preference votes. The AWL lost their representation because, while things may seem good on the radical grasroots approach, they support the occupation of Iraq and think the apartheid state of Israel is one of the most democratic societies on earth. Inevitably this cuts them off from most of the movement. Socialist Students (who claimed to have led a massive camapign against fees!?!?!?!?) decided not to stand down this time as they usually do and received a derisory vote better only than that of Communist Students who scraped together 6 votes. It is also welcome that FOSIS candidate Nassar Tarman just managed to secure block representation. While I have many issues with the leadership of FOSIS and many decisions they have made and things they have done, they have shown consistent support of Palestinian rights, the stop the war coalition and the Defend NUS Democracy Campaign. I hope that we can work more closely in the comming year on the important issues that unite us.

I stuck around for a bit to listen to some of the leaving speeches as I normally like to and have only a few comments. One thing that was repeated in one leaving speech is something about governance I feel I have to correct. It is not that we oppose change. It is not that we believe in the status quo. It is that we believe in genuine grassroots consultation. Democratic change from below. Therefore it is not for us as Student RESPECT or the Defend NUS Democracy campaign to write a new constitution that represents a tiny proportion of the membership. To ask 'where is your alternative proposal,' is totally missing the point. You should be asking this question to ordinary students on campuses up and down the country.

Conference and NUS in general is still often intimidating, offensive and inaccessible. But it is so much better than it was just a few years ago. I am greatful that I entered the student movement when the worst of the bullying, intimidation and even violence was on its way out. I am greatful that I do not have to worry about my safety when on my way back to my hotel in Blackpool late at night. I am greatful that I do not have to worry about going into a cupboard on my own in case the door is locked behind me. This is something I recognise the OIs for having helped bring about and i hope the culture of NUS continues to improve. And it has to improve. Because while things are better the insults, the bitching and the manipulation can grind you down, it can bring you to tears and it can affect you personally. I've experienced plenty of that and I'm not even a Sabb so credit to those who have put their all into fighting for what they think is the best path for the student movement.

The last thing I'd like to say is how proud I am of being in SWSS and Student RESPECT. We are consistently democratic, genuinely try to engage as many students as possible, unwavering in our principles and prepared to work with broad forces on a number of issues. We have shown how to organise and lead a campaign, we have shown how to have a principled and coherent and radical left intervention into NUS. We had so many delegates from such a diverse backgroud or race, gender, sexuality, geography, everything. Our speeches weren't limited to a handful of people, many of our members got up and confidently gave spot on speeches. We should all be so bloody proud of ourselves and all the effort that we put in. And of course that intervention wouldn't have been posisble without the volunteer helpers who also gave their all. A special thanks has to go to Rob Owen and Colin Smith. They are just amazing. They will both age prematurely due to the sheer workload they have but they are fantastic. Viva Student RESPECT!!

There's a lot more to say on so many different issues such as the amazing waiving of Alex Castro, how badly I smelled on day 3 despite daily ablutions and giggles in Flares but it's even starting to bore me!

The fight against the antidemocratic forces is not over and we are not going anywhere and we are organising but hopefully the next battle will start when I've buggered off to Canada for a few months. A welcome break from stduent politics. I'll be back in 2009 though as enthusiastic, pessimistic and stressed as ever.

XxX xXx XxX

Student RESPECT: We are United

2007-12-19T19:53:00.000Z

The RESPECT Coalition has faced challenging times in the last few months being shaken by internal dispute which led to one faction, including George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob, walking away from the organisation and creating a seperate group 'RESPECT Renewal.'

This split has had little or no effect on the youth wing Student RESPECT which has remained 99.9% solid with the coalition with literally a handful of student jumping ship. One of these students, Ian Drummond, alleges unfair treatment towards him by leading SWSS (Socialist Worker Student Society) comrades and also talks of a meeting the previous night of student supporters of RESPECT Renewal. I'd like to set the record straight on both these issues.

First of all a meeting took place the night before SR conference. In attendance were 4 students two of whom, including myself, were Student RESPECT members, one was RESPECT Renewal supporter Ian Drummond and the other was a RESPECT Renewal supporter whom I don't know. George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Ghada Razuki, Gerr Francis as well as representatives of another left wing student group were present. I was told by Salma that she and the others wished to create a wing of student RESPECT activists who supported Renewal. This would apparantly include students who were currently fighting elections against Student RESPECT members and possibly Labour Party members. RESPECT Renewal doesn't represent a shift to the right? My arse!

Needless to say the meeting was a flop before it even started with a handful of students and I myself walked out in disgust (and was then physically threatened and intimidated by Renewal wannabe thug Gerr Francis.

The next day was Student RESPECT conference and Ian Drummon turned up. Despite being a member of an organisation SR was not affiliated to, an organisation with a seperate name, membership files, membership fee, conference, branches etc (i.e. a seperate organisation) the SR National Committee decided to allow him into the conference not only as an observer but as a delegate and not only a delegate but as a candidate for the new SRNC. Oh and he was also allowed to cast his vote despite missing the close of polling. We proved ourselves to be open, transparent and totally non sectarian despite Ian's main aim of the day being to cause a split in our organisation. Yes we confiscated the Renewal leaflets he wanted to hand out because we have the total right to decide what and who is or isn't allowed in our conference and the leaflet was simply that extra concession we were not willing to make. Expectedly Ian attracted about the same about of interest and support as the laughable meeting the night before winning a total of 3 votes.

Student RESPECT is a diverse organisation independent of and seperate to SWSS which has observed the split carefully and has made its decision. Finally I shall repost a statement by former national Chair of Student RESPECT and current LUU executive member Hind Hassan who is not and has never been a member of the SWP for a view shared by 99% of our activists.

Most of you will already be aware of the politicking that has taken place in
Respect so no need for an introduction.As a former chair of Student Respect and
as someone who has been involved in its progression from birth I feel I have
earned the right to voice my opinion on a matter that I have found increasingly
frustrating. I am disillusioned by certain members of the national Respect
leadership whom appear to be disappointed that the public mud slinging and
subsequent split at the top has not been mirrored on the ground and have thus
taken it upon themselves to mastermind a similar situation at grassroots
level.Not only have these particular individuals ignored the importance of the
student movement from the offset but have also supported and opened up the
ground for opportunists and those who act on personal interests rather than in
the interest of an inclusive organisation, with agreed principles and
procedures, to progress their own agendas. I am not, and have never been, a
member of Socialist Workers Party but I will say that I in no way differentiate
between them and independent Respect members for the reason that, from the
start, they have been some of the most dedicate and supportive individuals
within the organisation, openly seeking to involve and recruit students from a
diverse political and cultural background. It is for this reason I whole
heartedly resent any entity that attempts to suggest the contrary. Any internal
issues of pluralism, or the lack of it, should be brought to an agreed committee
and through no other third party. This should be the case for all financial and
managerial issues that may arise. That this has been leaked and played out
through the media is an unforgivable crime. Over the past few months my dismay
has accumulated until this point, where I feel I have no choice but to issue
this brief, personal, statement on Student Respect – one that I urge all other
members to endorse. I the undersigned:Am a member of student Respect and refuse
to align my self with any split or sub faction and will continue to only
associate with the singular term ‘Student Respect’. Resent and reject any third
party or leadership attempts to instigate a similar split on the ground that has
materialised at the top.Demand that all student matters and campaigns be
democratically decided and agreed upon through the student conference and
committee meetings and that no decisions be made externally or through appointed
subcommittees.Demand that the student movement is involved in any key decisions,
committees conferences and campaigns.Demand a response from those that initiated
the split as to why Student Respect members were omitted from any discussions
thus choosing to ignore the consequences it would have at grassroots level for
reasons of self interest.In solidarity Hind

Student RESPECT shall continue to fight for a radical student involvement in all the important campaigns of the day and fight for a democratic and campaigning NUS

Peace Off

NUS Extraordinary Conference - NUS Leadership resort to cheap demagogery to narrowly pass white paper

2007-12-05T21:59:00.000Z

On Tuesday 4th december the National Union of Students hosted an Extraordinary Conference in Leicester, the subject being an entirely new constitution based on a white paper, the result of a governance review.

The white paper represents a massive attack on democracy and a fundamental shift in power from students to unelected external trustees. Contrary to the claims of the NUS leadership, it will be much harder for ordinary students to have any influence in the direction of their National Union. I will talk in more detail about the review at a later date, now I want to concentrate on the Extraordinary Conference itself.

From the outset the NUS leadership used red baiting, personal attacks, intimidation on conference floor and a clear bias from the Chair to aid their cause. A leaflet entitled 'bullshit bingo,' was distributed to students waiting to register for the conference. The idea was that delegates cross off the relevant box when any 'trot' catch phrases were spoken from the microphone and shout out 'bullshit bhingo' when they had a full house. These slogans included 'rank and file movement,' 'free education,' and 'stop the war movement.' Well its nice to know what the NUS leadership think about core principles of the progressive and student movements. Vice President for Education Wes Streeting, and proud co-author of the leaflet, was particularly enthusiastic in handing it out and encouraged people to jeer if anyone waived a speech to Student RESPECT and block of 12 member, Rob Owen. This directly led to Rob Owen being jeered and booed from the very first time he took to the platform (not just his final speech as was the case with Wes). Repeated complaints were put into steering about both the consistent intimidation of Rob on conference floor and the appalling leaflet which clearly violated NUS rules on ensuring that conference is a safe space for everybody. Nothing was done about it.

Gemma Tumelty National President also joined in the shameful attempt to smear those against the governance review as the loony (or should I say bezerk) left by describing them as 'underhand revolutionaries.' Last Time I checked the Young Greens, FOSIS, every student at Sussex Uni AGM, Student Broad Left and many many more (including Tony Benn!) were not revolutionaries. The fact is that the NUS right were running scared and were trying every trick in the book to smear those opposing them rather than dealing with the issues at hand. And this isn't only my view, it's the view of several students I talked to who came to conference as first time delegates undecided on the issue. Some supporters of the review were embarasses by their behaviour one remarking that it had left a bitter taste in their mouth.

Now we come to the Chair. How a public supporter of the governance review qualified as an impartial chair I do not know. Here is what I do know. Repeated complaints by myself and many others regarding the conduct of members of the NEC relating to clear intimidation on conference floor were, according to steering, passed to the Chair. So either steering lied to me (bearing in mind the 3 members I submitted complaints to were all opposed to the governance review) I was lied to by the Chair or I was lied to by the Chair's assisstant. I do not know which it was and I guess I will never know. What I do know is that at least one of thse complaints should have reached the Chair. There was also the incident right at the beginning of conference whereby Alex Kemp (Disabled Students Officer) used a speech on changing the name of his liberation campaign to speak in favour of the governance review. This is clearly against the rules and once more I put in a complaint but he was permitted to talk at length about something completely unrelated to the motion in question. And according to one NEC member, voting in favour of white paper, the final speech was stitched up to be given to Wes. I can't say if that's true or not but it certainly makes for interesting reading.

The Defend NUS Democracy campaign went to conference to discuss the substance of the governance review, not to yell and scream revolutionary soundbites as the right predicted we would. We gave speech after speech addressing the detail of the review and its negative effect on our National Union. We didn't even claim that everyone supporting the governance review was right wing or had another agenda. I don't believe the words bureaucrat and careerist were even mentioned. It's sad that the bulk of the NUS leadership didn't act as honourably. Hopefully they will take a lesson from how we fought on that particular day and emulate it in April. Somehow though, I doubt it.

But enough of the negatives, despite losing the vote by a very small margin (I do think it was a 2/3 majority but a very narrow one and definetly should have been counted) the conference was a success for us. We had little chance of winning at a conference made up mostly of unelected handpicked delegates but we won significant support and the campaign has grown siginifcantly in strength. At Annual Conference where delegates have mandates from the many thousands of students up and down the country who vote for them, it will be a very different story and we can win on this issue.

We need a national campaign from now until April, a campaign which involves the widest possible forces and a campaign dedicated to rejecting the proposals outright. Pleading pathetically for practically insigificant scraps is simply not good enough.

To get involved in the Defend NUS Democracy campaign visit http://www.nusdemocracy.org.uk/

Defend NUS Democracy - Vote NO! to the Governance Review

2007-11-15T23:33:00.000Z

The right wing careerists who control the NUS bureaucracy are in the process of trying to destroy the democratic processes of the organisation. Below is a summary of the proposals

-The Governance white paper seeks to replace Annual Conference with an 'Annual Congress' with a loophole for Student Union's which enables SU Presidents to appoint delegates rather than them being selected by cross campus ballot.

- Zone conference with just two delegates from each university (with SU President's allowed to appoint delegates) with no policy making power

- Partially external board of trustees with power of vetoe over Congress decisions

-Abolish the part time block of 12 (traditionally the body which represents NUS political diversity) and replace it with a block of 15. The new block would be part of NUS Senate and would have no day to day involvement of NUS, no access to facilities or resources.

Not only do these proposals narrow incredibly the possibility for ordinary students to influence the direction of their National Union, but they are being pushed through through an Emergency Conference which is an incredibly undemocratic process. There is no obligation on Unions to elect delegates to such conferences meaning millions of students are disenfranchised.

Despite being officially endorsed by the NEC, several groups within NUS oppose the review including Student RESPECT Education not for Sale FoSIS Young Greens Student Broad Left .

It is vital that those of us who support democracy throw ourselves into opposing this review. Visit the Defend NUS Democracy website to join the campaign sponsored by Education Not for Sale and Student Respect, and NUS NEC members Sofie Buckland and Rob Owen.

Hejab - A woman's Right to Choose

2007-08-06T15:54:00.000Z

It has upset me a lot in the last few years to see the rise in Islamophobia, much of it directed towards Muslim women who choose to cover their hair as part of observing the Islamic concept of Hejab. All across Europe Muslims have come under attack as part of a racist drive to demonise Muslim communities in Europe as an 'enemy within,' in order to justify draconian immigration laws and attacks on Muslim countries abroad. In France the hejab has been banned in schools, in Holland the Burqa (worn by a few dozen women in that country) has been banned altogether and there have been repeated attempts to demonise and even ban (for example Imperial College London) the Neqab here in Britain. Even some Muslim countries, desperate to present themselves as westernized, persecute Muslim women using state sanctioned violence against innocent people as seen in this footage from Turkey (which I found very inspiring)

Anti Hejab Oppression in Turkey

Some liberals and even some on the so called left join with this reactionary witch hunt in the name of liberation and freedom claiming many women are forced to regard conservative dress codes by male relatives and that the head covering is sexist and regressive.

I think it would be foolish of Muslims and those of us in the Muslim community to deny that a reasonable amount (but definitely a small minority) of Muslim girls and women observe Hejab because of parental/community pressure to do so. This is a problem that does need to be addressed. Anyone who believes, however, that the government’s attacks on Muslim women are motivated out of a concern for their welfare need only look to the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq which lay strewn with the bloodied bodies of Muslim women. Does western society not put great pressure on women to be stick thin and cosmetically perfect for the gratification of men? Do many girls not feel compelled to put on makeup before even letting men see them as if a girl who doesn’t ‘make an effort,’ is somehow less of a female? Middle class, white, patronising liberals should examine their own so called free and equal society before arrogantly criticising other communities for their perceived faults.

And those on the left who join in gleefully with the Islamophobic attacks under the banner of women’s and LGBT liberation; is the best way to help those in the Muslim community who feel oppressed by it to line up with the likes of the Nazi BNP who, I can assure you, are seen as much more of a threat by any Muslim women than a piece of cloth or a long skirt!? And why is a woman who feels forced to cover up more oppressed than a woman who feels so undervalued by society that she needs to be cut open by a surgeon’s knife and physically altered? Why do I never hear the Islamophobic ‘left’ lamenting this kind of oppression?

There is a constructive philosophical debate to be had about the nature of Hejab and its worth as well as a debate on the more immediate practical issue of freedom to choose within the Muslim community. But with Muslim women being attacked in the streets, Muslim women being slaughtered abroad and asylum seekers being denied more and more rights, there are other more immediate discussions that need to be had. Namely about defending civil liberties and throwing ourselves into opposing the ever more bloody ‘war on terror.’

Then I look towards my paternal homeland, Iran. There I see the opposite. I see Hejab forced on women who would otherwise chose not to wear it. The reactionary Islamic regime has an annual crackdown on ‘bad,’ Islamic dress with this years crackdown being the most draconian in many, many years. Women are being routinely humiliated and insulted by religious ‘modesty,’ police many being assaulted in public as seen in this video. The older woman removes her headscarf in protest and shouts ‘we want freedom, we don’t want the headscarf.’

Compulsory hejab enforced by violence in Iran

The hardline government has been able to be particularly harsh this year because of imperialist threats of war and sanctions against Iran. This is the clearest evidence yet that the best thing we here in the UK can do to support the Iranian people is to avert war at all costs. The threat of war gives the internal democracy movement less room to criticize the government and the hardliners more room to brutalise the people.

One of the key principles of socialism is to stand with the oppressed. As a socialist I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with my Muslim brothers and sisters who are suffering ever increasing demonisation. Lining up with those who seek to attack the Muslim community to justify imperialist wars is not a Marxist position and, in the current climate, becomes, perhaps inadvertently, a racist position to take.

To those oh so smug liberal academics: You would never dare attack any other community the way you do Muslims. You would never dare attack the right to choose an abortion a you do the right to wear hejab. You are hypocrites and guardians of Islamophobia; the last acceptable form of racism. Shame on you.

To Muslims who feel it is acceptable to force, sometimes physically, a woman to observe hejab

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion

Hejab: A woman's right to choose

Hands off Iran

2007-06-23T16:42:00.000Z

The US has been ratcheting up the pressure against Iran in recent weeks following the imposition of sanctions by the UN Security Council.

All Democratic Presidential candidates as well as the usual neo-con suspects like Dick Cheney have been repeating the phrase ‘all options remain on the table.’ So why does the US want to attack Iran and how real is the threat of military action?

The west once had very strong relations with Iran before the revolution of 1979. The brutal Reza Shah and his regime were armed to the teeth and his feared secret police, SAVAK, were trained and equipped by the CIA.

Iran’s most notorious prison Evin was built during this time and the US even sold Iran its first Nuclear reactor.

The stench of US hypocrisy hangs like a toxic cloud over the middle east and increasingly so in the western world.

It was the popular revolution of 1979 which changed all of this. The anti-Imperialist nature of the revolutionary masses meant that the supply of cheap Iranian oil, guaranteed under Reza Shah, was now under threat.

This is one of the real reasons why the US became hostile towards Iran and why it has, for the last quarter of a century, sought to weaken and divide the Iranian nation.

The Nuclear issue is a smokescreen. The US gave Pakistan tens of millions in aid since 9/11 due to its support of Bush and Blair’s ‘war on terror.’ This is despite Pakistan having a clear Nuclear program and the fact that the self proclaimed President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, came to power in a military coup in 1999 and has ruled as a dictator ever since.

America’s biggest ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel, continues to refuse to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons.

If America cared about nuclear proliferation it would not support the dictatorship in Pakistan or a Nuclear Israel which has occupied Palestine for more than half a century and would disarm its own nuclear arsenal rather than threatening the world with it.

The humanitarian concerns Bush and Blair claim to have about the human rights situation in Iran are laughable if they were not so obscene.

According to Australian scientist Dr Gideon Polya, the war in Iraq has caused one million Iraqi deaths.

That’s one in every 25 Iraqis. Murdering a million people simply isn’t what humanitarians do, Mr. Bush and Mr.

Blair. It is true that there are human rights abuses in Iran and it is also true that there are many grassroots, diverse democracy movements representing, students, workers, women and more.

These movements are all steadfast in their opposition to outside aggression and their causes would be set back by 50 years if bombs were to rain down on their heads.

As we have seen in Iraq, occupation worsens the conditions of women, LGBT community, religious minorities and others.

Some people claim that it’s impossible for the US to attack Iran because it is too bogged down in Iraq.

It’s important here to look at both the evidence at hand and the history books. When the US was bogged down in Vietnam in 1969 it lashed out and launched a massive bombing campaign against Cambodia and Laos which killed hundreds of thousands of people.

This is already happening in Iraq with Bush’s ‘surge,’ of 30 000 more troops being sent to Baghdad. Our own government is sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan.

Not only has there been a troop build up, but the US has sent 2 more aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf.

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claims that he was ‘repeatedly told,’ in his interviews with US officials and former intelligence officers that Iran was ‘the next target.’ He also made the claim that the US and Israel are funding Iranian Kurdish terrorists based in Iraq in order to destablise Iran.

This claim is supported by a letter sent by democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich to George Bush expressing his belief that the US occupying forces in Iraq were supporting and coordinatng attacks by Kurdish terrorists.

Award winning investigative journalist John Pilger has also made claims that the US has been planning ‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’ for four years and quotes Russia’s leading strategist Leonid Ivashov as saying ‘"Nuclear facilities will be secondary targets, and there are 20 such facilities.

Combat nuclear weapons may be used, and this will result in the radioactive contamination of all the Iranian territory, and beyond." The war drive most certainly has started.

It is vital that we here in Britain make sure that our government have no part in any aggression against Iran.

The Stop the War Coalition in the UK, Britain’s largest ever mass movement with the support of hundreds of organsiations, has pledged to bring this country to a standstill if there is an attack on Iran.

It is of the utmost importance that we all play our part in resisting the war drive. Stand shoulder to shoulder with the Iranian people.

They need your support.

UCU Boycott - A Positive Move but a Reasoned Debate is Needed

2007-06-14T17:51:00.001Z

The first annual conference of the new University and College Union (UCU) since the merger between the Association of University Teachers (AUT) and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) took place in May 2007. One of the most controversial motions put to conference was one which proposed to facilitate discussion around the issue of the occupation of Palestine and the possibility of a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

The decision of the University and Colleges Union to pass this motion was a victory for the pro-Palestine movement. It reflected the growing support for the Palestinian cause in the UK over the last decade and the increasing redundancy of the anti-Zionism= anti-Semitism argument put forward by the Zionist movement and elements of the Islamophobic 'left.' The activity of the anti-war movement has played no small part in this, along with Palestine based organisations who have remained connected to the Stop the War Coalition and its activities for the last 6 years including local university groups such as the Leeds University Union Palestine Solidarity Group and the University of Manchester Student Union's ActionPalestine.

What is crucial now is to engage in a positive and meaningful debate surrounding the question of what exactly UCU can do to show genuine and effective solidarity with the Palestinian people and their struggle for justice. A debate where genuine, political criticism of Israeli government actions and the nature of the Israeli state itself feature prominently. A debate where supporters of Israel do not resort to hysterical, demagogic shrieks of anti semitism which does nothing but stifle debate and cause unnecessary divisions which make fighting the fascist BNP more difficult.

One tactic of the Zionist movement to prevent even the discussion of the humanitarian crisis in Palestine is to accuse UCU of double standards. Why are countries like Iran or Sudan or China not the subject of similar motions? Well this hollow argument must be blown out of the water straight away. None of these nations are colonial in their entirety unlike the state of Israel. I'd like to pose a question to the spokespersons for the Zionist movement. As you accuse others of hypocrisy on this matter, where are your calls for condemnation of the US backed, doubly repressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

On the Pro-Palestine side (of which I am firmly on) we need to ask ourselves what we can argue for that will genuinely help the Palestinian people.

I support a one state solution. I believe in the dismantling of the racist, apartheid and colonial Israeli state by winning the right to return for Palestinian refugees. Equal political, civil and economic rights for those from all races and religions who call the Holy Land home is the only principled and practical solution to this conflict. Not a 1st world Israel and a 3rd world Palestine made up of a few patches of land overlooked by illegal settlements and prone to Israeli invasion.

I've asked myself, will a blanket Israeli academic boycott be a positive move in the direction of my vision of a single unified Palestinian state? I'm not sure.

It's vital that we recognise that the issue of Palestine is central plank of the Stop the War Coalition. We shall never seperate the occupation of Baghdad from the occupation of Jerusalem. And we must make sure that this remains the focus.

RESPECT Election Breakthrough

2007-05-10T11:55:00.000Z

RESPECT secured yet another electoral breakthrough on Thursday 3rd May in the English local elections. RESPECT returned three councillors including a landslide victory in Preston Town Centre War where sitting Councillor Michael Lavalette won over 50%. In Birmingham Sparkbrook Mohammad Ishtiaq was elected beating the Labour candidate by over 1 000 votes, giving RESPECT two out of the three councillors in that ward. In Bolsover, Derbyshire, RESPECT scored an important victory in a solidly white working class area with ex-miner Ray Holmes winning 53% of the total vote.

RESPECT came 1st, 2nd or 3rd in 26 of the 42 wards in which it stood - an extraordinary result for a coalition which was formed only 3 years ago. Secondly, RESPECT performed far better than any of the other smaller parties in most of the seats it contested. RESPECT beat the Greens in 24 out of 25 wards in which they competed. RESPECT also beat the BNP in 11 out of 16 wards, and Ukip in 5 out of 7. Remarkably, RESPECT candidates also defeated the Tories in 22 wards and the Liberal Democrats in 16.

Finally, in the 42 wards in which it stood, RESPECT won an average of over 15% of the vote. In the large majority of these wards, it was the first time a RESPECT candidate had stood. These results clearly show that the British public is looking for a left-wing, anti-war alternative to New Labour and the other mainstream parties.

I remember David Aaronovitch writing, soon after the formation of RESPECT, that he'd give us a lifespan of 'a year.' Well here we are 3 years later with an MP, 20 councillors, a national network of thousands of activists and well on track to win both a seat on the GLA and an MEP. Eat your words David!

NUS Conference 2007 - A right wing orgy

2007-03-30T14:42:00.001Z

This year saw NUS lurch to the right. NUS conference voted against a fighting and effective campaign for a free education with a first term national demonstration. The OIs and the NOLSies claimed that demonstrations don't work with Wes Streeting proposing we fight neo-ilberalisation by writing letters, dressing up and being more 'creative!' Well I'm not sure if was street theatre or messages written on fucking origami that won black people or women the right to vote. Of course we need to be creative as a means of getting people involved. But only national direct action involving tens of thousands of students with the support of British workers (which we have) can win on fees. Can we do this? Of course we can. Greek, French and Italian students took to the streets in huge numbers, engaged in direct action and won solidarity from millions of workers. They won their battles and we can learn lessons and do the same. More students marched against war and climate change than on the Admission Impossible demonstration. This is because the anti-war movement and elements of the environmentalist movement are radical and have engaged with students on a grass roots level. NUS can do this and with a membership of 5.2 million people is a formidable force. We must realise that the collective power of our membership and not how friendly NEC members are with government ministers is the greatest weapon the student movement has.

It's also interesting to note that Gemma Tumelty claimed the Admission Impossible demonstration to be her proudest hour. Funny then how she should vote against another national demonstration! Talk left, vote right.

NUS refused to fight for a free and fully funded education system and instead voted to hit minority students hard by maintaining its policy of supporting ineffective and humiliating means tested grants. This was only passed thanks to the large number of right wing independents on conference floor along with the new grouping 'Not for Politics, just for students,' who backed up the ever more right wing Labour Students. The argument that universal grants for all gives unfairly benefits rich students does cut some ice. It is unfortunate that students whose parents help them generously fin regard to finances benefit from universal grants for all. However it is far more unfortunate that means testing hits minority students hard. Women in some communities in Britain are not encouraged to go to university and refused financial aid from their parents. Many LGBT students whose parents disapprove of their sexuality refuse to give any help to their child. I know of a girl who converted to a religion her parents did not approve of. They have said to her that when she is 18 she has to move out and is 'on her own.' These people are being LET DOWN by NUS. We are condemning these people to less choice in their higher education or no higher education at all. I would rather these people managed to better themselves through education as well as rich kids being able to go out an extra night a week rather than condemning many minority students to a less successful life while hardly affecting wealthy students. I hope we change our policy next year and am glad that the OIs and Student RESPECT were for once both on the side of free education.

I would argue that anti semitism continues to be rife in society and has never been pushed back successfully. I myself suffered verbal and physical bullying as a child because people thought I was Jewish. I therefore agree that NUS needs to strengthen its policy on anti-semitism. I agree that sometimes imagery is used (though not by the lefty) which is anti semitic even if this was not the purpose. To make caricatures of Jewish people, often political figures, with stereotypical Jewish features is anti semitic and I believe this (unlike the actions of the Israeli government) is comparable to the actions of the Nazis and is as bad as the racist cartoons printed by Danish newspapers which caricatures Arabs. However there are valid political criticisms behind the argument that the State of Israel doesn't have the right to exist. According to the UN there were around 570 000 Palestinians who fled from Palestine when Israel was created. There is massive documented evidence of Jewish Zionist terrorist organisations carrying out atrocities against Palestinian civilians in an attempt to ethnically cleanse Arabs from Palestine. Here are some quotes from Zionist leaders at the time and now.

"We must expropriate gently...We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country...Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
"The antisemites will become our most loyal friends, the antisemite nations will become our allies." - Theodor Herzl

"There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
Moshe Dayan

“Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them.”

Ariel Sharon quotes

I do not believe in the right of a state created and based on terrorism, racism and apartheid to exist. This is a principled, political and socialist position to take. I do not oppose Jewish immigration to Palestine, I do not oppose equal rights for Jews in Palestine and I do not oppose the right to self determination of any nation.

The idea of minorities defining their own oppression is a left wing one. I support its spirit because it was a response to institutional racism. The example of Stepehen Lawrence is a good one. When an individual family is faced with a powerful institution, like the Metropolitan police, denying a racist crime they have no power. Self defining oppression gives power to the minority and the vulnerable. This is the context in which it should be seen. Despite recognising the genuine and valid fears of the Jewish Student community I cannot help but feel that UJS and Labour Students are cynically using self defining oppression in order to silence the legitimate criticisms of the state of Israel and the arguments against the right of Israel to exist. For self determination of oppression to be used to silence your political opponents is wildly dangerous, unprincipled and could lead to an anti-'political correctness' backlash I'm sure no one in NUS wants. It also just so happens that in this case some of the strongest opponents of anti-semitism could be silenced. Let's hope that this decision is reviewed next year and that it is used in accordance with its original spirit and not as a way to censure others and deny legitimate freedom of expression.

I must also express my disappointment in Sam Leben's horrific speech against the procedural motion for a secret ballot on the anti-semitism motion. To get up on the podium and deliberately intimidate people and viciously attack their right to a safe space was nothing short of scandalous and he should hang his head in shame. Whatever our beliefs everyone hsould be able to cast their vote free from intimidation and his hypocritical stance should be condemned by all.

The War on Terror has been responsible for the deaths of 655 000 people in Iraq and over 7000 people in Afghanistan. A war on Iran will claim the lives of millions of Iranians and tens of thousands of western troops. Any military action against Iran will result in retaliation which will be seen primarily on the streets of Southern Iraq and more worryingly, possibly on the streets of London and New York. In the last 3 months the same people who bombed Iraq back 50 years have successfully pushed for the UN SC to place sanctions on Iran. The Bush administration has refused to rule out military strikes on Iran and respected journalists like Seymour Hersch have written extensively on the very real threat to Iran from America and Israel. The fact that this did not get discussed at conference is an absolute disgrace. I am proud to be a member of a national union which opposed the war and whose current President has spoken on anti-war platforms. This activism should have been strengthened at conference by at least discussing whether or not to affiliate to the stop the war coalition, an organisation which has mobilised the biggest demonstrations in British history and which has the support of hundreds of UK organisations including religious groups, political parties and factions and every major Trade Union. Student RESPECT do not want the whole conference to be taken up by the war. We simply want it discussed because it is a current issue, it is an issue which affects education funding and it is something that we should be taking a stronger stance on at least out of solidarity. It is also sickening that the very same people who claim to care so much about the plight of the long suffering people of Darfur vote not to discuss an ongoing event which has killed more people and which has the potential to engulf many more places. Yes Student RESPECT talks about the war and I am PROUD of this not ashamed and we will continue to do so so long as the imperialist war machine is in full swing.

This was a bad conference for the left and a bad conference for students. Student RESPECT polled poorly in some elections and we acknowledge these disappointing results. However we achieved our fundamental goal of block representation and secured our highest ever vote. We also had a large, visible delegation which reflects our rapidly growing support on campuses across the country and will be back, bigger and better next year. The left in general must unite and refrain from sectarian attacks. This is something I can say Student RESPECT had great success in at conference. We are not in the business of slamming people on the left more than those on the right from the podium. There are some issues we shall never agree upon and that are too important for us to form an official slate together. However I am sure that at this conference there were at least two candidates from the two opposing left coalitions that SR/SBL and ENS/SS could have agreed to unanimously support. I also hope that on the issues we are already united on we can fight together on conference by waiving speeches to each other for example even if we would say the same thing. This would show more of a united front and would give the independent left and centre on conference floor more confidence and motivation to vote and fight with us. If we don't do this soon there will be no NUS to fight for.

Lot's more went on at conference obviously not to mention the hot and sweaty Flares party (can't believe I missed R.E.S.P.E.C.T by good old Aretha!) steps forward such as enshrining no platform in our constitution and the welcome defeat of Labour Students in the VP Welfare election but frankly I'm too knackered to write about them too. I'm going to pop to the co-op for some richmond superkings and contemplate going to Kissdafunk tonight as a 'thank god conference is over for this year,' celebration!

I'm back!

2007-03-22T19:40:00.000Z

Hello all, I'm happy to say that I'm back blogging after a long absence.

I've recently taken a break from political activism for personal and health reasons but am glad to announce that I'm back louder and angrier than ever before which I'm sure you'll all be delighted about!

xxx

'Zarqawi Dead' - Not such a Great Occasion

2006-06-10T00:50:00.000Z

You'd be forgiven for believing that now Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has been killed (and this is *if* we take the account of the Coalition of the Killing at face value) that most violence in Iraq shall cease. Described as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Jordanian born militant has been built up by the propaganda machines of Bush and Blair to be a major player in the Iraqi Resistance. We are asked to believe that in a country of around 25 million people, in a country under a violent and bloody military occupation, that the Resistance has only maintained its strength and success because of foreign 'jihadists' crossing the border from nearby Syria and Jordan. That's a bit like claiming that the National Liberation Army of Vietnam (Vietcong) were only successful because hordes of Cambodians were joining them in their struggle. In other words, a false claim.

The Iraqi Resistance started to fight straight after the formal war was declared over, before foreign militants had time to travel to Iraq en masse and certainly before they could organise. Shia militias in the south which occupied cities and almost defeated the occupying forces (before Ayatollah Sistani stepped in to temper the situation) and have recently killed several British troops certainly have no link with anti-Shia Zarqawi. Then there are the Baathist factions of the resistance who are ideologically opposed to the Islamism of Zarqawi as well as the nationalist and more secular factions to the resistance. So it appears that 'Al Qaeda in Iraq (and who knows if it is even a coherent organisation on the ground) may have been responsible for a mere fraction of the 100 plus attacks which occur every day in Iraqi towns and cities.

This does not, of course, mean that anyone should act as an apologist for this horrendous man. He has been responsible, according to many accounts, for some of the heinous beheadings of civilians, transmitted on TV via the internet, has apparently been responsible for the bombing of civilian targets, and has sought to impose his version of Islam onto Iraq. Do I want this type of things to stop? Yes. Well why don't you count this as a good day people may ask?

No day in occupied Iraq is a good day. So when asked to sing and dance at the killing of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi by the Imperialist forces which have killed more innocents than Zarqawi could have dreamed of, I'll decline, and I'll decline not for love of Zarqawi, but because of the knowledge that until the troops are pulled out things will only get worse. The killing of one man shall change nothing.

United Students and Lecturers can Win

2006-04-26T21:43:00.000Z

It is vital that Students stand by their lecturers in their fight for decent pay. Lecturers pay, in real terms, has decreased by 40% in the last 20 years while their workload has rocketed. University bosses had 5 months before the start of strike action to make some sort of deal but they failed to deliver. The lecturers are simply using the only weapon workers have to fight for their rights; the withdrawal of labour. They have not done so impatiently or withour a massive mandate from AUT and NATFHE ballot results.

University lecturers are the best resource students have available to them so it is essential that we fight for our lecturers. Governmental failure and a refusal to act on the part of university bosses have imposed this situation on both staff and students and so we must maintain unity at all costs. It is not easy, struggles against neo liberalism never are, but we can only win a better deal if we unite and fight.

Lecturers showed solidarity with students in our fight against tuition fees, many risking their salaries and job security in coming out on strike in solidarity. To sell these decent men and women down the river would not only be in the worst interests of students and the ultimate betrayal of university staff, but would play straight into the hands of Tony Blair and make it much easier for him to push forward with his right wing education reforms. Being successful in stopping the cap on top up fees being lifted and to roll back the anti student legislation already on the statue books can only be done if all those with a vested interest in a high quality HE system, i.e. students and lecturers come together in unity.

Let us take France as an example. Those under the age of 26 were facing the prospect of being sacked at anytime with the employer under no obligation to give any reason for the dismissal. Students took to the streets to defend their employment rights and fought a militant campaign. French education staff and other workers showed solidarity with this struggle and 3 million students and workers went on strike and took to the streets. This widespread show of popular solidarity and show of strength forced the government to abandon their neo liberal policy.

If we allow ourselves to be divided then when the government next attacks us as students, and it will be soon, we shall not be in a position to fight back and shall lose even more of our right to a universally free education system accessible to all regardless of income. United we stand, divided we fall - All of us.

HE Quality of Education drops as Top up Fees are Introduced

2006-04-17T15:52:00.000Z

A recent survey conducted by the Daily Telegraph has revealed that students are facing a reduction of teching hours. Some students are receiving just 5 hours a week, ususally those studying for humanities, arts or social science subjects such as English, Politics and History of Art.

A spokesman for Bristol University, Barry Taylor, said its English students, who receive six hours of tuition per week, were expected to be self-motivated. He criticised those who felt that the small number of teaching hours available was due to an increase in the number of students and commented that students were expected to independent learners and should not be 'spoon fed,' like at A Level.

Though I agree that the shockingly small number of teaching hours isn't due to a rise in a number of students I also disagree that students should be expected to work in such poor learning conditions. As Professor Anthony King pointed out;

"The notion that people of 17 or 18 are sufficiently well motivated and know enough about their subjects to study by themselves is purest fantasy."

What students need is more funding from the government to facilitate an adequate learning experience, not a £10 tax in the shape of NUS Xtra so they can get 10p off a burger at McDonalds! We do not want billions wasted on war, we do not want the rate of income tax to be frozen for 10 years and we do not want our money spent on £25 billion worth of new nuclear weapons (the words 'Iran' and 'hypocrisy' also seem appropriate here) We want a full publically funded and free education service. Thankfully there is a National Demonstration this autumn against continued attacks on the finances of students and the left must not let the NUS leadership build it like they did the pitiful lobby of parliament during the so called week of action against raising the cap a month or so ago.

In regard to the argument that too many people are at university, I simply say rubbish. The idea that too many of Britain's young are undergoing a life changing experience, which equips them with all sorts of life skills as well as academic knowledge, is one I do not want in the society in which I live. University should be free and available to everyone, irrespective of how much money your parents earn. To imply that working class students should stop appyling to universiy because there is a shortage of manual workers is nothing short of obscene. This quasi Fuedalistic attitude which suggests that we all have a pre determined place in society where the working class somehow do not have the right to come to Univeristy. has been partially adopted by the government. Top us fees mean that poorer students are being discouraged to go to university. They are bing relegated to the status of a job seeker and then are promptly vilified by New Labour and the tory press as scroungers.

So when Nulab tells you that they want 50% of the country's young into university, you can trust them. The RICHEST 50%.

How the Left Should Face the Threat of War on Iran

2006-04-13T20:31:00.000Z

The Islamic Republic of Iran announced yesterday that it had joined the world's Nuclear club by successfully enriching Uranium. This prompted the Imperialists in Washington to intensify their warmongering and their ratcheting up of the pressure against the Islamic state.

As we have seen in Iraq, sanctions war is most certainly not the answer. A fat cat, corporate war for oil, development contracts, and geopolitical gain cannot lead to the liberation of the people of Iran just like the people of Iraq cannot be emancipated until the occupation has been ended. This is why opposition to both the occupation of Iraq and any attack on Iran must be the primary concern of all those who wish to see genuine democracy and the progression of working class movements in the Middle East.

The war in Iraq has led to sectarian divide, the deaths of over 100 000 Iraqis and the destruction of an infrastructure once regarded as the most advanced in the Arab world. The advancement of Trade Union rights, women's and LGBT liberation can only be successfully fought for when Iraqis have democratic control of their country and when national, political and civil rights have been restored. Supporting the Resistance in this aim is therefore key and serves as a lesson as to how we should approach the situation in relation to Iran.

Some on the left argue for a slogan 'No to War - No to Islamic Republic.' In some cases this is stems from a genuine and just opposition to both reactionary Islamism and Imperialism, however in some cases it is the product of a more sinister, Islamophobic agenda which only aids the imperialist right. The problem with the aforementioned slogan is that not only does it give credence to the false reasons given by Bush Rice and Cheney for aggressive action towards Iran, but it is the result of a flawed analysis. An analysis which doesn't take into account that while people are being bombed from the air and starved by sanctions, they cannot effectively mount working class campaigns. For instance, women in Iran are forced to observe Islamic dress (which, is actually contradictory to Qoranic teachings) However, if bombs start to drop and food supplies diminish is her first concern the fact that she must wear a piece of cloth on her head while venturing outside, or is it her possible impending death from cluster bombs or malnutrition. It is of course the latter.

This is why all of our efforts must be focused on preventing any more Bush wars, not only for the short term reasons of preventing death and destruction, but for the long term reasons of helping to create a situation on the ground where the Iranian working class can mount a successful campaign for workers rights and the liberation of oppressed groups.

To help with the campaign against the occupation in Iraq and any war on Iran get in contact with the Stop the War Coalition and Action Iran

Vote RESPECT on May 4th

2006-04-12T23:36:00.000Z

The RESPECT Coalition shall be contesting over 150 council seats across England, proving once more that it is a National force that should not be underestimated.
After gaining over a quarter of a million votes in June 2004 and 4 of the biggest swings in the General Election of 2005 (including the historic election of George Galloway) RESPECT is now in a position to make a serious challenge to take the East London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham as well as gaining a presence on major councils all over the country.
This is happening because RESPECT stands out from the established parties as being a coalition that fights for the rights of ordinary poeple. RESPECT fights for the rights of working class people, of ethnic minorities, of students and of pensioners. In other words, the majority of our nation.
RESPECT has already shown some success at local level, winning a by election in Stepney Green electing Oliur Rahman as our first RESPECT councillor. RESPECT has also seen around a dozen Labour councillors defect to RESPECT as they join the tens of thousands of people leaving New Labour in droves after becoming disillusioned with the neo liberal policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Support RESPECT this on May 4th by giving us your vote and by helping to campaign for our candidates. Stand up for the rights of ordinary people and give George Bush's poodle a bloody nose!

Why NUS Should Look To France

2006-04-10T18:38:00.001Z

French Students fight to defend their employment rights

Students in France have won their hard fought battle to defend the rights of workers aged under 26. Under the proposed new law, known as the First Employment Contract or CPE, employers would be able to terminate contracts without explanation. This would have left thousands of young people with no job security, putting particular pressure on students and young families.

The action French students took should act as a shining example to students in Britain in regard to campaigning against fees. The French mounted grassroots mass campaigns which were both popular and militant. Over half of the universities in France, including the prestigious Sorbonne in Paris were occupied by students and hundreds of thousands took to the streets shouting slogans against the neo liberal employment law.

But it didn't stop there. In the same week as 1. 5 million British workers went on strike in the biggest mass strike in Britain for 80 years, 3 million French Workers struck in solidarity with students, bringing the country to a standstill and sending a strong and clear message to the right wing government of Chirac that united, the workers and students will not be defeated.

After setting an ultimatum to the government, which included giving the French administration until Easter weekend to withdraw the law or face a repeat of the recent general strike, Article 8 of the CPE, which included the termination without explanation clause, was repealed by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin.

The left in the NUS has won a National Demonstration against fees. A National Demonstration which, if given the correct political leadership, could draw tens of thousands of students onto the streets. British students must look to their French brothers and sisters for lessons as to how they won their fight, not only against the CPE, but historically against tuition fees. Now is the time for militancy, not for capitulating to the New Labour establishment who have the interests of the rich, not students, at heart.

By fighting a militant campaign against fees and in defence of our pensions and by standing by our lecturers in their fight against poor pay and working conditions, we can knock a hammer blow to Tony Blair and his cronies and the NUS can reassert itself as a relevant body, at the heart of student life.