"The government forced me to work on the street," says Manchester sex worker

Members of the Marxist Radical Forum, including myself, were hugely excited at the turn out of our first ever meeting, “Sex and the Revolution”. 60 people attended the meeting, with two speakers from the English Collective of Prostitutes and one from the International Union of Sex Workers, alongside myself, Vicky from the Marxist Radical Forum. I spoke first. I commenced with an anecdote about the Christmas present I received at my second Christmas… A vacuum cleaner! From there, I spent fifteen minutes giving a potted history of sex, sexuality and gender, as well as the Marxist response to the questions of women’s and LGBTQ liberation, and finally, prostitution.

The second speaker, Cari from the English Collective of Prostitutes, talked about the difficulty experienced by sex workers attempting to get jobs outside of the sex industry, especially after being convicted for sexual offenses. She refuted Harriet Harman’s claims that the majority of prostitutes want criminalization of their clients and referred to the “moralistic crusade” that some feminists and Socialists embark on whenever the subject of prostitution turns up. She also talked about the many debt-ridden students who turn to sex work to fund their studies.

The third speaker, also from the English Collective of Prostitutes, had a heartbreaking story. A widow, she was a prostitute simply to support her severely disabled son. It was a way of earning money. With a previous conviction for prostitution, she found it next to impossible get another job that would enable her to support her son without putting him into care. In her words, ‘the government forced me to work on the street’. The problem with society is not prostitution, she said... It’s poverty.

The final speaker, Catherine from the IUSW, talked about the sheer numbers of sex workers in the UK, estimating that there are 80,000 women who have sold sexual services in this country. According to Catherine, wherever there is a crackdown on “kerb crawling”, there is a rise in attacks on prostitutes, as vulnerable women spend less time deciding whether or not to get into cars. She talked about the violence prostitutes often experience, not necessarily from their clients, but from the local community, and the targeting of brothels by violent gangs. However, Catherine was a woman who enjoyed her job and the freedom she felt it gave her. On the whole, her experience of the sex industry had been a positive one.

All of the speakers mentioned one thing: the importance of decriminalization as the only way to drastically improve the lives of prostitutes. And stemming from that, the need for self-organisation and strength through unity. Feminists and Socialists who didn't listen to the voices of prostitute women were condemned by all and the lively debate following the speakers was largely positive.

The next meeting of the Marxist Radical Forum, “World On Fire”, will be held in MR4 of Manchester University’s Students’ Union on the 13th October. For more information on us, check out our blog. We encourage all Manchester Marxists to contact us and get involved.

Fascist attacks at Sarajevo Queer Festival

A homophobic mob attacked participants in a queer festival in Sarajevo last night. People were dragged from cars and others were beaten in the streets by hooded youths, while a much larger group of fascists threw stones at people arriving at the festival’s opening event. At least 8 people were injured in the attacks. Police dispersed large crowds of protesters but they reportedly hid in side streets and attacked people as they left the event. More here...

CPGB rewrites history!

Bill Jeffries from Permanent Revolution will no doubt be amused to discover that he has joined the SWP... According to this issue of the Weekly Worker, Jeffries was the "SWP chair" of the Convention of the Left's debate between Hopi and Campaign Iran (of which, judging by the applause, Hopi was the clear victor). I should point out that this error has nothing to do with the author, Robbie Folkard, and everything to do with the Weekly Worker's editor, who has a rather unfortunate habit of inventing facts concerning meetings he did not attend.

You can read the CPGB's reports of the Convention and the Hopi debate here.

Sex Workers' Rights

Earlier today, a Christian evangelist targeted university freshers with the following question : "Who would you rather speak to: a prostitute or a Christian?" It's a fairly bizarre query, and yet the answer in my mind is clear. When it comes to this sort of Christian, I would far rather speak to the prostitute. Every time. And on that note, here's my short article for the freshers' magazine of Manchester University's women's rights group, the Riveters.

UK Sex Workers need decriminalisation and unionisation, not condemnation!

Between November and December 2006 the bodies of five murdered women were discovered in Ipswich, Suffolk. All of the women were prostitutes or sex workers from the local area. In the media furore surrounding the gruesome discoveries, traditional stereotypes of prostitutes spread like wild fire. The prostitutes were not being portrayed as women, they were not workers; they were addicts, whores, barely human. In The Daily Mail, Richard Littlejohn wrote: ‘It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of “work”, death by strangulation is an occupational hazard’. According to Littlejohn, the death of these women was ‘no great loss’. When it came to sex workers, journalists waited in line to condemn and to dehumanise.

When people are asked what a prostitute is they almost invariably respond with ‘someone who sells their body for money’. But this is deceptive: at the end of the transaction, the client does not own the woman (or man’s) body. What is actually being sold is a sexual service. If prostitution is defined purely in market terms, it represents the co modification of sexual practice. Traditionally, many feminists have labelled sex work as violence against women, arguing that no woman would ever choose to sell sex. In doing so, they have given into the temptation to moralise, rather than enter into an honest and open dialogue with sex workers. For them, proposals to improve safety , either by decriminalising or promoting self-organisation, are seen not as a real method for improving the lives of working women, but as another step along the road to legitimising violence.

Are prostitutes workers, just like the rest of us, or are they merely victims? Karl Marx asserted that ‘prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer’ and this is every bit as true today as in the 19th century. Britain’s first major trade union to invite sex workers into its ranks was the GMB, a union with over 600,000 members, whose delegates voted unanimously in favour. This is a positive step forward for women in an industry where drug use and violence is rife. The Guardian’s Julie Bindel - the same “feminist” who believes that homosexuality is a conscious choice - asked ‘how can a union on the one hand campaign against violence against women, but unionise it at the same time?’ In doing so, she completely failed to listen to the voices and needs of sex workers. In fact, unionisation is an integral part of seeking a way to protect some of the most vulnerable women within the framework of the capitalist system. More importantly, in being able to organise themselves as workers, those who work in the sex industry are able to empower themselves.

We live in an age when pole dancing is sold to us as a fitness exercise; when the line between liberation and subjugation is continuously being blurred by a media telling modern women “you can have it all” and that the need for feminism or women’s liberation movements is dead. Moreover, as elements of sexual subculture go mainstream, not all of them are negative. Burlesque performance, a form of erotic dancing filled with comedy, irony and plenty of sequins, has a huge number of female fans. Its roots can be traced to a form of comic satire, popular in 19th century music halls. Most burlesque performers cite their work as a form of female empowerment: as positive, liberating and, above all, extremely fun.

These are not the only positive steps being taken today. Sex workers and their allies developed ‘Ava Caradonna’, a kind of collective identity designed to overcome the stigma directed at them. And recently on prime time TV, a minority of members of the Women’s Institute, formerly the home of knitwear and jam-making, decided to go on the hunt for the perfect brothel. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t find it. What they did find, however, was a lot of intelligent women, who were convincing in their certainty that they didn’t need to be rescued.

I have heard some feminists cite Sweden - where men can be prosecuted for hiring prostitutes - as an example of where the UK should be heading. However, according to the English Collective of Prostitutes, this ‘disregards prostitute women's experience[s]… Swedish sex workers describe being forced underground, hunted by police, social workers, media and even anti-prostitution feminists.’ For the English Collective of Prostitutes there is only one solution: decriminalisation. Calling for a safer working environment for sex workers isn’t about ensuring there’s plenty of women to meet the needs of demanding men. It isn’t about bringing new recruits to the sex industry. It’s about a shared respect and understanding for the experiences of thousands of women in the UK.

Labour Party, Stop the War and awkward questions

Saturday's Stop the War demonstration had a disappointing turn out. It was the 21st major protest organised by Stop the War and, although larger than June's London demo of roughly 500, there were still only 1000-2000 protesters. Not quite the 5000 the SWP are claiming. At the beginning of the march, Chris Nineham could be seen flitting around anxiously, directing stewards like a General overseeing his armies. When the protesters finally started marching, the atmosphere was subdued and any chanting was localised. The noise made outside the Labour Party Conference could not have been enough to disturb too many of the 17,000 delegates. Like many who have been part of Stop the War for a substantial amount of time, I am ever more concerned at the dwindling numbers who turn out to protest. Each march is the same- the same speakers, the same tactics - but the numbers grow ever fewer. And yet isn't the war as unpopular as ever? Even two years ago, Stop the War could attract 50,000 to demonstrate outside Labour's conference; two years ago, protesters greatly outnumbered delegates- on Saturday, we were a minority.

It's time we started asking where Stop the War is going wrong... And making sure we keep our questioning gaze firmly fixed on the Coalition's leadership.

Convention of the Left began straight after the demonstration. Packed into the Friends Meeting House, it was a pleasant surprise to see so many left-wingers actually sitting in a room together and the debate, for a short time at least, not being quite so heated as usual. Tony Benn gave a speech that was sweet if not a tad optimistic. The driving force behind the Convention, John Nicholson, failed fairly quickly in his attempts to not pick Comrades from the same organisation, by choosing two members of Permanent Revolution straight away. The first of these speakers commented on the identity of the Left; most of the room consisted of white middle-aged males. The second of the PR speakers pointed out that there was nothing especially Socialist about dropping such principles as LGBT rights in the name of opportunist projects such as the SWP's Respect. Lindsey German, sitting next to him, looked awkward. When she spoke, she provided little by way of answers- the answers that so many SWPers and ex-SWPers desperately need.

Try telling that to the Zapatistas!

I'm checking my emails while the house mates watch TV. “For a long time now Mexico has been ready for a revolution…” My ears prick up. What’s this? “…And now it’s here…” I glance up at the TV but can’t see anything interesting. “…Discovery is a revolution in Mexican food!” Ahhhh, I see.

Later on, “There is a revolution going on. Millions of people are waking up and seizing power…” I look at the TV. Nope, nothing. “Oral B, power to the people!” Toothbrush adverts. I doubt that’s quite what John Lennon had in mind when he sang those same words.

Advertising revolutions are everywhere. Jamie Oliver wants to start a food revolution. Smirnoff is leading a vodka revolution. Pringles are at the forefront of a taste revolution.

Whatever happened to a good old Socialist revolution?

More war? No thanks.

Reading the comments on the BBC’s ‘Have Your Say’ is a hobby. It’s something to amuse when you’ve got a spare five minutes, like a low fat version of bird watching or train spotting, only more fun and - I hope - slightly less tragic. It’s not often that Have Your Say breaks away from narcissistic, almost invariably right-wing “it’s all the immigrants/Muslims/gays/PC brigade/namby pamby liberals’ fault” comments, but today I was actually pleasantly surprised. Asked whether the War on Terror was a good thing, even most Have Your Sayers think not. In fact, the top fifteen highest ranked comments were all anti war when I checked. Nice.

The Tories and the Lap Dancers

Yes, the very same Conservative Party members who called for communities to have greater say in whether lap dancing clubs open in their area, have been issued with a discount voucher for a nearby establishment, the Rocket Club, in their party conference packs. The party hardcore are no doubt salivating at the prospect. Currently, lap dancing clubs are licensed in much the same way as a coffee shop; there is little room for the local community to object. The Conservatives, however, say that communities should be able to say whether lap dancing clubs are right for their area- essentially they should be given a veto on the question. And yet those who were so quick to condemn have now been issued with a £10 voucher in their conference packs. Tory spokespersons are all claiming it was an innocent mistake; I prefer to see it as hypocrisy.

Hearing the news, Ann Widdecombe bemoaned the lack of traditional values left in her party and asked “Can you imagine what our old ladies are going to make of it if they turn up there by mistake?" It’s not something I want to imagine, Ann.

Force feeding of girls as young as seven!

Watching Al Jazeera a couple of weeks ago, brought something to my attention that I’d never even heard of before - the force feeding (gavage) of pre-pubescent girls, the intention being to make them fat, in the otherwise undernourished country of Mauritania in North West Africa. The idea behind it appears to be an acceptance of obesity as the beauty norm- dangerously unhealthy obesity is regarded as highly attractive in much the same way as dangerously unhealthy thinness (and the “size zero” trend) is over here. A fat wife has a husband who cares for her; moreover, her size is viewed as evidence of her husband’s wealth and social status.

In the footage shown on Al Jazeera, girls as young as seven are forced to eat huge quantities of food and drink massive amounts of milk. They are frequently sick. They cry and beg for the feeding to stop. But it continues. Obese girls reach puberty earlier, we are told. The sooner they reach puberty, the sooner they can be married. Those who force this tradition on their daughters, or even make a livelihood out of “fat farms”, do not see it as child abuse. They believe they are making the girls more beautiful, more eligible.

According to the BBC, by 2004 only 11% of women in the country were subjected to force feeding as children. But that’s still 11% too many.

And even where traditional methods of force feeding, such as funneling millet and milk down a girl’s throat, appear to have ended, there are new methods in use to achieve a suitable level of fatness. Women of all ages take pills, sometimes ones not even intended for human consumption. Street vendors struggle to import new pills; the demand is unrelenting.

Dogs, Fleas, Pigs and… Sean Matgamna

It seems the last couple of days have been a leftie blogger’s heaven. One minute, we have Rees and German resigning from the National Council of the Left Alternative (did they jump, or were they pushed?) and the next minute Sean Matgamna comes out with some more first-class “debate” material.

Following the degeneration of Sean Matgamna’s rants from Israeli apologist tripe to the realm of the bizarre and/or evil, I am often left wondering whether anyone bothers to read what he has to say these days, or whether the confused patriarch is simply left alone to scribble whatever angry thoughts pop into his head. Has the Matgamna cult become so all-encompassing that the rest of the AWL don’t get a little embarrassed at the actions of their erratic leader? I suspect not. Scattered all across the land, there must have been AWLers cringing into their cornflakes this morning as they perused Matgamna’s latest offerings, an attempt at a polemic against Israeli Socialist and HOPI steering member, Moshe Machover, in today’s copy of Solidarity.

For the morbidly-inclined, you too can read what Matgamna has to say right here.

In the interests of those who, intent upon the preservation of their mental health, do not wish to trawl through five pages of bewildered rambling, allow me to present the conclusion, and absolute highlight, for your perusal:

“You and I [Moshe Machover] are trapped on the fifth story of a building that is burning beneath us, flames coming out of the windows on three sides. I look around and suggest; “Let’s tie these two ropes together, put some knots in them for handholds, and climb down. The ropes are not long enough, and we will have to jump the last storey. We may get hurt a bit, or break a leg or two, but we will survive”.

“You say: “No! We’ll most likely rope-burn our hands on the way down. One sort of burn is as bad as another. There is no difference!

“You say: "You have fallen in love with the fire, haven’t you? You want to compromise with fire and smoke and soot by running from it, by accepting its ‘definition’ of you! You are a pyromaniac! A filthy sootist!

““I know what to do. We should grow wings now and fly out of the window, rise and soar above it all, free of the fire and the soot and the filthy contamination with pyromania”.

“I reply: “Moshe, I’d love to grow wings, but genetic engineering hasn’t got that far yet. We simply can’t grow wings in time. The only solution to our dilemma is to climb down. We must move carefully, a step at a time”.

“You reply: “Don’t be silly! I know a great Yiddish song about wings. Let’s sing that. I know the lessons of Jewish history. We must learn to fly. It’s the only thing”. You start to sing: “On a wagon bound for market/ Sat a calf with a mournful eye…’”

Yes, comrades, Matgamna is truly coming out with such gold. As one commenter on the AWL website put it: the AWL really is the gift that keeps on giving. This time, however, his contributions have entered a whole new stage of - how can I put this politely? - absurdity. He reminds me of one of my older relatives, a great uncle, who likes to talk in sayings. Red sky at night, never look a gift horse… All that sort of stuff. Matgamna likes doing this too. Keen to impart some of his own inimitable wisdom, he informs us that “if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas; and if you frolic with pigs, you get splattered with mud.” Wise words, I’m sure. Thanks for the advice, Sean.


The thing with Matgamna is he always has a way with words. At times, he appears like a man who has swallowed a dictionary. At other times, one can only imagine his feverish thought process as he attempts to come up with an accurate analogy that truly expresses his creative urges. Arguing with Moshe, for example, “is like waltzing on ice with an india-rubber man!” Not something most people have tried, I’m afraid. I guess we’ll all have to take Matgamna’s word for it.

Kitsch!

I’m occasionally bewildered by the language employed by the Left. In the past I have commented on SWP’s comrades labelling me as “ultra-leftist”, “petit-bourgeois”, “Hekmatist” and even “Islamophobic”, depending on which way the wind is blowing, or which new term has entered their vocabulary on that particular day. But it’s by no means an isolated phenomenon. Take the AWL, for instance. They throw around their own particular buzz word, “kitsch”, like the word is going to expire in a couple of weeks and until then they should use it as much as possible, just because they can. If I had a pound for every time an AWLer has wantonly labelled HOPI/Stop the War/Troops Out Now/David Broder/not being a Zionist/genuine anti-imperialism “kitsch”, I would be very rich indeed.

Now, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, the meaning of kitsch is this: “art, decorative objects or design considered by many people to be ugly, lacking in style, or false but enjoyed by other people, often because they are funny”. Errrr… Ok. I’m assuming that the objection to anti-imperialism (here defined by the simple formula of not siding with the agents of imperialism against the Iranian working class) is nothing to do with it being ugly, lacking in style or funny; it must be the “false but enjoyed by other people” bit that’s causing the difficulties.

False but enjoyed by other people… Well, writing an article based around the idea that there is no name in which the Left could condemn a pre emptive strike on Iran (it’s called Socialist Internationalism, Matgamna!) seems to me pretty false. Objectively playing into the imperialists’ hands is pretty false too. Falsely propagating the lie that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, contrary to generally accepted opinion, yeah, that’s a pretty false thing to do.

Yes, comrades, I’m going to say it. The AWL, victims of their own terminology, are kitsch. Now let us hear no more of that stupid word.

“Absolute Anti-Zionism”

Self-proclaimed Zionist, Matgamna, goes on to talk about something he sees as really, really bad: “absolute anti-Zionism”. If you were to ask me to name something bad, I could come up with something worse- the news that Israel has just annexed thousands of hectares of land in the West Bank. That’s my idea of bad, as well as dreadful and disgusting. “Absolute anti-Zionism”, on the other hand, is Matgamna’s way of talking about people who aren’t Zionists, people who don’t use their media to spread the lies of the Israeli ruling class (i.e. pretending that Iran, a non-nuclear power, threatens Israel, a power cosy in its possession of a huge store of nuclear arms).

Matgamna goes on to write: “You denounce the existing Israel for not being the opposite of what it actually is.” Errrrrr, I’m sorry- what?!? Can we have that again in plain English? “You denounce the existing Israel for not being the opposite of what it actually is.” Nope, no clearer second time round. But anyway, one thing we can understand is the accusation that Machover is working in tandem with the very forces that support “Islamist clerical-fascism”. Who do you reckon that is supposed to refer to? HOPI? I must have missed the part of our founding statement where we pledge allegiance to Islamist clerical-fascism. Or perhaps it means the CPGB, in which case I’m most interested to find out that I’ve spent the last year in a relationship with someone who supports clerical fascists. It’s funny how little you can know about the person you live with.

But what is clerical-fascism, anyway? It’s a bogus term, something the AWL appear to have inherited from none other than Tony Cliff! What it does show is a blatant lack of understanding of what exactly fascism is, and more importantly, what fascism means to a Marxist. Fascism is this: the creation of a mass populist movement, designed to be the "shock troops" of the most reactionary sections of the ruling class against the organised workers' movement, mobilising these forces through an illusory "socialism" that bears no resemblance to the real thing. Let’s not soften the meaning of genuine fascism, by attaching the word to whichever reactionary religious force Matgamna points his finger at.

Nuclear Proliferation and Annihilation

Matgamna, Matgamna, Matgamna… Where can you possibly go now? You have already decided that when HOPI proposed standing in solidarity with radical secular movements against the Iranian regime, what it actually meant 'was support the theocracy unreservedly'. Likewise, in an admirable leap of logic (well, not exactly admirable… or logic for that matter…) Matgamna infers that when HOPI raises the demand for a regional nuclear-free zone, “it cannot but soften specific opposition to the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which would, at best, mean the emergence of a nuclear balance of terror in the region”. Ok… So calling for a nuclear-free Middle East is actually a method of glossing over the nuclear arms programme that Iran doesn’t have. I see.

I’ll tell you what, with each day the AWL are becoming more and more like spokespersons for Israel and the US. In fact, the imperialists should pay them for all the hard work they’re putting in.

Stalin, Stalinists and Stalinism

One thing that really jumped out at me from Matgamna’s article is this: Stalinism. It pops up a gob smacking nineteen times in fact. This is Stalinist. That is Stalinist. Everything is Stalinist. Everything except the AWL that is; they are the enlightened few. So yes, there are nineteen mentions of Stalin, Stalinists and Stalinism, exactly zero of which are the product of rational analysis or even the most basic understanding of what the term means. In fact, Sean Matgamna calling other left groups Stalinist is a bit like Nick Griffin calling John Rees a fascist… It just doesn’t work.

Something which always puzzles me about Matgamna’s works - aside from the ridiculous hyperbole, usage of a lot of long words (does he think that if he only confuses people enough, they might not realise he’s talking crap?) and the tendency, highlighted above, to chuck into the mix a few sayings/proverbs/wives’ tales - is his utter hypocrisy. This time, Matgamna denounces Machover for the religious overtones he uses by talking about evil. Hmmmm. I never knew that the believers owned a monopoly on good and evil. Enlightening stuff. However, in lunging for Mashover’s throat, Matgamna conveniently forgets that in his original article he, rather strangely I thought, said that Ahmadinejad should be sent to Hell…

Shooting fish in a barrel

Sometimes, I get a little bit tired of attacking the AWL. But then, just when I think I could be going a little over the top, I remember something. When it comes to the ruling class of one country versus the working class of another, you can’t claim to be a Socialist and then pick the ruling class. That’s what Sean Matgamna’s original “discussion article” did. This isn’t me being misleading; it’s plain fact. If you call yourself a Socialist and then can’t come up with a single reason why a no doubt imminent (and deadly) attack on Iran should be condemned, you aren’t a Socialist. You are siding with the imperialists against the same Iranian workers, women, students, trade unionists and socialists that you talk so much about defending. What use is the AWL’s idea of solidarity to Iranian people who might soon be dead in the ground?

In a complicated world, some things are very simple. Does Iran have nukes? No. Does Israel have nukes? Yes. So who poses the real threat to who?

‘Serious socialists tell the story about both sides,’ Matgamna writes, referring to the imperialists on the one hand and Iran on the other. In fact, telling both sides is something a lot of Socialists don’t have any trouble doing. I do it. I imagine most people reading this are perfectly capable of doing the same. Not Matgamna, however. Not the AWL. They tell the story of an Israeli ruling class looking to attack Iran. They tell the story of Israeli imperialists pretending that Iran is a terrifying threat on the horizon. They don’t tell the story of an Iran that, according to general consensus, is not developing nuclear weapons. They don’t tell the story of an Iranian working class that doesn’t want to be slaughtered, thank you very much.

To add insult to injury, at their National Committee the AWL decided to drop the phrase “oppose an attack” on Iran… They now “don’t take responsibility for it”; they are, in their own half-hearted way, “against it”. But that’s it.

By propagating the myths of the imperialists and failing to stand with Iranian comrades, the AWL has jumped into bed with imperialism. Let’s hope the love affair ends soon.

Sex and the Revolution

A group of Manchester Marxists, including myself, have come together to form a new group, the Marxist Radical Forum. From this year's Freshers' Fair at Manchester University (22nd September) we will be publishing a monthly newsletter, called the Left Opposition, featuring articles from across the Left. Our first meeting, 'Sex and the Revolution' is being held in Meeting Room 4 of Manchester University Students' Union on Oxford Road at 5.30pm, September 29th. Speakers include Catherine, an activist from the International Union of Sex Workers, and someone called Vicky from Permanent Revolution. No idea who she might be.

Check out the Marxist Radical Forum's blog here.

This week's prize for stating the obvious goes to the CPB

The lead story on the Communist Party of Britain website is "Communists warn workers face tough times".

I'm sure everyone is most appreciative of the warning.

National Union of Students Honorary Vice-President faces imprisonment in Iran!

Hands Off the People of Iran Press release:

On September 4 at 11am, Anooshe Azadbar - overwhelming voted one of its honorary vice presidents by the British student union at its annual conference in April - was brought before a court in Iran. She faced multiple charges:

* plotting against the Islamic regime
* plotting against the Islamic order
* acting against Iranian national interests with a left wing group

This arose from her prominent involvement in the December 4 2007 demonstrations where Hands Off the People of Iran placards were prominent.

Anooshe denied the charges, stating that this was a legal student demonstration against the threat of war, not an explicitly anti-regime protest.

In court, it was pointed out that this contradicted what she had said under interrogation. Anooshe replied that these statements had been obtained after she had been subjected to great psychological pressure. She also claimed to have been tortured.

Vague charges were also made that she had either received financial help from leftwing groups or had given money to certain groups. Her lawyer denied these charges, simply pointing out that as his client is penniless, she is clearly neither receiving money or in a position to dish it out. The judge eventually decided that the dossier was ‘incomplete’ and so Anooshe must go back to court at a later date for further questioning.

It is not clear when the next court hearing will be. She will be summoned to give another interview at the prosecutor’s office and following this there will be another court appearance. She is not the only student leader currently facing this oppression – it is estimated that another four or five other students are facing similar court procedures.

The crimes they are accused of carry maximum sentences of 11 years.

Ben Lewis of the Hopi steering committee commented:

“The dominant trend within the Islamic regime is clearly using the tension generated by the sabre-rattling of imperialism to clamp down on internal dissent. The harassment of our comrade Anooshe Azadbar comes at the same time as the sentencing of women’s rights activists of the One Million Signatures campaign to six-month prison terms and the ominous threats against the 2003 Peace Nobel Laureate, Shirin Ebadi, who has been dubbed an agent of Zionism.

“It seems the regime will not tolerate even mild-mannered reformist attempts to moderate its repressive rule, let alone the militant action of students. The threat of war plays into their hands - that’s why we stand against the war-mongering of the imperialists and the repressive regime in Tehran.”

Hopi demands that all charges against Anooshe Azadbar are immediately dropped. Our campaign will be organising press conferences and protests in solidarity with the arrested students. See subsequent releases and our website for details.

Notes for journalists

1. The December 4 2007 demonstrations marked Student Day at the University of Tehran. During the lead-up left activists were condemned by the government, and students were warned not to attend.

2. Student Day has been commemorated for 54 years in honour of three martyrs killed by the former shah’s regime during protests against the visit of Richard Nixon to Iran.

3. On Saturday December 2 2007, while student activists were preparing for Student Day, arrests started. Mehdi Gerailoo and Nader Ahsani were kidnapped from their own homes by the security forces. In the afternoon two students of the sociology faculty at the University of Tehran - Victoria Jamshidi and Anoosheh Azadbar - were arrested at their home without any explanation. The arrests continued until Student Day itself, when a minimum of 26 students from various universities were rounded up.

4. The demo, organised by the organisation Radical Left students, went ahead. Revolutionary songs were sung. Students held up placards with slogans such as: “No war”, “Hands Off the People of Iran”, “The university is not an army garrison”, “The liberty of women is the liberty of society”, “Free the political prisoners”, “There is an alternative”, “Free our classmates”, “The students movement allied with the workers’ and women’s movements”, “We want independent unions” and “Freedom and equality!”

Comedian Sean Lock on Sarah Palin:

"She's pro-life and pro-gun. That's like being a butcher and a vet."

Helen Mirren: rape is a "tricky" area

Acclaimed actress Helen Mirren has - quite rightly - come under attack for comments concerning rape made in an interview with GQ. Here's the worst:

"I was date raped, yes. A couple of times. Not with excessive violence, or being hit, but rather being locked in a room and made to have sex against my will... It's such a tricky area, isn't it? Especially if there is no violence. I mean, look at Mike Tyson. I don't think he was a rapist...

"[If a man ignores a woman's last minute 'no'] I don't think she can have that man into court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the many subtle parts of the men/women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them."

No, Helen. Just no.

Revolutionary friends- Bolivia and Iran

Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, has today visited Iran to meet with Ahmadinejad for the second time. Although both are fierce critics of the US, the two presidents have little else in common. Morales, however, described the two nations as "friendly and revolutionary countries". More here...

Hearing Iran described as "revolutionary" will come as a surprise to the internal opponents of the Iranian regime, to the students and trade unionists who have been imprisoned, and to all socialists and radical secular movements.

Check out the blog of the Freedom and Equality Seeking Students in Iran here.