BNP Targets Oil Refinery Strikes

It's hardly surprising on one level, and yet enough to fill me with anger on the other. The fascist BNP has been targetting the wildcat strikes that have swept across the country in response to the employment of the Italian workers at the Lindsey Oil Refinery. Fascists on Stormfront have been rejoicing at the strikes, praising the strikers and mocking the response of the "Marxist Unions" (if only). One fascist even declares "all Capitalists have Semitic souls", an obvious example of the racist filth that drives these people.

At Grimsby, not so far from where my family comes from, a BNP team has joined the 1000 striking workers. This is the "BNP representing British workers on the front line. Proud!!!" reads one of the site's comments. "This is a great day for British Nationalism..." said a BNP spokesman.

We must be clear about what the fascists are doing here: fascism, by its very nature, is an ideology designed to crush workers' organisation- it is, to put it simply, the last resort of the ruling class when faced with a strong workers' movement. At this time, however, the BNP is agitating amongst the strikers in order to pit domestic worker against migrant worker, directing the workers' anger towards race, when it should be directed at those in charge. The BNP is not offering solidarity to the striking workers; it seeks to manipulate their legitimate fears over the selection of cheap EU labour instead of the skilled local workers, to serve its own ends. These people are such enemies of the labour movement that they had to start their own fascist union, Solidarity (which, according to the last membership figure realised, has 124 members).

All of this begs the question: where is the left? On Channel 4 news there was the BNP "Truth Truck" driving back and forth past the picket lines at Warrington, but no sign of an organised left. This is not the time to be turning a blind eye. We cannot allow the BNP to agitate amongst the strikers unchallenged- it is absolutely imperative that those near the strikes mobilise. The Left must back the strikes, but make it clear that the enemies are the Capitalists who hire migrant labour to bring down pay and conditions, and undercut union activity.

Interview with me in a German socialist daily

In Großbritannien protestieren Studierende gegen Israels Kriegsverbrechen an den Palästinensern. Ein Gespräch mit Vicky Thompson

Interview: Wladek Flakin

Vicky Thompson ist ­Studentin der Religionswissenschaft an der ­Universität Manchester

In Großbritannien haben jetzt Studierende aus Protest gegen den Krieg in Gaza zahlreiche Universitäten besetzt. Wie ist es dazu gekommen?

Die erste Aktion gab es in der SOAS, der Schule für Orientalische und Afrikanische Studien an der Universität London. Die Studierenden besetzten dort eine Ausstellung des Verteidigungsministeriums und forderten die Hochschulleitung auf, den israelischen Angriff auf Gaza zu verurteilen. Zwei Tage später geschah das auch, und zusätzlich bekam das Militär für die nächsten fünf Jahre verboten, das Uni-Gelände zu nutzen.

Als nächstes wurde die London School of Economics (LSE) besetzt; die Studenten harrten dort sieben Tage aus, bis ihre Forderungen erfüllt wurden. Bis heute wurden mindestens 16 Universitäten in ganz Großbritannien besetzt. Es dauerte ein paar Tage, bis die Protestwelle auch den Norden Englands erreichte, aber am Ende kam sie auch dort an.

Was war der Auslöser für diese Proteste?

Viele Studenten waren wütend über die Massaker der Israelis in Gaza; darüber hinaus waren sie aufgebracht über die vielen Lügen in den Massenmedien und die Weigerung ihrer Universitätsleitungen, zum Krieg Stellung zu beziehen. Wenn auch nur für kurze Zeit – wir Studierenden haben die Macht an den Universitäten in die eigenen Hände genommen. Es war eine aufregende Erfahrung.

Welche Forderungen wurden erhoben?

Die meisten Forderungen drehen sich darum, Investitionen in Israel rückgängig zu machen und palästinensische Studenten finanziell zu unterstützen. An manchen Universitäten wurde auch zum Boykott israelischer Erzeugnisse aufgerufen. In Leeds forderten die Besetzer gar die Ausweisung des Botschafters und das Ende jeder britischen Unterstützung für Israel. Sie haben unsere volle Unterstützung: Selbst wenn unsere Forderungen nicht erfüllt werden, machen sie der Öffentlichkeit die Lage in Gaza bewußt.

Sie erwähnten die Erfolge bei der SOAS und der LSE. Ging es anderswo auch so reibungslos?

In Oxford war die Besetzung nach zwölf Stunden beendet, weil die Forderungen umgehend erfüllt wurden. Es dauerte zwei Tage, bis die Besetzung in Essex zum Sieg führte. An der Stadtuniversität von Manchester hatten wir schon nach 27 Stunden einen Teilerfolg. Viele Besetzungen gehen mittlerweile in die zweite Woche. Reibungslos war es aber nicht überall: In Birmingham wurde die Universität schon am ersten Tag von der Polizei geräumt. Die Ergebnisse sind also sehr unterschiedlich.

Sie haben an der Besetzung in Manchester teilgenommen. Wie war Ihre Erfahrung?

Ich studiere zwar an der anderen Universität der Stadt, bin aber mit zahlreichen Kommilitonen aus Solidarität zur Stadtuniversität gegangen. Wir liefen zuerst die Oxford Road entlang – mit Sprechchören, Transparenten und Plakaten. Dann drangen wir in einen Hörsaal ein und besetzten anschließend das Geoffrey-Manton-Gebäude.

Das war eine spontane Entscheidung, wir hatten daher keinerlei Vorbereitungen getroffen. Erst am nächsten Morgen bekamen wir etwas zu essen und zu trinken, über Nacht knurrten uns die Mägen, und wir froren jämmerlich, da wir keine Schlafsäcke hatten. Das war bestimmt nicht die beste Nacht in meinem Leben. Es gab auch Ärger mit privaten Wachleuten – eine Frau wurde von ihnen verletzt. Insgesamt war es ziemlich schwierig.

Immerhin konnten wir einige Forderungen durchsetzen: Die Uni-Leitung verurteilte in einer öffentlichen Erklärung den israelischen Überfall auf Gaza, außerdem soll Tom Hurndall, ein von der israelischen Armee ermordeter Student der Stadtuniversität, ein Denkmal bekommen. Das sind zwar keine großen Erfolge – aber es ist ein guter Anfang.

Werden die Besetzungen weitergehen?

Ja, wir machen weiter. Ich weiß natürlich nicht, ob es neue Besetzungen geben wird, aber ich vermute, daß wir in Manchester einen neuen Anlauf starten. Es muß auch nicht immer eine Besetzung sein – es gibt viele andere Möglichkeiten für unseren Protest. Das Wichtigste ist jetzt die praktische Solidarität mit den Palästinensern – wir sammeln also Geld und Medikamente für die Hilfskonvois.

Strike for teacher sacked over trainers!

Members of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) at St Paul's Way Community School in the East London borough of Tower Hamlets have given a substantial boost to the campaign to win the reinstatement of their victimsed NUT rep, Adrian Swain. In an indicative ballot, conducted by post, 81% of NUT members said 'yes' to discontinuous strike action on a turnout of 88%.

A member of the school's entirely unaccountable Interim Executive Board summarily dismissed Adrian on Thursday 18 December for his continued defiance of an imposed dress code that barred the wearing of trainers, Adrian's customary footwear throughout his 17-year career at the school.

Management at the school should be notified later today (Tuesday 27 January) of the decision to move with immediate effect to an official strike ballot. A motion in Adrian's support gained unanimous support at the Monday evening meeting of the local NUT association, ELTA. Despite this and the outcome of the indicative ballot, ELTA secretary, Alex Kenny, spoke only of the outcome of a consultation exercise on the dress code and Adrian's willingness to abide by its outcome rather than making an unequivocal call for Adrian's reinstatement.

Following a 40-strong protest on 16 January, a further demonstration is planned by NUT members for Monday evening 09 February outside a full meeting of Tower Hamlets Council, the education authority ultimately responsible for St Paul's Way, to escalate the demand for Adrian's return to his rightful place at the school. Details to follow.

For background info, here is a briefing I was requested to write for the Weekly Worker on Adrian's case. They refused to publish it, explaining that 1) It didn't question whether or not Adrian was right to act as he did 2) It didn't suggest the two possible paths that the CPGB believe could have been taken: a) getting everyone to wear trainers to defy the dress code or b) retreating to fight another day...

Adrian Swain, a supporter of Permanent Revolution and NUT rep for St Paul’s school in Tower Hamlets, was sacked before Christmas, after daring to defy a dress code imposed without consultation by a temporary head teacher. Adrian, a popular and experienced maths teacher, committed only one crime: wearing trainers. In the immediate aftermath of his dismissal, Adrian’s case received huge publicity, appearing in the East London Advertiser and Evening Standard, before being taken up by the Guardian, the Telegraph and even the Daily Mail. His dismissal clearly tapped into overwhelming public feeling that education is suffering at the hands of bureaucratisation and a government that cares more about targets than teaching.

Even George Galloway MP came out in support of Adrian, declaring ‘of all the difficulties facing children in Tower Hamlets - poverty, overcrowding, lack of resources, and an education system geared to testing not teaching - it is truly astonishing that a well liked and experienced teacher has been sacked for what he was wearing on his feet.’ But then, we have to be very clear that Adrian was not singled out by the management for wearing trainers; he was singled out as a fierce NUT rep and a communist militant. The NUT group at St Paul’s Way is reputedly one of the best organised NUT groups in London. Its members have a record of thwarting management attacks and even took strike action against the Iraq War. Adrian’s decades of experience as a fighter in the labour movement had made him a target.

The failure to prevent his sacking in large measure stems from the repeated failure of the East London Teachers Association leadership to take a decisive stand against St Paul's Way management and in support of Adrian. This is in sharp contrast to the stance of the neighbouring Hackney Teachers Association, which has managed to stymie efforts to take action against another maths teacher at Haggerston Girls School for having the temerity to wear an eyebrow stud. Partly, however, responsibility also lies with the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Teachers Alliance. Not recognising the attack on Adrian as an attack on trade union activity, they spoke out against backing Adrian against the management and smashed the attempt to forge a united campaign against his victimisation.

Of course, the campaign to have Adrian reinstated will not be won without industrial action and in recent days, Adrian has received news that the NUT Action Committee has agreed to ballot for discontinuous strike action. This is a positive step forward for Adrian and all those who wish to fight management attacks on trade union activity.

Women are losing jobs twice as fast as men

The recession is hitting British women harder than men it seems, with women losing their jobs twice as quickly as men in these hard times. One of the key reasons for this is most likely down to bosses discriminating against female employees on the grounds of the added cost associated with maternity leave. The number of women in full time work fell by a staggering 53,000 in the last quarter- could the recession leave women out of the workforce for a generation?

Solidarity with Greek Protesters!

Protesters calling for the release of prisoners from last month's riots assembled in Athens today. It is believed a total of 67 people (50 in Athens) are still being held, after the fifteen days of rioting that followed the murder of Alexandros Grigoropoulos. Several hundred protesters, mainly anarchists, crowded into Athens' shopping district, where they allegedly attacked and looted a Nike shop. Banks are also said to have been damaged in the course of the march. Later on, there was clashes with riot police outside the University of Athens. More than 300 protesters then marched down to the district of Exarchia, where there were further clashes. The protesters set fire to trash cans and smashed pavements before being tear gassed and charged by riot police. Photos of the demonstration are difficult to come by; the picture shows rioters assembled behind a burning barricade on December 18th.

Three days ago, over 3000 marched to the Labour Ministry in Athens to protest against an acid attack on an immigrant cleaner, who was also a trade union activist. As the demonstrators began to disperse, there were clashes with police who were armed with tear gas, pepper spray and stun grenades.

Meanwhile, Greek anarchists have raised $18,000 for an elderly woman after her kiosk was torched in November riots. "It was an act of solidarity to a woman who could be our mother," one of the anarchists explained. "I feel very fortunate that these boys came along to help," said the 74 year old kiosk owner in response to the gift. She was not eligible for government compensation.

This is a Conservative Ohio Blog

It has come to my attention that I am listed as a Conservative Ohio blog on the Conservative American blog network site, netrightnation.com (run by Americans for Limited Government). Since I’m not remotely Conservative and haven’t so much as stepped on American soil in my lifetime, I’m guessing someone got a bit confused.

The Vice Chancellor's Response

At 9AM this morning, the students occupying the Freedom Theatre were greeted by Vice Chancellor John Brookes and the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Ann Holmes. Brookes entered the occupied lecture theatre with a smile on his face and helped himself to a cup of our tea. We began to film the meeting, but Brookes demanded that we could only film if he was also permitted to film each and every one of us and record our names. We refused. Brookes, clearly aware that the occupying students were from Manchester University and Salford University as well as Man Met, responded that he would have been "happy" with the occupation going ahead and "willing to support our objectives" if only we were comprised solely of Man Met students. This is clearly a lie, designed to make our Vice Chancellor look gracious and understanding, without obliging him to look at our demands or speak with us honestly.

Brookes argued that the occupation had been "Socialist Worker gatecrashed"; this is an attempt to undermine our protest, which has been supported by a wide range of groups and plenty of non-aligned students, as well as staff members and prominent trade unionists from UCU and UNISON. In fact, only two members of the SWP had took part in the overnight occupation.

One thing that came across from the meeting, was that Brookes was clearly on the defense, claiming that we were not a peaceful demonstration, unlike the "other occupations" that have been taking place across the country. He would have no "difficulty with students of this university [Man Met] having a friendly occupation and making a political statement". We doubt this immensely.

This is what the occupiers of the Freedom Theatre have to say in response to Vice Chancellor Brookes: university students from across Greater Manchester have joined with the students of Manchester Metropolitan, to stand together in support of their struggle and in solidarity with the people of Gaza. The purpose of an occupation is not to accept half-baked terms proposed by a Vice Chancellor unwilling to listen. We will not give in and nor will we allow Manchester Met students to be victimised for their role in the occupation. This space is under our occupation. We determine the rules, who may enter and what they may do. John Brookes must be aware that the students from other occupations, LSE and Oxford for instance, have won their demands. We shall do the same.

EDIT: The occupying students have accepted terms. No repercussions for students, a memorial to Tom Hurndall (MMU student murdered by the IDF) and a public condemnation of Israel by the Vice Chancellor.

We're occupying Man Met for the night!

I'm currently occupying a lecture theatre at Manchester Metropolitan University, alongside about twenty other students from Man Met, Man Uni and Salford Uni. We're occupying in solidarity with the people of Gaza, the victims of Israeli butchery. We're here for the night and the management has not let any food in; many of us haven't eaten since early in the morning, so we're very hungry! Security violence has left one woman mildly injured. Check out our website:

http://mmuoccupation.blogspot.com/

UPDATE: UNISON have fought hard for us but security personnel, at the behest of the management, are still refusing to let food into the occupation. They admit to trying to starve us out of the occupation.

Che Part One

Che, the unconventional biopic of Ernesto “Che” Guevara, opens with grainy black and white footage of an infamous figure wreathed in smoke. It’s Che, but we don’t recognise the physical qualities of the man at first, so much as the tell-tale Cuban cigar. The camera then pans out to show Che himself; he’s played by the acclaimed Puerto Ricon actor Benicio del Toro, who bears a startling resemblance to Guevara, despite being some ten years older than the revolutionary is in the film’s earliest scenes (earliest in the chronology of Che’s life- the film itself jumps here, there and everywhere, making the opening twenty minutes more than slightly confusing).

I should get my guilty confession out of the way now: I haven’t seen The Motorcycle Diaries, so Che director Steven Soderbergh’s claim that the film is best understood as the middle part of a trilogy, with The Motorcycle Diaries as its opening film, doesn’t really work for me. I did, however, know enough about Che Guevara to grasp what was going on, which is good since Soderbergh doesn’t exactly help the audience on that front. Indeed, the film plunges straight into a post-revolution interview with an American journalist in New York: Che is seen answering questions about the revolution before the audience has so much as been introduced to Fidel Castro. It’s a little frustrating.

I’m not usually swept away by guerrilla warfare films, but Che is compelling. Even when there’s not much fighting going on, the cinematography is to die for. The jungle is every single colour of green; the individual leaves jump out at you. The film intersperses the jungle warfare and later the urban fighting, with more grainy black and white footage (it’s like watching an old film reel) of Che in New York, being interviewed by an American journalist and even addressing the United Nations. But the address to the UN should really be the film’s climax: it’s an astounding oratory performance, and an excellent condemnation of the hollowness of American exportation of “freedom” abroad that still rings true today, but it comes too early on in the movie for the audience to feel it as it should be felt. Moreover, Benicio Del Toro himself is an excellent actor, but he’s given very little to do in Che. The camera never really gets close enough to intrude on the man’s thoughts. We get plenty of evidence of Che’s charisma from his relationship with the other fighters, but very little is shown of what drives him- what makes him human.

After the interminably grim, though excellent Defiance, Che is a breath of fresh air. It has light moments (Guevara thanking an American Senator for the Bay of Pings invasion is a particular favourite) but even the heavier parts are buoyed by Del Toro’s sheer likeability and the filmmakers’ obvious passion for the subject. One of the few problems with the film is some truly bad “suspense music” that breaks the credibility in a couple of places. Otherwise, however, it’s hard to come up with a major gripe with Che- except perhaps the fact that it‘s not really a film. It’s part one of a four hour epic and should no doubt be viewed that way. If you try to understand it as a film in its own right, the ending is deeply unsatisfying. In fact it’s reminiscent of the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, which closes with Sam and Frodo staring down into Mordor and the audience left waiting anxiously for the next part. Replace Mordor with Havana and you get the gist.

I hesitated to go and see Che. I suspected it to be all style over substance, and in a sense it kind of is. It’s also fucking good. Che is not an impartial attempt at a biopic; in fact there’s no neutrality at all in this reverent portrayal of one of history’s most iconic figures.

Victory for the Atheist Advertisers

Following my earlier post, Advertising Standards to Rule on Existence of God, is seems they have indeed made a ruling. The atheist adverts currently making the claim There's Probably No God on the side of 800 buses, do not breach advertising standards. 326 religious busybodies had complained about the advertisments (included the prejudiced morons at Christian Voice) but the ruling went against the faith brigade. Ha.

Victim of Gang Rape to be Deported Today

The Home Office has accepted that Ms Flavia Nambi, who has been in Yarl's Wood Removal Centre since Wednesday 14 January, was a victim of brutal gang rape while in her home country of Uganda. She is currently on suicide watch and due to be deported this evening. Her only surviving family member, an aunt, lives in the UK. Please phone or write to:

1. Phil Woolas MP, Immigration Minister, Home Office Minister of State for borders and immigration, UKBApublicenquiries@UKBA.gsi.gov.uk

2. Jacqui Smith MP, Secretary of State for the Home Office, Fax 020 8760 3132 Privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

3. European Court of Human Rights, Fax: +33 (0) 3 88 41 27 30, Tel: +33 (0) 3 88 41 20 18

4. Kenya Airways Flight KQ101 Telephone 01784 888 222

Send copies of emails sent to war@womenagainstrape.net

Die Linke Supports Zionist Slaughter

From the World Socialist Web Site

'The chairman of the Left Party in Berlin, Klaus Lederer, has come out publicly in support of the Israeli war against Gaza. He spoke last Sunday at a demonstration that unconditionally backed the military assault on the Palestinian population.

The pro-Israel demonstration had been called by Jewish organizations in Berlin and coincided with similar events in Munich and Frankfurt. The rally in Berlin was planned in response to a number of anti-war demonstrations that had taken place in Germany one day previously. Around 40,000 had taken part in the various anti-war protests.

For their part, the pro-war demonstrations organised by those supporting the Israeli military attracted only a few thousand—in the main full-time politicians and functionaries of various organisations. Those taking part in the rallies held banners calling for solidarity with Israel, reading: "Israel has a right to defend itself!" and "We need victory!"

The official appeal for the Berlin demonstration expressly defended the brutal military assault by the Israeli army on the inhabitants of Gaza, stating, "Israel's self-defence is legitimate and not a crime!" It then justified the enormous suffering of the 1.5 million Palestinian civilians in Gaza with the cynical remark that the "terrorists of Hamas" were using "human beings as shields" and thereby made "civilian victims inevitable." Hamas had "begun this conflict" and bears "responsibility for the suffering on both sides," the appeal declared.

The appeal concluded by demanding: "The Islamist dictatorship of the terrorist organisation Hamas must be permanently terminated!" thereby implicitly backing the extermination of Hamas leaders and members by the Israeli army.

Shortly after the Israeli invasion of Gaza, German chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) had proffered her unconditional support for Israel. But this was not enough for the organizers of the Berlin rally. They described Germany as an "active player in the conflict" and in particular criticised Germany's trade with Iran. According to the appeal, this meant that Germany was financing Iran and, via Iran, ultimately the Hamas movement.

Despite the hysterical tone of the appeal, all of the political parties represented in the Berlin Senate sent prominent representatives to the demonstration. Speaking on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) was the leader of the party's parliamentary fraction, Frank Henkel. The Free Democratic Party (FDP) sent its regional chairman, Markus Löning. Parliamental group leader Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig spoke for the Green Party, while the president of the state parliament, Walter Momper, was sent by the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Representing the Left Party was its regional chairman, Klaus Lederer.

Christian Democrat Henkel and the free-marketeer Löning won applause from the crowd for their pledges of unconditional support for Israel. Löning justified his support for the savage intervention of the Israeli army with the argument: "Freedom of opinion prevails in Israel and that distinguishes Israel from all of its neighbours." He deliberately refrained from mentioning that the Israeli army has established strict censorship over the war and—in contravention of a number of legal decisions—categorically refuses to allow independent journalists to enter the war area.

The representatives of the SPD and the Greens, Momper and Eichstädt-Bohlig, also lined up fully behind Israel and repeated the chorus of claims that Hamas was responsible for the war. However, when they timidly raised the suggestion of a negotiated solution, the belligerent pro-Israel crowd responded with an outburst of catcalls and booing. In fact, the representative of the Greens was barely able to continue her contribution after she asserted that the Palestinian population should have the right to exist and declared, "Israel cannot win this war morally!"

There was a very different reception, however, for the representative of the Left Party. His speech was interrupted on several occasions by applause and cries of jubilation. He obviously struck a chord with the assembled crowd when he accused all opponents of the war on Gaza of being anti-Semitic.

He had decided to come to the demonstration, Lederer declared, because in his opinion, "The brutal and bitter conflict in the Gaza Strip and in the south of Israel should not be used by anybody in our country to foment anti-Semitism." While not mentioning any names, his message the day after widespread protests against the attack on Gaza was unmistakable: any criticism of the Israeli government and its army is anti-Semitic and must be rejected.

In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the criminal actions of the Israeli government and its claim to be acting on behalf of all Jews—and not criticism of its politics—that encourages anti-Semitism. In Israel itself and around the world many Jews look upon the Israeli onslaught on Gaza with a mixture of abhorrence and anger and reject the policies of the Israeli government.

Lederer addressed the warmongering participants at the Berlin rally as "dear friends." Like all the other speakers, he ignored the prehistory of the war—the expulsion and decades-long suppression of the Palestinians—and declared the Kassam missiles fired by Hamas to be the root cause of the war. "Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies the firing of shells and rockets on populated areas of the civilian population, on [the Israeli areas] of Ashdod, Beer Sheva and Ashkelon," he said. "For me that is the starting point of any discussion in our country with respect to such demonstrations."

Lederer said nothing about the massive destruction of the populated areas in the Gaza Strip. He did not mention the desperation of the Palestinian population, which has no means to defend itself and lacks any escape route from the murderous advance of the Israeli military. Nor did he say a word about the disproportionate strength of the Israeli army, which has resulted in 100 Palestinian deaths for every Israeli fatality.

Instead Lederer wept crocodile tears over the suffering of the civilian population and held Hamas responsible. "No matter how highly developed the weapon systems used," he said, "irrespective of who leads the war, the disaster hits first and foremost the civilian population, not least because the hostage-taking of the civilian population belongs to the nature of modern war. And this is precisely the case in the asymmetrical conflict strategy, which Hamas is pursuing."

The appearance of a high-ranking functionary of the Left Party on a pro-war demonstration marks a further lurch to the right by this organisation. Since its foundation, the Left Party had—at least verbally—largely dissociated itself from the foreign policy of the federal government and had rejected the intervention by the German army in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Now in response to the Middle East conflict it has swung over to the official line of German foreign policy, in a similar manner to the Green Party 10 years ago.

A decade ago, in exchange for their seats in the federal government coalition, the Greens ditched their pacifist stance and supported the NATO war against Yugoslavia. They have since evolved into one of the most virulent supporters of German militarism.

The chairman of the federal Left Party parliamentary faction, Gregor Gysi, had set in motion the party's new course last spring when he made a memorable speech calling for a reorientation of political line with regard to Israel. He rejected the term "imperialistic" in characterising Israeli policy and called upon "the left" to acknowledge the right of existence of the state of Israel.

Lederer has now gone a step further by supporting Israel's vicious attack on the Palestinians. The fact that he does not stand alone is demonstrated by the absence of official representatives of the Left Party on the anti-war demonstrations the previous day.

Lederer is not a political nonentity. He is the chairman of the party in the only German state where the Left Party has shared government responsibility for the past eight years. In Berlin the Left Party, in coalition with the SPD, has demonstrated its loyalty to the bourgeois state and implemented social cuts far more draconian than those carried out in any other German state.

As the current economic and social crisis intensifies, the Left Party is now preparing to take up government responsibility at a federal level. To this end, it is required to adopt the fundamental pillars of German foreign policy, including unconditional support for Israel. The present war in Gaza has made it impossible for the Left Party to sit on the fence. It has to show its colours. It has now done so in the person of Klaus Lederer and his appearance on the pro-Israeli demonstration last Sunday.

"This is how we make a living" say sex workers

Since today is the day when the Policing and Crime Bill is being discussed (one of its aims being to make buying sex a criminal offense) I thought I'd bring you another post about sex work and the dangers of this Bill.

Making it a criminal offense to purchase sex does not keep prostitutes safe. In Scotland, since clients have been criminalised, the levels of violence towards prostitutes has soared; attacks reported to one project have almost doubled from 66 in 2006 to 126 in 2007, including eight reported rapes and 55 violent assaults.

In order to justify its push to criminalise clients, the government has been repeatedly claiming that 80% of sex workers are the victims of trafficking. This figure has been widely discredited: 80% of workers in the sex industry are estimated to be foreign nationals according to research, but we must be clear that foreign is not a synonym for forced. Even the Home Office has now disowned the ludicrous figure it spent so long citing as the reason for its latest crackdown on prostitution.

Police raids on brothels are increasing. Could this have anything to do with the fact that the police get to keep 25% of assets confiscated at the time? Oh, and the fact that the rest goes to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Inland Revenue; it's a nice little money earner that, we can safely assume, has bugger all to do with improving the lives of sex workers. Making lap dancing clubs "sex encounter establishments" sounds like a nifty way to get even more raids on the go.

Under the new legislation, anyone "controlling for gain" is committing a criminal offense- but wait! No coercion needs to be proved; this means that a secretary, quite possibly a prostitute's first line of defense if something's going wrong, is now a criminal.

Finally, in the words of a sex worker:

"...Criminalisation [of men] would only serve to drive the industry further underground, leaving the women who are victims of trafficking even more vulnerable... making criminals of all men who pay for sex would result in myself and thousands of other women who choose to work in this industry becoming unemployed... This is how we make a living; it's an industry that prevents many, many women and their children from living on the breadline. If you are going to take our livelihoods from us, the consequences will be devastating.”

Link for the International Prostitutes Collective.

Convention of the Left

Manchester Lefties are going to be experiencing a diary clash next Saturday. Should we attend the national demonstration called by Stop the War, or the Convention of the Left recall conference which has been planned for months?

Thoughts?

Defiance - film review

It’s interesting that, in the days when the eyes of the world are fixed on Israel, a film about real-life Jewish heroism has been released in cinemas.

Defiance is the story of the Bielskis, three brothers who form a community of Jewish refugees in the woods of Belorussia during the Second World War. The eldest brother, Tuvia, is a played by Daniel Craig, whose resolutely grim onscreen presence works well in a film that is often harrowing and always uncomfortable. The Bielskis, the sons of a farmer who has just been killed by Nazi collaborators, shelter hundreds of Jews in the huge uncharted forests of Belorussia, teaching them to fight and assigning jobs to everyone. They even liberate huge swathes of Jews from a nearby ghetto, defying a Rabbi’s command that they must “wait for God”. The Bielskis are poor and uncultured- Tuvia is a petty crook, who is used to the disdain of others. He repeatedly reaffirms his own unintelligence, telling his former school teacher (one of the many refugees he saves) that he never did understand what he was talking about. As a leader, however, Tuvia quickly emerges to find the respect that was missing from his former life.

In one of the film’s most interesting twists, the middle Bielski brother, Zus, leaves the camp to fight with Red Army partisans. Unlike his elder brother, who declares that “our revenge will be our survival”, Zus is filled with bloodlust, determined to kill as many Nazis and collaborators as he can. With the Red Army, whose leadership consists of an anti Semitic whistler and a maudlin drunk, he begins to fight. In one scene, Zus’ ambush on a Nazi train is juxtaposed with a joyful wedding back at the Jewish camp; as the groom stamps on the glass, the brutal attack on the train is launched. Later on, the film makers show the Red Army denying medicine to the Bielskis when there is an outbreak of Typhus at their camp. Even worse, when the Nazis prepare for an assault on the forest that will leave the Jewish refugees massacred, the Red Army Partisans strategically retreat, leaving them all to die.

The contrast between the Bielski group and the Red Army makes for an interesting parallel. Near the beginning of the film, a man who describes himself as “an intellectual” joins the burgeoning Jewish refugee community; he is gently mocked by the Bielski brothers. But the intellectual is actually a Socialist publisher and like the rest of the Jews becomes accustomed to the hard work involved in building a village in the forest, cutting wood and constructing houses. In the community, all are equal- all receive equal amounts of food and respect. When this status quo is usurped by a fighter (also portrayed in the film as something of a misogynist) arguing that those who protect the community should get more food, he is shot. But one of the rather obvious messages of Defiance is this: the Bielski refugee community comes far closer to Communism, than Stalin’s Red Army does.

Another commendable aspect to the film is its portrayal of women’s bravery. Initially, a conversation between Zus and a young woman reveals that he does not think women need guns- when she suggests that they do, he argues that they have men for protection. Later on in the film, however, the women are taught to use guns. Many women are seen fighting heroically in defence of the refugee community, going out on dangerous food missions (the Bielski followers operate Robin of Sherwood style, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor) and even defending fleeing refugees from a Nazi onslaught. One woman is shot by the advancing soldiers- she dies with her finger pressed on the machine gun trigger, still firing at the enemy. A different sort of courage is demonstrated by another Jewish woman; raped by a Nazi guard, she responds to the subsequent pregnancy with immeasurable courage. (On a side note, if anyone wants to see a good World War Two film about female heroism - and indeed Jewish female heroism - I thought Black Book was excellent and remain extremely miffed at the moralists at The Guardian declaring it nothing but “soft porn”.)

The Bielskis, whose actions ultimately saved the lives of 1200 Jews, never asked for recognition for their bravery- at the end of the war, the youngest brother, Asael, joined the Russian Army and was killed fighting. The elder two brothers left for America, and lived out the rest of their days quietly, working as truckers. This makes watching the film, which in many ways resembles a more typical Hollywood “hero” story, quite a guilty experience. But then, if it conquers the still commonly-held misconception that the Jews walked passively into the death camps, this can only be a good thing. Defiance might not be the greatest film ever made; but of all the World War Two films that seem to be very much in vogue right now, this is probably the story that deserves to be told the most.

Decriminalise Prostitution!

Statement from the Safety First Coalition:

A Question of Consent Tuesday 3rd February 6pm, Committee Room 6, House of Commons While government feminists and religious fundamentalists equate prostitution with rape and claim most sex workers have been trafficked, rapists continue to get away with it – the conviction rate for reported rape in England and Wales is a shocking 6%. But a growing international movement for women’s safety is demanding the decriminalization of sex work. In England it has defeated government attempts to “rehabilitate” sex workers and is opposing proposals to raid brothels and criminalize clients. In San Francisco 41% voted for decriminalization in the last elections. SPEAKERS from the Safety First Coalition, Women Against Rape, the International Prostitutes Collective, and from GUYANA, INDIA, PERU, TRINIDAD & TOBAGO.

Dear Friends, We have already sent you information about this meeting on 3 February which is part of an International Gathering organised by the Global Women’s Strike and the International Women Count Network. Rape and Prostitution – a Question of Consent, which we are helping co-ordinate, will bring together opposition to anti-prostitution measures in the Policing and Crime Bill (PCB) which is coming up for Second Reading in Parliament on 19 January. We will have the added advantage of international speakers who can enlighten us about the situation in other countries, including the US PROStitutes Collective which was recently involved in an impressive ballot campaign on decriminalisation. The Cross Party Committee which looks in detail at the legislation following the Second Reading is likely to be sitting by the time of our meeting. We want to be prepared in order to be as effective as possible. All proposed measures would drive prostitution further underground and sex workers into even more danger. They include: o criminalisation of paying for sexual services of a “controlled” prostitute o criminalisation of kerb crawling as a first offence through removal of persistence o enabling police to close premises at 24 hours notice o introduction of compulsory “rehabilitation” under threat of imprisonment – similar to proposals thrown out a year ago o tightening (and increasing the cost) of licensing of lap dance clubs. But the truth is beginning to emerge. Figures we have always questioned – that 80% of women working in the sex industry are “trafficked” and assumed to be “controlled” are being discredited. On 9 January, Radio Four, More Or Less programme resoundingly exposed that there is no evidence to support these figures. By the end of the programme MP Fiona Mactaggart was forced to admit that most women are not trafficked, and the Home Office that they do not endorse or use the figure that 80 % of prostitutes are controlled by others. Listen Again http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gdz3t/More_or_Less_09_01_2009/ We shall have information at that meeting about writing to the Select Committee as well as to your own MP and networks. When proposals for compulsory rehabilitation were thrown out of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in the Lords this time last year, it was very much as a result of the flood of opposition MPs and Peers received. We need your help both in terms of time and skills as well as financially to defeat this latest repression. Please let us know if you can help in any way. We’ll contact you again nearer the time with details of speakers. Yours for Safety First, Niki Adams and Cari Mitchell

SWP Conference

John Rees, Lindsey German and Chris Nineham are no longer Central Committee members. Anyone got any news?

Update: by 'Anonymous'.

'Basically, we were set to vote on the Sunday between two CC slates: one, the existing CC (proposed by the CC 'majority'), or two, the existing CC minus John Rees (proposed by the CC 'minority'). That morning, Lindsey got up and announced that her and Chris Nineham were resigning from the CC, and withdrawing their alternative slate (therefore effectively also removing Rees). There was then only one slate put forward for the CC election: the existing CC minus Rees, German and Nineham.

What happens next depends on whether John Rees is happy to quietly walk off into the sunset... hmmmm. It also creates a situation where the resigned 'minority' still control Stop the War.'

Mancs protest at sickening pro-Israel rally

About 250 protesters turned out in Manchester today, determined to counter the pro-Israel rally taking place in St Alberts square. The Zionists, around a quarter of them children, outnumbered us 2 to 1. In a bout of sickening hypocrisy, the words 'End Hamas Terror' were written on most of their placards. The pro-Israel protesters were forced to conduct their rally behind barriers and were heavily protected by their own security, as well as the police. The banner for Manchester Labour Students could be witnessed at the demonstration, and Manchester University's General Secretary could be seen laughing alongside many of the other Zionists standing up for their right to support the murder of innocent Gazans. Standing amidst the Zionists, some moron waved a red flag.

9 anarchists, including members of the Anarchist Federation and Manchester No Borders, held a separate demonstration (a counter-counter demo, if you get my drift). Members of the Anarchist Federation have argued against attending what they reckon are "nationalist protests".

We say "Free Palestine": they say "?!?!?"

150,000 demonstrate against Israeli atrocities

As Gaza officials claimed that 800 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's bloodbath, 150,000 people demonstrated in London today, in an act of protest bigger than we've seen in years. The police used violence against the protesters, baton charging us at the first entrance to the Israeli embassy and then escalating their violence at the second, leaving tens of protesters crushed in the crowd, and some badly wounded. Placards and bottles were hurled at the police, and shoes were thrown over the gates to the embassy. The burning of an American flag was met with cheers. Many protesters responded bravely to brutal police attacks; one Muslim woman pushed her way towards the police, shouting "Why do the girls have to move to the back while the boys stay at the front?"

Police say the actions of the many, were ruined by the actions of the few. We can only agree. The actions of us, the many, were certainly tainted by the horrendous brutality of the police, the few.

Sadly, the speakers addressing the rallies at the beginning and end of the demonstration could have been used to compile a Who's who in celebrity culture? and there were few left-wingers on the platform. Plenty of empty rhetoric was heard, but remarkably little content. This factor was not enough, however, to mar a brilliant demonstration.

In another bout of treachery, the SWP and Stop the War has refused to back the counter demonstrations taking place tomorrow, as Zionists assemble in Trafalgar Square, London and St Albert's Square, Manchester at 11AM. They argue that there is no need to demonstrate again after today's success; in doing so, they refuse to counter the distribution of racist propaganda lies. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, as well as most other groups on the Left, are supporting the counter demos.

There's a very good post at the Commune here.

Free Publicity for Permanant Revolution!

In today's Guardian:

"The Marxists are ecstatic. Eric Hobsbawm has returned from the
ideological grave to declare "the greatest crisis of capitalism since
the 1930s" and the dramatic equivalent of the fall of the Soviet
Union, hardly a precedent he should recall. The website
permanentrevolution.com is awash in glee. "So much for marginal
utility theory and neoconservatism," cries Bill Jefferies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/simon-jenkins-recession

Advertising Standards to rule on existence of God

It cost them £140,000 to pay for some good old atheist propaganda on the sides of buses and even then the slogan they chose was crap. There's probably no god, reads the advertisement currently adorning the side of 800 buses, now stop worrying and enjoy life. It employs about as much scientific merit as the latest Boswelox(tm) filled anti-ageing cream; after all, how many hardcore believers are going to be persuaded of the merits of atheism after reading the terminally indecisive statement There's probably no god on the side of a bus?

But my own personal gripes aside, the advert - backed by the British Humanist Association and Richard Dawkins - does make a welcome change from the interminable religious propaganda usually found on the sides of buses. It has not been universally popular, however. One religious group, Christian Voice, has even lodged an official complaint about the atheist adverts, arguing that the claim there probably isn't a god, breaks advertising rules on substantiation and truthfulness.

Christian Voice is an organisation comprised entirely of right-wing bigots (you know, the ones who picket Gay Pride marches with "Homosexuality is an abomination" placards, and in their loving Christian way cheerfully inform anyone less bigoted than themselves that they're walking a one-way path to Hellfire and brimstone). Christian Voice claim there is plenty of evidence supporting god's existence but hardly any on the other side. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) will have to decide.

The Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association has responded with defiance: "I am sure that Stephen Green [head of Christian Voice] really does think there is a great deal of evidence for a God (though presumably only the one that he believes in), but I pity the ASA if they are going to be expected to rule on the probability of God's existence."

Street Party When Thatcher Dies

Street Party When Thatcher Dies, a facebook group belonging to me and Chris S, has been removed by facebook. I was alerted with the following message: ‘ The group "Street Party When Thatcher Dies" has been removed because it violated our Terms of Use. Among other things, groups that are hateful, threatening, or obscene are not allowed.’ In other words, some Tory Prince/Princess got a teensy bit upset at the defamation of a woman who screwed over the working class. My heart bleeds.

I think there are groups on facebook that are more hateful, threatening and obscene than Street Party When Thatcher Dies (do we honestly the think the bitch is going to care when we dance on her grave?) Take this group for example: ‘BNP IS NOT RACIST (KICK OUT MUSLIMS THAT R RACISTS)’. The description of this particular groups says it intends to raise awareness of the ‘third world savages’ marching through England. Fairly hateful, threatening and obscene, and yet perfectly fine by facebook standards.

Incidentally, Street Party When Thatcher Dies had over 30,000 members. So we could have one hell of a party.

When will the lights go out in Gaza?

Israel has not replenished Gaza’s power station with fuel since it launched its latest attack eleven days ago. The constant air strikes have badly damaged power lines. In Shifa, Gaza’s largest hospital, the electricity cut out three days ago and the hospital has been running on generators. The generators are designed to serve as an emergency back up; now they are in use all the time. And if they break, as it is feared they might, seventy people hooked up to lifesaving devices will be killed.

Anecdote from an Anarchist Friend

One of my anarchist friends was chatting to one of those "liberal" types the other day. He mentioned his support for no platforming the BNP. The liberal responded with outrage, arguing my friend's belief in No Platform made him "no better than a Nazi".

Right- because Hitler's really nasty stroke was inflicting No Platform on the Jews.

The United Nations

In the Preface to the 1888 edition of the Communist Manifesto, Engels outlined the difference between Socialists and Communists: ‘Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take.’ Today, Socialism is still a relatively respectably ideology, at least compared with Communism. All of this makes the level of “respectability” to which many Communist organisations sink quite astounding.

The Communist Party of Britain has responded to the Gaza crisis with a demand that ‘the United Nations and individual states impose economic, political and military sanctions on the state of Israel until its government declares a commitment to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority on the basis of UN resolutions’. This is ridiculous- Communists do not appeal to the United Nations, international law or state mechanisms to act in the interests of ordinary people.

International law is not governed by the will of the oppressed; it belongs to the oppressors, and acts exclusively in their interests.

Communists do not determine the illegality or legality of a war according to the ruling of the United Nations, nor do we call on UN “peace keeping” troops to bring more weapons into war zones. We hold no illusions in UN resolutions, and understand that UN-approved sanctions invariably hurt the poorest the hardest. We are not deluded enough to see the United Nations as a force for good, or an arbiter of justice.

What have the Palestinians got to complain about?

To portray this as a conflict between equals requires some imagination, writes Mark Steel...

'When you read the statements from Israeli and US politicians, and try to match them with the pictures of devastation, there seems to be only one explanation. They must have one of those conditions, called something like "Visual Carnage Responsibility Back To Front Upside Down Massacre Disorder".

For example, Condoleezza Rice, having observed that more than 300 Gazans were dead, said: "We are deeply concerned about the escalating violence. We strongly condemn the attacks on Israel and hold Hamas responsible."

Someone should ask her to comment on teenage knife-crime, to see if she'd say: "I strongly condemn the people who've been stabbed, and until they abandon their practice of wandering around clutching their sides and bleeding, there is no hope for peace."' Full article