The Common Man

I'M MOVING, PLEASE UPDATE YOUR LINKS!

2004-04-06T20:40:00.000+01:00

the common man - click here for my new home

I've got my own web domain now and, as a result, I'm moving my blog there. It's ad-free so no more annoying ads for fundanazis and the like, and I'm hoping to keep all the extras 'in-house' so no reliance on external commercial providers.

And if anyone knows where I can get a fully standards-compliant selection of templates for Moveable Type that would be really handy (or is it a case of burning the midnight oil again on a self-taught crash course?!). Having said that, I quite like the new uncluttered look, so I may not change much at all.

I'll be moving links etc over the next few days and I'm hoping to be able to transfer all of my posts over (although my first effort failed!).

As for the rest of the webspace? Well, I'm thinking about it!

I hope to see you all at my new place real soon.

It's been emotional.

Carry On On The Buses

2004-04-05T14:32:00.000+01:00

A 16 year old schoolgirl has won the right to free bus travel after years of being forced to pay for it because she is an atheist.

Laura Abbott (how apt!) did not want to attend her nearest state school as it was a Church of England school. Instead she chose to go to a secular state school eight miles away from her home. In the UK it is generally accepted that a parent who wishes to force their child to attend a religious-based state school from outside of their catchment (intake) area can do so (providing they can show some basic religious belief - many middle class parents fake belief in order to get their kids into better-resourced state-religious schools, but that's for another day...). The state will provide public assistance with travel costs if the chosen religious school is more than a couple of miles away. But for atheists a different set of standards have been applied. Second-class standards.

Laura's father has, over the years, had to pay over £2000 in transport costs so that his daughter could go to a school that wasn't run by religious nuts, as the local authority refused to accept her right not to be force-fed superstitious bullshit on a daily basis. This is on top of the years of taxes he had already paid to ensure that his daughter could actually receive a free state-funded education. Fortunately, Laura had the full support of her family as well as the National Secular Society, who drafted in some human rights lawyers with some mean-looking legal arguments. Needless to say, after years of dismissing Laura's predicament out of hand, the sight of a hefty legal challenge rapidly changed the council's mind.

The local authority that with-held the funding for so long has made a derisory offer of compensation (the sort of offer that, if it had been made to a religifreak as compensation for discrimination, would immediately bring a further claim of compensation for being so derisory and insulting). The family have decided to press for full reimbursement, and rightly so.

It is a disgrace that taxpayers are being forced to fund religiously-controlled schools in the first place, let alone then saying that those very same taxpayers will be discriminated against if their refuse their kids to attend them. Talk about fundinazism, they either make you pay for your own brainwashing or they make you pay more if you tell 'em where to shove it. Maybe there's a way through the Human Rights legislation to prevent any of my taxes being used to fund these places. Any sympathetic lawyers reading this?

Respect due to Laura Abbott, nice one.

Beating Around The Bush

2004-04-02T15:55:00.000+01:00

Many of you by now may be aware of my distaste and cynicism towards mainstream capitalist democracy, and in particular the farce of elections under such a regime. Nevertheless, I know that many of the people I would count as friends (and who, if the shit really hits the fan, would be stood on the barricades beside me) still think that they can make a difference at the ballot box and believe in it as a tool of change. It is for them that I'm putting up this link, in particular to show my American voting comrades (hi Phaedrus) that I still love 'em despite our differences.

We've got more in common with each other than we have with the fools who would destroy us and the planet given half the chance.

Just remember - whoever you vote for, WE ARE UNGOVERNABLE!

Dangerous Communist Alert!!!

2004-04-01T23:23:00.000+01:00

I am reminded of the utopian forecasts I used to hear as a child, back in the late '60s or so, that automation would free workers up from menial labor, allowing everyone to spend more time focusing on creative endeavors, philosophical studies, and more meaningful activities in general.

This is from ^^^Living On Less. Take a look if you want to join in with their subversive agenda.

Putting The Fun Back Into Fundamental

2004-03-29T13:32:00.000+01:00

Tweak it a bit and apply it to your religion of choice!

TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST

(found on Evil Bible)

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" - including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs - though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

And if that doesn't get 'em, try this:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

~ Stephen Roberts.

An easy target I know, but I needed something to cheer me up on a dull Monday morning and this fits the bill nicely.

Truth Is More Blatant Than Fiction

2004-03-28T11:00:00.000+01:00

This was lurking in my inbox for a while, time to share.

Central Intelligence Agency, Langley, Virginia
Department of Wayward Clients and Unsavoury Friends

Status Report: January, 2004

To: George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence
From: Head, Office of Villains and Nefarious Crimes

Below is the updated report you asked us to prepare with comments, in light of Saddam's recent apprehension. Note that with the exception of Warren Anderson, we have omitted specific US nationals (eg Kissinger) from the list.

There is some good news to report. In the careful management of opinion following Saddam's capture, we have already received a lot of assistance from our friends in the Fourth Estate.

The British Tory historian John Keegan has helped to explain away our support for Saddam in the 1980s by declaring that "countries do not have moral characters. They only have interests" (The Age, 17 December, 2003). According to Keegan, supporting Saddam in the 1980s was in our interests because he acted as a counterweight to the greater threat, fundamentalist Iran. This 'realist' - my enemy's enemy is my friend - argument is tried, tested, and echoed by a number of reliable conduits including Greg Sheridan (The Weekend Australian, 20 December, 2003). It should be the major thrust of our media strategy.

There are, however, three traps for the unwary. Both Keegan and Sheridan wisely omit the fact that our support for Saddam, including the supply of dual-use technologies for his WMD programs, continued for a couple of years after his war with Iran. Mentioning this fact undermines the "Saddam as counterweight" argument because by 1988 Iran was only a threat to itself.

Secondly, it is better not to mention our responsibility for the Iranian revolution in 1979. When we overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and reinstalled the Shah to power, we thwarted attempts to nationalise British-Persian Oil and helped ourselves to 40% of the industry. However, we also ushered in 25 years of brutal repression and corruption out of which the Mullahs and their support base ultimately sprung. Oops.

Thirdly, while states may "not have moral characters" their leaders certainly do. The moral culpability of Reagan, Bush the elder and Thatcher for their supply of WMD technologies to the Butcher of Baghdad when his worst crimes were being committed (and afterwards), is likely to be raised by our critics and Saddam at his trial unless we keep him drugged. This will be difficult to counter.

It needs to be stated that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell and others also had responsibilities to US exporters in the 1980s and 1990s - a point often overlooked in this discussion. We must suppress, however, their support for the slaughter of the Shi'ites in 1991 because of the "strikingly unanimous view [that] whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression" (Alan Cowell, New York Times, 11 April, 1991). Let's hope the Shia have forgotten this.

Some of Sheridan's techniques - claiming the Europeans were even worse than us, ignoring the Agency's support for Saddam in 1959, exaggerating the threat posed by Iran, blaming bureaucratic infighting in Washington and citing non-existent US protests against Saddam's use of chemical weapons - may need to be more widely adopted.

We have also had a lot of success with the line that "if the opponents of the war had their way, Saddam would still be in power torturing and killing Iraqi citizens." It's been widely adopted by the Australian Prime Minister and supportive journalists such as Gerard Henderson (The Age, 16 December, 2003). Critics may refer to this argument as an ends justify the means morality (Raymond Gaita, The Age, 22 December, 2003), but this is not strictly true because we would rather no-one talked about the means at all.

Isolating Saddam's capture from the consequences of his removal puts anti-war groups on the defensive. However, this strategy will only work if we remain silent about the impact of the invasion and occupation - probably well over 10,000 civilian deaths (though we are forbidden from counting them), the collapse of law and order, an explosion in street crime, mass unemployment, failing infrastructure and essential services. Not to mention the increase in terrorism and the proliferation of WMD, widely predicted beforehand.

Of course a couple of troublemakers (Dennis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck) have for many years suggested that if it hadn't been for the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq - which killed thousands, devastated the social fabric, and drove the population to rely on Saddam for their very survival - the dictator probably would have gone the way of many favoured souls, lsuch as those listed below. As I said, troublemakers.

As you know, the desire to serve state power can sometimes be overwhelming for even our most loyal functionaries. Therefore, at the risk of making you blush and giggle, this comment by Sheridan is a fitting introduction to the main body of the memorandum. We have tried but cannot improve on it.

"The US has had to deal with many dictators through many years, but it always urges them to reform, to moderate their excesses, to open up." Mmm.

Deceased:

Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Nicolae Ceausescu (Romania), Mobutu Sese Seko (Congo/Zaire), Pol Pot (Cambodia), Heydar Aliyev (Azerbaijan)

Comment: Good friends before most became liabilities. Marcos - greatly admired by Paul Wolfowitz - died soon after we got him to Hawaii, while Ceausescu passed on more suddenly than we expected after many years of loyal service. Pol Pot hung on far too long but had the decency to keep out of sight until the end. Aliyev was much appreciated for bringing dynastic succession and a pro-Western oil policy to Central Asia.

In custody on trial or awaiting trial:

Manuel Noriega (Panama), Slobodan Milosevic (fmr Yugoslavia - The Hague), Saddam Hussein (Iraq)

Comment: We kidnapped Noriega in 1989 (in the process we were forced to kill several thousand Panamanians) and brought him to trial in Florida where he was prosecuted for crimes mostly committed when he was our friend (who will forget George Shultz flying to Panama in 1984 to congratulate old pineapple face after he stole the election with far more violence than anything that followed in the next 5 years?). We managed to gloss over the revelation that Noriega was on the CIA payroll under GWB's father before jailing him.

Hopefully we can do the same to Saddam, though US and UK support for him during the 1980s could prove very embarrassing in court. Ditto for Chirac and the Russians. It was a big mistake taking him alive. Footage of Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Ace of Spades in 1983 and not mentioning WMD looks bad, though most networks (especially Fox) can be trusted to show restraint despite the 20th anniversary of this unfortunate meeting.

Faking illness to avoid trial:

Augusto Pinochet (Chile), Suharto (Indonesia)

Comment: Pinochet is senile and, thanks to the Brits, at little further legal risk.

Suharto has the worst human rights record of all and would be easy to nab from Jakarta, though opposition from admirers like Wolfowitz and friends in Canberra should be expected. Too much detail about our support for his 1965 massacres has already leaked out, as unfortunately did our assessment that "in terms of the numbers killed the anti-PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century, along with the Soviet purges of the 1930s, the Nazi mass murders during the Second World War and the Maoist bloodbaths of the 1950s." True enough but who leaked this report?

Suharto has enough knowledge and residual military support to buy immunity and a quiet suburban death on his own terms.

On the run:

Osama bin Laden (Saudi Arabia)

Comment: Bill Casey's secrecy and missing receipts means it is still unclear how much money and arms we actually gave OBL to fight the Sovs in Afghanistan. Certainly he is the worst case of blowback in the Agency's history. Now protected by Islamists in the Pakistan military and assorted Taliban, he will be difficult to apprehend without losing Musharraf in the process. The priority here remains control of the Islamic bomb.

Free:

Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvallier (Haiti - in France), Jean-Bédel Bokassa (Central African Republic), Hector Gramajo (fmr Defence Minister, Guatemala - in Guatemala)

Comment: Hopefully forgotten (we are trying).

New Friends (undemocratic):

Pervaiz Musharraf (Pakistan), Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan), Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan), Teodoro Obiang (Equatorial Guinea), Abdelaziz Bouteflika (Algeria)

Comment: A measure of our new commitment to spreading democratic politics. Two have oil, one is a Stalinist and all have corruption and our support. None have democracy. Like old friends in the Gulf, they have been advised not to take GWB's freedom and democracy speeches seriously.

Given sanctuary by US:

Orlando Bosch (fmr Cuban - now in Florida)

Comment: Has the most extensive terrorist CV of all. Charged with 30 acts of terrorism by the FBI dating back to 1968, and regarded as a threat to US security by the Justice Department under George Bush 1 which also supported his deportation. Most notoriously blew up a Cubana de Aviacion passenger plane in October 1976, resulting the deaths of all 73 passengers - though this is only one of many crimes he is responsible for. Received a presidential pardon from George Bush 1 at the request of his son, Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Jose Guillermo Garcia (fmr head of El Salvador armed forces, 1980s - Florida), Cuban and Haitian exiles (Florida), South Vietnamese army officers (California)

Comment: The FBI now believes there are more terrorists per square kilometre in Florida than any other place on earth - all with safe haven. In the Agency we call it the Gaza strip. Most of the unsavouries are from the abattoir states of Central America under Reagan and Cuba since Kennedy. It's a battle to keep them away from snooping journalists when they slip their Company minders. Just as well GWB's dictum about countries which provide sanctuary to terrorists doesn't apply to Miami.

Refusing to extradite:

Emmanuel Constant (leader of paramilitary group FRAPH in Haiti who murdered thousands in the 1990s - in NYC)

Comment: Haiti has repeatedly requested Constant's extradition, but we don't respond to their applications. It is therefore important to avoid comparisons with the Taliban's refusal to extradite Osama after 9/11, which was the pretext for the subsequent war. Haiti is unlikely to bomb the East Coast.

Warren Anderson (Chairman of Union Carbide (now Dow Chemical), responsible for the 1984 Bhopal gas leak in India which killed 16,000 people - Long Island, NY)

Comment: They are only Indians after all. Even Delhi is reluctant to compensate the victims and 120,000 survivors. Unlikely to ever face charges of homicide, he will need to be protected from harassment by extremist groups such as Greenpeace and Human Rights Watch.

Unindicted:

Ariel Sharon (Israel)

Comment: He has a long record of brutality stretching back at least to the Qibya massacre in 1953 (approximately 18,000 killed), most notably his invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the killings in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Rebadged "man of peace" by GWB in the Orwellian sense. Court action by left wing magistrates means European travel may become difficult.

Turkish leaders

Comment: We are no longer so well disposed to Ankara after they failed to help us out in Iraq. The army even refused Wolfowitz's order to defy the government and back the invasion. It is important not to refer to Turkey's attacks on its Kurdish population as "terrorism" given we supplied them with the means to do it, our support peaking while we distracted everyone with Kosovo in 1999. As with Colombia, our money officially goes to the guys in the white hats - or in this case - the white fezs. Unofficially they are the black caps.

(thanks Josh ;))

Big Big Monkey Man

2004-03-26T21:53:00.000Z

This has to be one of the funniest parody sites that I've come across since [the heavy hand of censorship decends - even though bits made me laugh, I just couldn't keep up a link for a frightdinger for more than a few hours. Try this one instead. I'm sure you understand my decision, or it's off for a visit to Room 101 for you]. The Bush Orwell newsfeed in particular is a worthy addition to any site.

Take a read and show 'em some support.

Jewgle Google

2004-03-25T23:23:00.000Z

Remember this?

The Wikipedia entry for Jew is now up to #4 in Google. Link to Jew at least once, if not more, and get the anti-Semites off of the top. Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew

That should help a bit.

It's The Unreal Thing

2004-03-25T17:03:00.000Z

The company that makes the brown sugary stuff for pennies a gallon and flogs it for pounds has recently tried another fast one on the public. They've just released a bottled water called Dasani here in the UK (available in various forms elsewhere too), which the company has been forced to publicly admit is basically bottled tap water and which, on top of that, has been found to contain excessive levels of bromate. This has lead to its complete withdrawal from shops in the UK, right in the middle of a launch campaign. Talk about timing.

Their website at the moment is absolutely priceless. The homepage has a very classy feel to it with a piccie of a bottle of the 'water' itself, all blues and gentle curves, just the sort of stuff you'd expect from a multi-death corporation. And right next to it is this:

VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL OF DASANI IN THE UK

This withdrawal is due to an inconsistency in one of the minerals contained in the product. Calcium is a legal requirement in all bottled water products in the UK, including Dasani. To deliver the required calcium we add back calcium chloride into the product. Through detailed analysis we discovered that our product did not meet the quality standards. Because of the high level of bromide in the calcium chloride a derivative of bromide, bromate was formed at a level that exceeded UK legal standards. This occurred during the ozonisation process we employ in manufacturing.

Fuckin' brilliant!

Enter the site (a dirty job but someone's got to do it) and you get this:

DASANI : WHAT IS DASANI?

Dasani pure still water is The Coca-Cola Company's global water brand. Launched in the US in 1999 it is now the second biggest water brand there delivering 1.3 billion litres to US consumers each year. By the end of 2004, Dasani will be in 20 countries all over the world including Africa, Latin America and Europe. So no matter where in the world you are you shouldn't be far from a Dasani!

Dasani in GB has been especially made to suit GB palates and lifestyles. Dasani's got everything you could want from a bottle of water - it couples a pure clean taste with cool stylish packaging so you can always look and feel great!

Who would've thought a bottle of water could do all that? Water's just water isn't it? Well yes, some bottled waters are the same, but not Dasani! Have a look around this website and then see if you would answer that question any differently. Dasani is unique in the UK and we have put this together so you can see just why.

Have fun!

FUN?! The Food Standards Agency (a government food safety body) has this to say about bromate:

Bromate is a chemical that has the potential to increase the risk of cancer. Its presence in any food or water should be as low as reasonably practical. The UK legal limit for bottled and tap water is 10 micrograms per litre.

At the levels of bromate detected in Dasani, any increased cancer risk is likely to be very small and there is no immediate risk to public health. However, the levels are higher than are legally permitted in the UK and present an unnecessary risk...

[snip]

There are legally permitted levels for bromate. In bottled and tap water up to 10 micrograms per litre of bromate is legal in the UK. Coca-Cola has informed the Agency that some of the samples of Dasani had bromate levels of up to 25 micrograms per litre.

They take good, ordinary British tap water (let's face it, I can't remember the last time I read about someone dying from our tap water, certainly not as recently as I read of those dying from having shit water or no water at all in other countries). Stick it through a cheap 'n' easy filter process. Add back some chems and a dash of ozone, bung it in a fancy bottle and charge nearly a quid (£1 to non-UK'er's).

Did I just miss something?

But that's not even really my point.

The CCCo are allowing their product to be bottled at a factory in Columbia where eight trade unionists have been murdered and over 60 fired for no apparent reason. British activist-terrocomedian Mark Thomas explains it a whole lot more eloquently on the Indymedia UK site:

Marketing can't be said to be Coke's strong point. There are now smokers in pubs claiming the moral high ground. "I won't touch that Dasani. It's bloody dangerous," they rasp, "it should carry a health warning. If I had my way, I'd make Dasani drinkers stand on the office front steps if they wanted to drink it at work."

[snip]

Eight trade unionists who worked for Coke have been killed thus far: Isidro Segundo Gil was killed inside a Coke plant, and his wife, who also campaigned for justice, was murdered by the paramilitaries. Now the bottlers have suddenly sacked 91 workers from the plants: 70 per cent of them are union organisers. Sinaltrainal (Colombia's national union of workers in the food and drinks industry) says this is "essentially to eliminate the union".

Go take a read, then go to your fridge, gather every CCCo product you can find and then use it to clean your toilet before flushing it away.

Your conscience and your bowels will feel a lot better for it.

Shhhh...

2004-03-17T20:17:00.000Z

I got this while wiling away the hours at work today:

George Bush goes to a primary school to talk about the war. After his talk he offers question time.

One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him what his name is.

"Billy".

"And what is your question, Billy?"

"I have 3 questions.

First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? And third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"

Just then the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddies
that they will continue after recess.

When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh that's right ---
question time. Who has a question?"

A different little boy puts up his hand.

George points him out and asks him what his name is.

"Steve"

"And what is your question, Steve?"

"I have 5 questions. First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Fourth, why did the recess bell go 20 minutes early? And fifth, what happened to Billy?"

(thanks K)

Bombing Against Hate

2004-03-17T16:56:00.000Z

Mobius from Jakeneck and Jewschool posted some info about a hate-site coming up top of the list when 'jew' is put into Google. Mobius suggests a counter-bombing campaign, and is encouraging all bloggers to put a link along the following lines somewhere on their pages:

Wanna participate? Just drop <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Jew" target="_new">Jew</a> into your next blog post, or put it anywhere on your website. Be sure to spread this around to your mailing lists and your friends on IM too, so that we may actively engage in defining ourselves, as opposed to allowing others (with vicious intentions) to do so for us.

So here it is: Jew. Hope that helps.

From The Silence Shouts A Voice

2004-03-15T10:58:00.000Z

I write this as millions of people across Europe fall silent to reflect on the deaths in Madrid last week.

"We, the workers, can build others [palaces and cities] to take their place, and better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth, there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world, here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute".

Beunaventura Durruti, Spanish Anarchist.

I visited Barcelona a few years ago for the first time, in part at least because of my interest in the Spanish Civil War and my respect for the people who so bravely fought the fascist forces. Of all those people, Durruti was the one who really caught my attention when I was a young anarcho-punk. His clear thinking, vision, strength and compassion made a big impact on me that has remained to this day. So while I was in Barca I visited his grave (an impressive slab of black granite draped with the red and black flag of anarchy) in Montjuic cemetary. The words above were carved on the grave. Even in death, the man continues to inspire life.

Blowing Up In Their Faces

2004-03-14T12:38:00.000Z

Many have already said far more eloquently that I can how saddened they are about the tragedy that befell Spain this week. I can only echo those sentiments. The death of innocent people because of others' desire for power and control is, and always will be, wrong.

But the reaction of the Spanish government has been as sickening as that act of carnage. Within hours of the explosions, the right-wing party in power had announced that they believed ETA responsible for the atrocity. This despite the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever available at this time. In fact, even a cursory analysis (rather than wanting to score political points) would have indicated that these explosions were not in keeping with ETA's modus operandi. ETA want an independent Basque homeland - how could such an act advance their cause? It does not make political sense. With elections in Spain today, the backlash from such a move would be certain political suicide for even the most moderate of the Basque nationalist groups. ETA would be destroyed by it.

The ruling party, however, have much to gain by linking ETA with these bombs. In the run up to an election in which their decision to take the country into the 'War On Terror' was opposed by around 90% of the Spanish people, the party need to focus attention away from their actions. Blaming the bombing on ETA fits that strategy perfectly.

However, there is a major problem with their argument. For as soon as actual evidence began to emerge, it became apparent that the bombings were far more likely to have been carried out by Al-Qaeda as part of their campaign of terror. Koranic tape recordings, a fake SIM card found in a bag (along with an unexploded bomb) that may be linked to Moroccan extremist groups, and the co-ordinated nature of the attacks all point in that direction. Add to that the vehement denials of ETA and other Basque groups that the explosions were anything to do with them, as well as the claims by Al-Qaeda that they were responsible, and the government's arguments look weak to the point of collapse. That they are now trying to link ETA with Al-Qaeda stinks of desperation, and the Spanish people have a good nose for bullshit.

Because if the explosions were the work of Al-Qaeda then it exposes the misjudgement of the government completely. It was their decision, in the face of popular protest, to commit Spanish forces to Dubya's campaign of global control. The Spanish people, along with the Iraqis and all the innocents who die in war, have paid a bloody price for their 'masters' ideologies.

Whatever happens in the elections today, the tragedy of this week has once again exposed the myth of 'democratic government' and the barbarism of religion. I'll finish with the words of a Spaniard, one who's message carries a vision of hope even amongst death:

Maud Leyder Lebel, 79, a retired teacher, said the tragedies had "reminded us how to be human beings". Humans had to change, she said.

**update**

In Pamplona, a police officer shot the father of two people jailed for pro-Basque separatist street violence after he had reportedly refused to hang a black bow on the door of his shop. The policeman's son was also arrested.

There were unconfirmed reports of confrontations between police and demonstrators following the death of the man, Angel Berroeta, 61.

Another death on their hands.

Know Your Enemy

2004-03-13T13:13:00.000Z

Bloggers Against Fascism is a recent campaign started by some UK bloggers to strengthen opposition against the British Nazi Party. Many of the blogs I read and admire (if not always necessarily agree with!) are carrying their banners. Whilst I admire the enthusiasm of those bloggers behind and involved with the campaign I cannot remain uncritical of this approach.

Let me lay my cards on the table. I come from a militant anti-fascist tradition that goes beyond the tokenistic petitions and yellow lolly-pop placards of the 'democratic' left opposition to the BNP. While their banners were proclaiming 'Smash the BNP' me and my comrades were doing just that - taking the fight to the streets and estates which the BNP and other assorted rag-bag Nazis saw as their demographic. Getting physical with the fascist groups is a dirty business but has been an essential part of the process of defeating them on the streets. When they are seen to be physically beaten on the estates where they try to recruit support it weakens their position as 'saviours' of the white working class. In this respect we have been remarkably successful, in that the BNP and other fash groups have generally withdrawn from the street arena and either dissipated into squabbling factions or taken the electoral respectability route (the tactic now favoured by the BNP). Where they do try and march these days you're lucky if a few sorry-looking boneheads turn out only to be fenced in by hundreds of cops. Militant anti-fascists have wondered if far-right demonstrations over the last 2 or 3 years are as much about the State allowing such marches to occur precisely so they can monitor the militant anti-fascists who turn up to stop them, as it is about 'democracy'.

The Socialist Workers Party and their recruiting front the Anti-Nazi League (SWP/ANL) have publicly criticised the anti-fascist activists for their violence, yet have directly benefited from it, even to the point of claiming credit for 'beating' the fascists while doing nothing more than staying safely corralled behind police crash barriers waving their lolly-pops (there is a joke amongst the militant anti-fascists that they must carry the barriers around with them, so regularly are they seen fenced in).

During the 70's and early 80's there was no single national anti-fascist organisation dedicated to physically opposing the growing threat from the National Front. Although groups such as the SWP and IMG [International Marxist Group] made lots of noise, the reality is that it was the far-Right who were coming off best in confrontations with the Left. Despite this, in set-piece confrontations, such as the Battle of Lewisham in 1977, it was the National Front who got the beating they so richly deserved. The SWP claimed Lewisham as a victory, and the bourgeois press echoed this propaganda, though in fact Lewisham was significant because of the fact that many local people were involved, particularly black youth from the estates, and because of the participation of groups far to the Left of the SWP.

The SWP made good use of their undeserved reputation for militancy years when they later founded and directed the Anti-Nazi League. Too many people have been conned into thinking that the ANL were the be-all and end-all of the anti-Nazi struggle during the late 70's/early 80's. Even now people claim that the ANL combined mass action with the activities of Squadists willing and able to fight the NF face to face. Many of us involved in the anti-fascist struggle at that time remember differently. The ANL were an SWP front first and foremost, a means to recruit cadres for the Party. In an echo of the experience of the CPGB [Communist Party of Great Britain] years earlier, the SWP backed away from physical confrontations with the Nazis, though individual SWP-members went against orders and slugged it ought in the streets. I can vividly remember one anti-NF march around Brick Lane which had been harried by small groups of Nazis, when a group of Bengali Marxist-Leninists tried to address the crowd to urge physically confronting the NF, the ANL/SWP stewards denounced them in front of the police for advocating violence and prevented them from speaking to the rest of the marchers.

~ from the Black Star Review of Nigel Copsey's book 'Anti-Fascism in Britain'

The fascist groups used to regularly attack left-wing paper sales whilst selling their own hate-rags unopposed. The Squads (militant left-wing anti-fascists within the SWP and other groups at the time) were formed to defend the left AND take the fight to the fash. They were outside of the control of the party leadership (and beginning to question it), and it is for this reason more than any other that the Squadists were eventually booted out of these parties. An uncontrolled (by them at least) working class militancy could not be tolerated.

It didn't really matter. The members of the Squads had thrown off the chains of the organisations they had been part of. First, Red Action were formed as a new political home for the disaffected SWP'ers. RA made connections with anarchist groups and other militant left-wingers and Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) was born. The militant anti-fascists had a new home.

While the liberal agenda called for protests against fascist violence, for more police involvement, and for the State to deal with the problem of a growing Far Right, the militants were developing a strategy that would stop the fascists being able to operate openly and challenge them in the constituency they had most success in - the white working class. Rather than appealing to the victims of fascism the militant strategy was aimed at the potential recruits.

~ AFA website

AFA was non-sectarian in that all militant anti-fascist activists were welcomed - anarchists, syndicalists, Marxists and the working class elements of the more mainstream left groups got involved. Militant ant-fascist / pro-working class propaganda was produces and distributed in the towns and estates where the fash were at their strongest and, backed up by the physical no-nonsense approach, we were successful. That does not mean to say that fascism has been defeated, but its traditional approach (violence, marches and meetings) has been pretty much destroyed.

The AFA message was, and remains, simple and straightforward - NO PLATFORM FOR FASCISTS. No paper sales, no meetings, no marches, no debates in TV studios. Whatever it takes to stop them and their poison. Freedom of speech cannot be extended to those who would deny that to their political enemies.

I do not believe that the state has a role to play in this process. Mainstream political parties are as likely to use race to further their aims as the BNP (just look at the ugly racism of Big Blunkett). It is precisely because of this that I find the 'anyone but the Nazis' approach worrying. Why should a working class anti-fascist vote for a party that uses the same tactics as the fascist groups (racism is precisely that - in Scotland for example the BNP have focused more on the sectarian divide as a way of recruiting) and that will not change the conditions that allow fascism to fester. Fascism is far more than racism - it is the ultimate expression of capitalism and as such is part of the wider pro-capitalist spectrum (also known as 'parliamentary democracy').

So to strengthen resistance to fascism means developing a radical alternative agenda that not only challenges fascism but creates a deeper understanding of its roots. Developing an organised opposition to fascism means promoting anti-capitalist and pro-working class politics, something that the mainstream parties are incapable of doing. And this is why I cannot accept a campaign that would have me stand alongside the class enemy in the name of 'unity'.

Militants from both AFA and other groups have now taken this ideology forwards. They have began to form new working class organisations that in effect are challenging both the BNP and capitalism in working class communities, and offering a new political paradigm. The Independent Working Class Association are active nationally but presently focusing on the London Mayoral elections. The potential for this organisation as a politically viable alternative to the BNP and the establishment should not be underestimated, and I would encourage you to become involved if you are serious about your anti-fascist politics.

If the idea of a national organisation doesn't appeal, then look at the example of The Bristolian for inspiration. They stood candidates in many of the local authority wards last year. Although they did not win any seats they have helped reinvigorate local politics on the estates.

Both of these organisations can give us inspiration and encouragement to think outside the box of 'parliamentary democracy' and, if the BNP and all the other Nazi parties are to be defeated (physically AND politically) then this is exactly what we must do.

The people behind Bloggers Against Fascism / United Against Fascism are no doubt sincere people who want to see the BNP isolated and destroyed. But being sincere is not enough when the stakes are this high.

And this just in...

2004-03-12T09:23:00.000Z

The GOP National Committee announced today that it is changing the Republican emblem from an elephant to a condom because it more clearly reflects the party's political stance, i.e., a condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives one a sense of security while screwing others.

(thanks Erik ;))

Storm In A Coffee Cup

2004-03-08T21:43:00.000Z

The right-wing 'free' market 'think' tank The Adam Smith Institute have published a report (PDF) claiming that fairly-traded coffee is responsible for the depression in the price paid to the non-fair trade producers. Notwithstanding that these dangerous communists only produce about 3% of the coffee sold globally.

The fact that S**rfucks can charge a couple of quid for a cup of coffee is also irrelevant. It's not the fault of the multinationals like them, Nestle and a load of others demanding the greatest quantity at the cheapest price ("and if we don't like your price we'll go elsewhere, or maybe just pay some boys to sort you out").

And they talk about the 'interventionist schemes' of the fair-trade companies distorting 'market realities', whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the supposed 'free' market is anything but that. A truly free market would be one where all players, every individual on this planet, started off at the same point, with every last little thing being equal. A level playing field as it were. Oops, sorry, that sounds dangerously like collective ownership, common wealth and shared responsibility. Some may even say anarchy.

Anyway, this bloke goes on and on and on and on trying to say why unfettered capitalism is surely the best option for poverty but never seems to question the basic false premise he starts from. No change there then. Read it yourself, but make a good strong cup of coffee (fair-trade of course) beforehand.

The Fairtrade organisation has issued a statement prior to the ASI(nine) report being released. No doubt they'll pull it apart more thoroughly once they've read it (not hard as I'm sure you've noticed).

Fairtrade is not a solution to capitalism but it does practically alleviate some of its greater excesses. I've bought fairly-traded products when I can for some time now (not looking for respect, just saying even though I'm a lowish earner I can afford to show some financial solidarity with workers in other places) and I helped persuade my employer to switch to fair-trade beverages at work. Little steps maybe, but pragmatic anarchism isn't as contradictory as it sounds.

For literally a few pennies more I know that what I'm drinking will maybe help provide healthcare or education or housing for other people. People who I'll probably never meet but whose struggle is still part of mine. One day it won't have to be like this but until then I'll do whatever I can to make a practical difference, whether that's making tea or making trouble.

The Road To Democracy Stops Here

2004-03-07T21:58:00.000Z

Big Blunkett has announced tonight that he intends to try and end the right to assemble and protest in Parliament Square, directly outside the British ~~Command Bunker~~ Houses of Parliament. As far as I know, no Government has ever tried to do this, and the 'right' to peacefully gather and protest on the street has a long history in this country (almost as long as the history of riots, although these are somewhat more illegal!). This follows on from last year's ill-fated attempt to halt permanent protests in the Square.

Apparently it's all to do with the increased security risk now we're in a War On Terror, never mind the fact that the British Government have been involved in many such wars, on home turf, and never felt the need to carry out such an act. But, as ever, there is a darker, more Orwellian, aspect to this story. It's all about poor old Phoney Tony's feelings. You see, the PM is getting all upset whenever he turns up for 'work' (and I use that in the loosest sense of the word), because the Hoi Polloi insist on being there to 'greet' him and remind him just what we think of him with a bit of light jeering and heckling. Hardly bricks and bottles (of which he's far more deserving), just a few choice words, and yet he goes running like a baby to his Home Secretary.

"Please Biggie, make 'em nasty protesters go 'way, 'em make me sad! Me don' wan' hear 'em! Sob!"

I don't necessarily agree with the idea of a 'right' to 'peacefully protest' but I'll defend to the death (of cops, bosses, politicians) your ability to do it. You can rest assured it won't be long before we have curfews and ID cards if this goes through(what's that? We already have curfews and ID cards are imminent? Oh....).

Interesting footnote: The Liberal Democrat spokesman Norman Baker, whilst ostensibly opposing BB's plans, referred to the occupants of the semi-permanent protest camps in Parliament Square as "dedicated democrats, or oddballs as some people might call them". Dedicated democrats = oddballs. And that's from a professed democrat. That's what the 'defenders' of 'democracy' really think of you. Ho hum.

Is Gay Marriage Racist?

2004-03-06T13:07:00.000Z

Kenyon Farrow has posted a stimulating (if possibly controversial) essay addressing this very question over at Anarchist People Of Color.

It is one of the most intelligent, reasoned and articulated pieces of writing that I have read in a very long time. Read it here.

The article has got me thinking about the whole nature of class, race and sexuality and, although I'm a bit uncomfortable with Kenyon's 'hierarchy of oppression' (does that really help unite us and move us forward?), I understand why sometimes things do have to be spelt out this clearly. Give me a bit of time and I'll try and respond (as a white hetero-leaning working class male of course!).

Respect due Kenyon.

A Call To Prayer

2004-03-02T21:12:00.000Z

In the mail today:

Damn It George! If you're going to do it, do it right!

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according the Biblican principles. With many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team' admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage based entirely on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women (Genesis 29:17 - 28; II Samuel 3:2-5).

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives (Samuel 5:13; IKings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21).

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

D. Marriage of the believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden (Genesis 24:3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30).

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9).

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your father drunk and have sex with him (even if he previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old, tag-teaming with any sisters you may have). Of course this rule applies only if you are female (Genesis 19:31-36).

If you have other biblican injunctions to add to this list, please share them with the Presidential Prayer Team.

With the aid of a lighted magnifying glass , I checked most of them out and they are valid. No wonder my mother didn't encourage me to read the Old Testament.

Thanks Josh ;)

Be Realistic - Demand The Impossible

2004-03-02T16:44:00.000Z

There has been much debate amongst 'liberal' US bloggers of all shades about whether there is an obligation to vote in the American elections come November.

Some are arguing that everyone should vote for the most likely candidate likely to beat Bush (i.e. the mainstream Democrat) to shift the agenda, no matter how slightly, back to the Left. Subversity tends to favour this approach.

Others prefer to use the electoral system to show their opposition to the agendas of both mainstream parties, and are seeking to break the cosy complacency of the two-party state in the US. Mickey Z argues the case in Press Action.

Besides voting, some are saying that additional actions are required to re-focus and re-shape the Left and create a new direction for 'the movement'. Check out Don't Just Vote for an idea of what this means.

And finally, there are the anarchists who are basically saying it doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all in the same boat together and capitalism wins regardless. A radical challenge outside of the electoral system is the only approach worth taking. The arguments are nicely summarised at Strange Loops.

So I've been considering where I stand on things.

Up until spring of last year I was a confirmed anti-voter, for all the usual anarchist reasons (ultimately 'whoever you vote for, Government wins'). I was brought up under the Thatcher regime in the UK and cut my political teeth on the picket lines, protests and riots that punctuated her rule. This was open class warfare and I knew which side I was on. I laughed at the idea that voting offered an alternative, particularly when I saw that 'alternative' lining up against my class whenever we chose to try and take the power back. Our displays of power were as much a threat to them as to the Thatch (that's why communist Russia refused to arm the anarchists and independent Marxists in the Spanish Civil War - they feared an independent working class even more than the fascists because it negated their own authority. But I digress...). Thatch was clever at first, taking on sections of the working class, seeking to divide and conquer.

Then Thatch took it one stage too far and attacked the whole of the working class through the Poll Tax. We rioted, she fell, and the political landscape looked like it could change.

Only it didn't. The Tories were re-elected into office, albeit on a more 'compassionate' (read: shaken) ticket. The 'democratic' Left were left wondering how they had failed to take advantage of our anger and turn it into power for them. What they so blindly failed to see is that we ain't stupid. Why should we have voted for politicians who condemned us for our actions yet sought to gain political advantage from them? The working class shunned, and continue to shun, the electoral process because we see the irrelevance of their posturing to our lives. We have aspirations beyond their barriers and we don't need to play their game.

But the political game continued because there are a minority of people who benefit from the 'democratic' political processes. They use it to protect their interests, whether financial or social, and to maintain their positions of power and security that are denied to the majority. Yep, it's the middle classes who just love to vote. Presently they feel the need to have a more 'liberal' capitalist as their public face, hence the whole Nu-Labour project. Whatever it takes to keep their property prices stable and the proles at arms length.

That's not to say that the working class doesn't vote, tens of thousands voted for Blair's cronies back in '97 thinking it would herald a sea-change in British politics. It didn't. And yet again sections of the working class are left wondering 'why didn't my vote make a difference for me?'. And they wonder why the electoral turnout figures are falling year on year.

Which leads me up to my decision last year to vote. Let me explain. For a start I didn't vote in a national election. As I think I've made clear, the choice of oppressor isn't really a choice at all. But I did vote, and campaign for people to vote, in the local council elections in my city (for non-UK readers, a council is the UK form of an elected local (city, town etc) government). Why? Because there was an organisation to vote for that was distinct and separate from the established mainstream, that talked about working class issues in working class language, that exposed the nepotism and dodgy dealings of the council in power at the time, and offered a radical alternative to the cosy stitch-ups that had dominated local politics (a reflection of the national situation).

Local politics are what concern people. We can worry all we like about the bigger issues, but it's on the streets of the estates that the real politics are discussed. This is where we need to work to set the radical agenda. This is why the British Nazi Party are having some (albeit minute) success in local elections. They present themselves as being a radical alternative to the status quo who are genuinely concerned about local issues (although ultimately this is a way for them to peddle their race hate). Many people who have voted for the BNP haven't done it because they're racists, but because they see no other alternative to the mainstream being presented.

So don't waste your time thinking that campaigning and voting for the mainstream matters to us or our lives. It doesn't. Capitalism cannot be reformed and the mainstream parties are the footsoldiers of capital. Don't fool yourself into thinking that a 'democratic' left government wouldn't order its military and police to shoot you down if you really threatened the capitalist social order. A 'democratic' cop is still a cop when they're beating you back to the ghetto.

But it may be realistic and pragmatic to look at whether we can create a new political dynamic at the grass-roots through the electoral process if the way that we campaign and organise is radical and a genuine alternative. Alongside our more traditional methods (strikes, occupations, demos, riots) we could create new civic organisations, building bridges within and between our communities and changing the very nature of the social order from the bottom up, from the outside and without compromise.

It may be idealistic and utopian but I'm a firm believer in demanding the impossible.

Would You Adam And Eve It?

2004-03-01T21:48:00.000Z

A group of naturists in Cambridgeshire, England, have added film-going to their list of social activities. Whilst I prefer to be clothed most of the time (this is England, after all, and quite frankly I'm also concerned about what effect my naked torso may have on the general population), I don't have any problem whatsoever with people who don't. I'm not a body fascist, and other people's lumps, bumps and floppy bits are generally of no interest to me.

But it would seem that a local Baptist Minister, Jeremy Brooks has got hot under the (dog)collar with all this nudity around him (in which case, maybe he should try taking his collar off). The Rev has apparently declared nudity a sin, ranting away about how the Bible forbids such practices (although I can't seem to remember the bit about 'thou shalt not watch films in the nuddy' from my RE lessons).

Rev, loosen up (especially your clothing). If you've got any real belief in your God creating people in his/her/its image then what's your problem? Surely your God has got floppy bits too?

I'm sure if you ask nicely you'll be more than welcome at their next show (I hear it's 'Free Willy'!).

(For non-UK readers, Adam and Eve is Cockney rhyming slang for 'believe', and 'willy' is a polite word for penis!)

Slacker Luddites

2004-02-28T23:38:00.000Z

This is from an interesting article that I came across via Political Graffiti.

At present, employees can be monitored by devices connected to their computers, so the overseers know precisely how long a worker has been at h/er workstation and can even take keystroke counts, but surveillance alone is not enough. Slacker Luddites know how to get around these surveillance techniques. However, once the organic and the technological are joined, workers will never be able to leave their workstations. They will be able to move from place to place, but they will never be able to jack-out. The wearable computers from NEC Corporation exemplify this corporate elite science fiction fantasy. There is little doubt that the task of compressing machine space and organic space (the workstation and the body) into a single compact unit is well under way.

Yet despite all this workplace terror, so long as technology offers services to the individual, it receives the utopian benefit of the doubt. It is both useful and enjoyable. Quite commonly, a slacker Luddite who hates to slave on h/er computer at work returns home only to sit at the computer again, to desktop publish h/er own magazine. This situation is the opposite of originary Luddism. The slacker Luddite shuns or destroys technology not because of a hatred or fear of it, but because of a hatred for work, while originary Luddites were accustomed to work, but hated and feared the technology. Slacker Luddism is a late capital hybrid, a perfect example of recombinant culture. It synthesizes the tactics of originary Luddism with the zero work ethic of contemporary slackers.

The original Luddites failed to see the liberating potential of technology, seeing instead only a threat to their life of wage slavery. They chose to smash the machines rather than use them against the capitalist paradigm emerging at the time.

Conversely, neo-Luddites almost unknowingly embrace technology as a tool of liberation even as the capitalist class seeks to use it to enslave us further. At present the 'movement', if it can be called that, is in its' infancy, and it could be argued that it is apolitical and disconnected from the broader movement for social change. It would appear to be more about personal control over the individual's workspace, rather than collective opposition to capitalist control of the common workplace. This reflects the greater divison of labour in late capitalist economies.

But it provides a new opportunity for us as radicals with collectivist ideals to engage with these neo-Luddites, in part because we are already engaged with the same processes as them (hands up how many of you research and update your blogs in work time?). By encouraging acts of neo-Luddism whilst imbibing such acts with a more overtly political edge we can help hasten the evolution of a new Luddite paradigm, overtly political and at the forefront of technological class warfare.

To the barricades, comrades (just don't forget your laptops).

Anarchy Illegal! (again)

2004-02-27T23:05:00.000Z

Counterpunch, a radical mag and website, have published an article by David Grenier, an anarchist. In it, Dave reveals that Rhode Island Governor Carcieri, has introduced a bill that could see anyone with anarchist principles doing ten years inside.

I have on my desk right now a copy of the new Rhode Island "homeland security" bill proposed by Governor Carcieri. It's an 18 page document, and right on the first page, before talking about weapons of mass destruction or poisoning the water system or anything else that a rational person might consider "terrorism", it says "any person who shall teach or advocate anarchy" will go to prison for ten years.

Needless to say, Dave has suggested a standard anarchist response - organise!

The bill has just been withdrawn (20.02.04) for the moment, so that the Governor can rewrite the Bill and re-introduce it in the near future. If the Governor introduces the bill again I'm sure there are quite a few anarcho's who'd like to introduce the Governor to the pavement!

When freedom is outlawed, then only outlaws will be free.

Footnote: Dave also has a unique anarchist solution to telemarketers!

TrackBack

2004-02-27T19:33:00.000Z

I didn't really understand this TrackBack business before yesterday (being new to this blogging lark).

However, I've sussed it out and think it has got FANTASTIC potential.

Here's how Brutal Hugs describe it:

TrackBack allows bloggers to connect their entries to related entries on other blogs. Let's say I read an interesting post on your blog or any other trackback-enabled blog [note both blogs have to have TrackBack - TCM]. I can respond to it or write something related on my blog. Then, using trackback, I ping your blog, which lets you know I've responded to one of your posts. Readers of your blog can see all the pings by clicking on your trackback link. When bloggers ping each other, interested readers can then follow one topic of conversation around the blogosphere.

This is just one use of Trackback. To quote Ben and Mena Trott, who came up with Trackback, "TrackBack itself is a framework for peer-to-peer communication between weblogs; it can track cross-weblog discussions, it can provide remote content repositories, it can emulate guest authoring, etc. The technical side of TrackBack is very simple: when you want to notify a remote site of your existence, you send a ping to that site."

Use your search engine of choice if you want more details.

We could actually create huge blogaries of information and resources by using this facility, so please give it serious consideration when you're next twiddling with your blog!

Suffer The Children

2004-02-27T17:55:00.000Z

Three death row prisoners are scheduled to be executed in the USA in the coming months for murders committed when they were 17 years old.

International law, recognized and respected by almost every country in the world, unequivocally prohibits the use of the death penalty against people who were under 18 at the time of the offence. Four US Supreme Court Justices, one short of a majority, have described such executions as "shameful" and a "relic of the past".

[...]

Since 1998, AI (Amnesty International) has recorded 19 executions of child offenders worldwide. Thirteen were carried out in the USA, eight of them in Texas. Seven of these Texas executions were of African Americans, six of whom had been convicted of the murder of white people. Edward Capetillo, Raul Villarreal and Efrain Perez are Hispanic and were also convicted of crimes involving white victims. Studies have consistently shown that the race of the victim is a factor in the US death penalty.

The nature of their crimes does not concern me. The state sanctioned murder of any individual for whatever 'justification' is nothing other than an act of vengeance. It sets the most negative of examples to society at large. It does not resolve the crime (resolution comes from reflection and comprehension, not vengeance). It does not bring back the victim of that crime. It does not prevent similar crimes happening again in the future.

And it doesn't surprise me that it happens most in a state with a racist legislature and Christian fundamentalist eye-for-an-eye mentality at its rotten core. Beware the Texaliban.

Voting for Anarchists

2004-02-25T23:48:00.000Z

Well, maybe not quite that, but StageLeft are running an awards competition for new liberal / left-leaning blogs, affectionately known as The EMMA's :

EMMAs are awarded quarterly to new liberal/left leaning bloggers in the hopes of raising their profile in the blog-o-sphere (to use a term coined by fellow blogger skippy the bush kangaroo) [...] EMMA is a few things, the letters stand for Elected Most Meaningful Article. It's also a bit of a spoof on the Emmy awards, and it's a bit of a tribute to Jewish activist/anarchist Emma Goldman.

The rules etc. are posted up, as are the categories and entry details.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that this blog is worthy of nomination (and to be honest I like to think of myself as extreme left rather than liberal!), but some of the blogs I like are more in this vein. I may not agree with all they say, or their methods, but I like their underlying attitudes and approaches and I'd rather build bridges than walls.

So this little anarchist is gonna vote for a fave or two, just to show my respect for these left-leaning liberals.

Bless 'em.

Gaining The Will To Resist

2004-02-25T18:04:00.000Z

I recently signed the petition organised by The High School Draft Resistance Parents Forum (aka Refuz). They are peace activists in Israel whose sons have been called up by the Israeli Army and are now in prison as conscientious Objectors (CO).

Today I received an email updating me on their plight:

UPDATE - Israeli COs now in Civilian Jail - in separate cells, 7 prisoners in each cell built for 4 prisoners - so that some sleep on the floor. Held in the cells 23 hours out of each 24 hours.

On Sunday 24.2.04 the five conscientious objectors were transferred to the civilian prison service to serve the rest of their sentence. The army, in its determination to rid itself of the COs by passing them to the civilian service opened a campaign of harassment and witch-hunting that started at the Tuesday (17.2.04) hearing of the committee on prisoner transfers (from army to civilian jails). At this hearing Colonel Ochana, Deputy Commander of the Israeli military Police Corps, described the five as "well poisoners" . Had Colonel Ochana bothered to attend history classes he would have learned that the origin of the anti-Semitic expression "well poisoner" was in the middle ages during the period of the Black Death plague. At that time Jews were accused of spreading the plague as part of a "Jewish Conspiracy" by poisoning European water sources. On the grounds of these accusations tens of thousands of Jews were butchered or were burnt at the stake. Very few anti-Semites would dare to use such this expression today.

On the other hand, had Colonel Ochana learnt history he would not have been so eager to pursue the conscientious objectors as he did.

At the committee hearing the Colonel declared that the COs will be expected to participate in work details to construct the 'Security Fence' in the occupied territories. Their predicted refusal to obey such orders was one of his main arguments for demanding their transfer to a Civilian Jail. By refusing they will loose their chance of obtaining a sentence reduction on the grounds of good behavior. [ See Adam Keller's report on the committee hearing.]

At this stage we realized that if we do not agree to the transfer to civilian jail the life of the five would become a living hell. We thought that we would rather see them locked away with hardened criminals than exposed to an endless harassment that will lead to extension of their jail-time. You do not need a vivid imagination to see the five loaded on a truck , transported to the occupied territories and being ordered to participate in the construction of the Wall.

We protest. We protest at our sons" imprisonment. We protest their transfer to civilian jails, we protest at the continuous harassment that they are subjected to. We realize that we cannot expect either justice or reason from the army system. Therefore , as a protest at the outrageous treatment, we withdraw our appeal from the military appeals court. We lost the remnant of our trust in the system. We do not need more Colonels to tell us that our sons are "well poisoners".

What we know today is just that they have been separated and sent to the Nitzan Jail. We know that they are currently held in cells designed for 4 prisoners but containing 7 prisoners some of which sleep on the floor. They will be permitted to leave the cell just one hour in each 24 hours.

These are the facts as we know them today. More than ever we need your support for our sons, and for all the COs to come. Think about them, talk about them to your friends and colleagues - tell your friends what is happening to them we keep the News section of the web site updated daily.

Go to "how you can help us" and decide what else you can do.

The Refusers Parent's Organization has no paid staff we conduct the struggle with very limited means we are totally dependent on your will and creativity. Don"t let them fade away behind the bars as the Israeli Government would like to happen.

These CO's are not alone in Israel. Even troops in the most elite Israeli unit are refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories. They defiantly stand alongside over 1200 other Israeli refuseniks. And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, I also found a blog written by an American Jew that lists a large number of Palestinian peace activist groups.

I abhor the artificial concept of the nation-state and the imposed borders on humanity, and in an ideal world there would be no barriers between us. We would revel in the multiverse of identities that make this planet unique, without being slaves to such irrelevances as which piece of this planet you happen to have been born on. In the meantime, we all have a responsibility as human beings (not Jew or Arab or gay or straight or male or female or...you get the picture) to oppose the confines imposed upon us, whether that be by religion, politics, culture or whatever, and to act with humanity.

Tear down the walls. Peace by piece.

Katharine Gun - Update

2004-02-25T16:29:00.000Z

GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun demanded an explanation today after the case against her of disclosing information and breaking the Official Secrets Act collapsed after the prosecution offered no evidence.

- The Guardian 25.02.04

Too much like opening a can of worms methinks. What a great democracy we live in.

Money doesn't always talk

2004-02-24T11:33:00.000Z

I came across this at Barista.

"The journalist Khawar Mehdi and his two accomplices are charged with plotting against the state through their acts of making video film of the fake activities of Taliban in Pakistani territory." [the charge laid against them by the Pakistani state - TCM]

Marc Epstein, Jean-Paul Guilloteau and Mehdi had just completed a report, videod by Epstein, on the Taliban in Pakistan, when they were arrested on December 16th last year. While the French eventually left after eight days in jail and a substantial fine, Mehdi just disappeared. He surfaced several times on television, but the Sindh security forces denied his existence, even though President Musaraff had publically referred to him. He told representatives of the All Pakistan Newspapers Society : "This freelance journalist has done terrible harm to the national interest in making this fake film on the taliban and for only 2,000 dollars. If he had come to me I would have been able to give him 3,000 dollars not to make this film."

Glad to see our great western liberal democracies being so supportive of this fledgling democratic regime eh?

If you want to do something, then Khawar's supporters have set up a site with more information about their campaign. There is also a petition demanding his release. Please do the right thing.

Smoking Gun

2004-02-23T23:27:00.000Z

Received in the mail today:

Please read the following message about Katharine Gun. It is written by Daniel Ellsberg, the famous whistleblower whose Pentagon Papers revelations about US government deception helped end the Vietnam War. Daniel is deeply concerned about Katharine's situation and about the deceitful means by which the US and British Governments harnessed public support for war, and urges you to take action to help her.

Dear Friend,

I am writing to ask you to help Katharine Gun, a courageous GCHQ translator, who faces prison for exposing an illegal spying campaign. You can help her now by going HERE. She has a pre trial hearing at the Old Bailey on 25th February.

In the weeks leading up to the war, at a time when the UN was still considering whether to pass a resolution authorizing war, Katharine disclosed to The Observer that the US National Security Agency had asked the British government to help in a surveillance operation focused on the six delegations holding the balance of power in the UN Security Council. This involved bugging home and office phones and intercepting e-mails of diplomats from friendly countries such as Chile and Mexico.

I urge you to contact Tony Blair and your local MP asking that the case against Katharine be dropped. Please take few moments to do this now HERE.

Back in the 1960s, I served three US Presidents - Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon - who lied repeatedly and blatantly about the reasons for entering Vietnam and the risks in our staying there. For the past year I have seen history repeat itself. I believe that George Bush and Tony Blair lied - and continue to lie - as blatantly about their reasons for entering Iraq as the Presidents I served did about Vietnam.

In 1971 I released to the press what became known as the Pentagon Papers: 7000 pages of top-secret documents demonstrating that virtually everything four American presidents had told the public about our involvement in Vietnam was false. In the autumn of 2002, I hoped that officials in Washington and London who knew that our countries were being led into an illegal, bloody war and occupation would consider doing what I wish I had done in 1964 or 1965, years before I did, before the bombs started to fall: expose these lies, with documents.

I can only admire the more timely, courageous action of Katherine Gun, who risked her career and freedom to expose clandestine actions to win support for an illegal war, before that war had started. Her disclosure of secret efforts to manipulate Security Council votes may have been critical in denying the invasion a false cloak of legitimacy. That did not prevent the aggression, but it was reasonable for her to hope that her country would not choose to act as an outlaw. She did what she could to save lives, in time for it to make a difference, as indeed others should have done, and still can.

I have no doubt that there are thousands of pages of documents in safes in London and Washington right now - the Pentagon Papers of Iraq - whose unauthorized revelation would drastically alter the discourse on whether we should continue sending our children to die in Iraq. Those who reveal documents on the scale necessary to return foreign policy to democratic control risk prosecution and prison sentences, as Katharine is now facing. I faced 12 felony counts and a possible sentence of 115 years: the charges were eventually dismissed.

Exposing government lies carries a heavy personal risk, even in our democracies. But that risk can be worthwhile when a war's worth of lives is at stake. Please go HERE to contact Tony Blair and your own Member of Parliament today asking that the charges against Katharine Gun be dropped. You can also write a message of support there for Katharine, which OWOS will forward onto her.

Sincerely yours,

Daniel Ellsberg
On behalf of Our World Our Say

STOP PRESS: TODAY'S [21.02.04] GUARDIAN SUGGESTS THAT THE GUN CASE MAY BE DROPPED NEXT WEEK. IT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU KEEP UP THE PRESSURE BY LETTING TONY BLAIR & YOUR MP KNOW WHAT YOU THINK TODAY.

Click that link.

Locking up the truth

2004-02-23T17:56:00.000Z

British prisons are failing. They are failing the inmates incarcerated in them and they are failing the society they are designed to serve. We live in fear of crime because the media are always harping on about it, but the underlying causes (and the reality that most of us are unlikely to be victims of any serious crime) are never given airtime. Enough already.

Latest Home Office statistics reveal that:

On 30 January 2004 the prison population in England and Wales stood at 73,688 an increase of 2,729 in the past year.

The full report (PDF doc) from the Home Office paints a dismal picture of prison life. There are increasing numbers of jail suicides (often accompanied by poor staff training and inadequate procedures), more people with mental health problems being incarcerated without adequate medical and other resources, virtually non-existant resettlement work, and so on. Local prisons with short-term inmates were particularly lacking, worrying given that this accounts for a large number of UK prisons and prisoners

One particular problem for the prison system has been the dramatic increase in the use of short prison sentences instead of community penalties. In 1990, just under 14,000 adults were given sentences of six months or less. Now that figure has almost tripled. It is widely accepted that such sentences are too short to do any good, but long enough to increase the likelihood of re-offending.

~ 'How Did We Get Here?' by Rethink.

(Although, even shorter sentences with well-resourced treatment, education and training have been shown to be very effective - see below).

And what about people from minority ethnic communities?

The recent revelation by Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), a statutory outfit, that there were more African Caribbean entrants to prisons in England and Wales than there were to UK universities in 2002, has sent a shockwave through Black communities [...] The figures compiled by the CRE indicate that, in 2002, over 11,500 Black Britons were sent to prisons in England and Wales, compared to 8,000 who went to universities.

Only the most ardent racist would being willing to argue that these figures reflect the inherent criminality of black Britons. A socio-economic framework with institutionalised racism at its core is hardly going to be black-friendly now, is it?

The catalogue of misery in UK prisons makes for bleak reading.

We also have virtually the highest rate of incarceration (PDF doc) in Western Europe. Hardly something to be proud of.

This is what The Prison Service has to say about itself:

Her Majesty’s Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release.

Yet more than half of all ex-prisoners (and three-quarters in the case of young ex-offenders) re-offend within two years of leaving prison. The Prison Service is blatantly failing in its stated aim, yet the Government merely continue to shout about the need to imprison more of us for longer. That doesn't bode well for future social stability if our prisons are nothing more than training camps for career criminals.

One key factor in this appears to be the lack of well-resourced and accessible educational and training facilities (alongside the lack of mental health and drug resources of course). Prisoners are given a small amount of cash a week (£2.50 at the basic rate). More can be 'earned' through good behaviour or menial work (slave labour for large companies is widespread and prisoners are exempt from minimum wage protection). Yet no money is paid to those prisoners who undertake educational and training courses, which are far more likely to prevent future re-offending. What does this say to the offender about their self-worth? That menial work is all you are good for and all you can aspire to, that to want anything better will mean getting even less? Hardly inspiring behaviour change.

But I digress. You see, I don't believe that this is what capitalist prisons are for.

Attempting to reform people through coercion and force can never succeed. Arguments based on fear and terror are never very convincing. The institutionalised murder of the death penalty has never had the slightest effect on violent crime figures. It amounts to no more then revenge. Prison, if it achieves anything, tends to perpetuate crime with minor offenders often going on to commit greater crimes. Why not re-offend if nothing has changed when you get out?

~ WSM #92

The real question that remains unanswered here is why we have crime. To me it seems straightforward. Capitalism creates a contradictory argument. On the one hand it says that, through the free market, we can all potentially generate enough wealth to live a life of unbridled luxury, whilst on the other it concentrates power, wealth and control in the hands of the few, those who already have access to such mechanisms. Such an argument also resolutely refuses to recognise the finite nature of resources and markets. And the poor kid from the block who made it is as rare as fairy shit.

Who said that the earth could be divided up and sold, that the common wealth of this planet could be stolen and controlled by the few, in the first place? I certainly didn't give (and nor was I asked for) my consent.

There is also the key issue of defining what crime is. Is the person imprisoned for persistent petty theft to feed a drug habit more or less of a criminal than the tax-evading insider-dealing businessman (when was the lsat time you heard about one of them being locked up?). Last year only a handful of cases were being pursued by the Serious Fraud Office:

Throughout the year we worked on a total of 88 cases (excluding appeals) and by the year-end (4 April 2003) we had 71 cases on-going with an aggregate value of £1.9 billion. At the year-end there were also ten other matters in the form of appeals, confiscation, compensation still being dealt with (see page 36 for details). Cases of suspected fraud come to us from various sources, though typically they are referred by the police or by government departments (see Fig.1). Referring organisations will have made an initial assessment of the circumstances before passing the information to us along with their conclusions. Our assessment, or vetting, of the referral is a measured examination, taking a balanced view based on our acceptance criteria (set out on page 3). Then, in the final analysis, it is for the Director to authorise the acceptance of any particular referral.

During the year 14 trials were concluded (i.e. defendants sentenced or acquitted) with 25 defendants of whom 17 were convicted and eight acquitted (either by jury or by direction of the judge). [...] In completed cases, 12 defendants pleaded guilty, five were found guilty by a jury and eight were acquitted. Of the 17 defendants convicted, 15 received custodial
sentences (two of which were suspended), one a community order and one was fined. The longest term of imprisonment was eight years.

In addition to the 17 defendants convicted, four more were awaiting sentencing at the year-end, two having pleaded guilty and two having been found guilty.

Hardly seems fair.

So when wealth is controlled by the few and with-held from the many, yet the image presented to us day in, day out, is that the more you own the more you mean, is it any surprise that 'crime' becomes a social issue.

The role of the prison as a method of social control and containment becomes a lot more obvious when looked at from this perspective.

That does not mean that any future free society will be completely free of crime. The majority of crime stems precisely from social inequality and enforced inadequacy. But there will still be those whose behaviour is dangerous to wider society. We have a responsibility, as a society, to remove these people and place them in circumstances where their dignity can be retained as humanely as possible, whilst keeping them removed from the wider community. Any other approach merely denies our own humanity and hinders our socio-evolutionary progress.

All very idealistic, I accept, but ya gotta have targets.

In the meantime, what alternatives are there that are realistic and achievable and worth the attention of a broad-minded anarchist in the current social order?

Restorative justice places the individual within the community rather than apart from it. Anti-social crime is ideally tackled like this. If working class people act against their own communities, restorative justice seems a reasonable option. Done in the right way (and this probably isn't how the government see it), it also allows the 'offender' to investigate their own behaviour and place it in a broader social context. If you're poor, you don't steal from other poor people - go to the rich parts of town and rob from them. That's how it worked when I was growing up anyway (none of this bollocks about a clip round the ear from the cops, on our estate anti-social crime was virtually non-existant but everyone was on the blag one way or another).

Use your voice to address the wider issues about prison whenever you get the chance and to campaign for at least some degree of humanity for those currently locked up. The Prison Reform Trust campaigns legally to change prison conditions. Wet liberal but a respected and accurate source of information. And Rethink has some basic primers on the debate (within a nice democratic liberal framework of course).

The Anarchist Black Cross network offers practical solidarity with class-struggle prisoners globally, as well as a militant analysis of prison in society. Highly recommended.

So there you go. There's a lot more to be said and read about on this, I'm sure you'll agree. But with crime now such a major issue, I think it's about time the orthodoxy was challenged. I do this in my worklace and down the pub, the betting shop or supermarket. Doesn't matter where or how, but it needs to be said.

Queer humour

2004-02-23T00:33:00.000Z

Sometimes mockery is the best weapon.

12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. (You just imagined the penguins. Anyway, penguins are unnatural: they're birds, they fly underwater. Nuff said.)

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

~ taken from Live Journal

OK, so I don't particularly agree with state-sanctioned anythings, but it's nice to see people having fun, being happy with each other and making a challenge to the Fundies fury.

A Moral Conundrum

2004-02-20T11:45:00.000Z

Here's a dilemma for you....What would you do?

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line. This is important for the test to work accurately.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

You're in Florida... In Miami, to be exact... There is great chaos all around you caused by a hurricane and severe floods. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud.

You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. Then you recognize him. You know who he is.

It's George W. Bush!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life.

You can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, a unique photo depicting the death of one of the world's most powerful men.

And here's the question...

...please give an honest answer...

Would you select colour film or just go with the simplicity of classic black and white?

(Thanks for that Josh :D)

Out-sloganeering the Right

2004-02-19T20:27:00.000Z

Phaedrus from No Fear Of Freedom recently raised the question of why the left have no decent slogans.

Although I thought he had a point to some extent, I replied with a couple of what I consider to be fine examples of good ol' fashioned lefty sloganeering.

Today I came across the Conceptual Guerilla, who had the following to say:

"Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell, which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".

[snip]

Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like, which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".

Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

- excerpt from "Defeat the Right in 3 minutes".

There's plenty more on there about challenging right-wing ideology. I can't say I agree with it all, but the guy knows how to write so respect where it's due.

Which leads me to the first Common Man

Competition!

***Lefty slogan of the week***

No prize, but if I like your slogan I'll find a nice spot for it here and you'll get your name in print, woohoo!

Enter often and keep 'em coming!

My favourite lefty slogans?

"Vegan jelly on a plate
Wobble off and smash the State!"

for when I'm feeling a bit passive, and

"Harry Roberts is our friend, he kills coppers!"

when the mood is a bit more spiky (Harry Roberts shot 3 cops in England in the 60's and has been revered in song at riots, on football terraces and in general brouhaha's ever since).

Shout, shout, let it all out!

Hell, no, we WON'T go!

2004-02-18T21:53:00.000Z

The three men sitting in the corner of a busy cafe are unremarkable as they talk among themselves, sipping coffee and blending with the rest of the customers.

But they are members of a remarkable group, the Sayeret Matkal, Israel's equivalent of the SAS. And what makes them even more extraordinary in a society that holds its armed forces in such high esteem - in fact, what has earned them damnation from all over the country - is that they told their commanders that they refuse to serve in the Palestinian territories.

- from an article in The Observer (Sunday 15th Feb, 2004)

When members of your most elite military unit say 'you're wrong' surely you must at least start thinking 'have they got a point?'.

Career criminals

2004-02-18T17:17:00.000Z

Can you imagine an organisation that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

*29 have been accused of domestic violence
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bouncy cheques
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have served time in prison for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving

Can you guess which organisation this is?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The so-called leaders of the free world.

Lifted from the London Class War website. Cheers folks.

Literacy lesson

2004-02-16T17:39:00.000Z

I have always been a big fan of the British public library. As a kid we would go regularly to the local library, a grand old Victorian building with a glass-domed roof, huge wooden doors (well, they are when you're five) covered in brass, thick oak shelves with books of all shapes and sizes spilling from them, even the smell was unique. The kids had a section of their own, closed off from the adult bit, where we could sit and immerse ourselves in the worlds offered to us. I loved the place and the freedom I could find in books.

Even when we could no longer get to the building, we had a mobile library that would visit the estate every week, and I would wait for its arrival almost as eagerly as the ice-cream van. We were poor, and books were a rare treat at Christmas or for birthdays, but the library meant that our home was still filled with them.

Even when I left home and moved to another part of town, I headed straight for the local library. In part this was due to the fact that that I lived in an ice-box of a house and the library offered free heat along with the intellectual exercise. It was also one of the few public places that a young mohican'd punk felt safe!

I was, and remain to this day, hooked on the written word, factual or fantasy, as long as it stimulates me in some way. And I have the great Bristish library to thank for this.

It would seem I am not alone. This is from the Dept. of Culture, Media and Sport site:

60% of people hold a public library ticket.

There are around 400 million visits to public libraries every year.

10 million people make a visit to a public library at least once a fortnight.

But I have to admit that, until last week, I had not visited a public library for about 4 months. However, my girlfriend asked me to return some books for her to the central library in the city where I live. In recent months, the old library has been closed (again, one of those grand old marble and oak jobs, big leather chairs and solid wooden reading tables). This was my first visit to the new library.

It was great! The whole place felt very light and airy, almost like a modern cybercafe, there were dozens of PC terminals (free to use), a massive DVD selection (rent for only £3 a week, ideal for sharing with your mates - how does that compare to Blockbusters?), loads of other stuff and, of course, books.

Once I returned the books I set off exploring. Within moments I was looking through the hundreds of magazines that are readily available, and picked up a copy of The Freethinker, a secular humanist journal, and read a great article on the barbarism of the Catholic church over the centuries. I read quite a few more things, including the morning papers. All for free.

Then I had a look through the CD section, and for 70p each for a week's loan, I walked away with Johnny Cash and bluegrass compilation CD's. Bargain! And no lengthy download time either. If I like the record and respect the artist, I'll usually buy a copy anyway.

And I picked up a teach-yourself Spanish refresher course (which is working very slowly!). A morning's mental workout, with the promise of more once I got home, for less than a couple of quid and a brisk walk into town and back.

The kids still have their own bit, brightly coloured with regular activities, story-telling and the same sense of freedom that I first felt when I walked into one.

All of which has rekindled my enthusiasm for the printed word. I love the net and the possibilities of freedom it offers, but sometimes (and maybe it's my age), there's nothing more satisfying than sitting down and opening a broadsheet, on a table with plenty of elbow room, and nothing more to distract you other than a curiousity about what your neighbour may be reading (friendly hushed whispers are all that's needed to negotiate an exchange once they've finished).

This really is a public service in the truest sense, and I'm glad that libraries are making themselves attractive to the next generation of kids.

But we should never be complacent about having such a fantastic service. Concerns have already been raised about the privatisation of information. Battles around copyright and freedom of information could have a profound impact on the public library.

And what about public funding and the WTO?

Today’s working classes have pastimes and entertainment industries competing with the use of the libraries, like movies, sport events, concerts, television and radio to name a few. The general public is getting use to the fact having to pay for videotapes, compact discs, books and other items available free at the library. Will the taxpayers want to continue to subsidizing library services they rarely use, if the average family can rent a video, CD, or DVD private asks Fred Lerner about the future of the public library (Lerner, 209: 1998)?

Will working class libraries make a comeback since taxpayer-supported public libraries compete with private sector businesses of bookstores, video stores and music stores? There is also the threat of privatization of public libraries under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). A private sector information provider could demands the same amount of subsidies the taxpayer-supported libraries receive from government as GATS demand all service providers have to compete on level playing field. Or government would be forced to cut all funding to public libraries and public libraries would institute a cost recovering on each item borrowed (Hunt: 2001).

- Educate first, agitate afterwards: British Working Class Libraries

I didn't even know that the WTO had their greedy eyes on public libraries. One more reason to hate 'em.

So read more, use these great resources and oppose the privatisation of knowledge.

Information is power.

Rumsfeld tells the TRUTH! Well, sort of...

2004-02-16T11:42:00.000Z

Another log on the fire - burn, baby, burn!

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began...

...With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

- CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin

I particularly like the 'go massive' bit, just like the options you get at a Maccy D's.

Nobble the Nobel Peace Prize

2004-02-16T01:12:00.000Z

I got this info in an email from a mate today:

REJECT NOMINATION OF BUSH AND BLAIR FOR NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Sign the Petition.

Thought you've seen it all? Bush and Blair now nominated for the Nobel Prize! Please reject this nomination by joining me in signing this petition.
It takes 30 seconds and will really help. Please follow this link above where the system centralizes signature collection to provide consolidated, useful reports for petition authors and targets. Please forward this email to others you believe share your concern.

Worth remembering that Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1938 and Henry Kissinger actually won the prize in 1973. As the American songwriter Tom Lehrer famously put it, "political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize". Bush and Blair are in good company here!

Please sign the petition against this nomination. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. Don't forget to pass it on.

Thank you.

Please feel free to pass on this info. Petitions may not seem like much but they are usually better than nothing.

The Gene Genie is out

2004-02-12T01:32:00.000Z

The journal 'Science' will today publish a paper detailing the cloning process to create a human embryo.

I do not profess to any great depth of knowledge of genetic engineering, but I know enough to feel somewhat uneasy. Remember what happened the last time someone wanted to meddle with the gene pool of humanity?

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Killing an Arab*

2004-02-11T22:40:00.000Z

A family have lost their son in circumstances that appear to be as brutal as those that were commonplace under the the old 'regime'. Amnesty International (AI) and Channel 4 News (UK) have reported the death whilst in custody of a young Iraqi hotel worker.

AI said that:

Eight Iraqis working at the Ibn al-Haytham Hotel in Basra, southern Iraq, were arrested by UK soldiers on 14 September. Their arrest followed the alleged discovery of weapons in the hotel.

The eight were taken for interrogation at a UK military base near Basra and one of them, Baha' Dawud al-Maliki, a hotel receptionist in his twenties, died in custody three days later. Another, Kefah Taha, was admitted to hospital.

Baha' Dawud al-Maliki's body, which was identified by his father, was said to be severely bruised and covered in blood. Kefah Taha is being treated for renal failure and severe bruising to his upper abdomen and the right side of his chest, according to UK army hospital records. AI is seeking further information on the other six detainees.

AI are campaigning for an inquiry to be carried out. Details can be found on AI's website.

Just another lyric in a song that increasingly sounds the same as the last one.

* (with apologies to The Cure)

Squawk if you're glad to be gay

2004-02-11T10:59:00.000Z

Even the penguins are at it.

No doubt hordes of fundie Christians/Muslims/Jews and other assorted homophobes are preparing to descend on the zoo as I type. I'm sure the penguins will do the right thing and tell 'em to cluck off.

Only borders are bogus, not people

2004-02-11T10:10:00.000Z

At least 19 young Chinese immigrant workers have died whilst working illegally in the UK. The 19, who were part of a larger group, consisted of both asylum seekers and 'illegal' immigrants.

In the UK, people who have managed to navigate the maze of claiming asylum are denied the right to work. Instead they are given state 'benefits' that are far below the minimum safety net set for UK citizens. Accommodation is often in poor condition and comes from unlettable local authority housing stock.

Illegal immigrants have an even harder time. They are refused entry back to China by the authorities there, yet have no rights whatsoever here. In effect they are stateless. Denied any state benefits, they are forced to live and work in conditions that should be intolerable in a civilised country. For them, cramped dormitories, long working hours and no legal protection whatsoever are the norm. Many may well have a debt to the smugglers that will last a lifetime:

"There is a severe shortage of labour in the UK Chinese food industry. Earnings in China are 1/20th of those in the UK. Chinese immigration trafficking is the result of the Government's refusal to admit a controlled flow of legal immigration. Economic migrants are forced to become asylum-seekers. A Chinese Snakehead is the head of a smuggling ring, part of a Triad. A Triad is an underworld gang whose activities are wide and varied, they include loansharking, illegal gaming, prostitution, extortion and smuggling. ... Snakeheads are active also in London and other cities in the world. The current cost in coming to the UK is in excess of 200,000 RMB (£16,500), equivalent to at least 30 years' savings in China for an average migrant. Those who cannot raise the money from relatives and friends have to borrow from loansharks or Snakeheads, in which case a guarantor is involved. Interest is currently 2-2.5% per month compound. Punishment for non-repayment is severe. Beatings and maiming are common. Because of a migrant's genuine fear for his safety and that of his family, should he be returned to China before his debts are repaid, he might well qualify for protection under the Human Rights Act".

Select Committee on Home Affairs, UK 2001

And what is the Government's response to this exploitation? Big Blunkett made a statement that this tragedy 'proves' the need for a national ID card scheme in the UK. Quite how such a card would have benefitted the people who were killed has yet to be explained - they were 'illegal' to start with and would not have been able to get any form of legit ID, and the gangmasters who exploit them aren't exactly known for playing by the rules (minimum wage, health and safety legislation, tax and national insurance contributions etc). Nice one BB.

The one good thing that appears to have come from this whole tragedy is the response of the public. It is not uncommon to hear people talk of such 'illegal' workers taking 'British' jobs. Now people are aware of just how exploited these workers are and attitudes have changed. A local woman spoke on the BBC news about the resentment felt to the cocklers before these deaths, but that this had turned to sympathy once locals realised what was really happening to them.

While we continue fighting over artificial national borders, capitalism gets on with its global campaign of exploitation - socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us. If that continues to happen, such tragedies will continue to be repeated.

A nation-state is nothing more than a prison. We can only be truly free in a world without borders.

I Spy...

2004-02-05T16:34:00.000Z

Cops in Sunderland have taken the unprecedented step of releasing pictures taken by CCTV (Close Circuit Television) cameras of potential witnesses in a murder inquiry. Note that it's not known whether these people have or haven't seen anything to do with this case. But their wellbeing is being seriously put at risk by such action. The individual or individuals responsible for this vicious attack may well see these pictures. I don't know what these people may do, but anyone capable of beating a young man on crutches to death would surely have no qualms about attacking anyone who they even suspect of having witnessed the killing.

Personally I would be willing to act as a witness in a case where an obviously innocent person was being harmed. But that's partly because I try to do what I believe is right every time (even if that means talking to cops!), I am reasonably well-educated and feel confident about approaching officialdom on my own terms. I would also take good legal advice before doing anything at all.

But I think we should recognise that, despite peoples' best intentions, not everyone feels safe and in control in circumstances like this. Their own fear, very understandable in my opinion, prevents them from doing what others of us would have no problem with. We should respect that. The result of these cops actions will be to put at risk people who may have seen nothing at all, and if they did see something, well, what are their chances of being able to remain protected by anonymity now, should they have still been working out their next move?

The UK is the most heavily-monitored society's in the world when it comes to CCTV. There are over four million of them operating in the UK, around 20% of the world's total. Think about that for a second. One camera for every fifteen people in the UK. Unregulated. Uncontrolled in any meaningful way.

Actions such as these give us a chance to raise some of the broader issues associated with the move towards an increasingly monitored society. A useful starting point is the Watching Them Watching Us site.

Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not watchin' you...

BIG BLUNKETT IS WATCHING YOU

2004-02-04T16:59:00.000Z

I came across the Big Blunkett Blog today. Here is their mission statement:

As British citizens we have very little actual power to influence government. One weapon we do have is words, that's why we write blogs. However if we're honest the impact is small. Only a tiny proportion of the population will ever read any blog at all. Most will read ones they agree with - we're largely preaching to the converted.

What we need to do is take our words out on to the street - to get other people using them for us. We can do that not with lengthy arguments or rants but with simple phrases that encapsulate our position. Soundbites, memes, call them what you will. Politicians, advertisers and the media all know the power of a simple slogan: "Things can only get better", "Beanz Meanz Heinz", "the innocent have nothing to fear"...

The term I want to popularise is Big Blunkett. David Blunkett is an authoritarian Home Secretary who believes in monitoring innocent citizens. He is responsible for some of the worst threats to civil liberties this country has seen for many years. In particular he seems determined to introduce compulsory National Identity Cards - yet the average person on the street seems unaware of the threat he poses.

I'm not trying to offend or hurt David Blunkett personally. He might be a really nice man socially - but as a politician he is dangerous. The thought that he might become Prime Minister is frightening.

The expression "Big Blunkett" sums up the dangers simply and effectively, especially in the Orwell centenary year. When people hear the name David Blunkett they should automatically think "Big Brother". The fact that Blunkett is blind simply adds irony and provides a talking point.

I want to get "Big Blunkett" into common usage and I want to do it fast - time is running out. Please help me. Use the term "Big Blunkett" at every opportunity. Use it with your mates down the pub, use it in your blogs, use it in letters/emails to the media. If you're a journalist use it in your reports, even if only to the extent of saying "some people are calling him 'Big Blunkett'". I search Google daily for the phrase "Big Blunkett", hopefully soon I'll find 5000 entries instead of just 5.

Words can make a difference. Let's use them.

I don't want Big Blunkett watching me.

I saw Mark Thomas last year and he aptly described Big Blunkett as "a racist, homophobic little cunt". He couldn't wait to tell him his dog was black and gay (for non-UK readers Big Blunkett is blind and has a black labrador guide dog).

Let's hear it now...

Kick Capitalism Out Of Football!

2004-02-04T14:56:00.000Z

There has been a lot of talk in recent times of a financial crisis at the heart of UK football. Being a fan of the mighty Southampton FC means that I'm usually more concerned with either relegation from the Premier or manager battles, but I still have huge concerns about the impact of money on the game at all levels. If the 'big fish' can cream all of the money off for their own interests, what hope does that give to the smaller clubs who struggle to keep a ground together? How will young kids with natural talent progress to the world stage when local grounds and their youth facilities close down?

I've seen a possible future in America, where big (i.e. non-football!) teams simply move from one city to the next depending on where the money is. Wimbledon FC are a prime example of a club trying such a move, but their fans have run a superb and inspirational campaign against the relocation and have even launched an alternative team based in the community - AFC Wimbledon.

To be fair, the Football Association opposed the move and reacted thus:

'The Commission reached its conclusions despite evidence presented by the FA opposing such moves in principle... The Commission has made it clear that their decision is based on exceptional circumstances... They see Wimbledon FC as a one-off.'

But it still happened, and a precedent has been set.

There are good examples of other grass-roots campaign that are doing sterling work in keeping clubs viable and within their communities. Brighton and Hove Albion fans have been instrumental in securing a future for their club (although the fight still continues - a campaign began last week to boycott ASDA supermarkets which has forced the company to re-assess its position). The excellent Clubs in Crisis site also has info on past and present campaigns.

Football is in my blood. I haven't seen the Saints play live for a few years now (I no longer live in the city and I can't afford £80 a fortnight to get there, in and back again), but I still get a kick (sorry) out of watching a group of kids knocking a ball around a park. And I've played my part in the illustrious history of the magnificent Easton Cowboys, community football (and a hell of a lot more) at its very best.

I'll finish with the words of Bill Shankly, who as ever got it spot on:

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death.... I can assure them it is much more serious than that."

Ask No Questions, Hear No Lies

2004-02-03T13:14:00.000Z

Two of the most heavily militarised nations are making noises about failures in their intelligence-gathering activities prior to the invasion of Iraq. The US President has announced an 'independent' inquiry into how intelligence pre- and post-invasion compares. In his own inimitable style, the Pres said:

"I don't know all the facts. What we don't know yet is what we thought and what the Iraqi Survey Group has found, and we want to look at that."

WTF?! Anyone speak Bush? I think he's saying that he doesn't really know the facts about WMD, isn't sure what he was thinking or knew when he ordered the war and doesn't know what the ISG has discovered since. Well no shit Sherlock.

Back at home, still stinging from the failure of the Hutton report to rescue his credibility, Tony Blair has stated a similar inquiry will be established in the UK. This inquiry will apparently work closely with the US one. Joint working hasn't really worked well so far, any reason why this time it should be different?

Jack Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary, was quite clear that the inquiry would NOT examine whether it was right or wrong to go to war. He stated the the Government's actions were justified by the failure of Saddam to adhere to UN resolutions. This position is hotly debated.

How can it be that Britain and the US, global leaders in war technology and all of its trappings, should fail so dismally in their intelligence-gathering capabilities? It seems there are three possible answers (I'll ignore the impossible answer - that there were WMD's ready to roll in 45 minutes and that Blair and Bush were right):

1. That both Governments deliberately misrepresented the intelligence evidence, cherry-picking those bits that suited the case for war and ignoring any bits that questioned such a position.

2. That both Governments deliberatly lied and made statements that were not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

3. That the combined might of these superpowers failed to do what we might reasonably expect them to do, and do well given their resources, in their intelligence gathering, and that was gather good accurate intelligence (particularly given the knowledge they already had as a result of having supported and armed him in the past).

Surely I'm not alone in finding any of these answers deeply worrying?

E-mockracy

2004-01-29T21:48:00.000Z

There has been talk for some time on introducing e-democracy into the UK. This appears to be yet another feeble attempt to convince us that voting is obviously worthwhile and really makes a difference. The Government's own E-Voting Security Study concedes that one of the reasons for such a move is concern over there 'mandate' to govern us (yeah, right, like they had a mandate in the first place):

Recent elections, both local and general, have seen a gradual decline in overall percentage of the electorate exercising their right to vote. This is worrying from a democratic point of view in that, if the decline is unchecked, the mandate of those elected to govern might eventually be undermined.

I can see it now - e-voting booths in the supermarkets, "which brand of beans/bread/politician do I fancy today?" racing through the happy shopper's mind, an illusion of choice but with no real choice at all. You see, the "choices" will be carefully selected, limited in number, and only available in certain years! Where's the incentive in that?

If I need a representative in any capacity, then that rep needs to be working to my (and my community's) interests, needs to be accountable, recallable if necessary, and in close contact with their constituency (whether workplace, region etc). Technology has the potential to allow such communication. Our leaders are keen to see that we don't embrace such potential. What better way to do that than to make it just another part of their boring political charade of 'democracy'?

Beyond The Spin - manufacturing public opinion

2004-01-20T08:58:00.000Z

I came across this today -

"Astroturf (From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.):

Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a "grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them." Journalist William Greider has coined his own term to describe corporate grassroots organizing. He calls it "democracy for hire."

Grass Roots Coalitions
Sharon Beder

When a corporation wants to oppose environmental regulations, or support an environmentally damaging development, it may do so openly and in its own name. But it is far more effective to have a group of citizens or experts -- and preferably a coalition of such groups -- which can publicly promote the outcomes desired by the corporation while claiming to represent the public interest. When such groups do not already exist, the modern corporation can pay a public relations firm to create them.

(snip)

Merrill Rose, executive, vice president of the public relations firm Porter/Novelli, advises companies:

Put your words in someone else's mouth...

(snip)

Public relations firms are becoming proficient at helping their corporate clients convince key politicians that there is broad support for their environmentally damaging activities or their demands for looser environmental regulations. Using specially tailored mailing lists, field officers, telephone banks and the latest in information technology, these firms are able to generate hundreds of telephone calls and/or thousands of pieces of mail to key politicians, creating the impression of wide public support for their client's position.

(snip)

"technology makes building volunteer organizations as simple as writing a check,"

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

Sharon Beder is a professional engineer and senior lecturer in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Wollongong, Australia.

Ya gotta read the article. It describes an incredibly scientific approach to political manipulation. Goebbels is jitterbugging in his grave.

The government uses public relations firms, too, even on issues like going to war.

See also PR Watch which is dedicated to investigative reporting on PR propaganda firms.

For fun, check out this search result. The PR firms aren't exactly trying to keep it a secret. One entry: Media Wave Consulting. High caliber journalistic flacks for hire.

I don't think most people know how political "consensus" is manufactured. I think they'd care if they knew, but they either don't care enough or don't have time enough to find out. And the media ain't screamin' about it, so how big a deal could it be? The plutocrats depend on that, that and marginalizing those who do know as nut case conspiracy theorists. But it's not a conspiracy. It doesn't need to be. Each plutocrat following his own self interest is plenty good enough."

Taken from 'No Fear Of Freedom', and written by an American of the intelligent variety. For an alternative, indepth, quirky and humourous look at the dark underbelly of The Great Satan, check it out.

I posted this because if it isn't happening here already, it won't be long before it is.

Facts and Fictions - racial prejudice in the UK

2004-01-19T12:01:00.003Z

An opinion poll carried out by MORI in the UK suggests a significant level of concern amongst the British public on race and immigration. No doubt the right-wing media will distort the findings to push their conservative agendas and sow further fear and mistrust between us. And the British Nazi Party must be gloating at the propaganda opportunity.

So I thinks it's important to delve further into the figures to help clarify the picture somewhat:

Younger poeple are far less likely to have a problem with living in multi-racial communities. Amongst older people, it would seem more about living in a community with a perceived common sense of identity (based on shared values) than overt racism. This doesn't surprise me, as older people are more likely to be conservative in their outlook. These values and beliefs are likely to lessen as the new generation comes to the fore.

The working class (or social groups C2, D and E as we tend to get categorised by social scientists!) on the surface also seem to harbour a lot of resentment to immigrant groups. However, given that the nation's perceptions of race and immigration have been distorted by the media (for example, believing there to be about four times as many first generation immigramts as there actually are in the UK) this isn't so surprising. Nor is the finding that 28% of the poorest members of society are also more likely to want less social and welfare support offered to immigrants regardless of the circumstances. When a community perceives itself as having very few and finite resources, and also believes that free-loading is widespread amongst 'outsiders', then this is an understandable (if not justifiable) defensive reaction. A case of tuppence ha'penny looking down on tuppence, as a Geordie comrade once so eloquently put it.

Part of the problem has been that the Left has failed to address the real concerns of working class communities in any meaningful way. Slogans such as 'Refugees welcome here' do not address the paucity of resources in the communities where these immigrants are supposedly welcome. They do not address the reasons why these communities are deprived, nor do they offer an alternative. The BNP and other Nazi groups are trying to fill the vacuum created by the Left with a political alternative that, on the surface, appears to address such concerns by playing on working class racial prejudice.

"When the Left adopted the slogan 'Refugees Welcome Here' AFA (Anti Fascist Action) predicted it would cause trouble. With a staggering indifference to working class communities, already rundown estates were flyposted with this message. The idea that local people also had rights and should be consulted was dismissed. When the inevitable happened, and central government didn't reimburse local authorities for the extra spending that was incurred, the Left failed to take the initiative and show their support for the local community by campaigning for these extra resources; by rigidly dismissing any working class criticism as being racist they allowed the Far Right to make political capital out of the issue."

- Taken from AFA website

The solution seems obvious - develop a real radical agenda in working class communities beyond empty rhetoric and slogans. An agenda based on the concerns of local people and led by local people, one that challenges myths and misconceptions about some sections of these communities and emphasises the positive aspects of working class solidarity. AFA and other militant anti-fascist/pro-working class organisations internationally are engaging in this process right now, but there are other broader community organisations starting to take shape (for example, 'The Bristolian') that will also help create a new left politics for our communities.

"The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one."

"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

"Only one thing would have stopped our movement--if our adversaries had understood its principle and, from the first day, had smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement"

- Adolf Hitler

If it takes a voice then shout the truth
If it takes hand then hold them back
If it takes a fist then strike them down
From Cable Street to Berlin Kreuzberg

- 'This Is Free Europe' by Atilla the Stockbroker

Fascism doesn't start with the concentration camps, that's where it ends.

Cannabis confusion

2004-01-18T12:01:00.000Z

A report in the Observer (UK) today shows that the British Government intend to withdraw central funding for Drug Advisers working with young people in schools. The Government had assumed that local authorities would have been able to secure alternative funding, but only a third have managed to do so. The result will be wide-scale redundancies at a time when teenage drug experimentation and misuse is widespread.

At the same time, cannabis is being re-classified as a class C drug. This does NOT make cannabis legal, yet there seems to be some confusion amongst young people on its status.

And what about the most pressing of health issues, that of teenage drinking and smoking? Significant numbers of young people are smoking and drinking well beyond safe limits.

Surely what young people need now, more than anything, is honest and open discussion and information on all drugs? Drugs Advisers in schools may be limited in what they can say and do (to be honest I don't know how restrained or open they can be), but they may well be the first point of contact for either a curious teenager or one who already has concerns about their drug use. It would seem that we could do with more of these advisers, armed with accurate information and an open approach to their work, if we are to really address young peoples' concerns.

I do not subscribe to the approach that all drugs are harmful, nor do I agree that criminalising any drug use has any positive benefits for society. I am in favour of a rational drugs policy that would effectively remove all criminal penalties for drug use. But I also believe that, with the freedom to do as we please providing we do no harm to another, comes a responsibility to be informed. Working with young people is the start of that process and, if we really value them, then we need to show them we care about the very things that concern them, on their terms.

Kilroy was 'ere?

2004-01-16T23:25:00.000Z

Robert Kilroy-Silk, presenter of the BBC One audience-based discussion show 'Kilroy', has in effect been fired by the BBC. Kilroy-Silk had written an article some time ago for the Daily Mail, recently reprinted, that expressed anti-Arab sentiment. It would appear to be part of a line of occasional reactionary thinking from this ex-Labour MP, along with some liberal stuff, nothing too extreme from what I can find. The BBC's defence of its actions focussed on the fact that, although employees could have political views that could be viewed as controversial, such employees could not present news, politics or current affairs programmes. So Nick Griffin, leader of the British Nazi Party, would be fine as a presenter of Children's BBC but Mahatma Gandhi couldn't present Newsnight? What kind of employment practice is that? I hope that the National Union of Journalists are looking into this one. For what it's worth, I do not actually value anodyne presenters on the BBC, it would seem preferable to have someone who can voice a prejudice (whether their own or others) so that it can be taken apart.

But I digress. Although Kilroy-Silk has clearly demonstrated anti-Arab prejudice is this the same as racism? In my opinion, a racist is someone who believes his race to be superior to all others, to the extent that it is acceptable to openly denigrate, legislate against and otherwise publically humiliate and discriminate against all other races without exception. Does Kilroy-Silk fit this mould? I'd have to say not, although if someone can convince me otherwise, I'm open to argument (I don't particularly like the bloke and will happily denounce him as a vile racist should you be able to persuade me that is the case).

You see, from where I stand confusing a prejudice with an -ism can make it harder to challenge the -ism when it really manifests itself. For example, racial prejudice can be challenged by showing the prejudice to be just that - an assumption based on ignorance of the facts. Give people facts that challenge their own prejudices and a lot of the time you can change a person's outlook (yes, I know that even 'facts' can be contentious, but make sure you use good sources and back them up well!).

But if you cannot persuade someone with basic argument and facts (because they seriously believe that they have facts, theories and arguments to support their position, not just because 'that's how it is / they are' etc), then that person has gone beyond prejudice and adopted a definite position, one that's probably politically motivated. To me, that's when it becomes an -ism. An -ism requires a far deeper level of commitment and will be attempting to impose its particular viewpoint across society as a whole (that's as true for anarchism as it is for fascism, although the methods and end results are diametrically opposed).

To effectively challenge an -ism requires the participation of the majority of society, something we're hardly likely to achieve if we lump a sizeable section's racially prejudiced rhetoric in with the ideological fascists we need to unite against (the fascists will, and have, capitalised on this for their own benefit, embracing prejudice and reinforcing it with their political ideals - I say better a left hooligan than a right). It may well be that many people in the UK share Kilroy-Silk's prejudices (certainly, phone polls would suggest that), so it is up to us to demonstrate them as wrong in a positive way.

I would say that Kilroy-Silk does have an -ism, but it comes across to me more as western liberal colonialism than racism. His comments seem more aimed at Islam as an ideology rather than Arabs as a race (I'm sure a non-Muslim Arab could quickly demonstrate the falsehood of his prejudices against Arabs as a race, but I think it would be a lot harder for a Muslim to persuade me that his / her faith is generally compatable with human freedom - and before anyone accuses me of religious prejudice, you're wrong, I'm an atheist and oppose all religions equally!).

And for all its faults I feel a lot happier and safer living in the UK with my beliefs than I would living in, for example, Iran. That doesn't mean complacency, our freedom must be fought for and defended every inch of the way.

The true price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

A rare thumbs up for government

2003-12-30T22:06:00.000Z

The French government have recently stated that they intend to ban the wearing of all obvious religious symbols in state schools. This can only be a good thing. Which may be a bit of a strange thing for an anarchist to say but, being the pragmatic type, I sometimes don't have a problem if the actions of governments in specific instance help shape a society's or community's values for the better. Our role as anarchists should be to take advantage of such actions to argue against the falsehood of all religious belief systems.

As you can probably tell I have a problem with religion generally, and in particular the indoctrination of children into any faith system. Belief should be a matter of free choice if it is to have any value at all to the person concerned. The enforced upbringing of children based on a religious belief is an abuse of that child's free will.

That isn't to say that children should not learn the values that allow us to coperate and function as a society. But religion does not have a monopoly on morality or value systems. It seems that religious 'values' and 'morality' deny a child's humanity, replacing curiousity and inquisitiveness about themselves and their world with negative ideologies that seek to seperate then from 'others'. Part of this process is the enforced wearing of symbols to differentiate them from those 'others', whether it is the hijab, the skullcap or the crucifix.

Then comes the lies, that these 'others' will be punished for eternity one way or another for having a different 'faith' or even no faith at all. Just witness the American evangelists who have invaded Iraq to preach that Islam is wrong and salvation can only come from Christ. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The US ambassador on international religious freedom, John Hanford, had the following to say about it:

"...a fundamental principle of religious freedom that we work for in many countries of the world, including on this very issue of head scarves, is that all persons should be able to practice their religion and their beliefs peacefully without government interference, as long as they are doing so without provocation and intimidation of others in society." (my italics).

That's my point. Religion exists and functions precisely to intimidate society into conforming to a particular set of faith values. No more so than when it seeks to corrupt the minds of children.

And I've never heard of a humanist fatwah either.

Healthcare free for all, or free-for-all?

2003-12-29T16:03:00.000Z

I've just heard that the UK government want to start restricitng access to the health service for 'health tourists'. I'm concerned.

Who will make the decisions to say who can be treated and who can't? It seems almost inevitable in the current climate that non-white people will be disproportionally targetted, whether they are UK nationals or not. It has long been known that white people from, for example, the US have regularly come to Britain for free routine treatment as a cheaper option to the privatised madness common elsewhere.

And what about the fact that the UK actively encourages medical professionals from poorer nations to leave their own communities to come here to work in the UK health service? This takes away the very resources that these communities need, condemning them to ever worsening healthcare. The cost of training these professionals also comes from the local economy, further impoverishing that community

The contradictions of a government simultaneously supporting economic migration (after all, that's a big part of the reason why these professionals leave their communities in the first place) whilst condemning others who try and do the same by alternative means also sticks in the throat somewhat. People live in poverty because others have too much.

Finally, healthcare is a social resposibility. I really don't care how someone got here if the treatment they receive prevents the spread of disease and infection elsewhere (because disease has a nasty way of spreading regardless of where it originates from). And a healthy person is also more able to contribute positively to the wider community. Who's to say that the next child 'illegal immigrant' treated in a UK hospital and educated in a UK school (free education being taken away from immigrants is also on the agenda) won't go on to discover a cure for a deadly illness that will benefit us all?

Healthcare needs to be global, well-resourced, accessible and free if we really want to improve the lot of humanity.

Bam - An Avoidable Catastrophe

2003-12-28T16:00:00.000Z

I was saddened to see the aftermath of the earthquake in Iran. Nature can be brutal and destructive, and people will almost inevitably die when such power is unleashed. But the scale of the deaths has nothing to do with nature. Thousands of people died when they didn't need to. Why? Because they were not allowed to have the resources and materials needed to build safe homes.

Contrast the effects in Bam with those as few days earlier in California. Here, a similar size earthquake occurred but only 3 people died. California is a rich state, and its economy is far wealthier than many poor nations. Over the years, engineers have designed buildings that can withstand the worst effects of a quake. The materials are readily available and the skilled workforce has no difficulty in constructing good sound buildings. Resources are not an issue.

In Iran things are very different. Although the knowledge, materials and technical expertise to make safer buildings exist in abundance in our world, the Iranian people cannot access them. In capitalist terms they are simply too 'poor' and, in a world where the private ownership of wealth is presented as the only option for improving your lot, they have to survive with the inferior resources made available to them. Any wealth that is available is concentrated in the hands of a few (so, no different from anywhere else then really). The poverty of capitalism caused the large scale tragedy we've seen at Bam.

It could be different. If we could step outside capitalism, where everything has a price and nothing can be free, what would stop us sharing our materials, our knowledge and our skills with those who need them? From where I'm sat it seems the capitalist ideologies of governments (whether religious or secular) and the arbitrary and irrational concept of the 'nation-state' are the main impediments to such sharing. Remove money, remove borders and remove governments from the equation and the path from A to B seems a lot clearer and easier. A global society based on mutual co-operation for the common good would benefit us all and remove those very things that seem to cause us all of the problems in the first place.

As a far wiser man than me once said - "There is enough for all of our need but not for all of our greed".

Dig For Victory!

2003-12-28T11:41:00.002Z

Or at least spend your money more wisely...

I have an allotment. For non-UK readers an allotment is a small piece of land (about 200 square metres) that you rent from the local authority for about £30 a year, and can be used for growing food and flowers non-commercially. The allotment movement has a strong tradition amongst the working class, and in the past was an essential source of good food for people who had come to live in the industrialised cities. With all of the concerns around modern farming methods, the allotment movement seems to have regenerated itself. Demand for allotment plots has grown, and there are even waiting lists for many sites. A few years ago, local authorities were justifying the selling off of allotment land (usually protected in law) to developers on the basis it wasn't used. The fact that many of these authorities had shirked their responsibilities and allowed sites to fall into disrepair, making them unattractive and unviable for prospective tenants, seems to have escaped their notice.

I've only had the plot for a couple of months, and am busy removing all of the perennial weeds (which seems to be almost a non-stop job!). I'm building up the beds so that I can minimise the digging needed - I like the no-dig method (Vegan Organics - The Basic Principles)! The Vegan Organic Network is also a great source of useful info - Vegan Organic Network. I've got onions, garlic, broad beans and peas already growing, with a couple of asparagus plants busily establishing themselves. As we move into early spring things will start getting really busy, but there is a really nice community feel on the site. People are willing to help out and give advice (along with spare seedlings) on a regular basis. We're a mixed bunch in terms of age, sex and race (there are even a couple of middle-class types!) which just adds to the good buzz.

In the meantime, I've been using an organic box scheme for my fruit and veg. I've never been really happy using supermarkets, a bit of a necessary evil for the vegan in the city. And their organic produce is usually limited, imported and overpackaged. A friend came across a farm in Devon that delivers a box of organic veg (and other odds and sods) through a local distribution network to your door each week, and put me on to them. They have formed a co-operative with other organic growers to broaden the range of foods available. They only import where necessary, usually during the 'lean' British months of March and April. Even then, home grown produce makes up around 50% of the box. I'd rather give my money to a local co-op with some principles than Mr Tesco Multinational Corporation. Joining the scheme is simple if you live in the South-West. Go to the website for more info - Riverford Organic Vegetables. If you don't live in the delivery area, just do a search for a supplier in your area on the Soil Association site - The Soil Association Organic Directory. Non-UK readers - you will have to do your own research!

In my box last week, for £10 I received: potatoes, carrots, onions, swede, parsnips, celeriac, leeks, garlic, red cabbage, cauliflower and sweet chestnuts. The box also includes recipe ideas and a newsletter, and new members get some very useful literature on how to use the range of veg available through the year. They have a range of boxes from £6-£12.50 and you can add extras from their site should you want to. At these prices and with this range, the paucity of the supermarkets soon becomes apparent.

Given the concerns around our nation's health, the environment and the food poverty that exists in the inner cities in particular, these schemes offer an affordable and practical solution. Check them out.