Saturday 31 August 2019

The Privatisation of Totalitarianism

by Les May

MANCHESTER and Hong Kong are 6000 miles and 200 years apart.  The Peterloo Massacre took place at St Peter’s Field, Manchester on Monday 16 August 1819 when cavalry charged into a crowd of 60,000–80,000 who had gathered to demand the reform of parliamentary representation. It took four Reform Acts, 1832, 1867, 1884 and 1918 before every man over the age of 21 had the right to vote to select who should enact the laws which governed him. The 1918 Act added about 5 million men to the 8 million previously entitled to vote.  Many, perhaps a majority, of the men who fought and died in the First World war did not have the right to vote.

Some women gained this right in 1918 but it took another ten years before all women over 21 could vote in Parliamentary elections.

In Hong Kong on Sunday, March 26, 2017, a committee dominated by a pro-Beijing elite chose Hong Kong's next leader Carrie Lam as the new Chief Executive of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,  People's Republic of China.  She was ‘elected’ after she gained 777 of the votes of 1,194 Hong Kong notables and was regarded as Beijing’s favoured candidate.

China is a totalitarian state ruled by the Communist party which is run by a small elite. Beijing’s fear is that if a more democratic system of government is instituted in Hong Kong the people of mainland China will demand the same and the Communist party will lose control.

Being able to vote to select who will enact the laws under which you will live is an essential, but not sufficient attribute, of a democracy. The right to hold and express a different view to your fellow citizens is another essential requirement of democracy. This is the way we bring about change. Change is the one thing the Chinese Communist party leaders fear. In their eyes the status quo equals stability; change equals instability.

Not only is the right to hold and express a different view an essential component of democracy it is also necessary if we are to feel equal to our fellow citizens and to have any sense of personal autonomy. Totalitarianism is the total antithesis of this.

The men and women at St Peter’s field were there because they saw extension of the suffrage as a way of improving their material lot in life at a time when trade had slumped following the ending of the Napoleonic wars. The demonstrators in Hong Kong are not on the bread line, a fact which the apologists for the Chinese government who appear on news programmes make much of, they want to be able to choose lawmakers with views different from those of the Chinese communist party leadership, or not, as the case may be.

In Hong Kong as in the rest of China totalitarian conformity and the suppression of dissenting views is imposed by the state. That’s not the British way of doing things. Our totalitarianism has been privatised. In some circles and on some matters we are no longer allowed to hold and express a dissenting view.

Here are three examples. In July of this year I wrote a review of a booklet under the heading ‘Transsexuals vs Cocks in Frocks*. Someone saw this and in a post on Facebook described it as ‘funny’ and went on to express broadly similar views. He happened to be a member of a self styled London based ‘anarchist’ group. This group, behaving more like good Marxists, had a produced a statement about so called ‘trans’ issues and everyone was expected to follow it. He resigned.

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats from 2015 to 2017 is the sort of Christian who believes that homosexual sex is ‘sinful’. When asked about his attitude to it he denied this. Later it emerged that he had done this only because he felt under pressure from his party to do so. Farron’s continued association with evangelical anti-gay-lobby groups was seen as a ‘lack of care’ to the LGBT community. I think this probably means that he declined to shield them from hearing views they did not like.

Farron eventually resigned saying ‘The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader’, but not before he had been subjected to false allegations by the former head of the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, Chris Cooke, who made unsubstantiated complaints to the party about Farron's personal conduct when ‘drunk’, and later admitted that he ‘made up a story to cause trouble’.

What I find sad about both these cases is that neither of the people affected was prepared to take a stand on the right of individuals to hold and express a different point of view to that of their fellow citizens. Someone needs to remind the people who complained that freedom of expression applies to people you disagree with as well as those whose views coincide with yours. The alternative is the echo chamber of social media where you need only listen to views that coincide with your own.

The third example concerns the nature of the complaints of ‘anti-semitism’ made against the Labour party. There is a tendency amongst Labour supporters to view these as an attempt by some Jewish people to prevent criticism of the policies pursued by the state of Israel and an attempt to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. But to those of us who believe that the right to hold and express a different view to our fellow citizens is essential requirement of democracy, it seems more sinister.

Many of the complaints seem to be about what people say or have said. An otherwise excellent 85 page report from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research with the title Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel by L. Daniel Staetsky says on pages 63 and 64 ‘However, what Jews are exposed to far more frequently are people who hold, and from time to time may express, views that make Jews feel uncomfortable or offended. A person expressing such a view (e.g. ‘Jews think that they are better than other people’) may hold this view in isolation and may indeed hold a weak version of it, but when it is casually voiced in front of a Jewish individual, it can cause considerable upset and concern.’ (my emphasis)

Taken at its face value this means that one section of the population is demanding the right never to be offended and the right to tell us what we should think about them. This is a demand for exceptionalism.

In Hong Kong thousands of people are running the risk of provoking the Chinese communist party into ordering the Peoples Liberation Army (all despots like to claim they are acting in the name of ‘the People’ and setting them free) to clear the streets, in order to express their wish to select their own lawmakers. Let’s not betray them by handing control of what we think and what we say to any bunch of people who are afraid to hear views that differ from their own. Freedom is having the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. 

*   northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com › 2019/07 › review-transsexuals-vs-cock...

Thursday 29 August 2019

The Delegitimising of Jeremy Corbyn

by Les May

FIRST some figures. Amongst the Opposition parties Labour has 247 seats, the SNP 35, Independents 15, Liberal Democrats 14, Independent Group for Change 5, Plaid Cymru 4 and the Green Party 1.  In other words Labour has more than three times the rest of the Opposition parties combined and in particular it has 233 seats more than the Liberal Democrats.

So if there is a ‘no confidence’ vote in Parliament and the Johnson government loses its majority and is unable to secure a majority in a second vote within 14 days the outcome should be either an immediate general election or a cross party ‘caretaker’ government mandated to delay leaving the European Union without a deal, it would seem to be uncontestable that the leader of the caretaker administration should be Jeremy Corbyn.

Apparently not. Jo Swinson, who since July has been leader of the LibDems, has said he ‘risks jeopardising a vote of no confidence in the government by insisting he becomes caretaker PM’.  Previously she had said he was ‘divisive’.

Writing in the ilast week Kate Maltby, who on her website modestly describes herself as ‘a critic, columnist and scholar’ tried to cast doubt on Corbyn’s fitness to lead by claiming that some of his social media supporters were ‘anti-semitic’ and were linked to those opposed to vaccination of children. (As she provided zero evidence for these claims I do hope she is a little more assiduous in carrying out research for the PhD she tells us she is doing on her website.)

In mid August Caroline Lucas decided she would bypass Corbyn by offering to broker a deal for ten women MPs to form a cross party Cabinet. (Interestingly she was attacked in the Guardian because, amongst other things, none of them were ‘trans’ and most were not lesbians.)

Yesterday Yasmin Alibhai-Brown used her column in the ‘i’ to claim he was ‘worryingly beholden to his close, maniacally anti-capitalist advisers’ and that he should let Caroline Lucas lead a temporary government of national unity.

What these women are about is delegitimising Corbyn and, by inference, Labour’s claim to be the party to form a caretaker government.  Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour party on two occasions.  He was leader of the party when it confounded the pundits by denying Theresa May a clear majority in 2017.   None of the four women referred to above can make anything approaching such a claim.

You cannot maintain credibility by first attacking Boris Johnson for avoiding scrutiny by closing down Parliament for five weeks and then seeking to find an excuse for bypassing the leader of the largest opposition party.  If Jo Swinson is listening, ‘You have 14 MPs, Corbyn has 247.  Go figure’.

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

Stop Boris Johnson Campaign!

THOUSANDS of people across Britain will take to the streets over the coming days to demand an immediate general election as the only way to stop this Tory nightmare following unelected Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s coup against democracy.

The People’s Assembly Against Austerity have called for demonstrations to take place across the country as anger continues to grow over Johnson’s “smash and grab” against democracy by shutting down parliament to force through his No Deal Brexit.

Those gathered will demand an immediate general election -the only real people’s vote - and the chance to bring down a Tory Government desperately clinging on to power with a wafer thin majority of one.

Calls for an immediate general election will be led by Labour MPs including Laura Pidcock, who recently accused Johnson of an “abuse of power” ” warning of “a dangerous, anti-democratic precedent” being set by shutting down parliament in a bid to avoid scrutiny. 
We believe it is clear the only way out of the crisis is for a general election to give the people the opportunity to bring down the hard right Tory government led by the unelected Boris Johnson.

The only way to end the Tory austerity nightmare is the election of a Anti Austerity government committed to saving our hospitals and schools, investing in housing, renationalising our public services and acting on behalf of the people, not Johnson and the Tories' pals in the banks and big business.

Planned Protest near you:
LONDON
Tuesday 3rd September 
6.00 - 8.00 pm
Parliament Square
London
Speakers at the London Rally include:
Tariq Ali - Author and Activist
Laura Pidcock MP
Richard Burgon MP
Dan Carden MP
Laura Smith MP
Kevin Courtney -  NEU General Secretary
Mark Serwotka  - PCS General Secretary
Eddie Dempsey -  RMT Executive Committee member
Ash Sarkar - Journalist and political activist 
Owen Jones - Journalist and political activist
Dr. Sonia Adesara - Keep Our NHS Public
Aaron Bastani - Co-founder and Senior Editor at Novara Media
Lindsey German  - People's Assembly 
Other Protests will take place at:

CHESTER
Friday 30th August
7.30 pm
Chester Town Hall
NEWCASTLE
Saturday 31st August
11.00 am  - 12.30 
Grey's Monument
Newcastle
CAMBRIDGE
Saturday 31st August
12.00 pm
outside The Guildhall
Market Square
Cambridge
DONCASTER
Saturday 31st August
12.00 pm
Mansion House
Doncaster
SWANSEA
Saturday 31st August 
12.00 pm 
Castle Square
Swansea
LIVERPOOL
Monday 2nd September
6.00 - 8.00 pm 
St George's Hall
Liverpool
MANCHESTER
Monday 2nd September 
6.30 - 8.00 pm
Peterloo Memorial Space
Windmill Street
Manchester 
SOUTHAMPTON
Tuesday 3rd September 
4.30 - 6.00 pm
Southampton Civic Centre
BIRMINGHAM
Tuesday 3rd September 
5.00 pm
Victoria Square
Birmingham
BRISTOL
Tuesday 3rd September 
5.00 pm 
The Fountains
Bristol City Centre
CARDIFF
Tuesday 3rd September 
6.00 - 7.30 pm
Aneurin Bevan Statue
Cardiff

Wednesday 28 August 2019

Taking Back Control or Smash and Grab Raid?

by Les May

WHATEVER Boris Johnson has to say about the reasons for his decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks many people, possibly a majority, will conclude that its purpose is to prevent MPs passing legislation to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a deal agreed by Parliament.

What this demonstrates starkly is that in practice the UK Parliament ‘taking back control’ of our laws from the European Court of Justice will mean the government of the day can always get its way because there is no higher authority to prevent this. In the extreme the UK Parliament could vote itself out of existence and establish Boris, or one of his successors, as dictator.

If you think this is fanciful I would remind you that it is what happened in Germany in 1933 when the Reichstag voted through the ‘Enabling Bill’ which gave full powers to Hitler.  Less than three months later all non-Nazi parties, organizations, and unions ceased to exist.

At present as citizens of a country which is a member of the EU our rights are protected by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (ECHR) which dates back to 1950. Article 3 of the First Protocol relates specifically to the Right to Free Elections. The ECHR is enshrined in UK law by the ‘Human Rights Act 1998’. What happens after we leave is anyone’s guess. Do you trust Boris Johnson to protect your fundamental rights.

In January 2019 this appeared on the UK Parliament website:

Human Rights Act is not safe after Brexit

In its response to a letter from the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, the Government has failed to give assurances that it will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act – a stark contrast to its proclaimed commitment to ‘shared values of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
The House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee wrote to Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice David Gauke in December regarding the rights of citizens post-Brexit. The Committee sought an explanation for the dilution of the Government’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Last week the Committee received a troubling response. While again pledging an unchanging commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, the letter from Edward Argar MP, Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, ended with reference to the Government’s intention to revisit the Human Rights Act once the process of leaving the EU is concluded.


If all this seems a little abstract here is a concrete example where the ECHR and the more recent Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union played a significant part.

Prior to the Fees Order of 2013 employees could bring and pursue proceedings to enforce their statutory rights in an Employment Tribunal (ET) or Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) without paying a fee. The Fees Order imposed a charge of £1,200 to bring proceedings for unfair dismissal, equal pay and discrimination claims, and £390 for lesser claims.

In launching proceedings for judicial review the trade union UNISON argued that the making of the Fees Order was not a lawful exercise of the Lord
Chancellor’s statutory powers, because the prescribed fees interfere unjustifiably with the right of access to justice under both the common law and EU law and frustrate the operation of Parliamentary legislation granting employment rights.

Seven Justices of the Supreme Court agreed it was unlawful and must be quashed. In paragraphs 105 to 117 of the judgement specific reference is made to relevant EU law.


The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can be found at:


Johnson has a reputation for not always telling the truth so we have to judge him by his actions, not his words. If this is what we can expect from him in the future then some Tory MPs are going to have to decide whether they are willing to continue with a dodgy prime minister in the shape of Johnson or hold their noses and risk a brief Corbyn led government calling an election in which their main rivals will be the Brexit party.

If the leader of the Scottish Tories resigns as seems to be a possibility, they are going to look an awfully weak bunch.

**********

Whingeing on Steroids

by Les May

SEXUAL harassment of female performers at the Edinburgh Fringe is a problem, or at least the BBC would have us believe so.  If this was a serious news item whoever put it together might have found a couple of better and more convincing interviewees than we were offered.

The first complained that when she offered a flyer for her show to three young men they said they would only take it if she put her phone number on the back. Shocking isn’t it?

I could have said that she ‘accosted’ three young men out for a stroll down the Royal Mile and tried to press on them an advertising flyer, which would have been an equally correct version of what happened.

The second complained that a gentleman of mature years had approached a police officer about the amount of flesh being shown by her and the other women in her troupe who had built their performance around something to do with the #MeToo ‘movement’So that’s alright then.

Seemingly the police officer concluded that the troupes costume, or possibly lack of it, did not transcend the bounds of public decency and sent them on their way.   The complainant said that the actions of the man who approached the policeman amounted to ‘harassment’.

Both these women were whingeing aided and abetted by the BBC. 

******** 

Wednesday 21 August 2019

North West TUC Snubs Peterloo Rally over Chris Williamson MP!

Rally in Albert Square - Photo: Mark Rowe/FB

LAST SUNDAY more than 1000 people came to Albert Square, Manchester, to support the 'March for Democracy' which was organised to mark the 200 years since the Peterloo massacre on 16th August 1819.  Many of the people who came to support the event had marched from surrounding towns such as Wigan and Bolton.   The proposals of the March for Democracy, included the Chartists demand for annual parliaments and the abolition of the House of Lords.   

Among the key speakers who addressed the rally, was Chris Williamson MP, the Member of Parliament for Derby North, who was suspended by the Labour Party, readmitted, and then suspended again, following complaints from the Board of Deputies of British Jews who called his readmission to the Labour Party 'an utter disgrace' In June, Amanda Bowman, the Board of Deputies Vice President, said:     
'This is an utter disgrace. Despite years of baiting the Jewish community - calling antisemitism allegations 'proxy wars and bullshit', actively supporting people suspended and expelled from the party for antisemitism, attacking the Board of Deputies on the day of the Pittsburgh attack, and saying the Labour has been 'too apologetic' over antisemitism, Chris Williamson has reportedly been readmitted to the Labour Party. This is yet more damning evidence for the EHRC's inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour Party.' 



There are many people who feel quite sympathetic towards Chris Williamson. They believe that he, along with others, are the victims of a witch-hunt and that the charges of anti-Semitism are both spurious and aimed at supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. They argue that the term 'anti-Semitism has been 'weaponised' and is being used as a device to undermine political opponents and those who oppose Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. Likewise, they argue that merely expressing an opinion, however unpalatable one finds it, doesn't necessarily amount to anti-Semitism.


It wasn't altogether certain that Chris Williamson would be invited to address the rally on Sunday. Just over a week ago, Williamson was forced to address a crowd of supporters in Regency Square, Brighton, after an orchestrated and thuggish campaign led to bookings being cancelled at venues because staff claimed that they had received threatening and intimidating phone calls. Similar tactics have been deployed in other areas to stop Williamson having a platform.


Among those who wanted to stop Williamson speaking in Manchester on Sunday, was Steve Hall, the Chair of the Greater Manchester County Association of TUC's (GMATUC's).  Last Wednesday, Hall told a meeting at the Friends Meeting House in Manchester, that though he didn't believe Williamson was an anti-Semite, his presence at the rally would be a distraction as the attention would be focused on him and not on the rally and the reasons for it. A majority at the meeting disagreed and Williamson was invited.


Two days later, Jay McKenna, Acting Regional Secretary of the North West TUC, wrote to the Secretary of GMATUC's Stefan Cholewka, informing him that the NW TUC would not be supporting the event because of the presence of Chris Williamson.  Although he didn't say why Williamson was objectionable, he wrote:


'the late addition of Chris Williamson to the speaking line up has raised concerns. It brings unnecessary attention and is diversionary from the event that we have agreed to support as a TUC...  Given that there is no planned change to the line up, I am letting you know that the TUC North West will not be accepting our speaking lot and will be unable to support the event moving forward. We believe that the changes would have the potential to bring the TUC and others into disrepute... The event was an opportunity to commemorate an important anniversary in our movements history. This has unfortunately overshadowed that and risks damaging relationships between many in the region.'


Unlike the Chair of the GMATUC's who appears to have toed the official line of the NW TUC regarding Chris Williamson, Stefan Cholewka, the Secretary of GMATUC's told McKenna:
'
The fact that you cannot spell out clearly and articulately the reasons or give any explanation for your objection to Chris Williamson MP speaking, speaks volumes. The fact that you cannot even reference Chris Williamson in your letter as a Labour Member of Parliament is a disgrace.  You also seem to think that you can override the democratic decision of the lead body across Greater Manchester that has been building this event over the last 18 months. Today is the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre and all you can do is send an email about a socialist MP speaking at a rally to remember the dead and murdered working-class victims by the state.  Your place in history is assured as the writer of the most irrelevant letter of 2014.'


The Peterloo march and rally that took place on Sunday to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre in August 1812, was billed as the 'March for Democracy'.  Yet if democracy means anything, then it means the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression which is understood to be fundamental in any  democracy.  The attempt to 'No Platform' Chris Williamson, to deny him a platform to speak at the Peterloo rally, is the sort of filthy censorship that is becoming all too commonplace  in today's Britain.


Helen Steel, the activist who with Dave Morris, took on the Corporate giant McDonald's in the now famous McLibel trial, was recently chucked off a mass trespass on the moors because she was told that others felt 'unsafe' to be close to someone with her views. Ms Steel has been attacked because she has expressed the view that to be of the female sex is a question of 'basic biology' and that to self-identify as a woman is not the same as being born a woman. Most people would find this common sense and yet, the academic and feminist Germaine Greer, has been 'No-Platformed' by university students for expressing similar views.


Similarly, people who criticise Israel as a 'racist endeavour' and an apartheid state or speak out against the murder of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, are now accused of anti-Semitism.  In the summer of 2018, the Board of Deputies supported the massacre of over 200 unarmed demonstrators in Gaza and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has stated that Israel is not a country of all its citizens but a nation-state of the Jewish nation.


It is well documented that the state of Israel as a foreign power does meddle in British politics. Two years ago, Al Jazeera's programme 'The Lobby', revealed how an agent operating out of the Israeli Embassy in London, had discussed how to bring down Sir Alan Duncan, the then Deputy Foreign Secretary, because he had supported Palestinian statehood and had compared Israeli attitudes towards the Palestinians as akin to apartheid in South Africa. Alan Duncan is not the only politician the Zionist want to bring down, Jeremy Corbyn is also on the list and Chris Williamson.


If one does believe in democracy then you must believe in the right of free speech.  What we are seeing today in Britain with bans, proscriptions, and politically correct censorship mainly by the life-style left, and social liberals, is a form of creeping and subtle totalitarianism that must be resisted.  To submit, would be like allowing the inmates to take over the mental asylum.  The Labouring classes who attended the rally in St Peter's Field, Manchester in August 1819, would have recognised this only too well, unlike some of today's trade unionists.
***********
Dear
Stefan and Step
hen
I am writing to you regarding the Peterloo March & Rally taking place in Manchester this
Sunday.
When our annual
conference passed the GMATUC motion in March, calling for support
for th
e event, ourselves and our regional council were looking forward to working
together to have an inclusive and important commemorative event. That has been
evident in the support, finan
cial and physical, from ourselves and affiliates.
However, the late add
ition of Chris Williamson to the speaking line up has raised
concerns. It brings unnecessary attention and is diversionary from the event that we
have agreed to support as a TUC.
I’v
e contacted you a number omes this week, to express these concerns
nd seek a
change. I’ve said that if the speaking line up remains as it is, then we would have to
consider our support. I understand that affiliate unions in the region have done simila
r.
Given that there is no planned change to the line
-
up, I am letting y
ou know that the TUC
North West will not be accepting our speaking slot and will be unable to support the
event moving forward. We believe that th
e changes would have the potential to
bring
the TUC and others into disrepute.
Dear
Stefan and Step
hen
I am writing to you regarding the Peterloo March & Rally taking place in Manchester this
Sunday.
When our annual
conference passed the GMATUC motion in March, calling for support
for th
e event, ourselves and our regional council were looking forward to working
together to have an inclusive and important commemorative event. That has been
evident in the support, finan
cial and physical, from ourselves and affiliates.
However, the late add
ition of Chris Williamson to the speaking line up has raised
concerns. It brings unnecessary attention and is diversionary from the event that we
have agreed to support as a TUC.
I’v
e contacted you a numbesss
nd seek a
change. I’ve said that if the speaking line up remains as it is, then we would have to
consider our support. I understand that affiliate unions in the region have done simila
r.
Given that there is no planned change to the line
-
up, I am letting y
ou know that the TUC
North West will not be accepting our speaking slot and will be unable to support the
event moving forward. We believe that t
he Ichanges would have the potential to
bring
the TUC and others into disrepute.