The outgoing (good riddance!) president of the National Black Police Association has called for an increase in the stop-and-search of young people by Police (BBC News: Call to increase stop and search). Such a move would not only alienate young people, who have already seen their rights eroded by dispersal orders, ASBOs, increasingly strict age restrictions, etc. Even some senior black police officers have warned that it would, in effect, lead to more black kids being targeted, as a result of racial profiling - already, black youth are 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched than whites.
Before I go any further, I'd like to point out two points.
First, I have no sympathy for gang members who engage in criminal activity, or carry weapons such as guns and knives - one only has to look at America to see the horrendous results of guns being in common use (freely available in the USA), namely an appallingly high murder rate, including the horrendous school campus shootings which are becoming increasinly common.
Secondly, I have no animosity towards individual Police officers - many joined the Police with the laudable aim of making their communities safer, many are from working class backgrounds (it should be noted that crime disproportionately affects working class communities).
My argument is with the Police as an institution - an arm of the state, which is run by the capitalist Establishment, the Police's job is to do the bidding of said Establishment. Indeed, the same capitalist Establishment, and its puppet political parties, are responsible for the increasingly unjust and repressive laws which the Police's job is to enforce.
In addition, the alienated (in the Marxist sense) nature of policing tends to make police officers see people as either victims or criminals, rather than as people. This can encourage stereotyping of groups of people (eg racial profiling), and is exacerbated by the "canteen culture" which is notably strong in the Police.
It is these factors which have led not only to the call for more stop and search, and for increasing Police powers in the form of ASBOs etc, but also to horrific mistakes such as the killing of Brazilian "terror suspect" Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, and the botched hunt for the murderers of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in the early 1990s.
At the same time, the Police are not immune from the pressures affecting other public sector (and most private sector) workers, to meet targets. The resulting need to "keep the numbers up" on arrests etc runs the risk of Police anding up chasing easy targets, often petty criminals, rather than the real scumbags whose arrest and conviction takes more time, effort and resources. The need to meet targets may also lead to the increasing use of police informants (a practice which is locally nick-named the "green giro"), which can sometimes do more harm than good to the community when these informants abuse their near-immunity from arrest and prosecution.
So what is the answer? We don't agree with vigilanteism, which leads to self-appointed vigilantes meting out their own definition of "justice". The dangers of vigilante "justice" were epitomised by the "anti-paedophile" mobs of the early 200s, which led to innocent people being killed due to hearsay, and even a paediatrician (child doctor, for any News of the World readers out there!) being hounded out of his home by threats.
What I would like to see, is the laws being made by working class people for working class people, to protect us and our community rather than the Establishment and the capitalist system. The enforcement of these laws could not be carried out by the existing state - it would necessitate the creation of a workers' militia, run by and for workers.
For this to happen, workers would first need a revolution to overthrow the capitalist Establishment and smash the capitalist system.
Monday, 22 October 2007
Thursday, 13 September 2007
New Labour on borrowed time?
Alistair Darling, the chancellor, has issued a warning on consumer debt (BBC News: Chancellor warns on consumer debt). Since he daren't attack the rich bankers (typo?) and had said he has no plans for tighter regulation, he has resorted to hectoring those who borrow money.
But why are so many people borrowing so much, and running into debt. Darling, along with many in the capitalist Establishment of which he is a part, is implying that if we run into debt we are either greedy or feckless.
Surely the rising level of debt has nothing to do with low wages, increased living costs, Brown's attacks on public sector pay, the increases in tax for the less well off while reducing the taxes on the rich, and the increasing struggle of many people and their families to make ends meet - has it?
Besides, what right has Mr Darling to lecture us on debt, when his own New Labour party is in debt to the tune of over £20 million, despite its donations from rich tycoons (BBC News: Labour gets most cash from donors). Then again, maybe they were hoping to consolidate their debts into an easy-to-afford Lordship ...
Of course, when politicians run up debts to rich capitalists, it's not their car, house or possessions which get sold.
It's their principles that get sold out. And their voters that get sold down the river :-(
But why are so many people borrowing so much, and running into debt. Darling, along with many in the capitalist Establishment of which he is a part, is implying that if we run into debt we are either greedy or feckless.
Surely the rising level of debt has nothing to do with low wages, increased living costs, Brown's attacks on public sector pay, the increases in tax for the less well off while reducing the taxes on the rich, and the increasing struggle of many people and their families to make ends meet - has it?
Besides, what right has Mr Darling to lecture us on debt, when his own New Labour party is in debt to the tune of over £20 million, despite its donations from rich tycoons (BBC News: Labour gets most cash from donors). Then again, maybe they were hoping to consolidate their debts into an easy-to-afford Lordship ...
Of course, when politicians run up debts to rich capitalists, it's not their car, house or possessions which get sold.
It's their principles that get sold out. And their voters that get sold down the river :-(
Tuesday, 11 September 2007
Striking a blow for the working class
I'm very glad to see the TUC have voted for co-ordinated industrial action this autumn, against this government's attacks on public sector wages (BBC News report: Unions back 'co-ordinated' action)
So far, we've already seen a number of strikes; the Prison Officer's strike (backed by Respect), the London Underground RMT strike (likewise), Post strikes (Socialist Worker report), NHS disputes, need I go on? And this is just the beginning ...
Brown has proved just as bad as Bliar when it comes to trade union support, threatening the prison officers' union with legal action and dismissing union demands for an above-inflation wage increase (BBC News: Brown rejects unions' pay demands). Hardly surprising New Labore (mis-spelling) are as bad as the Tories; like the Tories, they are getting an increasing percentage of their money from rich capitalists and not from working class people (most recently, Lord Sainsbury chucked £2 million in their direction).
Trade union industrial action is most welcome, and I support it utterly.
In addition, there are other ways in which the unions could kick New Labour's Brown eye. For starters, W-H-Y-? are so many trade unions still using their Political Funds to prop up a government which does nothing but kick them, and their members, in the teeth??? I think all unions should democratise their political funds, and follow the lead of the RMT and PCS by no longer giving their money to Labour.
True, Trade Unions do need the support of a political party, which can complement industrial action in the workplace by fighting for their members in Parliament and councils. And we need a party which will listen to our demands and represent our class, not the bosses and capitalists.
But New Labour ain't that party!!!
So far, we've already seen a number of strikes; the Prison Officer's strike (backed by Respect), the London Underground RMT strike (likewise), Post strikes (Socialist Worker report), NHS disputes, need I go on? And this is just the beginning ...
Brown has proved just as bad as Bliar when it comes to trade union support, threatening the prison officers' union with legal action and dismissing union demands for an above-inflation wage increase (BBC News: Brown rejects unions' pay demands). Hardly surprising New Labore (mis-spelling) are as bad as the Tories; like the Tories, they are getting an increasing percentage of their money from rich capitalists and not from working class people (most recently, Lord Sainsbury chucked £2 million in their direction).
Trade union industrial action is most welcome, and I support it utterly.
In addition, there are other ways in which the unions could kick New Labour's Brown eye. For starters, W-H-Y-? are so many trade unions still using their Political Funds to prop up a government which does nothing but kick them, and their members, in the teeth??? I think all unions should democratise their political funds, and follow the lead of the RMT and PCS by no longer giving their money to Labour.
True, Trade Unions do need the support of a political party, which can complement industrial action in the workplace by fighting for their members in Parliament and councils. And we need a party which will listen to our demands and represent our class, not the bosses and capitalists.
But New Labour ain't that party!!!
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Suspension of disbelief
Why is everyone so horrible to George Galloway? Less than 2 weeks after he was heckled during a meeting at Marxism, the political Establishment are now planning to suspend him from the House of Commons for 18 days.
His crime? To defend himself against a smear campaign that he was acting dishonestly in relation to the Mariam Appeal, of which he was involved. (If you are unaware of the Mariam appeal, you can find more details about it on Wikipedia). And to make his accusers look like the muppets they are!
Mr Galloway's response can be found on the Respect Coalition website. To put things into context, it helps if you bear the following in mind:
Firstly, the Mariam Appeal was not a charity, nor was it set up as one. It was a campaign against the sanctions on Iraq (which banned many medical items, even insulin!), by highlighting the suffering they caused to children with cancer (such as Mariam).
Secondly, the Oil For Food programme in Iraq was not managed or overseen by Saddam Hussein's regime or the ruling Baath Party. It was instigated by the USA, was a tool of the Western Establishment, and had to follow strict rules - notable on what Iraq could or could not import.
Thirdly, the fact that the Mariam Appeal may or may not have received donations from people who may have been less than perfectly honest, does not detract from the appeal's aims or motives. I seem to remember that, before his death, the pensions thief Robert Maxwell was famous for his charitable donations. Are all the charities he donated to, now to be investigated??? Much more recently, Labour Party fundraisers now seem to welcome criminals ... not to mention a convicted rapist :-(
As for the claim that George Galloway is bringing the House of Commons into disrepute ...
It doesn't need his help, mate!
His crime? To defend himself against a smear campaign that he was acting dishonestly in relation to the Mariam Appeal, of which he was involved. (If you are unaware of the Mariam appeal, you can find more details about it on Wikipedia). And to make his accusers look like the muppets they are!
Mr Galloway's response can be found on the Respect Coalition website. To put things into context, it helps if you bear the following in mind:
Firstly, the Mariam Appeal was not a charity, nor was it set up as one. It was a campaign against the sanctions on Iraq (which banned many medical items, even insulin!), by highlighting the suffering they caused to children with cancer (such as Mariam).
Secondly, the Oil For Food programme in Iraq was not managed or overseen by Saddam Hussein's regime or the ruling Baath Party. It was instigated by the USA, was a tool of the Western Establishment, and had to follow strict rules - notable on what Iraq could or could not import.
Thirdly, the fact that the Mariam Appeal may or may not have received donations from people who may have been less than perfectly honest, does not detract from the appeal's aims or motives. I seem to remember that, before his death, the pensions thief Robert Maxwell was famous for his charitable donations. Are all the charities he donated to, now to be investigated??? Much more recently, Labour Party fundraisers now seem to welcome criminals ... not to mention a convicted rapist :-(
As for the claim that George Galloway is bringing the House of Commons into disrepute ...
It doesn't need his help, mate!
Friday, 29 June 2007
Outside the realm of sanity
As the joy of Bliar being forced out ebbs away, I now face the prospect of life under Brown.
I never had any illusions in him - he is a right wing bastard who, as Chancellor, abolished the 10p tax rate and in doing so made poor people pay more tax so the middle class could pay less tax. He also supported Bliar on most issues, notably the murderous Iraq war. So I am not disappointed by his latest move - ie bringing "outsiders" into his government, rather than give an inch to the left within his own party.
The most sickening of these appointment is to award the job of Trade minister - the head of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform - to former CBI chief Sir Digby Jones.
In case you don't already know, the CBI - Confederation of British Industry (or should that be Capitalist Bastards Inc?) - is the organisation of the bosses of big business, the capitalist exploiters in the UK. Not that New Labour has ever given a $h!t about regulating the worst excesses of big business, allowing them to sack workers and move jobs abroad while giving themselves obscene pay rises and bonuses. But now the capitalist Establishment have one of their own in charge of them - er, not to mention a former CBI boss overseeing them - there's no chance of this government doing anything for the increasingly exploited workers.
If you ask me, "outsiders" is perhaps a misleading term. Rather than seeing them as outside the Labour Party, it proves how much the Labour Party is now inside the Capitalist Establishment of which Digby et al are fully paid up members!
The reasons for New Labore (typo) being so in bed with the Capitalist Establishment were made clearer than ever by an article in last week's Socialist Worker. An article about Private Equity Firms (the politically correct expression for Asset Strippers) describes how such firms and their current and former bosses have donated millions of pounds to New Labour. No wonder Brown reckons the Labour Farty can afford to reduce yet forther the (already pathetic) influence of the Trade Union bureaucracy within the party.
Financially, he probably can, with New Labour getting millions of pounds from capitalists - including those with the morals of a Great White. However, in terms of activism, and votes, he may yet regret dissing the millions of workers who put Labour into power in the first place.
The Respect Coalition is attracting an ever increasing number of workers disenchanted with the fake workers party that is New Labour, and has already unseated numerous Labour councillors - and at least one Labour MP - in working class areas. With your help, we can unseat more of these sell-outs!
What the working class needs is a party which will not sell out to a right-wing agenda to gain middle and ruling class votes.
What the working class needs is a party which will not kow tow to the bosses and the capitalist class.
What the working class needs is a party which is run by and for the working class.
The Respect Coalition is that party !!!!!
I never had any illusions in him - he is a right wing bastard who, as Chancellor, abolished the 10p tax rate and in doing so made poor people pay more tax so the middle class could pay less tax. He also supported Bliar on most issues, notably the murderous Iraq war. So I am not disappointed by his latest move - ie bringing "outsiders" into his government, rather than give an inch to the left within his own party.
The most sickening of these appointment is to award the job of Trade minister - the head of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform - to former CBI chief Sir Digby Jones.
In case you don't already know, the CBI - Confederation of British Industry (or should that be Capitalist Bastards Inc?) - is the organisation of the bosses of big business, the capitalist exploiters in the UK. Not that New Labour has ever given a $h!t about regulating the worst excesses of big business, allowing them to sack workers and move jobs abroad while giving themselves obscene pay rises and bonuses. But now the capitalist Establishment have one of their own in charge of them - er, not to mention a former CBI boss overseeing them - there's no chance of this government doing anything for the increasingly exploited workers.
If you ask me, "outsiders" is perhaps a misleading term. Rather than seeing them as outside the Labour Party, it proves how much the Labour Party is now inside the Capitalist Establishment of which Digby et al are fully paid up members!
The reasons for New Labore (typo) being so in bed with the Capitalist Establishment were made clearer than ever by an article in last week's Socialist Worker. An article about Private Equity Firms (the politically correct expression for Asset Strippers) describes how such firms and their current and former bosses have donated millions of pounds to New Labour. No wonder Brown reckons the Labour Farty can afford to reduce yet forther the (already pathetic) influence of the Trade Union bureaucracy within the party.
Financially, he probably can, with New Labour getting millions of pounds from capitalists - including those with the morals of a Great White. However, in terms of activism, and votes, he may yet regret dissing the millions of workers who put Labour into power in the first place.
The Respect Coalition is attracting an ever increasing number of workers disenchanted with the fake workers party that is New Labour, and has already unseated numerous Labour councillors - and at least one Labour MP - in working class areas. With your help, we can unseat more of these sell-outs!
What the working class needs is a party which will not sell out to a right-wing agenda to gain middle and ruling class votes.
What the working class needs is a party which will not kow tow to the bosses and the capitalist class.
What the working class needs is a party which is run by and for the working class.
The Respect Coalition is that party !!!!!
Monday, 11 June 2007
Lost in translation
So Ruth Kelly, the Blairite communities secretary, wants to cut translation (BBC News: Translation help 'should be cut'). This is touted as part of a drive to make all immigrants learn English, but it will in fact mean immigrants who do not speak good English are likely to be effectively denied help and access to many services. Especially when you consider that the funding for ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) classes has been cut (Socialist Worker: "Demonstrating for Esol: out to stop language cuts")
One area in which translation is especially valuable is in legal proceedings, such as police interviews and court cases. Coupled with institutionalised Islamophobia and institutional racism in general, a lack of translation facilities - and foreign defendants not properly understanding the proceedings - is likely to lead to more miscarriages of justice. Ah well, I suppose it means the Establishment can lock up more innocent people without having to extend the period of detention without trial ...
Forcing the English language on people, through international imperialism and by repressive behaviour at home, is not new. The whole push for immigrants to speak English (it has been suggested they even speak English, rather than their native language, at home!), has echoes of the hated Welsh Not which was common in 19th Century Wales. The Welsh Not was hung round the neck of school kids who spoke Welsh, and the last kid to still speak Welsh was beaten. (I sure hope the Establishment today don't go as far as using child abuse to force people to speak English ...). Personally, I'd love to see a Welsh "Knot" around the necks of Ruth Kelly and all the other xenophobic bastards in the government and in the Establishment in general!
As I've said before, if the Establishment really want us all to start using English, they can start using it themselves. Instead of confusing us all with jargon and soundbites - such as "modernisation" to mean "selling out", "rationalisation" to mean mass redundancies and cutbacks, and "integration" to mean cloning!
One area in which translation is especially valuable is in legal proceedings, such as police interviews and court cases. Coupled with institutionalised Islamophobia and institutional racism in general, a lack of translation facilities - and foreign defendants not properly understanding the proceedings - is likely to lead to more miscarriages of justice. Ah well, I suppose it means the Establishment can lock up more innocent people without having to extend the period of detention without trial ...
Forcing the English language on people, through international imperialism and by repressive behaviour at home, is not new. The whole push for immigrants to speak English (it has been suggested they even speak English, rather than their native language, at home!), has echoes of the hated Welsh Not which was common in 19th Century Wales. The Welsh Not was hung round the neck of school kids who spoke Welsh, and the last kid to still speak Welsh was beaten. (I sure hope the Establishment today don't go as far as using child abuse to force people to speak English ...). Personally, I'd love to see a Welsh "Knot" around the necks of Ruth Kelly and all the other xenophobic bastards in the government and in the Establishment in general!
As I've said before, if the Establishment really want us all to start using English, they can start using it themselves. Instead of confusing us all with jargon and soundbites - such as "modernisation" to mean "selling out", "rationalisation" to mean mass redundancies and cutbacks, and "integration" to mean cloning!
Thursday, 7 June 2007
Register of emotion
I see the Home Secretary John Reid wants to bring in a Terrorist Offenders Register, similar to the Sex Offenders Register (BBC News: Terror detention to be reviewed).
This isn't the only link between sex offences (notably paedophilia) and terrorism (notably terrorist bombings). Both are terrible crimes which horrify the vast majority of people, of all races and religions. At the same time, both are the subject of a moral panic, which in its wake has brought legislation and other measures which are rather more controversial.
Last week's Socialist Worker had on its front page, an article about an Asian muslim who was arrested in London for taking a photo which the Police thought was connected to terrorism ... a photo of Tower Bridge! (Socialist Worker: I took a picture of tower bridge and was arrested for terrorism). This has stark parallels with the moral panic over innocent photos of children (my views can be found on this web page).
As for the Offenders Register, the problems - as with the Sex Offenders Register - are not so much with the idea itself, as how it is likely to be implemented. Miscarriages of justice have occurred with the Sex Offenders Register, the Birmingham Sunday Mercury in 2004 reported the case of a 14 year old girl being forced to sign the Sex Offenders Register for a crime which she was later cleared of in court (Sunday Mercury: Little girl forced to sign sex offenders' register). In addition, a Liberty report from 2002 notes that "Only a fraction of the 18,500 names currently on it pose a real threat to children or the wider public. The Register should be cleared of (for example) people involved in consensual gay sex, so that the Register is properly focussed on people who pose a real danger, and so the authorities who use the Register and monitor those on it can concentrate on real dangers." (Sex Offences White Paper: Liberty Initial Response).
I have also heard about people being encouraged to accept Police cautions for offences such as child pornography, on rather flimsy evidence, and ending up on the Sex Offences Register, rather than see the alleged offence go to court. Not sure how true this is, but the worrying thing is, in these days when civil liberties are under constant attack, it sounds believable.
Would a Terrorist Offenders Register be much better? Well, we can really trust the same Police who killed the Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menzes on the London Underground, to never make a mistake in their identification of a terrorist, can't we?
Then again, some people really do deserve to be on the Terrorist Offences Register. Such as the British politician who took us into an illegal war in 2003 and masterminded the illegal bombing of Iraq. (Not that we need a register to know his whereabouts right now - his every movement and action, no matter how trivial, seems to be all over the media, >yawn<).
Also, why should it only be sex offenders and terrorists who are on a register? Just as the Sex Offenders Register and the Terrorist Offenders Register are to protect innocent people from sickos, I think there should also be a Hate Crime Offences Register. This would detail people convicted of hate offences such as racism, sexism, disablism and homophobia. In addition, people cautioned for crimes which would not necessarily reach court, such as verbal abuse or "making fun", would also be forced to sign the register so their activities would be monitored and they could be prevented from working where they may abuse members of minority groups. After all, it could be argued that racist language and name-calling leads in the end to racist murders.
This isn't the only link between sex offences (notably paedophilia) and terrorism (notably terrorist bombings). Both are terrible crimes which horrify the vast majority of people, of all races and religions. At the same time, both are the subject of a moral panic, which in its wake has brought legislation and other measures which are rather more controversial.
Last week's Socialist Worker had on its front page, an article about an Asian muslim who was arrested in London for taking a photo which the Police thought was connected to terrorism ... a photo of Tower Bridge! (Socialist Worker: I took a picture of tower bridge and was arrested for terrorism). This has stark parallels with the moral panic over innocent photos of children (my views can be found on this web page).
As for the Offenders Register, the problems - as with the Sex Offenders Register - are not so much with the idea itself, as how it is likely to be implemented. Miscarriages of justice have occurred with the Sex Offenders Register, the Birmingham Sunday Mercury in 2004 reported the case of a 14 year old girl being forced to sign the Sex Offenders Register for a crime which she was later cleared of in court (Sunday Mercury: Little girl forced to sign sex offenders' register). In addition, a Liberty report from 2002 notes that "Only a fraction of the 18,500 names currently on it pose a real threat to children or the wider public. The Register should be cleared of (for example) people involved in consensual gay sex, so that the Register is properly focussed on people who pose a real danger, and so the authorities who use the Register and monitor those on it can concentrate on real dangers." (Sex Offences White Paper: Liberty Initial Response).
I have also heard about people being encouraged to accept Police cautions for offences such as child pornography, on rather flimsy evidence, and ending up on the Sex Offences Register, rather than see the alleged offence go to court. Not sure how true this is, but the worrying thing is, in these days when civil liberties are under constant attack, it sounds believable.
Would a Terrorist Offenders Register be much better? Well, we can really trust the same Police who killed the Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menzes on the London Underground, to never make a mistake in their identification of a terrorist, can't we?
Then again, some people really do deserve to be on the Terrorist Offences Register. Such as the British politician who took us into an illegal war in 2003 and masterminded the illegal bombing of Iraq. (Not that we need a register to know his whereabouts right now - his every movement and action, no matter how trivial, seems to be all over the media, >yawn<).
Also, why should it only be sex offenders and terrorists who are on a register? Just as the Sex Offenders Register and the Terrorist Offenders Register are to protect innocent people from sickos, I think there should also be a Hate Crime Offences Register. This would detail people convicted of hate offences such as racism, sexism, disablism and homophobia. In addition, people cautioned for crimes which would not necessarily reach court, such as verbal abuse or "making fun", would also be forced to sign the register so their activities would be monitored and they could be prevented from working where they may abuse members of minority groups. After all, it could be argued that racist language and name-calling leads in the end to racist murders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
