It's not every day the Home Office attacks a local council for eroding civil liberties - yet that is exactly what has happened due to Telford & Wrekin Council's policy regarding adults without kids in parks (Shropshire Star: Home Office attacks park policy)!
For once, I agree with the Home Office. It is a dangerous erosion of freedom of movement, when council staff are able to question, even expel, people from public spaces. It also adds weight to some people's concerns that single people are an oppressed group - there is a pernicious myth that single men over a certain age (often around 40) are more likely to be paedophiles (there is nothing really new about this - back in the 80's, when homosexuality was much less tolerated than today, the same group was often labelled "gay"). Not only is this oppressive, it ignores the fact that most sexual (let alone physical) abuse of children happens within the family.
As for the Telford case, it seems to have a political edge. The policy came to light when two Stop The War campaigners were handing out leaflets about climate change, dressed as penguins (to symbolise those in most danger from climate change). Now I've heard of paediatricians being confused with paedophiles, but never penguins :-P
On a more serious note, the park was not only a convenient place for the protest, it was also quite appropriate; anyone doing any outdoor activity this (and last) summer will have been all too aware of how climate change has caused the British summer weather to be increasingly unpredictable (and miserable to boot).
Yet not only were the protesters told to move, they were also told they needed Police CRB checks to hand out leaflets! At this rate, we'll soon need an Enhanced CRB disclosure to go birdwatching :-| If, that is, the poor old robins, blackbirds, blue tits, etc don't all go extinct due to climate change :-(
The council later tried to back-track, saying they only question people "acting suspiciously" in parks etc. Yet"acting suspiciously" is so ill-defined as to be a weasel-word, covering a wide range of behaviour. Including, it seems, peaceful protesting :-(
Also worthy of note is the fact that Telford and Wrekin Council is effectively Tory controlled (the Tories have 27 seats there, exactly half the total, according to their website's political make up of the council web page). Ah well, so much for the Tories' hypocritical bleating about the "nanny state". And their equally shallow environmental pretensions - which already took a knock earlier this week, when a coalition of environmental groups - from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, to the RSPB and the National Trust - produced a report stating that all 3 of the UK's main Establishment parties are failing on the issue of climate change (BBC News: Parties 'fail on climate change')
So, the capitalist Establishment are attacking both the environment and civil liberties. So it's up to civil libertarians and environmentalists to unite. Anong with trade unionists, anti-racists, gay rights activists, and all groups under attack from the system.
Then maybe we can launch a successful attack on the capitalist system, and the capitalist Establishment who it serves. And kick them out - of power!
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
When love and hate collide?
Despite the scare stories about the Large Hadron Collider, this will almost certainly not be my last blog article. In fact, the chances of the LHC creating a black hole which will swallow the world are virtually negligible, and I am more scared of the world ending as a result of the capitalist Establishment's obsession with warfare, in the shape of nuclear weapons (such as Trident) and the "son of Star Wars". At the same time, however, I wonder just how disconnected the LHC really is from the Western military machine.
There has been a long and bloody history of scientific discoveries, which could have greatly benefited humanity, being hijacked by the military - for example, would Einstein really have approved of his work in atomic physics being responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cold War arms race, and the continuing waste of resources in new, potentially even deadlier, nuclear weapons???
What's more, the military continues to be one of the main funders of scientific research in universities, as well as having its own research facilities (eg Porton Down in the UK). And wouldn't the western imperialist war machine just love the ability to research into using artificial black holes as a super-weapon ...
It also seems kinda odd that the LHC was built at a cost of £5 billion (BBC News: CERN collider ready for power-up), while public services and welfare across Europe are suffering cut-backs. But whether or not the LHC has any military connection, it is clear that imperialist militarism has created a black hole of its own.
The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the £76 billion being squandered on replacement Trident nuclear weapons, have left a black hole in funding for welfare and public services!
There has been a long and bloody history of scientific discoveries, which could have greatly benefited humanity, being hijacked by the military - for example, would Einstein really have approved of his work in atomic physics being responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cold War arms race, and the continuing waste of resources in new, potentially even deadlier, nuclear weapons???
What's more, the military continues to be one of the main funders of scientific research in universities, as well as having its own research facilities (eg Porton Down in the UK). And wouldn't the western imperialist war machine just love the ability to research into using artificial black holes as a super-weapon ...
It also seems kinda odd that the LHC was built at a cost of £5 billion (BBC News: CERN collider ready for power-up), while public services and welfare across Europe are suffering cut-backs. But whether or not the LHC has any military connection, it is clear that imperialist militarism has created a black hole of its own.
The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the £76 billion being squandered on replacement Trident nuclear weapons, have left a black hole in funding for welfare and public services!
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Will depression turn to anger?
Depression, recession, credit crunch, slowdown ... whatever word you use, the British economy's stuffed, or soon will be. And even this capitalism-loving New Labour government knows it, as shown by Chancellor Alistair Darling's admission that we are in for a severe recession. What I'm more sceptical about, is the apparent belief that the UK is in a better position to weather the storm than elsewhere.
Recessions are not some natural event, like the weather (although the weather this year seems less natural, and more the result of climate change, but that's a topic worthy of a discussion all of its own!). Recessions are built into capitalism. For capitalists to make profits, ie exploit their workers, they must pay their workers less than the money they make by selling the goods which the workers produce. Since capitalism forces all companies to do this (or go bankrupt), a situation is soon reached where more goods are produced than workers have money to buy.
As time goes on, it is also no accident that booms are becoming shallower - ie with smaller increases in living standards - and busts are getting more severe. This is because it is also the nature of capitalism for the capitalists' rate of profit to fall - due to increased investment in machines and technology. In a rational world, the advances in technology would make life easier for us, liberating us from work. Yet under capitalism, technology has forced the capitalists to exploit us more, making us work harder and for longer hours while paying us less :-(
This time around, the recession is likely to be made especially severe by the one thing which has allowed the system to avoid recession for a relatively long time - debt. Capitalist companies have been able to drive real wages down and still make profits, because relatively cheap loans have been relatively easily available to workers. Trouble is, a growing number of people are now unable to pay these loans back - hence the "credit crunch".
Other factors have come into play, such as the rising fuel prices. Oil is still at a high price, largely aggravated by the illegal and murderous Iraq war and the west generally p**ing off the other oil producing countries (such as Iran) in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the gas prices can't possible be helped by the West hypocritically sabre-rattling with Russia, a large producer of gas. Notably over Russia's invasion of Georgia. After all, the West would never launch an un-provoked invasion of another country, would we Bush and Bliar :-P
A recession will doubtless cause massive hardship, as millions of people are made unemployed and plunged into poverty. Yet the sickening thing is, although goods will no longer be profitable for capitalists to produce, they won't be needed any less by workers. So any job losses must be resisted by strikes, and we must support any and all workers who take strike action to defend their - and our - jobs and livelihoods.
But most of all, we must generalise these economic strikes into a political movement. Only then can we achieve the ultimate goal of getting rid of the capitalist system, which is obviously failing even by its own standards.
And replacing it with a socialist system, based on human need not corporate greed, on people not profit!
Recessions are not some natural event, like the weather (although the weather this year seems less natural, and more the result of climate change, but that's a topic worthy of a discussion all of its own!). Recessions are built into capitalism. For capitalists to make profits, ie exploit their workers, they must pay their workers less than the money they make by selling the goods which the workers produce. Since capitalism forces all companies to do this (or go bankrupt), a situation is soon reached where more goods are produced than workers have money to buy.
As time goes on, it is also no accident that booms are becoming shallower - ie with smaller increases in living standards - and busts are getting more severe. This is because it is also the nature of capitalism for the capitalists' rate of profit to fall - due to increased investment in machines and technology. In a rational world, the advances in technology would make life easier for us, liberating us from work. Yet under capitalism, technology has forced the capitalists to exploit us more, making us work harder and for longer hours while paying us less :-(
This time around, the recession is likely to be made especially severe by the one thing which has allowed the system to avoid recession for a relatively long time - debt. Capitalist companies have been able to drive real wages down and still make profits, because relatively cheap loans have been relatively easily available to workers. Trouble is, a growing number of people are now unable to pay these loans back - hence the "credit crunch".
Other factors have come into play, such as the rising fuel prices. Oil is still at a high price, largely aggravated by the illegal and murderous Iraq war and the west generally p**ing off the other oil producing countries (such as Iran) in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the gas prices can't possible be helped by the West hypocritically sabre-rattling with Russia, a large producer of gas. Notably over Russia's invasion of Georgia. After all, the West would never launch an un-provoked invasion of another country, would we Bush and Bliar :-P
A recession will doubtless cause massive hardship, as millions of people are made unemployed and plunged into poverty. Yet the sickening thing is, although goods will no longer be profitable for capitalists to produce, they won't be needed any less by workers. So any job losses must be resisted by strikes, and we must support any and all workers who take strike action to defend their - and our - jobs and livelihoods.
But most of all, we must generalise these economic strikes into a political movement. Only then can we achieve the ultimate goal of getting rid of the capitalist system, which is obviously failing even by its own standards.
And replacing it with a socialist system, based on human need not corporate greed, on people not profit!
Thursday, 28 August 2008
All that Glitters
Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that I have absolutely no sympathy for Gary Glitter, or any paedophile. His actions were grossly exploitative of children, and as such are indefensible. Yet, as the media feeding-frenzy on his less-than-welcome return to the UK subsides, there are issues raised which need addressing (and, despite the endless coverage of the Glitter story, weren't addressed by the mainstream media).
Most notable was Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's riding the wave of revulsion of Glitter's crimes, by announcing the populist measure of extending the ban on convicted sex offenders travelling abroad. Yet, as Ecpat UK have stated, "British law enforcement has the tools to protect children abroad, they just don't use them" (Ecpat UK: New Report Shows Government Failure in Combating Child Sex Tourism). Besides, concentrating exclusively on child sex tourism overlooks the fact that all sex tourism is undesirable, as adult prostitutes in the Third World (and sometimes in the West) are vulnerable and often heavily exploited and abused. Surely the best way to reduce the problem of child prostitution is to enact measures to protect the welfare of all sex workers. (My views on prostitution in general have been covered in an earlier blog article, Pimping an alternative).
Since the increased restrictions on foreign travel appear un-necessary, this begs another question: Is the Sex Offenders Register primarily designed to protect children from abuse (as it was originally touted), or as a punitive measure? And if it is designed to be punitive rather than protective, should it perhaps be used more sparingly?
True, some necessary restrictions are punitive by nature; such as the travel bans already available in British law, and the restrictions on what employment people on the Sex Offenders Register can have. But occasionally, this goes well beyond the scope of protecting children; last year, a contestant was removed from ITV's Britain's Got Talent show because he was on the Sex Offenders Register, for a crime so heinous he was given a Conditional Discharge in court. (The irony is not lost on me that ITV has also shown I Smack And I'm Proud, despite protest from the NSPCC)
Indeed, not everyone on the Sex Offenders Register is a paedophile, or even a molester. People have ended up on the Register for acts of consenting BDSM activity among adults, for example.
There is also the situation of people being placed on the Sex Offenders Register after receiving a formal caution, for offences not considered serious enough to go to court. Yet many people will agree to a formal caution rather than end up in court, with the publicity and stigma that often entails - especially when it comes to an offence as taboo as sex crime.
The Sex Offenders Register seems to have much in common with ASBOs, also originally touted as a means of "protecting the community" rather than as a punitive measure. Likewise, people often end up with ASBOs, which often carry heavy restrictions, for behaviour which would not necessarily result in a court conviction. Finally, both ASBO's and orders to sign the Sex Offenders Register seem to be handed out like flyers :-P
What is also scary is the way "child abuse" has been hijacked by the Establishment, almost to the point of it becoming a weasel-word. In previous blog articles I've talked about how photographing even your own kids in a public place is now about as socially acceptable as telling sick jokes at a funeral :( More recently, there was talk by local authorities of getting social services to investigate the families of overweight kids. Around the same time, there were local news reports of kids being sent warning letters for playing games on the street. Well, maybe I'm missing something, but preventing kids from getting exercise outdoors sounds to me like a very funny way of tackling childhood obesity!
But perhaps most importantly of all, epitomised by the Glitter coverage is the way the media portrays child abuse as solely the act of sick individuals. Yet, in reality, most child abuse occurs within the family. And, far from an aberration, it is often institutionalised within the capitalist system.
Physical abuse traces its roots back to the Industrial Revolution and child labour; children were forced to work for long hours doing unpleasant work, and had to be forced into doing so by beatings. Even as child labour was largely abolished, "reasonable chastisement" continued to be promoted as a way of keeping kids subservient to the rules of the system. Even to this day, the government still refuses to outlaw smacking completely :(
Child sex abuse is more complicated, and has never been directly encouraged by the Establishment. But that does not let the capitalist system off the hook. The perversion of sexual relationships into a patriarchal situation where the man dominates the woman (as mentioned in my Iris can't see the truth blog article), mixed with the situation where children are similarly dominated by adults, is a fertile breeding ground for sick individuals to take sexual pleasure by exercising their domination on the most vulnerable people in society, ie children. People like Glitter are sick and obnoxious monkeys, but let's not take our eye off the organ grinder...
Capitalism is the main sex offender. As such, it should not be allowed anywhere near our schools and youth services. Nor should it be allowed, via war and imperialism, to travel abroad.
If I had my way, it would be permanently taken out of circulation!
Most notable was Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's riding the wave of revulsion of Glitter's crimes, by announcing the populist measure of extending the ban on convicted sex offenders travelling abroad. Yet, as Ecpat UK have stated, "British law enforcement has the tools to protect children abroad, they just don't use them" (Ecpat UK: New Report Shows Government Failure in Combating Child Sex Tourism). Besides, concentrating exclusively on child sex tourism overlooks the fact that all sex tourism is undesirable, as adult prostitutes in the Third World (and sometimes in the West) are vulnerable and often heavily exploited and abused. Surely the best way to reduce the problem of child prostitution is to enact measures to protect the welfare of all sex workers. (My views on prostitution in general have been covered in an earlier blog article, Pimping an alternative).
Since the increased restrictions on foreign travel appear un-necessary, this begs another question: Is the Sex Offenders Register primarily designed to protect children from abuse (as it was originally touted), or as a punitive measure? And if it is designed to be punitive rather than protective, should it perhaps be used more sparingly?
True, some necessary restrictions are punitive by nature; such as the travel bans already available in British law, and the restrictions on what employment people on the Sex Offenders Register can have. But occasionally, this goes well beyond the scope of protecting children; last year, a contestant was removed from ITV's Britain's Got Talent show because he was on the Sex Offenders Register, for a crime so heinous he was given a Conditional Discharge in court. (The irony is not lost on me that ITV has also shown I Smack And I'm Proud, despite protest from the NSPCC)
Indeed, not everyone on the Sex Offenders Register is a paedophile, or even a molester. People have ended up on the Register for acts of consenting BDSM activity among adults, for example.
There is also the situation of people being placed on the Sex Offenders Register after receiving a formal caution, for offences not considered serious enough to go to court. Yet many people will agree to a formal caution rather than end up in court, with the publicity and stigma that often entails - especially when it comes to an offence as taboo as sex crime.
The Sex Offenders Register seems to have much in common with ASBOs, also originally touted as a means of "protecting the community" rather than as a punitive measure. Likewise, people often end up with ASBOs, which often carry heavy restrictions, for behaviour which would not necessarily result in a court conviction. Finally, both ASBO's and orders to sign the Sex Offenders Register seem to be handed out like flyers :-P
What is also scary is the way "child abuse" has been hijacked by the Establishment, almost to the point of it becoming a weasel-word. In previous blog articles I've talked about how photographing even your own kids in a public place is now about as socially acceptable as telling sick jokes at a funeral :( More recently, there was talk by local authorities of getting social services to investigate the families of overweight kids. Around the same time, there were local news reports of kids being sent warning letters for playing games on the street. Well, maybe I'm missing something, but preventing kids from getting exercise outdoors sounds to me like a very funny way of tackling childhood obesity!
But perhaps most importantly of all, epitomised by the Glitter coverage is the way the media portrays child abuse as solely the act of sick individuals. Yet, in reality, most child abuse occurs within the family. And, far from an aberration, it is often institutionalised within the capitalist system.
Physical abuse traces its roots back to the Industrial Revolution and child labour; children were forced to work for long hours doing unpleasant work, and had to be forced into doing so by beatings. Even as child labour was largely abolished, "reasonable chastisement" continued to be promoted as a way of keeping kids subservient to the rules of the system. Even to this day, the government still refuses to outlaw smacking completely :(
Child sex abuse is more complicated, and has never been directly encouraged by the Establishment. But that does not let the capitalist system off the hook. The perversion of sexual relationships into a patriarchal situation where the man dominates the woman (as mentioned in my Iris can't see the truth blog article), mixed with the situation where children are similarly dominated by adults, is a fertile breeding ground for sick individuals to take sexual pleasure by exercising their domination on the most vulnerable people in society, ie children. People like Glitter are sick and obnoxious monkeys, but let's not take our eye off the organ grinder...
Capitalism is the main sex offender. As such, it should not be allowed anywhere near our schools and youth services. Nor should it be allowed, via war and imperialism, to travel abroad.
If I had my way, it would be permanently taken out of circulation!
Sunday, 24 August 2008
Salmond the brave? Or just stupid?
To say that Scottish people "didn't mind the economic side so much" of Mrs Thatcher's policies is either a very brave comment to make, or a very stupid one (BBC News: Salmond defends Thatcher comments). Working class people across most of the UK, but especially Scotland, suffered at the hands of Thatcher's mine and steelwork closures, Poll Tax, union bashing, and other neoliberal economic policies (as continued by Major, Blair and Brown).
True, Thatcher's social policies weren't good either. Yet, for all Thatcher is remembered for attacking civil liberties, she actually passed fewer laws curtailing social freedom than Bliar has done. Much of the social repression under Thatcher was tied in with her economic actions, such as the Thatcherite anti-union laws (still not repealed by Bliar or Brown) and the police victimisation of striking miners.
One notable stand-alone curtailment of social freedom by Thatcher, was Section 28 - a homophobic law banning the "promotion of homosexuality", which tended to have a chilling effect on any rational discussion of homosexuality. At the same time, Establishment-propagated brainwashing at the time was most definitely anti gay - small wonder, then, that at the time homosexuality was often considered as socially unacceptable as paedophilia is now!
But who has been one of the greatest defenders of Section 28 into the 1990's? Brian Souter, the arch-capitalist boss of Stagecoach buses, who has also been responsible for cutbacks in bus services and fare hikes in many areas. And was, in the late 90s, a supporter of the SNP (BBC News: Stagecoach tycoon donates to SNP).
On many issues, the SNP appears to the left of New Labour and the Tories (dead easy :-P ), such as their opposition to student tuition fees. Yet in other ways, they follow the Establishment parties close behind. SNP controlled councils have embraced privatisation and PFI with as much enthusiasm as their Tory and New Labour counterparts, while on the social front, they have championed such reactionary measures as the raising of the age for buying alcohol to 21 (BBC News: Drink age 'could be raised to 21').
So, whatever Salmond actually meant by his Thatcher comments, we cannot trust the SNP to defend the working class from the capitalist Establishment's attacks on us, either on the economic or social fronts. In elections, Scottish workers should vote for Solidarity. More importantly, we should support workers who are resisting the attacks of the Scottish political Establishment, such as the council workers there who recently went on strike (Solidarity website: Massive response to council workers' strike rocks employer)
Workers - not only in Scotland, not only in the UK, but all across the world - must unite in strikes, demonstrations and other extra-parliamentary actions, to defend ourselves from attacks on our wages and civil liberties. Not only by our immediate bosses, but by the capitalist Establishment in general, including those elected into government. Regardless of which party is attacking us!!!
True, Thatcher's social policies weren't good either. Yet, for all Thatcher is remembered for attacking civil liberties, she actually passed fewer laws curtailing social freedom than Bliar has done. Much of the social repression under Thatcher was tied in with her economic actions, such as the Thatcherite anti-union laws (still not repealed by Bliar or Brown) and the police victimisation of striking miners.
One notable stand-alone curtailment of social freedom by Thatcher, was Section 28 - a homophobic law banning the "promotion of homosexuality", which tended to have a chilling effect on any rational discussion of homosexuality. At the same time, Establishment-propagated brainwashing at the time was most definitely anti gay - small wonder, then, that at the time homosexuality was often considered as socially unacceptable as paedophilia is now!
But who has been one of the greatest defenders of Section 28 into the 1990's? Brian Souter, the arch-capitalist boss of Stagecoach buses, who has also been responsible for cutbacks in bus services and fare hikes in many areas. And was, in the late 90s, a supporter of the SNP (BBC News: Stagecoach tycoon donates to SNP).
On many issues, the SNP appears to the left of New Labour and the Tories (dead easy :-P ), such as their opposition to student tuition fees. Yet in other ways, they follow the Establishment parties close behind. SNP controlled councils have embraced privatisation and PFI with as much enthusiasm as their Tory and New Labour counterparts, while on the social front, they have championed such reactionary measures as the raising of the age for buying alcohol to 21 (BBC News: Drink age 'could be raised to 21').
So, whatever Salmond actually meant by his Thatcher comments, we cannot trust the SNP to defend the working class from the capitalist Establishment's attacks on us, either on the economic or social fronts. In elections, Scottish workers should vote for Solidarity. More importantly, we should support workers who are resisting the attacks of the Scottish political Establishment, such as the council workers there who recently went on strike (Solidarity website: Massive response to council workers' strike rocks employer)
Workers - not only in Scotland, not only in the UK, but all across the world - must unite in strikes, demonstrations and other extra-parliamentary actions, to defend ourselves from attacks on our wages and civil liberties. Not only by our immediate bosses, but by the capitalist Establishment in general, including those elected into government. Regardless of which party is attacking us!!!
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Don't talk wet!
Many views have been expressed both for and against Brown in recent weeks (bet you can't guess which side I'm on...). But, in the midst of all the speculation as to whether or not there's going to be a leadership challenge in the autumn (I hope there is!), I notice one piece of unintentional comic relief. Namely, John Prescott's comparison of New Labour to the Titanic (BBC News: Valid point but unfortunate metaphor).
Prescott was intending to say that the Titanic was sunk by the iceberg, not by its captain. Yet what Prescott seems to have overlooked, is that the Titanic was sailing rather too fast in an area known to be hazardous due to icebergs. What's more, there was pressure on the Titanic crew to recklessly increase the speed, in order to cut the journey time and maximise White Star Line's profits.
Likewise, the economic problems of the UK, and the government's seeming inability to deal effectively with them, have been - at best - greatly exacerbated by the New Labour government's commitment to neoliberal free-market policies. Fuel, food and water price hikes are all the product of the free market's pursuit of profit at all costs, and the credit crunch is the result of poverty wages leading people to borrow money which they become unable to pay back. Yet rather than consider renationalisation of the energy companies, price curbs and a decent minimum wage, this government is hell bent on further privatisation (often in the form of PFI) and shifting the tax burden onto the poor. Hardly a recipe for economic stability, let alone social justice!
Back to the Titanic - where the White Star Line rode roughshod over the safety and welfare of its passengers - this has been repeated time and time again. Most obviously, we saw it in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking in the 1980's, but we have also seen it in Railtrack's many avoidable train disasters, and on countless building sites etc.
But staying with the nautical theme, the film The Perfect Storm has at least one parallel with Titanic. Although it was a hurricane which sunk the Andrea Gail, the crew of sword-fishermen were under pressure to get back to shore as quickly as possible, in order to 'set the market' for the swordfish which they caught. Which is why the Andrea Gail ended up sailing through, and sinking in, a vicious hurricane.
Speaking of perfect storms, the economic gloom and the government's disastrous poll ratings, seem to be combining with an increase in industrial action (such as the recent local government workers' strike) and grassroots protests (such as the recent protests against E-ON's new coal power station in Kent). Hopefully these will come together to create a political hurricane from the left which will not only sink Brown and his New Labour cronies, but also shipwreck the capitalist system which is so beloved by all Establishment politicians :-)
Prescott was intending to say that the Titanic was sunk by the iceberg, not by its captain. Yet what Prescott seems to have overlooked, is that the Titanic was sailing rather too fast in an area known to be hazardous due to icebergs. What's more, there was pressure on the Titanic crew to recklessly increase the speed, in order to cut the journey time and maximise White Star Line's profits.
Likewise, the economic problems of the UK, and the government's seeming inability to deal effectively with them, have been - at best - greatly exacerbated by the New Labour government's commitment to neoliberal free-market policies. Fuel, food and water price hikes are all the product of the free market's pursuit of profit at all costs, and the credit crunch is the result of poverty wages leading people to borrow money which they become unable to pay back. Yet rather than consider renationalisation of the energy companies, price curbs and a decent minimum wage, this government is hell bent on further privatisation (often in the form of PFI) and shifting the tax burden onto the poor. Hardly a recipe for economic stability, let alone social justice!
Back to the Titanic - where the White Star Line rode roughshod over the safety and welfare of its passengers - this has been repeated time and time again. Most obviously, we saw it in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking in the 1980's, but we have also seen it in Railtrack's many avoidable train disasters, and on countless building sites etc.
But staying with the nautical theme, the film The Perfect Storm has at least one parallel with Titanic. Although it was a hurricane which sunk the Andrea Gail, the crew of sword-fishermen were under pressure to get back to shore as quickly as possible, in order to 'set the market' for the swordfish which they caught. Which is why the Andrea Gail ended up sailing through, and sinking in, a vicious hurricane.
Speaking of perfect storms, the economic gloom and the government's disastrous poll ratings, seem to be combining with an increase in industrial action (such as the recent local government workers' strike) and grassroots protests (such as the recent protests against E-ON's new coal power station in Kent). Hopefully these will come together to create a political hurricane from the left which will not only sink Brown and his New Labour cronies, but also shipwreck the capitalist system which is so beloved by all Establishment politicians :-)
Saturday, 9 August 2008
Police can shove curfews up their bottom
I never did like youth curfews, ever since Jack Straw first mooted the idea back in 1996 - for more details, see my No Curfews website. The arguments against the Redruth curfew (BBC News: Redruth curfew two weeks on) are no less valid; what is of questionable validity is the Police's claim that this curfew is "voluntary" and the result of "bottom up" policing.
It is true that the capitalist Establishment can sometimes exercise control over people without coercion being used; for example, people who pander to the Establishment's divide-and-rule tactics by being racist, sexist, homophobic, disablist and - last but not least - ageist, are rarely forced into such behaviour or rewarded for their actions. But, since such prejudice is the result of sustained brainwashing by the Establishment over a long period, it is highly debatable whether such behaviour can be called "voluntary".
Besides, the Redruth curfew is hardly non-coercive. As the BBC News report states, the Police "can issue social orders against parents or children who flout the curfew" - which makes it about as "voluntary" as a request by your boss :-(
As for "bottom up" policing - did the Police's "consensus" include the views of the local young people, whose liberties are being swept away by the curfew? Indeed, a number of adults, notably a local representative of the Childrens Rights Alliance, has blasted the curfew as unfair. And how much were the local population consulted on whether money could be spent on youth facilities rather than illegal wars, Trident missiles, tax breaks for the rich, etc?
Indeed, this "voluntary" curfew should not only be seen as an attack on the civil rights of young people. It should also be seen as a warning of the implications of other "voluntary" measures, such as "voluntary" opt-outs from maximum working hours (which, even if there is no enforcement of longer working hours by employers, can result in the erosion of real wages as employers can expect workers to make up the shortfall from a living wage by working overtime).
On the other hand, I am all for "bottom up" rather than "top down". Not only the legal system, but also government and the economy should be run from the bottom up, by workers committees. This will necessitate a revolution, followed by the government, bosses and the capitalist Establishment being forced into a "voluntary" surrender of their power to workers!
It is true that the capitalist Establishment can sometimes exercise control over people without coercion being used; for example, people who pander to the Establishment's divide-and-rule tactics by being racist, sexist, homophobic, disablist and - last but not least - ageist, are rarely forced into such behaviour or rewarded for their actions. But, since such prejudice is the result of sustained brainwashing by the Establishment over a long period, it is highly debatable whether such behaviour can be called "voluntary".
Besides, the Redruth curfew is hardly non-coercive. As the BBC News report states, the Police "can issue social orders against parents or children who flout the curfew" - which makes it about as "voluntary" as a request by your boss :-(
As for "bottom up" policing - did the Police's "consensus" include the views of the local young people, whose liberties are being swept away by the curfew? Indeed, a number of adults, notably a local representative of the Childrens Rights Alliance, has blasted the curfew as unfair. And how much were the local population consulted on whether money could be spent on youth facilities rather than illegal wars, Trident missiles, tax breaks for the rich, etc?
Indeed, this "voluntary" curfew should not only be seen as an attack on the civil rights of young people. It should also be seen as a warning of the implications of other "voluntary" measures, such as "voluntary" opt-outs from maximum working hours (which, even if there is no enforcement of longer working hours by employers, can result in the erosion of real wages as employers can expect workers to make up the shortfall from a living wage by working overtime).
On the other hand, I am all for "bottom up" rather than "top down". Not only the legal system, but also government and the economy should be run from the bottom up, by workers committees. This will necessitate a revolution, followed by the government, bosses and the capitalist Establishment being forced into a "voluntary" surrender of their power to workers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
