Friday, 31 July 2020

The Murder of Anthony Walker

Anthony Walker: BBC drama part of his legacy, mother says

A drama about a student murdered in a racist killing shows "the harsh reality of pain of loss", his mother says.

Anthony Walker, 18, was attacked with an ice axe in Merseyside in a killing that shocked the nation.

The BBC One drama, titled Anthony, tells the story of what his life could have been like if he had not been the victim of the racist attack in 2005.

His mother Gee hopes dramatising it for TV will become "part of Anthony's legacy - to honour him".

"It's one of the most painful things I've done since losing Anthony, but I think it was important for the story to be told," she said.

Mrs Walker approached writer Jimmy McGovern with the idea to show "Anthony's unfilled dreams, his potentials and the many lives he would have impacted on".

"I've always thought to myself there's nothing entertaining about grief and pain of loss," she said.

"I want him to show the harsh reality of pain of loss and I couldn't think of anyone better to express it than Jimmy."

Anthony died after he was chased from a bus stop in Huyton, Knowsley, before being struck with the ice axe.

His killers Michael Barton, then 17, and Paul Taylor, then 20, are both serving life sentences for murder.

"Racism's a disease because what it does is it kills, it destroys. This is my last-ditch attempt to get the message across," said Mrs Walker.

"Stop. Stop it. It's killing. It's a disease and you're perpetrating that."

Currently on BBC iPlayer.

Beeb.

Thursday, 30 July 2020

Tom Cotton Thinks Slavery Was a “Necessary” Evil

IN AN INTERVIEW published on Sunday, Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton declared that “We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built.

What Cotton did not say is that the defenders of hideous acts almost always engage in this rhetorical tic, using that exact word: “necessary.

Much more @ TI.

Tuesday, 28 July 2020

Failure to keep class politics on the agenda in the UK leads to ill-informed, racist views like Wiley’s

Grime star Wiley’s anti-Semitic Tweets mirror a sentiment shared by some in the poorest communities in working-class Britain. A lack of education on the class system means the marginalised believe the wildest conspiracy theories. Last week, grime artist Wiley sent Twitter into meltdown with his racist and anti-Semitic rants. They were outrageous and disgusting, but not unsurprising, once you start to contextualise, analyse and understand neo-liberal Western democracy.

Anti-Semitism in its current form nods to every other anti-semitic narrative going back to the middle ages; the ‘greedy Jew’, the ‘money-obsessed Jew’ and ‘secretive demonic powerful cults.’

It feeds on out-of-control inequality, wild and unrestrained neo-liberal politics, the total and absolute failure of the Left to keep class politics at the forefront of its agenda, and the rise of identity politics.

And that all adds up to a perfect recipe for millions of poor, working-class people wondering why – in a world where they are told they can be anything they want to be according to neo-liberalism – their grandparents died in poverty, their parents live in poverty, and they are now looking out into the void of precarity and demise?

I wrote a book about a community in Nottingham, a place which is one of Britain’s most multi-ethnic, multi-cultural areas, where I had lived for 25 years.

As part of the research for the book 'Getting By', I spent a year in a boxing gym and barber shop. Those spaces were predominantly male and 100 percent working class white, black, mixed-race and Asian people.

We argued every single minute of every day; the debates in Westminster and in local party political meetings paled in comparison. They were passionate, lively, sometimes good-natured, sometimes very aggressive, but always inclusive of anyone who walked in.

“What do you think?” would be shouted at every new person who arrived. Sometimes the debates were about football, sometimes they were about the ethics of the local community; for example, under what circumstances is it appropriate to call the police?

‘Mostly never’ was the answer to that one, unless harm was done to children or the elderly (and even then, it was, of course, debatable).

However, the debates around power were as omnipresent as power itself. Why, they shouted, are we stopped and searched by the police constantly? Why does no one from round here ever become successful? Why are there so many children involved in violence and drug dealing? And why are our ‘yutes’ dying? These were questions all day, every day interspersed with Premier League chat.

There were no answers, or no answers that made sense to them. I tried to talk about class inequality, and about how those with wealth used that wealth to purposefully keep them powerless and subservient. And how this is a structured system that everyone takes part in.

But that conversation is so hard to have among people who desperately need hope that something could happen to change their situation.

They require belief that the system which is slowly killing them will one day work for them. If they don’t have that, then what hope is there? In places that have no resources, no wealth, no real education and no political representation, all they have is hope, whether that’s the National Lottery, becoming a famous footballer or grime artist, or somehow coming across money and getting out.

The problems come when they try to piece together why this is the case? Why, from the minute they are born, do they stand no chance? And this is where the conspiracy theories, like those put forward by Wiley, have enough air to live and to thrive.

I have argued and screamed with fury at men who have told me ‘it’s the Jews’ controlling the music industry or it’s the Illuminati controlling everything, and the only way working- class – and especially black – people can become successful is to be part of these demonic cults inter-connected with elite paedophile rings, banking bail-outs, funding Islamic terrorism and now Covid-19.

It’s all mashed together to explain why and how decent, hard-working people constantly live and die in poverty. These arguments originally came from the extreme Right and white supremacists, but now they are rife in poor, working class inter-racial communities.

To me, this is evidence of the absolute failure of left-wing politics, and the victory of neo-liberal democracy, where we are reduced to nothing more than an individual unit bumping around, succeeding or failing. And all the while, the system awards some with unearned and undeserved advantages, success, and wealth and security, while others are mired in poverty, and their ‘failure’ is their own – while the structure of an unfair and unjust system remains cloaked in invisibility.

I remember one very lively afternoon in the barber’s shop, where I tried desperately to explain the British class system, using the local elite private boys school as an example of how power works and is reproduced. I failed to win the argument, because, they argued, how could it be that easy and transparent? No, they shouted, it’s about a demonic death cult made up of Jews and rich celebrities working in an undercover sect with the Illuminati purposefully keeping them down.

Without class politics, without class struggle, without a critique and an education that takes to pieces the neo-liberal system of class reproduction, all you have left are identity politics and Donald Trump.

Dr Lisa McKenzie.

Saturday, 25 July 2020

Chinese ‘Imperialism’ in Hong Kong Concerns US Media; Puerto Rican, Palestinian Colonies, Not So Much

When China passed a national security law for Hong Kong on June 30, criminalizing terrorism, secession and subversion of the Chinese government, as well as collusion with foreign governments, massive condemnations resounded all over Western media.

Vox (5/21/20) described it as an “official death sentence” for the “one country, two systems” model of governance in Hong Kong. Business Insider’s headline (7/1/20) described China’s national security law as having “killed Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement in less than a year.” The Washington Post (7/3/20) ran an op-ed mocking China’s actions as “nothing less than imperialism with Chinese characteristics.” The Atlantic (7/1/20) described Hong Kong as a “colony once more,” equating the Chinese government with previous British and Japanese “overlords in a distant capital” making “decisions on Hong Kong’s behalf.”

Of course, while Western media describe the national security law as something China “imposed” on Hong Kong, these same outlets rarely if ever present the “one country, two systems” model of governance in Hong Kong as something that was imposed on China by British imperialism, when London refused to unconditionally return the former colony to China. Hong Kong was violently seized from China with the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, after the British waged a war to impose the opium trade on China, causing about 90 million Chinese people to develop an addiction by the end of the 19th century.

FAIR studies (10/26/20, 12/6/20) have found that Hong Kong protests received dramatically more media attention than contemporaneous protests in US client states like Chile, Haiti and Ecuador. FAIR found that the disparity in coverage couldn’t be explained by the protests’ size, significance, number of casualties or response from the authorities, as police crackdowns in US dependencies have been far more brutal and lethal than the crackdown in Hong Kong. The disparity is better explained by corporate journalists considering Hong Kong protesters “worthy victims,” more deserving of coverage because they are protesting against an Official EnemyTM of the US, rather than a government friendly to Washington.

While one cannot describe China’s national security law as an act of “colonialism” or “imperialism,” since Hong Kong is part of China, FAIR conducted a study comparing media coverage of Hong Kong’s national security law and actual colonialism by the US in Puerto Rico, and by its ally Israel in Palestine. From June 16 to July 14, FAIR searched for all relevant results for “Hong Kong+security law,” “Israel+annex” and a general search for “Puerto Rico” on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal’s websites, as well as a Nexis search for CNN’s coverage. FAIR included all relevant results, except reposted content from newswires like Reuters and the Associated Press. Full documentation, including links to all the articles in the sample, can be found here.

In total, there have been 113 articles on China’s new national security law in Hong Kong, 12 on Israel’s plans to unilaterally annex parts of the West Bank on July 1 (which have currently been stalled), and six altogether on Puerto Rico.

NYT: Leading Homeland Security Under a President Who Embraces ‘Hate-Filled’ Talk In nearly a month of coverage, there were only six stories on Puerto Rico in three leading outlets, despite the island’s ongoing crisis. One was a New York Times story (7/10/20) that reported that Trump had asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, “Can we sell the island? You know, or divest of that asset?”

Puerto Rico is currently the world’s oldest colony, incorporated into the US empire as spoils of war following the Spanish/American War of 1898, and it currently enjoys less political participation than it did during the Spanish monarchy (Washington Post, 12/13/17). The US has consistently exploited Puerto Rico’s economy for over a century, and has denied the colony representation in Congress or the right to vote in presidential elections (CounterSpin, 8/2/19, 3/18/20). Washington has imposed neoliberal shock doctrine on the island, withholding aid following the devastation left by Hurricane Maria, earthquakes and coronavirus (FAIR.org, 2/9/18; Common Dreams, 1/9/20).

[...]

While Israel’s settler colonialism has been going on for decades, FAIR’s search focused on Israel’s plans to annex the West Bank on July 1, because it was a contemporaneous measure taken by a US ally that would permanently end prospects for Palestinian independence under a two-state solution (FAIR.org, 1/31/20, 2/7/20). While some of the disparity in coverage could be explained by the postponement of the planned annexation on July 1 due to coronavirus and international condemnation, even if we confine coverage from the Times, Journal and CNN from June 16 to July 1, there are still 44 articles on China’s national security law for Hong Kong, compared to 12 on Israel’s planned annexation of Palestinian territory.

If, as Israel’s annexation asserts, the West Bank is not an independent nation deserving of self-determination, than Israel/Palestine is an apartheid state where millions of Palestinians are denied democratic rights due to their ethnicity. The denial of these rights has a heavy human cost: According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem (1/1/20), Israeli security forces killed 133 Palestinians in 2019, including 28 children. Fifty-six of the people killed took no part in hostilities against Israel, making them victims of Israeli state terrorism.

Corporate media’s particular interest in Hong Kong protests cannot be explained by the Hong Kong police force’s crackdown being exceptionally brutal. After Chinese revolutionaries waged what Chinese people call the War of Liberation against Western and Japanese colonizers, Communists in Hong Kong led uprisings against British colonial rule in 1967, during which colonial police shot to death or otherwise killed at least 17 people. In contrast, while instances of police brutality have been documented during the current Hong Kong protests, none of the four deaths of protesters reported so far in the current unrest have been directly and credibly attributed to police violence. Hong Kong protesters, meanwhile, have set a man on fire, bombed subways, beaten elderly people and young women, and murdered a 70-year-old man by hurling a brick at his head (South China Morning Post, 11/12/19, 6/3/20).

[...]

More by FAIR.

Friday, 24 July 2020

Why I (me) can no longer support Labour

By George Galloway - RT.com. (He says it better than I ever could)

The descent to apostasy in the UK Labour Party of Sir Keir Starmer continues at such a pace it would come as no surprise if he were to expel his predecessor in whose shadow cabinet he sat without public complaint. Oh wait... Seems that’s already underway.

Full disclosure: I joined the Labour Party at the age of 13, in 1967, and was in it until expelled by Tony Blair over the Iraq War 36 years later. Now, I wish for its total destruction and for a hundred different reasons.

Another reason arrives most every day, but they are seldom as clear-cut as the demand for a ban on RT.

Being more Catholic than the Pope, more royal than the King, is of course ‘a thing’ in politics. But it can only be used sparingly, it must retain the capacity to shock. If overused it becomes merely a descending staircase to apostasy.

Labour is well down that staircase now, and so I was as shocked as the Claude Rains character in Casablanca on discovering there was gambling going on in Rick’s Cafe when in response to the busted ‘Russia Report’, Labour decided to go full Jolly George.

Though whereas the British Labour movement sank the Tory plan to dispatch the good ship Jolly George to help in their invasion of Russia a hundred years ago by refusing to load it, this time it is the Labour Party which wants to sink RT and the Tories who will, for a variety of reasons, block such a ban.

Not that it is the business of either to ban or not to ban. At least that’s what it says on the tin of Ofcom the media regulator, which is supposedly independent of government. In fact, the Labour Party have now significantly undermined that claim. Only Ofcom has the right to withdraw the licence of a broadcaster, and then supposedly acting in a quasi-judicial manner. An evidence-free “open-source reports”-based Report of the Security and Intelligence Committee which made NO specific allegations against RT and Sputnik, let alone prove any, would not be sufficient in a judicial process, however quasi.

Neither is this apostasy a product of Sir Keir Starmer’s Blairite orientation. The first proscription of Labour MPs appearing on RT was made not by the Blairites but by the Trotskyite John McDonnell, shadow chancellor and right-hand man to Jeremy Corbyn.

Shooting from the hip on a TV sofa one Sunday morning, without the knowledge let alone the consent of anyone else in the party, McDonnell’s ex cathedra announcement took those regular parliamentary guests on my own RT shows quite by surprise. But it worked.

Labour over the last four years was subjected to a ferocious and unremitting assault by virtually the entire British media, radio, television and print. Labour sanctions were taken against none of them. Nobody said that Rupert Murdoch’s anti-worker lie machine was beyond the pale, nobody boycotted the media telling us daily that Corbyn=KGB. In fact, Labour spokespeople turned up like lambs to the slaughter every day and were duly slaughtered. The ONLY British-based network which covered British politics in a fair and balanced way WAS RT. It was a kind of political masochism. It turns out they secretly enjoyed the flaying.

Apostasy against what, I hear you asking. Well, this. In a free country, freedom of expression is sacrosanct. How else in a democracy can leaders be held to account, prevented from committing crimes against their own people, or others? A media, free to differ from the government is a sine qua non surely? An opposition demanding the destruction of media pluralism is like the turkey volunteering for an early Christmas. In a free market democracy, surely the market must decide who gets viewers and who does not?

As the great English man of letters Dr Johnson once said, “the grimmest dictatorship of them all is the dictatorship of the prevailing orthodoxy.” Banning television stations in 2020 is of course a fool’s errand. The book they tried to ban always goes to the top of the Best Seller List. The only people further degraded and diminished by this sojourn into the realms of the ridiculous are the increasingly misnamed “Labour Party.”


The second reason why I can no longer support Labour is its shameful handling of the 'antisemitism crisis' but I'll let Tony Greenstein wade in on that one first (as duplication serves no purpose here)

Thursday, 23 July 2020

China: is it part of an "Axis of Evil" yet?

Not long now. Nearly there, folks!

Failing to showcase 'the economy' for the November 2020 election, Trump now seems hellbent on making China into a 'useful enemy', with or without a mask. The 'Kung flu' and China's alleged spying actually show some useful overlap, from Trump's PoV.

Rinse and repeat to manufacture consent. Yawn...