The Silencing of the Lambs - the War on the Peace Campaign

Over the past couple of weeks there has been a deliberate campaign to discredit peace campaigners and lobbyists, the like of which we haven’t seen in recent years. Even the Iraq War did not elicit the kind of relentless vilification of protestors currently published in the mainstream media, the BBC and on social media. Anti-war campaigners have been accused not just of being appeasers or cowards as in the past, but bizarrely, supporters or sympathizers of armed conflict – of being ‘terrorist sympathisers’ by none other than the Prime Minister himself.

There is one campaign but there are two agendas at work behind it. In some ways the motivations interlink, but the emphasis being given to these ends is different in both camps.

On one side, there is the government propaganda campaign. Designed simply to support and justify the illegal action in Syria - though even government ministers only months previously were themselves arguing against it, the Foreign Affairs Committee advised against it, as well as former diplomats and military commanders. We’re still waiting for Chilcot, but here again was another ‘dodgy dossier’ claim of ’70,000 Syrian freedom fighters’ ready to dash into action as soon as they saw the RAF roundel overhead.

There simply is no logical, political or military reason why the military action was extended into Syria – where other countries are currently bombing all the different factions with little or no coordination between them. There is no end strategy, no exit plan, no cohesive mission, and as for targets – what solid infrastructure and assets ISIS/ISIL/DAESH/IS has displayed, have already been long-since obliterated. The US even commented on how pointless the addition of our aging aircraft was to any military strategy. On top of that, every bombing raid is costing somewhere in the region of £0.5m, when we have record numbers of children in poverty and chronic underfunding to social services and the NHS.

We don’t know why the government is hell-bent on war, though there are the usual reasons: the excuse to wind-back human rights; force through draconian laws; divert from mismanagement of the economy or other agendas; boost profits for the arms trade; the promise of eventual carpet-bagging (a seat at the table) of what’s left when it’s all over. In the absence of a solid reason, propaganda and fear-mongering are used to create one. Terror plots with no arrests, charges, evidence etc. are cited. Government initiatives like Prevent and ‘leaks’ to the tabloids are used to create fear and suspicion within communities – and we have seen the rise in racist and islamophobic attacks that have inevitably followed.

It does not suit the government for organized anti-war campaigners to be protesting, fact-checking, countering the propaganda with independent and foreign media sources and lobbying their MPs. For this reason, they have sought to close down the debate, claiming victimhoodfor MPs, demonizing peaceful protest, equating the peace campaigners with the enemy.

This isn’t necessarily new if we look at the history of peace campaigns even in the UK, except this time in its vitriol, relentlessness and resulting actual threat to democracy.

Inevitably there will be, as there are in every movement and attached to every medium, those trolls and fervent tribalists who will go so far as to seek to intimidate rather than argue, to bully rather than lobby, and there are laws and safeguards in place to deal with that minority. But what we are seeing here is the exploitation of that minority to tar the entire movement, and the validity of the argument

On the other side however, we have a group whose only concern it seems is to continue to personally destroy the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. He is a life-long peace campaigner, until recently Chair of the Stop the War Coalition – instrumental in organizing the biggest public demonstration in British history. Now he is a ‘terrorist sympathiser’, tantamount to a fifth columnist, even being called a ‘fascist’; a ‘threat to security’ presenting a ‘clear and present danger’. This is being propagated by a faction within the parliamentary Labour Party, who in contempt of the party membership, their own constituents and Labour voters want to usurp the leader and recreate the party in their own image. Whether deliberately or through sheer ignorance, these figures are being courted by the BBC and MSM as this suits their and the government’s agendas. An effective political opposition to the war cannot be tolerated. And therefore it must be discredited and suppressed.

The figurehead of the Syrian War is curiously not Cameron or any Tory politician. It is Hilary Benn, Shadow Foreign Secretary. Cited as being the greatest political speech in modern times, his drumbeating patriotic polemic made Tories leap to their feet in applause, and swayed some of the MPs in his own party away from the wishes of their constituents and into the government lobbies. I don’t know what camp Benn is in. He’s been wrong about every single military conflict from Iraq onward. The speech itself was a travesty, re-writing history, painting parliament as the defenders of good against evil, forgetting perhaps not just our appeasement but deliberate establishment and support of fascist states across North Africa, South America, Arabia and the Middle East (and let’s not even mention the crimes of empire). Whether deliberate leadership challenger or naive government and MSM shill, the damage he did was devastating.

Today it was announced that Green MP Caroline Lucas was ‘distancing herself’ from the Stop the War Coalition, and the timing could not have been worse. Now her action and the statement released to justify it is being used by these very factions to further attack the movement, the antiwar case itself and Corbyn in person, and this just days before a mass rally in London.

CORRECTION 12/12/15 - It turns out that Caroline's resignation was used by the MSM - she stepped down weeks ago. The 'statement' wasn't a release but in response to media questions. However, this didn't stop figures even within the Green Party from also using the story to attack Stop the War Coalition in support of pro 'humanitarian bombing' and pro-regime change Syrian groups.

It appears the Green Party has a hawk, seemingly believing that insisting on the primacy of international law and learning the lessons from Iraq and Libya display a 'failure to think'.

At the same time, we have the victory of the FN in France, a country still under martial law in all but name, where the state of emergency is already being used as to curtail human rights and silence dissent, alongside the threat of increased surveillance of its citizens – where those citizens now most under threat of attack are Muslims. In the US, Donald Trump makes one of the most outrageously racist statements of his controversial campaign, demonizing all Muslims, whilst at the same time, islamophobic attacks in the US and UK are massively on the increase. A man who tries to murder a Muslim woman by pushing her under a train isn’t a terrorist – but a mentally-disturbed man attacking a busker in a tube station is – because he mentioned Syria. 

The situation over the next few weeks will only get worse - peace campaigners will be continually attacked in order to discourage protest, propaganda will be stepped up, whilst at the same time the US and UK families actually under threat and living in fear will be British Muslims - whilst the rhetoric from the racist press and government policies further divide our communities. 

Corbyn - he's not the Messiah - he's not even a naughty boy

Last night I was one of the Green Party members to ‘sneak in’ to hear Jeremy Corbyn speak at Great St Mary’s in Cambridge. It was packed to capacity, with hundreds outside too - who actually heard Corbyn’s speech before those inside. I went out of curiosity, to catch some of the spirit of this new political movement on the left, a return by the Labour Party to progressive politics. But I came away disappointed, not enthused or motivated as I expected to be.

This wasn’t the first time I’d heard Corbyn speak. Over the past couple of years I’ve seen him at almost every protest and march I’ve attended, from the People’s Assembly to Stop the War, so I already knew what kind of speaker he was and his point of view. He is not a tub-thumper rabble-rousing public speaker like Mark Serwotka, Owen Jones or even our Caroline Lucas. He is a confident and reasoned orator, more of the ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’ model.

His message is nothing new and to be honest, not radical. Most of the policies outlined belonged to the Labour Party as ‘givens’ when I was young and are current Green Party policies. Compared to Green ideals, they seem pretty mediocre and I fall firmly into the camp who say that the Greens need to stay Green as Corbyn’s Labour will not provide our core values or fully address the issues that we will face with climate change and environmental degradation. But I was expecting this too, so this wasn’t the source of my feelings of anti-climax.

The reaction of the crowd was predictably upbeat and excited. They applauded him when he came in, and gave him two standing ovations on the way out. They applauded his policy points (which was great, those policies being identical to Green Party policies!).  There wasn’t a dissenting voice, no comment from the pews other than asking him to stand where most of the congregation could see him.

On the way out it was a slightly different story however. When I go to the theatre or see a film I like to dawdle in the foyer or outside the exit to catch snippets of people’s conversations as they go by. On the way out of the church, most of what I heard was negative. Obviously not everyone in the hall was a Labour Party member or supporter  - I’m not. There were bound to be some there who were sceptical or went along out of pure curiosity. But it really seemed as if some of the people who stood in the ovation only minutes previously were now voicing their actual opinion amongst themselves. But even this surprise wasn’t the source of my lack of enthusiasm.

A lot has been made by Owen Jones and other commentators about Corbynmania, about this being the start of something, the English answer to Podemos, Syriza and even the rise of the SNP(!). And after some of the People’s Assembly actions and the Class Conference last year, the Green Surge – I thought it was really happening. I came away from them with fire in my veins  - it was the beginning of a powerful movement. But Corbynmania isn’t it. The energy, the ‘revolutionary zeal’ as some comrades in the SWP might put it, is absent.

What we need, as Cameron throws crumbs to refugees (and commits the first executive ordered extra-judicial killing of a Briton), is real opposition, prepared to leap to the barricades and in the spirit of Corbyn’s parents scream NO PASARAN! But Corbyn junior isn’t it.

Corbyn said in his speech that we shouldn’t shout and throw things at the television. At the most, you’ll end up hoarse with a busted TV. We need to do something real, join with others and get active. What he didn’t say is we need to take back the streets.  And I think that is precisely what he should have said.

On Saturday thousands of people, about 400 right here in Cambridge, took the streets to make it known in no uncertain terms that Refugees are Welcome Here.  Over £600 was collected and the local collection centre was so overloaded with donations of clothes and goods that it had to close its doors.

Next Saturday there will be a mass demonstration in London to demand that Cameron stops shaming this country and admits our fair share of refugees, not just preferentially selected from ‘nice’ camps in Turkey but from Calais, from Italy and Greece, in order to also assist those European countries currently overloaded. This isn’t an Early Day Motion, it isn’t yet another ‘signthispetition’ tweet. It is thousands of people stopping the traffic, making themselves heard and physically seen, to say, ‘up with this we will not put.’

Podemos and Syriza took the streets and the ballot box. In some respects, Syriza was beaten down and failed, capitulating to the unstoppable force of neo-liberalism, the Troika and the banks. But it also shows the limitations perhaps of hoping that by using the system that the elites invented to give the people the illusion of choice and power, that real change can be effected and real power can be distributed to the masses. But this isn’t the case. The whole system needs to be reformed and that cannot be achieved whilst those in power are in power – as they will only seek to maintain their positions for as long as possible. 

Corbyn mentioned reforming the way policy is decided in the Labour Party  - to go back to the way it used to be, to form policy through open debate and fix it through a vote of the membership. It’s a good idea; it’s the way the Green Party do things. But whilst he talked about changing society he didn’t mention electoral reform.

Electoral reform, in particular proportional representation, comes with dangers. It would have meant for example, that the far-right populist UKIP would have dozens of MPs  - but then the argument goes, in a completely reformed system UKIP would not have had half the following they had.  For PR to work it also would need reform of the media, doing away with a biased national broadcaster and smashing media empires – giving independent and local media an even playing field. It would mean the end of private contribution to political parties, funding each party equally from national funds.

But of course this will never happen. The national broadcaster tonight launched the latest smear against Corbyn – a direct attempt to interfere with an internal election of a political party. Clearly the establishment is afraid of what Corbyn represents.

But then Corbyn has become a representation of an ideal, whilst being very far from it. His supporters know his reputation and the smears will only strengthen their resolve. But unlike the rabid personality cult that UKIP cultivated around Farage, it seems that they are also more willing to accept that he isn’t perfect. But he is the best and only chance they’ve got.

Perhaps I’m also expecting too much. Perhaps we should see JC not as the saviour, but ‘as his prophet’. He is a stage on the way to political salvation – the first step as the progressive left stands up again, divided and demoralized as they were, beaten down by Thatcher and Blair. Perhaps to continue the allusion, JC is the one to say to the left, ‘take up thy bed and walk’.

What I was expecting, from the man and more from the movement, was the freedom fighter – casting the money-changers from the temple, talking of bringing figurative swords to the fight.

If Corbyn is the first step, we still have an awful long way to go. And with all the guns of the elite ranged against him, it remains to be seen how successful this forlorn hope is – and if Corbyn does fall, if there will be another to pick up the standard and once more run to the breach.

Corbyn ate my hamster and the Fanatical ABC's

Corbyn is now coming under unprecedented attack from the establishment – mainstream media and the BBC, the right-wing and Blairites within his own Labour party – and now what some would see as the actual ‘hard left’ are also being encouraged to attack him.

Over the past couple of weeks, aside from the ongoing and wholly ridiculous guilt by association (or by being in the same room as, mentioning in the same paragraph as, friending etc. etc.) idea, I’ve seen:

• ·      Stop the War is pro-war and pro-Putin;
• ·      apologising for the wholly legal and fully justified Iraq War is a direct insult to veterans and their families;
• ·      Corbyn grew up in a big house;
• ·      Corbyn’s son is called Quentin;
• ·      Corbyn as PM would lead to the destruction of the country, him being evacuated by the UN and an annoyance to President Trump;
• ·      Corbyn supports women-only train carriages to get the Muslim vote
• ·      Corbyn would give state secrets to our enemies
• ·      Corbyn is a threat to national security 

As I write this, teams of unpaid interns in basements in ‘Fleet Street’, BBC Broadcasting House and Labour HQ (oh, and Louise Mensch) will be continuing to pore over thousands of hours of video and reams of documents to find the latest ‘Corbyn ate my hamster’ story.

The latest one to be ‘broken’ was the Corbyn / Bin Laden smear, something so bizarre and ridiculous it falls into self-parody before you even pass the headline. Also with this one was the seeming gleeful acceptance by the Anyone But Corbynistas (ABCs) that to argue against what Corbyn actually said meant that you support the principle of extra-judicial killing by executive order. Not a problem for Pres. Obomber and his drone kill-list, but perhaps something that should be giving Labour party members a moment of pause. Not even Boris agrees with that principle. 

Aside from the usual suspects in these attacks, what we’re seeing increasingly over the past week or so is the use of ‘left-wing’ spokespeople, such as James Bloodworth of Left Foot Forward.  Over issues like Ukraine and ISIL, because the propaganda narrative on these issues is so widely accepted, these are easy hits to divide the left. But surely these attacks are wasted now – if the idea is to divide the left against Corbyn, wouldn’t they be better used at a general election? Unless of course, the idea is to completely split the party. Every time one of these stories is created, Labour MP clowns like Simon Danczuk jump on it - exactly what the Tory press really want.

But it does look like Corbyn will walk into the Labour leadership, and the establishment are absolutely terrified. The first political leader to challenge the status quo in a generation, with Labour core support flocking to his banner. Corbyn has managed to capture the mood right now – a political will that is spreading across the continent and can even be seen in the US.

What some commentators can’t understand is that their best efforts at attack and smear seem only to strengthen the resolve of the Corbynites. But this isn’t because Corbyn is hero-worshipped or because the movement is a crazed UKIP-style personality cult – it is because the movement is bigger than one man. It is about principle and belief, about hope in the face of political movements that have only provided hopelessness. The media are attacking Corbyn the man – not the socialist policies he subscribes to. They have the wrong target.

Corbynmania - good for Labour but keep it Green

Harriet Harman announced the other day that there will be an investigation into all those new Labour members or supporters recently joined with the purpose of participating in the leadership election. It does seem a bit suspect that the vetting seems entirely arbitrary, and as only Corbyn supporters have been accused of ‘entryism’; it seems that the idea might be to ensure that a more ‘suitable’ candidate is elected.

There may be a few people who have paid the £3 to become supporters to cause mischief but I suspect that there wouldn’t be enough to swing any result.  What there may be a good deal of however is former Labour supporters coming back to the party, having been members of other parties or groups, such as TUSC or the Green Party. If they have truly given up their membership of other parties, then is this a valid criterion to use to establish whether they are authentic Labour supporters?

Entryism is a strange accusation to make. When Militant Tendency joined the Labour Party in order to subvert and shift the party to the left, it was a deliberate campaign (that also then found some support from within the party itself). Can thousands of individual supporters and union members, once alienated by the party but now finding a true representative in Corbyn, be accused of such a campaign?

It is also unfortunately possible that Harman’s campaign, even if it fails to weed out many Corbyn supporters, could be used after the vote to discredit and invalidate the result. I might be being cynical and distrusting of the Labour exec, but then I owe them no loyalty and it certainly wouldn’t be a surprising move to make.

Confusingly, it is true that an official release from the Green Party said that members could pay the £3 to be Labour supporters and remain Greens - the Labour constitution does not recognize these ‘supporters’ as members, and so on that technicality, it would not be in breach of the Green Party constitution. However, there are members who are already preparing to have this corrected at conference, and I would support such a move. Green Party members should have no part to play in the internal affairs of another party – and those who do, should resign their Green Party membership and join that party as full members.

So for my part, why should I take interest in this at all? I have supported and promoted Corbyn’s campaign on social media, simply because he is the only alternative candidate to the red tory and blairite factions, and would bring the party back to its roots and core supporters. But I have no intention of leaving the Green Party. Whilst a lot of Corbyn’s policies reflect those of the Greens, they simply don’t go far enough especially when we need to be moving now to a post-capitalist economy – the only way to effectively combat and reduce the impacts of climate change. It is too late for even a more equitable socialist economy to effect the kind of change necessary, whilst it is still based on production, capital and growth.