When far-right ideas become mainstream, it’s people of colour who suffer

Spread the love

Original article by Shabna Begum republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

The Tories and Labour competing over hardline immigration policies only helps to mainstream far-right ideas

Rishi Sunak conducts a press conference in December 2023  | James Manning (WPA Pool)/Getty Images

Standing at a lectern with the familiar slogan, “STOP THE BOATS”, Rishi Sunak evoked the “will of the people” as the so-called Rwanda Bill made its fractious passage through the Commons last week.

The prime minister’s summoning of “the people” to push through an inhumane and unpopular policy smacks of the misuse of populism that we have come to associate with this government. The insistence that stopping people seeking asylum is “an urgent national issue” deliberately ignores that the priority issues for the British public remain the cost of living and the NHS.

We have seen both main political parties eagerly trading punches for the prize of who can appear most punitive on blocking people seeking asylum. Not only does this stale consensus manufacture a sense of crisis that is a distortion of public opinion, but it also pretends it has nothing to do with racism. And yet whether it’s warning about a “hurricane” or “invasion” of migrants and the failures of multiculturalism, or condemning Britain’s “immigration dependency”, the messaging relies on innuendo and euphemism that stoke racial tensions.

The Runnymede Trust, where I am the interim co-CEO, has today published a report warning of the dangers of this rotten politics that helps mainstream far-right, racist political ideas. Political debate on immigration, based on racialised ideas of who is welcome and who belongs, has become the norm. Whether directly or indirectly, historic and contemporary migration policies are predicated on the exclusion of people of colour. As exemplified by the Windrush scandal, this cheap politics has a high cost – and it is people of colour, regardless of their citizenship status, who bear the ugly consequences.

These toxic anti-migrant policies are coupled with a sustained assault on our democratic infrastructure. In 2022, the government passed the Elections Act, which made it a requirement that voters present ID at polling stations. There was strong opposition about the impact on people of colour. The first UK elections to use them – the May 2023 local elections – confirmed these fears. The Electoral Commission reported about 14,000 people were turned away, and that people of colour and disabled people were most likely to be impacted. The commission predicts 800,000 people could be blocked from voting at the next general election – an incredible price to pay when there were just six cases of voter fraud in 2019.

And then of course there’s attacks on the right to protest. Last year’s Public Order Act introduced new and expanded stop and search powers in relation to protest-related ‘offences’. The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner was unequivocal that these powers were “disproportionate criminal sanctions on people organising or taking part in peaceful protests”. The Runnymede Trust, alongside many others, opposed the law, highlighting increased police powers would, as with all stop and search powers, be disproportionately used against people of colour, particularly Black men.

It’s not just legislation, but also through rhetoric that politicians have persistently attacked the right to protest. Indeed, former home secretary Suella Braverman labelled pro-Palestine marches “hate marches” and compared them with wicked vexation to Black Lives Matter protests – both causes which have high levels of support among communities of colour.

And dare I even mention the ‘culture war’ and the injuries it has inflicted on the strength of civil society? In recent years we have seen the vilification of organisations across the arts, heritage, charity sector and our higher education spaces. The targets have often been those that have dared to embark on progressive racial justice work, who have been demonised with the absurd inversion of the term ‘woke’.

Whether it is through stacking boards with hand-picked ideologues, threatening funding sources, or personalised attacks on individuals, the government has led and encouraged unprecedented attacks on civil society institutions and created a chilling culture of fear, intimidation and self-censorship.

The fact it is the likes of Braverman and her replacement James Cleverly – ministers of colour – who have designed and executed these policies, shows diversity at the top does not protect against racist impact, nor does it mean people in those positions won’t have divergent or indeed opposing political interests to those with whom they may share some points of affinity.

The politics of representation may prioritise superficial visibility, but we mustn’t forget people in positions of power have always designed and inflicted policies that have harmed those they are deemed to share some interest with.

As we prepare for the 2024 general election, we must act to stop the rot of our democracy. Pandering to far-right politics by creating a crisis around small boats and invoking the “will of the people” to implement punitive and racist policies while ignoring the needs of the very people they invoke is unacceptable. On every count, it is people of colour that lose.

Original article by Shabna Begum republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Continue ReadingWhen far-right ideas become mainstream, it’s people of colour who suffer

Priest, 73, among climate activists made to wear GPS tags for years

Spread the love

Original article by Anita Mureithi republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Just Stop Oil member Tim Hewes has to lead church services with an ankle tag on – despite not yet having faced trial

The 73-year-old priest has long taken part in direct action with other campaign groups including Insulate Britain, Extinction Rebellion and Christian Climate Action calling for climate justice  | Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images

A 73-year-old priest accused of helping plan a climate protest on the M25 has been forced to lead church services while wearing a GPS ankle tag for two years.

Tim Hewes, from Oxfordshire, is among at least ten members of Just Stop Oil who were given the tags despite not having been convicted of a crime. Hewes, who previously sewed his lips shut outside a newspaper office, is also barred from going on the M25 or taking part in any actions to oppose the climate crisis.

On one occasion, Hewes said he was thrown into the back of a police van and locked up overnight after being accused of breaking his bail conditions because his ankle monitor failed to charge. He says the tag was faulty and he was released once the court realised.

“Now if there’s a knock at the door, I think, well, it’s either the tag team or the police,” he told openDemocracy.

“The difficulty with the GPS is that, although I don’t have a curfew, I’ve still got to sleep at home.

“I asked my solicitor: ‘What if I want to go and see the dawn, or something like that?’ and she said: ‘Well, between 12 and five is probably about your limit.’ So, that would rule out midnight mass… Why should I not be able to do that? You know where I am.

“We’re supposed to be able to protest… The perpetrators of real, serious harm in this country are actually in government. What are we supposed to do?”

Hewes, who was speaking to openDemocracy in December and was in fact able to attend midnight mass without a hitch on Christmas Day, had been arrested in November 2022 and charged with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. He has worn the tag since January 2023 after being held on remand at Wandsworth Prison for six weeks, and has to keep it on until his trial begins in February 2025. Tags must be worn at all times for as long as the court decides.

While he denies the charge, Hewes’s tag prohibits him from going on the M25 and taking part in or organising climate protests. Following previous action with other climate campaign groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Christian Climate Action, he says he has faced increasingly harsh treatment from the police and justice system.

Hewes was arrested on a Sunday afternoon. He said he had just put his collar on as he prepared to take part in a church service when he looked out of the window and saw his garden “swarming with police”.

“They shouted up: ‘If you don’t come down and open the door, we’re going to break it down now.’ And they got what they call a ‘big red key’, which is a euphemism for the battering ram. It was scary.”

He added: “Sunday afternoon was just never the same for me.”

Hewes said he was initially embarrassed to lead services with his tag on, and believes climate activists are being heavily criminalised in order to silence and discredit them.

Suella Braverman talked about Just Stop Oil in the same breath as terrorists,” he told openDemocracy. “That’s outrageous. We’re peaceful protesters. The climate crisis is an existential threat.”

Braverman, the former home secretary who was forced out after inciting a far-right mob to storm the Cenotaph in November, referred to the activist group as “extremists” in 2022 and said they were “out of control” following a series of protests on the M25.

Marcin Wawrzyn, 42 – who was arrested after 20 minutes of ‘slow marching’ with Just Stop Oil in November – told openDemocracy that being given a tag felt “unfair” and “disproportionate”.

“It felt like a punishment and for what?” he said. “I was marching in the road – where else would you protest? The judges of ECHR say roads are the most appropriate places for protests and anything under 90 minutes cannot be seen as disruptive.”

Mentally, it was harsh – I felt like a dog on a leash

Wawrzyn was charged under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, which bans any act that “interferes with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure”. He has pleaded not guilty, and his case is expected to begin in 2025.

Under the conditions of his tag, Wawrzyn was prohibited from crossing the River Thames from his home in Wandsworth, south-west London, and from going into north London for a month. Though his tag has now been removed, he described feeling isolated.

“Despite my work being in north London, I was excluded from my office for a month, which is something a court shouldn’t do. But that’s what happened to me. Mentally, it was harsh – I felt like a dog on a leash.

“I felt detached and like I was prevented from having human contact with people I really care about.”

Hewes agreed. “I’m a marked and tracked man,” he said. “It’s really frustrating. As activists, one of the things that helps our mental health is the fact that you are trying to do something, however feeble it might appear to other people.”

Last month, Just Stop Oil wrote to the Met Police after the force claimed that policing the group’s protests cost almost £20m. Just Stop Oil said that “arresting non-violent grandmothers, teenagers, vicars, medics, engineers” was a “waste” of resources.

But Wawrzyn added that campaigners have not been deterred by the crackdown. “The fact that the state reacts in such a way only emboldens us and gives us the assurance that they’re actually noticing what we’re doing and they are actively fighting us,” he said. “If anything, we’re galvanised and we’re drawing more and more people in.”

Original article by Anita Mureithi republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.
Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.
Continue ReadingPriest, 73, among climate activists made to wear GPS tags for years

ICJ to respond to South Africa’s genocide case against Israel

Spread the love

Original article by Tanupriya Singh republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

The ICJ hearings on South Africa’s case against Israel. Photo: ICJ

South Africa has asked the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue emergency measures, including ordering Israel to stop all military operations in Gaza, where it has killed over 25,000 Palestinians in an ongoing genocide.

This Friday January 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will issue a decision on South Africa’s request for provisional measures to bring an end to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. The order will come two weeks after South Africa and Israel presented their arguments before the court in the historic case.

On December 29, 2023, Pretoria had approached the ICJ, which is the chief judicial institution of the United Nations, accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention in relation to its months-long war on the besieged Gaza Strip.

The application asserted that Israel’s actions were “genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial, and ethnical group”.

Pretoria’s application calls on the ICJ to determine and declare that Israel has violated its obligations as a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. However, pending a final ruling on the case, it urged the court to indicate provisional (or emergency) measures to “protect against further, severe, and irreparable harm” to the Palestinian people and to “ensure Israel’s compliance” with the Genocide Convention not to engage in genocide, and to prevent and to punish genocide”.

Read more: South Africa takes Israel to ICJ for crime of genocide in Gaza

Hearings on this request for provisional measures were held on January 11 and 12.

The measures sought by South Africa include an immediate suspension of Israel’s military operations in and against Gaza, for it to “desist” from committing all acts defined as genocide under the 1948 Convention. This includes inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the “physical destruction” of Palestinians as a group through acts such as forced displacement, deprivation of food, water, and humanitarian assistance and “the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza”. Israel must also prevent the destruction of evidence of the crimes outlined in the application.

The application notes importantly that in order to indicate these measures, the ICJ does not at this stage need to definitively determine if Israel has indeed violated the 1948 Convention and committed genocide. Rather, it only needs to establish that the acts described are capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention, or at the very least, can be characterized as “ plausibly “genocidal”.

Read more: Genocide as pattern and policy: ICJ hears South Africa’s case against Israel

South Africa outlined a series of “compelling circumstances” that require urgent action from the court including that— “nowhere is safe in Gaza”, “besieged and bombed hospitals are no longer able to treat the sick and wounded”, “international experts are warning of imminent mass starvation”, “Palestinians in Gaza are being killed at the rate of approximately one person every six minutes”, and “Israel continues to prevent sufficient humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza”.

Each of the circumstances described by South Africa in its submission made over three weeks ago persist in Gaza today. In fact, Israel killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in the week following the adjournment of hearings at the ICJ.

Read more: Deflect and deny: Israel responds to South Africa’s accusation of genocide at ICJ

The genocide continues

Despite claims, including by the US, that Israel has shifted to “low intensity phase” of warfare, the Occupation has continued its massacres in Gaza, “encircling” the city of Khan Younis in the south of the Strip on January 23. Over 200 Palestinians were killed over the course of 24 hours. As attacks continued on Wednesday, at least nine people were killed after Israel hit a United Nations shelter in the city.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health had also stated on Tuesday that the Nasser and Al Amal hospitals were under “extreme danger” from Israeli bombardment.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) reported that Israeli drones were firing at “anyone moving” around the Al Amal hospital, and that ambulances were unable to reach the wounded. The siege on the hospital continued on January 24, accompanied by intense shelling and gunfire around the hospital.

The risk of famine in Gaza is “increasing each day”, as at least one in four households or over 500,000 people are facing “catastrophic” hunger characterized by “extreme lack of food, starvation, and exhaustion of coping capabilities”. Reports have emerged of Palestinians resorting to consuming animal fodder to survive, while aid agencies continue to face “access denials” and restrictions by Israel, especially in northern Gaza.

“No one will stop us”

The decisions issued by the ICJ are legally binding. However, the court does not have a mechanism to enforce compliance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already declared that “no one will stop us, not the Hague…and not anyone else”.

The ICJ will notify the UN Security Council of the provisional measures it has ordered. The Court has the authority to determine these measures, and as such, may differ from what has been requested by Pretoria. If South Africa considers that Israel has failed to abide by the judgment, it can approach the Security Council to determine what action has to be taken. However, all signs indicate that Israel be protected by the veto power held by the US.

The decision that the Court will take on Friday is also being considered as a test of the “rules-based international order” of which the US considers itself the sole arbiter. As Irish lawyer Blinne Ní Ghralaígh had said in her remarks to the court, “the very reputation of international law — its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all peoples equally — hangs in the balance”.

Meanwhile, just days before Friday’s decision, Nicaragua announced that it requested permission from the ICJ to intervene in the case brought by South Africa, citing its own obligations to prevent genocide under the 1948 Convention.

“Nicaragua, like the international community, considers that the actions undertaken by Israel constitute clear violations of the [Genocide Convention], acts which have been accompanied by statements from the highest authorities of Israel that clearly reveal the genocidal intention and dehumanization to which the Palestinian people have been subjected”, the government said in a statement.

It added that Nicaragua’s decision reflected the “commitment of the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity and the people of Nicaragua in the liberation of the Palestinian people and humanity in general from the scourge of genocide”.

Original article by Tanupriya Singh republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingICJ to respond to South Africa’s genocide case against Israel

Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza not acceptable, says UN Chief

Spread the love

Original article by Abdul Rahman republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

The UN Security Council meets on the situation in the Middle East, including Palestine (Photo via United Nations)

Participants in the UN Security Council highlighted need for a ceasefire in Gaza and a long term solution to the Palestinian question as necessary for peace

On January 23, speaking during the two day extended meeting of the UN Security Council on Palestine, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres underlined that “Israel’s clear and repeated rejection” of a two-state solution is unacceptable. He also warned that this refusal and “denial of the right to statehood to the Palestinian people would indefinitely prolong a conflict that has become a major threat to global peace and security.”

Most of the countries which participated in the two day proceedings demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and a two-state solution, claiming it necessary for regional and global peace.

Invoking ever deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza, Guterres termed it “collective punishment” executed by Israeli forces, asserting that “nothing can justify it.”

More than 25,700 Palestinians have been killed, over 63,000 have been wounded, and nearly 90% of Gaza’s population has been displaced due to relentless bombings and ground offensives carried out by Israeli armed forces since October 7.

Israel has maintained that its war in Gaza is in response to Palestinian resistance forces, mainly Hamas, attacking inside its borders on October 7, in which nearly 1,200 people were killed and nearly 250 Israelis were taken as hostages.

Speaking in the meeting, Gilad Erdan, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, claimed that until persons involved in the October 7 attacks are handed over and hostages are released, war in Gaza will not end.

Most of the members of the UN Security Council repeated the call for an immediate ceasefire and called for better delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The Chinese ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun, also noted that the Israeli leadership’s repeated rejection of a two-state solution is unacceptable, and demanded that it must be rejuvenated by granting Palestinians full membership to the UN.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had, earlier this month, rejected the calls for a Palestinian state, calling it untenable and a threat to Israeli security.

The need for a two-state solution was raised by the Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Maliki, who denounced the war in Gaza as Israel’s “premeditated effort to inflict maximum pain on the Palestinian population.”

“No home, hospital, school, mosque, church or UNRWA shelter is safe from Israeli bombardments, 2,000 pound bombs dropped with no care whatsoever for civilian lives,” he noted.

South Africa, which has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice for its genocide of Palestinians, maintained that there cannot be selective implementation of international law and Israel must face consequences for its repeated violations of the same.

US positions provide a carte blanche to Israeli crimes

Speaking during the meeting, the US representative Uzra Zeya claimed the centrality of a two-state solution. She claimed that the US has been making efforts to prevent greater civilian casualties in the Israeli war in Gaza. However, US policies in Gaza were heavily criticized by both the permanent members of the UNSC and others as detrimental to peace.

Chinese ambassador Jun condemned the repeated use of veto by the US in earlier UNSC meetings on ceasefire resolutions, identifying them as impeding all efforts to peace.

The US had vetoed resolutions proposing a ceasefire in the UNSC in previous months and tried to excuse Israeli bombings in Gaza as the Zionist state’s right to self defense.

Jun hoped that all members of the international community must prioritize ceasefire in Gaza, and ways to stop the spread of the war in the region.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov asserted that the UNSC must take steps to prevent further destabilization in the region, which has been caused by US policies which vetoes ceasefire resolutions and provides carte blanche to Israeli acts of “collective punishment of Palestinians.”

Lavrov emphasized that until a ceasefire is implemented the talks about future solutions to the conflict are useless.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hussein Amir Abdollahian warned the US against violating Yemeni sovereignty by carrying out repeated air strikes against it. He alleged that it is a trap laid down by Israel with the objective of expanding the war in Gaza to the regional level.

Abdollahian proposed that a referendum among all Palestinians must be held to find a permanent solution to the Palestinian question.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib emphasized that all stakeholders, including the US, should see that Israel wants to expand the war across the region, and underlined that his country does not want war.

He emphasized that “what happened on October 7 did not happen in a vacuum” and if no attempts are made to secure a lasting solution “it will happen again,” as there is no peace in the region until there is justice for Palestinians.

Speaking in the meeting on Tuesday, the Saudi delegate Waleed El-Khereiji said that because of the “Israeli war machine,” tensions in the region, including in the Red Sea and Yemen, are increasing. He demanded that the Security Council make sure that Israel stops its violations of international law.

On Sunday, in an interview with CNN, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhad al-Saud denied any possibility of normalization of relations with Israel, as proposed by the US, until there is a road map for a two-state solution and an independent Palestinian state. “What we are seeing is Israelis crushing Gaza, the civilian population of Gaza. This is completely unnecessary, completely unacceptable, and has to stop.”

Original article by Abdul Rahman republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingIsrael’s collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza not acceptable, says UN Chief

Green Party claims that poverty is a political choice

Spread the love
Image of the Green Party's Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.
Image of the Green Party’s Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.

Responding to this year’s poverty report from the Joeseph Rowntree Foundation, which says that it is now 20 years and six prime ministers since there was a sustained fall in poverty, co-leader of the Green Party, Carla Denyer, said: 

“This latest report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation makes for grim reading. Over one in five people in the UK were living in poverty in 2021/22. That’s almost 14 and a half million people, with over eight million working-age adults and over four million children.  

“For years, successive UK governments have allowed poverty to become entrenched and for inequality to widen. The super-rich have seen their incomes soar during a time of increased hardship for millions of people.  

“It doesn’t have to be this way. Poverty is a political choice. 

“There are things that can be done quickly to address the sickening levels of poverty in our society. For example, the Green Party would increase Universal Credit by £40 per week and abolish the two-child benefit cap. A wealth tax on the super-rich, along with tax reforms such as changes to Capital Gains Tax and abolishing “non dom status,” could pay for these and other measures to reduce poverty.  

“As Labour finalises its manifesto, there’s little indication that they will make the right political choices to help the millions enduring grinding poverty. Which is why we so desperately need a group of Green MPs in parliament after the next general election to put pressure on Labour to do the right thing.” 

Continue ReadingGreen Party claims that poverty is a political choice