Home Secretary Yvette Cooper during a walk through Lewisham town centre, in south London, as part of a visit to speak about neighbourhood policing and meet with policing teams, July 8, 2024
…
Cooper cites both far-right and Islamist hate. But political Islam has no profile in Britain at all. She, like Lord Walney, seeks to lump violent fascist riots together with the peaceful Palestine solidarity movement, whose mass demos have been slandered as “hate marches” by the Tories, right-wing media and fascist agitators such as Tommy Robinson.
Where jihadist violence has reached Britain, it has had more to do with our state’s hyper-violent foreign policy than online grooming. The deadliest terror attack of the last decade, that on the Manchester Arena by Salman Abedi in 2017, was carried out by a man our government had helped travel to Libya to fight in a British-backed Islamist revolt against its government, and whose return to Britain was facilitated by MI5.
A state campaign against extremism “across the political spectrum” will reinforce the clampdowns on protest rights and free speech associated with the Conservatives.
That Labour’s current leadership will deploy it to silence left criticism seems predictable given their record: this is the party that banned its branches from discussing the suspension of its former leader Jeremy Corbyn on the ludicrous grounds that this would make Jewish members feel unsafe.
Bans on “fake news” could only be welcomed if we had total confidence in the objectivity and fairness of those sifting the truth from the lies. X, Facebook and indeed the British state are not objective. There is no way such a ban would not simply become a form of political censorship exercised by the ruling class.
Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts speaks at the National Conservative Conference in Washington D.C. on July 8, 2024. (Photo: Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images via AFP)
“It’s a clear threat to our democracy, as our government could be weaponized against us as part of a concerted effort to control how we live our live,” said the vice president of Media Matters for America.
A watchdog organization that monitors the Republican Party and the far-right movement at its core released a document Thursday characterized as “the definitive guide to Project 2025,” a sweeping policy agenda crafted by more than 100 conservative groups and alumni of former President Donald Trump’s administration.
The 67-page report published by Media Matters for America lays out in detail Trump’s close ties to Project 2025 and examines specific policy proposals included in the agenda, which—if implemented—would affect every area of American life, from the workplace to the environment to reproductive rights and other fundamental freedoms.
“Project 2025 lays out an extreme far-right agenda that would impose draconian restrictions to the lives of everyday Americans,” Media Matters vice president Julie Millican said in a statement. “If enacted, not only would it gut the checks and balances that our country relies on, but it’s a clear threat to our democracy, as our government could be weaponized against us as part of a concerted effort to control how we live our lives.”
“Project 2025’s extremist goals make clear what’s truly at stake,” Millican added.
“Project 2025 looks like an albatross that Trump will find hard to get rid of.”
Contrary to the Republican presidential nominee’s claim that he “knows nothing about” Project 2025 or who’s behind it, Media Matters noted that “Trump and his allies are deeply connected” to the initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation.
The new report points to Trump’s remarks at a 2022 Heritage event, where the former president declared that the group would “lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.” The Washington Post revealed Wednesday that Trump traveled to the event via private jet with Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation.
“CNN reported that there are ‘nearly 240 people with ties to both Project 2025 and to Trump,'” Media Matters observed in its new analysis. “The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee nominated Project 2025 author Russ Vought as the policy director of the RNC’s 2024 Committee on the Platform… John McEntee, a Project 2025 senior adviser, said in April he would ‘integrate a lot of our work’ with the Trump campaign later this year.”
The report spotlights plans outlined by Project 2025 and the Trump campaign to purge the federal workforce and replace career civil servants with Trump loyalists dedicated to implementing the far-right movement’s assault on abortion rights, climate regulations, labor protections, and more. Trump allies have already begun screening “thousands of potential foot soldiers” to replace federal employees across the U.S. government.
“This posture toward witch hunts against federal bureaucrats recalls the days of disgraced Sen. Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade, which resulted in massive purges of left-wing federal employees as well as those perceived to be gay or gender-nonconforming,” Media Matters noted, adding that “MAGA media, including Project 2025 allies, have openly celebrated McCarthy’s destructive legacy.”
The report also points with alarm to “a blog published to The American Conservative, a Project 2025 partner, [that] advocated for repealing the 22nd Amendment to allow Trump to serve a third term.”
The definitive guide to Project 2025, from a secretive 180-day plan to a MAGA staffing database to extreme proposals that would turn back the clock on a whole host of issues https://t.co/MKFtzrEDpJ
The Media Matters report came as the University of Massachusetts Amherst released new national survey data showing that Project 2025’s policy proposals are “deeply unpopular” with U.S. voters.
Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll, said Thursday that “Project 2025 looks like an electoral liability” for Trump and the GOP, which has been accused of injecting Project 2025 policies into government funding proposals currently before Congress.
Nteta said that given the results of the new survey—conducted between July 29 and August 1—”it is no surprise that the Democratic Party has sought to link” Project 2025 with Trump or that the GOP nominee has attempted to “move away from any and all association with the unpopular 900-page playbook.”
“Large majorities of Americans oppose the key pillars of Project 2025, such as the replacement of career government officials with political appointees (68% opposed), restricting a woman’s right to contraception (72% opposed), and eliminating the Department of Education (64% opposed),” said Nteta. “While our politics are usually divided by class, generational, racial, gender, and partisan identities, among these groups we find strong opposition to many of the policies associated with Project 2025.”
“Even former Trump voters exhibit opposition to many of these policies,” Nteta added, “a bad omen for the Republican Party and Trump campaign.”
Just 8% of Trump 2020 voters support Project 2025’s proposal to strip emergency contraception access from tens of millions of women across the U.S., according to the new poll. Only 18% of Trump voters said they support “firing federal employees and replacing them with political appointees loyal to the president.”
More than half of Americans say they have heard about Project 2025, the new survey shows—a finding that UMass Amherst professor Jesse Rhodes described as remarkable given that Heritage Foundation reports are “usually incredibly obscure.”
“For the most part, Americans don’t like what they are hearing,” said Rhodes, a co-director of the new poll. “It’s no wonder Trump is trying to distance himself from Project 2025, but unfortunately for him, because dozens of his former administration officials worked on the report, this is going to be hard to do. Project 2025 looks like an albatross that Trump will find hard to get rid of.”
Hundreds gathered in Parliament Square on Saturday in solidarity with the 21 political prisoners currently incarcerated for demanding an end to the fossil fuel era, as well as all political prisoners fighting for change in the UK and abroad, including two imprisoned for taking action with Palestine Action. In recent weeks Just Stop Oil has been taking action with groups internationally to demand governments establish a fossil fuel treaty, to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.
Supporters of Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Defend our Juries and Fossil Free London, gathered at the Gandhi statue in Parliament Square. The crowd heard speeches from a range of speakers and messages from those currently in prison. Attendees could be seen holding signs which read ‘You can’t lock up the Truth’ and ‘No Justice when Juries are Denied the Truth.’ After the rally, many attendees joined the Palestinian solidarity march in London, in resistance to the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
One of those speaking at the rally today was Raj Chada, a lawyer who has represented many of these 21 political prisoners in court. He said:
“This is about the nature of our democracy, in which peaceful protestors are routinely being imprisoned now. In the Supreme Court, a few years ago, they said that ‘protest was the lifeblood of our democracy.’ Our democracy is on its knees then, because they are not paying attention to protest.”
“I have been doing this job now for 20 years and until 3 years ago, I hadn’t had one client imprisoned. Something has changed in the establishment. In the shadow of this [Gandhi] statue, it shows the importance of nonviolent action and what it can achieve and why it should be so important. We will continue that fight for as long as we possibly can.”
Raj Chada appears in this video.
My anaysis – dizzy – is that the fossil fuel industry has bought these laws by financing think tanks and lobbying organisations and that judges are blatently biased, not even pretending to be neutral and impartial. If you routinely use private transport to travel even moderate distances, you should expect to be occasionally delayed. Driving delays of hours are commonplace. For consistency shouldn’t people causing delays by conducting road works or having an accident also be imprisoned for many years FFS? It is overwhelmingly biased and punitive. How did some of these harsh judges get to try so many JSO trials?
later ed: The argument that people causing delays by roadworks or having an accident should be imprisoned is strengthened by the fact that motivations are not considered relevant.
7/8/24 Apologies, I can and should do better that my ‘analysis’ above. The argument about imprisoning for roadworks or accidents: The point I’m making is that since motivations are not considered relevant in trials of climate protesters then what is left is the effect: delays to private vehicle users and delays are also caused by roadworks and accidents. I wonder if that’s clear, can be followed.
Live facial recognition is already used by the Metropolitan police and South Wales police. Photograph: Matthew Horwood/Getty Images
PM accused of ignoring civil rights and aping autocracies as he proposes new powers after far-right unrest
Civil liberties campaigners have said that a proposal made by Keir Starmer on Thursday to expand the use of live facial recognition technology would amount to the effective introduction of a national ID card system based on people’s faces.
“Expanding live facial recognition means millions of innocent Britons being subjected to automated ID checks,” said Carlo. “These are the surveillance tactics of China and Russia and Starmer seems ignorant of the civil liberties implications.”
…
Promising to create a national police capability to tackle the rioting, the new prime minister said forces needed to work better together, sharing intelligence and engaging in a “wider deployment of facial recognition technology”.
Details were scant but immediately after, Starmer suggested that trouble-makers could be subject to “criminal behaviour orders to restrict their movements before they can even board a train” – implying a wider use of live facial recognition at transport hubs such as railway stations.
Daragh Murray, a senior lecturer at Queen Mary University of London, said: “There is a clear danger that in responding to a tragedy and public unrest we expand and entrench police surveillance without appropriate scrutiny. Given that the police have responded to disorder and riots for decades, why is facial recognition needed now?”
Just Stop Oil are being branded “fanatics” for disruptive actions whose like hardly raised an eyebrow a decade ago
I wasn’t terribly surprised to see, in the weekend Morning Star, a letter suggesting that while the sentencingof theJust Stop Oil Five was overly harsh, they deserved punishment for their conspiracy to disrupt traffic on the M25.
The Star is, to be fair, generally quite supportive of JSO’s right to protest, while having some knee-jerk types in its readership, particularly in the crusty old tankie set. But such complaints get at the heart of an issue JSO has had for some time — they’re often really annoying even for their nominal allies.
Many of them are quite posh and can sound patronising or smug. Their targets are disruptive but less often to the wealthy and more to a cross-class cohort of art lovers, or pagans, or sports enthusiasts, or holiday makers. And motorists, of course. Roger Hallam, as their most famous face, often acts like a self-aggrandising edgelordwhose projects have a habit of getting people in trouble without much of a plan for long-term support.
It sometimes makes JSO hard to love, and it gives grouches in politics and the media an excuse to label them attention seekers, or cultists, or extremists.
But here’s the thing: for all their PR controversies, JSO aren’t actually extreme at all, and not only in comparison to, say, cops throwing their weight around on a Friday night, or any major event that gridlocks a city centre. Comparing them to similar campaigns from the 1990s or even the early 2000s, JSO are tamer than Lassie. The anti-roads movement,Animal Liberation Front, Earth First!,Reclaim The Streets, even Greenpeace — have all mounted considerably more disruptive campaigns within living memory. You can find reports on some of them in old issues of Freedom and Schnews.
In fact, a quick look through the latter’s archive for mentions of the M25 very quickly turns up this articlefrom 2012, with the Tories already in power, which notes the following action:
On Monday 16th July a Greenpeace co-ordinated swoop saw seventy-seven petrol stations within the M25 shut down, and another thirteen in Edinburgh - hitting Shell on the forecourt and in their pockets. Activists disassembled the emergency fuel shut off switches and chained the pumps together, stopping business for the day.
Twelve years ago, shutting down nearly the entire refuelling system around London and Edinburgh wasn’t considered big enough to fluster the Graun, which reported the whole thing as just another news story for the day. Shell were careful to say they respected the protesters’ views, and the police didn’t even bother to comment! My goodness what a difference a few years makes. Can you imagine the level of dribbling outrage the press would indulge in now?
This impressive gap in the treatment of disruptive protests on the same road is symptomatic of an issue touched on in a recent Freedom discussion, which has been worsening for a long time and accelerated, strangely, alongside the culture wars. While the left was accused of going woke and indulging in cancel culture, the right was becoming so pathetically unable to handle confrontation that it changed the laws to jail people for being annoying. Part of Suella Braverman’s anti-protest law(since struck down) literally gave police the power to break up protests for being “too noisy”.
And now we’re at the point where Hallam and co. are being jailed for 4-5 years each for conspiracy to disrupt the flow of traffic. But what’s worse is they’ve managed to somehow convince the public this is all a response to sudden rising environmental “fanaticism” entailing behaviour we’ve never seen before. A straight-up bald faced lie to a population who, if they are adults, should be able to personally remember examples of this not being the case which has nevertheless sunk in as truth. What a stunning propaganda victory! If the left had done it, you can bet your life the word “Orwellian” would be burning holes in printing presses across the nation.
Which brings us back to our letter writer in the Star. The left (and of course the anarchists) need to remember our history, and why it is that solidarity applies even to people we don’t get on with ideologically (or personally). We need to be much, much better at getting our heads out of our arses and fighting back against the demonisation of disruptive protest. It’s not a matter of whether we approve of JSO or Roger the Public Nuisance, or whether think their work is counterproductive in terms of public opinion.
Because not too long ago what they’ve been doing wouldn’t have been a jailable offence, or even a front page one. Not too long ago, columnists opining about disruptive protest being “anti-democratic” would have been quite rightly ridiculed for their lack of commitment to human rights. JSO’s re-designation as extremists courting much-deserved jail time is our re-designation.
Kier Starmer needs to be pressured on this from all sides. He has, after all, taken away the left’s voice in Parliament. Now he needs to hear it in the streets.
