In a post at the Stormfront forum, news has been announced of Remembrance events organised by Blood & Honour and the National Front.

Blood & Honour is an international neo-Nazi organisation, which, following the publication of research of mine by the Centre for Social Cohesion, is currently being investigated by both the police and the Home Office. Baroness Neville-Jones, Shadow Security Minister, has written to the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, calling for the organisation to be proscribed under anti-terror legislation.

Blood & Honour has links to all the ‘white nationalist’ parties in Britain, including the BNP, which employed a long time Blood & Honour activist as part of its event staff at this year’s ‘Red, White & Blue’ festival.

This is how Blood & Honour plans to remember the fallen:

Blood & Honour, of course, thinks the wrong side won World War 2.

In the same thread in which the Blood & Honour gig was advertised, the National Front has also posted a flyer for a Remembrance Sunday event they are planning.

A Blood & Honour/National Front activist states:

Please don’t just turn up for the gig, its VERY important that you attend the march the following day as if this march is lost it will be lost for ever.  The Police say they will close the road and let everyone use it for the NF march as long as we have at least 120.

So, the National Front is planning to team up with hardcore neo-Nazis on a day which is supposed to honour the fallen heroes of Britain, including those who died to save us from Nazism.

According to the NF website:

The march should commence in the Victoria area and proceed to the Cenotaph for the wreath laying ceremony to honour Britain’s war dead of all past conflicts and current ones. This will be followed by a short rally and a social get together. Assemble 2pm. March off 2.30pm.

The NF, then, plans to march alongside neo-Nazis and disgrace the Cenotaph with their presence.

That the NF should be linking up with Blood & Honour is no surprise, for it is an extremist organisation with links not only to B&H, but also to the Combat 18 splinter group the Racial Volunteer Force.

One person who may be particularly happy to hear that the NF is planning to march on Sunday is, of course, Lee Barnes, Legal Director of the BNP. Here’s what he has written about the National Front:

The National Front is an organisation for those people who are Street Activists, not political activists.

When it sticks to street activism it does a superb job…

The National Front must become the Nationalist counterpart to the Leftist UAF.

The NF should be organising massive Armistice Day celebrations, demonstrations, festivals, rock concerts, marches, cultural events and many other nationalist cultural events, not wasting theit time on electioneering.

… this is precisely the role that the NF would do best.

I wait with interest to see what Barnes has to say about the ’superb’ National Front and their neo-Nazi activities this coming weekend.

Fly on the wall

Zafar Khalid Farooq

Whilst here in Pakistan, as the army wages war against militants in its backyard, the British establishment is rolling out the red carpet for extremist and xenophobes of its own kind. Tonight, on BBC television, the British National Party (BNP) leader, Nick Griffin, will take his place alongside members of the UK political establishment, including Justice Secretary and former Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, as a guest on the most revered political platform in British television – BBC 1’s ‘Question Time’.

For those unfamiliar with this breed of repugnant racists, the BNP are a far right-wing fringe party who, until recently, had thankfully always remained on the periphery of British politics. The BNP, with policies that advocate voluntary resettlement to those ‘immigrants’ (that is, non-whites) who are legally in the UK, and who, only this month agreed to change its constitution to allow non-white members for fear of legal proceedings, have rarely attracted much popular support in the past. At the last general election, in 2005, they managed to win a paltry 0.7 per cent of the electoral vote.

So why the sudden high-profile invitation from the BBC’s flagship political programme? Because since 2005, the party’s electoral fortunes have improved. Earlier this year they won six per cent in the European elections, resulting in two seats for the party in the European Parliament, including one for Griffin. BBC editorial guidelines state that “significant minor parties should also receive some network coverage” and under the terms of its charter, the BBC is also legally obligated to ensure ‘due impartiality’. Hence, the presence of Mr Griffin under the studio arc lights tonight.

But what has prompted this upswing in popularity of this most odious of political parties? The economic downturn has certainly played a part. The last time far right politics enjoyed anything close to popular appeal was during the economically stagnating 70s. Then, it was the BNP’s predecessor, the National Front, who enjoyed some electoral support whilst the country succumbed to a three-day week and industrial unrest. It took the Thatcher government’s tough line on immigration and the economic boom of the mid-80s to crush the extreme right’s electoral ambitions.

Another reason for the BNP’s success this year may have been due to voter disaffection with the mainstream political parties. The expenses scandal, which saw British politicians from across the political spectrum fraudulently claiming expenses for personal gain, blew up weeks before the European election in June. Voter anger at the corruption of MPs, compounded by the fact that the country was in the midst of a recession, drew voters to the political fringes.

However, another explanation for their renewed popularity — and one that few mainstream politicians are reluctant to admit or even acknowledge in the UK for fear of being deemed insensitive to ethnic minorities, especially the Muslim community — is the rise of militant Islamism in the UK.

Ironically, radical Islamism, of which there are a number of groups, and the BNP share a similar political wardrobe. Both are avowedly anti-Semitic (although the BNP stance towards Jews has softened now that they view Muslims as the greater threat), both enjoy a good conspiracy theory and revel in grievance narratives and victim politics, oh, and both spawn a reactionary, illiberal, intolerant ideology. The BNP want a return to a pristine white homeland and the Islamists want shariah law and a pan-Islamic theocracy, or, as it’s better known — a caliphate. The BNP snarl at multiculturalism and blame it for white alienation and exclusion. The Islamists divide the world into two spheres: Muslims, and ‘the rest’.

The British Government has failed woefully at curbing Islamist radicalisation. Muslim alienation, especially amongst the youth is on the rise in the UK. A recent paper by the UK think tank, Policy Exchange, highlighted the growing divide. Of all the categories, the 16-24 year-old Muslims were the most estranged from mainstream Britain, especially compared with their parents’ generation. Thirty eight per cent of them felt they have more in common with Muslims than with non-Muslims. Thirty five per cent would prefer to send their child to an Islamic school, 37 per cent would prefer shariah law and 13 per cent “admired organisations like Al Qaeda”. This is worrying for Britain’s liberal democracy.

Even more worryingly, a new generation is being radicalised, often with the very government funds that are supposed to be countering radicalisation. The British Government’s counter-terrorism strategy is called Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE). In the past three years, 90 million pounds have been spent on PVE. However, by focusing on ‘violent extremism’, as opposed to all extremism, the government has allowed itself to hop into bed with organisations and groups deeply opposed to liberal, democratic values. These groups have ties with the Muslim brotherhood, and our very own Jaamat-e-Islami. Perhaps by joining hands with non-violent extremist groups, the government hopes to provide a defence, a pressure valve if you like, against violent extremism among the angry Muslim youth. But by collaborating with these groups, the government is effectively supporting and funding the Islamist ideology that spawns an illiberal, intolerant and anti-western view.

In any liberal democracy, there are constant tensions. How can one protect the rights of the few from the tyranny of the majority? How il-liberal should the state become in order to protect the liberal values it professes to uphold? These questions always need debate and vigilance. The BBC is right to invite the BNP leader on ‘Question Time’. However abhorrent and racist his views, the electorate has given him a mandate. If the Jaamat-e-Islami were to obtain a similar mandate, they too should be invited on the show. However, allowing freedom of speech is one thing — actively funding and supporting that speech is quite another. The British government must stop all public money to Islamist groups whose views are in conflict with liberal democracy — however non-violent or representative of the community they purport to be. If a liberal, democratic government continues to fund these groups it will become the political equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas. Or should that be goats for Eid.

The writer is a lawyer and human rights activist who divides his time between Pakistan and the UK. Email: zkfarooq@gmail.com

It is not my intention in writing this blog to make it a particularly political platform. My interest is in clinical care, nursing, human rights and, of course mental health and disorder. However recent events in UK have brought many of these issues together and, coincidentally in a political context. So for the second time in as many days I find myself blogging about the far right British National Party. This is not because I have any great interest in the BNP (although I admit my revulsion for the party has increased over the past few days) but because their recent antics demonstrate a number of interesting issues in themselves.

The BNP has been attacked in the media today by, among others, four retired British army generals who are outraged at the party’s use of British wartime imagery in support of their cause.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6380655/Generals-attack-BNP-for-seeking-to-hijack-Armed-Forces.html

Given the BNP’s alignment with neo-Nazi groups across the world it is not hard to understand why. Two particular images seem to have attracted most attention.

One involves a spitfire and is accompanied by the slogan “Battle for Britain” which is interesting since the wartime Battle of Britain was actually a struggle against Nazi Germany’s attempts to invade and occupy the country.

The second is an image of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill who, the BNP claim would have been a supporter of their far right policies.

Here then is a quote from Sir Winston himself:

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”

Winston Churchill (1945)

It is easy to laugh at the BNP – it is, after all a party built upon petty grievances, an irrational belief in the ‘blood’ of the British that completely ignores our multi-cultural, indeed mongrel heritage, and the most appalling paranoia. It is that same paranoia that divided BNP predecessors such as the National Front of the mid twentieth century.

However – let’s take a leaf from Churchill’s book. Let’s learn from history. People laughed at Hitler’s National Socialist (Nazi) Party too – at first. They laughed until the Nazis gained their first few seats in the German parliament. They laughed until the Nazi press began isolating the Jews, the communists and Gypsies and all non-white citizens. They stopped laughing at about the time the Nazis began to dominate the streets. Then they simply looked away for fear that they too would be targeted.

BNP leader Nick Griffin has not laboured too much on defending his party’s use of the images. Instead he has used a tactic straight out of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

First he made unsubstantiated claims about popular support from the army’s rank and file. Given that the BNP has only 14,000 members throughout UK it is difficult to know where his information about ordinary soldiers comes from.

Secondly he claimed that Winston Churchill would have been a member of the BNP had he lived.

Thirdly, rather than attempt to justify his claims Griffin then takes Hitler’s advice and attempts to discredit his attackers by accusing two of the retired generals of war crimes. This is precisely the sort of tactic Adolf Hitler used in the 1920s and 1930s and it is not difficult to deduce where Griffin might have taken his inspiration from.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/BNP-Compares-Ex-Generals-With-Nazi-War-Criminals-After-They-Attack-Party-For-Hijacking-Military/Article/200910315409393?lpos=Politics_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15409393_BNP_Compares_Ex-Generals_With_Nazi_War_Criminals_After_They_Attack_Party_For_Hijacking_Military

The British National Party is dedicated to racism and an idealised view of Britishness that almost certainly never existed. Anyone with even a tiny understanding of this island’s history knows that we are the result of wave after wave of invasions over thousands of years that make the idea of national genetic purity laughable.

Anyone with even the slightest understanding of human evolution cannot fail to notice that we all share common (African) ancestors anyway. So why does the BNP stick so doggedly to this impossible and ethically distasteful ‘ideal’ in the first place.

For that we need to consider the processes of paranoia and delusion formation. Only then can we begin to get a fuller understanding of the UK’s latest generation of Nazi bigots.

This will be the subject of my next blog – a journey into the process of discrimination and paranoid delusion. Hang on to your hats!

Shami Chakrabati of the EHRC

I read with a wry smile the report in The Independent about the ruling by the EHRC that the British National Party has a legal imperative to alter its constitution so that non-white people can be eligible for membership. Oh the irony. This is a party that, whatever its feeble claims to the opposite, is intrinsically focused on a white supremacist – in other words utterly racist – agenda.

Some have tried to argue that the BNP changed when Nick Griffin took over the leadership in 1999. This would be the same Griffin who was once national organiser of the unashamedly racist National Front, would it? The same Griffin who has publicly stated anti-Semitic sentiments and denied the Holocaust.

In 1997, during the build up to that year’s General Election, I was asked to speak at a political rally in the High Street of my town. Those involved were a healthy alliance of different political parties, united to inform voters that the BNP were standing in the constituency. From the handouts mail shots the BNP were putting out, the casual observer might have missed their racist manifesto, so we intended to let people know about the underlying agenda of the BNP. There was a sizeable crowd and, from the middle of it all, I could not fail to notice the presence of potential agitators here and there. They were dressed so stereotypically – white shirts, Doctor Marten boots up to their knees, bleach-faded blue jeans, braces and, of course, a grade one skinhead buzzcut.

As it was there were probably too few of these agitators to stir anything up and the rally went fairly smoothly. Afterwards I tried to speak to one of them, asking him what his problem was.

“I’ve got just as much right to be here as anyone else.” he said. Which was true enough, I guess. He seemed willing to talk so I asked him what he thought about people of other races and different coloured skin to his.

“They should go home.” he reckoned.

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“Well, they don’t come from Britain, do they? So they ought to go back where they came from.” Oh dear, the predictable argument. I decided to probe a little deeper.

“But what if they were born in this country?” I wanted to know.

“Doesn’t matter. Originally their people came from somewhere else so they have to go back there.”

“Ah, but originally your people probably came from France, or Denmark, or Germany, or any number of European countries. Shouldn’t you go back where they came from?”

“It’s different.” He said. So of course I asked him why it was different.

“Because I’m white.” And that was the end of the discussion, as far as he was concerned.

If this is still the blinkered perspective of the majority of BNP supporters then it will be interesting in the extreme to see what happens if the party really do have to alter their constitution and allow the inclusion of non-white members. It could signal the end of the party. Or, more positively, it might force the organisers to re-evaluate what it means to be British. Who knows, they might even work out (some decades behind the rest of the country) that being British is nothing to do with the colour of one’s skin, and everything to do with understanding that immigration does not signal the death of a culture. Quite the opposite, in fact, it breathes life into it.

Today’s post is dedicated to Paige Jones, a 14-year-old girl who requested to smash garden gnomes
with a bass guitar for a charity while recovering from jaw surgery (thanks to Evan for sharing the news item). Dressed as AC/DC’s Angus Young. Something tells me that the late, great Dusty Springfield, who used to smash glass objects before and after performances, would appreciate this. Jones’s mum may find her strange, but I hope she considers it a source of pride. I’d gladly buy this girl a gnome and then stand back and watch her do damage.

Perhaps a stretch, but Jones reminds me of the English post-punk women and girls I adore. A big watershed moment as a music geek was discovering post-punk. Not so coincidentally, a big feminist moment for me was discovering many of the women involved with it. I’ve mentioned folks like Pat Place and Cynthia Sley of Bush Tetras earlier. I recently highlighted The B-52s, though did not explicitly discuss vocalists Kate Pierson and Cindy Wilson, two of my favorite Southern girls — perhaps necessitating their own post wherein I might also fold in Pylon’s Vanessa Briscoe Hay, a fellow Athens resident. Today, amid this deliciously gloomy weather, I thought I’d bring up a few a couple of noteworthy post-punk birds on the other side of the Atlantic.

One thing that may misinform people’s of England’s gynocentric contributions to post-punk was that it was anti-sex. I think that two things may have shaped this misconception: 1) those proper British women and girls, some of whom went to university, couldn’t have possibly wanted to get laid, and 2) some of the female musicians associated with it were/gay (particularly Lesley Woods, The Au Pairs’s way-rad/ical frontwoman). And if we know our chauvinism, we can easily apply the feminism = man-hating = lesbianism = anti-sex equation. Bra-fucking-vo, patriarchy.

Oh, there’s one other thing that I think made British women and girls involved with post-punk considered asexual, if not hostile toward the zesty enterprise (to use the parlance of Maude Lebowski). To put it bluntly, they were not considered sexy, at least not in the normative, telegenic sense. Too plain, too normal, not Debbie Harry enough (perhaps missing the commentary the Blondie frontwoman was making on the homogenization and commodification of normative female beauty).

But that doesn’t mean they weren’t interested in sex or sexy. It just wasn’t the only thing they were interested in and the only way they knew how to project themselves. They were also interested in art, politics, nuclear fall-out, disco, bass lines, menstruation, feminism, body odor, and many other issues at the fore or at the margins of their work. So I thought I’d highlight some acts I think were super-important in shaping British post-punk.

The Au Pairs performing “Come Again,” featured in the music documentary, Urgh! A Music War.

Delta 5 performing “Anticipation” on Top of the Pops. Mind your own business with this Leeds quintet, or, as Simon Reynolds noted in Rip It Up and Start Again, bassist Bethan Peters might slam your face against a wall. Especially if you’re a member of the National Front.

Penetration performing “Lovers of Outrage” at the Reading Festival in 1978. Lead singer Pauline Murray got her start following The Sex Pistols, recorded briefly as a member of The Invisible Girls, and was hugely influenced by Patti Smith.

Young Marble Giants’ “real girl” lead singer Alison Statton avoids eye contact during a BBC performance of “Wurlitzer Jukebox”, inspiring thousands of other indie rock vocalists for generations to come. The band still performs intermittently, though not usually making eye contact.

Fan-made Ludus music video for “Mutilate.” It’s a little hard to find footage of the band’s infamous performances, but not as hard to find singer Linder Sterling’s art.

Hopefully, generations of strange girls will carry on in their messy, funky spirit, whether it be plugging in a guitar, or using it to smash a garden gnome.

5:30PM

>News regarding OAS meeting in Tegucigalpa

Diplomats urge return of ousted Honduran president

By BEN FOX (AP) – 50 minutes ago

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Diplomats from around the hemisphere flew into Honduras on Wednesday and told the coup-imposed government to reinstate President Manuel Zelaya and restore democracy to the impoverished Central American country.

“We are not here to create a debate. We are here to find concrete solutions to a situation that cannot be prolonged,” Jose Miguel Insulza, the secretary general of the Organization of American States, said as talks began in the capital, Tegucigalpa.

Zelaya gave the negotiators an ultimatum, calling for the postponement of Nov. 29 presidential elections if he is not restored to office before Oct. 15. That proposal is certain to anger the interim government, which views the elections — scheduled before Zelaya’s June 28 overthrow — as the best hope of moving past the crisis.

Insulza presented a proposed agreement that would restore Zelaya as head of a unity government and offer amnesty to both the coup leaders and the deposed president, who faces abuse of power and other charges stemming from his defiance of a court order that he drop a referendum on changing the constitution.

The proposal, which also requires Zelaya to abandon any ambitions to change the constitution, is similar to one proposed months ago by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias and rejected by the interim government.

Tensions rose before Wednesday’s meeting began as riot police fired tear gas to disperse about 200 Zelaya supporters protesting near the U.S. and Brazilian embassies. Zelaya has been holed up in the Brazilian Embassy since sneaking back into the country from his forced exile.

Delegates from the United States, Canada and eight Latin American countries were mediating negotiations between representatives of Zelaya, who was ousted by the military three months ago, and interim President Roberto Micheletti, who has the support of Honduras’ Congress and Supreme Court but has faced intense international pressure to allow his predecessor’s return.

Canada’s minister of state for the Americas, Peter Kent, said it was imperative for an agreement to be reached before the November elections, which many countries in the Americas have warned would not be recognized if Zelaya remains out of the power.

“I sense that everybody involved understands that we are nearly out of time and this crisis needs to be resolved now,” Kent said.

Interim Vice President Marta Lorena Alvarado, however, said she did not expect an agreement Wednesday.

“It would be fantastic, but the problem is difficult and there are a lot of players. I don’t think it will be today,” she said.

She insisted that the world was too quick to condemn Zelaya ouster, which the Micheletti government argues was legal because it had the backing of Congress and the Supreme Court.

Still, she said, the two sides were “initiating conversations that had not occurred before and expectations are positive” for an eventual resolution.

Micheletti set an optimistic tone in a national address late Tuesday, saying the talks would address with a “new spirit” the main issues of dispute over the San Jose Accord, the plan originally brokered the Costa Rican president.

“I believe the time is right to intensify the national dialogue,” he said in the brief speech, without going into specifics.

Zelaya warned that the interim government would seek to persuade the delegates to pursue a new plan that would prevent his return to office.

“We warn the ministers that the de facto regime is planning to stay in power longer and to deepen the crisis by preventing the return of the elected president and continuing the repression of the people,” Zelaya said in a statement.

Zelaya was forced from office for trying to hold a referendum on rewriting the constitution. His opponents charged he wanted to lift the charter’s provision limiting presidents to a single term — an accusation he denies.

Zelaya has not announced any plans to leave his refuge at the Brazilian Embassy, and he was being represented in the talks by members of his deposed government.
 

4:00PM

(Still not much info coming in about the OAS meeting.  Maybe later this evening.)

>El Frente Nacional Contra el Golpe de Estado calls for a break the silence demonstration at 8PM this evening throughout  neighborhoods.  Screaming loud, beating pots and pans, and engaging in loud racket is encouraged. Making noise is to counter the deafening silence coming from the OAS meeting.

>News from Habla Honduras: 1) The state of siege order was rescinded, but Micheletti has not had it published in La Gaceta, making it STILL IN EFFECT. Massive repression by police today in front of the US embassy in Tegucigalpa which includes acrid tear gas and attacks on international journalists.   2) President Zelaya demands to be reinstated by October 15 to ensure clean elections by November 29.   3) The de facto regime’s attorney general is urging that media formerly closed be re-opened. 

>Comunique from President Zelaya

Comunicado Presidente Constitucional Manuel Zelaya, octubre 7

 Miércoles 07 de Octubre de 2009 10:54

 PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPUBLICA DE HONDURAS

 COMUNICADO

 El Presidente de la República, electo por el pueblo, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, al pueblo Hondureño, a la Comunidad Internacional con motivo de la presencia de los Cancilleres de las Republicas de Guatemala, El Salvador, Estados Unidos, México, Ecuador, Canadá, Jamaica, Costa Rica, Republica Dominicana, Brasil, Argentina, el Reino de España Comunica lo siguiente:

1.- Después de más de 100 días de grave crisis, a los Cancilleres de los países amigos que hoy se presentan a nuestro país les agradecemos su solidaridad con Honduras y su apoyo a la democracia, al exigir la restitución del Presidente electo por el pueblo José Manuel Zelaya Rosales. Reconocemos su alta investidura que hoy con su valiente posición de apoyo a nuestra lucha democrática representan la dignidad de los pueblos de América.

El pueblo de Honduras demanda el cumplimiento de las resoluciones aprobadas por unanimidad de la Organización de Estados Americanos y Naciones Unidas, guía que nos orienta en esta misión para establecer el dialogo y revertir el golpe de estado .

2.-Alertamos a los Cancilleres que el régimen de facto evidentemente está planificando permanecer más tiempo en el poder y profundizar más la crisis al negarse a restituir al Presidente electo por el pueblo. Continua con la represión contra el pueblo, cancela los medios de comunicación opositores al golpe de estado, suprime libertades públicas encarcelando sus opositores, se olvida del acuerdo San José (Plan Arias) y pretende, a través de maniobras, poner en marcha mecanismos para dilatar y evadir los mandatos del pueblo y de la comunidad internacional.

3.- Agradecemos las gestiones en favor de la democracia y la vigencia plena del estado de derecho y el acompañamiento del Secretario General de la OEA y de su equipo de colaboradores. Aprovechamos la ocasión para insistir en la necesidad de mantener posiciones firmes e indeclinables ante las maniobras dilatorias del régimen de facto.

4.- Solicitamos a los funcionarios del departamento de Estado hacer valer en su actuación y en sus declaraciones públicas la posición política del Presidente de Estados Unidos Barack Obama y de la Secretaria de Estado Hilary Clinton.

5.- Apoyamos las elecciones como mecanismo democrático, si se restituye al Presidente. Las elecciones y su proceso sólo son válidos y gozarán de la confianza de la comunidad nacional e internacional con la restitución del Presidente Zelaya. Hacemos evidente la necesidad de asegurar las garantías para la igualdad de la participación ciudadana, cesar la represión contra los opositores al régimen, que se levante el cerco militar a la Embajada de Brasil y el aislamiento forzoso al Presidente Zelaya, se elimine la militarización en pueblos y ciudades y se restituyan las frecuencias de la Radio Globo y canal 36 de t v.

Advertimos que de NO restituir al Presidente en su cargo antes del 15 de octubre, automáticamente por falta de validez, credibilidad y confianza de la comunidad nacional e internacional queda sin valor ni efecto el calendario electoral hasta que se firme el acuerdo de San José y se restituya al Presidente Zelaya en su cargo.

La soberanía corresponde al pueblo del cual emanan todos los poderes del Estado, la suplantación de la soberanía constituye un delito de alta traición a la Patria y no prescribe con el tiempo.

GOBIERNO DEL PRESIDENTE CONSTITUCIONAL DE HONDURAS

 JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES

Tegucigalpa 7 de octubre 2009.

>TELESUR: ARTICLES IN SPANISH ON OAS, INTERVIEW WITH FM PATRICIA RODAS AND VIDEO OF INDIGENOUS HONDURANS SEEKING POLITICAL ASYLUM IN GUATEMALAN EMBASSY.

>”Divide Tearing Honduras Apart.”  Interview with Honduran ambassador in Washingotn, Enrique Reina.  This is a fascinating interview from The Washington Diplomat with lots of details not commonly known.  Ambassador Reina is pictured on the front.

>Rigoberta Menchú calls on U.S. to play a stronger role in Honduras

“I was a witness to many conflicts in the 80s, in Nicaragua, in Guatemala, in El Salvador,” he said. “And I want to tell you that I have never experienced an environment of as much repression and terror as I lived in Honduras in these three months.”

By Chrissie Long

Tico Times Staff | clong@ticotimes.net

 For Guatemalan activist Rigoberta Menchú, the Honduran crisis stretches beyond the country’s jagged borders, green mountains and far-reaching farmlands.

The Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who became human rights icon after her advocacy work during the Guatemalan Civil War, said the issue can’t be limited to Honduras.

“It’s a profound crisis. It’s an ideological crisis. It’s a political crisis,” she said, speaking before reporters in San José on Tuesday. “But it is also a crisis that belongs to Central America.”

She said the situation must be studied, turned over and analyzed again so that it doesn’t become a “concern for our children.”

We must prevent “a tomorrow in which any madman says, ‘I don’t like this government,’ overthrows it and is legitimized by an election,” she said.

Meeting with academics, a representative from the Honduran media and political analysts on Tuesday, Menchú denounced the de facto government, called for greater intervention on the behalf of the United States and praised the efforts of the Organization of American States (OAS) along with fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient Oscar Arias, the president of Costa Rica.

She criticized the United States for not being “more congruent” or “clear” in its position, believing that the northern superpower should intervene “not to resolve the crisis, but to create a ‘free zone’” where persons and institutions that resist the de facto government could seek asylum.

With the return of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on Sept. 21, the situation has grown tenser, boiling over into moments of violence as the feuding parties meet face to face.

Ismael Moreno, who joined Menchú on the panel on Tuesday, and works as the director of Radio Progreso in Honduras, said he’s never before seen the level of repression he’s experienced in the country over the past few months.

“I was a witness to many conflicts in the 80s, in Nicaragua, in Guatemala, in El Salvador,” he said. “And I want to tell you that I have never experienced an environment of as much repression and terror as I lived in Honduras in these three months.”

Recounting stories of repression in the case of a religious figure who was captured during one of the demonstrations and dragged by his hair and of a young mother who was raped by several soldiers, Moreno criticized the de facto government for covering up the reality of the situation.

Meanwhile, the OAS has named a new delegation of foreign ministers who will arrive in Honduras Wednesday in attempt to break the stalemate in Honduras. The delegation includes the organization’s secretary general, José Miguel Insulza; foreign ministers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico and Panama; and top diplomats from Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Argentina and Brazil.

Our German friends went to the polls this evening in what was variously described as a “yawner,” “soporific” and “one of the dullest in living memory” in which turnout reached a record low. How low is as yet unclear: there seem to have been about four million fewer votes cast this year (depending upon the number of outstanding ballots).  That kind of drop should translate to a fall of 5-7 percent in terms of turnout, for a “lowest ever” result of around 70-72%.

(Yes kids. 70% is the lowest ever in Germany.  Let this be a lesson that there are other – and I dare I hazard the sacrilege of saying better – ways of doing democracy.)

However I would submit that this has been a crucial poll for both Germany and the world.  Suffice it to say that Germany remains, even now (especially now), the economic engine of Europe.  Their unemployment is now below even our own – the benefit of a strong social safety net built at great cost during years of boom – and the first shoots of global recovery have appeared there.  Along with France it essentially decides the direction of Europe, flail though Britain might (indeed, rightly or wrongly); it is a cornerstone of America’s Afghanistan policy, its European policy, its Iranian policy, its Russian policy… I run on.  (And could.)  But in short, this was an election of great significance to us – and not, indeed, just for foreign policy. What is happening in Germany is heading for us, too.

Background

On a basic level the political system is – was – dominated by two large parties and a number of smaller ones.  The Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) are centre-right – though the name falsely implies some commitment to clericalism, more prominent in their Bavarian branch than generally.  They’re generally the party of rural areas, the country, and the south of Germany, especially Bavaria.  The Social Democrats (SDP) are centre-left – the party of the unions, workers, cities, especially in the north.  They have between them provided every Chancellor in modern German history.

In addition there are the Free Democrats (FDP, known colloquially as the ‘Liberals’), re-established along with the SDP and CDU/CSU at the refounding of the Republic.  They’re just that: though what we would call relatively “progressive,” as with most modern classical liberals  – sounds weird, especially as in America we term it “libertarian” – what the FDP really cares about is economics and driving government out of business.  As such it’s slightly socially moderating to either the SDP or the CDU/CSU, but economically quite radical.  Wealthier, college-educated urban Republicans would be quite at home here, and the FDP appeals to an educated, wealthy urban/suburban demographic.

Unlike other democracies (and totally unlike the US) Germany does not allow a leader to have less than the total support of Parliament, called Bundestag; that means no minority governments as in Canada.  Throughout most of modern German history neither major party could gain a majority in parliament.  This meant not only that the FDP always chose who governed, but assured that they were almost always in government.  Though they were always the bridesmaid and never the bride, this made them relatively impervious to shifts in the electorate or their own vote totals.  Vice-Chancellor Genscher thus served in that role for twenty years and was continuously in government for twenty-five years under three chancellors.  Neither party cared much for them, but there was rarely a way around them.

But in the 1980s two other forces have appeared.  The first were the Greens (known as Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, or Alliance ‘90/The Greens, after the coalition between Western and Eastern parties formed after the fall of the Berlin Wall).  Starting slowly the Greens eventually shucked off their origins as a protest party and became willing to join a government (perhaps reflecting their growth from a niche environmentalist party to the favored outlet of the wealthy, urban left).  This was a major development: for the first time a government could be formed without the free-market FDP, making a socially leftist government possible.  It also tipped the subtle balance of German politics; given the unlikelihood of the Greens’ siding with the conservative Christian Democrats, it had the effect of opening up possibilities for the Social Democrats while driving the FDP even further into the CDU’s arms, as for the first time they faced opposition without them.

Reunification brought with it a new party.  First called the Party of Democratic Socialism, then combined with a coalition of ex-SDP members, the Left is a motley crew of ex-East German communists, far-left anti-communist reformers, disaffected Greens and Social Democrats, frustrated workers and welfare recipients.  It is the first quality that has made them anathema to the rest of German politics: initially it met with a cordon sanitaire of the type deployed in the Netherlands, Belgium and France to stop extremist parties from joining government.  At first it didn’t matter: the Left was a small party focused mainly in the East, so drawing fairly equally from potential CDU/CSU and SDP voters, and for the first decade of its existence it struggled both to repudiate communism and connect with the electorate.

Change is rarely spare

That changed in 2005.  The economic reforms of SPD chancellor Gerhard Schröder managed to trigger a Bangkok dilemma: his actions were considered unacceptable to leftists and insufficient to rightists.  The Greens, in power for the first time since 1998, occupied only three or four non-economic ministries and provided little resistance.  In 2005 the SPD-Green alliance rallied on the back of the personal unpopularity of Angela Merkel, then CDU/CSU leader; but it was to no avail.  The government lost its majority.

Left leaders Oskar Lafontaine (above) and Gregor Gysi (below). Guess who was a Communist

But the CDU/CSU did not gain one.  Indeed they lost nearly as many seats as did the SPD.  The big winner was the Left party, now co-headed by a high-profile SPD defector, Oskar Lafontaine.  Lafontaine and others balked at Schröder’s reforms, which were seen to be uncompassionate, excessively pro-business and – worst of all – Anglo-American.  From a low of just two seats in 2002 the Left gained 54.  This is basically because the German system, mixed-member proportional, makes big changes between major parties require big changes in the overall vote.  This rarely happens, and a government has a majority of only 20-40, including coalition partners.

Drive a wedge of 54 into that – 54 members of Parliament that no one will have and that consequently will vote against anyone – and you have a problem.  Germany had that problem.  No coalition of two parties gained a majority.  Of the many options only one was plausible: a “grand coalition” of both CDU/CSU and SDP.

How can two opposed parties work together?  Tenderly.  Schröder had to go – and go he did – and in his place were Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, formerly his second-in-command.  Steinmeier was a politician with limited public exposure, first as head of Schröder’s private office and then as Foreign Minister, and despite an even split of ministries between the grand partners it was Merkel who gained credit for being public-spirited and a “safe pair of hands.”

Despite predictions they survived the entirety of their four year term.  But predictably Merkel and the CDU/CSU entered the election with a big lead over the SPD.  The entirety of the election campaign did nothing to dent that lead.

Yesterday and what it means

The results are contained here.  (Don’t laugh, Wikipedia is filled with elections nerds, and unlike so many national election bodies writes with an eye to general clarity.)

The traditional CDU/CSU-FDP coalition “won.”  But this was on a very small increase in seats (13) for the CDU/CSU (and a drop in votes).  These were mostly “overhang seats,” a German quirk which basically awards bonus seats because an opponent wins more individual seats than their party vote would allow.  This benefits the two major parties, as they win most of these single-member seats on the basis of strong regional and local support.  (It makes its last appearance this year – German courts ordered it quashed by 2011.) The SDP lost a record 76 seats and came an anemic second.  Here’s the kicker, though: both major parties had their worst result ever.  Only a bare majority of Germans voted for both parties of government combined.

The FDP surged to 93 seats (the CDU/CSU had 239), which means their partners will contribute some 30% of the coalition’s total, a number unprecedented in Germany and indeed most modern parliamentary democracies).  This was the greatest night in their history.  Their success has been so profound that they are actually within striking distance of being Germany’s second party – an unheard-of development.

Both the Greens and the Left also had the best nights in their history.  Though they maintained only their single constituency seat, in urban Berlin, the Greens surged over the 10% mark for the first time to take 68 seats.  The Left did better still – they surged to 13 constituency seats, including a majority of those in the state of Saxony-Anhalt, and rose to 76 total.  Only the success of the FDP prevented the Left from forcing the two main parties back into grand coalition.  For the first time, the three opposition parties’ total votes and seats outnumbered either of the two parties of government.

It can’t be surprising that the collapse of the SDP aided both the Greens and the Left – despite leadership under leader Steinmeier which, if not stentorian, was not at all disastrous.  The SDP is at serious, even terminal risk of becoming merely a pan-German leftist fraction, splitting their traditional voters with the Greens in the West and the Left in the East.  There is no love lost between the two, especially as the Left is (bizarrely) depriving the Greens of some of their anti-establishment luster.

FDP leader Guido Westerwelle, who hopefully didn't drink it all in one go

But Merkel must be said to have lost, too.  Her majority comes from the FDP’s success and they will not fail to let her know it.  Worse, whereas the grand coalition allowed her to govern “above politics” while avoiding any difficult questions – with the SPD’s tacit consent – the FDP have become unashamedly radical in their economics and their opposition to green politics, and they will push Merkel in their direction.  She cannot simply shrug, as she did with the SPD, and agree that the differences are irreconcilable for the sake of the government.  (Hence the suggestion that she actually preferred the prospect of a new grand coalition.)  The FDP will take their ball and go home if she doesn’t give them almost everything they want, and it’s likely she’ll do just that.  The consequence of not doing so is implicit in this interview, where the FDP leader tries to put down fears about a “centre-right” government: this “party of all people” is perfectly capable of making a government itself one day, especially if they continue to shine in the face of a taciturn, unhelpful Christian Democrat majority.  “We wanted reform – our own allies betrayed us,” etc.

Clearly people are fed up in general, and there is a sense that the financial crisis has revealed that the traditional manner of doing business – by whomever – has failed.  All three smaller parties were fired up; anyone in government is meanwhile seen to be tainted.  This is a trend that has been growing and escalating as the post-9/11 world has taken shape.  It will continue to do, especially if the far right-wing National Democratic Party – neo-Nazis in all but name, handicapped only by being run through with agents of the security services – manages to begin making an impact.  So far, though, Germans are far more ready to cast a ballot for ex-communists than neo-fascists.

Elsewhere

These trends: the decline and fragmentation of major parties; surge in support for parties with more hardened, philosophically coherent (and so inflexible) beliefs on the fringes of the political spectrum; and an increased tempo of attacks by the mainstream against that fringe which has the effect merely of eroding further their own popularity; they don’t exist in Germany alone.  Britain, France, and the US face similar problems and have electorates of similar prosperity and more similarity of mind than many think.  They may not vote for the same things, but all follow the same cues.

British National Party rally (Sentinel)

In the UK all three parties have been hurt by the financial crisis and the related row over MPs’ expenses.  As in Germany, the collapse of the primary center-left party has not unlocked a surge for the center-right: people want Labour out but they don’t want the Tories in.  In the meantime disaffection with the political system and calls for reform are reaching a fever pitch.

A brief surge in the popularity of independents and other parties seems to be abating, but then there are established fringe forces to turn to: the conservative anti-European UKIP, the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, and the ultra right-wing BNP.  As yet there isn’t really a well-organized leftist force along those lines, partly because of the defeat of the unions by the Conservatives and the Trotskyists by Labour coupled with the presence of two established, mainstream left parties who can exchange votes between them.

Strangely in a solely first past the post system, like the UK or US, you seem to get more minor and fringe parties than you ever do in a country that actually lets them win.

Villepin (left) and Sarkozy (right) - as it were

In France personality politics seem to count for more than ideologies (and really, Gaullism’s less an ideology than a state of being), but the success of the National Front – they made it to the second-round of the French presidential election in 2002, which saw Jacques Chirac re-elected with 82% by a coalition of mainline conservatives and leftists of all stripes who encouraged a vote for “the crook, not the fascist.”  Though the rare and unexpected success was not repeated two years ago, terrible splits rage through the political class as the Socialists continue to gleefully tear each other apart and the entire ruling class of the governing UMP is embroiled in the Clearstream trial (or, put so much more delicately in its native italics, L’Affair Clearstream).  Clearstream sees the President of the Republic, Nicholas Sarkozy, suing the last Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, for allegedly falsifying a document listing Sarkozy as the recipient of a defense kickback.

Such behavior obviously makes off-the-grid candidates like young Communist leader Olivier Besancenot and perennial Franco-German Green Daniel Cohn-Bendit more palatable to the general public. Interestingly 2007 saw a moderate force appear and challenge the two main parties for the presidency, the Democratic Movement under Francois Bayrou; but after failing to endorse either remaining contender and disappointing results in parliamentary and European polls it looks to fizzle.  People can say what they will – nobody votes for a moderate party.

Canada faces an even more daunting prospect.  Unable to form a majority government after three elections in four years, with another looming, the Parliament split between the center-left Liberals and center-right Conservatives is further cleaved by the increasingly left-wing New Democrats and the Quebecois sovereigntist Bloc.  Add atop that a Green Party which polls 10% but doesn’t win a seat and you have a centre-right, and at times quite right-wing, government for whom only about 35% cast a ballot, against left wing votes of something like 52% (and a further 10% who would prefer not to vote in Canada at all).  The continuing inability of Ottawa to form a government is really a consequence of the annihilation of the Progressive Conservatives at the 1993 election, masked for eleven years by outsize Liberal majorities drawn from the resulting chaos.

There’s little prospect of a similar fate for either the new Conservative government or the Liberal opposition – though one might take the selection of a philosopher as their leader to be a sign of some despair – but a snap election today would probably ratify that of the last two polls.  This is no “message” from the people, besides that they don’t much care for anyone they have and don’t think it’s worth voting for anybody they don’t.  Quebec, lacking a separatist majority, is so divided between the mainstream parties that it returns almost uniformly separatist members who wouldn’t take part in any government (despite a half-baked attempt to replace the Tories with a Liberal/NDP coalition with Bloc support, which triggered an extraordinary dissolution of Parliament and a change in the Liberal leadership.

And then there’s the USA.  Our situation is a bit different because of the overwhelming difficulty of altering the basic structure of our government (which assures it’s only been done once or twice, and then relatively minor changes); the non-parliamentary system of government which makes it more difficult to logically tie a Congress together with a government; and the non-ideological political parties.  Make no mistake: Democrats are liberal and Republicans conservative out of convenience.  History is littered with liberal Republicans (and continues to be clogged with conservative Democrats).  Our parties are first and foremost regionalist.

But indeed all of these factors coalesce to make the situation worst of all the others.  Our ossified political system, reflective of an age in which travel, communication and authority were totally different, practically breeds disaffected.  A high rate of abstention is one way.  Another is the recent spate of specifically ideological “independent” (of what?) movements.  Ross Perot and Reform and Ron Paul come to mind most prominently. (But not Ralph Nader; his relationship with the Greens was uncertain at best.)

Ron Paul - a new force in politics, like him or lump him

The American system – for reasons totally alien to its practice – tends to suppress most of these movements.  That’s the effect of the primary system: force dissident candidates to fight intraparty elections rather than stand independently or found a new party entirely.  Like most of the progressive reforms of the early 1900s, primaries have had unexpected and almost totally anti-democratic side effects.  (Thanks for that, WJB.  Where was that cross of gold again?)  Not for nothing are the British Conservatives, riven themselves with internal dissent and still broadly unpopular, adopting the primary for their own candidates.

The object then becomes not the creation of new parties but the “capture” of existing ones.  The Democrats and Republicans are subject to an unending series of political, ideological and personal coups as different factions with different priorities attempt to seize control of the party – and through them government – via favored candidates.  (Hence the otherwise inexplicable vitriol on the liberal wing of the party towards Hillary Clinton, not usually thought to be a McCarthyite herself.)  Even these movements are often as geographic or personal as ideological – Nancy Pelosi has ensured the placement of liberal, Californian allies at the head of a number of key committees, even ousting and replacing John Dingell (Michigan – Ann Arbor and Detroit Suburbs) on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But even this broad, non-ideological two-party consensus – encompassing a space which would otherwise be occupied by five or more parties were they ideologically- or geographically-based – has come under increasing strain.  Progressive Democrats are having a harder time governing with conservative Southerners now than at any time since civil rights and the phenomenon of Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and other populist figures have driven a deep, festering wedge into the Republican ranks.

In some respects this year really has been an extraordinary one.  All of that plus the suggestion by a sitting governor that perhaps secession was legit after all and the inexplicable running battles over health care and climate (60% of the Congress is Democratic, yes?) and it’s no surprise that there’s a bumper crop of independents getting a lot of earlier exposure.

America’s a weird case.  In almost any other country I would say that both parties here are headed for a thumping (and both generally perform poorly in a generic ballot).  But the Constitution was not designed for parties and did not lend us a system that manages the inevitable ones well; and the two major parties have had decades – indeed centuries – to craft everything to their advantage and build up structures necessary to blunt even the best-funded challengers.  (We were speaking of Ross Perot.)  It also hurts that there are little in the way of central party structures; parties are not national affairs as in Europe because America is not a metropolitan country, with a clear center and periphery.  The people – political leaders, staffers, fundraisers – necessary, able and willing to craft any sincere challenge to the political center are not concentrated if they exist at all, and the ideological confrontation required for pieces of one party or the other to collectively defect simply isn’t there.  Animus, even hatred, has not yet translated into intolerance.  Part of that is because American politics is an older man’s game than most.  They are simply not as passionate, or hot-headed, depending on your view.

The party system we have will not last forever; but I can say that only in an abstract historical sense.  It could go on for a hundred years or a thousand or ten or through the day after tomorrow.  I don’t know.  There are signs that it’s corroding, and badly, in a way incomparable to the past – but this isn’t quite unique yet.  I am certain, if nothing else, that discontent with American politics will only continue to grow while the two parties continue their singular dominance of the country.  Don’t be fooled by good turnout recently (and ours still isn’t very good); it’s the break in the fever that foreshadows a renewed attack of the virus.

The bottom line is that it appears, at least to me, that the consensus built after World War II – not ideological, for that departed long ago, but the basic structure of how Western countries allow themselves to be governed – is breaking down.  Record losses for major parties, record gains for minor ones, fringe candidates with growing bankrolls and calls, even here, for broad-based electoral reform.  This evinces an entire hemisphere of people unsatisfied with their legacy.

The common thread seems to be a belief that the major political groups, the parties of government, have sacrificed a coherent, rigorous system of beliefs for the possibility of a vague electoral mandate.  Those parties and figures who reject that path, and prefer to offer an honest explication of their ideology, have begun to surge instead.  (Though in Europe and Canada more than here.)  If the parties of government are going to continue to be that in the future, the horror of triangulation and microtargeting will have to give way.  Ideology must be on offer; not just “real beliefs” or “convictions” coupled with vague platitudes about a stronger future but systems of seeing the world, the civil society, politics and the place of government in them.

Otherwise it will be extremists, unafraid to bare to the world their vision for it, who will benefit. For in a democracy ideological battles are no different than electoral ones: in the end it’s a matter of who chooses to show up.

I dag utspelade sig en mycket udda scen på Sergels torg i Stockholm. Islamister demonstrerade mot Israel och för regimen i Iran. Tillsammans med dem stod en mindre grupp nazister.

På andra sidan torget, bakom polisavspärrningar, stod en mångdubbelt större massa motsdemonstranter. De flesta av dem exiliranier som avskyr den islamistiska regimen, men enligt uppgift även antifascister, liberaler (en Svenskan-krönikör vi älskar att hata ska ha gått omkring och luktat sprit) – och Sverigedemokrater.

Man kan lugnt säga att allianserna förändrats, på minst två sätt. Dels naturligtvis att nazister demonstrerar tillsammans med muslimska invandrare, men även att sverigedemokrater demonstrerar tillsammans med antimuslimska invandrare.

Dessutom blir förhållningssättet till staten Israel underligt tvetydigt. Det var ju inte direkt så att motdemonstrationen var ett stöd för Israel, snarare än ett fördömande av Irans diktatur. Samtidigt vill nog både islamisterna och deras bruna kompisar på ena sidan, och SD:arna och liberalerna på den andra ha det till det.

Något bizarrt måste det ändå kännas för den som engagerat sig på yttersta högerkanten att hitta fascister på båda sidor barrikaden. Och frågan är om inte åtminstone delar av de “fria nationalisterna” och spillrorna av Nationaldemokraterna kommer att ta samma väg som National Front på 80-talet, när de övergav populistisk invandrarhets för väldigt avig antiimperialism på etnopluralistisk grund.

Andra om SD, Sverigedemokraterna, Nationaldemokraterna, National Front, Antiimperialism, Iran, Ahmadinejad, nazister, fascister, antifascister, liberaler, islam, muslimer, islamister

Below is a recent declaration from the Frente Nacional Contra el Golpe de Estado regarding its rejection of electoral campaigns and elections under the framework of the coup.  It is a very clear and concise statement  and includes the call for a constituent assembly.

AUGUST 31, 2009

POSITION OF THE NATIONAL FRONT AGAINST THE COUP ON ELECTIONS

NEITHER CAMPAIGN NOR LEGITIMATE ELECTIONS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COUP

The general elections without the restitution of the constitutional order would be the legalization of the military violence against the State; and as such unacceptable. In light of this, the National Front of Resistance against the Coup d’Etat declares:

1. We do not recognize the electoral campaign, process and results, if the constitutional order is not reinstated, whose fundamental basis is the re-installation to his post of the legitimate constitutional President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales.

2. We exhort the Democratic Unification Party UD, the independent candidacies, the non-coup-aligned candidates to popularly elected posts from the Liberal Party and the Innovation Party, to make manifest their political position regarding the electoral process in the country.

3. We condemn the militarization of the society and of the so-called “electoral process” by the coup-makers, who with their armed presence introduce an additional element of political party violence and heighten the conditions of exclusion, darkness and repression to the detriment of the participants.=

4. We reiterate the call to promote the direct installation of a popular, participatory, inclusive, non-discriminatory and democratic National Constitutional Assembly.”

FROM: http://hondurasresists.blogspot.com

ELVIN SANTOS’ CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT

Yesterday, presidential aspirant, Elvin Santos kicked off his campaign.  You must visit his campaign website.  It is nothing less than an assault to both eyes and ears.  It includes many pics and video of Santos talking to people.  His wife is featured standing next to poor Honduran kids.  Also, his wife narrates the story of Santos’ youth and their life together  which I can’t tell you much about because I couldn’t stomach it.  The frivolous, almost “happy days are here again” feel of Santos’ website is in stark contrast to the deadly serious issues facing the people of Honduras.

ELVIN SANTOS’ CAMPAIGN WEBSITE - don’t miss the clever little countdown clock that gives the number of days, hours, and seconds left until the Nov. 29 election.

Dan Hannan has tripped over the line in the sand again with his favourable comments on Enoch Powell, again on American television. All the bigger left blogs have spoken about how they feel and they can roughly be divided into Sunny (Hundal, who notes that even the mere implication of Powell’s name is deserved of condemnation) and Sunder (Katwala, who notes that Hannan was in no way alluding to Powell’s immigration views, but rather his euroscepticism, which is in tune with Hannan’s overall project).

Both make good points, with Sunny the notion that mention of Powell can conjour up images of NF banners “Enoch was right” has real weight, but Sunder points out that in 2007 Hannan specifically pointed out in an article written in the Daily Telegraph that Powell was right on the idea of an independent Britain andn specifically erroneous on the subject of immigration.

It is enough to criticise Hannan on the things we can be sure of (all of which can be found in various places on this blog). Firstly there was the issue with Hannan encouraging British ex-pats in Spain to vote for a party with traditionally Francoist roots, then Hannan pledged support for Kaminski when his antisemitic past was revealed, and what’s more is Kaminski soon after pledged his own support for the Lisbon Treaty, which Hannan is vehemently against. Then there is the issue with Hannan pouring scorn on the NHS in the US where healthcare reform is being debated, Hannan using some rather dubious arguments such as Singapore does healthcare better, and that the NHS does not provide, despite this being an out and out obfuscation of truth.

Hannan has plenty to be criticised about, now that he is back from his holiday, but with this latest incident, headlines by the Mirror such as NHS-hating Tory Daniel Hannan at centre of racist storm do run the risk of moving the goalposts and losing the real point of Hannan’s wrongdoings. Certainly this will be an embarrassment for the Tories – already struggling to downplay all the attention Hannan is getting – but will calling Hannan racist put into proper context how deeply wrong this MEP really is?

The BNP needs to be involved in communities at grass roots level, I have mentioned before about applying to stand for election to your local parish Council, or in some instances where local people are not interested in their local area it may be possible to get co-opted without being elected. Another way of becoming a pillar of your local community is to become a school governor. There are currently vacancies at schools across the county for governors, very few have their full quota. A glance down the list of governors at most schools you will see local councillors and ex-candidates from other political parties. To find your nearest School and to see if they have any vacancies click here. Once you have found a school with a vacancy make an application, which can be done following the instructions here.

Northamptonshire County Council are setting up of a youth academy and will be appointing a young leader for Northamptonshire. The youth academy will involve the recruitment each year of 200 young people from across the county who will take part in ‘exciting and challenging experiences’. For taking part the young people will be given an award and academy membership. The academy initiatives and membership will promote team working, positive role models and behaviours and personal safety. The young leader initiative will involve the countywide election of a young leader (aged 16 – 19) who will be provided with professional support to speak up for young people, take part in local political processes and provide a high-profile role model for young people in Northamptonshire. I can think of one young man that would be ideally suited for the post.

A swastika, some racist graffiti and the initials NF (National Front) were daubed on the side of the Gurdwara and Ramgarhia Sikh temple in Crave Street, Northampton between Tuesday Night and Wednesday morning. According to the Chonicle and Echo’s report the graffiti made offensive comments to the Sikh community. The West Northamptonshire British National Party condemns the graffiti with a spokesman saying “We have good relations with the local Sikh’s and had a Sikh speaker at one of our meetings in Northampton earlier this year.” The liberal-left purposely make no distinction between the BNP and the NF so we can all be tarred with the same brush, whereas in fact there is a bigger difference between the two than there is between the Labour and Conservative Parties. The Chronicle and Echo had comments from the usual suspects and as expected there was no comment of the NF in particular, just a group they like to term the ‘far-right’. Anjona Roy, chief executive of the NREC, said: “The year before last, this would have been completely unheard of. But we are hearing of this type of racist graffiti, which has political far-Right undertones, more and more often.This is a deliberate act, designed to intimidate not just the members of the Sikh community but also other communities living in what is a very diverse part of town. There is a synagogue and Muslim prayer centres within a stone’s throw of the Gurdwara, and this graffiti will have an enormous impact on all of them.” Meanwhile Paul Crofts, of Northamptonshire West Hate Incident Forum, told the Chronicle & Echo: “In my view, this is a form of terrorism, designed purely to intimidate people of all religions and those of no religion. To paint a swastika on a place of worship is despicable.” Paul Crofts may like to reconsider his words as Swastikas are often painted on Hindu temples as it is one of the 108 symbols of the deity Vishnu, while in Jainism it is given even more prominence as it is the symbol of the seventh saint. Even one of the most peaceful religions in the world, Buddhism, has used the swastika in the past. The graffiti has appeared days after what was believed to be a racist fight nearby on The Racecourse.The NF appear to have been dormant in the town since 2005 when a planned march through the town was cancelled.

For everyone going to RWB, have a safe and peaceful weekend. For those not going I’m sure there is leafleting that needs doing!

NOTE:  Shortly, I will put a page together to cover the activites associated with the National March and, that way, I can offer updates as they occur throughout the duration of the march.

August 5, 2009

This morning the Honduran Resistance kicked off its national march. The march organizers are calling for participants to march to either Tegucigalpa or San Pedro Sula, depending on which is closest to where they live.

In an article yesterday, Juventud Rebelde summarized the purpose of the march:

“Hondurans Prepare National March” Excerpt:

“We must be optimistic, we are in the path of victory and the return of Zelaya. We have achieved the unity of the people and our organizations in this fight, emphasized the general secretary of the Labor Federation, Israel Salinas, to the decision adopted by an overwhelming majority.

Is the time of creation of a broad front, it is the unity of all progressive forces to defeat the dictatorship, Nelson Ávila, economic adviser to President Manuel Zelaya, told PL, who has presented the thesis in acts of resistance.

The general coordinator of the National Front, Juan Barahona, said that the main objective is the restoration of constitutional order and the popularly-elected president, Manuel Zelaya.”

FROM:  Honduras Resiste y Vence website:

Father Andres Tamayo reported that the march left Olancho at 10:00 am (noon EDT) and is heading for Tegucigalpa.  If the marchers walk 20km per day, they should arrive in Tegucigalpa by TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK.  At the same time, another community march departed from Guadalupe en Colon heading for San Pedro Sula.

http://resistenciamorazan.blogspot.com/2009/08/1000-am-inicia-la-marcha-de-la.html

FROM: Honduras Lucha website:

Via Campesina has just issued a statement calling a Global Day of Action for Honduras on August 11.  More info later on this.

http://hondurasenlucha.blogspot.com/

By an ex AFA member

Recently published this book has, as can be imagined, caused plenty of chatter in both anti-fascist and fascist circles.

Personally I enjoyed it, but would treat it with as much scepticism as I would  Hann and Tilzey’s No Retreat.

At the end of the day these are three people who share something in common, they are all known for pushing the truth to the limit, and not just in English Literature.

For those who know nothing of Joe Owens what can one say…NF and BNP street-fighter, doorman, gangster…..and bodyguard to Nick Griffin…need I say more?

ACTION! RACE WAR TO DOOR WARS – A REVIEW

I had thought that anyone with any sense would take Joey Owens’ so-called autobiography (‘Action! Race War to Door Wars’) with a very large pinch of salt. However, some people who should know better have proved that this is not always the case. So, here’s a review of sorts.

First, I will admit that I haven’t a clue about Owens’ early life. I also don’t know a huge amount about his life as a bouncer (which is half the book). I’m not his mum, so that isn’t surprising. I do however, know a fair amount about the mid-1980s in Liverpool, so this is the bit I’ll concentrate on. I think it’s fair enough to judge Owens’ book on this period for two reasons: First, for any book, if one part is rubbish (or just plain dishonest), it doesn’t say much for the rest of the book. Second, the mid-1980s – the confrontations between the BNP and anti-fascists – is why Owens says he is writing the book (apparently in response to the book ‘No Retreat’ by two Manchester anti-fascists). So, here’s why I wouldn’t spend any money on this (I’ve looked at the free download version).

Early on in the book Owens states that the situation in Liverpool “was a battle for dominance between two opposing ideologies each determined not to retreat. This decade-long war saw people arrested, hospitalised and imprisoned. It was ten years of conflict which saw the eventual triumph of the nationalist will…” After reading this, you would expect that, at the end of the ten years, Liverpool BNP would have smashed all its opponents into the ground. The “nationalist will” would have triumphed. So it may come as some surprise to find that Owens describes the exact opposite. An increasingly violent and arrogant BNP is met head-on in the mid-1980s, and collapses. Owens suddenly finds he has better things to do.

Most of this information is found in the chapter “The End of Politics”. This is the period from early 1986 to 1988. At the beginning the BNP is apparently growing. At the end all the main BNP members left – and Owens also left, to begin life as a bouncer. What caused this collapse? Owens sort-of hints at what happened. Owens admits to a “war” with the anarchists. However, according to Owens, these anarchists are all a bunch of smellies, who run away “screaming” while forever being hit over the head with iron bars by victorious fascists. These anarchists are “concerned” every time they visit their centre. Yet they force all the BNP to resign. Funny that. Something doesn’t quite add up…. About the only time Owens comes close to how it really was – back in the mid-1980s – is when he describes a fight outside the left wing bookshop News From Nowhere. As Owens admits (seeing as he lost a tooth) it wasn’t a walk over. What Owens doesn’t explain is why the BNP (including Owens) stopped harassing or visiting News From Nowhere around this time, and why they stopped selling papers in Church Street (their ’spec’ in Liverpool city centre).

According to Owens: “Never did reds drive us from our pitch on Church Street even when they had double our numbers. It was only when they outnumbered us five to one or more”. Sounds good – but Liverpool BNP wrote something very similar in the ‘British Nationalist’ magazine back in 1987. I know this because, in 1987, four BNP paper sellers in Church St, including the local organiser, were confronted by four anti-fascists – mostly anarchists. All the BNP papers and magazines were ripped up or confiscated. The article was in the free magazines. The BNP said they’d be back next week in force – but didn’t turn up then, or in the long weeks and months that followed.

The BNP lost it in the streets – and not to vast mobs of ‘reds’, though you’d never guess this from Owens’ account. The BNP could have tried to even the score by paying a visit, at any time, to the anarchist centre in town. Instead, rather than risk a head to head, they chose to repeatedly attack the home of someone Owens calls a “witch”. Owens obviously knows a lot about these attacks, and says the “witch” should have been slashed “across the face”. Yet nowhere does Owens admit he’s talking about a teenage schoolgirl. I never knew her personally, but I do know she was young (15 or so, maybe less) living at home with much younger brothers. No-one should be surprised at this. The BNP were just acting like usual fascist scum – not the heroes Owens would like the reader to believe.

Owens ends this period with a claim that, after the BNP collapsed, “the owners” of News From Nowhere (ie 4 women) were beaten up in their shop, at night, by friends of his. “The owners” had apparently taken to sleeping there to stop fascist attacks. Owens writes how everyone was arrested, red-handed, but mysteriously no-one was charged. There are a few things that can be said about this – like how come no-one heard about this attack at the time? And how come no-one from News From Nowhere had any actual injuries? Fascist attacks on the bookshop – including arson – ended long before the BNP collapsed, as the BNP were forced onto the back foot. Shortly after the BNP collapse News From Nowhere moved from Whitechapel (near Victoria St) to Bold St. What Owens is actually describing is anyone’s guess. Fascist victory against “the reds”, at this time, I don’t think so.

I’ll end with one final point. Owens says he wrote this book as a response to the book ‘No Retreat’ – which deals with the many physical force defeats inflicted on violent fascists by Anti-Fascist Action and its predecessors. Owens, in the introduction, says he can’t believe the authors of ‘No Retreat’ hadn’t heard of him or the trouble he gave the left in the 1980s. So, you would expect Owens’ book to give an account of how Liverpool BNP whupped the collective ass of Liverpool AFA. Except he can’t say this as the total opposite occurred. In fact, the words “Anti-Fascist Action” never appear in Owens’ autobiography with regard to Liverpool. This is despite all the anarchist anti-fascism of the time – from the mid-1980s well into the mid-1990s – being under the AFA banner. Funny that.

An ex-AFA member.

FURTHER NOTE
This review has previously been sent to the Nerve magazine in Liverpool, and Kate Sharpley Library. As this is a review – a response to fascist writing – it is anti-copyright and may be distributed and re-published freely.

ACTION! RACE WAR TO DOOR WARS is available here

It’s an interesting video, andthe blog it’s posted on is not that bad either.

By Calvin Palmer

A white supremacist was convicted at the Old Bailey today of planning a terrorist campaign and turning his bedroom into a bomb-making factory.

Neil Lewington, 43, who lived at home with his parents in Reading, Berkshire, was arrested by chance at Lowestoft station in Suffolk on October 30 last year after he insulted a female train conductor and urinated on a platform.

The face of the 'Master Race': loser Neil Lewington. Picture courtesy of The Daily Telegraph.

The unemployed alcoholic electrician was planning to manufacture firebombs in tennis balls and target the homes of Asian families.

At the time of his arrest he was carrying two firebombs that would have exploded when primed.

Lewington was found guilty of having explosives with intent to endanger life and preparing for acts of terrorism. He will be sentenced on September 8.

Judge Peter Thornton said: “The likely outcome is a lengthy sentence of imprisonment.”

After his arrest, searches of Lewington’s home revealed a notebook entitled “Waffen SS UK members’ handbook” with a “device logbook” of drawings of electronics and chemical mixtures. The notebook also contained his boasts of two-man hit squads bombing the UK at random.

Weedkiller, firelighters, three tennis balls with diagrams on how to convert them into shrapnel bombs, firework powder, electrical timers and detonators were also found in his bedroom.

Brian Altman QC, prosecuting, said: “This man, who had strong if not fanatical right wing leanings and opinions, was on the cusp of embarking on a campaign of terrorism against those he considered non-British.

“The defendant had in his possession the component parts of two viable improvised incendiary devices.

“Later searches of the house where the defendant lived, in particular his own bedroom, revealed nothing short of a factory for the production of many such similar devices.”

The court was told Lewington had been unemployed for 10 years after being sacked from his last job for being drunk and spent much of his time searching for girlfriends on chatlines.

His relationships with women ended when he expressed his racist views.

One woman was put off by him when he said “the only good Paki was a dead Paki” and he would not hit a woman but would “make an exception for a Paki”, the court heard.

Another girlfriend said he spoke of making bombs and asked at which house in her street an Asian family lived.

Lewington was addicted to the computer game Resident Evil, which he played on his mobile phone, and had a picture on the phone which said:”100 per cent white and proud.”

He was obsessed with other racist attackers such as London nail bomber David Copeland, America’s Unabomber and Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Lewington said he was a member of the National Front and wanted the Ku Klux Klan brought back.

His mother, Margaret Lewington, said she would rarely go into his bedroom and he had put Blu-Tack over the keyhole.

“He was in a world of his own,” she said.

His father, Christopher Lewington, who works as a tanker driver, said he had not spoken to his son for 10 years.

In a statement read outside the court, Bethan David, of the Crown Prosecution Service’s counter-terror division, said: “While holding racist beliefs is not a crime, however distasteful they may be to most people, planning and preparing to attack or terrorize people with explosive devices is a criminal act.

“The material collected during the investigation, coupled with the nature of the devices that he had made, convinced us that Neil Lewington was a real threat not just to the people that he was targeting but to anyone in the vicinity had he succeeded in detonating his bombs. He had the knowledge and the will to cause destruction, injury and death.”

[Based on reports by The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian.]

Next Saturday will be Newcastle (Northern) Gay Pride.

We have learnt that the National Front will be confronting the march at some point along the route, so this is a call to everyone so that we can have the biggest anti-fascist turnout possible.

Thousands of the new Out Against the Nazis leaflets will be produced for the day, which is available for download in the right hand side column.
We are asking as many people as possible to join the OATN/UAF Contingent on the march to help hand out the leaflets and make sure the Nazis know we aren’t afraid of them and that we hate their message of homophobia.

We will be meeting at Newcastle Civic Centre at 11.30am, look out for the UAF North East Banner and the Out Against the Nazis Banner which hopefully will be ready for Saturday.

Cover, The Importance of Music to Girls

Last week, I was bestowed with a treasure. My friend Curran made me a two-volume mix CD, one of my favorite things to give and receive. I especially love Internal/External’s “Stepping Up to the Mic,” Yoko Ono and Cat Power’s “Revelations,” and Takaka Minekawa’s “Fantastic Cat,” which he selected specifically for my cat, Kozy. And he also reminded me that I should have been listening to Crass this whole time.

His mix came with a 20-page set of liner notes with lyrics, observations, and personal meanings for each song. Curran is a very thorough, thoughtful person who values homemade things and resistive, non-normative modes of expression. I had a dream that he wrote a 30-page essay on Shonen Knife for this blog’s “Records That Made Me a Feminist” section and have no doubt that he might. You should read it.

The week before that, I was bestowed with another treasure. My neighbor-friend Rosa-María left a clipping from Entertainment Weekly in my door, with the blurb for Lavinia Greenlaw’s The Importance of Music to Girls circled. So I picked up a copy (actually, Kristen got me a copy from the UT Library, as I hadn’t replaced my UT student ID yet). I had never heard of the author before and know very little about who she is as an author or what she means to her native England (I guess she’s a writer and teaches writing classes at the university level; thanks, Wikipedia). I wasn’t even sure what era this book was going to cover (luckily for me, she comes of age during the 1970s, a very interesting time for England and to me). Just as you do with a mix CD, you take your friend’s recommendations on faith and dive in.

Let me share with you now one of the best quotes I’ve ever read on the power of making mixes for people. Greenlaw’s words:

The greatest act of love was to make a tape for someone. It was the only way we could share music and it was also a way of advertising yourself. Selection, order, the lettering you used for the track list, how much technical detail you went into, whether or not you added artwork and no tracklist at all, these choices were as codified as a Victorian bouquet.

Yes, exactly. This quote has new resonance for me after making mix CDs for 50 GRCA campers. I hope they take the blank, one-color paper sleeves and make something completely their own out of them.

Now, the task of writing a review for the book poses a challenge. Its use-value is a little hard to determine. It’s a memoir. So, if you know about Greenlaw and care about her artfully written recollections of coming of age, then this is a good book. But if you don’t know Greenlaw, or have much invested in the place and time in which she comes of age, you might feel like you’re grasping for straws.

But I appreciated Greenlaw’s willingness to recollect events, political movements, personal activities, rituals, and practices as means of identification. She erects collages clipped and ripped and taped and pasted from magazines that constantly shift and mutate her bedroom’s landscape. She laquers her flipped hair and eyelids and straps on platform shoes to go to discos with girlfriends. She recounts the Queen’s Silver Jubilee and the Sex Pistols antics from the safe distance of her neighborhood and television. She starts listening to “hippie” records (ex: Santana, Genesis) because of a boy, who later accidentally leaves a crate of records for her on the tube when they meet up again as adults (with her partner and child in tow). She goes to concerts with friends. She visits a friend in the hospital after a suicide attempt. She makes and unmakes girl friendships. She renounces punk for new wave because she thinks the subgenre mirrors her affinity for Russian literature and Gauloises. She loves reading and writing, but hates school. She roadtrips to Ohio because she loves Devo. She thinks about Thatcherism and the National Front alongside the Pop Group’s second album, For How Much Longer Do We Tolerate Mass Murder?, though didn’t put them together at the time (which, seriously, a book that reminds me to throw that record on is a good book by my definition). She cuts her girlfriend’s hair at a party. She constantly dyes and cuts and grows out and re-dyes her own hair.

In short, she constantly changes and renegotiates who she is, configuring herself always in a state of becoming, even after she’s transitioned out of her teenage years.

Putting all of this into a broader context, she’s very easily the type of girl British cultural theorists like Angela McRobbie were later devoting books and articles to, helping to build girls studies programs in the process. McRobbie’s girls tended to be bookish, middle-class in an increasingly impoverished country, rebellious but well-behaved, mercurial and fidgety and looking for their place in music culture and their piece of the street. But this girl, Lavinia, wasn’t theoretical. She was real, and, as an adult, created a document as filled with history and reference and memory and meaning as any good homemade mix. Her book is worth a look and a listen.

(I shall start controversially – ) Modern day Francoist Daniel Hannan said today in his blog regarding the pro-Euro bias of the Financial Times and his reaction to their assumption that the BNP takes votes from the Tories;

“How often do we have to go through this? Even the New Statesman admits that the BNP is to the Left of Labour.”

How to define the politics of the BNP is talk of the day, and in the blog world has Tim Montgomerie (amongst others, Hannan included) saying the BNP are “if not a Far-Left political organisation, then one that should not be identified as belonging to the Far-Right.” Montgomerie had planned to write a letter to the BBC asking for it to properly define the BNP. On the other side, Sunny Hundal – blogger of the year – has said he too will draft a letter explaining why the BNP is far-right (although nothing has been written as yet).

I, writing on the comment section of Liberal Conspiracy, offered this to the debate;