Donate | Sussex Against Privatization →
sussexagainstprivatization.wordpress.com
Hardship fund for possible industrial action against privatisation.
May 2013
1 post
April 2013
3 posts
Unemployed Black Woman Pretends to be White, Job Offers Suddenly Skyrocket
- November 15, 2012 | Filed under: BizTechNews | Posted by: bowatkin If you don’t believe that racism in the job market is real, then please read this article by Yolanda Spivey. Spivey, who was seeking work in the insurance industry, found that she wasn’t getting any job offers. But as an experiment, she changed her name to Bianca White, to see if employers would respond differently. You’ll be shocked and amazed by her phenomenal story.
- Yolanda Spivey Writes:
- First, I created an email account and resume for Bianca. I kept the same employment history and educational background on her resume that was listed on my own. But I removed my home phone number, kept my listed cell phone number, and changed my cell phone greeting to say, “You have reached Bianca White. Please leave a message.” Then I created an online Monster.com account, listed Bianca as a White woman on the diversity questionnaire, and activated the account.
- That very same day, I received a phone call. The next day, my phone line and Bianca’s email address, were packed with potential employers calling for an interview. I was stunned. More shocking was that some employers, mostly Caucasian-sounding women, were calling Bianca more than once, desperate to get an interview with her. All along, my real Monster.com account was open and active; but, despite having the same background as Bianca, I received no phone calls.
NY state senator testifies that the NYPD commissioner wanted to use stop-and-frisk to "instill fear" in Black and Latino men →
guardian.co.uk
This is the third time I’ve seen this story today and it never has enough notes.
The word really needs to get out on this.
March 2013
3 posts
Public Shaming: Wondering what movie to see this weekend? Look no further than the... →
publicshaming.tumblr.com
Wondering what movie to see this weekend? Look no further than the film about North Korean terrorists invading the White House, Olympus Has Fallen!
What’s that you say? Oh, you’re one of those people who need to hear some reviews first? Not to worry! These fellow movie goers’ tweets are sure to…
FFS, America.
Labour's attempts to co-opt grassroots resistance to the bedroom tax
So Labour have been trying to hop on the bandwagon following months of organising on Merseyside against the bedroom tax. This is pretty much to be expected and has been covered quite well by others:
- http://infantile-disorder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/bedroom-tax-labour-seek-to-police.html
- http://anarchobastard.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/labour-party-fails-to-co-opt-grass-roots-anti-bedroom-tax-campaigns-in-liverpool/
What I didn’t expect, however, was what happened in Wallasey when we started arranging organising meetings here. A room was booked in a pub for a tenants’ meeting for the purposes of organising community resistance. I know this because I arranged the venue myself, about a week later, however, I was forwarded some emails written by the treasurer of the local Constituency Labour Party claiming that the meeting had been “organised by our Liscard cllrs in partnership with Unite the Union.”
On contacting members of the Wirral Unite Community Branch, I was told that this was news to them as much as me. The local Labour Party appear to be ignoring emails reminding them that the meeting was not organised by them and that they have no right to claim that it has been. I expect the Labour Party to attempt to co-opt grassroots anger for their own ends, that’s basically what they’re for, but this is cheek on the level of pissing through somebody’s letterbox and then asking how far it went.
Needless to say, any councillors who turn up at our meeting expecting to be allowed to take charge are in for a hell of a shock.
January 2013
6 posts
“
I’d like you to remember the last time you found it difficult to give an explicit “no” to somebody in a non-sexual context. Maybe they asked you to do them a favour, or to join them for a drink. Did you speak up and say, outright, “No?” Did you apologise for your “no?” Did you qualify it and say, “Oh, I’m sorry, I can’t make it today?” If you gave an outright “no,” what privileged positions do you occupy in society, and how does your answer differ from the answers of people occupying more marginalised positions?
This form of refusal was analysed in 1999 by Kitzinger and Frith (K&F) in Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal. Despite the seeming ambiguity in question/refusal acts like, “We were wondering if you wanted to come over Saturday for dinner,” “Well, uhh, it’d be great but we promised Carol already,” they are widely understood by the participants as straightforward refusals.
K&F conclude by saying that, “For men to claim [in a sexual context] that they do not ‘understand’ such refusals to be refusals (because, for example, they do not include the word ‘no’) is to lay claim to an astounding and implausible ignorance of normative conversational patterns.”
” —Under Duress: Agency, Power, and Consent
Like I’ve said before. There’s no excuse.
(via home-of-amazons)
Combatting the bedroom tax on Merseyside →
libcom.org
It’s been 12 days since a public meeting was held in Liverpool to decide what do about the Bedroom Tax. The overwhelming response from the packed out tenants meeting was one of militant resistance. Since then, tenant meetings have been set up across Liverpool to network social housing tenants against a shocking attack on the welfare of the working class.
The Bedroom Tax affects nearly 700,000 people nationwide; many will be expected to uproot their families, move away from their communities, their support networks and downsize to properties that simply do not exist; those who decide to stay will be constantly battling to make up the shortfall in rent. This should not be a question of move or stay; it should be about refusing to pay the tax, full stop.
Yet, State and landlord ultimatums of ‘stay & pay’ or ‘move’ have disempowered tenants and landed the blame of a fictitious housing crisis at their doorsteps. Housing Associations (HA’s) wasted time lobbying a political Men’s club immersed in escalating the divide between the rich and the poor. Instead of flatly rejecting the Bedroom Tax in defence of tenants, HA’s petitioned those in power to be ‘reasonable’ —a petition that smacked of complicity. That complicity continues as HA’s now prepare to implement and collect the Bedroom Tax for their own ends and the governments.
Social Housing is being privatised; it’s written all over the faces of the ministers and chief executives who in the same turn ‘console’ tenants who are self-evicting or who will eventually be evicted. This is nothing other than contempt for tenants and we, as tenants, must make a stand against this contemptible tax and its architects.
We argue that a stand now against the Bedroom Tax, based on solidarity and direct action, will put down roots of resistance to allow us to better defend ourselves against a broader attack that extends well beyond 2013. Refusing to pay is a big step for tenants to take, but by standing together we will be stronger and can support each other. If we do nothing now, the repercussions of the Bedroom Tax will cause greater hardship & increased evictions in the run-up to the implementation of Universal Credit.
Let’s show the government, housing associations, collection officers and bailiffs that we won’t be fucked with.
combatbedroomtax@gmail.com
Guardian: UK Border Agency rejects calls to stop using force on pregnant detainees →
guardian.co.uk
The UK Border Agency has rejected a call by prison inspectors to stop using force on pregnant women and children it is trying to remove from the UK, according to an internal government document seen by the Guardian.
The document contains UKBA’s response to recommendations for improvement at the government’s new child detention facility, Cedars, near Gatwick airport, by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons.
Inspectors said force should never be used to effect the removal of pregnant women or children but UKBA has written “reject” alongside this recommendation, saying that without it removals could be delayed, leading families to strengthen their ties with the UK.
November 2012
5 posts
By Strategy: Five Reasons Why The Fight Against Pret A Manger Really Matters →
by-strategy.tumblr.com
Today Solidarity Federation, Bloomsbury Fightback and a number of other groups have called for a solidarity protest over the continued harrassment of two of their workers involved in union activity, Andrej and Rodrigo. These two workers established the Pret A Manger Staff Union and for…
the present conditions: Listen, liberal! →
thepresentconditions.tumblr.com
If your first thought on seeing MP Mike Weatherley running for safety on Sussex Uni Campus earlier today was “but what about free speech!”, then you’re wrong. Here’s why.
First, this is not a debate. The law abolishing centuries-old squatters rights has already passed. The time for…
Pro-choice protest at Irish embassy in London TONIGHT 14/11/12 →
feministevents.blogspot.co.uk
Protest in response to the easily avoidable death of Savita Halappanavar. 6pm, at 17 Grosvenor Place, SW1X 7HR
I can’t be there since it’s kind of a bit short notice for me to get to London, but I’d urge anybody who can to go.
Thoughts on recent discussions around privilege
The recent discussions around the AF Women’s Caucuses’ discussion document A Class Struggle Analysis of Privilege Theory have been at turns interesting, repetitive and incredibly frustrating. I have followed the discussion within the AF itself and on public forums and thought I’d throw together a few thoughts on the discussion so far. The following does not represent a single coherent argument, just my immediate reactions to arguments I have seen or heard either in face to face meetings or on various bits of the interblag, it is written entirely in a personal capacity and does not represent a response or a position from the AF or any group within the AF.
Why does privilege matter?
As several people have pointed out, “privilege” is not a theory in itself. We can talk about the theory of privilege in the sense of how we theorise privilege, but privilege does not represent a unified body of thought and use of the term does not necessarily imply any particular political position.
So what is privilege? Not a theory, but a fact of life in any society based on oppression and exploitation. Privilege is a term that allows us to talk about the material factors that may lead to particular sections of the working class aligning themselves with capital against other sections of the class.
In recent discussions within the AF on picket lines and strikes, several people raised the issue of reactionary strikes. It seemed that everybody agreed that it was acceptable to cross a picket line if the demands of a strike were racist, as with the dockers for Enoch Powell, or sexist, as with the trade unions’ historical role in trying to force women out of workplaces, however, no satisfactory conclusion was ever reached on:
-
Why white or male workers sometimes take part in these reactionary actions, which further divide the class and;
-
Exactly what the definition of a “reactionary strike” should be.
I would argue that privilege, as a concept, is hugely useful in answering both points.
-
Within the zero sum game that capitalism forces us all to play, white workers and male workers are both privileged in the sense that they are paid more than their non-white or female counterparts and enjoy a certain level of social power over these groups. The desire to defend this privilege from anything that might threaten it lead workers who happen to be white/male to identify not just as workers, but specifically as white workers/male workers, with distinct interests as white or male.
-
A strike is reactionary where it seeks to defend the privileges of a particular section of the working class.
We aim for working class unity. This unity does not exist a priori as a part of the working class’ social position, rather it is something that we struggle for, something that we have to create through organisation and agitation. Overcoming divisions within the class is vital, but cannot happen unless we recognise and deal with the material basis of those divisions, privilege gives us a name for this, it allows us to talk about the ways in which sections of the class come to see themselves as possessing distinct interests apart from those of the wider class.
‘An individual approach’
Some people responding to the privilege discussion document have argued that an analysis that accounts for privilege will inherently be an individualist (and hence liberal) analysis.
The extent to which this is true is pretty questionable. Privilege isn’t just something that comes into play when looking at the relations between individuals. How many times have we all heard some reactionary bemoan the fact that immigrants of one sort or another are taking up resources (jobs, public services, housing) that they see themselves as entitled to by virtue of the place of birth? These reactionaries are well aware of the privilege they enjoy as British citizens (a social group that they strongly identify with, not simply a collection of individuals), and will often fight to defend it.
Even so, sometimes we need an individual approach. People from oppressed groups of varying stripes have reported experiencing a range of seriously problematic behaviours from individuals within the movement that have led to their feeling marginalised or unsafe. For example, far too many women in the movement report being at the receiving end of condescension, dismissal, sexual harassment and even sexual assault or rape from their male counterparts. If we want women, queers, people of colour, disabled people, etc. to be a part of our movement, then we need to tackle this behaviour head on as it is happening. It is simply not enough to tell comrades suffering marginalisation and violence in the here and now that it will all be better after the revolution, when the structural basis of their oppression will be removed.
Where we have individuals who are behaving in such a way that they make others feel marginalised or unsafe and we do nothing, we are effectively allowing those individuals to drive people out of the movement. Whether or it is a political movement, a social scene or a pub, people simply do not stay where they feel unwelcome or unsafe. This doesn’t mean we should be policing every little misstep or accidental use of problematic language within the movement, but it does mean that when a given individual’s behaviour reaches a point where it is having a serious effect on others, those individuals need to be held to account. It also means that we need to try to pre-empt these situations by taking a collective approach, coming to an understanding about what attitudes and behaviours reinforce oppression and trying to avoid them.
Class, oppression and exploitation
Much has been made of the document’s description of class as being one of many oppressions. The argument has been put forward that class is fundamentally different to patriarchy, racism, heteronormativity, ableism, etc. because is is based on exploitation, rather than oppression.
This seems a little arbitrary, since much of what we call oppression is deeply exploitative in the sense of being a means for capital to extract surplus value. Were the Africans brought to America as slaves not exploited? What about housewives, who carry out the vital role of reproducing labour for no wage at all? Undocumented workers who carry out dirty, dangerous work for next to no pay under the threat of deportation? Clearly we are talking about exploitation mediated through race, gender and nationality.
Class may well be fundamentally different to gender, race, sexuality, ability and the rest, but it is not different because it is exploitative, exploitation is a common feature across many differing forms of oppression.
So how is class different? Capital is driven to extract surplus value, to exploit us. We call the struggle against this exploitation the class struggle. Oppression is both a means by which we are exploited and something that divides us in our struggle against exploitation, wherever we struggle against a form of oppression that affects a section of our class, we are participating in the class struggle. In this sense, class is all-encompassing, as argued by the original document.
Visualising oppression
It has been pointed out that it doesn’t make sense, strictly speaking, to talk of class both being all-encompassing and as intersecting, we usually do not talk about something that encompasses all other things intersecting with them. Intersectionality is, of course, a visual metaphor and consequently will never be a perfect representation of complex social realities, but perhaps we can attempt to find a more fitting metaphor.
In trying to represent intersectionality visually, we might try to draw a Venn diagram of various oppressions:
This is flawed in several ways. It does not allow for a situation where e.g. gender and ability intersect but sexuality is not a major factor, such as gendered access to healthcare services (though of course whether or not sexuality is a major factor may vary depending on race and geography). However, it does provide us with a starting point.
Perhaps we could take the notion of “axes of oppression” a little more literally, seeing them as actual axes which mark positions of social power. So we might have:
Or:
Or:
With positions along these axes representing relationships to different sorts of social power and class representing the entire space in which they exist. Immediately we hit a problem, there are so many axes we could potentially represent (on top of those already represented) that we are now trying to visualise class as a space with enough dimensions to make a string theorist go for a lie down in a dark room. While this metaphor represents the sort of analysis we may want to depict quite well, it is actually incredibly difficult to visualise as a whole picture.
There is a further problem in reducing each “oppression” to a single one dimensional axis. Oppressions themselves are multi-dimensional, with multiple, complex factors interacting with each other.
Surprisingly, it may well be impossible to construct a simple, accurate, visual metaphor that accounts for the full complexity of social relations and all forms of oppression. However, this sort of visualisation does allow us to think about class as a social field in which multiple oppressions interact a little more easily. Class, basically, is a big ball of wibbily-wobbly exploity-oppressy stuff.
September 2012
2 posts
Queers Against Cuts mistreatment at Brighton Pride - statement from organiser →
bethgranter.com
I didn’t write this, but thought it needed sharing as widely as possible. This is one of the worst instances of Pride officials and police collaborating in attacking radical groups at Pride I’ve ever heard of. Full solidarity with Queers Against Cuts.
“I formally registered the walking group Queers Against Cuts for the Brighton Pride Parade in July, paying the £60 fee out of my own pocket and from a donation from a ocal trade union. Members of the group were invited from local political groups trade unions and activist communities, to march in solidarity together against government cuts to public services and jobs. Pride began in Stonewall in 1969 as a protest against police harassment of gay and trans people in New York. As Government cuts to jobs and public services are affecting LGBTQ people disproportionately, for many reasons, this is an important reason for us to march against cuts in pride today. In my application email I explained that we would be a collective of different groups and individuals marching together, to check that this was acceptable with Pride organisers, and my application was accepted. On Thursday 30 August I was sent the parade running order (read that here: 2012 Parade Lamp Post Order) and we were pleased to discover we’d be between the National Union of Teachers, who also had an anti-cuts theme, and performance group Champagne Anarchists, at post 50.
Last Wednesday I received a call from Trevor Edwards pride organiser, who informed me the police had been in touch with concerns about our group being a protest. Trevor said he had reassured the police we were all formally registered and there was no reason to treat us differently.
Last Thursday I received a call from the Police Protest Liaison Officer PC Frank to introduce herself and to say good luck with our banner making (i.e. to let me know she was reading our Facebook Group) and to ask for my email to send me information (which hasn’t arrived yet). I explained I had formally registered the group for the parade with no need for different treatment from the other groups.
Today I turned up to register and collected my number 50 sign. Here I was told we’d been moved to the back, but as they didn’t know why and didn’t have the paperwork for number 58, they said we could stay in our original position and they would inform the mayor the order was as originally planned when we went past.
So we all got together behind NUT at point 50 who were pleased we were marching with them and we shared accessories!
Then a Pride Organiser came and told us we were in the wrong position and had to move to the back. I informed him that the registration people had said we could stay where we were, showed him my official ’50 sign so he went away.
Another Pride Organiser came and I explained again and he said we were fine where we were and could stay.
Another Pride Organiser came and said we had to move back, and when we asked why, became very aggessive and threatened if we didn’t move we would get thrown off the parade. I asked him to check with the previous organisers who had said we could stay.
Then a police officer came with the final Pride Organiser and said we had all been thrown off the march and had to be removed. At this point I broke down in tears as I had put so much hard work into organising the group. At this point I asked everybody to move to the back but was told we still couldn’t join the parade.
Then Caroline Lucas from the Green Party came and spoke to the police and Pride Organisers in solidarity with us. Finally we were allowed to march.
About 100 yards into the march on Marine Parade some latecomers to our group arrived, including a breast-feeding woman with her baby and others with children. I was told by the Pride Organiser that if I didn’t make them leave our whole group would be blocked. I explained I couldn’t force people to go anywhere. Suddenly a row of police on horseback and foot ran into the middle of our group, and I was told I had to personally identify who was officially in the group to be let through. As this was mainly organised online I didn’t know everybody’s faces. I managed to get most people out of the kettle but around 15 people were left behind. Again I was in tears and others were close to it, having been part of the group organising from the start and suddenly kettled for no reason.
Finally we continued to march. Throughout the parade any friends or latecomers who tried to join us were pulled from the parade by police. I managed to identify some friends to keep them in with us but others were blocked from joining us I’m very hurt and upset at how I was treated and spoken to by Pride, how the rest of the group were treated, how we were given no reason for our sudden relegation to the back, and our mistreatment by the police. Being surrounded by police on horses and on foot was unnecessary and too heavy handed. I was told other latecomers were allowed to join other groups such as The Conservatives. I believe the only reason we were treated this way is because we had political banners which challenged the status quo of a corporate sponsorship of Pride, and it has really shown the lack of political solidarity from Pride Organisers.
This is my personal statement of my experience but I will be writing a formal statement from the Socialist Party of which I am a member, and asking groups and individuals to sign it once I get chance.
Well, this has inspired me to make the group bigger and even more organised next year! Who’s with me?”
August 2012
19 posts
“Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan’s speech at the RNC was interrupted by two CODEPINK activists calling for reproductive rights and funding for healthcare, not warfare. Retired Colonel Ann Wright, who served 29 years in the US military, took Ryan to task for his budget priorities, shouting “Fund Healthcare not Warfare!” and unfurling a banner with the same message. Laura Mills, 21-year-old recent college graduate, focused on Ryan’s anti-women policies, shouting “My body, my choice!” and her banner read, “Vagina. Can’t say it? Don’t legislate it.” Their words stopped Ryan’s speech.”
—
[NB: Ryan’s policies affect more people than just cis women.]
(via keepyourbsoutofmyuterus)
“
Radical feminist writers’ work is never supposed to be “met” on its own terms, by the reader; there is no imperative on privileged people to do their homework, so to speak, before approaching the radical woman’s material—inside or outside the academy. However, whole college courses and books for Dummies exist to help us with the basic concepts and framework, the analysis, the terminology of the “great and influential ideas” of dead white men; I’ve read several of them. If I’m in the academy and I don’t get it, I am advised to take the intro course again, or to please stop wasting everyone’s time with my misunderstandings and inaccurate interpretations. I might be advised to speak with someone “in the know” before approaching the great white man’s work again. And if I do, I will be asked to metaphorically remove my shoes before entering.
From Plato to Derrida, if you are not familiar with the framework or philosophy—and sometimes also the non-English language—the usually European man’s great mind is operating out of or critiquing, the failure to comprehend the material belongs to you. With women writers, the failure to comprehend is placed back on the author. The dog-shit on the soles of anyone’s shoes may be wiped on the feminist soul’s work, and too often, no one will notice or care.
” —Over Her Dead Body: How Ariel Levy Smears the Ashes of Andrea Dworkin by Julian Real
Britain threatens to storm Ecuador embassy to get Assange →
latestnews.thefiscaltimes.com
Naked, racist imperialism.
QUITO/LONDON (Reuters) – The diplomatic standoff over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange escalated on Wednesday after Britain threatened to raid Ecuador’s embassy in London if Quito did not hand over Assange, who has been taking refuge there for two months.
The Ecuadorean government said such an action would be considered a “hostile and intolerable act” as well as a violation of its sovereignty.
“Under British law we can give them a week’s notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection,” a Foreign Office spokesman said.
“But that decision has not yet been taken. We are not going to do this overnight. We want to stress that we want a diplomatically agreeable solution.”
Quito bristled at the threat and said it would announce its decision on Assange’s asylum request on Thursday at 7 a.m. (1200 GMT).
“We want to be very clear, we’re not a British colony. The colonial times are over,” Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said in an angry statement after a meeting with President Rafael Correa.
“The move announced in the official British statement, if it happens, would be interpreted by Ecuador as an unfriendly, hostile and intolerable act, as well as an attack on our sovereignty, which would force us to respond in the strongest diplomatic way,” Patino told reporters.
Ecuador, whose government is part of a left-leaning bloc of nations in South America, called for meetings of regional foreign ministers and the hemispheric Organization of American States to rally support in its complaint against Britain.
“We are deeply shocked by British government’s threats against the sovereignty of the Ecuadorean Embassy and their suggestion that they may forcibly enter the embassy,” the mission said on its website.
“This is a clear breach of international law and the protocols set out in the Vienna Convention.”
The embassy, near London’s famed Harrods department store, was under tight surveillance, with three police officers manning the entrance and several others patrolling around the red-brick building.
A group of Assange supporters who responded to a rallying call by WikiLeaks on Twitter gathered outside to demand Assange’s freedom and streamed the scene live on the Internet.
“We have been here day in day out as a vigil to make sure there is at least a witness to all of this,” said Anthony, one of the supporters.
WikiLeaks earlier tweeted saying, “If police storms, they will do so in early hours of the morning. Please stay, & those who can, go to the embassy and #ProtectAssange”.
assange is a rapist, why the fuck would you want to protect him?
THIS. Fuck Assange, I’d no sooner support a rapist than a scab or a fascist.
Pussy Riot case - Grauniad live blog →
guardian.co.uk
The Graun has a pretty handy live blog on the Pussy Riot case. The band have been found guilty of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” (such utter bullshit) no sentence announced at time of writing. Heavy police repression against protesters outside court.
Edit: They’ve been given two years each, ludicrous!
Pussy Riot seem to have inspired some pretty creative solidarity protests internationally, if nothing else the Russian state’s decision to make an example of Pussy Riot has backfired badly.
Solidarity with Pussy Riot and all victims of police brutality!
Look, I think we can all agree that Julian Assange’s prosecution for rape is unfair. Of course he deserves equal treatment under the law. We need to fix this. Fortunately, feminists have been working on a plan to do just that since before the man was even born.
The plan goes like this: all the other rapists should face consequences, too.
^Sounds like a plan to me.
Anarchists Detained by Counter-Terrorist Police on Return from Swiss Conference →
afed.org.uk
For the past week, thousands of anarchists from across Europe have been converging in St.Imier, Switzerland to celebrate the 140th anniversary of the founding of the Anarchist international. The gathering took the form of a festival and educational, with music, films and entertainment as well as workshops and discussions.
On returning from the St Imier gathering, two anarchists, one a member of the UK Anarchist Federation, were detained for nearly two hours at Heathrow by SO15 (counter-terrorist) police. During the detention, the anarchists were told that their normal rights did not apply, and had their names, addresses, email addresses, DNA and fingerprints taken. The detained anarchists were also forced to sign forms – which may or may not be legal – waiving their rights to silence and a solicitor. Police also conducted a thorough search of personal possessions, photocopied literature and passports and took information from phones and cameras.
During the detention, the police constantly accused the anarchists of lying about involvement in criminal activity and alleged that they would be conducting follow-up police action against one of the detained anarchists. In addition to this, SO15 officers asked a number of inflammatory, irrelevant and offensive questions, including ‘what would you do if someone raped your mother?’ evidently in an attempt to cause emotional upset and illicit angry or violent responses. One member (28) who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals from the police, said “We were treated like criminals. I told them I went to the congress as I am an amateur journalist and I write articles about activism. They saw my note book, camera and Dictaphone but they said I was lying. One officer said ‘You said you are an anarchist, I’ve seen anarchists on the news, they are violent, throw molotov cocktails and disrupt people’s lives not write articles’”.
The counter terrorist officers either didn’t know or chose to ignore that, during the first day of the gathering, the International of Anarchist Federations (Of which the UK Anarchist Federation is a member) had issued a statement rejecting all terrorist tactics as a means of achieving an anarchist society.
In contrast to the actions of the UK security forces, the local press and residents in St.Imier reported very positively on the anarchist gathering.
With this incident, we are seeing a further slide towards political policing and the criminalisation of political ideologies. The two detained anarchists have not had any involvement in any illegal or violent activity, or any activity that would concern the counter-terrorist police. As in the past, when Metropolitan police called on people to give information about local anarchists, anarchists suffered harassment for their political viewpoint.
As class-struggle anarchists, we believe that the state does little except serve the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary people. This is seen clearly when people who hold views critical of the state are treated as criminals and terrorists. We seek to create a classless society, based on freedom, equality and co-operation. We believe in the capacity of ordinary people to run society themselves, without the interference of bosses or politicians. This incident was not in response to any crime and constitutes repression and criminalisation of a political ideology.
“As it turned out, our performance, at first a small and somewhat absurd act, snowballed into an enormous catastrophe. This would obviously not happen in a healthy society. Russia, as a state, has long resembled an organism sick to the core. And the sickness explodes out into the open when you rub up against its inflamed abscesses.”
—Maria Alyokhina, one of the three Pussy Riot defendents (via http://nplusonemag.com/pussy-riot-closing-statements)
an actual thing my thirteen year old brother just said
- if girls are asking to be raped because their clothes don't completely cover all of their bodies, then boys are asking to be kicked in the balls just because they don't wear cups everywhere.
Olenska: Yekaterina Samutsevich closing statement at the Pussy Riot Trial →
olenskae.tumblr.com
Yekaterina Samutsevich’s closing statement in the criminal case against the feminist punk group Pussy Riot:
During the closing statement, the defendant is expected to repent or express regret for her deeds, or to enumerate attenuating circumstances. In my case, as in the case of my…
Cameron bitches about Indian dance, because he's totally not a racist piece of shit →
guardian.co.uk
So apparently only competetive sport counts now.
The first thing that struck me was the collossal racism and ignorance at the heart of using Indian dance as an example of something kids shouldn’t be doing. Indian dance isn’t something I know much about but I have to ask, what’s so fundamentally different about it that it deserves that extra special bit of derision compared to, say, dance in general?
The second thing was actually what I presume to be the main point of what Cameron was saying - that the purpose of PE should be to teach kids to compete with each other. What we are seeing is an ideological attack both on children’s health and on the idea that we should socialise kids to to co-operate with each other. In that fairly short statement is the implication that we shouldn’t encourage kids to exercise because they might enjoy it or because it promotes their physical and mental well being, but because they should learn to compete with each other and put themselves above everybody else. A real effort is being made to do down any kind of co-operation or collective identity that isn’t mediated through nationalism or profit making enterprises like corporate sports events like the olympics.
Basically, the ruling class don’t give a fuck about children, to these bastards children are proto-units of labour and a political football to be kicked around whenever convenient rather than human beings in their own right. Not surprising, but always worth pointing out.
Shoplifting (why lefties should support it and some handy hints) →
anarchist-theft.net
- Shoplifting is MORE ACCESSIBLE than the world of big business: anyone can do it, and many of the people whom big business usually shits on (parents with prams and wheelchair- bound, for example) have a positive advantage.
- Shoplifting is LESS IMMORAL than big business: it doesn’t exploit workers, kill animals, destroy rain forests or give cancer to children
- Shoplifting is MORE HONEST than big business: shoplifters don’t pretend to be providing a public service, they don’t creat artificial shortages, nor do they invent myths of fashion or style.
- Shoplifting is illegal, but SO ARE MOST THINGS THAT DAMAGE PROFITS: armed insurrection, industrial sabotage, most strikes and many demonstrations, are illegal, but this doesn’t prevent them getting widespread support from lefties.
“The feminist question is not whether you, as an individual woman, can escape women’s place, but whether it is socially necessary that there will always be somebody in the position you, however temporarily, escaped from *and that someone will be a woman*. You can’t claim to speak for 53 percent of the population and support changes for a few.”
—
Catherine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Harvard University Press, 1987), p31
[emphasis original]
How to like problematic things
- know they’re problematic
- know why they’re problematic
- don’t dismiss people’s feelings/dissatisfaction with them
- don’t silence people when they’re talking about the problems in your media, because your enjoyment is not more important than that discussion.
Congratulations, you’ve reached the minimum level of decency for being a person who enjoys things that might be problematic.
I will not be handing you a cookie.
July 2012
8 posts
http://www.rt.com/news/london-police-olympics-arrests-269/ →
rt.com
I’d probably enjoy the Olympics more if it were more about awesome things like cool sports and international cooperation and less about rubbish things like profiteering, censorship and horrible police brutality.
killallthemensandmakeintocatfood: vegans-are-healthy Yes, I’m not going to judge someone if they have no... →
killallthemensandmakeintocatfood.tumblr.com
killallthemensandmakeintocatfood:
Yes, I’m not going to judge someone if they have no control over how they’re going to eat. Honestly, I’m not so sure those people were interested in hearing out my rationality and were going to turn vegan today. It’s sort of like politics that way, very…
Antifascist solidarity needed in Liverpool on Saturday 21st of July →
liveraf.wordpress.com
Far right groups are threatening a march against racism and fascism in Liverpool. They are falsely accusing the James Larkin society of being IRA in order to justify this. The fact that IRA haven’t actually existed for quite some time seems to have passed these fascist fuck knuckles by.
This.
killallthemensandmakeintocatfood:
are you really bisexual?
Prove it, complete this bisexual obstacle course
omg can I please?
that sounds fun
Like some kind of bisexual Wipeout
Innit though :[ lol
All the this.
“You may have heard that because of funding issues, Pride London have made a number of changes to this year’s World Pride 2012 on Saturday 7th July.
Ju Gosling (Co-Chair) says: “Over the past few years, Pride organisers have consistently removed the ‘reasonable adjustments’ that the old democratic Pride London organisation put in place during the 1990s to enable disabled LGBT people to participate on equal terms, although Regard has campaigned tirelessly to raise Pride’s awareness about the importance of these. We have also continually offered to fundraise to meet the costs of the access arrangements and to work alongside Pride to implement them, as we used to do in the past.
Despite this the access arrangements have become poorer each year, and we have faced considerable hostility from the Pride directors as well as being misled on a number of occasions. For example, last year we were told that Westminster Council had refused permission for Blue Badge parking, when in fact they had never been asked. We have reported on these problems for many years in our Annual Reports and we have also produced a Pride Access Guide to show the sorts of things that are needed to create a truly accessible Pride: these are available on our website at www.regard.org.uk
Having had no contact from the Pride organisers at all this year, and with no access information appearing on their website until 28th June (after a disability journalist telephoned them), Regard took the decision some months ago to pull out of Pride and concentrate on our own activities. This was on the basis that we had no confidence in their ability to deliver an accessible and inclusive event, and that the health and safety of disabled people could not be guaranteed.
We would also question why the responsibility for the current crisis is being laid at the feet of the funders and regulatory bodies? Regard warned funders and sponsors last autumn that we did not believe the current directors to be capable of delivering World Pride, and so it has proved. We will be in exactly the same position again next year if real change is not achieved now, and as above Regard welcomes the TUC’s promise to hold a meeting where the whole community can be represented as soon as possible. Regard believes that real community engagement with Pride has been absent for far too long, and welcomes all moves towards the return of the old democratic structure. We would like to see membership of Pride open to all again, with annual elections, open meetings, and the restoration of the old sub-committees where directors met regularly with relevant community representations to look at issues around inclusion.” —Regard statement on why they are boycotting World Pride London.
Ju Gosling (Co-Chair) says: “Over the past few years, Pride organisers have consistently removed the ‘reasonable adjustments’ that the old democratic Pride London organisation put in place during the 1990s to enable disabled LGBT people to participate on equal terms, although Regard has campaigned tirelessly to raise Pride’s awareness about the importance of these. We have also continually offered to fundraise to meet the costs of the access arrangements and to work alongside Pride to implement them, as we used to do in the past.
Despite this the access arrangements have become poorer each year, and we have faced considerable hostility from the Pride directors as well as being misled on a number of occasions. For example, last year we were told that Westminster Council had refused permission for Blue Badge parking, when in fact they had never been asked. We have reported on these problems for many years in our Annual Reports and we have also produced a Pride Access Guide to show the sorts of things that are needed to create a truly accessible Pride: these are available on our website at www.regard.org.uk
Having had no contact from the Pride organisers at all this year, and with no access information appearing on their website until 28th June (after a disability journalist telephoned them), Regard took the decision some months ago to pull out of Pride and concentrate on our own activities. This was on the basis that we had no confidence in their ability to deliver an accessible and inclusive event, and that the health and safety of disabled people could not be guaranteed.
We would also question why the responsibility for the current crisis is being laid at the feet of the funders and regulatory bodies? Regard warned funders and sponsors last autumn that we did not believe the current directors to be capable of delivering World Pride, and so it has proved. We will be in exactly the same position again next year if real change is not achieved now, and as above Regard welcomes the TUC’s promise to hold a meeting where the whole community can be represented as soon as possible. Regard believes that real community engagement with Pride has been absent for far too long, and welcomes all moves towards the return of the old democratic structure. We would like to see membership of Pride open to all again, with annual elections, open meetings, and the restoration of the old sub-committees where directors met regularly with relevant community representations to look at issues around inclusion.” —Regard statement on why they are boycotting World Pride London.
