Are we alone in the universe?

4 essential reads on potential contact with aliens
The Conversation
August 4, 2023

This image released by NASA on July 12, 2022 from the James Webb Space Telescope shows the edge of a young, star-forming region called NGC 3324 in the Carina Nebula. © Handout, NASA, AFP

The House subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs met in July 2023 to discuss affairs so foreign that they may not even be of this world. During the meeting, several military officers testified that unidentified anomalous phenomena – the government’s name for UFOs – pose a threat to national security.

Their testimony may have raised eyebrows in the chamber, but there’s still no public physical evidence of extraterrestrial life. In fact, most UFO sightings have earthly explanations, from tricks of the light to weather balloons.

Whether or not these testimonials hold any grains of truth, some scholars argue that simply by listening for signs of extraterrestrials, we’re already engaging in the first phase of contact with alien life.

These four articles from our archives dive into what went down during the subcommittee hearing, why perceived UFO sightings usually have human explanations, and how humanity can learn from history when it comes to engaging with extraterrestrials.

1. Whistleblower allegations

The most interesting testimony of the July 26 subcommittee hearing came from ex-Air Force Intelligence Officer David Grusch, who claimed that the U.S. has nonhuman biological material recovered from a UFO crash site. The Pentagon has denied this claim, and it has denied the existence of any program designed to retrieve and reverse-engineer crashed UFOs.

All witnesses at the hearing advocated for more government transparency around reports of UFOs. Intelligence agencies and the Pentagon currently steward this data, most of which is not public. While having access to more data may help understand what’s going on, as the University of Arizona’s Chris Impey put it, “the gold standard is physical evidence.”


2. Sociological explanations

Again, while no physical evidence has been made public, anyone surfing the internet can see plenty of alleged UFO videos, photos and stories. Barry Markovsky, from the University of South Carolina, is a sociologist of shared beliefs and misconceptions who explained why UFOs seem to captivate the public every few years.

People want explanations for ambiguous situations, and they’re easily influenced by others. Social media enables a concept called bottom-up social diffusion. Say one user posts a blurry video claiming it depicts a UFO. It’s easy for that user’s network to see and repost the video and so on, until it goes viral. Then, when organized institutions like news outlets or government sources publish UFO-related information, that’s called top-down social diffusion.





The left image shows bottom-up diffusion, in which information spreads from person to person. The right shows top-down diffusion, in which information spreads from one authority. Barry Markovsky

“Diffusion processes can combine into self-reinforcing loops. Mass media spreads UFO content and piques worldwide interest in UFOs. More people aim their cameras at the skies, creating more opportunities to capture and share odd-looking content,” Markovsky wrote. “Poorly documented UFO pics and videos spread on social media, leading media outlets to grab and republish the most intriguing. Whistleblowers emerge periodically, fanning the flames with claims of secret evidence.”

3. Signature detection

While UFOs might have traction on social media, it’s likely that the first trace of extraterrestrial life won’t come from a crashed alien spaceship. Instead, scientists could potentially pick up signals like radio waves or pollution from some distant galaxy that might indicate extraterrestrial technology.

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is a group of scientists all working on the search for extraterrestrial life. Part of what they do is listen for these “technosignatures”.

As two astronomers who work on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Penn State’s Macy Huston and Jason Wright wrote about how humans often unintentionally broadcast signals like radio waves into space. In theory, extraterrestrial civilizations could be doing the same thing – and if scientists can pick up on these signals, they might have their first hints at alien life.

“However, this approach assumes that extraterrestrial civilizations want to communicate with other technologically advanced life,” Huston and Wright explained. “Humans very rarely send targeted signals into space, and some scholars argue that intelligent species may purposefully avoid broadcasting out their locations. This search for signals that no one may be sending is called the SETI Paradox.”

4. Ethical considerations

While the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence hasn’t yet detected any extraterrestrial technosignatures, a working group of interdisciplinary scholars in Indigenous studies argued that the act of listening for these signals may already count as engaging in first contact with extraterrestrial life.

The Indigenous studies working group argued that first contact may not be just one event – rather, you can think of it as a long phase that begins with listening and planning. Listening can be an act of surveillance, and with that comes ethical considerations.

But research groups like the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence don’t often include perspectives from the humanities, even though there are many histories of first contact between groups of people here on Earth to draw from.

James Cook’s 1768 voyage to Oceania, for example, was planned as scientific exploration. But its legacy of genocide still affects the Indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand today.

This BBC video describes the modern ramifications of Captain James Cook’s colonial legacy in New Zealand.

“The initial domino of a public ET message, or recovered bodies or ships, could initiate cascading events, including military actions, corporate resource mining and perhaps even geopolitical reorganizing,” wrote David Shorter, William Lempert and Kim Tallbear. “No one can know for sure how engagement with extraterrestrials would go, though it’s better to consider cautionary tales from Earth’s own history sooner rather than later.”

Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

Mary Magnuson, Assistant Science Editor, The Conversation


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The bizarre and troubling story of Hawaii’s ‘Filipino KKK’ scare

Jessica Terrell, Honolulu Civil Beat
August 5, 2023,


In 1922, Hawaii prosecutors began investigating rumors that a Filipino branch of the Ku Klux Klan was terrorizing local laborers. The incident reveals a lot about anti-Filipino racism in the islands. 

Screenshot/Newspapers.com

This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat. 

It was a story so outrageous that it was hard to believe.

The Ku Klux Klan, a secretive white supremacist society that had been proliferating with alarming speed across the United States, had recruited thousands of Filipinos in Hawaii to join its ranks.

“An alleged member of the Filipino Branch of the Ku Klux Klan has been buried alive by Hawaiian laborers whom the klan is alleged to have terrorized, according to the county attorney here,” read a 1922 United News wire story that was picked up by papers as far away as Kansas. “The Filipino Ku Klux Klan, according to the county attorney’s office … is terrorizing Hawaiian labor.”

There were reports in newspapers that the group was extorting workers and assaulting anyone who refused to pay or otherwise crossed them.

“The organization was formed more than six months ago by local Filipinos and has gradually increased its membership until more than 2,000 Filipinos in all parts of the territory have become members,” the Honolulu Star-Bulletin wrote in October of 1922, in one of a series of articles about an investigation of the group led by prosecutors on Oahu.

If the idea of a Filipino branch of the KKK operating in Hawaii seems unreal, it’s because it was.

ALSO READ: Kentucky cops release KKK member who pulled a loaded gun on LGBTQ protest

It took about a week for Hawaii officials to figure out that there was no link between Filipino laborers and the terrorist group burning crosses on lawns across the American South — though perhaps it shouldn’t have even taken that long.

“It’s absurd,” said Jonathan Okamura, a professor emeritus at the University of Hawaii Manoa whose work focuses on race and ethnicity in Hawaii. “It’s absolute nonsense to think that Filipinos had an organization that was affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan and you would think members of the press would realize this.”


That reporters and editors at multiple publications gave so much credence to the story — running front page reports about the issue over multiple days — says a lot about media coverage of Hawaii’s Filipino community in the 20th century.“

Filipinos were a group that was very much targeted,” Okamura said. “So the newspapers would pick up on any issue that would represent Filipinos in this negative light.”

The negative stereotyping of Filipino workers by newspapers in the 1920s — a period when Filipinos were helping lead a burgeoning labor movement on Hawaii’s plantations — had harmful consequences that continue to reverberate today.

Hawaii has ‘no room’ for the KKK

In the early 1920s, Hawaii newspapers frequently featured stories about the troubling spread of the Ku Klux Klan in towns across the United States.

Readers in Honolulu and Hilo were well informed about federal investigations of the group. About violence inflicted by the Klan in Georgia. About failed efforts to ferret them out of Sacramento, California.

But people in the islands could rest easy, local law enforcement officers said in 1921. Hawaii was too “cosmopolitan” in the character of its population, too desirous of quiet and harmony, for the terrorist group to take root here.

So ridiculous was the idea that the white supremacist organization would be taken seriously in the Hawaiian Islands, that when the KKK sent a recruitment letter to a prominent Honolulu businessman in 1921, the incident was covered by two local newspapers.

A year later, when an editor at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin received a threatening letter signed by the “KKK,” the paper asked readers to decide if the letter was “a threat or a joke.”

Then came the fall of 1922.

“An organization, which is known as the Filipino Ku Klux Klan, has been operating in Hawaii during the past few months and has terrorized the Filipinos in outlying districts,” the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported on Oct. 17, 1922.

The information came from a county prosecutor in Honolulu who was launching an investigation into the matter after a “prominent” member of the Filipino community made a complaint. A missing Filipino man had reportedly been a member of the KKK, the paper reported, and the attorney was told that he had been “buried alive as punishment for violating one of the rules of the order.”

In the following days, the Star-Bulletin — along with other papers in Hawaii and wire services as well — reported that the organization appeared to have recruited thousands of members and was spread across the islands. It was unclear if the group was affiliated with the mainland KKK or just modeled after the organization, reports said.

When Honolulu deputy attorney Claus Roberts found a pamphlet written in “the Filipino language” with the letters K.K.K. on the back cover, one Filipino man refused to read the pamphlet and another “started to translate and then attempted to tear the book into pieces,” the Associated Press reported in a story with the headline “Late Discoveries Deepen Mystery of Filipino K.K.K.”

Within days, the labor commissioner of the Philippines contacted the AP to point out that “KKK” were also the initials of a protective society in the Philippines called Kataastaaasan Kagalangalang Katipunan Dismasalang, which means “the highest and most respected order of Dismasalang.” The labor commissioner also said he had encouraged Filipinos in Hawaii to establish fraternal societies to “improve their standard of living and for mutual protection.”

Roberts eventually came to the conclusion that there was no connection between plantation laborers and the mainland-based Ku Klux Klan. But despite earlier proclamations that he would finalize his investigation within a week, newspapers never published a follow-up on the results or what happened to the missing Filipino worker.
A ‘demonized’ group

Filipino laborers started arriving in Hawaii in 1906 to perform backbreaking labor on sugar plantations.

Although Hawaii had already experienced multiple transformative waves of immigration — in 1920, roughly 40% of Hawaii’s population was Japanese — the experience of Filipino immigrants was different than that of the Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese and Puerto Rican plantation workers who had preceded them.

Most of the Filipino workers were single men, often with little education, Okamura said. They were young. There was a much greater gender imbalance than there had been with previous immigrant groups. And some of them did get into trouble with the law.

When these young men were arrested for gambling or fighting or drinking, the press went wild.

In 1911, the Honolulu Advertiser dramatically declared that half of arriving workers from the Philippines were were “diseased and will have to be deported” and alleged that labor agents working on behalf of plantations were ex-criminals who were targeting recruits from the slums of Manila with “criminal propensities.”

“More Bad Filipinos Come” was the headline of a 1911 Hawaiian Star article about health problems among recent immigrants.

Something must be done about the “Filipino problem” an editorial writer opined in the Maui News in 1915, suggesting that the YMCA or the National Guard do something to “keep these irresponsible men from having too much time on their hands.”

“No question they were the most racially denigrated group in Hawaii,” Okamura said.

Okamura believes the media’s portrayal of Filipinos as somehow criminally-inclined contributed to the disproportionate number of Filipino men who were executed in Hawaii during the plantation era.

Okamura studied Hawaii newspaper coverage of death penalty cases between 1900 and 1944. Stories about Filipino men accused of murder frequently stated their race in the headline — something rarely done in stories about crimes committed by people of other ethnicities. The language used in the newspaper articles about Filipino murder cases also included much more graphic and violent details than other coverage of the day, he said.

More than half of the 42 men executed in that time period were Filipino — and more than two-thirds of men during the period when the most executions happened — although they made up a much smaller portion of the population. Even more striking is the amount of time juries deliberated in some of those cases — a mere three minutes in one instance.

At the same time that Filipinos were being ostracized and targeted, they were also starting to take a lead role in labor organizing. Filipino workers led a significant labor strike on the plantations in 1919. Two years after they were accused of starting a local branch of the KKK, they would organize another strike that brought together other plantation groups.

“They were challenging the dominant racial boundary in Hawaii between non-haoles and haoles, who controlled politics and the economy through the plantations,” Okamura said.

Although media coverage of ethnic communities has improved significantly in recent decades — and it is general practice not to identify the ethnicity of suspects unless it pertains directly to the crime — stereotypes of Filipinos as being violent or crass continue to this day, Okamura contends.

Today, Filipinos make up one of the largest ethnic communities in Hawaii. Yet despite their size, the group still has not achieved the same level of economic or political success as earlier waves of immigrants to Hawaii.

And while the days of explicit racism in media coverage are hopefully behind us, some of the stereotypes perpetuated in that coverage remain entrenched in society.

“Stereotypes are hard to get to get rid of,” Okamura said. “Because they get reinforced in so many different ways.”

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

SOUTH AFRICA
Former Eskom CEO Andre De Ruyter lands new job in the US

Former Eskom group chief executive Andre De Ruyter has landed a new job in the US.

According to a City Press report, De Ruyter, is set to join Yale University as a visiting senior fellow at the end of August.

It is believed De Ruyter will take classes dealing with topics such as renewable energy and the green economy.

The former Eskom CEO left the power utility at the end of February after he made damning allegations about senior unnamed politicians apparently involved in Eskom corruption.

He was relieved of his duties after a special board meeting in a matter of days.

In an interview broadcast by eTV, De Ruyter said there was rampant corruption which was being engineered by top politicians from the governing party, who are interfering at the ailing power utility.

De Ruyter made shocking revelations, saying undisclosed members of the governing party and government at the highest levels were aware of the corruption that is happening at Eskom and also that the utility serves as the ANC’s “feeding trough”.

The board said told the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) in June that it had not received the intelligence report that was commissioned by de Ruyter.

Eskom board members told Scopa they did not know there was an intelligence report into criminal activities at the power stations.

De Ruyter also published a book, Truth to Power: My Three Years Inside Eskom, which Eskom board chairperson Mpho Makwana described as de Ruyter breaking trust.

Makwana at the time said Eskom would be taking action against him.

De Ruyter left SA in February, citing concerns around his and his family's safety.

IOL News

More on this
Gordhan distances himself from De Ruyter’s intelligence report

De Ruyter’s stint disappointing, concedes Gordhan

The gap between rich and poor increases as the middle class’s chances are ruined

Another blow for Eskom as Jan Oberholzer resigns

Jan Oberholzer is leaving Eskom

Koeberg causes Ramokgopa headache

Fidelity confirms Eskom contract but denies the amount

Drowning in dividends: the failed privatisation of Britain’s water industry

5th August 2023Privatisation, Public Services, waterLeave a Commenton Drowning in dividends: the failed privatisation of Britain’s water industr

“Almost 400,000 sewage dumping incidents were recorded in England and Wales in 2022, adding up to 3.3 million hours of pollution pouring into the country’s waterways.”

By Terry Conway

The state of the water industry has been a matter of increasing concern in British politics over recent years as more and more stories surfaced about the excessive dumping of sewage into rivers and seas.   In many local areas especially on the coast or where rivers are significant local attraction, this despoliation has become the focus of strident local organising, which has gained support from people who have traditionally voted for the ruling Conservative Party.

The sewerage system carries rainwater, and wastewater from toilets, along the same pipes to the water treatment works. When there is too much rainfall, water companies are allowed to discharge overflow from these pipes into the waterways. This should happen rarely, but data – and experience – show this is happening more and more.

There are a number of different factors involved. Climate change is resulting in more dramatic weather patterns – periods of drought which lead to the ground becoming baked dry followed by heavy thunderstorms which the land is not able to absorb – and which therefore lead to flooding and to more discharges.  While these phenomena have not resulted in the same level of deaths and loss of crops, homes and other resources as in Africa and Asia, they are never the less still significant.   And in Britain, this is compounded by the increasing proportion of land which is concreted over – and to the use of artificial rather than natural grass.

Another reason is the growth of intensive farming – in particular factory farming of livestock; particularly poultry and pigs where slurry run off is a huge factor in contaminating rivers and of the dairy industry. George Monbiot argues here and here that farming is the top cause of river pollution in the UK, a greater threat even than sewage pollution.

These two areas pose challenges which I don’t have the scope to further explore in this piece, which  will rather focus on the impact of the privatisation of the water and sewage system – and how this has intersected with other erosions of public services, such as the cuts to the Environment Agency.

Thatcher’s privatisation drive

Privatisation in general was a key theme of Margaret Thatcher’s four Conservative governments in control of the Westminster parliament between 1979 -1990, particularly after 1983 when the ideological argument about the discipline of the market took increasing priority over the wish to make a profit for the government from the sell offs.  The idea was that privatisation would make the large utilities more efficient and productive, and thus make British capitalism competitive relative to its continental rivals.

The fact that the nationalised industries were suffering from under investment and were not subject to genuine democratic control aided their ability to drive through these policies with all too little opposition. To be fair so too did the fact that the key battles against Thatcherism for the left and the labour movement were the Miners’ strike of 1984-85 and then the campaign against the introduction of the poll tax – brought in in Scotland in 1989 and then in England and Wales from 1990.

There were campaigns to defend the NHS from privatisation – as well as cuts – and around the selloff of council housing, while protests around manufacturing sectors such as British Steel focused more on job losses – in the context of a major period of deindustrialisation and attacks on trade unions – than on the question of ownership.  Within this picture of a panoply of attacks the least concentration of all was on the utilities British Gas (1986), electricity (1990) and water (1989)

Water privatisation

Despite the fact that water is unarguably a natural monopoly, Thatcher’s Tories did not hesitate to sell it off for a meagre £6.1 billion. At the same time Ofwat was created, supposedly to regulate the companies’ behaviour – though the extent to which it has even tried to do that will become an important thread in this tale.  “Regulation was flawed from the outset in that it provided no checks to financial engineering and excessive borrowing,” said Dieter Helm, professor of economics at Oxford university.

Since then the water companies have extracted £72 billion in dividends for their share holders –  money which should have gone into the infrastructure to ensure sewage treatment works can process what we feed them without affecting our rivers and seas.

The industry has adopted the classic private equity business model with its key elements of high prices, low investment and financial engineering to extract high returns. Instead of shareholders making long-term investment through equity, this business model uses debt because interest payments qualify for tax relief—effectively a public subsidy. This reduces the cost of capital and increases returns to shareholders but also increases vulnerability to interest rate hikes. 

A report by Richard Murphy, Professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.

Almost 400,000 sewage dumping incidents were recorded in England and Wales in 2022, adding up to 3.3 million hours of pollution pouring into the country’s waterways. Interactive maps with figures for the whole country can be found here.

In the meantime, the Environment Agency found that 90% of sewage monitors at seasides are broken. In many locations, they’re not installed at all. Over summer 2022, dozens of beaches were closed to swimmers due to the high levels of toxic waste. And there may have been many more that went untested.

And less dramatically some 2.4 billion litres of water are lost every day to leaks due to poor infrastructure, while water charges to households have increased by 40 percent in real terms since privatisation. Meanwhile despite the population growing by nearly 10 million, no new reservoirs have been built.

Revolving door

Two thirds of England’s water companies employ key executives who previously worked for Ofwat, the watchdog that is supposed to regulate them.

‘An analysis by the Observer has found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry they helped to regulate, with about half in senior posts.Six of the nine water and sewerage companies in England have hired directors of corporate strategy or heads of regulation who previously worked at Ofwat, including former director of strategy Andrew Beaver, now at Northumbrian Water, and former director of strategy and planning Iain McGuffog, now at South West Water. The findings have raised fresh concerns over a revolving door between the regulator and the industry.’

The focus on this deeply problematic relationship has ramped up further in the last couple of weeks amid concerns that Thames Water, the biggest of the companies which supplies 15 million households is at risk of collapse from about £14bn of debts. Thames loses around 630 million litres of water a day in leaks and routinely dumps tons of raw sewage in rivers. Since 2010, it has been sanctioned 92 times for failures and has been fined £163 million. Over the last three years, the salary of its recently resigned chief executive doubled. 

On July 11, Thames Water’s current joint Chief Executive Cathryn Ross, who was previously head of  Ofwat between 2013 – 2018, refused to apologise in front of a committee of MPs for her behaviour at the regulator, where she allowed the firm to rack up £14billion of debt while failing to curb dividends to share holders.

Public anger at all this is growing. There is more demand now for renationalisation than there was opposition to the original privatisation. But despite the depth of the crisis of the current Tory government under Rishi Sunak, it’s unlikely to be a concession he is prepared to make.

While Britain does not have to hold a General election until 2025, the expectation is that it is almost certain to take place in 2024 either in the spring or summer – and that barring dramtic political about turns this will result in the election of a Labour government.  When the current leader of the Labour Party Keir Starmer was elected to that position in 2020 he stood on a platform of 10 pledges – of which water renationalisation was one. Like the overwhelming majority of those other positions, he has already reneged on it in a rush to demonstrate what a safe pair of hands he is for British capital.

There are rumours that Starmer is contemplating backing some form of ‘social purpose’ company – keeping water in private hands but supposedly imposing more social responsibility. The question will be whether it is possible to mount a campaign for genuine renationalisation – under greater public accountability than before.

---

• This article was originally published by Anti-Capitalist Resistance on July 30th, 2023.

SEE

CANADIAN WORKERS PENSIONS FUND PRIVATIZATION

OMERS PENSION IS THE SHAREHOLDER

Thames Water secures £750 million cash injection from shareholders

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for OMERS 

UK

Keep up the pressure to defeat the anti-boycott bill – Peter Leary, Palestine Solidarity Campaign

28th July 2023International, Middle East, Palestine, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Right to Boycott, SolidarityLeave a Commenton Keep up the pressure to defeat the anti-boycott bill – Peter Leary, Palestine Solidarity Campaig

“It is by no means a done deal that the anti-boycott bill will become law. A huge coalition of opposition to the bill has come together across civil society and our arguments are breaking through.”

By Peter Leary, Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC)

The fight to defeat the government’s pernicious anti-boycott bill is entering a crucial stage. We need to take action now and keep up the pressure to protect the Right to Boycott.

On 3 July, the anti-boycott bill passed its first parliamentary hurdle when MPs voted to give it a ‘second reading.’ Despite the vote to move the bill forward, Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and other civil society groups have taken heart from the debate, which demonstrated the huge scale of parliamentary opposition, even including from many Tories. Michael Gove will be facing a hot and uncomfortable summer as it is now clear that a real fight is underway before this toxic bill can reach the statute books. 

Two votes were held on the night. The Labour Party used a parliamentary procedure known as a ‘reasoned amendment’ to register its opposition to the bill as it stands and indicated a readiness to vote it down next time (at the third reading). This motion fell by 212 votes for, to 272 votes against. Unfortunately, Labour then instructed its MPs to abstain on the main vote on bill itself. As a result, the bill passed its second reading by 268 votes to 70. Ten sitting Labour MPs defied the whip, and voted against the bill, alongside MPs from all of the smaller parties except the DUP, several MPs sitting as independents (including Jeremy Corbyn), and two Conservatives.

What the government had not counted on, however, was the backlash it faced in the chamber.

Labour, Conservative, SNP, and Liberal Democrat MPs were among those who spoke in opposition to this alarming legislation that would prevent public bodies from making ethical choices about spending or investment. Some spoke in support of Palestinian rights while others highlighted the potential impact of this law on a wide range of campaigns for social and climate justice.

Many MPs warned of the bill’s damaging effects on local democracy, freedom of expression, and the rights of public sector pension scheme members, as well as on academic freedom and devolution. Labour MPs recalled their own involvement in boycott movements, including the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa, and the part played by local councils and universities. They pointed out that if this bill had been in place, many of those actions would have been prevented.

Following the first vote, the bill has now moved on to the committee stage before returning to the House of Commons. PSC, like many of the 70 other civil society groups who support the Right to Boycott, is preparing a submission to the committee. In our written statement, we will challenge the outrageous mischaracterisation of BDS campaigns and activists, and we will make the case for action in support of Palestinian rights.

We need to ratchet up the pressure on MPs of all parties. With enough encouragement, there is every chance that Labour and a substantial group of Tory rebels, can be persuaded to join with the SNP and most of the smaller parties and vote against the bill when it returns for its ‘third reading’ – most likely in October. 

More than 50 MPs so far have signed an Early Day Motion in opposition to the bill. Many CLPs have passed policy calling on the party to vote against it, and we will be bringing our message to TUC and Labour Party Conference. A range of resources – including model motions – is available on the PSC website.   

Back in June, as soon as the bill was tabled, PSC launched a petition to highlight public outrage at this attack on democratic rights. It will be handed in at the end of August, just before the committee is convened. For maximum impact, we need as many signatures as possible. If you have not done so already, please add your own name today.

It is by no means a done deal that the anti-boycott bill will become law. A huge coalition of opposition to the bill has come together across civil society and our arguments are breaking through. The debate in parliament should give us all fresh hope that it is possible for this bill to be defeated. But to make this happen, this summer we must turn up the heat on the government. Act now to defeat the bill and defend the Right to Boycott.

---

• Peter Leary is a campaigns officer at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).
• You can sign and share PSC’s petition against the anti-boycott bill here; and pass the PSC and Labour and Palestine model motion at your CLP.
• The full Right to Boycott statement and list of signatories can be found here.
• You can follow the Palestine Solidarity Campaign on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

UK

Repeal of the Anti-Strikes Act must be an early priority of a Labour government – Prof. Keith Ewing & Lord Hendy KC

Labour Outlook
25th July 2023

“Self-evidently, the Act violates the right to strike, a right established by many international treaties which the UK has ratified.”

Professor Keith Ewing and Lord Hendy KC write in-depth on The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 becoming law.

‘Neither Wanted Nor Helpful’

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 became law in July, following a lengthy fight in the House of Lords.  Imposing yet further restrictions on the right to strike, the legislation is appalling both in form and content. As to form, it defies every legislative principle laid down by the relevant Parliamentary Committees which examined what was then the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill before it finally received the Royal Assent.

To begin with, it is a ‘skeleton Act’ meaning that it simply gives the government legal powers to introduce regulations setting out the detail of what should have been in the Act itself. So the Minister, in drafting the regulations, has the unilateral power to fix the minimum service levels in each of the six sectors covered by the Bill (largely the applauded workers who kept the country running during the pandemic).

The sectors in question are wide and far reaching and cover potentially millions of workers and affect most major unions:  health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, nuclear decommissioning, and border security. In making regulations ministers can consult whoever they think appropriate: there is no specific obligation to negotiate with or even consult the unions and employers who are directly affected by the Act.

The fact that no-one yet knows what the minimum service levels in these different sectors will be, or even how they will be set, is one reason why the Government’s accompanying Impact Assessment of the Bill was held by Parliament’s Regulatory Policy Committee to be ‘not fit for purpose’. Nevertheless, the Impact Assessment contained the revealing analysis that, far from diminishing the disruption strikes inevitably cause, the Bill could lead to:

“A general increase in tension between unions and employers. This may result in more adverse impacts in the long term, such as an increased frequency of strikes for each dispute.”

Indeed, since in the current strikes the unions typically will have negotiated local minimum service levels with the employers (as they always do in many of the sectors involved), the imposition of national levels set by government is likely to upset the delicate negotiated balance and intensify the dispute. This is why so many employers, like all the unions, told the government the Act was neither wanted nor helpful.

‘Never before have our unions been obliged to act as enforcers on behalf of employers and the State’

Otherwise, two provisions stand out so far as the content of the Bill is concerned, First, once a minimum service level is set for a particular sector, an employer facing a strike in that sector can serve a ‘work notice’ on the union. The effect of a work notice – which will also be communicated to workers affected personally – will be to compel individual employees to work during the strike. And, if they do not, the Act removes their right not to be unfairly dismissed. This means they can be subject to instant dismissal with no redress.

Secondly, once served with a work notice a union will be required ‘to take reasonable steps to ensure that all members of the union who are identified in the work notice comply with the notice.’  So the union has to force its members to break the strike it has called and for which its members voted. And if the union fails to take such ‘reasonable step’s, the strike will cease to be lawful, all strikers will then cease to have unfair dismissal protection (not just those specified in a work notice) and the union will lose its protection against claims for damages and injunctions.

Our labour law has rightly been described as ‘the most restrictive on trade unions in the Western World’, but never before have our unions been obliged to act as enforcers on behalf of employers and the State. The position is made worse by the fact that no-one knows what ‘reasonable steps’ are: do they, for example, include ordering members identified in a work notice to cross picket lines, and disciplining members who refuse to do so?  The government is yet to publish a promised Code of Practice to help ‘clarify’ the position.

Self-evidently, the Act violates the right to strike, a right established by many international treaties which the UK has ratified. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights had made this clear at an early stage in the parliamentary life of the Bill. The government claims that international law permits minimum service levels to be set by law. But, though true, international law permits them only in exceptional circumstances and subject to tightly regulated conditions.

These conditions include a requirement of trade union and employer dialogue in the setting of an MSL; an obligation on the employer to negotiate an agreement with the trade union about the service level to be operated in that firm or service; and, finally, an independent adjudication process (by the courts or agreed independent arbitrators) in the event of a failure to agree. None of these conditions is met by the Act, with the result that it clearly breaches ILO Convention 87.

“Repeal of this Act must be an early priority of a Labour government.”

Repeal of this Act must be an early priority of a Labour government. It passed despite criticism from a host of parliamentary committees, and despite resistance from the House of Lords. The latter had proposed number of important amendments to the Bill, none of which the government was prepared to accept. But although, ironically, it was the unelected House of Lords which sought to defend trade union freedoms, as Mick Whitley MP said in the Commons, ‘no amendments could ever salvage this Bill’.

Pending repeal, unions will be considering whether the awaited minimum service level regulations can be challenged in the courts. In doing so they will have been encouraged by the recent High Court decision striking down regulations to enable agency workers to be used as strike-breakers. According to the court, the government’s failure to consult was ‘so unfair as to be unlawful and, indeed, irrational’.  We can expect a wide range of legal objections to the regulations under this Act.

More immediately, however, unions will be seeking to work around the legislation, persuading employers to agree not to serve work notices and, instead to negotiate voluntary minimum service agreements, as usual. They will also be considering other ways of exerting industrial pressure, for example by taking other forms of industrial action than strikes since the Act only applies to strike action. Industrial action is unlikely to decline, but its form may radically change as a result of this Act.

The climate and economic struggles are inseparable: The rich must pay

“The key issue isn’t whether we should take urgent climate action but who pays.”

31st July 2023
Labour Outlook

By Nella Broome

The best of Labour's Left Ideas.

With Rishi Sunak racing to roll back green policies and Keir Starmer conceding the territory over London’s Ultra-low Emission Zone (ULEZ), the real choices about who pays for climate action and inaction have become a dominant question in British politics.

For the working class majority, this is a struggle we can’t afford to lose. It’s the difference between a secure life on a safe planet where we can afford to heat our homes and pay for food or protecting the short-term political interests of an elite that is both profiting from our planet’s destruction and the soaring cost of living.

As scientists warn that July 2023 is almost certainly the hottest month on record, wildfires across Mediterranean Europe and Northern Africa bring home the horrifying reality of climate breakdown at our door. The flames are both wrecking livelihoods and nature there and breaking important parts of the global food system that we all rely on.

The UN Secretary-General summed it up well: “The era of global warming has ended, the era of global boiling has arrived. The level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable. Leaders must lead”.

But against this new reality, there is a chorus of right-wing politicians seeking to make climate policies the centrepiece of a new culture war and claiming that we cannot afford to take action while a cost-of-living crisis is hitting the living standards of millions.

Of course, the pretence that delaying climate action is about helping working people is a cynical deceit. These are the same right-wing politicians who have failed time and time again to tackle the cost of living crisis and refuse to go after the oil and gas companies that are driving up inflation and our energy bills. 

It is true that action to slash carbon emissions and adapt to climate breakdown will require huge investment. But the cost of inaction would be many times more costly and sacrifice the lives of hundreds of millions.  

The climate and economic crises will become ever more intertwined. For example, food prices will be driven upwards by the growing number of floods and droughts that will destroy crop harvests.

We can already see how not acting hits ordinary people with the Tories’ failure over 13 years to put in place policies to transition the economy to low-carbon. Instead, David Cameron decided to “cut the green crap” early on. They ended schemes to insulate our homes and put the break on renewable energy projects costing most households £600 a year on fuel bills. 

They have left our economy more exposed to the volatile costs of fossil fuels than many, bringing with it painfully higher levels of inflation and saddling us all with the costs of subsidising gas bills. Money that has gone straight into corporate profits.

Now, with Sunak preparing to ditch or dilute the Tories’ previous climate commitments, we need to be clear:  the key issue isn’t whether we should take urgent climate action but who pays.

Labour must not cede to this idea that we can’t afford climate action, but robustly defend and build on its own ‘green prosperity’ plan.

Ed Miliband is right to come out arguing that Labour’s plans are critical to cutting energy bills and creating good jobs and that the vital principle of the transition must be that everyone benefits, in particular lower and middle-income families.

Measures such as ULEZ and switching from gas boilers to heat pumps will require proper support packages so people already squeezed by the cost of living crisis aren’t priced out. We should learn from examples such as France where low-income households will be able to hire electric cars for just £88 a month from next year. Or the 20 countries across Europe with higher installation rates of pumps than here.

From proper Windfall Taxes on oil and gas giants, to wealth taxes on the super-rich who have most driven the climate crises, to public ownership of key energy sectors, we can ensure that it is not the vast majority of people who need to pay for this transition.

The Tories may think that bringing climate into the centre of their culture wars will serve to mobilise what’s left of their base and distract the rest of us from their record of failure as we head towards the general election.

But Keir Starmer shouldn’t mistake climate action for a ‘barnacle on the boat’ to be hacked off for a smoother sail towards electoral victory. Opinion polls consistently show that climate action is popular and seen as a national priority across all but a minority of the electorate.

Indeed by diluting its green commitments, Labour risks losing votes. In Uxbridge, the Green Party won more votes than the Tory majority over Labour. Instead of capitulating to the Tory campaign against ULEZ, Starmer should have committed to a fairer support package for the small number of households affected.

Climate action can be the basis for creating vast numbers of quality jobs, ensuring our economy leads on the new industries and this can help rebuild the economy in areas battered by decades on neo-liberalism.

In France, the climate movement managed to inspire the ‘gilet jaune’ yellow vest movement behind the slogan “end of the month, end of the world – the same fight”. Now it’s the urgent job of the left in Britain to inspire unity around economic and climate justice.

CPC(ML) 1971

Poll reveals Canadians’ views on gender identity in classrooms and conversion therapy

On some questions, ideology remains a key indicator

Mario CansecoAug 3, 2023 

Nearly half of Canadians say they believe teachers should address students aged 16 and under using their preferred pronouns or names without having to inform parents

Norberto Cuenco/Moment/Getty Images

This summer has provided an extremely eventful “Pride Season” in Canada.

Governments and businesses have embraced the opportunity to connect with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, gender diverse, queer and two-spirit (LGBTQ2+) community. At the same time, New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs began a discussion on gender identity in the classroom that could have easily led to the collapse of his government.

Research Co. and Glacier Media have tracked the views of Canadians on LGBTQ2+ issues since 2019. The responses in 2023 continue to show majority support for abandoning “conversion therapy” as well as mixed reviews on whether everything expressed by kids in the classroom should be revealed to their parents. 

Ideology remains a key indicator on some questions. While 34 per cent of Canadians think people who identify themselves as LGBTQ2+ are making a choice (up six points since 2022), the proportion rises to 49 per cent among those who voted for the Conservative Party in 2021.

On the issue of “conversion therapy,” we continue to see a majority of Canadians (52 per cent, down five points) who think it is not possible for individuals who identify themselves as LGBTQ2+ to be “converted” into heterosexuals through psychological or spiritual intervention. There is a significant gender gap on this question, with 58 per cent of women rejecting “conversion therapy,” compared to 47 per cent of men.

Three in five Canadians (60 per cent, down two points) think the federal government was right to enact legislation making it illegal to promote, advertise or profit from providing “conversion therapy,” or to subject a person, consenting or not, to “conversion therapy” in Canada.

Once again, the perceptions of Conservative voters are different. Large majorities of Canadians who last voted for the Liberal Party (70 per cent) or the New Democratic Party (NDP) (73 per cent) are happy with the ban on “conversion therapy,” compared to 56 per cent among Conservative supporters.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, and almost two-thirds of Canadians (64 per cent, down two points) think it should continue to be the law of the land. About one in four would prefer to go back to civil unions (14 per cent, up two points) or offer no legal recognition (10 per cent, unchanged) to same sex couples.

Atlantic Canada boasts the highest level of support for the continued recognition of same-sex marriage in the country (71 per cent), followed by Saskatchewan and Manitoba (68 per cent), Ontario (65 per cent), Quebec (64 per cent), Alberta (61 per cent) and British Columbia (59 per cent).

We felt it necessary this year to ask about New Brunswick’s Policy 713, which seeks to prohibit teachers from using the preferred names and pronouns of students aged 16 and under without the consent of their parents. Any decision that this provincial government ultimately makes could have implications across the entire country.

Debate over Policy 713, in and outside of New Brunswick, has been dominated by two camps. One claims that it might be dangerous and counterproductive for teachers to discuss pronouns or names with parents who may not be fully supportive of their kids. The other posits that this is just like any other school matter: A teacher’s responsibility is to let the parents know.

Practically half of Canadians (49 per cent) believe teachers should address students aged 16 and under using their preferred pronouns or names without having to inform their parents – a proportion that rises to 59 per cent among Canadians aged 18 to 34. In Atlantic Canada, residents are evenly divided (40 per cent for disclosure, 41 per cent for no disclosure).

As expected, Conservative voters across Canada are less likely to endorse a no disclosure policy in schools (36 per cent) than their Liberal and New Democratic counterparts (58 per cent and 64 per cent, respectively).

This does not mean that Canadians want no communication between teachers and parents on any issue related to gender identity. More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) believe teachers must inform parents if a student aged 16 and under expresses a desire to change his or her gender.

On this question, the ideological divide is narrower: 60 per cent of Liberals, 59 per cent of Conservatives and 47 per cent of New Democrats think this is a topic where parents should be involved.

In 2023, there is little movement on the perceptions of Canadians on “conversion therapy” and same-sex marriage. The reaction to New Brunswick’s proposed legislation, like the policy itself, is ambiguous. Canadians gravitate towards acceptance on students changing their pronouns or names, but more than half believe parents must be told if issues such as affirmation or reassignment are aired in the classroom.

Mario Canseco is president of Research Co.

Results are based on an online study conducted from July 20 to July 22, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is plus or minus, 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

AMERIKA
Uninsured rate hits record low, just as millions start losing Medicaid coverage

BY NATHANIEL WEIXEL - 08/03/23


An all-time low of 7.7 percent of Americans had no health insurance in the first three months of 2023, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But that number, which still translates to more than 25 million people, is likely already higher now as states disenroll millions who gained Medicaid coverage during the pandemic public health emergency.


Federal legislation passed during the pandemic gave states extra money for Medicaid, but only if they kept people continuously enrolled in the program.

Before the pandemic, people churned in and out of Medicaid for various reasons. Participants lost their coverage if they earned too much or didn’t provide the information needed to verify their income or residency.

But during the emergency period, income changes or missed paperwork didn’t matter. If someone was enrolled in Medicaid in March 2020, or if they became eligible at any point during the pandemic, they remained eligible the entire time.

As a result, Medicaid enrollment grew more than 30 percent and covered more than 90 million people.

Congress, however, recently ended those protections, and states have been able to kick people off since April. According to health policy research group KFF, which is tracking state disclosures, nearly 3.8 million Americans have been kicked off Medicaid rolls as of Tuesday.

Across all states reporting, nearly three-quarters of all people disenrolled had their coverage terminated for “procedural reasons,” meaning missing or incorrect paperwork, or when the state has outdated contact information. Those people may still be eligible.

Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are monitoring the unwinding process and urging state officials to go slow.

Some states, such as Maine, have temporarily paused procedural terminations for some enrollees while the states address problems in the renewal process. But others are continuing to push ahead.