Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Why Putin invaded: a socialist analysis

Mike Phipps reviews Making sense of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, by Paul Le Blanc, published by Resistance Books.

Two years ago Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took many by surprise. Very quickly, pro-NATO pundits on one side and Putin apologists on the other trotted out their explanations. The great strength of this short book is that it foregrounds the analyses of Ukrainian socialists.

Hanna Perekhoda, for example, suggests that developments in an independent Ukraine pose a destabilizing threat to the Putin regime’s control of Russian society. To the extent that Ukraine is more free, more democratic and more prosperous than Russia, this threatens to “awaken some dangerous ideas among Russians themselves, who are… tired of the autocratic regime and of the extreme inequality in Russia.” It’s worth remembering that a year before he launched the invasion, Putin’s approval ratings reached their lowest level ever.

This factor cannot be overstated. While some on the left bemoan the military threat that Western democracies supposedly pose to Russia, it’s the much higher levels of political freedom enjoyed in some former Soviet states that is the significant attraction.

Others root the conflict in the profound crisis of Russian oligarchic capitalism and the inequality it generated. On this basis, the war on Ukraine is “a war of the Russian regime against its own society.” The conflict has enabled Putin to crush all domestic opposition and instil a climate of fear and obedience.

This point also needs underlining. Far from his suddenly developing a national chauvinist obsession with the historic unity of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples under Moscow’s tutelage, Putin’s war has important economic roots. It represent the collective interests of the Russian ruling class, who need to expand the terrain on which oligarchic capitalism can operate, and institutionalise and perpetuate the violence needed to shore up its power, as in other post-Soviet states.

Social Movement activist Vladyslav Starodubtsev documents the brutality of the Russian invasion from the standpoint of ordinary Ukrainians – “mass killings, holding the families of political activists hostage, repression against the LGBTQ + community… A lot of trade unions have been destroyed or forced to accept new labour contracts that are much worse than Ukrainian labour contracts, and all strikes are banned.”

This goes alongside the more widely documented crimes of looting, rape, disappearances, forced assimilation – for example, the Ukrainian language is no longer taught in schools in the occupied areas. The very survival of an independent Ukrainian state is at stake. This makes the war one of self-defence for Ukraine, and with it the necessity for weaponry wherever it comes from.

Those who accept Ukraine’s right to self-defence but oppose its access to Western arms should remember the Spanish Civil War. Franco’s nationalist forces were armed to the teeth by fascist Italy and Germany while the Western democracies, including the US and Britain, imposed an arms embargo on the elected Republican government which greatly hampered its efforts to defend the country against the forces launching the military coup. Socialists internationally opposed the ban, just as they campaigned for the imperialist West to arm China to help defend itself against invasion by imperial Japan.

Author Paul Le Blanc, as befits a revolutionary Marxist, reminds us that the right to Ukrainian self-determination was embraced by the key leaders of the Russian Revolution and that Ukraine’s right to secede without preconditions was written into the early constitution of the Soviet Union. That disappeared under Stalin, amid a policy of forced collectivization of agriculture, economically induced famine and political persecution.

Le Blanc’s essay is good as far as it goes, but there is a lot more that could be said. In his attempts to persuade doubting ‘friends’ of the rightness of his view, he does not push his arguments as forcefully as he might to their logical conclusion. If much of the confusion on the left about Ukraine is to be overcome, more such efforts will be needed.

For regular updates on the war in Ukraine, see the weekly bulletin of the Ukraine information Group here.

FEBRUARY 12, 2024LABOUR HUB EDITORS

Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

American nukes in Britain ‘makes us a nuclear target’, CND says

Chris Jarvis

8 February 2024

In light of recent media reports that US nuclear weapons are returning to Britain, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has renewed its warning that such a deployment will only raise the nuclear threat further and make Britain a guaranteed target in the event of any war between NATO and Russia.

Since April 2022, CND has claimed that RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk is being prepared for such a nuclear mission. It would mark the first time since 2008 that US nuclear weapons have been at the base. Campaigners claim they were removed as a result of popular protest and the efforts of CND.

Documents accumulated since 2022 have provided evidence that nuclear weapons will return. These include: the upgrade of nuclear storage sites at RAF Lakenheath to store the new B61-12 guided nuclear bomb; plans to build a new ‘surety dormitory’ to house US Air Force personnel for a nuclear mission; and most recently, contracts to install ballistic protection sites at the base, designed to protect troops from strikes on “high value assets”.

The Lakenheath upgrades form part of a wider effort to upgrade US/NATO nuclear infrastructure across Europe, which has preceded – and CND suggests likely provoked – Russia’s deployment of its own nuclear weapons to Belarus. Despite this, neither the US or UK government have given information to the public about this deployment.

CND, represented by law firm Leigh Day, has already raised queries with the Ministry of Defence and West Suffolk Council about the lawfulness of the planning rights used to allow the building of the surety dormitory. The MoD could have used a specific planning procedure for national security applications, which includes special safeguards, but instead they have tried to use a fast-track procedure, which CND says suggests there has been minimal scrutiny by West Suffolk Council as planning authority or the public. CND and its lawyers are investigating the lawfulness of that approach in correspondence with the council.

CND General Secretary Kate Hudson said: “CND welcomes the growing attention on this dangerous and destabilising development. We encourage both the media and the public to increase pressure on the British government to be honest about this deployment. It’s shameful that our government continues to take us for fools on this serious matter. They are refusing to give us crucial information about our security. This development has been in the works for some time, prior to Russia sending its own nuclear weapons to Belarus. So, far from making us safer, this deployment has escalated the dangers, brought Russian nukes to Europe, and made us a nuclear target.”

Leigh Day environment team solicitor Ricardo Gama said: “The MoD says that the Lakenheath development won’t lead to significant environmental effects, but in coming to that conclusion our client argues they have ignored the potential environmental effects of stationing nuclear weapons at the airbase, including the potential for nuclear accidents.

“In order to allow the local planning authority, West Suffolk Council, and members of the community to come to a conclusion about whether the MoD is going through the right process and about whether the potential effects of the development are acceptable, the MoD needs to provide transparent information about what the purpose of the development is.”

Image credit: Nuclear Information Service – Creative Commons

UK Greens brand Labour’s £28bn U-turn a ‘climate betrayal’

Chris Jarvis 12 February 2024

The UK’s Green Parties have hit out at Labour’s decision to abandon its planned £28 billion investment in the green transition.

The Scottish Greens said Labour has ‘betrayed our climate’, and accused Keir Starmer of throwing future generations under a ‘diesel engine bus’.

Scottish Green Party co-leader Lorna Slater said: “Labour have betrayed our climate, and they have betrayed Scottish voters. This investment was urgently needed to put us back on track to meeting our climate commitments and to renew our economy. This is a catastrophic mistake that will not be forgotten given the far reaching consequences it will have.

“At a stroke Keir Starmer has thrown future generations under a diesel engine bus, and shredded any commitment his party had towards building a greener economy and supporting a just transition. It is clear they cannot be trusted to take the tough decisions that are needed to ensure a liveable planet, when they are ditching all kinds of previous policies at a rate of knots.”

Green Party of England and Wales co-leader Carla Denyer, meanwhile, called the move a ‘massive backward step’. She said: “This is a massive backward step – for the climate, for the economy and for good quality jobs. Both the security of our planet for future generations and the UK’s future prosperity is dependent on greening our economy and that requires large scale investment.

“Labour have chosen to wear their fiscal rules as a millstone around their neck. A different approach through tax reforms, in particular by introducing a wealth tax on the super-rich, could help pay for the green transition. There is more than enough money in the economy to pay for this. Indeed, the Green Party would go further and faster, investing at least double what Labour originally pledged, so we can turbo charge the transition to a green economy.

“Greens recognise that investing in a green future will provide people with economic, social and environmental security. By decarbonising industry, insulating buildings, and ramping up renewable energy infrastructure, the UK can drastically reduce emissions, cut household bills and create new, good quality, well-paid and secure jobs in every corner of the country.

“Investing in this secure future is a political choice. By ditching its green investment plan, and making a series of other U-turns, Labour has clearly signalled that it is turning its back on a fairer, greener future. It is clear we are going to need a group of Green MPs in parliament after the next election pushing whoever forms the next government to do the right thing.”

Ex-Bank of England economist 'laments' Labour U-turn on £28bn green pledge

Andy Haldane told Sky's Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge that the policy had been 'big, bold and world-leading'. He said the decision to scrap the target would slow investment and the UK's transition to net zero if Labour were to win the next election.

Jennifer Scott
Political reporter @NifS
Monday 12 February 2024

A former chief economist at the Bank of England has expressed disappointment at Labour's decision to axe its £28bn green investment pledge.

Andy Haldane, who is now the managing director of the Royal Society of Arts, told Sky's Sophy Ridge that the original promise "led the world" in its ambition, and would have benefitted the country - both in achieving its net zero goals and stimulating growth.
Sponsored link

But the decision by Sir Keir Starmer last week to bin the target showed how politicians are "scaling back our plans in the UK at the same time as other countries have stepped up their plans," he said.

Politics live: Tough week for Sunak as by-elections loom

The pledge to spend £28bn every year until 2030 on green investments, from new technologies to planting trees, was made by shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves during the Labour Party conference in 2021.

But she scaled it back to a target last summer, with Ms Reeves blaming high inflation and interest rates following former prime minister Liz Truss's disastrous mini-budget.

Last week, Sir Keir confirmed Labour would scrap the headline figure entirely. He said: "Because of the damage the Tories have done, we can't now do everything that we wanted to do" if he got the keys to Number 10.

However, he was criticised by some within his party - as well as opposition MPs - for U-turning on such a key policy.

Asked about Labour's decision in an exclusive interview for the Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge - airing at 7pm tonight on Sky News - Mr Haldane said: "I think it's a shame. I mean, I think back to when that green prosperity plan was first hatched. It was big, it was bold, ambitious. It led the world, actually, in terms of its scale.

"And we now have seen a number of other countries playing catch-up, putting forward their own plans.

"So I think the scaling back of our plans in the UK at the same time as other countries have stepped up their plans is unfortunate for two reasons.

"One, it slows our transition to net zero, which is really important. And two, we do need that investment. And the green prosperity plan was about that extra dose of investment to stimulate growth.

"So I rather lament the sort of paring back of those plans."

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm. Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.Tap here for more

Mr Haldane appealed to whoever takes charge at the next election to show "a little more boldness about the economy and boldness around investment".

He added: "I understand the fiscal constraints, but I also think the rules that we have boxed ourselves in on might not be as effective as they need to be to stimulate and support that investment."

The former economist said growth had to be the priority after the economy had "stood still" for two years.

"That has put huge pressure on households, huge pressure on public services, huge pressure on local governments," he said.

"And the only way to break free from the constraints of that is by us growing our economy sustainably in a way that hasn't happened for the past 24 months."

How Israeli lobbyists infiltrated Spotify to censor Palestinian music

Several lobby groups in the UK with strong links to the British government first pressured music giant Spotify and then imposed key changes on the company’s organisational structure.

DAVID MILLER

PAUL SALVATORI

Music streaming giant Spotify has been pressured by two prominent British Zionist groups We Believe in Israel and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The former is a project of the pre-eminent public relations group for Israel, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), which is run by former arms lobbyist Luke Akehurst. The Board of Deputies badges itself as the representative body of British Jews. But as it makes clear in official filings, it collaborates closely with the Israeli government, including with the Israeli army spokesperson's office.

These Zionist lobby groups have successfully pressured Spotify to delete pro-resistance Palestinian music. To do so, the UK lobby groups We Believe in Israel and the Board of Deputies have enlisted the help of the British government.

It first became apparent that the lobby was targeting the platform when We Believe in Israel, a project of the UK’s preeminent public relations body for Israel, announced that it was demanding the removal of British-Iraqi hip-hop artist Lowkey from the streaming service in March 2022.

While the attempt against Lowkey failed due to significant public backlash and celebrity support, the lobby groups escalated their campaign and succeeded in removing the work of Palestinian artists Shadi al-Bourini and Qassem al-Najjar. We Believe in Israel, which is led by former arms industry lobbyist Luke Akehurst, boasted of the achievement in a press release with the Board of Deputies, in which the organisations admitted they had lobbied a British Minister on the issue.

The release failed to mention that Lucy Frazer, who is the Minister for Culture, had been an intern at the Israeli Ministry of Justice before being appointed to the British government. A current Senior Policy Adviser to Frazer is Adam Zinkin, who was previously a Security Analyst at the Israeli government-linked Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs. Following the removal of these Palestinian artists, seemingly with help from a British minister, Akehurst made clear that Lowkey was still in his sights: "Now we need them to look at why they are hosting explicitly antisemitic and conspiratorial songs by Lowkey".

Akehurst has previously been a consultant for arms firm Finmeccanica, also known as Leonardo. The company has billions of pounds worth of deals with the Israeli Military. We Believe In Israel has also acknowledged working with a "range of stakeholders, including the Israeli embassy".

The parent organisation of Akehurst's lobby group is BICOM (the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre), which has coordinated with the Israeli Embassy on anti-BDS campaigns in the UK. Its leader Richard Pater is also a current reserve in the Israeli army and former employee of the Israeli Prime Minister's Office.

The campaign manager at We Believe in Israel, at the time of the drive against Lowkey, was Rachel Blain. Today, she is the Director of Public Affairs at the Conservative Friends of Israel. Blain had previously been a public affairs intern at the Board of Deputies. She notes on her LinkedIn page that she previously worked as a press assistant at an unnamed "International Embassy" in London, where she "researched various media groups and platforms". Prior to that Blain had worked for the Zionist Federation, where she "created dossiers to counter anti-Israel campaigns". Considering her record, it is likely that Blain worked as a press assistant at the Israeli embassy.

Spotify's infiltration by pro-Israel forces is multipronged. Since the failed campaign against Lowkey, there have been several key changes at the company. The recently appointed Senior Counsel in Legal and Business Affairs is Andrew Joseph, previously a Sergeant in the Nahal Infantry Brigade of the Israeli military.

Spotify also established a Safety Advisory Council to regulate content. This includes an organisation that is chaired by a former director of BICOM which, as we have seen, is lobbying Spotify to remove pro-Palestinian content via We Believe In Israel. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), also on the Council, was founded by the late Israel lobbyist George Weidenfeld, a former political advisor and chef de cabinet for Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel. Today, the ISD is headed by former BICOM director Michael Lewis.

The Spotify Council also features Meghan Phelps Roger, formerly of the Westboro Baptist Church. She claims she was cured of antisemitism by Israeli David Abitbol, who is sponsored by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism.

Ronaldo Lemos is also on the Spotify Council, and at the same time, on the Facebook Oversight Board, which includes Emi Palmor (founder of the Israeli Cyber Unit and formerly of Unit 8200).

The Spotify safety council also includes Swedish academic Christer Mattsson, who works with Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum & Center for Tolerance and Education, which is funded and controlled by the Israeli regime

Spotify has also now directly partnered with an Israeli company called Riverside for a new video streaming mechanism. That company is staffed with numerous Israeli government, military or intelligence veterans, such as Ofir Brenner.

The Israeli lobby’s frequent complainant that pro-Palestinian music is “antisemitc”, including it being an “incitement” to violence against Jewish people, and which it primarily cites as reason to censor the music has no legitimacy. In reality, the pro-Palestinian music the lobby attacks, such as the remarkable likes of vocalists Lowkey, Ambassador MC and Mohammed Assaf, expresses no hatred at all.

This should be no surprise to those familiar with the artists. Listening to them one hears that they are commenting on many issues – from Palestinian solidarity and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement to resisting the criminal harm Israel does to Palestinians and Zionist erasure of Palestinian life.

Such issues are indeed pro-Palestinian in that they are grounded in respect for the dignity of Palestinians – as human beings. But that’s not bad. The fact that the lobby would like the world to think otherwise, as when the issues are addressed in pro-Palestinian music, is indeed problematic.

It suggests that support for the Palestinian people, let alone under illegal Israeli occupation, is something to be morally avoided. What could possibly justify such a preposterous claim? It’s beyond any doubt, given the countless testimonies of Palestinians themselves, comprehensive reports by the United Nations and other respected human rights bodies, decades of historical and other scholarship, etc. that Palestinians are being brutally oppressed. And the oppressor is Israel.

As fellow members of the international community – artists and non-artists alike – we are called to respond to this. And the right way of doing so is siding with the oppressed. Palestinians, much as they are survivors, are victims. Whether it's depriving Palestinians of water or healthcare or raiding them almost nightly in the West Bank, Israel does not extend even basic respect to Palestinians.

Pro-Palestinian music can challenge audiences to not only think about this but what to do about it. This is apparent where Lowkey, in “Long Live Palestine”, raps about the harsh living conditions of Palestinian living in refugee camps, within the Occupied Territories:

Do not forget the people [Palestinians] of the camps

As you sleep and count the

Stars, think of others

Those who have nowhere to sleep

As you liberate yourself with

Metaphors, think of others

Those who have lost the right to speak

As you think of others far away

Think of yourself and say ‘if only I

Were a candle in the night’

Energised by the emotional impact or force of music, such lyrics have the potential to mobilise people. This is arguably one of the main reasons that the Israeli lobby wants to censor pro-Palestinian music. Israel doesn’t care so much about what people think about it, illustrated by the shameless anti-Palestinian racism of its current government, as it does how people may act towards it.

The lobby does not limit itself to public relations. It’s committed to demobilising pro-Palestinian initiatives, ultimately aimed towards justice for Palestine.

In a reply to a letter, informing him that a library had censored one of his books, well-known American literary critic Charles Bukowski observes: “Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others.” Though Bukowski wrote this originally for a private audience, it applies to the Israeli lobby as well.

In attempting to censor pro-Palestinian music, it seeks to suppress awareness of those “actualities” that implicate Israel and for which it still needs to be held fully accountable, disposessing them of their land and homes, destroying their agriculture, imprisoning them without proper legal recourse or protections, killing them when they pose absolutely no threat (Palestinian journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, quickly comes to mind).

Pro-Palestinian music defies such suppression. It insists that, however uncomfortable it may sometimes make us, we consider what Palestinians are forced to endure. That may naturally cause us to feel moral indignation at Israel but that is far from anti-Semitic.

It means that we, true to our common humanity, are upset by injustice not only when it happens to us but others too. Like artists who create pro-Palestinian music we can channel that, whatever our talents, into ending such injustice for good.

David Miller is a non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Islam and Global Affairs at Istanbul Zaim University and a former Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Bristol.

Paul Salvatori is a senior producer at TRT World.

Amnesty UK report gives evidence on possible war crimes by Israel in Gaza city of Rafah

'Entire families were wiped out in Israeli attacks even after they sought refuge in areas promoted as safe,' says human rights group

Aysu Bicer |12.02.2024 -

Relatives of Palestinians killed during the Israeli attack mourn as their bodies are taken from al-Najjar hospital morgue for burial in Rafah, Gaza on February 12, 2024.

( Doaa Albaz - Anadolu Agency )

LONDON

Amnesty International UK on Monday unveiled evidence of deadly "unlawful attacks" perpetrated by Israeli forces in the city of Rafah, Gaza, alleging war crimes by Israel and egregious violations of international humanitarian law during military operations in the region.

The report explores a reality where it says entire families are obliterated with impunity, casting a grim shadow over Gaza's supposed "safest" areas.

The Amnesty International investigation scrutinized four separate Israeli attacks in Rafah, where civilians, including children and the elderly, were said to bear the brunt of relentless violence.

Three of these assaults unfolded in December following the conclusion of a humanitarian pause, with another taking place in January.

Erika Guevara-Rosas, senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns at Amnesty International, condemned the atrocities, accusing Israeli forces of callously disregarding international law and shattering the lives of innocent civilians.

"Entire families were wiped out in Israeli attacks even after they sought refuge in areas promoted as safe and with no prior warning from the Israeli authorities," she said.

She stressed that these attacks underscore a disturbing pattern of Israeli forces flouting international law, contradicting assertions by Israeli authorities that they have precautions to minimize civilian harm.

"Among those killed in these unlawful attacks were a baby girl who had not yet turned 3 weeks, a prominent 69-year-old retired physician, a journalist who welcomed displaced families into his house, and a mother sharing a bed with her 23-year-old daughter," she added.

The release of the report comes on the heels of last month’s International Court of Justice interim ruling, which highlighted the real and imminent risk of genocide.

Palestinians sought refuge in Rafah after the Israeli army launched intensified bombardments on the cities of Gaza and Khan Younis, as well as their surrounding towns and neighborhoods, in the months since Oct. 7, killing more than 28,000 people and causing widespread destruction and shortages of necessities.

Tel Aviv forced over 1.3 million Palestinians to relocate to Rafah, promising them that the city on Egypt's border would be safe, but now are threatening a military assault on the city, telling local civilians to again relocate, amid questions if there is anyplace left to flee.

OCCRP Partners with Leading U.K. Universities to Analyze the Professional Enablers of Corruption

Research will help anti-corruption community press for accountability.

A selection of OCCRP investigations that show the role of professional enablers in facilitating high-risk transactions. (Image credit: James O’Brien, David Istvan)

As revealed in dozens of recent investigations, lawyers, accountants, company service providers, and other professionals play essential roles in cross-border corruption schemes.

To strengthen both reporting and research on this critical challenge, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) is launching a new partnership with the University of Exeter and the University of Oxford to create and analyze new sources of data on enablers.

The project, “Global Finance and the Enablers of Corruption: Identifying Enabler Networks and their Vulnerabilities,” will utilize OCCRP’s unique data resources, including Aleph, its investigative data platform. A team of political scientists, data specialists, and journalists will work together to compile information on the professional actors who provide services to a selection of high-risk politically exposed persons (PEPs), which the academic researchers will then analyze to identify enabler networks and trends in enabler behavior.

"Armies of professionals around the world are helping corrupt individuals conduct their dirty business," said Global Anti-Corruption Consortium Director Alexandra Gillies, the project’s lead at OCCRP. "Given the massive scale and secrecy of their work, we need silo-busting partnerships like this one to understand how these global networks function, and to chip away at the harm they cause."

The collaboration represents the first-ever large-scale effort to marshal OCCRP’s data capacities for academic research. The three organizations, led by Exeter, are among the recipients of the latest round of grants from the U.K.-funded Anti-Corruption Evidence Research Program.

“For more effective systems of deterrence and accountability to emerge, we need a stronger evidence base about enabler activity, and more advanced understandings of the risks and vulnerabilities of their transactions,” said University of Exeter Professor John Heathershaw. “Our work will help the anti-corruption community acquire the information and motivation it needs to meet this opportunity.”

“I am delighted with the prospect of working with OCCRP and Exeter on this pioneering project,” said University of Oxford Professor Ricardo Soares de Oliveira. “This sort of collaboration between journalists and scholars holds extraordinary promise in terms of both knowledge production and urgent regulatory reform of service provision to kleptocrats.”

In parallel, OCCRP is also collaborating with the University of Exeter on using artificial intelligence to extract enabler information from existing media reports and repositories of documents. When combined, the two projects will expand the enabler data available to anti-corruption actors around the world. This will complement ongoing research and advocacy efforts by civil society organizations such as Transparency International, with whom OCCRP is partnering as part of the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium.

For more information contact Global Anti-Corruption Consortium Assistant Daniel Figueroa at daniel.figueroa@occrp.org.

OPINION

I always wear a mask when I protest. It’s not so I can commit crimes

Sharan Dhaliwal

Published Feb 12, 2024,

METRO UK

Wearing a mask is a habit I’ve kept up for my own safety

(Picture: Sabah Choudrey)

‘If you’re seen taking a side, you could lose your job’.

I was brought into a small room as my manager gave me a disapproving look.

‘If you have to go to these protests,’ she continued, ‘you can’t be photographed. You must, I don’t know, cover your face’.

It was 2018 and I worked in a design role in Parliament.

I guess being an activist, I shot myself in the foot for taking the job, but as a struggling artist, I accepted their offer.

By then, I had a history of protesting – my first one in 2003 was demonstrating against the war in Iraq, and I’ve been on marches for LGBTQ+ rights, Black Lives Matter, and recently, in solidarity with Palestine.

I used to leave my face uncovered, proudly standing for my right to speak with passion, for what I believed.

And so, the day after I was reprimanded, I attended one opposing Brexit down the road from my office in Westminster. But this time I covered my face with my scarf. As I was told.

Looking over the crowd I recognised someone else from my office as they also raised a scarf over their mouth – and we shared a brief nod of recognition.

Six years later and no longer in the same job, it’s a habit I’ve kept up for my own safety.

Masking meant I could stand for what I believe in

(Picture: Sharan Dhaliwal)

But thanks to further crackdowns on protests announced by the Home Office, it could land me in jail, or facing a fine of £1,000.

The Home Office says these new rules are an attempt to clampdown on disruption at protests. But they’re literally meant to cause disruption and that’s always been the case – so what’s changed?

As someone who has gone bare-faced and with a covering, I’ve learned that the latter has enhanced my experience.

The truth is, being told to wear a mask in 2018 was great advice – granted it was to protect the department and save face – but it gave me the ability to protest safely. This feels especially important as a queer South-Asian woman who has been abused on marches before.

Masking meant I could stand for what I believe in, and I didn’t have to worry about my identity.

Now, the Home Office have decided they want to take that safety away.

Many of us feel we need protection from those who are policing protests (Picture: Sharan Dhaliwal)

But people don’t just wear masks to stop themselves from being identified, but for health reasons, too.

At the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, I wore a mask because of Covid – as did everyone around me.

And those who have their immune system compromised will also want to wear one still. Everyone has a right to demonstrate, and importantly, they also have the right to minimise the chance of being infected.
TRENDING FOR YOU

We also have to consider the sad fact that many of us feel we need protection from those who are policing protests.

In March 2023, a report revealed that the Met Police are institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic. Many of us weren’t shocked, and seasoned activists often use masks to distance ourselves from the force.

We’ve seen police violence – at Kill the Bill protests in 2021, young people were injured, while at the Sarah Everard vigil, the police pinned women to the floor and arrested them.
Do you wear a mask at protests? Have your say in the comments belowCOMMENT NOW

At recent Palestine solidarity marches, I’ve seen things become heated.

At one, in Southall in December, I witnessed an officer push an elderly Muslim man.

Many of the crowd, myself included, took out our phones and started taking pictures.

The majority of those at the demonstration covered their faces – and were largely people of colour.

I was also aware that a significant number of those attending were immigrants, many refugees, who were masked partly so they could avoid falling victim to the precarious asylum system and being sent home.

But it isn’t just the police who create fear. Right wingers attend protests, collect information, photographs and videos – they are uploaded on social media, and messageboards.

Everyone has a right to demonstrate

(Picture:Sharan Dhaliwal)

Far-right agitators have harassed activists or journalists, with Tommy Robinson even going to one’s address.

In my 20 years of protesting, I’ve been subjected to all manner of abuse. On my first ever demonstration in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq, aged just 18, I was called a ‘f*****g p**i’ by someone who walked past and took issue with my sign.

I was terrified. It was the first time I’d ever been called that.

It was around this time I understood that I had to take care of my safety. It was two years after 9/11, and it was scary being brown in that atmosphere.

It still is, but covering my face makes me a less obvious target.

Taking away our ability to wear masks takes away our ability to create some safety in an unsafe world.

And if we lift that mask, that scarf, that line of safety – we all suffer.

UK
Water bosses should face jail time on top of bonus bans, campaigners say SAVE BRITAIN'S RIVERS

No 10 is accused of 'smoke and mirrors' as it announces it will consult on banning bonuses for polluting water firms' bosses

Sewage protesters during a march in London in April 2023

(Photo: Mike Kemp/Getty)

By Lucie Heath
Environment Correspondent
February 12, 2024

Plans from the Government to ban bonuses for the bosses of water firms polluting Britain’s rivers do not go far enough and chief executives should face jail time instead, campaigners have said.

The Environment Secretary, Steve Barclay, announced plans on Sunday to consult on new measures that would give the regulator Ofwat the power to block bonuses for the chief executives and directors of water companies.

It comes amid rising anger over the dumping of sewage into Britain’s rivers, lakes and coastal areas.

Campaigners told i the new measures amounted to “smoke and mirrors” and were not enough to address the scale of the problem facing Britain’s freshwaters.

They said ministers should instead be threatening water company bosses with jail time for major pollution incidents.

“The Government’s proposal on bonuses goes nowhere near far enough. A robust regulatory regime should include criminal sanctions,” said Nick Measham, chief executive of the campaign group WildFish.

Under the current law, water company bosses could technically face criminal charges for dumping sewage beyond the conditions of their permit, but this rarely happens.

Criminal cases are lengthy and expensive, meaning the Environment Agency often relies on civil penalties, which do not come with jail time.

Sea swimmer's revolt: The army of people boycotting bills over sewage spills

The EA has previously said it would like to see prison sentences for water company executives responsible for serious pollution, in the same way bosses in other sectors can face jail time.

Labour recently told i it would put water bosses responsible for serious pollution “in the dock” if it wins the next general election but it stopped short of saying they should face jail sentences. The Liberal Democrats have said chief executives should go to jail if the “British legal system decides”.

As the law technically already allows water firm bosses to face criminal charges, it is likely that the EA would need to be better resourced to bring forward such cases.

“Waste company directors who run illegally operating companies are jailed and the Proceeds of Crime Act is used to seize profits from pollution, yet water company directors who do the same thing are merely threatened with having their bonuses reduced,” added Ash Smith, founder of the group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution.

“In 2021 the Environment Agency was talking about jailing water company bosses – they could certainly prosecute and it is remarkable that they have never done so as Crown Court judges have noticed and commented on their absence.”

Matt Staniek, founder of the Save Windermere campaign, questioned whether a “slap on the wrist” would “rectify the systemic criminality that has been demonstrated in the industry”.

i’s Save Britain’s Rivers Campaign

For the past year i has been highlighting the disgusting state of Britain’s rivers, lakes and beaches through our Save Britain’s Rivers campaign.

In collaboration with our sister title, New Scientist, we have shown how water companies are dumping waste into our most precious bodies of water, and how a lax regulatory system is allowing them to get away with it.

We’ve revealed how one water company drove 240 truckloads of untreated waste to an overflowing pumping station in a popular Devon seaside town, and took a deep dive into the issue of sewage tankers, which are blighting Britain’s most idyllic villages and national parks.

We’ve held the Environment Agency to account for its failures to penalise those who break the rules, revealing last year that the watchdog is failing to visit 90 per cent of toxic water spills in England.

Our reporters have travelled to the areas of the country most affected by this scandal to meet those who are taking a stand against water companies and their regulators.

Together with these passionate campaigners we will bring about the policy changes required to restore Britain’s rivers to their once pristine state.

Water companies are allowed to discharge sewage from their network during times of exceptional rainfall, but evidence has suggested this is happening more regularly and a number of firms have admitted to spilling sewage beyond the scope of their permit conditions.

“How quickly would we see these problems solved if water company bosses were treated in the same way that waste company bosses are? Waste company bosses go to jail when they break the law, water companies are given a slap on the wrist,” he said.

Campaigners also criticised the Government for the amount of time it is taking to introduce the ban on bonuses.

On Sunday, Mr Barclay said Ofwat would consult on the changes later this year with the aim to introduce the crackdown in for bonuses issued during the 2024/25 financial year.

While the criteria for a ban will be decided as part of the consultation process, the Government suggested this could follow a successful prosecution for the severest types of pollution incidents, or where a company has been found guilt of serious management failings.

Several water bosses waived their bonuses last year in response to public anger over the sewage scandal, but five chief executives did take home bumper packets, including Anglian Water chief executive Peter Simpson, who took home a bonus of more than £300,000.

Ms Bateman vs South West Water: Swimmer suing over sewage says, 'I won't settle'

“The staggering fact is that bonuses were being paid in the first place to water company bosses whose businesses were breaking the law. It is also disappointing to see that, as with so many other similar water policy announcements, this will be ‘subject to consultation’,” said Charles Watson, chair and founder of River Action.

The Liberal Democrat’s Environment spokesperson Tim Farron described the “Conservative attempt to ban bonuses” as a “farce”.

He said the criteria set out by the Government would “set the bar so high” that it is “unlikely any bonuses will be banned for these disgraced firms”.

“Clearly, if a water firm CEO is complicit and aware of illegal environment destruction, they should face punishment. If the British legal system decides a jail sentence is appropriate, then so be it,” he said.

Labour’s shadow Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, recently told i the party would put water bosses responsible for pollution “ in the dock”.

Announcing the consultation on Sunday, Mr Barclay said the Government will “shortly be setting out more detail on further steps to clean up our waters, including reducing the reliance on water company self-monitoring in order to hold them to account and drive the improvements we all need to see”.

Sewage UK: Public warned not to swim at 113 beaches as raw waste pumps into sea

Surfers Against Sewage map shows raw sewage has been pumped into the sea at 113 beaches across the UK

By Isabella Boneham
Published 12th Feb 2024,

Raw sewage has been pumped into the sea at over 100 beaches across the UK today (Monday 12 February), according to Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) interactive map. The charity updates the map everyday issuing pollution alerts at beaches that have seen their sewer networks overflow.

The warning on the site reads “storm sewage has been discharged from a sewer overflow in this location within the past 48 hours” adding “bathing not advised due to poor annual classification”. Today 113 UK beaches have been issued a sewage pollution alert, advising the public not to swim there. Some of the beaches are those that are very popular among holidaymakers include Weston-super-Mare’s main beach, Croyde Bay in Devon, Crantock Beach in Cornwall and Hunstanton Beach in Norfolk.

Among the locations are some which have been plagued by sewage alerts recently. For example, Langstone Harbour in Portsmouth, which is on the list, saw sewage discharged there for 181 hours across eight days last November. Harlyn Bay in Cornwall also has a sewage alert, despite a former teacher telling NationalWorld in December that he is "absolutely outraged" at the amount of sewage that "just keeps on pumping" onto the Cornish beach. William Howells said he has been “sick since the end of July” after a “quick surf” at Harlyn Bay and suffered “three days of awful gastroenteritis”.

Surfers Against Sewage map shows raw sewage has been pumped into the sea at 113 beaches across the UK. (Photo: Getty Images)

The huge number of sewage pollution alerts today comes after a yellow weather warning for rain was issued by the Met Office over the weekend. The warning covered the East Midlands, East of England, North East England Yorkshire and Humber from Saturday (9 February) through to Sunday noon (10 February).

During periods of heavy rainfall sewer networks can become overwhelmed resulting in sewage being discharged from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) instead of being treated. Water companies are issued with permits that allow them to discharge sewage if their networks are overwhelmed by rainwater in what should be exceptional circumstances.

Firms have been heavily criticised for the amount of times they utilise the storm overflow system and investigations have even found that some companies discharge sewage on days when it is not raining. Following sewage alerts, a SAS spokesperson told NationalWorld that the “blatant disregard for public health and our blue spaces is appalling.” The spokesperson added: “Water companies spill sewage come rain or shine, all the while syphoning off tens of billions to shareholders and paying the fat cats at the top huge pay and bonuses.”

Water companies face fines for poor customer service

From today (12 February 2024) Ofwat has new powers to act against any water company that provides poor customer service in breach of a new licence condition, which could see the regulator impose fines of up to 10% of the company’s turnover.

Ofwat expects all water companies to be focused on delivering a high level of customer service – from resolving complaints to making sure customers are informed and supported during incidents where water supplies are disrupted.

There are examples of where water and wastewater companies and their staff are going above and beyond for their customers across England and Wales. However, there are still too many instances where customers feel let down, and that their water company does not have customers’ best interests at heart.

Recent figures published in Ofwat’s annual Water Company Performance Report, show that in 2022-23 there was a fall in customer satisfaction across most companies. This follows a decline in scores in 2021-22, and customer satisfaction is lower for all companies than it was in 2020-21.

Ofwat’s incidents research has also identified examples of poor customer service with companies failing in communication and support when things go wrong, leading to dissatisfaction and in some cases anxiety.

Customers deserve better, and Ofwat has now added to its regulatory tools to strengthen and enforce customer protection.

David Black, CEO, Ofwat said:

“From today we are putting water companies on notice to improve customer service and where we see failure, Ofwat can and will take action which could result in significant fines.
“Our new powers to issue fines for poor levels of service are part of a range of measures Ofwat has recently introduced including on environmental protection, company dividends and executive pay, to drive better performance and to hold water companies to account.
“We expect this new licence condition to deliver real improvements in customer service across the sector. It is in the companies’ interests to put customers at the heart of their business and provide levels of service that increase customer satisfaction.”

Environment Secretary Steve Barclay said:

“We expect water companies to ensure customers are properly supported when services are disrupted.
“Enforcement action for poor customer service is an important and necessary step to restoring trust in the water sector and has been made possible thanks to government giving Ofwat increased powers to modify the licences of companies in England under the Environment Act.
“We are driving forward more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement through the Plan for Water and will continue working closely with regulators to improve outcomes for both customers and the environment.”

Mike Keil, Chief Executive of the Consumer Council for Water (CCW), said:

“Every water company should provide excellent customer service but too often through our research and the complaints we handle we see people being badly let down, particularly by poor communication. A complete change in culture is needed in some companies if we’re to improve people’s experiences and repair fractured trust and the new customer licence condition can help to focus minds.”

END

Notes to Editors

Ofwat’s customer-focused licence condition: Customer-focused licence condition – Ofwat

Water company licences: Licences and licensees – Ofwat

Ofwat Water Company Performance Report 2022-23: Water Company Performance Report 2022-23 – Ofwat

Ofwat’s incidents research: Customer experiences – Ofwat

CCW Household customer complaints report 2023: Household customer complaints report 2023 – CCW

UK
A road is closing for six weeks to allow toads to cross it

Sarah Hooper

Published Feb 12, 2024,

METRO UK

The tiny amphibians make a big journey (Picture: Getty)

A road in Bath will be shut to drivers for six weeks to help local amphibians reach their breeding grounds.

Charlcombe Lane will be closed until March 25 as toads, frogs, and newts journey across the asphalt to reach their ‘ancestral breeding grounds’.

The road has been closed each year since 2003 in cooperation with Bath and North East Somerset Council.

The Charlcombe Toad Rescue Group will also be patrolling the area to help the creatures safe as they make their journey.

An estimated 2,500 amphibians will cross the road to reach the lake below, where they will mate and reproduce.

The toads typically travel after dusk between February and March, but crossing the road can prove to be perilous.

20 tonnes of toads are killed on roads each year

(Picture: Getty)

Frogs, toads and newts will all make the perilous journey (Picture: Getty)

Toad helper Helen Hobbs told the BBC: ‘In Charlcombe they often become trapped by high stone walls, so volunteers patrol each evening to move the amphibians to a safe release site to allow them to continue their journey.

‘It’s estimated that 20 tonnes of toads are killed on roads each year so our group is dedicated to doing everything we can to ensure the toad, frog and newt populations at Charlcombe survive.’

Another road in Lincolnshire also closes yearly to help amphibians reach their destination.

The lane in Sleaford often sees pairs of toads run over as the male hitches a ride on the females back – and on one day in 2013, more than 40 pairs of the toads were found dead on the road.

The Wildlife Trust Fund explained that common toads are found all over the UK: ‘
Toads are famous for their mass migrations back to their breeding ponds on the first warm, damp evenings of the year, often around St. Valentine’s Day.

‘They’re found almost everywhere, except for Scottish islands, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Isles of Scilly and most of the Channel Islands.’

UK: Survey of 200 Migrant Domestic Workers Reveals Extent of Employer Abuse

Country:
UNITED KINGDOM
FEBRUARY 9, 2024
Author:
Ana P. Santos
GRANTEE
PULITZER CENTRE

ENGLISH

Project
Immunity and Impunity: How Diplomats Get Away With Exploiting Domestic Workers

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Why Putin invaded: a socialist analysis

Water companies face fines for poor customer service

About Me