Saturday, March 16, 2024

Michael Gove’s extremism definition: four things about his announcement that make no sense

THE CONVERSATION

Associate Professor, School of Criminology, University of Leicester

Published: March 15, 2024

The UK government has unveiled its new definition of extremism, but has raised more questions than it has answered in the process.

Extremism is now defined as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”. The definition also makes reference to those who “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve” these aims.

Far from being “more precise”, as promised, the early signs are that this new definition will prove to be as contentious and controversial as its predecessor. There are many things that don’t make sense about the government’s announcement. Here are just a few.

1. It’s a response to protests, but has nothing to do with them

Prior to the unveiling, Michael Gove, the communities secretary, said the new definition was a specific response “to the increase in the amount of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred that we’ve seen on our streets” since October 7 last year. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, spoke about a “shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” and the the need for a tougher approach. Others speculated about the potential criminality of engaging in certain chants at protests.

The change has been trailed as a response to protests over Gaza but has no effect on their policing. Alamy

The new definition, however, doesn’t relate to any of this. Instead, as Gove told Sky News, the new definition will solely be used by government departments and officials to ensure they are not inadvertently providing a platform, funding or legitimacy to those it believes to be “extremist”. More than anything else, he went on, the new definition is “about making sure that government uses its powers and its money in a wise way”. So the new definition has nothing to do with what we were told it did.

2. It isn’t a law but confers great power

Something notable about the new definition is that it is non-statutory. It is not a law and will not lead to any changes in existing criminal law. Nor will it afford any new powers to help with the policing of protests – or indeed anything else.

This state of affairs doesn’t just mean the definition fails to add value in a legal sense, it is also troubling from a democratic perspective. Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of state threat legislation, has said the new definition means that decisions about which groups are labelled extremist will now be made by “ministerial decree” alone. No safeguards are in place to prevent ministers and there is no appeal process for anyone who feels they’ve been wrongly labelled an extremist.

The process of labelling extremists therefore has the very real potential to be politicised and weaponised. In essence, the government will be able to use the new definition to cancel those it sees fit to, irrespective of whether they happen to be actual extremists or whether the government just wants to silence their criticisms. That local authorities, public bodies, and others are likely to follow the government’s lead, the potential for the new definition to be misused should not be overlooked.

3. It both isn’t and might be central to counter-terrorism law

In all of the furore surrounding the unveiling of the new definition, any reference to Prevent – the government’s counter-extremism strategy – has been conspicuous by its absence. This is strange given that the government’s old definition of extremism is integral to the Prevent strategy. The old definition is part of counter-terrorism law and provides the legal basis on which specific authorities are required to help prevent the risk of people becoming vulnerable to terrorism and the ideologies that inform it.

That there has been no reference made to Prevent or any attempt to explain what the relationship between the strategy and the new definition might be is therefore somewhat bizarre. We don’t know whether the new definition is designed to replace the old definition or whether we will now have two different definitions, each operating in its own sphere of influence. While common sense would suggest it would be the former, the very specific remit of the new definition explained by Gove would seem to suggest the latter.

4. Organisations don’t know if they’re being labelled

The government’s old definition of extremism was regularly and routinely criticised as being used to disproportionately target Muslims and their communities. Many thought it Islamophobic. The new definition therefore afforded an opportunity for the government to make the case that this was not just about Muslims but about all forms of extremism irrespective of who might be involved.

Failing to heed the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, when he warned the new definition risks “disproportionately targeting Muslim communities” the government appears to have stoked rather allay fears. This was evident in how a number of Muslim organisations were named in leaks to the media prior to unveiling and by Gove, who used parliamentary privilege to name them in a speech to MPs. This included the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), Cage International and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development). Others such as the Friends of Al-Aqsa, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and 5Pillars have also been mentioned.

Both MAB and Mend have already challenged Gove to repeat the allegations outside of parliament so they can pursue legal proceedings against him. The MCB says it has already taken advice from lawyers.

The government has also made reference to extreme-right groups, such as Patriotic Alternative, they are wildly different from the community-focused Muslim organisations they are being equated with.

All in all, the evidence suggests that, aside from the definition itself, very little else has changed.

New extremism definition: ‘Silencing of dissident voices is a great threat to British democracy and a watershed moment in erosion of our civil liberties’

MARCH 15, 2024

LATEST

London, 15th March 2024 – The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) condemns and rejects the UK Government’s new definition of ‘extremism’. This definition seeks to curtail lawful exercise of civil rights guaranteed in a democracy, including the freedom of expression, thought, and protest.

The new definition was announced in parliament by Communities Secretary Michael Gove. He claimed that this redefinition was a defence of democracy, but instead, it seeks to silence voices that diverge from government thinking. He also hypocritically singled out Muslim communities and organisations, which is particularly damaging rhetoric from the Secretary of State responsible for communities.

The new definition of extremism is not an isolated attack on democracy and freedom. This government has introduced various legislation and frameworks that have stoked division and criminalised types of peaceful protest. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 gave more sweeping powers to the police and was seen as an attack on the right to protest. In 2023, the Public Order Act was introduced to further increase and expand the powers given to the police. The Anti-Boycott Bill, currently in the House of Lords, is designed to curtail public bodies from engaging in another form of peaceful protests, namely boycotts. These developments will have a ‘chilling effect’ on people seeking to exercise their legitimate democratic rights, as outlined by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Earlier this month, Prime Minster Rishi Sunak gave a speech outlining his intention suppress protest. Sunak’s speech gave special attention to pro-Palestine marches as he tried to demonise them. Sunak argued that these peaceful protests were somehow a threat to democracy whilst he, and likewise Gove, failed to make mention of far-right groups that were seen to be engaging in acts of violence most recently on Remembrance Day, where 82 far right protesters were arrested in one incident. Data on policing at Palestine solidarity marches, on the contrary, show disproportionately low arrest rates for the hundreds of thousands in attendance.

Jonathan Hall KC, who was employed as the government’s Independent Reviewer of State Threat Legislation in early February, has said that the new definition ‘would not be seen as democratic’. In an unusual move, Hall was not consulted on the new definition. Hall rightfully commented that it is not for the government to decide which protest is to be allowed, doing so is anti-democratic and a step towards totalitarianism. The introduction of laws, frameworks, and definitions that criminalise dissent and further erode civil liberties must not be taken lightly. Those putting democracy on the line must be dealt with accordingly.

Silencing any dissenting voice as ‘extremist’ is in itself extremism. It is a dangerous political tactic that has been used to dangerous effect in the past, such as when Margaret Thatcher infamously dismissed the former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela and his party as a “typical terrorist organisation”.

The right to protest is a key feature of British democracy, which is now facing grave threat from a government that has been seen to increasingly attack civil liberties, marginalised groups, and any voice calling for justice for Palestinians. It made no mention of MPs who have deliberately exacerbated racism and Islamophobia. Finally, it shows staggering hypocrisy from a government that has committed itself to undermining civil liberties during its time in power.

ICJP Senior Public Affairs Officer Jonathan Purcell said:

“This truly is a watershed moment in the erosion of civil liberties in this country. The government are justifying this new extremism definition in the name of ‘unity’ and ‘democracy’. But the reality is that this definition is designed to stoke division and undermine civil liberties. It is doublethink to the extreme.

The most prominent feature of democracy is the acceptance of differences whatever they may be. Silencing of dissident voices is a greater threat to British democracy than anything the government wishes to ban. This isn’t a slippery slope; we are already at the bottom.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians is an independent organisation of lawyers, politicians and academics who support the rights of Palestinians and aim to protect their rights through the law.
For more information, or to arrange an interview with a spokesperson, please contact the ICJP news desk at press@icjpalestine.com.

Transport

Buses in Scotland's west, including Glasgow, could move under public control under Strathclyde Partnership for Transport deal

The existing deregulated network in the west of Scotland, including Glasgow could be replaced with a franchise system similar to the one operating in London

By Ryan McDougall
Published 15th Mar 2024

Plans that could see buses in the west of Scotland brought back under public control have been approved as part of moves to tackle "a declining bus market".

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) agreed to begin work on establishing local bus franchising in line with the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 at a meeting on Friday.

SPT said franchising is a proven model for delivering local bus services throughout Europe, and that it can significantly improve networks, lead to more passengers and boost accessibility.

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport said franchising was a proven model for delivering local bus services throughout Europe, and that it can significantly improve networks. Picture: John Devlin

The organisation said the process would cost up to £15 million and could take between five and seven years to establish. It was also recommended that SPT, along with its partners, should progress with the bus service improvements partnership (BSIP) arrangements to provide a basis to curb the decline in passenger numbers.

SPT chairman and SNP councillor for Govan Stephen Dornan said: "This is a bold and ambitious plan from SPT which sets a strong approach to tackle a declining bus market.

"It gives us opportunities to build for growth and deliver a network that is attractive, accessible and affordable to both passengers in our communities who rely on the bus to get around, and those who we need to get 'on board' by offering an attractive alternative to the private car.

"However, any franchising option will take time and investment to establish so we need to look at doing something now to halt the declining bus market.

"BSIPs, which also require suitable investment, offer the best opportunity for a significant, interim improvement while we work to establish the world-class local bus franchise model the people of the west of Scotland deserve.

"In order to progress any of these options, we need investment from the Scottish Government, which now has to step up with real funding and a commitment to support public transport, particularly bus."

Local services franchising is a system that allows a local transport authority to award exclusive rights to an operator to run certain bus services for a set period of time.

SPT board papers state the local transport authority must first put in place a franchise framework setting out what local services are to be provided, the standards to which the services are to be provided, and any additional facilities or services that are to be provided.

Under this franchise framework, the local transport authority enters into franchise agreements with bus operators, awarded through competitive processes, to deliver the specified services and standards.

SPT vice-chairman Alan Moir, Scottish Labour councillor for Bishopbriggs South, said: "The preferred options presented by SPT today have the potential to revolutionise local bus services in the west of Scotland to the clear benefit of bus passengers and local communities.

"The need to stabilise the local bus market, deliver bus reform and fully harness the strengths of all those collectively employed in the sector is also very clear."

Fellow vice-chairman David Wilson, Conservative councillor for Inverclyde East, said: "Delivery of a competitive franchising model, as proposed, has the potential to harness the best aspects of the public and private sector collaboration in delivery of local bus services."

Transport Scotland, the country's national transport agency, said: "The bus provisions in the 2019 Act empower local transport authorities with the flexible tools they need to respond to their own transport challenges and we welcome SPT's decision to explore all available bus powers as part of their Strathclyde regional bus strategy.

"We encourage all local transport authorities to consider the full range of tools available to them under the 2019 Act, to ensure that everyone has accessible public transport regardless of where they are in Scotland."

SPT is urging people to respond to its consultation on the plans, which will launch in April.

UK
Translink: Bus and rail unions to re-enter pay talks

Bus and rail workers have staged several days of industrial action

Trade unions representing public transport workers in Northern Ireland have said they will re-enter discussions with Translink over pay.

Bus and rail workers have staged several days of industrial action in recent months.

This week they voted to reject an offer for 2023/24 which included a 5% pay uplift and a one-off payment of £1,500.

Unite, GMB and Siptu described the offer as "inadequate".

On Wednesday, Translink chief executive Chris Conway told BBC News NI the company "doesn't have any more funding to address pay".

He said Translink had negotiated "very hard" over a long period to reach the deal which had been put to staff.

Last month, the unions agreed to suspend planned strike dates in February while talks progressed.

The action had caused widespread disruption, including some dates in the run-up to Christmas.

On Friday, the unions issued a joint statement which said they would make no further public comments on the dispute ahead of the conclusion of talks.

Translink said it had "engaged with the trade unions and the process is on-going".

"There will be no further comment at this stage," a spokesperson added.

Skiers call out snowsports sector over ‘big irony’ of high-polluting sponsors

A report has warned high-emitting sponsors are compounding the existential threats posed to winter sports (John Stillwell/PA)

By Rebecca Speare-Cole,

PA sustainability reporter

Yesterday

Skiers and campaigners have criticised winter sports organisations for “big irony” sponsorship deals with high-polluting companies.

Former British alpine skier and Paralympian Anna Turney is among those calling on snowsports organisations to opt for sponsors who are building a fossil-free future.

It comes as the Badvertising campaign and New Weather Sweden analysed the potential impact caused by high-polluting companies sponsoring organisations like GB Snowsports and the International Ski & Snowboard Federation (FIS).

The researchers estimated the emissions that could have been created by the increased sales generated through sponsorships by seven companies
– Audi, Ford, SAS, Equinor, Aker Solutions, Volvo and Preem.

The findings – published in the report Dirty Snow on Saturday – suggest that total emissions from the seven firms’ increased sales could melt an area of 1,968 square kilometres of spring snow each year – equivalent to more than 275,000 football pitches.

Winter athletes want to solely focus on their performance but the spectre of climate change looms large over every single snowsport. Not as a distant risk, but as an immediate peril
Paralympian Anna Turney

It comes as the FIS Ski World Cup finals begin on Saturday in Saalbach-Hinterglemm, Austria.

Audi’s sponsorship of the event could generate between 103,000 and 144,000 tons of emissions, equivalent to burning between 238,000 and 333,000 barrels of oil, according to the analysis.

The researchers also calculated the amount of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions that could be generated for each pound that the company spent on the sponsorship deal, if there is a 7% return on investment.

Norwegian energy services firm Aker’s sponsorship of GB Snowsport could generate increased emissions of 112.3kg CO2e for each pound the company invested, the findings suggested.

Meanwhile, each pound spent by Norwegian oil major Equinor in its sponsorship of the Norwegian Ski Federation could generate increased emissions of 30.9kg CO2e, the research showed.

The report warned high-emitting sponsors are compounding the existential threats posed to winter sports due to rising global temperatures and shifting snowfall patterns.

Resorts across Europe have been struggling to stay open during the winter season due to record-breaking temperatures, with a growing number of ski slopes now relying on artificial snowmaking, which itself is energy-intensive.

Ms Turney said: “Winter athletes want to solely focus on their performance but the spectre of climate change looms large over every single snowsport. Not as a distant risk, but as an immediate peril.

“Snowsports organisations need to show courage and be brave if they are to secure a flourish future for snowsport.

“They need to do things differently and that must start with which companies they promote and associate with. It could not be simpler: if we do not change, then there will be no more snowsports.”

Bjorn Sandstrom, Swedish elite cross-country skier and environmental scientist, said: “Many sports federations and professional athletes are marketing an idealised, elite lifestyle with high consumption of products and travel.

“This sends a message to younger generations leading to more people striving towards this ‘glamorous life’

Anna Turney wants snowsports organisations to opt for sponsors who are building a fossil-free future (Danny Lawson/PA)

“But the research is clear – we have to leave these unsustainable behaviours that are leading us deeper into the climate crisis.”

Former Dutch skater Mark Ooijevaar said: “High-carbon sponsorship in sports needs to be replaced by sponsorship from companies that are building a fossil-free future.

“This is especially true of winter sports, where the threats of climate change could not be more apparent.

“There is a clear role here for elite athletes to speak up and sound the alarm, as important influencers in society.”

Anna Jonsson, co-director New Weather Sweden, said: “It is a big irony that polluting sponsors within winter sports are melting the ice and snow that the sports are dependent upon.

“We all want to save the snow – but to secure a future for winter sports, all organisers and athletes must drop polluting sponsors.”

Andrew Simms, director of the New Weather Institute and co-ordinator of the Badvertising campaign said: “These sponsors are not charitable donors but self-interested corporations whose heavily-polluting business models are in conflict with the climate that snowsports depend on.

“They’re using sport as a billboard to sell more high-carbon products that are killing our winters and now, for the first time, we can put a figure on the damage their money does.”

Concerns around high-carbon companies sponsoring sport have been growing in recent years, with a number of international tournaments ending ties with high-carbon sponsors on climate grounds.

The English Rugby Football Union (RFU) reportedly turned down a commercial sponsorship deal with US fossil fuel major ExxonMobil last year and Tennis Australia scrapped its partnership with oil and gas giant Santos after a grassroots campaign in 2022.

An Aker spokesperson said: “As a supplier to the energy industry, Aker Solutions enables energy companies to produce oil and gas with low emissions and responsible practices while also helping to scale the renewable energy solutions we need to phase out fossil fuels.”

A GB Snowsport spokesperson said: “In October 2022 GB Snowsport’s Cross Country team entered into a partnership agreement with Team AkerDaehlie which is a company that is owned by SkiMagi AS – (33%), Aker Capital (33%) and Active Brands AS (33%).

“We regret that the authors of this report did not approach GB Snowsport for comment prior to publication, as we share their commitment to sustainability in snowsport, and would have been happy to point out the distinction in our association with Team Akeraehlie.

“As an organisation, we are absolutely alive to the concerns of snowsport athletes and fans around the impacts of climate change on international snowsport. We take our responsibility for the future of winter sports seriously.”

PA has contacted FIS, GB Snowsport, Audi, Equinor, Volvo, Preem, SAS, Ford and the Norwegian Ski Federation for comment.

SCOTLAND

100 workers given 'no notice' as engineering firm 'becomes insolvent'

The union claimed workers were given 'no notice' of the firm's insolvency.

Valve Components Ltd based in East Kilbride is part of the Glenalmond Group.

Matthew Fulton

Around 100 workers are at risk of losing their jobs at a manufacturing firm in South Lanarkshire, according to a union.

Unite the Union claimed it has been informed Valve Components Ltd based in East Kilbride has “become insolvent” with around 100 workers given “no notice”

The company, established in 1987, provides turnkey production services to the oil and gas, defence, aerospace and energy industries as part of the Glenalmond Group Ltd made up of engineering and manufacturing firms.

Unite claims that “no notification or consultation” was afforded to the workers or the union as representatives.

The company has a listed active proposal to strike off on Companies House with a first Gazette notice for compulsory strike off issued on Tuesday, March 5.

Sharon Graham Unite general secretary, said: “Unite will do everything it possibly can to support the Valve Components workers.

“We have already approached a number of Glasgow-based employers to explore potential job opportunities for the workers.

“Yet again, another company appears to be breaching the law by not informing or consulting the workforce in a redundancy situation.

“Be in no doubt, Unite will hold Valve Components and every other employer who breaches the law to account.”

Unite claimed says it is in the process of contacting its members from the firm in order to progress protective award claims.

Debbie Hutchings, Unite industrial officer, added: “Valve Components worked largely within the aerospace sector, and it had employed highly-skilled workers for many years with some of the staff having been there for over 30 years.

“We were aware that the company had experienced financial difficulties due to a low order book and it had been looking for buyers.

“However, the news of insolvency came as a massive shock.

“It’s absolutely devastating news for the workers. It’s disgraceful that this was left so long to the point of putting the workforce out of a job with no notice or any warning.”

Valve Components Ltd and The Glenalmond Group Ltd have been contacted for comment.

BMA calls on government to launch inquiry into use of physician associates

By Cormac Pearson, PA

Yesterday

The British Medical Association (BMA) is calling on the Government to launch an inquiry into the use of physician associates in NHS trusts.

The moves comes after NHS England issued guidance telling hospitals they should not be using physician associates (PAs) on medical rotas and outlining what tasks they cannot do, including prescribing and being used as replacements for doctors.

The guidance emphasised: “PAs are not substitutes for doctors; rather, they are specifically trained to work collaboratively with doctors and others.

“PAs should not be used as replacements for doctors on a rota.”

PAs are graduates – usually with a health or life sciences degree – who have undertaken two years of postgraduate training.

The BMA directed calls for an inquiry to Health Secretary Victoria Atkins following reports in The Daily Telegraph that more than 30 hospitals showed PAs taking places on doctor’s rotas.

PAs do have a role to play in patient care, they are valued members of the healthcare team but they are not, and should never be used as, replacement doctors.
Professor Phil Banfield

The union’s chairman Professor Phil Banfield said it is time to launch an inquiry to “uncover the full extent of what is essentially a patient safety scandal”.

“She (Ms Atkins) has some very difficult questions to answer about how this has been allowed to happen and why patients are being put at potential risk in this way,” he said.

Professor Banfield referenced a letter from NHS England national medical director Professor Sir Stephen Powis which said: “PAs are not doctors, and cannot and must not replace doctors.”

Professor Banfield said: “What is being uncovered appears to be the exact opposite; we also know from our members’ experiences that hospitals are putting physician assistants on medical rotas, in place of medically qualified doctors.

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins (Victoria Jones, PA)

”In our view, Victoria Atkins now has a duty to patients and a duty to medically qualified staff – doctors – to establish how widespread this practice is and more importantly, stop it.

“PAs do have a role to play in patient care, they are valued members of the healthcare team but they are not, and should never be used as, replacement doctors.”

The letter comes after the BMA published guidance outlining what it thinks the level of responsibility those in medical associate professions (MAPs), such as PAs and anaesthesia associates, should have.

It is hoped the document will “improve patient safety”, the union said.

MAPs were introduced to the NHS workforce in the early 2000s to bolster access to care for patients, but have faced increased scrutiny due to high-profile mistakes.

One example is the death of 30-year-old Emily Chesterton, who was misdiagnosed by a PA twice before eventually dying of a blood clot in 2022.

The BMA recommended MAPs should work using a traffic light system, with green indicating a task they can do alone, amber meaning they need supervision and red would be a task they should not do.

Extreme electioneering

Analysis, Mar 16th

FREEDOM

THE ANARCHIST SOCIALIST NEWSPAPER

In the UK, the (pre-election) election campaign is in full swing. The Conservatives are performing terribly in polling, and their main tactic appears to be straight from the Trumpian playbook. They pick a fight that hardly anyone considers real in the hope that it will at least let them keep their hardcore base. The more controversial, the better, they think. Labour’s tactic when this happens is to broadly agree with the aim the Tories are heading for but just say they think the governing party is going about it the wrong way.

We’ve seen this on migration, where Labour are softly opposing the government’s plans to send people arriving in the UK via small boats to Rwanda. They claim that they also want to stop the people trafficking connected to this, but they’d do it differently. They will soon allow the Safety of Rwanda Bill to pass through parliament because they believe that the measures will fail, and they want to benefit from the failure. This is an astonishing game to play with the lives and welfare of some of the most vulnerable people in the ‘care’ of the state at risk.

This week, the Tories chose a philosophical discussion on ‘extremism’ as the issue to divide the nation on. It follows the bizarre Downing Street statement made by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak two weeks ago, where he used the excuse of rather peaceful protests calling for a ceasefire in Gaza as the backdrop to suggest the country was in the grip of ‘mob rule’. Since then, the minister for Communities, Michael Gove, has been beavering away at a new definition of extremism, with the aim of barring named groups and individuals from having access to direct talks with government officials and ministers.

The Gaza protests have been large, with relatively few arrests for such events. The focus has been on slogans and chants that the establishment hurries to deem antisemitic, and the government seems to want to use this issue as a wedge to divide people. Labour is perceived to be weak on antisemitism, so the Tories hope to gain some advantage. That a major international crisis is being cynically used for electoral gain is repugnant. Everyone could and should be trying to stop the killing. One minister was quoted recently by a Sky News journalist saying they were ‘worried’ that there could be peace in the Middle East and that peace would help Labour. They literally want the bloodshed to continue because they think it helps them electorally. That’s how cynical they are.

The new definition is as follows:

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

It’s worth noting that there is no appeal for a group labelled as ‘extremist’ under this plan. If they think you’re extremist, then that’s what you are, regardless of whether you are or not. It is clearly a plan open to abuse. This from a government that is using legislation to declare Rwanda a safe country, regardless of whether it is safe or not, just to win a court case. These things are indicative of how dark the UK has become of late.

Ironic Extremes

Two significant things happened this week to add irony to the new extremism definition. The first was their former deputy chairman, Lee Anderson, defecting to the Reform Party. Anderson was effectively expelled from the Tories after claiming that the Labour mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had given the capital over to Islamists. The Conservatives found it hard to call his words racist, and Nigel Farage was quick to say he would be welcomed in the Reform Party. Anderson defected this week, and at a press conference on Monday, he was happy to trot out the phrase ‘I want my country back’, the watchword of ignorant, racist and far-right agitators across England.

The other incident was far more unpleasant, although ranking these things feels a bit grubby. I guess that’s where we are in British politics right now. According to The Guardian, Tory donor Frank Hester made the following comments in a work meeting in 2019: ‘It’s like trying not to be racist, but you see Diane Abbott on the TV, and you’re just like I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she’s there, and I don’t hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot.’ Diane Abbott is a veteran black Labour MP, the first black woman to be voted to parliament. As with Anderson, the Tories initially found it hard to say Hester’s words were racist. Their tune on this has changed all week long, but one fact remains: they intend to keep the £15m he donated to their election campaign.

When he announced the new definition, Gove himself was asked in parliament about his relationship with Paul Marshall. He has received donations personally from Marshall, who co-founded the right wing conspiracy TV channel GB News. Marshall was recently named in a report by Hope Not Hate regarding far-right posts on X, which he had liked and retweeted using a second account, presumably to avoid detection. One of the tweets that he liked read, ‘Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.’ Gove, who received funding for his failed party leadership bid from Marshall in 2016, described him as a ‘distinguished philanthropist’.

What a week to preach about extremism. They are doing this, they tell us, to protect liberal democracy against dangerous ideological currents. This current government has attacked protest rights in several pieces of legislation over the last few years. They are literally using their violent ideology to stamp on the freedom of protesters. What is liberal democracy if it is not an ideology based on the state’s monopoly on violence? What of structural violence? What of the enforced austerity that has destroyed public services, leading to many demonstrations in the first place? What of the violence faced by protesters from police and the constant threat of it if you decide you wish to campaign against current and historic injustices?

While it’s pretty obvious that anarchist groups could easily end up being named under this definition, I think it’s important we don’t enter into a discussion on what a ‘correct’ definition might be, if that’s even possible. This entire debate has been confected by the Tories. It is fake, it is dangerous and it should be criticised on these grounds. Of the groups listed under the new arrangements, three are deemed Islamist and two are from the far-right. The obvious question here is whether or not these groups currently have access to government departments and / or ministers. Do these two far right organisations need to be named on this list for the government to think twice about having meetings with them or giving them grants? Of course, they are taking money from racist donors. Maybe they do need reminding not to talk to fascists too.

Why should we even react to this stuff? It is only happening because of the election. And Tories love to go for irony and lap up the condemnation. They did a similar thing back in the autumn when they staged the announcement that they would axe the HS2 rail project at an old railway terminal in Manchester, right where it would hurt. These decisions are surely deliberate. We are meant to be incensed enough to satisfy their few remaining voters.

If we’re calling them out, we need to be upfront that we know what they’re trying to do. Some of this is just cynical electioneering, but we should also be mindful that they will probably lose the election. If they do, Labour will inherit a country utterly Torified since they were last in power. They won’t have the money to reverse austerity, and decimated health, welfare and disability services will make lives harder for years to come. They’re not going to spend a lot of time reversing heavy handed protest laws. Things could get much darker yet.

~ Jon Bigger

The Liverpool Blue Coat School teachers vote for industrial action

The school was founded in 1708

Teachers at a historic grammar school have voted for industrial action over several grievances with management.

Members of The National Education Union (NEU) at The Blue Coat school in Liverpool voted by 93% to back action.

The union said it had a 100% turnout in the vote of its 70 members who were asked if they favoured industrial action in an indicative vote.

A school spokesman said: "We are saddened that the NEU has taken the approach that it has."

The vote was linked to concerns related to transparency, accountability, and leadership within the school, said the union.

It said the issues included: An unmanageable workload and unsatisfactory arrangements for the allocation of work, ineffective school mechanisms for negotiation and consultation, safety concerns arising from dilapidated premises and equipment, and management cultures.

Bora Oktas, regional officer of the NEU, said: "We sought resolution through a formal agreement that captured our members' issues and potential solutions.

"Unfortunately, the employer rejected this agreement, although we had made it very clear to them that we are prepared to negotiate.

"Despite our best efforts to engage in constructive dialogue, the employer has consistently shunned meaningful discussions, leaving our members with no choice but to escalate it to a formal ballot for industrial action."

A statement from the school said: "While clearly there are things that our staff want to raise, and we want to work collaboratively with the union to address, it is much harder to do this when the detail they are providing is very different from the information that we believe to be correct and accurate."

"What we can say is that, even as recently as the start of this week, we wrote to staff saying that we are committed to reviewing any concerns that have been presented and resolving any issues that may exist. This commitment remains."

The school, which was founded in 1708, is a selective grammar with academy status.

Its alumni include West Ham first team coach Kevin Nolan, former Olympic swimmer Steve Parry and comedian Mitch Benn.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Union president warns ‘real children need real teachers, not AI robot replacements’

Ulster Teachers' Union president Lynelle Fenton

Mark Bain

Today

A leading union has warned the authorities not to get carried away with technology and said there can be no replacement for teachers in the classroom.

Lynelle Fenton, the president of the Ulster Teachers’ Union, told delegates at the union’s annual conference on Friday that “real children need real teachers, not AI robot replacements” as teachers debated the rise of digitisation in schools.

She said the growth of online learning and popularity of AI programmes like ChatGPT should not follow the path of the US, where teachers are already having to fight to protect their jobs.

“As long as we have real children we’ll need real teachers,” said Mrs Fenton, who is a teacher at Braidside Integrated Primary School in Ballymena.

“I don’t think people realise how far down the road we’ve come already in digitising teaching, if you regard online learning during lockdown as a huge experiment in AI.

“However, if it taught us anything, it is that children need teachers in the class with them. The social, behavioural, educational and mental health fallout we’re seeing among students in the wake of online learning is evident in every school across NI.

“During my year in office I travelled to Paris, where it was empowering to be able to share with overseas colleagues the good practice taking place in NI and, although there was much discussion around AI and digitisation in the classroom, I was able to stress the efficacy of our play-based curriculum and how central to a child’s development the interaction with teachers and students is.”

Mrs Fenton said that although increased digitisation was inevitable and had much to offer, it must be teacher-led and in the best interests of pupils and teachers.

“The US is already way ahead of us, of course, and teachers there are having to fight to ensure that human beings are being ‘kept in the loop’ when technology is being used to help create lesson plans, for instance, or making recommendations about how to help individual students grasp a concept.”

She said the role of teachers as the use of AI grows has “arguably never been more important, as AI must be teacher-led”.

“AI must know that the teacher is a pivotal part of the process of learning,” she added.

“We can’t start thinking that AI tools are more intelligent than they really are. A tool like Chat GPT doesn’t appreciate how the words it generates impact on real life.

“AI could be a force for tremendous good within education. It could release teachers from administrative tasks, giving them more time to spend with students.

“Parents also need to know all about the AI their children are encountering. Are the people behind the programmes being developed for schools actually teachers? What are their qualifications, their ethics, their experience of children?

“AI must serve us, not the other way round, so the powers that be need to ensure that the tech companies producing the software being used by schools have adequate input from teachers and are not just purely profit-driven.”

Mrs Fenton also praised new Education Minister Paul Givan, who, she said, had already made “great inroads in stabilising the profession”.

“He has a pay offer which shows respect and value for the vital work that we as teachers do,” she said, adding: “There is no time to waste in addressing the significant workload issues as well.

“In the classroom we see no change to our workload since the reviews were agreed in 2020, despite 197 joint meetings and 279 recommendations,” she continued.

“Let this be a time for real change for education and our children.”

LABOUR HUB EDITORS

“We stand with Diane”

Solidarity with Diane Abbott continues to mount, with over 6,000 people signing a Labour Assembly Against Austerity petition and 1,000 people signing a Momentum petition in support of her in under 24 hours. Earlier this week, Labour Hub reported how the Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP was the focus of a vicious attack by Tory donor Frank Hester in 2019, which has only recently come to light.

Momentum is calling on Keir Starmer to restore the Labour whip to Abbott – and Kate Osamor – and is also highlighting the lack of support shown by the leadership to Muslim MPs.

The petitions come as Angela Rayner MP, Labour Deputy Leader, expressed support for Abbott to be let back into the Party so she can be a candidate for Labour at the next election. Abbott was unanimously adopted in 2022 by her local Party to stand again.

Welcoming the Labour Assembly Against Austerity petition and its initial support, Beth Winter MP said: “Diane Abbott has been a trailblazer for black communities and for fighting racism in parliament for more than 35 years. Without her being in the PLP the party risks alienating voters in constituencies across the country.

“The numbers signing the petition shows the strength of feeling which is welcome. The party should show it treats members equally and fairly and restore the whip as it has for other MPs in recent years.”

Tweeting support for the petition, Richard Burgon MP said: “The racism targeted at Diane Abbott by a top Tory donor is appalling. Diane deserves all of our support. As the first black woman MP in UK history and a real Labour hero, that should include Diane being brought back into the Parliamentary Labour Party.”

Commenting on the situation Diane faces, MSP and former Labour leader in Scotland Richard Leonard said: “The violent racism of Frank Hester was vile. It tells you everything you need to know about the Tories. The Labour response must be to stand firm with Diane, show practical solidarity and restore the whip without delay.”

The co-convenor of Stand up to Racism, Sabby Dhalu said: “The racism Diane Abbott MP is frequently subjected to is horrific, but to be fearful of her life whilst the government refuse to take action against Tory donor Frank Hester’s racism is extraordinary. Meanwhile Labour uses this racism to score political points against the Tories, whilst failing to address the racism Diane Abbott was subjected to by Labour members. She should not be left isolated and has a better track record on fighting racism than anyone else in the Labour Party. Racism is not a political football. Keir Starmer must restore the whip.”

Labour NEC member and Momentum NCG member Mish Rahman added: “At the very least, the Labour Party should restore the whip, support and stand in solidarity with Diane Abbott who faces intolerable levels of abuse unlike any other politician mainly because the political and media class have normalised her abuse. She needs to be treated with the respect she deserves as the first Black female MP, someone who has broken glass ceiling after glass ceiling – a pioneer of the Labour movement. Enough of your factional games. Restore the Whip Now!”

Fellow NEC member Yasmin Dar said: “Diane Abbott has been a trailblazer in British politics, breaking barriers and enduring unacceptable levels of racism throughout her career. Her resilience and determination serve as a testament to her strength and commitment to standing up for social justice. Restore the whip now!”

Commenting on the failure for the whip to be restored to Diane, Labour NEC member Jess Barnard said: “Diane’s treatment under Starmer’s Labour Party and brings shame on the party and undermines any claims that the party is taking racism seriously.

“This week we’ve seen one example of the disgusting racist abuse she faces, exposed by the media, but the reality is Diane has been dealing with this on a daily basis for years, with no support from her own party. Labour should restore the whip, apologise to Diane and start properly supporting women of colour in the parliamentary Labour Party, including Diane, Apsana and Zarah.”

Labour NEC member Gemma Bolton added: “Diane should have been celebrated as Britain’s first black woman MP but instead she has suffered years of hostility and abuse at the hands of not only other parties but also her own. It’s now time for Keir to right this wrong – Restore the Whip Now!”

The petition has also been supported by numerous prominent figures on social media including Grace Blakeley, Andrew Fisher, Alex Nunns and Ben Sellers plus the Labour Women Leading group. Former Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey has also joined the call.

Ian Lavery MP, Apsana Begum MP and Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP also came out for whip to be restored to Abbott. John McDonnell MP described Abbott’s case as a “litmus test”, citing prominent black journalist Gary Younge’s article slamming Labour over its double standards.

The endorsements for Diane Abbott came after local Labour activists wrote to the Guardian supporting the restoration of the whip. Last night, Friday, March 15th, around 1,000 local supporters demonstrated their support for the MP outside Hackney Town Hall.

Diane Abbott addressed the rally in support of her, organised by local Black women, telling the crowd they had to “stand firm” against racism. She was greeted with huge applause and chants of “We stand with Diane”.

Earlier this week, Andy McDonald MP had the Labour Whip restored, after a speech he made at a demonstration for a ceasefire in Gaza. A Momentum spokesperson said: “This is a welcome decision – Andy should never have been suspended in the first place. But it raises serious questions over Labour’s processes and their factional abuse under Keir Starmer. Why has it taken nearly five months to investigate a speech at a rally? Why has Diane Abbott – a black woman Keir Starmer rightly hails as a trailblazer – been suspended for an outrageous 11 months now, with no end in sight? And why do black and brown MPs like Diane, Apsana Begum and Kate Osamor feel they suffer worse treatment than their white male counterparts? We are clear – ahead of the General Election, now is the time to unite and take on the Tories. Keir Starmer should now restore the whip to Diane Abbott and Kate Osamor too, and end the abuse of Labour’s procedures for factional gain.”

MARCH 16, 2024

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment

Saturday, March 16, 2024

Extreme electioneering

Ironic Extremes

1000s say ‘Restore the Whip to Diane Abbott’ as pressure mounts on Starmer

“We stand with Diane”

About Me