AKA: On the problems of too much to talk about and never enough time … a theme for the times
I was sitting there doing my usual of watching the BBC news channel (I often leave it on as background noise due to tinnitus caused by Meniere’s disease) when I suddenly realised that my teeth were hurting. To understand why this is impressive, I’ll fill you in on another medical condition that I have which is TMJ and that my jaws have been paralysed by my oral surgeon to stop the pain … my grinding my teeth has led to 5 broken teeth in my mouth (I swear when my dentist sees me he has money signs flashing in front of his eyes – it is rather disconcerting to say the least). To have my teeth hurting when my jaws are paralysed (with medical grade Botox) is truly impressive – stopping to think how this could happen led me to realise that watching the news is actually affecting my health, specifically watching BBC news is the culprit.
When I first moved to Britain back in the early 1990s, I was initially very impressed with the quality of the news reporting by the BBC as compared to the US MSM. However (and I will place this transformation in BBC reporting as following the death of Dr David Kelly during the move to the Iraq war), the nature of news reporting on the BBC has shifted to this idea of “balanced reporting.” The way in which balanced reporting as done by the BBC essentially means that instead of reporting facts so that you could understand what was happening and adjudicate what was happening with information, the BBC brings on “experts” to discuss the news. These experts essentially report their “beliefs” rather than stating facts; if they were offering coherent analysis that would be one thing (it is difficult to understand complex economic phenomena) but instead we have the treat of them bringing on these experts whose beliefs often have very little relation to the facts, sometimes reality is completely jettisoned; the fact is that all beliefs are not equal … so reporting that there is an increase in the number of measles cases and having a medical expert talk about the need for immunisation is great, having an anti-vaxxer talk about why immunisation is dangerous is actually irresponsible.
What’s in the News?
What has increasingly been happening is rather than simply report the latest dangerous decision of Trump and explain its impact, for example, the BBC brings on one mainstream person to do that and then bring on these hard-right people to state their support for Trump’s actions. Why do they bring on someone from Breitbart (for example; listening to Sebastian Gorka was a real treat) to “analyse” yet another repulsive thing by Trump? That is to offer “balanced reporting” – the problem is in order to offer “balanced reporting” on Trump means that we have the pleasure of right-wing, often fascist, commentators on the BBC. To argue that this represents even a mainstream perspective demonstrates a massive detachment from reality; the fact of the matter is that much of current bourgeois politics in the US and Europe (and yes Britain is part of Europe) has shifted so far to the right that in order to “offer balance” the BBC invites fascists to promulgate their views on the news. This is especially galling as the BBC is the state owned broadcaster and we pay taxes to support it.
However, with all their claims to “balance” what is also evident is that there are never commentators from the hard left afforded the same opportunity – those commentators representing “the other side” rarely, if ever, stray from mainstream ideas. As such, while politics itself has shifted towards the extremes rather than stay in the centre, one side of the extremes (that of the left) is not heard … even more tedious is that when they are forced to present or address left wing ideas (such as those coming out from the Labour Party conference like the Green New Deal) these are never presented uncritically (that “balanced view” approach).
The past few weeks have been appalling giving this situation. There are several major news stories that have been in the forefront of reporting for very good reason: these involve the US betraying the Kurds in Syria (the betrayal is not the withdrawal of American troops, rather it is getting the Kurds to remove the fortifications along the Turkish border and giving Erdoğan the green light to invade which, of course, he and his cronies are denying), Trump’s increasingly erratic behaviour, coverage of the impeachment hearings in the US, the fact that there are now 2 separate investigations against Rudy Giuliani (forget commenting that he is most certainly not only going to be disbarred but the probability that he will be wearing beautiful new steel bracelets following his future arrest and imprisonment), the fact that Boris Johnson negotiated a new Brexit deal with the EU and of course the vote in Parliament.
To add to this, there is the protest by around 1 million people in London calling for a second referendum, there are massive protests (including a general strike) in Catalonia following the sentencing of 9 Catalonian separatists leaders to prison on charges of sedition and misuse of public funds, there are climate protests around the world (the British police actually issued a section 14 public disorder notice preventing extinction rebellion protests in London which barely got a mention on the BBC which is impressive), there were the anti-austerity protests in Ecuador which forced the President to overturn austerity measures and are seen as a new cycle of popular resistance to neoliberalism, then there are other news stories such as violent attacks by settlers on Palestinians and those aiding them with the local olive harvests in the West Bank that have been completely ignored by what is called the MSM.
The coverage of these issues has often tended to the bizarre; as an example, following the approval of the Johnson’s new negotiated Brexit withdrawal deal some genius at the BBC decided that it would be appropriate to interview members of the EU parliament for their opinion. As such, the BBC interviewed an Italian from the Identity and Democracy group in the EU Parliament who proceeded to inform us that the EU has been very hard on Britain taking a punitive approach to Brexit and that this new deal was a good and democratic thing and would make it easier for other countries to leave the EU; the punitive nature of the EU negotiators was news to me. I sat there wondering who the hell are the Identity and Democracy group, I’ve never heard of them and as such I decided to google them; imagine my non-surprise to find out that they are a far-right nationalist Eurosceptic group of rather uncharming European political parties that if Britain was staying in the EU would undoubtedly include the Brexit Party; the reason I haven’t heard of them was due to a name change. Why there was a need to interview an Italian fascist (Salvini’s party, Lega is a member of the Group) on British television to elicit his views on the new deal? Was there somehow a “need for balance” rather than simply reporting the fact that the EU approved Johnson’s new Brexit deal? It would have been far more useful, as an understatement, to explain the bloody new Brexit deal rather than hear the pontifications of an Italian fascist on BBC news.
Reporting on Brexit is often strange; the BBC seems to like going to areas that voted strongly to leave the EU and interviews people in those cities, towns and villages to see if they support the Brexit deal, yet never asks them why they voted to leave the EU. Watching the BBC, one would draw the inescapable conclusion that the whole country supported leaving the EU … the fact that it was a close decision and that two countries that make up the UK (Scotland and North Ireland) voted remain and their democratic rights are being trampled in the name of democracy is often treated as irrelevant in their analysis. On the day of the reading of Johnson’s Brexit bill and the vote in Parliament, they spent a vast amount of time actually counting numbers of potential votes by the MPs rather than discussing the deal itself; in order to understand the potential vote one needed to actually explain why the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) had broken with Johnson and allowed interviews with both Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party and their position on Johnson’s Brexit withdrawal deal (another rare occurrence).
To understand what is happening and the fact the Tories have needed the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) means that it is often forgotten (or goes unmentioned) that the DUP are a minority party of a minority group in the North (Sinn Fein does not take its seats in the Westminster Parliament); the DUP (the closest party politically to the religious right in the Repugs) are given far too much coverage as they are useful to the government.
However, while they are useful to the Tories, they are far less useful to anyone else and the deal that Boris Johnson negotiated with the EU takes the form of approval of the majority of representatives at Stormont (North Ireland’s assembly; which has not met in 3 years which does produce some complications). This has infuriated the DUP who have suddenly developed a love of the Good Friday Agreement (which they didn’t support way back when) because it said that a majority of Republican and Unionist parties in Stormont must make political decisions. This is why the DUP voted to support the Letwin Amendment insisting that Johnson seek an extension to Article 50 before a vote takes place on Boris Johnson’s deal. As Ian Blackford (the SNP’s Westminster political leader) noted in discussion over Johnson’s Brexit Bill in Parliament, Scotland would love to be given the same treatment as North Ireland is getting. Johnson lost yet another vote in Parliament which required that he send in the letter asking for an extension of Article 50 (this would be needed even if the deal is accepted and it looks like he may have the votes due to 10 Labour MPs and some of the former Conservatives who lost the whip voting for it; we’ll know next week).
In the same vein of the ridiculous, the so-called “cease-fire” negotiated between the Turks and the US government represented by Pompeo and Pence (note how no one bothered including the Kurds in these discussions) was simply reported rather than discussing what the hell was agreed between a government hell-bent on ethnic cleansing (that is the nice term for genocide) and already accused of war crimes and the incompetents representing the US. This news story is to say the least extremely important not only due to its impact on US imperialism internationally; it also resulted in a massive shift among Republican support for Trump in the US. The impact on NATO and US foreign policy of Trump’s decision cannot be ignored yet it was; even more bizarrely the “cease-fire” was presented as a “Trump victory” while the reality that the really important meeting at this point was between Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin was only briefly mentioned this week. It was this news story, that led me to stop watching the BBC and made me shift to watching Sky news and CNN simply to save my sanity as well as protect my teeth.
Trump, NATO, the Kurds and Putin … some thoughts
The situation following Trump’s decision to allow Erdoğan’s entry into Northern Syria has had tremendous impact at the global political level. Watching Trump’s pathetic attempts to justify his decision has been rather enlightening, if anyone were in doubt of his complete lack of intellectual and moral abilities. His letter to Erdoğan and his inclusion of General Mazloum’s letter (which was private) reads like the writings of a febrile 12 year old (that has watched too many episodes of The Sopranos) and it was actually binned by Erdoğan. His use of the term “cleaning out” of Northern Syria to describe the ethnic cleansing of Kurds from the area and justifying the actions of the Turkish government demonstrate conclusively that with all claims to the contrary the US so-called role of defender of democracy and adherence to war crimes legislation are merely platitudes that the US has used to justify its world-wide imperialism; easily jettisoned when needed.
What Trump also did was hand Putin a victory that he has been wanting for some time; it is the Russians that ensure that Assad stays in power in Syria. This act by Trump and the deal between the Kurds and Syrian government has not only empowered Assad the butcher as it has given him further control over the country (the Syrian government troops and Russian troops entering Kobane was especially painful given how hard the Kurds fought to liberate that town from ISIS), it will probably undermine, if not destroy, the Rojava Project that the Kurds have been building. There is little doubt that this was part of the agreement between the Kurds and the Syrian government that was brokered by Russia; the last thing Assad wants is a democratic socialist autonomous area anywhere in Syria. To save their lives, to protect their people, the Kurds had no choice but to forge an agreement with Assad; just as to save their lives and protect their people from an existential enemy (ISIS) they worked together with US forces against ISIS.
The so-called cease-fire agreement hammered out between Pompeo and Pence for the US and Erdoğan has essentially given the Turkish President exactly what he wanted; clearing out the Kurds from Northern Syria which means allowing an ethnic cleansing of the Kurds by Erdoğan using Turkish forces and their allies which include Islamacist forces (of the defunct Free Syrian Army remember that earlier attack on the Kurds by the Turks in 2018, that is when they were recruited) and now probably former ISIS fighters that have escaped from Kurdish prisons.
I’ve had some rather unpleasant discussions with a few members of the left this week about the Kurds. Some of them argued that the Kurds helped prop up US imperialism in the region and as such we should not support them. To say that this pissed me off is an understatement. The alliance between the Kurdish forces and the US was a tactical one with the sole purpose of defeating ISIS who are/were an existential threat to the Kurds. The Kurds are the only democratic ecosocialist force in the area. We must offer them unconditional solidarity and, at the least, critical support; that is basic requirement for all of the left if they actually still believe in international solidarity.
We must also be calling for the Turkish military and their allies to get out of Northern Syria; there is clear evidence of war crimes being committed against the Kurds. While stopping the arms trade and military support to the Turkish government and military is a good first step, much of its military hardware is actually produced in Turkey; so what also can be stopped is trade in items that are used as intermediate goods into the production of Turkish weaponry. One of the main problems with campist arguments is that things fall apart when things get complicated and there are more than 2 camps; should the left support Assad the butcher, the Russians, ISIS, Erdoğan or Iran? The situation is Syria is far too complicated to fall into this error.
The need for protest and fighting to ensure our right to protest
In the world we are living on, the action of politicians (e.g., Trump, Erdoğan, Boris Johnson, the Spanish State, Moreno in Ecuador) and the inaction of politicians (e.g., on climate change) have caused world-wide reaction.
These reactions have been varied and have different aims (some extremely local, some regional, some national and many worldwide). The situation for the vast majority becomes more difficult as the assaults on our human rights, our lives, our incomes and our planet continues; the economic agenda of neoliberal economics is still dominant and while it is coming under attack due to popular disapproval there is no evidence that it is being abandoned by the politicians serving the ruling classes of the various countries in the world. Protest itself is coming under increasing pressure from the state; we cannot allow our right to protest be infringed – it is not only a human right that needs preserving, protest also serves an educational need and a manner of pressurising (pressuring in American English) politicians to alter their political positions and actions. Standing in solidarity with those facing oppression and repression not only demonstrates solidarity (which is important in itself) but helps us to build a force for fight-back and to pressure our own politicians in our countries.
I’ve been to 3 demonstrations in the past two weeks; I was planning on attending the rally calling for a second referendum (a public vote on the deal) yesterday but my body simply refused to allow me to do so as I was exhausted. Two of those demonstrations have been local in the next village over (Walthamstow) opposing anti-abortion protesters; while the third was a solidarity march with the Kurds. While I have ranting about the lack of quality of news reporting what I really want to talk about today is our right to protest which is under increasing attack (including increasingly violent responses by the police in several countries, like Catalonia and Hong Kong).
I’ve mentioned the local protests in Walthamstow; what has happened is that a group called the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK (yes they are funded and trained by the US anti-abortionists) have targeted the local MP Stella Creasy (who led the campaign to change Northern Ireland’s abortion law) appearing in Walthamstow town square with large pictures of aborted foetuses and a card (at the top of the web-page) which had a picture of Stella Creasy and an aborted foetus which they proceeded to give to anyone walking near them; given that the local market is there and a playground for children nearby this is rather appalling as an understatement. A group of us have been there for the last two Saturdays (Creasy doesn’t support the protests arguing that it is giving them the attention they crave) trying to offer a counter to this group, not let them have control over our public spaces (if they gain a foothold, dislodging them will become increasingly difficult; moreover, we expect them to move on abortion centres and this is preparing for future fights) and hopefully we will be able to spare people that are shopping and using the public space from having to see these disgusting pictures.
Last week we tried to use umbrellas (which was extremely useful as it was raining throughout the day) to hide the pictures and the police gave a section 14 notice against us, forcing us to stay 10 feet away from them under the pretext that these people have the right to protest. While they do have the right to protest, the issue is more than that – are these cards they are handing out an attempt to incite violence against Creasy? It is not as though anti-abortion protestors have not utilised violence in their actions and while the police were rather upset when I asked them how these cards were not an incitement to violence (they informed me she was a public official and what they were doing was legal; I reminded them of the murder of Jo Cox and pointed out that incitement to violence can lead to violence if the card falls into the hand of someone that is susceptible to its arguments). We know that any number of things are legal, that does not make them legitimate; legality is defined by the powerful mostly and rarely the weak. This week it was decided to take control of the walls (they use the walls so that they do not become surrounded) using stalls and tables by various groups which was very successful. It was a wonderful bit of cooperation by various community and political groups, political parties and concerned individuals. CBRUK didn’t attempt to invade our square yesterday; but we stood there from 11 am until 1 pm just in case they decided to show up.
Why attend a local protest first rather essentially passing on the larger protest that you also support secondarily? I went to the smaller protest as every person counted there; I knew that the demonstration for a second referendum or a public vote on the Brexit deal would be very big (reports say there were 1 million people there). But protest doesn’t only mean attending rallies; there are many ways to protest what is happening in the world today.
Attending large national rallies is often difficult for many as the organisers don’t take into account the needs of disabled participants, (even if they did, many with impairments cannot do the march itself), to add insult to injury the police actually confiscated the wheelchairs, accessible toilets and ramps that Extinction Rebellion had obtained to ensure disabled accessibility and participation. Moreover, people do work and have caring responsibilities for children and other family members and that makes participation in an occupation difficult, some people just don’t have the time to attend or they think marching from point A to point B does nothing.
For many of us, attending a local protest rather than a national demo is preferable and perhaps is seen as safer; people see this action as something that actually affects their own personal lives. So on the 20th of September Climate Protests, there was a national demo, there were demonstrations in cities throughout Britain and there were local demos … our local protest featured our MP, local branches of national trade unions, local community organisations and there were many young children and parents there. This enabled local people to participate in something they strongly believe in while not having to go to a large demonstration with their young children.
We need to remember that protest takes many forms: writing articles sharing information, educational events where there is a possibility of sharing ideas are especially useful as they offer information to people and the chance to share your ideas; we know that signing petitions is effective, as are letter writing and phone calls to politicians to apply pressure. People that want to protest must be offered various ways to express their concerns; the space for political action is not limited to voting, but we also have to make certain that those that want to vote are able to do so. Fighting the various means of voter suppression (e.g., gerrymandering, ID requirements, fixed address requirements designed to stop Native Americans from voting) must be fought at all levels (local, regional, judicially, legislatively and though various forms of political protest). We cannot allow mainstream politicians and the state and those that serve its interests and fascists themselves take away our right to fightback and protest. We also cannot let them define which protests are acceptable and which are not; that must be decided by protestors democratically. This will become increasingly important as repression is increasing; so be prepared for it and don’t be surprised that the state throws everything it can against protestors.