Islington Council passes key motion on the Anti-Boycott Bill claiming the Bill poses a threat to local democracy, freedom of expression and civil society campaigns

 I wrote about concerns over the Government's Anti-Boycott Bill some time ago LINK so I was pleased to see that Islington Council last night approved a motion opposing the Bill and pointing out its difficulties. The initial motion was moved by two Green councillors, and amended by Labour. The final motion (below) was passed unanimously:

This Council notes:

•   The “Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill”, otherwise known as the "anti-boycott bill", is slowly making its way through Parliament, and passed its second reading in July.

•   The government’s planned anti-boycott bill poses a threat to local democracy, freedom of expression and civil society campaigns. It will shield states involved in practices that many people in this country find abhorrent, including genocide and occupation.

•   If approved, the bill will restrict the ability of public bodies such as local authorities, universities, and some pension funds to make ethical decisions about investment and procurement. It will violate the rights of individual pension holders to invest their pensions in line with their values.

•   The Labour Party tabled an amendment to the bill which sought to allow public bodies to make their own investment and procurement decisions and remove the threat of fines, ensuring that that such decisions are in accordance with an ethical investment framework that is applied equally across the board. This amendment was defeated in the House of Commons

•   A broad coalition of over seventy organisations including charities, trade unions, human rights and faith organisations are working publicly to stop the bill, alongside the Scottish government.

•   Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK's Chief Executive, called the bill “pernicious” and said “it will close off a key means to hold companies to account and once again show that this Government thinks little of the plight of persecuted communities around the world.”

•   Lisa Nandy, MP for Wigan, revealed that the Labour Party has taken legal advice over the bill, calling it “bad law” and stating that lawyers had raised concerns that the bill could lead the way for endless litigation in the courts over the practice of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).

  This Council further notes:

•   Procurement of goods and services is an important part of councils’ expenditure with third party revenue expenditure totalling around £60 billion a year across local government. This council spends £650million with almost 6,000 providers.

•   In our progressive procurement strategy – adopted in 2020 – we seek to encourage and amplify the award of work, supply and service contracts to companies and professionals that perform public contracts with a business model based on ethical behaviour, and to promote democratic participation and drive social innovation.

•   The framework incorporates a series of mandatory ethical requirements that we expect of ourselves and from those who want to do business with the council. By ethical behaviour, we define this as decent wages, fair employment practices, safeguards against modern slavery and environmental sustainability.

•   In 2018, Islington became the first council nationally to sign the Charter Against Modern Slavery

•   Over 80 local authorities across the UK have now signed the Charter, which Islington Council helped draft. Addressing modern slavery is a key priority for the council, with work on it overseen by the Safer Islington Partnership. We have an ongoing training programme to assist staff and partners to identify the signs of modern slavery.

•   We use our leverage as a major commissioner to encourage suppliers to support and endorse accreditations and charters such as ethical procuring and supply chain visibility.

•   Trade Unions have an important role to play in the fight against modern slavery and exploitation by supporting and championing workers’ rights. Workers and providers are frequently not aware of their rights and responsibilities. It is for that reason that the Council has taken a stand against blacklisting of trade union members and emphasise this requirement as mandatory.

•   BDS has a centuries-long tradition as a successful method of peaceful protest and local government has played its part in following this democratic political practice.

•   BDS campaigns have been used by social movements to change the course of history for the better.

•   Concerned members of the public and local authorities have championed BDS tactics in prominent campaigns such as the 1963 Bristol bus boycott, the rejection of sugar produced on slave plantations, led by nineteenth century British citizens, and divestment from fossil fuel companies. The best-known boycott was the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa.

•   During the campaign to end South African apartheid, similar limitations were introduced. Nonetheless, millions of people, including local councils, continued their support for the movement.

•   In 2016, a UK High Court ruled that the boycotts of Israeli settlement goods by local authorities in Leicester and Wales were not anti-Semitic, nor did they contravene laws on equality.

•   Restricting the ability of local councils to engage in BDS in wrong. In a world where Uyghur’s, undergoing ethnic cleansing, are forced to produce garments and commodities, where local government pension funds are invested in arms companies known to be complicit in violations of Palestinian human rights, and where Saudi Arabia, accused of crimes against humanity, is the world’s largest oil exporter, we need these tactics to hold those complicit to account.

This Council resolves to:

•   Write to the Prime Minister to share, and ask him to consider, the legal opinion published by the Labour Party on the rights of councils to boycott oppressive regimes and illegal practices, emphasising the need for councils to make their own decisions on procurement and investment matters.

•   Continue to ensure that our own ethical procurement strategy doesn’t include procuring goods and services produced by oppressive regimes,

How would the government's Anti-Boycott Bill impact on Brent, Camden and Harrow Councils' right to make ethical decisions. Film and Discussion September 20th

The battle against the Government's Anti-Boycott Bill will be hotting up this Autumn as opposition builds across the trade union, human rights, religious, anti-arms trade, peace and  climate movements.

The bill would prohibit public bodies, including universities and councils from supporting BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) on issues not in line with government foreign policy.

This would directly impact on Brent Council's freedom to make ethical decisions on its investment decisions, including the staff pension fund, and  procurement decisions.

It does not prohibit individuals and other organisations from advocating BDS but could well have a chilling effect, particularly if extended to other issues as the film Boycott shows in the US context. There will be a local showing of Boycott followed by a discussion on Wednesday September 20th.

This is the Trade Union Congress motion that was moved by the National Education Union and seconded by UNISON that was passed yesterday:

The current right-wing Israeli Government, having launched its biggest military incursion in the West Bank in two decades, is announcing new illegal settlements, expelling Palestinians from East Jerusalem and Masafer Yatta, demolishing homes and schools, and failing to prevent armed settlers from rampaging through villages killing and attacking Palestinians, destroying homes and agricultural lands.

The Israeli military has this year killed more than 180 Palestinians.

Congress further notes:

The Government’s Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill would undermine ethical investment and procurement by public bodies by restricting the consideration of human and workers’ rights, international law and environmental concerns, linked to the behaviour of a foreign state. It damages freedom of speech, local democracy, devolution and pension scheme members’ rights.

The legislation would shield the Israeli government from accountability, alongside companies complicit in its occupation, by legislating to silence those trying to achieve change.

Congress believes:

Any attempt to delegitimise the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and to suggest that Palestinians should be denied the right to appeal to people of conscience for support, must be rejected.

The ability of public authorities, including public sector pension funds, to divest from companies responsible for violations of human rights should be defended.

Such legislation could have blocked the boycott of goods and companies complicit in Apartheid South Africa.

Congress resolves to:

Reaffirm support for Palestinian rights, including our commitment to “boycott the goods of companies who profit from illegal settlements, the Occupation and the construction of the Wall”.

Support the Right to Boycott coalition
Campaign with affiliates against the Bill.

Mover: NEU
Seconder: UNISON

 

On Wednesday 20th September Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Camden PSC and Brent Friends of Palestine  are joining together for a free showing of the film Boycott that reveals what happened when similar rules were introduced in the US.

The film will be followed by a discussion led by Ben Jamal, Director of Palestine Solidarity, on the implications for the UK.

 

FREE REGISTRATION HERE

We must defend the right to boycott as a peaceful means to bring about change - Public Meeting Monday April 24th Chalkhill Community Centre

 RIGHT TO BOYCOTT PUBLIC MEETING APRIL 24TH

WEMBLEY PARK

 

Monday April 24th  at 7.30 to 9pm.   Chalkhill Community Centre,  Welford Centre, 113 Chalkhill Road, Wembley Park, HA9 9FX 2 minutes walk from Wembley Park tube station and served by many buses from all parts of Brent and Harrow.

 

SPEAKERS: Andrew Feinstein, Former ANC MP in South Africa and Ryvka Barnard, Deputy Director, Palestine Solidarity Campaign. 

 

Entry is free  but PLEASE register with Eventbrite https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/595697135167

 

A public meeting at Chalkhill Community Centre on Monday April 24th will focus on Government plans to limit the right of public bodies to boycott. A Coalition has been formed to challenge the  proposed Bill  that could affect many campaigning organisations and its declaration has been signed by 60  human rights and environment campaigns, religious organisations and trade unions. Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) have long been an effective and peaceful means of bringing about change.

THE DECLARATION

As a group of civil society organisations made up of trade unions, charities, NGOs, faith, climate justice, human rights, cultural, campaigning, and solidarity organisations, we advocate for the right of public bodies to decide not to purchase or procure from, or invest in companies involved in human rights abuse, abuse of workers’ rights, destruction of our planet, or any other harmful or illegal acts. We therefore oppose the government’s proposed law to stop public bodies from taking such actions.

The government has indicated that a main intention of any legislation is to ensure that public bodies follow UK foreign policy in their purchasing, procurement, and investment decisions, particularly relating to Israel and Palestine. We are concerned that this would prevent public bodies from deciding not to invest in or procure from companies complicit in the violation of the rights of the Palestinian people. We affirm that it is the right of public bodies to do so, and in fact a responsibility to break ties with companies contributing to abuses of rights and violations of international law in occupied Palestine and anywhere else where such acts occur.

From bus boycotts against racial segregation to divestment from fossil fuel companies to arms embargoes against apartheid, boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns have been applied throughout history to put economic, cultural, or political pressure on a regime, institution, or company to force it to change abusive, discriminatory, or illegal policies. If passed, this law will stifle a wide range of campaigns concerned with the arms trade, climate justice, human rights, international law, and international solidarity with oppressed peoples struggling for justice. The proposed law presents a threat to freedom of expression, and the ability of public bodies and democratic institutions to spend, invest and trade ethically in line with international law and human rights.

We call on the UK government to immediately halt this bill, on opposition parties to oppose it and on civil society to mobilise in support of the right to boycott in the cause of justice.

 Badges from the 1980s

 

BRENT HISTORY

The presence on the platform of former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein is particularly appropriate as Brent has a proud record of opposing South African apartheid as I wrote in a previous article:

 South African fruit was a particular target and small groups were set up across the country and in universities with at its peak  140-150 groups.  The deaths of two students in 1976 in the Soweto Students Uprising generated further support for action against apartheid and in 1984 Brent Anti-Apartheid was working with the National Union of Students, women's groups and black organisations appealing to Trade Unions not to handle South African goods.

There were calls for boycotts that  have similarities with those promoted today by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign with a wider focus targeting sporting links, divest from companies profiting from apartheid, pension fund divestment, arms embargo and the release of political prisoners.  Barclays Bank, the biggest  high street  bank in South Africa,was targeted locally and Brent Labour Party moved its account to the Co-operative Bank.

The Labour Council at the time was part of a local authority delegation to Margaret Thatcher to present a petition if favour of the boycott and the Council stopped contracts with firms with South African links and councillors took part in pickets of supermarkets urging them not to stock South African goods.

Reflecting on that history it is to be hoped that the current Labour Council will also stand up for the right to boycott and divest.

 Monday's meeting is jointly organised by Brent Friends of Palestine who raise funds for the charity Brent Friends of Palestine, and the Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign.  With Amnesty International claiming that  Israel is operating a system of apartheid LINK it is telling that two of the 1980s badges above, on ending investment and boycotting Barclay's Bank, apply to current campaigns on human rights in Palestine, the arms trade and investment in fossil fuels.

Ryvka Barnard from Palestine Solidarity will make the links with current campaigns, the situtation in Israel-Palestine and the need to strongly resist the Government's propose new law.

In 2020 when PSC asked Brent Council for details of its Local Government Pension Fund Investments the following companies that they invested in were involved in arms sales etc:

Barclays £1,252,342
Barclays is a British multinational bank and financial services company. Barclays hold approximately £1,167.6 millions of investments in companies that are known to supply the Israeli military. This includes Babcock, BAE and Boeing, Cobham and Rolls Royce. More information available in War on Want’s 2017 ‘Deadly Investments’ report.

BAE Systems £970,233
According to CAAT, “BAE Systems is the world’s fourth largest arms producer. Its portfolio includes fighter aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, missiles and small arms ammunition. It has military customers in over 100 countries. BAE has a workshare agreement with Lockheed Martin producing the US F-35 stealth combat aircraft. Israel, for example, took delivery of its first F-35 in 2016. According to Investigate, a project by the American Friends Service Committee, BAE has worked in cooperation with Lockheed Martin and Rafael to produce and market the naval Protector drone used to maintain the siege of Gaza along the Mediterranean coast.

Smiths Group £316,811
According to CAAT “Smiths Group is a global technology company with five divisions: John Crane, Smiths Medical, Smiths Detection, Smiths Interconnect and Flex-Tek. Smiths Connectors is part of Smiths Interconnect and comprises Hypertac, IDI and Sabritec brands. Products include connectors used in fighting vehicles, unmanned vehicles and avionics systems.” They have applied for a number of military export licences to Israel.

Rolls Royce £294,535
Rolls-Royce is a British manufacturer that produces military aircraft engines, naval engines and cores for nuclear submarines. Despite arms comprising only 26% of its total sales, it is still the world’s 17th largest Arms trade. In 2014, the year of Israel’s arial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza, which killed over 2,200 civilians, nearly a quarter of them children, Rolls-Royce was granted export licenses for engines for military aircrafts to Israel

When PSC requested updated information last year Brent Council said they were unable to supply details of individual companies as they were incorporated into various investment funds.

59% of primary NEU members voting in ballot supported tests boycott but turnout did not meet Government imposed threshold

From Mary Bousted & Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretaries of the National Education Union have sent this message to NEU members in primary schools

The union’s executive met on Saturday, 13 July and looked at the results of our indicative ballot of over 50,000 primary members.

Our members resoundingly told us that they want to high stakes tests replaced by better alternatives inour primary schools. 

It was the biggest survey of primary educators for decades, with 50,000 voting by 97 per cent that they want high stakes tests to end.

While the results showed members are not yet ready to engage in a national boycott, they made it absolutely clear they want the union to continue our campaign for an alternative. 

Although 39 per cent of members voted and 59 per cent of those supported calls to boycott, this wasn’t enough to reach the Government’s imposed double thresholds for industrial action in schools. 

To reach those, 50 per cent of all members would have to cast a vote and 40 per cent of all members would need to vote yes.

The union will continue our campaign to secure changes to the way we assess our youngest children,and engage with politicians of all parties in Parliament and local councils on this issue.

We will also continue to work with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens – all of whom agree with us that high-stakes testing must stop – on their assessment policy proposals. 

We’d like to thank you for taking part in the biggest-ever survey of primary practitioners on this issue and will keep you posted on the next steps in our campaign to stop these toxic tests. 

The union is backing a petition against reception baseline assessment, which is being piloted in some schools from September.

Help us to keep up the pressure by signing and sharing the More Than A Score petition against baseline and visit our website to find out more about our assessment campaign.

Thank you for your continued support for our union and everything you do for the children in your schools and colleges.

-->

UPDATE Barnet Council tonight debates banning those calling for Israel boycott on grounds of ‘antisemitism’ as defined by the IHRA examples

From Palestine Solidarity Campaign

UPDATE via Barnet Momentum The motion was not taken last night. It has been referred to Barnet  Policy and Resources Committee which next meets on October 23rd.

Barnet Councillor Brian Gordon is to propose a motion effectively outlawing organisations that support Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The motion [below] cites the hotly disputed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) document on antisemitism as justification for the move. The meeting is at Hendon Town Hall, 7pm tonight.

The motion calls for the London Borough of Barnet to ‘consider the legality of ensuring’ it does ‘not to provide or rent any space’ to individuals and groups supporting the BDS movement – effectively seeking a ban on events promoting sanctions against Israel for its violations of international law.
Councillor Gordon’s motion specifically quotes the contentious guidance notes to the IHRA document in order to claim that BDS is antisemitic, because other countries are not similarly targeted. 

However no other country that the UK treats as an ally has been in illegal occupation of another country for over 50 years, suppressing the human rights of its inhabitants.

The motion has national significance because the Labour Party – which has adopted the 38-word IHRA definition of antisemitism – has been criticised for not fully adopting the guidanceattached to it, including the two examples cited in the motion.

Jonathan Rosenhead, Vice Chair of Free Speech on Israel, said:

Those criticising Labour for failing to adopt the full IHRA guidance claim the document poses no threat to freedom of expression. This motion being put forward in Barnet clearly demonstrates that they are wrong and vindicates the adjustments made by Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

Palestinians have a right to describe their history and the continuing racist injustices that deny them their rights, whether as unequal citizens of the State of Israel, living under military occupation in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, under siege in Gaza, or as refugees denied the right of return. Others have a right to hear this information and, in line with a commitment to fighting racism in all its forms, to respond to the Palestinian call for global action via Boycott Divestment and Sanctions.

Despite the clear warning from distinguished lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC in his legal opinion on the IHRA document, groups lobbying for Israel have continued to press public bodies both to adopt the IHRA definition and to use it to suppress both legitimate criticism of Israel, and calls for action on behalf of the Palestinian people. In March, a delegation including Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel , Matthew Offord MP of Conservative Friends of Israel petitioned Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, calling for action to  prevent events on UK campuses that describe Israel as an apartheid state, citing the IHRA document as justification.

Campaigners for Palestinian rights including Free Speech on Israel, Jewish Voice for Labour and Palestine Solidarity Campaign are calling for the motion to be withdrawn. They have also called for the UK government to issue a clear statement that no public body should use the IHRA definition to prevent legitimate criticism of the state of Israel (which includes describing its laws and policies as “racist” and meeting the legal definition of “apartheid”). Nor should they use it to prevent calls for peaceful actions including boycott divestment and sanctions in response to Israel’s continuing violations of Palestinian human rights.

Administration motion in the name of Cllr Brian Gordon Boycott the antisemitic BDS movement 

On 31^st January 2017, Barnet became the first local authority to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism and its corresponding guidance, which recognises that antisemitism takes many forms including, in certain circumstances, targeting of the State of Israel. 

The IHRA’s guidance rightly points out that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled [sic] against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. However, Council believes the aims, methods, and rhetoric of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and believes its go well beyond this, and are consistent with the IHRA’s guidance on the definition of antisemitism. Specifically: 

·      A completely disproportionate focus on the State of Israel to the exclusion of all other territorial disputes and ethnic conflicts in the world, e.g. the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus; 

·      “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour [sic]”; 

·      Frequently reported incidents of BDS activists “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” and “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis.” 

·      “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 
Following similar action taken by the City of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, on 25^th August 2017, Council instructs the Policy & Resources Committee to produce a Use of Council Premises policy and to consider the legality of ensuring:
·      The London Borough of Barnet does not provide any space or areas for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet instructs its companies not to provide or rent any space for affiliates, organizations or individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet appeals to landlords of event venues in the borough not to provide or rent any space for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet does not make any donations or grants to associations, organisations or other groups which support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

Council also reaffirms its commitment to fight all forms of prejudice, whether against religion, race, sex, gender, or age. 


--> -->
-->

Commons Education Committee to investigate primary SATs tests

From the TES LINK

MPs are to investigate how this year's new tougher Sats tests have affected primary schools.
This was the first year that ten and 11-year-olds took the new tougher tests in reading, maths and spelling, grammar and punctuation. Pupils were also assessed in writing by their teachers according to a new controversial national framework.

Now the Commons Education Committee has launched an inquiry into primary assessment – looking at the implementation of the new system, its impact on teaching and learning schools and the wider issue of what primary assessment is for.

“This summer saw the introduction of arguably the biggest reforms in primary assessment since external assessment was introduced 25 years ago,” said Neil Carmichael, chair of the committee. “In this inquiry we want to look at the impact of the new national curriculum assessment (Sats) and how the current system affects teaching and learning."

Just 53 per cent of ten and 11-year-olds reached the expected standard in reading, writing and maths this year.

The introduction of the new Sats, taken by more than 500,000 pupils, has been described as “chaotic” by unions. The NAHT, ATL and NUT have said that urgent changes are needed or they will consider a boycott in 2017.

The government has already put on hold plans to introduce multiplication tables tests next year and has said that proposed Year 7 resits will not begin in this academic year.
The committee inquiry will look into what should happen now the reforms have been made.
Other areas to be covered are:

• The purpose of primary assessment and how well the current system meets this;
• The advantages and disadvantages of assessing pupils at primary school;
• How the most recent reforms have affected teaching and learning;
• Logistics and delivery of the SATs;
• Training and support needed for teachers and senior leaders to design and implement effective assessment systems;

"News of Sats boycotts in certain parts of the country and data showing almost half of pupils in England failed to meet the new tough standards in reading, writing and maths point to unresolved issues in the way we prepare our children for secondary school and help them reach their potential," Mr Carmichael said.

The deadline for written evidence is Friday 28 October. The public evidence sessions for this inquiry are due to begin in November.

NUT prepared to work with other unions for SATs boycott in 2017 if government does not make changes

From the NUT
 
Commenting on the publication of provisional 2016 Key Stage 2 results, Kevin Courtney, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers' union, said:

Today's provisional 2016 KS2 results need to be taken with a large pinch of salt. They are the outcome of a chaotic process of assessment, hastily introduced and badly designed. A system in which nearly half of those assessed are told they have not met the expected standard is not a system which is working well for pupils. A system in which the relative performance of local authorities varies so widely from one year to the next will not command public confidence.

The data tells us little about educational quality that we can trust. Yet it will be used to judge the performance of schools, and in hundreds of cases to judge them as failing. This is completely unacceptable. Teachers and head teachers believe that there is no case for intervention, action or ranking of schools on the basis of data which is meaningless as a measure of quality.

The case for a complete rethinking of assessment in primary schools is overwhelming - this deeply flawed system must not be allowed to do further harm to pupils and to teachers in 2017. The National Union of Teachers calls for the suspension of current arrangements for testing, and for the development of alternatives which can command public and professional support. If the government is not prepared to make the changes needed, then the Union is prepared to work with other unions to boycott both KS1 and KS2 SATs.

After the Tricycle: Can Arts Organisations say 'No' to Embassy Funding?

TUESDAY OCTOBER 7TH - 7PM 17-25 NEW INN YARD EC2A 3EA

Amnesty has sent the following invitation which will be of interest to readers involved in the debate over the Tricycle Theatre's refusal of Israeli Government funding (via the Embassy) and the subsequent events.

Do artists and arts organisations have the right to say ‘no’ when governments with negative human rights records try to co-opt culture in the service of their public relations strategies? 

Please join the discussion – After the Tricycle: Can arts organisations say ‘no’ to embassy funding?

In August 2014, during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the Tricycle Theatre asked the UK Jewish Film Festival to forego Israeli embassy funding. The festival refused, walked away from the Tricycle, and briefed the press that the theatre was boycotting a Jewish festival. The theatre came under sustained attack: campaigns to de-fund the theatre, denunciations by liberal newspaper columnists, even intervention by the Secretary of State for Culture himself.

Do we have to accept that the kind of backlash the Tricycle experienced is inevitable as far as funding by a powerful state is concerned, and make sure we never follow where this theatre led?
Panel chair: Kamila Shamsie, novelist.

Speakers: April De Angelis and Tanika Gupta playwrights, Antony Lerman writer & commentator, and Ofer Neiman of the Israeli group Boycott from Within.

Panel discussion. Free entry, but reservation is recommended.
There will be a drinks reception afterwards.
When: Tuesday 7th October, 19:00 – 21:00. Doors open 18:30
Where: Amnesty International UK Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London. EC2A 3EA.

After the Tricycle: Can arts organisations say ‘no’ to embassy funding?

Amnesty has sent the following invitation which will be of interest to readers involved in the debate over the Tricycle Theatre's refusal of Israeli Government funding (via the Embassy) and the subsequent events.

Do artists and arts organisations have the right to say ‘no’ when governments with negative human rights records try to co-opt culture in the service of their public relations strategies? 

Please join the discussion – After the Tricycle: Can arts organisations say ‘no’ to embassy funding?
In August 2014, during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the Tricycle Theatre asked the UK Jewish Film Festival to forego Israeli embassy funding. The festival refused, walked away from the Tricycle, and briefed the press that the theatre was boycotting a Jewish festival. The theatre came under sustained attack: campaigns to de-fund the theatre, denunciations by liberal newspaper columnists, even intervention by the Secretary of State for Culture himself.

Do we have to accept that the kind of backlash the Tricycle experienced is inevitable as far as funding by a powerful state is concerned, and make sure we never follow where this theatre led?
Panel chair: Kamila Shamsie, novelist.

Speakers: April De Angelis and Tanika Gupta playwrights, Antony Lerman writer & commentator, and Ofer Neiman of the Israeli group Boycott from Within.

Panel discussion. Free entry, but reservation is recommended.
There will be a drinks reception afterwards.
When: Tuesday 7th October, 19:00 – 21:00. Doors open 18:30
Where: Amnesty International UK Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London. EC2A 3EA.

Palestine: Greens support BDS and call for halt to military co-operation with Israel

This is the emergency motion passed with an overwhelming majority at the Green  Party Conference yesterday.

Conference condemns Israel's ground invasion, ariel and marine bombing of Gaza, and calls on Green Party members and Green Party elected representatives to take what steps they can to put existing Green Party policy into action and to ensure that the underlying causes are addressed, acknowledging there can be no lasting peace without justice.

Such steps include:

-  Reiterating our calls on the UN, the EU and the US government to ensure that Israel complies with international law

-  Supporting these calls by active participation in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. This campaign aims to put pressure on the government of Israel to end the Occupation and to give equal rights to Palestinians. The campaign asks individuals, organisations, councils and governments to refuse to deal with companies and institutions identified as facilitating Israel's military capacity, human rights abuses or illegal settlement activity

- In particular to demand the UK government halts all joint Israeli/UK military co-operation and approval for all arms sales to Israel.

On Yer Trike: The Perils of Taking A Principled Stand

I am reprinting  this excellent article by Aisha Maniar from her website One Small Window... LINK

Aisha reflects on the summer controversy over the Tricycle Theatre's rejection of Israeli government funding during the current Gaza conflict and its wider ramifications.

Showing solidarity…
 
The targeting of Gaza’s infrastructure, including its only power plant, and UN safe havens where unarmed civilians sought shelter has inspired some Latin American states to recall their ambassadors to Israel, effectively cutting diplomatic ties in protest. Elsewhere, the international community has largely maintained a deafening silence on the latest war and destruction of the Gaza Strip. Some states have signalled their tacit approval of possible war crimes. On the other hand, the solidarity of ordinary people has been well demonstrated in this conflict as millions of people worldwide have taken to the streets of their cities in solidarity with the beleaguered people of Gaza.

In Britain, the response has been varied and has involved solidarity actions as diverse as pop star Zayn Malik tweeting “#FreePalestine”, for which he received death threats, to England cricketer Moeen Ali wearing “Free Palestine” and “Free Gaza” wristbands, which were later banned by the International Cricket Council on the basis that they were political and in breach of the rules. With the England Cricket Board (ECB) and others agreeing that the bands were humanitarian and not political, the action received widespread support.

Many ordinary people have chosen to take peaceful direct action through boycotts of companies and products that support Israel. As elsewhere in Europe, the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement has been gaining traction. As part of a national day of protest against the supermarket chain Sainsbury’s on 2 August, activists in Brixton, south London, closed down two shops. Other similar protests have been held outside other retailers.

The UK’s continuing military support and arming of Israel has been targeted. Protests have been held outside and in Barclays Bank due to its investment in arms sales to Israel, leading in some cases to temporary branch closures. Amnesty International has set up a petition calling on the UK government to end all arms sales to Israel: “We must not facilitate war crimes”. On 5 August, nine activists from the London Palestine Action group successfully closed down a drone component factory owned by Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems in Staffordshire for two days. The 9 were forcedly removed and charged with aggravated trespass, and are due to appear in court on 20 August. The Campaign against The Arms Trade (CAAT) has announced it is bringing legal action against the British government “unless it stops sending arms to Israel and conducts a review of its current arms export licences”.

…at the Tricycle

Against this backdrop, an arts protest might seem almost twee or hipster. Applying the “think global, act local” philosophy, this month a small theatre in north London has found itself at the centre of a storm pitting it against the full force of the powerful pro-Israel lobby and the duplicity of the mainstream media.

The Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn, north London, has hosted the UK Jewish Film Festival (UKJFF) for the past 8 years of the festival’s 17-year history. This year, however, in a statement dated 5 August, now permanently removed from its website, the theatre announced, “Given the situation in Israel and Gaza, we do not believe that the festival should accept funding from any party to the current conflict… [Thus], we asked the UK Jewish Film Festival to reconsider its sponsorship by the Israeli Embassy”; “at this moment, the Tricycle would not accept sponsorship from any government agency involved in the conflict”. The funding by the embassy is worth around £1400 and the festival would have involved 26 film showings and 6 gala events at the venue.

The theatre, which “has always welcomed the Festival and wants it to go ahead” instead “offered to replace that funding with money from our own resources”. Ultimately, however, this offer was turned down: “We regret that, following discussions, the chair of the UKJFF told us that he wished to withdraw the festival from the Tricycle”. It was perhaps naïve of the theatre to assume the UKJFF would turn down funding from a sponsor that has supported it throughout its history.

The crux of the matter is that the Tricycle Theatre refused sponsorship for an event it was hosting from a state currently accused of war crimes by the UN. It offered the organisers an alternative which they rejected. The organisers have since found alternative locations for this year’s festival. That should have been the end of the matter, with perhaps the Tricycle and the UKJFF being able to reach an agreement on next year’s festival. This, however, is no ordinary sponsor. Israel is not a state that can be defied at any time by anyone. This was not a rejection of sponsorship; this was a call to arms.
The 5 August statement was put out as the theatre had been “been contacted by several patrons who have been given misleading information about the Tricycle and the UK Jewish Film Festival”.

On the same day, the UKJFF issued a press release that stated “The Tricycle Theatre has refused to host the UK Jewish Film Festival for the first time in eight years, for so long as it is supported by the cultural department of the Israeli Embassy in London”. The organisers said they had been told in a letter by the Tricycle’s chair, Jonathan Levy, “Given the present situation in Israel/Palestine, and the unforeseen and unhappy escalation that has occurred over the past three weeks, including a terrible loss of life, The Tricycle cannot be associated with any activity directly funded or supported by any party to the conflict…the Tricycle will be pleased to host the UKJFF provided that it occurs without the support or other endorsement from the Israeli Government”.

David v Goliath

The mainstream media, which took days to acknowledge the bombardment and carnage in Gaza, pounced on the story immediately. Not the story above, but a narrative of its own making. Applying a selective and restricted reading of the UKJFF press release, the theatre “has refused to host” the festival, has cancelled “plans to host UK Jewish Film Festival”, and elsewhere was reported to have “banned” and “boycotted” the festival. This was clearly not the case. The Tricycle itself did not refer to its action – of refusing sponsorship – as a boycott. The media has little interest in reporting the truth and the news story quickly degenerated into comment pieces and op-eds on the nature and relevance of cultural boycotts and the anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish nature of the Tricycle’s action. Anti-Semitism is a charge sometimes applied uncritically and broadly to mute any opposition to Israel, conflating Jewish people and the state of Israel, with the latter using the former as a shield to hide behind. This line of attack was pursued with full force.

Many of the articles were also written by commentators who have clearly never visited the theatre or the area. In spite of the usual middle-class connotations of the arts and theatre, the Tricycle is truly a part of the working-class community that surrounds it in Kilburn and shows a wide range of films and theatre. In recent years, its theatrical repertoire has included cutting-edge and challenging material on the 2011 riots, the inquiry into the murder of black south London teenager Stephen Lawrence, the Baha Moussa Inquiry and Afghanistan. The Tricycle does not only show works of Jewish interest during the UKJFF and has often hosted works by the talented Muslim-Jewish theatre company MUJU. Its repertoire fosters social dialogue which until this year, the UKJFF was a part of.
The theatre also does a lot of outreach work with local schools in an area where children would not otherwise necessarily have such access to the arts and provides training schemes for black actors; theatre, as an establishment, is hardly known for its opportunities for ethnic minorities.

The local area, Kilburn, is highly diverse and no one ethnic or religious group could claim to dominate, as reflected in the diversity of the shops and entertainment available. The wider area, Brent, is the second most diverse part of the UK after Newham in east London, and enjoys relative harmony in its community affairs. It is also home to the largest Hindu temple outside of India, the popular Jewish Free School and has many houses of worship of all faiths and denominations. Recent visits by racist right-wing agitators have failed to divide the local community. This is not to imply that racism and other forms of discrimination do not exist in Brent.

Charge!

The attack on the Tricycle has not been limited to the newspapers. At the same time, a more sinister parallel campaign was underway – if the Tricycle’s actions could be construed as a “boycott”, then the Tricycle too was a legitimate target to boycott. The arts after all are dependent on their patrons. If the Tricycle was about to start a trend in the arts, it would have to be nipped in the bud. If the Tricycle was to naively set an example by defying Israel, then the Tricycle would have an example made of it by facing the full force of the pro-Israel lobby.

Calls were made for Brent council, which provides almost £200,000 of funding each year, to discontinue its support. Conservative councillor, John Warren, launched an investigation into the council’s funding of the theatre. Clearly a populist move, he told the local newspaper “We disagree with artistic discrimination, and as such disagree with the Tricycle decision to cancel the Israeli Film Festival”, yet he seems uninformed that the theatre made no such decision.

On 7 August, the Jewish Chronicle printed the names of several patrons of the theatre who refused at the time to comment on the situation, yet one week later, one of those people, Sir Trevor Chinn, had decided to withdraw his financial support for the theatre. In the week following the announcement of the news, other donors, who may well have been pressurised into doing so, also publicly withdrew their funding. On the same day, a noisy protest was held outside the theatre by around 100 people. It was organised by a group called the Campaign Against Antisemitism, formed to deal with this issue. Placards held up by protesters read, among others, “Don’t Punish London’s Jews”, “UK Jewish Community Stands with Israel” and “No! To Jewish Film Festival Ban”. The issue was further politicised when Culture Secretary, Conservative MP Sajid Javid, called the Tricycle’s actions “misguided”.

The Tricycle Theatre’s position garnered its own admiration and support. With other local residents, I signed a letter to the media in support of the theatre and against the misleading claims made in the national press. One hundred and six local residents also signed a letter of support that was published in three local newspapers in Camden and Brent. In addition, over 500 artists and theatre professionals added their names to a letter of support published in The Guardian on 15 August. On Saturday 9 August, one theatregoer reported two members of the audience stood up at the beginning of the performance and told everyone else “with the recent actions of the Tricycle Theatre we are boycotting this performance”, to which the rest of the audience responded that they could go.

Another protest against the Tricycle was planned for 20 August. It is unlikely to go ahead as on 15 August, the beleaguered theatre crumbled under the pressure. In a new joint statement with the UKJFF, the Tricycle Theatre stated, “Following lengthy discussions between the Tricycle and UKJFF, the Tricycle has now withdrawn its objection and invited back the UK Jewish Film Festival on the same terms as in previous years with no restrictions on funding from the Embassy of Israel in London”. The final paragraph, in light of the events of the previous two weeks, is almost entirely one-sided: “We both profoundly hope that those who take differing views on the events of the last few weeks will follow our lead and come together to acknowledge that dialogue, reconciliation and engagement will resolve points of difference and ensure that cultural diversity thrives in all communities”. The return of the festival to a venue it should never have left is welcome, but unless one considers bullying and intimidation a reasonable course of action, this can hardly be considered a victory for anyone.

Microcosms and macrocosms of conflict

Wars are not as spontaneous as the media would like us to believe; weapons arsenals do not grow on trees. Consequently, before the first shot is even fired, the truth is already a casualty. In many ways, this episode, no way near as significant or important as the actual war and destruction in Gaza, is a microcosmic demonstration of what happens on the larger world stage: here too the narrative of the media, which has found this story far more engaging and newsworthy than war in Gaza or elsewhere, differs sharply to the actual facts of the matter.

It is not the only the Israeli state and its agents that face censure for their actions abroad: last year, Brent was also the location of protests calling for a potential visit to the UK by the current Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, not to go ahead; he had previously been subject to a decade-long ban due to his implication in war crimes following a 2002 massacre of Muslims in west India. Other high-ranking Indian state officials have also had their travels overseas accompanied by protests, particularly by the Indian Sikh community, which was subject to a massacre in 1984 that has never been properly investigated by the Indian authorities. US NGO Sikhs for Justice is currently seeking a ban and will protest if Modi visits the US next month.

Not only do so-called democratic states act as though they are above the law and beyond prosecution, they use increasingly sophisticated methods to quell any dissent and questioning of their actions, so much so that expressions of human solidarity and kindness are more likely to be penalised than criminal acts. Israel must not be penalised for its actions in Gaza but the Tricycle must be penalised with the threat of closure and disrepute. On the macro level, this is demonstrated through the imprisonment of Chelsea Manning for 35 years for disclosing US war crimes while the war criminals whose actions were disclosed plot their latest bloody moves in Iraq. On the micro level, this translates into the victimisation of victims of violent crimes such as rape and paedophilia: the aggressor wins every time.

Although the Tricycle’s decision to back down from its commendable position is regrettable, it did so under immense pressure. In all possible outcomes, it loses. Supporting the people of Gaza besieged under war in the world’s largest open prison is not wrong or an immoral act. Taking peaceful action to oppose the actions of a belligerent state is not wrong either. It is simply a human expression of support for the human rights and indeed the very right to life of fellow human beings.