Friday 6 September 2013

Modi not coming but Barry Gardiner unrepentant

Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujerat, has told Barry Gardiner that he is unable to accept his  invitation to speak to the House of Commons on the 'Future of Modern India' as he is busy for the next few weeks/

Modi has been fiercely criticised over the massacre of over 2,000 Muslims in the Gujerat in 2002 and campaigns and petitions were launched to get the invitation withdrawn. Local support for the campaign   to withdraw the invitation has included Brent TUC and Brent Labour Representation Committee.

The demonstration outside Barry Gardiner's surgery  at the Brent Civic Centre on Monday, 11.30am-1pm will go ahead in an effort to persuade him to officially withdraw the invitation and not repeat it.

Gardiner told the Kilburn Times: LINK
If it was right to issue the invitation in the first place, it would be wrong to withdraw it. Nothing can be added by that. It is silly.
Given the abject history of official British support for 'strong men' abroad, often for business reasons and the 'national interest', only to rebound later when the strong men trample on democracy and commit human rights abuses, Gardiner may eventually be glad that his invitation was declined.





Labour Councillor refuses to be a 'compliant cipher' over academisation

It is gratifying to find a local Labour councillor prepared to take a stand against academisation - even if that councillor is in Blackpool and not Brent!

Councillor Martin Mitchell said:
I have resigned from the board of governors of Collegiate High School in protest at the academisation of the school which is joining with Bispham High.

Earlier this year Government inspectors’ declaration of Bispham High as “failing” was widely described as politically motivated and a distortion of reality. Bispham High’s recently reported best ever exam results show that description to be totally accurate.

My time at Collegiate has been dominated by the academy issue.

Control has now been handed to a group without democratic standing which will decide which of the governors will remain.

I am not and do not wish to be a compliant cipher for a group without support in the local community. I believe public education should be kept in public hands and encourage others who think the same to speak up at every opportunity.

Chief Planner recommends refusal of Kensal Rise Library change of use

Kensal Rise library campaigners have welcomed the news that Brent's Chief Planner has recommended that the application for change of use of the building should be refused.

The Planning Committee will make the decision on September 18th after hearing the Officer's report and ant submissions by the applicant and opponents.  It is not unknown, but unusual, for the Committee to go against the Officer's recommendation.

The battle to save Kensal Rise library has been a long one but if the planning application is refused it will be one more step in the campaign's ultimate aim of having a library return to Kensal Rise.

I applaud the commitment and tenacity of the Save Kensal Rise Library campaign.

Thursday 5 September 2013

Gardiner faces demonstration over Modi visit on Monday

There is to be a demonstration on Monday at 11.30am outside the Brent Civic Centre where Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North will be holding his surgery. The demonstration is against Gardiner's invitation, as Chair of Labour Friends of India, to Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujerat,  to address the House of Commons. The demonstration is supported by  South Asian Solidarity, Islamic Human Rights Committee, Brent Trades Council, Brent Labour Representation Committee and many individuals. 

The exchange of letters below sets out the different viewpoints:

Barry Gardiner to Council of Indian Muslims (UK)

Dear Sirs,

 Asalaam Aleyeekum

Thank you for your courtesy in sending to me a copy of your open letter in which you refer to the invitation I issued to Narendra Modi to speak on “The Future of Modern India” in front of an invited audience in the House of Commons. I did this in my capacity as Chairman of Labour Friends of India. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to set out my reasons for doing so.

Narendra Modi is the Chief Minister of Gujarat, which as you know is where a large proportion of the Indian community in Britain come from originally. He has been re-elected three times since first becoming Chief Minister in 2001, most recently in 2012 with the overwhelming support of both the Hindu and the Muslim community in the State. Since 2001 he has stamped out corruption in the State administration and is widely recognised (even by his enemies) to be personally not corrupt and to live frugally. Many non-resident Indians who hold him in high regard have a keen interest in maintaining their family contacts in Gujarat and are therefore interested to hear his views.

He has presided over what is often referred to as an economic miracle in Gujarat, encouraging foreign direct investment and improving roads, electricity and infrastructure whilst increasing education and healthcare. In particular women’s education has increased and death in childbirth has dropped by a third. All of this, he has done in the aftermath of the devastating Gujarat earthquake which wrecked the city of Bhuj and much of the surrounding villages and towns leaving 600,000 people homeless. The growth rate in the state from 2001 to 2012 has been almost 12% -- the highest of any state in India and as a result of his governance Britain now has more foreign direct investment in Gujarat than in the rest of India put together. He has been voted as the most successful Chief Minister by India Today Magazine 6 years in a row and has recently been made the Leader of the official Opposition Party, the BJP. The BJP is a Hindu Nationalist Party and those are certainly his uncompromising views (he would like India to be a Hindu State just as Pakistan is a Muslim State). However he has always governed in line with the secular constitution of India as did the BJP when it was the party of government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee between 1998 and 2004.

 I am of course aware of the allegations that he was implicated in – some say that he organised – the appalling rioting that took place in Gujarat in 2002. The riots took place in the immediate aftermath of the murder of 64 Ram Sewaks (Hindu religious) who were locked in a train that was set alight by Muslim extremists who objected to the Ram Sewaks’ demands to build a Hindu temple at Ayodhya. Hindu mobs then went on the rampage in revenge for this atrocity, burning out Muslim shops and homes. The official figure of those killed at the time was 850 but subsequent reports say that up to 2,000 Muslims were murdered. You have quoted from a BBC report that referenced an analysis prepared from contemporaneous accounts including the Human Rights Watch Report compiled immediately afterwards which made it clear that police and other officials had stood by and not tried to protect the Muslim community. This led some to accuse the authorities of a planned massacre.

Other contemporaneous reports in newspapers show that the state government had imposed curfews, issued shoot-on-sight orders and called for the army to prevent the violence from worsening. Clearly there was a horrific failure in the implementation of those orders. In April 2009, the Supreme Court of India appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to inquire into the Gujarat government and Narendra Modi's role in the incidents of communal violence. The SIT reported to the court in December 2010 submitting that they did not find any incriminating evidence against Modi of willfully allowing communal violence in the state. In all the rioting lasted for three days before the police got things under control. (In this respect you may recall that the rioting two years ago here in London took four days for the police to bring under control and they too were accused of standing by and doing nothing.)

Given that the Indian Courts have fully investigated the allegations about official complicity in the riots and have in fact convicted some senior administrative and political figures, it is I think all the more significant that they found that Modi was not implicated in any way.  This has of course not stopped people using the allegations against him for political reasons; and they continue to do so. That is no reason for us to regard them as justified and proven when the Indian courts, under a Congress government, have found that there is not even a case for him to answer.

My assessment in inviting Modi to speak in the UK is that he is a hugely important figure in Indian politics. He is already Leader of the Opposition and depending on the outcome of next year’s elections he could become the Prime Minister of India. At the very least he will continue to be a dominant influence on India’s future direction one way or another. Britain has good relations with India and our trade and education links are strong and growing. It is therefore in my view entirely appropriate that British politicians and leaders of the Indian community in the UK should have an interest in what he has to say about the future direction of his country. 

 I trust that this clarifies the situation for you, and once again want to thank you for affording me the opportunity to address your concerns.

With Kindest Regards
Yours sincerely
Barry Gardiner MPMember of Parliament for Brent NorthChairman of Labour Friends of India

Council of Indian Muslims (UK) response:

Dear Right Hon. Mr. Gardiner,
Thank you for promptly responding to our concerns about your invitation to Gujarat Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi.  Please forgive us for saying that we have been vindicated in our assessment that you have been misinformed.  Before we respond to the points raised in your letter, let us start by providing some background on the most serious charge against Mr. Modi, about his role in the Gujarat pogrom of 2002. 

The viciousness and barbarism that marked the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 including the burning alive of hundreds of people, and brutal sexual violence against women, make the Gujarat riots among the worst human rights violations in recent history. Over 2000 people were killed, countless others wounded, and over 150,000 displaced from their homes.

After their investigation of the violence, Human Rights Watch stated that the “attacks against Muslims (and other religious minorities) in Gujarat have been actively supported by state BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) government officials and by the police.” [13]

The "Concerned Citizens Tribunal", established by journalists, retired judges and intellectuals in India to investigate the massacres in Gujarat, noted in its report:
The scrutiny of the evidence, which came before us, also reveals that there was systematic preparation for unleashing the violence all over the State. The attackers had with them the lists of persons and properties of the victims. The lists could not have been prepared without an access to government records and agencies like the state intelligence, the sales tax department, the revenue department and the state electoral rolls. The Muslim localities were identified beforehand, as also the property and business houses belonging to the Muslim community.
[Crime Against Humanity, Volume 1 - An Inquiry into the Carnage in Gujarat]

Babu Bajrangi, a convicted mass-killer of the Gujarat pogrom, acknowledged on camera during a media sting operation, that the pogrom would not have been possible without the support of Chief Minister Narendra Modi [14].  

There is much more evidence that we would be happy to provide, should you need us to corroborate our position against Mr. Modi. 

We would now like to respond to your letter point by point.

1. Modi, “has been re-elected three times since first becoming Chief Minister in 2001”
This is not unusual in Indian electoral politics which is often driven by sectarian loyalty rather than principle. Nor does it mean that he is governing well. The Left Front government ruled the state of West Bengal for 32 years until 2009. Naveen Patnaik (Orissa), Sheila Dikshit (Delhi) also were re-elected three times in a row. You must be aware of the fact that electoral arithmetic does not entirely depend on the persona of any individual, especially in a Westminster model of democracy. 

2. Muslims have voted for him in 2012
The Center for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), which collects electoral data collected using scientific survey methodology, reported that only 18% of Muslims voted for BJP. 

The same data reports that BJP did not field any Muslim candidate in the last Gujarat election. There were areas where Muslims had no option but to vote for the other candidate. This has nothing to do with Modi. Muslims were forced to express, under threat or intimidation by BJP/RSS, their support for him but there is nothing to suggest that they have voted for him as a community. [3]

3. Since 2001 he has stamped out corruption in the State administration”
This is false – an example of Mr. Modi’s expensive propaganda machine at work. If corruption has been stamped out, why then did the Modi administration resist the appointment of state Lok Ayukta (anti-corruption ombudsman) since 2003? When the State Governor appointed one, the Modi administration contested it up to the Supreme Court where it lost.

4. Modi, “is widely recognized (even by his enemies) to be personally not corrupt and to live frugally.”
Our objections to Mr. Modi's politics concern his fascist traits in politics and government, not his personal lifestyle, which incidentally is also not above board. 

5.  “Many non-resident Indians who hold him in high regard have a keen interest in maintaining their family contacts in Gujarat and are therefore interested to hear his views.”
This is no reason to justify implicit support for his views by providing him with a platform. Emigrants all over the world maintain contact with their families and relatives back home. There may be many in the UK who support other leaders with fascist views and would be very interested to hear them.

6. “He has presided over what is often referred to as an economic miracle in Gujarat, encouraging foreign direct investment and improving roads, electricity and infrastructure whilst increasing education and healthcare....”
Gujarat has not been a leading state in foreign direct investment (FDI). The Gujarat government claims that it signed nearly $1 trillion worth of memoranda of understanding (MoU), putting the state ahead of China! The real numbers tell a different story. Most of the MoUs never come to fruition. Gujarat's actual FDI is only sixth in the country and slightly ahead of (until recently communist ruled) West Bengal. Mr. Modi’s formidable PR armada led by APCO has created the fiction of Modi’s magic in Gujarat’s prosperity. Even if it were true, how much does a pound of human flesh cost?

7. Britain now has more foreign direct investment in Gujarat than in the rest of India put together.
This is a rather unfortunate admission in that it implies that economic interests are more important than human rights. Please note that the massacres he gave free rein to in 2002 also took the lives of three British citizens. These facts, if underlined, would anger the general British population as well. Under these circumstances, it would be highly regrettable for a British politician to be associated with and seen as endorsing Mr. Modi.

8. He has been voted as the most successful Chief Minister in India by Today Magazine 6 years in a row.
India Today is an English language magazine. English is spoken by 2-3% people in India (per the national census of 2001) - the poll therefore does not carry much weight as representing a significant proportion of Indian citizens.

9. He has recently been made the Leader of the Official Opposition Party
The Leader of the Official Opposition Party is in fact Mr. Rajnath Singh; Mr. Modi is simply in charge of the election campaign for 2014 elections.

10. The BJP is a Hindu Nationalist Party. And those are certainly his uncompromising views (he would like India to be a Hindu State just as Pakistan is a Muslim State.)
Thank you for pointing this out. The issue is that the Hindu Nationalist charter goes above and beyond India as a Hindu state a la Pakistan as a Muslim state. The VHP and RSS who are the ideological sources of the Hindu Nationalist movement were strongly influenced by Nazis in their formative years. University of Chicago Professor Martha Nussbaum calls the movement the most successful proto-fascist movement of modern times [1]. To quote Prof. Nussbaum:

“Since long before the 2002 Gujarat riots--in which nearly two thousand Muslims were killed by Hindu extremists--the power of the Hindu right has been growing, threatening India's hard-won constitutional practices of democracy, tolerance, and religious pluralism. Led politically by the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Hindu right has sought the subordination of other religious groups and has directed particular vitriol against Muslims, who are cast as devils in need of purging.”

The Hindu Nationalist movement not only threatens the Muslims in India, but Christians, Dalits, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other minorities as well. In the long run, they will threaten other regional powers (Because India, according to them, extends from Afghanistan to Burma and from Tibet to Sri Lanka.)

BJP is the political wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a fascist group whose leader M. S. Golwalkar in his book We; Our Nationhood Defined, laid down the aims and objectives of this group in these words, “...the foreign races [read non Hindus] in Hindusthan [India] must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture...must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation...We are an old nation; let us deal, as old nations ought to and do deal, with the foreign races...” Otherwise, “...To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races—the Jews. Germany has also shown how well impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.”
India has a remarkably successful constitution.  Modi’s uncompromising views are constitutionally inappropriate and legally unjustifiable. 

11. I am of course aware of the allegations that he was implicated in – some say that he organised – the appalling rioting that took place in Gujarat in 2002…  train that was set alight by Muslim extremists who objected to the Ram Sewaks’ demands to build a Hindu temple at Ayodhya

The official probe conducted by Indian Railways concluded that there was no attack from outside, that the fire started inside the coach; the claim that the fire was started by the Muslims’ as a retaliation to the temple at Ayodhya is a fiction and perhaps uttered here for the first time.

Muslims do not oppose the construction of a Ram Temple. What they are against is the occupation of Waqf (Muslim trust) land, where once stood a historic mosque and that was pulled down by extremist Hindus under the full gaze of the media. 

12. “Hindu mobs...  planned massacre”
As has been pointed out, all evidence points to a planned and systematic ethnic cleansing that could not have been possible without the overt support of the state machinery. A former minister in Modi cabinet Maya Kodnani was convicted by the High Court in Gujarat for her role in the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 [12]. This alone is a damning indictment and proof that the pogrom was planned and executed with direction from the highest levels of the state administration.  

13. “Given that the Indian Courts... Modi was not implicated in any way”
The truth about Modi will be known only when he is out of office and unable to use government machinery to silence his critics– please see what he does to officers who expose his role like Sanjiv Bhat.

14. “This has of course not stopped people using the allegations against him for political reasons; and they continue to do so... That is no reason... there is not even a case for him to answer”

Even the Supreme court has made these allegations [2, 10]. Are you, sir, suggesting that the Indian Supreme court has political agenda?

Mr. Modi has refused to condemn the attack on Muslims; he has instead focused his efforts on denying relief and assistance to the victims [11]. He has polarized Gujarati and Indian society along religious lines, leading to social and commercial boycott of Muslims, walls separating Muslim and Hindu areas in cities and towns and “Muslim-free” villages. There are still tens of thousands of the displaced during 2002 living in shanty towns and temporary refugee camps too afraid to return to their homes and villages.

The amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court has asserted that Modi can be prosecuted [2]. There is enough evidence against him that the United States denies him entry [5,6]. It is difficult to file a case against a Chief Minister everywhere and especially in India. 

15. My assessment in inviting Modi to speak in the UK is that he is a hugely important figure in Indian politics. He is already Leader of the Opposition and depending on the outcome of next year’s elections he could become the Prime Minister of India. At the very least he will continue to be a dominant influence on India’s future direction one way or another. Britain has good relations with India and our trade and education links are strong and growing. It is therefore in my view entirely appropriate that British politicians and leaders of the Indian community in the UK should have an interest in what he has to say about the future direction of his country.

As we have pointed out before, Modi is not the leader of the Opposition. He is not as popular as you have been told [9]. Humanity has nothing to gain from a fascist leader, however alluring his promises may seem. 
We hope we have convinced you that the facts and arguments provided to you by Modi supporters are false and reprehensibly so. We would like to expand on why we oppose Mr. Modi and his propaganda of a Gujarat `miracle.’ 

He inherited a rich state which was richer than the rest of India even before independence - in comparison to other Indian states Gujarat has always been an economically better [4].

Even so, income disparity in Gujarat is one of the most extreme in India. Per data released by the planning commission of India, 31.8% are still below poverty line.  Note that poverty means those who do not earn Rs. 20 (GBP 0.20) per day! 

Responding to a question on malnutrition in Gujarat, Narendra Modi, on 29 August 2012, said: "The middle class is more beauty-conscious than health-conscious that is a challenge…If a mother tells her daughter to have milk, they'll have a fight-she'll tell her mother, 'I won't drink milk. I'll get fat."   
We would like to emphasize that Mr. Modi refused to condemn the 2002 riots, let alone apologize to the victims. He walked out of an interview with Karan Thapar when pressed on this. On the contrary he continues to evoke the 2002 case to create his image as a nationalist!

We have tried our best to answer you point by point. We specially request you to watch and read the links and references provided in our responses. If that is difficult, please ask an unbiased and credible source about the facts presented here. At stake are values that are common to both the United Kingdom and India and indeed to all civilized nations [7, 8].

Regards,
Munaf Zeena

Notes and References
[1] “The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future” Martha Nussbaum Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (2009)
[2] “Gujarat riots: Amicus curiae says Modi can be prosecuted” http://www.indianexpress.com/news/gujarat...amicus-curiae...modi.../946400/
[3] “Muslims solidly against Modi: Katju
[4] Growth Rate: As per the Planning Commission data, this is true that in the period of 1995-2000 and 2001-10, Gujarat increased its annual rate of growth from 8.01% to 8.68%. 
But look at other states Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. In fact, Gujarat was ranked second after Rajasthan (8.34%) in the first period and third after Uttarakhand (11.81%) and Haryana (8.95%) in the second period. Even Bihar and Orissa, the two most backward states of the country, have also shown growth pick up from 4.70% and 4.42% in the first period to 8.02% and 8.13% in the second period. Even smaller states like Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh have registered growth of 11.01% and 8.96%, respectively. In 2011, Gujarat ranked sixth among major states with PCI of Rs 63,996, after Haryana (Rs 92,327), Maharashtra (Rs 83,471), Punjab (Rs 67,473), Tamil Nadu (Rs 72,993) and Uttarakhand (Rs 68,292).
25 US lawmakers have urged US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to continue with America's move. 
http://in.news.yahoo.com/keep-denying-visa-to-modi--us-lawmakers-052424447.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10250928/US-official-warns-against-giving-Indias-Narendra-Modi-a-visa.html
“India will not be able to survive because it has so much diversity, so many religions, castes, languages, ethnic groups, etc.
http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/GUJ-AHD-india-would-not-survive-if-modi-becomes-pm-markandey-katju-4191218-NOR.html
Martha C Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago.
"Modi has long been denied a visa to enter the US because of his complicity in the 2002 pogrom, as ascertained by the US State Department. But now, the Naroda Patiya verdicts make official the fact that responsibility for heinous crimes goes very high up in his government," she notes.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-24/news/35991670_1_gujarat-chief-minister-gujarat-riots-naroda-patiya
"We do not agree with the content of your seminar and invitation of Narendra Modi as a chief guest," he said. "As a magazine and as a publishing house in India with more than 12 years of standing, we stand by the principles of good taste, decency, progressive values, democratic principles and above all, the Constitution of India. As editor of PrintWeek India, I don't think Narendra Modi stands by these values; and hence the withdrawal of support," Ramnathan said.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/printers-protest-narendra-modi-as-chief-guest-pullout-from-conference/1079417/
Passing strictures against the state government, the court said, "Gujarat Government's inadequate response and inaction (to contain the riots) resulted in an anarchic situation which continued unabated for days on".
In a major blow to the Narendra Modi government, the Gujarat High Court today censured it for "inaction and negligence" during the 2002 post-Godhra riots, holding that this had resulted in an "anarchic" situation.
[12] Naroda Patiya case: Former BJP minister Maya Kodnani convicted along with 31 others http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-30/news/33499655_1_naroda-patiya-gujarat-riots-kodnani
[13]"We have no orders to save you" - Report by Human Rights Watch
[14] The Truth – Gujarat 2002: Babu Bajrangi

Wednesday 4 September 2013

Reclaiming inclusive education for all

Unite the Youth group
Michael Gove's Report Card
I was pleased to be asked to speak to the DPAC/Alliance for Inclusive Education group who delivered a demand for inclusive education to the DfE this lunchtime. This was part of the week of action which culminated this evening in a lobby of the House of Commons.

The demand for inclusive eduction was placed firmly within a social justice framework with the benefits of integration for both the disabled and non-disabled emphasised. Speakers were angry that the Coalition has put things into reverse with increased segregation, often now in private special schools, and academies and free schools making it harder for children with disabilities to receive equal access. Even mainstream local authority schools, fearing for their test and exam results and place in the league tables, are often less willing to admit such pupils.

I strongly supported this campaign which I feel is right both morally and in terms of educational benefit to all pupils. I told the crowd that we had gone from Every Child Matters to Every Test Result Matters to Only What Michael Gove Thinks Matters.

We need to return to saying Everyone Matters and ensure that the resources are provided to make sure that happens.

Brent Labour debate the Syria issue

Yesterday evening outside the US Embassy
After attending yesterday's protest calling on the US not to mount a military attack on Syria, I went o to the Labour Party's Public Meeting on Syria in Queen's Park.

All was not unity outside the Embassy with Assad and opposition supporters clashing verbally and there was disagreement too in Queen's Park.  The Labour meeting had been planned well before the heightened tension caused by the use of chemical weapons and the parliamentary vote and it turned out to be a calm and well-informed debate with passion breaking through only occasionally.

Cllr James Denselow who writes on the Middle East, completed a Ph.D in Syria and lived there for 3 years before the regime became 'uncomfortable' with his studeis and banned him from the country.

He described his experience of the country as quiet and safe for tourists but dangerous for  opposition. It had higher numbers of secret police per head than the former Soviet Union.

He said that the Arab Spring had taken previously 'coup proof' regimes by surpise with the rise in food prices being the catalyst for unrest. This meant that the regimes could offer 'neither bread nor freedom'. The young were revolting not merely against their rulers but against the 'owners' of the state.  Syria is a case of the failure of the expectations, of revolution with the opposition united by what they are against rather than what they are for.

With damage to the country amounting to £11b and mounting, the regime only in charge of 45% of the country and 10 million likely to be dependent on aid by the end of the year, the situation is extremely serious.

John Lloyd of the Financial Times spoke next opening with the statement that he agreed with Michael Gove's view, although not how it was expressed, on the rejoicing of MPs after the House of Commons vote. It was a curious vote, which nobody won, and should be revisited. Llopyd said the international situation was unstable with the euphoria of the Arab Spring gone, 20-30 states developing or have developed chemical or biological weapons and nuclear instability  especially over possession of nuclear weapons by Indian and Pakistan.

He likened the situation between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East to that which prevailed in the past between Catholic and Protestant in Europe.

On statements from Labour that the issue may be revisited if something 'huge happens' he said, 'What hugemess are we waiting for. It has happened already.' Countries are trying to uphold international agreements on the use of chemical weapons and we can't let their use become normalised.

Ivana Bartoletti, London Labour Euro 2014 candidate and deputy director of the Fabian Women's Network, spoke from a background of experience in European and international politics. She quoted an old saying, 'Never light the fire when the wind is blowing: you'll get burned'.

She said that Syria was a critical issue with the geographical closeness of Israel and Syrian Kurds beginning to flee to Kurdish regions and the number of refugees in Bulgaria. Bartoletti believed that Labour's amendment was right but that this didn't mean that the UK couldn't intervene in other ways.

Options in Syria are never easy, a campaign for  democracy had turned into a civil war and then a religious war. She was concerned about what would happen internationally if the US attack Syria and believed that the G20 talks gave an opportunity to put the issue at the top of the international diplomatic agenda.

Dr Sundar Thava, of Freedom for Torture, Amnesty International the Fabian Network and an NHS doctor, told the audience about his 10 years experience as an officer in the army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In contrast to John Lloyd, he was pleased with the outcome of the parliamentary voted although he had not been impressed by the quality of the debate. He believed that we shouldn't intervene and that question was a moral one. The US held hegemony over the UN but we can't sweep China and Russia aside. We should look at the concept of national interest as it applies to the US, Russia and Syria.

The US was seeking to spread neo-liberalism internationally and doesn't need us in terms of our armed forces as such - they can go it alone. Thava thought our non-participation would not affect the 'special; relationship'. He didn't agree with gassing but felt that Obama had been silly in making its use a 'red line; and been trapped into the position of having to be seen to react.

He wanted to see evidence that bombing would send a message to other dictators - he could see none. There was no such thing as bombardment as a 'surgical tool' and it was insincere to suggest that bombardment could be effective without the use of ground troops.

Military intervention would risk escalating the situation.

In the subsequent discussion different views were expressed but I got the impression, despite no show of hands, that there were more people supporting Bartoletti and Thava than Lloyd.

I was not chosen by Chair Tulip Siddiq to ask a question but would have wanted to discuss the wider issue of the UK's international role and whether we should cease the 'punching above our weight' approach that has become our role. Hugh Gaitskell's condemnation of the Suez adventure, Harold Wilson's steadfast refusal to send British troops to Vietnam, Robin Cook's attempt at an ethical foreign policy have to be set against Tony Blair's actions in Iraq.

Can you be an internationalist without being a military interventionist?

Disabled People's Week of Action - today's Westminster activities

From DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts)


Four themed ‘blocks’ will meet at 4 Government departments, central to the lives of disabled people. After handing over our demands, blocks will then move towards Parliament where we will formally launch the UK Disabled People’s Manifesto and present our demands to our elected representatives.

 Choose your ‘block’ and meet at 12.45pm at one of:

 Department for Education to oppose government attacks on inclusive education and a return to segregation
(SanctuaryBuildings, 20 Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3BT)

 Department of Energy and Climate Change if you’re angry about the numbers of disabled people living in fuel poverty while the energy companies rake in ever growing profits
(3 Whitehall Pl, City of Westminster, SW1A 2AW)

 Department for Transport to challenge inaccessible transport, the opening of new inaccessible stations for Crossrail and proposed cuts to rail staff further reducing customer assistance
(Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Rd, London SW1P 4DR)

 Department of Health to defend our NHS and demand our right to levels of social care support enabling choice, control, dignity and independence
(Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS)

LOBBY OF PARLIAMENT:
5 – 6pm – launch of the UK Disabled People’s Manifesto
in Westminster.
 Four themed ‘blocks’ will meet at 4 Government departments, central to the lives of disabled people. After handing over our demands, blocks will then move towards Parliament where we will formally launch the UK Disabled People’s Manifesto and present our demands to our elected representatives.
 Choose your ‘block’ and meet at 12.45pm at one of:
 Department for Education to oppose government attacks on inclusive education and a return to segregation
(SanctuaryBuildings, 20 Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3BT)
 Department of Energy and Climate Change if you’re angry about the numbers of disabled people living in fuel poverty while the energy companies rake in ever growing profits
(3 Whitehall Pl, City of Westminster, SW1A 2AW)
 Department for Transport to challenge inaccessible transport, the opening of new inaccessible stations for Crossrail and proposed cuts to rail staff further reducing customer assistance
(Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Rd, London SW1P 4DR)
 Department of Health to defend our NHS and demand our right to levels of social care support enabling choice, control, dignity and independence
(Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS)
LOBBY OF PARLIAMENT:
5 – 6pm – launch of the UK Disabled People’s Manifesto
- See more at: http://dpac.uk.net/2013/08/reclaiming-our-futures-freedom-drive-4th-september/#sthash.11I4Gr4y.dpuf

Tuesday 3 September 2013

Caroline Lucas warns that 'chilling' gagging bill could limit campaigns against racist and extremist parties

The House of Commons passed the general principles of the 'gagging bill' by 62 votes today. It will now go to detailed scrutiny at Committee stage.. This is what Caroline Lucas, Green MP, wrote about it on her blog.

The  ‘Lobbying Bill’, due its second reading today, would have horrifying implications for the way politics – and political campaigning –  are practised in this country.  Outrageously, it would suppress a range of legitimate voices, while doing very little to expose the murky world of lobbying.

It’s very much a bill of three distinct parts – one broadly welcome but inadequate, one of significant concern, and one plain sinister.

Part One of the Bill would set up a register of lobbyists.  I’ve been calling for this for some time, and it’s long overdue.  People have a right to know about the various different influences on the decisions being made on their behalf.  But whereas other parts of the Bill go too far, this one doesn’t go far enough.   As it’s worded, only a small proportion of the people meeting with ministers and officials, many of them from powerful companies,  would be defined as lobbyists.   Instead of restricting itself to the very narrow group of “consultant lobbyists”, the scope of the Bill should be much wider, so that it shines a light on the way lobbying works.

 As the Unlock Democracy group is arguing, the legislation should do far more to improve transparency, particularly around the financial aspects of lobbying.  For example, the amount paid to lobbyists by clients should be in the public domain, as should information on anypublic office they have held in the past five years.  And the registrar should be required to report to Parliament each year on the administration of the Act. 

Part Three of the Bill – which has been interpreted as an attempt by the Government to embarrass Labour over its candidate selection processes –  imposes new requirements on unions.    Their obligations to provide membership information to the independent regulator, who would gain new powers, would be further tightened.   Unions have very legitimate concerns that this would create another barrier to the right to take industrial action.  Whether this is deliberate or an unintended consequence, it’s worrying.

But it’s Part Two of the Bill that alarms me the most.  By imposing a quite astonishing range of  requirements on campaigning organisations in the run-up to elections, it would effectively shut down legitimate voices seeking to raise awareness on issues of legitimate public interest, whether it’s on NHS reform, housing policy, or wildlife conservation.   Campaign spending limits for “third party” organisations – such as charities and pressure groups – would be drastically cut, and the definition of what constitutes campaigning broadened.

And there would be new forms of regulation for organisations lobbying on issues at constituency level.
Some of the potential implications of this are frankly terrifying.   In the months preceding an election, it would be harder for campaigners to criticise the policies of a particular political party.  Organisations would have to deal with a new bureaucracy, and  be obliged to constantly ask whether they could continue many of their day-to-day activities.

Perhaps most worryingly, the power to stand up against racist or extremist parties could be curtailed.  So we’d have the perverse situation where the BNP, which as a political party would be exempt from these rules, would be protected, whereas the activities of those campaigning against them would be severely restricted.

We can’t allow this to happen.  I’ve co-sponsored a reasoned amendment to the Bill, and next week will be hosting a meeting with representatives of Unite, Hope not Hate and other affected organisations so they can put their concerns to MPs ahead of the Bill’s committee stage.

They are right to be concerned.  In the name of transparency, the Government has published a frankly chilling Bill which would effectively suppress the debate that it is essential in a healthy democracy.