Jenny Jones condemns inflammatory 'vile rhetoric' of referendum campaigns

I thought it worth publishing in full the speech made by Green Party peer, Jenny Jones, on the EU Withdrawal Bill, in the House of Lords:

 
My Lords, one of the deep delights for me in your Lordships’ House is the fact that we have such deep divides in opinion and yet we can still stay polite. That was the position that I found myself in during the referendum campaign, when I was campaigning to leave the EU. I found myself in some unsavoury company at times, with some people with whom I share not a single view, apart from the fact that the UK would be better off outside the EU.

I believe passionately that we have made the right decision, but at the same time we have to be absolutely sure that we go about it in the right way. The Bill that the Government have presented to us is simply inadequate. Had there been a decent White Paper with some detail about the things that many of us care about, I would have felt calmer about voting for the Bill as it exists. However, the Prime Minister is approaching these negotiations with a blank sheet of paper. Where are the underlying principles? There are underlying principles in the EU, but where are the underlying principles that we will maintain during negotiations, or are there to be no principles at all?

The Green Party is particularly concerned that the Cabinet will attempt to dump protections for everything from wildlife and the countryside to the social protections that we see as normal in society nowadays. The Government could use a combination of exit negotiations and secondary legislation to do all sorts of things that the majority of people who voted leave would not want to happen. It is wrong to use the referendum result as cover for bypassing proper parliamentary procedure and scrutiny. The Lords has the job of ensuring that a democratic process is followed throughout the different stages of the negotiations.

As somebody who has advocated leaving the EU ever since we joined as a result of the 1975 European Communities membership referendum, I resent people suggesting that I am out to wreck the Bill by seeking to amend it—someone even said that it would be “traitorous”. That is an unpleasant thing to say about people who are trying to improve things. As for threats from the other place to replace the House of Lords with a different sort of Chamber or abolish it altogether, for me, that would be a welcome bonus. I believe that it is time for us to be abolished and replaced by a democratically elected Chamber. For me, therefore, that is no threat at all. However, it is bullying. 

What do we do with bullies? We stand up to them.

I will try to amend this Bill. I have put down five amendments that I feel would definitely improve the Bill and I will support amendments from other Members of your Lordships’ House. It is our job to advise and to reform and improve the sometimes very poor legislation that comes from the other place. My five amendments cover the following areas: transitional arrangements; legal enforcement; environmental regulators; access to justice; and employment and equality protections. These are self-evident. They will ask for detailed plans, lots of preparation and proper funding, which I know this Government have a huge problem with.

I am going to keep my remarks brief because some of what I would like to say is probably best left unsaid. However, before finishing, I would like to add that I also commend the amendment from a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which will protect the residence rights of EU citizens legally resident in the UK on the day of the referendum— 23 June 2016. It is a precautionary but self-evident amendment and it would be cruel not to include it. I cannot see why the Government would have any objections to it being in the Bill.

Finally, although the outcome of last year’s vote was what I wanted, I have not taken a moment’s pleasure from it in the intervening time, partly because of the way in which the campaigns on both sides were conducted and partly because of the conduct since. There has been so much hatred and vile rhetoric, which has inflamed people. I am sure that many of us here have had abuse. That is a normal part of any progressive politician’s inbox but it has now reached levels that are just incredible.

We should take pleasure in issues such as immigration, because it is good for our country: it is good for the economy and it is good for our culture. I also believe that if you accept free trade, then why not accept the free movement of people? When we look at the Bill and vote on it next week, I hope that the Government will understand that we must not lower our standards. Whether it is on food, social protection or protecting our countryside, we must not go down the route of making things worse. In a sense, society is already worse because of the referendum and the Government must do everything in their power to heal as much as possible.

Jenny Jones: May wrong to use Brexit to by-pass proper Parliamentary scrutiny

Green Party peer Jenny Jones has come out fighting today against claims that she is out to 'wereck' the Brexit Bill.

She said:

As someone who has advocated leaving the EU for over two decades, I resent people saying I am out to ‘wreck’ the Brexit bill by seeking to amend it Many of us have huge concerns that we will lose environmental and social protections because of the way the Prime Minister is approaching these negotiations.

I am concerned that the Cabinet will attempt to dump protections for everything from wildlife and countryside to workers rights and climate change, by using a combination of exit negotiations and secondary legislation. It is wrong to use the referendum result as cover for by-passing proper Parliamentary scrutiny and the Lords has the job of ensuring that a democratic process is followed throughout the different stages of the negotiations.

 As for abolishing the Lords and replacing it with a democratically elected second chamber, that would be a welcome bonus.

Valentines for the NHS and Charing Cross Hopsital

There were smiling faces on Valentine’s Day, as Save Our Hospitals campaigners presented a huge hand-made card with heart-shaped messages from enthusiastic members of the public to NHS staff at Charing Cross. Messages expressed ‘LOVE’ for Charing Cross Hospital and for the NHS.

Campaigners used the event to publicise the coming mass national demonstration for the NHS to be held in London on March 4th (see http://www.ournhs.info/ ).

Where was “The Beggars Roost”? – a Wembley mystery

Many thanks to Philip Grant for this fascinating guest blog. My late older brother, David, had a lifelong passion for motorbikes that probably started with the 'Wembley Lions.

 

You were probably living in Wembley during the Second World War, more than seventy years ago, or have talked to someone who was, if you can answer this question. But even if neither applies to you, you may still be interested to know why I am asking.

I deal with email local history enquiries on behalf of Wembley History Society, and they sometimes set some fascinating puzzles. One arrived recently from a lady in the United States. She was looking around a Goodwill store (charity shop), and saw a very attractive coat of arms, hand-painted on a wooden plaque. She bought it, took it home, and then began to wonder what it was, and the story behind it.

The name “Wembley” was almost certainly a place, and she found out that the letters “ARP” stood for Air Raid Precautions, in Britain during the Second World War. By searching online, she discovered that there was someone she could contact who might know more about the history of Wembley at that time, so she sent me a photo of her plaque.

A.R.P. Post 12 Plaque, from Cheryl Hutton

 I have no doubt that this home-made coat of arms came from “our” Wembley, as the lion in the top right quarter is copied from the badge of the “Wembley Lions” motorcycle speedway team. They were based at Wembley Stadium, and were hugely popular during the 1930’s, when they were national champions several times. 
 

The blue and yellow quarter below it shows an air raid warden’s helmet, gas mask and rattle, so there can be little doubt that the plaque was first made for, and probably displayed at, ARP Post 12, in Sector 8 / 9 of the Borough of Wembley. But where was this, and why did the wardens call their base ‘the Beggars Roost”? Is the chicken (or “rooster”) a clue, and who is the beggar above it on the plaque? I don’t know, and would certainly welcome any information that readers, or anyone they can forward this article to who might be able to help, could provide.

Eighty years ago the Borough of Wembley was a separate local government area, with a population of just over 100,000 people. Even before the war, the local Council was making A.R.P plans, and starting to build public air raid shelters, in response to the threat from Germany. After war broke out, a full-scale air raid wardens service was mobilised, which at its height had 2,500 wardens, 95% of them unpaid volunteers. 

I know, from an elderly neighbour (the son of a warden), that the A.R.P. post for our 1930's-built estate was in the requisitioned garage of a local bungalow. His father was one of the first on the scene when a German "parachute mine" hit a row of shops in Kingsbury Road one night in September 1940, killing two mothers, a baby boy and a seven year old girl, in the flats above. This is an official "war damage" photo of the scene, taken the following day, which shows the sort of event that the wardens had to deal with (thankfully, not too often!).

Bombed shops and flats in Kingsbury Road, 1940

As well as the A.R.P. wardens, first aid and rescue teams were also organised. After the bombing raids started in earnest, in August 1940, nearly all civilians had to undertake "fire watching" duties (around 7,500 of the c. 9,000 bombs which fell in the Wembley area between 1940 and 1945 were incendiaries), so around 25,000 Wembley people in total were engaged in some form of Civil Defence work during the war. The Borough lost 149 civilians killed in air raids, including several A.R.P. wardens, with over 400 more seriously injured.

The “Beggars Roost” plaque, which somehow found its way to the U.S.A. after the war, is a reminder that the bombing of civilians, horrible as it is, is not just something that happens in far-away places like Syria or Yemen. It happened in Wembley as well, and the volunteer men and women of A.R.P. Post 12, and others like it, did their best to protect their neighbours from such atrocities. I hope that, perhaps with your help, I can find out more about them.

Philip Grant.

Defend Sen Campaign - Public Meeting Friday 24th February

We would like to invite you all to public meeting organised by DEFENSENCAMPAIGN and against trade union victimisation of Sen, a life long committed maths teacher and a trade union activist. This is not the first time this has happened. The public meeting follows the second strike action taken by his branch in protest at his continued suspension. The platform also includes Grunwick40 and hopes to connect the past with the present. Sen led a number of campaigns and strikes in the College situated near what used to be the site of Grunwick.

Sen was suspended for representing two ex- colleague support staff members sacked by the College at an employment tribunal, who could not afford to hire costly barristers. The allegation is that he took unauthorised leave. His union believes that this was a pretext to get rid of him. One of the sacked member is of Afro Caribbean origin and the other member he was representing suffers from five set of disabilities. The College had never refused him unpaid leave before but did so this time.

Sen led a very suscessful campaign resulting in stopping a merger taking place between City of Westminster College and his College in 2013, the only College to have fought of a merger trough joint union action. Following his suspension on the 10 October 2016, the two College again took a decision to merge.  He remains suspended and decision with regards to his continued employment will come out on the 24 February or soon thereafter. Your intervention through appearance at the Public meeting or public support may have a significant impact on the decision.

Even whilst suspended, he has satisfactorily concluded a number of cases involving his members to their satisfaction.

Cheers
DEFENDSENCAMPAIGN

Disabled people asked to contact Brent Advocacy Concerns over cuts in care packages

Brent Advocacy Concerns, one of several Brent voluntary organisations facing an uncertain future following the decision of NHS Estates to charge market rents to voluntary organisations at their Willesden Centre PFI property, are asking disabled people to get in touch over the impact of a review of care packages:

-->

On January 16^th, Brent Council made a decision that will mean that some disabled individuals living in the borough will be facing cuts to their social care packages.

The council has decided to reassess those people who were receiving the Independent Living Fund (ILF) from the Government before the scheme was closed. This is with the aim of reducing either care costs or the hours of support received for some of the disabled people in Brent who receive this support.   Brent Council have said:

“The Council is confident that the wellbeing of all 21 service users affected can and will be maintained, and that they will continue to be able to access the community as well as receive all of the personal care and support they require.”

Brent Advocacy Concerns is keen to know whether Brent Council have or is going to review people’s care package and what the actual or expected outcome will be and the impact it will have upon their wellbeing and engagement in the community as a result of any cuts to their care packages.    We would like to hear from disabled people with the goal of highlighting the impact that the social care cuts is having upon residents living in Brent.

Brent Advocacy Concerns is a member of Inclusion London and has supported their campaign work which led to the Government having to do a U-turn on ILF funding.   The Government has allocated four years of ILF funding (2016-2020) for Brent ILF recipients – we need to make sure the continued funding for ILF is used to maintain disabled individuals social care packages. 

We would like to hear from you.  Please contact us on 020 8459 1493 (voicemail messages will be responded to)

Email  bacadvocacy@outlook.com   or info@brentac.org   

With regards

John Healy, Chair

Brent Advocacy Concerns. 

Brent Advocacy Concerns, Willesden Centre for Health and Care, Robson Avenue, London

London AMs asked to rethink positions on anti-semitism motion

Brent Central Labour Party is holding a discussion on The Labour Party and Anti-Semitism tonight (7.30pm Christchurh Nursery, St Albans Road, Harlesden, NW10 8UG).

Richard Kuper (Free Speech on Israel) and Jeremy Newmark (Chair, Jewish Labour Movement)  will lead the discussion.

By coincidence the issue of criticism of Israeli government action being conflated with anti-semitism has produced intensive discussion  in both the Labour Party and the Greens.

It has arisen after the London Asembly unanimously approved a resolution on the issue:

This Assembly expresses alarm at the rise in anti-Semitism in recent years across the UK including London. This includes incidents when criticism of Israel has been expressed using anti-Semitic tropes.

We therefore welcome the UK Government’s announcement on December 11^th 2016 that it will sign up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on anti-Semitism which define anti-Semitism thus:

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

The guidelines highlight manifestations of anti-Semitism as including:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• 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.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• 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.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

This Assembly hereby adopts the above definition of anti-Semitism as set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and pledges to combat this pernicious form of racism.

Free Speech on Israel, a Jewish ed organisation, committeed to open and transparent debate on Palestine-Israel issue the folowing ststaement:

Free Speech on Israel, a Jewish-led organisation, condemns the decision of the London Assembly on Feb 8 to adopt a position on antisemitism that is a charter for censors. It threatens to make effective campaigning for justice for Palestinians impossible.

Antisemitism is an age-old visceral hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews. It must be vigorously fought against, along with all forms of bigotry. To confuse it with opposition to a state which calls itself Jewish, or to the founding ideology of that state, Zionism, is to obscure the real meaning of the term antisemitism and make combatting it more difficult. This is exactly what the motion passed by the Assembly does.


Setting the limits of debate about “the Jewish state” is a key goal of pro-Israel lobbyists only recently unmasked as working hand in glove with the Israeli Embassy to brand any criticism as antisemitic. Labour Friends of Israel, to which the motion’s proposer Andrew Dismore belongs, were shown to be key players in this witch hunt, which has resulted in a wave of suspensions and interrogations of pro-Palestinian Labour Party members. The victims include Jews who, contrary to the claims of the pro-Israel lobby, do not have Zionism woven into their DNA. Jewish organisations have been among those calling for a full inquiry into the extent of Israeli interference in UK politics.

We defer to Avi Shlaim, professor emeritus of history at Oxford and an Israeli Jew, who writes: “Israeli propagandists deliberately, yes deliberately, conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in order to discredit, bully, and muzzle critics of Israel.”

It is not necessary to agree with Palestinians and their supporters when they question the founding principles of the State of Israel, compare it to Apartheid South Africa or call it to account for its well-documented racism, in order to recognise their right to say such things. The London Assembly has taken a position which endangers that right.

At a time when minority ethnic communities, particularly Muslims, are under constant attack in our society, the London Assembly, on the pretext of defending Jews against racism, has placed itself in the invidious position of defending Israeli propagandists against Palestinians and their supporters. This can only have the unintended consequence of stoking new hostility to Jews who will be seen as attempting to determine what non-Jews may or may not say about a foreign state.

We urge members of the Assembly to reconsider this politically ill-advised move.

Celebrate the contribution of migrants to the UK - Feb 20th 'One day without us'