Yes Scotland - the Campaign for an Independent Scotland

Slavery in the UK: Migrant Workers and Forced Labour

Source: The News Line: Feature
Thursday, 17 May 2012

Migrant workers face forced labour and Exploitation in uk!

THE Joseph Rowntree Foundation has carried out a comprehensive investigation into migrant workers’ experiences of forced labour and exploitation in the UK food industry across England and Scotland.

Drawing on in-depth interviews with 62 migrant workers (mainly Polish, Chinese, Latvian and Lithuanian) across five locations (London, Liverpool, South-West England, Lincolnshire and East-Central Scotland), the study:

• Sets out how and why forced labour/exploitation occurs.

• Uncovers forced labour/exploitation practices in the food industry.

• Explains the impact on migrant workers.

• Includes policy recommendations to improve regulation and aid migrant workers who experience forced labour/exploitation.

Key points

• The most notable and unexpected forced labour practice was the ‘underwork scam’ – recruiting too many workers and then giving them just enough employment to meet their debt to the gangmaster.

• A significant proportion of interviewees paid fees to come to the UK and secure work, creating indebtedness and dependence.

• Workers were threatened and bullied. Racist or sexist language was sometimes used in the workplace, underpinning a climate of fear. Some employers used fear of dismissal to ensure that workers remained compliant and deferential.

• Productivity targets and workplace surveillance were excessive; workers felt they were treated like machines rather than people and given targets that were often impossible to meet. Informal employment brokers frequently provided workers with tied accommodation, which was often sub-standard; workers thus experienced exploitation at home as well as in the workplace. Losing their job might also mean losing their home.

• It is difficult to say whether the exploitation reported was severe enough to constitute forced labour, but the evidence indicated that employers were infringing many rights.

• Low-wage migrant workers appear especially vulnerable to forced labour, despite most of those interviewed having the right to live and work in the UK. The intensity of work in the food industry, driven by economic pressures throughout the supply chain, contributes to such exploitation.

Background

This study is part of JRF’s forced labour programme. It aims to highlight the issue with new robust evidence on the extent of forced labour in the UK and interventions that might contribute to its eradication.

Forced labour recently became a criminal offence via the 2009 Coroners and Justice Act (Section 71) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the 2010 Criminal Justice and Licensing Act (Section 47) in Scotland.

The ILO (International Labour Organisation) defines forced labour as comprising of six core indicators: physical or sexual violence; restriction on movement; bonded labour; withholding of wages; retention of passports and identity documents; threat of denunciation to the authorities.
However, for the purposes of this research – and reflecting the increasingly nuanced approach of others including the ILO – the researchers expanded this list to involve 19 forced labour indicators set out in the main report.

Conditions for forced labour

Four key factors created conditions for forced labour: migrant labour use; low-paid, demanding work; job flexibility; expendability.

The strong relationship between use of migrant labour and exploitation was particularly noteworthy.
It derives from migrants’ economic circumstances, limited English language ability, widespread use of tied housing, and reliance on gangmasters (often from their own community).

Forced labour practices

The research identified 14 forced labour practices in the UK food industry, some examples of which are set out below (the full 14 are available in the main report); although individually insufficient to constitute forced labour, they rarely existed in isolation:

• Upfront fees/debt bondage – many migrants paid fees to labour market intermediaries to travel to the UK and secure work. This often indebted migrants and/or led them into exploitative work and housing.

• Threats and bullying – migrants often felt bullied and ‘treated like livestock’ (Zhanna, 42, woman, Latvian). Being undervalued and treated as a commodity sometimes translated into racism and sexism. Polish workers in Scotland were called ‘F***n Polish’ (Henry, man, 30, Polish) by fellow UK workers; mainland Chinese in London were likened to ‘pigs’ (Xiao Ping, woman, 34, Chinese) by their boss.

• Disciplining through dismissal – three very questionable forms of dismissal were: to avoid paying workers; if workers refused overtime; when workers became ill or pregnant.

All created acute precariousness among migrants and acted as disciplining tools.

One worker recalled the agency’s reaction when she told them she was pregnant: ‘I … spoke to him and he promised me that he will look for easy work for me. He gave me my last salary … I asked them directly: ‘What shall I do now? Have you dismissed me? Do I need to look for another job?’... He replied: “No, no. Everything is fine. I am looking for another job for you.” They just could not tell me that they are dismissing me.’ (Zinaida, woman, 24, Lithuanian)

• Productivity targets and surveillance – targets and monitoring gave interviewees little opportunity for social interaction at work.

Pressure was intense: ‘It was completely crazy, rushing, shouting constantly . . . they can stand behind your back with a stopwatch and see how many chickens you are packing per minute . . . Here you are a robot, a machine.’ (Izabela, woman, 44, Polish)

• Overwork – Chinese migrants worked particularly long hours in the Chinese catering sector. They appeared to have no life outside work; this also applied to farm workers in peak seasons.
Non-/under-payment of wages – this was remarkably common, and migrants seemed unable to get back pay they were owed. A popular tactic was to deduct a few hours’ pay each week: ‘The boss was very, very stingy. When I worked ten hours, he would note it down as six or seven hours.

‘Always a few hours less … Every week when the payday came, we had to argue with the boss …’ (Li Xia, man, 42, Chinese)

• Underwork/indebtedness – gangmasters recruited even when work was scarce, because they charged workers fees for finding work, however limited, and/or for travel, accommodation and other bills.

The more workers they had, the more charges they could levy; it could be in gangmasters’ interests to provide workers with just enough hours to pay these charges. This left migrants with no spare money to escape.

• Deductions/charges – gangmasters commonly charged for getting migrants work: ‘We paid X £250 each for providing work for us . . . It was for the opportunity to work . . . She did not request money straight away.

‘We started to work, earned some money and then she demanded £250 from each person. If you do not pay, you would sit without work.’ (Nina, woman, 50, Lithuanian).

• Documentation abuses – some workers had their passports retained for ‘safekeeping’; even more lacked in-work documentation such as contracts and payslips.

• Tie-ins (work permits) – while work permits do not in theory tie migrants to a single employer, they require an employer sponsor, making it difficult to change jobs. Employers’ thus have a hold over workers which is open to abuse.

• Tie-ins (accommodation) – poor accommodation was often linked to exploitation. Interviewees talked of overcrowded (e.g. five people in one caravan), sub-standard, overpriced housing. ‘I was shocked . . . the caravan is for 5 people . . . One of the girls sleeps in the living room . . .’ (Victoria, woman, 21, Bulgarian)

• Tie-ins (money) – some employers kept workers’ pay for ‘safekeeping’; while arguably innocuous, this could tie workers to a firm.

Impact on individuals

Forced labour and exploitation affected individuals in five main ways. Many migrants lived in both relative and absolute poverty.

‘Their work experiences had shattered their perceptions of the UK. They had lost their spirit: they felt powerless, afraid of complaining and were acutely aware of how employers sanctioned those who did complain.

‘Forced labour practices sometimes led directly to poor mental health: a number were depressed, miserable, withdrawn or apathetic. In a few cases, the intensity of work led to physical harm.

Poverty: ‘I was working but ending up without any money at all. Because by the time I’ve paid my petrol . . . my bills . . . my food all the money was gone!’ (Weronikia, woman, 31, Polish)

Broken dreams: ‘My dreams did not come true . . . I thought that I will earn a lot of money, but I did not.’ (Zhanna, woman, 42, Latvian)

Powerlessness: ‘We come here to . . . make a living. It’s about survival. Sometimes I come across difficulties and feel bullied and suppressed, but I put up with it, and it will pass. Feeling bullied or suppressed is normal and unavoidable . . . There are no alternatives.’ (Ah Lin, man, 50, Chinese)
Mental health: ‘I was hating the alarm clock. When it was ringing . . . and knew I had to go back there, I felt like the sky was falling on me, but I had . . . no other choice. I needed money I needed work . . . I didn’t care anymore, I was at the point when you’d rather kill me than go back there . . . I lost weight, I was . . . sad all the time, tense and day-by-day you are being treated like the least nothing on earth.’ (Adriana, woman, 30, Romanian)

Physical health: ‘Everyone has got back pains. And you have to stand for eight hours next to a container with cold meat, so you can imagine how cold you are! Painkillers all the time because you would not be able to work … cold takes a lot out of your body.’ (Izabela, woman, 44, Polish)

Black Panther leader, Huey P. Newton, on gay, women’s liberation

Huey P. Newton on gay, women’s liberation

A Black Panther’s view in 1970:

Huey P. Newton on gay, women’s liberation

Published May 16, 2012 11:45 PM

The following speech was given by the late Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, on Aug. 15, 1970, on gay and women’s rights. Shelley Ettinger, a member of Workers World Party and a lesbian activist, wrote on her blog, “Read Red,” about Newton’s speech: “I think it's important to remember this speech because the Black liberation movement and even the Black community as a whole are so often slandered as though they're somehow more sexist and/or homophobic than other movements or other sectors of society, and here we have a great revolutionary leader speaking out just one year after the Stonewall Rebellion, far earlier than almost anyone else.” In light of President Barack Obama’s recent announcement in support of same-sex marriage, WW is reprinting in its entirety Newton’s historic speech that urged revolutionary class solidarity with these oppressed groupings.

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion.

I say ”whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the white racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest white person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppressed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counter-revolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counter-revolutionary, then criticize that action.

If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as [Richard] Nixon or [John] Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner.

---

Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news DONATE

BRIT TROOPS MASSACRED UNARMED MALAYS AT BATANG KALI!

The News Line: http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/7526Thursday, 10 May 2012BRITISH TROOPS MASSACRED UNARMED MALAYS AT BATANG KALI!

Grinning Royal Marine with his "trophies". Brit troops regularly tortured, mutilated and beheaded villagers in the colonial Malaya war.SUCCESSIVE British administrations have hidden the truth about the massacre of 24 unarmed Malaysian rubber plantation workers by UK troops in 1948, says a UK-based lawyer representing relatives of the victims.

The current Tory-led government’s refusal last November to hold a formal investigation into the Batang Kali killing was challenged in a two-day judicial review hearing at the High Court in London that began on Tuesday.

Family members of the victims asked the court to quash the UK government’s 2010 decision against holding an inquiry into the case, despite evidence pointing to an extra-judicial killing spree.

‘What happened at Batang Kali was an extremely serious human rights abuse on any view at all,’ said John Halford, one of the lawyers of the families of the victims, in a press conference on Monday.

‘It was a massacre of 24 unarmed people who weren’t in any sense combatants, weren’t offering any kind of threat to the British troops who killed them.

‘That in itself is serious enough, but what then followed was a cover-up that has basically lasted the following 60 years to this day, where the British government has denied that anything untoward happened at all.’

The massacre involving members of G Company, 2nd Scots Guards, occurred 64 years ago, while British troops were trying to put down the post-Second World War Communist insurgency known as the Malayan Emergency.

Soldiers surrounded the rubber estate at Sungai Rimoh in Batang Kali, north of Kuala Lumpur, and shot dead 24 villagers before setting the village on fire.

‘What’s happened ever since is that officials, essentially British officials, have conspired to maintain the official account and suppress that very basic truth that these killings were unlawful and could never be justified,’ Halford added.

Meanwhile, condemning the ‘cold-blooded massacre’by UK troops, 76-year-old Lim Ah Yin, a survivor who has travelled to London for the case, asked for the UK government to show ‘fairness’ about the case.

Furthermore, Loh Ah Choi, who was seven at the time of the deadly incident, said, ‘I would like the British government to apologise.’

However, a British Foreign Office spokeswoman said, ‘It is very unlikely that a public inquiry could come up with recommendations which would help to prevent any recurrence.’

In Tuesday and Wednesday’s the High Court judicial review test case, the family members are seeking a public inquiry or other effective, independent investigation into what happened at Batang Kali, its misrepresentation as lawful and justified by British officials, and the active steps taken to suppress the truth.

They are asking the High Court to quash decisions of the Secretaries of State for Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs refusing both that inquiry and investigation.

Loh Ah Choi is the second claimant in the judicial review case – his uncle Loh Kit Lin, a student, was shot in the stomach on 11 December 1948 then ‘finished off’ as he lay wounded on the ground.

Loh Ah Choi was being taken away by lorry with other women and children from the village as 23 male villagers were walked from the village huts and executed.

Chong Koon Ying, also present in the village as a child, is a witness.

Lim Ah Yin is a further witness who was age 11 when the killings took place.

The families are being represented in Court by barristers Michael Fordham QC, Danny Friedman and Professor Zachary Douglas.

The Batang Kali massacre occurred during what was referred to as the ‘Malayan emergency’, a guerrilla war between colonial forces and the communist Malayan National Liberation Army, who were principally of Chinese ethnic origin.

A counter-insurgency operation was launched in the Selangor region, now in peninsular Malaysia, because British forces had received intelligence of ‘bandit’ (insurgent) activity there.

As part of this operation, between 11 and 12 December 1948 soldiers of the 7th Platoon, G Company, 2nd Battalion of the Scots Guards surrounded and took control of the village of Batang Kali, part of a British-owned rubber tapping estate.

None of the villagers was wearing a military uniform or emblem.

None was armed, and none offered any violence to the patrol. In those circumstances, there was simply no basis or justification for the use of lethal force.

However, over the course of two days the patrol shot dead 24 unarmed Chinese rubber tappers – all but two of the adult men of the village.

Many of the victims’ bodies were mutilated. The village was burned to the ground, leaving the victims’ dependents destitute.

The bodies were left where they lay, and had begun to decompose by the time the women and children were allowed to return. One was found beheaded.

In contrast to similar incidents elsewhere in the world (e.g. the My Lai massacre by US troops during the Vietnam war and the massacre at of villagers at Rawagede, Indonesia) there has been no proper investigation into the Batang Kali incident.

The UK authorities have never apologised or accepted anything done was wrong; on the contrary, a demonstrably false ‘official account’ has been disseminated, including in statements to Parliament.

Mark Curtis writes in ‘The War in Malaya 1948-60’ – ‘At Batang Kali in December 1948 the British army slaughtered twenty-four Chinese, before burning the village. The British government initially claimed that the villagers were guerrillas, and then that they were trying to escape, neither of which was true. A Scotland Yard inquiry into the massacre was called off by the Heath government in 1970 and the full details have never been officially investigated.

‘Decapitation of insurgents was a little more unusual – intended as a way of identifying dead guerrillas when it was not possible to bring their corpses in from the jungle.

‘A photograph of a Marine Commando holding two insurgents’ heads caused a public outcry in April 1952. The Colonial Office privately noted that “there is no doubt that under international law a similar case in wartime would be a war crime”. (Britain always denied it was technically at “war” in Malaya, hence use of the term “emergency”).

‘Dyak headhunters from Borneo worked alongside the British forces. High Commissioner Templer suggested that Dyaks should be used not only for tracking “but in their traditional role as head-hunters”.

‘Templer “thinks it is essential that the practice (decapitation) should continue”, although this would only be necessary “in very rare cases”, the Colonial Office observed. It also noted that, because of the recent outcry over this issue, “it would be well to delay any public statement on this matter for some months”.

‘The Daily Telegraph offered support, commenting that the Dyaks “would be superb fighters in the Malayan jungle, and it would be absurd if uninformed public opinion at home were to oppose their use”. The Colonial Office also warned that, in addition to decapitation, “other practices may have grown up, particularly in units which employ Dyaks, which would provide ugly photographs”.’

Another nail in the coffin for Orange Labour...

Scottish council elections: Labour turns to Tories to strike power deals - Politics - Scotsman.com

Scottish council elections: Labour turns to Tories to strike power deals

Labour have held talks with the Conservatives over power sharing. Picture: Robert Perry

By BRIAN FERGUSON
Published on Monday 7 May 2012 00:07

LABOUR has agreed deals with the Conservatives to take charge of at least two councils, with coalition talks also taking place between the parties at Edinburgh city council, The Scotsman has learned.

Sources said the two parties were close to forming an alliance to seize control of the capital from the SNP, which has been in coalition with the Liberal Democrats for the past five years.

The development came as Labour began taking control of a number of hung councils around the country on Sunday night, with deals reached with the Tories for the party to lead administrations in East Lothian and Inverclyde.

Labour is also confident it will take control in Aberdeen after emerging as the largest party last week.

The deals between pro-Union parties come as the SNP prepares to launch its “Yes” campaign later this month for the independence referendum.

However, First Minister Alex Salmond and Labour leader Johann Lamont gave their respective council groups around Scotland the go-ahead to strike deals with each other.

The first Labour-SNP council alliance emerged, in East Renfrewshire on Sunday.

In Edinburgh, Andrew Burns, leader of the Labour group, confirmed that talks had taken place with all four rival parties.

However, the Greens, who doubled their number of councillors to claim six seats, have signalled a reluctance to be part of any formal partnership.

And it is thought a deal between the Labour and Tories may stop short of a formal coalition, amid concern such a move would spark anger among supporters of both parties.

Labour is said to be offering key posts to rival councillors in return for some form of support. Securing the backing of the 11 Tories would give Labour’s 20 councillors a firm majority to run the capital – and would not need the backing of the Greens.

Labour insiders expressed concerns over how a pact with the Tories would play out with supporters, particularly when the party is trying to revive its fortunes at Westminster. But sources said the bigger issue was the prospect of the independence referendum in two years’ time.

Mr Burns said: “We are speaking to the Tories, but we are also still speaking to all the other parties and absolutely nothing has been ruled out.

“We are still looking at whether a coalition of talents or a rainbow alliance is possible.”

Tory group leader Jeremy Balfour said: “We are still involved in talks, but any agreement is days, rather than hours, away. There is a long way to go.”

A total of 26 councils ended up with no party in overall control, as a result of the single transferable vote form of proportional representation.

Talks are taking place across the country to determine where power will lie.

Mr Salmond said local parties would be free to determine how they discussed power-sharing.

“Our council groups are free to make alliances with any other democratic party,” Mr Salmond said. “Where it’s appropriate and good for the people locally, they’re absolutely free to do that.”

The First Minister said his party won the election nationally, gaining most councillors overall and a higher share of first preference votes.

But the SNP did not take Glasgow, its key target, and ended with fewer seats than Labour in Aberdeen and Edinburgh.

Ms Lamont also said she was “very clear” that Labour councillors had free rein to speak to all parties. On whether Labour could do a deal with the SNP, she said: “We certainly could. We have said nothing is off the table.”

The Nationalists narrowly won the popular vote from Labour last Thursday, but the margin of victory was well down on the Holyrood landslide last year.

The SNP finished the election with 424 councillors, gaining 57 compared with 2007. Labour increased its number by 58 to secure 394 councillors. The Tories fell 16 to 115, while the Lib Dems dropped 80 to fourth place with 71 councillors. The Greens gained six to finish with 14 seats, including six in Edinburgh.

In Aberdeen, Labour’s victory could spell the end of the Union Terrace Gardens development. The party has been sceptical about the outcome of a recent referendum, which voted narrowly in favour of plans to raise the level of the sunken gardens to create a civic square.

Oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood has been driving the scheme and is providing £50m of his own money for the £140m project, with a further £35m from the Wood Family Trust.

But the Labour leader Barney Crockett, said: “We’ve been consistent in our scepticism about the proposals put forward based on the figures, and we will remain consistent on that.

“The referendum was always ostensibly about giving information to the Scottish Government about what support there might be for it. But it was highly contested in the accuracy of the information put out and the publicity.”

Coalition talks in Aberdeen will get under way later today, but deals elsewhere have already been struck. Labour have seized East Lothian from the SNP after reaching a deal to work with the Tories and independents. Labour also looks set to remain in power in Inverclyde as a minority administration after informal support was reached with the Tories and independents.

Labour and the SNP have agreed a deal to work together in East Renfrewshire, where a similar coalition has operated in recent years.

Meanwhile, the Nationalists are confident they will end generations of Labour control in Midlothian after agreeing a deal with independent Peter de Vink.

With the referendum “Yes” campaign weeks from being launched, Ms Lamont insisted the Nationalists’ focus on the constitution cost them in some parts of the country.

“We made, frankly, the mistake in 2007 that it looks as if the First Minister’s making now – not looking and listening to what people are saying,” she said.

EDL Scabs Attack Women On Liverpool Picket Line

Fascists launch failed attack on a Liverpool picket line

SOURCE : LIBCOM.ORG

Fascists in Liverpool have today continued with their anti-working class agenda by attempting to attack workers striking over pensions at a picket line in Bootle.

At around 15.30, five instantly recognisable boneheads from the Infidels of Britain, Combined Ex Forces, and the National Front arrived at the picket, directly outside the HMRC office. The immediately started pushing people, calling everyone present, ‘paedophiles’, ‘lesbians;, ‘traitors’, ‘communists’, and ‘work-shy cunts’.

Their presence was not a coincidence as they had been posting online earlier in the day that they would be turning up at the picket with the intention of targeting well-known local trade unionists.

A police CCTV unit has been present all day and called for more officers to arrive. One member of the Combined Ex Forces (Paul James) was arrested, as he refused to stop calling every single person on the picket, ‘paedophiles’. His acolytes were then sent on their way.

This is the latest in a long line disgusting behaviour by fascists on Merseyside. Within the last year, they lined the route at the November 30th pension march and abused strikers, they have, attacked people at the occupy camp, attacked people at a Palestine Solidarity event, attempted to occupy the UNITE union offices, attacked SWP paper sales, made countless threatening calls to local trade unionists, visited the News from Nowhere bookshop on many occasions, threatening the staff, and urinating on the books. They even assaulted a heavily pregnant big issue seller directly outside the bookshop, pushing her to the floor and spraying her in the face with paint.

Apologies for the quality and angle of the film clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CHvKTNprdY&feature=player_embedded

GLASGOW LABOUR = ORANGE LABOUR

Glasgow Labour leader Mathieson quote to the Orange Order a few days before the local council elections on May 3rd...

Racist atrocities & class consciousness

Racist atrocities & class consciousness

By Larry Hales 

Published May 7, 2012 8:38 PM

It took a month and a half after George Zimmerman executed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before an arrest was made. Though special prosecutor Angela Corey asserts that an investigation had been ongoing, all the evidence and statements made by the police chief and others involved with the case make it very clear that, had it not been for a massive outpouring, especially from the Black community, George Zimmerman would still be walking free.

It was fear of a rebellion that led to the state responding and to Zimmerman’s arrest. And not to be forgotten or glossed over were the resilience and determination of Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin to win some justice for their son.

It was definitely a surprise, but further injury, that George Zimmerman was released on bail on April 23 after a judge set the bond at $150,000, which meant his family only needed to lay out 10 percent, or $15,000.

With the recent discovery that the Zimmermans had raised more than $200,000 via the Internet, the parents of young Trayvon, their lawyer and the Black community are calling foul. They are demanding a review of the bail decision, especially in light of the fact that Zimmerman’s family failed to disclose the amount earlier and claimed not to have enough money to pay for the higher bail of $1 million that had been sought after it was determined that the judge would set bail.

There is speculation that some of the same wealthy right-wingers who supported the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council and the owners of Koch Industries, may be making donations. Whether this is fact or merely speculation, $200,000-plus is a hefty sum. That it was not disclosed and that bond was set relatively low, either because the Zimmerman family and his lawyer omitted giving information or were deliberately misleading, should lead to a rearrest. This is what Trayvon Martin’s family is calling for.

More cases of police violence and racist murders

As tragic as was the killing of Martin, the tremendous movement that rose up in response has brought to the fore more cases of police violence and racist killings.

Most notable is the case of two white supremacists who deliberately went into North Tulsa, Okla., early in April to terrorize Black people. They killed three Black men, an act that brought to mind the massacre of hundreds of Black people in the Greenwood section of Tulsa in 1921.

Another killing by a suspected white supremacist occurred in North Carolina months before Trayvon Martin’s death and is just now coming to light. Jasmine Thar, 16, her godmother and a friend were preparing to go Christmas shopping when they were struck by a bullet from a Remington rifle. Thar died as her 15-year-old brother was trying to stop the bleeding. The shooter claims an accidental discharge of his gun, but was found to have not only a Confederate flag but also Nazi memorabilia. No charges were filed.

There were also the police killings in March of Kendrec McDade, 19, in Pasadena, Calif., and Dane Scott, 18, in Del City, Okla. Others that happened a few years ago are now gaining more attention, like the 2010 killing of Anastasio Hernandez-Rojas, 32. A video has emerged of Border Patrol agents beating and tasing him to death.

The case that not only shows the brutality of the police but illustrates even further the systemic oppression and repression of people of color is the handcuffing of 6-year-old Salecia Johnson by police. Conventional wisdom would lead one to believe that even the most hardened of racists would show restraint in the face of a child, but history dispels such a notion. In fact, it is rife with the youngest and most innocent being brutalized just as viciously.

Salecia Johnson, although only 6, will live with the memory of being put in handcuffs and treated as if she had committed a crime — when she was guilty only of being Black and emotionally distraught. For this she was handcuffed and taken to jail.

It becomes more evident with each new day that the police are violent and routinely get away with killing people of color and other brutal acts of oppression and repression because they act as an occupying army in oppressed communities. The police are part of the capitalist state apparatus, an entity whose sole function is to be the buffer between the bosses and the workers and oppressed. It is those whom we must sell our labor to in order to survive who benefit from the racism prevalent in U.S. society.

Why ruling class needs racism

Racism is a tool that keeps workers separate and apart. Ultimately white workers will find their position is weakened by allowing separate and unequal conditions to exist and adhering to backward beliefs of inferiority based on race. More than being just a tool, though, racism in U.S. society has been deeply ingrained because U.S. capital was amassed through some of the most extreme and brutal forms of repression.

National oppression — the systemic oppression of sectors of the working class based on cultural, linguistic and historically shared circumstances — is a permanent feature of capitalist society because of its usefulness in keeping the working class divided. But it also persists because the most revolutionary sectors are those who have suffered the most brutal forms of degradation and repression — primarily the Black, Latino/a and Indigenous nations.

Revolutionaries say that political consciousness usually lags behind objective developments. Though economic conditions have worsened drastically for oppressed communities since the recession started four years ago, there has been no mass response yet. There have been some tragic and heartbreaking incidents in which massive numbers of oppressed workers showed up to apply for jobs or social services, but in most cases those events did not raise mass consciousness for a general fightback from the perspective of the oppressed.

The subjective or political consciousness only lags, but not forever. There is no telling what historical acts will lead to a mass response.

It remains to be seen if the murder of Trayvon Martin will lead to a sustained response, but its aftermath shows that the sense of needing to fight racism has grown, along with the understanding that the abuse of communities of color by police is systemic.

The cases of police killings and brutality cannot be separated from the economic conditions that prevail in communities of color — conditions of high unemployment, homelessness, poverty, a crumbling infrastructure and declining social services, and the criminalization of those who suffer the most desperate conditions. The conditions are stubborn. Capitalism finds itself in a deepening crisis, and it is in times like these that not only does the state become more repressive and the government begin to pass laws further curtailing democratic rights, but also the tool of racism is more aggressively used to pit the dominant sector of the working class against oppressed workers.

It is insidious but not inevitable. Revolutionaries should be in solidarity with the aims and desires of the most oppressed, but not abandon white workers to a debased right wing or ultra-right-wing. It is in the interest of all to rebel, fight racism, support self-determination of the oppressed and fight against the capitalist system.

---

Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news DONATE

George Galloway victory speech after Bradford local elections May 2012

Congratulations to REPSECT and their Bradford crew on their latest historic victory - The REAL Scottish Defence League.

"The Way We Operate" - Two Asian Lads Beat Down Entire EDL Demo

Guns, racist terror and self-defense

A revolutionary youth’s perspective

Guns, racist terror and self-defense

By Caleb T. Maupin 

Published Apr 26, 2012 8:55 PM

WORKERS WORLD

In New York City, it is illegal to carry a firearm, whether a handgun or sporting rifle, without a permit. With this ban as an excuse, the New York City Police Department carries out a policy of “stop and frisk” that is aimed primarily at youth of color.

The police, for no legal reason, frequently stop Black and Latino/a youth and pat them down under the guise of hoping to find illicit weapons. The justifications given for these degrading “stop and frisks” are outrageous, such as “a suspicious bulge” or “furtive motions.” As a coalition of mostly young Black activists fighting this policy put it, the real reason is almost always nothing more than “walking while Black.”

Recently, Ramarley Graham was walking home in the Bronx. He was stopped by police, but rather than be searched, he escaped. In response, the police stalked him and fatally shot him in his apartment.

There is a group of “gun rights” activists who call themselves the Second Amendment Movement, referring to the part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. However, they are not involved in the struggle against “stop and frisk.” Nor can they be found among those who have been part of the heroic civil disobedience campaigns and protests aimed at this repressive policy.

This right-wing movement instead campaigns for capitalist politicians, rails against communism and now champions the racist killer George Zimmerman.

They and the rest of the gun lobby are sponsored by firearms manufacturers and the military-industrial complex. The aim of these forces is not to protect oppressed people from the repressive capitalist state, but to protect and reinforce the racists and vigilantes who terrorize oppressed people.

In addition, these groups whip up racist stereotypes and fear of crime in order to sell more of their products. They promote this vile racism, resulting in more senseless killings.

Does this mean that a ban on firearms would be a good thing? No! A ban on firearms would be a setback for the workers and oppressed peoples of the U.S.

Right to self-defense

Racist murderers like George Zimmerman and his racist ilk in the Ku Klux Klan and other neofascist vigilante groups will always be able to obtain weapons. Their allies in the police departments, the FBI and other organs of the state will enable them to wage terror against oppressed people, whatever laws exist.

A ban on firearms would also not disarm the racist murderers in the police departments throughout the country. The Pentagon brass, the greatest collection of armed, warmongering profiteers, would remain armed to the teeth.

Marxist-Leninists unapologetically defend the right of workers and oppressed people to defend themselves with any means available. Historically, there have been many occasions in the people’s struggle for justice where guns have been utilized.

When civil rights activists were being murdered in the South, the Monroe, N.C., chapter of the NAACP, under the leadership of Robert F. Williams and Mae Mallory, beat back KKK terror in the 1960s through armed self-defense of their community. The Black Panther Party shook up the racist establishment when its young members patrolled Oakland, Calif., monitoring the activities of the police while carrying shotguns and law books.

During the Depression, when Nazis from the Silver Legion of America mobilized to attack the Teamsters in Minneapolis, the union, led by communists, formed workers’ defense guards. This caused the fascists to back down.

For years coal miners had to arm themselves against the violence of company goons trying to break their union.

As long as class oppression and racist violence exist, workers and oppressed people will need to defend their just struggles, sometimes with weapons in hand. It is a right that must not be surrendered.

The writer is a youth organizer in Workers World Party and FIST (Fight Imperialism, Stand Together).

---

Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news DONATE