Smash the BNP?

I'm bothered this evening by something I read earlier on Indymedia UK. In an article entitled "BNP Paper Stall Smashed", there is a report of some self-styled anti-fascists using violence to stop the BNP selling newspapers and handing out leaflets in Selby, Yorkshire.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/356362.html?c=on#comments
Is violence, or "extreme prejudice" as the author of the article calls it, the answer to the BNP?
Personally, I think not.
In recent years, the BNP have tried to change their image, ditching the skinheads and jackboots, for pin-stripe suits and 'electoral respectability', whatever the hell that is? My concern is that violence against the BNP gives them a victim status that they do not deserve, allowing them to claim 'martyrdom' and greater public support, while simultaneously casting those opposed to fascism as the 'thugs'. No doubt many a left-hating tabloid would have a field day doing just that. I can just see the Daily Mail waxing lyrical about the "new nazis" of the militant left! It would be a mistake, in my humble opinion, for the left to pick up the discarded jackboots of the BNP.

Another concern is that of increasing the cycle of violence. It does not take a great leap of imagination to think how the BNP would exact it's revenge on those who would smash up their stalls etc. Will this only lead to the hospitalisation of anarchists, socialists, and other left-wingers in return? I will most likely be involved in the running of a stall this weekend, for Plymouth CND. I hope the actions of some anti-fascists in Selby does not lead to the legitimisation of political violence in general. A movement born of violence will be a violent movement. And as a man of peace, I do not wish to be part of a violent movement.

I have always felt that the hateful and racist policies of the BNP, or any other bunch of right-wing nut-jobs, can be easily defeated with a calculater and an etch-a-sketch. The BNP will be defeated once and for all, once the ideology has been exposed and dissected for the worthless trash it is. If we cannot beat the BNP in straight debate, then we really are in a fine pickle!

My educated guess is that many, if not most BNP voters, and possibly even rank and file members, are not natural fascists or racists, but members of the working class disillusioned, quite rightly, and registering their anger, with the main political parties, in particular the Labour Party. And if these BNP members and voters are fascists, they will have been turned that way because of a system that dissed 'em.
The Left has to get out there, and tackle this disillusionment. Win, in the common vernacular, the "hearts and minds" of those flirting with the BNP. It should be easy. A little flexing of our intellectual muscle, as opposed to our fists. Fighting fire with fire will only see us get burnt. Let us not become what we despise.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the destruction is wrought in the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of democracy and freedom?" -Gandhi
Peace, Love, Freedom, and Tolerance
John

White Poppy, Not with Pride.

I shall not be wearing my poppy with pride this week. It will be worn with a degree of solemnity. Anger, shame, and regret. And it shall be white.

The 11th hour of the 11th day, on the 11th month, will mark another anniversary of Armistice Day, the end of World War 1. This was a truly dreadful war, a war that should never have happened, that took the lives of millions, touching quite possibly every single family in Europe. When I see a poppy, I think of Flanders Field, or the Somme. Total slaughter, needless and disgusting. Born, not from the need to preserve freedom or country, but to preserve the wealth and power of the few. Millions, mere pawns to be sacrificed.
Anger, shame, regret.
We need to remember, so that we don't fall for it again, and again, and again.

An example of concern amongst the wider public was shown by a letter in the Evesham Advertiser in November 1930, which responded to a remark by the Bishop of Durham that Armistice Day celebrations should cease: '...their main tendency is to perpetuate the war spirit, which ever renders the coming of permanent peace impossible. The establishment of this day and the erection of memorials was a grave error...for these have fastened the system of armed defence upon one and all firmer than ever; for right through Europe...the man who has borne arms is memorialised and praised as never before and what man praises today he will practise tomorrow so that to honour war is, of necessity, to ensure its coming in all its horrors...It is the living we should consider first; we should remember the young amongst us, whose bodies...will lie out upon the battlefields of Europe in 'the next war' which is said to be coming, and for which the Armistice Day celebrations and the memorials are simply paving the way. They are the sign and symbol that war shall be, and prevent altogether the dawning of that brighter and better day when war shall be no more.'

Members of the 1929-31 Labour Government were also unhappy about the ceremony. Alfred Salter MP recalled in 1936: 'I was Chairman of the Parliamentary Peace Committee, and took a deputation to see the then Minister of War. We asked him if he would exercise his influence...to turn the November 11 Armistice service into a peace and memorial service...His official adviser from the War Office jumped up and said, "Impossible! Unthinkable! It would be opposed by the highest authorities!...We get more recruits for the Army in the fortnight following the Armistice ceremony than in any other time of the year."'

In 1931, however, the Daily Herald headlined 'The Empire's Armistice Call: There shall be no more war', and went on, 'Never again! That will be the vow in every sane mind throughout the British Empire today.' Hannen Swaffer asked: 'Now that Economy has come, will they really cut down those health services...Why don't we do something to stop the next war?' Two years later the first recorded alternative wreath was laid at Cambridge War Memorial, by the Cambridge Student Anti-War Movement, with the inscription: 'To the dead and wounded of all nations, victims of a war they did not make, from those who are determined to prevent all similar crimes of imperialism.'

Cheers for the link gorgeous girlfriend!
Peace Out.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/poppy/new/tx_swimming.html
http://www.whitepoppy.org.uk/
Get a white poppy, you know it makes sense.

Flying Gas-Chambers

Let's talk nuclear bombs. Let's talk about the criminal conspiracy to commit genocide that is the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system.
Britains Trident submarine fleet is coming to the end of it's operational life, and the question of "replacement" is to be decided during this parliament. Already Phony Bliar and Gordon Brown-nose have spoken out in favour of a new generation of nuclear weapons. They have said there will be a debate, but those of us that take an interest in these things are pretty sure that the decision has already been made, and just awaits a rubber stamp from those sheep we call Members of Parliament, the same people that voted for the war in Iraq. This is why I think that it is a mistake for CND to campaign for a parliamentary debate and vote in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is distinctly lacking in judgement, not to mention morality. The House of Commons is where the turkeys vote, without fail, for Christmas!

At the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, building work is already taking place, and nuclear scientists are being recruited, despite the fact that Mr Blair says that "no decision" has been taken. Yeah, right. It is obvious, that without a concerted effort, a new generation of nuclear weapons will be presented as a fait accompli before too long. There are a great many reasons why this is bad news for us all.

It is estimated that a new generation of nuclear weapons will cost the UK tax-payer somewhere in the region of £76 billion! This is, according to a recent article in the Guardian, about the same as an effective fight against climate change would cost.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1939422,00.html
It is said by many that climate change is the single biggest challenge facing mankind today, and recent reports reckon that the cost of replacing Trident "could almost guarantee emission reductions from 150m tonnes of carbon a year today to the necessary level of around 60m tonnes by 2030."
Mutually Assured Destruction is not going to "deter" Mother Nature. The increasingly hostile climate is something that we need to fight against as a planet, and not as a plethora of armed and hostile nation states.

The other supposed challenge we face, is the threat of "terrorism". No amount of nuclear bombs could prevent the 9/11 atrocities, nor any such future outrage. No 'death-loving terrorist' is going to be detterred from their deeds by the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Indeed, in October 2005, Tony Blair also came to this conclusion, "I do not think that anyone pretends that the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism".

Also, according to the government’s Strategic Defence Review 1998, "there is today no military threat to the United Kingdom or Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a threat". This is reiterated by a Defence Select Commitee Inquiry, "Witnesses to our inquiry did not believe that the UK currently faces a direct or impending military threat from any of the established nuclear weapon states".
Before his mind was warped by ambition and power, Gordon Brown was once quoted as saying that Trident was "unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful, and militarily unsound".
He could have added counter-productive, immoral and illegal.

To my mind anyway, the immorality of being prepared to use what someone once termed "flying gas-chambers" is clear. Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately, and have no place in a society proclaiming itself "civilised". They are, in fact, the ultimate terrorist suicide bomb. For what is terrorism? According to my dictionary, it is the threat or use of violence in pursuit of a political aim. Nuclear bombs are literally terrifying. Mutually Assured Destruction is suicide on a massive scale.
The International Criminal Court also decreed in 1996 that "the use of nuclear weapons would generally run contrary to International Humanitarian Law". Nuclear bombs cannot be used without causing untold harm to innocent non-combatants, and are therefore illegal under International Covenents that the UK is signatory to.
Replacing, or upgrading Trident would also be a clear breach, both materially and in spirit, of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that the UK is also a signatory of. Under the terms of the N.P.T. all nuclear weapons states are under an obligation to pursue, "in good faith" the "elimination of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament". Moreover, in 2000, the UK and the four other declared nuclear weapon states signed a final document giving "an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals".

Nuclear weapons are also counter-productive, for, if the UK envisages at least another 50 years of British security being based on threatening other populations with mass destruction, then we encourage other states to do the same, and thus paradoxically we increase our security risk rather than decrease it. This was succinctly explained by Nobel Laureate Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat, "If some nations — including the most powerful militarily — say that they need nuclear weapons for their security, then such security cannot be denied to other countries which really feel insecure. Proliferation of nuclear weapons is the logical conclusion of this nuclear policy’.
The truth of this argument can now easily be seen by recent developments with Iran, and North Korea. Other countries will likely follow suite, either inspired by our rhetoric of "nukes guarantee security", or scared by our complete disregard for International obligations. Not to mention our war-mongering against defence-less countries, like Iraq.
The more countries have nuclear weapons, the more likely that they will be used, whether by accident or design.

Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that the majority of people in the UK are in favour of nuclear disarmament, but yet the politicians in this so-called democracy pay no mind. It is highly unlikely that the government will do the right and decent thing, and consign the UK's nuclear monstrosities to the dustbin of history.
That is why I have concluded that it is incumbent on us, the electorate, the citizens of this nation, to force the government to bend to reason and logic, to sanity.
There are groups that are attempting this as we speak, groups like Trident Ploughshares and BlocktheBuilders. I support their efforts completely. BlocktheBuilders in particular, exist to attempt to prevent the building work for the next generation of nukes at AWE Aldermaston, using Non-Violent Direct Action. They deserve our support, and they need our help. A certain Martin Luther King once said something like, "I wondered why someone didn't do something to advance Peace. And then I realised, I AM someone".
http://www.blockthebuilders.org.uk/
http://www.aldermaston.net/campaigns/tng
We CAN make a difference!
Let's roll.

Murder Polis!

There has been another fatal shooting by the Metropolitan Police today. It is also said that the officer involved was also involved in the Stockwell shooting. Stockwell, lest we forget, is the name of the tube station where a completely innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot half a dozen or more times in the head, at point-blank range. No one has been held to account for this outrage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/6108530.stm

This recent shooting was apparently in response to an armed robbery. Police spokesmen are saying it was a 'kill or be killed' situation. But let us recall the lies and distortions issued by these same "spokes-people" in the wake of the killing at Stockwell. Jean Charles was "running" from Police, he was wearing "bulky clothing", all the rest of the misinformation put out in the immedate aftermath of Stockwell. One thing the Police are very good at, is covering their own asses.
No doubt we will hear more in coming days and weeks.
According to BBC Radio 4, the Metropolitan Police have only been involved in three fatal shootings in the last few years, and this one officer has been involved in two of them. Bad luck? Bad training? Bad judgement? Bad intention? All of the above?
It seems this officer only returned to duty in July, after a long lay-off and inquiry following the Stockwell incident. Some "security consultant" on Radio 4 expressed surprise that the officer in question would want to return to duty after such an ordeal. I share his surprise. Surprise he wanted back, and amazement he was allowed.
This officer took part in the brutal murder of Jean Charles de Menezes. And then he returned to work. Maybe he thinks he can get away with it.....? Certainly, he will be aware, like the rest of us, that his political bosses have been getting away with murder, for years, in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182