I did not talk to Hugh Muir of the Guardian Diary pages. Some bright spark leaked an internal email I wrote. I’ve got no idea what would possess someone to do this, as it’s not in the interest of anyone inside the Green Party.
Archive for the ‘UK Politics’ Category
More former-ERO stuff on the record.
Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009Thoughts from an SPSC (Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign) supporter
Thursday, August 27th, 2009Reprinted with permission:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 SPSC supporter wrote:
It was not a useless gesture to boycott apartheid South Africa in the Seventies and Eighties, and anyone who is not boycotting Israel (both economically and culturally ) is supporting Ethnic Cleansing!Personally I would welcome a boycott by American tourist. Tourism means underpaid seasonal work with split shifts with the profits going to foriegn owned hotel chains, or to tartan tat shop owners who campaign against congestion charging! I am considering organising a protest at the U.S. consolate to support a boycott of american tourist and businessmen, especially Donald Trump!
Would people be interested in attending?I have been told that there are boycott campaigns against American goods in many Arab countries because of their millitary agression and because of their support for Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing. I would support a boycott of U.S.goods, and I would NOT describe the U.S.A as a democracy.
If I believed al Megrahi to be guilty, I would not have supported his release, but he is obviously innocent or Kenny MacKaskil would noy have told him to drop his appeal before he could be released! Kenny Mackaskil has shamed Scotland by forcing al Megrahi to drop his Appeal!
[Name Redacted]
— On Tue, 25/8/09, Gordon Hodgson wrote:
I agree. Boycotting democratic states is offensive, and boycotting any states verges on useless gesture politics.
Gordon
>
> On 25 Aug 2009, at 15:49, [name redacted] wrote:
>
> > http://www.boycottscotland.com/
> >
> > I found this link, and find the whole thing offensive.
> >
> > If we take this logic to the very extreme; maybe Scotland and Britain,
> > should boycott America, for loss of life during a pointless ongoing
> > war?.
> >
> > Should we have boycotted America, for funding the IRA?
> >
> >
> > American politicians, have a very short memory and a two-faced view of
> > the world, while Scotland and the rest of Britain, are expected to
> > jump
> > to the beat of American “corporate” politics.
> >
> > Would the US, take any notice of Scottish, or Westminster opinions; I
> > very much doubt they would.
> >
> > Scotland must be respected, just like any other Government, and must
> > not
> > be dictated to, by any other power.
I’d also like to take this opporunity…
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009… to draw attention to my opinions on my ‘About Me‘ page.
My primary concern is that the world becomes a more Just, Equitable and Sustainable place. The best way to do this, I feel, is through the political process, and in particular through the work of Green parties.
My concern in politics is that we achieve what we set out to do, whether that be short term goals like contesting elections, mid term goals like drawing up election strategy, or long-term goals like drawing up and implementing policy. We should try not to get bogged down in internal disputes and take level-headed, fair and non-partisan approaches to any problems we meet. Also, we should avoid pissing people off (unneccesarily).
Diplomacy to me, is acting to solve disputes, with restraint, and without flying off the handle. Often times, the political disputes I’ve seen have tended to be on arcane internal matters (because the policy matters are less contentious when we generally share a common philosophical basis). A lot of energy, therefore, often goes into disputes, instead of into more constructive pursuits like, say, winning elections. Hence, I aspire to be Green and Diplomatic (with the ‘(a)’ signifying that I don’t want to be the only one, and the ‘?’ signifying, that it’s really up to other people to make that judgement).
Hey PoliStalkers!
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009I have resigned as the Electoral Returning Officer of the Green Party of England and Wales. I am willing to talk relatively freely to individuals, but am still of the mindset that discretion, particularly on things like blogs goes an awful long way.
I will remain the National Returning Officer of the Scottish Green Party, which like any group of politics geeks activists and representatives can have its tensions, but has been a generally more relaxing and more rewarding time. I hope I can continue to offer assistance in the future to the GPEW, perhaps as Deputy ERO in at least a year’s time, and I hope that the circumstances of this year’s elections, and my resignation, will give pause for thought, and motivation to debate and ultimately implement the most positive and enabling changes to our internal structure and culture.
I love internal politics, and I’m aware that all the stresses that people in internal politics suffer mean precisely naff all to the general voting public, but it can drain activists, turn people cynical and cause factionalism that has knock-on effects to our external operations.
Our most important targets for activist-energy must remain the Climate Crisis (and the need for speedy implementation of Carbon-Economics/Contraction and Convergence) and attacking the Social Inequity that harms people on the lowest incomes leading to an increasing poverty gap and creating perfect conditions for the far-right to gain supporters.
I will come back… don’t worry.
Regards,
Gordon
More Israel boycott fun
Friday, August 14th, 2009Honestly, this isn’t my pet issue. It might be heading that way, though.
Mira Vogel wrote an excellent open letter, explaining the position of anti-boycotters, specifically with regards to a suggested cultural boycott of Israel and moves to have a performance by the Jerusalem Quartet cancelled. It’s through and covered with citations, and well worth a read, right away.
Here are some choice excerpts:
Some Israeli political groups and human rights and peace-making NGOs draw a distinction between boycotting the occupation on the one hand, which they view as appropriate, and boycotting Israel in its entirety on the other hand, which they recognise as eliminationist. PACBI and other groups pursue the latter – the entire social, cultural and economic exclusion of Israel. PACBI seeks, indiscriminately, to break links between medical institutions and cultural ones alike. Nothing less than the total pariahdom of Israel will suffice. PACBI is attempting to end Israel’s existence.
Unlike the boycott of South Africa, to which the boycott of Israel is frequently compared, hardly any Israelis call for a boycott. Those who oppose boycott include the Israeli socialist party Hadash and peace-making NGOs such as Gisha (legal centre for freedom of movement), the Abraham Fund for coexistence, and Peace Now (for an end to the occupation). The boycott is widely seen by peace-makers on the ground as counterproductive to peace. It is inarticulate, it causes more of the difference and division which are exascerbating the conflict, and it abandons Israeli peace activists.
Israel is unlike South Africa in a crucial way: its neighbours have only recently formally accepted its existence, this acceptance cannot be taken for granted, and there are enduring armed movements which hope to eliminate Israel. In South Africa anti-apartheid activists sought majority rule. In Israel there is majority rule. Israel is the world’s sole Jewish state, which came into existence after the attempted genocide of the world’s Jews. Hamas, Hesbollah and other factions continually preach hatred of Jews, and call this resistance to Israel. Beyond Israel antisemitism is a regional norm.
A total boycott of Israel – the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions of which PACBI’s cultural boycott is part – assists Hamas and other eliminationists by posing an obstacle to peace-making. In short, Israel is not and never has been the sole aggressor in this conflict, nor does it act capriciously or sadistically, as you might think if you were to read only PACBI’s, or only the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s, narrative of the conflict. The settlers must leave the occupied land, reparations must be made to refugees, occupation must end, resources must be equitably distributed, infrastructure must not be used to control and subdue, and Israel’s neighbours must permit Israel to live in peace. In Israel and the occupied territories violence feeds on violence, extremism on extremism. The reason the conflict is intractable is because the causes endure, not because Israel is a brutal state.
I could think of many more reasons not to cancel the Jerusalem Quartet. Some of them would be to do with cultural exchange and some of them would be to do with art. None of them would be to do with discrediting solidarity with Palestinians under occupation. Israel is engaged in a violent occupation and ongoing settlement of Palestinian lands beyond its own borders. Israel has demonstrated it is willing to turn large parts of Gaza to rubble and make security for ordinary Gazans meaningless in the name of protecting its own security. But the cultural boycott of Israel will not help end the occupation nor the violence – if anything it will exacerbate the division. Additionally I think (unlike boycotters) that the best way for international community to end the occupation is to learn about the conflict, represent it accurately, and demand and take action which addresses the causes of the conflict. The best way for artistic bodies in Britain to reach out to Palestinians living under occupation is to invite Palestinian artists and performers to this country and pursue their travel permits with the Israeli authorities.
Read the whole letter (with links) here:
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/in-support-of-the-jerusalem-quartet-performance/
Minister Vernon Coaker apologises for misleading MPs over police injuries at Climate Camp
Wednesday, December 17th, 2008I know some people hate cut-and-paste news blogs, but I just wanted to make sure at least a couple of people know about this. My personal feeling is that MPs should be holding police to account on behalf of their constituents, not being the police’s apologists.
Via email:
Via The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/15/greenpolitics-police
*Minister Vernon Coaker apologises for misleading MPs over police injuries
*Home Office minister says sorry to parliament after Guardian reveals most police injuries from climate protest were from insects or heat
A minister has apologised to parliament for telling MPs that 70 police officers were hurt during a climate change protest after the Guardian revealed that most of the injuries were inflicted by insects or the heat.
Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister, told MPs at Commons question time today: “I was informed that 70 police officers were hurt and naturally assumed that they had been hurt in direct contact as a result of the protest. That clearly wasn’t the case and I apologise if that caused anybody to be misled.”
The apology followed a Freedom of Information request from the Liberal Democrats, which showed that no officers in the £5.9m police operation at Kingsnorth power station in Kent during August had been injured by protesters. Instead, police records showed that their medical unit had dealt mostly with toothache, diarrhoea, cut fingers and “possible bee stings”.
David Howarth, the Lib Dems’ justice spokesman, asked Coaker to “revise his conclusion” that the policing was “proportionate and appropriate”.
“Large numbers of protesters were injured at the hands of the police, especially by baton injuries,” he said.
Coaker said that he would be meeting with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss the “lessons to be learned” from Kingsnorth and that the National Police Improvement Agency was carrying out an inquiry into the handling of the demonstration.
Labour’s David Taylor said: “When people expressed concerns about the vigour and resources devoted by the police to the Kingsnorth climate camp we were told that it was justified because there were dozens of injuries that occurred. Unless the protesters are to be held responsible for wasps and the weather, aren’t we to conclude that the justification used at that time was wholly bogus and vacuous?”
===================================
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/15/kingsnorth-climate-change-environment-police
*Those Kingsnorth police injuries in full: six insect bites and a toothache
*• Kent force admits no officers hurt by protests
• £5.9m police operation ‘colossal waste of money’John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian, Monday 15 December 2008When climate camp protesters descended on the site of the Kingsnorth power station for a week-long summer demonstration, the scale of the police operation to cope with them was enormous.
Police were accused of using aggressive tactics, confiscating everything from toilet rolls and board games to generators and hammers. But ministers justified what they called the “proportionate” £5.9m cost of the operation, pointing out that 70 officers had been injured in the course of their duties.
But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act puts a rather different slant on the nature of those injuries, disclosing that not one was sustained in clashes with demonstrators.
Papers acquired by the Liberal Democrats via Freedom of Information requests show that the 1,500 officers policing the Kingsnorth climate camp near the Medway estuary in Kent, suffered only 12 reportable injuries during the protest during August.
The Home Office has now admitted that the protesters had not been responsible for any injuries. In a three-line written answer to a
parliamentary question, the Home Office minister Vernon Coaker wrote to the Lib Dem justice spokesman, David Howarth, saying: “Kent police have informed the Home Office that there were no recorded injuries sustained as a result of direct contact with the protesters.”Only four of the 12 reportable injuries involved any contact with protesters at all and all were at the lowest level of seriousness with no further action taken.
The other injuries reported included “stung on finger by possible wasp”; “officer injured sitting in car”; and “officer succumbed to sun and heat”. One officer cut his arm on a fence when climbing over it, another cut his finger while mending a car, and one “used leg to open door and next day had pain in lower back”.
A separate breakdown of the 33 patients treated by the police tactical medicine unit at the climate camp shows that three officers had succumbed to heat exhaustion, three had toothache, six were bitten by insects, and others had diarrhoea, had cut their finger or had headaches.
Coaker claimed in a parliamentary debate in September that the police had acted “appropriately and proportionately”, despite hundreds of complaints over unnecessarily heavy policing and calls for an investigation of police conduct by MPs, MEPs, councillors and members of the public.
Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, who had called previously for an investigation of police tactics, said: “I personally witnessed unnecessarily aggressive policing, unprovoked violence against peaceful protesters, an extraordinary number of police on site, and tactics such as confiscating toilet rolls, board games and clown costumes from what I saw to be peaceful demonstrators.”
The list of items deemed potentially dangerous by police and seized from protesters included glue, marker pens, board games, cushions, carpet, wood, paint, and scissors as well as bicycle locks which could have been used to lock protesters to fences. Police also seized anything that could have been used to set up camp, including spades and duct tape, generators and hammers and nails.
Howarth said: “That the minister could defend as ‘proportionate’ a £5.9m policing operation in which there was not a single injury to police officers caused by the protesters beggars belief. The threat posed by environmental direct action is being systematically overblown by both the government and the police.
“I hope the government and the police will now stop trying to portray peaceful protesters as somehow equivalent to terrorists or violent extremists. In light of this new evidence, one has to ask, were climate campers so heavily policed because they posed any genuine threat of violence, or because they posed a challenge to government policy?”
Nick Thorpe, a spokesman for the climate camp, said: “Policing of peaceful protest has become increasingly heavy-handed. We saw thousands of officers swarming around a legal camp in a colossal waste of public money. The police and the government claimed there was a ‘violent minority’ of protesters but this Home Office admission reveals this as a complete fiction.”