My five favourite Martin Luther King Quotes

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."

"A riot is, at bottom, the language of the unheard."

"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."

"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality."

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."

Guest post: Islamophobia and the French Left

Recently, 12 activists in the French New Anti-Capitalist Party, including Ilham Moussaid - whose candidacy for the regional elections caused controversy both within and without the party on the basis that she wears a hijab – resigned from the NPA. John Mullen, a member of the NPA in the Paris region, spoke to the Australian left organisation Socialist Alternative about the issue of Islamophobia in France, and the debates within the NPA that led to these resignations. He's kindly allowed me to repost the discussion here.

First of all, John, could you elaborate on what caused these members to resign and the contours of the debates within the NPA about the rights of its Muslim membership?

Ilham was chosen as one of a list of candidates in the regional elections last year. This decision was made in the region - the NPA is very much a federal organization. The NPA was attacked from all sides for giving in to Islamicists, fundamentalists and for abandoning secularism. The national spokesperson Olivier Besancenot defended Ilham’s right to be a candidate, but a vocal minority inside the NPA is hostile to having members with a hijab.

For the upcoming conference, this minority has put forward a motion that hijab wearers can’t be candidates for the party. A counter-motion defends equal rights for all members to apply to be a candidate, and a third motion suggests a dreadful compromise (that hijab wearers can be candidates if approved by special commissions).

The group of comrades of which Ilham is part, near Avignon, have been running dynamic local campaigns on different issues, including the question of Islamophobia. A campaign against them inside the party has worn them out and rather than fight at the conference, they have chosen to continue their activism outside the party - it’s very sad. The very real, and slowly growing support they have had from a minority of comrades around the country has not been enough to keep them in our party.

One of the things Moussaid stated on her resignation was, "We need to concentrate on what unites us, on the fight for equality between men and women, and not to say we should all dress the same way, that you can't wear a headscarf because otherwise you're not a feminist.” What do you say to the argument so often employed in these debates, that wearing the hijab is, ‘an assault on feminism’?

The majority of the Left in France believe that the hijab is an assault on women’s rights, and this position quickly moves into the prejudice that Muslim women in France are more oppressed than non-Muslim women, that the experience of women in –say- Saudi Arabia is merely an extreme case of an oppression which is inherent in Islam, and other such ideas. Muslim and Arab men are then presented as the major source of women’s oppression and contrasted with the progressive white values of Republican France. So opposition to religious practices on the basis of progressive values can easily turn into a thinly disguised form of racism – and often does.

In fact, if Muslim women in France suffer oppression, get mostly low-paid jobs and bad housing, this is not usually because of their husbands and big brothers, but because capitalism wants cheap labour, and treating ethnic minorities badly is good for profits.

Pieces of clothing have symbolic meanings in all cultures. In many cultures, women must cover their breasts, men must not wear dresses. In Sikh culture men must not cut their hair. And in many Muslim cultures women must cover their hair. When French Muslim women cover their hair to please their God, they are not saying “treat me as an inferior”.

There is another point : in France, where anti-Arab and anti-muslim racism is at a high level (which has a lot to fo with France’s imperial past and neo-colonial present), wearing the hijab is about showing you are proud to be a Muslim, (and often proud to be an Arab) in a fairly hostile situation. Tragically the opinion of the women who wear the hijab, or the niqab, is practically never asked. “Enlightened” left antisexists speak for them and tell them how they should dress. It’s an old colonial tradition, telling oppressed groups what is good for them.

The right-wing Sarkozy Government, with the support of the Socialist Party, recently banned the wearing of the hijab in state schools and the public service, and the full veil is now illegal in the streets. How is this issue exploited by France’s politicians and how prevalent is racist abuse of Muslims in France today?

A few months ago, researchers sent out to French companies applications for jobs accompanied by CVs. They wanted to compare how a young black Catholic woman fared in comparison with a young black Muslim woman. The CVs were identical except for first names and a mention of their religion (one said she was active with a Catholic organization, the other with a Muslim one).

The “Catholic” black woman got asked to an interview 21% of the time. The “Muslim” Black woman got asked to an interview 8% of the time. That’s how bad it is. The mainstream press covered this story, the Left press almost totally ignored it. That’s how bad it is.

Meanwhile racist grafitti on mosques, and desecration of Muslim graves are becoming more common – there have been at least twenty cases of vandalizing Muslim graves this year. A mosque and a halal butchers were shot at earlier this year – 32 bullet holes were left in the mosque walls. And a number of veiled women have been attacked in the streets.

The recent law to ban women who wear the “full veil” from leaving their homes was initially a proposal of a Communist MP! And the law in 2004, banning high school students from wearing a hijab was initiated by a campaign against two young Muslim women in which Trotskyist teachers were very active! Two months ago, when the Senate was debating the law against the “full veil”, a group of Muslims and left wing supporters organized a rally outside.

We got sixty activists there : not many, but in the French context quite an achievement. Almost all of the left organizations ignored it. The NPA leadership decided to “support” the rally … seven hours before it was due to start, although it had been planned for weeks. Internal division paralyzes the NPA and many other organizations on anything to do with Islamophobia.

We understand the issue of the hijab will be debated at the NPA’s upcoming conference. How do you think socialists should respond to Islamophobia in society?

The radical Left should launch an active and dynamic campaign against Islamophobia, and not just “debate “ the issue. This means allying itself with Muslim organizations. This is a very obvious point, but highly controversial on the French Left. In Britain, the biggest Trade Union confederation, the TUC, has run a joint campaign against Islamophobia along with Muslim organizations. Islamophobia is tremendously useful to Sarkozy to divide us, to point the finger at the Muslims as a threat to “our culture” in order to divert our attention from the real enemy.

Islamophobia is a gigantic blind spot of the French Left. The NPA is better than the other organizations of the radical Left, (which is not hard). The upcoming “Conference against the Islamic domination” in December, run by groups which came from the Left but have ended up on the far right, will see sections of the NPA mobilizing against it. And at the party conference we have a good chance of winning the demand for equal rights for Muslim party members.

But tragically, the conference will debate almost exclusively about the rights of Muslim members of the NPA. Only a few isolated voices are calling for an active NPA campaign against Islamophobia. This is a tragedy. In the mass strike campaign to defend pensions, these last few months in France, NPA activists everywhere played an excellent role, in the forefront of building the strikes and building unity between different sections of the working class and different generations.

It is a party with tremendous positive potential. But old French traditions of left wingers mocking or hating those who believe in God, and more recent trends towards demonizing Muslims since 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be blinding comrades and they are falling for old divide and rule tactics. Progress is slow, but this question will have to be faced. We have to actively fight Islamophobia both because of how hard it makes life for many of our Muslim sisters and brother, but also because working class rebellion is made harder every time workers believe that “Muslim threats to our culture” are what we need to be fighting, not the capitalists.

Labour's racist current: Woolas edition

I do feel sorry for Labour. It's been simply months since they've been allowed to lock up a child because of the colour of its parent's passports. It's been months since they've been able to bomb foreign parts and then claim they've "moved on". The poor darlings have had thirteen years of scapegoating, discriminating against, murdering and imprisoning various dark skinned individuals, so it must be difficult coming to terms with the idea that you no longer get to be the big man in the big house.

It's always been a quandary for Labour Prime Ministers. Which foreigners you bombs, which ones you torture, which ones you lock up and which ones you allow to hoover your living room at the minimum wage. I feel for them, because these are hard decisions.

No wonder Labour MPs are kicking up a stink when one of their own is getting his comeuppance. While the leadership understand what's required of them in the press with words of condemnation for Phil Woolas, the MPs are far less disciplined.

Here you can watch Ed Miliand put clear water between himself and the man that only weeks ago he'd promoted to the shadow cabinet - to the position of shadow immigration minister of all things. He knows which side his bread is buttered. Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour Party has been taking flack from MPs for her unambiguous statement that people like Woolas had no place in Parliament.

It seems a significant number of MPs are willing to rise up and mutiny in defense of lying, whipping up racial tensions and plain old fashioned hate. They're even raising funds for the man. This local news report (starts 12 mins 50) makes it clear exactly how bad Woolas' campaign was, and that his campaign team was utterly complicit and seem to have no regrets. You can also read the judgment here.

Thankfully not everyone is at one with this. Liberal Conspiracy is rightly organising a defense of Harriet Harman. Whatever you think of her (and I've always had a soft spot for Harman) it's extremely important that the Labour Party is not dragged down into the Neanderthal swamps of Woolas and his co-thinkers.

It was down the line stupidity for Ed Miliband to make this man a shadow minister so close to his court case, opening the party up to such a crisis, but more seriously it showed that Ed Miliband was far from a fresh new left approach to politics by appointing this loathsome individual to such a high position on the eve of his disgrace.

Woolas has a long history of scapegoating immigrants and his enforced retirement is long overdue, it's just sad that it is the courts that brought this about rather than any of the three party leaders he's served under - Blair, Brown and Miliband who appear to have consistently rewarded rather than challenged his approach.

There has always been a racist current in the Labour Party, just as there has always been a current of decent people who anyone would proud to call their friends. Sadly it is the reactionaries who've had their hands on the levers of policy for some time. By the looks of it the dark heart of racism on the Labour benches is far from dead.

Recommended further reading: Paperback rioter.

Ground Zero Mosque Protesters only a little bit racist

You might like to check out this footage of a protest at 'Ground Zero' in New York (the site of the 9/11 attacks). The crowd doesn't like the idea of a Mosque being built in the area, one sign says that 'Mosques support Hamas' which is a strong point, well made - even if entirely inaccurate.

Anyway things get interesting when the crowd detect a Muslim in their midsts. One fella in a hard hat tries to have a fight with him, others shout abuse, someone shouts something about pigs ("eat pig" perhaps?) and the man has to be escorted away for his own safety.

The fact that he was a guy named Kenny who happened to be in the area because he's just a carpenter working on the site and not a Muslim counter-protester at all might be regarded as slightly embarrassing. The fact that he appears to be the only black guy in the area might be seen as revealing the the crowd consider lynching him.

On the other hand perhaps he's Bin Laden and the crowd were totally justified, maybe that steward who got himself in between hard hat man and Kenny just destroyed the free world.



Charlie Brooker also has things to say, like the fact that no-one is trying to build a Mosque there. Well, I'm sure these guys are right about something. Don't know what though.

Time magazine on whether America has a Muslim problem.

The last sane man in France

With the news that the French Assembly has overwhelmingly passed a law against the wearing of the veil I've been in a blistering, fuming rage. The law, which was introduced by a "delegation for the rights of women" criminalised women who choose to wear the "wrong" clothes.

If the senate passes the law it will be illegal to wear a full face-veil and you can be fined and forced to go to citizenship classes. It's also a crime (rightly) to force someone to wear a veil, including your children.

The fact that there is no distinction between criminalising someone who forces a woman to wear a veil and criminalising a woman who wants to wear a veil is a complete disgrace, but the worst of it is that this law had almost no opposition in Parliament.

Obviously the right voted for the measures but the left just gave these racist measures a free pass either voting for them or, more often, abstaining. Just one Parliamentarian voted against, just one. Daniel Garrigue.

Garrigue is a former UMP (Tory) member who resigned the whip in 2008 citing undemocratic processes in the party, some tax law I know nothing about and disagreeing with his party's support for Nato.

On his blog Garrigue explained that he’s happy for there to be laws against people forcing others to wear the veil and for a law to prohibit the veil on the grounds of security in particular places – but in general he sees it as a massive restriction of liberty, which it is.

He believes there is a climate of racism growing across Europe and this law will legitimise the National Front. The stunning thing is that he is the only one of the lot of them that accepted these blatantly obvious arguments.

This law will entrench the ever deepening racism in French society and embolden the Islamophobes across the continent, not to mention criminalising women for daring to wear what they like.

Rioting as an absence of democracy

In the last two days there have been two community riots provoked by outrage at reactionary movements.

Yesterday in Belfast three police officers were shot and around two hundred people took part in throwing missiles and petrol bombs at the police. A total of twenty seven police officers were injured during the disturbances, although the press seems to think that none of these injuries is life threatening.

Facing water cannon and baton rounds residents were opposing the loyalist twelfth of July parades that commemorate the killing of Catholics by the forces of William of Orange and the 'traditional' bonfires held on the night of the eleventh.

Over the years these marches have resulted in civil disturbances, violence and an escalation of community tensions. It's understandable that many residents see these celebrations as a deliberate provocation and are consistently frustrated that they seem to have no say about whether they are allowed to take place in their neighbourhoods.

It's no surprise that when people feel they have no democratic option available to them some resort to undemocratic and violent actions. Last night's events really should be a sign that the state's attitudes towards the Orange marches has to change for facilitating their celebrations to regarding them as inciting violence.

However on Friday, in Oakland, California, the rioting was in response to far clearer state complicity in racist violence. Police officer Johannes Mehserle found himself acquitted of murder after he shot an unarmed black man dead.

The court accepted that Oscar Grant was unarmed, and lying face down at the feet of Officer Johannes Mehserle while surrounded by a ring of police officers when Mehserle took out his service revolver and fired a fatal round into his back. The court accepted that because they had no choice, it was all filmed by a by-stander, and yet it still found that the officer had not committed murder, nor had he intended to kill Oscar Grant.

I mean who would expect a man to die after being cold-bloodedly shot in the back at point blank range? And just because grant was unarmed and prone there's no reason to think that this white officer was safe from this extremely black man at his feet. I'm surprised they haven't given Mehserle a medal frankly.

A demonstration of over a thousand people marched after the verdict of non-guilty was announced bearing signs saying "Oakland says guilty". The demo turned into a riot with shops smashed and police lines attacked.

You can watch video here that shows locals speaking for themselves about what they feel about the verdict. The video goes on to show the police response to the peaceful protest although it cuts short before the riot begins.

I'm tempted to say I don't welcome the riots, but frankly I think it's far more important to say that I far from welcome the institution bigotry that allows the Orangemen to dominate Catholic areas with their hate, or the courts that allow police officers to shoot unarmed men in the back just because they're poor and black.

Philip Hollobone MP is a toad

I'm not impressed by Philip Hollobone's private member's bill aimed at banning the veil in public. Thankfully it's unlikely to gain majority support or much Parliamentary time but people like Hollobone think nothing of fueling the fire of anti-Muslim opinion with stunts like this.

At least he doesn't dress up his suggestion as somehow protecting women by criminalising them, which some do. No, he falls back on the bigot's old faithful "the British Way of Life" which includes regulating what we can wear, apparently.

I must have missed that ancient tradition. I think he must be referring to those old traditions of being bloody horrible to foreigners... perhaps he could clarify.

He justified his Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill by saying "I think it's inappropriate to cover your face in public, whether it's a burka, a balaclava or anything else." Brilliant. Almost every motorcycle crash helmet banned at a stroke. Clearly this is his real agenda - he hates Jerey Clarkson and the 'Stig'.

Is it the Jews?

Sorry about the blogging gap, I've been enjoying the sunshine and pretending not to be a nerd. However, if I hadn't been out I wouldn't have picked up a fascinating "Christian" leaflet from a man who was very keen to tell me that he'd written it himself. I restrained myself from saying "You don't say" as I admired the clip art party balloons and point eight size font.

Anyway, I only got a chance to read it just now and, as you can imagine, the quality of the content was of the highest kind. I'm not referring to the piece on back which, with classic British deadpan, declared that before Adam ate the apple "there were no weeds" or that the author had "seen articles that suggest the existence of gay animals". Glorious.

It had a great style to it that tickled me. For instance "Adam and Eve were naked year round. With "The Fall" began the fashion industry." Brilliant.

More seriously though when the lead article claimed that there is a "group [who] gained control of the economy, industry and military of most of the world over generations" that we have to watch out for. Don't worry though because you'll be able to recognise them as "God himself has a hook in their noses". Oh. Does he.

He then goes on to remind us of Habakkuk's thoughts on the "sins of Israel" and how God punished the sinners by using the Babylonians (pictured), even though they were "even more wicked than Israel."

He then points out, apropos of nothing, that Hitler was also a wicked man just like those Babylonians who God used to work his will. We need, he goes on, "radical surgery" to cure society's ills, otherwise "evil International Bankers" will wreak a terrible hurricane upon us.

Obviously he's done us all a great service by bringing to our attention this horrid bunch who control everything, especially the banks, and have hooks in their noses, but who can they be? They aren't named, which is inconvenient. Hmmm, they exemplify the sins of Israel and we might need someone a bit like Hitler to sort it out, even though Hitler wasn't very nice - like the Babylonians.

No. Can't think who it might be he's referring to, but I do feel slightly ill about being quite so friendly to him earlier. Quite some moral trick though, to say that being evil is to do God's work and that good people tend to stand idly by when there is God's work to be done, which makes them evil and they will be punished.

Sunday Reading: anti-racist edition

A few handy links, today's theme is disapproving of the whole racism business.

• I see that the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) have a new website. Pretty.
  
  
• Conversely Lancaster Unity reports on the BNP's troubles with their website.
  
  
• The Morning Star reviews an anti-fascist exhibition that's coming to Newcastle, Manchester and Nottingham.
  
  
• Croydon Today reports that BNP candidate David Clarke has been convicted of assault.
  
  
• Fresh politics reports on the anti-fascist protests in Newcastle.
  
  
• The Centre for a Stateless Society says that when it comes to immigration - anarchy works.
  

Immigrants welcome here

Good to see UKIP's racist anti-immigration poster was defaced in Cambridge. If you are offended by naughty words, please don't look in the bottom right hand corner. It says fuck.


What the artists lack in neat handwriting they more than make up for in succinct passion don't you think? (first saw this at Ellee's)

Swiss architecture foolishness

Today the Swiss people have decided in a referendum to ban minarets, an architectural feature found on some of the most beautiful buildings in the world, because of their association with Muslims.

A worrying 57.5% people voted against new minarets being built, with opposition particularly concentrated in the French speaking West. What's even more disturbing is the way that the creators of the motion are clearly barking mad.

"The initiators of the measure, the right-wing ”Erkingen Committee,”... claimed minarets were an attempt to spread radical Islam in Switzerland, said the vote would bar any attempt to introduce elements of Sharia law in Switzerland."

What? I mean... what? People actually voted with these morons? There's no movement to introduce Sharia law in Switzerland and what the hell have minarets got to do with anything? Since when did the shape of a building threaten liberal democracy? They can't all be simpletons can they?

The Swiss Green Party is investigating whether they can challenge this result legally. Before the vote they issued the following statement (apologies for the rough and ready translation where I've strived for meaning rather than literal meaning).

NO to the minaret prohibition

Switzerland is a liberal and democratic constitutional state. A country, which retains internal cohesion with its linguistic, cultural and religious variety. The freedom of religion is embodied in the Swiss condition.

The referendum, which seeks to create a general prohibition on the building of minarets, shakes the foundations of our constitution. It is discriminating because it wants to forbid Muslims from using one of their religious symbols. It thereby wants to refuse them a right, which the other religious communities have.

The initiative endangers the constitutional state and the internal cohesion of Switzerland. It polarizes opinion and hinders the factual correction of prejudices and wrongly reduces our enemies to Islam.

The freedom of religion may not be abolished. That would be a dishonor for our country and an abuse of direct democracy. Therefore the Greens call on all voters on 29th November to place a clear, convinced no to a deeply un-Swiss project into the ballot box.

The irrational fear of Islam as a whole is an extremely poor way of preventing Muslims from hating you. Come to that I've taken the Swiss off my Christmas card list myself.

Countering racism as well as the racists

I went to an extremely interesting Socialist Resistance meeting last night on the rise of the far right (write up). One of the reasons I like this bunch is that the standard of political discussion is extremely high and they have the knack of being able to openly disagree with each other without turning every issue into a crossing of the Rubicon.

There are a number of crucial debates taking place at the moment over how we deal with the far right. For example, tactical discussions on the utility of no platform, the need to mobilise counter demonstrations against the English Defence League (EDL) and how we deal with the fact that more than a million people voted for the BNP in the European elections.

Now, I think that if fascists are organising an 'anti-mosque' march in your area the number one short term priority is to make sure anti-racists turn up in larger numbers and directly confront the bone heads. I'm also completely opposed to inviting the BNP, or other far right ideologues, onto political platforms to debate their ideas. These people are building a movement to send me to a gas chamber and I'm opposed to giving them a leg up.

That said I'm concerned that the debate can sometimes get boiled down to these counter measures, because they are part of the left's 'comfort zone', when they are only a small part of the fight against the far right.

You can't defeat the BNP through counter marches because they rarely march, that's not how they've accumulated their record support. Likewise, no platform was the mainstream consensus when the BNP won their first MEPs, we should maintain it in my view, but those Euro-seats were won without the assistance of Question Time and the show is not make or break in terms of the fact that the BNP have managed to achieve mass support for the first time in history.

All the evidence points to the British National Party being a disorganised bunch of inarticulate muppets who have an anatomy problem - they don't know their arse from their elbow. They do not garner votes through the force of their arguments or the genius of their street mobilisations but because they are the focus of pre-existing bigotries and anger.

The tactical questions of countering the EDL physically or shoring up the confidence of those who can deny the BNP electoral platforms must not be allowed to obscure the fact that the BNP have grown out of a sewer, and it is no use spending time combating specific racist organisations without also recognising that racism, homophobia, and all the rest of it are social problems that exist independently of far right organisations.

UAF, Hope not Hate and independent local groupings do tremendous work which we should all support where we can, but we shouldn't confine ourselves to their sensibly limited menus. We have to do what we can to undermine racist ideas, Islamophobia, climate change denial. It's not enough for people like Jack Straw to take up a posture of hatred for the BNP while parroting their anti-immigration agenda in the hope that it will undermine their vote.

We've seen recently that homophobia is still alive and well, it wasn't created by BNP goons and our work to tackle it is just as important. It would be very easy to get distracted by mobilising against right wing football hooligans and for the focus to drift away from the bigger picture. These set piece battles are not enough.

Only stupid immigrants need apply

So anti-immigration Minister Phil Woolas has announced his new points system for migrant workers.

No surprises to see that the new system is intended to make the life of migrant workers more difficult and essentially legitimises the propaganda of the racists. "Qualifying for citizenship will become harder, and applicants will be judged by various factors, including their ability to speak English."

When interviewed on Radio Four the Minister said that;

"We think it's right to say if we are asking the new citizen, as incidentally other countries around the world do, to have an oath of allegiance to that country, that it's right to try to define in some objective terms what that means. And clearly an acceptance of the democratic rule of law and the principle behind that we think is important and we think it's fair to ask that."

But, when it was pointed out that demonstrating was not illegal, Woolas suggested that an applicant could also lose points not just for breaking the law – but also for engaging in certain activities that were legal.

Sarah Montague, the presenter, asked: "Are you effectively saying to people who want to have a British passport, 'You can have one, and when you've got one you can demonstrate as much as you like, but until then don't'?"

Woolas replied: "In essence, yes. In essence we are saying that the test that applies to the citizen should be broader than the test that applies to the person who wants to be a citizen. I think that's a fair point of view, to say that if you want to come to our country and settle, you should show that adherence."

You see he knows protesting is meant to be illegal, but he'd forgotten it wasn't actually against the law. As an aside I can't help reading the words "show that adherence" without assuming he said it in a Dalek voice. <> I could be wrong of course.

So it appears that if you want our freedoms you must not rock the boat, like going on political protests, because protesting against the government is anti-British and does not accept the "democratic rule of law". Leaving aside the fact that chilling phrase I think Mr Woolas is making two very basic errors here.

First of all it is not anti-British to oppose foreign policy disasters. Protest is one of the reasons why democracies are more effective than dictatorships, because the people can assist the government by letting them know when they're being wankers. It's helpful and gives the government an opportunity to correct their mistakes rather than repeating them over and over again.

I'm not saying they'll take that opportunity but it creates that possibility.

Secondly, he confuses the government with the people, which is possibly connected to his understanding of democracy as a place where everyone does what the government tells them to do.

More British people protested against the Iraq invasion than protested against anything else in the entirety of human history. If there's one sort of demonstration that definitely *is* British, it's an anti-war one. We should be giving immigrants extra points for dissent not taking them away.

Signing a petition - that's one point.
Going on a demo - that's two.
Go on strike - that's twenty.
Occupy Phil Woolas' office and you're made a member of the Royal family.

After all, how else are we to instill British values in those guests new to our country? They might not know that you're *supposed* to oppose the government, they might not know it's the *duty* of every citizen to speak out for what they believe in.

Phil Woolas is trying to undermine the British way of life by making us all good little boys and girls who just do what they're told without making a fuss. That's not our way and never has been. Woolas wants deference but frankly the age is more suited to defiance.

Are racists getting thicker?

Is it just me or are bigots getting more and more stupid? Take this court report from the Tameside Reporter. It seems that BNP candidate and racist "Roy West has been fined after admitting charges of directing racially aggravated abuse at his German neighbour". Nothing unusual you might say, but let's look at the detail.

"West had put up a number of flags in his garden and was attaching another Union flag to a shed Mr Kugow [Mr West's neighbour] believed was on his property."

When one flag simply will not do, he has to put up so many he literally has no space in his garden left and he has to invade next door. Oh boy, I'm there. The scene is set for me.

"An argument ensued"

I bet it did. During that argument "Mr Kugow was met with a torrent of racial abuse."

West... admitted making the insults, including calling Mr Kugow a ‘Kraut’, telling him to go ‘back to Krautland’ and ‘kill some more Jews’ plus adding ‘remember Dunkirk’.

Krautland?

Obviously we can expect BNP members to incite people to kill Jews but 'remember Dunkirk'? Are we sure that's going to get the guy shaking in his boots?

I'm not sure you should be allowed to own that many flags if you don't know that Dunkirk was a massive defeat of the British forces at the hands of the Germans. It's like a Frenchman telling someone English, "Yeah, well, remember Agincourt!" Aren't nationalists meant to know this stuff?

Presumably West then showed his Dunkirk spirit by fleeing for his life and climbing into a tiny boat. That'll show him.

However, he denied they were racially motivated. “If I was to be charged then it should have been with verbal abuse, but without any racist element to it. How can I be racist to a white man?”

By calling him a Kraut as you deck out your garden in hundred of national flags perhaps? That might indicate a certain racist element to the events I'd have thought.

Mr Kugow, who has lived in the UK for 20 years, said he had been subjected to an “incredible torrent of the most vile abuse I’ve ever heard. He said if I tried to come in his garden he would kill me.”

Mr Kugow’s British born partner, Susan Holt, told the court: “I was gobsmacked. I was shocked because you don’t expect your neighbour to come out with those sorts of comments. Normal people don’t do that and I’ve never experienced it before and never want to again.”

That's right. 'Normal' people don't. BNP activists do because they're sad, pathetic, ignorant pricks. Particularly when they have the full backing of their party.

Both the BNP and West had said they felt the case was one of ‘malicious prosecution’ by police and the crown prosecution service. The party had originally intended to stage a protest before West said he wished the matter to remain private.

Yeah, I mean what's the world coming to when you can't take over your neighbour's garden and threaten to kill him? Why don't the police go and catch some real criminals? If a candidate of the party of law and order can't swagger about like an aggressive beer bellied lout in peace what are we coming to - it'll be like 'Krautland' soon (I couldn't find it on the map mind, it's probably in Russia, bloody Commies).

Where will it end? Remember Gallipolli people, remember Gallipolli.

China protests: 140 dead

Horrendous news that protests in northern China have seen a massive wave of violence with more than 140 people killed and hundreds more arrested.

The protests broke out in Xinjiang after a court ruling on protests earlier in the year when two Uighurs were killed in racist attacks. Uighur activists (like those recently released to Barbados from Guantanamo) have long complained of state racism and it seems that the call for a proper inquiry into how the two protesters were killed had not been met, sparking the current protests.

The Chinese authorities have come in hard, although whether the deaths were caused by state repression or ethnic violence seems unclear at the moment, certainly there seems to be some of both - either way it's very bad news. The riots even spread to Holland where Dutch police arrested around 60 protesters after a demonstration started throwing stones at the Chinese embassy.

Ruling officials claim that Uighur nationalists or separatists constitute a real terrorist threat (one of the reasons that the Uighurs could not be sent home to China) but whether that's credible or not I can't say. The FT has written that the natural gas and oil reserves have heightened tensions in the region whilst making the area of particular significance to the authorities.

The local police chief has stated that 828 people were injured and that rioters burned 261 motor vehicles, including 190 buses, at least 10 taxis and two police cars. 203 shops and 14 homes were also destroyed.

Headscarves not allowed?

I've no time for the fashion police who tell women what they're allowed to wear. If someone wants to wear a headscarf that's their choice. Some people, even among the 'great' and the 'good', think that it's acceptable to regulate other people's clothing - although obviously if you're white headscarves are fine.

Whilst this sort of bullshit isn't confined to journalists and politicians they do provide legitimacy to any bigot with a rage to vent. I'm happy to see that the racist attacker of a young Cambridge student has been given a clear message that just because someone wears a scarf does not give you licence to abuse them.

Nadeen Dah was unloading her shopping when Samantha McKay (40) "launched a tirade of racist abuse against the student, shouting: "How dare you wear a headscarf in this country."... As she did this, Miss McKay pushed her with both her hands back against the car." McKay was then restrained before she could continue the attack.

My Mum comes from this country and wears a headscarf, is McKay going to attack her next? Unlikely, because the scarf debate is just a veil for racial prejudice. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that there is a contradiction between telling women what they can and cannot wear and women's liberation but it doesn't stop some thinking they have a right to sound off about stuff that's fuck all to do with anyone but the woman concerned.

McKay pleaded guilty to racially aggravated assault and, as this was not her first offence, was jailed for three weeks. I'm glad. We can't tolerate arbitrary racist violence against women in the street, no matter what they happen to have on their heads.

When 'respectables' denounce the headscarf they feed into real and existing prejudices. You wont see them having a pop at the stuff nuns wear because underneath it all it's not religion, gender or equality but race that prompts the bias. Every voice against the scarf is a voice for intolerance and makes attacks like this all the more likely.

Immigration attitudes

A few days ago a survey came out proclaiming that voters thought the number one priority for any incoming Tory government should be to cut immigration. You can read the stats (pdf) direct or, if you just want to refer to the numbers I'm about to talk about I've created a smaller jpg just for those. Even without the Telegraph mediating the figures it doesn't make for happy reading, not for me anyway.

Mind you, according to the Telegraph, even Jesus flirted with racism although I'm not sure if they meant that showed bigotry was alright or that we should be picketing harvest festival - typical lack of clarity.

I want to pull apart some of these stats for a moment to have a closer look at the demographic Phil Woolas wants to pander to with his immigration clampdown propaganda. Specifically I want to compare it with the numbers who thought tackling climate change should be a priority, sadly a far smaller proportion of society at large.

If we look at the figures broken down by region the most striking fact is that there is little difference across the country. Scotland is the most welcoming to immigrants and the region with the lowest figure on climate change is the region that also wants to cut immigration the most - the Midlands and Wales.

It's not a massive surprise that the two areas in England that return members of the European Parliament for the Green Party score well on climate change attitudes. So this may seem like an unexciting statistic - but personally I think the absence of difference between areas is quite surprising considering that these areas do have quite significantly different attitudes to politics more generally.

Next if we look at attitudes by age we can confirm an old adage that as people age they move to the right. Alternative we might be looking at social shifts with the young more integrated and more aware of the risks to the climate that we currently face.

Whichever is the case it's clear that there is both an inverse correlation between caring about the climate and fretting over the level of immigration. It's a correlation we see in the regional breakdown - but far more clearly in the case of age.

Perhaps it would be best expressed by saying that the more you care about global issues the more welcoming you are likely to be to those from other places around the world.

History, or rather YouGov, does not record what the 2% of people who intend to vote Green thought of immigration. However, they do have a breakdown for the voters of the three main political parties. Again we can see another suspicion confirmed, that the old idea that you had Tories to the right, Labour to the left and the Liberals in the middle is simply no longer true.

Whilst Tory voters were the least concerned about climate change and the most concerned about foreigners coming in and moving things about with their sticky foreign fingers it was the Lib Dem voters who were roughly three times as concerned about the climate and half as worried about migrants as Tory voters. It's the Labour voters who sit in between the two parties, at least on these issues.

All mildly interesting I think.

The most interesting set of figures I'd like to see, which unfortunately do not as yet exist, is the the correlation between how much people want to cut immigration and how many immigrants they think are actually living in the country now. My completely unevidence based assertion would be that those who think there are more immigrants than there really are will be more likely to think there should be less of them. YouGov - get to it!

Immigration and the rights of migrants is clearly an issue that the left is going to have to address in a very muscular way over the coming couple of years seeking not just to combat the far right but shift ordinary opinion on the merits of our brothers and sisters who were born in other lands.

As a small piece of evidence to show that racism is a growing trend in the most unexpected places this video of a recent demonstration is instructive where we are treated to workers shouting "foreigners out" as part of their dispute (hat tip Lenin). On the other side of it here is Billy Bragg talking about the tension between economic struggle and nationalism drawing his own particualr conclusions.

For me the main danger is not organisations like the BNP but that we might neglect the battle of ideas in wider society. It isn't the BNP creating a pool of racism, this would be giving that small and incompetent organisation far too much credit. It simply feeds off of a pool of pre-existing bigotries. It's that pool that we must seek to drain.

Book burner cries about freedom of speech

Yes, MP Geert Wilders, the maker of the film Fitna about how hateful he thinks Islam is, is stamping his feet about the government's decision to turn him away from the country on the grounds of public order.

Wilders, who is facing trial in Holland for inciting hatred, may well complain about his treatment as he was invited by a UKIP peer, but if we examine his political platform we find - oh! - he's for turning foreigners away at Dutch borders including all Muslims, banning Islamic schools, Islamic head wear, and that the Koran should be banned and its use outlawed in Mosques and at home.

In essence he is;

• for making Islam itself illegal. So much for freedom of ideas.
• for banning those he despises from entering Holland. So much for freedom of movement.

Gasp in wonder - a fascist is a hypocrite! Whining about his own ability to spout his ideas where he likes whilst trying to prevent literally millions of law abiding citizens from practicing their faith or entering his country.

Just thought I'd mention it because when some people hear him say things like "I am in a detention centre at Heathrow... I will not be allowed to enter the country. They will send me back within a few hours... It is a very sad day, not only for me, but for freedom of speech," they might think he's stating some sort of principle. Far from it. He's simply whinging that he should have the right to deny others their rights.

I've watched the film, what a pile of ignorant, racist filth. I say he can push off and sit on the naughty step until he learns some manners. Don't for one moment think he would extend the rights he demands to anyone other than himself, he has based his political career on trying to strip those rights away.

New dynamics in racism

Racism is not a new phenomenon, nor is it confined to one part of the globe. But at different times and in different places its contours shift, and its dynamics can change. Consequently those who oppose racism have to rethink and reappraise their approach and priorities.

The economic meltdown has sparked government ministers, never ones to feel shy about using the immigration stick, into directly counter posing migration and the economy. The first person to do this recently was probably Mr Woolas but Home Secretary Jackie Smith is in the process of tightening up the visa requirements to enter this country from a whole swathe of countries. This, on the back of tougher citizenship regulations, it's clear that the government is taking this opportunity to make life harder for many migrant workers.

Far from being the preserve of working class people racism is present in every strata of society - I'm looking at you Carol Thatcher. The government is attempting not just to legitimise fears but actually seeks to promote them. Anything that turns criticism away from the government and their friends is worthwhile in their eyes.

Its not all doom and gloom of course. The possibility of an earned amnesty for illegal immigrants in London, courtesy of the Greens getting it onto the agenda, certainly points towards those who don't swallow the idea that the financial crisis means attacking the conditions of migrants.

We live in a far more cosmopolitan country than the one I grew up in, where "mixed race" relationships are accepted without comment, where the number of foreign born workers is far higher without rivers of blood anywhere to be seen, where the most outrageous forms of racial abuse are no longer accepted as part and parcel of everyday life.

Unfortunately, whilst many forms of racism have declined, others have moved to fill their place. Anti-Muslim bigotry is pretty much a modern phenomenon, stoked by the tabloids and the war on terror and sometimes given some kind of secular or progressive gloss by those who should know better. Whilst you would never see a Sun frontpage attacking "blacks" these days illegal immigrants, Poles and Muslims are still fair game so we, the left, shifted our focus in the defence of vulnerable communities.

With new protests by unemployed workers, fighting for the right to work, it's important that any support we give to that struggle does not play into the new dynamics of the period. Partly because migrants are not the enemy and any restriction on movement will make workers' lives worse not better. Partly because it can legitimise the right's response to these actions and allow what could be a victory to be turned into something far darker.

It's no use complaining that the protesters don't "really" mean it, that they are simply expressing class interests in a nationalised way. The problem is, of course, that they are doing both - raising legitimate worries about the availability of jobs and calling for a prioritisation of British workers over imported labour. The unemployment figures are not rising due to foreigners, Christ knows who would do the jobs they left unfilled if they were all to decide to leave the country. They are rising due to wider economic problems.

This is a crisis of capital and is, in general, taking place at a higher level than those companies that are laying off workers. Tough regulation of the financial sector, (re-)nationalisations, international co-operation, abolition of the anti-union laws, investment in the "real" economy are all good old fashioned leftist ideas who's time has come once again - and if we ignore them then all that will be left is for workers to fight each other over the scraps.

If we allow a lack of vision on our part to give free reign to those who would pit ordinary people against each other then, well, that's no good at all. We live in a time when fears over migrant labour could be extremely damaging to our society, and cause great personal pain to some individuals. Fighting for the right to work is good a cause, no question, but the context puts a great deal of pressure on us to ensure we don't swap one problem for another.

Sticks and stones: the saga of Thatcher and Clarkson

For me the key thing is that along with the right to offend there is always the right to be offended. Those who've gone out of their way to be casually offensive, or even if they've put great thought into the hurt that they've caused, should understand that it's no good throwing up your hands in horror when the chickens come home to roost.

That doesn't mean that everyone who's offended is right to be, or has things in proportion, but it does mean that faux shock that anyone should object to the things that you've said is not something I give much credence to. Personally I think there are worse things in the world than being offended, particularly if it's some general offense rather than someone being personally obnoxious, but it's a natural reaction sometimes.

Carol Thatcher's golliwog remarks are completely unremarkable coming from a supporter of the backwards part of a reactionary ideology - but her "I was only joking" stance, where the joke appears only to have been in the wheeling out two tired racial stereotypes (calling a black tennis player with French connections a "frog golliwog") is less offensive than it is fatuous.

Unfortunately she wasn't sacked from the BBC but simply wont be welcome back at the One Show. Not for the casual racism you understand, but for her complete refusal to accept she was in breach of the behaviour that's expected in the workplace. Less thought police and more ensuring the BBC, as an employer, is not allowing racism a free reign in the institution. Not political correctness but a rejection of bigotry in a diverse workforce. Fair enough to my mind.

The "only a joke" excuse is not just the fall back position of hardened twats everywhere, it completely misses the point that the so called humour aspect of the abuse makes it worse, not better. It's not friendly banter between friends but the off hand put down of the contemptuous laugh.

Which brings me onto Clarkson. Clarkson, Clarkson, Clarkson. Sigh.

Now, I didn't even know that Gordon Brown had a problem with one of his eyes and assumed the "one eyed" part of his remarks displayed an unusual wit, albeit X-rated wit, for the buffoon. I just thought he was calling the man a cock in an original way but, alas, it was simply an attack on his disability. Disappointingly, this was a sign of nothing more than a fetid set of values.

However, what Clarkson said is quite interesting in itself. According to The Independent;

Speaking in Sydney, Clarkson compared Mr Brown to the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, after Mr Rudd had just addressed the country on the global financial crisis.

He said: "It's the first time I've ever seen a world leader admit we really are in deep shit. He genuinely looked terrified. The poor man, he's actually seen the books. [In the UK] we've got this one-eyed Scottish idiot, he keeps telling us everything's fine and he's saved the world, and we know he's lying, but he's smooth at telling us."

Smooth? Brown? Are we sure he was talking about the person we thought he was?

Anyway, he's been let off because he's apologised for having a go at Brown's disability, as he should, and I'm a firm believer that genuine apologies are meaningful things. However, Clarkson has form and he's unlikely to change his ways anytime soon.

He's protected because, unlike Thatcher, he's talented (despite using his powers for evil) and is an asset to the corporation, bringing in viewers. Thatcher is completely replaceable and has never said anything as remotely interesting as Clarkson, even when he's not on form.

Of course, that's the problem. Thatcher wont even be a footnote in the big book of fools, Clarkson will have to have an entire chapter to cover the distortions, the abuse, the sneering, the misogyny... the list goes on. He's employed for his ability to say shocking things in an "amusing" way, so they're hardly likely to sack him for it when he misjudges the mood, but of the two he's the one who does the most damage through his access to the air waves.

Right or wrong Clarkson's outburst is far closer to what many people might find to be an acceptable part of banter, on this occasion, than Thatcher's dogmatic and unimaginative racism. We expect him to offend because it's part of his job and perhaps that's what should be giving us pause rather than the qualities of the man it's how he is employed to use them.