Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Respect about to split again......

The career of George Galloway never fails to both bemuse and horrify at the same time.

This is a man who praised Saddam Hussein as indefatigable, thinks nothing of supporting the brutal Assad regime in Syria, courts the Islamists in Bangladesh and yet remains in the mind of many as the man in the leotard who pretended to be a cat for Rula Lenska on Big Brother whilst still an MP.

After leaving the Labour Party he teamed up with the Socialist Workers Party to found Respect, became its' first MP and established a base with 12 Councillors in the heavily Muslim constituency of Tower Hamlets. Then it all went wrong. Galloway fell out with John Rees and Lindsay German of the SWP who then split, most of his local Councillors started defecting to the Labour Party and if I recall correctly one even ended up as Tory.

Today there are just 2 Respect Councillors left left in Tower Hamlets with a small and dying local organisation.

George himself the tried to get elected in Newham (and failed), then set his sights on a Scottish seat (and sunk without trace) until he found another Muslim community to be used on his behalf in Bradford.

Then came his ill considered remarks about "sexual etiquette" in relation to the Julian Assange case.

Off went major supporters like Kate Hudson (CND) and Salma Yaqoob.

Now even that is under threat.

The Guardian reports that Gorgeous George has managed to fall out with his 5 local  Councillors over his possible intentions to stand for the Mayor of London:

George Galloway should step down as MP for Bradford West if he is serious about running for mayor of London, councillors from his own Respect party have said.
The councillors, who were elected to Bradford council last May following Galloway's historic by election win in March that year, say they may quit Respect and work as independents after hearing in the media that the 58-year-old's ambitions apparently lie in the capital, rather than West Yorkshire.
How did George respond to his critics? The Guardian tells us that:

Galloway's response on Tuesday to the criticism was to suspend two councillors for disloyalty and accuse all five of "conspiring to seize executive power".

Democracy in action, Galloway style. He refers to disagreement as "factionalism:

"Two of your sources for this latest attack... are already in the process of disciplinary action for factional disloyalty. They are jumping from your low bridge before they are pushed. It is a documented fact that for months now all five councillors have been conspiring to seize executive power in the Bradford party, so their motivation is more than a little suspect," he wrote."

So now we know.

Nothing to do with the fact that they are fed up with being just being foot soldiers for Galloway, who they say hardly spends any time in the city that elected him. For the record he doesn't spend much time in Parliament either. He has one of the lowest attendance figures of any MP of any party.

Now he wants to be Mayor of London as his mate Ken Livingstone is out of the way.

No thanks pal. You're not wanted here either!

Monday, 12 August 2013

The Annual Secular Europe Campaign

March and Rally 2013


  • Saturday, September 14, 2013
    12:30 PM
  • Temple Place, London (map)
    Next to Temple Tube Station
  • The Secular Europe Campaign March and Rallyhas become an annual event to celebrate all we have achieved in Secularism, to demand more and to have a jolly good time with like minded people.
    Please join us on the 6th annual March this September.
    We are marching to be seen, to be heard, to support others that are struggling to achieve their basic human rights and to show that we are a growing force that will stand up for what we believe in and will challenge what is unbelievable.

    We will meet inTemple Placeat 12.30 for the March at13.00
    The Rally will then be held inRichmond TerraceoppositeDowning Street.

    Speakers include;
    Professor AC Grayling
    Stephen Law
    Maryam Namazie
    Anne Marie Waters from One Law for All
    Sue Cox from Survivors Voice
    Nahla Mahmoud from Council of Ex Muslims
    Naomi Phillips Chair of Labour Humanists
    Adam Knowles Chair of GALHA - LGBT Humanists
    Rory Fenton AHS President
    More speakers to be announced later.











    Please put this important date in your diary now, add it toFacebook, tell friends and Tweet about it.
    We will be using the hashtag SECM2013
    You can adapt this draft tweet if you wish.
    Join the Secular Europe March 14th Sept. Be seen be heard be Secular! Separate church & State#SECM2013  http://tinyurl.com/SECM2013











    Find more information about the event at these links.
    http://secular-europe-campaign.org/march-rally/












    There are many reasons to attend the March here are a selection and please add your own to the list in the comments section at the end of this page.

    Mainly we don't have a Secular Europe.
    Religious discrimination against women.
    Religious discrimination against LGBT people.
    The abuse of children by the clergy.
    Bishops in House of Lords.
    Religious institutions preying on the poor and vulnerable.
    The teaching of Creationism in Schools.
    Religious Schools full stop.
    Community services being run by religious organisations.
    The religious anti abortion lobby.
    Religious misinformation on contraception and AIDS.
    Religious influence on the BMA on the health care of others.
    FGM.

    Religiously motivated male circumcision.
    The right to die with dignity.
    The abuse of women and children falsely accused of witchcraft.
    The fleecing of their flock by prosperous gospel churches.
    Showing solidarity with the rest of the world where individuals and groups are struggling to achieve basic human rights.
    Death threaths against Ex Muslims living in Europe.
    Freedom of speech
    Freedom of Expression.
    We also march to celebrate success with Gay and Humanist Marriage in the UK.
    And we march to show that we are proud and happy to live a Secular life.

    We hope you join us to make the 2013 Secular Europe March a great success. 

Sunday, 11 August 2013

Anjem Choudary seeks to blame victims for their suffering

The disgusting acid attack on two young girls in Zanzibar last week was widely and rightly condemned. The Sunday Mirror has published an article speculating that the attack was because they were Jewish. The paper also reports that:

An extremist Islamic preacher who ­allegedly inspired the acid attack on two British volunteer teachers was shot and captured in Tanzania earlier today
Police hit Sheikh Issa Ponda Issa in the shoulder with a tear-gas canister after cornering him near the capital Dar es Salaam.
A manhunt was launched after it was claimed he provoked the attack on Kirstie Trup and Katie Gee, both 18.
Sheikh Ponda was taken to hospital where he was fighting for his life under armed police guard.
The Sunday Mirror goes on to state:


Cleric Sheikh Ponda returned to the island a week ago to try to drum up ­support for protests against the ­government.
It has been claimed that he provoked the ambush to raise the profile of his ­campaign to rid Zanzibar of ­foreigners and impose ­hardline Islamic law.
Police have released seven people after questioning them about the attack and are believed to be ­looking for two more suspected assailants.
Sheikh Ponda was arrested in October 2012 for stoking religious hatred after Muslim protesters vandalised and torched five churches. He was released in May.
He has links to the fanatical Islamic group Uamsho, which is ­suspected of involvement in an acid attack on a ­moderate imam and the murder of a Catholic priest.
Nick Lowles of Hope not Hate focuses on the appalling comments made by Anjem Choudary, a well know preacher of hate:
The horrible acid attack on two young women in Zanzibar have rightly shocked and appalled all decent people. Not so Anjem Choudary who, in a series of tweets earlier this morning, sought to blame the two women for the attack.
"Non Muslims must behave themselves when they go to Muslim countries where Muslims want Shari'ah. Otherwise the consequences could be serious," he tweeted.
A few minutes later he tweeted: "There is an Islamic revival among the youth who reject the regimes trying to please non Muslim tourists with alcohol, clubs, promiscuity etc"
"Zanzibar should be an eye opener for anyone travelling to Muslim countries: The situation is very volatile & Shari'ah is a matter of time."
Of course, Choudary doesn't just confine his thoughts to Muslim countries. Unlike other Islamist extremists groups, like Hizb ut-Tahrir, which claim to only agitate in the Muslim world, Choudary believes that his mission is to fight for Shariah in every country in the world. On Friday he tweeted: "Muhammad (saw) said 'Be busy in the big things in this world' eg establish the Khilafah, engage in Jihad & command good & forbid evil openly."
This explains why so many of his followers go on to commit terrorism and why HOPE not hate intends to do more to oppose him and his group.
Please support Hope not Hate in this campaign!

Saturday, 10 August 2013

Just when you thought "Socialist Unity" couldn't get any worse......

Perhaps I was being a bit naive when I thought that the political content of the totally misnamed Socialist Unity website could not get any worse when I saw the latest missive from John Wight published yesterday under the title Stephen Fry's call for the Winter Olympics to be moved from Russia over gay rights smacks of hypocrisy.

So what exactly has upset "comrade" Wight so much? Lets read what Stephen Fry has written to the Prime Minister:

I write in the earnest hope that all those with a love of sport and the Olympic spirit will consider the stain on the Five Rings that occurred when the 1936 Berlin Olympics proceeded under the exultant aegis of a tyrant who had passed into law, two years earlier, an act which singled out for special persecution a minority whose only crime was the accident of their birth. In his case he banned Jews from academic tenure or public office, he made sure that the police turned a blind eye to any beatings, thefts or humiliations afflicted on them, he burned and banned books written by them. He claimed they “polluted” the purity and tradition of what it was to be German, that they were a threat to the state, to the children and the future of the Reich. He blamed them simultaneously for the mutually exclusive crimes of Communism and for the controlling of international capital and banks. He blamed them for ruining the culture with their liberalism and difference. The Olympic movement at that time paid precisely no attention to this evil and proceeded with the notorious Berlin Olympiad, which provided a stage for a gleeful Führer and only increased his status at home and abroad. It gave him confidence. All historians are agreed on that. What he did with that confidence we all know.


Putin is eerily repeating this insane crime, only this time against LGBT Russians. Beatings, murders and humiliations are ignored by the police. Any defence or sane discussion of homosexuality is against the law. Any statement, for example, that Tchaikovsky was gay and that his art and life reflects this sexuality and are an inspiration to other gay artists would be punishable by imprisonment. It is simply not enough to say that gay Olympians may or may not be safe in their village. The IOC absolutely must take a firm stance on behalf of the shared humanity it is supposed to represent against the barbaric, fascist law that Putin has pushed through the Duma. Let us not forget that Olympic events used not only to be athletic, they used to include cultural competitions. Let us realise that in fact, sport is cultural. It does not exist in a bubble outside society or politics. The idea that sport and politics don’t connect is worse than disingenuous, worse than stupid. It is wickedly, wilfully wrong. Everyone knows politics interconnects with everything for “politics” is simply the Greek for “to do with the people”.

An absolute ban on the Russian Winter Olympics of 2014 on Sochi is simply essential. Stage them elsewhere in Utah, Lillyhammer, anywhere you like. At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world.

He is making scapegoats of gay people, just as Hitler did Jews. He cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know whereof I speak. I have visited Russia, stood up to the political deputy who introduced the first of these laws, in his city of St Petersburg. I looked into the face of the man and, on camera, tried to reason with him, counter him, make him understand what he was doing. All I saw reflected back at me was what Hannah Arendt called, so memorably, “the banality of evil.” A stupid man, but like so many tyrants, one with an instinct of how to exploit a disaffected people by finding scapegoats. Putin may not be quite as oafish and stupid as Deputy Milonov but his instincts are the same. He may claim that the “values” of Russia are not the “values” of the West, but this is absolutely in opposition to Peter the Great’s philosophy, and against the hopes of millions of Russians, those not in the grip of that toxic mix of shaven headed thuggery and bigoted religion, those who are agonised by the rolling back of democracy and the formation of a new autocracy in the motherland that has suffered so much (and whose music, literature and drama, incidentally I love so passionately).

The rest of the letter can be read here

John Wight (eventually) responds by stating that:

Firstly, the recent law passed by the Russian Duma is hardly a reason to compare contemporary Russia to Nazi Germany, as Fry does in his letter. The ludicrous nature of such a comparison only serves to trivialise fascism and the huge suffering endured by the Russian and Soviet people in the Second World War, during which 25-30 million died before the Soviet Union defeated the Nazis.
Homosexuality was decriminalised in Russia in 1993 and though there are still cultural issues with regard to prejudice against gays in the country, the idea that liberals and activists in Britain have the requisite moral authority to preach to the Russian government over the issue is the product of arrogance.

It seems Wight takes umbrage at one of his favourite states being attacked over what he calls a "lifestyle choice", a phrase which betrays his reactionary leanings as I would have thought anybody with an ounce of progressiveness in their souls would understand by now that being gay is a biological imperative in a number of men and women. Wight continues:

Many societies remain uncomfortable with homosexuality. In our own country gains in LGBT rights and equality are a relatively recent phenomenon. Whether we like to admit it or not, homosexuality and sexual promiscuity are still viewed as two sides of the same coin in some societies, feeding a misplaced understanding of homosexuality as solely a lifestyle choice motivated by hedonism. It is seen as a corrupting and corrosive influence on social cohesion as a consequence. There is of course nothing wrong with homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. The freedom to choose any lifestyle a person so wishes, as long as it does not impinge on the rights of others, is rightly deemed sacrosanct in a healthy society.

But social attitudes are inevitably buttressed and influenced by cultural traditions, which differ across the world and are the product of specific histories and inevitably develop at different rates of progress. These factors cannot simply be abstracted in favour of a western-centric approach on the part of liberal commentators and activists in Britain.

Russia’s new law against providing information on homosexuality to minors, while regressive, has to be seen in this context. Yes, by all means protest the new legislation in Russia, but let’s keep it in some sort of perspective.

So there we have been told, we "liberal commentators" (read anyone Socialist Unity does not agree with) are failing to see the context of the discrimination and because we live in the decadent west are in no position to lecture or complain about the treatment of gays in Russia.

The anarchist blog Left of the Left of the Left puts this nonsense in perspective:

Starting with the central premise of the article:
[T]he idea that liberals and activists in Britain have the requisite moral authority to preach to the Russian government over the issue is the product of arrogance.
This is a bizarre line of reasoning to see from a socialist. As if the need for socialists to show solidarity with oppressed groups in other countries is contingent on some “moral authority” derived from how our home nation state behaves. As if anybody but the most idealistic of liberals sees political activity as being about “preaching” to a state in the hopes of persuading it to use its power more wisely.
Where was the call from Stephen Fry for the 2012 London Summer Olympics to be moved in protest at Britain’s participation in illegal wars responsible for so much chaos and carnage in the Middle East, for example?
Oh, I’m sorry, have we not talked about the things important to you enough yet? There are legitimate questions to be raised about why some struggles get a great deal of mainstream media attention and others are largely ignored by everybody other than dedicated politicos, this is not an argument against solidarity action with oppressed people fighting those struggles.
This kind of twisted reasoning can by applied to almost anything, for instance, I can’t help but notice that Wight has a particular interest in Palestine, a worthy cause indeed.But the idea that liberals and activists in Britain have the requisite moral authority to preach to the Isreali government is the product of arrogance. Where is the call for a BDS campaign against Britain for it’s participation in illegal wars responsible for so much carnage in the Middle East, for example?

Quite.

John Wight and his co thinkers at "Socialist Unity", Andy Newman and Tony Collins have shown further evidence that whatever they are, they are certainly not on the left of anything. Collins in particular has accused secularists of being EDL supporters by the default of daring to criticise Islam and Islamism.

Socialist Unity continues to pursue a reactionary course by backing reactionary clerics, the Iranian and Chinese dictatorships and now the ex KGB agent Putin against democracy, women's rights, peace and now gay rights as part of it's right-wing agenda. They are cuckolds in the Labour and Trade Union movement and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

---------------

Pink News: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/08/the-20-most-shocking-anti-gay-news-stories-from-russia-so-far/ 

Sign the Petition to relocate the 2014 Winter Olympics!

Go to: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/international-olympic-committee-ioc-relocate-the-2014-winter-games-to-vancouver-2

A Very Public Sociologist: Top 100 Worst Blogs Poll 2013

A Very Public Sociologist: Top 100 Worst Blogs Poll 2013: Silly season. Westminster waddles off to the Copacabana, leaving the commentariat and their hangers-on - like me - bereft of sensible stor...

Friday, 9 August 2013

Stoning – the true horror

Cross-Post from the National Secular Society
by Anne Marie Waters
Recently I posted a blog about the treatment of women in many Islamic states and the fact that such treatment, if following the legal definition, amounts to a crime against humanity. In it, I linked to a document produced by Amnesty International entitled "How to stone someone to death". The document describes in step-by-step detail, as outlined in the Iranian penal code, exactly how to bury someone up to their waist — or chest if female — and throw stones at their head until they die.
A few days after I had posted the blog, I re-read the document and felt it merited a blog of its own. Why? Because we need to admit, and face up to, the true horror of stoning. It is really happening. It is happening to real people and it is happening in the name of Islam. This is the truth — whether we like it or not.
Liars, apologists, the desperate to believe, and the interminably naive will deny it, or wish it not so, but no amount of wishing, denial, or apology erases objective fact, and these facts must be confronted.
If you don't have time, or can't stomach it, here are some of the main points of the document (though the pictures are worth looking at):
  1. The size of the stone is specified (with accompanying pictures) so that it will not be too small, or too big. Suffering is important.
  2. A man is buried to his waist and a woman to her chest. If he/she can get out of the hole, they can escape the punishment; so must make sure women cannot get out.
  3. If the stoning is based on confession, the judge will throw the first stone. If based on witness testimony, the witness will throw the first stone.
  4. Every 20 minutes or so, the stoning will stop to see if the condemned has yet died. If not, stoning continues (this is Article 23 by the way).
  5. It is not all bad news though: Article 16 states that the punishment should not "inflict torture, torment or mutilation of the condemned" and the stoning will be carried out "with ultimate calmness and without exercising violence". I'm not sure what dictionary the Iranian regime reads but they've got a rather strange understanding of the words "torture" and "violence" - but then words mean whatever you want them to mean when you talk about Islam.
Earlier this year, Iran reviewed its penal code. Stoning as punishment for adultery was removed — that is until the Guardian Council got hold of it and promptly re-inserted this religious command. The Guardian Council is a group of unelected clerics who hold supreme power in Iran, and who ensure the compatibility of all legislation with sharia law.
Saudi Arabia also stones people to death, and the barbarism is swelling as sharia law advances. In the last few years, a 13 year old girl in Somalia, a soldier in Pakistan, and a young couple in Afghanistan have all been stoned to death. On all occasions, Islamic sharia law was cited as the justification. In fact, all of the countries which maintain stoning on their legal books are governed by sharia law.
Stoning is not mentioned in the Quran and because of this many people deny that it stems from Islamic teaching. This is dishonest at best. Stoning is not in the Quran but it is in the ahadith and for that reason, is part of sharia law. When Maryam Namazie and I debated a couple of Ahmadiyya Muslims at UCL in 2011, one of our opponents Ayyaz Mahmood insisted that stoning was not a part of Islam. His desperate to believe audience soaked it up, but the next day he was online admitting he had lied. The comments he made have since been removed, but Maryam has discussed them here.
This is what he said:
'Had Maryam asked me, "Has the Holy Prophet (sa) ever ordered that a man be stoned to death?" To this, I would have had to answer yes, and then hope and pray that the moderator would give me a minute or two (which isn't really enough) to explain the whole background of those specific Ahadith… But of course, at the time, the opportunity did not afford itself to give this entire explanation. So I gave her the direct answer to her question, which was a big, "NO". Only to silence her. Because I didn't want to get into this whole issue during the debate…'
So, let's clear this up — what is the basis for stoning in Islam?
Here is the hadith;
A bedouin came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's apostle! I ask you by Allah to judge My case according to Allah's Laws." His opponent, who was more learned than he, said, "Yes, judge between us according to Allah's Laws, and allow me to speak." Allah's Apostle said, "Speak." He (i .e. the bedouin or the other man) said, "My son was working as a laborer for this (man) and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that it was obligatory that my son should be stoned to death, so in lieu of that I ransomed my son by paying one hundred sheep and a slave girl. Then I asked the religious scholars about it, and they informed me that my son must be lashed one hundred lashes, and be exiled for one year, and the wife of this (man) must be stoned to death." Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais, go to the wife of this (man) and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death." Unais went to that woman next morning and she confessed. Allah's Apostle ordered that she be stoned to death.
Sahih Bukhari 3:50:885
As a direct result of this story (and various translations but which always end the same way), stoning is a reality in Islamic states.
Lying is not the only defence against this barbarism though, apologists must also take credit. Their arguments include:
  1. There must be four witnesses so really this is just a deterrent. Is this good enough? We don't object to a society where our sex lives are governed by the threat of a horrific punishment? Sorry, I don't want the threat of stoning any more than I want stoning, and to be fair, threatening to stone someone to death for having sex could hardly be described as moderate.
  2. "But it's in the Bible as well". Yes it is in the Bible, but it's not being carried out in the name of the Bible (not any more at least). So the difference is between it happening and not happening. A rather significant difference you might say.
  3. "This is the extreme fringe of Islam, it is a misinterpretation" – it seems that all Islamic states have misunderstood this, but so have many of Britain's mainstream and high-profile Islamists, including it seems, the moderate Muslim Council of Britain.
Inayat Bunglawala was a high-profile member of the MCB for many years. When he was the assistant secretary general, Bunglawala was asked by journalist Joan Smith to condemn stoning for adultery. Bunglawala refused to do so, adding "you are asking me to condemn my prophet". Bunglawala is not alone in the MCB in this regard. Suhaib Hasan has also misunderstood (Hasan is a prominent figure in the Islamic Sharia Council and blames women for the violence they face). He advocates stoning and once told us that "stoning will turn Britain in to a haven of peace".
The ultra-moderate Swiss academic and lecturer at Oxford University Tariq Ramadan has debated this issue in France with Nicolas Sarkozy. The ultra-moderate Ramadan not only told us that his view is a minority one, but that this view only stretches as far as asking for a "moratorium". In the debate Ramadan denied there was any violence against women in Islam, having just seconds earlier called for a "moratorium" on stoning for adultery. This is the 1984-esque double-speak we have come to expect (see point 5 above).
Interestingly, Ramadan also called for a "politically independent" Muslim French population.
The fact is that stoning is very much a part of Islamic sharia law, and very much a reality in the lives of millions of people. Whether they face the stones, or face the threat of them, the real horror of this cannot be denied. Stoning needs to be named and shamed — there is too much at stake to run from this and bury our heads in the sand.
See also: 'The Stoning of Soraya M' is an important film and I highly recommend it. It displays the true terror of this crime in all its abominable glory. The Iranian Government called the movie "Islamophobic" which would be funny if not so deadly serious. The film is based on true events.
Anne Marie Waters is the spokesperson of the One Law for All campaign and council member of the National Secular Society. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.

Thursday, 8 August 2013

The Socialist Party, censorship and….Howie's Corner?

A lot of interest is being shown in the new blog Marx returns from the grave, run by a dissident member of the Socialist Party. One of the reasons for this is simply it is quite unusual for anyone in the SP to be so public about their internal disagreements. In a recent post Bruce actually states he has now been banned from the Socialist Party  Face Book page, unusual in that it is a closed members only forum. He says:

It appears that my ban from the Socialist Party Facebook page has been made permanent on particularly spurious grounds including that this blog, and my contributions on the page, have not kept ‘’within limits’’ of comradely discussion. Just exactly what is meant by the term ‘’within limits’’ is not defined at all. Basically this is an excuse for outright censorship because chief censor Ben Robinson doesn’t like my blog or the fact that I have publicly criticised him directly. He certainly doesn’t like the fact that discussions on the page are actually winning people over to a Marxist position and Ben and other full timers haven’t got the ability to meet the arguments politically  so are resorting to bureaucratic measures to keep the ideas of Marxism from interested subscribers to the page. This will fail politically of course and just increase interest in my blog. I will be continuing a campaign for reinstatement. So I welcome messages in support of my reinstatement being sent to Ben Robinson and now onto something a bit more important than comrade Robinson.
 In a further development he complains about the "censorship" of a book written by an ex-member of the party:

I am still awaiting the publication on any public forum of the CWI of the book review I wrote on Mick Brooks’  generally excellent Capitalist Crisis: Theory and Practice which has received very good reviews practically  everywhere on the left.
This is on the banned book list of the CWI which the leadership don’t want anyone to read unless they are members  of the inner sanctum who are deemed qualified to issue judgement on Marxist literature. I gave a copy of my review to Philip Stott about a month ago but it hasn’t appeared anywhere.
In the CWI no views but those of  the orthodox  ‘’anything can be the cause of capitalist crisis’’ can publicly appear. Unlike the Bolshevik party, which the CWI pretends to model itself on, members are regarded to be so stupid by the leadership that they are unable to use their critical faculties to decide on the worthiness of a book or not?
Peter Taaffe has denounced the book as being full of ‘’blunders’’ which is pretty awesome from somebody who can’t tell the difference between the importance of the rate and the mass of profit but what else is new? 
I'm not convinced that lack of interest or perhaps just ignoring this work is quite the censorship that Bruce suggests, but given the context of the on-going dispute he is having with the party Grandees it certainly could be seen in that light by some.

The Socialist Party (like its less than legitimate rival, the Socialist Workers Party) pursues a line of politics based ostensibly on Leninism, though many commentators of late have referred to the Zinoviest origins of their political "norms". Zinoviev of course was a trusted disciple of Lenin in any case, as was Trotsky whose writings and  life they follow on an almost religious basis. Both these groups (and the other groupscules in the myopic world of Trotskyism) are inherently authoritarian and despite their constant calls for socialism are seemingly unable to co-operate on any kind of basis that could even be defined as "socialist".

This combined with their out of date and isolated view of the world (plus a very large sprinkling of arrogance) has led to their groups becoming more like cults than anything that resembles a modern political party. Their language, reliance on icons (in particular dead Russians and a couple of long deceased Germans) and the quotations from the "holy texts" of Marxism-Leninism is quite off-putting the majority of even the working class that they claim to be the (self-proclaimed) vanguard of. Nevertheless they find ways of exerting an influence out of all proportion to that which their tiny numbers would suggest.

Hiding behind "useful idiots"

The PCS union is an obvious place where the SP through an alliance of Lenin's "useful idiots" known as Left Unity allows them to control the largest civil service union. This brings me  neatly to the connection of censorship by the comrades and this blog.

Last year I received a phone call from John McInally, PCS Vice President and Socialist Party "fixer" who wanted me to desist with my criticisms of the union leadership on my e-mails which covered a variety of union related matters including exposing what I saw (and still see) as the misuse of PCS. In particular I raised (continuing) concerns about the connections of leading members of the union and the SP front organisations like the Trade Union & Socialist Coalition (TUSC), the National Shop Stewards Movement (NSSN) and the Youth Fight for Jobs campaign.

Under pressure from the Socialist Party, Mark Serwotka entered the fray with the first of three letters demanding I cease sending e-mails criticising the union that led to a widespread debate in PCS. I responded thus:

I do not believe that Francis Maude and his staff were ever readers of anything I have ever put out and I sent out material to reps and members to show my critics where the Government actually get their information from. That is the Trade Union Reform Campaign (run by a Tory MP) and Conservative Home (financed by Lord Ashcroft). There are a couple of other sources that Ministers probably use.

Now Mark Serwotka has written to me saying he has "received complaints" about my e-mails, demanding I cease sending e-mails as it risks PCS facility time and tries to scapegoat me as if I'm responsible for the problems PCS face.

I have written to him demanding to know who has made a complaint and their reasons for doing so but I don't trust him to provide all the evidence I require. I certainly do not respond to anonymous complaints. Even Management afford me more rights than Mr Serwotka. The only time they ever pulled me up over e-mails was to tell me not to promote the recent TUC demonstration (which I duly undertook), but I knew where the complaint had come from and who made it. No action was taken.

He is demanding a "written assurance" that I cease sending out what he calls my "objectionable views" (that is to say my disagreement with the way he runs the union) immediately.

I have two choices. To be silent or to stand up against what some would consider bullying.

Let's be clear. PCS has now reached its weakest point  in a decade of Mark Serwotka and the Socialist Party's misuse of PCS. Relations with the Government are at an all-time low due to their inability to negotiate. Serwotka and McInally actually seek confrontation for purely political purposes. They stood aside from negotiations over pensions, launched a campaign to turn PCS into more of a political party ending a key policy of political neutrality, led a campaign for an (illegal) General Strike and are now facing the consequences of their politically and partisan actions.

The unions facilities are being cut shortly. Mark Serwotka, John McInally and their followers have created the situation that has allowed this to happen. I will not be "scapegoated for their incompetence.

I received a lot of support from ordinary members of PCS of which this response from Alec in Balham was typical fare:

Keep up the good work. Everyone is entitled to freedom of expression. Didn't PCS threaten to take action at the time of the Olympics. I would have thought that is what prompted  the government to start looking at facility time.

This debate raged by e-mail for several weeks until with the threat of disciplinary action for expressing an opinion was a real danger, I agreed with Serwotka to get my own computer.

Censorship backfires

The irony is that not only is my e-mail list still going, its' got a lot larger and I set up my own blog, Howie's Corner which has allowed both myself and some of my co-thinkers in PCS to expand an audience for opposition to the far left. Additionally I am now able to cover a much wider range of issues and establish a whole new audience.

Whilst this blog isn't breaking any records, the readership is at a respectable level and has developed links with Harry's Place which has a similar outlook to me, LabourStart which runs excellent on-line campaigns in defence of trade unionists world wide and Trade Unions Linking Israel & Palestine which campaigns to bring trade unionists on both sides of the divide together for a genuine peaceful solution to the on-going conflict.

Censorship by the Socialist Party in PCS has backfired big time as it should. Free speech is essential and I will continue to campaign against the political extremists who threaten democracy whether they come from the far-left, far-right or religious fanatics.