Blair Peach: Murdered by police for opposing racism

It’s taken 31 years, but the Metropolitan Police have finally published a secret internal report showing that police officers killed an anti-fascist protester in 1979.

Blair Peach, a 33 year old teacher originally from New Zealand, was on a demo against the National Front in Southall, London, where he was beaten to death by police officers. This has been covered up for decades.

The killing was carried out by members of the Special Patrol Group, which in 1987 was renamed the Territorial Support Group because of its notorious reputation. However, despite the name change, the violence has continued up to the present day, with the same unit being responsible for the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last year.

The 1979 demo followed a provocative meeting held by the National Front in the middle of a predominantly Sikh community. It was attended by 2,500 cops, and serious violence ensued. Another protester, Clarence Baker of the reggae band Misty in Roots, was in a coma for 5 months following it. The internal investigation by the Met found that a group of SPG officers had knocked Blair Peach unconscious in a side street, and he died the next day of head injuries. Fourteen witnesses gave evidence that they had seen the attack. The report argues that he was probably killed by a blow from an unauthorised weapon, such as a lead weighted cosh or police radio.

The report narrowed down the officers responsible to six who arrived at the scene in a van. The report named a suspect thought to be responsible, but the name was redacted. The officers involved conspired to cover each others backs and hide the fact they were at the scene, refused to take part in ID parades, shaved off facial hair or grew it so they wouldn’t conform to witness descriptions, and dry cleaned their uniforms before they could be subjected to forensic investigation.

Blair Peach's partner, Celia Stubbs, who has mounted a 31 year fight for justice

The investigation also found a huge stash of unauthorised weapons in the SPG headquarters, including various illegal truncheons and knives, two crowbars, a whip, a 3 foot wooden stave, and a lead-weighted leather stick. An officer was discovered attempting to dispose of a metal cosh. Another officer was discovered to be a Nazi supporter.

The coroner involved in the death of Blair Peach, Dr. John Burton, carried out a propaganda campaign about the case, arguing before the inquest had even finished that there was no way an officer had killed him. He said witnesses’ evidence was “fabrication” because they were “totally committed members of the Socialist Workers’ Party”, and he said Sikh witnesses “did not have experience of the English system” to give reliable evidence. He also fought to try and prevent the inquest having a jury, claiming it would “be hijacked by the extreme left.” In 1980, the inquest returned a verdict of “misadventure”, and no police officers were held responsible.

Peach’s partner, Celia Stubbs, has campaigned for years for justice and a full public inquiry. Her fight finally met with some success last year when the Met agreed to publish the report, which was reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the CPS advised that there was no reason to proceed with a prosecution now, and so the officers responsible will once again be able to get away with murder.

The names of the officers involved are blanked out by the report, however they have been established by campaigners by looking at supporting material. The inspector in charge of the vehicle was Alan Murray, who resigned from the force in protest at the internal report, and is today a lecturer in “corporate social responsibility” (!) at Sheffield Uni.

Throughout the 80s the SPG remained notorious for violence, their reputation being mocked on comedy programmes like ‘Not the Nine O’ Clock News’ and ‘The Young Ones.’ The Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time, Sir David McNee, defended the actions of the SPG to a black journalist, saying:

“I understand the concern of your people. But if you keep off the streets of London and behave yourselves you won’t have the SPG to worry about.”

The duties of the SPG were transferred to the newly formed Territorial Support Group in 1987, but the violence continued. Some officers are ex-military personnel, and they have been accused by other police as looking for confrontations and violence. A few examples include:

Met Cops brought up to Edinburgh to police G8 protests in 2005 turn nasty

-In 1997 a man was beaten by officers from the TSG in what was described as an “outrageous display of brutality”, which only stopped when the man pretended to be unconscious. The man was charged with assault and threatening behaviour over the incident but was cleared after photographs of his injuries showed the officers had lied about the case under oath. After the man’s acquittal the officers went on trial accused of assault in 1999, but where later cleared.

-In 2003, six officers of the TSG performed what a judge called a “serious, gratuitous and prolonged” assault on a terrorist suspect, Babar Ahmed, an IT worker who was not subsequently charged with any offence. The officers involved had already been the subject of as many as 60 complaints about unwarranted assaults. A number of mail sacks containing these complaints were somehow lost. The accusations were investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission but they were found to be “unsubstantiated”. No charges were bought against the officers and five of the six were still members of the TSG in 2009. Babar Ahmed was later awarded £60,000 compensation, by the High Court, for the assault.

In 2004 Babar Ahmed was re-arrested after the US requested his extradition, claiming he was a supporter of terrorism, which he strenuously denies. If extradited, he will face life in a US Supermax prison. He currently holds the distinction of being the person held the longest ever without charge in the UK, as he has been in prison for 5 years.

-In 2005 a young Kurdish man recorded an officer on his mobile phone telling him “If you say one more fucking word, I’ll smash your fucking Arab face in” after he was stopped near Paddington Green police station. The officer was suspended but denied the charge.

-In 2007 several officers were prosecuted for racially aggravated assault, racial abuse and misconduct in public office, after a police van driver acted as a whistleblower to uncover their racial abuse of three men on a street near Paddington police station. The men were insulted, grabbed around the neck and had their testicles pulled. The police applied to have reporting of the trial restricted. One of the officers, a former Royal Marine who was also implicated in the case of Babar Ahmed, was last year cleared of all charges and returned to work at the TSG.

The most notorious case of TSG violence is of course last year’s killing of Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor who was not even part of a protest. He died at the G20 protests after being hit and pushed to the ground by officers. Despite video evidence, over 1 year on no officer has been charged, and Ian Tomlinson’s family have seen no justice.

Footage obtained by the Guardian of the assault that caused the death of Ian Tomlinson

What all this reminds us is that the police are not a neutral force. There are situations in everyday life where many of us need the help of the police, but when it comes to politics, officers of units like the SPG/TSG (whose specific role includes policing demos) know which side they’re on. In London, the police have been shown time and again to be filled with violent racists. The stories above should give anyone who think arming police with tasers is a good idea second thoughts.

The death of Blair Peach is also a timely warning about the way we conduct the fight against the far right today. In the recent demos against the Scottish Defence League, some people, like SNP Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, celebrated the police doing the job of keeping the racists off the streets. But those of us who know the police can just as easily turn their force against us also know that we can’t rely on them to do our work for us. Keeping our streets and communities Nazi free is a job only anti-fascists can do reliably.

Dub poet Linton Kwesi Johnson tells Blair Peach’s story

Philip Lardner seems to think he's an MP already. He's not.

A wannabe Conservative MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, Philip Lardner, was today suspended from his party for expressing extreme right-wing views for the SECOND time in less than two years.

Lardner, a primary school teacher in Erskine, Renfrewshire, was thrown out of his party today by embarrassed Tory party chiefs after homophobic comments published on his website came to light this morning. The offending comments have since been removed, but Pink News reports that Lardner wrote that he believed homosexuality to be ’somewhere between unfortunate and simply wrong’, and in a lengthy diatribe, argued in favour off the reinstating of Section 28, a law which banned teachers from ‘promoting’ homosexuality in schools. Lardner wrote: ‘I will not accept that their behaviour is ‘normal’ or encourage children to indulge in it… Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.’

Ironically, this makes North Ayrshire and Arran perhaps most of the one most polarised constituencies in Britain, without even stepping outside of Labour and the Tories – the incumbent MP is Katy Clark, one of the very few genuine socialists left within the Labour Party, who is defending a majority of 11,000 at this election.

Lardner, on the other hand, typifies the Empire Loyalist/Monday Club right fringes of the Tory party – his extreme views extend well beyond his er, ‘traditional’ views of the family.  Lardner denies the existence of climate change, which he claims is a myth perpetrated by brainwashing ‘carbon-loonies’ out to ’spoil enjoyment of nice, warm weather’.

His initial suspension from the Conservative Party came in July 2008, after he expressed admiration for white-supremacist  politician Iain Smith, who presided over white minority rule in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. He also stated that Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, which said that mass immigration to Britain would lead to bloodshed, had ‘in a small way come true’. In 2005, Lardner expressed his support for British colonialism and imperialism, writing: ‘Take a look at Zimbabwe or a dozen other human-induced African disasters and ask yourself whether the average African would rather be living (or more often than not dying) at the hands of his “free” African brothers, or have a Royal Navy warship sitting benevolently in the harbour?’

LGBT rights' protesters picketing Tory HQ

Lardner contested the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections in the same constituency. At a hustings meeting on the Isle of Arran, Lardner hysterically shouted down group of stunned 16 year olds, who had objected to his stance on trident nuclear weapons, and screamed that they needed to show ‘greater respect for the armed forces, and spend more time looking at war memorials’. Lardner has also gone to great lengths to promote himself in the local press as a defender of the ‘indigenous population’ on Arran, and against foreign invaders. Of red squirrels, that is – but could there be subtle undertones in this rhetoric of his now well reported racist, anti-immigration views? SSY speculates… almost certainly.

Following his original suspension, Lardner was approached by the BNP, who urged him to join the party that is ‘his natural home and one that would fully support these statements instead of condemning and then sacking him’. SSY can also reveal that Lardner has stuck up for the rights of BNP members to work as police and prison officers – occupations which have a ban on BNP membership – arguing that ‘loyalty to your nation’ should not be used a pretext to make you a ‘banned person’.

SSY can only speculate what may come next, but we’re fairly sure that a future in politics may still be a possibility for Lardner. He intends to stand as an independent ‘common sense’ candidate (lol!) next week, but when he (somehow) fails to get elected, and if the BNP still seem a bit too extreme, I’m fairly sure he’ll be able to find a nice home in UKIP: climate denying, immigrant-hating, europhobic, racist, empire-loving… UKIP and Lardner were MADE for each other!

PM Yves Leterme's government has collapsed, despite him dressing up as a member of the Time Lord High Council to try and increase his authority

The government of Belgium has collapsed as part of a row between Dutch speaking and French speaking politicians.

This is good news for Belgian Muslims, who were facing the possibility of a racist legal attack, as Belgium was poised to become the first European country to ban Muslim women from covering their faces. However, the law, which was just about to be debated, has been delayed by the political crisis.

Belgian is split between Dutch speaking Flanders in the North and French speaking Wallonia in the South. Which region you are in decides which language is officially used in all official capacities, and the two different regions each have their own political parties. The city of Brussels in the centre is a bilingual district, but the row centres on breaking up this district into French and Dutch speaking areas. They argue it includes solely Dutch speaking towns round about the city. The Dutch speaking Liberals have quit the coalition government, claiming the French speaking parties are trying to block this process.

At the root of the crisis is inequality between the regions. In the past Wallonia was the industrial powerhouse of Belgium, and Flanders was poor. However, in the last 20-30 years this has changed around, with the decline of industry in Wallonia causing massive unemployment, while in the North the Flemish economy has experienced big growth based on neoliberal policies, finance and also the port of Antwerp, which is the third biggest port in the world.

Right wing Flemish politicians represent the resentment of Flemish bosses at the cost of supporting the unemployed and social services needed in Wallonia in their taxes, and demand more autonomy for their region. However, this is also overlaid with historical resentment by most Flemish people at the exploitation and oppression of Flemings when things were different in the past.

What happens next isn’t clear. The PM Yves Leterme has submitted his resignation to King Albert, who has not immediately accepted it but started consultations with politicians about the way forward. The whole crisis has been rumbling along for some time, and could conceivably could lead to the break up of Belgium. Last year rows over the same issue helped contribute towards a situation where Belgium had no government for 194 days!

Although the racist anti-Muslim law may well be scuppered for now by the crisis, the desire to curb the rights of Muslim women to wear what they want is unfortunately one of the few things that unites the mainstream parties across the linguistic divide. So it may well be resurrected when Belgium does have a government again. Anti-racists need to use the breathing space to try and organise against it.

Ultimately, the political crisis in Belgium will keep rumbling along as long as the country’s economic model remains committed to neoliberalism. Belgium needs to help the people of all the regions by taking their resources into public ownership and redistributing wealth to help alleviate the poverty and unemployment caused by right wing policies.

Bonus: For more in depth info about the economic and political background in Belgium, check out this article written during the governmental crisis last year.

After facing “treason” only a few weeks ago in Scotland, the BNP have had to carry out another purge within their own ranks. This time its against a far more senior member, making far more serious threats to the party leadership. The BNP have expelled 3 of their leading members, including their head of publicity, Mark Collett. Alongside Collett, two other leading BNP members have been given the heave – the party’s election organiser Eddy Butler and manager Emma Colgate. Collett is the best known of the 3 – he stood trial with Griffin a few years ago when both were charged with incitement to racial hatred, and was the subject of a documentary “Young, Nazi and Proud”.

Collett has not only been expelled, but been referred to the police for allegedly plotting to kill both Griffin and the party’s chief fundraiser and virtual owner Jim Dowson. Collett’s expulsion from the party could possibly generate discontent among some of the party’s members. Despite their electoral success there has always been a minority of BNP members in opposition to Griffin; for being a “zionist”, whitewashing any references to Nazism and his dictatorial control of the party. Despite these concerns Griffin’s expulsion of Collett is unlikely to do much damage to his standing. Collett’s appearance on the “Young, Nazi and Proud” documentary did damage to the BNP’s modernisation plans, as he was caught attacking the Jews, Churchill and the Royal Family. Griffin himself described Collett as a “pig ignorant man”, who he frequently had to berate.

More damaging to the BNP will be the expulsion of Eddy Butler. Despite not being as well known as Collett, Butler was far more valuable and useful to the party. It was Butler who began the process of turning the BNP away from street violence and on to campaigning for “Rights for Whites” in areas were there was division between white and asian residents over access to social housing. This modernisation succeeded with the BNP gaining its first councillor on the Isle of Dogs.

With the BNP at the height of its powers why are any of its members disenchanted with the party? Some might be disillusioned with the vote to accept non-white members, others may always have opposed Griffin’s modernisation plans, and wanted a return to street violence. More likely in my opinion, the discontent comes from how the party itself is run – as a virtual dictatorship of two individuals, Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.

As party chairman Griffin has been able to enforce decisions on the party against sections of the memberships will – such as taking cash off other party regions to fund his election campaign. He has also claimed £200k in expenses from the European Parliament, despite standing on a platform of “Punish the Pigs”. These actions may have led Collett and others in the BNP to mobilise against their party’s leadership.

The other “co-owner” of the BNP is anti-abortion activist and loyalist Jim Dowson. Dowson came to prominence as the director of “Precious Life” an extreme anti-abortion group that was disowned by other anti-abortionists in the Catholic Church due to its sending of death threats to pro-choice MP’s. Dowson also has also been involved with loyalist flute bands, one of which was named after loyalist gunman Michael Stone.

Dowson joined the BNP in 2007 and since then has provided important resources into the party through a variety of companies he directs, such as election leaflets, offices and its infamous “Truth truck”. Dowson has also recruited staff to man the BNP’s call centre in Belfast. Northern Ireland is thought of a “sanctuary” by the BNP leadership, a base for them to open permanent facilites like call centres which they could not do in the UK.

At present there is no evidence of a serious split in the BNP against Griffin and Dowson’s leadership. Most of the party supports the electoral focus and is resigned to accepting black and asian members of the party given the alternative is bankruptcy. What does remain however is a disproportionate amount of personal control of the party in Dowson’s hands, and of political control in Griffin’s. Despite the BNP’s success a minority of members on far-right forums and blogs have correctly identified Griffin as one of their limiting factors. Despite his efforts to modernise the party and his success in doing so Griffin cannot excise his own past in denying the Holocaust, attacking Jews and his conviction for racial hatred.

If the BNP are going to become a far-right party on the scale of the NF in France or the Lega Nord in Italy more baggage must be dumped – specifically the BNP’s image as a racist party with a neo-Nazi past. Griffin may have to be dumped to achieve that goal, and with the power he and Dowson have in the party, that could lead to a very vicious and bloody fight indeed.

SSY has a long and proud record of celebrating when fascists die in embarrassing and or unfortunate circumstances. Whether it’s the sad loss of BNP founder John Tyndall (we coincidentally had a BBQ the day he popped his clogs – remember Tyndall burgers?), Austrian Fuhrer Jorg Haider who killed himself in a car crash after coming back pissed from a gay bar, or of course, Mussolini riddled with bullets hanging upside down in an Italian Garage. So SSY is pleased to announce another addition to that list of human shit, none other than Eugene Terre Blanche.

"I look all annoyed because I don't like the blecks"

Eugene Terre Blanche was the leader of the AWB – the Afrikaner Resistance Movement. The AWB is a far-right organisation that was founded in the 70’s because some Afrikaners were so mental they thought pro-Nazi Prime Minister BJ Forster was too liberal. The AWB violently opposed relaxation of even “petty apartheid” rules, like black and white people kissing, marrying, shagging etc.

Even when the chips were obviously down for apartheid, the AWB were trying to organise a civil war and carve out their own all-white Boer state out of a multiracial South Africa, not dissimilar to what the Serbs did in Bosnia. At their height the AWB had the support of roughly 5-7% of South Africa’s white population, a similar % that the BNP get today from the UK population.

The AWB organised violent attacks against Blacks in South Africa as well as those Afrikaner politicians they believed were too liberal; for example, shooting and throwing grenades at Black South Africans during the chaos of the Bophuthatswana coup where their members declared they were on a “kaffir hunting picnic”.

The AWB also turned up armed and provoked violence outside a meeting where President FW Klerk was speaking in the Battle of Ventersdorp. Klerk had enraged a minority of Afrikaners for unbanning the African National Congress and releasing Nelson Mandela. This wasn’t the only violent attempt to stop the dismantling of apartheid – the AWB also stormed the Kempton Park World Trade Centre where negotiations to conduct South Africa’s first free and fair multiracial elections were being conducted.

The AWB’s campaign of violence was unable to stop the inevitable destruction of apartheid however. Despite having a small but armed minority of support among Afrikaners, the White population of South Africa was too small to survive as an indefinite dictatorship over the Black majority population any longer. The AWB’s demand for a white ruled Boer Republic was a fantasy, as there was no contiguous landmass in South Africa that had a white majority. The South African state and economy was dependent on the overwhelming majority of the population, the Black population, having no rights whatsoever, allowing South Africa to construct a slave economy over the backs of the populace.

The Boers themselves were largely made up of the descendants of Dutch colonists who had arrived in the South of Africa over 300 years ago. They fled the British ruled Cape Colony, in what was called the “Great Trek” where they lived a nomadic lifestyle. They called themselves “Voortrekkers” and were similar to the European colonists in North America and Zionist settlers in Palestine in that they saw their role as taking control of “virgin territory” that had been unused, left to waste until a superior race of people could exploit it. Like in North America and Palestine however the Voortrekkers were not alone – this land too had a people.

The Voortrekker’s superior technology allowed them to massacre the indigenous Zulu tribes. At the Battle of Blood River the Voortrekkers were able to slaughter 3000 Zulu Natal warriors. No Voortrekkers died – only 3 of them were lightly wounded. After this defeat of the native population, the Voortrekkers were able to establish several Boer republics, which eventually became the apartheid South African state.

It’s this siege mentality among sections of the White South African population, that has been a part of their history in settling in Africa that the AWB relate to and try to exploit. Since the collapse of apartheid many White South Africans have lost their old privileges in the political and economic systems of South Africa. Many Boers and their farms have also been attacked, and there is fear among the Boers that what happened in Zimbabwe – where White farmers were expelled from their land will happen to them. On the opposite side many Black South Africans have not seen their quality of life increase substantially in democratic South Africa, and whilst losing a lot of their privileges the Afrikaner population is still better off than any other racial group in South Africa.

We don't know if Wikus Van De Merwe did kill Eugene with alien weaponry, but we are prepared to float it as a possibility.

So whilst most of South Africa’s population support the dismantling of apartheid, it is by no means a perfect multiracial rainbow paradise yet. There still remains a minority of Afrikaners who are attracted to the ideas of the AWB. In 2004 a poll was conducted to find out who South Africans thought their greatest countryman was – unsurprisingly, Mandela topped it, but Terre Blanche came in at No 25.

If you want to see more about Eugene, Nick Broomfield has done a series of documentaries about the nutter which are available here.

A Belgian parliamentary committee has unanimously voted to finally tackle the scourge of creepy shopping centre Santas.

Concern has been growing in the European nation for years at the growth of fundamentalist Santa-ism, as these dodgy looking characters lure children towards their radical ideology with promises of “presents”. Many advocate that the entire Santa-believing world is united in a fundamentalist empire ruled from the North Pole, in which all adults will be forced to become toy manufacturing elves. Many fear the threat of Father Christmasification of Belgium.

The new law will ban appearing in any public place “with face covered or disguised in whole or in part to the extent that she cannot be identified”. Doing so will lead to a fine or up to 7 days in prison. It is hoped that the measure will help prevent Santas from congregating on Belgian streets or shopping centres.

Of course, the anti-Santa move will also have a significant impact on Muslim women. Belgian local authorities already have the power to ban the burqa or the niqab, and the city of Brussels has banned the wearing of headscarves in schools, prompting protests.

But the Belgian MPs have tried to reassure people that they are totally not racist, and the ban is just part of their commitment to a “liberal, open and tolerant society.” Indeed, it’s not as if looking at Belgian history would ever make you think they have a problem with racism.

The committee’s approval is a major step towards the bill becoming law, which would make Belgium the first European country to order covering the face in public places. This may well be followed by the Netherlands, where everybody’s favourite racist “secularist” Geert Wilders looks set to score big in the upcoming elections. And in France, after getting trashed in the local elections, right wing President Nicolas Sarkozy announced he would introduce a similar ban.

“The all-body veil is contrary to the dignity of women,” he said. “The answer is to ban it. The government will introduce a bill to ban it that conforms to the principles of our laws.”

Quite how characters like Sarkozy expect us to take them seriously when they tell us they’re defending women’s rights by passing a law about what they can and cannot wear I don’t know. The other major defence of this idea is that it’s about secularism. Secularism is the idea that religion should be completely separate from the state, and your religion should be a matter of personal conscience, not state law. Passing a law that makes religious dress a matter of state interest is therefore by definition not secularist.

Belgian Muslims protesting the headscarf ban. Banner reads: "School is my right, the veil is my choice."

The ban on covering the face in public places has united all the major political parties, and indeed the traditionally divided French and Flemish speaking politicians. The fact that there are so few voices willing to stand up against a state that thinks it has the right to regulate how women dress shows just how far the fight against anti-Muslim racism, and indeed against sexism, has to go.

SSY acknowledges that some of the Santa images displayed in this post would disturb even the most staunch defender of human rights. However, we feel that even the enormity of the threat these men pose to our mental health is no justification for a racist law which dictates how women can and cannot dress. As the Vice-President of the Muslim Executive of Belgium, Isabelle Praile, puts it:

“Today it’s the full-face veil. Tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans, and then perhaps it will be miniskirts.”

Bonus: For sensible commentary on the issue of the burqa (as opposed to posts that steal convoluted Santa jokes from Belgian MPs) check out islamophobia watch and muslimahmediawatch. Santa images via Sketchy Santas.

Every year thousands of poor people from Latin America attempt to cross the border between Mexico and the US, in search of work so they can support their families.

Most of these people are victims of economic policies imposed by the US government and international capitalism. Because of the free trade agreement NAFTA and the policies of organisations like the WTO, millions of poor farmers around the world have been thrown off their land so it can be used for corporate agribusiness. International policies mean that poor countries are unable to put any kind of protection on their domestic industries, or enact laws that protect workers’ rights. This means that it can be very hard to find a job in countries like Mexico, and if you can it will be so low paid it will be hard to feed your family.

Latin American people who find themselves living next door to the richest country on Earth have little choice but to try and use any means necessary to cross into the US to find work. But the US border is one of the most militarised on Earth, with armed border police using the latest technology aimed at finding immigrants and preventing them crossing.

It’s also a very hostile environment-much of the border runs through desert, and huge numbers die every year of dehydration or exhaustion. Others are attacked by human predators, waiting to abuse, steal and murder immigrants. There’s little choice for most people but to hire a coyote, a professional people smuggler, to help them get across. But these people will often charge the equivalent of your life savings, and even then there’s no guarantee they won’t just take your money and run.

The ridiculous thing about the harsh enforcement regime is that it actually increases the numbers of illegal immigrants in the US, because if after all that you succeed in getting to a job in America, you’re unlikely to want to leave it and go home, knowing what would be involved if you ever tried to come back.

In short, life is not easy for people migrating to the US from Latin America. Once they’re in, they usually do the lowest paid, most menial jobs in the economy, such as cleaners, or farm labourers. The oppressive immigration laws imposed by the US government means that many have to live illegally, and are therefore in little position to take action to defend their rights, form a union or try and get their wages raised.

The only people that benefit from this state of affairs are the rich, who get super cheap labour within the US. The inability of immigrants to fight for their rights at work also helps drive down wages for workers born in the US as well. In the last few years, so many people have been impoverished by capitalism in Latin America, that the US is being transformed by Latino immigration. The centre of American manufacturing and industry has shifted from the North and Northeast to the South, and Southwest, where there are the most immigrants available.

Reform of the immigration system, so that immigrants can begin to play a full role in US society, is an absolute priority. In recent years immigrants have begun to organise a huge mass movement, capable of putting hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, and in 2006 they organised the incredible national one day strike known as ‘The Day without Immigrants.’

The weekend before last, when the US media was consumed by what was happening in Congress with Obama’s healthcare reforms, and the only protests being covered were the insane right wingers outside shouting abuse, there was another, much bigger protest taking place in Washington. Over 200, 000 people flooded into the city to demand the government take action on immigration reform, as part of the March for America. People who had come to the US from all over the world, not just Latin Americans, took part. If you look at the footage below, you’ll see the huge participation by Asian Americans, with signs in Chinese and Korean, for example.

Obama directly addressed the march through a video link, and pledged to “fix the broken immigration system.” Many on the march were greatly heartened to hear they have the support of the President. However, unfortunately, yet again Barack Obama’s government is talking progressive whilst failing to live up to his own rhetoric.

The Obama supported proposals that are likely to go to Congress, known as the Schumer/Graham proposals after the Senators who drew them up, still stand by the idea of being “tough on illegal immigrants.” These so-called reforms may actually make things worse for many immigrants.

Most importantly, the Schumer/Graham plan completely ignores the role of US policy in creating the flow of immigrants in the first place. It does nothing to tackle the unfair trade agreements impoverishing people in Latin American and round the world.

Under the plan, immigrants would be forced to carry a biometric Social Security card, which would be swiped by employers to confirm their identity. This will do nothing to stop people coming to the US illegally, but it would mean more and more people getting caught and getting sent to privately-run, for-profit immigration prisons.

The proposals treat people coming North as a labour supply rather than human beings. They propose “guest worker” programmes that would allow employers to temporarily bring in people for a limited amount of time. These immigrants would have few rights, and would be totally at the mercy of their employers. The Southern Poverty Law Centre has called the existing guest workers programmes “close to slavery.”

The central demand of the immigration reform movement is that those people already living and working in the US are legalised, so that they can begin to take a full part in American society. Schumer and Graham are arguing that people that came to the US illegally must first of all “admit that they broke the law”, and face up to the consequences-fines, community service or even prison. They then will have to “get to the back of the line”, in their words, and prove their worth as part of a lengthy process of achieving citizenship that could take years.

One of the few SBInet towers to actually get built

Crucially, the plan includes increased funding for the border patrols, greater militarisation of the border, and increased raids and policing of immigrant communities. It pledges huge sums of money for high-tech attempts to clamp down on illegal immigration. This comes after the news this week that plans to create a “virtual fence” along the Mexican border have had to be abandoned because they didn’t work.

Dubbed “the great wall of Boeing,” SBInet was a plan to create a vast chain of towers along the border, equipped with long range cameras, infrared thermal imaging, motion sensors and seismic sensors to measure people moving along the ground. This would have been supported by aerial robots scanning the border from the skies. All information would then be sent to “command centres”, where the deployment of border control agents would be controlled.

After the US government spent $1.1 billion on commissioning Boeing to develop this system, it’s emerged that it’s a bit of a high tech fantasy that won’t actually work. Huge sums of money have been wasted on the project with nothing to show for it, unless you’re a Boeing shareholder. However, leaving aside the criminal waste of public money this project represents, it’s good news that the Department of Homeland Security has finally come to its senses on the issue and cancelled it.

Another piece of good news this week is that the anti-immigrant, racist, vigilante group the Minutemen has disbanded. The Minutemen were armed groups who go out into the border crossing area to try and prevent immigrants from reaching the US. The group has taken part in many documented cases of violence, and two Minutemen members are about to go on trial for the murder of a little girl and her father when they broke into their homes.

It’s stuff like this that has led the group’s President Carmen Mercer to declare it disbanded. The Minutemen faces increasing legal costs from having to defend the actions of their members, at a time when its leaders have attempted to become more respectable, and take part in lobbying and the political process. In an internal conflict that in many ways reminds you of some of the fights that have taken place inside the BNP over here, the leaders have found it difficult to control the many members who are drawn towards far-right violence and paramilitary politics. Unfortunately, it’s likely that many of these people will keep up their campaign of racist violence under another banner.

Check out this insane recruiting video for the Minutemen, which features a mix of a ridiculous song that sounds like it was made up by South Park, chilling footage of vigilante violence, and people dressing up as if they were in a Western:

And if you doubt the racism that motivates the group, check out this footage, filmed by a man of Mexican origin, at a Minutemen protest:

In the face of organised racist violence, and their fake supporters in Congress and the White House, the need for a strong, organised movement defending immigrants in the US has never been greater. What’s crucial is that as the movement goes forward, it uses the power of workers that are already mobilised to make their own demands, and not just accept the proposals coming from the Obama administration. Here’s a few ideas that could really “fix the broken immigration system in the US”:

-Repeal all the unfair trade agreements, such as NAFTA and CAFTA that force people into poverty and migration in the first place.

-Make it quick and easy for immigrants to get legal citizenship. End the huge backlogs of cases that have kept people waiting years for a decision.

-Protect the rights of all workers, enforcing legal requirements on employers to provide decently-paid and safe jobs. Stop workers from being fired for standing up for their rights.

-Allow people to come to the US with visas that are not tied to them working, and end the near-slavery conditions of the “guest worker” programmes.

These are all things that the US Congress could do right now, that would make a huge difference to the lives of millions of Americans, and would benefit everybody, not just immigrants. But in the longer term, we all have to start asking why it is that the global elite have the right to move their money, or the production of goods, anywhere around the world they want, but working class people are restricted in where they can go.

Historically, the restrictions now placed on immigration in most countries were enacted in the 20th century. The rise of immigration controls goes along with the rise of generally accepted “scientific” racism. The reason they exist is so that states can control the ethnic make-up of their own people, and they are inherently racist. If in the future socialists and others are successful in building a more equal and fairer society globally, it’s to be hoped that more people won’t be forced to leave their homes because of poverty. But as things stand, everyone in the world has a right to survival, and to go wherever and do whatever it takes to ensure they can feed themselves and their families.

. . .by wiping their handshake off on Bill Clinton’s shirt.

SSY’s reconnaissance man in the Netherlands, Thomas Swann, takes a look at the Dutch political situation in the wake of the collapse of the government, and the rise of Geert Wilders:

The Dutch Parliament in The Hague

With the collapse of the governing coalition still very fresh in people’s minds, the Dutch local government elections that took place on the 3^rd of March were widely predicted to prove disastrous for the two largest parties. Indeed the Labour Party (PvdA) and the conservative Christian Democrats (CDA) lost around 700 and 200 local council seats respectively. In addition, the left-wing Socialist Party’s (SP) share fell from 306 seats to 250.

The repercussions of the elections began to be seen almost immediately, with Agnes Kant, parliamentary leader of the SP stepping down hours after the poor showing for her party. On the basis of recent opinion polls, the SP looks set to lose more than half of its 25 seats in the Dutch parliament. The party’s steady growth in the last decades has seen it become the main parliamentary opposition to the ruling PvdA/CDA/Christian Union (CU) coalition (like Scotland, the Dutch electoral system makes it highly unlikely that one party will secure enough seats to form a government by themselves, and so coalitions are made to allow a government with over 50 per cent of the seats to be formed). However, the SP’s tone on the issue of immigration, championing a ‘Dutch jobs for Dutch workers’ line, for example, has lost them support among left-wing activists.

In Nijmegen, christened ‘Havana on the Waal’ (the Waal being the river that passes through the city) because of its strong left-wing showing in previous elections and the large student and squatter movements that existed in the past, the SP’s share of the vote fell to just over 12 per cent. On the 16^th of March the left-wing coalition between the SP, Green-Left and the PvdA was replaced by a centre-left grouping of Green-Left, the PvdA and the social-liberal D66. According to Alex de Jong of the Dutch socialist organisation Grenzeloos, the SP lost credibility as a result of their response to the credit crisis of the last two years: ‘The crisis, the SP leadership thought, would force the other parties to renounce neoliberalism and move them closer to its positions. What is happening instead is that working people are made to pay for anti-crisis measures and that the SP lost its profile as the party of the opposition. A left-wing perspective in the debate about the causes and solutions for the crisis was barely visible.

Geert Wilders: "I'm too sexy for my racist shirt"

Another casualty of the local elections was the leader of the PvdA, Wouter Bos, who had previously held the position of Deputy Prime Minister in the cabinet of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. Two weeks before the local elections, Bos’s time as Deputy PM came to an end when the ruling coalition in parliament collapsed following crisis talks on withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan. The PvdA had refused to support NATO’s request for a longer deployment (a position supported by the CDA) and demanded that the Dutch mission end this year, as was previously agreed.

Perhaps the most striking result of the local government elections, however, was the victory of the extreme-right Party for Freedom (PVV) headed by anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders. The PVV stood in only two towns but came first in one and second in the other. In Almere the PVV won 9 seats becoming the largest party with 21 per cent, and in The Hague they came out with 8 seats, second to the PvdA. While the PVV has not been successful in forming a ruling coalition in either town, their role as the largest opposition party does not bode well. In the Dutch parliament, where the PVV holds only 9 of 150 seats, they have already been instrumental in shifting policy to the right. The ban on squatting, narrowly passed with the PVV’s support, had originally contained a 4 month jail sentence for anyone convicted of squatting. In exchange for the support of the PVV, the CDA, VVD and CU agreed to increase this to 1 year.

Wilder’s anti-Islam stance has met with popular support. Two polls conducted in the last weeks revealed him to be the third most popular candidate for Prime Minister with as much as 17 per cent of the people backing him. In addition, the PVV has in recent months been repeatedly suggested to come out the winner in the general elections to be held in June. The party, of which Wilders is the only member, came second in the European Parliament elections and is expected to gain between 25 and 27 seats in the Dutch parliament. While this would not put him in a position to rule, any coalition without the PVV would be difficult. So, while Wilders may not become Prime Minister of the Netherlands, his racist views on Islam, Moroccans and immigrants from Muslim countries will pull government policy further to the right.

The English Defence League - respectful and polite

To get a picture of the kind of policy this might be, just take a look at some of Wilders’ demands: changing the part of the Dutch constitution that forbids racial and religious discrimination, closing the borders to Muslims, banning the Koran, taxing head scarves and banning such clothing from public buildings. While this type of rhetoric may prove popular with the BNP and the English Defence League (who turned out to support Wilders on his recent UK visit), there is as yet no figure in UK politics comparable to Wilders. His success has been attributed to his ability to present racist and Islamophobic views while distancing himself from extreme-right thugs. This is something the BNP is unable to do. However, the environment in the UK is ripe for someone else to maneuver into position and grab the anti-Islam vote and at the same time appear respectable and so appeal to a larger amount of people than the BNP can.

While the main political parties, with the exception of the D66, have been unable to properly challenge Wilders in parliament, anti-racist activists have come together under the banner of the Wilders Sluit Ook Jou Uit (Wilders Shut You Out Too) campaign. This grouping aims at building a grassroots resistance to Wilders and the extreme-right policies he supports. The mainstream parties in the UK are proving themselves just as incapable, or perhaps unwilling, as their Dutch counterparts in seriously challenging Islamophobia and a racist line on immigration. Ulitmately, they argue simply that their policy is better for dealing with the problem of immigration, rather than attempting to challenge the perception of immigration as a problem. Therefore, it seems that in the UK too, resistance to Islamophobia will not be found in parliament or on Newsnight, but instead on the streets and in the communities who are prepared to reject racist populism and stand up for the rights of immigrants.

Geert Wilders manages to make Glenn Beck sound moderate:

UKIP are the most successful minor party in British electoral history. Despite having no MP’s, no official backing from any major newspaper, and only 70 councillors UKIP were able to beat the Lib Dems and come third in 2004’s European Elections. Last year they went further, coming second and beating the governing Labour Party. Today UKIP send as many MEP’s to Brussels as Labour do. This is a formiddable achievement for a party that was only founded in 1993.

Despite this fantastic growth, there has been very little discussion or criticism of UKIP on the Left. This is despite UKIP representing a “radical” right-wing constituency, with MEP’s further to the right than most Tory MP’s and who would attack the standard of living of working people quite dramatically if elected.

Most concern on the Left to radical right wing parties has been directed to the growth of the BNP, who picked up 2 MEP’s at the last European Election. UKIP is very obviously and clearly not the same kind of party as the BNP but there is definitely competition between both parties for the same anti-EU, anti-Immigration, nationalist vote. This vote isn’t homogeneous however and there are important differences. UKIP attract a wealthier, home counties right-wing vote, compared to the BNP who attract support from much poorer areas in English cities.

UKIP and the BNP also have differences in how they view society should be organised; UKIP are made up of Thatcherites who are too Eurosceptic for the Tory Party but still uphold the free market and libertarian values. The BNP in contrast support protectionism for British companies – this has led to some on the Tory nutter right to attack the BNP as “Left-wing”. Farage, UKIP’s former leader and best known public figure says the difference between them and the BNP is that they are the “do what you like party” and the BNP are the “hang em and flog em party”.

Parliament for the jocks you say? What ho, no, let them use the one behind me!

Of course the biggest and most fundamental difference between the two parties is that the BNP is still a neo-Nazi organisation pretending to be a populist right wing one, while UKIP is just a populist right-wing party. UKIP doesn’t believe in the racial supremacy fantasies of the BNP and has no problems with ethnic minorities as candidates or members. It’s for this reason that it would be unimaginable (and wrong) for UKIP to be no platformed the way the BNP is.

Despite these important differences however, UKIP deserves a lot more attention and criticism from the Left than it has got. It’s generally been ignored by the Left as it is not in any position to control the Government or Local councils and because its not a fascist organisation like the BNP. However UKIP may not always be the eccentric party of ex-Tory Daily Mail readers, able to attract a bit of a laugh now and again with some Bernard Manning style comments about women or attacking the EU President as a damp rag.

UKIP’s potential danger can be seen in the man they invited last week to the House of Lords – Geert Wilders. UKIP’s leader, Lord Pearson invited Wilders to broadcast his anti-Muslim film “Fitna”. Wilders was also welcomed to London by the English Defence Leage, producing an unholy trinity of football casuals, ex-Tory lords and Wilders. This display was another example of the EDL are acting as violent thugs for ideas which are circulated and promoted by well heeled members of the establishment who are far more “respectable” than they are.

I likesh a shmoke and a pancake, but I don't likesh the Mushlimsh

UKIP have tried to justify their love in with Wilders on the basis that we need to have a discussion about “radical Islam”. Time and time again however Wilders has made clear that his problem is with Islam, and sees no difference between moderate and radical Muslims. Wilders today is the most successful far-Right politician in Europe, and has a real chance of becoming the next Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

Wilders has made it a demand for any coalition Government in which his Party for Freedom (PVV) takes part, that the hijab is banned from all public institutions; meaning any Muslim who wears the hijab will be banned from working in or using a library, swimming pool, school etc. Wilders does not even attempt to cover his attack on Muslims by saying its about secularism – he openly says Jewish skull caps and crucifixes will not be affected by this law, as they are a part of western culture.

People should remember that the hijab is not the burqa. Unlike the burqa, which is an extreme form of Islamic dress worn by a very small number of Muslims in Europe the Hijab is a far more modest headscarf little different from a nuns habit. The hijab is worn by a massive proportion of Muslim women – banning them from wearing it is a clear attack on their civil rights. There is no practical difference between someone who wears a hijab, a turban or skullcap in how they do their job or use public services. They have been singled out because they are Muslims.

Wilders has also called for the banning of the Koran, and for Guantanamo bay style facilities for Muslims in the Netherlands. He is also a staunch defender of Israel – Wilders PVV is in fact interested with fighting a war against the freedoms of the Netherlands’s Muslim minority.

How far UKIP will go down the PVV road remains to be seen, but it is clear that they are attempting to win support not just from attacking the EU but now from attacking Muslims. UKIP have become the first party in the UK to call for the banning of the Burka in all public places. This is further than even the BNP wants to go – they only want the burka banned in govt buildings. Whatever criticism can be made of the burka for it’s attacks on women’s rights it’s clear that if UKIP are cosying up with Wilders it is unlikely they are banning it to emancipate Muslim women.

UKIP also need to be dug up by the Left for their hypocrisy on the issues of democracy and accountability they claim to uphold. UKIP have won virtually all their support on their largely correct attacks on the European President and European Commission for being totally unaccountable and unelected – but they see no contradiction between these institutions and having an unelected Lord as leader! There is no attack on the House of Lords from UKIP on what it is, an undemocratic chamber which has the power to stop laws being made by a parliament with elected MP’s.

UKIP’s policy on Scotland also betrays their Tory roots – they call for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, an act that would return Scotland to the bad old days of the 80’s where our votes were irrelevant, and the votes of middle England would decide who rules Scotland.

After all as bad as the EU parliament is, its done nothing like force the poll tax on Scotland using MP’s elected in England – but then again, that wouldn’t bother UKIP much seeing as they argue for a “flat tax”. A flat tax means that everyone pays the same amount of tax for their services regardless of their income, which was of course the exact same principle the poll tax used. They also call for a reduction in the rate of corporation tax, referring to Thatcher and Reagan’s UK and USA as a justification. This flat tax would also mean less funding for public services, cutting jobs and services in order to transfer even more wealth to the rich. This “freedom” for companies to do whatever they want is part of UKIP’s attack on the alleged “social democratic consensus” at Westminster.

Both this flat tax and reduction in corporation tax would be another salvo in a war which has been going on for 30 years, a war between the richest 1% of the population who have seen their wealth skyrocket whilst the working majority have seen their wealth stagnate or barely increase. Alongside their cosying up to someone who is determined to deny public services and jobs to Muslims in the Netherlands, it shows up UKIP as being a bit more dangerous than their charismatic and dotty English Toff MEP’s suggest.

Right now UKIP are unlikely to put into practice any of these policies. Both parties of the radical right in the UK, the BNP and UKIP have major barriers to growth. In the case of the BNP it’s their racism and neo-Nazi baggage. For UKIP its being identified as solely interested in Europe.

The PVV in the Netherlands shows that these barriers can be overcome however. If UKIP and the BNP dealt with these barriers by dumping Griffin and other neo-Nazis, paid more attention to domestic affairs and founded a new radical right party along the lines of the PVV there is little to stop them from emulating Wilders success. There is clearly a very large vote for opposing the EU, immigration, political correctness and for old school Tory values that Cameron has had to cede somewhat to take the centre ground.

Such a party of the radical right would pose a threat to Scotland’s democratic rights, working peoples status in the tax system, funding to public services and civil rights of Muslims in the UK. Remember that the next time you see Nigel Farage guffaw on Question Time and ask if anyone wants to go for a punt and a Pimms.