Paolo Di Canio: Is Fascism acceptable now?

So this weekend, premier league strugglers, Sunderland fired their manager Martin O’Neill and replaced him with self-declared fascist, Paolo Di Canio. Now, I know you’re going to say, “but what does it matter, as long as Sunderland stay up?”

You may not worry about the man’s political views, but when those same views (held by others) are responsible for the deaths of millions of people (Jews, Gypsies, etc) I think we should be concerned. And they concerned former foreign secretary, David Miliband – himself of Jewish extraction – so much that he resigned from the Sunderland board immediately. Apparently, that’s an overreaction. It’s lead to calls for Di Canio to “clarify” his political beliefs.

Firstly, it amuses me how they legitimise an anti-democratic, racist ideology by referring to them as beliefs. Now, before you all come squealing at me “he’s not a racist, he said so”, I’ll just remind you that one characteristic of fascism is demonisation of a scapegoat. This can be a political scapegoat, like communists, but is often an ethnic group or foreigners in general. Just look at Golden Dawn in Greece for an example of this.

(If you want to read more of fascism’s characteristics, here’s a good link)

Secondly, while some are concerned about an extremist at the helm of a premiership football club, others are wondering what’s the big deal. After all, it’s only his political views. What’s worrying about the second attitude is the disregard for the dangers of what an extremist ideology can do, and also the disrespect shown to all those who fought and died fighting fascism in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. It follows the growing popularity of extremist organisations across Europe – The National Front in France, Golden Dawn in Greece, the English Defence League – which are responding to the economic crisis by blaming migrants, specifically North African/South Asian migrants, for the mess the banks caused. Where will it end? Views that were once considered repulsive, are slowly becoming acceptable and popular among a section of society.

As Pastor Martin Niemoller once wrote;

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

One day, fascist ideology will have made such progress into society that there will be no one left who is shocked and repulsed by it.

Coalition whacks the poor in the wallet

Last night with his merry majority of 56, Iain Duncan Smith won his vote to cap benefits to a 1% (one percent) rise per year. The Tory logic is that “it’s not fair” on hard-working people (read: “deserving poor”) who haven’t had an wage rise for years.

Very well, but if you look at the list of welfare benefits that this change will effect, most are received by those in work on low incomes – for example, tax credits and income support. Even the Department for Work and Pensions, admitted the poorest would suffer most. That includes those in work, as well as those stuck on Jobseekers Allowance because the recession kicked them out of work.

So what is the point of these changes, if rather than help the poor, they actually push them closer to poverty. IDS referenced the answer in the debate yesterday when he said that Labour spent

“like drunks on a Friday night”.

Meaning that this is not so much about benefit reform as deficit reduction. Then the question is, why do you expect the poor to pay off the deficit? What do you expect to get out of someone on a very low income, apart from beans and crumbs? It seems that by targeting a section of the poor perceived to be scroungers, (and Labour are just as guilty of using this inflammatory language) public attention is diverted away from the real scroungers and cheats – the large corporations and mega-rich individuals who exploit every loophole going to avoid paying the correct amount of tax. That’s you, Vodafone, Amazon, Starbucks and Lord Ashcroft! If the public realised that the financial problems aren’t caused by a single mother struggling to feed her kids on a tiny wage and tax credits, then the Tories may just be worried.

Palestinian Statehood: So what next?

UN General Assembly recognises Palestine.

In the early hours of this morning, it was announced that the United Nations General Assembly had voted to recognise Palestine as a “Non-Member State”, by a majority of 138 for to 9 against. Well, as majorities go, that’s pretty damn convincing.

So, what does it mean for Palestine?

Well, if you believe every word the antagonists (Israel, US, among others) tell you – then this will make no difference to the situation on the ground unless Palestine continue negotiations. Shifting any responsibility from Israel. However, if Israel and Hamas negative responses to the UN vote is an indicator, then the situation between the two nations remains very hostile. It all seems that Mahmoud Abbas is trying to push for a reasonable resolution, while everyone else insists on being unreasonable and unco-operative.

Maybe the vote shows just how much support Palestine has from the international community. The majority of nation states voted for status as a “non-member observer”, but none of those were the most powerful, who continue to take the side of Israel. And without a powerful country on their side, Palestine are still at a disadvantage.

The Paralympics and Atos

#Atos have installed snipers in the roof with face recognition software. It’ll save time, apparently.

— Chris T–T (@christt) August 29, 2012

(It’s a slightly black joke, but all good satire is slightly dark)

As we all watch the Paralympics and smile patronisingly at the disabled people competing, a good number of the population sense the irony in one of LOCOG’s choice of sponsors. Atos – also the government’s choice of stick to beat the disabled into work. Are they standing in the changing rooms with clip boards assessing the athletes? “Right. You’ve just wheeled 100m in twenty seconds, you’re fit for work.”

That may not be accurate, but it’s a good illustration of what the company is doing to disabled people across the country. From people in wheelchairs to cancer patients to the visually impaired. People with a range of disabilities have been given less than the 15 points required for Employment and Support Allowance, and are declared fit for work.

To most people this would seem illogical. How can you force people who are not in the physical shape to work? A cancer patient is too sick to have to add work to the schedule of chemo and radiotherapy. A visually impaired person cannot be expected to see dangers, and would be a danger to themselves and others a workplace. How can Atos and the Department for Work and Pensions decide that a wheelchair-bound person is able to work, when many areas of public transport are not open to them? Then there’s an issue of throwing more people into the job cattle market, when there are no jobs to apply for.

See the irony? A stage for people with disabilities (and good at sport) to shine, being sponsored by a company that is contracted to make their lives as horrible as possible. No matter how much the coalition say, “oh we’ve got to cut public spending”, “the previous government left the country’s finances in a mess” – it does not justify picking on those less able or disadvantaged.

So, while you watch the Paralympic coverage and marvel at those disabled people who excel at sport – remember that many people like them (without the “good at sport” bit) are having to fight a dirty war for something they are entitled to.

Pussy Riot: Not anti-Christian hooligans

Russian feminist punk rockers, Pussy Riot, have been sentenced to two years in prison for “hooliganism inspired by religious hatred”. When you look at the English translation of what they actually said, and why they chose to perform in an Orthodox Cathedral, you realise that the verdict is laughable.

The actual lyrics, as translated by the Free Pussy Riot website;

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, become a feminist
Become a feminist, become a feminist

(end chorus)

The Church’s praise of rotten dictators
The cross-bearer procession of black limousines
A teacher-preacher will meet you at school
Go to class – bring him money!

Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin
Bitch, better believe in God instead
The belt of the Virgin can’t replace mass-meetings
Mary, Mother of God, is with us in protest!

Hardly threatening the foundation of Christian faith. What the group were actually protesting against was the cosy relationship between Vladimir Putin and the Russian church. History has shown us that when the church and state are cuddling up in bed together, people tend to be oppressed and the church tends to act a little unchristian. Rather than launching full assault on the faith of the world’s Christians, Pussy Riot were simply calling for an end to the rule of Putin (which it does seem has gone on forever) and for the church to stop trying to be best mates with the government.

Detailed analysis will follow.

Robin of Andalucia

In a town in Andalucia, southern Spain, the mayor is staging robberies of supermarkets (all proceeds go to the poor) and marching across the desert trying to convince other local government officials to ignore central government demands for austerity. The Guardian paints him as a slightly eccentric folk hero and Spanish newspaper El Pais seems to be filing him in the “Dangerous Revolutionary” drawer.

So far, so heart-warming. It’s a guy angry at the way [insert country here]‘s government have been punishing the poor for the greed of the rich, and thinking stealing on their behalf is the best way to prove a point. A modern day Robin Hood to cheer us up amid the rain, post-Olympic blues and recession. The end.

If it were that simple, then the media could portray him as a criminal and move along. However, look a little closer and you will find out that rather than a random act of criminality inspired by righteous anger – Mayor Juan Sanchez Gordillo actually has a working economic plan.

The New York Times reported on the low unemployment and low cost of living in Marinaleda about three years ago. No one is out of work for long, as the local farming co-operative will find work for them. This idea is so attractive, that people are moving from as far as Barcelona in search of work there. High employment, low and comfortable cost of living mean more disposable income floating around.

Imagine that – government creating work for people so they don’t starve during a recession! Why didn’t you think of that, Cameron and Osborne?

Is the UK’s democracy in decline?

Interesting – and slightly worrying – piece in The Guardian this evening about the sorry state of democracy in the UK. It’s illustrated with a photograph of Boris Johnson, but I’m sure that is nothing to do with the actual story!

Anyway a group called Democratic Audit has shared the findings of its report with the Guardian, and the conclusions paint a bleak picture. While devolution and Parliamentary select committees were welcomed (because the latter does a good job at holding the likes of Rupert Murdoch to account), it’s concerns were over how much parliament really represents us and how much power corporations hold over us.

Now, in the last few years Parliament has had enough scandal to turn most of the country away from politics. The expenses saga showed us that a lot of our so-called representatives are more concerned about lining their own pockets than their constituents. The state of the economy and the worries over cuts to services mean that the public see a government full of wealthy young men, out of touch with the majority of the population, who never have to worry about Workfare or the closure of their local libraries. The Phone Hacking scandal and the subsequent Leveson Inquiry showed us just how close big business, government and parts of the state really are. The question the report’s author asks is,

Britons could soon have to ask themselves “whether it’s really representative democracy any more?”

Is the government representative of the whole country, or just the interests of Murdoch and Eton Old Boys?

That said, there is a strong civil society opposition to the public spending cuts, like the local opposition to the closure of Friern Barnet Library and the UK Uncut group which plans sit-ins against corporations known to be guilty of tax evasion. The internet and twitter are full of active bloggers and politicos – though these might be the kind of people who aren’t ever going to be disillusioned by politics, no matter how many Eton Old Boys are thrown into government. Indeed, politics is becoming an interest for the minority, while most people look from the outside and see back-stabbers, expenses-fiddlers, careerists and out of touch rich boys arguing amongst themselves, whilst making sure they steer well clear.

The sad thing is, if we don’t reach out to the people alienated and fed up of politics, then the democratic deficit is only going to get bigger.

The morality of bankers

A couple of new stories about the financial sector caught our attention this week. The first was the LIBOR scandal – Barclays and other banks deliberately fixing the inter-bank lending rate for profit. Then there was the scandal that banks were forcing them to take out Interest rate protection insurance with crippingly high repayments. Proving yet again, that banking is the business of cowboys.

As is understandable, the public reaction has been one of outrage. While millions of people are struggling with the austerity measures and recession, here are the people who caused the crash cheating their way to wealth and celebrating with bottles of Champagne. Ed Miliband has called for a public inquiry into the corrupt practices of the banks, Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian called for the bankers involved to be punished just like last summer’s rioters (the difference between rioters and bankers is the latter have stolen a lot more). Meanwhile, the chief of Barclays, Bob Diamond, called it “inappropriate behaviour” carried out by “a small number of people”, as he tried to deflect the blame from himself and his company.

What is obvious to most people – even, I suspect the Time and Telegraph readers – is that the banking sector have basically been allowed to do what they want for far too long. Not enough regulation has meant they have been free to bully small businesses and individuals, and not enough control has allowed them to get away with activities that are blatantly criminal. A footballer found guilty of match fixing would be banned from the game and jailed. A public sector worker caught stealing from work would be sacked and prosecuted. Why not punish the bankers responsible as well?

Rio +20: Give us 20 more years to talk about it

So, the International Hot Air bandwagon returned to Rio for a twentieth anniversary talking shop about the environment. In the end the produced a document called The Future We Want which has been attacked by pretty much everyone with an interest in looking after the planet as not actually doing anything.

While politicians from Ban Ki-moon to Hilary Clinton patted themselves on the back and said, “isn’t this document wonderful” (well, not exactly in those words, but along those lines), environment activists such as Greenpeace and Tearfund said it didn’t actually set out what they are going to do.

Greenpeace were scathing in their criticism of the document;

“We didn’t get the Future We Want in Rio, because we do not have the leaders we need. The leaders of the most powerful countries supported business as usual, shamefully putting private profit before people and the planet.”

It’s like they want to be seen to be paying attention to the fact that the world’s finite resources aren’t going to last forever, but don’t actually want to do anything to change their lifestyles. It’s easy to see why Greenpeace have come to this conclusion – it takes ten pages for the document to start a bullet point with something other than a recognition or affirmation, and half-heartedly “encourage” countries to develop green policies. Yes, encourage green policies and job creation – while most of Europe imposes job cuts and austerity on the poor. I can’t really see any of them keeping to that point in the document.

Reading through the document, it’s obvious that the discussions were little more than an academic exercise for the delegates, rather than a serious attempt to actually formulate policies for sustainable development. And it makes me despair for the future that we actually want.

Why Cameron can’t sack Hunt

Baroness Warsi: Takes family member on official trip, and fails to disclose business interest.
Jeremy Hunt: Responsible for overseeing the BskyB takeover (which would have required impartial judgement). Sends texts and makes phone calls to James Murdoch, congratulating him whenever the bid made some progress.

Now, who did David Cameron refer to the Ministerial Code Advisor? Only Baroness Warsi. Hunt, who was clearly too close to The Murdochs to judge the BskyB bid impartially – something that we all knew then, and was confirmed with his appearance at the Leveson Inquiry – survives for now. Both have done wrong but the Prime Minister protects one of them, and it’s very obvious why.

1. Andy Coulson – Ex News of the Screws editor, Ex communications chief at Number 10 and just this week charged with Perjury by a Scottish court for lying under oath during the perjury trial of Tommy Sheridan. Coulson resigned from NOTW, remarkably claims to know nothing about phone-hacking and later resigned from his job at Number 10. Cameron refused to send Coulson away with his P45. You could argue that Coulson might not have known about phone hacking, but that would just make him an incompetent boss. Incompetent or criminal – neither justify keeping him at Number 10 for so long.

2. Rebekah and Charlie Brooks – Close friends of David Cameron who were recently charged with perverting the course of justice. Rebekah Brooks was the editor of another Murdoch tabloid The Sun, has been described as like a daughter to Murdoch and last year resigned from her News International position as the Phone Hacking story really blew up.

So, you might say. Cameron’s surrounded by ex-Murdoch employees, doesn’t mean he’s close to Murdoch. Well, a quick Google search for “Cameron and Murdoch” reveals,

The PM met a News Corp board member secretly in November 2009. If there was nothing untoward in this meeting, why did he not disclose it sooner?

Rebekah Brooks mentioned in her evidence to the Leveson Inquiry that Cameron had met her and the Murdochs at social occasions. Also, James Murdoch discussed the BskyB deal with Cameron over dinner.

It’s worth remembering that Hunt was handed the responsibility for judging the BskyB deal after Vince Cable had been recorded saying he had “declared war on Murdoch”, and was deemed to be too partisan. Interesting then that they should choose someone partisan towards Murdoch. They couldn’t have Murdoch’s bid for domination of the sky halted by some old man who hated Murdoch.

So it’s obvious that Cameron is so deeply involved in the Murdoch family, that he can’t possibly refer Hunt to Ministerial Codeman or remove him from the cabinet. In this case, they really are all in it together.