Louise Nousratpour
Thursday November 16, 2006
The Morning Star Foreign News
THOUSANDS of campaigners demonstrated throughout Sweden on Wednesday night to express their opposition to the newly elected Moderate Party's plans to cut unemployment benefits.
Organised by anarcho-syndicalist trade union federation Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation, activists clogged the streets of Stockholm, Gothenburg and 21 other cities chanting anti-government slogans and demanding: "Hands off our unemployment benefits."
Rather than relying on taxpayers' money, Sweden's unemployment insurance scheme is a self-financing system in which 4.45 per cent of wages are automatically diverted into the unemployment benefit kitty.
Campaigners warned that the right-wing Moderate Party's plans would cut benefits for the unemployed by 15 per cent, while raising employee contributions.
"We demand the complete withdrawal of these ill-thought-out proposals," said SAC campaign co-ordinator Torfi Magnusson.
The neoliberal government's proposals are contained in a new unemployment Bill that was presented to the Swedish parliament on Thursday.
State of vengeance
LOUISE NOUSRATPOUR looks at why the United States wants to kill Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Monday October 30, 2006
The Morning Star
BY the age of 15, Mumia Abu-Jamal had a 600-page FBI file under his name and was on the US National Security Index as a dangerous subversive to be interned in a national emergency.
"When he was arrested, Mumia was a journalist who was already known as 'the voice of the voiceless'," says Mumia's lawyer Robert R Bryan on a visit to London to mobilise public support for an forthcoming court review case.
"Many people are drawn to this case, not because they think Mumia is innocent, but because they are against capital punishment or they just don't know what happened and feel a fair trial is needed to allow Mumia to tell his side of the story."
The case has returned to the spotlight, "because, for the first time, there is a real chance that Mumia is granted a retrial," Bryan says.
On December 9 1981, Mumia went to save his brother from an apparently senseless beating that he was receiving at the hands of Philadelphia police. Shots were fired, Mumia was critically wounded and officer Daniel Faulkner was left dead.
Forensic evidence proved that Faulkner had shot Mumia, but no proof has ever been produced indicating that Mumia had killed Faulkner. In fact, much of the evidence prove otherwise and at least four witness accounts point to a gunman fleeing the scene before more police arrived.
Bryan explains that the initial trial in 1982 and the post-conviction proceedings were a "travesty of justice," peppered with false statements from coerced witnesses, faulty ballistics, court bias and racism. Mumia was denied his constitutional right to self-representation and the jury was systematically purged of qualified African-Americans.
Having specialised in death penalty litigation for three decades, Bryan quickly turned Mumia's case around when he took over in 2003. His submissions to the US Court of Appeal, which is directly below the Supreme Court, persuaded judges in December 2005 to grant a review of key issues, which could lead to a fresh trial early next year.
"Issues up for review include racism in jury selection, the bias of trial judge Albert Sabo and prejudice arguments by the prosecutors turned the presumption of innocence on its head," Bryan explains.
Sabo, who has put more people on death row than any other judge in the US, was overheard by a court stenographer during a trial recess to have said that he was going to help the prosecution "fry the nigger."
Bryan says wryly: "If the state wants someone dead, it will appoint the right judge. In Mumia's case, Sabo was the perfect candidate." The veteran anti-death penalty campaigner insists that Mumia "has become a pin-up for the international campaign against capital punishment because everything that could go wrong in a capital case - court bias, lack of funds for the defence, incompetent lawyers - has."
Bryan dismisses the court's heroic portrayal of Faulkner as "nonsense," pointing out that "Faulkner, like many officers in Philadelphia, was profoundly racist and had a reputation in the black community.
"For nearly 25 years," says the lawyer, "Mumia has endured unjust treatment while living in a small, dank cell, where he can hardly move around. But, despite this miserable existence and government attempts to silence him, Mumia continues to speak out."
The prisoner has written a series of human rights-related books and articles from Pennsylvania's death row. He acts as a lawyer for inmates who cannot afford legal representation and has a weekly radio broadcast, Dispatches From Death Row.
"I have never seen the authorities wanting someone dead so zealously," comments Bryan.
"They thought that, by putting Mumia on death row, they could shut him up. But he has become an international figure and his voice against injustice and oppression has grown stronger," he says, warning: "The government now knows that the only way to silence his pen and his voice is to strap him down and take the very life out of him."
Mumia's unflinching stand has brought him enduring support from justice campaigners and high-profile figures like Angela Davis and Nelson Mandela. Many cities across the globe, including Paris, have made him their honorary citizen.
The US authorities have not yet dared to kill Mumia. The court once set a date for his execution - August 17 1995 - but overwhelming global protests forced the judge to retreat.
But, warns Bryan, "he is dead without public backing. We will fight his legal case in court, but worldwide support will make all the difference."
A petition initiated by Ian MacDonald QC and British-based Legal Action for Women (LAW) calling for a retrial has won the backing of over 150 British lawyers.
"This is the kind of action that makes an enormous difference," Bryan says.
"Mumia is a symbol for all political prisoners and those on death row. If he risks death to stand up for our values, the least we can do is speak out for him."
Over 350 prisoners have been executed in the US since 1990 and a further 3,300 are currently on death row, most of them African-Americans.
But the authorities have failed to dispirit Mumia, whose refusal to "muffle his dissent" could cost him his life, Bryan says, in the McCarthyite post-September 11 2001 US.
At the Free Mumia conference in London on October 20, LAW co-ordinator Niki Adams called for vigilance, warning: "We know what goes on in the US could soon be exported here."
Bryan is positive about Mumia's case but also aware of the obsticles on the way.
"I'm confident that, if we are granted a new and fair trial, Mumia will walk free. But the legal system in the US, as everywhere, is arbitrary, it makes mistakes and, in this case, my client could end up dead," he sighs.
"So, I'm frightened and Mumia, although he always sees a light at the end of the tunnel, knows that there is a gallows at the end of that tunnel.
"If we can win this case and free him, the good work he has done from that small, miserable cell on death row, he could do much better as a free man."
Delegates pledge to fight US warmongers
Louise Nousratpour in Blackpool
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Morning Star
TARGET OF THE US: Conference highlighted the need to defend the emerging socialist societies of Venezuela and Bolivia under Hugo Chavez (right) and Evo Morales.
NATFHE delegates in Blackpool vowed yesterday to intensify their international campaign in the face of increased "neoliberal warmongering" in the Middle East and Latin America.
Conference stressed the need to strengthen the union's successful international activities to defend emerging socialist countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia, while showing strong opposition to the continued illegal war in Iraq, sanctions on Palestine and possible attacks on Iran.
In a range of motions on international issues, delegates stressed the importance of carrying the campaign into the new merged union UCU.
Southern delegate David Fysh demanded an end to the US and British-backed economic sanctions on Palestine, as well as the recognition of the democratically elected Hamas government.
He also called on delegates to reaffirm their support for Palestinian universities and colleges.
West Midlands delegate Darrall Cozens condemned the recent hostile media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's visit to London which falsely depicted him as a dictator.
Mr Cozens argued that the US had increased its interference and economic sabotage in Venezuela to prepare the ground for an invasion.
"If the US was not bogged down in Iraq, it would have invaded the country by now," Mr Cozens warned, urging delegates to chant pro-Chavez slogans to show support for Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution.
During a debate on Iran, Yorkshire and Humberside delegate Howard Miles condemned the US and Britain's "hypocritical sabre-rattling" over Tehran's nuclear programme.
Mr Miles called on conference to step-up its anti-war campaign by encouraging all branches as well as the new union to support the Stop the War Coalition's position of "Bring the troops home, don't attack Iran."
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Morning Star
TARGET OF THE US: Conference highlighted the need to defend the emerging socialist societies of Venezuela and Bolivia under Hugo Chavez (right) and Evo Morales.
NATFHE delegates in Blackpool vowed yesterday to intensify their international campaign in the face of increased "neoliberal warmongering" in the Middle East and Latin America.
Conference stressed the need to strengthen the union's successful international activities to defend emerging socialist countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia, while showing strong opposition to the continued illegal war in Iraq, sanctions on Palestine and possible attacks on Iran.
In a range of motions on international issues, delegates stressed the importance of carrying the campaign into the new merged union UCU.
Southern delegate David Fysh demanded an end to the US and British-backed economic sanctions on Palestine, as well as the recognition of the democratically elected Hamas government.
He also called on delegates to reaffirm their support for Palestinian universities and colleges.
West Midlands delegate Darrall Cozens condemned the recent hostile media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's visit to London which falsely depicted him as a dictator.
Mr Cozens argued that the US had increased its interference and economic sabotage in Venezuela to prepare the ground for an invasion.
"If the US was not bogged down in Iraq, it would have invaded the country by now," Mr Cozens warned, urging delegates to chant pro-Chavez slogans to show support for Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution.
During a debate on Iran, Yorkshire and Humberside delegate Howard Miles condemned the US and Britain's "hypocritical sabre-rattling" over Tehran's nuclear programme.
Mr Miles called on conference to step-up its anti-war campaign by encouraging all branches as well as the new union to support the Stop the War Coalition's position of "Bring the troops home, don't attack Iran."
NATFHE backs boycott of Israeli scholars
Louise Nousratpour in Blackpool
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Morning Star
LECTURERS' union NATFHE delegates voted yesterday to boycott individual Israeli academics who are indifferent to their government's "apartheid and violent" policies, despite considerable disquiet from many members.
On the final day of conference in Blackpool, south-east delegate Tom Hickey moved the highly controversial motion, which critics warned would provoke a backlash and could even bring "dishonour" to the union.
Mr Hickey insisted that he was not calling for the academic boycott of Israel as union policy but was inviting members to "exercise their moral and professional responsiblity.
"Israeli scholars are overwhelmingly silent on Israel's apartheid policies and discriminatory educational practices," he argued.
"I urge members to consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies."
Executive member Mary Davis denied suggestions that the Israeli academics were turning a blind eye.
"They are, in fact, at the core of a strong peace movement against the occupation and everything that comes with it," she said.
"If we are to boycott Israeli academics, should we then not take the same position against those from the US and Britain, many of whom have been silent on their own governments' warmongering?"
Ms Davis warned: "This is an attempt to elevate a tactic into a principle."
In an unusual step, outgoing NATFHE general secretary Paul Mackney made an emotional plea with the hope of defeating the motion.
"It seeks to put the burden on the individuals themselves and not collective action," he insisted.
"We need sustainable policies, such as campaigning to stop the sales of arms to the Israeli state, based on collective action."
Mr Mackney also argued that the call to boycott Israeli academics "lacks legitimacy" because it had not been discussed adequately by most union branches.
Mr Hickey rejected this argument, insisting that it had followed the same procedures as any other motion.
London delegate and Academic Friends for Israel chairman Ronnie Fraser also condemned the motion.
"This will pressure members into action that is undemocratic and McCarthyite in spirit. It will bring dishonour and sheer ridicule to our union," he stormed.
The resolution was carried by a majority of 53 per cent, while around 39 per cent opposed it.
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Morning Star
LECTURERS' union NATFHE delegates voted yesterday to boycott individual Israeli academics who are indifferent to their government's "apartheid and violent" policies, despite considerable disquiet from many members.
On the final day of conference in Blackpool, south-east delegate Tom Hickey moved the highly controversial motion, which critics warned would provoke a backlash and could even bring "dishonour" to the union.
Mr Hickey insisted that he was not calling for the academic boycott of Israel as union policy but was inviting members to "exercise their moral and professional responsiblity.
"Israeli scholars are overwhelmingly silent on Israel's apartheid policies and discriminatory educational practices," he argued.
"I urge members to consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies."
Executive member Mary Davis denied suggestions that the Israeli academics were turning a blind eye.
"They are, in fact, at the core of a strong peace movement against the occupation and everything that comes with it," she said.
"If we are to boycott Israeli academics, should we then not take the same position against those from the US and Britain, many of whom have been silent on their own governments' warmongering?"
Ms Davis warned: "This is an attempt to elevate a tactic into a principle."
In an unusual step, outgoing NATFHE general secretary Paul Mackney made an emotional plea with the hope of defeating the motion.
"It seeks to put the burden on the individuals themselves and not collective action," he insisted.
"We need sustainable policies, such as campaigning to stop the sales of arms to the Israeli state, based on collective action."
Mr Mackney also argued that the call to boycott Israeli academics "lacks legitimacy" because it had not been discussed adequately by most union branches.
Mr Hickey rejected this argument, insisting that it had followed the same procedures as any other motion.
London delegate and Academic Friends for Israel chairman Ronnie Fraser also condemned the motion.
"This will pressure members into action that is undemocratic and McCarthyite in spirit. It will bring dishonour and sheer ridicule to our union," he stormed.
The resolution was carried by a majority of 53 per cent, while around 39 per cent opposed it.
Education minister comes in for heavy heckling
Louise Nousratpour in Blackpool
Monday May 29, 2006
The Morning Star
NATFHE members served Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell a heavy dose of heckling and hissing at the weekend as he struggled to defend the government's unpopular education plans.
In a tedious speech at the union's conference on Saturday, Mr Rammell tried hard to smooth-talk delegates, who made no attempt to hide their frustration with the government's failure to address their concerns over pay and poor funding.
"You are crucial to this country's core educational mission. Don't think it is not recognised," he offered, immediately provoking fierce heckling from delegates, who cried: "Pay us a decent wage then."
But, instead of acknowleding their legitimate pay claim, the minister implied that the striking lecturers had no regard for their students by taking industrial action.
Enraged Southern region delegate Dave Fysh shouted across the floor: "You're a disgrace for blaming us while the employers are the ones refusing to make a serious offer."
Mr Rammell shamelessly declared that the university bosses' initial pay offer of 12.6 per cent over three years was "very substantial," which prompted more heckling and slow clapping.
The minister went on to admit that adult education was the "Cinderella" of the education sector and pledged to tackle low pay through the discredited Forster report and the subsequent white paper.
Mr Rammell persisted that the government had a "proud record" of investment in the sector, but he suggested that private funding was necessary to meet current needs.
His comments were again drowned by loud hissing from delegates, who shouted: "Shame on you for promoting privatisation in education."
As the minister was leaving, conference broke into a spontaneous chanting: "We know it's there - where's our share?"
Monday May 29, 2006
The Morning Star
NATFHE members served Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell a heavy dose of heckling and hissing at the weekend as he struggled to defend the government's unpopular education plans.
In a tedious speech at the union's conference on Saturday, Mr Rammell tried hard to smooth-talk delegates, who made no attempt to hide their frustration with the government's failure to address their concerns over pay and poor funding.
"You are crucial to this country's core educational mission. Don't think it is not recognised," he offered, immediately provoking fierce heckling from delegates, who cried: "Pay us a decent wage then."
But, instead of acknowleding their legitimate pay claim, the minister implied that the striking lecturers had no regard for their students by taking industrial action.
Enraged Southern region delegate Dave Fysh shouted across the floor: "You're a disgrace for blaming us while the employers are the ones refusing to make a serious offer."
Mr Rammell shamelessly declared that the university bosses' initial pay offer of 12.6 per cent over three years was "very substantial," which prompted more heckling and slow clapping.
The minister went on to admit that adult education was the "Cinderella" of the education sector and pledged to tackle low pay through the discredited Forster report and the subsequent white paper.
Mr Rammell persisted that the government had a "proud record" of investment in the sector, but he suggested that private funding was necessary to meet current needs.
His comments were again drowned by loud hissing from delegates, who shouted: "Shame on you for promoting privatisation in education."
As the minister was leaving, conference broke into a spontaneous chanting: "We know it's there - where's our share?"
Mackney hits out at privatisation
Louise Nousratpour in Blackpool
Monday May 29, 2006
The Morning Star
NATFHE general secretary Paul Mackney condemned the "idiot wind" of government privatisation at the weekend when he addressed the lecturers' union's final conference.
"We've seen privatised FE before and more of it is about as welcome as snakes in a pram," Mr Mackney warned delegates during his address on Saturday.
"The new adult education is wide open to greed and sleaze with its emphasis on privatisation.
"Urging colleges to seek funding from philanthropic millionaires is like recommending oral sex with a shark," he said amid roars of laughter.
Mr Mackney, who will be retiring this year due to a heart condition, stressed that "what we want is solid state funding from a progressive taxation system, not charity from the rich who maintain their wealth in tax havens."
He also attacked university bosses' refusal to meet their workforce's demand for a 23 per cent pay rise over three years - to compensate for a 40 per cent pay decline in the past two decades compared with average earnings - which lies at the heart of the current pay dispute.
"The lethal combination of hypocrisy accompanies 'feline obesity,' with many vice-chancellors awarding themselves substantial pay rises whilst denying such increases to their front-line staff," he noted.
Mr Mackney rejected "offensive" suggestions that lecturers who are refusing to mark final exams as part of their action over pay have no regard for their students.
Earlier in the day, during her address to conference, National Union of Students president Kat Fletcher insisted that her members "stand by you every step of the way."
The NATFHE leader also took a strong line on the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israeli forces, noting that he had been sent over 5,000 emails, many of which accused him of anti-semitism and ordered him to stop a proposed motion on a boycott of Israeli goods, which will be debated today.
"The Palestinian people need support and solidarity as never before and I will not be bullied into silence," he insisted, launching a scathing attack on the international community for imposing sanctions on Palestine.
Finally, Mr Mackney called on members to take their fighting spirit against low pay, the illegal Iraq war and racism into the new union UCU, which will be formed by a merger of NATFHE and AUT on Thursday.
Monday May 29, 2006
The Morning Star
NATFHE general secretary Paul Mackney condemned the "idiot wind" of government privatisation at the weekend when he addressed the lecturers' union's final conference.
"We've seen privatised FE before and more of it is about as welcome as snakes in a pram," Mr Mackney warned delegates during his address on Saturday.
"The new adult education is wide open to greed and sleaze with its emphasis on privatisation.
"Urging colleges to seek funding from philanthropic millionaires is like recommending oral sex with a shark," he said amid roars of laughter.
Mr Mackney, who will be retiring this year due to a heart condition, stressed that "what we want is solid state funding from a progressive taxation system, not charity from the rich who maintain their wealth in tax havens."
He also attacked university bosses' refusal to meet their workforce's demand for a 23 per cent pay rise over three years - to compensate for a 40 per cent pay decline in the past two decades compared with average earnings - which lies at the heart of the current pay dispute.
"The lethal combination of hypocrisy accompanies 'feline obesity,' with many vice-chancellors awarding themselves substantial pay rises whilst denying such increases to their front-line staff," he noted.
Mr Mackney rejected "offensive" suggestions that lecturers who are refusing to mark final exams as part of their action over pay have no regard for their students.
Earlier in the day, during her address to conference, National Union of Students president Kat Fletcher insisted that her members "stand by you every step of the way."
The NATFHE leader also took a strong line on the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israeli forces, noting that he had been sent over 5,000 emails, many of which accused him of anti-semitism and ordered him to stop a proposed motion on a boycott of Israeli goods, which will be debated today.
"The Palestinian people need support and solidarity as never before and I will not be bullied into silence," he insisted, launching a scathing attack on the international community for imposing sanctions on Palestine.
Finally, Mr Mackney called on members to take their fighting spirit against low pay, the illegal Iraq war and racism into the new union UCU, which will be formed by a merger of NATFHE and AUT on Thursday.
Lecturers step up pay dispute
Louise Nousratpour in Blackpool
Monday May 29, 2006
The Morning Star
OUTRAGE: Education workers protesting outside the ICC in Birmingham, last year.
NATFHE delegates vowed yesterday to step up industrial action to force "greedy hypocrite" employers to make a fair pay offer.
Lecturers, who had hoped that a marathon 23-hour negotiation session with employers last week would produce an offer worthy of a debate at their union's conference, expressed outrage at the employers' refusal to table a deal.
They vowed to march on London on Thursday - the day when NATFHE and sister union AUT merge to form the new UCU - to demand fair pay.
NATFHE head of universities Roger Kline accused bosses of deliberately refusing to make an offer so that delegates could not discuss it at conference.
"But they misjudged the mood of our members, which is to not only maintain but to step up the action," he insisted.
"I have not received one single letter or email from any member asking me to ballot members on the bosses' initial 12.6 per cent three-year offer - which was rejected by union negotiators - or to end the dispute," he said.
"So the support for action is still rock solid," Mr Kline insisted.
Delegates heard that, during the negotiations last Thursday and Friday, employers had tabled various "inadequate" offers which had been rejected by union negotiators.
These included a two-year settlement of 9 to 11 per cent on the pay scale, which NATFHE national officer Andy Pike stressed would have been worth below 8 per cent in real terms.
Although it was a two-year deal, employers wanted to pay it out over three years - with commitments from union officials that no action would be taken in the third year.
"Bosses claimed that they could not afford anything more, so we asked for an independent financial review of their kitty," Mr Pike explained.
"They refused to meet this demand or put out a fresh offer.
"So the dispute will go on until we are made a satisfactory offer with no strings attached."
In the light of the new development, delegates vowed to stick to their original call for a 23 per cent pay rise over three years.
AUT and NATFHE members have been involved in a series of actions short of strikes for over eight months, including a refusal to mark final university exams.
Executive member Jill Jones moved a motion expressing the union's determination to fight the dispute "to the bitter end."
It was passed unanimously.
"Our members are facing daily threats of pay deductions and lock-outs, but support for continued action is solid," Ms Jones said.
Executive member Mary Davies condemned employers' "unacceptable" demand that union members should give up their right to take action in the third year of a deal.
"And, if they think pay docking will result in us caving in, they should think again.
"We will not be bullied into submission," she added to cheers.
Southern region delegate Michael Jardine hailed the National Union of Students' support for the lecturers' dispute.
"The employers' despicable behaviour is directly to blame for disruption to students' education due to our dispute - not us," he insisted.
"They will not succeed in driving a wedge between us and our students, who fully back our claim."
London delegate Steve Cushion urged members across Britain to join Thursday's demonstration to "reject the employers' pathetic offer through a united, determined, mass action."
The march will assemble at 12.30pm at London South Bank University in Keyworth Street.
Monday May 29, 2006
The Morning Star
OUTRAGE: Education workers protesting outside the ICC in Birmingham, last year.
NATFHE delegates vowed yesterday to step up industrial action to force "greedy hypocrite" employers to make a fair pay offer.
Lecturers, who had hoped that a marathon 23-hour negotiation session with employers last week would produce an offer worthy of a debate at their union's conference, expressed outrage at the employers' refusal to table a deal.
They vowed to march on London on Thursday - the day when NATFHE and sister union AUT merge to form the new UCU - to demand fair pay.
NATFHE head of universities Roger Kline accused bosses of deliberately refusing to make an offer so that delegates could not discuss it at conference.
"But they misjudged the mood of our members, which is to not only maintain but to step up the action," he insisted.
"I have not received one single letter or email from any member asking me to ballot members on the bosses' initial 12.6 per cent three-year offer - which was rejected by union negotiators - or to end the dispute," he said.
"So the support for action is still rock solid," Mr Kline insisted.
Delegates heard that, during the negotiations last Thursday and Friday, employers had tabled various "inadequate" offers which had been rejected by union negotiators.
These included a two-year settlement of 9 to 11 per cent on the pay scale, which NATFHE national officer Andy Pike stressed would have been worth below 8 per cent in real terms.
Although it was a two-year deal, employers wanted to pay it out over three years - with commitments from union officials that no action would be taken in the third year.
"Bosses claimed that they could not afford anything more, so we asked for an independent financial review of their kitty," Mr Pike explained.
"They refused to meet this demand or put out a fresh offer.
"So the dispute will go on until we are made a satisfactory offer with no strings attached."
In the light of the new development, delegates vowed to stick to their original call for a 23 per cent pay rise over three years.
AUT and NATFHE members have been involved in a series of actions short of strikes for over eight months, including a refusal to mark final university exams.
Executive member Jill Jones moved a motion expressing the union's determination to fight the dispute "to the bitter end."
It was passed unanimously.
"Our members are facing daily threats of pay deductions and lock-outs, but support for continued action is solid," Ms Jones said.
Executive member Mary Davies condemned employers' "unacceptable" demand that union members should give up their right to take action in the third year of a deal.
"And, if they think pay docking will result in us caving in, they should think again.
"We will not be bullied into submission," she added to cheers.
Southern region delegate Michael Jardine hailed the National Union of Students' support for the lecturers' dispute.
"The employers' despicable behaviour is directly to blame for disruption to students' education due to our dispute - not us," he insisted.
"They will not succeed in driving a wedge between us and our students, who fully back our claim."
London delegate Steve Cushion urged members across Britain to join Thursday's demonstration to "reject the employers' pathetic offer through a united, determined, mass action."
The march will assemble at 12.30pm at London South Bank University in Keyworth Street.
Against All Odds
Louise Nousratpour
Tuesday March 8, 2005
The Morning Star
In August 1910, European socialist leaders like Clara Zetkin, inspired by the struggles of US women factory workers, officially declared March 8 International Women’s Day to give voice to the most legally and socially oppressed member of society.
Some 70 years later, in the valleys of Zagros mountains in western Iran, Kurdish women walked in their European sisters' footsteps to claim their right to equality. Fawzieh Nousratpour is one such revolutionary, who did her bit to further the cause.
"Friends and family call me Oze - short for Fawzieh," she explains.
Born in Sanandaj, Oze was a secondary school teacher and a member of communist party Komala when the 1979 revolution broke out in Iran. She was 26.
“As a teenager, revolutionaries such as Che Guevara and Soviet novels like Maxim Gorky’s Mother had a profound impact on my view of life. I had a very romantic idea about the guerrilla movement. My hero was Leila Khaled and my dream was to join the ranks of socialists.
“With my first salary as a teacher, I bought a pistol to practice my shooting skills and to get ready to join the resistance movement. A couple of year’s later, revolution swept the country. We had high hopes for the revolution, but all those hopes were brutally crushed when the Ayatollahs ceased power.”
The million-dollar question left over from the 1979 revolution is why did a largely progressive and socialist movement resulted in a reactionary Islamic rule? I ask if Oze would like to give it a try.
“I think decisions made at the Guadeloupe conference in late 1978 - just before the revolution boiled over - played a key part. There ambassadors of the US, Britain and France threw their weight behind Khomaini, who was at the time in exile in Paris and virtually unknown to the majority of people in Iran. The imperialist powers knew that a theocracy would be a serious thorn in the side of the Soviet - more so than the Shah‘s regime ever was.
“Tens of thousands of communists were slaughtered and the revolution was lost,” she sighed, adding: “The US-led imperialists are still playing God in oil-rich Middle East. It seems that the Islamic republic has served its purpose and the US is anxious to remove it, just as it did Saddam. But any such invasion would spill disaster for people in Iran.”
She explains that the Kurdish parts of Iran were the final frontier of the revolution. There was a strong secular and socialist movement, with peshmargas - Kurdish for guerrilla - controlling cities and villages up until late 1983.
Oze volunteered as a teacher in schools set up by Komala in the liberated areas to tackle illiteracy. Later, she joined the undercover unit, shifting illegal documents between the Kurdish province and Tehran.
“I did this for a year. It was an extremely sensitive and dangerous operation. Sometimes I would have to take one of my children with me to appear less suspicious. But in summer 1982, the whole operation was exposed and we were forced to retreat to villages near the boarder.”
Now a primary teacher in Gothenburg, Sweden, Oze recalls that fateful summer when she had to leave her toddlers with her parents and flee her home town for the last time.
At the time, only the men in Komala engaged in military campaigns, she tells me, “But as the number of women peshmargas grew so did the debate about our right to military training. There were a handful of reactionary individuals, who threatened to lay down their guns if we were armed. To which we responded: ‘Good! One less reactionary man and one more gun to arm a revolutionary woman.'," she recalls the tongue-in-cheek comment and laughs heatedly.
She was one of the leading campaigners in calling for equal rights to military training and in autumn 1982, the first women unit was formed. Oze was one of the 13 women chosen from a list of volunteers. After a month of training, they set off on a campaign aimed at raising political awareness among women in the villages.
“It was winter when we first set off. I remember the snow and the piercing cold as we marched from one village to the next, singing military songs and chanting slogans,” she says, gently humming one of those melodies under he breath.
The women peshmargas held meetings in the local Mosques, highlighting women’s right to engage in all aspects of social and family life. They discussed arranged marriage, minimum age for girls to marry, birth control, and other equality issues.
“We were the perfect example of how women could and should join the struggle. That is why our campaign was so effective. We especially inspired the young women, many of whom joined the party.”
Does she remember encountering hostilities from chauvinist and reactionary elements in society as a woman?
“Reactionary tendencies had weakened in the post-revolutionary climate of Kurdistan and such incidents were very rare,” she explains. “A common struggle for freedom and equality had pulled people together and the communist movement had a strong presence in these areas. Peshmargas were revered as heroes and we, as women, were treated no different.”
Why did the left movement was so influential in the Kurdish province?
She argues that the new Islamic regime “failed to gain support in those areas mainly because people there were not religious and a theocracy did not respond to their bread and butter concerns. In the same breath, left prisoners freed from the Shah’s jails during the revolution resumed activities in the liberated areas and successfully rallied people to their cause.
“Peshmargas would hold discussions on atheism and gender inequalities in the local Mosques, yet never once were we thrown out or even branded kafir - Arabic for unbeliever.
“Komala was finally forced out in autumn 1983. I was nearly nine months pregnant with my third child when we were forced to retreat into Iraq - on tractors.”
Looking back at her life as a revolutionary woman, does she have any regrets?
“I have no regrets,” Oze says firmly. “I felt part of a greater movement fighting for the good of everyone and nothing can beat that. I’m disappointed at what is happening in the Kurdish areas today, with reactionary elements being fanned by nationalist groups in the pay of US imperialism.
“I am also angry that even in Sweden - famous for its gender equality achievements- we are still treated as second class citizens. I am not naïve, I know that there can be no equality without socialism, but that does not mean we cannot push the boundaries under capitalism.
“We still need to raise the consciousness of working women and rally them to our cause. This is why it is important to mark International Women's Day and campaign to make it a holiday.
“As the greatest Soviet champion of women’s rights, Alexander Kollonti, said: ‘The requirements of working women are part and parcel of the common workers’ cause’.”
* Oze now resides in Gothenburg with her husband and three children.
Bully-boys in blue
LOUISE NOUSRATPOUR and PAUL DONOVAN on how the Met targeted a troublesome Irish human rights activist.
Saturday January 14, 2006
The Morning Star
DID the Metropolitan Police use the gruesome murder of teenage model Sally
Anne Bowman as an excuse to persecute a well-known Irish human rights
activist who has been a thorn in their side for years?
Patrick Reynolds believes so - and he is furious both that his son Kevin was
arrested on very shaky evidence and that the Met apparently took the
opportunity to raid his house for information on Patrick's campaigning work.
Patrick is chairman of the Irish in Britain Representation Group (IBRG),
which has worked on miscarriage of justice cases including those of Christy
McGrath and Barry George.
Kevin was arrested on December 13, dragged from his home at 3am and
manhandled into a police car, on suspicion of murdering Bowman, who was
sexually assaulted and then stabbed to death in the early hours of September
25 in Croydon, south-west London.
The police pounced on the opportunity to ransack Patrick's home in Wood
Green, north London.
Officers barged their way into the house, refused to present a search
warrant and proceeded to turn their home upside-down.
The search went on for an astonishing 29 hours.
The Met combed the place and even had the audacity to rifle through
unrelated IBRG files - including documents concerning the McGrath and George
cases and the organisation's current work on recent miscarriages of justice.
The search squad crashed through the house like bulls in a china shop, says
Patrick, smashing everything in their way.
"They pulled my house apart - breaking furniture and damaging the walls -
and went through all my files. Yet, I was not asked a single question about
my son," he says.
"They wouldn't tell me how long the search would last, so I was forced to
spend the night in my car. I was not allowed to enter the house to even
collect my mail."
They showed no consideration for his family's privacy and basic civil
rights, either.
"When I challenged them for a search warrant, the police claimed that they
did not need one. They also refused to tell me who was in charge of the
operation," says Patrick.
He is repulsed by the officers' "oppressive and ridiculous" behaviour. "You
don't treat a dog the way the police treated me and my family."
Did they really go in with the intention of looking for evidence related to
his son? Patrick wonders whether the search wasn't really aimed at vetting
IBRG files feared to contain evidence that could ruffle a few feathers at
the top.
"The police know that my house is the main mailing office for the IBRG. In
the past, I have been subjected to telephone tapping," he claims. And he's
suffered police vindictiveness in the past.
"Once, I needed a police check for my new job as a social worker. The police
sat on it for nearly nine months, during which time I was unemployable. I
had to involve my local MP in order to get a response."
But should Patrick's son even have been detained? Could his arrest have been
nothing more than an excuse to gain access to Patrick's house?
The Met went after Kevin on the basis of a vengeful complaint by a jilted
girlfriend, who had previously threatened to go to the police making false
allegations against him.
"The girl had a long history of making false allegations and was known to
Kent Police and social services," Patrick explains.
He points out that his son's name was among hundreds of potential suspects
reported to the police by members of the public, "yet Kevin was the only one
singled out for arrest and unauthorised house search."
Kevin was held at Edmonton Police station overnight. He was released once a
DNA check revealed no link to the high-profile murder case - but the police
refused to wait for the DNA results, as they had done with other suspects,
before invading Patrick's home.
Yet Croydon police should already have had Kevin's DNA profile on file,
since it was taken two years ago in relation to another unfounded crime
allegation.
But it had "mysteriously" disappeared from their database. They then
insisted on repeating the long process of taking fresh samples.
But his angry father does not believe that Kevin's DNA could have just
disappeared and smells a rat. He argues that his son's case made a "strong
argument against claims that new police powers to retain people's DNA - even
if they have not been charged or cautioned - would help 'protect the
innocents'. It certainly did not do that for my son.
"The police fishing expedition was, I believe on the evidence available to
me, a politically motivated and racially driven attempt to criminalise my
son and myself," says Patrick.
As chairman of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, Richard Harvey is
more than qualified to comment on the legality of the police raid - and he
considers the whole operation extremely dubious.
Harvey dismisses the police officers' claim that there was no need for a
search warrant. "It seems to me that they acted far outside authority. The
failure to produce a search warrant makes the entire operation highly
suspect and probably illegal."
It was, he adds, "highly irregular and oppressive" for the police to bar
Patrick, who was not under arrest or suspicion, from entering his own house
while the search was going on.
Activist and Irish Democrat online editor activist David Granville agrees
that the police action was "deeply concerning," but he points out that the
police have a long, shameful track record of harassing Irish activists.
"The circumstances seems highly suspicious but are not inconsistent with the
police treatment of Irish human rights activists in the past," he says.
"It appears to me that the police were looking for evidence unrelated to the
murder case. Suspicious police activities of this nature must not go
unnoticed.
"I hope that Mr Reynolds will have the full support of the local MP and
campaigners in exposing the real motives of this fishing operation."
The truth may yet emerge. Kevin is suing the police for wrongful arrest,
while Patrick intends to launch a legal challenge to the raid on his home.
Both are determined to see justice done for the Met's abuse of power.
Saturday January 14, 2006
The Morning Star
DID the Metropolitan Police use the gruesome murder of teenage model Sally
Anne Bowman as an excuse to persecute a well-known Irish human rights
activist who has been a thorn in their side for years?
Patrick Reynolds believes so - and he is furious both that his son Kevin was
arrested on very shaky evidence and that the Met apparently took the
opportunity to raid his house for information on Patrick's campaigning work.
Patrick is chairman of the Irish in Britain Representation Group (IBRG),
which has worked on miscarriage of justice cases including those of Christy
McGrath and Barry George.
Kevin was arrested on December 13, dragged from his home at 3am and
manhandled into a police car, on suspicion of murdering Bowman, who was
sexually assaulted and then stabbed to death in the early hours of September
25 in Croydon, south-west London.
The police pounced on the opportunity to ransack Patrick's home in Wood
Green, north London.
Officers barged their way into the house, refused to present a search
warrant and proceeded to turn their home upside-down.
The search went on for an astonishing 29 hours.
The Met combed the place and even had the audacity to rifle through
unrelated IBRG files - including documents concerning the McGrath and George
cases and the organisation's current work on recent miscarriages of justice.
The search squad crashed through the house like bulls in a china shop, says
Patrick, smashing everything in their way.
"They pulled my house apart - breaking furniture and damaging the walls -
and went through all my files. Yet, I was not asked a single question about
my son," he says.
"They wouldn't tell me how long the search would last, so I was forced to
spend the night in my car. I was not allowed to enter the house to even
collect my mail."
They showed no consideration for his family's privacy and basic civil
rights, either.
"When I challenged them for a search warrant, the police claimed that they
did not need one. They also refused to tell me who was in charge of the
operation," says Patrick.
He is repulsed by the officers' "oppressive and ridiculous" behaviour. "You
don't treat a dog the way the police treated me and my family."
Did they really go in with the intention of looking for evidence related to
his son? Patrick wonders whether the search wasn't really aimed at vetting
IBRG files feared to contain evidence that could ruffle a few feathers at
the top.
"The police know that my house is the main mailing office for the IBRG. In
the past, I have been subjected to telephone tapping," he claims. And he's
suffered police vindictiveness in the past.
"Once, I needed a police check for my new job as a social worker. The police
sat on it for nearly nine months, during which time I was unemployable. I
had to involve my local MP in order to get a response."
But should Patrick's son even have been detained? Could his arrest have been
nothing more than an excuse to gain access to Patrick's house?
The Met went after Kevin on the basis of a vengeful complaint by a jilted
girlfriend, who had previously threatened to go to the police making false
allegations against him.
"The girl had a long history of making false allegations and was known to
Kent Police and social services," Patrick explains.
He points out that his son's name was among hundreds of potential suspects
reported to the police by members of the public, "yet Kevin was the only one
singled out for arrest and unauthorised house search."
Kevin was held at Edmonton Police station overnight. He was released once a
DNA check revealed no link to the high-profile murder case - but the police
refused to wait for the DNA results, as they had done with other suspects,
before invading Patrick's home.
Yet Croydon police should already have had Kevin's DNA profile on file,
since it was taken two years ago in relation to another unfounded crime
allegation.
But it had "mysteriously" disappeared from their database. They then
insisted on repeating the long process of taking fresh samples.
But his angry father does not believe that Kevin's DNA could have just
disappeared and smells a rat. He argues that his son's case made a "strong
argument against claims that new police powers to retain people's DNA - even
if they have not been charged or cautioned - would help 'protect the
innocents'. It certainly did not do that for my son.
"The police fishing expedition was, I believe on the evidence available to
me, a politically motivated and racially driven attempt to criminalise my
son and myself," says Patrick.
As chairman of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, Richard Harvey is
more than qualified to comment on the legality of the police raid - and he
considers the whole operation extremely dubious.
Harvey dismisses the police officers' claim that there was no need for a
search warrant. "It seems to me that they acted far outside authority. The
failure to produce a search warrant makes the entire operation highly
suspect and probably illegal."
It was, he adds, "highly irregular and oppressive" for the police to bar
Patrick, who was not under arrest or suspicion, from entering his own house
while the search was going on.
Activist and Irish Democrat online editor activist David Granville agrees
that the police action was "deeply concerning," but he points out that the
police have a long, shameful track record of harassing Irish activists.
"The circumstances seems highly suspicious but are not inconsistent with the
police treatment of Irish human rights activists in the past," he says.
"It appears to me that the police were looking for evidence unrelated to the
murder case. Suspicious police activities of this nature must not go
unnoticed.
"I hope that Mr Reynolds will have the full support of the local MP and
campaigners in exposing the real motives of this fishing operation."
The truth may yet emerge. Kevin is suing the police for wrongful arrest,
while Patrick intends to launch a legal challenge to the raid on his home.
Both are determined to see justice done for the Met's abuse of power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
