Jul 212019
 
The March for Change setting off from Park Lane for Parliament Square

Yesterday, Kaberi and I joined thousands of people from all over the UK (and even beyond) on the March for Change in central London to stop Brexit. However, according to BBC News & Sky, the march never happened – or at least was less important than “Learner driver took 21 practical tests in a year” and “Machete-wielding men steal newborn puppies“.

In my previous post, I outlined how to recognise fascism based on Umberto Eco’s 14 indicators of fascism. In his original paper, he described his first experience of liberation from Mussolini’s rule in 1945. Up until then, his only source of uncensored news was listening to Voice of London secretly on the radio.

In May we heard that the war was over. Peace gave me a curious sensation. I had been told that permanent warfare was the normal condition for a young Italian. In the following months I discovered that the Resistance was not only a local phenomenon but a European one. I learned new, exciting words like réseau, maquis, armée secrète, Rote Kapelle, Warsaw ghetto. I saw the first photographs of the Holocaust, thus understanding the meaning before knowing the word. I realized what we were liberated from.

Umberto Eco, Ur-Fascism, 22 June 1995

The absence of news coverage reminded me of my visit to Tahrir Square with Enrique Nicanor just before the first anniversary of the Arab Spring. We were in Cairo because Kaberi and her team were performing Shyama in Egypt, starting with the Cairo Opera House and continuing to four other large theatres, includnig the Alexandria Opera House. The Arab Spring had been triggered by a mass movement started on Facebook – an uncensored alternative to the official sources of news in Egypt.

In Fascist Italy, social and political pressures—and the resultant self-policing by the media—were at least as important as actual legal proscriptions, probably much more important.

David S d’Amato, Mussolini and the Press – 28 January 2016

Yesterday’s march was obviously inconvenient for the cult of Brexit and the official UK Government narrative that Brexit is the “Will of the People”. Certain politicians have fanned the fumes of populism by making journalists, politicians and even judges targets of abuse and violence from pro-Brexiters, claiming that “disagreement is treason” or even “undemocratic”.

So, before yesterday’s march is forgotten completely, I am sharing my impressions in this post, together with some of the photos and videos Kaberi and I took.

I had first heard about the march through one of the people I follow on Twitter since the two previous ‘People’s Vote’ marches. I gathered that coaches were being organised to allow people from all over the UK to join the march. In the absence of any news coverage (and having abandoned Facebook since the Cambridge Analytica scandal), it was only by checking the hashtag #MarchforChange yesterday morning that I could confirm that other people really were on their way to join the march.

When we reached Hyde Park Corner a little after midday, there seemed to be fewer people than the previous march on 23 March 2019 or the first march we took part in in October 2018. However, as we crossed over to the reach the Hilton, we discovered thousands of people waiting patiently for the all clear to start the march. We could not go any further because there were so many people.

As we were right at the front, we saw foreign TV crews interviewing organisers, against the backdrop of those at the front of the march.

Steven Bray, who has been camped across the road from Parliament every day to Stop Brexit, was greeted enthusiastically when he arrived in his distinctive hat and cape. We also saw the puppets of Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt having their strings pulled by Nigel Farage.

As in the previous marches, there were people of all ages and I was impressed by the originality and humour of the posters people were carrying. Many were also dressed in blue and yellow. We stood to one side as the march set off, allowing us to see the variety.

As the march moved forward past us, we spotted the front of the extensive Lib Dem section. I recognised Tom Brake MP and Ed Davey MP. The Lib Dem MEPs were wearing the bright yellow Stop Brexit / Bollocks to Brexit T-shirts they had worn on the first day of the new European Parliament. Later, I spotted Dutch “Renew Europe” MEP Sophie in ‘t Veld in the march as well.

As in the previous marches, the atmosphere was very relaxed – fun almost! I also recognised James from Bolton, whose dancing videos in response to political news have been going viral. I see he was dancing with Ed Davey MP and Steve Bray.

https://twitter.com/snb19692/status/1152619769545273349

This clip of #MorrisNotBoris morris dancers in the march posted by dkmail gives an idea of this atmosphere in the march.

Morris dancers dance to the European anthem (Ode to Joy from Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony) in the March for Change

I should also mention the chanting. Here was Luisa Porritt leading the chanting as we were going through Piccadilly.

https://twitter.com/LuisaPorritt/status/1152589488117489664

Who knows why BBC News and Sky News were noticeably missing in action. Perhaps the BBC News felt that Thursday evening’s Panorama exposé of Britain’s Brexit Crisis had exceeded this month’s quota for covering bad news related to Brexit? A footnote to the BBC’s guidelines for impartiality mentions that “The Framework Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to observe the impartiality requirements of the Broadcasting Code; however, by applying ‘due impartiality’ to all output, we exceed that requirement.”

Fortunately, some UK media did cover it, as did international media. Such as the Guardian, London’s Evening Standard, the Independent , Deutsche Welle and the New European. Please let me know in the comments if there was any other media coverage I should add here. It would help confirm that Kaberi and I did not just dream about the march yesterday … .

To be fair, after everyone had gone home, the BBC did publish a low profile article about the march but it had disappeared from the Top stories within a few hours, just as with the previous marches – including the largest ever march in London a few months ago.

Jul 012019
 
Satirical sketch from German broadcaster ARD

London Mayor Sadiq Khan caused controversy recently by likening US President Donald Trump to the “fascists of the 20th century”. Far right leaders in different EU countries have similarly been accused of being fascists. But how can you tell if the accusations are justified, or simply tasteless name-calling?

Italian writer Umberto Eco was born in 1932, 10 years after Mussolini came to power in Italy. grew up under a fascist regime. In 1995, he wrote an essay for the New York Review of Books with the title Ur-Fascism or Eternal Fascism. After describing his own experience, he noted that there is some ‘fuzziness’ about what fascism actually is.

Nonetheless, he proposed 14 typical indicators of Ur-fascism. In whichever country you live, you may wish to keep these indicators in mind to be able to recognise when political leaders are drifting towards fascism. As he noted when introducing them, “it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.”

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances – every day, in every part of the world.

Umberto Eco, 1995

1) The cult of tradition

According to Umberto Eco, this new culture had to be ‘syncretistic’ – not only the combination of different forms of belief or practice but also tolerant of contradictions. “Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.”

“As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.”

2) Rejection of modernism

In more recent times, we have seen various political figures around the world campaigning against globalisation. At the time Umberto Eco was writing, it’s effects were less obvious and the internet had yet to be widely used. For him, “the rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of [the French Revolution in] 1789 (and of [US Independence in] 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity.”

3) Action for action’s sake

“Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. … culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism … .” So if you hear political leaders pouring scorn on experts, the intelligentsia, the establishment or modern culture for “having betrayed traditional values”, these are an indicator of fascism.

4) Disagreement is treason

“No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.” If you see people being harassed or accused of ‘treason’ or ‘betrayal’ for criticising or disagreeing with ‘the truth’, this is an indicator of fascism.

5) Fear of difference

“The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur- Fascism is racist by definition.” Across Europe, various political leaders have played on public fears of immigrants for, for example, taking jobs, living off public services, etc. This too is an indicator of fascism.

After a weekend in which London Mayor Sadiq Khan highlighted the stabbing of two teenagers, President Trump criticised him, retweeting an apparently Islamophobic tweet by far right personality Katie Hopkins.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary and Tory leadership candidate Jeremy Hunt defended President Trump’s attack on Sadiq Khan. Others have pointed out that London’s murder rate is still relatively small compared to major US cities.

6) Appeal to social frustration

According to Umberto Eco, the presence of “a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation” provides ripe territory for fascism. In such a context, it may not be long before a political leader appears and attracts popular attention by promising to take quick and radical action (whether or not that action will address the crisis or humiliation).

To take the example of the UK, Politics Home took a look recently Inside the meteoric rise of the Brexit Party. It concluded that the Brexit Party’s appeal is based on the “frustration” with “the establishment” for having failed to deliver Brexit following the 2016 EU Referendum (a poll in which it was unclear what voters voted for). That result, in turn, reflected the frustration of many ordinary people with the lives they were obliged to lead due to poverty, inadequate funding for the NHS, etc.

7) Obsession with a plot (possibly international)

“To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. … The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside …”.

In previous posts, I have drawn attention to Rabindranath Tagore’s warnings about Nationalism. Political leaders sounding the alarm about a plot or conspiracy by foreigners, or by people who are from a minority (possibly a religious one) may stir hatred or fear of these minority groups. This may be the most commonly-seen indicator of fascism.

Looking again at the example of the UK, as Ian Dunt observes in his analysis of the rise of the Brexit Party, “… almost everything [Nigel] Farage [MEP] says is a conspiracy theory. A Remain parliament stopped Brexit, he says, … . May herself is branded a Remainer, … . So either MPs are secretly pursuing a Remain plot, or the prime minister is. 

“Note how both outcomes – Brexit happening and Brexit not happening – are a betrayal by some form of Remain conspiracy, either in parliament or Downing Street. We hear these lies so often we start to accept them as normal, but once you question them it is clear what they are. They’re conspiracy theory. … “

“That’s the headline conspiracy, but Farage has another one for almost every aspect of society. At one recent rally he insisted young people opposed Brexit because of the “constant bias, prejudice and brainwashing” in British universities, and then insisted educational institutions were systematically marking-down students who supported leaving the EU. … “

“Who can you trust? No-one. What information can you rely on? None at all. There’s just the party and its leader, who offer you emotional reassurance without any intellectual component for you to evaluate it. Your capacity for individual judgement is whittled away. The trust is not based on testable propositions, like policies and argument, but on feelings.”

Ian Dunt, The Brexit party is a post-politics entity – politics.co.uk (9 May 2019)

8) The enemy is both strong and weak

“The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. … However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.”

In the UK, the central message of the official Brexit Party website is “Change politics for good”, with a video of a well-attended rally playing behind it (in much the style as Leni Reifenstahl’s documentary ‘Triumph of the will’ filmed at Hitler’s Nuremberg rally in 1934). If you turn on the sound, you will hear stirring, orchestral music rising to a crescendo as their Leader makes his point and people rise to their feet in slow motion to give him a standing ovation.

Its ‘About’ page begins by claiming that “Our success is the way we are turning anger into hope”, before promising “A democratic earthquake” and “A brighter future for Britain”.

9) Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy

Having identified enemies, Umberto Eco suggests that, for Ur-Fascism, life is permanent warfare and lived for struggle. As a result, pacifism is regarded as “trafficking with the enemy”.

He also notes that no fascist leader has succeeded in reconciling the contradiction that finding a “Golden Age” after defeating the enemy and controlling the world in a final battle would undermine the principle of permanent war.

10) Contempt for the weak

“Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party.”

By this Umberto Eco refers to elitism as being a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology. Ur-Fascism advocates becoming members of the party – a “popular elitism”. As Umberto Eco puts it “… the Leader … knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.”

The revelations by Channel 4 that Nigel Farage received £450,000 and rent-free accommodation in Chelsea after the 2016 Referendum, while portraying himself as a man of the people, would appear to be a sign of such contempt for the weak.

11) Everybody is educated to be a hero

“In every mythology, the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. … .In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.”

12) Machismo and weaponry

“Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual8habits, from chastity to homosexuality).”

Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson all seem to have this in common.

Umberto Eco also notes that “Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”

13) Selective populism

“In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have apolitical impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter.”

Since deciding on her interpretation of the result of the 2016 EU Referendum in the UK, Prime Minister Theresa May has maintained that that was and remains “the will of the people“.

Umberto Eco predicted, in this paper from 1995, that “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People. … Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.”

14) Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak

“Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning”

For some years politicians have played on the tendency of the media to pick up on soundbites. As a result, politicians are no longer expected to make eloquent speeches. Instead, they tend to use a series of soundbites when asked to give speeches or interviews.

So perhaps we are already in the era of Newspeak. We are certainly in the era of “fake news”, in which it has become difficult to recognise what is truly fake and what is real.

Shortly after Umberto Eco’s death in February 2016, Lorraine Berry analysed Donald Trump’s campaign against Umberto Eco’s 14 indicators. As you will see, her conclusion then was that Donald Trump is a fascist, but not a Nazi.

Ian Dunt’s analysis of the rise of the Brexit Party points to a number of similar issues. The table below analyses these issues against Umberto Eco’s 14 indicators:

Contemporary UK example of each of Umberto Eco’s characteristics of fascism
Mar 102019
 

For some reason, the UK Government seems deeply reluctant to investigate Russia’s apparent interference in the UK’s 2016 EU Referendum. Usually, a foreign power trying to destabilise a country would provoke immediate national security concerns.

In February, Parliament’s DCMS Committee repeated its “call to the Government to make a statement about how many investigations are currently being carried out into Russian interference in UK politics. We want to find out what was the impact of disinformation and voter manipulation on past elections including the UK Referendum in 2016 and are calling on the Government to launch an independent investigation.”

In January, the US Senate report Putin’s asymmetric assault on democracy in Russia and Europe: implications for US national security, criticised “the way in which UK campaign finance laws do not require disclosure of political donations if they are from “the beneficial owners of non-British companies that are incorporated in the EU and carry out business in the UK”.”

This opacity, the report suggests, “may have enabled Russian-related money to be directed with insufficient scrutiny to various UK political actors”.In a court case a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister’s legal representative, Sir James Eadie, told the court that “The true position is the Prime Minister is entirely well aware of the notorious facts … of the well-publicised facts: Electoral Commission findings, the facts of an appeal, police investigations, ICO, DCMS committees. All clear, publicly done and properly done. And it’s perfectly obvious that the Prime Minister has decided to carry on and that Parliament is proceeding and that everyone is proceeding on that basis.”

Of course, there is nothing new about this rather British preference to turn a blind eye towards serious crimes and misdemeanours affecting the lives of many. There was another infamous example 100 years ago.

India’s contribution to the Second World War

Although they are rarely mentioned in British history, hundreds of thousands of Indians fought in Europe in the British army in World War I. Over 1,000 died at Gallipoli and nearly 700,000 fought in Mesopotamia against the Ottoman Empire, Germany’s ally.

India also supported Britain in cash and kind, to the tune of some £50 billion in today’s money. India suffered high taxation to support the war, accompanied by high inflation. In return, Britain had promised to deliver self-rule progressively to India at the end of the war.

Rowlatt Act

However, after the war, the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1918 were very far from this. A hundred years ago today, on 10 March 1919, it also passed the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919. This unpopular Act became known as the Rowlatt Act, after Sir Sidney Rowlatt, the British judge who was the president of the Rowlatt Committee which recommended it.

The Act effectively authorised the Government to imprison any person suspected of terrorism living in British India for up to two years without a trial, and gave the imperial authorities power to deal with all revolutionary activities. It reimposed all the wartime restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly (which had been lifted after the Armistice).

“The Act granted the authorities the power to arrest Indians on mere suspicion and to try them in secrecy without a right to counsel or a right of appeal.”

An era of darkness: the British Empire in India by Shashi Tharoor

On 30 March and 6 April 1919, Indians went on strike throughout Punjab, shutting down normal commerce in many cities, including Amritsar. Without violence or disorder, they expressed their dissatisfaction with Britain’s betrayal.

On 9 April, the British arrested two nationalist leaders who had addressed protest meetings. As news of their arrests spread, the people of Amritsar pushed their way to police headquarters to protest. Some threw stones at the police who barred their way. The police retaliated by opening fire, killing 10 demonstrators.

In the riot that followed, five Englishmen were killed and a woman missionary was assaulted.

Amritsar, April 1919

Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, c1919

By 11 April, 600 soldiers arrived in Amritsar to restore order. The following day, their commander, Brigadier General Reginald Dyer arrived. By then, the city was calm and any demonstrations or protest meetings were peaceful.

Nonetheless, Dyer issued a proclamation on 13 April forbidding people to leave the city without a pass, to organise demonstrations or processions, or even to gather in groups of more than three. However, unaware of the proclamation, some 10-15,000 people from outlying districts gathered in Amritsar the same day to celebrate the major religious festival Baisakhi.

They had assembled in an enclosed, walled garden called Jallianwala Bagh. It was a popular spot for public events but was only accessible through five narrow passageways.

When Dyer heard of this meeting, he took a detachment of soldiers in armoured cars equipped with machine guns. Although it was clear that the people were unarmed, Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on them without any warning. They continued to shoot for 10 minutes until all their ammunition was exhausted.

Seeing that the exits from the Jallianwala Bagh were blocked, many sought refuge from the bullets by jumping into a well in its centre. According to a plaque by the well, 120 bodies were found in it.

Afterwards, Dyer forbade his soldiers to give any aid to the injured. He ordered all Indians to stay off the streets of Amritsar for twenty-four hours, preventing relatives or friends from bringing even a cup of water to the wounded, who were writhing in agony calling for help.

The massacre and Dyer’s evidence to the subsequent Hunter Commission which was set up in October 1919 to investigate it were depicted in the Richard Attenborough film Gandhi. Officially, 379 people were killed and 1.137 injured. The casualty number estimated by the Indian National Congress was more than 1,500 injured, with approximately 1,000 dead.

Dyer reported to his superiors that he had been “confronted by a revolutionary army”. Major General William Beynon and Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab Michael O’Dwyer approved of his actions. The Lieutenant-Governor requested that martial law should be imposed on Amritsar and other areas, and this was granted by the Viceroy of India, Lord Chelmsford.

Dyer became known in India as “The butcher of Amritsar”.

Tagore’s reaction

News of the massacre was suppressed by the British Government. Nonetheless, it reached Rabindranath Tagore on 22 May 1919.

Seeing the inaction of the British Government, and after being prevented from arranging a protest meeting in Calcutta, he decided to write to the Viceroy of India on 31 May 1919, returning the Knighthood he had been awarded by King George V on 3 June 1915.

Your Excellency,

The enormity of the measures taken by the Government in the Punjab for quelling some local disturbances has, with a rude shock, revealed to our minds the helplessness of our position as British subjects in India. The disproportionate severity of the punishments inflicted upon the unfortunate people and the methods of carrying them out, we are convinced, are without parallel in the history of civilised governments, barring some conspicuous exceptions, recent and remote. Considering that such treatment has been meted out to a population, disarmed and resourceless, by a power which has the most terribly efficient organisation for destruction of human lives, we must strongly assert that it can claim no political expediency, far less moral justification. The accounts of the insults and sufferings by our brothers in Punjab have trickled through the gagged silence, reaching every corner of India, and the universal agony of indignation roused in the hearts of our people has been ignored by our rulers—possibly congratulating themselves for what they imagine as salutary lessons. This callousness has been praised by most of the Anglo-Indian papers, which have in some cases gone to the brutal length of making fun of our sufferings, without receiving the least check from the same authority—relentlessly careful in smothering every cry of pain and expression of judgement from the organs representing the sufferers. Knowing that our appeals have been in vain and that the passion of vengeance is blinding the nobler vision of statesmanship in our Government, which could so easily afford to be magnanimous as befitting its physical strength and moral tradition, the very least that I can do for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in the incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part wish to stand, shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen, who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings.

These are the reasons which have painfully compelled me to ask Your Excellency, with due reference and regret, to relieve me of my title of Knighthood, which I had the honour to accept from His Majesty the King at the hands of your predecessor, for whose nobleness of heart I still entertain great admiration.

Rabindranath Tagore’s letter to the Viceroy of India, Lord Chelmsford, on 31 May 1919

Britain’s response

Details of the massacre did not emerge in Britain before December 1919. On 20 July 1920, the fate of General Dyer was debated in the British Parliament. Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, opened the debate with an explanation of the three options available to the Government:

  1. remove [the officer] from his employment or his appointment, relegated to half pay, and told that he has no prospects of being employed again. … The officer in question has no redress. He has no claim to a court or inquiry or court martial.
  2. retire an officer compulsorily from the Service, or imposing on him some reduction or forfeiture in his pension or retired pay. In this case the officer is protected … by the fact that it is necessary for three members of the Army Council to approve the proceeding, and by certain rights of laying his case before them.
  3. Honour, liberty, life are affected. Cashiering, imprisonment, or the death penalty may be involved, and … the whole resources and protection which judicial procedure, lawful tribunals, and British justice accord to an accused person are brought into play.

In Dyer’s case, he was removed from his appointment by the Commander-in-Chief in India; passed over for promotion; was informed that there was no prospect of further employment for him under the Government of India; and that, in consequence, he reverted automatically to half-pay. The Army Council had chosen the first option.

Churchill then explained the facts:

The crowd was unarmed, except with bludgeons. It was not attacking anybody or anything. It was holding a seditious meeting. When fire had been opened upon it to disperse it, it tried to run away. Pinned up in a narrow place considerably smaller than Trafalgar Square, with hardly any exits, and packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies, the people ran madly this way and the other. When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, the the fire was then directed down on the ground. This was continued for 8 to 10 minutes, and it … stopped only when it was on the point of exhaustion, enough ammunition being retained to provide for the safety of the force on its return journey. If more troops had been available, says this officer, the casualties would have been greater in proportion. If the road had not been so narrow, the machine guns and the armoured cars would have joined in. Finally, when the ammunition had reached the point that only enough remained to allow for the safe return of the troops, and after 379 persons, which is about the number gathered together in this Chamber to-day, had been killed, and when most certainly 1,200 or more had been wounded, the troops, at whom not even a stone had been thrown, swung round and marched away. … I do not think it is in the interests of the British Empire or of the British Army for us to take a load of that sort for all time on our backs. We have to make it absolutely clear, some way or another, that this is not the British way of doing business.

Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War – UK House of Commons, 8 July 1920

Churchill personally would have wished that General Dyer had been “placed compulsorily on the retired list”. However, he recommended (and the House of Commons confirmed) the decision of the Army Council as it was clear that “General Dyer’s conduct has been approved by a succession of superiors above him.” Although he was censured by the House of Commons, he was exonerated by the House of Lords and allowed to retire on a handsome pension. Rudyard Kipling hailed Dyer as “The man who saved India.”

Fund-raising for Dyer

The conservative, pro-Imperialist Morning Post newspaper (which subsequently merged with The Daily Telegraph) launched a fund to raise money for Dyer. When he arrived in Britain after his exile from India, he was presented with over £26,000 (equivalent to over £250,000 today).

In contrast, after many months of fighting for justice, the families of the victims of the massacre were given 500 rupees each (equivalent to £1,450 today) for each human life.

Several years later, on 13 March 1940, Udham Singh, who had been serving water to the crowds in Jallianwala Bagh before Dyer and his troops opened fire, assassinated Michael O’Dwyer in Caxton Hall in London. Historians now believe that O’Dwyer had ordered Dyer to carry out the massacre.

Jawaharlal Nehru wrote later that “This cold-blooded approval of that deed shocked me greatly. It seemed absolutely immoral, indecent; to use public school language, it was the height of bad form. I realised then, more vividly than I had ever done before, how brutal and immoral imperialism was and how it had eaten into the souls of the British upper classes.”

Brexit and the British elite

A century later, it would appear that the British elite are applying similarly brutal and immoral tactics in forcing a hard Brexit on an unsuspecting British public. They seem to be somewhat nostalgic about Britain’s imperial past.

As Alternative War author James Patrick noted on Friday:

You know, over the centuries Britain has built up quite a horrific Karma account. The world’s a small place with a long memory and the bill has come due.— James Patrick 🐐 (@J_amesp) March 8, 2019


Jan 202019
 

On Tuesday, 15 January, the Government suffered the heaviest Parliamentary defeat in history for recommending the ratification of the deal Theresa May has negotiated with the EU27. Nonetheless, the following day, it won a vote of no confidence in the Government.

Various ways forward have been proposed, such as a People’s Vote on the deal or leaving the EU and joining the EEA. However, there does not seem to be a majority in Parliament for any of these options. And, although Theresa May has said she is open to talks with other parties, she does not appear open to changing her red lines, which resulted in the deal she has negotiated.

There is one thing a large majority of MPs do agree on: they do not want a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn has refused to talk to Theresa May unless she takes ‘no deal’ Brexit “off the table”. In her letter to him to remove this pre-condition to talks, she wrote:

I note that you have said that ‘ruling out’ no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government’s power to rule out no deal.

Actually, it is within Parliament’s power to rule out no deal. On 10 December 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled as follows:

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

In the Supreme Court judgment in the Gina Miller case 2 years ago, the constitutional requirements to invoke Article 50 were established as follows:

… if, as we consider, what would otherwise be a prerogative act would result in a change in domestic law, the act can only lawfully be carried out with the sanction of primary legislation enacted by the Queen in Parliament.

As a result, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was enacted on 16 March 2017 to authorise the Prime Minister to make the Article 50 notification of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU. This implies that primary legislation would also be required to revoke such a notification.

The simplest way to avoid a ‘no deal’ Brexit happening by default may be to amend the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 by adding a clause 1(3): “The Prime Minister must revoke such a notification [at least 30 days] before the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3)of the Treaty on European Union, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, expires unless a withdrawal agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the European Union has entered into force by that date[, after ratification by Parliament].”

This still leaves Parliament the possibility to continue all the other options, possibly with a request to extend the Article 50 deadline (subject to the unanimous agreement of the other 27 EU Member States). As a result, it should be capable of receiving the support of all MPs (including Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn) who wish to avoid a ‘no deal Brexit’ by default.

Professor Phil Syrpis, of Bristol University, agrees that “switching the default to revoke from no deal is a possible path forward“. He also drew my attention to this post by ‘SpinningHugo’ to “Change the default“.

There are so many “tribes” in Parliament, especially among Conservative MPs, that there does not seem to be any single solution which will attract the support of a majority of MPs. As EU Council President Donald Tusk said after the defeat of Theresa May’s deal in Parliament:

If a deal is impossible, and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?

Dec 302018
 
Brexit/Britain is in the bin (via Erica Neustadt)

While Theresa May and Jeremby Corbyn play games with Parliamentary procedure, time is passing. In less than three months, on 29 March 2019, 2 years after Theresa May triggered the Article 50 procedure, the EU Treaties will cease to apply to the UK … unless Parliament does something first. The only problem is that the there is a political impasse in Parliament.

To get an idea of how people feel about this, we have created an online “event” which you can take part in anonymously. By answering this first question, you will help to feed the word cloud below. You can add several words if you wish, before clicking on the ‘Send’ button.

Fresh from its Christmas break, the Home Office started to ask non-British EU nationals living in the UK to apply for ‘settled status’. Actually, the tweet called on all EU citizens living in the UK (ie including British citizens) to apply.

Apart from the legal error, this suggests that the Home Office has failed to learn the lessons of the Windrush scandal and is about to launch another “ethnic cleansing” programme on a much larger scale – there are some 3.6 million non-British EU nationals living in the UK. As Professor Tanja Bueltmann has pointed out, ‘settled status’ will create a new Windrush generation of EU citizens. The unsettling effects of this policy on people who have lived and worked in the UK for decades are illustrated by the people in the video response below.

Meanwhile, back in Parliament, Theresa May has negotiated a deal with the EU27 which few MPs (other than those in Government) are prepared to back. It is either a worse deal than staying in the EU or does not allow the UK sufficient independence from the EU – depending on the perspective of the MP concerned.

MPs were supposed to have voted on the deal on 11 December but the vote was postponed by Theresa May until 14 January as she realised that a significant majority of MPs would vote against the deal. Her strategy appears to be to scare MPs with the perspective of a ‘no deal Brexit’ if they vote against her deal. The delay also seems to have been designed to reduce the time for a People’s Vote on the deal before 29 March 2019.

In theory, the UK could ask the EU27 to extend the Article 50 deadline. However this would require all 27 Member States to agree to this and, given that Theresa May has already exhausted their patience, there would seem to be a high chance that at least one Member State would block such an extension.

Another option, confirmed by the 10 December ruling of the European Court of Justice, is that the UK is free to revoke its Article 50 notification unilaterally. That possibility exists until either the withdrawal agreement comes into force or the 2-year period expires on 29 March 2019.

So there seem to be four options for MPs, as shown in the question below. Which of them would you prefer? You will see the relative support for each option after you have made your choice and pressed the ‘Send’ button.

So far in Parliament, most MPs are against a ‘no deal’ Brexit. However, there is currently no majority in Parliament for any option which might avoid this outcome.

Although Theresa May had claimed only three months ago that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal‘, the costs of a ‘no deal’ Brexit are becoming more apparent now. A few days before Christmas, the Government set aside £2 billion for ministries to prepare for a ‘no deal’ Brexit and putting 3,500 troops on standby. At the same time, more than 25% of UK business leaders are very pessimistic about the prospects of the UK economy.

Tagore had observed over a century ago that nationalism has a subtle but quite destructive effect on society.

“… the idea of the Nation is one of the most powerful anæsthetics that man has invented. Under the influence of its fumes the whole people can carry out its systematic programme of the most virulent self-seeking without being in the least aware of its moral perversion,—in fact feeling dangerously resentful if it is pointed out. …

“The Nation has thriven long upon mutilated humanity. Men, the fairest creations of God, came out of the National manufactory in huge numbers as war-making and money-making puppets, ludicrously vain of their pitiful perfection of mechanism. Human society grew more and more into a marionette show of politicians, soldiers, manufacturers and bureaucrats, pulled by wire arrangements of wonderful efficiency.

But the apotheosis of selfishness can never make its interminable breed of hatred and greed, fear and hypocrisy, suspicion and tyranny, an end in themselves. These monsters grow into huge shapes but never into harmony.”

Excerpt From: Rabindranath Tagore. “Nationalism.”

Tagore also drew attention to the tendency of nationalists to hold foreigners responsible for causing problems because they are different.

“The social habit of mind which impels us to make the life of our fellow-beings a burden to them where they differ from us even in such a thing as their choice of food, is sure to persist in our political organization and result in creating engines of coercion to crush every rational difference which is the sign of life.”

Excerpt From: Rabindranath Tagore. “Nationalism.”

Of course, this is not limited to the UK and Brexit. The late Paddy Ashdown, whose last book Nein! Standing up to Hitler 1935-1944 explores a similar period in German history, noted that President Trump has been using the same techniques as were used in that period.

In an interview in 2016, Paddy Ashdown had said “Leave aside the fact – which is good – that we don’t have mad militarists who want to go to war, everything else about our age reminds me of the 1930s. The fracture, the disrespect for the business of government, the hatred of the establishment. You see a retreat into isolationism, you see the rise of ugly forces, you see those who lie and make a pattern of lying … As Goebbels said, if you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one and tell it often.”

Fortunately, in the same interview, he also said “I am certain that decency and the forces of good will triumph. When, I don’t know. But that it will happen, I am absolutely clear.”

Dec 012018
 

Yesterday, British broadcaster, actor, producer and director Stephen Fry launched this 12-minute animated documentary. It shows how certain UK politicians have built their careers by stirring up fear of immigrants and fear of a ‘mythical EU dragon’ over the past couple of years.

The video opens with an illustration of an illusion known as ‘forced perspective’, which Stephen Fry suggests is how the politicians have convinced people that these fears are real. As he points out, and as I mentioned in my previous post, they and the mainstream media promoting their views have used propaganda techniques similar to those used by the Nazis in the 1930s.

In the US, Donald Trump brands all news stories and facts which contradict his narrative as ‘Fake News’. Similarly, these UK politicians have branded inconvenient facts and forecasts as ‘Project Fear’.

Thanks to this approach, facts are unlikely to convince supporters of these politicians to change their minds. Stephen Fry explored this phenomenon in a previous video about the Dunning-Kruger effect … and explained how to tackle it.

In his excellent new book How to be right … in a world gone wrong, Radio talk show host James O’Brien describes how the media have fuelled the rise of this type of politician.

As with climate change, media organisations like the BBC have attempted to preserve ‘balance’ by interviewing people who have opposite views for the same amount of time. However, even if 95% of scientists are convinced that climate change has happened, this attempt at ‘balance’ gives disproportionate exposure to the 5% that do not.

James O’Brien suggests that his approach of asking people ‘why?’ (rather than the ‘what?’ asked traditionally by interviewers) obliges those he is interviewing to explain why they believe what they do, often revealing their misconceptions. However, he lays the blame for this at the door of the politicians who have misled his callers, not his callers themselves. Here is his recent RSA discussion about his book, which inspired me to buy the book.

Another impressive, recent initiative is the podcast series Dial M for Mueller, with award-winning investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr (who revealed the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook data scandal) and Peter Jukes. The latest episode explores why Nigel Farage is a ‘person of interest’ for the FBI investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

As I have mentioned before, Rabindranath Tagore attempted to warn the world about the dangers of nationalism over 100 years ago. His 1939 dance-drama Shyama , written in the context of growing tensions of pre-Independence India and the rise of nationalism in Europe, opens with a foreign merchant who is falsely accused of theft by a repressive regime.

I was happy to see that French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated this in his speech on Armistice Day. Fortunately, there are still a few politicians around who are brave enough to stand up to the real Project Fear.

Oct 292018
 
Notice on the door of the Poundworld shop in our local High Street

This week’s UK Budget is expected to reduce business rates, to reduce costs faced by shops and businesses on UK High Streets, but not by their online competitors. Media reports about recent closures of shop chains have mentioned reduced sales in High Street shops due to people buying online. Few dare to mention any loss of interest in shopping (in general) due to uncertainty faced by many households, particularly low income households, as a result of the UK Government’s seemingly incompetent handling of the UK’s departure from the EU.

Yesterday, I took a walk along our local High Street, in Sutton, which is in the suburbs of London. I took these photos of all the abandoned shops and businesses, many of which have closed in the past couple of years. Of course, there are other recent arrivals (mainly cafés, restaurants, vaping shops and nail parlours) which allow the High Street to retain some life. Nonetheless, I was left feeling quite sad about the state of what was a vibrant High Street not so long ago.

If this is happening in the relatively affluent South-East of England, I suspect that the situation is even worse in other parts of the country, particularly further North – often forgotten by Westminster parties and political leaders. In any case, the impression of decay in our own High Street is far more intense than in other parts of Europe we have visited over the past couple of years. The UK is apparently more heavily into online shopping than other countries but, even so, that cannot be the only explanation.

The owner of our favourite kebab shop confirmed to me on Saturday night that the costs of his raw materials (particularly vegetables) had already gone up significantly as a result of the 18% fall in the value of the pound since the Referendum was announced. So far, he has been absorbing this increase without raising his prices – he knows he would lose business if he increased his prices.

A significant proportion of his customers are from low income families and they have been telling him that they are uncertain about the future and are trying to spend as little as they can now. Yes, they are fed up of hearing about Brexit but that is because it is not at all the simple process they were led to believe it would be by certain politicians – instead, we now hear the Government warning that people may need to stockpile medicines and that lorries may need to be parked on the M26 (several miles from the coast) while waiting to cross the English Channel. This could explain the popularity of online shopping and the state of the High Street, which is far less busy than it used to be (and those that are there seem to be window shopping rather than buying).

Last Christmas, my holiday reading was the disturbing book Alternative War by James Patrick, a former police officer turned investigative journalist. The book tackles Russian interference in the UK’s EU Referendum and the US election of President Donald Trump, suggesting that these are elements of a ‘hybrid war’ Russia has launched using fake news and sophisticated disinformation campaigns. The book documents how ‘detached and deniable assets’ and ‘useful idiots’, such as Wikileaks, the far-right (including UKIP and Republican officials), were engaged by Russia to subvert two of the world’s superpowers and install managed democracies as part of a strategy to enhance Russia’s position and destabilise its perceived enemies.

One of the key claims of the Leave campaign was that £350m contributed per week could be spent on the NHS. However, it is now emerging that, in the event of ‘no deal’, there may be cancelled NHS operations and staff shortages.

Via Cory Doctorow, I came across this 15-minute short film American Psychosis featuring Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges. In it, he draws parallels with totalitarian regimes he has reported on and a culture dominated by ‘pervasive illusion’ which he now finds in the US. Perhaps this is also the situation in the UK?

Lord Adonis has been travelling around the country arguing in favour of a People’s Vote on the Brexit deal (or no deal) which Theresa May is negotiating. In this article for The New European, he explains why we are now in a similar situation to the 1930s. He recommends the new book by Paddy Ashdown Nein, Standing up to Hitler 1935-1944 about the German resistance, and how it was undermined by the appeasement of the British and French Governments.

Today’s appeasers of the far right similarly recreate the weak and demoralised liberals and conservatives of the 1930s, from Germany’s Catholic ‘centre’ party which voted with Hitler in 1933 to Neville Chamberlain treating so disastrously with the German dictator thereafter. Theresa May is eerily Chamberlainite in her stubbornness, her deep ignorance of the extreme political currents swirling around her, and her appeasement of an English far right – Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the puppet Boris Johnson …

Andrew Adonis, Yes we are back in the 1930s – The New European, 25 October 2018

Meanwhile, the number of people sleeping rough in the UK has increased by 169% since 2010, with increases every year for the past 7 years. The conditions would appear to be ripe (again) for populist politicians to offer the fantasy of an easy solution: nationalism. But, as Tagore pointed out over a century ago, this approach comes with risks for the society we live in.

Throughout history, demagogues rarely need to direct the violence. They set the tone – they focus the blame, ridicule, rage and hate — and leave the violent acts to others. That way, they can always say “it wasn’t me. I don’t have blood on my hands. The culprits are out there.”
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) October 28, 2018

Robert Reich, Berkeley professor and former US Secretary of Labour

A few weeks ago, I was dismayed but not surprised to see James Patrick suggesting that the real objective of the UK Government is a ‘no deal’ Brexit, with all the harmful consequences its own documents now predict. I did find it shocking though that the reason would be to justify Ministers using their powers under the Withdrawal Act to by-pass Parliament.

In effect, this ’emergency rule’ would take the UK out of a democracy and into dictatorship. I would invite you to follow the link below and read the rest of his thread on Twitter. I hope this is not the real objective of the UK Government (whose official line is still that it is working towards an agreement with the EU27). However, as time goes by, and as the UK missed the opportunity of the recent Summit in Brussels to sign any agreement, perhaps his analysis seems increasingly likely?

With this in mind, here are some of the speeches from last Saturday’s People’s Vote march. Note particularly the comment from Tom Brake that the UK Government and Parliament have spent the past two years being so focused on Brexit that they have not tackled the real problems affecting millions of people, such as the housing crisis, reform of the education system and the state of the NHS. Maybe, in time, the people who spoke at the march will be seen as the ‘resistance’.

 Posted by at 2:54 am
Oct 222018
 

Yesterday, Kaberi and I were among the estimated 700,000 people marching for a People’s Vote on the outcome of the negotiations between the UK Government and the EU27. These comments summarise our impressions.

Yesterday’s march, which was led by young people, was a moving reminder that humanity is still a strong force in the UK. We saw people of all ages in the march, ranging from senior citizens marching for their grandchildren to children wrapped in the EU flag.

There were also many, original placards which people had made. Here are a few examples.

Meanwhile, the BBC continues to boost the profiles of politicians like Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson by quoting them ‘for balance’ every time anyone dares to question the wisdom of the UK leaving the EU.

The scale of the March felt amazing, as we stood in it. Before we set off, we heard a series of stirring speeches. Our friend Tom Brake, Brexit spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat’s, pointed out how much of a distraction Brexit has been for both the Government and Parliament. There are many other pressing issues, such as homelessness, which they could have been doing something about.

The speeches included Vince Cable uttering the most popular slogan of the day: “Bollocks to Brexit”. The rhythmic pattern of this slogan was repeated from time to time during the march using whistles.

By Sunday morning, news of the march (which eventually became the top story on BBC News on Saturday afternoon) had been removed from the BBC’s top stories. Even while the article was the main story, the first person quoted in it was Nigel Farage, who was speaking at a pro-Brexit event in Harrogate attended by 0.17% of the number of people attending the march. That there has been no follow-up of the March at all by the BBC suggests censorship rather than balance.

As we approached Downing Street, we could see many marchers heading in the opposite direction. We learned from them that access to Parliament Square had been blocked as there were too many people.

On our way to finding something to eat in Chinatown, we passed the statue of Shakespeare in the middle of Leicester Square. The quote on the lectern he is leaning on reads “There is no darkness but ignorance”. It seemed somehow appropriate for the occasion.

 Posted by at 12:51 am
%d bloggers like this: