Two months ago I wrote an article entitled “Fascist judges” about the concerted move by judges in England to outlaw jury nullification.
Despite the long and established history of juries refusing to convict for laws they view as an abuse of power by the state, climate protestors have been jailed for contempt simply for trying to tell juries why they acted.
Four out of five defendants have now been found guilty of intent to cause criminal damage in the “Shenstone 5” trial over the blockade of an Elbit factory. Judge Chambers had ruled similarly that the defendants could not put the motive for their actions to the jury.
You may recall that when protesting outside another Elbit factory a few days ago, I had a policeman read out an order accusing me and the small group with me of “criminal intent”.
Chambers told the jury they were legally allowed only to decide the facts, not moral right.
The prosecution had argued, extraordinarily, that the defence of “necessity” could only be made if the defendants could identify the specific part number of a component, which specific weapon it had been put into, and prove which specific Palestinian had been killed by that weapon.
That the plant indubitably made components of weapons which killed Palestinian civilians was not enough.
We now know that Judge Chambers was in receipt of communication from Lawyers for Israel before sentencing, seeking to reinforce the new doctrine that jurors are not allowed to give a verdict according to conscience.
This really is a new doctrine. Every law school teaches the famous cases where juries refused to convict on principle and against the direction of the judge.
It is to me quite extraordinary that outside parties are permitted to contact a judge before sentencing in order to motivate him against a defendant.
I suspect anyone other than “Lawyers for Israel” who did this would be in trouble.
Just three days ago Mike Lynch-White was sentenced to a cruel 27 months for damaging property at a non-violent protest at yet another Israeli weapons factory in England.
There is plainly a state policy of vicious repression in play.
Fairly recent examples of “Jury nullification” or “perverse verdict” include the demolishers of the Colston statue, and the 2001 protestors against Trident who admitted they intended to cause damage. All were acquitted despite being plainly guilty on the facts.
In 2021 a judge directed the jury to convict Extinction Rebellion protestors who damaged Shell HQ, specifically stating they had “no defence in law.” Yet the jury refused to convict.
The most famous example in my lifetime was my friend, and member of this blog’s below the line community, Clive Ponting. The jury would not jail him for telling the truth, that Thatcher sank the old Argentine battleship General Belgrano as it headed away from the Falklands.
The current concerted judicial effort to outlaw jury nullification is of huge concern. It is of no surprise to see the hand of Israel attempting to guide the judiciary, in the interests of defending its weapons industry.
Of massive concern too is the growing number of political prisoners in the UK. Julian Assange is rightly the most famous. But how many prisoners are there currently in British prisons whose “crime” is political?
Adding together environmental activists, anti-lockdown activists, peace activists and others, the list of the UK’s political prisoners is alarmingly long. Is any NGO maintaining a constant count? Is there perhaps a need to found such an NGO?
I do not trust Amnesty when it comes to the UK as the leadership is too Starmer adjacent.
The moves in England to outlaw jury nullification and those in Scotland to abolish juries in sexual assault cases, are part of a major impulse to state authoritarianism shown also in the new UK Public Order Act, the Orwellian-named UK Online Safety Bill, and Scotland’s equally Orwellian-named Hate Crime Act.
This onslaught against civil liberties is caused by the nervousness of the entire political and oligarch classes, who are scared of their own citizens as the wealth gap ever increases.
That political class unanimity is proven by the undisguised support of Keir Starmer and the so-called “Labour Party” for all of these repressive developments.
Shamefully the SNP MPs have been sending out stock replies on Assange that fully support the UK government line.
Convictions based on “intent” to do something you have not actually done, are generally dubious. The Shenstone defendants have been told by Judge Chambers they will get prison sentences. Expect these to be vicious.
Doubtless there will be victory celebrations at Lawyers for Israel.
————————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
“This really is a new doctrine. Every law school teaches the famous cases where juries refused to acquit on principle and against the direction of the judge.”
I assume you mean “refuse to convict” rather than “acquit” on principle?
Thanks, fixed.
Off topic, i know, but Ithaka : The Fight to Free Assange, is being shown on ITV at 10.20pm (Sunday).
I understand that when capital punishment was still practised in Britain, certain jury members refused to convict defendents accused of a capital crime because they objected to the death penalty. The way England is moving, and especially if the national conservative movement were to gain influence and power, I can well imagine capital punishment being restored. What price then jury members being given no moral right to object to such a cruel punishment that has little if any deterrent factor, despite what its advocates claim?
You’re not wrong John. In fact, Priti Patel, the Israeli sockpuppet, is a fan of capital punishment and was/is looking into its restoration. I’m also sure Stürmer, the self proclaimed zionist, would not object. The UK advances backwards at an increasing rate.
Virgil (and pinched by F. Scott Fitzgerald).
Going by his description of the statements on Mr Greenstein’s website and Facebook page as ‘false exhortations’, it looks like Jonathan Turner is yet another lawyer who doesn’t understand the law – and asking the defence counsel to pass your missive to the prosecution is a bit cheeky (maybe that’s why she passed it on to our host instead).
The post referred to seems to have been removed from both of Tony Greenstein’s websites:
https://azvsas.blogspot.com/
https://tonygreenstein.com/
They have different appearances but their content seems to be the same. I’ve been looking for the article in internet caches and archives; archive.org seems to have missed it by not archiving the site very often.
Edit: google.co.uk doesn’t seem to have it either.
Here’s an interesting one; that picture is Trudi, the friend of mine who tipped me off to Extinction Rebellion. Her contempt charge has been referred to the Attorney General:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230515023532/https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2023/05/wolverhampton-trial-of-palestine-action.html
Edit: that post has definitely been removed from azvsas.blogspot.com
Yes I have had to remove, on pain of immediate imprisonment, all my blogs on the trial. I would be guilty otherwise of contempt of court. However anyone who wants a copy of one or all of them on the trial (6 in all) can email me at [email protected]
Tony greenstein, deep respect to you for the actions you’ve taken. Where the court saw criminality, I see conscience and compassion. Strength to you.
If a jury defied a judge by refusing to provide a guilty verdict, would they be liable to contempt of court charges?
Would any trial of defiant jurors be a juryless trial and follow the processes you endured in your c of c ‘trial’?
A judge in England & Wales cannot direct a jury to find a defendant guilty under any circumstances, deepgreen. Therefore, jury members can’t be charged with contempt of court whatever they decide. I presume similar applies in Scotland, otherwise Lady D would have directed them to find Alex Salmond guilty.
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/crown-court-trial-jury
Lapsed Agnostic, what you have quoted from your link, “[a] judge in England & Wales cannot direct a jury to find a defendant guilty under any circumstances” directly contradicts examples that Craig has given, including one supported by a direct quote of the judge:
– ‘In 2021 a judge directed the jury to convict Extinction Rebellion protestors who damaged Shell HQ, specifically stating they had “no defence in law.” Yet the jury refused to convict.’
I suspect that the legal definition of “direct a jury” has some more narrow definition than the meaning of the term in common language.
Thanks for your reply Clark. I’d imagine that the law is such that judges cannot specifically direct a jury to find a defendant guilty, although they can direct it to find them not guilty if they deem that there is no case to answer. The presiding judge may have stated that the defendants had no defence in law but, as outlined in the original blogpost, the jury could still have found them not guilty via jury nullification.
A few years ago when I served on a jury in a coroner’s court* (that’s two weeks of my life I won’t get back), the coroner specifically directed us to reach a verdict of either suicide or death by misadventure. If we’d reached any other verdict (e.g. natural causes) and refused to reconsider, I’d imagine there would have been a retrial with another jury. However, coroner’s courts are not crown courts – even though the word ‘coroner’ is derived from crown.
* There’s only eleven people on a coroner’s jury, just in case it ever comes up as the question you need for the big cash prize in Thursday’s canteen quiz. Just over a week to go until it’s officially (meteorological) summer.
Request to readers: as well as posting your opinions, please research the facts and the powerful people involved in such cases. Posting them here and elsewhere will help to expose the connections and corruption behind the power structures. Craig’s blog has a proud history of actually helping to alter the course of events rather than merely commenting upon them, eg. Fox and Werritty’s plan to incite war against Iran (Fox was forced to resign, Werritty disappeared, and the war did not materialise), and Cameron’s plan to launch a bombing campaign against Syria (which was voted down). Diligent researchers such as Mary (who retired from posting comments some time ago) were central to these successes. Craig needs our help, not merely our opinions. Together we can change things. We know we can, because we’ve done it before.
Love and rage.
Hi Clark ..Well said..I’m sure many here miss Mary
Mary x
The idea that motive is not of consequence is truly bad. Motive is critical. Were I to smash a door to save a life of someone inside a building I could be convicted of criminal damage if the motive is not disclosed. Also, as you have mentioned before, we have to trust a jury of adults to assess the case given all details, otherwise the law will be rigged to give the powerful everything they want. Judges cannot be allowed to become gods.
I don’t know what you’re so fussed about. Chocolate rations have been raised to 20g a week!
Would that be up from 30 grams?
since it´s from yesterday:
Berlin court ruled against pro-Palestine protests:
full German text:
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/zum-nakba-gedenktag-palaestina-demo-am-samstag-am-hermannpatz-in-neukoelln-verboten-li.350067
„(…)
Court confirms ban on Palestine demonstration in Berlin
A demonstration planned for Saturday in Neukölln has been banned by the police. The organizers filed an appeal – unsuccessfully.
(…)
On Friday morning, the police had banned the demonstration “for the fundamental right to freedom of assembly and expression on the 75th anniversary of the Nakba”, which was registered for Saturday, May 20 at Hermannplatz in Neukölln. According to police, about 1000 participants were expected. The Palestinian memorial day Nakba on May 15 commemorates the flight and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the first Middle East war in 1948 after the founding of the state of Israel.
(…)
The experiences from the past years had shown that at such meetings the immediate danger existed, “that it comes to anti-Semitic and people-inviting exclamations, glorification of violence, the mediation of readiness for violence and thereby to intimidation as well as acts of violence”, so the reasoning of the Berlin police.
The court shared this prognosis of danger. It is true that the applicant himself has not attracted attention so far. However, a series of meetings in the past had inevitably motivated, due to their motto, such a group of people to participate, “who show an anti-Israeli, if not anti-Semitic attitude” and from whom a threat to public safety emanates. The organizer did not make a distinction from this group of people.
(…)“
(The arguments brought forward ought to lead to a broad discussion how deep the law should go in its analysis for the causes of a geopolitical conflict and how the use of violence here and over there are interconnected. This is a serious problem and must cause double standards with consequences for the political culture if handled incorrectly, as has just happened- in the 60s the term “structural violence“ was coined to describe such particular complexities of how individuals´ lives and state force are related. A progressive approach out of fashion by now.)
West Germany was also an enthusiastic supporter of apartheid in South Africa (while East Germany supported the resistance).
Just one correction. Judge Chambers has not told defendants that they will get prison sentences but that the offences for which they are convicted ‘cross the custody threshold.’ Whether we are imprisoned or not remains to be seen.
I am surprised that the SNP doesn’t oppose what is happening to Julian Assange. This is shameful.
Otherwise an excellent article
Thanks Tony. I am sorry to say that is what I take “cross the custody threshold” to mean.
“cross the custody threshold” indicates a Judge’s view that a fine or community order etc. would not be sufficient. However, the phrase is neutral as to whether the Judge would be prepared to suspend any sentence of imprisonment or whether he is minded to order immediate imprisonment. While both are (technically) prison sentences, it is obviously of great concern to any convicted person whether they will be actually (and immediately) imprisoned, or whether they “only” have the threat of future imprisonment (if the sentence is activated) hanging over their head.
My understanding and as far as I know my barrister is that ‘cross the custody threshold’ means that the sentence might be imprisonment but it’s not certain. However I will check up and get back to you all.
On another matter I think the idea of setting up an NGO, possibly as a charity, dealing with political prisoners, would be a great idea. However for Charity Commission purposes its constitution would have to be widely construed so as not to be ruled out for not having charitable but political purposes.
Just received my copy of “Weaponising Anti-Semitism” by Asa Winstanley today. Looking forward to reading it. (Also yet to read Tony’s “Zionism During The Holocaust”.) I hope you don’t mind my giving these books a plug as I believe we British know far too little about Israel’s recent history, and for some reason Tony Robinson’s series Britain’s Forgotten Wars avoided the subject! (For more on that, “State of Terror” by Thomas Suarez is an eye-opener.)
I am eagerly awaiting my copy of Asa Winstanley’s book. I’ve also just ordered Simon Cohen’s “Jews Did Count But for the Wrong Reasons”, on the Labour Party’s “crisis of antisemitism”. Shout out for him.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jews-Did-Count-Wrong-Reasons/dp/1915796415/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1684615940&sr=8-1
The Thomas Suarez book “State of Terror” is listed as ‘currently unavailable’ on Amazon.co.uk. So was Richard Hardigan’s book ” The Other Side of the Wall” when I tried to order it yesterday. So are various other books that support Palestinian rights . . .
This could be a coincidence, of course; but it does seem to be a convenient (for Israel) pattern . . .
Don’t limit yourself to Amazon mate:
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=31493893791&searchurl=kn%3Drichard%2Bhardigan%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=31415313487&searchurl=kn%3D%2522state%2Bof%2Bterror%2522%2Bthomas%2Bsuarez%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1
I try not to buy anything from Amazon on general principles, it’s unavoidable sometimes, but it certainly isn’t the only place for books. Seems to be available in Waterstones too.
Btw, it is actually available on Amazon too – maybe they just had a sudden rush on, and it wqs out of stock.
‘Doubtless there will be victory celebrations at Lawyers for Israel.’
And beyond, especially in regards to Tony. And I have little doubt that champagne corks will be popping at the BoD and CAA and JLM and CST and LAA et al, along with the JC and the other Jewish newspapers, all of whom conspired in the A/S black op against Jeremy Corbyn and the left, and had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about causing concern and consternation amongst many British Jews in their quest to destroy Jeremy and subvert democracy. And not forgetting the MSM of course who gave them a platform and legitimacy, along with their own propagandists.
Yes I know there are thousands and thousands of such ‘articles’, but here’s a particularly malevolent one by the CAA:
‘JEREMY CORBYN ADDRESSES ANOTHER ANTISEMITISM-INFESTED RALLY……’
https://antisemitism.org/jeremy-corbyn-addresses-another-antisemitism-infested-rally-organised-by-palestine-solidarity-campaign-as-second-free-palestine-convoy-passes-without-incident-thanks-to-heavy-polic/
Craig writes: “Adding together environmental activists, anti-lockdown activists, peace activists and others, the list of the UK’s political prisoners is alarmingly long. Is any NGO maintaining a constant count? Is there perhaps a need to found such an NGO?”
It is by no means an exhaustive list, but Rebels in Prison Support maintain a database of past and current political prisoners in the UK. These are primarily climate/environment activists from groups like Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, Stop HS2, Insulate Britain etc, but also includes Palestine Action prisoners and others.
In addition, it shows how you can write to them in prison and the organisation provides important welfare support. As it’s all voluntary, they’re always looking for help! https://rebelsinprison.uk
Cheers Craig. Looks like the Greenstein blog may have taken down the post referred to (or I copied it badly) so difficult to moan about that aspect other than to stubbornly insist that contempt of a court order is still not same as contempt of court and, by their own words, the words the lawyers for israel particularly object to relate to other trials so cannot, of themselves, constitute a contempt of the (necessarily expired) order to remove statements about the case from the internet.
That’s not the only sign of potential misconduct though, and when the judges get replaced by chatGPT yon robocop risks having a field day if this is a fair reflection of how English law is to be interpreted in future – i.e. the logical extension of equality under the law implies that, over and above the question as to whose side the Israeli lawyers are really on, an integrity test of the Elbit conditions of sale – and whatever ISO/ BS licensing procedures might be in place to mitigate consequences of foreign entities purchasing goods intended to cause criminal damage (using the level of detail required of the protestors’ defence of necessity as its baseline), irrespective of the buyers’ stated motive – will become a necessary* part of their business.
Denying the presentation of facts relating to motive in a trial about intent also looks dangerously unsafe once it is recognised that, in the absence of reason (motive), intent is subjective – especially where justice is concerned.
*presumably the current procedures are not nearly as strict otherwise the information requested of the defendants, as a precondition of allowing their preferred defence, would have been readily available to them already)
I have read this post on a Saturday night having just heard about the more or less complete capture of Bakhmut by the Russia while Zelensky is fawning his presence in Hiroshima with the G7, though no media questions are asked about why he should be there. BBC website clearly does not want to acknowledge the fact of Bakhmut and Steven Nolan on BBC 5 seems more interested in Philip Schofield’s demise on ITV as if that was of crucial importance.
I have certainly read about other trials where judges have refused to allow accused to explain their motivation in acting as they did, which can only be considered as a political judgement made consciously or otherwise under political influence, and here we go again. I would have thought that it is a judge who as part of his or her job should be instructing a jury to take motivation into account. That they are failing to do so and act under pressure from the likes of Lawyers for Israel, who promote the indefensible, but who should have no more influence than Zelensky on the G7, shows just what a rotten corrupt world we are living in.
The reality is that Zelensky doesn’t actually have to visit Germany or France or the UK or go to Japan to negotiate with anyone for weapons, and it is of course all public relations. And not just for him! He knows that the US and its allies will provide him/Ukraine with what it needs to fight their proxy war against Russia. And he is more-than-happy to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of his fellow Ukrainians, and have tens of thousands of others permanently crippled and maimed, and millions displaced, along with all the devastation and destruction, to please the US gangster elite, and to go down in the Psychopaths history book as the one who helped the US gangsters take a major step in their quest for a unipolar world and global domination.
Came across the following article by chance a couple of days ago which kinda sums it all up (originally posted last October):
‘The War in Ukraine: Made in Washington Not Moscow’
https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-ukraine-made-washington-not-moscow/5797129
Thanks Allan for the link. I have reported here previously there was a common understanding at Northwood joint operations that a tense Russia uneasy with US missile launchers in Romania (and Poland) might strike Kyiv if provoked; namely a familiar UK/US proxy perpetuation of violent and chaotic riots; in this case Odessa.
The generals accept Russia might be overwhelmed by Tomahawk nuclear missiles in a retaliatory scenario. In other words President Putin is clear in that an existential threat to Russia exists and as a result has moved her nuclear weapons to launch ready within 5 minutes.
This is a rather strange comment. It’s absolutely obvious that the vast majority of Ukrainian people have mobilised in defence of their country from Russian invasion. It is a classic anti-colonial struggle for national liberation against its former coloniser (not that different from the struggle of the Palestinians). The idea the “psychopath” Zelenskiy would be able to coerce the Ukrainian people into fighting on his and the USA’s behalf against their best interests is pretty laughable, as is the one that the US is pulling all the strings. At the start of the invasion, the US “intelligence” was that Ukraine was going to be overrun and they offered to fly Zelenskiy out. The mass of Ukrainian people mobilised and he didn’t leave, either because he saw what was happening, or because he is individually actually very brave (probably a bit of both). Numerous oligarchs did flee and the political fallout from that will come when the war ends. It is also the case that Zelenskiy and the US government don’t agree about the conduct of the war, as evidenced by the former’s constant pleas for more armaments. The US (correctly) limits the lethality of the weapons sent, against Zelenskiy’s wishes.
Of course, it is true that the US, the EU etc. do not have the same interests as the Ukrainian people: they want Ukraine to be within their sphere of economic and military influence. That outcome has been made much more likely by Russia’s invasion, which has immensely strengthened NATO, both politically and militarily. Sweden and Finland would have found it really difficult to join (even if they had a government that wanted to) if Putin had not been so stupid on 24/02/2022. Where Ukraine ends up remains to be seen, but the role of leftists outside the war zone is to support those socialists in Ukraine who oppose it joining NATO. The fact that they have correctly identified this as a war of national liberation and participate in it means that the Ukrainian working class will actually listen to them.
The “devastation and destruction” is almost entirely due to the Russian bombardment of Ukrainian towns and cities. Russia itself has hardly been touched. It is worth mentioning that socialists and trades unionists are able to be active in Ukraine and can organise. To call this a “proxy war” is an insult to the Ukrainian people, who are undergoing daily bombardment and huge economic sacrifices as they resist their imperialist neighbour.
Forgive me for saying so Philip, but you don’t appear to understand what a proxy war is. Chris Hedges summed it all up perfectly in a recent article:
‘Ukraine’s Death by Proxy’
The arming of Ukraine is not missionary work. It has nothing to do with liberty or freedom. It is about weakening Russia. Take Russia out of the equation and there would be little tangible support for Ukraine. There are other occupied peoples, including the Palestinians, who have suffered as brutally and far longer than Ukranians. But NATO is not arming Palestinians to fight against their Israeli occupiers or holding them up as heroic freedom fighters. Our love of freedom does not extend to Palestinians or the people of Yemen currently being bombed with British and American weapons, or the Kurds, Yazidis and Arabs resisting Turkey, a longtime NATO member, in its occupation and drone war throughout the north and east of Syria. Our love of freedom only extends to people who serve our “national interest.”
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/ukraines-death-by-proxy
That section of Chris Hedges’ article I agree with. I’ve already said that the interests of the Ukrainian people and Western imperialism do not coincide. But when Chris Hedges discusses Vietnam as a proxy war (presumably between the US on one side and the USSR and China on the other) I have to disagree. The interests of the North Vietnamese and the NLF did not coincide with those of China and the USSR (and within 4 years of the former’s victory China invaded Vietnam). But fundamentally it was a war of national liberation, just as that in Ukraine is. To believe that the Vietnamese people were somehow duped by Russia and China into a war as part of their international power politics games does not correspond to reality. They had fought for national independence for half a century and the war with the US was the last stage of that, just as the Ukrainian struggle is part of a very long fight for self-determination.
Wars are messy and we don’t know what the final outcome will be, but Russia occupying Ukraine is the worst possible option. It is a recipe for genocide and it wouldn’t be the first time that had happened to Ukraine under Russian occupation (Holodomor).
“It is worth mentioning that socialists and trades unionists are able to be active in Ukraine and can organise”
A lie, as I’m sure you well know. The oligarch puppet Zelensky has shamelessly proscribed not just socialist parties and trade unions under the cover of war but even vaguely leftwing political parties and media.
As for Zelensky in the broader context, any truthful telling of this conflict will identify him as a prime culprit. In 2019 he offered peace in order to get elected by the whole of Ukraine. After his election he chose war at the behest of literal Nazis in Western Ukraine.
I don’t see an issue with banning political parties that expressed support for the Russian-backed puppet regimes in Donbas and Luhansk after the invasion. This is pretty normal in the context of war and is far less repressive than the actions of the Putin regime, especially after the invasion.
“After the election [Zelinsky] chose war”… Does this mean he asked the Russians to invade? Or did he choose to support the resistance to the invasion? What do you think he should have done?
Every reliable commentator says that fascism is a very weak political force in Ukraine, electorally much weaker than in many western European countries.
It is worth following the contributions of the Ukrainian left, feminists, LGBT+ groups and indeed the Russian anti-war left to get a non-“campist” view of this war. Find links through Simon Pirani’s blog People and Nature, the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign and Europe Solidaire sans Frontieres.
> The US (correctly) limits the lethality of the weapons sent, against Zelenskiy’s wishes.
I don’t consider the US policy to be “correct”.
Of course there should be limits on the lethality of deployed weapons. But the way US policy currently stands, Ukraine is unable to gaher the equipment needed to quickly expel Russia from its territory. The consequence of that is inevitably that the war will drag on, more people will die, and more cities will be flattened.
You can make a coherent argument that the USA shouldn’t be supplying weapons to Ukraine *at all*; but the way it’s working it the moment, it really does look as if US policy is to fight to the last Ukrainian, and use Ukraine as a way of grinding down the Russian army and economy. The humane and “correct” approach, once you take sides in a conflict, is to end the conflict as decisively and quickly as possible. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think a “peace deal” that doesn’t include Ukraine regaining control of its recognized international borders can ever end this conflict.
I get the impression that the US does not want to be drawn into active combat in this war. That would be extremely dangerous. Putin has whipped up his supporters into a nationalist frenzy and for these two reasons the US seems to want to ensure that Ukraine severely limits its attacks on Russian soil and especially not civilian targets. So, yes, they are hoping the war will weaken Russia by a process of attrition. I don’t see that as necessarily meaning Ukrainian – or Russian or any other casualties – are thereby increased, given that one of the alternatives is nuclear war. Of course, weakening of Russia serves wider US interests as well.
I’m with you on the conditions for a lasting peace. Hopefully, it will come about through a process of political change in Russia at some point in the not too distant future.
Biden (the USA) has been spot on in its handling of this war. Sure, many Ukrainians and some in the west are perhaps disappointed that more weapons have not been provided, but more weapons wouldn’t necessarily bring the war to a faster conclusion and wouldn’t necessarily reduce the final body count of Russians and Ukrainians. Ultimately it will take time for Russians to realize they have made a mistake (just as it took time for the USA to realize that Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes).
The most outstanding leadership Biden has shown is the way USA has dis-engaged and gotten back to business as usual, demonstrating that this war does not affect USA business and it is up to the warring parties to terminate the war – essentially creating another Afghanistan for Russia (a Vietnam for USA), where ultimately the only sane solution will be to go home. Even Prigozhin today is saying the war was a mistake and that is a big change from last year. I am sure many Russians are privately saying the same/claiming they were tricked by the west into starting this war they didn’t want.
Meanwhile in the west markets are stable, the economy is doing well and the odds of a western collapse or start of WW3 don’t seem to be on the horizon – I cannot say that would be the case if a more hot-headed policy had been pursued.
Philip, your assertion that “It’s absolutely obvious that the vast majority of Ukrainian people have mobilised in defence of their country from Russian invasion”, is unsubstantiated by the facts on the ground.
I regularly see complaining posts and videos by these who have fought in the Eastern front, many CONSCRIPTED , that when they reach the Western Ukraine, Liev, Kiev etc there are many ‘bulls’ who are just enjoying and living and partying , as if there is no war! They don’t give a crap about the Donbass a 1000km away from their partying lives.
That’s because there is NO WAR, it’s a Special Military Operation, in a R2P humanitarian mission in a civil war which threatens ethnic cleansing and genocide. Again documented by the western Ukranian leadership and Nazis. The thugs of whom terrorise the East as they party in the West. Whilst sacrificing the ethno russian peasantry of Ukraine.
So not a ‘vast majority’ but a ‘vile minority’ at best. Along with a few of our unelected leadership and media moguls of Europe and the Usual Suspects of the Fascist World that we represent.
another day another NAFO troll. Just blatant lies, uttered with certainty and civility.
Philip, I hope you will concede that Ukraine was created in the 20th century from disparate ethnic groups including a very large Russian minority, that had fought each other in some of the bloodiest battles of WW2, that the trouble resurfaced started because the nationalist extremists brought to power by Washington after a violent coup tried to ban Russian as a language, that the “Donbass” declared independence, that Kiev responded by starting a civil war, and that Russia made strenuous efforts for many years to find a peaceful solution that kept Donbass part of Ukraine, that these agreements were reneged upon by France, Germany and Ukraine, that after a token show of force the Russians immediately agreed to more negotiations, a withdrawal and a ceasefire, and that they only went in with force after these agreements too were reneged upon? It seems to me impossible to square your narrative with these facts.
Well said Tim the obvious is now plainly obvious.
> It’s absolutely obvious that the vast majority of Ukrainian people have mobilised in defence of their country from Russian invasion
Errh — you have heard of conscription, haven’t you? Why do you think men under the age of sixty are not allowed to leave the country. I understand they even sometimes use the methods of 18th-century Britain, rounding them up off the streets..
> It is a classic anti-colonial struggle for national liberation against its former coloniser
The population of what was the state of Ukraine was not a nation; that is a major reason for the civil war that went on for eight years before the Russian intervention.
Some of us have watched the vastly different media coverage from both both sides since 2014. I am fortunate to still have both BBC and Russian / Ukrainian TV so I fully subscribe to the facts in the global research article. 33 years ago the USSR collapsed financially and politically. I had an “on-site” view of the chaos following perestroika from 1994-1998 . This time, I do not think the Russians will bend over for anyone. It scares me that the US/NATO/EU are either stupid, or know full well what they are doing and do not care about their own people.
I don’t know how widely it was covered by the UK media, if at all, but last week the NY Times published a full-page ad by fifteen US national security experts calling for a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine. I suspect it was mainly ignored by Western media, and for the obvious reason that it contradicts the main-stream narrative. Anyway, here’s a link to what they said (one thing I’d never heard of before is that in 1996 :U.S. weapons manufacturers formed the Committee to Expand Nato!):
‘The U.S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World’
https://eisenhowermedianetwork.org/russia-ukraine-war-peace/
PS Via the above website I ended up reading a piece by one of the signatories – ie William J. Astore, Lieutenant Colonel, US Air Force (retired) – entitled ‘Are the Best Years of My Country Behind Me’, a very heartfelt piece that I urge everyone to look up and read.
One can only wonder how a thoughtfully independent mind (Craig) can fight wholeheartedly the seat of everything fascist and cannibalistic, and eagerly follow the venomous narratives generated by the same very seat, be it nonexistent “gender” issues or the fizzled-out Indi movement in its duly bankrupt, self-serving forms, or the whole “Ukraine” thing. Pity.
One can only wonder at the effortlessly patronising tone which condemns Craig for not subscribing to whatever it is you happen to believe.
‘Lawyers for Israel’. Those three words tell you all you need to know !
Stuff the basterds mouths with gold because that’s what these ‘people’ worship.
Zionists aren’t Jews and Jews are no more greedy than non-Jews.
Talk about “effortlessly patronising tone”…!
I have never practiced as a lawyer but do possess a qualifying law degree under the terms of the Common Professional Exam or whatever it is called nowadays which is to say, the academic threshold that must be broached before one can commence training as a barrister or solicitor. The main issue to take note of is that Contempt of Court is not a criminal offence, but merely a civil offence. There does exist the offence of Criminal Contempt, but this would involve such conduct as threatening witnesses or bribing jurors; quite how the offence of Criminal Contempt differs from that of Perverting the Course of Justice eludes my jurisprudential abilities – Anglophone legal systems tend to have the perplexing habit of allowing substantial, and substantially confusing, overlap between the provisions of various statutes. However, were the Facebook posts of the good Mr Greenstein to be re-posted by someone living outside the ambit of English law – in practice, outside England and Wales, then the legal system of this country would be helpless to prevent or to punish this – no extradition treaty allows for the transit of people suspected of civil offences and the provisions of one country’s civil law would simply be given no remit within another jurisdu, up to and including a High court injunction. Moreover, people imprisoned for civil offences cannot be so detained where this detention can be shown to have an adverse effect on their physical wellbeing – past cases have seen prisoners freed after going on hunger strike.
DISCLAIMER: The above post is intended only to stimulate debate on legal matters which must be seen as the lifeblood of a free and fair democracy, and is in no way intended to afford scope for individuals to circumvent the processes of the noble laws of England, civil or criminal. Honest! .
I am surprised that you say Contempt of Court is a civil offence as civil offences are not normally punishable by imprisonment, except for none payment of fines and Community Charge. Contempt of Court carries a maximum sentence of 2 years. Are you sure about this?
I certainly am. You can indeed be imprisoned for up to two years for a civil offence – in more enlightened times it was only one.
It is not a criminal offence in Scotland. I don’t have a criminal record, and was released after four months without license. In prison I was treated as a civil prisoner, as specifically provided for C of C in the Scottish prison rules.
But in England it may be different.
You are probably right the more I think of it because there is no trial. Although Tommy Robinson did have one. But the point we should be making is that for judges to send people down for contempt of court is them being judges in their own cause which is a fundamental breach of natural justice.
Contempt of court should be triable b4 a jury and not be dependent on the whim of an irascible judge
Since this black chapter in Uk justice and its political bias towards a rogue state that rejects all UN rules regulations and opinions, in favour of all but their own political decisions, as even the judges in Israel can vouch for, harassed as they are by alleged dubious political fraudsters in charge, should judges here be fined or shown the yellow then red card for Irascerbilities shown in public, surely a court room is still public?
Is it time for the people to demand that they keep to a teack of legal rules and have public support for their calamitous decisions against peaceful non violent protesters and demonstrators/ bystanders to demonstrations?
thank you to Craig, Tony G. And Clark for waking me up from 17th birthday celebrations. Im getting bad with putting numbers into the right order.
Craig, re Clive P comment, the Belgrano was a cruiser, not a battleship. 10k tons and 6″ guns, not 40-50k tons and 16″ guns: armour and crew numbers in proportion too.
No modern navy deploys “battleships”; in the sense of “gunship larger than a cruiser”. Modern cruisers deploy missiles with greater punch, range and accuracy than 16″ guns. In its modern usage, “battleship” just means “large warship”.
“The current concerted judicial effort to outlaw jury nullification is of huge concern. It is of no surprise to see the hand of Israel attempting to guide the judiciary, in the interests of defending its weapons industry.”
No the zionist occupiers of Palestine aren’t doing this for themselves, they are a proxy being used by the state as a Brownshirt Trojan Horse to rig juries.
Don’t know how relevant this is but Israel’s claims on Palestine are tenuous to say least at the best of times.
It all seems to be based on a bunch a fairytales known as the Hebrew Bible (OT), which have been proven as being untrue and misleading in most aspects than can be checked or scientifically examined.
And in any case definitely written by no God.
There is no archeological evidence for “Egyptian captivity”, “escape from Pharaohs”, “Moses’ 40 year march on the bottom of the Red sea” or some such rubbish.
For all we know, Jews had never even lived there.
How can they have the right of return to something that never belonged to them in the first place.
Though Arabs are not original dwellers of Palestine either but at least they were there earlier than Jews.
GC: “Though Arabs are not original dwellers of Palestine either but at least they were there earlier than Jews.”
Certainly earlier than some people from New York or Russia, or anywhere else, who had not stepped outside their respective countries before but who decided they liked the idea of being on the favourable side in a nasty, far-right apartheid state. People who have no problem stealing the property of others, destroying long established communities, and taking the homes, liberty and even the lives of men, women and children who had never done them any disservice. People who do not care about honour, decency, law, or anything except Might = Right – particularly when the world’s bully-in-chief of the world looks fondly on, as you do whatever the hell you like. Oh yes, not forgetting – people meeting all these requirements and who also happen to be Jewish.
If that doesn’t make a state founded upon racism, tell me what does.
“Though Arabs are not original dwellers of Palestine either but at least they were there earlier than Jews.”
The Palestinians are not ethnically Arab to any great degree, but the descendants of people who are the original pre-Hebrew inhabitants of Peleset, a name known in the Bronze Age, who came to speak Arabic, the Semitic lingua franca of the time, in the Middle Ages. That is why they are called Palestinians. Nevertheless there was some infusion of blood from Arab tribes who arrived, but as you can imagine, those who arrived were not numerous, because the desert (Syrian/Arabian) doesn’t support large populations.
IMO – Historically, the israelites and the connection with the Jewish thing are a modern construct that has grown into something else. The torah, the five books of Abraham, was written much later than the the events described within and was compiled by the religious leaders to document their official narrative. As a historical text it’s an important book but it is NOT a historically accurate description of actual events. Only fools and the corrupt would use these religious books as a basis of fact.
Yes that is right. Zionism is a Christian not a Jewish idea. It was the Christian Evangelicals like Lord Shaftesbury and Palmerstone who wanted Jews to ‘return’ to establish a settler state adjacent to the Suez Canal. According to this Christian mythology the Jewish ‘exile’ was punishment for not accepting Christ and their ‘return’ was in order to enable their rapture, the Messiah and god knows what else.
That is why, almost unanimously, the Orthodox Jews OPPOSE Zionism as a secular heresy. Chaim Weizmann in ‘Trial & Error’ called the Jews who lived in Palestine prior to the Zionist colonists the ‘Old Yishuv’ to distinguish them. They didn’t welcome the Zionist interlopers. By the mid 19th century the majority of Jerusalem was Jewish but they lived in harmony with other religious sects. This had no political significance. Today it’s all about Jewish Supremacy and the religion becomes the cover.
If anyone was descended from the ancient Hebrews it was the Palestinians not the European Zionist settlers. There is a lot of evidence 4 this inc. clinging to old Jewish customs such as lighting candles on the Friday night.
But it is totally irrelevant who was descended from whom. Ancient tribes wandered all over the place. They didn’t claim ownership. Imagine an Italian comes to your door and claims rights of ownership because his Roman grandparent 20 centuries removed once lived there. Would you vacate?
“ The torah, the five books of Abraham, …..”
========
Authorship of the Pentateuch is traditionally ascribed to Moses, not Abraham.
Upon being empanelled, jury persons swear on oath that they will reach a judgement only upon the facts presented in court. The facts presented will be relevant to the alleged offence, so did the defendants’ actions render them culpable or not? The proper time for consideration of the defendants’ motives would come after a guilty verdict, and as part of pleas for mitigation.
In the real world, jury members come with all sorts of associated opinions and even prejudices, so it renders the oath taken to judge only on facts to be essentially worthless. But any admission of such a state of affairs (Jury Nullification) would represent a contempt of the court. It’s only the secrecy of the jury room that enables the phenomenon of the perverse judgement to come about.
It should also be remembered by those who want to pursue this idea of juries deciding on good and bad law that’s becoming common these days, that it’s only been a couple of hundred years since the current state of affairs has held sway. Before that it was common for judges to lock juries in the jury room until such time as the ‘Right’ decision was reached.
they are reaching a judgement based on the facts. since criminal intent is a requirement to be convicted of a crime, considering it only after the fact is unjust.
Mens rea would probably have been present in most of the cases that CM highlights here ?
like the 6 elderly protestors? the woman holding up a sign?
I’d imagine the bobbies present informed the ‘6 Elderly Protestors’ that their continued presence would constitute an illegal assembly ? As indeed they seem to have done to CM, and as described in an earlier article.
The real question here is not if juries should become a sort of activists senate, but certainly in the case of this Israeli factory, what is the background ? Israel has a productive industrial sector, so one would wonder why they choose to set up shop here in dear old blighty ? One might be forgiven for thinking that they are producing something that the UK defence establishment feels it needs ? That would certainly explain the ‘Very’ active policing of protests at the site.
Given the poor performance of most of the post cold war UK military products, one could be forgiven again for suspecting a boondoggle of some sort.
CO: ” so one would wonder why they choose to set up shop here in dear old blighty ?”
Very likely, for the same reason that weapons contractors in America spread their operations out over every single state – to make sure they have political influence. In the US, there’s not a senator who is likely to vote against “defense” budget increases, or their state will be hit hardest (the manufacturers will make sure of that).
In the UK, why – the government is far more likely to look favourably on some nasty, apartheid country – if that law-breaking bunch of war criminals and racists just happens to be also contributing to the tax base in the country, providing jobs, and let’s not even speculate on contributions to the political parties involved.
I can’t see the filth getting so enthusiastically involved for some organisation that doesn’t line the government’s pockets.
I think the jury thinks the cops got it wrong when they proclaimed to the 6 frail protestors that it was an illegal assembly. the cops considered arresting the guy who held up a blank sign at one of the stops on the coronation parade, but eventually decided not to. these cops could have done the same. if the judge does not even allow the possibility of the jury making that judgement (a very reasonable judgement btw, what possible threat did the 6 geriatrics pose to public order?) then the judge is intruding on their fact-finding mission. if one argues that that way lies chaos, i think the threat to public order and chaos posed by out-of-control cops is far greater.
Why is Elbit in the UK ?
The same reason that Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, L3 Harris, etc. are (Just to mention the Yanks).
In the 70s/80s the UK had a vibrant, world leading Defense and manufacture sector. Now, thanks to Thatcher, Blair, et al. it has all been sold off/outsourced. We are now beholden to foreign governments, primarily the USA, for our defence products and indeed for our defence overall. These companies don’t just sell us stuff, they dictate when and where we can use it, and what our defence strategy is. Israel is just part of this.
We are defenceless, captured and sold out by our traitorous governments. Pay your taxes and suck it up !
” The proper time for consideration of the defendants’ motives would come after a guilty verdict, and as part of pleas for mitigation.”
Is “the defendant undertook this action because they believed … (insert motive here)” not a fact? How can a court distinguish between murder and manslaughter without considering motives?
”How can a court distinguish between murder and manslaughter without considering motives?”
The specifications for those offences are quite clear, and it would usually have been decided by the CPS what charges to bring after being supplied with evidence by the police.
“The specifications for those offences are quite clear,”
Quite possibly, but what differentiates between the specifications, apart from motive?
Premeditation, extreme recklessness, or just behaviour where unlawful killing is so remote a possibility that it becomes an unlikely result in the mind of the average man.
Ultimately, ‘Motive’ would require the CPS to employ mind readers. 🙂
and all of these objections could be posed to the behavior of the cops – a premeditated decision to shut down legal protests under the guise of an illegal assembly, extreme recklessness in doing so, behavior where a cop would reasonably believe this tiny assemblage of senior citizens is a danger to public order is so unlikely that it is but a remote possibility in the mind of the average juror. the state is rigging the trial.
“Ultimately, ‘Motive’ would require the CPS to employ mind readers.”
Although they are able to determine if something was premeditated, i.e. thought about before. Does that not also require the same amount of mind-reading? In addition, detectives are able to consider “motive, means and opportunity” when solving a crime without being any better equipped to read minds than the rest of us.
what this misses is that it is the judges who exclude facts, such as the war crimes of Elbit from the court now. They didn’t used to. But judicial decisions have decided that they are not relevant. The idea of considering them after a verdict is ludicrous. All you are doing is rationalising the twisting of legal precedent to fit the war aims and foreign policy of the British establishment which is what motivates this. The case you refer to is Bushells and its 1670 not a couple of hundred years.
See
Under threat of Contempt of Court & Imprisonment I have been forced to take down my blogs on the Palestine Action trial in Wolverhampton
https://tonygreenstein.com/2023/05/defend-the-right-of-juries-to-reach-decisions-according-to-their-conscience-not-those-of-judges-protecting-war-criminals/
How about the exclusion of prior offending being withheld from juries in run of the mill criminal cases ? What you’re suggesting would likely allow that to be also got round ?
The law courts are not a forum for activists, and nor should they be. A far better way to achieve the ends yourself and most here would like, would be to create a scenario whereby juries consist largely of citizens who are well informed with regard to current events ? Given that a lot of potential jurors are under the cosh of just getting through life, and still others have their curiosity satiated by increasingly infantile media exposure, I’d suggest we’ll be stuck with a far from perfect system of jurisprudence for a lot longer than the foreseeable future.
PS, looking at your blog its clear that you’re walking the walk in pursuing your beliefs.
“Convictions based on ‘intent’ to do something you have not actually done, are generally dubious. The Shenstone defendants have been told by Judge Chambers they will get prison sentences. Expect these to be vicious.”
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Lawyers_For_Israel_Oppose_Conscience
Can I just emphasise again, having checked with my barrister, that when Chambers said that the offences ‘crossed the custody threshold’ what he meant was that all options, inc. prison were available not that he was automatically going to imprison us. of course he might but then again he might not. Either way it is important that people are not deterred by these bewigged apparatchicks of Israel’s arms factories.
Tony, I was just thinking that despite Judges ruling that conscience can’t be mentioned in defence ot ones actions, surely the members of the jury must realise that that’s the case, and that you weren’t doing what you were doing just for the fun or hell of it or out of pure malice.
But, having thought that, I then wondered if the jury are actually informed and/or aware of what Elbit manufacture in their factories AND the fact that they sell these things to Israel which Israel then uses against the Palestinians.
But then I can only assume that that is highly unlikely (that they are unaware of such), as what you and your colleagues did would be completely devoid of context in the jurors minds if that were the case.
But then – assiming they ARE aware of these basic facts – one then wonders (as I just did) what the mindset of each and every juror is in repect of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, and – if that mindset is comprised of the main-stream narrative that Israels are the goodies defending themselves against evil terrorists – then any jurors holding such a mindset are not going to be at all sympathetic to what you did and why you did it.
part of the problem is that juries are not always very good. I think this was a right wing jury anyway. There were a couple of our supporters on it but they were intimidated though one held out on me and one other
More info on UKLFI, who funds them besides Israel.
“Israeli diplomat Shai Masot – who worked for the anti-BDS Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs in London – was recorded in Al Jazeera’s 2017 undercover documentary The Lobby saying of groups such as UKLFI: “It’s good to leave those organisations independent. But we help them, actually.””
https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/UK_Lawyers_for_Israel
That Jonathan Turner is described as CEO of an organisation called Lawyers for Israel makes one wonder what kind of cases it represents. The killers of Shireen Abu Akleh? Complaints against the false reporting of the “Jewish Chronicle”? How to claim against Jeremy Corbyn? The mind boggles.
Since Craig is one of the few defenders of the idea that Palestinians actually have rights albeit the weaker kind dubbed “human rights” I have been surprised that it has taken so long for dialogue between Craig and Tony Greenstein to appear on this one.
Every week the Pro Palestine blogs that I visit include as well as Craig’s and Tony’s include the electronic intafada, mondoweiss, Juan Cole’s Informed comment and Steven Salaita’s infrequently updated one. I strongly recommend them all.
And JVL of course. As for the few defenders you mention, well, yes, comparitively, but we actually have most of the best journalists on the planet on our side – ie the side of truth.
I met Craig for the first time last September at the Labour Party fringe left events
@ Carlyle Moulton
@ Carlyle Moulton
Can you provide links for these pro-Palestinian authors?
Craig, the “wealth gap” has never been a problem. I personally do not care one infinitesimal damn if, eg, Jeff Bezos uses his wealth to buy himself a solid gold yacht, and neither do most people, provided we can all make a reasonable living. It’s only when we live in a system that makes that impossible that we have a problem. Systems that make that impossible are the likes of Venezuela and North Korea, both of which are predicated on the beneficence of the all-powerful state. See where I’m going with this? Juries developed explicitly in opposition of such entities. They exist to mitigate the state, to stand as a buffer between the individual and the power of government. People in the Nationalist movement really need to take stock of where they are politically on the left-right spectrum, because right now there is an undertow of “we don’t want independence unless we can have a socialist republic” going on. Quite apart from the fact that you are actively and deliberately rejecting support — and votes — from conservatively-minded people, the jury system is very much the child of classical liberalism, which is itself a centrist at most philosophy. To put it bluntly, the further left Scotland goes, the more Scots bring this kind of thing on their own heads.
Don’t aim to go off piste but, IMO:
Socialists essentially want their governments, the state, to provide basic ‘rights’ (welfare) for the people and protect the people and the country from exploitation by capitalists. this results in a big state and can be open to corruption.
Conservatists want ‘light/small’ government to enable people to control their destiny and grow without restrictions from a big state. The problem, as I see it, is light government actually results in big business running the show and exploiting the assets of the state to their own ends. Profit driven organisations generally don’t give a jot for peoples welfare or for the protection of the country, so corruption and exploitation is rife, as is the obscene accumulation of wealth.
We need a middle way as socialism and Conservatism are in reality just two cheeks of the same arse.
SB: [Socialism] “… “this results in a big state and can be open to corruption.”
And every single entreprise, of any size at all, cannot? And that’s it – socialism dismissed in simplistic, half-baked nonsense like that does it for you? Jeez!
You state what Cons supposedly want, people controlling their destiny etc. etc. – that’s what they might say, but far from what happens in practice. You may notice that Cons everywhere want centralisation, full control, and their chief aim in life is to funnel taxpayer money and public assets to their mates in big business. The “investor” class.
The “middle way” is precisely the happy-clappy BS that Clinton and Blair fed us for years, while ratcheting politics ever rightwards. That supposed panacea is well and truly dead.
Your “both-sides”-ism is also the hackneyed, lazy attempt to pretend at the “sensible middle way” those con-men Blair and Clinton were also very fond of.
SB, as you point out, the divide is basically between totalitarianism/fascism (the difference between the two being that in the former, big business is run by the government and in the latter, vice versa) and libertarianism, not between socialism and capitalism. Neither of the latter will prevent a country ending up at totalitarian or fascist, they just provide different routes to the same destination. It’s still the road to Hell, just paved with different good intentions.
All human society is beset by rent-seekers, those who want to do nothing and live off others’ efforts, and always has been, so long as there has been a surplus of production over immediate need for the rent-seekers to batten upon. In a socialist state, those rent-seekers gravitate to the government and in a capitalist one, they gravitate to the senior management of organisations.
B: ” In a socialist state, those rent-seekers gravitate to the government…”
Utter tosh. That such people can exist does not mean they do exist everywhere.
Socialist states – like most of northern Europe and Portugal – seek to minimise inequality, and provide decent public services. That’s it. No idea where you get this “rent-seekers” nonsense from. Preventing a handful of individuals getting obscenely wealthy at the price of utter poverty for large numbers is not acting as a “rent-seeker”.
The socialist influence can be seen in plenty of states where you have good public services, very few billionaires, and no destitution. Holland is one example.
By “gravitate to the government” I mean that they are attracted to it. Some countries have mechanisms in place to stop them taking over, which is what I take the saying attributed to Edmund Burke “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” to mean. If people do not actively keep the rent-seekers out, then they take over, as they have done in the UK in the past and are doing again. Socialism is no protection per se as our own experience proves. After WWII the UK was very socialist and look where we are now: the only socialism on offer is a very national form being pushed by the Labour Party.
Glenn NL & Bayard
“Rent seeking ” is very important issue in addressing the issues you (glenn) mentioned.
WRT Bayard’s interpretation of rent seeking as “In a socialist state, those rent-seekers gravitate to the government”. From Libertarian point of view he might be right, but claiming that 1000 or 10,000 people in the government are the problem in the economy is dishonest or misleading.
Are people on benefits “rent seekers”? (Of course they are in theory.)
Why not shoot the all rent seekers? The poor and the rich and the so-called investors investing in rent-seeking activities. Trillions are “invested” in rent-seeking activities/industries (in the olden days they were called Monopolies but now we believe we have competition (imo oligopoly). The whole system is fucked, but let’s believe in market economy.
I forgot (run out editing time)
Same Gas, water elec. etc., running down through same pipes and cables privately owned is competition (market economy). It is so stupid that I can not even argue against it… It is market “speculation” and buying Water at a “good” price on the market. Not to mention privately owned Rail tracks.
I think the sad passing of long time contributor Rhisiart Gwilym should be mentioned on this forum.
—
[ This ‘in memoriam’ notice has been moved to its own page in the discussion forum: Rhisiart Gwilym, rest in peace. Commenters are welcome to post any tributes there. ]
new on Jacobin Mag:
“Socialists Want to Crack Down on Israeli War Crimes”
By Liza Featherstone, 22/5/23
“A law proposed by New York socialist legislators would prohibit charitable organizations in New York from funding Israel’s illegal settlements — and pick a fight with the powerful pro-Israel organizations that regularly try to destroy progressive candidates.”
https://jacobin.com/2023/05/palestine-socialists-crack-down-israeli-war-crimes-new-york-mamdani
“(…)
A group of New York legislators recently put forth a bill that would ensure the state government can’t use public money to fund human rights abuses that have been found illegal under international law. The idea seems straightforward — why would government dollars be used to fund illegal activities?
(…)
But the bill’s introduction was met with immediate denunciation by establishment Democrats in the assembly, who called it “a ploy to demonize Jewish charities with connections to Israel . . . only introduced to antagonize pro-Israel New Yorkers and further sow divisions within the Democratic Party.” Senate and Assembly leadership said firmly that they would never allow the bill to pass.
Some went further. Stacey Pheffer Amato, a Queens assemblymember like Mamdani, said the bill was “purely antisemitic . . . propaganda that fuels a campaign of hate against Jewish people.”
The bill originated when a coalition of groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace and Center for Constitutional Rights, brought to Mamdani’s attention some $60 million a year given to nonprofit organizations registered in New York state but extensively engaged in settlement activity that violates the Geneva Convention.
(…)”
Jewish Voice for Labour re-posted this Electronic Intifada article a couple of days ago (in a slightly different format to IE) in which Irish MEP Clare Daly rips Ursula von der Leyen’s message congratulating Israel on its 75th anniversary of its so-called Liberation Day to tiny little miniscule shreds:
‘German EU chief downplays Holocaust while spouting “infamous Zionist lie”’
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/european-commission-presidents-unctuous-support-for-israel-called-out-by-mep-clare-daly/?comment_received=1#comment-row
PS I don’t suppose it got much coverage in the MSM!
PSS I thought I’d just quickly check out her twitter page and came across THIS (from yesterday):
A whopping 87% of Irish people favour peace negotiations in Ukraine, according to an @IpsosIreland
Omnipoll commissioned by @PANAIreland.
While the government aligns us with the most extreme pro-war voices in Europe, its position is backed by a tiny sliver of public opinion.
“While the government aligns us with the most extreme pro-war voices in Europe, its position is backed by a tiny sliver of public opinion.”
Who gives a shit about what the common people think, it’s not election time, is it?
This is epic reaction by an Israeli “General’s son” (Miko Peled) to that speech.
Miko Peled’s Dad was a General in the IDF and Miko was officer as well.
His speeches are so good!
I am sure he wouldn’t be welcomed in Starmer’s Labour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w5hdNvv5Vo&t=1s