Mother's Day for Nazanin

Yesterday morning, I attended a peaceful ceremony outside the Iranian Embassy in central London. As yesterday was Mothering Sunday in the UK, Amnesty International, together with Richard Ratcliffe, had organised the event to mark the third Mother's Day that his wife, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, has spent in prison in Iran. As Richard said: “We’ve come to deliver her a Mother’s Day card, because obviously we can’t do that in person, and to deliver 155 bunches of flowers, one for each week she has been held".
Now, as a number of people, including my colleague, Rednev, have noted, I am not a great fan of the regime in Iran. I am only too knowledgeable of the human rights abuses perpetrated by this theocracy. George Galloway's favourite state has an appalling human rights record, ample testimony to which has been collated both by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Anyone doubting this should read both these linked reports in full.

Richard Ratcliffe looks the picture of determination in the above photograph, standing in the doorway of the Iranian Embassy. If you looked a more closely at his face, however, the marks of strain were only too visible. He has not seen his wife and daughter for three years, and the suffering he must have gone through is unimaginable to most of us. He can communicate with Nazanin by phone at infrequent intervals, as with his daughter, Gabriella.  Gabriella was 22 months old when Nazanin was arrested at the airport in Tehran, waiting to fly back to the UK, on April 3, 2016. She is now four years old, and in the care of her maternal grandparents. Understandably, Gabriella now speaks no English. Nazanin herself has endured agonies of confinement, and fears have been raised about her mental health, especially since the Iranian prison authorities released her for a long weekend, and then peremptorily ordered her back to jail.

Although anyone outside Iran can see that Nazanin is being held on trumped-up charges, it's worth looking back at why she was arrested, the "charges" against her, and British Government intervention. The BBC says:
 "Iranian authorities allege Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was plotting to topple the government in Tehran - but no official charges have been made public. Iran's Revolutionary Guards said she was visiting Iran leading a "foreign-linked hostile network".

Further details can be found elsewhere, but it is difficult to see how a young mum and daughter can possibly be a threat to the organised paranoid spy state of Iran. If Nazanin was such a threat, why was she not banned from entry or arrested at the airport upon arrival? 

As we know, international pressure and the granting of diplomatic status to Nazanin by the British Government has not resulted in the Iranians releasing her and Gabriella, which begs the question: why are they really being held? Suggestions have been made that the Iranians are holding them hostage in order to recoup money owed by the British Government over the purchase of tanks ordered by the Shah, but not delivered. The tanks were paid for, and the Iranians want the money back. It seems rather a spiteful measure to detain an innocent woman and her child, but there may be something in this suggestion. If we remember, the Iranians have done this sort of thing before, during the 1979 US hostage crisis. The US hostages held during this 444 day crisis were finally released after the US Government unfroze Iranian financial assets, which may point to a financial factor in Nazanin's case.

As for our government, diplomatic efforts have been made to obtain Nazanin's release. Jeremy Hunt, our new Foreign Secretary, has said that he would do everything to bring it about. Unfortunately, remarks by his predecessor, Boris Johnson, have probably made Nazanin's situation worse. As the BBC says:

 "In November 2017 then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson faced criticism for suggesting Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was training journalists".

Boris later apologised for his gaffe and phoned Iran to retract his words, but, four days after he put his foot in his mouth, Wikipedia comments: 
"...Zaghari-Ratcliffe was returned to court in Iran where the Foreign Secretary's statement was cited as evidence against her".

Standing among the press and protesters yesterday, I began talking to a couple about Richard and Nazanin and what they were going through, only to discover that these two people were Richard Ratcliffe's parents, John and Barbara, pictured above. It came as quite a surprise to find myself talking to people intimately involved in a situation that I knew of only through the mass media. It was a pleasure and an honour to meet them, and they told me a number of details about how Nazanin's incarceration had affected their family life. I must be circumspect here in what I write; a number of people warned me that it was by no means impossible that the Iranian authorities would be reading this blog item. As we saw with Blundering Boris, the Iranians are adept at using unguarded statements as propaganda. Still, I was moved to learn of how, at family gatherings, John and Barbara's granddaughter, Gabriella, was able to speak on the phone to her uncles, aunties and cousins in the UK. 

I was very interested to learn that Richard, John and Barbara had applied for visas to visit Iran, but had all been turned down. Besides this, it appears that John is considered by the Iranian authorities to be a spy. If anything points to the absurd nature of Iranian governmental paranoia, it's that charge. If John was a spy, the Iranians wouldn't know - instead of catching true spies, they have to frame innocent people, such as Nazanin.. Besides which - at the age of 69, John is too old for MI6 and would have retired by now. 

At the close of the ceremony, which saw a Mother's Day card for Nazanin being delivered to the Embassy and the 155 bunches of flowers laid on the entrance steps (I laid one), Richard Ratcliffe thanked us all for coming and urged continuing support for the struggle to release his wife and daughter. His parents told me how much the whole family valued the worldwide support they received. They thanked me for coming, which means a lot; it made me feel I'd done something worthwhile (which it was). I can only pledge my continuing support for the Ratcliffe family, and look forward to the day when they can all be reunited. We must not give up on the struggle; we must not abandon hope. Anyone wishing to help, please click on THIS LINK.

Fighting the Far Right - From the SA to the Lone Wolf

Jacinda Ardern, the New Zealand Prime Minister, has said, following the horrific attack on the mosques in Christchurch, that she was calling for:
"... a global fight to root out racist right-wing ideology following last week's deadly attack on two mosques in Christchurch."
That is a worthy aim, and one which has been pursued by many thousands of anti-Fascists of all hues since the founding of the Nazi Party in Germany,1920, and Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, 1919. The trouble is that it's not as easy to identify the extreme right as it once was. When the S.A. paraded through German cities in the 1920s, you had an enemy you could recognise; it's not so easy now. There are still fascist groups who take to the streets in Europe and the USA,  and it's possible to identify them easily. The Christchurch attacker, Brenton Tarrant, however, though an obvious right-wing extremist, wasn't even on a terrorist watchlist, nor does he seem to have appeared on right-wing demonstrations anywhere. 
The problem, of course, is that Tarrant, and others like him, including jihadis, are being radicalised by the internet in the privacy of their homes. Even if identified by the security forces, it does not follow that they are planning terrorism. We sometimes describe terrorists radicalised in this way as "lone wolves", but I believe this to be a slight misnomer. If these people, jihadi and fascist, are being radicalised by what they see on the internet (the Dark Web, in Tarrant's case), then, strictly speaking, they are not acting alone. They do not have the support of an organised group, but they do have a cyberspace community from which they draw inspiration and strength. As Foreign Policy says:
"...the perpetrators operate in isolation from each other without direct communication or formal cooperation between them. But that doesn’t mean that these lone actors and autonomous cells don’t draw inspiration from each other."
There are, of course, many examples of so-called "lone wolf" attacks, many of which can be found listed on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Yet, if we look deeper, even the most murderous and disturbed of the "lone wolves" has operated with some support, logistical or otherwise. Take the case of the right-wing extremist, Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. As Wikipedia says:
" Terry Nichols was convicted of conspiring with him, though his involvement was limited to helping mix the fertilizer and other bomb ingredients; McVeigh had threatened to harm him and his family if he did not help".

Robert Gregory Bowers, who has been charged with the murders of eleven people during the Pittsburgh Synagogue attack on October 27 last year, drew much of his "inspiration" from websites such as Gab and other extremist outlets. Should we continue to use the term "lone wolf"?

Here in the UK, I myself have noted that the struggle against far-right ideas has changed, if not become more difficult, in recent years. In the 1970s, when arguing against the National Front and others, describing the neo-Nazi past of NF leaders and their aims was highly effective, and it was a relatively straightforward matter to discredit the NF and others. It comes as an unpleasant surprise to learn that one in twenty British people does not believe the Holocaust took place. As WW2 becomes further away in time, people's understanding of what the Holocaust was, and what Fascism is, seems to be weakening. As "The Guardian" says:

"One in 20 British adults do not believe the Holocaust happened, and 8% say that the scale of the genocide has been exaggerated, according to a poll marking Holocaust Memorial Day.

Almost half of those questioned said they did not know how many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, and one in five grossly underestimated the number, saying that fewer than two million were killed".

Besides this, it comes as a nasty shock to learn that some counter-terrorist experts now believe that far-right extremists pose a serious threat in my home turf of the north of England, following the Christchurch attack. The highest number of referrals to Prevent have been made in my home region. One expert, "Simon", told the BBC:

"We've got former mill towns and cities across the north where this ideology, that white people are supposedly superior to everyone else, is growing and becoming more entrenched. I've no doubt that there are far-right extremists across the north who are planning to use violence to target Muslim or Jewish communities.They'll harbour the ambition to copy what happened in Christchurch"

Lest we dismiss this as alarmist, let's not forget that one Yorkshire fascist, Thomas Mair, murdered Jo Cox, MP, and that Leeds, in particular, has a grim history of neo-Nazi violence dating back to the 1970s. Remember also, that while the fascists in UK don't have the same access to firearms as their "brethren" have in the USA, hate crime continues to rise across Britain. As the BBC says:

 "The number of religious or racially motivated hate crimes in England and Wales, increased from 37,417 in 2013-14 to 79,587 in 2017-18, according to the Home Office."

Jacinda Ardern is right to call for a campaign against racism worldwide, but I don't see it happening when the threat of Islamic terrorism remains so serious. Also, I doubt that "the Fash" will change their ways because of the horror and condemnation of the Christchurch massacre. In their twisted little worlds, they will be gloating about it and someone, somewhere, will be planning their next attack.

Racism, anti-Semitism and the Conservative Party

While the controversy over anti-Semitism has raged in the Labour Party, the question of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party has gone largely unnoticed. That happy state of affairs for the Tories has been brought to an end with the recent accusations made by Baroness Warsi that Theresa May was burying her head in the sand about Islamophobia in the party. As the BBC comments: 
"Former party chairwoman Baroness Warsi said the PM had failed to "acknowledge" or "tackle" the problem and this was "symptomatic" of her wider leadership."

 The Conservative party has since suspended 14 members for making Islamophobic Facebook comments. Significantly, the BBC goes on to say:

 "The suspensions followed messages posted on a Facebook group called the "Jacob Rees-Mogg Supporters Group...She (Baroness Warsi) suggested the "rot had set in" several years ago and accused senior party officials of being "in denial".

With all due respect to Baroness Warsi, while the Tory party may have problems with Islamophobia now, the "rot" of racism and anti-Semitism set in with the Conservatives a long time ago.

From its founding in 1834, the Conservative Party has had a "problem" with anti-Semitism. The party founder, Sir Robert Peel, was a vocal opponent of Jewish Emancipation. Benjamin Disraeli, a Jewish convert to Christianity, was shunned by fellow Conservative MPs following his election as an MP in 1837. The Conservatives fought against the Jewish Relief Act until its passing in 1858.

With the influx of Jewish refugees from Tsarist persecution at the turn of the 19th century, Conservative party members founded the para-military British Brothers League and the  Parliamentary Alien Immigration Committee, both of which exerted pressure to pass the Aliens Act of 1905.

 Fast forwarding to the 1930s, the Conservative government expressed no condemnation of Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews, dismissing it as an internal matter. In more recent times, Alan Clark, who later became Minister in both the Thatcher and Major governments, wrote in his diary in 1981:

 'I really believed it (National Socialism) to be the ideal system, and that it was a disaster for the Anglo-Saxon races and for the world that it was extinguished'

Both Edwina Currie and Leon Brittain reportedly felt that they were criticised unfairly by other senior Tories simply because of anti-Semitism.

More recently, there have been a number of instances of anti-Semitic activity at national and grass roots level. Boris Johnson has held talks with the alleged anti-Semite, Steve Bannon. In November 2017 it was revealed that Conservative Party activists were members of a Facebook group called Young Right Society, which posted anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying and racist material. Conservative history on this matter dwarfs Labour party anti-Semitism into next to nothing - no wonder the Tories have been so quiet on the subject.

As for racism against black and Asian people, we saw clear manifestations of this in the Tory party with the election of Peter Griffiths, MP for Smethwick, in 1964, and the infamous so-called "Rivers of Blood" speech of Enoch Powell, in 1968. In 1978, Margaret Thatcher, then Leader of the Opposition, said on TV:

 ""People [in Britain] are rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people with a different culture"

She also described Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist", and did nothing to stop Conservative university students distributing "Hang Nelson Mandela" posters. Also, it's forgotten now, but future Tory PM David Cameron went on a "sanctions-busting jolly" to South Africa with the anti-sanctions Conservative Research Department.

It's no surprise , then to learn of incidents such as this, taken from REKNR:

"In a 2002 column for the Daily Telegraph, Boris Johnson (then MP for Henley) described black people as “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles”. He apologised six years later in 2008 (when running to be London Mayor). No disciplinary action was taken by the Conservative Party at any point."

Or this:

"In January 2010, Tory Councillor for Colne, Smith Benson, complained that there were “too many P***s” in his town.  Council Leader Tony Beckett refused to discipline him and said, “I think for the Labour Party to say he should be sacked for making a sweeping statement is a bit strong.”

One last example:

"In December 2015, it was revealed that Oliver Letwin, then an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, had made a series of racist remarks following the riots in 1985, describing black people as having “bad moral attitudes”, and saying schemes to help black people would be spent in “the disco and drugs trade” and employment programmes would only see black people “graduate… into unemployment and crime”. The Conservative Party took no disciplinary action and Mr Letwin remains a government minister".

All of which points to a far worse situation in the Conservative Party than a recent outbreak of Islamophobia. The worst racists I have ever known were all Conservative Party members or supporters; the passage of time and the development of a multicultural and multiracial society has clearly not eradicated those racist attitudes among the Tories. Good luck, Baroness Warsi - you've got your work cut out. 

No Show Without Punch...or George Galloway

The recent formation of an Independent Group of ex-Labour and Tory MPs has caused huge controversy in the media and among political personalities. Among the latter, partly because I can't think of a better way to describe him, I include the ex-Labour and Respect MP, George Galloway, seen above. As Mr Galloway is no longer in the Labour Party and the fact that the other party for which he served as an MP (Respect) no longer exists, he is now something of an Independent himself,we might expect him to have some sympathy or respect (small "r") for the Independent group in Parliament. 

Alas, this is not the case. Commenting adversely on "the gang of eight" ex-Labour MPs, The Mirror reported:

" He (Galloway) branded one of the eight, Joan Ryan, "an agent of the Israeli embassy in London" - claims she vehemently denies - and claimed another, Jewish MP Luciana Berger, was not really leaving due to anti-Semitism. In comments that attracted fury online, he said the new group was "really a black op" and told a Sky interviewer: "The Goebbels is you".

The Goebbels reference is to the Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Not the most delicate choice of historical figure to quote when discussing Jewish MPs, but Mr Galloway must know that. 

In fact, Mr Galloway's hypocrisy on this issue is breathtaking. On TalkRADIO, he denounced the ex-Labour independents as traitors, out to stab Jeremy Corbyn in the back. Yet he himself has stood against Labour in elections and regularly belittled Labour politicians whom he disliked - especially Tony Blair. As John Mann, MP, said of Mr Galloway on Sky News:

“There’s a man who did stand as an independent, as a traitor to the Labour Party."

I suspect that Galloway's new respect (that word again) for Jeremy Corbyn stems from his desire to rejoin the Labour Party. Fortunately for Labour, that won't happen. As "GG" has stood against Labour in elections, he cannot rejoin. John Mann again:

"Once a traitor, always a traitor. So Galloway should not be allowed back in.Galloway was a traitor, he stood as an independent."

Galloway has presumably never heard the old proverb about pots calling kettles black. 

Now, I have an issue to address here, for which I fully accept the need. Some people, rightly, will question the wisdom of attacking Mr Galloway yet again. Lots of people have attacked him in the press and online (so have I). By his antics on Big Brother, his outrageous statements on various issues, his alliance with Nigel Farage on the EC Referendum ("Churchill and Stalin") and his praise for the Iraqis who fought British troops in Iraq, you'd think him dead in the water. Then there was his infamous statement on the rape allegations against Julian Assange. As the Independent noted:

"He argued that if a woman consents to sex once, and then wakes up to find the same man having sex with her again without her consent, that is not rape. Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion,” he said."

Then there is his link with the regime in Iran. There's no secret about the fact that he works for the Iranian regime's propaganda outlet, Press TV. His weaselling defence of the Iranian tyranny's persecution of LGBT people has been attacked by Peter Tatchell. As Tatchell says:

"His (Galloway's) claim that lesbian and gay people are not at risk of execution in Iran is refuted by every reputable human rights organisation, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the International Lesbian and Gay Association. None of these esteemed bodies are anti-Iran warmongers, as Galloway has subsequently seemed to imply."

And, if I may add my two pence worth, "GG" has been strangely quiet about the imprisonment on trumped-up charges in Iran of the Iranian/British mum, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and other dual nationals.

Why then, not just ignore this mountebank, this ex-Labour popinjay? The answer is simple: we can no more ignore Galloway safely than we can ignore the Holocaust denier, David Irving. Both these men have a cult following online and in print. If we do not challenge them, they will regard it as a victory, and grow even bolder. Turn your back upon Mack the Knife, and you will eventually be stabbed between the shoulder blades.

The Labour Split and a Growing Divide

On Monday, a very nice lady from Hounslow Labour Party knocked at our door. She wanted my views on local issues, but we soon got round to talking about national issues and my own political history. I explained that I would be happy to rejoin Labour, but was concerned about reports about anti-Semitism in Hounslow Labour Party. She assured me that no such feeling existed, and no anti-Semitic group would be tolerated. I said that the expansion of the Labour Party nationally had drawn in many undesirable members and she agreed that more checks on such people should have been carried out. I reassured her that I would still vote Labour at the next election, and she went away happily.
Next day, the news broke about the departure from Labour of seven MPs, seen above. I was stunned; I knew that there were rumblings of a breakaway group, but never expected it to happen. I have a habit of making the wrong call in politics; I never thought Britain would vote to leave the EC. I got it wrong again.
Although I half-expected it, I was astonished at the response on social media. Almost instantaneously, these MPs were being vilified as cowards and traitors. To be fair, Jeremy Corbyn has been quite restrained, saying:
 "I am disappointed that these MPs have felt unable to continue to work together for the Labour policies that inspired millions at the last election and saw us increase our vote by the largest share since 1945"
Not everyone was so restrained. As the BBC report says:
 "In response, many Twitter users did not hold back in their criticism of the breakaway group, using phrases such as "splitters and Red Tories" to describe the seven."
Very few people made any effort to understand why the seven had taken this course of action, although Tom Watson spoke out against an over-the-top reaction.
The seven MPs had their own reasons for leaving, but I fail to see how anyone couldn't understand why Luciana Berger left. As the BBC says:
 "Ms Berger, who was one of the most prominent Jewish MPs in the party, cited the harassment she has received online as one of the main reasons for her quitting".
And there's no doubt about that. Four people have been convicted for anti-Semitic abuse directed at her, one of whom was a member of National Action. Mrs Berger said: 
“In the wake of one of those convictions, a far right website in the United States initiated the #filthyjewbitch campaign, which the police said resulted in me receiving over 2,500 violent, pornographic and extreme anti-Semitic messages in just one day alone...There is currently one more person on remand, having made threats to my life because of my faith."
Besides threats from fascists, Ms Berger, like the other MPs, faced harassment in her constituency party. The Liverpool Echo quoted Ms Berger on this, from her farewell letter to her local party: 
"She said that antisemitism stained the Labour party, and added: "When the executive of our own Constituency Labour Party can call a meeting to debate no confidence motions in me, one of which was moved by a man who has publicly described me as a ‘disruptive Zionist’ I believe we have a serious problem."
Now, I know many Labour Party members and ex-members who will be astounded to learn that there are problems with anti-Semitism. I have already read posts on Facebook to this effect, and they concern me. We should always beware of complacency. Just because you haven't experienced something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have never suffered from Typhoid, but I know it's out there. 
Anti-Semitism in Labour is something new. There have always been divisions over Palestine and Israel, but that never stopped Zionist and anti-Zionist Labour members campaigning together. This, however, is more focussed and nasty (ask Luciana Berger). There have been 673 reports of anti-Semitism in 10 months.  This nastiness, I believe, arises from the influx of new members following Jeremy Corbyn's ascension as party leader. I have no evidence, but among them must have been supporters of the violent anti-Israel elements of the far left. Some may scoff at this, but I think some far-right extremists must have joined as well - it's not unknown. This could explain why the atmosphere surrounding anti-Semitism and other divisive issues in the Labour Party has become so toxic.
All this, I believe, points to a wider problem in society. Divisions of opinion now often degenerate into slanging matches on social media and, sometimes, violence on street demos. Part of the cause, I think, comes from the rancour that exists between Leave and Remain supporters over the referendum about EC membership. Another factor is the nature of trenchant intolerance caused by social media isolation, where the opponent in an argument is somehow not perceived as human. This is part of a growing divide - not just in the Labour Party, but among ourselves.
I am not saying that these seven MPs do not deserve criticism, but I think that they should be listened to with fairness, and not with unthinking abuse. John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has said that Labour must carry out a mammoth listening exercise to hear criticism from its own MPs. I hope it succeeds, but it smacks of too little, far too late.