CEN watch: conceding to the anti-abortion lobby

This article on the front page of the Cambridge Evening News has me absolutely livid.

Aborted babies burn in hospital incinerator it screams - with a large, yukky picture of an unborn foetus. The Evening News seems to think we should be according every abortion a full state funeral complete with maniacal fire and brimstone preacher and hired in wailers.

What exactly did they they think would happen to aborted foetuses (not babies, there are laws against that sort of thing)? The article concedes that the hospital "cannot afford crematorium fees" but seems hell bent (literally) on making those wrestling with difficult decisions, or those who have had to make them in the past, feel like crap.

One woman who has recently had an abortion said "after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby." Well thanks for interviewing people at such a difficult time. Perhaps they'd also like to interview parents who've just lost their child about how they feel about the body having an autopsy?

A spokeswoman for the hospital "Following the termination of unwanted pregnancy, foetal tissue is disposed of within the hospital incinerator in a sensitive and respectful manner. The incinerator is cleared of all other material, and no other waste is dealt with at the same time as the foetal tissue. [ie not with the rubbish] The process is organised and witnessed by two members of staff who are specialists in bereavement care." Which seems like a very thorough and sensitive way to deal with the tissue.

For all the pretense in the three pages of articles in the CEN that we should be sensitive on this issue what are they doing other than heaping guilt and heartache onto those who have personal experience of these issues?

Although the article is not explicitly "pro-life" it draws on the clergy and Life spokeswoman Micheala Aston to set the tone of the feature - which essentially covers non-news and whose only purpose is to provoke distaste for those who carry out the abortion procedure.

Let's turn a non-story into a sensational headline shall we? That will sell our grubby little paper!

You can write to the letters page at letters@cambridge-news.co.uk don't forget to include your name and address.

Green blogs a-coming

I'm gradually filling up my excel spreadsheet full of marks for the mammoth task that is the "100 Best Green Blogs", so there's still time to get new entries in, either your own blog or ones you like (email me). If you don't know what I'm talking about, or don't know the 'rules', check here.

I'm finding the general marking system of ten areas marked out of ten very useful and it's clear that consistency across the board pays off. There are some blogs I rather like that have scored badly because they let themselves down in certain areas and others that I confess I never visit that score well, because they cover all the bases - and thereby deserve to do well.

I'm prepared for people to complain that I don't "like" their blog when the results come out, but I can assure you that although the system has a large element of subjectivity, a system it is and there will be no appeal process, it isn't personal (although of course there is always next year, when Iain Dale will be taking over the list, I think). However, if you want to improve your blog, if you write to me I will email back with my suggestions and thoughts on your blog, which will be my personal opinion but possibly of some interest. I'll try to include some simple steps you can take to make real improvements.

So far weakest areas overall seem to be:

• If you use a blogger template please don't use Son of Moto. It's not a criticism if you do but around one in four green bloggers use this template and once you've seen the same template used just a few times it starts to wear. You don't need to go the whole hog and get a personalised design - as one of the beauties of blogging is that anyone can do it, no matter how poor their IT skills - but a bit more variety (and a little less reliance on unmitigated primary colours) would improve the green blogosphere as a whole.
• Also on design I would like to say that just because you can do something does not mean that you should. Littering your blog template with hundreds of photos and logos doesn't necessarily make your blog look as pretty as each of these images are on their own. So far the more minimal designs have been the ones that have been most pleasing, to my eye at least.
• Third point on design is, love your entries and attend to their needs. Once you've posted to your blog check it. A long essay is hard enough to read on the screen without an idiosyncratic approach to paragraph breaks, punctuation and font sizes. I'm not setting myself up as an expert or anything, but I do know what I find difficult to read. If you picked up a leaflet which had accidental paragraph breaks in the middle of sentances or irregular use of fonts or silly errors it would influence what you thought about the content of that leaflet. Likewise if I read a blog, it wont matter that the content is ground breaking if I find it too clumsy to actually read what it has to say. It does matter and is not just an issue of aestetics.
  A) Publish your post. B) Look at it. C) Correct the errors.
  It's surprising how few bloggers seem to do this when it's so easy and makes such a large difference.
• Let's lighten up a bit. You don't need to be telling actual jokes, but a wry, personalised approach to climate change, council blunders or recycling makes the posts more readable and can help create a regular readership. Mind you, jokes don't hurt either.
• Interaction between blogs is pretty weak at the moment and that's something some of us hope to be working on in the near future. Blogs that regularly link to other bloggers, comment on their comments and go and contribute to the discussion at those blogs begin to develop a community around themselves. It's only a minority of green bloggers that do this at the moment, let's see if we can't do something about this.

I hope that this exercise in creating a hierarchical and subjective list of bloggers, cough, will contribute to creating a network or community of green and progressive bloggers and also help focus minds on how we can all improve the blogs we have.

Five things people are talking about

What are we all talking about this week?

I don't visit Shiraz Sociaist very often, so it's a pleasure that when I do so there is a jazzy post on Larkin. What's not to like?

We're all talking about Clare Short of course. Michael White is sympathetic, as is Tygerland, Kel and Obsolete. Those more critical include Disillusioned and bored, Jon Rogers, Union futures and Luke Akehurst. Whilst somewhere in between lies Elephunt, Kitnotes (beware of the flourescent green text), and Wisse words. Special mention must go to this blogger for managing to crowbar Nietzsche into the post.

The rather excitable Bolivia rising has laid off talking about imminent invasion and coup plots for a moment to give expression to the genuine voice of the Bolivian working class like this;

"What I perceive is that in whatever scope you look at there is an obstruction of autonomy and a general dispersion of the social movements. The state is not taking the social movements as interlocutors, but is rather subordinating them. And those it does not subordinate, it isolates, or they remain circumscribed in the “projectitis” scope, which is consumed in squabbles for money and installs distrust between people. Those are two problems that appear, beginning with the occupation of the state by the Movement Towards Socialism, and the way in which the capillary vessels of the state network act."

The voice of the people speaks.

The poor mouth has an interesting post on the Hungarian uprising, and so, whilst I'm on the subject, can I recommend Tibor Fischer's "Under the frog" a very funny and well written fictional account of the years that led up to the people rising up against a "Workers' government".

One minor irritation is that my first "Be nice about someone day" post has decided to appear some posts down (because I started drafting it early) even though I posted it up today. To circumvent my inability to bump it up the list I'll just link to it from here In praise of Charles Clarke.

No one else seems to be talking about him anymore, tut.

Shorty Goodnighty

Clare Short has resigned from the Labour Party!

The news comes after months of run ins with Labour, particularly after she called for a hung parliament at the next general election. What's not to disagree with there? I was preparing the scaffolds and everything.

Clare's not a bad old stick when everything is said and done. Absolutely loathed in the anti-war movement of course, and spectacularly bad at tactical decision making. Decided to stay in cabinet during the invasion setting her against the anti-war crowd, then resigning over the war once the invasion has happened thus invoking the ire of the establishment. Poor thing lost her friends on both sides of the fence, bless.

Clare Short (whose brother in law is on the Respect national executive) has had a hard life and done some great things over the years which earned her the respect of many on the left, although we should remember she has not always been entirely "helpful" to the left's cause. But it was her behaviour over the war – where many felt she was more interested in holding onto her position as international development secretary than in standing up for her principles (if any) – lost her a great deal of that support.

If we believe that people can atone for their previous mis-deeds, perhaps it's time we gave Short a second chance. What's certain is that she is currently a clear anti-war and left of Labour figure with a very high profile - no matter what she has got upto in the past.

Note: Clare's wikipedia entry is fairly comprehensive

Good news on Huanuni

I've just heard on the phone that the campaign against Grant Thornton's shameless attempt to squeeze money they have no right to out of Bolivia and in consequence cause the deaths of around 19 workers and the serious injury of dozens of others has paid off!

You can read about the issues at my previous blog post,Bolivia solidarity Campaign, and on Socialist Unity Network.

To summarise - Grant Thornton is acting as liquidator for ex-metals international RBG Resources. RBG had a Joint Venture Contract with the Bolivian government in 2000 to run the Huanuni mine, the largest tin mine in Bolivia, jointly with the government. In 2002 RBG Resources went bust because its directors were a bunch of crooks who are now in jail or on trial. This meant they could no longer fulfill their obligations under the contract and the mine was taken back into full public ownership (by a previous neo-liberal government).

Grant Thornton decided that they could sell this stake in the Huanuni mine but, as I hope is clear from the above, they had no right to do so. They sold the rights (that they did not have) to a mining cooperative who, when told by the Morales government that they had bought something that entitled them to exactly nothing, decided to occupy the mine using casual / piece rate miners and the desperately poor unemployed of the area, to whom they promised jobs.

The union miners employed by COMIBOL were not having this and defended the mine despite being outnumbered 4 to 1 and being attacked by snipers and thrown dynamite. Not only were their livlihoods at stake, it also represented a rolling back of the renationalisation of natural resources. Morales has now announced he intends to renationalise ALL the mines in Bolivia as a response to this crisis, reversing the position of his party, MAS, who have been pushing through legislation to introduce more of the private sector into the mining industry.

Miners were killed and injured on both sides - poor and working class men fighting for the hope of scraps in a crisis sparked by a UK based international company who wanted to make a quick buck without regard for the legality or consequences of the situation.

Socialists in the UK wanted to express their solidarity with the miners defending Huanuni against the encroachment of market forces, but also saw that they were in a unique position to influence events in Bolivia - by putting pressure on the UK offices of Grant Thornton, demanding they relinquish their claim. Pickets have been held on the last two Tuesdays and emails have been sent to the man in charge of this process.

We have just heard that Grant Thornton have written to the Bolivian government via the embassy to state they had no right to sell what was not theirs and the campaign that was launched just two weeks ago, in direct response to these events looks as if it has achieved its demands.

I've yet to see the wording of the letter but it sounds as if, although churlish in tone, it says exactly what we demanded they say - that they have no legal claim over the Huanuni mine and therefore no right to sell it to anybody. I can't tell you how happy this makes me (although I'll still be cautious until I see the document myself). Not only does this mean bringing the bloodshed to an end it also shows that international solidarity works. Get to it!

In Praise of... Charles Clarke!

My first "be nice about someone day" is dedicated to Charles Clarke.

OK. Long ago, in a land not unlike this one there were once a band of thieving trolls. They were called the Tories. These trolls were hated up and down the land, none more so than the Home Secretary troll, Michael Howard, who was the ugliest and meanest of them all.

Then one day the trolls were driven from the land and sent into a large, black, smelly hole and we all said "hurray" and "things can only get better" and we were particularly glad to see the back of Howard who liked to pick on single mothers and immigrants. He found their blood particularly tasty.

Howard was replaced by that lovely Mr Straw, and people said "Ooooo, he might not be perfect but he must be better than that horrid troll" even though Straw used to hide under bridges and eat people when they tried to cross.

He particularly didn't like disabled people because the wheels of their chairs were hard to digest and "Squeegy Merchants" because the bubbles made him burp. He would make comments about them in the press whilst secretly grinding their bones into flour to make bread. Then Jack's time came to leave and he was put in charge of foreign affairs, although he wasn't allowed to do anything because he wasn't trusted with all the bombs and pointy things.

We all went "hurray" and "things can only get better" when that nice blind troll Blunkett was put in charge. The Tory trolls had hated him because he was in charge of the "Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire" a utopia of a place where urchins kicked the backsides of judges with impunity and cackling old ladies knitted as aristos were given humiliating Chinese burns in the public squares.

"Oh dear, can we have Jack back" we said when we realised that Blunkett was, in fact, a crazy wizard who loved nothing more than to lock people up without trial in the deepest dungeons in the land and he hated immigrants even more than Howard ever did. Blunkett would prance up and down the offices of state wearing the disgorged remains of his enemies in a state of sexual tumescence, and he had a picture of King Herod on his wall.

Then one day the chief troll said "Hey, I like the way you kill, maim and horrify the people but stop putting your bits into places where they shouldn't go" so he was out. In fact, he was in so much trouble he was sacked more than once. Again and again he was sacked - now that was just mean and it made him cry.

In came jolly Mr Clarke. Although the policies remained the same and advanced on the paupers of our cities like an enraged plague rat he wasn't a happy man. He didn't enjoy it the way his predecessors had. He kept thinking about what he was doing and although the boss kept telling him to ratchet up the rhetoric it moved from blood curling glee to the mournful demenour of the torturer's apprentice. He didn't believe ID cards were a good idea, but did it out of loyalty. He didn't think juries were THAT bad, but still ordered his gangs to hang around the law courts whacking them with their cudgels.

His days were numbered for sure and eventually he was chucked out of office for letting foreigners run about the country stealing our apples, marrying our daughters and weeing in public fountains. So for a small brief period the people of the land could get on with being squeezed in the vice without having their noses rubbed in it, and just to make sure we all knew the difference between Clarke, the humble and thoughtful poker of eyes, and a truly terrible troll they brought in "Chopper" Reid to replace him.

John Reid was an ex-Communist Party troll and so really knew how to stomp on heads and set fire to hijabs. There he sits to this day in the Home Office, gorging himself on the feet of small boys and staring at heart shaped pictures of Enver Hoxha.

When all is said and done, and looking at our home secretaries as a group Clarke was the best since 1979, he put a human face to the erosion of civil liberties and at least he had the grace to feel bad about what he was doing, even if he didn't feel so bad that he actually stopped doing it. Bring him back I say, and put "Chopper" Reid down that dark and smelly hole.

Be nice about someone day

I've had an idea. It could even be one of those tag things, if I wasn't ideologically opposed to them that is.

It's called "Be nice about someone day" - but here is the twist - you have to be nice about someone you'd normally diss. I think it would be a good exercise. There are rules of course, you can't do it in order to actually launch a sectarian attack (I like Respect because they are so crap or some such nonsense) to the extent that you shouldn't even put in caveats.

The other rule is you have to mean what you say. Ouch.

I'll allow an initial paragraph and maybe end sentance just to make clear to any readers you are not endorsing whomever... but don't let that chink in the armour lead you into undoing all your praise - the emphasis should remain on the positives that you have to say.

I think there may be something in this...

Firstly, pushing boundaries is good mental exercise, something we need a continuous supply of, particularly if you choose someone you really dislike. Finding the good in them (which must undoubtedly be there) will help keep things in proportion.

Secondly, I think it would help promote a nuanced and less dogmatic approach to politics. If we start laying out our disagreements in a more thoughtful way without the need to demonise those we disagree with I think it might, in some undefined way, be quite a healthy thing to do.

Thirdly, politics is often quite a negative place. Even our friends come in for criticism - it would be good to redress that balance a little, by not simply praising those who'd normally come in for a thumbs up but saying "This is what I respect about ..." even though you regard them as an opponent.

I already know who my first "target" is going to be... who will yours be?

No post today - too sad

Instead here is a picture we can all relate to

Ecuador

I note with interest the difficult decision Ecuadorian voters have before them.

Yesterday's Presidential election saw no outright winner so now there will be a run off between

1. Alvaro Noboa, Ecuador's richest man (who recieved around 27% of the first round votes)
2. Rafael Correa, a leftist who opposes the free trade deal with the US (23% of the first round votes)

The last three Ecuadorian Presidents have been driven from office by popular protest, so I'm cool either way really. Even if Noboa wins he wont last long.

Woolas thinking

Phil Woolas, New Labour Minister whose brief covers "race relations" has jumped into the veil debate with a considered and thoughtful call (Sunday Mirror) to sack Yorkshire teaching assistant Aishah Azmi for being a veil wearer.

Woolas says "She is denying the right of children to a full education by insisting that she wears the veil." Ummm... what? How?

He continues "By insisting that she will wear the veil if men are there, she's saying: 'I'll work with women, but not men'. That's sexual discrimination." Except of course she is willing to work with men, she just doesn't want to remove the veil infront of them, a distinction which is lost on "Race Minister" Woolas.

Mrs Azmi, whose role is to provide support for kids who speak English as a second language, has an employment tribunal coming up because she had refused to remove her veil in front of male colleagues. The school has argued that she is unable to communicate effectively whilst wearing the veil, to which she has responded:

"If people think it is a problem, what about blind children? They can't see anything but they have a brilliant education, so I don't think my wearing the veil affects the children at all."

But no, the question goes far deeper for Woolas. "There are limits in a liberal democracy. There are boundaries in a democracy and this is one of them. It's a boundary we can't cross." Well, you might not be able to cross it but I can.

You can have democracy as long as you do as we say?

Give women their due

There was a particularly vacuous article in the Independent on Friday by Joan Bakewell (you can read it here but only if you give them money, sorry) called "How to solve the prison crisis: free all the women"

Joan lays out a case for freeing all women, regardless of crime or circumstances, whilst leaving all those rotten men in clink, because they're arseholes. This vision relies on the idea that women are primarily victims of society whilst men are responsible for their actions.

I'm worried that the idea that women are not free to make their own choices (in the same limited way as men) is underpinned by a profoundly misogynist Victorian moralism. A woman is too delicate for certain jobs. A woman needs to be protected from an evil world. A woman, when bad, must have been driven bad by a manipulative and brutish man.

Now Joan is a very personable woman and I doubt it's fair to characterise her as "anti-woman" (although I don't know her so can't be sure) but we all take on reactionary ideas sometimes, even from the best of motives and it's good to assess where we stand. Just because you're a progressive and good anti-racist, for instance, does not mean that you'll be automatically immune from every piece of racist ideology in the prevailing culture and we need to be open to the idea that we can be very wrong sometimes.

It is not pro-woman to claim that women are not responsible for their own actions and should never face (possibly serious) consequences. To say no woman has ever made a bad choice is actually the same as saying no woman has ever made any choice worthy of the name.

Anyway, back to prison. Joan lays out a number of facts to prove her case.

• prison conditions are disgusting (and not conducive to rehabilitation)
• suicide rates are very high
• drugs are more freely available in jail than elsewhere, and prison is the one place where you are most likely to acquire an addiction to an illegal substance.
• we should be helping women in difficult circumstances, not treating them like beasts.
• reoffending rates from prison are far higher than for non-custodial sentences.
• prison breaks up families, the kids lose their Mum's influence and she loses theirs.

All excellent arguments I'm sure you'll agree, I have no disagreement here. Except they apply equally to men as to women. I'm sure we could release 75% of the prison population (male and female) tomorrow without society falling into the abyss.

The criminal lack of regard for those who've fallen into jail is a disgrace. Mental health problems, illiteracy and a self esteem that resides somewhere between cockroach and cockring are real and serious problems that prison simply does not address - and often exacerbates.

The difference in Joan's eyes is that men are violent offenders and women non-violent. But what about the man in jail for shoplifting and the woman in jail for murder? Just because there are less women murderers doesn't mean the victims spring back to life "It's your lucky day, done in by your Mum, it doesn't really count." Joan conflates the true statement "Women are far less likely to be violent" with the completely wrongheaded idea "No women are ever violent."

Part of this is a misunderstanding of statistics I think. For instance, there is an argument that goes because the majority of domestic violence is carried out by men, if a man is a victim of attack by his wife he should shut up and stop complaining because he is in the minority. It doesn't count, even on a personal level. I find this position misanthropic in the extreme. The historic oppression of women and its continuation today is not a justification for abusive behaviour - how can it be?

My personal position is that violence has no place in a loving relationship and those who are victims of abuse should leave that relationship and the abuser should seek help and/or face the consequences of their actions, dependent on circumstances.

Last year one of my workmates (the delightfully mischievous Mark) was the victim of a racist assault that left him permanently scarred on his face and traumatised. He was followed home by a pack of eight young adults who began calling out to him "Paki" and "Coon" (Mark seemed to be particularly annoyed at this, he said to me three times "But you can't be a Paki and a Coon - it's one or the other - don't these people know anything?"), then they launched a vicious assault on him.

The police turned up while they were still kicking him on the ground, but refused to even take them into custody. Six of the eight were women and the scars on his face were left by the stiletto heeled shoes they'd taken off to attack him with, beating him in the head with them even when he'd fallen to the floor.

I'm not arguing we should bang them all up and throw away the key, I'm absolutely not in the pro-prison camp, but the fact there were no consequences for this very serious assault means that Mark feels himself to be absolutely valueless in the eyes of society.

The majority of violent crime is committed by men - but not all. Joan's argument simultaneously implies an utter contempt for men (who it appears wont care if they are split from their family, live in shit, become addicted to heroin or commit suicide) and discounts the agency of women entirely, claiming their actions, no matter how serious, should never merit custody.

Myra Hindley? Rosemary West? Beverley Allit? To argue that there should be no custodial sentence in any case purely on the basis that the crime was committed by a woman is frankly very, very odd. That doesn't mean we should not address what the purpose and nature of that custody is, but let's make that our starting point not generalisations about the gender of offenders.

We should be addressing the issues around the criminal justice system, which is becoming increasingly free with custodial sentances. In 1995 129 people were jailed in the UK for shoplifting. In 2005 it was 1,400. The number of women in jail has risen disproportionately in recent years. From 1,800 in 1994 to 4,500 in 2004 - out of a total prison population of over 73,000 people.

These facts (which, as an aside, disprove Joan's thesis that prison overcrowding would be solved by releasing such a small proportion of the prison population) are important in showing that New Labour's spell in office has been harsher in sentancing the poorest and most vulnerable than even the deeply entrenched Tory government that preceded it.

It's right for us to fight the inequalities in society and women as a group are systematically discriminated against in a whole number of ways, but to treat them simply as victims is, it seems to me, disrepectful. If I were to say there was one exceptional group of people that should be treated differently from everyone else by the Criminal Justice System it's children - but Joan makes no mention of the kids in custody, let them rot?

Stalinism? You must be joking!

There was a great documentary on the other night about the jokes people told in the Eastern Bloc during the cold war. Very, very funny (some of them) and pretty scary too.

One of the best ones (that I can remember) was about three people standing in a Museum looking at a painting of Adam and Eve (like the one to your right) one was English, one French, and one Russian.

The English person says "Ah, you can tell they're English because the Lady is covering herself up. Very modest and proper."

The French person says "Non, non, non. They are clearly French. They stand naked in the sun just as nature intended."

The Russian says "Comrades, comrades - you are both wrong I'm sad to say. They are clearly Russian. They have no clothes and just a single apple to eat yet still they are told they live in Paradise."

It's a Gas, do the maths

I've been thinking about language or, more precisely, words today.

It's all been brought on by Renegade Eye who first of all raised a question about the word "tosser" in the comments of an earlier post on feminism (here) and then whose latest post on "socialist porn actress" Nina Hartley raised rather more questions than it answered. So, looking into Nina, with the possibility of posting on the topic I noticed a big difference in the way she was described.

For some she had a "liberal upbringing" and others point out her parents were paid up members of the Communist Party. Part of me thought, well, some people are trying to cover up the fact that there ever was a Communist Party in the USA, but it's also true that the term liberal has quite different connotations over there than it does over here.

It got me thinking about the time years ago that my Dad (I don't remember the context) used the word incontinence and I asked him what it meant. He said that "It means you can't control your actions" where of course "actions" is a euphemism for bowel movements, which are quite unmentionable.

I laughed at this and started wriggling round on the floor as if I was having a fit and giggling "Oooo, I can't control my actions" What a slap I got. Man.

Then there's gas. When I was learning to drive the pedal that made the car go faster was called an "accelerator" and, when I'm in the driving seat, it still is. But my instructor used to call it the gas pedal, I think because it's easier to say quickly as in "Oh my Lord, take your foot off the gas!" It makes no sense for an English person to call it gas because, whilst to an American gas is also the fuel, for the English it's petrol. Gases are oxygen, hydrogen and argon (there may be some others too) not liquids.

I'm just saying.

Of course, a more political word problem I've been talking about this week is the term "cooperatives" when applied to Bolivian mining. For me a workers' cooperative is somewhere where everyone who works there owns a share and has a say.

In Bolivia it's simply a reference to the origin of certain private companies set up in 1982 when the price of tin collapsed. Many private mining firms collapsed and the state operator COMIBOL laid of 35,000 workers. Some of these workers clubbed together and set up business, but instead of operating under the principle of new workers are equal shareholders they operate like any other business. The workers are paid on piece rate and their terms and conditions are casualised and anti-union.

It's hard enough to do political activity without having to explain new meanings of old words to people - but there you have it. I'm not one to complain.

The last word I'll come to is the term "ethical". Whilst it doesn't actually have a new meaning in the mouths of some on the left I love the delicious coating of supercilious contempt it acquires. As if being ethical is positively sickening.

I think this comes down to two things. Firstly, fairtrade, organic biscuits do nothing to build the revolutionary party (although an army does march on its stomach). Secondly, there is a weird tendency on the left of people who believe morals don't exist - possibly from a misunderstanding of what was meant when Engels advocated "scientific" socialism.

Quite clearly a corrupt undemocratic union, for instance, can be a blunt tool in the class war, but part of the argument against these problems is a moral or ethical one. I think it would be fantastic if the left adopted an ethical code rather than looked forward with salivating glee for the day they can string up the Queen Mother's corpse from the tallest lamppost in London.

Those who are "ethical" when they raise demands about investing in the arms trade, the exploitation of third world farmers or in their personal relationships are not always the ones with a comprehensive strategy to overthrow international capitalism - but hey, perhaps that's why I like them.

Wild bees and the redistribution of wealth

Bad Matthew regularly does a nice little precis of left publications which is often useful and fun. I notice in his latest review he chooses this week's Socialist Worker in which Judy Cox has a piece on Robin Hood (here) which also links to a review of the new TV show (here)

I caught the end of the show and feel pretty dismissive of it, despite the fact that there was a pleasant twist in the usual Robin - nobleman turned outlaw. Here we have a Robin who was a landowner whose peasants were his possessions, had them stolen from him whilst he was away and becomes an outlaw because he's piqued that he's no longer in charge. Well, that's the way I saw it.

There was also a pukka little line about standing shoulder to shoulder with the Pope in his war on the Middle East. Thing is, although I liked the line it is also one of the reasons I didn't like the show - in that it felt like a show made with modern manners and sensibilities rather than a retelling of a centuries old legend.

Although any artistic production cannot escape the time and culture that produces it it is possible to produce an air of authenticity without going the whole hog and having to speak in old English and incorporate the most alien aspects of feudal ideology.

Look at the classic Sean Connery Hood, whilst SW thinks the fight scenes in the modern version were brilliant I thought they were stupid, Sean showed you don't need to have a kung foo kicking perfect archer and acrobat to have exciting battles. I would have thought we get most excited when we are lost in the moment and feel there is a real element of danger. Sean was slightly crap in that he got hurt when people hacked him, could not guarantee he'd hit the target and he made mistakes. That meant that when/if he won there was some sort of achievement and sense of victory. We were involved, and when he dies at the end it's very, very sad.

When, in this new show, Robin effortlessly throws his sword 50 meters from ground level to strike *two* enemy soldiers on the battlements who are holding his friend between them, knocking them out and leaving laughing boy free to make his escape it would have been hard for me to feel less enthused. OK I get it, Robin's like really, really amazing. It says so in the script so he can do anything, no matter how unlikely. Wow.

Incidently the Sean Connery version is the only one I've seen where Audrey Hepburn's "Maid Marion" convincingly fuses the role of a strong independent minded woman with that of the social coventions of a society that had very set ideas of a woman's place. Others have often been a strange mixture of love interest with girl power fighting ability, neither achieving any worthwhile character development or giving the impression that women in feudal society had restrictions placed on them.

The power of the legend, for me, is the wildness of a rebel who will not bend the knee and creates an autonomous free 'state' in Sherwood forest. He lives his own life, despite the consequences. A heavily stage managed, self referential drama with lots of ironic postmodern winking at the viewer simply does not do justice to the story. It doesn't tell it properly. The eighties version with lots of pre-Christian weirdness was much better because you felt they lived in a forest and fought for freedom (and Ray Winston's Will Scarlett was a proper murdering bastard, exactly the sort you'd need to fight off the massed forces of the state).

Judy Cox is always interesting on the real roots of Robin Hood and how it was a modern invention that any successful outlaw that was being portrayed in a positive way *had* to have been a member of the aristocracy. I mean an oik could never be charismatic, well loved and outsmart the law could they?

I also think it's worth remembering that the 'real' Robin Hood was not one person but almost a title that someone might confer on themselves when they lived outside the law. Just as in later centuries highwaymen would often described themselves as "Dick Turpin" (although he was a real person too), rural labourers might sign death threats "Captain Swing" or industrial workers go under the banner "General Ludd".

I'm absolutely for the retelling of stories in new ways, this is entirely in keeping how these stories developed in the first place anyway. We should be reworking Beowulf and Grendel, the Trojan Wars (oh Brad Pitt's bottom lip... sigh) and the tales from King Arthur's court, but I suppose my main worry is that a slick, made for profit, "isn't it about time we squeezed more out of Robin Hood" version doesn't contribute to the genre only detracts from it.

Of course, I'm never satisfied when it comes to these matters, so judge for yourself - but never say you were not warned. I simply think adventure stories in general suffer when the emphasis is on production values and amazing feats rather than character, plot and the overcoming of difficulties by real, fallible human beings.

Hurray for feminism...

...or something similar. I hate memes, or chain letters or whatever they are called and am delighted, for that reason, not to have been included in one of the latest 'tags' to be going round that I noticed at Stroppy land namely: 5 things feminism has done for me.

However, I thought it would be quite a good idea if at least one chap joined in on this one and so I've taken it on myself to go for my top five things feminism has done for me.

Incidentally, without getting into too much of a frenzy of pedantry I wouldn't describe myself as a "feminist" partly because whenever I hear a bloke say they are a feminist I have an irresistible visceral urge to scream "fuck off you tosser!" into their ear and partly because I'm never quite sure how far labels get us anyway.

When people say anything like "As a Marxist I think..." I always think I bet there are loads of Marxists who think the exact opposite, what I wish they'd say instead is "This is what I think, and here's why..." Much the same goes for feminism, there are plenty of self identifying feminists out there, but until you actually hear what they have to say on issues like abortion, men, pornography, marriage and trade unionism you are still in the dark as to what they actually think.

So here goes, five things the feminist movement has done for me

1. The Nuclear family

My personal experience of the nuclear family has not been an entirely, ahem, happy one and the break from the rigid post-Victorian moralism that kept people who didn't love each other within spitting distance of each other is jolly good. Or worse, like my Dad's parents, a social standard that brought them together in the first place despite having no real feelings for one another because getting married and having kids was the thing that was done - I'm not so sad to see the back of that particular zone of emotional disfugurement.

Obviously I'm not for polyamory or anything [shudders theatrically] but the fruits of serial monogamy have been delightful I must say, both in terms of a far healthier way of operating than being locked into a valueless relationship that has run its course and having partners that are both sexually experienced and emotional mature. I assure you dear reader, this does have its benefits.

2. Family planning

The right to an abortion, easily available contraception and sex education have not just been welcome steps forward but are absolutely revolutionary in terms of how we live our lives. If it wasn't for this and point one (above) my own life would be quite, quite different today. Whilst I'm certainly not opposed to wives and babies I'm very much in favour of getting to choose when and if they become part of my life.

I'm pretty certain that the 17 year old me would have been a pretty poor husband and father and I'm very glad that, due to the advances that feminism fought for, it never happened. Family planning isn't just something that has enhanced people's sex lives (or simply allowed them to have one) it's a social revolution allowing us to make choices about children, sexual health and orientation that simply were not open to us before.

3. Breaking down barriers to advancement

It may sound strange that allowing women to be promoted into positions that were only available to men previously should be something of benefit to both sexes, or perhaps it doesn't, I don't know, but it certainly seems that way to me. When my Mum was at school not only was she not allowed to take her best subject (Maths) because it was not a girl's subject she was all but forced to become a nurse.

I don't think it's in my interest for my Mum to have lived a life constrained by gender conventions that simply do not suit her temperament. It can hardly be in my interest either that the best person for the job of, say, the heart surgeon who may have to operate on me, has not gone to the best person because gender roles forbid it.

The best person for the job is something that benefits the whole of society, not just the person who gets the position they applied for and, whilst we still have a long way to go to a totally open job market, the difference between my generation and my Mum's is difficult to over state.

4. Learning to cook

How many skills have I got that my father just never will? How many men have no confidence to do the simplest things around the home because they come from a generation which told them it was "women's work" and so they never learned.

I suppose it also has benefits the other way round. I don't have a clue around cars, traditionally only men might have been able to help me spark my alternator, or whatever you do with it, thus limiting the number of people who could help me out when stuck. I hate cleaning the oven though and very rarely do it.

5. Making workplaces habitable

When I left school I went to work in Hayters Lawnmower factory in Spellbrook (Essex) and I thought it was hell on Earth. The job was boring and monotonous, but I could tolerate that, what I found very difficult to cope with was the constant use of the c word, the vile and misogynist tripe that my workmates constantly came out with and the dull as ditch water view on what was and was not homosexual behaviour.

I'm not saying these attitudes have gone away but the progress made at work in terms of professional behaviour has made my life far, far better - and I'd like to thank feminism from the bottom of my heart for that.

It sounds obvious to say but the fact is I've met many women I like, and I enjoy spending time with them as friends - if women are only there to fuck or to cook why would I have ever wanted to talk to them in the first place? I think I would have missed out on some very interesting, funny and challenging conversations over the years that rarely, if ever, strayed onto sewing, wedding dresses or recipes for bread and butter pudding.

There may be trouble ahead...

An Early Day Motion to Review Abortion Legislation is being put forward by Geraldine Smith MP

It's been on the cards for some time with a resurgence in the anti-abortion lobby. This EDM has 120 signatures.

"That this House endorses Recommendation 77 of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law; and calls on the Government to set up a joint committee of both Houses to consider the scientific, medical and social changes in relation to abortion that have taken place since 1967, with a view to presenting options for new legislation."

The process will take a little time to get going into a fully fledged challenge to existing legislation - time which we should use to good effect to ensure that there is not any successful attempt to encroach on a woman's right to choose.

But let's have a look at some of the sponsors of this legislation shall we? Names you'd expect to find are Nicholas Soames, IDS and Malcolm Rifkind - no big surprise - but what about Sarah Teather and Ian Gibson, people I expect much better from. Oh yeah and Mr Galloway supports the review too, ffs.

Hat tip: Volsunga

Bolivia: when neo-liberalism attacks

You may have noticed, if you've been reading the media carefully, that there has been some hoo-ha in Bolivia over the last couple of days. Alas the BBC in their wisdom has decided it's best portrayed as a fight between silly foreigners who just get all hot headed and have to throw dynamite at each other.

A more informative approach can be found here: Bolivia: miners clash, dozens killed and injured as to the actual political and economic causes of the fighting, in which dozens have been killed and injured.

It may inspire you to express some solidarity with those miners who have given their lives over the last two days to oppose the privatisation of the largest tin mine in Bolivia and you can find a few ideas on how to do that here: URGENT ACTION (this Tuesday): Indymedia

There are some other articles on this at Deadly clash between miners in Huanuni and at The Democracy Centre and there are some incredible photos here

If you live in London you may like to come along on Tuesday to the picket of the UK company Grant Thornton, who sparked this entire episode in their attempt to make millions of dollars out of one of the poorest peoples on the planet, which is located at Grant Thornton House, Melton Street, Euston Square, London NW1 2EP. Picket starts at noon. If not you may still want to put your thoughts it in writing and send them to the company (click on the Indymedia piece to see how)

You might also like to support the Bolivia Solidarity Campaign if you feel so inclined.

John for leader

John McDonnell MP is a sound fellow isn't he?

Yes he is, and he's also in the race to become the next Labour Prime Minister of this country. Considering the fact he has an excellent record against war, privatisation and racism he'd certainly be a break from tradition.

I thought I'd go and look up some factoids about the chap. This is my top five 'interesting' things to say about McDonnell.

1. John was Livingstone's deputy on the GLC until 1985 when they fell out because sissy boy Ken didn't want to set an illegal budget and John did. Red Ken gave him the boot for being too radical.
2. John was one of only 19 MPs to vote against the Armed Forces Bill (and here, and what he said in the House) which introduced life imprisonment for desertion.
3. In '92 John stood for his home town seat of Hayes and Harlington, but lost by 53 votes. Gutted! Never mind, he then won a seat at the '97 election with a wapping 62% of the vote.
4. In May 2003 he praised the IRA, saying "It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA". Apparently some people did not approve.
5. He voted for the smoking ban introduced by the government (his record on smoking)

Obviously I wish him the best of luck in his valiant attempt to raise socialist politics inside the Labour Party. Now my question for you is simple, what should people who are not members of the Labour Party do to aid his campaign?

Please, please, please don't say join the Labour Party because I'd find that terribly tedious, let's move on to new ground. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thinly veiled

Hadn't been to the Respect website in simply ages so thought I'd pop in and this caught my eye Jack Straw: resign now or be driven out at the election

The effervescent Mr Galloway is quoted as saying "Who does Jack Straw think he is to tell his female constituents that he would prefer they disrobe before they meet him... When put like that, [my emphasis] there's no one who would be considered part of the civilised political spectrum who would have anything but contempt for Straw.

"Yet, because this is about Muslims, we are seriously being told this is about breaking down the "barriers to community cohesion". It is not women choosing to wear what they want that is sowing division in our society. It is poverty, racism and the despicable competition between the Tory and New Labour front benches over who can grab the headlines as the hammer of the Muslims.

The ever present Mr Rees adds "He must resign now and let the people of his constituency choose someone who will stand up for them rather than attack them."

I have every sympathy with their irritation at Straw's crass, insensitive and pointless comments, which were published in Blackburn's local paper of all places, where 1 in 5 are Muslim, but I wish they'd stop throwing loads of rubbish into the argument, undermining what they have to say.

The title of the piece threatening to drive Straw out at the election, well I'm sorry but that's been tried not that long ago, and whilst the vote for the anti-war opposition was respectable it was well short of that required to make someone like Straw too worried for his job, particularly when so much effort was put in to trying to unseat him.

Stop it with the macho posturing. Say he's wrong, don't threaten to do something you not capable of backing up. He should be unseated but it's incredibly unlikely because the mass base of the Labour Party isn't something that can be blown away with wishful thinking and hard work alone.

And Galloway's comments about disrobing are over the top and stupid. Pull yourself together man, you've got a valid point, don't spoil it!

Anyway, there's some much sounder comment out there on the subject. Comment is Free regulars Vikram Dodd and Mike Marqusee have weighed into the fray, as one might expect Lenin's Tomb has a take on this, and over at Pickled Politics the debate rages like no other. Also John MacDonnell has written about this on his blog.

I discussed this at more length a little while ago here so I wont add much more, but I will say, in my view, it isn't Muslims that need to integrate into wider society and become 'normal' but politicians that need to get in touch with the real lives of their constituents.

If they did that then they'd understand that the main barriers between people are not made of cloth, but ignorance and intolerance.

The Frog Escape Committee

The indominable Disillusioned Kid has been to see 'Inconvenient Truth' and blogged about it here

If you haven't seen the film yet - get going, it's really good, as is the funky website.

Over the last few days various activists have been making sniffy noises at me about the film but, to be honest, although Gore does talk about business solutions near the end it's hardly a ringing endorsement of capitalism and everyone who sees the film has got to be walking out of there fired up to do something about climate change - it's up to us to make sure what's on offer is effective.

The coming few weeks are Climate Change-tastic in Cambridge with lots of stuff going on, perhaps you might like to participate?

On Sunday 15th October Indymedia are having a film screening "The End of Suburbia" Which is meant to be a really sound film on oil depletion and the American Dream (see dairy for details)

On Monday 16th October a bunch of us are getting together in Clowns' cafe at 7.30 pm to make sure we've got a proper organising team together - this is where the real action is. Come along.

On 1st November the Green Party are hosting a heated debate between Friends of the Earth and a really nice chap, called Stephen, who is from Scientists for Nuclear Energy (see diary for details)

On the 4th November there is a national demonstration against climate change and, if you live in Cambridge, I want you to come on the coach I'm organising because otherwise I will end up in debtors prison and my Mum will cry. You don't want that on your conscience do you? No, I didn't think so (see diary for details)

On the 16th November the Green Open Forum is taking place at the Friends Meeting House, 8 pm, which is a great space to meet up with other like minded progressive types and get yourself active.

Anyway, back to the frogs. We all know the old example. You put a frog into boiling water and it leaps straight out, but if you put a frog in cold water and then slowly raise the heat what happens is... you rescue the frog, why would you let it boil you sick fucker?

We are that frog. The heat is turning up. It's time to form the escape committee and get out of the heat.

Those who read history

People may know of the weighty tome Revolutionary History, which is essentially a Trotskyist leaning journal of serious historical research.

Despite the fact that I am neither a Trotskyist nor a historian I've been invited onto their board. God bless them.

Just goes to show it's not what you know - but who.

Who said office workers weren't alienated?

Insurance assessor Colin Douglas has found a way to make him stand out from all the other suited office workers at his busy workplace. Colin has taken to wearing novelty cuff-links.

‘Okay, sure, I wear a suit like everyone else, but that doesn’t make me another office clone,’ said Colin, 29. ‘If you look hard you’ll see that I’m a little bit different, a little bit off the mainstream.’

...Despite his apparently mundane job, Colin had always known that he was something of a character and had previously experimented with bow ties and then conventional ties featuring cartoon characters such as Top Cat or The Flintstones.

‘The zany ties worked for a while,’ said Colin, ‘but sometimes in this job you are dealing with families whose home has burnt down, or someone whose husband has had died of a heart attack. And it didn’t seem right to tell her that her late husband had failed to keep up his life insurance payments, wearing a tie that featured Bart Simpson saying Kiss My Butt!’

From News Biscuit

Who better to wear the chains than those who forged them

The News of the World, as expected, has not taken its historic court defeat at the hands of former Scottish Socialist Party MSP Tommy Sheridan lying down. They have now obtained a tape, recorded before the court case by a (presumably former) friend, where he admits the allegations of the paper and states plainly that he is prepared to lie in court to win the case.

The Times says that "A spokesman for Mr Sheridan's new party said that there was nothing in the transcript of the tape that impacted on the evidence given by any member of Solidarity in court. " Is it or isn't if? Party considers it over tea

Of course this is patent nonsense. If the tape is genuine which (despite Sheridan's insistencee that it is fake) it almost certainly is then it directly contradicts what he said in court when berating fellow socialist Alan McCoombes, when denying he confessed to the SSP executive and over his 'robust' treatment of a former lover in the witness box. Read the transcript here (and apologies for linking to the News of the World).

The problem with his denials of the tape's authenticity is, of course, he is heard on tape advocating a strategy of brazening out any accusation with simple denials and hope that the other side lack evidence to prove their case.

He also says "I guarantee you if I am presented with incontrovertible evidence - video tapes, CCTV, something of that character, I'll put my hand up and say IÂ’m sorry, sorry to the party, sorry to my wife, sorry to my family and I'll walk away. I'll walk away. But I'm no prepared to give in to f ***** g bullying because that's what the News of the World, in my opinion, is doing right now - f ***** g bullying. They have been told it's me but they can't prove it."

Alas, it seems Sheridan is not being true to his word here. After all he has gone too far down the road to turn back, even if the warnings of his closest advisors of the time now seem completely vindicated. If he is deemed to have lied under oath and convicted of perjury he would undoubtedly see a jail term imposed (I think Jeffrey Archer got two years for a similar offence) and there is speculation that fellow MSP Rosemary Byrne, among others, may also face a perjury investigation.

The irony is, of course, if he had never gone to court in the first place, to try to disprove allegations that were none of the tabloid's business in the first place, not only would he not be facing a police investigation and not be plastered all over the tabloids he would also still be leader of the SSP and this whole crisis would have been averted rather than embraced.

If the whole episode proves anything it is that if we put people in a position where one single person can provoke a crisis in a left organisation then we don't just need to reassess that individual we also need to reconsider the whole concept of leadership, and what the relationship of "very important people" are to our organisations in the first place.

P.S. This is not the only court action being taken over the feud between former friends in Scotland. Shetland News (a must read if ever there was one) reports that Party fraud probe still ongoing former SSP members in Inverness have pilfered the funds and given it all to Sheridan's Solidarity. Under police investigation they have offered to return the money, which is nice of them. Please, please, please - can we keep the police and the courts out of the left in future?