Alan Wilson Watts who died on this day in 1973 was a theologian and philosopher, whose work helped introduce Western audiences to popularized notions of Zen and Asian philosophy. He was a giant in the middle 20th century, but his essays and books on Zen are still relevant to the current generation.
He was born on 6 January 1915, in Chislehurst, Kent, England to Christian parents. His father, Laurence Wilson Watts, was an employee of Michelin Tyre Company while his mother, Emily Mary Watts (née Buchan), was a homemaker who also taught missionary children in China. He developed an interest in Buddhism while he was still a student at King’s School, Canterbury which was next door to Canterbury Cathedral. As the only child of his parents, Alan grew up playing alone by the brook, learning to identify wildflowers and butterflies. Another factor that had an immense influence on his upbringing was his mother’s family, which was religiously inclined.Watts also later wrote of a mystical dream he experienced while ill with a fever as a child.
Subsequently, at 14 he declared himself a Buddhist and joined the Buddhist Lodge in London, where he met many scholars and spiritual masters, who helped him to shape his ideas. He was a prolific writer and began writing at the age of fourteen. Many of his early works were published in the journal of the Lodge.
Though he was frequently at the top of his classes scholastically and was given responsibilities at school, he botched an opportunity for a scholarship to Oxford by styling a crucial examination essay in a way that was read as presumptuous and capricious.
When he left secondary school, Watts worked in a printing house and later a bank. He spent his spare time involved with the Buddhist Lodge and also under the tutelage of a “rascal guru” named Dimitrije Mitrinović. (Mitrinović was himself influenced by Peter Demianovich Ouspensky, G. I. Gurdjieff, and the varied psychoanalytical schools of Freud, Jung and Adler.) Watts also read widely in philosophy, history, psychology, psychiatry and Eastern wisdom. By his own reckoning, and also by that of his biographer Monica Furlong, Watts was primarily an autodidact. His involvement with the Buddhist Lodge in London afforded Watts a considerable number of opportunities for personal growth. Through Humphreys, he contacted eminent spiritual authors (e.g. the artist, scholar, and mystic Nicholas Roerich, Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, and prominent theosophists like Alice Bailey).
In 1936, aged 21, he attended the World Congress of Faiths at the University of London, heard D. T. Suzuki read a paper, and afterwards was able to meet this esteemed scholar of Zen Buddhism. Beyond these discussions and personal encounters, Watts absorbed, by studying the available scholarly literature, the fundamental concepts and terminology of the main philosophies of India and East Asia.
By his own assessment, Watts was imaginative, headstrong, and talkative. He was sent to boarding schools (which included both academic and religious training of the Muscular Christianity sort) from early years. Of this religious training, he remarked “Throughout my schooling my religious indoctrination was grim and maudlin…”
Watts spent several holidays in France in his teen years, accompanied by Francis Croshaw, a wealthy Epicurean with strong interests in both Buddhism and exotic little-known aspects of European culture. It was not long afterward that Watts felt forced to decide between the Anglican Christianity he had been exposed to and the Buddhism he had read about in various libraries, including Croshaw’s. He chose Buddhism, and sought membership in the London Buddhist Lodge, which had been established by Theosophists, and was now run by the barrister Christmas Humphreys. Watts became the organization’s secretary at 16 (1931). The young Watts explored several styles of meditation during these years.
Watts’s fascination with the Zen (or Ch’an) tradition—beginning during the 1930s—developed because that tradition embodied the spiritual, interwoven with the practical, as exemplified in the subtitle of his Spirit of Zen: A Way of Life, Work, and Art in the Far East. “Work”, “life”, and “art” were not demoted due to a spiritual focus. In his writing, he referred to it as “the great Ch’an (or Zen) synthesis of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism after 700 CE in China.”
In 1936, he attended the World Congress of Faiths at the University of London, where he met Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki, esteemed scholar of Zen Buddhism. He had already read his works; the meeting fascinated him to a great extent. Two decades later, in The Way of Zen he disparaged The Spirit of Zen as a “popularisation of Suzuki’s earlier works, and besides being very unscholarly it is in many respects out of date and misleading.”
He moved to the United States in 1938 and began Zen training in New York. Watts left formal Zen training in New York because the method of the teacher did not suit him. He was not ordained as a Zen monk, but he felt a need to find a vocational outlet for his philosophical inclinations. He entered Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, an Episcopal (Anglican) school in Evanston, Illinois, where he studied Christian scriptures, theology, and church history. He attempted to work out a blend of contemporary Christian worship, mystical Christianity, and Asian philosophy. Watts was awarded a master’s degree in theology in response to his thesis, which he published as a popular edition under the title Behold the Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion.
In 1945, on receiving his master’s degree from the seminary, he became an Episcopal priest and joined the Northwestern University at Chicago as its chaplain. He was very popular among the students, who joined him in a spirited discussion on Christian as well as Eastern philosophy.
During his stay at Chicago, Watts wrote three books on Christian mysticism. However, he found it very hard to reconcile his Buddhist beliefs with Christian doctrines.Watts did not hide his dislike for religious outlooks that he decided were dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing—no matter if they were found within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. Moreover, he got entangled in an extramarital relationship. So he left Chicago and in early 1951, shifted to San Francisco.
Watts gained a large following in the San Francisco Bay Area while working as a volunteer programmer at KPFA, a Pacifica Radio station in Berkeley. Watts wrote more than 25 books and articles on subjects important to Eastern and Western religion, introducing the then-burgeoning youth culture to The Way of Zen (1957), one of the first bestselling books on Buddhism. In Psychotherapy East and West (1961), Watts proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of psychotherapy and not a religion. He considered Nature, Man and Woman (1958) to be, “from a literary point of view — the best book I have ever written.” He also explored human consciousness, in the essay “The New Alchemy” (1958), and in the book The Joyous Cosmology (1962).
Alan Watts was profoundly influenced by the East Indian philosophies of Vedanta and Buddhism, and by Taoist thought, which is reflected in Zen poetry and the arts of China and Japan. After leaving the Church, he never became a member of another organized religion, and although he wrote and spoke extensively about Zen Buddhism, he was criticized by American Buddhist practitioners for not sitting regularly in zazen. Alan Watts responded simply by saying, “A cat sits until it is done sitting, and then gets up, stretches, and walks away.”
Sometime now, he also started experimenting with psychedelic drugs and its effect on mystical insight. He began by taking mescaline.Later he worked with marijuana and wrote about their effects in his forthcoming books. Next in 1958, he worked with several other researchers on LSD, earned him an enthusiastic following, ranging from beatniks and bohemians to psychoanalysts, theologians, and intellectuals. He added advice on diet, dress, sex, yoga, Taoism, and the Vedanta to the core of his Zen Buddhist spiritualism. This Is It (1960) and Psychotherapy East and West (1961) were very popular in the United States, as were his syndicated radio and television programs and many campus lectures. Watts associated with such proponents of beat as Jack Kerouac, who portrayed Watts in the character of Arthur Whane in his novel The Dharma Bums (1958) and as Alex Aums in Desolation Angels. Among his large circle of friends are such luminaries as the writer/philosopher Aldous Huxley, poet Kenneth Rexroth, composer John Cage, and philosopher Joseph Campbell. Allen Ginsberg, Gary Snyder, Richard Alpert ("Ram Dass"), and Timothy Leary and lent support to their experiments in consciousness expansion. In the spirit of the liberated counterculture era he helped shape, Watts had experimented with LSD to attain spiritual insight as early as 1958, before Leary and Alpert used the new hallucinogen at Harvard. He defended LSD as a useful tool, a "sacrament" for Westerners in their search for knowledge, but he cautioned those seeking enlightenment to use the drug prudently. Nevertheless, Watts also enjoyed luxury, tobacco, alcohol, fine food, travel, and sexual affairs. When criticized because he eschewed the asceticism usually associated with Zen Buddhism, Watts called himself an "unrepentant sensualist. "
Watts LP This Is It is about the first hippy LSD jam sessions ever recorded. The record was a huge sources of of inspiration for the 60's scene. The LSD seemed to transform from a rather stiff British intellectual into a more looser free spirited beatnik, someone who could laugh wildly attend parties of abandonment , play bongos, dance wildly and produce long nonsense rhymes for himself and others amusement.
Also in 1962 he organized the Society for Comparative Philosophy, which published the Alan Watts Journal. His interest in bridging East and West and in finding some common ground between Christianity and Buddhism continued during the turmoil of the hippie and New Left years. But his deceptively lighthearted example led one critic to suggest that Watts's epitaph might be taken from the second chapter of Ecclesiastes: "I thought of beguiling my senses with wine, though my mind was concerned with wisdom. "
From early 1960s, he went to Japan several times. Also from 1962 to 1964, he had a fellowship at Harvard University and in 1968, became a scholar at San Jose State University. In fact, by the late 1960s, he had become a counterculture celebrity with many followers as well as critics.
Soon he began travelling widely to speak at universities and growth centers across the US and Europe and by early 1970s, he became the most important interpreter of Eastern thoughts in the Western world.
In regards to his ethical outlook, Watts felt that absolute morality had nothing to do with the fundamental realization of one’s deep spiritual identity. He advocated social rather than personal ethics. In his writings, Watts was increasingly concerned with ethics applied to relations between humanity and the natural environment and between governments and citizens. He wrote out of an appreciation of a racially and culturally diverse social landscape.
Watts led some tours for Westerners to the Buddhist temples of Japan. He also studied some movements from the trWatts was a prophet of the idea that we can seek our spiritual fulfilment outside of traditional religious commitments and communities. He preached the ‘wisdom of insecurity’ — not clinging to any particular religion. He was a nomad-prophet for our uprooted age. He preached the wisdom of the body, the spirituality of sex, the validity of psychedelics as a spiritual technique, the superiority of Asian wisdom to Christianity, and the possibility of escaping history by focusing on ‘the Eternal Now’aditional Chinese martial art taijiquan, with an Asian colleague, Al Chung-liang Huang.
Watts’ books frequently include discussions reflecting his keen interest in patterns that occur in nature and which are repeated in various ways and at a wide range of scales – including the patterns to be discerned in the history of civilizations.
Watts was a prophet of the idea that we can seek our spiritual fulfilment outside of traditional religious commitments and communities. He preached the ‘wisdom of insecurity’ — not clinging to any particular religion. He was a nomad-prophet for our uprooted age. He preached the wisdom of the body, the spirituality of sex, the validity of psychedelics as a spiritual technique, the superiority of Asian wisdom to Christianity, and the possibility of escaping history by focusing on ‘the Eternal Now’
But his main message, which he repeated over and over throughout his career, was that there is no separate self, that there is just IT, the Tao, the Brahman, and you are inescapably part of it, so relax and let go, rather than trying to pull yourself up by your spiritual boot-straps. Over-strenuous spiritual practice will actually just reinforce your ego. You are already perfect, already enlightened, you don’t need to do or change anything. There is no ‘you’, just IT.
Watts married three times and had seven children (five daughters and two sons). In 1936, he met Eleanor Everett at the Buddhist Lodge and got married in April 1938. Their eldest daughter Joan was born in November 1938 and the younger daughter Anne in 1942.
Towards the end of 1940s, Watts became entangled with an extramarital affair with Jean Burden; as a result Eleanor had their marriage annulled. Although he never married Jean, she remained in his thought till the end. He also kept in touch with his mother-in-law Ruth Fuller Everett.
In 1950, Watts married Dorothy DeWitt. They had five children; Tia, Mark, Richard, Lila, and Diane. The marriage ended when in early 1960s Watts met Mary Jane Yates King while on a lecture tour to New York. The divorce was granted in 1964 and Watts and King got married in the same year.
Despite his innate wisdom he failed as a husband, and drove his third wife to the bottle with his philandering — he would pick up a different college girl after most talks (‘I don’t like to sleep alone’). In fairness to him the women of his life knew what he was about, so I wont pass moral judgement.By his own admission he failed as a father to his seven children: ‘By all the standards of this society I have been a terrible father’, although some of his children still remember him fondly as a kind man, who initiated each of his children into LSD on their 18th birthday. He was vain and boastful, ‘immoderately infatuated with the sound of my own voice," although he didn’t try and hide his failings, and hey who at end of the day is perfect. Lfe is about mistakes, but i also about learning from them, Watts perhaps in his mystical ' Life as a Play ' talk learn from his mistakes or know something was wrong.
Until the middle of 1960s Watts lived with King on a houseboat docked in Sausalito until crowds of visiting disciples and admirers made that impossible. They retreated to an isolated cabin in Mill Valley, near San Francisco, called Druid Heights, located on the southwest flank of Mount Tamalpais. At the same time, he continued with his lecture trips.
But by the end of his life he was having to do several talks a week to make enough money to pay his alimony and child support. And he was drinking a bottle of vodka a day to be able to do that. He died, exhausted, at 58. Snyder remembers:
he had to keep working, and as you keep working, you know, you got to play these roles, and you also keep drinking ’cause there’s always these parties and so forth, so that doesn’t help you slow it down. So he just wore himself out. It was out of his control, that was my feeling. The dynamics of his life had gotten beyond his control, and he didn’t know what to do about it.
One of his lovers, the therapist June Singer, visited him in hospital when he was admitted with delirium tremens. Why didn’t he stop drinking, she asked. ‘That’s how I am,’ he said to her sadly. ‘I can’t change.’
Ultimately, Watts seems to have worked incredibly hard at his career, at his public profile, at the endless talks he gave on campuses, on radio and on TV. In other words, on the external self. And he worked very little on the inner man , psychotherapy bored him, while he felt too much meditation ‘is apt to turn one into a stone Buddha’.
For Zen writers like for Shakespeare, life is but a dream, and if you are not living in the present you are living a fantasy. Watt taught, above all else, that everything is transitory. Yes he died of alcoholism after having been a heavy drinker all his life, but he never expressed guilt or remorse because of his addiction, and he never missed one of his lectures or deadlines for his written works.
So his life to me could hardly be called a tragedy. It sounds incredibly interesting, and often incredibly fun. He was energetic, friendly, charismatic, full of ideas, alcoholic, egotistical, lonely and definitely not an authority on 'how to live'. Why, was he so unsuccessful at putting his own teachings into practice? Did he struggle but not succeed? I suspect he was never serious in the first place but a relatively easy-going personality who wished to be content as a popular success but obviously his inner demons required sedating through the use of alcohol.
The question that cannot be answered is why after a lifetime involved in Buddhist studying and proselytising was Watts not a genuine practitioner. I suspect there are two reasons. While I do not believe in the efficacy of the various Buddhist meditation techniques there is no doubt that they are difficult to practice and require long term committment and effort and Watts was able to live very well on his intelligence, charm and style. This required no such effort. Secondly he had, after all, met all the recognised Buddhist and other "masters", rinpoches, swamis, gurus, etc and he had probably already decided that if enlightenment existed at all there was nobody who had attained it. And the consequence of his egoistical drive to self-promote was the flowering of Asian wisdom in western culture.
On all accounts he sounds like a likeable and friendly man, without the tendency to greed, malice or domination that one sees in some spiritual teachers. And his books genuinely helped thousands of people, giving them a holistic vision that consoles them in dark times. Does it matter that he had such a messy life himself?
His body was cremated and half of the ashes were buried near his library at Druid Heights while the other half at the Green Gulch Monastery.
Watts remains one of the most respected and quotable writers on Zen Buddhism in the English-speaking world. Across a multitude of books, speeches and recorded lectures, he championed experiences and conscious living over the accumulation of things and is still referenced by many in the fields of politics, religion, philosophy and the arts.Today, new generations are finding his writings and lectures online, while faithful followers worldwide continue to be enlightened by his teachings.
Watts’ eldest daughters, Joan Watts and Anne Watts, own and manage most of the copyrights to his books. His son, Mark Watts, serves as curator of his father’s audio, video and film and has published content of some of his spoken lectures in print format. You can watch his talks on YouTube for hours, I've enjoyed them immensely.
There are thousands of books, essays, numerous You tube videos one can view and other materials that have stemmed from his work and all of them are impressed with affection, as if the people who read or heard him had somehow established a liaison with the author. Alan Watts was a fascinating enigmatic characters, not flawless in anyway, but an individual who helped establish a bridge to the beautiful world of Zen who was also responsible for sparking the passion of innumerable seekers of wisdom and spiritual delights with his ability to make Eastern spirituality understandable. Who was always adamant about making a path for oneself, saying: “the menu is not the meal”
Here's a video from one of my favourite short Watt's lectures animated by the creators of
Armistice Day/Remembrance Day, also known as Poppy Day commemorates the sacrifices of members of the armed forces and of
civilians in times of war, and is specifically observed on November 11th to recall the end of First World War hostilities. Hostilities ended "at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" of 1918, in accordance with the armistice signed by representatives of Germany and the Entente between 5:12 and 5:20 that morning. ("At the 11th hour" refers to the passing of the 11th hour, or 11:00 am.) The First World War formally ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919.mark the time and date since World War I was ended
Because red poppies bloomed on the Western Front during World War I
they became a symbol of remembrance of the the horror of war especially to those who have experienced the suffering and grief that war brings and are often worn in the UK around
the time of Armistice Day, with sales raising funds for people who have served in the armed forces, and their dependents, through the poppy appeal of the Royal British Legion
Armistice Day was born and was designated as “a day to be dedicated to
the cause of world peace and to be thereafter celebrated.”and became a focus of grieving families who vowed that
never again should valuable lives be wasted. In the 1920s and 1930s it
became an occasion for peace activists around the world to rally in
support of disarmament. However the annual dedication to world peace somehow mutated into the glorification
of war and hero worship of the military. Armistice Day changed from a
day for peace into a day for displays of militarism. This “rebranding” of Armistice Day has continually gnawed at me. My
unease has nothing to do with honoring veterans: indeed they should be
recognized, supported and held up for their service. But what happened
to the “peace” aspect of the original Armistice Day?
The Peace Pledge Union the oldest secular pacifist organisation in Britain. along with many pacifists support the wearing of white poppies as an alternative. They were first produced in 1933 by the Co-operative Women's Guild, a coop made up largely of women who had lost husbands, fathers, sons, brothers and friends in World War One. They were worried by the growing militarisation of Remembrance events and the detachment between the red poppy and the need to work for peace. The Guild's General Secretary, Eleanor Barton, called for renewed commitment "to that 'Never Again' spirit that was strong in 1918, but seems to grow weaker as years go on".
On the Peace Pledge Union they write: "There are three elements to the meaning of white
poppies: they represent remembrance for all victims of war, a commitment
to peace and a challenge to attempts to glamorise or celebrate war.
"White
poppies symbolise the conviction that there are better ways to resolve
conflict than through the use of violence. They embody values that
reject killing fellow human beings for whatever reason.
"Nearly
100 years after the end of the “war to end all wars” we still have a
long way to go to put an end to a social institution that even in the
last decade has contributed to the killing of millions."
White poppies represent remembrance for all victims of war (including
the vast majority of war victims who are civilians), a commitment to
peace, and a challenge to attempts to glamorize or celebrate war. Some have claimed the wearing of the white poppy is a sign of disrespect for former soldiers and armed forces personell. However
the Royal British Legion, has made no official opinion on
the wearing of white poppies stating it is a matter of choice and 'does
not have a problem' with people wearing the white poppy. Some people choose wear both red and white, so please be aware of creeping poppy fascism that to me serves no purpose at all.
Lest we forget that the trenches of the First World War were a vast area of
darkness and danger, dank and miserable conditions, often infested with
rats who ate the flesh of the dead. The stench of unwashed humanity,
all squashed together, combined with the smell of rotting flesh, and
overflowing latrines, and the lingering smell of death and battle on
accounts must have been unbearable. Over 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded
in what is considered to be among the deadliest of conflicts in human history.
With the incomprehensible loss of life of that Great War, communities
back home were in some ways silenced too. Not just by the silence of
peace but by the silence of loss: The silence of the Lost Generation,
who never returned home to talk and joke, and live and breath. They
were silenced by the grief of so many lost in communities, often because
their loved ones had signed up with their friends together, Kitchener’s
‘Pals Battalions’ from the same factory, or sports team, or village.
We should not forget either the 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers
who were shot on the orders of the military top brass, many suffering
from shell shock, and what is now known as Post Traumatic Stress.
Charged with desertion after becoming dazed and confused, young
disturbed, traumatised teenagers some of them , who had simply
volunteered for duty. https://teifidancer-teifidancer.blogspot.com/2015/11/shot-at-dawn-in-first-world-war-and.html
Many other soldiers during the First World War were driven to
suicide, or left with mental exhaustion, depression and shell shock
because of this war. It has taken time, but the stigma of mental health issues
caused by conflict are very real indeed. In the end no glory in war,
only sadness.
Today I remember the millions killed, wounded, widowed, imprisoned,
orphaned,and honor military resisters, not forgetting either, those caught up in conflict across the globe in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Gaza etc nor do I forget the arms dealers currently still making profits out of war, from slaughter and mass misery , not sparing a thought to the carnage they continually help unleash while still wearing their red poppies with pride. Let us all live in the hope that a world of war will be no more.
And yes people have said that it's not possible but the sanctity of human life beyond its own unreasonable divisions is not worth abandoning.
‘Selflessness. Integrity. Objectivity. Accountability. Openness.
Honesty. Leadership.’ These are the Seven Principles devised by Lord
Nolan’s 1994 Committee on Standards in Public Life to promote a code of
conduct that all public servants should follow. Following the news in
the last week, it is apparent that our country has elected a government
that is attempting to rip to shreds all of these rules.
Lord Acton famously once said: ‘power
tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’: ambitious
people who think themselves untouchable tend to bend the rules for their
purposes. Nonetheless, what shocks me is the level of corruption we are
seeing in our country, and how this country has become numb to it. This
is unsurprising based on our incumbent primus inter pares:
Boris Johnson who has paved the way for an unprecedented level
of sleaze and scandal. Whether it was the dispute over who paid the
furniture for Downing Street, or his oddly timed Marbella holiday in a villa owned by the family of environment minister Lord Goldsmith.
Johnson has already been admonished on four occasions, most recently over a £15,000 holiday to the island of Mustique between December 26, 2019, and January 5, 2020, but this was later overturned by the Committee on Standards.
Johnson has already been admonished by the commissioner on four occasions, most recently over a £15,000 holiday to the island of Mustique between December 26, 2019, and January 5, 2020, but this was later overturned by the Committee on Standards.dubiously funded holidays, or tennis
matches with dodgy donors, Boris has pushed the envelope out of what it
is acceptable for our political leaders to do.
This
has been apparent
with the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal that has engulfed the government
this week. Paterson , was found in breach of ministerial code by the
independent
watchdog for these type of matters. He was found to have repeatedly
lobbied ministers and officials on behalf of two companies he worked for
as a paid consultant.
On top of Paterson’s £81,932 salary, he took home £8,333 a month to lobby on behalf of healthcare company Randox Laboratories.
As
Johnson announced Covid safety restrictions in March 2020, the government handed Randoz a £133 million contract to manufacture Covid
tests.
The Sunday Times newspaper has revealed a phone call on 9 April
last year between Paterson and the Tory peer Lord Bethell, who was the
minister responsible for handing out contracts.
According to documents, civil servants were trying to cover for the fact that Randox did not have the equipment it needed.
In an email, an official wrote that Matt Hancock health secretary at the time, would send a letter to universities “asking for loans of the various things we need”.
Campuses would have to give up testing resources and send them to Randox, they continued.
Randox later received a £347 million contract. Paterson’s
lobbying interests extended to sausage company Lynn’s Country Foods who
paid him £12,000 for just 24 hours of work each year.
Last month the independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner found Paterson had breached the tame paid advocacy rules.
Paterson had, on 16 occasions, used his House of Commons office for meetings relating to his private business interests.
He failed on a number of occasions to declare those interests.
The Committee on Standards suggested Paterson should just be
suspended from the Commons for 30 days. This was set to be voted on in
parliament.
In an effort to save him even this punishment, Johnson
instructed Tory MP Andrea Leadsom to put forward an amendment and set up
a committee to prevent his suspension.
Parliamentary votes on these reports are usually free, i.e. the party
whip allows MPs to vote with their conscience, and so MPs typically
endorse the recommendation of the Standards Select Committee. Yet this
time the government imposed a three-line whip , and the Leadsom Amendment
to the motion to suspend Paterson was backed.
The amendment was half-baked and an outrageous watering down of
current processes. It aimed to not only set aside Paterson’s suspension,
but also to throw the Standards Commissioner on a bonfire and chop up
the Standards Committee for firewood. A new committee of MPs was to be
set up to decide the future of the Standards Select Committee, which
interrogates the work of the Standards Commissioner,
Tory
whips threatened MPs with the loss of local funding unless they fell
into line. MPs duly voted for it. But the stench of corruption was too much. The government was forced to go back on itself and announced there would be a vote on Paterson’s suspension.
The government narrowly won the vote 250 to 232, and the former MP announced he would resign and self pitying leave “the cruel world of politics”following his shameless lobbying for big businesses.
What
was outrageous was that when the debate in the house happened, the
cowardly PM was nowhere to be seen. Sorry but he is always
available for a photoshoot or somehting like that but when he us under
fire he disappears.
I've read that Con
MPs said the vote was not about letting Paterson off the hook but
rather introducing a fairer system.
The flaw there is that is they weren’t planning a fairer system. They
wanted to scrap a public committee & replace it with a Tory mates-led committee. Arrant corruption.
Amid fallout from the “sleaze”
row Labour Party leader Keir Starmer who has not previously been noted
for his voice of opposition at least had the tenacity to accuse Boris
Johnson of "corroded trust" in MPs. The Labour leader told
the emergency debate in the Commons that the PM had given the "green
light to corruption".
Also
this week we have also heard about the MP and former attorney general
Sir Geoffrey Cox who had been accused of pocketing
hundreds of thousands of pounds to help stop ironically the exposure of
corruption
in a Caribbean paradise. the British Virgin Islands (BVI) during
lockdown.n his second job as a lawyer advising the Caribbean tax haven..
Iain Duncan Smith is also facing questions over his
£25,000-a-year second job advising a multimillion-pound hand sanitiser
company after he chaired a government taskforce that recommended new
rules benefiting the firm.in a brazen conflict of interest
The MP and former Conservative party leader chaired the Task Force on Innovation, Growth, and Regulatory Reform,
which reported back in May after he and two other MPs were asked by
Boris Johnson to recommend ways of cutting supposed EU red-tape.
However,
the fresh spotlight on moonlighting by MPs has now prompted questions
about the taskforce’s recommendations that alcohol-free hand sanitisers
should be formally recognised as suitable for use in the UK.
The
report made no reference to Duncan Smith’s relationship with Byotrol,
which provides the NHS with 92% of its non-alcohol sanitiser. It retains
the former Tory leader as an adviser for £25,000 a year, according to
his declaration in parliament’s register of members’ interests.
The
taskforce said in its report: “Current guidelines in the UK on
non-alcohol based hand sanitisers are unclear. As a result, there is
confusion in industry and among consumers as to what products are safe
and effective to use, and we may be unnecessarily limiting the range of
sanitising products available.” It called on the government to review
guidance “to place alcohol- and non-alcohol-based on a level playing
field”.
Duncan Smith was a director of Byotrol between June 2009
and May 2010 and has previously declared share options. Both have been
approached for comment.
Byotrol, which is based
in Cheshire, said in August that its revenue almost doubled and its
pre-tax profits rocketed by more than 600% following “exceptional
demand” for its sanitising technologies due to the pandemic. It reported
a revenue of £11.2m for the 12 months to 31 March, up from £6m the
previous year.
Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy
leader, said: “The prime minister needs to explain why he think it is
justified for one of his MPs to be paid by a company that stands to
benefit from a recommendation of a taskforce chaired by that same MP.
This is exactly the kind of brazen conflict of interest that proves that
the Conservatives think it is one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
“Did
this MP declare an interest when these matters were discussed and
reported on by the taskforce? Why is the prime minister failing to act
over these glaring conflicts of interest?”
More than a quarter of Tory MPs have second jobs with firms wbose
activities range from gambling to private healthcare, making more than
£4m in extra earnings in a year, Guardian analysis has found.
It's been interesting to see Tory MP's saying thy can't live on £82 k a
year when they thought some of the poorest people in the country could
cope with £20 a week less. The party of low wages, austerity,
exploitaiton and poor ambition. With a huge slice of sleaze and a
massive dose of corruption and a total lack of morals,.It’s one rule
for us, and no rules for them The criminals are right here Cressida
Dick, arrest them!
Boris
Johnson did not cause all these
mounting scandals, but it was his nature of governing and what he views
as
acceptable that is seriously harming our political culture. Over the
centuries this land has produced some absolute rotters, but I honestly
cannot think of anyone worse than this lying, arrogant, cheating dishonest,
incompetent, racist thug with blood on his hands,
The Conservative Party Party is also facing demands for a police investigation into a fresh cash for honours scandal. The SNP
are demanding action from the Metropolitan Police to determine whether
any criminal offence has been committed after it was reported party
treasurers who meet a £3 million threshold in donations are virtually
guaranteed a peerage.
The Sunday Times and Open Democracy found 15 of the last 16 Tory treasurers have been offered a seat in the Lords having each donated more than £3m.
The most controversial appointment was that of Lord Cruddas, who took
his seat after Boris Johnson rejected the advice of the House of Lords
Appointment Commission not to grant him a peerage.
An ex-party chairman explained: “Once you pay your £3m, you get your peerage.”
The
report found that, since 2010, 22 of the party’s main financial
donors have been given peerages after donating a combined £54m. Two
Labpir and five LibDem major donors have also been handed peerages.
SNP MP Pete Wishart said the latest scandal was corruption – “plain and simple”.
He commented: “The Tory corruption scandal is growing worse by the
day. It’s now beyond all doubt that the honours system has been abused
by the Tories.
The Metropolitan Police should launch a fresh cash for honours
investigation to determine whether a criminal offence has been
committed.
“It is utterly appalling that so many millionaire Tory party donors
have been handed life peerages by Boris Johnson and his predecessors.
But this isn’t just a scandal for the Tories – the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats
have also been dishing out peerages to donors as though they were
sweeties. It is corruption plain and simple – and it absolutely stinks.
“The undemocratic House of Lords is packed with hundreds of Tory,
Labour and LibDem donors and cronies, who are making laws without being
elected and claiming allowances at our expense. It should have been
abolished centuries ago but, whenever they’ve had the opportunity, the
Tories and Labour Party have instead chosen to continue benefiting from
the broken system – milking taxpayers for every penny they can get.”
Sadly Starmer chose last week to announce that Labour was no longer in favour of abolishing the House of Lords.
Wishart continued: “This is just the latest scandal for Boris Johnson
who seems to believe he is immune to abiding by the rules everyone else
does. Whether it’s cash for peerages, changing the standards system to
suit him best, or soliciting dodgy donations for the refurbishment of
flats and holidays, he is reigning over a system that he’s using to
benefit him and his party.
“People
in Scotland are looking in horror at what’s going on at Westminster.
The sooner Scotland can become an independent country, and shake off
this broken system, the better.”
Regardless
of Boris Johnson’s attempts to appeal to the whole country his same
tendency to serve the elite has manifested in the government’s COVID-19
pandemic response. Nearly £1 billion in government contracts ’have been awarded to 15 companies
with directors, or people with controlling interests over these
companies, who have donated £12 million to the Conservative Party’. That
is to say, public money has been funnelled to Tory donors in vast
quantities. The problematic nature of these transactions is obvious: any
argument that those bodies which were awarded contracts are the best
suited to the job is naturally suspect as a consequence of their
relationship with the Conservative party. This suspicion is further
justified when many COVID contracts have been awarded without competition and in breach of transparency rules,.
During the last year of the pandemic, the wealth of British billionaires increased by over a fifth. In a similar period, food bank use increased by about one third.
This stunning inequality is unlikely to be addressed by a Conservative
party whose raison d’etre is to protect the existing centres of wealth
and power. Yet Labour leader Keir Starmer’s current search for rich donors
to replace the subscription fees of a reduced party membership gives
little reason to think that the opposition offers a viable alternative
to the current plutocracy. To build a Britain that works for the many,
the impetus for change will have to come from the ground up.These
scandals and the furore to which it has given rise have deep
roots in our political system and highlight the structural flaws that so
urgently need to be addressed. But incredibly knowing all this
corruption is going on in plain sight, the public still vote for the
Tories and they are still ahead in the polls.I wish people would wake up
and realise that Britain is being run by the Bullingdon State; a
chummy elite who are above
pesky things like parliamentary standards and so-called ‘transparency’ behaving like arrogant masters pursuing their own interests while the
little people find supermarket shelves empty as prices and taxes rise.
Whoever leads them, the British Conservative party is
diametrically opposed to the good of the British public and
deliberately acts against their interests. Their motives driven by
authoriarianism designed to disenfranchise all, unless you are not a
millionaire, the Conservative Party is not your friend, they are enemies
of the people.
The Conservatives with their feelings of self entitlement
believe they are born to rule. Unconcerned by any principles except
their maintenance of power, they U-turn on positions at a drop of a
hat, betray promises and even sacrifice their own in order to maintain
control.The interests they serve are not yours or mine, but those of the
bankers, financiers, fossil fuel magnates and the elite, look how they have voted.to pollute our waterways to keep their donors happy. I cannot believe the UK keeps accepting this crap.
There will likely be many more scandals .As to the outcome of the
investigations into these scandals, they’ll undoubtedly conclude that
lessons must be learned and rules tightened, etc. In other words,
business as usual, unless that is, both Scotland and Wales manage
to break free from the rotting corpse of Westminster and the stench of
Tory corruption, because we can't allow Boris and the Tory's to keep getting away with what they have up to now, surely we all deserve so much better.
The
People’s Charter had been launched in the spring of 1838 to demand
universal male suffrage and other egalitarian electoral reforms. - See
more at:
http://www.internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/11/on-this-day-4111839-the-newport-rising/#sthash.1XaXbYTG.dpuf
The
People’s Charter had been launched in the spring of 1838 to demand
universal male suffrage and other egalitarian electoral reforms. - See
more at:
http://www.internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/11/on-this-day-4111839-the-newport-rising/#sthash.1XaXbYTG.dpuf
The political movement of Chartism developed following the 1832 Reform
Act due to the widespread disappointment at the provisions in the act.
In June 1836 the London’s Workingmen’s Association was formed and in
1838, the members launched a People’s Charter and National Petition
which called for radical changes to the way in which Britain was
governed. Supporters of the movement were from then on known as
Chartists.
At
the time only 19 percent of the adult male population of Britain could
vote. The Chartists wanted the vote for all men (though not for
women) and a fairer electoral system. They also
called for
annual elections, the payment of MPs, and the
introduction
of a secret ballot.Working conditions in many
coalfields and ironworks in South
Wales were harsh, and there was often conflict
between workers
and employers. Much of the working class population
were living in poverty, but
without a voice in politics, and they did not feel they could change
their situation, Given these circumstances, it was no surprise
that Chartism developed quickly. In the summer of
1838 a Working
Men's Association was formed in Newport,
Monmouthshire to publicise the People's
Charter.
The People's Charter called for six reforms to make the political system more democratic, namely:
A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for a crime.
The secret ballot to protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
No property qualification for Members of Parliament in order to allow the constituencies to return the man of their choice.
Payment
of Members, enabling tradesmen, working men, or other persons of modest
means to leave or interrupt their livelihood to attend to the interests
of the nation.
Equal constituencies, securing the same amount
of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing
less populous constituencies to have as much or more weight than larger
ones.
Annual Parliamentary elections, thus presenting the most
effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since no purse could buy a
constituency under a system of universal manhood suffrage in each
twelve-month period.
There was much more to Chartism than the six points. This was a
manifesto, an umbrella under which different campaigns and objectives
could shelter. Many Chartists made improving the living standards of
working people a priority: a more democratic and representative
political system would be the means to achieve such an end. Some
imagined a different economic system involving workers' control of
industry. Others were attracted by utopian visions of communitarian
societies. There were Chartist newspapers, Chartist churches, Chartist
schools and Chartists who put as much energy into campaigning for
temperance as for the People's Charter. It was a very wide-ranging and
amorphous movement that embraced communities the length and breadth of
Britain.
Chartism though was not solely a
democratic movement, it was a revolutionary class struggle to change
society. To Frederick Engels it was "the compact form of the
proletariat's opposition to the bourgeoisie". William Price, : "Oppression, injustice and the grinding
poverty which burdens our lives must be abolished for all time."
Tensions rose after the government turned down the mass petition for the Charter, presented to the House of Commons with over 1.25 million signatures.Leaders like John Frost and Henry Vincent called for 'physical force' to
obtain the Charter, and to add further fuel to the indignation felt in May 1839 eloquent public speaker Henry Vincent,https://teifidancer-teifidancer.blogspot.com/2018/05/henry-vincent-1051818-2912-1878-radical.html well known locally for his speaking tour
of South Wales a year earlier, on 2 August all of 20 miles away in
Monmouth was arrested for making inflammatory speeches. When he was tried on the
2nd August at Monmouth Assizes he was found guilty and sentenced to
twelve months imprisonment. Vincent was denied writing materials and
only allowed to read books on religion.
Chartists in Wales were furious and the decision was followed by several
outbreaks of violence. John Frost called for a massive protest meeting
to show the strength
of feeling against the imprisonment of Henry Vincent. Frost's plan was
to march on Newport where the Chartists planned to demand the release of
Vincent. 7,500 armed workers with pikes, clubs and firearms eagerly began the long march from the heads of the
Valleys to Newport on 3 November. They had been preparing long enough.
They knew that some would not return but believed that those that did
would be free.
George Shell, a 15-year old Pontypool carpenter wrote to his parents: "I
shall this night be engaged in a glorious struggle for freedom and
should it please God to spare my life, I shall see you soon; but if not
grieve not for me. I shall have fallen in a noble cause. Farewell!"
George Shell was killed the next day.
On 4 November 1839, these men roused with much
anger marched into Newport ,and attempted to take control of the town.
They marched to Westgate Hotel, where
they had heard that after several more arrests,
local authorities were temporarily holding several chartists, began
chanting "surrender our prisoners". However the authorities in Newport
had heard rumours that the Chartists were armed and planned to seize
Newport. Stories also began to circulate that if the Chartists were
successful in Newport, it would encourage others all over Britain to
follow their example, so were waiting for them. Troops protecting the
hotel were then given the order to begin firing into the crowd, killing
at least 22 people, and another fifty being wounded and resulted in
the uprising being bought
to an abrupt end. Among the injured was a Chartist
named John
Lovell, who was shot in the thigh and badly wounded.
It would be the last large scale uprising in the history of mainland
Britain.
the attack on Westgate Hotel
Following the Newport defeat, South Wales was placed under martial law
and hundreds of Chartists arrested or forced into hiding.Within days
many of the alleged the ringleaders including Frost
were arrested and in December"True Bills" for High Treason were foundagainst 14 men and more than 40 counts for sedition, conspiracy, riot and burglary.
The 14 men committed for Trial were:
John Frost, age 54, a draper, Newport
Zephaniah Williams, age 44, an inn keeper, of Blaina
William Jones, age 30, a watchmaker & beer house keeper, of Pontypool
Charles Waters, age 26, a ship's carpenter, of Newport (formerly Chepstow)
John Lovell, age 41, a gardener, of Newport
Jenkin Morgan, age 40, a milkman, of Pillgwenlly
Richard Benfield, age 20, a miner, of Sirhowy
John Rees, age 40, a miner, of Tredegar
James Aust, age 25, a gardener, of Malpas (formerly of Caerleon)
Solomon Britton, age 23, a collier, of Garndiffaith
George Turner, age 37, a collier, of Blackwood
Edmund Edmunds, age 34, a mine agent, of Pontllanfraith
and, to be tried in their absence:
John Rees, (Jack 'the Fifer'), a stonemason, of Tredegar
David Jones, (Dai 'the Tinker'), of Tredegar
- but the two were never captured
The Trials commenced on 31st December 1839 - and all fourteen men faced the Death Penalty.
South Wales Chartist Song, 1839, to rally support for John Frost and other imprisoned leaders of the Newport Rising 1839.
Uphold these bold Comrades who suffer for you,
Who nobly stand foremost, demanding your due,
Away with the timid, 'tis treason to fear—
To surrender or falter when danger is near.
For now that our leaders disdain to betray
'Tis base to desert them, or succour delay.
A Hundred years, a thousand years we're marching on the road
The going isn't easy yet, we've got a heavy load
The way is blind with blood and sweat & death sings in our ears
But time is marching on our side, we will defeat the years.
We men of bone, of sunken shank, our only treasure death
Women who carry at the breast heirs to the hungry earth
Speak with one voice we march we rest and march again upon the years
Sons of our sons are listening to hear the Chartist cheers
Sons of our sons are listening to hear the Chartist cheers.
John Frost's trial was heard first and this ended on the 8th January. Zephaniah Williams, on the 13th January and William Jones, on the 14th January. All three were found "guilty, with mercy".[This
meant that although they were sentenced to death, the final decision to
allow mercy was with Her Majesty and her Government]
John Lovell, Charles Waters, Jenkin Morgan, Richard Benfield and John Rees - on the advice of their counsels, Messrs, Stone & Skinner,
were urged to plead guilty in the hopes that the Crown prosecutors
could prevail upon the Judges to set the death penalty aside in their
cases and on the 15th January 1840, they appeared together in court and
pleaded guilty. The remaining four Chartists in Monmouth gaol - James
Aust, Solomon Britton, George Turner, Edmund Edmunds
- were brought before the bar and to everyone's amazement, the Attorney
General withdrew all charges against them and they were freed with a
verbal admonishment.
On the 16th
January 1840, John Frost, Zephaniah Williams and William Jones were
sentenced by the Lord Chief Justice Sir Nicholas Tindal:
"After the most anxious and careful investigation
of your respective cases, before juries of great intelligence and almost
unexampled patience, you stand at the bar of this court to receive the
last sentence of the law for the commission of a crime which, beyond all
others, is the most pernicious in example, and the most injurious in
its consequences, to the peace and happiness of human society - the
crime of High Treason against your Sovereign. You can have no just
ground of complaint that your several cases have not met with the most
full consideration, both from the jury and from the court. But as the
jury have, in each of those cases, pronounced you guilty of the crime
with which you have been charges, I should be wanting in justice to them
if I did not openly declare, that the verdicts which they have found
meet with the entire concurrence of my learned brethren and myself.
In the case of all ordinary breaches of the
law, the mischief of the offence does, for the most part, terminate with
the immediate injury sustained by the individual against whom it is
levelled. The man who plunders the property, or lifts his hand against
the life of his neighbour, does by his guilty act inflict, in that
particular instance, and to that extent, a loss or injury on the
sufferer or his surviving friends. But they who, by armed numbers, or by
violence, or terror, endeavour to put down established institutions,
and to introduce in their stead a new order of things, open wide the
flood-gates of rapine and bloodshed, destroy all security of property
and life, and do their utmost to involve a whole nation in anarchy and
ruin.
It has been proved, in your case, that you
combined together to lead from the hills, at the dead hour of night,
into the town of Newport many thousands of men, armed, in many
instances, with weapons of a dangerous description, in order that they
might take possession of the town, and supersede the lawful authority of
the Queen, as a preliminary step to a more general insurrection
throughout the kingdom.
It is owing to the interposition of Providence
alone that your wicked designs were frustrated. Your followers arrive
by day-light, and after firing upon the civil power, and upon the
Queen's troops, are, by the firmness of the magistrates, and the cool
and determined bravery of a small body of soldiers, defeated and
dispersed. What would have been the fate of the peaceful and unoffending
inhabitants of that town, if success had attended your rebellious
designs, it is impossible to say. The invasion of a foreign foe would,
in all probability, have been less destructive to property and life.
It is for the crime of High Treason, committed
under these circumstances, that you are now called upon yourselves to
answer; and by the penalty which you are about to suffer, you hold out a
warning to all your fellow-subjects, that the law of your country is
strong enough to repress and to punish all attempts to alter the
established order of things by insurrection and armed force; and that
those who are found guilty of such treasonable attempts must expiate
their crime by an ignominious death.
I therefore most earnestly exhort you to employ
the little time that remains to you in preparing for the great change
that awaits you, by sincere penitence and by fervent prayer. For
although we do not fail to forward to the proper quarter that
recommendation which the jury have intrusted to us, we cannot hold out
to you any hope of mercy on this side of the grave.
And now, nothing more remains than the duty
imposed upon the court - to all of us a most painful duty - to declare
the last sentence of the law, which is that you, John Frost, and you,
Zephaniah Williams, and you, William Jones, be taken hence to the place
from whence you came, and be thence drawn on a hurdle to the place of
execution, and that each of you be there hanged by the neck until you be
dead, and that afterwards the head of each of you shall be severed from
his body, and the body of each, divided into four quarters, shall be
disposed of as Her Majesty shall think fit, and may Almighty God have
mercy upon your souls."
These courageous Chartists of Wales stood their ground and refused to
flinch. As they left the courtroom in Monmouth following the
sentencing, Williams defiantly shouted to the crowd, “Three cheers for
the Charter!”
John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, William Jones - were
returned to Monmouth Gaol to await public execution. The Government had
decided that an example should be made of three members of the lower
middle classes for having misled thousands of workmen into taking
insurrectionary action against Queen and State.
The Newport massacre and the threat of executions, rather than
leading to demoralisation and despair, served to intensify the angry
mood. Astonishingly, there was increased talk of revenge and
insurrection...
The government became aware of the grave situation, and although
vengeful local magistrates demanded the severest of measures against the
Welsh leaders, there were those who urged caution for fear of turning
the men into martyrs. It became increasingly clear that executions,
together with the mutilation of the condemned men, could easily inflame
the situation, resulting in further social unrest.
On 1 February, the Cabinet discussed the question and cooler heads
prevailed. The men were saved from the gallows, and their death
sentences commuted to transportation for life. This proved a wise
decision for the ruling class under the circumstances. The mood in the
country was an angry one, with talk of sedition and plans to rescue the
men.
Zepaniah Williams, John Frost, William Jones
When they actually received a total pardon in
1856. Jones stayed in Australia as a watchmaker and Williams stayed in
Tasmania, where he subsequently made his fortune discovering coal.
However, John Frost, who had worked as a school teacher in Tasmania,
returned to Britain, where he received a triumphant welcome in Newport.
Although the Newport Rising may have failed it was a turning point for the
Chartist movement. In response to the conditions, Chartists in Sheffield, the East End of
London and Bradford planned their own risings. Samuel Holberry led an
aborted rising in Sheffield on January 12th 1840; police action thwarted
a major disturbance in the East End of London on January 14th, and on
January 26th a few hundred BradfordChartists
staged a failed rising in the hope of precipitating a domino effect
across the country. After this Chartism turned to a process of internal
renewal and more systematic organisation, but the transported and
imprisoned Newport Chartists were regarded as heroes and martyrs amongst
workers. Each year the Newport Rising Festival commemorates the fight for rights that these men from across Gwent fought for.
Although an uprising of the size seen in Newport for the
time being has never happened again, it does remind us that although it failed its purpose at the
time, five of the Six Points of the original Charter which the Chartists
had campaigned for have since been conceded, only the demand for Annual
Parliaments not so far being accepted.
A new Reform Bill was passed in August 1867 that gave the vote to all
male heads of households over 21, and all male lodgers paying £10 a year
in rent. Further reform arrived with the Ballot Act in 1872, which
ensured that votes could be cast in secret – a key demand of the
People’s Charter. In 1884 the Third Reform Act extended the
qualification of the 1867 Act to the countryside so that almost two
thirds of men had the vote. Eventually, only one of the Chartists’
demands – for annual parliamentary elections – failed to become part of
British law. At the time, Chartism may have been judged unsuccessful,
but there is no doubt that the movement's campaign for electoral reform
played an important role in the development of democracy in the UK. All because working class people unafraid had the guts to fight for their rights.
In the 1960s a square in Newport was named John Frost Square and a beautiful 35
metres long mosaic mural was created in a pedestrian underpass, but
controversially, as part of a redevelopment scheme, the mural was shamefully destroyed in 2013 to make way for a shopping center.https://teifidancer-teifidancer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/destruction-of-chartist-mural.html
Sadly another memorial commemorating the lives of some of the Chartists has been
vandalised, just days before the 182nd anniversary of the historic
uprising. The memorial is at the entrance of Newport Cathedral, the location
where 10 of the Chartists who died after being shot outside Westgate
Hotel at the culmination of the march on November 4, 1839, are buried in
unmarked graves – and was vandalised on Tuesday, November 2, it has since been swiftly removed by Newport City Council.
Long may the Chartists struggle and its leaders be remembered who helped
give voice to the discontent of the time in their struggle for
democracy.
On this day, 104 years ago, one of history's most unjust declarations was made, On November 2nd, 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, which laid the foundation for the establishment of a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population. The ramifications would be seen up until the present day and is
regarded as one of the most controversial and contested documents in
modern history.
It was named
after Lord Arthur James
Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary during the Word War 1, who on an
order by United Kingdom’s Prime Minister at that time, David Lloyd
George,sent an official letter to Baron Walter Rothschild
(the 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Zionist community,
who accepted it on behalf of Great Britain and Ireland.
The document was quite short, consisting of only 67 words in three paragraphs. However, the impact was enormous: the declaration was the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has not ended.The immortal words of the letter said the following:
" His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their
best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being
clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non-jewish communities in
Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by jews in any
other country."
The Original Letter of the Balfour Declaration
With
the Balfour Declaration, London was seeking Jewish support for its war
efforts, and the Zionist push for a homeland for Jews was an emerging
political force. In 1917, Jews constituted 10% of the population, the
rest were Arabs.
Yet Britain recognised the national rights of a tiny minority and denied
it to the majority This was a classic colonial document which totally
disregarded the
rights and aspirations of the indigenous population. In the words of
Jewish writer Arthur Koestler: “One nation solemnly promised to a second
nation the country of a third.”And in the words of the late Palestinian academic Edward Said, the
declaration was “made by a European power … about a non-European
territory … in a flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the
native majority resident in that territory.
The indigenous Palestinian population’s political and national rights were ignored in the Balfour Declaration, not to mention their ethnic and national identity. Instead, Great Britain promised not to “prejudice the[ir] civil and religious rights,” and referred to Palestinians as “non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The percentage of Jews living in Palestine in 1917 did not exceed 7%, yet the British attempted to rewrite history in order to justify their colonial policy.
It
was a shock to the Arab world, which had not been consulted and had
received promises of independence of its own in the post-war break up of
the defeated Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians have always condemned the
declaration, which they refer to as the "Balfour promise" saying Britain was giving away land it did not own.
The Balfour Declaration constituted a dangerous historical precedent and a blatant breach of all international
laws and norms, and this act of the British Empire to “give” the land of another
people for colonial settlement
created the conditions for countless atrocities against the
Palestinian people. Balfour, in a 1919 confidential memo, wrote:
“Zionism,
be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age old traditions, in
present needs, in future hopes, of far greater import than the desires
and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”
The
discriminatory language used by Sir Arthur Balfour and seen in the
Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate reveal the prejudiced
rational behind British foreign policy in Palestine. A month after the
Balfour Declaration on 2 December 1917,
the British army occupied Jerusalem. In 1923, the British Mandate for
Palestine came into effect, and included the entire text of the Balfour
Declaration. Through the Mandate, Britain would go on to rule Palestine
for three decades.
The Mandate for Palestine constituted the
entire legal framework for how Britain should operate during its
occupation of Palestine. Despite this, the Mandate made no mention of
the Palestinians by name, nor did it specify the right of Palestinians
to nationhood. Instead, it was during its rule in Palestine that
Britain sought to lay the foundations for the creation of a ‘national
home for the Jewish people’.
By the end of the 1920s, it became clear that this ambition would have violent repercussions.Between 1936 and 1939, thousands of Palestinians were killed and imprisoned as they revolted in protest against British policy.
The
British response took a heavy toll on the livelihoods of Palestinian
villagers, who were subjected to punitive measures that included the
confiscation of livestock, the destruction of properties, detention and
collective fines. During this time, British forces’ are said to
have carried out beatings, extrajudicial killings and torture as they
attempted to quell the uprising. To this day, there are still the
‘Tegart Forts’ in Palestine built and named by Sir Charles Tegart who
had been stationed in India to punish those fighting against the British
Raj and then later stationed in Palestine to control any Arab dissent.
For
Palestinians, Britain’s three decades of occupation in Palestine was a
turning point in the country’s history, laying the foundations for what
would become decades of occupation, displacement and insecurity.
When
the UK eventually decided to withdraw from Mandatory Palestine in 1947,
it left decisions regarding the future of Palestine to the United
Nations. In May 1948 the Israeli state was established. This time
is known by Palestinians as the Nakba or ‘catastrophe’, during which
750,000 and 900,000 Palestinian men, women and children were driven out
of their homeland by Jewish militias, and an estimated 500 villages and
towns were depopulated and demolished.
To this day, there are more
than 5 million Palestinian refugees registered with the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the occupied Palestinian territories,
Lebanon and Jordan as a result of the Nakba in 1948 and the
displacement that followed the Israeli occupation of Palestine in 1967.
Gaza,
the West Bank and East Jerusalem have now been under occupation for over 50
years, devastating the lives of millions of Palestinians.
The catastrophe of the Arab Palestinian people in 1948 continues today at the
hands of Israel, using the same old policies
and laws established by the British such as land confiscation laws,
home demolitions, ‘administrative’ detention, deportations, violent
repression, and the continuation of the expulsion of about 7.9 million
Palestinians who are denied their basic national and human rights,
especially their right to return and live normally in their homeland. Today, the State of Israel, backed by the military and diplomatic might of the United States, continues this century-long pattern of denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination. In violation of international law, Israel refuses to allow Palestinian refugees their right of return to the homes from which they or their ancestors were forcibly displaced by Israel during the Nakba in 1948; denies Palestinian citizens of Israel their equal rights; and imposes upon Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip a brutal military occupation and suffocating siege. This catastrophe of the Palestinian people could not continue without
the support of Israel by the United States and Britain.
In
the June 1967 war, Israel completed the conquest of Palestine by
occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. By signing the Oslo Accord
with Israel in 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organisation gave up its
claim to 78% of Palestine. In return they hoped to achieve an
independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with a
capital city in East Jerusalem. It was not to be.
On May 7, The Guardian newspaper regretted its support in 1917 for
the Balfour Declaration, describing it as its “worst errors of
judgment”.
The Guardian of 1917 supported, celebrated, and
could even be said to have helped facilitate the Balfour Declaration,”
the British daily wrote, adding that the then editor, CP Scott, was
“blinded” to Palestinian rights due to his support of Zionism.
Whatever else can be said, Israel today is not the country the Guardian foresaw or would have wanted,” read the report.
On this dark day in Palestinian history, Palestinian flags were flown at half mast today in Palestine and its missions around the world as decreed by President Mahmoud Abbas to remind the world in general and the United Kingdom in particular of the suffering of the Palestinian people and their rights to achieve independence, statehood and self-determination.
In the occupied territories, schools today held special classes on the unique impact of the Balfour Declaration on the Palestinian people and their future.
I salute the continuing steadfastness of the Palestinian people in their long-denied quest for justice, liberation, and their eventual self-determination, and recommits itself to work towards that noble end, in the face of continued Israeli violations ,resisting the occupation schemes insisting on the Palestinian Right of Return home and
establishing their sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.
Until measures are made by Israel to improve the standard of living, and
bring economic prosperity to the Palestinians living in Gaza, the West
Bank and East Jerusalem. Bringing some chord of social justice, and
recognition of the Palestinians identity, and stolen land given back to
them,and an end to their continuing use of apartheid practices., their
will be no peace. That is Balfours tragic legacy.
The UK is fully accountable to the atrocities and dehumanizing of Palestinians. But even till this day, the UK has not shown any remorse for the historical sin it had made.Britain now has a unique responsibility to make amends for its past, by apologizing to the Palestinian people, and recognizing the Palestinian state on the June 4, lines with East Jerusalem as its capital in support of achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in accordance with the vision of a two-state solution to ensure that future generations of Palestinians can live
in dignity. Britain also has a duty to
acknowledge the basic political and human rights of the Palestinian people, which have
been denied for more than a century.