Oppose the anti-boycott Bill.

The United Kingdom government’s toxic ‘Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) bill,’ better known to many as the anti-boycott bill.will be debated next week in parliament on July 3rd, the latest in a growing list of measures which fundamentally undermine free speech and democratic rights in the country

While it will not prevent individuals from choosing what they purchase in the shops, or even coming together in campaigns like those to pressure companies like Barclays or Puma to change unethical practices,this bill does have the potential to impact on a wide range of campaigns for social and environmental justice.  

The legislation was first promised in the Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto and the bill effectively restricts public bodies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland , including universities, local authorities, and government departments, from making ethical spending and investment decisions that align with their human rights responsibilities and obligations and bringing in BDS policies against controversial foreign regimes.The effect could be to hamper these groups from taking steps in business dealings to avoid causing or contributing to human rights abuses and international crimes.

For example, it could restrict public bodies from divesting from companies complicit in the Chinese government’s systematic repression of Uyghurs, Israel’s crimes of apartheid or war crimes in Israeli settlements, Saudi Arabia and UAE’s war crimes in Yemen, or the Myanmar junta’s crimes against humanity.

Many people in this country care deeply about human rights and the planet and the anti-boycott bill threatens their ability to insist that public authorities reflect their entirely justified concerns over illegal and unethical practices, but any anti-boycott laws are likely to stop  public sector bodies from doing the right thing and disentangling themselves from human rights abuses.

The right to pursue boycotts is a fundamental exercise of the freedom of expression, thought, and conscience. It is a vital nonviolent tool to enact positive social change. Boycott and divestment campaigns have been used by people around the world to pressure regimes, institutions, or companies to change abusive, discriminatory, or illegal practices. Using these tactics, ordinary women and men have helped to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade, contributed to the struggle for Indian independence, and secured civil rights by challenging entrenched racism in Britain and the USA. 

Boycotts played a key role in the struggle for African American rights in the United States and in international campaigns against apartheid in South Africa. Millions of people in Britain, including local councils, were part of the campaign to boycott and isolate apartheid in South Africa. When Nelson Mandela visited Britian in 1998, he recalled that ‘the ‘knowledge that local authorities…were banning apartheid products…and that the universities…had cut their links – was a great inspiration to us in our struggle.’ 

While almost everyone will now accept that those who opposed South African apartheid were right to do so, the Conservative government of the day under Margaret Thatcher unsuccessfully attempted to stifle these acts of solidarity. Had their anti-boycott bill been in place at the time, it could have forced local authorities and British universities to do business with that brutal and criminal regime. 

Similar attempts to silence local government – including the notorious ‘Section 28’, which banned the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ – prove that central government does not always know better than communities and their elected representatives. The public are right not to rely on ministers to uphold ethical standards.

Currently the principal target of the anti-boycott bill is campaigns in support of Palestinian rights. This week alone, Israel invaded and bombed Palestinian cities and refugee camps, killing at least 15 Palestinians and injuring hundreds more. Israeli forces also enabled gangs of armed, illegal Israeli settlers to attack 17 Palestinian villages destroying vehicles and homes, killing one Palestinian and injuring dozens.

With Israel’s system of apartheid growing ever more violent,and Israeli policy and violence growing ever more extreme, it is certainly the case that international pressure is essential to protect Palestinian life and international law. 

 As the United Nations has observed, 2022 was the deadliest year since 2006 for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem with Israel’s armed forces having killed no fewer than 170, including more than 30 children. At least one Israeli government minister has described himself as a ‘fascist’, and the mounting human rights consensus confirms what Palestinians have said for years – that Israel too is guilty of the crime of apartheid, as documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Israel’s own leading rights group B’Tselem. In 2021,

It is in this context that the global movement for BDS is growing, in direct response to calls from within Palestinian civil society, and with the aim of pressuring those who are complicit in violations of their rights.

The British government has a responsibility to stand up for human rights and international law.But the anti-boycott bill further exposes the extent of Britain's hypocrisy, given its stance against Russia and the range of sanctions it imposed on the country after a year of occupying Ukrainian territory.

Despite Israel's 56-year occupation and numerous reports exposing its apartheid policies, the UK government has not imposed a single sanction on the country. Instead, it seems determined to shield Israel from accountability, as well as companies complicit in its occupation, by legislating to silence those trying to achieve change through peaceful and democratic means.

The anti-boycott bill even singles out Israel alongside the ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’ and ‘Occupied Golan Heights’, by name, as territories that the law explicitly protects from public sector boycotts. By doing so, the bill actively promotes impunity for violations of international law and well-documented discrimination against Palestinians. Despite assertions that its foreign policy is unchanged, for the first time, a piece of British legislation will require Israel and the territories it illegally occupies to be treated in the same way, a departure from decades of international consensus on the illegality of settlements.

British parliamentarians must choose whether they will support an anti-democratic bill that singles out one state for protection from any accountability. They must decide whether they will support the hypocrisy of a law supporting the illegal occupation of one land while opposing another, or be consistent in their policies.

If parliamentarians insisted that the rule of law must prevail then they will support policies that bring peace closer. But ones like this bill send a message to Israel that it can continue to act with impunity and similarly tells the Palestinians that they will neither be provided with protection from Israel's murderous policies nor supported in their peaceful resistance to them, including through BDS.

This dangerous  bill is the latest in a string of politically repressive legislation that impedes rights to strike and protest including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, the Public Order Act, and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill. It includes a draconian ‘gagging clause’ preventing public authorities, for instance, local councillors, from advocating for boycott or even talking about the prohibition – forbidding all those subject to the proposed law from even stating that they would support such a policy if it were legally permissible to do so. 

For its part, Israel is combating the right to boycott with all its strength because BDS is a form of nonviolent protest available to anyone in the world. The more Israel’s abuses of Palestinians continue, seemingly unaccountable to anyone, the more people choose to say no. When done collectively, this becomes a very powerful force.

Thousands of artists and cultural figures have joined the boycott for justice, recently visible as tens of artists pulled their acts from the Sydney festival due to its sponsorship by the Israeli government. Major pension funds in Norway and the Netherlands have divested from companies involved in Israel’s settlements and military, as have the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, and several Quaker institutions. In most of these cases, divestment is also a tactic used more broadly to, for example, pressure climate-destroying companies. Campaigns have successfully pushed corporations such as HSBC, Orange, Veolia, and G4S to disengage from Israeli settlements and military enterprises.

So long as governments remain unwilling to hold Israel to account for its violations while companies help it maintain its occupation, people will pressure them with campaigns.

The same goes for fossil fuel giants, private military companies, mining firms, financial institutions, and countless others that seek to evade human rights or environmental standards. Boycotts and divestment campaigns enable ordinary people to force change for good. But it is exactly this kind of people power that the UK government finds so threatening.

For that reason, nearly 70 civil society groups including Unite the Union, Unison, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Liberty, the Quakers, the Methodist Church, the Muslim Association of Britain and Na’amod: UK Jews Against the Occupation, along with many others, are calling on the government to scrap this dangerous Bill and on opposition parties to vote against it.The full Right to Boycott statement and list of signatories can be found here.

The anti-boycott bill is draconian, a severe threat to civil liberties in Britain seeking to restrict freedom of expression and undermine campaigns for social and climate justice. It is a moral and human right to conscientiously object to having our money used to buy or sell or invest in goods and arms whether in China, Myanmar, Israel or Russia, or any other countries that help contribute to rights abuses and international crimes. 

If passed, it will shield companies engaged in human rights abuse or environmental destruction by preventing public bodies from cutting ties with them over abusive or illegal actions committed in a foreign country unless permission to do so is explicitly granted by the government.

By inhibiting citizens’ ability to call for their own pension funds to be invested ethically, or for elected local authorities to make ethical choices about spending, this legislation threatens British democracy. 

That is why we must act together now to say: Defend the Right to Boycott. This bill is yet another attack on human rights. We must unite to defend them.Those who are deeply concerned about the bill are urged us to flood MPs' inboxes with messages in opposition to the Bill. Please do this by Monday if you possibly can, and encourage others to do the same 

Sign and share PSC’s petition against the anti-boycott bill here 

“The Shoes on the Danube Promenade” (Danube River Monument) in Budapest.

On 26 June 1941, Hungary formally entered World War II as an Axis power, declaring war on the Soviet Union. For two years, Hungarian troops fought on the Eastern Front against the Red Army, suffering huge losses at the River Don during Operation Little Saturn in 1943. Because of this heavy defeat, the Hungarian government began to form a secret peace deal with the Allies, to remove the country from the conflict and end the war with the Soviets. 

After learning of the planned defection, however, the Nazis occupied Hungary, sending troops into the country on 19 March 1944. After further attempts to disengage from the war, the Germans overturned the Hungarian parliament and implemented a puppet regime under the fascist Arrow Cross Party of Ferenc Szálasi, the leader of the Government of National Unity. Szálasi whose ideology closely followed Adolf Hitler’s pledged all of Hungary’s resources to the German war machine, and as a result, the country was forced to partake in the Holocaust. 

From May to June 1944, over 440,000 Jewish citizens were deported from across Hungary, many being sent to Auschwitz where they were later executed. Approximately half a million people or every third victim in Auschwitz was a Hungarian Jew. 

The Arrow Cross Party played a major role in rounding up Jewish civilians for the Nazis, and executed many Hungarians who were suspected of sheltering Jewish citizens. By late 1944, when the Soviets began their advance on Budapest, the Arrow Cross began a systematic massacre of the city’s remaining Jews, raiding the Jewish Quarter and its ghettos to exterminate the Jewish population. During this time of Arrow Cross Terror, over 3,500 Jewish citizens and Hungarians were brutally shot on the banks of the Danube River by fascist Arrow Cross militiamen.

In the humiliating and dehumanising fashion that characterised the antisemitism of the period,the victims were forced to remove their shoes at gunpoint and face their executioner before they were shot without mercy, falling over the edge into the freezing waters for the currents to wash  their bodies away. Shoes being a valuable commodity during World War II, would be be collected and traded on the black market.

The Jewish victims on the riverbank were not blindfolded. They probably recognized some of their murderers amongst the ranks of The Arrow Cross. And no doubt the Hungarian bystanders, who either approved of these murders or did nothing to prevent them, knew the victims or members of The Arrow Cross. True, the wartime Budapest was less populated and not crammed with tourists, but this slaughter along the Danube still took place in a city. These Jews were not whisked off to the camps  they were not herded into the middle of the woods. They were murdered in the open by people they knew, in front of people they knew, and in the middle of a city. The shots were fired, the bodies floated down the river, the shoes gathered up and the Arrow Cross continued to hunt for more Jews to murder.  And the friends, neighbors, co-workers who stood around and watched? They walked away in their comfortable shoes.

It was a heart-breaking, calamitous, tragic time in Budapest during the days of horror, and in the winter of 1944-45, the Danube was known as “the Jewish Cemetery”

By the 20th Century, the Jewish community had grown to constitute 5% of Hungary’s total population and 23% of the population of the capital, Budapest. However, despite the long history of Jews living in Hungary, by the interwar period anti-Jewish policies were becoming more repressive. It is estimated that by the end of world war two, 560,000 out of 825,000 Jews had been murdered as part of the Holocaust and actions perpetrated by the Hungarian government.

According to records from Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem, there is a first hand account of the horrific events along the Danube told by Zby Zsuzsanna Ozsváth, a Hungarian survivor who was saved by her nursemaid, Erzsi Fajo:

 “…I heard a series of popping sounds. Thinking the Russians had arrived, I slunk to the window. But what I saw was worse than anything I had ever seen before, worse than the most frightening accounts I had ever witnessed. Two Arrow Cross men were standing on the embankment of the river, aiming at and shooting a group of men, women, and children into the Danube – one after the other, on their coats the Yellow Star. I looked at the Danube. It was neither blue nor gray but red. With a throbbing heart, I ran back to the room in the middle of the apartment and sat on the floor, gasping for air."

Sixty pairs of  1940s-style shoes, sculpted put of iron. true to life in size and detail,.made in different sizes and styles, to depict how nobody, not even children, was spared the brutality of the Arrow Cross regime/sculpted out of iron, now line the river's bank, creating a ghostly memorial to the victims of this horrific time in history. Conceived by Hungarian film director Can Togay and later designed and created by his friend the sculptor Gula Pauer. 60’ was not just a random number of shoes to include in the holocaust memorial. It reflects the 600,000 Hungarian Jews who died during World War 2, and the memorial was created 60 years after the war. The memorial stretching for around 40 metres along the bank of the Danube was erected on 16 April 2005 and is located between the Hungarian parliament and the prestigious Széchenyi Chain Bridge and is known as 'Shoes on the Danube Promenade'  

The shoes transform this otherwise peaceful river bank into a “traumascape” They force locals and tourists to contemplate the violent history of this location. Even to visitors who are unfamiliar with the precise details of the victim’s death, the location of these empty shoes next to the river provokes an uneasy assumption that their wearers must be lost beneath the water of the river.

This memorial is simple yet chilling, depicting the shoes left behind by the thousands of Jews who were murdered by the Arrow Cross. The style of footwear - a man’s work boot; a business man’s loafer; a woman’s pair of heels; even the tiny shoes of a child - were chosen specifically to illustrate how no one, regardless of age, gender, or occupation was spared.The diversity highlights the indiscriminate cruelty perpetuated by the fascist regime. No matter your age, gender, or occupation, being Jewish was enough of a death sentence. 

What is striking is the individuality of each pair, rendering each shoe a tragedy in itself; Pauer has incorporated the history of the owner into their shoes, through the shape, where it is worn, and the imprint of the heel on the sole. Placed in a casual fashion, as if the people just stepped out of them, these little statues are a grim reminder of the souls who once occupied them.  And when viewing this sculpture, it is difficult to avoid a heartbreaking curiosity as to whom the shoes belonged to and the lives the owners might have led under normal circumstances. They may have lived long lives, fulfilling lives, lives filled with adventure or with boredom, rich lives or ordinary lives, but they lived, until they were murdered.

Despite the grimness and sheer horror of the story. the memorial acts as a beautiful place of reflection and reverence. Along bench runs behind the monument for quiet contemplation.Besides the daily visitors and tourists, the memorial is frequently visited by relatives of the fallen victims and people lay flowers and wreaths and light candles to honor those whose lives were tragically taken. At night, the sculpture is lit only by the glow of the flickering candles.

The authors have succeeded in depicting the incredible brutality while still commemorating the Jewish victims of World War II in a dignified manner. Their memorial standing as a post-apocalyptic witness of history.The monument challenges us to look at the bigger picture, and think about the mass murder of individuals, wherever it occurs, and not just to see them as mere numbers, but real, living, breathing people. 

Most of the shoes on the Danube Promenade Budapest have rusted. They are set tightly on the concrete of the embankment. Shockingly an act of vandalism of the shoe memorial occurred in 2010, when pig trotters were placed in the shoes in a willful act of desecration. The ensuing police investigation turned up no suspects. In 2014 it was reported a number of bronze shoes have been stolen from the riverside memorial. It is not known whether these incidents were racially motivated or simple theft. 

Since  replaced Shoes on the Danube Bank is a quiet reminder of a violent and oppressive past. These small, iron shoes humanise a gruesome statistic, drawing attention to the limitless cruelty of the fascist Arrow Cross and how much we need to continue to fight the current wave of fascism.

At three points along the memorial are cast iron signs with the following text in Hungarian, English, and Hebrew:

To the memory of the victims

shot into the Danube 

by Arrow Cross militiamen in 1944–45 

Erected 16th April, 2005  

Marking the 75th anniversary of Windrush

This week marks the 75th anniversary of the HMT Empire Windrush, formerly known as MV Monte Rosa arriving at Tilbury Docks in Essex carrying the first Caribbean migrants.It arrived at Tilbury Docks on the 21st June 1948 and the 492 Caribbean migrants disembarked today, 22nd June 1948 and marked a seminal moment in Britain’s history and has come to stand for the rich diversity of this nation.

Many people from British Commonwealth countries travelled to the UK between 1948 and 1971, encouraged by the 1948 British Nationality Act that granted citizenship and right of abode to all members of the British Empire.

Many of those who left sunnier climes were ex-servicemen who fought with the UK in the Second World War and had answered the British Government's call to help rebuild post war damaged Britain  Their hard work and skills would help bolster the economy, fill labour shortages and help establish our National Health Service.Their descendants have continued to enrich social, economic, political and religious life. It is estimated that around 500,000 people living in the UK are part of the Windrush Generation, who arrived between 1948 and 1971.

Many encountered overt racism, discrimination, and rejection lack of acknowledgement of their professional skills and very different living conditions. The climate of Britain was not ready to embrace anyone who was different. "The Other" This was the era of "Sorry no coloured, No Irish, or dogs" The harrowing stories of being spat at, excluded from the mainstream, not accepted, not wanted, laughed at physically and emotionally abused. The stories told are horrific.Yet, despite all this they persevered. Many were granted the right to settle in the UK by the British Nationality Act 1948. Those legal rights meant that those migrated neither needed, nor were given documents upon entry to the UK.

After a successful campaign led by Patrick Vernon, Windrush Day was introduced in June 2018 in the wake the Windrush scandal when many of those invited to Britain suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of immigration laws that, unbeknown to them, had changed around them and many people from this generation were detained and deported illegally, some were denied health care and benefits and some people lost their homes. The documentation proving their status was destroyed by the same government that invited them here in the first place. 

We mark this day to celebrate British Caribbean communities and acknowledge the sacrifices and amazing contributions the Windrush generation and their descendants, and others who have arrived  from elsewhere - have made to British society. It is a major national moment to come together and celebrate this shared history, delving into the past and celebrating the present and future. 

There were also 66 Polish refugees on board the Empire Windrush on its now historic passage from the Caribbean to England. In the summer of 1943, some 1400 Poles, mostly women and children, amongst the thousands displaced from Poland by Soviet aggressions during World War II, were transported to Colonia Santa Rosa, a refugee village near the city of León, Mexico. Four governments – Polish, Mexican, British and American – had taken part in the negotiation of their safe haven.  The group remained at Santa Maria beyond the end of the war, until, on the 27th of March, 1947,Britain passed the Polish Resettlement Act. This legislation granted Polish troops who’d contributed to the Allied war effort permanent stay and assistance to integrate in Britain.  Additionally, arrangements were made to bring their dependents in exile throughout the world to join them.  In from every continent save North America and Antarctica sailed qualified displaced persons. After the  Empire Windrush departed Kingston, Jamaica, it detoured to Tampico, a port on the coast of Mexico, to collect the Polish passengers. All except one were wives and children of Polish military men who had fought alongside the Allies against Nazi Germany.The Empire Windrush was one of over 50 ships that transported Polish displaced persons from all over the world to the UK.

The 75th anniversary of the Empire Windrush's arrival in Britain from the Caribbean is being marked across the country - as campaigners say their battle for "justice" continues. The King was among those taking part in dozens of events on Thursday when he attended a service in Windsor after describing the Windrush generation's legacy as "profound and permanent". Events are also being held at London's Southwark Cathedral and the Port of Tilbury, Essex, where the ship docked on 22 June 1948,other events include exhibitions at museums across the UK and a carnival parade through the streets of Brixton in south London, while the Windrush flag is also being flown at major landmarks such as the Houses of Parliament. 

We should not forget the infamous words uttered by Theresa May, who then as home secretary in 2012 said  “The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants.”

Under  racist immigration  polices introduced by Theresa May then and in  2014, many of the children of the Windrush migrants found themselves hounded by the government. Further changes to already racist immigration laws in 2012 and 2014 meant migrants could be forced to prove they have the right to be here.Although many people had lived and worked in Britain for most of their lives, law changes required them to have official documents to have access to healthcare.This "hostile" immigration policy devised by Theresa May during her time as Home Secretary has been  regarded as "almost like Nazi Germany" by some ministers.

In 2018 it emerged that many who made legitimate journeys to Britain had been wrongly detained and deported, despite having the right to live in the UK. Many lost homes and jobs and were denied access to healthcare and benefits. Some of those deported later died before they were able to return to Britain. 

The scandal led to the resignation of then-Home Secretary Amber Rudd, and prompted a wider debate about British immigration and deportation policy.This gross injustice has affected many lives, highlighting the systemic racism that exists in Britain. Its impact is still being felt today.

Theresa May later apologised and an inquiry led to the establishment of a compensation scheme for victims. However, the government has been criticised for being slow to pay out, amid claims the process places an unfair burden of proof on claimants.

Earlier this year, Human Rights Watch called for the Home Office to hand over control of the "hostile" scheme to an independent body instead. Labour MP Dawn Butler said on Thursday that many were still "in limbo" and accused ministers of not caring about the fate of victims. She said: "I think the government strategy is to wait for people to die. I think they want people to die.We're talking about pensioners, in their 70s and 80s, waiting to be compensated for the life that was taken away from them - and this government is dragging their feet."

Despite the scheme being launched five years ago, as of January 2023 only 12.8% of the 11,500 eligible claimants of the Windrush Compensation Scheme has received compensation.The Home Office said it remains “absolutely committed to righting the wrongs of the Windrush scandal” but recognised there is “more to do” when it comes to the compensation scheme.  Ms Braverman said the scheme had been simplified.  She also maintained it should be kept under the Home Office remit, despite calls to have it handled independently due to a belief there remains a lack of faith in the department among victims of the scandal,as in the meantime people have died without receiving a penny.

The very week of the 75th year anniversary, Suella Braverman refused to implement all recommendations of an independent review into the government’s wrongdoing. Many of the Windrush generation have either passed or are nearing the end of their lives. It’s government strategy to wait out the victims, so as not to make good on their promise to compensate This is utterly scandulous,.

We're seeing history repeating itself. The government is again scapegoating migrants who have played a crucial part in building this country. We've seen the government create a floating prison for victims of torture and war, we've seen horrific rhetoric and an expansion of the hostile environment.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/08/tory-plan-house-asylum-seekers-barges-dickensian 

The government’s commitment to real change after the Windrush scandal has been shown to be lots of empty promises but no action.To our horror the government continues to break their promise of change. Suella Braverman has just scrapped the unit responsible for reforming the Home Office after the Windrush scandal with the Home Secrrtary saying '"it is time to move on!.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/19/unit-reforming-home-office-windrush-scandal-being-disbanded

The government has also just announced there is a new coin to commemorate the Windrush generation. The introduction of a new coin does not do justice to the suffering it has caused.The hostile environment continues to affect many people in the UK, and people in all sectors of society are still made to do the job of border guards. The Home Office must be held accountable for its mistakes and give justice to those bearing the brunt of those mistakes.

This country owes a huge debt to the Windrush generation. The injustices that the Windrush generation and their families have faced have not gone away, as they struggle to secure their status and access the compensation they deserve. The Home Office must stop furthering the pain of victims of the Windrush scandal. If the Government were sincere in their apology, it’s time for the hostile environment to come to an end and they compensate victims fairly.

We should remind ourselves that  a lot of the government's policies on immigration/ asylum/ right to stay isn't driven by actual concrete consequences. It's driven by pandering to anti immigrant / racist views. Britain can only atone for damage caused by adopting policies exactly opposite to those currently in place, welcoming the migrants who come to our country with open arms and not treat them as second-class citizens.

On the 75th anniversary of Windrush as we celebrate and acknowledge the sacrifices and amazing contributions the Windrush generation and their descendants have made to British society. It is a major national moment to come together and celebrate this shared history, delving into the past and celebrating the present and future. but we must also remember their struggle.

Today is both a celebration and a sobering reminder that here in the UK, far too many people’s lives are still blighted by discrimination, inequality and injustice.  As we honour the legacy of the Windrush generation, we owe it to them to stand up to bigotry, hate and injustice.Lets continue to show our gratitude and respect to the people of Windrush, who did nothing wrong and did not deserve the treatment experienced or continue to endure. Categorised as illegal immigrants, they've suffered years of hardship at the hands of our government. They must be compensated. It is also more than time that the Conservatives’ cruel and discriminatory Hostile Environment comes to an end too,

Midsummer (A Poem for Summer Solstice )

Among Arcadias pathways loaded with light

Where fear and pain ceases to bloom,

Following the rich gifts of mother nature

As summer returns and keeps vigil,

The wheel of the year forever turning

Allows us to feel the delicate grip of hope,

To taste joy, as seasons keep flowing

In evolving cycles of life, death and rebirth,

On fertile land, each year we celebrate

Like the ancients. dancing with revelry,

Perceptions shifting. moving with time

Feeling safety, music healing within,

On longest day, infused with transition

As Awen calls releases sweet incantation,

Feeling the protective arms of oak

Bringing peace to enable hearts to glow,

Solstice rays shining warming within 

With gratitude release rich blessings,

As eyes sparkle with magic

The days ripened with love.

World Refugee Day 2023 : Hope Away from Home

Today marks World Refugee Day which honors the strength and resilience of refugees on their journey to safety as well as their contributions to societies that welcome them.

World Refugee Day has been marked on 20 June, ever since the UN General Assembly, on 4 December 2000, adopted resolution 55/76 where it noted that 2001 marked the 50th anniversary of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of  Refugees, and that the Organization of African Unity (OAU) had agreed to have International Refugee Day coincide with Africa Refugee Day on 20 June.

The annual commemoration is marked by a variety of events in over 100 countries, involving government officials, aid workers, celebrities, civilians and the forcibly displaced themselves. Never before have the immediate needs of vulnerable children and their families been so great. Some 20 million refugees half of whom are children, have been forced to flee violence, poverty and persecution taking perilous sea voyages over the Mediterranean. 

Only last week saw one  of the greatest migrant boat disasters in the modern history of the Mediterranean. Only 104 people have been rescued from a boat that carried an estimated 750 refugees after it capsized on June 13 in the open sea near the coastal town of Pylos in Greece.  Scores of lifeless bodies have been pulled out from the water, and many more have washed ashore. Hundreds are still missing, feared dead, many of whom are women and children, as they huddled on the lower deck of the 30-metre boat. 

The latest boat disaster tells us a story of war, poverty, inequality and despair.The identity of those who died at sea gives us clues to the origins of the story. They were Syrians, Palestinians, Afghans and more. These refugees were seeking safety, coveting mere survival. The sad irony is that the latest episode of this seemingly endless horror took place exactly one week before the United Nations was set to “celebrate” World Refugee Day, 

The theme for World Refugee Day 2023 is "Hope away from Home". The theme emphasizes the importance of including refugees in the communities where they have found safety. This includes providing them with access to education, healthcare, employment, and other essential services. It also means welcoming them into our communities and creating a sense of belonging.

When refugees are included in their host communities, they are more likely to be able to restart their lives and rebuild their futures. They are also more likely to contribute to the countries that have welcomed them. 

The theme of "Hope Away from Home" also reminds us that refugees are not just numbers, but individuals with hopes, dreams, and families. They deserve our compassion and support as they rebuild their lives. The irony of the “Hope Away from Home” theme for World Refugee Day is palpable given the news of those lost  in over-crowded boat capsizing off the Greek coast just a few days ago. This is the latest of many such tragedies in the Mediterranean, the world’s most dangerous migration route.  That sea has taken the lives of over 27,000 people in the past decade, nearly half of over 56,000 migrant deaths worldwide.while trying to reach European shores between 2014 and 2022.  The real number is expected to be much higher as there are no official records of how many people embark on these deadly journeys in the first place. 

The identity of the victims — Syrians, Palestinians, Afghans, Sudanese — should have been a major clue as to why people take such terrible risks, only to reach European countries, where they endure great hardships, including racial discrimination, just to survive.

Other notoriously deadly migration routes traverse the Sahel, originate in West Asia or cross the English Channel.  There are many more hidden casualties among the record-breaking 108 million forcibly displaced worldwide, whose numbers doubled over the past 10 years. They include 35 million refugees, 5 million asylum seekers and 5 million others requiring protection. The remaining 63 million are displaced internally within their own countries.

Decent global citizens are forgiven for not knowing the difference between these categories of desperate humanity. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) tries to explain, but distinctions without a difference occur because states interpret the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol in nuanced ways.  These instruments define refugees as those “unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”. 

The most crucial component concerns the principle of non-refoulement that derives from customary law dating back centuries. It prohibits returning people to a place where they face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and other irreparable harm.  However, only 149 (of 206 countries and territories) have acceded to one or other of the refugee agreements. Others decide on their own scope for refugee protection. 

 Adding to the confusion are some 260 regional texts concerning refugees, including the 1984 Cartagena Declaration in Latin America and the 1969 OAU Convention on African refugees. Although UNHCR is the official authority to make refugee status determinations, it is nearly impossible for humble refugees stranded somewhere to petition the mighty Geneva-headquartered agency.

In practical terms, refugee entitlements are determined by whichever country the asylum seeker can get a hearing from.  When refugee status is finally bestowed, it is a life sentence, with the average refugee spending 20 years in limbo before finding a durable solution. This is either local integration within their hosting nation, re-settlement in a third country or returning to their original home. Such solutions are rare: 

In 2022, only 114,300 refugees were re-settled, and 339,300 returned home. Most muddle along where-ever they find themselves, often getting uprooted again and again.  Forced displacement is not equally created. More than half originate from three countries – Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan. And, of those that flee abroad, 70 per cent are hosted by precarious neighbours. These are generally low- and middle-income countries with their own challenges; the countries hosting the most refugees are Turkey, Iran, Colombia and Pakistan. Among developed nations, the US and Germany have been the most generous in receiving them.  

Currently, the world’s largest refugee settlement encompasses 33 highly congested camps in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar. This is the fire-, cyclone- and disease-prone home for nearly a million Rohingya fleeing ethnic and religious persecution in Myanmar. The Rohingya people have been described by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres as "one of, if not the, most discriminated people in the world". Having faced decades of discrimination and persecution, it was in August 2017 that violence and instability forced hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh.   Today, over 943,000 Rohingya people live in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. 

Also deserving special mention are 5.8 million Palestinian refugees.Between 1947 and 1949, at least 750,000 Palestinian from a 1.9 million native population were forced out of their own land by Zionists militias who later established Israel.   At least 450 towns and villages were depopulated at the time, preventing millions of Palestinians from home lands for decades. At the time, Israeli forces ethnically cleansed and destroyed at least 530 villages and cities and killed 15,000 Palestinians, 

More than 70 massacres have been also committed by Israel since then.  According to 2020 figures, there are up to 5.6 million Palestinian refugees, with at least 28.4% scattered in 58 UNRWA-run camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza.  While the Nakba, also known as “the catastrophe”, is associated with 1948, Palestinians on the ground still face ongoing forced dispossession by Israeli forces.  Between 2009 and 2022, Israel demolished at least 8,413 Palestinian structures,and at least least 12,491 people have been displaced during the reported period. 

World Refugee Day  coincides with Refugee Week  an annual, week-long festival from 19-25 June 2023 that celebrates the contributions, creativity and resilience of refugees and people seeking sanctuary. The theme for Refugee Week 2023 is Compassion. Compassion should be at the heart of the way we treat people seeking safety, and each of us can play our part.

Together, we should be creating an outpouring of compassion and show individual refugees that they are welcome here. but the persecution of refugees continues, whipped up by forces of racism spreading fear and misinformation. 

Persecution, conflict and war in every region of the world means that millions of people are seeking refuge outside of their home country, with tens of millions more displaced internally.  Those displaced by conflict are being joined annually by more than 20 million escaping climate and environmental disasters. This is projected to increase to a staggering 1.2 billion by 2050, on current trends.In 2022, the number of refugees and forcibly displaced people surpassed 100 million: 

The vast majority of people seek refuge in less wealthy countries. Low- and middle-income countries host 74% of the world’s refugees and other people in need of international protection.

The least developed countries provide asylum to 22% of the global total. States have committed to ease the pressure on host countries under the Global Compact for Refugees, but resettlement numbers remain negligible and the budget of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is chronically underfunded.

In destination countries, refugees and displaced people face enormous barriers to accessing decent work opportunities. In some places, refugees cannot access labour markets because of legal restrictions or costly administrative procedures. 

In other countries without such restrictions, refugees face other challenges linked to language barriers, a lack of skills recognition, an absence of training opportunities and insufficient or absent public services for job-matching. 

Refugees are put at further risk as populist right-wing political forces, on the rise across the world, fuel xenophobia and racism. In reality, world refugees, are not “celebrated,” but mostly vilified. They are seen as a burden, not an opportunity to confront and fix the underlying problems, old and new, that led to their original displacement.

It is more than  time that  richer nations must acknowledge refugees for the victims they are, fleeing from wars they were unable to prevent or stop. History has shown that doing the right thing for victims of war and persecution engenders goodwill and prosperity for generations. And it fosters stability in the long run.

Paradoxically though refugees are not being treated in the same way, Currently  the EU offers blanket protection to all Ukrainians, but arrivals from Ethiopia or Sudan who survived horrendously abusive conflicts must prove their worthiness for asylum on an individual basis.

While white Ukrainian nationals have been welcomed as refugees, non-white nationals and non-Ukrainian nationals have been shown racism and denied access to aid and the right to cross the border safely. The treatment of Roma refugees, many of whom are Ukrainian nationals, has also been shocking. Roma refugees have often been sent to separate shelters – the Roma shelters having, in one example ,in Moldova, only one working toilet and no showers for over 100 people.

All people fleeing war, conflict or repression have a right to cross borders to seek asylum, but refugees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East are routinely refused access to relief, aid, and asylum, sometimes being placed in detention centres, despite facing persecution in their own countries. Those who are fleeing violence and seeking protection should be treated equally, no matter where they are from.

Germany is renowned for opening its borders to a million Syrian refugees. But this is a historical anachronism, as Europeans tighten their borders and squabble internally over burden-sharing. Concurrently, EU policy is externalising border control to reduce refugee entry, for example, with $6 billion to incentivise Turkey to stop refugees getting into the EU. Australia has pioneered the concept of offshoring asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea and Nauru. While the ethics of that has been fiercely debated, and condemned for it's  cruelty the UK has been inspired to make a similar agreement with Rwanda. 

Refugees are among the world’s most vulnerable people. They are protected by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. They are the only international legal tools that directly address the most critical parts of a refugee’s life. Refugees, according to its rules, are entitled to the same treatment as other foreign nationals in a given country, and in many situations, the same treatment as nationals. The 1951 Convention establishes a variety of rights for refugees and emphasizes their responsibilities to their host country.with the following rights: 

The right not to be expelled unless and until particular, clearly specified circumstances are met. 

The right not to be penalized for illegally entering a contracting State’s territory.

The right to housing The right to education 

The right to work 

The right to freedom of movement within the territory 

The right to public relief and assistance 

The right to access the courts 

The right to freedom of religion 

The right to be issued identity and travel documents 

All refugees have certain basic rights, including the right to be shielded from deportation. The longer a refugee stays in the host country, the more rights they are entitled to, based on the fact that the longer they stay as refugees, the more rights they require.

The world needs to renew its commitment now to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its principles that made us strong. To offer safe harbor, both in our own countries and in the epicentres of the crises, and to help refugees restore their lives. In a world where violence has forced hundreds of families to flee each day.

World Refugee Day marks the opportunity to raise awareness of the plight of refugees and to show our support for them. while at the same time celebrating their resilience and courage.Refugees have often faced unimaginable challenges and  suffered unimaginable loss, and yet are still  filled with the strength to triumph over adversity in rebuilding their lives..

The refugee crisis is a human crisis. Their story is our story. We are all human,and together, we can build a better world.We all have an important role in ensuring that refugees have the support they need. When we work together, we can help even more people feel safe from conflict, stay healthy and forge ahead to a better, stronger future.Every act of kindness makes a difference/ and we can all help to make the world a more welcoming place for refugees.

The day also  serves to remind  all humans to take action to address the root causes of displacement. The vast majority of refugees are fleeing conflict, violence, or persecution. We need to work to end these conflicts and create a more peaceful world where everyone can live in safety and security.

Those who leave everything behind for the purpose of living in peace need our support and solidarity.  We must remember that arms trade helps exacerbate the crisis, plus  poverty and inequality, war and conflict, we need to build bridges not more obstacles and borders. and confront the weapons manufacturers and political meddlers who provoke and exacerbate conflicts.

World Refugee Day sheds light on refugees’ rights, needs, and hopes, aiding in mobilizing political will and support so that refugees will not only flourish but grow. Although it is critical to protect and strengthen the lives of refugees daily, international days such as World Refugee Day also serves to draw public attention to the plight of those fleeing wars or persecution.and to commemorate the lives of thousands of migrants and refugees who have lost their lives in the Mediterranean, seeking safety on their way to Europe. 

We should be deeply saddened and disturbed by the suffering, hopelessness and death, which continues for thousands of our human brothers and sisters on the outer borders of the European Union.

Let us remember the documented, as well as the undocumented persons, who have died at our European borders, seeking safety from violence, war or economic desperation.

We must stop racism towards refugees, as we have seen happening with non-white refugees from Ukraine, and others. It is unacceptable that, in 2022, people forced to flee their homes are still being treated as second-class citizens just because they are from a different country and may have a different skin colour. This includes ending dehumanising and demeaning agreements such as the one the UK has made with Rwanda.  Global policies on refugees must urgently be decolonised, ensuring all refugees and asylum seekers are equally heard and prioritised.

In the aftermath of the tragic shipwreck off Pylos that continues to bring shock and much sorrow, we cannot but mark this Word Refugee Day without being humbled and with the profound acknowledgement that this world is tragically short on solutions for people forced to flee. On World Refugee Day, and every day, let us  stand in solidarity with the 103 million refugees around the world, who have been forced to flee their homes and are still fighting for justice. Refugee rights are human rights. Migrant Rights are human rights. Asylum seekers' rights are human rights. All displaced peoples' rights are human rights.

The Execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg : June 19, 1953

(image: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, separated by heavy wire screen as they leave US Court House after being found guilty by the jury) 

On this day June 19, 1953: At the peak of McCarthyist anti-communist hysteria, the US government executed Ethel and Julius Rosenberg for spying for the Soviet Union.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were both born in New York City and had similar interests. Ethel was born Ethel Greenglass in Manhattan to a Jewish family on September 28, 1915. Julius was born to a family of Jewish immigrants on May 12, 1918. Julius and Ethel joined the Young Communist League (YCL) shortly after finishing high school. 

Through their membership with the YCL, Julius and Ethel met in 1936. They married three years later and had two sons Ethel was employed by the National New York Packing and Shipping Company as a secretary after graduating high school in 1931. Julius attended the City College of New York, where he received a degree in electrical engineering. After he graduated, Julius joined the US Army Signal Corps in 1940 as a civilian engineer and later became an inspector.

Julius left the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in 1942 to prevent any potential suspicions about his involvement. Due to the tensions between the US and the Soviet Union following World War II, a period known as the Cold War, any associations with the Communist Party raised red flags for individuals employed by the US government. Party of the USA (CPUSA) in 1942 to prevent any potential suspicions about his involvement. 

The arrest of the Rosenbergs was set in motion when the FBI arrested Klaus Fuchs, a British scientist who gave atomic secrets to the Soviets while working on the Manhattan project to develop the U.S. atomic bomb,  Fuchs's arrest and confession led to the arrest of Harry Gold, a courier for Soviet spies. Gold in turn led investigators to David Greenglass, a small-time spy and a former army sergeant and machinist at Los Alamos, the secret atomic bomb lab in New Mexico. Greenglass, who himself had confessed to providing nuclear secrets to the Soviets through an intermediary,  then accused his sister Ethel and brother-in-law Julius of controlling his activities.This led  to Julius Rosenberg being arrested on suspicion of espionage on June 17, 1950, and accused of heading a spy ring that passed top-secret information concerning the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. Ethel was arrested two months later. Greenglass testified against his sister and brother-in-law in court. He later served 10 years in prison. In the intervening decades, it has since been conclusively proved that David Greenglass committed perjury against his own sister. 

Ethel Rosenberg’s Jewish identity was forged not by any ties to traditional Judaism but by her political radicalism. Indeed, when she and her husband, Julius, were charged with espionage, attempts were made by their fellow "leftists" to link their prosecution with antisemitism. But the established Jewish community, fearing any association with Jewish radicalism, rejected this charge. 

A brief trial  began on March 6, 1951, and attracted much media attention, and the trial took place as the US government was launching its Cold War against the USSR. This campaign sought to demonize the Soviet Union and communists, to cancel out the great prestige of the Soviet Union during the Second World War, and to turn back the worldwide surge toward national liberation and socialism. On the domestic front, anti-communism reached a fever pitch in the Rosenberg trial and Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts. 

A concerted effort was made by McCarthy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and others to paint U.S. communists as Soviet spies seeking to overturn the “American way of life.” The real goal was to wipe out the gains made under the New Deal in social legislation and to weaken the labor movement. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were victims of this anti-communist hysteria, a hysteria that made it impossible for them to get a fair trial

Julius and Ethel maintained their innocence throughout the trial by asserting their Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to answer questions. This was a tactic to prevent incrimination upon themselves. Refusal to answer questions about their involvement with the Communist Party during a period of heightened espionage paranoia caused many to quickly label them as spies based on the popular belief that all Communist members were Soviet spies.

In the months between the sentencing and execution, criticism of the trial grew more strident, and major demonstrations were held. Nobel Prize winner Jean-Paul Sartre called the case "a legal lynching which smears with blood a whole nation."

On April 5, 1951, a judge sentenced them to death and the pair was taken to Sing Sing to await execution. The Rosenbergs were the first U.S. citizens to be convicted and executed for espionage for espionage and the first to receive such an extreme penalty during peacetime years. and their case remains controversial to this day. There were protest marches held across the world.

Ethel's refusal to fulfill a stereotypical feminine role by breaking into tears during the trial was thought to show that she was unwomanly and more attached to Communism than to her children. Her stoicism may have helped to turn the jury of 11 men and one woman against her. 

The global political context was also a clear factor. In pronouncing their death sentence, Judge Irving Kaufman described the Rosenbergs' crime as "worse than murder ... causing the communist aggression in Korea," thus blaming them for the Korean War. 

 Wrongful execution happens regardless of factual innocence when the state denies a defendant due process. Also, punishment should be proportionate to the crime. In the Rosenberg case, the prosecution engaged in ex parte communications with the judge. The prosecution suborned perjury from its key witness, David Greenglass. The judge refused to permit testimony from experts who called into dispute the value of the information Greenglass passed to Julius Rosenberg. The judge imposed capital punishment, which should have been the province of the jury. 

The death penalty in the case rested on the premise that the Rosenbergs passed nuclear technology to the Soviet Union, thus endangering millions of lives. The prosecution portrayed the Rosenbergs as responsible for the Korean Police Action. The Rosenbergs were the victims of a propaganda campaign to justify the death penalty.

The government undoubtedly expected Julius Rosenberg to yield to pressure and give up information. When he didn’t, the government arrested Ethel to increase the pressure. The bluff failed when the Rosenbergs continued in their refusal to cooperate.  

The conviction and sentence were followed by a lengthy series of appeals. During the next two years, the couple became the subject of both national and international debate. Some people believed that the Rosenbergs were the victims of a surge of hysterical anti-communist feeling in the United States, and protested that the death sentence handed down was cruel and unusual punishment. Other  Americans, however, believed that the Rosenbergs had been dealt with justly.

Although a number of leftist organizations protested the verdict, Jewish organizations were conspicuously absent in the Rosenbergs' defense. Public condemnation of the Rosenbergs, a general identification of Jews with left-wing causes, and the shadow of McCarthyism made many Jews fear that their own loyalty was under scrutiny. Some Jewish leaders, including the American Jewish Committee, publicly endorsed the guilty verdict. They agreed with President Dwight D. Eisenhower when he issued a statement declining to invoke executive clemency for the pair. He stated, “I can only say that, by immeasurably increasing the chances of atomic war, the Rosenbergs may have condemned to death tens of millions of innocent people all over the world. The execution of two human beings is a grave matter. But even graver is the thought of the millions of dead whose deaths may be directly attributable to what these spies have done.”

Following failed pleas for clemency to President Truman and then to President Eisenhower and affirming their innocence to the end, the Rosenbergs were cruelly executed on June 19, 1953.On the morning of their execution, the Rosenbergs wrote in a letter addressed to their two sons: “We were innocent and could not wrong our conscience.To the end, both Rosenbergs insisted on their innocence. On the day, Ethel’s execution was botched. She was removed from the electric chair after three charges, only for it to be discovered her heart was still beating, so, gruesomely, she had to be strapped back into it. There was international outrage at her death. 

Their children  Michael and Robby Rosenberg were 10 and six respectively when their parents were executed. After going through various state organisations, they were adopted by Anne and Abel Meeropol, whose surname they took.Their sons later sued the government to release files related to the case and, in 2015, petitioned President Obama to exonerate their mother, Ethel. Debate over this case continues today.And Robby and his wife created the Rosenberg Fund, to help the needs of children whose parents have suffered because of their progressive activities and who, therefore, are no longer able to provide fully for their children .https://www.rfc.org/

It must also be remembered that, although the Rosenbergs were communists and spies, they did not spy for an enemy of the United States, as the sentence might indicate, but rather for its wartime ally and  it is difficult, however, to imagine the execution of a married couple without understanding of the hysteria that the Cold War produced.At the end of the day. depending on whose side the spy is spying for, and whose nation suffers from the spying, spies are seen as heroes or villains.  There is no middle of the road in the spy game.   

The release of classified information such as the Venona files, along with information made available after the collapse of the Soviet Union, show that  although Julius Rosenberg was probably guilty, Ethel's role in any conspiracy was tiny at most. Julius's KGB handler indicated that Rosenberg’s most valuable information was a proximity fuse. Julius Rosenberg passed no valuable nuclear technology to the Soviet Union.

Julius Rosenberg should have served a sentence for his espionage that was comparable to the sentences of other people in the spy ring. Ethel Rosenberg should never have been arrested, charged, and tried, let alone executed. 

While scholarly debate over the Rosenberg case continues, their names remain a touchstone for many. Playwright Tony Kushner, for instance, offered a powerful portrayal of Ethel Rosenberg's strength and humanity in his landmark production Angels in America. Heir to an Execution (2004), a recent documentary by the Rosenbergs' granddaughter, Ivy Meeropol, presents a particularly moving portrayal of how Ethel confronted her arrest, trial and execution.

In memory of Anti-fascist Kevin Gately 18 September 1953 – 15 June 1974.

Kevin Gately pictured above circled

On 15 June, 1974,clashes between anti-fascists and the police at London’s Red Lion Square, Holborn, culminated in a police charge against anti-fascist demonstrators opposing the far right National Front’s meeting at Conway Hall, resulted in one anti-Front protester, Kevin Gateley, a 20  year  old student at Warwick University, being killed. He was not a member of any political organisation, and the march at Red Lion Square was his first. He was the first person to be killed at a political protest in mainland Britain for at least 55 years. (since the British Army shot two looters dead in Liverpool during the riots associated with a police strike in August 1919) 

The events leading up to his death began in April 1974, when the Front booked the large hall at Conway Hall, a venue long associated with secular humanism and the anti-war left.The Front had been using Conway Hall for meetings during the previous four years, but anti-fascist pickets began in October 1973. On 15 June 1974, they planned a meeting entitled “Stop immigration – start repatriation”.  In early June, the anti-imperialist campaign group Liberation, headed by veteran Labour MP Fenner Brockway, learned of the Front’s booking and attempted to book a room of their own elsewhere in the building. By 9 June, the police were aware that both the Front and its opponents planned to hold demonstrations culminating at Conway Hall. 

The owners of Conway Hall, the South Place Ethical Society, through their General Secretary Peter Cadogan, released a press statement defending the decision to allow the Font a room on free speech grounds.  

The National Front was founded in 1967 as a far-right, fascist political party. From its inception the organisation had four main issues on which they campaigned: opposition to Britain's membership of the European Economic Community; Ulster; the trade unions and what the journalist Martin Walker calls "the post-immigration attack on black people born in Britain".The National Front had grown rapidly in the early 1970s and by 1974 the membership was about 10,000–12,00 and the Front’s influence was growing; from their origins as a merger of three far right splinter groups in 1967, run by men with long histories in neo-nazi organising, the NF had played populist nationalism to the max.

In an era where full employment and the hopes of the 60s were giving way to recession, unemployment and increased industrial action by workers, the NF whipped up fears that migrants were threatening the ‘British Way of Life’, taking white workers jobs etc. Ably abetted by tory and some Labour politicians and many a media front page… Refugees like the Uganda and Kenyan Asians were hysterically held up as scapegoats; workers fighting for better wages and conditions were also painted as a threat to order.

At this point, in the early 1970s, the Front was concentrating on trying to win middle-class support, among traditional Conservative supporters disillusioned with tory policies from a rightwing perspective: a demographic nostalgic for empire and everyone knowing their place.

Rightwing violence, racist attacks were on the rise. NF candidates were winning larger shares of the vote in elections. But many on the left were determined to oppose the Front. 

Freedom of expression was Conway Hall’s mantra – coming from a long history of freethought – but should this be extended to fascists? If most on the left were prepared to demonstrate their opposition to fascism, but not to physically fight it, a growing minority had come round to the position of ‘No Platform’ for fascists; while in practice this was “about denying the NF venues to speak and was not interchangeable with the opposition on the streets”. “Essentially ‘no platform’ was an extension of the successful anti-fascist strategy that had been developed since the late 1940s. As well as physically combating fascist agitation in the streets, one of the major strategies was campaigning for local governments and other institutions to prevent fascists from using public places to speak or meet. Between 1972 and 1976, the ‘no platform’ concept dominated anti-fascist strategy, supported by the Communist Party, the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group (IMG), as well as becoming policy for the National Union of Students (NUS), which was considerably influenced by the IMG and the CPGB.

The ‘no platform’ strategy was not limited to petitioning local councils and institutions to deny the NF access to meeting places, but included physical opposition to the NF organising in public.” (Evan Smith)  However, how ‘No Platform’ was interpreted varied among the different organisations…  Liberation (formerly the Movement for Colonial Freedom) organised a counter-demonstration that was to end with a meeting outside the hall, which was supported by most of the larger groupings on the left – including the Communist Party of Great Britain, the International Socialists (now the SWP), the International Marxist Group (IMG) and many other groups within the labour movement.  Liberation, not intending to try to prevent the NF meeting, booked a smaller room at Conway Hall for a separate meeting, to be preceded by a march along a route agreed in advance with the police, starting at the Thames Embankment to avoid the route of the National Front march. The police agreed that both marches could end at Red Lion Square. An open-air protest meeting was planned on the north side of the square, to the west of the National Front meeting in Conway Hall, with an address by Syd Bidwell, then Labour MP for Southall. 

However while Liberation and others were content to march in protest,  the International Marxist Group planned to organise a mass picket at the main entrance of the hall, to deny the NF access. 

When the Liberation demo of around 1,200 people came from the east, having marched westwards along Theobald’s Road and turned into Old North Street to enter Red Lion Square, a police cordon blocked the way to the left, east of Old North Street, to allow the National Front march to reach Conway Hall.  The NF march of around 900 people approached from the west, marching down Bloomsbury Way to the west side of Southampton Row, accompanied by an Orange Order fife and drum band. The march arrived at Southampton Row around at around 5:50 pm, where they were stopped by the police.  A group mainly composed of the IMG moved to block the doors of Conway Hall. The police, with what Lord Scarman later described as a ‘concern… with maintenance of public order’, attempted to disperse the IMG contingent. The IMG members refused to be dispersed and according to Lord Scarman’s report, ‘when the IMG assaulted the police cordon there began a riot, which it was the duty of the police to suppress, by force if necessary’.

The cordon was reinforced by members of the Special Patrol Group who eventually forced the demonstrators back with a vicious and wholly disproportionate police response – with  mounted police charging  into the crowd flailing about with liberal use of their truncheons. 

Kevin Gately who was born in England to parents of Irish descent. became a mathematics student at Warwick University, and was in his second year in June 1974, three months before his 21st birthday.He had red hair and was approximately 6′ 9″ tall; contemporary photos show him standing out above the crowd because of his exceptional height and must have presented a tempting target.

During this initial violent clash between police and anti-fascists, lasting for less than fifteen minutes, Kevin Gately, was fatally injured. Gately died from a brain haemorrhage, resulting from a blow to the head.

Photographs from the day show mounted police striking at the heads of demonstrators with sticks. Nick Mullen, a twenty-eight-year-old student from an Irish family was one of those struck on the head. He had been on Old North Street at the same time as Kevin Gateley and a picture shows Mullen’s face thick with blood.

In Mullen’s account, the fatal conflict began when the policemen on foot received an order to attack, causing them to lift their batons. One demonstrator called out, ‘Why don’t you put your truncheons away?’ To which a policeman answered, ‘You must be fucking joking.’ There was a push and one of the demonstrators fell. Mullen claims to have heard a policeman shout, ‘One of the bastards is down. Let’s trample him.’ 

The last photographs before Gateley suffered the blow that killed him show the student at the junction of Red Lion Square and Old North Street with his way seemingly blocked by police officers. Between Gateley and Conway Hall there are mounted policemen, riding their horses into the crowd. Gateley is three rows back from them, facing mounted officers to his front and police on foot to his side. Subsequent photographs show Gateley after he collapsed. Officers reached for Gateley’s unconscious body and lifted his foot before it fell weightless to the ground. 

By quarter past four, the police had succeeded in clearing the north east corner of Red Lion Square, after which they were able to bring in the Front to their meeting. Aside from Gateley, some 48 people were reported to have been injured and by the end of the day some 51 anti-fascists were arrested. Eighty-two charges were brought against the fifty-one people arrested on the day.Twenty-nine of the charges were dismissed, with fifty-three convictions.

A  bitter row over the police conduct at the demonstration started with demands for an inquiry and questions being tabled in the House Mr Tony Gilbert, who organised the march for the Central Council of Liberation, said  that Mr Gately, had in effect been murdered by the police. “When you get police diving in with truncheons and horses and somebody is killed in circumstances like this I would call it murder.”

 NUS President John Randall said, ‘We now know that Kevin Gately died as a direct result of police violence’  Other Left-wing spokesmen accused the police of unwarranted brutality. Miss Jackie Stevens, a fellow student, said that she had been next to Mr Gately linking arms with him. Their line was the first in the march which turned into the police cordon by swinging left when they entered Red Lion square, instead of right. Organisers of the demonstration claimed that they had agreed with Scotland Yard to turn left and only found out at the last moment that they were being made to turn right. This was flatly denied by Scotland Yard. 

By the end of the month, Lord Scarman had been placed in charge of a public inquiry, conducting a tribunal with witnesses throughout September 1974, eventually reporting in February 1975. Scarman’s report was seen by many as a travesty which whitewashed the police actions and criticised the demonstrators, primarily putting the blame for the violence – and Kevin Gately’s death – on the IMG, and criticising the naivety of Liberation. The report was ‘unable to make any definition finding as to the specific cause of the fatal injury which Mr Kevin Gately suffered’. and suspicions that his injuries arose from police brutality on the day were never fully answered. 

The post-mortem was conducted by Dr Iain West of St Thomas’s Hospital. West indicated that the cause of death was a subdural  haemorrhage resulting from a head injury. He found an oval bruise at the back of Gateley’s ear about three quarters of an inch long. The injury had been caused by a hard object. It was impossible to tell from the shape of the bruise what had caused the injury, other than that it was likely to be a blunt object, possibly a police truncheon.Neither a coroner’s inquest nor the Lord Justice Scarman inquiry were able to find evidence to prove or disprove this claim. The jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure on 12 July 1974 by a majority of 10-1.

Gately was buried in Surbiton on Friday 21 June. The same day, 500 students marched through Coventry with black armbands. The following day, Saturday 22 June 1974, thousands joined a silent march retraced the route of the Liberation counter-demonstration from the embankment to Red Lion Square. The march was led by personal friends of Gately, followed by University of Warwick students and then by students from many other universities and colleges as well as contingents from many of the left wing groups that had taken part in the original march. This march also received widespread media coverage. Here's a very short snippet from youtube  

The events of 15th June 1974 raised questions of how fascism was to be opposed – questions the Communist Party (CP) addressed by getting all the answers wrong. The CP had supported the counter-demonstration, claiming 5-600 who attended were CP members. In the Morning Star (the Communist Party newspaper) on 15 June, 1974, an article urged people to support the counter-demo, including an appeal by leading trade unionists, stating that the NF’s ‘poisonous ideas are a threat to all that is best in our society’.

In the aftermath, the Morning Star declared that “blame for what occurred… must be placed where it belongs – on the authorities for permitting it, and the police for brutality”. The CP position was that the march by the NF was in violation of the Race Relations Act, and should have been banned. As London District Secretary Gerry Cohen wrote in the Morning Star, “The police, like the National Front, are on the side of the exploiting class. They operated on that side with thoroughness and with fury on Saturday in Red Lion Square.

The CP’s stance – appealing to the repressive apparatus of the State, such as the police, the judiciary and the Home Office, to deal with fascists – showed some extreme naivety. Suggesting the police and the wider State could be persuaded to counter the NF, (despite long experience of the police’s hostility to the left, preparedness to use force against pickets, demonstrations etc, and growing evidence of police rank n file sympathy for NF politics), was a non-starter as anti-fascist strategy.  The logical extension of this liberal stance was that the CPGB also slagged off the IMG for aiming at confrontation with the NF. They took the view that the anti-fascist movement needed to appeal to the broader progressive and labour movements, “But  what this small section of the march did was to make this more difficult”. 

Physical confrontation, they suggested, ‘played into the hands of all those in the key positions of establishment…aimed at destroying our basic democratic rights’. The CP seemed concerned to distance themselves from the physical opposition.

In a press release, the CP stated that, “At no time did our Party contemplate, nor did it take part in any discussions that contemplated of bringing about any physical confrontation with the police or anybody else at this demonstration’; tactics like the IMG’s blocking of the doors they called ‘the adventurist tactics of a minority’. 

According to the Party, there was ‘absolutely no reason why the police could not have contained the situation peacefully at all times’ and the police had ‘undoubtedly mishandled the situation”. 

This blatantly ignored the reality of organising against fascism, whether in the 1930s, the 1970s, or today. It was physical confrontations that forced the British Union of Fascists onto the defensive at Cable Street and beyond; it was to be mass physical opposition later in the 70s that was to defeat the BF on the streets (if politically they were also undermined by the tories moving to the right under Thatcher). This analysis reflects the reality of later anti-fascist mobilising, in which the CP organisationally played little part. (In fact, the IMG would also not play as significant a role again, being eclipsed by other groups like the International Socialists, before declining and imploding…) 

Scarman’s report reflected the ‘nuanced’ establishment response – the police were ‘right not to ban the National Front demonstration’, but the Race Relations Act needed ‘radical amendment to make it an effective sanction’, the anti-fascists were ultimately responsible for the trouble and Kevin’s death, and the anti-fascist movement should ‘co-operate with the police’. 

The NF’s electoral fortunes thankfully did not grow exponentially – their profile brought them “notoriety but no tangible gains”. In response the more street-oriented elements of the NF pushed the organisation towards more street marches and confrontation, and attempted to orient their politics more towards a working class audience. This NF campaign chimed with, and contributed to, an increase in violence against Britain’s black population, including racist attacks and murders. 

But this led to a broad culture of resistance to the Front and galvanised the anti-fascist movement. helping establish many local anti-fascist groups which, a few years later, became the grass roots of the Anti-Nazi League and inflicted a historic defeat on the NF. By the October 1974 general election the Labour Party prevented any Labour candidate from sharing a platform with the NF. 120 Labour Councils banned the NF from using council halls. The TUC began to take a stand and raise a voice against the NF, calling it a “Nazi Front”. 

It  would also see the  events of 1977 in Wood Green and Lewisham and 1979 in Southall; which led to the tragic death of Blair Peach https://teifidancer-teifidancer.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-death-of-blair-peach.html.

After Peach's death, the Labour Party Member of Parliament Syd Bidwell, who had been about to been about to give a speech in Red Lion Square when the violence started, described Peach and Gately as martyrs against fascism and racism/ 

The National Front became vastly outnumbered on the street. In fact, in the aftermath of Red Lion Square, numbers at anti-fascist demonstrations increased dramatically and continued to rise throughout the mid-to-late 1970s. As Nigel Copsey wrote, ‘despite adverse publicity that the Red Lion Square disorder had generated for the left, more anti-fascists than fascists could be mobilised at street level’.  

In the end to the present day. with fascists force again on the rise  despite the right to protest being stripped away by the powers that be it doesn’t change the necessity for  opposing fascism. physically and no platforming fascists wherever they raise their heads. 

Worrying our present government's policies are very close to those of the NF from that era.With the  passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are living in very dark days for civil liberties in the UK. This deeply-authoritarian Bill places profound and significant restrictions on the basic right to peacefully protest and will have a severely detrimental impact on the ability of ordinary people to make their concerns heard. The inexorable rise of fascism in Britain continues.

Protest is a cherished part of British history - from the anti-slavery movement, to the suffragettes and recent anti-war marches and the Policing Bill is in direct conflict with the values of freedom and liberty that this government claims to uphold.

The rise of fascism in Britain is gradual and creeping but sadly more and more evident.The racist  Nationality and Borders Bill, is also a clear indication that the British Government is well on the road to becoming a fascist government. If you stand by and do nothing you're an enabler.

Let's not forget  Kevin Gately, killed in 1974, in London, whilst opposing the nazi National Front who like Blair Peach and  other  such fallen anti fascists, their example lives on. British people have a long tradition of fighting fascism. No Pasaran! 

The University of Warwick have a collection of documents relating to the aftermath of Gately's death, and in 2019 the university's student union named one of its meeting rooms after Gately. The union have a mural commemorating him in their main building. Lots of information for this post were sourced from here:-   https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/red-lion-square-and-the-death-of-kevin-gately/

Poem for Pride

Under rainbow's arc

In meadows sweet with scent

Lovers embrace. release gentle kisses

Proudly declaring their love

While tangential  clouds

Prepare to dance with sunset

Hand in hand in union

Shedding particles of light

That the ignorant can't consume

Pride carries on opening hearts

In a ;place where no walls 

Or borders can conquer

Though dark  forces try to deny

Tongues beyond closeted fortresses

Continue releasing desire

Under the constellation of stars

Delirious  in abundant emotion

Abandoning the chains of prejudice

Among branches of liberation.

Assurgent Buds

With current trends full of twisted mistrust

In a land I feel to be so wrong and unjust,

Full of vacuous politicians that do not hear

Spreading division bathed and laced with fear,

Duplicitous in nature. totally out of touch

Criticise all, make themselves beyond reproach,

Their bonds of light and trust nowhere to be seen

They don't seem to listen, making people scream

Beyond their dark reflections of ugliness

I try to ignore the continuing insidiousness, 

Being woke in thought without callousness

Do not abandon myself to hopelessness,

Will not be controlled by powers untender

Inner defences fight back, refuse to surrender,

Among the enshrouding blackness, break free

Follow spirits of kindness and glimmering empathy,

Breathing with defiance, moving gigantically 

Under glowing sun. try to cancel negativity,

I hear the loud voices of strength and solidarity

Forces of good, spinning forth.that don't irritate me,

Angry voices of needed resistance and positivity

Ambassadors of change, forces of necessity,

Like wild red roses tired of keeping their distance

Hope spreaders, that manipulators can't extinguish.