Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1157

What the Hell?

The Uri Avnery Column shows signs of an identity crisis!


An Israeli? A Jew? A peace activist? A Journalist? An author? An ex-combat soldier in the Israeli army? An ex-terrorist? A…?

All of these and more.

OK. OK. But in what order? Which is the most important component?

First of all, of course, I am a human being, with all the rights and duties of a human being. That part is easy. At least in theory.

Then I am an Israeli. Then I am a Jew. And so on.

An Australian man of English extraction would have no trouble answering such a question. He is first and foremost an Australian, and then an Anglo-Saxon. In two world wars he rushed to the aid of Britain, for no practical reason. But in the second war, when his own homeland was suddenly in danger, he rushed back home.

That was quite natural. True, Australia was created mainly by British people (including deported convicts), but the Australian's mental world was formed by the geographical, political and physical environment of Australia. In the course of time, even his (and her) physical appearance changed.

Once I had a discussion about this with Ariel Sharon.

I told him that I consider myself an Israeli first, and a Jew only second.

Sharon, who was born in pre-Israel Palestine, retorted heatedly: "I am first of all a Jew, and only then an Israeli!"

This seems an idle discussion. But it has a very practical relevance for our daily life.

For example, is this a "Jewish" state, how can it exist without the dominance of the Jewish religion?

Israel was founded by very secular idealists. Most of them looked upon religion as a relic of the past, a handful of ridiculous superstitions that must be discarded in order to clear the way for a healthy, modern nationalism.

The founding father, Theodor Herzl, whose picture hangs in every Israeli schoolroom, was completely non-religious, not to say anti-religious. In his ground-breaking book, "Der Judenstaat" (The Jewish State), he declared that in the future Zionist state, the rabbis would be kept in the synagogues, without any influence on public affairs.

The rabbis answered in no uncertain terms. They cursed him outright, using the most extreme language. They believed that God Almighty had sent the Jews into exile as a punishment for their sins, and only God Almighty had the right to bring them back by sending the Messiah.

Even the German reform rabbis, a small minority at the time, condemned him. Only a handful of rabbis joined the Zionist movement in the early days.

In Jerusalem, an important group of Orthodox rabbis, who called themselves Neturei Karta ("Guardians of the City"), were openly anti-Zionist. Much later, I often met them in Arafat's office. Other Orthodox rabbis, a bit less radical, insisted on being non-Zionist while still accepting Zionist money. They are now members of the governing coalition.

David Ben-Gurion, the leading Zionist when the State of Israel came into being, despised the religious. He believed that they would disappear by themselves in time. Therefore (and in order to gain the support and money of orthodox Jews abroad) he made all kinds of concessions to them, which allowed the religious community to grow out of all proportion. Now they endanger the very existence of our secular state.

Although representing only about a fifth of Israel's population, the Orthodox of various shades now constitute a powerful force in Israeli politics. From being a moderate force for peace they have turned to a radical nationalism, often a religious fascism. Their influence on daily life is becoming more and more pervasive.

Lately they succeeded in passing a law that forbids the opening of supermarkets on Saturday (Shabbat). The extreme Orthodox wing forbids its sons to serve in the army, demanding that all female soldiers be removed altogether, or at least be prevented from having any contact at all with their male comrades.

Since most Israelis see the army as (perhaps) the only unifying force left in Israel, this results in a perpetual crisis. Other Orthodox wings take the contrary view: they see the army as God's instrument for cleansing all of the Holy Land of non-Jews.

Arab citizens of Israel - more than 20% of the population - do not serve in the army, with some exceptions. How could they be counted on to fulfill the designs of the God of Israel?

If Ben-Gurion and all the dead soldiers of my generation could hear about this situation, they would turn in their graves.

This Is only one of the manifestations of the Jewish-first ideology. Another is the question of Israel's place on the region. Jewish-first dictates a quite different outlook than Israeli-first.

I was just 10 years old when my family fled from Nazi Germany to Palestine. On the ship from Marseille to Jaffa I cut myself off completely from the European continent and connected with the Asian one.

I loved it. The sounds, the smells, the environment. I wanted to embrace it all. When at the age of 15 I joined the underground liberation struggle against the British overlords of Palestine, I felt that we were a part of the general struggle of a new world against Western domination.

At the time, a linguistic usage was accepted by all of us, even without noticing. We all started to distinguish between "Jewish", by which we meant the Jews of the Diaspora ("exile Jews" in Zionist terms), and "Hebrew", by which we meant everything local, home-grown.

"Jewish" were the religion, the Ghettos, the Yiddish language, everything over there. Hebrew were we, the renewed language, the new community in our country, the Kibbutzim, everything local. In time, a small group of young intellectuals, nicknamed "Canaanites", went much further and asserted that we Hebrews had nothing in common with the Jews, that we were a new nation altogether, a direct continuation of the Hebrew nation which was dispersed by the Romans some 2000 years ago.

(This picture, by the way, is denied by many non-Jewish historians, who assert that the Romans exiled only the intelligentsia, and that the simple people remained, adopted Islam and are now the Palestinians.)

When the truth about the Holocaust came out, a wave of remorse swept the Hebrew community here. Jewish became the dominant self-definition. Since than, a steady process of re-Judaization of Israel has been in progress.

When the State of Israel was founded, the term "Israeli" replaced the term "Hebrew". The question is now: "Jewish" first or "Israeli" first? It has a direct bearing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Herzl had no problem. He was a convinced Westerner. In his book he wrote the fateful words: "For Europe we would constitute (in Palestine) a part of the wall against Asia, we would become an outpost of culture against barbarism." (My translation.)

In other words, the founder of Zionism conceived the future Jewish state as a bastion of European imperialism against the native peoples. More than 120 years ago, the present situation was already envisioned. Zionism has followed this line consistently.

Could It have been different? Could we have re-integrated ourselves in the region? I don't know. When I was young, I believed so. I was 22 years old when I founded a group called "Young Eretz-Israel" (and in Arabic and English "Young Palestine") which was generally known - and detested - as the "Struggle-Group", because we published an irregular paper by that name. When Jawaharlal Nehru convened an Asian-African congress in New Delhi, we sent him a congratulatory telegram.

After the 1948 war, I founded a group called "Semitic Action", devoted to the idea of Israel's integration in the "Semitic Region". I chose the term "Semitic" because it included all Arabs and Israelis, by descent and language.

In 1959 I met Jean-Paul Sartre in Paris. He had hesitations about the term, because it sounded racist to him. But I succeeded in convincing him and he published an article I wrote on this subject in his Temps Modernes.

The More "Jewish" Israel becomes, the wider the abyss between it and the Muslim world. The more "Israeli", the higher the chance of an eventual integration in the region, an ideal much more profound than just peace.

Therefore I repeat: I am Israeli first, Jewish second.


Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom

The Earth And Us: Ways Of Seeing

Gabriel Levy with a review of a book about the relationship between humankind and the natural world. 



Think again, and differently, about the relationship between human society and the natural world. That is the challenge offered by Christophe Bonneuil and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz.

A visual representation of geological time. From the Smithsonian Institution.
They question accepted ideas about “environmental crisis” and “sustainable development”, and urge  us to subvert the “unifying grand narrative of the errant human species and its redemption by science alone”.

But this is not an iconoclastic rant. It is a scholarly discussion of the science behind the Anthropocene concept, and its implications for history, for the study of society, and for our ideas about the world in the broadest sense.

A central theme is the reflection of the terrifying accumulation of damage to the natural world by human activity over the past two centuries in the history of ideas. The dominant trends, to divide natural history from human history and to push the natural world out of economics, have been resisted.

The fact of the Anthropocene, Bonneuil and Fressoz argue, requires a new synthesis of forms of knowledge. They avoid offering any simplistic, pat “solution” to the disastrous rift between human society and the natural world. Instead, they point to new ways of looking at it that, collectively, may help us to change it.

This review summarises the authors’ explanation of the Anthropocene concept; considers their points about the history of ideas; comments on the sketches they have drawn for studying Anthropocene history; and asks what socialists, specifically, might take from this book.

What the Anthropocene is

The Anthropocene epoch has arrived, Bonneuil and Fressoz insist. It is characterised by the fact that “the human imprint on the global environment has now become so large and active that it rivals some of the great forces of Nature in its impact on the functioning of the Earth system”, they write (p. 4), citing a group of Earth systems scientists, headed by Will Steffen, who have pushed the idea.

The main proofs for this are: the dangerous, and rising, level of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere; the degradation of the biosphere and collapse of biodiversity (i.e. the record, and accelerating, rate of extinction of species); the disruption of the nitrogen cycle and the phosphorus cycle (i.e. the ballooning of human-made nitrogen transfers into the soil to twice the level, and phosphorus transfers to eight times the level, of natural processes); changes to the water cycle; and changes to land use. (Widely-quoted summaries of the research are on open access here and here.)

Formally, the designation of our epoch is still under discussion: the International Commission on Stratigraphy, a scientific body charged with agreeing geological definitions, in 2016 accepted in principle that we have moved from the Holocene epoch to the Anthropocene, and put that proposition into a review process that takes a couple of years.

But, Bonneuil and Fressoz point out, while official validation is awaited, “the Anthropocene concept has already become a rallying point” for scientists, historians, philosophers, ecological movements and ordinary citizens, “as a way of conceiving this age in which humanity has become a major geological force” (p. 5).

They survey some of the (important and complex) arguments about when the Anthropocene can be considered to have started. (Previous articles on this here and here.) They reproduce a striking series of graphs published by Earth systems scientists showing the sharp up-tick in human impacts on the natural world from the mid 20th century. (A report of the research is here. The complete scientific article is here, under publishers’ lock and key unfortunately.)

The “planetary dashboard” compiled by Earth system scientists, showing a sharp increase in impacts on nature from the mid 20th century. From FutureEarth.org.

Bonneuil and Fressoz’s own view: 1945 might present “an appropriate stratigraphic signal” (the first atomic bomb) and indicate “a destructive intensification of the Anthropocene”, but naming such a late  date as the start of the Anthropocene “masks deeper causes and processes, and obscures the major rupture, both environmental and civilisational, of the entry into thermo-industrial society based on fossil fuels” (p. 17). It is this longer period, from the industrial revolution, on which their historical sketches focus.

Bonneuil and Fressoz make compelling arguments against the way that such terms as “environmental crisis” and “sustainable development” are used. This is not about words, but about underlying meanings. The Anthropocene concept means discarding the idea of an “environmental crisis”, they propose. “The term ‘crisis’ denotes a transitory state, while the Anthropocene is a point of no return. It indicates a geological bifurcation with no foreseeable return to the normality of the Holocene” (p. 21).

Actually, “the irreversible break is behind us” (p. 289). We need to think not only in terms of the natural environment being degraded, or “natural resources” being exhausted; rather, that we are launching the Earth into new states that will bring “disorder, penury and violence that will render it less readily habitable by humans”.
Anthropocenology: Will Steffen, a high-profile Earth systems scientist, addressing an audience in Australia. From the Stockholm Resilience Centre web site.

The Anthropocene “cancels the peaceful and reassuring project of sustainable development”, Bonneuil and Fressoz argue. Since the 1980s, the dominant discourse of “sustainable development” has claimed  that the capitalist economy could negotiate the economic, social and environmental poles. “Instead of a concentric view in which the economy is within the social, itself framed by a thousand feedback loops within the biosphere and the Earth system, the environment became a new column in the bookkeeping of big corporations, which gave themselves new sustainable development divisions” (p. 23).

The implication of Bonneuil and Fressoz’s scepticism about “sustainable development” is spelled out in their third chapter, where they critique the “Anthropocenologists”. That’s their name for the group of scientists, historians and philosophers who have – since a conference in 2000 where Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist and Nobel prize laureate, blurted out “we’re no longer in the Holocene, but the Anthropocene!” – shaped an “authorised narrative” associated with the term, that makes managing the Earth’s systems “a new object of knowledge and government” (p. 47).

Can sharply-turning graphs, like those that illustrate the post-1945 growth of human impacts, by themselves define an epoch? No, argue Bonneuil and Fressoz. For one thing, if you draw the graph on a different scale you see another “great acceleration” in the late 19th century. For another, the slope of the curve “can certainly not take the place of causal historical explanation” (p. 54).

They warn against aspects of the Anthropocenologists’ “grand narrative” that can be incoporated into an ideology of “green economy” that “internalises in markets and policies the value of ‘services’ supplied by nature”. No accident, they argue, that Robert Costanza, one of the leading Anthropocenologists, published a famous article that assessed the value of services rendered to humanity by the biosphere at $33 trillion (twice the world’s GDP). The pricing of so-called “eco-system services” thereafter became central to establishment narratives about “sustainable development”, as though human impacts on the natural world were an unfortunate anomaly that could be solved by market regulation.

The idea of “redemption by science alone”, which overlaps with such narratives, must be rejected, Bonneuil and Fressoz conclude. The Anthropocene means “meticulously listening to scientists and putting their results and conclusions into public and democratic discussions, rather than sinking into a geocracy of technological and market-based ‘solutions’ to ‘manage’ the entire Earth” (p. 288).

The history of ideas about the Anthropocene

Bonneuil and Fressoz dispute at length the idea that damage to the natural world by human activity – mainly, industrial and military activity under capitalism – was done unwittingly, until a grand environmental awakening of the last half century. They illustrate, with quotations from leading Anthropocenologists, just how widespread this fallacy is, and counterpose to it a history of “acute awareness of the interactions between nature and society” in Europe and north America in the period 1770-1830, that was suppressed and undermined through the 19th and early 20th centuries (p. 72).

The hold of dominant ideologies in western society – which divided nature and society, and natural history and social history, from each other – must be undone, Bonneuil and Fressoz argue. The Anthropocene idea, in their interpretation, “abolishes the break between nature and culture, between human history and the history of life and Earth” (p. 19).

In their chapter 8, Bonneuil and Fressoz trace the history of “conceptual grammars” through which understanding of humanity’s relationship with the natural world has developed, including: concern about pollution in the late 18th and early 19th centuries; awareness of climate change in the same period; movements against deforestation; and research in the 19th century on natural cycles, leading to warnings from the chemist Justus von Liebig on one hand, and Karl Marx on the other, about the “metabolic rift” between society and nature.

Bonneuil and Fressoz have set an agenda for study here. I was left with some questions, which hopefully such study would clarify. First, I was not convinced by their chronology. I reckon a case could be made for “environmental reflexivity” in human intellectual endeavour stretching back much further than the mid-18th century, and for a far more complex picture of the forces that developed it, and undermined it. While I would not dispute that the rise of industrial capitalism in western nations in the 19th century deepened the culture-nature divide like never before, there is a case made by some environmental historians – for example Joachim Radkau in Nature and Power – that this was the repetition at a higher level of a much deeper, longer-established rift.

Second, Bonneuil and Fressoz are at pains to underline that, given the developed understanding of human impacts on the natural world that they illustrate, we can only conclude that “our ancestors destroyed environments in full awareness of what they were doing” (p. 196, and they underline this point again on p. 291). Yes and no. For a start, “our ancestors” were obviously not a homogenous mass. (Indeed, Bonneuil and Fressoz specifically reject the idea of damage to nature being done by an undifferentiated humanity, in their chapter 4). Moreover, the way that scientific knowledge was used, instrumentalised and/or ignored in the past was driven by power relations no less than it is today.

And finally, while the general picture of human impacts on nature was clear, it is important to trace specific processes of discovery: for example, it has been generally known to scientists since the 19th century that industrial activity contributes to climate change, but the specific relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming – the killer fact that makes it so urgent – only became clear in the 1980s.

That said, Bonneuil and Fressoz are surely right to challenge the a-historical view that humanity, unfortunately unenlightened until the late 20th century, has now been saved by science, which will apolitically guide us to solutions of the “environmental crisis”.

Also, their discussion of the means by which the division between natural sciences and social sciences were deepened in the 19th and early 20th centuries – the “production of zones of ignorance” (p. 198) – is compelling. How are “the damages of ‘progress’ made invisible?” they ask, citing the example of asbestos, the killer qualities of which were known since 1906 and studiously ignored.


Charles Fourier, an early exponent of socialist environmentalism. (Photo from Library of Congress, Washington DC)
In history, they argue, the shift in the early 19th century from a predominantly wood-fuelled economy to coal “widened the gap between the temporality of the Earth and the temporality of human history” (p. 204). It seemed as if the Earth and its resources stretched back forever; geology helped to reinforce a vision of Earth’s infinite bounty; ideas about society’s ability to “progress” via industrial development, free of any natural limits or constraints, dominated.

At the beginning of the 19th century, political economy had considered the interaction of society and nature; by the end of it, economics viewed the economy as “an object entirely distinct from natural processes”; the economy was largely “disembedded” from natural constraints (p. 211). Economics “naturalised the idea of indefinite growth”, and when challenged by the Limits to Growth report in the 1970s found “new constructions of the world” that incorporated nature into a view of the world in which the market is constant and central.

Chapter 11 of The Shock of the Anthropocene recounts the resistance to the ideological shutting-out of nature, and “explores the existence, since the eighteenth century, of an ‘environmentalism of the poor’” (p. 253). Bonneuil and Fressoz cite the critique of industrialism by the Utopian socialist Charles Fourier as an early articulation of socialist environmentalism, and sketch stories of resistance – albeit unaligned and not unified – to forest clearances and forest mismanagement; to machinery in the service of wealth and power; and to pollution. Let’s hope other historians pursue this fruitful course.

Anthropocene history

The central section of The Shock of the Anthropocene sketches out areas of historical research that, the authors argue, need to be developed if we are to understand the world we now live in. Chapter 5 deals with the huge expansion of fossil fuel consumption, in particular in the economically dominant countries; chapter 6, the role of militarism and war in terms of sheer destruction of the natural environment, and of the guzzling of natural resources; chapter 7, the evolution in rich countries of mass consumption and consumerism. Chapter 10 attempts to integrate these aspects of the Anthropocene into a history of the expansion of world capitalism, seen through a world-systems lens. The chapter title, “Capitalocene”, is borrowed from the Marxist writer Jason Moore, and (p. 229):

signals that the Anthropocene did not arise fully armed from the brain of James Watt, the steam engine and coal, but rather from a long historical process of economic exploitation of human beings and the world, going back to the sixteenth century and making industrialisation possible.

Socialists in the Anthropocene

Socialists, and people involved in labour and social movements, should welcome The Shock of the Anthropocene as a catalyst for rethinking our own narratives about the relationship of people and nature. In those movements, as much as elsewhere, the question marks raised against accepted generalities such as “environmental crisis” and “sustainable development” deserve to be noticed. We should resist the tendency to think that recognition of damage to the environment is something to be conceptually bolted on to what we already knew about changing the world.

Let’s start with Dipesh Chakrabarty, a well-known researcher of post-colonial history, who started out as a Marxist. In 2009 he declared, in a widely read article, that Marxist critiques of capital “do not give us an adequate hold on human history” in the era of climate change; they are “not sufficient for addressing questions relating to human history, once the crisis of climate change has been acknowledged and the Anthropocene has begun to loom on the horizon”. In place of such critiques, Chakrabarty advances the category “the human species”, as used by the economist Jeffrey Sachs, the climate scientists Paul Crutzen and the biologist Eugene Stoermer, with a focus on population growth. Bonneuil and Fressoz (p. 67) point out that “placing humanity in the narrative as a universal agent, indifferently responsible” in this way amounts to a “great theoretical reversal” by Chakrabarty.

While Chakrabarty proposes to confront the Anthropocene by abandoning basic tenets of Marxism, other so-called Marxists appear to confront it by sticking dogmatically to what they thought they already knew. So reviews of The Shock of the Anthropocene on some eco-socialist web sites have been laced with dismissive and mean-spirited comments, and paid scant attention to the philosophical and historical questions it asks. Martin Empson on Climate and Capitalism claims, quite untruthfully, that Bonneuil and Fressoz’s approach “explicitly rejects Marxism”. To raise the issue of productivism in Marx’s thinking is a “mistaken concession”, Michael Ware says in International Socialist Review. (More comments on that in the note below.) At least Steve Knight of System Change Not Climate Change managed to recommend that people read the book without first consulting the Marxist canon.

I hope that other socialists who read this book will ask themselves what challenges it presents to their view of the world, rather than with knee-jerk defences of old certainties. For me it raised three issues.

First, Bonneuil and Fressoz’s argument is fundamentally about history. For socialists, history can rarely provide formulas for the future, but without studying it I doubt we will ever be able to remake our future in the way we hope to. This applies to the necessary reworking of socialist ideas about the relationship between people and nature as much as to socialist ideas in general. (Also some interesting remarks on this by Andreas Malm here.)

Second, Marxism, and socialist thought more generally, was not immune from the nature-culture divide that Bonneuil and Fressoz argue was deepened through the industrial expansion in the capitalist countries in the 19th century. They argue (p. 212) that late twentieth century eco-Marxism had to grapple with concepts of metabolism and energy in opposition to the legacy of “mainstream Marxism”, which broadly excluded nature from its understanding of capitalist economy. I think that is right, and that the issue isn’t closed: that legacy still persists and influences the way that socialists understand not only capitalism, but socialism too.

Third, Bonneuil and Fressoz touch briefly on the way that the workers’ movement in the mid 19th century “rallied to the industrial world and machinery”. (See also Note at the end.) Not only do such productivist traditions live on in the labour movement even today, but they are supplemented by new strains of “techno-optimism” that propose a one-sided view of more recent technological changes, as platforms that inevitably hasten a transition to post-capitalism. (See earlier comments on books by Paul Mason and Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams.)

The Shock of the Anthropocene is not the first book about this new historical epoch. But it is the clearest discussion I know of both of the meaning that scientists, historians, environmentalists and others give to the term, and its implications for the study of history. Its great value is that it shakes up preconceptions and assumptions, and demands that we rethink the world we live in.

Note: Marx and the “productive forces”

One socialist reviewer of The Shock of the Anthropocene, Michael Ware, denounces Bonneuil and Fressoz for arguing that “Marx’s acceptance of machinery as an inevitable part of capitalist development laid the basis of the USSR’s destruction of the environment”. He responds that (i) Bonneuil and Fressoz are at odds with discussion elsewhere in their book of Marx’s writings on the “metabolic rift” between economy and nature; (ii) the accusation of productivism against Marx was answered in books written in the 1990s by Paul Burkett and John Bellamy Foster; and (iii) the claim that Marx’s thinking was the source of “the Soviet Union’s horrible environmental record” is “thoroughly idealist”. This is an important discussion, and I don’t think Ware’s dismissive assertions are the right way to pursue it. Here are a few thoughts, not exhaustive. First, let’s be clear about what Bonneuil and Fressoz actually wrote (p. 265):

After the revolutionary defeats of 1848, the majority of the workers’ movement rallied to the industrial world and machinery, both in the trade unions and among the socialists. The challenge to machinery was dismissed as archaic and doomed to defeat by Marx and his successors, opening the way to the socialist productivism that the USSR embodied in the twentieth century.

Actually nothing is said here about the Soviet Union’s horrible environmental record. It’s not what Bonneuil and Fressoz were writing about. They were discussing how people in the nineteenth century – including people in the labour movement – saw “progress”. Right after the paragraph quoted, they write: “It was in the second half of the nineteenth century, in fact, that ‘progress’ imposed itself as the central ideology of the industrial west.” Then a discussion of how capitalism shifted the ecological burden on forests to the global south in that period. Then descriptions of the upsurge in the late nineteenth century of what we would now call environmentalist critiques of capitalism. In the context of this discussion about 19th-century attitudes, I would say:

■ It is self evident that “the majority of the workers’ movement rallied to the industrial world and machinery”. Marx and Engels, too, shared with most worker militants a vision of the future that entailed going beyond – or negating by revolutionary means, as they might have said – the way that productive forces developed under capitalism. The idea of a collision between the development of these forces and the alienated social relations of capitalism is a central theme in Marx’s writings.

■ Why on earth is that statement of the obvious “at odds” with a recognition that Marx, in the discussion about the “metabolic rift”, and in other writings, tried to contextualise his ideas about class struggle and revolution with an understanding of the labour process as the interaction of humans and nature?

■ Marx and Nature by Paul Burkett does indeed respond to claims that Marxism was productivist. I won’t try to sum up Burkett’s long, complex argument. But his main responses to that claim, as voiced by some academics in the 1980s, are that it insufficiently emphasised the contingent nature of Marx’s descriptions of industrial development, and the extent to which Marx’s enthusiasm for industrial development was bound up with his conviction that it would underpin a transition from capitalism to a free association of producers. Did Burkett convincingly close the lid on the issue of Marx and productivism? I don’t think so (neither in Marx and Nature, nor in his exchange with Ted Benton in Historical Materialism journal (bibliographical info here and here)). Moreover, Burkett’s entire focus is on Marx’s texts, and not on the life of the nineteenth century labour movement, or the ideological continuity between it and the Soviet leadership, which is what Bonneuil and Fressoz were talking about. The other book Ware refers to, Marx’s Ecology by John Bellamy Foster, likewise says virtually nothing about the nineteenth century labour movement; it discusses (very usefully) Marx’s writings on natural and ecological phenomena.

■ I don’t see anything in Bonneuil and Fressoz’s book about the Soviet Union’s environmental record. What they say is that the enthusiasm for machinery (or what Marx called “the development of the productive forces”) in the nineteenth century labour movement opened the way for “socialist productivism” in the Soviet Union. It seems obvious to me that the socialism of the Second International, which generally saw developing the productive forces as a good thing, was a huge influence on the Bolshevik leaders who found themselves having to take decisions about economic policy immediately after the Russian revolution. It also seems obvious that they prioritised raising the productivity of labour above everything else, in a country characterised by great poverty and by industrial underdevelopment in comparison to Europe. When, how and why this led to “socialist productivism” being elevated to some sort of state religion in the Soviet Union is indeed worth talking about. Such conversations might actually happen if, when people review books, they make more effort to try to understand what the authors are trying to say. GL, 13 February 2018.

Note (13 February, afternoon). I’ve corrected this (second to last paragraph in the section on “what the Anthropocene is”). Costanza’s number was $33 trillion, not $33 billion (as wrongly stated by Bonneuil and Fressoz).

Also on People & Nature

■ We need to talk about the anthropocene (January 2017)

■ Site contents

Christophe Bonneuil and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, 2007. The Shock of the Anthropocene: the Earth, history and us (London: Verso, 2017) ISBN-13: 978-1784785031

Journalists Are Wary As Slovak Government Declares Investigation Of Ján Kuciak Murder A Priority

The European Centre for Press And Media Freedom  draw attention to the murder of Ján Kuciak, a Slovak journalist.Journalists in Slovakia are doubtful as to whether there will be an independent investigation of the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak, despite Prime Minister Robert Fico declaring it his priority. The slain journalist’s recent investigations and writings did involve the names of associates of current top Slovak government officials.

The aktuality.sk offices where Ján Kuciak was working (photo: Flutura Kusari/ ECPMF)






Twenty-seven-year-old Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová were discovered shot dead at their home in the town of Vel’ka Mača, East of Bratislava, on 25 February, 2018. The police had been alerted by Kušnírová’s family after they failed to reach her by telephone for several days. The two had been shot with a silencer.

Kuciak was a data journalist working for Aktuality.sk, a news outlet and joint venture of Axel Springer. The last article he was working on was about the links between Italian mafia business activities in Eastern Slovakia and Slovak officials. His unfinished work was published on Wednesday, 28 February, by several media outlets, including Business Insider which is owned by Alex Springer as well.

In his article Kuciak describes in particular the connections of a businessman with alleged connections to the Italian mafia group 'Ndrangheta, Antonino Vadala, as well as senior officials close to the Prime Minister of Slovakia, Mária Trošková and Mr. Viliam Jasaň. Subsequently, Vadala was arrested by the police according to media reports, while Trošková and Jasaň resigned from their duties, although they denied any connection to the murders.

Prime Minister Robert Fico has pleaded to the opposition parties not to “link innocent people to a double homicide without any evidence”. Fico has offered one million euros for relevant information concerning the murders.

Meeting with representatives of media freedom organisations

On Friday, 2 March, Fico met with representatives of three international media freedom organisations, Reporters Without Borders, OSCE, and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF).

“We do not have to prove our democratic credentials”, Fico said. “Help us and let us know what you [the international organisations] can offer. Let us see what the penal code allows us to do. [...] It is my primary interest and priority to investigate this case, and we will not allow [it] to be drawn into political battles”.

Slovakia's prime minister meets three representatives of media freedom organisations: Flutura Kusari (ECPMF), Harlem Désir (OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media) and Christophe Deloire (RSF)
 The President of the Police Force, Tibor Gašpar,​ initially was reported saying that the killing of was related to Kuciak’s journalistic work. Later, the police said it was considering several options. The Ministry of Interior has said it is cooperating Federal Bureau of Investigation and Scotland Yard to investigate the case.
44 days later

On Friday afternoon, thousands of people participated in a public march organised by Ján Kuciak’s colleagues in Bratislava. Slovak journalists say the authorities have done little to protect them. Kuciak himself did publish a post on his Facebook timeline on 20 October 2017 describing the absence of police actions after he had officially reported a threat by the businessman Marián Kočner. “It's 44 days since I filed a threat ... and the case probably doesn’t even have a particular cop [named in the case]”, his post reads.

Kočner was an associate of Ladislav Bašternák, a businessman who allegedly was covered up for tax fraud suspicions by Interior Minister, Robert Kaliňák. Kuciak had worked on that case as well. “It just so happened that Kuciak was investigating the activities of associates of both the prime minister and interior minister”, the Reporters Without Borders wrote on February 28.

Minister Kaliňák said that the threat reported by Kuciak was the result of a dispute the murdered journalist had with a former journalist turned businessman. “The prosecution investigated it and concluded that it did not constitute a physical threat”, Kaliňák told the representatives of international media freedom organisations on Friday.
A lot of attacks

Daniel Modrovsky, president of the Slovak Syndicate of Journalists, told the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) that he unfortunately was expecting such news, the first murder of a journalist in Slovakia, due to the recently observed increase in attacks and threats against journalists.

“There were a lot of attacks against journalists in Slovakia. Pavol Rýpal, an investigative reporter who covered organised crime and journalist Miroslav Pejko went missing in 2008 and 2015 respectively”, Modrovsky said. “Threats have been made in various forms such as the torching of journalists’ cars, sending bullets in envelopes, lawsuits, physical threats. In the last three years the threats have become more direct”.

Modrovsky also pointed out the harsh wording of politicians against the media recalling the prime minister’s statement describing journalists as “anti-Slovak prostitutes”. He added that he does not believe that there will be an independent investigation of the Ján Kuciak murder.

“I would prefer to believe in the police, but this is impossible looking at how they did not investigate journalist cases in the past”, Modrovsky said. “I do [still] hope that we will not end up like Russia where police officers find someone just to blame, who is usually not the real criminal. We would like to know who are the criminals that killed Jan and his partner”.
"We need the EU"

Mirek Toda, foreign affairs journalist at Dennik N, told the ECPMF the various forms of intimidations against journalists: “For example, private messages [between] a journalist and a politician were published in order to embarrass the journalist rather than answer critical questions”, Toda said. “It is very important to have EU leaders watching over our prime minister and other politicians, and the way how press freedom is violated in Slovakia”.

Beata Balogova, editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper and online media SME, told the ECPMF that despite verbal attacks against journalists and the prime minister’s rudeness towards the media, there had been no murders of journalists until now.

She said, SME will investigate Kuciak’s stories, but like Modrovsky she was doubting the authorities’ investigation of the murder. “The prime minister and the minister of interior are too close to the investigation”, Balogova said. “I think that they have access to more information than they should”.

However, Interior Minister Kaliňák defends the authorities' track record. “The system of checks and balances in Slovakia is amongst the strongest in Europe”, he said. “We [politicians] quarrel with the media, and we believe that journalists draw wrong conclusions, but I think this is part of democracy. I don’t remember myself pressing charges against any journalists”.

Describing the situation of media freedom in Slovakia, RSF did point out, in addition to direct threats and the absence of investigations, the recent “oligarchs”’ acquisition of media in Slovakia as well as the political control over public media.

Journalism becoming a dangerous profession in some parts of EU

ECPMF’s media lawyer, Flutura Kusari, has been to Slovakia since Wednesday, 28 February, where she met with several journalists, media representatives, as well as police and government officials.

“There are worries expressed by journalists that an independent and proper investigation will not take place. The suspicion is that politics are influencing the competent authorities”, Kusari said. “The leaders of Slovakia however have asked for international organisations’ role and advice, and the EU must ensure that there will be a thorough investigation”.

Kusari recently also monitored the judicial investigation of the murder of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta. According to the BBC Ján Kuciak, like Caruana Galizia, had also been working on the Panama Papers.

An expert data journalist

“Jan started to work for aktuality.sk in September 2015 as a data journalist. He was an expert in data, very analytical”, Peter Bárdy, editor-in-chief of Aktuality.sk, told the ECPMF. “Usually he would sit on his desk for ten hours a day, analysing data, listening to classical music. He was funny and friendly and we were friends”.

Bárdy hopes that the case will be properly investigated and that the murderers will be punished. “It is not acceptable that journalists get killed”, he added. “It is important that we are a member state of the European Union, and I see the EU as a guarantor of freedom and democracy”.

“Slovakia now joins Hungary, Poland, Malta, Bulgaria as EU member states where press freedom is no longer guaranteed and being a journalist is becoming very dangerous,” says Flutura Kusari.

The EU cannot accept that a journalist is killed for doing his job, said Antonio Tajani, the President of the European Parliament, on February 26. “I call on the Slovak authorities to launch a thorough investigation for Jan Kuciak, with international support if needed [...] As with Daphne Caruana Galizia, the European Parliament will not rest until justice is done​”.

"The investigation will be an independent one,” said Tibor Gašpar, President of Police Forces of Slovakia. He was optimist that the murder will be solved. “We never had such killings [of journalists] and it sheds a very bad light on Slovakia”, Gašpar told ECPMF. “But this is a non-typical situation".

Thirteen Russians: a Defense Lawyer Decodes the Mueller Indictments

Stanley Cohen writes for Counterpunch on the vagaries of the US justice system. 



Photo by Medill DC | CC BY 2.0

“A courtroom is not a place where truth and innocence inevitably triumph; it is only an arena where contending lawyers fight not for justice, but to win.”

Though there is disagreement about the exact wording used by the legendary defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, in describing what he did better than anyone of his day, perhaps of any day, the sentiment outpaces its many incarnations and puts to rest the preaching that trial proceedings or pleadings are necessarily a welcome home to justice.

Ultimately, it’s a search in look for a happy and honest end that, for most, is ever present but just never quite gets there.

Darrow spent his life in the trenches of migrant and trade union camps among anarchists and suffragettes… those who believed collective struggle was more than slogan driven chants that seem to find an almost recurring desperate chorus each and every electoral cycle.

Though remembered largely for his timely, but far too brief, court-room burying of obedient evangelical submissions, he went on to “Inherit the Wind” in real time for real people.

Having tried and saved the lives of over 150 accused in capital punishment cases, Darrow had that unique ability to speak to jurors, in court and out, well above and beyond the seductive devotee roar of the crowd or the crime of the moment. In courtrooms from coast to coast, he reduced often complex legal theories to simple steps while deconstructing cases built of overt acts but, in reality, frequently maneuvered by little more than pain and passion.

Like any seasoned defense attorney, Darrow spent hours consumed not with the literal language of a given charging instrument but the nuanced message contained somewhere in between each fine line. For those of us who have been there, that study says as much about what a prosecutor has, and where they plan to take it, as it does what an accused did that swept them within the eye of the storm.

While endless debate has been unleashed with the most recent indictment returned by the grand jury empaneled by Special Counsel Mueller, most of it is but more tea leaves to be read as so much wishful partisan cheer for Putin… or jeer for Trump.

Watching journalists and fans, alike, weigh in, with expert certainty, on matters of complex litigation and sophisticated criminal procedure, as if a mere cotton candy purchase may pass time with sweetened fancy, however, it provides little informed answer by way of what a “case” is, or is not, and where it may ultimately lead.

To acquire a meaningful glimpse of what the most recent indictment… and, perhaps, those yet to come… augurs for the future, one must necessarily understand not just what an indictment is and is not, but why some are pursued at all during the life of a complex investigation.

The Grand Jury Process

Indictments are not verdicts of guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt as found by a unanimous jury of twelve following a full and fare adversarial proceeding in which both sides get to challenge and recast evidence or introduce their own.

They are simply pleading instruments; basic charging documents that reflect probable cause sufficient enough to convince a majority of typically 23 jurors who heard all the relevant evidence that various crimes were committed and that certain defendants participated in them.

As for the proceeding, itself, under federal law, while live testimony is the usual, preferred way of presenting evidence to a grand jury, hearsay is permitted. Often an agent simply reads to jurors from reports he or she generated that include what a witness said about what they saw or did or what another source told them. Unlike a trial, where jurors can assess firsthand the credibility of each witness through direct and cross-examination, in the grand jury no such vehicle for challenge or impeachment exists. Indeed, not at all a search for the ultimate “truth”, prosecutors are under no obligation to present Brady material, that is to say, exculpatory evidence to grand jurors.

While federal judges oversee a grand jury presentation and are available to resolve unusual issues or conflicts that may unexpectedly arise during its term, unlike at trial, they are not physically present in the jury room and rarely make rulings on the admissibility of evidence that it hears. Nor do they provide legal or curative instructions about either the relevance or significance of evidence, nor define the elements of a given offense, nor provide final legal instructions before jurors decide whether to return what is known as a “true bill.”

For those stunned by this brief thumb-nail sketch of the ex-parte nature of the grand jury process and the ability of prosecutors… should they be so inclined… to essentially stage manage each case as so much a tailored grade B movie… welcome to the real world of the criminal bar.

Although there are “special grand juries” that issue non-criminal reports to a court that may release their findings, a federal grand jury almost exclusively hears “routine” criminal matters. It is empaneled for an 18 month period and, while it can be extended by the court for up to another 18 months, this rarely happens.

Indeed, while the specter of a “deep-state” grand jury sitting in some secret catacomb-like courtroom for 7 plus years targeting Julian Assange and Wikileaks has, for some, become a mantra of political faith, for them I suggest a long peaceful walk in the country. This prophecy is little more than an expedient exercise in convenient reality rewrite.

Most grand juries hear evidence related to multiple unrelated criminal matters with responsibility largely limited to that of reviewing evidence as it is introduced and issuing indictments (or not) based upon investigations that have already been largely completed.

Although very rare, a grand jury can, as here, be empaneled to investigate a single matter and related offenses. Given its by-in-large narrow focus, it is clear that the grand jury that returned the recent indictment against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities was, when empaneled, expected to do a lot of proactive hands-on work including a review of classified material as it proceeded.

In high profile, complex cases, these particular grand juries are essential to the underlying investigation itself because… unlike prosecutors and law enforcement agents… they can issue subpoenas and compel witnesses to answer questions under oath.

Generally, indictments are not rich with unnecessary or particularly graphic detail but rather provide a bare bones view of the government’s case. This is not by accident. Strategically, seasoned prosecutors know better than to memorialize prior testimony of witnesses which must be provided to the defense and can be later used for impeachment purposes should they be called to testify at trial on the government’s case in chief.

In relevant part under federal law a true bill must simply contain 1) a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the specific offense charged and 2) allegations of each element of the offense so that an accused is provided fair notice of the charge against which they must defend.

Although by statute the burden of proof for a legally sufficient indictment is merely probable cause, under long settled Department of Justice policy, charges cannot be brought as a simply a means to harass an accused, to coerce a plea (where evidence to convict is otherwise lacking) or to secure additional time in which to build a case against those indicted to be tried at some future date. Likewise, an indictment may not be obtained simply to toll a statute of limitations that is otherwise in danger of lapsing thereby prohibiting a future prosecution of a given offense.

While prosecutors are under no obligation to present their case, in its entirety, to a grand jury, they are prohibited from seeking a true bill unless they possess sufficient evidence to prove one’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the charges returned as of the time of the indictment.

That holds true for superseding indictments that add additional charges as evidence of new crimes, against those already charged, often unfold as prosecutors prepare for trial or add new co-defendants.

Although distasteful, yet entirely lawful, at other times superseding indictments are sought to bring added pressure upon defendants to dispose of a case by plea or to cooperate against others as they watch their own personal exposure increase exponentially with the return of a second or third indictment.

Likewise, there is nothing untoward or prohibited for prosecutors to obtain an indictment as a part of a broader strategy that includes an on-going investigation that may produce future related charges against, as yet, unknown co-conspirators or to induce cooperation agreements from them as they emerge.

The 13 Defendant Indictment

The recently returned indictment for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is rich with comical imagery. Whether it’s a U.S. citizen standing in front of the White House holding a sign that reads “Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss” or another depicting Clinton stating “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom” or a person paid to ride in a cage on a flatbed truck wearing a costume portraying Clinton in a prison uniform, it appears a lot of money was invested, but little original creative talent expended, in crafting a nonetheless entertaining virtual SNL.

No less amusing were inventive hash tags that ran the gamut from “#IWontProtectHillary,” to “#Hillary4Prison” to “#TrumpTrain” to social media ads such as “Donald wants to defeat terrorism… Hillary wants to sponsor it” to “Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is” to “Among all the candidates, Donald Trump is the one and only who can defend the police from terrorists.”

Likewise, giving snark a dilettante’s name, indeed, various fraudulent Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts were apparently set up by the co-defendants including the “Clinton FRAUDation” and, my favorite of all, under the name of “Woke Blacks” which, no doubt, swung the election to Trump through the ad: “[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.”

And then there were the memorable rallies such as “Support Hillary… Save American Muslims.” Hopefully this one was recorded by the NSA to be shown over and over again on Turner Classic Movies as evidence of just how desperate and obtuse the US body politic had become by the time of the election in 2016.

Humor aside, the indictment returned by the DC-based grand jury includes a number of serious, often used, generic stand-alone offenses that are easy to prove and difficult to defend.

Indeed, over the years the Bureau of Prisons has been a frequent habitat for thousands of people of color, the poor and political dissidents charged with such crimes as bank and wire fraud, identity theft, money laundering, credit card fraud and visa violations… all of which are covered by the indictment at hand but conveniently overlooked by those partisans who wish to trivialize it as little more than desperate McCarthy like overreach.

Under federal law, identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person’s personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception. It includes credit card fraud that covers s a wide range of activity such as:


+ False applications for loans and credit cards,

+ Fraudulent withdrawals from bank accounts,

+ Fraudulent use of telephone calling cards or online accounts, or

+ Obtaining other goods or privileges which might be denied if the applicant were to use their real name.

In one form or another, each of these designated offenses were set forth as overt acts in the indictment returned against the identified Russian nationals and each carries a significant prison sentence upon conviction.

Thus, the Department of Justice prosecutes cases of identity theft and fraud under a variety of federal statutes including the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. This now 20 year old law prohibits “knowingly transfer[ring] or us[ing], without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law.” It carries a maximum term of 15 years imprisonment.

Schemes to commit identity theft or fraud may also involve violations of other statutes such as identification fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028), credit card fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), or financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344).

Each of these offenses carries substantial penalties as high as 30 years imprisonment.

Likewise under federal criminal law one who submits a visa application that knowingly contains false information can be charged with a fraud against the U.S. government. And when, as here, multiple defendants are charged with participation in the same underlying offense conspiracy to commit fraud becomes the designated charge.

In relevant part “whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or non immigrant visa… for entry into, or as evidence of, authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be… falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement is guilty of a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1546.

Upon conviction of such offense, and absent aggravating circumstances, one faces a sentence of up to 15 years imprisonment to be followed by deportation.

According to the so-called “Russian” indictment, most of the defendants committed a per se violation of the applicable statute by falsifying the reason for their visit to the United States and accordingly faces significant criminal exposure upon conviction.

Although thousands of women and men have been convicted, imprisoned and deported for run of the mill visa violations no more serious than those set forth in the indictment this past week, a cursory search of such prosecutions reflects a clear and long standing preference for targeting political activists and dissidents.

Thus, Mousa Abu Marzook was arrested and detained for some 22 months in 1995 for failure to update his visa status by including his membership in Hamas. The head of its political wing, Abu Marzook, had lived in the United States for some 14 years as a lawful permanent resident… entirely before the group’s designation as a foreign terrorist organization in 1999. Ultimately, Marzook was deported to Jordan.

Mazen Al Najjar was accused of being part of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leadership and the editor of WISE (World and Islam Enterprise) Journal. Al Najjar was detained for 8 years for fraud arising from his overstay of his student visa and providing false information about his marriage to a US citizen for the purpose of obtaining permanent resident status. He was ultimately deported in 2002.

Mohamad Mustafa Ali Masfaka, also known as Abu Ratib, a Syrian singer and one time lawful permanent resident was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for failure to include pertinent facts in his immigration application. According to the Government, he was an unreported “operative” of the Holy Land Foundation from 1997-98. However, it was only years later, and after his involvement with HLF had ended, that it was declared a pro-Hamas terrorist organization.

Year before, in 1984, Joe Cahill, a famed Irish Republican and former Chief of Staff of the provisional Irish Republican Army, was deported from the United States for a second time on the basis of illegal entry. On this occasion, he entered the country through the use of a false Irish passport and provided untruthful information as part of his visa application.

After ten years of imprisonment, Joseph Patrick “Joe” Doherty, a volunteer with the Provisional Irish Republican Army, was deported from the United States, in 1992, for visa violations arising from his illegal entry through the use of a false passport.

In 2004, Elana Lappin, a British journalist, became another in a long line of journalists deported from the US for use of an improper visa to obtain entry in the country.

In 2010, Vicky Peláez pleaded guilty to working in the United States as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia and was deported in exchange for the government dropping the more serious charge of money laundering, thereby, avoiding any jail time.

At the same time, Anna Chapman (née Kushchyenko), a Russian national, had her British citizenship revoked and was deported from the US along with nine others in exchange for the government dropping criminal charges lodged against them. They were removed because of visa violations connected to their alleged work with the so-called “Ilegals Program” spy ring under the Russian Federation’s external intelligence agency, the SVR. According to charging documents the ten became “Americanized” as they spent years living under false names adopting American identities and building relationships with sources as they gathered intelligence information ranging from that about nuclear weapons to the gold market to personnel changes at the CIA.

Recently, Rasmea Odeh‘s U.S. citizenship was revoked for failure to include information about an almost 50 year old conviction in Israel which she had failed to include in her visa application when she entered the United States in 1994.

Convicted ,in 2014, and sentenced to 18 months in prison, after her conviction was reversed, she accepted a plea agreement which stripped her of her citizenship and deported her to Jordan.

Although the sentencing court praised Ms. Odeh for her years of service as an organizer among Palestinian women in Chicago, the judge went on to announce from the bench that the “immigration system relies on honesty.”

Why this Indictment?

There is abundant evidence that the various overt acts set forth, and criminal counts returned, in the recent indictment pose significant criminal liability and prison time for those charged.

Yet, understandably, many are torn by the reality that given their status as Russian nationals and the absence of an extradition treaty with Russia, the accused stand no chance of ever ending up in a US court lest they be foolish enough to risk arrest through a cross border passage into a country bound by the Interpol Treaty.

Indeed, typically, when the government does not know where the subject of an indictment is, or does, but knows they are beyond the reach of the court, indictments remain sealed in the hope that an unwitting suspect will one day make the mistake of returning to the United States or another country with which it shares an extradition treaty. Why then was the indictment returned, let alone unsealed?

As for the unsealing, the cynic in me says it was done as a matter of political expedience and power providing an opportunity for the Special Counsel to push back against the political narrative that has deflected the search for truth wrapping millions of Americans in the garb of hoax, fake news or witch hunt.

For many on the right or so-called left, this deflection has become a resounding glee club whether in defense of the president or to support Russia as the enemy of my enemy (the US) or the friend of my friend (Assad).

Others are terrified with the prospect of an indictment to come which names Assange, not as a journalist or publisher, but rather as a common co-conspirator involved in various overt acts related to an alleged hack or possible cover-up that ensued.

For them, Assange is the flawless golden calf beyond challenge or corruption and anything that might tarnish that sculpt must be staved off no matter where the truth may go or just how selective and unequally the law is applied to get there.

Be that as it may, in one fell swoop the public release of this indictment has with predictable political precision retired claims that there is no evidence that Russians and Russian entities conspired to use various publicity and social media platforms to defraud the United States in the run up to the election of 2016… as that term is commonly applied and historically enforced.

In point of fact, to whatever extent the White House was contemplating ending this now wide reaching investigation through a slow burn “Saturday-night massacre”, this indictment has likely turned it into an interesting chapter of what was… in a book yet to come.

As for the practical consequences of obtaining and unsealing the indictment, as a matter of both substantive and procedural law it makes perfect sense.

While a debate has raged on among legal scholars as to whether an obstruction of justice count may lie in the absence of a real-time predicate offense, the return of this indictment has now rendered it an interesting, but moot, point.

For those who believe a conspiracy to obstruct justice compels an actual underlying offense (I do not) or an investigation into one, with the arrival of these charges both prongs of this construct have now been retired to little more than a law school contest.

Conspiracies are not finite; members come and go, often without knowledge or familiarity with others who may share its broad brush aim or even just one of its narrow components. Conspiracies arise when there is an agreement among parties… a meeting of the minds… and overt acts carried out in furtherance of them. Under federal law, all are equally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of a given conspiracy no matter what their individual role.

Some conspiracies involve an illegal end accomplished through lawful overt acts. Others a lawful end carried out by illegal overt acts. Overt acts are simply steps undertaken in furtherance of a particular end. “Impossibility” is no defense to conspiracy to commit a crime.

For example, an agreement to sell fake drugs is nonetheless a crime. Nor does impossibility render a conspiracy any less illegal. Accordingly, a conspiracy comprised of 6 undercover law enforcement agents and one civilian will, of course, not come to fruition but yet remains a crime. So, too, an agreement to illegally impact a given election through impossible means does not discharge its participants from accountability no matter how unrealistic the effort may have been.

By law, a conspiracy does not necessarily end when its intended goal is either reached or fails but can, by agreement, continue to include a host of on-going overt acts or activity intended to hide its existence.

Thus agreements to provide or pay for legal counsel or bail, to care for family, to hide or destroy records such as emails, text messages, audio and video recordings, to mislead investigators about meetings or discussions, promises to pardon, provide future employment or cash, to hinder or end investigations can constitute core components and tangible evidence of a continuing conspiracy as well as the discrete charge of obstruction of justice.

From a technical standpoint, the presence of a charged conspiracy empowers prosecutors to introduce various statements of defendants as evidence in chief against all co-conspirators that would otherwise be deemed to be hearsay and thus inadmissible. For example, if person A in the current indictment is overheard talking to person B about what, as yet, uncharged person X has said or is to do in furtherance of the conspiracy, that discussion may be used against X to build a case against her.

Thus is provided a powerful tool in proving the reach and roles of those accused of criminal involvement.

From a practical standpoint under the applicable sentencing guidelines, there is no difference of consequence in sentence exposure arising from the conspiracy or the underlying substantive offense, itself. That is to say, conspiracy to commit bank robbery and the robbery itself are essentially a difference without a distinction when it comes to sentence upon conviction.

The indictment returned not long ago is what is known in criminal law parlance as a “speaking” one. Well above and beyond the requisite bare bones recitation of events, its precision was intended to give notice of the nature and extent of a sophisticated multi-jurisdictional investigation.

To be sure, it’s unnecessary depth and breadth was crafted as much to serve as an enticement for others to cooperate as it was to lay the foundation for superseding indictments sure to follow. For those schooled in the prosecution or defense of complex criminal enterprises, this tactic is very much the norm.

The indictment itself is not static. As noted, it can, and likely will, be superseded to include new charges and defendants who, by additional overt acts or aims, shared the criminal intent set forth within the underlying indictment; namely to illegally impact the election of 2016 and thus to defraud the United States.

One need not be a soothsayer to envision a host of additional overt acts that may very well end up swept within the reach of the conspiracy found to date, or as evidence of a new one. For example, a meeting, let’s say in a tower, between campaign officials and foreign nationals in which discussions about how to obtain an unlawful election edge, information or otherwise, could easily be weaved into a variation of the current conspiracy. Exchanges of emails, calls and texts before or after the meeting to further its aim are no less problematic for potential co-conspirators.

So, too, an agreement to provide a benefit such as the end of an international sanction law or to change a political platform in exchange for campaign contributions or payments or large unsecured loans are the very kind of overt acts upon which criminal conspiracies are built and proven.

Evidence that individuals, candidates or staff wittingly approved and abetted in the release and use of protected computer data to further one candidate at the expense of another, whether obtained by hacks or internal leaks, adds a new dimension to the case at bar as additional suspects are drawn closer to the gravamen of the prosecution.

These are but a few examples of just how an indictment currently involving 13 foreign nationals and entities and a relatively sedate but criminal social media campaign can explode as so much a launch pad overnight to draw dozens of additional defendants into a federal criminal court and, possibly, prison.

If history is, in fact, a guidepost of what is yet to come, the current complex investigation is not at all without precedent. As Richard Nixon was to painfully learn… what can begin quietly in the dead of night with an obscure offense born of arrogance and greed can tip the scales of justice in ways that even the most powerful of all cannot withstand or avoid.

Only time will tell.
More articles by:Stanley L. Cohen




Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.

Shameful Charade

Mick Hall dismisses the consultation over whether to close Orsett hospital  in his local Thurrock as a shameful charade.

Pinocchio reigns.

A senior representative of Thurrock Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) has shown her support for the closure of Orsett Hospital, saying she wants to bring healthcare to the "whole of Thurrock."

The Accountable Officer for Thurrock CCG, Mandy Ansell, told the Thurrock Gazette that there is going to be "a lot of new medical buildings” coming to the borough, all with integrated services.

Hip Hip Hooray one might cry; but hold on what the senior representative of Thurrock CCG along with all who wish to close Orsett hospital fail to mention is these new buildings will in all probability be built under some type of PFI, and services within them will be run by private corporations which will push the price tag up for the taxpayer.

What we are witnessing today is private companies increasingly making money out of our misery when we're ill, where is the morality, what does this tell you about those who govern the nation we live in?

Closure of Orsett hospital

Mandy Ansell, and the Mid and South Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership have major questions they need to answer, as do local councillors, for make no mistake despite their bull shit and bluster of late, in the long term almost all of them support the closure of Orsett hospital.

Perhaps they could even tell the people of Thurrock the truth, what actual services will be transferred from our local hospital to these new local health hubs, and as importantly name those which will not.

Without that information the current consultation is a shameful charade.

Which makes one believe closing Orsett hospital is a done deal, the consultation is a deceitful smokescreen to kid us we have some control over our lives and community.

Pinocchio reigns; Thurrock councillors have already voted to support these health hubs, local councils both Tory led and some Labour have become little more than dumb waiters for evermore cuts and privatisation of local services.

A petition and the odd letter or article in the local paper will not stop the closure of Orsett hospital, only a mass campaign opposing closure would be capable of doing that and even that might now fail given the late hour.

Where is the leadership, where is the fight? You cannot stop the bulldozers of today's greedy elites by using the normal channels.

Why? Because they own them.

Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.
Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage

The Left And The Eighth

Dr Anne Mc Closkey objects to the position f the Left on the Eighth Amendment. 

My religious views are my own private affair. Indeed they are so private that I don’t know them myself most days! But I’m a born-again secularist in terms of how a state should function. We cannot condemn theocracies or fundamentalist rule in other lands, while expecting preferential treatment for a particular religious or moral opinion at home. While one’s faith and upbringing can colour our attitude to abortion, that is the intentional destruction of the human foetus, the two are I believe separate and independent matters.
The state has a duty to protect her citizens, especially those unable to do so themselves. Our laws should strive to ensure the best possible outcomes for the greatest number of people. When a woman is pregnant, two separate lives exist. We can rail against the biology, but we can’t change it. The Eighth Amendment gives constitutional protection to the unborn, without discriminating on grounds of wantedness, wealth or state of health, while in all cases protecting the mother’s life and wellbeing. Politicians cannot be entrusted with such important issues.
Many of those who were enthusiastic supporters of the 1967 act in England did not ever anticipate that it would essentially be abortion on demand in implementation, and that somewhere in the region of 200,000 abortions would be performed annually, of which over 95% are for non-medical reasons. In Ireland, our leaders want to introduce a regime which is even more extreme than this, that is abortion on demand, for any reason up till three months gestation, at which time the baby is fully formed and just requires to grow and mature.
It is important to be clear that in this country today, where it is deemed medically necessary to end the life of the unborn child in order to preserve the mother’s life, as for example in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or gynaecological malignancy, such action is legal and appropriate. These procedures are routine in all of our hospitals. Ireland’s maternal mortality rate is significantly lower than that in Britain, and among the lowest in Europe, although the politicians and media don’t seem to know this.

Many of those who once held different views now concede that abortion harms not only the unborn child, but mothers, fathers, families and wider society. While there are certainly women who have found that abortion seemed to be the correct option for them, I know of many other women who deeply regret their choice to end a pregnancy, and find it difficult to forgive themselves. Robust scientific studies have confirmed significantly worse mental health outcomes for women who have undergone an abortion, including one Finnish study which shows six times higher rate of completed suicide, as compared to those who carried their babies to term.
Fathers have no say, and are often left bereaved and traumatised by a decision they have no control over. The notion of fatherhood, with all that entails, is reduced to mere sperm donation. The ensuing baby is “part of the woman’s body” and the father is no longer relevant.
I’ve frequently spoken to women who were adamant that they could not continue with a crisis pregnancy, but then found the strength and support to carry on. Not one has ever come back to say that she regretted her decision. In every household in every street in this town, live people whose being may not have been “planned” or “wanted”, but who are valued and valuable members of our communities. It has been confirmed that in the six counties, our laws have saved 100,000 lives since the introduction of the 1967 act in England.
The nub of the matter is what constitutes a human person, and what protections should be afforded to that person? Is the right to life predicated on another person’s requirements, or have we intrinsic rights by virtue of our being? What is a person? Is there a point, either before or after birth at which we become autonomous, or a line which divides those who have personhood from those who haven’t? In the same way as we have laws for gun control, or to forbid drunk driving, should a state intervene to protect its members from harm? These are not simple questions, and we need respectful and inclusive debate to try and reach the best outcomes by which we can arrange our society.
I think most people shudder when we see images of dismembered bodies, so obviously human, the products of mid-term or late abortions, or see the recordings of abortion clinic staff casually haggling over the price of foetal parts for sale to pharmaceutical companies or research facilities. But if the human foetus is merely a part of his or her mother’s body, and has no autonomy, then the logical conclusion is that this is perfectly acceptable. Why so coy?
It is true that the majority of “terminations” happen at a much earlier stage, when the foetus is not in so recognisably human form. But once there is an established pregnancy there is no point in time, no dividing line which demarcates the human person from merely “tissue”. The process is a continuum, an amazing mixture of two parents’ DNA coming together to create a genetically, biologically and actually autonomous unique individual. The unborn child is not part of a woman’s body, but a separate life, albeit dependant on its mother for nutrition and shelter.
Abortion discriminates on the grounds of disability, no matter what Michael Martin tells you. Those babies who are found to suffer physical or intellectual challenges, those who might not fit our society's definition of successful or useful will not make it! In countries with abortion, women come under tremendous pressure to terminate babies who are going to be a “burden”. But a burden on whom? We know that disabled people have a huge amount to contribute to our society, and are capable of giving and receiving love in a sometimes very special way. I find it incomprehensible that while we mouth platitudes about the courage and fortitude of those with, for example, Down’s syndrome in the Special Olympics, over 95% of such children are aborted in countries where it is legal, their lives deemed not worthy of living. Surely we can do better.
In the case of what have now become known as “fatal foetal abnormality” that is those babies suffering from rare conditions which are unlikely to be compatible with independent existence outside the womb, current law allows a clinical decision between the parent/s and their physician as to how to proceed. Treatment should ensure the best outcome for the mother, in whatever form that might take. Again, the evidence is growing that mothers do better long-term if they are supported in delivering their baby and the new specialty of perinatal hospice care provides an environment where parents can nurse their child in a supported and loving way, for his or her short life. I’ve personally seen this working in our community, where the little girl lived for three weeks, surrounded and cared for at home by her family and neighbours. She left special memories for all those who were privileged to meet her. Parents who chose other ways of dealing with these rare and heart-breaking situations should be supported in whatever way they choose. The law allows intervention when it is required. There will be no prosecutions where doctors act in the best interests of patients. To claim otherwise is patently false.
Of course the commonest “fatal foetal abnormality” worldwide is that of being female. There are over one hundred million females missing because of sex –selective foeticide. But you won’t hear the sisters talking about that.
There is a wider context to this discussion. In my work as a GP in a socioeconomically deprived area, with 60% child poverty. I regularly see children of thirteen or fourteen in the surgery looking for contraception. They often are sexually active without any consideration of the alternatives, or awareness of what healthy age-appropriate relationship look like. There are other women who may be abusive or violent relationships, at risk of STDs, unplanned pregnancies and worse. Even with free accessible contraceptive including post-coital contraception available round the clock, 365 days a year, unplanned pregnancies occur. Something is wrong with a society where if abortion is available one in five pregnancies is deliberately destroyed.
Choice for our young needs to start much earlier than the choice which abortion offers. Sexual health and contraceptive services must be accessible, non-judgmental and free at the point of use. Women and men should be empowered to look after one another and their families. It is incomprehensible to me that some men absolve themselves of responsibility by insisting that abortion is a woman’s choice only, and has nothing to do with their actions.
We live in a society which manifestly does not value women. Apart from the obvious things like pay disparity and the casual sexism to which all women have been at times subjected, we accept the objectification and casual abuse of women in a million ways every day. I regard the use of images of photo-shopped anorexic girls in a permanent pre-orgasmic state to sell stuff, and often violent and abusive pornography to which our children are daily exposed now as essentially the same thing. They vary in degree, but not in principle. That there is somehow a difference between a “high class prostitute” and a trafficked and pimped sex slave is nonsense.
The virtue posturing around the “me too” campaign is nauseating-they all knew it was as much a part of the glitz of Hollywood as the gross frocks! Wasn’t it Madonna who said forty years ago that losing her virginity wasn’t so much a sexual encounter as a career-move. No-one batted an eyelid.
The Left in Ireland haven’t even tried to produce a class-based analysis of the pro-life position. Abortion disproportionately affects the poor, those from ethnic minorities, females, and the disabled.
But the vocal and well funded militant feminists and erstwhile human rights bodies have climbed the high moral mountain and proclaimed “choice” as the only morality. They scream abuse at anyone who dares question the basis of their thesis. The left are cowed and cowardly, led by narcissistic ideologues, hidebound by dead dogmas. They don’t do facts, only rhetoric.
Of course we need houses, a health service worth the name, social care, jobs and hope. But do you think billionaire venture capitalists are going to finance any of that? The likes of Soros and there are many others, want a cull on the poor, the untermenschen, those who can’t or won’t feed their money machine. They even get tax breaks for using their dirty money to shape the world to serve their needs! But there’s not a word of challenge from those on the left who should be defending the values which they claim to assert. And the less said about those elected to promote those values the better.
The Proclamation is a blueprint which for many of us still describes the Ireland we will work to achieve. We should reject the failed solutions imposed by those who do not have the interests of the people at heart. We must Cherish All the Children Equally if we are to achieve freedom. 

Anne Mc Closkey works as a GP in Derry. Lifelong republican and community activist, mother and grandmother, stood as Independent candidate in 2016 Assembly election, polling over 3k 1st preference votes, founder member of Cherish all the Children Equally, a republican progressive organisation founded to give pro-life socialists and Republicans a voice and to campaign against repeal of the constitutional right to life in 8th amendment.

"Not Enough!"

The Uri Avnery Column examines the outburst of Israeli anger against Poland. 



When we visited Warsaw, we were astonished by the many places in the city with metal plates announcing "(Name) was executed by the Germans at this spot". Until then we had no idea that the Polish resistance had opposed the Nazis so fiercely.

After coming home, Rachel happened to enter a clothes shop and hear the female owner talking with a customer in Polish. Still full of her discovery, Rachel asked the owner: "Did you know that the Nazis also killed a million and half non-Jewish Poles?"

The woman answered "Not enough!"

Rachel was amazed. So was I.

We knew, of course, that many Polish Jews did not like the Polish people, but we were not aware of the intensity of this hatred.

This Hatred reappeared in full force this week.

The Polish parliament decreed that anyone who uses the words "Polish extermination camps" is committing a crime punishable by three years in prison. The right description, according to the Poles, is "Nazi extermination camps in Poland".

The rectification is quite correct. But in Israel, a storm broke out. What?! The Poles deny the Holocaust? Do they deny that many Poles helped the Nazis to catch and kill the Jews?

That is what many Israelis believe. Quite wrongly, of course. Poland never made peace with the Nazis, unlike several other European countries. The Polish government fled to France and then to Britain, from where they directed the Polish resistance. Actually, there were two Polish underground organizations, a national and a communist one. Both fought the Nazis and paid a heavy price.

If I am not mistaken, it was the Polish government in exile which transmitted to the Zionist leadership the first reliable information about the extermination camps.

Were there Polish collaborators with the Nazis? Of course there were, like in every occupied country. Without making any comparison, there are lots and lots of Palestinian collaborators in today's occupied territories.

The main non-German helpers in the extermination camps were Ukrainians, whose hatred for Russia led them to sympathize with the Nazis. That and their own deep-seated anti-Semitism, stemming from the time when the Ukraine belonged to Poland and Jews administered the estates for the Polish owners.

The Nazis did not really make a serious effort to gain Polish or Ukrainian cooperation. Hitler's secret plan was to exterminate or enslave all the Slavs too, right after the Jews, in order to create more Lebensraum for the German nation.

Yet It took less than 10 years from the end of the Holocaust for Israel to sign an agreement with the German state, while the hatred for Poland continues unabated.

Why?

Nobody ever asks the most obvious question: how come so many Jews, millions of them, came to live in Poland in the first place?

Centuries ago, when the Jews were driven out of Germany and other North-European countries, where did they go? Which European countries opened their gates for them?

Well, at the time Poland was the most open, even the most tolerant country in Europe. Fleeing Jews were welcomed and found a new home. The king had a Jewish mistress. An entire Jewish town grew up near Krakow, the center of Polish culture.

Honest disclosure: While my father's forefathers had come to Germany from the west, my mother's forebears had come from Krakow. My father, who had enjoyed a classical education, always insisted that our forefathers had come to the Rhineland with Julius Caesar (no evidence available), but my mother had to admit that her grandfather had come from Krakow, which before World War I was a part of Austria.

That Polish-Jewish Spring passed. What remained was the reality of a huge Jewish minority in Poland.

A minority that is radically different from the majority is always a problem. The Jews were different from the Poles in religion and culture, they spoke a different language (Yiddish). And there were lots and lots of them. Many millions.

So it was almost inevitable that between the two groups there sprang up a mutual distaste, which turned into mutual hatred. There were some pogroms. However, it seems that in modern Poland Jews lived in comparative comfort. They were organized politically and set up coalitions with non-Jewish minorities.

Masses of Polish Jews tried to emigrate to Germany. The German Jews, who despised them, put them on ships and sent them to the United States, where they prospered.

The classic German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine wrote a poem that goes like this (my own unauthorized translation): "Krapulinsky and Washlapsky, / Poles from the Polackei / Fought for freedom / Against Muscovite tyranny. // Fought with valor and with luck / finally managed to escape to Paris / Because to live, like to die, / For the Fatherland is sweet."

And further on, drunk in a Paris bar, one comforts the other: "Not yet is Poland lost, / Our women give birth, / Our virgins do so, too. / They will give us heroes!"

After the advent of Hitler, when German Jews started to arrive in Palestine, they found Polish Jews who had arrived there before, like Dovid Grün (David Ben-Gurion) from Plonsk. The German Jews were received by them with contempt and ridicule.

Polish anti-Semites were seen by the Zionists as natural allies in their effort to push the Jews towards Palestine. One episode, known only to a few: in 1939, a number of leaders of the Irgun underground in Palestine (to which I then belonged) had a brilliant idea: start an armed insurrection against the British rulers and set up the Jewish State.

Looking for assistance, and especially arms, they turned towards the anti-Semitic officers of the Polish army. The Irgun offer was simple: we shall help you to get rid of your Jews. You train them and provide them with arms, we put them on ships to Palestine.

The Polish general staff liked the idea, and training of young Irgun members in Poland actually started. The outbreak of World War II put an end to this adventure.

It Is this convoluted relationship of many centuries that is now finding its expression in the Polish-Israeli clash of the last few days.

Many Israelis have been taught to believe that the Holocaust was a joint German-Polish enterprise, and that the ovens of Auschwitz were operated by Poles. After all, wasn’t Auschwitz in Poland?

Was it an accident that practically all extermination camps were on Polish soil? (Actually it was an ideal location for the Nazis, especially after their invasion of the USSR. The Jews were there.)

I Don't believe that this exposition of facts will help. The sentiments are too deeply entrenched. But what the hell.



Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom

Latte Libs

Liberalism has always been the Achilles’ heel of Unionism. In his latest Fearless Flying Column today, controversial political commentator Dr John Coulter analyses how the so-called ‘Latte Libs’ within the Protestant community have played right slap bang into the hands of Sinn Fein.
I told you so! That’s the message I’m sending to the 100 plus signatories of a letter from liberals from the Unionist community who have supposedly united in a call for an inclusive debate on rights which would cross the sectarian divide.
In July 2015, I penned a warning in the Irish Daily Star urging Unionism not to get sucked into the republican movement’s political ‘fluffy bunny’-style, pussy-footing to Unionism.
Then I warned that Sinn Fein can further undermine the Union by sucking up to the rapidly emerging legion of ‘Latte Libs’ in the Protestant community. ‘Latte’ what, I hear you ask? Unionists are presently in electoral fear of the so-called ‘Garden Centre Prods’.
These are stereotype Protestants who stay at home on polling day, creating the impression these Unionists would rather visit a garden centre than a voting booth.
But in recent years, and especially since the signing of the notorious Stormont House Agreement, a new weapon has emerged for republicans to ‘bash the Brits’ – the Latte Libs, short for Latte Liberals from the Protestant community.
The stereotype is that these Protestants drink copious amounts of latte coffee while planning how to undermine any Unionist to the Right of the Alliance Party.
While the Garden Centre Prod brigade remains at home, the Latte Libs are active in political life, especially in the Alliance and Green parties, as well as in liberal Unionism, and have many activists within the mainstream Protestant denominations, such as Irish Methodism, the Church of Ireland, and the Irish Presbyterian Church, the North’s largest Protestant denomination.
Such has been the quietly growing influence of the Latte Libs that even the once-hardline Unionist parties, the DUP and UUP, are locked in a bitter battle for the centre vote in the North. Without any question of a doubt, the liberal Unionist trend, which was once a powerful lobby in the pre-Great War Home Rule era, is flexing its political muscles once again.
In July 2015, I noted in the Irish Daily Star:

The Shinners should abandon their policy of baiting the Orange Order and the Unionist parties and leave the job to the Latte Libs. Northern Sinn Fein should focus on finishing off the Stoops and ensuring an electorally serious dissident republican political movement does not emerge.

In the 2016 and 2017 Assembly polls and especially the Westminster General Election, Sinn Fein all but booted the moderate nationalist SDLP into the political scrap heap.
One attribute the Latte Libs are noted for - they have as much dislike for the Protestant Loyal Orders as the nationalist residents’ groups which oppose contentious parades.
Many of these Latte Libs are lukewarm on speaking out vehemently on defending the Union. The Latte Libs would contend that the Good Friday Agreement has secured Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, so the constitutional debate is over.##Tactically, the main standard bearer of the Latte Libs is the Alliance Party, which has clearly recognised that republicans will not transfer to Alliance and that campaigning west of the River Bann is both a waste of time and money. In reality, Alliance presence in those constituencies now dominated by Sinn Fein is merely a token to dispel the political myth that Alliance is really only an East NI movement.
If Alliance wants to build on Assembly and Westminster polls, it will have to seek votes from the Protestant community as Alliance is also viewed by both republicans and nationalism as a Soft Unionist Party. This is firmly stressed by the strong Irish Presbyterian influence on Alliance. Liberal Presbyterianism has found a very effective vehicle in Alliance.
So the more Sinn Fein can create the impression in London and Dublin that Latte Libs represent the majority voice in the Protestant community, the more the Union can be undermined from within.
Republicans and nationalists will have to think tactically if the Latte Lib card is to work effectively for the cause of a united Ireland. The Pan Nationalist Front not only needs to get as many of its own representatives elected, but in vote transfer elections, republicans should give their preferences after Sinn Fein to Alliance, the Greens and liberal Unionists in whatever is left of the election-battered Ulster Unionists.
The more of these Latte Libs who get elected, the less Democratic Unionism’s majority over the republican movement becomes. In the past Assembly, it was only one seat.
Now that Sinn Fein has effectively wiped the floor with the SDLP, republicans should suck up to liberal Unionism and spin the propaganda that deals can only be done with this section of the Unionist family.
The DUP and UUP have generations of expertise in beating the Orange drum, but both parties are complete amateurs when it comes to courting the centre ground in Irish politics. Both think this means sucking up to Catholic Unionists. In reality, the centre ground is dominated by pluralist and liberal Protestants.
It’s a case of history repeating itself for Unionism, as just over a century ago Unionist leaders Carson and Craig were constantly haunted by the spectre of liberal Protestantism.
And Sinn Fein can deliver a double whammy on Unionism – republicans can also suck up to the Fundie Faction of Irish Christianity’s so-called ‘born again brigade’.
Many of these fundamentalists, once they become ‘born again’ Christians, or ‘saved’, abandon the Protestant-only Loyal Orders, loyalist band scene and even the Unionist parties.
They adopt the strict Biblical advice of ‘Come Ye Out From Amongst Them.’ This is the view that once a Christian becomes ‘born again’, they should leave the worldly organisations they were part of – including Orangeism and Unionism.
The Sinn Fein tactic should be to publicly challenge all Christian Churches to turn their backs on the Loyal Orders. Latte Libs are now to be found firmly entrenched in the liberal wings of many Protestant denominations. Protestant clerics who voice support for same-sex marriage is proof of the liberal trend in such denominations.
In the meantime, the republican movement’s double-edged sword must entail a charm offensive with Latte Libs and the Fundie Faction. Do this, and it’s a case of ‘United Ireland, here we come!’ If I was a Sinn Fein activist, I’d be rubbing my hands with glee at the thought that Latte Libs were now on the march - even if it is one this single letter.
Traditional Right-wing Unionism has a major problem - how to tame the political beast known as liberal Protestantism. Maybe the real ‘Beast from the East’ is not the Siberian snow, but liberal Unionism based in the eastern part of Northern Ireland?


John Coulter is a unionist political commentator and former Blanket columnist. 
John Coulter is also author of ‘ An Sais Glas: (The Green Sash): The Road to National Republicanism’, which is available on Amazon Kindle.
Follow John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter

Patrick's Day In Strabane

Via The Transcripts Seán O’Halloran speaks to Derry City and Strabane District Council members Paul Gallagher (Independent) and Derek Hussey (UUP) about the ban on the Irish Tricolour in Strabane’s official 2018 Saint Patrick’s Day Parade.
Paul Gallagher and Derek Hussey The News at One BBC Radio Foyle 1 February 2018
The News at One
BBC Radio Foyle
Where’s the audio? It is not available for download. To listen as you read please click here. (begins time stamp ~13:28) 

Seán: The Irish Tricolour has been banned from this year’s Saint Patrick’s Day Parade in Strabane. Derry and Strabane Council has confirmed that flags and emblems will not be included in the official parade. A spokesperson said it was designed to make the event a cross-community cultural celebration but it is believed at least one band has already pulled out as a result. Our reporter, Una Kelly, has been getting reaction in Strabane.

Audio: Una Kelly reporting from Strabane.

(transcript pauses)

(transcript resumes)

Seán: Well, some strong opinion from Strabane there. Well, listening to that is Paul Gallagher, an Independent Councillor from Strabane, and Derek Hussey, a UUP (Ulster Unionist Party) councillor. If we could start with you, Paul Gallagher: Is this something you support?
Cllr. Paul Gallagher
Independent
SperrinsPhoto: Council bio

Paul: Seán, could I first could I say, to set it in context: There’s been a community festival in Strabane around Saint Paddy’s Day for the last twelve years and flags were very much welcome. This year the Council has taken ownership of it and is providing funding for it. And they have used their interpretation, Council workers have used their interpretation for legislation, and have said they would prefer no Tricolours. However when we look, we as councillors, I think we must give direction and interpretation to our staff. We must give it through, as elected representatives, through the chamber. When we look at this legislation this is the same legislation that’s used by all councils throughout The North and we see in, for example, like Causeway Coast and Glens that Council can fly a Union Jack in the mainly Nationalist town of Ballycastle – that’s using the same interpretation. Therefore we, as councillors, must give the direction to our staff around interpretation of this legislation.

Seán: When you mention interpretation there, when the council says flags and emblems will not be included in the official parade do you intend to voice your opposition to that?

Paul: That was the current, that’s the current status quo that the Council staff are interpreting. I think as a result…

Seán: …Do you disagree with that?

Paul: What I’m saying to you is: In order to bring a balanced approach, in order to bring a balanced approach and to transition from being a community festival to a Council festival – the time to bring it forward from out of the chamber is too late for this year but, as a councillor, I had to bring it into the chamber that we change the interpretation that Council’s using.

Seán: So you’re not happy with the interpretation for this year’s parade. I mean Derek Hussey, what’s your reaction to this? Is this something that you would welcome?
Alderman Derek Hussey
Ulster Unionist Party
Derg
Photo: Council bio

Derek: Well firstly, I think we all have to realise that the symbolism and heritage of Patrick belongs to all and commemoration of his feast day has the potential to bring citizens together and associated events of commemoration. Non-partisan participation in these events is something to be desired and it’s something that should be encouraged. But it must be realised that the development of a more representative community involvement is a long-term project. Now the Council instruction that the ‘official’ events of the day would be flag-free is welcomed. But you know, I sometimes have to wonder at the absence of the Flag of Patrick during the day’s events throughout the world and fail to understand why there are those that find it necessary to have the flag of the Republic of Ireland so prominently on display.

Seán: And then obviously if you take the statement at its word, Mr. Hussey, the ban of shamrocks – of flags and emblems – I mean that could technically mean that maybe shamrocks can’t be used in an ‘official’ parade.

Derek: That’s where it is. And indeed you know, the diagonal red cross of Saint Patrick, similarly, which I have failed to observe in many, many Saint Patrick’s Day commemorations throughout the world and it seems to have been overcome with the flag of a small nation.

Seán: And in the interest of balance: Would you support on the ban of the Union flag on The Twelfth, for example?

Derek: Absolutely not! Why would I?

Seán: Well just going along, the letter from Council here in terms of how they’re governing their own Saint Patrick’s Day Parade. Going back to you, Paul Gallagher, is this a Council official decision then?

Paul: Well, it’s an interpretation by the staff and can I say to you that Council officially…

Seán: …Official staff at Council have taken this interpretation?

Paul: Yes, yes. And as I say, in fairness to them, that we, as councillors, must give direction and leadership. But can I say to you: The precedent has already been set when Council officially, ‘officially’ now, supported 1916 Easter Rising events as well as World War I events in 2016. So the precedent of Council officially funding projects and events where the Tricolour was present and the Union Jack was present has already been made. Therefore I think it’s for us, as councillors, to be fair to our staff as to give clear direction and at the minute that clear direction is not there.

Seán: And maybe that’s why we know that at least one band has already pulled out?

Paul: Well, one band has pulled out and what I would say to the community in Strabane who’s previously engaged is: Not to pull out of the events that are going to get organised on the day. The bands can organise their own events that can run alongside the Council’s ‘official’ events. So you know, like the language around ‘banned’, language around ‘banned’ – it’s what we, as councillors, would say has been introduced in Strabane. So it’s all around interpretation and you hear Councillor Hussey there doesn’t like interpretation when it comes to the Union Jack.

Seán: Okay. Paul Gallagher and Derek Hussey, thanks for joining us.

Derek: Seán, Seán, you’ve cut me very short there. Can I just add something to that?

Seán: Yes, very briefly if you could.

Derek: Thank you. You know, one thing that’s been overlooked in this is that it’s regrettable that Council have now determined to also incorporate the commemorative events in Strabane into a so-called ‘Irish Language Week’ which lasts seventeen days. And you know, the former Saint Patrick’s Day in Strabane is now being re-branded within the Strabane Spring Festival and it seemingly has morphed effectively into an Irish language festival in Strabane. In such a context can you envisage a tsunami from the PUL (Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist) community back when (inaudible) in Strabane rather the perception of Strabane…

Seán: …Okay, Mr. Hussey, we will, we really will have to leave it there. Apologies, that might be an issue for another day.
(ends time stamp ~ 21:40)

The Transcripts, Of Interest to the Irish Republican Community.
You can follow The Transcripts on Twitter @RFETranscripts 

Iceland - Religious Groups Outraged Over Banning Circumcision

Lena M from Atheist Republic with a story from Iceland about a proposed ban on religious mutilation of children. 


Photo Credits: The Blue Diamond Gallery
Only 20 years ago, nearly 90 percent of all Icelanders were religious believers. Today, less than 50 percent are. Exactly zero percent of young Icelanders believe that God created the Earth, a recent Gallup International and WI Network of Market Research poll found. It is therefore not surprising that Iceland could become the first country in Europe to ban male circumcision.

Circumcising women has been illegal in Iceland since 2005, but until now there have been no laws in regard to the circumcision of boys. This is possibly because circumcision is not a tradition in Iceland, a country where the Muslim and the Jewish communities in Iceland are very small. The latest bill (in Icelandic) says circumcision "involves permanent interventions in a child's body that can cause severe pain". If it passes its first reading, the draft law will go to a committee stage before it can come into effect.

Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, a lawmaker from the center-right Progressive Party, said she proposed the measure after realizing the country’s ban on female genital mutilation had no equivalent to prevent male circumcision.

Iceland outlawed female genital mutilation in 2005, in line with other nations, to prevent procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

“We are talking about children’s rights, not about freedom of belief,” she said when she introduced the bill in early February. “Everyone has the right to believe in what they want, but the rights of children come above the right to believe.” 

According to the Grapevine, the male circumcision would be possible if there is the evidence it will benefit baby boys medically:

In the Icelandic bill, the only exception for circumcising a boy would be precisely to protect a child’s health. In all other circumstances, however, the practice is a clear violation of human rights against children who are too young to have a say in this. When it comes to religious reasons, then, the practice would be strictly banned and punished with up to six years of prison for personal assault.

About 336,000 people live in Iceland, including 250 Jews and 1,500 Muslims, according to government statistics and Seddeeq. Religious groups are now expressing outrage over the proposal. "It's an attack on freedom of religion," Ahmad Seddeeq, the Egyptian-born imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of Iceland, said Monday. Jews and Muslims typically circumcise their sons to confirm or mark their relationship with God.

Milah U.K., a British group that protects the Jewish community's right carry out religious circumcision, said, "For a country such as Iceland, that considers itself a liberal democracy, to ban it, thus making sustainable Jewish life in the country impossible, is extremely concerning."
"You are about to attack Judaism in a way that concerns Jews all over the world," the open letter from The Nordic Jewish Communities reads.


Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic