The artwork below appeared on the wall of the Royal Courts of Justice after almost 900 demonstrators were arrested last Saturday (in similar fashion the 500 I reported on the week before). Banksy confirmed it was his handiwork on Instagram
Responding to Banksy’s work, a spokesperson for campaign group Defend Our Juries, which organised Saturday’s rally, said it “powerfully depicts the brutality unleashed by Yvette Cooper on protesters by proscribing Palestine Action”.
They said: “When the law is used as a tool to crush civil liberties, it does not extinguish dissent, it strengthens it.”
“As Banksy’s artwork shows, the state can try to strip away our civil liberties, but we are too many in number and our resolve to stand against injustice cannot be beaten – our movement against the ban is unstoppable and growing every day.”
The artwork was scrubbed off within about 48 hours (see above), as it was inevitably going to be, being on a listed building, but the symbolism of its removal, on top of the symbolism of the artwork itself, strongly resonates with people, like myself, concerned about the attempts to quash and silence dissent in this country right now.
Starmer and his ‘starmtrooper’ cabinet colleagues have become prone to misusing legislation to impose an Orwellian agenda of silencing grassroots opinion. They cut their teeth first by thoroughly purging and/or silencing the left wing of his own party through suspension and expulsions on trumped up charges. The extent of this is that once lifelong Labour Party members are now seeking to rehome what were once that party’s core socialist values and defence of the working classes and disadvantaged in an altogether new party of the left (provisionally named ‘Your Party’). This leaves Starmer’s Labour Party with a moral vacuum at its centre which allows it to be complicit in the Zionist atrocities being committed in Gaza and beyond as it prostitutes itself to Zionist and related corporate interests.
Thus, it was able to distort its definition of terrorism to actively support the terrorist state of Israel but proscribe as terrorists UK citizens so appalled at the UK’s complicity in genocide that it dared to damaged RAF property and daub blood red paint on some war planes.
As I’ve reported before, this re-defining of ‘terrorism’ has been criticised and condemned by many, most notably by Volker Turk (UN’s high commissioner on human rights). I would like to believe that Yvette Cooper has subsequently been removed as Home Secretary for growing tired of defending this indefensible authoritarianism.
Volker Turk described the prosription as disturbing, disproportionate and unnecessary.
Starmer’s mob have created a whole raft of new opportunities to silence dissenting voices his Online Safety Act. Superficially, nobody can really argue with an objective of keeping children safe from exploitation and harm online. But is this the only objective of this legislation?
While some will argue that it is “making the internet safer”, it is also destroying hundreds, if not thousands of smaller online communities that simply cannot bear the cost of compliance. This includes registering a “senior person” with Ofcom who will be held accountable should Ofcom decide your site isn’t safe enough. It also means that moderation teams need to be fully staffed with quick response times if bad (loosely defined) content is found on the site. On top of that, sites need to take proactive measures to protect children. Failure to comply can lead to fines of millions of pounds.
Not surprisingly, many law-abiding forum hosts have simply shut down. This from LFGSS, a small one-person passion project for bikers in London:
“We’re done… we fall firmly into scope, and I have no way to dodge it. The act is too broad, and it doesn’t matter that there’s never been an instance of any of the proclaimed things that this act protects adults, children and vulnerable people from… the very broad language and the fact that I’m based in the UK means we’re covered.
The act simply does not care that this site and platform is run by an individual, and that I do so philanthropically without any profit motive (typically losing money), nor that the site exists to reduce social loneliness, reduce suicide rates, help build meaningful communities that enrich life.
The act only cares that is it “linked to the UK” (by me being involved as a UK native and resident, by you being a UK based user), and that users can talk to other users… that’s it, that’s the scope.
I can’t afford what is likely tens of thousands to go through all the legal hoops here over a prolonged period of time, the site itself barely gets a few hundred in donations each month and costs a little more to run… this is not a venture that can afford compliance costs… and if we did, what remains is a disproportionately high personal liability for me, and one that could easily be weaponised by disgruntled people who are banned for their egregious behaviour (in the years running fora I’ve been signed up to porn sites, stalked IRL and online, subject to death threats, had fake copyright takedown notices, an attempt to delete the domain name with ICANN… all from those whom I’ve moderated to protect community members)… I do not see an alternative to shuttering it.”
Of course, the big players can carry these costs and will benefit from losing the competition with myriads of small platforms. And the truly nasty, exploitative operators will either ignore the law or find loopholes. It’s naïve in the extreme to think compulsive, sick abusers will pack it in simply because one channel of operation has become trickier.
… such as anything endorsing Palestine Action
But look how easy it is now for government to closedown dissenting voices. Are we safer or in more danger now that vandals can be convicted as terrorists? Is the internet really safer now that any small community can be closed down as a potential refuge for abusers?
I’ve attended a few of the nigh-on-thirty National Marches for Palestine in London and many others in Cardiff. This is the first that has had me welling up in tears.
The first pro-Palestine demo I attended in London, maybe 10 years ago, had somewhere between 20 and 30 thousand marching. The monthly marches over the last 18 months or so have had between 80 and 200 thousand on them. With the news this week that Netanyahu is about to embark on the last phase of his project to ethnic cleanse the Gaza strip, there was the anticipation that there may be well over 200,000 there today from all over the country.
The whole atmosphere was a bit more intense, it seemed to me, as we slowly made our way from Russell Square to Downing Street, via my old stomping ground of Aldwych and the Strand
I suspect I was not alone on reflecting on the mounting horrors being committed in Gaza, with our government’s ongoing complicity, but also that today also marked the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, three days after the bombing of Hiroshima. These war crimes killed 120,000 people instantly and hundreds of thousands more slowly and excruciatingly due to the aftereffects; more than everyone of us on the streets of London today. We didn’t get to see people dying excruciating deaths on our screens in 1945; most didn’t own any screens back then (there were less than 10,000 televisions in the UK in 1945). Now we get to watch genocide, including the starvation of children, in real time on all our many screens.
Hiroshima or Gaza?
The other undercurrent today was that this was the first time many of us had been on such a demo since the proscription of Palestine Action. Most of those attending would be supporters, in principle at least, of Palestine Action’s cause, but all now were wary of falling foul of interpretations of this and facing the prospect, and consequences, of being arrested, labelled a terrorist sympathiser and facing a potential 14-year term of imprisonment. Add all this together and is it any wonder that the mood was even more sombre than usual.
My sign in Russell Square.
Because of concerns about conflating the issues of the Gaza genocide and the UK civil rights oppression, support for Palestine Action was organised in a totally different way, such that those that didn’t want to get caught up with opposing the proscription were in no danger on the main march. Indeed, the policing of this march was very low key and discreet. This was in sharp contrast to the Palestine Action support protest.
While the National March saw perhaps 200,000+ people congregate in Russell Square to commence the March at exactly 1pm, two miles away in Parliament Square 500 briefed and prepared volunteers awaited Big Ben to chime 1pm, sat down on the grass, and unrolled their own hand-written A2 posters, all saying exactly the same thing:
I OPPOSE GENOCIDE, I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION
I got to Parliament Square about 2.30pm by which time those sitting in the square and a whole lot more people, including a lot of journalists and camera operators, were effectively kettled by a ring of around 200 police officers. I asked if I could join my friends inside the cordon and was told in no uncertain terms “No”. When asked why not, all I got from the Met officers was that “A section 13 of the Public Order Act is in place.” When I asked what that was the Met officers refused to say and just said “Look it up”.
I wandered around the cordon until I stumbled across a whole section, in front of the Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi statues, ironically enough, that consisted of officers from Wales! They were very conspicuous due to the HEDDLU labels, but also much chattier (would you believe that!). Chatting to a few of them, I clarified that my placard would likely not get me arrested today as it is ambiguous enough as to whether I was expressing support for Palestine Action, and they had plenty of unambiguous ones to sort out first. I asked her if I verbally removed the ambiguity and told her I supported Palestine Action, would she arrest me. She said that that still would not be a priority today. Oh well, I tried!
Many of you reading this will know how embarrassed I have become over the years at never having been arrested on a demo. Despite the impression I may have given above, I had already determined that I didn’t really want to be arrested today. I had had a long chat with a couple of the legal observers that are present at all such demos about the changing climate around the criminalisation of protest in the UK, specifically the Palestine Action situation.
The implications of being arrested and either accepting a caution or being prosecuted and found guilty of supporting a proscribed organisation can be dire. It was not anticipated that mere supporters, as opposed to members and/or participating activists, were likely to be jailed, but even a mere caution stays on your record for 10 years and could have serious career and other ramifications for many, and also incur travel bans to many countries. I have no career worries anymore, but I do still have plenty of travel plans!!
The legal advice around being arrested has been the same for years. Below is an up-to-date copy of the cards the legal observers hand out on demos. The only thing that has changed is the phone numbers and email addresses, so if, like me, you have been carrying one of these in your wallet/purse for years, you might want to check you have the current contact details.
I’m sure all of those arrested in Parliament Square today will have had them. Because of the consequences outlined above, the 500 volunteers will have all known the possible consequences and how to handle the near-inevitable arrest. Perhaps because of this, the demographics of these 500 people are a bit different to most people I have seen arrested at demos over the years.
The first person I saw being arrested (above) was this smartly dressed gentleman. I was told that he was a solicitor. Apparently, one of the first arrested, before I got there, had been an elderly gentleman in a wheelchair. I was a bit sceptical of this story initially, but then witnessed many elderly people, especially women in (I’m guessing) their 80s being bundled off into police vans. There were university lecturers, vicars, self-employed professionals like dentists and accountants, many retired people from all walks of life and a smattering of smart, articulate young people all prepared to stand up (or be dragged away) and be counted.
89 years old.
It was this spectacle that I was surprised to find had tears rolling down my cheek at one point. These people were guilty of no more than supporting efforts to end a genocide that is occurring before our eyes. They were being labelled as supporters of terrorism by a government arming the genocidal regime and effectively condoning (through Palestine Inaction) the ethnic cleansing and bulldozing of Gaza to enable its annexation and redevelopment as luxury seafront real estate for wealthy Israelis and American tourists. Trump can’t wait to get involved!
Starmer and Cooper may yet be forced to rescind the proscription of Palestine Action, despite Cooper doubling down on it today. On 30 July, a High Court judge ruled that Palestine Action can bring a legal challenge against the UK government over its designation as a terrorist organisation. This followed a hugely damning statement from Volker Türk, High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations that says:
“UK domestic counter-terrorism legislation now defines terrorist acts broadly to include ‘serious damage to property’. But, according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not. It misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law.”
This Labour Government is not just nauseating, but it almost as embarrassing as the Johnson government.
Just to lighten the mood a tad, let me share two true stories from today of arrests that made me chuckle. These were not in Westminster Square but on the National March. These were people whose placards were deemed less ambiguous than mine in their support for Palestine Action. Both were dismissed when taken for processing with the arresting officers rebuked for their illiteracy, I warrant. The first went something like this:
That’s one officer now aware of the importance of commas!
The second one I heard about and struggled to believe, but then I bumped into the guy and took his picture! Hopefully you’ll spot the issue quicker than the arresting officer!
But my final memories of the day occurred on my journey back home, and again had me welling up.
The first occurred on the tube from Westminster to Paddington. I was sat opposite a lady wearing a hijab and she read my sign and I saw a tear roll down her face. She stood up to get off at the next stop and leaned forward towards me and simply said “Thank you, thank you”.
The second occurred on the train out of Paddington, less than an hour later. There was a lady about my age, travelling alone, sat across the aisle from me but facing me. This was the conversation, initiated by the lady, with an east European accent:
“Excuse me, can I ask you something?”
“Sure.”
“Do you hate the Jews for what they are doing in Gaza?”
“No, not at all! What is happening in Gaza is not the doing of the Jewish people, but of a genocidal rogue state.”
“Thank you. I agree with you.”
We said no more, and she got off at Reading.
What a day.
PS. A guardian article, a week later, about some of the older generation who were arrested:
I am one of the 600,000+ people that have signed up to be kept informed of developments with the launch of Corbyn’s and Sultana’s new party of the Left. It holds out the hope of an anti-austerity, anti-war and anti-racist party that seeks to tackle the cost of living, reduce inequality, and promote public ownership. As such it certainly ticks a lot of boxes for me. However, I am struggling to get very enthusiastic or excited about it personally. But I do hope that it might just galvanise the young into seeing an opportunity to reshape their futures for the better.
In some ways I think I have never quite gotten over the orchestrated failure of the Corbyn project during his time as Labour Party leader. It was crushed by an obscene MSM campaign of libellous attacks, most notably the ridiculous antisemitic slurs, that were also used by his enemies within the Party, to their everlasting shame. The immediate consequence was the disastrous premiership of Boris Johnson, and then everything that has followed that.
Those largely-the-same Labour politicians and liberal commentators appear to have already settled on their main attack line: support for the Left Party will split the Labour vote and allow Reform to win. That they refused to get into line and support the democratically elected leadership of Corbyn, supported by a huge majority of the membership allowed ‘mini-Trump’ Johnson, seems to be a lesson at least partly learned, if way too late! Hypocrisy to the fore!
In fact, many opinion polls have already indicated potential for Reform to win the next general election, while Labour’s parliamentary representation collapses as a consequence of Starmer’s team consciously courting Reform voters and would-be voters while ignoring those who might back the left. That has failed miserably on its own terms, but it has also widened the audience for a new left party. They have only themselves to blame. Where do they think the Left can turn?
For those left-wingers who remain in the Labour Party, there are two main reasons cited for staying; essentially the same ones I was presented with when I quit the Labour Party after Starmer’s duplicitous campaign to usurp the Labour leadership. One is that recent controversies like the Welfare Bill and the recognition of Palestine illustrate how the Labour Party is not monolithic and still be shaped by pressure from the left through the winning of concessions. The other argument is that Labour retains the reluctant loyalty of many trade unions. But this can’t be taken for granted, especially with a new option, a genuinely socialist party, there to embrace them and their values.
If a year or so of a Starmer government doesn’t prove that the Labour Party is no longer fit for the purpose for which it was created, well, nothing surely will. The new party will need an activist base, and I therefore sincerely hope that those activists will stop pissing in the wind that is blowing through the Labour Party and migrate to where their efforts could potentially yield great gains for those abandoned by the Labour Party and tempted by right-wing populist scumbags (like that other mini-Trump sociopath, Farage) offering simplistic, short-sighted, scapegoating solutions that appeal to those most challenged by the crises at hand.
In any case, left wing pressure is being seen to exert pressure on this right-wing Labour administration from without, way better than from within. A genuinely left-wing party can exert pressure on the Labour government over controversial issues, perhaps even more effectively than, but certainly in allegiance with social movements. The main pressure on Starmer and foreign secretary David Lammy over Gaza has come from the mass movement, finding only a faint echo among Labour MPs.
As for the Trade Unions, Ex-Unite boss Len McCluskey has hinted that trade unions might abandon Labour for Jeremy Corbyn’s new party if it proves “credible,” raising concerns on the left of a historic break in relations. McCluskey, 74, comments heap fresh pressure on Labour as internal divisions widen. Just days ago, Corbyn declared “change is coming” and praised Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana for quitting Labour to help “build a real alternative” to the party he once led. McCluskey, one of Corbyn’s staunchest allies, made clear that trade unions are weighing up their options. “If this new party demonstrates its credible, then trade unions will consider their affiliations,” he warned.
The remaining big trade unions of the working classes, such as Unite, UNISON, GMB and ASLEF are known to have had internal discussions and it is clear that, if they continue to support Labour under its current leadership, they risk becoming complicit in the erosion of worker’s and human rights, and the abandonment of progressive values. The participation of union activists can hugely enrich the new left-wing party, in every sense, giving it political substance and helping it develop roots.
I also know, of course, plenty who prefer to argue for Green Party membership, and see Zack Polanski’s leadership bid as a major opening. The Green Party has many left-wing policies but has never been a coherently or consistently left-wing party. It doesn’t ever present a political platform in class terms like Labour’s 2017 manifesto did: the many versus the few, us versus them. It veers in different directions depending on circumstances. It attracts votes from those who would otherwise vote Labour, but also from those who are more naturally Lib Dem voters. It has long had to contend with ‘Torie-on-bikes’ slurs too.
During Corbyn’s leadership of Labour, the Greens made efforts to attract those who were unhappy with Labour’s leftwards direction. For example, they supported overturning the EU referendum result of 2016. While it made some inroads into urban working-class areas, especially when Will Duckworth was around and working the West Midlands hard, the Green Party continues to have a mainly middle-class base. The kind of working-class towns where Reform poses a serious threat are places where the Green Party has little presence or profile. Nonetheless, I can certainly see value in the idea to form an alliance between the two parties to broaden their appeal and enhance their electoral prospects. This is, after all, what I wanted to do with the ecosocialist leanings in the Wales Green Party and Plaid Cymru (but failed).
This probably cannot go far beyond having loose electoral agreements at local level. Most left-wing activists will generally see the sense in avoiding standing Left and Green candidates in the same council wards. Then again, there will be areas in England where the Greens are already in office – either running a council or junior partners in a coalition – and have proved disappointing. It would be a serious mistake for socialists in those areas to align themselves with the Greens, even on the level of an electoral pact.
Pushing for a more formal alliance from the very beginning is liable to have a dampening effect. It dampens the insurgent, anti-establishment spirit that motivates and energises a new party, pulling it in a more conventional direction. The new party needs to establish its own distinctive priorities and demands. It should not be blunted by association with an established electoral vehicle, especially one of such modest success.
The new party will need to root itself in social movements and trade union battles. One of the issues during Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party was the inability to separate electoral and internal party politics and develop a broader strategy for social change. Momentum, the left-wing organisation established to support Corbyn, originated with much talk about social movements, but did very little about it. It became, instead, the battle line for the internal warfare within the party. Those divisions are still there, despite Starmer’s intolerant, anti-democratic purge of the Left. The formation of a new, cohesive and coherent party of the left should remove these counter-productive internal divisions and be a whole lot more democratic and representative too, at every level.
The new party will have to be politically bold and audacious if it is to be a meaningful alternative to the prevailing political zeitgeist. We live in crisis-ridden times. Unsustainable economic models, the climate catastrophe, and a resurgence of imperialist rivalries are, perhaps, the biggest factors conditioning politics today. Crises of vast numbers of displaced people (on a scale yet to be imagined, let alone seen) and wars over water and food are just around the corner.
There has been a patent collapse in trust in established institutions and politics. There is a correspondingly an appetite for anti-establishment politics that thinks big (or is it just loud?) and pitches radical (or is it just different?) and in the absence of a coherent and organised left, it is the hard-right forces that flourish.
A critical area for the new party will be international issues. Foreign policy was Corbyn-led Labour’s weakest link: Corbyn’s own anti-war, anti-militarist politics were never matched by official party policy, with major concessions on NATO, nuclear weapons and more. Anti-imperialism needs to be woven into the fabric of the new party. The ‘welfare not warfare’slogan – rallying opposition to higher military spending at the expense of welfare, public spending, and international aid – will have to be politically central. As vital as this is, it is a particularly hard sell while tyrants like Putin are on the warpath.
The new party needs to be shaped by the energy and ideas of the more than 600,000 people who have signed up for it. It will have to be a deeply democratic party with high levels of participation. This is not merely because democracy is a virtue, but because mass involvement will shape it positively and help overcome the many obstacles it will face.
I am too battle-weary to have the energy to do the hard yards anymore. But if enough of those 600,000 do have it, especially the younger generations with the most to gain from a non-violent revolution in our politics and economics, then who knows what is possible.
I’m a gay Jewish man, but how would you know that unless I had told you?
I’m a young black lad from South London, but I can’t hide my black skin from you, can I?
Pointing this out has ridiculously gotten Diane Abbott suspended from Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. It is hard to adequately express the contempt I have for Keir Starmer, who is so far up the alimentary tract of Zionist interests that he deliberately conflates such comments with anti-semitism. This is not only a gross insult to a lifelong equalities campaigner who fights racism in all its guises, but also an insult to Jewish people that suffer genuine anti-semitism and value the support of campaigners like Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn. I would go so far as to suggest that the act of suspending Diane Abbott for differentiating different forms of racism is in itself more ant-semitic than anything Diane Abbott has ever said and done.
The scapegoating of black MP Diane Abbott was another low point last week. As it happens, I listened to her interview with the BBC’s James Naughtie on Thursday morning before she was suspended. I was totally taken aback a few hours later when Labour decided she had been anti-Semitic in her comments. She was nothing of the sort. She did not repeat her claims of two years ago, which got her suspended for the first time. Instead, she clearly said that anti-Semitism and anti-Traveller racism were real but talked about the differences between those and anti-black racism. She did so in terms of visibility. There should be no doubt about this: stop and search for example is targeted at black and to a lesser extent Asian kids. Black and Asian people suffer abuse on public transport, on the streets and from the police because they are visibly black.
I would go further than this important point: you cannot understand anti-black and Asian racism in this country without looking at the racial division of labour at work and the history of slavery and imperialism to which Britain was central. This brings us on to wider definitions of racism where of course many people on the left differ. But we should understand racism as a material reality which is not simply about moral imperatives. Of course racism is morally wrong and should be opposed in all circumstances. But the arguments of Marxists go further: it is deliberately created and recreated in order to divide working-class people and to dehumanise its victims. It is therefore anathema to any idea of collective action or socialism – and why it tends to break down where people do take collective action to change the world, for example on the Palestine demos.
Our rulers are happy to place opposition to racism under the general rubric of diversity. That in itself doesn’t address the bigger questions: why racism is also connected to class, why some racism is much more pervasive and damaging. Any racism is terrible for those who experience it. But the institutional anti-black racism and Islamophobia in Britain go to the heart of education, policing, employment, and much else. Diane has been attacked for daring to imply there is a hierarchy of racism. But in reality the daily oppression of working-class black and Asian people is much more far-reaching, and deliberately so, throughout society than other racial oppressions.
Diane Abbott is right to point to that. As a working-class black woman who has experienced racism all her life she should be supported not sanctioned. And it’s about time we had a serious discussion about racism and how it works in society – not least within the Labour Party – rather than outbursts of moral outrage which end up attacking an MP who has received more racist abuse than any other.
We are living in dark times, but through solidarity and courage we still have Power in the Darkness!
It is hard to believe that this was released in early 1978. I was just 15. The intervening years have seen some progress at times, but we have seen that progress steadily eroded again, and most damningly by this current Labour government!!
Power in the darkness Frightening lies from the other side Power in the darkness Stand up and fight for your rights
Freedom, we’re talking bout your freedom Freedom to choose what you do with your body Freedom to believe what you like Freedom for brothers to love one another Freedom for black and white Freedom from harassment, intimidation Freedom for the mother and wife Freedom from Big Brother’s interrogation Freedom to live your own life, I’m talking ’bout
Power in the darkness Frightening lies from the other side Power in the darkness Stand up and fight for your rights
“Today, institutions fundamental to the British system of Government are under attack the public schools, the house of Lords, the Church of England, the holy institution of Marriage, even our magnificent police force are no longer safe from those who would undermine our society, and it’s about time we said ‘enough is enough’ and saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline, obedience, morality and freedom. What we want is
Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals Prostitutes, pansies and punks Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents Lesbians and left wing scum Freedom from the niggers and the Pakis and the unions Freedom from the Gipsies and the Jews Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals Freedom from the likes of you”
Power in the darkness Frightening lies from the other side Power in the darkness Stand up and fight for your rights
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
How many of you learned the history of WWII in history at school and wondered how the people of Germany could be fooled into voting for a genocidal maniac like Hitler and then stand by as the biggest genocide in history was perpetrated under their noses?
I know I did, and it probably explains why I have always taken an interest in what our politicians are up to and why I am prepared to take to the streets when they do things I cannot support. But we are living in very dark times again and most of us are simply not doing enough. Most of us are simply doing what most of the German people did in the 1930s and are just getting on with our very comfortable lives while bleating about the ‘cost of living’ and saying nothing about the cost of other people dying and truly suffering.
Evil is a subjective thing, but if we open our eyes and truly witness what is going on around us, all too often in our names, then we will be forced to do something, even if that is a conscious and deliberate choice to do nothing and thereby condone what is going on.
Many people excuse themselves by saying they have ‘democratically’ elected representatives that they are happy to deal with these issues on their behalf. That’s what the German people in the 1930s did. Things have changed very little. We still allow ourselves to tolerate our politicians’ blatant propaganda, lies, corruption and hypocrisy.
Take our duly elected PM Sir Keir Starmer, for example.
Starmer was knighted in 2014 ostensibly for his work as a human rights lawyer.
In the Fairford Five case, in 2003, his client had intended greater damage than Palestine Action did at RAF Brize Norton: Josh Richards was apparently planning to burn the wheels of American bombers slated to fly from an RAF base to Iraq. Keir argued while his client’s acts were illegal, they were morally justified, and the jury rightly – in my view, and presumably his – refused to convict.
The day that Starmer decided to proscribe Palestine Action was the day I first thought to join them. It’s counterproductive as well as disgraceful! But in theory at least, this would make me a terrorist and could get me 14 years in prison. As it happens, their website appears disabled. I would defy our democratically elected PM in order to support a group of people trying their damnedest to stop a genocide, a genocide being acted out in front of our eyes and with the support of that same democratically elected PM, i.e., in your name!
Thankfully, we have decent people, including lawyers with more moral fibre than Starmer, doing their best to hold government and power to account. This is why I am a supporter of Amnesty International and the Good Law Project. If and when I’m arrested, I’ll be contacting them both! (Please join them both if you haven’t already, before it is too late for you too!)
A recent newsletter from the Good Law Project contained these words from civil rights lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith (who worked on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainees, many of whom had been sold to the US for bounties by a corrupt – but ‘democratically-elected’ Pakistani government):
“Hypocrisy is sometimes spelled with a capital H. Hypocrisy breeds hatred, as it did when the US set up a law-free prison in Guantánamo Bay, purportedly established to protect Democracy and the rule of law. If you are a Labour government, committed to the Human Rights Act, you cannot expect to win votes away from Reform UK or even Suella Braverman by playing the hate card yourself. The Act is designed to protect people – including the children of Palestine – from vilification and even murder. I’d like my colleagues to remember why they became politicians and judges in the first place. As human rights advocates, we should be proud to stand up for those who most need us. It’s our job.”
As humans, we all need to be human rights advocates. They are our rights. But I suspect many of us don’t actually value them enough until ours are tangibly threatened. But we can sit back and watch while others have theirs stripped away, and worse.
And so, to that “must watch” video I promised you. I guess that if you have read this far, there is a chance that you might just watch it. But I am also guessing some of you won’t or will give up on it quickly as it makes you uncomfortable.
One last quote for the benefit of those still ‘uncomfortable’ with criticising Israel for fear of being accused of being antisemitic (as has been done to lifelong campaigners against any form of of discrimination, like Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott). This comes from the son of holocaust survivors, Norman Finkelstein:
“The biggest insult to the memory of the Holocaust is not denying it, but using it as an excuse to justify the genocide of the Palestinian people.”
I’ll leave you with these links (click on the logos). I hope to see some of you on the streets some time soon, but supporting those fighting on our behalf is the least we can do, isn’t it?
After I built Noddfa, my cabin in the woods at Coed Hills, in 2020, I wanted to ensure it was well used and also wanted to earn back some of the cost of building it. AirBnB was the obvious way to go, although I had no idea how popular the cabin would prove to be.
The AirBnB platform proved very easy to use and brought a steady stream of visitors to Noddfa and Coed Hills. Everybody was happy.
It’s funny, isn’t it, that when something makes our lives easier and/or puts money in our pockets, it makes us happy, and to maintain that happiness we turn a blind eye to things that we know are not right.
I was vaguely aware that in 2018 AirBnB had taken a strong ethical stance by delisting about 200 Israeli properties located in the occupied Palestinian West Bank territories. I was therefore happy that I was working with an ethical company prepared to take a stand. No need, I told myself, to do any further due diligence.
What I wasn’t aware of was that AirBnB had subsequently been sued in a class action (on behalf of the delisted property owners) by a law firm in Jerusalem, with the backing of the Israeli government. The essence of the case was that it accused AirBnB of “grave and outrageous” discrimination against Israelis because it still lists homes in some other geopolitical hotspots, such as Tibet and Northern Cyprus.
AirBnB appears to have crumbled under the pressure and reversed its decision to de-list these properties in April 2019. Its attempted compromise was to say that it would now donate all proceeds from rentals in the West Bank to humanitarian organisations. Airbnb released a statement that said:
“We understand the complexity of the issue that was addressed in our previous policy announcement. Airbnb has never boycotted Israel, Israeli businesses, or the more than 20,000 Israeli hosts who are active on the Airbnb platform. We have always sought to bring people together and will continue to work with our community to achieve this goal.”
Less than 6 months earlier it had said it had removed 200 listings because the settlements were at the “core of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians“. It further stated:
“US law permits companies like Airbnb to engage in business in these territories. At the same time, many in the global community have stated that companies should not do business here because they believe companies should not profit on lands where people have been displaced.”
So, why the decision to backtrack on the ban?
Israeli lawyers filed a class action suit that sought 15,000 shekels (about £3,200) for each host of the 200-ish homes that were due to be deleted from Airbnb’s listings.
Airbnb said that under the terms of a settlement it would “not move forward with implementing the removal of listings in the West Bank from the platform“.
The San Francisco-based company said it would allow listings throughout the West Bank but donate any profit it generated to “organisations dedicated to humanitarian aid that serve people in different parts of the world“.
Airbnb said the same approach would be implemented in the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the Caucasus.
The announcement was made days after Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, promised to annex West Bank settlements, if he was re-elected. He was.
Credit to AirBnB for its initial stance, I suppose, but it had shown itself to have insufficient backbone to resist the pressure. Meanwhile I continued to profit very nicely from AirBnB, blissfully unaware of what I was tacitly supporting, even while attending numerous pro-Palestine demos and rallies in Cardiff and London, and welcoming guests wearing my West Bank-made keffiyeh and considering joining the now-proscribed Palestine Action group.
It was not until somebody that had booked Noddfa a while ago for later this summer contacted me that I was prompted to wake up. She was asking if she could preserve her booking with me once she deleted her AirBnB account as a result of becoming aware of its complicity in Israeli-occupied West Bank territories. This was because of seeing details of the recent report by Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine. Click here to read that report.
And here is Frances Albanese talking about it on DDN (Double Down News) just a couple of days ago from me writing this. Click on the image.
It is absolutely appalling that our governments are not holding Israel to account for this blatant genocide being enacted before our eyes. So, it falls to all of us to do what we can, lest we are all complicit too. In a capitalist, neoliberal world with little effective democracy left, our only real way of exerting pressure is in how we choose to spend (and earn) our money.
I try to support the BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) movement as best I can, and have a long list of companies I avoid dealing with lodged in my mind, and do take heed of priority targets when publicised.
Thus, I have now unlisted Noddfa and listed it on Vrbo instead. I’ll get it on FairBnB too once their website stops messing me around! I wasn’t even aware of these alternative platforms until I started actively looking for AirBnB alternatives. I doubt they will generate as much business, but hey, time will tell. They will catch up if AirBnB don’t get their house in order, I hope.
I’ve also tried to use BDS apps like ‘No Thanks’ and ‘No Thank You’ but it sure slows down shopping and it is quite shocking just how vast the connections to Israel are in the business world. I have given up on this to be honest, but my list of big companies to avoid has certainly grown substantially.
The aim of this post is not to preach, not to shame, not to bully anyone into supporting BDS or any other ‘boycotting of companies’ campaign. All I want to highlight is that it is down to all of us to realise that just about every purchase we ever make is a political decision in some way. We support and endorse one choice, at the expense of all the other alternatives, every time we buy anything. That is just as political as choosing who to vote for.
We vote in ignorance and we, of course, buy things in ignorance of all the implications. And then we pretend there was nothing we could do to alleviate the problems and misery in the world. I am as guilty of this and guilty of my consequent hypocrisy. I fully acknowledge this.
But my conscience does get pricked and I do then do some due diligence from time to time. It is a lot better than doing nothing. I’m especially fortunate in that I can afford to make some ethical choices that cost more money. I understand that not everybody can in these ideologically austere times (I did try to warn everybody about Starmer, but Labour members voted for him and the public duly elected him).
Thus, for the foreseeable future, it is no more AirBnB! They have promised me a response to my concerns and passed it up to someone ‘trained to deal with such issues’. Watch this space!
I have recently returned from a lap of the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea; the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Sweden, Åland Islands and Finland, plus the former USSR Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (and the Baltic coast of Poland, for good measure).
Perhaps surprisingly, most of these countries I had never visited before, but I had learned quite a bit about them in various contexts over the years. I had developed the impression that these were countries we could, indeed should all learn more from, but was keen to visit and witness life there to challenge my views and see how valid they are.
The lessons to be learned are many and varied, so I am dividing them into 2 blog pieces; the first one was on socioeconomic lessons, especially those pertinent to the Welsh Independence campaign, and this one is on the historical and political lessons especially pertinent to the political situation we are all living in right now.
I will focus this one primarily on the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, although their stories are intertwined with those of their Scandinavian/Nordic neighbours.
A BRIEF HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS
As with most nations today, the emergence of their identity goes back to the Middle Ages when tribal groups began to coalesce and settle down in recognisable territories. Thus, the Finno-Ugrians settled in what would become Finland and Estonia; The Livs settled in what is now northern Latvia; and the Samogitians and Aukstaiciai settled in what is most of present-day Lithuania.
They all shared a collection of Pagan beliefs, worshipping the forces of nature personified as divinities. Their religious and cultural life centred on a large body of folk song, known as the dainos, many of which have survived. They encompass the whole of human life’s connectedness with nature and incorporate a strong sense of ethics.
From the 9th century, the area saw a series of Scandinavian Viking incursions, along with Slavic incursions from the south and east that saw the first attempts to bring Roman Christianity into the region. Around the turn of the 13th Century, the Danes conquered much of Estonia while Germans took the rest along with Latvia and Lithuanian.
Lithuania re-asserted itself successfully in the latter-13th and 14th centuries and became something of an imperial power itself, rejecting Christianity in the process, and taking land that is now Belarus and north-western Ukraine, and reached east as far as Moscow, under Great Prince Algirdas (whose name is prominent around Vilnius and beyond to this day).
One of the consequences of this expansion was the strategic intermarrying with neighbouring nobility that led to the reassertion of Christianity across the region. It led eventually to political union between Lithuania and Poland in the 16th century. Meanwhile Latvia and southern Estonia succumbed to Russian tsar Ivan IV (‘the Terrible’ one) and Sweden took northern Estonia and Finland.
The 17th century saw the region succumb to Russian expansionism, taking Estonia, Finland, Latvia and eating into the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which saw itself partitioned between Russia and Germany and disappearing off the map completely as the result of three partitions in the 18th century.
This situation persisted throughout the 19th century, with attempted Polish and Lithuanian uprisings quashed and met with the intense russification of all the Baltic lands.
The Russian Revolution of 1905 and the arrival of Marxist values led to the peoples of the Baltics regaining confidence to reassert themselves. The three nations started by demanding national autonomy and Lithuania went so far as to demanding an autonomous Lithuanian state based on ethnic boundaries. Russia conceded that Baltic peoples could elect their representatives to the imperial parliament (the Duma) and allowed the consolidation of the national societies and use of the indigenous language in public life and schools again.
The collapse of the German and Russian empires during WWI allowed the Baltic peoples to finally establish independent states in 1918. It was far from plain sailing though. There was a power vacuum that led to fractured politics, the rise of extremism and political violence. Within 10 years all three countries had developed authoritarian systems. Lithuania saw a violently repressive nationalist regime, led by Smetona, eliminate all opposition to become a one-party state. Estonia and Latvia meanwhile were destabilised by exactly the opposite; a multiplicity of parties forming a ceaselessly changing series of weak coalitions.
Thus, when the Russian occupation arrived in 1940, the countries were in no shape to resist at all. There was probably some initial relief in Lithuania when Smetona fled to Germany. But any such relief would soon disappear as the region found itself in the violent grip of Stalin’s sovietisation of the three countries. The Soviet regime imposed manipulated elections that ensured the countries ‘voted’ to join the U.S.S.R.
By the 1970s the Baltic area had emerged as a hotbed of anti-Soviet dissent, with demonstrations and riots beginning to occur. The writing was on the wall (literally at times) and Mikhail Gorbachev understood the zeitgeist. He allowed increasing autonomy, which was especially relished in the Baltic states as they had never reconciled themselves to the loss of their independence, even though it had been politically difficult. It was driven by the strong sense of cultural identity among the indigenous populations. Diplomatic pressure was strong too, as virtually no country in ‘the West’ had ever recognised the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the U.S.S.R.
Elections in early 1990 clearly established pro-independence majorities in all three countries. Lithuania declared U.D.I. in March, followed by Estonia in April and Latvia in May. Moscow declared these illegal and asserted pressure in terms of economic sanctions designed to weaken the resolve of the people. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence where Soviet military tried to interfere with or control infrastructure. However, tensions within the corridors of power in Moscow culminated in the disintegration of the U.S.S.R in August 1991, facilitating the acknowledged implementation of the independence of the three Baltic States. By November, the Russians acknowledged the illegality of Stalin’s incorporation of the Baltic states in 1940.
Thus, we enter the short history of these proud nation’s growth as independent nations in the modern world. The 1990s saw the development of new constitutions, new currencies, and new foreign markets for each of the Baltic states. The immediate post-Soviet period, however, was marked by economic instability, and in 1998 a financial crisis in Russia had repercussions throughout the region. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 21st century, the Baltic states experienced sustained economic growth and closer integration with the nations of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—two groups that all three countries joined in 2004. Their socio-economic success in this period is examined in Part 1 of this two-part blog.
The success of these newly independent nations
Compared to the chaotic nations that had independence in the 1920s and 30s, the Baltic states of today have been shining examples of what can be achieved by small nations gaining freedom and complete independence from much bigger oppressive neighbours. They should inspire and give confidence to nations like Wales, Scotland, Catalonia etc.
One of the keys to their current and ongoing success has been them learning lessons from their Nordic neighbours from the outset of gaining their independence. They set up their constitutions and legislatures along similar lines to them to try and ensure a strong and stable democracy and an economy that could develop mutually beneficial trade links with them and the rest of Western Europe, facilitating entry into the EU and the Eurozone.
There was therefore a strong desire to foster and build upon strategic links between the Nordic and Baltic states, both economically and politically. It has become known as the NB8 and is, in effect, a pact of co-operation between the Baltic Council, that was created by the three Baltic countries in the immediate aftermath of gaining independence on 1990, and the Nordic Council that has existed since 1952. A similar confederation was proposed in the 1920s during the previous period of independence for the three Baltic states, but political instability prevented it happening then. Lithuania was a prime mover for this new pact in the 1990s, recognising the importance of strength in numbers before securing membership of the EU and NATO.
As tensions within the EU (the U.K. has left and others may well follow) and NATO (with Trumpian USA not committed and many others, including me, unhappy with its destabilising expansionism and interventionist approach), it makes sense for nations to foster even greater co-operation, trade and sharing of resources and expertise elsewhere and closer to home.
Thus, the NB8 has developed and become a stronger entity since its inception in 1992. Indeed, a meeting of all the Ministers of Foreign Affairs met in Middelfart in 2000 to reassert the strength of the co-operation programmes (as well as formally adopting the NB8 moniker). A programme of regular conferences for a range of ministers was put in place:
This is backed up with a comprehensive and cohesive network of cooperation activities in political, military, economic, environmental, cultural, and other aspects. Landmark achievements include the 2004 establishment of the ‘NB8 Task Force Against Trafficking in Human Beings’, the 2010 ‘Cross-border Financial Stability Agreement’, and the 2012 ‘NB8 Wise Men Report’ that strengthened co-operation in foreign policy, cyber security, joint energy ventures, and defence.
Were it not for the spectre of Putin’s growing imperialism, the future would look secure and bright for all these countries. But however this pans out, there is a lot of inspiration to be had for other small nations aspiring to independence.
WHAT CAN WALES LEARN?
First and foremost, small nations can and do thrive when achieving independence.
Once achieved, independence becomes precious and worth fighting to retain. Indeed, countries that achieve independence very rarely ever want to reverse it.
On gaining independence, ensure you set up your constitution and legislature properly in order to preserve democracy and maintain stability.
It is important to have good friends and neighbours, preferably that you have things in common with.
The dissolution of the U.K. should not be acrimonious and there should be no reason for friendship and co-operation with England to not continue in most things. The Baltic States didn’t have this; it was gaining independence from a violently oppressive entity. It should therefore be easier for Wales and Scotland to make a success of independence.
Even if relations with England were to deteriorate, there is plenty of scope for other alliances, akin to the Nordic Council and Baltic Assembly.
The Celtic League already exists (founded in 1961) to promote and foster a modern Celtic identity and culture across the 6 Celtic Nations of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Isle of Man, Cornwall, and Brittany. It is primarily focussed on promoting the Celtic languages, buy does also advocate for further self-governance in these nations and ultimately for each to become an independent state it its own right.
The common design features of the Orkney and Shetland flags serves to illustrate the overlapping histories they share with the Nordic countries. Given the fact that Orcadians and Shetlanders are fully aware of this history and have even been agitating about seeing a brighter future in realigning themselves with their Nordic neighbours (Lerwick is much nearer Oslo (@425 miles) than London (@600 miles) after all), it is entirely possible that we could see further overlaps develop in the diagram above.
The overwhelmingly strong message that I have received from both studying and visiting these nations is that there is so much potential to improve our lives in Wales by pursuing independence than from sticking with the status quo. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is madness (are you still voting Labour in the Assembly elections?).
I may have only spent a very short time in each country on my recent trip, but the places and the people all presented a sense of calm assurance and self-confidence that, despite the challenges of the modern world, they are on the right track.
I saw nobody homeless on the streets, no mindless vandalism, very little litter (other than that created by seagulls), no fly-tipping. You can’t say any of that around our cities, especially Cardiff. I spoke to people paying high taxes but not moaning about it because they feel they are getting good services for their money. Paying a lot doesn’t guarantee quality, but you can’t get quality in the bargain basement.
I spoke to polite, articulate, confident, multi-lingual young people everywhere I went. They are few and far between in Bridgend.
The people of these nations are proudly independent people in proudly independent nations, working together for a better future for everyone.
I have recently returned from a lap of the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea; the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Sweden, Åland Islands and Finland (and Norway recently too), plus the former USSR Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (and the Baltic coast of Poland, for good measure).
Perhaps surprisingly, most of these countries I had never visited before, but I had learned quite a bit about them in various contexts over the years. I had developed the impression that these were countries we could, indeed should all learn more from, but was keen to visit and witness life there to challenge my views and see how valid they are.
The lessons to be learned are many and varied, so I am dividing them into 2 blog pieces: this one on socioeconomic lessons, especially those pertinent to the Welsh Independence campaign, and another on the historical and political lessons of small European nations gaining independence.
I am going to divide these nations into two groups:
The Nordic Group = Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland (to which can be added Iceland, which I visited not so long ago too)
The Baltic Group = Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Let me start by presenting some data to give some evidence-based context.
Firstly, let us just acknowledge that these are all small countries in terms of population. The Nordic countries are mostly about twice the size of Wales (Sweden x3, Iceland the size of Cardiff), while the Baltic states are all significantly smaller, with Estonia less than half the size of Wales. The oft heard claims that Wales is too small to thrive as an independent country is patent, nay ridiculous nonsense. (Altogether, there are more than 20 European countries smaller than Wales’ population.)
Right from my earliest days as a geography student, I have always been fascinated by the Nordic countries consistently impressive scores across all sorts of metrics, be it wealth, equality, health, education, happiness etc. Stretching from the same latitudes as Scotland, up into the Arctic Circle and with no major resource advantages over the U.K., I was intrigued as to how they achieved so much. The answer is very straightforward, as it turns out. It is the ‘Nordic Model’.
The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordiccountries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargainingbased on the economic foundations of social corporatism, and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based economy.
Norway is a partial exception due to it sharing a huge resource advantage with the U.K. in the shape of North Sea oil and gas. Unlike the U.K. though, it hasn’t allowed capitalists to largely piss it up the wall but has nurtured it by creating the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund that secures the country’s wealth and well-being indefinitely. It underpins the large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. All the Nordic countries are highly democratic and all have single chamber legislature and use proportional representation in their electoral systems. They all support a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility, with a sizable percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force in areas such as healthcare, education, and government), and a corporatist system with a high percentage of the workforce unionised and involving a tripartite arrangement, where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy is mediated by the government. As of 2020, all of the Nordic countries rank highly on the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, the Global Peace Index, as well as being ranked in the top 10 on the World Happiness Report.
Doesn’t it sound wonderful? Yet we have suffered and endured 45 years of unremitting neoliberal capitalism selling off our public assets and services, hollowing out remaining public services and non-stop ‘austerity’ for the poor while the rich accumulate obscene wealth. Is it any wonder that the Shetland and Orkney Islands have considered abandoning the U.K. and returning to Norway (they were gifted to Scotland by King Christian of Norway in 1472). An independent Wales could never join Norway, but it could certainly adopt the Nordic Model if it elected the right people.
The Nordic model was originally developed in the 1930s under the leadership of social democrats, although centrist and right-wing political parties, as well as labour unions, also contributed to the Nordic model’s development. The neoliberal zeitgeist across Europe and beyond in the last 45 years has impacted the Nordic countries to an extent, with increased deregulation and expanding privatisation of public services. However, it remains a distinctive approach retaining strong emphasis on public services and social investment.
The Baltic Nations have a very different history, of course. As any Pole knows, the boundaries of countries in central Europe have been fluid throughout much of history, but the underlying nations have survived and, debatably, the current borders match the national identities of the peoples of Europe as well now as ever. (There remain some nations subsumed into larger states, of course, such as Wales and Catalonia.) The Baltic nations achieved independence from tsarist Russia as part of the violent fall-out of the Russian Revolution around 1917-18. They remained independent until the German occupation in 1940, followed by the Soviet occupation up until 1991.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Baltic states looked primarily towards their Nordic neighbours for inspiration as to how to set up their legislatures. They also warmly embraced a Scandinavian initiative to create a Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS) in 1992. This consisted of all the Nordic group countries (once Iceland joined in 1995), all the Baltic group countries, plus Poland, Germany, and Russia (until it was kicked out after its invasion of Ukraine). There is scope for the largely cultural focus of the Celtic League of Celtic nations to evolve similarly with Welsh and Scottish independence.
Integration with the rest of Western Europe became a major strategic goal for the newly-indepndent Baltic states and all three were in NATO and the EU by 2004.
The statistics reveal that the Baltic states have made rapid progress across most metrics, but still have quite a way to go to emulate the Nordic states. But they seem to remain focussed on achieving this, and surely will if Putin doesn’t throw an enormous spanner in the works.
The Baltic countries have built their economies on innovation and trade. Small and highly connected to global markets, they have developed industries that excel in technology, manufacturing, and services. This focus has allowed them to remain competitive in an ever-changing economic landscape.
Investment in education and infrastructure has played a key part in their growth. Skilled workforces and modern transport systems attract businesses and encourage local entrepreneurship. Governments in the region have supported these efforts through policies that promote transparency and efficiency.
Tourism also contributes to the economic success of the Baltics. Visitors are drawn to the region’s cultural heritage, natural beauty, and vibrant cities. This steady flow of international visitors supports local businesses and boosts national revenues, helping to strengthen their economies further.
The Baltic countries are expected to continue their economic growth in the coming years. According to the European Commission, Estonia’s GDP is projected to grow by 3.5% in 2024, while Latvia and Lithuania are forecasted to grow by 3.3% and 3.8%, respectively. These figures are driven by a combination of export growth and domestic consumption.
Renewable energy is a key area of focus for future development. Lithuania aims to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, compared to 38% in 2022. Estonia is also expanding its wind energy capacity, with plans to install over 1,000 megawatts of new wind farms by 2025. Investments in green energy are expected to attract funding and create jobs, boosting regional economies.
Technology and innovation are also driving forward-looking initiatives. Latvia’s IT sector grew by 10% in 2022, with exports of IT services reaching €2 billion. Estonia’s start-ups are thriving, with over 1,300 start-ups contributing €1.4 billion to the economy in 2022. These sectors are seen as key to maintaining competitiveness and ensuring steady growth in a rapidly changing global market.
There is nothing here that Wales could not emulate, given the freedom to fully capitalise on its natural and human resources. Independence is not a silver bullet that ensures any sort of success in and of itself. But it is a golden opportunity; a golden opportunity to fulfil a people’s potential that is rarely afforded when subservient to a dominant paymaster.
This petition is being organised by AVAAZ, and organisation I have long supported. I’ve mixed feelings about petitioning, but it is better than doing nothing and. Avaaz have a decent record of influencing things.
Eurovision banned Russia from taking part in the contest when they attacked Ukraine, but Israel is still participating!
Children in Gaza are dying of hunger. Now, Israeli officials want to take over all of Gaza, displacing millions. Yet Eurovision is getting ready to give Israel a global stage.
Russia was banned from Eurovision one day after invading Ukraine, but Israel’s participation continues despite the war crimes in Gaza. Now countries like Spain, Iceland and Slovenia are challenging this hypocrisy – and they are not alone. Artists, broadcasters and thousands of people worldwide are speaking out.
We only have days to make our voices impossible to ignore. Join the call to ban Israel from Eurovision while its attacks continue. Add your name now and spread the word!
Over 50,000 people have been killed in Gaza, mostly women and children. The remaining population of Gaza is facing starvation and daily bombardment.
Eurovision officially changed its slogan to “United by Music” and must show that this slogan is more than words. It must mean unity against all forms of violence and oppression against anyone, anywhere.
How many Palestinians will die either from bombing or starvation before Israel’s song airs? That’s why we must make sure Eurovision sends a message to Israel that they cannot commit war crimes and then be welcomed on stage as if nothing happened. Eurovision should be a joyful celebration where countries come together, connected by our shared values to uphold human rights. That’s why countries that do not abide by these basic principles should receive the same treatment: to be banned from the contest while they are committing war crimes.
Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World, presents a set of tools for sceptical thinking that he calls the “baloney detection kit”. Sceptical thinking consists both of constructing a reasoned argument and recognizing a fallacious or fraudulent one. In order to identify a fallacious argument, Sagan suggests employing such tools as independent confirmation of facts, debate, development of different hypotheses, quantification, the use of Occam’s razor, and the possibility of falsification. Sagan’s “baloney detection kit” also provides tools for detecting “the most common fallacies of logic and rhetoric”, such as argument from authority and statistics of small numbers. Through these tools, Sagan argues the benefits of a critical mind and the self-correcting nature of science can take place.
Sagan provides nine tools as the first part of this kit.
There must be independent confirmation of the facts given when possible.
Encourage debate on the evidence from all points of view.
Realize that an argument from authority is not always reliable. Sagan supports this by telling us that “authorities” have made mistakes in the past and they will again in the future.
Consider more than one hypothesis. Sagan adds to this by telling us that we must think of the argument from all angles and think all the ways it can be explained or disproved. The hypothesis that then still hasn’t been disproved has a much higher chance of being correct.
Try to avoid clinging obdurately to your own hypothesis and so become biased. Sagan tells us to compare our own hypothesis with others to see if we can find reasons to reject our own hypothesis.
Quantify. Sagan tells us that if whatever we are trying to explain has numerical value or quantitative data related to it, then we’ll be much more able to compete against other hypotheses.
If there is a chain of argument, every link in that chain must be correct.
The use of Occam’s razor, which says to choose the hypothesis that is simpler and requires the fewest assumptions.
Ask if a given hypothesis can be falsified. Sagan tells us that if a hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified then it is not worth considering.
Sagan suggests that with the use of this “baloney detection kit” it is easier to critically think and find the truth
Logical fallacies
There is a second part to the kit. This consists of twenty logical fallacies that one must not commit when offering up a new claim.
Ad hominem. An arguer attacks the opposing arguer and not the actual argument.
Argument from authority. Someone expects another to immediately believe that a person of authority or higher knowledge is correct.
Appeal to ignorance. One argues a claim in that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
Special pleading. An arguer responds to a deeply complex or rhetorical question or statement by, usually, saying “oh you don’t understand how so and so works.”
Begging the question. An arguer assumes the answer and makes a claim such as, this happened because of that, or, this needs to happen in order for that to happen.
Observational selection. Someone talks about how great something is by explaining all of the positive aspects of it while purposely not mentioning any of the negative aspects.
Statistics of small numbers. Someone argues something by giving the statistics in small numbers, which isn’t very reliable.
Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. Someone misinterprets statistics given to them.
Fallacy of inconsistency. An arguer is very inconsistent in their claims.
Non sequitur. This is Latin for “it doesn’t follow”. A claim is made that doesn’t make much sense, such as “Our nation will prevail because God is great.”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for “it happened after, so it was caused by”. An arguer claims that something happened because of a past event when really it probably didn’t.
Meaningless question. Someone asks a question that has no real meaning or doesn’t add to the argument at all.
The excluded middle. An arguer only considers or mentions the two opposite extremes of the conversation and excludes the aspects in between the two extremes.
Short-term vs. long-term. A subset of the excluded middle, but so important it was pulled it out for special attention.
Slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits…).
Weasel word. Talleyrand said: “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public.”
“No one—not the public intellectuals in the culture wars between defenders and detractors of science nor the believers of pseudoscience themselves—is spared Pigliucci’s incisive analysis. In the end, Nonsense on Stilts is a timely reminder of the need to maintain a line between expertise and assumption. Broad in scope and implication, it is also ultimately a captivating guide for the intelligent citizen who wishes to make up her own mind while navigating the perilous debates that will affect the future of our planet.”
Reading and absorbing these two books is possibly the best bit of education you can deliver to yourself. It is sad, but no accident methinks, that every child leaving school is not imbued with this understanding.
Bridgend's Green Leftie 