activism
Class Struggle in the 21st Century
Whoever keeps posting Karl Marx quotes on the breakroom bulliten board needs to stop.– Management Engage yourself with consequential reflections about labor and class struggle in the 21st century with these (not just thought but also action-provoking) five superb books: — Anderson, Elizabeth. 2023. Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic against Workers and How Workers […]
The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power – review
Caty Borum‘s The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power considers how comedy intersects with activism and drives social change. Borum’s accessible text draws from case studies and personal experience to demonstrate how comedy can successfully challenge norms, amplify marginalised voices and foster dialogue on issues from racism to climate change, writes Christine Sweeney. This … Continued
Cost of Living Charity Fired its Staff After They Tried to Unionise
A debt advice charity helping people survive the cost of living crisis has laid off its frontline staff after a fight over their attempts to unionise in protest at poor pay and conditions.
Byline Times understands the dismissals went through on Friday 8 March, meaning the affected employees, including several female staff, lost their jobs on International Women’s Day.
Those spoken to were now concerned about how they were going to make ends meet themselves after suddenly losing their jobs.
Rooted Finance is an East London debt support charity – supported by the Mayor of London and national food bank charity The Trussell Trust – which claims it offers “respect, choice and agency” to those dealing with debt and financial hardship.
In December last year, all of its frontline advisors, dealing with alleged low pay, a lack of training and poor working conditions, chose to join the IWGB trade union and submit a request for union recognition. They also submitted a letter of grievance outlining their concerns to management.
After a period of no response, eventually the frontline team was invited into a group meeting with Rooted Finance’s chief executive Muna Yassin.
Multiple union organisers told Byline Times that during the meeting Yassin began shouting at staff over their decision to try and form a union.
After the meeting and their refusal to retract their request for union recognition, staff claim they were then scheduled into 1-to-1 meetings with management “every day for four days in a row”.
“We made it clear we saw it as intimidation,” as one member explained it. "We saw it as a situation where individual union members would be interrogated about that choice to join the union by multiple members of management.”
The group chose not to attend the 1-to-1 meetings and spent a day working from home in protest at the alleged “intimidation” they were facing at the office.
As a result, afterwards they were called into formal disciplinaries, and eventually fired.
That same day an interview with Yassin was posted by the Mayor's Fund for London, in which she talks about the women that inspire her and expresses her dedication to "financial equality" and the ideal that "financial freedom is a social justice issue".
“One of the reasons why I initially wanted to work for Rooted Finance was I thought they were one of the good guys and I’d be able to help people and make a change,” says Joseph Larkin, one of the main organisers who lost their job in the firings.
“It’s really upsetting that they claim to be an economic justice charity, and then they treat union members in this disgusting way.”
“Lots of us have rent to pay, lots of us have families and relatives we need to support,” he added. “We're devastated by this.”
“Muna [Yassin] is putting us in this position just for asking for more money for our work during the cost of living crisis, better training so we can support our clients better and more work from home days.”
Those Byline Times spoke to also expressed serious concerns about the impact the sudden dismissals would have on the vulnerable clients they were supporting.
One affected staffer said the move went through so suddenly that he lost access to his laptop midway through working on support for a client.
In a statement sent to Byline Times, Yassin claimed that client services at the charity were “unaffected” by the move, and disputed parts of the testimonies put forward by former employees but could not comment further as it was “an ongoing legal situation”.
Yassin claimed that the charity had been “bullied by aggressive and unlawful tactics” employed by the IWGB union and that they “respect all members of our team and take their treatment and wellbeing very seriously”.
"Any action Rooted Finance has taken is in relation to the employees’ conduct under their individual employment contracts, not union activity, and they have the right to appeal the action, as is the option open to them in employment legislation", she added.
Patriotic Alternative: The Threat from the Far Right
Ministers’ latest focus on extremism looks set to focus on Muslim groups and pro-Palestine organisations. But are the far-right being let off the hook?
Last month, the Equality and Human Rights Commission threatened the neo-Nazi party Patriotic Alternative with legal action after their campaign ‘Operation White Christmas’ asked people to donate specifically to ‘white families in need’.
Patriotic Alternative’s increase in support since their formation in 2019 has led The Times to dub the group "Britain’s largest far-right white supremacist movement”.
The group defines itself as ‘a community-building and activism group.’ However, political commentators have at times described them as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Islamophobic.
Their website states that they aim ‘to raise awareness of issues such as the demographic decline of native Britons in the United Kingdom, the environmental impact of mass immigration, and the indoctrination and political bias taking place in British schools.’
With a massive increase in votes expected for far-right political parties in June’s European Elections. Byline Times explored what influence the group’s emergence could have this crucial election year.
The Rebirth of Britain’s Far Right
Red Flare are a group of anti-fascist researchers, who use open source and investigative methods such as documenting activities and infiltrating events, to expose and oppose the far right in Britain. Byline Times spoke to Alan Jones from Red Flare about who Patriotic Alternative are and how significant their presence has become in British politics today.
Jones told Byline Times how in recent years, Red Flare’s work has increased owing to the emergence of Patriotic Alternative. Before 2019, he said, “British Fascism was an extremely fringe movement that had been reduced to secret meetings in the backrooms of pubs”.
But since the Patriotic Alternative movement has gained traction, fascist activists have developed confidence to organise in communities and attend protests. Collett even described the 2021 Patriotic Alternative conference, held in the Lake District, as “the biggest nationalist conference of its kind this century”.
The movement has also succeeded in bringing white supremacist conspiracy theories into mainstream political debate. This was most evident last year when a Patriotic Alternative activist managed to share her views on the British radio station LBC during an interview and phone-in with Keir Starmer.
Phoning into the programme, the activist, referring to herself as "Gemma from Cambridge" (a false name), asked the Labour leader questions relating to the White Genocide myth. The conspiracy theory claims “elites” are using migration to make white people an ethnic minority in Europe. Red Flare was later able to expose the caller’s true identity as Jody Swingler, a yoga teacher and Patriotic Alternative activist. Starmer was criticised in some quarters, for his perceived failure to challenge the caller.
Mark Collett
Mark Collett’s ascent to the top of far-right British politics has been an intrepid one. “He was previously the leader of the youth wing of the British National Party (BNP) and was sort of groomed by its then leader Nick Griffin”, Jones recalls. He first came into the public eye when he appeared on the 2002 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary Young, Nazi and Proud. During the documentary, he referred to Africans and homosexuals, as "aids monkeys".
In response to these comments, Collett was temporarily excluded from the party.
But he was later invited back and aged just 25, stood in the 2005 general election for the constituency of Leeds Central. He came fourth with 4.1% of the vote.
Jones is confident that Griffin saw him as a future leader of the party.
Yet in 2010, following reports of internal conflict in the BNP, involving a failed attempt at a leadership bid, and even questioning by Humberside police in relation to rumours of a threat to kill leader Nick Griffin, Collett was permanently expelled from the party.
Jones explains how “Collett went quiet for a while”, but re-emerged as an online commentator and “a kind of Alt-right phenomenon.”
Then, in 2019, Mark Collett used his newfound internet fame to start Patriotic Alternative and has served as the group's leader ever since.
The Alt-right and Online Gaming
The Alt-right movement is an online, white nationalist movement primarily based in the United States, although Jones highlights that followers are now “global, or at least all over the Anglophone world.”
He explains that the Alt-right “came to prominence alongside Donald Trump’s presidential nomination”, and points out that one of the reasons the movement “has been allowed to flourish in the way it has, is the kind of anonymity afforded by the internet.”
Patriotic Alternative has adopted this method and primarily communicates using the encrypted messaging platform Telegram. “Telegram is basically like WhatsApp,” he explains, “except you don't have your phone number visible.”
Jones expresses concern about the lack of moderation of the platform, as very few channels get taken down or removed and highlights how the platform allows users to “hop from one chat to another” through hyperlinks that users send to one another, making it easy for potential extremists to find politically like-minded people.
Another place where the far-right has been able to share their views relatively freely is in the online gaming world. Research conducted by the group Tech Against Terrorism reveals how right-wing extremists have started using online games to entice younger people to join their cause. Some games feature virtual worlds where players are able to share propaganda, recruit other players, and generate money online, which can be used for political campaigning.
The virtual world creation-system Roblox has faced controversy after it was used by right-wing extremists to recreate playable versions of infamous terrorist atrocities such as Anders Breivik’s 2011 attack on a summer camp in Norway and the 2019 mosque shootings in New Zealand.
This is another tactic which Patriotic Alternative seem keen to utilise. With the organisation hosting Call of Duty and Warcraft gaming tournaments for its supporters. On occasion, players have even been personally invited by Collett.
Election Goals
The rise of Patriotic Alternative is disturbing, not due to its uniqueness, but rather due to the fact that it is part of a broader trend throughout Europe in which the Far Right is convincing a greater number of people, predominantly young men, to become sympathetic to their cause.
In Italy, the right-wing populist party Brothers of Italy has formed a government. Whilst, in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam party gained the largest number of seats in Parliament last year. With these examples in mind, Byline Times asked the question, is the far right in the UK is likely to have similar success in this year’s election?
Jones thinks that although it is unlikely that Patriotic Alternative will stand for election this year, the group’s emergence has galvanized the “new generation of British fascist activists, and [the group’s] relative success will reverberate in British far-right politics for many years to come.
“They do want to register as an electoral party and eventually contest elections. But [Collett] sees PA's role for now as being to enable a real-world movement of political activists [through] getting people off the internet and into the real world.”
He adds, “Assuming his aim is to bring a new generation of ideologically committed fascist activists off the internet and into real-world organising, which I think it is, I would say he's been incredibly successful.”
Jewish Londoners Slam Government Advisor’s ‘No-Go Zone’ Claim About Pro-Palestine Marches
Many Jewish Londoners have slapped down a Government advisor’s claim that London is now a “no-go zone for Jews” during the weekly pro-Palestine marches.
Calling for tougher action against the Palestine protests, Government anti-extremism tsar Robin Simcox told the Telegraph: “We will not have become an authoritarian state if London is no longer permitted to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend... All these things and more have become normalised in the UK."
His comments dominated the paper’s Friday front page and led the BBC's agenda.
BBC Radio 4 reported that Simcox – a self-described ‘neoconservative’ – declined to appear on the show on Friday morning to answer questions about his claim.
Responding to his comments, Green London Assembly Member Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, replied: “I've been on plenty of Palestine marches – and spoken at them– and as a Jewish person have felt completely safe. Whilst I don't doubt there are fearful people in our Jewish communities, headlines like this which serve to stoke fear and tension, are utterly irresponsible.”
Polanski told Byline Times that he has worked closely with Jewish organisations such as Na'mod, which marches for a ceasefire and Palestinian human rights.
“[They] are bringing Jewish voices against the occupation together and have been excellent in demonstrating the growing Jewish movement that is utterly horrified by what we're seeing unfold in Gaza,” he said.
“I've been and spoken at their rallies also and there's an absolute feeling of what else can we do now to make a ceasefire happen when politicians from the two old parties are looking away?
"It feels like stoking up stories of no-go zones are a huge distraction from our complicity in the collective punishment of the Palestinian people."
Simcox previously worked for the Henry Jackson Society think tank.
One of its founders, Matthew Jamison, wrote in 2017 that he was ashamed of his involvement and that it had allegedly become “a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim, racist... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups". Jamison and organisations, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, have claimed that the HJS has “relentlessly demonise[s] Muslims and Islam" – a claim the group denies.
Another Jewish Londoner, Rachell Penn, said she was “so sick to death of this idea that Jews think in a singular way”.
“From ultra orthodox to secular, and from right-wing to left-wing, we have so many different views, yet are patronised in the media as being incapable of different views.
"I march with the Jewish bloc some weeks, and the very warm welcome it gets week in and week out is heart-warming. This is how peace will be achieved, not this culture war bullsh*t. Once again Jews are being used as a political football by politicians."
Ben Samuel, a Jewish Londoner from Edgware, has been in central London regularly to take part in the marches. He has marched with the Jewish bloc, in all weathers.
While he says he’s witnessed a change in London since the 7 October attacks, and rising fears over security, he has felt safe at the marches.
“I have monitored the situation closely by talking with Jewish neighbours and those at my synagogue," he told Byline Times. "In fact, synagogue has been a no-go zone for my black Jewish friend… The police presence has made the situation intolerable.”
He said another Jewish friend has felt uncomfortable at the atmosphere within her synagogue since October.
“At the end of [a] service the decision was made to sing Hatikvah, the national anthem of Israel," he added. "Just the whole atmosphere made her uncomfortable so she bravely [spoke] at the Bimah (pulpit), acknowledging Palestine in her talk. It's the first time I've ever heard the P word in that communal setting."
Samuel says he has been taken off door duty for his synagogue since October – he believes it may have been triggered by his pro-Palestine views.
And while he has witnessed antisemitism and protest signs which “crassly reference the Holocaust”, media portrayals of the Palestine demonstrations do not present “the full picture”.
“I think it's vital that voices like mine are represented in the media reports,” he added. Samuel will continue to join the Jewish Bloc at the pro-ceasefire protests.
Green activist Lesley Grahame, based in Norwich, said: “I once hid my matzos in a shopping trolley in case anyone associated me with the massacres. Nobody did. I support the ceasefire marches in Norwich and London. Yes, it's uncomfortable, but nothing to the life/death/grief/terror in the remains of Gaza.”
Matthew Butcher, a Jewish Londoner and progressive activist, said: “I am [Jewish] and it's just extraordinarily irresponsible for the Government advisor to say this. I'll be in central London feeling just fine I'd say.”
Non-profit policy worker James Ingram argued that Jews appeared to be “useful” to Simcox’s worldview and this his comments were "damaging and exclusionary”.
However, another Jewish London, Nicole Lampert, said she and her Jewish family were fearful on Saturdays “when there are people with antisemitic placards and people singing for the destruction of the only Jewish state”.
“I note there are no calls for peace or the return of the hostages on these demos (apart from the Jewish bloc),” she added.
“Jewish people were already at a low level of fear before all of this because of the multiple threats against us. We don’t have security guards outside our schools, nurseries and synagogues for fun but because of all the death threats – and we’ve seen in France, Belgium etc. how these attacks will be carried out. That also has to be taken into account."
Writer Tanya Gold said the claim that London was a “no-go zone” was “absurd”, but added that certain parts of the marches – “anywhere where hostage posters are repeatedly defaced – feel threatening to Jews who are not anti-Zionist: i.e., most of us”.
Gold said that, while the marches haven’t erupted into violence and probably won't, “the demonisation of Israel – and with it, Jews who don't denounce Israel – feels appallingly familiar. In the mediaeval period, Jews were god-killers, demonic beings, and inhuman. You can hear very clear echoes of that language now. That is what terrifies us, and I think that fear is rational.”
Responding to Byline Times’ call for views on Simcox's comments, Francis Freeman claimed that some Jewish friends “no longer go on the marches because of the increase in antisemitic hate”.
Another Jewish respondent, Rebecca Trenner, added: “I don't go into [central] London on Saturdays because I feel threatened. I won't take my children to central London on protest days – many friends agree.”
Rabbi Zvi Solomons, who lives in Reading and often comes to London, said he has faced antisemitic behaviour (though not necessarily on the marches). He told Byline Times: “I am street savvy and have had two or three occasions when a young man has approached me from behind, in a menacing manner, whilst I’m walking down the road. They saw my kippa. I turned to avoid the situation becoming threatening to me."
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
‘Who Are the Extremists Who Would Tear Us Apart?’
For the past five months much has been said about our movement, which has consistently called for a ceasefire and an end to the genocide in Gaza. As British citizens of faith or none, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews, sons and daughters of Holocaust survivors, school children, university students, NHS staff and many more have been maligned as hate marchers, mobs, thugs, and even "Islamists" allegedly subverting democracy.
It's time to set the record straight.
Our cause is straightforward: we stand against the ongoing genocide in Gaza, where 30,000 Palestinians, a third of them children, have been killed. These are the findings of the International Court of Justice, which ruled that there is a plausible case of genocide for Israel to answer.
Our demands are simple: an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, facilitation of basic needs to prevent mass man-induced starvation, and the complete lifting of the 17-year siege on Gaza.
We also call for an end to the illegal occupation of Palestine and accountability for those responsible for heinous crimes against humanity.
These demands resonate with the majority of the British public, as highlighted by a recent YouGov poll which found that 66% of the public surveyed supported an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Listening to Rishi Sunak deliver his speech on Friday, one would think there had been an outbreak of anarchy, chaos and unruliness hitting the streets of the UK. However, the Metropolitan Police acknowledged that our protests have been orderly, disciplined, well-organised, and professionally handled.
Despite dozens of protests involving an estimated three million participants during the past five months, only a very small number of people have been charged. It's not exactly what you would expect if Jihadi-supporting anarchists were storming London every weekend.
But the Government and the Labour Party appear to be overlooking these facts and dismissing the concerns of ordinary citizens who have come out in solidarity with the Palestinians. Instead, there seems to be a crackdown on public protests, freedom of speech, congregation, and political dissent.
The Prime Minister's use of fear, scaremongering, and dog-whistle Islamophobia to vilify protestors is not only outrageous, but indicative of a concerning disregard for political differences.
While Sunak urges the country to “face down the extremists who would tear us apart”, the irony lies in this Government's failure to address divisive rhetoric within its own ranks.
This most recently included comments by the Conservative former Deputy Chair Lee Anderson, who claimed that theLondon Mayor Sadiq Khan is controlled by his “Islamist” friend. And when former Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote in the Telegraph that “the Islamists, the extremists, and the antisemites are in charge now”.
At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in the US, Nigel Farage — alongside former Prime Minister Liz Truss — claimed that “radical Islam is becoming mainstream in British politics” and projected that “by the 2029 general election, we will have a radical Islamic party represented in Westminster”. Sunak had nothing to say of Truss’ appearance at the event.
All of these examples raise questions about the Government’s commitment to unity.
Sunak's attempt to deflect the real issues behind public discontent is evident. Our marches include people who feel let down in various aspects of life, not just those calling for justice in Palestine. Concerns about inadequate healthcare, unaffordable housing, the climate emergency, political corruption, and wealth inequality coexist with our collective call for justice.
This Government, while claiming to champion democracy, is paradoxically eroding the very rights we stand up for – humanity, justice, international law, and a rules-based world order.
The Conservatives have undermined democracy by introducing mandatory voter ID, criminalising protests, eroding the independence of the Electoral Commission, planning to curb the power of the courts, and by prioritising the controversial Rwanda scheme that has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.
In the face of this, we must ask: who truly defends democracy?
Is it the millions who have peacefully attended our protests to advocate for an end to genocide and dignity for the Palestinian people? Or is it unelected Rishi Sunak and his allies, seemingly embarking on a scorched earth policy against our civil liberties?
Historian Timothy Snyder wrote in On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century that we must be wary of the term “extremism” when used by those in power as it often serves to stifle dissent and label anyone outside of the mainstream as a threat.
After what our Prime Minister told the nation outside Downing Street on Friday, it should make us think: who are the extremists and why do they want to silence our collective voices?
Mustafa Al-Dabbagh is a media and politics spokesperson at the Muslim Association of Britain
Plans to Bar Politicians from Meeting Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Climate Activists are “Dangerous and Authoritarian” Say MPs
Government figures are on the brink of launching even more anti-protest measures, with a statement by Levelling Up secretary Michael Gove into extremism expected in the coming weeks.
It follows an ‘urgent’ speech by PM Rishi Sunak on Friday on extremism, following the election of Workers’ Party MP George Galloway in Rochdale. Galloway made opposing the war in Gaza a key plank of his campaign, and his party has been wrongly branded "Islamist" by former PM Liz Truss.
According to reports in the Daily Mail and The Times, the Government is now planning a review to widen the scope of what constitutes extremism – by targeting groups that are perceived as “undermining British values”.
One measure under consideration involves revoking the visas of individuals who disseminate hate speech within the UK. But the reports also suggest Ministers are mulling barring Members of Parliament from affiliating with certain legal protest groups, such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, or climate campaigns like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion.
PSC is known for its vast weekly pro-Palestine rallies in London and across the country but has faced constant attack from right-wing papers for allegedly failing to deal with a handful of antisemitic attendees.
The proposal to bar MPs working with some protest groups has been put forward by John Woodcock, a former Labour MP and now the Government’s independent adviser on political violence. (Woodcock quit the Labour Party in 2018 under Jeremy Corbyn, while facing sexual harassment allegations he strongly denied).
Speaking to reporters on Monday (4th March), the PM’s spokesman would not “comment on individual groups” but did not deny the reports about fresh anti-protest measures. He added: “We will keep under review action needed to tackle examples of unacceptable behaviour.”
The move would involve party leaders adopting a strict stance against MPs who support groups involved in so-called disruptive demonstrations, or those which allegedly ignore instances of racism. It is a call in effect targeted at Labour, as Conservative MPs do not typically associate with PSC or direct action-based climate groups.
The Labour Party faces internal pressure regarding its stance on the mooted restrictions, particularly in relation to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Left-wing MPs in the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG) have already hit out at the “authoritarian” measures and urged Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to take a stand against them.
But some members of Keir Starmer's frontbench team have also told the Guardian Woodcock's suggestions should be vigorously rejected.
Responding to the proposals, Labour backbencher Dawn Butler MP told Byline Times the idea of barring MPs from meeting protest groups was "authoritarian" and "highly inappropriate" given that many of the members may be their constituents.
“The Conservatives are cynically trying to deflect attention from their own failures and desperately use this time of high tensions for electoral gain. To conflate people’s democratic right to protest with extremists is dangerous and irresponsible. The vast majority of protesters are peaceful; they don't march because they've got nothing else to do, they march because they have to do something,” she said.
Butler noted that if MPs in other countries were barred by their Governments from meeting civil society groups the regimes would be “condemned and investigated”.
“We need to unite against this creeping authoritarianism and stand up for our hard-won democracy, rights and freedoms – before it is too late. People should ask themselves what else this Government has planned that they want to ensure that the public can not protest,” the London Labour MP added. Other left-wing Labour figures including Clive Lewis also condemned the proposals.
Critics within the party argue that Labour has not adequately addressed the situation in Gaza and warn against the demonisation of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. At a press conference last week, ceasefire protest organisers claimed Gaza activists had been unfairly demonised as extremists. As many leading pro-ceasefire activists are Muslim, PSC believes some of the fierce criticism and outraged coverage is driven by Islamophobia.
A spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion said: “The real threat to democracy comes from narrow private interests such as the oil companies and banks whose access to politicians is unfettered.
“Our political system should be responding to the strong warnings from scientists that we are on the verge of pushing our planet into a new and inhospitable state. Instead we see private interests being prioritised above the well-being and security of citizens and everything that lives on this planet.”
New guidance issued by the Government and police chiefs last week means police forces will now consider all protests outside politicians’ homes as “intimidatory” and potential harassment. The PM’s spokesman suggested police had until now only been “managing” protests, when they should be “policing them”.
The Corbyn-backing group Momentum is calling for the Labour Party to pledge to repeal the Conservative Government's “repressive” laws concerning protest, voter ID and trade unions.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power – review
Caty Borum‘s The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power considers how comedy intersects with activism and drives social change. Borum’s accessible text draws from case studies and personal experience to demonstrate how comedy can successfully challenge norms, amplify marginalised voices and foster dialogue on issues from racism to climate change, writes Christine Sweeney.
Can you teach comedy? Can a sense of humour, charisma, delivery, stage presence and timing be learned? Comedy programmes popping up in universities across the world would say, “Yes, yes it can”. If the question is, “can you teach comedy as a tool for social change and civic power?”, Caty Borum has an entire book which aims to provide an answer.
The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power by Caty Borum explores the intersection of comedy and social activism, delving into the question of whether comedy can be taught and used as a tool for social change. Borum discusses the role of creativity, cultural power, and participatory media in driving social change and how postmillennial social-justice organisations collaborate with comedians. Serving as a follow-up to Borum’s work co-written with Lauren Feldman in 2020, A Comedian and an Activist Walk into a Bar: The Serious Role of Comedy in Social Justice, this new book is a how-to manual with case studies on integrating comedy into social justice efforts.
[The] book is a how-to manual with case studies on integrating comedy into social justice efforts.
Borum reflects on her own comedy career, drawing from experiences working with sitcom legend Norman Lear on get-out-the-vote campaigns in the late ’90s and early 2000s like Declare Yourself. While these campaigns engaged young people and demonstrated the power of comedic efforts, Borum notes that the impact on electoral outcomes was limited. Though 2004 saw the largest turnout (nearly 50 per cent) of voters aged between 18 and 24, that demographic still accounted for just 17 per cent of the total voter population, and Bush beat his democratic rival John Kerry to secure a second term.
Although mobilising the public through comedy for direct political action may be too great an ask, Borum emphasises comedy’s narrative power in shaping public understanding and influencing cultural attitudes. The book explores the evolution of comedy in the participatory media age, especially its increased visibility during the pandemic and its role in challenging societal norms. The rise of independently produced content on social media has challenged the authority of networks and studios, boosting the democratisation and creative agency of comedy “content”. Though Borum acknowledges the benefits of social media for amplifying marginalised creators, she falls short of critically examining its impact on mental health, the spread of misinformation and biased algorithms. Despite this, she underscores comedy’s potential as a cultural intervention empowered by the participatory networked media age.
Positive deviance, according to Borum, is the quiet power of comedy that journalism lacks.
The book discusses the comedic response to political events, particularly the rise of Donald Trump, positioning comedy as a force for social change by offering fresh ways of undermining the status quo. According to Borum, comedians say what journalists cannot, thinking of Michelle Wolf, who at the 2018 White House Correspondents dinner pointed out the mutually beneficial cycle of journalists covering then-President Trump’s near-constant news feed. Positive deviance, according to Borum, is the quiet power of comedy that journalism lacks.
Comedy also serves as a creative space for marginalised voices, providing an alternative narrative and critique that traditional journalism may lack. Borum highlights the importance of optimism in comedy. Comedy provides a space for an alternate reality, for example the TV series Schitt’s Creek portrays a world where the LGBTQ community is fully accepted. In this sense, optimism can be a survival tactic. As Borum suggests,
[C]omedy as a force for social justice breaks down social barriers and opens space to discuss taboo topics; persuades because it is entertaining and makes us feel activating emotions of hope and optimism; serves as a mechanism for traditionally marginalized people to assert and celebrate cultural citizenship through media representation; acts as both social critique and civic imagination to envision a better world; and builds resilience to help power continued struggle against oppression.
Borum provides an in-depth, well-researched review of cultural entertainment activists, tracking the power of the entertainment industry to affect how people feel. “Pioneering cultural entertainment activists pushed for ‘mainstreaming’ oppressed people – including and normalizing their lives and lived experiences in entertainment.”
The book is something of a documented workshop, drawing from the experiences and insights of leaders across social justice activism and comedy to emphasise the power of media.
The book is something of a documented workshop, drawing from the experiences and insights of leaders across social justice activism and comedy to emphasise the power of media. Its instructive aspect lies in Borum’s description of running comedy workshops and writers’ rooms, offering a practical guide for both comedians and social activists. These collaborative spaces aim to translate key messages into comedy routines through storytelling, making complex issues more accessible. The author uses climate change and the opioid epidemic as examples, demonstrating how comedy can humanise and mobilise audiences to address pressing challenges.
Borum examines a case study of youth political activist group Hip Hop Caucus which aims to communicate a basic awareness of climate change to Black, Indigenous, and other People of Colour, who are the most affected by, and yet contribute the least to, climate change in the US (and globally). Even if this comedy work may not reach the oil companies responsible for the brunt of climate change, it serves to educate and mobilise audiences. In this sense, the messaging of the book goes, culture is important because it is the mechanism by which we relate to each other. Although it’s hard to demonstrate the material impact of comedy and the entertainment industry overall on political dynamics, communicating the mechanisms translating individual experiences in collective narrative storytelling to foster understanding and support is convincing.
Culture is important because it is the mechanism by which we relate to each other.
The Revolution Will Be Hilarious emphasises the power of comedy as a force for social justice and provides practical insights into its integration with activism. She effectively shows how collaboration between the two has the power to start meaningful conversations around racism, climate change, economic disenfranchisement, addiction and more. Borum’s work serves as a valuable guide for media and communication theorists, entertainment industry professionals, social activists, and comedians, showcasing the potential of collaboration between comedy and activism in sparking meaningful conversations on various societal issues.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image Credit: Paul Craft on Shutterstock.
Contesting Moralities: Roma Identities, State and Kinship – review
In Contesting Moralities: Roma Identities, State and Kinship, Iliana Sarafian challenges established scholarly practices that attempt to define Romani identity, instead exploring how individuals navigate societal constraints with agency and resilience. Deftly combining ethnographic research, anthropological theory and personal reflection, this is an essential read for understanding the complexities of lived Roma experience, writes Martin Fotta.
The past decade has seen the publication of several high-quality monographs in various languages focusing on the lives, histories, and experiences of Romani people. While several have provided new insights into social processes, deconstructed existing preconceptions, or both, rarely has a book so subtly yet vehemently demanded that readers rethink their habits of thought about classical topics in Romani-related scholarship. This relatively short book by Iliana Sarafian, a talented anthropologist of Romani descent, does precisely this; it asks scholars to stop ruminating on who the Roma are and the character of ethnic boundaries, instead urging them to focus on how Romani individuals thrive within constraints and how they attempt to create spaces of survival for themselves and their families. It calls for exploring “experiences from the margins of Roma-ness” (98), but without presupposing to know what the core of Romani culture is.
Experimental in style and voice, Contesting Moralities is located within the ongoing effort to decolonise academic knowledge. The book is unique, however, in how the push to redefine the terms of representation in academic discourse is combined with solid ethnographic grounding and a commitment to anthropological theorisation. Weaving in self-reflection and personal narratives, it sheds light on broader social processes – on how racism, historical legacies, cultural traditions and social dynamics intersect in the lives of Romani individuals. It foregrounds individuals’ agency and the multifaceted nature of Romani experiences.
Weaving in self-reflection and personal narratives, [the book] sheds light on broader social processes – on how racism, historical legacies, cultural traditions and social dynamics intersect in the lives of Romani individuals.
The book is based on research in two pseudonymous Bulgarian Romani neighbourhoods – Radost and Sastipe – as well as in various state and non-state institutions. Sarafian is open about how practical circumstances and her position as a Romani woman influenced her research. For instance, she was assigned the role of a daughter when she first settled among non-kin and shut out from conversations of sexuality and intimacy among married women, as ignorance on such matters is expected from unmarried young Romani women. She does not treat these moments as constraints, however, but uses them as an opportunity to ponder social processes and patterning.
Sarafian is open about how practical circumstances and her position as a Romani woman influenced her research.
The main theme running throughout the book examines how Romani subjectivities are moulded by the state and its policies as they interact with values, practices, and relationships of kinship. The book focuses on a set of selected sites where the state has tried to interfere with Romani kinship, some of which are highly politicised and visible in everyday discourse: assimilation policies, control over fertility, disciplining of motherhood, and education of children. The book documents the scope of the state’s intervention and its violence past and present. “[T]here was no child in her Roma neighbourhood not going to some form of pansion [orphanage or a boarding school],” one of her research participants observes about life under the state socialism (85). The book charts the clash of state and kinship moralities and the contradictions this generates “inside” kinship relationships. It also documents various ways through which kinship resists the state or assimilates its initiatives.
Kinship, however, is not treated as a cultural artefact or tradition. Rather, the point that Sarafian tries to convey is that Romani kinship is oriented toward the future: weddings serve as communal projections of the potential for a better future, and childbearing reproduces this projection in the form of children. The concomitant aspect of this focus on becoming is Sarafian’s careful tracing of personal agency and capacity to aspire, even in moments where these could be the least expected, such as early marriages. At times, this struggle for self-determination is shown to be self-defeating. Such is the case of children, who take it upon themselves to protect their siblings and families from discrimination and racism, but in the process become further alienated from the educational system.
Romani kinship is oriented toward the future: weddings serve as communal projections of the potential for a better future, and childbearing reproduces this projection in the form of children.
The book is also a meditation on how, for people like Sarafian – who, in a move reproductive of antigypsyism, are sometimes dismissed as “Roma elite” – involvement in scholarship or activism becomes a mode to pursue authenticity and reflects their concern with the survival of Romani people. This dynamic generates its own contradictions, however. It threatens to co-opt Romani activists and scholars into co-constructing a figure of vulnerable and impoverished “hyper-real” Roma that would be legible to the state or development agencies. For many, in the context of racism and exclusion, these might be the only viable alternatives to achieve self-realisation while simultaneously connecting to their communities and responding to expectations from their families; for Sarafian, the book also becomes a way to connect with her family and community and to comprehend their position in contemporary Bulgaria. In a surprising twist, after she had been denied a job as a nurse at a local hospital, moved to work for an NGO, and then shifted to academia, Sarafian came to see a structural continuity between Romani activists, herself, and a woman who managed to become a doctor, but ruptured all relationships with her kin in the process: “I wanted to visit Ekaterina in Sofia to share that she was not alone, that there were other Roma who had managed to navigate the world within and outside of the Radost neighbourhood” (79).
The book’s style replicates its focus on the unfinished and ambiguous nature of social forms and processes, as well as the open-endedness of people’s aspirations. Rather than following one case study throughout the book or even through a chapter, each chapter is organised around a series of ethnographic stories and viewpoints. Some readers might find such a narrative approach difficult and desire some kind of synthesis or resolution. However, this is a deliberate writing strategy: “[W]hat there is still to say goes beyond the limits of this book” (101). The juxtaposition of fragments propels Sarafian’s description, sharpens her analysis, and invites future interpretations. Through ethnography, by highlighting particularities of various identifications or adding caveats to descriptions of kinship and state moralities, she constantly tries to re-articulate those social aspects that make a difference, often in ways she had not anticipated: “I found spaces, stories and examples of the everyday that challenged my preconceptions about Roma identifications” (11).
The chapter on education […] makes visible how any state effect is produced: in day-to-day interactions, in the intermeshing between institutional actions and everyday racialisation
My main objection to the book is that the state often comes across as a monolith. The only exception is the chapter on education, which makes visible how any state effect is produced: in day-to-day interactions, in the intermeshing between institutional actions and everyday racialisation, and in how teachers, directors, and schools translate policies, respond to economic constraints, and in turn shape the educational outcomes, and thus the futures, of Romani children – for better or worse. The book would have been much richer if such an approach had been reproduced in other chapters.
Sarafian is unapologetic and does not try to hide her motivations: “I wrote as I did because of the idiosyncrasies that have shaped me” (98). The result is a timely, readable book and an essential example of Romani autoethnography. Unlike Black autoethnographic writing, this genre remains underdeveloped in Romani-related scholarship, even in its critical iteration aimed at amplifying marginalised voices and empowering communities through challenging established forms of knowledge production. Contesting Moralities will therefore be of interest to those keen on understanding the complexities of being Romani in different contexts and to anyone interested in critical commentary on pressing social issues.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image Credit: Brum on Shutterstock.
Surprise ‘People’s Assembly’ Comes to Court as Climate Protestors’ ‘Last Legal Defence’ May Be Removed
One of the last legal defences available to protestors accused of criminal damage in the UK is hanging in the balance following a hearing at the Court of Appeal.
A panel of three senior judges heard arguments in London yesterday about the kinds of defences that can be made in court and the extent to which judges or juries have the power to decide a case.
The hearing was sparked by a December request from Attorney General Victoria Prentis for a review of whether climate protestors can make the argument of 'consent’ in court.
While the hearing took place, members of campaign group Defend Our Juries held a surprise ‘people’s assembly’ inside the Royal Courts of Justice, to highlight what it argues was a “threat to British justice and democracy”. Spokesperson Tim Crosland dubbed the action a "makeover of British justice".
The gathering was prompted by the Attorney General’s application to reduce the defences available for those taking direct action over, for example, climate change or the war in Gaza.
Around 100 members of the public gallery are understood to have taken part. Organisers claimed the demonstration was “entirely lawful and peaceful, and [would] cause no disruption to the ordinary running of the court”.
Prentis had asked the court’s criminal division to consider whether “claims that protestors honestly believed organisations affected by their stunts would have consented to the damage – if they had known more about the impact of climate change – can be a defence in court”.
A mock-up of the Royal Courts protest on Wednesday (21 February)
She said the argument had been used by environmental campaign groups, resulting in acquittals for criminal damage. The previous month a jury cleared nine women of criminal damage for breaking the windows of HSBC’s headquarters in London.
The judge allowed them to argue that they truly believed HSBC’s shareholders would have agreed to their actions if they had known the scale of the climate crisis and the bank’s contribution to it.
While the request focuses on climate protest, similar arguments have recently been used by Palestine Action activists on trial for targeting Israel’s largest private weapons company.
Tom Little KC, representing the Attorney General, said the Government wanted clarity on the issue because the defence of belief in consent has only recently begun to be used and judges have responded inconsistently.
He argued that this provision in the UK’s Criminal Damage Act 1971 was being interpreted too broadly. He said it was not designed for protest cases but rather to, for example, protect someone who broke a car window to stop a dog overheating.
Henry Blaxland KC, representing a protestor at the centre of the issue who cannot be named for legal reasons, argued that there were no restrictions on using this defence in criminal damage cases, and the key issue at stake was whether the defendant really believed it. Whether this is accepted, he told the court, is ultimately a matter for the jury: “That belief may be mistaken… it may be unreasonable. But that’s the issue that needs to be determined.”
At stake, Blaxland continued, was the much bigger constitutional question of the right to a fair trial: “It’s only in rare cases that a court is entitled to withdraw matters that would otherwise be a matter for the jury.”
The move by the Attorney General echoes a previous referral by her predecessor Suella Braverman at the Court of Appeal. This followed a jury acquitting four Black Lives Matter protestors of criminal damage, for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol and throwing it into Bristol Harbour.
Braverman's request was made on the same day as a similarly-worded briefing was published by think tank Policy Exchange, which is part of international fossil fuel-funded Atlas Network.
The court subsequently ruled that protestors accused of high-value criminal damage could not rely on the European Convention on Human Rights, making it much more difficult for activists in such cases to mount a legal defence.
That decision was part of a wider restriction on the kinds of defences that protestors can use in court in recent years.
Last year, Extinction Rebellion co-founder Gail Bradbrook was found guilty of criminal damage and given a 15-month suspended prison sentence after being forbidden from speaking about her motivations in front of a jury.
Prentis stressed that, whatever the Court of Appeal’s latest decision, it would not change previous acquittals such as those for the HSBC activists. But it would affect future cases.
While the hearing was ongoing, trials of climate activists were happening across the UK.
Climate Clampdown
In one ongoing case, five Extinction Rebellion members have been charged with criminal damage for breaking windows at JPMorgan Chase’s London offices in September 2021. The bank is one of the world’s biggest financers of fossil fuels, and its asset management arm recently quit an international investor group set up to encourage companies to lower their carbon footprint.
This trial is being held at the Inner London Crown Court in front of judge Silas Reid, who has forbidden defendants in similar cases from mentioning climate change or fuel poverty in their defence.
Last year, Reid sentenced one of the current defendants in the JPMorgan case, Amy Pritchard, alongside two others, to prison for breaching this ruling during a previous trial. Pritchard spent three-and-a-half weeks in jail.
Reid has also faced criticism for his response to activists concerned about his approach. He led 68-year-old Trudi Warner to be prosecuted with contempt of court after she held a sign outside his court spelling out the right of a jury to acquit a defendant based on their conscience, sparking an escalating series of protests across the UK under the banner Defend Our Juries.
Reid delayed the start of the JPMorgan activists’ defence in case the Court of Appeal releases its decision later this week.
Another trial began at Reading Crown Court of eight Insulate Britain activists charged with public nuisance for blocking junction 31 of the M25 motorway in September 2021.
And a third trial is being held at Basildon Crown Court of five Just Stop Oil activists charged with public nuisance and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance for occupying tunnels near an oil terminal in Grays, Essex, in August 2022.
The UK’s approach to protest is now coming under international scrutiny.
In January, UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders and the Aarhus Convention, Michel Forst, expressed deep concern about the increasingly severe crackdown on peaceful protest, particularly some tough prison sentences. He said it was leading to increased threats, abuse, and state justification for severe measures against them, and having a “chilling effect” on free speech.
Additional reporting by Josiah Mortimer
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com