Racism
Activists labelling Israeli supermarket items as ‘apartheid’ and ‘apartheid Starmer’
Hum(our)ous and deadly serious
Activists have begun labelling Israeli items in supermarkets as ‘apartheid’ products, in a campaign to raise public awareness of Israel’s crimes against Palestinians and promote the peaceful ‘BDS’ (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement to pressure Israel into ending its apartheid and war crimes – with different versions laid out to match (at least) Sainsburys and Tesco label layouts:
And Keir Starmer has also made himself a target of the campaign for his unstinting support of Israel’s flagrant breaches of international law, after at least one group took the original labels and edited them to reflect his ties to and funding from right-wing and pro-Israel groups and figures, before applying them liberally to supermarket shelves:
The global BDS campaign’s effectiveness can be seen in the fact that Israel created a whole ‘Ministry of Strategic Affairs’ to combat it and the way that Israel’s supporters constantly attack it. The UK government is in the process of passing probably-unlawful legislation to ban local authorities from applying BDS against goods and services from illegally-occupied territories.
The campaign has also been deployed against global brands such as Starbucks and McDonalds, with reportedly substantial impact on their profits.
Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza has so far killed at least 33,000 civilians, mostly women and children, and wounded more than twice that number of people – often with life-changing injuries. The country is facing a genocide case brought against it before the International Court of Justice by South Africa.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Palestine Action activist remanded to prison after Stock Exchange arrests
Anti-war activist Sean Middleborough
Palestine Action activist Sean Middleborough was remanded to prison yesterday following his arrest on Sunday morning over an alleged plan to disrupt business at the London Stock Exchange (LSE), charged with ‘conspiracy to commit public nuisance’ under the draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, after appearing at Wirral Magistrates Court. Five other activists were released from police custody without charges pending further investigation.
On his way into the custody van, Middlebrough was heard to shout “Free Palestine”. Lawyers will be submitting an application for immediate granting of bail.
Middleborough and five other activists are accused of having planned to blockade the LSE, which through its trading in bonds and shares plays a significant role in facilitating the occupation of Palestine. The LSE has raised over over £4.73 billion in bond sales for the apartheid state of Israel in the past six years. The exchange describes itself as “a key partner to Israeli businesses, by enabling them to raise capital internationally” and trades shares in weapons manufacturers arming Israel’s regime.
A meeting on 8 February 2022 between UK government and Israeli investors, which included representatives from Israeli weapons companies Elbit Systems and Rafael, noted that “The London Stock Exchange has a strong and important relationship with Israel”. This includes the LSE holding capital market conferences in Israel and hosting Israeli business on the exchange with a combined market capital of $14.7 billion.
The arrests came after a Daily Express ‘journalist’ spied on the group in order to report on activities and hand information on alleged plans to the police. Most of the UK press and broadcast media have ignored Israel’s crimes and worked to manufacture consent for its ongoing genocide of Palestinians, which so far has killed almost 32,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to the latest Euro-Med Monitor report. If failing to report even the basic facts of Israel’s crimes – including against its own people on 7 October – wasn’t bad enough, ‘reporters’ have now gone as far as acting on behalf of the state to criminalise direct action movement opposing Israel’s war crimes.
The UK state has been taking ever more draconian measures to try to punish and deter activists who stand on the side of humanity and against genocide. Numerous activists seeking an end to bloodshed have found themselves detained by the British state and often charged, with varying levels of state success. Palestine Action has stated repeatedly that it will not be diverted from the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the ending of all UK arms production and shipments to apartheid Israel.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Galloway makes ‘unity offer’ to Corbyn ‘to prevent socialist split’
George Galloway, left, at WPGB’s recent annual general meeting
Amid press speculation that Jeremy Corbyn may launch a new party or movement to challenge Starmer’s right wing, pro-Israel ‘Labour’ in this year’s general election, former Respect MP and pro-Palestine campaigner George Galloway is offering what insiders in his party are terming a ‘truce’ to Corbyn and his movement. Skwawkbox understands that Galloway is tabling a motion which, if passed, will raise the potential for Galloway and former Labour MP Chris Williamson’s Workers Party (WPGB) to cooperate with Corbyn’s project, in the hope of avoiding a split in the socialist vote at the General Election.
The motion will be tabled by Galloway at the party’s ‘Members Council’ in Birmingham on Saturday 20 January, reaffirming the party’s commitment to avoiding unnecessary electoral clashes with other left groups, a proposal the Workers Party originally put to TUSC (Trade Union and Socialist Coalition) in 2022 and which remains in place.
Keir Starmer’s extreme authoritarianism, commitment to expanding NHS privatisation and support for Israel’s genocidal policies make him as great a threat to the life and liberty of British people as the Tories – and many would argue greater.
Galloway’s supporters say the move is being made in the hope that a united socialist movement could dent Starmer’s chances of forming a majority at General Election 2024. According to the Labour right’s own workings, Starmer needs a 1997-scale swing from the Tories to secure a majority of 1 at the election. Starmer’s allies have also quietly admitted that they expect Labour to lose seats at the election over the issue of Palestine, while even mainstream pollsters are indicating that Labour’s “20 points ahead” lead is very likely to shrink, potentially thwarting Starmer’s hopes for a majority. Preventing a split amongst socialists could therefore prove decisive in stopping Starmer’s worrying and dishonest regime from taking power.
Previously, the best chance of ousting Starmer from the Labour leadership was in 2021’s Batley and Spen By Election, which was won by Starmer ally Kim Leadbetter by just three hundred votes after a disgracefully Islamophobic campaign. Leadbetter went on to vote against a ceasefire in Palestine during a parliamentary vote. Many in Labour’s left-leaning Socialist Campaign Group (SCG) chose to campaign for Leadbetter and Starmer’s victory. Had the result gone the other way, it’s likely that Starmer would have been forced out.
The Workers party is led by George Galloway, with former Labour MP Chris Williamson, Aslef Vice President Andy Hudd, and former Ambassador Peter Ford acting as Deputy Leaders. The party has announced its intention to stand in up to 50 seats in the forthcoming General Election. Galloway is the party candidate in the 2024 London Mayoral contest.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Starmer ‘didn’t know’ re sub-postmasters, ‘wasn’t involved’ on Savile. What DID he do as DPP?
Analysis: CPS prosecuted at least 27 people – and as many as 38 – running post offices during Horizon scandal – it strains credibility to claim he knew nothing
Labour has claimed that none of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutions of innocent sub-postmasters went ‘to [Keir Starmer’s] desk. Starmer himself has now told reporters that he knew nothing about any of the cases:
I wasn’t aware of any of them. I think there was a small number within a 20-year window, that’s all I know. I don’t even now – I think the CPS are helping with inquiries – how many of those may or may not have involved Horizon.
There were at least twenty-seven and as many as thirty eight cases.
One such case that definitely happened under Starmer’s tenure as CPS head was the prosecution of Seema Misra, who was jailed for fifteen months in 2010 – on her son’s tenth birthday – for fraud that she never committed. She was pregnant when she was prosecuted and jailed – and her conviction was only quashed in 2021. The prosecution did not disclose to the court that the Post Office knew the Horizon system was faulty and had at least forty examples of the system causing shortfalls at Post Office branches.
When the scandal of serial rapist Jimmy Savile broke and Starmer was attacked for not prosecuting him, Keir Starmer did not personally deny he had been involved in the decision not to prosecute Savile, instead allowing mouthpieces – including Tory MPs – to say he was not aware of it, insisting that we believe that he ran the CPS and was never asked for his view on whether to prosecute the offender who was, at the time, Britain’s highest-profile entertainer.
Starmer boasted of his role in prosecuting former government minister Chris Huhne and promised the US he would ‘do everything’ to secure the extradition of autistic hacker Gary McKinnon – yet supposedly was not consulted by his subordinates about Savile.
The CPS claimed it had destroyed all records relating to the decision not to prosecute Savile. The CPS also claimed that it had destroyed all records relating to prosecution of Seema Misra.
We are asked to believe that Starmer was not involved in the Savile decision, was not involved in or consulted on any CPS Post Office cases – was not even aware of their existence – despite them taking place while he ran the CPS and despite revelations, a year before the Misra case, in the press about the known, widespread issues with the Horizon system causing false ‘shortfalls’ in Post Office branches.
As Labour leader, Starmer has covered up a whistleblower’s allegations of ‘sadistic’ and ‘criminal’ exploitation of vulnerable domestic violence victims by a Labour staffer who was the lover of the MP she was working for. That MP, Khalid Mahmood, did not dispute a victim’s sworn evidence in whistleblower Elaina Cohen’s successful tribunal for wrongful dismissal – and confirmed under oath that Starmer and Labour general secretary David Evans were fully and repeatedly aware of the allegations.
Starmer also sheltered at least two alleged sex pests in his Shadow Cabinet and re-admitted racist and sex harasser MP Neil Coyle back into the parliamentary party, as well as Mike Gapes, the right-wing former MP who defended fellow right-winger Ian McKenzie after McKenzie tweeted about the rape and beheading of Thornberry herself, and former MPs who defended him. He is a creature of the Establishment and sides with it every time.
What the hell was he doing while he was boss of the CPS if he didn’t know about the highest profile cases and wasn’t consulted on the widest miscarriage of justice in British legal history? This site does not believe it is credible.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Labor’s migration policy puts profit before people
Labor is fuelling racist views about migration, announcing a major crackdown on the number of people entering Australia to study or work.
It marks a retreat from the concept of a “Big Australia”, with the government boasting that net migration will fall from 510,000 in 2023 to 375,000 in 2024 and 250,000 in 2025. This is a return to pre-COVID levels after several years of catching up for the period where borders were closed.
The ALP is facing widespread worries about housing affordability. The Scanlon Institute reports that 33 per cent of Australians are concerned the migration intake is too large, the highest such figure in more than 15 years.
The response from Home Affairs Minister, Clare O’Neil, and Immigration Minister, Andrew Giles, is to “rebuild social licence”. That’s code for blaming migrants for problems the government won’t solve.
It’s a race to the bottom, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese goading Opposition leader Peter Dutton that “there were more than 100,000 asylum-seekers claiming protection” from his time as Home Affairs Minister.
The new migration policy was announced by Albanese on 11 December, shortly after the government caved in to Dutton and rushed through draconian new restrictions on non-citizens released from indefinite detention.
Taken together, the crackdowns are a weaponisation of racist myths that foreigners are responsible for housing shortages and crime.
Rather than building public housing and ordering rent freezes, Labor is turning migrants into scapegoats. It’s a strategy that risks stoking racism.
Two objectives
Labor’s new migration strategy includes eight “key actions”. But they boil to two objectives—cutting migration numbers and recruiting more high-skilled workers.
The first victims will be international students, with tougher language standards and “genuine student” tests.
It will be harder to get a second student visa or to move between university and vocational education.
International student numbers shot up after the end of the pandemic. These measures are designed to slash numbers quickly, especially among those attending cheaper institutions.
There is no concern for the students themselves, whose high fees are a major export earner, worth $41.3 billion in the 12 months to September 2023.
But Labor is also using its changes to help the bosses who are facing shortages of skilled workers.
There is compassion for employers who can’t find workers, but none for refugees and asylum-seekers still living in limbo.
Labor could grant permanent visas tomorrow to refugees who spent years in offshore detention in Papua New Guinea or Nauru, or to the 12,000 victims of the flawed, so-called “fast track” system designed to keep out asylum-seekers.
It could make family reunion easier for migrants already settled here. Or slash the waiting time for partner visas, which has blown out to as much as eight years for offshore applications.
But its focus is on boosting profits.
Labor will introduce a Skills in Demand visa to make it easier for Australia to attract highly skilled workers and a Talent and Innovation visa for migrants “who can drive growth in sectors of national importance”.
As the government statement says, “Our task is to get migration working for the nation. Reorienting the program to address our national challenges … And building better planning in the system so we can get the skills we need, where we need them.”
Shortfall
Previous scare campaigns about the level of migration have centred on concerns about jobs, urban overcrowding or traffic jams.
This time the focus is on housing. Housing Australia, a federal government agency, predicts a shortfall of 175,000 homes by 2027.
Rents for units are increasing on average at about 10 per cent a year. Everyone has stories about long queues to inspect empty properties.
But it’s not high migration that is slowing the rate at which private houses and units are built but shortages of labour and materials, and high interest rates.
Migrants need housing but they can also contribute to building it.
Government policy favours property speculators and landlords. When Labor blames migration it is deflecting attention away from its refusal to build homes.
Meanwhile negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts for property investors will cost the government $39 billion this year—78 times what Labor is proposing to spend through its housing fund.
And many investment properties simply stand empty. In Victoria, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that 10,000 homes are long-term vacant.
As one local councillor put it, “People can’t get into housing, but there’s an abundance of housing—it’s just not being put on the market.”
Migrants don’t cause housing shortages—government support for property speculators is to blame.
By David Glanz
The post Labor’s migration policy puts profit before people first appeared on Solidarity Online.
Exclusive: how the Poplar and Limehouse trigger ballot was rigged against Apsana Begum
Allegations of irregularities become concrete example of branch fix that prevented Muslim woman MP being automatically selected to stand again
In 2022, Poplar and Limehouse’s left-wing Muslim woman MP Apsana Begum faced a ‘vicious and misogynistic’ campaign to deselect her that had left campaigners and women’s groups horrified.
The campaign followed a party attempt to remove Begum as the London constituency’s MP by prosecuting her for housing fraud. The stitch-up fell apart when a court threw out the charges brought by allies of her allegedly-abusive ex-husband – forcing Labour party vultures, who had been at the court in anticipation of a guilty verdict to announce a contest to replace her, to slink away disappointed and unable to install a favoured right-winger in the overwhelmingly Labour-voting seat.
After the ‘lawfare’ failed, Begum’s many supporters accused the party of gross abuse of process, of bullying and intimidation, and even of outright rigging in its determination to ‘trigger’ Begum and force her into a selection contest – and Begum was even threatened with ‘serious abuse’ by a relative of her ex.
Now Skwawkbox has received details from local members of one of the selection meetings demonstrating how the trigger vote was rigged – a vote that both exemplifies the stitch-up tactics and would have ensured Begum was selected again automatically had the party reacted and investigated properly. These can now be exposed and they corroborate earlier evidence at the time of the process.
Begum’s trigger ballot process started in May 2022, just after the local council elections – and from the start, locals say it was marred by blatant breaking of party rules.
Only an MP and her supporters are allowed to campaign during the process, and no-one is allowed to campaign as if they were an alternative candidate. Opponents of Begum who supported her being triggered completely ignored these rules. Many complaints were made to the party but were ignored.
The trigger ballot meeting for Lansbury and Poplar – a branch consisting of two wards combined – was the first of the CLP’s votes to be held, on 31st May 2022. A large group of people vocally supporting a vote to trigger Begum gathered outside the hall, telling people to vote for the trigger and giving out slips of paper with marked up dummy ballot papers to guide any unsure of the process, acts completely against party rules. Branch officials told these agitators that what they were doing was completely against the rules, but they refused to stop.
Inside the hall, the meeting was in uproar before it even began, with aggression and abuse by Begum’s opponents, who were even ‘yelling and jumping up and down and waving fists in the faces of branch officers’. Some went as far as openly demanding that Labour’s official protocol for the meeting be abandoned and to go straight to a vote, so they could – in as many words – ‘vote for the trigger and go home!’
At this point, a senior officer of the constituency-wide party (CLP) turned up at the meeting, despite having no official role there – Skwawkbox understands that several CLP officers are close to Begum’s ex-husband and determined to oust her.
As people were being ticked off the eligible voter list to ensure only those entitled to vote took part, several people arrived who were not on the list, fuelling the aggressive and intimidatory atmosphere as they demanded to be let in.
The CLP officer said they would check eligibility through their phone – and insisted that four extra people be allowed into the meeting and given ballot papers. Requests to clarify where this information came from were ignored.
When the vote was taken, the result was 43-43 – meaning that if the four pro-trigger voters were not eligible to vote, the real result would have been a victory for Begum by 43-39. This would have meant Begum won the required ten percent in the CLP section vote – which under Labour’s rules meant she had won the trigger process and would automatically stand again as Labour’s candidate in the next parliamentary election.
Labour ignored a string of complaints about this meeting and dismissed the few it responded to. But when the membership system was finally accessible again (after being out of action because of a hacking attack), branch members were able to confirm that the one extra ‘member’ allowed in by the CLP officer – the only one known personally to other members present – was not eligible to vote, because her membership had been confirmed well before the trigger meeting to have lapsed. There was no way she could have been on the CLP officer’s ‘list’.
The names of the other three names allowed in were written at the time on the master copy of the attendee list – but the CLP observer, also an opponent of Begum – insisted on taking it away with him. But even if they were bona fide members – which they were not because they appeared on no membership list – Begum still won the vote 43-42, and so would have automatically been selected to stand again.
Members have lodged multiple complaints about this abuse of process but have been ignored. Even if the other branch votes were held in perfect propriety – which goes against reports of the way they were conducted – the real result in Lansbury and Poplar was enough to select Begum uncontested.
Labour has been accused repeatedly, up and down the country, of rigging trigger and selection processes, sometimes successfully – for example in nearby Ilford South to remove incumbent Sam Tarry – and occasionally not, as when Liverpool West Derby MP Ian Byrne was able to fight off repeated attempts.
So bad has the party’s conduct been that even journalist Michael Crick – no left-winger – who runs the ‘tomorrowsmps’ Twitter account detailing the latest selection news has publicly voiced his own concerns about Labour’s rigging and abuse of its selection processes. Now the mechanism – or at least one of them – for rigging in Poplar and Limehouse to oust a popular left-wing MP has been laid bare by the evidence and the testimonies of locals.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Starmer ‘planning attack on Corbyn’ in Bristol speech in desperate attention ploy
Best plan for left-wingers is to ignore feeble attempt to provoke backlash in pursuit of ‘MSM’ attention
Rent-free: Starmer can’t stop thinking about Corbyn and has nothing to offer than ‘I’m not him’
‘Labour’ ‘leader’ Keir Starmer is planning to make his planned speech in Bristol on Thursday an attack on Labour’s last real leader, Jeremy Corbyn, according to Labour sources.
The speech venue is being kept secret until the last minute in an attempt to avoid scenes of protests by large crowds outraged by Starmer’s support for Israeli genocide and apartheid, and disgusted by his adoption of Tory politics – and party insiders say that Starmer is frustrated at his inability to get the so-called ‘mainstream’ media’s attention and that his speech will be little more than another assault on Corbyn in an attempt to provoke an online reacton from left-wingers and get the media to give him airtime.
The best response from the left, therefore, is to treat Starmer’s feeble tactics with the disdain they deserve and ignore them while talking positively about the left’s vision and the hope it offers, rather than to engage and boost both his social media metrics and the chances of the media taking notice.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Israel planning to transfer Palestinians to Congo
Ethnic cleansing plans outed further but still ignored by western ‘mainstream’ media
Image: ActionAid
Israel is negotiating with Congo – it is unclear from reports which of the two neighbouring Congos – and other African nations to transfer the Palestinian people, according to reports in the Times of Israel and its sister site Zman Israel.
Both the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) regularly see serious human rights violations, including massacres. A 2022 US Department of State report on human rights in the Republic, which is commonly known as Congo Brazzaville after its capital city to distinguish it from its neighbour – states that:
Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; political prisoners or detainees; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference
and more.
In the DRC, human rights groups have noted massacres and other human rights violations. Amnesty International said in 2022 that the DRC:
continued to experience serious human rights violations, including mass killings in the context of armed conflict and inter-communal violence, a crackdown on dissent and ill-treatment of detainees. People from regions affected by armed conflict, including eastern DRC, were particularly affected amid mass displacement and a deepening humanitarian crisis. The authorities continued to show a lack of political will to hold the perpetrators of human rights violations to account. The right to education was violated.
The Times quoted a ‘senior’ security cabinet source and comments by Israeli minister Gila Gamliel:
Israeli officials have held clandestine talks with the African nation of Congo and several others for the potential acceptance of Gaza emigrants.
“Congo will be willing to take in migrants, and we’re in talks with others,” a senior source in the security cabinet tells [journalist] Shalom Yerushalmi.
Yerushalmi quotes Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel saying at the Knesset yesterday: “At the end of the war Hamas rule will collapse, there are no municipal authorities, the civilian population will be entirely dependent on humanitarian aid. There will be no work, and 60% of Gaza’s agricultural land will become security buffer zones.”
The UK government has disgraced itself by continued attempts to transfer desperate refugees to Rwanda, attempts continually blocked by the courts – but the Israeli regime was the first to do it, sending around 4,000 Black refugees fleeing war in Eritrea and Sudan to Rwanda between 2013 and 2018 before discontinuing what it called ‘voluntary’ departure – similar to the ‘voluntary emigration’ euphemism it uses for its ethnic cleansing plan, alongside ‘humanitarian migration’.
Israel has an appalling record toward Black people, even Black Jews – and last year threatened to deport them, too. The SAGE Race & Class Journal notes that:
Ethiopian Jews who have been brought into Israel in several mass transfer operations, have found themselves relegated to an underclass. They are not only racially discriminated against in housing, employment, education, the army and even in the practice of their religion, but have also been unwittingly used to bolster illegal settlements.
Now, as well as the already-outed plan to force huge numbers of Palestinians out of Gaza into the Egyptian desert, Israel is actively working on plans to force more out of the Middle East altogether and into Africa. The Israeli regime’s war crimes continue to pile up.
Despite the similarities with the UK’s racist government, at the time of writing the UK’s so-called ‘mainstream’ media have not reported Israel’s plan – as has been the case with much of Israel’s racism and criminality.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Cartoon: Fun with ethno-nationalist dog whistles
Help keep this work sustainable by joining the Sorensen Subscription Service! Also on Patreon.
My experience with geopolitics of knowledge in political philosophy so far
Geopolitics of knowledge is a fact. Only few (conservative) colleagues would contend otherwise. Ingrid Robeyns wrote an entry for this blog dealing with this problem. There, Ingrid dealt mostly with the absence of non-Anglophone colleagues in political philosophy books and journals from the Anglophone centre. I want to stress that this is not a problem of language, for there are other centres from which we, philosophers from the “Global South” working in the “Global South”, are excluded. In political philosophy, the centre is composed of the Anglophone world and three European countries: Italy, France, and Germany. From my own experience, the rest of us do not qualify as political philosophers, for we are, it seems, unable to speak in universal terms. We are, at best, providers of particular cases and data for Europeans and Anglophones to study and produce their own philosophical and universal theories. I think most of you who are reading are already familiar with the concept of epistemic extractivism, of which this phenomenon is a case. (If not, you should; in case you don’t read Spanish, there is this).
Critical political philosophy is one of the fields where the unequal distribution of epistemic authority is more striking. I say “striking” because it would seem, prima facie, that political philosophers with a critical inclination (Marxists, feminists, anti-imperialists, etc.) are people more prone to recognising injustice than people from other disciplines and tendencies. But no one lives outside a system of injustice and no one is a priori completely exempt from reproducing patterns of silencing. Not even ourselves, living and working in the “Global Southern” places of the world. Many political philosophers working and living in Latin America don’t even bother to read and cite their own colleagues. This is, to be sure, a shame, but there is a rationale behind this self-destructive practice. Latin American scholars know that their papers have even lesser chances of being sent to a reviewing process (we are usually desk-rejected) if they cite “too many” pieces in Spanish and by authors working outside of the academic centre.
In many reviews I’ve received in my career, I have been told to cite books by people from the centre just because they are trending or are being cited in the most prestigious Anglophone journals, even if they would contribute nothing to my piece and research. I have frequently been told by reviewers to give more information about the “particular” social-historical context I am writing from because readers don’t know a lot about it. This is an almost verbatim phrase from a review I got recently. I wonder if readers of Anglophone prestigious, Q1 journals stop being professional researchers the instant they start reading about José Carlos Mariátegui or Argentina’s last right-wing dictatorship. Why can’t they just do the research by themselves, why should we have to waste characters and words to educate an overeducated public? This is as tiresome as it is offensive. When I cite the work of non-Anglophone authors from outside of the imperial centres (UK, USA, Italy, Germany, and France, no matter the language they use to write), reviewers almost always demand that I include a reference to some famous native Anglophone (or Italian / German / French, without considering gender or race; the power differential here is simple geographical procedence) author who said similar things but decades after the authors I am quoting. I’ve read all your authors. Why haven’t they read “mine”? And why do they feel they have to suggest something else instead of just learning about “our” authors? This is what I want to reply to the reviewers. Of course, I don’t. I dilligently put the references they demand. I shouldn’t have to, but if I don’t, I don’t get published. There’s the imperial trick again.
English is also always a problem, but not for everyone who is not Anglophone. In 2020 I was in London doing research at LSE. I attended a lecture by a European political theorist. They gave the talk in English. Although they work at a United Statian University, their English was poor. The room was packed. The lecture was mediocre. I was annoyed. “Why do they feel they don’t have to make an effort to pronounce in an intelligible way?”, I thought. When I speak they don’t listen to me like that, with concentrated attention and making an effort to understand me. The reason is in plain view: coloniality of power. If you come from powerful European countries, you don’t need to ask for permission. You don’t need to excel. You don’t need to have something absolutely original to say. You just show up and talk. If you are from, let’s say, Argentina, and you work there (here), you have to adapt to the traditional analytic way of writing and arguing so typical in Anglophone contexts, including citing their literature, if you want to enter the room in the first place. You are not even allowed to use neologisms, although the omnipresent use of English as a lingua franca should have already made this practice at least tolerated. One cannot expect everyone to speak English and English to remain “English” all the same. Inclusion changes the game, if it doesn’t, then it is not isegoria what is going on but cultural homogenisation. (Here is a proposal for inclusive practices regarding Enlgish as a lingua franca). The manifest “Rethinking English as a lingua franca in scientific-academic contexts” offers a detailed critique of the idea and imposition of English as a lingua franca. I endorse it 100 %. (Here in Spanish, open access; here in Portuguese).
In my particular case, I am frequently invited to the academic centre, sometimes to write book chapters, encyclopaedia entries, and papers for special issues, sometimes to give talks and lectures. Not once have I not thought it was not tokenism. Maybe it is my own inferiority complex distorting my perception of reality, but we know from Frantz Fanon which is the origin of this inferiorisation.
I used to be pretty annoyed by this whole situation until I realised that I don’t need to try to enter conversations where I am not going to be heard, understood, or taken seriously. The fact is that we don’t need to be recognised as philosophers by those who willingly ignore our political philosophy. And this is why it is hard for me to participate in forums such as this blog. I just don’t want to receive the same comments I get when I send a paper to an Anglophone, Q1 journal, to put it simply.
But I also want to keep trying, not to feel accepted and to belong, but because I do believe in transnational solidarity and the collective production of emancipatory knowledge. It is a matter of recognition, and a question of whether it is possible for the coloniser to recognise the colonised, to name Fanon once more.