Repression
Video: pensioner among 3 peaceful anti-genocide protesters arrested in Hastings
State repression of civic rights and protection of weapons manufacturers continues to escalate
A pensioner and two other protestors were arrested by police on Thursday 29 February during a peaceful demonstration outside the General Dynamics arms factory in Hastings, East Sussex. The local people were among a broad coalition of community groups that came together to protest against Britain’s role in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The three were arrested and taken to Hastings police station where they were held for nearly fourteen hours before being charged with aggravated trespass and then released on bail. They will appear before magistrates on April 3.
Laurie Holden, 71, a retired train driver from Burwash, was one of those arrested at the demonstration. He said:
It is outrageous that the police are treating us as criminals. We are not the criminals here – we are highlighting the criminal complicity of our government and arms companies in continuing to supply arms to Israel which is in the dock for genocide in Gaza. We will always stand on the side of the people of Palestine.
The Hastings & District Palestine Solidarity Campaign [HDPSC] united with representatives of Jewish groups, trade union bodies, Quakers, climate justice groups, parent groups and political parties to draw attention to the part Hastings is playing in arming Israel.
HDPSC Chair Katy Colley said:
Our brave and principled friends have shown enormous courage in the face of disproportionate and heavy-handed policing of a peaceful, community-led protest.
In January, the International Court of Justice put Israel on trial for genocide in Gaza but since then the slaughter and starvation have worsened. Over 30,000 are dead and thousands more will die if this continues. Yesterday Israeli troops gunned down starving civilians in the north of Gaza as they waited for food – over 100 were killed and 700 injured in the ‘the Flour Massacre’. This latest horror underscores the urgency of stopping all arms sales to Israel. UN experts have warned that any arms transfers to Israel will breach international law and ordered all countries to stop all arms sales immediately.
Our government has refused to halt export licenses to Israel so it is our duty as citizens to stand up for peace, international law and human rights.
We will not stand by as the UK continues to arm this genocide of the Palestinian people. It must end now.’
The protest started at 7am at the Sidney Little Road factory, one of the two General Dynamics sites in Hastings, timed to coincide with workers as they arrived for work. Demonstrators held placards, sung songs for ‘Ceaefire Now’ and handed out leaflets which informed workers of their right to refuse to take part in handling components used in breach of international law.
Israel’s brutal campaign in Gaza has run for five months so far, killing almost 40,000 people and wounding and maiming double that number. The UN is now warning that a quarter of the population is at risk of death from famine and the World Health Organisation has said that more than a million are starving. Protests have been mounted outside arms factories all over the country, including in Kent, Leicester, Bristol, Bournemouth, Glasgow, Cambridge, Brighton, London, Lancashire, Belfast and Monmouthshire, to demand an end to UK’s ongoing complicity and enabling of genocide. This is HDPSC’s fourth protest at General Dynamics’ sites in Hastings since the campaign began.
According to the organisers, almost all of the ‘MK80’ bombs being dropped on Gaza are made by General Dynamics, which is the 5th biggest arms company in the world. The Hastings facilities provide avionic systems for fighter planes and tactical communications equipment for ground vehicles.
At the demo, Leah Levane of Jewish Voice for Labour said that Israel could no longer ‘act with impunity’.
It is shocking that the UK government is granting arms licences to Israel,’ she said. ‘This makes the UK partners in the occupation and the genocide in Gaza. As a Jewish organisation, we are one of several Jewish groups in the UK and the many more across the world who are protesting loud and clear – NOT IN OUR NAME.
Jen Rouse, representing Parents for Future Hastings & St Leonards, said:
We’re here today because as parents we cannot stand by and watch as our government supports a genocide of children.
The thought of our own kids having to live through even a fraction of the terror and trauma that Israel inflicts on Gazan children every day is unbearable. So the only right thing for all UK parents to do is to be here today, demanding an immediate end to the bloodshed. We will never give up until we see a free Palestine.
Simon Hester, Chair of Hastings & District Trades Union Council, added:
Hastings & District Trades Union Council supports the calls for end to all arms sales to Israel and for an immediate ceasefire to end the genocide in Gaza.
We demand that General Dynamics UK stop supplying equipment to the Israeli army or to get out of Hastings. We stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine.
Olivia Cavanagh of Hastings Community of Sanctuary and Hastings Supports Refugees said:
We continue to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the West Bank.
We support an embargo on arms sales from the UK to Israel and stand with the Hastings community to call on the local General Dynamics factories to stop supplying arms to Israel and to act to end the unprecedented killing of Palestinian civilians.’
Yunis Smith from Hastings Green Party said:
Years from now the children of the world will ask what did you do to stop this calamity? I for one hope I will have a good enough answer!
And Chris Goodchild of Hastings Quakers said:
The poor tell us who we are, the prophets who we can be. Yet we kill the poor and kill the prophets. We are all Palestinian and civil disobedience is divine obedience. Stop arming Genocide.
The arrest form part of an escalating campaign of repression and demonisation of peaceful protesters demonstrating against genocide. PM Rishi Sunak, who like ‘opposition’ leader Keir Starmer has constantly backed Israel’s murderous actions, has today smeared demonstrators as divisive and hateful and has threatened to deport those who fall foul of what he considers the limits of acceptable protest.
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.
Sexuality and the Rise of China – review
In Sexuality and the Rise of China, sociologist Travis Kong examines the experiences of post-1990s gay men in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Through interviews and historical analysis, Kong explores the societal values, familial pressures and political influences shaping LGBTQ+ identity in modern China, making a unique contribution to Asian queer studies. writes Linqiu Li .
Travis Kong’s latest book, Sexuality and the Rise of China continues his longstanding research focus on “generational sexualities.” Unlike his previous works that shed light on the life experience of East Asian elderly gay men (Chinese Male Homosexualities, 2012 and Oral Histories of Older Gay Men in Hong Kong, 2019), this book examines the post-90s generation of gay men within three distinct Chinese societies: mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Since 2017, Kong has interviewed 90 young gay men in Shanghai (mainland China), Hong Kong and Taipei (Taiwan). The book begins by providing a brief characterisation of this demographic in the three regions, in the context of The People’s Republic of China (PRC)’s political and economic rise in mainland China, young gay men exhibit confidence and pragmatism, yet “still struggle with their sexual identity.” In Hong Kong, most post-90s gay men express a collective desire to distance themselves to varying degrees from the influence of the Beijing government and “are generally comfortable with their sexual identity,” whereas the participants in Taiwan “are strongly Taiwanese nationalistic and “are generally accepting of their sexual identity and engage with gay communities and gay activism to different degrees” (3).
In Hong Kong’s case, British colonisation influenced the progression of its tongzhi culture.
In the first chapter, Kong adopts a historical perspective, elucidating how factors such as the decriminalisation of homosexual relations in 1991, the pink economy (which refers to the consumer economy of the LGBTQ+ community), the impact of colonisation, religious influence, and government surveillance have shaped the formation of tongzhi (a local parlance for LGBTQ+, which translates as “people who share the common will”) identity in the three regions to varying degrees. In Hong Kong’s case, British colonisation influenced the progression of its tongzhi culture. The rise of LGBTQ+ social groups and the boom of the pink economy have characterised homosexuality in Hong Kong with inclusive and diverse features. In Taiwan, as a consequence of Japanese colonisation and support from the US, the government has skilfully presented Taiwanese society as an open and pro-LGBTQ+ community (in contrast to the PRC government’s perceived human rights abuses) and aimed at gaining international recognition for its independence from China. Mainland China, on the other hand, experienced a void in gay culture from the Maoist era to the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. Trailing its two counterparts, the tongzhi identity began to develop gradually in the 1990s, but under Xi Jinping’s regime, regulations and restrictions have intensified, leading to the constant constriction of tongzhi population in recent years.
Kong further highlights the differences between Asian LGBTQ+ communities and Western gay societies […] underscoring the imperative for de-Westernisation in Asian queer studies.
Kong further highlights the differences between Asian LGBTQ+ communities and Western gay societies in Chapter Two, underscoring the imperative for de-Westernisation in Asian queer studies. The application of neoliberalism differs across the three regions: Mainland China promotes the idea that families should support the elderly to alleviate economic burdens for the government, Hong Kong advocates intra-familial assistance over government aid, and Taiwan emphasises familial responsibility for the elderly to address its ageing population. However, these diverse approaches have collectively resulted in the family unit becoming a central regulator for individuals’ private lives in all three places. Thus, in addressing the matters of tongzhi identity and coming out, Kong highlights the perpetual existence of a “double closet” in Chinese tongzhi identity (65). That is to say, in addition to the societal aspect of coming out, unlike in Western societies, gay men in PRC also confront the challenge of being either a good (filial) or bad (unfilial) child within the family.
Kong applies Berlant’s discussion of ‘cruel optimism’ to each of the three societies, pointing out that while one-on-one exclusivity remains the aspiration in gay men’s intimate relationships, most respondents failed to achieve this.
Following the exploration of tongzhi identity, Kong delves into the dynamics of engagement within the tongzhi community in Chapter Three. Here, Kong elaborates on the emergence of a new masculinity hierarchy among young gay men across the three locales. Kong argues the Chinese tongzhi community is characterised by a combination of homonormativity and hegemonic masculinity (91). Gay men who are young and have athletic bodies, practice exclusive one-on-one intimacy, and enjoy a consumerist urban lifestyle are admired within the community. Kong continues the discussion of homonormative masculinity in the Chapter Four, offering insights from the perspective of love and sex. Kong applies Berlant’s discussion of “cruel optimism” to each of the three societies, pointing out that while one-on-one exclusivity remains the aspiration in gay men’s intimate relationships, most respondents failed to achieve this. The possible reasons for this varied across the three societies. The high cost of private space presented a hurdle in Hong Kong, the immense pressure to marry in mainland China, and the flexible gay environment and easy access to online dating in Taiwan all contributed to the difficulty of maintaining monogamous relationships.
The varying degrees of presentation of homonationalism in the three regions is what Kong focuses on in the final chapter. Based on the definition of homonationalism by Puar (2007), that homonationalism is a political ploy by the government to gain support and co-opt LGBTQ+ people. Kong argues that the Taiwanese government exhibit an incorporative form of homonationalism, but with the premise to only recognise gay men who conform to the archetype of the “good citizen”(133). The situation differs in Hong Kong, whose government has a closer relationship with the PRC government compared to Taiwan. Due to the avoidance of addressing homosexuality as a prominent social issue, coupled with an emphasis on traditional Chinese family values, Kong sees Hong Kong’s homonationalism as deficient (141). In the context of mainland China, Kong proposes that PRC’s homonationalism exhibits “Chinese characteristics” or a “pragmatic homonationalism,” which accrued through negotiations with LGBTQ+ nongovernmental organisations, leveraging them as a platform to underscore public health concerns, or emphasising Confucian values such as parental love, and downplaying the sexual aspect in the topic of homosexuality (150).
Kong’s book is a significant contribution as the first study that discusses all three societies together and presents the lives of gay men from a variety of perspectives, including historical, cultural and political contexts.
Although there has been, and continues to be, a growing body of research literature addressing the life experience of LGBTQ+ (or Tongzhi) in the three locales, many of them have concentrated on either one single society or two. Kong’s book is a significant contribution as the first study that discusses all three societies together and presents the lives of gay men from a variety of perspectives, including historical, cultural and political contexts. In addition, acknowledging the intricate historical and political interrelations among the three societies, Kong proposes a new theoretical approach: a transnational queer sociology. This approach allows for a cross-national comparison of LGBTQ+ issues and discourse, combining sociology and cultural studies, and contributes to the de-Westernisation of queer studies in the Asian context. Whether for a general reader who wants to learn more about queer life in Asia or an academic scholar with a research interest in Asian queer studies, this book is definitely worth reading.
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: Q Wang on Shutterstock.