Cold Weather & Global Warming

So snow in January in the UK somehow proves global warming is just a myth, right? Wrong. Here's the science...

Don't Look Suspicious On The Way To Work

Abandoned bag on the Jubilee Line at Stratford - photo: Andrew Wilkes

Over the last week, the police have been busy promoting the use of “behavioural science” to detect terrorist threats on the London underground, analysing passengers' body language and actions for suspicious behaviour to decide who to stop and search, as an positive alternative to racial profiling. The Evening Standard reported British Transport Police Chief Constable Andy Trotter saying:

“This is an objective assessment of people's behaviour rather than profiling who they are. The method takes away the blanket approach to stop and search and lets officers focus on people who may be of interest by looking at behaviour...

We do not profile, but in a mass transit situation we are dealing with a whole range of different people. The idea is to make our officers more targeted when they are confronted with masses of people.”

The idea of 'behavioural profiling' - called the Behavioural Analysis Screening System - has already been taken up by BAA, who are training specialist staff at Heathrow alongside the other, far more intrusive and controversial plans for full-body scanners at airports, which were trialled for use on the Underground but abandoned as impractical in 2008.

On the face of it, concentrating on behavioural patterns to identify potential suicide bombers seems like common sense, but it is also fraught with difficulty. Speaking as someone who has regularly had panic attacks travelling on the tube and avoids it whenever possible, I know that nervousness and discomfort are not necessarily signs of suspicious behaviour. It's also not that hard to spot people with 'the appearance of being drugged', especially during the morning commute and (for different reasons) on a Friday and Saturday evening. As for clutching a bag tightly, announcements are always been made about the need to 'beware of pickpockets' and who doesn't do so on the tube (especially on the farther flung parts of the Central line, it seems)?

Then, of course, there is the advice the police give, asking for the public to act as their eyes and ears. How likely is it that many Londoners will, at times of heightened tension, simply "trust their instincts and report suspicious behaviour" based on race: the kind of assumptions that lead to incidents like this?

All of this matters because the police in London spectacularly failed to use their supposedly keen sense of instinct or common sense when they 'profiled' Jean Charles de Menezes for acting 'suspiciously' - and look how that ended up. Why should we believe that they are now any better? Little had apparently changed in the training of police marksmen between July 2005 and the inquest into Jean's death in 2008. Moreover, the senior officer in command on the day that Jean was killed, Cressida Dick, notoriously told the inquest, "if you are asking me did we do anything wrong or unreasonable, then I don't think we did," but has still been repeatedly rewarded.

Furthermore, the police have made much of how this 'ground-breaking' tactic has been developed by the plucky Israelis, as though this confers some particular expertise and significance. But the reality is that there is nothing subtle about the Israeli approach to security: crude racial profiling is commonplace. Last March the Association for Civil Rights in Israel brought a legal challenge against racist treatment of Arab Israelis and in October, even the US State Department was complaining about the way that American citizens of Arab origin were treated at Israeli border crossings.

It strikes me that the publicity around 'behavioural profiling' seems more like an attempt to provide reassurance, to demonstrate that something is being done, whilst deliberately steering clear of the controversy over racial profiling that is almost certain to continue.

Meanwhile, if you travel on the tube regularly - and especially if you are black or Asian - it might be a good idea to break the habits of a lifetime. Start making eye contact with other passengers, take your hands out of your pockets, try to look like you are enthusiastic rather than half-dazed about the prospects of heading for work and make sure you have a proper seasonal wardrobe.

Most importantly of all, make absolutely sure you don't look nervous...

LAZY FRIDAY - Paxman

Yet another brilliant Friday lunchtime distraction.

Caithlin Moran in the Times may argue that the departure of Jonathan Ross "instantly makes the BBC look weaker and duller" and that "you can judge the strength of any organisation by its ability to take on board and utilise eccentrics." But here are two reminders why, if the Tories are elected and decide to decimate the BBC for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch, we may never again see the like of Newsnight eccentric Jeremy Paxman. Gawd bless yer Paxo.

Newham Bookshop Presents: Saci Lloyd - The Carbon Diaries 2017

Newham Bookshop presents Saci Lloyd’s sequel to the acclaimed book for teenagers, Carbon Diaries 2015 on:

Wednesday 10 February
at Stratford Circus
Theatre Square,
Stratford,
London E15 1BX

at 5.30 pm. Tickets at £3 from Stratford Circus Box Office on 0844 357 2625 or from www.stratford-circus.com.

Laura Brown is now in her first year of university in London, a city still struggling to pull itself together after the great flood and the arrival of a new rationing era. Laura’s right in the heart of it; her band, the Dirty Angels, are gigging all over town until a police crackdown on rioting students forces them out of the city. After a brief exile on her parents' farm, they set off in a battered VW bus on a tour of Europe that soon unravels in an increasingly dramatic sequence of events, including drought in Europe and Africa, a tidal-wave of desperate immigrants, a water war in the Middle East and a city-wide face off with the army in London.

How long can Laura distance herself from the struggle? And more importantly, how can she keep her style and hope alive in a world on the edge of madness?

Praise for Carbon Diaries 2015:

'Everyone who cares about the future of the planet should read this book!'
Costa judging panel

'An uproarious, scathing and pathos-filled romp - Adrian Mole does the apocalypse.'
Financial Times

UPDATE: Sunday 17 January

Apparently Johnny Depp lost his bid to film The Carbon Diaries books because Lloyd picked the BBC instead - see this Observer article - Forget Harry Potter: Saci Lloyd thrills teenagers with a heroine who battles climate change and extremism

Oxford Police's Riot Shield Tobogganists Reprimanded

The BBC reports that police officers filmed using riot shields to sledge down Boars Hill in Oxford while on duty (or as one wag on Twitter puts it, "abusing UK's largest cocaine haul") have been reprimanded.

Supt Andrew Murray from Thames Valley Police, said:

"I have spoken to the officers concerned and reminded them in no uncertain terms that tobogganing on duty, on police equipment and at taxpayers' expense is a very bad idea should they wish to progress under my command."

Here's the video:

Pat Robertson: Haiti Disaster Due To 'Pact With Devil'

According to the American evangelist Pat Robertson, speaking on the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, the deaths of thousands in the massive earthquake in Haiti is a consequence of a pact with the devil that paved the way for the country's independence in 1804.

I guess that means that in the eyes of the moonbat US Christian Right, the Haitians had it coming to them... What a tosser.

For details on making a donation to the Haiti Earthquake Appeal visit the Disasters Emergency Committee or the Haiti Action Network

PAT ROBERTSON: And, you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." True story. And so, the devil said, "OK, it's a deal."

And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It's cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti; on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, et cetera. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy, I'm optimistic something good may come. But right now, we're helping the suffering people, and the suffering is unimaginable.

KRISTI WATTS (co-host): Absolutely, Pat.

Hat Tip: Media Matters for America

Text 4 Gary - Text GARY to 65000

You have probably heard of the case of Gary McKinnon, the computer geek with Asperger’s who accessed US military and NASA computers in search of information on UFOs, who has for several years been fighting extradition to the USA. What you may not be aware of, however, is how this case represents a gross injustice against a vulnerable and peaceful man, and a frightening precedent under an extradition treaty that places every UK citizen at risk of summary extradition, even without a shred of evidence against them.

The Home Secretary has claimed (in Parliament, and in the press) that Gary McKinnon has admitted to the majority of the allegations against him, and that his actions, as admitted, constitute extremely serious offences. Yet the only crime to which Gary McKinnon has admitted is Computer Misuse – accessing the US machines. For those who do not know, Computer Misuse is a Summary Offence, which carries a maximum jail sentence of 6 months, and which, if admitted, and a first offence, may be disposed of by means of a caution. In any case, it is not an extraditable offence.

The more serious allegations against Mr McKinnon, upon which the extradition request rests - that he caused damage to US computer systems - would appear to be wholly groundless, in addition to which, he has always denied them. These allegations were not made until some 3 years after the events in question, coinciding with the introduction of the new extradition treaty between the US and UK, and coinciding with the exact sums required in order to create an extraditable offence. Convenient, no?

Such evidence for these allegations as was provided to the court by US prosecutors was rejected by the CPS as ‘hearsay’ and ‘no evidence’. The Judge (Lord Justice Stanley Burnton) and the CPS were in agreement that to prosecute these allegations would be an embarrassment to the prosecution. According to computer expert Professor Peter Sommers, at the same court hearing, the amounts of ‘damage’ claimed merely represent the costs of installing the passwords and firewalls which any competent organisation should have already had in place at the time. In other words, the amounts claimed do not actually represent ‘damage’ as such.

It would appear therefore, that even under the terms of the extradition treaty (which incidentally, has been denounced both by Liberty in the UK, and by the American Civil Liberties Union, but is strangely defended by the Home Secretary), the conditions for extradition are not met in Gary’s case. Specifically, it does not appear to be the case that “a reasonable person, acting without prejudice” would have grounds to suspect that the crimes being alleged ever took place.

The Home Secretary nevertheless claims that he is powerless to halt the extradition on any grounds other than the Human Rights Act, despite being directed by the Home Affairs Select Committee that he has far broader powers of discretion than that. Shami Chakrabati of Liberty also shares this view, as indeed does virtually everybody, except for Alan Johnson, a man with no legal training whatsoever. Who do you believe?

The Home Secretary has also been very keen to make the point that having Asperger’s Syndrome should not confer blanket immunity from prosecution. It is as if he wishes to imply that Gary’s family or lawyers have argued for such a thing. They have not. They merely argue for Gary to be tried in the UK, in view of the fact that because of his Asperger’s, extradition would have an atypically damaging effect on him, and would thus be a disproportionately cruel punishment for a non-violent crime.

At present, a decision is awaited as to whether to permit the Judicial Review of the Home Secretary’s decision not to halt the extradition. In the meantime, supporters of Gary McKinnon have launched an SMS petition. By texting the word GARY to 65000, people can join the petition to keep and try Gary McKinnon in the UK (standard network charges apply, and no profit is made).

For more details see www.freegary.org.uk

Debating Climate Camp and the Police

Camp for Climate Action's online discussion forum (an excellent development, incidentally) has set out a draft policy statement on the relationship between Climate Camp and the police, one that sets out the current position as follows:

... the media and legal team are currently operating on an indistinct mandate with the collective message from the camp still unclear. We believe that this is unhelpful and is leading to misrepresentation of the diversity of viewpoints across the movement. Furthermore, events at Blackheath have demonstrated that there is a need for a clear position in advance. The time for debate is not in the midst of actively dealing with the police, but before the situations arise.

With respect, this sounds like a very diplomatic but nevertheless colossal understatement. The reality is that one of the strongest points of the Camp - its deliberate openness - was mysteriously abandoned at Blackheath last year with the decision (documented in the Channel 4 Dispatches programme Ready for a Riot) to hold a prearranged and closed 'behind-canvas-flaps" meeting on site with the Met 'Silver' commander, superintendent Julia Pendry. After the violence by the police during April's G20 protest and the death of Ian Tomlinson, there shouldn't have been a need for a 'collective message from the camp' to exercise far greater caution - it should have been instinctual. That's why I have to agree wholeheartedly with the statement by the Anarchist Federation in the current issue of Shift Magazine that identifies "the naivety of many campers and the narrow social base from which the camp was drawn":

...no-one who’s had much experience of the police (whether they’ve encountered them in the course of political activism, ecological direct action, or just through the experience of being an ethnic minority or “underclass” youth) could be taken in by the police’s strategy towards the camp, which essentially amounted to a well-thought-out PR campaign.

Nor has it only been in 'the midst of actively dealing with the police' that caution seems to have been put to one side - within only an hour of the publication of the 205-page Inspectorate of Constabulary review 'Adapting to Protest', a representative of the Climate Camp legal team had spoken on behalf of the camp and argued that “the HMIC recommendations – if implemented – could help put a stop to some of the worst policing tactics, reduce injuries from police violence, and increase their accountability.” A closer examination of the report, however, showed that it too was essentially another PR exercise. Its recommendations - guidance, codification and better training - could have come from any one of the previous inquiries into the policing of protest that have been held over the last 35 years and were based on a a traditional 'British model of policing' that has never existed.

The draft statement is therefore welcome. It says:

The Camp for Climate Action believes that

a) That the police are part of the problem, not part of the solution; illustrated by
their classification of the Camp for Climate Action and related protest groups as
“Domestic Extremists”. Experience has shown that where police intervene in actions and protest groups, their purpose is to protect the status quo, including the
Government and corporations which are both causing and failing to act on climate
change. Thus we cannot accept their legitimacy.

b) That engaging with the police is to be done solely for the purposes of
facilitating the protests of the Camp for Climate Action.

c) That the police have no role to play in our camps, and we reject their
interference on our right to protest insofar as it is physically possible.

d) That the police have proven themselves to be untrustworthy in keeping their word, and therefore our fundamental stance is to mistrust their promises. We do not believe that they respect the right to protest. While they are on the back foot over the events of Kingsnorth and the G20, we do not believe these leopards have really changed their spots.

e) That dealing with the police is a distraction from the aims of the camp in tackling the root causes of climate change.

Thus we empower the relevant working groups as follows:

1. Legal: to continue their work exposing the abusive process of the police; to continue monitoring and analysing the police; and to work with media and police liaison working groups where messages are to be distributed into the public domain.
   
   
2. Police Liaison to be the messengers between the Camp for Climate Action and the Police, and to only negotiate on those issues where they have been specifically mandated by the group they are working on behalf of; and to actively facilitate actions and camps only where asked with the purpose of minimizing impact of the police on CCA actions and camps.
   
   
3. Media: to report on the work of the liaison and legal groups, but to be careful to not to provide legitimisation for the activities or existence of the police as an institution. To emphasise that action against the root causes of climate change is always going to be more important than laws that defend the polluters and restrict protest.
   
   

The idea of Police Liaison as 'messengers' could, in the circumstances, require greater clarification: it should mean meetings with the police only with a very clear agenda, agreed negotiating points and idea of what message needs conveying, rather than simply for a 'chat'. If the police want to communicate with environmental protesters, they should be made, as often as possible, to do so publicly, rather than think they can do so through closed meetings with people they want to see as 'leaders'.

For the same reason, rather than the same one or two people taking on the role of police liaison, there needs to be a wider pool to draw upon and a clear separation from the very different role of the Legal team.

In addition, point (a) could also do with toughening up: the police are part of the problem not simply because they are 'anti-protest' but because Climate Camp's 'anti-capitalism', if it means anything at all, should involve a rejection of all state structures as obstacles to preventing catastrophic climate change.

But otherwise this is a very useful statement of principles.

Climate Camp London Neighbourhood Gathering This Weekend

The Camp for Climate Action London Neighbourhood New Year Gathering takes place this weekend (16/17 January) from 10.30am to 5.30pm at Tottenham Chances, 399 High Road, Tottenham, London N17 6QN (nearest tube: Tottenham Hale/Seven Sisters)


View Larger Map

Discussions include:

• What was good and what was bad in 2009, from the G20 to Copenhagen?
• What should the climate justice movement do next - in London, the UK and internationally?
• What are our goals for 2010?
• How should we organise to meet them?
• What should we organise together?

Essential reading for all Climate Campers in the run up to regional gatherings can be found at Criticism without Critique - A Climate Camp Reader (PDF) - a rather pleasant surprise is that it includes a contribution from this blog.

It is also worth checking out the proposals discussion online forum here

Anyone planning on attending the London gathering should confirm by email so there is enough food for everyone. There will be a KidSpace at the gathering to provide childcare for parents who want to participate and a space for kids who want to be there but not in the long meetings. E-mail if you are up for helping facilitate play in the KidSpace - it would be great to have enough people to cover 1 of 4 slots over the weekend each (morning or afternoon) so that people can also take part in discussions.

Followed by London Climate Camp Social, including the Great Postponed Copenhagen Climate Camp Christmas Ceilidh.

Michael Albert - Imagine And Then Act

Z Magazine, in an attempt to increase the visibility and discussion of alternatives to capitalism, imperialism and patriarchy, is highlighting five essays from among more than 100 contributions to its Reimagining Society Project that address the question "What Do We Want." I was particularly interested in these reflections by co-editor Michael Albert.

Imagine a set of claims about vision and strategy for a participatory society. Imagine each claim is refined over time until the remaining list is important enough that 40 countries each send from 5 to 50 activists to a 5-day gathering of roughly 1,000 who further refine and then broadly agree on a final document. Imagine that this conference in turn conceives and promotes a proposal for an International Organization for a Participatory Society, including an interim structure, program, and methods of recruitment and action based on an initial 40 national chapters—then proceeding from there. Imagine that a year or so later 3,000-5,000 delegates from 60 countries representing 75,000-125,000 members gather to finalize a broadly-shared vision, structure, process, strategy, and program of this rapidly growing organization. It's a nice image, but can the Reimagining Society Project generate the shared claims needed to go forward? To argue that it can, here are some tentative claims.

Elevate Vision: My first claim seeks to refute the mainstream view that "there is no alternative" while also transcending the left view that even if an alternative is possible, it is not a priority and/or that unity around producing a convincing practical vision is virtually impossible. Rather, I maintain that only substance can counter cynicism and only by knowing where we want to go can we take steps to get us there. People who reject developing and sharing vision of a better society argue that vision might fuel sectarianism, overextend our knowledge, divert attention from important concerns, and might be monopolized by an elite using knowledge to accrue power.

Nonetheless, we should not leave vision to narrow academic groups or other elite formations. We should instead develop, advocate, and use vision flexibly and widely. We should welcome constructive criticism and seek continual innovation. Our antidote to misleading and elitist vision must be an inspiring, popularly-shared vision—while welcoming continual innovation and rejecting jargon or posturing.

Elevate Ethics: To compellingly argue for a new society, we need to describe the key institutional features that make it liberatory. But before we do that we must settle on values. Our values provide a measuring stick for how institutions might be organized. So our values come before institutions, as a moral and intellectual foundation.

Social life is endlessly diverse and complex. Most decisions about policies and structures are for people to determine in future times in light of their evolving circumstances and preferences. It would overstep our rights and responsibilities to get too detailed about the future. All that we need are the essential features.

But what values can help us with all this? And how do we get a list of values down to a workable length? People have dozens, maybe even hundreds, of values they favor. Undoubtedly, there is no single answer to picking a manageable subset that encompasses all our central desires. But different short lists can have the same social implications, so movements and organizations can arrive at the same destination despite having started with different values in the forefront. For example, would any leftist deny that people should have control of their lives without diminishing the same level of influence for others? Or that societies should deliver a fair allocation of the benefits and costs of social life, including fair resolution of disputes and effective use of assets to meet needs and develop potentials? Or the central importance of mutual aid and solidarity, of diversity in outcomes and methods, including ideas, lifestyles, life choices, etc.? Would any leftist deny the need for ecological balance? Would any leftist deny the importance of horizontal participatory relations in place of hierarchical and top-down elitist relations in all spheres of social life?

Multi-Focused: Surely a new and better world should include new and better production, consumption, and allocation; new and better laws, adjudication, and collective action; new and better relations of kin, family, sexuality, and nurturing; new and better relations of community, religion, race, and culture; new and better ecological relations and practices; and new and better international relations; as well as, of course, new relations in more specific parts of life, such as innovations specific to science, art, sports, education, health, and so on. Given that we need social vision to inspire and guide practice; given the importance of all sides of life, it follows that we need vision for economics, kin relations and socializing, cultural and community relations, legislative relations, ecology, and international relations—and not just for one or another of these. Being multi-focused not only says all these realms are centrally important, but that there is nothing to be gained by trying to prioritize them.

Win Classlessness: To have classes means to have groups that by their position in the economy have different access to income and influence, benefitting at one another's expense. Attaining classlessness means establishing an economy in which everyone by their economic position is equally able to participate, utilize capacities, and accrue income, and in which no one can accrue excessive income or influence at the expense of others.

We cannot eliminate the distinction between those who own the means of production and those who do not own the means of production unless no one owns the means of production everyone owns the means of production equally. But class division can also arise from a division of labor that affords some producers, who I call the coordinator class, far greater influence and income than others, who I call the working class. The important thing is that capitalism also has a third class (besides owners and workers), the coordinator class that sell their ability to perform specific tasks like workers, but have great power and status built into their structural position in the economic division of labor.

Our movements and projects must not only be anti-capitalist, they must also be pro-classlessness. They must prioritize both eliminating the monopoly of capitalists on productive property and also the monopoly of coordinators on empowering work.

New Economic Values: First, we should also seek positive economic values such as equitable distribution—each person who is able towork receives back from society in proportion to what he or she expends.

Second, economies affect not just income, but also relations among people. We would presumably prefer to have people concerned with and caring about one another in a cooperative social partnership, rather than seeking to fleece one another in an antisocial competitive shootout. Our second economic value is therefore solidarity and mutual aid.

Third, economies also affect our range of available options. Since most humans are social beings who can enjoy vicariously what others do that we cannot and who can benefit from avoiding over-dependence on narrow options, then diversity enriches possibilities and protects against errors. Our third value is therefore diversity.

The act of decision making itself affects us by influencing our mood, our sense of involvement and personal worth. Our fourth value is self-management—people having a say in decisions in proportion as those decisions affect us.

What an economy should do is reveal the full and true social costs and benefits of economic choices, including accounting for their impact on ecology. Our fifth value is ecological balance.

Lastly, economies also affect the social output we have available for people to enjoy. Indeed, this is the reason economies exist. If an economy honors the above values, but wastes our energy and resources, it unnecessarily diminishes our prospects. Even as an economy operates in accord with equity, diversity, self-management, and ecological balance, it should also efficiently utilize available natural, social, and personal assets to meet needs and develop potentials without undo waste, avoidable byproduct problems, or misdirection of purpose. Our sixth value is efficiency, understood as meeting needs and developing potentials in accord with self-managed choices without wasting assets or incurring avoidable costs along the way.

Reject Capitalism and 20th Century Socialism: Seeking classlessness and the values listed above should compel us to reject private ownership of productive property, corporate divisions of labor, top-down decision making, markets, and central planning. For all these economic institutions, the propensity to produce class division in turn homogenizes options within classes thereby violating diversity, and creates a war of class against class, thereby violating solidarity.

New Institutions: Rejecting capitalist and other oppressive economic structures leaves us needing to advocate new economic institutions. For workers and consumers to influence decisions requires venues through which we can express and tally our preferences—i.e., self-managing councils and balanced job complexes. If each person gets a mix of empowering and disempowering tasks, so that each participant is comparably empowered and thus comparably prepared to participate in self-management as the rest, the division of labor basis for class division is removed. Allocation should be accomplished by self-managing worker and consumer councils and it should be undertaken by cooperative and informed collective negotiation. All this implies a defining institutional feature of participatory economics, participatory planning.

Revolutionary Organization: Creating institutions in the present that incorporate seeds of the future makes sense partly as an experiment to learn more about our aims, partly as a model to inspire hope and support, partly as a way to do the best possible job of fulfilling participants now, and partly to begin developing tomorrow's infrastructure today, including incorporating council organization, balanced job complexes, equitable remuneration, and self management in their organizational structures.

Today's Tasks: Change will not come via an unfolding inevitable tendency in current relations that sweep us, uncomprehending, into a better future. Change will come, instead, via self-conscious actions by huge numbers of people bringing to bear our creativity and energy in a largely unified manner that will incorporate continuous and lively internal debate, which will continuously develop overarching shared aims. It is incumbent on us to collectively seek wider agreement, to add additional spheres of social life, and to solidify into an organizational and programmatic unity, in accord with shared views.

Michael Albert is co-founder of South End Press and Z Communications. He is the author of numerous books, most recently Parecon: Life After Capitalism, Realizing Hope, and Remembering Tomorrow (a memoir).