Social Items

TPQ
Gary Robertson ⚽ By the time I write my next column it’ll all be over.

The SPL champions will be crowned and a bonkers season will be put to bed.

It’s hard to remember one quite as ridiculous as season 25/26.

Helicopter Sunday and the title win by The Rangers in 1991 but they pale into significance when we look at this year. With two matches remaining the title could be won or lost by Celtic at Celtic Park next Saturday (May 16th).
 
Of course they have the formidable hurdle of Motherwell to overcome on Wednesday whilst Hearts face Falkirk at Tynecastle.
 
Providing Hearts and Celtic win their midweek matches, whilst a draw against Motherwell wouldn’t be a disaster for Celtic providing they can better the goal difference on the last day these permutations can be tricky to navigate and I’m fairly certain both Martin O’Neill and Derek McInnes along with the fans prefer a “winner takes all” 90 minute battle under the high noon sun. 

Strictly from a Celtic point of view I hope the sun continues to shine as it seems to bring the best out of the enigma that is Daizen Maeda. In horse racing circles there’s a saying that some horses run better in the spring with the sun on their backs, Maeda is one of those horses or so it would seem.
 
There are matches of course still taking place. At the weekend past on Saturday we had the “New Firm Derby”, Aberdeen v Dundee Utd which resulted in a 2-0 victory for the Dons. Dundee putting 3 past hapless Livingston and Kilmarnock doing their survival hopes no harm with a 3-0 victory over St Mirren.
 
Further down the leagues promotion and relegation playoffs are under away and I need to quickly apologise to fans of Edinburgh City who aren’t quite out of it yet but are currently involved in a battle with Brora Rangers to stay in the SPFL.
 
Others include:

A championship promotion playoff final on Saturday at 5-30 between Stenhousemuir and Alloa Athletic, available on BBC Alba and of course the aforementioned Edinburgh City who face Brora Rangers at 3pm (which coincidentally is the same time as the English FA Cup final),

The teams for the SPL playoff final have yet to be determined but they will be announced next week.
 
Other matches of note this weekend include Hibs hammering Falkirk 3-1 away and Hearts putting the title into Celtic's hands by dropping points at Motherwell in a fiercely contested 1-1 draw.
 
Then there was the usual skirmish on Sunday in the shape of the Glasgow Derby.
 
A game neither side could afford to lose and for 45 mins that showed as at half time there was nothing between the teams. 1-1 at the break was about right but the second half, that was something else.
 
Sure we had the Yang controversy over Celtics first goal but Walsh and the VAR team allowed the goal to stand and that was good enough for me.
 
The argument Butland couldn’t see has been proven nonsense several times from different angles and it’s nitpicking and sour grapes to suggest otherwise. Yang's goal was a gud ‘un but better was yet to come.
 
After the break Celtic were a different animal, hungry, full of desire while worryingly for some of The Rangers fans their team looked beaten and dejected. A lack of passion and a “it’s just another game” attitude rather than being the biggest derby on earth.
 
Even Kris Boyd on Sky Sports questioned the players' mentality. The lack of care if you like was visible throughout the second 45 mins.
 
Before we get to that we have to discuss the Alastair Johnston tackle. He clearly got the ball in what was a fabulous tackle and whilst he also caught the Rangers' Moore afterward the intent wasn’t there in the tackle. Sure he was booked and possibly rightly so for a bad tackle it wasn’t an intentional move to injure the opposing player, therefore the yellow was the right decision. Anyone with any qualms about this feel free to read the rules and take it up with Mark Clattenburg. He got the ball; yes, he caught the man, but he got the ball first and the secondary tackle wasn’t made with intent, therefore a yellow is the right decision on this occasion.
 
So to the second half and it took little time for Celtic to impose their authority on the match. Just seven mins after the break a cross from Tierney was met by Maeda who slotted the ball past the Rangers player of the year Butland to put the Celts in control.
 
I genuinely hope we (Celtic) can keep hold of him in the summer as he’d be a massive hole to fill, a very difficult player to replace.
 
Still the magic is yet to come.
 
The 56th minute (I’ll provide a link) produced a goal the likes of you’ll be hard pushed to better in a Glasgow Derby.
 
A ball controlled first time then an overhead bicycle kick by the man of the moment, Daizen Maeda, landed in the net past a statuesque Butland, sending the Celtic fans into dreamland.

Game highlights including that goal can be found here.

Coming too late to usurp Chermitis’ overhead kick against Celtic for Goal of the season, it was truly sensational stuff. Leaving Celtic fans open mouthed and Rangers fans heading to the exit.

After which there was only going to be one winner and whilst the Rangers did at times attempt to threaten what little fight they had was fairly easily dealt with by Celtic

And so another weekend is over, two games to go for both Celtic and Hearts. Whoever wins both will be Champions.
 
It’s really that simple.
 
This’ll be a week remembered long in the memory of both sets of fans.

Til next time …

🐼 Gary Robertson is the TPQ Scottish football correspondent.

Winner Takes All

Evangelical Times ★ Written by Mike Judge.

A court has delivered its ruling in the Jonathan Fletcher abuse case. 

The findings against him are grievous. They are painful to read. They are painful to write about. Yet truth matters. Justice matters. The protection of the vulnerable matters.

A court has now found the allegations against Fletcher proved at an examination of the facts hearing, after he had earlier been ruled unfit to plead due to his dementia. 

Reports state the court accepted evidence that men under his spiritual influence were subjected to abusive treatment over many years.

This included naked beatings, coercive discipline, and degrading conduct presented as pastoral care or character formation. I’ll spare you the grim details. The offences were said to span decades and involved those who trusted him as a minister and mentor.

Many readers will know the wider background. Fletcher was once a prominent figure in conservative evangelical Anglicanism. He served for many years at Emmanuel Wimbledon. He influenced numerous younger ministers. He was widely respected in some circles. 

That history makes this case even more sobering. ‘Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall’ (1 Corinthians 10:12).

Continue @ ET.

A Warning To Every Evangelical Leader, As Jonathan Fletcher Is Found Guilty Of Naked Beatings

Barry Gilheany ✍ The week gone past marks the centenary of a seminal moment in British labour and political history . . . 

. . . the General Strike, when on 1st May an overwhelming majority (3,653, 526 for and 49,911 against) of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) General Council voted to support nationwide industrial action in support of the coal miners who almost for a year had been resisting attempts by mine owners to impose wage cuts and longer working hours. 

Unlike the 50th anniversary, the occasion has largely been ignored by the mainstream media. There are no drama documentaries of the sort that commemorated the 30th and 40th anniversaries of the 1984-85 coal strike which arguably had as consequential an impact on workers’ rights and trade union activism as the 1926 event. There were no academic discussions or historical features on television or radio reaching back into the archives to recall the testimonies of strikers or other actors such as the volunteers who signed up to run daily services such as trains and trams and distribution of essential supplies as there were in 1976 – possibly the highest watermark of trade union influence on decision making and membership. 

It is certainly remembered in locally organised activities such as the Colchester Trades Council commemorative walk that I took part in (at least until my dodgy osteoarthritic knees forced me to pull out!) as part of the Jane’s Walks programme that occurs annually in early May; named after the urban geographer and activist Jane Jacobs. The TUC General Council organised events up and down the country to mark the General Strike and the liberal left’s newspaper of record, The Observer/Guardian, did carry a review of four recently published books on it, which I will reference throughout this article. It is featured in exhibitions and events in libraries and museums. But it is a largely forgotten event, from a vanished era which unlike other events from over a century ago such as World War One and the Easter Rising with a mini cottage industry of literary and broadcasting output that they have generated, which has largely disappeared from public consciousness. It is the intention of this article to resurrect the memory of “The revolution that never was.”[1]

Background to the General Strike

The General Strike lasted from the 3rd to 12th May. Approximately 1.7 to 3 million workers across heavy industry, printing and other key sectors effectively brought Britain to a standstill. The TUC ended the strike after nine days in the realisation that that it could not sustain disruption to essential services and the miners themselves remained on strike for nearly eight months.

The principal economic driver of the process that led to the General Strike was the fall in the international price of coal in the aftermath of the First World War. The Dawes Plan in 1924 allowed Germany to re-enter the international coal market by exporting “free coal” to France and Italy as part of the reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles for the war. This extra supply reduced the price of coal. Worse was to follow when Winston Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1925 reintroduced the gold standard against at its pre-first world war parity of $4.86 to the pound. It would not be the last time in the twentieth century that decisions taken by Chancellors on currency and exchange rate mechanisms would have momentous and deleterious effects on the UK economy. In this sterling became too strong for effective exporting and so there was a further fall in the price of coal. Coal production had fallen to just 199 tons by 1920-24 and total coal output had been in decline since 1914.[2]

The response of the mine owners attempted to force down wages by up to 25% and impose longer hours. Miners resisted and demanded: “not a penny off the pay, not a minute off the day.”

To get some understanding of the issues involved and virtually existential nature of the conflict in the coal mining industry and the raw emotions it generated, it is necessary to briefly explain the structure of the coal mining industry in the early part of the twentieth industry. It was a particularly badly run sector of the British economy, with around 1,400 separate firms owning nearly 2,500 collieries. Many of these were small enterprises, with 95% of the coal produced by a mere 600 collieries.[3] The polarised mindsets of both pit owners and miners’ union leaders were legendary. One member of the Sankey Commission into the state of British coalmining in 1919 remarked:

It would be possible to state with certainty that the union leaders were the stupidest people we had ever met, if we had not on occasions to meet the owners.

One Tory cabinet minister said of the coal owners: “They are about the stupidest and most narrow-minded employers I know.”

The working conditions of the miners need to be described in the starkest of terms which Jonathan Scheer does in his book Nine Days in May: The General Strike of 1926. Miners were paid for their shifts of seven hours at the coalface. But it took them sometimes a couple of hours of crawling on hands and knees to get to and from the seams. Proposing to extend the working day by an hour as the mine owners did was a matter of life and death in the subterranean depths of the coalfield. For it was at the tired end of the working day – the “murder hour” – that most industrial accidents occurred. On average, during the first half of the 1920s, three miners were killed in accidents daily across Britain. In addition there were on average about 500 injuries, at least ten of which were serious. Herbert Smith, the president of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, had lost his father in a mining accident and the union’s secretary, Arthur Cook, had seen a fellow worker killed beside him in a rockfall during his very first day underground.[4] Such tales of death and disability including memories of mass casualty pit explosions have left powerful emotional legacies such as miners as supreme pantheons of labour struggles and wider reverence and awe for what these authentic heroes of class struggle experienced in their everyday working lives.**

After the owners had made their wage cut and work extension proposals, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin intervened with a compromise: a nine-month government subsidy to the coal industry to maintain the status quo. On “Red Friday” 31st July 1925, the owners backed down and the government commissioned the Samuel Commission to investigate the industry. However, the government began to make arrangements for a general strike. They set up OMS (Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies); stockpiled food and fuel and trained university students and other young people from upper middle-class families to drive trains and operate essential services. In March/April 1926; the Samuel Commission report called for wage cuts of 13.5% and the withdrawal of the subsidy. The miners refused to accept these recommendations and after the failure of negotiations initiated by the TUC, the general strike commenced at a minute before midnight on Tuesday 2nd May 1926.

Course of the Strike

The General Strike went ahead despite the concerns of Labour Party leaders who were troubled by revolutionary or anarcho-syndicalist elements within the union movement and of the damage they could do to the party’s new reputation as a party of government.[5] However the point of return was passed because of an eleventh-hour decision by printers of the Daily Mail newspaper to refuse to print an editorial titled For King and Country, objecting to the following passage; “A general strike is not an industrial dispute. It is a revolutionary move which can only succeed by destroying the government and subverting the rights and liberties of the people.” Fearing that an all-out general strike would bring revolutionary elements to the fore, the TUC limited the participants to railwaymen, transport workers, printers, dockers, ironworkers and steelworkers as they were regarded as pivotal in the dispute.

The printers’ strike gave Stanley Baldwin’s government a pretext to break off negotiations to break off negotiations – freedom of the press. Churchill then took control of the state’s media operation by publishing The British Gazette as a government newspaper for the strike’s duration. The government had no need to put any restriction on the new medium of broadcasting as John Reith, the managing director of the then British Broadcasting Company (BBC), self- censored to such an extent in order to avoid any threats of state takeover that, for example, he prevented Randall Davidson, the Archbishop of Canterbury, from issuing a conciliatory message on the BBC.[6]

In an ecclesiastic contrast, in a rare political radio broadcast, Archbishop Francis Cardinal Bourne, the leading Catholic prelate in Britain, condemned the strike, knowing that many strikers were Catholic. He advised his flock that “It is a direct challenge to lawfully constituted authority … All are bound to uphold and assist the Government which is the lawfully constituted authority of the country and represents the authority of God himself.”[7]

Rather than a syndicalist strategy influenced by the revolutionary ideology popular in France and Spain at the turn of the century and which influenced the thinking of then leader of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) Arthur Scargill during the epic miners’ strike of 1984-85, the General Strike was in the words of Jonathan Scheer “an enormous sympathy strike”. The TUC General Council sought merely to force the government to re-open negotiations rather than overthrow the state. As has already been pointed out, the leadership did not mobilise the full complement of the unionised workforce and maintained some provision for essential needs. The central organisation of the strike included a Food and Essential Services Committee, while its Building Committee permitted construction work to continue for ordinary housing and for hospitals.[8]

By contrast, the government in its objective of the defeat what it regarded a clear and defiant anti-constitutional challenge to its authority. In a manner which prefigured the Thatcher’s years preparations for the 1984 coal showdown, it made comprehensive contingency plans well in advance of the collapse of the talk. Both Baldwin and Thatcher governments posed the question that Ted Heath asked of the UK electorate in February 1974 when the three-day working day and power cuts were imposed in response to the miners’ strike: “Who governs?” and were determined to answer, in the affirmative, the government of the day. It has also been pointed out earlier, that Baldwin’s administration stockpiled food and fuel and mobilised its volunteer strike breaking battalions just as the Thatcher government had stockpiled sufficient supplies of imported coal.[9]

Much saccharine accounts of the General Strike claim that it was a largely peaceful affair and tell comforting stories about football matches between strikers and police in Plymouth and sentimental stories of young persons realising ambitions to drive trains. However the full panoply of the state was deployed to ensure that the country ran as normal as possible. On 4th May under the Emergency Powers Act; troops were employed against workers taking united action for fair pay. Battleships with guns were aimed at docks in the major port cities of Hull, Bristol, and Liverpool. There were also more than a few incidences of violence and sabotage. For example, a group of miners in Cramlington in Northumberland removed rails from the track of a train ahead of a train, which caused its engine to overturn and the derailment of five coaches with mercifully only one person injured.

One strike participant and dock worker from East London, Harry Wilson, recalls the increasing violence with which the police handled the strikers:

One morning we had word that there were troops in the docks unloading ships and the lorries were coming up the Victoria Dock Road… We got to Barking Road outside Canning Town station. Up come the lorries with barbed wire all-round the lorries’ canopy with troops with guns sitting behind the barbed wire… The people were jeering and boing but that was the extent of it. Then the police started pushing from behind and they kept pushing and pushing and pushing and we were pushed onto the road, and it led to arguments and before we knew it the police were laying about us with their truncheons. There were a few broken arms as a result of the blows we had been subjected to[10]

In Britain’s Revolutionary Summer, Edd Mustill rightly takes apart the myth that the strike was a sedate affair in which nobody died. Untrained volunteers were ill-equipped to handle buses and trains with several deaths in train collisions and bus crashes that were attributable to their incompetence. On other occasions, their efforts led to farcical outcomes such as the 37 hours it took for a mishandled steam train to get from King’s Cross station in London to Edinburgh[11]

In the words of Harry Wilson:

We were never voting to involve ourselves in any physical violence in any shape or form. And the strike itself never needed it. I was being guided in my thinking by the elder men that we were going to win this one because it was a national strike and by the kind of power and authority that they exercised. There was no question that there would be capitulation by the government on this matter.[12]

Such hopes were to be crucially dashed by the decision by the TUC on 12th May to call off the strike with no resolution if the government offered a guarantee that there would be no victimisation of strikers. The government stated that it had “no power to compel employers to take back every man who had been on strike.” The miners maintained their resistance until they were virtually starved back to work at the end of November 1926 for longer hours and lower wages. The miners were to taste more bitter fruit with many denied their jobs leading to the choice of the workhouse or emigration with Canada a common destination. The divisions that emerged within the ranks of the miners with the decision of the “Spencer” unions in Nottinghamshire to break the strike by an early return to work added another layer of pain and bitterness in mining communities which returned with a vengeance in the 1984-85 strike.

Legacy of the General Strike

The immediate legacy of the General Strike was the 1927 Disputes and Trade Union Act which included the prohibition of sympathy strikes and mass picketing and which led to trade unions having to implement the opt-in political levy to Labour arrangement. But the disappointed expectations of Harry Wilson powers the radical left view of the outcome of the General Strike as a “sellout” the consequences of which we still live with. Callum Cant and Mathew Lee’s book The Future in our Past locates the plight of today’s precariat in the might-have-beens of 1926: we live now in a future that could and perhaps should have been so different. In the same vein, Mustill bemoans the “squandered solidarity” of 1926, the “unfulfilled promise of working-class power” betrayed by a supine leadership. The “will to unity” seen in 1926, he notes, has long since dissipated even among moderate trade union leaders.[13]

As against this recurring meme of betrayal of the working class by the Trade Union and Labour establishments, are the facts that one of the trade union movement’s big beasts of history Ernest Bevin who co-ordinated the General Strike was never persuaded of its utility again. The basic demand of the TUC was the reversal of the wage cuts and longer working hours being forced on the miners and it was on those grounds that it can be termed a failure at least in the short to medium term sweep of history. But in a much wider historical context, the TUC argues that the strike reinforced the importance of a collective voice for workers. It also claims that such workplace rights such as paid holidays, safe workplaces, protections against unfair dismissal, maternity and paternity rights and the national minimum wage are the true legacies of 1926 as these gains were the results of workers organising together and demanding change.[14]

The much-reduced collective bargaining power of labour a century on from the General Strike is rather more the consequence of the defeat of the NUM in 1984-85 (followed by the defeat of the printers in Wapping in 1987) that of 1926. I would argue that that had the NUM strike had the same undoubted democratic mandate that the General Strike; that means there should have been a national ballot of members, then victory would have been much more likely and that Thatcher could have been ousted from power and the attack on employment rights could have been prevented. In a vastly changed world of work, the General Strike still has something to offer in the historical memory of worker solidarity. Can they be applied to the world of the Amazon distribution worker, the social care worker, the call centre operator and all the other casualised sectors of work? Yes, they can.

References

[1] Colin Kidd, The Revolution That Never Was, The Observer New Review Books 3 May 2026 pp.34-35

[2] Wikipedia

[3] Kidd, p.34

[4] Ibid

[5] Martin Pugh (2011)

[6] Kidd, p.35

[7] Neil Riddell, (1997), The Catholic Church and the Labour Party, 1918-1931. Twentieth Century British History 8 (2) pp.165-193 at p.172

[8] Kidd, p.34

[9] There is a corrective to this narrative which is often promulgated by supporters of the 1984 coal strike. Richard Vien agrees that the Tories certainly discussed the prospect of a strike from the mid-1970s. However he argues that they did not have a clearly worked out plan or much confidence in their ability to win such a dispute. They were even more reticent after their humiliating retreat for the threat of a miners’ strike in February 1981 (a possible sign of the weakness of the Thatcher government at that time). So he argues that stockpiling coal was initially designed to deter a strike rather than to defeat one. Furthermore Thatcher was not always keen to confront the miners and many of those who designed and executed the strategy were not Thatcherites. Indeed some were civil servants not politicians. Richard Vien, A War of Position. The Thatcher Government’s Preparation for the 1984 Miners’ Strike. The English Historical Review Vol.34. No.566. February 2019 pp.121-150

[10] Harry Wilson Memories of the general strike.

11] Kidd, p.35

[12] Wilson, op cit

[13] Kidd, p.35

[14] TUC Website General Strike 1926: Why It Happened and Why It Still Matters 

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.

The 1926 British General Strike 🪶 A Revolutionary Movement Thwarted?

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Sixty Nine

 

A Morning Thought @ 3143

Remembering Frank Hughes On The 45th Anniversary Of His Death On Hunger Strike In The H Blocks Of Long Kesh.

Frank Hughes 🏴 45 🏴 Eternal Dreamless Sleep

People And Nature ☭ Written by  Simon Pirani.
1-May-2026
Try Me For Treason is a 50-minute film, in English, featuring speeches made by anti-war protesters in Russian courts. 
It has been made by a group of actors to draw English-speaking audiences’ attention to the stand taken by Ukrainians, and Russians, against the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The Youtube premiere of the film will be broadcast on Sunday 17 May at 20.00 UK time. To participate, go to this link and hit “Notify me”:
☭ Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, thousands of people have been arrested for protesting against the war. Many appear in court, facing years of imprisonment. What do they say to the judges? What would any of us say? This 50-minute film, in English, features some of their speeches in court.

☭ The speeches are from the book Voices Against Putin’s War: protesters’ defiant speeches in Russian courts (Resistance books, 2025). You can buy a copy, or download a free PDF, via this page.

☭ Readings by John Graham Davies, Leila Mimmack, Gareth Brierley, Maya Willcox and Nick Evans. Script by Simon Pirani and John Graham Davies. Videography by Anthony Aldis.

☭ From Sunday 17 May the film will be free to view, or download, on Youtube, under a Creative Commons licence.

And here is a trailer to share:

There will be an in-person film premiere in London at 6.30pm on Sunday 17 May, just before the Youtube premiere – all welcome! – details below.


☭ This film (which I helped to put together) conveys something of the reality of opposition in Russia to the Kremlin’s aggression in Ukraine: defiant individual protests, and these brave speeches in court, are almost the only public expressions of this opposition. But the importance of the stand these people are taking can not be measured in numbers. At a time when not only Russia but also the US, Israel and other powers are plunging the world into a terrifying array of new wars, this has international relevance. So I ask readers to sign up for the Youtube premiere and circulate information about the film -  Simon Pirani, 1 May 2026.

☭ Political prisoner Aleksandr Nesterenko: they fabricate cases, just as they did in Soviet times.

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

Try Me For Treason 🎥 The Film

Frankie Quinn with a poem from his expansive body of work. 

Bullet

Bullet Slice, slick, shape cut deep, air burst
 Spiral, twisted point to pain, copper
 Flacked jacket deep in shattered bone
♞♜♝
Mouth let smoke assist to open wound 
With hopeless vision of soft hollowed stare
 Halted, gasp, flashed bright in darkness 
♞♜♝
 Snarled, whistle, clashed with sound,
Convulsed shape splashed on red washed ground
 bold, streaks, none in line. Ending time

⏩ Frankie Quinn is a former republican prisoner who is now a community activist. He is the author of Open Gates, a book of poetry.   

Bullet

Dr John Coulter ✍ The might of the Right! 

That’s the message which the Reform UK party has sent not just to 10 Downing Street and the Prime Minister’s desk, but right across the entire Westminster political establishment.

One of the key messages from Reform’s victories in mainland Britain’s elections in Scotland, Wales and England is that Hard Right politics are now part of the mainstream. Being Hard Right is no longer dismissed as being on the lunatic fringe of the political spectrum.

If the weekend results in Britain are taken as a benchmark and repeated in the next Westminster General Election, Reform boss Nigel Farage will be the next UK PM.

While such a prospect may well initially be welcomed with much cheering among Unionism in the UK generally, it could well bring the Northern Ireland pro-Union community down to earth with a rapid political bump.

In sporting terms, as a life-long Arsenal supporter, I’d compare the Reform victory at the weekend to the euphoria I felt when my beloved Gunners reached the Champions League final later this month for the first time since 2006 - only to learn that their opponents will be the fast-flowing Paris Saint-Germain team, affectionally known as PSG!

While Farage has consistently proven himself to be a vote winner - you need only look at his record in European elections with the United Kingdom Independence Party (Ukip) and later with the Brexit Party - the big question for the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland remains; can a Farage-led Westminster Government be trusted with the Union?

Oh yes, Scottish and Welsh nationalists can kiss goodbye to any hopes of an independence referendum while Farage has the keys to 10 Downing Street, but given past experiences with supposedly Right-wing administrations in Downing Street, perhaps the weekend euphoria at the Reform Hard Right victory will soon evaporate in Ulster.

Let’s not forget the track record of supposedly Right-wing Tory administrations in their treatment of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland. In 1972, when Ted Heath was PM, he was responsible for the proroguing of the original Unionist-dominated Stormont Parliament which had run Northern Ireland for decades. Okay, Heath was regarded ideologically as a ‘Tory Wet’, but his administration was still - albeit slightly - Right of centre.

But the real lesson for Ulster’s pro-Union community from a Right-wing Tory administration in Downing Street came in 1979 after the Westminster General Election when Maggie Thatcher swept to power.

Unionists were hoping for a ‘no punches pulled’ policy towards the terror campaign by republicans. Even then Ulster Unionist Party leader, the late Jim Molyneaux, would talk privately about his ‘special relationship’ with Thatcher.

That was all to come to a crashing halt in November 1985 when Thatcher signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement which gave Dublin its first real saying in the running of Northern Ireland since partition in the 1920s.

While Thatcher was viewed nationally as a tough-talking Right-wing PM, Northern Ireland Unionism felt totally betrayed by the 1985 Hillsborough accord. Even all the marching as part of the Ulster Says No campaign failed to scupper the so-called Dublin Diktat.

Northern Ireland’s position within the Union was perceived to be further diluted in December 1993 when then Tory PM John Major signed the Downing Street Declaration with Dublin, a document which laid the foundation stone to the disbanding of the RUC and its replacement with the PSNI.

Okay, so those PMs were Tories of various shades of the Right. But with Reform, we in Northern Ireland Unionism must never forget that many who have defected to Reform have come from the Conservative party.

During my time as Northern Political Correspondent with the Irish Daily Star, I had the opportunity to interview Farage during his time in Ukip. While it was more a pub conversation than a formal interview, Farage made the same Right-wing uttering I’d heard in my past interviews with Right-wing Unionists, such as Rev Martin Smyth, Molyneaux, Enoch Powell, and Rev Ian Paisley.

So what should Unionists be learning from Reform’s weekend victory? The answer is tactically simple. Unionist leaders must be holding talks as soon as possible with Farage and his team to draw up a policy which will be set in political concrete in the event of Farage becoming PM in the next few years.

It must be a clear manifesto commitment with Reform; not a Molyneaux-style ‘special relationship’ of private conversations in the corridors of Westminster.

The combined Unionist leadership must not sit on their hands and simply pray for a Farage victory in a couple of years. Now is the time for forward planning. Firstly, they must persuade Farage that while Reform has organised in Northern Ireland, the party should not contest elections and further fragment the pro-Union vote.

Unionism should also campaign for the reform (forgive the pun please!) of the Stormont institutions, making the posts of first and deputy first minster elected as in 1998 - by designation, not by the largest parties as was given away by the DUP in the 2006 St Andrews Agreement.

And there must be a guarantee by Reform that the current hounding of security forces veterans for Troubles-related incidents will be binned.

Likewise, the names of those suspected of committing some of the heinous terrorist atrocities during the Troubles, especially unsolved murders, bombings and attacks, should be revealed in the Commons using parliamentary privilege.

There should be no more wasting of millions of pounds on needless inquiries. Parliament should be the place for naming and shaming.

Reform caused a lot of controversy during the election campaign in Britain with talk of detention camps for illegal immigrants while they are being processed for deportation.

Perhaps if Reform comes to power, those camps could be established in Northern Ireland as a welcome jobs boost for the construction industry, prison service and supporting employment.

And if Reform is pledging to halt the small boat crisis, then the UK will require a much expanded Royal Navy to mount an iron blockade across the English Channel. Northern Ireland has an impressive record in ship building. Those contracts for the new much-needed ships must come to Ulster.

During the Troubles, Northern Ireland had a reputation of housing some of the worst terrorists of that era. Given that experience, the creation of the special camps for illegal migrants and illegal asylum seekers and the funding and jobs it would bring to Ulster should be top of a PM Farage’s agenda. But will Farage turn out to be another Thatcher? Only time will tell, but Unionism must tread carefully if it is to play the Reform card.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. 

Unionism Must Apply Maggie Experience To Nigel’s New Dawn!

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Sixty Eight

 

A Morning Thought @ 3142

Azar Majedi & Homa Arjomand ✍Maryam Namazie’s belated reply or a timely damage control?

Maryam Namazie after nearly two years has responded to Azar Majedi and Homa Arjomand’s article: Masks are Torn! EX-Muslim from Frying Pan to Fire,  which was written in response to her article Azar Majedi and Homa Arjomand’s Islamist propaganda and Morality.

The first question that comes to mind is why it has become necessary to respond to a critique from two years ago? A critique that came to fore and got heated around the Palestinian genocide. It is because, if 8 months into the genocide (when our article was published) many, such as EX-Muslim, Secularist, Humanist and mainstream Feminist organisations could get away with keeping silent about Israel’s genocide in Gaza and look the other way, without risking their reputation as “progressive and humanitarian”, now it is impossible. Even some European states are now condemning the genocide and boycotting the Eurovision, because of Israel’s participation.

The murder and bloodshed committed by Israel with the full support of the US and the West is out in the open and impossible to look away from. The “anti-Semite” catch phrase used to gas-light those who opposed the genocide and Israel, has lost its edge. It only creates backlash now.

So why is it now the time to reply? Because, more than anything, it is about damage control; Maryam’s, her organisation and her movement’s reputation is at stake. Their reputation has been stained by hypocrisy, double standard, racism and pro Israel/Zionist tendency. Therefore, in order to stay effective, she needs to whitewash her reputation as a “left progressive.”

These bloody three years have changed the world. The world is awakening, eyes are opening up. The world is empathising with Palestine and people have come to the streets in solidarity with Palestinians and all victims of Israel/US. People see the real reason for all this murder, destruction and misery in the whole region. Therefore, in order to remain among the “left progressives” one must distance oneself from the genocide and Israel and the US. Two years ago when Maryam wrote her first article calling us “Islamists” she still did not dare, nor saw it necessary to openly condemn the genocide and Israel.

There is another event that makes her article even more necessary, the war on Iran by US and Israel. Maryam is expected to make a stand; Iran is her birth place, a difficult situation. But here too, she uses the “Islamism” and “religious-Right” (whatever that means) to soften the blame on US and Israel.

War on Iran

She states No to war, but formulates the argument around the topic in a way that this “No” becomes conditional to the “No” to the Islamic Republic. Therefore, this slogan becomes viable when either there is no Islamic Republic or it is attacked at the same time. Every decent, freedom-loving and progressive person agrees to the No to the war and Islamic Republic. However, the point under debate is that these two No-s are not dependant on each other and any effort to represent them as such is an attempt to justify the war, to soften the critique against the war and to whitewash the warmongers. This is the main point that Maryam tries to mystify. This is not a puzzle; it is a clever way to soften the blame and criticism towards Israel and US.

EX-Muslim and Co. have used this technique for the past 2 decades: Turning the narrative around in order to benefit state terrorism, US and Israel, by pointing the finger at Islamists. This is to imply that if Israel commits genocide, wipes off a whole people from the land, if it is constantly expanding, it is because of Hamas and Islamic Republic. This resonates with the same “victimhood” mentality that Zionism is built upon. A very useful and simple formula!

To imply that Islamic regime is the cause of war, it’s either propaganda or idiotic. Islamic Republic is responsible for many crimes, crimes against humanity, brutal exploitation and enormous suffering imposed on the people, but it is not the cause of this war. Islamic regime cannot both be so clever to be the leader of Islamic terrorism which Maryam and her movement deem as more dangerous than state terrorism and at the same time so dumb to cause a war which is a real threat to its survival. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Can you see how this “religious-Right” monster and Islamism come to the rescue of Israel and US in their obvious crimes against humanity? One must just remind her that your just hatred of the Islamic Republic cannot and should not be used to soften, or even subtly justify another crime. One does not need to condemn Islamism anytime one feels the need to condemn state terrorism, that is, US imperialism spearheaded by Israel.

An attempt to discredit us!

Maryam’s first attempt to label us “Islamist” two years ago had a purpose, trying to discredit two known socialists, women’s rights and secular/atheist activists who defended the Palestinians throughout their political history and condemned the massacre and genocide of the Palestinians and who rightfully criticised the secular/humanist/feminist movements for their deafening silence. She called us “Islamists.”

We refuted all her arguments and propaganda in the above-mentioned article. A response to our article does not have any meaning or credibility without a solid clear condemnation of Israeli’s genocide in Gaza. Therefore, Maryam kept quiet because at the time it was not possible for her to do so and the world still was under such deep propaganda that one could perhaps get away with silence. We described her situation in our article titled . . . from Frying Pan to Fire. Just to mention an example: In a secularist conference in Paris months after the start of genocide they criticised Islam in and out, nothing about Judaism and no mention of the bloodshed in Gaza which they could watch right there on their screens. This long wait is not accidental, it is calculated propaganda technique. She is acting according to a script again.

The main thesis of Maryam’s article

The article presents a false, arbitrary dichotomy:

A politics of emancipation must confront both imperialism and the religious-Right. The attempt to subordinate one to the other is a form of political erasure.

What does she mean by “religious-Right?” No explanation is given. Is there also a religious-Left? If yes, which religion? Does she tolerate that?

One can assume that by this term she means Islamism. Because the only religion she criticises is Islam. The only religious political movement she refers to is Islamist. She has not even once specifically criticised Judaism nor Israel as a Jewish apartheid state; and no mention of Zionism as a terrorist movement which fought for the creation of Israel and it is still running the show.

The whole article is incoherent, pompous and superficial. She uses a lot of empty jargons to say Azar and Homa are pro-Islamists. The arguments are haphazard, arbitrary and inconsistent. It seems the aim is to create mist and fog rather than throwing light at some political and philosophical truth as it is claimed. It is propaganda not reasoning and arguments. She seems to have a script she has to follow.

Her article does not contain a polemic, a reasoned argument trying to prove the false position of the other side; it is rather more gas-lighting. Her method is exactly like what we have observed in the past two and half years - call your opponent an “anti-Semite” or pro Hamas. But, this doesn’t work anymore. It has lost its power. It’s been exposed.

Our position is that a Socialist, a progressive, a freedom-loving person with conscience must condemn any forms of reaction, brutality and oppression. We condemn and oppose the Islamist movement for all its crimes and oppressive methods. We have fought against the Islamic Republic since the moment of its inception. But we do not lose perspective. We have a clear vision based on a clear analysis of the political situation in the region and worldwide. It was the US imperialism with Israel as its spearhead that created the Islamic movement and have supported and funded it while “fighting” it. This was a clever scenario to create war and devastation in the region to achieve the goal of the New Middle East and the Greater Israel. They are admitting it themselves, but these “anti-Islamists” refuse to listen.

Islamic Republic was brought to power through a regime change imposed on the 1979 Revolution in Iran. All Islamic terrorist organisations, Al Qaida, Taliban, and ISIS were created by CIA, Mossad and MI6. Hamas was created by Israel. They have been funded by the US. (There are videos of US officials, including Hillary Clinton, and former intelligence officers who have admitted this.) Yes, we condemn them both, but we don’t use one to excuse the other side.

Maryam writes:

Islamism was fostered in specific historical conditions such as the US Cold War strategy to create an Islamic belt around the Soviet Union and the West’s role in the expropriation of the Iranian revolution by Islamism. (In clear speech, the West organised a regime change to abort the Iranian revolution.) These origins are relevant. But causation is not exoneration.

We are baffled by what she really means by this pompous expression: “causation is not exoneration.” She is apparently implying that we are “exonerating” Islamic movement; but on what basis? Her response is not clear. She continues, by stating without any proof, that:

Their politics is clear: political positions must align with one of two opposing camps; critique becomes illegitimate if it risks benefiting the other.

It is difficult to make sense of her arguments; one un-based claim after another.

Another example of a vague and arbitrary statement:

Hamas, enabled by Israel as a counterweight to the secular PLO, is not reducible to Israeli strategy. To explain them as secondary displaces the social relations through which domination is exercised.

This is another example of pompous and hollow argument. What does she mean by “is not reducible to Israeli strategy?”

Hamas was created by Israel in 1987 as an instrument to divide and weaken Palestinian resistance movement, which was mainly secular with leftist tendencies. “Divide and Rule” is the main reason for this creation. Furthermore, Israel has used Hamas to completely occupy Gaza and to create a concentration camp there. This is the history before the recent genocide. Since its creation by Israel, Hamas has been used as the main tool to justify murder, genocide, expansion and ethnic cleansing. Hamas card has played a monumental role in Israel’s politics of expansion and occupation, i.e. its political strategy. That is why Hamas was being funded by Qatar on the request/order of Israel/US until 7th of October 2023 and beyond. (Netanyahu has been taped in 2019 where he adamantly defends funding of Hamas.)

Another mind-blowing statement that is in fact amusing is as follows:

Dissent is judged not on its truth but on its geopolitical alignment. This is the politics of enforced binaries. It is also Eurocentric. By centring Western power as the organising axis, it renders all other forms of domination derivative.

This is a desperate attempt to look clever and sophisticated when one has no valid case or argument. It is shocking to see the term Eurocentric is used in this upside down context. It seems she has lost any coherent train of thought. The article in reality is empty of any viable thesis or argument. The aim is not to encourage a debate to reach some eye-opening conclusions. It is to defend her reputation so as to continue to whitewash atrocities by the US imperialism and the West spearheaded by Israel by justifying their actions as a response to actions of an Islamic evil created by the perpetrator themselves. A very clever scenario!

EX-Muslim is a mosaic in the “Clash of Civilisation” myth which was scripted to prepare the world for a total destruction of a region, killing millions of people, ruining a whole region to rubbles and destroying any reminiscence of ancient civilisations; that is to erase a whole people, their memories and histories. This narrative was necessary for the extension of the colonialist project which was planted after the WWI; the creation of Israel until the Greater Israel is reached and the New Middle East is formed. They have succeeded to carry out the project, by killing many million human beings and the total destruction of the region.

It is not necessary to dwell much on the origins of EX-Muslim, we have elaborated on it before. It is sufficient to say that the patron of British EX-Muslim, the main donor and moral supporter of CEBM is the famous atheist Richard Dawkins who in the midst of genocide and activation of far-right and anti-Muslim sentiments in England, in an interview with L Rachel Johnson at LBC radio described himself as a "cultural Christian”, expressed discomfort at the promotion of Ramadan over Easter and the rise in number of mosques in Europe, calling the decline of Christian culture "dreadful." He specifically noted that in places like Africa, if Christian and Muslim missionaries are fighting for loyalty, he is "on Team Christianity". (Using the term missionaries for Islam is rather odd. Perhaps he was softening the word mercenaries.) 

To add salt to the wounds, his name has come out on Epstein files.

Epstein was supporting him and some other “atheist philosophers.” One wonders why Epstein, a high member of American ruling class with access to anyone anywhere in the power structure, a representative for Rothschild, the family to whom Balfour Agreement was addressed by the British Prime minister, a man who was at the top of a Mossad intelligence/blackmail operation, (called honey trap) who was so “fanatically” Jewish that called any non-Jewish “Goyum”*, was interested in an atheist professor? One should try to scratch the surface and look deeper.

The role some of the famous atheists played in demonising Muslims, creating a psychological environment where people in the West saw Muslims and people in the Middle East as lower beings is undeniable. They played a significant role in propaganda campaign in the war on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, now Iran, but first and foremost Palestine; people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. When one sees this reality, then everything falls into place. US, the West spearheaded by Israel wrote and executed the scenario and the narrative for decades in order to forge the total destruction and occupation of the Middle East. Netanyahu warned about Islamic terrorism in a conference in Washington in 1984 and the rest is history.

Secularism and humanism as a movement have been predominantly focused on Islam, some critique of Christianity almost nothing about Judaism. The secularist/atheist think-tank played an important role in demonising Muslims and implementing the anti-Muslim narrative deeply in society.

Maryam throws this so-called critique us:

The same logic that reduces dissent to imperial instrument also reduces dissenters to a homogeneous bloc serving a single geopolitical function.

Honestly, we do not comprehend what she means. Chat GBT writes more clearly, argues more logically and coherently.

Protest or not protest, that is not the question!

Maryam writes:

If political legitimacy is determined by which camp you are aligned with, then forms of resistance that do not conform to it are recast as illegitimate.

Another pompous claim! We must state that these claims are arbitrary and self-made.

We have criticised her and EX-Muslim for their provocative actions. This is not to deny them the right to protest and freedom of expression; these are legal concepts. We are criticising their methods and actions as socio-politically harmful. We find drinking alcohol and smoking in front of places which are identified with Islam or Muslims during Muslim fasting provocative, which helps intensify anti-Muslim environment in the West and create a climate of hostility. It demonises Muslims. Moreover, it is contrary to the secularist doctrine of rationality and logic. What is your message? Is fasting bad, alcohol and cigarettes good? Are the two latter superior to the former? A claim which you don’t need to be a doctor or a health practitioner to refute; the response might be: the aim is not to compare the two acts but to mock fasting and Islamic rules. This is playing in the hands of far-Right. From the fear of Islamism you run towards the far-Right, Reform Party and Tommy Robinson.

Our criticism of your provocative actions has nothing to do with which camp you belong to. We are concerned about the effects of your actions on the society, in intensifying hostility towards Muslims, demonising Muslims, harassing Muslims and feeding the fascist (far-Right) movement that has become incredibly aggressive.

Your acts against “religious-Right” are helping the “far right.” In Britain it is the Reform Party and Tommy Robinson who benefit the most from your mockery of Islam. Your “fast-defying” methods are toxic, in the midst of alarming anti-Muslim racism, when Muslims are being attacked and run over by cars; EX-Muslim continues to demonstrate in these provocative modes. Drinking alcohol and smoking in front of places identified with Islam and Muslims is not mind-opening, it is not about rationality, reason, against superstition; it is toxic. Just imagine if some young kids take your advice of drinking and smoking and laughing at people who fast.

It is interesting that mocking Muslims by drinking alcohol in the place of worship is not EX-Muslim’s invention, it is historical. French colonialist army officers used to enter mosques in Algeria and North Africa, on horseback and drink wine in the 19th century to belittle and dehumanise Algerians. Maryam has modernised an entrenched and despised historical act with pride on one side and disgust on the other. Perhaps, this is why the French government has awarded her with a medal. Showing their gratitude for bringing French history to life in the most “modern” way possible!**

Naked protest alienation not liberation!

Azar Majedi has written an article to criticise the false idea that naked protest by women is a liberatory tool. We are not going to debate this here. We will leave this to another occasion. But mentioning one fact is crucial and it completes the whole puzzle of EX-Muslim and its actions.

Naked protest in this modern form started by FEMEN an originally Ukrainian feminist organisation which is located in France since 2013. FEMEN is a regime-change tool, established by a man in 2008 in Ukraine, stating that they use female naked body to protest because it attracts more attention. They played a significant role in the Colour Revolution in Ukraine, 2011-2013. Their then deputy leader Inna Shevchenko (as their leader was still a man) moved to France and very soon after arrival, President François Hollande in July 2013 unveiled a new French postage stamp featuring a Marianne (the symbol of the French Republic) that was designed based on Inna Shevchenko, The stamp was unveiled on Bastille Day (July 14, 2013) to represent the youth of France. This is considered a very high award being offered to a foreigner. Then Manuel Valls, Hollande’s prime minister awarded Maryam Namazie with Prix International de la Laïcité (International Secularism Prize) 2016.

Awarding one of the highest national symbols to a foreign national is a very significant act, it cannot be overlooked. One must look deeper. FEMEN is supported and promoted by the West for the purpose of regime change in Ukraine and since moving to France it has become an important anti-Muslim tool. Perhaps now one can connect the dots; the connection between EX-Muslim and FEMEN becomes clear as well.

Awards are not given without a reason and expecting something in return. From national awards to Noble peace prize are political tools. And here, can you see the connection? FEMEN and EX-Muslim united in action as propaganda tools of Western imperialism.

The last word: As we already stated, Maryam’s article is empty of any serious content or logical argument. We tried our best to respond to the points as to demystify the debate. We must tell Maryam, that this method if it once worked, it does not work anymore. You must clearly, strongly, unequivocally condemn the genocide of the Palestinians by Israel supported by US and the West, i.e. State Terrorism. The Wishy-washy, liberal statements of always condemning Islamists for crimes committed by Israel/US, such as the one below, do not save your face. Your reputation is vastly tarnished. You are losing your use-value.

Maryam says:

Opposing the Israeli state's genocide in Gaza is a moral and political necessity. But progressive politics does not end with denunciation of one pole of power. It interrogates all dominant forces, including those within societies facing imperialism and occupation.

Even here she is not ready to categorically condemn the Israeli genocide. She nonchalantly opposes the genocide and immediately adds a “but”, the famous “but.” While she insouciantly refers to, in one short sentence, a historical genocide which brutally killed thousands, including thousands of children; in the same article she writes a long heart-breaking description and condemnation of 7th of October and Hamas. A day that has shown how Israel is capable of killing its own citizens for its political project; Israeli media, including Haaretz have exposed the role of Israeli army in killing many of the “hostages” according to what is called the “Hannibal Directive.” The rape and child beheading accusations have not been proved or confirmed by any credential body; some of the testimonies of freed hostages completely contradict the Israeli narrative of the treatment of hostages.

If you want to be on the right side of the history you have to accept your fault and make an honest turn around. You can’t whitewash your silence, your complicity by throwing empty jargons at your critics. These jargons do not mean anything. They do not serve the purpose you intend. You know it and we know it. It is now time for the people to also see it.

* Goyum or Goyim (singular: goy) is a Hebrew and Yiddish term for a non-Jewish person or people, literally translating to "nations" or "peoples". While neutrally used within some Jewish communities, it is often considered pejorative depending on context and tone. It is sometimes utilized by anti-Semitic groups as a derogatory term or in conspiracy theories. (AI. Online)

** According to data released in February 2025 by the anti-hate crime monitoring group Tell MAMA, assaults against Muslims in the UK surged by 73% in 2024 compared to the previous year. However, EX-Muslim still continues with its provocative, dehumanising acts. But they are very sensitive to what they call anti-Semitism.

⏩ Asar Majed is the Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation.

⏩Homa Arjomand is an Iranian political activist, resident in Canada, where she is a member of the International Campaign against the Sharia Court and the Director of Children First Now.

Ultimate Absurdity!

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)