Category Archives: capitalism

When silence is evil: praying and protesting against the arms fair

Posted on by symonhill

At the beginning of September, some of the world’s most oppressive regimes will be sending representatives to London. They will be there to meet arms dealers, ready to profit from war and oppression.

Their meetings will not be illegal. They will be actively encouraged by the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Mayor of London.

The London arms fair, which runs from 10th-13th September, marks a key date in the calendar of arms-dealing corporations such as BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. It regularly welcomes oppressive and aggressive regimes such as Saudia Arabia, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Israel and Bahrain.

Christians from across the UK and beyond will join with people of many religions and none to take nonviolent action against the arms fair. An important date is 8th September, the Sunday before the fair, which will be Stop the Arms Trade Day of Prayer.

The London arms fair is one of the largest in the world. It is subsidised by taxpayers’ money and the regimes that turn up are invited by the UK government. But it is euphemistically entitled Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEi). This is misleading. The arms trade is not about defence and security.

David Cameron and his allies like to promote the arms industry by arguing that democratic countries have a right to defend themselves. But there are no arms companies that sell weapons only to democracies to use for self-defence.

Arms trade apologists also speak of the number of British jobs that arms exports supposedly provide. This argument was also central to supporters of the slave trade over 200 years ago. Not only are the figures generally exaggerated, but arms companies have themselves been rapidly moving jobs out of the UK in recent years. Engineering skills could be put to better use through government investment in socially useful projects such as renewable energy.

The sins of war and economic injustice are brought together in a trade that ensures that war is profitable for a few. Every UK minister who signs off on an arms deal to a dictator is weakening anything the government might say in defence of human rights. Every pound spent on bombs and bullets is a pound less for vaccines and school books. The arms trade kills before a gun has been fired or an aeroplane left the ground. And it thrives on the lie that violence is the answer to conflict.

As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.” Let’s speak up, pray and protest in the week beginning on Sunday 8th September.

We will pray – at church, at home, in the street, outside the arms fair. We will protest – in our communities, in universities, at the headquarters of local arms firms and of course at the arms fair. We will speak out – to our friends, our neighbours, our colleagues, our politicians, the media and the arms dealers.

Prayer and action cannot be separated. Let’s pray that we will speak out sincerely, in love and not in hate, acknowledging our own collusion with injustice, celebrating what’s already been achieved and seeking transformation for ourselves, others and society. May God guide us to take effective and radical action so that we are – as Jesus put it – “wise as serpents and innocent as doves”.

The prayers and actions will continue throughout the week of DSEi and beyond.

There are many people resisting DSEi. Most of the groups involved, including the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), have a firm commitment to active nonviolence.

Of course, we are all different. We can speak out in different ways. Not everyone can, or should, travel to the arms fair to pray and protest in person. Below are a few suggested actions. Your choice may depend on your time, personality or other considerations. Please feel free to suggest others.

* Ask your church if they will mark the Day of Prayer. They can include the arms fair and the protests in their prayers of intercession – or go further and have a special service or themed sermon. CAAT’s Christian Network have produced some suggested resources.

* Pray for all those involved in the arms fair and all those resisting it.

* Tell at least one friend or colleague about the arms fair and why you’re against it. You can find out more about DSEi here.

* Find out whether there will be any actions in your local area at the time of the arms fair. If not, how about organising one?

* Write to your local paper, national paper or Christian publication about the arms fair. You can find out more about DSEi here.

* Write to your MP, MEP, MSP or AM, challenging him/her to oppose the arms fair in public.

* Come along to DSEi. There will be a massive protest on Sunday 8th September, two days before the arms fair begins. A strong Christian presence, in solidarity with people of other religions and none, will be great.

* Join in the multifaith vigil at the arms fair on the evening of Monday 9th September.

* Read more at the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the Stop the Arms Fair coalition or Christianity Uncut.

The power of love, the power of justice, the power of the crucified God is a subtler, stranger but ultimately stronger power than the power of money, markets and military might. As the apostle Paul said, God’s power is made perfect in weakness.

Focused on that power, let’s pray and protest against the arms fair. The arms industry, like all sinful structures, will one day be defeated. This is an important step along the way.

———–

The above article formed my latest column on the website of the Ekklesia thinktank.

Unexpected item in bagging area

Posted on by symonhill

If anyone’s looking round for a symbol of modern capitalism, I can think of nothing better to suggest than self-service checkout machines. With their robotic pseudo-friendliness and meaningless recorded “thank you”, they sum up a society in which people exist simply as consumers for the benefit of faceless corporations. Allowing large companies to lay off staff, they require customers to do a job for which they are not paid with tools that do not work.

Both the absurdity and inhumanity of self-service checkouts are regularly on display at WH Smith’s in Euston station. Usually, a harassed-looking member of staff is spending much of the time helping customers to use the machines. But – presumably because of the machines’ existence – the staff member has to work there on his or her own. If Smith’s got rid of the machines, and employed more staff, the workers would be less stressed and the customers would be served more quickly.

The term “Luddite” has come to mean someone who is against technology, but this is unfair. When the Luddites were active two hundred years ago, they campaigned only against the use of technology for purposes that were socially and economically harmful. Let’s take our inspiration from them. Unlike them, we don’t all need to risk imprisonment and death. But we can refuse to use self-service checkout machines.

Not the G8 – digital activism in Leeds

Posted on by symonhill

I am on a train that’s just pulled out of Leeds, following a great day at ‘Not the G8’, a conference run by the World Development Movement (WDM).

I was there because WDM invited me to speak at a session on digital activism. But I’m really glad they did, because the whole event was very good and I learnt a lot.

The day included a really helpful talk about food sovereignty by the writer Raj Patel. I have realised recently that WDM are very good at drawing the links between different issues – poverty, the environment, banking. In particular, they make clear that environmentalism is not simply a lifestyle choice for the middle class in the West but is an urgent concern for anyone who wants to tackle poverty.

I was asked to give a talk based partly on my new book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age. As usual, I Iearnt at least as much from the participants as they did from me.

At these sort of events, I fear that the attenders will expect me to be some sort of technological whizzkid, with answers to all sorts of questions about computer use. Anyone who’s watched me struggle to get my DVD player working will know that I am not that person. My book is not a book about technology; it’s a book about activism. It looks at the ways in which the internet has been used for activism in recent years.

I am not a net utopian – technology won’t save the world. Nor am I someone who dismisses the usefulness of the internet. Digital activism is an important part of many campaigns. It can also draw people into other forms of resistance. But digital activism is almost never sufficient on its own. When talking today, I focussed on examples of campaigns that have effectively combined online and offline activism. Examples include:

  • Tax justice campaigners who petitioned Olympic sponsors online to give up their tax exemptions at the Olympic Park. Several companies quickly agreed, probably because they feared physical occupations – which had greeted many tax-dodging stores the previous year.
  • Boycott Workfare, who have persuaded dozens of companies and charities in the UK to withdraw from workfare schemes. Some withdrew after physical protests and economic pressure. Others withdrew when bombarded with tweets and faced with humiliation online.
  • Disabled activists in York, who found a provision that required the City Council to debate any petition with over 1,000 signatures from York residents. Their petition and the council debate meant that cuts to local disability services became the lead news item on BBC Radio York – making many more people aware of them.
  • Lovers of peace in Israel and Iran, who set up “Israel Loves Iran” and “Iran Loves Israel”, two Facebook pages that built understanding across the divide and allowed Israeli and Iranian citizens to tell both their governments that they were “not ready to die in your war”.
  • Minority language activists as far apart as Wales, east Africa, Australia and south Asia, who use web-based resources to promote linguistic diversity and the rights of their communities.
  • The paradox of the Occupy movement, which combined the modern image of web-based communication with the old-fashioned image of debates in public squares. Both of them, at their best, are far more inclusive than mainstream political processes.

I was delighted that so many people got stuck into discussion about these issues. As my book has not long been published, this was on the second time that I’ve given a talk based around it. I will be doing so again at the Greenbelt festival in August. However, I’m very open to speaking with other groups. If you’re interested you’re welcome to email me at symonhill@gmail.com. I would love to hear from you!

———

My book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age, can be bought from the publisher, New Internationalist, by clicking here. It costs £9.99 (0r $16.95 in the US). 

My eviction from an arms dealers’ AGM

Posted on by symonhill

I’ve just returned from the annual general meeting of BAE Systems, one of the world’s largest arms companies. I was forcibly carried out of the building after challenging the board on BAE’s arms sales to the brutal regimes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

On 364 days of every year, BAE’s bosses are able to live in a world in which they are rarely challenged on the reality of their deadly business. But as a shareholder company, they are legally obliged to hold an AGM. They give the strong impression that they hate it. On this one day each year, power is confronted with truth.

BAE are so keen to avoid scrutiny that this year they moved the AGM from central London to Farnborough in Hampshire. Predictably, there were fewer journalists in attendance than usual. But if BAE had been hoping that their critics would be deterred by the venue, they were disappointed. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) hired a coach to take people from London, and other CAAT supporters joined us on site. There were at least as many as usually turn up when the AGM’s in London.

Like many other opponents of the arms trade, I own a single share in BAE so that I am legally allowed to attend the AGM and question the board (I make no profit from this share; the eleven pence I made from it last year was donated to CAAT).

The meeting began with a presentation by Dick Olver, chair of BAE. He sought to give life to a fantasy world, in which BAE are “global leaders” when it comes to “ethical behaviour”. Such absurd claims from a man who sells weapons to tyrants were interspersed with meaningless corporate jargon about “total performance” and “going forwards”.

Olver was jeered as he claimed that BAE make the world “a better place and a safer place”. Try telling that to the peaceful pro-democracy campaigners in Bahrain, who have been attacked and killed by their own government with BAE’s weapons. Of course, Olver would rather we didn’t think about BAE’s victims.

We are all responsible for what goes on in the world. When Jesus was asked “Who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10,29), he told a story about a man who saved a stranger from a different ethnic and religious group. This is a story that is meaningful to people of many religions and none. If I see someone being killed in front of me, I have a responsibility to do something about it. The fact that the killing in question is in Bahrain does not lessen my responsibility – especially when the weapons involved are manufactured and promoted on my own doorstep.

Of course, I am complicit. Of course, I do not do enough. Of course, like most people, I avoid uncomfortable truths. I do not claim to be less sinful than Dick Olver. Recognising this does not lessen my commitment to speaking out when truth and justice are distorted. It increases it.

Many of us began to challenge Olver as he talked, confronting his absurd fantasy not only with jeers but with comments about the reality of his business. When somebody criticised the “troublemakers” for their noise, I called out that the real troublemakers are those who sell weapons to dictators.

Despite ten years as head of one of the world’s most deadly companies, Olver still looks surprised when he is challenged. He has the expression of a disapproving headteacher and you could almost expect him to say “It’s your own time you’re wasting”. If only only Olver were a headteacher, he would be contributing to society instead of harming it.

He responded to the heckles by saying that he would answer “any questions” when the reports had finished. This being my seventh time at a BAE AGM, I knew very well that he would dodge most of them. He has many ways of doing this: talking about something else, aggressively criticising the questioner, waving an issue aside by saying it’s a matter for the government. He has a particular line in patronising older and female questioners while ignoring what they say.

So, like many others, I was not prepared to confine my questioning to the hour when Olver chooses to allow it. One hour a year is not enough for such a powerful person to be held to account. I had not gone to the meeting with the intention of getting thrown out. I have never been removed from the BAE AGM before. But I was not going to sit there and be ordered into silence by the chair of BAE Systems. I shouted out that we would continue to challenge him, as he is not being held accountable and is refusing to recognise BAE’s complicity in oppression in Bahrain and elsewhere.

Several shareholders tutted. There are those who are happy to arm oppressive regimes but who disapprove of interrupting the structure of a meeting. For some, it seems, morality is about order, not justice.

Dick Olver pointed at me and said “Remove that gentleman!”. Four security guards did so. They were suprisingly gentle, but resisted my attempts to engage them in conversation about BAE’s ethics. One of them, when I asked his views on selling arms to dictators, said “I don’t think it’s anything to do with me”. The others didn’t answer.

The security guards were verbally polite as they removed me, and I was (I trust) polite in return. One of them even went back to fetch my jacket. Protesters in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and other recipients of BAE weapons are not so fortunate.

Twelve other people were also removed, and I understand that many challenging questions were asked, particularly about Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and corruption. Several people staged a singing protest and others were thrown out while seeking to present Dick Olver with an award as “Whitewasher of the Year”.

As the meeting was finished, Olver was heard to say to a colleague, “That was a lot worse than usual”.

This was Olver’s last AGM as chair. His successor has yet to be announced. Having failed to avoid scrutiny by running away to Farnborough, perhaps the board will host the next AGM on the Isle of Skye at three o’clock in the morning. If they do, we’ll be there.

———-

For more information on the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), please see http://www.caat.org.uk.

My new book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age, can be ordered from the publisher, New Internationalist, by clicking here.

The Christian lobby group and the far-right party

Posted on by symonhill

I blogged earlier this week about statements from the homophobic lobby group Christian Concern ahead of the local elections. They encouraged people to vote for candidates opposed to same-sex marriage. Most of these candidates are likely to be UKIP or on the right wing of the Conservative Party. They are therefore likely to be very right-wing on economics. Until now, Christian Concern have largely avoided taking a stance on economic issues.

Today, Christian Concern sent out their weekly email bulletin, which includes a message from the group’s director, Andrea Williams, about the local elections. She writes in a celebratory tone. This is not, of course, because Labour have taken so many seats from Tories, but because UKIP have done so.

She writes:

“The local election results are showing massive losses for the Conservative party. This was by no means inevitable but David Cameron’s insistence on pursuing the same sex ‘marriage’ agenda has undoubtedly contributed to this dramatic result.

“His determination to dilute marriage has alienated not only Conservative supporters but voters at large. UKIP is notably the only party that supports marriage and their success in these elections is in large part due to that.”

Contrary to the above statement, there are in fact several other parties that oppose same-sex marriage (BNP, English Democrats, Christian People’s Alliance, etc), but Christian Concern seem happy to ignore them today.

Should we take this as indicating that Christian Concern is happy to support – or at least overlook – UKIP’s other policies? They include cutting taxes for the rich, raising taxes for the poor and people in the middle, increasing military spending, renewing Trident, going further than the Tories with cuts to public services, increasing workfare, banning all immigration for five years, withdrawing from the UN Convention on Refugees, scrapping human rights law and teaching children a pro-imperial view of history.

Do Christian Concern think that these are appropriate policies for Christians to support? I think they should tell us.

Same-sex marriage and the local elections: Who thinks they’re connected?

Posted on by symonhill

The “Christian Right” in Britain – inasmuch as it exists – is not like the Christian Right in the US. Over there, conservatism on issues such as marriage and abortion seems to go hand in hand with right-wing views on economics and foreign policy. Over here, we have conservative Christian lobby groups with a far more narrow focus. Organisations such as the Christian Institute, Christian Concern/Christian Legal Centre and so-called Anglican Mainstream focus largely on attacking LGBT rights. They also speak out against abortion, Islam and the supposed marginalisation of Christians in Britain.

But unlike their US counterparts, these groups rarely comment explicitly on economics or international relations. True, the tiny Christian Party adopts a right-wing stance on virtually every issue, cheering on Trident and tax cuts for the rich. In contrast, the (slightly older) Christian People’s Alliance is just as hostile to LGBT rights and Islam, but has a suprisingly good record of campaigning against the arms trade and talks quite a bit about poverty.

Shortly before the 2010 general election, Christian Concern appeared to endorse the candidacy of George Hargreaves, the Christian Party’s leader, in an email bulletin to supporters. The bulletin clearly provoked some negative reactions, as the group almost immediately issued another email insisting that they do not endorse one party or another.

This makes an email that they have sent out today particularly interesting. When giving advice to Christians about voting in tomorrow’s local elections, there is only one issue they mention: same-sex marriage.

Subscribers to their mailing list received an “action alert” today that declared:

“Please take the time to find out which of your candidates supports marriage as between one man and one woman before you go to place your vote.”

You might think that the afternoon before polling day is a bit late to be finding out such things. You might also wonder what local elections have to do with marriage law. The email declares:

“Local authorities hold a lot [of] power which they could use to penalise people or organisations who believe in authentic marriage, so it’s important that local councillors are pro real marriage.”

There is then a link to a leaflet produced by the “Coalition for Marriage” about the links between local government and marriage law. It consists largely of unsubstantiated statements. For example:

“Schools could be forced to promote the new definition of marriage in the classroom. The rights of parents could be ignored, and teachers who believe in traditional marriage could be pushed out of their careers… Churches that refuse to hold same-sex weddings may be denied grants or refused permission to hire halls from councils in the future.”

No evidence is provided to back up these claims (I hope that schools will encourage children to consider all sides of the argument on ethical, political and religious issues – as they are already expected to).

The only party that the email mentions by name is the Conservatives. Christian Concern quote a Daily Telegraph poll that shows:

“…that the plan to redefine marriage makes far more people ‘less likely’ to vote Conservative than ‘more likely’ to do so.”

Speaking personally, there is nothing that would make me “less likely” to vote Conservative, as there has never been any chance of my voting Conservative at all.

Will Christian Concern’s supporters vote primarily (or even solely) on the basis of which candidate or candidates oppose same-sex marriage? This could have alarming results. Of course, there are a few Labour, Lib Dem and SNP candidates who oppose marriage equality, but most anti-equality candidates are likely to be Tory, Independent or from far-right parties such as the UK Independence Party.

This is particularly relevant at a time when UKIP is under such scrutiny. Last week, their candidate Anna Marie Crampton was thrown out of the party for anti-Semitic comments on Facebook. When the story broke, one of the first to call for Crampton’s expulsion was Sam Westrop, director of the interfaith group Stand for Peace. He said, ““UKIP, to its credit, has expelled extremist and bigoted members in the past.” It is able to have done so only because it has had so many of them to expel.

Three years ago, I analysed UKIP’s policies and discovered remarkable overlaps with the BNP. UKIP are not only anti-European, anti-migrant and anti-Muslim. They also deny the reality of climate change, support an increase in military spending and want a flat rate of income tax (so milllionaires pay the same as cleaners and nurses). UKIP believe that the Tory cuts are not going far enough. Nigel Farage has described David Cameron, the man currently presiding over the destruction of the welfare state, as “a social democrat”.

And of course, UKIP is also strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. Winston McKenzie, UKIP’s candidate in the Croydon North by-election, made this one of the main points of his campaign, targeting religious voters with the untrue claim that the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties want to force churches and mosques to host same-sex weddings.

Mackenzie also described adoption by same-sex couples as “child abuse”. The party’s spokespeople disagreed with him, but they didn’t expel him. Instead, it was the head of UKIP’s youth wing who was forced out of his job for supporting same-sex marriage.

Is this the party that Christians are being urged to support tomorrow? Are Christian Concern simply naïve about the likely economic policies of most candidates opposed to same-sex marriage, or are they actively in favour of them?

Charles flies to Saudi Arabia and ignores human rights

Posted on by symonhill

At a camp for Syrian refugees in Jordan yesterday, a visitor expressed his shock at what he saw. It was, he said, an “unbelievable and heartbreaking situation”. The visitor was Charles Windsor, commonly called the Prince of Wales. His wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles, praised the “strength of spirit” of the women refugees at the camp.

Today, Charles and Camilla visited Saudi Arabia for friendly meetings with Saudi princes. Charles did not say it was “heartbreaking” to see the suppression of political and religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. Camilla did not praise the “strength of spirit” of the Saudi women who challenge state misogyny by driving cars or travelling without a male companion (both of which are illegal). Neither of them said it was “unbelievable” that seven people had just been shot in public by firing squad after an unfair trial for theft.

Indeed, prior to the visit, their spokesperson ruled out any idea of them even mentioning human rights, torture or political prisoners to their royal Saudi hosts.

Once again, I am sickened by the hypocrisy of the British establishment when it comes to Saudi Arabia. It is one of the most vicious tyrannies on Earth and yet Tory, Labour and LibDem ministers have all readily looked the other way for the sake of two industries that rely on UK-Saudi co-operation. They are the arms trade and the oil trade – two of the dirtiest, deadliest, most immoral businesses in the world.

British subservience to Saudi Arabia undermines every comment that any British minister or royal figure makes about human rights and democracy.

Tony Blair, seeking to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, said he was worried by the treatment of women under the Taliban. The treatment of women in Saudi Arabia did not stop him intervening in a criminal investigation in 2006 to ensure that BAE’s Saudi arms deals would not be investigated for corruption.

In 2007, Gordon Brown welcomed Abdullah, the king of Saudi Arabia, on a state visit that saw them sharing a banquet at Buckingham Palace. Kim Howells, then a junior minister, spoke of the “shared values” between the two countries. Shortly beforehand, the Saudi regime had arrested a group of Catholics for peacefully worshipping in a family home.

In 2011, David Cameron condemned Assad’s brutal oppression in Syria. A few months earlier, the Bahraini regime had invited Saudi troops into their country to help them to suppress peaceful pro-democracy protests. They did so with armoured vehicles made by BAE in Newcastle.

And now Charles Windsor has joined in the hypocrisy. Attempts to plead that the royal family are “non-political” just won’t wash. Charles has made comments on all sorts of political issues, from education to the environment. His description of the situation in Syria as “unbelievable and heartbreaking” was political as well as accurate (it would certainly be seen as political if he said it about Saudi Arabia).

The very idea of being “non-political” is a moral and practical absurdity. Neutrality is literally impossible in a context of injustice. Those who respond to oppression by saying they are not taking sides are helping the oppression to continue and thus siding with the oppressor.

Such behaviour by British ministers and royals is nothing new. But Charles is also expected to be “supreme governor” of the Church of England some time fairly soon. This is another good reason for disestablishment. Leaders of churches should not be defending tyrants. 

IDS and the bishops: Some overlooked facts

Posted on by symonhill

I have often been critical of the Church of England’s leadership for being slow to speak out on issues of economic justice. I’m therefore delighted that 43 CofE bishops have criticised the coalition for cutting benefits (or technically, for raising them by one percent, which is below the rate of inflation and therefore a cut in all but name).

It’s good news that Justin Welby has backed their stance, in one of his first high-profile acts as Archbishop of Canterbury. I am hoping that this is a sign of how he means to go on.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has responded to the bishops with a statement that (while not containing any direct lies) gives a very misleading impression of the welfare budget.

He said:

“This is about fairness. People who are paying taxes, working very hard, have hardly seen any increases in their salary and yet, under the last government, the welfare bill rose by some sixty percent to £200bn. That means they have to pay for that under their taxes, which is simply not fair.”

There are several things that Iain Duncan Smith knows to be true but is not mentioning.

He knows that the majority of the welfare budget goes on pensions and other benefits for older people that the government is not, in any case, proposing to cut.

He knows that many benefits, such as housing benefit and disability living allowance, go to people who are employed as well as people who are unemployed. Some of those “working very hard” are among the beneficiaries of the welfare budget.

He knows that unemployed people, as well as working people, pay taxes. They do not pay income tax, but they pay VAT. Even homeless people pay VAT.

He knows that a major reason for the rise in the welfare budget is that tax credits are subsidising poverty pay, while housing benefit is going into the pockets of landlords at a time of rising private sector rents. But it’s not landlords and employers who will lose out from the coalition’s cuts.

Iain Duncan Smith knows all these things. But he’s not going to mention them. The bishops – and the rest of us – need to proclaim them loudly and clearly.

Living activism (ten years after the Iraq march)

Posted on by symonhill

Ten years ago today, I joined millions of other people around the world in marching against the planned invasion of Iraq. This morning, I was effectively banned from my local branch of Costcutter. It’s been a strange decade.

My conflict with Costcutter began when the manager told me I should not pick up and look at the newspapers before choosing which one to buy. I nearly always buy one (and sometimes more than one) and always put the others back neatly. But I often look at them before making my decision.

The manager told me this is not allowed. I politely asked for the reason, and he was unable to give one. He resorted to repeating that it was not allowed without explaining why. I find legalism like this particularly frustrating. At one point, he suggested that all newspapers basically carry the same news – an alarmingly inaccurate statement.

The discussion went on for some time. He told me I was not welcome to buy newspapers there. I told him I would not be buying anything else there either.

Of course, resisting unreasonable rules in local shops is a very trivial issue compared to resisting the invasion of Iraq. The invasion led to at least 200,000 deaths (by conservative estimates). Ten years later, international NGOs rate Iraq towards the bottom of the world’s league tables when it comes to political freedom and other human rights. The worst fears of those of us who campaigned against the invasion have come to pass.

And yet, many people who marched against the war feel that they made no difference. For first-time activists, it was particularly disheartening. At the time, I had little doubt that Bush and Blair would push ahead with their vicious plans regardless of our action, although I believe that we may have made them more cautious about starting more wars immediately afterwards.

Unfortunately, after that march, the anti-war movement effectively tried to replicate it with more central London marches characterised by long dreary walks and endless repetitive speeches (OK, some were better than others). I made this point when interviewed by Ian Sinclair, author of a new book, The March That Shook Blair. I’m about to go to the book launch.

A few years later, activism took a different turn. Groups such as the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) combined direct action with media activism and court cases. The coalition’s cuts agenda was greeted by a rise in nonviolent direct action greater than I dared to hope for. Imaginative actions by UK Uncut and their allies saw tax-dodging shoot up the political agenda.

Marches are sometimes important, but they are rarely, if ever, enough in themselves. We need more diverse tactics, more effective tactics and a greater understanding of active nonviolence.  More importantly, we need to root activism in our daily lives.

I’m not suggesting that alternative lifestyles are a substitute for explicit political campaigning. Rather, I believe we should seek to resist injustice in everyday actions and choices. As Jesus of Nazareth put it, they who are faithful in small ways will be faithful in big ways.

Challenging Costcutter’s unfair rule about newspapers is of course a minor example, but I’m glad I did it. There are many (greater) injustices around me that I fail to challenge. And of course, we are all complicit in the unjust systems that we live under and sometimes benefit from.

But I believe we can aim to live out our values in such a way that our very existence is an act of rebellion. It is something to which I aspire. I have a long way to go.

No (tax) credit for Iain Duncan Smith

Posted on by symonhill

It’s New Year’s Eve, newsrooms are quiet and casual comments by ministers are enough to make top headlines. Today, Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has made the news with some vaguely worded attacks on the system of tax credits.

Duncan Smith says that tax credits (government payouts to people on low incomes) are “not fit for purpose”.

Now, there’s very little about which I agree with Iain Duncan Smith. However, I agree that tax credits are not fit for purpose. I suspect that he and I have different reasons for thinking this.

Many tax credits are paid to people who are working in very low paid jobs. In other words, they are a taxpayer-funded subsidy for poverty pay. Employers can get away with paying people unreasonable wages because the taxpayer will foot the bill through tax credits. They are thus not a subsidy for the poor but for the rich (I accept that not all employers are rich, but most major employers certainly are).

However, other people receive tax credits because they can work only part-time, for example because of disability or childcare responsibilities.

Duncan Smith’s planned “universal credit” is likely to be far worse for many of these people than the existing tax credit system.

If Duncan Smith really wants to cut the tax credit bill – as he should – he needs not to introduce new systems that will penalise the poorest but to look to the real reason for such a high bill.

A considerable increase in the minimum wage would make many tax credits unnecessary. Of course, some will argue that this would lead to mass sackings from employers who claim they can’t afford it. This prediction was made when the minimum wage was introduced in 1998. It didn’t happen.

We can reduce the welfare bill, like so many other bills, in ways that cause inconvenience to the rich rather than suffering to the poor.