Cassandra Voices

Tag: 2019April

  • ‘Discourse of Pollution’ from the ‘Trump of the Tropics’

    The use of xenophobic language by Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, known as the ‘Trump of the tropics’, reinforces a dangerous narrative in which refugees and migrants are portrayed as threats to national security, writes humanitarian worker Bruna Kadletz.

    FLORIANÓPOLIS, Brazil – In his first official visit to the White House, Brazil’s new Far Right President Jair Bolsonaro, declared his support to president Donald Trump´s dehumanising immigration policies.

    Publicly reinforcing dangerous stereotypes of refugees and migrants as threats to national security, cultural heritage and social order he said in an with Fox News on Monday, March 18th: ‘The majority of potential immigrants do not have good intentions or do not intend to do the best or do good for the American people.’[efn_note]Jill Colvin and Peter Prengman, ‘Trump buddies up with Bolsonaro, the ‘Trump of the Tropics’’ March 20th, 2019, Associated Press, https://www.apnews.com/bdc70648e5814d25b549d1c252910006, accessed 27/3/19.[/efn_note]During the same interview Bolsonaro lent support to Trump’s plan to build his infamous wall along the US-Mexico border.

    Such remarks are in line with a growing global anti-immigrant trend, treating refugees as unwanted, and referring them to as potential criminals and threats to stability.[efn_note]Vince Chadwick, ‘The top 10 wackiest anti-refugee remarks’ October 19th, 2015, www.politico.eu, https://www.politico.eu/article/toxic-news-refugees-migrants-eu/, accessed 27/3/19.[/efn_note]

    The Populist language of violence and xenophobia promotes the idea that asylum seekers, refugees and vulnerable migrants pollute societies, contaminating social and economic relationships, and that their presence leaves streets dirty. This normalises confinement in exclusion zones, such as refugee camps, detention centres or ships on dangerous voyages.

    American author and cultural critic Henry Giroux calls this rhetoric the ‘discourse of pollution.’ In the United States, the Trump administration employs it as a form of dehumanization, enabling ‘policies in which people are relegated outside boundaries of justice and become the driving force for policies of terminal exclusion.’[efn_note]Henri Giroux, ‘Trump’s Racist Language of Pollution Drives His Brand of Fascism’, January 9th, 2019, Truthdig, https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trumps-racist-language-of-pollution-drives-his-brand-of-fascism/, accessed 27/3/19.[/efn_note]

    The Bolsonaro administration shadows Trump´s moves and employs the same rhetoric from the discourse of pollution. On entering office, his first major move was to pull Brazil out of the United Nations-led Global Compact for Safe Orderly and Regular Migration, adopted by more than 160 countries in December 2018.[efn_note]UN News, ‘Governments adopt global migration pact to help ‘prevent suffering and chaos’, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, December 10th, 2018, https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/global-migration-pact.html, accessed 27/3/19.[/efn_note]‘Not just anyone can come into our home,’ he declared on Twitter. ‘Defending our national sovereignty has been a key part of our campaign and it is now a priority of our government,’ he continued in another tweet.

    Bolsonaro’s views on migrants is consistent with a history of xenophobic comments. In a 2015 interview, he referred to Senegalese, Haitian, Syrian and other asylum seekers arriving in Brazil as ‘the scum of the world,’[efn_note]Alexandre Parrode, ‘Ouça entrevista em que Bolsonaro chama refugiados de “escória” e sugere infarto a Dilma’, September 21st, 2015, Jornal Opcao, https://www.jornalopcao.com.br/ultimas-noticias/ouca-entrevista-em-que-bolsonaro-chama-refugiados-de-escoria-e-sugere-infarto-a-dilma-46313/, accessed 27/3/19.[/efn_note] implying the country had enough problems already, and that they would even pose a threat to the Brazilian Armed Forces.

    On January 6th, he posted a video on his official Facebook page of a Muslim woman being stoned to death. The description underneath reads, ‘Under Sharia law, a woman is stoned to death by many coward Muslims. This is the culture wishing to invade the West and subject us to this aberration.'[efn_note]Jair Bolsonaro Official Facebook Page: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1340804376068545&id=211857482296579, accessed 17/3/19.[/efn_note]

    The Brazilian government’s xenophobia and decision to walk away from the migration compact signals dark days of hostility, and stricter border controls.

    Refugees and immigrants, seeking protection and better living conditions, are most affected by the discourse of pollution. Instead of having their human rights vindicated, such a point of view increases the vulnerability and fear of refugees and migrants.

    Far Right global leaders seem to think their individual online rantings exist in a vacuum, but their words embed belief systems, and legitimates the behaviour of extremists. For a head of State to say migrants do not have good intentions or are scum is highly irresponsible. Leaders should be uniting people with a progressive vision, rather than exploiting existing divisions.

    This perverse language informs policies which could lead to further exclusion and vulnerability in places from Brazil to the United States.

    Thus, Bolsonaro’s administration poses a threat to refugees’ human rights. If his discourse of pollution brings harsher migration policies, the result could be further xenophobic attacks, hostility and policies of exclusion. That would only accentuate the vulnerability of asylum seekers and refugees in Brazil.

    Violent and xenophobic language can lead to violent acts being perpetrated against refugees and migrants. The recent massacre at the two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, of fifty people, is just the latest example of White Supremacy and Far Right terrorism, encouraged by a misleading narrative of refugees and migrants as pollutants that need to be cleaned up.

    In contrast to others, New Zealand´s Prime Minister, Jacinta Ardern, responded to the massacre with courage and leadership. Her compassionate and caring response is a stark contrast to the angry words of Donald Trump, Jair Bolsanaro and others. Only with the power of love can we move forward as a united global community.

    We rely on contributions to keep Cassandra Voices going.

  • The Limits of Law

    ‘What is law?’ This is a fundamental question posed at the outset of any course in the philosophy of law. The standard form of response includes that it is a system of rules, according to a tradition known as legal positivism. Such is a ‘black letter’ lawyer, and Anglo-American approach. This is a product of a tradition of formalism, pioneered by scholars such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, and latterly taken up by Christopher Columbus Langdell and H. L. A. Hart.

    In a nutshell it says that if you want to ascertain what the law is then you simply look it up in a statute, or derive it from the interpretation of a case or precedent, and, hey presto, there you have it.  As a lawyer you then arm yourself for battle with this information. Such an outlook matches the common-sense approach of most lawyers. But interpretations of case laws, statutes and constitutions differ. Even within black letter law the meaning of language is never clear. Facts are never exactly the same. Rules are opaque, seen through the looking glass as in Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland:

    When I use a word Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I chose it to mean-neither more nor less. The question is said Alice whether you can make words mean so many different things.[i]

    In fact, the central assumption of certain positivists, such as Hart[ii] that facts are plain, and all meaning is shared, is eminently contestable. It leads to the fallacy within the black letter tradition that law, or legal meaning, can simply be ‘downloaded’ from a case or a statute and technically applied to any case at bar.

    In contrast, the leading rights-driven lawyer, Ronald Dworkin[iii] (in for example Laws Empire, 1986) saw law as a matter of argument, and interpretation. Law and legal meaning are thus intensely creative. He concluded that the best or superior interpretation succeeded – as in Herman Hesse’s last novel The Glass Bead Game – but often this fitted, subjectively, with an overarching liberal agenda. For Dworkin, the right or best answer was always the liberal answer, which allowed his critics to pillory him, arguing his approach was a trojan horse laden with premeditated answers.

    But questions of what law is cede to questions of legal validity. Thus, whether something is there on a statue book, or in a court case, must be related to whether that which is law is itself valid.

    Ultimately an impasse is reached in that legal validity, in order to have normative and thus binding force, cannot simply rely on legal validation. Or to put it more simply, black letter, legal validity must be cross-checked against the moral or ethical quality of any law.

    Nonsense on Stilts

    Thus, the argument runs, in order to be valid black letter law it must also be morally reasonable. This concept is deeply alien to an Anglo-Saxon mindset. It invokes the spectre of supernatural deities and that abomination that Bentham referred to as ‘Nonsense on Stilts’, natural law.

    Ever since Bentham, the architect of legal positivism, English lawyers have frowned and derided such abstract speculation. Within the British intellectual tradition, from Hobbes to Hitchens, the existence of a supernatural deity is either not accepted, or treated with utmost scepticism. Even devout Christian defer to the intellectual wisdom of traditional British empiricism.

    Yet there is still a widely maintained view, of which residues exist even within the British mindset, that in extremis when a law has forfeited all claims to legitimacy it should be abandoned.

    This was also the perception of the reformed German positivist lawyer Gustav Radbruch at the end of World War II in response to Nazism. He argued that once a law abandons all principles of humanitarian morality it ceases to be law. This became known as Radbruch’s formula, and forms the basis of modern human rights instruments and charters.

    Here we approach the kernel of the problem namely, if a law departs from fundamental moral principle should one comply with it; or instead engage in civil disobedience to unsettle and repeal it? Furthermore, should a judge invalidate it on moral grounds?

    Law in Action

    This then throws up the thorny question of morality, a world conjuring images of Baptist street preachers, and public avengers screaming from the rooftops. The moral majority often contends, in Lord Devlin’s terms, that what disgusts the average man on the Clapham omnibus should be declared illegal (see Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals, 1959). But given how many minds are polluted with prejudice that may be a perilous formula.

    Such is the positivist dilemma, and also a pragmatic and realistic one. The view I increasingly lean towards is that it is less important what the black letter law says, as opposed to what are the repercussions of the law.

    As Oliver Wendell Holmes, the quintessential realist, put it: ‘The prophecies of what the courts do in fact are what I mean by the law and nothing else.’[iv] Thus, Holmes maintained there was no law as such until a court had pronounced on the matter. This has morphed into the concept of law-in-action, which is a useful corrective to black letter legal theorising of the ivory tower type.

    It is all well and good to talk about rules, but in the trial and family courts it is not rules but fact, semi-fact, prejudice and bias that condition outcomes. Such technical law as there is contested often is agreed beforehand, and irrelevant to the outcome.

    The question thus becomes: where statute and the practice of the courts is manipulated to favour certain outcomes, what recourse does any citizen have, and what obligation are owed in terms of obedience?

    The Subversion of Subversion

    What are you to do if you are confronted with a corrupt state and attacked personally and professionally by an abuse of process or lack of standards. The current imprisonment and trial of the Catalan leaders in Spain, who had the temerity to organise a referendum trial in Spain is one good example of the distortion of law.

    A number of options are available: you can fight back in a loaded game with predetermined outcomes; comply and sympathise with the plight of your torturers, who are only doing their jobs after all. Stockholm Syndrome must always to be resisted. You can also engage in civil disobedience or write letters to newspapers, or refuse to recognise the legitimacy of a subversive state. Then you may be imprisoned or even murdered either in detention or on the street in plain view, like the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. More likely you will be bankrupted. Such today are the perils of dissidence around the world.

    In practical terms this often means exile is the best option, either as a professional or as a political refugee.

    A place of sanctuary, however, may not provide an adequate haven due to its failure, deliberate or otherwise, to understand the intricacies of the laws of another state. It may feel obligated to comply with reciprocal extradition treaties. Fortunately a court in Schleswig-Holstein refused to extradite the Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont, as it was clear that the charge of violent rebellion laid against him was an abomination. This world is nonetheless increasingly dangerous for enemies of the people: politicians, human rights lawyers, journalists and whistle blowers.

    It leads to the unsettling question of whether, if a state engages in criminali behaviour, is retaliation against a state officials permissible?

    I believe that self-help, disobedience and fighting fire with fire even in an extra-curial sense can in certain circumstances be justified. In general, however, the pen is a mighty counterweight to the sword and a weapon when the legal system no longer functions. The Fourth Estate can still blow smoke up the arses of the establishment.

    This leads to the worrying conclusion that we expect too much from law and that the overlap between law and justice is extremely tenuous. That at least is the case in those states where a crisis of legitimacy is leading to a breakdown in the rule of law.

    Law in societies no longer complying with the rule of law, is whatever works to bring about a desired outcome, which is often the incarceration of the alleged subversive.

    Civilised states at least pay lip service and occasional adherence to justice. Those who believe in legalism and the rule of law, encompassing such diverse figures as the Dworkin, Jurgen Habermas and the late Marxist historian E.P. Thompson, suggest law can be a force to check tyranny.

    As Thompson wrote in Whigs and Hunters:

    But the rule of law itself, the imposing of effective inhibitions upon power and the defence of the citizen from power’s all-intrusive claims, seems to me to be an unqualified human good. To deny or belittle this good is, in this dangerous century when the resources and pretensions of power continue to enlarge, a desperate error of intellectual abstraction.[v]

    The rule of law can, however, only obtain if the legal system has not descended into barbarism.

    Radbruch’s Formula

    As aforementioned, a crucial juristic figure is Gustav Radbruch, both a law professor and government minister during the Weimar Republic. It is often argued that opinions expressed in his earlier writings are positivistic. In 1932 he was a relativist in terms of the question of whether moral standards existed in law. He wrote that a judge had an obligation to uphold an unjust law. The Second World War changed his mind.

    In the famous ‘Radbruch’s Formula’ (Radbruchsche Formel) he argued that where statute law was incompatible with positivist law to an intolerable degree, and if it negated the principle of equality which is central to justice, it could be disregarded. In 1946 he wrote:

    [P]reference is given to the positive law, duly enacted and secured by state power as it is, even where it is unjust and fails to benefit the people unless it conflicts with justice reaches so intolerable a level that a statute becomes in effect false law and must therefore yield to justice … where there is not even an attempt at justice, where equality the core of justice is deliberately betrayed in the issuance of positive law then the statute is not merely false law it lacks completely the very nature of law.[vi]

    Radbruch suggests that where a government’s conduct is intolerable, the statue ceases to be valid. Law and must yield to justice. It was clear for Radbruch that this sense of justice (Gerechtigkeit) was linked to human rights. Thus, in Funf Minuten Rechtsphilosophie he argued for ‘justice as moral equality as applying the same measure to all or guaranteeing human rights to all.’[vii]

    As Hart indicates:

    His considered reflections led him to the doctrine that the fundamental principles of humanitarian morality were part of the very concept of Recht or legality and that no positive enactment or statute, however clearly it was expressed and however clearly it conformed with the formal criteria of validity of a legal system, could be valid if it contravened basic principles of morality.[viii]

    Fuller also argues in oft-repeated quote:

    To me there is nothing shocking in saying that a dictatorship which clothes itself with a tinsel of legal form can so far depart from the morality of order, from the inner morality of law itself, that it ceases to be a legal system. When a system calling itself law is predicated upon a general disregard by judges of the terms of the laws they purport to enforce, when this system habitually cures its legal irregularities, even the grossest, by retroactive statutes, when it has only to resort to forays of terror in the street, which no one dares challenge, in order to escape even those scant restraints imposed by the pretence of legality – when all those things have become true of a dictatorship, it is not hard for me, at least, to deny to it, the name of law.[ix]

    But is the moral answer ever completely clear and who is to judge?

    The Fog of War

    In this respect it is worthwhile considering a fascinating film documentary by Errol Morris about Robert McNamara, called The Fog of War. McNamara was Secretary of Defense under Presidents Johnson and Kennedy, and a man of many private accomplishments. In his documentary he surveys his career through a glass darkly.

    McNamara reveals that as an assistant to the American General Curtis Le May he was responsible for the carpet bombing of Tokyo. He admits that if the US had lost the Second World War, he could have been prosecuted for war crimes. He ultimately concedes he was a war criminal, but his side had won. Victory is not necessarily the victory of the morally just.

    Moral arguments can become even more complex. A recent documentary by Claude Landsman – responsible for perhaps the greatest documentary ever made Shoah (1985) – called The Last of the Unjust traces the life of Benjamin Murmelstein during World War I through a series of interviews prior to his death, alongside contemporary reflections by the director. The moral complexity of Murmelstein, a rabbi to the Jewish community at the Theresienstadt ‘model’ Concentration Camp, is such that he is difficult to place, in the seemingly straightforward narrative of the Shoah, as victim or vector. It is only thirty years later that Landsman revisits the footage.

    The argument of the film is replete with moral ambiguity. As head of the Jewish Council in Warsaw Murmelstein liaised with Adolf Eichmann. Then as leader of the Jews at the propagandistic Theresienstadt he was responsible for maintaining the illusion of happy campers; the salutary consequence was that many Jews were saved from the death camps.

    But many others were sent to the gas chambers from Theresienstadt and Murmelstein was privy to those decisions, and saved his own skin. At the end of the war he was prosecuted but the case was dropped.

    What have I done wrong he asks constantly through the film? Did I not do my best? Did I not do good? What would you have done in the same circumstances?

    Should he have been prosecuted or acclaimed like Oscar Schindler, Nazi War Profiteer, Drunk and Womaniser yet a saviour of the lives, at great personal cost, of over one thousand Cracow Jews, rights beside Auschwitz? Schindler is now buried alongside the Israeli hierarchy in the national cemetery in Tel Aviv.

    Conclusions

    Thus, even the invalidation of laws based on morality creates problems. So, in summary, what can be said about law, legality and morality?

    1. That judges should adhere to the process of legality and avoid bending the rules to suit the interest of those who appoint them. They ought to be independent, and not subject to political pressure or motivated by dogma.
    2. That justice must be blind to class or colour, and neutral and dispassionate. Show Trials, such as those going on in Spain today, reveal the mob ascendant.
    3. That judges ought to jettison strict adherence to black letter outcomes, unmitigated by flexibility.
    4. That the judiciary and fact finders must be committed to the process of truth elicitation and non-fabrication.
    5. That in extreme circumstance of an immoral legal code or state-sponsored illegality, a judge should reserve a discretionary right to strike down a statute or a precedent.

    Perhaps people have too much faith in the law and indeed lawyers, but in our times a faith in justice is one of the few things to hold on to.

    A just system is one administered by independent-minded gatekeepers of flexibility, motivated by principle and not corrupt or politically compromised. Fortunately there are many such judges left in the UK.

    We rely on contributions to keep Cassandra Voices going.

    [i] Lewis Carroll, Alice Through The Looking Glass, Chapter 6, 1871.

    [ii] A. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, London, Clarendon Law Series, 1961.

    [iii] Ronald Dworkin, Laws Empire, New York, Belknap Press, 1986.

    [iv] Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harvard Law Review, 1897 457-58

    [v]  E.P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters, London, Allen Lane, 1975, Appendix 1.

    [vi] Gustav Radbruch, Five Finutes of Legal Philosophy, 1945

    [vii] Radbruch Gesetetchiches Unrecht Und Bergesetiches Recht Sufddeutsche Juristrazeitung (1946), p.107

    [viii] A. L. A. Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morality, vol 71. 1984, p.617.

    [ix] Lon L. Fuller, Morality of Law, 1964, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1964, p.660.

  • Bull Moose – A New Monthly Column from Across the Pond.

    Bull Moose is a monthly bulletin discussing the politics and society of the United States.

    A Gift to Dems – should they take it…

    The news that Donald Trump had not been adjudged to have colluded with the Russians prior to the 2016 election was greeted with elation on the Right and disappointment and annoyance on the Left. Emboldened, the White House renewed calls to investigate the investigators. Little was said about how Attorney General Barr did exactly as promised when he wrote a memo in 2018, stating that the President should not be indicted for collusion, and that, frankly, he should be considered above the law in certain respects.[i] The 4-page memo of the 300-page Mueller report that Barr sent to Congress merely followed up on this promise to protect the President.

    The Democrats, for their part, reacted with a mixture of incredulity, anger and promises to continue the investigations. Clearly, they are within their rights – there is plenty of smoke, and where there is smoke there should be some fire at least. But they are missing an opportunity by not refocusing attention on issues that matter to Americans

    Realistically this shouldn’t be a win from Trump – he is not celebrating innocence, only the inability of prosecutors to pin conclusively any charges on him, even as some of his closest allies fester in jail. Trump’s strategy is clear and simple: aggressively go after anyone who questions him and say, repeatedly, ‘we want the full report released,’ without having any intention of ever doing so. Does ‘I will disclose my tax returns’, ring any bells?

    Most Americans have more progressive views than the Republican party. On issues like the environment, immigration, health care, and yes, even freedom and civil liberties, the public should naturally side with Democrats. Even on core issues like balanced budgets, debt and higher rates of marginal taxation, Republicans are vulnerable.

    Yet, the next election will be won by whoever controls the dialogue in the media. Trump won last time out, and will likely win again, because of his ability and desire to maintain a firm grip on the narrative.  Not for nothing, in order to get an idea to stick in a listener’s head he will mention a soundbite three times in a row – it’s a simple trick that is wildly effective.

    For him any day that he is not in the headlines is a bad one. Under this principle – bad publicity is better than none. At least he is still at the center of the conversation. Few Democrats seem to realize this. Yet, in order to win back the White House, they will need to learn from Trump, rather than simply demonize him.

    Control the narrative, control the outcome…

    Not Rich Enough

    News that some celebrities had paid bribes for their children to gain entry into the most prestigious universities in America received widespread attention in March. Some had paid around a million dollars to coaches and middle men, who helped game the system in their favor. About fifty people were accused and some will, no doubt, spend time in jail.

    The best take on this whole ‘scandal’ emerged organically, via social media. Dr Dre posted a picture of his daughter’s acceptance letter from USC, proudly boasting how she had ‘earned’ her entry. Shortly afterwards, one commenter reminded him of his $70 million gift to USC, whereupon he quickly deleted the post.

    The lesson? Don’t try to bribe your way into college unless you can pay for an entire building.

    The most interesting insight into the American mindset came from the comments section – the most liked ones were those adopting this line of thinking: if he donates that much money, he should be allowed to send his daughter there because he is providing opportunities for those less fortunate on scholarships.

    Twisted thinking to be sure, but clearly, if you are rich enough you can act like a socialist to rig the capitalist system in your favor.

    [i] Jonathan Hafetz and Brett Max Kaufmann, ‘William Barr’s Unsolicited Memo to Trump About Obstruction of Justice’, February 14th, 2019, ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive-branch/william-barrs-unsolicited-memo-trump-about-obstruction-justice, accessed 30/3/19.

  • A Spectre Worse than ‘Brexocide’ for the British Establishment

    Fact is a poor story-teller. It starts a story at haphazard, generally long before the beginning, rambles on inconsequentially and tails off, leaving loose ends hanging about, without a conclusion. It works up an interesting situation, and then leaves it in the air to follow an issue that has nothing to do with the point; it has no sense of climax and whittles away its dramatic effects in irrelevance.
    Somerset Maugham[i]

    And so the Brexit drama continues, wending inconclusively through the House of Commons as a post-modern farce premeditated by Franz Kafka. It must, nonetheless, be counted a success of sorts given the column inches it has generated. Like an episode of Channel 4’s ‘Big Brother’ it is difficult to take one’s eyes off this distracting blight on the politics of our archipelago of islands.

    Perhaps what Brexit has revealed, above all, is that the UK’s unusual unwritten constitution[ii] – arguably a contradiction in terms – is not fit for purpose. When a majority unexpectedly voted in a referendum in 2017 against remaining in the European Union, it was unclear what should happen next. A court challenge was required to assert parliamentary sovereignty[iii], which is now as divided as the country on the matter. Speaker John Bercow recently invoked a precedent from the reign of James I, having been accused of acting ‘unconstitutionally’ for breaking with other precedents.[iv] The mind boggles at the pick and mix of Conventions from which fundamental laws derive.

    That referendum was David Cameron’s brainchild for keeping troglodyte Eurosceptic colleagues off his back. The outcome was not supposed to happen. His strategists probably assumed that recalcitrant Mondeo Men, and Shire Tories unable to get over the smoking ban in pubs, were a lost cause. But they surely did not expect the working class of Stoke and Sunderland to put their two fingers up at the European Union in such numbers; never mind they had been incubated on unwholesome doses of Euro-trashing by the Red Tops, amidst repeated identification of the Union with Nazi Germany.[v]

    Conservative Party top brass had been, after all, solidly Remain; the Parliamentary Labour Party could be relied on – even Jeremy Corbyn’s previously doctrinaire opposition had softened into a lukewarm Remain – while the Lib Dems were gushingly Europhile; and the SNP saw in the Union a counterweight to the ‘auld enemy’.

    UKIP seemed an anachronism, a busted flush electorally, barely mustering a single MP, making the political earthquake all the more startling.

    An amorphous and secretive – but identifiable and enduring nonetheless – Deep British State (DBS) is doing all in its power to avert damage to trade and industry; devaluation of the pound; and to prevent London’s property bubble from bursting. Make no mistake a fabled no-deal brexocide would damage corporations and wealthy individuals, with a rise in unemployment and even food shortages looming for the working class. The pillars of a profoundly unequal but at least functioning economy are shaking, but Brexit is only one aspect of a wider difficulty.

    the DBS

    The financiers, captains of industry, press barons, and elements within the BBC, are presided over by a permanent civil service, including the intelligence services MI5 and MI6. These not entirely comic Sir Humphreys keep a vigilant watch over the political officeholders, often intellectual inferiors, without the distinction of an Oxbridge education. At the highest level of government there are well documented connections to major corporations, including the armaments industry[vi], allowing good fellows to secure pleasant retirements, where the only crash disturbing the evening air comes from willow and ash meeting above the village green.

    The prospect of another referendum became politically impossible once the volume of True Believers in the Conservative Party became apparent. With a smell of Dunkirk in their nostrils, some relish Brexit at almost any cost. The DBS are struggling to contain this rowdy element, which could do serious damage to the economy, but this is the devil they know.

    After her disastrous performance in the 2017 election, the ‘May-bot’ became as lame as any duck can be. No doubt she has been eyeing up a comfortable pile among wheat fields in rural Oxfordshire since – where good Tories go to die. A favourable retirement package requires her to align closely with the DBS.

    The really scary outcome for the DBS is a Jeremy Corbyn-led, Labour Government. The City of London is petrified lest a large proportion of its vast wealth derived from speculation is seized. So an immediate election must be avoided, with only one winner possible in another round of Corbyn-May. Thus, according to the lead story in The Telegraph on March 30th: ‘Snap election under Theresa May would ‘annihilate’ the Conservatives, senior Tories warn’.[vii]

    Corbyn, defying expectations, masterfully played his strongest card to offer a so-called People’s Vote – a referendum rerun – at a pivotal moment in the game. As the BBC’s Andrew Marr put it:

    Corbyn’s greatest political skill may turn out to be his talent for delay. He lets events come to him. Under his bo tree, he quietly sits, and sits, and takes the hits – as, for instance, on the referendum issue – waiting for his moment.[viii]

    Having averted deep ruptures in his own party over Brexit, at least compared to Tory factionalism, Corbyn allowed centrist opponents, including Chuka Umunna, to resign from the party to form the so-called Independent Group. Who’d have thought the bearded lefty could be so cunning?

    So a deal, however humiliating, is pushed through, and the DUP are surely being offered the required sweeteners in exchange for the Backstop; having been informed a refusal will see them being thrown to the wolves – howling rosaries in Gaelic.

    The DBS is playing for time, seeking an orderly but irrelevant Brexit, and then for someone reasonable to emerge from within Conservative ranks, now May has obligingly agreed to fall on her sword. The chauvinist bluster of the likes of Boorish Johnson, Rabidly Dominic or Jacob Really-Smug do not inspire confidence, but Populism may be required to counteract the radical appeal of Corbyn, who has the DBS firmly in his sights.

    A Very British Coup

    Former Bennite Labour MP Chris Mullin’s 1982 novel A Very British Coup imagines the possibly of a genuinely left-wing Labour Prime Minister coming to power. The fictional Labour leader Harry Perkins wins a general election on a platform of radical change to a floundering economy serving a privileged few.

    Perkins is frustrated, however, at every turn as he endeavours to withdraw the U.K. from NATO and re-nationalise industries. Collusion between the permanent government, including Intelligence services, media barons and the captains of industry leads to his premature resignation – A Very British Coup – and replacement with a malleable, New Labour, government.

    Although originally from Sheffield in the North of England, Harry Perkins bears a striking resemblance to one Jeremy Corbyn. Thus:

    Harry Perkins made a fetish of travelling on public transport telling one official: ‘I am afraid it is necessary, Inspector. You see, my party wants to phase out the private motor car in cities and encourage people to use public transport instead.[ix]

    On entering office he addresses an uncooperative Governor of the Bank of England: ‘What’s the point in having elections if, regardless of outcome, a handful of speculators in the City of London and their friends abroad continue to call the shots?’[x]

    Perkins also dismisses New Labour centrism in a manner reminiscent of Corbyn: ‘We offer the electorate a choice between two Tory parties and they choose the real one;’[xi] and confronts a centre-left media that often pays lip service to promoting meaningful change: ‘The Guardian agonised for ten column inches before concluding that, although Labour’s plans made sense, “Now was not the time.”’[xii]

    In the novel the DBS, many with links to the arms industry, are determined to maintain the American alliance and resist de-nuclearization. Thus, Sir Peregrine Craddock the fictional head of ‘DI5’, ‘had long regarded CND as the most subversive organisations on DI5’s books. Its subversive nature lay in the breath of its appeal.’[xiii]

    Perkins, like Corbyn, invokes the possibility of a neutral Europe ‘which had haunted Pentagon defence planners for so long.’ Also, as with the current Labour leader, Perkins arrives from the point of view: ‘apparently supported by documentary evidence, which saw America as the centre of a worldwide network of tyranny, terrorism and suppression.’[xiv]

    Little is said in the novel on Britain’s relationship with the Europe Community. This reflects how the Labour Left’s historic opposition Europe was based on an assessment that the E.E.C. was set up in the interest of capitalists, and used as a pawn against the Soviet Union by American Cold Warriors. This is quite unlike the sense of cultural exceptionalism and even outright racism motivating ardent Brexiters.

    ‘Eventually Socialists run out of other people’s money’

    The DBS assumes that a Corbyn-led government will interfere with an economy still, broadly, dominated by free market doctrine, albeit the NHS remains largely untouchable.

    Free market ‘reforms’ were unleashed by Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980s as her dictum, ‘Eventually Socialists run out of other people’s money’[xv] became preeminent. The relative brutality of the adjustments impoverished large swathes of the country. The rust belts of the North, Midlands, and even Wales, would ultimately vote for Brexit.

    Thatcherite policies were tempered slightly under John Major, and more so with the advent of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s New Labour, but the adjustments, especially privatisation of essential government services including railways, endured and in some cases continued.

    At the end of Conservative rule in 1996 Britain was the most unequal society in the Western world, with the gap between rich and poor as great as in Nigeria. By then the worst-off were living on roughly the same incomes as their equivalents in Hungary.[xvi] Inequality actually deepened under Blair and Brown[xvii], albeit outright poverty diminished[xviii], but the Crash led to welfare cuts, while inequality deepened apace.

    Armed to the teeth

    The DBS is also profoundly worried by the turn U.K. foreign policy would take under a Corbyn-led government. This could jeopardise the valuable armaments industry that Corbyn has inveighed against throughout his career.

    In 2016 The Independent reported that that U.K. was the second leading exporter of armaments in the world.[xix] Saudi Arabia alone pays £10 billion for equipment[xx] as it pursues a dirty war against Yemen. Just this month Jeremy Hunt visited the kingdom, and we may safely assume contracts were discussed. The DBS is intimately linked and lobbied by the leading companies, as the organisation Campaign Against the Arms Trade reveals.[xxi]

    Furthermore, a Zionist lobby in the U.K. has long exerted influence over U.K. foreign policy, beginning with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which led to the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948. This is hardly a controversial point, and there are many good reasons for this, not least sympathy for the idea of a Jewish homeland in the wake of the Holocaust. The Labour Party itself has a long tradition of support for Israel.

    Corbyn, however, has stood with immigrants from Third Wold countries deeply opposed to Zionism throughout his career. This brought him into contact with unhelpful figures espousing implacable hostility. But there is no evidence of Corbyn advocating a military invasion of Israel or questioning its right to exist as sovereign state.

    He did, however, make ill-judged comments during his years in the political wilderness, comparing ISIS to Israel, and calling for Hamas and Hezbollah to be treated as ‘friends.’[xxii] To his credit he has, however, apologised for these statements. As a consistent advocate of the rule of law, and multilateralism, there is no reason to be believe Corbyn has any concern other than vindicating the human rights of Palestinians, and respecting international law.

    The accusation that Corbyn is anti-Semitic is simply a way of getting at him. The virtuous, ascetic and seemingly incorruptible character needs to be darkened, and prominent members of the Jewish community, including from within the Parliamentary Labour Party, are lined up to level the accusation.

    Some of his colleagues, including Ken Livingston, have made unacceptable comments, but Corbyn has never stooped to racial stereotyping Jews. His quarrel with Zionism is political, and he has collaborated with left-wing Jews including the American Mike Marqusee.

    Corbyn’s alliances with what he perceives as comrade anti-imperialists in the Irish Republican movement also brought accusations of treachery. To many, however, especially the young, the disadvantaged and those from immigrant backgrounds, he is a hero, who shares their own critical views on the domestic and international policies of successive U.K. governments.

    Getting it right more often than not

    Corbyn has leveraged popular global causes to engineer domestic political success. After Afghanistan he correctly predicted that George W. Bush would link the terrorist attacks with the ‘axis of evil’ – Iraq, North Korea and Iran – to justify an invasion of Iraq. This was ridiculed by the media and the majority of MPs.

    Subsequently, during the febrile period before the U.S-led invasion of Iraq, supported by Tony Blair, Corbyn was granted a rare audience with the Labour Prime Minister. ‘One question’, he asked, ‘Why are we doing it?’, to which Blair testily replied, ‘Because it is the right thing to do,’. Corbyn responded ‘That’s not an answer.’[xxiii]

    A platform of wealth readjustment, especially advocating transfers from older property owners to younger people, including students, proved extremely popular during the 2017 election. The demographic supporting Corbyn is growing, and well-equipped to play the data wars that modern elections require.

    Corbyn’s challenge, as with any aspiring socialist movement – whether that failing in Venezuela or those delivering across Scandinavia – is to ensure that state dominance of the means of production does not diminish innovation or lead to bureaucratization. Socialists must learn from the mistakes of the past, both in the U.K. in the 1970s when the trade unions ground the country to a halt and, more obviously, the extremes of Communism in Eastern Europe.

    Perhaps the most pernicious influence of Thatcherism, and neo-liberalism generally, is the dominance of the view that state services are automatically inferior to those provided by private enterprise, and that civil servants do not take pride in their work in the absence of incentives. In many cases this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    For a true revival in the U.K.’s fortune a greater sense of national cohesion seems required. This need not involve a lasting break with the European Union, but could require a loser arrangement within the United Kingdom itself, with individual ‘nations’ granted increased autonomy, or even full independence. A written constitution and the abolition of monarchy would also be salutary.

    Under Corbyn, England could accept its lot as a medium-sized country, guaranteeing a basic level of income for all, and operating within supranational institutions. The trade-off for would be a decisive end to imperialist ambitions, including abandonment of the vastly expensive nuclear weapon programme. This will, however, be resisted by vested interests seeking to preserve the status quo within the DBS.

    In 2016, at one of his lowest ebbs politically, and with even long-standiy supporters losing heart, Corbyn was addressed by David Cameron in the House of Commons in the manner of a school prefect dismissing a lackey: ‘For heaven’s sake, man, go!’[xxiv]

    In the interim  Cameron has become a widely-derided irrelevance, while Corbyn is the front-runner to become the next Prime Minister. The question is whether the apparent disorder of Brexit will be resolved by this unlikely leader. If Corbyn does come to power he confronts the real possibility of A Very British Coup, whittling away its dramatic effects.

    We rely on contributions to keep Cassandra Voices going.

    [i] W. Somerset Maugham, Ashenden, London, Vintage Books, 2000, p.v

    [ii] Frank Armstrong ‘UK Unwritten Constitution Brews Brexit Confusion’, February 1st, 2018, Cassandra Voices, http://cassandravoices.com/politics/uk-unwritten-constitution-brews-brexit-confusion/, accessed 31/3/19.

    [iii] Sandra Fredman, ‘A vital reaffirmation of Parliamentary sovereignty’, 25th of January, 2017, University of Oxford, http://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/oxford-and-brexit/brexit-analysis/parliamentary-sovereignty#, accessed 28/3/19.

    [iv] Isabel Hardman, ‘John Bercow’s disregard of precedent is a serious constitutional issue’, 9th of January, 2019, The Spectator, https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/john-bercows-disregard-of-precedent-is-a-serious-constitutional-issue/, accessed 28/3/19.

    [v] Julia Rampen, ‘The 4 most unfortunate Nazi-EU comparisons made by Brexiteers’, 19th of January, 2017, New Statesman, https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/01/4-most-unfortunate-nazi-eu-comparisons-made-brexiteers, 28/3/19.

    [vi] The website of the Campaign Against the Arms Industries (https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/influence) provides details of high level contacts and ex-public servants working in the arms industry.

    [vii] Edwark Malnick and Nick  ‘Snap election under Theresa May would ‘annihilate’ the Conservatives, senior Tories warn

    [viii] Andrew Marr, ‘Andrew Marr’s Diary: May’s reshuffle plans, Corbyn’s gardener socialism – and why I’m painting clowns’, 20th of March, 2019, New Statesman, https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/03/andrew-marr-s-diary-may-s-reshuffle-plans-corbyn-s-gardener-socialism-and-why-i, accessed 28/3/19.

    [ix] Chris Mullin, A Very British Coup, London, Hodder and Staughton, 1982, p.44

    [x] Ibid, p58

    [xi] Ibid, p.63

    [xii] Ibid, p.80

    [xiii] Ibid, p.172

    [xiv] Ibid, p.174-175

    [xv] ‘Margaret Thatcher on Socialism’, Margaret Thatcher’s Speech to the House of Commons on 22 November 22nd 1990, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw, accessed 30/3/19.

    [xvi] Geoffrey Lean and Graham Bell, ‘UK most unequal country in the West’, 21st of July, 1996, The Independent, https://www.independe’nt.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html, accessed 29/3/19.

    [xvii] William Underhill, ‘INEQUALITY HAS GROWN UNDER NEW LABOUR’, August 1st, 2010, Newsweek, https://www.newsweek.com/inequality-has-grown-under-new-labour-70943, accessed 30/3/19.

    [xviii] Robert Joyce and Luke Sibieta, ‘Labour’s record on poverty and inequality’, June 6th 2013, Institute for Fiscal Studies, https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6738, accessed 30/3/19.

    [xix] Jon Stone, ‘Britan is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world’, 5th of December, 2016, The Independent¸ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html, accessed 30/3/19.

    [xx] ‘UK Arms Export Licences’ Campaign Against Arms Trade, https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences, accessed 30/3/19.

    [xxi] https://www.caat.org.uk/, accessed 31/3/19.

    [xxii] Tom Bower, Dangerous Hero: Corbyn’s Ruthless Plot for Power, London William Collins, 2019, p.276

    [xxiii] Ibid, p.136

    [xxiv] ‘Cameron to Corbyn: ‘For heaven’s sake man, go!’ – BBC News’, June 29th, 2016, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHIQAnUGhIQ, accessed 30/3/19.

  • Could Southern Ireland Accommodate Unionist Culture?

    Just a few years ago the prospect of Irish unity seemed remote. However, things are changing. Power-sharing has broken down and the Northern Assembly has been suspended for over two years. On top of that, a combination of a demographic shift in favour of Catholics, and the Brexit-influenced warming of some Protestant voters towards Irish unity means the idea of a pro-reunification majority in both jurisdictions emerging cannot be ruled out.

    There remain, however, serious obstacles to unity south of the border. For one thing, many Southern taxpayers may think twice if asked to replicate the very high level of subsidy currently provided by Westminster to the North. But money is only money. It would take a brave political leader in the South to propose a ‘no’ vote in a unity referendum on financial grounds. A more important obstacle, therefore, may be the issues of symbols and identity.

    The Good Friday Agreement guarantees ‘parity of esteem’ and ‘just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities’ in Northern Ireland. Were this principle to be applied to the Southern state, it could involve changes to many symbols and arrangements that are emotionally important to large numbers of citizens.

    Would Southern voters, for instance, be willing to accept unification if it meant having to compromise on the Irish/Gaelic nature of the symbols of the State. Securing a State that reflected and promoted a Gaelic cultural identity, was a central goal of the Irish national revolution and, as things stand, the symbols of the Irish state reflect this primacy of Nationalist and Republican symbols.

    If a united Ireland meant replacing the tricolor with a neutral alternative; replacing terms like Dáil and Taoiseach with ‘Assembly’ and ‘Prime Minister’; dropping mandatory Irish in school and downgrading the Irish language in the constitution; many voters may begin to wonder if unity is a price worth paying.

    After all, in the Treaty negotiations of 1921, the 1925 crisis over the Boundary Commission, in World War II and during the Troubles, when faced with a choice between obtaining or protecting the independence of the South from the UK and abandoning Northern nationalists, Southern leaders have consistently chosen the former.

    The possibility that unification is blocked due to opposition from Southern voters cannot be discounted. However, it should also be considered whether, under the Good Friday Agreement, unification needs to raise the issue of symbolic changes at all.

    As the Brexit process has slowly been teaching the British government, the political effects of the Good Friday Agreement cannot be localized to Northern Ireland, and even affect decisions taken at U.K. level.

    However, that is not the case for the symbolic arrangements. Under the Good Friday Agreement the requirement of parity of esteem for both traditions is localized to Northern Ireland, and does not affect the symbolic arrangements of the U.K. as a whole. For the U.K. as a whole, the national flag remains the Union Jack, the national anthem remains ‘God Save the Queen’ and state bodies display British and monarchical symbols.

    Therefore, under the Good Friday Agreement structures, should Northern Ireland join the Republic, there would still be an obligation to ensure parity between nationalist and unionist symbols within Northern Ireland. But such an obligation would remain localized to Northern Ireland and would not necessarily be extended to the symbolic arrangements and identity of the Republic.

    This approach would give Unionists recognition of the legitimacy of their British identity, just as Northern Nationalists now have recognition of their Irish identity. And presumably, Northern Ireland would retain autonomous institutions characterized by power-sharing, with power being devolved from Dublin instead of London.

    But just as Northern Nationalists are currently required to accept that Northern Ireland is part of a larger state with a British identity, post-unification Unionists would be required to accept that Northern Ireland was part of a larger state with an Irish identity, provided that within Northern Ireland itself, parity of esteem was ensured.

    With the issue of reunification increasingly likely to come on the agenda in the medium term, it would be wise for citizens in the Republic to start thinking about what they would and would not be willing to sacrifice for unity.

    Of course, as a matter of prudent politics, it may be better for some symbolic concessions to be made by the Republic in order to smooth any process of unification, but such concessions are not necessarily required by the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed, given the emotional importance of symbols such as the flag and language, it may be that a smooth process of reunification would also require reassurance to nationalists in the South that the wholesale change of symbols precious to them would not be required.

    Ronan McCrea is Professor of Constitutional and European Law at University College London

    Cartoon by Octo.

    We rely on contributions to keep Cassandra Voices going.

  • Who Needs a Healing?

    In the inner world, time has a way of standing still long enough so you can come to your senses.  Then you can have eyes that see and ears that hear. My Aunt Jewel taught me this more by example than with words. She had no use for words and she wasn’t really my aunt. Mama, a divorcée from Mississippi, had married into Auntie’s Choctaw Indian family one-day shy of my first birthday. At four feet eleven with a heart as big as Texas, I could always count on her for a kind word and a tender voice.  Learning some of the old ways with her taught me that cause and effect can’t always be foretold much less recognized and controlled.

    My earliest memory of Auntie is the first time she took me to her one room church near the Little Cypress Bayou that flows through the Blue Elbow Swamp, eventually entering the Sabine River near I-10 in Orange, Texas.  The church, a tiny clapboard painted white with a piney wood floor and a few benches, was where the beleaguered believers felt they belonged.

    “Who needs a HEALING” screamed Preacher, a red-faced man in black pants and a cheap white, sweat-soaked shirt that encased his gut, revealing a life time of buttery biscuits and sausage gravy.

    “Nancy Ann, I think ya got a fever” Auntie said aloud as her brown hand felt my white face.

    “No mam – I ain’t got no fever!

    “Yes, you do” she whispered as she firmly took me by the arm and guided me to the homemade dais.  Down on my knees I went with the weight of Auntie’s hand on my right shoulder.

    When Preacher caught his breath long enough to notice he had a child to work on, he began crying and wailed, “unless you change and become like this little child, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”  He held up a small bottle of Jerusalem Holy Oil, so all could behold the glorious healing about to occur.  As I looked up at Preacher, heartburn from that morning’s breakfast caused me mistakenly to believe it needed to be healed.

    “Child, do you want to be healed,” he asked while kneeling to better look me in the eye.

    “I think so.”

    The fears that bumped around in my already wizened seven-year-old psyche were very real.   I didn’t have the faith in the old ways like Auntie did.  My pagan mother had taught me to believe in the evil eye and being cursed and such, but not in the hell that Preacher and Auntie did.  To Mama, heaven was a piece of land, a good scotch with a good screw; something that made this life a little easier to bare.  Hell was in between your ears, right here, right now.

    “Child are you ready to confess your sins,” Preacher asked.

    “I think so.”

    “You think so,” he said with a faint smile.

    “Yes Sir.  I think so.”

    “Do you repent of all your sins, so you can be healed?”

    “Y e s . . . sir” slowly slipped from my lips and with that, I was suddenly looking up at the ceiling as Preacher held the back of my head, while making the sign of the cross on my third eye with his oily finger.  Auntie, already filled with the Holy Ghost, was speaking in tongues. My skinny little body began to swoon as it filled with the divine energy.   The room began to swirl, and I fell back on Aunt Jewel who slowly lowered me to the floor.

    “Praise God” she wailed.

    “Praise God” cried the congregants who were no longer quietly singing and humming along with the makeshift band.  Now they were making a loud and glorious music unto the Lord singing I’ll Fly Away as loud as possible:

    When the shadows of this life have gone
    I’ll fly away
    Like a bird from these prison walls I’ll fly
    I’ll fly away.

    As I lay there on the floor unable to get up and surrounded by all the wonderful beleaguered believers, my heart filled with joy and my nose filled with the scent of the myrrh and sweet-smelling cinnamon used to make the Jerusalem Holy Oil Preacher had used to heal me.  The singing was muffled as if far away,

    I’ll fly away, oh glory
    I’ll fly away in the morning
    When I die, Hallelujah by and by
    I’ll fly away.

    After what felt like an eternity, I was helped to my feet.  Everyone was beaming at me.  Auntie, grinning ear to ear, was hugging me up close and whispering now we got to git ya baptized baby girl.  Now we got to git ya baptized.

    “Yes Lord… I know Lord… Thank you Lord…” Preacher prayed while still on his knees.  His voice just loud enough so everyone could hear he was still conversing with Jesus.

    There was a static electricity in the room.  Every time someone came to hug me, there was a shock.  My hair was sticking out on end the way it does when you pull a sweater over your head in the winter.  But my stomach wasn’t burning anymore, and Auntie was so pleased with me she was promising a Dairy Queen double dip.

    While she was saying her goodbyes, I went outside to stand in the October chill.  It was a clear day with a slight breeze.  Looking up at the sun, I wondered if my heart got healed.  I wondered if a healing was the same as a protection. Mostly, I wondered what if Mama was right?  What if hell really is between your ears, right here, right now?  What then?