Greedy unions or corporate greed?

It’s the same old story. Thatcher said the unions were too powerful so she got the police and media to beat them up and smashed them. Now New Labour and the corporate mainstream media are doing exactly the same 25 years later.  Seamus Milne says it best today:

But what is truly preposterous is the Tory and media insistence that the dispute confirms the grip trade unions, and the Labour-affiliated Unite in particular, have on the government. As the last couple of days have amply demonstrated, nothing could be further from the truth.

Not only have ministers once again backed the employer in an industrial dispute and denounced the union – as in every other significant national dispute over the past decade – they have resolutely refused to repeal any substantive part of the Thatcher government’s anti-union legislation, which would have almost certainly allowed the BA dispute to be settled last week, if not in December when the courts ruled the first round of strikes unlawful.

As anyone who has followed the twists and turns of New Labour in power over the past 13 years knows perfectly well, it is bankers and businessmen, not trade unionists, who have called the shots – with disastrous consequences for all of us.

via Labour rolls over for BA’s bullies | Seumas Milne | Comment is free |

Who do you think are to blame for the world’s financial woes. “Greedy” unions or corporate greed?


A liberal whitewash of the ultimate crime

The BBC and Guardian both report today that the UK Ministry of Defence is probing allegations that Iraqis were tortured and abused by British troops.

But notice there will be no probe into the biggest crime of all – the war of aggression launched by the UK and it’s allies on Iraq. Since without this act, none of the above alleged crimes would have been possible, it should be this crime which is on the front pages, not the terrible acts of a few soldiers.

Why are the lessons and conclusions laid down by the Nuremberg tribunal and enshrined in law by the UN continually ignored by the liberal mainstream media? Quite rightly, they get extremely upset if someone tries to deny the holocaust. But they don’t even a raise a whimper when the laws that resolved to ensure nothing like it ever happened again are so blatantly ignored by those in power.

The Nuremberg tribunal defined aggression and aggressive war as the supreme international crime. This is exactly what the UK and it’s allies launched on Iraq in 2003. Benjamin Ferencz, one of the chief prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials, best describes how international law was clearly violated in 2003:

The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can’t use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, ‘Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they’ve found — then we’ll figure out what we’re going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq — which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter.

Yet again, this is a textbook example of how the mainstream media continue to distract public attention away from the crimes of the powerful.

Question Time revealed more about the liberal elite than the BNP

screen-captureThe appearance of British National party leader Nick Griffin on the BBC’s Question Time served to prove many things about the media and political elite in the UK, two of which are particularly notable and concerning. One is that a rational, open and honest political debate is impossible in the mainstream media. Two is that mainstream political parties and liberal elites will now do anything to win moral authority and avoid talking about policy and real issues that affect the majority of the population. This is nothing new but it was illustrated acutely and obscenely in this particular show.

Some of the questions asked during and after the event are also mystifying to say the least in a supposedly democratic and intelligent current affairs show. Two examples are:

Should Nick Griffin have been allowed on Question Time?

This is a non-question. Anyone that professes to be in favor of free-speech and claims to oppose a party such as the BNP has to say yes. It is an insult to people’s intelligence – especially the 1 million that voted for him – to suggest they are unable to assess whether the BNP are fit to vote for. The answer to dealing with extremist organizations such as the BNP is not to repress them. It’s to prove the irrationality of their more extreme viewpoints (which isn’t hard).

Would Winston Churchill have joined the BNP?

Again, I don’t see why there’s been so much debate over this. The answer is unequivocally yes because Churchill lived in a far more “backwards” era towards race relations which is where the BNP belong. During that time,  it was fine for Churchill to proudly proclaim such things such as “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes” and “I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.”

The point is, Nick Griffin is a racist and even a panel of kids could have proved that. The main reason the liberal elite i.e. BBC, New Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were so keen to debate him is because they know how morally bankrupt they are and how little they have to offer the electorate in terms of policy, solutions and debate so they pick on an easy target to lynch to get the public onside. It is the very same political establishment’s fault the BNP have come this far. They long ago jumped into bed with big business leading to the deteriorating social and economic conditions which have inflamed the racial hatred the BNP thrive on. It was particularly sickening to see Jack Straw – a man with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis and Western soldiers on his hands – reveling in some kind of moral superiority over Griffin. If actions speak louder than words, then he is as offensive – if not more so – than the BNP leader.

There has been little decent commentary worth reading in the aftermath of the debate but Brendan O’Neil writes an excellent piece here in Spiked and prior to the event, Neil Clarke highlighted the reasons behind the rise of the BNP.