This documentary on Welsh rugby union players who left their homeland to take up rugby league in the North of England is so good that I’m going to include it on my blog for posterity. As an English rugby union fan who now lives and works in Huddersfield, the birthplace of rugby league, I found it fascinating and oddly moving.
[NB: The materials herein are freely available in the public domain, and this is produced as an educational resource for antiracists and antifascists.]
Study hardcore racism on social media for any period of time and two things become apparent:
- i) hardcore racists, supporters and their hanger-ons tend to cluster on social media, as much as anyone else does,
- ii) they exhibit certain forms of recurring behaviour.
These activities include mutual support and comparable forms of narrative, but can exhibit a great diversity of refinement.
Find a bunch of hardcore anti-Muslim racists spewing filth on Twitter and they will repeat similar themes in various styles.
Around their periphery not everyone will be a neo-Nazi or a BNPer, perhaps instead they are a member of UKIP or a Tory, in which case they may just downplay the extent of anti-Muslim racism in society or do Sealioning.
Not always crude
View original post 1,019 more words
Since the Brexit referendum, I’ve encountered some people saying both that the use of referendums is unjustifiable in general in a parliamentary democracy, and that it was unjustifiable in relation to the question of EU membership in particular.
I’ve belatedly discovered these 2016 articles of The INdependent’s John Rentoul looking at these very questions:
And a 2018 addendum
My shilling’s worth: I agree with John Rentoul. I also believe there should be a referendum on the final deal (if we ever get that far), which includes the option of remaining in the EU.
Last summer, I wrote a short piece for the Jewish Chronicle arguing for the UK government to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety. An extended version of my argument has now been published in the University of Huddersfield’s new Crime, Security & Society journal. It can be downloaded here.
Originally posted on Half Chips/Half Rice:
Mike Sivier is the author of pro-Corbyn blog Vox Political. He was suspended for allegedly breaking the Labour Party’s rules on antisemitism. On Tuesday, his case was heard at the National Executive Committee (NEC)…
That section reads as follows (emphasis added):
Section 13 – Uniform
(1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he—
(a) wears an item of clothing, or
(b) wears, carries or displays an article,
in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
(2) A constable in Scotland may arrest a person without a warrant if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is guilty of an offence under this section.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
Under Schedule 2 of the same Act, the military wing of Hezbollah is a “proscribed organisation”. The idea that Hezbollah has separate military and political “wings” is of course a fallacy, but, unlike some, Ms Stephenson did not even pretend to be supporting the political “wing” only. On the face of it, therefore, Ms Stephenson appears to have committed a criminal offence under section 13.
It has now emerged, however, that Ms Stephenson will not be prosecuted. This raises challenging questions for Police Scotland. There has been only one reported conviction under section 13: the 2004 case of Rankin v Murray which, coincidentally, also concerned events North of the border. Mr Rankin was convicted of the offence after passing through a port on the West Coast of Scotland wearing a ring which prominently displayed the initials ‘UVF’. This had prompted police to suspect he was a member or supporter of the proscribed Ulster Volunteer Force. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Lord Hamilton, one of the appeal judges, remarked (with a delightful Scottish turn of phrase) that
While the manner and circumstances of the offending in this case may… be at the least serious end of the spectrum of conduct against which s 13 strikes, it is not, in our view, outwith the range of the legislative intent.
The implications should be obvious. If wearing a ring emblazoned with the initials ‘UVF’ is “at the least serious end of the spectrum of conduct against which s. 13 strikes”, wearing a T-shirt which bears the Hezbollah emblem would appear to be at the other end of the spectrum and therefore all the more within “the range of the legislative intent”. It therefore seems surprising at best that Police Scotland have decided not to prosecute Ms Stephenson.
Police Scotland have not disclosed their reasons for declining to prosecute. There may of course be pertinent information of which we are not aware. For instance, it is unknown whether Ms Stephenson actually displayed the T-shirt “in a public place” or just wore it under a top and then paraded it on Twitter when she got home. Perhaps Police Scotland decided that the cost and difficulty of finding Ms Stephenson’s current whereabouts and prosecuting her outweighed the benefits of doing so.
The contrast between Rankin v Murray and the case of Sophie Stephenson nevertheless remains clear. In 2004, the Scottish police were prepared to arrest and prosecute a man who wore a ring bearing the initials of a group whose aims – while clearly reprehensible – were limited both in scope and in geography. In 2017-18, they have declined to take action against a woman who boasted of wearing a T-shirt displaying the emblem of a group whose leader is on record as desiring the death of every Jew on the planet. Whatever Police Scotland’s reasons, there appears to be an obvious and distressing double standard.