Issue 177 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published July/August 1994 Copyright © Socialist Review
TALK |
BACK |
A regular column
|
contributed by our readers |
The British ruling class and its agencies are nothing if not consistent. The deputy führer and national organiser of the British Nazi Party, Richard Edmonds, appeared before their courts in June along with two other thugs, following a vicious attack on a black man, Steven Browne. The assault, it was admitted by the judge, was orchestrated and led by Edmonds, but he was allowed to walk free from the court.
Christopher Hardy, passing judgement, made this revealing comment, 'When people associate themselves with extreme political organisations, whether on the right or the left, as officials they are to a certain extent riding a tiger. I suspect you like that ride because it gives you a sense of importance and power. There is no doubt from what I have heard in this case that people in the BNP respect you and look up to you. It is, however, a dangerous animal and when it is let loose in the streets you must restrain it and not goad it.'
The judge depicts Edmonds as someone 'riding a tiger', who needs to be responsible with his power. Instead of concluding that chopping the head off this 'dangerous animal' may well save the life of a black or Jewish person at some point in the future, he instead lets him go free to unleash his tigers on Asian school children and any other 'non-whites' and 'reds' they can get their hands on.
Attending the ANL picket of the court case, my stomach turned when we heard the Nazi would be coming out a free man--the other two, Biggs and O'Shea, were sent down for four and a half years and 12 months respectively.
To the rich fool sitting in his court the BNP is merely one aspect of the growth of extremist politics on both the right and left.
It appears the judge perversely reasoned (if that's the right word), let Edmonds go and he will control the stormtroopers. But a more realistic interpretation is necessary. The reality is that the British ruling class is more worried by the response to the Nazi threat than the threat itself. But could we expect any better of the British injustice system? The simple answer is no.
In the days following Edmonds' release Leon Greenman, an 83 year old Holocaust survivor, had a brick through his window courtesy of the BNP. As far as I am aware the attack has not been reported by a single national newspaper or TV channel (maybe because it didn't happen in Germany but in 'liberal' Britain).
Indeed, following their setback in the local elections the Nazis are trying to step up the terror--and in Tower Hamlets the attacks have continued before, during and after Edmonds' court appearance. As Gerry Gable made clear in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the BNP is a terrorist conspiracy.
But compare the inaction and duplicity of judges and cops towards Nazis with their attitude to those who fight back. The faces of Welling demonstrators are still plastered over the police stations of Britain.
In Sheffield it is Asian youths who go on trial this month for daring to defend their community from race attack. In Tower Hamlets nine Asian kids are also to be dragged before the courts for the same 'offence'. Meanwhile a leading architect of the racist terror campaign is allowed to continue with his vile works, even after being caught in the act.
Many will have been outraged, but the truth--no matter how unpalatable it might be to the white liberals and the Council for Racial Equality--is that the Tories in court (judges) and the Tories in government are much more concerned about an explosion of working class anger directed at them and their wealth, than they are about 'responsible' middle class Nazis with first class degrees in electronic engineering, organising for concentration camps at the end of the 20th century.
Gary McFarlane
A friend of mine told me once that her mother ironed the sheets by spreading them out on the floor of the living room and ironed crouching as low as possible so as not to get in the way of any member of the family watching television. The sheer futility of ironing sheets struck me, but the blatancy of her mother's servile status appalled me.
This was 20 years ago. A Gallup survey on housework in this month's edition of Good Housekeeping (not a magazine known for challenging women's oppression) thankfully reveals that some of the old attitudes have disappeared while others sadly have not.
According to the survey nearly one in three adults is a full time 'housewife' although most would prefer not to be called that. Of the women who profess to be responsible for the home, 98 percent of them have outside interests as well. The good thing is that most women feel they have a right to go to work and do the things they want--80 percent of working women don't feel guilty about working outside the home and 88 percent don't feel guilty about other interests.
Women's attitudes towards themselves as housewives are contradictory. Although most women nowadays have entered the workforce albeit in low paid, part time jobs, 60 percent of people interviewed said they believed that 'being a housewife is something to be proud of'. This is double edged. Under capitalism women are brought up to settle for less and consequently often have low expectations of themselves, and yet it is clear that women are demanding recognition for the work they do.
Over the last 30 years the skills shortage in Britain has meant that women have been pulled into the workforce, but at the same time, there has been a drive to retain the family structure and keep housework privatised. The family has evolved with women having more rights, but these come with a price tag.
The right to work may have been firmly established but the burden on women is greater than it was 30 years ago. Women now have to hold down one or maybe two jobs, bear responsibility for childcare and look after the house as well. The statistics in the survey are depressing--88 percent of women claim to be responsible for housework. Among full time women workers 80 percent say housework is their responsibility.
The flip side of this is that by entering the workforce women can challenge male attitudes (something which the Good Housekeeping survey does not touch on). The Timex strike, the dispute at Elkes Biscuits and teachers' strikes are all examples of women fighting back.
It is through this kind of struggle that women can not only demand employment rights and better pay but can start challenging ideas about their role in society which Good Housekeeping by its very existence does not.
Sarah Finnegan
If you have an article you would tike to contribute to TalkBack write to Socialist Review, FD Box 82, London E3 3LH, it should be no more than 800 words and if possible typed and double spaced