Soft Power, CSR, Pride and Global Sports Events

This podcast from Kit (@KitCaless) and Sam (@AngrySamPoet) is on a series of related subjects close to my heart. It takes Barclays’ sponsorship of London Pride as its launch point (and begins with an excerpt from my blog, which was very weird to listen to) before widening the discussion to include corporate social responsibility programmes (which I previously wrote about here) and the way corporations are increasingly using charity and sponsorship of ‘apolitical’ events to manage their image. Nice to hear these things discussed in a very accessible way and worth a listen if you’re interested in any of this.

On a related note, my previous post covered the pinkwashing use of Pride by both the MET Police and the military. There’s a very good blog from activist Scott Long on this here. It was unsurprising, but still depressing, to see this on Stonewall’s Twitter feed during Pride weekend:

Image

That this was explicitly part of Black Pride makes it even more offensive given the racism both of our foreign policy and of the institution itself. Then there was this:

Image

How lovely. Stonewall will, of course, have absolutely nothing to say about House of Brag, a ‘Queer Social Centre’ which has set up in a disused shop in Brixton. Yesterday activists on Twitter alerted people to the harassment of HoB by the police, who showed up and apparently tried to prevent them from entering the building. HoB have put out a statement about it today:

Hi everyone. So as you may have heard, today we have been subjected to several hours of ridiculous overreaction and unlawful harassment by the police. There are still cops posted in a van outside our building despite assurances earlier that the operation was being called off. We’re planning to write a proper statement about this tomorrow after a few hours kip but for now we’d just like to say THANK YOU to everyone who came down and showed us support, brought us food, and gave us legal advice. And THE SOCIAL CENTRE WILL BE OPEN TOMORROW, probably not at 2pm as planned but definitely in time for an extremely timely squatting laws workshop (lol) at 7pm, followed by dinner and cake and movies. WHATEVER THEY SAY, SQUATTING WILL STAY ❤ ❤ HoB

There is no better illustration of how LGBT issues don’t exist in a vacuum but are rather interlinked with wider social justice. Pride, and Stonewall, aren’t interested in queers who squat in buildings: they’d rather be seen with the ‘acceptable’ ones who join the army and police force. Best of luck to House of Brag, who are having their own ‘Monstrous Pride’ event on 12th July. Details to come on their website.

The Great British Summer

Despite the ever-present rain we are smack bang in the middle of what has been dubbed ‘The Great British Summer’, a dazzling celebration of patriotism which began with the Jubilee and climaxes with the Olympics. Major events which take place every year, such as Wimbledon, have been claimed as part of the proceedings; new ones, like the Radio 1 Festival in Hackney, proudly insert themselves. Union Jacks are ubiquitous while advertising has adopted an almost monolithic tone of jolly patriotism. The talk everywhere is of a country ‘coming together’. Hooray for Britain, and hooray for Britishness!

What ‘Britain’ and ‘Britishness’ mean, however, is not open for discussion.  To look beyond the surface, beyond the flags and the banal celebratory rhetoric, is to be ‘negative’. It is expected, then, that critical thought should take a leave of absence during this Great British Summer. If you are not an active participant then you had at least better be passive and silent; to be vocal in any opposition is to be portrayed as ‘bitter’, ‘a ‘spoilsport’ (terrible crimes in our insipid age of fun-loving ‘positivity’).  It’s not a stretch to observe that there is a sense of enforced celebration – indeed, the ‘Jubilee’ Bank Holidays ostensibly involved taking two days off to partake in the revelries and, if you were critical of events, you were inevitably told that you should ‘go to work’ instead.

The shutting down of criticism takes place in subtle ways, invariably with a jocular tone. I experienced it repeatedly during the Jubilee. Questioning the existence of the monarchy was viewed as an amusingly cranky view from an angry Scotsman. Questioning the celebration itself was viewed as adolescent posturing. I was repeatedly told to ‘join in’. The harshest opposition I received was to be told to ‘lighten up’ and to ‘leave the country’ if I didn’t like it.  It was done almost unconsciously but the clear aim was to contrast the light-hearted, fun, mature patriots with the dour, unhappy and juvenile critics. When Republic staged their anti-monarchy protest on the day of the flotilla, Twitter was filled with people proclaiming that the ‘spoilsports’ wouldn’t ruin their fun. The closest most people got to criticism was to ‘live-tweet’ the day with a weary air of sarcastic detachment – meaningless as this ironic detachment looms large over an entire generation’s engagement with anything and it did not even begin to question why the viewer felt detached.

We saw much the same response to the Royal Wedding last year. This seemed even more bizarre as it was such an anachronistic event. Even as a republican, I can appreciate that many may have wanted to mark the 60 year reign of their Queen; marking the wedding of one of her grandchildren with a day of national celebration was lost on me. More than that – it seemed perverse. The backdrop to all of these events is austerity Britain. Whether or not you agree that we are seeing a sustained attack on the living standards of the poor and vulnerable, many independent bodies and observers have noted that we are witnessing a huge rise in wealth of those at the top of society while everyone else either stagnates or becomes poorer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies have reported that inequality has already risen to levels previously not seen for 20 years and continues to rise. They report that ‘the poor have undoubtedly been getting worse off in absolute terms’. They reported that in a single year, 2010, living standards had regressed to 2004 levels. They expect median household income to be lower in 2015 than it was in 2002. Youth unemployment has already reached historic levels while child poverty is widely believed to be rising. In contrast, the wealth of the richest 1% in the UK has risen to record levels. It’s surely not difficult to perceive it as strange that with all of this happening we choose to ‘come together’ to celebrate the wedding of a hugely privileged family, symbolic of our class system with its hierarchy, elitism and hegemony?

It’s easy to say that this is ‘taking it all too seriously’ and that it’s possible to join the celebrations while opposing austerity. Easy to say, impossible to practice.  These celebrations certainly form a part of the ‘we’re all in this together’ narrative. The aim is to push a cogent picture of a Britain united and it’s no mistake that ‘we’ are to be united around a Britain rooted in hierarchy. This is a political presentation of Britain as apolitical and anyone who doesn’t partake in the performance is not welcome. This is not opinion – as I have noted before, the police employed authoritarian measures in support of the Royal Wedding including pre-emptive arrests. The idea that people should be arrested on the basis that they may commit a crime is such a sinister one that millions of us went to see a Tom Cruise film based on it. When it happened in reality, in our own country, hardly anyone noticed or cared. Those arrested may not have done anything but they were undeniably negative, undeniably critical – that was crime enough.

We already know that similar tactics will be used in the policing of the Olympics. We already know that we will see the biggest deployment of military and security services on our streets since World War 2. We already know that the cost of the games is set to be at least 10 times more than originally planned and that much of this cost involves taxpayer money flowing into private hands, effectively privatising large swathes of land in London. We already know that the Olympics are being used as an excuse to remove ‘undesirables’, whether that be prostitutes or claimants of housing benefit. We already know all of this without even getting into the work practices of many of the involved organisations, the transformation of London into a playground for the wealthy (from ‘games lanes’ access to the lack of social housing and rising property prices and the absurd, repressive behaviour of LOCOG.) The Olympics offers not only a presentation of a united Britain – it does so while actively altering our city and transferring further wealth to the already-wealthy.

Perhaps as a result of this, we haven’t seen anything yet. If you thought that criticism of the Royal Wedding or the Jubilee was unwelcome, the Olympics will see the pressure towards (at least) passive acceptance hugely ramped up.  You will hear arguments that it is about the sport and you should be able to separate this from all of the above; you will hear stirring music on the BBC and speeches about how much Britain has achieved; you will hear exhortations to get behind ‘our’ athletes. Most of all, you will hear again and again that criticism is bitter, juvenile, negative, unwelcome. When the inevitable scandals break, few will take notice. Austerity Britain, our rotten financial system, our discredited media, our unaccountable and broken democratic system – all will be obscured behind the spectacle, a nifty real-life Hunger Games distracting us from the crisis our country is mired in. There will, of course, be plenty of ironic detachment and tweets making fun of the thing. Myself, I’ll stay bitter and juvenile. Fuck the Olympics.

For info and details of action you can take, visit Protest London 2012 and Games Monitor .

Ian Tomlinson

Dear Diane,

I wrote to you last year regarding the policing of the G20 protests and the death of Ian Tomlinson. I am writing to you again in light of the deeply upsetting developments today. The decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to bring any criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson comes as the latest insult to justice in this sorry saga, and is sadly the latest in a long line of such decisions which place the police above the law.

As you know, the police deliberately spread disinformation in the immediate aftermath of Mr Tomlinson’s death, informing the media that he had died as the result of a pre-existing health condition and that his family were ‘not surprised’ by his death. They also falsely claimed that they had attempted to aid Mr Tomlinson but had been attacked by protestors. This in itself is completely outrageous. Despite eye witnesses coming forward in the days following to contradict this version of events, I strongly believe that this would have been the end of the matter if The Guardian had not obtained the now infamous video which shows Mr Tomlinson being assaulted as he walks away from the police with his hands in his pockets. As a side issue this causes me to wonder how many other instances of police violence have been subject to lies and disinformation which has gone unchallenged because of a lack of video evidence.

The fact that the IPCC unquestioningly accepted the police version of events (and in fact defended their actions) and did not launch an investigation until the release of the video, and that the officer involved was not suspended until 8 days after the assault, demonstrates the grotesquely dismissive attitude afforded to the death at the time.

For the Crown Prosecution Service to now claim that there can be no prosecution largely on the basis of ‘conflicting’ post-mortems, seems like the worst kind of scrambling for an excuse to abandon the case. The initial post-mortem, already conducted in dubious circumstances, was performed by a pathologist who is now discredited and has been removed from the Home Office register. The subsequent two, separate post-mortems both confirmed the cause of death to be abdominal haemorrhage. There is clearly a case to answer here, and CPS excuses as to why they cannot do *anything* simply will not satisfy.

There MUST be a wide-ranging and independent inquiry into the role of the City of London Police, the coroner, the pathologist and the IPCC, who have all played a part in ensuring no charges were able to be brought. This is an issue which goes to the heart of our democracy and our rights as citizens. I urge you to keep pressing for justice for Ian Tomlinson, and for reform of the institutions involved so that we do not have to endure yet another consequence-free death from police brutality.

Philip Matusavage