Thoughts on the EDL and how to respond

By T4P friend, Huw I

I’ve been curious about the English Defence League (EDL) ever since first hearing of it. I initially assumed it was just a re-branded group of NF/BNP supporters. However, having viewed the various documentaries, heard about their origins, and seen some of the propaganda on You Tube, it seems simultaneously a much more absurd yet frightening movement.  Ultimately, the EDL does seem to demonstrate a shift in thinking, a redefinition of the dividing lines – in order to maximize the potential for conflict.

There’s some emotion behind this, stemming as it does from the Wooten Basset demo by Islam4life – when the EDL began. And there’s been a whole load of stuff rolling around in my head about what this all means and why this shift has occurred… Devolution, the domestic repercussions of the war on terror and global definitions of “enemy”, the shift in the political spectrum at all levels both at the centre and the extremes. Whatever the reasons, there’s a whole process of myth-making going on – apparently attempting  to create new dividing lines;  And this is worrying.

This is where the opposition to the EDL needs to acknowledge that there’s some genuine change away from the old far right – and a change based on a sea of contradictions, that actually means the EDL has very little to hold itself together. So the aggression and conflict-driven stance of anti-fascist groups such as Unite Against Fascism doesn’t seem relevant or helpful. Instead, it’d seem worthwhile for both anti-fascists and the Muslim community to take a good look at the EDL…

It’s not so much what the EDL are protesting about – which we may all have differing views on – but the way in which they are using protest to generate division and conflict.  If the EDL are protesting against Al Qaida, the imposition of Sharia law in Britain, attacks on Israel, attacks on the rights of homosexuals – then who is opposing what? For me, those wishing to oppose the EDL need to oppose the EDL’s attempt to draw all these issues into a mythological war between two sides – their attempt to create conflict and violence, to stigmatize and agitate. If responses to the EDL generate conflict, it feeds the EDL’s reason for being; without it, they can only look inwards.

And that is where the greatest threat to the EDL may lie. Anyone with half an ounce of sense knows that the issues raised by the EDL simply cannot be divided along “us and them” lines. Obviously, plenty of Muslims are opposed to the idea of Sharia law being implemented in Britain (“it would ruin my weekends”, remarked a Muslim colleague recently). And there are plenty are elements within the EDL (and beyond) that undoubtedly cause concern amongst other EDL supporters – who claim to be genuinely concerned about such issues as defending Israel or gay rights.

If responses to the EDL avoid stoking conflict, these contradictions within the EDL will rise to the surface – but what worries me is that, if we see large-scale unrest, the EDL myths may just start to take hold. Banners declaring “Allah is the greatest” (as seen in Bolton), and chants of “Nazi scum off our streets” feel blunt or even confirmatory to the EDL mindset.

Instead, counter protests could break-down the lines drawn in the sand by the EDL, and reclaim the EDL’s issues as ones that are not ingrained in a new definition of Englishness – showing that there is no “enemy” that cements their new definitions. Shouting “Nazi scum” may get to the actual Nazis in the crowd, but won’t help convert any of the new EDL recruits who actually think that they are opposing fascism.

Non-violent celebratory protest and avoiding unrest at all costs should be high priority, not least in places like Bradford – which have most to lose and in which the EDL have most to gain from high-level disturbances. In 2010, it could be argued that – despite the best attempts of the BNP – race has failed to cement a definition of Englishness, as ultimately it made no sense. We have to show that the EDL’s latest definitions make no sense either; so the nature of the counter-protest could either help draw support to or away from this dangerous organisation.

Beeston, the London bombings, and ‘the gift of pessimism’

by Ed

This month is the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings – and the media spotlight fleetingly swung back onto Beeston, down in south Leeds, where two of the perpetrators were from – and where I live too. The community’s moved on – partly through the simple passing of time, partly deliberately. People were fed up with being associated with those tragic events, especially by the (often parasitic) media.

However, I and a few others were keen to talk with the media – because there’s a good story to tell. (Click here to read the Yorkshire Post feature article, or here to listen to the BBC Radio Leeds interview.) Beeston’s got its problems, for sure – and 7/7 was a massive shock to the system. But actually, the community held together in 2005 – despite huge (international) scrutiny and pressure.

And I’d argue that it’s since grown even stronger. There’s a real sense of community, there’s some great local initiatives and events. And overall, I sense that a load of people (including myself) woke up to the responsibility we all have to make stronger communities – from the grassroots up – through the simple, daily task of talking, connecting and sharing life with the diverse people around you.

But isn’t this just ignoring or glossing over the bad stuff, the tough realities? There’s certainly a danger of that. International ‘peace-building’ activist and writer – John-Paul Lederach (a major influence on T4P’s action and thinking over many years) – argues that optimism easily leads people into ungrounded, hippy-ish work that achieves no substantial or sustained social change.

Indeed, he talks about ‘the gift of pessimism’ – to keep you grounded, realistic, critical. But then of course, he points out that pessimism alone drags you down. He therefore insists that we need a foot in both camps – to hold optimism and pessimism in tension. Optimism is essential to keep us energised, inspired, hopeful for a better world; and pessimism is its friend, keeping us rooted in reality, suspicious of easy answers, alive to the scale of the obstacles we face.

So, as I said in the media interviews, Beeston’s got its troubles (doesn’t any community?)… But so too, I love living there, I get a huge amount of energy from the place – and I like to think that we’re learning stuff, and slowly developing a good shared community life together. I’ll keep you posted…

Power and love

by Mike

Adam Kahane worked for many years bringing diverse people and groups together in difficult, complex and conflictual situations – South Africa, Guatemala, and Israel, to name but three. At a recent seminar in Leeds, he admitted that – in those situations – he’d made the error of focusing on love to the detriment of power.

Since hearing him and reading his book ‘Power and Love’, I’ve been reflecting that by caricaturing power as ‘bad’, I have defaulted to the same error. One network with which I’ve been involved has developed the idea of the ‘power footprint’ – and the need to keep your ‘footprint’ as light as possible, to ensure that it doesn’t use its power (funding and knowledge) coercively.

Kahane borrows his definitions from theologian/philosopher Paul Tillich (the subject of Martin Luther King’s Doctorate). Power is the drive of everything living to realise itself with increasing intensity and extensity; love is the drive towards the unity of the separated. Power, in this sense, is the drive to achieve one’s purpose, to get one’s job done, to grow.

Love is the drive to reconnect and make whole that which has become or appears fragmented. Generative (positive) power is ‘power to…’; degenerative (negative) power is ‘power over…’. Love is generative when it empowers us and others; it is degenerative – sentimental and anaemic or worse – when it overlooks, or suffocates, or denies power.

The challenge is how we can exercise power and love together. Kahane says: ‘Learning to employ both power and love is like learning to walk on two legs. We can’t walk on only one leg, just as we can’t address our toughest social challenges only with power, or only with love… Walking means moving first one leg and then the other and always being out of balance – or more precisely, always being in dynamic balance’.

If you’re interested in reading the book and coming to a group discussion, get in touch. (Power and Love, by Adam Kahane, 2010.)

Power: sometimes bold, sometimes ticklish..

by T4P friend and trustee, Max Farrar (www.maxfarrar.org.uk)

Power can be bold, hard, in your face and on your body.  Power also comes in italic, more feathery: you know it’s there, but it doesn’t seem to hurt so much, and sometimes it even tickles.

Hobbes advocated state power of the bold sort: human society is so ineluctably competitive and violent that a monarch must forcibly impose a social contract to ensure order.

Marx argued that power under capitalism was exercised by a state (usually led by a monarch and a parliament) which served the interests of the ruling class. Its function was to legitimise the immiseration and oppression of working people. He believed the state would ‘wither away’ when the working class took control of society. But communist societies like the former USSR demonstrated a model of power in bold.

Anarchists like Kropotkin argued that the state itself was the obstacle to human progress; a good society would be composed of co-operatives working in mutual aid with each other. Their suggestion was that power was to be shared equally among all; it would hardly be felt at all.

I suggest that Michel Foucault has the best understanding of power. For him, it is not possessed simply by states, classes or individuals. It’s all pervasive, in the language we learn, in ideas we circulate, in the words we write, in the media we consume. Knowledge is inextricably linked with power. Fortunately, according to Foucault, both power and power always incite resistance. Even ‘discursive’ power has to be deconstructed if we are to fully undermine the power exercised by gods, monarchs, patriarchs, prime ministers, the general secretaries of trade unions, and Hollywood celebrities.

Easier said than done, as you recognise when you find that your spiritual leader, your feminist icon, your Trotskyist militant or your charismatic anarchist is actually a bit of a bully. Foucault’s power might thump, shout, bite, arouse or tickle, sometimes all at once, but it never goes away. Power is both bold and italic. Like most things in life, the trick is learning to live with it and making it work for you, and for everyone else.

Subverting our culture of red-tape and bureaucracy

by Ed

Everyone’s fed up with red-tape, bureaucracy, regulation, etc. Just yesterday, I was in the governors meeting at my local school, handed wad after wad of paper – and felt physically depressed (literally: pushed down).

Similarly, I was recently talking with a (great) community worker, who said: ‘There’s all this paperwork and monitoring, but it doesn’t actually make for better work – it just ties us up. We need more time just to sit with people, build trust, be there for folk. And safeguarding is just covering the backs of professionals, like a shell around the workforce – it’s not actually helping real people.’

Why have we got this red tape and paperwork culture? It’s for accountability, to manage risk, to keep people safe – all important and difficult tasks in our complex society. But are our systems actually achieving their aims? Surely there’s a better way than the onerous, depressing, and counter-productive methods we’ve developed.

We can subvert it. Years ago, when I was wading through paperwork for an EU-funded community job, I found I could better navigate through it by nurturing strong relationships with the project participants, help them see and understand the ridiculous burden of paperwork I had, and have a laugh as we filled in form after form after form together.

Similarly, last July I was voluntarily helping to coordinate a Big Lunch (www.thebiglunch.com) street party in my neighbourhood. When the Council (bless ’em) found out about our plans, they swiftly gave us a HUGE list of requirements, including: formal road closures (a snip at just £700), a public entertainment license, proof of full assent from all neighbours, massive risk assessment forms, etc.

We were ready to sack the whole thing off – but as a last resort, I got on the phone to some other Council employees I knew, and asked them if they could help. Sure enough, they talked with the relevant department, and we had no more bureaucracy requests. Relationships, passion and trust had subverted ‘the system’… and we had a GREAT event.

There are dangers here – nepotism, the old boys (or girls) network, etc. But surely that’s preferable to the deathly cul-de-sac we find ourselves in. These alternative, relationship-centred modes of working actually have potential to be FAR MORE efficient, productive and accountable. (Who ever wants to let a mate down?) So I’m sure we can start to recover a more fluid, spontaneous and life-giving way to live together – if only we’re willing to live with passion and trust one another. Who’s with me?

What science teaches us about generosity and love

By Ed

(Further to our upcoming Gipton Good Relations project…) 

You wouldn’t normally think of science as having much to say about community development, and certainly not about such matters as relationships, generosity and love. Yet I’d argue that science massively shapes how we live – and we should let it teach and inspire us to live beautiful, open-handed and open-hearted lives…

For centuries, Western society (including each one of us!) has been massively shaped by a ‘Newtonian’ worldview (think Isaac Newton), that sees the world as a machine, composed of essentially separate beings – be it people, animals, atoms, whatever – that interact. But in the 1950s, some very clever scientists with very big microscopes got into Quantum Science – and started overturning all the Newtonian beliefs.

Looking deep into the sub-atomic heart of nature, they found that it was inadequate and inaccurate to understand or describe the world as a predictable mechanism. It’s far more organic than that, like a giant eco-system in which nothing is really independent of anything else, where in fact everything is inter-related and blurs into one another. The whole world, and everything in it, is infinitely inter-dependent and complex. (The idea of a butterfly flapping its wing and generating a distant hurricane came out of this thinking.)

Quantum Science therefore suggests that the best way to see and quantify nature is not according to dry equations and systems, but according to relationships and flows within a giant eco-system in which nothing (not even the scientist) is truly separate from anything else.

But what’s this got to do with our communities? Simply, applied to our lives, this Quantum Science invites us to live according to radically different rules – far beyond the illusion of independence. Our world is founded upon organisations and things (countries, companies, charities, faith groups, residents associations, whatever, all of them…) that try to be robust by being centralised, boundaried and set apart. As individuals, we’re brain-washed to be self-reliant. And there’s everything in between. At the core of our culture and being, we resist inter-connection, blurred lines, and inter-dependence.

Yet all this is going against the grain of nature. Instead, we can choose to embrace the inter-connection of all things, to live relationship-centred lives of inter-dependence. We can share our resources (homes, cars, kitchen table, etc etc) with one another. We can live more generous, more loving lives – not just giving, but learning to be vulnerable and receive too.

And there lies a whole lot of freedom. Cooperative, shared ways of living are actually (contrary to the capitalist logic of the individual that we’ve been force-fed) very efficient. Beyond individualised consumerism, there are simpler expectations, much lighter financial burdens, healthier relationships, freer minds and hearts, more socially richer communities, and more.

Thank you, science. We’ve been slow to catch on – but what’s now stopping us?

After Copenhagen, what now?

by T4P friend Paul Chatterton (Director of the MA in Activism and Social Change at Leeds Uni: www.activismsocialchange.org.uk)

We all saw the failures of the UN COP talks in Copenhagen. A partial cessation of democracy as thousands of people were preventatively arrested and detained, fraudulent agreements, bullying of the global south by the north, back room deals, delay tactics, misunderstanding, mutual suspicion, and a final accord that was only ‘noted’.

I spent the last week of the talks in Copenhagen and what became extremely clear was that it was not us - civil society - but the leaders and delegates of the rich nations who failed to get a deal. We have workable solutions and we need to say this over and over again. These solutions need to be part of building a growing social movement, winning arguments with the public, influencing the media, our friends, families and politicians.

So what are the some of the major demands post-Copenhagen? Here are some signposts.

First, a commitment to that magic number of 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon in the atmosphere. 350 – it’s a key number. Only at this level will be keep under that 2 degree celcius of warming. What’s on the table currently commits us to almost a 4 degree rise. This is not acceptable.

Second, an International Criminal court and legislature that can go after the big polluters and those who don’t comply with carbon cuts (both countries and corporations).

Third, a moratorium on the supply of fossil fuels limited to 60% of proven reserves, backed by a roadmap by the phase-out of all fossil fuel use by 2030. This is essentially a call to campaign around ‘leaving the oil in the soil’ and ‘the coal in the hole’.

Fourth, huge reparations from rich to poor nations to make up for the huge carbon debt. Remember, climate change is a problem which historically was caused by the west and one which worst hits developing nations. These financial transfers need to be subject to democratic control (NOT the World Bank), and could be paid for by redirecting military budgets, and by progressive and debt cancellation.

Finally, a rejection of market-based solution – especially the growth of carbon markets which is privatising new areas of land and forest. Enshrined in this will be a legal agreement respecting indigenous land rights, the right to rural livelihoods, and food sovereignty.

None of these ideas were even remotely part of the official deal, but they are all essential if we are to have a world worth living in and passing on to future generations. Much of this draws on the demands of the ‘Climate Justice Now!‘ coalition and the ideas of Climate Justice Action here in Europe. They are being discussed and taken forward by the Camp for Climate Action group.

If you want to get involved locally, the Yorkshire neighbourhood of the Climate Camp is meeting, discussing and taking action to make these ideas a reality – it meets at the Common Place. Leeds and Yorkshire have a role to play like any other in creating a more socially and ecologically just future.

Locally, we have to push the regional coal industry to decarbonise or decommission by 2030, stop expansion at the airport, stop the renewed push for nuclear, push for huge demand reductions in energy use and consumerism, whilst supporting renewable and efficiency drives.

We also have to push for a regional economy that is not based on ceaseless growth or unsustainable service sector jobs, but new ways of working that are more humane, localised and equal. We need a city and regional government committed to taking decisive action in order for Leeds and Yorkshire to have a future.

That’s the challenge. Get involved.

See: www.climate-justice-now.org, www.climatecamp.org.uk, www.thecommonplace.org.uk & www.paulchatterton.com

From Orient are…

by T4P friend Rachael Loftus (one of our Three Wise Women for Advent), on growing confidence in local communities to tackle the big issues

All year I’ve listened to the media speaking about “our” response to the economic crisis, and “our” lack of faith in political leadership, even “our” reluctance to face the reality of how a changing climate or peak oil will impact our lifestyles. Yet in conversation, I’ve noticed a different kind of ‘our’ spoken of. Not of one of hand-wringing, impotent despair, but an assertive reaction to the increasingly global, increasingly complex systems that seem to govern our world, a creative confidence that ‘our’ can solutions start here and now in the places where we live as community to one another.

There are of course political and economic answers to be found to the challenges we face, but there are also increasingly persistent questions that we can only answer as communities. What is going to be the character and identity of tomorrow’s Leeds? What kind of community identity and values, experience and spirit do we want to build for the future? What can we do to bring about the best Leeds of tomorrow?

Communities, of any hue, don’t happen by coincidence: they blossom where individuals show leadership and generosity. They take work, and they take time. But in our time-poor lives, surely there are more creative ways of thinking to be found about how we work together as communities and leaders.

The Ulster poet Seamus Heaney wrote: “move lips, move minds, and make new meanings flare”. So that’s my New Year’s resolution: making new meanings flare, wherever I can. And who knows, maybe next year could be “our” year…

How to make… an activist

by T4P friend Jacinta Kent (one of our Three Wise Women for Advent), on moral outrage, inspiration, passion, fear and inaction, and changing the world…

Ingredients: 2 lemons & torn t-shirt/balaclava (optional). 1 houseful of Ecover products. 2 large packs Zapatista coffee. 1 deeply concerned expression. 85,000 tsp moral outrage. A large tbsp of dedication. Sift optimism consistently throughout. (You may also want to add just a hint of jaded depending on length of campaigning but this is quite a natural ingredient).

Activists. We come from every race, country and background imaginable but are all bound by one thing. It starts with a sense of injustice that won’t stay at the back of our minds. The more we learn, the further it shuffles, bustles, sometimes leaps to the forefront of our thoughts. It makes inaction an inconceivable idea and urges us to search the far flung corners of our creativity to try and find a way to make things better; so we take action.

I’ve been campaigning since I was 16 years old and have been inspired by hundreds of people over the last 14 years, but when I first started writing this piece, I was immediately struck by the inherent contradiction of trying to tell someone how to be an activist; mainly because I believe that an important step towards ‘being an activist’ is thinking for yourself. Saying that, thinking for yourself doesn’t mean you can’t draw inspiration and support from other groups or ideologies and perhaps take action together. It is usually when working collectively we begin to realise our strength and power.

Although asking questions is just the beginning, it’s an essential place to start. We cannot look for justice in an unjust system. It is the same power structures, namely rich governments and corporations that disseminate disinformation and propaganda whilst knowingly perpetuating poverty, exploitation, injustice and environmental devastation.

Similarly, we should be careful not to just accept that the answers lie with those groups who profess to want the same things we want - namely the charity and non-governmental sector. Some of these groups are incredibly progressive, but we should always be aware that all groups have different priorities, agendas and definitions of progress.

So what can you actually do…? Well, if you’re new to the issues, you can read, research and attend talks and events to help you decide what it is you feel passionate about. We can’t work on every issue of injustice and it’s when we start thinking on that scale that an overwhelming feeling can rear its head. Don’t let it. It’s incredible what a small group of people, or even just one individual, can achieve. So focus on your passions, start small and go from there.

If you already have an understanding of the many and varied global justice and community issues that exist, but aren’t involved in action as of yet – get a wriggle on! Knowledge is key but translating that knowledge into action is where the real change lies. Whatever you do, don’t be afraid to just put yourself out there and ask as many questions as you feel necessary. There is no right way of being an activist; the very fact that you’re trying makes you one.

Taking Action. There are many groups you can get involved with who campaign on all sorts of issues: from women’s rights and sustainable living to animal rights and immigration, just search online or in the library and get in contact. If there’s an issue you care about but can’t find a group you identify with, start one up! You can ask for guidance from other organisations or just learn as you go. Here are a few ideas of the different types of action you can take:

* Organise an event or action to raise awareness and/or funds for your cause – try combining music, art, film or even a sweat-shop free/vintage fashion show with speakers to engage people.

* Explore the possibilities of non-violent direct action (NVDA) – for example, blockading the premises of corporations can gain publicity and directly impact their operations.

* Make a concerted effort to live as ethically and sustainably as you can.

* Lobby the government – organise or go on demonstrations, send letters and postcards, and constantly question their actions.

We are part of this country, yet when it takes unjust and sometimes illegal action in our name, many of us remain quiet. No matter how big or small, our (in)action dictates our future.

Power can only be upheld for as long as it relies on our fear and apathy to stand in the way of change. However, we all have the potential to be a part of change and create a fairer world for us all to live in. One in which richer countries do not benefit from the exploitation of others and poorer countries do not exist to largely serve our over-consumptive needs.

Revolutions, acts of solidarity and communities are not pre-made, pre-packaged deals. They can’t be bought, exchanged or bartered for. Like all the greatest things in life, they are made. And it is up to us to make them.

Where are we going?

by T4P friend Veronique Raingeval (one of our Three Wise Women for Advent), on Leeds, community voices, the recession, government, and the future…

A lot’s happened this year in Leeds. I like the funky stone seats in the pedestrian area. The Rose Bowl always surprises me when I walk up towards Headingley: I haven’t yet grown to expect it there. I like being able to go to the renovated Howard Room to see exhibitions and have a coffee at the Leeds Museum. Leeds is looking better and better. This is change for the better.

I like stopping in certain kitchens, churches and community halls in the “rim”, those places that give Leeds its genuiness and integrity, where community spirit lives, in spite of the perennial lack of investment in public facilities. Here, voices are growing strong, and collective will about what future those communities want for themselves is taking shape. Yet still, two different worlds, worlds with different visions and agendas about the future…

This year, I saw new desire to connect those two different communities. For example, builders and planners realising they need to get much better at understanding how people actually use their buildings. Communities realising they need to communicate what they want more powerfully if they stand a chance to create change. Yet there’s still lots of mistrust.

People feel let down by their leaders. The recession they didn’t see coming, the war in Iraq they convinced themselves was the right thing to do. People want to know. When everything was going well, it was okay to be ignorant - but that’s no longer the case. From MPs’ expenses to bank bonuses, to bin and flight attendant strikes, people want to know how they are governed and why. By and large, the government has responded with new knowledge tools: school rankings, comprehensive area assessments, freedom of information Act, public enquiries.

But as the information “out there” increases, connections between causes and effects become more complex, more difficult to follow, and increasingly complicated to act upon.

The issue then becomes:  what will people do with it? Who and how many can take responsibility for doing something with the knowledge they acquired, and for how long? People realise they need to get involved and make their own decisions for the benefit of their communities. And this is a very personal decision too, because it can very much entail personal sacrifices.

If 2009 was a year for sharing information, 2010 and 2011 will be the years of reckoning.  What are going to do with that information? How much responsibility are we willing to take? Have we got the time, the motivation, and the resiliency to do something with the information we seem to want or now have? Are we ready for what we’re asking for? Criticising is easy, but proposing truly sustainable solutions, making compromises with the ‘other’, working together to build the change we want to see, and possibly negotiating a Sunday or two away from our spouses and children in order to do this, is actually the hardest bit.

In 2010 and 2011, we will begin to find more democratic ways to inform, connect and involve more people into making important decisions about where our communities, and in turn countries, are going. This slow but – I believe – irreversible bottom-up  process will bring us closer together across cultural, religious, age, ability and class divides. It will not be easy, and will frighten some – those whose identities will feel threatened by the necessary compromises this process will ask of everyone. As we see a definite movement towards connectedness and collective work, we will also experience frightening jolts from groups and movements, who speak out for those who are not ready for increased connectedness.

The 1980s were famous for words like greed, growth, boom and economic cycles. We must now think about new words for our era. I would suggest balance and compassion should be amongst those words. What words would you like to promote for 2010?