Preston Community Library Saturday: Freedom in South Africa the struggle, the film and the book

Preston Community Library will be showing a film about the struggle for freedom in South Africa on Saturday evening.

After the showing there will be two speakers, South African editor Mary Omond, and publisher Geraldine Cook, who were involved in the production of a book tied in with the film, and who are acquainted with personalities depicted in the film. 

They will be discussing what is involved with film tie-ins and the particular case of this book which proved to be a hair-raising experience taking place against against the rapidly imploding situation in South Africa when the world was tense with expectation of mass insurrection and bloodshed.

The discussion will be of interest to those who were involved in the anti-apartheid struggle as well as the new generation who are using lessons from that struggle in current international campaigns.

Films are for library members, but if you are not joined up already you can join at the door. Screenings are free but donations are needed in order to put on more films.

The doors open at 7.15pm for a 7.30pm start.

Labour Friends of Palestine condemn government's attack on local authority ethical policies

I don't normally publish press releases from the Labour Party but this might be of interest to readers and local councillors in the context of previous postings on this blog regarding proposed government curbs on the rights of councils and other public bodies to make ethical choices regarding procurement and pension fund investments.

This statement was released today by Labour Friends of  Palestine and the Middle East:
 

This week the Cabinet Office (17/2/2016) published new government guidelines intended “to stop inappropriate procurement boycotts by public authorities.”

Principally aimed at the Palestine supporting BDS campaign it intends to remove the freedom from local authorities and other bodies to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco and other products.

The change in policy has been condemned by politicians, charities, campaigning and church groups and in the press. Many pointed out that these rules, as intended, would have blocked many groups from supporting the campaigns against Apartheid South Africa.

A spokesperson for Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn MP stated:

People have the right to elect local representatives able to make decisions free of central government political control. That includes withdrawal of investments or procurement on ethical and human rights grounds.

During the General Election LFPME asked candidates to sign up to our 6 election pledges, one of which was - ‘Illegal Settlements: Call for a complete freeze on illegal settlement growth in order to save any hope for a viable two state solution, and end all trade and investment with illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.’

Boycott campaigners have reacted to the new guidelines as simply re-stating existing policy, which will not stop groups from following an ethical procurement policy that discriminates against companies based on their human rights record or compliance with international law.

Grahame Morris MP Chair of the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East said:

We have reached a contradictory situation in which we in the International Community economically sustain a major obstacle to peace—the illegal settlements.

Settlement products are the proceeds of crime. They are illicit goods, the product of a brutal occupation and the exploitation of the occupied and their resources. By trading with those who produce them, we financially encourage them.

Those settlements are built on the foundations of immense suffering—that of the Palestinians who have seen their homes destroyed, have been expelled from their own land and are living under brutal oppression—yet we make the illegal settlement enterprise profitable for the occupying power.

That seems to me a gross injustice.

Commenting about the BDS movement, Mr Morris added:

 

We should not have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. I am appalled that the government are more focused on preventing boycotts and disinvestment from the illegal settlements rather than attempting to end settlement trade.

This undermines their commitment to international law, human rights and resolving the conflict.

UNISON urges Conservatives to heed Cameron's South Africa sanctions lesson in pension funds row

FROM UNISON

On the eve of their conference last October, the Conservative Party made the surprising announcement they would stop what they call “divisive town hall boycotts and sanctions”. The government planned to address non-existent concerns about “militant divestment campaigns against UK defence and Israeli firms” by introducing new rules to ensure that pension investments and procurement decisions in England and Wales follow UK government foreign policy.

This was clearly pre-conference grandstanding; an opportunity to attack the Labour Party, trade unions and campaign groups like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). It is unlikely the Conservative Party really believe “the militant actions of left-wing councils” threaten to “poison community relations and harm Britain’s economic and international interests”, but a gesture to the Israeli government, concerned about EU restrictions on settlement goods, may aid diplomatic relations.

In recent months a number of companies have announced their withdrawal from the illegally occupied West Bank, influenced by the efforts of pension scheme members and the public. The Israeli government have responded by lobbying their counterparts for new laws to restrict boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), with some success, particularly in the US and now the UK.

In November the Department of Communities and Local Government launched a consultation outlining their plans for the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). Whilst some of the changes are to be welcomed, others give the government unprecedented control over how, and in whose interest, pension funds are invested.

The government want the ability to directly intervene in the investment process in two key ways. Firstly they propose that a proportion of LGPS funds will have to be invested in UK infrastructure. Secondly they want to impose a requirement that investments follow UK foreign policy, and give the secretary of state the power to intervene if they don’t.

It’s clear from the Conservative press release that they want to stop campaigns such as UNISON and PSC’s work, encouraging UNISON branches up and down the country to use their pension funds’ financial muscle to exert pressure on companies that continue to support the illegal occupation of Palestine. Although UK foreign policy recognises “settlements are illegal under international law”, this doesn’t mean that pension funds will be able to divest from companies that support, and financially benefit from, the occupation. The government only highlight the risks of doing business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, allowing UK companies to decide whether or not to comply with international law.

UNISON believes that pension fund investments should be made in the interests of scheme members, and this is reflected in the EU ‘IORP’ Directive/41/2003 on pensions and the advice of the government’s Law Commission. A pension scheme’s primary concern should be getting a good return for scheme members, but it should also take members concerns into account. If scheme members don’t want their pensions invested in companies involved in the illegal occupation of Palestine, or the manufacture of arms, then their pension fund should take this into account.

UNISON is working hard to get the requirement for pension funds to follow UK Foreign Policy to be dropped, along with the requirement to invest in UK infrastructure. UNISON branches all over the country are responding to the government’s consultation, arguing that the proposed changes breach the EU directive on pensions, and calling for members’ pensions to be invested in members’ interests, not in the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Other groups working on environmental issues, arms and human rights are also concerned that the changes will also impact on them, and are responding to the consultation. You should do the same, before it closes on 19 February.

The government won’t consult on their proposed changes to procurement regulations; they will simply try to issue a revised policy note banning boycotts. The Thatcher government passed similar legislation as part of the infamous 1988 Local Government Act, to stop local councils boycotting companies doing business with apartheid South Africa.

In 2006 David Cameron said “The mistakes my party made in the past with respect to relations with the ANC and sanctions on South Africa make it all the more important to listen now”. We hope his party does listen before they make the same mistake all over again.


UNISON has produced a guide to pension fund engagement and divestment:  LINK

On line tool to add your voice to the campaign LINK

Palestinian footballer's experience should galvanise Brent Council to act on human rights

 

Palestinian footballer Mahmoud Sarsak will be speaking at the Pakistan Community Centre in Willesden  Green on Thursday to share his experiences with local people, as Brent Council sticks to its decision to refuse to exclude Veolia, a company that aids illegal occupation of Palestine, from a lucrative contract worth more than £250m over 16 years.

Sarsak lost half his body weight in a hunger strike that lasted 92 days fighting for human rights in his homeland. His courage and determination should bring it home to Brent Council, a council with a noble record of campaigning against apartheid South Africa decades ago, that they too should make a stand.

The people of Brent do not want their taxes and Council Tax to be used to provide profits to a company that  also profits from  illegal abuses of human rights.