Police tricks victims call for people's inquiry

Call for an end to police infiltration of protest groups - and defending the right to protest. 

Anti-racist campaigners, whose organisation was infiltrated by under-cover officers in the 1990s believe a Hillsborough-style panel is the only way to uncover the truth.

Last week members of Youth Against Racism in Europe (YRE),  held a protest outside Scotland Yard to defend the right to protest and an end to police infiltration of protest groups.

The protest followed revelations on Channel 4’s Dispatches programme last month that officers from the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) infiltrated Youth Against Racism in Europe while they campaigned against racist attacks and murders in South East London around the time of the killing of Stephen Lawrence in 1993.

Former SDS officer Peter Francis revealed that he and other officers were instructed to gather evidence against Stephen Lawrence’s family and friends.

Doreen Lawrence, Stephen's mother, made it plain last week that there should be an independent inquiry into Francis's claims.

Lois Austin, former chair of Youth Against Racism in Europe, said: “Rather than vital police resources being spent finding Stephen Lawrence’s murderers resources were spent spying on those people trying to stop racist attacks and murders and on the Lawrence family.  And we think this is outrageous and unacceptable.”

Youth Against Racism in Europe is calling for the establishment of a panel consisting of campaigners, trade unionists and democratically elected community representatives, similar to the Hillsborough Independent Panel set up to uncover the truth about 96 Liverpool football fans killed at the FA Cup semi-final in 1989.

They say that secret files should be made available to the panel, so it can go through the evidence and make recommendations.

“We are calling for any under-cover secret police units that aren’t involved in crime to be disbanded.

“We want all the Special Branch files on peaceful protesters made available, so they can be put under public scrutiny, and we want justice for the Lawrence family,” said Austin.

She added that there were currently 16 different inquiries into allegations of police infiltration of protest organisations.

“There are two main inquires. Firstly there is one being carried out by a judge in secret courts. No-one knows about the evidence, it is not under public scrutiny what is discussed or disclosed.

“The other public inquiry is by the police themselves, so it’s the police investigating the police.

“That is unacceptable. When we talk about a public inquiry what we mean is one that is run by people who are elected from communities, from protest organisations and trade unions, who form a panel,” she said.

And Austin rejected calls for a judge-led inquiry.

“Neville Lawrence is calling for that and I can understand why. He doesn’t want the police investigating the police.

“We have had judges making terrible decisions where protesters are concerned, [and] we don’t trust them to deal with this either,” she said.

“I think the Hillsborough panel did a fantastic job. They organised an inquiry, they took a legal route, but they also took a campaigning route and that’s what we intend to do.

“We are also going to be campaigning for the right to protest, an end to the infiltration of protest groups and an end to the criminalisation of protesters.

“In the last 20 years it has been accepted by the police and political establishment that it is alright to kettle protesters for hours and hours on end, so effectively taking away their right to democratic protest.

“We are going to be doing lots of protests against austerity and cuts, and we want to know that we can go out and protest without being kettled and suffering police brutality, and we also want to know that we won’t be spied upon by secret police.”

The programme also revealed - confirmed - that under-cover officers duped female activists from other campaigns into having relationships. One even fathered a child, and later disappeared. Several of these women are now taking legal action against the police.

Is the Left too soft on religious extremists?

Very few people have addressed terrorism in terms of the human rights of civilians.

A new book by left-wing American feminist writer Meredith Tax argues that the Left in the UK and America is often too ready to embrace right-wing Islam - to the detriment of women and others in the Islamic world who are struggling for equal rights.

Author of "Woman and Her Mind: The Story of Everyday Life", an essay considered a founding document of the US women’s liberation movement, Tax is currently US director and head writer of the Centre for Secular Space, a London-based thinktank formed to oppose fundamentalism, strengthen secular voices and promote universality in human rights.

In her new book 'Double Bind, the Muslim Right, the Anglo-American Left and Universal Human Rights' Tax argues that there are a range of political Islamic organisations who want to establish Islamic states, governed by Sharia law, and they systematically discriminate against women, along with sexual and religious minorities.

These organisations include ‘moderate’ organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Justice and Development Party in Turkey and Ennahda in Tunisia and transnational networks such as Hizb ut-Tahrir who seek to achieve this gradually by working through elections, educational propaganda, charity and organising.

Then there are militant groups or ‘salafis’ such as the Taliban or al Qaeda which may run for office but also enforce some version of Sharia law through street violence; and a much smaller militant wing of salafi-jihadis that endorses military means and practices violence against civilians.

Tax argues that many of the more violent groups have their origins in the Cold War, when the USA and Saudi Arabia funded and armed Afghan warlords to combat the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

She argues that since 9/11 the world has been caught up in paradigm of terror/torture.

“The US kidnaps, tortures and uses drones to assassinate those it considers to be terrorists, often killing civilians at the same time.

“Militant Islamists kidnap and assassinate both officials and civilians and blow themselves up along with anyone nearby.

“And while national security experts analyse terrorists and human rights organisations defend those accused of terrorism, very few people – mainly feminists – have addressed terrorism in terms of the human rights of civilians.”

She argues that while it is critically important for human rights activists to track state violations like detention without trial, torture and kidnappings, committed in the name of counter terrorism, 'It is also incumbent upon human rights organisations to scrutinise the ideology of groups they defend and to make it clear that while they may defend the human rights of those accused of terrorism, they do not support their beliefs.'

She uses the example of Moazzam Begg, a UK citizen and former detainee of Guantanamo Bay, who has written for the Guardian and accepted as a human rights partner by groups like Amnesty International and Reprieve.

Tax argues that he is not a human rights activist, nor is his organisation, Cageprisoners, a human rights organisation, as it claims.

She claims Cageprisoners has called for the release of terrorists like Aafia Siddiqui, who was tried and convicted by a jury, and that it invited Anwar al Awlaki, who the USA claims was a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and was later killed in a US drone attack, to address a dinner in 2009.

In a sermon on ‘the qualities of great women’ al Awlaki said of the four women mentioned in the Hadith:  

“They were either good wives or good mothers.

“This is something that might not pass well with feminists or sisters who are feminised or affected by that thought.

“These four women were not great because of their activism or their career or their knowledge. They were either good wives or mothers.

“Khadeja was outstanding because of her support for her husband," he said. "It wasn’t because she was a businesswoman that did not factor in.”

Tax argues that, in the last ten years left wing organisations have allied with conservative Muslim organisations that stand for religious discrimination, oppose gay rights and subordinate women.

She cites the example of the Socialist Workers Party, which formed the Respect Party with Islamists and stood candidates for elections following the outbreak of the Gulf War in 2003.

Tax criticises left-wing leaders like Hugo Chavez for embracing Iranian president Ahmadinejad while he was on a visit to Tehran in 2006 and London's former mayor Ken Livingstone and George Galloway MP for offering an official welcome to the Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Tax argues people like Livingstone and Galloway assume that these right-wing Muslims represent the views of all Muslims - which they do not.

She writes, 'This support for the Muslim Right has undermined struggles for secular democracy in the Global South.'

She also argues that right-wing Muslims are not necessarily anti-imperialist or progressive, and wars like the Iraq War and the Palestinian conflict are about territory and resources and are nothing to do with religion.

Tax argues that people who criticise aspects of Islam are not necessarily Islamophobic, Orientalists or allies of US Imperialism and should not be labelled as such, and terrorism is not a legitimate way of defeating oppression.

She writes that 'Those who wish to transform society need to do so in ways that mobilise the positive transformational strengths of masses of people, rather than use methods of violence, dogmatism and authoritarianism' and instead advocates ‘anti imperialism combined with solidarity’.

Tax urges readers to ally themselves with progressive organisations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, which fight for women’s rights and genuine democracy.

'Democratic government,' she points out, 'is based on the idea that the state is delegated by the people rather than coming from God.'

She argues for the defence of ‘secular space’, and urges readers to resist religious encroachment on public life, as it muddles discussions about class, race and discrimination.

These problems do not just arise with right-wing Islam but can also occur with conservative Christianity, Judaism or any other religious belief, and it is a pity the book focuses primarily on Islam, rather than covering conservative religion more generally.

But it raises some valuable points nonetheless.

The Arab Spring and recent events in Egypt and Turkey show people, even in the ‘Muslim world’ are keen to resist religious domination of politics.

But liberals and those on the left can, often for the best of intentions, sometimes confuse right-wing religion with progressive politics.

As the 2011 Census showed, Britain is becoming more secular, but last year the Guardian reported that a third of new free schools are backed by religious organisations.

As society becomes more secular, we must be vigilant about religious encroachment on public life, and on women's rights.

And we must have the courage to question any religion's values and beliefs and, if necessary, challenge them.

Zero hours: A precarious existence

Zero-hours contracts offer no guaranteed hours or income, and their use in female-dominated industries is growing.

Last week the Resolution Foundation launched a report, A Matter of Time, charting the growth and spread of zero-hours contracts in Britain.

These are contracts in which an employer does not guarantee the employee a fixed number of hours per week, but the employee is expected to be on call and receive payment only for hours actually worked.

The government is currently reviewing the use of zero-hours contracts and Andy Sawford MP has introduced a Private Members’ Bill calling for them to be banned.

Zero-hours contracts offer no guaranteed hours or income. The employer does not have to offer any hours and, in theory, the employee does not have to accept them.

Some argue that this allows more flexibility, but there is less certainty.

The use of zero  hours in the UK has grown in recent years.

Introducing the report, Matthew Pennycook, senior research and policy analyst at the Resolution 

Foundation, said 140,000 workers were employed on these contracts in 2006, in 2012 there were over 200,000.

This is likely to be an underestimation because zero hours are common in industries like home care, which, according to the Office for National Statistics, employs over 650,000 people, 84 per cent of whom are women.

And their use is spreading.

In the past zero-hours contracts were confined to low-paid and low-skilled work like home care and hospitality; they are now spreading to white collar jobs like further and higher education and administration.

According to the research, workers on zero-hours contracts are more likely to have lower pay even if they are graduates in relatively skilled jobs, work fewer hours and to be looking for another job or for extra hours.

The authors claim zero-hours contracts are used to reduce costs, and to avoid some elements of employment protection.

Workers on zero-hours contracts tend to have worker, rather than employee, status allowing employers to avoid benefits like maternity pay.

While some people may welcome the flexibility, being on a zero-hours contract has a negative side.

One further education lecturer told the researchers: “Many of my colleagues who are raising families have got into serious debt through zero-hours contracts because they cannot be sure what they will get in each month.

“Those who have avoided serious debt have done so through living with parents, drawing on savings, having redundancy pay from previous jobs to fall back on.”

With such fluctuating hours it can be difficult for workers to prove how many hours they work, making it difficult for them to claim tax credits. Workers who refuse hours may find themselves penalised.

A home care worker said: “When I started out my current job I did nine weeks without a single day off and 

I was regularly working anything up to 55-60 hours per week.

"Since putting my foot down and refusing to work every other weekend, I still work 12 days on and two off, [but] my hours have dried up.”

All this uncertainty affects the quality of service.

Another care worker said: “I have no faith or commitment to the company since they put us on zero 

hours.

“All the girls whose contracts changed feel the same. And it definitely has an impact on the care we provide.... Now everyone is worried about looking for other jobs and that rubs off on patients.”

Professor Jill Rubery, head of the people management and organisation division at Manchester Business School, surveyed 52 home care providers.

Nearly 70 per cent of the employers she surveyed only offered zero-hour contracts. Guaranteed hours were only available to those transferred from local authorities or car drivers.  Only 13 per cent offered all staff guaranteed hours.

Over 80 per cent of the employers surveyed offered no pay for travel time; many workers have to pay travel costs; if a client is temporarily hospitalised the worker would lose the hours, and therefore the income; and 88 per cent of the employers did not pay for breaks between clients.

“Any absences of care staff, or new clients leads to the constant renegotiation of who was going to cover, so even when a worker was on an unpaid break they would be constantly rung up and asked to work, so even when you are on an unpaid break you would be constantly reminded of being at work.

“The result is working days that are extremely long.

"Many start at seven in the morning and finish work after ten at night with multiple breaks in between. Six and seven-day working is common.  If they provided more care than was commissioned that was at the cost of their own time,” she said.

Rubery believes that budgets cuts mean risk is shifting from local authorities to care providers and on to the workers, resulting in high staff turnover and difficulties with staff recruitment, which can lead to poor performance.

“It is quite sobering that the sector that has the sharpest employment practices in the country is one that is taking care of our most vulnerable people,” said Sarah O’Connor from the Financial Times, who chaired the report's launch event.

Heather Wakefield, head of Unison Local Government said zero-hours contracts were being promoted as a way of saving costs in local government, and were likely to spread to the NHS following the introduction of the ‘any qualified provider’ regime.

“If you look at local government most of the jobs are part time. These are jobs that were constructed with the growth of the welfare state after the Second World War to be part time.  That little, local part-time job mainly for women,” she said.

She said some workers were asked to provide their own uniforms, mobile phones and cars. Some even had to pay for the badge of the multi-national care company to be sewn onto their uniforms.

Matthew Oakley, head of economics and social policy at Policy Exchange, argued that zero-hours contracts should not be regarded as universally bad: having a job was better than not having one; some people may like the flexibility that zero-hours contracts offer and they may offer a stepping stone into work.

Banning them could lead to an increase in other precarious forms of employment such as agency work, which offer even less employment protection.

But Professor Guy Standing, author of The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, said the official unemployment rates underestimated the ‘labour slack’ rate, times when workers are effectively out of work, but officially employed.

He called for the introduction of a basic income for all, and for employers to pay a standby bonus during leaner times. Those employing workers on zero-hours should pay a higher bonus.

He said that, in the short term, anyone who quits a zero-hours contract should not be penalised when applying for unemployment benefits and unemployed people should be able to refuse an offer of a zero-hours job, without risking losing their benefits.

In the long term people need a degree of security and a collective voice.

“These forms of highly exploitative labour are very unfairly distributed," he said.

“It is vital for us to reconceptualise what we mean by work.  Every feminist, and I hope we are all feminists, should be shouting from the rooftop.  All these politicians when they talk about work are only talking about paid work.

“A lot of these people on highly insecure contracts have to do a lot of work that does not get counted as work and does not get remunerated as work.  This is a form of indirect exploitation,” he said.

Committee supports women's rights at work

Parliamentary committee report voices equality concerns.

The Parliamentary Committee on Business Innovation and Skills recently published the findings of its  review into women and in the workplace, following widespread concerns that women are falling behind in the career stakes.

The committee looked at all aspects of women’s work and career development from careers advice, to training, progression and protection against discrimination.

They were concerned at the lack of careers advice offered to boys and girls, and called for a cultural change in education, especially at the point when pupils choose subjects.

Girls in particular can find themselves discouraged from studying science and technology.

The committee believes the government should set targets for women in technical apprenticeships and use its funding to force higher education institutions to improve the proportion of women studying science and technology-related (STEM) subjects.

The government should use its buying power to promote private-sector firms with a good track record of employing and promoting women.

The committee was concerned that the Women in Work programme, which helps women get back into work, could be under threat now that Sector Skills Councils have to bid for funding, rather than receiving grants.

It recommended that large private companies should be forced to undertake and publish equal pay audits, and if necessary, compelled to publish data on the number of women in senior positions.

And the Public Sector Equality Duty, which requires public bodies to consider equality when employing staff and providing services, should be left intact.

The committee recommended that employees should be able to ask for flexible working from day one, rather than after six months, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission should be offered more resources to support small and medium-sized businesses to introduce flexible employment.

It urged the government to fund more research into maternity discrimination and recommended that women should not be charged the £1,200 fee when claiming maternity discrimination at an Employment Tribunal.

Valuing Maternity, a consortium of groups campaigning for better maternity rights for working women, said it would be pushing the government to implement the report's findings.

It welcomed a judicial review launched by public sector union UNISON, against the introduction of the employment tribunal fees.

Vital reading. Click here to see the whole paper.