Two debates on Palestine Action and climate change
We were pleased to welcome Phil from Southampton back to the Café who helped set up a café in Southampton but which sadly, did not survive the Covid hiatus.
Once again, we offer thanks to the Library for allowing us to meet there.
Nine topics were suggested but winning through for the first half was Should Palestine Action be a proscribed organisation? By way of background, the organisation had mounted a number of protests and the last one was to get into RAF Brize Norton and spray aircraft with red paint. This had prompted the organisation to be proscribed.
It was immediately claimed that their action at the RAF base did not seem to cross the threshold of the Terrorism Act, 2000. [This said in the interpretation section ‘terrorism’ means, inter alia, intimidation of the public, involves serious violence against the person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life …]. None of these seems applicable – who was terrorised at Brize Norton?
It was also quickly questioned why other legislation could not have been used, criminal damage for example? Although this might have failed as it was noted the paint did not seriously damage the planes.
The Home secretary had achieved the ban by linking the Commons motion in with two other decidedly violent organisations leaving MPs limited options to object. The others were Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. This move was described as ‘deeply cynical’. The speed with which the government moved was also noted and the methods used to tarnish the reputation of Palestine Action. This had to be seen alongside the government’s refusal to sanction Israeli politicians.
Perhaps the reasons behind the speedy action was firstly, the ease with which the protestors had accessed the base and secondly, it highlighted the role of the RAF in the Gaza conflict. They had undertaken around 600 flights ostensibly to help with the location of the hostages – which seemed to have been a spectacular waste of money – but it was suggested to give information to the IDF which they used to identify alleged Hamas terrorists. Clearly the government did not want this to become well known.
The conversation moved on to protests generally and it was noted this was the latest in a long line of legislation making protest harder and harder. Politicians keen to support the idea of protests as long as they are not effective. It seems sometimes that only direct action has any chance of success. There was a call for people to come together to try and counter some of the mis-information. Suella Braverman’s aim to get minor acts treated as severe has been overruled by the High Court it was noted.
Protests were a means to gain the attention of the public it was suggested and labelling such groups as ‘terrorists’ was just a convenient label. Was it to do with content someone asked? If it had been to do with Ukraine would the home secretary taken the same action?
The latest plan by the Israeli government to create a ‘Humanitarian City‘ on the ruins of Rafah was mentioned. This would be to confine Palestinians to an even smaller area than now. It was an attempt at ethnic cleansing. It was noted that the IDF was not happy with the proposal as it was not part of their war plans.
Was the influence of the US to be detected in the government’s actions? The unquestioning support of Israel was perhaps evidence of that. Was there a fear of offending Donald Trump? The role of money and business also playing a part.
The singer Bob Vylan and his set at Glastonbury made a brief appearance. Singing ‘death, death to the IDF’ caused a huge storm and a major reaction against the BBC for not pulling the performance. It was noted that young people supported the singer. The ‘Brandenburg test’ was mentioned which said speech which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action‘. This was a case in Ohio. Whether Bob Vylan met this test remains to be seen.
We were reminded of the Greenham Common protests (and two of those present took part!) where the perimeter fence had been penetrated. CND were effective in raising consciences about nuclear weapons but were never proscribed. Clearly things had changed. Was it the effects of 9/11 someone wondered?
An interesting debate and it is probably true to say that few if any agreed with decision to proscribe Palestine Action. The lumping them in with two other organisations was seen as deeply cynical.
The second topic – or should I say a combination of three topics – concerned the climate. Appropriately so as we were basking in a heat wave, the second of the year. The three were have climate protests been subdued? what individual actions can be taken? and is climate change caused by us?
It was noted that climate protests have dwindled, possibly linked to the previous topic. Government actions were at a lower level it was claimed. Was climate change a result of human action anyway? We have had periods of extreme weather in the past, could this just be another phase? There had after all been an ide age not many centuries ago.
Climate protests have been effective it was argued. There is a much greater awareness of climate issues today. There are more and more electric vehicles on the road and people undertook much more recycling now. Salisbury Transition City was mentioned. There were concerns that things were not happening quickly enough though. 78% in Salisbury were said to be concerned about climate change.
It was argued that the weight of evidence and a preponderance of scientists were agreed that human activity has had an effect. There was a lot of research to back this up. There was a worry about ‘greenwashing’ where companies try and persuade the public they are doing more than they really are. Oil companies were also funding institutions which made denialist claims.
It was pointed out that many years ago, parts of N Africa and the Middle East were once forested long before industrialisation took place. What mattered was heat and a factor today is the enormous amount of heat we produce from running computer systems and the like. Bitcoin consumed electricity equivalent to Argentina to run its calculations. It was suggested that a MIT study showed we should now be entering a period of cooling [I was not able to locate this on MIT’s site]. The biggest contributors to climate problems were agriculture and industry.
A worry was that climate science was increasingly being ‘weaponised’. Papers were being used to refute basic facts. The US was defunding institutions which were working on climate science. Climate justice and social justice were two equivalent issues and the public were increasingly being moving towards the latter. Issues like cost of living were now top of the agenda.
The majority wanted climate action it was suggested. We were warned against ‘binary thinking’ and it was a pity this idea wasn’t developed more in the context of the discussion. Basically, things are seldom straightforwardly right or wrong but usually more complex or nuanced.
Why weren’t we doing more it was asked? Several answers: it wasn’t cheap. Insulation and making homes climate proof would cost billions. It wasn’t popular and by contrst, the popularity of politicians calling for an end to net zero was clear. Perhaps the most significant point was the policy of growth which the government was concentrating on. If the focus was on growth then climate mitigation issues were likely to take a back seat. The issue of climate change and growth was noted. Since agriculture was a major factor in global warming – the methane ’emissions’ from cattle in particular – a meat tax was a desirable objective but was a vote loser someone noted. Another point in the same vein was consumerism which directly linked to climate pressures.
Maybe a driving force in the future is insurance. Insurance companies were less and less likely to offer cover to properties likely to be affected by flooding for example. Insurance costs could exceed the costs of not doing something
We were reminded towards the end of Doughnut economics which is about how humanity conducts its affairs in the light of the planet’s finite resources. There was a suggestion that we should be supporting the global south to develop their economies sustainably not follow in the path the West has done.
Finally, this picture was displayed during our debate. It was submitted as part of the current exhibition but could not be shown because of its political nature. It is by RM Wilde CBE.
Peter Curbishley
Next meeting on August 9th.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 