From Neurodivergent Labour

On 15 June, the Home Office decided that it would not proceed with their barbaric intention to deport autistic, learning-disabled man Osime Brown to a place he has no knowledge of.

The victory comes after more than a year of campaigning by a coalition of activists and organisations, under the instrumental guidance of Osime’s mum, Joan. When ND Labour came into the campaign about a year ago, awareness about the case was limited to a layer of autistic and neurodivergent activists and migrants’ rights groups. It was a campaign typical of the classic style: a petition and social media, drawing supporters to spread the message online, raise the petition numbers, and get media coverage.

Strong efforts had gone into laying the foundations — Autistic Inclusive Meets (AIM) in particular done important work amongst others. But we knew we had to raise the bar. We knew that the campaign had huge potential to rapidly grow because of the breadth and the significance of the issues that it highlighted — autism, migrants’ rights, and all at a time when Black Lives Matter protests were sweeping the country.

The role of Neurodivergent Labour in the campaign was to draw together the dimensions of the struggle — autism, migrants’ rights, racism, and the failures of educational and social care systems. This was something that happened organically, but it needed a more explicit voice. Even though our organisation is focussed on neurodivergence, we knew that it was no good just emphasising Osime’s autism, because, as cases like this show, you can’t just fight for autistic rights, while migrant rights are under attack; and you can’t fight for either of those things without recognising the history and daily reality of racial injustice. It was our job to tie these issues together, and to bring them into Labour and the trade unions in order to mobilise the power and the universality of the workers’ movement behind them. As a result, different, and hitherto disparate political activists and organisations became more understanding and sympathetic to struggles beyond their immediate horizons.

Along with many individual CLPs and trade union branches, two national unions supported the campaign. An Early Day Motion was tabled in Parliament led by Nadia Whittome and John McDonnell and we brought the experience of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement on board. We spoke at meetings, and pushed the issue into the movement from top to bottom.

Most importantly of all, we needed to move this issue from social media, onto the streets.

We were constantly stymied by lockdown regulations to hold a mass demonstration, although some smallish, weekday protests had happened prior.

By the time Kill the Bill Protests were happening across the country, Osime’s name was on placards and being talked about in speeches, and after some delay the campaign agreed to hold a march from the Home Office to Parliament Square before a final decision about whether to continue with the deportation was made. About 200 people turned up at short notice, and it was beautiful to see the flowering of a campaign that truly intersected across so many lines and campaigns.

We are proud of having played our role in this campaign. The best victories happen when grass-roots labour movement initiatives are willing to act as the adhesive that binds together the different elements of our class in all of its diversity.

Osime still has an unjust conviction against his name. The campaign to clear him continues. Sign the new petition

By Josh Lovell (Cambridge UCU delegate)

The University and College Union (UCU) held its annual Congress and its Further Education and Higher Education sector conferences (FESC and HESC respectively) on 29 May to 2 June. Given the current state of restrictions, these were all held online. Over 200 delegates were present, 67 motions/rule changes were submitted, and speaking requests for each debate had to be made in advance. I attended both UCU Congress and the HESC as a delegate from Cambridge University UCU, so will only report on those meetings (for which motion results only emerged on 15th June). All motions and results can be found on the UCU website.

This meeting was held with the backdrop of the UK government increasingly crippling post-16 education: with funding cuts, the poor handling of basic health and safety provision in the pandemic, escalating tensions between the national USS pensions management and university staff, and tightening rules on free speech. These issues dominated the agenda, though motions on more general political issues were also heard.

Motions on “Myanmar Solidarity”, and “China, Hong Kong and the Uyghurs” were submitted to Congress, written and pushed by independent left members of the union including readers and supporters of Solidarity. Despite calls for the motion on China to be remitted (based partly on Uyghur genocide denial by members of the union’s IBL faction, comprising the right wing and a smattering of “tankies”), remission was rejected by a slim margin (115-91), and the full motion passed overwhelmingly (165-23). The union now has a clear stance against the authoritarianism of the Chinese state, and for building links with pro-democracy currents within China, Hong Kong and East Turkestan.

The call to support the Myanmar Civil Disobedience Movement passed resoundingly and means the UCU will also strengthen ties with the movement resisting the Burmese military coup. As reported in Solidarity online, I also spoke in the debate on Israel/Palestine against boycotts of Israeli academic institutions, and the need to build links with pro-peace activist groups within Israel as a bulwark to the hard-right policies of the Israeli government.

Delegates were critical of the government’s move to force universities to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism into their statutes as potentially limiting rights to organise on campus and raising the disciplinary powers of our employers. However little was said about the educative value that the IHRA definition can provide in combating antisemitism, with this definition being widely condemned. The outcome was that instead of campaigning against the need for enhancing statute rules, UCU branches will likely campaign for a different definition to be adopted, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. That definition does not come without its own problems, and the fundamental problem of tackling left antisemitism, in my view, remained unaddressed by the union.

By Abel Harvie-Clark

The student occupations at Sheffield Hallam and Manchester Universities have ended, due to heavy-handed attempts by university management to criminalise the protests, and a refusal to engage with their demands.

The students leave with their heads held high, however, as their three week long protest has demonstrated how to militantly oppose the marketised higher education system. The fact that universities still remain able to resist these immediate demands does not deter students from promising to continue with radical tactics.

The campaigns that have emerged around fee and rent strikes this year have adopted encouraging wide-ranging politics, pledging solidarity with struggles both on campus and beyond. The hundreds of millions of pounds invested by UK universities in Israel’s denial of Palestinians’ human rights through weaponry, surveillance and occupation have rightly been called out by the student campaigns that have gained a platform this year. The investments are indicative of the deeply neoliberal machines that universities have become, but student action and divestment campaigns could change this.

Student campaign group Apartheid Off Campus organised protests on Saturday 15 May with other youth groups such as Global Majority vs UK Gov, connecting the struggle against oppression from Colombia to Palestine. Internationalism is a great strength of this young generation of protestors, which has taken inspiration from the climate and BLM movements to demand international, anti-racist and anti-capitalist solutions to climate breakdown and national oppressions.

The new Police Bill seeks to attack this spirit of protesting, but universities have already been cracking down on student organising long before the most recent occupation evictions. The Prevent agenda has been thought-policing student campaigns, notably those connecting with Palestinian solidarity.

The charity status of student unions has been used, foremostly by the officers of those unions, to limit their political action, negating the right for students to democratically pursue political positions and action. Student unions’ abandonment of campaigns this year when in negotiation with management has been a barrier to winning rent strike demands, and points to the need for left-wing students to engage with and take over their union’s democratic structures.

Activist groups and energetic campaigns are also necessary, but the democratic mandate and accountability of student unions are needed to stand up to bullying managements and mobilise more students.

Campaigns such as Preventing Prevent and Unis Resist Border Controls have been educating and organising on campus to oppose the stifling of dissent and the racist border regime that hinders international students from organising. Continuing big student mobilisations for ongoing demonstrations is important to strengthen campus organising.

In the upcoming weeks, students will be attending Myanmar general strike solidarity action (20-21 May), Kill the Bill protests (29 May), and Uyghur solidarity protests (4 June).

On 22-23 May there will be two youth sessions at the Asia-Europe People’s Forum, an open networking session for student campaigners to share their campaigns and make international connections; and a webinar with student campaigners from across Europe and Asia discussing “academic freedom as a democratising factor”.

By Michael Elms

In  February 2021, the military in Myanmar carried out a coup and abolished the elected government.

Since then, millions of people have taken to the streets to demand an end to dictatorship and democracy for Myanmar. This street movement, calling itself the Civil Disobedience Movement, has been led by trade unions and workers’ organisations.

Many workers in Myanmar’s garment factories, especially Yangon, have been out on strike. The army and police has met these protests with violence and live bullets. The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners said that as of 17 May, 802 people had been killed by the military for participating in the movement, 4,120 detained and 20 sentenced to death.

Many UK clothing brands use garment factories in Myanmar. In April, trade union leader Khaing Zar Aung described the situation for workers in garment factories:

“Many workers are afraid to go back to work, because of the total lack of security in the industrial zones. Thousands of workers have returned to their home villages during the violent crackdown taken place in Hlaing Thar Yar on 14-15 March, when military killed over 100 people in that industrial area. Many trade union leaders had to go into hiding, because military started searching for them at factory level and at their homes.  For many of them it is now difficult to return to work, due to lack of transportation and due to the many military checkpoints on the roads, where people are checked and arbitrarily detained or shot. 

“In Hlaing Thar Yar, the military is arbitrarily stopping workers on the streets demanding that they handle their phones to soldiers or under threat of arrest they obliging workers, if they do not have phones, to pay 20,000 MMK. During the 14-15 March crackdown, around 37 Chinese owned factories were burned or damaged. Two more garment factories in Hlaing Thar Yar were burned on April 7, leaving 16 people dead at the hands of the military.

“Also due to these events, many workers are afraid to go back to work, fearing that their factories may also get burned in the future. The military regime cut phone lines and mobile internet, so it is nearly impossible for workers to inform their employers, if they cannot return to work. Due to cut of communication, even union members cannot contact their union representatives and inform the employers.”

Trade unionists in Myanmar and around the world are demanding that global brands work with their suppliers to safeguard the jobs of workers who are unable to attend work due to the political situation. So far, some brands like H&M, Next, C&A, Primark and Benetton have suspended new orders. But they have not yet taken steps to ensure that wages and severance are being paid.

Labour Party Annual Conference will be taking place in person in Brighton, from Saturday 25 to Wednesday 29 September. With solid organisation and strong policies, the internationalist left made huge strides at 2019 conference; it’s vital that we defend these gains and go further this year.

Momentum Internationalists are calling on supporters to work in your CLP now to pass motions and elect delegates for conference. The deadline for electing delegates is 9th July.

In terms of motions, the ones we have supported can be viewed here. We are particularly pushing the Build Back Better motion, as well as this motion on Curbing police powers, defending and enlarging rights to protest, changing society. 

Momentum Internationalists supporters will be taking actions at high-street brands in solidarity with the general strike in Myanmar. Trade unionists in Myanmar in organisations like the All-Burma Federation of Trade Unions (ABFTU) have put out a call for supporters worldwide to put pressure on brands which are doing business with the “Tatmadaw” military junta. Companies with stores in the UK have continued making orders from Myanmar this week, despite the ongoing strike against the military junta, and state violence that prevents workers getting to factories.

Join one of the following demonstrations, or get in touch for support to organise your own:

Sheffield: Saturday 22 May 11am H&M on Fargate

Newcastle: Friday 21 May, 2pm, H&M on Northumberland Street

North London: Sunday 23 May, 11am H&M in Wood Green

South London: Thurs 20 May, 17:45pm, Brixton H&M, 461 Brixton Road.

Download the demonstration leaflet

If you can’t make the actions but want to support still, you can sign this statement, already backed by John McDonnel MP and Ian Hodson, BFAWU national president, to add your name to the pressure, stay in touch with further solidarity action, and take the statement to your trade union branch..

For English-language coverage of events in Myanmar, follow @AndrewTSaks on Twitter

This CLP expresses its solidarity with labour movement, left-wing, anti-racist and pro-peace activists in Israel and Palestine fighting for a just settlement to the wider conflict based on mutual recognition and self-determination.

We call for an end to Israel’s bombing of Gaza, and an end to Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

We call for an end to the growing discrimination and racism against Arab citizens of Israel, including the police repression and evictions which helped spark the current events.

We call for withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Occupied Territories, evacuation of settlements, and the creation of a genuinely independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with the same rights as Israel.

We stand with our Palestinian and Israeli comrades, against Israel’s radical right government, the insurgent far right movements supporting it, and the far right chauvinists of Hamas. We will organise a public meeting with a speaker from Israel’s cross community peace and social justice movement Standing Together.

By Mohan Sen

“Keir Starmer is expected to reshuffle his top team and kick off a policy review”, reports the Guardian, “as he seeks to reassert his leadership after a string of embarrassing losses…”

“A senior party source [said]: ‘We have got to change, and that has got to be much harder and faster than we anticipated six months ago,’ they said, adding: ‘We have got to look at the policy platform across the board, post-pandemic.'”

Ex-Blairite MP Alan Milburn, who ran a “Social Mobility Commission” for the Tories under Cameron, has been doing the rounds saying Labour policy needs to be changed.

What policy?

With local elections across the country, the party said nothing about the virtual destruction of local government which the Tories are still pushing forward. Not even a promise of more money for councils, let alone a timetable for reversing all the cuts or any proposals to lead a fightback.

After the disasters of the last year, it said nothing about sick pay or about social care. There was a lame attempt to make to election about NHS pay – presumably in order to avoid having a policy on council funding – foundered and was abandoned when it became clear that people wanted to know what Labour was actually advocating (and it certainly wasn’t healthworkers’ demand of 15%). Nothing about the NHS in general – after the last year!

Although it is somewhat hard to see how, a “policy review” clearly means an attempt to shift things even further right, through top-down decision making by the Leader’s Office and other cliques.

Starmer’s ministerial reshuffles certainly point in that direction.

The argument coming from the Labour right seems to be that to progress the party needs to ditch Corbyn-era policies – when in reality it has already ditched them, and that is in fact part (only part) of the problem.

Polling in Hartlepool commissioned by the Communication Workers’ Union showed strong support for “Corbynite” Labour policies – including for instance free broadband.

A big problem problem under Corbyn was that left-wing policies were neither developed democratically nor campaigned for consistently. Ditching left policies, rather than campaigning for them, has predictably made Labour’s disarray even worse.

Labour and trade union activists and officers should insist that policy is “reviewed” by Labour Party conference, the democratic-decision making body representing party members and affiliates.

Labour conference has already passed a stock of policies which, whatever their inadequacies (and of course the last conference was in 2019), would have been a lot more useful and made much more of an impact in the elections than Starmer’s vacuous pitch. And we have another conference coming up, in only four months.

Conference should “review” and decide Labour’s policies and then the party develop its message on that basis.