Category: Jeremy Corbyn
Corbyn told Venezuelan President Maduro that EU is ‘bad for the poor’
| July 27, 2017 | 8:00 pm | Jeremy Corbyn, Nicolas Maduro | No comments

https://www.rt.com/uk/397720-corbyn-maduro-eu-venezuela/

Scandalous! Corbyn Eats Pizza With ‘Russian Agent’: New McCarthyism, 2017-Style
| July 14, 2017 | 8:08 pm | Analysis, Jeremy Corbyn, Russia, Syria | No comments
Britain's opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn talks to the media after meeting European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier (not pictured) at the EU Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium July 13, 2017.

Scandalous! Corbyn Eats Pizza With ‘Russian Agent’: New McCarthyism, 2017-Style

© REUTERS/ Francois Lenoir
Columnists

Get short URL
Neil Clark
21543170
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201707141055542149-corbyn-papadopoulos-media-frenzy/

You are a man-of-the-people left-wing politician riding the crest of a wave of popularity. Members of the public regularly ask you to pose for photographs with them.

Do you: (a) Tell them to “Bugger Off!” (b) Say, “Of course, no problems, comrade,” and pose for the snap, (c) Hand the person a long questionnaire to fill in detailing their political views on foreign policy issues — including their positions on the Balkan wars, Syria, Russia, the NATO alliance, Israel, and the old Soviet Union, before consenting to be photographed with them.

Well, I’m sure you’ll agree that (b) is the answer most normal members of the human race would give. It’s certainly what Jeremy Corbyn does. But for Britain’s utterly ludicrous NeoCon Thought Police (b) is the wrong answer. The Labour leader should check first, in great detail, the political views on foreign policy before he agrees to be photographed with anyone.

Corbyn has come under ferocious attack from Establishment gatekeepers in both the “old” and “new” media for having his picture taken with one Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos in a London eaterie earlier this week.

“Jeremy Corbyn pictured enjoying pizza with controversial pro-Assad campaigner who denied the Srebrenica genocide” was one headline. “Corbyn spent yesterday evening with Assad-loving genocide-denier” was another. The news even hit the United States — with an added but predictable twist. “Jeremy Corbyn just met with a Russian agent,” the Washington Examiner dramatically declared. “Papadopoulos is much more than a sycophant for slaughter. He’s a Russian ‘active measures agent.’ ” Whoever said Senator Joe McCarthy was dead and buried?

Let’s get one thing cleared up first. Dr. Papadopoulos was wrong to state that a genocide did not take place at Srebrenica. It did. He has said it was a “war crime,” but not genocide. This is at variance with the 2007 ruling of the International Court of Justice which held that a genocide did indeed occur (and that the government in Belgrade was not directly responsible for it). But how on earth was Corbyn expected to know Dr. Papadopoulos’ stance on this issue when he was asked for a photograph? Is he expected to quiz all those wanting a quick snapshot with him on their acceptance of historical genocides? Just how absurd would that be?

Even if Papadopoulos had acknowledged that a genocide did take place at Srebrenica, the truth is that it wouldn’t have made any difference. For a start, you don’t even have to be a “Srebrenica genocide denier” to be accused of being one by the NeoCon Thought Police, as I know only too well. I’m in the process of suing an obsessed and very creepy stalker who has repeatedly defamed me as a Srebrenica genocide denier.

In the case of Dr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Corbyn, the New McCarthyites would have found other reasons to make a huge fuss about the men being photographed together — as indeed they did. Kate McCann, in the Telegraph, declared: “Mr. Papadopoulos is famously outspoken on the subject of intervention abroad, particularly on the UK and America’s record. Among incriminating “recent messages: from Dr Papadopoulos that were produced as “evidence” against him were:

“We stand with Syria against US aggression. And No to Western-backed Islamist terrorism. #Syria.”

“#Israel is not — and never has been — in the fight against al-Qaeda. After all, Israeli hospitals treat wounded al-Qaeda fighters from Syria.”

And, wait for it: “President Assad, the guardian of Christians in #Syria, celebrating Easter. I stand with him 100%…”

The implication seems to be that Dr Papadopoulos should be saying “Yes” to Western-backed Islamist terrorism in Syria and standing 100% with those massacring Christians — which is a strange position to find in a “Middle England” conservative paper like the Daily Telegraph.

In a straight fight between Daesh/al-Qaeda and Syrian government forces, which Telegraph readers wouldn’t prefer the latter to prevail? After all, its not “Assad” who’s been organizing and inspiring terror attacks on UK citizens in Manchester and London, is it?

Furthermore, is the Telegraph’s senior political correspondent really saying that it’s “controversial” to be “outspoken” on the “record” of Britain’s and the US’ “intervention” abroad — interventions which have seen Iraq and Libya destroyed and large parts of North Africa and the Middle East turned into jihadist training camps? If we can’t be “outspoken” about the illegal Iraq war — fought on a brazen lie about WMDs — and which led to the deaths of one million innocent people and the rise of Daesh, what can we be outspoken about?

The attacks on Corbyn for being photographed with a person with the “wrong” views on foreign policy are another example of the McCarthyite device of “guilt by association.” It’s not just the things you say (or tweet) which can get you into trouble, it’s who you’re seen in public with too — and who you engage with on social media.

Interestingly, as Evolve Politics reveal, Dr. Papadopoulos has interviewed — and had his picture taken — with other prominent politicians, in his capacity as publisher and editor of Politics First magazine, but it’s the only the snap with Jezza which has caused outrage. What we’re witnessing is a campaign waged by the stenographers for the powerful to enforce the “correct” i.e. pro-war views on foreign policy and intimidate people from speaking out — even if their opposition to “liberal interventionism” and disastrous regime-change wars is shared by the vast majority of ordinary Britons.

The Dr. Papadopoulos/Mr. Corbyn story is not the only example of McCarthyism we’ve seen in recent days.

Aaron Bastani, of Novara Media, issued an “apology” for the heinous crime of speaking to the antiwar former MP George Galloway. Galloway is “black-balled” for comments he made years ago in relation to the Julian Assange case — and which was drawn to Bastani’s attention. Yet the Novara head is quite happy to speak to pro-war Labour MPs like Chuka Umunna. In McCarthyite Britain, saying a crass politically incorrect thing is a worse crime than supporting brutal wars of aggression which destroy entire countries and leave millions dead. That’s just how the warmongering elite like it to be.

The New McCarthyism may be ludicrous and easy to lampoon, but the sad thing is that it does have an effect. I know of at least one prominent British journalist who won’t come on RT because people would say he was in the pay of the Kremlin. Note too how Jeremy Corbyn and his Director of Communications, Seumas Milne — who seems to be under 24/7 surveillance these days — were regular guests on RT in the past, but haven’t appeared on the channel since they started in their new jobs. They know that if they did, the neocon punditocracy would screech “Russian agents!” so loud, you could hear it from Land’s End to John O’Groats.
​The attacks on, and obsessive Twitter hounding of those who do appear in Russian media like Sputnik and RT is an unedifying spectacle, and needless to say is not reported by the mainstream media. The only victims of “online abuse” we read about are pro-war MPs and Establishment-friendly pro-war journalists. Again, only the powerful can be victims.

To paraphrase the late Malcolm X, if you read certain newspapers and media outlets, you‘ll end up hating the oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. The aim of the New McCarthyism is the same as the old 1950s variety: it’s to bully and intimidate those who do dare to think differently on foreign policy issues to conform. Those who don’t, like George Galloway, who is arguably the bravest man in Britain for refusing to buckle, are accorded pariah status. Despite having been totally vindicated in his opposition to the illegal western wars of the last twenty years, Galloway’s politically-motivated expulsion from the Labour Party for comments made about the Iraq war in 2003, still stands.

The New McCarthyism seeks to narrow the parameters of “acceptable” debate — and in doing so, make sure the UK’s foreign policy stays the same. The treatment of dissidents like Galloway, who always speak their mind on world affairs, is a warning to others not to step out of line. Stick to “uncontroversial” domestic issues and posting pictures of your dog on Facebook, if you know what’s good for you.

Make no mistake the New McCarthyism represents the biggest threat to free-speech and free-thinking that Britain has ever known. So what can we do about it? Strength in numbers is the key. We — those who oppose illegal wars and want to see a world of genuine internationalism and peace between nations based on mutual respect, are the many; they — those who want the regime-change wars against independent countries to continue — are the few.

But it’s about time we made our superior numbers count. So take a stand against the New McCarthyites by sharing this article widely on social media and asking high profile media figures — who claim to be in favor of “free speech” and “free expression” — to do the same. And make sure you have a big bucket of icy cold water ready for Senator Joe’s “Why are you re-tweeting that?” Thought Police, when they come knocking on your front door.

Follow @NeilClark66 on Twitter

Support Neil Clark’s Anti-Stalker Crowd Fund

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Sanders won’t take 2020 presidential bid ‘off the table’

Sanders won’t take 2020 presidential bid ‘off the table’

Sanders won't take 2020 presidential bid 'off the table'
© Getty Images

Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersUK’s Corbyn: I told Bernie Sanders he gave me ‘campaign ideas’Poll: Sanders is most popular senator in any home stateSanders: No amendment could fix Senate’s ‘absolute disaster’ healthcare billMORE (I-Vt.) refused to swear off a 2020 presidential bid in an interview, arguing that it’s “much too early” to make a decision.

“I am not taking it off the table, I just have not made any decisions. And I think it’s much too early,” he said in an interview set to air Thursday morning with SiriusXM Progress’ “Make it Plain with Mark Thompson.”

“Our job right now is to not only fight against this disastrous healthcare proposal, it is to take on all of [President] Trump’s reactionary proposals … There’s a whole lotta fights that we have to fight. It is just too early to be talking about an election 3 1/2 years from now.”

Sanders has repeatedly kept the door open for a 2020 run amid constant speculation that he will seek to run again after falling short in the 2016 Democratic primary. That speculation came to ahead once again this week when Sanders announced he would return to Iowa, where he fell just a few delegates short of winning the 2016 caucus, as part of his book tour later this summer.

Outside of his work in office, Sanders remains extremely active politically, rallying his supporters against Trump and pushing the Democratic Party to embrace his progressive agenda. He’s continued to travel the country to support political candidates and an affiliated nonprofit, Our Revolution, works to advocate for his agenda and to back candidates up and down the ballot.

During the interview with SiriusXM, Sanders also shared his concerns about Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump’s lawyers knew about Trump Jr. emails weeks ago: reportKushner pushed WH for tougher defense of Trump Jr. emails: reportWhite House releases emails sent to voter fraud commissionMORE Jr. and his decision to release an email transcript that appears to show him setting up a meeting with a Russian lawyer who offered damaging information about Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonTrump’s lawyers knew about Trump Jr. emails weeks ago: reportKushner pushed WH for tougher defense of Trump Jr. emails: reportTrump Jr. pitch was part of broad Russian effortMORE.

“From my point of view, it is a very damaging piece of evidence. But what is important is that there be a methodical, objective, bipartisan process that looks at this whole business of the possibility of Trump’s campaign colluding with the Russians,” he said.

“This is pretty clearly a damaging revelation, but the process has got to continue, and it will.”

New Hope For Working People

New Hope For Working People

New Hope For Working People

After a series of depressing elections over the last year (the rise of Donald Trump was not the only case), some positive news for working people has arrived at the ballot box. Here are two very different scenarios, with some interesting similarities.

In British Columbia, one of the most right-wing governments in recent Canadian history got the hook on May 9. The Liberals won a few more votes than the NDP, but lost their majority in the Legislature, and the Greens ended up with the balance of power. Barring unexpected events, the NDP will take office by the end of June, ready to implement an accord with the Greens based largely on demands raised by people’s movements across the province. The accord isn’t a program to attack the basic political power of the big corporations, but it can help to reverse the worst impacts of austerity and cutbacks imposed by the Liberals since 2001 (and in fact by the previous NDP government of the 1990s). By any measure, this is a victory. But the only way to build on this accord is through mass mobilization and pressure by the labour and people’s movements.

On a global scale, the setback for Theresa May’s Tories in the UK a month later was a much bigger development. Not just because Britain is a key ally of US imperialism, but also because Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn campaigned as a socialist, on a platform calling for radical reforms.

There is much to discuss and debate about these complex events, along with the continued popularity of Bernie Sanders in the United States. One thing is certain: the myth that working people reject the concept of socialism has been decisively disproven. A better world remains both possible and necessary!

Why Are So Many Young Voters Falling for Old Socialists?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/sunday/sanders-corbyn-socialsts.html?emc=edit_th_20170617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=65411337&referer=
By SARAH LEONARD

At 68, Jeremy Corbyn has been on the Labour Party’s left flank longer than many of his most enthusiastic supporters — the ones who nearly propelled him to an upset victory in this month’s British general election — have been alive. Bernie Sanders, who won more votes from young people in the 2016 primaries than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton combined, is 75, and has a demeanor that, honestly, reminds me of my Jewish grandfather. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Communist-backed candidate who, thanks to support from young people, surged in the polls ahead of the first round of France’s presidential election, is a sprightly 65.

What has driven so many young people into passionate political work, sweeping old socialists with old ideas to new heights of popularity? To understand what is going on, you have to realize that politicians like Mr. Sanders and Mr. Corbyn have carried the left-wing torch in a sort of long-distance relay, skipping generations of centrists like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, to hand it to today’s under-35s. And you have to understand why young people are so ready to grab that torch and run with it.

Both Britain and the United States used to have parties that at least pledged allegiance to workers. Since the 1970s, and accelerating in the ’80s and ’90s, the left-wing planks have one by one been ripped from their platforms. Under Mr. Blair, Labour rewrote its famous Clause IV, which had committed the party to the goal of “common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” Under Mr. Clinton, the Democratic Party cut welfare programs and pushed anti-worker international trade deals. Writing in 1990, Kevin Phillips, a former strategist for Richard Nixon, called the Democrats “history’s second-most enthusiastic capitalist party.” Elsewhere in Europe, traditional socialist parties became sclerotic and increasingly business-friendly.

All of this left many voters with a sense that there is no left-wing party devoted to protecting the interests of the poor, the working class and the young.

Meanwhile, people my age — I’m 29 — are more in need of a robust leftist platform than ever. The post-Cold War capitalist order has failed us: Across Europe and the United States, millennials are worse off than their parents were and are too poor to start new families. In the United States, they are loaded with college debt (or far less likely to be employed without a college degree) and are engaged in precarious and non-unionized labor. Also the earth is melting.

There’s nothing inherently radical about youth. But our politics have been shaped by an era of financial crisis and government complicity. Especially since 2008, we have seen corporations take our families’ homes, exploit our medical debt and cost us our jobs. We have seen governments impose brutal austerity to please bankers. The capitalists didn’t do it by accident, they did it for profit, and they invested that profit in our political parties. For many of us, capitalism is something to fear, not celebrate, and our enemy is on Wall Street and in the City of London.

Because we came to political consciousness after 1989, we’re not instinctively freaked out by socialism. In fact, it seems appealing: In a 2016 poll conducted by Harvard, 51 percent of Americans between 18 and 29 rejected capitalism, and a third said they supported socialism. A Pew poll in 2011 showed that the same age bracket had more positive views of socialism than capitalism. What socialism actually means to millennials is in flux — more a falling out with capitalism than an adherence to one specific platform. Still, within this generation, certain universal programs — single-payer health care, public education, free college — and making the rich pay are just common sense.

At the ballot box, our options have been relatively limited. Clinton- and Blair-era liberals have hobbled their parties’ abilities to confront the ills of capitalism. But while left-of-center parties ran into the waiting arms of bankers, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Corbyn held fast to left-wing politics.

In May, when Labour’s manifesto calling for free university education and increased spending on the National Health Service was leaked, Britain’s mainstream press responded with derision: “Labour’s Manifesto to Drag Us Back to the 1970s” read a headline in the Daily Mail. (In fact, some of Mr. Corbyn’s proposals, like nationalizing rail and water companies, hark directly back to Labour’s Clause IV commitments.) To some readers it may have sounded like a threat, but to many young people it was a promise. Following the headlines, Labour’s poll numbers surged. In the election on June 8, the party finished with a shocking 40 percent of the vote, its highest share in years. And much of the success was thanks to young voters.

Of course, Mr. Corbyn, who is famous for cycling to work and being “totally anti-sugar on health grounds,” has a certain ascetic charm. And there’s something appealingly unpretentious about Mr. Sanders’s Brooklyn accent and disheveled appearance. But it seems safe to say that their success with young people has been based on their platforms, not their charisma.

That’s a good thing, too, since, sooner or later, those platforms will need to acquire new representatives. America’s working class is increasingly racially diverse. Hotly contested politics around race, gender and sexuality shape our political terrain (and our experience of downward mobility). Mr. Sanders suffered shortcomings on this front: He freely confessed to not comprehending the scale of American police brutality when he began his campaign; he can sound awkward when it comes to race and gender.

The upside is that Mr. Sanders’s campaign and Mr. Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party have paved the way for a socialist politics that doesn’t just look like them.

The day after the election in Britain, I flew to Chicago to speak at the People’s Summit, a national convention of progressive and left-wing activists organized by people from the Bernie Sanders campaign alongside National Nurses United.

Also attending were a next generation of leftist organizers and candidates: Linda Sarsour, a 37-year-old Palestinian-American organizer from New York known for her skill in building bridges among communities; Dante Barry, the 29-year-old executive director of the Million Hoodies Movement for Justice; and Maria Svart, also in her 30s, who became the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America in 2011.

I encountered many young people who found themselves radicalized over the last couple of years and are now joining campaigns in their communities for state-level single payer health care or for better housing. Those campaigns exist because older campaigners have carried the torch. Out of all this activity, a next generation of socialist candidates who actually reflect America is almost guaranteed to emerge.

When Mr. Sanders took to the stage, I looked around to see hundreds of young organizers cheering his democratic socialist agenda. I hit the convention floor and saw people my own age tabling for new lefty magazines and organizations. A friend texted me a Corbyn emoji: thumbs up.

Three days after Britain’s general election, Mr. Corbyn sat down for an interview with Andrew Marr on the BBC. Mr. Marr grilled the Labour leader on the feasibility of turning his platform into governing policy. Was Mr. Corbyn, at this point in his career, really in it for the long haul? “Look at me!” he said. “I’ve got youth on my side.”

Correction: June 16, 2017

An earlier version of a caption accompanying this article misstated Senator Bernie Sanders’s party. He is an independent, not a Democrat.

Britain’s Real Terror Apologists
| June 15, 2017 | 7:32 pm | Analysis, Jeremy Corbyn, political struggle, UK | No comments
The Leader of Britain's opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn listens to a speech on the first day of the Labour Party conference, in Liverpool, Britain September 25, 2016.

Britain’s Real Terror Apologists

© REUTERS/ Peter Nicholls
Columnists

Get short URL
Finian Cunningham
UK General Election 2017 (128)
122888362
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201706111054524439-britain-real-terror-apologists/

Despite a vicious smear campaign to denigrate Britain’s Labour leader as a “terrorist sympathizer,” Jeremy Corbyn still pulled off an amazing achievement in the general election.

Hardly has a politician in any Western state been so vilified with character assassination, and yet he has proven to be most popular Labour leader in Britain since the Second World War.

After weeks of trailing his Conservative rival Theresa May in the polls, Corbyn’s socialist manifesto appealed to a record number of voters – closing the gap between the parties to only two percentage points behind the Tories.

UK 2017 general election results

Official results
value, %
1
Conservatives (Con)
Theresa May
42,4
2
Labour (Lab)
Jeremy Corbyn
40
3
Liberal Democrats (LD)
Tim Farron
7,4
4
Scottish National Party (SNP)
Nicola Sturgeon
3
5
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
Paul Nuttall
1,8
6
Others
5,3

Seats won

318
12
Con
262
33
Lab
12
3
LD
35
19
SNP
0
1
UKIP
23
4
Others
326 seats required for a majority
Latest update 09.06.17 20:27 GMT

This was in spite of a concerted media campaign to destroy Corbyn in the eyes of the British public as a “terrorist stooge.” The irony here is that the Conservative party is forming a governing coalition with a little-known Northern Ireland party whose history is steeped in British state terrorism. (More on that in a moment.)

For Corbyn, the election outcome was a stunning moral victory. For Prime Minister May it was a humiliating defeat. The Conservatives lost their overall majority in the British parliament and now they have to rely on this reactionary fringe party from Northern Ireland to form a government.May called the snap election because she thought her party would increase its majority and also because she calculated that Corbyn’s socialist direction of Labour would be wiped out. Many Blairite naysayers in his own party thought so too.

The opposite happened. The British public largely rejected May and her neoliberal capitalist, pro-austerity, pro-NATO policies. They instead rallied behind Corbyn. Granted, the Tories still won the election – only narrowly – but the surge in support for Labour under Corbyn means that he has galvanized a party that stands a strong chance of winning if another election is called. And that could be soon, perhaps in the coming months owing May’s shaky ad hoc government collapsing.

Another riveting factor in all this is that Corbyn’s success came amid a torrential Tory and right-wing media campaign to denigrate him as a terrorist sympathizer. The propaganda onslaught was conducted for months since May called the election back in April. And it grew to a frenzy as election day approached last Thursday, especially when the opinion polls showed Labour steadily whittling away the earlier Conservative support.The day before the public went to the polling booths, the Daily Mail ran the front page headline: “Apologist for terror,” with Jeremy Corbyn’s photo below. It looked like a “wanted poster” from the Wild West. The only thing missing was the subhead with the words: “Wanted dead or alive.”

The scurrilous allegation pounded over and over by the largely pro-Conservative British media that Corbyn is “soft on terrorism” stems from his otherwise principled history of campaigning on international justice and peace.

Over his 35 years as an MP, he has voiced consistent support for Palestinian rights under illegal Zionist occupation; he has supported Hezbollah resistance against Israeli and American aggression; and during the conflict in Northern Ireland, Corbyn gave a voice to Irish Republicans who were being assailed by British military violence.Many other international causes could be mentioned, such as Corbyn opposing British government weapons dealing with the despotic Saudi regime which is propagating terrorism in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

He has also campaigned to abandon nuclear weapons and is critical of NATO’s reckless expansion in Europe, which have earned him the jingoistic pillorying by the British establishment of “being soft on Russia.”

Corbyn has never condoned terrorism. Rather he has always sought to properly put it in a wider context of other parties also, unaccountably, using terrorism and thus fueling conflict.

This brings us to so-called Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) from Northern Ireland whose 10 MPs Theresa May’s Tories are now relying on to form a government. This party was formed in the early 1970s by the firebrand Protestant preacher Ian Paisley. While Paisley mellowed in later years before his death in 2014, he spent most of his career preaching vile hatred against Catholics and Irish Republicans, whom he saw as a threat to the political union between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain. In British-run Northern Ireland, it wasn’t acceptable to have a democratic aspiration for an independent Ireland. You were either a pro-British unionist or a “threat.” So much for British democracy.Senior members of Paisley’s pro-British party played a crucial role in smuggling massive caches of weapons into Northern Ireland during the 1980s to illegally arm unionist paramilitaries. These paramilitaries went on to murder hundreds of innocent people simply because they were Catholics, who tended to be Republican. A favored tactic of these paramilitaries was to storm into pubs and homes and indiscriminately mow people down with assault rifles.

One notorious pro-British killer was Gusty Spence who belonged to the Ulster Volunteer Force paramilitary. He later expressed remorse and deplored Ian Paisley, the DUP founder, as the person who incited him to murder innocent Catholics due to his sectarian hate speech.

The paramilitary murder gangs were not just supported covertly by members of the DUP. The British government of Margaret Thatcher – Theresa May’s predecessor and political heroine – orchestrated these same death squads in a covert policy of “dirty war.”British military intelligence colluded with the pro-unionist militants to assassinate Republican politicians and ordinary Catholics alike in a covert policy of state-sponsored terrorism. The objective was to terrorize people in submitting to British rule over Northern Ireland, rather than allowing the island country to become united and independent.

The British government provided intelligence and cover for the death squads and the unionist politicians had helped supply the AK-47 assault rifles and Browning handguns smuggled from Apartheid South Africa.

This secret dirty war policy of the British government and their unionist proxies in Northern Ireland has been uncovered by investigative journalists such as Paul Larkin (see his groundbreaking book “A Very British Jihad: Collusion, Conspiracy and Cover-up in Northern Ireland”); as well as human rights campaign groups like Belfast-based Relatives for Justice and Pat Finucane Centre.

Not even the present government of Theresa May can deny this murderous legacy in Ireland, although there is a determined silence now as she fights for her political survival in the wake of the British election disaster.It is a proven fact that May’s Conservative party and the unionist politicians whom she is now partnering with to govern Britain were complicit in terrorism.

Northern Ireland has since gained a peace settlement in which unionist and republican politicians have been able to work together to form a local governing administration. The Irish peace process was possible partly because of the courageous and principled intervention by British politicians like Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn has never apologized for terrorism. He has sought to overcome it by making politics work. The same cannot be said for Theresa May’s Conservative party. It was an accomplice and an apologist for a covert policy of state-sponsored terrorism during Northern Ireland’s recent 30-year conflict.

The very party whom she is now allied with for governing Britain – the DUP – were also apologists for paramilitaries who routinely smashed their way into family homes and slaughtered victims in cold blood in front of their loved ones.

The ongoing muted policy of May’s government and her unionist proxies about their murderous legacy in Ireland is a testimony to who the real apologists for terror are.

 

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Coalition of Terror
| June 11, 2017 | 4:16 pm | Analysis, Jeremy Corbyn, political struggle, UK | No comments

 


Jun
2017
Saturday 10th
posted by Lamiat Sabin in Britain
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-9b5c-Coalition-of-Terror

Theresa May makes deal with terror-linked DUP in desperate bid to cling to power


THERESA MAY desperately clung to power yesterday by resorting to a coalition of terror with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

After months of smearing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as a so-called “terrorist sympathiser” for engaging in peace talks with the IRA, she leapt into bed with the notorious loyalist party to avoid the humiliation of seeing her opportunist snap election force her out of No 10.

Ten DUP MPs will allow a government that looks set to be — in the words she previously used against other parties — a “weak and unstable coalition of chaos.”

The loyalists have a history of dubious members, policies, connections and links to violent paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland.

Former leader Peter Robinson helped establish loyalist paramilitary group Ulster Resistance in 1986, and stood down in 2015 after disgracing himself with a defence of Belfast pastor James McConnell, who called Islam “satanic” and a “doctrine spawned in hell.”

DUP minister Jim Wells meanwhile was forced to resign in 2015 after being recorded on camera saying that “a child is far more likely to be abused and neglected” if their parents are gay.

The party also has historical links to “rivers of blood” race war tout Enoch Powell, and is infamous for its staunch anti-LGBT and anti-abortion policies, alongside climate change denial.

Explaining her decision yesterday, the PM apologised to Tories who had lost their seats due to her election fiasco and gushed that the DUP were “friends and allies.”

She said the two parties have “enjoyed a strong relationship over many years” and that, despite losing a dozen MPs, she will press ahead as PM — after declaring only three weeks ago that she would not be able to continue if she lost just six seats.

The Tories ended up with a loss on Thursday night while Labour made groundbreaking gains across the board.

The pact likely take the form of an arrangement where the DUP swap votes for cash to Northern Ireland.

Ms May faced calls to “consider her position” from former minister Anna Soubry yesterday on the basis of her “dreadful” campaign.

Tory numbers fell from 330 MPs to 318 and eight ministers lost seats — including former MP and Cabinet Office minister Ben Gummer, who authored her disastrous manifesto.

Mr Corbyn gained 29 MPs, 261 in total, taking shock seats in Canterbury and reportedly Kensington, with the latter having gone through yet another vote recount yesterday evening due to Tory denial — which started shortly before the Star went to print.

In a statement yesterday morning the Labour leader urged Ms May to resign so he could form a minority government.

Mr Corbyn said: “We are ready to serve this country … We are ready to do everything we can to put our programme into operation.

“The party that has lost in this election is the Conservative Party. The arguments the Conservative Party put forward in this election have lost. I think we need a change.”

Unite union general secretary Len McCluskey said: “Theresa May fought an underhand, depressing campaign and has been well and truly humbled.

“People do not want Tory business as usual, they do not want a politics built on fear that spreads despair, and they certainly do not want a lame duck prime minister.

“Credit for this must go to Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, which has pulled off the biggest political reawakening of the century.