MIGRANTS ARE WELCOME

HERE!

If there ever was a wake-up call for the local left it was the elec-tion of six UKIP councillors in Portsmouth at the local elections last month. This is a result of a growing xenophobic climate encouraged by the right-wing press and the three main political parties over the last period. After the eco-nomic crisis starting in 2008 the left should have been in a strong position to push for the politics of community and solidarity in opposition to the rationales of consumerism and individualism offered by the capitalist parties. Neither migrants nor workers are responsible for the decline in living standards that all but the very rich are currently suffering. The failure of the left to do this are written all over the results of the European and council elections. The rise of far-right and populist anti-immigration forces across the continent demonstrates that these problems are not confined to the UK. It is reminiscent of the beginnings of some of the most terrifying episodes of the last century when economic grievances were used by anti-working class forces to unleash murderous hatreds. The only principled response to this is internationalism, working class unity and solidarity with

migrants under attack. Any cam-paign that focuses solely on UKIP risks the danger of giving them the very publicity as the political outsiders they seek to portray themselves as. Especial-ly seeing that Labour and the Conservatives have united against them in the council chamber, yet more confirmation that any new left cannot be built through Labour. UKIP may be more openly ex-treme but in reality, the Tories are just as racist. Labour's capitulation to the right-wing press on this issue goes as far back as the outrageous scare-mongering of asylum seekers in the 1990s. If the left is going to avoid talking to the converted in ever decreasing circles we must form a coalition against racism and xenophobia in the city that does much more than just calls a few protests and goes through the motions, it means real mate-

rial solidarity and working class politics. Recent incidents of abuse in UK detention centres and on going scores of drownings in the Medi-terranean sea are but some of the most egregious examples that the system of borders, immigra-tion prisons and Fortress Europe is a criminal inhumanity that one day will be looked upon in the manner as the outrages of colo-nialism and totalitarianism. That victims of the West's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sit in Greek refugee camps at the behest of the EU and UK gov-ernments, who claim their mili-tarism is humanitarian, is as des-picable an hypocrisy as you could imagine. For anti-capitalists this is a matter of first principles - no gods, no masters, no countries. No one is illegal, the working class is international

Portsmouth Socialist

Network

Portsmouthsn@Gmail.co.uk

LOVE FOOTBALL HATE FIFA!

With the World Cup underway in Brazil, protests against the government and FIFA have erupted across the country. Thousands of people have taken to the streets, demonstrating against the cost of the tournament, which is hardly surpris-ing when you realise it comes with an $11.5 billion price-tag. The slogan “We have the circus, now we want the bread” has become hugely popular. In Sao Pau-lo and Rio de Janeiro, transport workers have gone on strike, demanding addi-tional payments for the extra work they face. The Homeless Workers Movement has held protests turning out tens of thousands of people. As the protests have gathered momen-tum the government has responded with brutal repression. More than 200,000 police officers and soldiers have been mobilised, demonstrations have been baton charged and tear gassed, and un-dercover cops have fired live ammuni-tion in the streets. In the run up to the World Cup the Brazilian government demolished homes to pave the way for stadiums and infrastructure, whilst ar-resting people they suspected of being

political activists. Brazil is the seventh largest economy in the world, but that wealth is concentrat-ed in the hands of tiny minority of the population. Millions of the poorest Bra-zilians live in shanty-towns, favelas, quite literally in the shadow of the riches and opulence of the ruling class. Their ramshackle homes are flanked by open sewers; education and healthcare are of terribly low quality. The money spent on the World Cup could have transformed the lives of countless people in Brazil. With such a crushing level of poverty it is not surprising that Brazilians are chanting, “FIFA Go Home!” Not that this has troubled Sepp Blatter, the head of football’s world governing body, who previously told protesters to stop blam-ing FIFA for Brazil’s social problems. Blatter is widely and rightly despised by football fans around the world. This is a man with a history of bigoted outbursts, who thinks racism can be resolved by “a handshake”. He is more than happy to turn a blind eye to inequality and injus-tice, whilst raking in $1 million a year from his role as FIFA’s bigot-in-chief.

All of this comes at a time when FIFA has been embroiled in yet more scandal. Their award of the 2022 World Cup fi-nals to Qatar has caused major contro-versy, and many people are familiar with the allegations of bribery and corruption. While this news has made headlines the real tragedy is happening in Qatar itself, where hundreds of migrant workers have been killed on the construction sites of World Cup stadiums. With Brazil hosting the Olympics in 2016 it is unlikely that the protests in Brazil will subside anytime soon. If any-thing they will continue to grow. History shows us that the costs of staging the Games are likely to dwarf even the stag-gering amounts spent on the World Cup. More stadiums will be needed, more changes to the country’s infrastructure will be made, more five-star hotels will be required to satisfy the visiting digni-taries and heads of state. Sport has become a plaything for the rich. The games that billions of people know and love are little more than vehi-cles for the interests of multinationals and politicians. Sport is an investment opportunity for big business interests, and a passion to exploit for sponsors. Hosting a mega event like the World Cup or the Olympics is a way for presi-dents and prime ministers to showcase a country to the international markets while simultaneously ignoring the plight of millions of people in that country. These are not the priorities of football. These are the priorities of football under capitalism. These are the priorities of FIFA. But it need not be this way. Every football fan should be as interested in what happens on the streets of Brazil as with what happens on the pitch. Marvel at the dignity and bravery of the protest-ers as much as the talents of Messi, Ronaldo and Raheem Sterling. And con-tinue to love football and hate FIFA.

After months of strikes and street protests, the world cup kicking off is showing no

signs of slowing down the increasingly militant movement in Brazil. Gareth E

argues is no longer about football, but the movement of money from public into

private hands.

Domestic Violence is a Gendered Crime

Eliot Rodger’s California shooting spree that targeted young women, a viral video highlighting the public's indifference to domestic violence against men, and the increase in domestic violence during the World Cup have all been in the news re-cently. All of them represent a con-tinuing misogyny within society, par-ticularly in the media, and on the internet. In videos posted before the shoot-ings, and in a manifesto posted

online, Rodgers’ described his mo-

tive for his act. He claimed that it was a gross injustice that he re-mained a virgin, that despite being

“a supreme gentleman” (in his own

words) girls weren’t interested in him

and for this they would be punished. This sense of entitlement is not pe-culiar to Rodgers. Men are taught to expect sexual attention from women. Not explicitly, but through a society that always treats men as entitled to something from women and reduces women to sexual commodities. The reactions from groups of men on the internet were hateful expres-sions of this entitlement and much like in cases of rape, the blame for this act of zealous misogyny fell not on the perpetrator but on the women themselves. Here, sex is seen as the domain of men and the women were wrong to refuse, wrong not to be forthcoming and servile to the needs of men. It sounds like hyper-bole, but it only takes cursory glance at much of the responses to this killing spree would show just how disgusting the reaction was, not to the killer, but to women, who once again copped the blame despite be-ing the survivors. At the same time these shootings were taking place a video went viral which showed the differing public reactions to domestic violence when targeted at men by a female perpe-trator. The video is another example of a culture of entitlement that is still

very much the norm. The success of the video online, and the group be-

hind the video being a men’s rights

group both indicate that there is a commonly held perception that do-mestic abuse against men is an ig-nored problem.

The public’s lack of reaction is taken

to demonstrate an inequality that men suffer; that when they are emasculated by women nobody cares. The video implies that men suffer an inequality that challenges their notion of entitlement. The video was problematic in sever-al ways. It fails to recognise that Do-mestic Abuse is a gendered crime; when looking at recurrent abuse it is overwhelmingly targeted at women, and many of the statistics that in-clude men fail to address incidents of sexual assault. Men are also far more likely to be the repeat perpe-trators of domestic violence. The video is also ineffective at promoting male victims to come forward and seek help. Not only because of the public reaction but because it mis-characterises the form of abuse they are most likely to suffer, which is not, as the video suggests, violent.

The reaction to the video, like that to the Isla Vista shooting, was illustra-tive of a sense of male privilege un-der threat. Some men turned to vio-lent misogyny, decrying any man not

masculine enough to ‘deal with their

women’. Others aligned themselves

to the victim in the video, but in do-ing so aimed barbed comments to-wards feminists who they blamed for denying the severity of Domestic Abuse aimed at men. In both cases it shows the lengths to which the patriarchy ruling class will go to de-fend itself against any means for women to improve their lives.

If you are thinking of leaving an abusive relationship remember,

-Take time to plan a safe exit

-Gather any important documents i.e Pass-ports, benefit entitlements, any essential medicines

-It is not your fault and you are not to blame for domestic abuse

For Help and Advice contact;

The National Centre for Domestic Violence

0844 8044 999

In an emergency always call the police

Sam W discusses the increase in domestic violence during the World Cup and attempts by Men’s Rights Activists to divert attention

from the disproportionate affect of domestic abuse on women

Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South

and future independent candidate, has

recently issued a formal apology regarding

the allegations of his sexual harassment of a

female constituent.

In it, Hancock admits to the woman that he

“conducted a friendship with *the victim+

that was inappropriate and unprofessional.”

He continues, “I made you feel deeply un-

comfortable and discriminated against and I

crossed the line.” The 400-word apology

has shocked Hancock’s supporters, who

have maintained since the complaint

against Hancock was first made in 2010 that

he was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Hancock has rightly been condemned on

the Left. However, The frightening thing is

that similar instances have happened

on the left itself. It is difficult for people

who believe they are fighting against social

injustice to accept that ‘one of their own’

could be participating in and perpetuating

that injustice. It can be especially difficult

for men on the left, for whom sometimes

internalised misogyny can cause a myopic

perspective on sexual harassment of wom-

en.

As the victim said in her statement follow-

ing Hancock’s apology, “Some Liberal Dem-

ocrat councillors serving on Portsmouth City

Council have sought publicly to discredit

*her+ and *her+ motives for bringing and

action against Mr Hancock, ignoring and

even trying to undermine the independent

investigation report commissioned by their

own QC Nigel Pascoe.”

The problem of sexual harassment, sexual

assault and rape of women by men is a

huge one, and one often downplayed by

men on the left, who are certain that their

leftist friends would never do such a thing.

Yet sexism on the left is rife. Too often men

on ‘our side’ verbally harass women they

disagree with (on the left or on the right) by

commenting on their size or appearance,

using sexist slurs, and attacking the women

for their femininity rather than the argu-

ments they are making.

This may seem like a small and unrelated

issue, but it is a building block which con-

tributes to the larger sexist attitudes which

help to perpetuate the ideas not only that

‘harassment doesn’t happen on the left’,

but that men like Hancock should be pre-

sumed innocent even once he has issued

such a self-damning apology as this one.

One commenter on the Portsmouth News

article, for example, was quick to point out

that the apology did not amount to an ad-

mission of criminal wrongdoing. Hancock’s

statement is indeed carefully worded to

apologise without admission. However, he

admits he was “inappropriate”,

“unprofessional”, and “crossed the line”.

If we on the left are going to fight prejudice,

we need to stop ignoring sexism and misog-

yny, and start believing women who state

that they have been sexually harassed, as-

saulted or raped. As a survivor I can tell you

that it is not an easy thing to make such

allegations, and the risk of being discredit-

ed, ignored and scorned, is so great that the

vast majority of victims don’t even bother

to do anything about their experiences.

Those who do come forward do so at great

risk to themselves and should be supported

by the left, if not society as a whole. Mike

Hancock betrayed a woman who came to

him for help, who expected him to conduct

himself professionally, and she was let

down by him in one of the worst possi-

ble ways.

The first thing we need to do if we re-

ally want to consider ourselves the

good guys is to start working with, ra-

ther than against, women who tell us

that they have been victims of any

such crime and to support them by

stating unequivocally: we believe you,

and we are on your side.

Who are Portsmouth Socialist Network?

Portsmouth Socialist Network is a revolutionary group, committed to the ideas of socialism from below – where the mass of working class people coming together to build an alternative, equal,

sustainable society.

The Tories continue to engage in open class war-fare, demonising the poor and scapegoating immigrants; the dangers of the far-right are still there for all to see; capitalism continues to

degrade the planet to the point where the very future of humanity is at stake.

We want to stand alongside all those who fight back against the government, the bosses, auster-ity and oppression.

Hancock, Harassment and Hypocrisy

Mike Hancock’s position remains untenable after he apologised to a woman he harassed. However, the woman was smeared

throughout the investigation. Quinn argues that step one in fighting sexual harassment is starting firmly that women are believed .