Italian Court Rules 'Acceptable to Discriminate Against Roma'

The fascist takeover continues. You would think that given that fascism is a 'left-wing' ideology (according to the loony right), the right might have something to say about this. Particularly when the Jewish community are comparing recent developments to events in the recent past. From The Guardian:

Italy's highest appeal court has ruled that it is acceptable to discriminate against Roma on the grounds that they are thieves.

The judgment, made public yesterday, comes amid a nationwide clampdown on the Roma community by Silvio Berlusconi's government. Last week his interior minister, Roberto Maroni, announced plans to fingerprint all of Italy's Roma, including children.

The ruling by the court of cassation, which appears to provide judicial backing for the government's policies, was handed down in March, but reported only yesterday. The judges overthrew the conviction of six defendants who signed a leaflet demanding the expulsion of Verona's Gypsies in 2001.

Among those convicted of racially discriminatory propaganda was Flavio Tosi, an official of the anti-immigrant Northern League, who has since become Verona's mayor. He was quoted by a witness at his trial as having said afterwards: "The Gypsies must be ordered out because, wherever they arrive, there are robberies."

Berlusconi, Civil Liberties and the Hypocrisy of the Right

One of the most 'interesting' developments in recent years had been the attempts by the right to wash their hands of their involvement with fascism during the 1930s. So embarrassed are they by their craven worship of the 'virtues' of fascism during this period, they have even branded Hitler's nationalist ideology as somehow socialist (the argument normally so simplistic as to point to the fact that they were the National Socialists - of course this ignores Hitler's purge of the 'left' in his party and his links with big business amongst others). This argument has now moved on to what they call 'Islamofascism'. A doctrine that suggests that an Islamic based dictatorship is on the horizon. In their urge to make up for the mistakes of the past, they are eager to claim that any group perceived as a threat is part of some wider 'fascist' movement.

So detached from reality these people have become, and so determined to present themselves as the defenders of a culture under attack, they even attempt to present themselves as defenders of civil liberties in the face of a new aggression. This is an extension of their belief that all dictators are 'left-wing' whereas all right-wing societies support liberal values and are, in essence, the opposite of the 'left-wing' dictatorships in every way. The argument maintains that intrusive governments are the preserve of the left, whilst the right is concerned with free societies that preserve the rights of the individual. Thus it becomes the case that civil liberties and libertarianism becomes the sole preserve of the right. This is, of course, entirely false.

Such a misguided belief is false on many grounds. Encounter any political commentator who claims the above as wholly accurate and their argument soon flounders when you introduce the concept of libertarian socialism. Of course, another term for libertarian socialism would be anarchism. Although there are many strands of anarchism, essentially most of it's adherents believe in the destruction of the state, private ownership and the means of production to be in the hands of the worker. This would then free the populace from their slavery to the capitalist economy and ensure true freedom and liberty. Clearly, all these elements can be closely identified with the left, after all, they underpin much of left-wing ideology (certainly the non-totalitarian elements of the left). Despite the obvious contradiction with right-wing ideology, there are still those on the right that insist this is compatible with right-wing thinking (even taking into account the abolition of private ownership - the very foundation of right-wing ideology). Take, for example, the following commentator over at the right-wing conspiracy site Biased BBC:

Nearly Oxfordian:

"Anarchism is not a right-wing ideology by any stretch" -
err, actually it is. Since it believes in (extreme) personal freedom, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called anything but. It is diametrically opposed to lef-wingism, which requires the state to intervene in order to right (real or imagined) inequalities.

Nearly Oxfordian 13.05.08 - 7:24 pm

Such comments come from (allegedly) educated individuals I hasten to add. The fact that the two ideologies are diametrically opposed hardly seems relevant.

In terms of the civil liberties argument, perhaps there are more obvious examples of the right's negation of basic civil liberties. Take, for example, Guantanamo Bay. Here is a prime example of the destruction of one of the most basic civil liberties. Not only is it a massive affront to civil liberties, it is also indicative of a large overbearing state that views the populace with suspicion. Despite this rather obvious fact, there are many of those on the right who continue to defend the practice, even when it contradicts their loudly stated 'beliefs'. How can anyone opposed to a large state and a supporter of civil liberties claim that Guantanamo is anything but a monstrosity? So bizarre is their argument in this case, that it seeks to defend the altruistic nature of the one arm of the state that is most likely to undermine civil liberties. Take, for example, the argument of one right-winger who claims to oppose the power of the state, yet supports civil liberties:

Do I belive that governments have the right to conduct surveillance on certain members of the populace that they have cause to belive are a threat to society and act in such a way that prevents those individuals from carrying out an act that endangers said society? Youbetcha. Indeed, protecting society and enforcing rule of law and security is one of the few roles that right wing thinkers approve of handing over to the state (with appropritate checks abnd balances). I draw the line at such left wing institutions as Stasi and gulags though.

As I said above, it is rather odd that, despite 'opposing' a large state apparatus and distrusting the state as a whole, the one area that they feel they can trust it (indeed, they approve of 'handing over to the state') is the one arm of the state that can do the most amount of damage to the civil liberties of society as a whole. Why is this such an exception? Is it only an exception when both the commentator and the state share a common enemy? If this were a right-wing commentator in a left-wing society, would the same still apply? I very much doubt it. The right have made a habit over the years of seeing things through a typical double standard. Which brings me to the picture at the top of the post ("At last!" I hear you cry!)

As I have mentioned above, much talk has been made of the 'link' between fascism and the left over the years. Despite the evidence of the Spanish Civil War, the left has been painted as appeasers and supporters of the rise of fascism in 1930's Europe. Given that this has been the case, recent events in Italy have provided a stark reminder of where fascism truly draws it's support. Berlusconi has been the darling of the right in Europe for many years, a man beyond reproach. However, his fascistic tendencies have been rising to the surface of late and, like the growth of fascism in the 1930s, the right has been noticeable by it's silence. Although it would be fair to say that Italy isn't a fascist state at this moment in time, it is displaying signs of a sudden lurch to the disturbing politics of the past. Take, for example, Berlusconi's words soon after retuning to power:

"We are the new Falange."

The Falange being the fascist party in Spain during the Civil War era. Then there was the election of the new mayor in Rome (a supporter of Berlusconi) who was greeted with cries of "Duce". Following these disturbing developments, a new echo from 1930's Europe has emerged.

According to reports during the week, the new government and it's supporters have turned their attention to immigration and the gypsy population. As part of efforts to 'get tough' on illegal immigration, the Italian government has rounded up 400 'illegal' immigrants in preparation for their removal. In tandem with this policy, there has also been a crack down on gypsy camps, particularly around Naples. However, this policy has been 'pre-empted' by the local population who have taken the law into their own hands. The following is taken from The Times:

But in Naples local people have anticipated the new policy, taking the law into their own hands.

This week’s assaults on Roma shanty towns by scores of youths on scooters and motorbikes wielding iron bars and throwing Molotov cocktails were sparked off by the capture of a 17-year-old Roma girl who last weekend entered a flat in Ponticelli and tried to steal a 6-year-old girl. Chased by the mother and neighbours, she had to be rescued by police from being lynched.

The city erupted in fury, with local women leading the marches on the Roma camps to the chant of “Fuori, fuori [Out, out]”. Night after night young men — allegedly acting on the orders of powerful local clans of the Camorra, the Naples Mafia — have set the sites ablaze, blocking attempts by the fire brigade to put out the fires, with exploding gas canisters completing the destruction. The women jeered at the firemen, shouting, "You put these fires out, we start them again”.

Plumes of smoke were still rising yesterday from the smouldering, blackened ruins of a Roma gypsy camp attacked and burnt to the ground by local vigilantes in Ponticelli, a rundown industrial suburb in the east of Naples in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius.

The charred remains of the makeshift wooden shacks at the site on Via Malibran crunch underfoot. The only sign of life is dogs scavenging through the neighbouring mountain of uncollected, rotting rubbish.

There are similar scenes of devastation at camps nearby, including one in the incongruously named Via Virginia Woolf. At one squalid “nomad camp” beneath a motorway flyover, intact but deserted, a policeman guarding the site said that the inhabitants had fled during the night to avoid being attacked.

The signs of hasty panic were everywhere, with doors to the shacks left open and the ground strewn with clothing, shoes, bicycles, plastic bottles, pots and pans and children’s toys.

Hundreds of Roma families have fled for their lives with their belongings piled on to small pick-up trucks or handcarts. Some have been taken under police protection to a former school used to house illegal immigrants in a northern Naples suburb. Others have found refuge at Roma camps elsewhere in the Campania region, while a few have been taken in by Naples residents shocked at this outbreak of “xenophobia”.


Sound familiar? An ethnic group being blamed for society's ills? A community forced to flee for fear of their own lives? Property destroyed? Has an eerie ring to it does it not? According to some sources, over 500,000 gypsies were exterminated in Nazi Germany. Only the Jewish community suffered greater losses. So here we have a political leader echoing the sentiments of the fascist leaders of the past, an ethnic group persecuted for bringing 'urban degradation' upon the community, an ethnic community fleeing their dwellings for fear of being murdered and where are the voices of the right? Where are the voices of those who claim to support civil liberties? Where are the voices of those that claim fascism is a left-wing ideology? Why are they prepared to repeat the mistakes of the past? Surely if they believe what they espouse they would condemn Berlusconi at all costs. That they do not suggests that their concern for civil liberties is only skin deep. Scratch the surface, and they bleed the blood of fascists.

Fascists Look Likely to Win Election in Switzerland

Sadly, it looks likely that the racist tactics of the Swiss People's Party has paid off. The latest exit poll predicts the following result:

People's Party: 26.7% and 63 seats
Social Democrats: 23.3% and 61 seats
Radical Party: 17.3% and 50 seats
Christian Democrats: 14.4% and 43 seats
Greens: 7.4% and 13 seats
Others: 10.9% and 16 seats

The only (very slight) good news is that the Greens have increased their vote quite dramatically. Other than that, it is a pretty bleak picture for progressive politics in Switzerland. Racism looks likely to be the winner in these elections.

Fascism on the March in Switzerland

I could not believe what I saw on the Swiss People's Party website, thanks to an article on eitb:

A video game at the Swiss People's Party’s web site involves helping a white goat kicking the black sheep from the country. The campaign posters feature three white sheep including one kicking a black sheep.

A white goat called Zottel kicks some black sheep trying to pass the Swiss border on foot or by bus. You might not believe it but it is a video game at the Swiss People's Party’s web site.

I decided to visit their website and investigate this 'game' for myself. On entering their website and clicking the appropriate link, I was confronted with this image-

Now, if you have been following their campaign, you would know that the 'white sheep' is aiming his crossbow at the 'black sheep', an absolutely disgusting, vile image to use as part of an election campaign. If you thought Bush, Blair and Howard were bad, these guys aren't even wolves in sheep's clothing....they are just wolves. Fascism is on the march in Europe once more, thankfully some people are prepared to confront it. Question is, when our governments are quick to (rightly) condemn fascist governments further afield, will they see fit to condemn one closer to home?

Racism, Beyonce, political convenience, and shitty pre-war coverage of Iran

They say a picture's worth a thousand words. . .

. . . like 'excessive', 'hair product', 'Iron Cross', 'sadist' and, uh,... 'shloop'.

This is Debra Cagan. She's a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to US Secretary for Defence Robert Gates. There is a great little newsbreak here in the Daily Mail about how she told a group of visiting British MPs that "I hate all Iranians". Strangely, this hasn't received the coverage and twisting that might happen if, say, an Iranian official commented that the current regime in charge of Israel should be removed from the pages of history.

"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP. "She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words."

Another MP said: "I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming."

Also amusing is the observation that

Tory Stuart Graham, who was on the ten-day trip, would not discuss Ms Cagan but said: "It was very sobering to hear from the horse's mouth how the US sees the situation."

I would suggest that he actually is discussing Ms Cagan, but he would have surely referred to 'the horse's ass'. . . and even then that would still be an insult to horses.

And although some people complain that mainstream media really have their priorities wrong, I'm glad that this time - in australia at least - that has not been the case.

Because it is far more important to damn Beyonce for 'snubbing' Malaysia by cancelling her concerts because of Islamic fundamentalists intent on regulating her clothing and choreography choices . . . than to report that US military operations on the Iranian border are being run by a sociopathic bigot.

And although I'll obviously be one of squillions of Australians voting in almost any manner likely to eject our current Board of Detractors and install a government more closely resembling a group of people with souls, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has really done damage to his credibility today for anybody willing to really think about it.

The Oz reports that while campaigning in a heavily Jewish Sydney electorate, Rudd committed to trying to bring charges of incitement to genocide against the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Labor is elected at the next election.

This is the most outstandingly stupid thing that Rudd has yet committed to.

1. it's obvious pandering to a boutique interest group

2. it displays a lazy attitude toward fact-gathering (maybe he should consider this reportage of what Ahmadinejad actually said about Israel, this Islamic discussion of what he said in Farsi, this detail of the use of bogus human rights groups to generate anti-Iranian propaganda, this detail of how America is gearing up for another slaughter, or even just Wiki it)

3. any serious legal action against Iran will undo much of the good work that Rudd could achieve through aggressive diplomacy with China because of the Iran - China oil relationship.

4. this legitimises rather than challenges the current US propaganda line which is in effect for no other reason than justifying another illegal attack that has already been planned.

5. it suggests that some important lessons made available by decades of globally disastrous Western policy on Middle Eastern affairs really haven't been learnt.

6. and the idea of Australia pointing the genocide stick at anybody is a stretch, but at somebody who hasn't actually committed or actively encouraged genocide is just tragic.

Perhaps the final wonderful words should go to Professor Gary Leupp in his clarifying discussion of US foreign policy, media, and political values.

If you hate all of them (and are grotesquely ignorant of their vast contribution to human civilization), why not nuke them, and their monuments and treasures, and destroy their 3000 year history, and "wipe them off the map"? Why not prepare public opinion for that shattering scenario, and grind those boot heels into the brains of any sympathizers of those you call "sand-niggers" as you try to spread Bush's gospel of hate?

Thank the Lord for our free trade deal with Uncle Spam - we get 'gospel of hate' at 22% off!

The Merits of Debate in The World of Blogs

I have been pretty critical of right-wingers in the past on this blog, justifiably so in some cases. However, kudos must go to Martin Simms, a guy who has been engaged in debate with me over the appropriate response to the situation in Iran. Suffice it to say, he tends towards the pre-emptive strike end of the spectrum. Although the debate was heated, sometimes perhaps too heated, it ended on good terms. Martin ended the debate with the following words:

Thank you for a wonderful debate, it was both educational and inspirational. Take care...Martin Sims Homepage 04.09.07 - 12:29 am #

A gracious an satisfactory way to end a debate. Martin was also kind enough to send me an email about the debate. He wrote:

Your points are shared by many, as are mine, but it is only through debate that reasonable people can come to understand where those with differing opinions are coming from. I do not think you are ignorant or evil because of your point of view, and I certainly hope that you do not think that I am ignorant or evil because of my point of view. I learned from our discussion as I trust you did, and it is just such an expansion of vision that I am most interested in fostering in myself and others...

Now, putting politics aside for one moment, this is what I truly respect. Many bloggers out there are not keen on opening up to a public debate. There are those out there who seek to shut down debate as it would expose their rather tenuous grip on the subject matter. Coincidentally, at around the same time as this debate, I discovered that I had been banned from commenting on another site, USS Neverdock. I have sent many comments to Marc at Neverdock in order to make a few points about the many things he posts on his site. Disappointingly, instead of engaging in debate, he simply refuses to publish anything that contradicts his viewpoint. That this amounts to a certain degree of totalitarianism (something he claims to oppose), seems entirely lost on him.

I would have far greater respect for bloggers such as Marc if they spent the time to explain their views. The fact that they broadly ignore anything that opposes their world view speaks volumes about how fearful they are that their arguments will be exposed and ridiculed in public. Instead of exposing themselves to scrutiny, they prefer to avoid the possibility altogether by indulging in censorship. What are they so afraid of? Are there views so under-developed that they cannot defend them against such scrutiny?? I sympathise to a degree, it can be very tempting to delete comments that you cannot argue against, but to do so suggests a level of intellectual bankruptcy. I try to employ a policy of allowing all comments on my site, unless they go over a very distinct line. I have deleted and banned one commenter who made anti-Semitic remarks about September 11th. I have also deleted defamatory remarks that claim that I am anti-Semitic. As far as I am concerned, along as the commenter doesn't indulge in racism or anti-Semitism, I will not delete their posts, no matter how deranged their point of view. For me that is the only way civilisation can develop. To debate and to argue different perspectives. Anything else is giving in to the ideals of totalitarianism.

Swiss People's Party Adopting Nazi Tactics

Switzerland's largest political pary has been accused of adopting Nazi tactics as part of their anti-crime campaign. According to The Guardian:

The party, which controls the justice ministry and is part of Switzerland's coalition, is proposing a scheme to deport immigrant families if their children are convicted of a violent crime, drug offences or benefit fraud. It claims immigrants, which make up 20% of the population, are four times more likely to commit crimes than Swiss nationals.

The party's president, Üli Maurer, claimed:

"As soon as the first 10 families and their children have been expelled from the country, then things will get better at a stroke."

So far, the poster has drawn criticism from the Federal Commission against Racism, the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities and even the United Nations. Ronnie Bernheim of the Swiss Foundation against Racism and Anti-Semitism said the proposal was similar to the Nazi practice of Sippenhaft which held relatives of criminals responsible for their crimes and punished them equally. Despite the echoes of Europe's anti-Semitic past, some bloggers have come out in support of this poster. One even has a banner on the corner of his blog claiming:

'I stand with Israel!'

Not to mention a further banner that claims:

I'm a Proud Friend Of Israel

Well, at least this poster has achieved something. It has flushed out the anti-Semites and racists whose true support for the Jewish community is only for political expediency.

John Howard - Never One for a Racist & Politically Convenient Landgrab

Long story short - spraypainted cow meets an Australian journo-ecofascist-hypocrite-bastard and asks for a Southern contribution to Mask of Anarchy. Regularity will vary from predictable to unexpected and back to unlikely until the tragic day that Korova stabs me in the heart for going a Steve Irwin gag too far.

However Australia is perceived globally at the moment I can only guess. I would assume that our identity is something in the order of cricket, racism, rugby, climate change denial, shane warne, big eyebrowed dickhead little sycophant Prime Minister mopping up White House jism, more rugby, kangaroos, beer, and cricket. Did I mention racism?

What we have going on right now is quite astounding. The quality of our domestic racism has really taken a battering. We have been shipping it, or intercepting shipping with it, globally but we're finally getting back to basics at home. Thank goodness! I'd hate to think that yellow, black, and brown people outside Australia are feeling more persecuted or stereotyped than our own people of colour. The poor ones, that is. We'd never consider Ehud Olmert a murderer any more than we'd consider Mumia Abu Jamahl a scholar or Alberto Gonzales the bit his mama should have thrown away.

Quick Australian history - White Australia policy in effect until late 1960s. Aware of Aboriginal family groups and nations being connected by relationship to blood and to land, children are separated from families and brought up as servants or on missions hundreds or thousands of kilometres from both. A national referendum in 1967 sees Australians vote in favour of changing the Constitution to recognize Aboriginal Australians as human, rather than fauna. Seriously. Revolutions of sorts through the 70s - land rights, womens rights, the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, all that good stuff.

As we moved through the '80s toward the Bicentennial in 1988, more and more questions were asked about national identity, values, direction. Unfortunately a lot of unquestioning flag waving and firework shows drowned most of this out. Still, the idea of a Treaty was finally before the nation - acknowledgment that wrongs had been done, war had been waged, and healing and recognition could only happen through real commitment to make them happen. At this time, the leader of the federal opposition in Parliament kicked up quite a stink.

In fact, when the issue of a Treaty was raised he made a vow - a vow that if such a Treaty was ever made between the indigenous and non-indigenous people of Australia, the first thing that he would do if elected would be to tear it up. His name was John Howard. Yes. That one.

When he was eventually elected, he really delivered. Native Title legislation was amended to offset the pro-indigenous impacts of a significant court ruling. Howard attended the landmark national summit on reconciliation in 1997. Before the most significant gathering of indigenous leaders in Australia in well over a hundred years he praised Australia's history. He acknowledged the 'blemish' of genocide, but made it clear that there would be no 'Sorry' - the one word for which so many people had campaigned. And just to rub glass in the haemorrhage, ATSIC - the only directly elected representation for indigenous Australians - has also been disbanded and abolished under Howard.

Bringing Them Home - the report on The Stolen Generation - was an amazing moment of potential in modern Australia. Did anything happen under Howard to acknowledge its significance? Not really. The recommendations of the report on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody - was there an overhauling of the treatment of Aboriginals in confinement? Not really. The report on child abuse in remote indigenous communities, Little Children Are Sacred - has that been acted upon?

Yes. The army and the police have been sent in as election-year Johnny has ignored the report's recommendation that authorities and services work with communities. Social security and benefits for children are now paid as vouchers or under coercive conditions. The report specifically recommended against cutting welfare to women in abusive relationships as this could provoke further violence from their dependent partner. Legislation has been changed in such a way that communities must now rent land they used to freehold.

They no longer have rights to say who comes in or stays out. Sounds a bit heavy handed, but it can easily be done with the public relations lubricant of consent. Find the right couple of blackfellas and for a bunch of money or a bit of respect (or both) it can all be official. They'll sign away control and rights which aren't theirs to sign away. But their signatures look and sound impressive.

And that is what is happening now. The patriarchal hand of systemic racism has wound the clock back many more decades than seemed possible even five years ago. Not saying it's a sure thing, but if I was a uranium mining company, or a land developer, or a nuclear waste dump without a home - I'd be quite excited by the latest action in Australia's Northern Territory.

So what is happening here in Australia right now is disastrous - for communities, for human rights, for understanding, for the future environment, but most particularly for the kids of the most disadvantaged cross-section of Australian society. Once again, it's an election year and the incumbent Prime Minister appears to be demonstrating a sudden and forceful concern for the children of brown people to whom he has previously shown little to no positive regard.

It's a veritable Aboriginal Children Overboard. Election polling indicates a readiness for change in Australia. Howard's manipulation of public fear and ignorance on matters of the economy, law, environment, human rights, global politics, reality and terror seem to have finally worn thin. But that can flip in next to no time, as has repeatedly happened in the past. Still, a federal opposition party holding a 10+% lead for eight straight months. . . . fingers crossed.

Although that's a totally different topic for another time, that is the point it is getting to in Australia, imho. Finally the federal opposition seems competent, and that's more than enough reason to switch. Even some stuffy conservatives and well-financed business types think Howard has gone off the deep end. Unfortunately, APEC is coming to Sydney. The best thing that could happen to his reelection chances would be an almighty terrorist attack - one day to disprove 5 years of accusations that he's a politically motivated fearmonger could definitely boost the ratings.

Nooooooooo.