Black shirts and Gay hate is not Fascism

The Civil Union Debate

The current legislation before parliament which seeks to create access to “civil union” for both heterosexuals and gays has generated a lot of heat among liberals and conservatives. Are we talking Stormtroopers-in-a-teacup here? We argue that it is necessary to support this legislation as a civil right and take a stand against rightwing neo-conservative campaigns such as that of the Destiny Church.

Neocons or fascists?

Despite the alarmists, Pastor Brian Tamaki and his followers are not fascists. While in the recent march in Wellington Destiny Church members wore black and kept waving their fists in the air, black shirts and one-armed salutes by themselves are not fascist, any more than having a number 2 haircut is a sign of descent into such behavior. To be fascists Destiny Church would have to mobilise violently against not only gays and lesbians, but jews, migrants, and most of all communists.

During the heyday of fascism in the 1930’s Trotsky wrote that fascism arises in response to extreme crisis and organises the ruined middle class into a political movement to smash the labour movement to prevent a socialist revolution. “Fascism has for its basic and only task the razing to their foundations of all institutions of proletarian democracy.”(See L. Trotsky, Struggles Against Fascism in Germany.p. 159). The Destiny Church marchers are stormtroopers-in-a-teacup and fall far short of a fascist movement.

The Destiny Church are fundamentalist Christians. A bunch of narrow minded, bigoted individuals who like to worship so-called “family values.” Of course, when they talk of families they mean what they define as a family. Their notion of Mum, Dad and 2.5 children is some sort of throwback to a by-gone era which never really existed anyway. While glorifying a 1950’s heterosexual nuclear family structure they seem to conveniently forget that within this structure domestic abuse and abuse of children was often ignored and sometimes tolerated.

They also pick and choose their rules and values from the bible with gay abandon (pun intended), discounting what they don’t like (I bet Brian eats pork) and taking with extreme literalism what can only be described as cultural prohibitions written for a culture which existed a couple of thousand years ago.

They represent the extreme end of a wedge in our society which seeks to fetishise and almost deify the family. In this respect they are the wet dream of capitalists, who know these fanatics with their quasi-Calvinist work ethic are willing wage slaves given that they need to support their families. They help keep the wheels of capitalism turning and oil the machinery of their own oppression.

10% for Jesus on a Harley

Brian Tamaki is a businessman and the Destiny Church is like similar churches all over the world run along capitalist lines with the focus being on “strong leaders” (who are usually wealthy living off their members’ ‘tithes’ on their wages). Their approach to dealing with inequality is to look to charity as a way of helping out rather than questioning the structures in society that gives raise to the inequality in the first place.

It comes as no surprise that fundamentalists in the United States are squarely behind George Bush. They not only share his right wing moral views, they also bleat on about “personal responsibility.” If you are in the gutter, it is because you have put yourself there (or god has to test you). But the good news is that with god’s help you can be “blessed” with wealth. They see nothing wrong with being rich; in fact it is merely a sign that you are in the favour of the almighty.

From a sociological point of view, Tamaki is a recognizable and well-studied type. His church is largely a personality cult which revolves around him. He may be genuine, but it is probably the case that his followers are as much converted to him as fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Studies have shown that churches such as these often revolve around a central charismatic figure like Tamaki.

One morning, up early and watching TV for some reason I glanced at the Tamaki Tele-vangelist show. Brian was praising a couple who had been to a meeting he held in Rotorua, and had been so impressed they sold everything and moved to Auckland so they could attend the Destiny church and be closer to Brian. They seemed to delight in such menial tasks as parking the big man’s car. This cannot be healthy!

Smite the deviants  - save the family

They are the most visible face of opposition to the civil union legislation. The extent of the opposition has surprised many. Although most of those opposed do not subscribe to the extreme platform of the Destiny Church members, they are clearly not happy with gays and lesbians having some sort of state recognition of their relationships.

Many people seem to believe legislation such as the Civil Union bill signifies what is wrong in our society. Everything from crime and young people out of control to teen pregnancies are pointed to as examples of societal decay. Words like “promiscuous” and “immorality” have made a comeback. These terms haven’t had such a strong airing since the Homosexual law reform debate of 1985-86. It’s worth noting that many of the critics of that legislation predicted the imminent collapse of New Zealand society as a result of the passing of that legislation.

Rather than turning their anger on the real enemy (the capitalist system) they put their energy into fighting a battle against human nature. They fail to see that crime and other social ills are largely the result of a system which is manifestly unjust.

Steven Franks: Arthur or Martha?

And where are the liberals of the right on this issue? Right-wingers like Steven Franks don’t know whether they’re Arthur or Martha. Franks sees gays and Lesbians as just another group of consumers, but he also knows many of Acts supporters subscribe to a right-wing moral ideology.

Speaking on Linda Clarke’s Nine to Noon programme on Tuesday 24 August, Franks was all over the show saying he would support this bit of the legislation but not another part of it. He was clearly uncomfortable and so he should be. His hypocritical position shows up the internal contradictions of the Act party. On one hand they like to paint themselves as the “liberal” party, in favour of freedom, but when the crunch comes they retreat back into the shadows of the right. There freedom clearly extends to only to certain people and certain ‘acts’.

But while the right is largely united against the legislation, the left is divided.

Left divided

The left positions can be broadly summarized into three groupings.

The first (and largest) are those who support the legislation, such as gay MP Chris Carter. The second are those who believe that the Bill doesn’t go far enough and it should be marriage or nothing. Marilyn Waring spoke against the legislation at Select Committee hearings on the grounds that it was not giving equality to gays and lesbians (in that they were still excluded from marriage). The third point of view tends to find favour amongst radical gays and lesbians who don’t want to buy into heterosexual structures such as marriage.

These views all have valid points. Marriage is a bourgeoisie institution, so on that point there can be some agreement with the “queer” activists. And because ‘civil unions’ is not marriage, Marilyn Waring is right in this respect, that there will be inequality for gays and lesbians in the law.

Finally the Carter position that the legislation is a step forward for gays and lesbians is valid. After all, why should gays and lesbians be excluded from having their relationships recognized, even if it is by a state that props up a system of capitalist inequality.

It is interesting to note that when briefing papers were first put before Attorney General Margaret Wilson, one proposal, perhaps the most radical, was for the state to endorse a form of civil unions and for marriage to be consigned to a secondary position. This would mean people could go to a church to marry if they wanted but the state would have it’s own endorsement which would take precedence.

This idea would not rest comfortably with a lot of people because it strikes at many people’s aforementioned idealisation of marriage.

So, should workers support the civil union legislation.

Yes we should. The right of all couples to have a civil union which is recognized by the state, regardless of whether they are gay, lesbian or straight, is an extension of democratic civil rights.

The fact that ‘civil union’ gives couples legal equality without the need for marriage must be a good thing. It undermines the institution of marriage, and with it the often repressive gender relations that marriage sanctions. Anything that hastens the end of the bourgeois family is to be welcomed!

We need to recognize the nature of the attacks against the legislation for what they are. They attack the gay and lesbian community and single them out for lies and hatred. This was the case in 1985 when Homosexual Law reform was before Parliament and it is the case now. These are done in the name of ‘family values’ that reinforce the family as a bulwark of capitalist oppression. We need to defend our gay brothers and lesbian sisters from these attacks and stand with them against the bigots.

The fundmentalist attack on ‘civil unions’ today might under conditions of social crisis in the future become part of a more general reactionary attack on the democratic rights of all minorities. To prevent such a generalised reaction from becoming a full blown fascism workers have to organize to stamp out all expressions of intolerance and hatred now.

Nor should we foster any illusions that the capitalist state can ever deliver freedom from oppression for gays and lesbians. When the working class mobilises to get rid of the capitalist state and create a new society, individuals will no longer need the crutch of religion, and will be able to freely associate in ‘unions’ of their choice without discrimination.

From Class Struggle 57 August-September 2004

“To be Young, Gifted and...Simone!”

From Class Struggle 50 May-June 2003

by Mumia Abu-Jamal

"...Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought."Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822), 'To a Skylark'

When the historical record of the Twentieth Century is finally written, a special chapter will have to be penned about the remarkable and talented singer, who was called Nina Simone (1933-2003).

In any true history, words, no matter how skillfully crafted, or masterfully moulded, will fail to capture the brilliance of the woman. Some recording must be appendixed, so that the student will be blessed to hear her thrilling contralto, dark, full, rich as earth in the promise of spring.

Also required, will be a collection of her lyrics, so that no one may miss the words that she dared set to music and bring to life, with a fury, a passion, and sheer artistic courage that continue to dazzle years, decades even, after their creation.

She was an Artist (with a capital 'A') in every sense of the word, but she was far more than that term now suggests.She was proud, imperial, majestic and deliciously arrogant as say, the late jazz great Miles Davis was, in his prime.

The writer remembers her appearing in the late 1970s, in an outdoor, mid-day concert at the Bell Tower at Temple University.She looked out at the crowd with nervous irritation, not fear driven by the uncertainty of her performance, but a barely suppressed anger that there were only hundreds of people gathered to hear her, not thousands.

She sang songs with bite, and grit, and pride and longing... and rage.Deep, down, boneset rage, at how cheaply life was lived for Africans in America.Her "Mississippi Goddamn" was an anthem that stirred, not merely the Civil Rights Movement, but also the Black Liberation Movement: "You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality!” she demanded.Her songs could also be tender, loving odes to the multiflavored beauty and spirits of Black women, as in her signature "Four Women", which spoke of the various moods and hues of her sisters. Decades before Erykah Badu would wear the head wrap Simone did so, and walked as regally as the Nubian princess that she became.

Although she was born in the Jim Crow South, the apartheid way of quiet acceptance was never hers, and she spoke out boldly, in her art, and in her interviews, against the injustices suffered by her people.

When the Nixon-era began, she bid her homeland adieu, and like a generation of other brilliant Black Americans (like the writer, Richard Wright) who could not abide the nastiness, meanness, and racial indignities of the time, she migrated to live with dignity in France.

Some reviewers have pronounced her career essentially over when she left the U.S. during the '70s, never to rise again. But great artists, like great music, have a habit of resurrection.

In the early '90s, an American film emerged that was a borrowing from the French.Bridget Fonda portrayed an alienated, drug-addicted, youngster who got caught up in a failed drugstore robbery, turned killing.She was spirited into a shadowy spy agency where she worked invariably played Nina Simone records in the background to reflect her moodiness.The film was titled "Point of No Return" (a U.S. remake of "La Femme Nikita.") A generation of young filmgoers were thus exposed to the wonder and power of Simone's magnificent instrument.

Where are the Simones of this generation? They are there... in the shadows, perhaps; but they are there.

They are perhaps afraid of giving as much as their recently departed ancestor.For, even they know that she sacrificed a good deal to sing the songs that moved her great heart.Such a prospect is no doubt scary.

Yet, one wonders, who among the madding throng will be remembered, not to mentioned revered 30 years from now?How much of what is produced now furrows its way into the heart, or rings the deep bell of recognition in the soul?Who will sing of the wonder, the terror, the beauty, and the madness of Black life in this new century?

THE POST 9-11 ATTACK ON DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

From Class Struggle 48 December 2002/January 2003

The referral back to the House late last year of the “Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill 2002” signalled that the government intends to forge ahead with it’s plans to further erode our already seriously damaged civil rights. The select committee hearings on the Bill heard submissions from a wide range of individuals and groups opposed to the bill and as usual the Government chose to ignore them, proving that the whole select committee process is a complete farce and that the government had no intention of listening to any of the critics. Even some of the government’s lackeys voiced concern about the interception of citizen’s computer and telephone communications. The Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Slane, was concerned about the effect this would have on individual privacy.

S11 and ‘homeland security

Since September 11 2001, the Capitalist world has been in the grip of fear about terrorism and many western countries seem to be vying with each other to see who can strip away the most rights from the people. Not to be outdone, New Zealand has joined the cynical circus with legislation which gives the authorities vastly greater rights to spy on people. The Bill is part of an insidious package of legislation which includes anti terrorism legislation, increased powers for the GCSB (The Government Communications Security Bureau) and amendments to the Crimes Act that will make it legal for Government snoopers to hack into people’s computers. At the heart of these Bills is a desire to win the hearts and minds not of the people of New Zealand but of the imperial masters, particularly those in the US. There has been some vague talk in the last few months of us cutting a trade deal with Uncle Sam, and if it does eventuate, there is little doubt that a quid-pro-quo has taken place between the Governments of our two countries. There is also little doubt that the US will be the recipient of much of the information harvested by the New Zealand Police, SIS and GCSB.

Terrorism Suppression Act

A Select Committee held hearings in Auckland last year to hear submissions on the anti-terrorism legislation. Time was set aside to hear from left wing groups who opposed the legislation. The Workers Party, Socialist Party of Aotearoa and Socialist Workers Organisation spoke at some length to the committee about their concerns. Issues were raised such as the Workers Party association with Maoist parties in other countries and how that could be interpreted under the proposed bill. One of the provisions of the anti-terrorism legislation would make it illegal to be associated with any so-called terrorist organisation. Committee chairman, Graham Kelly, made a comment that he had been involved in the anti-Vietnam movement in the 60s and understood full well how people were concerned about civil rights but that they had nothing to fear. Essentially, Kelly expects us to trust him on the basis that he has some sort of street cred because he marched in a few demos over thirty years ago. At best he is now a cog in the New Zealand capitalist machine so his assurances count for little.

The Communist Workers Group also made submissions highlighting the despicable role played by the US in the rest of the world and raising the question of who were the real terrorists. Again, as expected, the Select Committee paid no attention to the many voices raised in concern over the direction this legislation was taking the country. One of the worst side effects of September 11 has been the way in which it has been used by the imperialists to hasten their attacks on civil rights. This attack is not new and rights were already in the process of being stripped away in countries like New Zealand. All that has happened since September 11 2001 is that the pace has quickened.

Crimes Act cyber snoops

Another example of the attack on civil liberties can be seen in changes to the Crimes Act which allows The Police, SIS and GCSB to hack into people’s computers to combat “cyber crime” and “cyber terrorism.” When asked for examples of cyber crime the supporters of the legislation cannot come up with any compelling examples and instead mumble about how criminals are increasingly using the net to commit crimes. As for cyber terrorism, evidence of this is even thinner on the ground. However, when asked for examples, the authorities can always fall back on the “I can’t reveal that information on grounds of national security” speech. This is a convenient way of side stepping the issue.

Many computer and Internet experts such as Alan Marsden of the ISP PLAnet point out that people will be able to get around the new legislation by using methods such as encryption. It is most likely that ordinary workers will be the ones spied on. A simple email containing the words ‘Bush’ and ‘kill’ will be the sort of thing that gains the attention of the spies. They won’t even have to be in the same sentence or paragraph.

Workers, activist organisations and individual dissidents will subjected to an apparelled level of surveillance and this information will then be passed on to US. Even before these offensive pieces of legislation came along organisations like the SIS and GCSB were a law unto themselves, spying on perfectly legal activism and activists such as Aziz Chowdry and David Small in Chrstchurch. We couldn’t trust them then, why should we trust them now especially since they have been given increased powers!

More Police Powers

The amendments to the Crimes Act to allow hacking are complemented by the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill which gives even greater powers to The GCSB than the police. While a police interception warrant only lasts for 30 days, the GCSB warrant lasts for 12 months and the only details made public every year are how many warrants were issued in the last 12 months. It gets even worse when you consider that some of the GCSB interceptions (such as those carried out at Waihopai) are not even subject to a warrant system. The Bill deliberately uses broad and sweeping phrases such as “New Zealand’s international interests or economic well-being.” No doubt that will mean protecting our alliances with other capitalist and imperialist powers and protecting the interests of international capitalism. The Green Party point out in their submission on the bill “a multinational company such as Monsanto, a promoter of GE Crops, is a major threat to New Zealand’s ‘economic well being’. Yet, there is no indication that the GCSB will be spying on Monsanto.” On the contrary, they will probably be spying on the “wild greens” an activist movement associated with the Green Party.

Echelon ties NZ to US War on Terror

New Zealand is one of the five partners (along with the US, Britain, Canada and Australia) in the “Echelon” electronic spying network. Echelon was pioneered by the US Intelligence agencies and is nothing less than a massive trawler of information. As one would expect with such a programme coming out of the US state, its purpose is to prop up capitalism and the imperialist order. Anything perceived as a threat to US interests would be a target. With the passage of this legislation, a blank cheque will effectively be given to our spying centre at Waihopai to conduct intrusive surveillance on not only New Zealanders but Pacific Island residents as well.

Attack on political freedoms

An example of an activist organisation that has much to fear from the GCSB Bill is the Anti-Bases Campaign in Christchurch. In light of this they too made submissions to Parliament opposing the bill. They make an extremely good point about the hypocrisy of the bill when they ask:

“The GCSB Bill would confer an aura of legitimacy on the Bureau that it simply does not deserve. How can an agency be deemed to operate under the laws of the land when it is exempted from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, when it is exempted from some provisions of the Crimes Act, when it’s methods of operation are closed secrets except to the exclusive breathern within the international intelligence community?”

Smash the police state!

They are right to ask this question, but a fear of being labelled hypocrites by their opponents has never stopped the capitalists from doing what serves their interests.Capitalist laws serve capitalist interests. We need an ongoing campaign to expose the abuses of power the state is engaging in and the real purpose behind such legislation. We must also make workers aware at every opportunity that they and their organisations are under direct threat from the spying legislation currently before parliament.

Only when people understand that these legislative attacks are part of capitalism’s grand plan for control, and that their class interests can not be defended by legislative changes but in the rejection of the capitalist system itself, will there be real change.

Workers action to defend civil rights!

For migrant defence committees!

Smash Echelon!