The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

“This is a circus or a charade in order to greenwash the Egyptian military dictatorship”

Interview with Egyptian journalist Hossam el-Hamalawy about next month’s climate summit in the “Las Vegas of Egypt”


17/10/2022

Hi Hossam, thanks for agreeing to talk to us. Could you start by introducing yourself? Who are you and what do you do?

My name is Hossam el-Hamalawy. I’m an Egyptian journalist, and a member of the Revolutionary Socialists, which is one of Egypt’s left-wing organizations. Originally I was a photojournalist who had to document the Egyptian revolution, and was involved in the labour movement back home. 

I’m currently based in Berlin, that’s where I reside now. This is where I’m doing my PhD on the Egyptian security services, and their role in the counter revolution.

Today we want to talk about the COP27 climate summit, which is starting on November 6, in Sharm el-Sheikh. Given the state of the environment, isn’t it a good idea that people are coming together and talking about stopping climate change?

In an abstract term, this sounds very nice and very attractive. In concrete terms, and in reality, this is a circus or a charade in order to greenwash the Egyptian military dictatorship. 

Egypt is currently led by Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, the former Minister of Defence. In 2013, Sisi led a military coup against Egypt’s first democratically elected president, from the Muslim Brotherhood. Since then, he has been ruling that country with an iron fist. We have thousands of political prisoners and pre-trial detainees, and dissent from all shades has been crushed brutally by his security services. 

…this is being marketed abroad as empowering the Global South. But what you’re doing is simply empowering and giving political capital to a military dictatorship…

Sisi suffered for a very short period of time following the coup, with some sort of diplomatic boycott, which did not really last for long. Usually the easiest way to do business with the industrial West, if you’re a military dictator, is to simply take off your uniform, and you organize some kind of “election”. Once you’re dressed in a civilian suit, they start dealing with you  again. This is what Sisi did.

COP27 is being held in Sharm el-Sheikh, which is the Las Vegas of Egypt. It’s a touristic area by the Red Sea which is mainly for international tourists and well-to-do Egyptians. In order to  even get into Sinai, ordinary Egyptians have to have special permits. It’s not a free movement area. 

Usually Egyptians who cross the Suez Canal to Sinai are vetted by the police. If you’re not middle or upper middle class, if you look poor, then you must present a reason why you’re going to Sinai along with permits for work or  accommodation. If you can’t provide these, you’re not allowed to go to these areas. 

While he has been inviting climate change activists to come to Egypt, Sisi has been embarking on a war on greenery. He’s been chopping down trees in a methodical manner, all throughout Cairo and the other urban centres. He is doing this to extend and widen streets, to allow military and armoured vehicles to move more easily, in order to quell any future uprisings. This also facilitates traffic to his newly secluded administrative capital. 

COP27 is being held in an Egypt where political prisoners are languishing in jail, where Egyptian environmental activists are not allowed to attend, where indigenous tribesmen from Sinai, who have long been prosecuted and marginalized, are not given a voice. 

By the way, a joint statement has been issued by Egyptian human rights activists demanding a platform and a voice at the conference for the local Sinai people who’ve been subjected to Sisi’s dirty war during his counterinsurgency, and who have been subjected to forceful evictions. But such calls have fallen on deaf ears, as you can imagine. 

So this is being marketed abroad as empowering the Global South. But what you’re doing is simply empowering and giving political capital to a military dictatorship, that is destroying the environment.

If the Egyptian environmental activists are not going to be at COP27, who will be there representing Egypt?

There will definitely be government officials, as well as youth who have been hand picked by the security services to represent the regime. They will be rebranded as NGO activists, environmental experts and what have you, but there won’t be any serious campaign or from Egyptian civil society.

In the context of a conference… a few kilometres to the South of an ongoing war against the local indigenous tribes, thinking that you can further your environmental cause in this setting, means that you are simply lying to yourself, and to the public

What does normalization mean concretely for the Sisi dictatorship? What did he gain from COP27?

It gains more political capital, which means that he can buy more arms from the West. He can expect diplomatic support from the different players when it comes to shielding his regime officials from prosecution abroad. It helps him avoid the UN related moves to either denounce the human rights record or punish his regime.

Let’s look at the reaction of the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung in Berlin. They will agree with everything that you say about the Sisi dictatorship, and about political prisoners. But they are saying that they are coming under pressure from their groups in the Global South, in particular in Africa, who argue: if this summit doesn’t happen, then we’ll have more Pakistans. Western countries will be able to ignore the voice of the Global South even more. Do you think this is a legitimate point of view?

No, I don’t. You can’t save the environment in one place if you’re destroying it in another.  Empowering local military dictators in the Global South, and letting them get away with crimes is not going to help your environmental cause. In the context of a conference organized in Las Vegas, a few kilometres to the South of an ongoing war against the local indigenous tribes, thinking that you can further your environmental cause in this setting, means that you are simply lying to yourself, and to the public. And this is not the leftist solidarity that we would expect from our partners.

Moving from the Left to the German government. The Germans now have a Green foreign minister, who I guess will be at COP27. And Germany is one of Egypt’s major trading partners. Do you think that the new German Red-Green-Yellow government will be able to force change from Sisi either on environmental matters or around repression?

I honestly don’t think so. There is a long track record of the German state eventually accommodating military dictatorships as long as they do business deals with them. Every now and then there might be some concerns raised about political prisoners, or high profile detainees which Egypt may use to score some PR victory. But other than that, I don’t really expect any substantial change in German foreign policy.

Let’s talk about one of those prisoners. Alaa Abd El-Fattah, who’s perhaps the best known Egyptian political prisoner. There is a free Alaa campaign in Berlin, which has already organized some protests at the British Embassy. What’s the situation with Alaa now? What help is he receiving?

Alaa is entering the 200th day of his hunger strike. And the only thing we can do to help him is to create as much noise as possible around his cause, hoping that by pressuring the Egyptian regime into some PR scandal, we can secure the release of Alaa and maybe a number of other hostages that the regime has in there.

Alaa’s health is in a very fragile situation. He has been kept in solitary confinement for a very long time. At this point, many say that his imprisonment is more or less a personal vendetta by Sisi himself who is offended and insulted by Alaa’s family who have been central to the activism around and before the revolution.

Do you think that COP 27 offers opportunities for our side to raise Alaa’s case and to put Sisi under pressure?

Maybe, but not necessarily by going to Sharm el-Sheikh and thinking that you can voice such demands there, but by boycotting it and by exploiting the media attention so as to raise as many issues related to human rights as possible in the current situation.

If you don’t support people attending COP27, what is your alternative?  

When it comes to saving the environment, I think that everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room, which is called capitalism. If German activists want to save the environment, then they should campaign and organize against their own government and its own policies. 

When it comes to coal use and helping the transition into non fossil fuel as soon as possible, your fight is local. As for us in Egypt, the solidarity that you can give us is, at least, to not empower our own regime. This is number one. Number two, hold protests in front of Egyptian embassies and consulates around the world with pictures of political prisoners, demanding their immediate release.

How can people reading this interview get involved in protests around COP27? Where can they go? How can they find out what’s happening?

I usually follow two links. One is the Egypt solidarity website. And the other one is called cop civic space. Follow the news via those two links to get involved. You can also follow the Free Alaa campaign in Berlin.

Thanks Hossam. Good luck in your future work

“Romantic relationships are a lifestyle choice”

Feminist authors Jacinta Nandi and Nadia Shehadeh discuss relationships, girlboss feminism and #metoo2.0


16/10/2022

Jacinta: When I decided I wanted to write this book, I had a totally different book in mind, than the book I ended up writing. A more positive book, easier to read, wth a really simple message: Just doit: leave your husband, like a girl-boss. Total dump him feminism.

Nadia: And then…

Jacinta: Well, there are parts of the book that are still clearly Dump Him feminism. Because I think women should just leave their husbands! If they’re violent, but also if they’re lazy. Or even just because they’ve fallen out of love. They should leave. But what I found out writing this book is that there’s no “just” about it. It’s hard. Society – institutions like the tax office, the job center – society makes it hard to leave.

Nadia: Yep. I think the most important message Dump Him feminism gives us is that you should, or can, go at any time. For any reason. You know, realized at an embarrassingly late point in my life – that I don’t need a reason to leave a man. I can just go. That was an epiphany.

Jacinta: Life IS easier without men. Sometimes I think instead of 50 WAYS TO LEAVE YOUR EHEMANN I should’ve written 50 REASONS TO NEVER GET INVOLVED WITH A HETEROSEXUAL MAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Nadia: I’ve been saying for years: life without a partner is the easiest life you can have. At least if you’re single.

Jacinta: Once kids are involved, it’s hard. Life as a single mother isn’t easy

Nadia: Yep. I don`t understand how mothers, parents in general, are able to raise kids. Do you guys have superpowers? It’s a mystery to me.

Jacinta: Nadia, we’re both over forty now. And I remember, when I was 33, my ex left me. I have a friend, Nellie, about seven years older than me. And Nellie told me she’d given up on romance. “Friendship is more important to me than romantic love now. I actually live for you guys, and your children now!” My boyfriend had just left me, I was really broken. And I remember thinking, God, that’s tragic. But I don’t anymore

Nadia: I think what Nellie said is so important. Romantic relationships don’t contribute much to life. They’re a lifestyle choice. And hard work. You have to put a lot of effort in. You know I married super young? My ex-husband, he was a nice guy, all my girlfriends used to ask if he had a brother they could date But, even with this nice guy, the amount of effort I had to put in to keep our everyday heterosexual life going – it was such hard work, at a certain point I just couldn’t take it anymore.

Jacinta: Well, men never put any effort in!

Nadia: You know, every day I’d be thinking: life could be so easy if I was on my own. I was so young and I’d ask myself: Do people enjoy living like this? The whole time, I was thinking: Even if this love is beautiful… I want more from life than this. It was as if there was a ghost living in me, whispering: You’d have a much easier life if you were alone. And I was ashamed of these thoughts.

Jacinta: I feel like none of my exes actually wanted to make a home with me. They didn’t want to hang nice curtains up. You know I never had a workroom? My first boyfriend was a student, he got the workroom, the next ex was a writer, got the workroom. I never got a workroom. And I wonder. Why didn’t I ever ask if I could have a workroom? It was a bit fucked-up. But I also think it’s unfair, how we talk about this stuff. Always asking the women why they didn’t do things differently. Oh, you wanted a partner so much, so you had low standards, it’s your fault these men were shit, because you wanted a partner. Why didn’t you leave sooner, why didn’t you communicate your needs? I don’t think anyone ever says to my exes why didn’t you put nice curtains up and be more supportive!

Nadia: You know what? I open TikTok, and these clips from young straight women flood my timeline, always complaining about the same things. Guys not doing the bare minimum. Guys leaving you on read. Ghosting. Cheating. The full repertoire! I watch the clips and I think: “Wow”. They know how it’s going to be. But they’ll never stop trying.

Jacinta: There’s a chapter on the Heard/Depp case at the end of my book. In their relationship, their short marriage, Depp was a human being. She was meant to be there to support him. And he was meant to be fully human. And that’s why people are angry at her, right? Because she thought she was his partner, thought they were a team. How dare she?

Nadia: Oh, absolutely. He’s this dreamy gifted artist-type. She’s this annoying bitch who thought she was human, had autonomy, dared to think she didn’t deserve to be abused?

Jacinta: You know recently on Twitter they were talking about what a shit sugar daddy he was? You know, Heard’s a gold-digger because apparently if you marry someone for their money – like he didn’t marry her for her looks – they’re legally allowed to beat and rape you? Right? You’ll have to show me that paragraph in the Gesetzbuch! But even in this fantasy world where she’s this calculating bitch who married him for his money – he’s stingy! He’s worth 650 million, but her engagement ring was only 100k. That isn’t three months wages. You know if he’d spent three months wages on her ring, she could sell that and pay the ten million!

Nadia: The thing I can’t get over is the fact that when women ask for the bare minimum – I don’t want to be humiliated, I don`t want to do all the work alone, it would be great if we could be real partners actually – the world turns on them. The absolute BARE MINIMUM is still too much. I mean, when even Taylor Swift has to write lyrics like “A never-needy, ever-lovely jewel, whose shine reflects on you” – you know what’s going on.

Jacinta: It makes me angry that girlboss feminists who are all like, why are your standards so low, that’s why men treat you badly…turned around and said it was funny that Depp wanted to rape Heard’s corpse. So, we should have higher standards but if your husband is a famous pirate, you should have no standards at all?

Nadia: Look at what happened with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. On that flight. We’ve known all along that Pitt did something bad on that plane.. Let’s be honest. Everyone knows that Johnny Depp was an asshole to Amber Heard. We know this.

Jacinta: Yeah.

Nadia: The rule is: as a female ex-partner, you mustn’t share any details. You’re not allowed to ruin a man’s honour by telling everyone what your guy was like.

Jacinta: Amber Heard broke a taboo?

Nadia: Yes. And the joke: for years, it was kind of okay, for the public, that Amber Heard existed. She’d been in a shitty marriage with Depp. That marriage ended. She’d made a few films. Okay. Nobody cared.

Jacinta: And then he sued her, and the world turned on her.

Nadia: I’ve thought about it a lot. I think our culture is shifting right now – we’ve come to a new point. Where women talk about their lives. Where famous women reveal how shitty their famous partners were. Amber Heard became a symbol of this. I think this Amber Heard-moment is somehow a #metoo2.0. A taboo is being broken right now, in front of our eyes. People don’t understand what’s really going on, but actually the Amber Heard story is a new #metoo.

Jacinta: I can’t understand what’s happening. Feminists, mothers, mothers who are raising their girls to be feminists, they write to me telling me to stop talking about this? It’s not enough that they’re silent, they want everyone to be silent?

Nadia: I don’t understand why the resistance to Amber’s story is so strong. In May, I thought, why are people being like this? Why do they care so much about Depp, as if he’s a close relative? Why don’t they read the facts?

Jacinta: You can read the UK trial statements online. It’s really clear. She didn’t defame him.

Nadia: But it’s an attractive story, right? Crazy Ex Girlfriend aka wife comes out, with all this dirty laundry years later. OMG. Doesn’t she know she should keep her mouth shut? And that was the worst. That it was really entertainment for people. And some pro-Depp-feminists, instead of shutting up, gave their shitty comments in this whole misogynistic circus.

Jacinta: Well, it’s more interesting that the depressing boring reality: rich guy with a history of violent behaviour beat and raped his wife.

Nadia: Right.

Jacinta: I get so confused because I tell myself all these feminists who supported Depp are just dumb, and not evil. Right? They just fell for propaganda?

Nadia: The thing is, men have always been able to rely upon heterosexual women’s discretion. Women have learnt to keep their mouths shut. They have to be loyal, in the relationship, and once the relationship is over. And it’s embarrassing for women to admit they were involved with an asshole. They don’t want to seem being stupid or desperate. So you might tell your friends about the horrors of the relationship. But if you go public – even if, like Heard, you’re forced to go public – people can’t take it. They lose their fucking minds!

Jacinta: So women remain silent?

Nadia: Well, it works, doesn’t it? You might complain to your friends, but that’s it.

Jacinta: I can’t bear it, that even feminists pretended these three sentences were malicious.

Nadia: Amber Heard expected the bare minimum. For her safety, her dignity. She got a restraining order and then she wrote an op-ed.

Jacinta: You know fake feminists who ask did you even watch the trial? I wonder if they read the op-ed. It’s so innocuous: I read it half-way through the trial, I couldn’t believe it. You’d have to be misogynist to be offended by that?

Nadia: And Depp was never cancelled! Never! I saw him in 2018. Accidentally at a big festival in Belgium. An old loser playing with Hollywood Vampires. Someone who is cancelled doesn’t play at festivals.

Nadia: Let´s face it: there was never a famous guy who got cancelled because of his problematic behaviour towards his partner. William S. Burroughs killed his wife. J. D Salinger started a very disturbing “relationship” with the 18-year-old Joyce Maynard when he was in his 50s. There’s a video of Charles Bukowski kicking his partner off the sofa. It’s on YouTube, it’s super disturbing. Was he cancelled? Nope. People don’t care about it. A legend will always be a legend.

Jacinta: Johnny Depp, legend. Johnny Depp keeps winning. Johnny Depp will win again. Like yeah, he will. Abusers win. That’s what the op-ed was about.

Nadia: I keep on asking myself why was it so attractive, back in May and June, for people to show solidarity with Depp? I mean, they could’ve kept silent? But no. They really wanted to show they were on his side? And now we see the first English-speaking feminists trying to back-pedal somewhat. They say, oh we fell for disinformation. For a disinformation campaign.

Jacinta: Yeah, I don’t know. There were a lot of clickbait YouTube videos – there still are. But it was easy enough to do your research and realize there’s no way she defamed him.

Nadia: Well, I can’t help thinking: being a feminist in the public sphere, it’s your duty to get informed. Don’t get all your information from TikTok. And I say that as someone who watches TikTok all day long.

Jacinta: People WANTED to fall for it. sued her for getting a restraining order and writing an article saying we should protect victims more. And all the “did you watch the trial” people, knew these basic facts, knew she was being sued for stating publicly that she was a feminist and thought victims should be protected more. If Depp truly were a victim – which I don’t think anyone really believes? Johnny Depp will win again – memes of her crying, him laughing – the way people supported him was always the way you support a winner, support an abuser – but okay, let’s pretend for a moment we think Depp was a victim, he was scared of Heard, he was living his life in fear of her beating him up. How, exactly, does him suing her for defamation bring him any closure? If he really was a victim, this court case would have retraumatized him. Wouldn’t have made him any safer.

Nadia: It’s fascinating. People ignored the basic legal facts of the case! Acted like this trial proved he was the victim of domestic violence. This is what has made the case such a fucking disaster in terms of media and public reception.

Jacinta: People say they think he’s a victim, then next second they mention Heard’s mental health diagnosis. This rent-a-diagnosis from Shannon Curry. If you think Depp’s a victim, why does it matter if Heard has borderline personality disorder? If anything, if she’s mentally ill and Depp’s her victim, that could mean she DIDN’T defame him maliciously? But what they really mean is it’s okay if he beat her and raped her if she’s borderline, because then she’s unworthy. She’s less human than a mentally stable woman.

Nadia: All he wanted was to destroy Heard’s integrity, publicly humiliate her. He announced his intentions clearly. And then he did it.

Jacinta: And feminists say things like you know, in German, Schlammschlacht or Rosenkrieg or Promiklatsch or Promiehe. As if it was a fair fight. Two rich people, suing each other. Both as bad as each other. He was worth 650 million, he stopped her working while they were together, she’s now not just bankrupted but owes him millions.

Nadia: 650 million!

Jacinta: Well, I reckon 645 million now because he must have spent 5 million on bots! And feminists tell you to stop caring. Amber Heard’s rich, so it’s fine he raped her. Or it’s fine he sued her, bankrupted her for being feminist because she’s white and famous. You know, I think it’s important because so many non-famous women are being sued for defamation now? Depp’s an MRA and everything he did is an abusive man’s text book. There’s this fucked-up stuff happening. Women losing custody because the dad was abusive and if they talk about it, they lose their kid. The Heard/Depp is important because Depp will inspire abusers and Heard will make victims scared to get to safety. All the copy-cat rapes there’ll be. Because of all the nurses who say she must be a liar because she didn’t go to the doctor straight away, all the teenage girls’ mums who encourage their daughters to laugh at Amber. But also, it’s important because Amber Heard’s a human being who dared to leave a rich, famous guy and whose life has been destroyed. How can people say it’s unimportant?

Nadia: She DARED to stick to her version of the story.

Jacinta: Yeah. I’ll never get over the fact that he was the one who broke their agreement in the first place!

Nadia: You know the worst part?

Jacinta: What?

Nadia: Amber could have just been living her life. And Johnny too. The story was over.

Jacinta: Yeah, he wasn’t cancelled and the story was over. But he was searching for reasons to sue her. And you know, he fucked his own career up in the process. But I think he hates her so much that it was worth it for him.

Nadia: Instead of just letting her go, he drags her to court, years after the relationship’s over. Because it isn’t over for him. Says it all, really.

Jacinta: I’ll never forget that Lidl joined in! With the bullying. Like I dunno, Lidl, cheapo veggies but I reckon the people who work there are intelligent people`? They know full well that he probably raped her with a bottle. Did a cavity check. Even the biggest Deppheads believe the cavity search story! And Lidl, a German supermarket chain, who knew full well Depp had probably raped her, they were so certain that it was morally okay to bully a rape victim if the whole world is, that they brought that ad out? What’s wrong with them?

Nadia: I think the reason so many white women defend Depp is they felt triggered. This case means that reality and romance don’t mix. We pretend: If you do the work, have all the privileges, if you’re beautiful, and you behave good, you, as a white woman, you’ll get a good guy. Because you deserve it. But the truth is, you can meet someone who seems to have it all. Like a talented, famous actor like Depp, who was able to maintain the illusion of being sensitive and soft for many years. But you’ll get the same old crap, because these fancy little love stories are taking place in the patriarchy. And they couldn’t take it.

Jacinta: See, my theory was that because of her queerness and mental health issues, they saw her as flawed and unworthy, almost not white. But I think your theory’s true, too. Because it’s always white women writing she could have been so happy, she threw it all away.

Nadia: It’s a relationship myth.

Jacinta: They hate her because they know it’s not true?

Nadia: Depp versus Heard and Jolie versus Pitt: these stories prove that instead of romance people taste the terror of heteronormativity. And in a heavy dosage.

Jacinta: It’s so weird isn’t it. People accuse her of marrying him for his money, but deep down they think because of his money she should have kept her mouth shut about the rape.

Nadia: It hurts women to see that hetero romances are a scam that in many cases just don`t work. I mean, it’s in the statistics. There’s literally data.

Jacinta: It’s interesting that Jolie and Heard, both bisexual, are considered homewreckers. Paradis and Aniston, the nice girls. I always imagine Paradis barefoot in some country house in France. And then the men left these perfect women for these dangerous-looking, cold-looking, exotic-looking beauties? Intelligent, bisexual women? Maybe romance was dead already when they left.

Nadia: The thing is with Jolie/Pitt is there’s also a racist side. We all know he attacked Maddox. And nobody cared. Like: he’s the Cambodian adoptee. And Pitt lost his temper a bit – come on. Who cares?

Jacinta: Oh God, yeah, the way people talk about it, they sound like Agatha Christie.

Nadia: We always think we’ve come so far. But we haven’t made much progress at all.

Jacinta: We haven’t made any progress at all. Camille can put on a nice suit and earn money asking Amber why she didn’t take photos of her bleeding vagina. That’s all feminism has really achieved? Women aren’t human. Everything that has been done to Amber would be done to Camille tomorrow, if she said she’d been raped. Women aren’t seen as human.

Nadia: You know 15 years ago, I thought we were living in a freer, more modern world. But then I watched series like Girls of the Playboy Mansion on MTV. And I watched the way the tabloids destroyed Amy Winehouse and Britney.

Jacinta: I have a fan in India, and what I am about to say is provocative. She wrote me the other night. She said Western feminism is over. Because feminists in the West want to appease incels. So, they sacrifice Heard, make Heard a scapegoat. They think they can appease incels. Isn’t that what’s happening? We call Vasquez a girlboss feminist, in fact she’s a girlrapist? And my fan said Iran is the future. If they manage it. They’re gonna lead the way.

Nadia: Oh, that’s interesting. I was talking to an Iranian friend yesterday and I said, being controversial, that we’d never have the kind of feminist uprising they have in Iran over here.

Jacinta: No, how can we? It’s feminist to fight for Depp’s right to rape and beat Amber Heard.

Nadia: The thing is, feminism over here, in the West, is so easy to consume. Especially if you’re white, straight and privileged.

Jacinta: “I am sooooooo feminist, I know loads of women are abusers! Men and women are equal now, and women are the real abusers! Stop boring me with statistics about dead women and women’s refuges, I looked into Amber Heard’s eyes, I know she’s lying.” Heard’s our scapegoat, but also a warning.

Nadia: Because women who speak out about men’s bad behaviour have to be punished. And this is what makes it hard to leave men. Back to the topic of your book! If you’re a good woman, a good wife, you won’t leave your husband. Not for any reason. You stay, because of your love for him. And if you do leave, be loyal, loving – the well-behaved ex.

Jacinta: OH MY GOD! I just realized! That’s why Moss and Paradis are praised so much for their loyalty, right? If people thought he hadn’t abused them, there’d be nothing to praise? They’re being praised for keeping his secrets?

Nadia: Well, people want to think that when male violence exists, it’s in a serial killer kind of way. People still think that some women deserve the bad treatment. Like, sexworkers. Trans women. Poor women. Black and brown women. But when a white privileged cis man is violent, when the victim’s a privileged woman, or famous, or beautiful: that’s when they think something is going on. Something’s up.

Jacinta: Not as if it’s just normal.

Nadia: You know, the first time I wanted to leave a man. It was exhausting. We were living together. And there is so much mental load, mental exhaustion when you separate from someone. The comforting conversations. Dividing up the stuff. It was emotionally exhausting, although we were on very good terms during that process. And I often wonder: how do women with kids manage it at all? Or women who experienced bad things from their partner? Or women who are poor?

Jacinta: Yeah, the mental load after an abusive relationship is even worse, I think. This is why Heard should have taken every penny she could off that abusive prick! You know what her only mistake was in all of this? She always underestimated how much he hated her. Even in court. She underestimated his hate.

Nadia: She should’ve taken every penny. She took less than she was entitled to. Much less than the bare minimum. When people call her a gold-digger, they’re just trying to show contempt.

Jacinta: I genuinely don’t understand the gold-digger stuff. Like okay, she married him for his money, because she loves money. Then she tried to confuse us all by pledging the money to charity, changed her mind because she’s greedy and selfish. Only donated 1.3 million, kept the rest for herself. Okay, then what? Like what? Then he’s allowed to rape her, retroactively allowed to rape her, because he paid 6 million for the privilege. It’s so fucked up. If I was pretending I thought he hadn’t raped her, if I officially thought she was lying about the rape, I’d never bring up the pledge/donate stuff?

Nadia: I hope she will win the appeal. Just the fact that she stands up for herself after all those horrible experiences she had to go through – it shows how strong she is. And I hope when people look back at this tiktok trial and the ramifications it has – I really hope they will be ashamed that they participated in a mess like that.

Jacinta: God, yeah. I hope so, too.

Jacinta’s new book 50 ways to leave your Ehemann is now available and can be ordered from Nautilus press. Nadias Ost gut jetzt can be ordered from edition assemblage. NOTE: the books are in German, Jacinta’s recent English-language book WTF Berlin. Expatsplaining the German Capital has just gone into its second edition

Socialism Ran In Angela Lansbury’s Blood

The late actor’s grandparents and father were socialists who went to prison for opposing rent rises. Her aunts were Communists and campaigners for abortion rights


13/10/2022

Angela Lansbury, much-loved star of stage and screen, has died aged 96. Among the many obituaries, few give more than a passing mention to her socialist family heritage but that heritage casts a light on a fascinating period of British socialist history when Labour politicians defied the law to fight inequality.

Angela’s grandfather was George Lansbury, a socialist, anti-war campaigner and supporter of women’s suffrage who led the Labour Party from 1932 to 1935. Lansbury lived in the East End and during the Dockers’ Strike of 1889 he joined a strike support committee through which he met members of the Social Democratic Federation, which he joined in 1892. In 1903, Lansbury left the Marxist SDF and joined the Independent Labour Party which was more aligned to his Christian socialism. He was elected to parliament in 1910 representing Bow and Bromley. He resigned his seat in 1912 to campaign for women’s suffrage and was briefly imprisoned after publicly supporting suffragettes’ illegal actions.

In 1912, Lansbury helped to establish the Daily Herald newspaper, and became its editor. Throughout the First World War, the paper maintained a strongly pacifist stance, and supported the October 1917 Russian Revolution. These positions contributed to Lansbury’s failure to be elected to Parliament in 1918. He devoted himself to local politics in his home borough of Poplar and was elected Mayor.

He defied the law and went to prison with 30 Poplar councillors for his part in the Poplar Rates Rebellion of 1921 when the council refused to set rates which entrenched inequality between rich and poor London boroughs. The councillors were arrested on the 1 September despite mass support on the streets. Three weeks later, councillor Nellie Cressall who was six months pregnant was released. The others were released on 12 October when other councils threatened to follow their example.

Lansbury was returned to Parliament in 1922 and served as First Commissioner of Works in the Labour government of 1929–31. After the political and economic crisis of August 1931, Lansbury did not follow his leader, Ramsay MacDonald, into the National Government, and remained with the Labour Party becoming leader. His pacifism and his opposition to rearmament in the face of rising European fascism put him at odds with his party, and when his position was rejected at the 1935 Labour Party conference, he resigned the leadership.

George and his wife, Elizabeth Brine, known as Bessie, had 12 children, of whom 10 survived to adulthood. Angela Lansbury’s father, Edgar Lansbury, grew up in Poplar, and became a timber merchant. Lansbury was elected to Poplar Council in 1912, serving alongside his father. He represented both the Labour Party and after its foundation in 1920 the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). He also supported Sylvia Pankhurst’s East London Federation of Suffragettes, serving as Honorary Treasurer in 1915.

In 1921 Edgar was imprisoned with his father as a Poplar Councillor. Another jailed councillor was Edgar’s first wife Minnie Lansbury. Minnie Glassman was born in Stepney in 1889, one of seven children in a Jewish family. She became a teacher and was an active member of the teacher’s trade union and a campaigner for equal pay for women. She was also an active suffragette, joining the central committee of the East London Federation of Suffragettes In 1921 Minnie was one of five women imprisoned for their role in the rates rebellion. Minnie contracted pneumonia while in jail and died on 1st January 1922, aged 32. Thousands of people lined the streets on the day of her funeral.

Angela’s youngest aunt, Violet Lansbury… was a journalist for the Communist Daily Worker with her own column, “Violet Lansbury’s weekly chat”. After the Second World War she became a noted translator from the Russian of a wide range of fiction and non-fiction books.

In 1924 Edgar Lansbury was elected as a member of the CPGB’s Central Committee. From 1924 to 1925 he served as Mayor of Poplar, the country’s second Communist mayor after Joe Vaughan. Following Minnie’s death, Edgar Lansbury married actress Moyna Macgill and the two moved to Regent’s Park. He left the Council in 1925, the same year that his first child, the future actress, Angela Lansbury, was born. Twin sons, Bruce and Edgar Jr., later became prominent film and TV producers.

In 1927 Lansbury’s timber firm was declared bankrupt. In 1934 Lansbury wrote George Lansbury, My Father. In the work he inadvertently quoted from confidential documents his father had allowed him to see and was found to have contravened section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. He was fined and his book was recalled in order for the text to be censored. He died of stomach cancer in 1935.

Angela’s aunt Dorothy Lansbury (1890–1973), was a women’s rights activist and later a campaigner for contraceptive and abortion rights. She was 16 when she became a member of the Independent Labour Party (ILP). She started work as a clerk and accountant, and very soon joined the National Union of Clerks. She joined the Women’s Freedom League and the Women’s Labour League, but was unhappy with the militant tactics employed by the suffragette movement.

In 1912 Dorothy married Ernest Thurtle, who was later elected as the Labour MP for Shoreditch. In 1924, Thurtle and her husband founded the Workers’ Birth Control Group. Thurtle was the general secretary of Shoreditch Trades Council and Labour Party, and in 1925, was she elected to Shoreditch Borough Council, later becoming mayor in 1936. From 1946, she served a term as a member of the London County Council, representing Shoreditch.

Throughout her career, Thurtle was a tireless advocate for working-class women having free access to information on abortion, pressing the Labour Party on this, saying it made nonsense of their supposed commitment to sexual equality. In 1936, Thurtle became one of the earliest members of the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA), and served as a vice-president until her retirement in 1962.

Another of Angela’s aunts was Daisy Lansbury (1892–1971) was born in Bow, East London, the sixth child of George and Bessie. When she was born, the family were living in poverty but she attended school until the age of fourteen. She then spent three years assisting her mother with caring for her younger siblings, then studied shorthand and typing, becoming a bookkeeper and typist for her brother Edgar.

In 1912, Daisy became her father’s personal secretary, a position she held until his death in 1940. She supported the ILP and shared a flat with May O’Callaghan and Nellie Cohen, who were active in the East London Federation of Suffragettes. All three women joined the Communist Party when it was established in 1920. Through the National Guilds League, Daisy met Raymond Postgate, and the two married in 1918. From the 1960s, her health was increasingly poor, and she died in 1971, a few weeks after Raymond. Her son Oliver Postgate was an animator and creator of Bagpuss, the Clangers and Pogle’s Wood.

Angela’s youngest aunt, Violet Lansbury (1900–72), was the youngest of the twelve Lansbury children. Violet joined the Communist Party when it was formed and she moved to Soviet Russia around 1923 to marry Igor Reisnner, a professor of agriculture, with whom she was to have two children. During the 1920s, she began to work as a translator and interpreter. In 1932, she visited Bombay and, in 1934, Karachi, it is believed as a Comintern courier.

Her marriage began to fail and she met Clemens Palme Dutt in Moscow in 1933. Palme Dutt had an Indian father and Swedish mother, and his brother was the leading British Communist, Rajani Palme Dutt. By 1935, they had begun a relationship and within a year they began to live together. They married in 1938 and Violet gave birth to their daughter, Anna Elizabeth, and moved to Paris where Palme Dutt began to work.

The family survived Stalin’s purges, unlike thousands of others who were shot or interned. In 1940 her memoir, “An Englishwoman in the U.S.S.R.” was published. In the early 1940s, she was a journalist for the Communist Daily Worker with her own column, “Violet Lansbury’s weekly chat”. After the Second World War she became a noted translator from the Russian of a wide range of fiction and non-fiction books. She died in 1972.

Apologise to Amber Heard

In National Domestic Abuse Awareness Month we should fight for the victims


12/10/2022

The UK is celebrating – or maybe commemorating would be the best word! – National Domestic Abuse Awareness Month which means this is the perfect time to start thinking about all those victim-blaming myths which the Depp/Heard trial revealed are so deeply engrained in our culture. Share this article with teenagers you know, housewives you respect – and the Milani cosmetics and Lidl PR departments.

She lied to advance her career!” “Women lie about rape and abuse because they benefit financially from doing so! “She lied because she wanted more money in the divorce!”

Johnny Depp’s PR team certainly weren’t the ones who invented this myth – Jörg Kachelmann talked about an “Opferabo” and whether it’s the chambermaid in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case or the very young accuser in the Ched Evans case, women are always being accused of lying about rape for attention or financial gain.

As always, this is a misogynist myth. Heard was entitled to far, far more money in the divorce proceedings than she actually claimed – and she wasn’t awarded more due to Depp’s violence. She also didn’t write the op-ed to increase the profits of Aquaman. The truth is, talking about rape and domestic violence is very, very damaging for survivors. We’ve seen what has happened to Heard. We’ve watched the whole world attack her and abuse her for daring to speak up about abuse.

The truth is, most women and victims don’t lie about abuse. This is because we still treat victims with a kind of contempt for daring to speak out about what has happened to them. Why would anyone lie about such a thing, when we punish women like Heard, who are obviously telling the truth, so disgustingly? It’s a very small number of cases which turn out to be lies – the official figure is 2% – and with the police, the courts and the general public so full of hatred and contempt for victims who speak out, I would actually take that figure with a HUGE pinch of salt! Furthermore, that 2% figure will include people who have suffered abuse and are very traumatized and damaged people. However, as we see in the Depp/Heard case, just because the world thinks a victim is a liar does not mean they are one.

“Where’s the bruises?” “Did you see how Rihanna looked after she was beaten up?” “Her skin looks flawless! She must be lying” “Her scars aren’t bad enough for the abuse to be real!”

Well, actually, it’s a big myth that only physical abuse counts as abuse. All the emotional and verbal abuse Depp used to humiliate and control Heard are also abuse. But, in fact, just because you don’t think Heard’s injuries are bad enough to be called abuse doesn’t mean you’re right.

Abusers abuse in private. They project a different image to the public. It’s important to them that the abuse stays private. Many abusers are, just like Depp, skilled at hitting in such a way that the marks are easy to hide. They need and want the domestic abuse to stay hidden.

In fact, Amber has many, many photographs documenting years of abuse, there are photos of bruises and her hair being ripped out. But just because you don’t think the bruises are bad enough to be called abuse, doesn’t make it so. It’s true that Rihanna’s injuries are worse. It is a dangerous myth to say that Heard should have stayed with Depp until her injuries were as bad as Rihanna’s. This is the kind of myth that gets women killed – cut it out.

“Why didn’t she go to the doctor after being raped?” “She didn’t go to the doctor after being raped?” “If a rape victim doesn’t go to the doctor, she is a liar!”

Most rape victims, especially in partner rapes, don’t go the doctor. If Amber is lying for this reason, then 80% of rape victims are liars too.

“She would have bled to death after being raped from a bottle!”

Amber never said the bottle was broken, she worried it was. Vaginas are elastic. They are designed to give birth. They can survive being raped from a bottle. Many women get raped and their vaginas survive the trauma. It’s the women who are damaged afterwards – just like Amber so obviously was.

“She wanted to meet up with him afterwards, so she is the abuser!”

Many victims still love their abusers, and want to meet up with them afterwards. This is one of the things that makes it so hard for women to get away.

“She said she used a Milani concealer kit to cover up her bruises. But the palette she said she used hadn’t been created yet! So she is lying!”

Actually, she never said that at all. The Milani palette in question was used as a prop, so that male jurors could get an idea of how Amber covered up her bruises. However, if she had got a tiny detail wrong like that, that actually wouldn’t have meant she was lying at all. It’s often so that victims get tiny details wrong after a traumatic event because the human brain tries to suppress memories. Also, focusing on tiny details is something the human brain does to try and protect you from traumatic memories too.

Amber’s behaviour is absolutely consistent with that of a survivor. And if people were more educated about domestic abuse, they would recognize that, too.

“He couldn’t look her in the eye, so she must be the abuser!” “She was confident enough to give evidence, she can’t be a true victim!” “She didn’t cry enough, so she is lying!”

Actually, there is no “perfect way” for the perfect victim to behave. Depp avoiding her gaze doesn’t prove much (his aggressive behaviour towards her and her lawyer in court does seem consistent with an abuser, though)

“He seems so sympathetic” “He is so likeable!” “He is such a charismatic guy, how can he be an abuser?” “She is so cold, she can’t be a victim!” “He is more popular than her, so he must be innocent.”

Many abusers seem charismatic, and many victims, due to the trauma they have undergone, lose friends. Being in an abusive relationship can be very very strenuous on your mental health. Many abusers, including those who go on to kill their victims, are popular, charming and charismatic.

Male victims of abuse are always accused of abuse first and suing people for defamation is a great way for male victims to get closure

This is simply not true. Had Depp truly been a victim of domestic abuse, the best thing he could have done is get distance between them and let Amber get on with her life. Most male victims of abuse are not accused of abuse first. However, more and more abusers are claiming they are really the victims to cause confusion in court. And more and more men are suing their exes for talking about their abuse. A world in which victims cannot get restraining orders or campaign for greater protection of victims rights is a bad world for everyone. It’s a bad world for female victims, for male victims, and even, let’s be honest, the perpetrators themselves, who, if it’s made impossible for their victims to get restraining orders, are more likely to end up in jail.

“Her own family were on his side!”

Amber Heard, sadly, like so many victims , came from an abusive family herself. This is what led her to rationalize Depp’s abusive behaviour and also made it harder for her to set boundaries. While it isn’t exactly true that her mother, Paige, was on Depp’s side, it is true that she tried to appease her daughter’s abuser. This is typical behaviour for victims’ families and in fact, had Paige been openly on his side, and implored Amber to return to her violent relationship, this would not prove Amber was lying at all. Because, sadly, the truth is, it’s all too common for the victim’s family to side with their abuser.

She gave him a knife so she must be the real abuser

Collecting knives is not in of itself a red flag (combined with everything else we know about Depp’s personality and history of violence, it does fit a pattern though). A victim gifting their partner an ornamental knife in the beginning stages of a relationship doesn’t mean they are actually the abuser. Many people collect knives and are not abusive, Amber was just wrong to hope that her husband was one of them.

“He can’t be abusive because he was too high on drugs or drunk all the time.”

80% of violence in the home occurs when the abuser is intoxicated. Depp’s addiction does not make him less likely to be violent. In fact, we have video evidence of how easy it was for him to get drunk and violent very early in the morning in the kitchen cabinets video.

“Smashing up property is not domestic violence”

Smashing up property is domestic violence. Especially when you, as Depp did, often make sure you destroy your partner’s treasured things.

“Fantasizing about killing or raping your partner is okay if you do it behind their back.”

It’s not okay. Depp didn’t save his violent fantasies about raping and killing Heard for Paul Bettany though – as Amber testified, he threatened her himself. But even if these violent fantasies were just fantasies and not actual threats, they aren’t okay. In a healthy partnership people don’t fantasize about killing their partners. If you find out your partner has been telling his friends he would like to drown you, then burn you, and then rape your burnt corpse to check you are dead – please, get out now.

Amber Heard had more evidence than 95% of victims. If we don’t believe her, we don’t believe most victims – male or female. However, the only way we can disbelieve her persuasive and proven tale of a violent marriage gone wrong is if we believe a lot of misogynistic victim-blaming myths.

Please use Domestic Awareness Month as a reason to educate yourself and the people around you on these harmful myths. Teens especially look up to John Depp as a role-model. We need to protect our younger generations and that is why all decent people need to apologize to Amber Heard and condemn Depp and his MRA propaganda!

 

Important lessons from the popular protests in Iran

Statement by the Party of Labour in Iran (Toufan)


11/10/2022

The important role of women in the revolution to come

“Mahsa Amini”, a 22-year-old woman from city of Saqqez, went into a coma after being assaulted by the government’s “Guidance Patrol”. She died and left a nation in mourning. “Mahsa Amini” was not the first nor will she be the last victim at the hands of the Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As a result of the indifference of the government to the living conditions of the masses, this murder was the spark that turned into a flame all over Iran and dealt a severe blow to the Islamic Republic. Angry crowds, including youth, teachers, workers, and students came together once again and demanded the dissolution of “Guidance Patrol” as a reactionary, repressive, and illegal organization. They used the slogan “repeal of compulsory hijab” as a flag against the rule of the capitalist Islamic Republic that has brought misery to the nation.

They challenged the Islamic Republic and its repressive police force and showed what an important role the women of our country will play in the coming revolution.

With the vast participation of men, angry women challenged the government’s indifference to their humane and rational demands by setting on fire their mandatory headscarves, a symbol of tyranny and humiliation. They challenged the Islamic Republic and its repressive police force and showed what an important role the women of our country will play in the coming revolution. The shining sympathy and general outpouring of people all over Iran show the extent to which the people of Iran hate and want to dismantle the regime of the Islamic Republic and all its oppressive organs.

The murder of “Mahsa Amini” took place in a situation where poverty, skyrocketing prices, discrimination, corruption, embezzlement, sanctions, and foreign pressure plague the whole of society. The presence of dissatisfied crowds on the streets, the inflamed atmosphere, and the anger and hatred that unrolled throughout Iran sparked fear in the Islamic Republic and its police forces. The radicalization of the slogans of the people of Iran and the unity and solidarity of different layers of the urban communities are a response to the regime’s indifference and lack of respect for the will of the majority in Iranian society.

This treatment added to people’s anger and encouraged people to join the protests with extreme slogans in unsuitable conditions. They made demands that did not have the chance to materialize. But despite that, we must respect this courage and selflessness and learn that dedication and self-sacrifice in the struggle for freedom and social justice are necessary and essential. We must add that such sacrifice alone is not sufficient. It does not lead to liberation from the darkness of capitalist tyranny. This spirit of fighting and courage must be combined with political awareness and organization and must be guided in the best direction possible.

Beware of counter-revolutionary forces

The protests by the masses showed once again that, despite the loss of its forces and internal contradictions and international pressures, the capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic is still able to collect and concentrate its forces to suppress the people’s struggles and protests. The more radical and violent the people’s struggles become, the more concentrated and intensive the counter-revolutionary violence will be.

The repressive forces of the regime, including the Revolutionary Guards, Mobilization (Basij) forces, agents in civilian clothing, lumpen proletariat, secret terrorist gangs, anti-riot repressive forces, law enforcement officers, and dozens of open and hidden groups are mobilized to prevent people from coming to the streets to fight the regime. The regime has installed facial recognition cameras at all the strategic points of the cities and roads so they can pursue the protesters after calm returns to the streets. The suppressing policy of the regime is organized in all arenas.

At this moment, the balance of power is still in favour of the government. However, the flare-up of people’s protests and their scope and depth and speed of their expansion surprised the regime. Subversive slogans, as opposed to logical and specific demands that are supported by most people, will not advance the protesting movement. Chanting subversive slogans are actions without thoughtful plans. They are spontaneous and emotional, and they consequently isolate the legitimate movement of the people.

The foreign media support these subversive and short-sighted actions, which only target the regime and have no beneficial plan of action for the future of Iran. They put forward slogans that will ultimately benefit their imperialist masters. The invitation to turn Iran into Libya and Iraq by the Zionist and imperialist counter-revolution in Washington is one of these efforts. Unfortunately, due to the lack of revolutionary leadership, the people’s protest movement was unable to draw a clear demarcation line with foreign enemies and their affiliated media and agents. It could not challenge their misuse of the people’s struggle.

A movement that cannot distinguish between friends and enemies is doomed to failure. The policy of imposing “mandatory hijab” and having Guidance Patrol on the streets has failed in Iran. This is also reflected in the internal differences within the government. The government of the Islamic Republic will be finally forced to ban the “Guidance Police”. This is a victory for this protest movement.

Revolutionary leadership in vital

The recent popular protests showed that the reactionary ruling class can suppress all movements that lack revolutionary leadership. To be victorious in a class struggle and in a social revolution, a leading and politically conscious force is needed. In order to win, the people’s movement must be at the centre of the battle. In the battle that takes place between the lower classes and the rulers, the people should have their own practical and theoretical leaders. Masses without leaders and leaders without an army can never win. Those who negate political leadership and unified command and those who promote anarchy, chaos, and liberalism are the enemies of the people. They cause the movement to fail.

Blind rebellion ends in despair.

The current movement, regardless of its just core and legitimate cause, was a spontaneous movement. It was a temporary rebellion, filled with emotions and lacking in perspective. It easily fell into the anti-revolutionary hands of monarchists, terrorists, subversive sects of Rajavi of Mojahedin, and ethnic separatists. For enemies of Iran, women’s rights is not an issue, and the lives of the Iranian people have no value. The unrest and misuse and the increase in the number of victims, which unfortunately has reached many dozens, have borne political fruit for them. Blind rebellion ends in despair. It should not be encouraged by politically conscious and responsible forces.

The most important lesson of the recent popular protests, like the popular movements of 1999, 2017, and 2019, is that a united revolutionary party of the working class is needed for final victory over the capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic and for crushing its repression machine. The mass of the people and the working class that lacks its powerful party are the cannon fodder of the bourgeoisie. The working class cannot and will not be able to liberate themselves and other oppressed people without the organization and leadership of a communist party. Resorting to unrealizable demands in inappropriate conditions only strengthens the counter-revolution and foreign enemies who want to sanction and dismember Iran.

You can read more about Toufan in Farsi here