From: "Heather Glaisyer" <heather-AT-teknopunx.co.uk>
Subject: Re: UK Uproar/The Hee-Haws and the Anti-Wars
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:26:32 +0100


and from my favourite writers, the Schnews team-best article on the subject
so far I think
H
ACRES AND PAINS

 Two large marches in a week sounds like a good thing - politics out on the
street where it belongs. But
 according to most of the media, making sure foxes die is more important
than making sure innocent Iraqi
 civilians don't.

 It was a tale of two very contrasting marches: The Countryside Alliance's
'Liberty and Livelihood' march attracted
 mass media hype for the three weeks leading up to it and plenty after it,
while the Stop The War demo was draped
 with a raft of 'conservative' estimates of numbers in the papers - think of
the police estimate and halve it. The Stop
 The War march brought together a 400,000 strong crowd - the most racially
diverse group SchNEWS has ever seen
 on a demo - with the clear message that Iraq must not be bombed, and
supporting the related issue of ending
 Israel's occupation of Palestine. The Countryside Alliance could hardly
claim the same clarity of purpose. They were
 out on the streets for... er apart from being pro-fox hunting what the fox
were they on about?

 The supposed Liberty and Livelihood message was that the Countryside
Alliance are the guardians of the
 misunderstood rural way of life championing 'country ways', one of which
just so happens to be killing for fun... but
 hey, they've been doing it for ages so doesn't that make it a minority
right? The Alliance claim to be finding time to
 fight just about every rural issue that springs to mind, whether it be
broadband internet access for rural poor,
 questioning pricing practices of supermarkets or campaigning for the
provision of public services throughout our
 green and pleasant land.

 The truth is far more sinister. The Countryside Alliance does little more
than pay lip-service to major countryside
 issues by creating a broad base of touchy-feely policies muddying rural
issues with the political dead dog that is
 bloodsports.

 Last year the Countryside Alliance spent three million pounds on their
pro-bloodsports campaign, compared to
 £200,000 on all other campaigns. Yet the CA policy statement only mentions
the hunting issue once - why? What
 do the CA have to hide, other than the fact that they know that the media
war surrounding the hunting issue is all but
 lost, that the great British public will never come to accept the hunting
of wild animals and that the only way to stop
 the ban is through the back door? Under such circumstances it should come
as no surprise that the CA are keen to
 wrap themselves in just about any rural flag they can lay their hands on,
whether it be protecting rural post offices or
 fighting modern threats to the tweed industry.

 It's when the Countryside Alliance claim to represent all country folk -
including the small farmers and rural
 labourers - that the smell of manure really wafts in. How can the CA
justify putting so much into fighting to protect the
 bloodlust of an elite landed gentry with huge arable estates funded by
massive subsidies? According to ActionAid's
 Farmgate report: the developing impact of agricultural subsidies, 80% of
subsidies are swallowed up by 20% of the
 richest 'farmers'. Meanwhile the remaining majority are being driven
against the wall as they try to cope with
 inadequate subsidies and farm gate prices lower than those of production.

 RURAL WARRIOR

 As Charles Secrett of Friends of the Earth, put it: "the Countryside
Alliance spends way too much time worrying
 about hunting, and not nearly enough working on the major threats to rural
life... Unless there is a new system of
 sustainable food production, the next Countryside March may find there are
very few farmers left to mobilise."

 Well what are the real issues facing country folk on a daily basis? The
right to hunt foxes? Spokesman for the foxes,
 Basil Brush, said "Not in my back yard old boy! Boom boom." Brendan Boal
recently spent nine days interviewing
 small farmers in Devon and Dorset, who voiced concerns over issues as
diverse as low milk prices, abusive
 business practices of supermarkets and the impact of rich urban 'incomers'
buying up their 'weekend country
 retreats' and destroying the social structure of rural communities. When
asked about the significance of the
 Countryside Alliance, however, Brendan said that the overwhelming response
was very much to the effect: "they're
 nothing to do with the likes of us, the whole thing is for... hunting
people." While Brendon and his team travelled
 from farm to farm (sustainably by bicycle you'll be pleased to know) he
observed that "what was noticeable on our
 travels was the preponderance of Alliance placards outside of expensive
homes that were clearly no longer working
 farms. In short, the very incomers [that] farmers feel alienated from are
the ones that are providing a large measure
 of support for the CA."

 Last week some country folk from the Wye Valley told SchNEWS about the
plight of rural and farm labourers - those
 who have worked on the land over generations but are not farm owners - who
are in fact the majority of rural folk.
 "The large scale argo-businesses, and the massive supermarket food
distribution stitch up crushs small farms
 who can't compete with the economies of scale, and the intense
mechanisation takes away many rural jobs." "We
 know of rural workers who were threatened with the sack if they didn't come
down for the march last week." A MORI
 poll at the march found that 73% of marchers thought that hunting should
not be the key concern of the Countryside
 Alliance.

 Next week half a million foxes are marching to Hyde Park to hear Basil
Brush talk about the ban on chicken hunting,
 but apparently most foxes are more worried about the threat of hunting.
Boom boom.
 Recommended reading
 'The rich at Play: Fox hunting, land ownership and the countryside alliance
' by RPM 07967 886257
 www.red-star-research.org.uk
 'The World is Not For Sale: farmers against junk food' by Jose Bove and
Francois Dufour. (Verso 2001)
 'Farmgate: The developmental impact of agricultural subsidies' compiled by
ActionAid. 0207 561 7614
 www.actionaid.org


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com>
To: "anarchy-list" <anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 8:13 PM
Subject: UK Uproar/The Hee-Haws and the Anti-Wars




Further to discussion about the two recent (very different) demonstrations
in London, this is from the regular  "Rebel Ink" column written
by Kevin Williamson in the "Scottish Socialist Voice"
Friday 4th October 2002. (Obviously, although I have
big disagreements with the "Scottish Socialist Voice"
on some things, I am pretty much in agreement
with a lot of what Kevin Williamson says
in this case.)


THE  HEE-HAWS  AND  THE  ANTI-WARS : it's no big surprise
who gets the news coverage

A day spent protesting is an education and a celebration all rolled
into one.
Most folk spend the bulk of their time either on their own, at work,
or with their families and close friends. Outside this small social circle
the views,
feelings and concerns of the rest of the world mainly come into
peoples lives
carefully filtered by the mass media. The tabloid press and the mainstream
TV stations, such as BBC1 and the ITV network, fully understand this.
Such media can barely conceal their contempt when they cover protests
which extol the virtues of peace, love, and respect for your fellow human
beings, and which oppose such 'necessary evils' such as war, exploitation
and injustice. Comparing the Countryside Alliance march with the anti-war
event that followed sheds light on the agendas subtly being manipulated
behind the scenes. The event organised by the rich landowners
and the fox-hunting lobby was promoted for weeks in advance,
especially in the London-based media. Countless pages of print
and televised news items whipped up support and made sure that
the whole country knew not only what issues were at stake, but
also where the march was taking place and how to get there.
This wasn't surprising given that the ugly celebration of ritualistic
animal slaughter represented rich pickings for the city of London
in terms of hotel and restaurant bookings and suchlike. One paper
estimated 28,000 millionaires took part in the march (not 30,000!)
as well as every well-to-do landowner and squire. No overnight buses
and cheese sandwiches for them. It's no wonder they were welcomed
with open wallets. Reporting of the countryside event was extensive
with special pull-out supplements in some papers before and after it.
The press even reported the day BEFORE that the attendance would
be 400,000. Exact. The organisers on the day duly claimed it was 400,000.
The police nodded in agreement. Result: a cosy politically-motivated
consensus that became received wisdom then irrefutable fact. It's what
Noam Chomsky calls the "manufacturing of consent". The anti-war event
on the other hand flew in the face of every conservative, capitalistic
agenda in this country. The event was attended by approximately
300,000+ people   -   according to both the organisers and most
unblinkered media commentators. The Murdoch media empire naturally
downplayed it claiming 150,000 took part (Sky News, Sunday Times,
News of the World). A spokesman from Scotland Yard laughably
claimed "over 50,000" attended. A ludicrous statement which only
Scotland on Sunday bothered regurgitating. For the mass media
it is an unwritten policy mission, central to their very existence,
to ensure that any sense of social anger about the bigger picture
should remain grumbling away like a toothache, either in the family
home, or among small social circles of fellow malcontents. That
way it can happily dissipate into despair where it becomes harmless
and disempowering. Once that happens you tend to find that
many of the angriest and poorest of people tend to look for
scapegoats and very soon easy targets emerge to blame
for all the ills of society. And before you can chant "David
Blunkett's Barmy Army" we have the pernicious spread
of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, drug wars,
and all the other modern day witch hunts. It is a subtle
form of social control and, I suppose, a lot less expensive
to the tax payer than constructing a police state and obliterating
all opposition with prisons, guns and batons. The people
who attended Saturday's anti-war event will have become
psychologically changed by the experience of taking part
in one of the biggest protest events of the last fifty years
in Britain. The experience will have cut right through
so much alienation and despair at the prospect of war
and helped induce a renewed sense of solidarity and hope.