Ban imposed on four unison branch leaders
Following the mitigation hearings Glenn Kelly (Bromely), Suzanne Muna (Housing Association), Onay Kasab (Greenwich) and Brian Debus (Hackney) have all been banned from holding any office in Unison.
Early this morning (5th March) UNISON officials turned up at the UNISON offices of the Bromley, Greenwich and the Housing Association having given no notice; we are awaiting an update from Hackney. The officials have attempted to confiscate computer hard drives and other resources, which include important documents on on-going personal cases.
The officials intend to run elections for new branch officers but as has happened in other branches they may well try to run the branches themselves which has led to moribund UNISON branches.
The Four have conducted a determined and high profile campaign which has meant that it has taken nearly 3 years to get them banned from office. The mitigation hearings also concluded that the length of the bans will be reduced by between 1 and 3 years.
However, this morning's action shows the vicious reality of the UNISON leaderships attacks on socialist activists within the union.
The four are urging supporters to phone or e-mail UNISON Head Office now to protest against the ban and the raids of the branch offices.
What we need you to do:
1. Let as many unison members as possible know what is happening
2. E-mail letters of protest to:
UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis: d.prentis@unison.co.uk
UNISON London Region: greaterlondonregion@unison.co.uk
3. Phone UNISON Head Office to express your disgust on 0845 355 0845
4. Pass a motion at your next meeting to be sent to Dave Prentis.
5. Funds are urgently needed for leaflets, publicity and legal costs.
Cheques payable to: 'Stop the Witch-Hunt' and should be sent to: Defend the Four Campaign, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG.
6. Please let us know details of your protests - e-mail us at: info@stopthewitchhunt.org.uk.
Showing posts with label Suzanne Muna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Suzanne Muna. Show all posts
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Unison witch-hunt: Employment Tribunal
Trotskyism on trial
From this weeks The Socialist
Trade union activists expect class bias in the courts and employment tribunals. But rarely has a tribunal delivered such a blatantly biased judgment based on class interest. The employment tribunal judge declared open season for the persecution of Trotskyists, whom he considers "unworthy of protection" in a democratic society.
Lynn Walsh
The case of the Unison four is now well-known in Unison and throughout the trade union movement. Their 'crime' was issuing a leaflet criticising the standing orders committee (SOC) for excluding vital branch resolutions from discussion at the 2007 Unison conference.
They were accused of racism and disrespect to the SOC. Subsequently, the four have been suspended from office for periods of up to five years.
As one line of defence, the four took an action under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations on the grounds that they were discriminated against as well-known Socialist Party members and because of their Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs. However, the tribunal (presided over by Mr Weiniger) rejected the four's claims on several different grounds.
But the outrageous core of the judgment is that Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs, even if they generally come under the regulations, are repugnant and not worthy of protection in a democratic society. This, in effect, is a declaration of an open season for witch-hunting Trotskyists and other leftwingers in Unison and other unions.
Yet, despite the judgment, the hearings brought to light the full extent of the Unison leadership's manoeuvres. For instance, the judgment finds that the reply of Dave Prentis (Unison general secretary) to a questionnaire from the four "was inaccurate". Prentis wrote that neither he nor other officials were aware of the political beliefs and/or political party membership of those involved in producing the leaflet. The judge found that Prentis and other officials did, in fact, know: "Answers given by Mr Prentis in the questionnaire... were untrue."
Illegal strikes
One reason, according to the ET judge, that Trotskyists are not worthy of respect is that their "principles allow for breach of the law". The four, he complained, are willing to "engage in unlawful strikes" - unacceptable in a democratic society.
Trotskyists uphold all democratic rights: the right to free assembly and speech, the right to vote, and the right to organise in independent trade unions. The historical record shows, however, that these rights were won through struggle, in many cases in defiance of existing laws and in the face of repression.
Recent governments, both Tory and New Labour, have launched an assault on long-standing rights. The threat of terrorism, for instance, has been used to reintroduce draconian stop-and-search laws and unprecedented powers of state surveillance.
When it comes to trade union rights, Britain has arguably the most restrictive laws of any advanced industrial country. Shortly before Christmas, for example, British Airways cabin staff voted overwhelmingly to take strike action against massive job losses and pay cuts, by 92% on a turnout of over 80%. Despite this overwhelming support, a court ruled that the strike was illegal because of technical infringements in the balloting procedure.
This is the equivalent of the infamous Taff Vale case in 1901 - a move to financially cripple any union taking effective strike action. This attempt by the courts and the state to restrict trade unions led to a more intensive struggle to widen trade union rights and gain independent political representation for the unions.
In Britain today, workers are more and more forced to breach anti-trade union laws in order to take effective action to defend jobs and conditions. For instance, the strike of the Lindsey oil refinery and other engineering construction workers last year - organised democratically from below through a rank-and-file strike committee - broke through the legal restraints.
Three houses?
Another reason for Trotskyist views not being worthy of protection, according to the ET judge, is that they allow for "the deprivation of home and property from the individual". He took exception to a comment made during the ET that it is not acceptable for someone to own three houses when many people do not have a decent home. He clearly favours the accumulation of wealth through acquiring property.
Yet a recent opinion survey, commissioned by the Prince's Trust, of unemployed young people - currently one in five, nearly a million are out of work - said they believed they would never be able to buy their own home.
The judge also asserts that a socialist state would be an authoritarian state which would inflexibly allocate necessities like housing without reference to the needs of individuals.
In Stalinist states, like the former Soviet Union, housing was undoubtedly allocated by the bureaucracy on an arbitrary basis, without regard for the needs of workers and their families. But that is not at all what Trotskyists, who have always been distinguished by opposition to Stalinism, envisage in a socialist society.
Socialist democracy, with election of all political leaders and state officials, together with management of the economy by democratically elected management boards, would ensure the allocation of housing met the particular needs of all families and individuals.
Reward for endeavour?
The essence of the law for this judge is that it should guarantee "freedom of choice and of procuring reward for endeavour" for the individual. Trotskyists are not opposed to "reward for endeavour". We do not advocate a crude levelling. But we are opposed to an economic system that produces gross inequalities of wealth and income.
Tony Blair, whose New Labour government promoted free-market policies and presided over a grotesque growth of inequality, bought his third house, "a small stately home" in Buckinghamshire for £5.75 million. This was in addition to his two London houses in Connaught Square, for which he paid £4.45 million. Is this situation "worthy of respect in a democratic society"?
A new survey commissioned by the government reveals that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. "The top 10%, led by higher professionals, had amassed wealth of £2.2 million, including property and pension assets, by the time they drew close to retirement (age 55-64), while the bottom 10% of households, led by routine manual workers, had amassed less than £8,000" (The Guardian, 27 January 2010). Does this square with any idea of social justice?
Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class. Wealth is more and more concentrated into the hands of the ruling class and its associates. The ET judge's approach to the law is based on defence of 'individual rights' abstracted from real society. In practice, this means the right to accumulate property and income, regardless of its effect on wider society or the majority of the population.
Revolution
In his judgment, Mr Weiniger asserts that the kind of society desired by Trotskyists would be an authoritarian state that would expropriate the property of individuals and impose rigid conditions on society. This assertion was embodied in the judgment despite the fact that there was no examination of this issue during the course of the tribunal.
The judge has arbitrarily decided that the kind of state envisaged by Trotskyists would be, in fact, a Stalinist type state, totalitarian, lacking democracy, imposing rigid conditions on society from above.
According to the judge, the views of the four, if implemented, would "deprive [the] individual of his or her rights and freedoms by the imposition of government practicing such extreme or repugnant views".
What distinguishes Trotskyism as a political trend is its implacable opposition towards Stalinism, the bureaucratic, totalitarian deformation of a state based on the ideas of Marx. When Trotsky participated in the Soviet government after the 1917 revolution, it was based on democratic workers', soldiers' and peasants' soviets. However, its democratic character at that time did not prevent the US and European powers, including Britain, sending armies of intervention to try to destroy the new Soviet state and restore the tsarist autocracy. However, from 1923, Trotsky led an opposition to the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet state, and in particular the policies and totalitarian methods of Stalin.
The Left Opposition led by Trotsky stood for the democratisation of the state with the election of all representatives and officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on their salaries. He also stood for workers' control and management in industry, and opposed the ruthless top-down economic methods of Stalin's regime.
As a response to this opposition, Trotsky, his family, and many thousands of supporters faced repression from Stalin's regime. Tens of thousands of supporters of the Left Opposition were executed or died in labour camps. Trotsky himself was assassinated by Stalin.
According to Mr Weiniger: "the fundamental essence of revolution is undemocratic, as it supposes the change of government by means outside the constitutionally structured democratic process".
But, as Trotsky himself explained many times, revolutions are not brought about by small groups of conspirators, or just by political parties alone. We are against undemocratic coups d'état. Revolutions arise from a fundamental crisis in society and a breakdown of the established structures of government.
In an advanced capitalist country like Britain, a successful socialist transformation could only be carried through on the basis of the overwhelming mass support of the population. Trotskyists advocate socialist democracy, not totalitarian rule. This would mean the democratic election of a workers' government, together with the election of all state officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on salaries.
Trotskyists believe that a socialist planned economy should be managed by democratically elected planning bodies, including representatives of consumers and society at large. We advocate democratic workers' control and management of industry. We reject the repressive methods of Stalinism, and support the freedom of all political parties, apart from fascists.
Conclusion
We are on the verge of massive class battles, as the crisis of British and world capitalism develops. The offloading of the banks' losses onto the public sector threatens massive job losses and cuts in public services. The Unison leadership has no idea of how to effectively resist the onslaught and defend workers' interests. It will come under increasing pressure from the membership, which is demanding democratisation of the union and a determined fight against attacks.
The employment tribunal, through its judgment, has tried to hand the Unison leadership a lifeline, justifying a purge of the left. This will not succeed. Far from being seen as "repugnant", or held in contempt, or seen as "unacceptable in a democratic society", the four, together with Socialist Party members and other left activists, are held in the highest esteem by Unison members. The fight to lift the ban on the four will continue, as will the drive to democratise the union and equip it with fighting policies capable of defending public-sector workers and the wider interests of the working class.
From this weeks The Socialist
Trade union activists expect class bias in the courts and employment tribunals. But rarely has a tribunal delivered such a blatantly biased judgment based on class interest. The employment tribunal judge declared open season for the persecution of Trotskyists, whom he considers "unworthy of protection" in a democratic society.
Lynn Walsh
The case of the Unison four is now well-known in Unison and throughout the trade union movement. Their 'crime' was issuing a leaflet criticising the standing orders committee (SOC) for excluding vital branch resolutions from discussion at the 2007 Unison conference.
They were accused of racism and disrespect to the SOC. Subsequently, the four have been suspended from office for periods of up to five years.
As one line of defence, the four took an action under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations on the grounds that they were discriminated against as well-known Socialist Party members and because of their Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs. However, the tribunal (presided over by Mr Weiniger) rejected the four's claims on several different grounds.
But the outrageous core of the judgment is that Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs, even if they generally come under the regulations, are repugnant and not worthy of protection in a democratic society. This, in effect, is a declaration of an open season for witch-hunting Trotskyists and other leftwingers in Unison and other unions.
Yet, despite the judgment, the hearings brought to light the full extent of the Unison leadership's manoeuvres. For instance, the judgment finds that the reply of Dave Prentis (Unison general secretary) to a questionnaire from the four "was inaccurate". Prentis wrote that neither he nor other officials were aware of the political beliefs and/or political party membership of those involved in producing the leaflet. The judge found that Prentis and other officials did, in fact, know: "Answers given by Mr Prentis in the questionnaire... were untrue."
Illegal strikes
One reason, according to the ET judge, that Trotskyists are not worthy of respect is that their "principles allow for breach of the law". The four, he complained, are willing to "engage in unlawful strikes" - unacceptable in a democratic society.
Trotskyists uphold all democratic rights: the right to free assembly and speech, the right to vote, and the right to organise in independent trade unions. The historical record shows, however, that these rights were won through struggle, in many cases in defiance of existing laws and in the face of repression.
Recent governments, both Tory and New Labour, have launched an assault on long-standing rights. The threat of terrorism, for instance, has been used to reintroduce draconian stop-and-search laws and unprecedented powers of state surveillance.
When it comes to trade union rights, Britain has arguably the most restrictive laws of any advanced industrial country. Shortly before Christmas, for example, British Airways cabin staff voted overwhelmingly to take strike action against massive job losses and pay cuts, by 92% on a turnout of over 80%. Despite this overwhelming support, a court ruled that the strike was illegal because of technical infringements in the balloting procedure.
This is the equivalent of the infamous Taff Vale case in 1901 - a move to financially cripple any union taking effective strike action. This attempt by the courts and the state to restrict trade unions led to a more intensive struggle to widen trade union rights and gain independent political representation for the unions.
In Britain today, workers are more and more forced to breach anti-trade union laws in order to take effective action to defend jobs and conditions. For instance, the strike of the Lindsey oil refinery and other engineering construction workers last year - organised democratically from below through a rank-and-file strike committee - broke through the legal restraints.
Three houses?
Another reason for Trotskyist views not being worthy of protection, according to the ET judge, is that they allow for "the deprivation of home and property from the individual". He took exception to a comment made during the ET that it is not acceptable for someone to own three houses when many people do not have a decent home. He clearly favours the accumulation of wealth through acquiring property.
Yet a recent opinion survey, commissioned by the Prince's Trust, of unemployed young people - currently one in five, nearly a million are out of work - said they believed they would never be able to buy their own home.
The judge also asserts that a socialist state would be an authoritarian state which would inflexibly allocate necessities like housing without reference to the needs of individuals.
In Stalinist states, like the former Soviet Union, housing was undoubtedly allocated by the bureaucracy on an arbitrary basis, without regard for the needs of workers and their families. But that is not at all what Trotskyists, who have always been distinguished by opposition to Stalinism, envisage in a socialist society.
Socialist democracy, with election of all political leaders and state officials, together with management of the economy by democratically elected management boards, would ensure the allocation of housing met the particular needs of all families and individuals.
Reward for endeavour?
The essence of the law for this judge is that it should guarantee "freedom of choice and of procuring reward for endeavour" for the individual. Trotskyists are not opposed to "reward for endeavour". We do not advocate a crude levelling. But we are opposed to an economic system that produces gross inequalities of wealth and income.
Tony Blair, whose New Labour government promoted free-market policies and presided over a grotesque growth of inequality, bought his third house, "a small stately home" in Buckinghamshire for £5.75 million. This was in addition to his two London houses in Connaught Square, for which he paid £4.45 million. Is this situation "worthy of respect in a democratic society"?
A new survey commissioned by the government reveals that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. "The top 10%, led by higher professionals, had amassed wealth of £2.2 million, including property and pension assets, by the time they drew close to retirement (age 55-64), while the bottom 10% of households, led by routine manual workers, had amassed less than £8,000" (The Guardian, 27 January 2010). Does this square with any idea of social justice?
Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class. Wealth is more and more concentrated into the hands of the ruling class and its associates. The ET judge's approach to the law is based on defence of 'individual rights' abstracted from real society. In practice, this means the right to accumulate property and income, regardless of its effect on wider society or the majority of the population.
Revolution
In his judgment, Mr Weiniger asserts that the kind of society desired by Trotskyists would be an authoritarian state that would expropriate the property of individuals and impose rigid conditions on society. This assertion was embodied in the judgment despite the fact that there was no examination of this issue during the course of the tribunal.
The judge has arbitrarily decided that the kind of state envisaged by Trotskyists would be, in fact, a Stalinist type state, totalitarian, lacking democracy, imposing rigid conditions on society from above.
According to the judge, the views of the four, if implemented, would "deprive [the] individual of his or her rights and freedoms by the imposition of government practicing such extreme or repugnant views".
What distinguishes Trotskyism as a political trend is its implacable opposition towards Stalinism, the bureaucratic, totalitarian deformation of a state based on the ideas of Marx. When Trotsky participated in the Soviet government after the 1917 revolution, it was based on democratic workers', soldiers' and peasants' soviets. However, its democratic character at that time did not prevent the US and European powers, including Britain, sending armies of intervention to try to destroy the new Soviet state and restore the tsarist autocracy. However, from 1923, Trotsky led an opposition to the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet state, and in particular the policies and totalitarian methods of Stalin.
The Left Opposition led by Trotsky stood for the democratisation of the state with the election of all representatives and officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on their salaries. He also stood for workers' control and management in industry, and opposed the ruthless top-down economic methods of Stalin's regime.
As a response to this opposition, Trotsky, his family, and many thousands of supporters faced repression from Stalin's regime. Tens of thousands of supporters of the Left Opposition were executed or died in labour camps. Trotsky himself was assassinated by Stalin.
According to Mr Weiniger: "the fundamental essence of revolution is undemocratic, as it supposes the change of government by means outside the constitutionally structured democratic process".
But, as Trotsky himself explained many times, revolutions are not brought about by small groups of conspirators, or just by political parties alone. We are against undemocratic coups d'état. Revolutions arise from a fundamental crisis in society and a breakdown of the established structures of government.
In an advanced capitalist country like Britain, a successful socialist transformation could only be carried through on the basis of the overwhelming mass support of the population. Trotskyists advocate socialist democracy, not totalitarian rule. This would mean the democratic election of a workers' government, together with the election of all state officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on salaries.
Trotskyists believe that a socialist planned economy should be managed by democratically elected planning bodies, including representatives of consumers and society at large. We advocate democratic workers' control and management of industry. We reject the repressive methods of Stalinism, and support the freedom of all political parties, apart from fascists.
Conclusion
We are on the verge of massive class battles, as the crisis of British and world capitalism develops. The offloading of the banks' losses onto the public sector threatens massive job losses and cuts in public services. The Unison leadership has no idea of how to effectively resist the onslaught and defend workers' interests. It will come under increasing pressure from the membership, which is demanding democratisation of the union and a determined fight against attacks.
The employment tribunal, through its judgment, has tried to hand the Unison leadership a lifeline, justifying a purge of the left. This will not succeed. Far from being seen as "repugnant", or held in contempt, or seen as "unacceptable in a democratic society", the four, together with Socialist Party members and other left activists, are held in the highest esteem by Unison members. The fight to lift the ban on the four will continue, as will the drive to democratise the union and equip it with fighting policies capable of defending public-sector workers and the wider interests of the working class.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Unison black members reject witch-hunt
"Unless Mr Kasab and his colleagues are punished, black Unison members can have no confidence in the union fighting racism." These were the words of the Unison national officer who acted as the prosecution in the union's case against four Socialist Party members.
A Unison member
Yet, in the first week of the attacks, in June 2007, a black Unison member told the Socialist Party fringe meeting at the union's national conference: "They are not going to use the colour of my skin for their own purposes."
From the outset, the union leadership have been prepared to misuse the issue of racism. The long campaign to defend the four has shown that this is in fact a political witch-hunt.
Black members in Greenwich Unison have been to the forefront in expressing outrage at the charges against their Unison branch secretary, Onay Kasab. Many have said that if the ban on him holding union office is upheld, they will have no hesitation in resigning their union membership.
A recent meeting of Unison's national black members' committee was attended by general secretary Dave Prentis. There are over 260 BNP members in the union and he was questioned about the lack of action on this. Members also called for the union to reconsider its action against the four, as the sanctions were too harsh.
Then last week Unison held its annual national black members' conference. Onay Kasab was the delegate from Greenwich. He spoke in the debate on fighting the BNP about his role in leading the strike action at Hither Green back in 1988 against the fascist Skeggs and the role of Greenwich Unison in the campaign to close the BNP headquarters in Welling. Both campaigns were successful.
He told the conference that as a result he had received racist hate mail and had been targeted by racists. Finally he spoke of the scandal of the lack of action against the BNP members in Unison. He compared this with the treatment of the four and demanded an end to the witch-hunt.
He received several ovations during the three minutes he was allowed to speak. This obviously frustrated the general secretary who was sitting behind the podium. Several delegates reported that his face looked like thunder!
Delegate after delegate approached Kas after his speech, to congratulate him and to condemn the witch-hunt.
A Unison member
Yet, in the first week of the attacks, in June 2007, a black Unison member told the Socialist Party fringe meeting at the union's national conference: "They are not going to use the colour of my skin for their own purposes."
From the outset, the union leadership have been prepared to misuse the issue of racism. The long campaign to defend the four has shown that this is in fact a political witch-hunt.
Black members in Greenwich Unison have been to the forefront in expressing outrage at the charges against their Unison branch secretary, Onay Kasab. Many have said that if the ban on him holding union office is upheld, they will have no hesitation in resigning their union membership.
A recent meeting of Unison's national black members' committee was attended by general secretary Dave Prentis. There are over 260 BNP members in the union and he was questioned about the lack of action on this. Members also called for the union to reconsider its action against the four, as the sanctions were too harsh.
Then last week Unison held its annual national black members' conference. Onay Kasab was the delegate from Greenwich. He spoke in the debate on fighting the BNP about his role in leading the strike action at Hither Green back in 1988 against the fascist Skeggs and the role of Greenwich Unison in the campaign to close the BNP headquarters in Welling. Both campaigns were successful.
He told the conference that as a result he had received racist hate mail and had been targeted by racists. Finally he spoke of the scandal of the lack of action against the BNP members in Unison. He compared this with the treatment of the four and demanded an end to the witch-hunt.
He received several ovations during the three minutes he was allowed to speak. This obviously frustrated the general secretary who was sitting behind the podium. Several delegates reported that his face looked like thunder!
Delegate after delegate approached Kas after his speech, to congratulate him and to condemn the witch-hunt.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Unison witch-hunt: Defend the Four campaign gets a boost
Four Socialist Party members - Onay Kasab, Glenn Kelly, Brian Debus and Suzanne Muna - are facing bans from holding office in Unison, ranging from three to five years. This was as a result of a leaflet distributed at Unison conference over two years ago!
The four are in the process of appealing against this scandalous action by the Unison leadership.
They are also taking their case to an employment tribunal on the basis that they have been discriminated against because of their political and philosophical views.
Five branch officers were originally investigated, but only the four officers who are also members of the Socialist Party were subject to disciplinary hearings and charges.
The recent high profile legal case, Grainger plc and others, involving a worker who has been told he can take his employer to court on the grounds that he was dismissed because of his views on climate change, is a significant legal breakthrough for the campaign.
Our campaign is using the same legislation, claiming that the four have been discriminated against because of their philosophical beliefs - ie Marxism and Trotskyism - beliefs held by members of the Socialist Party. It is significant that the judge in the above case stated: "Belief in the political philosophies of socialism, Marxism, communism... might qualify."
The campaign to defend the four is going from strength to strength. But the campaign has never relied on legal action alone - that is why the campaign continues to ask for support in the following ways:
Letters of protest to Unison general secretary Dave Prentis: Unison HQ, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ or email: d.prentis@unison.co.uk. Please send copies to: Defend the Four Campaign, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG or email: info@stopthewitchhunt.org.uk
Unison Appeal Hearings: Please attend the lobby on Monday 16 November at the Holiday Inn, Carburton Street, London, which is the first day of Kas's hearing. There will also be a lobby for Suzanne's first day - Thursday 19 November at the same venue. Brian's hearing starts on 11 January, the venue is not yet known. The results of the appeals will not be announced until all the hearings have taken place.
Employment Tribunal - the next dates are: 15-18 December. Supporters can attend: London Central Employment Tribunal, Ground Floor, Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London WC2.
Other events, meetings and protests are being planned. Please check out the website www.stopthewitchhunt.org.uk.
The four are in the process of appealing against this scandalous action by the Unison leadership.
They are also taking their case to an employment tribunal on the basis that they have been discriminated against because of their political and philosophical views.
Five branch officers were originally investigated, but only the four officers who are also members of the Socialist Party were subject to disciplinary hearings and charges.
The recent high profile legal case, Grainger plc and others, involving a worker who has been told he can take his employer to court on the grounds that he was dismissed because of his views on climate change, is a significant legal breakthrough for the campaign.
Our campaign is using the same legislation, claiming that the four have been discriminated against because of their philosophical beliefs - ie Marxism and Trotskyism - beliefs held by members of the Socialist Party. It is significant that the judge in the above case stated: "Belief in the political philosophies of socialism, Marxism, communism... might qualify."
The campaign to defend the four is going from strength to strength. But the campaign has never relied on legal action alone - that is why the campaign continues to ask for support in the following ways:
Letters of protest to Unison general secretary Dave Prentis: Unison HQ, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ or email: d.prentis@unison.co.uk. Please send copies to: Defend the Four Campaign, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG or email: info@stopthewitchhunt.org.uk
Unison Appeal Hearings: Please attend the lobby on Monday 16 November at the Holiday Inn, Carburton Street, London, which is the first day of Kas's hearing. There will also be a lobby for Suzanne's first day - Thursday 19 November at the same venue. Brian's hearing starts on 11 January, the venue is not yet known. The results of the appeals will not be announced until all the hearings have taken place.
Employment Tribunal - the next dates are: 15-18 December. Supporters can attend: London Central Employment Tribunal, Ground Floor, Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London WC2.
Other events, meetings and protests are being planned. Please check out the website www.stopthewitchhunt.org.uk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)