|
A - I n f o s
|
|
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists
**
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage)
Last two
weeks' posts
Our
archives of old posts
The last 100 posts, according
to language
中文 Chinese_
Castellano_
Deutsch_
Nederlands_
English_
Français_
Italiano_
Polski_
Português_
Russkyi_
Suomi_
Svenska_
Türkçe_
_The.Supplement
The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_
Deutsch_
Nederlands_
English_
Français_
Italiano_
Polski_
Português_
Russkyi_
Suomi_
Svenska_
Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours |
of past 30 days |
of 2002 |
of 2003 |
of 2004 |
of 2005 |
of 2006 |
of 2007 |
of 2008 |
of 2009 |
of 2010 |
of 2011 |
of 2012 |
of 2013 |
of 2014 |
of 2015 |
of 2016 |
of 2017 |
of 2018
Syndication Of A-Infos - including
RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
(en) Britain, afed: CONFRONTING STATE ABUSE IS LUSH
Date
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:03:31 +0300
An AFed member's thoughts on Lush, their support for the Police Spies out of Lives
campaign, and what we can learn from the establishment backlash against both. ---- Lush
has a long history of funding grass roots activism, especially in the field of animal
rights and environmentalism, and of running explicitly political campaigns across its
stores to draw attention to certain struggles. Of course, all companies like to give money
away to charity, and be seen supporting worthy causes, it's all good PR! I'd like to give
Lush's motives at least a little benefit of the doubt, though we should still be wary of
any company, and the chance of our struggles being recuperated into the capitalist system.
Often Lush's funding is done with little publicity or fan fare, which counts in their
favour, as does the fact their campaigns are usually of the sort a PR firm would tell you
to stay well away from (such as this one). A PR firm certainly would not advise a company
to launch something like Lush's Paid to Lie campaign, designed to raise the profile of the
long running #SpyCops struggle, and the Police Spies Out Of Lives support group. ‘Far too
controversial', ‘no good for your bottom line', ‘stick to something nice, maybe about
kittens', all things I'm sure our fictional PR agent would've told them.
Lush founded in '95. Fight Club published in '96. Coincidence?
For those For unaware, the SpyCops campaign formed around a group who had been deceived
into having close relationships with undercover police sent to spy on them due to their
involvement in environmentalism, animal rights, anarchism or other ‘subversive'
campaigning. These officers were deployed for years at a time, deliberately forming close
emotional bonds with those around them. Often this meant having long-term romantic
relationships with women involved in the groups, even marrying and having children with
them. There have also been numerous cases of these spies encouraging others to commit
criminal acts, one would assume in an attempt to entrap them. Once their ‘deployments'
were complete the police spies would disappear. Those left behind were confused, concerned
and often genuinely devastated. It was often this concern, more than suspicion, that led
to the truth being exposed. After years of activists struggling to piece together what had
happened, there is now a public inquiry into the use of undercover policing. While the
political motivations,and instances of abuse are clear, those affected are becoming
increasingly angry that the inquiry is becoming an exercise in white washing to cover up
the abuses of power.
Enter Lush. Lush have launched a publicity drive online and in their UK shops. It features
police tape with ‘the police have crossed a line', posters with ‘Paid to Lie' next to an
image of a two faced cop, videos about the cases, in-depth articles, and more. They focus
especially on the new petition from The Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance, which you
can sign here.
The back lash that came was swift. Police officers, including some very senior ones, along
with right-wing media pundits, fueled a social media storm around Lush's so-called ‘anti
police adverts'. Anger was tweeted, furious messages penned, and thousands of police
supporters down-rated the companies Facebook page to ‘1.1/5'. Though it has since bounced
back up a bit thanks to some positive ratings from anti-police or pro-soap activists.
Never mind that this was a campaign specifically about the abuses of the SpyCops, which
even many supporters of the police would vehemently oppose, the ball was already rolling.
It didn't matter that Lush literally spelled it out in a statement (disappointing to us
anarchist types) that ‘this is not an anti-state/anti-police campaign'. Why would they
risk launching the campaign in the first place, when they must've known it would result in
so much negativity? Simple, that negatively is exactly the kind of thing that gets your
story talked about, in person and in the press. By the end of the day hundreds of
thousands of people who had never heard about the SpyCops inquiry were made aware of it,
and were learning about the SpyCops campaigns. Lush are probably quietly thanking the
outraged police supporters and right wingers on social media for playing their parts so well.
There are some important lessons here for those of us who engage in politics, things to
remember about how the establishment reacts to criticism. First off, they seem to be
taking it very seriously. Lots of people with important sounding titles like ‘vice-chair
of the police federation' and ‘home secretary' quickly jumped into the fray. Why is this?
Part of it might be the source of the criticism. Lush is a world renowned and respected
company, with an annual turnover of up to £995million. For the police and politicians this
is a major business ‘breaking ranks' and criticising a core part of the establishment. The
Home Secretary provided evidence of this with his statement saying ‘Never thought I would
see a mainstream British retailer running a public advertising campaign against our
hardworking police.' It isn't something we should forget either, we should not rely on, or
feel the need to support capitalist enterprises, even ones that help fund our campaigns.
Lush's financial muscle also meant they had a platform much larger than most political
groups, too large to ignore. Also at its core I think its because the establishment are
scared. The SpyCops revelations are accompanied by cast iron proof, they were shocking
even to those of used to seeing the ugly side of policing, and they strike against the
very core of what the political and business establishment like us to think about the
police. They shatter the illusion that the police are impartial upholders of justice, that
their goal is to protect the innocent or uphold virtue. They expose the rotten core of
policing in the UK in a way that even those who don't consider themselves ‘anti-police'
will take notice of. Forget scared, this is the kind of thing that makes the establishment
terrified.
So that is the why, what about the how of this establishment back lash? Well, it had a
frankly immense reach. It was on a scale that money (almost) can't buy. Every major media
outlet in the country has run a story on this, not focusing on the campaign itself, but on
quotes from police, politicians, and miscellaneous angry people on twitter. Headlines
included the likes of ‘Lush branded "Offensive, disgusting, and an insult" by Police
Federation chair', ‘Fury over Lush campaign', ‘Lush Sparks Outrage' and ‘Cosmetics giant
blasted over bizarre campaign'. Headlines that reveal the thrust of what the corporate
media wanted to get across. Luckily for the campaign however the articles did have to
include at least some substance, including writing about the SpyCops abuses and the
campaign around them. Politicians and police also employed a ‘trickle affect', with
different spokespeople, often from the same organisations, releasing similar quotes though
out the day. Not only does this give news websites an excuse to write a second, or third,
article on the subject it gives the illusion of a ‘public conversation' taking place that
fits the narrative those in power want to construct. Picking a few random twitter quotes
helps add to this idea. Don't bother investigating for yourself (they really, really don't
want you to do that) the public at large have spoken, agree you peasants!
What about the contents of all these official tweets, press statements, articles, and
reports? This is where it gets really interesting. First off, they do what we all expect
politicians to do, lie. Lie like their lives depend on it. The first lie was to deflect by
accusing the other side of being the liars. Believe our rulers and the campaign is
unfounded, misleading, full of lies! Do they have any specifics to back that up? Of course
not, and if you ask they'll reply with something vague about how brave the police are and
hope you'll shut up. Their next big lie is that the campaign is ‘anti-police'. Not anti
SpyCops, anti ALL police. This seems to be the thing that people have latched on to the
most. With many police supporters tweeting that its #NotAllPolice. Which is great in
itself, as it means even ‘the other side' has realised that what the SpyCops did was
awful, and they can't bring themselves to defend them. It also misses the same point that
those who tweet #NotAllMen in response to accusations of sexism miss. It doesn't matter if
every individual is directly involved in the abuse and corruption, they sure as hell
associate with people that are, they fail to challenge their friends and colleagues who
are, and they continue to benefit from the system wide oppression that is created. Of
course not all police are SpyCops, I mean, we would've noticed if every uniformed police
officer in the country was replaced with a shady looking activist. It doesn't mean that
all police aren't part of the same corrupt institution however, and it dosen't mean they
aren't complicit. After all I've seen plenty of serving police officers talking about how
all police feel ‘offended', how they are outraged at the campaign... but none going on the
record to say the campaign raises important points about the nature of policing, and the
awful actions of some of their colleagues.
Along with the lies, came the calls for censorship. Often in the same papers that run
outraged stories under the guise of ‘defending free speech', talking about anti-fascists
‘no platforming' racist speakers, or women ‘daring' to raise their voices against sexism
in the media. Suddenly the right-wing media's free speech at all costs mantra is gone, and
Lush should end their campaign and silence themselves immediately or else. It's almost
like the papers, politicians, and right wing personalities don't actually care about free
speech, except when its a handy weapon to use against their opponents. Likewise its
amusing to see those who describe the left or anarchists as delicate ‘snowflakes', voicing
their offense at the drop of the hat, doing precisely what the accuse us of; shouting
loudly about how offended they are, as if this is the most important thing in the world.
This move toward censorship isn't restricted to words either. Along with dozens of
complaints to the advertising standards agency and other authorities, have come calls for
boycotts, and even harassment of retail staff in the shops. Working retail is a
soul-crushing experience at the best of times, so if you can spare a few minutes go say
something nice to the folks in your local Lush, maybe drop 'em round some chocolates. Most
worryingly of all, the calls for censorship are actually working. Lush have curtailed to
their critics and removed part of their display from at least some stores. It is this
pretty decent poster, apparently its ‘offensive' to the right wing snowflakes (or
broflakes as the predominantly macho and right wing snowflakes are often termed), so
careful where you share it.
By no means did the establishment limit themselves to just these tactics of course. There
was plenty of misdirection, attempting to change the conversation to how hardworking they
think the police are, or to how they've suffered under government cuts (those things that
the same police were on the front line defending). They also attempted to undermine the
credibility of Lush's campaign, labeling it ‘bizarre' and pretending they didn't know why
it was happening, or what could've caused it. Other tricks included the knee-jerk reaction
of blaming Corbyn, who apparently once met the guy who founded Lush, and appealing to
emotion, in one instance by quoting the widow of a police officer. All of this was just
damage control. It was too late, the campaign had succeeded in its aim of getting the word
out about the SpyCops to loads more people, All the police could do was try and twist the
narrative, all the while further boosting the profile of the the thing they'd like people
to ignore. If you plan on launching any campaign, whether its one that involves actively
courting the media, or just doing an action and running away you can expect to face all
the same tactics. It's important to remember this when looking at how we frame our own
demonstrations.
Feels very odd writing something positive about a multi-million pound business on an
anarchist website. I'd better balance it out with something negative. Damn you Lush,
you.... make stuff that smells like it should taste really nice, but then if you try to
eat it mostly tastes of soap. Hmm. Nope, still feel dirty for the coverage of Lush. So
dirty I should probably go wash myself. Perhaps with some deliciously fragranced hand-made
soap.
Click for big (and more readable) version
http://afed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/lush-twitter2.png
Final Note: I'm supportive of the #SpyCops campaigns, and in relation to being victimised
and fighting back against the police state, everyone involved. However, I'm not supportive
of at least one prominent member of the group Helen Steel, in relation to other
activities. Despite impressive activist credentials built up over several decades, Helen
Steel has come out with some deeply reactionary views over the past year or more. These
are largely in relation to trans people, and have included going as far as labeling trans
activists part of an MI5 conspiracy, accusing trans women of deliberately furthering
patriarchy or suggesting they only exist as a means to threaten women. I don't think this
should stop anyone from supporting the #SpyCops campaign itself, and as a core participant
there is no way anyone would remove Helen Steel from said campaign. I do think we should
call out bigotry and prejudice where ever we see it, even amongst those we previously
considered to be comrades. Especially when beyond merely voicing it, they actively
organise to spread it. It's a shame that others at the core of the campaigns have not done
this themselves. Whist I'd welcome other speakers from SpyCops at events I was hosting, I
wouldn't go out of my way to organise a platform for Helen Steel - especially given that
she has on occasion used such events to mention her TERF views.
Tags: Solidarity, state repression, UK
http://afed.org.uk/confronting-state-abuse-is-lush/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center