In this week's New Statesman: Dads: the answer to the riots?

Exclusive: Mehdi Hasan meets Tariq Jahan | Laurie Penny interviews Johnnie Marbles |Olivier Roy on S

A

In this week's New Statesman, we invite ten left-wing thinkers to break the family values taboo and asks if dads are the answer to the riots. Inside, Spirit Level authors Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson argue that poverty is the real issue, not fathers, Blue Labour thinker Marc Stears says that blaming everything on inequality is a cop-out, Owen Jones warns that the unrest is being used to push a reactionary agenda, Labour MP Diane Abbott says that single mothers need support, not lectures, and Will Straw explains why encouraging marriage by tax breaks is pointless.

Elsewhere, Mehdi Hasan meets Tariq Jahan, whose quiet dignity over his son's death made him a national hero. Jahan speaks movingly about losing a child, the radical Islamist past he abandoned to become a father, and why society isn't "broken".

Also this week, Laurie Penny talks to Johnnie Marbles, whose pie attack on Rupert Murdoch landed him in prison, John Pilger condemns the system of greed and self-interest behind the riots, Olivier Roy explains why Syria's crisis is a turning point for the region, and Helen Lewis-Hasteley talks to Ranulph Fiennes about conquering Everest.

All this, plus Alice Miles on class segregation in the United States, Noah Richler on the fresh faces transforming Canadian politics, and David Marquand on Europe's struggle for popular sovereignty.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Leon Neal/ Getty
Show Hide image

“Brexit is based on racism”: Who is protesting outside the Supreme Court and what are they fighting for?

Movement for Justice is challenging the racist potential of Brexit, as the government appeals the High Court's Article 50 decision.

Protestors from the campaign group Movement for Justice are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court for the second day running. They are against the government triggering Article 50 without asking MPs, and are protesting against the Brexit vote in general. They plan to remain outside the Supreme Court for the duration of the case, as the government appeals the recent High Court ruling in favour of Parliament.

Their banners call to "STOP the scapgoating of immigrants", to "Build the movement against austerity & FOR equality", and to "Stop Brexit Fight Racism".

The group led Saturday’s march at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre, where a crowd of over 2,000 people stood against the government’s immigration policy, and the management of the centre, which has long been under fire for claims of abuse against detainees.  

Movement for Justice, and its 50 campaigners, were in the company yesterday of people from all walks of pro and anti-Brexit life, including the hangers-on from former Ukip leader Nigel Farage’s postponed march on the Supreme Court.

Antonia Bright, one of the campaign’s lead figures, says: “It is in the interests of our fight for freedom of movement that the Supreme Court blocks May’s attempt to rush through an anti-immigrant deal.”

This sentiment is echoed by campaigners on both sides of the referendum, many of whom believe that Parliament should be involved.

Alongside refuting the royal prerogative, the group criticises the Brexit vote in general. Bright says:

“The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.”

A crucial concern for the group is that the terms of the agreement will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.

This concern isn’t entirely unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58 per cent spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41 per cent increase, compared with the same time the following year.

The subtext of Bright's statement is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a desicion of such momentous consequences. She also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.

This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. Bright insists that this, “is not a democratic process at all”.

“We want to positively say that there does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, not just a rushing through on the royal prerogative,” she adds. “There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.”

For campaigners, the use of royal prerogative is a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters, during the future Brexit negotiations. A ruling in the Supreme Court in favour of a parliamentary vote would present a small but important reassurance against these fears.