Nasty article posted without discussion

Dan - can you explain what the inaccuracies are? Also what evidence do you have, which makes you so sure that this is part from an AWL campaign? As you know, the author is not part of the AWL. At the moment, I can't really see why the article is Islamophobic.

Regardless of whether or not this is part of an AWL campaign, it is unclear why nothing was posted on loomio for discussion before the article went up. My understanding was that the 1 editor rule was introduced for speed as opposed to increasing the democratic freedoms of editors. This clearly is not a live issue, so I don't see why it wasn't at least bought up before hand.

Saying that I don't particularly agree with the 1 editor rule and it was voted on at a conference which I didn't attend - I'm strongly in favour of removing it so that it is clear to editors (and public) that there is more of a process for articles going up.

Finally I'm not entirely sure why this article (which really does add much new to the debate) didn't go up on anticuts.com like all of the other statements that have been made about this. It is really not that relevant to our general line of comment or reporting and to me it would have made more sense for it to go up on NCAFC. I also wonder why mcash wanted it on Slaney Street - could he not have asked ncafc if they wanted it, published it on his own blog, as a facebook note or is it simply because he perceived it was easy to publish easily on slaney street or was asking around for somewhere that would publish the article without recourse to a more thorough democratic process?

"The 46-strong NUS National Executive Council (NEC) all support action in solidarity with Kurdistan, yet have voted to do nothing about it." No. They voted for a rewritten motion to be put to the next meeting.

"The Black Students Officer, Malia Bouattia, opposed it on the grounds that it is Islamophobic and that it supports US military intervention." This is massively misleading. She opposed the motion because a nonsensical part of it about encouraging students to boycott ISIS supporters had Islamophobic consequences. She doesn't think opposing ISIS is Islamophobic and has already condemned them in the Black Students Campaign statement. The author of this article is planting the false idea in people's heads that she thinks opposing ISIS is Islamophobic.

The problem with the motion is that it didn't oppose the ONGOING Western military in Syria, not that it 'supported' intervention. There's a big difference. The article is distorting Malia's position to make her appear to be an idiot Stalinist/identity politics gone mad whatever, it's the same line as Cooper.

He switches the order of events that it was the press that attacked Malia and then Twitter/far-right exploded, when actually Malia was getting massive abuse over Twitter and stuff within hours of Cooper's bullshit article being posted and days beofre the mainstream press got a hold of it.

"However, whatever you might think about his political views, the article was accurate in its portrayal of the facts" Except the main problem virtually everyone else who was in that room/who knew what was happening had with Cooper's article was it's false portrayal of the facts, not his political views. He completely ignored Malia's reasons for wanting the motion rewritten (he didn't even mention them in his article neermind disagree) and instead made up his own totally from his own speculation. This article is now repeating it.

"Bouattia’s international politics are influenced by Stalinism" It's obvious what this means, Cooper said elsewhere too that it's not opposing anyone who's opposed to the US government, i.e. Malia refuses to oppose ISIS when that's not true and they know it. And as if they don't know the implications of falsely accusing the only Muslim Officer in the NUS for years of refusing to oppose ISIS.

"In fact, the core narrative of the articles in the mainstream press is true: Bouattia spoke against a motion condemning ISIS on the grounds that it was Islamophobic." No. The core narrative was that Bouattia spoke against a motion BECAUSE it condemned ISIS, and that is not true. This is propagandistic twisting with racist undertones.

"It is unreasonable to blame Cooper for the actions of the right-wing press, and then the far right." Despite the fact that he started it and the press/far-right are only repeating what he said happened. The the only Muslim Officer in the NUS blocked a motion because it opposed ISIS and she said that it was Islamophobic.

About the whole inaction thing, McCash surely knows that Malia etc have been trying to get an emergency NEC meeting so they can pass the amended anti-ISIS motion. He doesn't mention this because it undermines his line that she doesn't care about Kurds and is responsible for 'inaction'.

"The criticisms levied at Cooper, for the most part, amount to demands for deceit. He is being asked to censor his own opinions and not report on actually-occurring events."

No. It's being demanded of him that he not dishonestly misrepresent someone in a racist way.

And it's ridiculous that this article is complaining about a 'bad atmosphere' or whatever when he's just kicking off a storm again by publishing this bilge.

The author is massively associated with the AWL (I don't understand why he doesn't just join, I've never seen him disagree with them on anything), and it's overwhelmingly AWL members who are pushing this issue.

But anyway... back to the original point. I do not think it's proper at all that Slaney Street space has been given out without any consultation (it's meant to be a democratic paper) for this guy who has nothing to do with Birmingham (it's meant to be a community paper) so it can be used as a platform to slander and try and politically assassinate the NUS Black Students Officer who is currently the target of a group of pseudo-leftist racists who're obsessed with Muslims. How is it at all in our remit/interests to host this. Whenever something controversial has come up (e.g. the Friends of the Earth stuff) we have had consultation, those affected in particular have been consulted. Why in this case has someone decided to ignore all precedent we have for this kind of stuff and just do whatever the hell they like with our space.

Yeah I'm really confused as to why this article was posted as if it were uncontroversial - and why it was posted on Slaney Street at all. Without taking sides on the issue (and I have taken sides in other discussions, I just don't think it would be useful to do so again here) this issue is both highly contested and borderline irrelevant to the Slaney Street remit. Any answers to these concerns forthcoming from editors?

McAsh says: ' It is significant that Cooper’s more contentious assertions, for instance that Bouattia’s international politics are influenced by Stalinism, were completely ignored by the press.'

The Daily Mail: "He said: 'I have looked again and again at the contents of the motion, yet I cannot track any Islamophobia or racism.
'There is a stranglehold of "identity politics" on the student movement.
'This is an issue which needs to be discussed in more depth, but essentially the idea is widespread that if a Liberation Officer opposes something, it must be bad.'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794183/national-union-students-refuses-condemn-isis-fears-islamophobic.html

The Independent '...in a move which has promoted campaigners to accuse the body of being in the “stranglehold” of divisive “identity politics”.'

'He added: “There is a stranglehold of 'identity politics' on the student movement… essentially the idea is widespread that if a liberation officer opposes something, it must be bad.”'

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/nus-motion-to-condemn-isis-fails-amidst-claims-of-islamophobia-9796193.html

The Tab: 'He added: “There is a stranglehold of ‘identity politics’ on the student movement. This is an issue which needs to be discussed in more depth, but essentially the idea is widespread that if a Liberation Officer opposes something, it must be bad.”'

http://tab.co.uk/2014/10/14/nus-refuses-to-condemn-terrorists-because-its-islamophobic/

Huffington Post:

'"This is a grave shame," Cooper continues. "There is a stranglehold of 'identity politics' on the student movement. This is an issue which needs to be discussed in more depth, but essentially the idea is widespread that if a Liberation Officer opposes something, it must be bad.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/15/the-nus-votes-to-reject-c_n_5987930.html

Clearly the press did not ignore his comments.

McAsh says: ' Bouattia spoke against a motion condemning ISIS on the grounds that it was Islamophobic'

No. Malia spoke against the motion because the motion was islamophobic not because condemnng ISIS is.

McAsh says: 'NUS might have released concise objective minutes shortly after the NEC meeting. If they had done so, with no political comment, it would have said that the motion was voted down, who spoke against it, and their key arguments. The result could have easily been the same'

No the results would not have been the same. One must note the press are using this as a platform to turn around and deliegitimise calling out Islamophobia, which was a platform completely designed by Daniel Cooper, who, being a 'lefty' to the press, just used 'identity politics' as a liberation-uissue ignoring strategy.

Why is Coopers blog, racist, islamophobic and pro intervention?

-Not only does he argue that he cannot see the Islamophobia, like everyone has repeatedly explained why this is Islamophobic, so why is he continuing to deny this? Oh wait - white privilege, the experiences of brown muslims on the ground who are being spied on and vilified by the state doesnt really matter I suppose.

• Cooper makes a sentimental blog about he situation (this basically says 'look at this vicious lady who stopped their condemnation - especially when he doesnt put in the fact that she does say she will have the motion rewriten) and also paints the situation in a particular way ' there is a new, shaky, shia-sectarian government;' in one paragraph and then the other about ISIS, ', including Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and Sunni Muslim Arabs.' about the victims, leaving out the majority, Shia Muslims who are being tortured by ISIS. Hmm, maybe this was a typo? No. Because the blog furthers into its imperialist support ' that the Kurds and Yazidi’s thus far would not have been able to survive if it had not been for aid from the Americans'. like what? Can we please remember that US weapons etc have been falling in the wrong places, and the shia Muslims who the Islamophobe Cooper conveniently left out, are linked to Iran which is massively spporting the kurds through intervention? - Or was this jjust convenient to portray a AWL hate of Iran? I dont know.

• "the majority of the NEC has not accepted current and former Black Students’ Officers’ defence of Julian Assange or the SWP" This is a powerful, bigoted and racist accusation insinuating a connection between Black Students and Rape Apologists which will not be tolerated

Why is McAsh a racist? Because of his Racism Apology.

I'm sorry you feel you need to defend cooper, because of your white liberal unity or whatever crap you want to call it. Fact of the matter is, Malia was attacked well before the first press releases came out. Coopers blog incited division amongst black students. His privilege overlooked the consequences of the nonsense he portrayed, and McAsh co-opts this by saying his work was as pure as minutes.

And yet there is defence? Why? Why are you harouring racists? Why is that okay?

Oh wait. Its because you don't care. The fact that you could misuse a local community paper to portray your racism apology is frankly disgusting and goes to show the white privilege. Everyone is on board when we say it doesnt matter what your intention is dont culturally appropriate or black up.
But suddenly intention seems to matter when its about a white lefty expressing their opinion on Islamophobia, despite the incited islamophobia being apparent on the ground - then TOKENISING a kurdish woman as a shield.

Its all a little pathetic.

Yeah this clearly should not have been posted. Someone please delete it tbh

From our constitution http://www.slaneystreet.com/2014/03/29/1394/

Powers & decision making

For an article to go up on the website it requires the approval of one member of the editorial committee.
An article can be vetoed by a vote of 2/3rd of the editorial committee.

"My understanding was that the 1 editor rule was introduced for speed as opposed to increasing the democratic freedoms of editors"

I think this wrong and unfair to say. We have been very clear that we are attempting to build a broad paper that publishes all sides of the debate from the very beginning. Even stuff we disagree with. The one editor publishing rule has always been argued as part of very strong protection for minority viewpoints and our commitment to publishing and debate. We have always stuck to this even with articles we strongly disagree with. This article was published by the normal process that we have published 99% of all Slaney Street articles. If you disagree with either get a two third vote of Editoral Board on here to remove it - or call an emergency conference and elect a new EB then remove get the new EB to remove it. Or just no confidence me for publishing it (takes a petition of 5 members to trigger the no-confidence meeting) then replace me someone else and vote to take it down.

I've just got out of work now but I strongly disagree with Dans comment and I can see a number of misleading and inaccurate points which I will try and type up a reply to overnight.

I would personally encourage people who disagree with the article to write a reply stating their reasons for disagreeing with it. This is how Slaney Street has always attempted to operate because we are attempting to build a culture of debate on the left.

By and large, published articles for Slaney are linked to the city, i.e. the remit is of a community based publication for Birmingham. While exceptions are possible, I don't see that this article is such an exception.

Without engaging with the constitutional stuff (I went over that in my original point). It simply isn't true that the normal process is for articles just to go up, especially if they are controversial or are likely to be viewed by editors or the readership as so - for instance before we put the Selma James article on the website the womens caucus drafted a response to it because of the bit about assange, likewise the Formula 1 article had a response written to it before it was published.

In your post you haven't explained why mccash felt the need to post it on slaney street, or why you didn't post it up here to see what your other editors thought and give them time to respond or put an addendum to it before it was put online. I'm aware with our current constitution you were in your rights to do this, but I don't understand your motivation behind not wanting to discuss it as an editorial board(especially since this is the supposed goal).

James's blog doesn't really say anything that hasn't been in public for the past three weeks anyhow - I don't see the reason to transplant that conversation onto our blog and invite people to contribute to the 'debate', what I would like to see though is some discussion/ a blog about how we want discussion and democracy to occur in slaney street