|
All materials published and promoted by L Smith, PO Box 1109, London N4 2UU
|
|
Salma Yaqoob responds to critics and outlines her philosophy for renewing Respect |
Of all the words written about the split in Respect, the least
important are those dealing with who did what at some meeting or
other. Of much more interest are those articles attempting to provide
some political explanation of these events.
Two recent articles from SWP Central Committee members Martin Smith
and Chris Harman (note 1) attempt to provide this political
explanation. What I propose to do here is to address three aspects of
this debate. Firstly, the SWP s echoing of attacks once the preserve
of those more known for pandering to Islamophobia than challenging
it. Secondly, the SWP s crass understanding of the dynamic of race
and class inside the Muslim community, and the conclusions they draw
from it. And thirdly, how best to protect the political integrity of
the newly emerging Respect as an entity rooted in opposition to war,
neo-liberalism and racism.
A spectre is haunting Respect?
Leading members of the SWP are conjuring up the spectre of
reactionary religious forces on the march inside Respect. In his
article in the December 2007 issue of Socialist Review, SWP National
Secretary Martin Smith quotes, with apparent approval, an opponent of
Respect as saying:
"The split will strengthen the weight of the
Islamists in Respect Renewal, some of whom have links to
Jamaat-e-Islami [Pakistan's largest religious party]. I don't think
that's going to make the party very hospitable to socialists."
(note
2)
Chris Harman echoes the theme, but goes for a double whammy, invoking
two apparently sinister organized forces at work inside Respect:
&some of Galloway s allies in the Islamic Forum of Europe have
connections with the Bangladeshi group Jamaat-i-Islami&It was
involved in the military suppression of the Bengali liberation
movement in 1969, before developing separate Pakistani and
Bangladeshi wings, both of which still use force to drive the left
from university campuses
(note 3)
This argument could not be clearer: conservative Islamic
organisations are organizing inside Respect against socialists. It is
an argument that we have heard time and time again from those who most
viciously opposed Respect from the start, as part of their pro-war
agenda. That the SWP now echo these arguments is astonishing. To
ascertain whether there are conservative Islamic religious forces
exercising their weight inside Respect, it is first helpful to
evaluate whether they are emerging in broader British society.
Writing about this nearly two years ago my estimation about Muslim
radicalism, - those engaging in political activism from a self
consciously religious perspective - was as follows:
&the dominant character of Muslim radicalisation in Britain today
points not towards terrorism or religious extremism, but in the
opposite direction: towards political engagement in new, radical and
progressive coalitions that seek to unite Muslim with non-Muslim in
parliamentary and extra- parliamentary strategies to effect
change&the existence of this new and progressive radicalism is a
sharp break from those who would lead British Islam into
confrontation with all levels of British society.
(note 4)
As evidence I pointed to increasing Muslim participation in an array
of campaigns and initiatives, from the anti-war movement to the
European Social Forum, from political alliances with the Mayor of
London s office to the emergence of Respect.
Two years later that process has deepened. The decision of the MCB to
end their boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day (note 5), the comments
from its chair Mohammed Bari that discrimination on the basis of
sexual preference was
obnoxious ,(note 6) and the growing
relationship between the MCB and the Trades Union Congress represents
important progress.
Reactionary and conservative religious radicals certainly exist, and
their influence has to be continually countered. But the general
political trajectory of Muslim radicalism is still towards
progressive politics.
That general trend is much more dramatically pronounced inside
Respect, which has gathered together a significant grouping of
Muslims who combine their Islamic faith with a commitment to the
struggle for social justice.
One indication of which way the wind is blowing has been the complete
absence of any serious dissent inside Respect over the kind of
secular/religious fault lines that run through wider society. This
includes issues such as abortion law, homosexuality, gender equality
or faith-based schools.
For many people these are matters of personal morality and religious
belief. For that reason we would be wise to deal with them with some
sensitivity (note 7). But these issues, of course, have a wider
political and social significance that we cannot ignore. In this
context, an argument about the importance of the right to
self-determination, freedom and equality is very powerful. I have
argued on many occasions that if Muslims demand respect for their
beliefs and lifestyle, then the same tolerance and respect for the
rights and choices of others is obligatory.
What we have achieved is the creation of an alliance which emphasizes
universal themes of justice and equality. Within this there will be
all sorts of ideological (and theological) views. But they are united
by the defence of the rights and freedoms of all. It is an alliance
that has advanced support for progressive social causes.
There is no evidence of any Muslim bloc inside Respect seeking to
give our political agenda some Sharia flavour. There is no evidence
that members of Jamaat-i-Islami or any other Islamic organization are
on some entryist mission inside Respect.
There is no evidence of the SWP raising concerns about undue
religious influence in all the time I have been Vice Chair. And there
is no evidence that such forces are about to emerge in the absence of
the SWP. Quite the opposite, in fact. When we were organizing the
Respect Renewal conference the Islamic figure our Bengali councillors
in Tower Hamlets wanted to speak was Tariq Ramadan, the most
progressive exponent of a modern European Islam.
The SWP allegations are groundless. They are driven more by the
dynamic of a faction fight in which they are grasping around for
ideological cover to mask what is in reality sectarian manoeuvres to
entrench their control. The danger for the SWP, in repeating
arguments which first emanated from the so-called pro-war
left, is that in so doing they allow the waters of Islamaphobia to lap at
their feet.
Are Muslims in retreat from the struggle against war and racism?
The SWP have suggested that there is a retreat from engagement in
radical politics by Muslims, and that George Galloway was adapting to
this reversion to conservative community politics. They locate this
retreat in the impact of the 7/7 bombings. This claim is wrong.
There is no evidence that Muslims, radicalised by the impact of war
and Islamaphobia, are falling in behind Home Office attempts to
incorporate establishment figures on the basis of softening
opposition to British foreign policy or to their campaigns of
demonisation against Muslims. The handful of Muslim figures who have
taken such a view patently do not have the support of the wider
community. Any political benefits the Labour party have gained from
the
Brown Bounce
have very much disappeared. While there is fear
and concern over new government threats to our civil liberties, there
is simply no evidence that the Government s agenda is substantially
weakening the anti-imperialist or anti-racist consciousness among any
significant layer of Muslims in Britain today.
The SWP attempts to justify this argument with reference to a decline
in the numbers of Muslims attending anti-war marches. This is far too
simplistic. The inability of the anti-war movement to prevent the
invasion of Iraq inevitably had a certain demoralizing effect, across
all communities, undermining a belief in the power of social movements
to make a difference. It was not just Muslim participation on anti-war
protests that subsequently declined.
But the anger over the war on terror has not gone away. It re-emerged
over the Israeli attack on Lebanon, and would undoubtedly emerge again
in the advent of any new escalation like an attack on Iran.
Furthermore, events organised by coalitions of Islamic institutions
such as the Global Peace and Unity conference and Islam Expo have
continued to grow after 7/7 and have continued to develop a critical,
radical edge. These attract tens of thousands of participants.
It is a mistake therefore to conflate a dip in Muslim involvement in
a single set form of activity
a Stop the War demonstration
with a
major political regression to community politics.
Does Respect pander to "community leaders i.e. small businessmen"?
(note 8)
Related to this mistaken analysis, is a crude understanding of the
appeal of Respect inside the Muslim community. The SWP states:
"This
logic of electoralism has led Galloway and his supporters to be drawn
into making alliances across the whole Muslim community , wherein,
George Galloway, myself and others will become increasingly dependant
upon 'community leaders' i.e. small businessmen."
It is true that Respect does have an appeal across the whole Muslim
community. There are two possible explanations for this. One,
traditionally favoured by the ultra-left and now by the SWP, is that
Respect has consciously courted the support of community
leaders/small businessmen, at the price of politically compromising
ourselves. Again, no actual evidence is produced to substantiate
this, nor is there any explanation as to why sections of the Muslim
business community would think their class interests are best served
by hitching their wagon to a fringe political party.
Another explanation lies in an understanding of how racism impacts on
all Muslims. This racism affects all Muslims, although of course it is
mitigated by class background.
Firstly, though, one must be clear about the nature of Muslim
communities in Britain today. Muslim communities are dominated by
disadvantage and poverty (note 9).
Around 69% of Muslims live in poverty.
35% of Muslim households have no adult in employment
double the
national average. Overall, they are 3 times more likely to be
unemployed than the population as a whole.
73% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children live in households below
the poverty line
compared to 31% for all households
32% of Muslim households were overcrowded, and generally Muslims
have poorer housing conditions, and are more reliant on social
housing
28% of young Muslims are unemployed
20% of Muslims are self-employed
frequently in marginal and
insecure occupations
These are the communities where we have won our strongest support
in some of the poorest wards in the country. Our support does not
come primarily from the small, or not so small businessmen, seeking
to advance their interests. It comes overwhelmingly from those who
experience poverty and disadvantage.
But, in tandem with this poverty and disadvantage, is racism.
Irrespective of their class background, Muslims are constantly aware
of the discrimination and prejudice they face. It is no less real for
the self-employed taxi driver, or the owner of a small grocers shop.
There is anger throughout the community at this racism, compounded by
anger at the blatant double standards of Western foreign policy.
A consequence of this system of disadvantage and exclusion is the
pitifully poor political representation imposed on these communities.
For many years this has been dominated by the Labour Party, happy to
rely on the large votes from Muslims, but desperate to retain control
over them.
So when politicians come along who articulate the feelings of the
community, they will get respect, whether they are Muslim or
non-Muslim. One of the biggest reasons why Muslims say they support
me is that I make them feel proud of who they are, even to the extent
of thinking I am a role model for their children.
This sense of pride and community loyalty applies to Muslims who are
unemployed, it applies to Muslims who run corner shops, and it
applies to our handful of more wealthy backers.
There are Muslim businesspeople who live in million pound mansions in
leafy suburbs, while operating businesses in our communities paying
low wages and delivering poor conditions for their workers. But I
have not yet found these people to be natural supporters of a fringe
left-wing party. There are other businesspeople who both live and
work in our communities, and who retain a close connection with the
community they come from, and who have the same interest as their
brothers and sisters in confronting racism, opposing war, and seeing
good representation for the disadvantaged areas they live in.
Respect's base is among the poorest sections of our communities. And
the experience of anti-Muslim racism, and disgust at imperialist war,
motivates some small business people in those communities to join us.
The roots of our cross community support do not lie in right-wing,
anti-working class politics. They can be found in a commitment to
oppose racism and war, and the significance of a political party
being seen to speak out in defence of that community s interest.
Running through the SWP s analysis is a crude reductionist attempt to
read off all political actions from some supposed economic interest.
If this is too simplistic in trying to explain Respect s support from
some people who own small businesses, it is even more so in relation
to people seen as community leaders. The single biggest reason such
individuals acquire weight and influence is not wealth, it is
reputation.
South Asian communities are built on the basis on migration. New
immigrants settle where they have already family or personal links.
As a result, most of Birmingham and Tower Hamlets Muslim communities
live in areas with others of a similar background. That background
invariably lies in common village roots in Pakistan, Kashmir and
Bangladesh, with ties reinforced through marriage. These strong
community ties bring real benefits. They have provided an
indispensable leg-up to newly arrived immigrants from rural areas as
they navigate their way around their new country.
The value of such support is incalculable, and is not readily
forgotten. And on the basis of their records in doing such work,
certain individuals can acquire prestige and influence. It is
insulting to our voters and supporters to reduce the prestige which
certain individuals in the community have, to some form of patronage
or favour they dispense.
Of course this influence can be, and often is, abused. Family and
clan loyalties have allowed influential figures in the community to
claim control over blocks of votes that can run into the hundreds.
This system can stifle genuine political debate, and at its worst can
lead to corruption of the electoral process.
But the existence of such loyalties is a reality that cannot be
wished away. Family or clan loyalties are not an invention of
community leaders . They originate in the social structures of
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and persist because of the experience
of migration and the importance of mutual support and interdependence
in the daily lives of South Asian communities in Britain today.
This social reality can be both a strength and a weakness. And it
leads to real pressures which we have to resist by asserting the
primacy of principled politics.
Our campaigns to end the postal vote have to be seen in this context.
It is for the reasons that biraderi (extended clan) networks can exert
undue influence that we have been campaigning vigorously in Birmingham
against postal votes.
Women in particular have been disenfranchised. Postal votes are
filled out in the "privacy" of one's own home. But it is not private
when family members, candidates or supporters, can influence - subtly
or otherwise - the way you complete your vote. Community leaders may
claim to be able to yield significant voter blocs, but no one can
interfere with the secrecy of the polling station. A secret ballot
means that loyalties to family and friends can be maintained in
public, but political arguments can still win out in the real privacy
of the voting booth.
Ultimately, however, we have to stick to principles and lead by
example. Last year in Birmingham Sparkbrook we came under
considerable pressure when we selected a candidate whose family were
originally from the same village in Pakistan as the sitting Lib Dem
councillor. It was alleged we were splitting the biraderi vote. And
that we could not win by so doing. We resisted those pressures, just
as we resisted pressures when the same people said we could never win
by standing a women candidate. And we were proved right on both
occasions.
The SWP s allegations that we are in thrall to
community leaders
i.e. small businessmen
are as ignorant of the communities they
profess to be knowledgeable about as they are misleading about the
actual activities of their critics.
Respect: The politics of Tammany Hall and "pocket members"?
The SWP claims that following the outcome of selection meetings in
Birmingham and Tower Hamlets the character of Respect changed, and
there was a move away from the minimal agreed principles & towards
putting electability above every other principle . (note 10) They
also claim that Tammany Hall politics i.e. the buying of ethnic
voter blocs in return for political favours, have now corrupted
Respect.
These are about as serious a set of allegations as can be made (note
11). You would expect therefore that the SWP to produce evidence to
substantiate them. You would expect them to be able to point to how
the political programme of Respect has been subsequently watered
down; or to cite examples of our elected councillors pandering to a
pro-war, neo-liberal agenda; or to give a single instance where our
councillors have abused their elected positions or brought Respect
into disrepute. Yet no evidence is forthcoming.
The SWP s attempt to evoke an analogy between Respect and the
practices of the Democratic Party machine - known as Tammany Hall -
is particularly ludicrous. For decades, Tammany Hall politics played
a major part in controlling politics and carving out ethnic voter
bases in cities like New York City and Chicago through patronage,
bribery, kickbacks. It was first and foremost based on the use and
abuse of power
a real power which, by any definition, is lacking
among Muslim communities in Britain.
There is no parallel between the Tammany Hall system and the attempts
by disadvantaged and excluded minority communities in Britain to
organize themselves to exert influence over the political system. The
former is a colonial-type operation to keep politics in the hands of
big business. The latter is a struggle for justice and equality by
those kept out of the corridors of power. One would have thought the
SWP could tell the difference between the two.
All sorts of groupings organise to maximize their influence in
society. I see no reason
other than ignorance and prejudice
why
the organization of minority communities should be singled out for
particular hostility, particularly when representatives of those
communities do not wield significant political power in our society.
Of course, pressures exist and have to be countered. We have seen
allegations, over many years, of
pocket members
bought and paid for
by individuals with the sole intention of influencing selection
meetings.
These undemocratic practices can be dealt with. Membership rules can
be tightened, or in extreme cases a national party can intervene if a
local organization is bringing it into disrepute. Prior to the split I
am not aware of the SWP either proposing new measures to tighten
membership requirements or raising at a national level their concerns
about selection processes inside Respect (note 12).
Instead they overplay the outcome of a few selection meetings where
their preferred candidates did not get selected.
There is more than a touch of double standards here. The SWP complain
about candidates encouraging their supporters to
pack
a meeting
(note 13). Yet the SWP goes through the same process every time it
approaches a contentious meeting or conference. It will have its
full-timers ensuring that the membership details of its supporters
are up to date - no doubt in some cases using SWP district bank
accounts to speed the process. And when their side wins, they
congratulate themselves on a
good mobilisation . When the other side
wins, they cry foul about meetings being
packed!
The SWP, with a half a century of political existence behind them,
came into Respect as a well-organised party, with an apparatus
staffed by fulltimers and an extremely top down and centralised
decision making culture. With a familiarity of operating in
committees and party political structures that the vast majority of
Respect s new supporters and members did not have, the potential for
an organised political grouping having an influence wholly
disproportionate to its social base among Respect voters, was very
real.
As it became clear that Respect s strongest voter base and elected
representatives came from within sections of the Muslim community,
where the SWP had virtually no influence, so they increasingly
resorted to bureaucratic manoeuvrings and control to exercise
influence. By packing a committee with their members, by acting in
committee meetings to a prepared plan and in a disciplined manner,
they could lockdown the decision making structures in their favour.
New Respect activists learnt the only way to challenge this was to
outplay the SWP at their own game, and
pack
meetings better than
they could, which they duly did.
Whichever side
wins
in these sort of contests, it has to be
admitted that the process brings with it an unhealthy dynamic into
our internal life. The coalition model that Respect was founded upon
had its merits. In the future, however, I am convinced that we need
to organise much more along traditional party political lines. We
need to be clear that we are building a political party, and not
making some form of temporary agreement between rival interests for
electoral purposes.
Conclusion
I see nothing that has happened in the last year or so that
fundamentally challenges my view that the political foundation upon
which Respect rests; opposition to imperialism, neo-liberalism or
racism, is anything other than solid.
Those in the leadership of the Renewal wing of Respect are implacable
on all these three fundamental issues. Likewise, the bulk of our
members and supporters have essentially old Labour values, given
backbone with anger at war and racism. Our members feel pride when
they hear Respect leaders like George Galloway articulate their
concerns with his trademark eloquence and uncompromising
anti-imperialism and anti-racism.
Many come from backgrounds in the South Asian sub-continent where
they are all too familiar with the reality of political corruption,
and certainly in inner city Birmingham, they will have seen similar
practices replicate themselves in the behaviour of the Labour party.
By contrast they see us as embodying political principle. This is
what our reputation rests on. But we can t take it for granted. We
have to work hard to protect it.
We must create a more rounded and extensive political culture so that
our members absorb through a variety of means our fundamental
principles, and where new leaders and candidates are moulded out of
our traditions. That is a process. It will require determination and
consistency on our part. To that end the production of a Respect
newspaper is one important step in the right direction. More steps
will follow. However I am confident of the political direction we are
travelling. I am also confident that Respect is emerging reborn and
renewed from its recent difficulties.
NOTES:
1 Martin Smith,
Where next for Respect?
Socialist Review December
2007
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10186
Chris Harman,
The Crisis in Respect , document sent to IST members,
December 2007.
2 Smith opt cit.
3 Harman opt cit.
4 A point George Galloway repeated in his letter to the SWP
concerning their attempt to brow beat Muslim councillors into
participating on a Gay Pride float.
5 Salma Yaqoob,
British Islamic Radicalism
in Islamic Political
Radicalism: A European Perspective, editors Raymond Tallis &, Tahir
Abbas, Edinburgh University Press, 2006
6 http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=3299
7 http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-13179-f0.cfm
8 John Molyneux,
On Respect: a reply to some points , SWP pre
conference discussion bulletin 3, 2007.
9 http://www.nya.org.uk/Templates/internal.asp?NodeID=92837
10 Harman opt cit.
11 For somebody who allegedly prides himself as a practitioner of a
scientific Marxist method, the paucity, anecdotal and one-sided
nature of Chris Harman s evidence is striking. The fact that in order
to substantiate his claims about Birmingham Respect he is reduced to
reproducing a comment from a friend s sister, who apparently happens
to live in Birmingham, and who allegedly thinks Birmingham Respect is
communalist , has more than a touch of desperation about it.
Nobody that I know has ever heard of the source he quotes, for all I
know she might not even be a Respect member. And if she is, she is
certainly not an active one. It is revealing he can t find any
members from his own organization active in Birmingham Respect to
publicly reiterate and substantiate the
communalist
charge. They
certainly have never made any such charge at any Respect meeting that
I have attended.
The only other piece of evidence Harman produces in relation to
Birmingham is a disputed selection meeting held last year. He cites
the fact we selected seven Asian male as evidence of succumbing to
conservative patriarchal pressures from inside the Muslim community.
He conveniently ignores the fact that the most high profile Respect
figure in the city is a Muslim woman. He also ignores any reference
to my request to the SWP that they come forward with female
candidates for the outstanding 33 uncontested wards:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10628
The bigger question SWP members should be asking themselves about the
Kings Heath selection meeting is why, in a catchment area that
included Birmingham University and a 6,000 plus student population,
the SWP could not recruit even half a dozen of so students to support
their candidate, Helen Salmon.
12 The SWP proposed changes to membership only after they had elected
to go
nuclear
over George Galloway s letter and Respect was in the
process of dividing into two.
Their proposal was that members should be restricted as to how many
members any individual member could recruit in any one month, that
the National Office should be able to ask prospective members for
proof of their right to the concessionary rate and that new members
had to attend a minimum number of meetings prior to voting for
candidates etc.
The first of these proposals was clearly unenforceable but also
bizarre in its demand that members should limit their recruitment
aspirations. Respect s problem has not been too many members but too
few. The second proposal promised a potentially racially inflammatory
test of the veracity of members. Bangladeshi members in Tower Hamlets
have already had plenty of experience of condescending white members
demanding ID from them as though they were having to pass an
immigration entry test.
The third and most significant restriction however was clearly an
opportunist device to keep control over selection of candidates and
election of officers in the hands of those for whom attendance at
political meetings was a way of life, this likely to be, of course,
mostly SWP members. So much then for trying to create a new kind of
organisation which would help to enfranchise those who had for so
long been disenfranchised. Most extraordinary of all, these proposals
also promised restrictions which are not to be found in either the
Labour Party or the trade union movement.
The SWP proposals threatened to entrench the tendencies marked in
many areas of making Respect an extension of the local SWP branch s
campaigning activity rather than giving it a life of its own.
13 Rob Hoveman adds the following background information in relation
to Tower Hamlets:
'In four years in Tower Hamlets, in the area where we have the
biggest support for Respect electorally and where we have had an MP
for almost three years, an examination of the membership of Respect
in the borough revealed that the SWP had recruited virtually no-one
white to Respect outside the SWP itself. This represents an abysmal
failure.
'Moreover, according to their local organizer, a Tower Hamlets SWP
branch meeting was told that 60% of the SWP members in the borough
had not joined Respect and that they would, in the face of the
"witch-hunt" the party was facing, now be trying to get them to join!
'Much has been made about the process of candidate selection in Tower
Hamlets for the council elections in 2006. What was most apparent in
the run-up to the local elections, however, was, on the one hand, the
lack of white candidates to put up for election and, on the other, the
fact that the SWP candidates, most of whom were white, had had no real
prior connection with or involvement in the Bangladeshi community
which was inevitably going to be the major source of votes in the
election.
'Few, if any, of the SWP candidates in Tower Hamlets had serious
roots in the wards in which they stood. Of no-one was this more true
than John Rees. Although he had worked in the area for many years, as
this was the site of the SWP national office until the last couple of
years, he had not been involved in local campaigns and in fact lived
in Hackney.
'He wanted to stand in Whitechapel because this is where he though he
was most likely to get elected. A number of Bangladeshi activists
thought this unlikely as no-one in the Bangladeshi community in
Whitechapel had any prior knowledge of him. This was the one source
of acute division at the candidate selection meeting in the Kingsley
Hall, where the room divided almost but not exclusively on racial
lines over his standing in Whitechapel.
'Although his candidacy was confirmed at that meeting by majority
vote, he subsequently concluded that he could not win there and
switched to Bethnal Green South as a more promising prospect. Even so
he did not really start his local campaign until four weeks before the
election and concentrated heavily on getting SWP members in to canvas
by knocking on doors.
'I was in favour of John Rees standing in the election but the
tactics deployed to try to get him elected seem to me to have been
fatally flawed. Throwing in wave after wave of canvassers in the last
few weeks, when most psephologists will tell you most votes have
already been decided, shows an incredible lack of understanding about
how confidence, and therefore votes, are won amongst sections of the
community.
'And hoping to ride the coat-tails of Bangladeshi candidates who do
have roots and the connections betrays an electoral opportunism
(unsuccessful in this as in other cases) entirely counter to the
long-standing SWP position that SWP members need to build real roots
in the community.
'Finally, in relation to SWP claims about there being something
underhand about new members being recruited before the candidate
selection for Bethnal Green and Bow in November 2007, what they did
not point out was that many of the new members who were being
registered were being registered by SWP councillor Lutfa Begum in
order to vote for her daughter Rania Khan to be the candidate.
'Rania Khan incidentally was the SWP s own preferred candidate for
the nomination. There may well be nothing improper in Lutfa Begum
encouraging new members to join in the run-up to a selection. But
what is improper is the SWP s double standards when it comes to such
actions.
|
|
