22 Jan 2020

Scottish National Party clashes with Johnson government over second independence referendum

Chris Marsden & Steve James

The Scottish National Party (SNP) has seized on last December’s general election result to push for a second referendum on Scottish independence. This puts the party on a collision course with Boris Johnson’s Conservative government.
Last week, Johnson wrote to SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon rejecting her December 19 request for the transfer of powers to the Holyrood parliament necessary to hold a second referendum on independence (Indyref2)—under section 30 of the 1998 Scotland Act. Sturgeon also called for the Scottish parliament to be given permanent powers to hold subsequent referendums on independence.
“The Scottish people voted decisively to keep our United Kingdom together, a result which both the Scottish and UK Governments committed to respect,” Johnson wrote, prompting Sturgeon to declare Johnson’s position “self-defeating … The Westminster union cannot be sustained without consent. Democracy will prevail.”
Sturgeon has promised a considered response for next month.
The invocations of democracy by both sides seek to conceal a row between rival bourgeois factions whose interests, aims and nationalist agendas are hostile to the working class on both sides of the border.
The SNP’s main political advantage in seeking an independence referendum is that widespread hatred of the Tory government coincides with the collapse of the Labour Party in what was once an historic stronghold. Labour was reduced to a single Scottish seat, polling just 18.5 percent. By comparison, as late as 2001, Labour dominated Scottish parliamentary politics, holding 56 of the then 72 Westminster seats on 47 percent of the vote.
Even the temporary revival in support for the Labour Party following Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to leadership was far less marked than in England and Wales. Instead, significant sections of workers shifted their allegiance to the SNP—which shed its former reputation as the “Tartan Tories” and successfully rebranded itself as a nominally “left” party.
As a result, in December the SNP won 48 of the 59 seats available in Scotland, an increase of 13, on 45 percent of the vote. Moreover, in contrast to its gains in England at Labour’s expense, Johnson’s Tories lost 7 seats, leaving them with only 6 on 25 percent of the vote.
The SNP seeks to exploit these gains to reverse the result of the 2014 referendum on independence, which returned a 55 to 45 percent majority against. They do so based on claims that this is now the only way of insulating Scotland from rule by the most right-wing government in post-war British history.
Such claims are belied by the SNP’s own record in office in cutting social spending. But it argues that these cuts have been made necessary by rule from Westminster, even as it has used additional tax revenues for Scotland under the Barnett formula to fund high-profile concessions such as no university fees for Scottish students.
However, by far the most important spur for a renewed independence push by the SNP is Brexit, given that Scotland backed membership of the European Union (EU) in the 2016 Brexit referendum by a large majority of 62 to 38 percent. The pro-NATO SNP has long specialised in advocating for the EU, while saying nothing about the European bloc’s record of imposing austerity, anti-migrant measures and a sharp turn to state repression and militarism. The SNP only made the most pro-forma criticism of the state repression leveled against Catalonia by Spain—for fear of compromising its aspirations to EU membership.
One of the arguments used against the SNP in 2014 was that an independent Scotland would not be granted EU membership because Spain and other countries such as Belgium, facing their own national separatist movements, would block it.
Sturgeon hopes that this opposition will now be side-lined by concern at the economic impact of Brexit on the EU, given that Johnson intends to slash corporation tax and impose other measures designed to siphon overseas investment and productive capacity from the continent. Under such circumstances Scotland might now be considered an important pro-EU counterweight to Brexit Britain.
This is by no means certain, given that Spain is still involved in efforts to crush the Catalan independence drive. But tying independence to the issue of maintaining EU membership will no doubt broaden its appeal in Scotland post-Brexit. To this end, the Scottish government intends to “convene a number of round table meetings” to build a coalition for independence among “civic society, trade unions and the business community, religious and minority groups and our partners in local government.”
Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard looks set to join the initiative in the light of Labour’s election debacle, stressing that the party will develop its own “clear, constitutional offer.” Graham Smith, general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, maintained, “The democratic wishes of the people of Scotland need to be acknowledged. The Scottish Labour movement should support indyref2.” Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Neil Findlay stated, “We cannot deny the people of Scotland a second referendum where the majority is calling for it,” while Alison Evison, president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, said on Twitter that a decision to back indyref2 was “straight-forward.”
Calls have also re-emerged for Scottish Labour to sever links with the party in England and Wales. MSP Monica Lennon, a supporter of Leonard, complained, “We either continue at the mercy of the UK party’s distant structures or we become a party in our own right.”
But the most enthusiastic advocates of Scottish nationalism as a supposed alternative to Tory rule and austerity are the pseudo-left groups.
In the front-ranks stands the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), whose co-leader Colin Fox wrote three days after the general election, “Faced with five years of Tory minority rule the case for independence is now more urgent than ever,” pledging that the SSP “will work with others … as part of our determination to ‘Get independence done’ as soon as possible.”
The “others” are led by the SNP, of which Fox writes, “The result places heavy responsibilities on the SNP as the bearer of the case for independence.” The SSP claims independence is “an essential democratic route to a Scotland ending poverty, tackling the housing shortage and introducing free public transport as part of real action to tackle the climate emergency.”
It is nothing of the sort. Like Brexit, support for Scottish independence expresses the rise of inter-imperialist, national and regional tensions within the bourgeoisie provoked by the escalating conflict for control of global markets and resources.
Johnson wants to leave the EU so that he can deepen “the Thatcher revolution” of deregulation, privatisation and corporate tax cutting at the expense of the working class. He seeks a closer economic, political and military alliance with the US to strengthen the hand of British imperialism against its main European rivals.
The SNP, for all its efforts to pose as “progressive,” is seeking a greater share of Scotland’s assets for the regional bourgeoisie and its middle-class hangers-on, including North Sea oil and gas tax revenues, and to secure relations with the major corporations by offering low business taxes and stepped-up exploitation of the working class. The party boasts of its “great record in attracting firms to come to Scotland,” before promising that “with independence we can do more.”
To conceal its own pro-business agenda, the SNP and its apologists focus all attention on what they term the “democratic deficit.” This refers to the fact that Scotland consistently voted against the Tories and for progressive left policies but saw both these aspirations thwarted by results in the UK. However, this is not a Scottish question, but an issue facing the entire British working class. It means above all confronting the historic failure of Labour’s now abandoned perspective of national reformism.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, as industry after industry and millions of jobs were destroyed by successive Tory governments, it was the Labour Party and the trade unions who betrayed every struggle mounted by workers. When Labour came to power after 18 years in 1997, it continued and even deepened Thatcher’s anti-working-class offensive—reaching its nadir when Tony Blair took Britain into the illegal war with Iraq in 2003. This record also includes one of Blair’s earliest decisions, the 1997 referendum to set up a Scottish parliament, which Labour led for eight years, with a mandate for encouraging regional competition and a mission to sow divisions by promoting national identity against class unity.
The Labour Party never truly recovered from these betrayals. But the price paid by the working class in Scotland was the ascendancy of the SNP.
The pseudo-left forces, who historically worked to subordinate workers to the Labour Party and still do so in England, have played the crucial role in offering a “left” apologia for this regressive turn to nationalism. When the SSP was first formed in 1998, we explained, “For Marxists, socialism is the product of the independent political action of the working class. This necessitates workers understanding that their social and political interests cannot be reconciled with those of the bourgeoisie.
“Ever since the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848, internationalism has been the cornerstone of the struggle for socialism. Nationalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, because its rule developed through and led to the consolidation of the nation state. Socialism, by its very nature, can only be a world system realised through the unification of workers across all borders. Its aim is to end the division of the global economy into antagonistic nations by liberating production from the fetters of private ownership, placing it at the service of the world’s people. This requires the development of a consistent internationalist outlook amongst workers.”
The “perspective of Scottish separatism—a struggle ‘against Britain’ and ‘for Scotland’… ties the working class politically to the bourgeoisie, while pitting Scottish workers against those in other countries.”
The SEP insisted that the extraordinary integration of the world economy under globalisation was the most graphic confirmation of the necessity for workers to base their struggles on an internationalist perspective and break from the reformist perspective developed at the turn of the century by the British Fabians and once championed by the Labour Party and similar parties throughout the world.
In contrast, the pseudo-left groups portray socialism as the product of a gradual process of reforms implemented through the Scottish Parliament. As the SEP wrote, they never examine “the reasons for the failure of these organisations and their transformation into open agents of global capitalism. Nor do they seek to account for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most graphic example of the tragic consequences of a repudiation of socialist internationalism, embodied in the Stalinist perspective of ‘socialism in one country’…” Neither do they “address the bitter experience made by workers with separatist movements around the world, such as in the former Yugoslavia.”
The SEP explained, “Today, the world economy predominates over all national economies. Massive transnational corporations transfer production to wherever they can achieve a higher rate of return on their capital. To attract inward investment and remain competitive in the world market, every country, and even competing regions within countries, is engaged in a frantic scrabble to demolish welfare provisions and slash the living standards of working people. The movement for Scottish independence is rooted in these developments.”
Based on its internationalist and revolutionary perspective, the SEP called on workers to vote “no” in the September 18, 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. We insisted, “The unity and independence of the working class is the criterion against which every political party and every political initiative must be judged. This is essential under conditions in which the planet is being befouled with nationalist poison.
“Scotland is not an oppressed nation, but part of an imperialist state. Its ruling elite has committed countless crimes and shared in the brutal exploitation of millions the world over. Waving the Saltire in people’s faces is meant to conceal the basic fact that workers in Scotland are not oppressed because of their nationality, but because of their class position within capitalist society. This is just as reactionary as the waving of the Union Flag by their opponents …
“The advocacy of Scottish independence is a reactionary response to the bankruptcy of the nation-state system, which no longer corresponds to the global organisation of economic life. In the last century, this fundamental contradiction gave rise to two of the most devastating wars in human history as the leading capitalist powers fought for world hegemony. Today, with the advent of global production, in which every country’s economy is integrated into a greater whole dominated by huge transnational corporations and banks, inter-imperialist and national antagonisms have reached a new peak of intensity.”
The SEP insisted, “The only progressive response to the crisis of the nation-state system is to bring an end to all national divisions by adopting the perspective of socialist internationalism. … The SEP is for the overthrow of British imperialism and its state apparatus, not a negotiated settlement to set up a new repressive state.
“The SEP calls for the creation of a workers’ government committed to socialist policies. We stand for the formation of the United Socialist States of Europe, not the Balkan-style carve-up of the continent led by grasping regional elites who will use a ‘yes’ vote in Scotland as a green light for their own separatist agendas.”
During that campaign, we noted that the SSP’s Colin Fox made this anti-working-class, anti-socialist agenda of Scottish nationalism explicit, when he declared, “[T]he classic left argument that Scottish independence would undermine the unity of the British working class” is “for us, an out-of-date formulation.”
We countered that “if national identity outweighs class unity in Britain, then it outweighs it everywhere. … This is a recipe for political reaction all along the line,” urging once again, “No one should forget the tragic experience of Yugoslavia, whose breakup in the 1990s triggered a decade of bloody civil wars and a catastrophic collapse in living standards.”
This remains a prescient warning.
The pseudo-left groups are so enamoured as to the possible rewards for themselves—positions in central and local government, trade unions, academia and various Scottish cultural institutions—and so hostile to any form of independent political struggle by the working class that they appear blind to the reactionary implications of the policies they advocate.
All of them hail Catalan nationalism as their inspiration—because this too is the nationalism of a relatively prosperous region seeking greater control of tax revenues.
They do so with no reference to how nationalism is employed to sanction a major strengthening of the state apparatus for use against the entire Spanish working class. The Socialist Party Scotland (SPS), which continues relations with the Socialist Party of England and Wales from which the SSP split, pledged to demand “that the Scottish government organise the referendum in defiance of Johnson and the Tories.”
The former British ambassador turned SNP advocate Craig Murray goes further still, demanding, “We organise a referendum … When we win we declare Independence. That is it. If they want to repeat the Yugoslav invasion of Slovenia in 1992, we fight them off like the Slovenes did.”
The general election made clear that the Labour Party never truly recovered from its long history of betrayals and the collapse of its national reformist perspective, not just in Scotland but anywhere in the UK. Corbyn’s bogus “leftism” could not long conceal his refusal to wage any struggle against the Blairites and adaptation to their every policy demand.
Yet everywhere the call of the pseudo-left is for them to turn sharply to nationalism—in England also where the same parties advocating for Scottish independence, and EU membership, are insisting that a policy of “left Brexit” and embrace of the “progressive patriotism” now championed by the Corbynite left is the way forward.
Neither Scottish nor English workers have anything in common with those urging a contemporary re-enactment of the Battle of Bannockburn. Rather they must wage a unified class struggle for socialism against the bourgeoisie, no matter what flag they wave, and build the internationalist leadership necessary to do so.

Clearview AI facial recognition tool being used by more than 600 US police agencies

Kevin Reed

The New York Times published a lengthy profile on Sunday of a company called Clearview AI that has developed a breakthrough facial recognition app reportedly being used by more than 600 law enforcement agencies across the US.
The Times feature, entitled “The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It,” is part of a renewed effort within the US political establishment for the adoption of legislative regulation of facial recognition technology that is increasingly and ubiquitously being used by law enforcement.
According to the Times, Clearview AI has been adopted by local police departments, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security because of its extraordinary ability to determine within minutes the identity of any individual from a single uploaded photo. The Clearview app returns publicly available photos that match the uploaded photo of the individual along with links to the locations on the internet where the public photos appeared.
The Times explains, “The system—whose backbone is a database of more than three billion images that Clearview claims to have scraped from Facebook, YouTube, Venmo and millions of other websites—goes far beyond anything ever constructed by the United States government or Silicon Valley giants.”
Clearview AI promo graphic showing how its facial photo database is many magnitudes greater than other police databases
According to the report, there are two aspects to this Clearview backbone. The first is a program that crawls the internet and social media platforms, scrapes every face image it can find and records its location. The second is the facial recognition algorithm that converts each face image into a vector face profile—the mathematical relationships within facial geometry such as the distance between the eyes, the distance between the nose and the chin, etc.—and stores these profiles into the searchable database.
On a barebones website, Clearview AI offers marketing language to explain that the system is for law enforcement and is a “technology that helps solve the hardest crimes.” The site also includes a “Request Access” form for prospective police users to sign up for a login. According to the Times, police departments are encouraged to sign up and try the system with a 30-day free trial.
Clearview marketing materials obtained by the New York Times through a public-records request in Atlanta
The “Clearview Facts” portion of the marketing information seeks to cover up the invasive and unconstitutional activities of the service by reassuring the public that the system only searches the “open web” for everyone’s photos. It says, “Clearview is an after-the-fact research tool. Clearview is not a surveillance system and is not built like one.”
This dubious explanation ignores the fact that the act of gathering every publicly available facial photo of every person and enabling the state to scan through these photos at will is a gross violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
One of the more frightening revelations of the Times report is that Clearview is developing an interface between the facial recognition app and augmented reality glasses. In theory, such a technology would enable law enforcement to walk down the street or into a crowd or demonstration and every person encountered would be identified in their field of vision in the same way that Facebook tags friends in photos posted to its social media platform.
As is now standard operating procedure from the Pentagon and CIA on down to local sheriff and police departments, the assault on democratic rights is justified by the need to “help to identify child molesters, murderers, suspected terrorists, and other dangerous people quickly, accurately, and reliably to keep our families and communities safe.” Clearview also says that it has been certified as “100% accurate across all demographic groups according to the ACLU’s facial recognition accuracy methodology.”
According to the Times report, Clearview AI was founded in 2016 by Hoan Ton-That, who was born in Australia and moved to Silicon Valley in 2007. Ton-That had been involved in several unsuccessful internet startups before he met Richard Schwartz—a former aide to Rudy Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City between 1994 and 2001—and shortly thereafter founded the company.
Through Schwartz, Clearview AI secured Silicon Valley investment funds of $7 million from billionaire Pay-Pal cofounder Peter Thiel, a prominent supporter of President Donald Trump, among others. Schwartz was also instrumental in leveraging his connections with Republicans to help promote Clearview and present it to police departments across the country.
According to police detectives interviewed by the Times, the Clearview solution is superior to other facial recognition and biometric databases currently available to law enforcement because it contains far more facial images in its database. Plus, users claim, the software can find the identity of individuals from imperfect photos because the algorithm “doesn’t require photos of people looking straight at the camera.”
According to one example provided by the Times, the police department in Clifton, New Jersey “identified shoplifters, an Apple Store thief and a good Samaritan who had punched out a man threatening people with a knife,” during its free trial use period. Frankly, some of the claims made by the company and the users of the Clearview technology sound more like corporate promotional hype than facts.
In any case, it is apparent that several economic and political trends are driving forward the massive development of facial recognition technology and its increased use by the state. A basic Google search of “facial recognition solutions” yields dozens upon dozens of companies that are offering biometric identification systems with various features from surveillance to access control to hardware systems, software systems, database management and analytics.
With the explosion of big data and artificial intelligence technologies for business and government, enormous financial resources are being invested in various facial recognition technologies with the expectation of fantastic returns. According to some estimates, the market for facial recognition systems will reach $7 billion by 2024 and, more generally, AI technologies will reach $126 billion by 2025.
At the same time, the intensification of the class struggle and the growing use of encrypted communications by the public has driven the state into the more aggressive deployment of biometric tools such as facial recognition technologies as a primary means of building up the surveillance apparatus. If the claims about the performance of technologies like Clearview AI are true, the ability of law enforcement to retrieve the identity of anyone within seconds of capturing a photo of them represents a new level of encroachment on the democratic rights of the public.
Like the New York Times, many of the critics of the use of facial recognition tools including the ACLU, accept the use of the technology by the state with the proviso that there be laws governing its use and standards of accuracy established. The timing of the Times article, in fact, coincided with the third facial recognition hearing in the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee on January 15.
The hearing took testimony from non-government and government technology experts on the state of the technology and was once again preoccupied with the subject of race and gender bias in face recognition algorithms. None of the speakers called for the use of facial recognition by the police and military to be stopped immediately.
Typical of the outlook of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, Rep. Gerry Connolly (Democrat from Virginia) said, “We’re going to have to really grapple with what are the parameters of protecting privacy and controlling the use of this technology? Irrespective of its accuracy, there are intrinsic concerns with this technology and its use.”

Growing fears of global debt crisis

Nick Beams

As the global oligarchy assembles at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, there are growing warnings signs that global debt, fueled by cheap money from central banks, is a ticking time bomb.
“Rising trade tensions, lower investment, weak confidence and high debt risk a prolonged slowdown of the world economy,” noted the World Economic Forum’s annual global risks report.
Global debt is on track to reach an all-time high of more than $257 trillion in the coming months after surging by around $9 trillion in the first three quarters of 2019, according to a report issued by the Institute for International Finance earlier this month.
New apartment buildings are under construction overlooking Central Park, Tuesday, April 17, 2018, in New York. (AP Photo - Mark Lennihan)
Total debt now amounts to $32,500 for each of the world’s population of 7.7 billion and stands at 320 percent of global gross domestic product. In the major economies, total debt is $180 trillion, equivalent to 383 percent of their combined GDP.
Total government debt is more than $65 trillion, up from $37 trillion a decade ago, with the government debt to GDP ratio at an all-time high in the US and Australia. Non-financial corporate debt rose to more than $72 trillion last year and is now at a record high of 92 percent of GDP. Household debt has risen to $46 trillion.
The Institute of International Finance (IIF) noted that debt growth in China is on the rise again as the economy slows. “Following a marked slowdown in 2017–18 during the big push for delivering, debt accumulation in China picked up again, notably in the non-financial corporate sector,” it said.
Total Chinese debt is now close to 310 percent of GDP, one of the highest in so-called emerging markets.
The report by the IIF follows similar findings by the World Bank. In a report issued last month, the World Bank said that since 2010 there had been a fourth “global debt wave” which had led to developing countries accumulating a “towering” $55 trillion of debt—the highest level in history. It noted that the three previous debt waves had ended in crises—the Latin American crisis of the 1980s, the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s and the global financial crisis of 2008–2009.
The rise in debt is the product of the injection of trillions of dollars into financial markets by the world’s major central banks—quantitative easing—in response to the global financial crisis and the reduction of interest rates to record lows. The major effect of these measures has been to create another bubble in financial markets as stock prices attain record highs, thereby creating the conditions for another collapse potentially even more serious than that of 2008.
The signs of such a crisis are already apparent. An article in the Financial Times on Monday warned that “the developing world’s rapidly swelling corporate debt market is an accident waiting to happen,” citing a letter to investors by a major hedge fund. Gramercy Funds Management wrote that there was a risk of sudden dislocations as money was quickly pulled out.
“We are convinced that ‘liquid markets’ are not necessarily liquid,” Robert Koenigsberger, the chief investment officer wrote, in a letter co-signed by prominent financial analyst Mohamed El-Erian, a senior advisor to the fund. “The ‘perfect dislocation storm’ [is] waiting to happen.”
The lowering of interest rates, leading to negative returns on around $11 trillion of bonds on the latest count, has led to a shift into riskier investments in the search for higher yield. As a result, according to the Financial Times, the emerging market corporate bond market has expanded almost fourfold to $2.3 trillion in the past decade with the high-yield sector increasing almost five-fold.
When the system was tested, Koenigsberger told the newspaper, “it is reasonable to expect that it will fail.” A test could come in the form of a rapid rise in financial uncertainty, possibly sparked by a recession or a crisis in one country.
Another potential risk factor is the growth of emerging market debt denominated in a hard currency, such as the US dollar, which becomes increasingly difficult to pay back if the local currency experiences a rapid devaluation. Hard currency debt reached $8.3 trillion in the third quarter of last year, an increase of $4 trillion over the past decade.
The potential for a debt crisis is being increased by the continuing slowdown in the world economy. In its latest update, issued to coincide with the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos Switzerland this week, the International Monetary Fund, cut its growth forecast for 2020 from 3.4 percent to 3.3 percent and reduced the forecast for next year from 3.6 to 3.4 percent. These figures are only marginally above the 2.9 percent growth in 2019, which was the worst year since the financial crisis of 2008–2009.
The figure would have been even lower had the US Fed and other major central banks not cut interest rates in the second half of last year. IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva, said 71 interest rate cuts by 49 central banks last year was “the most synchronized monetary easing since the global financial crisis” and without them “we would have technically been talking about recession.”
An annual survey of almost 1,600 chief executives from 83 countries, conducted by PwC and released as the Davos meeting began, found that more than half expected a decline in growth in 2020, compared with 29 percent last year and just 5 percent in 2018. They said their companies were under more pressure than at any time in the past 11 years.
However, US President Trump brushed all these concerns aside in his keynote address to the Davos meeting yesterday as he extolled the policies of his administration, declaring it was a time for optimism.
“I’m proud to declare that the US is in the midst of an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen. America’s economic turnaround has been nothing short of spectacular. This is a blue-collar boom. The American dream is back, bigger, better and stronger than ever.”
This pack of lies is exposed on every front. American economic growth is hovering at just above 2 percent, the lowest level in any recovery in the post-war period. Far from lifting the living standards of American workers, what growth is taking place is highly concentrated within the financial oligarchy.
The much-vaunted tax cuts launched by the administration at the end of 2017 have not led to an increase in investment and well-paying jobs but have been used almost exclusively in order to finance share buybacks in order to boost the stock market.
At the same time corporate debt has risen to nearly $10 trillion, equivalent to 47 percent of GDP, with the weakest firms accounting for much of the increase as they undertake riskier financial operations. The growth of US debt prompted a warning last year from IIF debt specialist Emre Tiftik that the US was “sitting on top of an unexploded bomb, and we really don’t know what will trigger the explosion.”

Spate of retail closures underscores deepening Australian economic slump

Terry Cook

Amid deepening economic slump and a growing slide toward recession internationally, companies in Australia, large and small, are declaring bankruptcy or implementing job cuts to slash costs and maintain profits.
While the Australia’s stock market this month hit record highs, the downturn in the real economy has been revealed by a sharp retail crisis. According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, there have been 169 closures across the sector in the first several weeks of 2020. Experts have warned that the figure is among the highest in several decades.
The crisis in retail has emerged even before the full impact of low sales over the Christmas and holiday period has been felt. Devastating bushfires across the country are also expected to have a flow-on effect that will likely last for months.
In an indication of the breadth of the downturn, stores announcing closures range from high-line to budget clothes retailers, computer games distributors and shops specialising in science products. The slump is bound up with a deepening social crisis caused by a soaring cost of living, and stagnating or declining wages, leading to a marked reduction in consumers’ spending power.
Last week, national denim chain Jeanswest, which employs 988 people and has 146 stores across the country, went into administration. The company, which was established in 1972, has outlets around the world, including in New Zealand.
In a move that may herald a broader cost-cutting restructure, major retail chain Myer has shed 35 head office jobs, including management, business and administration positions. A spokesman for the company said that the sackings were made with the aim of ensuring the business operated in “the most efficient and productive way.”
Women’s fashion retailer Bardot has announced it will shut 58 of its stores across the country over the next two months, at the cost of 530 jobs. The company, which operated 72 stores nationally and employed around 800 people, went into administration last November.
Administrators from KPMG, who are at present attempting to find a buyer for the remaining Bardot business, have not ruled out further store closures and job losses, stating only that “it is not our intention to close further stores at this point in time.”
US-owned electronics and video game retailer EB Games has stated that it will close 19 stores in what it termed “unprofitable” locations across the country, causing an as yet unspecified number of job losses. Curious Planet, formerly known as Australian Geographic, will shut its 63 stores over the next two months. The company was placed into voluntary administration in December, owing more than $15 million.
These failures follow the collapse of giant retail chain Harris Scarfe, after it went into voluntary administration last December. The $380 million retail chain operated 66 stores across five Australian states and employed more than 1,800 people. The company was acquired by private equity firm Allegro Funds in November.
Scarfe, the largest retail operator to go under so far, joins a list of failures across the clothing and fashion sector during last year. Others include menswear retailer Ed Harry, sportswear company Skins and footwear retailer Shoes of Prey. Fashion retailer Karen Millen Australia closed seven independent stores along with its eight concessions housed in major department stores.
Just two weeks before the collapse of Scarfe, the smaller Victorian discount retail chain Dimmey’s, which had 31 stores, failed. The same factors have forced the closure of other retail businesses, including fast food outlets such as Melbourne burger chain Benny Burger and Big Rooster’s Queensland operation.
SWC Management group was also placed into administration in December, after reportedly suffering a severe liquidity crisis and dwindling margins. Some 400 jobs have been destroyed as a result. The company operated a newly redeveloped warehouse in Melbourne’s western suburbs and managed a number of subsidiaries that supplied and installed stone, tile and glass on construction projects.
The SWC failure is a sharp warning of looming collapses and job cuts across the ailing construction sector, which is experiencing falling demand.
According to the latest Australian Performance of Construction Index (PCI), construction activity fell in November by 3.9 points on the previous month to 40.0. The decline, the 15th consecutive monthly fall, leaves the measure well below the 50-point mark separating expansion and contraction. At the same time, the PCI employment sub-index fell 8.4 points over the month, indicating substantial job losses occurring across the sector.
According to figures released in September last year, some 50,000 construction jobs have been destroyed over the past 12 months. The sector’s share of the total labour market shrank to 9.1 percent, from a peak of 9.5 percent early last year.
Also in December, Bounty Mining went into administration and closed its Cook Colliery in the Queensland’s Bowen Basin, directly impacting on more than 250 mainly contractor jobs. The losses came on top of 21 jobs axed at the mine in November.
Further job cuts and closures across the mining sector are extremely likely in 2020 as a result of an economic slowdown in China, which is the major export market for Australian coal and other mining commodities.
While at this time China is not considering cutting back on the usage of coal, it is moving to reduce the amount it imports and boost domestic operations.
According to analysts with Bloomberg Intelligence, China is likely to cut net coal imports by 8 percent in 2020. This could put downward pressure on profits in the Australian coal mining sector, creating the conditions for cuts in production and job losses as companies seek to slash costs to offset the impact of reduced international demand.
Numbers of employers across other sectors have either imposed job cuts over the last few months or are moving to shed jobs over the coming period.
Airline Emirates announced it would close its call centre in Melbourne in October at the cost of 81 jobs. Qantas, Australia’s main airline, could axe as many as 400 jobs in a restructure flagged by the company in early November. Financial services business Evans Dixon closed its Australian arm Dixon Projects and eliminated an undisclosed number of jobs, as part of a global restructure of its operation.
Amid falling profits, Japanese holding company Dentsu announced in December that it will shed 11 percent of its staff, around 1,400 jobs, across seven key areas, including Australia.
The New South Wales state Liberal-National government will axe an undisclosed number of jobs from its Department of Customer Service to cut more than $100 million from its workforce-related expenditure. The government has also released plans to destroy 200 jobs at Technical and Further Education (TAFE) facilities.
The job shedding flows from the budget handed down by the NSW government in June which was designed to slash almost $3.2 billion from the state public sector, including over 3,000 jobs as a result of a one percent reduction in its workforce of around 330,000 employees. Similar austerity measures are being imposed by big business governments at every level across the country, whether state or federal, Labor or Liberal-National.

UK Counter Terrorism Policing document seeks to outlaw political dissent

Thomas Scripps

The UK government’s new Counter Terrorism Policing document reveals the full scope of political surveillance and suppression intended under the Prevent “anti-radicalisation” programme.
The 24-page “guidance document,” parts of which were published by the Guardian on Friday, lists prominent left-wing, anti-war and environmental groups alongside far-right, fascist and white supremacist organisations such as Britain First, the English Defence League and the neo-Nazi National Front terrorist group. The list includes the Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, PETA, Stop the Badger Cull, the Socialist Workers Party, Stand Up to Racism and the Socialist Party.
In June 2019, it was circulated as guidance material via the government’s Prevent programme to selected official committees dedicated to enforcing its policies within the UK’s five-and-a-half million-strong public sector workforce. Employees are required by Prevent to report on members of the public, especially children, who they suspect are being “radicalised” by extremist and terrorist organisations.
A senior teacher who received the document in Prevent training told the Guardian, “The document is extraordinarily vague and leaves a great deal down to the interpretation of the individual member of staff. Clustering relatively innocuous groups like Greenpeace and CND in with genuine extremist groups seems to imply that these organisations are on the radar of the counter-terrorism police and should also be interpreted as such by the teaching staff coming across them.”
Revelations about the counter-terrorism document have produced a public outcry. Many of the listed organisations have issued statements of protest since Friday. Environmental protest group Extinction Rebellion (XR), which advocates “peaceful civil disobedience,” issued a statement warning of the guide’s “chilling effect… This labeling of ordinary people—grandparents, doctors, pregnant mothers, bus drivers, rabbis and more—concerned about the environment is deeply concerning.”
“In the past few months,” XR continued, “we’ve seen cases of people being banned from political conferences, asked to keep quiet at work and investigated by employers for speaking out against company policy and taking days off to go on strike.”
The Stop the War Coalition (STWC), which in 2003 organised the biggest anti-war protest in UK history, condemned what it described as its “totally groundless inclusion” in the document “alongside violent neo-Nazi organisations.” They continued: “This reinforces the concern we have long expressed about the Prevent initiative, that it would be used more widely against groups critical of government policy.”
STWC announced they intend taking “urgent steps to ensure the removal of all reference to Stop the War and other progressive organisations from this and other Prevent and anti-terrorism documents.”
Animal rights group PETA’s director, Elisa Allen, said, “This appears to be a sinister attempt to quash legitimate campaigning organisations—something that is as dangerous as it is undemocratic.”
Sabby Dhalu, Stand Up to Racism co-convenor, said, “We have already seen Prevent used to target the Muslim community and undermine democracy and free speech in schools. The targeting of legitimate non-violent campaigns means the right to protest is now genuinely under threat. We have already seen heavy-handed policing of protests and infiltration of progressive campaigns by security forces. Where will this process end?”
The targeting of left-wing, anti-war and environmental groups by UK Counter Terrorism police is part of a policy framework agreed at the highest levels of the British state for mass surveillance and the abrogation of fundamental democratic rights. Anyone referred to the police via Prevent is immediately assessed as to whether he or she is at risk of radicalization and added to a database. Last October, the human rights group Liberty noted that a police database with full access to Prevent records was “being used to monitor and control communities.”
An organisation’s listing in counter-terror documents can be used as a pretext to deny it use of public and private meeting spaces or to censor its writings. A December 2015 document, “Councils’ role in preventing extremism,” reads: “The Prevent team has also worked with staff and managers in charge of bookings at local community and private venues to make sure they are informed of the Prevent processes and understand how to block people who may be intending to use the spaces for malicious purposes.”
Universities have also restricted access to texts in deference to Prevent. This amounts to a severe restriction on the right to free speech and political expression.
Counter Terrorism police claimed that their document was not meant to brand “all” the groups it features as extremist, pointing to a section that reads: “not all of the signs and symbols noted within this document are of counter terrorism interest.” However, as the Guardian has noted, this disclaimer appears only alongside a set of historical and religious symbols used by white supremacists, and does not appear alongside the logos of left-wing and environmental groups.
After listing all the groups in its counter-terrorism guidance, the final page of the only published section of the document—a five-page “poster”—reads, “How can I report any concerns identified via this document?” It directs readers to file an online report or call an anonymous police line.
The entire report is cloaked in secrecy, with only a five-page “poster” featuring insignia associated with the listed groups, which has been published in the media. Counter Terrorism Police refused to provide a copy of the report to the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), telling our reporter that “we are not sharing the guidance document.”
The Home Office refused to provide a copy of the document, telling our reporter it was a matter for Counter Terrorism Policing. When our reporter replied that police and security agencies are both subordinate and answerable to the elected government, a Home Office spokesperson replied that Counter Terrorism Police were “operationally independent from Government.” Neither Counter Terrorism Police nor the Home Office were willing to offer any legal basis for withholding such a document from the press.
The wholesale listing of left-wing, anti-war and environmental groups on what amounts to a terrorist watch list points to the dangerous evisceration of democratic rights over the last two decades. Prevent was introduced alongside a raft of legislation by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 2003 in the context of the imperialist invasion of Iraq and under cover of the “war on terror.”
Its remit was widened in 2011 by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government. In 2015, legislation made it a statutory duty for school, local authority, prison and National Health Service staff to report any individual deemed vulnerable to radicalization.
The current guidance document prepares the way for categorising any and all political opposition as a form of terror-related activity, with all the draconian consequences that follow—including pre-charge detention for up to 28 days.
Prevent has met with protests from civil liberties and human rights groups and academic and public sector workers. Just as the Counter Terrorism Police guidance document was being revealed, a statement released by human rights charity Cage, signed by more than 100 academics, campaigners, and community organisers, demanded the scheme be abolished.
Most criticism has focused on Prevent’s demonisation of Muslims. But while the scheme undoubtedly targets Muslims, the WSWS has always insisted that its primary purpose was to establish the architecture for mass political repression directed against the whole working class.
Under the catch-all term “radicalisation,” Prevent establishes two deeply anti-democratic legal precedents. First, it makes the suspected thoughts and opinions of individuals, not their actions, a basis for surveillance and repression. Second, it puts far-right and religious extremism and terrorism, carried out by small and popularly despised groups, often acting under the protection of the security services, on a par with mass democratic political sentiment as represented by left-wing, anti-war and climate change movements.
This has been the underlying motivation for Prevent from the beginning. It has now been brought to the fore by Boris Johnson’s Tory government in response to a global resurgence of class struggle and in preparation for vicious attacks on the working class.
This is the common agenda of the ruling class everywhere. In Germany, the Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) has reanimated the Nazi legal conception of Willensstrafrecht (punishment for thought) in making the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei, the German section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, an object of state surveillance as an “extremist” group for supposed “crimes” such as opposing imperialism and war and basing its policies on the class struggle.
The same conceptions animate the ongoing revision of the UK government’s Counter Extremism Strategy, which will look to criminalise non-violent “extremist ideology” for the first time. A report published last September for this review by the government’s Commission for Countering Extremism listed views such as, “The greatest threat to democracy has always come from the far-right,” “We should always support striking workers,” “Capitalism is essentially bad and must be destroyed” and “Industry should produce for need and not for profit” as examples of “extremist” thinking.
The logical outcome of these policies is a state of dictatorship, in which all political dissent is criminalised. The ruling class is on a crash course with imperialist war abroad and revolutionary upheavals at home and is assembling all the repressive power of the state in preparation. The international working class must take heed and place the demand for democratic political rights at the centre of its growing strikes and protests around the world.

UK: Highest-paid CEOs take home 117 times that of an average paid worker

Barry Mason

The pay of chief executives of top companies in the UK continues to spiral upwards. After the Christmas holidays, workers returned to work, and by their third working day back, a CEO at the FTSE 100 companies had already “earned” more than the average paid employee’s annual salary.
The average median salary in the UK for 2018 was £29,559, and by 5 p.m. on January 6, FTSE CEO incomes had already passed the £29,559 mark. The FTSE 100 is a share index of the 100 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange with the highest market capitalisation.
The figures are based on research from the High Pay Centre (HPC), a think tank that monitors the pay levels of top earners. The HPC refers to the calculation as “High Pay Day 2020.”
The HPC report for this year explained: “The calculation for ‘High Pay Day 2020’ is based on research by HPC and the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development), the professional body for HR and people development, showing that:
• “Top bosses earn 117 times the annual pay of the average worker.
• “In 2018 (latest available data) the average FTSE 100 CEO earned £3.46 million, equivalent to £901.30 an hour.
• “In comparison, the average (as defined by the median) full-time worker took home an annual salary of £29,559 in 2018, equivalent to £14.37 an hour.
• “To match average worker pay in 2020, FTSE 100 CEOs starting work on Thursday 2 January 2020 only need to work until just before 17.00 on Monday 6 January—just three working days (33 hours).”
Noting a slight closing of the gap between the pay of chief executives and the average worker, the report stated, “Compared with last year, CEOs now have to work slightly longer to make the median UK salary, after their pay fell from £3.9 million. However, the fact that it now takes them until teatime, rather than lunchtime, on the third working day of the year to pocket a sum of money that half of workers did not earn for an entire year’s work in 2019 rather puts this slight fall into perspective.”
Being in work in the UK is no guarantee of escaping poverty. In December, the Royal Statistical Society revealed its “statistic of the year.” It chose as its candidate the fact that 58 percent of UK households in poverty have at least one member in employment.
The figure was calculated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) earlier in the year. According to the IFS, the number of those living in relative poverty in working households rose from 37 percent in the mid-1990s to 58 percent by 2017-2018.
Around 2 million workers, approximately 7 percent of the workforce, are on the national minimum wage. Boris Johnson’s Conservative government has announced to great fanfare that it will up the national minimum wage by around 6 percent to a still-very-low £8.72 an hour in April. Under its proposals, basic pay in the UK will remain at rock bottom for an entire generation of workers to come. Chancellor Sajid Javid proposed the minimum wage will reach the princely sum of £10.50 an hour by 2040!
These pittances in no way reflect the necessary amount of money required to be able to fully engage in society. According to the Living Wage Foundation, the current minimum wage needed to be able to live is £9.30 outside London, and £10.75 within London.
According to a recent Resolution Foundation (RF) report, “Under the Wage Floor,” around a quarter of those in receipt of minimum pay are underpaid. Quoted in a January 8 BBC news article, Lindsay Judge, RF senior policy analyst, stated, “The welcome introduction of the National Living Wage in 2016 has led to a worrying rise in minimum wage underpayment. As the government plans to increase the legal wage floor through this Parliament, it is essential to strengthen the incentives for firms to comply.”
Widespread, deeply ingrained poverty is becoming an integral feature of life in Britain. A report issued by the Social Metrics Commission (SMC) last summer highlighted the scale of poverty.
The SMC was set up in 2016 and involves experts from such organisations as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). It describes its purpose is “to develop a new approach to poverty measurement that both better reflect the nature and experiences of poverty that different families in the UK have. …”
Reporting on the findings of the commission, the Guardian noted, “More than 4 million people in the UK are trapped in poverty, meaning their income is at least 50 percent below the official breadline, locking them into a weekly struggle to afford the most basic living essentials. … The finding echoes wider concerns about the re-emergence of extreme poverty, known as destitution, which separate research has shown was experienced by an estimated 1.5 million people in the UK as a result of benefit cuts and high rents. …
“…work is no longer a guarantee of protection against poverty. At the millennium 54 percent of children in poverty lived in a family where an adult worked. That rose to 73 percent in 2017-18. Even in families where all adults work full time, one in six children are in poverty.”
Writing in the i newspaper December 31, the executive director of the JRF, Claire Ainsley, responded to the proposed rise in the national living wage, writing, “Increasing the national living wage well above inflation is the right thing to do. It cannot be right that four million workers and their families are locked into poverty due to high housing costs, work that isn’t paying, and inadequate social security…but it won’t turn the tide on rising poverty unless there is effective action to bring down costs and make social security an anchor in hard times.”
She continued, “[I]ncreases in the minimum wage (over the last decade) did not lead to reductions in in-work poverty with too many families struggling despite being in work. … If a worker gets a pay rise but this gets wiped out by their social security being withdrawn and their rent rising that worker and their family are no better off…a higher wage doesn’t help if you can’t get the hours you need work in the place where you live.”
While the High Pay Centre research carries out valuable research, its focus on employees on average pay of £29,000 versus CEO pay only paints a partial picture. Millions of workers, particularly the younger generation, earn nowhere near £29,000 a year. A vast number of workers are unable to find secure full-time employment and have to rely on precarious part-time and zero-hour contracts.
A recent article posted on the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) British Politics and Policy blog noted the detrimental impact of precarious employment. It was a summary of research carried out by three academics, Victoria Mousteri, Michael Daly and Liam Delany.
It noted, “The UK economy is approaching ‘full employment’ and the jobless rate has dropped below pre-recession levels. Yet, for many workers these employment levels have not meant high quality jobs. More employees now find themselves underemployed than before the recession and many more are on zero-hours contracts. Furthermore, when considered together, the total number of underemployed and zero hours workers has remained remarkably stable since the recession in contrast to the improving picture of employment rates more generally.”
It continued, “Hours-underemployment is linked to uncertainty, reduced control over working hours, in-work poverty and reduced well-being.”
Responding to the nominal minimum wage rise, Trades Union Congress General Secretary Frances O’Grady said, “Workers are still not getting a fair share of the wealth they create, and in-work poverty is soaring as millions of families struggle to make ends meet.”
In a Guardian article of January 6, responding to High Pay Day, O’Grady said, “This tells you everything about how unfair our economy is. Every working person plays a part in creating Britain’s wealth. But people at the top are taking more than their share.”
O’Grady sheds crocodile tears, as the head of an organisation that is primarily responsible for the low pay of millions having, for decades now, consistently suppressed action by workers to fight the continued erosion of historically won jobs, pay and conditions.

Germany: New links found between Lübcke murder, neo-fascist NSU and the secret service

Dietmar Gaisenkersting

The links between the series of murders carried out by the neo-Nazi terrorist group National Socialist Underground (NSU), the murder of Kassel’s District President Walter Lübcke (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) and the secret service are closer than previously known. This is shown by investigative documents from the police headquarters of Middle Franconia, which were reported by the RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND) on Saturday.
The documents substantiate the suspicion that the NSU continued to operate underground even after the death of its members Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt, the arrest of Beate Zschäpe, and the murder of Walter Lübcke. A key figure in this network is Andreas Temme, who, as an employee of the Hesse state secret service, controlled undercover confidential informants (CIs) in the right-wing extremist scene in Kassel. Temme later moved to Walter Lübcke’s regional council, where he still works today.
Temme was already suspected in 2006 of being involved in the NSU’s murder series. He had been in Halit Yozgat’s Internet café, when the latter was the ninth victim of the NSU to be murdered, with two targeted shots to the head. He did not report to the police afterwards, and was therefore suspected of the crime, arrested and interrogated.
During the search of Temme’s apartment and his workplace at the secret service, investigators found drugs, illegal ammunition and right-wing-extremist propaganda in “large quantities,” according to a memo since discovered by broadcasters Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR) and Nürnberger Nachrichten (NN). Despite this—and although his reasons for his presence at the crime scene were contradictory and hardly plausible—Temme remained untouched.
Victims’ lawyers and police officers have also long suspected that Temme was untruthful at the time. The then-head of the Kassel homicide squad, Helmut W., for example, declared in 2014 in the Munich NSU trial that he considered Temme’s description of the events to be unlikely. In 2006, he and his colleagues had considered two variants conceivable: Either Temme witnessed the crime but concealed it, or Temme had something to do with the crime.
New investigation files from 2006, seen by the RND, now show that Temme is also linked to earlier NSU murders.
Jürgen S., Temme’s close friend, had also been questioned by the police at that time because his business mobile phone had been located twice in the immediate vicinity of NSU murders—on June 9, 2005, in Nuremberg and on June 15, 2005, in Munich. Although the investigators at that time did not yet consider the crimes to have a right-wing-extremist background, they knew that there was a connection between the killings because of the identical murder weapon.
Jürgen S. worked as a money transport driver for a company in Kassel. His business mobile phone was permanently connected to the money transporter. Investigators therefore believe it is possible that the Kassel money transporter was used to smuggle the perpetrator and the murder weapon unnoticed past possible police checks.
The relationship between Temme and Jürgen S. was very close. In 2006, Jürgen S. provided Temme with an alibi for the first NSU murder in Nuremberg on September 9, 2000, when investigators from the Kassel criminal investigation department checked his whereabouts during the earlier NSU murders. He claimed that they had been at the movies together.
Jürgen S. told Nuremberg criminal police officers around the same time that he had known Temme since 1990. They had travelled together in biker circles and had maintained relations with a motorcycle club called “Wheels of Steel.” In 2006, the police also found on Temme items of clothing with emblems of the rocker gang Hells Angels. Temme admitted to knowing the president of the Kassel-based Hells Angels. Jürgen S. had arranged the contact for him.
In another trial, Temme was even suspected as a mole, according to BR, because of his connections to the Hells Angels, who had passed on internal documents of the Hesse branch of the secret service to the rockers. However, it could never be finally clarified who was the leak in the Hesse security authorities, as the Hells Angels remained silent.
According to the investigation documents available to NN and BR, Temme and Jürgen S. also participated together in shooting practice. The chairman of a shooting club in Kassel stated that Temme had been a good shooter and had later even shot competitively with large-calibre weapons (45 calibre).
Jürgen S. used his service weapon—a revolver of the brand “Rossi,” model 27, calibre 38 Special—as a training weapon. Thirteen years later, CDU politician Walter Lübcke was shot with a gun of this type. According to RND, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office is currently investigating the whereabouts of revolvers and other weapons from Schleswig-Holstein, which biker clubs such as the Hells Angels and the Bandidos are said to have sold to Hesse neo-Nazis. Among them were revolvers of the “Rossi” type.
Temme remained untouched after the assassination of Yozgat, and his role was never fully clarified because former Hesse state Interior Minister and current state Premier Volker Bouffier (CDU), other government representatives and the secret service kept a protective hand over him. Files of the Hesse state branch of the secret service, which could shed light on the background, were originally to remain under lock and key for 120 years. When a protest was raised against this unusually long period of secrecy, it was shortened to 40 years (!).
The closed files also include a 230-page internal report summarising the findings of the Hesse secret service on the right-wing terrorist scene over the past 20 years. The cover-up of this right-wing-extremist network may have cost Lübcke his life.
The neo-Nazi Stephan Ernst, who is in custody because of strong suspicion and who has partially admitted his involvement in the Lübcke murder, moved in this scene. He is mentioned 11 times in the 230-page report. However, the parliamentary committee of inquiry only received an abridged, 30-page version in which Ernst’s name does not appear once.
Ernst was friends with Benjamin Gärtner (code name “Gemüse”), who worked as an informant for the secret service under Temme’s direction. Temme had talked to Gärtner on the phone immediately before Yozgat was murdered. Before that, Temme himself had dealt with Ernst at least twice in an official capacity, as state Interior Minister Peter Beuth (CDU) had to admit.
Also, the claim by the secret service that Ernst and his accomplice Markus H. had not attracted attention with right-wing extremist activities for about 10 years and had therefore not been under observation was demonstrably false. It served to cover up for the right-wing extremist scene in which the two neo-Nazis were active all the time.