By New Worker
correspondent
LUTFUR Rahman received a standing ovation last Thursday
evening on his arrival at a packed meeting at the Water Lily conference centre
in Whitechapel’s Mile End Road.
The vast conference chamber was packed on 30th April as were a couple of
ante-rooms with video links and there was a link to the big Mosque just down
the road.
Most of those present were local Bangladeshi residents but
there was also a strong turnout from local Black and White residents, trade
unionists, anti-fascist leaders and progressive political activists.
They had come to hear Rahman declare his intention challenge
a court judgement the previous week that deposed him as Mayor of the London
Borough of Tower Hamlets on the grounds of election fraud and using “undue
influence” over the local electorate.
|
Lutfur Rahman centre with other speakers |
The judge, Richard Mawrey QC, based his ruling on a very old
law regarding “Undue influence: spiritual injury”. This is a law that has very
rarely been used for over 100 years. It was framed by the British government to
“counter the baleful influence of the Roman Catholic clergy of (largely the
southern counties of) Ireland over elections in the late 19th century”.
The British state deemed Irish Catholic voters to be
“unsophisticated” and “easily manipulated”. Judge Mawrey argued that this law
applies today and not only to Catholic priests but to the Muslim Bangladeshi
Imams of Tower Hamlets.
Mawrey says: “Controversial though it may be, and likely to
cause offence, it is none the less the clear duty of this court to hold that
the participation of the Muslim clerics in Mr Rahman’s campaign to persuade
Muslim voters that it was their religious duty to vote for him and, in
particular, the Imams’ letter, did, however unwittingly for most of the
signatories, cross the line identified by Andrews J between what is permissible
and what is impermissible. Sadly, therefore, the court feels it has no option
but to find that there was undue spiritual influence.”
Mawrey’s finding are based on just four complaints from
local residents, research by journalist Andrew Gilligan and the company Price
Waterhouse Cooper – noted for its assistance to one per cent on how to dodge
paying their taxes.
He takes a patronising attitude to the Bangladeshi
community: “The real losers in this case are the citizens of Tower Hamlets and,
in particular, the Bangladeshi community. Their natural and laudable sense of
solidarity has been cynically perverted into a sense of isolation and
victimhood, and their devotion to their religion has been manipulated – all for
the aggrandisement of Mr Rahman.”
But Tower Hamlets contains a huge diversity of ethnic groups
who live and work alongside each other very well – and strong support for
Rahman comes from all sections, not just the Bangladeshis.
The Bangladeshi community is not isolated, nor is it lacking
in political awareness; compared to most white communities in Britain Bangladeshi
people are politically well informed and well able to make up their own minds.
Speaker after speaker talked of
the benefits that Lutfur Rahman’s mayoralty has brought to the borough. They
included leaders and organisers of local community groups and trade unions and
some councillors from the local Labour group that threw Rahman out for his
left-wing policies.
They spoke of funding found for swimming baths that were
threatened with closure, youth programmes, lunch clubs for the elderly saved
from cuts, domestic help for the elderly provided free, companies that use
blacklists barred from council contracts, zero-hours contracts barred and the
Education Maintenance Allowance continued.
Speakers included Andrew Murray from the giant union Unite
who brought greetings from Len McCluskey, speakers from Unison and the National
Union of Teachers, comedian Ava Vidal and George Galloway and Ken Livingstone,
both via pre-recorded video clips. Christine Shawcroft, a local Labour
councillor, gave a powerful speech in Rahman’s support and so did Birmingham
councillor Selma Yacoob.
Sabby Dhalu of Unite Against Fascism helped chair the
meeting and her co-leader of UAF, Weyman Bennett, gave a powerful speech on the
joint work against the threat of the Islamophobic English Defence League that
Rahman played a leading part in.
Judge Mawrey, in his statement had portrayed the EDL as not
a serious threat and accused Rahman of “needing” the EDL in order to “play the
race card” and accused right wing Labour leaders of policies that would play
into the hands of the EDL.
Three times the EDL sought to march through the borough and
three times they were barred by Rahman. Afterwards EDL leader Tommy Robinson
admitted that it was their failure to march in Tower Hamlets that broke the
EDL.
Before that they had marched in thousands through towns all
over Britain, targeting Muslim communities with violent assault and
intimidation. Nowadays they have difficulty getting 100 supporters on a march.
The measures Rahman took to protect Tower Hamlets from the
cuts have benefited all the citizens of Tower Hamlets regardless of creed or
colour. Effectively Rahman, elected as Mayor in 2010, has refused to implement
the Con-Dem Coalition cuts – and this is his “crime of corruption”.
The Government knows that more mayors like Rahman would
undermine its attack on working class living standards and wants him stopped. Communities
Secretary Eric Pickles has been tasked with leading the charge against Rahman
and against Tower Hamlets. They intend to make an example of him to discourage
others.
But this sort of thing has happened before in Tower Hamlets.
In 1921 Poplar Council (now part of Tower Hamlets), led by George Lansbury,
refused to set rates that would impoverish the people of Poplar and were tried
and imprisoned for doing so.
Under the existing financial system for local
government, boroughs were individually responsible for poor relief within their
boundaries. This discriminated heavily against poorer councils such as Poplar,
where rates revenues were low and poverty and unemployment,
always severe, were exacerbated in times of economic recession
On
29th July the 30 councillors involved marched in procession from Bow
to the High Court, headed by a brass band. Informed by the judge
that they must apply the precepts, the councillors would not budge; early in
September, Lansbury and 29 fellow-councillors were imprisoned for contempt of
court.
But they inspired other local councils to do the
same and Lansbury and the other councillors were released after six weeks. They
succeeded in changing the law so the rates did not fall so heavily on the
poorer boroughs.
Rahman, in his speech, described himself as “down but not
broken” and vowed to appeal against the judgement. He also commended to the
meeting a colleague, Rabina Khan, who will be standing in the coming mayoral
election in the borough for the Tower Hamlets First group – which was formed
when Rahman was expelled from Labour.
|
Rabina Khan |
Meanwhile Judge Mawrey is calling for a change in the law.
He is convinced that only four local residents came forward against Rahman
because of widespread intimidation. He wants the police to be able to act
against an elected mayor without any complaints being lodged, “as a way of
protecting democracy”.
“Police forces can and do act when evidence is presented to
them of electoral wrongdoing but they do not have the resources to be
pro-active and they remain heavily dependent on information supplied by the
political rivals of the alleged wrongdoers. The Petition system is obsolete and
unfit for purpose. It is wholly unreasonable to leave it to defeated candidates
or concerned electors, like the present Petitioners, to undertake the arduous
and extremely expensive task of bringing proceedings.”