What the hell does the PCS Union think it's playing at?

I received a letter today from my union - the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) Union.

It has presumably gone out to all of the union's members. I'm so shocked by the letter, I thought I'd discuss it here.

The letter is titled: "European Elections - USE YOUR VOTE"

Though in fairness, it ought to have been accurately titled "European Elections - USE YOUR VOTE HOW WE TELL YOU TO"

I'm not entirely surprised by some of the content of the letter. My union sends its members a magazine every now and then which is filled with obsessive articles about the BNP and random left wing propaganda. It is so biased towards the socialist hard-left, a part of the political spectrum where our General Secretary Mark Serwotka resides, that one can't help but wonder whether democracy has now been entirely eradicated from the union movement in Britain.

So let's go through this thing shall we? There are some really rather entertaining revelations here.

The letter begins with a vaguely patronising line:

"You should be aware that on 4th June this year (2009) you will have the opportunity to vote for European Members of Parliament (MEP) for the region."

Yeah, thanks for that. I should be aware, and, hey presto! I am! Thanks for checking up on me though, your concern is much appreciated.

The second paragraph, however, is well worth noting:

"Your union, PCS, is not affiliated to any of the political parties, and therefore will not be advising or encouraging you to vote for any party. However where we do make a firm decision is over our direct opposition to parties of the Far Right, particularly the British National Party (BNP)."

Now hold on a minute here. Rewind a little, and let's break this down.

Firstly, the PCS is in league and best mates with the Socialist Workers Party. Any cursory scan of online evidence will reveal this immediately, yet I know this to be the case from my dealings with the union and union members when I worked in 'Whitehall' years ago.

The statement by the Union is true, if disingenuously so, in that it is not affiliated with any party officially speaking, and it is not affiliated with any of the parties standing in this region's elections next week. I'll grant that. But people should not be fooled into thinking the Union is apolitical. It is not and it would be a farce to claim this. That the Union doesn't have the guts to come clean on its political ties and leanings pisses me off.

But what's this? The PCS aren't telling you who to vote for, but they are effectively warning you or telling who to not vote for.

I have two questions here:

1. Who are 'we'? The sentence reads 'where we do make a firm decision...' Who, whom? It is unclear as to who we are. Does it mean the Executive? A group of people in the Union? The General Secretary? Surely the letter can't be referring to we as the entire union's membership, as that would indicate that omniscience is at work, and call me old fashioned, but that seems slightly unlikely.
2. If we skip past that irritating and arrogant assertion, we then come to this: the BNP are obviously understood to be Far Right, yet what other parties are on the Far Right? The statement by the union refers to parties in the plural. We are left to imagine what the other parties, outside of the BNP, are.

I do not know for certain, but I get the impression that this letter is not just warning you about the BNP (as if any PCS member would even think about voting for them anyway) but is also warning you about the UK Independence Party.

The letter doesn't clearly state this, which is in keeping with how the Union operates. With gutlessness and a complete lack of balls. If top PCS people are left wing, say so. If top PCS people are anti UKIP, say so. Don't use fluffy, yellow-tinged language to make insinuations and throw in little qualifiers like '...will not be advising or encouraging you to vote for any party'. It's fucking patronising and dishonest.

The letter continues:

"Members should be certain that the BNP is not the choice for working people and members of trade unions; they are anti trade union and directly oppose equality."

Well if members 'should be certain', why mention it then? Why bother saying it, if it's certain and people know this?

And what is this about the BNP not being the choice of people and members? Surely the choice remains with the individual? Again, this is a classic example of gutless left wing language where they cloud their authoritarian, patronising and bossy attitude to people.

"Recently the BNP have attempted to define themselves for British people, but be under no illusion this is merely a 'cover' for their seriously discriminately [sic] held views, racism and homophobia..."

No argument there. Yet the letter goes on to bullet point some examples:

"They have sort [sic] to scapegoat black people, Muslims, Jews, foreigners, gays and lesbians for this country's problems."

OK, not much contest here either (apart from the tragic misspelling of the word 'sought') It is possible to argue this. It gets better...

"The BNP admire Hitler and deny the holocaust. Hitler incarcerated and murdered thousands of people, His extermination policies began with the killing of institutionalised disabled people in the 1940s."

Are you laughing as much as I am right now? I do wonder!

First off, the author(s) of the letter are on dodgy ground in arguing that 'the BNP' (who, all members, the leader, the ruling cabal, who?) admire Hitler. This is not really capable of proof. Even worse still, is to say that the BNP 'deny the holocaust'. From my research, the BNP doesn't so much deny it happened, as to downplay it and 'revise' the facts. Hence the concept of 'holocaust revisionism'.

What is hilarious here, is the fact that part of holocaust revisionism is to claim that far less people died at the hands of the Nazis than is the actual case. If you read the above paragraph once more, you'll see the irony as plain as day, in particular: "Hitler incarcerated and murdered thousands of people."

No, you morons, they did not kill thousands, they killed millions of people. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you not research or think about these things before you approve such literature going out to Union members?

And what is this! Apparently the extermination policies began with the killing of disabled people in the 1940s. No, you total dolts. The pogroms and policies of mass killing actually began in the 1930s, where camps were being erected and filled even before the war began in 1939. Those who started to see the brunt of those policies were in fact the Jews.

I have several book shelves stacked with Third Reich history books right here. If you want sources, I can provide them.

"The BNP are sexist. They want women to stay at home and breed the 'white race'. In 2008 the Evening Standard newspaper reported that a BNP canidate was withdrawn from the London election because he had written: 'rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible ordeal'"

Let's look a little closer here. The newspaper source is from a London newspaper. Yet this Union letter is directed towards people who live in my region (Yorks & Humber). Can it really be adequately shown that the views of one BNP person in London represents the opinions of BNP people standing in the North?

I am not defending the BNP in any way shape or form, but I'm surprised they dug out this random, obscure quote from a London paper in order to infer that BNP candidates standing in the North think likewise. Maybe they do, maybe they do not, but it's the patronising 'we're trying to get as many readers to be turned off by the BNP as possible' approach that yanks my goat.

If you want to slate the BNP, fine. But quote policy, not what some prick in London said a year ago. It's lazy and insulting to peoples' intelligence.

"BNP supporters are violent: David Copeland killed and injured more than 110 people during a series of nail bomb attacks on Gay bars in London, and the founder of the BNP had a criminal conviction for paramilitary activity."

It is true - there are many violent BNP supporters and many within the upper echelons of that party have unpleasant rap sheets. This is not under question.

To link the BNP with David Copeland the nail bomber, however, is questionable to an extent. As the wikipedia link attached to his name above shows, Copeland left the BNP in 1998, a year before his bombing campaign, because he was infuriated by their 'democratic line'. In other words, he thought they were soft and too lefty.

If you're going to choose people to highlight and link with the BNP to make them look bad, choose more appropriate figures where the facts stick.

Later on in this letter, we are told this:

"The BNP is targeting parts of Yorkshire and the Humber as a way of gaining success, we cannot allow the BNP to gain any European seats, we must ensure members like you vote, and persuade your family and friends to vote, but making sure that they DO NOT VOTE FOR THE BNP."

As you can see, the author of this letter decided to forgo the requirement of the 'full stop' to break up her sentences. I guess we were supposed to read it as frantically and excitedly as she wrote it.

By this part of the letter, which is towards the end, readers are now left under no doubt about the desires of the 'we'.

Use your vote to keep the BNP out. But further, the author wants to 'ensure' (how would this be enforceable, may I ask?) that members not only vote but get our families and friends to get out and vote to keep out the BNP. We are to '(make) sure...' of this.

How can I make sure of this? Am I supposed to ram raid the polling booth and put a gun to peoples' heads?

"If you vote BNP, I'll put a cap in your ear, bitch!"

Of course I'm being silly, but what sort of language is this? 'Ensure', 'make sure'. How can I make sure? How can I know? Who am I or anyone else for that matter, to tell people how to vote or not vote?

I really do worry about the left. I will never leave my Union, as I believe in the importance of unions, even if the whole spirit of what they are about as been lost and hijacked by small, far-Left wing groups. Even with Serwotka in charge, the PCS is a valuable Union and they do very good work.

Yet why can't they just stick to their bloody mandate and raision d'etre? To represent members in the workplace. Why the party political stuff? Why the arrogant, authoritarian tone of their lofty, patronising, pious sermonising? Why the lack of factually based arguments within such sermonising?

I can only speculate. Indeed I have done.

That's me out for now. I will write once again, that is if I'm not arrested or silenced by either right wing fascist scum on the hard right, or the self-appointed Stasi on the Far Left.

Bye.