I find this extensive rumination on the meaning of "Not in Our Name" (from spiked's Jennie Bristow) to be rather brilliant:
Why go for 'Not in my name' rather than something shorter and to the point - like, for example 'No war'? Possibly because, as we have argued before on spiked, many of those proclaiming themselves to be against the war on Iraq are not really against it at all. What they are against is an aggressive war fought by the USA and the UK. What they would have been more comfortable with is coercion by diplomacy, and a safe war fought under the auspices of the UN.'Not in my name' reconciles both these positions, in a way that is utterly unprincipled. A war led by the UK and the USA is opposed because they don't agree with it. On the other hand, a war waged under the auspices of the UN would be acceptable because they would need to take no responsibility for it.
This is the first indication of how 'Not in my name' refers not to war, but to democracy. The British electorate holds some power over how the British government acts - we vote for politicians to represent us, and we can vote them out of office. 'Not in my name' sloganises powerlessness, and turns this formal process of democracy on its head. It encapsulates the notion that whatever our government might do about the war, it has nothing to do with us...
Ask yourself why, exactly, a war waged under the auspices of the UN is better than one waged by Britain and America alone. Would the outcome be any different, the consequences any less bloody? No. The difference is that, if the UN goes to war, it is tantamount to the wrath of God. We have no control over the UN, and therefore we have no responsibility for it. The UN, like the EU, is a supra-national body without accountability to any demos to give it even a formal sense of democracy. Nothing can be done 'in our name', because our views and interests count for nothing.