Shannon Peace Camp hits the headlines / Sparks off National Debate / Next Shannon Protest Sat J18

by Denis Wed Jan 15, 2003 13:18

The only time the Labour Party ever put its shoulder to the wheel was in order to give itself a leg-up onto some gravy-train or bandwagon.

Fair enough Michael D. was on the last demo (No sign of him at the previous ones though). I suppose Pat and Co. will arrive on Saturday now that the media have finally started to show interest.

Let's isolate them at the back!

by Protestor Wed Jan 15, 2003 15:21

I have been to most of the Dublin protests against the War since
Nov 2001 and to be fair, I have seen Micheal D Higgins speaking on
at least two occasions if not more.

I have also seen Green Party members there and they have given speeches.

I don't for a minute of course believe that they were main players in
building the AntiWar movement and anyone who has been at a protest wouldn't
believe that either.

I think the bandwagon effect (of the political parties) is that they are the
ones who get the media access whilst the rest of us get ignored and our
views and arguments distorted and placed out of context. So even if they are
not even trying to hop on the bandwagon, it comes out looking that way.

Maybe we need to put together our own say 1/2 video and audio clips and make
these available via this site and get the stuff out on CD.

If we had Tim present the evidence, some video of the various protests and commentary
for people on the street etc, the technology is now cheap enough to begin to
make it possible for significant numbers to see and hear it.

by Protester Wed Jan 15, 2003 15:26

Last paragraph of last posting should read:

If we had Tim present the evidence about Shannon, some video of the various protests
and commentary FROM people on the street and protesters etc, the technology is now
cheap enough to begin to make it possible for significant numbers to see and hear it.

by Shane Wed Jan 15, 2003 16:32

There seems to be a sense of hostility in Denis' post toward people attending the protests who haven't been there before. Aren't the protests supposed to gather momentum so that more people join. I missed the last few, can I go on Saturday?

by Aunty Party Wed Jan 15, 2003 16:47

Only if you are a member of the One True Church*. It may still be timely for you to repent though and foreswear the false gods of fly-by-nights like Michael D. Higgins, who obviously had no interest in peace, neutrality and opposing American power until the most recent campaign, and clearly is just trying to promote himself in a populist fashion (while cynically destroying the anti-war movement).

* SP, SWP, Moonies, Raelians, choose your poison.

by Andrew Wed Jan 15, 2003 17:00

I've no time for the politics of the Labour party but to be fair characters like Michael D. have been a regular feature of the platform of anti-war demos for as long as I can remember (i.e. back to the 1984 demos against Reagan). The significance at the moment is not his continued presence but the fact that party itself is coming out with statement rather then simply allowing a deniable eccentric to do so. That is new and can of course be accused of jumping into the media spotlight. But as we have seen (Primetime) this is also a problem of the way the media operate where 'politics' is an arena solely for professional politicans.

To my mind the argument is not as to whether new people, including cynical politicans should get involved. It's more about what they/we do with that involvment. Media sound bites or direct action against the war?

by sick and tired Wed Jan 15, 2003 17:22

i hope on the day of the protest all this bickering about who's in and who is ouside the main thrust of opposition to war and warports will stop and that everyone will be welcomed with open arms and will be able to express their opposition openly and freely. it is one thing to criticise people for their timing and commitment, but aleast they are willing. stop all this negativity and help the movement to be as big and broad as possible, like the egos of some of the negative typist on this site.

by ex-stick Wed Jan 15, 2003 17:23

The point with this debate, as far as Im concerned , is not slagging off Labour for the sake of it or trying to restrict involvement in the anti-war movement but to analise the reason for the sudden endorsement of the anti-awar movement by the Labour leadership.

Personally, I welcome the involvement of labour members in the movement and building as broad a movement as possible which combines mass demos with non-violent direct action. Depite my political differences with their party and the fact that I believe that Labour is not an anti-capitalist party I respect those like Michael D Higgins and Joe Costello who have consistently supported the anti war movement.

However the points that I put in a previous posting remain largely unanswered:

that this is a cynical political manouevre to gain political advantage by the new Labour leadership. It is part of a deliberate strategy to position Labour to the left in the public eye.

Does anyone seriously believe that if they were in Goverment Labour would halt the use of Shannon by US warplanes?

Labours hierarchy showed their true colours during the Nice referendum and with their enthuiastic backing for the RRF/Euro Army.

This should not be taken as an attack on principled individual members of Labour but a sober analysis of the party leadership. My assessment is based on many years working with these people in the WP and invovement in the anti-war movement from the start.

by sick and tierd Wed Jan 15, 2003 17:35

it is a fact that members of labour and labour youth not only have taken an active part in the shannon peace camp but have also been activley involved in the anti war and nuclear diarmament movement. if you read their policy documents voted and passed by the members you read policies that support the action that they have taken. to lay off its getting boring and defeats the purpose of the true objectives which is to stop the war that will kill innoncent civilians and stop the use of shannon in this the real cynical action.

by Manus Wed Jan 15, 2003 17:46

Having been to Shannon on ever occasion of a protest since the current campaign began in October 2001, haven written on many occasions to the national press, lobbied youth members of the PES and SI, canvassed, leafleted and carried our petitions as far back as October 2001. Not considering the same during the Nato bombing of Kosovo/Serbia, I thank offence to the comments from these Looney left, anti-democratic, anti-everything so-called activist.

Its tantamount to Aryanism of the left the comments by some so-called activists, just because we're not pure Red we shouldn't be part of the movement. The same seems to extend to the GP too, it doesn't matter that Tim and Ed both GP members have been behind the peace camp and the campaign since the beginning, because they aren't anarchist, Trots or revolutionaries, they're the same as capitalists.

This same line was taken by the comitern in the 1930's calling social democrats 'social fascist', they even scorned more criticism than the fascist themselves. What did that achieve? Fascist victory!

These are outdated, self destructive, anti-democratic and negative views have no part in the movement.

by ex-stick Wed Jan 15, 2003 18:08

I can only speak for myself, but I have not engaged in personal attacks nor name calling during this dabate.

Manus, rather than taking my points as a personal insult or engage in name calling (loony left etc) how about addressing the points I raised regarding Labours leadership and their new turn. I would be surprised if you regard all criticism of your party as directed at you personally. So come on and engage in real debate.

You also raise an interesting point regarding how radical leftists should work with (or not) social democrats. I doubt if anyone subscribes to the stalinist 'social fascist' characterisation nowadays. I think that it is a perfectly justifiable marxist position to categorise the British Labour Party as a party of capital ( see 'Labour Party PLC, New Labour as a Party of Business' by David Ossler)and while I believe that the Irish Labour Party is still a reformist/social democratic party, it has edged in that direction. Again I stress that this is an attempt to objectively analyse the nature of the party not to name call members or deny that there are genuine socialists in the party.

by 'Loony' Left Wed Jan 15, 2003 18:27

I think it's great that The Labour Party have said that they will get involved in the Anti-War Movement. After all, the more people involved the better.

Hopefully, Pat Rabbitte, urged on by Labour Party members, will pick up the phone to Bush's lapdog Blair and let him know what people think of his involvement in this dispicable warmongering.

p.s., Labour member, it's not all that bright to castigate anyone to the left of you as "loony". The jibe "loony left" was a great favourite of Maggie Thatcher and the The Sun after all...

by Manus Wed Jan 15, 2003 18:44

ex-stick, I fully agree with your comments regarding the British LP, having meet many young LP members I'm astonished at their views. I despise the politics of Blair and don't believe it is possible to compromise on many of the basic social democratic beliefs and still call yourself left!

However, the LP should not be categorised with Blair. The ILP is an umbrella left party and encompasses members from all sides of the left, even a few who may favour 3rd way politics. But it is a democratic organisation where views are openly debated and exchanged, where policies and leadership are decided by majority vote.

I respect the views of most people on the left and they are well entitled to them. But some comments on indy media are Looney left comments! For example, the GP are jumping on the bandwagon, LP has no right to be in the movement.

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Wed Jan 15, 2003 19:19

"Its tantamount to Aryanism of the left the comments by some so-called activists, just because we're not pure Red we shouldn't be part of the movement. The same seems to extend to the GP too, it doesn't matter that Tim and Ed both GP members have been behind the peace camp and the campaign since the beginning, because they aren't anarchist, Trots or revolutionaries, they're the same as capitalists."

Excuse me but it was an anarchist who pointed out that "Tim and Ed both GP members have been behind the peace camp and the campaign since the beginning" on the thread you are refering to. Likewise see post re: Micheal D. above.

So the only identified anarchos in both these threads havn't been saying that.

by Intransigent Wed Jan 15, 2003 20:29

It doesn't matter what your political persuasion is (though being on a protest against a war sorta puts ya in one camp already) you are welcome to the protests. All this bickering amongst left wing groups in Ireland is sickening. Perhaps it has been due to the fact that the left has been so small for so long that so many groups emerged with sectarian attitudes. But no the war has to take precedent over our little squablings. The movement needs to be as broad as possible and as large as we can make it. The potential exists for a significant march to be assembled in Dublin on February 15th and Shannon this weekend. It is time for the Irish population to show their opposition against this war and for once to set aside petty fighting amongst various left groups. No one should be made isolated. The success of the British Anti War campaign is due to their inclusion of all groups and opening up protests to all. Not the sectarian bickering that exists in it's present form in this country. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist in Britain just that for the anti war campaign we need to be able to work together and have one unified group against the war that includes members of all parties and views on a board that sets the goals of the campaign. The anti war movement must become all inclusive and encourage participation by all parties against the proposed war on Iraq. All must be welcome to participate in the fight.

by Harry Pollitt - Anarchist Federation Wed Jan 15, 2003 20:37

"The success of the British Anti War campaign"

What "sucess" - just in case you havn't noticed the British State is about to go to war in Iraq right? Yet there have been massive protests in London, Glasgow, etc.... so the job hasn't been done by those methods.

by Cian - Labour Wed Jan 15, 2003 20:48

It is a matter of record that Labour members have been involved in anti war activity for quite some time.

Michael D. raised the use of Shannon in the Dail pretty much straight away after September 11th and as the build up for Afghanistan started. Labour memebers have been at every single anti war protest that I know of. Labour members have been involved in monitoring the planes in Shannon, in setting up the peace camp, have been arrested at anti war demos.

Its not just the war against the Iraqi people that has attraacted opposition from Labour. I myself have spoken at several anti war meetings in opposition to the bombing of Kosovo.

It is true that Labour members aren't always as visible as others from political parties at demos. We don't always have banners etc. And it is true that there could always be more Labour members getting involved in anti war activity. It is also true that while Pat Rabbittes statement against the use of Shannon is welcome, it could have come earlier and it could have been stronger.

But of course what is most important is that it is not the Labour party, or indeed any single party or organisation that is helping to build what I think is the best anti war movement Ireland has ever seen.

Whats critical in builing this movement is the large number of activists not in any party at all, involved in the likes of Grassroots Gathering, Gluaiseacht and Global Action. This anti war movement is critically different, because rather than simply just marching around the G.P.O. achiveing just a limited symbolic protest, this time we are focusing on the target of Irish facilitation of the planned murder of our brothers and sisters in Iraq.

And I think that it is absolutely critical that we don't just march around Shannon as well, but that we engage in peaceful non-violent direct action aimed at withdrawing Shannon as a conduit for slaughter and devastation.

Of course it is important to hold demonstrations like the one on the 15th in Dublin as well, to allow a larger number of people become involved in this movement, and to voice their opposition to the Governments silent complicity in war mongering. Not everyone can make it to Shannon.

But as Andrew and others have argued, effective direct action in Shannon will be a critical part of ending our tacit facilitation of this war.

by John Wed Jan 15, 2003 22:06 [email protected]

Could whoever did that pretty cool piece of stencil art on the main page of the site drop me a mail asap? Or give us a ring on 01 6776150?

Cheers

John

by Joe Sheehan Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:32

Ladies and Gentlemen, please lets not go crazy here, who cares about peoples politics as long as they are against the War and the Irish Involvement in it.
Lets not start fighting among ourselves but against what the government is allowing to happen at the airport everyday!
The only parties I personally taken exception too are those of the Government who have allowed Shannon to be used in this attack on Iraq.

by Manus Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:20

Joe your spot on! Did you see the comments for O'Dea and O'Malley yesterday? That's what your up against with Fianna Fail/PDs. The yanks have done a lot for ireland mentality!

by King Mob Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:59

Breaking news.......

In a dangerous new development actual political debate and journalism almost managed to break out on Indymedia yesterday.

Thankfully a crack team of secterian spitfully bitchy little shits leapt into action to insure that the debate was safely defused and turning it into the usual petty squabbling we see on IMC.

This elite squad has been in training for years, honing there skills at rallys and debates in a paranoid atmosphere, ensuring that no event can generate a broad colation without harsh words and bitter attitude and barely concealled hostility ensures.

Their tactics include.

-Trying to turn any event/cause into a barely concealled recruitment drive for their party.

-Coming from the get the boot in mentality, trying to use any excuse/event to thrown in a dig at your political opponents.

One of the groups leading oppontents Pat C
is quoted as saying

"This petty secterian bais is tearing the irish left apart, we must forgot our differences and look our sameness, and forge together as a strong united front againist those sectarian fuckers in the SP"

A source in IMC Ireland stated " we'd like to assure you that this outbreach of journalism won't last, and we will strive to ensure only the pettiest of" debates" occurs on Indymedia.ie

by John Sun Jan 19, 2003 14:07

Why isn't SF and the SP mentioned on the main page as both had speakers at the Shannon Protest, and both have come against the war on Iraq on a number of occasions?

by Aidan Sun Jan 19, 2003 14:15

The story is about the Peace Camp and their work and not about plugging SP and SF?