Almost 100 Belfast lecturers signed up against war

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Sat Feb 22, 2003 00:14 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

Thanks comrade. It's good to have a bit of intellegent debate with members or supporters of the SWP. Solidarity across the left, for sure.

by Irony is dead Fri Feb 21, 2003 22:20

Chris I didn't call you a liberal - you are obviously a Marxist, as am I. Check what I wrote.
The SWP position is that the solution to Israel lies with the powerful working class that produces oil throughout the middle-east and Gulf. The arab workers gave us the Iranian revolution and on various occasions pushed back imperialist interests, and their proxy rulers in the area. They are the key to the middle east. Could I suggest 2 books written by Marxists, neither are from the same tradition as myself. Nathan Weinstocks 'Zionism - False Messiah' (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/weinstock/)and Abram Leon 'The Jewish Question' (http://www.marxists.de/religion/leon/).
In solidarity...IiD

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Fri Feb 21, 2003 16:15 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

Alright, I concede to your point on Zionism, it's a fair point. However, I still don't agree with this attitude of distain in terms of the Israeli people. There are many people in Israel who do try to make a difference, just as there are many who swallow everything the ruling intifada tell them. My point on meeting Israeli people, I believe, shouldn't go unnoticed; I've met many people from the country and they have all voiced the same opinion, in terms of the oppression that they have to face from their own state every day. These people, importantly I believe, have not been Marxists either, and not even socialists. Just ordinary people who view what is going on in their country now. They all were generally disgusted in terms of their leaders, but equally (alluding to your earlier point) disgusted at the biased media coverage that exists in Britain and America, as well as other European states.

The trade unions may be "up the right" (terrible pun i know, but trust me, i'm not the greatest comedian you'll ever meet!), and they're not to be trusted, but this is a similar situation to many countries across the world; indeed, the Northern Irish unions for years have stoked the fires of sectarianism, albeit not so much in recent times. Yet, do we give up on the workers struggle here? I understand where you're coming from, but I believe to isolate the Israeli working classes completely will do more harm than good.

In terms of ordinary people, it is not as you put it " a sick joke" to draw comparisons between two capitalist states. Yes, one has the weight of the US empire behind it, but at the end of the day, when it comes to the crunch, the Palestinians will not be able to look to Yasser Arafat for answers, nor Ariel Sharon. Oppression will only result in either regard. To take out the influence of Israel in Palestine is undoubtably a good thing; to leave Arafat there, and the ailing, pathetic Palestinian authority there in it's place cannot be done. Nor will Palestine be freed without first bringing under control the state of Israel. The argument to free Palestine is undoubtably fair, but at the end of the day, without action taking to destroy the Israeli infrastructure and American influence, it is only an idealistic tirade. Freedom for both states will only come about with the dissolution of both sets of ruling classes, such is the deadlock that exists. And even if the organised coherent opposition movement in Israel to Sharon is small at the moment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! It's there in the background, and sadly we don't hear of it as a result of the media (obiviously). I know of socialists that work in Israel under extreme circumstances, but have a great level of support amongst many of the ordinary people of the region, even if that support isn't as vocal as it would be here, for obivious reasons. I believe it would be wrong to simply turn our backs on these comrades who are trying to build an alternative under greater pressure than ourselves. I will put my trust in both sides of the working class struggle in both regions, for I believe that they are inextricably linked; Israel will have to come down for Palestine to achieve freedom, and not through diplomacy, but by the ruling class being replaced. I can understand your policy concerning Palestine, but unless you have a solution or ideas concerning Israel also, then I see very little but a dead end. Therefore, support for both sides of the working class is vital, and I'll fight for both sides as best I can. If that makes me a liberal, then brand me all you want; but I daresay there are many out there who would realise this to be a very unfair label, especially those who know me within the movement and outside it.

by Irony is dead Fri Feb 21, 2003 15:25

Sorry Chris you are still missing the point. To fight for any long lasting workers unity you must oppose oppression first and foremost – in other words address the divisions that exist to facilitate unity.
To answer your points…I said nothing about the level of support for Arafat.
You say ‘It seems to me that just because of US interest in Israel… ‘ Interest? But a Zionist state cannot exist without imperialism.
I have no problem with taking sides with one section of the working class, which is why we need picket lines and workers states. However Israeli workers have never sided with Palestinians in any meaningful way at all – Israeli unions reflect the division and do nothing to end it. Workers in Israel will break from the state when a socialist middle-east is on the cards. That will come from outside the Zionist state – in the sense of the Arab working class. When they are striving for a better world then Israeli workers will begin to shift against the state they give loyalty to now.
‘God help us all if we look towards people impoverished and terrorised who are backed in name and concept by the American ruling classes’ – explain.
‘Despite this fact, the SWP still hangs onto the coattails of Arafat blindly without generally giving a thought to the Israeli problem’ - ditto
SWP’s policy – read http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/
Explain how we arrive at TWO socialist states in Palestine.
‘By reading the newspapers and watching the television, you would believe that the Israeli people were a bloodthirsty Palestinian-hating majority.’ - quite the opposite. The media on the whole downplay the violence of the Israeli state and talk of assassinations by the IDF (sic) as aimed at ‘Palestinian militants’. If anything they have elevated the position of a suicide bomber to a weapon worse than anything the Israeli state has.
The point about Lenin is that time and again he fought from a minority position within the workers movement. He stuck to his anti-imperialism despite others bending to the patriotic wave. This was in response to you saying that anti-Zionists should change their position because workers ‘consider’ it to be anti-Semitic

Finally you say ‘we should stop compromising our believes (sic) in fear of public opinion’ Equating Sharon with Arafat, the state of Israel with that of Palestine’ is a sick joke. In reality you take a liberal position compromising your opposition to imperialism and its favourite client state in that region

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Fri Feb 21, 2003 10:45 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

At the end of the day, if a free Palestine does come about, Arafat is hardly the man to lead it. Of course there are differences between the two, but at the end of the day what will that mean to the impoverished peoples of the region? Very, very little. And as for supporting Yasser Arafat, I think you are reading the headlines rather than the actual proof. Support for Arafat and indeed the Palestinian authority is thinner on the ground than you might expect.

Palestine is a result of the violence of the first? No-one's debating that, are they? It still doesn't denote from the situation that exists now. It seems to me that just because of US interest in Israel, the SWP finds itself in a position where it has to take side with one section of the working class over another. God help us all if we look towards people impoverished and terrorised who are backed in name and concept by the American ruling classes! Or so the SWP would have you believe.

At least you admit Arafat's politics are rotten. The ridiculous "diplomatic" back and forth that has existed between these two rotten states will never lead to a solution. Despite this fact, the SWP still hangs onto the coattails of Arafat blindly without generally giving a thought to the Israeli problem, except for maybe "stop the oppressors!" now and again. That sort of thing, no? (and if no, please feel free to tell me, i'd be glad to know of a greater depth to the SWP's policy. seriously.).

Let's not only look to free Palestine; rather, we should stop compromising our believes in fear of public opinion and get going to help build a socialist Palestine, and a socialist Israel too. Shouting free Palestine at the top of our voices is all well and good, but it needs to be a means to a socialist end.

Also, let's make one thing clear to end this; Lenin did not support the Russians in WWI, but he did support the working classes and looked for a solution to rid them of the destitute leadership of Nicolas II at the time. Similarly, I do not support Israel's oppression of the West Bank; it is the product of the state and quite frankly disgusting. No SP or SY member supports the oppression of Israel. However, you have to take into account the working class people of the country, who do not want to see this oppression continue. By reading the newspapers and watching the television, you would believe that the Israeli people were a bloodthirsty Palestinian-hating majority. Bullshit. ANY Israeli I've ever spoken to has told me that this simply isn't true, and I've spoken to a fair few. The views of the Israeli state get out quite freely, but the views of the opposition are hardly to track; a climate of fear has built up in Israel. On that note, I think your point on Lenin is naive and unjutified, unless you can substantiate it in some other fashion.

by Irony is dead Fri Feb 21, 2003 10:24

Chris what a crude position you have. Sharon is the same as Arafat? Come off it. One has the backing of the biggest military machine on earth, a whole state that is armed to the teeth at his disposal and has been responsible for the deaths of thousands, from Chatila & Sabra to the present Intifada.
The other is a product of the violence of the first. If you're not clear about the direction of oppression, you make yourself irrelevant.
Arafats politics are rotten and lead to corrupt deals with the Zionist state. However the context is extremely important - thats why Palestinians defend Arafat despite his politics.
Secondly your priciples are not changed because people have the wrong impression of your ideas. You stand and fight for them. Taken to your logic, Lenin would have backed Russia in the first world war since 'many working class people consider'ed it to be a just war. If people consider the SWP anti-Semitic because elements of the ruling class use it to attack us that does not mean we end our anti-zionist position. In the same way we argued for an end to apartheid through black workers smashing the south african state despite accusations of 'anti-white racism'.

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Fri Feb 21, 2003 00:06 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

The point is that many working class people consider the attitude taken against Israel as anti-semitic (wrongly, but in order to dispel such an attitude all socialists should condemn both Sharon and the Palestinian Authority), and by supporting only one section of the working class in the Israel-Palestine conflict, you alienate a major force within Israel and indeed outside it. It is all very well to take a headstrong attitude against the Israeli ruling class, but the working classes should not be forgotten; they are an oppressed people also. Therefore, not only free Palestine from Arafat and Sharon, who are both prime scumbags, but free the Israeli people also from the brutality of their own leaders.

by Irony is Dead Thu Feb 20, 2003 19:27

Chris says " I could certainly come out and claim that your policy concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict is in some way anti-zionist, as it could be perceived as such"

Absolutely and proud of it.

How can any socialist not be anti-zionist?

PS Would it not be more important to advertise a pamphlett that details eg the revolutionary and reformist road to change, than one that 'highlights the differences' between 2 socialist grouplets?

by Taking no more Thu Feb 20, 2003 16:11

Chris I agree with most of your points and quite a bit of other postings i would not agree with although I don't think that other people claimed links with the SWP. The demonstration was brilliant and inspiring and it was great to see so many groups. That has been my whole point from the start that people should work together and not attack other groups, campaigns or parties who are against this war. That is were this all started from with an attack on SSAW by SY. I think and hope we have all learnt points in this exchange and hope that we can all work together or in our separate campaigns to attempt to stop this possible war on Iraq. Signing of

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Thu Feb 20, 2003 15:54 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

Political sectarianism, or so you put it, is a world apart from the true depth of meaning of sectarianism in this country, and I don't think it is a word you should use lightly. Another term to voice your concerns perhaps. But I take your comments on board, even though I believe that they could rightfully be thrust back upon the SWP and many other leftist groups around the country, to a certain degree. Of course, I've stated again and again my refusal to stoke the fires that seem to burn between certain elements of all the parties, but I am going by my own experiences as a party member for over a year; personally, I haven't had the experiences that you allude to. I've heard rumours of anominity towards the SP within the SWP as well, and I'm sure there have been conversations on both sides about the other, but I'm just prepared to get on with my work and let everyone else get on with theirs. I just think it's a crying fucking shame that the march last saturday, which I class as one of the best days of my life, not only as a socialist but as a human being, has seemingly desended into an argument about "we got a better crowd than you" or "you have middle-aged men on your stall". Everyone has the right to be on that march and be represented. I know you weren't saying anything to contradict that, but many who claim links with the SWP have been, and it just strikes me as pretty sad. A lot of people seem to have forgotten why we were marching in the first place; I even wonder if many people cared about the Iraqi people in the first place, judging by some of the comments I've read. Again, this isn't anything against you, I know you weren't coming out with these things, but it's a sad reflection of the detachment of the left in this country that the whole thing came down to that base argument in some sectors.

by Trying to hold them back Thu Feb 20, 2003 15:37

Chris I don't think you quite understand what I am saying. While your party are anti sectarian in the traditional sense some of your leading members in Belfast are as someone put it 'politically sectarian', that is a sectarian attitude to other groups. There is a lot of evidence of that and as you have seen elsewhere on these debates many other groups and individuals are now realising the same. This kind of Sectarianism could be seen by getting another group kicked out of a venue, postering over their posters, fabricating lies, or putting other socialist activists at risk due to politically sectarian words to others. It is interesting as one of your Belfast Branch members recently told me that much of a recent branch meeting in Belfast was took up talking about the SWP, similiarly a young member of SY told me the same so I can understand how such an attitude can be drummed in especially if they hold respect for certain individuals. Again don,t take my word for this ask around even within your own Belfast branch, I would suggest though individually. You seem a genuine and committed socialist and I have no Quams with you I can no longer though let other activists to be targeted in such a sectarian way and indeed at times to be put at risk by politically sectarian words. I do have other facts and evidence of past, recent and continuing political sectarianism by a few of your leading members in Belfast.I know your organisation holds good activists but it also holds longer term members who hold still a vicious sectarian nature to other organisations even though the world has moved on. Many points and facts have already been raised by others in this debate. Unfortunately much information is coming to our attention of this past, recent and continuing approach. I do not think going through the channels will work as one of your leading members is to the front of this situation. I prefer to put the facts out for others to judge rather than others may wanting to take a different approach to dealing with this as they are getting increasingly angry at what they are being told. This situation has went on to long and I feel that the only way to address it is to put the facts out to both let others judge and secondly to get those involved in this to wise up. Everyone else is starting to work together it is time that those leading individuals in your party now begin to understand that and try to work and not hinder that process. As for other facts and evidence I believe I need not have to raise any more here but it will now be raised with the many groups that are working together. No doubt you will hear the facts and I hope that you can try and change that political mindset of a few individuals in your party. As I said before I and others will tell but the facts in future so people can judge for themselves if issues come up on this website. As for the other more vicious as someone stated political Sectarianism the facts will in a short while be put to all those groups that work together to judge for themselves and also giving those individuals a chance to explain their actions.

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Thu Feb 20, 2003 14:14 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

You say that you will "put out the facts". Yet, I haven't seen any facts to be put out. You keep telling me that we have a growing sense of sectarianism in our party, and yet you show no evidence to support your point.

Now, it would be very easy for me, in the context of an open messageboard, to label the SWP "anti-semitic", following McDowell's (yes, the man is a racist, but the knowledge of this in terms of the validity of his claims is not needed anyway) comments earlier this week. I could certainly come out and claim that your policy concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict is in some way anti-zionist, as it could be perceived as such. However, I am not one for idle slander, and I know that in the SWP this is not the case, or at least I know that it is not in the members that I know of, and therefore I have little basis to carry that argument. I suspect it is the same with yourself, except that you have jumped into the arena too early and in too broad a sense.

"Basically in N.Ireland many think and know {even members of your own party in Belfast have told us so} that some leading members in your wee grouping are sectarian in that sense. Others know so by some of your leading members past and present growing underhand and even at times open sectarianism now coming out more and more into the open." Leading members? And in what sense? For a start, I know of none of our leading members who have expressed sectarian beliefs. It is possible that in the backwaters of the party, there are some who veer away from our official line, but that is to be expected in any party, including the SWP. That does not mean that the SP is a sectarian party, and it should be viewed as such; it is an unfair indictment on the work that we do. And I would sincerely love to know in what sense you see the SP as "sectarian". What events have you witnessed to back this up? I have asked countless claimants the same question, and they only seem to mutter rhetorical nonsense back. And as for across Northern Ireland, anyone I have met in the street with prior knowledge of the SP knows for a fact that they are a non-sectarian organisation; it is an inherent factor of our beliefs as Marxists.

What do you class as sectarianism? I know of SWP members over the years who have expressed sympathy with Irish nationalism to quite a frightening extent. Are they not sectarian? If I wanted to, I could sit and pick holes in the SWP all day. I could do very little else with my time if I truly wanted to! But I don't, for good reason. There are better and more productive things to be doing with my time. Regular work, regular action, on the streets; that's what is needed, not this political backbiting. I only draw parallels with the SWP in order to prove that your allusions to sectarianism within the SP are not only unfounded, but have been realised within your own ranks amongst individuals also. But I do stress individuals. And to deny this, with your claim to such a high level of interest in your party, would be simply to lie in my face, and a laughable notion.

"It is those who have to engage in such attacks on genuine postings and groups set up that are insecure." Bang on, my friend. I should refer you to a posting advertising an SP public meeting to be held tonight in Belfast, which once posted upon Indymedia was pretty much flooded with abuse from those who claimed to be SWP members. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but I know from past experience that any serious post I've ever laid down here has been given the same treatment. That insecurity lies with individuals on both sides; it is hardly singular to the SP.

As to your complaint about the SY slagging off SSAW, fair enough, but again a comment by an individual. I have no problem with SSAW. The majority of the SY have no problem with SSAW. I only learned of this comment well after the event, and I disapprove of it now, as it shouldn't be the way in which we conduct ourselves. If you look at my last post, you will see that I have already condemned this action. I do so again, and thus make myself clear on the matter.

Telling people of our "millions" is a bit of a silly comment. Look at the pictures of our contingency on the march; we have quite the number on it. As I've said before also, I'm pleased to have older comrades support YAW in this way, for their experience is something that should be used. At the end of the day, confident in my beliefs as I am, I would not feel entirely confident leading YAW myself unless I had backing behind me from those experienced in demonstrating before. YAW has this, and we embrace it; it does not take away from the youthful presense that we have encapsulated over the past few months.

If there are members of my party who have been behaving in such a way that you believe, then of course I will have a problem with it. It doesn't mean that the SP is a sectarian party, and you should give us that. There are many within the SWP wise enough to see the truth behind this situation. You cannot run a party without people having their own views on a way forward, even if some are deluded enough to choose sectarianism. Hopefully, if I find out who these people are, I can attempt to change their minds in the context of the beliefs of the SP as a whole, but please do not work to tarnish the work of some good, decent people with offhand comments about sectarianism. The vast majority of SP and SY members are not sectarian, and it should be viewed as such.

And as for "presenting the facts", I have not seen any from anyone as of yet alluding to our "sectarianism". If I could have some, please go through the proper channels, and they will be dealt with. If not, then let's stop with this hurtful (to me, certainly, being labelled as such) and damaging hyperbole.

by Taking no more Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:59

' not a sectarian party'' frankly it doesn't exsist'. You may hold anti sectarian views but your wee grouping is sectarian to other organisations which more and more people are acknowledging. Basically in N.Ireland many think and know {even members of your own party in Belfast have told us so} that some leading members in your wee grouping are sectarian in that sense. Others know so by some of your leading members past and present growing underhand and even at times open sectarianism now coming out more and more into the open. Again all the facts of this will be put so that people can make up their own minds if this continues. We will tell just the facts
'slagging of other people' While i believe issues should be responded to, quite simply if you cannot take it do not dish it out.{ its a big boys game you know] Again as I stated these reply's came back from an attack by SY on SSAW and will continue to do so and again the facts will be put and people can make up their minds.
Insecurity perhaps'? It is those who have to engage in such attacks on genuine postings and groups set up that are insecure. It is those who have used underhand sectarian tactics in the past and recently which is now becoming widely known who are insecure.
Some in your group will and are insecure by the facts and the truth being told and they will increasingly so if it continues
YAW has branches here there and everywhere. Fact YAW public meeting in Belfast had two fulltime socialist party members sitting in the room one in his thirties who proclaimed to be YAW. Again you can tell people of your millions I don't really care but again I will tell quite simply the facts so people can make up their own minds
If you want to argue about policies I have no problem but if your organistions attacks campaigns or groups in N. Ireland I will respond and debate openly putting quite simply only the facts and let people make up their own minds.
When people say that some of your leading members are and have been behaving in that sectarian why even if facts are put such is your organisation nature you may not believe it. So in the case you don't listen to me or those growing numbers of people and groups who know it, go then and speak to some of your members who have admitted it to us and who are in fact are quite depressed about it. Once aain if it continues we will put quite simply the facts and let others judge.

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:56 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

I meant to say, that YAW came before SSAW! Sorry for any confusion!

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:53 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

I was glad to see, that amist the unfair spiel coming out against my party, that Caroline above had the sense and decency to actually come out and say something positive. From the posts on this site I was beginning to succumb to bad attitudes regarding the SWP, but thankfully I can hold them off for a time yet. A little solidarity in the left would be nice though.

Firstly, we are NOT a sectarian party. But then, to use the word sectarian is in itself quite the ignorant statement. I occasionally wonder what these people understand by "sectarianism". I am not sectarian, nor will I ever be; I despise the very thought of it and will fight against it til the day I die. That is why I joined the SP over the SWP; the fact that the SWP encouraged their members to vote Sinn Finn at a time, their disregard of both Israeli and Palestinian working classes; these are issues which I do not agree with. However, that is what they are, issues, and a difference in opinion. These should be the matters that are debated and discussed between our two parties; not endless backbiting and shouting about how many members we have and who did what to who. I'm perfectly comfortable with my work within the SP, and I feel I'm doing the right thing, as I'm sure do members of the SWP.

This brings me onto another point; YAW. Youth Against War was set up before the SWP, and has been operating in Belfast, Derry, Bangor, Omagh and Coleraine for many months now (apologies to any branches I missed out but certain people would like to think we have no members at all, in their folly) and have had great successes all around the country. Now, we had the right to set up YAW, just as the SWP had the right to set up SSAW. I don't know which of our members attacked the SWP for doing so, but if we have the right to do this, then so do you. As for the "middle-aged" members of our stall, they have as much a right to be there than any of us, and personally I prefer them to be there. I have known of Peter Hadden's activities since my own parents were members of Militant, and I acknowledge him to be a great asset. It is just a pity and frankly sad that certain people on this messageboard and beyond feel the need to both use their knowledge and sense of self-importance to waste their talents on an internet messageboard slagging other people off. Insecurity perhaps?

But we have to get out of this mindset that presumes the SWP and SP are always out to get each other, because if you lived your life on these messageboards you would almost think this to be the case. It isn't; I have much better and productive things to be doing with my time than trying to slag off another party for the size of their membership or something ridiculous like that. Alright, argue with us about our policies or views in an INTELLEGENT fashion; I'm always up for that! But to just harp on about sectarianism and suchlike that frankly doesn't exist (and being a member for over a year now, I was a little new to the whole thing, but I certainly would have noticed something like that!) is pathetic and wrong. The constructive thing to do is debate with us about our issues, I welcome it. I do not welcome petty comments, and I hope some of the comrades, or alleged comrades posting will take this on board.

Solidarity!

by Socialist Supporter Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:26

Just to remind we shall state just the facts and let people make up their own minds in future. It was the initial attack by SY on this site about the setting up of SSAW in N Ireland that lead to reply's. Democratic debate is healthy if facts are put. I repeat if they wish to attack genuine postings by organisations in N Ireland then I believe in the right of reply. Its quite simple if they don't want their sectarianism or their activity or non activity put on the site then don't attack genuine postings. We don't care how many millions of people you want to tell your people in the South you have that is up to you but if such sectarianism is put or if lies are told we will simply reply with the truth and the facts and let others make up their own minds. As to previous postings send us any information you may have if sectarianism has or is being used and we will deal with this in our own way

by Socialist Suporter Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:21

Just to remind we shall state just the facts and let people make up their own minds in future. It was the initial attack by SY on this site about the setting up of SSAW in N Ireland that lead to reply's. Democratic debate is healthy if facts are put. I repeat if they wish to attack genuine postings by organisations in N Ireland then I believe in the right of reply. Its quite simple if the don't want their secterianism or their actions or non actions put on the site then don't attack genuine postings. We don't care how many millions of people you want to tell your people in the South you have that is up to you but if such sectarianism is put or if lies are told we will simply reply with the truth and the facts and let others make up their own minds.

by Caroline - SWP Thu Feb 20, 2003 00:19

"and 100 Lecturers are a phantom army compared to our 2 SY members and a dog in Belfast"

I don't think that was written by an SWPer, and not just because I am one. In my last year at school I spent a fair amount of time with SY. They have some good activists, and Chris Loughlin has even written some good articles for Socialist Voice. They are a good group and there are definitely more than two of them. I don't see the point of the SWP/SP rivalry and neither do they.
So stop the pointless sectarian rivalry, OK?

by YAW member Wed Feb 19, 2003 19:23

Well that's good grace for you! under the guise of wishing Youth Against War well, "Socialist Supporter" (yet another anonymous SWPer?) throws some more smears at the Socialist Party and YAW - "irrelevant", "sectarian" whatever else you like.

I would hate to see what a less friendly attitude would look like from some of our SWP "friends" would look like!

by Not Amused Wed Feb 19, 2003 18:03

They postered over posters that many groups on the Falls road give a hand in putting up. Are they mad. Send the picture into the local press so people can see for themselves so they can drop them a line about their behaviour.

by Free Palestine - Young republican Wed Feb 19, 2003 17:37

Did you know that they postered over your anti war posters for the Falls march in west belfast with YAW posters. I will send a picture

by TIME FOR ACTION NOT WORDS Wed Feb 19, 2003 17:25

You hit the nail on the head. It may be satire but this is how the SP are viewed. I suppose that is one of the reasons why they have become irrelvant up in the six counties as well as their now widely known sectarianism. A socialist friend also told me that they were responsible for getting a certain socialist group in Belfast kicked out of a venue he worked in {now theres sectarianism}. He said he will send the details to that group so they can judge for themselves as well as other things that they have been up to.

by pat c Wed Feb 19, 2003 17:05

just think if hadden & the SP had been in alabama in the 50s & 60s...

they would have been condemning blacks for dividing the working class.

they would no doubt have stressed the need to win over the racist white working class. they would call for talks between the kkk & black residents regarding kkk marchs through black areas.

blacks wanting to use the front entrances to schools would be accused of trying to move into white territiry. this would be shown to be evidence of emerging black racism.

if a black female motorist had run down a 16 year old member of a kkk lynch mob who had tried to kill her, cahill would accuse her of the racist murder of a child.

if other socialists organised support for blacks whose church was being picketed by white racists, the sp would call them racist!

(the above is satire, but seeing as irony is dead i await the outrage from the usual suspects)

by Socialist supporter Wed Feb 19, 2003 15:30

I am glad to see that YAW have now seen the wise and better approach to SSAW rather than the initial sectarian attitude they on this site had when SSAW was formed. Whatever YAW wants to claim of their membership and groups to others that is their business and I hope their initial attacks now have faded away. On the issue of SSAW and its work:
It has featured in all the papers in the last week, from the Irish News to the News letter, the Belfast Telegraph the Daily Mirror and the community papers. On wednesday their blockcade of the US council was featured on BBC news, on Friday a two minute insight on the group was on ITV, on Monday the three hundred and twenty people at the SSAW debate was again featured on the BBC news with pictures and more write ups of the group this week.
For a while now the SP and their small groupings have become increasingly Sectarian in Northern Ireland. At first it has been shrugged of by many organisations but it has come to peoples knowledge that it has become increasinly vicious and backhanded. So in future if such sectarianism is raised again it will be publicised amongst all those other groups and campaigns that are working togeher. So if we have any sectarianism from the N.Ireland SP it will be debated openingly, raised through various online sites and the facts put, or any fabrications tackled . It is unfortunate it has come to this but from now on we will put only the facts and let others make up their own minds such as was with that first verbal attack when SSAW in belfast was set up. I hope that their new 'Public' approach at least on indymedia is a start. If not we have no problem taking on any debate by using the facts and publicising any sectarianism raised towards any groups around all those parties, organisations and campaigns we work with. So I am glad we see at least a slight change may it be on indymedia and I wish YAW well in their stand against the war.

by aunty party Wed Feb 19, 2003 14:55

Thanks for linking me to your site. I came across this interesting paragraph.

"Working-class people and young people need to act to stop the slide towards sectarian conflict. Some people are trying to make a comparison with Alabama. The real comparison is not Alabama but Bosnia. No one will win by going down this road. Young people, Catholic and Protestant, will be the biggest losers. We have to act now to stop the sectarian conflict spreading."

Peter Hadden

Brings history to mind, maybe. "Some people say that the killing of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals by the Nazis is genocide. But it's not really like that. Only the (bow head in respect) glorious working class revolution will defeat sectarianism. Oh yeah, young people too. We always say "working class and young people" because even if some young members aren't working class (coz if they were, you wouldn't have to say it twice), they're easy to recruit and great at selling the Voice in the cold"

by Magneto Wed Feb 19, 2003 14:49

Followed your link, its impossible to tell from those crowd figures who is part of a YAW contingent. 3 of the guys tending the stall look middle aged.

by YAW member Wed Feb 19, 2003 14:39

Some pictures of the Youth Against War contingent on the Belfast march are available at:

http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/news.htm

Even from a quick glance it's pretty clear that the strange lies being spread on indymedia about Youth Against War in the North are just that - lies.

Why exactly some anonymous posters are doing their best to denigrate and attack Youth Against War is a mystery to me. YAW has been established in schools all over Ireland, from Cork to Derry. You might have thought that people who claim they want to see school students organise against war would think that this is a good thing!

Youth Against War welcomes the fact that SSAW held a debate with a big crowd. Why the viciousness in reverse?

by Think Wed Feb 19, 2003 14:31

I can only conclude that "clutching at straws" is a moron. The ridiculous comment, supposedly by Socialist Youth above, was obviously written by an SWPer trying to stir up some shit.

by Special branch fail miserably to divide antiwar protestors Wed Feb 19, 2003 14:18

Tosh and bollix, all (young/old/rich/poor)are welcome in the fight against war. The views of special branch are not welcome.

by Clutching at your final straws Wed Feb 19, 2003 13:49

'300 kids and one hundred lecturers are a phantom army compared with 2 SY members in Belfast as the hold the true revolutionary spirit'

To the true true true relvolutionary socialist youth.

So those 'kids' and lecturers and phantom thousands of other marches should have stayed at home and let the stand against war be fought by those two 'revolutionary' Socialist Youth. You have just comfirmed what everyone is saying and knows about the direction the handful of SP members in Northern Ireland are now taking. You remind me of them other true true true revolutionaries the Sparts. While you talk among you handfuls others have a movement to build.

by ipsiphi Wed Feb 19, 2003 13:09 bcn

are the ones who need most the continuance of "open space" to express their thoughts on War and Peace.
:-)

by 35 Year Old Youth - SY Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:56

and 100 Lecturers are a phantom army compared to our 2 SY members and a dog in Belfast. They uphold the true revolutionary spirit.