New edition of the 'Voice' now online

by Magneto Fri Feb 21, 2003 15:40

No mention of the ongoing siege of the Short Strand. The Ethnic Cleansing in Larne (another Catholic family burned out on Tuesday night), Catholic Church burnings etc etc etc.

Should we be surprised when Chris Loughlin , 'Trotskyist' has mates in the British Army? (He admits it on the thread about picketing the Brits.)

Ah sure, all the problems up North are due to Catholic Sectarianism.

Long live Her Majestys Socialist Party!

by I HATE MAGNETO Fri Feb 21, 2003 15:59

OH FUCK OFF YOU DICK HEAD, WHY CAN'T YOU JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP. EVERYONE THAT GOES TO INDYMEDIA HAS SOME RESPECT FOR THE SP AND SEE THAT THEY ARE NOT SOME LOYALIST PARTY.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH SO CALLED REPUBLICANS LIKE SF. SF ARE A RIGHT WING NATIONALIST PARTY, THEY IMPLEMENTED CUTS AND SMASHED UNIONS JUST AS GOOD AS ANY UNIONIST MINISTER. AT LEAST THE SP STAND UP FOR THE WORKERS.

by Magneto Fri Feb 21, 2003 16:07

Learn how to turn off Caps Lock. Surely you could just have explained why the SP dont report or condemn Loyalist attacks on Catholics?

I never said they were a Loyalist Party, but I think they deserve the HMSP title.

by magentronised Fri Feb 21, 2003 16:07

Handbags at ten paces!! I agree with the last posting. Leave the SP to it and take it up with their reps at the next anti-war meeting.

by Magneto Fri Feb 21, 2003 16:10

What does the IAWM have to do with the contents of Socialist Voice?

by M. K Fri Feb 21, 2003 16:56

'''the ICTU took the initiative to set up the coalition against the war for Feb 15th'''.{The Voice} Although the SP only attended two coalition meetings it is common knowledge and most others know and have no problem that the belfast anti war movement agreed to approach and bring the ICTU onboard after the movement had signed up scores of trade unions, community groups and other organisations and parties to its campaign. It was on this work and initiative that they then with ICTU further agreed to widening it so contacted others to form a coalition. So in fact no SWP no Belfast anti war therefore no coalition everyone knows this while the SP try and revise it. Is it because it was the SWP who initiated the Belfast anti war movement which then initiated the coalition that you attempt to revise the matter for your readers. Their work is shown in the fact that two of the five speakers on the platform were associated with the SWP and the fact that the ICTU leadership thanked them personnally from the platform. Try and tell it as it is as there already is to much revisionism given out by our rulers, For a more accurate report read Anthony McIntyre's article entitled 'THE RALLY' on this issue of the online site 'The Blanket, search for 'Irish Republican Writers Group' on 'Goggle search' then go to home page and hit on the Blanket. He is no supporter of the SWP but gives a good and non revised account of the Belfast rally.

by Andrew Fri Feb 21, 2003 17:15

I was interested to see what the SP is now saying about what sort of action should be taken against the war, particularly in relation to refueling at Shannon. But this is all I can find

"The tactics for the Shannon protest on 1 March need to be seriously discussed. The Socialist Party will continue to argue strongly that the power to impede the use of Shannon by the US military lies in the hands of the workers in Shannon above all else. The building of a strong popular sentiment against the war can be crucial in pushing the trade unions, especially SIPTU, to defend and back workers who refuse to facilitate the US military.

A trespass of the runway and further individual attacks on warplanes are, without doubt newsworthy and a source of embarrassment for the Irish establishment but are not the key initiatives that will succeed in ousting the US military."

The problem is this says nothing beyond repeating the obvious that if Shannon workers took action they could stop refueling. The left has been saying this since the 1991 war - it's as true now as it was then but saying it won't achieve it. Of course it is a greater possibility now because of the massive visible public support for such a move. And of course I'm sure local SP members are doing what then can to encourage such action. But this is no gurantee that it will happen.

But then the article actually seems to say that other forms of direct action cannot "succeed in ousting the US military." This makes no sense, in particular in the context of World Airlines having already pulled 17 military flights out of the airport because of the 'security problems'. Why is the SP unwilling to state the obvious, which is that a strike might be the preferred option but short of this mass action can also drive the US out. Telling people it can't work is hardly a good way of building for it!

These next few weeks are a key time for determining whether the movement will act in the face of Berties two fingers or whether it will just repeat what is already acheived. Sitting on the fence on the issue of mass direct action makes no sense, in particular if you have pretensions of leadership.

by george Fri Feb 21, 2003 17:18

from what i can see the sp have actually got members in the unions and according to the above they have a president in one of the main ones. Therefore it stands to reason they must have had something to do with it no?

by By an all round socialist Fri Feb 21, 2003 17:31

They came to only two meetings and argued for a YAW speaker which no-one had heard of. The SSAW speaker was backed by those present to speak. Remember they may have some people in the unions as do others but it does not mean that they are active elsewhere. Those activists who are respected and seen doing the work are why such articles {and there are more} who are critics of the Belfast SWP have now put up their hands and said fair play to you. It is a pity the SP cannot do the same.

by Pat C Fri Feb 21, 2003 17:43

We cant just wait for strike action to take place. It seems very unlikely that the Airport "police" will take any action. They harass activists who are merely observing planes landing & they go far beyond their job descriptions. apparently disciplinary action is taken against them when there is a breach of security, so in any case they will not be endeared towards us.

I cant say I am put out at the idea of pretend gardai gertting into trouble due to direct action.

Direct Action will shut down the airport, but maybe thats not in the transitional programme.

by E - SWP Fri Feb 21, 2003 17:43

Here is the link to the article mentioned above:

http://lark.phoblacht.net/rally.html

by Brian Cahill Fri Feb 21, 2003 17:57

I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised by the kind of stuff which is regularly posted as comments on indymedia whenever any political organisation posts anything.

Each political organisation seems to attract its own special variety of anonymous detractor. In the case of the Socialist Party we are "lucky" enough to have two.

First and least coherently we have the regular smears from anonymous republicans. Secondly and just as predictably we get attacks from equally anonymous SWPers.

I normally wouldn't rise to the kind of bait which is being waved around here, but I'm bored, so briefly:

1) The Voice has consistently covered sectarian intimidation in the North. The Socialist Party's view is that there is a squalid war for territory taking place on the ground. Catholics have been the victims of the large majority of the violence and intimidation, but Protestants have also suffered.

There are some here who take a different view, effectively that Catholics are always and everywhere the victims of sectarian violence. That is only to be expected. I am more than willing to debate with most people who hold such views but I have only contempt for the small number of individuals who seem to delight in spreading smears about us from the comfortable anonymity of their computers.

So how long do you think it will take before more anonymous slanders appear in response to this comment?

2) The claims being made in the comments above about the way in which the anti-war movement in Belfast has developed are misleading. Prior to ICTU's involvement there was no really representative broad anti-war movement in the city. That was, I'm sure we can all agree, a bad thing. That the useful but slightly shambolic pre-existing AWM has been superceded by a Coalition is a good thing. As the article in the Voice argues, the important thing now is for the Coalition to continue and to grow and to develop genuinely democratic structures.

I will leave the slightly bizarre hubris of the "no SWP equals no Coalition" comments aside.

3) A final aside. Andrew's post is interesting and worthy of serious reply.

The Socialist Party is in favour of "direct action". Andrew knows this. He has after all been involved in organising direct actions with us in campaigns like the bin tax. We have a long record of involvement in "direct actions" from non-payment campaigns to illegal pickets to strike actions.

We were not opposed to the kinds of small scale "direct actions" which we have seen in the anti-war campaign - basically a trespass and some attacks on warplanes. However, such actions were clearly not going to stop the war or even Ireland's involement in it. They are useful stunts which bring more attention to the anti-war movement.

It is quite clear that one kind of action could instantly force Ireland out of the war: industrial action at Shannon. Arguing for that is important as is trying to put pressure on the various trade union leaderships in a situation where all are nominally anti-war.

Other forms of action will vary in their usefulness. The most important thing now is trying to consolidate the anti-war sentiment and trying to create a real living movement from the thousands and thousands of people who have come out onto the streets.

The tactics such a movement will use will hopefully be varied and flexible. Strike actions and walkouts, blacking of military equipment, huge protests and events like mass tresspasses will all have a role to play.

I don't think that trying to erect artificial divisions at this point is particularly helpful. There are real division is the anti-war movement, for instance between those who have illusions in the UN or in neutrality and those who do not. Whether or not different groups and individuals take part in a particular blockade or whatever should not be seen as one of them.

by Ray Fri Feb 21, 2003 18:12

The Shannon trespasses have already caused US flights to be diverted from Shannon. Its very likely that more trespasses will cause more flight diversions. Enough trespasses and Ireland is out of the war, whether Bertie likes it or not. So, does the SP support mass trespasses, and will their members at the demonstration be taking part in them?

(I'm sure we'd all be overjoyed if there was a strike by Shannon workers against US refueling, but why put all our eggs in one basket? Why not call for a strike - direct action by Shannon workers - _and_ engage in mass trespasses - direct action that we can all take part in?)

by As someone said Fri Feb 21, 2003 18:22

Dear dear must be listening to Hadden. The Belfast anti war movement and Derry anti war coalition received backing and sponsorship by at least fifty Trade union, community, student and many other organisations for an anti war rally on Feb15th in Belfast. The Anti WAr movement had their posters up had set up local groups had organised their meetings and had informed the police of a rally several hundred strong under the anti war name all this done before any coalition. Everyone knows this in N.ireland and will once again judge your attitude for themselves. The anti war movement then met ICTU to form a coalition where the ICTU could lead with its name. Most of the sponsors on the leaflets were in place before any coalition who had sponsored the AWM but the anti war movement agreed to widen it to bring bigger forces on board. The ground work had been put in by the SWP thus reflected by those who spoke at the rally and the unprecendented statement of thanks to the SWP from the platform by the ICTU. Again that is why even critics have raised their hands up and said fair play. As someone said elsewhere lets tell just the facts and let others judge. Fair play to the SWP ,praised from the platform, from their critics, in the press and by many of the groups and people there and for good reason to. Come on SP say fair play with everyone else or do you have that, what was it called, Political sectarianism of some of yourBelfast individuals? T.he facts shall be put others can judge

by Gerry - SP Fri Feb 21, 2003 18:34

Some anonymous SWP member claimed above that SP members aren't "active" in the North. The Socialist Party led the biggest industrial action for decades in the form of the term time workers dispute. Apart from Carmel Gates the President of NIPSA, Socialist Party members in the North include the regional representative of the FBU, 6 members of the NIPSA executive, the regional rep of the INTO and dozens of other widely respected trade unionists. There is no other left wing organisation with anything like that strength in the North. The Socialist Party has campaigned vigorously on the war, on low pay, in support of the firefighters and in countless other ways.

It is a fact that the Belfast Anti-War Movement was highly unprepresentative of the movement which is growing - and this is true even though some of the sponsors our anonymous SWPer proudly mentioned above are Socialist Party members! The movement by ICTU into the anti-war movement has given us all, Socialist Party, SWP and many others the chance to create a serious anti-war coalition in the North. (I am left wondering why if the BAWM was so wonderful it was so eager to dissolve itself into a more representative structure? Just so it could use ICTU's name?)

by E - SWP Fri Feb 21, 2003 18:48

I'll just like to remind Gerry that the SWP members in NIPSA gave complete support to Carmel Gates in the election campaign, in our newspaper and campaigned strongly for her in case people were wondering.

by Gerry - SP Fri Feb 21, 2003 19:13

I'm aware of that, E, and you will note that my comment didn't include any criticism of the SWP, just of the anonymous SWPer who was posting lies above.

by doheochai - Socialist Party Fri Feb 21, 2003 21:00

Following the massive demonstration in Dublin on the 15th, it is absolutely vital to have a full discussion on 1) how to build the anti-war movement into a mass campaign, 2) how to stop the use of Shannon by the US military. Firstly it is necessary to state that the purpose of any anti-war movement is to prevent or stop a war. If we succeed in stopping the use of Shannon by the US military but the war continues then we have failed. Many involved in the campaign view the sole objective of the campaign as supporting Irish neutrality and stopping the use of Shannon. We are part of a worldwide movement aimed at stopping US imperialist objectives and at all times have to view all our actions in this context.
March the 1st has the potential to be a very large demonstration, substantially bigger than the last one. It is being promoted as a direct action protest. Yet what “direct action” means varies quite dramatically depending on who you actually talk to. Having listened to people who attended the Grassroots meeting in Dublin on the 15th both at the anti-war meeting in Limerick on Tuesday night and privately this week, a number of things need to be clarified. No one seems to know or acknowledge who called the protest. Those involved seems to be very disorganised and have very conflicting views (In Limerick on Tuesday, one person was arguing to trespass in Shannon and at the same time was suggesting we should support the Franco-German proposals and even went so far as to suggest we shouldn’t call for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq). There also seems to be disagreement as to whether the type of direct action should be publicised or kept secret. This can lead to the potential confusion and even worse, a shambles in Shannon on March 1st. Those calling the demonstration have a responsibility to spell out exactly what is being planned, and by whom, in Shannon.
Andrew suggested that the smashing of the plane resulted in the withdrawal of World Airlines from Shannon. This may be the case, but my information from sources inside Shannon Airport is that the attacks weren’t really a factor (commercial considerations were responsible). One thing that can be said is that the attacks have had the effect of undermining the efforts of the campaign in the mid-west. Many activists in the mid-west will disagree with this, but I am firmly of the view that it has and I think we have underestimated the effect it has had on people in the region. It is a fact that the attacks have undermined support for the campaign among workers in Shannon Airport.
Pat C is, not for the first time, way off the mark when he says the Airport police do not, or would not support the anti-war movement. In fact the opposite is the case. Incidents, such as the attacks on the planes have caused serious difficulties for the APO’s who are not being supported to any great degree by their union, and lead to a completely undermined of support for the anti-war campaign among these and other workers in the Airport. Pat C show his complete contempt for workers who’s jobs are threatened when he states he is not put out by the idea of the APO’s getting into trouble. It is attitudes like this that lead to turning workers off giving support to the campaign.
Another issue being ignored is the constant threat that is being held over the airport workers that their jobs are at risk. The very existence of Shannon Airport has been under threat since the stop-over was abolished 10 years ago. Privatisation is on the agenda and it would be a serious misjudgement to ignore the very real fears of airport workers for their livelihoods. Saying that, there is still significant support for the campaign among the workers and if the leadership of SIPTU (and we all know what they are like) either nationally or locally made any effort then the problem would be solved very quickly. We have a responsibility to acknowledge these issues and ensure that these workers are not isolated in the position they find themselves in.
Going on to Andrew’s assertion that mass action can force a US pull-out. A mass trespass can shut down the airport, but for how long? Will the trespassers stay on the runway indefinitely? The US military will divert any incoming flights to alternative airfields and the only people affected will be ordinary passengers taking commercial flights. Secondly, do you think that the state forces are going to stand aside and let this action happen without doing anything about. Some people may be prepared for this but the potentially large crowd at the demonstration will not be. Finally, any action like this, at the present time, will be used against the anti-war campaign, both in the airport among workers and nationally by the establishment. This is my view and the view of the overwhelming majority of those who attended the anti-war campaign meeting in Limerick on Tuesday. It is also the view of the vast majority of those that we talk to in Limerick and Shannon or meet on our regular anti-war stalls in Limerick. Interestingly it was also expressed at an anti-war public meeting in UL on Wednesday night where Mary Kelly was the speaker.
Finally, to Andrew, the SP does not sit on the fence in relation to direct action. In fact SP members have probably participate in more “mass” direct action activities than most other people who frequent this board. The appropriate word here is “mass”. Before we can have effective “mass” direct action we need a “mass” campaign. As Brian Cahill pointed out there are many tactics that can and will be useful. However, remember they are a tactic and it is necessary to discuss when, where and how appropriate tactics are.

by M.K Sat Feb 22, 2003 12:49

Tell just the facts.

Why was it that a member of the Belfast Anti War movement BAWM had to get the funding from Nipsa for the Coalition with the SP having six members on the excutive? Because they didn't even know about the coalition that so many were involved in
Why was it that the BAWM had to get funding and sponsorship from the FBU if you have a member on the excutive? AS above
'You have dozens of other trades unionists around the North' well I have never seen them are they just active on union work?

'Belfast AWM was unrepresentative of the growing movement'. I hope we are becoming so, as this is as it should be, as we want it to be much wider than us, that was our whole purpose. Some of SP members did sponsor the Belfast Anti War Movement as we believe everyone should be involved so we approached them. In fact despite disagreements with Hadden's attitude, he was still approached and told that the ICTU had sponsored the BAWM and would he like to do so, he agreed {this before the coalition was established}

Unrepresentative for the building of the rally?

Fact, two of the five rally speakers were associated with SWP.
Fact three of the five rally speakers were involved in the AWM
Fact all the major meetings in Belfast were organisated by the BAWM
Fact over 90% of those on the coalition leaflet had originally sponsored the BAWM {with many more left of due to space}
Fact, feeder marchers into the main rally were organised by and lead by the BAWM
Fact the main Belfast city centre meeting and the after rally fundraiser were organised and built by the BAWM but we agreed for it to now be lead by the coalition which they agreed.
Fact all the high profile speakers were organised by the BAWM.
FACT people who organised the hugely sucessful and publicised School Students Against The War {SSAW} who spoke at the rally representing the students of all N.Ireland were members of BAWM.
Fact the SWP were thanked in an unprecedented statement from the platform by ICTU for their work.
FACT even critics have acknowledged the vital role the SWP had played.
Fact as A McIntrye had stated, the amount of people at the demonstration giving the SWP credit for it was staggering.
FACT the first meeting to form a coalition was organised by the ICTU and the AWM. SP were not there
FACT the feb15th demonstration was being built well before the coalition, the posters were up. meetings were organised and the route was agreed with the police by the BAWM for several hundred marchers on the day which we along with ICTU then met the police and changed it to the coalition.

I tell the facts others can judge for themselves. I do not care what the SP think but I do dislike revisionism.

Finally on you point of why are we not frightened to 'dissolve ourselves'. You hit the nail on the head and that is the difference. We knew after getting the sponsors and setting up the local gropus that we were going to get a march several hundred strong, but to make an impact it had to be thousands. So with this strong base already built we approached ICTU to argue for them to lead it which they agreed although we would be heavily involved within it. So to broaden it out further rather than just to support the AWM we agreed to form a coalition lead by the ICTU. Thus our representation of the speakers on the platform, the thanks by ICTU from the platform, the acknowledgement from the marchers, the support on our feeder marches, the hundreds at our meetings and even 'fair play' to us by our critics for our work for the demonstration. We have no problem working within small or large movements in fact we went out of our way to embrace some who have been and are sectarian to us so we would not be the same. The difference is important as those in the North who work with us know that we deliver when we say we will deliver, this along with the confidence of our politics. Those who talk about 'dissolving' are looking inwards while we are looking out and embracing a wider world.

We hope as many people can work together against this war as possible and we set out with that task in hand. Whether the SP acknowledge that because of party insecurities or whatever is irrelevant {although I hate revisionism} as the people who matter have acknowledged it, that is those on the march. To those people and many more, Lets biuld the movement.

We shall tell but the facts and let others judge.

by Will he ever learn Sat Feb 22, 2003 16:40

Once again it has come to our attention that the same leading belfast individuals of the SP as before came out with more political sectarianism last weekend. When will they realise that some people will nod to their faces but are actually disgusted that 'socialists' behaves like this. This and other such shit happened. We have put these facts around as usual with all the people we work with for them to judge. And so then once again for this site some more facts:

Within the last two weeks the Belfast anti war movement organised a public meeting with over 130 in attendance.
SWP had over 120 at a different meeting with 100 turned away due to space.
SSAW had over 300 at their meeting.

WITH THE SP's six Exc.members in Nipsa and their Exc. members in the FBU and INTO and their dozens of other trade unions and the Belfast SP branch and their YAW in twenty schools and their SY all around the place as we are told, then with their TD speaking along with their President of NIPSA and YAW and the 'General secretary of the N irelands section of the CWI' or some title like that speaking at a Socialist Party meeting in Belfast. Which was postered all over Belfast and had all those groups advertising and speaking. They even tried to publise it amongst the media and contacting all their supporters and contacts. The outcome

Twenty one people in the room. YES 21 putting aside the few from the BAWM who went along. {Part of the movement?} I wonder why you have so little support could it be that people are sick of your political sectarianism? Until those leading members in Belfast wise up and put their party before such sectarianism we will put simply the facts to all those groups we work with so they can judge, And for this site---
-We will give also but the facts and let others judge.

by dear dear Sun Feb 23, 2003 21:00

you've convinced me the anti war movement is a front for the SWP. I'll have nothing to do with it thanks.

by M.k Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:53

I am glad you now acknowledge our work. The SWP front thing I rarely hear about us in Belfast apart from the odd sect member. It gives me a bit of a giggle though if I think of a few people huddled around a table while tens of thousands united against war march by and they shout out, they can bomb and slaughter who they want but we are not marching, we are taking a principled stand because , ITS AN SWP FRONT! I have to admitt that is amusing. On a more serious note no doubt though such was put to those numerous groups and union activists from those who hold little politics and who are only directed by political sectarianism. I wonder though that despite this why all those groups involved have choosen to ignore it and given us such support? Could it be all the work on the ground we put in. What was quite amusing was that when the coalition was deciding on speakers from the many involved in the coalition some one came along from from YAW which no-one had heard of and that person no one had ever seen and started saying we are bringing buses from here, there and every where. To be honest people just looked at each other and smiled

People in the North are getting bored with such non political arguments. Why do you think that the SP and all their groups combined could only get 21 people into the room for their Belfast wide meeting at this time, when even our local community meetings held three times that amount. I am sorry that you want to have nothing to do with it so we will just have to work with the numerous other groups, individuals and the other tens of thousands of others who took part in the march.
If anyones interested the TV programmes spotlight and Talk back on the BBC and I think ITV this week will see SWP members interviewed on issues and will see also a one to one debate of a belfast swp member facing a pro war advocate with members on the BAWM invited in the audience. I am unsure of the time.
Just one other thing that 'phantom lecturers group' as someone put it have organised a teach in details can be found elsewhere on thie site

by Maybe sp wrong and the masses right Mon Feb 24, 2003 13:20

Read Aine Fox another critic of the SWP on the Blanket {This issue as above address} for a more balanced and representative report which gives similar experiences that many have voiced

by henry silke - sp Tue Feb 25, 2003 22:29

Its funny that this is the same SWP that was calling for socialist unity not so long ago. Really I thought after the last election when RBB did very well (and could get elected), but especially after the work in the IAWM the swp have learnt how to work with others. And now it could be time to seriously think about the recent call for unity (at least in elections). After all we managed not to clash for the first time in the last election!

But then I read this and what am I supposed to think. On the one hand its "join with us in wonderful socialist unity" on the other hand hate filled nonsense like this piles out. Its hard to figure out what you're really about. For the moment though if this represents majority or official view in the SWP. I can't see how any form of unity is possible. This mines's bigger than yours thing is a little silly. And I said the same thing on a post from one of our comrades too!!! Anyway if you want unity its not going to happen when you attack us at every chance you get while calling for it at the same time. (it personally makes me very angry) And not even having the guts to sign your name or initials while attacking a party is simply spineless. Especially the one's not admitting what party their in either! (and yes its obvious)
The movement has changed since the 15th and people from all parties should be thinking seriously and not engaging in more sectarian fighting. Now is the time to argue "look at what happened now we can change something." Not "my party did everything your party did nothing is nothing." So whats it to be, same old shit or a serious debate?

On the direct action front I think its good to remeber it is a tactic and not an ideology.

by Magneto Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:52

So now you are calling for unity, trying to make it look as if all other than the SP were flying teir own kites. Could this be intended to divert attention from the long list of facts refarding the build up to the Belfast march?

The inability to tell the truth seems to be endemic to the SP. You really should have a yelloe flahg SP section at the M\arch 1 demo.

by Magneto Wed Feb 26, 2003 14:29

I was down in Limerick for the last few days and was off Indymedia, hence my delay in responding to you. Really you are not in a position to write about anonymous contributors given your own RED , HS etc in the SP. Truth be told, Brian Cahill is not your given name, now is it?

Limerick seems to be a wasteland for the SP. Your Lord Haugh Haugh isnt delivering the goods. Much room for improvement. You really should make a stab at it.

Did you picket Martin when he was visiting the CMH Dundrum last week?

by Interesting Wed Feb 26, 2003 16:53

But thanks for the info