brief Assembly report

by Ray Fri May 16, 2003 15:47

David Hanly: And with me today I have Roger Cole, chairman of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. Roger, what's this I hear about a march tomorrow, called by the IAWM.
Roger: Well, David, its not a big deal. Its organised by a bunch of unreconstructed communists who spend most of their time arguing about who did what in Russia in 1917, and whether China is 'deformed', 'degenerate' or 'bourgeois'.
Dave: Surely not all of them?
Rog: Oh no, there's also a lunatic fringe of treehuggers in there. Not to mention a bunch or republicans
Dave: The last people you'd expect on an 'anti-war' march, ho ho
Rog: Yes indeedy, ha ha. Anyway, I can understand how some of them mean well, but you know what these people are like - first item on every agenda is the split ho ho
Dave: Hee hee. And what do these marchers intend to do?
Rog: Well, they say they intend to have a peaceful march. But you know their ring-leaders are always going on about 'the spirit of Seattle', and we all know about the violence there. And then the gardai...
Dave:...who will of course only be trying to keep the peace...
Rog: ...of course, but I'm sure that, if things get out of hand they will be well-prepared for every eventuality. Water cannon, dogs, horses, batons, and probably the armed unit on standby...
Dave: So not somewhere to bring the kids then?
Rog: And maybe avoid it if you have a rare blood group. Or are just allergic to crazy commie paper-sellers, because we both know there'll be plenty of them along tomorrow.
Dave: I see. So what do you suggest, if any of our listeners want to do something to oppose the war?
Rog: We've prepared a draft letter, which we'd like everyone to send to Bertie. It reads, "Dear Bertie, please stop the war. PS. Please please please pretty please
Dave: I particularly like that last 'please'. And is this the first such letter you've sent?
Rog: No, we organised a mass letter-writing campaign just last week, and we estimate that over 100,000 letters were sent. That didn't work, so we've decided to organise another campaign, but, as you can see, we've added another 'please' to the end. We reckon that will swing it.

(Yeah, I know, PANA supported the F15 march. But what if they hadn't?)

by Andrew Fri May 16, 2003 15:01

Larry I fail to understand what your boast that yours is bigger then mine has anything to do with it. You trying to muddy the waters here?

by Larry Fri May 16, 2003 14:26

"Let's imagine then on F14 someone from GNAW had got on Morning Ireland and said that 'tomorrows march is organised by a lunaic fringe who represent nobody' would you have thought this was political criticism or an attempt to undermine the march."

The fact is that the IAWM are not a lunatic fringe who represent no-one. The IAWM clearly have public support in their own right. The SP, Greens where successful in the general election and have a base in society. Labour and SF also supported the demo. The IAWM had (and still has) SIPTU affiliated, hardly representing nothing Andrew.

On the other hand there is the GNAW- how many members have you got? how many votes did you win in the elections? where are your bases of support?

by Andrew Fri May 16, 2003 14:06

Let's imagine then on F14 someone from GNAW had got on Morning Ireland and said that 'tomorrows march is organised by a lunaic fringe who represent nobody' would you have thought this was political criticism or an attempt to undermine the march.

Thats exactly what RBB did before March 1st.

by A Defendant Fri May 16, 2003 13:59

"I'm sure if you asked these organisations for help in fundraising (rather than asking for a handout) you may actually be successufll."

Nobody asked for a hand out. One section of IAWM announced only to give money to offical stewards at an anti-war demo. IE not to people collecting money....of all the sections of the IAWM contacted re:defendant support only two responded. The only politcal organisation involved in IAWM which responded was the ISN.

by iawmer Fri May 16, 2003 13:44

What's with all this lurid crap about holding the knife in the back? Chekov ,do try to be a nice anarchist , stay calm and keep things in perspective . So,RBB isn't allowed to criticize you , but you're allowed to criticize RBB. Hmmm .When anarchists start thinking they're above criticism aren't they being just as sectarian and elitist as the groups they condemn?

by Chekov Fri May 16, 2003 12:04

You do realise, sectarian watcher, that your post, complaining about GNAW sectarians was the first mention of GNAW in the whole thread - so why on earth did you appeal to GNAW activists to end the sectarianism? Another random point, seemingly completely unrelated to the above thread, is about the "good bus". What on earth is sectarian about people getting together to organise a bus to go to the protests at Evian and calling it a quirky name? Surely, as a good anti-capitalist you should be applauding people for self-organising such things?

Then, the best bit:

"The IAWM are not attacking GNAW people. IAWM members see them as their comrades in opposing the war. Could some people on the anarchist left stop this sectarian crap."

The day that you wake up to hear a member of GNAW attacking an IAWM protest in the paperes and on the radio (the show with the highest audience of any medium in Ireland), you can start complaining about GNAW's sectarianism.

I for one will never view the people who stabbed our backs as my comrades, at least until they acknowledge their treachery and apologise. You may see GNAW as your comrades. I'd say that most people in GNAW see you (I assume that you are SWP/SP) as the hand that held the knife in our backs. Denying that the knife exists isn't going to get you anywhere - the wound will remain fresh for a long time.

by Tiny Trot Fri May 16, 2003 04:13

No one is arguing that there was no place for criticism of GNAW. Many of us that took part in the DA, or turned up intending to were unhappy with a lot of things. Look at the GNAW mail lists and indymedia if you want to see that.

So, criticism good and it happened, on indymedia, on the mailing lists and in person. That's NOT being dissed.

What IS being dissed is Richard Boyd-Barrett's public attack on GNAW on the radio as spokeman for the IAWM. Also Joe Higgin's attack on the DA as it was happening.

Pretending that this didn't happen and calling for all activists to be part of a happy family whent that family includes cannibal members would be laughable if it didn't actually appear that you believed it.

If the majority of IAWM members are upset with the actions of the IAWM then they either have not expressed that or they're voice is not being heard.

Sick of criticism you may be, but that criticism is not sectarian and is not groundless. Failure to deal with it will condemn the IAWM to a sterile, riven, deluded and ineffective existence.

by Sectarian Watcher Fri May 16, 2003 02:09

I think that GNAW people think that there is massive hostility towards them in the IAWM. The fact is that there is not. We had a disagreement over tactics. It seems to me that the hostility is all coming from one side.

If you were at the IAWM meetings (which you're free to do so) you would see that there is not a hatred from the 'trots' towards you.

Criticism is certainly not sectarianism. I think that deabte and criticism is healthy in a movement- IAWM were entitled to criticise GNAW's plans on March 1st.

I've no problem with people organising another bus. However I do have a problem with calling it 'good' bus. It's saying that people that are involved in parties and other groups are 'bad'.

On Finances: At the IAWM assembly in Liberty Hall there was support for helping activists that have been hauled before the courts. The IAWM is not exactly rolling in cash. But I'm sure IAWM members will be willing to get stuck into fund raising if you asked. And IAWM members will certainly give all other types of support to those facing charges.

by Tiny Trot Fri May 16, 2003 00:43

Or do they just both have the same colours?

The trots already did their attack on the anarchists. They did this under guise of the IAWM. No one in the IAWM stood up to oppose either Richard Boyd-Barret's public radio interview (as spokesperson for IAWM) in which he attacked and belittled GNAW, or condemned Joe Higgin's infamous "virtual warrior" speech, delivered not far from where the violent face of the State was confronting GNAW activists.

No doubt there are many in the IAWM that oppose this behaviour, but either they aren't saying it, or else there is no mechanism for them to say it.

Whichever of the above applies it would be fair to ask: with "comrades" like that who needs enemies?

The goodbus is a tongue-in-cheek name chosen by people that experienced unpleasant hectoring in SWP organised buses in the past and said "never again".

Criticism is NOT sectarianism. Calling criticism sectarianism is stifling criticism.

Meanwhile, how much money is the IAWM committing to the support of their GNAW comrades?

by Sectarian Watcher Thu May 15, 2003 23:05

I'm sick and tired of people attacking those that were opposed to the pulling down of a fence in Shannon on March 1st.

It was a question of tactics. Some in the movmenet didnt think it a good idea to do that particular action at that particular time.

The IAWM are not attacking GNAW people. IAWM members see them as their comrades in opposing the war.

Could some people on the anarchist left stop this sectarian crap. There was a difference over tactics a few months ago...get over it! Stop bitching about how 'trots' hate you (which isn't true) and stop trying to score petty points by organising a 'Good' bus to Evian (Suppose GR buses are the 'Bad' and 'Ugly' buses!)

by David Rynne Thu May 15, 2003 15:14

Talk to any direct actionist and he/she will say that they recognise and support those who march and demonstrate in numbers for peace. Talk to any dedicated swp member and he/she will try to discourage/discredit direct action. They are not the movement because they are trying to divide it. it's totally counter productive and frankly depressing. It does not take anything tostand up and offer public support for those who put themselves on the line to try to make a difference

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 10:07

good idea. but i dont think party members should be given a vote unless they are active in and members of the campaign.

if you had one member one vote, then you might have a more democratic IAWM. provided of course, those responsible for registering membership were seen to be independent by all sides.

by Kenneth Owende Tue May 13, 2003 23:46

Here's a contraversial one for you. I think that there should be proxy votes. I think that party members and memebrs of local groups should be able to give their vote to someone else at the meeting.

This would allow people to attend side meetings that can actually can make proper decisions, and not having to sit through the entire plenary session with some mind-numbing motions by middle class cranks and hippy-dippy fluffs (as Pettycoat accuratly calls them).

by pat c Tue May 13, 2003 14:21

if you want to see some real strong reactions (not from me) to the sp, go to

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=47473&start=30

by Pettycoat Luce Tue May 13, 2003 12:20

As someone who sat throught the whole IAWM Assembly, it has to be said that it wasn't as good as it could have been.

On the plus side it was agreed to keep the IAWM going as an organisation - a very good idea in the light of Bush's war without end on freedom.

The last session was definitely the worst - a bit of planning from the steering committee before hand could have improved matters. It did't even have time to go through the sackful of motions before they were unleashed on the unsuspecting delegates.

I found myself nodding off at RBB's final, been there, heard that speech. But nothing could have prepared me for the fist-chewing awfulness of some of the contributions from the floor. Some very good contributions, but unfortunately there was also a large number of middle class cranks and sanctimonious hippy dippys expounding their fantastical schemes on making the world a better place. You know that things are bad when you look forward to the Sparts for some light comic relief!

A suggestion for the steering committee for the next time: Sponsor an all day, mind, body, spirit workshop on holistic approaches to world peace (preferably in a different building to where the main assembly is being held). This will attract cranks, hippy dippys and indeed most of the greens like iron filings to a magnet. Then the rest of the delegates can get down to having a proper debate about issues such as the pathetic performance of the union bosses during the campaign. An issue which was barely touched on during the entire assembly.

by Colin Chalmers - Sussex Action for Peace Tue May 13, 2003 11:29

STOP THE WAR COALITION STEERING
COMMITTEE - MY LAST UPDATE

I'm posting my resignation letter to the Stop the War Coalition Steering
Committee for anyone whose interested.

I resigned a while ago and have had no reply to my letter - I don't
expect it will be shown to anyone apart from the SWTC officers. The future
strategy of the STWC is mapped out by the SWP's John Rees, a leading member
of the STWC at http://www.swp.org.uk/SR/274/SR1.HTM

The coalition aims to become a social democratic alliance run by the SWP
that ignores/fails to understand the growth of the global justice movement
as anything other than a nieve, idealistic source of membership for a more
mature, union-orientated organisation quickly created and dominated by the
SWP (Rees says of the STWC that "Its precursor was the anti-globalisation
movement"). The reality of who opposed the war (muslims, schoolkids, people
from a variety of backgrounds) is replaced with a fantasy (unions) that fits
the formula. I had thought the SWP and their allies in STWC were serious
about working with people involved in anti-capitalist groups that don't
accept their dogmas but I didn't find that. You just get abuse with no hope
of influencing anything. So I resigned.

I should maybe emphasise that I think the coalition has done an excellent
job of organising big marches - but probably mistook riding a wave for being
the wave. It's a problem sects have.
Anyway...

29th April 2003

Dear officers,

At the last two meetings of the Stop the War Coalition Steering Committee
I have been attac! ked for being "divisive" by the chair for voicing an
opinion that he disagrees with. I am no longer prepared to be subjected to
these unwarranted personal attacks - attacks which no one seems to think are
at all out of order - and am therefore resigning from the committee.

I was elected to this steering committee as a delegate for Sussex Action
for Peace, a local anti-war group based in Brighton. I have attended all the
meetings of the steering committee. I have never been emailed about these
meetings despite frequent requests and assurances that I would be. I was
given the wrong time for the last meeting. I get the distinct impression
that I am one of the few, if not the only, delegate from a local group
outside London, attending these meetings. But let that go.

At the meeting on 29th April John Rees of the Socialist Workers Party said
that the coalition needed to "increase its social weight", something that
was different from the number of people involved. He said that while Muslims
helped and the support of the Daily Mirror helped ,trade unions were key to
giving the coalition this "social weight".

John is entitled to his view. I don't agree with it. I kinda thought the
point of coalitions was that people from different political viewpoints
managed to discuss differences while working together for common aims. It's
what my local group, which involves people from a wide range of viewpoints,
does. Not this committee.

When I spoke I disagreed with John's view, which I believe idealises the
labour movement and offers an inaccurate assessment of the forces that have,
and will in the future, oppose the warmongers. I also pointed out - a fact
well known to thousands of anti-war activists - that the coalition
repeatedly downplayed or ignored demonstrations at RAF Fairford (no one had
mentioned the massive recent demons! tration at Fairford until I did, 1?
hours into the meeting). Finally I objected to the fact that the STWC
website
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=180303 describes as `anti-war' 57
Labour MPs who did not oppose the government's motion to go to war but omits
the names of 68 non-Labour MPs who did oppose the government's motion.

I have no objection to people disagreeing with me - Lindsey German did, in
a reasonable and reasoned way. That's democracy. What isn't acceptable to me
is to have a chair who consistently abuses his position to attack me for
voicing my opinions by, amongst other things, calling me "sectarian" and
"divisive". Sectarian? - on behalf of whom? Divisive? - I have argued with
many anti-war activists who believe the coalition is anti-direct action,
pro-Labour and entirely dominated by the SWP that they should work with it
because we achieve more together than apart.

I'll find it pretty hard to do that anymore. Congratulations on your
success against "divisiveness".

Colin Chalmers
Sussex Action for Peace

by A Defendant Tue May 13, 2003 11:15

Billy could you get in touch at: [email protected] (want to make sure we havn't duplicated our efforts). Pretty much similar experience myself - regular punters more than happy to give, left outraged.

by Finances Tue May 13, 2003 11:14

Why should organisations that have their own financial difficulties and problems throw money at people who took actions knowing that there would be a good chance of fines.

You may find this hard to believe but the IAWM, SP, SWP etc are not made of money.

I'm sure if you asked these organisations for help in fundraising (rather than asking for a handout) you may actually be successufll.

by billy Tue May 13, 2003 03:14

At one of the anti war marches (i think it was late march or april) i was collecting for the people fined after March first.
It was wierd the folk who gave me money, oul lads and young ones chipped in tenners,joe soap up from the countryy for the day clapped me on the back, rsf all gave money as did the commies and the workers party, and even though i really dislike their politics i thought he level of practical solidarity they were offering was great.
The shinners weren't bad (the older ones that is, most of the younger members weren't great, thae anarchists were well decent, so were the indymedia heads that i met.... the trots on the other hand were terrible!! in fairness kieran Allen gave a few quid and so did some of the swimmers i'd know personally, by and large though the swp and sp were shite!! (so were socialist democracy in case anyone thinks i was leaving them out!!) moast of the time the conversation went something like this:

Me: support the protesters down at shannon?
SAP/SP//: yeah mate, i'll supprt the MASS Movement (sneer)
Me: aw c'mon theres over 1600 euro in fines and legal costs!!
SWP/SP: (mumble as they walk away) bloody elitists
Me: (mumble) can't wait till you get busted pal...

whats the moral of the story?

not sure but the fact that the general public was more willing to support people arrested on a demo than the two trot parties got me thinking...

by Cork wan Tue May 13, 2003 00:55

Does Pat C really exist or is he a computer programme designed to react every time the letters sp appear on indymedia?

by Pat C Mon May 12, 2003 19:18

but i agree with the sentiments. Criticise and comment on what happened at the IAWM meeting. Not what might or (more likely)might not be happening in the SP re council seats.

by Pat C Mon May 12, 2003 19:12

This website is not for personalised attacks on others. It is for news items and comments on those news items. This thread is about the IAWM asembly, please keep it on that topic.

by Maggie Mon May 12, 2003 17:46

In response to the 'oh and I heard malarky', for your information it was Galway Alliance Against the War. Many people heard it announced from the platform.

by An offendant Mon May 12, 2003 17:24

I contacted 'every' defendant and they all claimed not to know 'A Defendant'. Oh and the 'I heard...' malarky, do us all a favour...

by Durutti Mon May 12, 2003 12:50

Instructions seem to be coming from the Troika to keep the debates off Indymedia. Their newer members are discovering things which the Elders of the SP have hidden or lied about. In particular the Trotsky Twins are saying that Indy is not the place for such debates!

Given Oisin & Finghins record, this is laughable indeed.

by A Defendant Mon May 12, 2003 10:53

"One of the big pluses was our support for the activists before the courts and those who have already been fined."

Is that a fucking joke???? I contacted every section of the IAWM about defendant support and got practically no response. Also I heard that one section of the IAWM told people at a anti-war demo to only give money to people bucketting in official stewards jackets i.e. NOT to the people collecting for defendants. If this is about to change I'd love to hear it.

by Trim Reaper Mon May 12, 2003 10:15

At their National Committee meeting prior to the IAWM conference, the SP hardened their line even further. The line now is that all the direct actions damaged the possibility of strike action by Shannon workers. further DAs are to be opposed because when a DA succeeds, members of the Airport POlice on duty are disciplined. Therefore DAs are to be characterised as attacks on workers. The SP have mnow codified what some of their members have been saying all along.

The problems of the Joe Higgins Council seat succession continue. Things are still deadlocked, Little Lenin MacLoughlin wants to get the seat for the rest of the term so that he as Supreme Leader of the SP will have a higher profile.

He believes that Joes prescence in the existing Council Area should be enough to retain the sear there. The National Committee couldnt agree on a resolution. This one will run and run.

by Seamus - (Non party affiliated) Mon May 12, 2003 10:13

I was there and I didn't see anyone claiming owernship of anything, thats nonsense.

While I did have problems with the structure of the days events, overall i think it was successful, it certainly got rid of my despondency about the movement, and it was great to see such representation from all parts of the country.

I thought alot of the people who were complaining about issues were just being fractious, as rather than do it in a constructive manner they were being overly aggressive and confrontational, I think some people present were just pathologically dissident.

In terms of moving forward I think progress was made, it was generally agreed that emphasis needs to be put on building the movement within the trade unions on a local and national level, as this is what may have caused the huge amounts of support on F15 not to translate into action on Day X. I think this is a great idea as it means that when the next installment of the war on terror begins we might have some clout to do something.

It was also agreed that the IAWM would endorse protests at the upcoming WEF meeting in Dublin, which makes great sense, as if there is a vocal anti war presence at these it might help reinforce in the public mind that these wars are directly connected with big business.

In the short term the focus seems to be on highlighting the ongoing occupation of Iraq and the plan for protests on US independence day to highlight this is a great idea.

So overall I think the outcome was very good. One of the funniest moments of the day I thought was the Spartacists trying several times to accuse everyone of being class collaborationists for mixing with the green party and the labour party. Good ol' sparts always provide a good laugh!

by Johnny Mon May 12, 2003 00:48

It would have been fine if the SWP and SP hadn't claimed 'ownership' in such an obvious way. Nobody owns this movement.

by Chekov Sun May 11, 2003 15:59

And, as I'm not a member of the IAWM, I didn't stay for the motions. From what I saw, I'd describe the whole thing as a farce - 50+ motions after 15 minutes of debate from the floor is hardly much of a forum!

by non SWP observer. Sun May 11, 2003 14:48

I dont think it was that great in the end - there were the same people making the speeches and talks as always, and even when we broke into groups it was still the same people giving the reports back as before. There were very few new faces or voices that werent people from the SWP or GR.

Also Richard Boyd Barrett at the last meeting of the day kept on talking and talking despite the woman with the blonde hair asking him to stop to a round of applause from the majority of the crowd. He was giving the same speech he gave at the mayday rally at Liberty Hall but it was a waste of time because he was preaching to the converted. Having so many motions to go through at the end of a long day was quite exhausting too.

And apart from saying we should try to make the IAWM bigger and bigger, what else did we resolve to do in the future?

by Suggester Sun May 11, 2003 13:44

I think that the Assembly yesterday was good as there was still alot of people that see themselves as activists in the Anti-war movement.

However I do think that the steering committee need to take more control of the proceeds of the Assembly. I think that the workshops could have worked better and been focused on discussion on the political situation as opposed to just ideas for future activity.

Maybe the steering committee should adopt a set of Standing Orders for national meetings so that we can 'guillotine' debate and regulate the submission of motions.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People (individual) Sun May 11, 2003 13:10

No organisation is perfect but yesterday you tried your best.
I just want to say thanks for all your anti-war work.
When things were quiet people from SWP and SP and a few others gave us a voice on the streets. The numbers were small and we weren't impressed with everything you shouted but you were there - that's what matters.
Yesterday was a good day. Not everyone will be 100% happy but was there ever a meeting where everyone - including the possible plants - were 100% happy?
One of the big pluses was our support for the activists before the courts and those who have already been fined.
Please let us keep this movement alive

by Awad Nasser Sun May 11, 2003 13:02

Golly – Aoife was so anxious to get her spoke in first on Indymedia, she forgot to post her provisional report on the Irish Anti-War Website. Guess she's cottoned on to the fact that the real debate is being conducted here.

by Josef Sun May 11, 2003 11:55

Wow! I'm impressed! you people have really got your shit together. Almost military precision.

by Aoife - again Sun May 11, 2003 11:44

Don't forget the Fairview Anti-War Group have a fundraiser this Thursday. Funds will be split between the IAWM and the Shannon Defence Campaign. Details should be on our website somewhere.