IRSP Anti Racist meeting in Belfast last Tuesday

by Unity is Strength Mon Feb 09, 2004 12:39

The IRSP have done the anti-racist struggle a service by initiating this meeting.
It is a pity that David did not attend, but please do not place the ARN as an organisation of one person or one party.
There is so much scope for development of an all ireland anti-racist strategy which is grass root led and efficent in eradicating racism from Ireland.
Divide and rule is the favorite tool of the oppressor. Anti-racism has to be a broad front.

by Unity is Strength Mon Feb 09, 2004 12:40

The IRSP have done the anti-racist struggle a service by initiating this meeting.
It is a pity that David did not attend, but please do not place the ARN as an organisation of one person or one party.
There is so much scope for development of an all ireland anti-racist strategy which is grass root led and efficent in eradicating racism from Ireland.
Divide and rule is the favorite tool of the oppressor. Anti-racism has to be a broad front.

by Emily Mon Feb 09, 2004 13:17

I am glad to see the irps involved in anti-racist work. Maybe now we will learn about just who is involved in racist attacks i.e: loyalists!

In meetings carried out by the SWP (sorry ARN!) in Belfast and Derry, the speakers fluffed around the issue in a typical swimmers fashion. Opportunism Lenin said is the principle enemy!

No Pasaran!

by Unity is Strength Mon Feb 09, 2004 13:40

Do the racists and race haters really care who is involved in the ARN, so there are Trots of all shades there and yes the SWP is involved, but do people think that an issue such as building an anti-racist broad front will be hijacked by one small and largely irrelevant party..?
Again I do care who stands shoulder to shoulder with me against the racists as long as they are prepared for the fight ahead.
To the credit of the SWP they have worked hard. Let us unite comrades and face the race and class enemies together.

by Eilis - SWP Mon Feb 09, 2004 14:53 Derry

Emily has misinformed you. The meetings on racism held by the SWP were advertised and held as SWP public meetings, with speakers from ARN. At these meetings, the blame for the recent spate of attacks was put squarely and unequivocally on loyalist paramilitaries. However, we did also point out that there is considerable (though not organised) racism in the nationalist community and gave examples of this. The main point of the meetings was to emphasise that racism comes from above, not from the working class as some in the broad front anti-racism movement would argue.

by Emily Mon Feb 09, 2004 22:35

Barbara Muldoon was the guest speaker in the SWP Derry meeting.

Dave Carlin was the guest speaker in the SWP Belfast meeting.

Are they not members of the SWP (and ARN!)?

It is a fact that not once, at the Derry meeting did Ms Muldoon link recent racist attacks in South Belfast to loyalists!

How board is a Broad front for trots like the SWP?

Many now, just as myself who are not alined to any grouping, believe that this is merely another front for the SWP to suck dry many would-be concrened activists just as the last SWP - ANL front which failed to charm anyone.

by BC Tue Feb 10, 2004 09:37

ARn is an extremely broad organisation politicaly it included the strangest bed felllows I am at a loss to understand why irsp is unacceptable. It has to be said that swp have made great play of excluding them from SA as well, I dont see why. Can swp explain?

by Unity is Strength Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:05

I cannot speak for the SWP. The ARN has the strength of being lead by political opposition to racism and not by a political theory.

I could bash the SWP for many reasons but I would be playing the game of divide and rule. The ARN is not in the position to be hijacked, how can activism to destroy racist ideology be usurped, you either do the work or comply to the ideology.

Let us fight the racists politically and physically..there is no place for postering or theorising..

by Unity is Strength Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:07

My theory on why the IRSP has been sidelined is that people fear groups which have developed from armed struggle and the defence of working class areas....

by Anti Racist Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:20

Is the only person who calls Davy, Dave, until now yourself?

As for B Muldoon or D Carlin they have on many cases and publicly in the press stated who was behind the attacks i.e. loyalists paramilitaries. Read the Northern press papers more maybe.

You seem surprised that those two SWP members are members of the ARN, but do you know what is freaky, that all those involved in the ARN bar none know that they are Belfast SWP members, and even more freaky for you, do you know that they still work with them! What's going on here?.

Guess what it gets worse there are even Shinners, IRSP, women's coalition and yes even alliance party members who have also infiltrated the ARN and been there also from the start as working activists. Please though keep this under your hat for the time being!



Just in case though you were unaware the physical attacks on the minority ethnic community have for the time being stopped in that area, there has been a significant decrease in racial incidents over the last period all over, those responsible as per the Irish news have been forced to stand down from their organisations, and yes the BNP have in the last few days been forced to disband in Belfast. A good result I think.

Emily don't get your knickers in a twist over three SWP members in a broad front of over 100 organisations and individuals, instead why not get involved and if you wish put your position and let everyone at the meeting know of the evil ways of the Belfast SWP and why no -one should work with them.

Maybe just maybe though those who have worked with the Belfast SWP over the last six months building up the ARN through thick and thin together from scratch. When not one other socialist organisation was prepared to get involved until two days before the recent rally, which by then everyone knew would be large, may think differently.

Especially of those who criticise from the side rather than getting involved on the ground. People are getting bored with the old politics of division, that is probably why in part that the ARN ha been so successful,. Out with the old and in with the new.

by Garry grape Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:27

My theory on why the IRSP has been sidelined is that people fear groups who have a history of shooting large numbers of their own members. Not a very good advertisement for working with them.

by skafrican Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:36

The purpose of shooting touts/agents and those who maybe a threat to the stability,unity and social cohesion of an organisation was essential in the past.

As people were operating in dangerous times, risking lives and limbs to strike at the hearts of the british military and establishment. Blowing up Lord Mountbatten(Brit viceroy to India, with a perchant for young native boys), was a very risky, dangerous and daring operation. It was essential that discipline was used to maintain secrecy and order in order not to jeapordise INLA operations and the safety of INLA personnel.

by Roderick Bryce Stafford Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:57

The above remark is highly offensive towards rich socially superior people of exceptional breeding whose pedigree and refined taste, allows them to operate above our human, legal and moral laws. As snooty Lord brockets behaviour on tv recently demonstrated, you don't call them the filthy rich for nothing. Not to mention the morals and behaviour of public school boy sexual deviant nad regiment toff Roderick Bryce Stafford.

by Not an IRP Tue Feb 10, 2004 13:05

It wasn't the INLA that offed Mountbatten, it was the IRA. Maybe you are mixing this up with Airey Neave. That was an INLA operation all right and was in the late 70s as well.

The INLA shot far less informers within their own organisation than the Provies did. Yes, there were feuds, but these all arose when renegade factions attacked the organisation. The INLA fought back in self defence. In fact it could be argued that they were too soft in some cases, for example in failing to completely wipe out the IPLO.

by Camy parker bowels Tue Feb 10, 2004 13:27

I think we can all agree whoever blew Lord Mountbatten up, it was for the good of all.

You are talking about the INLA of the past, with regard to internal fueds, we are in a new era of peace and the IRSP is a separate political organisation from the INLA.

I was merely trying to explain internal shootings of the past, given the context in which those shootings took place.

by IRSP Support Tue Feb 10, 2004 14:14

Red Action which was at the forefront of physical confrontation with the NF and C18 in Britain gave its ideological support to the IRSP's position on Irish freedom.

The Republican left is well placed to fight racism both the institutional and community level.

by Eilis - SWP Tue Feb 10, 2004 15:22 Derry

Or if she was, she was dressed as a man. I was there and knew every woman in the room (none called Emily). She might have been one of the four or five IRSPs who arrived 10-5 minutes into Barbara's talk. Still, even that late they would have heard her reiterate her opening point that the recent spate of racist attacks originated in a loyalist protection racket.

As to why the IRSP were not invited to the socialist unity talks - nothing to do with Mountbatten and everything to do with tar-and-feathering or kneecapping working class young fellows whose main crime is being poor. That's most socialists' gut reaction. On a less gut basis, there is also the question of the nationaism of the IRSP. The socialist unity project is an attempt to go beyond the Irish/British nationalism of the North and is comprised of those who put class before community. However, most socialist activists have responded to the question 'should we invite the IRSP?' with a shiver and 'if we do, I won't be there'.

by Not an IRP Tue Feb 10, 2004 16:08

"tar-and-feathering or kneecapping working class young fellows whose main crime is being poor."

I assume you are referring to a recent incident in Ardoyne. You have no clue. Are you claiming that the INLA go about shooting people because of their income level? I really find it difficult to believe that you claim to live in Belfast and do not know what that case was about.

Nice to know the SWP 'shivers' at the propect of working class people attending their little gatherings.

by IRSP Support Tue Feb 10, 2004 17:39

Of course the SWP will shiver at any attempt to talk about real politics that is why they have no support among working class communities in Ireland.

Going beyond the communities..what rubbish as this is a partionist state..I suppose during aparthied the SWP talked about going beyond racism...revolutionary
nationalism is in the tradition of the Viet Cong, the IRA and ETA...your socialism is not based on the reality of fighting the legacy of british colonialism, its allies in this partitionist state and defending the working class..armed struggle was people's politics the IRSP and Sinn Fein have benefitted from not shirking from the sometimes dirty duties of war..

by Belfast SWP member Tue Feb 10, 2004 18:02

What was behind the INLA 14 year old child shooting and maining.This we know, as we do as who was behind the attacks in the village.

As for little gatherings

We recently have initiated and worked with others on the NIPSA walkouts, ARN, Anti War etc. Now if you want to work with others then thats o.k but if you want to go into the politics of the history of the IRSP - INLA and working class unity then lets have it. If not then organise and move on from your history.

by neutral - none Tue Feb 10, 2004 19:57

I feel I must interject. The Swp have a disgusting attitude toward the situation in the six counties. The way in which you approach the situation is actually quite consistent with your approach to just about every issue, that being extremely oppertunistic.

Imperialism exists in many forms, either you are incapable of identifying British imperialism or you willingly ignore it for the purposes of advancing your own agenda, either way, your attitude is not consistent with that of a party representing the interests of the proletariat in Ireland.

by socialist Tue Feb 10, 2004 20:54

"On a less gut basis, there is also the question of the nationaism of the IRSP. The socialist unity project is an attempt to go beyond the Irish/British nationalism of the North and is comprised of those who put class before community. However, most socialist activists have responded to the question 'should we invite the IRSP?' with a shiver and 'if we do, I won't be there'."

HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED

by Emily Tue Feb 10, 2004 21:51

Sadly I was not at the Derry SWP meeting that you mentioned I may have been at, but I know of several comrades who did. And they are not the people who you spoke of who arrived late. However it is a fact that loyalism was not spoke of when referring to racist attacks in Belfast.

This is typical SWP rubbish, the rubbish of which they are well renowned for, both nationally and internationally.

As for attacking the likes of the irps on their brand of ‘nationalism’ it is laughable to say the least.

I attended a well documented meeting (pre-ceasefire days) in central Belfast were E McCann was raving about why he wanted people to voice for social-democratic nationalists i.e. $F

This is a stone that the likes of SWP would rather have you pass by in case of having to justify their grand stand of political opportunism. Isn’t it any wonder that they would shiver rather than have working class socialists attend middle class unity conferences!

by John - IRSP, Derry Tue Feb 10, 2004 22:05

Just on the subject of the SWP's policies towards the Six counties. They and others such as the Socialist Party have a very disturbing outlook on the British imperialist occupation of Ireland.

The fact is that the British are an occupying force who have given no benefit to the people of Ireland whether they are catholic, protestant or neither. They are a negative force in this country.

What are the SWP's real views on this as I haven't really heard them talking on this issue with any seriousness. I am asking here for concrete SWP policies.

by Socialist Tue Feb 10, 2004 23:49

The general direction of swp in the north appears to be away from their general support of republicanism (in fact it could be said that they used to be part of the republican family).
Now they seem to be building links with loyalists groups, they equate irish and british nationalism and seem to be becoming more election and main stream focused.
Is the same true in the south?

by Samantha - IRSP Wed Feb 11, 2004 01:31 Derry

It is with great alarm that I read the comment from Eilis that members of the SWP reacted with a shiver at the very thought of the IRSP being invited to their meetings on alliance building.

I suspect that these people know that the IRSP are a true working class organisation. It is established firmly within working class areas and it's supporters are working class. The SWPers are also aware that their party is based within the universities and they are comprised of mainly middle class do-gooders attempting to save the working class. They know that they will be found out when true revolutionaries enter the room.

Where were the SWP when....

IRSP members were murdered in their beds by the Britsh state or when sectarian pogroms decimated whole working class communities?

For instance how many SWP members have been imprisoned by either capitalist state? Over 500 IRSP members and supporters went through the prison system for standing up to imperialism in Ireland. The SWP in Ireland will not oppose this imperialism in any meaningful way. They will oppose the US and UK in Iraq. They will support Cuba, Palestine, Afghanistan and countless other far away struggles but mention Ireland and they run a mile from the realities.

The IRSM will not accept sectarian "shivers" from middle class wannabes because we have survived a struggle while the SWP were selling their papers on the street corners.

by a friend of durrutti - IRSM Wed Feb 11, 2004 06:42 corcaigh / USA

if the Socialist Wankers Party were based in Iraq they would probably support the IRA but not the insurgents in Iraq.

the INLA makes you shiver - one of many things you've got in common with the ruling class!!!!

by Scath Sheamais - People's Front of Judea Wed Feb 11, 2004 15:14

"As to why the IRSP were not invited to the socialist unity talks - nothing to do with Mountbatten and everything to do with tar-and-feathering or kneecapping working class young fellows whose main crime is being poor. That's most socialists' gut reaction."

Actually, it sounds more like the reaction of a pack of middle class dickheads who have no idea what it is to live in a working class neighbourhood tortured by scumbag drug dealers and joyriders.

You like to stick your noses up, shake your finger and 'tut tut' when the people in Ardoyne, working class people, came to members of the INLA asking for something to be done.

What exactly has the SWP done for the working class, in Ardoyne or anywhere for that matter?

by Scath Sheamais - People's Front of Judea Wed Feb 11, 2004 15:41

"It's the smackdealing paramilitary parasites who have done nothing but harm to the people of Norn Iron, John."

I take it that you're not referring to the IRA or the INLA in that statement? If you are, I'd be interested in looking at your evidence as its an issue that interests me.

by Cruel britania Wed Feb 11, 2004 16:02

It has been proven that it is in fact Her Majestys Brit /FRU agents behind the hard drugs/heroin trade in Northern Ireland, in order to destabilise working class communities, and also smack addicts always tout, in order to get out of jail to get their next fix. So heroin addicts are very useful to HM security forces.

Republican paramilitaries only deal in soft controllable drugs such as cannabis and other light recreational drugs, and having recognised the detrimental impact hard addictive drugs such as heroin have on working class community cohesion.

by Aaron Thu Feb 12, 2004 21:13 Derry

As a member of the IRSP can I categorically deny any involvement in the drugs trade, either soft or hard drugs. This stance was backed up by Eamon McCann at a meeting about two years ago when he was directly asked for his opinions on allegations of this type.

by Brass Monkey fan Thu Feb 12, 2004 22:10

As a way of Combating the link between criminality and Drugs Trade and reducing harm socially, mentally and physically. Or are they on the side of the Prison Officers, gardai, Criminals and Mr Bigs? Brass Monkey

by Cruel britania Sat Feb 14, 2004 00:34

Heroin addiction is a disease, any sensible person would advocate the free distribution of morphine to addicts via the NHS. In fact up untill the 1960's morphine was prescribe on the NHS to addicts.

The root cause of a person's addiction lies in their past/childhood experiences, an addict usually has some traumatic incident of mental/physical/sexual abuse which triggers their need for a physical/mental pain blocking stupefying drug such as heroin.

We live a cruel violent mean world, when our own innocent initial expectations of life do match what we see in our reality, when weak people with low self esteem turn to drugs to help them cope with the harsh realities of life. For some people this is a temporary phase for others a time and empty life consuming addiction.

by Lungful Sat Feb 14, 2004 02:30

'Cruel britania', I agree with your assessment about the causes of addiction. These reasons apply to all kinds of addiction, including nicotine addiction. Nobody would advocate keeping nicotine addicts supplied with their favourite drug, so should not resources be directed toward dealing with the underlying causes of addiction rather than keeping the addiction ticking over?

by brass monkey fan Sat Feb 14, 2004 18:22

to any extent comparable with Nicotine. In fact a chronic addict who gets it on prescription with clean delivery systems and healthcare advice can lead a happy normal even working life without having to deal with criminalisation, a black market, impure product, hepatitis, aids etc. Supplying chronic longterm addicts by prescription also removes the motivation to sell to / create new users to maintain their qwn habits. It as an added benifit removes the motivation for crimes against person and property - the need for lots of $$ for the black market. Smoking is an addiction and it is massively bad for health yet addicts are kept supplied with less and less advertising and education to stop numbers growing happening simultaneously. Why not the same for Diamorphine. Addicts are as things stand used by everyone they are involved with - Mr Bigs, The Treatment Industry, Prison System, Gardai, The Political Establishment when they need a moral panic, The lockem up brigade, and last but not least by Sinn Fein who use addicts as scapegoats to gain traction in disadvantaged communities in Dublin. Please be clear I mean addicts who are not Mr. Bigs. Mr. Bigs love the fact that addicts are criminalised. It means they can use them and abose them through the algebra of need. The way for SF or anyone else to hit the Mr Bigs where it hurts is to destroy the core of their trade by passing responsibility for the supply of diamorphine to chronic addicts into the hands of medical practitioners.

by Major Woody Mon Feb 16, 2004 13:32

see http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/left/letters/fightfibs.html