SF Ard Fheis Votes to Boycott WEF

by is there any truth to the rumour Sun Feb 29, 2004 02:21

was born at the WEF

by ) Sun Feb 29, 2004 19:16

The motion to decriminalise cannabis was passed but then it was announced it had been a mistake and the motion had been in fact rejected.

by John Meehan Sun Feb 29, 2004 22:11

That is a very good practical position on the WEF - well done Ógra Shinn Féin.- I suppose people might try to attend a future WEF in an "individual capacity".

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:47 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The screw up on the cannabis vote was my fault. I was in charge of the Ard Fhéis Steering Committee over the weekend. There was a vote called on the decriminalisation motion and it was defeated by ten votes. For some reason, I blame exhaustion at this point, I went up and told the Chair it had been PASSED by ten votes. As soon as I heard him read it out to the Ard Fhéis I realised I'd fucked it up.

He was given the correct result, a revote was called because in fairness from the floor it looked a wee bit dodgy and it was defeated again by a slightly larger margin.

The motion on boycotting the WEF was passed, and the Ard Comhairle amendment calling for a review of the party's position, instead of a boycott, was defeated by ten votes to loud applause and the great joy of this teller.

The party also passed a motion condemning the social partnership process and stating that no proposed coalition deal could be considered unless it included an absolute commitment of no privatisation or selling off of state assets.

by Mise Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:57

Does the WEF motion have any impact?

As far as I understand it, its an ógra motion, so the senior party can go off and attend WEF meetings, while the junior branch can complain about it at the same time.

This is really the best example of having your cake and eating it. Essentially SF will be both inside and outside the big tent of capitalism.

Who says they won't go far.

by o as if. - :-)barren, bereft and hurt to the quick Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:14

Terrible what the dope does to the tallyman.
:-)

by sf Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:34

This motion is binding on the party as a whole, while proposed by oghra it is now accepted as party policy. Those who choose make comments should know their facts first, and indeed get to know how a democratic party operates.

by BF Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:41

Also Justin the party passed a motion that no money would be accepted from Coke while the current situation continues in Columbia. P.S. I thought you did a fine job as teller and on steering although I was a bit disappointed that you never arranged for me to sit up with the big boys on the stage. Probably a result of sour grapes because I bumped you out in the economic motions.

by Saoirse Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:46 Derry

The decision not to take part in any coalition unless privatisation is ruled out will be very welcome here in the North. Sinn Fein have tended to blame their implementation of privatisation via PFIs on the nature of the Executive, i.e. that it is a coalition. So, hopefully we will not be seeing a partitionist approach on this one!

by Mary Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:53

Was there a motion passed supporting the Coke boycott?

by bf Mon Mar 01, 2004 13:07

Yes, a motion was passed unanimously supporting the ban on coke, there was an amendment also recognising the Dublin coke workers work on the issue of union rights.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Mar 01, 2004 13:25 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Couple of quick points. First of all, the motion was proposed by Ográ Belfast, which is a structure within Sinn Fein and has the same rights and powers as any structure. The motion was proposed by them and passed and does bind the senior party as sf pointed out.

How I have missed Indymedia, where the initial response is to condemn out of ignorance anything from a party you disagree with.

There were motions passed on Coca Cola:

Motion 132 Sinn Féin supports the trade union movement in Colombia in their struggle for existence. We also reject any donations to the party from corporations who are involved in the exploitation of workers in developing countries.
Clancy/O’Callaghan Cumann, Limerick

Motion 133 This Ard Fheis supports the boycott of Coca-Cola in line with the Sinal Trainal Trade Union in Colombia, whose members have been murdered, imprisoned and terrorised. Tom Smith Cumann, Dublin
Padraig Pearse Cumann, Derry

Motion 134 This Ard Fheís deplores the campaign of murder and intimidation against workers at Coca-Cola plants in Colombia. We call for public denunciation of all human rights abuses visited by multinationals and their host governments on workers in South
America and in “free-trade zones” around the world. Monaghan Comhairle Ceantair

BF, I finally get the chance to speak against social partnership knowing we're going to win the vote and I get bumped. Grudges are long held though the compliment is welcome.

This is the motion on privatisation and coalition:
Motion 160 This Ard Fheis, while restating its position that any proposed
coalition deal in the 26 Counties would be decided by a Special Delegate Conference of the party, affirms that no deal will be sent to such a conference without containing an absolute commitment of opposition to the privatisation of our remaining publicly owned companies and institutions.
Dublin Cúige

So Saoirse, it is 26 Cos in application. The party's view on PFI/PP is the same North and South but the unique context of the Northern state creates a difference in practical terms. Since no doubt this will be followed by a slate of anti-SF, youse are all sell out bastards and right wing bourgeois nationalists I will merely point people interested in an informed debate to http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies/document/151 and hopefully people will read it and discuss it with me by email because I doubt the debate here will be worth tuppence.

by Chekov Mon Mar 01, 2004 13:42

1 critical (and apparently ill-informed) comment among 12, most of which are congratulatory. Not really justification for indy-bashing.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Mar 01, 2004 14:07 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

The calm before the storm Chekov. Or maybe Indymedia users will surprise me with a non-sectarian well-informed rational debate conducted in a comradely and open manner.

Because we see so many of those.

by Dave D Mon Mar 01, 2004 14:40

Maybe now you could try convincing your scumbag nationalist mates to hand over the semtex and the Khadafi guns.

Yes to private guns, no to cannabis - great logic for a safer world.

by Chekov Mon Mar 01, 2004 14:43

There are probably no more than a handful of indymedia users who play at the denunciation by numbers game against SF or any other party. You know the ones that I mean: SF is a capitalist party, SF is a blah blah....

In the past you have been well able to handle such superficial criticisms and they actually end up making SF look good. So why be afraid of a few puppies and a couple of 'tout-ridden thugs' (to quote a SF poster on an earlier related thread)?

These posters are not very popular among the users of the site and it is hardly fair to claim that they are representative of the whole. Over a million hits a month and about 7,000 distinct hosts a week means that they are in a serious minority.

by Hebe Mon Mar 01, 2004 14:44

So Dave, you are against private guns. Does this include the 120,000 legally held weapons in the possession of the loyalist community in the North? Its almost impossible for a taig to get a gun legally.

Whats your position on State held guns?

by Janus Mon Mar 01, 2004 15:09

Have to say Chekov, I think there's a lot more of them than you might like to think. While I think Justin is being a bit arrogant and dismissive in his tone, the point is pretty valid.

Good news on the motions though.

by Dave D Mon Mar 01, 2004 15:24

Does this include the 120,000 legally held weapons in the possession of the loyalist community in the North?

YES

Whats your position on State held guns?

Should be determined by the theat of violence. If criminals don't have guns then the state doesn't need them either. Of course in any society there is likely to be a least some level of violent gun crime. The North obviously suffers more than many other part of the world.

If some idiot tryid to go on a shooting spree in Grafton Street, I'd like to think the cops could do more than charge him with wooden sticks.

by Hebe Mon Mar 01, 2004 15:29

But I'm sure it wouldnt worry you if the cops used the guns to shoot unarmed protesters.

by Watcher Mon Mar 01, 2004 15:45

This is the guy who spreads pro Zionist propaganda and also supports the Colombian government death squads. He has no problems with Right Wing militias holding guns.

by Saoirse Mon Mar 01, 2004 15:49 Derry

Chekov seems to think that I am ill-informed because I raised criticisms of SF's different policies North and South in relation to privatisation. Actually, I am very well informed as my IT technician job was transferred from public sector to private as a result of an education PFI scheme. As a result, I am paid less for longer hours, have fewer rights than previously, my union is ignored and, all in all, my working conditions have been greatly affected. As it happens, I work in further education so it was an SDLP Minister, not a SF one who was responsible for MY job being privatised. However, as a former republican, I am horrified to think that a party I used to vote for was involved in privatising jobs in health and primary/secondary education and - despite any policy papers to the contrary - Martin McGuinness on UTV debate during Assembly elections was very clear that he and SF supports PFI.

I am glad that their position South of the Border is going to be different to that in the North, but since I have suffered under a coalition government that SF was part of, I find it hard to accept Justin's rhetoric. I realise I will be given the line that the Assembly Executive is not a coalition but power-sharing, but when your job has been privatised and is now in danger of redundancy because of the high cost of PFI repayments, it is hard to see much difference!

by Chekov Mon Mar 01, 2004 16:04

I was referring to the post above by 'mise'.

by John Mon Mar 01, 2004 16:04

Justin mentions Partnership. Can any SF'ers let us know what the SF position on Partnership is?

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Mar 01, 2004 16:16 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

John. This is the motion on partnership passed at the Ard Fhéis:

Motion 167 This Ard Fheis states our complete opposition to the current so-called Social Partnership process, which has failed to deliver for Irish workers and the low-paid in particular; has facilitated the privatisation of public utilities; has seen the introduction of anti-union legislation and during which time this state has become one of the most unequal in the Western world.
Dublin Cúige

Saoirse makes a number of good points but I THINK I saw the same UTV debate that he did and McGuinness did not state that he supports PFI. No member of SF would say that as party policy is opposed to it.

What he DID say was that SF had implemented PFI, and he explained the reasons behind it. Frankly I thought he could have been more aggressive on the point but our policy is there.

I understand to someone who has seen their job privatised there's little difference, but I think it is unfair not to recognise the different economic powers in the Six Counties and I have yet, despite repeated requests, heard someone else come up with a sensible alternative as to what SF could have done. Collapsing the Executive would have had far more serious implications than merely for privatisation.

Anyway, job done for the day. I'm away again.

by Republican Mon Mar 01, 2004 16:17

Different members of SF have differing views. Thats normal in a democratic party. It would be a very strange organisation that dictated to its members on how they should vote in ballots on their pay and conditions. SF of course issues reccomendations, but members are allowed to openly disagree with leadership policies.

Even fulltimers are allowed to openly disagree with the leadership. On Shannon, Justin was able to say that he disagreed with the SF position on the 1 March demo. Can you imagine what would happen to an SWP or SP fulltimer who disagreed in public with the Party line?

Why, they might even be forced to "resign" their position, they might then be forced to "resign" fron the Party. If their partner had been selected as an election candidate, the Party might then reconsider this and state that they had not come to a final decision on what candidates were standing.

by bf Mon Mar 01, 2004 16:19

Must be a quite day in jack land justin?

by Leon Mon Mar 01, 2004 16:57

This is anecdotal but a relation of mine who doesn't have a GB passport (unlike alot of so called nationalists in Ulster) put 'British' in the nationality section of the Ulster Gun License application form.

(BTW Hebe you might be unaware that 'Taig ' is a racist or derogatory term; if you already know that remember it isn't cool to hurt people's feelings even if it makes you feel tough).

by Hebe Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:25

Taig is the term of abuse thats used by loyalists towards catholics, whatever else you are, you're not dumb. You understand the context in which I used it. Its worth noting that some fenians are reclaiming Taig in the same way that gays reclaimed queer and blacks reclaimednigger.

by Dave D Fri Mar 05, 2004 18:00

If your going to accuse me of supporting Columbian Death squads etc etc please provide a link to my posted article. For the record I never advocated the positions attributed to me above. So unless someone else was using the same name there just wild lies.

by Watcher Fri Mar 05, 2004 18:16

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60129

Here you are backing up those who spread Pro Colombian Government propaganda.