After the Referendum Meet II 2pm Teachers Club

by pl Tue Jul 13, 2004 17:32

Did the campaign against the racist referendum lose votes when it used the word racism?

by Stephen Daedalus Tue Jul 13, 2004 18:40

Yes. But they were warned by many activists not to use that name. However, regardless of name the referendum was passed. Name's biggest problem was attracting activists, many people and organisations did not join that groups because of the name.

by Chekov Tue Jul 13, 2004 18:56

Which organisations and individuals didn't join up because of the name? I honestly don't think there is a single one.

On the other hand there is a long and sorry list of political parties who did next to nothing on the referendum because it would cost them votes and no name would have changed that (unless they had found some way of opposing the referendum on some technicality without appearing to defend immigrants and that would be pretty pointless anyway to in the battle for anti-racist ideas).

by sumdumguy - ... Tue Jul 13, 2004 18:57

many groups joined and paid lip service while playing no real active part in the campaign. Parties like the Greens and the Shinners who signed up but only put in a token effort. I reckon from now on there should be no institutional affiliation to campaigns, that way activists from different groups can still get involved but you won't be giving polotical groups a fig leaf to cover themselves with.

by paul c Wed Jul 14, 2004 01:18

thats a very good idea sumdumguy ive never heard it being suggested before, that really could do some wonders on some campaigns

i was going to write a report of the last meeting but i was waiting for someone who was involved in the whole of the last campaign to write one but they haven't so i shall, im sure it will attract alot of rubbish comments but im willing to take that risk :Pfor those that will get something from it.

Well there was certain amount of glumness, we couldnt even say nearly.... The issue of the naming came up and among about 5 people every theory on it was put forward, most had strong feelings on but it wasn't dwelled on too much.

I got the impression that the campaign didn't have much time to set-up and thats not only with just the name but other issues which may be have done differently has the people had more time.

They was discussion about setting up a follow-up organisation which would work on the issues on the long term. And also be ready the next time when a similar referendums comes along.
Questions which follow from that.
Is one needed?
What about other race/equlity/immigrant orgs out there.
What type of organisation.
Something like the often praised RAR?
Would a new org be more needless bureacracy.

There is some form of money available to organistaions "contesting" referendums which couldn't be availed of cos there wasn't enough people on the org (I think) again more time would have helped. This being the reason for setting up a organistion structure.

They suggestions of solidaity actions.

The issue of parties not doing the groundwork that they were claiming came up a number of times. There was only a number of isolated elections canditates who brought up the issue at the door becuse most felt that it was a vote loser. Although a number of parties stated a NO vote. Most people must have voted Yes while voting for those parties for the numbers to be up at 80%
I would like to say again that there a number of party activist who worked the arses off on the issue but this work wasn't reflected by there respective parties.

The RTE exit poll was often quoted, fairly reliable (as polls go, 3000 ppl, open question) indication of why people voted ...

why did you vote yes?

36% immigration system being abused
27% too many immigrants
20% fall in line with europe
14% children shouldn't automatically get citizenship (re-phrase)
3% cos the government told them to

that means 58% voted for not only for the wrong reasons as put by the governemnt but for racist reasons.

Which led to a discussion on what sort of ill feeling this was racism, xenophobia or pure selfishness this was. Also whether this was a soft racism borne of ignorance or misplaced jealousy or hard idelogical racism.

It was discussed that the such referendums were just a distraction from other issues, and actually transfering the blame for say poor health services to another group of less fortunate people instead the government (any government). That even though there was what was perceived as an anti-governement vote they still swallowed the reasons given for the referendum by the gov and voted with that.

There was a a question (from me) about how to help those most subject to racism and bad immigration laws to be their own voice help them speakout and act to help themselves.

There's also the issue of new immigration laws which need to be drawn up i think, including the laws which the passed referendum now allows? Would more enlightened expand on that.

Also discussion on helping out RAR on their work supporting legally and otherwise those facing deportation and with issues such female genital mutilation.


Just my view of it , attempted to cover what was said rather then what i thought but open to correction from anyobody else that was there.

I end by saying imho opinion 100% of us are selfish 80% showed themselves to more so.

by paul c Wed Jul 14, 2004 04:41

also to cover another eliment iof the discussions was the "ancedote factor"

many agreed it was very large factor in people votes and misinformed opinions

basically exaggerated tabloid-esques stories that your cousin told you had much more power then any facts... and if when some one was well versed in the facts they still woudn;t get past the ancedote actor...

suggestion to tell more positive stories...

by Stephen Daedalus Wed Jul 14, 2004 17:54

I don't think that the name was a major effect on the success/failure of CARR. Although, in my opinion, it did not help.

CARR did not win or lose the referendum. CARR did not make a major impact in the vote due to a lack of resources and organisation. CARR should not go down the road of 'banning' organisations and parties affiliating. I think that many political parties did put in an effort, but not necessarily under the CARR banner. For example the Labour Party, the Socialist Party and SWP did put forward their arguments in the elections. Sinn Fein and Greens did not in my opinion. Unfortunately the Trade Unions did not seriously oppose this referendum despite having the ability to cut right accross the 'immigrants costing us jobs' "argument".

I don't think that CARR members should beat themselves up on this one. I do think that the rights lessons should be learned for any future campaigns. In future there should be an orientation towards getting the Trade Unions and any genuine community groups to actively campaign, there should less emphasis on the "writing letters to the Irish Times" mentality, there should be an emphasis on activity such as canvassing so that activists get to argue the case and get to keep in touch with public opinion.

by Northsider Wed Jul 14, 2004 18:08

I'm guessing you are in the Labour Party.
The Labour Party in my area did not participate in anything with regard to the referendum. The candidate told her workers to avoid it at all costs. The truth of the matter is that some SF, GP and Lab candidates had the balls to raise it but don't be throwing bouquets at those who don't deserve it. By and large the parties who were against the referendum avoided it.

by Southsider Wed Jul 14, 2004 18:11

I would agree that in general the main established parties of Green/Labour/Sinn Fein did by-and-large avoid the issue. The Socialist Party and the SWP did not avoid the issue and put it in their material for the election.

by Stephen Daedalus Wed Jul 14, 2004 18:13

I'm not a member of the Labour Party. I did not, and will not ever, even give them any kind of preference vote in any election.

by paul c Wed Jul 14, 2004 19:40

oh yes that is another thing that came out of the meeting perhaps it wasn't highlighted enough... indeed carr didn't lose the referendum....

--
i think there could have been less press conferences... they just are boring and for irish times readers... :)

i think practical actions would have done the same job, i was browsing around and saw some footage of the throngs of people outside the liberty hall when the campaign against deportation did a sort of open legal session there last year, so many people turned up that the couldn't fit them in there was people argueing to get in.... those scenes of people in need and actually just helping people would be a sort of promotion of the cause and would mean so much more then any press conference...

one should use actions to point across which also helps people at the same time and get different groups interacting....

maybe another problem with the name was't using the word racist as i know people feel stongly about it, i agree that they only called the referendum racist not the voters...

there could have been more humility in the promotion of the no campaign ( its a tactic i often use to disarm critics, along with some amount of genuine humilty in me)...

if the no campaign speakers and activist werre to say hey we're all selfish and jealous and racist, but we're working on it hope you can to. then maybe less people would have been offendied by the carr name if any were att all...

perhaps some were offended by a misunderstand of the no cmapign saying you all f'ing racist and we're all so damned enlightened.

by Adolphus Downey Sat Jul 17, 2004 22:57

That great Irish-American, Ronald Reagan, in 1986 issued an amnesty which legalized the status of millions of illegal aliens. The Bush administration is contemplating a similiar measure. While the U.S. promotes liberal diversity, Ireland is being congratulated by international fascists for its racist immigration policy. Irish radicals should follow the example of Reagan and Bush.

by ex-pioneer Tue Jul 20, 2004 18:26

Did any of you, guys who comment on CARR`s achievement do anything pro-active to campaign for a NO vote?