Anti-Occupation/War Protests

by B. Sun Mar 20, 2005 01:43

Roughly 1,200 people. Several speeches at Garden of remembrance. Marched to near the Dail. More speeches. Speeches/speakers somehow familiar. Nice Day.

by Seesaw Sun Mar 20, 2005 14:22

Very annoyed when RTE Six one News stated only 500 people turned out for Anti War Demonstration in Dublin when it was obviously 1200 or more.

by Clonakilty Observer Sun Mar 20, 2005 15:32

And the court jester award of the march goes to.....Dave Lordan of the SWP. You can always trust Dave to win this prize. This time he stated to the Irish Times that their in-house right-wing nut , Mark Stein should be sacked: grist to the mill to Canada's version of Senator Joe Mc Carthy. The all to predictable 'this is typical of anti-freedom lefties etc.' will soon pour forth thanks from to Daves foolish outburst. Of course this isn't the first time, the last incident springing to mind being his barrage of 'agent provocateur' insults at SWP opponents in the infamous meeting which perceeded the purge of the IAWM.

The sad thing is that while many SWP heads now seem to understand that this sort of immature ranting just reinforces the negative image of their party and have made a genuine effort to move on from this behaviour, Dave's simplistic hackery finds favour with the leadership of the organisation. Stick to the poetry Dave, you'll be doing the SWP a favour.

by Observing Clonnakilty - Headless chickens Sun Mar 20, 2005 16:08

Some questions for observer;
Do I take it that anti war activists should NOT be calling for Steins sacking?
Does this mean that Lies,liars and imperialists propaganda should NOT be challenged.
I take it you also objected when that other fine figure Myers got flack for his bastard remarks?
Aside from a snide swip at this guy Lordan was there any point to your observations?
What the fuck is wrong with calling for his sacking?

by Jon Glackin - Street Seen Sun Mar 20, 2005 16:39

Around 250 people attended Belfast Protest..march and rally at the City Hall, fairly lively with all the usual suspects in attendence!

by Lennon Sun Mar 20, 2005 18:43

The marchers paused briefly outside the offices of The Irish Times on D'Olier Street and booed to protest at the newspaper's use of the columnist Mark Stein. Socialist Workers Party member Dave Lordan said the protesters strongly disagreed with Mr Stein's columns in favour of US President George Bush.

"We'd like the Irish Times to sack Mark Stein," he said.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2005/0319/breaking35.htm

by Chekov Sun Mar 20, 2005 19:16

I don't think that calling for a columnist to be sacked is anything like censorship. The newspaper does not even pretend to present all shades of opinion and makes very conscious choices about which specific points of view are given space. Sacking a columnist because of their views is only 'censorship' if you think that, for example, anarchists and socialists are systematically 'censored' by the newspaper - there are probably zero socialists who write regular opinion columns in the Irish mainstream media and their views are far, far more representative than those of Steyn, Myers and the lunatic fringe of the right wing.

However, despite the fact that I think the charges of 'censorship' are patently ridiculous and without substance, in the prevailing intellectual climate they are bound to be thrown about by the right wingers and their complaints will be taken seriously, without a hint of irony, by the rest of the mainstream. Thus, I think making such demands is, in general, bad PR, although that is hardly a very serious charge to hold against somebody.

But, what I do find ridiculous is the concept of a revolutionary socialist calling on the board of the Irish Times to take action on behalf of the great unwashed. It seems to me to be obvious that the purpose of the Irish Times is to shape the limits of intellectual debate among the 20% or so of the population who make up the liberal intelligentsia, whose support is crucial to the maintenance of the status quo in contemporary Western societies.

The Irish Times and other opinion-forming media sources very consciously and explicitly choose a range of points of view in order to frame the limits of what amounts to 'respectable' debate. This broadly ranges from the liberal to the conservative right, all within a soundly capitalist frame of reference, where the capitalist democracy model of social organisation is universally accepted as being the only model worth contemplating. The debate between the two sides can be simplified to the question of finding the right balance of carrot and stick with which to keep the workers obedient.

A revolutionary socialist calling on The Irish Times to sack one of their journalists is essentially the same as workers 'calling on' the board to replace the nasty CEO implementing cutbacks and is closely analagous to the DUP calling on the IRA to disband. If anything, it serves to show them that they are doing the right thing and framing the debate correctly, as well as providing good material for the right wingers. Most importantly it sows illusions in institutions like the Irish Times and provides them with convenient scapegoats if they do go too far and piss of too many of their readers.

by dblog Sun Mar 20, 2005 20:48

Intersting that you say that "revolutionary socialists" are closley analogous to the DUP

by Chekov Sun Mar 20, 2005 21:00

"Intersting that you say that "revolutionary socialists" are closley analogous to the DUP"

I didn't. I also didn't say that the IRA is closely analagous to the board of the Irish Times.

by checker Sun Mar 20, 2005 21:44

" far, far more representative than those of Steyn, Myers and the lunatic fringe of the right wing. "

Wrong.

the last survey before election found 18% of people here would have voted for bush

a lot more than those voting for "socialists and anarchists"

by aho Sun Mar 20, 2005 22:09

The belfast demo was a bit of a wash out the numbers where poor and the speeches uninspired, time to think again about how the anti war movement goes forward.

by jim bob Sun Mar 20, 2005 22:10

how do you vote for an anarchist?

by Ciarán Ó Brolcháin Sun Mar 20, 2005 23:42

Perhaps in Belfast they can raise the issue of the imperialist presence right here at home.

by Socialist Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23

The Ani war protest in Dublin was hijacked by the Anarchists and the 'radicals' of the left, why did you not take part in the march that was advertised? you went off during speeches and acted completely ignorant toward the other protesters that is what bugs me about your movement there is no compromise with you.

by Why??? Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:54

Why didn't the organisers ask any of the of Pit Stop Ploughshares to speak ?

Why continue with a strategy of shrinking rallies and little grassroots activism against the war?

Why ask why when you know the answer?

by Solialist Mon Mar 21, 2005 13:20

How do you know the pitstop ploughshares were not asked to speak? besides they are hardly supporters of the broader anti war movement in Ireland, all they want to be is matyrs . What exactly have they done to get people mobilised in their areas? and that question is directed at the grassroot people and the anarchists, your like a clique who in the last year has got involved in your movement?

by oh god Mon Mar 21, 2005 13:25

'martyrs' are traditionally dead mr 'socialist'

by Dave - swp Mon Mar 21, 2005 14:19

The guy from the press association asked me why we had stopped outside the Irish Times office. Did we have anything against the Irish times? I also said a a lot of things about the war, occupation, shannon, etc.
I was selectively quoted., Whether the Irish times or the Pres association selected, I don't know.
Many people called for the sacking of Kevin Myers after his recent infamous comments about Bastards.
Are Mark Steyns attitudes to basically anybody who is standing up agaimnst the us empire any less reprehensible? I don't think so.
I wrote a letter to tbne Irish times the week before disputing claims by the American ambassador that on ly half a dozen soldiers deserted.The pentagon says 5500. It bwas not printed. But pro war people are allowed to lie without contradiction time and again in the Irish Times and other newspapers. Mark Steyn has nothing to do with free speech. He is a straightforward propagandist for the neo-con.
Personally I was happy about the March . we were almost completely blacked by the mainstream media in the run up to it and ofn course we are in a different situation tom pre feb 15th. I disagree with figure of 1200. I would put at more than double that. There were still people coming on to Dawson Street when we reached Molesworth. I was also impressed with the youth and vibrancy of the march. some of the speeches i liked, some I didn't, some were ok. Same with the music. Obviously the fight goes on. Check out the international photos on chigao indymedia etc.

by Yaaaaawn Mon Mar 21, 2005 14:26

There where 10,000 at the march.

There where about 1200 and that is the general feeling so don't try and give us the 2500 crap Dave. It does not wash anymore .

by Levidicus Mon Mar 21, 2005 15:07

I saw that the SWP were putting out a leaflet at the anti-war protest that was disgustingly sympathetic to IRA and SF. These people call themselves socialists!!

Yes, the media are right-wing in their attacks on SF. But that doesn't mean you should go and support the sectarian biggots in the IRA and SF. Why do the SWP not criticise the IRA recently?

Working class communities in Belfast are coming out against the thugs in IRA. But the SWP are not. They even describe IRA as a "revolutionary army". FACT.

SWP also say that working class people are not opposed to bank jobs. This is wrong. Yes, working class people have no sympathy with senior bank management and their scams. But remember it was working class people held hostage by IRA and threatened in the Bank robbery. I'd like to see the SWP give that leaflet out to IBOA members (All Northern Bank workers are in IBOA). The fact is that senior management are never effected by armed robbery.

SWP are disgusting and I'd like to see one of them legitimise their leaflet. Do the SWP continue to write off Protestant working class people? Do they write-off bank workers now?

by Joe Mon Mar 21, 2005 15:07

What is the 'broader anti-war movement'?

And why are the ploughshares not part of that movement?

by Badman Mon Mar 21, 2005 15:31

I have been spending some years now compiling a lexicon of Trotskyist terminology. In a few years now you will have the opportunity to buy the completed publication with the title "doubleplusgoodspeak - a user's guide" In the meantime, I can give you a little snippet as a help to translation "socialist's" comment.

"broader movement" - the bit that is entirely under the control of ourselves.

"elitism / adventurism / splitters / martyrs..." Anybody that refuses to follow our commands. Also a general term that applies to any genuinely democratic and/or inclusive campaign structure.

"hijacking" - joining a march at the back without listening to speeches first.

by dave - swp Mon Mar 21, 2005 15:51

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7486

by Yawnier Mon Mar 21, 2005 15:53

Well its easy to unmask our SP friend Levidicus here. Which of the Evil Twins is it? Recognise the style but I can never tell them apart. Typical SP claptrap seeing the Provos as the main problem and therby making British Imperialism out to be blameless.

Interesting that the SP are now opposing Bank Robberies. Wasnt it Marx that said 'Founding A Bank Is A Bigger Crime Than Robbing A Bank'.

Yes let there be no hiding place for the killers of Robert MacCartney but dont pretend that you are oblivious to the fact that International Imperialism is exploiting and using the MacCartney Sisters.

by Gypsy Davy - one of the baby eating types Mon Mar 21, 2005 16:23

The hammer block was part of the march. It was just an alternative to the the trotskyite block. The IAWM has no semblence of being an independant organisation. the IAWM block had an SWP banner at its head. We went to the back, no one was forced to walk with us or coralled into doing anything. We can safely say anyone there knew what they were marching with.

by Clonakilty Observer Mon Mar 21, 2005 16:28

Dave Lordan makes a fair point re selective quoting, I dont doubt that his comment about Steyn was plucked out of a longer interview. But the comment was still foolish because it focused on the person rather than the politics, much the same way as Myers could portray himeself as a martyr even though he brought the deluge down on himself with his vicious attack against single parents. The best way to fight these nuts is to oppose their politics and that of the IT in general not by handing a hostage to fortune calling for sackings.

How come Dave Lordan canmanage to be nice and polite when writing on indymedia, but spews vitriol when dealing with SWP opponents in person?

by Unite Mon Mar 21, 2005 16:49

For anti-war supporters you sure do fight alot.

The divide and rule strategy of the higher powers seems to be working a charm here, they have you squabbling like little schoolchildren. Meanwhile the point and the moment is being missed.

by Ciaron - Pit Stop Ploughshares (personal capacity) Mon Mar 21, 2005 18:37 At Large! 087 918 4552

We weren't asked to speak at the rally.

We were moved by the solidarity of the hammer bloc. We applauded folks as they past by and joined the end of the march - always better to be the guard van than the vanguard uh!

I wish there was a broader anti-war movement to be part of.....there isn't at present. CW has been going on with or without broader movbement ,as they come & go, since 1933. We'll go on and continue to organise with folks laterally and nonviolently and reciprocate with solidarity when folks are before the courts or in chains for resisting this war.

Good scene on St. Patricks Day where we did a vigil on Dame (with the only image of St.Patrick in the whole parade &complete with anti-war quote) and some street speaking. Good scene at Shannon with the atonement thang. Keep on keeping on.
Solidarity
Ciaron

by a fish Mon Mar 21, 2005 18:41

/The guy from the press association asked me why we had stopped outside the Irish Times office. Did we have anything against the Irish times? I also said a a lot of things about the war, occupation, shannon, etc. I was selectively quoted., Whether the Irish times or the Pres association selected, I don't know./

Dave, you've been an activist for a while - certainly you know that when you talk to a reporter they will always 'select' a quote - that's their job.

And certainly you know when you attack the Irish Times, the media are going to put you in poor light?

The message of the day was about the war, not your pet peeves about a columnist you do not like.

The Irish Times made an arse out of the larger movement by making an arse out of you - not difficult.

You took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

by Deirdre Clancy - pitstop ploughshares capacity Mon Mar 21, 2005 22:22

"How do you know the pitstop ploughshares were not asked to speak? besides they are hardly supporters of the broader anti war movement in Ireland, all they want to be is matyrs"

"Socialist", I have no desire to be a martyr in any sense whatsoever. I have been involved in the anti-war movement in Ireland for quite some time (the anti-war movement consists of many organisations, and the IAWM is just one of them). What do you really know about the five people in the pitstop ploughshares as individuals? I strongly disbelieve in the notion of suffering just for the sake of suffering, so to this comment on martyrdom is a nonsense. Speaking for myself, I took action because I was deeply against the state-sponsored terrorism I knew was about to occur, and the Irish government's complicity in it, and felt there was an urgent situation that needed to be addressed in an urgent manner.

If this is a party line that is being thrown out by a socialist organisation, I wonder whether the basis of it is the fact that we spent time in prison. What amazes me about (elements of) the left in Ireland is that it will support acts of civil disobedience in which people risk arrest and/or imprisonment when they occur in another country. It will retrospectively support acts of civil disobedience that are safely in the historical past. But when such action occurs in its own backyard, that's a different matter. Read your own texts, socialist, and the history of your own ideological heritage.

by Language Mon Mar 21, 2005 23:11

I was teaching English a few years ago in Turkey and I asked my class who wanted to be a martyr -- all their hands shot up (seriously, most kids raised both hands!). To be a martyr, last time I checked in a dictionary, means to lay down your life for a cause or belief. It doesn't mean to suffer for the sake of suffering.

In Irish English "martyr" is a dirty word. Indeed in middle-class Irish English so is "patriot" and "patriotic". Funny isn't it what colonialism can do.

by barry Mon Mar 21, 2005 23:28

i believe its quite common.
terrible thing altogether what a lack of dignity can do.
Highly embarassing to watch and listen to as well.

by Devil Dog Mon Mar 21, 2005 23:30

Not as funny as what Republican terrorists can do in the name of "patriotism"...or should that be "tragic"?

by Ordinary Decent Socialist Tue Mar 22, 2005 00:27

"What amazes me about (elements of) the left in Ireland is that it will support acts of civil disobedience in which people risk arrest and/or imprisonment when they occur in another country. It will retrospectively support acts of civil disobedience that are safely in the historical past. But when such action occurs in its own backyard, that's a different matter."

Two words for you: Bin Tax.

by Major Woody Tue Mar 22, 2005 00:36

Well with one exception the SWP were not up too much in the BT either. They took the same line as they did for the war.

The SP on the other hand took the opposite line to that which they took in the anti-war movement.

by R. Isible Tue Mar 22, 2005 01:12

Includes murdering people in Iraq, destabalising democracies in Latin-America, supporting the flouting of the Constitution (of the USA), supporting torture.

by Deirdre Clancy Tue Mar 22, 2005 17:02

"To be a martyr, last time I checked in a dictionary, means to lay down your life for a cause or belief. It doesn't mean to suffer for the sake of suffering.

In Irish English "martyr" is a dirty word. Indeed in middle-class Irish English so is "patriot" and "patriotic". Funny isn't it what colonialism can do."

"Language", I am well aware of the primary dictionary definition of the word "martyr". However, the person I was responding to appeared to me to be using it in the more colloquial, hiberno-English, post-colonial victimhood fashion mentioned above. I tailored by reply to reflect what he/she meant. The connotations of words are pretty fluid anyway over time - I would lay bets there is a dictionary out there that covers that latter, more colloquial, definition of the word. The comprehensive OED probably does, though I don't have it to hand. After all, the word "langer" is now a part of the Collins dictionary...

by curt clay - sdcd (san diego civil disobediants) Wed Mar 23, 2005 02:23 curtmail at lycos dot com POB 22263, san diego ca. usa 92192

From California, and indeed the entire US, where numbers and activitys of protestors are routinely downscaled and under or not covered at all in the mainstream press, I thank you all for your discussion and activism! Please keep objecting to the lack of free press, our unelected president, and our grossly inflated military using Shannon airport, etc. etc. We are pushing for a Dept Of Peace here, even if it is usurped/perverted by the current administration. World opinion will eventually reach and positively influence our ostrich-like populace. What can we all agree upon? may peace prevail, curt

by observer Wed Mar 23, 2005 05:02

Did anybody here take part in the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in Iraq in 1991?