Latest election result for Respect

by Salma Yaqoob Sun Jul 17, 2005 03:54

Our leaders must speak up


Salma Yaqoob
Friday July 15, 2005
The Guardian

When Tony Blair describes the London bombings as a perversion of Islam, I agree. The shoddy theology that endorses the killing of innocent people must be challenged. The chilling calculation peddled by some fanatics legitimises innocent deaths as collateral damage for the higher cause of shattering the complacency of western governments and getting western troops out of Muslim lands. To sacrifice your life, on the battlefield or in a suicide bombing, is to achieve the high status of martyr. And the innocent people killed will go to heaven anyway, so their suffering and that of their loved ones is worth the political aim.

AClearly this is a convoluted equation, but one we must pay attention to if we are to get to grips with the threat that faces all of us in Britain today. What is regrettable is that the more simplistic version offered by Tony Blair is setting the parameters of debate. According to him the "perversion of Islam" driving a minority of Muslims boils down to this: hatred of the western way of life and freedom means that Muslims (wherever they live) should kill and bomb people to force them to be Islamic.
This formulation ensures that any contextualisation will remain absent. The suffocating consensus already achieved may well protect Blair (how can he permit any linkage to the Middle East without implying his own guilt) - but it does not protect ordinary British people.

Moreover, as British Muslims we must brace ourselves for a backlash - coming not from ordinary people, but from the need of politicians to deflect attention from their own role in this tragedy.

Because what is undeniable is that the shoddy theology - no matter how "unIslamic" and easily condemned by most Muslims - is driven by political injustices. It is the boiling anger and hurt that is shaping the interpretation of religious texts into such grotesque distortions. Such extreme interpretations exist only in specific political circumstances - they certainly do not predate them, and the religious/political equation breaks down if there is no injustice to drive it.

This leaves British Muslims in a very difficult place. To bring in these wider questions requires them to dissent from the government line. This is difficult for them, keen as they are to avoid further marginalisation. However, if Muslim leaders succumb to the pres sure of censorship and fail to visibly oppose the government on certain foreign policy issues, the gap between the leaders and those they seek to represent and influence will widen, increasing the possibility of more dangerous routes being adopted by the disillusioned.

This cycle of violence has to be broken. By confining analysis to simple religious terms, however, politicians are asking the impossible of our security services as well as Muslim leaders. No number of sniffer dogs or sermons denouncing the use of violence against innocents can detect and remove the pain and anger that drives extremists to their terrible acts. The truth is that shoddy theology does not exist without a dodgy foreign policy.

· Salma Yaqoob is national vice-chair of Respect and chair of Birmingham Stop the War Coalition

by . Sun Jul 17, 2005 15:10

This is a crap result, no matter how you dress it up. Respect was completely hammered by the Labour Party!

George Galloway won a seat in parliament because he's an impressive politician with charisma, not because of Respect. The party's results elsewhere are only good if measured against the rubbish results achieved by far-left parties. But is that what we are supposed to compare it too? Hasn't Respect got larger ambitions? If so, they are doing very badly indeed thus far.

by Dotty (.) watcher Sun Jul 17, 2005 19:12

I see you're talking your usual load of crap dotty (.). I fail to see how 14.5% is a crap result dotty (.). 14.5% is 1/7 of the total vote dotty (.). In Ireland you would get a Dáil seat with 14.5% of the vote dotty (.) thanks to our excellent Proportional Representation (PR). Do you want to scrap our PR system of voting dotty (.)?

by Conor McGowan - ISN Mon Jul 18, 2005 09:45

What are the view of Irish SWP members on Respect? I've asked this same question some 5 times on these boards, and still dont know.

Any answers would be appriciated. Whatever your opinion, it is a big step for a leftist party, and I think its just not good enough that the Irish SWP wont come out with a clear statement on the issue.

by Raonaid - none Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:24

The SWP members I've spoken to are very much in favour of Respect. Indeed, it would be difficult to oppose this new coalition. From opposition to the war on Iraq, to support for pension rights and campaigns against racism, privatisation & anti-social behaviour orders, Respect certainly stands out as a breath of fresh air to the staid sloganeering and ridiculous bickering of much of the far-left.

by colin Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:51

A 'good election result' can be attained by an SWP front in Ireland tommorrow if they dropped socialism, gave themselves a more 'accessable' name -equality, or some other nonsense name - developed a purely reformist programme and allied itself with a religion - I suggest Catholic for Ireland.

All this would, more than likely, increase their votes.

by warren Mon Jul 18, 2005 13:06

I think that the respect project is a bad move. The fact is that the SWP and other so-called socialists have ditched principles. The SWP refused to even argue for a number of key policies for any socialist. They refused to argue for Gay Rights, Women's Rights, Abortion, and a Workers' Wage for MPs. The SWP did this so they could get the leaders of the Muslim community on-board for this new group. The people they should appeal to are the Muslim working class not their conservative pro-establishment leaders in the MAB. A Muslim yong worker would support gay rights, women's rights and the workers' wage for MPs. The SWP think they would not, which is bordering on racism.

by Raonaid Mon Jul 18, 2005 17:50

In that case Irish people should refuse to endorse any radical left alliance of existing independent leftie-TDs, community activists and trade unionists etc. until such a time as the alliance agrees on a pure socialist programme and each TD sticks to the average worker's wage.

No doubt that organisation would have a very interesting 10-hour founding conference in room 6 of the Teachers' Club, but it would be unlikely to have any appeal at all for the hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have been let down by the broken promises of various croony governments and the increasingly rightward trajectory of the opposition.

Surely it makes more sense to try to build a unity alliance now, and to attempt to overcome differences in the process.

The left is much bigger than the 1,000 or so members of various far left organisations. Unless we ditch our ridiculous illusions of grandeur and our generalised notions of what is means to be "a Muslim", "an immigrant" or "a young worker" we will never climb out of the swamp and similiar fools to ourselves will be writing pamphlets 200 years from now saying what a great opportunity we missed (again!).

Cop on comrades;)

by ReSect Watch Mon Jul 18, 2005 18:33

"Surely it makes more sense to try to build a unity alliance now, and to attempt to overcome differences in the process."

Yeah something along the lines of the IAWM would be very good. Wasn't that the role mode of unity alliances.
Pull the other one.

by Sinead Ni Bhroin - SWP Mon Jul 18, 2005 19:09 sineadnibhroin at eircom dot net 087 6490261

ah Conor, are you having a laugh?

Its just not good enough that an SWP member has not responded to your enquiry via Indymedia???? Hmmmmmmm... A little bit of royal foot stomping there by the sounds of it.

Anyway Sir Conor, before you huff & puff & blow the house down... I would like to take this opportunity to reply to your royal request whilst humbly apologising that thus far no SWP member has responded to your query regarding Respect. Please excuse our tardiness.

Ok... apologies out of the way.

I am extremly enthusiastic about Respect. I think that social liberalism is not, and if we are all honest with each other, cannot deliver social driven policies, i.e. ones that put people before profit. Due to the descrepancy of social democracy new left alliances are being looked to as a way to address this imbalance. Look to Germany, France, Portugal & New Zealand...

As I understand it ISN is supportive of the concept of a left alliance be it for election purposes or indeed the creation of a new workers party i.e. a party to the left of Labour. Were you guys not included in Seamus Healy's press statement a while ago as printed in the Irish Times? Are you not working with them to move this project forward?

So I suppose like you, and many others on the left, we are supportive of an alliance that will provide a political alternative in order to capture the left of labour/emerging anti-capitalist vote.

Now Comrade Conor, I hope my response was worth the wait. I await yours with bated breath!

In solidarity, Sinéad
Writing in a personal capacity

by Conor McGowan - ISN - Personal Capacity Mon Jul 18, 2005 21:14

First of all, I wont respond to Sinead’s rather childish attempt to portray me as unreasonable. I asked the same question on the Respect issue of various SWP members in person, and on these boards, but to no avail. My question is a perfectly reasonable one, and I was asking for an answer and the beginnings of a discussion – not an apology.

And so an answer came. Thanks Sinead. It’s been over a year coming, but the Irish SWP has finally come out in favour of RESPECT. I assume the delay in formulating a coherent position was the result of a vigorous internal debate at all levels rather than an opportunistic nod to moderate electoral success.

I agree that Social Liberalism and Social Democracy cannot deliver Socially focused policy. It is also true that the ISN has been involved in talks with various workers and Socialist groups – and speaking in a personal capacity, I am indeed supportive of an alliance that will “provide a political alternative in order to capture the left of labour/emerging anti-capitalist vote” – but not as an end in itself, and certainly if it involves the rejection of the aspiration of a secular state.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the situation in France, Germany or New Zealand – and will refrain from commenting on those situations until Ive read more than pamphlets and press releases.

Since SWP members largely ignored my attempt to stimulate discussion around Respect 1 year ago, I will repost largely the same content – analogous to the manner in which many pro-Respect pieces are copied and pasted onto these boards by the anonymous.

Billed as a “mass, left alternative to New Labour” Respect made some gains in the local and national Elections in Britain recently-most notably with George Galloway overturning New Labourite Oona Kings majority in Bethnal Green and Bow. Although reasonably impressive in electoral terms, the gains are at the expense of a clear move to the right. Far from beating Blair by revolutionary means, the SWP are entering his game on his terms.

As the SWP would see it, Respect is the revolutionary thorn in Blair’s side. After 10 Years of New Labour, they decided against the multitude of Socialist and progressive alliances available, and instead decided on a coalition with the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) - a group who see homosexuality as a “sexual perversion”.

The MAB identifies unambiguously with the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is a moderate, reformist, Islamic party, which builds its upfront public profile around welfare and religious education. It is no surprise that it should use writers like Pilger, Fisk and Ritter to give itself a plausible public face. Its basic politics are, however, the same as those of the shriller fundamentalists: the overthrow of secularism, democracy and women’s rights, and the introduction of a state run under Islamic law.

An article in its “Inspire” freesheet explains a little of what the MAB understand by an Islamic state. In their ideal state, a person who “chooses not to embrace Islam” may have the right to be a citizen, but only if they “express loyalty to the state and recognise its legitimacy so that he or she does not engage in any activity that may be construed as threatening to its order”. Even then that person’s citizenship is “qualified”, “and such qualification is only lifted when the concerned person embraces Islam”.

At the front of the Respect charge is former Labour member and long time charlatan, MP George Galloway. Not one to Shy away from the pro Saddam rhetoric, and a fan of violent Iraqi insurgents who are “giving them [the American Occupiers] a bloody good hiding all over the country”, Galloway has long been a discrediting force to be reckoned with on the left.

No-one doubts the problems faced on a daily basis by Muslims and other Minority groups in Britain, but the role the left should play in such matters should not extend into embracing a reactionary group (the MAB), their policies, politics, and eventually their partnership in a political Coalition.

In short: The MAB are a reactionary group. The left should not consider it an ally.

It seems that the SWP has lost the Revolutionary AND the Socialist tag in one, quick year. In Respect, the IST/SWP have paired off with the MAB, a former journalist for the most reactionary of papers, and Galloway.

While on holiday in Britain recently, I engaged with 4 separate SWP full-timers, and was really appalled with their lack of any analysis and scant knowledge of the Respect issue. Any objections I had to the policies of the MAB and its relationship with the SWP were not dealt with individually or in entirety.

It seems that to those in the British SWP (albeit in my personal experience) the premise to any discussion on Respect depends on the following:

1) Any legitimate criticism of the policies of the MAB from a Marxist/Socialist perspective on Homosexuality, Gender equality, etc is “Islamophobic”.
2) The only way to engage with working class Muslims in Britain is through the MAB.
3) The fact that the MAB is largely economically progressive and Anti War should negate any petty concerns about other aspects of the groups policy.
4) The left will never again enjoy any moderate electoral success.
5) There is no other possible alternative to Respect within the UK. From this, I gather that the SWP will not entertain the idea of coalition with other Socialist groups for electoral purposes, or no other Socialist group in the UK will engage with the SWP.
6) Anyone on the left with criticisms of Respect and the MAB must be an isolationist/elitist prone to staid sloganeering and ridiculous bickering and not living in the same harsh, pragmatic world as the SWP.

It is my opinion that there are alternatives for the British Cliffites outside of the MAB and Respect. Why didn’t the SWP engage with other Progressive, Secular and Socialist groups if they were interested in forming a wide coalition? No 2 individuals are the same, nor indeed are 2 separate Socialist groups! I am surprised that the Irish SWP – familiar as we all are with the Reactionary nature of organised Religious groups in this country, would give support to their sister party in Britain to partake with an explicitly Religious and Homophobic group. I would like to think that an open discussion on their reasons for doing so – and the Nature of the MAB could be started on these boards or outside– but by the sounds of things, all we will get is the same 6 starting points at which their British comrades try to sabotage discussion with combative argument.

by Cut the bullshit Mon Jul 18, 2005 21:52

How can you debate such garbage? There is so much fiction in the above posting ,where do you begin? Your whole argument fails on the fact that MAB are not in Respect!!!

by Conor Tue Jul 19, 2005 00:07

Bullshit indeed. In conversation with 6 SWP members, none of them had any doubt but that the MAB and SWP setup and run Respect.

Respect is not a political party as such – although in practical terms, it operates as one. Respect is a coalition, that is “A unified alliance between different groups to achieve a common purpose”. Respect was founded by two of the main groups in the Stop the War coalition: The Socialist Workers Party and The Muslim Association of Britain.

Both Groups are heavily represented on the National Council of Respect:

http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=466

Anas Altikriti the President of the MAB stood for Respect:

http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=103

Text of MAB press release.

"The Muslim Association of Britain welcomes comments made by George Galloway MP on abortion in an interview published recently.

Mr Galloway, who is currently leading the newly formed "Unity Coalition: Respect" into the forthcoming European Parliamentary elections on June 10th, outlines his own conviction that abortion is morally and ethically wrong. When asked about the woman's right to choose, he appropriately posed the question, "what about the child's right to choose?"

These comments, as well as his statements on faith and God in the same interview, will surely be welcomed by Muslims who see Respect as a real alternative to the main political parties in the forthcoming elections. They also affirm George Galloway’s standing as a man of principle who does not shy away from putting his own position on the line for his beliefs and convictions."

by respect member Tue Jul 19, 2005 14:33

Abortion

Noting the following provisions in the Founding Declaration of Respect – The Unity Coalition:

Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship.
The right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices.
Respect therefore opposes any change in legislation that restricts abortion rights and defends the right to choose.


LGBT rights

This conference welcomes the production of a Respect leaflet for London Pride.

It supports the policies outlined in that leaflet i.e.

An end to discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people
For Equal partnership and pension rights
For strong policies to tackle homophobia in all public bodies
For an increase in public services that meet the needs of lesbians, gay men bisexuals and transgendered people, rather than money wasted on war.
Conference instructs the incoming National Committee to produce similar material for all Pride events next year and urges local groups to make sure the material is distributed at events in their area.

by Cut the bullshit Tue Jul 19, 2005 14:45

On your logic the NUJ, FBU, PCS, Unison,Napo etc are in a coalition with RESPECT. The list given just outlines their affiliations.
Secondly as the link makes clear, Anas Altikriti stood down as President of MAB to stand in the election - that would not be necessary if MAB were in the party.
Thirdly your comment about 6 SWP members - now you can inform them they were mistaken (why didn't you ask them about their view of RESPECT)
Finally your overall tone suggests you expect Muslims to disown their religious ideas and then come and work with the left. Idiotic to say the least, but is this how you would have approached the US, black civil rights movement in the 1960's - refusing to work with Black christian organisations? Concretely Conor what organisational forms have you helped to create that encompasses oppressed groups such as Muslims?

by Joe Tue Jul 19, 2005 14:47

On another thread Richard Boyd Barrett of the SWP (Irish branch) is quoted bragging about the broad range of people he invited to speak at an SOS demo on the baths in Dunleary - among those he invited was a PD TD!!! A member of an extreme right-wing government party! The same party whose minister for injustice is deporting refugees. The same party that supports the use of Shannon airport by US murderers.

So, it seems that working with the PDs is fine as far as the SWP is concerned if the object is to broaden the base of Save Our Seafront. Any decent socialist would have refused to invite the PDs and explained why.

If they work with the PDs in Ireland, is it any surprise that they work with with religious rightwingers in England? No, is the short answer to that.

by DV Tue Jul 19, 2005 14:55

Re. 'Cut the Bullshit''s comment (Sinead, I suspect). Muslims an oppressed group? That's a bit of a generalisation, isn't it? Yeah, the US and its allies are certainly happy to give muslims a hard time, but that doesn't make them a universally oppressed group!

And anyway, there's a hell of a difference between a capitalist muslim and one living in a hovel in Afghanistan. What about some class analysis or has that been forgotten in the rush to embrace MAB?

by Cut the bullshit Tue Jul 19, 2005 15:55

No I'm not Sinead.
The problem with posting on a forum like this is that all sort of crap appears. And that any replies just give ammunition to another bunch of spreaders who do little to organise in the real world. So this is my final posting.
DV does it occur to you that women, gays, black, jews, etc have all been oppressed groups - and yes that includes those from wealthy backgrounds. So yes Muslims are oppressed and even the wealthy members will feel it - that is not to say that they are part of the solution to a better society. By the way when discussing RESPECT its clear we're not talking about uniting with the House of Saud
You mention 'embracing' MAB - presumably you don't want to use the term collaborate, since this is what the SWP did in the StWC. What forms of organisation have you got to get both Muslims and non-Muslims working together when we have such an onslaught on Muslims and their religion from the establishment (and sections of the left)?
Goodbye

by Reasoner Tue Jul 19, 2005 16:48

Just before you go CTB, answer a reasonable question: you claim ALL muslims are oppressed as muslims. So where doeas that leave members of the muslim ruling class in theocratic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Who exactly oppresses these elites? How can they be oppressed as Muslims when they rule states where variants of Islam are the state imposed religion. The problem with your stance is that you have taken a reasonable point: that many muslims experience varying degrees of oppression because of their religion in Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, USA etc. and turned it into an untenable universal: all muslims everywhere are oppressed, as muslims.

Other complications arise: muslim ruling classes can and do oppress muslim peasants and workers in many offficially islamic states such as Pakistan etc., muslim ruling classes oppress minorities of other religions such as in West Papua and Sudan. The point I'm making here is that its just as mistaken to say things like 'all muslims are oppressed' as it is to see all muslims as fundamentalist.

by Pol Tue Jul 19, 2005 17:02

I think that the term 'Muslim' is akin to the term 'Catholic' or 'Protestant' in the north. That is to say, it is purely nominal and does not suggest fundamentalist or anti-social beliefs. Not all Muslims are Osama Bin Laden, just as not all Protestants are Clifford Peeples or not all Catholics General Franco.
In this debate 'the Muslims' seem to be some sort of cloned species rather than a multifarious body of individuals whose only common denominator is the faith they were born into.
Think about it. Most Irish people are Catholics. The brighton Bomber was a Catholic. Are all Irish people hell bent on blowing up the British cabinet? Does the fact that the IRA was a 'Catholic' group make it acceptable for the Brits to strafe the whole island with cluster bombs?
Come off it. Use your brains.

by Conor - Personal Capacity Tue Jul 19, 2005 17:16

Over the last year when discussing Respect with Donal Mc Farghal and Joe Carolan, I brought up the MAB link. Unlike others online, neither of them denied the fact that after the Anti War success in Britain, the SWP, Galloway and the MAB decided to come together and try and turn marchers into voters.

The Wikipedia entry for Respect states as much: “Respect allows its members to hold membership of other political organisations.

Its main components are

George Galloway – Respects sole Member of Parliament
The Socialist Workers Party
Leading Figures from the MAB”

It is one thing for the left to rally around various issues of religious discrimination against Muslims, but it is yet another to pander to the reactionary element within that broader religious group for electoral gains. The MAB is a reactionary group – Fact. The MAB has strong links with the Stop the War Coalition, and the Respect Coalition. Fact.

Whatever about the links between the MAB and Respect – which are ample, the fact that Respects only MP keeps his £150,000 (around €220,000), drives a Mercedes, and holds openly pro life views, has described Iraqi trade unionists as “quislings”, while openly celebrating violent, reactionary insurgents should be cause for some debate.

A Respect supporter here has posted the policies of Respect with regard to abortion, LBGT, and Women’s rights. It is obvious that they contradict Galloway’s stated policies on such matters. From this we can deduce that Galloway will change his views, leave the party, or live in cosy ambiguity.

I think the cosy ambiguity of Respect suits the opportunistic Galloway. We now have a situation where Lindsey German is qualifying the defence of Gay rights, and the SWP is backing a Mercedes driving, Portugese Villa owning, pro Life MP. The involvement of the MAB seems somewhat informal, but when push comes to shove, they will systematically back Respect candidates, and champion its members religious and reactionary opinions.

by Joe Tue Jul 19, 2005 17:19

Conor you probably need explain why you are calling MAB reactionary. People who are not familar with it will presume from the name that it is simply a grouping together of all Muslims in Britian.

by redjade Tue Jul 19, 2005 17:23

ummm what is MAB? sorry, trying to follow this here thread

by Conor - Personal Capacity Tue Jul 19, 2005 17:56

As I said before (I’m copying and pasting for benefit), the MAB (Muslim association of Britain) identifies unambiguously with the Brotherhood, a group that uses the writings of Fisk, Pilger and Ritter to give itself a plausible public face. Its basic politics are, however, the same as those of the shriller fundamentalists: the overthrow of secularism, democracy and women’s rights, and the introduction of a state run under Islamic law.

An article in its “Inspire” freesheet explains a little of what the MAB understand by an Islamic state. In their ideal state, a person who “chooses not to embrace Islam” may have the right to be a citizen, but only if they “express loyalty to the state and recognise its legitimacy so that he or she does not engage in any activity that may be construed as threatening to its order”. Even then that person’s citizenship is “qualified”, “and such qualification is only lifted when the concerned person embraces Islam”.

by Pol Tue Jul 19, 2005 17:57

Muslim Association of Britain

by Pol Tue Jul 19, 2005 18:03

At the end of the day, Respect is the only salient left-wing group in the UK. What other left-wing group has their impact on the social immagination?

by Wallace Tue Jul 19, 2005 18:29

The SSP

by Pol Tue Jul 19, 2005 18:42

SSP? On the telly often?

by J Tue Jul 19, 2005 19:51

Switching back to Ireland, what's this about the SWP working alongsides the PDs and inviting their elected representatives to rallies? This is of far more concern than the Respect argument/discussion.

What up there?

by Wallace Wed Jul 20, 2005 01:02

On telly often in Scotland which is as relevant to Ireland as England is. Six members of Scottish Parliament (oh sorry thats only worth one member of her majestys parliamentary at Westminster!), same overall percentage as Respect in recent elections, same amount of councillors(Two?), more members then Respect and most of all solidly based in the Scotttish working class (of all creeds and colours). Oh sorry, I forgot, SSP organised in an transparently democratic manner with full rights for small minorities including the SWP platform.

by merchant of doom Wed Jul 20, 2005 07:17

If our social imagination is dependent on what's on the telly then we're all rightly f**ked anyway ......

by SSP Supporter Wed Jul 20, 2005 14:04

Worth remembering Respect was founded at the end of January 2004.

As a supporter of the SSP now living in England I expect the SSP welcomes the achievements of Respect including getting around 15% of the vote in 2 recent local council by-elections.

No need for platforms in Respect as Respect is a coalition - fighting on all fronts - where anyone joining is able to retain their membership of other existing organisations.

by Another SSP supporter Wed Jul 20, 2005 14:16

"No need for platforms in Respect as Respect is a coalition - fighting on all fronts - where anyone joining is able to retain their membership of other existing organisations."

Also no need for proper democracy.

by billy Wed Jul 20, 2005 18:30

They're a bit ambivalent towards Homosexuals don't you think?

by SSP Supporter Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:54

The first conference of Respect was open to all members. The next conference of Respect was open to all members with elected delegates voting.

Respect is in the process of building a mass membership organisation rooted in the trade unions and communities.