SP Show True Colours In IAWM

by David Sun Feb 15, 2004 13:28

As long as you live in dublin and have a fully paid subscription to the socialist worker

by me again Sun Feb 15, 2004 05:05

Well, seems I AM drunk. Oh well. Here is a the full quote -

"There is a debate about tactics, the use of civil disobedience and direct action, as against a broad, mass, inclusive movement."

He goes on to say that he favours the latter. Well, fuck me.

by me Sun Feb 15, 2004 05:02

What he's actually quoted as saying is, in response to a question about a split in the IAWM - "There is a debate about tactics, the use of civil disobedience and direct action, as against a broad, mass, inclusive."

Hardly a fair summation of the opposing views.

by Observer Sun Feb 15, 2004 00:58

Richard Boyd Barrett (front man for the SWP junta in the IAWM) is interviewed in today's Irish Times. Asked about splits in the IAWM he says the arguments are mainly about tactics between those who advocate "civil disobedience and direct action" and those like himself who want "a mass, broad and inclusive movement"!!

In other words all you heads who've been arguing for greater democracy, transparency, and a greater use of mass civil disobedience, you're just a bunch of anti-democratic ELITESTS!

Well, that's Richies view of the world. Poor deluded sod. Maybe he just needs to be kidnapped and de-programmed, before that myopic cult mentality completely devours his brain? Any takers?

by Grainne Smithe Fri Feb 13, 2004 01:21

OK. Finally got some time to catch up with indymedia (which is great btw despite some problems) and check my email and I got a response from Colm Stephens (IAWM) on February 10th.

He says that the minutes will be published as soon as they're approved by the Steering Committee which meets on February 15th. His email also says that it wasn't a AGM but a Quarterly 'Nation Steering Committee' meeting to which each local group or affiliate sent a representative.

Thanks for this information Colm.

by Padraic Thu Feb 12, 2004 22:16

I mean really!! Is Kieran O'Sullivan engaged in a bit of leg-pulling here or what?

Aside from everything else, he writes as if everybody lives in Dublin. What about those of us who travel regularly to Dublin for 'national' demonstrations? What if we adopted the same attitude? God spare us from such levels of dedication.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Feb 12, 2004 18:58

(Or should I call you "Lone Gunman" or "Drbinoche"?) the war in Iraq is far from over. Iraqis are being killed regularly by US forces and US forces are being killed regularly by Iraqis.

A foreign country still suffers under the presence of US troops -- that is a war and that is what we're supporting as long as US planes travel through Shannon.

Despite the opportunism of the leadership of the SWP and the tactical differences over direct action with some of the SP there are still enough activists and people of conscience to make a difference.

by Cindi - sick of all this 'true colour' bullshit Thu Feb 12, 2004 15:25

You with the sad views
Don't be discouraged
Oh please realize
It's hard to take courage
In a world full of real people
You can lose sight of it all
And the sectarianism inside you
Makes you so small

I see your true colors
oozing through
I see your true colors
And thats why I lothe you
So don't be afraid to let people know
Your true colors,
True colors are awful,
and they show

by Haggis - none Thu Feb 12, 2004 14:59 ucd none

I find it amusing as I sit scrolling the depths of this thread the idocy of the political rhetoric or more to the point the bullshit being spouted.Good auld fashioned political in-fighting, the irish solution= A split!

Where is logic & diplomacy, Can none of yee put down yer political guns and inspire some direction into your movement? It doesnt seem so....... the IAWM have surely lost their point. WHy & HOw?....

First and foremost the War is over : on both the homefront and in Iraq (which yee all seem to have forgot ) and which we seem not to be able to accept! (oh yeh i forgot there a war on muslims starting in France...tut..tut)

Secondly the movement that has been built is now extinct except for the few headbanging hanger on'ers like the SWP, SP the reknowned political oppurtunists. Sorry people but the band wagon trail ended a long time ago and the small bit of power yee felt is long gone, accept it, The IAWM is a spent force of morally righteous, impotant opportunists....

Thirdly, What is the war on Islam? & why have the IAWM started a stupid campaign against such. Really & truely it looks pathetic and really demeans the integrity of the IAWM

I suppose it is apt to qoute an old adage regarding The Swp & Sp & IAWM ingeneral:

Give a begger a horse and he'll ride it to hell!!

by ec Thu Feb 12, 2004 14:27

It never rained on our parade in Shannon since late 2001 except once (in March?) at the end for 10 minutes. In fact the sun shone almost always. IAWM - Why not approach the traindrivers and their Union reps and get a special 'auto-reduced' train to limerick each time? The Shannon - Action - Express

by Galway girl Thu Feb 12, 2004 07:28

By your own (twisted) logic, Kieran, all national demonstrations should be ruled out, and we should do our own thing in our town. Actually no, in the local pub. You see, there are logistical problems getting down to Dublin, e.g. last time I had to pay 20+ euro for the train out of my own money (and I didn't get it back but that's hardly the point). Also when you get to Dublin you still have a long walk to the city centre and to put the tin hat on it the weather is probably going to be crap and the traffic awful. In short the only way you are going to get a lot of people down there is if Bush shows his face down there or if he declares another war!

by Shannonside Wed Feb 11, 2004 21:05

Kieran O'Sullivan (staunch defender of the SWP line on Shannon) claims that its a long walk from Shannon to the airport and that, anyway, the weather will be crap!!!

I've heard it all now. Come down Kieron and we'll give the loan of a bike for future demos. Can't help you with the weather though. Tis shite alright.

by Fintan Lane - Cork Anti-War Campaign and IAWM Wed Feb 11, 2004 20:52 corkantiwar at hotmail dot com 087 1258325

I also posted a correction to the contribution copied above. It was as follows:




My apologies. I wrote: "Regular demos at Shannon complemented by large marches and other actions in Dublin, and other urban centres, would be something approaching a strategy for ending Irish complicity."
I meant to write "regular blockades" at Shannon, i.e. acts of mass peaceful civil disobedience.
-- Fintan Lane, February 11, 2004

by Activist Wed Feb 11, 2004 20:15

THE DEBATE CONTINUES ON IAWM SITE

What follows is a continuation of the debate from irishantiwar.org above between Orla and Fintan (cept a friend of Aoife's is now defending the 'offical' line)
---------------------------------------------------


I'm not a member of the IAWM, but as long as the organization exists, and as long as it calls itself the "movement", I will be interested to see what it does. So what does it do exactly? At a glance the IAWM seems to: (a) organize occasional antiwar rallies in Dublin and cooperate with others (somewhat) at protests in Shannon; (b) raise awareness through media work and occasional rallies and talks; and (c) support activists with occasional social events, mailing list updates, this website, and speaking opportunities.

This is just my take on the organization, from my perspective as a non-member. The IAWM has done some great work reaching the public -- with posters, rallies, and many media interviews, phone-ins and debates. Their focus on governments (US gov, Blair, Bertie, etc.) and war-profiteering corporations has squarely put the blame on imperial power. That's who planned the war, that's who advocated it, that's who lied about it, etc... The public, IAWM members included, should "point the finger" at Bertie and Co., but that is all. No more intervention is necessary or desirable. With luck, those bastards in power will be rattled into submission by the staggering greatness of our Saturday afternoon rallies and protests in Dublin!

I'm being facetious, but you already knew that. I think that politically it would be quite difficult indeed for the government to voluntarily withdraw from Bush's gang (the war/terror coalition). If the IAWM were identified with grassroots FF voters then perhaps it could be effective simply by saying "this is how we feel" (with the implied threat "and this is how we'll vote if you don't listen..."). But it is clearly not.You can only call someone's position untenable so often before you have to actually create enough hassle to make it so. That's what direct action is for! :-)

Whether its workers downing their tools whenever a warplane lands, or activists regularly causing disruption at the airport with creative, open and accountable actions, I think it's all complimentary.


-- Eoin Dubsky, February 10, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think that the IAWM is turning into a political party nor was that the bone of contension at the meeting on Jan 31st.
What happened at that meeting was simply time wasting over procedure. While it is a good idea to have a constitution it won't solve the level of rankor that exists at the moment and the sad thing about all this rankor is that it is over nothing most of the motions were passed easily e.g. the one I proposed on arms control.

To answer Fintons point about shannon, there are logisticl problems getting down to shannon e.g. Aoife Nearal (definately the wrong spelling sorry Aoife) had to pay 500 euro for the bus out of her own money (she did get it back but that's hardly the point). Also when you get to shannon you still have a long walk to the airport and to put the tin hat on it the weather is probably going to be crap. In short the only way you are going to get a lot of people down there is if Bush shows his face down there.

If your intereste in hearing my opinion on where the IAWM should go from here I would suggest that we start building connections with other NGO's e.g. Oxfam, IANSA, Amnesty, Afree, Trocra etc. Without the context of an actual war in Iraq we simply can't mobilise people in the same mannor as was achieved for Feb 15th.


-- Kieran O'Sullivan, February 11, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, there WAS a lot of rancour at that meeting over prodecures, but serious allegations were being made with regard to the legitimacy of Dublin delegates, so that was inevitable.
I'm afraid I fail to see your point regarding the Shannon protest on December 6th. I'm sure Aoife got her money back because, as I understand it, there was a full bus from Dublin. Certainly, there was a full bus from Cork. (Occasionally, the Cork Anti-War Campaign loses money on buses to Dublin marches, but then we expect that and cover it). That said, most people who travel to Shannon protests come from the Galway, Clare, Limerick, Kerry and Cork regions. Buses do come from Dublin and elsewhere (and are absolutely necessary), but the reality is that Shannon is a small town in the west of Ireland and it is a bit of a distance from Dublin.

Consequently, numbers at Shannon (pop. a few 1,000) are never likely to reach the thousands that one sees at marches in Dublin (pop. 1 million), but since when is a demo of 300-500 at the point of complicity something to be dismissed? And we can over time, if we take Shannon seriously, build them into something much larger and more substantial. It requires a bit of focus.

I agree that we are unlikely to have the same numbers as Feb 15th (100,000) on the streets again in the near future, but that is a false measure. This isn't a numbers games (though tens of thousands should be our objective), it is about being effective. Regular demos at Shannon complemented by large marches and other actions in Dublin, and other urban centres, would be something approaching a strategy for ending Irish complicity. It would also be a proactive strategy. At the moment, the IAWM is reactive and seems to wait for 'international days of action' before holding demos, even in Dublin. Holding marches in Dublin every six months does not amount to a strategy for ending Irish complicity.

Finally, you speak of the "actual war" being over in Iraq. This puzzles me. In what sense is it over? More than 100 people have died in the last two days. Surely, we are not allowing the Bush propaganda machine to instruct us in what is and isn't a war? Moreover, the war in Afghanistan is ongoing (if little noticed) and the occupations of countries such as Palestine and Chechyna are a daily reality. More to the point, thousands of US troops and their weapons continue to trundle through Shannon airport.

Shannon airport is being used to kill people. My apologies if that sounds like 'moralism', but this is as much a moral question for me as a political one, and I do believe it is a serious tactical error to end demonstrations at Shannon.
-- Fintan Lane, February 11, 2004

by Joan Wed Feb 11, 2004 05:29

The piece by the Galway SWPer is interesting. That must be the line that they are putting out to their members who weren't actually at the meeting: "The SWP versus a whole bunch of mad people".

Problem with that line is that it's now the SWP vs all the rest of the antiwar movement. They have the IAWM but they've appalled everybody else with their behaviour. This thread has a lot of cynics contributing but I was never a critic of RBB and the SWP (honestly!). Now I am just appalled at whats happened. Shannon protests have been scuttled and national meetings are being rigged. What are they playing at? Bush and Ahern are the only beneficaries.

by SD Tue Feb 10, 2004 21:12

The list has been posted above. Add to that the steering ctte members. The vast majority of "delegats" (and I use that phrase in the bowlderised sense) were from non-existent Dublin "branches". Apart from the Dubs there was a delegate from the long silent Waterford IAWM branch (Roy Hassey, SWP), an SWP rep from a non-existent Gorey branch (hallo everybody from the SWP in Gorey: how is your election candidate going?), a delegate from Limerick/Clare, a delegate from Cork, and a delegate from Tralee.

The Limerick, Cork and Tralee people represented real functioning anti-war groups that have been to the forefront of protests at Shannon. They alll wanted continued demonstrations at the airport but, using their bogus Dublin delegates, the SWP voted them down at every turn. Dublin, ahem SWP, uber alles?

by Keyboard Warrior - Judean Peoples Front Tue Feb 10, 2004 19:35

Anyone have a list of places there were delegates from?

by Archivist Tue Feb 10, 2004 16:36

.... so what does that make a year.

Here's what RBB had to say on March 1st last year to the IT when talking about GNAW.

"Richard Boyd Barrett, director of the Irish Anti-War Movement, said the proposed breach of security by the Grassroots Network was a distraction from real issues of the protest. "I think it has been blown out of proportion," said Mr Boyd Barrett. "It is helping to detract attention from the real issues, including the fact that the government is supporting the US war effort by allowing planes to refuel at Shannon."

Hey Rich Boy, fogotten that real issue? Guess you've probably forgotten about Shannon too.

by (the other) Joe Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:04

Someone asked about GNAW above. Well it hasn't gone away you know. Those involved mobilised for the Dec 6 demonstration in Shannon, my report is at http://struggle.ws/wsm/news/2003/shannonDEC.html A range of other activity also took place after March 1st not all of which was 'branded' with the GNAW label. As usual of course more could have been done.

However GNAW was never intended as a substitute for a broader Irish anti-war movement (note lack of capitalisation). It originated in the 1st Grassroots Gathering held in Dublin which decided to try and move some of the focus of anti-war protests (then against the Afghan war) from marches around Dublin to the actual location of Irish involvement in the war effort at Shannon. Around 70 people took part in this demonstration Dec 15, 2001.

At this point and for the demonstrations that followed there was no special name for the group coming out of that and other gatherings. We knew each other through the gatherings and worked together at protests called by the gatherings and other groups (including the IAWM) in Shannon to push direct action as the key method for ending refuelling.

As this direct action was being increasing opposed by the SWP controlled IAWM (and I believe this weekend has confirmed the nature of this control) the Belfast Grassroots Gathering set up the 'Grassroots Network Against the War' to organise future actions (one was called for Dec 8th which 350 attended).

A more detailed history of all this has been published at http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr7/antiwar.html

The bottom line though is that GNAW neither follows the top down organisational model of the IAWM nor sees itself as THE anti-war movement. We have had no permanent structure as we are a network rather than an organisation. We have no formal membership. At this point in time no one has a mandate to give the GNAW position on this or any other question. Our role has been to popularise, organise and carry out direct action primarly directed at the military refueling at Shannon airport.

There is a need for a broad Irish anti war movement and if one existed I think GNAW would operate as part of it. Instead as revealed above (but as we have argued from the start) we have an organisation created by the SWP that is under the thumb of the SWP. Those who have fought to democratise it have discovered this to be next to impossible for the reasons outlined above. Which is why most people in GNAW decided to turn up for and support IAWM events but not to get involved in the internal 'life' of the IAWM. There are exceptions and indeed some cross over right up to the IAWM steering committee(s). Due respect to those who put a lot of frustrated effort into trying to acheive something that was nearly impossible. A more detailed analysis of the IAWM can be found at http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr7/iawm.html

All my remarks above represent my opinion alone. GNAW is a very informal organisation without opinions on very much except direct action and Shannon. The political persepective of the articles linked to above are from the WSM but this is just one of several organisations active in GNAW and there would be other points of view on these questions as well.

The lessons of this experience are much broader than last weekend. The problems outlined have been problems that have arisen again and again in the history of Irish radicalism. The SWP may have been the main culprit in recent years (Globalise Resistance, Pro Choice Campaign, Anti Nazi League etc) but the problem is not simply one of their politics. It is also a problem of accepting an organisational model that is top down and centrered on a single 'correct' line rather than a network of genuine organisations seeking to reach and act on agreement. It is the model that needs to be challenged, not just 'the party' because once a decade or so 'the party' that is the problem changes. That lesson applies as much to genuine members of the SWP as the rest of us.

GNAW is not intended as an alternative broad anti-war movement but it and the Grassroots Gatherings do suggest an alternative way of coming together and 'doing politics'. An alternative that still needs a lot of work on.

by ... Tue Feb 10, 2004 04:45

Might it be cos he's the Stuffer-in-Chief and doesn't want to answer questions about where these Dublin delegates suddenly came from and how come they were, to a hack, members of the SWP?

ALL the Dublin delegates listed above are members of the SWP.

by Activist Tue Feb 10, 2004 04:20

Far as I know the IAWM is in pieces after that meeting and I cant see the warring parties writing any reports right now. The secretary is supposed to publish reports after each meeting but he's SWP (Colm Stephens) and I don't see him rushing to do it.

Hey, here's an idea: contact the CHAIRPERSON of the IAWM: Richard Boyd Barrett at rbb@swp.ie or info@irishantiwar.org or info@swp.ie.

Mind you, he seems to be adopting a low profile these days. Wonder why.

by Grainne Smithe Tue Feb 10, 2004 03:43

As I posted above I contacted three email addresses (info@irishantiwar.org; media@irishantiwar.org; webmaster@irishantiwar.org) to ask for clarification as to what happened at the meeting after I read Webster's unbelievable report.

So far the only response I've had is from the webmaster stating that he can't answer for the organisation and that his contribution is available above and suggesting that I try Fintan Lane.

Well, media@irishantiwar.org is Fintan Lane's email address as PRO and I've had no response from him or from Colm Stephens (info@irishantiwar.org).

Raymond Deane castigates Laurence Vize for various inaccuracies and bemoans and belittles Webster's original report. Well Raymond so far those and Aoife Ni Fheargaill's brief (and contested) reply are the ONLY reports available on this meeting to people that weren't there. You didn't see fit to write your accurate report, the IAWM are stonewalling enquiries.

When that happens then any misapprehensions, rumours, gossip or suspicion that surfaces can be laid as squarely at your door and the door of everyone else on the IAWM steering committee. Don't complain about speculation when you behave secretly.

As far as I'm concerned I don't believe the rumours about the goats and the virgin priests, but some of the other stuff is starting to sound plausible.

by Observer Tue Feb 10, 2004 01:14

The meeting last week was made up of a huge swp majority created by bussing in delegates for antiwar groups that dont exist. The swp policy is obviously to oppose protests at Shannon etc and they arrived with the express intention of stopping further demos there. With all the polite coversation in the world they weren't going to just suddenly change party policy and a prearranged plan. So how would a civilised natter have achieved anything anyway? (except insofar as you might have saved a few pee on paracetomol).

The swp were never going to agree to setting a date for a demo at Shannon. They filled the room with bogus reps and you could argue as politely as you liked, they were going to vote through what they wanted to vote through. End of story.

by Anon Tue Feb 10, 2004 00:40

Dunno why Ray is complaining about the original story.

We now have two members of IAWM steering committee (Lawrence Vize and Raymond Deane) viciously attacking each other in public, and the IAWM PRO, and recently released anti-war prisoner, Fintan Lane, rubbishing the decision to abandon shannon demos as "a serious tactical mistake" while accusing the SWP of being responsible! Meanwhile, having been exposed for the crude and blatent stuffing of an IAWM national meeting with bogus delegates, the SWP have run for cover in the hope that it will all blow over. Some hope!

Yes, we make the news on indymedia! Breaking news on the hour.

by Joe Mon Feb 09, 2004 23:25

I notice Raymond refers to "red-baiting"in his contribution and infers that some of the remarks about the SWP are about McCartyism. I would suggest that he open his eyes a bit but instead I have a question for him.

It has been shown conclusively that the SWP stuffed the recent so called national meeting with bogus delegates from bogus branches and it was this gerrymandered majority that dominated on every issue. The vote against demos at Shannon happened cos that is SWP policy. The same on every other issue except those they consider to be of little importance.

So how can you take any motion passed at that meeting seriously? Ok a second question: how can you ignore the way the SWP are acting?

My friend you are in an SWP front and seem to be complicit in their sneaky underhand hijacking of the Irish peace movement. And worse you dont even seem to know it. Of course they'll cover up by calling it 'red-baiting' - did you think they'd admit to the gerrymandering that has now been exposed. Raymond, those Dublin branches are figments of the SWPs imagination. Wake up.

by raymond deane - ipsc Mon Feb 09, 2004 22:50

Laurence, in his usual hysterical way, gets a couple of things wrong. Firstly, the organisation that I represent on the steering committee of the IAWM is called the IRELAND (not Irish) Palestine Solidarity Campaign. A trivial, pedantic detail, you'll say - but carelessness about details can be symptomatic.
Next, I believe Laurence called me a "stupid ignorant bastard", not a "sneaky bastard" as he recalls. While I don't mind my legitimacy being impugned, hands off my intelligence - so I demanded and received an apology. Apology accepted, Laurence, but you're still some tulip!
My crack about "are you or have you ever been" arose from the bad taste that comes in my mouth when I hear people being asked to state their political allegiance.
For the record, this isn't personal: I belong to no political party, and support no political party (although I support some less than others). Nonetheless, there is an ugly flavour to such demands, and I make no apology for raising it. That said, I do not consider the Tralee group to be McCarthyites.
For the record also, it's untrue that I invariably vote with the SWP. At the last meeting I explicitly abstained several times, voted against the SWP at least once, and with them several times - depending on the issue and my perception of it, and my assessment of its relevance to the Palestinian issue. Indeed my recent campaign to have the 20th March demo billed explicitly as a march against ALL occupations, rather than just Iraq, was first of all conducted in the teeth of SWP opposition. I believe that battle may have been won - by rational argument, Laurence, not by hysteria and strings of four-letter words (with the odd 7-letter one thrown in).
But yes, the meeting was a disgrace. I believe that there are serious issues to be dealt with, and that they could have been dealt with at that very meeting had certain people not from the very outset made discussion of those issues impossible - all in the name of "exposing" the SWP and the rest of us presumed fello-travellers. There is no substitute for cool, calm discussion - upon which people can decide whether to go their separate ways, or else try to cobble together a workable coalition between different points of view unified by one very strong bond: opposition to war.
Just one or two other points: Webster's report was a disgrace. With reporters like him, you should re-name yourselves Indo-media - I'm sure Sir Anthony would go for his facile and boring Red-baiting. Your readers are not being well-served, and it's astonishing to think that such a protracted discussion has ensued on the basis of such a skimpy and irresponsible article.
Finally, I dislike anonymity, and have little respect for the opinion of anyone who won't sign his/her name.
Raymond Deane

by Joe Mon Feb 09, 2004 22:48

So much for the SWP and Shannon. At least we know where they stand now: on the side of the State. Not too many paper sales at Shannon demos, was there chaps?

Seriously, calling off demos at Shannon is the stoopidest thing the IAWM has done yet, and that's saying something. Maybe it's just as well that it's falling to pieces.

by ec Mon Feb 09, 2004 19:32

It's from www.irishantiwar.org the IAWM Website and The long first comment is I'm sure the SWP party line on matters. Fintan lane comments on the end give a good basic view of opposing camps views.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I spoke to someone who was at the meeting and it sounded pretty frustrating alright. Having said that I don't think it is the end of the movement or anything. Unfortunately the internet sometimes lends itself to endless arguments, nit-picking, personality attacks, and to be honest a certain amount of paranoia sometimes, (I am on a few other lists to do with something else entirely and I see this sort of thing a lot so it is not specific to this issue here, or particular groups or individuals here.).  I will discuss this in a moment but to get to the heart of the issue...

Leaving aside all the shouting, there is a genuine argument taking place, even if it is sometimes obscured and seems more about personalities, particular groups or whatever. As far as I can see the basic argument is about whether or not the IAWM should be going down more the direct action route, or should it be a mass movement which would concentrate on other methods. Personally I would be in favour of the mass movement approach and this is why. Incidetedly I am in the SWP, which has argued against the direct approach. I am only speaking for myself here though. 

There is already a group which focuses more on direct action. This is the grass roots network (hopefully I am not misrepresenting them, but I think it would be accurate to say that they have gone down the direct action road). At this point in time direct action will be a minority stance within the anti-war movement, never mind within the society in general or the loose groups of people around the anti-war movement. If the IAWM goes towards direct action it will alienate these people and leave them with no movement to join. I think that of the IAWM go towards direct action, what would happen would be that another anti-war group would be set up in order to fill a void. So turning the IAWM into a direct action group would only cause splits and result in unnecessary upheaval and work.

Direct action sometimes lends itself to a certain elitism. By it's nature it will be a minority acting on behalf of a majority.  From a tactical point of view this can be risky for a number of reasons. Personally I think it is the majority of the world which will stop Bush, not a minority. But also for the minority acting in this way it is very risky as they can become isolated from the society in general and it is easier for the police and state to pick them off one by one.

Concentrating on direct action could lead to a lot of burnt out activists and to moralism, as people might get frustrated and want more people to get involved in direct action and when they don't they seem them as irrelevant or not really serious activists (I have come across this attitude directly and indirectly by people in favour of the direct action approach). There are a lot of people who, for the most part, won't be able to participate in direct action such as  many older people, people who are sick/disabled, people with children, young children/teenagers themselves. One of the successes of the IAWM was in bringing a diverse group of people together, this made it difficult for it to be dismissed.  As a result of this the anti-war side got a much fairer hearing than would have been the case otherwise. I remember a time, not so long ago, when there used to be demos with thousands on the streets and they wouldn't even get a mention on the news.

The turning towards direct action is also, I think, happening out of a certain desperation. People see that the marches didn't stop the war so there are questions over where to next. There are different answers to this and one of them is direct action. I don't agree with going down this way, and other actions that went down this route in recent years have not been successful for the most part. Often the direct action route seems to go hand in hand with going down the legal route, sometimes because people are put before the courts so they have no option but to deal with that. But other times, such as in relation to Carrickmines, the whole thing seemed to move from occupation to the courts. (In fairness there was a practical reason for occupation, that was to stop the work, but I think that there was no sustained mass movement around this issue - correct me if I am wrong here as I could be).  I am not against testing things out in the courts,  and having it as an adjunct to a mass movement, but the courts are probably the worst place to fight something out and to direct a movement. The law and the courts are there to defend the state and so that is what they do. The government can always change the law if the court rules against them (as they have done in relation to incinerators, bin collection etc.).

Personally I think the 'War on Terror' in going to be a very long-drawn out affair so we need to be prepared for a long 'fight' and take a long-term view of what we need to do. Since the pro-war states have the military might they can (literally) crush direct actionists very easily it is absolutely necessary to have mass support, and not just inactive mass support but support out on the streets etc. If the IAWM goes down the direct action route a link will be lost with the general anti-war public. Ironically I think this will harm the direct actionists as well as the IAWM as  they will have no organised mass support. (Obviously I think people who engage in direct action should get supported when they are brought to court.)

 Having said all this, I am not totally against direct action, it just depends various things such as the context, the type of direction action, numbers involved etc. Sometimes something in particular happens on a demo and people take an immediate and unplanned action which might include direct action. 

Another issue has been whether to focus on Shannon or not. A lot of people involved in direct action are arguing that there should be more actions at Shannon and seem to be arguing that the main focus should be there. I am against this for various practical reasons. The government is in Dublin, along with the main government departments and most importantly most of the population. Demos held in Dublin will be much bigger than ones held in Shannon. I think most of the national demos should be in Dublin (and it is also easier for many people to get to Dublin than some roundabout way to Shannon). It is not that Shannon should be ignored  - and contrary to rumour there will be demos at Shannon once the steering committee think that they can get a decent crowd there.

-- Orla Ni Chomhrai, February 8, 2004
------------------------------------------------------

Orla,

The division at last Saturday's meeting did not revolve around 'direct action' versus those interested in a mass movement. This is a false dichotomy, and people such as myself have always spoken in terms of the IAWM involving itself in MASS peaceful civil disobedience, rather than the sort of 'direct action' that I suspect you are referring to.

Anyway, that wasn't the issue at stake. The main division (aside from a conflict about the legimacy of a number of Dublin delegates) was about whether we should set a date for a Shannon demo. This was voted down (by the Dublin-based SWP majority, as it happens) and it was also decided that there will be no demonstration at the airport if Bush lands there (unless he holds a summit within the precincts of the airport).

In short, there are no further IAWM demonstrations planned for Shannon airport. I believe this to be a serious tactical mistake.

Incidentally, it is also a false dichotomy to counterpose demonstrations at Shannon with marches in large urban areas such as Dublin. I'm in favour of both, and don't understand why some people think one excludes the other.
-- Fintan Lane, February 8, 2004

by Rob Mon Feb 09, 2004 19:13

but so is the Grassroots Network Against War. What exactly have GNAW done since March 1st? Does GNAW still meet? Isn't this a perfect opportunity for getting out there and providing a clear inclusive alternative to the SWP? I'm sure many former IAWM activists would get involved.

by me Sun Feb 08, 2004 21:32

The SWP really don't know when they've got a good thing, do they? It seems their version of "working with people" is to cajole everybody into supporting THEIR policies, and to hell with other points of view.

The IAWM is finished. Long live the Irish anti-war movement!!

by Antony Sun Feb 08, 2004 21:17

The Business Post is available online .

by me Sun Feb 08, 2004 20:54

And it seems fair, though they don't mention the major division over Shannon demos.

The IAWM has now ruled out demos at Shannon airport (with a majority created using bogus delegates from non-existent Dublin groups) and we are supposed to just accept that decision! It was a fucking gerrymander. Fuck the SWP. There is no reason why we should adhere to a decision voted on at a stuffed meeting. The protests at Shannon must continue.

by Outsider Sun Feb 08, 2004 20:50

type the bloody story in then so that those of us that don't read the SBP can take a dekko at it.

by The Insider Sun Feb 08, 2004 16:50

I see this story has made it to page 4 of the SBP. Including a few choice comments from yours truly. Arf!

by Dominic Carroll - Clonakilty Against the War Sun Feb 08, 2004 14:57 clonakiltyagainstthewar at eircom dot net

Contrary to Laurence Vize’s assertion, Clonakilty Against the War DOES continue to exist.

The group, together with the Cork Anti-War Campaign, jointly organised the bus to the Shannon Blockade on 6th December (the bus actually started in West Cork so as to collect anti-war activists from our part of the county).

The next meeting of Clonakilty Against the War is this Thursday 12th February, 8.30pm, O’Donovan’s Hotel, Clonakilty.

Quite why the status of Clonakilty Against the War is an issue with Laurence, I don’t know, since Clonakilty Against the War did not send a delegate to the recent IAWM meeting.

On the substantive issue of SWP domination of the IAWM: there is no doubt that many anti-war activists have been turned off by the manipulation of the IAWM by the SWP, together with its high-handed refusal to focus on Shannon in any serious way. That the IAWM is in serious need of reform is obvious. Exactly how much energy anti-war activists can spare for such a thankless task is debatable. That Shannon should be to the forefront of the anti-war movement is certain. That the IAWM will continue to obstruct attempts to orientate on Shannon is unquestionable. It goes without saying that something must be done.

by Puppy Power Sat Feb 07, 2004 22:58

It's hilarious to watch. The imperiallist capitalist fatcats can sleep soundly in their featherdown beds while this lot are running the Irish Left.

Incompetent is too small a word for the,. If you ask me, I blame the SWP.

by Brian Sat Feb 07, 2004 21:55

"Brothers, surely we shouldn't spend all out time fighting each other - let's fight the common enemy!"

"THE JUDAEAN PEOPLE'S FRONT!!!"

"No, the Romans!!!"

Ha ha you people are so pathetic - you're almost a parody to watch.

by David Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:34

who have no voting power because of the cheating tactics employed by the SWP. they might as well not be there apart from the reports they can bring back to Indymedia.

by Another observer Sat Feb 07, 2004 00:49

The Cork Anti-War Campaign is NOT a branch of the IAWM. It is affiliated, though that could change.

by Observer Fri Feb 06, 2004 21:48

Those calling on people to resign from the IAWM committee should hold their whist for a while.

Think about it. The SWP would be delighted and would just replace the resignees with stooges from the bogus Dublin branches. Resignations should only happen if affiliates and branches go too. Will the Fairview, Limerick, and Cork branches disaffiliate? If not, it's as well to have people remain on the committee.

by More votes Fri Feb 06, 2004 21:35

The members of the steering ctte also had votes. They were:

Richard Boyd Barrett (SWP)
Kieran Allen (SWP)
Colm Stephens (SWP)
Aoife Ni Fhearghail (SWP)
Michael O'Brien (SP)
**Tim Hourigan (Green Party)
**Fintan Lane (Cork Anti War Campaign)
*Kirsten Foy
**Laurence Vize (Fairview)
**Mick O'Sullivan (Fairview)
Raymond Deane (Irish-Palestine Solidarity Campaign)
Harry Browne
Glenda Cimino (who??)
Dominic Walsh (whoo??)
*Cara Wallace (Tralee Anti-War Group)
Colin Coulter

Those marked with a star are anti the SWP dominance - those with two stars are hardcore anti-SWPers and want to prioritise Shannon. The rest just want a quiet life or else fully back the SWP (like Deane and Cimino)

by Chekov Fri Feb 06, 2004 21:18

Aoife:
"no motion specifically to adopt a constitution ... please get facts right and stop listening to gossip"

Laurence:
"Tim Hourigan proposed a `motion that an EGM be called and a constitution be written up in a month."

It seems that listening to gossip is better than listening to the SWP!

Another amusing point:

Laurence:
"If a point of order has been raised on the right to vote of the delegates how therefore can you take a vote on it???"

Easy: "Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to vote on the question of 'is this meeting packed', all those against raise your right hands....motion defeated." Brilliant.

by RS Fri Feb 06, 2004 20:55

Didn't Fairview Against the War have a delegate?

by maggot Fri Feb 06, 2004 20:46

I didn't say they had a monopoly of the left - I said they were the 'monopoly capitalists' of the Irish Left. While why they want it is increasingly unclear it is increasingly clear that all they want is everything.

Anti-war - our property.
Dissent about EU - Our property.
Anti-capitalism - Our Property
Bins - Our Property
etc

They are property speculators with a similar diversionary setup of shell companies front companies and cutouts.

The protest economy is in a slump though and their profits and share prices are through the floor. They'll fight any comers for the crumbs.

How low can the swp index of Irish shares actually go~? It's depressing how nearly every conversation on the left is about the index . Talking it up - talking it down. It's a distraction just like the Dow - Jones.

SP are similar politically but in their Modus Op. are reasonably straight up. No fronts/cutouts/shells for them and fair play to them on that. Not so popular with the anti-war hardcore though because of Joe Higgins and his legendary 'virtual warriors' speech

What next? meeting of SC soon - in a week or so. Should be lively. It does seem though that the beast is running out of life and that something new may rise from the ashes on the trading floor.

by R Isible Fri Feb 06, 2004 20:27

To repeat the other editor's offer: point out impersonation and we'll remove it. That's a clear breach of guidelines. Secondly: how many people were at the meeting in total? In other words what proportion was SWP? The list you give makes it look like it was only SWP and unknowns there.

by David Fri Feb 06, 2004 20:23

there are loads of honest activists but thats the difference, The SWP are fundamentally dishonest. Examples are practically limitless.

I say F*** them. Let the SWP (and the sp?) have the IAWM. its got no credibility anymore. The rest of us can do better without them

by Amused Fri Feb 06, 2004 20:21

Laurence, the Rathmines delegate was Conor Keneally (not Kavanagh) and, yeah, you guessed, is a member of the SWP.

by maggot Fri Feb 06, 2004 20:16

Is asking for a person's political affiliation McCarthyite in an Irish Context? I would think it is only sensible practice.

The SWP are the 'monopoly capitalists' of the Irish Left and a little bit of daylight is destroying their little empire.

The basic reason they can channel and control public expression of dissent is because they have an office with computers and phonelines and a few fulltime people.

Shouldn't others get the same together if they are serious about a strong ongoing anti-war campaign?

Irish CND - now there's a lovely little organisation that could do with a huge influx of members of the calibre of the IAWM dissidents ;-)

by an imc editor Fri Feb 06, 2004 20:06

use the contact form

by Grainne Smithe Fri Feb 06, 2004 19:57

As to whether this is all true or not I can only say that yesterday after waiting for an announcement from the IAWM I took it upon myself to do what we're always told to do on indymedia and I contacted the IAWM to ask for a response. I emailed all of the three addresses on the front page of the IAWM website (http://irishantiwar.org) which includes Fintan Lane, Colm Stephens and some webmaster asking about an official statement.

As yet I have heard nothing, nada, zippo, zilch.

At this stage it would be fair to say that the IAWM and everyone involved in it is complicit in creating a climate of suspicion, distrust and confusion by refusing to respond to a simple factual enquiry.

by Laurence Vize - SC IAWM (personal Capacity) Fri Feb 06, 2004 19:48

Report of Saturdays proceedings
Can the trolls posting in my name at least learn to spell it. Its V I Z E .
I suppose since my name has been dragged into this I might as well have my tuppence halfpenny.

The meeting was quite something I can tell you.

A whole enormous queue of SWP people piling into the tiny room.

All from the dublin branches of the SWP oooops IAWM.

Each with their own little yellow card to cast their delegate vote.

I ll give a list of delegates

"Affiliate" Delegate Party Comment

Civil & Public Service Union Denis Kane ?
Irish Socialist Network Colm Breathneach ISN
Socialist Workers Party Brid Smith SWP
Youth Against War Kevin Crake ?
Ballyfermot Against War Charlie O Toole SWP
Ballymun Against the war Kevin Wingfield SWP
Clondalkin Against the war Micky McGuigan SWP
Cork anti war DCampaign Eoin McGuire ?
Dundrum Antiwar Mellissa Halpin SWP
Dun Laoighre Antiwar Dave Lorden SWP
Drumcondra Antiwar Donal Ni Fheaearragh SWP
MAMA ( limrick ) Conor Creegan ?
Phibsborough Antiwar Helena McNeill SWP
Rathmines Antiwar Conor Kavenagh? ?
Tralee Against War Debs? ?
Trinity Cllege A W Rory Ahearn SWP
UCD Against War Thoma Something ?
Waterford Against War Roy Hassey SWP
Waterford trades Council John ?
Belfast Padraic ? ?
Bray Siobhan Stapelton ?
Gorey John McCarthy? ?
South City Denis Redmond ?
St Pats ? Niall Smith



If people can complete the list with more party affilliiations please do


Can the people working in these branches please post as to what their activity was in the last six months

I'm saying these are mostly phony branches. There just SWP branches who do some Anti war work now and again.

MY CHALLENGE --- PROOVE ME WRONG

Show me proof of what it you've done in the last 8 months.

If you did antiwar work fair play to you. But do SWP branches who work 4/5 weeks in the last 9 months get a DELEGATE vote??
I dont think so

Colm Stephens (SWP) the Secretary of the IAWM sent me a list of affiliates only a week before the meeting when I requested it
I have the email
Attending the meeting, no list of delegates was provided to the meeting.
I had to get this list off him and photocopy it.
How the secretary of an organisation can produce 2 complety different lists of affiliates in 2 weeks is baffling.
But I'm sure he'll produce a plausible explanation.
I asked Colm about boycott topoil campaign which both he and I were in and has been defunct for ages.
He said if they had chosen a delegate they could have sent one
It didnt seem to bother him that is was dodgy to send a delegate from an affilliate which was defunct.
As secretary surely he should know that but there you go.
You see Boycott Topoil Campaign never became an affiliate of the IAWM.
There was simply no process to decide who is and who is not an affiliate.
Take Clonakilty against the War
As far as I know this group doesnt exist. Correct me if I m wrong Dominick.

So again why is it on the list

So who decides what an affiliate is or isnt . You see there is now firm process for deciding, None.

The answer is keep it as loose as possible. So when you pack the meeting you can have your excuse ready

The meeting started with RBB calling for a vote on one thing or another

At least six or seven people raised a point of order

We said that we wanted to know about the credentials of these groups.

A proper and perfectily justifiabe honest point of order.

This was not "petty procedural points" designed to disrupt the meeting as the SWP spin says.

Every single point of order was ignored by the neutral chairman RIchard Boyd Barratt (SWP)

This was absolutly illegal no chairman has that type of perogative power.

As every honest person knows.

Eventually to decide the issue he decided he would take a vote on the matter.

A manipulative underhand tactic. If a point of order has been raised on the right to vote of the delegates how therefore can

you take a vote on it???

This is what set people off in an uproar.

And not only me. Loads and loads of people.

The Tralee people ( a real group) proposed a roll call of branches people declaring their political affilliation.

Raymond Deane (Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign) & Steering Committee IAWM

"Are you or have you ever been "

implying that they were being McCartyite.

And I called him a sneaky bastard.

That is the first time I've ever verbally abused somebody at a meeting

It was wrong and I apoligised later on.

Will Raymond apoligise to the members of the Tralee group for calling them McCarthyite by stealth

I dont think so .

You see Raymond said this so nicely so sweetly so politely.

Great game this you know Pack the meeting like a can of john west Salmon and then when anyone tries to
challange shout

"I m being oppressed MACARTHYISM MACARTYISM MACARTYISM!"

The steering committee decided the following layout to this meeting and I quote from the minutes.


8.3. The Agenda will have three main sessions
8.3.1. Political Analysis
8.3.2. Strategy/Priorities Open Debate
8.3.3. Organisation/Finance

the meeting was to held 2 to 6

Tim Hourigan proposed a `motion that an EGM be called and a constitution be written up in a month.

Mr Boyd Baratt said this would be discussed in the third session the one on organisation/finance.

No regard was given by the chair to the time constraints specially when
he was hearing all that nasty stuff about dodgy branches and packing and stuff.

The General Political Discussion went on and on and on.

The third session started at about 5 minutes to six.

Tims motion was taken.

Followed by an immediate vote.
With their pre- arranged majority.
NO discussion allowed whatsoever. None

The motion was defeated
Every SWP member voted en block

The meeting was over

You wont ever read a minute of this meeting from the steering committee either
They dont allow them to be published
I have to do it and I get attacked by the SWP and Raymond Deane for doing it when I do.

They dont allow observers either.

So the members of the IAWM have no way of knowing what is happening in THEIR Steering Committee meetings

If the meetings that are held in public are scammed this bad can you imagine what the private ones are like.

Draw your own conclusion as to why that is...............................................

Hope this Helps

Laurence

by Joe Fri Feb 06, 2004 19:31

Some feller called 'Mark Thomas' is demanding that Fintan Lane and Tim Hourigan leave the IAWM and, quote, "help the rest of us to put Shannon back on the agenda". Say what?

Who is "the rest of you" exactly? Fintan and Tim have been CRUCIAL in putting Shannon on the "agenda"! If there's a "rest of you", maybe you might elaborate on what you have been doing.

On the IAWM, maybe it is time for good people to leave. The problem is that all those people who moan about the SWP and IAWM have failed to produce an alternative.

by objective Fri Feb 06, 2004 16:02

first off, i'm far from a big fan of the SWP. I think that the way they do many things is not good. but i do acknowledge people join them for good reasons, ie wanting socialism.

I have to say that i've been to a few IAWM meetings. I'm sick of a certain element constantly stirring up shit. Just look at the last post. Putting a motion down about hear-say about Richard Boyd Barrett is childish. if you disagree with him bring up your politicial differences and then even run against him for chair.

IAWM meetings are usually ruined by these types. They attack people in political parties. Last meeting I was at one bloke said anyone on the SC should not be in any parties! At the 'national assembly' they proposed all kinds of silly boycotts and motions that just bogged us down. In my view the SC should be more of a leadership and ditch motions that are repeditive. Then you have that crowd from Kerry wanting to bring trucks to Iraq. Its an anti war movement not a f**king charity!

I would ask why is the SC being re-elected. Last time was only a few months ago, in August I think.

In conclusion. The SWP are pricks in the IAWM (packing meetings, phantom 'groups', undemocratic manouevers, opportunism, etc.) but they are not the only ones!

by Aoife's answer Fri Feb 06, 2004 15:49

Aoife wrote:

wrong again - no motion specifically to adopt a constitution, same already passed at AGM and will be developed in consultation with members - IAWM is not running candidates in elections - please get facts right and stop listening to gossip



There WAS a motion by either Tim or Fintan I think, to have an EGM for the purpose of creating a constitution and deciding on a strategy.
Aoife stood up and said she would support this motion, citing also the need to re-elect the steering committee.

there then followed a break, between the end of the political discussion and the motions and voting.

When this motion was formally presented, Aoife was the one who opposed it.

Interestingly, the secretary said that he would NOT record motions that were not passed.

Another interesting U-turn was in reference to the following.

Barry (?) from Kilkenny group proposed a motion that
comments by the chairperson, at a meeting in a hotel, (I didn't catch the date or hotel name) where the chair (allegedly) said 'i hope its a long drawn out war, it will help recruit.'
barry proposed that it be acknowledged that this is not in keeping with the spirit of the anti-war movement.

Colm stephens opposed the motion. He said that he had heard Richard make the comment but feared that it was being used out of context.

Even though Colm agreed with Barry that Richard had actually said it, Richard then denied saying it.

You won't find that recorded either, as it was never going to be passed in that packed room.

by Mark Thomas Fri Feb 06, 2004 13:38

The time to leave the IAWM, publicly denounce the SWP and help the rest of us to put Shannon back on the agenda is NOW.
Do the right thing lads, you are legitimating the SWP.

by Hutman Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:48 iamnuts at eircom dot net

Hi, I posted the SWP bulletin about saturdays anti war confernce, I didnt post the rest of the bulletin anywhere as it does not contain much else of relevance to the anti war movement. If you wish to get a copy of the bulletin in full please email me.

by Interested Fri Feb 06, 2004 01:11

I'd like to see the bulletin in its entirety. Go on - publish it whoevers got it! I reckon its the genuine article but we need more.

by Interested Ian Fri Feb 06, 2004 00:16

What has been pretty widely circulated, the whole bulletin or this excerpt?

The piece above is believable enough and if it is a fake it is cleverly written. On the side of the skeptics, I've never heard that the Irish SWP has a regular email bulletin, although I know that the British one does.

However in the absence of either confimation from an identifiable SWP member (never happen) or the rest of the bulletin to give it context, there just isn't any way to know.

I tend to agree with R Isible that a whole load of anonymous people saying nothing other than "Oh it's true" (or "Oh no it's false") won't convince anyone.

by Poster of the Bullitin Fri Feb 06, 2004 00:09

The SWP can deny if it isnt true then people can produce the truth.

by R Isible Thu Feb 05, 2004 23:53

Or shall I style myself "Curious/Concerned/Interested/Amused" and say that it is/isn't true?

by Anon Thu Feb 05, 2004 23:30

It's definitely from the SWPs bulletin cos I'd already heard about it. Its pretty widely circulated already.

by Interested Ian Thu Feb 05, 2004 22:47

If the above bulletin excerpt is genuine then it is very interesting indeed. If it is a fake then it is a very good one.

Could whoever posted it up please post the entire bulletin?

This would serve two purposes -

It would provide verification for the above excerpt. Only the most dedicated, skilled and deranged of trolls would be able to convincingly fake a whole bulletin.

It would be a public service to everyone who comes into contact with them.

by From SWP Bullittin - One Solution Revolution Thu Feb 05, 2004 22:33

one solution revolution
The Future of Irish Anti-War Movement

The Irish Anti-War Movement conference was a disaster. A tiny disruptive
minority have made it clear that they wish to destroy the movement. Their
politics are motivated by an extreme moralism - 'why aren't you plane
spotting in Shannon every night' and old style McCarthyism against left.
There is clearly no future in this type of carry on.
The Future of Irish Anti-War Movement

The Irish Anti-War Movement conference was a disaster. A tiny disruptive
minority have made it clear that they wish to destroy the movement. Their
politics are motivated by an extreme moralism - 'why aren't you plane
spotting in Shannon every night' and old style McCarthyism against left.
There is clearly no future in this type of carry on.

by Observer Thu Feb 05, 2004 19:45

I was at the meeting and roughly speaking, this is how I would characterise it:

Overall it was a chaotic faction fight between the SWP and their opponents.

The only decisions I recall were to hold a demo when Bush comes to ireland and to endorse, but not run, candidates who had an anti-war position in the euro and local elections. Proposals to hold an EGM to formulate an IAWM constitution and to organise a blokade of Shannon Airport were defeated (by the SWP majority).

It is true that there were a large number of SWPers there claiming to represent local anti-war groups, in my view some genuine and some definitely bogus. RBB tried to chair it in a fairly reasonable way but kept getting dragged into rows and drifting away from being a neutral chair. A number of SWPers including Kieron Allen played a much more aggressive role, barracking speakers etc. By and large the SWP opposed any moves to democratise the IAWM and any real commitment to direct action.

On the other side a disparate group of people pushed for a more democratic structure and more direct action but mostly in a confused and sometimes extremely emotional/aggressive way which made it easy for the SWP to defeat them. Some individuals in particular lost the run of themselves completely, shouting abuse and ranting. On the other hand people like Fintan Lane and Tim Hourigan made reasonable, coherent arguments for change.

As for the SP, there was only two of them there and they didnt really play any major role though as far as I can recall they voted with the SWP most of the time.

All in all, not a pretty sight. Think I'll stick to the Grassroots!

by Judge Jules Thu Feb 05, 2004 18:26

The thread is about the SP showing their true colours, any other evidence is pertinent.

by Judge Dredd Thu Feb 05, 2004 18:23

This thread was supposed to be discussing the Saturday meeting of the IAWM and I'm sick of trolls trying to derail it with rubbish about the SP vs the SWP. Take it elsewhere!

My tuppence worth: the decision to end demos at Shannon is shameful and lets me wondering what the IAWM sees its purpose as. Shannon is where the complicity is happening. If it was Baldonnel or Dublin Airport, I'll bet this decision would never have been taken. Its a disgrace.

by Judge Judy Thu Feb 05, 2004 17:18

SWP - more middle class, more hysterical, one of the least democratic organisations around

SP - more working class, saner, less prone to trying to stuff meetings with their members to get their own way, come across as more rigid and boring

Other than that, not much difference. I'm sure the members of both parties will now be yapping on about how they aren't hysterical (SWP) or boring (SP) and how the difference really comes down to the theoretical analysis of X, Y or Z but from the outside the above is really all we need to know.

The rest of us can work with the SP without wanting to beat our heads off something solid and concrete at least most of the time. That isnt so true of the SWP as even saints tend to lose their cool when faced with a meeting full of smiling SWPers claiming to be delegates from 23 different ficitional organisations.

If I had to join one, gun against me head, I would join the SP, but I'd really rather not join either of them or any of the other groups on the left. Do your own thing!

by HK Thu Feb 05, 2004 16:45

Does this mean that the IAWM is admiting defeat? Is the anti war movement now officially finished in ireland? The numbers have collapsed in recent months. Marches in Dublin are fine but I don't see what once-off demos will achieve other than make us feel like we're still actually doing something when in fact we're just going thru the motions.

The frontline has been abandoned.

by sumdumguy Thu Feb 05, 2004 13:47

Well the word workers, views on Northen Ireland and most notably tactics.

SWP has a more middle class membership, better flags etc. though uses many fronts and has a bad rep for fixinf meetings etc.

SP more hardcore working class party esp. with bin tax but has bad rep. as undemocratic and even as a cult at times.

Both have problems, have a look at their websites.

www.socialistparty.net
www.swp.ie

Think they are right, aint they?

by Ray Thu Feb 05, 2004 13:00

It's not a particularly silly question, but it is one that's bound to lead to arguments.
If I said there wasn't much difference, both would complain.
If I said that the SP did more X, but the SWP did more Y, the SP would say that naturally they were much better at X, but they also did lots of Y, even though it obviously isn't as important as X. The SWP would say the exact opposite.
If I said that they SP believed X, while the SWP believed -X, we'd get arguments about X and -X, and comments from everybody else about how nobody but the SWP and SP think the X/-x distinction is important.
You get the idea.

by Brendan Behan Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:43

As I said a long time ago, the first thing on the agenda of the left in Ireland is a split.

Unfortunately the IAWM haven't taken that on board. Here for once, we actually need a split. If the SWP and others want to be sectarian, let them off. Lets start from scratch without them.

by Bystander Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:33

It's probably a silly question but as one who visits this site regularly could someone please explain the difference between the SPand the SWP parties?

by David Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:13

Why dont we just let them have the name and all the active members organise seperately from the SWP.
They can march up and down in the dark outside empty offices, they'll be selling their papers to each other.

The amount of energy that would have to be spent reclaiming the IAWM will be wasted when we consider what else we might do with that energy

by Mark Thomas Thu Feb 05, 2004 07:33

So, Aoife, if you are worried about gossips, why don't YOU tell us what happened at the meeting? Do you have to ask for permission to your paymasters or what? Come on, tell us the truth. Was that meeting packed with members of your party or it wasn't? Did you vote against a demo at Shannon or you didn't?

Of course you did and it's time the rest of us wake up: the SWP is determined to keep the movement away from Shannon, and there is no dirty trick they won't resort to to achieve their objective, that much now is clear. Why they do that I don't know, though I know whose interests the SWP tactics serve. And they are not that stupid either. They know that Shannon is the battle line in Ireland, and they are doing the State a huge favour. Why?

Chekov, let's stop morning, organise. Time to put Shannon back on the agenda. The IAWM/SWP won't help us, we must do it!

by IAWM ex-member Thu Feb 05, 2004 04:40

No more IAWM demonstrations at Shannon Warport.
At last Saturday's national meeting of the IAWM, which was packed with SWP delegates from Dublin branches, it was decided that there are to be no more anti-war demonstrations at Shannon Airport.

A motion from Michael O'Brien of the Socialist Party to hold a demo at Shannon if George Bush lands there was defeated. A motion from Fintan Lane simply calling for a date to be set for the next demo at Shannon was also overwhelmingly defeated, as was his motion that it take the form of a blockade. In fact, the IAWM has decided against planning any demonstrations for Shannon warport and instead will concentrate on marches in Dublin and pickets on Aer Rianta offices.

by Anonymous Thu Feb 05, 2004 03:50

I heard it was decided that theres to be no more demos at Shannon even if George W Bush lands there. And thats not rumor - thats a decision that WAS taken.

by R Isible Thu Feb 05, 2004 01:52

Seeing as there are no reports from anyone that's signed their names apart from Aoife and (apparently) Lawrence Vize.

Your own post would do a good deal to stir up the "sectarianism" that you claim to deplore, adding to it the old, fractious Jackeen/Culchie element.

Beats me why someone as upset by sectarianism as you claim to be would be so quick to do that!

by Cork anti-war activist Thu Feb 05, 2004 01:18

Same old story that we've come to expect from Dublin lefties. Sectarianism, sectarianism, sectarianism. Shite, shite, shite. Best to limit contact with the Big Poison if you want to maintain your sanity.

by Anti-war activist Wed Feb 04, 2004 22:53

What's this about the Shannon peace camp? Where is it? I thought it disbanded in early 2003. Are some people still there? Are Laurence Vize and Mick O'Sullivan involved?

Look, what happened at that meeting was a bloody disgrace. The SWP packed it with fake delegates from fake branches and people like the two boyos above just completely lost the rag. They went on and on and on and on about petty procedural points and had virtually nothing to say about stratagy or about the substantive issues at stake. Worse, they verbally abused people - Mick O'Sull could hardly utter a sentence without using the word 'fuck' and Laurence Vize called another member of the steering committee 'a fucking bolloxs' while 'f'ing and blinding his way through the rest of the meeting. They were reprehensible.

I don't know why the peace camp is being dragged into this. Are those good people somehow being used as cover for the foul behaviour of Dublin IAWMers?

by Huggermugger Wed Feb 04, 2004 21:47

How about an official report from the IAWM? Or from the people that were at the meeting? So far it's all been (I heard it from my friend, An Anonymouse Source).

Hey my friend was there and he said that the SWP and the SP decided that they weren't going to release any official statement because they'd rather cry about nasty rumours being started about them.

Lenin and his crown of bleedin thorns.

by peace - camper Wed Feb 04, 2004 21:28

They don't understand anything about Politics"

by Cork Anti War Campaign member Wed Feb 04, 2004 21:09

From the reports we've heard back from Saturday's meeting, it was a disgrace with both sides to blame, though Lawerce Vice and Mick Sullivan (Fairview) appear to have acted like complete maggots.

Grow up everybody and remember what this is all about!!

by Member - Tralee Anti War Group Wed Feb 04, 2004 20:52 Ireland ----------

I thought that this was supposed to be an opportunity to talk about last Saturday's meeting and not become a slanging match between socialist parties (of whatever hue). Who cares about local elections, they have nothing to do with the war.
I was at that meeting and it was nothing short of a total disgrace.
I've never in my life seen more Ego's present in the same room. There was no strategy decided upon for 2004, which is what the meeting was "supposed" to be about. Lets face it the meeting was usurped by people with their own agenda's.
I truly feel sorry for the people of Iraq and Palestine if they are relying on those present last Saturday to help fight their cause. It seems we are too busy fighting amongst ourselves. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

by Crumlin Head Wed Feb 04, 2004 19:06

The funniest thing about this particular bunch of arse is that it is based on the idea or claim that the SP are in with a chance of a seat in Crumlin. That's pure delusion.

I'm sure they will get a respectable vote if they stand but they just aren't strong enough around these parts to be anywhere near a seat.

by Troll Alert Wed Feb 04, 2004 19:01

You see how good trolling works?

A troll start by introducing an allegation irrelevent to a thread - in this case some rubbish about the SWP no longer standing against the SP and SP candidate selection.

It's the kind of thing that derails a thread very effectively because some other troll will normally respond. If you are unlucky and don't get a bite, you can always respond to yourself under a different name.

Then when the original allegation is answered the trolls shift emphasis. In this case the deal involving Dundrum that was the core of the first bit of trolling goes and we are back to straightforward trolling about Crumlin.

With a bit of persistence any thread can be converted into a wank fest about your own favourite obsession.

See how effectively this thread has been derailed already?

by Concerned sp Wed Feb 04, 2004 19:00

Some people in the SP have decided to block Joan Collins from standing just because of her link with Dermot Connolly. She has a good chance of winning a seat and has never dissented from the Party in any major way so it comes down to a fear of having a potential dissident elected. The reason I know this is that I spoke to another SP candidate who attended the local elections candidate meeting held recently.

Im sure this wont be announced for ages to avoid trouble. My view is that a small number of people in the Party are being allowed away with murder, bullying other comrades, seeing disidents everywhere and undermining party democracy. This is a million miles away from Trotsky's views on party organisation and much more like what you would expect in a stalinist party.

by William Millar Wed Feb 04, 2004 18:13

Because he/she says that:
"The SP have still not announced their intentions in Crumlin or the rest of the City Council."

And we all know that they did announce their attentions on Crumlin and are now furiously backpeddling?

by Troll alert Wed Feb 04, 2004 18:07

The SWP are still standing in Dundrum.

The SP have still not announced their intentions in Crumlin or the rest of the City Council.

Some anonymous troll above is spreading lies to derail the thread.

by Nameless - Factless Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:59

Fades without a trace
Leaving only
Troll droppings littering cyberspace
Steaming dung smeared on the faces
Of unpleasant children
Squalling on the floor

by Sam Pepys Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:54

Local members are allowed to choose a candidate. But the candidate must then go before the Council of Guardians to be ratified.

by Factman Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:27

1) The meeting involved a good deal more in the way of sometimes quite angry division than most IAWM ones.

2) The IAWM did not decide to run electoral candidates.

3) There were a large number of SWP members there claiming to represent local groups in Dublin. Some of them were from "groups" that had not met to elect a delegate. Some of them were from "groups" that had held one meeting in months.

This caused outrage amongst many others. Some tried to specifically challenge individual delegates. The SP wanted a roll call of everyone claiming to be a delegate and where they were representing. The SWP denied everything, not very convincingly.

4) The idea of a formal constitution was not in fact voted down.

In my, non-aligned, view it was the SWP's abuse of the delegate structure that made the whole meeting so rancorous. It meant that those who had strategic or tactical differences with them felt that they had no way of discussing issues on a level playing field.

by Chekov Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:09

I thought that I made it clear in my comment that the bit about the elections and the constitution were heresay - that's why I put the 'is this true?' question after them and asked for some real details. As for listening to gossip, I listen to the best information available and make my mind up based on that. If somebody was to post up an account of what actually happened at this apparently fractitious meeting, that would go a long way to clarifying my mind on the matter. For the moment the only things that I've heard have been gossip and the few angry snatches here. Your 2-line response doesn't carry too much information, and it leaves me ignorant as to whether the substance of what I have heard is erroneous, or if it is just the precise semantics.

You deny that there was any specific motion about a constitution, fair enough, but I have heard that there was a heated debate about the lack of one, is this false? Regarding the elections, if the IAWM is not running candidates is it endorsing them?

by William Millar Wed Feb 04, 2004 15:59

"In return the SP agreed to withdraw from standing in Crumlin."

What happened to seeing whether Joan wanted to run, having a convention of local members and then ratification at NC level.
It was all fantasy I suppose just like the internal democracy of the SP. Little Lenin and his rotweiller 'Hadden's Hamster' are the law.

by Lord Running Clam Wed Feb 04, 2004 15:49

This was a compromise between the SWP and SP. The SWP also agreed not to run against Lisa Maher. In return the SP agreed to withdraw from standing in Crumlin.

by Lawrence Vice Wed Feb 04, 2004 14:27

I've will make no apology for telling those swp f**kers to their face what they are. They have f**ked up, and will continue to f**k every campaign in the future.

by Jeffrey Wigand Wed Feb 04, 2004 14:17

"The fact that every local group in Dublin there was represented by an SWP member is really a reflection of the low level of participation by non alingned people. "

Who writes your script - Walt Disney?

As in the bin tax, people living in the greater Dun Laoghaire area were representing groups on the Northside. The local groups are phantom. Everybody knows it but they still get away with it.

by Anti War Observer - none Wed Feb 04, 2004 13:40

Thefact that every local group in Dublin there was represented by an SWP member is really a reflection of the low level of participation by non alingned people. That said, the Fairview group which is free of SWP content was very vocally rerpresented.
As for the SP, it seems they will put in a basic amount of work for the big events and tend to take the "strategic" view which boils down to not going down to Shannon until factors are in place to guaruntee a big mobilisation.
There are points of analysis where the SWP and SP differ which haven't really come out since the gathering in Liberty Hall last year, in particular on the question of Islamic fundamentalism where the SP tend to be more critical though they do support the right of women to wear the hidjab.
In fairness to MO'B, and the several other SPers they didn't engage in any of the verbal abuse or heckling that Lawrice, Mick O'Sullivan as well as Dave Lorden from the SWP were guilty of. MO'B proposed a role call of delegates which some SWPers opposed.
One of the challanges concerned Ballyfermot. Lawrence Vize, who was one of the most abusive people said that they me for the first time in ages to agree a delegate, but he didn't make the meeting and that only SWPers were in attendance and that doens't constitute a group. Well if everybody was invited to the meeting and the group undertakes to do the work for the events they do have a certain right to be represnented. If facts can be brought to light of the SWP excluding people from the work in various areas there is the basis for a challange to such a group having voting rights.

by Jeffrey Wigand Wed Feb 04, 2004 13:03

The manufacturing of a majority did happen. SWP did what they did in the bin tax and what they do for other broad front meetings and had delegates from phantom groups. The SP didn't let them away with it in the bin tax campaign but turned a blind eye here.

by Aoife Ni Fhearghail - IAWM Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:25 aoifenf at yahoo dot co dot uk D6W 087 7955013

wrong again - no motion specifically to adopt a constitution, same already passed at AGM and will be developed in consultation with members - IAWM is not running candidates in elections - please get facts right and stop listening to gossip

by ... Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:05

I will stop, I will stop at nothing.
Say the right things when electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote.

When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
Ha ha ha

Riot shields, voodoo economics,
it's just business, cattle prods and the I.M.F.
I trust I can rely on your vote.

When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.
When I go forwards you go backwards
and somewhere we will meet.

by Ear to the ground Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:22

From what I heard the SWP manufactured their usual majority at the meeting. The SP, no lovers of democracy themselves, didn't seem to mind.

I think there were groups there like Carrigstown against the war and Ballydung against the war. Amazing how these anti-war groups always seem to send a SWP delegate.

by David Wed Feb 04, 2004 09:52

Look forward to them in Autumn

by bysshe Tue Feb 03, 2004 23:18

any chance of an actual report of the meeting. who was there, what was decided.
then all the hue and cry over who did what to whom will at least have a context

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Tue Feb 03, 2004 22:46

I could not attend the meeting, and to be honest was glad of that, so I am not qualified to comment on it in detail. However, I have heard from several sources that several people who purport to support nonviolent direct action engaged in personalised attacks, character assassination and name calling of members of the Steering Committee. I don't care what party SC members are with, or what people think of the IAWM strategy, I think this type of behaviour is reprehensible. As someone who is on trial for non-violent direct action at Shannon, I think it's important for me to say that these verbal attacks were definitely not performed in my name.

The movement is full of differences of opinion regarding strategy. I know certainly that at least one or two people who have engaged in civil disobedience have been the butt of unfair jokes from a small minority of SC members who don't agree with their stance. It's unfortunate, regrettable and lacking in solidarity. But if people can't handle that, they should either stay away from the IAWM and concentrate their energies on setting up an alternative organisation against war and occupation (which I think is the best solution), or they should plan towards eventually voting people onto the SC whose views are closer to theirs; people of calibre who are not afraid to speak up. Handling disagreement by using playground bully tactics such as name calling and confused, illogical rants about what is perceived as wrong with the SC, simply comes across at times like some sort of paraniod witch hunt. Why give away your power to a small group of people simply because they disagree with you?

by Janus Tue Feb 03, 2004 20:13

hahaha, priceless. I can see McLoughlin and Coppinger lolling on thrones of gold :)

by Winker Tue Feb 03, 2004 20:02

It looks just like the SP attack on SF. Hmmmm....

by The Insider Tue Feb 03, 2004 20:00

"The SP have shown they are more interested in sharing the trappings of power with the SWP than they are in principle"

Eh...what trappings of power?

This whole kind of stuff is just the reason I and others like me have abandoned the far left in Ireland. It's just like the Life of Brian!

"Judaean People's Front? Piss Off! We're the People's front of Judaea!"

"Socialist Party? Piss Off! We're the Socialist Workers Party!"

Or insert any of the following - Sinn Fein, Anarchists, IAWM, GNAW and a host of other titles only comprehensible to sectarian muppets.

by Chekov Tue Feb 03, 2004 19:54

William, without more details your story reads like a sectarian rant. I'm not saying that you are inspired by sectarianism or that what you are saying is not true, but to somebody who was not at the meeting there is no way of knowing what actually happened. If you were to provide some details such as what items were moved and voted upon, then your story would carry much more weight.

For what it's worth, I have heard several accounts of this meeting and I believe that the motion to adopt a constitution was rejected by the SWP and that they passed a motion to run IAWM candidates in the local and European elections. Is this true? Were there any other contested areas?