‘Sectarian Bickering’: Dave Lordan of the SWP on the Afghan Hunger Strike – A Response

national | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis Wednesday June 21, 2006 02:34 by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland (and Irish Socialist Network) antiwarireland at gmail dot com

There are occasions when the sheer wrongheaded analysis and distorted facts of a newspaper or magazine article cause you to stiffen with annoyance. Nine times out of ten, these articles are found in the mainstream press; the Independent Group of newspapers, for example, is a reliable purveyor of sly and explicit attacks on left-wing and progressive ideas, campaigns and parties, often underpinned by distorted ‘facts’ and baffling interpretations. It can be a frustrating experience to read these wilful misinterpretations of left-wing ideas and actions. Unfortunately, the socialist media cannot claim an entirely clean record in this regard either.

Last week, while attending the IAWM’s excellent debate on Iran in the Royal Dublin Hotel, I bought a copy of the SWP’s new magazine, titled the New Left Journal, mostly as an act of solidarity with a new left-wing publication. However, a quick read of the first article, which deals with the recent stand-off at St Patrick’s Cathedral, provided one of those hair-bristling moments that I generally avoid by not buying the Sunday Independent.

Penned by Dave Lordan, a stalwart of the SWP, much of the article is uncontroversial, from a left-wing point of view. The general arguments are familiar ones: the Irish refugee system is rightly assailed as restrictive; the treatment of asylum seekers is criticised; the poor conditions in Afghanistan are highlighted; and racism is to be viewed in the context of class inequality. So far so good. However, this is padding and the main thrust of the article is in fact an attack on socialists and anti-racists, more specifically on those who stood in solidarity outside the cathedral during the Afghan hunger strike.

Lordan doesn’t mince his words; those of us who gathered in solidarity in very difficult circumstances – facing the taunts and physical aggression of racists – are accused of following a ‘ridiculous strategy’ and of exacerbating racial tensions in the area. It is a no-holds-barred polemic that either betrays a profound lack of knowledge of what actually happened outside the cathedral, or is a wilful distortion of the facts to suit a sectarian agenda. It’s hard not to plump for the latter when Lordan manages to link his misrepresentation of an article I wrote (calling for greater solidarity) to old divisions within the anti-war movement; there’s a distinct whiff of aged scores being settled. Perhaps there is a third choice – a mix of ignorance, misinformation and wilful distortion. Who knows?

At any rate, Lordan – who appeared once outside the cathedral during the course of the week – makes a number of claims that simply cannot be substantiated and he grossly misrepresents the nature of the solidarity that occurred. In truth, his analysis, if adhered to, would pretty much damn fairly typical solidarity work as worthless ‘substitutionism’. He writes not one word that indicates his support for, or even empathy with, those who participated in solidarity work for the Afghans; on the contrary, his tone is relentlessly hostile.

Interestingly, however, his dismissive attitude to the Afghan solidarity vigils was implicitly contradicted by a leading SWP member last Saturday. Speaking at the ATGWU left-unity conference, Kieran Allen made it very clear that left-wing activists should have mobilised for the vigils, particularly because of the strong presence of racists. Somebody is off-message in the SWP and, for the purposes of this response, I’m assuming it is Dave Lordan. Consequently, even though Lordan’s article was published in an SWP journal, I accept that there is a doubt as to whether this piece is the official party line. If it does reflect party policy (and I sincerely hope it doesn’t), then the SWP badly needs to rethink its position on left unity and how that is to be achieved.

First of all, I’ll give a lengthy extract from Lordan’s article, which sums up his argument, and then I’ll respond to it, distortion by distortion.

DAVE LORDAN ON THE AFGHAN SOLIDARITY WORK

“Failure to recognise the real causes of racism and to provide a strategy to uproot it was unfortunately all too evident during the St Patrick’s Cathedral protests. Half way through the week, one of the spokespeople for the Afghan supporters web-published an article attacking left-wing organisations for not sending enough members to man the twice-daily vigils at the cathedral.

This was sadly reminiscent of the kind of sectarian bickering and point scoring that has been the real obstacle to sustaining a broad-based anti-war movement in this country. It was also quite clearly a ridiculous strategy.

Even if every activist in Dublin had stood at the gates of St Patrick’s Cathedral 24/7, it would not have altered the wider balance of forces in Irish society that contributed to the hunger strikers’ defeat. Instead of arguing that activists should substitute themselves for a mass anti-racist movement, all energies should have been put into gaining wider support for the hunger strikers, not least among those living in the vicinity of St Patrick’s Cathedral.

The way some dealt with the anger at the hunger strikers expressed by some of the locals was self-defeating. The whole country listened to a broadcast on Radio One’s 5-7 Live of one overheated activist engage in a drawn out slagging match with a local. The exchange was peppered with choice expletives on both sides.

In the background we could hear a rising chorus of ‘RACISTS OUT, RACISTS OUT’ directed at a crowd of locals gathered across the road. The effect of such intemperate argument is, as everyone who has been in a pub late at night should know, to escalate tensions and to entrench the opposing sides within their own positions.

In other words, if activists adopt a preaching tone with those who have been conned into believing the racist myths generated by the tabloids and the right-wing politicians, the effect will be to drive people further into the arms of the racists.

A calm, reasonable, well argued approach is what is needed when confronting racist sentiments in Irish workers. Do they want to be on the same side as Harney and Ahern? Is it the refugees who closed down the local hospital? It is not the refugees who decide how much the local builder pays, and so on.” etc. etc.

A RESPONSE TO DAVE LORDAN

1. “Failure to recognise the real causes of racism and to provide a strategy to uproot it was unfortunately all too evident during the during the St Patrick’s Cathedral protests.”

This canard is repeated throughout Lordan’s article, as if he’s reporting on a dithering anti-racism conference. I’ll be returning to this, but two points to bear in mind: first, this was a fire-brigade style solidarity action in response to an independent action by desperate Afghan refugees and not a think-tank on anti-racist strategy, and, secondly, most of those who stood in solidarity have a very clear understanding of the ‘real causes’ of racism. Speaking for myself, what ‘real cause’ of racism is it that I failed to understand? Mmm…are we talking class analysis and locating racism within an understanding of capitalism? Would that be the sort of thing that the auld thickos down at the cathedral (political neanderthals all) didn’t quite get? I mean, really!

2. “Half way through the week, one of the spokespeople for the Afghan supporters web-published an article attacking left-wing organisations for not sending enough members to man the twice-daily vigils at the cathedral.”

Well, that would be me he’s talking about, though what is this about “an article attacking left-wing organisations”? In fact, what Lordan refers to is an article I published on indymedia, following a tense vigil, where the handful present, including schoolkids, were heckled by a number of racists. The article can be found at the following link:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76130

The article was a clear call for solidarity and urged left-wing activists to turn up in greater numbers. At that stage, only handfuls of activists were turning out for the solidarity vigils and, unchecked, racists were likely to make the situation intolerable. Indeed, as the media continued to hype up the tension and spread nonsense about the Taliban directing the hunger strike by mobile phone, the number of racist hecklers grew and, if even only for the sake of security, we needed a good turnout of experienced activists. Why would any socialist distort such a mobilisation call by misrepresenting it as an ‘attack’ on the left? The answer comes in the very next line of Lordan’s missive.

3. “This was sadly reminiscent of the kind of sectarian bickering and point scoring that has been the real obstacle to sustaining a broad-based anti-war movement in this country.”

Now, to most people this must read like a genuine non sequitur. What is the connection? Well, there’s me and there’s Anti-War Ireland (who called the evening vigils) and there’s an unfortunate, though unavoidable, split that happened in the IAWM at the beginning of 2004. As hard as I’ve tried, I’m afraid that I cannot read this reference as anything other than a crude attempt to settle old scores. What is most remarkable about this, however, is that the broad anti-war movement has begun to meet and work together in a very constructive fashion (through the Anti-War Network) over the past few months. Why poke at old wounds, particularly as relations are improving?

I have no interest in revisiting the details of the division that occurred in early 2004, except to state, emphatically, that the break was not caused by ‘sectarian bickering’. This deliberate distortion, which was put about at the time also, obfuscates the real issues, which were to do, initially, with differing strategic and tactical approaches. Political differences, in other words. The break, when it came, was actually, for me anyway, to do with underhand behaviour and the ‘stuffing’ of a national meeting: it was to do with democratic process.

To be honest, apart from this distorted reference to past events, Lordan’s tone generally concerns me. The recent gatherings in the Teachers’ Club have been very constructive in building trust, coordination and cooperation between the various anti-war groups. It’s a wonderful development and it baffles me why anybody would want to renew the bad feelings of two years ago. Certainly, Anti-War Ireland has developed cordial relations with the IAWM and, hopefully, these will continue to develop. The anti-war movement in Ireland needs to unite and what happened two or three or four years ago should be put firmly to one side. Grudges? Life is too short and the issues are much too important.

4. “It was also quite clearly a ridiculous strategy.”

The pejorative use of the word ‘ridiculous’ is clearly meant to be insulting, but it’s this thing about ‘strategy’ that puzzles me. Again, we are back to a fire-brigade action treated like some sort of anti-racism conference. According to Dave Lordan, mobilising a solidarity vigil outside a cathedral where desperate Afghan men were hunger striking constitutes a ‘ridiculous strategy’. What were we to do exactly? Abandon the streets to the racists? Allow the night air to be dominated by chants of ‘Let them die! Let them die!’? No, of course not. Like all self-respecting anti-racists, we realised that a solidarity presence was essential.

Does this constitute a ‘strategy’?

I certainly wouldn’t make a large claim like that. In fact, because of the way in which this situation unfolded, those involved in solidarity work were very much reacting to events not of their own making or choosing. As the week moved on, and more and more people got involved, the scope grew for extending the solidarity work beyond the cathedral. However, because of the poor numbers for much of the week, it took a while before we could seriously contemplate anything very significant. Nonetheless, we did plan to leaflet the area and to call to people’s doors to discuss what was happening. And we considered other possible ways of connecting with the community. For instance, I remember Emmet Farrell of the Socialist Party going off in search of local community activists one evening, but unfortunately he found no-one in.

People also took group initiatives – and this was open to all left-wing parties and anti-war organisations. Nobody owns solidarity. The Socialist Party, for example, distributed several thousand leaflets in the area. Socialist Youth mobilised schoolkids to come to the vigils.

We held after-vigil meetings, although, because of the tense atmosphere (with racist abuse and latent aggression), street gatherings weren’t really possible. However, on Thursday night, we held a large meeting of supporters in a nearby church hall and there were many suggestions for extending the solidarity. People made banners and posters, stalls were organised for the city centre and – following a call by Residents Against Racism (RAR) – we continued to build for a picket of McDowell’s clinic in Ranelagh. We also, as I’ve mentioned already, planned to leaflet the Liberties area and one person took on the task of drawing up a leaflet.

Press work was strictly left to RAR because they had a pre-existing relationship with the Afghan men and were in direct contact with them. In that regard, we also acted in solidarity with RAR.

Dave Lordan claims that mobilising people for a solidarity vigil represented a ‘ridiculous strategy’. It’s an interesting claim and, I suppose, it’s a criticism he’ll be able to level at many events in the future. The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, for example, often organises pickets and solidarity events where those present are almost entirely activists of one hue or other. Is this the type of ‘substitutionism’ and ‘ridiculous strategy’ that Lordan would like to stamp out? I can think of many events over the years that wouldn’t have occurred if we followed the Lordan line on solidarity actions.

More to the point, a bit of research would have told him that the solidarity work at the cathedral was somewhat more complicated than this, was broadening out and included plans for engaging with the local community. But, I suppose we can’t allow the truth to get in the way of a good distortion, especially when there are old scores to settle.

5. “Even if every activist in Dublin had stood at the gates of St Patrick’s Cathedral 24/7, it would not have altered the wider balance of forces in Irish society that contributed to the hunger strikers’ defeat. Instead of arguing that activists should substitute themselves for a mass anti-racist movement, all energies should have been put into gaining wider support for the hunger strikers, not least among those living in the vicinity of St Patrick’s Cathedral.”

I’ve dealt with this above, but I may as well reiterate that nobody ever suggested that we were either a) expecting to alter “the wider balance of forces in Irish society”, or b) substituting ourselves “for a mass anti-racist movement”. I mean, honestly, are these serious claims? It was a solidarity action not an attempted putsch! That said, it should also be borne in mind that it was a solidarity action involving many people with complex understandings of racism whose solidarity arose from their left-wing and/or socialist perspectives on the world. It wasn’t a gathering of political illiterates. Why is Dave Lordan so intent on misrepresenting the nature and purpose of the event?

6. “The way some dealt with the anger at the hunger strikers expressed by some of the locals was self-defeating. The whole country listened to a broadcast on Radio One’s 5-7 Live of one overheated activist engage in a drawn out slagging match with a local. The exchange was peppered with choice expletives on both sides.”

First of all, the reader should bear in mind that Lordan’s impression are gleaned from listening to the state broadcaster, RTE Radio 1.

Of course, what is remarkable about this paragraph is its hostility to those who stood in solidarity, while facing a barrage of insults and threatening behaviour from racists. If Lordan had been present, I suspect he would have a different view, as the tension and friction was liable to cause tempers to snap at times. That said, I never saw ‘overheated’ activists engage in a ‘slagging match’ with ‘a local’. I suppose it must have happened and it is exactly the sort of incident that the mainstream media zooms in on. Was it representative of what occurred? Not at all. Protesters, by and large, held their nerve and behaved admirably under intense pressure. I remember for example, on the Friday night, when a concerted effort was made to pull the ‘No Deportations’ banner from solidarity activists, it was resisted successfully with calm and presence of mind. Nobody lost the rag. Those involved in that incident included leading members of the SWP.

So, why is Lordan accepting such a negative portrayal of us by the mainstream media as ‘fact’? The media was generally hostile to the Afghan men and radio phone-ins facilitated naked racism. Nonetheless, Lordan is happy to damn solidarity activists by reference to the mainstream media. This is very strange, especially for a revolutionary socialist.

7. “In the background we could hear a rising chorus of ‘RACISTS OUT, RACISTS OUT’ directed at a crowd of locals gathered across the road. The effect of such intemperate argument is, as everyone who has been in a pub late at night should know, to escalate tensions and to entrench the opposing sides within their own positions.”

What locals gathered across the street? Did he see this on the radio? As anyone present would know, the racists were in our face. They were never ‘across the road’. But yes, ‘Racists Out!’ was chanted, though much less often than ‘Racism Out!’, which itself was chanted much less than ‘Let them Stay!’

Again, Lordan displays an unrelentingly hostility to those who gathered in solidarity, even drawing an analogy with people having a row in a pub. Is that how he views politics? At any rate, the chanting that occurred was generally in solidarity with those in the cathedral and occasionally, and importantly, at times against a small knot of ideological racists who were leading racist chants such as ‘Kick them Out!’ ‘Let them Die!’ and so on. With the arrival of racist hecklers, the solidarity vigil necessarily became a simultaneous protest against racism.

Lordan’s distortion of what actually happened is pretty low for a self-declared anti-racist. It is simply NOT true that those present dealt with the growing number of racists by shouting ‘Racists Out!’ at them or that we used confrontational tactics. In general, we were trying to avoid the disruption or breaking up of our solidarity vigil.

Moreover, it quickly became clear that there were a number of layers to the racism that manifested itself. There was a small group of, perhaps, six or seven (sometimes a few more) ideological racists who were there to stir up things; there were some local adults also chanting racist slogans; there was an at times largish contingent of older teenagers doing likewise and, sometimes, acting aggressively; and there was a swarm of kids and younger teenagers who were jumping on the racist bandwagon. We dealt with each group in a different way.

The ideological racists were those who had ‘Racists Out!’ shouted at them, not the locals. Generally, however, the chant was ‘RACISM Out!’ and this wasn’t directed at anybody in particular. Much more often, as I’ve already said, the chants were of ‘Let them Stay!’, and so on. The older teenagers and adult locals were approached at times by some solidarity activists in an attempt to engage them in some sort of dialogue; unfortunately, the response was not always very good, largely because of the context. It was a fraught situation.

The young teenagers and kids, however, were a different story and several of us spent quite a bit of time talking to them, teasing out their reasons for being there and explaining the situation to them. It was time well spent, though the general excitement made it difficult to hold their attention at times. It became clear to anybody who talked to these kids that they were soaking up racist misinformation about displacement and immigrant ‘welfare spongers’, and so on.

My general point being that we tried to engage the hecklers on many different levels. Lordan’s unsympathetic depiction of a belligerent and anti-local mob of solidarity activists is a disgraceful misrepresentation. It’s not just unfair, it is in fact completely untrue and the sort of distortion that one would expect to read in the Sunday Independent rather than in a serious left-wing magazine.

8. “In other words, if activists adopt a preaching tone with those who have been conned into believing the racist myths generated by the tabloids and the right-wing politicians, the effect will be to drive people further into the arms of the racists. A calm, reasonable, well argued approach is what is needed when confronting racist sentiments in Irish workers. Do they want to be on the same side as Harney and Ahern? Is it the refugees who closed down the local hospital? It is not the refugees who decide how much the local builder pays, and so on.”

Yes, Father Lordan, we shall try to avoid ‘a preaching tone’ in future. Seriously, though, here we have an attempt to construct those who took part in the solidarity vigils as political idiots. If Dave Lordan was present, he would know that exactly these arguments were made. A ‘preaching tone’? What could he be referring to?

A FINAL THOUGHT

It is also worth noting that threaded through the early part of Lordan’s article are some remarkable claims, most notably that what occurred at St Patrick’s Cathedral was an utter defeat for anti-racists and ‘marks a political victory for the right.’ More than that, Lordan insists that the ‘defeat’ of the Afghan hunger strikers ‘has widened the political space for racism’, i.e. bad tactics lead to bad results.

I would suggest that such negative conclusions are based on an extremely short-term view and we have yet to see how the protest by these Afghan men plays out in the longer term. A defeat? Surely, it’s too early for such defeatism, especially in the light of the dropping of all charges against the protesters. Arguably, the controversy and solidarity have had an impact of sorts and who knows how this case will develop over the coming months.

Meanwhile, please, let us all continue to work together – anti-war and anti-racism activists – in a constructive manner. I felt obliged to respond to this article because I found it particularly offensive, but the SWP and the IAWM contain many excellent activists, including good friends of mine. One hopes that Dave Lordan’s distorted perspective is wholly his own.

No Pasaran.