Weekly Worker 593 Thursday September 22 2005

Letters

E is for environment?

Trying to find anything green on the Respect website is like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Respect did not build an alliance with the Green Party in the Euro 2004 elections, even though an absence of policy statements does not in itself determine that failed relationship.

It is interesting, however, to identify what has previously been said. The January 2004 founding declaration of Respect does mention: “An end to the destruction of the environment by states and corporations, for whom profit is more important than sustaining the natural world on which all life depends.” But this is the final declaration of 14 bullets points, when the fifth letter of Respect stands for ‘environment’!

Things do not appear to have moved on since: there is nothing in the current ‘Policy’ section of the website, nor even under the ‘International’ or ‘Other policies’ sub-sections. However, there is something in the Respect general election manifesto - a miserly half a page in this 20-page document. The paucity of anything concrete is more a reflection of the priorities of the national committee: environmentalism is an addendum to the main business of the party - the anti-war movement, from which it was gestated.

The left movement in general and Marxists in particular cannot be said to have a proud and long tradition of highlighting environmental concerns. There are some, though, who assume that a campaign to prevent a waste incinerator being located near housing is an example of these concerns. It is not. What is their solution - to move the incinerator on to another community? The answer is to question the systemic need for an incinerator, and not to flounder around the margins.

Andy Stone, leading Socialist Workers Party environmental activist and theoretician, in an article for the SWP magazine Socialist Review acknowledges that the “Green Party has done the left a valuable service in highlighting this environmental emergency” (May 2004). But he then goes on to express disappointment at the Green Party leadership’s refusal to cooperate with the Respect steering committee in campaigning for the June 10 2004 European elections. Assuming the political and moral high ground, he claims that Respect has sought to stress “sustainable development, alongside opposition to war, privatisation and top-up fees”, while the Green Party has been hampered by the limitations of being a single-issue party (though he mentions that it has widened its remit).

Was not the whole basis and support of Respect built up on a foundation of opposition to the war? The SWP approach was to build Stop the War demos and follow through with Respect. This is still the strategy for the forthcoming local elections, as it has been since the party’s inception. Andy Stone confirms this: “Respect has emerged from the largest anti-war movement that Britain has ever seen.” The Green Party is a reformist party - it does not pretend to want fundamental change in society, but only to work within the current parameters. But at least you can say it has a programme and sticks to its principles. Andy Stone should not act so surprised therefore at these rebuffs.

Andy Stone is also being disingenuous when he gives the fact that “Spencer Fitz-Gibbon issued a press release containing a vitriolic attack on Respect” as a reason for there being no agreement. The real reason why the Greens did not forge an agreement is because the “Green Party’s constitution does not allow joint candidacies of the kind proposed to it by John Rees”. This is noted by Andy Stone later in the paragraph as the true reason for their rebuffs: “This was rejected as unconstitutional, given the Greens’ federal structure.”

He then goes onto to mention the elitist and educational role of the green movement by quoting Sir Jonathan Porrit, head of the Sustainable Development Commission. Whenever has a socialist organisation associated itself with a knight? As socialists we should be making republican overtures, not looking to the elite and, as he mentions, “trying to persuade the rich of their need to subordinate their interests to the general good, rather than to challenge their power head on”.

In the final section of the article Stone asks us to work with the Greens on environmental campaigns, but how can this be squared with his assertion that the leadership did not want a joint platform? Why not, he asks, appeal straight to the members themselves? Surely the question should be, as John Rees says, if the Green Party is on the left as he understands it, we as socialists should only be working with those Green Party members on the left who use a class analysis.

However, the Green Party is not, as John Rees has alluded to, a left organisation, for two reasons. Firstly the Green Party has supporters such as Sir Jonathan Porrit, friend of prince Charles; and secondly it endorses the Kyoto protocol, which includes the neoliberal policy of carbon trading - a continuation of the capitalist economy - and eschews any class analysis.

Gavin Anderson
London

Unprincipled

I don’t know, but it seems to me that if Ian Donovan saw a member of the CPGB dragging a drowning man to safety he would demand the poor bloke be thrown back into the river (Letters, September 15).

Frankly, motions to conference must be debated on their merits, not according to one’s view of the proposers. Ian needs to explain why “orthodox-sounding” motions, which he appears to have seen, are not so orthodox as they sound. He comes across as a man who is looking for excuses to betray his principles - he sees socialism as a threat to the Respect project, and it is to Respect and not socialism that he owes his allegiance.

In defence of our good name, we have argued that the defeat of imperialism in Iraq would be to the political advantage of the working class worldwide even if it was at the hands of anti-working class reactionaries. What we fight for, however, should be for the defeat of the British and American imperialists at the hands of the British and American working classes and for the triumph of working class, democratic and secular forces in Iraq. This is what Ian denounces as islamophobia and I would call orthodox Marxism.

There is, of course, a different orthodoxy invented by Stalin that sees anti-imperialism not as a struggle between internationally constituted class forces but merely as a fight between unequal states - a question at best of national liberation rather than socialism. This seems to be Ian’s position.

Marxists need to face facts, however unpalatable and complex they may be. Ian resorts to vague generalities. He calls on us to support “all indigenous Iraqi forces fighting imperialism”.  Are the sunni jihadists who are presently murdering shia civilians supportable because they are fighting imperialism? And what about the shias who are filling the ranks of the Iraqi police and army in preparation for taking over the country and requiring the US and Britain to leave: are they genuine or non-genuine?

Respect, a party, which the SWP describes as a coalition between “radical muslims” and “secular socialists”, operates through a tightly controlled, not to say constricting, democracy. To accuse us of treachery because we use the tiny democratic space available within Respect is simply a sectarian rant on Ian’s part. Socialists do rebel even against the majority on occasion: it’s a question of political judgement. We voted for Respect candidates who upheld a working class tradition, but not for those who upheld some other tradition. We do not want to see the left proceed down a popular frontist road.

Incidentally, the Muslim Association of Britain also rebelled in a similar way, though obviously for opposite reasons, and decided to pick and choose whom they should vote for.

Phil Kent
Haringey

Ignorant

In his otherwise interesting letter about James Connolly, Liam O Ruairc somewhat mistakenly cites “issues such as excision or forced marriages in the muslim religion” as an example of religious practices one cannot simply be ‘neutral’ on (Letters, September 15).

While both excision (female circumcision) and forced marriages should be opposed, neither can be simply associated with islam. Female circumcision is not practised through most of the Arab or muslim world; it is, however, practised by some African christians and in some traditional African religions, as well as among some African muslims. It is primarily an African custom that predates both islam and christianity.

Likewise, forced marriage is not an exclusively muslim custom either - many hindus are also coerced in this way, for example.

It is unfortunate that such ignorant statements are taken as accurate among leftists. Particularly among the Irish, who have experience of being on the receiving end of chauvinist misrepresentation themselves.

Ian Donovan
email

Connolly

In response to Liam O Ruairc’s letter, certainly James Connolly could express religious doubts, yet he was, I emphasise, essentially a catholic for most of his life.

In 1909 he stated that it was capitalism that was opposed to religion, not socialism: he said that capitalism defied god’s sanctuary. In 1912, in a debate with Hilaire Belloc, argued not that the church was mistaken on its essential religious teaching, but that it was mistaken on politics.

When he was sentenced to death in May 1916, he requested that father Aloysius, a Capuchin friar, give him the last rites. The good priest granted his request. His memoirs, published in 1942, showed that Connolly died a Roman catholic as well as a revolutionary Marxist. This is confirmed by Beresford Ellis in his introduction to Connolly’s Selected writings.

Andrew Harvey
Carlisle

World Pride

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign has endorsed a boycott of World Pride, which is due to be held in Jerusalem in 2006 (see statement by Diane Langford, www.boycottworldpride.org).

Outrage opposes the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the abuse of Palestinian human rights. We would endorse World Pride including the slogan, ‘No pride in the Israeli occupation’. But Outrage cannot support a boycott of World Pride. Progressives do not boycott liberation struggles. We support them.

World Pride is an expression of the global struggle for queer liberation. It deserves international support. Boycotting oppressive Israeli institutions is justified, but boycotting a celebration of queer life, culture and human rights is a reactionary stance that plays into the hands of homophobes. A boycott of World Pride in Jerusalem would not aid the queer or Palestinian struggles. It would cause rejoicing by homophobic fundamentalists from the christian, judaist and muslim faiths - all of whom want World Pride banned. The proposed boycott puts the PSC in the same camp as these reactionary fundamentalists.

Those who want a boycott of World Pride ignore the violent persecution of LGBT people in Palestine, where queers are arrested, jailed, tortured and murdered in so-called ‘honour killings’. This abuse is perpetrated by armed Palestinian groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Organisation factions such as Fatah, and by the police and security agents of the Palestinian Authority.

Homophobia exists in Israel too and we condemn it. But it is nowhere near the same scale and viciousness as Palestinian homophobia. For all its faults, the Israeli state does not jail and torture LGBTs because of their sexuality. The Palestinian state does.

We find it shocking that the PSC - and much of the left - is silent about this violent victimisation of Palestinian queers. Do you only support liberation for straight Palestinians? If not, why do you ignore the suffering of LGBT Palestinians? When will you speak out against the homophobic terror inflicted on queers by Palestinian militants and state agents? The PSC wants to boycott a World Pride event that will show solidarity with the victims of Palestinian (and Israeli) homophobia. Whose side is the PSC on?

It is important that this international celebration of queer life, culture and human rights is held in the Middle East, and that it challenges the religious homophobia that is wrecking the lives of LGBT people in Israel, Palestine and throughout the region. Outrage would prefer World Pride to be held in the Palestinian city of Ramallah - not Jerusalem - but the homophobic Palestinian Authority would refuse to allow it. We issue a challenge to the PSC and its pro-boycott allies: if you don’t want World Pride to be held in Jerusalem, persuade the Palestinian Authority to host World Pride in Ramallah. If you succeed, we will support a campaign for World Pride’s relocation.

Instead of urging all Palestinians - gay and straight - to unite against the Israeli occupation, the PSC and its leftwing allies appear quite content to allow straight Palestinians to undermine the liberation struggle by setting straight Palestinians against LGBT Palestinians. The Israelis must be jumping for joy that Palestinian is persecuting Palestinian.

Tolerating homophobia and sexism does not aid the cause of Palestinian freedom: it weakens it. We support those courageous Palestinians who are challenging anti-gay and anti-women prejudice. We are in solidarity with their struggle for democracy and human rights within Palestinian society. We urge the PSC to concentrate on mobilising international opinion in support of the Palestinian cause and on promoting unity, equality and solidarity between all Palestinians, regardless of gender or sexuality.

Brett Lock
Outrage

Wishful thinking

The month of September certainly has its fair share of memorable historical events. Its 11th day will forever be indelibly etched into our minds as the tragic day the twin towers fell to the culmination of the bitter enmities between two reactionary ideologies - if not for the fall of Allende to the CIA-backed coup in Chile and the beginning of Pinochet’s terror.

Fast-forward 10 days, to the end of summer and the beginning of autumn, and some may ask, what’s so special about September 21? Will this day go unmarked in history? Or will future generations come to remember this as the day that helped bring about the stuff of seemingly naive hopes, dreams and prayers: peace on earth?

September 21 is the official UN ceasefire day, a day of global peace and non-violence. Such a concept may seem wishful thinking in today’s climate of war, terrorism and persecution. The declaration of an annual day of global ceasefire and non-violence in 2001 was the culmination of the work of Peace One Day, a campaign launched by British filmmaker Jeremy Gilley in 1999.

Tragically just days after the UN general assembly declared the establishment of a global ceasefire day, the twin towers fell. And the rest, as they say, is history, as each and every one of us who has marched against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well knows. But we also know that simply because the promise of peace eluded us, as Bush and Blair took us twice to war, it did not mean that we should give up and resign ourselves to another century caked in blood. Two million optimists on the streets of London were testament to that. Thankfully Jeremy Gilley did not give up either.

With celebrity backing from the likes of Jimmy Cliff, Dave Stewart and Coldplay’s Chris Martin, Peace One Day set about its most monumental task of all: letting the world know! If world leaders could not be relied upon to honour a day of ceasefire, then it had to be down to the people to put pressure on them. And if one day of peace can finally be honoured, why not more?

Salman Shaheen
email

Burt Whittle

The death has occurred of Doncaster pitman and veteran revolutionary socialist activist Burt Whittle.

Burt had been in the thick of the struggles of the 1970s and earlier and was a well known trade union militant. He began on the left of the Labour Party, but then like many true socialists got thoroughly sick of their betrayals and Tory policies. He joined the International Socialists and was subsequently a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Burt had been one of the activists around the Collier newspaper and was always one of the best, most vociferous miners pushing the National Union of Mineworkers to the left and back to its roots. In the strike of 1984-85 he distinguished himself with both unofficial and official picketing operations among some of the most violent and dangerous conflicts.

Ever a humorist, at the picket ambush of Silver Hill colliery in Nottinghamshire, he was chased by mounted police, wielding batons. He ran down the side of a rather posh detached property and had the lady of the house come out to remonstrate with him: “My roses! Do be careful of my roses.” Burt replied, “It’s OK, love. They’re going to get some horse manure in a minute!”

Burt supported every demonstration and picket line of other workers whenever he was called upon to do so and was a well known activist in the anti-fascist movement. He was a small man, but, wherever there was a fight on for justice, in the middle of the crowd you would always see Burt’s flat cap, a determined look on his face and an inevitable roll-up in the corner of his mouth. He was no mean fighter.

He was well loved by his children and grandchildren and was a happy, thoughtful and kindly man. Although he was 77, we all thought he would go on forever. Burt will be well missed - a good comrade, solid NUM member and loyal supporter of workers in struggle everywhere.

They’ll be standing you a round of drinks tonight, Burt, lad. When you get up yon, there’s quite a few of your aud marras waiting for you.

Dave Douglass
Doncaster

Print this page