IRSP : 'RUC/PSNI Involved in Child Abuse'

by a Tue Nov 05, 2002 17:04

Exaggeration I think or sloppy (propagandistic?) use of language

by Alan Tue Nov 05, 2002 17:22

The IRSP want children to contact the Church? Are they out of their minds?

by Soisialach Tue Nov 05, 2002 18:32

With a discredited police force pushing communities to tout, when they start turning to kids to tout, they show their true face. NIPS/RUC, you can't see nothing put SPIN at this point!

by james o rathaillaigh Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:15 joreilly at dit dot ie 6 Whitethorn Lodge Ceide Thaobh an Caisleain, 353 1 4920106

wholesale is a bit OTT, but I see the point though. Nothing the RUC/PSNI do surprises me. But please dont send children from to the "church" what ever you do. Makes me shudder! Thought the IRSP was supposed to be socialist? So why this church business???

by IMC Editorial Wed Nov 06, 2002 14:41

After a discussion on the editorial mailing lists the title of this article has been edited, as there were concerns that the title as it originally stood was misleading and presented an allegation as evidence of a wide problem.

Further information can be found at the address below.

by Blisset Wed Nov 06, 2002 15:06

When u go to lists - it is the IMC Ireland Editorial list and IMC Ireland Newswire list that are relevant. These are open lists on which such problems are discussed and resolved by the IMC Collective.

by IRSP hater Wed Nov 06, 2002 17:17

The IRSP and their INLA comrades have abused children too. How many children have you deliberatly left without fathers and mothers, brothers, sister, friends, uncles and aunts.

You're child abusers too you sectarian scumbags! how can you call yourselves socialists?

by Ali la Pointe - fun lovin anti imperialista muthas Wed Nov 06, 2002 18:57

good intervention apart from that,as for the chat about the misleading title, the problem's probably wider than is acknowledged, so it's fair enough. Liked that PSNI=SPIN. I'll use it.

by Danielle Ni Dhighe - Irish Republican Socialist Movement Wed Nov 06, 2002 19:37

...seems to think that only non-violence is appropriate for socialists. How absurd.

by Finghin - Socialist Youth Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:14

Socialists are not opposed to violence, socialists are not passivists. I am not against the IRA and IRSP for moral reasons. What socialists are opposed to is terrorist tactics.

Terrorists tactics are desperate acts that downplay the need for mass action. Change in society can't come by leaving it up to an individual gunman it can only come through mass action of working people.

Terrorism also has the effect of pushing workers into the hands of the reactionary elements, this can be seen by the way many ordinary americans supported the war in Afghanistan because they were discusted by the terrorism on Sept 11.

In the North what Socialists would call for is for genuine democratic community organisations to defend communities under attack from sectarian thugs, and not leave it up to the likes of the UDA/IRA/IRSP/UVF.

by Finghin - Socialist Youth Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:01 info at syucd dot cjb dot net

The article below is well worth a read. It explains exactly why socialists should oppose individual terrorism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1909/tia09.htm

by pat c Thu Nov 07, 2002 14:38

violence and loyalist poto fascist violence show how irrelevant they are to any solution in the north.

catholic areas are under siege from loyalist mobs. if it wasn't for the weapons held by republicans, then cathoics would be ethnically cleansed on a bosnian scale.

the sp know that this is the truth. they are incapable of defending the people who are really under attack.

by pat c Thu Nov 07, 2002 15:49

"The British socialist who fails to support by all positive means the uprisings in Ireland, India and Egypt against the London plutocracy - such a socialist deserves to be branded with infamy if not with a bullet, but in no case merits either a mandate or the confidence of the proletariat."

Leon Trotsky 7 Auguist 1920.

Theres plenty more where this came from

by Finghin - Socialist Youth Thu Nov 07, 2002 16:29

We call for self defence for any community under sectarian attack by arms in neccesary. However this does not mean we support the right wing sectarian organisations such as the IRA/INLA. We call for genuinely democratic committees to defend their areas.

The fact is that the IRA and other sectarian paramilitaries are not democratically accountable to the communities, they are primarily interested in their own aganda and interests and run many communities like they own the place.

by pat c Thu Nov 07, 2002 16:33

on the Trotsky piece.

"Quite wrong Mr Trotsky. Your views here don't coincide with Taafes so they must be hidden from the SP membership."

by Finghin - Socialist Youth Thu Nov 07, 2002 20:48

First of all my views here do not in any way contridict the Socialist Party position. Read the article from the link I posted above, the article is actually by Trotsky and he clearly opposes individual terrorsim.

The IRA and the INLA are right wing and sectarian. If SF/IRA are revolutionaries why are they always cap in hand to the US establishment? How can they claim to be anti imperialist when they are in the US taking money from big business and right wing polititians? If Sf are revolutionaries why is it that they have privitised schools and closed hospitals when in government in Stormont? Why is it that they voted for Bin Tax in Sligo? Why is it that they trentchently opposed the term time workers when they looked for decent pay?

The IRA and INLA are sectarian. They have been engaged in a war agianst Protestant workers not just the state, this was seen in the Shankill, Enniskillen and Omagh bombings to name a few. The targets for these autrocities was not the state but ordinary protestant people. Their actions have driven protestant workers further into the hands of reactionaries such as Paisley and Adair etc. This is clearly the case and they have done nothing whatsoever to counter act this.

by pat c Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:45

somewhere over the rainbow you'll find the sps version of trotsky.

the cwi always use trotskys article on "individual terrorism" out of context.

trotsky did not intend to have this applied to national liberation struggles.

even during the irish civil war the communist international supported the republican side:

From the executive Committee of the Comintern to the Workers of Great Britain and Ireland:
(Published in Workers Republic, 1 July 1922)

(on the treaty)
"The working elements of this party [Sinn Fein], and above all the IRA, which consists mostly of proletarian elements, are justified in being indignant at this pact, and in seeing in it the beginnings of a future betrayal."

"Workers of Great Britain! Your duty now consists in frustrating this predatory campaign of your bourgeoisie! Do not allow the Irish people to be subjugated once more by English Capitalists!"

"Workers and Peasants of Ireland! You must be fearless and determined in your struggle for the liberation of Ireland, and thus continue your fight for your own emancipation."

"Long live the Irish people freed from national oppression!
Long live the Irish proletariat!
Long live the solidarity of the English and Irish exploited Workers!"

Plenty more available. Stop qouting Trotsky out of context

by Finghin - Socialist Youth Fri Nov 08, 2002 15:26

"trotsky did not intend to have this applied to national liberation struggles"
He did, what makes you think he didn't?

I've noted you haven't answered any of my questions

The CWI do support genuine national liberation struggles.
The fact is that the IRA/Republican movement are not a genuine national liberation movement. They are undemocratic in the extreme and their tactics are sectarian and divide workers.

The fact is that the situation in Ireland is radically different now that in the 19th and early 20th century. The British establishment would in fact prefer to withdraw from Ireland and exercise its domination through a capitalist united Ireland. But the British establishment have been unable to do so fearing a bloody civil war that would have a massive ramifications in Britain.

Not to aknowledge this and the complete inability of the old dogma of rpublicanism to adapt to changing situations shows the bankruptcy of Republicanism.

by pat c Fri Nov 08, 2002 16:23

so how do you decide whats a legitimate liberation struggle?

does it have to be far away?

individual actions of the ira & inla were reactionary & could only have been seen as sectarian by the protestant working class.

however the their campaigns in totality could not be seen as terrorist.

funny how some of trotskys old writings are relevant, when they suit his purposes.

but somehow his anti imperialist writings regarding ireland are out of date.(no mention of a socialist federation of the british isles. obviously trotsky, lenin & the comintern were wrong.)

thata whats known as double standards.

by pat c Fri Nov 08, 2002 16:37

"the revolutionary tradition of the national struggle is a precious good. would it be possible to imbue the Irish proletariat with it for its socialist class-struggle, the working class of your country could in spite of the numerical weakness of your population, play an important historical role and give a mighty impulse to the British working class now paralysed by the senile bureaucracy.
i take the liberty to send you in the same time my little book 'the defence of terrorism'."

leon trotsky
6 june 1936

how dare he! no mention of the need to crawl before protestant workers who are slaves to loyalism! no mention of a socialist federation of the british isles!
defending terrorism? that will have to be hidden from the cwi rank & file!

by IMC Dalek Fri Nov 08, 2002 18:57

You are wasting your time trying to argue with CWI heads. They have a closed mind towards certain revolutionary texts. Wat a cult, must be part of the brainwashing process.

They have never been prepared to confront the pro imperialist aspects of the Protestant Working Class. They have no perspectives for a 32 County Socialist Republic.

In particular, despite all their pious platitudes regarding community defence, they have no strategy for defending Catholic Areas against Loyalist attack.

They are more concerned with defending the Orange Orders right to march down the Garvaghy Road.