Maynooth Anti War Meeting

by Bob de Builder - Builderbergs Fri Jan 24, 2003 14:27

Why wont they share a platform with SF?

by frogman Fri Jan 24, 2003 16:54

SP were probably not invited by SWP organisers. I really hope that the SWP dont abuse their positions where they are main organisers in certain areas to exclude others for petty sectarian reasons

Let build a broad anti-war movement. SWP grow up and invite all groups!

by Parvus Fri Jan 24, 2003 17:15

Read the debates on Indymedia. The SP want to exclude Labour the SWP have been in favour of building a broad IAWM.

by hs - sp Fri Jan 24, 2003 17:37

is it official sp policiy to want to exclude labour from the anti war movement or is it the opinion of some members? Remember indymedia is a discussion board(like it or not)and the views of members of a group may not be the majority view or official party position. We need more discussion but don't make presumptions on a party from the views of individual members. If you want the official "line" you can see it on the sp websites.

For my own personal opinion I have no problems with members and supporters from labour or for that matter FF or FG joining the anti war movement. We should be aiming for the majority and not exclude people. As for the meeting the SWP never invite SP speakers to their meetings its always been like this, I can remeber two marches where they refused to let Higgins speak.
But the point is the anti war movement should swamp the SP and SWP together if it is to be successful and with the growth of the movement their will (hopefully) be less time for sectarian infighting (from whoever).

by Irony is dead Fri Jan 24, 2003 17:46

Whereas the SP never stop inviting the SWP to speak at its events

by iosaf jedi elf of the European horde. Fri Jan 24, 2003 17:53

did that mean on refusal of permission he refused to speak?
or that because permission was denied he could not speak?
or that he would only have spoken with a megaphone probably paid for by the SWM?

what sort of policies do these people have?
Freedom of Speech and Association
is a universal Human Right.

It does not end at the GPO pillars.

Open letter to Deputy Joe Higgins TD Dail Eirinn.

Dear Mr Higgins,
as soon as we have the 5th international envelopes printed up, you´ll be recieving a letter from me, essentially making this point. "you just speak your mind, great stuff, Joe, great". Don´t let the SWM stop you speaking. They can be very convincing, but you can´t pay them too much attention. God knows many a veteran of protest has walked down the a road listening to them and speaking to them. And I admitted to the public online that I even fucked one. (is that rude). Joe you´re a great leader of a party that is representing working class the ordinary interests of working class people in Ireland, but your international / european pitches are woeful. If your followers can´t say something clever funny or helpful maybe they should just stick to the bin tax.
yours etc.,

iosaf Mac Diarmada
Elfin jedi of the European Horde.
It´s truly scandalous.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Fri Jan 24, 2003 18:25

1) Nobody is trying to "exclude" anyone from the anti-war movement. Anyone who is against war and sanctions has to be welcome. Not trying to "exclude" people does not mean hiding our differences however.

2) "Irony is Dead", our SWPer in residence, should be a little more careful. These meetings are not supposed to be SWP meetings. They are IAWM meetings. Yet the Socialist Party - one of the main components of the IAWM - has not been offered a speaker at some of them where the initiative to organise the meeting has been taken by SWP members.

by Irony is dead Sun Jan 26, 2003 02:05

I repeat "Whereas the SP never stop inviting the SWP to speak at its events"

by Brian Cahill Sun Jan 26, 2003 16:44

And I repeat again: you are not comparing like with like. We are not talking about the SWP failing to invite the Socialist Party to speak at SWP meetings. We are talking about the SWP trying to stop the Socialist Party from speaking at IAWM meetings.

Would you like to defend that practice?

by Oh yes!!! Sun Jan 26, 2003 19:07

Don't you know the SP have a god-given right to a platform speaker at every meeting especially those they take no part in organising and where their pres is either non-existant or invisible.

You know the thing, put up no posters, don't help organise the meeting, stroll in on the day, bore everyone shitless with how good the CWI is in Borneo, and stroll out.

Otherwise they've been "stopped from speaking"!!! Ha Ha! Stop the victim-babble and get organising some anti-war activity!!!!

by Demo Watcher Sun Jan 26, 2003 19:13

Don't you know it is forbidden to organise anything at which Joe TD the great is not invited to speak?

by Irony is dead Sun Jan 26, 2003 19:15

HS - SP writes:
"the SWP never invite SP speakers to their meetings "
My response was given twice. In all the campaigns the SP has been involved in can you name one where the SP asked the SWP to speak - be it a demo, meeting or whatever? The answer I think is obvious to most.
The SWP has proposed SP speakers at anti-war events aswell as other campaigns. However more often than not its SP members who want to exclude eg Sinn Fein in the North. Most times the SP run campaigns without inviting its 'competitors'.
Also the fact that the SP exists doesn't mean it has an automatic right to speak.

by Brian Cahill Mon Jan 27, 2003 01:02

Again we get all kinds of nonsense thrown up in an attempt to muddy the waters. Let's get back to the facts of the matter:

The IAWM as it stands is essentially the SWP, the Socialist Party and a few others. We all want the IAWM to get much bigger and much broader.

The IAWM decided to organise a series of meetings after the Shannon protest.

At those meetings one of the major components of the IAWM - the SWP - is trying to prevent the other major component - the Socialist Party - from speaking from the platform.

This kind of behaviour will only succeed in damaging the IAWM. Now I know this and "Irony is Dead" knows this and in fact anyone who has ever been involved in any campaign on the left could work it out pretty quickly.

It isn't as if the SWP has built up boundless reserves of trust and goodwill through its work in broader campaigns, now is it? If the IAWM is to grow into something significant it can't be perceived as yet another SWP-front.

by Dan Mon Jan 27, 2003 15:01

"If the IAWM is to grow into something significant it can't be perceived as yet another SWP-front."

Way too late for that.

by King Mob Tue Jan 28, 2003 18:36

Anyone who actually gives a fuck about this aside?

I mean aside from the socialists.

Are their any real people who give a fuck about this?