Irish Anti War Movement AGM

by redjade Tue Oct 31, 2006 13:59

redjade note: the following was emailed to me, I looked for it elsewhere on the net and on IAWM website but I could not find it - so I am publishing it here in the public record.

—————————

Irish Anti-War Movement Constitution
Adopted by the general Meeting of 08 May 2004
Aims and Ethos

1. The name of the organisation is the ?Irish Anti-War Movement? abbreviated to IAWM.

2. The aims of the IAWM are

2.1. To oppose the so-called ?War on Terror? and the subsequent invasions and brutal occupations such as those of Afghanistan and Iraq. To oppose any further invasions or attacks and to campaign for an immediate end to all military occupations and the international arms trade.

2.2. To campaign for justice and freedom for the Palestinian people and for an end to the illegal occupation of the Palestinian lands. To stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in the face of military aggression by the Israeli occupation forces.

2.3. To campaign for an end use of Shannon and other Irish facilities by the U.S. military and to oppose Ireland?s involvement in military alliances and the international arms trade.

2.4. To oppose the attacks on civil liberties that have been conducted since the launch of the so-called ?War on Terror? and to campaign for the removal of the restrictions placed on free speech, protest and activism that have been imposed.

2.5. To oppose the campaign of anti-Islamic, anti-Arab and racist hysteria being orchestrated in the western world. To show our solidarity with all those in the Islamic world in their struggles for freedom and justice.

2.6. To campaign for peaceful solutions to war and conflict situations across the world. To campaign for an end to poverty, inequality and injustice that are the underlying causes of conflict.

3. The IAWM will pursue policies of non-violence and non-discrimination (whether on grounds of religious views, gender, sexuality, race or ethnicity, age, membership of the travelling community or marital status) and will conduct its affairs in accordance with natural justice and in a democratic fashion.

4. The chair of any IAWM meeting should try to achieve consensus. If this is not possible voting at all meetings of the IAWM is by simple majority by a show of hands.

5. Members and guests at any IAWM meeting shall treat each other with respect and can expect to be treated with respect. Anyone engaging in disruptive, abusive or discriminatory behaviour may be suspended from any IAWM meeting/committee with the agreement of the meeting/committee.

Membership and Affiliation

6. The IAWM membership is open to all who are in agreement with its aims. Payment of an annual membership fee may be made a condition of membership.

7. Organisations, trade unions, political parties etc. may affiliate to the IAWM. Payment of an annual affiliation fee may be made a condition of affiliation.

8. The IAWM may affiliate to and support other organisations both in Ireland and internationally.

9. The membership/affiliation fees and affiliation to other organisations shall be set by the Steering Committee (SC).

General Meetings

10. The IAWM shall hold a general meeting (AGM) within 12 months of the meeting that approves this constitution and annually thereafter. The SC shall set the date for the AGM. The members and affiliates shall be informed of the date of the AGM at least one month beforehand. The SC may decide to hold a general meeting at a date before the next AGM that is due.

11. All members may attend a general meeting provided that the current membership fee has been paid in advance of the meeting. All affiliates may send one delegate to a general meeting provided that the current affiliation fee has been paid in advance of the meeting.

12. All members and delegates have one vote each at a general meeting.

13. A decision of a general meeting of the IAWM binding on the SC and overrides any previous decisions. This constitution may only be amended by a general meeting. However, amendments to this constitution may be made by the next quarterly delegate meeting held after the general meeting of 08 May 2004, which adopted this constitution.

14. A steering committee shall be elected at each AGM.

15. Draft resolutions and nominations for the steering committee should be submitted to the Secretary at least 14 days beforehand. The secretary shall publish draft resolutions at least 7 days beforehand.

16. The SC shall appoint a rules sub-committee to oversee the running of the AGM. This sub-committee may combine similar resolutions before they are put to the meeting. Resolutions of an emergency nature may be submitted at any time but are subject to being accepted by the sub-committee at its discretion.

Quarterly Delegate Meetings

17. Where practical the SC may decide to hold quarterly delegate meetings.

18. Each affiliate and local group shall be entitled to send one delegate to the quarterly meeting. Voting at a quarterly delegate meeting is confined to SC members and delegates only. However, all members may attend and speak.

19. A decision of a quarterly delegate meeting of the IAWM is binding on the SC and overrides any previous decisions except those made by a general meeting. This constitution may not be amended by a quarterly general meeting.

Local Anti-War Groups

20. Local anti-war groups may be constituted consisting of at least five (5) members of the IAWM.

21. Local groups should endeavour to meet regularly and to keep the SC informed of their activities. Local groups may have aims that are wider than those of the IAWM.

22. Local groups may affiliate to other anti-war organisations.

Steering Committee

23. The steering committee will normally consist of 12 ? 16 members as decided at the previous AGM. However, the SC may from time to time decide to co-opt new members (e.g. from newly affiliated organisations, large anti-war groups etc. or to replace SC members who resign etc.). Any co-option should be submitted to the next quarterly delegate meeting for approval.

24. The steering committee may at its discretion accept alternate delegates to the SC if a member of the SC is not able to attend a meeting and requests an alternate.

25. The SC shall elect a Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, two Trustees and other officers at its first meeting after any general meeting that has elected a new SC.

26. The SC shall make all decisions regarding the running of the IAWM and define and pursue policies to further the IAWM?s aims in line with any decision of general and quarterly delegate meeting.

27. The SC shall make a report to AGM including a financial statement.

28. The SC shall draw up standing orders for its meetings.

by redjade Tue Oct 31, 2006 14:06

use: 'FAO Secretary' in the subject line
The deadline for submitting resolutions and nominations for the Steering Committee to be voted on at the AGM is 12 noon Saturday 18th November. These should be submitted by email if possible to secretary@irishantiwar.org with 'FAO Secretary' in the subject line, These will then be circulated.

more info
http://irishantiwar.org

by redjade Tue Oct 31, 2006 14:07

also see:
Irish Anti War Movement AGM
http://indymedia.ie/article/79369

by :-) Tue Oct 31, 2006 15:21

The IAWM should be forgotten about. Why waste energy infighting with the SWP and putting up with their sectarian mindset. Too energy-sapping. Move on.

by Nostradamus Tue Oct 31, 2006 15:34

I predict that RBB will be re-elected as Chairman.

by Francis Bacon in Drag Tue Oct 31, 2006 15:38

Time for a woman , methinks. Join the globe- women have different bits
different experiences so a new and creative slant is needed for antiwar.

Nominate a hardworking woman. off the top of me head- I see two excellent
women speakers and one is from the US.

Elect a woman- come on- you know its right.

by komedian Tue Oct 31, 2006 15:51

I'm betting my half of the house that RBB will retain the chair. I mean really!

can we stop talking about this now?

by Francis Bacon in drag Tue Oct 31, 2006 15:55

Let a woman lead.

Be good to women.

It's Halloween and RBB is over- he wants the Dail.

Women to lead the anti-war movement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine a different approach- don't bet your house or even half of it.

The irish people want change- a non-alligned woman with an anti-war agenda
should lead- unless of course IAWM is in the grip of another political movement
that rejects the hard work and commitment of women to global change?????????????????????

by Bootgirl Tue Oct 31, 2006 17:32

Surely, whether RBB stays chair or not depends on IAWM members nominating and then voting for someone else - male or female. So, if you want a change, just get someone to agree to stand and then lobby for votes for her/him. Just do it!

by komedian Tue Oct 31, 2006 17:47

Very few people using this site care very much about the doings of the IAWM anyway. If anybody wants to waste their time on this, just do it!

The IAWM deadline passed a long time ago. Let it go folks, let it go!

by Bootboy Tue Oct 31, 2006 18:36

It doesnt matter who is nominated. RBB will get the position anyway. You really dont know very much about the IAWM/SWP if you think otherwise. The SWP are using the IAWM as a vehicle to raise RBBs profile in order to get him elected to the Dail.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Oct 31, 2006 19:00

Komedians, bootboys, FBs in drag....it's such a pleasure to read your knowledgeable and perceptive comments. During the same 7 days that the AWI, the IPSC and the IAWM are in the process of organising demos and meetings all around the country ...in Shannon last Saturday, in Belfast today and tomorrow, in Derry, in Cork later in the week, in Dublin and in Galway next Sunday (see relevant threads).

It is obvious that your comments are designed to fortify the anti-war movement....we can all see you care and that your actions would probably speak louder than your words...if we only knew what you're up to apart from talking 'expert' bull on Indymedia.

by Mrs Action not Words Tue Oct 31, 2006 20:48

"During the same 7 days that the AWI, the IPSC and the IAWM are in the process of organising demos and meetings all around the country "

MichaelY, there's only been ONE anti-war demo "around the country" in the last seven days - the AWI demo at Shannon - and I didn't see you on it.

That said, who cares about any of the stuff people are commenting on here? Let the IAWM and SWP do what they want. If you're not a member (and I'm definitely not) then it doesn't really matter. RBB can call himself el presidento for all I care. The IAWM is busy organising meetings for George "Pussycat" Galloway and a Hezbullah pacifist. Sure, let them at it. It's all part of the mix.

Peace out.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Nov 01, 2006 14:01

Thanks for the clarification Mrs Action....as for you kindly looking for me in the Shannon demo....you should have asked the few IAWM people (at least three from our Steering Committee) in it about my contact details and whereabouts. They would have obliged. If I read you correctly, on the other hand, you were there.....bravo!!

Now your perceptive comments re: George Galloway are kind of peacing in the wind - if you pardon the expression. He has been elected to Westminster by tens of thousands, he is one of the few coming from the Labour Party who has the courage to stand up for his convictions and he'll draw a crowd in Dublin on Saturday and Galway on Sunday. If you're there in either place you could ask him to miaow or bark or whatever. I'm sure he'll oblige. And you can say hello to me too....

As for Ibrahim Mussawi - a pacifist? What an intelligent put down!! He's as much a pacifist as the three ex-Abu Ghraib gentlemen interrogators or the two ex-CIA operatives who took part in the AWI Shannon demo....if you get my drift.....you must have surely met them! In the anti-war movement, good actionista lady friend, if that's what you are, we have to deal with and work with all types of people!! But what am I saying? You surely know all that!!

Check Ibrahim's views btw in today's Irish Times p.11. You may learn something.

by some dude Wed Nov 01, 2006 15:21

Only three members of the "steering committee" of the "Irish Anti War Movement" made it to the antiwar demo in Shannon. Er...where were the others? Not a very impressive level of commitment, is it?

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Nov 01, 2006 15:35

Dude,

Look at the pics in Indymedia, or ask the organisers, and figure out who else from the IAWM was there as well as the 3 members of the Steering Committee.....cheap shots are easy.......and what exactly is your level of your anonymous commitment good friend? Tell us pls.......

by Annette Curtin Wed Nov 01, 2006 19:51

Hang on a second... Each affiliated organisation gets to send one delegate each. And each delegate has one vote each, the same as any individual member.
That means that the SWP has only one vote at the AGM. Any other SWP members casting a vote will be clearly violating the IAWM constitution. If an organisation can vote as an affiliate, and also sign up as many of its members as it likes, then that goes against this constitution (which, by the way, would make Thomas Jefferson proud - I mean, whoever drew it up should have their heads carved into Mount Rushmore, or at least Carntuohill). If any SWP member, other than the party's single representative, attempts to vote at the AGM, then the chair will surely rule him or her out of order immediately?
Now let me see: just who is the chair of the IAWM these days...?

Michael Y, give us your answer! All the world is waiting for you, and the powers you possess! (By the way, does the Y stand for "Why the hell don't I just join the SWP and have done with it?")

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Nov 01, 2006 22:46

How lovely to see all the friends of the anti-war movement, all the constitutional and semiological experts, all the IAWM and SWP and MichaelY fans troop around. and make their voices heard loud and clear....you are welcome good friends.

So - we are going to have a National meeting - open to all members, even to those who may wish to pay at the door....we are going to have a National Meeting to prepare for our AGM - the latter to be held Dec. 2nd, to have one month - time for reflection.

The IAWM Constitution, the composition of the Steering Committee, the identity and the political affiliation of the Chairperson, the strategy and tactics of our Movement will be all open for discussion and decision making.

So good friends of the anti-war movement....come over and argue your politics. If you continue to hide behind pseudonyms and clever handles your voice won't be heard where it matters. The same way that the composition + the politics of the Indymedia Collective were not decided by the shrieks of a few people - the same way, where the IAWM goes and how it gets there won't be decided by wise comments and abusive personal attacks.

See you all on Saturday

by Noddy Sat Nov 04, 2006 01:29

People should do what Michael Y suggests.

But debate continues ....... uncomfortable as it may be for the comfortable !

Current Steering Committee
Richard Boyd Barrett SWP
Kieran O'Sullivan SWP
Sarah O'Rourke SWP
Kevin Wingfield SWP
Jim Roche
L.G. Kilgallen
Glenda Cimino
Abdul Haseeb
Ibrahim Al-Kaddo
Val Shortland
Valerie Coyne
Michael Youlton

When a general meeting of the IAWM is held, and they are very rarely held, SWP members will be there in swarms, not a doubt about it. This blocks discussion because time will have to be given to their speakers. They will speak very well, but they will be following the party line. If they don’t they better watch out. These people will never say they are in the SWP and arguing a joint position. As far as many observers are concerned, they will be ordinary Joe Soaps speaking their mind. That will “see to” half the time at the meeting.

They are effective at meetings and will run rings around the non-aligned group. That’s not that hard to do since they will have met before hand and prepared their position privately. The rest operate as a collection of individuals who do not meet separately. So the numbers are less important than you think.

The same swarming will be evident at the AGM. Usually around 40% or 50% of the floor sometimes will be SWP members. That’s an effective voting block when you realise it will be the only organised vote that day. No other party will do this, not the Labour Party, the Socialist Party, Sinn Fein, the Greens, the Workers Party or Labour Youth or Socialist Youth. None has ever done this in the peace movement. The SWP do it constantly and will continue to do it. It’s an effective control mechanism which keep certain people out and theirs in. It has worked well for them up to know.
Remember, the Steering Committee does not have a much of a democratic mandate as there has never been a real election in the IAWM. At least half its members are there because somebody usually the SWP, asked them to join, so it is more like a club than a representative body. The SWP or someone else will always argue against an election on the basis that it would be “divisive” or various other points will be used. Instead there will be a motion to elect the entire slate. It is unlikely that anybody will have the courage to argue against this. This fix ensures that those who nominate the candidates will get to decide who is on the committee not the members. And most of the nominations will come from the SWP. An open free election infers that the ordinary members should have a say. That’s a controversial notion in the IAWM and non-existent in the SWP. Once the AGM is over they’ll pack the committee with people they can rely on. That is what has happened for the past 2 years and there is no reason to presume next year will be any different.
The SWP have never controlled the IAWM by numbers. They never have. This is done by manipulating it from the inside through management of the Steering Committee.
An other way the SWP control the IAWM is because they slap down proposals. They will always be first off the mark, organising the things, suggesting this and that. This sets the agenda. Its then up to other guys to say no. Most will not say NO because they were selected in advance by the SWP and think like them. This means the tactics of the IAWM are 100% in line with the Dublin SWP leadership.
Mr Boyd Barrett seems to have been given the lifetime privilege of chairmanship. He runs every IAWM meeting that matters and can be trusted to manage them in a time of crisis for the SWP. His monopoly comes not from the AGM but from the Steering Committee who will vote at their first meeting for a chairperson. The democratic and healthy and smart thing to do would be to rotate the role at every level. but there’s little chance of the rather timid "independents" asking for that, especially not those whose position is due to the SWP putting their name foreword. Instead he will most likely continue to front the organisation that will be to the detriment of the whatever good name and reputation the IAWM has left.
He is also for some never discussed reason also the self appointed de-facto PRO who attaches his name and phone contact to every press release ever written by the IAWM. That’s a standard behaviour for politicians. They attach their name to everything so the suggestion is that they have something to do with it. It’s about building a media profile. Politicians are always up to some new stunt to build their profile. If anybody thinks the SWP are any different shows either political stupidity or timidity.
All this subverts the whole democratic process and renders the organisation with little or no credibility. The huge level of democratic deficit drives people away from the movement and discourages them from being involved. The general public are not stupid and know the score. The worst damage is with newcomers who don’t understand what is going on. However they cop on pretty fast subsequently, get demoralised and don’t come back. Who would blame them?
SWP members do a lot of the gruntwork. They design the posters, control the finance, control the website and the contact lists which are never shared out them with even their own antiwar groups. They are good workers. Their branch structure is offered to hold public meetings etc. The IAWM has always been built on SWP infrastructure. The price for that is control. Remove the control and they’ll do nothing. Neither would any other political party be much different. Its just that other political parties don’t get own lumps of the IAWM.

by anon Sat Nov 04, 2006 08:12

Hang on a second... Each affiliated organisation gets to send one delegate each. And each delegate has one vote each, the same as any individual member.
That means that the SWP has only one vote at the AGM. Any other SWP members casting a vote will be clearly violating the IAWM constitution.

wrong this is when the 'fingal antiwar' group comes out of the wood work and votes

by Anti-War Person - Non-aligned Sat Nov 04, 2006 14:04

Noddy's analysis is crucial and correct. Everyone concerned about democracy in the anti-war movement should read it and reflect on it. The SWP are using the IAWM as a way of building its own profile, and particularly as a way of raising RBB's profile for election. The fact that only two steering committee members came to Shannon is indicative of this. The SWP have constantly accused the organisers of this demo, anti-war Ireland, of divisiveness and sectarianism. I have overheard conversations to this effect, and had conversations to this effect with IAWM steering committee members. Their real problem, it seems after a great deal of reflection and asking around on my part, is that anti-war Ireland contains several leading and competent anti-war activists who used to be on the IAWM SC and left in disillusionment at the lack of representative democracy in that organisation.

The IAWM committee now consists of SWPers, timid 'yes' people who won't rock the boat, and one or two genuinely anti-war people who want to build bridges. The way in which the SWP operates in the IAWM is very clever and sometimes subtle. But the fact that the same chairperson has been in situ for the last five years should ring alarm bells to any democratically minded person, especially when that chairperson has ambitions to go into politics. It does ring alarm bells for most seasoned activists who've been there, done that. Unfortunately, there are some who are probably flattered by the love-bombing of the SWP and by invitations to get involved.

It is not divisive for Noddy or anybody else to point this out. It's just calling a spade a spade. The failure of the IAWM to express any support or solidarity with Shannon direct actionists is another case in point. They are now quite happy to make misguided blanket calls to support the Iraqi resistance (do they mean the warlords controlling swathes of Iraq, or the Islamic fundamentalists who blow up mosques containing Muslim civilians?) or Hizbullah, but they can't support those who do direct actions in their own backyard (unless they contain SWP members, in which case - as with the Raytheon people - such actions are to be celebrated and benefit gigs are to be held).

The IAWM has lost credibility with the vast majority of committed anti-war activists in this country. This is the reality. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I will attend any anti-war meeting and event and support it, no matter who is holding it. But having observed most of the shenanigans of the last few years, I have to say I am not impressed by the way the IAWM has conducted itself.

by A Sat Nov 04, 2006 16:25

http://www.schnews.org.uk/mr.htm

by A.N. Other Anti war Activist - Non-Aligned Sat Nov 04, 2006 20:39

Was just at IAWM, with PANA and NGO Peace Alliance meeting with Galloway. There wasnt room to stand 250+ people.
Looks like they still actually have some credibility with many people.

Great meeting though- really enjoyed it. Well done.

by anon Sat Nov 04, 2006 21:02

Be pretty hard not to fill a room with George Galloway as a speaker! You'd need to work at it. Do you think the crowd came because of the IAWM??? The who?

by curious activist Sat Nov 04, 2006 21:10

You gotta admit that it's a bit of a puzzle. Any time Galloway is brought to Ireland you get big crowds turning up to listen to him. Galway Alliance Against War had a couple of hundred some time back for him as well. Likewise when Chomsky visited several thousand turned out. Now these are both strong anti-war voices and they encourage activism. Nevertheless, the last IAWM/PANA/NGOPA anti-war march in Dublin had an attendance of just over 500. Likewise, the AWI demo in Shannon last Saturday had about 250. How is it that people will flock to hear Gorgeous George Galloway, but won't go beyond that to attending demonstrations? What is that all about?

by karen Wed Nov 15, 2006 16:09

kieran o sullivan is not and never was in the swp!

by MickNed Thu Nov 16, 2006 15:47

1 When will the list of nominations for the steering committe be sent out to members?
Will it be jumped out on the day of the meeting?

2 Why does the SWP have a permenant block vote of 4 ? Is this a coincidence maybe or by design? Can Sinn Fein have a permanant block vote too? I dont think so!!!

3 Why dont you rename it the "co-option committee" since membership is more due to being buddies with somebody on the committee rather than a democratic vote?

3 Why is the IAWM not calling out for people to be nominated? How about an advert of Indymedia asking people to attend? Posters on the poles? Sudden syness from a group that loves hype.

4 WIll an actual election be held or will it work the way it has for the last 5 years namely:

A The political committee of the SWP decide a slate of "candidates"
B Lobs it down at the last minute to people at the meeting, some of which are casual "walk ins" , half of which will be their own members packed in for the day.
C No discussion of candidates will take place. Remember an SWP chair runs the meeting and can slant it whatever way he likes.
D Somebody will suggest entire slate is adopted: Prevent a vote.
E Slate adopted. Unknowns appointed.

That setup is the first and last opportunity ordinary members of the IAWM will get to participate in the direction of the IAWM. After that the Steering committee will be packed by co-optees.

If you are a "broad alliance of antiwar groups" how is it that at 4 of your national executive are unknown in the broader antiwar community?

The IAWM = a staged illusion === a political party and cronys masquerading as an antiwar group in order to build a profile for that party.

Why not join a group which is not controlled by an external group? That is what it appears to be and nothing else?

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Nov 16, 2006 16:40

From redjade above:

The deadline for submitting resolutions and nominations for the Steering Committee to be voted on at the AGM is 12 noon Saturday 18th November. These should be submitted by email if possible to secretary@irishantiwar.org with 'FAO Secretary' in the subject line, These will then be circulated.

From me above

The IAWM Constitution, the composition of the Steering Committee, the identity and the political affiliation of the Chairperson, the strategy and tactics of our Movement will be all open for discussion and decision making.

So good friends of the anti-war movement....come over and argue your politics. If you continue to hide behind pseudonyms and clever handles your voice won't be heard where it matters. The same way that the composition + the politics of the Indymedia Collective were not decided by the shrieks of a few people - equally, where the IAWM goes and how it gets there won't be decided by wise comments and abusive attacks.

I have already seen 3-4 resolutions circulated by the Secretary. I sincerely hope that anti-war activists who want to get involved and change the direction of the iawm make their move. All resolutions and proposals will be circulated by the Secretary by Thursday 23rd.

by Unclever handle Thu Nov 16, 2006 16:58

"So good friends of the anti-war movement....come over and argue your politics. If you continue to hide behind pseudonyms and clever handles your voice won't be heard where it matters. "

There are other anti-war outlets were one can argue their politics. And the IAWM is only in your opinion the place were it matters. For many other anti-war activists this would not be the case.

by Tom Thu Nov 16, 2006 22:44

QUOTE
"It is obvious that your comments are designed to fortify the anti-war movement...."

I suppose an SWP branch pawning itself off as an antiwar group "fortifys the anti-war movement " What do you think newbies think when they realise the truth? Does that "fortify the movement" ? Maybe in your dreams it does Michael but not in the real world. In the real world people run a mile. This has happened on hundreds of occasions. If they wanted to join the SWP they would call them. Do you not think that an organisation that allows this to happen creates contempt for itself? When is it going to stop?

Stop rubbishing all the comments. We know that this is indymedia and a lot of comments are silly, but the readers are intelligent enough to tell the difference. There are some pretty serious allegations here which should answered by the IAWM.

Wheres the abuse? This is not abuse. Its criticism. The writers are only saying what hundreds already believe, they're pretty universal opinions really. Obvious enough once the lid of secrecy is pulled back.

DO not try to be seen to defend what really cannot be defended. You are only damaging your own reputation.

Why dont you just deal with the questions asked?

by redjade Thu Nov 16, 2006 23:26

from a mass email (to the masses):
'To set-up a standing order with the Irish-Anti War Movement please go
to the following link http://irishantiwar.org/donate/standing-order-form.doc
fill in the form and post to the Irish Anti-War Movement P.O. Box 9260 Dublin 1.'

by redjade Mon Nov 20, 2006 02:57

Deadline for Motions to AGM extended to 19-11-06

The deadline for motions has been extended to Monday 19th November 2006 before midnight.

All Motions must be submitted to secretary@irishantiwar.org and should contain the subject line FAO Secretary.

The AGM will take place on Saturday 2nd December starting at 11am. In the Royal Dublin Hotel.

by antiwar Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:27

I don't know why you keep posting this stuff? Do you really want people to donate money to the IAWM? Or attend their AGM? Let them promote themselves! A scroll through any number of threads on this site will quickly indicate that most users of this website gave up on the IAWM a long time ago. Why not put similar energy into promoting alternatives like AWI? The IAWM/SWP are well able to promote themselves.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:20

Now now 'antiwar' activist.

I have just received an email from AWI who, very correctly in my opinion, inform their list of two anti-war events this week - a Raytheon 9/10 fundraiser on Friday night and the AWI benefit gig on Sunday night. We, in the iawm, are also advertising the AWI gig.

I wonder why you don't see the logic of this...why you don't understand that what redjade is doing is what all anti-war activists should be doing....promote anti-war activity irrespective of who is organising it and beyond political/personal bull.

Reading your message again, pls allow me to wonder about the depth of your antiwarism.....I better leave it at that.

To repeat - all anti-war activists are welcome to the iawm AGM on Saturday Dec. 2nd... all members have the right to speak on the issues of the Agenda and vote....joining is possible at the door by paying the €10 yearly fee...alternatively, we would love to see 'observers' from interested parties as well.

We will publish the entire list of resolutions when they become available later this week and distributed to members.

by anon Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:36

MichaelY, where are you advertising the AWI gig? I haven't seen it in any of your email circulars. Nada. Where?

Good on you if you are but where? Haven't seen ye advertise it.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:20

Hi anon,

Just spoke to our comrade in charge of emails etc.....a notice of the AWI Sunday gig is due to go out during the day to about 3,500 people - along with a correction on the deadline for proposals / resolutions for our own AGM.

Please come back to this thread if the notice has not been received by the end of the day....seeing you're, or one of your mates is, on the email list, I'll probably see you at the AGM.

by anon Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:40

Won't be attending your AGM but fair dues if your mailing out info on AWI gigs.

by activist Mon Nov 20, 2006 19:54

I'm on the IAWM emailing list and I haven't received any notice about the AWI concert, either today or any other day. Congrats to MichaelY are hardly in order!

by anon Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:19

MichaelY, I waited all day for that email advertising the AWI event and, despite your assurances, no show. No IAWM advert for the AWI event. It appears that my congratulations were premature.

Same-o same-o with the IAWM/SWP.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:41

Anon and activist,

I feel big-time stupid about this.....while I am absolutely certain the 'momentary technical delay' indicated on the phone to me has absolutely nothing to do with the SWP, there is still no excuse and no justification for the delay. A bit of patience I was told further and it'll go out this afrternoon. Wait and see.
Following the raging debate of what's going on in the S2S campaign and the cancellations etc. as well as the clash of classes argument in the TW gig, I must say this 24 hour delay is small change.....still it fuels the fire of well-wishers.

by me Tue Nov 21, 2006 13:43

As it's been mentioned, apropos the anti-war concert on Sunday next, you can buy your ticket for this gig now, online, so even if you can't make it for what promises to be an amazing evening, your money will go to a good cause. 20 euros is cheap for the line-up involved and the money is going towards the campaign to end Irish complicity with the US war machine.

Book at www.ctb.ie or the link below.

by HEZBOLLAH Tue Nov 21, 2006 15:58

Lebanese Christian leader killed

Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, a Maronite Christian leader, has been killed in the capital Beirut.
Mr Gemayel, a leading anti-Syrian politician, was reportedly shot in the street in a Christian suburb and rushed to hospital, where he died.

His death comes amid a political crisis in Lebanon, following the resignation of six pro-Syrian cabinet members.

Mr Gemayel was a member of the Phalange Party and the son of former President Gemayel Amin.

Gunmen opened fire on Mr Gemayel's convoy as it travelled through Sin el-Fil neighbourhood, Reuters news agency quoted security sources as saying.

The six pro-Syrian ministers quit their jobs last week in an attempt to bring down the government after their calls for a greater role in government were rejected

Just remember you gave this organisation a platform

by Democracy Now Tue Nov 21, 2006 16:08

Just remember what the Christian Phalange party have been responsible for.

1982: Refugees massacred in Beirut camps
More than 1,000 people are feared to have been killed during a 24-hour rampage by Lebanese militia in West Beirut.

The Christian Phalangist group are reported to have murdered entire families in cold blood in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/septem...7.stm

Holding a debate is not a crime last time I checked.

by Jack Tue Nov 21, 2006 16:45

Holding a debate is not a crime last time I checked.

But there was no debate, it was a clear concise platform

bit of a difference...

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Tue Nov 21, 2006 18:09

To the extent that anything is clear in a country devastated by the Israeli invasion:

a. Nicolas Burns from the White House said "the incident is regrettable...but we'll continue to support the Lebanese Government".
b. Syria that has just re-established diplomatic relations with the Iraqi Gvt, and is continuing its dialogue with Washington, condemned the killing unequivocally.

Nobody, not even Israel, has as yet accused Hezbollah....which has no record of assassinations/executions. They would fight tooth and nail against invaders and repulse them - yes. That enviable record is held at the moment by the Tel Aviv cabal that assassinated two more people in Gaza today.

I wonder where do our local - if indeed they are l o c a l - experts get their inside knowledge? Any ideas?

Or is it just an anti IAWM automatic reflex?

by anon Wed Nov 22, 2006 00:31

It seems that the IAWM did send out an email circular today that advertises the Anti-War Ireland fundraising gig next Sunday. So fair play MichaelY and my apologies for doubting you!

It's good to see the different parts of the anti-war movement working together. A step forward to be sure.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Nov 22, 2006 15:14

Anon,

Thank u for the kind remarks - we may not be 'perfect' in the iawm, - lol - who is?, but lying is not one of our best attributes. Again - thank u for registering your approval - twice!! Appreciated.

To move to another subject somewhat, one of the elements we have been discussing in the iawm, preparing for our AGM, has been the unprecedented attack on citizens' civil liberties in the US - under the pretext of the 'War on Terror'. This is not only a highly dangerous and toxic development for US citizens, but a model soon to be exported / cloned in the so-called 'Allied countries' of the Bush Admin. And this does involve us here in Ireland - both north & south.In this context, I have put together a summary of a recent speech, by the US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who spoke of what he calls his “chilling vision” of the future – a time when U.S. government actions might be constrained by international law.

Chertoff outlined his nightmare scenario in a Nov. 17 speech to the Federalist Society [www.fed-soc.org ], an organization of right-wing lawyers who spearheaded the legal arguments for granting George W. Bush authority unbound by any law, including the constitutional rights of Americans.

But the focus of Chertoff’s rant was that the United States is under growing pressure from legal scholars and the world community to comply with international law, especially on war crimes and humane treatment of detainees in the “war on terror.”

“The fact is, whether we like it or not, international law is increasingly entering our domestic domain,” Chertoff said. The culprits, according to Chertoff, include a narrow majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and leftist intellectuals.

Chertoff objected to the Supreme Court’s reference to the Geneva Conventions despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution states that treaties entered into by the U.S. government are the “supreme law of the land” and all four Geneva Conventions were long ago signed by the U.S. Executive and ratified by the U.S. Senate. Chertoff also protested the mounting worldwide legal criticism of the U.S. government.

“International law is being used as a rhetorical weapon against us,” Chertoff said. “We are constantly portrayed as being on the losing end, and the negative end of international law developments.”

The Homeland Security secretary cited, for instance, the 1986 International Court of Justice ruling which held that the U.S. mining of Nicaragua’s harbors during the contra war violated international law against military aggression. In that case, the Reagan administration simply denied the court’s jurisdiction over U.S. actions and ignored the ruling.

Over time, Chertoff said an aggressive assault against the arguments seeking to apply international law to the United States was necessary.

For a full article on Chertoff's vision go to: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/112106b.html

What Chertoff’s speech highlights is the growing transatlantic divide between two visions of the world. The Bush administration’s view is that national sovereignty – often defined by the dictates of the so-called “unitary executive” – is held as inviolable. Meanwhile, the EU views national sovereignty as secondary to principles of environmental protection, human rights and individual dignity.

This is a debate that we, in Ireland, have been involved in through the Nice referendum and the EU Constitution..and are likely to be embroiled again into it in the not so distant future.

Under the prevalent European concept, authority is shared and fragmented in a way that both protects the rights of the individual and ensures that no member state of the EU could develop the sort of arbitrary power needed to institute an authoritarian government.

In the Bush administration’s view, international law in no way constrains actions of the U.S. President. Bush, who calls himself The Decider, can personally decide whose phone will be tapped, whose medical records are gathered, who will be detained without charges and who will subjected to “alternative” interrogation methods, such as waterboarding.

Bush’s own opinion about international law is one of contempt. When asked once if the occupation of Iraq violated U.N. or other legal principles, Bush joked, “International law? I better call my lawyer.”

Views and comments welcome.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:53

Just a gentle reminder that the iawm AGM is taking place this coming Saturday, Dec. 2nd in the Royal Dublin Hotel

Registration 10.30 am

Discussions : 11.00 - 2.00 pm
- Overview of Middle East - International situation
- Shannon and elections - What should be done - what alliances can be built
- Financial report
- Resolutions and elections

Lunch Break - 2.00 - 3.00

Workshops 3.00 - 4.00 pm
- Building iawm local groups
- Islam and islamophobia
- Rendition, torture and civil liberties

4.00 - 5.00
- Report back from workshops
- Final session

All resolutions and proposals will be circulated tomorrow Wedmesday 29th.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:43

Hi all,

The resolutions for the AGM have been sorted into four (4) categories:

Five are on Political Aims
Six are on Strategy
Four are on Shannon and Elections, and,
Nine are on Internal Organisation

We will also have four discussion papers available that will introduce a debate in the morning and again in the afternoon workshops:
- Shannon and elections (RBB)
- The recent anti-war Conference in Beirut (VS)
- The changing situation in the USA (GC)
- War and the international situation (MY)

All resolutions plus the agenda, as well as the documents above will be sent during the day to our members/supporters who are on our list. Indymedia regulars who are not on that list are welcome to have a look at the resolutions or the documents - give us an email address or a mobile number to that effect if you wish to be kept informed.

by Charlie Bird Sat Dec 02, 2006 20:31

In a suprise development, RBB was elected as Chair of the IAWM. Commander Wingnut said: "I am really suprised, we had done no canvassing beforehand so we didnt think Richie would wing it this time."

When asked if RBB woud have time job along with being chair of: DLR ABTC, DL Save The Baths, etc and being an SWP fulltimer, election candidate etc; Commander Wingnut flew away in a huff.

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:39

This new version of Charlie Bird who wrote the message above got it wrong again. The very successful iawm AGM yesterday did not vote Richard or anybody else as 'Chairperson'. It instead, with two abstentions, voted for a new and enlarged Steering Committee - with comrades from Galway, Derry and Gorey joining. The new 14 person SC will have only 4 SWP members .....Charlie obviously missed that.
When the new SC meets it will discuss and vote for a new Chairperson......

Resolutions and papers presented to the AGM will be shortly posted in Indymedia.

Tough shit Charlie! Do you want to give it another try?

by req Sun Dec 03, 2006 15:27

25. The SC shall elect a Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, two Trustees and other officers at its first meeting after any general meeting that has elected a new SC.

Wow rather then vote for hte Chairpersno at meeting the AGM where there would be probably more people presnet then at any meeting its now the so called steering committee can vote the chairperson at some hastily arranged meeting next week?

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Dec 03, 2006 15:58

Wow rather then vote for hte Chairpersno at meeting the AGM where there would be probably more people presnet - quote

Dear req

If I understand you well, overlooking the spelling of the above, you would have preferred the AGM to go against the Constitution, Article 25 of which that you tried to quote, and vote for a Chairperson....
Why?
To give grounds to Charlie Bird above to say that we are the same as the FF/PD Coalition that constantly rapes the Irish constitutional provision of neutrality?
And why should the enlarged Steering Committee meet hastily? In your opinion that is......Is there some earth shattering development that we're missing?
There were people from Derry, Belfast, Galway, Athlone, Mullingar, Kildare, Cork and all over Dublin at the AGM yesterday.....and that's what we decided.

Now, you a proponent of democracy, surely you're not going to put your desires above all of that, are you req? Are they desires or would you prefer another concept?

by req Sun Dec 03, 2006 16:19

Why not vote for the chairperson at the AGM, is that not standard and also the meeting with the most people at it, thats democracy.

by Luna Tue Dec 12, 2006 17:21

Michael Y refers to the executive members as "comrades" - so the IAWM is a socialist organisation then, not just an anti-war movement ? Are non-socialists unwelcome in IAWM?

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Dec 12, 2006 20:20

A good question - we've been quiet for a while, working our plans for the New Year, coming to terms with the changing situation in the US (I read today over 70% of US citizens are against the way Bush handled the Iraq invasion!!)...also a large Arab delegation was visiting Beirut today trying to patch the differences between the Siniora Gvt and Hezbollah......the IPSC also had its AGM on Saturday, the Stop Bush Campaign met - quite a lot of activity.

Now - I referred to those individuals as 'comrades' because that's how I see them - that's what they are to me.....it is not their theoretical baggage or political affiliation or gender or sexual orientation that defines them as comrades....but the fact that we are together in a movement in struggle......a large movement made up of all types of people, many socialists and many others not......all welcome in sharing the work involved in an anti-war movement.

For entertainment purposes, Indymedia regulars can go to the other thread and enjoy the comradely discussions between SP, Anarchist and ISN members on matters of theory, analysis and political orientation....In our part of the world we'll concentrate on activity and trying to stop the Irish Government from collaborating with the Empire.....and, who knows, the two distinct roads may actually meet somewhere in the not too distant future.

What we're involved in

by Luna Wed Dec 13, 2006 09:10

Michael the photo you've attached - the posters shown at the end of your post with the link to linkswende.org say it all - Linkswende is the Austrian Branch of the SWP !

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:52

The posters shown at the end of your post with the link to linkswende.org say it all - writes Luna -

There was no link at the end of my post - the posters of some of the Austrian anti-war demonstrators had a website printed on them which is - the Austrian SWP. With all the best will in the world, I can't figure what Luna understands by that. I answered the question posed re"comrades".....now we have another issue.
Should we never use an anti-war demo pic if an SWP poster appears on it? Should we, in the iawm, censor pics/people who may belong to left-wing organisations/parties?
In my opinion, what says it all is this anti-SWP pathology...which, whatever its origins and pretext, ends being an anti-left and anti-movement political position. Criticise the swp for positions and actions to your heart's content....and we may join you in that if it is relevant. But this type of dogmatism is counter-productive.
The Minister of Injustice, and many ex-Stick politicians have an anti-SF pathology. Some ex and current Trotskyist activists have an anti-Islamic pathology. And some good friends in Indymedia suffer from another regressive variant of the virus: anti-SWP.

What does that say Luna?

Another country - another view of what we're invloved in

by Disappointed Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:27

Or does anybodyelse think that Michael Y go out of his way to be arrogant and derogotary?

"For entertainment purposes, Indymedia regulars can go to the other thread and enjoy the comradely discussions between SP, Anarchist and ISN members on matters of theory, analysis and political orientation....In our part of the world we'll concentrate on activity and trying to stop the Irish Government from collaborating with the Empire....."

Does he think that SP members, anarchists and ISN member can engage in a thread on 'theory, analysis and orientation' and not be involved at the same time in activity that tries 'to stop the Irish Government from collaborating with the Empire....." or is that multifunctionality only reserved for the supermen and superwomen of the IAWM?

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Dec 13, 2006 13:10

Dear disappointed

If you're looking for "arrogant and derogatory" remarks, statements and positions you don't have to look further than some of the nonsense written and the ranting about the iawm in Indymedia - including comments re: superwomen and supermen etc - stuff coming from real time "fans" I know.

As for the other thread on 'theory and analysis', allow me pls to find it entertaining. Others call it "turgid" and a few "irrelevant". I have no idea whether it reflects multifunctionality,.....that's in the eye of the beholder....what it does reflect is how far the Left, in its totality, is removed from ordinary peoples pre-occupations. Do I exclude the SWP and many of us in the iawm from that? No I don't!!

Pls check some recent pro-capital punishment or anti-Islamic comments by 'lefties' in other threads.

What I do know well also is that in the iawm we prefer to talk about what's going on in the US or Palestine right now, on why the Arab delegation is visiting Beirut, or why is Cheney trying to dissuade the Saudis from helping the Sunni insurgency - rather than, my disappointed friend, discuss the merits of 'pure Leninism as oipposed to watered down versions of it - see JM and his arguments above or whether Sheridan was right, wrong or half-right / half wrong in Scotland!

Matter of choice - to the extent that the Empire's barbarism has been foisted on the people of the world - and btw sorry to have disappointed you!! Reality, at times, is hard to swallow.

US Troops Out Coalition

by Still disappointed Wed Dec 13, 2006 13:45

I apologise if I've hit some sort of button whereby you view all people who question the way you put things as serial IAWM abusers. Personally speaking I don't give the IAWM much thought other than seeing the need for all anti-war groups to work together and as such I found your comments disappointing.
I'll ask the question again in perhaps a less hostile manner but sometime the language of web can seem more hostile than it should.
Do you think that SP members, anarchists and ISN member can engage in a thread on 'theory, analysis and orientation' and not be involved at the same time in activity that tries 'to stop the Irish Government from collaborating with the Empire....." or is that multifunctionality only reserved for the the IAWM?
Do you really believe that because people are involved in a thread on one particular subject that it automatically means that they are blinkered and uninvolved in other threads?
On the thread that you mention I happen to know that various contributors are involved in several different campaigns such as the creation of an independent left, the water charges campaign in Northern Ireland, the bin tax campaign, anti-war activities, campaign for free education and local community issues. I'm sorry if I saw the implication in your comments that you and the IAWM had a monopoly on being involved in real issues but that's the way it came across to me.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Dec 13, 2006 14:03

I like the tone of the second message dear friend. Let me say immediately that one of my personal objectives has been, and continues to be, the practical coming together of the various anti-war groups - we tried this earlier in the year with Anti-War Network. It worked for a while but then internal pressures pushed the various groups apart.....
Now, I have no doubt that some of the people involved in the debate mentioned are extremely active in political issues, in campaigns, in many things.....what I did say, and continue to believe, is that however laudable the attempt by the ISN to define itself, its basic principles, its attitude to elections, its views on representative v direct democracy....that initial attempt has been ostracised by various well-wishers and the debate has been derailed into issues which are, I am sorry for repeating this, irrelevant for the Ireland of 2006 and its citizens.
I searched, for example, the various messages for a specific reference to the State - this State, the northern State or any other Capitalist State. Apart from some passing references to the one-party State (bad!!) there is no position on the State articulated by any of the contributors. The implications are clear - don't you think.
Finally, while I take with a smile any critcism of the weaknesses of the iawm, I do believe that the incessant barracking and ranting against the iawm, and the swp, has simply meant that for a whole number of activists, the value of debate, of messaging, of Indymedia itself has been lowered very considerably. And that's a pity.Hope you agree. The iawm is, in our opinion, one constituent part of the active Left in this country. One among many.....