SWP supports blair's religious hatred laws...

[flimsier]

I hear your argument, ba, but it does put to bed the 'opportunist' rubbish - or at least makes it clear there is a line of consistency - despite what some on here suggest - wouldn't you agree?

 

[butchersapron]

No, it only extends it backwards in time.

 

[flimsier]

OK, but some on here are saying it's opportunist because of RESPECT and it's success - and that's clearly rubbish.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[butchersapron]

...and more to the point,the article argues that

"when racist and sexist arguments are used against a demand for positive discrimination there must be no hesitiation as to which side we are on"

which doesn't mention anything at all about arguments about when non-racist or non- sexist arguments are put. We've also ignored the real context which was of local councils discussing these propopsals in limited areas, not the central state imposing a law over your and my head.

 

[flimsier]

But aren't the most prominent arguments against the laws (and indeed, muslim only schools) racially motivated ones?

In my experience, they certainly are! Obviously not on here though.

 

[butchersapron]

OK, but some on here are saying it's opportunist because of RESPECT and it's success - and that's clearly rubbish.

Wouldn't you agree?

No i wouldn't. Because i dont agree the political methodology of the SWP has changed from then to now - it's become less clever at hiding it since cliff died, but it's still the same beast. It has to be. Don't you get what leninist parties have to do yet - how they have to act?

 

[flimsier]

We've also ignored the real context which was of local councils discussing these propopsals in limited areas, not the central state imposing a law over your and my head.

Why does this make a difference?


Please forgive my asking lots of questions. I'm not trying to be a pain.

 

[butchersapron]

But aren't the most prominent arguments against the laws (and indeed, muslim only schools) racially motivated ones?

In my experience, they certainly are! Obviously not on here though.

No they're not, and most certainly not on here.

 

[butchersapron]

Why does this make a difference?


Please forgive my asking lots of questions. I'm not trying to be a pain.

Because the specific contect in which Norah Carlin's (who i've a lot of time for) arguments were put are significantly different from those in which they're being used as support today.

 

[flimsier]

No i wouldn't. Because i dont agree the political methodology of the SWP has changed from then to now - it's become less clever at hiding it since cliff died, but it's still the same beast. It has to be. Don't you get what leninist parties have to do yet - how they have to act?

Build the party. Full stop. Am I right?

I'm arguing that bb has shown that the support for these religious hate laws is not inconsistent with their past. Others seem to be saying they support them because of RESPECT and the large proportion of Muslims who are involved in RESPECT.

 

[flimsier]

Because the specific contect in which Norah Carlin's (who i've a lot of time for) arguments were put are significantly different from those in which they're being used as support today.

OK, I'm with you (as in I get what you are saying). I'm asking and reading rather than arguing at the moment.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Respect needs to create a political culture such that it can have these debates. But those hectoring from the outside have no basis for complaining. Which parties that they support in elections are putting forward policies to abolish religious schools? How many votes are they getting?

Interesting article in the latest issue of Socialist Resistance on the Respect conference debate and this issue:

There is agreement inside
Respect on many international
questions and some of the
strategic problems facing the
organisation. But reports from
around the country suggest that
serious political discussion and
controversy are avoided or conceded
unwillingly by local branch
leaderships.
We know for example that
there are strong differences of
opinion in Respect over the legislation
on incitement to religious
hatred. At the moment Respect
branches are not encouraged to
discuss the politics behind
issues like this.

Liam Macuaid article p11
http://www.socialistresistance.net/29resistance.pdf - sorry not available in html yet.

 

[butchersapron]

Build the party. Full stop. Am I right?

I'm arguing that bb has shown that the support for these religious hate laws is not inconsistent with their past. Others seem to be saying they support them because of RESPECT and the large proportion of Muslims who are involved in RESPECT.

That's the point that i've just made flims. In the mid-80s the target was alienated black people (it didn't work out), so the arguments were tailored in that direction. Today it's a different consituency. Same shit different shovel.

It's consistent with being wrong then if anything.

 

[audiotech]

No they're not, and most certainly not on here.

"Keeping the British way of life/our values" would appear to be the most prominent at the moment. Nationalist? Racist? Other secular arguments out there, but drowned out mostly.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

No they're not, and most certainly not on here.

That's just it though. This place is not an accurate reflection of the world. If most people thought like the average poster on Urban the world would be a very different place (not necessarily better!). But seriously the problem with the ultra-atheist/anarchist approach is that in the real world the arguments are not of the left's making and sometimes we find ourselves defending positions we don't fully agree with because the dominant arguments against it are even worse. That's because politics is about a balance of forces in the real world not what's right in the abstract.

 

[butchersapron]

Respect needs to create a political culture such that it can have these debates. But those hectoring from the outside have no basis for complaining. Which parties that they support in elections are putting forward policies to abolish religious schools? How many votes are they getting?

Interesting article in the latest issue of Socialist Resistance on the Respect conference debate and this issue:

Right, only RESPECT members and supporters to comment on respect please. Leave the hall if you dissent. Tell you what, don't post about RESPECT if you don't expect people to respond.

 

[butchersapron]

That's just it though. This place is not an accurate reflection of the world. If most people thought like the average poster on Urban the world would be a very different place (not necessarily better!). But seriously the problem with the ultra-atheist/anarchist approach is that in the real world the arguments are not of the left's making and sometimes we find ourselves defending positions we don't fully agree with because the dominant arguments against it are even worse. That's because politics is about a balance of forces in the real world not what's right in the abstract.

No, i think that's the determined flop-side of an imagined ultra-left, an imagination in which skinheads from the 70s with NF tattoed on their foreheads go around paki-bashing. It's a picture of that's based on the past and doesn't correspond to current reality, and it's one that's built around systematic patronisation of the white w/c and it's capabilities- not some middle class fok devils and night time scares.

I get and actually agree with your balance of forces point - it's pretty elementary, but i disagree on your assesment of those forces, and what is the best way to re-arrange those forces. It's not by ensuring that we have further and deeper w/c segregation in a few years time.

 

[flimsier]

ba: that's not what I read him as saying. he was saying 'what are WP or whomever doing about it. Criticise our position from one of strength, if you can.'

There is a bit of 'show me your money' about it, but it doesn't suggest you have to be a RESPECT member to actually do that - more that you have to have done something.



I don't agree though - because it rules me out!

 

[mk12]

I only joined Respect yesterday so I could participate in the conference. Do the same!

 

[butchersapron]

ba: that's not what I read him as saying. he was saying 'what are WP or whomever doing about it. Criticise our position from one of strength, if you can.'

There is a bit of 'show me your money' about it, but it doesn't suggest you have to be a RESPECT member to actually do that - more that you have to have done something.



I don't agree though - because it rules me out!

How about starting off with those debates, not saying that they're the end result? Sound good?

 

[audiotech]

That's the point that i've just made flims. In the mid-80s the target was alienated black people (it didn't work out), so the arguments were tailored in that direction.

As an SWP member at the time I don't remember anti-racism being a feature of any specific 'target' in the mid 80's. I remember the 80's as being a time when the priorities were health workers, steel workers, printers and of course the miners.

 

[butchersapron]

As an SWP member at the time I don't remember anti-racism being a feature of any specific 'target' in the mid 80's. I remember the 80's as being a time when the priorities were health workers, steel workers, printers and of course the miners.

Ok, 'a' target' amongst those listed above. And you missed with each one of them.

 

[flimsier]

How about starting off with those debates, not saying that they're the end result? Sound good?

But you don't often get the chance to have the debate with the world before taking a position.

Or have I misunderstood your post?

 

[Groucho]

Racism and Islamophobia are a bigger threat as regards dividing the working class than faith based schools. Opposing Muslim schools when in practice allowing Christian schools to exist bolsters the racists.

The choice is to support or oppose Muslim schools specifically. There is no real agenda in the real World at the moment for abolishing Christian schools.

We stand with the Muslim community/ies against the attacks on them. If large numbers believe that the Incitement Law may be of some protection then it would be mad for us to try to block it. At the same time though we must explain that any illussion that New Labour and the lawmakers are about to defend Muslims from attack and discrimination is just that - an illussion.

However, we would defend Equal Pay law, Incitement to Racial Hatred legislation, the Minimum Wage, Health and Safety at Work, Employment Laws that support the right to organise etc etc. IF the proposed legislation did just what NL claim it will do - protect vulnerable people from attack as a result of incitement we would support it. Legislation is never the answer but it can lay down a marker and create a boundary that we can fight over. Equal Pay legislation did not close the gap between the pay of men and women despite claims it would do so. It has though provided a weapon in the armoury of those fighting to close the gap. So the argument that all laws from the centre should be opposed is just silly. The difficulty I have with the current legislation I outlined in an earlier post. It is vague enough to be open to uses we would not want to see.

 

[butchersapron]

But you don't often get the chance to have the debate with the world before taking a position.

Or have I misunderstood your post?

Yep. FG is saying that RESPECT needs to create the conditions for 'these debates' to take place - no they don't. People have them all the time. If he means that they need to make political capital out of them (or better help to creat condtions that allows them to actibvely reach their ends) theh fine. But it doesn't hinge on RESPECT and it doesn't hinge on their members.

 

[butchersapron]

Racism and Islamophobia are a bigger threat as regards dividing the working class than faith based schools. Opposing Muslim schools when in practice allowing Christian schools to exist bolsters the racists.

The choice is to support or oppose Muslim schools specifically. There is no real agenda in the real World at the moment for abolishing Christian schools.

We stand with the Muslim community/ies against the attacks on them. If large numbers believe that the Incitement Law may be of some protection then it would be mad for us to try to block it. At the same time though we must explain that any illussion that New Labour and the lawmakers are about to defend Muslims from attack and discrimination is just that - an illussion.

However, we would defend Equal Pay law, Incitement to Racial Hatred legislation, the Minimum Wage, Health and Safety at Work, Employment Laws that support the right to organise etc etc. IF the proposed legislation did just what NL claim it will do - protect vulnerable people from attack as a result of incitement we would support it. Legislation is never the answer but it can lay down a marker and create a boundary that we can fight over. Equal Pay legislation did not close the gap between the pay of men and women despite claims it would do so. It has though provided a weapon in the armoury of those fighting to close the gap. So the argument that all laws from the centre should be opposed is just silly. The difficulty I have with the current legislation I outlined in an earlier post. It is vague enough to be open to uses we would not want to see.

Thanks for repeating that. There's still at least three other options on the agenda - you just choose not to recognise them.

Here they are:

1) Vote against
2) Abstain (can't though can you? Need to keep Muslims onside)
3) Launch campaign against religious schools full stop ( can't - see above for why)

 

[flimsier]

An incredibly important baseball match is on and I'm on my fourth beer. A poster I respect has said he really doesn't respect some of my recent posts (usually when I've had a few lagers), so I want to just point out that a lack of reply on this thread is temporary - but so that I can post more thoughtfully tomorrow or after, without distractions!

 

[audiotech]

No, i think that's the determined flop-side of an imagined ultra-left, an imagination in which skinheads from the 70s with NF tattoed on their foreheads go around paki-bashing.

Funnily enough, 20 boneheads pictured in this months Searchlight who dream a lot about doing just that.

 

[butchersapron]

An incredibly important baseball match is on and I'm on my fourth beer. A poster I respect has said he really doesn't respect some of my recent posts (usually when I've had a few lagers), so I want to just point out that a lack of reply on this thread is temporary - but so that I can post more thoughtfully tomorrow or after, without distractions!

Get stuck in lad, i've had a few tonight as well - just don't go getting big headed

 

[butchersapron]

Funnily enough, 20 boneheads pictured in this months Searchlight who dream a lot about doing just that.

Say no more, say no more...

20 sad gluesniffers determine the social relations that govern our lifes. Weren't you a marxist? Or have i the wrong bloke?