Anarchism and British Islamism: putting things in perspective - Steven Johns

Refreshing article, I have been worried about a certain amount of anti-islamism hysteria gathering on the anarchist front. It's a bit of a double bind too, which I'm glad in your second paragraph you nipped in the bud. I really don't feel that here in london/britain/europe anarchists really need a 'Islamism discussion'. If you really want to discuss Islamism there are plenty of other platforms on which it could be done, why a specifically anarchist response?

Otherwise, great response!

"I am particularly surprised that a former Class War member now seems to be condemning anti-imperialist terrorism. Class War were virulent supporters of the IRA: religion-linked terrorists who attacked civilians in the UK because the UK had invaded "their" country. What is the justification for supporting them, but not Islamic terrorists, despite the invasion of Muslim countries being so much more recent?"

Er... Class War were not 'virulent supporters of the IRA'; the IRA were not 'religion-linked terrorists'; 'the UK' never invaded Ireland because the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707, centuries after the arrival of Strongbow in Ireland in the 1100s and nearly 60 years after the Cromwellian invasion of Ireland - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed in 1801. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

In addition, the IRA were, in the words of Bobby Sands, fighting for a 32-county democratic socialist republic. Islamist terrorists are fighting for a caliphate. Can't you see there's a difference?

If there's so much to question in one small portion of your article where I have some knowledge, how much of the rest is cobblers too?

Whilst I don't think its useful to compare the IRA and Islamist groups, I'd like to defend some on Steven's comments. The (70s,80s,90s) IRA were intimately linked with a sectarian religious divide, which was of course created to a great extent by the British state, but the fact remains that most IRA members saw 'the prods' as in some way the enemy, and effectively organised along religious community lines rather than class lines. Additionally, the IRA had some links to members of the Catholic clergy. Saying that the IRA were not religion linked seems incorrect to me. Your point about the UK not invading Ireland is factually correct, but I think perhaps a little pernicity. The politcal entity that became the UK sponsored invasions of and directly invaded Ireland. Perhaps Steven should have made a foot note explaining that the House of Normandy were the first ruling political group to initiate invasions of Ireland from the British mainland in the series of events that lead to the occupation, etc., but would it have been useful?

I think Steven was not trying to say that the IRA are as bad as Al-Quaeda. He was trying to say that many of the criticisms made of Islamism could be made of movements some anarchists support. One implication being that those anarchists lack a consistent class struggle internationalist critique which they could benefit from developing.

While it's true to say that the Provisional IRA were predominantly Catholic, if Steven's term 'religion-linked terrorists' is to have any meaning, especially in the context of an article about Islamist terrorists, it can't mean simply that they were drawn from one religious background, but that their primary motivation was religious; and that they received significant support from important religious figures. I note that you do not disagree with my statement that the IRA were fighting for a 32-county democratic socialist republic. The IRA were not fighting for a theocratic state - therefore their primary motivation was not religious, unlike that of Islamist terrorists. There is of course a long and proud tradition of Protestant involvement in Irish republicanism from Wolfe Tone onwards: republicanism is not a sectarian political ideology. As for support from the Catholic Church for the IRA's campaign, though it is true to say that some priests were involved either in providing spiritual support or material support for the IRA, the Catholic hierarchy were always vigorously opposed to the IRA's activities - carrying on a tradition which stretches back at least as far as the Tan war. The association or involvement of priests with the IRA was not ubiquitous throughout the Six Counties, let alone the rest of the island. As the IRA were not primarily motivated by religion nor did they receive significant support from the Catholic Church it is hard to see how the claim that they were religion-linked can be sustained.

Turning to the issue of the United Kingdom, I don't think I am being pedantic when I say that the UK never invaded Ireland. England, English Crown forces, invaded Ireland on a number of occasions, most famously under Elizabeth I and Cromwell. Although it is true to say that the successor states to the former Kingdom of England maintained their presence in Ireland, this was - as I say - maintaining possession rather than invading anew. The last 'invasion' of Ireland would have been the Williamite campaign in Ireland after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Again, before the creation of a unitary state in Great Britain... The United Kingdom, both as England, Wales and Scotland between 1707 and 1801, and as the UK of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 to 1922, was a very different creature from its predecessor states. Saying that the UK invaded Ireland is like saying that the United States fought the French and Indian War in the 1750s and 1760s: a load of old bollocks, frankly.

By the way, it was the Plantagenet Henry II who was on the throne when Strongbow received his invitation from Dermot MacMurchada; Strongbow was out of favour with Henry II and Henry denied giving him permission to accept Dermot's proposal.

The issue here is not, to my mind, so much the matters we're discussing here - as I made clear in my previous post - but whether when Steven's attitude to accuracy and honesty is as questionable throughout his article as it is in the paragraph I highlighted.

If someone blows up a pub for a 32 county socialist republic, or blows up a tube train to free palestine/establish a caliphate, what, from a libertarian communist point of view is the difference? Surely the problem with terrorism - and the analogy being drawn - is one of methods, not motives?

I'm not getting drawn into that rather different discussion.

ok, me neither, but i think that was the point being made: islamism/islamic terrorism is apparently a big enough problem anarchists need a specific response to it, yet the anarchist response to a far bloodier campaign previously was to cheerlead it. which begs the question why single out islam(ism)?

Ask Steven why he decided to post Paul's article & write a response.

Oh - and "the anarchist response" to the IRA was not "to cheerlead it", was it?

Someone else posted it I think, and Steven didn't realise it was an old article and turned his impromptu response into a blog. As for his reasons, well, he can speak for himself I guess. But presumably he disagreed with Paul's post enough to motivate him to respond to it.

I think pulling 11 men on their way home from work off of a bus and shooting the protestants and letting the catholic go would have a stong religious element.

At first, the workers assumed that they were being stopped and searched by a British Army or RUC checkpoint, and when ordered to line up beside the bus, they obeyed. At this point the lead gunman ordered the only Catholic, Richard Hughes, to step forward. Hughes' workmates—thinking that the armed men were loyalists who had come to kill him—tried to stop him from identifying himself

Even workers showing solidarity across religious lines get shot dead. I think this shows the attitude of the organisation more than a few words
The identification of each side with a religion is something that can hardly be denied even if there were a few protestants in the IRA (and fewer as time when on and the attacks increased I would imagine, not that anyone was likely to keep records)

I note that you do not disagree with my statement that the IRA were fighting for a 32-county democratic socialist republic.

I would disagree with that, although some might have been pushing for a socialist republic I don't think it was the mainstream thought in the IRA, especially and the Official/Provisional split was based on the officials being too marxist/socialist although again it's hard to know exactly because I doubt anyone kept that kind of information. I don't see why anarchists would or should suppport a violent sectarian campaign whose avowed aim is simply morre of the same. I can see why catholics on the ground, faced with discrimination and violence might feel that it was necessary but it doesn't mean it should be suppported or defended.

jef

You point to one incident out of thirty years of conflict and in the context of a vicious murder campaign carried out by loyalists. But if you care to read the link you provide, then you'll see that matters are not as clear cut as you intimate. There is no consensus that the attack was carried out under the banner of the IRA; the claim that SARAF had no links to the IRA is equivocal, but in any event it hardly appears to have been greeted with joy within republican circles.

The stated aim of the IRA from 1916 to the present has been the foundation of a 32 county republic based on the 1916 Proclamation. The centrality of James Connolly to modern republicanism, too, supports my argument. That Sinn Fein under Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have determined on a different direction does not mean that the IRA were not fighting for what their most famous Volunteer claimed.

As to your final point, perhaps you could be more forthcoming than Steven and post up some evidence to show CW's 'virulent support' for the IRA. You (ie you, Steven and Joseph Kay) are long on claim but remarkably short on evidence.

We did go on Bloody Sunday marches, we did have stalls at the Green Ink Irish Bookfair at the Camden Irish Centre, but 'virulent support of the IRA'? Put up or shut up.

Jack_Ketch

Ask Steven why he decided to post Paul's article & write a response.

I posted it (which is easy enough to see on the tracker) because I'm uploading relevent articles from Shift and because it's an interesting debate worth having. Paul's article basically says as much.

Django

Jack_Ketch

Ask Steven why he decided to post Paul's article & write a response.

I posted it (which is easy enough to see on the tracker) because I'm uploading relevent articles from Shift and because it's an interesting debate worth having. Paul's article basically says as much.

doesn't really answer joseph kay's question, 'why single out islam(ism)'

Jack_Ketch

Django

Jack_Ketch

Ask Steven why he decided to post Paul's article & write a response.

I posted it (which is easy enough to see on the tracker) because I'm uploading relevent articles from Shift and because it's an interesting debate worth having. Paul's article basically says as much.

doesn't really answer joseph kay's question, 'why single out islam(ism)'

:confused:

Ask the author? Or are you saying me posting it is singling out islamism? You can see on Shift's website that it's the second article listed, after Nic Beuret's which was the one last I posted.

I'm also not a fan of the Srinagar example. Though the guy was indeed British and indeed a Muslim, I would argue that the context (Kashmir) and the motives (free Kashmir state) are completely different to the 7/7 bombers or Abu Hamza. The burning of poppies, Islam4UK, 'baby killer' protests are emphatically connected to to the wars in the middle east.

Jack_Ketch

You point to one incident out of thirty years of conflict and in the context of a vicious murder campaign carried out by loyalists. But if you care to read the link you provide, then you'll see that matters are not as clear cut as you intimate. There is no consensus that the attack was carried out under the banner of the IRA; the claim that SARAF had no links to the IRA is equivocal, but in any event it hardly appears to have been greeted with joy within republican circles.

And you pointed out Bobby Sands, who was admittedly a single man rather than a single incident.
If it was a response to loyalism then why shoot ten men on the basis of their religion, especially ones who actually tried to protect a man from the other religion? You can't use loyalist crimes to justify this without completely undermining yourself as far as I can see.
If you're trying to claim South Armagh Brigade wasn't part of the IRA and wasn't one of the most lauded groups taking part in the struggle then I'm a bit surprised.
To be honest you've picked and chosen from the republican movement to try and argue a point that doesn't make sense really. If it is just the fault of the leaders then why haven't they been challenged? What are your thoughts on the OIRA/PIRA split ?

To be honest I doubt this is going to get us anywhere because your conception of the IRA is not one that I believe can be justifie or is logically consistent.

In terms of Class War cheerleading the IRA I must admit I don't know that many class war members but on forums there have been several who have been at best soft on the IRA. It has been a widespread problem on the left at times, up to the point where two RA members carrie out an IRA bombing. In general I think that all nationalist struggles damage us and I don't just argue against Irish nationalism I just find that along with Palestinian nationalism it is the one most supporte amongst leftists and therefore most damaging.

Well despite some fraternal co-operation between Subversion and Manchester Class War in the past (both groups now defunct of course) we in Subversion had to continually challenge the support given by some members of Class War for both Irish nationalism and the IRA (see for instance correspondence with a London CW member and Subversion in the Library here).

On a similar theme also read Dave Douglass's autobiography to see how his leftist support for Irish nationalism and the IRA drifted on to influence CW.

I think Steven has picked up on some of my previous comments on the earlier thread in his revised piece, though the link I provided is still perhaps relevant.

Very interesting. Our job is to defend muslims against islamophobia not to defend Islam for obvious reasons. Yes there was some element in Islamicist terror attacks that has been a response to the horrors of impearialism. We always said that the first way to deal with this movement is for the west to get out of Chachnya, Palestine etc etc and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have made things worse.
But lets get things the blowing up of innocent civilians will achieve nowt, only a mass movement the likes of which we are seeing in the middle east will defeat impearialism and secondly we have to look at the kind of society that these groups want. We should defend the Palestinian resistance as a whole against the enemy Israel but we understand that Hamas has for example passed legislation in Gaza banning women from driving motorbikes and men working in beauty parlours. Islamacists don't wish for a socialist society but will tolerate capitalism as the Qu'ran says that it should in effect it aims for a society where women are subjugated to men and the Qu'ran is law, they have no liking for Kafur (unbelievers) especially athiests and the position on sexual liberation is apparent, they hate it. Also in many Islamic states (especially Iran) the penelty for renouncing Islam is death and in most Islamic communities questioning or criticising Islam is'nt tolerated.
Abu Hamza, Anjam Chaudry etc have said clearly they want to sweep western secularism away and that includes us, they hate us.
Our task, I think is to support socialist and secular groups in muslim countries. Indeed the right to freedom of belief in this country was achieved with much suffering by groups such as Ranters and Quakers. Our task is to defend secularism and support those trying to breakout of religious dogma whilst at the same time defending the rights of muslims in the west to practice their religion free from Islamophobia.
We stand by the people of Afghanistan to determin their own lives but oppose the Taliban, Al Qaida or any group wanting to keep the country in the Middle Ages.
Sounds like a contradiction. I think not. I think it is a principled position on the question.
Lastly, most muslims in this country have little love for Al Qaida and their ilk.

Spikymike

Thank you for addressing the issue. However, what's in question is not what individual members might have felt but the views of the group. You have taken a more nuanced view than some of the other posters on the subject. As you say, some members of CW were indeed republican sympathisers: others, however, were most emphatically not. If Class War were 'virulent supporters' and 'cheerleaders' of the IRA I'd expect that something from the paper could be picked up, something from the Heavy Stuff, something from Decade of Disorder, something from Unfinished Business... As far as I'm aware, the only 'pro-IRA' statement in the paper was in about issue 2: Ian Bone writes that -

Sean and Stella agreed to help me get Class War No. 2 out. ... Stella was a member of Red Action and Sean a close sympathiser so they contributed a Provisional IRA cheerleader piece 'I.I.IRA - Fuck the Queen and the UDA', It was the last time a pro-republican piece was to appear in the paper as our collective view was to become as opposed to Catholic nationalism as we were to Protestant unionism.
Ian Bone, 'Bash the Rich', p. 127

Dave Douglass may have supported the IRA as may other individual members of the organization, but - as I have said - many others were vehemently opposed to the IRA. It is untrue to claim the Class War Federation was supportive of the IRA.

jef costello

Jack_Ketch

You point to one incident out of thirty years of conflict and in the context of a vicious murder campaign carried out by loyalists. But if you care to read the link you provide, then you'll see that matters are not as clear cut as you intimate. There is no consensus that the attack was carried out under the banner of the IRA; the claim that SARAF had no links to the IRA is equivocal, but in any event it hardly appears to have been greeted with joy within republican circles.

And you pointed out Bobby Sands, who was admittedly a single man rather than a single incident.
If it was a response to loyalism then why shoot ten men on the basis of their religion, especially ones who actually tried to protect a man from the other religion? You can't use loyalist crimes to justify this without completely undermining yourself as far as I can see.

I don't think that there's any undermining of my position. Let me quote from Tim Pat Coogan's 'The IRA' (1995 edition):

Sectarian assassination is such a feature of the struggle that it deserves a special examination, as do the Protestant paramilitary forces and their endeavours. The sectarian assassin can be either a bigoted racialist or a genuine patriot. He can strike to punish, as he sees it, treacherous and rebellious members of a sub-species which is threatening life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is how many Protestant assassins, particularly in the UVF, see their actions. Or he can coldbloodedly retaliate for an earlier killing as the IRA did at Bessbrook in South Armagh on 5 January 1976, when ten Protestant workmen were machine-gunned to death after they had been ordered out of their mini-bus and forced to line up for death one of the few occasions when the IRA went in for outright sectarian murder.
Why? I asked an IRA spokesman. Looking me straight in the eye he replied: 'Why not? It stopped the sectarian killings in the area, didn't it?' Unfortunately he was right. Five Catholics had been killed in two attacks in that area on the previous day. The attacks stopped immediately. (p. 443)

Indeed, I'm not going to deny it was sectarian. But I am going to argue that that was far from the norm for the IRA, as Tim Pat Coogan suggested and as the other long quote below substantiates. I would agree with Peter Taylor's remark that it is an event which republicans would rather forget because it disgraces every principle they hold dear. (Peter Taylor, Provos, p. 196)

If you're trying to claim South Armagh Brigade wasn't part of the IRA and wasn't one of the most lauded groups taking part in the struggle then I'm a bit surprised.

The article you linked to said that the action was claimed by SARAF. Now I have had a chance to get home and have a look at the books I have more detailed information in front of me. I never said anything about the IRA's South Armagh brigade. And nor did you. Indeed, the link on which you relied, which was all I had to go on earlier, is rather equivocal on the event.

To be honest you've picked and chosen from the republican movement to try and argue a point that doesn't make sense really. If it is just the fault of the leaders then why haven't they been challenged? What are your thoughts on the OIRA/PIRA split ?

I don't see how this is relevant. Your thesis, which argues that the IRA were involved in a sectarian campaign against Protestants doesn't stand up to examination. As Tim Pat Coogan noted, in the bold section of the quote, the Kingsmill killings were one of the few times the IRA indulged in sectarian killings. Following a detailed analysis of IRA sectarianism, Robert W. White ('The Irish Republican Army: an assessment of sectarianism', in Terrorism and Political Violence 9(1) (1997), pp. 20-55) concludes thus:

...I examined who it is that the IRA killed between 1969 and 1993. This examination supports the view that the IRA direct their violence against the British. The single largest grouping of victims of the IRA is British soldiers. Further, combining the figures for the British Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Ulster Defence Regiment/Royal Irish Rangers shows that over half of the IRA's victims have been members of the security forces. The results suggest that the IRA is at war with the British and their security forces in Northern Ireland; IRA behavior, in general, is consistent with their non-sectarian ideology.
This is not to deny that, over time and across geography, the IRA did kill Protestant civilians. Many of these deaths, however, may be attributed to IRA accidents and mistakes and to the IRA's attempt to influence British policy through the bombing campaign in the early 1970s. Also, many of the deaths were confined to the years 1975 and 1976, and to Belfast, especially North Belfast. Finally, in comparison to the widespread and consistent targeting of Catholic civilians by Protestant paramilitaries over time, the IRA is far less sectarian than are Protestant paramilitaries. Because of this, it is perhaps best to view the IRA as a non-sectarian organization that, when they do desire, can and will strike out at the Protestant community in Northern Ireland, as at Kingsmills.

The killings at Kingsmill, therefore, were very much out of the ordinary and in no way normal IRA practice. As such, your case is rather undermined, because you argued that

I think pulling 11 men on their way home from work off of a bus and shooting the protestants and letting the catholic go would have a stong religious element.

with the implication that this 'strong religious element' could be applied more widely to an understanding of IRA tactics and targeting. That simply isn't the case. And so we return to what I said in my initial post on this thread - the IRA were not 'religion-linked terrorists', and I note you have not bothered to contest my definition of what I mean by 'religion-linked terrorists': it seems, therefore, you accept my understanding of the term. Given that, perhaps we can move on.

To be honest I doubt this is going to get us anywhere because your conception of the IRA is not one that I believe can be justifie or is logically consistent.

God knows your conception of the IRA isn't one which stands up to comparison with the facts.

In terms of Class War cheerleading the IRA I must admit I don't know that many class war members but on forums there have been several who have been at best soft on the IRA. It has been a widespread problem on the left at times, up to the point where two RA members carrie out an IRA bombing

Right. So out of hundreds of people who have passed through the ranks of CW over the years, you can think of several who have had a soft spot or similar for the IRA. Hardly the sort of thing I was thinking of when I asked for evidence of Class War's 'virulent support' for the IRA. And then you bring in Red Action, a group with whom it's well known that Class War had considerable differences! You're all over the place on this one.

. In general I think that all nationalist struggles damage us and I don't just argue against Irish nationalism I just find that along with Palestinian nationalism it is the one most supporte amongst leftists and therefore most damaging.

I don't know where you get the impression that Irish nationalism has a great deal of support among 'leftists'. Certainly that's never been the impression I've received over the past 20 years. The more distant something is the more support it typically attracts, like the Zapatistas some years ago, or Che Guevara and Fidel Castro back in the 1960s - or Hugo Chavez now. People have commented on how many lives were lost through the Troubles and how few comparatively have been lost to Islamist terrorists.What disturbs me about this, in the context in which this thread emerged, is that you and some of the other contributors on this thread are not, in my view, bringing this up out of horror at the bloodshed, but as an underhanded way of having a go at Class War. It's evident from Steven's article that's why he's included it. Yet as I have argued, Class War did not 'virulently support' or 'cheerlead' the IRA. You've yet to show me anything which suggests I am wrong to say that, that I am wrong to say the IRA are not 'religion-linked' terrorists, or indeed that I am wrong in anything I pulled Steven up on.

So what you're saying is that in the summer of 2002 CW said there was an article about ten years before which CW agreed with then. The position was rather different when I was involved, where as I've said some people were for the 'RA and some against. If the best you can do is one article in a magazine from 1992 or thereabouts that hardly indicates the 'virulent support' you mention in your article, does it?

Jack_Ketch

So what you're saying is that in the summer of 2002 CW said there was an article about ten years before which CW agreed with then. The position was rather different when I was involved, where as I've said some people were for the 'RA and some against. If the best you can do is one article in a magazine from 1992 or thereabouts that hardly indicates the 'virulent support' you mention in your article, does it?

Your objection seems implicitly anyway not to be with Steven's substantive point that Class War supported the PIRA, but rather you'd rather he didn't refer to it as 'virulent support'. Your assertion that CWF held within differing views on this is rather weak IMO. As Steven said as in organisation articles were published in support of PIRA and so reasonably people assumed that Class War supported PIRA. Can your point to published material by Class War to reflect your contention that people within CWF rejected Irish nationalism?

When I was in Class War the only 'official' position I was aware of was the bit in Unfinished Business, which seems more nuanced than the article in the Heavy Stuff from what I can tell from CW 83, which as far as I can tell none of us has read. I could name you quite a number of former members who were by no means supporters of the IRA in any of its incarnations without troubling my memory. You also ignore the fact that we did not have 'official positions' in Class War. If you're going to judge CW by the yardstick of Trot groups, then you'll misunderstand us.

We had Unfinished Business on the stalls for more years than I care to mention. I can't recall Class War selling republican merchandise on the stall while I was a member: which you would have expected if we had retained the position apparently advanced in HS5.

I'll see if I can dig out a copy tomorrow so I can read the article in all its glory.

Steven.

You also seem to be ignoring discussion I linked to above with Subversion, with an IRA-supporting class war member. What is particularly funny on that is that a psychopathic banned poster in the comments to that article talks about how he also supports the IRA (including the continuity IRA, on other threads he stated how he also supported Islamic and fascist terrorism), then a class war member comes on the thread trying to recruit him to the organisation! That comment is here:
http://libcom.org/history/northern-ireland-ira-class-war?page=1#comment-363863

I'm not so sure you know the meaning of 'recruit'. After all, Outlaw asks 'how can I join Class War': to which he receives information. Not really someone out of CW trying to persuade someone to become a member, is it? Personally I think that the CW member should have engaged more with Outlaw to get his measure instead of saying 'to join us you write to us'. When I was a member we corresponded with people, met them (several people) to get a better idea about them and if they were ok there was a three month probationary period. Which is a bit longwinded, perhaps, but we didn't have things happen to us after instituting this procedure which had occurred earlier, and of course we didn't have the fash infiltrating us.

Jack_Ketch

When I was in Class War the only 'official' position I was aware of was the bit in Unfinished Business, which seems more nuanced than the article in the Heavy Stuff from what I can tell from CW 83, which as far as I can tell none of us has read. I could name you quite a number of former members who were by no means supporters of the IRA in any of its incarnations without troubling my memory. You also ignore the fact that we did not have 'official positions' in Class War. If you're going to judge CW by the yardstick of Trot groups, then you'll misunderstand us.

I am aware that CWF did not hold 'positions' as such hence why I asked if you could point me to articles that reflected an opposing viewpoint on this. If views are expressed to a greater or less extent consistently in support of Irish nationalism and there is no opposition from members who opposed this, then is it not meaningless that CWF members held such views, if they were not at least expressed.

Android

I am aware that CWF did not hold 'positions' as such hence why I asked if you could point me to articles that reflected an opposing viewpoint on this. If views are expressed to a greater or less extent consistently in support of Irish nationalism and there is no opposition from members who opposed this, then is it not meaningless that CWF members held such views, if they were not at least expressed.

Second question first: no: those views were on at least some occasions rather forcefully expressed. As for your first question, I don't think I can point you to such articles, certainly not immediately. You'll have to wait.

Jack_Ketch

Second question first: no: those views were on at least some occasions rather forcefully expressed. As for your first question, I don't think I can point you to such articles, certainly not immediately. You'll have to wait.

No problem. Thanks for your replies. I will butt out now and leave you and Steven to it.

Steven.

we've been over this now and I demonstrated the veracity of this.

No, you haven't. You've produced one piece from CW83 which refers back to a piece in HS5, the text of which you do not appear to have seen. In any event, as Paul's made clear on his blog, if you don't like that position there's the position in Unfinished Business, the first paragraph of which ends along the lines of 'we don't want to brainwash people into supporting the republican movement'. Given the prominence of that book - the text of which appears on Libcom - the most you can say is 'at the time HS5 appeared CW seemed to have a strong line in support of the IRA'.

Virulent support - your term - would be at least, in my opinion, the sort of support Red Action gave the IRA in the pages of their paper. Certainly not an article here in HS5 and an article there in CW83. And that seems to me to be the sum of what you've produced, barring the exchange of correspondence between Subversion and one CW member in Manchester and the posts of someone who, you claim, was a CW member in 2010. If it's the person I'm thinking of, they're most certainly not a member now. Let's leave aside the anecdotal evidence you've produced about every CWer being in support of the 'RA - as Paul (again) makes clear on his blog, that was emphatically not the case.

And, as Android admits, CW did not have official positions, certainly not ones which bound members five or six - or twenty - years down the line. Android's admission, which you haven't challenged, somewhat undermines your thesis.

other posters have addressed this

not very successfully

this is being pedantic. The UK is the name of the nation state currently existing which is the continuation of the nation state which invaded Ireland.

You said the UK invaded Ireland. This is wrong. There was no UK in 1169, there was no UK in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries and there was no UK at the time of the battle of the Boyne. The state which invaded Ireland was England. If you want to be lazy and post up things which make you look stupid, carry on. You've certainly posted up enough nonsense in your reply to Paul to make yourself look like a callow schoolboy.

as Jef says, for the innocent workers they killed and maimed I don't think it made a big difference. If I want to be pedantic I could point out that Islamism is not a religion either as such, it is a political ideology which the vast majority of Muslims in the UK do not subscribe to.

How can you say here that you don't think it made a huge difference who injured or killed people when you use that as something which did make a difference further on with your bit about Billy Wright? Come on, you can't have it both ways. As for Islamism, I haven't said it's a religion - Islam being the religion - but Islamists fight for a caliphate, a religious state, and their motivation is clearly primarily religious. You don't get people from other religious backgrounds fighting for a caliphate! As we know since at least 1972 the British government was talking to the IRA, but there's no comparable information in the public domain about possible negotiations with Islamists, although there was for some years that Covenent of Security (or similar). Oh - and I've never said anything about the proportion of Islamists among UK Muslims. I don't know why you threw that in, it's not as though that's relevant yet.

Did you support the IRA then? Your defence of the shooting of the Protestant workmen sounds extremely dodgy ("it stopped sectarian killings"), not to mention untrue:

The defence was not mine, it was what an IRA spokesman said to Tim Pat Coogan as recorded in his book, The IRA. made this clear above. As for my view on the IRA, yes, I did support them. But that was my decision and not related to my membership of Class War. As for the defence the IRA spokesman put forward to T.P. Coogan, there were no more killings in that area in the 1970s, which you tacitly admit.

But let's just look at some other aspects of your magnum opus in response to Paul's piece, in response to

none of this is substantive criticism of my post, the crux of which rests on the fact that is blowing the issue of Islamism out of proportion to its relevance. Even if the things you pointed out here were mistakes it would change that.

Let's not lose sight entirely of what you're up to here.

Starting at the top, you say that the debate about Islam and Islamism is covered within the articles available on Libcom.

Islam and Islamism and our approach to them is one such issue. On the website I help run, libcom.org, for example we have dozens of articles about Islam, and we have had dozens of debates about it in our forums over the past eight years - far more than we have about any other world religion. Anarchists are certainly not immune to a media frenzy, unsurprisingly, as things we read about in the paper and end up discussing with friends and co-workers we want to discuss with one another as well.

You're not being entirely honest here. There may be 'dozens' of articles relating to Islam on your site, but there's all of nine articles about Islam and / or Islamism in Britain, plus a couple of documentaries. There is, in other words, a dearth of information in the Islam section on what Paul's talking about. Judging by the standards of debate for which Libcom is famous - debates like the one where Harrison Myers links CW to the SS, debates like the one where CW was roundly condemned for burning effigies (notwithstanding the positions of what I'm told is your organisation, the AF, which is somewhat larger on positions than CW was), or debates like the one years back where some vile slurs were made against members of the Wombles - judging by that history, I am not so sure that you have entered into a meaningful debate about the development of Islam and Islamism in Britain which produced any original or substantial insights into the issue.

As an aside, you declare that 'the French Revolution was the triumph of capitalism over feudalism', a quote which seems to come from a 1967 article by Cobban. I'm by no means persuaded that that was in fact the case, not least because the French economy was rather later in the transition from feudalism to capitalism than at least one neighbouring country. Oh - and the Russian Revolution did not on its own lead to the Cold War, however much you might like to think it did. It's this sort of ahistorical nonsense which undermines whatever else you might have to say: it seems you haven't given the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution a great deal of thought. And if you haven't given those famous revolutions much consideration, I wonder what we'll find in the rest of your article.

When I've got a chance I'll get onto what substance there is to the remainder of the article.

I agree with Stephens criticism of Pauls "Focusing our attentions on other working class people whom the media are demonising".
As others have implied, this bit is bollocks though:

I am particularly surprised that a former Class War member now seems to be condemning anti-imperialist terrorism. Class War were virulent supporters of the IRA: religion-linked terrorists who attacked civilians in the UK because the UK had invaded "their" country. What is the justification for supporting them, but not Islamic terrorists, despite the invasion of Muslim countries being so much more recent?

Paul is not responsible for Class War Federations arguments, only for his own.
Ian Bone is quoted:

Stella was a member of Red Action and Sean a close sympathiser so they contributed a Provisional IRA cheerleader piece 'I.I.IRA - Fuck the Queen and the UDA', It was the last time a pro-republican piece was to appear in (Class War) as our collective view was to become as opposed to Catholic nationalism as we were to Protestant unionism.

Leaving the Republican workers alone to defend themselves against the violence of the British Army.

Having seen the HS5 piece it's not in fact an article. It is a letter from one CW group - Doncaster CW - in response to an article in HS4 which roundly condemned the republican struggle. So in reality the most you can say is that individual members supported the IRA and by no means the group as a whole.

But if CW had a pro-IRA attitude, then why did the A(C)F enter into merger talks at the start of the 1990s?

Jack_Ketch

And, as Android admits, CW did not have official positions, certainly not ones which bound members five or six - or twenty - years down the line. Android's admission, which you haven't challenged, somewhat undermines your thesis.

How is me accepting your word that CWF did not have official positions relevant to Steven's claim that CWF were supportive of Irish Republicanism.

Steven's argument does not hinge on the fact of whether CWF had formal positions on issues or not. Various anarchist groups do not take formal positions beyond their political platform, it does not mean a general approach to issues can't be discerned. In this discussion Steven has referenced various articles and you have just replied with anecdotal evidence and quibbles.

Jack_Ketch

But if CW had a pro-IRA attitude, then why did the A(C)F enter into merger talks at the start of the 1990s?

This is interesting, I have not heard this before. I'd be interested in hearing what exactly happened.

Android

Jack_Ketch

And, as Android admits, CW did not have official positions, certainly not ones which bound members five or six - or twenty - years down the line. Android's admission, which you haven't challenged, somewhat undermines your thesis.

How is me accepting your word that CWF did not have official positions relevant to Steven's claim that CWF were supportive of Irish Republicanism.

Steven's argument does not hinge on the fact of whether CWF had formal positions on issues or not. Various anarchist groups do not take formal positions beyond their political platform, it does not mean a general approach to issues can't be discerned. In this discussion Steven has referenced various articles and you have just replied with anecdotal evidence and quibbles.

Mate

This is entirely irrelevant now. I have undermined Steven's thesis on CW and the IRA through my bit about HS5 & HS4. Tomorrow I will do the same to the rest of his article.

In brief, though, Steven makes a number of basic errors at the foundation of his argument which weakens the structure he seeks to build. I have pointed to his statements on the French and Russian revolutions. But it's his understanding of British Islamism as parochial - that is, a phenomenon without links to a wider Islamist network - which demonstrate his ignorance of the subject. Simply put, people like Abu Hamza acted as intermediaries between Islamist 'foot soldiers' and the central nodes of the Al Qaeda network.

Steven's misreading of Paul's article surfaces in several places, such as where Steven thinks Lutfur Rahman's being lumped in with Islamists, whereas Paul clearly says Rahman is an independent (if useless) mayor.

Steven's description of jihadi terrorists as anti-imperialist also sticks in the craw. I don't know where he got this idea from, but I hope he disabuses himself of it quickly.

I think this discussion needed to look at the important side track of Irish question. I think Paul should respond to the central point Stephen articulates which is demonisation.

Noting that groups like Libcom tend to have a go at the Palestinians in coordination with Israels offensives, is it a coincidence that you're having a go at the Irish Republicans to coincide with the Queens visit to the Republic?

Greetings from occupied Dublin

While for many years the occupation of the six counties was a major political flashpoint, our current concern is the occupation of Dublin City. While there are still approximately 5,000 British military personnel in the 6 counties, the next week will see 10,000 Irish police and Irish Army directly deployed in a security operation to accommodate the Queens visit. Major traffic restrictions and a complete ban on car parking within the city and routes in and out. The Gardai (Irish police) are already present on every street in large numbers, uniformed and plain clothes, all pedestrian movement is being monitored and an unconstitutional policy of “random” stop and search of citizens has been announced and is currently taking place. 1,000’s of households have been visited and residents questioned about occupancy and many were warned that their property will be searched when the Monarch is present. Residents were warned not to fly any flags or protest banners, and have been asked to contact police if they spot anyone doing so. All postering (even for those who have a City Council licence to do so) has been banned, and the cops are busy pulling all posters and stickers down , and sealing shut every manhole, drain cover and electricity box in the city and route The security cortege will stretch for a mile, according to the macho boasting from “spokespersons”. British security personnel will also be present, and many are expecting a pre-emptive operation by Special branch.

While the Gardai have announced that “reasonable protests” will be permitted “up to a point” they are gearing up to prevent this being possible, and it is likely that confrontation is being manufactured. Riot police will be deployed throughout the city, and water cannons have been borrowed from the RUC/PSNI.

The degree of felon setting that has taken place recently has been staggering. The majority of opposition to the Queen has been labelled as “dissident”, with the implication that those involved are “the same people that bombed Omagh”. The mass media, sections of the left and even Sinn Fein have fed into this. It appears also that no Court sittings are taking place in the coming week , so it is possible that anyone who is unfortunate to be arrested for anything , anywhere could be a-waiting bail for a few days ( dear god ,do not mention internment without trial).

On a slightly positive note- all members of the public have been completely banned from the Queens events and the surrounding areas, so the sycophants’ and arse lickers will have to don the knee- pads and be content to do their grovelling in front of the T.V. As the security bill is now officially announced as 30 million (in a bankrupt country, no less) there needs to be a whole lot knee bending and forelock tugging to get a return on that investment.

So thats my report from the Irish “Free State”, where I hope to continue my correspondence for as long as I am able

AIW

I think this discussion needed to look at the important side track of Irish question. I think Paul should respond to the central point Stephen articulates which is demonisation.

Noting that groups like Libcom tend to have a go at the Palestinians in coordination with Israels offensives, is it a coincidence that you're having a go at the Irish Republicans to coincide with the Queens visit to the Republic?

This is just straight up bizarre.

Here is what happened since you seemed to have miss it: Shift published Paul Stott's text, then Dajngo archived it in the library here from the Shift website and then when Steven read it he decided to do up a response which touched on naturally enough the writers' political history.

It is that simple, no conspiracy theories needed.

AIW

Noting that groups like Libcom tend to have a go at the Palestinians in coordination with Israels offensives

saywut? :confused:

>IMPLYING a state visit by the Queen is comparable to a major assault by the IDF.

Android

This is just straight up bizarre.

Here is what happened since you seemed to have miss it: Shift published Paul Stott's text, then Dajngo archived it in the library here from the Shift website and then when Steven read it he decided to do up a response which touched on naturally enough the writers' political history.

It is that simple, no conspiracy theories needed.

That's Steven's version of events, of course. The allegation that CW were 'virulent supporters' of the IRA simply isn't true. It's very much of a piece with Steven claiming that the French Revolution 'was the triumph of capitalism over feudalism, setting the scene for the dominant new economic system for the entire planet', that the Russian Revolution led to the Cold War, that Libcom's already had the debate about the development of Islam and Islamism in Britain (if it had, Steven wouldn't have made some of his more egregious mistakes later in the article), or that jihadi terrorists are anti-imperialist.

Stott moves on to criticise the Federation of Student Islamic Societies for "insisting there was no evidence Muslim students are more prone to radicalisation than anyone else" pointing at four Muslim students convicted of terrorist offences as supposedly definitive evidence to the contrary.

As an anarchist, does Paul see any qualitative difference between the authoritarian violence of a state (by the British Army) and the authoritarian violence of a proto-state (Islamist terrorist groups)? I certainly do not - and far more Christians in role in the Army to go around murdering Muslims than do Muslims murdering Christians.

In the mid-1990s the Islamic Society at UCL was run by Hizb Ut Tahrir: and it was not the only university Islamic society to be filled by really virulent Islamists. I recall seeing a poster for a meeting of that society which incited violence against Jews, and it was clear to me when I attended the meeting that many of the people present had been what we now term 'radicalised', presumably while studying. The notion that radicalisation on campus is a recent phenomenon is mistaken. I am not aware of anyone from any campus Christian union who has been convicted of any offence, let alone terrorist-related crimes - but I am aware of four former officers of Islamic societies who have been. If Steven's able to show that student societies of any other faith have had members or officers convicted of terrorist offences, his argument of equivalency might have some weight. Without it it has none.

I see a qualitative difference between the violence of the state, whether by the British Army or police, and that of Islamist terrorists. Simply put, I am unaware of any time when the British Army or police set out to murder scores of people for the heinous offence of going to a nightclub or travelling on public transport. Perhaps Steven can provide some examples of when the British Army - or police - has done so.

Speaking of the British Army, Steven says

And Afghanistan and Iraq? The vast majority of people there shooting people and blowing things up are not Muslims, they are white people (probably mostly Christian) in the British Army. So again why focus on Islam here, when in terms of the amount of violence actually being carried out it is so much less than that by people of other religions?

I think you'll find that there are about 7,300 British troops in Afghanistan (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInAfghanistanBackgroundBriefing.htm). A 2009 estimate of Taliban strength (http://rcanfield.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-estimates-of-taliban-strength-25000.html) suggested a force of 25,000. The UK deployment also includes a number of support troops, so the total of combat forces will be lower than 7,300 in any case. This is another case of talking bollocks, Steven, and it's exactly the same with your claim about Iraq, where at the end of January 2010 there were 150 UK personnel stationed (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqFactsandFigures.htm). So, if the British Army in Iraq are 'the vast majority of the people there shooting people and blowing things up' then there are less than about 50 jihadi terrorists in the entire country (ie the British forces are 75%+ of people shooting and exploding things, a 'vast majority'). Perhaps Steven has a number of sources to substantiate his claims.

I would be interested to know what research, if any, Steven carried out for his article: it appears to have been minimal.

Fall Back

>IMPLYING a state visit by the Queen is comparable to a major assault by the IDF.

No. He implies that Libcom have a go at people at times when they're in the news, the Palestinians in the case of IDF offensives and Irish republicans in the case of Ireland. It's not a nice claim, but there you go.

oic, a stunning insight consisting of "people on libcom talk about events when they are in the news". As opposed to apropos of nothing. I don't really see how it's "not a nice claim". I'd more go with utter banality.

Although doesn't really flow, given that the Queens visit has barely led to an increased coverage of Republican groups. They can usually handle this when they shoot a pizza boy or something.

Fall Back

oic, a stunning insight consisting of "people on libcom talk about events when they are in the news". As opposed to apropos of nothing. I don't really see how it's "not a nice claim". I'd more go with utter banality.

Although doesn't really flow, given that the Queens visit has barely led to an increased coverage of Republican groups. They can usually handle this when they shoot a pizza boy or something.

There is a difference between what you're saying, 'people on libcom talk about events when they are in the news' and what AIW's saying, 'people on libcom attack eg Palestinians when there's an IDF offensive'.

Maybe you haven't noticed that in the reporting of the Queen's visit to Dublin there has been mention of republicans, and republican groups. Maybe you haven't been following events.

But it would be nice if you could at least try to comment on the topic of Steven's article.

Steven

When you've responded to my comments on:

* the French revolution;
* the Russian revolution;
* British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq;
* the qualitative difference between British forces' violence and that of jihadi terrorists;
* the anti-imperialism of jihadi terrorists;
* and the international nature of Islamist terrorism

when you've responded to those, perhaps you could provide a source for CW members supporting the French government ban on the headscarf, preferably from before 2008.

Jack_Keitch

people on libcom attack eg Palestinians

no, he explicitly said the libcom group ("groups like libcom"). a curiously baseless slur. i have literally no idea what he's talking about, unless he's identifying Hamas with 'the palestinians', which would be an odd thing to do on a libertarian communist forum.

Joseph Kay

Jack_Keitch

people on libcom attack eg Palestinians

no, he explicitly said the libcom group ("groups like libcom"). a curiously baseless slur. i have literally no idea what he's talking about, unless he's identifying Hamas with 'the palestinians', which would be an odd thing to do on a libertarian communist forum.

Groups like Libcom express their views on sites like Libcom and are presumably people.

But it would be more interesting, not to say entertaining, to see you leave this sidetrack and return to discussion of the substantive issue, Steven's poor article.

Jack_Ketch

I see a qualitative difference between the violence of the state, whether by the British Army or police, and that of Islamist terrorists. Simply put, I am unaware of any time when the British Army or police set out to murder scores of people for the heinous offence of going to a nightclub or travelling on public transport. Perhaps Steven can provide some examples of when the British Army - or police - has done so.

Presumably you don't mean states in general, just the British state, but there are plenty of examples of members of the British army committing murder if you want them - Ireland and Kenya spring to mind.

Unless you want to limit deaths to trains and nighclubs, as if the motivation of Jihadist terrorists is an objection to train travel or nightclubs alone.

Jack_Ketch

Android

This is just straight up bizarre.

Here is what happened since you seemed to have miss it: Shift published Paul Stott's text, then Dajngo archived it in the library here from the Shift website and then when Steven read it he decided to do up a response which touched on naturally enough the writers' political history.

It is that simple, no conspiracy theories needed.

That's Steven's version of events, of course.

No it isn't, unless Steven's pulled the wool over my eyes somehow I do actually remember archiving the article from the Shift website.

Django

Jack_Ketch

I see a qualitative difference between the violence of the state, whether by the British Army or police, and that of Islamist terrorists. Simply put, I am unaware of any time when the British Army or police set out to murder scores of people for the heinous offence of going to a nightclub or travelling on public transport. Perhaps Steven can provide some examples of when the British Army - or police - has done so.

Presumably you don't mean states in general, just the British state, but there are plenty of examples of members of the British army committing murder if you want them - Ireland and Kenya spring to mind.

Unless you want to limit deaths to trains and nighclubs, as if the motivation of Jihadist terrorists is an objection to train travel or nightclubs alone.

Of course I mean the British state. Steven isn't talking about the Mongolian state or the Costa Rican state, is he? And there are a number of examples of British soldiers committing murder - Ian Thain and Lee Clegg to name but two. But terrorism is (can be) murder with political aim in mind - but the political nature of the violence is core to the activity, no matter what definition of terrorism you subscribe to. What Clegg and Thain did, while despicable, does not fall under what most people would understand by terrorism because terrorism is a tactic employed to persuade a government to adopt or relinquish a policy or possession.

Jack_Ketch

Groups like Libcom express their views on sites like Libcom and are presumably people.

i'm not sidetracking anything, i'm just curious, as a member of the libcom group, why i'm being bizarrely smeared as "having a go at the Palestinians", apropos of nothing.

Django

Jack_Ketch

Android

This is just straight up bizarre.

Here is what happened since you seemed to have miss it: Shift published Paul Stott's text, then Dajngo archived it in the library here from the Shift website and then when Steven read it he decided to do up a response which touched on naturally enough the writers' political history.

It is that simple, no conspiracy theories needed.

That's Steven's version of events, of course.

No it isn't, unless Steven's pulled the wool over my eyes somehow I do actually remember archiving the article from the Shift website.

No, that's Steven's version of the writer's political history, his version, not Paul's actual political history. We've been through this bit about CW and the IRA and I'm quite happy to go through it all again if you haven't yet gathered that Steven's talking bollocks about that as he is about so much else.

Joseph Kay

Jack_Ketch

Groups like Libcom express their views on sites like Libcom and are presumably people.

i'm not sidetracking anything, i'm just curious, as a member of the libcom group, why i'm being bizarrely smeared as "having a go at the Palestinians", apropos of nothing.

Why don't you PM AIW and ask him rather than distracting from the matter at hand?

Jack_Ketch

Of course I mean the British state. Steven isn't talking about the Mongolian state or the Costa Rican state, is he?

OK, so then it might make sense not to say “I see a qualitative difference between the violence of the state, whether by the British Army or police, and that of Islamist terrorists”, which can be (mis)interpreted easily enough as saying that there is a fundamental and qualitative difference between violence committed by state and non-state actors by virtue of their definition.

Jack_Ketch

But terrorism is (can be) murder with political aim in mind - but the political nature of the violence is core to the activity, no matter what definition of terrorism you subscribe to. What Clegg and Thain did, while despicable, does not fall under what most people would understand by terrorism because terrorism is a tactic employed to persuade a government to adopt or relinquish a policy or possession.

Right but saying that terrorism is violence as part of “a tactic employed to persuade a government to adopt or relinquish a policy or possession” isn’t that same as saying that terrorism is setting out to kill people for riding a train, or going to a nightclub (or going to a pub, in the case of the IRA). The first definition can be applied to plenty of the actions of the British state on a larger scale, e.g. sanctions in Iraq or Gulags in Kenya, which seems to be Steven’s substantive point.

Django

Jack_Ketch

Of course I mean the British state. Steven isn't talking about the Mongolian state or the Costa Rican state, is he?

OK, so then it might make sense not to say “I see a qualitative difference between the violence of the state, whether by the British Army or police, and that of Islamist terrorists”, which can be (mis)interpreted easily enough as saying that there is a fundamental and qualitative difference between violence committed by state and non-state actors by virtue of their definition.

Jack_Ketch

But terrorism is (can be) murder with political aim in mind - but the political nature of the violence is core to the activity, no matter what definition of terrorism you subscribe to. What Clegg and Thain did, while despicable, does not fall under what most people would understand by terrorism because terrorism is a tactic employed to persuade a government to adopt or relinquish a policy or possession.

Right but saying that terrorism is violence as part of “a tactic employed to persuade a government to adopt or relinquish a policy or possession” isn’t that same as saying that terrorism is setting out to kill people for riding a train, or going to a nightclub (or going to a pub, in the case of the IRA). The first definition can be applied to plenty of the actions of the British state on a larger scale, e.g. sanctions in Iraq or Gulags in Kenya, which seems to be Steven’s substantive point.

Yes. But all of this is muddying the issue which Steven affects to wish to debate, which is an anarchist response to the development of Islam and Islamism in Britain.

The first (linked) definition which appears on the internet of 'qualitative' is 'involving or relating to distinctions based on quality or qualities'. Foremost of the distinctions between Islamist violence and state violence is that there state violence is better graduated, organised, and - certainly in the case of British state violence - debated. State coercion is both hard and soft, both violent and non-violent. State coercion has behind it aspects of legitimation which few non-state actors possess. And when the state does something contentious, such as the killing of Jean-Charles de Menezes, there can be considerable debate - if not actual accountability - of state actions. The state is able to criticise itself: even the whitewash of the Widgery report into Bloody Sunday admitted that some of the firing 'bordered on the reckless', while the coroner who carried out the inquests, himself a former army officer, into the deaths of the victims that day described the events as 'sheer unadulterated murder'. This ability to absorb and indeed participate in debates about state violence is one of the things which makes the British state so strong. The loss of legitimacy the police faced after the killing of Jean-Charles de Menezes, after the killing of Ian Tomlinson, after the killing of Smiley Culture: these losses of legitimacy are temporary for many, if not most, people affected by the events, although each time state violence flounders and alienates people, a larger group of people probably remain alienated.

The violence meted out by groups such as the IRA, groups such as the Red Army Faction, does not itself seem to me to be comparable to the violence meted out by Islamist terrorists. I cannot imagine Islamist terrorists in Europe carrying out an operation like the assassination of Margaret Thatcher or the kidnapping of Hanns-Martin Schleyer. This isn't because Islamists are not capable of well-planned operations - September 11 is a good example of a well-planned, well executed operation. It's because for Islamists the population is the greater target than the government, the assault on the Pentagon notwithstanding. If jihadi terrorists in London had wanted to attack the government, they could easily have parked their car-bomb in Whitehall or pretty much anywhere within the Government Security Zone instead of targeting clubbers in the Haymarket.

Seems to me that all these violences have different qualities, from the objectives they seek to achieve, the means by which those ends are to be reached, the targets deemed acceptable and legitimate and so on.

We could go on about this all night, if you really want to.

I thought the piece was good but at a glance I think it missed a few points. Firstly on the point of the political power of the mosque.

steven.

The article continues to discuss "Asian" and "Muslim" Councillors switching from one political party to another. I fail to see what is surprising about local politicians being opportunistic with their party affiliations. What is new here, or different from politicians of any other ethnicity doing the same?

Its different because the opportunism can be seen as largely driven by the pressure of the mosque.

steven.

As for the statement "the most important political institution in east London is not the Labour Party or a trades union – it is East London Mosque", this seems more like hysteria that fact. Having lived in East London myself for nearly 10 years I think I can pretty much safely say that the mosque has had zero impact on my life, apart from possibly being responsible for the two most ridiculously close together bus stops in London.

I find it hard to believe that given the size of mosque in question, the number of people who attend, given that the mosque does not operate in a social vacuum you think it has had 'zero impact' on your life.

The political backing of the mosque can make or brake local councillors in quite a number of areas, as can be attested with Galloway. I will also raise you an example of an overnight organisation, with no roots winning outright on the backing of the imam in Preston in 2003.

steven.

Paul slams politicians "daft enough to cede power to sharia courts and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals at a local level". But this statement again seems to play up to tabloid hysteria about "sharia law". People must voluntarily agree to attend these courts and tribunals, which it is true do discriminate against women, which is terrible. ...

What I am getting from Paul is an objection about the freespace given up to religion in the social/political sphere enabling bodies organised around identity politics to extract concessions and then become a new focal point to evolve further as a political entity. This should not be seen in the binary of freedom of religion vs.... but seen as what happens when (high) politics is frowned upon but culture, community and religious groups/issues are ring-circled for special status, and pull in their respective directions.

On a macro level, an example of community development would be the rise communalism in India

Sandria B. Frietag argues that communalist groups emerged in the nexus of relations between the ‘public' domains that the imperial nation state claimed for itself and the competing forms of ‘private' identity formation that communalist groups staged in the public sphere. As the colonial state increasingly negotiated with Indians on the basis of their religious group identity, it was clear that the rewards went to those ‘... who invoked only certain kinds of identities'. Drawing sustenance from constructed ‘identity slots' and ‘... authorised by the colonial state', communal groups began to experiment and contest their status more systematically in the public sphere.

I agree with some points Joe makes.

Regarding local politics, I think that Steven is right to point out that politicians switching sides is not related to Islamism in any way. It may be however typical of first and second generation immigrant communities - sometimes called 'machine' politics,

But the contemporary influence of the East London Mosque is an entirely different story. Steven, I'm surprised that you could live in east London, be involved in the anti-cuts movement and yet think the ELM has no impact on your life. I think you're missing something. Only 2 days ago I was at yet another (anti-cuts) meeting where a leftist expressed their fantasy that we could hook up with the ELM and thus have 'access' to the vast Bengali population of the borough. I've heard this so many times - let's forget about dozens of community centres (let alone dozens of other mosques), the ELM is now treated as the representative of 'Muslims' in the area by everyone from Prince Charles to Boris Johnson to Socialist Unity and apparently, Libcom. How else to explain your erasure of any distinction between the far-right 'community leaders' in charge of the ELM and 'Muslims'? You completely reinforce Paul Stott's point about representation (the most useful bit of his article).

I see you read a little bit more about Sharia, complicating slightly your earlier position of 'hey, why not'? I agree that there is something objectionable in the tone of Paul's mention of this, a little bit of 'we should wake up and smell the coffee'. But as Joe says the point of this is to question the growing acceptance of the once contested idea that people, or at least ethnic minorities, are defined through their belonging to religious communities.

Your opinion that these issues are so unimportant, so boring, so not worth your time, is belittling to the people, mostly from ethnic minorities themselves, who do the deeply unfashionable work of opposing both the racism of the British state and tabloid media on one hand, and religious fundamentalist politics on the other.

You seem unaware that there is a debate about this very thing within the Bengali community in Tower Hamlets, going back decades (read Delwar Hussain about this). You may not realise that, in your laudable attempt to not sound like the racist tabloid media, you are actually taking a side in this debate - the wrong one I reckon because you are parroting the ELM leadership in their assertion that they speak for the 'poor, working class Muslims'.

At the end of your revised article you point to the sidelining of Islamist politics in the Arab revolutions – why is this something that is good if it happens elsewhere, but here:“…we should be organising alongside Muslims and people of all religions in our communities and our workplaces against the savage public sector cuts”.

The SWP has tried to organise alongside ‘Muslims’ (by which they mean Islamic groups as opposed to organising alongside colleagues, workers, trade unionists, parents, service users, tenants, etc who may be Muslim) for years. These communal politics have set back the anti-cuts movement massively.

Sorry about picking on you more than Paul Stott – I guess I never saw myself as interested in the ‘anarchist debate’ about Islamism so I didn’t feel compelled to critique his article –whereas I do often read what you (Steven) has to say and so am disappointed when what you write is so weak.

Steven.

Rachel, I'll respond to your points first, because they are constructive. I will return to Jack's pedantry at some point when I have more time.

Yes. Because to admit that the 'facts' you rely on are false would undermine your argument.

It's clearly pedantry to point out that while there are dozens of articles on Islam on Libcom very few of them deal with the matter at hand.

It's clearly pedantry to point out that counter to your claim that 'The vast majority of people [in Afghanistan and Iraq] shooting people and blowing things up are not Muslims, they are white people (probably mostly Christian) in the British Army.' there are 150 British forces in Iraq and 7,300 in Afghanistan, with - in Afghanistan - estimates of three times their number of Taliban.

It's clearly pedantry to wonder why you describe people fighting for a caliphate as anti-imperialist.

It's clearly pedantry to demonstrate that you're wrong to insist that Class War were 'virulent supporters' of the IRA.

Steven, the fact of the matter is that there's a gaping void at the heart of your article: an absence of supporting evidence and a lack of political nous. I wonder if, when these difficulties with the article are brought to their attention, Shift Magazine will be so ready to shove your scribbles up on their website in future. It hardly shows you, or, by association, them in a good light.

Steven, I don’t think I misread your article, but I did leave out a few steps in my arguing.

This is what led me to the accusation that you accept that ELM or similar organisations speak for Muslims, which of course you didn’t say in so many words.

You wrote:

we should be extremely wary of focusing our attentions on other working class people whom the media are demonising.

and

But more importantly at a time of unprecedented public sector cuts we need to avoid the racist tabloid hysteria which is deliberately scapegoating a tiny, disproportionately poor and working class section of society for all our problems

Since Paul Stott's article didn't focus on all Muslims but rather on Islamists (i.e. those who see Islam as a political programme) it's you who is minimising distinction between the reactionaries he's talking about and the majority of Muslims. It seems to me if you're suggesting that Jihadis or ISOC or the ELM should not be criticised then frankly it's you who is lumping all Muslims together. The point has been made many times before that white racists and right-wing Islamists both encourage the belief that Muslims constitute a monolithic identity (and therefore help create that identity). I'm not saying you're doing that (or are a racist) but you have confused criticism of institutions with scapegoating of 'poor, working class people'.

Paul Stott knows a lot of stuff but I think it takes him in some very wrong directions. But the answer isn’t to just say that’s ok to remain ignorant of what's going on in our communities and just keep insisting that what we really should do is unite and fight – the point is that religious fundamentalism, identity politics and state/(and left wing) promotion of communal organisations makes 'uniting' much more difficult.

I think the point is that as an article, Paul's can easily nestle between Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and any other number of people spouting the 'its the minority but we have to focus all our attention on the minority' conversation. As anarchists/leftists whatever, we are pretty used to the way this economy of attention works, surely? Steven may not be the next Edward Said but its nice to read something a little different every once and a while surely?

I also think this dichotomy between unity vs. identity is a bit simplistic. Muslim children are over-represented in poverty statistics, and young men are over-represented in the prison population. Similarly up until 2004 (I think) it was perfectly legal to discriminate against Muslims in the work place because it was not covered until race legislation. While its not true of course that Muslims constitute a monolithic identity, there are socio-economic factors that affect some (a large enough proportion to affect statistics) of them. Obviously policy initiatives have failed on this front, with everyone throwing money at the first institution that claims it represents Muslims. However, the idea that some sort of working for unity would mean SWP 'we are all hizbollah ' lark, really shows how diametric this debate has become.

Jack Ketch, what do you mean by 'estimated three times that number of the Taliban', does it make it any less of an illegal occupation? There will always be more Afghani militants in Afghanistan as long as there is an illegal occupation further screwing the country over (I can't think of one example where an occupation force has remained the dominant number). Steven's point was, it seems to me, that more Afghans are getting screwed over than US/UK forces. It seems pedantry of you to make such a distinction?

I mentioned earlier (though nobody commented) that I though Stott's Srinagar example was untenable. I believe this because the context was different (free Kashmir) and the target was different (Indian occupation of Kashmir). This poor example was implanted into Stott's original piece to try and blithely reduce the impact of the British/American occupations of the middle east as connected to Islamic Extremism at home. I think this is a dangerous route to go down. yes, yes 9/11 was before the wars of course, but to claim the wars are not connected to Islamic extremism is pretty crass. 7/7 was after the invasions, as was the attempt at Glasgow airport and I'm sure we can think of more.

The violence meted out by groups such as the IRA, groups such as the Red Army Faction, does not itself seem to me to be comparable to the violence meted out by Islamist terrorists. I cannot imagine Islamist terrorists in Europe carrying out an operation like the assassination of Margaret Thatcher or the kidnapping of Hanns-Martin Schleyer. This isn't because Islamists are not capable of well-planned operations - September 11 is a good example of a well-planned, well executed operation. It's because for Islamists the population is the greater target than the government, the assault on the Pentagon notwithstanding. If jihadi terrorists in London had wanted to attack the government, they could easily have parked their car-bomb in Whitehall or pretty much anywhere within the Government Security Zone instead of targeting clubbers in the Haymarket.

Seems to me that all these violences have different qualities, from the objectives they seek to achieve, the means by which those ends are to be reached, the targets deemed acceptable and legitimate and so on.

What's the difference between Islamists attempting to massacre clubbers in Haymarket and failing and Republicans successfully massacring pubgoers in Birmingham?

are you seriously trying to say that most of the violence in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past 10 years has been carried out by British Muslims? If not, then you have no argument here, you are just being pointscoring and pedantic like this is a school debating club.

To be honest, I don't expect you to have a balanced approach to Muslims in the UK giving your track record, which included four years pointedly referring to them as "Moslems" or even "Mohammedans" despite many people pointing out that they found this offensive. You seemed to take much enjoyment in causing this kind of offence. Why did you eventually change your terminology?

I'll just confine myself to these two paragraphs and give the remainder of your post the attention it deserves tomorrow.

Starting with your first point, let's remind ourselves what you wrote in the article:

And Afghanistan and Iraq? The vast majority of people there shooting people and blowing things up are not Muslims, they are white people (probably mostly Christian) in the British Army. So again why focus on Islam here, when in terms of the amount of violence actually being carried out it is so much less than that by people of other religions?

I see no mention of British Muslims. Do you? Let's look at the whole paragraph to make sure:

Whatever the absolute number, absolute numbers are not relevant without any sort of context. In terms of Bosnia, white socialists (not to mention NATO) went to fight there on the Muslim side, so why does this paint Muslims in a particularly bad light? As for Israel, far more British people go there to fight for the IDF. And Afghanistan and Iraq? The vast majority of people there shooting people and blowing things up are not Muslims, they are white people (probably mostly Christian) in the British Army. So again why focus on Islam here, when in terms of the amount of violence actually being carried out it is so much less than that by people of other religions?

No mention of British Muslims there at all. And in any event 'the vast majority of people' shooting people in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be the British Army, because there are fewer than 200 members of British forces in Iraq, and a bit over 7,000 in Afghanistan. With your mention of British Muslims in your reply you introduce something you hadn't in fact mentioned before.

Moving on to your second paragraph, here's a couple of things the AF have said about Muslims:

Islam is an enemy of all freedom loving people. It is certain that, if given the opportunity, Islam would introduce another form of authoritarianism in Britain and across the globe. It must be resisted".

"Muslims are essentially enslaved not to a god but to a set of bogus revelations found in the
Koran. And, it is the task of Islam to ensure that all of the peoples in the world are similarly enslaved".
Resistance #32 http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist32.html

You've quite a bit of gall to take me to task for using, for example, 'Moslem' when you choose to associate yourself with a group which comes out with bile like that which isn't a million miles away from saying Islam is a vicious wicked faith.

Oh - and if you want to know Paul's position, why don't you go back to his blog and ask him?

Rachel

Since Paul Stott's article didn't focus on all Muslims but rather on Islamists (i.e. those who see Islam as a political programme) it's you who is minimising distinction between the reactionaries he's talking about and the majority of Muslims. It seems to me if you're suggesting that Jihadis or ISOC or the ELM should not be criticised then frankly it's you who is lumping all Muslims together. The point has been made many times before that white racists and right-wing Islamists both encourage the belief that Muslims constitute a monolithic identity (and therefore help create that identity). I'm not saying you're doing that (or are a racist) but you have confused criticism of institutions with scapegoating of 'poor, working class people'.

Paul Stott knows a lot of stuff but I think it takes him in some very wrong directions. But the answer isn’t to just say that’s ok to remain ignorant of what's going on in our communities and just keep insisting that what we really should do is unite and fight – the point is that religious fundamentalism, identity politics and state/(and left wing) promotion of communal organisations makes 'uniting' much more difficult.

I don't think that the argument is that anarchists "shouldn't criticise" these institutions, just that we should bear in mind that mosques and muslim "community leaders" are not unique in the way that they influence local politics or make claims to represent whole ethnic or religious groups as communities. That doesn't preclude being critical of these things, where that criticism is actually relevant.

The whole thing kind of reminds me of the whole "murder music" debate, where some people were challenging the "black community" to adress homophobia, as if homophobia were wholly unique to a few reggae/dub artists and their fanbase (or at least their as if their homophobia was in some way a uniquely black homophobia). It affirms, rather than challenges, the idea that these community leaders are the legitimate representatives of their communities.

Steven's misreading of Paul's article surfaces in several places, such as where Steven thinks Lutfur Rahman's being lumped in with Islamists, whereas Paul clearly says Rahman is an independent (if useless) mayor.

Just a quick point, sorry if it has been made before. I think it is neither true that Rahman is an independent or an Islamist. What happened is:
1. Rahman was in the Labour Party and sought the Mayoral nomination. He was certainly seen to be close to the IFE, and there was an accusation that IFE supporters in the local LP had helped him win the nomination: I emphasise that this was an accusation, I don't know the truth of it. I think it is plausible, based on prior, unrelated stories about infiltration.
2. The Labour Party NEC evidently thought the allegations were plausible enough, or at least something was at stake from their point of view.

Having received a number of serious allegations concerning both the eligibility of participating voters and the conduct of Lutfur Rahman, the NEC has decided to investigate the allegations made. As a result, administrative action has been taken to remove Lutfur Rahman as a candidate pending the investigation. Nominations for Tower Hamlets mayor close this week and in the circumstances the NEC had no option but to impose another candidate. The NEC has voted to select Helal Abbas Uddin as Labour's candidate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2010/sep/21/lutfur-rahman-removed-as-labour-tower-hamlets-mayoral-candidate

3. Lutfur runs as an 'independent', but everyone who knew anything about what was going on on the ground knew that the people who were treading the streets, handing out flyers, were IFE members or associates. No doubt there were others too, but that was the backbone of it. A lot of money came from somewhere to produce the most mental piece of political propaganda I've ever seen: a paper distributed to every home in the borough, even posh ones in not particularly Bengali areas. As well as a human interest feature about two young Bengali guys meeting a lady who kept lots of snakes and an article which casually accused the Abbas of domestic violence, it had articles headed things like "Scholars condemn Abbas". It had an article about 'scholars' supporting Rahman as well. It was obviously playing a religious, Islamic card. I don't know if you call that 'Islamist': I'm not sure the question of being for the Caliphate is the decider, since the Turkish AKP is not (as far as I know) for the Caliphate but is generally referred to as Islamist. I wish I'd kept the paper. I can't emphasise enough how loopy it was.

Anyway. He was blatantly put in place by the IFE, although I'm sure he's not a member, they evidently thought he would further their interests more than available alternatives: in or out of the Labour Party. Everyone who keeps tabs on the borough's politics accepts that's the case. The secular pro-working class Bengali left in the borough, which is tiny (and admittedly, would mostly support Labour against RESPECT and Rahman in an election), would say the same thing.

Also, I used to live in Tower Hamlets (Shadwell, then Bethnal Green), I now live in Hackney. Both are East London. As far as the ELM goes, it has great influence in the former, and next to none in the latter. When people say 'East London', they sometimes mean just Tower Hamlets, Newham, and out: sometimes they also include Hackney in that. But in the case of this debate, it's an important distinction to make.

For example, my flatmate is a teacher in Tower Hamlets. At the recent NUT/Unison strike, the rally was held at the London Muslim Centre. Someone who objected was reviled as an Islamophobe by the SWP (Rachel has had a similar experience on another issue), and at least one woman striker - who my flatmate happened to talk to - decided not to go to the rally because "it was getting a bit local", and they didn't have their head covered. So it is an issue which has been raised in the context of local class struggle, and will be again.

Steven.

I may be wrong, there may be some practicalities, such as it was the right size, and cheap, or perhaps those running it let them have it for free (I know for example that a mosque in Edinburgh provided free food for the University occupation there against fees/cuts). Also of course lefties and unions often use the Euston friends meeting house, which is also run by a religious group.

Yes! The Mosque kitchen gave us 30 free meals a day when we were locked in over the weekend, to support the occupation! Probably helped by the fact that lots of the students involved had occupied during the Gaza siege a year or so before and the Mosque had supported them then. It certainly wasn't an Islamist influence on the fees occupation, they were just being nice. Edinburgh anti-cuts and lefty groups use a church hall for meetings pretty often too, it's cheap, that's all.

Posi, thanks for clarification that when we talk about the ELM we totally mean Tower Hamlets (and little bit Newham), not Hackney or other bits of East London.

I realise that there are as many gaps in my posts as in those of others whom I'm criticising.

Madashell,
Good point, I agree with it to some extent but that particular argument is not going on here, so I don't think it's relevant.

Romona, that's great news about your support from the local mosque. We have also had a lot of support in various campaigns from various local mosques, including the ELM.

Various local campaigns and strike assemblies have also met in churches in Tower Hamlets. That's a normal part of political life. But I would prefer that we don't meet in particular churches dominated by Opus Dei or right wing envangalist Christians, wouldn't you?

I don't think Posi or I were suggesting that Islamists are trying to influence the NUT or other campaigns – it’s about who speaks for communities, and about normalising what are actually highly contested positions and ways of doing things.

Posi's comments about Lutfur Rahman are accurate. There's really no debate about whether he was elected because he was backed by the ELM. It's not a conspiracy or even controversial, it's just a fact.

So far, so what, but the thing you may not realise is that he was also backed by Respect (who are also linked through some prominent activists to the IFE). So now Respect, who was the main, 'left' opposition in the borough for many years, are now aligned with elected mayor Lutfur Rahman who is in charge of the £70million+ cuts and some of their longtime grassroots activists are now wheeled out to defend the cuts, in a sickening spectacle. Now this you might say is normal enough - leftwing people come to power then they have to defend the savage attacks they make on the working class - but the twist here is that Respect, because of its links to Islamic right groups such as the IFE also represents a highly conservative force in the borough- they are in fact more socially conservative than the majority of Tower Hamlets Muslims.

So 'leftwing' Respect engages in social policing in the borough, around gender especially, and what makes a good Muslim. When the Respect candidate for mayor Abjol Miah was running against Labour's Rushnara Ali 2 years ago (the Labour, Respect, Lib Dem, Conservative and Green candidates were all of Muslim background btw), Respect members abused her for her Labour party membership, yes, but also for not being Muslim enough, for having a white boyfriend, for not wearing a headscarf, etc. Progressive? Many white leftists seemed to thinks so, and are happy to accuse people who challenge this of being Islamophobes if they’re white, or not ‘authentic’ enough Muslims if they aren’t.

So while I'd like to just stop worrying about it all and just unite, it's a little more complicated than that.

OK, Tower Hamlets politics is my specialist subject – maybe I need a new hobby. But my interest is less about the Islamists than it is about the white leftists who promote them, and the fashionably postmodern critics who apologise for fundamentalism in various religions. I’ve engaged in arguments with swp/Respect people around these issues for years, as well as speaking to Muslims from various different traditions on the same topics in the 2 decades I've lived in TH that’s probably why I’m not very good at explaining what I mean here - I'm too locally focussed, and forget that people think might actually think it's racist to even talk about British Islamism without giving 'equal time' to other religions, as Steven wants.

I can write equally long posts about Christian and Hindu fundamentalist movements if you feel that would make Libcom more well-balanced.

I'm going to try to stop now, and maybe the discussion will return to the far more important history of Class War : ) But let me say that while the tabloids, parts of the state and the far right focus disproportionally on Muslims and encourage an atmosphere of racism, it doesn’t mean that being interested in Islamism makes you right wing. If you’re interested you will find many, many books written about the Islamic right, many by people with sound politics (perhaps not ‘anarchist’), many of Muslim backgrounds themselves. The best of these do locate Islamism in a historical context which includes, the parallel rise of fundamentalism movements in other religions and how they operate in a globalised world.

Hey, my point wasn't that the meeting being held there showed the influence of the Mosque - except insofar as the SWP make a point of sucking up to them on principle, whether or not it's wanted - it's that the reaction of the woman striker who I described to the meeting being held there shows that the mosque is at the centre of a conservative religious influence on popular opinion in the borough more generally.

Rachel, just to say it again, as you don't seem to have replied to me (as there is no response here, maybe it was just shit, i dunno?), but as I said earlier, to presume that unity = SWP 'we are all hizbollah' business is a pretty depressing state to be in. I think an anarchist response should be able to tackle both this sort of throw your wight behind the next group who claim to represent muslims AND tackle this bullshit 'lets talk about the minority of muslims loads and loads and loads to make them seem massive' response. This is what Stott seems to fail at. However whats unfolding here seems a bit more interesting than the typical discussion that Stott seems to regurgitate....

What's his reasoning?

I would imagine his reasoning would be somewhere in the spectrum of the reasoning of those that vote for any party at all and will obviously be faulty. Specifically, the majority of UKIP voters are bigoted assholes of one sort or another and I don't suppose that he is any different.

Fuck me, from Class War to UKIP. Wow.

wojtek

What's his reasoning?

http://paulstott.typepad.com/i_intend_to_escape_and_co/2015/05/for-the-left-neglect-begets-contempt.html

Paul Stott

The new left ensured that in time non-Stalinist Socialists came to place supporting ethnic minorities, gay rights, and feminism as their core activity.

This may not have mattered, but the old Communist parties also became subsumed by the new left's ideals, and the Labour party combined accepting the new left's views on society, with embracing the Conservative Party's views on economics.

Throw in the rise of the world's second biggest religion and its global resurgence - some of Islam's least pleasant adherents have lived in Britain since the 1990s - and it is not hard to see why so much of the working class has been squeezed, and more importantly feels squeezed, in the UK.

Ref the new hot water bottle - Holy shit, just when you think it can't get any worse it turns out that as well as a racist, he's a Britpop fan as well!

I've lost interest, but see also pro-Russia, anti-metropolitan elites and Spiked! v (real or imagined) silly student politics.

Chilli Sauce

Fuck me, from Class War to UKIP. Wow.

https://twitter.com/Hayrr/status/282988246684811264

Hayrr X on twitter.com 23/12/2012

how long do you think before ukip is mostly ex class war federation members?

Stott's latest piece:
http://www.lapidomedia.com/analysis-islam-labour

Steven.

Just as a slight update on this, I thought it was worth pointing out that the author of the person who wrote the article I was responding to is now a UKIP supporter:

I was one of those who voted for UKIP in England.

http://paulstott.typepad.com/i_intend_to_escape_and_co/2015/05/for-the-left-neglect-begets-contempt.html

Which I must say is disappointing but not really surprising

and a member:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/sorry-i-m-not-boris-ukip-s-only-mp-seeks-brexit-fans-in-kettering-1.2655199

Another Ukip member, Paul Stott, an academic specialising in terrorism studies

For the record, worth quoting at length;

Another Ukip member, Paul Stott, an academic specialising in terrorism studies, told me his wife is from Sierra Leone. Although polls show immigration as the biggest issue for Leave voters, Stott said he finds more voters expressing concern about democracy and sovereignty. A ComRes poll for the Daily Mail yesterday showed the Remain side increasing its advantage on the issue of the economy and Stott acknowledged that the public’s risk aversion is a challenge for the Leave campaign.

“People seem to want a guarantee almost, that we will be better off. And there aren’t any guarantees. My position is that if something is a good product it will sell. Britain is the fifth biggest economy in the world. That isn’t going to change overnight,” he said.

Stott is confident that Kettering, along with the rest of Northamptonshire, will vote to leave the EU on June 23rd, but he is not ready to predict the overall outcome. “I think it’s going to be really close. Ask me a week before it and we’ll see,” he said.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/sorry-i-m-not-boris-ukip-s-only-mp-seeks-brexit-fans-in-kettering-1.2655199

bloody hell

What Terrorism Costs France

Tucked away in the 'In Brief' section of the Daily Telegraph's sports pages, you could easily miss one of the saddest items of the day:

"The threat of terrorist attacks in France means no World Cup matches will be broadcast on big screens in public spaces, the government said yesterday."

When the barbarians are inside the gates, we lose the freedom to even socialise together. A desperately sad decision to see.

For the Left Neglect Begets Contempt

I wrote the little piece below in March in a debate about working class voters turning to the Front National in France, in a debate on the Guardian's Comment is Free pages. It now seems appropriate to post it here, given the pitiful votes for far left candidates in the 2015 election, the defeat of Labour, and the strong votes for the SNP in Scotland, and for UKIP in England and Wales. I was one of those who voted for UKIP in England.

The rise of the Front National, and other populist parties of the right, needs to be placed in historical context.

For a large part of their history, the Communist parties in Europe were in practice foreign nationalist parties - the job of the CPGB, or Communist parties in France, Italy or West Germany was to support the Soviet Union. The new left ensured that in time non-Stalinist Socialists came to place supporting ethnic minorities, gay rights, and feminism as their core activity.

This may not have mattered, but the old Communist parties also became subsumed by the new left's ideals, and the Labour party combined accepting the new left's views on society, with embracing the Conservative Party's views on economics.

Throw in the rise of the world's second biggest religion and its global resurgence - some of Islam's least pleasant adherents have lived in Britain since the 1990s - and it is not hard to see why so much of the working class has been squeezed, and more importantly feels squeezed, in the UK.

I can't imagine things are any better in France........

Paul Stott also appears on The Full Brexit's founding statement: https://www.thefullbrexit.com/about

With people such as Paul Embery and Maurice Glasman from Blue Labour, and James Heartfield from Spiked Online.

Also signed a 'University Free Speech' Spiked Online statement: http://paulstott.typepad.com/i_intend_to_escape_and_co/2017/03/signing-up-to-support-free-speech.html

As a small postscript on this, I would've thought that his UKIP/Labour right dalliances (in some ways the latter is even more disappointing - I can just about see a common thread from Class War to UKIP in terms of anti-establishment populism, but Lord Glasman? Really?) meant that he'd definitively turned his back on the anarchist milieu, but just spotted him doing a bit of transphobic trolling in the facebook event for the anarchist not-bookfair, because obviously a UKIP member who's signed up to a project with an actual fucking baron is really well placed to say what priorities anarchists should have. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯