A new crisis in the Socialist Workers Party

Its been a while since the problems of the Socialist Workers Party have been of much interest even to the most inveterate of sectarians, but things are hotting up again with the calling of an "Emergency National Committee". Of course since the SWP has a large "sister" (sic) group in Egypt the vents there might be expected to trigger such a meeting or even perhaps the row over selection in Falkirk might have caught the "comrades" eyes as some kind of opportunity but no, neither of these issues which form the media headlines are at the forefront of their thinking as this leaked letter shows:

From: “Charlie Kimber”

Date: 3 Jul 2013 12:09

Subject: Special NC meeting: THIS SUNDAY

Dear NC comrades,

The Central Committee is calling a special meeting of the National Committee to discuss serious questions that have emerged around the launch of the website www.revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com and other issues. It will take place from 11am in central London this Sunday, 7 July. It will end about 4pm. Details of the venue will be sent out as soon as possible. Please let me know if you can attend. I am sorry at the short notice, but this is an important meeting.

Solidarity,

Charlie

There you have it. Comrades will be called from all over the country to discuss the fact one of their members is on the Internet again, not something the Professor approves of as we all know following his expulsion of four members over their use of Face Book to discuss not to do something. Of course the blog in question isn't written by some lowly "rank & file" member, it is the work of a certain Ian Birchall, a long term leading member of the SWP who seems to remain in opposition to the leadership.

However they may have to discuss a wee bit more than the antics of one rogue writer on the Internet as more has arisen with regards to the "Delta" affair and Socialist Unity have just published this piece which includes further revelations about continuing complaints against Delta:

KAREN: The next speaker will be X.

(Note – X was named in the conference and spoke openly, however I am not naming her in this transcript)

X: Some comrades will already know that I’m the second woman who’s come forward as part of the dispute, and it’s me that’s been removed from my position in the (removed) department. I wanted to say that I’d been a district organiser for (removed) years and I hope people will respect that I wouldn’t come forward lightly.

I want to start by reiterating what Candy said – that this isn’t a trial, comrades won’t get to hear both sides of the story, so you’re never going to be in a position to decide who you believe. However, comrades can take a position on whether the process you think has been adequate.

I also want to add that I think it’s entirely disingenuous that leading members have denied that there is a second complaint. My evidence was effectively a second complaint, but because of the experience of the first case I’m unwilling to have it heard by the current disputes committee as a separate dispute. I don’t accept the account given that they’re not aware of the substance of my complaint – it’s the same as the account that I’d given in the first place.

I want to just quickly outline why I think there were problems with the way the dispute was conducted. First I think the composition of the disputes committee was problematic. Viv has mentioned that five of the seven were former or current CC members, most of the people have close or long term working relationships and in some cases friendships with the accused, and while I don’t for a second question the personal integrity of the individual comrades, when it comes down to, as they said, whose version of events you’re most likely to believe, I do think it creates an unfair bias in this case.

And I want to reiterate – it’s not an attack on the comrades’ integrity, or as the CC argued in their statement, about questioning the comrades’ ability to apply our politics on women’s oppresion. (inaudible)

I believe the nature of the investigation was fundamentally flawed. The accused was able to see my evidence four days in advance of any questioning to prepare his defence. I was not made aware of the evidence the accused brought to contradict the case, so I had no opportunity to challenge his testimony. I was still denied the right to even basic details of his response – whether he’s denied it ever happened, given a different version of events. None of my witnesses were called. I was never cross-questioned following the accused’s evidence.

Obviously there are instances where people may come forward with malicious intent, so it’s right to investigate claims. However in our tradition we argue that women do not come forward lightly in cases like these. We should start from that belief and attempt to substantiate the woman’s complaint. U don’t believe that the DC in my case shows this to have happened.

Finally – (voice breaks) in my opinion the worst part was the nature of some of the questioning. I was asked if it was fair to say I liked to have a drink. That’s all I need to say on the matter.
Just very quickly, I’m running out of time, but I just wanted to address – because the question of my job has been raised by the factions, to avoid any confusion, I wanted to address this. It is true that I did initially resign. (inaudible) Charlie rightly refused to accept my resignation on the basis that I shouldn’t be punished for bringing forward a complaint. Within days of the hearing I asked to be allowed to return to work, but in many meetings and appeals to the central committee I was repeatedly told that I’d disrupt the harmony of the office.

The worst part and the most stressful part of this is the motivations that have been ascribed to people coming forward. We’ve had accusations of the state – (Karen calls time)
(Applause)

Apparently the allegations about a further complaint will not be held until 2014, which Andy Newman suggests will give the leadership time to drive "X" out of the party. Frankly I'm surprised she is still in it given the underhanded antics of the Prof and his "Lynch Mob" as his loyalists became known as in blogging circles.

It seems this crisis is not going to go away any time soon.

It would almost be worth buying a ticket for their Marxism bash just to see if any fireworks break out. That's if many people actually bother turning up, though the SWP do have a habit of inflating attendance figures.

Watch this space.

Fatah calls for overthrow of Hamas in Gaza

In a surprising development, the main Palestinian organisation Fatah has called for the overthrow of Hamas.  The Jerusalem Post reports:

PA President Mahmoud Abbas was one of the first Arab leaders to congratulate the Egyptians on the ouster of Morsi.

In a letter to acting President Adli Mansour, Abbas congratulated him on the appointment, expressing hope that he would fulfil the aspirations of the Egyptian people to “live in freedom, dignity and stability.”

Abbas praised the Egyptian army and its commanders for preserving the country’s security and preventing it from slipping toward the abyss.

Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a top aide to Abbas, saluted the Egyptian army for the “wonderful achievement.”

Referring to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, Abdel Rahim hailed the Egyptian army and people for refusing to be intimidated by those who “sow sedition, civil war and sectarianism.”

Jamal Nazzal, a senior Fatah representative, called on Palestinians to overthrow Hamas in the wake of the events in Egypt.

Fatah spokesman Ahmed Assaf expressed hope that the ouster of Morsi would aid efforts to end divisions among the Palestinians.

“We hope that the historic victory of the Egyptian people’s will would help our people get rid of the destructive division and restore national unity,” Assaf said in an indirect reference to Hamas’s control over the Gaza Strip.

Several other Fatah officials expressed hope that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip would wage a revolution against Hamas.

“Now it’s Gaza’s turn to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood branch,” said one official. “The dark era of political Islam has ended. The era of hypocrisy and lies has ended and Gaza will soon witness its own revolution against Hamas.”

Abdel Rahim Jamous, a Fatah affiliated political analyst, urged Hamas to seize the opportunity and “return to Palestinian national legitimacy before it’s too late.”

Addressing the Hamas leadership, Jamous said: “You have no future with the Muslim Brotherhood. They have failed even before they started. They are losers. Wake up before it’s too late.”

Palestinian reporters in the Gaza Strip said on Thursday that top Hamas officials seemed to be very worried by the ouster of Morsi.

Unlike the PA leadership, Hamas did not rush to congratulate the Egyptian army and opposition.

Speculation had already been rife as the LA Times had already observed:

Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas has struggled to balance its Islamist and militant roots with the realities and responsibilities of governing. And like its Egyptian brethren, Hamas has been criticized for failing to deliver. Gaza’s 1.5 million residents remain locked in poverty and isolation, in part because Hamas is widely labeled a terrorist organization and isolated by Israel and the much of the West.

Already some Hamas rivals from the Palestinian secular faction Fatah are predicting that Gaza residents also will rise up.

Hamas spokesman Ihab Ghussein insisted the group is not worried, labeling talk of a revolt “ridiculous.”

Still, it's an abrupt turn of events for Hamas. When Morsi ascended to power a year ago, Hamas leaders were almost giddy, confidently predicting that the Brotherhood’s rise would give them new leverage in confrontations with Israel and Fatah, which is based in the West Bank. They expected that closer ties with a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egypt would throw open the Rafah border crossing, end Gaza’s international isolation and keep Israel’s military at bay.

The paper continues:

Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood also helped protect Hamas from Egypt’s military, which always distrusted the Gaza group. With Morsi’s ousting, Egypt’s military has reasserted itself as the dominant political force in Egypt.

“Hamas is the biggest loser,” said Mukhaimar abu Saada, political science professor at Gaza City’s Al Azhar University. He said Hamas leaders are already concerned that Egypt’s interim government will impose tighter border controls and crack down on smuggling tunnels used to import fuel.

“Don’t forget that the Egyptian opposition views Hamas as a party to the conflict and accuses it of destabilizing the Sinai,” Abu Saada said. “Hamas now fears that the continuing crisis in Egypt will lead to further actions against it.”

Certainly Hamas does have a credibility gap over protesting about Morsi's downfall since it has been in power since an election in 2006, has cracked down on Fatah and begun a programme of Islamisation that has not been welcomed by large sections of Palestinian society.

Meanwhile the Modern Tokyo Times looks at the effect of Turkey:

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey will be watching events carefully in Egypt because while both nations have differing democratic traits and internal issues; the recent mass demonstrations in Turkey clearly highlight that something is amiss. Former President Morsi (Mursi) of Egypt who was removed from power had hoped to control all the important leverages of power within the institutions of this country. If Morsi had succeeded then the Muslim Brotherhood in time would have tightened the noose around democracy in order to implement a Sharia Islamic state.

It is abundantly clear that approximately 30 million people in Egypt were not going to allow this to happen. Therefore, vast numbers of people demonstrated against the Muslim Brotherhood power grab in Egypt before it was too late. In Turkey, recent demonstrations against Erdogan share similar traits even if the democratic system in this country is much more mature based on its longevity.

Erdogan and Morsi both have a huge powerbase based on people who voted for both respective individuals. However, Erdogan and Morsi share traits of desiring to turn the clock back in order to create Islamic states based on the values they believe in. Also, while Erdogan claims to be firmly entrenched within the democratic system his behavior is often at odds with how democratic leaders behave.

The fightback against Islamism has begun.

Say no to the Church of England's grab for schools!

With the world's attention currently focused on the divisions between modernisers and secularists against the encroachment or imposition of "conservative Islamist" values in Turkey, Tunisia and Egypt, I was surprised to see the announcement that the Church of England was to  expand it's role in British education.

The Times reports:

Thousands of secular state schools could be run by the Church of England after the Government agreed  a deal to expand its role in education.

Bishops will be given the power to appoint governors at the schools in a change to academies policy negotiated by church leaders.

The Church will be legally obliged to preserve the character of non-faith schools but the decision provoked outrage among secular groups.

Hardly a surprise in this day and age I would opine.  Western and especially British society has been headed in a secular direction which up until now has only been interrupted by the rise of militant Islam. While the Church of England has been a part of the state, with the Queen at it's head and a handful of Bishops taking seats in the House of Lords, such religious intrusiveness had been on a back foot.

The National Secular Society has issued a statement:

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "The Church of England is rapidly changing its focus from its primary purpose — church worship — which has failed spectacularly with empty pews all over the country, to getting its message out in schools.

"Schools are the perfect platform for proselytising because children are bound by law to be there. Once inside a religious school, the law allows the Churches to teach children whatever it wants about religion and in any way it wants. The Church of England has made clear it intends to make its religious education far more evangelical in nature.

"This is not what schools are for, and yet Michael Gove blithely hands our nation's children over to religious interests so that they can be subjected to religious propaganda day after day. And what could be less appropriate in a society where Christian worship and belief has been rapidly declining for decades? The non-religious and religiously unconcerned majority are being betrayed by this Government, which is obsessed with "faith"."

The Times also tells us that Michael Gove backed the expansion and he "valued sending his children to a church school. Meanwhile Bishop Pritchard ominously says that this will "enhance the educational experience of millions of children. Yeah right.

The British Humanist Association takes up the fight with Mr Gove:

This is potentially at odds with Mr Gove’s previous statement that ‘I do not believe that the Government’s policy of promoting autonomy, encouraging schools to convert to Academy status and establishing new Free Schools and Academies will alter the balance between faith and non-faith schools in this country.’ However it fits in with the Church’s previously announced expansion plans, with the previous Archbishop of Canterbury having declared that because of the Academies programme, ‘We are looking at the middle-term future, where the Church of England will be quite conceivably the largest sponsor and provider of secondary education in this country, which is a rather startling and breathtaking proposal.’

BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal commented, ‘We are deeply concerned to hear it reported that the Church of England is to be able to take control of schools without a religious character, incorporate them into their Academy chains and appoint governors. While it is reported that there will be safeguards to stop religious discrimination in admissions, employment or teaching, it is hard to see how these safeguards would be great enough to offset the Church having control of a school’s governance.

‘Already the Academies programme is allowing the Church to extend its influence over other schools in ways never previously possible and it is vital to social cohesion that these new avenues are not extended even further.’

We need to set an example to the rest of the world by extending secularism by saying no to these nefarious proposals and go further. The time has come for the disestablishment of the Church and State. 

Protests bring down Brotherhood but human rights activists call for the rule of law to be maintained

The moment the military issued their ultimatum to President Morsi, his Muslim Brotherhood Government was finished. As I write the news is breaking that the controversial Islamist constitution has been suspended and preparations will no doubt be made for a much broader based one that will be far less biased to the Brotherhoods own, sectarian version of Islam.

The celebrations in Cairo are taking place though families are departing as Tahir Square can apparently get quite rough at night. In the meantime Ahram online reports the concerns of a number of Human Rights groups who are calling for the rule of law to be maintained. In a statement issued tonight they demand that:

- The current constitution must be amended by a committee of constitutional and legal scholars and independent human rights experts to reach a new constitution that establishes the foundations of a democratic, civil state; entrenches state impartiality and equality for all citizens regardless of religion, belief, race, ethnicity or gender; guarantees freedom of religion and belief and criminalizes incitement to religious hatred and sectarian violence.

- The same committee to review existing legislation, particularly laws governing the judiciary, trade union freedoms, civic work, and media, press freedoms and electoral laws, as well as the Code of Military Justice in order to put an end to the referral of civilians to military trials.

-  The status of detainees and political prisoners should be reviewed, and all persons found to have not been involved in acts of criminal violence as defined by law should be released.

The undersigned organisations finally called on the Muslim Brotherhood, its Freedom and Justice Party and allied Islamist factions to "show due regard for the civil peace over any narrow political interests and to voluntarily respond to the popular will."

These organisations include:

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Arab Foundation for Civil Society and Human Right Support, the Arab Penal Reform Organisation, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, the Centre for Appropriate Communication Techniques, the Centre for Egyptian Women's Legal Aid, the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights, the Habi Centre for Environmental Rights, the Hisham Mubarak Law Centre, the Human Rights Association for the Assistance of Prisoners, the Land Centre for Human Rights, the New Woman Foundation, the Egyptian Association for Community Participation Enhancement and the Federation of NGOs Against Violence Against Women.

As the situation develops there will be nervous eyes in Tunisia where the Ennahda (the Muslim Brotherhood under another name will be watching the these developments as a similar division exists in their country and conflicts between the Salafists and modernists, including the trade unions has been on-going for some time.

In separate but related news, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan faced a setback as an Istanbul court rejected his plans to redevelop Taksim Square which sparked off similar protests in recent weeks. The Daily Telegraph reports:

A court in Istanbul ruled in June, at the height of the protests, that the plans should be put on ice – although the ruling was only published on Wednesday.

“This decision applies to all of the work at Taksim Square,” said Can Atalay, a lawyer for the Chamber of Architects, which brought the lawsuit. The court ruled that the plan violated preservation rules and unacceptably changed the square’s identity.

“The public-works project that was the basis for the work has been cancelled,” he told Reuters.

A fightback against reaction is slowly taking shape across the Middle East, though a dangerous road still lies ahead.

Update:

Informative update from CNN on the international repercussions of the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood can be found here: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/04/opinion/egypt-brotherhood-kinninmont/

Debate! What now for the 4themembers opposition in PCS?

Guest Post by Willie Samuel

Without a doubt, the most significant event in the history of PCS was the idiotic attempt by Ex General Secretary Barry Reamsbottom to hang on to office in 2003, despite having signed an agreement to leave. The National Moderate Group had just won a slim majority for a two year term. They were in a position to set the agenda for PCS for the next two years and restrict new General Secretary Mark Serwotka from placing PCS on the fringes. Instead, Reamsbottom had his way and led his troops into a civil war. Within a year Left Unity (LU) had routed them, and set about creating the PCS we have today.

The event casts a long shadow. It was a gift to Left Unity who crafted a grip on power based on the Big Tent, or ‘Democracy Alliance’ (DA). In the tradition of the German Democratic Republic, the name brilliantly implies that all opponents are undemocratic. You cannot get a better campaign than one based around opposing somebody trying to overturn a democratic vote. The only serious challenge to this ‘Big Tent’ was when a grouping on the far left formed the so called ‘Independent Left’ (IL) in 2007. This challenge failed and the IL now poll less votes than any faction within PCS.

4TM was created around 2005 and grouped together a broad range of activists who opposed Left Unity. It had no political allegiance, and paraded this as a virtue. Initially it competed against a continuing National Moderate Group (NMG) but the NMG disbanded shortly afterwards and was absorbed within 4TM. 4TM boldly asserted itself to be a new faction. This was a credible claim in some ways whilst a rump NMG continued. However when NMG candidates stood under the 4TM banner, it had to concede it was the flag of the ‘Right Wing’ in PCS.

LU have continued with the Big Tent ever since. It is a winning formula for them. Each year they face an opposition from 4TM whom they brand as ‘Moderates’ and remind voters of the Reamsbottom debacle. Amongst most PCS activists they have successfully discredited the 4TM brand. 

A large proportion of 4TM have clung to a belief that they represent the sleeping giant that is (they believe) the 90% of PCS members who do not participate in union elections. There is a consistent 4TM vote amongst those who do vote in elections of about 30% of those participating, and so (the theory goes) that if another 2,000 of the sleeping ‘normal people’ woke up and voted they would automatically vote 4TM.

There is little to support this. True, the Socialist Party and others win control of branches, and get elected as reps because most union members have no interest in being active. However that is where it ends. In terms of elections, there is no evidence that higher turnouts bring a higher vote for 4TM. Indeed there is some evidence that 4TM do better when turnouts are down.

4TM control an ever reducing number of PCS Branches. Where, historically, a leading activist is in place with a history of support for 4TM, that branch will support 4TM. As people retire, loose interest or get promoted these branches tend to be lost. What is not happening is a movement to gain control of new branches and activists. 

There is a constituency of unaligned or ‘independent’ branches. 4TM makes no impact in these branches at all. The reason for this is that, whilst there is disillusionment with PCS leadership, the 4TM brand is unattractive.

So what does 4TM do to reach out to the unaligned? Not a great deal. 4TM has given up on collecting membership dues, or keeping any kind of membership list. The only real source of information on 4TM’s views are on the internet. A website, a PCS Grouping on Facebook and e-mail bulletins from Howie Fuller. Howie has also established a blog, which comments on PCS affairs for a significant part of its content.

There is no consistent view across this media. Whilst Howie tends to focus on the comings and goings of the far left revolutionary parties, and their impacts on PCS, there is little policy on offer. It is clear that Howie is generally opposed to strike action as an end in itself, and in most other current PCS projects. He consistently calls for a ‘change of direction/leadership’. However he offers no alternative policy to develop this theme. On Facebook, 4TM participants have no clear view, some posting proud pictures of their picket lines and boasting success in delivering action, others opposing strikes entirely. 

When given the opportunity, 4TM overwhelming rejected taking any kind of political stance. Beyond ‘strikes are a last option’ it has offered no policies or vision for PCS. 

So the question arises; Does 4TM offer an alternative leadership? It is interesting to imagine a fantasy election result delivering a 4TM majority to think this through. Let us imagine it is May b2014 and the NEC elections take place. Left Unity have grown complacent. After much delay, the results are announced. To everybody’s surprise 4TM have won control with a majority. Let us imagine they have also captured the job of National President.

The new NEC meets for the first time to hear reports from Mark Serwotka. All full time officers nowadays are broadly sympathetic to Left Unity. So what would be on the agenda policy priorities for the 4TM NEC?

On the agenda the continuing disputes on pensions, jobs and pay.

Mark recommends a further ballot for industrial action. 4TM want to call it off. He produces letters from 150 branches in support of his position. Left Unity picket PCS HQ. Mark challenges the NEC to take the issue to the members. What is 4TM’s position? What does 4TM do to control Mark, Chris Baugh and the legion of Socialist Party employees?

That’s just day one. What does 4TM do if LU deliver a majority vote in favour on a poor turnout. DWP Group (still controlled by LU) vote to go it alone. There’s a whole year of this and a hostile national conference with a series of censure motions to consider. 

I don’t think 4TM could handle that scenario. It would fall apart very quickly, and the full time officers would obstruct knowing that Left Unity would return to office the following year. Only if 4TM had the courage to bring in a layer of new full time officers and dismiss those it didn’t like could it get things done. Only if 4TM were strong enough to stay in power delivering a NEC majority year on year could it turn things around. 

The hard fact is that if Left Unity were designing their ideal opponents, they’d pick one with no policies, no membership, little experience and no threat to them. The hard fact is that this is 4TM. The grouping that Left Unity need as a principle opposition to minimise their own divisions and problems.

Having reached this conclusion, you’ll understand why I’m not going to be a 4TM candidate as things stand. What would I do?

To remove PCS from the clutches of the Socialist Party two things need to happen. Firstly an opposition needs to emerge that has a clear programme and distinctive policies. Secondly, there needs to be a movement at branch level that broadly subscribes to these policies, and networks to build support for it.

In broad terms, such a clear programme and distinctive policies exist, and can be taken ‘off the shelf’. Unions such as UNISON and UNITE already buy into it. It is called ‘affiliation to the Labour party’. 

The Labour Party grew out of the TU movement, but it has had to adjust as unions have declined. It has renounced clause 4, and so therefore does not support the common ownership of industry and the means of production. In other words it does not support the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. 

It also offers a clear alternative to the current PCS ‘alternative to austerity’. It accepts the concepts of public spending, the need to raise taxes to pay for them and the need to manage debt. In other words it accepts that capitalism is the least bad form of Government.

That does not mean it supports the way the Coalition Government is applying these choices. It does mean not pretending that a happy socialist Utopia can ever happen.  

It is an important principle and it can be backed up. All states which reject capitalism on principle, claiming to be ‘socialist’ tend to harass their population, or deny them human rights. That included the Soviet Union, and currently includes Cuba, China and Venezuela. Most Left Wing groupings idolise one or more of these current or historic states.

The really hard part of winning back PCS is the second part. That is winning over sufficient branches to a pro-capitalism point of view. The vast majority of PCS members are pro-capitalist. Being pro-capitalist does not mean you favour exploitation, privatisation, tax evasion or a multitude of other things. It does mean that you do not think a revolution would make anything better, and would probably make a lot of things worse.

4TM fails because it is not a pro-capitalist organisation. It contains pro-capitalists, but also has people who’d really like to be socialists and many who consider themselves such. They feel comfortable when they are criticising the bankers, and a bit guilty when they can’t go along with the Trotskyite nonsense. 

You can (in my opinion) be a socialist AND pro-capitalist. But I’m not going to be side-tracked into a discussion about labels. 

You don’t even have to be a supporter of the Labour Party. But (at national level anyhow) the Labour Party offer the version of highly regulated capitalism that most of our members support. It is where the TUC and most mainstream unions sit and where PCS should be. 

(A quick word to my friends in the SNP. The SNP is a pro-capitalist party too. In an independent Scotland there will be no SNP. Whatever it is called, there will have to be a pro-capitalist left of centre party. Same argument. If you are a revolutionary socialist who supports independence you are in the wrong party!)

How to get there? I don’t think 4TM is part of the solution any more. I think 4TM is part of the problem. I suggest that 4TM ceases to be and the current activists who support it either stand as Labour Party supporters or as independents in Group or National elections. With no substitute ‘Moderate’ slate to oppose, the Democracy Alliance will slowly unravel. It’s in the nature of these parties. They are all splitters! 

In the short term, we may end up with a one party state within PCS. In the longer term, PCS will either fade into irrelevance or a movement of ordinary pro-capitalist activists will emerge as a new opposition untainted by the past.

It’s just like being in a bad relationship, sometimes you just have to let go and be miserable for a while. But the way is clear for better things to happen.

Islamism versus Modernism and their "left appeasers"

The events in Turkey and now Egypt have focused the worlds attention on the growing conflict between     democracy, secularism and Islamism in a quite dramatic way. Turkey, which had a long history of secularism since the modern state was established following the first world war saw the rise of a strongly Islamist orientated Government under the totally misnamed Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Whilst there has been strong economic improvement in Turkey under the AKP, there has been a growing move against both secularism and modernisation by their attempt to "turn the clock back" through measures such as allowing the Hijab back in state universities (where such head wear had previously been banned), censoring popular TV soaps such as one about the Ottomans where they insisted on more "Conservative dress" and more recently placing extra restrictions on selling alcohol and trying to stop "public displays of affection".

The secularists and in particular the young rebelled against this attempt to enforce such restrictive intrusions into their personal lives and that led to the major confrontations that we witnessed in recent weeks.

Such "conservatism" has also begun to be enforced by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and has led to the current split in their society that is being seen in the form of mass protests across the major cities. In an interesting developmen Reuters reports that the Tunisian Governemnt has made the following observation:

"Our approach is characterized by consensus and partnership," said Larayedh, who is also a senior leader of the moderate Islamist Ennahda party.

What this shows is that the world of Islam is far from untied in its' outlook for the future and divisions that previously exist have begun to be accentuated in the current political climate.

The reaction of some so-called "progressives " in the UK has been disturbing. The Socialist Workers Party has been long associated with supporting some rather dubious characters in their "front organisations like  as James Bloodworth points out in the The Independent:

A good example is Unite Against Fascism.

Launched in 2003 as a response to the electoral activity of the British National Party, UAF spends most of its time these days organising counter demonstrations against the EDL.

An honourable way to pass the time, you might think.

UAF’s definition of what constitutes fascism, however, is a peculiar one. Not only are those advocating the resurrection of a fascistic Islamic caliphate seemingly not worth opposing, they have been actively welcomed into the UAF fold by the leadership.

One of UAF’s vice-chairs is Azad Ali, affairs co-ordinator for the Islamic Forum of Europe, an offshoot of the far-right Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. As well as quoting an Islamist militant on his website in 2008 who claimed it was a religious obligation to kill British and American soldiers, Ali is on record as saying of democracy that “if it means, you know, at the expense of not implementing the Sharia, no-one’s gonna [sic] agree with that. Of course no-one agrees with that”.

On telephoning UAF’s office to clarify the group’s position on Islamic fascism, One Law for All was told by a UAF representative that there was “no such thing”. 

Of course the other problem is that the SWP actually called for a vote for the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood along with its' sister (sic) organisation the Revolutionary Socialists.

I have previously drawn readers attention to the report Siding with the oppressors: The pro-Islamic left and a further exposition on this theme has been published at the A Very Public Sociologist website which also looks at the role of individuals like Livingstone and Galloway:

The evidence martialled does show that figures associated with the SWP/Galloway/Livingstone triad not only have views that would make Tommy Robinson look like Harvey Milk; but shows clear instances of them apologising for or covering for their Islamist allies. Not that this is any news, of course. As well as covering up a macho culture of sexual predation in their own ranks, the SWP are well known for soft-soaping any regime or movement that earns Uncle Sam's ire. I'm sure they would even find some positive things to say about Saudi Arabia should it ever fall out with the State Department.

One has to ask why so many on the left (and there are those that don't) refuse to countenance any criticism of the Islamists despite the fact that like Qaradawi their views on Gays, Women, FGM and Jews make them so reactionary as to be on a par with the indigenous far-right like the BNP. For a look at what this character  I published an article on him at Harry's Place in response to a disturbing piece at Socialist Unity written by Andy Newman.

Unfortunately the "comrades" at SU are not ones for rational thinking or free debate as I discovered when responding to Newman's diatribe. I was told that they have the right to "curate" comments (in plain English censor is the word they were looking for) and that there are no "buts" in defending Muslims. Indeed according to the charming Tony Collins:

Perhaps you just can’t see that we genuinely think you are assisting the rise of racism. Well, we’re not lying. We mean it. We genuinely put some of the blame on your shoulders.

So long as individuals take this false approach of calling anyone they disagree with as "racists" then there remains a section of the "left" that has  become so aligned with reactionary points of view they can only be considered appeasers of clerical fascism.

Freedom of speech, democracy, Women's rights, Gay rights and more are not negotiable. It is clear that there there is a growing reformist movement in the Muslim world, expressed by the revolts against reaction in Turkey and Egypt and we should stand shoulder to shoulder with these brave men and women fighting for their basic rights.

The old reactionaries like Livingstone, Galloway, Respect, the SWP and Socialist Unity are part of the problem and must be treated as such.

Egypt: The struggle against the Brotherhood continues

No one could fail to be impressed by the size of the demonstration in Cairo and numerous other cities across Egypt yesterday. These of course are continuing as Morsi has achieved something his opponents have seemingly been albeit to do on their own, that of unity of the opposition. Well to a point anyway.

Without a doubt Morsi is under considerable pressure despite the obvious fact he does have electoral legitimacy on his side having been as most of the media have described him, the "first democratically elected leader of Egypt in 5,000 years. That statement in itself shows how long Egyptian history stretches across time and indicates in a way how difficult the road to an open and truly free society is going to be.

The Muslim Brotherhood have attempted to hijack the events of the "Arab Spring" back in 2011 which ousted former President Hosni Mubarak and turn Egypt into an "Islamic state" by manipulating and rushing throughout the country's new new constitution. This document actually goes a bit further in specifically making Egypt a Sunni state, a dangerous development at the time that sectarian conflict between the main Shia and Sunni sects within Islam is growing as a result of the Syrian civil war.

Violence has already begun along sectarian lines as Alakhbar reports:

Four Egyptian Shia Muslims were killed on Sunday when they were attacked by a hostile Sunni mob in a village in Giza province near the capital, police said.

Residents of the town of Zawiyat Abu Muslim in Giza province on the outskirts of Cairo surrounded the home of a prominent Shia figure Hassan Shehata, after learning he was hosting a religious gathering, witnesses and security sources told Reuters, and asked them to get out.

When they refused, a crowd of several hundred people stormed the building, beat the guests and threw petrol bombs at the house, setting it on fire, the sources said.

The state newspaper al-Ahram said that the mob stabbed, beat and dragged the bodies of the victims. Around 30 were badly injured and four were pronounced dead by the Health Ministry.

The newspaper also said that the mob was led by a Salafi sheikh and that five houses were set on fire.

The Egyptian police showed up late at the scene and did not intervene in the public beatings, eyewitnesses told al-Ahram.

Such events do not bode well for the future.

In the event violence seems for the moment to have been restricted to an attack on the headquarters of  the Brotherhood in Cairo by youths of unknown political persuasion. It could have been a lot worse, but Morsi seems to have learnt from the mistakes made by his co-thinker Erdogan in Turkey and kept the police away from the demonstrations and left any possible intervention to the army, which remains respected by both sides.

The army itself has remained neutral  thus far despite both sides claiming to have its' support. Certainly if the situation got out of hand it is the only force that could restore order. Intervention on the side of the opposition would cause problems for the future as many Brotherhood supporters were proclaiming their willingness for martyrdom in support of Morsi, which could plunge the most populous Arab state into civil war.

Certainly the Brotherhoods all-too numerous supporters have the ability to fight back as the Daily Telegraph reports:

A repeat of the violence at Moqattam could see the start of a slide to further violence, prompting either the army to step in or the Brotherhood to unleash its own supporters, who are taking on an increasingly militaristic aspect with parades of men wielding staves and helmets prominent at their counter-rally on Sunday.

The Brotherhood paraded its own militia of young and middle aged men, many carrying staves and wearing crash or construction helmets, saying they were needed in self-defence.

"If the thugs attack us the police should be showing up to protect us but they are not," Gehad al-Haddad, a senior Brotherhood adviser, told The Daily Telegraph. "To a large extent they are treasonous.

How the situation will develop over the next few days remains to be seen.

UPDATE: The Financial Times has just reported that the Army are giving the political leaders 48 hours to resolve the crisis and “meet the demands of the people or it will impose a road map”