One person resigns from trotskyist organisation shock

The antics of the far-left never fail to amaze me. We've been appalled of late by the "delta" scandal in the Socialist Workers Party, amused by the myopic nit picking of Marxist economic theory by Bruce Wallace (late of the Socialist Party) and watched an attempt to create a new Left Unity Party turn into factional intrigue even before it has held its' first conference.Now the Weekly Worker tells reports the shocking news that one person who nobody has ever heard of (or probably cares to) has resigned from the Alliance for Workers Liberty!

And just who are they you might ask? Some of you may remember them as Socialist Organiser or even (if you are old enough) Workers Fight or even the International Communist League. Led by veteran Trotskyist Sean Matgamna its' actually a group of barely 100 members with perhaps just one tiny group of co-thinkers in the Australian outback.

Their members are renowned for "shouty" behaviour at every meeting they intervene attend. Not a very popular group amongst their Trotskyist rivals either. They are accused (again "shock horror") of being (wait for it) "Zionists". That's because they actually believe in a two state solution to the Middle East a heresy amongst amongst the genocidal far-left circles of British and most other Trotskyists world wide.

There's more. They don't like Islamism either. For reasons best known to themselves they consider political Islamism a threat to women, gays, trade unionists and Jews no less. I really cant think why?
And at times they can be quite stringent in their criticisms of such movements as Sean Matgamna's recently republished article Political Islam,Christian fundamentalism, Marxism and the left today shows. However according to the Weekly Worker the piece:

..sparked outraged responses on social media outlets from hundreds of people, drawing angry accusations of Islamophobia, racism and pro-imperialism

Not sure about the "hundreds" bit, I'm not convinced it would have attracted that many readers, but then you know these lefty types their maths are never very accurate when it comes to reporting numbers. One of the AWL members, former PCS, now student union activist Rosie Huzzard blathers on:

Surely comrades can see that the use of language here is racist? 'Primitive' and 'sharpening their knives' buys into some seriously dodgy stereotypes. It also continually conflates 'Muslims' with 'Political Islam' as if the two are inevitably linked, e.g. "The existence of large Muslim minorities in Europe is making political Islam a force well beyond the traditionally Muslim world: the Islam which failed outside the walls of Vienna over 300 years ago is now a force in the great cities of Europe." 

I know that Sean goes on to attack fundamentalist Christianity, but I don't think that absolves him from the comments made, which are not made in a vacuum, and I think are highly offensive. 

Now here's the rub. This was published some years back. Do the comrades not read the material their guru Matgamna produces? OK, I know there's a lot of it, but this stuff is where the AWL differentiate themselves from the rest of the Trots and I would have thought essential reading.

But this is a student union activist we're being lectured by, you know the sort. The type that bans Sombrero's and false moustaches at Halloween parties "in case Mexicans are offended". (The Times reported that today, no link I'm afraid it's behind a pay wall).

Still Jim Denham one of their more sober minded supporters replies in more considered terms:

Re "Islamophobic narratives": we should avoid, whenever possible, using the word "Islamophobic" which is used by fundamentalists and their apologists to deligitimise all criticism of Islam and/or Islamism and equate ideological criticism with "racism": a long-running campaign that, unfortunately, seems to have gained some support within the AWL. 

Bigoted prejudice against people who are Muslims is almost always racism and based on their ethnicity, not their beliefs.There is a fundamental difference, which must not be blurred. We should talk/write about "racism" not "Islamophobia." 

By the way: if Sean's article is "racist" then so is a lot of Marx's writings. 

There are 56 pages of discussion on this and even I lost the will to live trudging my way through this stuff. But still one Pat Smith has now left what the Weekly Worker calls a "social imperialist group" (whatever the hell that means) and of course this is a great victory for the cause.

Not.

However in the myopic world of Trotskyism such things are of great import. We are now obviously one more step closer to socialism.

I will leave you with one word of wisdom from comrade Janine Booth (one of the AWL "worthies") who in all seriousness tells us:

I am a great advocate of words being used, and read, in line with their literal meaning.

Well there's a thought.

Human rights come before religion or culture

It had been my intention to comment of the headline story of The Times today about the man who ran off from a West London mosque in a burka as it raised all sorts of questions that we need to discuss. However as I read on in the paper it was another story that caught my attention which in my view takes priority.

Judge cannot help Muslim girl forced to wed at gunpoint

A judge has said that he is powerless to nullify the marriage of a British Muslim girl who says she was taken to Pakistan and forced into the union at gunpoint at the age of 14.

Instead the girl must seek nullification herself, he said.

The girl, who now has a one-year old child, says that she was subjected to harrowing violence and threatened with a gun before the ceremony, which was arranged by her father. She and her child are now in council care. 

But that's not even the half of it:

The girl was accompanied to Pakistan by her father who has been a British citizen  for three decades, and her elder brother.

The Judge said the girl had been threatened to make her have sex with her husband. "The marriage was consummated about two weeks later after further threats to her if she did not permit her husband to have sexual intercourse with her" he said.

Apparently her marriage is void under English law according to his honour.

I would have thought the "marriage" should be the least of the concerns that either the Judge or the court should have considered.

This case involves the rape of a child, violence and frankly human trafficking or slavery to give it its real name.

As far as I am concerned the father, brother and husband have committed crimes against this girl which go beyond validating any so-called marriage. Forced marriage is not yet illegal and legislation is being considered by the current Government.

But we are talking about a 14 year old child here. What about all the other crimes committed against her? I have to ask the obvious question about whether this case would have been dealt with differently if the girl had been white?

Why have the parents, family and "husband" not been arrested?

The "husbands whereabouts are unknown, but reading between the lines is probably in the UK. With all the fallout over the historical crimes of Saville and other celebrities can we really allow these men to have their crimes unpunished.

The law has let this child (and probably many others in similar circumstances) down.

There is one law in this country and it must be applied equally to all.

Religion and culture are no excuse.

Somebody called Andy Newman has been writing about me

Guest post by Anne Marie Waters

Somebody called Andy Newman has been writing about me. Apparently, not for the first time. I am not inclined to respond to disingenuous nonsense but as Howard has asked me to, for that reason I will.

Where to start? Newman has decided to be “charitable” to Nick Cohen for accurately describing me as a campaigner, with One Law for All, who opposes sharia law in Britain. Cohen, he claims, was wrong to say that Newman is on the wrong side of the struggle between religion and women’s rights. Why? Because I have resigned from the Labour Party. No, I don’t see the logic either. But logic is not the point here. Dishonest attempts to discredit me are the point here.

I left the Labour Party out of principle. I was not, unlike so many, prepared to sell my soul for a seat. I am quite convinced that Mr Newman and his ilk (henceforth referred to as the totalitarian left) struggle to understand such a notion. I am equally convinced that they struggle to understand the fact that I am consistent in my opposition to misogyny and religious brutality. I do not make exceptions for people depending on their skin colour – I am not a racist, nor do I patronise or expect a lower standard of behaviour from people of a certain ethnicity; unlike the totalitarian left.

Of course, as it typical, Newman hasn’t actually addressed any of the points I make in my resignation letter to Labour, only where it was printed; a free speech publication – another idea that is lost on the totalitarian left.

Of course he doesn’t address my points because he is unable to, he knows perfectly well that every word I have written is true. He points to the fact that Dispatch International was launched at a conference for free speech and human rights. Yes it was. He has a problem with these; that is the issue.

The launch was attended by Fjordman; I personally don’t know this person so I can’t comment, but Newman goes on to claim that Fjordman was a “major influence” on Anders Breivik. This appears to the extent of his criticism. Staggering! No doubt Newman makes the same associations between hate-preaching Imams and Islamist terrorists (but I wouldn’t bet on it).

As if his dishonesty isn’t demonstrated enough, and as if to confirm the fact that he can’t dispute anything I have written, Newman takes his attempts to discredit me to depths even I didn’t expect. He cannot quote me directly, so guess what he does? That’s right, he quotes somebody else who happens to have been published in the same place. Do I really need to go on? Can people not see through this?

He then talks about my activities on Twitter. What a sad existence the totalitarian left must lead. This “soup” person thinks we should all go through everyone’s twitter account to make absolutely sure that they’ve never written anything with which we do not 100% agree. How infantile. Does he also ask to know the political views of every stranger he meets before deciding whether or not to be polite to them, or engage in discussion? Because of course it goes without saying that any differing view, any variety in perspective, is absolutely disallowed on the totalitarian left. There will be uniformity, and only uniformity. That is the totalitarian way.

Perhaps I haven’t been clear about this so let me reiterate: I will not be told by self-appointed and self-aggrandising petty little Twitter police who I can or cannot communicate with. Others may be petrified of people who don’t share their tiny worldview 100%, and viciously reject all such people, I on the other hand am a grown-up.

This stuff is nothing new. This trickery by the dishonest hard-left comes as absolutely no surprise. They know full well that they cannot dispute the arguments being made, they know they are defending the indefensible and in this case, they know they have allied with brutal Islamists and are forced now to try to distract from that fact. They cannot deal with the truth so they do their utmost to discredit those who speak it.

Newman finally patronisingly advises Mr Fuller to distance himself from the “far-right” of Dispatch International. Oh what moral superiority! He of course will never look at his own movement and the associations it has made with the real far-right – the far-right that is Islamism – as that would never do. That would involve honest self-reflection and such a thing is disallowed on the totalitarian left.

People like Newman won’t address the issues raised in relation to multiculturalism in today’s Britain for two reasons: 1) they caused it, and 2) they don’t care.

Young girls having their genitals butchered, forced in to “marriages”, forced in to subservience by sharia law; this doesn’t bother the totalitarian left. Actual human suffering doesn’t matter to them, what matters is theory and political ideology. It is all a university debate. Human beings are of no concern, what matters is hatred of America and bringing down capitalism – which of course is why they make such suitable bedfellows with Islamists.

If a few people get stoned to death in the meantime, so be it. It’s still better than capitalism, right Andy?

Get Involved: One Law for All, National Secular Society

The far left, Islamism, anti-Semitism and the unions

As the debate continues over the future (or likely not) of the Socialist Workers Party a comment was made over at the Socialist Unity website that not only garnered my attention but also reminded me of why we need to to expose and oppose political extremism wherever it rears it's ugly head. This remark by "Chris" sums up the real attitudes of ideologues pursuing their aims:

I'd happily sacrifice a few individuals to build socialism.

This upset a couple of fellow posters, probably not because they don't really disagree, but don't like the fact "Chris" had the audacity to spell it out. One of the comrades followed up by pointing out that as far as (the SWP) went:

Actually, Chris, the striking aspect of the behaviour at the top is that, far from sacrificing individuals for socialism, they sacrifice individuals and socialism to their personal requirements, status, position and mates, paramours, etc, while claiming it’s for la causa. 

Historically of course Marxist-Leninists/Communists, (whatever name they choose to go under) have had a habit of not just "sacrificing a few individuals" but in fact have caused untold millions of deaths and other suffering. The scale of Stalin's planned starvation of the peasants in the thirties, the purges which followed and the existence of the Gulags until the fall of communism in the USSR are a matter of historical fact.

Such crimes were replicated under Chairman Mao and Pol Pot, but Communists are not alone of course the Nazi's/Fascists committed the same crimes against humanity, whilst today such political sadism continues to exist in the form of Islamism.

It should come as no surprise that what's left of the Marxist movements like the SWP, orientate their politics towards fellow ideologues within groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Jammat-e-islami, the Taliban or regimes like that of the clerical-fascist Iranians.  Unfortunately its' not just the obvious culprits of the far-left sects. There's George Galloway's totally misnamed "Respect Party" and politicians such as Ken Livingstone and Andy Newman's Socialist Unity blog who have a blind spot towards misoginist and anti-Semeitic preachers like Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The comrades will tell you it's all justified in the "struggle against Zionism" because so many of them think if Israel is wiped off the map world capitalism and imperialism will come tumbling down. Of course it won't, but the sacrifice of a few million Jews in the process will justify the end in their dark evil mindsets.

The presence of anti-Semites and holocaust deniers on the "progressive left" is well documented. The former Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign Frances Clarke-Lowes was expelled from the organisation for holocaust denial. In his appeal to the PSC Annual General Meeting he said:

The carefully nurtured and moulded ‘Holocaust’ narrative has done a good deal of that job since the Second World War. But more fundamental is the prohibition on all discussion of Jews which does not accord with their own collective view of themselves – that is of a uniquely talented and uniquely suffering people. Hence the extraordinary move to ban any questioning of the ‘Holocaust’ narrative at this AGM.

Of course there are Jews who challenge elements of Jewish ideology. But these exceptions don’t invalidate, in principle, generalisations about Jews. That would be like saying you mustn’t describe dogs as quadrupeds because some of that species have lost a leg.

Appalling stuff, yet 10% of the delegates voted against his expulsion.  Clarke-Lowes may have gone but so many of his supporters and co-thinkers remain inside the organisation which may not itself be anti-Semitic, but does contain many activists that clearly are. Yet so many trade unions including my own (PCS) remain affiliated. Indeed PCS policy is to positively encourage branches and members to involve themselves with this organisation which is ambivalent  (to say the least) about the two state solution

And just who runs PCS?  That would be the Marxists of the Socialist Party, the SWP and their fellow travellers. The exact people who would happily sacrifice individuals for their cause and do, though since neither has state power are limited in their ability to do so. The SWP's treatment of women has been well documented and has seemingly appalled others on the left, but not so much that many are prepared to break with them.

Women's groups and some Unison activists are taking measures against the undesirables of the SWP, but the left in PCS remains firmly in alliance and instead will be taking a debate on breaking their electoral arrangement with the somewhat innocuous PCS Democrats group in a motion moved by Harvey Crane at Left Unity conference in December. They will no doubt also have SWP members on their slate for the National Executive Committee next year.

The comrades obviously have no shame. Nor should we expect them to.

The Leninists are and will always be the enemies of human rights, free speech and democracy.

Stop rights abuses at McDonald's New Zealand!

McDonald's New Zealand has sacked union delegate Sean Bailey for helping to expose the company's repeated failures to provide meal breaks for many staff working more than a four-hour shift as required by law, and for giving critical testimony on this issue to a parliamentary committee.

Unite is currently involved in legal action against McDonald's over the missing meal breaks. Bailey gave testimony to a Select Committee investigating employment law, following which he was issued a disciplinary letter stating "It appears that what you have said during the course of the select committee hearing and doing so in uniform may give rise to breaches of your obligations to your employer." The rules of Parliament expressly prohibit threatening or disadvantaging a person for presenting evidence.

Click here to send a message to McDonald's demanding his reinstatement!

Musical Interlude - God is dead (Black Sabbath)

This Saturdays offering is dedicated to all the atheists out there and is taken from Black Sabbath's new album 13.

See, I do sometimes listen to modern music!

Are we being bamboozled by this charming Pope?

Cross-post from the National Secular Society
by Terry Sanderson

Pope Francis may be charming – but he is part of a rehabilitation plan that depends on bamboozling us rather than delivering any real change, argues Terry Sanderson.

Am I being cynical or has the Vatican scored an amazing PR victory with Pope Francis?

Snr Bergoglio seems, within a few short months, to have passed beyond initial suspicions into the land beyond criticism. The global perception of him is of a benign, cuddly, modest man who everybody would like as their granddad. He can do no wrong.

What's not to like? He lives modestly, he deplores ostentatious displays of wealth and power, he makes reassuring noises at gay people – and even atheists. He kisses babies in a way that doesn't seem sinister. He rings up people who write to him and chats. He sends small amounts of money to old age pensionerswho have been mugged (ensuring, of course, that everyone knows about it). He likes football, he seems relaxed when he is on public view. His every move is gleefully reported by an adoring media who take everything at face value.

So, has the papacy been revived after the sudden exit of Francis's rather unlikeable predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger (stage name, Benedict XVI)? Put it this way – if Francis decided to visit Britain, I think it would be difficult to raise a 'Protest the Pope' campaign on the same scale as the last one.

Should we all be celebrating? Is the nightmare of Ratzinger over? Is the Catholic Church suddenly going to embrace everyone without judgement and lighten its idiotic and damaging doctrines?

Well, let's have a look back and check what it was about Ratzinger that we deplored so much when we took to the streets in such numbers in 2010.

We said that it was horrendous that he denied contraception and abortion in developing countries where AIDS was rampant and poverty endemic. Is Francis going to change that any time soon?

No.

We objected to the Catholic Church's many aggressive campaigns aimed at the rights of homosexual people, the attempts to derail gay marriage, the sacking of gay teachers in Catholic schools. Is Francis going to change that?

No.

We complained about the way the Catholic Church treats women, keeping them out of its own hierarchy and attempting to control, at every level, their lives and decisions. Is Francis tackling this problem?

No.

We objected to the way that Ratzinger had covered up child abuse and put the interests of the church way ahead of the interests of the children who had been raped and exploited by priests. Has anything — beyond vague promises — been done about this?

No.

It was clear that Ratzinger was a disaster for the Church. All over the world people were repulsed by his intolerance, his coldness and his autocratic insistence that conservatism would rule the Catholic Church, and nothing of significance would change. Catholics all over the globe were ditching their attachment to the Church, distancing themselves from the inhumane institution that it had become. They were shocked by the revelations of the scale of child abuse and stunned that responsibility for its cover-up lead inevitably to the desk of the pontiff himself.

This catastrophe could not be permitted to continue. Ratzinger was single-handedly destroying the Church. He had to go.

Given the circumstances, he was lucky to escape with his life. History shows that inconvenient Popes have been lethally dispensed with more than once.

And so came his unprecedented resignation. He was too old, ill and decrepit to continue, he claimed. So off he went with his handsome Gaenswein into obscurity.

But Popes just don't do that. They soldier on until they very publically drop dead as did John Paul II (or until they die in mysterious circumstances, as did John Paul I).

Now it turns out that Ratzinger isn't ill at all. Visitors to his residence within the Vatican say that he is lively, active and on top form, Not exactly running marathons, but not fading away either.

So, then came Francis. Elected, we're told, in the traditional way by the College of Cardinals. The election was over in a few hours, almost as though they had gone through the motions to provide a spectacle for the TV cameras, with the result actually having been decided in advance. This is all speculation, of course, but it does seem very convenient.

And now we have warm and friendly Francis, the man who is expert at gesture politics, the kind of human interest stuff that keeps the newspapers happy, keeps the flock smiling and detracts from any inclination to ask awkward questions about the continuing nastiness of the Catholic Church's doctrines.

At the beginning there were questions about Francis's behaviour in his native Argentina. But that's all buried now. Nobody wants to know about that. He's too nice to try to smear with tales of co-operation with a tyrannical regime.

To be fair, the Pope is not the all-powerful dictator that some think. His powers are limited. Even if he wanted to (and there is no evidence that he does) he couldn't change any of these things unilaterally.

So, what we have is not a change of doctrine but a change of emphasis. We have a front man who will accentuate the positive and in doing so shove the negative out of site under the carpet.

But the bad boys are still there, and they're still at it.

Pope Francis may be personally charming, but he is part of a rehabilitation plan that depends on bamboozling us rather than delivering any real change.

The media storm of adoring stories about Francis and his "different approach" mislead us into thinking that something (other than emphasis) has changed.

As Kate Smurthwaite wrote in the Independent:

"The most frightening story of all however dates back to July when Pope Francis brought in new laws for the Vatican state. Again the superficial story — increasing the maximum sentence for child sex abusers in the state from 10 to 12 years — makes great positive press.

"We should first remember though that organisations representing victims of clerical abuse were not best-pleased with the changes, saying 'The Church hierarchy doesn't need new rules on abuse. It needs to follow long-established secular laws.' "

Secondly he took the opportunity to bring in a law meaning up to eight years jail time could be faced by anyone caught stealing or leaking information concerning the "fundamental interests" of the Vatican. Sneaking in one law behind another more headline-grabbing one and making it harder for insiders to whistle-blow on corrupt Vatican dealings? Smooth-operating spin doctors would be proud.

An opinion poll in Rome found that three out of four Italians liked the direction the Church was taking, compared with less than 45% last year. A YouGov/HuffPost poll of U.S. Catholics showed that more than four in five thought Francis had a positive effect on the Church.

"Most people clearly believe the church has turned a corner, and if they believe that then that's half the battle," said Maria Rossi, Opinioni's co-director.

And so, without changing a jot or tittle of doctrine, the Vatican now expects to see its wayward flock streaming back into the pews, together with their cheque books and credit cards – which have been sorely missed.

Terry Sanderson is the President of the National Secular Society. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.