# hecklery at the ruc conference



## Pickman's model (Sep 30, 2005)

picture the scene:

19 october - inside the camden centre the ruc's conference is taking place - the hall's 3/4 empty. george galloway's launched into a lengthy speech, and as he's been talking a while the hall's nice and warm. suddenly a reedy voice pipes up and feebly shouts "nonsense!"



the great man pauses and gives the nod to the hired thugs - a spotty phd student from leeds uni and his mercenary rugby mates. they move in to forcibly eject the aged moslem who's voiced an unpopular opinion.

imagine that you're in the audience - what d'you do?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 30, 2005)

you've lost me mate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 30, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> you've lost me mate.




what would you do if you were a delegate at the ruc conference and some poor unfortunate heckled george galloway?


----------



## tollbar (Sep 30, 2005)

Public beheading to encourage the others, but make sure that the video only gets put on US army websites to avoid action by the OB


----------



## mk12 (Sep 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> picture the scene:
> 
> 19 october - inside the camden centre the ruc's conference is taking place - the hall's 3/4 empty. george galloway's launched into a lengthy speech, and as he's been talking a while the hall's nice and warm. suddenly a reedy voice pipes up and feebly shouts "nonsense!"
> 
> ...



Galloway was heckled at the "RUC" founding conference. He can deal with hit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 30, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Galloway was heckled at the "RUC" founding conference. He can deal with hit.


so you'd go with an additional option - let galloway kick the fuck out of the troublemaker?


----------



## mk12 (Sep 30, 2005)

Why not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 30, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Why not.


what's the point of having students there to provide security then?


----------



## mk12 (Sep 30, 2005)

They'll be selling papers as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 30, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> They'll be selling papers as well.


so this pitiful fellow's misfortunes don't end with a swift beating? 



he'll be _bored_ to death as well!


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so this pitiful fellow's misfortunes don't end with a swift beating?
> 
> 
> 
> he'll be _bored_ to death as well!



Could be worse.

They might strap him into one of those 'restraint chairs' used in the US prison system, then force him to sit through EVERY speech by EVERY SWP CC member, and their stooges.

I'd sooner take the swift beating myself.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> let galloway kick the fuck out of the troublemaker?



You reckon he could "kick the fuck out of " out of anyone over 16??


----------



## cogg (Oct 1, 2005)

Fedayn said:
			
		

> You reckon he could "kick the fuck out of " out of anyone over 16??



I should imagine he'd find it difficult to kick the fuck out of anyone over 5 round here (East London).


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> you've lost me mate.


It's just more of Pickman's weird obsession with a minor political figure.

Instead of fantasising about it, PM, why not go along to the conference, start heckling, and see what happens?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what would you do if you were a delegate at the ruc conference and some poor unfortunate heckled george galloway?


Galloway is a higher class of orator than you could ever hope to be.   And good orators make opportunity of heckling.

Do us all a favour...go along yourself (as has been suggested) and do your own fucking heckling.   Hopefully after Galloway bitch slaps you you will shut up.

Galloway:  blahblahblah

Pickman'sModel: oooh gorgeous I want your chiiiiildreeeeeeennnnn.

or something along those lines


----------



## rebel warrior (Oct 1, 2005)

Satan!  

I am not obsessed by galloway  - i just think that since he is the original dissenter from nu labour he should be tolerant of hecklers and not throw them out of the ruc meetings...  

And i would rather write a poxy letter to Tony Blair than go anywhere near a stinking rotten ruc conference...and it would do more good.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 1, 2005)

fuck! p's m is really rebel warrior - what a cock up!

bin/ban


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> fuck! p's m is really rebel warrior - what a cock up!
> 
> bin/ban


----------



## rebel warrior (Oct 1, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> fuck! p's m is really rebel warrior - what a cock up!
> 
> bin/ban



 

[had fooled everyone for so long]


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 1, 2005)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> [had fooled everyone for so long]



This is either some backhanded double bluff, which Picky and Rebel are both in on, or we've all been truly had.

If so, genius.

Sir, I salute you.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Come on!! Need some runs... break out in the 5th... come on.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Come on!! Need some runs... break out in the 5th... come on.



 Wrong thread.


----------



## laptop (Oct 1, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Sir, I salute you.



Your _indefatigibility_


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 1, 2005)

This is a bollox thread and poll.

what would be intreasting is a poll and thread, compareing and contrasting , the situation that happened in Birmingham a years ago, when an Iran comrade was attacked/roughed-up  outside an SA meeting for giving leaflets, questioning making political alliances with fundamentalists.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 1, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> This is a bollox thread and poll.
> 
> what would be intreasting is a poll and thread, compareing and contrasting , the situation that happened in Birmingham a years ago, when an Iran comrade was attacked/roughed-up  outside an SA meeting for giving leaflets, questioning making political alliances with fundamentalists.



Comrade of who? Yours? Which organisation?


----------



## Paul Marsh (Oct 1, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> what would be intreasting is a poll and thread, compareing and contrasting , the situation that happened in Birmingham a years ago, when an Iran comrade was attacked/roughed-up  outside an SA meeting for giving leaflets, questioning making political alliances with fundamentalists.



If I remember this case correctly he was an Iranian Communist, a refugee, who was giving out leaflets denouncing the Iran's Islamic regime, and was battered for his trouble by some British Muslims. 

Needless to say the Socialist Alliance, which was beginning to eye the electoral potential of the Islamic vote in Britain, turned a blind eye to a physical assault on a socialist at one of its own meetings, by religious bigots. These are the glorious roots of Respect. The case was covered in huge detail in the Weekly Worker at the time if I recall correctly. 

At least the old boy in Brighton got an apology (however false) out of the Labour party!


----------



## grogwilton (Oct 1, 2005)

so is whoever is behind pickmans model and rebel, are their political allegiances really pickmans' or rebels?

could it be that rebel was invented by a pickmans model to disgrace the swp?

are we still being fooled?

its like that shit film with travolta and nicholas cage...


----------



## mutley (Oct 1, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> This is a bollox thread and poll.
> 
> what would be intreasting is a poll and thread, compareing and contrasting , the situation that happened in Birmingham a years ago, when an Iran comrade was attacked/roughed-up  outside an SA meeting for giving leaflets, questioning making political alliances with fundamentalists.



I assume you're referring to a STW rally (not SA) where the iranian was asked not to distribute his leaflets inside the room because they were considered to be offensive. I don't know what was in them. At no point was he 'roughed up'. I was there on the evening and didn't see the actual event as it happened, but there was no accusation of 'roughing up' at the time. But then these things grow as the years go by.


----------



## mutley (Oct 1, 2005)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> If I remember this case correctly he was an Iranian Communist, a refugee, who was giving out leaflets denouncing the Iran's Islamic regime, and was battered for his trouble by some British Muslims.
> 
> Needless to say the Socialist Alliance, which was beginning to eye the electoral potential of the Islamic vote in Britain, turned a blind eye to a physical assault on a socialist at one of its own meetings, by religious bigots. These are the glorious roots of Respect. The case was covered in huge detail in the Weekly Worker at the time if I recall correctly.
> 
> At least the old boy in Brighton got an apology (however false) out of the Labour party!



There you go. From 'roughed up' to 'battered'. And the SA nature of the meeting is used to generalise about the SA degenerating.. so it's a shame that it was not an SA meeting..

It took place at the Rex centre, on the Coventry Road in Smallheath, about 2 or 3 months after 9/11. The people who asked the iranian to leave weren't religious bigots, but the stewards.


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 1, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> There you go. From 'roughed up' to 'battered'. And the SA nature of the meeting is used to generalise about the SA degenerating.. so it's a shame that it was not an SA meeting..
> 
> It took place at the Rex centre, on the Coventry Road in Smallheath, about 2 or 3 months after 9/11. The people who asked the iranian to leave weren't religious bigots, but the stewards.



What weak shit, you can't be a bigot and a steward? do you work for the labour party ,because thats the sort of guff i'd expect from them.

I'll try and get a link to the weekly worker.
link- http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/407/islamic_reaction.html

This man came to this country to exscape persecution, and this is how he's treated!!- which one am i talking about?




ps
To the ejit who asked earlier who's comrade he was or did we belong to the same organision- we're all comrades  if we can behave hunamily to one another and are struggling to get to the same sort of society(roughly speaking.Thats why the swp/ruc ain't comrades.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Oct 1, 2005)

Apologies for saying he was battered when he was merely threatened and excluded - here is a contemporary report though, from the Weekly Workers website. which hardly fits Mutleys analysis:

Birmingham’s Small Heath district saw an exceptionally large ‘Stop the War’ meeting on Monday October 29. Local Stop the War Coalition press officer and Socialist Workers Party member Rumy Hasan has reported it in the most glowing terms: “Around 1,500 people crowded in … One of the largest political meetings Birmingham has seen in years. The size and diversity of the meeting shows the gathering strength of the anti-war movement.”

The “diversity” of the meeting was, however, strictly limited, in a way that raises grave questions about the SWP’s role as organisers in the anti-war movement. Inside the meeting, so we are informed by Steve Godward, a Fire Brigades Union activist who was a Socialist Alliance candidate in the June general election, British-Asian women (but not white or black women) were directed to sit in a separate section of the hall.

Some British-Asian women sat in mixed sections of the hall without trouble, but one British-Asian woman who objected was abused. When the British-Asian woman protested, and Steve remonstrated with the SWP organisers on the spot, the local SWP full-timer finally intervened in her favour, though very reluctantly.

An Iranian socialist, Arash, was refused admission and threatend for distributing anti-fundamentalist leaflets.

Jim Denham reports on the next stage: “At the Birmingham Stop the War committee two days later, the SWP were obviously expecting criticism. They attempted to pre-empt it by opening the discussion with an ecstatic report on the meeting from their full-time organiser. The meeting organisers were to be congratulated and thanked for allowing us to take part, etc. Actually, the Small Heath meeting had been to all appearances a Stop the War Coalition meeting, publicised by Stop the War Coalition leaflets, with a typical ‘Stop the War’ platform, and with the SWP playing a high-profile role in running it.

“When comrades raised the question of the exclusion of Arash, some young men who said they’d been stewards at the meeting stated that he had only been excluded because he was a risk to the security of the meeting and they had been told (by whom?) that he had a record of threatening women. Women at the committee meeting objected very strongly to this allegation, stating that they knew Arash and could not believe it of him.

“A resolution condemning violence and aggression within the campaign was moved by Stuart Richardson of the International Socialist Group. It did not mention the incident with Arash specifically in its text. It was overwhelmingly passed - but with the SWP voting against!”

An extended discussion of these incidents on the Socialist Alliance email list since then has elicited no challenge from the SWP on the essential facts of the matter.

Martin Thomas
Alliance for Workers’ Liberty


----------



## Paul Marsh (Oct 1, 2005)

Oh, and here is a statement from the activist concerned:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/407/islamic_reaction.html#arash

Care to comment Mutley?


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> Apologies for saying he was battered when he was merely threatened and excluded - here is a contemporary report though, from the Weekly Workers website. which hardly fits Mutleys analysis:
> 
> Birmingham’s Small Heath district saw an exceptionally large ‘Stop the War’ meeting on Monday October 29. Local Stop the War Coalition press officer and Socialist Workers Party member Rumy Hasan has reported it in the most glowing terms: “Around 1,500 people crowded in … One of the largest political meetings Birmingham has seen in years. The size and diversity of the meeting shows the gathering strength of the anti-war movement.”
> 
> ...



I don't believe a word that man says. Sorry. 

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I'm pretty sure this one's been done on here years ago, and I think it was a pretty rubbish accusation.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> Oh, and here is a statement from the activist concerned:
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/407/islamic_reaction.html#arash
> 
> Care to comment Mutley?



that says, "I wasn't allowed into a meeting where I wanted to distribute leaflets against the meeting organisers. I then thought I'd leave because it looked like they were getting lots of people to beat me up."

So storm in a teacup then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I don't believe a word that man says. Sorry.
> 
> That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I'm pretty sure this one's been done on here years ago, and I think it was a pretty rubbish accusation.


even if you don't believe martin thomas, there is the word of the activist himself - and that of eddie ford.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> that says, "I wasn't allowed into a meeting where I wanted to distribute leaflets against the meeting organisers. I then thought I'd leave because it looked like they were getting lots of people to beat me up."
> 
> So storm in a teacup then.


yeh! 

let's ignore the crap politics of the swp! 

let's not mention the segregation at the meeting!


----------



## sihhi (Oct 1, 2005)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> Oh, and here is a statement from the activist concerned:
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/407/islamic_reaction.html#arash
> 
> Care to comment Mutley?


To be expected from STWC/(proto-RESPECT) aswell as actual pro-MABers who are using STWC for their own sordid ends.

Someone with his credentials of leftist activity and exile from IRI is obviously a threat. He might mention the truth of 1978-9 or the Iran-Iraq war etc etc.

Thanks for highlighting this.

edit: it happened in 2001! !---


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

If what the activist said is what happened, I don't care at all. Eddie Ford turns what he said into 'chased down the street' but he doesn't say that - just that he had to run fast.

To be honest, I wouldn't turn up to the Anarchist Bookfair with a load of bollocks against whatever Anarchist group. However, my experience is that the SWP are generally alright about it (for example, PM gave me, Rebel Warrior and a few others a copy of lots of his posts from U75 at Marxism [they were put together to look like an article - which didn't really work]) at big events. Of course they're not going to encourage it. If at this event they denied the bloke entry - well good, they should get tougher at their events.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yeh!
> 
> let's ignore the crap politics of the swp!
> 
> let's not mention the segregation at the meeting!



I'm talking about the comparison between the Labour _delegate_'s treatment and some oppositionist at an SWP meeting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> PM gave me, Rebel Warrior and a few others a copy of lots of his posts from U75 at Marxism [they were put together to look like an article - which didn't really work]


er...

they were an  article - they weren't mixed up posts - and they were in a london class war publication.

and that's got absolutely nothing to do with the turn this thread's taken.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> PM gave me, Rebel Warrior and a few others a copy of lots of his posts from U75 at Marxism [they were put together to look like an article - which didn't really work]


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> er...
> 
> they were an  article - they weren't mixed up posts - and they were in a london class war publication.
> 
> and that's got absolutely nothing to do with the turn this thread's taken.



You were allowed to distribute it at an SWP event. 

And it was an extremely poor article which contained nothing you hadn't already posted on here - including _exactly_ the same attempts to raise a smile, basically saying nothing.

edit: In fact it's headline was your tagline at the time. You clearly thought a lot of your posts to print them out and distribute them for free to Trots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> You were allowed to distribute it at an SWP event.


no, i didn't ask their permission, i went ahead and handed it out anyway.

clearly the swp's preferred stewards aren't always available for fisticuffs and intimidation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> And it was an extremely poor article which contained nothing you hadn't already posted on here - including _exactly_ the same attempts to raise a smile, basically saying nothing.
> 
> edit: In fact it's headline was your tagline at the time. You clearly thought a lot of your posts to print them out and distribute them for free to Trots.


just because you repeat a load of old wank doesn't have the effect of giving those claims substance.


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> that says, "I wasn't allowed into a meeting where I wanted to distribute leaflets against the meeting organisers. I then thought I'd leave because it looked like they were getting lots of people to beat me up."
> 
> So storm in a teacup then.



Are we talking about the labour confrence again? Its got its own thread.

Stop weasling and address the problems high lighted.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> no, i didn't ask their permission, i went ahead and handed it out anyway.
> 
> clearly the swp's preferred stewards aren't always available for fisticuffs and intimidation.



What, at their own event? 

And where were fisticuffs mentioned above? Anarchist school of falsification there.

Now, given many SWP members saw you handing it out/ received it, I'd imagine (1) they didn't care because it mattered not to them at all that some wanky article was being handed out in their bars for free and (2) the above stuff from the AWL is exaggerated.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> Are we talking about the labour confrence again? Its got its own thread.
> 
> Stop weasling and address the problems high lighted.



I've addressed what I've read. What would you like me to address.

The bloke's statement suggests nothing happened, except he wasn't allowed into a meeting. Why are you trying to make a big deal of this, four years later?


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> just because you repeat a load of old wank doesn't have the effect of giving those claims substance.



Something you clearly should have thought about before doing so in an article and handing it out at Marxism.

Glad you've seen the light though!


----------



## sihhi (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> The bloke's statement suggests nothing happened, except he wasn't allowed into a meeting. Why are you trying to make a big deal of this, four years later?



If he was anti-war he should've been allowed into the meeting-- given that STWC said it was for everyone- non-sectarian against forthcoming war in Afghanistan.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 1, 2005)

i remember when the swp were involved in intimidation of iranian refugees who were critical of the islamist regime, utterly disgusting


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Nah, maybe you think so being fluffy and so on. I wouldn't let someone in who was distributing literature which was anti the majority of the audience. I have no problem stopping him coming in. 


BTW, I don't even know if I'd agree with him. I do think it's a mountain out of a molehill situation though.

Again.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> i remember when the swp were involved in intimidation of iranian refugees who were critical of the islamist regime, utterly disgusting



Details or apology or bin/ban!


----------



## sihhi (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Nah, maybe you think so being fluffy and so on. I wouldn't let someone in who was distributing literature which was *anti the majority of the audience.*



But the meeting was about war against Afghanistan. 
He *was * the surely the majority of the audience- anti-war against Afghanistan.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

No, he was one person.

If you're going to try and make it so single issue, his leaflets shouldn't be allowed. I don't take that position. I take the position that he was being oppositional, and the meeting would be more productive without him. Fortunately, he wasn't allowed in.

I also don't see it's a big enough deal to talk about once, let alone twice and 4 years later - but I guess there must be nothing recent to beat the SWP with. This is scraping the barrel though.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> No, he was one person.
> 
> If you're going to try and make it so single issue, his leaflets shouldn't be allowed. I don't take that position. I take the position that he was being oppositional, and the meeting would be more productive without him. Fortunately, he wasn't allowed in.
> 
> I also don't see it's a big enough deal to talk about once, let alone twice and 4 years later - but I guess there must be nothing recent to beat the SWP with. This is scraping the barrel though.



Sorry I wasn't here/didn't know about this at the time- besides I'm not attacking just the SWP rather the whole STWC branch there and its response (going on what was written in the links).


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Nah, maybe you think so being fluffy and so on. I wouldn't let someone in who was distributing literature which was anti the majority of the audience. I have no problem stopping him coming in.
> 
> 
> BTW, I don't even know if I'd agree with him. I do think it's a mountain out of a molehill situation though.
> ...



So would you send him to the gulag or just rough him up?
By your logic swp paper sales could be banned by the government.
You condenm yourself , you show that your previous posts where no more than wriggling on the hook.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Details or apology or bin/ban!


for someone who's left the swp, you show an unholy attachment to them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Something you clearly should have thought about before doing so in an article and handing it out at Marxism.
> 
> Glad you've seen the light though!


don't use your cuntwitted teachery put-downs here - they just make you look a sad caricature of a human being.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> for someone who's left the swp, you show an unholy attachment to them.



Well that's better than a holy one, I would've thought.

Please don't regurgitate _this_ wank in a leaflet.

You show an unhealthy obsession with them.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> don't use your cuntwitted teachery put-downs here - they just make you look a sad caricature of a human being.



It was your put-down, you idiot. I was agreeing with you.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Details or apology or bin/ban!



details above, the leaflet he handed out was against the war in afghanistan, and critical of the regime in iran, and islamist regimes in general - and at the time the swp didnt agree with criticising islamist regimes - this was about the time i had a massive row with that bambery cunt over the same issue iirc


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

Sorry, you wrote 'Iranian refugees'.

In fact you meant this one bloke in the incident we're already discussing.


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 1, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> So would you send him to the gulag or just rough him up?
> By your logic swp paper sales could be banned by the government.
> You condenm yourself , you show that your previous posts where no more than wriggling on the hook.



OI flimsier, the first two lines are questions to you, that remane unanswered.Stop side tracking, now please be a good comrade, comrade.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Sorry, you wrote 'Iranian refugees'.
> 
> In fact you meant this one bloke in the incident we're already discussing.



no the same thing happened at meetings in manchester and possibly london i cant remember - according to some WCPI blokes i knew

i was in the swp then i think - you werent as far as i know...


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> OI flimsier, the first two lines are questions to you, that remane unanswered.Stop side tracking, now please be a good comrade, comrade.



No, to answer your questions.

(1) neither, I just wouldn't let him in the meeting knowing his intention was to distribute those leaflets. It's a STWC meeting. Not the outside world.

(2) I don't equate one organisation's meeting with the wider world. It shows more about you that you do.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> no the same thing happened at meetings in manchester and possibly london i cant remember - according to some WCPI blokes i knew
> 
> i was in the swp then i think - you werent as far as i know...



No, I wasn't if it was 4 years ago. However, why has this not been publicised? Unless it's because refusing someone entry to a meeting isn't actually a big deal.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 1, 2005)

I've got to go and play football. More later, maybe monday if I'm honest, if you want to keep it going. I can't see the issue here though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> It was your put-down, you idiot. I was agreeing with you.


you're doing it again!

i don't know why people bother with you - you're so dishonest and full of shit.

i'm just amazed that the ruc ever let go; you seem just the sort of lickspittle galloway _et al_ love to surround themselves with.


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 1, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I've got to go and play football. More later, maybe monday if I'm honest, if you want to keep it going. I can't see the issue here though.



Far play to flimister , had least hes had the balls to come out and fight his corner,(he's had his arse kicked in my book- or more to the point the swp have had there arse kicked).
Where are you SWP/RUC hacks, no dought your be making hypocritical political hay over events at the LP converence!
LETS BE HAVING YOU!!


----------



## mutley (Oct 1, 2005)

Well in my case i've been out and about doing stuff, it is saturday after all.

But i think Flimsiers basically put the points well. The testimony from the Iranian, and the ww article are so short of facts and full of loaded language that they're useless. I mean 'i felt that they were organising to beat me up'. This was 'felt' - wouldn't get you far in court would it. 'I arrested the a man because i felt that he was about to commit a crime.' Not too impressive is it.

And the 'muslim fundamentalist vigilantes' that are mentioned. What a bloody ridiculous description. I imagine, knowing the iranian 'comrades' track record that they were just some muslims who were so annoyed at his leaflets that they decided to have a word. This 'comrade' at a meeting around that time argued that anyone who chanted 'allah u akbar' on a march was a fundamentalist and should be kicked off the march. Frankly the guy's a nutter, and no less so cos he happens to be iranian.

As for the 'segregation' some muslim women sat in a seperate area, one steward was slightly too keen on directing women there, and one British asian women was similarly slightly too keen on getting into an argument about the issue. The swp organiser supported her, probably reluctantly because she was clearly looking for a row on the issue.

Like was said, storm in a teacup.

Now if the 'comrade' had been an elected delegate to a stw conference, rather than a hostile leafleter then some comparison would be valid, but he wasn't and it's not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> Well in my case i've been out and about doing stuff, it is saturday after all.
> 
> But i think Flimsiers basically put the points well. The testimony from the Iranian, and the ww article are so short of facts and full of loaded language that they're useless. I mean 'i felt that they were organising to beat me up'. This was 'felt' - wouldn't get you far in court would it. 'I arrested the a man because i felt that he was about to commit a crime.' Not too impressive is it.
> 
> ...


so - in summary:

* no condemnation of segregated meetings;

* no recognition that people who go "allahu akbar" on a demonstration in this country are _almost certainly_ islamists;

* and no recognition that the sort of moslems with whom the swp are pleased to associate are not the revolutionary vanguard but among the enemies of the politics the swp have previously espoused;

* and a new bizarre position that asylum seekers are positively welcomed by the swp as they're the right sort of refugee. and progressive exiles who oppose islamic nuttiness because of their own experience seem to be the wrong sort for you.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so - in summary:


Anyone would think you're on their pay roll judging by the amount of publicity you constantly and endlessly generate for them here!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Anyone would think you're on their pay roll judging by the amount of publicity you constantly and endlessly generate for them here!


could you please keep your comments germane.

if you wish to dicuss the topic to which you allude, why don't you go and start a thread about it?

thank you in advance.


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 1, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Like was said, storm in a teacup.



Thats strange i can't find any SWPers/RUCers on the  82 year physically removed from Labour Conference thread saying it was no more than a  'storm in tea cup' at the LP conference, and i can't see any posts there from you mutley!

I can't understand why you lot (swp etc) , can't say it was a bad thing and it shouldn't of happened. Papal infalability or something?(back to GG's Religion?).

Lets face it ,your a bunch of authoritarian bastards. the only difference on this one, is that the LP has power and most of you only have geek glasses.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> could you please keep your comments germane.
> 
> if you wish to dicuss the topic to which you allude, why don't you go and start a thread about it?


Actually, I'm perfectly entitled to question your motives for _endlessly and obsessively _posting up threads on the same minority groups.

It's my fucking site, after all.


----------



## mutley (Oct 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so - in summary:
> 
> * no condemnation of segregated meetings;
> 
> ...



Depends what you mean by 'welcomed'. All asylum seekers are welcome to come here and stay whatever thir politics, even the odd few that are nut-case sectarians politically. But I wouldn't necessarily say that every nut-case sectarian, whatever their personal status, is someone that i would welcome as part of a united front.
And being iranian , or having suffered at the hands of the iranian regime, doesn't make someone politically infallible.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Oct 2, 2005)

Is there not a fundamental (!) contradiction here?

You welcome asylum seekers fleeing oppressive Islamic societies (of which there are too many to list here) but work, unquestioningly with British Muslims who either support those regimes or would like to/are trying to establish something similar in Muslim communities in the UK?


----------



## mutley (Oct 2, 2005)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> Is there not a fundamental (!) contradiction here?
> 
> You welcome asylum seekers fleeing oppressive Islamic societies (of which there are too many to list here) but work, unquestioningly with British Muslims who either support those regimes or would like to/are trying to establish something similar in Muslim communities in the UK?



Well there's a number of points here. 

First, whether we work with anyone 'unquestioningly'. I would argue that we don't. There's a debate and a tension that goes on. However i accept that u may not believe me.

Second, I don't know anyone in Respect who wants to impose sharia law. For example, the position on the Hijab is free to wear it, free not to wear it. That's not the position in any of the countries that you are referring to (although not listing them because there are 'too many' does leave u open to go pretty much anywhere in this argument). Most Respect members that i know actually believe in some form of representative democracy, but with different people elected. So u could have a go at us for working with reformists but that's another argument. 

Thirdly, even if someone did believe that some reactionary form of govt abroad was the answer, would that preclude working with them? I remember in the '80's there were thousands of activists in unions, in organisations like anti-apartheid and so on who thought that (for example) the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary were a good thing, as was the coup against Solidarity in Poland in 1981. Was it wrong to work with them?


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 3, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> I assume you're referring to a STW rally (not SA) where the iranian was asked not to distribute his leaflets inside the room because they were considered to be offensive.



For the record, the Iranian guy was thrown out for arguing against gender-segregated seating at secular anti-war meetings. And the SWP defended his exclusion.


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 3, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> So storm in a teacup then.



Quite so. Why should anyone complain about being falsely accused of intimidating women? All part of the cut and thrust of political life, isn't it?


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> * and a new bizarre position that asylum seekers are positively welcomed by the swp as they're the right sort of refugee. and progressive exiles who oppose islamic nuttiness because of their own experience seem to be the wrong sort for you.



Pre-fucking-cisely.


----------



## mutley (Oct 3, 2005)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> Pre-fucking-cisely.



I answered that in post 76


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 3, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> But I wouldn't necessarily say that every nut-case sectarian, whatever their personal status, is someone that i would welcome as part of a united front.



Not _every _ nut-case sectarian? Just Wiggy Naseem, then?


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 3, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> I answered that in post 76



You answered my agreement with Pickman's before I even posted it?  

Mahshallah!


----------



## mutley (Oct 3, 2005)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> For the record, the Iranian guy was thrown out for arguing against gender-segregated seating at secular anti-war meetings. And the SWP defended his exclusion.



If that was true and the whole of the matter then how come noone else was asked to leave.

We know that Steve Godward the firefighter was present, and the unnamed British asian women who had an argument about this.

So either (a) Steve G and others didn't argue about the seating or (b) the iranian comrades conduct and/or leaflet singled him out and he was asked to leave.

I've got shitloads to do so i'll look back later but i will do so. Nice to hear from u again pigeon.


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 3, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> If that was true and the whole of the matter then how come noone else was asked to leave.
> 
> We know that Steve Godward the firefighter was present, and the unnamed British asian women who had an argument about this.
> 
> So either (a) Steve G and others didn't argue about the seating or (b) the iranian comrades conduct and/or leaflet singled him out and he was asked to leave.



Yeah, fair point. The "nutter" must have been up to his usual intimidation tactics, eh? Bloody foreigners!  




			
				mutley said:
			
		

> Nice to hear from u again pigeon.



Enchante.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> Depends what you mean by 'welcomed'. All asylum seekers are welcome to come here and stay whatever thir politics, even the odd few that are nut-case sectarians politically. But I wouldn't necessarily say that every nut-case sectarian, whatever their personal status, is someone that i would welcome as part of a united front.
> And being iranian , or having suffered at the hands of the iranian regime, doesn't make someone politically infallible.


i'd like an apology for your fabrication of quotes attributed to me.


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm perfectly entitled to question your motives for _endlessly and obsessively _posting up threads on the same minority groups.
> 
> It's my fucking site, after all.



Why? you going to take your ball home? I bet you where popular as a child.

Give em a little power, and they think they can invade poland!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm perfectly entitled to question your motives for _endlessly and obsessively _posting up threads on the same minority groups.
> 
> It's my fucking site, after all.


but...

but...

but you're _not_ questioning my motives! you're suggesting i try to make money out of this site, which is against the laws of god, man and moderator.

and as for minority groups, i'd be very hard-pressed to come up with a single majority group. can you name one?





job said:


> withdraw thine hand from me: and let not thy dread make me afraid.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you're suggesting i try to make money out of this site, which is against the laws of god, man and moderator.


Err, where have I suggested that, then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Err, where have I suggested that, then?


the "you should be on their pay roll" bit gives it away.

but let's not lose sight of the more substantial issue which is that you're not questioning my motives.


----------



## Herbert Read (Oct 3, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> They'll be selling papers as well.



swp security team


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> Why? you going to take your ball home? I bet you where popular as a child.


Was I talking to you? No.

So shut the fuck up with your clueless 'observations' about my childhood.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the "you should be on their pay roll" bit gives it away.
> 
> but let's not lose sight of the more substantial issues which are that a) you're not questioning my motives; and b) can you name a majority group?


That was a joke, FFS. 
 
So why are you so *utterly obsessed* with the SWP/RUC and why do you endlesly use these boards to publicise them with thread after thread after thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> That was a joke, FFS.
> 
> So why are you so *utterly obsessed* with the SWP/RUC and why do you endlesly use these boards to publicise them with thread after thread after thread?


it didn't look like a joke to me...

as i've pointed out before, my posts and threads about the swp/ruc/swc/etc are but a small minority of my total threads and posts. you seem obsessed with trying to see an obsession which simply isn't there. why?


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> it didn't look like a joke to me...
> 
> as i've pointed out before, my posts and threads about the swp/ruc/swc/etc are but a small minority of my total threads and posts. you seem obsessed with trying to see an obsession which simply isn't there. why?


*No one* starts as many threads on swp/ruc/swc/etc as you. NO ONE.

And your dishonest posturing suggesting that I claimed you were trying to make money out of the site is disappointing at best.

(edit to add: posters are invited to search for threads started by Pickmans to see the level of  swp/ruc/swc obsession at work - there's loads of them!)


----------



## laptop (Oct 3, 2005)

Can I add that some of these threads have been _extremely useful_ in conducting practical (albeit reformist, trade union) politics? 

Maybe as few as one post in a hundred - but those wouldn't have happened without the rest. Personally, that's well worth the price of the bickering. And the meta-bickering.

* Goes back to last-in-bin race, hoping that this doesn't count *


----------



## Herbert Read (Oct 3, 2005)

Seems as if the editor is more obsessed with pickmans than he is with his hatred of the SWP/RUC.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 3, 2005)

Mutley your logic (strangely for an SWPer), seems totally opportunistic.

One hand you say that:

“I don't condemn meetings having a section that only women may go into if they wish. When i was at uni years ago we had a womens room as a result of feminists organising. Were we a segregated students union?”

On the other hand the SWP bans oppressed groups from organising caucuses within the SWP and fights against it in trade unions. So you can’t have it both ways.



> As for the 'segregation' some muslim women sat in a seperate area, one steward was slightly too keen on directing women there, and one British asian women was similarly slightly too keen on getting into an argument about the issue. The swp organiser supported her, probably reluctantly because she was clearly looking for a row on the issue.



Showed this quote to an ex-partner (who is from a Sikh background) to see, out of interest, what she thought. She agreed with me that it is a disgrace for a socialist to come out with this.

Men in a meeting are pressurising Asian women into segregated areas (and apparently giving them abuse for objecting) and you say it’s no big deal and imply she is the one being unreasonable. For fucks sake.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 3, 2005)

To be honest mutley the more I think about it, the more I can't believe what you're coming out with.

While I fully understand that women from religious backgrounds might feel uncomfortable sitting with men and you have to be sensitive about that, there is a huge problem with allowing segregated meetings (which is an entirely different thing to the issue of caucuses, which I support and the SWP doesn't). That is that women from religious communities will feel pressured into sitting in the segregated areas, whether they want to or not. This meeting is a clear example of that, and when a woman objected she was given abuse.

And then you have a go at her for objecting, implying she should have made such a big deal out of it.

 

PS Do you not see it as much of a problem, considering the problems of women's oppression in society (and especially in relgious communities), that men were "directing" women to a segregated area?


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Seems as if the editor is more obsessed with pickmans than he is with his hatred of the SWP/RUC.


Congratulations. A 100% supposition-packed, fact-free post. Well done!

But, for your information, these boards weren't set up for the promotion or the endless discussion of the SWP/RUC, and the day they dip into their comparatively stinking rich pockets and set up their own boards would be a fabulous day for me.


----------



## Herbert Read (Oct 3, 2005)

I didnt realise these boards were personally set up for you


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> i didnt realise these boards were personally set up for you


So do you think I built them to suit someone else's specifications in the first place then?

Who?


----------



## laptop (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> the day they dip into their comparatively stinking rich pockets and set up their own boards would be a fabulous day for me.



For the record, their members have opposed the setting up of discussion boards _within the union you belong to_ - because, it seems to me, that would allow members to communicate directly, bypassing said "representatives". 

There is a need, somewhere, for discussion _about_ them, in order help to get practcal politics done despite such obsctruction.

I beg your indulgence of what is after all a rather small corner of these boards... certainly consuming less bandwidth than kittens...


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> I beg your indulgence of what is after all a rather small corner of these boards... certainly consuming less bandwidth than kittens...


Kitten threads are banned.


----------



## laptop (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Kitten threads are banned.



I know 

* Doesn't post kitten *


----------



## Herbert Read (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So do you think I built them to suit someone else's specifications in the first place then?
> 
> Who?



You should ban us all and play in the sand on your own then


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> You should ban us all and play in the sand on your own then


No one's _making _you post here, you know.


----------



## james_walsh (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Was I talking to you? No.
> 
> So shut the fuck up with your clueless 'observations' about my childhood.



I don't give a fuck who you where talking too, hippy! You mouthed off in public , learn to be able to take it, if you want to give it out.

hit a raw nearve did I? truth hurts!


----------



## rednblack (Oct 3, 2005)

*sniggers*


----------



## Herbert Read (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> No one's _making _you post here, you know.



I like posting here and enjoy threads on all topics not just the ones you think are appropriate.

Urban is good because other people post, its a bit bigger than just you, its an online community.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> I don't give a fuck who you where talking too, hippy! You mouthed off in public , learn to be able to take it, if you want to give it out.
> 
> hit a raw nearve did I? truth hurts!


"Hippy" my fucking arse.

Goodbye, dickwad.


----------



## Gumbert (Oct 3, 2005)

oops, he was a mouthy one that one though....

seems the heckler got kicked out...


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I like posting here and enjoy threads on all topics not just the ones you think are appropriate.


So you think I should have _no say whatsoever _in what goes on here?

And if, for example, a handful of BNP posters wanted to use these boards to promote their own ends, should I just let them get on with it because "its a bit bigger than just me"?

I've never banned anyone for just droning on about the fucking SWP, but I sure as hell am entitled to _comment_ on how tedious I find the subject if I feel so compelled and also express concern if I felt too many threads were appearing and the boards were being used as a publicity tool.

If I felt that a political group was trying to exploit these boards to their own ends,_ I have every right_ to tell them to bog off and start their own fucking boards. I don't owe them anything.


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 3, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> And the 'muslim fundamentalist vigilantes' that are mentioned. What a bloody ridiculous description. I imagine, knowing the iranian 'comrades' track record that they were just some muslims who were so annoyed at his leaflets that they decided to have a word. This 'comrade' at a meeting around that time argued that anyone who chanted 'allah u akbar' on a march was a fundamentalist and should be kicked off the march. Frankly the guy's a nutter, and no less so cos he happens to be iranian.



Been stewing on this cos it's totally fucking out of order.

I know the guy in question and, since he's actually named on this thread, I want to make it plain that, far from being a swivel-eyed misogynistic "nutter", he's actually a charming, rational, individual, a gentleman in fact, who will engage with people's politics rather than dealing in poisonous personal smears. As for "sectarian", he's not a member of any group so far as I'm aware and will happily work with anarchists, trots and other non-aligned lefties. He's also engaged in asylum defence work for members of ALL refugee communities, not just Iranians. Sectarian my arse, frankly. 

And I've no idea if he ever argued for islamists to be kicked off the march, but in terms of analysis it seems logical enough that anyone unable to disengage the political from the religious IS a fundamentalist.

The fact that the SWP seems unable to understand the term doesn't make it any less so.


----------



## Herbert Read (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So you think I should have _no say whatsoever _in what goes on here?
> 
> So if, for example, a handful of BNP posters wanted to use these boards to promote their own ends, should I just let them get on with it because "its a bit bigger than just me"?
> 
> ...



What i think does not matter as he have pointed out. Its your site and you have the power to ban and remove people.

Im glad you have not banned pickmans for his perverse hatred of all things trot.

Im glad we live under a benovalant tyrant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> *No one* starts as many threads on swp/ruc/swc/etc as you. NO ONE.
> 
> And your dishonest posturing suggesting that I claimed you were trying to make money out of the site is disappointing at best.
> 
> (edit to add: posters are invited to search for threads started by Pickmans to see the level of  swp/ruc/swc obsession at work - there's loads of them!)


firstly, i hope anyone following editor's advice bears in mind i have started about 900 extant threads, and so the portion dealing with the groups he identifies are but a small proportion of the total.

secondly, i'm still waiting for editor to "question my motives", which - despite his assertion to the contrary he has not done.

third, say what you will, i never said you said i was trying to make money out of the site, i said that you were saying i should.

please in future don't misrepresent my position.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Congratulations. A 100% supposition-packed, fact-free post. Well done!
> 
> But, for your information, these boards weren't set up for the promotion or the endless discussion of the SWP/RUC, and the day they dip into their comparatively stinking rich pockets and set up their own boards would be a fabulous day for me.



It is also worth mentioning that Class War and the Anarchist Federation both have their own boards set up as part of www.libcom.org, so it isn't difficult in any way for the Swappies to set up one of their own.

Even the bloody BNP, verminous scum that they are, have their own forum FFS!

The real reason for the SWP not having its own boards is that ordinary rank and file members might be exposed to ideas that don't fit within the very narrow party line, and might actually cause those rank and file members to, shock horror, actually question the line handed down by the SWP Central Committee.

Internal debate within the SWP, of the open and honest variety, would be greatly enhanced by their having their own boards. And that is precisely why the SWP leadership won't allow it.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> third, say what you will, i never said you said i was trying to make money out of the site, i said that you were saying i should.


Get a sense of humour for fuck's sake.

And seeing as I don't live in your world of _enhanced leisure time_, I haven't the slightest interest in wasting my precious time pursuing whatever indescribably wearisome pedantic points you're currently trying to prove.


----------



## mutley (Oct 3, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> To be honest mutley the more I think about it, the more I can't believe what you're coming out with.
> 
> While I fully understand that women from religious backgrounds might feel uncomfortable sitting with men and you have to be sensitive about that, there is a huge problem with allowing segregated meetings (which is an entirely different thing to the issue of caucuses, which I support and the SWP doesn't). That is that women from religious communities will feel pressured into sitting in the segregated areas, whether they want to or not. This meeting is a clear example of that, and when a woman objected she was given abuse.
> 
> ...



You identify a problem 'some women from religious backgrounds might feel uncomfortable siting with men' but you think that it's a BIGGER problem if socialists therefore cooperate with having segregated areas in response.

I think that you're going to have to justify the fact that you think the second is a bigger problem than the first.

I've seen meetings in mainly muslim areas of Brum where the segregated area has basically been established by sections of women themselves, when i know that therewas no discussion or intention to have one. What do you do then?

If you just say a blanket ban on any cooperation with segregated areas in meetings then i think that in practice your saying we'll only cooperate with muslims who we think match up to our rules. Now you can do that if u like but i don't think that it's the answer.

I would agree that in practive it can be difficult if u do go along with it. And guarding against over-zealous stewarding is tricky. But i think the benefits that have come doing work that has penetrated deep into the communities in question far outweigh the possible dangers.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Nah, maybe you think so being fluffy and so on. I wouldn't let someone in who was distributing literature which was anti the majority of the audience. I have no problem stopping him coming in.
> .


Why do you think it was against the views of the majority of the audience?  Are you suggesting that the majority of ppl at an stw meeting would be fundamentaists?


----------



## flimsier (Oct 3, 2005)

My understanding was that it was oppositional to the SWP and the role they play in the STWC. 

I'd be happy to retract if you knwo different.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> The testimony from the Iranian, and the ww article are so short of facts and full of loaded language that they're useless.






			
				mutley said:
			
		

> Frankly the guy's a nutter, and no less so cos he happens to be iranian.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> My understanding was that it was oppositional to the SWP and the role they play in the STWC.
> 
> I'd be happy to retract if you knwo different.


Well, if official stwc stewards are being used to stop ppl critical of the swp getting into stwc meetings, that says quite a lot about the relationship between the 2 organisations.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 3, 2005)

Mutley, this is a sensitive issue, and somethings that socialists should try and engage with rather than dismiss. However there are ways and ways of going about things.

If women segregate themselves through some informal basis, fair enough, but that is very different from the situation that has been described. It is also very opportunistic of the SWP to say they have no problem with this when they pro-actively fight against caucusing in the trade union movement and ban caucusing in their own organisation. Which as said, is a progressive thing, wheras segregated meetings clearly aren't. As said above this puts pressure on women from religious communities to conform to the reactionary sexist influence of relgion. The meeting is a classic example of this, where a woman was abused for objecting to what was going on.

I think it's an absolute disgrace that in a STW meeting male stewards were directing women to sit in segregated areas, and to be honest I think it's disgusting that you think that this isn't much of a problem. And even more so when you imply that an Asian woman who complains about the situation is making too much of a big deal. Was she too much of a nag mutley?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I think it's an absolute disgrace that in a STW meeting male stewards were directing women to sit in segregated areas, and to be honest I think it's disgusting that you think that this isn't much of a problem. And even more so when you imply that an Asian woman who complains about the situation is making too much of a big deal. Was she too much of a nag mutley?



Another shiboleth to add to the growing collection


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Get a sense of humour for fuck's sake.
> 
> <snip>


i have got a sense of humour.

you're not funny though.


----------



## mutley (Oct 3, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Mutley, this is a sensitive issue, and somethings that socialists should try and engage with rather than dismiss. However there are ways and ways of going about things.
> 
> If women segregate themselves through some informal basis, fair enough, but that is very different from the situation that has been described. It is also very opportunistic of the SWP to say they have no problem with this when they pro-actively fight against caucusing in the trade union movement and ban caucusing in their own organisation. Which as said, is a progressive thing, wheras segregated meetings clearly aren't. As said above this puts pressure on women from religious communities to conform to the reactionary sexist influence of relgion. The meeting is a classic example of this, where a woman was abused for objecting to what was going on.
> 
> I think it's an absolute disgrace that in a STW meeting male stewards were directing women to sit in segregated areas, and to be honest I think it's disgusting that you think that this isn't much of a problem. And even more so when you imply that an Asian woman who complains about the situation is making too much of a big deal. Was she too much of a nag mutley?



1) So segregation on an informal basis is fair enough, but agreeing that there will be a segregated area in advance isn't, while seperate caucusing is positively progressive and to be encouraged?

2) I would absolutely agree that male stewards 'directing' women to the area would not be acceptable. That does not necessarily mean that having an area in itself is not acceptable. How exactly the steward concerned approached the matter i don't know.

3) As i understand it the women concerned didn't complain about the general situation, but felt that the steward concerned was too insistent. I also know this women, and i think that she would have objected strongly to the whole idea of a segregated area on principle, and is someone highly likely to get into such an argument. However i shouldn't have let that colour my comments and make it seem that there isn't a danger of over zealous stewarding.

However, i still argue that the simple principle 'segrated meetings no way.. unless it just happens by accident'  is not adequate to the situation, and in practice leads to an (almost)  total non-engagement between the left and the muslim community.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> However, i still argue that the simple principle 'segrated meetings no way.. unless it just happens by accident'  is not adequate to the situation, and in practice leads to an (almost)  total non-engagement between the left and the muslim community.


Or to put it another way, in order to 'engage with' muslims you are happy to keep quiet about gay rights, accept segregated meetings, expel anyone critical of muslim regimes ... yes?

The word opportunism doesn't even scratch the surface.


----------



## mutley (Oct 3, 2005)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Or to put it another way, in order to 'engage with' muslims you are happy to *keep quiet about gay rights*, accept segregated meetings, *expel anyone critical of muslim regimes * ... yes?
> 
> The word opportunism doesn't even scratch the surface.



That's not putting it another way, it's chucking in two totally different points and hoping you get away with it.

There are many people who are critical of muslim regimes who manage to avoid getting thrown out of meetings. And dealing with gay rights is a another question. So start a thread on it or fuck off.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 3, 2005)

1) Can you really not see the difference between women sitting separately on an informal basis and men segregating a meeting and directing women as to where they can sit?

As for caucuses there is a clear difference. Caucuses are for oppressed groups to organise against oppression and then feed that back into the wider organisation. Are you really going to say that is the same as a religious backed demand for segregated meetings? I just find it odd that your organisation bans caucusing in the SWP and fights against it in the workers movement, yet you don't think it's a problem with men segregating STW meetings. Utter opportunism.

2) You didn't seem to have much of a problem with men directing women above. Indeed you called it “a storm in a tea cup”. This is a disgraceful attitude for someone who calls themselves a socialist.

3) Again you try and make out that the Asian woman in question was unreasonable and place the blame on her. Again this is totally out of order (as it goes on both this question and the one above I’ve asked a couple of Asian women I know what they thought and they find your attitude unbelievable). 

Whatever this woman’s views she is absolutely right to complain that is totally unacceptable for men in a STW meeting to be “directing” Asian women into a segregated arrear. And your response reads like she’s some kind of sectarian nag. I seriously can’t believe that the SWP are fine with STW meetings where male stewards are directing women into a segregated area. Mind you the Weekly Worker claims John Rees is saying that RESPECT should back the new blasphemy laws. Is this true? What’s happening to the SWP?


----------



## rednblack (Oct 4, 2005)

a whole load of posts by cr that i agree with


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> a whole load of posts by cr that i agree with


it's like that bit about a monkey, a typewriter and eternity, rnb - doesn't mean it'll continue!


----------



## Wilf (Oct 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> eternity, rnb - doesn't mean it'll continue!


----------



## Wilf (Oct 4, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> That's not putting it another way, it's chucking in two totally different points and hoping you get away with it.


No its called making a case - something your cretinous and unprincipled contributions to this thread show you are unable to do.



> There are many people who are critical of muslim regimes who manage to avoid getting thrown out of meetings


Thats very decent of them



> And dealing with gay rights is a another question. So start a thread on it or fuck off.


Mutley, you are a fool


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 4, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> However, i still argue that the simple principle 'segrated meetings no way.. unless it just happens by accident'  is not adequate to the situation, and in practice leads to an (almost)  total non-engagement between the left and the muslim community.



This is _utter_ bullshit.

Is there gender segregation in the workplace? On public transport? In Sainsbury's? Nope- yet somehow "the muslim community" manages to cope, no? 

This is _precisely_ the point that was contentious in the firstplace: the values of the mosque should remain in the mosque, and have no place within a secular, political forum. It's _exactly _ the point that the Islamists contest, with, it appears, the SWP's endorsement.


----------



## mutley (Oct 4, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> 1) Can you really not see the difference between women sitting separately on an informal basis and men segregating a meeting and directing women as to where they can sit?
> ?



So is it the fact that men are directing women where to sit that's the crucial problem? 

Let me give u 2 scenarios.

1) You organise an anti-war meeting, a group of Asian women come, they take up the back 2 rows, and ask a couple of men there to leave. I assume from what you've said that u wouldn't have a problem. (this scenario is a very common one)

2) You work with the women over a period of time, and before the next meeting they phone you and ask if there can definitely be a seperate bit at the back, cos they found it a bit embarassing to have to ask for it on the day. So they say, could you make sure its arranged? Oh and some men are a bit funny about women telling them where to sit so could a couple of men help with the stewarding cos they're already getting some flack from the community for going to meetings with weirdos and socialists and they don't want to attract more. (arguments of this nature do come up - to deny it just shows you've got no experience of the community concerned)

What would u do?

I would be willing to look at the notion that the 'men telling women' point is the trickiest bit, but that's a long way from the 'no to segregated meetings ever' position.

As regards to the actual women who complained, who I know, yes the label 'sectarian' is one that i would use. That's just my judgement based on observing the individual concerned over a decade or so. I would not use the term 'nag' cos its sexist. And can we concentrate on the issue, i accept that i need to put my judgement of the individual to one side, although it did colour my original comments.


----------



## mutley (Oct 4, 2005)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> This is _utter_ bullshit.
> 
> Is there gender segregation in the workplace? On public transport? In Sainsbury's? Nope- yet somehow "the muslim community" manages to cope, no?
> 
> ...



Well i don't accept that the values concerned are those of the mosque, they are those of the community i'm afraid. And when u rigidly exclude the values of the community, in practice you exclude the community.

Right i'm off out again..


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 4, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> Well i don't accept that the values concerned are those of the mosque, they are those of the community i'm afraid. And when u rigidly exclude the values of the community, in practice you exclude the community.
> 
> Right i'm off out again..



So no Muslim women in Birmingham work in mixed offices? There's a special "women only" seating area on the buses serving Small Heath? I've never noticed.

Nor have I noticed any grocers' shops - even Halal butchers- providing women only opening hours or checkout tills. Do you not think it's an affront that "the community" is excluded in this way?

TBH, your post exactly exemplifies the orientalism of the SWP's worldview- you have _no concept_ that the people you're talking about are workers, commuters, shoppers, whatever- they're "Muslims" and, as such, some sort of exotic species to be nurtured, patronised and "defended", at the expense of any and every imaginable principle, in a bid for short-term political gain..


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 4, 2005)

> So is it the fact that men are directing women where to sit that's the crucial problem?



Of course that’s a crucial problem. It’s staggering that you have to ask! The fact is that you keep talking about how women will feel from oppressed communities but only look at one side of the coin. I have agreed that you have to be sensitive, but you have to also take into account that pressure is put on women who want to break from the restraints of religious/community oppression. Segregated meetings will put further pressure on women to conform, yet you seem to totally ignore this.

But when it gets to men telling women where to sit, it’s a fucking disgrace, and for you, as a socialist, to say this is a “storm in a tea cup” is unbelievable. You talk about experience of religious communities, so presumably you’ll realise that if a woman went against the directives of the male stewards they may well face oppression when they get home from the meeting. Indeed a woman I know used to face abuse if her dad saw her sitting next to bloke at school. Maybe the answer would have been to have segregation in the classroom?


1)	I wouldn’t have a problem with this, but I'm not sure what you'd do if men refused to move.

2)	Again I think I’d agree to this, but would have big reservations.

But this ignores the point that men directing women where to sit, and abusing an Asian woman who objects to this is entirely different. And for the SWP to claim it’s no big deal (while simultaneously banning and fighting against caucuses), is, as with your comments, a disgrace.

But even in the scenarios you describe you have to recognise the dangers. Many religious women oppress and abuse other women who want to escape the restraints of religion. I have direct experience of this with a couple of ex-partners who were from Asian families (Sikh and Muslim). A massive amount of pressure is put on women, from both religious men and women, to conform, and the thing with segregated meetings is that it enforces this. You seem to be the one who has got “no experience of the community concerned”, so I don’t need you to point these things out for me given my experiences with ex-partners, family and friends who are from “religious communities”.

Whether the woman concerned or not is a “sectarian” is neither here nor there. And why you seem determined to make her out to be some kind of nutty nag I don’t know. She has every right to object to men telling women where to sit, and any socialist should support her on this point.


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 4, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Whether the woman concerned or not is a “sectarian” is neither here nor there. And why you seem determined to make her out to be some kind of nutty nag I don’t know. She has every right to object to men telling women where to sit, and any socialist should support her on this point.



Quite so. And how fascinating that mutley and the rest of the SWP crew should be so intent on depicting principled socialists as deranged "sectarians", while standing in electoral alliances with peddlers of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories who don't have the strength of character to face the reality of male pattern baldness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2005)

mutley said:
			
		

> Right i'm off out again..


good.


----------



## mutley (Oct 4, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Of course that’s a crucial problem. It’s staggering that you have to ask!
> 
> *I was asking if that's the precise point that you objected to. A simple yes would do.*
> 
> ...



It's you that introduced the word 'nag'. My word was 'sectarian'. And making a shiboleth out of unsegregated meetings is exactly that.

The bottom line for me is if i have to choose between a movement that fetishises its secularism, and has no impact in the muslim community, and a movement which does sink real roots that lead to common action i know which way i'll go. If people ask for a segregated area there's no basis for refusing, as you've virtually had to concede anyway.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 4, 2005)

> I honestly haven't seen evidence of pressure on women to sit there. I agree it's a danger but not as much as you do. And i think the benefits of involving more women outweigh the dangers.



Are you saying that male stewards directing women towards a segregated area isn't putting pressure on them to do so. Again, are you serious?



> 'Directives' is a loaded term. A directive ie an instruction to sit somewhere would indeed be unnacceptable. What about simply telling people which bit was segregated? That's what ive seen happen



You said earlier that if people had a certain view it would show that they had little or no experience of religious communities. The above would suggest to me that you don't. The very act of male stewards standing there and "telling people which bit was segregated" immediately puts pressure on women to sit in those areas. That is what I have the problem with, and a big problem. This seems backed up by the fact that an Asian woman got abuse from the steward(s?) for objecting to what was going on. Even you have admitted that the steward was "over zealous", suggesting that you admit pressure was being applied.



> Have all the reservations you like mate, but i'm glad you see that you'd have to agree



I don't "have" to say that I agree, as you introduced a scenario which I hadn't objected to in the first place!



> Was she abused? The steward may have overstepped the mark and 'directed' but i don't think she was abused.



Well I wasn't at the meeting and am going by reports on this thread. Up until now no-one, including you, disputed this. But you at least admit the steward was directing people. Only sentences after saying "I honestly haven't seen evidence of pressure on women to sit there."



> Well i have a current asian women partner and have twice shared houses with asian women. She agrees with me. Not that that proves anything. So lets leave the 'who's got the most asian mates bit eh?



It wasn't me who started the whole thing about "you don't understand this community" was it, it was you.



> It's you that introduced the word 'nag'. My word was 'sectarian'. And making a shiboleth out of unsegregated meetings is exactly that.



One of your leaders uses the word shiboleth and this suddenly becomes the catch word for SWP members. I wonder why people use the term "robo trots". The fact is that the woman in the meeting, according to the accounts above, was objecting to men directing women where to sit. Now this seems perfectly reasonable.

Now the reason I brought up the term "nag" is because that is the underlying impression I get from your posts. Indeed even as you say you are wrong to lay into her character, you continue to do so! The fact is that she was absolutely right to do this.



> If people ask for a segregated area there's no basis for refusing, as you've virtually had to concede anyway.



This is classic SWPism. Set up an argument to demolish which no-one put forward in the first place.

I haven't had to "concede" anything, because that wasn't what I was saying.

My argument on this thread is that it is totally unacceptable for male stewards to be directing women where to sit. After shifting this way and that you appear to admit this happened, but you underlying message is still that it's no big deal.

I have consistently said you have to be sensitive to the issue, but you have brought up straw man arguments/scenarios that I never objected to in the first place.

Your whole tone in this debate has to underplay the unacceptable scenario of men directing women as to where they can sit in a STW meeting. You have also laid into an Asian woman who objected to this. You have also underplayed any dangers that this segregation can result in and have tried to blur the lines between totally different scenarios. A totally dishonest way of debating.

Lastly it always makes me laugh that SWPers talk about making links with the Asian community when it is absolutely clear that the SWP have recruited fuck all people from Asian communities in recent years. Indeed in London Workers Power probably has more Asian members than the SWP, and given the differential in sizes of the organisations, that says something!


----------



## mk12 (Oct 4, 2005)

> One of your leaders uses the word shiboleth and this suddenly becomes the catch word for SWP members



Marx used it too, so don't knock it!


----------



## cockneyrebel (Oct 4, 2005)

> Marx used it too, so don't knock it!



The point is that until LG used the word, I'd never heard any SWPers use it. Now it seems to be all the rage. It's a catch all phrase to put down anyone who says that the SWP is dropping basic socialist principles.


----------



## flimsier (Oct 4, 2005)

Yes, well if you'd read some Marx.   












































Errrm, me too


----------



## rednblack (Oct 5, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Indeed in London Workers Power probably has more Asian members than the SWP, and given the differential in sizes of the organisations, that says something!



LOL!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2005)

Get in there!


----------



## mutley (Oct 5, 2005)

Right me last bleedin' word on this cos lifes too short.

1) I stand by the contents of my last post replying to CR.

2) LG reminded a lot of people of a damn useful term: 'shiboleth'. Other people are then applying this to other situations. CR don't be so bloody liberal! When the Communist International used the term 'united front' in 1921(? or 2?) were members of communist parties that then used it over the next couple of years robots?

3) I've no idea if WP has more asian members in London than SWP, but i find it highly unlikely and it would be very hard to demonstrate. If an Asian Respect member joins swp but continues as a mainly respect activist, while working and liaising with the swp closer how are u gonna know?

4) If i say someone is a sectarian it's a political description, not a perjorative term or an evaluation of their character. The CP's in 1930 had sectarian politics, doesn't mean that all CP members were suddenly gits.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 5, 2005)

> Indeed in London Workers Power probably has more Asian members than the SWP,



 Must be something about these Asians and the need for a Fifth International, is it a cultural thing?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 5, 2005)

> Indeed in London Workers Power probably has more Asian members than the SWP



Workers Power obviously target people based on their ethnicity, rather than class.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Workers Power obviously target people based on their ethnicity, rather than class.


no, that's the swp.


----------



## Pigeon (Oct 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> no, that's the swp.



Don't be preposterous! The SWP welcomes Muslims from _all _ ethnic groups!


----------

