tatchell gives it to galloway straight!

[Udo Erasmus]

Which puts you in Tatchell's position of supporting the victory of the Occupation over the resistance. Which is a position, but not one I'd be prepared to take.

Elsewhere (in an article in Tribune) Tatchell concretely argued against pulling out the troops and described the Occupation as the "lesser evil". He might think that an independent, democratic unoccupied Iraq is a good thing - but the only solution he is prepared to support is that the US and UK themselves create this - in essence his position is little different from New Labour, he might rhetorically argue in favour of Iraqi self-determination but he argues that those who are occupuying Iraq are the viechle of this - in essence, an apology for imperialism

Tatchell argues that Iraqis liberating themselves would result in a horrible government and argues that a better alternative is that the US/UK stabilise the country and then leave.

As I said, this is akin to arguing on the basis that the North Vietnamese were stalinist totalitarians that we would have to support the US puppet regime in South Vietnam, who would be a "thousand times better" than a regime who would institute a one-party state and had carried out executions of independent socialists (trotskyists).

I want the occupation of South Vietnam to end - but only the occupuying power can create a progressive state??? This is the logic of Tatchell's position

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It is. It's also the AWL's position, for what that's worth.

 

[knopf]

independent socialists (trotskyists).

Interesting definition of trotskyist there, Udo.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

So do you deny that the Islamic Party is homophobic.

Certainly from looking at their website their is an article that contains a very conservative attitude on homsexuality that is frankly homophobic- though there is no evidence that Nasseem wrote it. And in saying "what people do in bed is their own affair" he seems to have disassociated himself from the article on a website of a (now pretty defunct) organisation that he was a prominent member of. He has also obviously moved away from the political Islam of the IPB by joining a coalition with atheist socialists.

But I'm not really prepared to be lectured by someone who sides with imperialism on human rights - I'm referring to Tatchell by the way.

 

[knopf]

But I'm not really prepared to be lectured by someone who sides with imperialism on human rights

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the positive aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under appeal to authority.

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_as_logical_fallacy

 

[Wilf]

I neither want to catch bubonic plague nor anthrax. By your logic however, anybody who is against bubonic plague is an out and out apologist for anthrax.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

At the same time I don't much like seeing Tatchell accused of Islamaphobia on grounds that, unless I am misinformed, are no more than "why do you never talk about"-type grounds. In the first place, Tatchell has fought against homophobia in al sorts of guises all his adult life. In the second, Tatchell may feel that homophobia goes more unchallenged in black and Muslim politics than in mainstream politics, if I may use that term. I don't really agree with him if he does say that, but it's a point fo view he's entitled to hold and given the pesonal bravery with which he acts I'm not going to lessen my respect for the man just because he effectively supports the occupation and I think him entirely wrong in so doing.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I neither want to catch bubonic plague nor anthrax. By your logic however, anybody who is against bubonic plague is an out and out apologist for anthrax.

It's a silly comparison. Tatchell is saying specifically that while technically being against bubonic plague, he wants the bubonic plague to remain for as long as it takes to ward off anthrax.

Incidentally, "a plague*on all your houses" is a conmfortable position and the normal anarchist stance, but it's also one that miraculousy exempts the hoder from having to make any of the difficult choices that other people have to take.


[*= I think this is quite witty]

 

[cockneyrebel]

As I said, this is akin to arguing on the basis that the North Vietnamese were stalinist totalitarians that we would have to support the US puppet regime in South Vietnam, who would be a "thousand times better" than a regime who would institute a one-party state and had carried out executions of independent socialists (trotskyists).

Udo could you remind me again of the position the SWP took on the Korean war?

Also as you bring up Zimbabwe the SWP is part of the MDC, an organisation dominated by the politics of the commercial white farmers. In the words of the ISO themselves, it is a party that has “adopted rightwing politics, supporting neo-liberal policies and the free market”. What a great stance by the SWP.

Lastly it does seem that rather than address the issue of Islamophobia the SWPers on here would rather throw up other issues. Indeed according to this report they did the very same thing at the RESPECT conference.

Got this from an egroup where an Outrage! member argued quite well against the smearing of Outrage! by German and the RESPECT coalition members at conference who spoke against the LGBT amendement.

The reason OutRage! did not address this silly ammendment is because
it is firstly, a non sequitur and a wrecking ammendment designed to
give Lindsey German something to bluster about in the hope that no
one would notice she'd failed to address the central issue: why
Respect left LGBT rights off their manifesto. It wasn't
an "ammendment" so much as a classic straw man.

Secondly, and most importantly, the so-called ammendment is a
complete and utter lie. OutRage! campaigned against homophobia in
the dancehall-reggae industry and for gay rights reforms in Jamaica
at the request of, and with the support and co-operation of JFLAG,
the leading Jamaican LGBT rights organisation and in partnership
with black LGBT groups in the UK, including the Black Gay Men's
Advisory Group, UK BlackOut and Black Lesbians & Gays Against Media
Homophobia (the latter have been campaigning with OUtRage! on this
issue since 1993!!).

Furthermore, this bollocks about OutRage! never confronting the
Church of England is farcical! In the last 5 years, we've picketed
them a dozen times, ambushed an Archbishop and invaded the General
Synod on live TV. In addition, we blocked the re-entry of the
Catholic Cardinal into the Cathedral after the Palm Sunday
procession last year, and picketed the wake for the late Pope this
year. We've debated with the Christian Institute, the Evangelical
Allaince and other assorted Christian groups on university campuses
and on TV and radio, and we had a go at the Royal Wedding, and even
organised a counter-protest when that idiot Fred Phellps was due in
London In all this time, how many Mosques or Muslim events did we
zap, disrupt, invade? Not one! How many Muslim public figures did we
ambush? None! We picketed Dr Qaradawi when he spoke at City Hall -
that was it! Still some Respect people present this fiction!

And still they haven't answered the question: why where gay rights
left off the manifesto?

 

[Wilf]

It's a silly comparison. Tatchell is saying specifically that while technically being against bubonic plague, he wants the bubonic plague to remain for as long as it takes to ward off anthrax.

Incidentally, "a plague*on all your houses" is a conmfortable position and the normal anarchist stance, but it's also one that miraculousy exempts the hoder from having to make any of the difficult choices that other people have to take.


[*= I think this is quite witty]

On the contrary. I make a choice - to be against the invasion/occupation - and to be also against the jihadis and warlords who are blowing each other with carbombs. In saying 'victory to the resistance' you end up subsuming under this some who are genuinely opposing imperialism, along with many others who are seeking to destroy other versions of Islam within Iraq; playing out communal hatreds and seeking to impose religious rule. Your position is pretty much one of 'my enemies enemy is my friend' - something that avoids a whole series of difficult but necessary judgements.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

"I am against everybody, therefore making sure I can be critcised for nothing".

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Lastly it does seem that rather than address the issue of Islamophobia the SWPers on here would rather throw up other issues. Indeed according to this report they did the very same thing at the RESPECT conference.

Got this from an egroup where an Outrage! member argued quite well against the smearing of Outrage! by German and the RESPECT coalition members at conference who spoke against the LGBT amendement.

I have adressed it. The reason I alluded to other issues, is that I read an article by Tatchell slandering the SWP over Iran this week in Tribune and it pissed me off - it is one of a whole series of attacks on the SWP that he has written in the Guardian and the Tribune including the bizaare Zimbabwean one which was complete bullshit, and another one where he described the US occupation as "the lesser evil"

Cockneyrebel when we were both in the Socialist Alliance, I can't remember LGBT rights ever even being mentioned on any of our election literature.

In fact, I would argue that, in my experience, Respect has actually done more campaigning on this issue.

PS. The SWP didn't exist during the Korean War, but Tony Cliff admitted that the position he took at the time was completely wrongheaded

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Udo could you remind me again of the position the SWP took on the Korean war?

Good God.

 

[Wilf]

"I am against everybody, therefore making sure I can be critcised for nothing".

No, not really. In Iraq i would favour those who are struggling for trade union rights, women's rights etc. - and all those who oppose the invasion/corporate grab from a more secular/socialist perspective.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

On the contrary. I make a choice - to be against the invasion/occupation - and to be also against the jihadis and warlords who are blowing each other with carbombs. In saying 'victory to the resistance' you end up subsuming under this some who are genuinely opposing imperialism, along with many others who are seeking to destroy other versions of Islam within Iraq; playing out communal hatreds and seeking to impose religious rule. Your position is pretty much one of 'my enemies enemy is my friend' - something that avoids a whole series of difficult but necessary judgements.

Tatchell doesn't just say that he hates both occupation and jihadis - he makes a concrete political statement that the troops must stay and that only the occupation can bring about a democratic, independent Iraq.

Most Iraqis don't regard the jihadis who blow up civilians and carry out sectarian bombings as being part of the popular resistance, neither do I.

But let me phrase it another way - if the choice is between conservative Sunni resistance fighters in Fallujah defending their town against occupation and massacre and the US army - I know which side I'm on.

I don't think in Fallujah you could adopt a "third way"

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No, not really. In Iraq i would favour those who are struggling for trade union rights, women's rights etc. - and all those who oppose the invasion/corporate grab from a more secular/socialist perspective.

Well, wouldnt we all? But as so often with imperialism we have the resistance which we have, not the resistance we would like. And either that resistance removes the occupation or it does not.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

as readers of the liberal-fascist rag the grauniad will doubtless know, outrage!'s peter tatchell has called on galloway and the ruc to sever their links with that homophobick lot, the islamic (sic) party of britain. will galloway listen to tatchell's words of wisdom, or will they rather snuggle up even closer to the likes of the nutty "dr" naseem?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,9061,1650526,00.html

Can't see him cutting ties given that that guy donates roughly 30% of their recent budget...

 

[cockneyrebel]

But let me phrase it another way - if the choice is between conservative Sunni resistance fighters in Fallujah defending their town against occupation and massacre and the US army - I know which side I'm on.

Yeah you can't accuse the SWP of being opportunist when it comes to stuff like this. Wait a minute though, wasn't it the SWP who oppossed and voted down the STWC having a "troops out now" position and have even got the slogan "troops out by xmax" plastered all over their front page?

Cockneyrebel when we were both in the Socialist Alliance, I can't remember LGBT rights ever even being mentioned on any of our election literature.

I think you'll find it was part of the Socialist Alliance manifesto, unlike RESPECT. Also I don't think one of its candidates was in an organisation that called for the death penalty for gays, but I could be wrong.

Also what do you think about what the Outrage bloke is saying about the RESPECT conference?

 

[Random]

Well, wouldnt we all? But as so often with imperialism we have the resistance which we have, not the resistance we would like. And either that resistance removes the occupation or it does not.

I don't know how much you know about the situation in Iraq, but there is a series of resistance groups, not something called 'the resistance'. 4thwrite is therefore quite able to support non-islamic workers groups.

Edit: http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/328434.html

 

[cockneyrebel]

PS. The SWP didn't exist during the Korean War, but Tony Cliff admitted that the position he took at the time was completely wrongheaded

Fair enough. What about the position of the SWP on British troops in Ireland

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Fair enough. What about the position of the SWP on British troops in Ireland

A rare case of Hallas being wrong. The paper was spot on imho.

Is there not something a bit off about a defender of the Kim family's Workers Bomb questioning the line of the IS on the Korean conflict?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I don't know how much you know about the situation in Iraq, but there is a series of resistance groups, not something called 'the resistance'. 4thwrite is therefore quite able to support non-islamic workers groups.

Yes, but there's not really that many of them.

It's like Vietnam. Either the US was going to defeat the Viet Cong and NVLA or the latter were going to defeat the former. At some point it's necessary to ask "which of these would you prefer"? You don't have to like any of them, but to some degree it's unreasonable to abstain from difficult choices whle weighing in against other people who do not absolve themselves.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Or again: at the last election there was goign to be either a Labour or Tory government. Personally I voted for neither. But at some point, if I'm asked "well, which would you prefer?" I need to give an answer, and if I evade the question it would be a bit much for me to then lay into other people who are prepared to confront it.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I carry no brief and neither am I a flag waver for Tatchell but when it comes down to who I would trust based on the company they keep and previous track record I'd rather trust Tatchell for all his faults than Respectdroids.

So swappie/respectdroids are you going to dump Dr Naseem or not.

Oh and another bit of swappie lies I came accross. At an event within the last year I heard a guy from another swappie front org, UAF saying that Tatchel and Outrage had been picketing an Al-Majhouroun event with placards saying 'Muslims Go Home'. Now either this is a top quality lie from UAF or a genuine mistake on the UAF persons part or an infiltration on the part of home grown fascists because I can't see Tatchel or any of his followers condoning such actions.

 

[Wilf]

But let me phrase it another way - if the choice is between conservative Sunni resistance fighters in Fallujah defending their town against occupation and massacre and the US army - I know which side I'm on.

I don't think in Fallujah you could adopt a "third way"

Of course I opposed the attack on Fallujah - and think that the people of the town/area had the right to resist - and also admit that many of those doing the defending were Islamists and/or Warlords. However i still can mange to be contemptuous of those same foces in terms of their wider role/views/beliefs.

To re-apply your logic: when the usa bombed the shit out of Afhhanistan, did you argue 'Bush or Taliban - I know which side I'm on'. Hope that you didn't, and were able to make some moral distinctions.

 

[tobyjug]

I thought this thread would be intresting when the subject read:- tatchell gives it to galloway.
It turned of the full text of the subject is far less interesting.

 

[Random]

It's like Vietnam.

No it isn't, and it's not like Labour and Tories, either.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Of course I opposed the attack on Fallujah - and think that the people of the town/area had the right to resist - and also admit that many of those doing the defending were Islamists and/or Warlords. However i still can mange to be contemptuous of those same foces in terms of their wider role/views/beliefs.
.

Christopher Hitchens (who takes a similar line to you) referred to the resistance in Fallujah as "islamo-fascist Taliban fighters"

 

[Udo Erasmus]

"homophobia. Under the heading ‘No compromise on equality’, People Not Profit [Socialist Alliance manifesto] talked about the fight against racism, sexism and homophobia. Respect talks about an end to discrimination and ‘social oppression’. To be fair, most of the demands on homophobia in People Not Profit have belatedly been met by New Labour – partnership rights, an equal age of consent, the repeal of section 28 and employment rights all went through in Labour’s second term. But legal rights alone do not determine equality, and a mention of homophobic violence and rights to asylum on the basis of the threat of violence because of your sexuality might have been mentioned."
James O' Nions, Red Pepper

Cockneyrebel, we admitted that we should have mentioned more explicitly homophobia in our election manifesto - but in practise, I actually think that where I live, we have actually done more on this than when I was in the SA

I should note that at the Respect conference their were several examples of how Muslims Respect candidates had undertaken solidarity with victims of homophobia - from Abdul Khalik Mian visiting the mother of a young gay man who had been beaten up by Asian youths to Oliur Rahman offering support to a gay bar that was attacked, as quoted on another thread:

""The smear is also news to the gay, lesbian, bisexual members of Respect who are Muslim or who are from Muslim families.

It'll be news to reactionaries such al-Muhajiroun, who spent the election campaign in east London telling anyone who would listen that George Galloway and Respect supported equalising the age of consent, opposed Section 28 and were in favour of full equality for lesbians and gay men.

It wasn't only the Islamists, of course — I witnessed a number of Muslim Labour supporters doing the same in Tower Hamlets, and Muslim Respect members in Newham fielded a suspicious number of calls on election day from people supposedly outraged at Respect's stance, and spent time defending the policy.

I don't know the party allegiance of the people who rang Galloway on a local Bengali radio phone-in during the campaign to ask if he was a "promoter of gay marriage". I do know he told them, as well as an 800-strong rally in the constituency and indeed anyone who asked him, that he was in favour of equality "and that means equal treatment for all, so it cannot be right to deny gay people the right to marry".

I do know that Abdul Khaliq Mian, Respect's candidate in East Ham, received a call from a woman who said she did not want to vote for him because he is a Muslim and her gay son had been attacked by some Muslim boys. Abdul condemned the attack, went round to see her and said he would work with the family to bring catch those responsible and to prevent any further attack.

I remember sitting in the gay pub round the corner from my boyfriend's in Bethnal Green (taking a well earned rest from campaigning) when a couple of bricks were lobbed at it. Oliur Rahman, Respect councillor in the neighbouring ward, offered take up the issue, but the landlord didn’t think it necessary."

 

[belboid]

PS. The SWP didn't exist during the Korean War, but Tony Cliff admitted that the position he took at the time was completely wrongheaded

Cliff might have done so, but the organisation as a whole certainly didn't!

let us not forget that the slogan adopted out of that war remained on the masthead of SW for four decades - Neither Washington Nor Moscow, but International Socialism.

This was discussed in Socialist review about ten or more years ago, when a reviewer (I forget who) seemed to reverse the line (they was probably ignorant of it) letters flowed in correcting said reviewer.

And quite right too - it is perfectly possible for two opposing forces to be equally reactionary, it just isn't in this occasion (if solely due to differing sizes of forces)