Well done Respect!!

[Groucho]

.... which represent a breach of the secular tradition of the working class movement in this country.

The secular tradition of this country and elsewhere is one of religious tolerance. A fully secular country would seperate church from state, allowng people to follow any or no religion, but not to impose their beliefs on others. A secular tradition is not about imposing one set of beliefs on everyone, even if those beliefs are atheist, nor is it about persecuting those who follow a particular religious belief - the opposite is true.

If people want to impose atheism, or at least to supress adherence to Islam, they should be honest and say so, and not dress up their intolerence as following a tradition of 'secularism'.

 

[Groucho]

And I'll call you a thought free respectdroid.

C'mon what about the rabid 'anti zionism' that pours forth from Respect supporters I've come across . The fact that Jewish people feel unsafe in TH now. I'd like to see Respect come out explicity against anti semitism and other forms of oppression such as that agaist LGBT people but the acid test is that Respect has crawled so far up MAB's arse that I don't feel that they have that sort of independence.

Granted you have the Bolsover result but it is ONE councillor out of 37 and even he got in with only polling half the votes of a bnp numpty. BTW it wasn't Respect who got in it was Respect - People not profit. What was the score was it a popular candidate who gathered votes DESPITE not because of his Respect label?

You can shout and scream all you like but I feel that racial and religious parties are dangerous.

If you can find me some stuff where respectbots and the heirachy are publicly backing progressive muslims rather than keeping thier heads down to get the conservative muslim vote out then I'll concede a point.

Respect is dangerous development that has sold its secular soul for atemporary electoral advantage. Theonly thing it has achieved is to drive previously left leaning white voters towards the bnp.

So you have no example of a Jew hater in Respect, it was a lie.

I can give plenty of examples of Respect coming out against oppression against LGBT people and against anti-semitism. Galloway for one has made many public pronouncements on both issues. The election manifesto document had a section on LGBT rights - the same space as was given to the health service or environment. But you wouldn't listen or care.

The former miner who won in Bolsover with more than 50% of the vote is an SWP member.

You have insulted me personally and greatly by your slander that Respect, an organisation I am a member of, harbours Jew haters. You have done so without evidence. I wouldn't be a member of an organisation that did so. But truth does not matter to you and you'll forgive me for ignoring your spineless lying slanderous exploits from here on in.

No word you type can be trusted. I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Jean-Luc wrote,

'In Northern Ireland, more for the Catholic "community" means less for the Protestant "community" (hence the backlash there).'

That's not an objective statement it's a perception fuelled by Unionist politicians and Capitalists. Divide and rule the rest of your peice is wrong too Jean-Luc.
Yours
Geoff

I can't see how you can deny this. If capitalism in Northern Ireland could only provide a certain number of jobs or houses and if (as was the case) there was discrimination against workers of Catholic origin in the allocation of these, then any putting right of this discrimination within capitalism could only be at the expense of those of Protestant origin. This is not just a perception. Nor just a fabrication of politicians appealing to workers of Protestant origin. Positive discrimination in favour of one group cannot avoid being negative discrimination against the rest. The Left made the same mistake in Northern Ireland as Respect are now making in Britain: they appealed only to one section of the working class, leaving the majority section to seek other means of expressing their perceived (accurately or not) interests. In Northern Ireland the Paisleyites. In Britain the BNP.
How could workers of Protestant origin be expected to absorb the values and political traditions inculcated into those of Catholic origin any more than the non-Muslim majority in Britain can ever be expected to accept let alone espouse Muslim values?

 

[Groucho]

Well I can deny it, but I don'y have much time.

The fact is that workers in the North were worse off than workers in the South because of the divide and rule maintained by discrimination against Catholics. So an end to discrimination would have benefited both Protestant and Catholic workers.

The same can be seen in the States. In the South, where segregation was the norm and KKK lynch mobs common white workers were worse off than white workers in the north of the USA where racism was not quite so rampant.

The fact is that race discrimination does not just hurt those at the hard end.

If a community wants to defend a local hospital, but that community is divided racially, they will not be able to unite to defend the hospital. So racism has to be overcome as a priority, not seperate from the general struggle for working class self-emancipation but central to it. Labour with a white skin will not emancipate themselves while labour with a black skin are in chains.

Fight capitalism for resources or fight each other for crumbs? Your argument is for Protestants to protect themselves against Catholic demands for equality, or in Britain for white workers to protect themselves from ethnic minority wokers' demands for equality - not exactly a challenge to the BNP, rather a major concession to them and certainly NOT a recipe for working class unity.

Socialists have to be tribunes of the oppressed. Until and unless we break racist barriers the working class will be held in check. You don't break racist barriers by telling the most downtroden to put up with in case white workers accept racist ideas and resent attempts to end discrimination; you reinforce racial barriers that way. Demands for equality are not demands Catholic against Protestant or black worker against white worker as you imply; they are demands that can unite workers in a common struggle against those who would divide us to keep us all down.

 

[Jean-Luc]

You've got me wrong, mate. I'm not arguing that people should not fight back or oppose discrimination, but that this should not be done on a "communitarian" basis. It should be done on a whole class basis, urging all workers, irrespective of their language, race, nationality or "community", to struggle together to end the capitalist system and the restrictions it places on all of them. Not to try to deal with it within the system. Which is possible, I agree, but tends to lead to a majority backlash. Playing the Muslim card, as Respect is doing for the SWP's own party-building purposes, is playing into the hands.who want to whip up this backlash (for their party-building purposes).

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You've got me wrong, mate. I'm not arguing that people should not fight back or oppose discrimination, but that this should not be done on a "communitarian" basis.

This is the point I've been trying to make all along.

Get people TOGETHER not working as independent groups. It feeds into so many areas, why so much is shit. Why unions are shit, why companies are shit, why political groupings are shit. People defend their own little patch. I've seen in in community orgs pointless mindnumbing vacuity strangling any progress.

I realy can;t be bothered with sectarians and ideologues any more, I really cant .

 

[Das Uberdog]

wtf is all this communitarian bollocks anyway? Is communitarian even a word?!? It astounds me that the same people who are saying that defending Muslim women wearing the veil, having alcohol free events so that Muslims feel comfortable attending and trying to introduce Muslims onto the platform of speakers at meetings to help integrate them into the movement is too 'communitarian' - therefore divisive - are the exact same people who bitch and whine at why Respect remains silent over 'no borders'. Like no fucking borders wouldn't play into the hands of the BNP!

wtf do you want us to do?!? We're not being communalist, we're being fucking inclusive - and it's only those who are either so fucking het up and intolerant of religious beliefs that they'd insist that all Muslim participation in the movement should be on a secular basis, so paranoid about the BNP they're willing to compromise on all the necessary arguments to placate them, or are just living under the proverbial lefty 'rock' where the SWP is the cause and maintenance of all forms of counter revolution and all forms of social atrocity that seem to confuse attempting to bring a marginalised community into the fore of British politics and society, with 'racism' or this new bollocks 'communalism'.

 

[cockneyrebel]

It astounds me that the same people who are saying that defending Muslim women wearing the veil, having alcohol free events so that Muslims feel comfortable attending and trying to introduce Muslims onto the platform of speakers at meetings to help integrate them into the movement is too 'communitarian' - therefore divisive - are the exact same people who bitch and whine at why Respect remains silent over 'no borders'. Like no fucking borders wouldn't play into the hands of the BNP!

In your usual het up rage you've got it wrong.

The SWP is being criticised from the left and right, but they are very different arguments. I very much doubt that people who object to alcohol free events are the same people objecting to the ditching of the principle of no immigration controls.

I would criticise the SWP for ditching the principle of no immigration controls (under whatever wording or slogan you want to put it), especially as only a year before they were slamming the SP for doing exactly that in the Socialist Alliance. However I have absolutely no problems with such things as alchohol free (or tobacco free for that matter) events if it helps include all sections of a geographical location. I would also totally defend the right of someone to wear the veil (while also recognising that it is something that is wrapped up with sexism of religion). But I couldn't go along with the SWP saying that muslim schools should be allowed, as opposed to the view that all religious schools should be scrapped.

Indeed this leads the SWP into the bizarre position where they say that muslim schools should be allowed and then as soon as they're open I assume the SWP would then be saying they should be closed down (along with all other religious schools).

I also have big problems when Galloway boasts that his religious and anti-abortion views will get RESPECT votes.

Don't try and lump everyone in the same boat though UD.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Galloway is pro-choice, anti abortion on a personal level. If he had it his way, women would choose through their own disgression not to have an abortion. There are many women who share a similar view, many socialist women too. It's an old-fashioned view that abortion is a marvellous cure-all for unwanted pregnancies, rather than something which exists out of necessity because of an unfortunate and unfair state of reality. I don't see a problem with Galloway's actual views on abortion, rather than the authoritarian, sexist, bigotted views implied by other "left" organisations.

And I know from personal experience that the same people who are criticising alcohol-free events are the same people moaning about immigration controls from personal experience in Preston. There's a fuckuvalotta people out there who can't see the difference between reasonably criticising the SWP and insanity.

Y'know what both sticking up for the Muslim community whilst supporting and involving the white community is? It's getting involved in both Stop the War, and Save the NHS. It's getting involved in Freedom for Palestine and Fighting Unions, Campaign to Save Council Housing, etc. etc.

Oh yeah, we sorta do that...

 

[cockneyrebel]

It's an old-fashioned view that abortion is a marvellous cure-all for unwanted pregnancies, rather than something which exists out of necessity because of an unfortunate and unfair state of reality.

First of all who said it was a marvellous cure all?

Secondly abortion isn't necessarily something that exists because of an unfair state of reality. There will always be unwanted pregnancies whatever society we live in and if women just want to have an abortion for no other reason than they simply don't want a kid then so be it, wouldn't you agree? I know plenty of women who have had an abortion and thought no more of it than the inconvenience of having it done.

There is a problem with Galloway's views in that he isn't pro-choice, obviously that should be argued against. But my problem with Galloway's election campaign is that he specifically said he was getting votes on the back of his religious and anti-abortion views.

And I know from personal experience that the same people who are criticising alcohol-free events are the same people moaning about immigration controls from personal experience in Preston.

Well I for one ain't one of them, so as said, don't lump everyone in the same boat.

 

[Geoff kerr-morg]

Jean-Luc wrote

"If capitalism in Northern Ireland could only provide a certain number of jobs or houses and if (as was the case) there was discrimination against workers of Catholic origin in the allocation of these, then any putting right of this discrimination within capitalism could only be at the expense of those of Protestant origin."

Protestant workers and Catholic workers united can get alot more fighting together against the capitalists than fighting for their own seperate interests.
Respect does not support one section of the community against the other ,it highlights the attacks on civil liberties and the racism pursued by the Blairites and co to cover for their disastrous policies. In the meantime Respect urges everyone to fight back.
Yours Geoff

 

[Fisher_Gate]

There was little change between LibDems and Labour from May 2006 when LibDems scored 1460/1277/1195, average 1,310 and Labour 1163/1099/1017, average 1,093. LibDems lost 48, Lab gained 80. The Green vote however slumped from 381 (11.9% on the 'average vote' method of calculation) to 156 (4.9%), while Respect came from nowhere to score 5.1%. (It is more arguable the Greens denied Labour a seat in 2006 than last week.)

You won't be surprised to hear I think this decline in Green votes is because Respect and Green are fishing to a significant extent in the same pool for votes, in this instance with Respect coming (just) on top.

5% is a perfectly okay vote for a first outing - if replicated across London next May Respect will win a seat on the GLA - and if Respect is going to be serious about becoming a national force and stand hundreds of candidates next May it has to be prepared realistically to get votes of 5%+ more often than votes of 50%+.

 

[Cumly]

This is the point I've been trying to make all along.

Get people TOGETHER not working as independent groups. It feeds into so many areas, why so much is shit. Why unions are shit, why companies are shit, why political groupings are shit. People defend their own little patch. I've seen in in community orgs pointless mindnumbing vacuity strangling any progress.

I realy can;t be bothered with sectarians and ideologues any more, I really cant .

I don't do politics, causes as many wars as Religious fundametalism, but I agree with JeyboardJockey...everything is divide and conquer in the world to-day, it makes me
True world peace can only be got when we all work together so why we have politicians and religious zealots and political fundamentalists then nothing will be acheived but anarchy.

 

[TremulousTetra]

In your usual het up rage you've got it wrong.

The SWP is being criticised from the left and right, but they are very different arguments. I very much doubt that people who object to alcohol free events are the same people objecting to the ditching of the principle of no immigration controls.

I would criticise the SWP for ditching the principle of no immigration controls (under whatever wording or slogan you want to put it), especially as only a year before they were slamming the SP for doing exactly that in the Socialist Alliance. However I have absolutely no problems with such things as alchohol free (or tobacco free for that matter) events if it helps include all sections of a geographical location. I would also totally defend the right of someone to wear the veil (while also recognising that it is something that is wrapped up with sexism of religion). But I couldn't go along with the SWP saying that muslim schools should be allowed, as opposed to the view that all religious schools should be scrapped.

Indeed this leads the SWP into the bizarre position where they say that muslim schools should be allowed and then as soon as they're open I assume the SWP would then be saying they should be closed down (along with all other religious schools).

I also have big problems when Galloway boasts that his religious and anti-abortion views will get RESPECT votes.

Don't try and lump everyone in the same boat though UD.

surely the SW position is quite simple, and quite obvious, and quite practical. WHILST religious schools exist, Muslims should have the same rights to these religious schools as everybody else (equality issue). This position does not in any way contradict the SW preference for there being no religious schools (completely different issue from the one of the quality). What's the problem with that?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I don't do politics, causes as many wars as Religious fundametalism, but I agree with JeyboardJockey...everything is divide and conquer in the world to-day, it makes me
True world peace can only be got when we all work together so why we have politicians and religious zealots and political fundamentalists then nothing will be acheived but anarchy.

I take your point, and would argue the only way to achieve the unity we all desire, is to accept that we are going to disagree about strategies/analysis etc, but not allow this to stop us from working together upon the issues we agree upon. It is not that people are divided that bothers me, of course people are going to have divided opinions, what bothers me is the sectarianism. Like this thread where people are more interested in attacking the left than the fascists and the right.

this is precisely what SW is doing with Moslem people, concentrating on what unites us rather than what divides us.

 

[cockneyrebel]

surely the SW position is quite simple, and quite obvious, and quite practical. WHILST religious schools exist, Muslims should have the same rights to these religious schools as everybody else (equality issue). This position does not in any way contradict the SW preference for there being no religious schools (completely different issue from the one of the quality). What's the problem with that?

But it's a bizarre logic. It would be like saying in the American south in the 1940s/50s that until you had schools of all races you'd support having black only schools rather than saying schools that are racially seperated are wrong full stop.

If you don't want any religious schools full stop then the arguement of what religions should have their own schools becomes an irrelevance. Otherwise you'd campaign for a muslim school to have the right to open and then immediately afterwards campaign for it to be converted to a secular school.

 

[Geoff kerr-morg]

CockneyRebel wrote
But it's a bizarre logic. It would be like saying in the American south in the 1940s/50s that until you had schools of all races you'd support having black only schools rather than saying schools that are racially seperated are wrong full stop.'
Surely this is not comparing like with like, this is state forced racial segregation you highlight[ backed by KKK etc ] compared to supporting the right to seperate education such as C of E , Roman Catholic , Muslim or other if so desired.
Geoff

 

[Geoff kerr-morg]

I have just taken this from the Respect website this contradicts some people who argue that Respect are homophobic.
'Student Respect made a massive impact at our first ever NUS Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (LGBT) conference. It was important we did this, partly because of the myths propagated by Islamophobes that Respect takes a reactionary stance on LGBT issues.

More importantly we believe that the struggle for LGBT equality has a place amongst all the struggles that Respect is involved in. A clear shift to the left during the conference occurred, largely due to our presence.' For more click on http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1464

 

[TremulousTetra]

But it's a bizarre logic. It would be like saying in the American south in the 1940s/50s that until you had schools of all races you'd support having black only schools rather than saying schools that are racially seperated are wrong full stop

. No it is nothing like that. The black-and-white schools of the 1940s and 50s in America were the state imposing segregation/inequality. For the British state to allow everybody else to have religious schools, but deny the same right to Moslems is discrimination by the British state. Bleeding obvious.

If you don't want any religious schools full stop then the arguement of what religions should have their own schools becomes an irrelevance. Otherwise you'd campaign for a muslim school to have the right to open and then immediately afterwards campaign for it to be converted to a secular school.

look, we don't have to wait until there are Moslem schools argue for a completely secular education system, that is already being done now. But until we win the argument supporting the British state having two sets of rules, one for Muslims, and one for everybody else, is supporting discrimination by the British state. I can be against discrimination, and against religious education at the same time, no contradiction.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Surely this is not comparing like with like, this is state forced racial segregation you highlight[ backed by KKK etc ] compared to supporting the right to seperate education such as C of E , Roman Catholic , Muslim or other if so desired.

Fair enough it's not an exact comparison! But my point is that if you don't want any religious schools at all it's kind of irrelevant who does and doesn't have relgious schools. Unless you want a two way process of giving everyone religious schools and then say they should all be shut down/or converted to secular schools, which would be a bit bizarre.

You might use what is going on to highlight the discrimination of the state, but if you want no religions to have the right to run schools surely what religions have that right is an irrelevance in practical terms as you'd argue against any new religious schools opening and current ones being shut down.

I know there have been calls for black only schools by some public figures. So if that happened would you argue that the short term answer is for all races to have that right, or a straight up answer that it's wrong and all schools should be mixed.

For the British state to allow everybody else to have religious schools, but deny the same right to Moslems is discrimination by the British state. Bleeding obvious.

On this, what is the discrimination out of interest? There are muslim schools already.

 

[Jean-Luc]

"Religion is the opium of the people" said Marx. "Neither God nor Master" say the anarchists. So, presumably, revolutionaries are for the disappearance of religion. Not its forcible suppression of course, but at least its gradual dying away and certainly not its encouragement. So why are the SWP encouraging religion (and only a particular one at that) by pandering to Muslim prejudices over food and drink and calling for them to have their own schools so that their priests can inculcate their untrue ideas into the minds of kids? (Answer: to get their votes and save themselves from political oblivion) Or do they really think that kids should be taught that the archangel Gabriel dictated the koran to Mohammed on behalf of Allah, the chief god of the Arabs of the time, rather than that Mohammed made it all up himself? Do they really want to encourage a religion which not only calls for submission but actually names itself "submission"? There are thousands of books, put out by rationalists, freethinkers and secularists debunking christianity. Why should Islam be exempt from the same treatment? Revolutionaries should be encouraging people from a Muslim background to stop being Muslims (the good news is that lots of them are anyway) just as we've always encouraged Christians to stop being Christians and Jews to reject Judaism (as many prominent in the leadership of the SWP have done).

 

[Das Uberdog]

Errrr, because the Muslim religion is currently under threat, and Muslim customs are directly threatened with banning because of their supposed 'incompatability' with Western culture?

Let me tell you a story... The Jewish communities all accross Europe had their own communities, at one time. They lived in the same vicinity, they wore funny clothes, had strange beards and funny hats. The women covered almost their entire bodies, they had their own schools and language and brought with them strange foods...

And the left wingers at this time stood up for them. They forced through the idea that the Jewish religion wasn't incompatable with Socialist sympathies, that Jewish people and their religon could contribute to a socialist/western society without tension. They didn't do this by pretending that there wasn't a problem with Jewish integration, or that they didn't need to tackle the issue of a marginalised Jewish community head-on. This is why there are so many Jewish socialists today!

Religious interpretation is religious interpretation. There's nothing inherant in Islam which makes it worse than other religons; for the most part, the majority of Muslims aren't devout. They're drug-pushing, yobby loudmouth lads, fashion-conscious hair-straightened girls, regular men and women working in factories and workplaces, and old folk on benefits. Basically, like everyone else.

Your singling out of 'Islam' as a specific belief system which is somehow alien to 'socialist values' reveals your true belief;- it's Islam which is at fault, not capitalism. Even if this isn't the argument you'd use it's your extended logic.

Learn something about neo-Marxism. In the SWP local Preston branch, we have a Hare Krishna and a Christian (Catholic). Both are brilliant comrades and both feel that socialism compliments their religious beliefs. Many of the Muslims involved in Respect have taken to decribing themselves as socialists without prompting... scared at first it would be perhaps something looked down upon in the Mosque and elsewhere but now confident enough to proclaim it; you don't realistically integrate a huge portion of the population by simply telling them that their current views are incompatible with the rest of society. That will make them turn to the fucked up groups like Hiz'but.

 

[Jean-Luc]

There's nothing inherant in Islam which makes it worse than other religons

I never said there was. As far as I'm concerned, they're all as bad as each other. As to "neo-Marxism" (whatever that might be), is or isn't religion the opium of the people?

 

[grogwilton]

Its also the 'heart in a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions' for the full 'opium of the people' quote.

Ie its not just used by power to control people but its also used by people to fight against power, which is why it needs to be addressed differently to other elements of the superstructure.

In any case in my personal experience i'd say there where things much worse at holding people down then religion in the modern west. TV being one of them.

 

[emanymton]

I have just taken this from the Respect website this contradicts some people who argue that Respect are homophobic.
'Student Respect made a massive impact at our first ever NUS Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (LGBT) conference. It was important we did this, partly because of the myths propagated by Islamophobes that Respect takes a reactionary stance on LGBT issues.

More importantly we believe that the struggle for LGBT equality has a place amongst all the struggles that Respect is involved in. A clear shift to the left during the conference occurred, largely due to our presence.' For more click on http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1464

This may all well be true but one thing that can’t be denied is that the original Respect statement for the Euro elections (which was only a single page long) had a specific commitment to opposition to homophobia. Latter when a full manifesto was produced there was no mention of homophobia or gay rights anywhere. Considering that the manifesto included what was essential a reprint of the same single page statement. It seems clear that someone consciously decided to omit it from the manifesto. The question is who made this decision and why?

The fact that the issue was latter raised at a Respect conference and that Respect now has a more explicit commitment to opposing homophobia does not alter this bit of history. For that matter it should never have had to have been a fight at a conference now should it?

 

[emanymton]

Since people are chucking Marx quotes around, my favourite one on religion is this.

'The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to abandon illusions about their real condition is a demand to abandon a condition which requires illusions. The criticism of religion is thus the germ of a criticism of the vale of tears of which religion is the halo.'

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Fair enough it's not an exact comparison! But my point is that if you don't want any religious schools at all it's kind of irrelevant who does and doesn't have relgious schools. Unless you want a two way process of giving everyone religious schools and then say they should all be shut down/or converted to secular schools, which would be a bit bizarre.

You might use what is going on to highlight the discrimination of the state, but if you want no religions to have the right to run schools surely what religions have that right is an irrelevance in practical terms as you'd argue against any new religious schools opening and current ones being shut down.

I know there have been calls for black only schools by some public figures. So if that happened would you argue that the short term answer is for all races to have that right, or a straight up answer that it's wrong and all schools should be mixed.



On this, what is the discrimination out of interest? There are muslim schools already.

You may find this article of interest:
http://www.socialistresistance.net/Faith Schools1a.htm

It argues there is a difference between religious control of schools and the right to religious observance.

As socialists we support the right to observe religion, even though we think it is wrong, because it is a basic democratic right that the state does not have the right to suppress. However it is a practical issue how that right is observed - the French system has gone too far in suppressing all religion within schools.

This is a strong issue of debate even among revolutionaries, see:
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?rubrique76

I disagree with those who say that religious observation is entirely compatible with membership of a revolutionary organisation, particularly a vanguard organisation in today's climate.

Again individuals have the right to observe their own beliefs, but where it comes to proseletysing for a religion, eg by becoming a priest/imam etc, I think there is a basic incompatibility. In a situation of mass revolutionary upheaval this might be less of a problem, but in today's situation there is a tension that cannot easily be overcome. We had this discussion when I was in the IMG and a Methodist lay preacher wanted to join - some of us took the view that the person had the right to be a Methodist, but a preacher was something different and basically incompatible. Interestingly those most against the individual joining were the 'Pabloites' who favoured deep entry in the Labour Party, while the pro-Castro current, who favoured open organisation, were the most in favour.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

This may all well be true but one thing that can’t be denied is that the original Respect statement for the Euro elections (which was only a single page long) had a specific commitment to opposition to homophobia. Latter when a full manifesto was produced there was no mention of homophobia or gay rights anywhere. Considering that the manifesto included what was essential a reprint of the same single page statement. It seems clear that someone consciously decided to omit it from the manifesto. The question is who made this decision and why?

The fact that the issue was latter raised at a Respect conference and that Respect now has a more explicit commitment to opposing homophobia does not alter this bit of history. For that matter it should never have had to have been a fight at a conference now should it?

It was accepted by the movers of the critical resolution at the 2005 Respect that not including a section in the 2005 manifesto was an unfortunate "oversight", rather than a deliberate attempt to ignore a controversial issue.

Since then Respect has made sure the issue has been in documents/manifestos and a Respect presence is organised for events like Pride.

Apart from the problem of a negative response at that Conference from the leadership to any internal criticism, usually hiding behind the cloud of 'islamaphobia', a much more serious political/programmatic problem was the support and votes of Respect/Galloway (and the SWP) for the Religious Hatred Bill - a dangerous piece of legislation promoting state censorship and designed by New Labour to try to bring back Muslim support to the government.

 

[emanymton]

It was accepted by the movers of the critical resolution at the 2005 Respect that not including a section in the 2005 manifesto was an unfortunate "oversight", rather than a deliberate attempt to ignore a controversial issue.

Do you believe that than? I’m not so sure.
If we ignore the lack of a section on it in the manifesto as I recall the original statement had a line that read ‘We oppose Racism, sexism, homophobia and all other forms of discrimination’ while in the manifesto this had changed to ‘We oppose Racism, sexism, and all other forms of discrimination’. Now while it could be argued that homophobia is included in other forms of discrimination I find it hard to believe that one word was dropped from the line by accident.

Since then Respect has made sure the issue has been in documents/manifestos and a Respect presence is organised for events like Pride.

Apart from the problem of a negative response at that Conference from the leadership to any internal criticism, usually hiding behind the cloud of 'islamaphobia', a much more serious political/programmatic problem was the support and votes of Respect/Galloway (and the SWP) for the Religious Hatred Bill - a dangerous piece of legislation promoting state censorship and designed by New Labour to try to bring back Muslim support to the government.

True
I find this especially odd as it was clear to me that the main victims of this legislation where likely to by Muslim groups and I was surprised that this was not an argument put forward by the SWP above and beyond the censorship issue

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Do you believe that than? I’m not so sure.
...

Yes, I have just reviewed the correspondance on it and have it on the authority of Alan Thornett that it was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy.

The first draft was a general listing of everything Respect had ever agreed or thought of, but included a whole series of points that had not been seriously discussed and which could have diverted the campaign - eg a call for the nationalisation of the big football clubs (which was perfectly okay, but no-one wanted to make it the big issue for Respect in the election campaign!).

There was some heavy redrafting and in the process the original section on support for LGBT rights, that had been agreed by the National Committee, accidentally ended up on the cutting room floor without the final drafters realising until it went to print. That this should have happened was a major mistake, but not one motivated by a conscious intention to marginalise the issue. Alan supported the critical resolution to the conference to ensure such a thing could never happen again, and to be fair to all involved it never has been.