Respect Coalition

[ReD_ReBeL]

what are everybodys opinions on the UK party RESPECT? i think they seem quite good and good leftist policies although george Galloway seems a bit dodgy lol but still there worth a vote

[Sir Aunty Christ]

There was a thread on this not so long ago:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=42508&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42508&hl=)

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Well first off this party is nothing more than a petty-bourgeois party:

(Report from a SP-member in Britain):


The rightward trend of the Goldsmiths SU is perhaps unsurprising. What
I did find more surprising was the reaction of the lefts on campus to
our motion and on how best to organise on campus. Goldsmiths has a
SWSS, Respect and 'Peace' (STWC) society. The Respect, Peace and SWSS
soc have merged to the point that distinctions between the pacifists,
socialists and respect members are paper thin - this is illustrated by
the fact that we have socialists standing under the banner of "Peace"
during NUS election time. Following the end of the AGM the "lefts" met
to discuss the situation and the role of the Peace Society in relation
to other societies. The meeting involved a SWP/SWSS member who used to
be a (SWP) full timer and a member of Broad Left.

For the SWP member the failure of the motions reflected the fact that
the SP was, I quote, "too theoretical". I asked her to expand on this
point and the reply came that "the Socialist Party just focus on the
theoretical". I asked what was meant by this: "you know, on things
like transitional programme" came the reply. This almost seemed like a
joke (or perhaps a compliment) but it was made clear to me that it was
neither. I made the fairly obvious points about the practical
implications of the Transitional Programme, but by this time the
member seemed unkeen on discussing it. The SWPer went on to contrast
the "abstract theories" of the SP with the broad and inclusive work it
was felt they were doing in the "Peace" society.

This was followed by the comment that the Socialist Student society
must subsume itself to the Peace soc if it wants to play a role within
it. It was said quite clearly that the focus on "abstract" things like
the Transitional Programme needed to be ditched in favour of working
uncritically within broad organisations. In turn, the Broad Left
member made it clear that criticisms should not be raised of the Peace
soc unless they were done so entirely within the confines of a society
meeting. Something to the effect of "we have enough criticisms from
outside, we don't need them from you too" was said. This was echoed
entirely by the SWP member. The `lefts' were effectively asking us to
leave our socialism at the door on the way in.

Also view this link (http://cpgb.org.uk/worker/600/respect%20sheffield.htm).

second it's homophobic:


Grassroots Respect members win gay rights motion

Outrage!


Grassroots members of George Galloway's left-wing Respect party have
condemned as "unacceptable" the decision of the party leadership to
exclude lesbian and gay rights from their manifesto for the general
election earlier this year.

Respect MP George Galloway is now being asked to explain why his
party dumped gay rights from its manifesto. Allegations abound that
Respect's right-wing Islamist backers demanded the axing of gay
rights as a condition of their electoral support for the party.

At Respect's annual conference on Sunday (20 November), delegates
rebelled against party leaders who vetoed the inclusion of gay
equality in the party's manifesto for the 2005 general election.

The victorious conference resolution 47 stated: "Conference regards
it as unacceptable that our manifesto for the general election did
not contain any reference to the defence of LGBT rights."

From the conference platform, Respect leader Lindsay German, who is
also a senior leader of the Socialist Workers Party, disparaged the
resolution, claiming it had a "hidden agenda" and was moved in "bad
faith".

"Despite the motion being passed by the grassroots membership,
Respect's leaders offered no apology and no assurance that LGBT
rights will be included in future election manifestos," said gay left-
wing human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of OutRage!.

"Respect claims to support LGBT rights but the exclusion of gay
rights from its election manifesto suggests otherwise.

"On the Respect website, gay equality is shunted to the sidelines,
listed semi-anonymously under 'Other policies'. This shows that
Respect regards LGBT rights as a marginal issue of no serious
interest or concern. Equally alarming, the policy section of
Respect's website has no section on women's rights.

"Respect's disrespect for LGBT people is part of a pattern. One of
the party's top leaders, Lindsay German, notoriously warned that gay
rights are not a 'shibboleth' and should not prevent Respect forging
electoral alliances with homophobic religious fundamentalist groups.

"Respect is in alliance with the right-wing, anti-gay Islamist group,
the Muslim Association of Britain. Respect does not ally with liberal
and left-wing Muslims.

"The MAB endorses the recreation of an Islamic Caliphate where
Muslims would be subjected to the barbarism of Sharia law, which
includes the execution of unchaste women, apostates and gay people.

"Respect has betrayed progressive Muslims, in favour of an alliance
with Islamist conservatives and fundamentalists whose policies on gay
and womenís rights are even more reactionary than those of the
despicable neo-Nazi BNP.

"Respect has failed to defend gay Muslims against fundamentalist
Islamists and it attacks gay rights groups that support Muslim queers.

"The politics of Respect on LGBT rights is reformist at best. It's
policies are far less radical than those of the Liberal Democrats.
Unlike Respect, the Lib Dems included gay rights in their manifesto,"
said Mr Tatchell.


Resolution 47 - Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Transgender (LGBT)
rights; South East Essex supported by Bristol, Lambeth and Sandwell

"Conference regards it as unacceptable that our manifesto for the
general election did not contain any reference to the defence of LGBT
rights despite policy adopted at last year's AGM and contained in the
founding statement. Conference resolves that in future our manifestos
and principal election materials will explicitly defend such rights
and call for an end to all discrimination against lesbians, gay men,
bisexuals and transgender people."


Should I continue?

[h&s]

No need.... ;)
Just out of interest, where did you get that last bit from? I may need to use that in the future.

[bolshevik butcher]

Respect might be worth citically supporting, but they aren't socialsits. They dont want to go beyoned a more progressive capitalism. Also, there popular frontism alarms me. At a recent rally they stood with several libreals and even worse an islamimist who is well renound for disliking gays and for having a void view on womens rights.

Just because we oppose the war in iraq doesnt mean we should ally with everyone else who does.

[ReD_ReBeL]

just stating what RESPECT stands for if nobody knew:

R:respect
E:equality
S:socialism
P:peace
E:environment
C:community
T:trade unionism

[Alexknucklehead]

The RESPECT coalition seems worth supporting to many on the left as its the ONLY thing thats actually going on in the left in the public eye in this country. They have about as much relevence to revolutionary politics as my little toe and Galloway is nothing but an oppertunistic, attention seeking bourgeois maggot who only got in by placing himself in a large Muslim community and playing on an anti-war vote. Not to mention his dodgy Catholic fundamentalist views on things such as abortion...his Parliament attendence record is fucking terrible and if you see RESPECT as in any way a re-emergence of socialism to mainstream politics then you are sadly deluded.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Galloway recently toured the US where he debated weak-ass "stay the corse" liberals. Sure they are not revolutionaries, but compared to what we got in the US, it was like hearing Debbs return from the grave to take on liberal politicians.

[fpeppett]

Yeah Galloway is a great speaker, not taking inot account some of his policies, he rips apart any corrupt pro-war prick he talks to. Saw him on newsnight a couple of months ago, people were eventually scared of questioning him because they knew they were gonna be owned.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea he can stand up for himself alright, After he met Fidel castro he said he was 'the greatest man he has ever met', and he is aslo a known supporter of the Soviet Union

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:10 PM
yea he can stand up for himself alright, After he met Fidel castro he said he was 'the greatest man he has ever met', and he is aslo a known supporter of the Soviet Union
He said the day the Soviet Union collapsed was the worst day of his life.

Jee-sus!

[ReD_ReBeL]

[/QUOTE]He said the day the Soviet Union collapsed was the worst day of his life.

Jee-sus!


"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

Look it is still showing he supported the Soviets.

[QUOTE]Not to mention his dodgy Catholic fundamentalist views on things such as abortion
so? that is his personal belief, and he is not letting it get in the way of the party policies, so there should be nothing wrong with it.

"Raised as a Roman Catholic, he left the church for some time but returned to Christian belief in his mid-20s, and he is opposed to abortion, although he supports Respect's pro-choice stance. He also supported the equalisation of the age of consent for homosexuality"

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty Christ+Dec 7 2005, 07:21 PM--> (Sir Aunty Christ @ Dec 7 2005, 07:21 PM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 08:10 PM
yea he can stand up for himself alright, After he met Fidel castro he said he was 'the greatest man he has ever met', and he is aslo a known supporter of the Soviet Union
He said the day the Soviet Union collapsed was the worst day of his life.

Jee-sus! [/b]
What socialist doesnt celebrate when the wall comes down if you ask me.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 7 2005, 04:42 PM
No need.... ;)
Just out of interest, where did you get that last bit from? I may need to use that in the future.
This is the link (http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/respectlgb.htm).

By the way with regard to the breaking down of the wall. It's clear that although the stalinist regime was oppressive and a DEGENERATED workers' state, it was still based on a resistance against private ownership of the means of production. They was a burocratic caste, that's true, which is shamefull.

But the breaking down of the wall would not at that time (and history has proven it to be true) lead to true socialism, in contrary to what the SWP/IST claimed at that time.

And in reply to Alexknucklehead: there is always this campaign (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/417/index.html?id=pp5.htm).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

RESPECT is yet another reformist outfit... nothing of much consequence.

[h&s]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Dec 7 2005, 09:13 PM--> (Clenched Fist @ Dec 7 2005, 09:13 PM)
Originally posted by Sir Aunty Christ+Dec 7 2005, 07:21 PM--> (Sir Aunty Christ @ Dec 7 2005, 07:21 PM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 08:10 PM
yea he can stand up for himself alright, After he met Fidel castro he said he was 'the greatest man he has ever met', and he is aslo a known supporter of the Soviet Union
He said the day the Soviet Union collapsed was the worst day of his life.

Jee-sus! [/b]
What socialist doesnt celebrate when the wall comes down if you ask me.[/b]
NO socialist should have celebrated the collapse of the USSR. Celebrating the collapse of the economy of a country is not good.
Remember that, despite all of its bad aspects, the USSR still offered a quality of life not yet restored by capitalism.


RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

No need....
Just out of interest, where did you get that last bit from? I may need to use that in the future. ;)


This is the link (http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/respectlgb.htm)

By the way with regard to the breaking down of the wall. It's clear that although the stalinist regime was oppressive and a DEGENERATED workers' state, it was still based on a resistance against private ownership of the means of production. They was a burocratic caste, that's true, which is shamefull.

But the breaking down of the wall would not at that time (and history has proven it to be true) lead to true socialism, in contrary to what the SWP/IST claimed at that time
Exactly. Though the bringing down of the wall could have lead to socialism, had it had been on a socialist basis, of course, as most of the resistance was early on.

[YKTMX]

They have about as much relevence to revolutionary politics as my little toe

They're not supposed to be a revolutionary group.


Galloway is nothing but an oppertunistic, attention seeking bourgeois maggot


Galloway is 'bourgeois'? How is he 'bourgeois'? Can you explain?

And how is he 'oppurtunistic'? He has been a stalwart anti-imperialist for decades. He only joined Respect because he was kicked out of the Labour Party.

Is it possibly you don't know what you're talking about and instead are just using random words?


who only got in by placing himself in a large Muslim community and playing on an anti-war vote.

People always use this as a criticism. WHAT IF HE DID? SO THE FUCK WHAT?

Muslims are opposed to the war, they elected an anti-war MP. What's your problem?

It's like saying Communists go into a working class community and 'play on' the anti-ruling class feeling.

Yeah, that's our fucking job, to represent people - not spend all our time talking to ourselves in ideologically pure little grouplets. Fucking idiot.


his Parliament attendence record is fucking terrible

So you attack him for being Bourgeois and then criticise him for not spending enough time in Parliament, talking to all the other crusty fuckers.


if you see RESPECT as in any way a re-emergence of socialism to mainstream politics then you are sadly deluded.

Of course, just because you say so, it must be true.

The reason these knuckleheads on the ultraleft don't like Galloway is because he wins and he talks to people on their levels. They prefer not actually meeting any working class people - 'let's not get our hands dirty'

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 9 2005, 04:51 PM
Exactly. Though the bringing down of the wall could have lead to socialism, had it had been on a socialist basis, of course, as most of the resistance was early on.
You're absolutely right...I didn't mention it because I thought this spole for itself...but it's 100% true.

By the way if you're interested this (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/419/index.html?id=nlett.htm) is a recent article of a Socialist Party member on the homophobic stance of Respect.

[RedGeorge]

Here here, YouKnowTheyMurderedX. Respect is a decent enough party, and their heart is in the right place, so stop attacking them. As I mentioned in another thread, I saw Galloway speak the other day, and after hearing him I would defy anyone to disagree with his party's stance.

By the way, in case no-one realised Respect features two well established left-wing parties in its co-alition, the Socialist Worker's Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain. Surely this gives it some clout amongst board members?

[Forward Union]

Bad <_< Although Mr Galloway is a brilliant speaker, I dislike his political position, and motives.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:51 PM
RESPECT is yet another reformist outfit... nothing of much consequence.
oh.. come on, it&#39;s at least a step foward away from capitalsim.
I fully support it. And hope it makes some "noise" globally.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:20 AM
just stating what RESPECT stands for if nobody knew:

R:respect
E:equality
S:socialism
P:peace
E:environment
C:community
T:trade unionism
can someone find a picture that shows exactly like this:

R:respect
E:equality
S:socialism
P:peace
E:environment
C:community
T:trade unionism

thanks. :)

[ReD_ReBeL]

Argh for fuck sake will people stop shouting this Respect anti-homosexuality bullshit , read there policies instead of listning to what other people say.....

LGBT rights

This conference welcomes the production of a Respect leaflet for London Pride.

It supports the policies outlined in that leaflet i.e.

An end to discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people
For Equal partnership and pension rights
For strong policies to tackle homophobia in all public bodies
For an increase in public services that meet the needs of lesbians, gay men bisexuals and transgendered people, rather than money wasted on war.

[ReD_ReBeL]

http://file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/georgegalloway_protest.jpg

ahhh good ol&#39; George Galloway being forced away from an anti-war protest

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s the same old story, isn&#39;t it?

You know, well-meaning "lefties" decide that "parliamentary struggle" is the "road to power"...or at least to "influencing public opinion".

And they always end up head down in a barrel of shit&#33;


Originally posted by DIRELAND
It turns out that half of RESPECT&#39;s money comes from one man, Dr Mohammed Naseem. This Naseem, who was a Respect candidate for Parliament in 2005, is also a leader of something called the Islamic Party of Britain (IPB) -- a tiny sectarian group whose website claims that "Islam is the solution to the world&#39;s problems. No other religion, way of life or culture can possibly succeed."

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/...e_galloway.html (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/11/george_galloway.html)

Dr. Naseem is a raging homophobe...as you might expect from such a reactionary asshole.

What is RESPECT doing hooked up with this turd?

Well, a California bourgeois politician once put it rather bluntly.

Money is the mother&#39;s milk of [electoral] politics.

A lesson that the poor saps in RESPECT have imbibed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

Dr. Naseem is a raging homophobe...as you might expect from such a reactionary asshole.

What is RESPECT doing hooked up with this turd?


Well, firstly, the vast majority of Respect&#39;s funds come from small donors - members, supporters giving a few pounds to the cause.

It is true that in the course of building a broad anti-war, anti-imperialist electoral front, you may find yourself in coalition with people with whom you have disagreements - otherwise it&#39;s not a coalition.

But the point is that it&#39;s OUR principles which are the driving force in Respect, not Doctor Naseem&#39;s.

Galloway is the only MP who was voted in on an explicit anti-racist, anti-homphobic programme.

So, all this conspiratorial bollocks about funding from this or that individual is a total non-issue.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Well, firstly, the vast majority of Respect&#39;s funds come from small donors - members, supporters giving a few pounds to the cause.

This would appear to be a factual dispute. According to the DIRELAND blog, it was RESPECT&#39;s own financial filings with the U.K. Electoral Commission that revealed that half of RESPECT&#39;s contributions come from the reactionary Dr. Naseem.

You should have little difficulty in confirming this story.

Register of donations to political parties (http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272005%2D07%2 D17%2007%3A17%3A18%27%7D)


But the point is that it&#39;s OUR principles which are the driving force in Respect, not Doctor Naseem&#39;s.

This controversy arose as a consequence of RESPECT&#39;s failure to include a clear statement in favor of gay rights in its most recent election program.

People concluded that this ommission was deliberate...a step taken to "keep Naseem&#39;s money" flowing into RESPECT&#39;s treasury.

I imagine that you are pretty upset to see such vulgar corruption in a party you support.

But this is where it always leads. Every time lefties get seriously involved in bourgeois electoral politics, they get corrupted&#33;

There are no known exceptions&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

This would appear to be a factual dispute. According to the DIRELAND blog, it was RESPECT&#39;s own financial filings with the U.K. Electoral Commission that revealed that half of RESPECT&#39;s contributions come from the reactionary Dr. Naseem.

You should have little difficulty in confirming this story.

Register of donations to political parties


Well, unless I&#39;m missing something, then the largest donation Doctor Naseem gave was a 14 thousand pound gift for &#39;leaflet distribution&#39; - out of a total Respect budget of 497,000 pounds.

TEC (http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272005%2D12%2 D11%2001%3A51%3A11%27%7D)


People concluded that this ommission was deliberate...a step taken to "keep Naseem&#39;s money" flowing into RESPECT&#39;s treasury.


Who concluded this? Lots of people (like Doug Ireland) in the liberal left intellegentsia don&#39;t like Galloway - that&#39;s reflected in how they obcess about things like this, and the endless &#39;sleaze&#39; allegations.

You see, the fact that he&#39;s a working class socialist who speaks in full sentences &#39;gets their back up&#39;.

Frankly, I&#39;m not in the least bit surprised in your reaction to this issue.


I imagine that you are pretty upset to see such vulgar corruption in a party you support.

Maybe, but that&#39;s not what&#39;s going on.

[Andy Bowden]

RESPECT shouldn&#39;t be taking money from homophobes if they are serious about fighting for LGBT rights - its a clear contradiction. :blink:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Well, unless I&#39;m missing something, then the largest donation Doctor Naseem gave was a 14 thousand pound gift for &#39;leaflet distribution&#39; - out of a total Respect budget of 497,000 pounds.

You did better than I did. When I searched for any contributions to any party from "Naseem, Mohammed", it gave me a "no match" response.

This site clearly requires search techniques beyond those which I possess.

But if you think it&#39;s "all a lie", then you&#39;d be faced with explaining why the source of this "lie" is not Doug Ireland but rather Eric Lee -- the guy who manages the LabourStart site. He posted this on his own blog and Ireland picked up the story.

http://www.ericlee.me.uk/archive/000126.html

What aroused Ireland&#39;s anger was actually this story from the U.K. Gay News...

Galloway’s Party in Gay Rights Row (http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005nov/2202.htm)


Lots of people (like Doug Ireland) in the liberal left intelligentsia don&#39;t like Galloway - that&#39;s reflected in how they obsess about things like this, and the endless &#39;sleaze&#39; allegations.

I can&#39;t dispute this observation. Galloway seems to have become (perhaps inevitably) the "public face" of Respect...as if the whole group essentially consisted of his own groupies.

Whether Galloway is "personally corrupt" is essentially irrelevant to this thread, I think...though perhaps very relevant to his enemies in the U.K.

What we&#39;re talking here is the sale of principles. What makes bourgeois electoral politics inevitably corrupting is not "the bribe direct".

It&#39;s the fact that serious electoral politics requires massive sums of cash...and politicians must do anything it takes to get that cash. Should they fail in their attempts, their career is over.

I have no personal animosity towards Galloway as an individual. Indeed, I rather admired his performance before the American congress...during which he "kicked right-wing ass" most delightfully. The neo-cons here pissed and moaned about it for at least a week afterwards. :lol:

The issue that you cannot avoid -- and remain honest -- is the deletion of the "gay rights plank" from Respect&#39;s platform...and the obvious inference that this could only be due to the financial clout of Dr. Naseem.

That&#39;s how the corruption of bourgeois electoral politics really works.


Maybe, but that&#39;s not what&#39;s going on.

Looks that way to me.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

The issue that you cannot avoid -- and remain honest -- is the deletion of the "gay rights plank" from Respect&#39;s platform...and the obvious inference that this could only be due to the financial clout of Dr. Naseem.


True?


LGBT rights

This conference welcomes the production of a Respect leaflet for London Pride.

It supports the policies outlined in that leaflet i.e.

An end to discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people
For Equal partnership and pension rights
For strong policies to tackle homophobia in all public bodies
For an increase in public services that meet the needs of lesbians, gay men bisexuals and transgendered people, rather than money wasted on war.
Conference instructs the incoming National Committee to produce similar material for all Pride events next year and urges local groups to make sure the material is distributed at events in their area.






Make up your own mind

Respect (http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=506)

[Andy Bowden]

But why wasn&#39;t this gay rights policy featured in the parties Manifesto for the election? Its an important issue and should not have been forgotten.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)Make up your own mind.[/b]

Always good advice, to be sure.


UK Gay News
Respect’s grassroots rebel against alleged deal with anti-gay Islamists

LONDON, November 22, 2005 – Grassroots members of George Galloway’s left-wing Respect party have condemned as “unacceptable” the decision of the party leadership to exclude lesbian and gay rights from their manifesto for the general election earlier this year.

Allegations abound that Respect’s right-wing Islamist backers demanded the axing of gay rights as a condition of their electoral support for the party.

At Respect’s annual conference on Sunday (20 November), delegates rebelled against party leaders who vetoed the inclusion of gay equality in the party&#39;s manifesto for the 2005 general election.

The victorious conference resolution 47 stated: “Conference regards it as unacceptable that our manifesto for the general election did not contain any reference to the defence of LGBT rights.”

From the conference platform, Respect leader Lindsay German, who is also a senior leader of the Socialist Workers Party, disparaged the resolution, claiming it had a “hidden agenda” and was moved in “bad faith”.

“Despite the motion being passed by the grassroots membership, Respect&#39;s leaders offered no apology and no assurance that LGBT rights will be included in future election manifestos,” said gay left-wing human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of OutRage&#33;.

“Respect claims to support LGBT rights but the exclusion of gay rights from its election manifesto suggests otherwise."

“Respect&#39;s disrespect for LGBT people is part of a pattern. One of the party’s top leaders, Lindsay German, notoriously warned that gay rights are not a ‘shibboleth’ and should not prevent Respect forging electoral alliances with homophobic religious fundamentalist groups.

http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005nov/2202.htm

Do you have a link to the full text of this "election manifesto"? It should be easy enough to determine whether this story is true or not.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

Manifesto (http://www.respectcoalition.org/pdf/f325.pdf)

There it is. On first glance there doesn&#39;t seem to be any specific mention of LGBT rights.


with homophobic religious fundamentalist groups.

Translation: &#39;Muslims&#39;.


OK, here&#39;s my honest view, right.

For a progressive party, defense of sexual rights are non-negotiable and it should have been included in the manifesto.

As I remember it, defense of gay rights was not a big election issue - though that&#39;s not an excuse.

Still, I can&#39;t accept that there has been some massive swing in Respect policy
towards LGBT rights since they made their &#39;founding declaration&#39; and the 2005 manifesto.

There is, I think, a strong Islamophobic aspect to the anti-Respect feeling amongst sections of the ultra-left in Britain. It resembles the anti-Irish, anti-Semitic feelings of some earlier socialists.

The Irish, they told us, were too backward, too &#39;wedded to the Vatican&#39; to be a revolutionary force. Some say the same things about the Muslim working class today.

I don&#39;t believe it. I don&#39;t think the mainly petty bourgeois &#39;leaders&#39; (like Dr. Naseem) of the Muslim community are reprsentative. No group is homogenous. I don&#39;t doubt that some Muslims anti-women, anti-gay views - but this sentiment exists in all sections of society.

The people who would attack Respect over this are not concerned about gay rights.

Most, like the SSP here is Scotland, don&#39;t like Respect because they don&#39;t like Galloway. Others, like the far left sects, are opposed to Respect&#39;s policy of &#39;actually winning&#39;- because it offends their revolutionary purity. In fact, one of the more ridiculous Trot sects here, the AWL, called for a vote for the arch-Blairite, pro-war OPPONENT of Galloway&#39;s at the election.

It&#39;s mostly these groups, as well as the hyperbolic Tatchell, who spend their time criticising any mass left mobilisaition. Tatchell, for instance, protested at a demo for the Palestinians, criticising them for their treatment of homosexuals.

There slogan was (and I&#39;m serious here)

""Israel: stop persecuting Palestine&#33; Palestine: stop persecuting queers&#33;"


Read more (http://www.gayegypt.com/may2004.html)

[ReD_ReBeL]

who cares if it wasnt an election issue , its always stood as one of there policies on there website to defend homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals. And also if that guy who gave money to thm was homophobic who cares again? he forwarding money to there cause which is democratic socialism plus half of u ppl saying and homphobia have Che Guevara on ur icon thing, read john Lee Andersons biography of Che, and see what he has to say about homosexuals you wont be pleased, and also Gay ppl who where comrades in the struggle against Batista got the piss taking out of thm becoz thy where gay. and dont forget the consentration camps for homosexuals in the early days of the revolution taking power in Cuba.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
...the hyperbolic Tatchell...

Why is he "hyperbolic"? His focus is on human rights for gay people...he probably thinks that is more important than anything else.

People do tend to scream loudest when it is their own feet being trod upon.


Tatchell, for instance, protested at a demo for the Palestinians, criticising them for their treatment of homosexuals.

Their slogan was (and I&#39;m serious here)

"Israel: stop persecuting Palestine&#33; Palestine: stop persecuting queers&#33;"

I read the article at the link you posted and I find that demonstration to be quite admirable.

Why shouldn&#39;t gay people protest the treatment of other gay people at the hand of the Palestinian authorities?

Because that&#39;s "divisive"? :lol:


There is, I think, a strong Islamophobic aspect to the anti-Respect feeling amongst sections of the ultra-left in Britain.

Probably true...but again why shouldn&#39;t that be the case?

Islam is hyper-reactionary even by contemporary capitalist standards. If "ultra-leftists" hate it and any influence it might have in British politics, can you blame them?

Of course, you can argue that ordinary Muslim workers are "not like" the reactionary ideologues...and you may certainly be right about that.

But "ordinary Muslim workers" have no public voice in bourgeois politics any more than any other kind of "ordinary worker".

Islam in the U.K. is known by its reactionary ideologues, just like Christianity is in the U.S.

That&#39;s what "sets the tone".

It strikes me that you are "worried" that Respect is going to get "a bad rep" among lefties if it comes to be perceived as a political vehicle for Islamic clerical fascists.

Well, I think you have good reason to worry about that. People like Tatchell are going to be watching Respect like a hawk...and the internet allows them to quickly "spread the word" of what they find out.


The people who would attack Respect over this are not concerned about gay rights.

Some of them are, obviously. As to others, naturally they will "take advantage" of any "weapon" to discredit Respect.

Some of them perhaps share my own views of bourgeois "elections" as a fraud. And, for that matter, a cesspool of corruption.

Others undoubtedly just "hate Galloway"...a not uncommon fate for political celebrities.

But you can&#39;t help but be aware of your own awkward position...one which lefties always find themselves whenever they get involved in the muck of bourgeois electoral politics.

You inevitably find yourself "making excuses" or saying "well, I don&#39;t agree with that" or perhaps "that was just wrong."

And then, of course, you are tempted by the sweet smell of office..."I don&#39;t care what we say or don&#39;t say as long as we win&#33;".

There was a young guy I knew once back during the American civil rights movement. Some years later, he was actually elected to a state legislature. In a magazine interview, he described how he attended this big banquet thrown by a leading business group for new incoming legislators. "You know", he said, "after meeting these business people, I discovered that they&#39;re really not so bad." :o

A cautionary tale.

ReD_ReBeL: It does not matter now what Che Guevara thought 40 years ago or what Cuban policy was "way back then".

We are discussing Respect policy right now.

Moreover, if you are under the illusion that political contributions come "with no strings attached", then I&#39;m afraid your education in bourgeois politics is in its infancy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ReD_ReBeL]

ok people look as i&#39;ve sed before RESPECT did not have gay rights in there election policies but LOOK at there website which has stood as a policy since thy where ESTABLISHED they defend gays, lesbiens, transexuals. Just becoz it wasnt noted in the Election process doesnt mean they didnt stand for it.
plz plz plz check out there website so ppl can shut up about homophobia http://www.respectcoalition.org they are a party for equality, and if they abandoned reaching out to people with religious beliefs which in some ways to repress other ppl which is a shame, thn thy would be discriminating towards that persons belief and tht would not be equality to all. Yes they have recieved funds for tht bloke, but tell me where have they ever been anti-gay? no where, they r just reaching out to eeverybody

[YKTMX]

Why shouldn&#39;t gay people protest the treatment of other gay people at the hand of the Palestinian authorities?

He can protest about what he likes at his own pleasure. That Demo was one in support of the Palestinian people&#39;s struggle for freedom and justice.

It wasn&#39;t an opportunity for Tatchell to &#39;criticise the oppressed&#39;.


Islam is hyper-reactionary even by contemporary capitalist standards.

Really? Islam is more reactionary than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or the Zionist militias.




People like Tatchell are going to be watching Respect like a hawk...and the internet allows them to quickly "spread the word" of what they find out.


Tatchell is a screeching irrelevance. No one listens to him.

[Amusing Scrotum]

This debate reminded me of the lyrics from this song, - The Socialist ABC (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/int/abc.htm) - the last few lines are especially relevant,

"Now that I&#39;m not a little tiny boy,
Me daddy says to me,
&#39;Please try to forget those thing that I said,
Especially the ABC.&#39;

For daddy is no longer a union man,
And he&#39;s had to change his plea.
His alphabet is different now,
Since they made him a Labour MP."

There is a definite "truth" in this. One only has to look at the "New Labour" lot and their youth to see that. Jack Straw was a Stalinist who MI5 kept a file on, John Prescott was big in the Unions, David Blunkett declared Sheffield "a Socialist Republic" etc. etc.

Indeed the only people I can think of that didn&#39;t have a "radical" past were Brown and Blair.
_________

As for Galloway, I think he ability "on the stump" means that many people on the left will always be attracted to him. His debate with the "slug" Hitchens was very enjoyable.

However his part, notably his links with the nuclear industry, do cast doubts on his credibility.


they are a party for equality, and if they abandoned reaching out to people with religious beliefs which in some ways to repress other ppl which is a shame, thn thy would be discriminating towards that persons belief and tht would not be equality to all.

"Equality to all" is a silly concept. As many people have said in the past, the "left" should not respect racists, homophobes etc. and should definitely not consider them "equal."

There are certain people who should be excluded out of principle.

[Andy Bowden]

Could I just clarify that a major part of the reason many people in my party the SSP have little time for Galloway originates from his attacks on our leadership as "trotskyite apparachiks", and threatening to split the left by standing RESPECT in Scotland during what was our parties worst hour. His condemnation of the Militant Tendency as "trotskyite entrists" is also a matter of grave concern to many Socialists.


As for the Palestinian issue, supporting their right to independence should never mean that we do not criticise the PA&#39;s reactionary political program. The politics of class-cousciousness should never be sacrificed for an anti-imperialism that does not take into account class struggle and the need for permanent revolution.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I just found an interesting article on Galloway&#39;s election tactics, - Eastenders in turmoil, a fatwa on Galloway, and the most dangerous campaign in Britain (http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=605) - the article certainly makes some interesting points.


Originally posted by Johann Hari+--> (Johann Hari)But some has burst beyond those boundaries: he has been telling the most alienated Muslim men in Britain that Tony Blair is "waging a war on Muslims ... at home and abroad". He is nudging towards a kind of inverse Powellism that tells the Muslim community it is under siege from a brutal terrorist state that will stop at nothing. Rivers of blood, he implies, are only months away.[/b]

(Emphasis added.)

I don&#39;t know how any serious "leftie" would make such an ignorant claim. Does Galloway really think Iraq was a religious war?


Originally posted by Johann [email protected]
This week, Galloway had the look of a man who has been romancing a beast, only to find the beast has raced beyond his control. For several years now, he has been performing political cunnilingus on the most hardline Muslim groups in Britain. Look at the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), whose chief spokesman, Dr Azam Tamimi, says that Arab women "ask for" wife-beating, and believes thieves should be punished by cutting off their hands.

After years of wooing them and adopting their ultra-conservative position on abortion, euthanasia and more, Galloway has coaxed the MAB to urge its supporters to give him "maximum support." He has even adopted the mullahs&#39; line on drugs, attacking King for her "soft" views on cannabis and calling for a "much tougher" war, no matter how many Muslim lives it takes.

(Emphasis added.)

It seems Mr. Galloway is more than willing to ally himself with "the forces of reaction" if it gets him elected.

I mean who cares if we beat a few women, stone a few thieves and murder some "pot heads." They&#39;re all "sinners" anyway.


Johann Hari
This is part of a pattern. Galloway consistently sides with unelected, unrepresentative Muslim leaders at the expense of the majority of Muslim people. When he talks about "siding with Muslims", I am always tempted to ask: which Muslims? Female Muslims, chafing under their veils and reeling from the fists of too many of their men? Democratic Muslims, braving suicide-bombers to vote all over Iraq? Gay Muslims, living in terror and locked in mock-heterosexual marriage? Muslim trade unionists in Iraq, dismissed by Galloway as "quislings"? Tariq Aziz, or his victims?

As the saying goes, "there&#39;s no smoke without fire."

[YKTMX]

His condemnation of the Militant Tendency as "trotskyite entrists" is also a matter of grave concern to many Socialists.


:lol: They were Trots who openly practiced entrism&#33;

What name would you give it?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Islam is more reactionary than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or the Zionist militias?

I&#39;m not sure what is meant by the phrase "Zionist militias" in this context.

But that aside, Robertson, Falwell, et.al., are the Christian equivalents of Naseem & Company.

And, by contemporary capitalist standards in the U.K. and the U.S., they are all reactionary.

In fact, I think it&#39;s time to revive the concept of clerical fascism to describe this phenomenon. It doesn&#39;t matter if these people call themselves Christians or Muslims or whatever...because what they really are are fascists.

Nor do I see anything to be gained from a discussion of "which one is the worst"...even if that could be "decided" in some ultimate sense.

Either one, in power, would put both of us to death&#33;

Do you doubt this?


Tatchell is a screeching irrelevance. No one listens to him.

Oh? I listened to him...doesn&#39;t that count?

And now all the readers of this thread have heard what he has to say.

And, the internet being what it is, they will tell others...who will tell still others, etc., etc., etc.

Don&#39;t you grasp the significance of the internet yet? Sure, you can freely dismiss your critics as "irrelevant"...but don&#39;t think for a second that your dismissal means that "no one will listen".

As that conference resolution proves, even people who are members of Respect have been listening.

And they don&#39;t like what they&#39;ve been hearing.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Feral Underclass]

I always enter these discussions too late to say anything relevant. Redstar has pretty much summed up in one particular practical example of why RESPECT is no good.

RESPECT represents the inertia of reformist politics. The Galloway campaign was a phenomenon sure, but to think that this "coalition" (Ex labour and SWP) is going to have any effect on politics in Britain is mistaken. Galloway may not even get re-elected at the local elections and where will John Rees be then...?

It&#39;s a one way ticket back to the drawing board, with only nostalgia and disillusion for all the poor saps who believed it was going to make a difference

What a victory aye&#33;

[YKTMX]

I&#39;m not sure what is meant by the phrase "Zionist militias" in this context.


I&#39;m thinking of groups like the Haganah and the Palmach who massacred Palestinians during the formation of the Jewish State. But, maybe you&#39;re right, might not be a relevant example.


It doesn&#39;t matter if these people call themselves Christians or Muslims or whatever...because what they really are are fascists.


I&#39;d be wary of that. Fascism has a very historically particular meaning. I don&#39;t doubt they&#39;re nasty and reactionary, but fascist? I&#39;m not convinced.

[DaRk-OnE]

Other criticisms have been leveled at George Galloway&#39;s refusal to accept an average worker&#39;s wage instead of a full Parliamentary salary (Galloway previously claimed he needs £150,000 a year to "function in politics" — The Scotsman, May 19, 2003), "divisive" targeting of the Muslim vote, and the lack of the distinctively socialist policies of supporting "no borders" and abolition of the British monarchy. In response, Galloway claims the majority of his wage is spent on political campaigns, not himself, a matter of some dispute.

[Andy Bowden]

I should have made my feelings clearer on the Galloway-Militant thing, basically he attacked the Militant Labour council with roughly the same perogatives the Tories did, and called Militant "parasitical" - in my opinion the Militant has a far better record of fighting Thatcherism than he did.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Fascism has a very historically particular meaning. I don&#39;t doubt they&#39;re nasty and reactionary, but fascist? I&#39;m not convinced.

The word lately has acquired an "aura" of associated meanings.

It&#39;s no longer strictly confined to Italy, where the word was coined.

I think Christian fascists in the U.S. resemble most closely the clerical fascists that held power in a number of Eastern European countries between the two world wars.

If so, then what we could expect from them would be political despotism and some version of official and compulsory Christianity. How brutal such a regime might be is, of course, impossible to say.

But some of them are quite blunt about implementing "Bible Law"...not excluding the restoration of slavery.

So I think the term is justified in this context.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

Maybe you&#39;re right...


Do you think these gallows could &#39;handle&#39; a man of Falwell&#39;s bulk? :lol:

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/leaders/mussolini-hanging-out.jpg


Maybe we&#39;ll find out.

[Cheung Mo]

The day Iran stops publicly executing Marxists, feminists, and homosexuals is the day when it becomes okay for the left to consider working with Islamists. Since that day will never arrive, it will never be okay. In fact, people who advocate such views do not even deserve their own tongues.

You saw Khomeini and his cronies butcher their leftist allies in deposing the Shah as soon as they were able to consolidate power.