02.02.2006

What's principle got to do with it?

At the 'Defy section 9' conference in Manchester, the comrades from the SWP again tried to prevent the meeting from taking principled positions on the question of immigration, reports Dave Isaacson

CPGB members attended the 'Fighting the asylum and immigration acts - defy section 9!' conference in Manchester last weekend - billed as "a working conference for trade unionists, anti-deportation campaigners and anti-racists". Attendance was good, with around 150-200 present - most of them already involved in local anti-deportation campaigns, but with a healthy proportion of asylum-seekers themselves.

In terms of the organised left, by far the most prominent group was Workers Power, whose comrades did much of the organising, and seem to be approaching this field of work with a refreshing degree of seriousness. In contrast the Socialist Workers Party was underrepresented in the extreme. It had no stall, no paper-sellers, not even a Respect leaflet.

Much of the conference was dedicated to the discussion of practicalities and the sharing of knowledge and experience regarding anti-deportation campaigns. There were three workshops focusing on 'trade unions fighting section 9', 'how to win anti-deportation campaigns' and 'the media and anti-deportation campaigns', as well as a number of plenary speeches on practical issues, including the legal situation. Rosie Kane was also there to report on how the Scottish Socialist Party has been active in opposing deportation snatch squads.

In addition to the sharing of positive experiences there was an attempt on the part of some of the organisers, including Workers Power, to map out a strategy. To this end a draft motion had been produced for conference to discuss and vote on, proposed by George Binette (WP). This sparked a debate which was with us for the rest of the day and is one that revolutionaries must win if the movement is to go forward. The motion was generally very good and included the all-important formulation: "We seek the repeal of all anti-asylum-seeker legislation and all immigration controls, which are the roots from which the asylum-seeker 'issue' arises. If capital has the right to move freely, so should labour."

This was too much for the SWP comrades present, particularly Elane Heffernan, who spent the rest of the conference doing all she could to scupper this motion. The SWP formally upholds the principle of open borders, but apparently regards this as some kind of abstract mantra, unsuitable for 'coalitions' like Respect and, presumably, 'broad' anti-deportation campaigns. According to comrade Heffernan, we must "separate the campaign against immigration controls" from this campaign, which was just against section 9. Which begs the question: just where is this "campaign against immigration controls" taking place?

The SWP also felt that the call within the motion for the physical defence of asylum-seekers from snatch squads and the like was "too far ahead of where people's consciousness is at". Utter opportunist crap. People already organise themselves in spontaneous campaigns in response to moves to deport their neighbours - often valued members of their community whose only 'crime' is that they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the heat of the battle passions are aroused and people can easily be won to various forms of direct action.

In the end the SWP scrabbled together an alternative, minimalist motion of its own, which put together the usual vague 'defend asylum-seekers' slogans with a specific opposition to particular regulations such as section 9. "We need to come away with something that's going to make a difference" was the argument.

When I proposed the CPGB's open borders motion at Respect conference it was outrageously slammed by the SWP as "abstract" - as if the demand for all people to be allowed to live and work anywhere has no bearing on the rights of specific individuals facing deportation. Well, this motion was the ultimate in abstraction - aimed at preventing the politicisation of people being drawn into single-issue campaigns and instead pandering to current levels of consciousness.

Fortunately the open borders motion was passed in addition to that of the SWP. But the SWP's attitude will certainly cause problems. Its refusal to fight for the main question has a fragmentary effect: instead of achieving a principled unity, it encourages the belief that each individual migrant is a special case, more deserving of support than the others.