Letters

Obstruction

In line with national policy (insofar as it exists) and the definite view of the London Socialist Alliance, another comrade and I recently set out to establish the Haringey Socialist Alliance, inviting all and sundry left organisations (insofar as they exist) in the London borough of Haringey to an inaugural meeting.

Sacked RMT activist Steve Hedley kicked off a discussion on privatisation and its effects at the meeting on September 1. Unfortunately, as the meeting wore on, it became clear that other comrades who attended were not interested in founding a local Socialist Alliance at all and had come with the intention of preventing it; they wanted everyone instead to work within a loose, nameless, non-socialist body that had held a couple of meetings in Tottenham, in the east of the borough, around solidarity with the RMT struggles.

These anti-HSA comrades, including David Lyons and another comrade from the Socialist Democracy Group and one comrade from Socialist Outlook, pretended only to be against setting up the Haringey Socialist Alliance now. But in actual fact, as became clear from what these comrades said, their obstructive and destructive aim was to curry favour with and avoid anything that might upset their current work with local activists who are anarchists, greens or just plain anti-socialists, assuming that they might not work with them in a Socialist Alliance. Of course, no one was suggesting that these comrades stop their cooperation with local activists who do not join Haringey SA, especially since it, too, seeks cooperation with these activists. Ironically and contradictorily, almost all of those present who were opposing formation of the Haringey SA are currently members of the London SA.

When loyal London SA members act as we did in Haringey last week, to start to build a “fleshed out” borough alliance from the grassroots in order to organise and coordinate local activity and involve local activists … comrade Lyons comes along with his cohort and tries to prevent it. However, comrade Lyons and those around him should realise that we are determined Haringey Socialist Alliance shall exist, it shall work, and it shall be built into a worthwhile body, despite those who would like to kill it off. No person or organisation is forced to be part of a Socialist Alliance, but neither shall anyone be allowed to obstruct what those of us committed to the Socialist Alliance project want to achieve … in Haringey or anywhere else. The time to build Socialist Alliances is now.

Jim Gilbert
Coordinator, Haringey Socialist Alliance

Armed struggle

It is good that the Weekly Worker (August 27) published in full the statements of both the Irish National Liberation Army, announcing their “complete ceasefire”, and the Irish Republican Socialist Party, welcoming this new position - I have not seen this in any other paper.

These full statements give the grounds for a considered political analysis of the reasons put forward by the IRSP and Inla for their revised political positions, and it must be clearly said that they are wrong. The Inla statement includes:

“We recognise that the political situation has changed since the formation of the Inla. We recognise that armed struggle can never be the only option for revolutionaries. In the new conditions prevailing it is only right to respond to the new conditions. Those conditions demand a ceasefire.”

The IRSP has always since its formation attempted to be a Marxist party, so the Inla sentence about armed struggle never being the only option is a complete red herring. Neither Inla nor the IRSP have ever held this un-Marxist view. Why then the red herring? It is clearly seen in the next two sentences of the Inla statement, that in the new political conditions the right response is a ceasefire - ie, total abandonment of military struggle and relying totally on political struggle. The truth is that the correct form of struggle, applied for many years by both the IRA and Sinn Féin, and Inla and the IRSP, is the tactical combination of both - the ‘ballot box and armalite’.

Both the Inla and the IRSP statements correctly state that they oppose the Good Friday agreement, and “it was not worth the sacrifices of the last 30 years”, but the ceasefire is claimed to be justified by the large majority vote in support of the agreement. It can never be the case that a majority public vote in favour - or against - any proposition automatically makes such a majority correct. And when you look at the completely unprincipled hype which was loaded onto the public in the days before the vote - anyone who dared to question it, not to mention oppose it, was an ‘enemy of peace’, etc - the result is not surprising.

In the same way that it was right for some political organisations in Germany to tell the German people they were wrong to have voted for Hitler, it is correct for Marxists to say to the people of Ireland, ‘You have been conned and fooled by the most experienced political liars and tricksters - British politicians.’

Every day brings proof that this is true. Tactically and sensibly used against correct targets, the armed struggle is justified, and the political - yes, the principal - form of struggle at the moment, and, as far as one can tell, into the foreseeable future, must be to take the issue to the international level. The case against British forcible retention of the Six Counties is clear, and would gain genuine international support - as distinct from being conned by US imperialism.

Pat King
Southampton

Perverts?

OK, Sandy Johnstone (Letters, September 3), so if we’re in the business of playing god and deciding who is a pervert and who isn’t, and how we should judge them; and if a pervert is someone who fancies someone younger than the people you happen to fancy, who do we call a child and therefore a victim, and who is OK by your measure?

In the USA many states hold the age of consent at 21 - before that you are a minor - and incidentally you cannot have various forms of sexual relations, whatever your age or marital status, as it is deemed ‘abuse’. Is that OK? In other states you can have sex and get married at 12, and some do. Are these all sicko perverts then, who should be subject to the good old British justice, dragged into the street, have their house burnt down and given a good kicking, if not hung? No, obviously not everyone of 12 marries another 12-year old. In fact that is a gross exception - most partners are at least 10 years older. And incidentally these tend to be the marriages that last.

But we British are above such perversions. Anyone who is British could not possibly fancy a 12-year old without being sick and depraved. Why is a 12-year old abroad able to make a rational, sound choice of his or her partner, but a British 12-year old needs the protection of Sandy Johnstone vetting their options?

He asks where is the evidence that young people object to this law. Have you asked in the right places? As a matter of fact 80% of all prosecutions against (mainly) men having sex with under-age partners come about after outside interference by people like Sandy, and not as a result of complaints by the young person. In most cases the young person refuses to cooperate with the state, or give evidence, and in many cases they themselves end up in care or under some form of enforced supervision. So thanks a million, pal.

If this letter sounds angry, rest assured - it is. My current girlfriend is the one I have had for the last six years or so. She is now 17, so work it out. My feelings towards her have never been predatory or based solely on her age, which of course changes as time goes on. I feel no different emotionally and sexually now than when I first met her, minus the pubic hair and breasts. Her feelings towards me have matured as she has grown, and obviously she still retains friends of her own age, and does all the things they do with ‘normal’ age relationships. Why is that Sandy’s business? Why should our love for each other cause me to wake up sweating that someone like Sandy and his sad vigilantes might be deciding our fate on our behalf with a building brick and a rope or a pot of paint to daub our house?

In a word, Sandy, if you are part of the progressive working class movement and can dig this, get off our backs, and, not to put too fine a point on it, mind your own business. Living one’s own life according to a set of sound and principled values is hard enough without thinking you can impose your twisted sense of right and wrong on others, me and my girlfriend in particular.

Frank Worth
Leeds

Own goal

The CPGB, having acted in haste, will certainly repent at leisure (Weekly Worker September 3). The Rugby conference was a disaster for anybody seriously interested in genuinely inclusive nationwide Socialist Alliance lists for the June 1999 Euro-elections. The CPGB comrades are presumably aware that their sectarian behaviour ensured that no decision was ever taken on standing candidates and that such a decision will now be delayed until the recall conference in late March, far too late for an embryonic formation without a substantial public profile or much in the way of financial resources to generate the publicity, recruit the election organisers and raise the money to mount a nationwide challenge.

As a result, the Independent Labour Network will make its own decisions without waiting for the Alliances. This, whilst understandable, is deeply regrettable, since many tendencies present in the Socialist Alliances are not present in the ILN. Some of us involved in both will seek to persuade the ILN leadership to be as inclusive as possible, especially in relation to the Socialist Party which has displayed such a positive and friendly attitude to comrades Coates and Kerr since their expulsion from the Labour Party. But it should be noted that Hugh Kerr and Ken Coates, who were always dubious about CPGB involvement, have now decided in the light of the unwarranted and systematic heckling of comrade Coates by the CPGB and RDG that any relationship with the CPGB or its close allies is now out of the question.

Maybe the CPGB always intended to fight every seat in every region on its own full programme (including no age of consent and fusion with the Inla) but if this was not the intention - and membership outside London makes it hard to believe it was - you have certainly scored an own goal.

Editor’s note: Neither the CPGB nor the RDG heckled Ken Coates at the Rugby conference. He was interrupted once by Chris Weller of Kent SA, who is a member of neither organisation.

Toby Abse
London