08.11.2001
Socialists tail islamic reaction
The Socialist Workers Party?s tendency to tail islamic fundamentalism was recently displayed in Birmingham.
On Monday October 29 around 1,500 people crowded into the Rex Centre in Small Heath to show their opposition to the ?war against terrorism? which imperialism is waging against Afghanistan. The meeting was initially called by the mosque. However, it was agreed to broaden its appeal at the instigation of the Stop the War Coalition.
Nothing untowards so far. Indeed, there were many positive aspects to the rally. This was one of the largest political meetings Birmingham had seen in years. The size and diversity of the meeting shows the potential strength of the anti-war movement. It was good that ordinary muslims turned up to hear the views of George Monbiot, Guardian columnist and Globalise Resistance steering committee member, and - even more so - leading SWP member, John Rees, who is also a national organiser for the Stop the War Coalition. How often do ordinary muslims get to hear the opinions of revolutionary socialists?
Comrade Rees reminded the audience of the United States? brutal imperialist war against the Vietnamese people and their fight for self-determination. The forces of national liberation eventually stopped US imperialism in its tracks. Comrade Rees pointed out how the anti-war protests and movement in America - and also Europe - helped to make it impossible for the war to continue. In 1973 US imperialism was forced to ignobly scuttle out of Vietnam on the skids of helicopters and the country was reunified two years later.
True, this speech by comrade Rees went hand in hand with a fiercely anti-communist tirade by Zaid Shakir, a local imam and professor of political science. But between the two it is obvious who would emerge as winner.
However, there were negative aspects. First, the treatment dealt out to comrade Arash, an Iranian socialist and active member of the Socialist Alliance. Before the meeting started, the comrade had been handing out leaflets denouncing islamic fundamentalism. For this heinous offence the comrade was punished. He was refused admission to the meeting, and when he protested, chased down the street and physically threatened (see below).
Worse still, the British-Asian women who attended the meeting - but not the white or black women - were pressurised by the islamicists into sitting in a separate section of the hall. When one British-Asian woman objected to this sexual segregation and other leftwingers became involved, the local SWP full-timer eventually intervened in her favour ... but very, very reluctantly. This comrade was obviously under orders to be ?nice to the fundamentalists?.
In the light of the events of October 29, a Birmingham Stop the War committee meeting two days later passed a very basic resolution upholding the right to free speech within the movement and opposition to physical violence. Incredibly, the SWP voted against it. So does this mean that the comrades are in favour of physically intimidating those with dissenting or minority viewpoints? Would the SWP comrades stay mute if at an anti-war meeting a muslim fundamentalist objected to the presence of gay - or Jewish - comrades and demanded that they be summarily ejected from the room?
Our SWP allies need to do some explaining.
Eddie Ford