05.05.2004

MAB, abortion and the CPGB

Seeing Red

The present controversy surrounding Respect’s non-position on abortion has, once again, highlighted the fundamental programmatic weaknesses of the unity coalition. With George Galloway and the Muslim Association of Britain now proudly parading their anti-abortion credentials, it also confirms the analysis of the Red Platform that the CPGB’s blanket support for Respect’s candidates in the forthcoming elections is seriously mistaken.

For it appears that leading members of the CPGB have been somewhat shocked that such views on abortion have been so publicly aired by leading components of Respect. Indeed already some of the majority are now zigzagging on the matter.

Take Marcus Ström. Two weeks ago in ‘Party notes’, Marcus wrote: “Of course there will be those who eagerly pounce on his statements around this issue to reinforce their sectarian opposition to voting for the coalition. A mistake. Any kind of electoral success for Respect will once again put the question of partyism at the top of the agenda. It will also be a blow to the Blairite war machine from the left. We should therefore vote Respect, albeit highly critically” (Weekly Worker April 22).

One might take from such a statement that even if Respect were to actually adopt an anti-abortion stance, it would still be permissible to vote for it, since its success would give a bloody nose to New Labour. Sounds rather like standard SWP fare.

To his credit Marcus adopts a far more militant approach to the question in last week’s paper. Yet he still lets Respect off the hook when he writes that “Respect’s founding declaration gives the impression of being in favour of a woman’s right to choose: ‘self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious or non-religious beliefs, as well as sexual choices.’ Sounds good, but now we can see that it carefully skirts around the issue of abortion” (Weekly Worker April 29).

Not quite true. In fact, there were some of us in the CPGB who did not need MAB’s statement to already know that Respect was, to put it politely, ‘skirting around’ the issue. In fact it had already been highlighted in Mike Macnair’s article on the weaknesses of the Yaqoob-Monbiot document (Weekly Worker October 23 2003).

Mike noted that the first draft of their document stated that “We support the right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual and reproductive choices.” A vague but welcome recognition of a woman’s right to choose.

Yet Mike noted: “In the second draft ‘sexual and reproductive choices’ have become ‘lifestyle choices’. An important and controversial principle - women’s right of access to contraception, abortion and new reproductive technologies - has been erased into an empty phrase. With this stripped out we are left with an illusory proposition.” Herein then lay the roots of Respect’s awful non-position on abortion. The revolutionary socialists of the SWP should be thoroughly ashamed that in its courting of the mosque it consented to such a change.

However, the CPGB leadership has some questions to answer. In its attempt to portray Respect as somehow progressive, it failed to highlight such unprincipled positions. Indeed, in acting as left attorney for Respect, the CPGB has now compounded its problems by calling on the left to support MAB candidates standing on the unity coalition platform.

Some other people have short memories. This is what Jack Conrad wrote about MAB in early 2003: “What of MAB and islam? There is no need to debate whether or not MAB in particular and islam in general is reactionary. Like all religions it is. Indeed the form of neo-traditional islam promoted by MAB, and its Muslim Brotherhood progenitors, is alien to the elementary principles of democracy, secularism and equality we adhere to” (Weekly Worker February 6 2003). Excellent stuff.

And there’s more. Writing in ‘Party notes’ last summer, Jack recognised that “There is no possibility whatsoever that the programme of any such bloc would be based on working class socialism and consistent democracy. To say that is not islamophobia: it is a simple statement of fact. Neither church, chapel, temple nor mosque organise workers as a class. Such institutions might contain many workers in their congregations. However, they are typically dominated by middle class professionals, owners of small businesses and traditional intellectuals” (Weekly Worker July 10 2003).

So what has changed? Were we wrong in labelling MAB as reactionaries? If so, the leadership should make an apology to MAB. Yet, if we were right then - as Red Platform believes - we should not give any backing to candidates from MAB, now the ‘external faction’ of Respect.

Indeed we need to go back to our correct position of last summer, when we rightly slammed Peace and Justice, which was nothing other than Respect in embryo. In writing that “the SWP has been forced to shelve its popular frontist turn”, Marcus made only one error - that Peace and Justice had been discarded (Weekly Worker August 21 2003).

Let’s hope Marcus and rest of the CPGB leadership now return to what was fundamentally correct about that statement: that the SWP’s lash-up with reactionary, non-working class forces like MAB is the politics of the popular front.