Workers' Liberty

"More surprising is that the Socialist Workers Party, having repudiated Galloway and his communal politics, chose to abstain on the motion along with large sections of the Socialist Teachers Alliance (one of the two main left groups in the NUT). It is now clear that the SWP leadership has only gone so far in rejecting the politics of their recent rotten past."

You may have been surprised given your rush to jump into bed with the reactionaries of the SWP as a supposed socialist alternative in the Mayoral elections I'm certainly not. So where does your support for German stand now then? Are these reactionaries still socialists that are as you put it, "On the same side" as you? Where do you stand now in relation to wanting some kind of unity with these people?

Arthur Bough

I have no problem with political criticism, even from AWL.
How an organisation claiming to be socialists can only use personal attacks, both in terms of Mr Unteraiter's comments in the debate and now in this conference report asks more questions about AWL than it does about me.
Also, some factual reporting might go down nicely, just occasionally. If Mr Unteraiter would have actually listened to what I said, I condemned the Home Office for threatening to deport Kazemi (although I did not mention him by name).
In addition, I referred to how the NUT should work with unions and others in the countries concerned, inferring that another approach was needed. It wasn't possible to amend the motion, so I could not come up with alternative wording.
Perhaps in publishing Tom Unteraiter's report, you could have mentioned his reference to George Galloway as 'brownshirts'. Given that I am Jewish, maybe you might like reflect on the offence that causes. Maybe not.

The kitsch, classless left Tom was criticising in his speech have been stomping around for years referring to everyone they don't like as Islamaphobes, racist, pro-imperialists, Zionists, and all sorts of other ridiculous scare-words and slanders as a substitute for political debate without pausing to think twice about the implications of any of it.

But did those of us on the receiving end of those slanders whine about it and demand apologies? No - we dealt with the politics at hand, stated our case and proved that the slanders were just that; slanders.

The situation we're dealing with here is quite different to that, though. As I understand it, Tom didn't call Ray Sirotkin "a Brownshirt" but rather compared Galloway to "a Brownshirt". (Ray's own post here seems to bear this out.) Maybe this is hyperbolic, overly virtiolic, whatever, but it's a political assessment of what Galloway represents and the idea that he should have to apologise for it to anyone is laughable.

Have we really reached a situation on the left where the SWP, Socialist Action and whoever else can run around calling anyone anything they like, but start mewling and demanding apologies the second someone sends a bit of vitriol their way?

Ray, could you explain exactly what it was in the motion you objected to? With quotations, if possible?

Sacha Ismail

First things first: I did not call Ray Sirotkin a "Brownshirt", a "racist", a "homophobe" or anything of the sort. Some will maintain that I named Ray as a fascist until their dying days. For them, I am sorry - it's the only thing I am sorry for in this matter.

There are two issues here. One an issue of political method, the other of politics itself. Ray had to have some guts to get up at conference to speak against a motion on international homophobia. I accept that he attacked the Govn over Kazemi, but I do not recall him talking about working with unions etc... I'll take it on trust that he did. What I found incoherent in Ray's speech is what is incoherent in the rest of his politics (and the Stalinist politics of Socialist Action): a slavish devotion - inspired by so-called anti-imperialism - to some of the vilest regimes on the planet. There is a long and rotten history here, a history documented on other parts of this website. If I'm rude and uncharitable towards Ray, then it's because I find his politics sickening. Ray put himself on the platform to speak against the motion, he took to the stage to put his politics forward to the best of his ability - in so doing, he made himself accountable for his politics.

Year in, year out, student members of the AWL and those who sympathise with us have gone through very similar disputes with Ray's student comrades in the NUS. The arguments are well rehearsed, now all too predictable. When Ray took to the platform, I could have written his speech for him - I knew exactly what he was going to say. If this debate is to continue perhaps Ray can explain in his own words exactly why he opposed the motion.

I was in the conference hall for the debate, and stood outside with Tom when the STA leadership demanded an apology- what was and wasn't said is largely a diversion from the debate that took place, and the shame that the SWP and other socialists brought on themselves by abstaining.

Ray and Kevin are mistaken- I notice Kevin's outrage has matured since the day of the debate itself when he only accused Tom of saying that Ray was a bigot. What tom said in his speech shoudl not be in dispute since we have a video of the whole thing.

What was interesting from my standpoint up at the back of the conference hall was that even when the vote took place -and it should be noted that the abstainers didn't just not vote in favour of the motion, but demanded that the president record their abstentions. Was that only those socialists sat together in one block of the hall abstained- swp members in the bradford and leeds delegations for example voted for the motion along with their delegations. Why did those sat with their delegations vote for such a flawed motion?

I think tom in his reply above is too soft on Ray, the swp and the sta. Ray in his speech did not give conference the real reasons he opposed the motion, that is that he thinks Iran should not be criticised at this time, but instead skirted around it, suggesting some sort of cultural imperialism.

The politics of this are pretty clear, the overwhelming majority of NUT conference voted for solidarity with the victims of homophobia no matter what their geographic location. A small minority of of delegates -who call themselves socialists- abstained. Those who abstained have the cheek to demand that Tom apologise.

My recollection of what Tom said was that "Galloway and Sirotkin are the Brownshirt wing of the anti war movement".

What Tom actually said does matter, so if Martin could report that from the video he has it would be interesting.

I don't think that Tom thinks Ray is a Brownshirt - because if he did he would be trying to drive Ray out of the union. And I accept that people can mis-speak. But if Tom did, as I recall, call Ray a Brownshirt then he should apologise for it. Outside the conference I asked Tom to apologoise to Ray on a personal basis - because we are all trying to work together in the union.

Martin is right that most of the STA and SWP did vote for the motion. The STA line was to vote for it.

However a section did abstain - following the debate - and people there did agree with Ray that a motion of LBGT issues which was almost completely silent on the oppresion of LGBT people in Britain was inadequate.

I ask no one for an apology.I merely ask that you reflect on some epithets used. Politcal views are political views, but it's a shame some find it impossible to reflect on what I said, rather than any political views I may or may not have.
I do have to ask why anyone in a polemic has to refer to personal inadequacies - real or otherwise - in their piece? Presumably it's to give emphasis?
If Tom says he 'did not call Ray Sirotkin a "Brownshirt", a "racist", a "homophobe" or anything of the sort', that's fine. That's behind us.
Perhaps we can then consider the politics, always the first casualty of these episodes. Our delegation discussed the motion and raised concerns. This included our LGBT convenor (how many branches have an LGBT convenor?. He himself was so concerned that he withdrew his speakers' card, though I can assure you on his own volition. The concern raised by him and all our delegation, including SWP, including black teachers was the naming of countries. No mention of some US states, for example. My contribution was shaped by my discussions with them who agreed that it would be seen by as Britain sorting out the third world.
Tom now accepts that I defended the rights of Kazemi over deportation to Iran. That's not how it seemed at the time when he spoke immediately after me. It's not the way those who listened saw it when I spoke to them afterwards. So maybe it's not me who's as incoherent as suggested?
For the record, I discussed the matter with Tim Lucas, the mover of the motion after the dabate. We discussed the problem of the fact that no amendments were possible to change the wording. I explained that I would have taken out specific references to Jamaica and other named countries and inserted a phrase on how the national union would work with their counter-parts in other countries and with LGBT groups to overcome homophobia. (This is not the same as campaigning for the rights of anyone anywhere ) Tim, acknowledged my viewpoint, we had a few words about how a better motion might come in the future, shook hands and that was that.
On a section of the left abstaining and being denounced for it, since when was it unprincipled to abstain in the movement if you are of the view that had the motion been amended, you'd vote for it? It was clear as to why some of the left felt this was right - yes some of the SWP did vote for it. One SWP friend of mine explained that he agreed with what I said but felt it better the motion went through. Nothing heated there.
When I spoke, even when I referred to 'imperialist' I didn't have the AWL in mind. It is uncannny however how they do jump up whenever a suggestion that anything has anything to do with imperialism (Israel in relation to Palestine, for example. That's another story, but it seems I touched a raw nerve there.

Ray,

Far from clarifying the matter, your contribution above makes it less clear, and you seek to muddy the waters regarding your position on this.

Throughout conference there are references to specific countries in motions and ammendments, most notably obviously in the international section. It was however a motion on international homophobia that was under discussion, and the list of countries mentioned in the motion were not 3rd world countries, or a list of countries normally associated with being victims of imperialism.

If you don't think that homophobia exists in Jamaica and that victims there deserve solidarity from the Union then that would be a reasonable reason to speak against the motion. I don't think that anyone listening to your speech, or reading this exchange here is under any illusion that you objected to the NUT criticising Israel or Poland for example.

Actually Tom's speech was written well in advance of the debate and where it was critical of the left it was mostly was aimed at George Galloway and his appalling comments on the homophobic laws in Iran, and targetted to illustrate that it is possible to be anti-war and still criticise Iran. Perhaps it's unfortunate that you came into his line of sight for opposing the motion and were wrongly associated with those on the left who believe that under the supposed threat of a war on Iran, any criticism, solidarity with trades unionists, women or the lgbt community is invalid. Maybe it would move the debate along for you to come out clearly and dissascociate yourself from Galloways comments, and agree that solidarity with gays in Iran is even more important than ever at this time. From your speech it seemed to me that this was not position.

In relation to the abstentions, I thought it was embarrasing more than anything that a section of socialists, in fact the most left wing section of conference could not support a motion of international solidarity against homophobia. Even if the motion had been badly worded or had been naive, or had even contained massive errors, the line it took was essentially correct and would have been overwhelmingly supported by conference. I don't believe that the left or you personally have a principle of abstaining on motions that are not 100% your position. It was embarrassing for you and the swp in conference that day, if there is any apologising to be done it is certainly not from our side.

Martin Ohr - You will draw your own conclusions whatever I write and I only responded here as certain SWP & STA comrades - with whom I have disagreed with over decades without this sort of diatribe were themselves angry about it.
I stated what I would have supported and why. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Ray, I'd hardly describe my comments as a diatribe. I'm not surprised that members of the SWP and STA are angry about our report, I'm sure on reflection that they're very embarrassed by the abstentions on the motion. NUT conference had chance to vote for international solidarity against homophobia, you led the opposition to that for the flimsiest spurious reasons. Thankfully the rest of conference voted without exception for the motion.