SomThis demonstration was a break from the routine. Instead of the customary milling around at the start, shuffling through the streets and then tuning in and out of the speeches in Trafalgar Square the order was completely reversed. It assembled in the square and there were lots of speeches none of which made a lasting impression in either a good or a bad way. Maybe that’s because the early part of the event had the feel of a day out organised for the benefit of the British far left and one became easily distracted by conversation. Worryingly the square felt a bit empty in parts.

Only when the march began did the event start to look impressive. My guess is that there were about 25 000 people but this is based on nothing at all. The profile was pretty young. There kidwere union banners but you could not truthfully pretend that major numbers had been mobilised through the unions. Also missing was the large numbers of local church groups and “Friends of The Puffin Against The War” type organisations that used to add to the colour of the larger demonstrations. Strands of the environmental movement seemed to have a stronger presence than in previous years and so too did the Green Party.

What was noteworthy was that none of the far left has grown significantly as a result of the war. The radicalisation has gone in other directions. The march, to an extent, defied expectations. It was bigger than most people I spoke to had expected it to be and shows that there is still a vibrant anti-war sentiment that can be mobilised.

Hang

32 responses to “Stop the War demonstration – London”

  1. […] Mac Uaid was there and took the photo. Lenin’s Tomb has photos too. […]

    Like

  2. Sounds like the Glasgow demo – a gathering of the left of Labour with their family and friends. The difference was that in Glasgow we had a the government party on the march with the a senior minister spreaking on the platform. There was a about 2,000 on the Glasgow demo despite the SWP claims of 5,000. The SSP had by far the largest contingent with eight branch banners and packed side meeting wth Colin Fox and an Iraqi trade unionist speakng. But the feeling at the march and rally was one of remebering the huge demo of five years ago. Maybe another 5 years before as many turnout.

    Like

  3. psephology rules ok Avatar
    psephology rules ok

    Could you actually write a serious report that isn’t in a mixture of jovial, sarcastic and cryptic? Some of us weren’t actually there and like to get takes from various viewpoints to make a judgement.

    Like

  4. Psephology – as far as possible I try to avoid writing in Trotspeak. That will remain the policy.

    The report on the demo gives an estimate of the numbers, indicates the age profile, says something about the organisations which were present and absent, points out that the left has not grown from this movement and tries to evaluate the health of the forces opposing the war. It’s all in straightforward English and there is not an intentional cryptic allusion to anything. What else do you need to make a judgement?

    Like

  5. Hi Raphie,

    The London demo was better. For one thing, the mood was very good. The audiences was mixed in terms of both age and race. I think the organisers did well, and it shows that some new forces are coming inot action.

    Also, it felt like a very level playing field there for the left. A lot of the left was there, and everyone seems to be going well, to be winning a good hearing. The Respect booklet and leaflets about Galloway’s campaign went well, and the SWP also seemed to be getting a positive reaction – especially with their placards. The SP had an excellent profile too.

    On the far side of the road, outside the South African high commission, was the AWL stall. The location was interesting: almost on the same spot as the 24 hour counter-demonstration in the 1980s. Perhaps the choice was subconscious, but it seems to be to symbolise the AWL’s contrary stance on Iraq – which they will almost certainly repreat over Iran.

    Like

  6. Yes, everything went spiffingly for everyone!

    Galloway spoiled the show with a gay baiting aside in a speech from the platform. This time referring to “the pink section of the khaki brigade” ie attacking those that oppose the victimisation of Gays in Iran as being part of the military drive to war in Iraq.

    How do people in Respect Renewal tolerate such spokespeople?

    Like

  7. Gay baiting? Sounds like something fishermen would get up to…

    If anything, “the pink section of the khaki brigade” is a bad pun rather than a form of queerbashing.

    The word is not tolerate but Respected.

    As for the demonstration, please not the usual talk of numbers and constituencies. Reflect upon this: despite the lack of balance in almost all media reports on the Afghan occupation, almost half of the people are against it.

    Like

  8. Stuart – it’s only being so cheerful as keeps you going.

    Contrast the consistent large mobilisations against these imperialist wars with the tiny demonstrations demanding that British troops get out of Ireland. That movement did not manage to involve any significant sections of the large Irish community, Labour Movement, civil society or radicalising youth even when the demand was simply for “troops out”.

    One of you comrades yesterday jokingly suggested to me that PR shouldn’t be at the demo because of all the sellout bureaucrats, Christians and liberals there. He was laughing when he said it and I thought it was a joke.

    As for GG – his record on homophobia is pretty good. There’s a You Tube clip of him giving a verbal kicking to a homophobic caller to his radio show and he makes the point in the Ian Wright show clip that all religions have a big streak of homophobia, including his own. The thing to remember is that his thinking has been strongly influenced by a Communist Party view of the world that sees it divided into two hostile camps. In this case you are either uncritical in your defence of the Iranian regime or lending support to imperialism. He applies the same logic to Cuba. It’s not a view that I share.

    Like

  9. Stuart,

    It’s not gay-baiting to criticize those who use the oppression of lesbians and gay men in other countries as a pretext for imperialist military intervention. Imperialist intervention will do nothing to aid the position of lesbians and gays in those countries, as can be seen from Iraq today. I don’t know Galloway’s context but, in the way you report it, “the pink section of the khaki brigade” seems a powerful way to remind us that there are false friends of the LGBT movements, who will try to channel opposition to homophobia into nationalism and war.

    Like

  10. Nothing to do with war.
    Galloway invented a smear that an executed gay man in Iran was guilty of a series of sex crimes.
    He’s got no evidence,but he’s paid by Iran.

    Like

  11. The demo was great and I came away with a very positive outlook concerning the ongoing opposition to New Labour and the war. I was a very vibrant demo and nearly everyone was holding placards. So much for those on the left who tell us the anti-war movement is over and we should abandon the Respect project.

    As for Galloways anti-gay rant, it was a disgrace to the left. Accusing gay activists and socialists of supporting imperialism is a typical Stalinist ploy. He is seriously ruining the reputation of Respect and RR with this reactionary nonsense. It’s a Stalinist arguement and all socialists should condemn him for it rather than tag along or remain quite for the sake of compromise. I’d encourage comrades in RR to shut Galloway up as quickly as possible. An apology may go some way to repairing the damage.

    Like

  12. Liam – I really think you are being incredibly soft on Galloway and it’s a disgrace. The continuing inability of RR comrades to take responsibility for an MP that they promote is astonishing. This wasn’t just a “bad pun”, it wasn’t just Galloway being Galloway – it’s pretty consistent behaviour that he has had for sometime now and he obviously feels comfortable enough to claim that campaigners like Tatchell are “useful idiots” who knowingly support imperialism and war on Iran.

    His comments were an attack on all of us in groups like HOPI who have highlighted crimes against the LGBT community as well as comrades like Out Rage. The fact that he feels comfortable enough to say this on a platform is also a sad statement. Imagine someone saying something like this in the 1970s at a demo of any sort. They would’ve been roundly condemned.

    Here’s the clip: Start watching from 2:40 in. You’ll see that there is no mistaking exactly who he is talking about and what he is accusing us of:

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-FBVj1U4Y8A

    Your comrades handed out leaflets, pamphlets and newspapers yesterday with this man’s mug on them. Can you please take some responsibility for his words and actions instead of simply sweeping them under the carpet or trying to excuse them away?

    Like

  13. Galloway was criticising the Independent and Tatchell neither of whom are using opposition to deportation or support for gay people in Iran in any way to support war.

    Galloway’s comments are a disgrace. I suspect that the socialists in Respect Renewal will be trying to call him to account- even if they are very slow on the uptake on here or Socialist Unity. I also suspect that Galloway will refuse to be called to account. My suspicion on the latter is stronger than the former, though, sadly. But it’s worth a go- after all it’s meant to be a brave new world of acocuntability and dmeocracy isn’t it?

    In general, I think the whole anti-war movement needs a bit of a debate about the ways forward. There needs to be an attempt to revive local groups, perhaps as part of a national process to look at strengths and weaknesses and look at how we can develop tactics to turn around the anti-war movement and begin to make a difference.

    Perhaps linked in with trying to build a mass movement against deportations and starving of refugeees.

    the government is currently planning to deport more than a 1000 people to Zimbabwe- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britains-refugee-shame-796606.html

    As well as trying to starve Iraqis into ‘voluntarily’ returning to a war zone- http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/13/immigrationpolicy.immigration

    Actually destituion is far more likely to force them underground into the twilight zone of super-exploitation otherwise known as working illegally- work for many thousands of people being a criminal- and deportable!- offence.

    In the meantime, though, socialists should certianly try to demand an apology from an MP defending Iran’s appalling murderous homophobic policy of making gay sex a ‘sex crime’ punishable by death,

    Like

  14. You couldn't make it up! Avatar
    You couldn’t make it up!

    “In the meantime, though, socialists should certianly try to demand an apology from an MP defending Iran’s appalling murderous homophobic policy of making gay sex a ’sex crime’ punishable by death,”

    And Jason, if you can actually find an example of Galloway “defending Iran’s appalling murderous homophobic policy of making gay sex a ’sex crime’ punishable by death.” then I’ll think an apology would be in order but since he did no such thing there doesn’t seem much point in demanding an apology.

    If you want to be taken seriously you need to cut the fake moral outrage. Get off your indignant, high horses.

    Like

  15. You’re not denying that Galloway invented the smear that the dead Iranian was a sex criminal are you?

    Like

  16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou1es7fNTpk

    Galloway says that the boyfriend was executed for ‘sex crimes against young men’

    He does then say he doesn’t support the death penalty for anything – but this does nothing to differentiate what Mehdi’s boyfriend did- gay sex- from real sex crimes- e.g. rape.

    And Galloway incredibly says that it is not true that you can beexecuted for having gay sex. So in that sense he defends it by denying that it exists- this he should apologise for.

    Like

  17. Plus I’m not sure if there’s anything fake about being outraged by this.

    For example when we campaigned against Moses being deported to Uganda were we being fake?

    http://www.ncadc.org.uk/archives/filed%20newszines/oldnewszines/newszine56/moses.htm

    I’m not sure how you can differentiatet genuine from fake outrage across the internet- are you psychic, ‘You couldn’t make it up!’? (an apposite pseudonym though, I;ll grant!)

    Like

  18. You couldn't make it up! Avatar
    You couldn’t make it up!

    “So in that sense he defends it by denying that it exists”

    If that’s the basis of an argument then I’m prepared to admit to defending flying saucers, the Land of Narnia and the Tooth Fairy by denying they exist. For which I am eternally sorry.

    And I thought Marxism was supposed to be scientific!

    Permannet Revolution? Permanent Convolution more like.

    Like

  19. you couldn’t make it up! sounds like KO defending his boss.

    Like

  20. You couldn't make it up! Avatar
    You couldn’t make it up!

    Not such a great ‘observer’ are you. Kevin Ovenden would never have typos in his posts. A true sniifer-dog of left would know that.

    Like

  21. Marxism being sceintific has nothing to do with it.

    Galloway denies that you can be executed for being gay in Iran. That is a scandal. Have you actually watched the clip?

    Direct quote- Galloway “All the papers seem to imply that you get executed in Iran for being gay. That’s not true.”

    Wright “But his boyfriend was hung though wasn’t he?”
    Galloway “Yes but not for being gay for um committing sex crimes against young men..”

    This is disgraceful. You asked for evidence- here it is
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou1es7fNTpk

    Did my words perhaps imply Galloway supports such executions explicitly? Perhaps. In which case I clairify and apologise. Will he clairify and apologise that he was utterly worng to imply that Mehdi’s boyfriend committed ‘sex crimes’ and utterly worng to defend a government that kills gay people by denying that it does.

    I doubt it.

    Like

  22. You couldn't make it up! Avatar
    You couldn’t make it up!

    “utterly worng to defend a government that kills gay people by denying that it does”

    Which of course he did not. Your quotes show no ‘defence’ of the Iranian government.

    Back to the beginning again. But this is all very pointless. So I’ll leave you to your faux outrage.

    Like

  23. Are you denying that Galloway said-
    “All the papers seem to imply that you get executed in Iran for being gay. That’s not true.” ?

    Or are you supporting the wisdom of him accusing Mehdi’s boyfriend of ..”committing sex crimes against young men”

    He should apologise unless he can produce the evidence.

    Well there you go again- faux.
    So are all the people involved in anti-deportation campaigns fake? Or is it only when they disagree with Galloway?

    As it happens I am going to leave this debate now – for today anyway-as I am going to bed- sad I know this early but not well.

    Like

  24. Please be aware that the “Bill” on here is not me, but a troll.

    Like

  25. Both sides of this argument have now had ample opportunity to put their points of view and it’s starting to go round in circles. It’s now closed. I’ll delete any further comments which deal with the homophobia allegations when I get back from the pub.

    If anyone wants to write something more thoughtful than the yah boo stuff above dealing with the subject of defending countries with reactionary regimes against imperialist aggression I’ll post it if it’s more than half sensible whether I agree with it or not. You can have up to 600 words.

    Like

  26. Galloways attack on Tatchell reminds me of the Stalinist demonisation of Trotskyists who criticised socialism in one country. Perhaps anti-deportation campaigners will have to join those other Russian dolls in the SWP who disagree with him. He seems to have invented a conspiricy that we are all united in sabotaging the anti-war campaign and the left alliance. But he’s doing a fine job on his own (considering no one in RR’s leadership is calling him to account.)

    In Iran they execute you for being a Russian doll so perhaps I shouldn’t mention how the Ayatollah murdered Galloways comrades in the Iranian Communist Party after they had risked their lives to overthrow the Shah (and Western imperialism) in case Iran severes Galloways contract and the US launches a war on Iran in commemoration of those CP comrades deaths.

    You really couldn’t make it up, you really couldn’t make it up!

    Like

  27. In India, when an elephant turns rogue, they unfortunately have to shoot it. It’s just a thought.

    Like

  28. Although, a good dollop of humble pie could be an alternative.

    Apologies for being flippant in my last post but I couldn’t resist it.

    It seems a shame that all the positive work Galloway has been involved in is blighted by his current remarks. It really doesn’t have to be this way if he would back down and apologise. I know he isn’t a homophobe but his remarks are homophobic and his political analysis of this issue needs to be challenged by those in RR who have some authority.

    Galloway is undoubtedly involved in trying to build a left alliance. We need to work with him so his muddled thinking needs to be challenged otherwise it reflects badly on the rest of the left.

    Like

  29. Liam – you haven’t answered my question. Are you going to take responsibilty for Galloway’s words or not? Your comrades asked me yesterday to support Galloway and RR in the upcoming GLA elections. If John McDonnell made similar comments I imagine I would be asked to explain why I would be able to support someone like that and also why I would continue to ask people to support him as an MP. I wouldn’t then not answer those questions and threaten to delete people’s posts instead. Are you guys going to have a dialogue with the rest of us or not?

    Like

  30. Liam
    “If anyone wants to write something more thoughtful than the yah boo stuff above dealing with the subject of defending countries with reactionary regimes against imperialist aggression I’ll post it if it’s more than half sensible whether I agree with it or not. You can have up to 600 words.”

    OK thanks- I might take you up on that tho’ will be quite pressed for time in next few days. Obviously I don’t think I was quite descending to yah boo but take your point.

    Cheers

    Like

  31. Well, young Daniel Patrick, aged 10 months, thought it was a most impressive event, even if he legged it with Charli, Andrew, Luci and his dad, and assorted kids for lunch. He sold 150 copies of Briefing on the day, puts him in Stuart Richardson league!!!

    Seriously, it was bigger than I thought it would be

    Mikey

    Like

  32. http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14496

    Some interesting research in the above article. Discuss.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending