uaf conference report
XXX anonymous XXX | 27.02.2006 09:36 | Analysis
uaf conference report note: Author changed by indymedia UK. Reason: This article was falsely published under the name of Dave Landau. It is a rewritten version from an article which was published in the Weekly Worker. The author of the original has asked us to remove his name, as the rewrite includes some very bad things that he would never have written. Check the original article in the Weekly Worker.
There were about 350 people present, and some of them, like myself, were delegated by organisations. However, in reality, the only thing that distinguished delegates from individuals attending was that delegates had to pay more money to get in. And I hate having to pay. There are no democratic structures in Unite Against Fascism, which means there are no conference resolutions. All the decisions are taken by a steering committee, which has never been elected by a conference. Just scum really. Therefore, there is no actual need to have `delegates'. In reality, it was a wankers rally, not a conference, and there were no contributions from the floor in the main sessions. We basically went there to listen to speeches from wankers. Some of them were really boring. There were also a number of workshops and discussions, so I wouldn't say that it was a total waste of money. But I believe the lack of democratic structures is becoming a real problem - and I am not saying that because I want to slag UAF off, no, really, I'm not, but because UAF will suffer because of it. We have already seen the premier fighters against the fash, Searchlight, leaving in disgust, while many local groups never even joined and never will join, because it is such a reactionary top-down organisation. If events like this conference had been put on with the real involvement of genuine grassroots organisations, this split would have been avoided. But this conference, as with most other UAF events, had been arranged by the National Assembly Against Racism and the Socialist Workers Party's Anti-Nazi League, and in a purely sectarian way. I and the Jewish Socialist Group believe that there is a big difference between UAF and Searchlight and we are concerned that UAF tend to talk up the `hideous' side of Searchlight in order to remain disunited. The worst thing of all is that in some areas there are rival UAF campaigns duplicating Searchlight's work. We were trying to push a unity project forward at conference and handed out leaflets to this effect. Some of the speakers picked up on this question and supported our position, even if most of the contributions were a bit mealy-mouthed. However, many of the local UAF and Searchlight groups have no desire to unify and they are working on the ground in a really negative and impractical way. As I say, there was very little debate at conference. However, there was a sort of hidden conspiracy, which not all those present were fully aware of. This was brought out in a speech by Ben Summerskill of the gay rights group, Stonewall, who raised the issue that if we are standing shoulder to shoulder with oppressed communities against fascism, then there should be a "two-way street" in terms of respect for each queer. He specifically criticised Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, who had said in a radio interview that homosexuality was "not acceptable" and a health risk. Not surprisingly, Sacranie did not appear on the platform of the UAF conference, although he had been advertised as a speaker months ago. Instead, he was quietly dropped after Stonewall and other LGBT groups had demanded his exclusion from the top table. I very much got the feeling that Summerskill was not wholeheartedly supported for his views by the rest of the platform. Ken Livingstone made a dull speech on how to relate to muslim forces. He basically said that working with these forces does not mean that we cannot challenge them and fight them on a range of issues like homosexuality. He said we would raise the same issues with the "pope and the chief rabbi". If you compare that to Respect's attitude and practice, I think Livingstone came out well to the left of them and with a much stronger position on the question. John Rees and George Galloway would not have been able to respond to Summerskill's demands.
XXX anonymous XXX
Comments
Display the following 35 comments