I agree with the STWC treatment of HOPI or Communists. HOPI are calling for regime change in Iran and most socialists will agree that regime change begins at home. I am sure the STWC don't support the Iranian regime, but they are an organisation set up to STOP wars and association with HOPI would stratigically blur the message and lead to confusion. Besides, I am suspicious of HOPI and their communists allies.

Dear Brother/Sister Thank you for your communication re the decision of the officers of StWC to decline the applications for affiliation from Communist Students and Hands off the People of Iran. I think that three things should be made clear concerningthis: First, the Stop the War Coalition is a voluntary body set up by individuals and organisations to pursue particular political aims. As such no individual orgroup has a “right” to membership of it. Like any voluntary organisation (as opposed to a public body) we have the right to determine who may join us. We have an elected leadership answerable under a democratic constitutionempowered to take these decisions in what we believe to be the best interestsof the movement we serve. Such decisions may, of course, be proved mistaken by the course of subsequent events. But it is in no sense “censorship” totake those decisions, since nobody is thereby denied their right to publish orcirculate material. Since our formation there have always been anti-war peopleor organisations which have chosen to stay outside StWC, just as there have been organisations to which we have denied affiliation in the past. Second, the issue is not StWC’s view of the Iranian regime. This is merely astick used to beat us by those wanting to divide the movement. The Iranian regime is dictatorial and often brutal and is based on the denial of many basicrights. We are no more “friends” of the Iranian regime than we werefriends of the Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam in Iraq, to recall a couple ofthe slanderous attacks made on us by warmongers down the years. The main focus of StWC is, however, on challenging the policies of the British government inrespect of the war, which includes respecting the rights of all peoples toself-determination. There are a number of organisations working in solidaritywith the Iranian people, and a number of StWC affiliates participate in suchactivity as well. We have never believed it is correct to cloud themovement’s objectives by placing issues of “regime change” (which are ultimately the business of the peoples of the country concerned) on an equalfooting with stopping the war, or at least British involvement in it. Thelatter is the reason for our existence. We have no fear of debate on thisissue - the sort of views advanced by Hands off the People of Iran have beendebated at almost every one of our conferences, and have never received more than miniscule support. Third, our decision in respect of these two organisations is, however,political. Both are effectively controlled by the Weekly Worker group(“CPGB”) – indeed their spokesman in the current controversy is theWeekly Worker’s national organiser. This body has been hostile to StWC from its inception. It declined to support the objectives of the Coalition, whichthey now pray freely in aid, when they were first adopted in October 2001. Itscoverage of StWC activities is not merely critical, but usually abusive, andreflects the attacks made by our pro-war opponents. It supported the witch-hunting of George Galloway in 2003 and urged voters not to support JeremyCorbyn in the general election of 2005. When I was myself subject to extensive attack in the pro-war media in 2003, the main lines of such attack were echoed faithfully, with if anything added vitriol, in the pages of the Weekly Worker.It seldom supports our activities – for example, the successful march held onOctober 8 in defiance of a police ban was neither promoted by the Weekly Workerin advance, nor attended on the day by its supporters nor reported afterwards,for reasons one can only guess at. Indeed, Workers Weekly established Hands off the People of Iran at the start of 2007 explicitly as an alternative to StWC and because it no longer wished to support the Coalition – moves they had every right to take and which followlogically from their hostility to us. But to seek to affiliate many months later when they could have done at the time of their formation if theirsolidarity with us was sincere, and on the eve of a conference is, as Ioriginally wrote, neither sympathetic nor supportive. Even a cursory perusal of the material produced by Weekly Worker is testimony to its antipathy to StWC. This is consistent with the disruptive role it hasplayed in a series of organisations in our movement over the last 25 years,which is why it has been praised by pro-war journalists like David Aaronovich and pro-war websites like Harry’s Place. Naturally, Weekly Worker has everyr ight to pursue its own political agenda as it sees fit, but StWC has no obligation to provide it with a platform. If activists in the anti-warmovement wish to debate the views of such groups – and I have seen very little evidence that any do – then there are no doubt opportunities available in their own publications and meetings. From its inception, StWC has been a broad and tolerant organisation. Had itbeen otherwise we could not have sustained the movement at the level which hasbeen done. Occasionally, however, we have to take prophylactic measures toprotect our integrity, and this is one of those cases. The decisions taken by the Officers Group in this respect will be reported tothe next meeting of the national Steering Committee for ratification. Ifeither Communist Students of Hands off the People of Iran wish to make written representations to that meeting, they will of course be afforded the right to do so. Yours, Andrew Murray

Andrew Murray wrote -
"..From its inception, StWC has been a broad and tolerant organisation. Had it been otherwise we could not have sustained the movement at the level which has been done..."

What "sustaining" of the "movement" are you talking about exactly? Is this the movement that the STWC has managed to take from millions in Feb 2003, to a few thousand in 2007?

I think what Andrew meant when he said "sustaining" was actually "degrading". From where I sit the "movement" has been badly let down by the STWC and their poo-pooing of direct action, and their quaint belief that Parliament can be lobbied to stop the war.

With all due respect Andrew, wake up. The war is not being stopped, and the marches are attracting LESS and LESS people. If you think this is sustaining the movement, we truly are fucked.

Peace

Hopi has been an extremely divisive force in the anti-war movement with its constant attacks on Iran at a time when that country is under threat from the same forces that have devastated Iraq. Yassamine Mather is the spokesperson for HOPI ,but she also has close professional links to the arms trade, particularly BAe , through her work with the Aerospace Engineering Department at Glasgow University.see

 http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/aerospace/staff/academicandrelatedstaff/mather/

Below is a list of “ academic related staff” at the Aerospace Engineering department at Glasgow University I copied from the department’s website on 14 Nov.

Academic Related Staff
Mr R.Gilmour
Mrs. Y. Mather
Mr. K. Stevenson
Mrs C. Coton

On 4 Dec ,the day after the Study War No More Group published its report on Bae funding of universities, Y. Mather’s name was removed from the list.

Academic Related Staff
Mr R.Gilmour
Mr. K. Stevenson
Mrs C. Coton

You can read what the Study War No More report said about Glasgow University’s Aerospace Dept’s connection to BAe here.
 http://www.studywarnomore.org.uk/data/glasgow.html

Supporters of Hopi on indymedia Ireland have been particularly shrill in their denouncement of Iran , calling it a fascist or a nazi-like country and implying that to defend it as an oppressed nation is the same as defending the Iranian regime. . Their representative here, Anne McShane of the CPGB ,has said that Mather’s work at Glasgow University is confined to the Systems and Control Centre there .In fact the Systems and control Centre is heavily involved – industrially linked - with BAE and other arms manufacturers see:
 http://www.mech.gla.ac.uk/Research/Control/Introduction.html