Personal account of the anti-war rally at Trafalgar Square in London and comment on the Stop the War movement.
My account:
I believe the anti-war movement needs to reflect on current tactics. I am someone who has supported the Stop the War Coalition for three years. I have been on every single national march but this time I had enough doubts that I decided not to go on the march this time. I went straight to Trafalgar Square - to see what people running the stalls were saying and also hear what the speakers were saying. It is clear that the coalition is short on finances with their calls for more donations. I did not donate anything because I am not inspired by the message and policy coming out from the Coalition, and I suspect that others are probably in a similar position.
Speeches on Iran - I believe that it was (but not certain) Andrew Murray who was helping to support the war agenda painting a picture against the 'regime'. Before we know it we really will have a war if this continues. It will not be supporting the people of Iran if they are invaded by the war criminals.
Jeremy Corbyn - Stop the War introducing Jeremy Corbyn an anti-war activist within his party is just wrong. He is working for the war party and I believe it the influence of the likes of him that watered down the official position at the time of the general election last year, which was that local groups should tell people merely to consider the positions of the candidates when deciding who to vote for (see
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/Conference2005.htm). It is exactly this position that meant that my local group was against any stronger position who felt that they could not take a stronger position and stuck hard to the baseline position of the Stop the War Coalition. This meant that while I was anti-war I could not present an anti-war position at election time. I could not believe it was happenning as I was helping out on a stall in the town centre, knowing that the Blair government. Considering the positions of candidates is what voters do anyway so that was not even a campaign. The alternative which was put forward as an alternative position at the Stop the War annual conference by the Green Party was to say people should not vote for the warmonger candidates and parties. This was strangely voted against by a majority at the annual conference of the Stop the War Coalition. This was very disappointing and meant that individuals like me could not present a message saying not to vote for pro-war candidates. My view is that that election was (or should have been) the most important time for the anti-war movement since the Iraq war started. I am surprised that no-one in the movement is talking about this issue. I tried discussing this to one woman helping to run a Socialist Worker stall at the rally, who listened but I believe she was in denial and asked if the official position did not mean vote anti-war then what did it mean? My answer was that it was basically a very weak position. Okay, it's hard to accept this is happening especially if you have invested your spare time for three years. I can understand the view that not everyone can get involved in direct action and I would prefer a democracy-first approach, but if the Coalition does not want to take a position at election time and does not want to use direct action then how do they want to stop war?
A 'mood' was created by speakers saying that they could 'feel' that Tony Blair's judgement day was coming (saying it will not be god that judges you but us, and we are judging you). This was just sinister. They provided no evidence that Tony Blair will not just continue doing what he is now. It was like something from George Orwell's 1984 (and shown on the anti-war coalition's own 'telescreen in the Square'). Perhaps they expect us to have some blind belief that something is happening.
To top this all off when the Stop the War activities ended (quite early at just after 4 o'clock), I went off to Parliament Square and spoke to a few people there. I heard from one of the supporters of Brian Haw that he had asked Tony Benn if he could speak at the rally in Trafalgar Square, thinking that Benn was a supporter, and that as the President of the Stop War Coalition he could pull a few strings. However Brian was refused permission (Benn saying it is not just him that decides) when there would have been plenty of time to allow him to speak. I was also told by this supporter of Brian Haw that it was not the only occasion when he has been refused at the marches. I was very surprised when I had previously assumed that Brian Haw was unable to speak because he had to save his place at Parliament Square - not the reason. While Brian Haw was thanked by one of the speakers for being there they denied him the opportunity to speak. Why is an anti-war coalition censoring the message put out at marches and what are they afraid of?
Overall I thought the speeches were the least inspiring of any of the marches I have been on previously. At the end of the day partipants in the anti-war movement need to realise that if you have taking a particular approach for three years and it's had no effect then. The Stop the War Coalition wanted me to march but I am afraid that my decision (and it was a hard one, not taken lightly) was that if they want someone to march against Tony Blair then they could do it themselves this time.
To discuss the war, yesterday's march and any other anti-war issues please see the mini discussion forum that I have set up at this address:
http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/minibb/
Please be aware that this is currently experimental and quite basic as I have not set up a discussion forum like this before and is on an internet account with limited memory space.
I believe the anti-war movement needs to reflect on current tactics. I am someone who has supported the Stop the War Coalition for three years. I have been on every single national march but this time I had enough doubts that I decided not to go on the march this time. I went straight to Trafalgar Square - to see what people running the stalls were saying and also hear what the speakers were saying. It is clear that the coalition is short on finances with their calls for more donations. I did not donate anything because I am not inspired by the message and policy coming out from the Coalition, and I suspect that others are probably in a similar position.
Speeches on Iran - I believe that it was (but not certain) Andrew Murray who was helping to support the war agenda painting a picture against the 'regime'. Before we know it we really will have a war if this continues. It will not be supporting the people of Iran if they are invaded by the war criminals.
Jeremy Corbyn - Stop the War introducing Jeremy Corbyn an anti-war activist within his party is just wrong. He is working for the war party and I believe it the influence of the likes of him that watered down the official position at the time of the general election last year, which was that local groups should tell people merely to consider the positions of the candidates when deciding who to vote for (see
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/Conference2005.htm). It is exactly this position that meant that my local group was against any stronger position who felt that they could not take a stronger position and stuck hard to the baseline position of the Stop the War Coalition. This meant that while I was anti-war I could not present an anti-war position at election time. I could not believe it was happenning as I was helping out on a stall in the town centre, knowing that the Blair government. Considering the positions of candidates is what voters do anyway so that was not even a campaign. The alternative which was put forward as an alternative position at the Stop the War annual conference by the Green Party was to say people should not vote for the warmonger candidates and parties. This was strangely voted against by a majority at the annual conference of the Stop the War Coalition. This was very disappointing and meant that individuals like me could not present a message saying not to vote for pro-war candidates. My view is that that election was (or should have been) the most important time for the anti-war movement since the Iraq war started. I am surprised that no-one in the movement is talking about this issue. I tried discussing this to one woman helping to run a Socialist Worker stall at the rally, who listened but I believe she was in denial and asked if the official position did not mean vote anti-war then what did it mean? My answer was that it was basically a very weak position. Okay, it's hard to accept this is happening especially if you have invested your spare time for three years. I can understand the view that not everyone can get involved in direct action and I would prefer a democracy-first approach, but if the Coalition does not want to take a position at election time and does not want to use direct action then how do they want to stop war? A 'mood' was created by speakers saying that they could 'feel' that Tony Blair's judgement day was coming (saying it will not be god that judges you but us, and we are judging you). This was just sinister. They provided no evidence that Tony Blair will not just continue doing what he is now. It was like something from George Orwell's 1984 (and shown on the anti-war coalition's own 'telescreen in the Square'). Perhaps they expect us to have some blind belief that something is happening.
To top this all off when the Stop the War activities ended (quite early at just after 4 o'clock), I went off to Parliament Square and spoke to a few people there. I heard from one of the supporters of Brian Haw that he had asked Tony Benn if he could speak at the rally in Trafalgar Square, thinking that Benn was a supporter, and that as the President of the Stop War Coalition he could pull a few strings. However Brian was refused permission (Benn saying it is not just him that decides) when there would have been plenty of time to allow him to speak. I was also told by this supporter of Brian Haw that it was not the only occasion when he has been refused at the marches. I was very surprised when I had previously assumed that Brian Haw was unable to speak because he had to save his place at Parliament Square - not the reason. While Brian Haw was thanked by one of the speakers for being there they denied him the opportunity to speak. Why is an anti-war coalition censoring the message put out at marches and what are they afraid of?
Overall I thought the speeches were the least inspiring of any of the marches I have been on previously. At the end of the day partipants in the anti-war movement need to realise that if you have taking a particular approach for three years and it's had no effect then. The Stop the War Coalition wanted me to march but I am afraid that my decision (and it was a hard one, not taken lightly) was that if they want someone to march against Tony Blair then they could do it themselves this time.
To discuss the war, yesterday's march and any other anti-war issues please see the mini discussion forum that I have set up at this address:
http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/minibb/ Please be aware that this is currently experimental and quite basic as I have not set up a discussion forum like this before and is on an internet account with limited memory space.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
Benn, Blair's agent, speaks so that ***you*** will remain silent
19.03.2006 19:15
-Member of the Privy council? CHECK
-Long history of infiltrating anti-government groups to ensure that they can be fully neutralised? CHECK
-Visited Iraq just before the invasion so that he could collect intelligence of the best political command-and-control centres to be bombed in the first phase of Blair's invasion? CHECK
-Father of a foul toady New Reich MP? CHECK
-Key architect of the destruction of so-called Old Labour, and the creation of the New Reich party that took its place? CHECK
I'm a little bit puzzled. You will all accept that the enemies of humanity will accumulate masses of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. You will all accept that they will engage in any amount of currupt business practices. You will all accept that they will tell any amount of lies in the Mass Media that they control. HOWEVER, almost none of you accept that the enemies of humanity will disguise some of their members in order to present them as FALSE OPPOSITION?
Compared to the cost of building a hydrogen bomb, or controlling a newspaper, OPERATION BENN is thousands of times cheaper, and thousands of times more effective. Why the hell do you think that the enemies of humanity would forgo this easy and cheap method of ensuring their goals? BECAUSE THEY HAVE HONOUR??? BECAUSE IT COUNTS AS CHEATING???
Dear god, Benn's disguise is more pathetic than Clark Kent's glasses, and yet you all say "he calls himself 'Tony' now, so he MUST be on our side'.
The saddest thing about people is that they have so little confidence in themselves, that they NEED to believe in the cult of fame, and positively demand a leadership of wolves-in-sheep's clothing.
Brian Haw represents you and I, outraged beyond all human endurance, speaking out because there is no possible way to keep the anger bottled in any longer. He is like the pupil that, upon hearing the Headmaster describe British troops in Iraq as heroes, stands up and gives the assembled pupils and teachers a big verbal dose of the truth. DO YOU THINK THAT YOU MASTERS CAN PERMIT THIS BEHAVIOUR? DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WILL ALLOW *YOU*** TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE WORTHY OF BEING SAID OUT LOUD. YOU ***MUST*** BE CONDITIONED TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, DEMAND THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF ARE ALSO GAGGED.
The most foolish thought that anyone EVER entertains is that if a concern or fear is expressed by a famous person on behalf of a larger group, then that fear or concern is being successfully taken care of.
All kinds of methods of political control are used across this planet, and the crudest ones are the least likely to suceed in the long term. The reason that your news programs expose you daily to the crude methods used by dumb thugs in second rate nations is so that you THINK that if YOUR government uses more sophisticated methods, it can't be evil.
GIVE THIS SOME THOUGHT. Which is better? Blair having his uniformed thugs beat down every anti-war protest with masses of state violence? Or anticipating and anti-war movement the moment he started planning his war programs, and placing HIS people in positions of leadership as those anti-war movements formed.
Why do you think that in the West, the media (TOTALLY in the hands of pro-government people) is constantly telling you that your politicians are stupid. WHY? Because THAT meme teaches you to dismiss fears that the government is using its power in any kind of intelligent pro-active way.
Blair isn't the smartest person in the world. However, even quite a dim-bulb would see the value of placing their people in control of organisations that will inevitably form in opposition to pro-war policies.
THE ANIMAL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT IS ***NOT*** CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT, SO BLAIR PASSES EVER MORE DRACONIAN LAWS AGAINST ITS MEMBERS, AND THEIR METHODS.
FATHERS-FOR-JUSTICE WAS ***NOT*** CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT, SO BLAIR USED THE SECURITY SERVICES TO RUN BLACK-PROPAGANDA AGAINST IT, CULMINATING IN THE 'KIDNAP' STORY, USED TO TERMINATE ITS ACTIVITIES.
THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENTS ARE ***TOTALLY*** INFILTRATED AND LEAD BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS, INCLUDING BENN. AS A RESULT, EVEN A PROTEST ATTENDED BY MORE THAN A MIILION PEOPLE WAS OF ***NO*** CONCERN TO BLAIR WHATSOEVER.
The greatest weapon Blair uses against anti-government movements is 'trainspotting'. This refers to the members of organisations that are more interested in the "day out" or the "social activities" or "being in the presence of famous people" than in the cause itself. Such people show no signs of distress when any amount of work results in ZERO EFFECTIVE SUCCESS. Indeed, a perversion often sets in, where the lack of success itself becomes the justification for the protest activities. Leaders like Benn know that the 'trainspotters' are key to his goals, because the 'trainspotters' will baaa and bleat loudly to drown out the voices of ANYONE that questions why the movement never achieves any victories.
When the enemies of humanity are sneaky, they are sneaky in simple-minded ways that anyone can be taught to spot. The problem is NOT the sophistication of evil people. The problem is that their victims are taught to take pride in their own stupidity, and vunerability.
Today, hundreds of Britons will change their utility provider by mistake because the door-to-door scumbag lied, and told them that their signature was merely required to prove that said scumbag had visited the address printed, and thus could be paid by their employer. Today, thousands of Britons will believe that Benn works on their behalf (so they can stop worrying) against Blair's coming Word War, because he spoke at an anti-war rally. Some stupidity cost money. Some stupidity costs the lives of millions (if not BILLIONS) of human lives.
twilight
Where's the proof?
20.03.2006 17:10
Kev Connor
e-mail:
kevconnor69@hotmail.com
Re:Where's the proof?
20.03.2006 20:18
Brian B
If you’re unhappy with the STWC, change it!
20.03.2006 23:29
To deal with your points alone, if you “would prefer a democracy-first approach”, maybe you could forgive Tony Benn, “as the President of the Stop War Coalition [who] could pull a few strings”, for not abusing his position and pulling a few strings. Maybe you could suggest to your local STWC that Brian Haw be included at the next demo. As you have attended STWC meetings over the last 3 years (as I have done only sporadically), you’ll know that as a collection of volunteers, we’re not as organised as we’d like to be. I am often critical of actions and decisions of the STWC, especially when I’ve been too lazy or whatever to attend organising meetings. Normally, when I’m critical of the STWC, I refer to the organisation as “them”; when I have praise, “they” become “we” or “us”. However, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s unfair to condemn when I’ve left it to others to organise. If I want it to be different, then I have to play my part. Attending demos is important, but if you’re as critical of the world as you seem to be, you are going to have to do more.
You are obviously intelligent so you don’t need me to point out that if the STWC tells people to vote for a particular party, then those members that disagree (at that point in time but not necessarily 6 months down the line) are probably lost forever; those who don’t have a problem with the choice were probably that way inclined already. Imperfect though it may have been, advising people to consider candidate’s positions reference the war was probably the best alternative. There is no doubt that individual members aired their own views more specifically when relating with the public at stalls etc—it didn’t require too much imagination: “personally, I believe that the only party worthy of a vote is…”
As for Andrew Murray “helping to support the war agenda”, I refer you of my earlier comments on the basis of fair judgements.
If you’re unhappy with the STWC, change it!
Kev Connor
e-mail:
kevconnor69@hotmail.com
Re:If you’re unhappy with the STWC, change it!
21.03.2006 21:10
Then you have no right to lecture me on getting involved. I have supported the Stop the War Coalition for three years.
"you’ll know that as a collection of volunteers, we’re not as organised as we’d like to be"
The problem isn't lack of organisation - there's plenty of that. It was the policy. When it came to the crunch it failed.
Brian B
Out on the edge of lunacy...
22.03.2006 19:35
Anyone for blaming Dennis Skinner for running the US hegemony?
Sarah Barryment
Re:Re:If you’re unhappy with the STWC, change it!
05.04.2006 11:26
I mention my sporadic involvement in STWC organising meetings over the last 3 years only as this is the time frame you mention in your original article. Hard to believe, I know, but it has now been over 3 years since the invasion of Iraq began. Around 6 months after the invasion, my working pattern changed and I began to attend STWC meetings only sporadically (fortunately, my girlfriend, the group treasurer, was and is still able to attend and volunteer me for stuff whether I like it or not, and I was and am still able to do the weekly street stalls). In the period from around September 13th 2001, to October 2003 however, you would certainly be able to find some who were more active in my local STWC (some people are truly inspirational and live to help others; myself and my partner also make time for ourselves), but not too many. If you still feel that this level of activity renders my opinion invalid, fair enough.
I accept though that my fairly extensive involvement makes me responsible for its failings as well, and probably liable to being overly defensive of its utility. I have developed a tendency to forget to question our activity as much as I initially did, and your article/response has made me aware of that.
We could all do with being less defensive and slightly more humble if we are ever to succeed in the many aims that we share.
Kevin Connor