Notice of ula non-aligned important meeting this coming Saturday

Notice circulated to all non-aligned members by the ULA central office:

Where now for the ULA?

Meeting with

Joan Collins TD
Clare Daly TD
Cllr Declan Bree

Saturday 2nd February, 2pm to 6pm, Teachers Club, Parnell Square, Dublin.

Following on from discussions amongst non aligned members* of the ULA it was decided to have a full and open meeting between non aligned members and supporters of Joan Collins, Clare Daly and Declan Bree about how we can take the ULA project forward together. On the day the three public representatives will outline their proposals for doing just that.

This is a very important meeting for for all non aligned members to attend particularly in light of the current situation within the ULA. We would encourage everyone who can attend, for all or part of the day, to do so.

The non aligned have an email discussion group if you would like to be added email rdlp715@gmail.com to request to be added.

*Members of the ULA who are not members of the founding groups.

henry silke on SP leaving the ula

http://tomasoflatharta.com/2013/01/29/the-socialist-party-leaves-the-united-left-alliance/

Socialist Party leaves the ULA

by Henry Silke

Last Saturday the Socialist Party (CWI) posted an article on their website announcing the end their membership of the United Left Alliance. This was one of the least surprising political events of the Irish left as the Socialist Party had been steadily moving away from the alliance for over a year.

The SP have given two reasons for leaving the alliance firstly it’s unhappiness with ex Socialist Party TD Clare Daly’s continued political relationship with Mick Wallace, a left leaning populist who became embroiled in a tax evasion scandal. Clare Daly had been closely allied to Wallace in the promotion of an abortion rights bill and most recently in the exposure of a practice where privileged members of society were being cleared of driving charges, something brought to the TDs, by whistle blowing members of the Irish police force. Clare Daly herself had resigned from the Socialist Party (and re-designated herself as a ULA TD) some months ago citing the Socialist Party’s lack of enthusiasm towards building the ULA.

While both sides on Clare Daly’s resignation were technically correct the respective positions fall short of offering a clear picture as to Clare Daly’s dramatic move away from the Socialist Party leadership, something neither side has elaborated on. The highly personalised split was something the already weakened ULA was not ready for. The SP also cited a weakness on the part of the independents in the ULA and the Socialist Workers Party in tackling Clare Daly on the issue of alliances with Mick Wallace, quickly forgetting it was the Socialist Party (while Clare Daly was still a party member) who prevented the ULA taking a clear position when the scandal first broke the previous April. The Socialist Party representatives on the steering committee vetoed the motion for the ULA to call for Wallace’s resignation that had been proposed by the independents and supported by all other the other factions. Rightly or wrongly independents in the ULA found the SP’s sudden obsession towards Daly and Wallace’s relationship many months after the initial scandal to be more about politically attacking the ex SP TD than anything else. A particularly ham fisted ‘us or her’ attempt by the SP to ambush Daly at a delegate council meeting before Christmas failed to win any support, and probably finished the SP’s participation. The fact that Clare Daly’s profile rose immeasurably over her (and Wallace’s) earlier stance on abortion catapulting her into the headlines after the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar  (a woman living in Galway who was refused a termination and later died) didn’t help matters leaving no time for things to settle between the parties.

The second reason given by the SP leadership to the failure of the alliance is that the ULA was unsuccessful due to the objective conditions of the political and social situation. Although Ireland is in the throes of a devastating recession political consciousness and struggle remains at relatively low ebb. Due to these factors, according to the SP, the ULA didn’t attract sufficient numbers to be a viable project. There may be some basis to this factor though there is an underlying assumption that uniting already existing left forces would not be a positive factor in itself.

For the independents in the ULA the objective conditions are not the only factor in this narrative, the subjective factor that is the leadership shown by the component parts is also of importance. While being applauded for the initial initiative the two major factions the alliance, the SWP and SP, have come under some criticism. It is felt by many that the Socialist Party was conservative when it came to developing the alliance. The Socialist Party rank and file membership never really engaged with the ULA as individuals, nor took part in its activities; the SP was represented in the steering committee by leadership members with little or no involvement in political discussion by the rank and file SP membership. From early on only full time party workers and party officers attended ULA related activities or meetings. Even this low level was pulled back on well over a year ago (and long before the SP-Daly split) when the SP pulled back from any ULA activity outside of parliamentary work.

Around that time (January 2012) the SP’s general secretary Kevin McLoughlin wrote an article proclaiming that the ULA is not a worker’s party, ‘nor is it likely to just become the new party at some future date’ (What next for the United Left Alliance 17/01/2012). dealing a severe political blow to the project and indeed begging the question to why anyone would join at all?

On the streets and in protests the ULA never had any profile as the two main components the SWP and SP continued to exclusively organise and recruit separately, on one occasion the two groups even managed to organise a meeting on Education cuts (following a teachers’ protest) in the same hotel and at the same time where a single ULA meeting would have made sense. In the Dail (the Irish parliament) the TD’s never gelled and acted more as a number of independent politicians sometimes collaborating but more often not. The lack of strategy by the TDs offices was apparent from early on especially between the SP and SWP. Of course the SP were not the only component who have come under criticism, the SWP the second major component launched a front organisation ‘Enough!’ within weeks of the 2011 election (Where the ULA had won five parliamentary seats). Early into 2012 the SWP then went on the re-launch the People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA) as a direct rival to the ULA .

Many cynics at the beginning of the process maintained that the SP and SWP would not be able to work together after decades of intense rivalry. Unfortunately as the SP rank and file didn’t engage with the ULA sectarian barriers were not broken down. A more nuanced view might be that the SWP viewed the alliance as a ‘popular front’ to recruit from while the SP viewed it as solely an electoral alliance, neither wanting the ULA as such to develop into a party as such. Another view is that while the components were serious about the initiative, ‘they were so at different times’, while another is that the Irish left ‘were not ready for the alliance’, and that the ULA ‘had won TD positions too early into the alliance and had no strategy of what to do with them.’ On the social media there are arguments between Socialist Party members who say they never wanted the ULA to develop into a party, and independents who feel that the SP at best were ambiguous in the early recruitment drive and around elections. Certainly Socialist Party TD Joe Higgins gave many speeches in the early days of the ULA which suggested very clearly the development towards a party.

The SP position may well be correct that the objective conditions were not correct. On the other hand there is the prospect of a self fulfilling prophecy of a leadership who were not quite ready to share political power.. On a more positive note the SP leadership believes that the current anti home and water tax campaign (CAWHT) has the potential to become a mass radical campaign and could form the basis for a new working class party. Critics have pointed to the obvious inconsistency in that while that the objective conditions seemingly are impossible for the ULA, the same objective conditions are favourable to a new formation on a much lower political level. The Party thus far has not dealt with this critique. There is also no guarantee that the kind of problems that beset the ULA will not reappear and that the SP and SWP will be able to overcome their decades of competition. Nor any guarantee that single issue election candidates or indeed membership will favour the building of a mass left workers’ party. The campaign is further complicated by new laws which allow the Irish revenue to collect the payment directly from wages (replacing the voluntary tax, which was successfully boycotted by the campaign). However certainly at the moment it is the only serious national resistance to austerity policies.

The future of the ULA is uncertain at best – the basic notion of even non-aggression has already collapsed as the SWP, in a highly sectarian manner, are targeting ULA TD Joan Collins seat, and the SP are also said to be planning to run a candidate against Clare Daly. While the SP challenge will probably have little affect on Daly, and they have made no formal decision, the SWP is running a serious candidate that could easily split the vote and lose the seat. The remaining independents are due to meet with Clare Daly and Joan Collins to discuss a way forward on the second of February, but it is unlikely that Collins and the SWP could remain in any form of alliance with the SWP threat hanging over her. Whether ULA independents are ready to continue in the husk of the ULA is an open question.

One of the positives of the ULA experiment has been the coming together of a wide layer of left independents and every effort must be made to keep this network together in some form or other. If it is the case that the SP and SWP lack either the drive or the innate ability to build a new workers party it may be time that attempts are made in that direction by the independents.

Response to SP by ULA rump

It is a bit unclear where these 3 get the authority to speak for the ULA – seems like all power to the TDs might still be the order of the day in what remains of the ULA.

United Left Alliance
Press statement
January 27th 2013.

The  United Left Alliance regrets the decision taken by Joe Higgins TD and the Socialist Party to leave the Alliance. We believe that they have made a serious mistake. The need for a new, broad and inclusive left, which will not on principle enter right wing governments with either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail is today more urgent than ever.

Faced with a massive attack on jobs, pay, pensions, working conditions, welfare payments and entitlements, health and education and other essential social services, working people need an independent and radical political movement which will seek to represent them, help organise them, and above all, fight on their behalf.

The ULA was formed with the intention to bring together existing left groups along with individual members to help lay the basis over time to enable a new party of the left to come into existence. It was inevitable that there would be difficulties in bringing together groups who have had a long period of independent activity and indeed rivalry.

We believe it is necessary to work to overcome such problems and to create the conditions in which the ULA can achieve its undoubted potential.

It is unfortunate that the Socialist Party feels it necessary to create or exaggerate political differences to justify their action in leaving the Alliance. In reality their decision reflects an inability to put the urgent task of building a broader movement to more effectively represent working people before the narrow interests of their own small grouping.

Richard Boyd
Barrett TD. Clare Daly TD. Joan Collins TD.

What is missing from the SP analysis of the demise of the ULA?

The primary SP argument remains that nothing could have been done differently and they have no explanation for why the “objective factors” that led to working class activists being drawn to the CAHWT was happening concurrently with the “objective factors” that kept them away from the ULA.

Nothing would have been different if the promise to launch a new party made in the SP’s election manifesto and been given some concrete reality instead of almost immediately after individual membership was opened up the SP continual pouring cold water on the idea except as some abstract long-term goal, which hardly made the ULA look attractive to the working class militants in the CAHWT.

Nothing would have been different if alongside those concrete moves towards launching a new party the SP (and SWP) had made the ULA their real priority so that on demonstrations etc the ULA was THE public face of the components of the ULA instead of it being themselves in competition with each other. Why would the ULA be attractive to working class militants in the CAHWT when it barely existed in public manifestations of opposition to austerity?

I guess it makes the SP feel better to argue this as it absolves them from any critical self-analysis but it will not encourage anyone to believe their calls, that will inevitably come, for a ULA 2.0

SP formally leaves the ULA

 

 

http://www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1123-the-ula-the-fight-against-austerity-a-building-a-new-party-of-the-working-class

The ULA, the fight against austerity & building a new party of the working class

WRITTEN BY SOCIALIST PARTY

SATURDAY, 26 JANUARY 2013 17:00

The Socialist Party has ended its membership of the ULA. We do so with regret as we initiated the negotiations that led to the ULA and are genuine in our preparedness to work with others on the left in a respectful, democratic and principled fashion. However some in the ULA, including TDs, have moved away from a principled left position and have ditched the collaborative spirit. Apart from the Socialist Party, the other groups in the ULA have accepted this situation, leaving us with no choice but to withdraw. These developments decisively undermined the ULA, which was already in a weakened state as ordinary working class people had not joined it in any significant numbers, along with the withdrawal of the Workers and Unemployed Action Group (Tipperary) last autumn. As a result, any potential that the ULA had of playing a role in building a new mass Left in Ireland is now gone. New opportunities for the political re-organisation of the working class At the same time, the struggle against the Household and Property Tax emerged as a real challenge to the Troika’s and the Government’s disastrous policy of austerity. This struggle, which more than any other issue encapsulates the opposition to austerity, has now reached a decisive stage with the threat of deducting the tax at source from people’s wages and benefits. It is clear that a major struggle on the Property Tax will politicise tens of thousands of people and will give an enormous impetus to the political re-organisation of the working class, something that unfortunately the ULA proved incapable of achieving. The Socialist Party remains committed to building a mass and democratic party of the working class and believes that all who are committed to that objective should register the potential significance of the Property Tax issue. At the start of last year 30,000 people attended meetings organised by the Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes (CAHWT). 15,000 marched on the Fine Gael Ard Fheis and by the end of the year nearly 700,000 households, 52% of single home owners, had not registered or paid for the Household Tax. The threat to rob people’s wages and benefits at source poses difficulties for the campaign and for ordinary people, but it has also deepened the anger. If a strong lead is given on the Property Tax there is a real possibility of even stronger protests this year than last. An aspect of this struggle should be to connect to the widespread mood to punish Labour and Fine Gael. If out of the struggle came the proposal for a slate or an alliance of anti-Property Tax / anti-austerity candidates for the Local and European Elections next year, that would really ratchet up the pressure on the Government, and on Labour in particular. Such a proposal could gain huge support and could lead to the involvement of thousands of working class people in a political struggle, with the possibility that many working class activists could get elected. Such developments would not only be a massive step towards forcing the scrapping of the Property Tax, but would also represent a big step towards a new mass party of the working class. Lessons from the ULA’s demise The original idea of the ULA was for an electoral and parliamentary alliance of groups. On the suggestion of the Socialist Party, a membership was established to try to build a more significant alliance. The launching of the ULA was a positive development coinciding as it did with the imposition of the Troika’s Programme and the looming general election. However, the worsening austerity combined with the abysmal failure of the trade union leadership to mount any struggle against it in the wake of the major public sector strike and mass demonstration in November 2010, dented people’s confidence and there was a tendency to wait and see if the new Fine Gael / Labour Government might be different. Unfortunately, the absence of industrial struggles or battles against austerity, combined with a feeling that there was no alternative to austerity, meant that working class people weren’t pushed towards getting politically involved and the ULA didn’t grow despite many public recruitment meetings. Overwhelmingly the very limited numbers who did join were already established left activists, so instead of growing, the ULA barely got off the mark. Last summer sections of the media consciously used Mick Wallace’s tax evasion and Clare Daly’s close political connection to him to attack the Left. This  damaged the Socialist Party and the ULA’s standing as principled Left organisations. The Socialist Party insists that its elected representatives must be politically independent from business or capitalist interests or people who represent such interests, even more so when tax evasion is involved. In this instance, the fact that the Socialist Party was prepared to lose a TD rather than compromise on an important principle meant that we overcame that damage and gained considerable credit among working class people in particular, who strongly disapprove of Mick Wallace’s actions. Political independence of the left can’t be compromised Unfortunately Clare Daly and another ULA TD, Joan Collins, intensified this political connection with Mick Wallace. They co-presented the X case abortion bill with him in late November. Furthermore on 20 December they organised a major press conference with him, and also Independent TD Luke Flanagan, on the issue of alleged corruption among certain members of the Garda in erasing penalty points for traffic offences. These generated significant media coverage. They consciously chose not to organise on these issues under the ULA banner but instead opted to promote what is essentially a new alliance of parliamentarians who are not of the Left. This was a body blow to the already diminished credibility of the ULA. Just as damning for the future of the ULA as these actions, was the fact that none of the other groups in the alliance, the People Before Profit Alliance, the Independent / Non-aligned Group nor significantly, the Socialist Workers Party, opposed this approach of supposedly being committed to a left project but in practice contradicting that by organising a political alliance with others in the Dáil Technical Group who couldn’t at all be characterised as on the Left. On 25 November, at the ULA Council, a motion moved by the Socialist Party on the need to end the political connection with Mick Wallace was voted down by all the other groups. In so doing they assisted in the jettisoning of a cornerstone principle for any left organisation, that it must take seriously its political independence from business interests or forces representing business interests. Around the same time, the “Daly Bill” on the X case was resubmitted for the ULA’s Private Member’s slot on 27 November but, unfortunately, this was done without any consultation and in defiance of a specifically agreed procedure which necessitated discussion and consensus. If the Socialist Party had the opportunity, we were going to advocate that the ULA submit a bill on the X case but that it should be expanded to cater for a risk to a woman’s health as grounds for an abortion, with a view to broadening out the debate and discussion on abortion in the wake of the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. ULA at an impasse, but a real basis for optimism for the future This subverting of democratic procedure undermined the structures and relations in the ULA. Despite the facts, any wrong doing was denied and again unfortunately, none of the other groups made any serious objection to what had happened when it was raised at the Council meeting. These developments destroyed any basis for principled political collaboration and the ULA has been at an impasse ever since. The ULA is compromised and cannot now be seen as an independent, principled Left alliance nor any longer can there be hope that it could prepare the ground for a new mass workers’ party in the years ahead. These are the reasons why, as well as the need to avoid any future damaging associations for the party or for struggles that we are involved in, the Socialist Party is withdrawing from the ULA. The Socialist Party is open to work with those who remain in the ULA on specific issues, on an agreed basis, both inside and outside the Dáil. However we believe that the key to building a Left alternative will flow from a serious struggle against the disastrous austerity and bailout agenda and in particular from the involvement of thousands of working class people in the battle against the property and water taxes in the year ahead. Socialist Party members will be among the most active fighters in all aspects of the battle against the Property Tax. As part of that our members will raise in a democratic fashion, locally and nationally, the idea that an anti-Property Tax and anti-austerity challenge in the Local and European Elections in 2014 should be pursued by the campaigns. Such an electoral initiative, combined with the active struggle against the tax and mass mobilisations against the Government, has the potential to pose a more real and substantial opportunity to build a new mass party of the working class. Through the establishment of the ULA, initiated by the Socialist Party, an alternative was posed in half the Dáil constituencies in the last general election. We believe that the hopes engendered for a genuine left and socialist alternative which that stand raised, can be surpassed in the months ahead, if the unprecedented opportunity that the next elections offer, is fully grasped.

 

ULA – Lost Opportunity

My new piece on the state of the ULA is available on Irish Left Review – http://www.irishleftreview.org/2013/01/17/lost-opportunity/

Henry Silke’s “Structure, Democracy and the Irish Left – A Call for Discussion”

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2013/01/09/structure-democracy-irish-left-call-discussion/

I am working on a contribution to this discussion that Henry calls for and hope that his document sparks a full discussion on what kind of party we need, both in terms of organisation and programme.

Anne McShane – Ireland and abortion: ULA chickens out

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/943/ireland-and-abortion-ula-chickens-out

Intense controversy has been sparked by the Irish government’s announcement on December 18 that it will legislate for limited abortion in the new year. It has actually been hugely out of proportion to the decision itself.

The Catholic church reacted quickly and furiously, absurdly stating that this would be the first step on the way to a “culture of death” in Ireland.¹ In fact the legislation would mean little change compared to the current position, where abortion is permitted in very limited circumstances: when there is a ‘real and substantial’ threat to the life of the mother. The only real difference will be that ‘threat to the life of the mother’ will now include suicide. It is this that has set the church and its allies into convulsions of rage. We are told that Irish women will abuse this legislation. They are implicitly deviant and manipulative by nature, and able to pull the wool over the eyes of psychiatrists. Irish women are so eager to bring about the “intentional killing of unborn children” that they will successfully feign suicidal ideation.²

A leading spokesperson for the church, bishop Leo O’Reilly, claimed that this would mean the beginning of the end for Irish society – it “would be a radical change in the culture of life we have had in this country … it would be an irrevocable change: there would not be any going back”.³

It is to be hoped that these scare tactics, aimed at frightening the waverers back into the arms of the church, will backfire. Over the last few months there has been an intense campaign, with leaflets, posters, pastoral letters and fiery speeches from the pulpit. People leaving Sunday mass have reported being harangued by campaigners from the wondrously misnamed Youth Defence. Facebook advertising and billboards show pictures of bouncing babies and falsification about the reality of abortion.

People in Ireland will also remember the systematic abuse of children by the clergy for decades. Working class and disabled children were treated with contempt. They were starved and abused, physically and sexually, in industrial schools and residential homes. Now the bishops who protected the abusers and threatened families who complained pretend to really care about children. But when they cry crocodile tears about the ‘killing of the unborn’, what they are in reality bemoaning is loss of their own control over the lives of women.

The government is beset by crisis over the legislation, with up to 20 Fine Gael TDs threatening to vote against. They and their allies in the church have called for a free vote over this “matter of conscience”. Fine Gael has been targeted by the Life Institute, Youth Defence and a whole plethora of well-funded and sophisticated pro-life organisations. These organisations peddle myths and scare stories presented as independent medical facts. Their key manoeuvre is to allege that the legislation is the first step on the road to abortion on demand. Pretending to be suicidal will soon give way to actually demanding control over your own fertility.

The focus on medical opinion is confusing and contradictory. It is also a diversion from addressing the needs of real women. The death of Savita Halappanavar in Galway Hospital in October revealed the human face of the victims of Ireland’s repressive laws. It showed a woman who asked repeatedly for a termination being denied because there was still a foetal heartbeat. By the time her life was deemed to be at risk, it was too late.

It is said that the problem for Savita was that the leading doctors in Galway are anti-abortion. However, this is a problem that is replicated in many hospitals. The church continues to run the majority of institutions and exerts huge influence over psychiatrists, obstetricians and gynaecologists. Doctors for Choice is one honourable exception, which campaigns for free and safe abortion at the request of the woman. One of their leading members, Mary Favier, has been at the forefront of demanding this right.

If, or when, this legislation is passed it will change nothing for most women in need of an abortion. The vast majority will continue to look abroad. This means an expensive and stressful journey to Britain, Holland or Denmark. A first-trimester abortion in Britain or Holland can cost between €1,000 and €2,000, including travelling expenses. A lot of money for any woman, but particularly students and part-time workers. Banks and credit unions have closed their doors to people on low incomes. The situation is very serious.⁴

However, women continue to travel anyway. Between 12 and 20 go abroad every day for abortion – up to 7,000 a year. They range from teenagers to the middle-aged. All women who for whatever reason need to end their pregnancy. Some, possibly younger, women are turning to illegally imported abortion pills as a way to avoid the expense of travelling. However, this has major safety risks – they are used without any medical supervision or back-up.

ULA response

The mealy-mouthed response of the United Left Alliance to the government announcement is a disgrace. Instead of adopting a clear pro-choice position, the ULA has fudged the question. In its press release it welcomed the government decision and urged immediate legislation, but deliberately obscured the demand for abortion on demand. According to the statement, the “vast majority of the population agree that a risk to the health of a woman should be grounds for the right to an abortion. The majority also think a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy arising from rape or incest, or where the foetus has a fatal abnormality. Many think that it should be up to a woman, in consultation with her doctor, to decide if she should continue with a pregnancy. We support all of these arguments – which give women the choice.”⁵

But a woman’s right to choose is not the same thing as being allowed an abortion on the say-so of doctors and psychiatrists. Why should a woman have to be a victim of rape or incest or prove she is suicidal, as the press release seems to imply? Is the ULA setting itself up as a moral guardian, believing that women should have to prove their desperation in accordance with a few ‘legitimate’ categories? Presumably women who want an abortion because they cannot afford another baby, because they are a teenager in school, in the middle of a marriage break-up or for any of the many other personal reasons will still have to go abroad. If the ULA really supports abortion on demand, why did it sneak it in at the end of a list of other, hopelessly restricted, options?

In practice it is in contradiction with the ULA’s official position. Before the branch delegate meeting in November there had been no policy on the question. But the Savita case had put the ULA under pressure to take a stand. A motion from the Galway branch stated that the ULA stands for full freedom of reproductive choice. Another from North Kildare branch declared: “The United Left Alliance affirms a woman’s right to choose whatever happens to her own body. We believe that society – through the state – should provide free assistance and support to anyone seeking it, in a confidential and supportive environment. This must include providing free and completely unfettered access to state-funded pregnancy-termination procedures and post-procedure support.” Both were passed with no opposition from the leadership. However, almost immediately the backtracking began.

In arguments on the question on the ULA non-aligned email forum, I have been accused of wanting to impose a ‘maximalist’ position on the pro-abortion campaign. It has also been argued that I am being formalistic by insisting that because the ULA has a pro-choice position it should actually build a campaign on that basis. I am told that it is better to ride with the tide of public opinion and go for the middle ground. We should tack onto what is most popular among the general population.

The ULA is putting a lot of store by a recent poll, conducted by Red C on behalf of the Sunday Business Post. This reported that 85% supported abortion in the terms of the government legislation (although, rather contradictorily, 63% also said they were against any extension of abortion rights, even on grounds of suicide), while 82% supported abortion also in cases of rape. It is this 82% that the ULA is depending on to make its arguments for extending the legitimate grounds for abortion. But what about the 36% who favoured abortion on demand? Surely that is a good starting point for a principled campaign.⁶

To me this poll shows that, despite the obvious contradictions, there has been a change in attitude and that there is now a significant part of the population which is pro-choice. This can only mean that the situation is very fluid and that the argument is still there to be won. The ULA seems to think that the shift in public opinion will guarantee increasingly progressive legislation. But it has not counted on the determination of the church and its supporters.

The only way to take on this question is through a clear call for a woman’s right to choose. I have heard a number of pro-choice activists flinch at the accusation that we are for abortion on demand. But why? Abortion on demand simply means that a woman is entitled to choose for herself. The decision should not be up to psychiatrists or doctors or politicians. Men never face such issues about their own health or decisions. Pro-choice activists should be ready to fight back with clear calls for choice. They need to reassert what abortion on demand means, and clearly expose the scare stories of the pro-lifers for what they are. Avoiding this question is opportunism and ignores the plight of the thousands of women who travel abroad every year because they feel they have no other option.

Meanwhile, the Socialist Party has been making great play of the fact that it is apparently on the left of the ULA when it comes to this issue. It is also upset at the continuing connection between Clare Daly TD (ex-SP) and Mick Wallace, a maverick independent TD. To that end, the organisation announced on its website on December 14 that “we will be diminishing our participation in the ULA”.⁷ What this means is not clear. Apparently Joe Higgins, the SP’s remaining TD, will vote with the ULA when it suits. Presumably the SP will no longer do any organisational work or help build the alliance. Perhaps its comrades will still come along to national steering committee meetings to keep an eye on things.

It is a sectarian move, guaranteed to undermine the ULA still further. The fact that the SP uses abortion as one of its reasons for this step is truly ironic. There has been no mention of the question from the SP in any of its ULA election literature, including that of Ruth Coppinger, who is now its spokeswoman on the issue. And the organisation has been at the forefront of calls to allow abortion in cases of rape, incest health, etc, thus in reality undermining the pro-choice position. It is clear that the SP has cynically used this serious issue as a posture to justify its effective withdrawal from the ULA.

The Woman’s Right to Choose group and other activists remain determined to fight for choice as a principle. There will be a national meeting in January, when I and others will fight for that to be the leading slogan of the campaign. It is a principle and should be a right. We will fight for the immediate scrapping of the eighth amendment and, in the words of last month’s resolution, for “free and completely unfettered access to state-funded pregnancy-termination procedures and post-procedure support”. To the church and its supporters we respond in the words of that well-known slogan: ‘Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!’

Notes

1. www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1219/breaking1.html.

2. www.rte.ie/news/2012/1219/abortion.html.

3. www.rte.ie/news/2012/1219/abortion.html.

4. www.abortioninireland.org.

5. www.claredaly.ie/united-left-alliance-statement.

6.www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Red+C+poll%3A+majority+demand+X+case+legislation/id/78241919-150b-a2a0-577f-97741195800

7. www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1103-the-socialist-party-a-the-political-position-a-operation-of-the-ula.

 

 

Flaw in ULA position on fight for abortion rights?

The ULA statement on the government announcement that they will be producing legislation and regulation to implement the X-Case includes the following:

“It is time, however, to also recognise the many reasons why thousands of Irish women have abortions every year. The vast majority of the population agree that a risk to the health of a woman should be grounds for the right to an abortion. The majority also think a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy arising from rape or incest, or where the foetus has a fatal abnormality. Many think that it should be up to a woman, in consultation with her doctor, to decide if she should continue with a pregnancy. We support all of these arguments – which give women the choice.”

The problem is that not all these options give women choice. In fact most of them are about the framework within which the state (through the proxy of a doctor or doctors in the first instance) will make that decision. That is not a pro-choice position. They are improvements within the framework of the denial of women’s right to choose and so should be supported as against what exists now but they should not be confused with a pro-choice position of being for a women’s right to choose.

SP bending of the truth about the ULA and launching a new workers’ party

On this blog and various other internet forums SP comrades have consistently claimed that the SP NEVER said that the ULA was about launching a new workers’ party – perhaps they should have a closer re-read of the 2011 general election 8-point manifesto (http://www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/63-elections/608-socialist-party-election-manifesto)

“Elect Socialist Party/ULA TDs so we can launch a new party to organise working class people”

How exactly was that supposed to be interpreted by working class militants? Seems fairly clear to me…