>the good old SWP: http://www.gayegypt.com/may2004.html.
>Btw., is it true that female swp, or "respect" members were called
>upon to wear headscarfs at an anti-war rally, so that they don't
>offend the muslim participants? Maybe it's just a rumour, but it
>sounds possible.
That's the whole point of rumours - they are mutually reinforcing. No smoke without fire, and certainly no hijab without a direct order from the CC. But it is manifest cobblers. And what is more, anyone who had spent more than five seconds with an SWP member at any level and in any position would know that.
Michael provides a particularly half-arsed comment from Direland next:
>"Lenin" says he supported the
>resolution that condemned his party's leadership -- yet I have not
>read a single word on "Lenin's" blog criticizing that leadership for
>its dedision to stifle any commitment to gay rights in the platform
Doug Ireland is supposed to be an investigative journalist of some sort. But what he has done here is suggest that the ommission of an explicit inclusion of gay rights in one electoral manifesto is somehow a "decision to stifle". Evidence, argument, inference - none of it is presented. Direland merely proceeds along the Trot-baiting course. He goes on to claim that the SWP 'pulls the strings' in Respect - which, given he has just described its vote for a resolution from an LGBT group in Respect as a 'revolt' against the leadership, actually means that he thinks the SWP revolted against itself.
I can't be bothered ploughing through the rest of Direland's polemic since I already have on the post itself. And, what is more, I can't be bothered with Mr Pugliese's trollish proclivities. For some curious reason, I don't believe I am alone in that.
_________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters