Debate on EU: left-wing, or clerical-conservative?

by Miriam Cotton Fri Sep 08, 2006 14:43

The first critique of Sinnott on this newswire that relies on reasoned arguments and facts, up to a point.

It is true that Kathy Sinnott is conservative on sexual and famiy issues. She regards abortion as murder and her actions are entirely consistent with that belief. I don't share some of her views on those issues but I have to take issue with your description of her as a 'militant'. She is no more extreme in her views than you are about yours and she is certainly not prepared to endorse any form of violence or discrimination against any human being. It is you who is being exclusive and elitist. In fact, Sinnott has been far more courageous in challenging the other members of her group than most if not all Irish politicians are when it comes to questioning the party line, having, as Ive pointed out before, succeeded in expelling several members of the Ind Dem group for their involvement with militant and violent organisations. Compare and contrast what happens at home: When the Disability Bill was being railroaded through the Oireachtas last year, not one of the FF TDs who kept telling us all in private that they thought it was unfair were prepared even to murmur about it to their party leaders. They all voted for it. You find me an Irish politician who has the courage to challenge their parties - and the Labour Party and the Left are the worst for suppressing conviction politicians. Look what happened to Declan Bree. And where the hell are Sinn Feinn/Labour and the left on disability in Ireland anyone? Doing sweet fuck all, is where, while Sinnott is busting herself to the point of exhaustion trying to raise the issue to priority level in Europe. Even good people may disappoint, but it doesnt mean they are not good.

Sinnott's convictions on the right to life are entirely consistent with her corresponding and extraordinary generosity towards living people who approach her for help. She is about pursuing a humane society which puts people before profit (a phrase she coined herself long before it was adopted by the PBP group). That is what she believes at core and although I dont agree with some of her conclusions, I can see that however frustrating her position may be to me on some issues, she means well. And ironically, she is extending exactly that courtesy to you and others of your persuasion. She is prepared, despite her own convictions, to share a platform with you in recognition of the fact that it is silly to make totalitarian judgment calls of the sort you are advocating here. Your assumption that she is unworthy of your company speaks volumes about how you see yourself. Sinnott expects and wants to be challenged on some issues, but that is not what has happened on Indymedia. People have set out to paint her in a particular way - convicted her of things she is not guilty of. That is not a debate, it is a vicious lynch mob. But she has given it her best attention nevertheless, despite a truly punishing schedule (she is acknowledged to be the most hardworking MEP in the EU) and taken Indymedia at face value more than any other 'mainstream' politician.

What you are saying, Brendan, is that you dont want anybody sharing a platform with you who isnt exactly like you - you want clones. Is it not this exact expectation that is responsible for the incessant beligerence of the left? Does noone have the commonsense to realise that you always have to work with the fact that people are different? Sinnot has not deliberately kept any information from anyone on this newswire. Her stance on abortion and other issues is a matter of record. She is a Catholic along with millions of others, many of whom share her mixture of conservative/socialist convictions. Are you going to write all of those voters off too? Shall we tell all of them that you would rather they did not vote for you? Shall I post your item here on the Christian Marxist websites and among the Catholic workers who, just like Sinnot, are fierce advocates of justice and peace and who also oppose abortion? Or are all of these people not good enough for you either?

by KS Watch Fri Sep 08, 2006 14:49

She is in the same Euro group as the League of Polish Families. This is a Homophobic, Anti-Semitic party. Why does she remain with them? She says that some were expelled from the group but the LPF are still in it and continue to espouse Racist, Anti-Semitic and Homophobic statements.

Sinnott isnt just opposed to abortion , she is also opposed to contraception. She has tried to stop EU funds going to sex education programmes which include contraception. She wants abstinence only programmes. She even opposes the use of condoms.

She puts on the act of being a poor mother with disabled children who fought the system. The reality is that she has a Far Right political programme and has joined up with Far Right groups in the European Parliament. This charlatan must be exposed for what she really is.

by For Clarity Fri Sep 08, 2006 15:07

I have to take issue with your description of her as a 'militant'. She is no more extreme in her views than you are about yours and she is certainly not prepared to endorse any form of violence

The article explicitly excludes the possibility of KS endorsing violence when it says "Kathy Sinnott shares the politics of YD (possibly not the street-fighting tactics, but there are soft-cop – hard-cop roles in these campaigns)." Deal with the actual criticism, not easy to dismiss ones that you make up. That criticism is of the hardline, Catholic fundamentalist opposition to abortion which can fairly described as "militant".

As regards the question about whether the left should share a platform with woman-enslaving, anti-abortionists (or other equally repulsive ideologues), the answer is clearly no as evidenced by the No to Nice campaign.

It was very easy for the pro-globalisation, pro-business and anti-worker forces of the Yes side to portray the No as reactionary because Barret etc were not nipped in the bud early enough. The bigots were always going to vote no anyway, but I'll bet I sizeable swing vote decided to vote in opposition to them.

The left should stand out clearly against these people.

by Miiram Cotton Fri Sep 08, 2006 16:27

You describe Sinnott and others as hard line militant. The word militant connotes physical violence and your article, despite its caveat, alleged that she was aligned with people who were guilty of those things.

As to being a woman-enslaving pro-abortionist, while it makes for sharp invective, the corrollary is that you might be said to be a baby-murdering monster. I dont agree with either of those propositions but the point is that none of that stuff gets anybody very far. Sinnott is as good and genuine a person as you are. Get over it. And the real point of my post is that you are in serious danger of undermining the actual purpose of your campaign, opposing the EU. A lot of different people support you in that objective but you want to disqualify certain supporters and voters from your elite club of exclusively self annointed, right-on thinkers. Before party whip politics reared its ugly head, politicians voted on the issues. Alliances were formed among people who were often bitterly opposed on other issues. That was and is a normal reflection of normal society. But nobody is pleading with you. You dont own the anti EU campaign and have no right to try to dictate who should or should not be a legitimate voice in opposing it. What arrogance. You are actually ruining your own campaign in your zeal over an issue that is not related to it. How sensible is that? Will the left never learn to stop making this same mistake. Pick an issue and it is always the same, bin tax, anti war, anti EU. Jesus.

And as to worrying about what your pro EU opponents will throw at you, if you start running scared before that you will never get anywhere. Throw their own shit right back at them, make them wish they had never started it.

by VPL Fri Sep 08, 2006 16:49

Oh the scourge of the professional woman.

It's like this- You cannot be pro-life and respect the choice of
someone who intends/wants/has an abortion.

You will not help her get the info or go to the clinic to support her- because
a) it is against your religion
b) against your philosophy.

try it anyone who is truly pro-life-support a friend through an abortion. put aside all
the dogmatic fundamentalism inducted into your pscyhe by a male-dominated
control system which enslaves a woman's right to choice.

Be aware also that you are putting the male dogmatic control mechanism
above the right of the individual who is your sister and member of your community.

Being pro-choice means whatever your feelings that are personal on the issue of
abortion, euthanasia and morning after pill etc you will support the human wishes and rights
of another person to choose. without judgement, patronisation or distaste.

now- could Kathy Sinnot, hand on heart please tell us why she is not pro-choice?

(because I really want to know- it seems more christian than the made -up dogmatic
crap force-fed to us from Rome)

women collude very easily in another woman's destruction: in FGM, forced pregnancy
and other PRIVATE issues.

so she can bang her drum all she wants-she plays the boys game.

by european Fri Sep 08, 2006 17:05

Interesting article. Some random thoughts: The whole sharing a platform with Sinnott debate seems to point to the danger for the left in defining itself in terms of being "anti EU" or in running "anti EU" campaigns. People can be be "anti-EU" for all types of reasons, good and bad. For example people can be anti- EU because of its neo-liberal Services Directive; but people can also be anti-EU for xenophobic reasons. Similarly, people can define themselves as pro-EU because they immagine it has something to do with progress/ internationalism (and they are constantly being sold this idea by the EU and the Labour Party). If being "anti EU" becomes the defining feature of a left group or campaign -rather than what the group is actually FOR - then there is the danger that they might not go out of their way to distinguish themselves from those who are against the EU for reactionary reasons.

The description of Cathy Sinnott as a "clerical conservative" seems fair enough, given her alignment with reactionaries such as Youth Defence. Clerical conservatives, in effect ,want Catholic Church doctrine to be the law of the land - this would mean no abortion, no divorce, no contraception, no sex before marraige, no gay sex, no gay marriage, no legal recognition of co-habiting couples, no stem cell research, deference to church hierarchy. (Most Catholics to be fair would not agree with all of the above doctrine). It is a mistake to immagine that Cathy Sinnott's more populist statements, for example, on having a better health service, make her some sort of closet leftie. Populist demands can resemble those of the left superficially. But in reality the type of clerical conservative society that Cathy Sinnott envisages would be a very, very unfomfortable place for anybody who considered themselves to be on the left.

by For Clarity Fri Sep 08, 2006 17:32

the real point of my post is that you are in serious danger of undermining the actual purpose of your campaign, opposing the EU.

And I explicitly addressed that in my post and completely disagree with your analysis. To restate for the hard of reading: there is no point in the left sharing a platform with people that are fundamentally opposed to a woman's right to choose. As you point out there are a myriad different people with different reasons for making decisions and with some contradictory beliefs in their own philosophies. All that the left can do is put the case as to why, to people that hold left-wing, progressive and liberal beliefs why EU superstatedom is a bad idea. That message doesn't gain in clarity and cogency from being presented along with a lot of reactionary bollocks from Catholics and other christian recidivists. In fact, it confuses and dilutes it and plays into the hands of the business class by tarnishing perfectly good, clear arguments that can stand on their own. That's why Nice got passed. I was very nearly tempted to vote for it when I saw the backward, ignorant bigots that were against it and I know that wasn't an uncommon reaction.

(p.s. I'm not the author of the article, that's why I'm using a different name, believe it or not there's probably lots of people that share this viewpoint. Nice article btw Brendan).

by Miriam Cotton Fri Sep 08, 2006 20:46

"That message doesn't gain in clarity and cogency from being presented along with a lot of reactionary bollocks from Catholics and other christian recidivists."

Here is that statement's mirror image:

"That message doesnt gain clairty or cogency from being presented along with a lot of self-righteous bollocks from lefties and other commie apologists."

Both statements are ignorant, offensive generalisations.

Again, I dont support either of the above propositions but they compare to each other for stupidity and prejudice. In either case we are reducing millions of people, who share a desired outcome, to mutually hostile ghettoes of antagonism. And yet they share a desired outcome in relation to the EU. What kind of needlessly divisve crap is that? You are talking about genuinely held but opposing convictions.

I hate the strident positions on both sides of the abortion/sexualtiy etc debates. But from where I am sitting, the people who are behaving with arrogance in this discussion are not the 'christian recidivists' but the 'commie apologists'.

by Miriam Cotton Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:26

I agree with you that pro-lifers are entitled to practice their convictions without imposing them on others in law. I wouldnt support them in that objective. I particularly object to their attitude towards homosexuality which is as much a God given as heterosexual orientation. But I can see where their vehemence comes from on an issue like abortion - that is the knottiest issue for us all. Leaving aside the jockeying for power and influence that the Catholic church is involved in, the same as every other religious/political/corproate monoply, there is a kernel of catholic theology/philosophy which is not about enslaving women. It runs something like this: It is an organic belief system within which everything is related to everything else. People come first, true social and economic justice would eardicàte poverty and the social problems which generally follow, sex is seen as a matter of love and something to be treated with care. ' Social and economic justice is critical to this outlook. I havent done it justice here. Either way it leaves a lot of questions unanswered and some very obvious logical contradictions, in my opinion, but it is crazy absolutism not to recognise the people's true motives. You may look at people like Sinnott and wish there was no overlap between you and her but there is - and its much greater than many on the left want to admit. The left wing critics of Sinnott on this thread (I consider myself leftwing) are working themselves into paroxsyms of contempt and making themselves look every bit as unreasonable and unforgiving as the sexual conservatives do. There is too much hatred in many left wing arguments on this issue for rationality or fairness.

by For Clarity Sat Sep 09, 2006 18:05

In either case we are reducing millions of people, who share a desired outcome, to mutually hostile ghettoes of antagonism. And yet they share a desired outcome in relation to the EU. What kind of needlessly divisve crap is that?

Why is it "needlessly divisive?" The Christian mullah followers were always going to vote no so that they could continue to force raped children to give birth "for their own good". The people that needed to be convinced were ordinary, decent working people who were being hammered with propaganda from the government suggesting that the only reason to oppose the Nice treaty was if you were interested in having a good pray in front of man that has a high chance of fiddling kiddies. The leftwing arguments about the retrenchment of power and the race to the bottom were completely swamped by the message coming from BOTH the government and the reactionaries.

If anything was needed it was a clearer, stronger left campaign that attacked both the economic authoritarianism of the government and the social authoritarianism of the little Irelanders.

"Unity" is much trumpeted about as a worthwhile thing in itself and has been used to marginalise and depress alternative leftwing voices (e.g. the antics of the Green Party and the Democrats in the USA w.r.t. Ralph Nader). It needs to be strategically assessed and not held up as a goal in and of itself.

You are talking about genuinely held but opposing convictions.
So what? I assume everyone has genuinely held convictions, that doesn't make them any more palatable or acceptable. Here's a small experiment for you: think of the most awful morality you can imagine. Now, would you be arguing that because it also happened to be anti-Nice you should campaign alongside it, share resources with it while it advanced reasons from its tenets as to why Nice was wrong? Would you enable its presentation of its reprehensible message?

Anyway, the fact remains, it's not just the left that told the god botherers to feck off, it was a pretty resoundingly large proportion of the electorate. Anything tainted with those scum is going to have a similar fate and it makes sense for the left to kick them while their down in the hopes of extirpating them.

by corkman in cork Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:38

In what way, exactly, could Kathy Sinnott be described as "Far-Right"? Does she wear a Hakenkreuz armband? Does she goose-step her way around Ireland? Does she call for the exclusion or extermination of minorities? Seriously now lads.

Quote: "put aside all the dogmatic fundamentalism inducted into your pscyhe by a male-dominated control system which enslaves a woman's right to choice."

That is about the most dogmatic-sounding statement I have heard in a long time.

by Crystal Clear Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:33

" (In either case we are reducing millions of people, who share a desired outcome, to mutually hostile ghettoes of antagonism. And yet they share a desired outcome in relation to the EU. What kind of needlessly divisve crap is that?)

Why is it "needlessly divisive?" The Christian mullah followers were always going to vote no so that they could continue to force raped children to give birth "for their own good". The people that needed to be convinced were ordinary, decent working people who were being hammered with propaganda from the government suggesting that the only reason to oppose the Nice treaty was if you were interested in having a good pray in front of man that has a high chance of fiddling kiddies. The leftwing arguments about the retrenchment of power and the race to the bottom were completely swamped by the message coming from BOTH the government and the reactionaries."

Look, if the government succeeded in caricaturing the no vote unfairly, it is not the fault of Sinnott or people like her. You walk right into their prescripted trap by looking around at your fellow travellers and deciding who to kick off the train so as to appease the governments spin. That is why its needlessly divisive. All this biggoted invective is aside from the point that most opposition to the EU is on shrared grounds. (I agree with some of the criticisms of religious groups but is crazy to try paint them up as totally evil people the way you are). The left is guilty of some atrocious crimes of its own - it can be as hypocritical and oppressive as any other in the way it operates.

"If anything was needed it was a clearer, stronger left campaign that attacked both the economic authoritarianism of the government and the social authoritarianism of the little Irelanders."

Talk about arrogant - just about everyone but your own small band of superior beings dismissed.

Unity" is much trumpeted about as a worthwhile thing in itself and has been used to marginalise and depress alternative leftwing voices (e.g. the antics of the Green Party and the Democrats in the USA w.r.t. Ralph Nader). It needs to be strategically assessed and not held up as a goal in and of itself.

But that is not the issue here. You have a borad spectrum of people in agreement with you. Use it to your advantage.

"(You are talking about genuinely held but opposing convictions.)
So what? I assume everyone has genuinely held convictions, that doesn't make them any more palatable or acceptable. Here's a small experiment for you: think of the most awful morality you can imagine. Now, would you be arguing that because it also happened to be anti-Nice you should campaign alongside it, share resources with it while it advanced reasons from its tenets as to why Nice was wrong? Would you enable its presentation of its reprehensible message?

Hers what. There is a world of difference between someone who claims to disagree with you for reasons other than those they are stating, because of some ulteriour motive (usually to do with profits) - and people who merely see things differently. Its rare in that case that you are dealing with a crook, although it may be frustrating and annoying. You can get that experience a dozen times a day inside the average marriage. It doesnt mean you kick your partner into touch, though, does it? The idea that the EU is about improving conditions for workers and society is the biggest lie of all. It is about homogenising conditions to maximise the profits of industrialists. Sinnott is opposed to that core ethos of the EU along with lots of other people. People come first. The job of the NO voters is to get that message over and not start introducing heirarchies of moral superiority among their supporters. But you're doomed already, at this rate.

"Anyway, the fact remains, it's not just the left that told the god botherers to feck off, it was a pretty resoundingly large proportion of the electorate. Anything tainted with those scum is going to have a similar fate and it makes sense for the left to kick them while they are down in the hopes of extirpating them."

Crikey! So everyone who calls themselves a Christian is scum. Im looking at my mum, her friends and neigbours, lots of my friends and neighbours - the good folk round and about. They look innocedn enough to me. If only they knew what you were plotting. These are the people you are trying to persuade. Some of them already are persuaded. Relax, know your real enemies from your friends.

by Aine Wed Sep 27, 2006 08:13

This sort of crazy stuff is why no-one is taking the left seriously anymore and why Labour can move to a centrist position on everything.

by Totti Wed Sep 27, 2006 20:03

Can you take the right serious? i.e George Bush and his Neocon buddies