The ICL, the IBT and the Disabled: Who Sneers at the Oppressed

A drone of the ICL a while back challenged me to show articles by the IBT dedicated to the rights of the disabled. He said he BET HE COULD find several ICL articles dedicated to the rights of the disabled. The phrase "BET HE COULD" I think really stand out. It suggests that he hasn't even checked to see if the ICL has any such articles. He has yet to show me such articles by the ICL. This drone even had the nerve to slander me as "vile and hypocritical" for saying I defended the rights of the disabled and the oppressed because I "embraced" the Bolshevik Tendency. I should probably point out that I am not a member of the IBT and I don't hold them responsible for what I put on this blog (although I certainly increasingly consider myself a sympathizer). One thing I think really stands out is the fact that the ICL has never once, to my knowledge at least, acknowledge that the disabled (and mentally ill) are oppressed people. The International Bolshevik Tendency to its credit has acknowledged that the disabled are oppressed people. One example is in the following article:

"A revolutionary party would defend the rights of all the oppressed - racial minorities, women, gays and lesbians, the disabled etc - while combating ideologies such as nationalism and feminism that diminish the primary role of class in society."
    - Fiddling and Fudging while the City Burns: Report on 'The Convention of the Left', 21 September 2008

Also, in issues that involve the disabled and mentally ill such as homelessness and healthcare, the ICL often manages to go the entire article without a single mention of the disabled and mentally ill. One rare occasions they might eke out a fraction of a sentence.

The IBT hasn't written as much on the disabled as I would have liked. But I must appreciate the fact that they are severely limited in their printing capacity (their paper comes out once per year). This being the case they are limited in terms of how many issues they can cover.

Also on the IBT's most recent article on fascism they IBT at one point writes:

"Fascism is not a set of ideas that can be discussed and debated—it is a program of violent terror directed at the left and workers’ movement, visible minorities, immigrants, the disabled, homosexuals, the transgendered, Jews, Muslims and anyone else who does not fit their psychotic vision of a “pure” society."
                           - British Fascism on the Rise: Smash the BNP

The ICL's most recent article on the fascism (also about the fascist BNP), in contrast makes no mention of the fact that fascists target people with disabilities. If this was just a onetime thing I could overlook it, but alas this is part an ever increasing pattern. This article is titled, Britain: Fascist Feed of Labour Government Racism (Workers Vanguard No. 952, 12 February 2010). In this article the ICL states:

"The BNP are also reaping gains out of the reactionary crusade against foreign workers that began at Lindsey oil refinery in January 2009 under the slogan of “British jobs for British workers” (see “Down With Reactionary Strikes Against Foreign Workers!” WV No. 930, 13 February 2009). Responsibility for this lies with the Socialist Party [of Peter Taaffe, affiliated with Socialist Alternative in the U.S.] and the trade-union bureaucracy, who led this campaign."

What the grossly named "International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) is less eager to discuss is the fact that they criminally through their support behind an equally sinister movement, the Free Robert Latimer. The basis of this latter movement is that killing people with disabilities should carry no criminal sentence. Like the truly grotesque chauvinist campaign against foreign workers in Britain, fascists in North America have similarly reaped gains from the movement to free Robert Latimer. Unlike the Peter Taafe and the Socialist Party of Britain (a name that seriously debases socialism), Robert Latimer has actually murdered people a person (his own disabled daughter of all people). Taafe and his cronies AT LEAST haven't killed foreign haven't KILLED foreigners.

The lynching of Tracy Latimer and the mass ablest Pro-Robert Latimer hysteria has created an environment, at least in Canada, where killing the disabled is seen as acceptable and because of this more disabled people are being lynched. What environment could better for fascists to flourish. Just as the Socialist Party of Britain bears responsibility for creating an environment for fascists to flourish in Britain, the ICL bears responsibility for creating a similar environment for fascists to flourish in Canada.

Robert Latimer, describes his actions as a "mercy killing". If the ICL had done their homework they would have known that "mercy killing" has historically been a rallying cry of outright fascists. When Hitler killed disabled people in the holocaust it was described as "mercy killings". In fact the whole notion of involuntarily "euthanizing" people with disabilities and mental illness. Got its start with the eugenics movement and later the Third Reich.

In terms of outright fascist rally behind Robert Latimer, the ICL's defense is that this says nothing about whether or not Robert Latimer welcomes theirs support. However this contradicts one of their statements against the Socialist Party of Britain:

"while a report on the Lindsey strike in the Socialist (5-11 February) says the BNP “have been bounced off from this strike.” This is hardly the point. Why did the BNP support the strike? The Socialist Party bears its share of responsibility for leading a chauvinist campaign that has the enthusiastic support of the fascist BNP!"
                                                       - Workers' Vanguard No.937, 22 May 2009

Either way Robert Latimer just sits back while outright fascists make his case. As a political colleague said of Latimer:

"Latimer is probably not a neo-Nazi. But Latimer sat back and allowed White Supremacists, neo-Nazis and other far-Right extremists to plead his case for him. I know that, were I in prison for reasons that I felt were unjust, I would sit in prison UNTIL I DIED rather than let the forces of darkness, death and evil to speak for me. The fact that Latimer never disavowed his far-Right supporters is a fairly damning indictment of his political leanings."

When I told of the ICLs support for Latimer he said:

"It doesn't suprise me that these scum are in bed with the Far-Right, but they're

still claiming to be on the Left here."

I think that the reason the ICL would kowtow to the mass ablest Pro-Robert Latimer

hysteria is to show the Capitalist class that despite their hard edged talk in

their paper, they really are a harmless sect. 

As for the IBT they have not said or written anything on the Tracy Latimer to my knowledge. However, unlike

the ICL, I don't consider silence to be proof of guilt and I prefer to see it from the standpoint of innocent until

proven guilty.

A Hard Look at my Actions During and After I was in the "International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)"

I would like to take time to take a look at my actions during and after my support for the ICL-FI. This would include things I think were mistake on my part.

First of all I'll talk about when I was a supporter of the ICL. When I supporting the ICL, I was quite nasty to other leftists and like everyone else in that group I behaved like a total asshole. Fortunately, unlike some in that group I never physically assaulted anyone. But I made a prick of myself all the same. I remember when an individual in the group named Andrew (who was an Electrician at the time) manhandled a person an Under the Volcano event, I remained silent. I along with everyone else in that group didn't speak out against it. The same is true when this same person talked about smashing the skulls of members of other left groups. I and everyone else remained silent. I also remained silent when Andrew lashed out at other leftists. I also remained silent when Andrew sneared at the notion of Natives wanting their land back. I don't think Natives can get their land back until Capitalism is overthrown. that being said Andrew was extremely insentive to this deeply held desire of most First Nations people. Rather than call Andrew on this I actually defended him and the ICL. I also remained silent when Andrew talked about "Revolution in MY COUNTRY" a variant of Socialism in One Country.

Their were mistakes I made when it came to taking the ICL at their word. When I first read their article calling for "Marine out of Lebenon Now, Alive" in Lebanon in 1983 I was quite confused. This was in complete contradiction to their current stance on Iraq where they actually denounce leftists who actually hold the same view on Iraq. However, I kepted my doubts to myself and didn't speak up. Also, when I considered reading literature by the International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT) and the Internationalist Group (IG), the ICL put a tremedous amount of pressure on me not to read these groups literature. This confused me. The ICL had talked about reading opponents views. They said that other groups censor them and won't let their members read their papers because they are bankrupt and their politics don't add up. Yet here they were doing the same thing with the IBT and the IG. Despite these concerns I remained silent.

Now onto the mistakes I think I made after I left the ICL. First of all on one of my emails to them I ended my email in an exclamation point. Basically like I was screaming. This is an attitude I picked up from being with the ICL. They often scream hysterically, both in their paper and on the ground.

Also, I had at one point asked people in the ICL "are you holocaust deniers" this remake was inexcusable and I retracted it within days. The ICL had tried to brainwash me into to thinking that people with disabilities were better off dead. I have disabilities along with virtually all my family and friends. In essence the ICL had tried to brainwash me into thinking that me, my friends and family were all better off dead. Their are in agreeance with fascists (neo-nazis) on the lynching or murding of disabled chidlren and their arguments in defence of killing the disabled are virtually identical to those held by fascists both in the past and present (they are also identical to the view held be the eugenics movement before Hitler came around). They also in November 1984 at the San Francisco State Univerty dressed up in Nazi regalia complete with Nazi swastika armbands. Their peerless leader Jim Robertson also at one point went into a German restaurant and asked for a "steak a la Auschwitz". He also, addressed German comrades with: "Hi ya comrades, Heil Hitler". Basically I was completely disoriented due to the nightmarish abuse I experienced at the hands of the ICL. The allegations holocaust denier is NOT one to be taken lightly. I asked it in question form, not as a statement but it was still wrong.

Also, I had the view that white guys with shaved heads and guys who listen to punk music were all fasicst. This again was a view shared by people in the ICL. This played a big part in the ICL purging Uli Sandler from their party back in the 1980s. They smeared him as a "proto-fascist" and "nazi lover". I had at one time to my recollection implied that a white person with a shaved head who listend to punk music I spoke to was a fascist. Whether not this specific individual was a fascist I am not sure and he was certainly a shady character (this guy did agree with the ICL and the fascists on his view of killing disabled people). However this guy doesn't speak for white guys with shaved heads. I know a couple of white guys with shave heads (three that I can recall) who I know quite well and who I know are NOT fascist. One of them in fact has disabilities.

Another mistake I made is that all of my early emails were directed at specific members of the ICL as opposed to the ICL in general. I aimed my polemics to much at certain members and not enough at the group itself.

Comradely,
For Trotskyism,
Michael G.