An email from a Spartacist Supporter Andrew Malieni

I'm writing you because I'm disgusted by your conduct since you stopped being a sympathizer of the ICL, and your "Spartacist Watch" website in particular. I'd like to make clear that I'm not writing in any official capacity related to the Trotskyist League - as you know and found out somehow, I ceased to be a member of the Spartacist Youth Club some time ago now (although not for programmatic reasons - I have no programmatic differences with the ICL).

Perhaps the most hypocritical and vile of your actions is to claim to support disabled rights and the oppressed, but yet embrace the Bolshevik Tendency and Bill Logan in particular. You claim that Bill Logan was witch-hunted. Yet this is a man who tried to force a woman to have an abortion, and when that failed, to put her baby up for adoption. This particular woman was driven to attempt suicide.

But Logan's crimes don't end there. He forcibly separated couples, and pressured members of the organization to enter into relationships that they didn't want to enter into, solely for Logan's own satisfaction. Logan sneered at oppression, and manipulated the most oppressed members of the organization for his own twisted pleasure. This only begins to describe Logan's crimes against the workers' movement. These crimes took place in Australia from 1972-1977, and also in Britain in 1978.

As you must know, having apparently read the The Logan Dossier, Logan was given an international trial for all of these and other crimes. The trial body included future members of the BT, and also included a non-member Trotskyist from Sri Lanka, Edmund Samarakkody. Logan was found guilty of all those crimes by everyone present at the trial body - including both the future members of the BT, and the non-member from Sri Lanka.

If you actually read the Logan Dossier (or for that matter, the three previous bulletins on the Logan Regime), you would find ample documentation and proof of Logan's crimes. And now, Bill Logan is the leader of the BT.

How can you claim to stand for the oppressed and disabled and defend such a revolting monster as Bill Logan (even going so far as to say that he was witch-hunted)? Furthermore, how can you support such a reactionary group as the BT (of which Bill Logan is leader) and claim to be in favor of the working class? Are you familiar with the BT's positions? I'm quite sure that you are, since you read and talked about them when you were a sympathizer of the ICL. In case you are not, I'll refresh your memory.

In Canada, the Bolshevik Tendency opposes independence for Quebec and issued a leaflet (in English only) calling to vote "no" in the referendum on Quebec independence. In fact, the BT was invited to attend a mass chauvinist national Canadian unity rally in Montreal opposing Quebec independence. The BT's anglo-chauvinism was so obvious at this time that its only Quebecois member quit, protesting the BT's de facto bloc with its own bourgeosie.

In Britain, the British section of the BT refused to call for British troops out of Northern Ireland. In the first years several of the BT's existence - and even now - it has hardly written at all about the Black question in the United States. Not only that, nowhere in its most recent issue of its journal 1917 does it call for unconditional military defense of the remaining deformed workers' states of China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. Indeed, it barely even mentions them. In general, they're a tail on the liberal left.

Michael, is this the sort of organization you support? If so, and you do, you have no right to call yourself a Trotskyist, revolutionary, Marxist, Communist, or supporter of the oppressed. Do you really support the BT as the BT, or simply because it's against the ICL? In another words, because you feel that you were allegedly mistreated by some member(s) of the ICL, are you running to the BT as revenge simply because you know that the BT is a deadly opponent of the ICL? If so, you are making a pact with the devil - a group that sneers at oppression and exists mainly to destroy the ICL, the only revolutionary organization in the world. I strongly encourage you to openly and publicly retract your support to the BT and appologize to the ICL for your behaviour.

Now, I wanted to address your position on Robert Latimer's killing of Tracy Latimer. I wanted to let you know first of all that I don't know if the ICL has any official position on this case. Secondly, I wanted to let you know my own opinion, as a non-member of either the SYC or TL.

I don't know enough details to say whether Robert Latimer should be defended against the state for what he did. I do know enough to say that you are wrong to call it a "lynching" or fascistic act of terror against the disabled. First of all, it is undeniable that Tracy Latimer suffered horribly from her condition. She was quadriplegic and in constant, excruciating pain.

Whether or not the killing of Tracy Latimer was a crime (from the standpoint of the working class) is something I don't have an opinion on either way, since it is not clear to me. In general, voluntary euthanasia to me would depend on the individual in question's decision. I think Tracy Latimer's death is a murky situation since, to my knowledge, it is not even clear whether she would even have been able to make a decision whether or not to live or die.

What is clear to me, however, is that Robert Latimer's actions were not intended as an act of terror against the disabled. I think that Robert Latimer took his daughter's life because he wanted to end her indisputable suffering. If he truly did it because he was bigoted towards the disabled, why didn't he kill his daughter at birth? Why did he wait 12 years? And why did Tracy's doctors say that her parents' care of their daughter, up to her death, was generally good?

It's true that, for their own sick reasons, some of Robert Latimer's supporters include fascists. However, it does not follow from this that Robert Latimer is himself fascist or fascistic, nor that he necessarily even invites their support. The fascists support Robert Latimer because they support eugenics and the killing of disabled people in general to fulfill their goal for "racial purity."

Fascists will sometimes also for their own hypocritical reasons criticize Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, but that is not out of any genuine concern for Palestinians, but rather because the Hebrew-speaking nation in Israel is predominantly Jewish, and fascists are anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers/supporters. According to the logic that you use vis-a-vis fascists and Latimer, because fascists are against Israel, Israel's crimes against Palestinians must be acceptable. Secondly, I would also add that many of the opponents of Robert Latimer are also reactionaries; many of them are religious bigots, oppose abortion and/or are against euthanasia on principle.

Michael, I think you need to seriously consider your political trajectory since you stopped being a sympathizer. Support of the BT puts you outside of the workers' movement. If you have problems with the way you were treated as a sympathizer by the Trotskyist League, I suggest you first of all retract your disgusting defenses of the BT and Bill Logan, and then ask to sit down with the TL to discuss your differences and problems with the way you were treated.

Andrew Malieni

Tracy Latimer's Blood is on your Hands!

Tynan,

Another thing I think it takes someone deeply insinuated with ablest bigotry to think I am "trivializing lynching" by calling what Robert Latimer did lynching. Also, I think it is safe to say that it takes someone deeply insinuated with ablest bigotry to insist what Latimer did is not an act of terror. Also, I think it is reasonable to say, that it takes someone deeply insinuated with ablest bigotry to think Latimer is being "blamed for his own oppression". The remark about Tracy and Robert Latimer being "both oppressed" and "suffering together" is testament to your own arrogance as well as your ignorance concerning the disabled.

I think its rather pathetic that here we have a situation where an innocent girl with a disability is lynched and all you seem able to do is whine about the oh so tragic plight of white men with property (aka rural types). The notion that Robert Latimer is oppressed, I think it is reasonable to say, it a fatuous attempy on your part to cover for your own bankruptcy.

And if Latimer's actions are not an act of terror then I guess your trying to tell me that the fascist, who have voiced support for Robert Latimer, just want to relieve people of pain. I guess you think fascists no longer kill people. The fascists even made the same arguments that you made about Tracy Latimer being in "continual agony". I hope to god you aren't implying that Latimer is a "class war prisoner". The fascists call Latimer a "prisoner of war". This would you don't even sound different from them. Except for the word "class". I bet it would have Cannon rolling in his grave.

I'll assume the party agrees with you on this issue unless informed otherwise. Its not like anyone in your cult knows how to think except of course your peerless leader James Robertson..

Recently your party declared a number of your previous stances erroneous. Most of these past stances were criticized by the Bolshevik Tendency and the Internationalist Group, groups who actions against you I support. I challenge you to declare your support for Robert Latimer to be erroneous.

Comradely,
Michael Gregory

A Question for the International Communist League

Is it just Tynan Liebert is does the entire International Coomunist League apologists for the lynching of Tracy Latimer?

On the Trotskyist League's Hysterical Screaming and their Attempts to Silence their Critics

If you wish to contact me, contact me through email. I won't tell you my blackberry phone number to avoid your hysterical denunciations like the ones you made when I called you last. A tactic that I think was designed to break, humiliate and silence me. This was in place of actually arguing against my points. Funny, while you people can easily dodge the slings and arrows of reformists and centrists, with revolutionaries all you can do is resort to slander, demogoguey, hysterical denunciations and censorship, the stock-in-trade of political bankrupts.

Clarification made to the Party

These two were originally sent to cadre from The Trotskyist League of Canada which is the Canadian section of the International Communist League

* * * * * * * * * * * *

I'll say again that if you or anyone else in your group feels personally attacked feel personally attacked over what I have said for that I apologize. But support Robert Latimer, I can't even begin to tell you how that makes my skin crawl. Fascists support him, that's just fascist being fascists. But for a group like yours to have the same stance on an oppressed minority, the disabled, as outright fascists. I really believe this is going to do tarnish your reputation as the tribune of the people. I think you probably kiss support amoung the disabled including disabled proletarians goodbye.

Also I have no intention of stereotyping all rural types as backward. Rural proletarians have the same objective interest as their urban counter-part. Minorities in rural areas and landless peasants are certaintly downtrodden. The average Canadian farmer, however, has a $1,000,000 worth in assets making most of them Kulaks. Most of the urban ones have moved into the cities. Also, act of terror against the disabled have in urban areas as well as rural areas.


* * * * * * *

Tynan,

I'll make you a deal. If you and anyone who agrees with you on the Robert Latimer issue decide to drop your truly revolting stance on the issue let me know. I'll be willing to let the past be past. Assuming it is the past.

Comradely,
M.G.

On Comrade Andrew's Shameful Conduct

This email was originally sent to the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)

* * * * * * * *


I am sending an email concerning Andrew's shameful conduct when I was a supporter of the Trotskyist League.

Andrew was originally from the Toronto, Ontario section of the party. He transferred to the Vancouver section whether or not he is still with the Vancouver section I am not sure since I haven't been in contact with the party since March 2008. Last I heard he was employed as an Electrician.

When I was a sympathiser of the party Andrew was extremely abusive towards me. He would regularly shout at me when I made mistakes without explaining to me what I did wrong. I remember in an article titled "How Marx Became a Marxist" by Joseph talks about how Philippe Buonarotti talked about it being important for Coomunists to overlook past mistakes. Seymour explained that to do otherwise would lead to cliquism. Well Andrew would do well to heed this advice. Also Liu Shaoqi talked about in this book How to be a Good Communist that it is important for cadre in a revolutionary party not to bully other cadre. Andrew, I think, quite cleary doesn't heed this.

Andrew was not above using his influence to pursue a personal vendetta against me. After about a year of dedicated loyalty the party I was barred from postering for the party, handing out newspapers for the party, leafletting for the party or helping the party intervene at political events.

Andrew seemed to excercise a great deal of unchecked arbitrary power within the Vancouver section when he wanted people in the party to do something people just fell on line. He also seemed like the only person with a serious axe to grind with me. On numerous occasions he tried to dissuade me from supporting the party. When I offered to help the party he was usually the one who told me to fuck off.

He would regularly lose his temper with other people as well including at political events. He has also manhandled people at political events who he was not on a friendly basis with. I have also heard him say, and I quote, "smashing heads" in reference to cadre from other left groups. While violence against the class enemy is revolutionary. Violence within the workers' movement is counterrevolutionary.

Even if Andrew isn't serious about "smashing heads" if it was overheard by oppenents in the worker's movement or enemies of the workers' it could be used against Andrew and the party in general. There have been plenty of incidents, mainly after the shootings in Columbine, of people going to court or even being jailed for making death threat including death threats that are made truly in jest.

Also I remember hearing Andrew saying at a political event that he wanted and I quote "revolution in my country" which is but a hair width away from Socialism in One Country.

I think allowing Andrew to hold arbitrary unchecked power is seriously detrimental to the party. From what I can tell Andrew has been allowed to run wild. I think his power needs to be reigned in.

Comradely,
Michael Gregory

On your Servile Kowtowing to the Ableist and Fascistic Free Robert Latimer Movement

I was wondering have you and/or the party finished reading the emails I sent to you/them on the Tracy Latimer. I really hope you have had the basic courtesy to read them and are not just deleting them.

I noticed none of my emails were taken up and refuted in Spartacist Canada. I have come to interpret this as a sign of your party's bankrupty. You had always taught me that when political groups can't defend their politics. This is assuming the party shares your truly revolting stance on the Tracy Latimer (a view shared by outright fascists). If the party shares your stance than I think it is quite fair to say that "despite the party's residual capacity for cynical orthodox literary posture the party has show a consistent impulse to flinch under pressure and are in NO way superior to the dozens of fake Trotskyists groups who lay claim to the mantle of the Fourth International."

And to your comment last time we were talking on the phone that I was "grasping at straws". Who wouldn't after going through the verbal abuse dealt by yourself. Frankly, I found your attitude hysterical and subjective not to mention arrogant, condescending and ill-informed. Your lucky that the party has a discriminatory policy against recruiting the disabled, a policy which I think has no merit. If I were a cadre in your party I would me motioning for you expulsion. If this stance is shared by the party than I fear that the party is a lost cause since it can't condemn an act of terror against an oppressed person.

Robert Latimer actions, I think it is fair to say, DO count as an act of terror. It is violence against an oppressed person. It has served to terrorize people in the disabled community (if it was not Latimer intention it is sure as hell the effect). His actions and the mass ablest Pro-Latimer hysteria whipped up by the bourgeois press has inspired other caretakers of the disabled to kill their children. I think your insistence that the killing, or should I say, the LYNCHING of Tracy Latimer is "not an act of terror" has far more to do with your ableist bigotry and political cowardice than the concrete circumstances. I must say, I think your insistence that Robert Latimer is a "victim" and should be defended is a pretty hard pill for anyone with a disability to swallow.

Also, I think the claim that Latimer is "oppressed" is beyond ludicrious. Robert Latimer is white, filthy rich (the average Canadian farmer has a million dollars worth in asset, Latimer apparently is quite wealthy by farmers standards), has a lot of land (around 2,850 acres of land, my parents don't have that much land), he is heterosexual, he is not youth, he is not a senior citizen, he has not disabilities, he is not of a religious minority, he is a HE (and he's not transgenderd), he is not a francophone, he is not an immigrant.....I hope you get my point. This not to say landless peasants, rural proletarians, and minorities from rural areas are oppressed but Robert Latimer is a Kulak.

Do you want to know who else would consider Robert Latimer "oppressed". Well Any Rand would described big business to be a "persecuted minority". Racists ranging from Horowitz to outright fascists would consider white people to be "oppressed". Male chauvinists of today would consider men to be "oppressed". So your stance that Robert Latimer, a white man with property, is "oppressed" is congruent to white racism, Any Randianism and male chauvanism rolled into one.

Another point back in the day when voting was a privilege white men with property, like Robert Latimer, were the first to be able to vote. People in psychiatric wards in Canada didn't get the vote until 1988.

Tracy Latimer was NOT in "continual agony". Laura Latimer, had a diary describing Tracy Latimer's life and made virtually no mention of Tracy being in pain. In fact, the "continual agony" argument is nothing but a stereotypical depiction of the disabled. There would be no sympathy for Latimer or even debate on this issue if Latimer had killed one of his non-disabled children.

Let me give you an example on the above point. Susan Smith from North Carolina murderd her two children. She like Latimer initially lied to the police. In both cases when it was obvious that they committed murder they both claimed they killed their children out of "compassion. Susan Smith was dealing with a divorce and her children were taken from her custody. One can just logically argue that Susan Smith was murdered here children out of "compassion" and/or "desperation" as one could with Robert Latimer. Society, both in the US and Canada, cried for Susan Smith's blood and their was massive sympathy for her two children. Latimer on the other had recieved a great deal of sympathy from society, Tracy Latimer was othered and their was anger towards cops and prosecuters. I guess you may be wondering what made the two murders different well Tracy Latimer had a disability, Susan Smith's children didn't have any disabilities.

In fact most Latimer supporters object to making the analogy I made above. Many will instead liken the killing of Tracy Latimer to Sue Rodriguez. Sue Rodriguez begged to be killed and was not killed by her parents. Neither Tracy Latimer nore Susan Smith's children had any say in their being killed. The only think Tracy Latimer and Sue Rodriguez had in common was that they both had disabilities.

In reponse to your argument that lack of healthcare services justifies what Latimer did. Although it can't be denied that public healthcare is in trouble (as someone with a disability, I'm more on the receiving end than the average person) this DOES NOT justify killing those on the recieving end. I think THIS, is grasping at straws. Let me be blunt, affirmative action is under seige in the US, does that mean we should defend lynching? Childcare in Canada has been gutted, does that mean would should legalize spousal abuse? Homeless people are....well...homeless, does that mean that cop terror in Downtown Eastside should be defended? And another point about the healthcare crisis, I doubt outright fascists support Latimer because they care about public services.

There is a big long history of the disabled being murdered under the PRETEXT of "euthanasia". "Mercy killings" (euthanasia WITHOUT consent) has in the past been advocated by the eugenics movement and the nazis.

I'm not saying for a minute that euthanasia should be opposed on principle. But people like Tracy Latimer, along with other people with disabilities murdered by their caretakers (it is suprizingly common, most case don't get covered by the bourgeois press), not fetus, not sperm, not embryos, not zygotes, are not brain-dead, they are not terminally ill, NOT in continual agony, their is no evidence of them wanting to die, no evidence of them consenting to die, they have not expressed their wishes to die in wills etc.

Another point is your remark that Tracy Latimer and Robert Latimer "suffered together". I think that it is obvious that you are quite ill-informed about the issues concerning the rights of the disabled making you, in my opinion, unqualified to take such a self-righeous stance on this issue (since disability rights is such a fundamental part of this issue). There are countless cases of the disabled being victimized by their caretakers. There are parents of disabled children who "consent" to having their children being sent to the notorious Judge Rotenburg "Educational Centre" where disabled people are electrically shock for everything from nagging, to hair pulling, to nose picking, to burping in public. The first victims of the "final solution" in Nazi Germany were people with disabilities and mental illnesses and the first of these killings involved "parental consent". "Parental consent" was also involved in the bizarre and barbaric "lovaas treatment" which involves spanking, hair pulling, hitting and electric shocks.

In terms of your remark about armed vigilantes. The fascistic movement to free Robert Latimer does not have a disciplined party. Its structure would be similar to Earth First or Greenpeace (I must stress that this is the similarity is organizational, Greenpeace and Earth First are not fascistic or bigoted nor do they attract the support of fascists). With Greenpeace for example (again Greenpeace is not fascistic or fascist), there are people who spike trees. This is either indirectly encouraged or passively condoned by the leaders. If you complain to the leader they would say they didn't tell their members to spike trees. If you complain to one tree spiker, they would likely retort by saying they spiked a different tree then the one that killed a logger.

With the Free Robert Latimer Movement (which unlike Greenpeace and Earth First, is ablest, fascistic and has attracted fascist participation) I think it is safe to assume that other caretakers murdering the disabled in their care are among the supporters of Robert Latimer. Latimer (or Bob the Lyncher as I call him in private) may not directly say "caretakers of the disabled, kill the disabled in your care", however, his actions and public sympathy for him has inspired others to do as he has, lynch the disabled in their care.

And for the remark that Latimer never said "I'm for killing everyone with a disability". There are countless outright fascists and white supremacists who don't say they are white supremacists but say things like "white nationalism", "civil rights for white people", "self-determination for white people".

Over the years I have considered you a friend. However, my conscience and principles as a Marxist are dearer to me. I appreciate the fact that it is difficult to confront the mass, ableist, pro-Robert Latimer hysteria around this issue as well as the fact that one can become easily enthralled by such hysteria. However, I ask that you and anyone in the party who shares your views to drop this truly revolting support for Robert Latimer.

Comradely,
Michael G.