Useful web sites

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « What's behind the Alan Johnston video? | Main | The hollow reality behind the UK unions' boycott bluster »


    Soft Trot

    Judy. The Greylisting motion passed at UCU conference means that the decision to boycott would go to a members' ballot.

    Judy. I'm afraid you're just a like a management consultant of the Jewish community. You crticise other people , you seem to always know what's right and what should be done - but you never actualy do anything yourself.



    People on your side of the Atlantic might learn from the US. As I have repeatedly argued - and I believe you also believe -, one does not fight a movement by publicly conceding half of its position. Rather, one opposes a movement by challenging its underlying premises, as, for example, the ADL suggests with its posters.

    If people on your side of the Atlantic want to get serious about dealing with the boycott bigots who hate Israel while loving Sudan, Iran and Arabia, the way to do so is to show the bigots for what they are: hypocrites and hate mongers.


    Soft Trot, it seems you consider running a blog which may well have a bigger readership than most Trotskyist "newspapers" "doing nothing". That seems to coincide with a Trot way of thinking.

    Here is the reference to the decisions taken by UCU congress, on the UCU web site, which shows what the motion passed says-- that the motion will be considered by all branches. Not the same as a ballot of all members. The updated former AUT policy, also endorsed by UCU Congress, nowhere contains any reference to the necessity for a members' ballot before action on either greylisting or straightforward boycotting.

    If you can show evidence, as opposed to assertion, which backs up your views, please do so.

    Soft Trot

    Judy. You carry on with your blog and leave everybody else to fight. Keep commenting from the sidelines. Having more readers than a Trot newspaper isn't exaclty hard.

    Soft Trot

    Woops sorry for my typo.

    'Today's motion on boycott means all branches now have a responsibility to consult all of their members on the issue and I believe that every member should have the opportunity to have their say. The earlier motion means that any future calls for a boycott must pass key tests before a boycott can implemented.'

    Judy "Soft Trot, it seems you consider running a blog which may well have a bigger readership than most Trotskyist "newspapers" "doing nothing".

    Do you realy think your blog has helped against the boycott ? I presume (maybe i'm wrong but i doubt it) that the majority of people who read your blog are against the boycott anyway. So it isn't much of a contribution to the fight against boycotts. Just somewhere for you to snipe at people who are actualy doing something instead of just blogging.


    Soft Trot, you are clearly having difficulty in understanding the fairly straightforward and simple statement made by UCU. The motion will be discussed in ordinary branch meetings by members. Of course, that means the members who will actually turn up to branch meetings.

    We know that only the tiniest fraction of the membership actually turns up to group meetings. And that's maybe because they're so dominated by Soft and not so Soft Trotskyists like yourself. It is absolutely not the same as putting the motion to a whole-membership ballot, which would certainly overturn the motion. I've dealt with that point pretty comprehensively here, when dealing with the equally tendentious and false claims of David Hirsh of Engage, which seem very close to your own.

    You clearly think you know who my readership are. If your insights match your capacity to understand basic press releases, I wouldn't rely on them.

    Meanwhile, as this is my blog, if you can't express your opinions with something like basic courtesy towards me, I'll have to ask you to post your views elsewhere.


    I have been following with interest your posts on union business in the UK. The situation is very similar here in Toronto.
    CUPE voted to boycott Israel last year. It was received with outrage by the Jewish community. Sid Ryan, the head of CUPE is from the UK I believe. Many union bosses here have their roots in the UK. What kind of pseudo marxist indoctrination is going on over there? CUPE represents college lecturers, civil servants, as well as school janitors and secretaries. A motley crew, as you can see. Teachers have 2 unions. One for elementary school teachers and one for secondary. There was an attempt to put the boycott issue on the agenda of the secondary school teachers annual meeting, but the president rejected it. It was initiated by a Jewsih delegate, but what else is new. The rank and file could not care less about the I/P issue. It is all very remote. Jewish organizations and some Jewish workers were really upset about the CUPE boycott which was ridculed by the media, but at the end of the day, when the dust clerared, it meant nothing on a practical level. CUPE members are not going to listen to Sid Ryan!
    Ordinary workers will only get involved when their benefits & wages are threatened. They leave political action to the Executive. Most of them ridicule union activists. North Americans are anti-union intellectually but being practical people, they know they need to be represented. Besides union membership is compulsory.
    Judy, just like in the UK, most of those initiating the boycotts are antizionists leftist Jews supported by muslim activists.
    Aren't the Roses, with some ex-Israelis, the prime instigators of the boycott in the UK?


    Ruth, your experiences are interesting and confirm that the trots and their allies have the same delusional modes of operating world wide.
    The real instigators of the boycott are the various pro-Palestinian pressure groups, who drew and continue to draw their strategy from the big UN conference of NGOs in Durban in 2001. That was dominated by them, in alliance with their also Soviet-trained ANC allies, with a strategy to brand Israel as an apartheid state. All the current campaigns with their identical base in n hundred Palestinian NGOs' identical resolutions demanding a boycott of Israel developed from then. In 2004, a conference was held in London on methods of applying the strategy in the UK. Jewish anti-zionists like Rose et al took a leading part, but they were not the prime instigators.Sometimes, even those of us who are devoted to fighting anti-semitism can too readily fall into the trap of blaming Jews of one sort or another for....anti-semitism.


    Judy, thanks for your continuing coverage, as an expat Brit, it is interesting to follow what is going on there from a local perspective.

    I should point out thought that (contary to Neals declaration) American groups aren't that effective either. Their tendancy to overdramatize has led to a backlash against them and the SWP and the like claim that the focus placed by Jewish groups on Darfur is a cynical effort to deflect attention from Israel.
    The Americans aren't changing any minds either, they just exist in an environment that focusses more on Israel.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    August 2015

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    9 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 20 21 22
    23 24 25 26 27 28 29
    30 31          
    Blog powered by Typepad