As I've said before, I'm not against marches per se and think they can have a valuable part to play in campaigns. However, I am unsure as to the exact purpose of this particular march. I've had an admittedly brief look on the STWC website and can't see any information on what they think the march will achieve. Is it designed:

a) to let Blair know how many people want immediate withdrawal (although he'll have his own pollsters telling him this in a far more accurate way)?
b) to create a spectacle so that they can get media attention for their cause (despite the fact that no-one is likely to be so unaware of the issue that they are convinced by any fleeting media attention the march will gain)?
c) to gather feelings of solidarity amongst those marching (not necessarily a bad reason, but perhaps only secondary as at this stage)?
d) to let people know that there are people out there who are willing to stand up and be counted (although anyone who is anti-war is almost certainly already aware of the extent to which their views are replicated)?
e) as a focal point for different groups to meet up and discuss issues and forge links (although marches are perhaps not the best way of doing this)?
f) to create a, probably short-term, feel-good factor amongst participants (although, again, this would have to be an advantageous by-product of actually achieving or beginning to achieve something rather than a primary objective)?

I'm genuinely not intending this as a way of slagging off the STWC or any of its constituents (despite my political views perhaps not being particularly aligned to theirs) but am honestly interested in what they think the march will achieve.

Presumably the local groups discussed the reasons for the march in detail so someone must be able to help out (or perhaps someone who was at their conference).

Reply To Leam!
Surely the reaon we will be marching on saturday is because the war and occupation is going on in its endless horror.One of the original slogans "not in my name " still applies as much today as it did two and a half years ago.
But now we can see the results of the warmongers all around us...the death of over 100000 Iraqis and the maiming and traumatising of many more...the malnutrition of the children of Iraq and the lack of clean water,the destruction of the infrastructure etc.
In th USA we have seen the drowning of a historic city and the appalling treatment of its mainly black,elderly and poor inhabitants.Bush could order the B52s to Baghdad but could not rescue the citizens of New Orleans.
Here in the UK there is the scapegoating of moslems and immigrants and a shoot to kill policy on the streets of London.
We need to look at the civil rights movement in America for guidance and inspiration.Those wonderful people did not give up after one march and say "That's it ..we've done our bit".
No, they got organised .They educated and they demanded justice.Its what we have to do over the war .There is a Labour Party conference coming up and a massive anti war march will wipe the smile off the face of the Masters of War!
Bertie

All of those reasons, plus big public demos like this show our brothers and sisters in the Middle East that we're not all imperialist nutcases out to get them, that in fact there are tens of thousands of us doing our level best to stop the war and get the troops out.

This demonstration is about freeing the Iraqi people from occupation, and getting British troops out of their country so the Iraqis will be free to practice self-determination. If the Brits leave, I can't see the US hanging around too long.

ALL of the demonstrations have had that theme, and even those that had only 100000 attending still had the full support of most of the nearly 2 million who attended on 15th Fed 2003.

Power to the (Iraqi) People!

RECLAIM THE "ORANGE REVOLUTION"
by Jordan Thornton - Independent Journalist/Activist Friday, Aug 19 2005, 12:37pm


Tactics that are proven to work.

Cindy Sheehan's courageous actions in Texas have captured the imaginations of an American public desperate for an end to this madness. We must give them something they can get behind, while the Bush/PNAC Regime is vulnerable, and before the next big Distraction we all sense is imminent. Let's send an unmistakable message of unity and determination to the world, and end this now before things get any worse.

Since the demonstrations which reversed the electoral decision in the Ukraine, I've heard and seen many Ukrainians talking about large groups of foreigners who were pivotal to their planning. Many of these groups were the ones responsible for paying for the food, shelter, and orange banners used by the protestors. I didn't think much of this, or the accusations of funding from agencies such as the CIA, until I saw the same thing occuring in Lebanon.

Then, a reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ( http://www.cbc.ca), Carol Off, did a piece explaining that the "spontaneous, grassroots" protests in the Ukraine were the result of CIA funding and planning over a period of ten years.

Sadly, the report lauded these tactics of Regime Change, but nonetheless, proved my point.

One thing I've noticed is the tightly-controlled Western media's willingness to ignore the unsubstantiated allegations made in Syria and Lebanon that the Central Intelligence Agency, or Israel's Mossad, or both, were responsible for actions like the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, and behind the recent Opposition Movements, while at the same time, parroting over and over the same unsubstantiated claims about Syria, emanating from the White House den of LIARS and thieves. Even media outlets which I consider better than the rest, like the CBC, are guilty of such irresponsibility. When pro-Syrian demonstrators turned out in the hundreds of thousands, proving the anti-Syrians to be the minority voice, the media downplayed these numbers.

Just feels a bit too staged for my taste ... What I find the most irresonsible about all of this is the fact that whoever is behind this, they are attempting (and succeeding) to divide the Lebanese People, and cause conflict both within the country, and towards Syria. This, of course, aids the Israelis and PNAC Americans, who both have an interest, and want to invade and occupy Syria (and perhaps Lebanon as well), as called for repeatedly by the agenda which has seen Bush/PNAC illegally invade two Arab nations already.

The CBC chose Janice Stein, a Zionist "Middle East Expert" to comment on the situation, and she said when she saw the demonstrations she "saw the colour orange". This was after the first anti-Syrian demo, when the colour scheme wasn't so pronounced. Since then, orange flags, placards, etc. have started "spontaneously" appearing in great numbers.

When I was in university, my Design professor brought in some Colour Researchers from the University of Edmonton, who lectured on the psychological, but also the PHYSICAL effects, colours have on the human body and mind. This red-orange colour is one of the "comfort colours", and you will no doubt remember seeing it in countless commercials (ING Direct, and the creepy, stereotypical European banker, anyone ... ?).

Since the CIA, or Mossad, or whoever is ultimately behind these carefully stage-managed displays, you know they understand what they're doing. I believe that we should be taking a cue from them, and striking while the iron is hot.

This orange colour scheme has been carefully crafted in order to transmit "armchair understanding" of these two manufactured crises.

Even though it was our Enemy putting it out there, for their own purposes, we should seize the opportunity to claim it for ourselves. After all, we have been granted an unprecedented look inside the CIA's "Handbook for Non-Violent Revolution", and you know damn well that they have studied all of the relevant psychological factors.

If you are to protest, from now on, DRESS IN ORANGE, and CARRY SIGNS OF ORANGE, rally at the feet of power, and the media, DEMANDING that the democratic Will of the People not be ignored. I guarantee this will send an instant message, not only to the Bush/PNAC/Bliar Regime, but to all Americans and to the world that sees it.

Keep your signs easy to read and understand, things such as "FIRE THE LIARS", "INVESTIGATE, IMPEACH, PROSECUTE" and at media centres, "LIARS", or "TRAITORS", or "COWARDS".

Groups should design some Talking Points, and designate members to speak with the reporters on-scene. In larger centres, you should inform the media of what's going to happen, and call the stations' News Director or Assignment Editor, and request to be interviewed. You could even take it further, and offer your services as an Activist Analyst for the day, just like they use ex-military personnel, and members of Right-Wing "Think-Tanks".

Let's test these LIARS and War Criminals, and their media puppets, and see just how much they truly respect "Freedom & Democracy", the words upon which they attempt to justify the attrocities upon which they've built their fortunes.

Regardless of what happens, the message will be sent. We have nothing to lose. If something comes of this, then great. Follow up and celebrate. If the rallies are ignored, or treated by the police as those in the past, then you've just PROVEN these men to be the Hypocrites we all know them to be.

I'd like to see as many people as can not simply Rally for a few hours, but for DAYS. Those who cannot make it there, plan and hold your own local rallies, and not only gather where your Government officials meet, but also where the media does its business.

Let's take this thing that was designed to dupe people into supporting what the Fascists in DC want, and turn it on its head.

Let's use it as a tool for bringing that Fascism to its knees, and demonstrate the good intentions that were to be assumed about the "Orange Revolutionaries".

Remember, that we are the Majority, and Truth is our greatest Ally.

The only way we can fail, is if we fail to ACT.

P E A C E . . . ?

"No matter how far you have traveled down the wrong road, turn back"
- Ancient Egyptian Proverb

There will be a Plant along to Cast Doubt on my ideas, and attack my person (Seems to be followong me around ...), but you'll recognize his Ad Hominem Tactics of Disinformation, and his transparent focus. I think I've made some people nervous with this ... which is actually a great sign!!

25 Tactics of Disinformation:
 http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/82358_comment.php#82516

Logical Fallacies: Of Propaganda & Disinformation:
 http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/161414.php

"ASSEMBLE Ipm PARLIAMENT SQUARE, SW1"

The time is 12pm. It was changed for no apparent reason.


The Peace picnic and People's Parliament is every Sunday, Parliament Square, at 12:00pm. Do not discuss challenge to the new laws against demonstrating wihtout prior permission. Why not stay at home instead while our rights are taken away one-by-one!

Did post a reply last night but seems not to have arrived (probably my crap computer). Apologies if this results in a double-post.

Anyway, cheers for the replies.

I certainly agree with everyone who has posted about the importance of campaigning against the war and don't suggest at all that it should be side-lined or ignored or that people should do nothing. I think my issue is more that I'm as yet unconvinced that a mass march is the best way, at this particular stage, to move the anti-war campaign forward. I think at the start of the campaign marches did make some sense - they acted as a good way of encouraging people to get involved, showing solidarity and letting people know that there were other people standing up for their views.

However, I think that the campaign is now at a very different stage. Realistically, people are unlikely now to be budged by arguing about the issues involved as they have generally made their minds up (this doesn't mean their opinions won't change, just that its miles more likely to happen as a result of events than someone trying to convince them by argument). What becomes more important is encouraging those who are already convinced to try and deepen their involvement. How many people are there who are convinced the war is evil but do not do anything about it? In summary, its not so much about convincing people the war is wrong (although this is probably a secondary objective) but convincing them to do something about it.

Ultimately I am not convinced that a mass march is the best way of helping to deepen the struggle in this way, particularly when it is the Nth march in central London in two or three years on the same basic topic. Having this particular march does very little to make the connections between the war and capitalism, doesn't do much to reach anyone new in a convincing way, and does almost nothing to highlight the links between the events in Iraq and people's everyday lives.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing for doing nothing at all, just that there needs to be a concrete reason for having the march and not another form of protest. Organising and building for a march takes a hell of a lot of time and effort and it may be better put into a different, more effective, approach.

Cheers to whoever it was who mentioned about the march being a good signal to the Middle East that there are people supporting them - its actually the best argument I've heard for the march. However, even in this case I think there are different ways of showing support to the people in Iraq and elsewhere, and ways that are more direct (and therefore less alienating) than a march which does not, by its nature, involve any direct communication with people in Iraq or elsewhere from those participating.

Someone mentioned the civil rights movement in the USA. I understand what you're saying, but I think there are some pretty salient differences between the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and their respective use of tactics. 1) Marches were by no means the only approach used by the civil rights campaign, mass civil disobedience and directly challenging authority were very very large elements, 2) the very act of black people in the South organising to create marches (or anything else) was inherently challenging to the system in a way that mass STWC marches have not been so far, 3) for various reasons marches for civil rights tended to be more localised rather than a repeated focus on large national protests (although there was the March on Washington).

"We need to look at the civil rights movement in America for guidance and inspiration.Those wonderful people did not give up after one march and say "That's it ..we've done our bit"."

no, you're quite right. they had sit-ins, were prepared to be arrested and beaten by police. unless you've forgotten, people don't generally do that at stwc marches. they do what the police tell them and politely go home when the speakers have finished. they cooperate with the government they proclaim to be against. if you're serious about getting your inspiration from the civil rights movement, i would suggest that you start finding the courage to stand up to blair's government, not march alongside it.

To argue that we should NOT march in favour of something else assumes that marching prevents you from taking other actions. In fact the opposite is true. The more often we march the more activity takes place in between.

Its important to stay on the streets and the eve of the Labour conference is precisely when people in this country and the middle east, and the United States who are also marching need to see us out in force. Its also important not to counterpose marching and direct action as our friend repeatedly does. You want the STWC to not march this weekend and do local direct action (something it has done on a number of occasions) then argue it democratically at its conferences and through its meetings. I will support any democratic decision like that.

No movement has got anywhere without staying on the streets. But the real way to stop the war is for the unions to strike. We cant wish that into existence by force of will also. All we can do is try and create the confidence and political climate for it to emerge in.

Finally, to the other poster - its an absolute disgrace to say people march against the war tomorrow are marching with the Blair government.

I think this march is a good example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. The damage has already been done in Iraq. The 100,000 dead and countless more injured and maimed cannot be brought back. The instability and almost civil war in Iraq due to this war cannot be reversed. The time to demonstrate and make our voices heard was BEFORE the war. This demo is merely flogging a dead horse.

"The time to demonstrate and make our voices heard was BEFORE the war. This demo is merely flogging a dead horse. "

Sigh. I get the feeling that those people who say this don't really understand the situation we are all facing. The was never going to be stopped before it started. The Powers were always going to start the war whatever anyone else thought about it. If those people want to move on then what is more important than an ongoing massacre of innocent people perpetrated by our own Government?

Yep - would totally agree with you that doing mass marches does not necessarily mean you cannot do other forms of activity alongside it (although clearly the more you focus on marches the less you can do something else) and I think there are loads of examples where the two approaches have co-existed and worked well together. Diversity of approaches and all that...

However, I'm not convinced that at this stage of the campaign you can say that "the more often we march the more activity takes place in between" - particularly if by this you are suggesting that this march at this time is the best way of moving the anti-war movement forward. I know that building for these marches takes a lot of time and effort and there is clearly a question as to whether this effort could be better spent on something else - particularly as there seems to be a "law of diminishing returns" by having the same set piece events repeated over and over. I know I've raised my point of view on the pros and cons of marches at various times in the campaign earlier so will not go into this issue again but would stress that I am not anti-march but simply do not think it is a sensible tactic to repeatedly concentrate on or use at this time.

I think the main reason that has been mentioned for the march is the need to show solidarity with those elsewhere and hence that there is a need for a large visible presence of people in one place. Personally I imagined that a lot more people would reply saying (mistakenly in my view) that the march would help strengthen the movement in the UK so perhaps those on the march accept that isn't the case.

Firstly, I think that its important to recognise that if solidarity is merely about repeatedly getting a mass crowd of people in one area and letting other people know about it then it is a fairly alienated sense of solidarity - it does not create or maintain actual meaningful links with other groups/people and there is no sense of actual engagement in their struggle.

Secondly, there seems to be an assumption that people in the USA or Middle East are desperate for us to show solidarity with them in this way rather than engage in other forms of activity (I'd imagine some might but probably lots wouldn't).

Thirdly, I think its pretty reasonable to assume that most anti-war activists and people with a general interest in the war (whether in the USA or Middle East) are probably already fully aware of the strength of feeling against the war in the UK.

Fourth, even if showing solidarity is important, it can be achieved in other ways than a large-scale march in London that may also help push the anti-war movement forward. An obvious alternative way of showing solidarity (although there are many) would be a number of smaller regional events or marches with these giving the opportunity to highlight the connections between people's everyday lives and the war by highlighting the role that local companies, politicians etc have played in the drive to war. Meaningful solidarity might also involve forging links with progressive groups in Iraq, raising money for relevant projects or any number of different approaches.

With regards to the Labour party conference, I think its pretty clear that the march will not tell the Labour leadership anything they don't know - they're already aware of the strength of the movement and its likely effects on their politics through countless opinion polls and focus groups and from the effects of previous marches. I'd doubt also that the timing of the march to coincide with the Labour conference will have resonance anywhere outside the UK.

One thing I would say is that I deliberately wasn't wanting to counterpose marching to direct action at all (as I know as soon as that question comes up a lot of old arguments are raised up from either side - personally I think most people probably agree both have their role, its just a case of how much emphasis each gets) - hence the reason I haven't until this point actually mentioned direct action but have deliberately tried to counterpose marching with doing other things in general.

PS Again, crap computer - apologies if posts twice