FROM PAT JORDAN, SECRETARY OF THE IMG
An alarming report has reached me from the IMG delegate to the March 29th meeting of the NJACWER. When discussing the coming May 18th demonstration on equal pay, the committee considered the problem of what to do in the case of people bringing along posters which were not related to the aim of the demonstration.
Julie Jacobs, a well-known member of the Communist Party, moved that such posters should be banned. Eventually this proposition was carried by a small majority.
The discussion then shifted to the thorny problem of how such a ruling should be implemented. When asked point-blank about this, Julie Jacobs replied that, if necessary, the police should be brought in to remove the offending posters.
All this is quite intolerable and it is to be hoped that NJACWER will reverse this decision. It is quite wrong for anyone to argue that there should be political censorship on demonstrations like this. How does one decide what slogan is in keeping with the aims of the demonstration? It is obvious that once one proceeds in this manner the way is open for all kinds of undemocratic practices.
The virtue of broad single-issue campaigns like the campaign for equal rights for women is that wide sections of people and organizations can be involved. The representation of many tendencies with different interpretations and nuances is a sign of strength not weakness. Of course, it is stupid if people bring slogans like "long live Chairman Mao"; but it shows a shocking lack of confidence if people argue that this has to be banned in advance. The correct thing is to have faith in the political judgement of the participants. The proposition for banning such posters is bureaucratic and extremely short-sighted.
However, the talk of calling in the police is far worse and needs a comment in itself. It is unspeakable that such a proposition should be put forward by a person claiming to be a member of a marxist organisation. The use of the state machine against people on the left should be totally abhorrent to any socialist, let alone a marxist.
An illustration of the damage that can be done by this kind of attitude is shown by the aftermath of the March 1st Vietnam demonstration in Sheffield. There is evidence [illegible] strongly that members of the CP collaborated with the police against demonstrators. The IMG believes that such charges should be thoroughly investigated by a broad committee of the Sheffield labour movement. However, we are opposed to such action as that of shouting down the General Secretary of the Communist Party John Gollan.
The only socialist policy on such questions is that of allowing the greatest freedom on such demonstrations. The only slogans which should be banned are anti-working class ones and the implementation of the banning should be the job of the demonstrators - it is most dangerous to bring in the police even against fascists.
We should have a policy of opposing all bans and proscriptions in the labour movement and on any of its activities. We are certain that the vast majority of the rank and file of the Communist Party (and not a few of its officials) will support us on this point.