SocialistAction 1983–88

The paper of the Socialist League, formerly the International Marxist Group, 1983–88

Black section replies to Bill Morris

· Socialist Action No. 133, 5 March 1986 · pp. 5-6 of the scan · 497 words

The scan: 133-mar-05-1986-SA-UK.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 1-3 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 5 of the scan

MORE THAN half a though the transport Morris argues that he has 'no difficulty in advisto oppose black sections'. because they sterile' and "divisive'. They demand 'organisation on sectarian lines, he says, wIlc would sevardie 'blacks whites and blacks from blacks.

Morris's conclusion? 'l am convinced that black people will give their active support to Labour wnen they see the party commit ted to policies to deal with their immediate problems not on the basis of them being their own separate of workers RACISTE Is not an issue for blacks alone. It is problem tor the entire anour movement.

Remove the attack on black sections anu sull a statement would be fully supported by the Labour tabloid of last Jane December's Record, the TGWU journal, was devoted to an attack on the Labour Party black section by deputy general secretary designate, Bill Morris. But workers union is a major backer of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, so far it has refused to give the right of reply requested by the black section national committee.

Party black section. The real which eucolius black sections were formed to take up is how will abour there. The black secuon the Record refuses to carry the March issue of black newsientel other points, says: '(The Labour Party)

NEWHAM North-West constituency LaDour Party added itself to the growing list of parties who have reselected their MPs black section participation, contrary to the NEC's instruction.

Banks, It chose Tony the sitting MP. The NEC societies like op Party, Labour drinking clubs and a Jewish Labour Party callea raole Lion. Io consistent, Bill would to call these groups HaVC trades • WORS "divisive" and "sectarian"

'Black party members has still not endorsed Lewisham East's selection ul Jack UTOSOCCUIVe call Russell Profitt because the constituency's black section took part.

But as more and more selections 19KP place volving black sections, the NIC will find it increasingly hard victimise Russell. have given their own verdict on black sections 37 formed in CLPs from Birmingham to ManchestNomenan.

Pool In Hare serad London phenomenon. Objective proof of this is prorided by the geographical range of resolutions 7.30pm booklet for party conference. is our experience that when the issue of black self-determination black self-organisation not the sole one) of defeating : racism is given a full dr tall calls, black sec tions win the argument?

PUBLIC MEETING CALLED BY THE LONDON LABOUR PARTY THURSDAY MARCH 13 CAMDEN TOWN HALL, JUDD ST, NW1 Wheelchair access WITH Jo Richardson, MP Peter Archer, MP Sarah Roelofs (LWI)

Richard Balfe, MEP Also invited Aingéal ní Mhiáchain (IBRG)

Brixton Women Prisoners Support Group Women in Prison Campaign Chair: Glenys Thornton, London Labour Party pollical prisoners In bruisi jalls from now on to highlight the practice.

strip-searching.

and vigil.

trade unions prisoners' support groups or 609 1743).

page 6 of the scan

Socialist Action 5 March 1986 O Miles 200

----- pull-quotes -----

Black sections take part in Newham reselection

STOP THE STRIP SEARCHES

← Yorkshire drops BusbyStop the strip searches in Brixton prison →

Something wrong on this page?