(Militant, No. 471, 21 September 1979 p. 8-9)
We publish below a letter sent by Peter Taaffe, on behalf of ‘Militant’ to the ‘News Of The World’ in answer to their attack on us on 9th September.
Readers of this vulgar Sunday scandal sheet were led towards an “exclusive” – which revealed “the [so-called] truth about Britain’s Red Army” – by an article alongside it with the heading: “A nude model’s brush with snipper.”
It would be difficult to establish which article was the more serious piece.
Dear Sir,
My attention has been drawn to an article in last Sunday’s issue of ‘The News of the World’. This article has caused indignation amongst those familiar with the ideas of ‘Militant’.
Following my telephone conversation today with Gordon Leak, the author, I am writing to protest in the strongest possible terms about this scurrilous article, which is replete with inaccuracies, fabrications, lies and malicious innuendoes about ‘Militant’.
The article, printed under the heading ‘The Marx Brothers’, purports to be a review of a book by McCormick, “the Labour moderate”, who was in fact an agent for Reg Prentice until the latter took his rightful place in the Tory Party.
Democratic control
We have answered McCormick’s lies about ‘Militant’ many time, both in our paper and in discussions in the labour movement. His battle against the socialist rank and file of Newham North East Labour Party, on the one hand, and the growing demands for democratic control of Labour MPs by the Party rank and file on the other, have completely discredited him and his supporters in the eyes of Labour Party members. Even the ‘moderates’ in the Labour Party have disowned the ultra-right McCormick.
The hostility of Labour Party members to McCormick and his small band of supporters was intensified when he refused to reveal who supplied the considerable sums which allowed him to embroil Newham North East Labour Party and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party in costly court action. To use your terms, many Labour Party members found this very “sinister” indeed.
Because his lies cut no ice with Labour Party or trade union members he is forced to resort to the columns of the capitalist press. He hopes thereby that many readers, unfamiliar with the real ideas and policies of ‘Militant’ will be taken in.
Your article is designed to assist him in this. For instance, it clearly gives the impression that ‘Militant’ supports the IRA. This is what Gordon Leak wrote: “Marxist groups have close links with Russia and the IRA.” A few paragraphs later, Leak writes: “He [McCormick] singles out one, calling itself the Militant Tendency … as the greatest threat.” The ordinary reader is this given the impression that ‘Militant’ supports the IRA.
This is a complete falsehood. We are opposed to individual terrorism. We opposed the programme and the methods of the Provisional IRA right from its inception. A cursory examination of the pages of our newspaper would show that we have consistently maintained this position. We re-stated this just two weeks ago in an editorial on the assassination of Mountbatten.
Is it not then the height of journalistic irresponsibility, not to say political illiteracy, to give your 4½ million readers the impression that ‘Militant’ supports terrorists.
You cannot argue that this accusation was directed at other “groups” referred to. The bulk of this article detailed the alleged programme and methods of ‘Militant’. In the interests of honest reporting, if you wanted to make a statement about some so-called “Marxist groups” having connections with the IRA, you should have clearly exempted ‘Militant’ from this charge. In reality, by means of crude guilt-by-association, you wanted to smear us as supporters of terrorism.
The same kind of baseless accusation was attempted by Gordon Leak in relation to “the source of funds” of ‘Militant’. He repeats McCormick’s ludicrous charge that we receive assistance from: “some foreign source or sources”. This is coupled with the accusation about “support from Russia.”
Neither McCormick not your newspaper is able to produce one shred of evidence to back up this lie. Indeed, McCormick admits that “the evidence [is] circumstantial”. In other words, the accusation about sinister foreign powers financing ‘Militant’ is a fairy tale dreamed up by McCormick and retailed in the pages of your newspaper.
The sources of the finance of ‘Militant’ are not a mystery. It is shown each week in the pages of our paper. Our Fighting Fund gives detailed information of where our money comes from. McCormick asserts that: “Very little of the money is coming from trade unions.” On the contrary, the bulk of our money comes from trade unionists and Labour Party members. We have no rich benefactors, foreign or domestic; no rich tycoons or North Sea oil cash.
We state categorically that is a malicious fabrication to accuse of receiving help from “foreign sources”.
These are out answers to two of the more base accusations made against us by McCormick and your newspaper. We can answer point by point the other charges levelled against us by your newspaper.
In view of this, we request the right to reply in an article of equal length in next Sunday’s ‘News Of The World’, and the publication of this letter. Failure to allow the right to reply would confirm our suspicions, and those of an increasing number of Labour party and trade union members, that the ‘News Of The World’ is not interested about the labour movement or the different political tendencies with it, but it is merely out to throw such mud as it can in order to inflict the maximum possible damage on the labour movement.
If this is your real intention in re-gurgitating McCormick’s lies, we can assure you that you will not succeed in your plans. Your lies will rebound on you and ‘Militant’ will increase its support with the labour movement.
Peter Taaffe
[Editor, ‘Militant’]
Schreibe einen Kommentar