|

H-Block -
charges
bor Party

By RENEE SAMS
New Worker London Correspondent
BRIGHTON, England — The resolution on Ireland
Passed at this year’s Labor Party conference was at least
a small step forward. This was the view of progressives
at the Labor Party annual conference held in the south

English resort town of Brighton the week of Sept.

At a fringe meeting held in the Pavilion Theatre, Pro-

Irish Republic MP Owen Carron received a standing
e

Ovation from the capacity audience. In his speech h

Made it clear that part of the blame for the present = ae
conflict in Northern Ireland must be borne by the Bish World opinion demands that Britain withdraw its troops from Northern ireland. ina message to the British Labor Party

labor movement. oo
It was a Labor Government, he said, which intro-
duced the no-jury diplock courts, and instituted the

_“criminalization’’ policy. That policy had failed, just as
the rest of British policy in Ireland had failed.

- The problem is a British colonial problem, with Ire-
land becoming Britain's Vietnam, said Carron. The 1921
Partition of Ireland had been doomed to failure from the
‘Start because it had been a British creation.

The built-in Unionist majority in the Six Counties had
been able to hold successive British governments to
Tansom because of official London’s guarantee that
Northern Ireland would remain British territory so long
as they wished. te eS

The labor movement had always used the excuse that
there would be civil war if the British army was with-
drawn but, he said, the truth was that the ‘‘loyalists’’ will

_ Only be defeated when they have no reason to fight.

Joan Maynard, MP, a supporter of British withdrawal
from Ireland, said that it is easy for the British people to
Support the struggle in El Salvador or Chile, but not so
easy for them to support the fight in Ireland. It was much
Nearer to home and that may be the big difference. —

She drew attention to the fact that what is happening in

Northern Ireland could so easily happen in Britain. Yet.

the British labor movement did not see the dangers.

The election of Bobby Sands as MP for Fermanagh-
South Tyrone had proved there was genuine support for
the liberation of Ireland, and it had transformed the
Situation in the Labor Party. es

“We must make it clear to the unionist majority in
Northern Ireland” she said, ‘that we will not underwrite
their position any longer’. She called for more cam-
Paigning in the trade union movement in the coming
year.

The prisoners in the H-Blocks of the Long Kesh

Prison camp had sent a message to the British Labor
y conference and this was read to the meeting. The
Message condemned the bi-partisan policies of the Labor

Party as fuelling the sense of second-class citizenship felt

y the minority in Northern Ireland.
__‘*We prisoners"’, the message read, “‘are very aware
of the fact that those who bear initial responsibility for
the conveyor belt system to the H-Blocks are present at
this conference today. They are the men who shout
hear, hear’ the loudest when Maggie Thatcher allows
another Irish Republican socialist prisoner to die.
The ‘‘conveyor belt’” system referred to is that by
Which Republican suspects are rounded up by police,

_ interrogated ‘at the notorious Castlereagh interrogation

Centre, tried by no-jury courts and then consigned to the
ng Kesh camp:

The prisoners appealed to those labor delegates who
Were concerned about the horrifying spiral of death both
inside and outside Long Kesh to seek a genuinely Just
and practical solution to the impasse.

Other speakers at the meeting also stressed the need
for more work to be done in the British trade union and
abor Movement, while others emphasized their concern
Ver the difficulties of the Irish problem and at the
Urgency of the situation. _

_ There was a stark contrast, many speakers under-
ed, between the urgency of the prisoners’ message
and the very long-term perspectives set out by Labor

r Government is returned to power.

‘The Labor Committee on Ireland, a pressure group
Within the Labor Party, formed after the 1979 annual
Conference, which organized this fringe meeting, “i

n largely responsible for the positive changes within

a
Q
<
s

je}
=
5°
=

AMERICA

17s t
IRELAND © -

Congress, the H-Block prisoners condemned the party's position of maintaining British rule in the Six Counties. Photo
shows recent U.S. demo.

Conference delegates who expected no solution until a

Party. Such hard and uncompromising messages as -

those from Owen Carron, MP and the prisoners would
Not have been ‘received with a standing ovation 1n previ-
OUS years.

Interview with Communist Party leader William Kashtan

~ Court shows ruling class split,

constitutional fight will go on

Question: How do you assess the Sup-
reme Court’s decision on the Trudeau
government’s constitutional package.
Kashtan: The decision reflects the
sharp contradictions within the
camp of monopoly in Canada, be-
tween those who consider the need
to strengthen central control over
the economy, and those who use the

provinces, particularly the trans-

nationals who use the provinces, to

strengthen their control over the re--

sources and the economy of Canada.

The Supreme Court is not above
these sharp divisions in the capitalist
class as their ruling reflected. At the
same time they were compelled to
recognize the legality of the pro-
posals that Prime Minister Trudeau
has advanced. Alongside that is

what they call constitutional con-

vention.

Each side argues that the court
decision favors it. And it. comes
down to the question of who *‘won”’.
It isn’t a question of who won, or
who lost, but what kind of constitu-
tion is needed by Canada, and
whether it will advance the interests

‘of the people rather than this or that

monopoly grouping.
The Supreme Court decision sol-
ved nothing, but brought to light the
sharp contradictions that explain
why Canada has not had a constitu-

tion of its own.

Will you comment on the New Demo-
cratic Party’s decision to withdraw its
support for Trudeau’s constitutional
package.

The NDP has withdrawn, in quotes,
its support for the Trudeau package,
but it is a qualified withdrawal, based

on its proposal that there be a meet-
ing with the provincial premiers

again. That may be a face-saver for

Broadbent or for Blakeney who have.

taken opposite positions.

The question isn’t whether there

should be another meeting with pro-
vincial premiers, which may be use-
ful in itself, but what would come out
of such a meeting. At the moment
there is very intensive bargaining
going on behind the scenes, with
each side indicating what it is pre-
pared to shift position on in return
for agreements that would result in
the patriation of the British North
America Act to Canada.

What is particularly significant is
the position taken by the Parti
Quebecois government in Quebec
and the resolution that is before the
National Assembly, introduced by
the government and supported by.
(Liberal leader) Claude Ryan.

How legitimate do you consider the -

points of that resolution, which as-
serts that the court has show the
Trudeau package to reduce the pow-
ers of the Quebec Government? =
In the resolution, in a certain sense,
is reflected the national aspirations
of the French Canadian people, that
is that nothing is done that would in
any way undermine the rights of the
French Canadian people. The ques-
tion there is distinctly different than
the pyoblem that presents itself in
other provinces.

But what has occurred recently is
an unprincipled alliance between the
PQ government and _ provincial
governments in English-speaking
Canada, to put maximum pressure

‘on the federal government to make

concessions to provincial powers at
the expense of the ability of the
country to function. However, the
premiers of the English-speaking
provinces don’t support Quebec's
basic position of the right to self-
determination.

The Communist Party has drawn
attention for years to what is really
involved — the right to self-
determination of French Canada, as
distinct from the question that some
of the provinces want to impose on
the federal authority, with respect to
resources which would favor the
transnationals, and with respect to
patniation only, throwing out the
charter of rights and denying demo-
cratic rights to people all over the
country — including language rights.

What is the Communist Party posi-
tion on the Trudeau package? And,
what will be the CP position if the
BNA Act is, in fact, patriated?

The position of the Communist
Party of Canada is well established.
We have for years fought for a
made-in-Canada constitution, based
upon the right to self-determination
of the two nations including the right
to sessesion; the incorporation in the
constitution of a bill of rights,

Guargniceing democratic rights for
all Ca

nadians: would include a bill of ©

rights for labor: that would include
economic rights with respect to jobs.
housing, health, education and so
on; that would include equality for
women; that would include guaran-
tees of the rights of the Native

peoples.

This is. our conception of the kind_

of constitution that Canada needs.

The Supreme Court's decision,
avoding the basic question of self-
determination and sidetracking it
into provincial powers, provincial
rights has accentuated the constitu-
tional crisis and made it more dif-
ficult to resolve it. And this will con-
tinue to be so until the basic ques-
tions are resolved.

If patriation takes place the strug-
gle will continue. In those circum-
stances English-speaking Canadians
would tend to see it as a Canadian
constitution, and give support to it,

while pressing for whatever amend- *

ments might be necessary to further
strengthen it.

In that case, the main thrust of the
Communist Party would be to try to
build a powerful people's movement
to win support for inclusion of the
right to self-determination and the
other matters I have referred to. The
edge of the fight would shift to some
extent, but its essence would remain
the same, to have a constitution that

‘would express the two-nation reality

of Canada, that would help to
strengthen Canadian independenc2
and ensure democratic nights.

At present manoeuvres and
counter-manoeuvre are going on be-
hind the scenes around the unanim-
ity rule, the question of what con-
stitutes the basis for any amendment
to the constitution. That is important
because it would determine the ex-
tent to which amendments actually
could be made.

I see a rather sharp, acrimonious
debate developing again, perhaps
more intense than before, with the

possibility of some new alliances -

shaping up.

These are questions that left-—

wing, democratic Canadians should
centre on and not get lost in all the
manoeuvres now taking place.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCT. 9, 1981—Page 7

wma ern na

=