The NAC Conference - held in Leeds last month - should have been a cause for celebration. Mainly through its efforts, a mass campaign had been launched which had succeeded Inrowing ment opposed to racist laws and ready to challenge the explicitly racist curbs in the 71 Act. The fact that the 1976 Labour Party conference called for its repeal -and 1e: 60 Labour MPs supCARL demonstration last year is proor or this.
These forces, while opposed to racist immigration laws. do not They would argue that, in a period of growing recession, it would be utopian to abandon all immigration controls. (Thus Benn, while supporting the CARL demonstration, is a firm advocate of import controls.)
These arguments are, of course, radically wrong and have to be challenged. But should we refuse to collaborate with these forces in the fight against racism simply because they do not share the same economic views as socialists on how to resolve the present economic crisis?
SECTARIAN To ask the question is to answer it. Those forces who stand rigidly on the 'no immigration control position (like Workers Action) should ask themselves: Are they prepared to allow black people to go on being victimised until the Labour movement has been won to a simon-pure understanding of socialist economic strategy?
Such a position would hardly differ from those who consider the fight for women's rights as "unimportant'. They would argue that women - or black people. should passively wait until the labour movement has been won to a correct understanding of socialism and then - and only then -can a united fight be forged.
What such forces do not grasp is that the labour movement will never be won to a clear socialist perspective until it identifies with and supports the struggles of the doubly-oppressed against the discrimination and harassment meted out to them. the dustbin, where it belonged.
The major discussion - after such a victory - should clearly have been how to carry forward the struggle by campaigning for a woman's right to choose.
OFF THE HOOK The 'no immigration controls' argument. however. not only diverts the cueston away tror ers vii the hook. Jim Callaghan and others - who operated the Tories' 1971 Act with vigour -would reject this argumen: on be acceptable to most of the Labour movement.
Calling on the Labour leaders to repeal all racist immigration laws, on the contrary, puts them firmly to the test. Do they or do they not believe that black people should be allowed into this country on the same basis as white people?
Such a stance not only challenges Thatcher's racist thrust head-on, but also puts the Labour leaders to a firm test by calling on them to break their 'unofficial" alliance with the Tories and lead a real anti-racist struggle.
PROCESS There can be little doubt that the setting up of CARL - and the mass demonstration it launched last year - was a major step in this direction. By focussing its demand around repeal of the 1971 Act, it opposed full-square the Tory onslaught and opened up a serious debate inside the labour moveThis step has now to be built upon. Up and down the country the call for the repeal of the 1971 Act has to be raised in union and Labour Party branches. Local CARL groups, which are being set up, should be supported and forces mobilised for national actions.
Such a process can begin the task of winning the labour movement to o a clear anti-racist stance which will be key in the years ahead. The call for 'no immigration controls' will only set back this positive development and lead to the left posturing in splendid sectarian isolation.
the Corrie Bill.
support such mass action could have been mounted? And does been stopped?
CLASS ISSUE womens campaign to the entire labour movement. sions in the labour movement.
Winning IlC support to: fight-back regards women's rights, are a disaster. This is no-where more true launched on the welfare state.
are at stake here. As old-age for elderly relatives? Women. As it that will be expected to look local councils to stay at home to care for the young? Women.
SET BACK The net result of these cuts will be a severe set-back for women's rights. It will mean thousands, forced out of a job, becoming single-parent families, it will mean living on a pittance doled out by the state.
Tne already schemes Wandsworth working mothers country either to find untrained baby-minders ( at a cost they cannot atford) or to leave their jobs to care for them.
RIGHTS This situation is inevitable in a society were ine responsıbillty I01 children still falls almost exclusively on the shoulders of the woman.
Does anyone seriously think that, without TUC demand. anyone seriously think that, without that action, Corrie would have Moreover, as many other women also argued, making NAC an 'alldidn't under- STRUGGLE stand that abortion is not only a woman's issue but one of concerr The Tories' support for the Corrie support given oy Bill was not accidental. It was an attempt to drive women out of the workforce and back into the home.
It was aimed at making women the scapegoat for their unemployment offensive by playing on sexist divithe and Laban: Par