Talk:Red Action

Uncited claims

Someone added the comment that Red Action usually lost their fights with right-wingers. This is certainly not what I've heard, nor what they say. Unless someone has substantial new information, I'm changing this page back.--XmarkX 04:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • They most certainly did not ; ) Plutonium27 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the uncited claim that a Red Action member was convicted as an IRA bomber. Something that serious needs a reliable source to back it up. Spylab 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure claim is correct (can't remember details) but not sure it is important to the article. More good editing Spylab! BobFromBrockley 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• See the link on the page to the Independent On Sunday article. The conviction was for stealing explosives not actual bombing. Plutonium27 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question. Yes, the BNP, NF and Blood & Honour were very aware of Red Action attack and RA were very good at 'squadism'. They would do a lot of intelligence work prior to an attack, attack the fascists feroiously and get out of the area quick. They seldom got turned over. There's an interesting 1993 Searchlight publication by a guy called Tim Hepple, who infiltrated the BNP back in the early 90's. The pamphlet is called 'At War with Society' and there's a bit by an early BNP activist called Jim White where White talked of his fear of Red Action assault and warned Hepple to be very wary. Whatever you think of Hepple and Searchlight this book is worth tracking down as it gives a good view of the atmosphere back then. Irisismykid (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Federation

Didn't some of this group's founders come from the Socialist Federation? --Duncan 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that, but certainly they moved in the same circles - both left the SWP and developed libertarian critiques of SWP-style vanguard parties. I googled a bit, and only thing I came up with was this: [1] BobFromBrockley 10:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Militant anti-fascism

Nothing major just...

From Red Action "They earned notoriety for ... their support of Anti-Fascist Action." From Militant anti-fascism "In 1985, Red Action and the anarcho-syndicalist Direct Action Movement launched Anti-Fascist Action (AFA)"

This might need just a change of wording in the Red Action article or a correction in the Militant anti-fascism article. --Aimaz 13:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence in Militant anti-fascism to say "In 1985, some members of Red Action..." because from my understanding, there was some crossover in membership, but the two organizations remained separate entities. Spylab 12:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They remained seperate orgs, and RA preceded AFA, but RA "noteriety" (if that's the right word) did come from AFA activities. BobFromBrockley 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Action Anti Fascist?

While I appreciate that they have fought the far right in physical confrontation in the past since 2002 at least most of the articles on their website have been attacking non whites (blaming them for everything from race hate crimes (Something that going by Red Actions website is a crime that doesnt exist unless it is commited against a white person) almost every form of crime you can think of, attacks on white males (While almost condoning brutal beatings of sudanese immigrants) even blaming non whites for 'impregnating white girls'!!!

It would seem Red Action are now buisy trying to "Out BNP the BNP" as their political ideology (Aside from Red Actions support for the IRA and Republican movement who seem to be excluded from their attacks on ethnic minorities in the UK) Seems to be one and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.191.158 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Examples and references please. They post a lot of articles there, including articles and editorials that other people have written about them.Spylab 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I was providing examples (The one about blaming refugess for "Impregnating teenage white girls" in a North East town for example is taken directly from their website) All of these articles can be found under their section on "Race and Class" On their official website. The one I quoted from was written by Red Action and was concerning racism in a town in the North of the UK. When I have more time I will link them to the specific webpage if you like (Asuming they dont remove it sharpish)

I find it odd that Red Action seem determinied to carry out endless attacks on their website against non whites, refugess etc under the asumption that they are "Speaking for the (white) working class" (Even though the vast majority of the (white) working class vote for neither they or the BNP so they obviously do not) We can also assume from the Red Action website that non whites are not included amongst the working class as they (judging by Red Action websites comments) are some kind of 'alien group within Britian' pandered to by a mysterious 'liberal left' and the 'politically correct' While there is not one word of criticism for the Republican movement, the IRA or Red Actions encouragement of sectarianism amongst for example Celtic fans through its afiliated fanzine in Glasgow.

I could also point to affiliated groups like Merseysides Kirkby times who advertise and support the BNP under the guise of "We are not racist in Kirkby, we all know at least one black person who lives in the area!" (See their website regarding local council elections where they invited BNP candidates to speak on what they can offer to the area) (Realy? I seriously doubt it and I seriously doubt they are happy with your support for the BNP) I assume this is the 2007 version of "What me racist? Some of my best friends are......" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.191.251 (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, please provide direct quotes (in context) and links to where those quotes appear. We don't all have time to scour the Red Action website to verify that what you are saying is an accurate portrayal of the group's views.Spylab 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• One of the articles has since been deleated (supprise supprise) But see the article "A return to winning ways" In the section "Race and Class" As it would be utterly pointless to "quote in context" As you would need to reproduce the entire article to provide context. The websites overwealming gushing support for the IRA is all too obvious even to the article criticizing Celtic football club for opposing its Pro IRA fanzine as it was spreading sectarianism (which is defined as a form of racism by the way)

Maybe you cannot "Find time to scour Red Actions website" To verify what I am saying (Even though I have provided clearly what page you need look on. But I would suggest you do so rather than post snide remarks otherwise the entire Red Action article on this website needs to be removed (Unless of course you can verify every word that is written on it is true. I would like full references to every word an links (Seeing as I also "Dont have time to scour the Red Action webiste to verify that anything posted here is true")

Or how about this for its utter belitlement of racism (Direct quote you might like this one seeing as you are "Far too buisy" To check facts but just love to leave any old unverified rubbish up, fail to check a single fact but expect the opposite from everyone else)

"Meanwhile in a genuinely witless Panorama programme on the same subject, the commentators seem to hint that "No Surrender to the IRA", was somehow as offensive as "I'd rather be a Paki than Turk". While the latter ditty offends two nations, the former has as I understand it been policy for successive British governments since sometime in 1916 and generally has offended only one." (Red Action "news June 2000")

Now how about you "Verify" The entire Red Action article or are you "Far too buisy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.29.203 (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't write the entire Red Action article, so it is not my personal responsibility to back the whole thing up with references. However, if you are going to make vague insinuations and accusations on this talk page, you should back them up with direct evidence, instead of expecting readers (not just me) to do that work for you. I will read the rest of your post later and check those specific quotes to see if they somehow disprove that Red Action is an anti-facsist group.Spylab 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You still haven't provided direct links to the appropriate text. Please paste the URLs to those pages so all readers can see exactly what you are talking about.Spylab 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Anonymous IP user, I just read your examples listed above and saw nothing to discredit the fact that Red Action is an anti-fascist group. Supporting the IRA and allegedly promoting sectarianism — while certainly controversial and offensive to many — does not mean they are not anti-fascist. Also, sectarianism, in the context of Ireland and the UK is not a form of racism, since neither side of the conflict is considered a race. The "Panorama" quote you pasted above, also does nothing to support your argument that Red Action is somehow not really opposed to fascism.Spylab 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous: I searched the Red Action website for several variations on "impregnating" shortly after spylab posted his first reply, and found nothing, so it seems to me unlikely that some assidous Red Action webmaster was scouring wikipedia's talk pages and was so intimidated by your comments as to remove the page immediately. I knew many Red Action members for many years, and never heard phrases like that. Their critiques of multiculturalism is controversial (I for one oppose it), but it is not in any sense an attack on non-white people. Similarly, their support for Irish Republicanism is also controversial (and again I oppose it), but they have been very clear about opposing sectarianism. Their Celtic fanzine is very much anti-sectarian, not pro-sectarian. As Spylab says, these positions cannot be seen as undermining the claim that RA are anti-fascist, by any sensible definition of fascism and anti-fascism. Please doo insert referenced, encyclopedically-worded statements about the contentiousness of Red Action's positions on multiculturalism, race attacks and Republicanism. Please don't add vague unsubstantiated slurs. BobFromBrockley 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to contact Red Action? I'm interested in some of their viewpoints and want to enter into a conversation with them. I tried their website. Any member of them will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.187 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they actually exist any more. If you are desperate to speak with somebody in Red Action I suggest contacting the Independent Working Class Association as some ex-RA members have joined that. I have read recent IWCA articles online and they are very similar in theme to that produced by RA Irisismykid (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Connection to Harrods bombing

I note a para has been added regarding a connection to the Harrods bombing. The only cited source does not apepar to me to be reliable, and the link to an outsider appears tenuous (it is not clear that the convicted person's membership of Red Action was current, nor that Red Action were directly involved in the bombing). Do other editors have views on this? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A fellow traveller removed the original references which are from two published books.[2] In both books, the connection to political activism in regards to this organisation is mentioned as relevent. This organisation is strongly in favour of republicanism in Ireland (Grand Orientism), its one of the most notable parts of their ideology. The Red Action members who did it were not actually members of the IRA, they just planted the bomb for them. Republicans (and disapora parodies) have since tried to blank this information for reasons political expediency. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. i think a case potentially (see following argument) could be made for a section to be included (though not as detailed as the one to which you provided the link), and which relies on the Geraghty and Mickolus, but which avoids any reliance on the searchlight webpage. As I see it, the problem here is that the only reference connecting the bombers to Red Action is the unreliable source (at least, that's the only source cited for this fact in the old version to which you linked). If either Geraghty or Mickolus state that the bombers were Red Action members, then I would support inclusion of a version of this text. If not, then I think it must be deleted from this article, and be confined to articles where the link is clear (eg PIRA). Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither book deals with Red Action (or AFA), and even if they did it would still be undue weight to include information about the actions of individual members in a short article about an organisation. In addition, the Searchlight link is fake and not a reliable source at all.

The "fellow traveller" (sic) remark, by the way, is inappropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Both book mentions Red Action explicity. If the article is short, it is up to other people to expand, not remove information they happen to find inconvinent. There is no Wikipedia policy which says such a thing is acceptable. This organisation, as one of its main ideological precepts supports Republicanism in Ireland, two of its members set off a bomb in 1993 for the PIRA. That is incredibly notable and citation for it is given from reliable, academic books. What next, are people going to suggest "removing" 9/11 from Al-Qaeda article? - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what to do when two editors have opposite views about what the book actually includes. Yorkshirian and RepublicanJacobite, to be clear, what I am looking for is a statement in one or both books that the the perpetrators of the bombing were members of Red Action. Not just Red Action being mentioned in the book, not just the perpetrators being mentioned in the book, but text that explicitly says they were members, or text that explicitly states that Red Action had a definite role in the bombing. If there is an explicit connection in a reliable source, then a mention in this article would appear warranted. If not, then not. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you have access to the book(s), an editor could paste a specific quote from the work on the talk page here to help everyone judge the issue. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What you do when two editors have opposite views on whether a book contains the claims one is making is conclude that either the books are ambiguous, which is unlikely given the "explicitly" claim, or conclude that one of them is being economical with the truth. In this case, Yorkshirian is being economical with the truth as neither book mentions Red Action. (Google Books link to the relevant page of Geraghty (and I have the print version too, same info) makes no mention of Red Action (search within the book for yourself too, Red Action don't get mentioned). Google Books search for "Jan Taylor", Google Books search for "Patrick Hayes", Google Books search for "Red Action"), where as you can see both people involved are mentioned on page 282, yet there is no mention of Red Action. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the kindof response I was looking for, thank you. The books appear not to substantiate the text being included in the article. The pieces from the Independent, linked by Yorkshirian below, however, paint a different picture and are also reliable sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some good, online news articles that are accessable to read on the communist/republican fifth columnists.[3][4] This sentence especially, explains Hayes prominence in the organisation - "Besides running a big IRA bombing campaign, he was a leading member of Red Action, and his political associates maintain that "he was heavily involved" in their anti-Fascist activities, legal and illegal, "playing a crucial role, right up until he was lifted [for the terrorist offences]". - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not include links to all the Indy articles that deal with the case and don't mention Red Action, or simply mention that one of them had Red Action literature in his flat? The bombings were not committed by Red Action, they were committed by two people at least one of whom was a confirmed IRA member. The policy against including it is WP:NPOV specificaly article balance and undue weight. If a Greenpeace member becomes an Animal Rights Militia member and bombs a lab, does that belong in the Greenpeace article, and would that get a "terrorism" category too? If you have sources that show Red Action as an organisation were involved then now's your chance to provide them, but neither Red Action (nor AFA) are responsible for the actions of individual members who are acting as members of other organisations. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just because person A is a member of organisation B and organisation C and commits an act on behalf of organisation C, that doesn't mean organisation B are to blame or indeed have anything to do with it. Unless sources showing Red Action's direct involvement as an organisation are provided, this shouldn't be included here. BigDunc 17:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that reasoning, which is sound as far as it goes, but is also reasoning sometimes used by organisations to deliberately distance themselves from certain actions of members that they tacitly encourage but formally denounce. "Dog whistling" is a term used for that kind of strategy, at least in Australia. One cannot be too dogmatic about the application of this principle if reliable sources are not. In that regard, see the pieces from the Independent, linked above. But this isn't my area, so I'm not taking a firm position one way or the other. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more notable aspects of Red Action's existence (it's the reason The Independent wrote an article about them) so it seems pretty silly to me not to have a sentence or two about it. The fact that the bombing wasn't carried out by Red Action per se doesn't mean it isn't relevant or interesting. The article also mentions a group that was formed by some former Red Action members; obviously that has nothing to do with "Red Action as an organisation," but it's still mentioned because it's clearly relevant to the article subject. The Red Action members' statement in that article about the crimes its members were convicted of--"We wouldn't consider that a quantum leap. It would be a personal decision, but it would be a logical extension of the politics anyway"--also sheds light on the group's politics. By analogy see the Weather Underground article which mentions a crime committed by some former members (the Brinks robbery) years after the organization broke up. Even if the Weather Underground article was as short as this one it would probably still mention that, because it's an important part of the group's history.Prezbo (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that the inclusion of such a lengthy paragraph in this article about events Red Action as an organisation had nothing to do with makes the article unbalanced, especially as Red Action's involvement in fifteen years of smacking Nazis with hammers gets next to no coverage. If it was as long as the Weather Underground article I'd be in favour of inclusion, but it isn't. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well like I said I'm only proposing a sentence or two. It would be no more unbalanced than the press coverage about the organization. In any case I think "balance" should be determined with reference to the article's ideal length, not the article as it currently exists.Prezbo (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Pat Hayes was a member of Red Action and AFA, left these groups and joined the IRA. I remember a copy of Red Action's newspaper around the time of Haye's conviction which featured an interview with him where he detailed his AFA activities (including a photo of him kicking a National Front supporter). Red Action members would go to Ireland and take part in Republican parades etc. and I guess he made his contacts there. I would strongly doubt whether he was still a member of RA/AFA while taking part in IRA activities as Red Action were semi-open and thus liable to MI5 penetration. I guess he was released under the Good Friday Agreement. Don't know what happened to him (or Taylor) since? Irisismykid (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

While citing the group itself is highly problematic, citing an anarcho-syndicalist weblog (posted by 'Steve') as source seems utterly unjustifiable. The Squicks (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do they still actually exist or are they defunct?

Look, I don't wanna get into a big Lefty sectarian battle over this but does this group still actually exist as an organization on the ground or is it defunct? I feel like changing the opening sentence from "is a" to "was a".

Their website, while still up, apart from a short obit, hasn't been updated for many years and they seem completely absent from any activity what-so-ever, even during the recent heightened activity against the EDL and BNP. They were always a tiny group and I am under the impression that most of their members had either dropped out of politics or went into the IWCA about a decade ago.

Any views before I edit (if indeed I do) ? Irisismykid (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BST/UTC confusion

I've noticed today an onslaught of tweets concerning this article, specifically an edit made at 12:06, 19 Aug 2018 by IP 91.110.85.199, quoting Andrew Gilligan in the The Sunday Times: "Jeremy Corbyn came to the attention of police after becoming involved with Red Action" and "Corbyn spoke at at least three Red Action meetings between 1985 and 1992 and the group sometimes met at his then constituency office, ex-members said."

Many of those on Twitter seem especially irate at the timing of the edit, which they misconstrue as coming "5 minutes after the Times published." Some see this as proof of conspiracy between The Sunday Times and our own anonymous editor IP 91.110.85.199 to defame Jeremy Corbyn.

However, the 5-minute proximity is false, caused by confusing BST and UTC. Gilligan's article posted online 19 Aug 2018, 12:01am BST, which was 18 Aug 2018, 23:01 UTC. The Wikipedia entry was saved 19 Aug 2018, 12:06 UTC. In other words, the WP edit came 13 HOURS and 5 minutes after Gilligan.

I offer this as a heads-up to editors to beware of poorly sourced revisions that may likewise confuse BST and UTC. KalHolmann (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Corbyn

It would seem that some RSes are tying Jeremy Corbyn to this organization - namely [5][6][7]. Would seem DUE for inclusion. Corbyn is denying most of this - "Jeremy has never supported political violence in Northern Ireland. He had no contact with police over Red Action and was completely unaware of any criminal activities." though leaving open "Asked why Mr Corbyn attended meetings with the group, he said they could have been about other subjects such as the treatment of prisoners and that other groups used Mr Corbyn's constituency office for meetings not organised by the MP.".Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, for sake of discussion, how would you respond to @AusLondonder:, who in his edit summary yesterday justified removal of content sourced to The Sunday Times report "Police examined Jeremy Corbyn links to pro-IRA group Red Action" on the grounds of WP:COAT and WP:BLP? KalHolmann (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should report on the alleged police investigation as it seems to have gone no where, however it seems that Corbyn himself doesn't deny he met with the group and the RS seems to be saying a bit more. It would also this Routledge book - [8] makes a connection between RA organizing/setting up AFA, and Corbyn being named honorary president of AFA.Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, please help me understand:

• Wikipedia's Anti-Fascist Action page does not mention Corbyn.
• Wikipedia's Jeremy Corbyn page does not mention AFA.
• Wikipedia's Red Action page mentions AFA only in a reference title.

Are you proposing that this article be expanded to discuss Corbyn's alleged connection to AFA? KalHolmann (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. It would seem to me that Corbyn would merit a couple of sentences here, not much beyond that. Possibly a brief mention in Jeremy Corbyn#Labour in opposition (1983–97) which could use some expansion regardless.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, thanks for your reply. Please, at your convenience, share with us here the two sentences about Corbyn that you propose to add to Red Action. KalHolmann (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The "links" to RA alleged by the Times article are incredibly tenuous: he reportedly spoke at three meetings they organised, one in the mid-1980s and two that are unnnamed (and seem to have been Republican prisoner events rather than actual RA events) in the early 1990s. I can't see a way of mentioning that which would be WP:DUE. Seems like WP:COAT to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)