[THE Workers Revolutionary Party has now responded to…]

Scan page 5

THE Workers Revolutionary Party has now responded to my comments on their reply to Oxford Trades Council's defence of Peter Molntyre, the journalist they have repeatedly libelled. They threaten to go running to the courts once more.

They have demanded an undertaking from me to gag myself, and if they don't get it they say they will apply for a court injunction to forbid me to say certain things about them.

They object to two points in my article: they say it is libellous to assert that they aim to bankrupt us; and they claim I repeated one of the original alleged libels.

Let the reader mark this and remember it: if you say ur imply that the WRP's intentions are less than 100% benevolent, you will be hauled up by your ears before a High Court judge in less time than it takes Gerry Healy to say 'goobledygook' You must remember that the WRP is especially benevolent, that it has always been benevolent towards young people, and in particular to the thousands who in the last 20 years have gone through Imam Gerry's ranks as through a revolving door.

That the WRP are trying to bankrupt us and drive SO out of business is a charge we have publicly laid against them umpteen times in' the last two years. There is even one — not entirely preposterous - school of thought which says this is not just blind malice, but a fraternal service from Mr Healy to a competitor of SO's, run by friends and collaborators of the WRP. If they are being stung by this argument now, it must mean that the WRP and its friends are finding it a difficult point to answer.

For the last two years we have been careful not to flout court procedures by repeating any of the three alleged libels. By contrast the WRP has repeated the alleged libels in letters to Tribune and the Morning Star and often, and again last Friday — in Newsline.

I referred to one of the three items in SO to make the paine that they are suing us comparing them with certain religious cults while pointedly ignoring the grave assertion that it is widely believed that the WRP gets money from certain Arab governments.

They respond to the new challenge by once again ignoring the most serious question - that they are or "Mr Benn and the Courts', the editorial said that Tony Benn was inconsistent to defend Militant going to court and at the same time to condemn the WRP for taking SO to court. For Mr Benn's instruction| they reprinted my alleged libels in full.

The third editorial, Monday, dealt with the Labour Committee on Palestine conference, which the WRP packed. Blatantly evading all the issues, dollop of Gerry-thought is notable for the following comment on the precise and accurate account of the LCP conference publ ished by the Guardian.

•Individuals in the labour movement who collaborate with the capitalist press against their political opponents can be deemed to be well and truly in league with the class enemy. Everyone knows (!) that the state runs the capitalist press and Guardian is no exception".

Is it more or less heinous a crime to go to the Guardian than to go to Oxford Trades Council and the NUJ? There is nothing to choose between them, of course, trom the WRP point of view. Gerry cannot hope to influence either.

Is there then no refuge for the WRP, no place where a discredited but rich little sect can hope to escape 'the class enemy' those who are 'in league with' it, where it can hope to find people with the competence that Uxtord Irades Council and the NUJ lack to judge affairs like their slander of Peter Mcintyre?

Of course there is - the High Court. 'Everyone knows' that this has nothing to do with 'the class enemy' And the rich WRP can hope to buy massive advantages within the formal equality of the law: for example the WRP can indeed 'go to the Inns of Court' and buy good barristers.

The WRP uses threats of the courts to suppress free discussion of what it is, who it works with, and where it gets its money from. It is in the most vital interests of the labour movement to resist this crude bludgeoning.

Therefore I refused to voluntarily enter into any self-gagging agreement with Ms Redgrave's lawyers, that is, indirectly with the WRP. Let us see what an honest judge makes of the three ridiculous editorials from the Ayatollah of goobledygook, Gerry Healy, if he dares put it to the test.

Sean Matgamna uS