SOCIALIST UNITY

9 June, 2009

THE MASTER RACE

Filed under: anti-fascist — John Wight @ 5:10 pm

Well done to all those involved in chasing Nick Griffin and his BNP ’security team’ from Westminster today.

152 Comments »

Lets face it anyone who does not agree with you is a “fascist”

Comment by I Albion — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
I have to disagree John.

As a result of this, Griffin has been on the BBC News 8 times since 4 o’clock. It will be the top item on the 6 o’clock news. Each time the mantra has been repeated “an democratically elected MEP”. This twat now looks like a victim.

All they have achieved is free publicity for a fascist.

Comment by Eck — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Stupid adventurist bullshit. And counterproductive.

Comment by Another Dave — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Much better in my view to see him chased and hounded than allowed to spout the kind of offensive bile he has been since being elected.

Don’t forget, the man was in the middle of a press conference in front of the Parliament being televised at the time.

I also think UAF gained as much publicity from this action than Griffin and the BNP.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
What a disaster.

Thanks to the SWP/SA/UAF, Nick Griffin:

- will now be on every news bulletin, all night - free publicity!

- will be able to pose as the democrat who bravely saw off the rabble

- will be able to distract attention from his own criminal party by pointing at the SWP/UAF criminals who assaulted him.

- will claim to be a free speech martyr

So, yeah, glad you had your fun, John Wight.

But some of us - who ARE actually ethnic minorities - have to live with what this UAF bullshit leads to.

We won’t defeat fascism until we defeat the SWP.

Comment by David T — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Make that 9 times now.

Comment by Eck — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
David T - What on earth have you been smoking? Though I disagree with them on many issues, I stand four square with the SWP against the BNP and against Zionism.

At least they are consistent.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
#5 The SWP isn’t my enemy.

/ethnic minority.

Comment by Aaron — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Consistent?

The SWP puts on meetings with the likes of Abou Djah Djah, Gilad Atzmon, and various Hamas representatives.

Then it sends representatives onto the radio to claim that it is opposed to racism? And it is opposed to Holocaust denial.

Naah, don’t give me that mate. The SWP needs the BNP. It sees the BNP as an opportunity to recruit, that’s all. You couldn’t be happier about the BNP’s victory.

Minorities in Britain are quite used to dealing with extremists John. We don’t need the parasitic SWP to give Griffin photo opportuntities.

Comment by David T — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
David T - are you seriously trying to suggest that the UAF has no members from an ethnic minority?

Comment by Richard Farnos — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Oh, here comes the passive aggressive waste of space from Socialist Action.

Comment by David T — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
Among the ‘political mob’ as David T describes them, I clearly saw ethnic minorities, so I hardly feel that he can claim to speak for anyone apart from himself.

He follows this by making the outrageous analogy between what took place today and John Major in 1992, as if Major being pelted with eggs was the reason the Tories were re-elected.

The problem with David T, and others like him, is that they hate it when people empower themselves to take action against fascism, Israeli ethnic cleansing, and other such maladies in our world.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
Everyone who has pointed out the sheer unproductive nature of chasing Nick Griffin are quite right. Now, as has been poited out, Griffin, amazingly, gets huge news coverage to spout his propaganda, which he otherwise would not have got. Even more amazingly, he and the BNP come over as “victims” and thus possibly more popular, or at least their message will be receptively heard.

And let us suppose anyone even ever got close to Griffin, what would they do? Beat him up? Break his legs? Put him in a wheechair? Rip out his throat? And what happens when one of our own gets caught up in a fight with Griffin’s stormtroopers? Oh, he or she will have their skull caved in, and for what? Nothing!

Please, enough of this counterproductive and dangerous nonsense. The BNP couldn’t wish for anything more than being chased and pelted with eggs. I used to think that they probably set this stuf up themselves - a pisspoor Reichstag fire, if you like - but I’m amazed that the Left doesn’t see how utterly stupid all these antics are. They all backfire, and the conclusion seems to be, let’s do more of it!

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Direct Action against the BNP is nothing new. So why is there a wringing of hands?

Comment by sychohohohophantic larry — 9 June, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
David T has a cheek – first he criticises the UAF for not physically confronting fascists in Derbyshire last year, now he attacks them for throwing eggs! To add insult to injury he then seems to claim that there are no people from ethnic minorities in UAF!

Indeed I think David T words are more driven by his petty hatreds toward Ken and SWP than any real commitment to defeating fascism. After all if David T was really concerned why doesn’t stop pandering to their prejudices and stop publicising Islamaphobic filth that he churns out over at Harrys Place.

Comment by Richard Farnos — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
It may have escaped the notice of those who argue against this action, but Griffin was about to get news coverage anyway, unhindered by protest. He was surrounded by camera crews for his press conference and, on this occassion, didnt manage to get round to the bit where he advocates repatriation!

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Patrickg #16 - The BNP were getting all the publicity they could have wished for regardless of today’s antics. It’s worth repeating that Griffin was chased as he was giving a press conference to the media outside the Parliament. Recall the interviews he gave after his election victory when he was able to equate the whites-only membership policy of the BNP with the Black Police Officers Association without being challenged.

If we think that the mainstream media are going to do the job for us then we truly are heading down a slippery slope.

I agree that ultimately an idea can only be defeated by another, better idea, but until the Left gets its act together and is able to forge a coherent response to not only the BNP, but also to the economic crisis and the political crisis, then direct action along the lines of what took place today is in my view to be welcomed.

Such action can have the effect of inspiring others, especially those who’re on the receiving end of the BNP’s vile politics - immigrants and asylum seekers.

Well done again to all those involved.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
This has played right into Griffin’s hands. As an MEP he could have demanded a police presence; or as party leader ensured that he had sufficient muscle from within the BNP to protect himself from the UAF/SWP. That he availed himself of neither option is no accident.

Instead Griffin chose to appear as the victim of an ‘establishment’ attack. He’s got the measure of UAF, and he’s used them to achieve a propaganda victory. It play’s right into the BNP’s new narrative: the plucky British underdog facing attack from the politically correct thought police, and taking a kicking in process.

It’s worth remembering that most people in Britain support freedom of speech, even for obnoxious individuals like Griffin. And Griffin will far prefer images of dramatic victimisation to the kind of critical questioning he gets from the mainstream media.

Comment by JB Malone — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
> Who are “United Against Fascism”?

It’s a successor organisation to the ANL (an SWP front) and the NAAR (a Socialist Action front). The SWP provide most of the organisation, the local vicar provides most of the politics.

Thanks to Nigel Irritable

Comment by Macallum — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
The problem with David T, and others like him, is that they hate it when people empower themselves to take action against fascism, Israeli ethnic cleansing, and other such maladies in our world.

Nonsense John.

As an “other like him” on this issue, I hate it when people take counterproductive action. This action does nothing other than allow a fascist to portray himself as an elected representative being the victim of a rent-a-mob. I do not disagree with the UAF purpose. I do disagree with the methods employed.

On an issue that you and David T should be sharing purpose, you had to broaden this to include Israel, an issue on which you can not agree, and bang, no common action.

The result of infighting is, as we have seen, 2 BNP MEPs and several million quid into their coffers.

The only good news is that this has been pushed off the top spot on the BBC by 1,700 redundancies at the C&G. If that, in any way, can be classed as good news.

PS That’s ten times now.

Comment by Eck — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Ordinary voters hate the BNP. Excellent job.

Comment by bill j — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Patrickg #20 - Why don’t you calm down a little? Those who tackled Griffin today are more in the tradition of the volunteers who fought fascism in Spain than those who’re berating them for getting off their backsides and doing something.

As for your comment re Hamas, I don’t live in Palestine, so that’s a silly statement. Would you have told people in the anti-apartheid movement to go and join the ANC?

Why is Hamas fascist? Because it refuses to capitulate to Israeli ethnic cleansing and apartheid? Why?

I don’t have to agree with their Charter in order to acknowledge an occupied people’s right to resist. After all, it’s a right enshrined in international law.

Didn’t you know that?

I suspect not.

So why the silly comment about Hamas?

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
These questions are always tactical

generally i have soome sympathy with David T and Eck’s position that it can be counterproductive to make it look like the left are undemocratic, but in this particular case I think it was necessary to make it clear right from the outset that Nick Griffin is NEVER going to be accepted as a conventional, respectable politician.

And he was going to get press coverage anyway, so wahht UAF have acheived is ensured that opposition to fascism was on the news as well.

But back to the general point, we cannot get away from the fact that the BNP do have a mandate as elected policticans, whether we like it or not, and these sort of stunts must not be a substitute for the long haul of building a mass popular front of everyone who values tolerance and democracy to isolate these nazis.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
And John Wight has no place lecturing anyone about racism, let alone the Spanish Civil War.

Read your history John, in Spain, the left fought *against* the authoritarian clerical-fascists.

You stand with them.

You are no anti-fascist.

Comment by Smell the Coffee — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
The question is the weak link in the rise of fascism and the drift to a more repressive state. The weak link is the BNP’s electoral base which is desperate and very soft, rather than hardcore fascist. The electoral base is characterized by poverty, hostility to privatization (hence Griffin opposing this in his victory speech) and racism.

We now have no option but to campaign in the areas where the BNP has built electoral support and undermine it with a twin track campaign around privatization (including housing) and against racism. Bluntly, we must engage with racist ideas, argue with these people and demonstrate that the BNP are not the community activists they pretend to be. Racism does not deliver resistance whereas campaigns for better housing can. Such campaigns are undermined by racism.

Griffin has been canny in taking the BNP off the streets (even meetings are held in front rooms now) and into disenfranchised working class areas. The rhetoric is all about class while the solutions are racist. Campaigning to demonstrate his real class allegiance can only be a long term persistent activity.

Many of us campaigning in Manchester for the last year were aware that it would take five to ten years to undermine the BNP electoral base. The campaign against Griffin at the Euro elections was a powerful start and some of us were hopeful of stopping Griffin as the leafletting movement took on a mass dynamic (though quite late in the campaign). In the process, we brought a lot of good people into the network and started the debates that must be visited again and again over the coming years. Not easy or glamorous but the best method.

When the BNP take to the streets in marches or stalls, we should outnumber and drive them off in precisely the manner of the Anti Nazi League of yesteryear but this will not be their main strategy for the foreseeable future.

Focussing on the BNP media profile is to attack the strongest link in their strategy and a reflection of the weak forces mobilized by the left. The tactics of 1977 or 1993 will not work in 2009 when the BNP has changed its strategy. Get wise, get organized, go local as an irrelevant person once said.

Comment by Chris C — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Andy#26 - I agree with that. Direct action should never be ruled out, but it can’t be the only way to confront the BNP.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Smell The Coffee#27 - What an interesting psuedonym. Top marks for creativity.

Hamas are socially progressive, despite your sad and tired attempt to smear them. They provide social services, schools, and hospitals for a people who would otherwise have nothing, due to the actions of that barbaric settler-colonial state otherwise known as the State of Israel.

Attempting to proffer a symmetrical comparison between Spain in the 1930s and Palestine today is quite ludicrous.

The Catholic Church has produced proponents of liberation theology and apologists for fascism.

Hamas stand in the tradition of the former, as do Hezbollah, while Christian fudamentalists stand in the tradition of the latter in their support for Zionism.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Andy, it is not a one off though. There seems to be a strategy to fight the police to get to Nick Griffin to stop him getting to the vote count or whatever. The other night somebody smashed his car window to get to him.

I don’t think it’s the best long term strategy to deal with the far right. It just plays into their propaganda that their opponents are thugs determined to shut down the democratic process. What they should have done is had a nosey protest from across the street but not take vigilante type action.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
noisy.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
David T,

You’re quite right, but why is it you never shine the same light on your own political bedfellows? Tony Blair intervened on Indonesia’s side to massacre the East Timorese. Labour has consistently armed some of the most extreme regimes in the world, especially Saudi Arabia’s, the source of nearly all jihadi theocratic fruitcakery. Now, there is “consistency”!

I may be wrong, but for all their many hideous faults and ideological stupidity, at least the SWP has never intervened to ensure genocide (as Blair personally did, when it was already clear Indonesia’s last bloodbath could not even succeed in its goal of keeping East Timor within Indonesia’s empire), or armed the Saudi bastion of jihadism (a policy Blair and Labour could have reversed) which turns a blind eye to its clergy’s arming and funding of jihadis.

In any case, David T, are you saying that Holocaust denial should be illegal? Now, that really is very liberal, huh? After all, taking your cue, unbelievably, from Orwell the banner at the top of Harry’s Place puts it: “Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” How appropriately Orwellian (and liberal) your position is of wanting to make illegal the beliefs you persoanlly find intolerable. Freedom of speech means nothing if you don’t extend it to those you disagree with: fascists, theocrats, etc.

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
John Wight argues for consistency! Presumably this is not the same John Wight who wrote on this site:

“Hamas are the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people, and as such deserving of the respect accorded to any democratically elected government.”

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3433

Nick Griffin is now also democratically elected. Presumably John Wight will be arguing for him to be accorded respect. After all, Griffin’s politics are no more obnoxious than Hamas.

Look, watching Griffin get covered in eggs and chased off the streets was very amusing and, on an emotional level, very satisfying, but when the eggs are washed away the question remains: how does this help the fight against the BNP? And the answer is that it doesn’t, because the fight against the BNP right now is not on the streets, it is in elections, and these eggs will not persuade a single person against voting BNP.

Or to put it another way: how do you enforce a no platform policy against someone who has been elected to parliament? He has been given a huge platform by the electorate and no amount of eggs are going to change that. The only way to change it is via the boring and difficult work of putting across the arguments that will persuade current and future BNP voters to change their minds. And no, I don’t mean shouting “fascist”.

Comment by Dave Rich — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Anthony Wells has interesting polling research into who votes BNP

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2172

The answer seems to be: people in the past who would have been working-class Tories (BNP voters prefer Cameron to Brown 3 to 1 and place themselves on the right-left scale at a similar place to people of similar background who vote Tory).

Hard as it is to say the biggest thing that would undermine the BNP is a Tory party that could appeal into what has become no-g0 areas for them.

Comment by pregethwr — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Tawfiq, you’re comparing the complex actions of a state with it’s competing geopolitical interests, with someone campaigning for a certain cause. Not really the same thing.

As it happens Blair supported the peace keeping mission to east Timore. I doubt you did.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Ed D #31

True.

As followers of the website will know, I am a firm opponent in general of the idea that physical confrontation with the fascists is useful in the present context.

But judging this particular action entirely on its own merits, i don’t think it will have a bad effect.

Of course, what would really defeat the BNP would be for the labour government to start a publicly funded project (print the money - quantative easing) to build council houses, and renovate the community infrastructure in deprived areas.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
John Wight = Miss Jean Brodie

Comment by David T — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
#39

David

You win the award for the most imaginative political insult of the day, but that is enough now please.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
What a disgusting smear on the Catholic left-wingers in South America and beyond who are inspired by liberation theology to compare them with the racists, homophobes and anti-democrats of Hamas.

Comment by Smell the Coffee — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Dave Rich #35 - There is a slight difference between two MEPs of a fringe party being elected and a people voting for a government to represent them, in the case of Hamas.

But of course you already know that.

The interesting contradiction here is the fact that people who support a settler colonial state in the Middle East which every day violates international law, human rights law, and all norms of human decency in its treatment of 4 million human beings, have the gall to call themselves anti-racist.

As for this continual rolling out of the Hamas Charter, don’t you think that a people who’ve suffered the barbarism of ethnic cleansing, colonisation, occupation, apartheid, immiseration, and so on, might, just might, adopt some less than savoury attitudes towards their oppressors?

I disagree with their Charter, but this isn’t the issue. Hamas are not administering a concentration camp in Gaza, the Israeli government is.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
pregethwr,

that’s Seymour’s spin, who has dropped saying BNP voters are not working class for now saying they were not Labour. The poll doesn’t quite confirm this though. My reading of it is they were once Labour or at least should be voting Labour given they are from Labour voting families in (formerly) Labour areas. That they have followed the rest of the country in prefering Cameron to Brown as PM isn’t that surprising though.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
You guys have won the fucking BNP even more sympathy and votes! Can’t you see that? Do you actually even care?

Comment by Meir — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
#41

sincerely felt as your views on hamas may be “Smell the Coffee”, they are hardly original, and indeed there is an entire website set up for people who obsessionally cannot think about anything else: http://www.hurryupharry.org/

May I suggest that if you wish to turn every topic into a discussion about hamas, that you do so there instead of here.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Smell The Coffee#41 - I’ve just been reading all about a certain Mr Jabotinsky and the so-called Revisionists within the Zionist movement.

Let’s see now - black shirts, leather boots, and straight arm salutes.

All in service to a religiously and ethnically-pure state.

Charming.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Griffin is now recieving rather sympathetic coverage on the BBC: ‘political mob attacks elected politician, political violence should be unacceptable in a democracy, etc.’ Check the BBC website. All too predictable.

The logic of Griffin setting himself up as victim is now apparent. He’s arguing that the mainstream political supporters of the UAF should distance themselves from mob attacks on elected MEPs.

Against all the odds, a stupendous own goal by UAF.

Comment by JB Malone — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
John Wight started it (#7)

(by invading Poland)

Comment by David T — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Ed - I know Richard Seymour is fond of using a pseudonym, but Anthony Wells is someone else entirely.

Comment by Phil — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
John Wight

The difference is only one of scale. Your letter to the BBC invoked the principle of respecting an electorate’s democratic choice. That principle applies equally two one elected representative or a whole government of them. You can’t pick and choose. Or at least you can’t pick and choose and then call yourself consistent. That’s the whole point about principles - you are supposed to apply them equally.

Comment by Dave Rich — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
“equally to”, not “equally two”, obviously.

Comment by Dave Rich — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Thankfully you lot were not around in cable street in 1936, can you picture it? “no, lets just let them walk through, otherwise we would just be giving publciity to the black shirts”

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
49, didn’t say he was Seymour. It just looked like he has taken the slant from reading Seymour’s analysis. Seymour has this thing about claiming the BNP do not target Labour voters therefore Labour doesn’t have to deal with any of the issues to do with that, or something like this. He has a romantic view about these things.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Patrick G,

If the ANC advocated suicide bombing against the fascist regime they faced, would they have then become themselves fascist? Would that have negated the honourable nature of their movement?

Is it the suicide bit that is the problem, or the murder of innocents? If Hamas and Co left bombs Omagh-style in the street and buildings and buses would that be a more desirable form of terrorism?

After all, Israel’s and now Obama’s policy is that any violence against the occupation itself, including against that directed against Israel’s military, is, by definition, terrorism. And for decades Palestinians barely raised their heads against the occupation, and the colonisation continued apace. So much for non-violence: Palestinians have seen what non-violent resistance achieves. And they’ve seen where Hezbollah-style violent resistance achieves.

What should the Palestinians do if non-violent resistance does not work? As for fascism, have a look at Israel’s foreign minister: he advocates the drowning of Palestinians and an oath to an apartheid-style state (Israel as a Jewish state, not a state of its citizens). Imagine if here in the UK there was advocacy for an oath to a Christain UK, or a white UK, etc?

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
OK Andy, point taken - a final comment on John Wight’s defence of racism and then I shall leave the subject.

Wight says that Hamas’ racism is justified or understandable as they have suffered at the hands of Israel’s occupation.

Two points

1. Large numbers of Palestinians have suffered at the hands of Israel and are not racists and do not see organised racism as a solution. But Hamas do. John Wight supports those who have chosen racism not those who seek a peaceful solution.

2. (And this is where it is relevant to the discussion on the BNP Andy) - I personally know a white victim of a racial attack in England. He was beaten up randomly on the street by a gang of youths of Pakistani origin. According to your logic he “might, just might, adopt some less than savoury attitudes” towards the ethnic group who beat him up in a dark side street for no reason. Right?

Guess what. That guy doesn’t vote BNP, he doesn’t hate Pakistanis or black people.

According to your logic he should.

That’s why you aren’t an anti-racist.

Comment by Smell the Coffee — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
I agree with no platform for nazis, but Sky bloody news control platforms. As many have said - he now looks like a fucking hero and has had cosy air time in studios, with egg stains on his jacket but the yolk is on us I’m afraid.

Stop them organising yes
Counter with grassroots building
But don’t think stopping him from speaking on the streets will take him off TV.

Comment by sue manchester — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
46 - “I’ve just been reading all about a certain Mr Jabotinsky and the so-called Revisionists within the Zionist movement.

Let’s see now - black shirts, leather boots, and straight arm salutes.”

Well then you also read about the Altalena? RIGHT???? And how the Socialists erased revisionist politics from Israel for nearly 40 years. RIGHT????? And the establishment of Communist communes and kibbutzes where Lenin, Marx and Trotsky were their gods…right????

Finally, the only straight arm salutes, leather boots and clerical-fascists you’ll find today are sported by Hamas and Hezbollah - open admirers of Hitlerism and Holocaust deniers - the allies of the extreme left and morally corrupt SWP. These today are the friends of the SWP.

How many candidates did the SWP field to combat the BNP? Where was the grass roots campaign to champion socialist values and workers rights?

The SWP is nothing. Shameless and shameful - egg-pelting? Fuck off. Sheer amateur lunacy.

Comment by Meir — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
#55 cant you just deal with what JW says instead of attributing comments to him that he didnt make? That was the point where you lost the argument.

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
52. Jim Monaghan or more recent history, Kingston Halls Glasgow. Have these detractors any fire in their bellies

Comment by sychohohohophantic larry — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Bizarre

You would have thought we could all agree that Nick Griffin, a convicted holcaust denier, friend of the Italian terrorist Fiore, and all round bad egg is the enemy.

But, no, according to the Zionists who have come over here from Harry’s Place, the SWP are as bad as the BNP, and JOhn Wight is as bad as Nick Griffin.

You lot really have lost it.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
Being interviewed by the TV is very difficult and it is hard to come across well particularly for working class people beng patronised by polished media types, but I think UAF needed to be better prepared for the inevitable press reaction that they were here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091727.stm

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
Andy

Given that John Wight was the first to introduce Zionism to this thread in comment #7 - “I stand four square with the SWP against the BNP and against Zionism” - I think your anger is misplaced. His comment is a perfect demonstration of why the mainstream Jews will have nothing to do with his sort of anti-fascist. It is bizarre that the only people who have bought Griffin’s lies about the BNP no longer being antisemitic are anti-Zionists who fantasise about Nazi-Zionist alliances, past and present.

Comment by Dave Rich — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
#62

I am sure you can make that point over at the thread on Harry’s place to thunderous acclaim, but not here please.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
Well, Zionist politics are very strange. Real fascists pale into insignificance compared to those horrifying ‘anti-semites’ who argue that Israel should be subjected to international law and censured for its ethnic cleansing and wholesale slaughter of captive populations.

Mind you, the idea of the SWP setting the parameters of social discourse is pretty horrifying!

Comment by JB Malone — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
Now might be a bad time to point out that it was only the ‘Zionist” Searchlight that ran a proper campaign against the BNP.

What did the SWP do again? Oh yeah, put on a pop concert with a heroin addict, and stood in the street holding placards, shouting at passers by

Comment by David T — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
And so it goes on.

The anti-fascist left can’t orgaaize anything more effective than an egg throwing jamboree as a result of infighting and bickering.

Meanwhile, Griffin will laughing all the way to Strasbourg/ Brussels via Savile Row to pick up a new suit.

Comment by Eck — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
Funny, all this attention on the Hamas charter, but tens of thousands of Beitar Jerusalam FC fans chanting “there is only one baruch Goldstein” every time an Arab player touches the ball passes without comment.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Just saw Martin Smith interviewed on C4

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
#65 David T - how generous of you to acknowledge the contribution of others in the fight against fascism. Bravo!

Comment by skidmarx — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
He sounded like Donald Rumsfeld.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
This raises all sorts of questions. Should we set up a Guantanamo bay for the BNP?

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Well done to all those who had the guts to trash the fascist scum. All those comrades here who are trembling in their pyjamas as to this will give BNP more air time present their arguments under the implict premise that somehow if we don’t raise the question that WHY a million brits voted for this bunch of Nazis it will answer itself.

We need to get our house sorted and face this menace headlong like the good communist/socialist/anarchist of the old.

Comment by PakPunk — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
Well done to the UAF and all who took part. There must be no platform for the BNP nazi scum anywhere in the UK. And yes we should ofcourse back this up with campaigning door to door in areas that have voted for the BNP for progressive socialist policies and anti racism - the two actions go arm in arm they are not separate one from another.

BBC video of this peaceful deomocratic anti racist action below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm

Comment by Red — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
John Cruddas, in a particuarly scabby attack, has faield to support the attack on Griffin today

Searchlight muppet.

Comment by JimPage — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
just watched CH4 news and the soothsayers were wrong, Griffin got no extra coverage and no platform yet Weyman Bennet and Martin Smith were both interviewed and were able to put the case against Griffin, well done!

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Looks like the BNP are here to stay…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8092235.stm

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
#65 why is a concert by an addict worth less than another concert, why would a singers addiction be relevant to this debate?

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
just watched CH4 news and the soothsayers were wrong, Griffin got no extra coverage and no platform yet Weyman Bennet and Martin Smith were both interviewed and were able to put the case against Griffin, well done!

But his argument was that they are a special type of human being that deserve no free speech or human rights, and that they want to kill our children so we need to use force against theml. This is precisely the argument the same people have been condemning in relation to terror suspects and Islamists for many years. I didn’t think he had thought this through. It raised endless questions.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
But the criticism of the action was that it would give more coverage to Griffin, it didnt!

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
#77. Because he may be forced to sell his virtue to a fascist bravo to fund his habit. The filthy beast.

Comment by JB Malone — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
81, who are you kidding?

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
But he has had LOADS of time on Sky bollox news- and read the hysterical comments page that shows how people who watch Sky seem to fear the left more than the fucking Nazis. How can we say no platform to Nazis when we do not control the media? Yep and Griffin quoting Cruddas who has JUST MADE Nazis look like they are mainstream.
UAF may have publicity, but people watch Griffin bit for shock of Nazi on TV crap. He will be on fucking GMTV next.

Comment by sue manchester — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
I do find Griffin’s obvious fear in the photo interesting. It is a little hard to imagine Hitler, Mosley or Joyce being upset by a few eggs.

Comment by Faust — 9 June, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
#83, Not me. You’re right. If you accept universal standards of human rights you’re obliged to be consistent. You can’t argue that your standards should’nt apply to those who refuse to accept them (Islamists, Zionists, fundamentalists, BNP, stalinists, etc).

Afte all, nobody suggests that membership of the BNP should lead to arbitary imprisonment, torture, suspension of due process or summary execution. If we start accepting that some groups lack human or civil status because of their inhuman commitments then we’re on the road to a fascist future.

Comment by JB Malone — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
#59 I was arrested at Kingston Halls as were around 100 others. Unfortunately I was not one of the many who jumped out an open window in the police station and returned to the demo. In the end the police comondeered a corporation bus and took the fascists for their safety to Central Station and their train.

Comment by Solidarity — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
#87

Surely there is a middle ground where agree that we don’t imprison or torture someone, but still don’t see the need to inteview them on Channel Four News?

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Nope Andy, literally the only two options for political action. It’s John Snow or the Rack…

Comment by NUSer — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
I agree, Andy. But we can’t simply pick and choose which civil liberties we accord to particular groups.

Comment by JB Malone — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
#91

But being interviewed on Channel 4 news is not a civil liberty, it is privilege afforded to people by the exercsie of editorial discretion by the Channel 4 news team

If you remove the editorial discretion of a broadcaster and require them to interview a BNp meber, your are interfering in the freedom of the press.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
I was very pleased to see Griffin and Brons get chased off today. The labour movement must try and “no platform” the BNP as often as possible now. Of course they are going to get coverage as a result of us doing this. So what? They are going to get plenty of coverage anyway now they have two MEP’s elected. So regardless of what the media does, we need to put them on the defensive wherever we can. Griffin looked like he was shitting himself today and millions of people will see it - not very “master race” was it?

I don’t think that us worrying about how “public opinion” will perceive the left is particularly helpful either. Our task is just to build anti-fascist organisation(s) that is/are capable of keeping the Nazis off the streets, full stop. If we are successful then our activity can also contribute significantly to the re-building of the left in this part of the world. Today was a good day, in my opinion.

Comment by Stockwell Pete — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
The UAF spokesperson interviewed by the BBC, Donna Guthries, was embarassingly ill-prepared, and the BBC reporter ran rings round her.

If a political organisation resorts to direct action, surely it has the duty to explain its actions clearly. It would help if people like Guthrie, rather than repeating the word “fascist” as if it were a mantra, could explain that Griffin and Bron are allies of the people our parents or grandparents fought against in World War II.

The BNP are trying to hijack patriotism and distort Britiah history, and the left should be setting the record straight.

How to respond to fascist provocation is a tactical question - and it seems to me that throwing eggs at Griffin is rather bad tactics. A large, disciplined demonstration, with properly briefed spokespersons, would have been a much better option.

The question raised by Tawfiq Charboune (no. 14) remains relevant and unanswered: “And let us suppose anyone even ever got close to Griffin, what would they do? Beat him up? Break his legs? Put him in a wheechair? Rip out his throat? And what happens when one of our own gets caught up in a fight with Griffin’s stormtroopers? Oh, he or she will have their skull caved in, and for what? Nothing!”

For decades the left has urged “No platform for fascists”, but this ill-conceived adventure has given Griffin much more of a platform in the media than he would have got from his press conference.

Egg-throwing is a diversion from the tasks that must now be faced. The two fascist MEPs are now bound to receive invitations to speak at all kinds of bodies - how do we deal with that? We need to follow the example of the postmen who refused to deliver BNP leaflets, and work to reduce the fascist profile. Boycotting fascists is not the same thing as throwing eggs at them.

As for the Middle East - yes, it was Jon Wight who dragged zionism into this discussion. I will merely remark that some of his arguments are spectacularly bad. His defence of Hamas on the grounds that it provides social services for Gazans is just a modern version of the “made the trains run on time” argument.

Comment by paul fauvet — 9 June, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
I agree. Being interviewed on Channel 4 news is not a civil liberty. But the right of Channel 4 and other media to interview islamists, fundamentalists, the BNP or numerous other unpleasant groups certainly is.

Comment by JB Malone — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
#94 “The UAF spokesperson interviewed by the BBC, Donna Guthries, was embarassingly ill-prepared, and the BBC reporter ran rings round her.”

Yes, I heard that. She didn’t do very well, did she?

“And let us suppose anyone even ever got close to Griffin, what would they do? Beat him up? Break his legs? Put him in a wheechair? Rip out his throat?”

Rip out his throat. Is that the right answer?

“We need to follow the example of the postmen who refused to deliver BNP leaflets, and work to reduce the fascist profile.”

Joking aside, yes, I think you are right. Chris C #28 is on the ball too about our tactics in the current period.

Comment by Stockwell Pete — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
Patrick G,

You write “It seems to be that there was quite a lot of resistance to Israel before the creation of Hamas and Hizbullah. Maybe I’m just being naive but I would tend to think that the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 constituted armed resistance.”

Nicely, you leave out 1956 and 1982, but never mind. Well, 1948 is a lot more complicated than people believe. The surrounding Arab states only got involved once it was understood that Jordan and Israel had made a deal to partition much of the Arab world in Israel’s and Jordan’s favour (if memory serves, Israel getting all of Palestine and Jordan getting Syria, at the very least). Avi Shlaim’s “Collusion Across the Jordan” is a source to look at. Ben Gurion and others were very clear that they were accepting the partitioning of Palestine as a stop-gap, nothing more than a PR stunt. The rest of Palestine would be swallowed up in due course. Things did not go quite as planned, but that was the aim.

1967 was a “pre-emptive” Israeli attack on the surrounding Arab states, now known to be complete nonsense, especially given that all the leading political and military figures have said that there was no threat and it was a war of choice. That is, a war of territorial acquisition.

In 1973 Egypt and Syria did not attack Israel. They attacked illegally occupied Egyptian and Syrian territory. After numerous gestures of peace, Egypt invaded after Israel refused to relinquish the Sinai peninsula. Moreover, the huge Jewish-only city that was to be erected in Sinai, called Yamit, was understood to precipitate war. “Yamit means war,” Sadat said more than once. Israel itself understood that war was not a question of if but when. The issue was peace or control of Sinai. Israel made the choice. The Egyptian invasion nearly “wiped Israel off the map”. Hence the peace treaty with Egypt. After the Sinai debacle, the colonisation then switched to the West Bank and Gaza, now the West Bank alone (Hezbollah ended Israel’s dreams of a “Greater Israel” in Lebanon).

In the meantime, the PLO was more than willing to accept a two-state solution on the 1967 borders. Israel was not - otherwise why colonise the West Bank and Gaza? As any military analyst will tell you - and the Israeli military has said it umpteen times - protecting the settlements is indescribably more difficult than merely controlling an occupied territory, in order to protect Israel proper. Throughout this time, Israel’s major parties did not even recognise that there was such a people as the Palestinians.

You asked, “Lastly can you tell me exactly what you think Hezbollah has achieved?” First, Hezbollah did not even exist until after the Israeli invasion of 1982. In due course, Hezbollah ended the occupation and planned colonisation of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah may not be a pretty organisation, and I may fundamentally abhor their policies, but they achieved a national liberation struggle where no one else could and are genuinely popular amongst the Shia in Lebanon (who make up about 40% of the population). Even amongst their worst Lebanese enemies, they are respected and considered a necessary force to stop Israeli agression along the southern border.

Don’t forget that Hamas is a creation of Israel. I don’t just mean that it is a creation of the mayhem and repression endured by Palestinians, but literally: Israel was involved in the creation of an Islamist power to fight the secular nationalists of the PLO. Again, it didn’t work out quite as Israel planned. You also should remember that the numerous ceasefire agreements (some lasting as long as a year) between Israel and the Islamist movements have always been broken by Israel, eliciting suicide bombings and rocket attacks.

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
This picture of Griffin crapping himself after being hit by AN EGG is absolutely priceless, and - given the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words - should be circulated as widely as possible. A magical moment depicting Der Fuhrer’s indomitable courage…NOT!!!!!

Comment by Deckchair Socialist — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Great work. This shows the wider public the BNP are strongly opposed. Exactly what is required at this point. People who might feel ’sympathetic’ to Griffin need to understand he will be opposed; many others will be relieved to see he is. I was.

DavidT, just wondered how your own ‘action’ against the BNP went in Hackney, many takers? Maybe you could enlighten us on how you opposed the BNP that day.

Patrickg “by any reasonable standard, changed dramatically and unsettlingly for them in the last 30 years.”

Go on…What “unsettling” changes did you have in mind?

Comment by BenP — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Hamas were used to break up strikes on the West Bank, attack secularists in the PLO, etc. They were Israel’s creation. Admittedly, they’ve long been out of control, but Mr Chahboune is right.

Comment by JB Malone — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
#57 & 86 This person was actually more coherent than the UAF spokeswoman from the PCS interviewed by Eddie Mair on Radio 4 tonight, and a lot of people listen to that too.

She kept not answering his question about the eggs, and just repeated that the BNP were a fascist organisation etc over and over again, to which he kept returning to his question to make her look silly. Aside from the point that these media people are very skillfull in this I thought there is also a political problem too, in that UAF people do not seem much used to talking to people in proper conversations about the BNP, just repeating slogans to the converted. We do need to up our game in this.

On another point this site is really spoiled for me by the stupid slanging matches that go on, is that just me?

Comment by Danny — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Danny

“On another point this site is really spoiled for me by the stupid slanging matches that go on, is that just me?”

Unforunately, if you give people a platform they don’t always use it as you might wish.

I try to be very tolerant, and people sometimes abuse that tolernace; but if I were more restrictive then what good debate happens here would be inhibited as well.

it is a difficult balancing act, and I am sure it could be improved upon.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
I agree with deckchair. It’s a great pic and it was a great initiative. Let’s ridicule and hound the Fuhrer and Brons to the end. The grassoots political work can go on simultaneously.

Comment by John — 9 June, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Ed D, On Blair’s intervention to finish the genocide of East Timorese by Indonesia, you write: “You’re comparing the complex actions of a state with it’s competing geopolitical interests, with someone campaigning for a certain cause. Not really the same thing.”

First, at least you accept that Blair did intervene on Indonesia’s side in its genocide of East Timorese, but then you defend this conscious choice of aiding genocide. That’s pretty honest of you. Hitler could have made the same argument about “complex actions of a state” and “competing geopolitical interests”, as could every monster in history. But Blair didn’t have to intervene to support Indonesia’s genocide in East Timor, did he? No one put a gun to his head. He did it willingly and consciously. It was, after all, by then known to be a last gasp at a failed colonisation. It was in the UK’s geopolitical interest not to support Indonesia because it was clear that it could no longer achieve its aims. Blair, however, thought a bit more genocide might do the trick.

Ed D: “As it happens Blair supported the peace keeping mission to east Timore. I doubt you did.”

No, Ed D, this is complete nonsense. Blair supported the genocide in East Timor. When it failed, he changed sides. Not quite the same thing at all, is it? My position was simple: I supported whatever the East Timorese supported, even if I disagreed with their choices.

Meanwhile, and I hope I haven’t got your position wrong here, you defend Blair’s support of the genocide of the East Timorese. If not, I can’t imagine why you’ve taken the trouble to write all the stuff above in defence of Blair, since your arguments are the ones that can be encountered every day at the Hague.

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
Paul Fauvet #86 - Yes, and I brought it up in response to David T taking a swipe at the SWP for their participation in today’s action, which again I state was in my view exemplary.

As for your amzingly asinine and ignorant comment re Hamas, this constant attempt to conflate Hamas with European fascism is as despicable as it is ludicrous. It’s part of the Zionist narrative which has always attempted to paint any and all resistance to their settler colonial project as driven by antisemitism - a classic case of blame the victim.

May I remind you - collective punishment, torture, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, ghettoisation - these tactics were all employed by fascists against the Jews of Europe. They are now being employed by the State of Israel against the Palestinians.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
“collective punishment, torture, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, ghettoisation - these tactics were all employed by fascists against the Jews of Europe. They are now being employed by the State of Israel against the Palestinians.”

Light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance ….

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
“And so it goes on.

The anti-fascist left can’t orgaaize anything more effective than an egg throwing jamboree as a result of infighting and bickering.

Meanwhile, Griffin will laughing”

well, it got the fascists off the streets and stopped them holding a press conference which is excellent

..to me it looked like UAF had organised an antifa protest round the corner, which said “NO - the fkn fascists are just around the corner let’s go there!” so they went, and the fascists were chased off the streets!

Comment by Steve R — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
One eyed fascists being egged in London, and John starts waxing lyrical about Egged buses being bombed!

Is this how your mind works, John?

Comment by Oi Vey — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
‘Well done’ to those who break the law in their anti-democratic behavior ?

What nonsense.

Comment by John — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Martin Smith is about to be interviewed by Paxman on Newsnight. I must say I’m decidedly unimpressed by his attire. He’s on national television. The least he could have done was put on a suit.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Objecting to a fascist being hit with eggs?

Wow, we’ve got some real morons on this site.

Griffin got off easy. What was it about fascists and pavement that Trotsky said?

Comment by DJN — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Anyone notice that the video now on the BBC site is approx 30 secs shorter than the original one?

The last 30 secs of the original shows the anti-fascist demonstrators celebrating.

The photo of Griffin is brilliant.

Comment by anticapitalista — 9 June, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Martin Smith put some good points across. But again, we have to get our act together. He looked like an extra from Quadrophenia. When the left is given a rare opportunity to appear on national television, its representatives have to look the part. Sad, maybe, but that’s the world we live in.

As Oscar Wilde said: ‘It’s a world of surfaces.’

Smarten up!

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
This is what I love to see, British democracy in action.

Thanks muchly John Wight.

If you can stand the sight of another image of the great future war leader of Britian evacuating his bowels in public, try here -
BNP leader pelted in egg protest
see post by Kebz
Media Lens Messege Board

Do not adjust your browsers, Nick Griffin does actually look like this.

One of the reasons fascism and nazism didn’t catch on in Britian was because kicking the shit of the blackshirts was a very popular past-time, especially if they showed their stupid mugs in public.

Comment by joe90kane — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Joe90 - We are in agreement.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
ha ha…liked the Quadrophenia comparison John.

Paxman..”but haven’t you given the BNP more publicity?”

Smith…”don’t worry…i ain’t gonna turn into a fakin pumpkin am I!”

Comment by unity - you know it makes sense — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
I know Griffin look startled - maybe he thought it was worse, e.g. red paint, which is a real stinker to clean up.
I always think eggs and flour are a bit timid.
But Griffin always seems a bit of a hard case to me. The sort that if pushed, is capable of being quite nasty.
Didn’t he used to be a boxer? The trouble is, if he did punched Weyman Bennet, there would probably be street parties in East London. In the current political climate, the BNP are on a roll and all we can come up with is the usual infantile disorder.

Comment by Alan Sharples — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
Ed D, this is complete nonsense. Blair supported the genocide in East Timor.

I’ve never seen anyone make this childish claim before. Presemably you’re refering to the arms thing, which was investigated.

My position was simple: I supported whatever the East Timorese supported, even if I disagreed with their choices.

I was right.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Again unfortunate to see Martin Smith making the same silly arguments as a right wing neocon on newsnight. Indeed, one of their main arguments is that Obama can’t talk to Iran because of holocaust denial.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Simon Hughs took the words right out of my mouth. There is no point whining after the election, the trick is not to self indulgently waste your vote before it happens. That’s the key to stopping fascists.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
#111 “Martin Smith making the same silly arguments as a right wing neocon on newsnight”

Was the neo-con dressed like he was out for a night at the dog track too?

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
I’ve always suspected the motives of people who love to shout the loudest about something. In this case they’re the same people who have used the most extreme propaganda against the mainstream parties, particularly against Labour, playing into the hands of the fascists.

It’s not also hard to detect some excitement about the BNP’s election, with some people on the far left thinking they can use it as a rallying point to start they’re own party. It’s selfiness really.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Was the neo-con dressed like he was out for a night at the dog track too?

Yes, and he refused to either look at Paxman or Hughes for most of the interview, which was strange.

Comment by Ed D — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
Why is there a culture within the SWP of dressing like nobody else does?

It’s always baffled me that.

Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
‘After all if David T was really concerned why doesn’t stop pandering to their prejudices and stop publicising Islamaphobic filth that he churns out over at Harrys Place.’ Yes it is a cess pit and he its Ring Master.

On tonights action I feel it was counter productive in PR terms and if anyone was thinking of ‘beating the fascists off the street’ I doubt the BNP were very scared given the levels of state security at Westminister. No doubt those there felt better for it but that is the only benefit I see.

Comment by Christy — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
Ed D,

I wrote “This is complete nonsense. Blair supported the genocide in East Timor.”

You replied “I’ve never seen anyone make this childish claim before. Presemably you’re refering to the arms thing, which was investigated.”

OK, and what was the result of the investigation? The arming of Indonesia while it was conducting genocide. Now, if arming a genocidal power while it is carrying out genocide is not supporting genocide, then I don’t know what is. Presumably, you’d say it was just business. I prefer to call it what it is: supporting genocide. Since you find it difficult to understand the situation in East Timor. I’ll make it simple by using another example: Would you agree that anyone who supplied the Nazis with Zyklon B during the Holocaust, knowing what they knew about the Nazis, should be condemned of supporting genocide? I can just imagine the response from the Zyklon B sellers, “Presumably you’re referring to the pesticide thing?”

I wrote “My position was simple: I supported whatever the East Timorese supported, even if I disagreed with their choices.”

You replied: “I was right”. That is to say, that you were right in saying that I did not support the East Timorese! By supporting them I was actually not supporting them! Ed D, even by your own tortured logic, this is really something.

Why don’t you just accept that Blair’s policy was to aid Indonesia’s genocide in East Timor? Your position is yes, Blair intervened to aide Indonesia’s military, which just happened to be massacring every biped on East Timor, and the military aid would certainly end up being used on innocent East Timorese, but that does not mean he supported the genocide itself, though he intervened to aid that very outcome! Again, very tortured logic.

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Sign this petition or else we will send Nick Griffin round to your house and you’ll be next -
Nick Griffin: Not In My Name
The BNP has won seats in the European Parliament - but they do not represent Britian
Sign our petition - show that you stand against racism and division

Talking of image, isn’t it ironic that Nick Griffin looks like a griffin - in fact, in these images, he lokks like one that’s trying to shit a hedgehog.

‘Nick’ is also another name for the devil in Scots vernacular.

I don’t mind demonising dregs, such as the bnp, because they are not about politics, democracy or building a decent society - they are the opposite of all three - they are the antichrist in fact. As I have just proven by uncovering the hidden meanings in the name of their leader, The Beast Griffin, who goes by the diabolical name of ‘Nick’.

Eggs won’t do, try a stake next time.

Comment by joe90kane — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
“Griffin looked like he was ****ing himself today and millions of people will see it - not very “master race” was it?”

I think you need to try and draw a distinction between the BNPs voters and potential voters, and the BNP leadership. This may involve not actually swallowing your own publicity. While there may well be BNP leadership and some activists with ‘master race’ fantasies, this isn’t what’s driving the BNP voters.

If you think 900,000-odd people voted BNP because they thought Griffin was some kind of Nietzschean superman, you’re madder than he is.

The BNP may have many idiotic ideas. They may also have some very nasty ones at the heart of their ideology and among their senior people.

But that isn’t why people are voting for them. The native Brits haven’t suddenly become swivel-eyed types with obsessions about black IQ, Jewish conspiracies and the other things that make a BNP ideologues eyes light up. The English don’t do fascism. They just don’t want to be a minority in their own country. Any more than the Arabs of what was then Palestine wanted to be a minority after 1945.

Comment by Laban Tall — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
Laban Tall mate,
why do you think Gemran voters voted for the nazis in inter-war Germany?

It wasn’t because of Hitler’s master race ideology either.
Hitler also left out all references to antisemitism in his public speeches 1930-33 in his run up to being handed the Chancellorship.

They just don’t want to be a minority in their own country. Any more than the Arabs of what was then Palestine wanted to be a minority after 1945.
- There is no chance the English will become a minority, whoever the English are though, you haven’t defined.

The English don’t do fascism.
- You sound like you do though.

Comment by joe90kane — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:01 am
“The English don’t do fascism.”

Oswald Mosley? Wyndham Lewis? Henry Williamson?

They were quite convincing fascists, no?

Comment by Andy Newman — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:05 am
>> Why don’t you just accept that Blair’s policy was to aid Indonesia’s genocide in East Timor?

I don’t think even John Pilger could claim with a straight face that in the two years between Blair becoming PM and the departure of the Suhartoists (mebbe plus three years when he was party leader) that he aided the occupation which commenced in 1975.

Comment by Oi Vey — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:08 am
123, Tawfiq is on his own little planet.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:36 am
Oi Vey,

Now I never said that Blair was at fault for Indonesia’s original invasion of East Timor, did I? I simply stated a fact: Blair intervened to aid Indonesia in East Timor. Is that correct or incorrect? Ed D is making excuses for Blair’s aid to Indonesia.

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:36 am
There is a panel that approves arms exports. The rules were tigtened up after it was brought to light that some equipment was getting through. To say that Blair personally aided a genocide is absurdist. Britain supported the UN mandated troops in East Timor, against people like yourself who were play political games with the issue.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:02 am
What is the point of this?

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:05 am
Ed D, “123, Tawfiq is on his own little planet”. Not me, sorry. Since your beef with me seems to be my recognition that the UK armed Indonesia during its genocide of East Timorese (a well known fact), that is preumably why I reside on some unknown “little planet”.

I suggest you join us Earthlings, Ed D, and accept that Tony Blair was not the hero you think he is. I suggest you also stop watching “The West Wing”, since that is presumably how you think the world works: good liberals trying to make the world that little bit better but frustrated at every turn by baddies.

Ed D, “There is a panel that approves arms exports”. You still need an export licence from the UK government. And why would anyone give an export licence to a dictatorial regime massacring tens of thousands of East Timorese? Because they wouldn’t use them? Ed D, stop while you’re behind. Your defence for the arming of a genocidal dictatorship are getting more and more absurd.

The great Nick Cohen of yesteryear did an excellent job, calling Labour a “quartermaster to tyranny in East Timor” and that “No government likes to tell its citizens that a large part of the human race has good reason to hate them.” Quite so, Nick. See the following link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1999/sep/05/ethicalforeignpolicy.indonesia

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:45 am
Thanks, Tawfiq. I’ve just discovered that Tony Blair is a very, very bad man.

I’ve never watched an episode of the west wing in my life.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 3:25 am
Funny how Cohen disagrees with us though.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 3:26 am
Ed D, stop while you’re behind. Your defence for the arming of a genocidal dictatorship are getting more and more absurd.

As I said from the beginning, it was unfortunate that one company was waved through the foreign office, but this was investigated and the process tightened up, and Britain was only too happy to support the people of East Timor.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 3:32 am
Without any shadow of a doubt this has been an own goal for UAF but it reflects on the wider movement against the BNP of which they are a fringe. It is also telling that this is all that they are capable of through the campaign against the BNP which started when Hope Not Hate kicked it off three and more months ago.

All this was was an attempt to kickstart an organisation dead in the water. Everyone I have spoken to last night from wherever in the political spectrum thinks that it has handed the BNP favourable publicity.

What has to be understood is that Griffin has changed the whole nature of the game when he became chair of the BNP back in the late 90s. He is old enough to remember how provocative street marches which were always attacked linked the NF to violence in the minds of the public and it was the violence, amongst other things, which led the Tory contingent of the NF to head back to the conservatives which was what really defeated the NF, not the ANL.

Watching the whole thing yesterday afternoon gave me a real sense of deja vu. All of a sudden it was thirty years ago but unfortunately for UAF times have changed. I saw about twenty hyped up adolescents jostling to get in front of the cameras probably thinking they had just gone through some sort of process akin to the defense of Madrid.

All through the campaign where were UAF? They have been conspicious by their absence and at the end of the day they pull a stunt like this comparable to their ridiculous march through the West End last year to demand that Barnbrook be thrown off the London Assembly. Something which was impossible legally and which they had done nothing to prevent by refusing to campaign against the BNP.

I agree that Donna Guthrie came across badly as did Weyman Bennett. Martin Smith looked and sounded like a thug. They are has beens but their stupid antics will reflect on all of us.

Comment by terryfitz — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:33 am
wondered when terryshit would turn up to piss on everyone’s chips. all through the campaign UAF have been busy as fuck terry. and before you start, maybe not in hackney but in other parts of the country (it’s not the centre of the world). must be a funny place, hackney, because everyone i’ve spoken to whether ‘on the left’ or not thinks it’s brilliant. maybe you were in the wrong pub.

Comment by mardy oldman — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:34 am
loving all the condemnation of martin smith’s style. oh shit, he wears clothes like most ordinary people, what a fuckin disgrace - does he not KNOW where he IS?! get a suit on him!

Comment by marcus — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:44 am
marcus #135 - I don’t know how it is where you live, but where I live you don’t generally see men in their 40s walking around wearing Fred Perry T-shirts buttoned up to the neck.

I thought he was having a laugh.

Comment by John Wight — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:57 am
having just watched the newsnight interview, i don’t think he looked as weird as he would in a suit and i thought that, aside from his claim that the BNP are ‘counterrevolutionary fascists’ (which i actually agree with but newsnight isn’t the place for it) and his failure to mention ‘no platform’ specifically, he did quite a good job. better than i could have done in that situation - i’d be bricking it, as, if they were honest about it, would virtually everyone here.

Comment by quilty — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:08 am
Well even the odious Sun had the headline Good Egg Hits Bad Egg so it doesn’t seem that it has been that counter-productive. Indeed most people I have spoken to (not card-carrying politicos but with leftish sympathies) have said that it was great that there was a protest against them.

Hysterical stuff from David T as normal. He says J Wight “started it” at comment 7 but in comment 5 he ludicrously writes “We won’t defeat fascism until we defeat the SWP.”

I stand to be corrected but for the last few years the main anti-fascist activity in the Borough of Greenwich has been organised by UAF.

Comment by Matthew Stiles — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:21 am
john - i live in a north west ex-cotton mill town, and see people like that every day.

Comment by marcus — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Mardy Oldman,

Where have you sprung from? I agree Hackney isn’t the centre of the world, what about Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge. Epping Forset wher almost a quarter of the BNP councillors are. Not a show from UAF.
Interesting post from the SWP aove. I assume they are running out of money to pay their full timers and there is now an attempt to get another financial scam going called what?

There is a unified anti BNP movement called Hope Not Hate, get involved. Mr Rosen, you have gone very quiet. Not like a poet atall is it?

Comment by terryfitz — 10 June, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Don’t know Terry, I live in the Midlands. I’ve seen these allegations (of SWP siphoning money off other projects and putting it into the party coffers) from you before. Care to back up those allegations of serious criminal activity and moral decrepitude with some facts? Thought not.

As it goes, while my main focus has been UAF stuff, I’ve helped out with HnH stuff here too. Anti-fascist work is anti-fascist work, as (I think) your dear friend Gerry Gable once said.

Comment by Mardy Oldman — 10 June, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Even the Sun wants Griffin scrambled
http://www.thesun.co.uk:80/sol/homepage/news/2472570/BNP-racists-flee-Commons-protesters.html

SHELL-SHOCKED Nick Griffin turned tail and scrambled off yesterday after being splattered with eggs outside Parliament.
The cowardly BNP leader had hoped to revel in his racist party’s Euro poll wins at a triumphant press conference. Instead the yolk-speckled chicken showed his yellow streak when he was sent packing by anti-fascist protesters.
Griffin, newly-elected MEP for North West England, had just begun spouting off on Westminster’s historic College Green.
Dozens of demonstrators surrounded him and his shaven-headed cronies, and drowned him out with chants of “Nazi scum off our streets”.

Griffin and cohort Andrew Brons, the BNP’s other new MEP, beat a hasty retreat under a hail of eggs - some daubed with swastikas.
A phalanx of burly “minders” cleared his escape route by shoving placard-waving protesters and passers-by out of the way.
A slightly-built woman in a red jacket was elbowed in the neck and sent sprawling.
Shaken Griffin and Brons were bundled across the road and into a silver Ford Mondeo. The car then sped off - to a chorus of cheers.

Comment by Gruff — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Yurdumuzun fasist dolmus
Vurun kardesler vurun

(”Our homeland is full of fascists,
hit them, brothers, hit them”)

(From anti-fascist song, Turkey)

Comment by Kahrolsun Fasizm — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Gruff, yes the right wing papers tend to make an effort to do that so people know that they’re against the BNP, because it wouldn’t always be clear otherwise. The Sun and the Express in particular have been running campaigns against the BNP and were named by Griffin.

To my mind it’s almost part of the problem when the press always gives the precise same reaction to these mobs, flying in the face of public opinion. It plays into the BNP propaganda that their is a conspiracy against them in the media. Many will ask why the football thugs who protested against abhorant Islamists the other week were condemned (rightly of course) but they can’t ever point out that it’s wrong for mobs to run amok in this circumstance.

Thankfully Newsnight and C4 news stepped up to the plate.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
I don’t think the Sun is really interested in stopping the BNP. They’re not in that game.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
The UAF did virtually all the anti fascist work in Leeds loads of people involved, 10s of 1000s of leaflets given out, many different communities and organisations involved. hope not hate were invisible they made a false claim to have given out 100,000 leaflets I don’t know anyone who received one . The get the bulk of the money from unions and I don’t know what they do with it. Nothing has been organised by them since the election of a fascist in our area. UAF have had two demonstrations in Leeds alone and a regional one will be in the city this saturday

Comment by leeds mick — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Ed D, did you even bother to read Cohen’s piece before claiming that he disagrees with what I wrote?!?

Cohen writes of “British complicity with the slaughters in East Timor” and “of course, our weapons are being used for internal repression - why else would Indonesia, a country without external enemies, want them?”

Cohen adds of Ministers taking the British for gullible fools: “What strikes the reader is the evident expectation of Ministers that they can deny the incontrovertible and get away with it.”

And that “A well-informed Financial Times correspondent reported that Blair was furious” with Robin Cook’s attempt to block any arms sales to Indonesia, but adds in Cook’s favour that “since his [Cook’s] moment of rebellion, the Foreign Secretary has been a good boy. Last year, New Labour rejected a mere 2.4 per cent of applications to sell to Indonesia”, which ran into hundreds of millions of pounds before, during and after the slaughter.

Cohen ends: “The Timorese crisis would be seen as a British story if Ministers, who are either deliberately mendacious or stunningly foolish, were unable to pretend that they were following an ethical foreign policy. Until that happy day, Britain’s business and political leaders will continue to defy received wisdom by having their cake - and eating it too.”

Yep, I can see how all of the above can be taken as a disagreement with my contention that Blair intervened to arm Indonesia during the genocide in East Timor, conscious of the results.

But if you mean that Cohen now sees the folly of his earlier ways and takes it all back, then you’re probably right. But that’s no different from a mathematician saying that he no longer accepts 2 + 2 = 4. He can’t prove this new insight, that there is no evidence for it, but that he just no longer believes what he used to believe.

Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
didn’t say he was Seymour. It just looked like he has taken the slant from reading Seymour’s analysis

Ed, you’re making yourself look ridiculous. Anthony Wells wrote a post analysing the findings of a YouGov survey. Anthony’s UK Polling Report site is a well-respected source of information on UK opinion polls, not a political blog. I don’t know for sure what Anthony’s political views are - if anything, I think he’s a Tory; he’s certainly no Trot. Whatever his beliefs, they certainly don’t bias his site, as you’d know if you’d looked at it before expressing an opinion.

Comment by Phil — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
Ed D, did you even bother to read Cohen’s piece before claiming that he disagrees with what I wrote?!?

No I meant Nick Cohen disagrees with me and you that Tony Blair is a very bad man.

However, even I would accept that Blair did not know or approve of the arms being used in East Timor. I’m sure he was thinking about protecting working class jobs in this country, like over the Saudi thing.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Phil, no I meant the poster had taken Seymour’s spin of the poll, not the guy who wrote the article. The poll and the analysis itself does not support the thesis that these people did not used to be Labour, or are not Labour’s usual type voter before now.

Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
I like “good egg hits bad egg”, that’s a good one from the sun, foul paper that it is…if the right wing press can cheer at what happened, why can’t we?

I have to agree about the people who have been interviewed, I saw the UAF secretary (is it Weyman Bennett?) on BBC breakfast, and he really wasn’t that great, saying that he probably did get out of bed pretty early.

I thought the demo allowed the media a way in to look at the BNP, and they keep talking about them as Nazis, which is good. The C4 interview was pretty good I thought, and I was astounded by that comment that a second generation Asian couldn’t join the BNP, it’s a shame that wasn’t picked up more by the interviewer.

It must had stuck in the throat of every Nazi that nasty Nick was forced to say he didn’t deny the holocaust, and his best friend was Jewish (lol). I was also quite suprised to discover that I wouldn’t be able to join the BNP, I wasn’t planning to btw (!!), and if I thought about it I suppose I would have realised, but I was still taken aback for some reason, I suppose I don’t see Nazis interviewed much so hadn’t spent any time considering it…is it even legal to ban membership on the grounds of race or nationality?

Comment by AC — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
# 95, Im not criticising the moderation, but the indulgence of the people that make useless comments as if this is some sort of sport.

Working on the analogy that in real life you would cross the street to avoid such nonsense I just skip past them to read the useful posts, but it makes the threads harder to read!

Anyway my take on UAF is that their protests in themselves probably dont do any harm, but neither are they very effective in undermining the BNP and dont represent a serious strategy. But most people here know this already

Comment by Danny — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 June, 2009

THE MASTER RACE

152 Comments »

Leave a comment