CLAIRE FOX REPLIES ON “NO PLATFORM”
A few days ago I wrote a response to an article by Claire Fox, from the Institute of Ideas, who had argued in an article for Index on Censorship that the attempting to anathematise the BNP is a form of censorship. This is Claire’s reply to me:
Now that the BNP have had two MEPs elected, those obsessively targeting the far-right group as the greatest threat to democracy are having a field day - much wailing and gnashing and egg throwing. Forget the inconvenient truth that they only won these seats by gaining a greater share of the vote in the wake of Labour’s collapse and received 3000 and 6000 fewer votes compared to the 2004 Euro Elections (in the North West and Yorkshire respectively). Forget the fact that the national increase in their vote share from 4.9% to 6.2% hardly merits the fear-mongering headlines, ‘Not in My Name’ Facebook campaigns, and mainstream political angst forewarning the rise of neo-Nazism. Whatever the hyperbole, this seems a good time to respond to Andy Newman’s reply to my pre-election article for Index about the dangers of liberals sleepwalking into censoriousness whenever the bogeyman of the BNP appears on the political landscape.
So Andy – you claim to want a climate that encourages “vigorous, democratic disagreement”. I couldn’t agree more. But that is precisely why we need to allow those we vigorously disagree with to have a voice in the democratic debate. For the purposes of this article, I will accept that at least some of the BNP voters had sympathy with the party’s views on immigration and race (even though it is more likely that they attracted the disillusioned, anti-political elite protest vote as much as UKIP and the Greens). Surely the best way to deal with these prejudiced views is to have them out in the open and to expose their bigotry and bile for all to see?
It is laughable when you accuse me of “calling for people to self-censor [their] own sincere opposition to fascism”. Oppose away – indeed upholding free speech for those whose views we find abhorrent doesn’t mean allowing objectionable views to go unchallenged. Instead we should go on the attack against every racist speech and against attempts at scapegoating immigrants, whoever delivers those views. But to do so requires unfettered freedom of speech precisely to persuade other people in the public arena that those views are wrong, inaccurate, divisive.
You suggest I am asking immigration minister Phil Woolas to self censor his views. But Woolas approach to the MBNP proves my point. In his article that I quote, he doesn’t argue against the BNP, he simply blusters moral outrage and fear-mongers about fascism on the march. On the substantive political question about immigration, if anything he panders to the BNP’s agenda rather than argues against it. We can declare racism no-go and kick it out of polite political debate, but unless we have won hearts and minds, too often this allows reactionary sentiments to go unchallenged, merely outlawing them to fester under the surface. Meanwhile mainstream immigrant-bashing by our respectable politicians is let off the hook, comparing itself favorably to its more extreme BNP manifestation.
You are right of course that no-one has an obligation to provide a platform for the BNP and you misunderstand completely if you think I’m arguing for their mandatory right to speak whenever and wherever. Elections aside, I have more important foes to take on. However, when my fellow anti-racists make a principle of denying the BNP a platform, too often it just means avoiding their arguments, surely the ultimate act of self-censorship. Now the BNP have won hundreds of thousands of votes, we despair at the gullibility of the electorate. My concern is that No Platform-ers don’t even show electors the coutesy of trying to convince them politically about the merits of their own agenda, refusing even to enter let alon win the battle of ideas. This exhibits a complacent and cowardly reluctance to take on the hard task of trying to win the argument against views dismissed as ‘byond the pale’. Far easier to: ban the debate; refuse to deliver leaflets to appease your conscience; shout “BNP no way - Nick Griffin go away” on demos or that old stand-by, throw eggs.
You explain that censorship is not at stake here at all, but rather the changing “social construction of shared moral and political values” means it is now OK to treat the BNP’s views as “beyond the pale”. But in reality what has been socially constructed is a widely censorious climate in which far too many views are considered as “beyond the pale”. Too many people bite their tongue and walk on eggshells to accommodate the intolerance of a ‘You can’t say that’ society. The “pariah status”, afforded to the BNP in this instance, is a constant threat to anyone who dares offend liberal orthodoxies more generally. Try challenging climate change ‘truths’ or the panic about child protection or indeed no platform for ‘fascists’ and behold chattering class illiberalism in all its glory. Surely even Socialist Unity has views that might be considered offensive, provocative, dangerous, inflammatory or even beyond the pale by those not yet convinced of your glorious programme. I certainly do. Anyone interested in challenging the status quo should be wary when political debate is reduced to the anodyne, thin diet of “only acceptable ideas allowed”.
Aren’t you at all nervous about handing over the permissible parameters of these socially constructed “moral and political values” to the authorities? I found your apologia for companies’ and institutions’ use of “Codes of practice…to prevent bullying and to demand courtesy” most chilling. Today’s workplace relations have become impossibly divisive precisely because such codes are used to silence dissent, stifle controversy, discipline ‘troublemakers’ and victimise trade-unionists, too frequently accused of offensive bullying tactics etc. Let’s imagine what the corporate code of practice response to the “heavy-handed” “bullying” of flying pickets would be.
Isn’t it dangerous to let those in power decide who can speak in public, and who can hear all sides of the argument? (and then pretend that it’s the public’s decision). You seem happy with recourse to the criminal law “in extreme cases”, when viewpoints are “regarded as abhorrent because we judge that promoting those views will lead to social harm”. No wonder this government has got away with draconian incitement and hate-speech legislation in its supposed fight against ‘terrorism’; the ultimate ‘social harm’ in many people’s eyes.
Finally, I am really not that interested in upholding the right of free speech for Nick Griffin and his nasty bunch of anti-immigrant party goons. What is at stake here is the freedom for the rest of us to - the public, the electorate - to hear ALL political views - even those as divisive as race, stupid as well as sensible, reactionary as well as progressive – precisely so that we can make our own minds up and judge for ourselves whether or not to vote for these ideas, ignore them, agree with or argue against them.
It’sworth remembering that Free speech is a two-way communication, the right to speak but also the right of the audience to listen to whatever they want rather than having this dictated to us. This means taking audiences seriously, as our peers and equals, respecting their ability to make autonomous judgements on the most contentious issues, and trusting them to be open-minded enough for you, or me, or anyone to have a chance of changing their minds in a political row. That is the core principle at the heart of political change. You have to win the row. Go on Andy – a challenge – go win some rows.
Well said, about time someone placed opposition to No Platform as part of opposition to ‘liberalism’. BNP voters have to be won away from the BNP with arguement and action, BNP thugs (cadre) have to be physically defeated any time they attempt to intimidate or harrass others. No platform allows the precedent for the state to ban and disbar demo’s and meetings on the grounds of ‘offense, one this is establ;ished it is the left that ulitimately suffers more from these bans.
Comment by non-partisan — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Interesting. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the libertarian case - and I have considerable sympathy with it - the fact remains that the left will be obliged, like it or not, increasingly to engage with BNP-type ideas head on. Elected BNP representatives are now out there, on public platforms (town halls, and now the EU parliament), putting their arguments. Their arguments are unsophisticated and generally pretty stupid, but we do have to be able to demonstrate that, in a calm and rational way.
Comment by Francis King — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
The point is that the BNP are not just a “nasty bunch of anti-immigrant party goons” as Claire says; they are nazis. Hitler was worse than Mussolini, the BNP would be worse than Hitler.
Claire also says that it is right that “… no-one has an obligation to provide a platform for the BNP”. But the ineluctable follow-through of Claire’s abstraction here necessarily means that public bodies, e.g. the BBC, would have an “obligation” to provide the nazis a platform, leading to drip-drip intimidation for thousands of viewers, and violence on the streets.
Comment by OnTheSquare — 10 June, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Overall I think Claire is wrong but makes osme vital political points in the meantime.
We absolutely do need to win the arguments about say immigration and racism to challenge the BNP. People are losing their jobs in the thousands and services are being slashed: the BNP and the rightwing press blame immigrants. We need to show that this is a lie. Immigrants are not sacking people or taking their jobs. But far more than facts- which are useful but hardly sufficient- we need action- supprot for workers defending their jobs, rebuilding working class militancy such as defending Rob Williams and the Linamar strikers. When working class community and workplace campaigns win and when it is trade unionists, including Black and immigrant workers, at the fore of such campaigns then it is much easier to win the arguments.
But to have out these arguments does not at all mean inviting the BNP- rather it means demonstrating against them. They may have for now (laregly) abandoned their tactics of steeet attacks (though it was only eight years ago that an Asian councillors’ house was firebombed in Oldham as the family slept) but they still stand for thuggery, violence and physcal intimidation. If fascists want to march through an area chanting “if you hate the … clap your hands” then local people have a democratic right to stop them- we shouldn’t call on the police or state to do this but the local labour movement and community.
Let’s address issues such as immigration head on and show why immgrants are not to blame, how workers’ unity between Black and white workers, migrant and domestic workers can and has won the day- by all means. But this ahould not include any space for BNP members who use airtime on TV to brand all Muslims as paedophiles and say that Pakistani or Indian origin voters should go to Labour MEPs as he wants to represent ‘my people- the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish’ (as Griffin said on BBC Breakfast the day after he was elected). This is racism and racist hatred- we are not his ‘people’ and we should use workers’ action to demand that these sort of views are not given airtime.
None of this takes away from the urgent necessity to debate racism, immigration and nationalism and for socialsits to win the arguments with working class people tempted to vote UKIP or the BNP. It does mean refusing to debate with Grifin and his like.
Comment by Jason — 10 June, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Is this the Clair Fox formerly of the RCP. I think we should be told.
Comment by terryfitz — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
yes it is,RCP and MI5 too probably.
Comment by Jock McTrousers — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
It’s a powerful response from Clare and, having just watched the embarrassing performance of Martin Smith on Newsnight it is clear that some on the left have forgotten how to make arguments against fascism or the extreme right, thinking it is enough just to be against it, you know, like a really really bad thing! Too much time spent agreeing with each other in pubs and not enough talking to people with heterodox views.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
The Express headline today was “bigot yolked. says its a sad day for democracy. They only accept whites”. It really comes to something when liberals are talking up a non-existent right wing backlash against throwing eggs at those who incite racist murder. This excellent news just in from Manchester. Posted by a comrade in the Tomb comments section:
Griffin tried to hold his press conference in Manchester today after being egged out of Parliament Square where he was set to spew race hate against Muslims - that was what his ‘Press Conference’ would have been about if we had not stopped it
In Manchester he was set to speak at a The Sheridan Suite on Oldham Rd
Fifty UAF protesters were there. We spoke to the owner who said, ‘this conference centre is used by the whole community, we have black white Aisian everybody meets here, we will not let the BNP meet here.’
All the TV and Print media were there. Griffin abandoned his press conference.
He retreated to The Ace of Diamonds Pub, owned by BNP candidiate.
We marched down to their pub. Griffin was hiding inside. A lively and loud UAF picket of the pub kept the BNP Nazis in a car park.
We held a rally outside. Local people joined us. The Lab, Lib Dem Clls for the ward spoke, The Greens, Trades Council pensioners, and a local 15 year old all spoke.
We played Bob Marley on our PA system
With the liberal establishment almost ‘egging us on’ the no platform facts on the ground are growing
UAF, and our egg throwing supporters are defending free speech
Where is the free speech for 6 million Jews? where is the free speech from Stephen Lawrence? All killed by Nazis.
Our militant up front action has made anti fascism THE story from day one of the BNP getting elected
We are the many they are scum
Sergio also makes a good point. You win the argument with people potentially influenced by the BNP. With the BNP you build an organisation to take them on. You do both at once. What you don’t do is treat Nazies as if they are a legitimate part of debate. That precludes the second and neccessary part of any coherent strategy to defeat the BNP.
Comment by johng — 10 June, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Is Clare Fox Melanie Phillips in disguise?
Comment by terry james — 10 June, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
#9
no - melanie phillips used to be a socialist
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Claire has never been frightened to walk the streets where she lives
When the NF were about in the 1970’s black kids walked in fear
In placed I was scared and I am White and Jewish
Those days are gone and we will not go back
When the BNP won a Council seat in London in the early 1990’s , they set up a ‘bookshop’ and there were 5 racist murders in the area.
Stephen Lawrence was murdered. People said enough and we marched at Welling and campaigned and shut it down. Racist murders stopped in the area.
Where is the voice of Stephen Lawrence in your academic debate about No Platform or not?
Where are the voices of the six million Jews gassed.
BNP talk led BNP member David Copelannd to nail bomb Brixton, Bricklane and a gay pub the Admril Duncan
What sort of discusion do you have with people who want to kill you ?
Is there a debate?
Did the Holocaust happen? Or not? Is it up for discussion?
Get real
There is a growing and overwhelming fact emerging in the last 3 days
Anti Fascists protests against Griffin have won widespread support from across the political spectrum, millions of ordinary people are in support. The anti Nazis sentiment is hitting a real chord in society - even if a few on the left have not yet woken up to it
It is not a about debating with the racist BNP or not
The decision is - what to DO about Britain’s Nazis Party the BNP getting elected
Let them grow for 5 years, or stop them growing
Active opposition is needed not blah blah blah they have a point, lets talk about it
Our lives, and our future are at stake
Comment by Mark Krantz — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
#11
But that is all self-satisfied rhetoric Mark
Imagine that you are debating this with someone who doesn’t already agree with No Platform, due to deeply held liberal convictions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Mark is spot on, there is no debate with people whose solution is a gas chamber or “well aimed boots and fists”.
The problem with liberals is they fetishise abstractions such as ‘free speech’. The old chestnut that deliberatley shouting fire in a crowded theatre cannot be justified is a simple enough argument to make, and one which most people would accept.
Comment by SB — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Sorry…’deliberately’
Comment by SB — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
FFS It works like this.Dialectics is mutually exclusive and totally integrated knowledge.The relevant Dialectic here is between rights and priviliges.Human rights however are not equal,some are higher than others,the right to life is obviously higher than the right to speech so when they clash the lower must give way to the higher,so in concrete terms giving the Nazis the right to free speech effectively means the lives of Black people, Asian people, ocialists etc are in danger that is why we say NO PLATFORM FOR NAZI SCUM
Comment by McHegel — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
//You win the argument with people potentially influenced by the BNP. With the BNP you build an organisation to take them on. You do both at once. What you don’t do is treat Nazies as if they are a legitimate part of debate. That precludes the second and neccessary part of any coherent strategy to defeat the BNP.//
Nods head in agreement and puts thumbs up to that.
Comment by Alf G — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
I actually think Mark’s argument does work with liberals. And is increasingly doing so. If you wanted to get technical you could read up on Mill’s harm principle. He sets limits to freedom of speech. And it doesn’t get much more liberal then ‘On liberty’. But lets not get technical. Clare Fox has a political agenda. Thats her privalage. But the kind of libertarian politics she espouses are not representative of the vast majority of people. It is perfectly possible to win an argument about ‘no platform’. And I think, as with many arguments once won, its an argument which needs to be had again.
Comment by johng — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
The BNP wont be driven back by rational debate alone. Fascism is a social force, unleashed by economic and political crisis. If you win one argument one day, it is forgotten by the next, as some people desperately clutch at racist straws. The only answer to the BNP is a working class fightback against job losses, home repossessions and the mounting attacks on workers pension rights. Thats always been the case.
But see how the psychological appeal of fascism can be broken? Now Nick Griffin can never in future pose as a powerful leader, a strong British saviour! The photos from the egging are long term psycho-political gold-dust for us. People can see his absolute loss of composure, the sheer paranoid terror on his face, his lilly white hands flapping in panic, bustled off by his paramilitary nursemaid-minders. And this appears funny and disproportionate when faced with a few eggs and placard waiving student protesters. When faced with the same , John Major smiled, got on a soap box and heckled back. But these photos make Griffin looks ridiculous. Everyone is laughing at him. Nick Griffin. Once he used to pose as the square jawed macho leader of the young national front. Now he is a terrified, paranoid fat middle aged man in a posh suit having to be protected from the jeering public by his sinister nanny-goons! That image is gonna be recycled by us forever! The photos are also strangely revealing, with the fear and panic seeming so out of proportion to the actual event, as if he has long expected far worse. Its almost as if he is revealing a deep inner guilt at his lifelong Nazi sympathies, once a source of teenage subversive frisson, but always accompanied by a deep nagging fear that he will one day get his long deserved come uppance. And now he is in the centre of the vortex.
Today there is a convergence of forces. There is an anti-BNP majority - and a huge grassroots anti-fascist groundswell. There is also the medias agenda. They now want to pick on the BNP for their own reasons.
The media and conventional politicians want to whip up racism - and have been doing for years, by printing myths and horror stories about asylum seekers. But at the same time, they want a tame racism. They dont want a fascist party to benefit from their work. So they demonise the BNP as much as they demonise asylum seekers. The BNP are bewildered. They grew fat in the conditions created by a media witchunt, now it is turned on them.
We have two tasks. Firstly our actions can quarantine the BNP with its pariah status. Sending them to coventry, postal workers refusing to deliver their shit, politicians refusing to share a platform with them, public protest never letting up. This works. Proof? When the BNP and UKIP leaflets came through my door in the election, they had almost identical public political messages. On top of this, the BNP have a much more committed activist base and stronger party organisation, while UKIP disappears between Euro-elections and is mired in corruption. So why does UKIP massively outpoll the BNP? Its because the public know there is something wrong about the BNP, something deeply dodgy. This is because the BNP really do have fascist origins and maintain a fascist party core and leadership. Its because we keep on exposing this, surrounding them with protest that even when there is a significant confused angry racist and nationalist mood amongst a substantial proportion of the electorate, these votes go to UKIP and not the BNP.
Our second task. There is a massive anti-fascist groundswell. This is combined with anger that our corrupt and bankrupt mainstream political parties are so degenerate that they have provided the space for two BNP MEP’s elected in the first place. There is a large audience for a new political force. This is what we must build out of this crisis. A program of ending unemployment through creating the things we need - decent low rent council homes, new green energy systems, better public transport. A new left movement of former labour supporters, greens, trades unions, local communities, using both mass action and the ballot box is called for.
Comment by Barry Kade — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
At the risk of being called pedantic, and that will be a first here as I am usually dismissed as a racist, what exactly is meant by no platfom. I think that it would ne worthwhile if we actually started to think about this.
I first became involved in the anti fascist movement before the foundation of the NF in 1967 and the phrase was used even then. At that time it meant that they literally would not have a platform to stand or speak on and a really good account of the pre and post war period is in “Out of the ghetto” by a much expelled Communist Party East End Jewish activist Joe Jacobs. It can still be obtained from Eastside Books 166 Brick Lane 0207 247 0216, I have no shares in the business!
It meant that whenever they stood on street corners with their platform they were physically attacked. Over the years this changed to that they should be denied access to the media and then that no one should get on platforms, that meaning any kind of media exposure, with them. It is this last that I think we must now be talking about as it the only way that we can be denying them a platform.
They have always had a platform in that they were able to mail out information to their supporters. The internet has of course changed everything and they can now reach millions and do every day. “No platform” now only means not engaging in debate with them and as far as I am concerned that still holds good.
As for the ridiculous stunts of yesterday in Westminster and ,it seems, today in Manchester what has happened is that a busted flush called UAF which has done nothing against the BNP has decided to launch a series of futile, but hopefully for them high profile, events to gain some kind of credibility.
What is good is that there is now a discussion where the movement is going. I woud however say to some posting here that it would be quite good if you actually joined us in doing some work. All welcome!
Comment by terryfitz — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
Johng,
yes the right wing tablois 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.
I don’t think the Sun/Express is really interested in stopping the BNP. They’re not in that game.
Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
So why does UKIP massively outpoll the BNP
Another reason to want to stay in Europe is that ukip would have to disband and the BNP could pick up a significant number of their voters. The Tories would also be helped, though most of those come back in the general election anyway.
Indeed, if anything the media has really played down the Tory victory in these elections given that ukip almost split their vote in half. I think the media do this to keep the pressure on Labour and the sexy story of a Prime Minister on the edge. That’s me though.
Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
The media and conventional politicians want to whip up racism - and have been doing for years, by printing myths and horror stories about asylum seekers.
Actually it’s all gone relatively quiet on the asylum seeker front since David Cameron was elected and stopped talking about it. The eastern European issue has popped up, but that’s slightly different.
Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
EdD is against the press being anti-BNP. He thinks its more important to be anti- the anti-fascists. Why is that exactly?
Comment by johng — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
Thanks, Johng.
No I am all in favour of the media running stories about the nature of the BNP and highlighting their dishonest political strategy, but the right wing tabloids have their own personal agendas and will spin things to suit their own broader image. It is about struggles against individuals rather than political movements and Nick Griffin is just a Gerry Adams type figure for them to have fun with. There is no black or white in their reporting, so to speak, so they’re hardly going to do anything that makes them look pro-BNP. The whole point of the BNP press conference yesterday was to slag off the Sun and the Express so they were never going to report anything different.
Thankfully, though, the rest of the media and the left had a more honest and mature response this time, and I think that is important, because it’s clear from most people out there that you speak to, that physically attacking the BNP everywhere they go, even when hundreds of thousands of people have just elected them, is not the best strategy to convince their voters. People on the left who are serious about anti fascism and are not exploiting the issue to further their own little political projects, recognise this, which is good.
It’s not about this one incident, but the broader strategy of fighting the police and whomever to get to them. In this day and age vigilante just doesn’t go down well with the public so Paxman and Snow were right to ask serious questions about it.
Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
I think the public are hungry for a more intellectual battle with the BNP. Seeing a bunch of students and political activists wacking them on the head with placards maybe amusing, but’s it’s not really the way forward for stopping them getting into parliaments.
Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
As for the no platform issue, which is separate from the policy use of force. I don’t think they should be on the media all the time, but as we saw with Gerry Adams in the 1980s, complete censorship is not a credible solution. Again I don’t think politicians should appear with them too readily, but if they are now able to use Euro funding to peddle their propaganda on a wider platform, it doesn’t make a lot of sense not to get on that platform to stop them getting away with it, from time to time. There needs to be more flexability in the policy.
There is nobody better than arguing against the BNP than politicians. Just the other night on Sky news an MP intervened in the interview to ask Nick Griffin why nonwhite people could not join the BNP, and he was clearly uncomfortable once it was on the hard racial stuff. Before I have seen an interviewer on the Beeb ask Griffin if Russians were white, and he didn’t have an answer, eventually saying they were not, leaving him again looking really stupid. Showing them in that light is more effective than only showing them with an egg on their head.
Comment by Ed D — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Off topic I know, but there’s an excellent demolition of another ex-RCP ex-anti-racist here.
Comment by Anon — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
American fascists enjoy First Amendment protection for their views. Holocaust deniers can’t be prosecuted. According to the implicit logic of the crudest variant of the ‘no platform’ position, Nazis should now be running the US. Instead they have an African-American President and the Klan are reduced to a grotesque joke on the Jerry Springer show.
Europe has numerous laws against fascism: it’s even illegal to purchase copies of ‘Mein Kampf’pretty much everywhere but the UK. Despite this, fascist parties are relatively much more successful in continental Europe than in the US/UK.
Clearly, there’s no simple correlation between political censorship and the failure of fascism.
Comment by JB Malone — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:38 am
ok forgive me sectarian stoned rant coming up,
but i hate the rcp they were utter filth, whose physical attacks on other members of the left was a sickening trademark.
there is nothing claire fox can say which will ever redeem her in my eyes. egging the bnp may not change things in a poitical sense but it was a marvellous fuck u to the little bastard griffin. maybe its just me, but the thought of fascism gaining ground gives me sleepless nights… anyone who has seen the film shoah about the holocaust will maybe understand what i mean.
i wish the bbc or channel 4 could put on a pgogramme about holocaust denial and expose the fascist lies for the rubbish they are. debating with the bnp only gives them acceptability .
Comment by graham — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:41 am
didn’t mean to imply the rcp were part of the left cos they most certainly weren’t.
Comment by graham — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:46 am
#18 Barry Kade can I just say that you’ve got a way with words. Hope you don’t mind if I nick a bit of that to convince others about no platform. See, us socialists are already working together.
Comment by Ray — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:02 am
Hello Comrades,
Do we all believe, as radical socialists, in revolution and if we are being honest my friends we would probably endorse violence (if needed) and hence a type/species of potentially murderous politics is part of the radical socialist tradition - but would that justify radical socialists being legally denied free-speech - if so I don’t think Lenin would get very far do you? Do we really fear these tinpot Hilters (BNP) so much that we cannot tear their shitty viewpoints to pieces???
Comment by Settimo — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:06 am
I just watched Newsnight with Martin Smith - it was not great I’m sorry to say comrades.
I do think we need to be in the buisness of honesty…in my view Martin Smith came across as an oddball/weirdo kinda creepy style character (not that he any of those things in reality) with NOT a single coherent argument on Newsnight & Channel Four news (and the radio people were not much better). Other than using fascism as a scare word which was kinda pathetic in my view (and I’m a black socialist for what itsworth) what did Martin have to say?
We must do better - why not get Michael Rosen to do TV & Radio inteviews - at least Mike has got extensive media expeience. How about it Mike - help the movement please?
Michael Rosen if not you then maybe you can help Martin with some media training?
Simply ’shouting down’ even those who may question the ‘no platform’ approach isn’t winning hearts and minds. If you want people informed about the scum, give the bastards enough rope etc.
Oh and I thought the “Love Music Hate Racism” ad/video was very poor. That crappy, smug music shop campaign video was actually embarassing, if not patronising - as if fighting racism was a means to making better CD collections. Can we please drop the ‘rich tapestry of music and food’ emphasis? Surely there’s more at stake than that for fuck’s sake? Multiculturalism is about more than having a variety of nice restaurants!!!!
Comment by Settimo — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:16 am
To quote Barry Kade :
“The BNP wont be driven back by rational debate alone”
This is true, but less true than you suppose. Much as I am one of those liberals who ‘fetishises’ free speech, I understand that most humans in this country are capable of following a rational argument. They might not be able to compose their thoughts into a rational framework, but I feel you disrespect the people to regard them in such terms. My experience from chatting to the populace on telephones is that most of them just want their concerns addressed, whatever they may be.
It’s good to see some of you considering my point of view.
Still..a few ideas for you. Nick Griffin has been leader of the BNP for, what, fifteen years? Has any other party leader been established for that long? Ever hear of the Fuhrerprinzip? I’ve also seen little illustration of the Nuremburg laws, which represented the thin end of the wedge, in Nazi Germany? You could also direct people to the international third position website, that’s something Nick Griffin helped found. What about Mark Collett being caught on camera thinking Nazi Germany was fab, in a Channel Four documentary produced by a practicing Jew ( and he looked freaked out when he discovered the reporter was such )? What about World War 2 recreationists ( again, I saw this in documentary footage, channel 4 again, if I recall ), playing the Nazi’s, supporting ‘racial discrimination’.
I’ve seen none of this offered up for mass consumption on twitter. Far be it from me to suggest the electorate have brains.
Comment by mudkipz — 12 June, 2009 @ 1:14 am