We're clever enough to realise that Griffin is an idiot, but the masses aren't

[Vanguard1917]

Article explaining why many of the protestors at the BBC studios calling for more censorship were motivated by a deep distrust of the mental capacities of the British working class.

-------------------------

Friday 23 October 2009
‘Would the BBC give a platform to Hitler?’
Patrick Hayes joined the rabble of censors protesting outside BBC Television Centre in the run-up to Question Time.
Patrick Hayes


‘Of course I believe in free speech’, said Samantha, a student from Camden in London, protesting outside the BBC studios in White City where Nick Griffin was due shortly to join the Question Time panel. ‘But in the same way we have no platform for fascists at university, there should definitely be no platform for fascists at the BBC.’

In fact, the everyday TV-viewing public is even more ‘vulnerable’ than students when it comes to dangerous ideas, Samantha claimed. ‘They sadly don’t have the level of education and, especially during the recession, might vote for the BNP out of fear or desperation.’

Such patronising, illiberal views were widespread at yesterday’s anti-BNP demo. Protesters from various left-wing and anti-fascist groups had been outside the BBC studios all day, chanting ‘Nasty Nazi Nick, off our streets!’, ‘Six million dead, never again’ and ‘We are all black, white, Asian and Jews’. Banners declared ‘No Platform for fascists’, ‘The BNP is a Nazi party’ and ‘It’s not that kind of White City, Nick!’. One woman held a banner that said ‘Gay Muslims against Nazi Scum’. On the outer walls of the BBC studio a protester had plastered posters of gay men kissing, with the slogan: ‘This is Britain.’

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/gaymenkissing.jpg
Poster outside BBC Television Centre

Many of the protesters were students, mobilised by Unite Against Fascism. Some wore fancy dress. One man wore a Hitler mask and BNP armbands. A young woman masked her face with a collage of newspaper headlines about the BNP to highlight the dangerous role the media played in giving them publicity (although she argued that the media presence at this protest was a ‘necessary evil’ to raise awareness). The number of protesters peaked at 600 at around 5pm when there were various skirmishes with the police.

Several protesters cited Ken Livingstone’s claim on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that wherever Griffin and his colleagues speak or stand in elections there is an inevitable spike in racist attacks, reflecting their deeply censorious view of the public as Pavlovian dogs who hear something and act on it. But the protesters’ primary concern was that the ‘newly suited and booted’ Nick Griffin would be lent ‘a veneer of respectability by being on Question Time’.

Many seemed to believe Griffin is extraordinarily clever and cunning. A veteran anti-war protester told me: ‘He’s like any other politician, but extremely intelligent. He listens to people and promises exactly what people want in order to get into power. People are completely desperate so they’ll take the apple. They will vote for a dog if they think a dog will deliver.’ Another charming view of the electorate; these protesters really wanted censorship because they don’t trust ‘ordinary people’ to weigh up ideas on their merits.

However, very few of the protesters thought that they themselves, or anyone they know, would be persuaded by Griffin’s seductive arguments (although one woman said she knew ‘one or two guys who might be’). No, it is always ‘the other’ – the working classes, the underclasses, the uneducated – who are seen as needing protection from Griffin’s words by caring, censorious protesters. The main argument here was that we should ‘learn the lessons of history’, as if the masses are predetermined to act in a certain way and to repeat tragic mistakes of the past unless their awareness is raised. ‘It’s like Germany during the time of depression when Hitler came in’, said one young man. A middle-aged woman echoed this sentiment: ‘The BBC wouldn’t have let Hitler debate on Question Time two years before he took power. They seem to be in denial about the size of the problem here. Why can’t they learn from history?’

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/fakehitler.jpg
A protester dressed as Hitler

The protesters’ combination of hysterical scaremongering about the return of fascism and disdain for the intellectual capabilities of the electorate (not their mates, of course, but everyone else) means they can see only one solution to the BNP: censorship. Afraid of the public, panicked about the future and clearly unconvinced about their own ability to win an argument, left-wing campaigners instead hope that the authorities, in particular the BBC, will exercise moral judgement on the nation’s behalf and deny Griffin a platform.

‘I’m hoping the audience won’t allow this debate to happen and shout him down’, said a student protester, before rejoining a crowd of protesters who were chanting in their scuffles with the police: ‘This is what democracy looks like!’

But the intention of the demonstration was to curb one of the most fundamental democratic freedoms: free speech. They were lobbying the BBC to prevent the leader of a political party from having his views broadcast. Yet, as Griffin’s appearance on Question Time demonstrated, he is hardly the charismatic, clever and manipulative orator that the protesters hyped him up to be; instead he’s a rather sad, inarticulate man with outdated views. The audience are more than capable of spotting that. It is not Griffin appearing on Question Time that poses a threat to democracy, but rather the censorious campaign to prevent him from appearing on Question Time on the basis that the fickle public will turn wild and violent if they are exposed to his views.
[/URL]
Patrick Hayes is volunteer co-ordinator for education charity WORLDwrite (http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/) and one of the organisers of the Battle of Ideas festival (http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/), which features an ‘Activism Zone’ (http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2009/overview_saturday/) on Saturday 31st October.


The new divide in British politics: Us and Him (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/7611/), by Brendan O’Neill
Hating Nick: a shared national experience (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/7612/), by Alex Hochuli
‘Voltaire never saw concentration camps’ (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/7604/), by Tim Black
State-enforced ‘equality’ is damaging democracy (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/7380/), by Brendan O’Neill
The myth of a far-right surge (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6994/), by Rob Lyons
When all else fails, bash the BNP (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6750/), by Mick Hume
Read more at spiked issue British politics (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C21/).



reprinted from: [URL]http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7608/

[Hit The North]

That's an impressive array of articles defending the BNP against anti-fascists. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, it appears that for Sp!ked, it's not enough that the BBC invited Griffin to exercise his sacrosanct freedom of speech, but they should have treated him with more respect!

No wonder it is rumoured that hard copies of Sp!ked are due to be included free with the BNP's next issue of the Freedom newspaper. :lol:

[Vanguard1917]

That's an impressive array of articles defending the BNP against anti-fascists.

Of course, that is not what they're doing at all (Griffin 'is hardly the charismatic, clever and manipulative orator that the protesters hyped him up to be; instead he’s a rather sad, inarticulate man with outdated views'). You're resorting to lying as you always do in order to dodge serious debate about the utterly reactionary anti-Marxist positions that you hold.

[Hit The North]

I know you think it's anti-Marxist to organise against fascists, but that's just one of the things which makes you the lovable eccentric you are.

[Vanguard1917]

I know you think it's anti-Marxist to organise against fascists

No, but it's incredibly anti-Marxist to call on 'our' beloved 'public body' that is the BBC to censor the BNP.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm sorry, but this article is just a huge collection of strawmen that doesn't engage with the issues at hand. The demonstration was not about demanding that the state censor the BNP or Nick Griffin, because demanding that Griffin not be given a platform on one of the most popular political programs in the country is not equivalent to censorship, just as demanding that BNP members not be allowed to become teachers and public servants is not the same as saying that the state should be allowed to limit jobs to people with political views that the ruling class agrees with. Nor did I go to that demonstration because I thought that Nick Griffin being given a platform would encourage the confused and ignorant masses to suddenly become BNP supporters, whatever the people this article interviewed say, in fact the SWP has always made it clear that the majority of people who do vote for the BNP are former Tory voters and of a middle-class background, so it is not as if loads of working people are being taken in by their anti-immigrant rhetoric and switching their votes from Labour - in fact we know that the total number of votes received by the BNP declined in the last European elections and the only reason they were able to get seats was because turnout also declined. The reason it is so important to deprive the BNP of a platform by any means necessary is that them being given any platform gives their members and supporters greater confidence when it comes to carrying out violent attacks on ethnic minorities and trade unionists, not to mention all of the other groups that the BNP has targeted in the past. We in the SWP also argued that them being there would serve to shift the terms of debate rightwards, and this is exactly what happened, as whilst none of the mainstream parties have ever confronted the pervasive myths relating to immigration, by arguing that there should not be any border controls at all, for example, on that night is is clear that, once the discussion had turned to the BNP's immigration policies, each and every party was trying to outdo the others in terms of who had the most reactionary stance.

[Zanthorus]

Here's my opinion:

1) As radical leftists we're currently a pretty small minority therefore it's definitely in our interests to promote freedom of speech. And you know what the best part of freedom of speech is? When someone starts spouting bullshit then you're free to dissent which is what we should be doing instead of whining to the corporate media.

2) Letting Griffin on question time isn't going to change anyone's minds apart from people who were already hovering on the edge of voting for him anyway.

3) There isn't really much you can do about it now anyway. He went on, he had his say, deal with it.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I really resent this claim that because I was there I think the British public are idiots. Stop saying that. I absolutely don't think that everyone who watched question time will convert to fascism. It's also not primarily about the working class - support for fascists doesn't primarily come from workers, it comes from the middle class.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16522

My view, and as far as I can tell the view of most of us out there last thursday is that a BBC platform given to fascists will legitimise fascism. Not in the sense that idiot workers will think Griffin is Jesus, in the sense that those who float around right-wing politics, middle class UKIP voters and the like, will be given the impression that the BNP are like other parties. In this way, they'll be able to garner support from those who might previously have shied away, correctly believing them to be a lunatic fringe.

This is what happened in France with Jean-Marie Le Pen of the Front Nationale. He got an appearance on L'Heure de Vérité and subsequently got a big surge in support. It's not rocket science is it really. Fascists get a platform, fascists get support from small alienated section of lower middle class. He later claimed that it was "the hour that changed everything".

You might say it's irrelevant and that they remain electorally insignificant, but it isn't electoral success we're particularly worried about - it's the ability of the far-right to organise on the streets again and gain confidence. I don't personally fancy racist thugs storming through New Cross and battering my local bartender. And don't call me hysterical - this has historically happened. Fascist squads formed primarily from the middle class were a huge factor in provoking the appointment of Mussolini as Prime Minister by the Italian King. This is my understanding of how they work - a violent minority terrorise the streets in tandem with a pseudo-respectable political front.

"I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid" - Griffin on the prospect of his being given a platform.

-Alex

PS - I also wish you'd stop with this tone of sneering contempt towards other leftists. I understand your criticisms of us and no-platform and I manage to be civil. It'd be nice if you could do the same and stop painting this image of us as patronizing, condescending wankers. Cheers boss. :)

[Vanguard1917]

The demonstration was not about demanding that the state censor the BNP or Nick Griffin

But it was. The UAF openly said that Griffin should be denied a platform by the 'publicly-funded' BBC. That is a call for censorship by the bourgeois media, plain and simple, no matter how we try to spin it.



just as demanding that BNP members not be allowed to become teachers and public servants is not the same as saying that the state should be allowed to limit jobs to people with political views that the ruling class agrees with.


What else is it? It's saying that a capitalist employer should be allowed to sack workers because of their political views.

[Hit The North]

No, but it's incredibly anti-Marxist to call on 'our' beloved 'public body' that is the BBC to censor the BNP.

Actually not sure what you mean by anti-Marxist but are you arguing that Marxists should never make demands on public bodies?

But, more to the point, when has Sp!ked ever supported any organised action against the BNP? They supported Griffin's right to speak at the Oxford Union; they supported Griffin's right to speak on Question Time. When have they ever opposed Griffin, in practice, on anything?

[Vanguard1917]

Actually not sure what you mean by anti-Marxist but are you arguing that Marxists should never make demands on public bodies?

No, they should not call on capitalists to police and dictate public debate. As we all know, censorship by the state and the media has always been fully rejected by Marxists.



But, more to the point, when has Sp!ked ever supported any organised action against the BNP? They supported Griffin's right to speak at the Oxford Union; they supported Griffin's right to speak on Question Time. When have they ever opposed Griffin, in practice, on anything?


I think most spiked writers correctly recognise that Nick Griffin is an extremely marginal figure in British politics and that the real cause of reactionary views in Britain -- including those which give way to votes for the the BNP -- is the mainstream British establishment, i.e. what you wish to side with.

[BobKKKindle$]

But it was. The UAF openly said that Griffin should be denied a platform by the 'publicly-funded' BBC.No it's not, the BBC gave Nick Griffin a platform, UAF was saying that they shouldn't have, and that, after the initial decision had been taken, the platform should have been taken away. If UAF were arguing that the BNP shouldn't be allowed to hold its own meetings or that the BBC shouldn't report the BNP's electoral successes then that would be censorship but you seem to be confusing the idea of free speech with the idea that every political force has a right to a public platform, with television viewers having an obligation to listen to their views. We were of course never under the illusion that the BBC would be likely to agree to our demands, as an institution that is part of the capitalist state, which is why, at the demonstration, members of SWSS in particular tried to get into the BBC by any means possible, by evading the police, i.e. attempting to overcome the bourgeois state, not asking it to intervene on our behalf.

I guess you also think that postal workers refusing to deliver BNP election leaflets (link (http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/05/15/50711/postal-workers-refuse-to-deliver-british-national-party-leaflets.html)) is a form of censorship.


What else is it? It's saying that a capitalist employer should be allowed to sack workers because of their political views.If a teacher wasn't hired because they didn't have the qualifications or because they had previously been a shit teacher then you wouldn't consider that a case of the bourgeois state vetoing employees based on their politics, that would obviously be a case of someone not being able to fulfill the job they were applying for - the same principle is applicable to members of the BNP being teachers (and other professions belonging to the public sector) because it is impossible to be a fascist on the weekends and then be a good teacher when you're at work during the week. In other words, given that the role of a teacher is supposed to involve impartiality towards your students and all the other things good teachers should do, like encouraging a fair and equal classroom environment, there is a necessary and unavoidable conflict between being a teacher and being a member of the BNP, as we can't expect members of a racist party to show respect towards Muslim and non-white students or to approach subjects like homosexuality and race relations in the way they're supposed to. Nor is this an abstract issue - there was a case of a BNP employed in the DHSS some time ago and it emerged that this employee had been taking the welfare application slips of people who were from ethnic minorities and hiding them, so that those individuals were not receiving the welfare they were entitled to.

[Vanguard1917]

No it's not, the BBC gave Nick Griffin a platform, UAF was saying that they shouldn't have


Exactly. The UAF wanted the BBC to censor the BNP. It argued that the BBC is a 'public' institution and that 'tax-payers' did not need to be exposed to Griffin's nonsense -- while completely ignoring the fact that most of those 'tax-payers' rightly opposed calls for censorship.



If a teacher wasn't hired because they didn't have the qualifications or because they had previously been a shit teacher then you wouldn't consider that a case of the bourgeois state vetoing employees based on their politics


No, i wouldn't, because it's not. Teachers should be employed according to their ability to teach, not according to their politics.



the same principle is applicable to members of the BNP being teachers (and other professions belonging to the public sector) because it is impossible to be a fascist on the weekends and then be a good teacher when you're at work during the week.


Why? My maths teacher at school had terrible politics, but he taught the subject very well. Teachers should be judged by their ability to teach the subject to their pupils.

What about workers employed in the civil service? Should we support their employer -- the capitalist state -- setting ideological conditions on their employment? What about workers in the private sector? If workers in the public sector can be sacked because of their political views, why can't workers in privately-owned workplaces be?

This is what i mean when i talk of those on the left siding with and empowering the state and the employer in their attempts to fight an extremely marginal and relatively powerless 'force' in British politics.

[Hit The North]

I think most spiked writers correctly recognise that Nick Griffin is an extremely marginal figure in British politics and that the real cause of reactionary views in Britain -- including those which give way to votes for the the BNP -- is the mainstream British establishment, i.e. what you wish to side with.


So they support him because he's marginal.

[Vanguard1917]

So they support him because he's marginal.

Yep. Forever reaching new lows, i see.

[Hit The North]

Yes, it is low of them.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, it is low of them.

Nice to have more than one Rosa Lichenstein on the forum.

[Devrim]

as whilst none of the mainstream parties have ever confronted the pervasive myths relating to immigration, by arguing that there should not be any border controls at all, for example, on that night is is clear that, once the discussion had turned to the BNP's immigration policies, each and every party was trying to outdo the others in terms of who had the most reactionary stance.

Is it seriously being suggested here that the mainstream parties are adopting racist immigration policies because Nick Griffin was on Question Time. I am sure that they had them before this.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Nice to have more than one Rosa Lichenstein on the forum.

You mean someone who insists on having the last word, no matter how trivial?

[Vanguard1917]

You mean someone who insists on having the last word, no matter how trivial?

At least you admit it. Nuff respect.

[Vanguard1917]

I "I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid" - Griffin on the prospect of his being given a platform.

-Alex

Wrong. What Griffin called stupid was the elite's (and its supporters on the left's) hysterical response to him being on QT:

'I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid. The huge furore that the political class has created around it clearly gives us a whole new level of public recognition.'

Griffin recognises that the bulk of his party's fame is the product of mainstream politicians and the media.

[Pogue]

Wrong. What Griffin called stupid was the elite's (and its supporters on the left's) hysterical response to him being on QT:

'I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid. The huge furore that the political class has created around it clearly gives us a whole new level of public recognition.'

Griffin recognises that the bulk of his party's fame is the product of mainstream politicians and the media.

Why do you seem to beleive that your the only one who recognises the other main parties are part of the problem too? You seem to be trying to act as if this is your bold opinion being defended against the rest of us. Your criticisms against UAF have some merit, but for anarchists such as myself we support a militant no platform perspective for Griffin as part of our anti-fascist politics, whilst maintaining an opposition to the other main parties at the same time, whereas you simply don't agree with no platform, which is odd.

[Devrim]

If a teacher wasn't hired because they didn't have the qualifications or because they had previously been a shit teacher then you wouldn't consider that a case of the bourgeois state vetoing employees based on their politics, that would obviously be a case of someone not being able to fulfill the job they were applying for - the same principle is applicable to members of the BNP being teachers (and other professions belonging to the public sector) because it is impossible to be a fascist on the weekends and then be a good teacher when you're at work during the week. In other words, given that the role of a teacher is supposed to involve impartiality towards your students and all the other things good teachers should do, like encouraging a fair and equal classroom environment, there is a necessary and unavoidable conflict between being a teacher and being a member of the BNP, as we can't expect members of a racist party to show respect towards Muslim and non-white students or to approach subjects like homosexuality and race relations in the way they're supposed to. Nor is this an abstract issue - there was a case of a BNP employed in the DHSS some time ago and it emerged that this employee had been taking the welfare application slips of people who were from ethnic minorities and hiding them, so that those individuals were not receiving the welfare they were entitled to.

Would you apply the same criteria to members of the Labour Party, Tory Party and UKIP, which are all racist parties too?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Why do you seem to beleive that your the only one who recognises the other main parties are part of the problem too? You seem to be trying to act as if this is your bold opinion being defended against the rest of us. Your criticisms against UAF have some merit, but for anarchists such as myself we support a militant no platform perspective for Griffin as part of our anti-fascist politics, whilst maintaining an opposition to the other main parties at the same time, whereas you simply don't agree with no platform, which is odd.

Why are the BNP worse than the other mainstream racist parties?

Devrim

[Pogue]

Why are the BNP worse than the other mainstream racist parties?

Devrim

Fascism represents a different trend in relation to the working class. I don't look at it as concepts of 'better' or 'worse', thats not what my politics are about, I just recognise the BNP are a different phenomenon from a different tradition to the neo-liberals. Hence I oppose them in a different way to how I oppose neo liberals. Also, tactically, the tactics we use against the BNP wouldn't work if applied to the other parties. I see anti-fascism (fighting the BNP) as a distinctive trend from the fight against capitalism and the state (Labour, Conservatives, coppers, etc).

[Vanguard1917]

Why do you seem to beleive that your the only one who recognises the other main parties are part of the problem too? You seem to be trying to act as if this is your bold opinion being defended against the rest of us. Your criticisms against UAF have some merit, but for anarchists such as myself we support a militant no platform perspective for Griffin as part of our anti-fascist politics, whilst maintaining an opposition to the other main parties at the same time, whereas you simply don't agree with no platform, which is odd.

It's good that you don't support state censorship. But unfortunately, instead of the state, you want yourself and a few handfuls of others to be the ones doing the censoring. You don't want Griffin's silly views to be out in the open, because you don't believe that the public should have the right to make up their own minds about his politics. You feel that the public need to be protected from them. Thus you view the public with the same disdain as UAF.

[Devrim]

Fascism represents a different trend in relation to the working class. I don't look at it as concepts of 'better' or 'worse', thats not what my politics are about, I just recognise the BNP are a different phenomenon from a different tradition to the neo-liberals. Hence I oppose them in a different way to how I oppose neo liberals. Also, tactically, the tactics we use against the BNP wouldn't work if applied to the other parties. I see anti-fascism (fighting the BNP) as a distinctive trend from the fight against capitalism and the state (Labour, Conservatives, coppers, etc).

I don't think that the BNP is fascist in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes it has its roots in neo-Nazism, but that is starting to be more and more of an embarrassment to them:


In far-right chat rooms yesterday many were asking whether the Question Time appearance was a watershed. "Griffin carries too much baggage to act as spokesman for the BNP," one said. "I lost count of the number of times past quotes came back to haunt him.

Nor do I think that the tactics being used against the BNP work. I think they actually help it grow.

More damaging though is the way that the mainstream political establisment can use the BNP to revive the electoral process, and pull support towards the mainstream racist parties in the name of 'anti-fascism'.

Their slogan seems to be " Vote for any racist party as long as it isn't the BNP".

Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

So they support him because he's marginal.
From a marketing perspective, it does make perfect sense: if you're going to promote your brand effectively in a crowded marketplace, you need a way of distinguishing it from other competing products, and Spiked's apologism for the BNP works well, as do their other bizarre positions like global warming denial. Of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with challenging capitalism or building up working class power, but they are undeniably skilled marketeers.

[Vanguard1917]

Spiked's apologism for the BNP

Quite an accusation. Care to back it up (preferably using logical arguments)?

[Pogue]

It's good that you don't support state censorship. But unfortunately, instead of the state, you want yourself and a few handfuls of others to be the ones doing the censoring. You don't want Griffin's silly views to be out in the open, because you don't believe that the public should have the right to make up their own minds about his politics. You feel that the public need to be protected from them. Thus you view the public with the same disdain as UAF.

I'm just being consistent with my politics. I wasn't that concerned about Question Time, I didn't think it would really boost them that much so I wasn't that upset that he was on there. My main idea of no platform is stopping them organising, i.e. preventing them, internally, conciouss BNP supporters, from being able to organise. This is the no platform I am concerned with, I think Question Time is not where the political battle for the hearts and minds of disullusioned people will take place.

Are you opposed to ideas of militant opposition, i.e. real no platform, when the BNP try to hold marches and demonstrations? Thats directed at Vanguard1917 and to a lesser extent Devrim.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'd like to hear Vanguard and Devrim's thoughts on the comparable rise of Jean Marie Le Pen in France. He got his invitation to L'Heure De Verite, prime-time french television and subsequently got a substantial boost in support. he later reflected that it was "the hour that changed everything".

-Alex

[Devrim]

I'd like to hear Vanguard and Devrim's thoughts on the comparable rise of Jean Marie Le Pen in France. He got his invitation to L'Heure De Verite, prime-time french television and subsequently got a substantial boost in support. he later reflected that it was "the hour that changed everything".

Griffin's apperance on Question Time could well lead to an increase in the standing of the BNP as Le Pen's TV appearance did in France. My position is in no way the same as VG1917's. My argument is just that the BNP are not particulary different from the mainstream parties, which are racist parties too. I don't think it is that important that one racist party makes gains in their vote, and another loses them.


Are you opposed to ideas of militant opposition, i.e. real no platform, when the BNP try to hold marches and demonstrations? Thats directed at Vanguard1917 and to a lesser extent Devrim.

I am not opposed to it on any grounds like free speech. I'd say that if they were rampaging through areas of ethnic minorities attacking people, yes, I would be there oppossing them. Otherwise I don't really see the relevance of going out and playing soldiers with a few members of a small unifluental right wing party in the street.

Incidentaly when the mood in a country turns, and there are mass attacks on minorities, it isn't always the fascists who are leading them. During Turkey's last war in Iraq, the MHP, which is a much bigger and more serious fascist party than any of the western ones, took a deliberately low profile on the streets. The ones leading the pro-nationalistic/anti-Kurdish demonstrations were more often than not the trade unions, and the CHP (Turksih affiliate of the 'socialist international').

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

Are you opposed to ideas of militant opposition, i.e. real no platform, when the BNP try to hold marches and demonstrations? Thats directed at Vanguard1917 and to a lesser extent Devrim.

Of course i'm not against counter-demonstrations against the far-right. I don't see them as 'no platform' -- which is an abstract policy to shut down all public debate where the far-right is involved (a policy that often gives way to the left no-platforming itself).



I'd like to hear Vanguard and Devrim's thoughts on the comparable rise of Jean Marie Le Pen in France. He got his invitation to L'Heure De Verite, prime-time french television and subsequently got a substantial boost in support. he later reflected that it was "the hour that changed everything".



Rises in Le Pen's popularity had very little to do with any lack of censorship in France. As i pointed out in another thread:



Whatever the reasons for any future growth [in the BNP vote], only the most philistine and backward of political outlooks would place the blame on greater freedom of speech. In reality, it is precisely suppressed public debate which creates favourable conditions for the rise of reactionary politics.

As a man who you may have heard of, Leon Trotsky, pointed out: "In fact, it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class." (link) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm)

[Pogue]

Well then I think you are doing ain injustice to your views in how you're expressing them. My view is that I'd rather Griffin didn't appear on these things, but only if we could stop him, because it would increase our confidence and wind him up, I don't call for state censorship, its liberal shite.

What I see as no platform is denying them the room to organise, denying them a space, a presence. For the sake of consistency I'd try to stop him getting on the news but as I said its not really a main concern. I am more concerned with stopping their marches and meetings.

[Pogue]

Griffin's apperance on Question Time could well lead to an increase in the standing of the BNP as Le Pen's TV appearance did in France. My position is in no way the same as VG1917's. My argument is just that the BNP are not particulary different from the mainstream parties, which are racist parties too. I don't think it is that important that one racist party makes gains in their vote, and another loses them.



I am not opposed to it on any grounds like free speech. I'd say that if they were rampaging through areas of ethnic minorities attacking people, yes, I would be there oppossing them. Otherwise I don't really see the relevance of going out and playing soldiers with a few members of a small unifluental right wing party in the street.

Incidentaly when the mood in a country turns, and there are mass attacks on minorities, it isn't always the fascists who are leading them. During Turkey's last war in Iraq, the MHP, which is a much bigger and more serious fascist party than any of the western ones, took a deliberately low profile on the streets. The ones leading the pro-nationalistic/anti-Kurdish demonstrations were more often than not the trade unions, and the CHP (Turksih affiliate of the 'socialist international').

Devrim

I see the relevance of it denying them the oxygen to have any form of street presence, i.e. making them realise they can never go out of their doors as a political threat without being opposed. I don't understand how you don't see, say, unopposed fascist rallies and marches as a bad thing. I think they lead on to the situation of them rampaging through the streets attacking ethinc minorities.

[ls]

I see the relevance of it denying them the oxygen to have any form of street presence, i.e. making them realise they can never go out of their doors as a political threat without being opposed. I don't understand how you don't see, say, unopposed fascist rallies and marches as a bad thing. I think they lead on to the situation of them rampaging through the streets attacking ethinc minorities.

While I don't fully agree with Devrim's views, I don't think it's in any way fair to say he believes in unopposed fascist marches..


I'd say that if they were rampaging through areas of ethnic minorities attacking people, yes, I would be there oppossing them. Otherwise I don't really see the relevance of going out and playing soldiers with a few members of a small unifluental right wing party in the street.

Of course, I don't believe you can necessarily judge the turnout everytime and therefore you can't know whether it's going to be a 'few members' out on the street, plus even a few members can be very brutal in themselves. Therefore, I support opposition even to a small rally by the BNP or whatever.

I'm not so sure about the BBC building one, was there a BNP counter-protest presence? A lot of people supported Griffin citing 'anti-free speech' and yeah, if there were some there I support the presence against them wholeheartedly. But yeah, I'm pretty sure Devrim is saying he'd be out against the EDL or whatever.

[Devrim]

I see the relevance of it denying them the oxygen to have any form of street presence, i.e. making them realise they can never go out of their doors as a political threat without being opposed. I don't understand how you don't see, say, unopposed fascist rallies and marches as a bad thing. I think they lead on to the situation of them rampaging through the streets attacking ethinc minorities.

I think that there is a danger of the left and right getting into a sort of gang war, while the working class look on as bemused spectators. That this can possibly happen is confirmed by the events that led up to the 1980 coup in Turkey. In the period prior to the coup there were about 100 political murders a week in Istanbul alone, and the working class were reduced to being passive observers.

I also think that as the BNP moves more and more into 'politics' it will move away from small street demonstrations. They don't really serve its cause anymore. Of course that is not to say that there won't be other groups, for example the EDL, that use that tactic, even as a proxy for the BNP to keep its less political sophisticated members satisfied. I don't think that there is a problem with socialists turning out to stop right wing gangs attacking immigrants as I said before. I don't see the point in the demonstration against Griffin on Question Time though because fundemntally, I don't see them as a worse than the mainstream parties.

Devrim