what are the roots of 'no platform' and is it relevant today?

[ed miliband]

there's some shit going on at my uni because the paper published an interview with nick griffin and now the nus (national union of students) and their assorted hacks, plus the swp lot, are shouting about extending 'no platform' to student media as well.

now i don't really care about "freedom of speech" in any abstract sense, but i also despise the hysteria of the 'no platform' lot who think that students are so dumb that reading a critical (but shit, for the record...) interview with nick griffin will turn them into bnp supporting drones. i also think there's something incredibly idealistic about imagining that fascism will suddenly spring into existence if fascist views are aired in public (and shit, you can silence them but a few clicks on the internet and they're there...)

oh yeah, back to the title... what are the roots of 'no platform'? 'cos i imagined it was just some labour party, trade union, etc. thing originally, but i've heard anarchists touting it, inc. american anarchists and stuff.

and is it still relevant? or actually, is it relevant in every case, or is it simply a tactic that may or may not be relevant in certain conditions? 'cos certain people seem to treat it as an infallible ideal.

[Hit The North]

It's a tactic, not a principle. Nevertheless, I don't see what is wrong with the Left raising questions about why their university paper is carrying an interview with an ideological racist who is currently ignored by even the right-wing press. What possible academic debates can be furthered by representing the views of this maniacal, racist nobhead?

[ed miliband]

It's a tactic, not a principle. Nevertheless, I don't see what is wrong with the Left raising questions about why their university paper is carrying an interview with an ideological racist who is currently ignored by even the right-wing press. What possible academic debates can be furthered by representing the views of this maniacal, racist nobhead?

it was a shit interview, as i said, and it's hard to be cynical about the editor's intentions, but what has that got to do with "no platform"? i really fail to see how publishing an interview with nick griffin in an under-read student paper will lead to a growth of the bnp. in this case, there's nothing practical or tactical about no platform, it's just people being shrill.

[bricolage]

the initial arguments about no platform were not that hearing ideas would turn people into fascists but that events involving the far right usually meant that the far right brought a bunch of heavies who would intimidate people or start fights or whatever. I mean you can definitely question how relevant that is now and yeah it has evolved more into the 'bad ideas will make more bad people' kind of thing.

[ed miliband]

the initial arguments about no platform were not that hearing ideas would turn people into fascists but that events involving the far right usually meant that the far right brought a bunch of heavies who would intimidate people or start fights or whatever. I mean you can definitely question how relevant that is now and yeah it has evolved more into the 'bad ideas will make more bad people' kind of thing.

well yeah, that all makes sense.

i'd add to the last bit, it's 'bad ideas will make more bad people' with added, 'aren't we good people for not supporting these bad ideas'.

[Hit The North]

it was a shit interview, as i said, and it's hard to be cynical about the editor's intentions, but what has that got to do with "no platform"? i really fail to see how publishing an interview with nick griffin in an under-read student paper will lead to a growth of the bnp. in this case, there's nothing practical or tactical about no platform, it's just people being shrill.

Well, I guess the no-platform argument is that the university should not be giving a platform for the dissemination of racism. That seems a fair point to me and i think you should support it.

But I agree with bricolage that no platform is best when it is about physically confronting fascists when they try to hold meetings and organise.

EDIT: It strikes me that your main objection appears to be the shrillness of the protest.

[Sasha]

"No platform" was the conclusion of anti-fascists on the freedom of speech debate, while recognising that fash etc have this freedom this was counter poised with the principle that society was under no obligation to facilitate or accommodate the spread of these ideas. This meant an appeal to the press, community organizing against fash propaganda(events), even going so far as physically overturning the actual platforms the fash spoke from at places like hidepark. Sadly for lots of "leftists" (esp of the swp variety) this came to mean some sort of whiney demand for sticking to a sort of partyline no one ever signed up for or even worse demands for state interference.

[ed miliband]

Well, I guess the no-platform argument is that the university should not be giving a platform for the dissemination of racism. That seems a fair point to me and i think you should support it.

But I agree with bricolage that no platform is best when it is about physically confronting fascists when they try to hold meetings and organise.

EDIT: It strikes me that your main objection appears to be the shrillness of the protest.

tbh it's really something i fail to care about at all; if i believed that printing an interview with nick griffin would cause a surge of fascism on campus of course i'd oppose it, but that clearly isn't the case. i wasn't even aware of the interview until the swp lot started convulsing.

so yes, it's a mixture of shrill activism, hyperbole, and elitism (i've heard people genuinely say students can't be trusted to read things because they might be swayed...), that are leading me to oppose this.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Editor probably deserves to get punched in the gut.
It's not that reading the interview will turn students in to fascists, so much as it lends legitimacy to racist currents already existing within the student body.
Fuckers should be made to keep their heads the fuck down.

That said, obviously broad anti-racist education campaigns and solidarity organizing with oppressed communities is more important than "no platform" . . . but, still, I hope the editor gets a few whacks and learns their lesson.

[ed miliband]

Editor probably deserves to get punched in the gut.
It's not that reading the interview will turn students in to fascists, so much as it lends legitimacy to racist currents already existing within the student body.
Fuckers should be made to keep their heads the fuck down.

That said, obviously broad anti-racist education campaigns and solidarity organizing with oppressed communities is more important than "no platform" . . . but, still, I hope the editor gets a few whacks and learns their lesson.

it would "lend legitimacy" to racist currents active within the student body if any existed, which isn't to say there aren't racist students or that racism doesn't exist, but that there are no active and organised groups propagated racist ideology in the university. student politics here is dominated by trotskyist groups and the labour party.

[Q]

The SWP are playing a dangerous game in this case. After all, if your reasoning is that the 'fascists' should be no-platformed because they are 'irrational' (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/933/unreason-all-the-way-down), who is to say that the SWP comrades themselves, in the eyes of people like the NUS leadership, aren't too?

Any no-platforming campaign that leans on a bureaucratic apparatus (or state in some cases) is sheer stupidity as that very same apparatus will eventually turn it against you.

[Hit The North]

it would "lend legitimacy" to racist currents active within the student body if any existed, which isn't to say there aren't racist students or that racism doesn't exist, but that there are no active and organised groups propagated racist ideology in the university. student politics here is dominated by trotskyist groups and the labour party.

Nevertheless, the editor of this university newspaper has deemed it proper to give a platform to the ramblings of this racist. It's a bit churlish (not to mention apolitical) of you to resent the protest against this, no matter how shrill it is to your ears.


Sadly for lots of "leftists" (esp of the swp variety) this came to mean some sort of whiney demand for sticking to a sort of partyline no one ever signed up for or even worse demands for state interference.

Oh shut the fuck up with your sectarianism. The SWP does not call for state censorship. And the truth is that most campus 'anarchists' in the UK couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, so unfortunately it falls to the less cool, less rad SWP to do it.


The SWP are playing a dangerous game in this case. After all, if your reasoning is that the 'fascists' should be no-platformed because they are 'irrational' (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/933/unreason-all-the-way-down), who is to say that the SWP comrades themselves, in the eyes of people like the NUS leadership, aren't too?


This is a distortion of the SWP's position (unsurprising given its source) and is not the rationale for no-platform. The argument about rationality is used to offset the argument that socialists should share platforms with racists so that we can defeat them with rational debate. The point is that racist and fascist ideologies are so suffused with lies, deceptions and distortions, that to counter them rationally is besides the point. But the SWP is clear that no-platform should be used only against organised racists and fascists in order to prevent them from building a profile or base in our communities, organisations and workplaces. This requires a two-pronged approach: firstly, organising demonstrations and resistance at the grassroots and, secondly, applying pressure on trade union bureaucrats, organisational leaders and local authorities to abandon their attempts to extend free speech to the fash. It would be nice to see such a commitment from the CPGB.


Any no-platforming campaign that leans on a bureaucratic apparatus (or state in some cases) is sheer stupidity as that very same apparatus will eventually turn it against you.
If by "bureaucratic apparatus" you are referring to the NUS then by extension socialists should never raise demands inside their unions, all of which are "bureaucratic apparatuses". But this is beside the point because this is not what the SWP does. It attempts to organise and bring into campaigns those who are concerned enough to give a fuck.

FFS, if a university newspaper gives space to neo-fascist propaganda this is a perfect opportunity for socialists to have the argument and express their condemnation of these disgusting ideas. Why would they pass it up just so people like Ed aren't offended by the shrill sound of debate?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

SWP on campus are funny.

OT though, I don't really have a problem with Socialists criticising university papers for publishing offensive shite, but the criticism isn't always right. To many people, sadly, we are seen as loons who are 'almost' as dangerous as the fash, false though it may be.

University papers will always post provocative trash cos it sells and is a pathway for the editor to board the prawn sandwich brigade in fleet street. Nobody wants to hear about how University X has risen 2 places in the league tables. Our uni newspaper is filled with crap but it sells and wins awards. Fuck it.

[Vanguard1917]

It's a tactic, not a principle. Nevertheless, I don't see what is wrong with the Left raising questions about why their university paper is carrying an interview with an ideological racist who is currently ignored by even the right-wing press. What possible academic debates can be furthered by representing the views of this maniacal, racist nobhead?

Campus politics shouldn't revolve around 'academic' debates. It's sad to say, but the one positive thing that could come out of bringing someone like Nick Griffin into a campus debate is that it will be a middle finger to an NUS bureaucracy that seems to think it's some kind of guardian of student morality. They want campuses sanitised of 'all types of extremism' because, as the OP says, they see students as idiots. Students should be aware that the NUS is a far bigger threat to political freedoms on campus than the BNP.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

there are no active and organised groups [that propagate] racist ideology in the university.

=/=


student politics here is dominated by [. . .] the labour party.

[ed miliband]

=/=

mate, i hate the labour party more than anyone, and i love to point out how the british union of fascists had its roots in the labour party and fabian society, but you're being silly here.

labour students tend to think of themselves as "socialists", "radicals", anti-racists, etc. not the kind of thing you were imlying.

[ed miliband]

btw, now people are saying 'well if we can censor the far right, why not the far left, they're both extremists, blahblahblah'. the swp might get bitten on the arse here.

[Q]

btw, now people are saying 'well if we can censor the far right, why not the far left, they're both extremists, blahblahblah'. the swp might get bitten on the arse here.

What a completely unpredictable outcome of events. Oh wait!

[GerrardWinstanley]

"No platform" was the conclusion of anti-fascists on the freedom of speech debate, while recognising that fash etc have this freedom this was counter poised with the principle that society was under no obligation to facilitate or accommodate the spread of these ideas. This meant an appeal to the press, community organizing against fash propaganda(events), even going so far as physically overturning the actual platforms the fash spoke from at places like hidepark. Sadly for lots of "leftists" (esp of the swp variety) this came to mean some sort of whiney demand for sticking to a sort of partyline no one ever signed up for or even worse demands for state interference.Where would you say they went too far? To me, it seems UAF (headed by SWP CC member Martin Smith) have been been very effective in their work, especially no-platform. The BNP are now an electoral non-entity and they invariably humiliate the EDL with their numbers at counterdemos now.

Compare our situation with regard to fascism to, say, Greece, France or Bulgaria... or even the United States for that matter. We must be doing something right.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

btw, now people are saying 'well if we can censor the far right, why not the far left, they're both extremists, blahblahblah'. the swp might get bitten on the arse here.
This has actually happened at a couple of universities. At Plymouth (my home town but not the university I went to) the uni student union doesn't allow any political organisations within the student body - including tories, labour, swp - on the basis that it would somehow be giving the EDL a platform.

[Sasha]

Where would you say they went too far? To me, it seems UAF (headed by SWP CC member Martin Smith) have been been very effective in their work, especially no-platform. The BNP are now an electoral non-entity and they invariably humiliate the EDL with their numbers at counterdemos now.

Compare our situation with regard to fascism to, say, Greece, France or Bulgaria... or even the United States for that matter. We must be doing something right.


ever since the expulsion of the stewardsgroup (better know as what would become RedAction) from the SWP for "squadism" they have been a hopelessly inefective bunch of lollipop waiving tossers, excluding in general the youngest/newest participants who seem to burn out and leave over the course of one or two actions. The Swp doesnt care about countering the fash, its just another bandwagon to occasional climber on and jump just as fast off again in the bid to sign up some more usefull idiots and flog some toiletpaper.
the demise of the BUF was mainly thanks to the 43 group and them ending up on the wrong side of the war, the demise of the NSM, NF, original BNP, BM & C18 was thanks to the 63 group/SWP-stewardsgroup/RedAction/AFA, thatcher stealing their thunder and the fash being a bunch of helpless wankers with too many wanabe fuhrers and not enough stormtroopers to organise a pissup in a brewery, for the demise of the current BNP and the EDL we mostly have to thank them themselves for being again a bunch of helpless wankers with too many wanabe fuhrers and not enough stormtroopers to organise a pissup in a brewery, the mainstream political parties (including labour) stealing their thunder but sadly not much of an organised leftist response (excluding the occasional succesfull community mobilisation that the SWP always simultaniously try to castrate into insignificance and claim boisterous credit for).

/end sectarian rant

[Hit The North]

Psycho, I see you are a member of the imaginary party. It goes with your imaginary account of events.

The ANL organised thousands in counter demonstrations and physically confronted the NF. The election of Thatcher on a right wing agenda cut off the passive voting support the NF were accruing throughout the 1970s and then, in the 1980s, Red Action/AFA mopped up the remnants in largely symbolic street fights outside pubs.

[Sasha]

Yeah, like thousands listening to a concert and preaches to the converted miles away while the SWP leadership where intentionally feeding disinformation to the crowds and tying the stewards groups down leaving the immigrant communities under assault to fend for themselves...
throwing eventually the whole stewardsgroup under the bus, expelling them often while straight out of jail in show trials all too reminiscent of the Moscow ones...

Also, maybe you should investigate what a term like the imaginary party (http://libcom.org/library/theses-imaginary-party) is before making supposed whisecracks, you might find yourself les often with your foot in your mouth.

[The Idler]

Anti-fascist demos are the main activity of SWP members and the main way the SWP recruits. "BNP = EDL = Nazi" is one of the most sacred high liturgical doctrines of the SWP. A couple of high profile attempts at SWP censorship of the BNP have failed in recent years at Oxford University and BBC Question Time where Nick Griffin did himself more long-term damage than any aspiring censors.

[bricolage]

BBC Question Time where Nick Griffin did himself more long-term damage than any aspiring censors.
Except that after Question Time the BNP experienced a massive spike in membership that has eventually declined, not least due to infighting in the party but not for reasons that can be traced all the way back to the BBC. I'm not even defending no platform but at least facts have to be straight.

[Q]

Except that after Question Time the BNP experienced a massive spike in membership that has eventually declined, not least due to infighting in the party but not for reasons that can be traced all the way back to the BBC. I'm not even defending no platform but at least facts have to be straight.

Oh really? Could you put up some sources that verify your point? As far as I understood, like The Idler, is that it damaged the BNP more than anything.

[bricolage]

Oh really? Could you put up some sources that verify your point? As far as I understood, like The Idler, is that it damaged the BNP more than anything.
well in the immediate aftermath they reported that 3,000 people had applied to join (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/23/bnp-poll-boost-question-time). they couldn't do anything about this as they were banned from taking new members and of course it's very likely that the figure of 3,000 was highly inflated. but the article does mention how more complaints to the bbc were that the programme had been biased against the BNP and I think the way it was structured with mainstream politicians rounding on nick griffin did allow them to continue their 'revel/victim of the mainstream parties' identity. the party is now in a shambles because of massive infighting and also, I think, because the EDL took a lot of the hype away from them and transferred it to their street demos.

[Vanguard1917]

well in the immediate aftermath they reported that 3,000 people had applied to join (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/23/bnp-poll-boost-question-time). they couldn't do anything about this as they were banned from taking new members and of course it's very likely that the figure of 3,000 was highly inflated. but the article does mention how more complaints to the bbc were that the programme had been biased against the BNP and I think the way it was structured with mainstream politicians rounding on nick griffin did allow them to continue their 'revel/victim of the mainstream parties' identity.

Yes, exactly. It allowed the BNP to look like an anti-establishment party with something so radical and dangerous to say that it had to be subjected to extraordinary measures by the state media. Bit like a modern-day Galileo! (Apologies to the latter...)

[The Idler]

I'm aware of Griffin's claim, but the SWP claim membership spikes too. But looked at over any reasonable amount of time, the BNP has declined in membership numbers. Griffin has not repeated the membership spike claim and if that was grounds for censoring fascists then the membership spike in the BUF should encourage a re-evaluation of celebrating Cable Street as a victory. The only thing that supports the BNP's claim to be especially anti-establishment is anti-fascists lining up with the establishment to single them out for censorship.

[Grenzer]

mate, i hate the labour party more than anyone, and i love to point out how the british union of fascists had its roots in the labour party and fabian society, but you're being silly here.

labour students tend to think of themselves as "socialists", "radicals", anti-racists, etc. not the kind of thing you were imlying.

Are there even Fabians anymore? I really hate those fuckers, and the labor party. It seems like for a lot of people on 'the left'(even the 'revolutionary' part) look up to the labor party as some kind of model.

[The Idler]

Pretty sure the Fabians claim a few thousand members.

[ed miliband]

Are there even Fabians anymore? I really hate those fuckers, and the labor party. It seems like for a lot of people on 'the left'(even the 'revolutionary' part) look up to the labor party as some kind of model.

lots of leading labour party members are fabians and they publish shite pamphlets on shit like "fairness". was once reading a "socialist chat" thread on a forum for uk students and they were discussing whether or not to join, made me sick.

[ed miliband]

oh, the motion was absolutely destroyed; 399 voted to extend no platform, nearly 1,500 against. lol.

[Hit The North]

oh, the motion was absolutely destroyed; 399 voted to extend no platform, nearly 1,500 against. lol.

Gee, that's 1,500 votes to allow student facilities to be used for spreading anti-immigrant and racist propaganda. What a famous victory for free speech. You must be very proud.

[ed miliband]

Gee, that's 1,500 votes to allow student facilities to be used for spreading anti-immigrant and racist propaganda. What a famous victory for free speech. You must be very proud.

1,500 votes against nus careerist scum.

[ed miliband]

Gee, that's 1,500 votes to allow student facilities to be used for spreading anti-immigrant and racist propaganda. What a famous victory for free speech. You must be very proud.

serious response to this sad bit of trolling then.

you suggest 'no platform' is a tactic, not a principle - i agree. it's a tactic that makes perfect sense when "fascism" is a physical force: when white power bands are playing a gig, when nationalists are holding a meeting or demo, etc. it makes perfect sense for communities to say 'not here, not now, not ever' and tell them to fuck off. i don't see how this applies to student media unless they decided to uncritically print the manifesto of golden dawn or something.

when you say:


Well, I guess the no-platform argument is that the university should not be giving a platform for the dissemination of racism. That seems a fair point to me and i think you should support it.


Gee, that's 1,500 votes to allow student facilities to be used for spreading anti-immigrant and racist propaganda.

it's exactly the kind of, yes, shrill hyperbole that i heard from your lot on campus. printing an interview with somebody that very clearly portrays them in a negative light is not "disseminating" racism or racist propaganda. had the interview been concluded with "yep, nick griffin is right on every point..." then it would have been. but it wasn't.

back to "no-platform" in general, and it's application: the bnp have a much bigger platform that a small student newspaper, they aim to be a party of "respectable" parliamentary politicians. you can't no platform your way out of that.

so considering all of this (the fact i don't think no platform is applicable here, the fact i don't believe printing an interview counts as disseminating racism, and the fact that i think the bnp have to be countered in other ways) i voted against the policy. nothing to do with free speech, as i make clear in the first post. i also found the moralistic paternalism or outright elitism of those in favour of the motion pretty reprehensible, and i have to question the motivation of nus bureaucrats in proposing it.

[Prometeo liberado]

Without having read all the responses here I would argue that "no platform" only hides the issue. Bringing things out into the open for whatever confrontation will happen seems to not only logical but a very scientific approach to dealing with the problem. Accountability should be a mantra within our own ranks, why should we accept less from others? Darkness feeds malaise and reaction. IMO.

[hetz]

The real issue is not whether these BNP folks should be allowed to speak or not, it's that the student body seemingly doesn't have more important and urgent things to discuss.

Surely it would be more productive to make up a counter-presentation exposing and refuting whatever these nationalists might be saying?

[ed miliband]

Without having read all the responses here I would argue that "no platform" only hides the issue. Bringing things out into the open for whatever confrontation will happen seems to not only logical but a very scientific approach to dealing with the problem. Accountability should be a mantra within our own ranks, why should we accept less from others? Darkness feeds malaise and reaction. IMO.

'hit the north' and his lot would respond by saying doing this allows these views to become legitimised, as if the fact the bnp hold political positions across britain and at a european level doesn't "legitimise" their views somewhat.

[Prometeo liberado]

'hit the north' and his lot would respond by saying doing this allows these views to become legitimized, as if the fact the bnp hold political positions across britain and at a european level doesn't "legitimize" their views somewhat.

We "legitimize" the more articulate forms of nonsense everyday(In America we call it the two party system), so why shy away from it's less articulated cousin? We legitimize by our own ineffective ability to articulate something better.

[Hit The North]

Without having read all the responses here I would argue that "no platform" only hides the issue. Bringing things out into the open for whatever confrontation will happen seems to not only logical but a very scientific approach to dealing with the problem. Accountability should be a mantra within our own ranks, why should we accept less from others? Darkness feeds malaise and reaction. IMO.

I disagree. No platform brings the issues into focus. What hides the issues is keeping your head down and accepting that your student paper should be allowed to provide a platform for racists and fascists without the editor being held accountable. If the proponents of no platform had not kicked up a fuss then the issues would have gone unspoken.

Adopting no platform as a guiding principle for the student union isn't a form of law but a policy commitment that student facilities should not be used to platform racist and fascist ideas. It doesn't negate the need for protest but provides legitimacy for it. It means that when anti-racists take action they have the support of the union.

Ed might like to think that he's on the side of the angels and that the 1,500 students who voted against the union proposal were doing so because they possess a superior political perspective, but the likely truth is that for the majority of the 1,500 who voted against it is a symptom of an unwillingness to confront the BNP. It is a vote for political inertia.

[Prometeo liberado]

I disagree. No platform brings the issues into focus. What hides the issues is keeping your head down and accepting that your student paper should be allowed to provide a platform for racists and fascists without the editor being held accountable. If the proponents of no platform had not kicked up a fuss then the issues would have gone unspoken.

Adopting no platform as a guiding principle for the student union isn't a form of law but a policy commitment that student facilities should not be used to platform racist and fascist ideas. It doesn't negate the need for protest but provides legitimacy for it. It means that when anti-racists take action they have the support of the union.

Ed might like to think that he's on the side of the angels and that the 1,500 students who voted against the union proposal were doing so because they possess a superior political perspective, but the likely truth is that for the majority of the 1,500 who voted against it is a symptom of an unwillingness to confront the BNP. It is a vote for political inertia.

In fact the no platform, platform creates the....ultimate platform. Political inertia after the fact is an entirely different subject. But I see what you're saying.

[Vanguard1917]

Ed might like to think that he's on the side of the angels and that the 1,500 students who voted against the union proposal were doing so because they possess a superior political perspective, but the likely truth is that for the majority of the 1,500 who voted against it is a symptom of an unwillingness to confront the BNP. It is a vote for political inertia.

Some of those people will have voted against it because they don't agree with a further extension of NUS censorship powers on campus.

The NUS no-platform policy has never had much to do with anti-fascism; as has been pointed out, fascism doesn't exist on British university campuses, and the policy was introduced in the 1990s, when the social purchase of fascist and racist ideas was at a historic low. (Furthermore, NUS no-platform isn't restricted to the far-right - it has also been applied to certain Islamist groups.)

What the NUS no-platform policy is really a product of is the increased bureaucratisation of student political activism. NUS bureaucrats, as with all other bureaucrats, view the mass of people that they 'represent' with mostly cynical disdain. Their 'no platform' policy should be understood as a bureaucratic manoeuvre by an elite - which is largely cut-off from the wider student body, and seen as irrelevant by most students - to control the politics that students can and cannot be exposed to.