Liberal Vision

How NOT to stop the BNP…

June 9th, 2009 Posted in UK Politics by Mark Littlewood

What were these people thinking? Are they actually paid agents of Nick Griffin? Madness.

nick-griffin

Tags: BNP

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm and is filed under UK Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

31 Responses to “How NOT to stop the BNP…”

Ziggy Encaoua Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Maybe Unite Against Fascism should actually be educating people as to why bigotry is wrong & not wasting their efforts painting themselves as no better thugs then the BNP
Ed Joyce Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
A lot of anti fascist groups are not against violence (in my personal experience they seem to be drawn to these events BY the violence) and draw their inspiration from the Battle of Cable Street. Criticising them for being violent might be missing the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

We need to look at this pivotal event and see what lessons can be drawn from the events of 4th October 1936.
Rob Stradling Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Bloody idiots – giving them the fight they so desperately want. They *want* to be assaulted. They *want* to be persecuted. They *want* us to make different rules for them. This kind of thing enshrines their myths of “liberal fascism” trying to bully “ordinary people”.

Back in the 80s, had the Anti-Nazi League not existed, it would have been necessary for the National Front to invent them. As you say, it would be tempting to believe that “Unite Against Fascism” was a BNP stooge. Tempting, but sadly wrong. Griffin and his cronies got this PR boost as a freebie from the Pavlov’s Dogs of the Reactionary Left.
Ziggy Encaoua Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Aren’t Unite Against Fascism backed by the SWP?

I’m sure Ed will remember who kicked things off at the Poll Tax Riots

‘A lot of anti fascist groups are not against violence’

Nor are they in favour of free speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091727.stm
Mark Littlewood Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Ed, my point wasn’t whether it’s okay to be violent or not. But that this sort of behaviour actually helps the BNP. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of UAF’s egg-throwing (I think they’re wrong), they are playing straight into the BNP’s hands. Nick Griffin can’t buy publicity this good.
Tristan Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
They’re probably upset that their thugs didn’t get elected.

It was like that in the 30s. The number of Labour politicians who joined the Communists because ‘they were the only ones doing something about the fascists’ is very high.
On the other side, my grandfather was a BUF member for a short while* after daring to ask a question at a Communist meeting – he got taken outside and beaten for his temerity.
The BUF were the only ones doing something about the Communists… I suspect that’s how they got a lot of their members.

The hard authoritarians gain many of their followers like that.

(*I know he left when or before it became clear how antisemitic the BUF were)
Ziggy Encaoua Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
If it came down to having to side between fascists & commies I’ll side with the commies they ain’t going to gas me because I’m Jewish
Ziggy Encaoua Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
@Mark

Yeah because of UAF actions Griffin was able to phone into the BBC & play the victim & many will view him as the victim etc.
Rob Stradling Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Ziggy – you might want to do a bit of Googling on that. I’d start with “The Night Of The Murdered Poets”, if I were you.
Bunny Smedley Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Mark is 100 per cent right about this one.

It’s hard to think of a PR stunt more likely to play to the BNP’s ‘strengths’ (hitting people, whining) whilst downplaying their far more significant weaknesses (stupid rhetoric, stupid policies, only got elected because the Labour vote slumped so badly so not much of a democratic mandate either, etc, etc.)
Angela Harbutt Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I saw Nick Griffin positively beaming with delight shortly afterwards on the TV. He will think christmas and birthday have come at once. Publicity and the likelihood of even more idiots rallying to his cause.
Ziggy Encaoua Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
@Rob

I didn’t know but thanks for telling me
keith elliott Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
My understanding is that David Cameron is a supported of UAF
Ziggy Encaoua Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
i’d be shocked if he were

Is there any evidence that he does?
Ziggy Encaoua Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
In fact according to the UAF website he is

http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
Niklas Smith Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
As usual with these groups they seem to have an unhelpful hothouse atmosphere: http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=146

We should start a rival group: Unite Against Egg-throwers.

And since Alistair Carmichael seems to be the only Lib Dem MP on their supporters list I think he should be asked to distance himself from them. As Mark says, the BNP love this publicity.
Niklas Smith Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I’ve just heard the interview with Donna Guthrie of Unite Against Fascism (Ziggy’s link). “We don’t believe in free speech for fascists.” Need I say more?
In Sweden similar “anti-fascist” groups have become vicious gangs of thugs. What the hell do they think they are playing at?
Jack Elwood Says:

June 9th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Nothing unites against fascism like undermining democracy and free speech.
Tiberius Leodis Says:

June 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
There’s an old expression, “those that live by the sword should expect to die by the sword.”

Griffin and others may complain that their ‘rights’ are being violated, but they don’t even disguise the fact that they would happily extinguish the ‘rights’ of non-whites should they ever achieve (more) power.

So yeah, these tactics may not look pretty – but given a choice between over-exuberant fascist-bashing, and this kind of pathetic liberal fretting over the rights of the far-right, I’m sure I am not alone in supporting this kind of action.
Rob Stradling Says:

June 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
So, principles up to a point eh, Tiberius?

The whole point of rights is that you can’t opt out of them, and you don’t sacrifice your own by violating others’. Otherwise they aren’t rights at all – they’re just codified hypocrisy.
Julian Harris Says:

June 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Tiberius – what an utterly absurd reactionary post. Indeed, how “pathetic” of us to maintain principles that apply to everyone, irrespective of their own views. In a sense I’m glad that you’ve come along to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your side.

On a brighter note – Rob, your blog looks rather interesting. I’ll add a link on our blogroll.
Niklas Smith Says:

June 10th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
@Tiberius: the point is that while there are limits to lawful speech, there seem to be two schools on how to define those limits.

Liberals say the limit is the content of the speech – such as incitement to murder.

Unite Against Fascism’s representatives said on BBC News, Newsnight and Channel 4 News that the limit is who is speaking. Hence Donna Guthrie’s statement “We don’t believe in free speech for fascists.”

Nick Griffin preening himself over how many votes he got is not incitement. If he leads a bunch of BNP supporters to a black area chanting “kill the blacks” I would be the first person to say he should be sent to jail. (See J.S. Mill’s example of the corndealer in On Liberty on the limits of free speech.)
Tiberius Leodis Says:

June 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
@Rob

re “So, principles up to a point eh, Tiberius?”

Basically, yes. That “point” being not supporting those who advocate fascism.

re “The whole point of rights is that you can’t opt out of them”

No, but if you’re a BNP MEP you can advocate removing them from certain sections of society apparently.

In my opinion , you only get to enjoy the full rights of a democratic society once you agree that everyone else has an implicit right to be there. You may call this “codified hypocrisy” if you wish, but I am not advocating deporting Griffin – so I think it is logically consistent.

I would ask you when the moral imperative fell on liberals living in other times creeping-fascism (Germany in 30s for example) to actually do something about it?

@Julian

Excellent. I trust your will maintain your ideologically principles when the fascists are holding rallies to promote carting off your non-white friends (should you have any).

I also find it interesting that you think I must have a “side”.

@Niklas

“the point is that while there are limits to lawful speech, there seem to be two schools on how to define those limits.”

I’m aware of the arguments. I’m also aware that if one religiously subscribes to a philosophy as weak and internally inconsistent as that of Mills you can get tied up in knots over these issues.

re “Nick Griffin preening himself over how many votes he got is not incitement.”

I would consider an elected politician of a party that does not allow membership for non-white speaking outside the spiritual home of our democracy to constitute “incitement”. You’re obviously more tolerant than I – so I’m guessing that a) you’re white, or, b) your family have not been victims of a fascist regime.

Fair enough, this is your prerogative and I wouldn’t criticize you for not joining the UAF. But the comment above go further than this: they openly criticize those on the left who have decided to draw a different line in the sand, and actually equate anti-fascists with the BNP:

Ziggy – “painting themselves as no better thugs then the BNP”

Tristan – “They’re probably upset that their thugs didn’t get elected.”

For me, this is unacceptable and should be commented upon.

I don’t agree with Guthrie’s statement, instead I would say “I don’t believe in free speech for elected fascists politicians” – and, yes, the burden of proof should be on those accusing other of fascisms – otherwise it’s just censorship. But, in Griffin’s case, that is easy to establish.

@All

In summary, I wouldn’t promote these UAF tactics, but neither would I be naïve enough to publicly criticize them – creating yet another left-division to be exploited. I wonder how many more fascist will have to be elected before some of you people understand that.

T.
Rob Stradling Says:

June 11th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
@Tiberius

You seem to be another of the many who simply can’t grasp that “fascism” lies upon the continuum of political opinion, not somewhere outside it. To postulate some kind of special status for it is simple evasion to excuse the (quite understandable) desire to suspend the standard political rules of engagement, in favour of eggs and fists.

I’m curious as to how you would respond to a Socialist Worker Party member being elected? Extreme, violent, and with known ties to terrorist organizations; is it okay to assault them in public, or is it only the extreme *right* who don’t deserve a place on our hustings?

You would deny a platform to these people because they cross a boundary in your morality. But that boundary is arbitrary. What about politicians who are anti-gay; anti-abortion; climate-change deniers; theocrats? At what point do we accept that those who believe odious things must be engaged and defeated in rational discourse, not shut away in dark rooms where their delusions can fester and grow?

By the way, I am not a free-speech absolutist. I do believe that there are some things that cannot be said in public. The first time Nick Griffin says something that openly endorses or incites violence or intimidation, I’m all for throwing away the key. But he must hang *himself*, and we must give him the rope to do it.
Tiberius Leodis Says:

June 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
@Rob Stradling

“You seem to be another of the many who simply can’t grasp that “fascism” lies upon the continuum of political opinion, not somewhere outside it”

You’re right, I “simply can’t grasp” it because I simply don’t think it is true: fascism is not a political perspective, it is an abomination; just as the holocaust was not simply a policy decision – it was a crime against humanity.

“You would deny a platform to these people because they cross a boundary in your morality.”

Absolutely not – by that definition I would advocate silencing pretty much every mainstream politician; Tony Blair crossed over that boundary and took a shit – I don’t remember ever saying he should be denied a platform (though he shouldn’t be denied a box in The Hague either)

“But that boundary is arbitrary.”

Not really, I have clearly stated what I think the boundary is – you appear to be so high up on your soap box you haven’t heard me.

“What about politicians who are anti-gay; anti-abortion; climate-change deniers; theocrats?”

It depends what it means to be ‘anti’ something – and since you seem to be rather keen on the ‘spectrum’ I would have thought you’d recognise that. If someone says, “I don’t like gays”, well each to their own. If an ordinary citizens “we should remove all gays from the country”, I’d be disgusted, but respect their right to say it. If an elected politician were to say “I advocate removing homosexuals from this country” – I’d sit up and take notice.

With regard to “anti-abortion; climate-change deniers; theocrats” this is different: it make some sense to say “I don’t believe people have the right to abortions” (even if I don’t happen to agree with it) but the same doesn’t apply to: “I don’t believe people have the right to be non-white”.

The foundational belief of the democratic society should be that all people are inherently equal. If you don’t (implicitly) acknowledge this or go further and actively refute this, then (as far as I’m concerned) you don’t get to sit at table of democracy and enjoy the food (except the eggs). But I would only define “sitting at the table” as being elected to some office.

“At what point do we accept that those who believe odious things must be engaged and defeated in rational discourse, not shut away in dark rooms where their delusions can fester and grow?”

The point at which they advocate the removal of others so they won’t have any opportunity to ‘engage’ in anything.

“The first time Nick Griffin says something that openly endorses or incites violence or intimidation…”

I think you lack either imagination or compassion if you don’t believe he has already done so.

Note: All this is fairly tangential anyway, since I am not a UAF member and not promoting their actions, simply stating a preference for it over the above comments.

T.
Rob Stradling Says:

June 11th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
— “The first time Nick Griffin says something that openly endorses or incites violence or intimidation…”

I think you lack either imagination or compassion if you don’t believe he has already done so.—

Presumably, then, so do the Crown Prosecution Service?

But then, I really should have stopped reading at;

— fascism is not a political perspective, it is an abomination… —
Tiberius Leodis Says:

June 11th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
@Rob

“Presumably, then, so do the Crown Prosecution Service?”

Riiiiiight, so it’s the CPS who are looking out for the good of the nation’s democracy. Gotcha.
Rob Stradling Says:

June 12th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Provable incitement to violence would be a criminal offence, and easy bust, and a huge coup for the establishment. By your logic, therefore, the CPS either “lack imagination or compassion” on an institution-wide basis, or feel no such case exists against Griffin.

Is this really about “looking out for the good of the nation’s democracy”? Do you *honestly* feel that excluding people from it achieves that?
Tiberius Leodis Says:

June 12th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
“By your logic, therefore, the CPS either “lack imagination or compassion” on an institution-wide basis”

A gross understatement, but ‘yes’

By your logic, anything not charged as a criminal offence by the CPS – cash for honours, MP’s fraudulent expense claims, the war in Iraq, etc, etc, etc – are all legitimate.

I think it’s there your argument implodes in on itself.

“Is this really about “looking out for the good of the nation’s democracy”? Do you *honestly* feel that excluding people from it achieves that?”

You’ve already said that you’re not a “a free-speech absolutist”, so we already agree there is a limit to this ‘right’ – we draw that line in different places, I have no problem with that.

What I think is a bigger issue (and one you have not addressed) is whether it is appropriate for those people ostensibly on the left to be openly criticising/slandering others for opposing (perhaps “over-zealously” you may argue) a recently-elected, far-right politician trying to bask in his victory outside the seat of the nation’s democracy.

T.
Rob Stradling Says:

June 13th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I’m simply pointing out that, while you believe that Griffin has broken the laws of the land, the laws of the land disagree.

Therefore, breaking the law to oppose him is not “legitimate”, to use your word. As an egg-thrower in court against Griffin, YOU would be the transgressor (however minor).

There really is no way past this. Call it lynch-mob justice, or vigilantism, or whatever. These actions put Nick Griffin, for all his odiousness, in the right. They make him the bona fide victim of unlawful activity.

We have laws which limit free speech, in (fairly) clearly defined circumstances. Although I oppose extending those laws, I believe in them as they exist today. There is nothing arbitrary about where I draw my line; I draw it according to the law.
Ziggy Encaoua Says:

June 13th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Bottom line if you believe you’ve a right to express your opinion publically then you should that right to those with opposing views.

How NOT to stop the BNP…

31 Responses to “How NOT to stop the BNP…”

Recent Blog Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

General