East london Bnp meeting disrupted

[Fedayn]

Yes - the web article oddly is slightly longer than the newspaper one.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....y=newsela&itemid=WeED08 Oct 2008 14:43:36:693

Cheers mate

 

[teuchter]

So: the "antifascists" reported the meting to the Vicar.

The Vicar asked the BNP to leave. They didn't.

The Vicar called the police.

The police asked the BNP to leave. They did.

So the "antifascists" started a fight with the police.

That makes perfect sense.

 

[lights.out.london]

^ Why "antifascists", rather than antifascists? What? You reckon this was the work of the LibDem Hit Squad - pelt the fash with cakes and buns?

You don't believe this was an antifa action?

 

[teuchter]

Only because the sequence of events as described in the newspaper article suggests they were more interested in having a fight with someone, than preventing the BNP having their meeting.

Also - if you are claiming to be "antifascist" then to use violence to prevent the free speech of another seems a little contradictory.

 

[lights.out.london]

Only because the sequence of events as described in the newspaper article suggests they were more interested in having a fight with someone, than preventing the BNP having their meeting.

Also - if you are claiming to be "antifascist" then to use violence to prevent the free speech of another seems a little contradictory.

...and here opens the gates to the debate that is direct action vs passive resistance.

There is no contradiction to antifascists using violence (afterall, it's tool of fascism and national socialism) to deny fascists the chance to congregate, organise or disseminate their message of hate. Just as they would deny you and I the right to free association etc if they came to power.

If you have a better answer, I'm all eyes/ears.

 

[teuchter]

There is no contradiction to antifascists using violence (afterall, it's tool of fascism and national socialism)

I don't see how that is not a contradiction.

If it's OK for the antifascists, then why is it not OK for the fascists?

 

[lights.out.london]

Chicken and egg, IMHO. Violence is a fascist 'tradition', so it's taking the tools of the enemy and using them against them.

Again - if you have a better, or more morally justifiable/convenient way of defeating fascism at a grass roots level I'd be pleased to discuss it, or learn of it.

 

[teuchter]

Chicken and egg, IMHO. Violence is a fascist 'tradition', so it's taking the tools of the enemy and using them against them.

Again - if you have a better, or more morally justifiable/convenient way of defeating fascism at a grass roots level I'd be pleased to discuss it, or learn of it.

It seems like a toddler argument to me - "but mummy he hit me first".

My suggestion is simply that you defeat it through reasoned debate. Present the other side of the argument to the people they are trying to recruit to their cause. Let those people decide what side they want to be on, on the basis of who presents the most convincing argument rather than on the basis of who is better at beating people up.

 

[lights.out.london]

Ah. I can tell you've had little or no contact with serious fash on the street, or elsewhere.

I won't be drawn in to the "toddler" argument - suffice to say, and to mangle metaphors, fight fire with fire or, deal with the fash in a language they understand ie violence.

If you have ever had dealings with a commited member of B&H, C18 or any of the other bonkers splinter groups, you wouldn't waste time advocating debate; reasoned or otherwise.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Chicken and egg, IMHO. Violence is a fascist 'tradition', so it's taking the tools of the enemy and using them against them.

Again - if you have a better, or more morally justifiable/convenient way of defeating fascism at a grass roots level I'd be pleased to discuss it, or learn of it.

That's the same kind of argument Bush and Blair used before Iraq.

Using violence against them only increases their support. It's debate and common sense that's kept the far right down in this country, let them speak and dig their own graves. Unfortunately some activists just like a good punch-up.

 

[teuchter]

Ah. I can tell you've had little or no contact with serious fash on the street, or elsewhere.

I won't be drawn in to the "toddler" argument - suffice to say, and to mangle metaphors, fight fire with fire or, deal with the fash in a language they understand ie violence.

If you have ever had dealings with a commited member of B&H, C18 or any of the other bonkers splinter groups, you wouldn't waste time advocating debate; reasoned or otherwise.

Which is why I said that the persuasive arguments should be directed at the people they are trying to recruit to their cause.

There will always be some nutters whose opinions can't ever be changed by reason. Luckily, they are in the minority. Doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on the people who might be tempted to follow them?

 

[teuchter]

That's the same kind of argument Bush and Blair used before Iraq.

Using violence against them only increases their support. It's debate and common sense that's kept the far right down in this country, let them speak and dig their own graves. Unfortunately some activists just like a good punch-up.

Agreed.

 

[lights.out.london]

That's the same kind of argument Bush and Blair used before Iraq.

I must have missed that. And a sound argument can be twisted or hijacked by others for their own use.

If you have a source for that ^, I'd be keen to read it, as I'm having a conversation about the legality of the Iraq war on another board.

Bless you and teuchter for your faith in the human race - I'm sure it's that which informs your comments, rather than complacency and naivety?

 

[Rabidrodent]

That's the same kind of argument Bush and Blair used before Iraq.

Using violence against them only increases their support. It's debate and common sense that's kept the far right down in this country, let them speak and dig their own graves. Unfortunately some activists just like a good punch-up.

I know no 'activist' who 'just likes a good punch up'. If you think fighting some of these thugs is fun you live in la-la land.

Clearly you also have absolutely NO concept of the rise of the extreme right across so-called democratic Europe. Perhaps you should investigate. So much for 'debate' seeing them off...

No doubt you and 'teuchter' are a couple of these 'It'll never happen again' brigade.

What a load of toss.

 

[Nigel]

Yes - the web article oddly is slightly longer than the newspaper one.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....y=newsela&itemid=WeED08 Oct 2008 14:43:36:693

"BNP spokesman Simon Darby said speakers at Sunday's rally included former national organiser Richard EDMONDS, BARKING councillor Bob Bailey and author Jonathan Bowden."

Edomonds and Barking in the same sentence; what can you say

Can't really see the BNP turning back to street tactics at the moment, no confidence for one thing, or do you consider this to be naive.

 

[teuchter]

Bless you and teuchter for your faith in the human race - I'm sure it's that which informs your comments, rather than complacency and naivety?

You think we are complacent and naive, because we are saying that there are better ways to challenge views you don't like than by using violence?

What makes you think this? How does one follow from the other?

Why do you make this statement instead of actually responding to the points that have been made?

Is your faith in the human race such that you believe that the majority of humans will only respond to violence?

I know no 'activist' who 'just likes a good punch up'. If you think fighting some of these thugs is fun you live in la-la land.

Really? Why did the "activists" described in the article in the OP try to attack the police, who were doing what they wanted them to do - ie. break up the meeting?

Clearly you also have absolutely NO concept of the rise of the extreme right across so-called democratic Europe. Perhaps you should investigate. So much for 'debate' seeing them off...

What makes you think I am so ignorant? Can you be specific about exactly which groups you mean? For example, are you talking about groups like the Northern League in Italy or are you talking about more "extreme" groups than that?

No doubt you and 'teuchter' are a couple of these 'It'll never happen again' brigade.

Again, what makes you think this, and, as per my comments to lightsoutlondon, why don't you respond to the points made instead of making assumptions about the persons?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Very well said teuchter. The fact that there are people here actually trying to defend political violence is sickening. Ironic behaviour for so called 'anti' fascists

 

[Rabidrodent]

Very well said teuchter. The fact that there are people here actually trying to defend political violence is sickening. Ironic behaviour for so called 'anti' fascists

Previously...

The implication seemed to be that being old was further ammo to use against them. I'm balding and grey, but I was protesting against the nazis 30 years ago in the days of the good old Auntie Nancy League. My old man is still alive and he fought against the bastards in Europe and Africa. Old people often feel left out of society and unfortunately end up supporting nutters like the bnp sometimes. Let's not alienate them.

 

[Zachor]

Only because the sequence of events as described in the newspaper article suggests they were more interested in having a fight with someone, than preventing the BNP having their meeting.

That was my impression as well. Ignore the fash and concentrate on the real enemy - the police

Also - if you are claiming to be "antifascist" then to use violence to prevent the free speech of another seems a little contradictory.

I'm generally not in favour of no platforming as it allows the fash to present themselves as martyrs. There was justification in the methods and motivations of no platformers in the past such as the 43 Group but I've seen so many attempts at no platforming that have either been laughably inefficent or counterproductive that its not something I would generally support. In this case the antifash have sadly given the bnp a propaganda victory. The antifash are now going to be portrayed as the enemies of "old British people who have been forced by a cruel multiculturally biased elte into a position at the bottom of the social pile " The words in quotes are what I imagine how the fash will present this antifash debacle.

Some people never learn. Piss poor antifash activity handed the bnp three extra seats in Dagenham which they wouldn't otherwise have got.

Anti fash activity has to be a grass roots thing. If it is just a bunch of ex students and fantasists about violence as this group seem to be then its counterproductive.

 

[lights.out.london]

Very well said teuchter. The fact that there are people here actually trying to defend political violence is sickening. Ironic behaviour for so called 'anti' fascists

Oh. Dear.

Look. Here's a plan for you and your la-la-land friend :

start gently. Go to a regular BNP meeting and try some reaoned debate. Then up the ante and try chatting to some friendly foot soldiers of say, B&H. Come back to me and let's carry on the 'reasoned debate and good argument' thing.

"Challenging views you don't like". Priceless.

Back to the JCR for tea and muffins and a good old debate with the Supremicists! Yah!

 

[teuchter]

Oh. Dear.

Look. Here's a plan for you and your la-la-land friend :

start gently. Go to a regular BNP meeting and try some reaoned debate. Then up the ante and try chatting to some friendly foot soldiers of say, B&H. Come back to me and let's carry on the 'reasoned debate and good argument' thing.

"Challenging views you don't like". Priceless.

Back to the JCR for tea and muffins and a good old debate with the Supremicists! Yah!

As I've already said and you keep ignoring:

Present the other side of the argument to the people they are trying to recruit to their cause. Let those people decide what side they want to be on, on the basis of who presents the most convincing argument rather than on the basis of who is better at beating people up.

Which is why I said that the persuasive arguments should be directed at the people they are trying to recruit to their cause.

There will always be some nutters whose opinions can't ever be changed by reason. Luckily, they are in the minority. Doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on the people who might be tempted to follow them?

Please explain to me exactly what going to a BNP meeting and beating people up is going to achieve.

 

[peacepete]

talking about dealing with fascism always results in this debate.

it's hard not to notice that most people who advocate a completely non-violent approach rarely back it up with vast experience of when it has worked.

my limited experience of anti-fascist campaigning has taught me that no matter what approach you enter into it with, physical force becomes very relevant at some point or other. not surprising really when you think about what fascism is.

 

[lights.out.london]

As I've already said and you keep ignoring:


Please explain to me exactly what going to a BNP meeting and beating people up is going to achieve.

*bangs head on desk*

You've kinda missed the point, eh?

Perhaps a cursory reading of the arguments proposed by fascists and national socialists might offer you an answer, quicker than I can type on this board.

 

[peacepete]

teuchter - i don't think going to a BNP meeting and beating people up is a particularly good idea, but taking a principled non-violent stance is completely doomed to fail.

 

[Zachor]

Please explain to me exactly what going to a BNP meeting and beating people up is going to achieve.

I'll tell you what it achieves. It gives the fash martyrs and allows them to present the antifash as treasonous wankers who hate their own people.

I've lived amongst and had family members who were fash right back to the days of Mosley. I do happen to know a little of how they will present things to their own members and those who are on the edge of supporting the fash.

You can engage with bnp members as individuals and I've done so myself, but I've done it quietly and without jargon and slogans and I hope that I've helped some people to see there is more than one side to this issue. Some of them are outright bigots who love the idea of a race war in which the Muslims and the Jews will be removed from the UK but there are others who join just because they have seen how badly shat upon they've been by the mainstream politicians.

Telling people to join up with their local lefty parachute artistes is not going to work and neither is handing the fash a propaganda victory which antifa seem to have done here.

If you are going to have anti fash activity then it must be effective and must not leave hostages to fortune.

At some point in antifash work physical confrontation is sometimes required but such times should be chosen with care.

 

[peacepete]

people seem to confuse

A: being opposed to a principled non-violent approach to fascism

with

B: being up for a fight

 

[lights.out.london]

I'll tell you what it achieves. It gives the fash martyrs and allows them to present the antifash as treasonous wankers who hate their own people.

I've lived amongst and had family members who were fash right back to the days of Mosley. I do happen to know a little of how they will present things to their own members and those who are on the edge of supporting the fash.

You can engage with bnp members as individuals and I've done so myself, but I've done it quietly and without jargon and slogans and I hope that I've helped some people to see there is more than one side to this issue. Some of them are outright bigots who love the idea of a race war in which the Muslims and the Jews will be removed from the UK but there are others who join just because they have seen how badly shat upon they've been by the mainstream politicians.

Telling people to join up with their local lefty parachute artistes is not going to work and neither is handing the fash a propaganda victory which antifa seem to have done here.

If you are going to have anti fash activity then it must be effective and must not leave hostages to fortune.

At some point in antifash work physical confrontation is sometimes required but such times should be chosen with care.

Interesting post. And I'm not sure antifa handed the BNP a propaganda victory.

Telling people to join up with their local lefty parachute artistes is not going to work

...and there's the rub. How or where or who else do you turn to to prevent fascists organising and meeting?

 

[teuchter]

*bangs head on desk*

You've kinda missed the point, eh?

Perhaps a cursory reading of the arguments proposed by fascists and national socialists might offer you an answer, quicker than I can type on this board.

I'm afraid you're not really winning me over with your attempts at being patronising and your refusal to respond to the points I am making or the questions I am asking.

 

[teuchter]

but taking a principled non-violent stance is completely doomed to fail.

Can you explain more fully why you think this?

 

[teuchter]

it's hard not to notice that most people who advocate a completely non-violent approach rarely back it up with vast experience of when it has worked.

Can you provide specific examples when it demonstrably hasn't worked, or, more importantly, when a violent approach has worked?