East london Bnp meeting disrupted

[lights.out.london]

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.

Because until you concede the nature of the 'enemy', there is little point in trying to have, erm, a resoned debate with you on this subject.

Other than personal anecdotal evidence, can you clearly demonstrate how your approach is best? can you show in anyway where debate has won the day?

I think where we disagree is the fundamental nature of the people and groups we're discussing; what they believe and what they think is acceptable to achieve those ends.

We're not discussing debating Europe and the EU with some mildly pissed-off Tories from the Home Counties.

 

[Zachor]

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

I think they have. They are very hot on support for elder (white) people and a mob of the great lefty unwashed harrassing vunerable old people is going to go down really well when they are canvassing and organising.

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

Its a difficult one. I don't think that there is anything to be gained by getting groups such as ANL/AFA/LMHR or whatever alphabet soup the SWP and other left groups involved. They are seen by many of the white working class in my experience as 'not being onside'. I don't think you can stop them meeting and organising especially if the area they are meeting in is depressed and receptive to their message. The bnp are not doing the 'designed confrontation' policy of the NF back in the days when they deliberately met in areas that were Bengali / Jewish in order to provoke a reaction.

I personally would be in favour of letting them have their meetings and ignoring them or blanking them if they approach. Far far more effective than giving them the oxygen of publicity which a big left sponsored demo would do.

Remember the left to all intents in purposes is as dead as the dodo in most working class white areas and the corpse is not going to be revived. There needs to be some form of community org that is political in order to cut the fash off at the knees.

 

[lights.out.london]

Its a difficult one. I don't think that there is anything to be gained by getting groups such as ANL/AFA/LMHR or whatever alphabet soup the SWP and other left groups involved. They are seen by many of the white working class in my experience as 'not being onside'. I don't think you can stop them meeting and organising especially if the area they are meeting in is depressed and receptive to their message. The bnp are not doing the 'designed confrontation' policy of the NF back in the days when they deliberately met in areas that were Bengali / Jewish in order to provoke a reaction.

I personally would be in favour of letting them have their meetings and ignoring them or blanking them if they approach. Far far more effective than giving them the oxygen of publicity which a big left sponsored demo would do.

Remember the left to all intents in purposes is as dead as the dodo in most working class white areas and the corpse is not going to be revived. There needs to be some form of community org that is political in order to cut the fash off at the knees.

^ you've included text in quoting me that isn't mine. Can you amend it please? Ta.

e2a - thanks.

 

[ajdown]

... or you could just allow freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly, and let them get on with it.

 

[Zachor]

^ you've included text in quoting me that isn't mine. Can you amend it please? Ta.

e2a - thanks.

See post 62 I think I have corrected it.

 

[lights.out.london]

I think they have. They are very hot on support for elder (white) people and a mob of the great lefty unwashed harrassing vunerable old people is going to go down really well when they are canvassing and organising.


Its a difficult one. I don't think that there is anything to be gained by getting groups such as ANL/AFA/LMHR or whatever alphabet soup the SWP and other left groups involved. They are seen by many of the white working class in my experience as 'not being onside'. I don't think you can stop them meeting and organising especially if the area they are meeting in is depressed and receptive to their message. The bnp are not doing the 'designed confrontation' policy of the NF back in the days when they deliberately met in areas that were Bengali / Jewish in order to provoke a reaction.

I personally would be in favour of letting them have their meetings and ignoring them or blanking them if they approach. Far far more effective than giving them the oxygen of publicity which a big left sponsored demo would do.

Remember the left to all intents in purposes is as dead as the dodo in most working class white areas and the corpse is not going to be revived. There needs to be some form of community org that is political in order to cut the fash off at the knees.

SWP soup.

I take your point about the perception being that some white working class people 'aren't onside', but to be honest - I've wasted hours and hours meeting and listening to well-meaning but clueless antifascist activists - I wonder if these (often) super-duper middle class do-gooders even like the white working classes...

You're last sentence is a good point.

I'm getting too old to ruck on the streets. I don't seem to fit with the usual anti-fascist direct action groups (my aftershave, probably) but I'm prepared to put myself out (as are many many more braver than I) and take risks to my liberty and safety, because the alternative is abhorent.

 

[peacepete]

Can you explain more fully why you think this?

If you refuse to use violence in any situation then all fascists need to do is deploy their much practiced bullying violent tactics in the knowledge you won't defend yourselves. It is worth looking at the website redwatch, which you can find using a search engine, as an example of this.

Committed fascists will understand that they can use violence to empty the political arena of all other voices than their own.

 

[peacepete]

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

for the latter - cable street.

 

[lights.out.london]

Committed fascists will understand that they can use violence to empty the political arena of all other voices than their own.

Yes.

And be careful where you log-on to Redwatch from. I'd do it at a netcafe. Not at work, or a home PC.

 

[Jonti]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Corallary: there are those who must be fought, to the death if necessary, to defend our liberty.

 

[Rabidrodent]

I think they have. They are very hot on support for elder (white) people and a mob of the great lefty unwashed harrassing vunerable old people is going to go down really well when they are canvassing and organising.

And there you have it, another seasoned wally on this thread with little or no knowledge of people involved in anti-fascism in the UK today.

You're characterisation is somewhat out-of-date.

But do carry on... I'll just tie up my dog with this ere string to this ere Special Brew can.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Corallary: there are those who must be fought, to the death if necessary, to defend our liberty.

You're dead right Jonti, but a small bnp meeting that the police have under control is hardly the same as Hitler marching across Europe

 

[teuchter]

Because until you concede the nature of the 'enemy', there is little point in trying to have, erm, a resoned debate with you on this subject.

Other than personal anecdotal evidence, can you clearly demonstrate how your approach is best? can you show in anyway where debate has won the day?

I think where we disagree is the fundamental nature of the people and groups we're discussing; what they believe and what they think is acceptable to achieve those ends.

We're not discussing debating Europe and the EU with some mildly pissed-off Tories from the Home Counties.

In the context of this thread, we're discussing groups like the BNP.

I could argue that debate has won the day at present, as the BNP are not in government. Are you going to say that the only reason the BNP isn't in government is because their meetings are occasionally harassed by violent "activists"? I think they are not in government because not enough people vote for them. And that is so, because not enough people are convinced by their arguments.

If you refuse to use violence in any situation then all fascists need to do is deploy their much practiced bullying violent tactics in the knowledge you won't defend yourselves. It is worth looking at the website redwatch, which you can find using a search engine, as an example of this.

Committed fascists will understand that they can use violence to empty the political arena of all other voices than their own.

I can't say that violence is unacceptable in any situation. I can see that it might be necessary as an absolute last resort in a desperate situation, a situation that we are nowhere near in the UK, or as a means of self defence if directly threatened with physical violence yourself.

Even if I was the subject of harassment from a group such as Redwatch, I would not be in favour of any kind of physically violent retribution. These things should be dealt with properly by the law - that should be the manner in which you defend yourself against bullying tactics. Otherwise it is just a form of vigilanteism and inevitably feeding into a cycle of tit-for-tat violence.

small bnp meeting that the police have under control is hardly the same as Hitler marching across Europe

This.

 

[ajdown]

I think they are not in government because not enough people vote for them. And that is so, because not enough people are convinced by their arguments.

You'd probably find that a lot of people are in agreement with some of their viewpoints - the problem is that people are scared to vocalise or show that support, because of all the crap that would get thrown at them by those who feel threatened by the point of view, even though it's proveably right.

It doesn't take much to see that immigration into the UK is overwhelming the country, but it's "racist" to speak out in support of limiting immigration, for example.

 

[butchersapron]

You'd probably find that a lot of people are in agreement with some of their viewpoints - the problem is that people are scared to vocalise or show that support, because of all the crap that would get thrown at them by those who feel threatened by the point of view, even though it's proveably right.

It doesn't take much to see that immigration into the UK is overwhelming the country, but it's "racist" to speak out in support of limiting immigration, for example.

...and he's off.

 

[teuchter]

You'd probably find that a lot of people are in agreement with some of their viewpoints - the problem is that people are scared to vocalise or show that support, because of all the crap that would get thrown at them by those who feel threatened by the point of view, even though it's proveably right.

It doesn't take much to see that immigration into the UK is overwhelming the country, but it's "racist" to speak out in support of limiting immigration, for example.

If you want to argue about whether or not the BNP are "proveably right" then please start another thread rather than derailing this one. The discussion here is about whether it is acceptable to use violence against people with whom you disagree (or even, against people threatening you yourself with violence). What are your views on that question?

 

[ajdown]

Violence is never an appropriate solution to any problem, except self defense when there are no other options.

 

[Nigel]

Violence is never an appropriate solution to any problem, except self defense when there are no other options.

Sometimes self defence means getting the first punch in before the forces of darkness has all of its opponents living in concentration camps.

 

[Zachor]

Sometimes self defence means getting the first punch in before the forces of darkness has all of its opponents living in concentration camps.

I can most certainly agree with that. However, antifash violence should above all be effective and not give the fash propaganda victories.

 

[ajdown]

Sometimes self defence means getting the first punch in before the forces of darkness has all of its opponents living in concentration camps.

Overdramatise much?

 

[Nigel]

Overdramatise much?

You have no fucking idea whatsoever do you.

 

[Nigel]

On a serious note, what if the BNP don't want to play, you can't go on chasing groups of mentally handicapped pensioners like the BPP around forever.

The NF did well in the GLA elections and are more likely to revert to street tactics.

Other froms of protest and resistance could be intertwinned with 'direct action'
Back to this point, are the BNP likely to turn to street politics in the not too distant future.
If not, where for anti fascism.

 

[Rabidrodent]

Overdramatise much?

Steady there Chamberlain, you might miss it..

 

[lights.out.london]

^ to the naysayers re 'direct action'.

Y'all seem to be firing with a shotgun. It's thugs, or the great lefty unwashed and it's not exactly the Waffen SS or the SD marching under Marble Arch, and it's violent (duh!) and it's the argument Bush/Blair used and, and , and....

I urge you, with all the earnestness at my command, to acquaint yourself qwith the enemy and then report back.

Please. Go chat with the fash. Tell us how you get on. Start at a BNP meeting and work your way down the greasy filthpole.

 

[teuchter]

^ to the naysayers re 'direct action'.

Y'all seem to be firing with a shotgun. It's thugs, or the great lefty unwashed and it's not exactly the Waffen SS or the SD marching under Marble Arch, and it's violent (duh!) and it's the argument Bush/Blair used and, and , and....

I urge you, with all the earnestness at my command, to acquaint yourself qwith the enemy and then report back.

Please. Go chat with the fash. Tell us how you get on. Start at a BNP meeting and work your way down the greasy filthpole.

If I were to go and meet some of these people, and if I were to observe that they were, for example intimidating people with the threat of violence, then I would use my energies to make sure they were dealt with under the laws which we have in this country which are there to stop such things happening.
If they were simply expressing opinions, then however much I might disagree with those opinions, I would respect their right to express them, as otherwise it would be illogical to expect anyone else to grant me the right to express my own. In this case I would concentrate my best efforts at persuading people that the views being expressed were not healthy or rational ones. As I've said at least three times already, if it became apparent that the instigators were not going to respond to reason, I would concentrate on those who they were trying to recruit to their cause.

In other words, no matter how thuggish or disgusting I might find these people, I see no reason to abandon my principle of not responding with violence. I have reasons for that principle, and those reasons are that to do so would be both hypocritical and counterproductive. If my objection to someone is that they are trying to make other people behave in a certain way through intimidation or violence, then I see absolutely no way in which I can justify using those very same methods myself.

You seem to be suggesting that for some reason, presented with the reality of certain groups, I would abandon the principles I outline above. This implies you think that there is some kind of fault in my reasoning that would be exposed in such a situation, but you have made no attempt to explain what that is.

 

[Meltingpot]

Time to stir this up;

I agree. We already have laws which cover racially-based threat and intimidation. As long as the BNP meet those laws, they should be allowed to go about their business.

OK, there are people here who say the fash killed millions of people. So did the Communists, if you accept the official version of history (in fact, probably even more if you include China as well) and yet I don't see any threads here saying that Maoists and *Tankies should be banned or threatened with violence. Yet it wasn't that long ago that Communists in the electricity unions, for example, were threatening their members and falsifying vote counts in the elections for union leader.

Why the double standard? Ken Livingstone has said that the bankers of the IMF asnd World Bank kill millions of people (and he's probably right) and yet we're allowed to vote for parties which support them.

Final point. I don't think most of the people who vote for the BNP are "fash." The leaders probably are (at least Nick Griffin might well be, and Mark Collett almost certainly is) but the rank and file are simply white people who feel they are getting a bum deal out of multiculturalism. Rather than go round beating them up, go and convince them they're wrong and they should welcome being part of a multicultural society.

* One of my best friends at uni was a tankie.

 

[barney_pig]

Time to stir this up;

I agree. We already have laws which cover racially-based threat and intimidation. As long as the BNP meet those laws, they should be allowed to go about their business.

OK, there are people here who say the fash killed millions of people. So did the Communists, if you accept the official version of history (in fact, probably even more if you include China as well)

are we to assume that you prefer a different version of history?
perhaps one in which the death camps were all a jewish plot perhaps?
or the gulags all capitalist propaganda?

 

[lights.out.london]

Time to stir this up;



Final point. I don't think most of the people who vote for the BNP are "fash." The leaders probably are (at least Nick Griffin might well be, and Mark Collett almost certainly is) but the rank and file are simply white people who feel they are getting a bum deal out of multiculturalism. Rather than go round beating them up, go and convince them they're wrong and they should welcome being part of a multicultural society.

* One of my best friends at uni was a tankie.

That's okay then, eh?

 

[teuchter]

That's okay then, eh?

If that's how they feel, that's how they feel.

The point is, the only way to change these people's opinions is to persuade them with your arguments about why they are mistaken.

And going about beating up BNP leaders (or anyone else) is not exactly going to convince these people that you've got loads of really good arguments, is it?

 

[teuchter]

are we to assume that you prefer a different version of history?
perhaps one in which the death camps were all a jewish plot perhaps?
or the gulags all capitalist propaganda?

Don't be silly. That is not what he/she said at all.