UAF vs UAF!!

[Nigel]

Its obviously a plot by international Zionism

 

[Josh FG]

THe dispute in the local groupe was weather or not they put UAFs name on their leaflet (I have no idea what this leaflet said myself) they were however expelled from positions of power for lying about legal action which was never threatened by the office and using it as a tool to weaken unite.

 

[Nigel]

Where is the proof??

 

[Josh FG]

i still think the biggest joke is UAF having anything to do with 'islamaphobia' in the first place!

Why is that a joke? UAF has always been the strongest force in the anti racist movement opposed to Islamophobia. WOuld u like to back up that statement.

 

[Josh FG]

Where is the proof??

you don't need proof that UAF have threatened legal action but don't need proof that we haven't (proving a negative is rather dificult)

 

[Nigel]

Your right.
I was wrong to take the word of those running dog ultra leftist Trotskyists in Revo, but I'm just as cynical of those Counter revolutionary Revisionist Reformists in the SWP/AWL

 

[Josh FG]

to the best of my knowledge the AWL aren't a force in UAF.

 

[cockneyrebel]

THe dispute in the local groupe was weather or not they put UAFs name on their leaflet (I have no idea what this leaflet said myself) they were however expelled from positions of power for lying about legal action which was never threatened by the office and using it as a tool to weaken unite.

What a joke. Get over yourself, do you realise how stupid all this looks, it's a joke.

Wow some group stuck UAFs logo on a leaflet saying people should go to a STWC meeting on Islamophobia. A meeting that UAF had a stall at and a speaker at (Weyman Bennett from the SWP). So what's the problem?!

You then say that some spat over whether UNITE threatened legal action (and the quote I put above from a SWSS/UAF member at Leeds uni said this is true), is, wait for it:

"A tool to weaken unite".......yeah, there's a tool about somewhere alright.....

This about sums UAF up. Vote Tory, vote UKIP, vote anyone but the BNP. Yeah that should do the trick. Funnily enough the UAF seem to be having fuck all impact on stopping the BNP, I wonder why.

 

[Josh FG]

What a joke. Get over yourself, do you realise how stupid all this looks, it's a joke.

Wow some group stuck UAFs logo on a leaflet saying people should go to a STWC meeting on Islamophobia. A meeting that UAF had a stall at and a speaker at (Weyman Bennett from the SWP). So what's the problem?!

You then say that some spat over whether UNITE threatened legal action (and the quote I put above from a SWSS/UAF member at Leeds uni said this is true), is, wait for it:

"A tool to weaken unite".......yeah, there's a tool about somewhere alright.....

This about sums UAF up. Vote Tory, vote UKIP, vote anyone but the BNP. Yeah that should do the trick. Funnily enough the UAF seem to be having fuck all impact on stopping the BNP, I wonder why.

Actualy in areas where UAF are active the BNP do worse and there support weakens (eg Oldham) I don't cair what a local SWSS member said there was no call or letter or carrier pidgion or conversation with anyone from the UAF office threatening legal action.

Yes we had a speaker at the conference but it was a question of weather the local groupe should be involved in a stop the war event and a leaflet promotion that (I have no idea how mad the leaflet was or otherwise). I do know that the members of wp/revo stopped one of the few muslims in the room having a vote because they thought it should be only for students from leeds and not leeds met.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Actualy in areas where UAF are active the BNP do worse and there support weakens (eg Oldham) I don't cair what a local SWSS member said there was no call or letter or carrier pidgion or conversation with anyone from the UAF office threatening legal action.

But you can hardly blame members of the group in Leeds UAF for thinking they'd be threatened with legal action if that's what the chair of the group said! Surely, by that rate, if anyone should be expelled it should be the person who lied about it in the first place.

Come on the BNP has gone from strength to strength in the last 2-3 years whatever way you look at it. They've certainly done far better than anyone on the far left (sadly). The tactic of vote for Tories or UKIP or anyone but the BNP is a total dead end. The UAF offer nothing in the long run to stop the BNP.

Yes we had a speaker at the conference but it was a question of weather the local groupe should be involved in a stop the war event and a leaflet promotion that (I have no idea how mad the leaflet was or otherwise). I do know that the members of wp/revo stopped one of the few muslims in the room having a vote because they thought it should be only for students from leeds and not leeds met.

So who cares if there was a leaflet put out supporting it. What difference does it make? I mean anyone but someone in the bizarre world of inter-left in fighting would not have a problem with there being a leaflet asking people going to an event which the UAF had a speaker and a stall at. Especially as the event was about Islamophobia/racism.

To be honest in terms of who could and couldn't vote, don't try and pull out the card of trying to discredit them through back handed accusations of Islamophobia, when it was them who were saying the UAF should back a conference on Islamophobia. It's just pathetic.

This whole thing is a joke and a farce and to end with an expulsion is just the cherry on the cake.

 

[Josh FG]

so now your making the allagation that the chair made the threat what is that based upon.

 

[JimPage]

Actualy in areas where UAF are active the BNP do worse and there support weakens (eg Oldham)QUOTE]

disagree. the high bnp votes in 2001 in oldham were off the backs of the riots in oldham a few weeks before polling day- and the agreed downward turn in their vote in oldham has been repeated almost nowhere else. they are still polling 20% though in their target wards in town

at best UAF style politics reduces their support by 3-5%. people in certain areas have probably had 10 leaflets each over the last 5 years "exposing the bnp as nazi" which in reality is the sole swp/uaf tactic. and people still vote BNP

i would not say UAF are useless- but they are not the long term solution needed to the BNP, soultions set out by AFA back in 1997- and soultions still ignored by most of antifascism

 

[cockneyrebel]

so now your making the allagation that the chair made the threat what is that based upon.

I'm not making an allegation, I'm not a member of any of the organisations involved and don't live in Leeds. But a SWSS member above has said that a legal threat was made. If someone made that threat it's hardly the other groups fault if they believe it.

And it's based on reports (on another board as well) that this is what happened.

To be honest I can't be bothered with this anymore, but it all makes the UAF look even more of a joke.

 

[Josh FG]

Don't know anything about this SWSS member but proberbly repeated a rumer beliving what he had heard however generaly if you are going to make an allagation such as that you ring first to corroberate the information this was not done.

If you are in nether organisation what interest do you have in attacking Unite?

 

[fanciful]

Hopefully the same interest as any anti-fascist, you've just used absurdly bureaucratic and over the top measures to expel a small group of leftists for apparently (according to you) misunderstanding that when they were threatened with legal action (which happened whether you deny it or not) they weren't supposed to take it seriously and should have checked by phone first. Why should they? Does unite expel everyone that doesn't check with central office first? Since when was that an expulsion offence?
When we no platformed Le Pen in Altrincham we were also condemned by a Unite spokesperson on the scene and we didn't check with central office first. I'm sure if we had done we would have been told we weren't allowed. Why weren't we expelled?

 

[Luther Blissett]

to the best of my knowledge the AWL aren't a force in UAF.

Hi there, Josh FG. You're right. AWL aren't a force in UAF, but they'd like to be..

AWL's last conference in April 2006 did include a motion on anti-racism, where sought to participate with Searchlight, campaign and use Searchlight's materials, and also at the same time, try to involve themselves in UAF, whilst using the UAF platform to distribute their own propaganda on their position that "cross-class ‘anti-racist’ collaborations will not beat racism and fascism" and "that alliance with conservative Muslim leaders is wrong".

AWL, if allowed to operate from within UAF would reduce it's effectiveness and use UAF to distribute their own propaganda (see http://awl-watch.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_awl-watch_archive.html where they state they would refuse to work with a Muslim based on his 'class' or 'political choice' e.g. if he voted conservative, libdem, or green party.

AWL's attempts to involve themselves in both Searchlight and UAF are yet another AWL attempt at entryism. (Is there any part of the labour/union movement they haven't attempted to infiltrate and undermine from within?) AWL need watching carefully since it looks like they intend to exploit the differences between Searchlight and UAF whilst trying to formulate their own anti-racist agenda which plagiarises the best of both Searchlight and UAF and at the same time, infiltrate and work from within both groups in the hope that they'll cream off supporters to their brand of exclusivist anti-racist work which would exclude people based on class and religious/political preference - so it doesn't look like AWL would be capable of promoting true anti-racism to me.

Welcome to urban75, Josh FG

 

[Josh FG]

Hopefully the same interest as any anti-fascist, you've just used absurdly bureaucratic and over the top measures to expel a small group of leftists for apparently (according to you) misunderstanding that when they were threatened with legal action (which happened whether you deny it or not) they weren't supposed to take it seriously and should have checked by phone first. Why should they? Does unite expel everyone that doesn't check with central office first? Since when was that an expulsion offence?
When we no platformed Le Pen in Altrincham we were also condemned by a Unite spokesperson on the scene and we didn't check with central office first. I'm sure if we had done we would have been told we weren't allowed. Why weren't we expelled?

THe office didn't expell anyone it was the decision of a local groupe.

 

[ihateblair]

Just for the record, it was first proposed in the UAF meeting that the two people who wrote the press statement should be expelled. This proposal was ditched in favour of a proposal by an SWP member to expel Revolution as an organisation because they were critical of the tactics of Unite Against Fascism.

Would love to say more on this but will wait until we have discussed and written a statement before I say anything else.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Would love to say more on this but will wait until we have discussed and written a statement before I say anything else.

I've got to be honest and say that in all probability no-one will really be interested in the statement (and I hope it won't be the usual melodramatic stuff that left groups are so good at churning out), the only thing that comes out of that is the UAF is a joke and obviously the SWP don't look too good either.

The BNP or anyone else from the far right looking at this will be pissing themselves laughing. Basically one group of Leeds uni UAF has expelled another group of Leeds uni UAF because:

1) They put out a leaflet in UAFs name to ask people to go to a conference on Islamophobia (a conference where the UAF had a speaker and a stall). And this was agreed at a Leeds uni UAF meeting.

and

2) Because WP/Revo took seriously a threat of legal action.

Whatever way you look at it, it's a total joke. But as it involved the SWP it shouldn't surprise anyone.

The worst thing about all of this is that the UAF continues to be utterly ineffective at taking on the BNP.

 

[Josh FG]

I've got to be honest and say that in all probability no-one will really be interested in the statement (and I hope it won't be the usual melodramatic stuff that left groups are so good at churning out), the only thing that comes out of that is the UAF is a joke and obviously the SWP don't look too good either.

The BNP or anyone else from the far right looking at this will be pissing themselves (Aggreed-josh)

The worst thing about all of this is that the UAF continues to be utterly ineffective at taking on the BNP.

If the BNP are whearing sutes and the cloths of respectibility the old fights of squadism aren't appropriate. I doubt you as an ex workers power member will ever agree with this but groupes such as ours are important because we organise on the basis of opposing racism and Islamophobia and appeal to people from all of society... my 60 year old mum is in Unite I doubt she would be much good a kicking in the fash.

 

[cockneyrebel]

If the BNP are whearing sutes and the cloths of respectibility the old fights of squadism aren't appropriate. I doubt you as an ex workers power member will ever agree with this but groupes such as ours are important because we organise on the basis of opposing racism and Islamophobia and appeal to people from all of society... my 60 year old mum is in Unite I doubt she would be much good a kicking in the fash.

Who said anything about squadism?! As it goes I do think that self defence and no platform have a place (as recent events in Leeds have shown), but that is no answer to the problem of fascism in and of itself, far from it. Indeed in the current climate its effective use is limited, but still something that is needed.

But the UAF tactic of vote Tory, UKIP or anyone else but the BNP is at best a dead end, but in all probability makes things worse in the long run. The only thing that will stop the BNP is a left alternative that is taken seriously and this can only happen if serious political work is put into the local areas where the BNP are getting such strongholds. The UAF is utterly ineffective in providing an answer to the problem to the BNP because of this reason.

but groupes such as ours are important because we organise on the basis of opposing racism and Islamophobia

Makes what happened in Leeds seem quite ironic don't you think.

 

[audiotech]

If you are in nether organisation what interest do you have in attacking Unite?

Ex WP member who is heading down the path of increased cynicism. A purely destructive combination.

 

[Lukey C]

This is our statement. What a load of nonsense this all is.

Luke

22nd November 2006

PRESS STATEMENT:

REVOLUTION EXPELLED FROM LEEDS UNI UNITE AGAINST FASCISM

This expulsion is an attack on all anti-fascist activists who believe
that Unite Against Fascism must work to defend Muslims and refugees
from racism if we are to be successful in combating the BNP. When
Revolution won a vote at a Leeds Uni UAF meeting to build for the
People's Assembly Against Islamophobia they were threatened with legal
action by UAF central office. Then when they publicised this
bureaucratic method, they were condemned and expelled. In this
statement Mark Boothroyd and John Bowden tell the story of a
deliberate split campaign against a radical group.

Two weeks ago Revolution and UAF members were threatened with legal
action by the Unite Against Fascism national office for handing out
leaflets with the UAF logo to build for a conference in London against
Islamophobia. The previous meeting of Leeds Uni UAF had agreed by a
majority vote to publicise the event but other activists refused to
take part in an anti-fascist stall if the leaflets were given out to
people. Omar Kahn from the student union also told the activists they
were forbidden to leaflet for the event on union property.

At this week's UAF meeting a Revolution member handed around a
resolution for more democracy in UAF, including the right of freedom
to debate and for resolutions to be taken at regional and national
conferences. The chairperson for the meeting questioned whether the
resolution was necessary and informed the room that the meeting was
not an official society as it had not renewed its status at the
beginning of the term. Therefore the meeting could not pass a
resolution.

The meeting started with an agenda prepared in advance by Omar Kahn of
the Student Executive and Socialist Worker Student Society (SWSS)
activists. It opened with a proposal to set up a UAF society and to
affiliate to UAF and adopt its principles. This was supported
unanimously by all present.

The next item on the agenda was regarding a press statement that was
sent out by Revolution regarding the threat of legal action two weeks
before. It was proposed by the NUS black students officer who was
attending the meeting that the room should condemn the press statement
and the naming of Student Executive Welfare Office, Omah Kahn, whose
'life was at risk' because the statement had been discovered on a
fascist website. The LUU officer explained that as a Muslim he was
more at risk of attack than other people mentioned in the statement.
This ignore the fact that Omar Kahn is a public figure whose details
are freely available on the LUU site and his support for UAF is well
known. Moreover, UAF have no policy of not revealing the names of its
activists.

A motion was moved condemning the release of the press statement.
Following which, interventions were limited to one minute each and the
item was raced through in four minutes, without the accused Revolution
members being able to speak about the events of the last week to the
room, or the content of the press statement itself. One Revolution
member was threatened with ejection from the room for attacking this
undemocratic process, and it was proposed that the two authors of the
press statement should be expelled from UAF at Leeds University. A
member of the Socialist Workers Party and Respect on campus then
suggested that Revolution should be banned from Leeds Uni UAF for its
criticisms of the national strategy of UAF. This vote was taken,
passed and Revolution members left the room.

The meeting had around 25 people present, compared to a usual turnout
of about ten, with many brand new faces attending who, despite the
lack of any discussion over the allegations or content around the
press statement, nor a description of Revolution's criticisms of UAF,
voted in favour of the expulsion of Revolution. A sizable proportion
of the room were also SWSS members from Leeds Met University.

This expulsion is not only an attack on democracy but an attack on the
politics of those expelled, in particular on the idea that the
anti-fascist movement must challenge racism against Muslim and
refugees in order to defeat the BNP. When Revolution members raised
this urgent need to do this, and for instance build for the People's
Assembly Against Islamophobia, we were condemned as trying to 'split
the movement'. The truth is that the SWP and UAF nationally would
rather strike up an unprincipled alliance with those, not willing to
defend Muslims from racist attack, rather than advance the politics
and tactics we need to defeat the BNP on the streets.

As Revolution members we have never hidden our criticisms of Unite
Against Fascism nation policy. We believe that to defeat the BNP we
cannot simply condemn them as Nazi's, but must also protect those they
attack – Muslims, immigrants and refugees. We believe we must give
political answers to the social problems – e.g. lack of council
housing - that the BNP exploits. We believe in organised self-defence
against racist and fascist attack and taking direct action to shut
down the BNP. Despite the criticisms we have always loyally taken part
in and built UAF actions, handed their material, alongside our own. If
you believe, as one SWP member said, that political criticism
'undermines' unity then you are simply demonstrating your own failure
to win a political argument.

We believe that all organisations must come together to fight the BNP.
This is not after all the first split in the anti-fascist movement. In
2005 the magazine Searchlight left UAF after frequent arguments with
the national office over strategy. This was an artificial split in the
anti-fascist movement – the politics of Searchlight are not
qualitatively different to those of UAF. We of course, have our
political differences with Searchlight but we do believe that
differences can be discussed – the tactics and strategy we need to win
- in the context of a united movement. Clearly, an urgent task is to
re-assemble that movement for a national conference against racism and
fascism where such a discussion can take place. The intolerance UAF
have for debate and different political standpoints will strangle the
movement – kill it dead – if it continues. And, this just at the time
when we urgently need to unite.

We completely reject this expulsion. Expulsion of an entire
organisation from a united body is a matter of extreme importance and
certainly not to be reduced to a few minutes where the expelled have
no chance to defend themselves. We therefore see the actions of Leeds
University Unite Against Fascism as profoundly undemocratic,
bureaucratic and damaging to the anti-fascist movement. Revolution
appeals to UAF to reconsider its approach and accept that the
expulsions were severely mistaken. We ask that the decision be
overturned so that we may unite together in pushing back the fascist
threat in Leeds.

John Bowden and Mark Boothroyd

 

[nightbreed]

Hi there, Josh FG. You're right. AWL aren't a force in UAF, but they'd like to be..

AWL's last conference in April 2006 did include a motion on anti-racism, where sought to participate with Searchlight, campaign and use Searchlight's materials, and also at the same time, try to involve themselves in UAF, whilst using the UAF platform to distribute their own propaganda on their position that "cross-class ‘anti-racist’ collaborations will not beat racism and fascism" and "that alliance with conservative Muslim leaders is wrong".

AWL, if allowed to operate from within UAF would reduce it's effectiveness and use UAF to distribute their own propaganda (see http://awl-watch.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_awl-watch_archive.html where they state they would refuse to work with a Muslim based on his 'class' or 'political choice' e.g. if he voted conservative, libdem, or green party.

AWL's attempts to involve themselves in both Searchlight and UAF are yet another AWL attempt at entryism. (Is there any part of the labour/union movement they haven't attempted to infiltrate and undermine from within?) AWL need watching carefully since it looks like they intend to exploit the differences between Searchlight and UAF whilst trying to formulate their own anti-racist agenda which plagiarises the best of both Searchlight and UAF and at the same time, infiltrate and work from within both groups in the hope that they'll cream off supporters to their brand of exclusivist anti-racist work which would exclude people based on class and religious/political preference - so it doesn't look like AWL would be capable of promoting true anti-racism to me.

Welcome to urban75, Josh FG

Hi Luther. This statement probably represents the tactics of all left groups not just the AWL.
My view about anti facist tactics is based on the method of the jewish 43 group after the war, in their fight against Moseley.
Dont form fronts just attack the bastards. This tactic would soon weed out the pseudo left entryists.

 

[fanciful]

Whatever MC5... (shit band btw).
As for the statement obviously its basically correct if a little bombastic, this is an attack on democratic rights in the anti-fascist movement and shows SWSS in a despicable light.
Obviously its not up to the authors to "reject" their explusion. But they should be reinstated. I'm still not clear why they expelled, what was the charge? Issuing a press statement for criticising UAF? It doesn't seem there was any other reason. If they were wrong and there was no threat of legal action they should have been informed of their mistake and told to issue another press statement correcting it.
If members of Leeds Uni UAF objected to that so strongly they should simply have elected new officers - what purpose was served by explusion?

 

[audiotech]

Whatever MC5... (shit band btw).

"The MC5 is totally committed to the revolution. With our music and our economic genius we plunder the unsuspecting straight world for money and the means to carry out our program and revolutionise its children at the same time...We are LSD driven total maniacs in the universe...We will not be f***ed with...we will use guns if we have to - we will do anything if we have to." John Sinclair 1969. The same year He was jailed for 10 years for possession of two joints. Vive Le Revolution !!!

..but interesting nonetheless.

 

[fanciful]

Fair enough. And actually quite good if I'm being honest.

 

[ihateblair]

The FORMAL reason for our explusion was criticising UAF's strategy

 

[fanciful]

No need to shout. What was the resolution?

 

[ihateblair]

Sorry forgot that meant shouting, should have used italics!!

It wasn't written down, it was just a proposal that Revolution should be expelled as an organisation for their constant criticism of UAF strategy.