IWCA v BNP, on your radio
- Thread starter love detective
- Start date
Like spending time dictating to others what to say on here on his behalf?
'...dictating to others'? Oh dear...
Dictation. Like how one instructs a secretary to type what one thinks. Deal with admin. That kind of thing. I'm sure it's less time consuming to his busy life having it read out to him and him articulating his reply than it would be to read and write out himself. Anyway, I'm not against the guy. It just reads a bit odd all this Stuart says this and Stuart says that.
My, you do sound *bitter* and I don't quite know why...
Anyway, just to rewind a bit. Love detective asks Stuart for his thinking behind the story this thread is about. Stuart, knowing love detective, sends him a mail explaining his reasoning, love detective posts this response up. I'm really not sure why you have a problem with that?
framed
Leave it!
The fetishisation of 'No Platform' (NP) here is curious, especially in light of the development of the BNP politically. No Platform imho is fine when they are on the streets and presenting a target, but what do we do when the fascist tactics are primarily to court respectability and engage politically with working class communities. If we are about anything we are about countering the ideas of the fascists first and foremost.
The elevation of NP to principle is particularly curious when considering that for people like Searchlight and Militant/SSP this was a 'principle' that they did not always adhere to themselves. In the Pollok area of Glasgow, 20 years ago, Tommy Sheridan and his then sidekick George McNeillage were offering to politically debate with the BNP's Glasgow organiser (Scott McLean) and their Scottish Youth Organiser (Ian McMillan). They actually approached the two BNP men on the street as they were leafleting local youngsters and asked them for a debate the following night. It was the fash who refused to share a platform with the left, they told them to fuck off. I also remember AFA being furious about it at the time, only to find their erstwhile 'comrades' from Searchlight line-up behind Sheridan & Co and publicly defend their tactic of inviting the BNP to debate politics with them.
I know Searchlight backed the Scottish Militant position to debate with the BNP, because Graeme Atkinson, Searchlight's then international correspondent, spoke at a meeting in Strathclyde University Students Union in the same week and defended Sheridan's invitation to the BNP to a political debate. It's the first time I'd come across Atkinson and depite stories of bravery and derring do I was singularly unimpressed. I found Atkinson to be a thoroughly dishonest and cowardly individual who couldn't even cope with the heckling he got from the AFA contingent as a result of his public defence of Sheridan and McNeillage. The deputy general secretary of the STUC stepped in to 'protect' Atkinson from people he described as 'Trots' only for him to be physically threatened himself unless he withdrew the 'Trot' accusation held just made against AFA.
The elevation of NP to principle is particularly curious when considering that for people like Searchlight and Militant/SSP this was a 'principle' that they did not always adhere to themselves. In the Pollok area of Glasgow, 20 years ago, Tommy Sheridan and his then sidekick George McNeillage were offering to politically debate with the BNP's Glasgow organiser (Scott McLean) and their Scottish Youth Organiser (Ian McMillan). They actually approached the two BNP men on the street as they were leafleting local youngsters and asked them for a debate the following night. It was the fash who refused to share a platform with the left, they told them to fuck off. I also remember AFA being furious about it at the time, only to find their erstwhile 'comrades' from Searchlight line-up behind Sheridan & Co and publicly defend their tactic of inviting the BNP to debate politics with them.
I know Searchlight backed the Scottish Militant position to debate with the BNP, because Graeme Atkinson, Searchlight's then international correspondent, spoke at a meeting in Strathclyde University Students Union in the same week and defended Sheridan's invitation to the BNP to a political debate. It's the first time I'd come across Atkinson and depite stories of bravery and derring do I was singularly unimpressed. I found Atkinson to be a thoroughly dishonest and cowardly individual who couldn't even cope with the heckling he got from the AFA contingent as a result of his public defence of Sheridan and McNeillage. The deputy general secretary of the STUC stepped in to 'protect' Atkinson from people he described as 'Trots' only for him to be physically threatened himself unless he withdrew the 'Trot' accusation held just made against AFA.
Where did I say I had a problem with it? It just reads odd. And then the conversation took on a combative tone after your sneery 'I'm sure he has better things to do' quip. Any way, I've just watched some youtube of him in a council meeting. He seems alright as far as I'm concerned, there's no beef. Sorry for derail.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
i totally agree with this. however i think its a sightly different situation to if the bnp had councillors and a sizeable base in oxford, they currently don't but the fact that they will now be speaking unopposed (although to be fair i think someone said earlier up that stuart craft would be on on another day - if he is then fair play to him) in a venue that has credibility, thats what peoples concerns are? although i admit i havent read very much apart from the thread. i'd be interested to listen to the programme tho.
love detective
there's no love too small
eh, so the concern is that they will now be speaking unopposed? where and to whom?
the lion's share of this thread has been moaning about the IWCA's (successful) efforts to effectively neutralise the BNP's attempts to even be able to begin to build a presence. That they were sent packing before they even began was an added and somewhat unexpected bonus, but whether they were sent packing in this way, or indeed on the day itself, they've been sent packing (i know i've said sent packing far too often there) by a strong and uncompromising stance by the IWCA. And people in the area, as Stuart mentioned, have taken note of what the threat of a good example is capable off. So it's a six pointer so to speak, not only has the BNP been made to look weak and cowardly, the stock of a progressive pro working class approach has increased - yet only here could this situation still be subject to more criticism than praise.
how this same situation would have come about through the methods that some on here are suggesting the IWCA should have adopted is beyond me - i.e. stay clear of the arena for some time before creeping back once the BNP have gone to try and counter an argument that has already been made unopposed at the time, and potentially started to take root - why give this shit time to germinate?
While it was probably unexpected that the BNP would bail at the first sign of resistance and it therefore can't be claimed that this was the plan all along, at least the plan had this outcome as a possibility and as a consequence of its actions. There was absolutely no way this outcome could have been achieved by the (hypothetical) plans of others on here to give them a free reign on the day itself.
And at what point should a credible fascist threat (and one following a template that has seen to have been successful in other areas) begin to be opposed frogwoman - when it's embryonic, when it appears, when it begins to have a base, when it has a few councillors, when it has the most popular political website in the country, when it has a couple of MEP's and a couple of million votes, when the country is descending into social, economic and political turmoil that can only provide even more fertile ground for these tendencies to take root. At what point? And why is it easier to combat the threat once it's taken root?
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
I smell a rat here member 50923...mmmmm
I wouldn't take a lead from Tommy Sheridan on anti fascism any more than I would on how to spend my "leisure" time frankly. I thought most people on the Left/anti fascist movement didn't have much time for Searchlight's reformist/respectability schtic of recent years.
Given that white (racist )working class people have ALWAYS got "upset" when nasty Lefty anti fascists have taken action to stop them holding perfectly peaceful marches to publicise their racist views (in the early 70's the NF used to turn out the whole family on their perfectly peaceful racist parades) , I assume the old RA , now IWCA "free speachers" are having serious second thoughts about their entire violent pasts ? I NEVER met a vaguelly anti racist working class person who was at all worried about NAZIS being kicked off the streets or their meetings broken up, or their ability to spew their racist poison on the mass media, curtailed.
This belief in the pure power of debate now held by the IWCA is truly like a return to debates held with young liberals in the 1970's. "Surely when confronted with the good honest TRUTH of the anti racist message in debate the fascists will be trounced every time " they argued. Sadly guys reality aint like that. Fascist IDEOLOGY is a complete, integrated, world view, that taps into deep belief systems rampant in ex-Imperial capitalist societies like Britain-- racism, extreme nationalism, "Britishness", the glories of Empire, Law and order, anti-semitism, etc , etc. You will no doubt be OUTRAGED for me to say this , but it is simply a fact that a well clued up fascist orator , debating in front of an audience already long pre-prepared by generations of racist and nationalist ideology, could make ABSOLUTE MINCEMEAT of the IWCA ! "What an outrageous thing to say !" you'll wail. "we are the bees knees when it comes to destroying racist illusions with our pure argument" Wail on guys, unlike socialists the IWCA has such a poverty of philosophy, and NO answer to the capitalist crisis, that the racist/nationalist nostrums of the fascists will "key in/resonate" with the racists in an audience in a way that the shallow "self help working class localism" of the IWCA simply can't.
Only Socialist ideology can offer a real counterposition to fascist rhetoric. Even here, socialists would be foolish to assume that "debate" alone will turn round a racist audience to socialism -- only being involved in STRUGGLE against ther bosses, and alongside workers of varied ethnic backgrounds can do this. It is precisely because socialists recognise the POTENCY and extreme historic DANGER of fascist rhetoric for people already pre indoctrinated by generations of prejudice spread by this ex imperialist nation's ruling class with key elements of fascist ideology that we say "No Platform" (whenever we can achieve it) to spread their vile and poisonous ideology.
"You Lefties are SCARED of fascist ideas" you riposte. Too bloody right ! The world historic menace of fascism and fascist ideology is to be feared. It is a cancerous danger in the working class, feeding on DEEPLY held prejudices indoctrinated into millions of people. We musn't let the fascists, march, speak, operate, as far as that is possible. In the meantime the Left has to engage in STRUGGLE so that working class people, including those with deep seated prejudices, can be WON to socialism, through STRUGGLE, not debates with Nazis in meeting halls or on the radio FFS.
Given that white (racist )working class people have ALWAYS got "upset" when nasty Lefty anti fascists have taken action to stop them holding perfectly peaceful marches to publicise their racist views (in the early 70's the NF used to turn out the whole family on their perfectly peaceful racist parades) , I assume the old RA , now IWCA "free speachers" are having serious second thoughts about their entire violent pasts ? I NEVER met a vaguelly anti racist working class person who was at all worried about NAZIS being kicked off the streets or their meetings broken up, or their ability to spew their racist poison on the mass media, curtailed.
This belief in the pure power of debate now held by the IWCA is truly like a return to debates held with young liberals in the 1970's. "Surely when confronted with the good honest TRUTH of the anti racist message in debate the fascists will be trounced every time " they argued. Sadly guys reality aint like that. Fascist IDEOLOGY is a complete, integrated, world view, that taps into deep belief systems rampant in ex-Imperial capitalist societies like Britain-- racism, extreme nationalism, "Britishness", the glories of Empire, Law and order, anti-semitism, etc , etc. You will no doubt be OUTRAGED for me to say this , but it is simply a fact that a well clued up fascist orator , debating in front of an audience already long pre-prepared by generations of racist and nationalist ideology, could make ABSOLUTE MINCEMEAT of the IWCA ! "What an outrageous thing to say !" you'll wail. "we are the bees knees when it comes to destroying racist illusions with our pure argument" Wail on guys, unlike socialists the IWCA has such a poverty of philosophy, and NO answer to the capitalist crisis, that the racist/nationalist nostrums of the fascists will "key in/resonate" with the racists in an audience in a way that the shallow "self help working class localism" of the IWCA simply can't.
Only Socialist ideology can offer a real counterposition to fascist rhetoric. Even here, socialists would be foolish to assume that "debate" alone will turn round a racist audience to socialism -- only being involved in STRUGGLE against ther bosses, and alongside workers of varied ethnic backgrounds can do this. It is precisely because socialists recognise the POTENCY and extreme historic DANGER of fascist rhetoric for people already pre indoctrinated by generations of prejudice spread by this ex imperialist nation's ruling class with key elements of fascist ideology that we say "No Platform" (whenever we can achieve it) to spread their vile and poisonous ideology.
"You Lefties are SCARED of fascist ideas" you riposte. Too bloody right ! The world historic menace of fascism and fascist ideology is to be feared. It is a cancerous danger in the working class, feeding on DEEPLY held prejudices indoctrinated into millions of people. We musn't let the fascists, march, speak, operate, as far as that is possible. In the meantime the Left has to engage in STRUGGLE so that working class people, including those with deep seated prejudices, can be WON to socialism, through STRUGGLE, not debates with Nazis in meeting halls or on the radio FFS.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
fair enough and ta - i cant argue with much of that ld, i pretty much agree with that. i'll do a proper reply to your post later.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
The above is a pack of lies....I was on both tours of Scotland (mid 80's and 92) and what you say is absolute bollocks and you know it you. Im sure if you repeated your slanderous remarks to GM in particular he might be rather more direct in his reply
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
No they haven't. Takes some effort to avoid and turn the tables.
framed
Leave it!
Well Steve, for someone with your track record I find it amazing how easily you can apportion the terms 'liar' and 'rat' to others. As a leading member of Red Action once remarked to me, "When someone points the finger at another, take a good look first at the person doing the pointing."
Pack of lies? I hardly think that you are the best qualified person to distinguish truth from fiction considering that you were a willing party to the cynical manipulation, deliberate misinformation, spin and lies of the Searchlight organisation and, subsequently, operate to the same M.O. with your new friends in Hope Not Hate.
Militant admitted in an article (written by George McNeillage) in their newspaper at the time that they had challenged the BNP to publicly debate with them 'in front of the youth of Pollock'. So, no lie there.
Atkinson spoke at the meeting in Strathclyde Students Union. Around a half-dozen AFA members attended and are witnesses to what was said by Graeme Atkinson in support of Militant's 'debating' tactics. So, no lie there either.
For the record, I was present at the meeting in Strathclyde Uni, you were not. I was also at the meeting in Pollokshields where Gerry Gable also defended Militant's tactics with regard to anti-fascism, you were there too standing around the door with a load of kids, as I remember it. You were not present at all of the meetings that week and you were not part of the later Ray Hill speaking tour (which involved AFA stewards). During that first Searchlight speaking tour of the early 1990's you were too busy running around Pollock after a local street gang of wee boys (The Krew) provided by Sheridan & Co as some kind of evidence of their physical prowess on the streets. The truth, as you very well know, is that Militant were not physically prepared at that time to take on the fash and their tactics were simply about politically outflanking AFA and making new recruits. This was actively encouraged by Searchlight.
I was one of those who heckled Mr Atkinson and it was other AFA activists who refused to allow STUC Asst Gen Sec Bill Speirs to continue with the meeting until he had withdrawn his "Trots" remark. Atkinson sat down like a teacher who couldn't control a classroom waiting while the 'head' tried to regain control.
The idea that a couple of slimeballs like you and Graeme Atkinson present any type of fear factor is quite a delusion you've got going there.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Distilled, the people Lefties are really scared of is not the fascists as such, but the working class itself.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
. Youv'e twisted and manipulated enough in your lifetime to have any credibility. You obviously think you know what Ive been doing since those times. Youve assumed my association with Searchlight...you bad mouthed me/us over No Retreat (Searchlight Spoiler...what a joke) You fell in with the conspiracy against DH and generally shit stirred your way through that period. I was however such a wanker then that your missus stayed at mine before an interview..that was after all the above. As was the training I gave you re surveillance etc when you knew I was with them at that time. Their again selective history..if it fits So if Im wrong then identify yerself. And if Im right you dont half think your some big hardcase that has us all quaking in fear...ah but then theres always a crew..Well Steve, for someone with your track record I find it amazing how easily you can apportion the terms 'liar' and 'rat' to others. As a leading member of Red Action once remarked to me, "When someone points the finger at another, take a good look first at the person doing the pointing."
Pack of lies? I hardly think that you are the best qualified person to distinguish truth from fiction considering that you were a willing party to the cynical manipulation, spin and lies of the Searchlight organisation and subsequently operate to the same M.O. with your new friends in Hope Not Hate.
Militant admitted in an article (written by George McNeillage) in their newspaper at the time that they had challenged the BNP to publicly debate with them 'in front of the youth of Pollok'. So, no lie there.
Atkinson spoke at the meeting in Strathclyde Students Union. Around a half-dozen AFA members attended and are witnesses to what was said by Graeme Atkinson in support of Militant's 'debating' tactics. So, no lie there either.
For the record, I was present at the meeting in Strathclyde Uni, you were not. I was also at the meeting in Pollokshields where Gerry Gable also defended Militant's tactics with regard to anti-fascism, you were there too. You were not present at all of the meetings that week and you were not part of the later Ray Hill speaking tour (which involved AFA stewards). That first speaking tour of the early 1990ou were too busy running around Pollok after a local gang of wee boys provided by Sheridan & Co as evidence of their street cred. I was one of those who heckled Mr Atkinson and it was other AFA activists who refused to allow STUC Asst Gen Sec Bill Speirs to continue with the meeting until he had withdrawn his "Trots" remark. Atkinson sat down like a teacher who couldn't control a classroom waiting while the 'head' tried to regain control.
The idea that a couple of slimeballs like you and Graeme Atkinson present any type of fear factor is quite a delusion you've got going there.
framed
Leave it!
Steve, you are obviously a very hurt and damaged individual.
That much was apparent when you spent the profits you made from No Retreat on a nose job.
I've got no problem acknowledging the help and support you gave me and my mrs, it was appreciated at the time.
I never had a personal issue with you, my differences are political, but you seem unable to separate the personal from the political, so be it.
What you interpret as 'bad mouthing' over No Retreat and as a 'conspiracy' against Dave Haan, is an entirely personal interpretation of the political. If it was simply about personalities I wouldn't have taken any position on it, but Dave (who I also considered to be a friend) fucked up badly and almost brought AFA down with him.
Dave's best mate in Manchester (who happens to originate from Glasgow and is a good friend of mine) was perhaps the best placed person apart from you and Dave to make the call regarding the general dishonesty and manipulation that was going on at the time. Dave put his hands up to all of it. It was only later that he (and you) constructed the story of his 'witch hunt' from RA, AFA and Red Attitude in order to hide the real issue of his involvement in the gay mugging, which should have, in any reasonable opinion, finished him as a political activist.
I provided references and witnesses for those meetings and I will hunt out my copy of the article that George McNeillage wrote for Militant just to further prove the point that they did indeed offer to publicly debate with the BNP.
So now that we've ascertained that what I have written was not 'a pack of lie's, you shift to the issue of Dave and you being personally hurt by people like me?!?
It's a curious tact.
That much was apparent when you spent the profits you made from No Retreat on a nose job.
I've got no problem acknowledging the help and support you gave me and my mrs, it was appreciated at the time.
I never had a personal issue with you, my differences are political, but you seem unable to separate the personal from the political, so be it.
What you interpret as 'bad mouthing' over No Retreat and as a 'conspiracy' against Dave Haan, is an entirely personal interpretation of the political. If it was simply about personalities I wouldn't have taken any position on it, but Dave (who I also considered to be a friend) fucked up badly and almost brought AFA down with him.
Dave's best mate in Manchester (who happens to originate from Glasgow and is a good friend of mine) was perhaps the best placed person apart from you and Dave to make the call regarding the general dishonesty and manipulation that was going on at the time. Dave put his hands up to all of it. It was only later that he (and you) constructed the story of his 'witch hunt' from RA, AFA and Red Attitude in order to hide the real issue of his involvement in the gay mugging, which should have, in any reasonable opinion, finished him as a political activist.
I provided references and witnesses for those meetings and I will hunt out my copy of the article that George McNeillage wrote for Militant just to further prove the point that they did indeed offer to publicly debate with the BNP.
So now that we've ascertained that what I have written was not 'a pack of lie's, you shift to the issue of Dave and you being personally hurt by people like me?!?
It's a curious tact.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Stevie...Im far from what you say..damaged...hurt...Ive had me knocks but believe me you get so much wrong about things. All the personal attackes do leave a legacy and I cant help at times responding like a twat. But I take umbrage when out of the wings come another side swipe at me by someone Ive had no particular axe to grind and infact who I quite liked and respected. So Im not going any further with another pissing competition...Im sure Denis and Gary will agree we will have to either grow up or just not bother with these boards when it personalises issues. If only you were prepared to listen a bit more about my role/relationship in this field instead of assume it...you might think Im still near but not right at the bottom of the food chain .Steve, you are obviously a very hurt and damaged individual.
That much was apparent when you spent the profits you made from No Retreat on a nose job.
I've got no problem acknowledging the help and support you gave me and my mrs, it was appreciated at the time.
I never had a personal issue with you, my differences are political, but you seem unable to separate the personal from the political, so be it.
What you interpret as 'bad mouthing' over No Retreat and as a 'conspiracy' against Dave Haan, is an entirely personal interpretation of the political. If it was simply about personalities I wouldn't have taken any position on it, but Dave (who I also considered to be a friend) fucked up badly and almost brought AFA down with him.
Dave's best mate in Manchester (who happens to originate from Glasgow and is a good friend of mine) was perhaps the best placed person apart from you and Dave to make the call regarding the general dishonesty and manipulation that was going on at the time. Dave put his hands up to all of it. It was only later that he (and you) constructed the story of his 'witch hunt' from RA, AFA and Red Attitude in order to hide the real issue of his involvement in the gay mugging, which should have, in any reasonable opinion, finished him as a political activist.
I provided references and witnesses for those meetings and I will hunt out my copy of the article that George McNeillage wrote for Militant just to further prove the point that they did indeed offer to publicly debate with the BNP.
So now that we've ascertained that what I have written was not 'a pack of lie's, you shift to the issue of Dave and you being personally hurt by people like me?!?
It's a curious tact.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
I remember reading the issue and challenge of the debate in the pages of Militant at the time rather surprised and a bit questioning. Not exactly shocked as there had been a 'debate' with the then BNP near Coventry which had ended up in a full scale 'rammy' as folk up here would say. However, given that the era the 'debate' was suggested was at the time of the Toby Jug, Haymarket, Pilton, St Andrews Day march which all had serious conforntations with the BNP/fash where Militant were certainly involved made it more surprising.
The only thing I remember being a possibly explanation was the venue for the debate in Pollok, which was if I remember right, 'Wallys Bar'. Now contrary to it's name it was not a local pub or social but a disused water tower/works in Pollok. Also disused as I remember that became a big hang out for lots of young people in Pollok. Quiet why a derelict place was used which was the hang out of members of the local 'young teams', the same young teams that alot of the new Militant youth members were part of is anyones guess. The nature of the debate given the venue is also anyones guess.
The decision to have it and even write about it however was certainly 'controversial' with people outside of Scotland.
That much was apparent when you spent the profits you made from No Retreat on a nose job.
framed
Leave it!
Fedayn, it wasn't only people outside of Scotland that were bemused by Pollock Militant's approach to the BNP and the article defending it, but thanks for confirming that the offer to 'debate' was indeed made and subsequently commented on in the paper.
framed
Leave it!
And your point is?
I already apologised for the 'nose job' jibe before you decided to highlight it.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Apologies accepted Stevie...but I know it was kinda tongue in cheek....
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
I was meaning internally within SML/ML, as was, at the time. I don't doubt folk in Scotland had a certain surprise reaction.
At best it should not have been 'publicised' at worst it was a mistake to use the 'debate' word as rather understandably it does conjure uexactly that word at a time when there was serious battles taking place.
