IWCA v BNP, on your radio

[belboid]

not gone out yet....

lets explore the local side a bit more then

Stuart will stand down as a councilor in May after ten years service. During that time he has carried considerable support among a large section who have become understandably disillusioned with and disenfranchised by the mainstream political establishment. The withdrawl from the electoral arena will clearly put that electoral support up for grabs. It's not unreasonable to imagine a situation where the BNP, or any other far right outfit, could seek to start to lay the ground as a replacement for the political alternative that the IWCA offered in the electoral arena. So with that in mind, and perhaps with signs of that even starting to happen re their interest in appearing on a local BBL radio show - is it really so hard to understand why the local IWCA would see it as a sensible thing to do to take part in that debate to show that the BNP are not the radical alternative they profess to be (likewise the IWCA locally are to continue their holding to account of labour as they undoubtedly seek to capitalise on the situation also)? This along with the ongoing commitment of the IWCA in Oxford to redouble their efforts on the independent community organising front seems like a sensible twin pronged approach to me.

I'm really not sure what this actually adds. Yes, its obvious the BNP are trying to move in to try and take some of the ground the IWCA held. That's why they want to go on the radio (and the radio no doubts thinks it will get people listening for a change.), to help create a presence where they currently have none. By being prepared to debate with them, you make them (a little bit) more likely to be asked back, to give them more air time.

Anyway - some latest news just in on this - when the BNP were informed that the IWCA had been invited on to the show to take them on, they got in touch with the radio station today and refused to take part if the IWCA were to be present. The contact at the radio station said "the BNP are scared to debate with you”

So, the BNP who are happy to take on the mainstream parties and the liberal elite on national tv, cower when faced with a political opponent on local radio in the shape of the IWCA. What does that say about their thinking? They do not feel threatened by debate with the mainstream as they present themselves as the radical alternative in that arena, but when faced with a credible threat to their speel, in an area they have their sights on, they threaten to run away. Yet it is claimed here by some that the IWCA partaking in this debate would have the opposite effect, i.e. a boost to the BNP, and not the damage that even the BNP can see it would have.

So it turns out that the IWCA will now be denied the opportunity to take part in this debate as the station wants to air the BNP 'show' as scheduled

which gives you a great opportunity to show what a bunch of hypocrites they are, and to tell the station that they shouldn't be letting them on at all. If that was the original plan when you agreed to debate with them, well played. But I dont think that it was.

Funnily enough i was debating with a local BNP supporter in a pub last week and after a few beers can't resist it.

didnt realise you'd been a councillor for ten years, 39th. Nor that your pub held semi-formal debates between 'equal' parties, that was broadcast to the community. Was the other guy recording his 'best bits so that he could play them back to people later?

I think 2 MEPs, a GLA member and however many councillors and millions of votes over the last 10 or so years already gives them credibility.

not in Oxford it doesn't. LD's post above makes clear they have nothing there yet, but they are hoping to create something. By your logic, no debate should ever be turned down involving them until the next Euro's at least. That doesn't really make sense, does it? In areas where they have nothing, every opportunity to get on any medium they dont control themselves will only benefit them. Having a good opponent will mean they benefit slightly less, but they'll still benefit. While its still possible (and, as I said before, there are plenty of places where it really is too late) then we should still be arguing with local stations and the like not to have them on at all. By agreeing to go on if they do go on, it makes it more likely they'll be asked in the first place.

 

[love detective]

I asked Stuart to provide his own position on this - here it is:-

Yesterday, I agreed to go head to head with BNP Press Officer, Simon Darby, on our new community Radio Station OX105.
The station has been set up in the Blackbird Leys Community Centre.This venue was previously controlled by Jamaican yardie crack dealers responsible for committing murders and gang rapes outside the club before an IWCA campaign shut them down.

One of the main men at the radio station, who happens to be black, told me that many people he knows have told him that they are not racist but would consider voting BNP as none of the main parties do anything for them. He says that he wants to confront the BNP’s arguments as ignoring them won’t make them go away.

The IWCA was initially an Anti-Fascist Action initiative. More than any other organisation, when the far right was attempting to use violence to try to control the streets, AFA uncompromisingly stood for no platform for fascists Furthermore, when the fascists were an active, immediate, physical threat, AFA and like-minded fellow travellers, out-violenced the fascists, forcing them to abandon the march and grow strategy.

When the BNP switched from using violence as a tactic and successfully embraced the same Euro-Nationalist strategy that had brought success to the likes of the FN in France, anti-fascist tactics and strategy also needed to change.To be seen to employ systematic violence against representatives of an elected political party that had publicly (if reluctantly) abandoned physical force themselves and had also publicly declared that they were neither fascist nor racist, would have undermined anti-fascism by allowing the far-right to portray us as the real violent extremists. This would help them to both delegitimise anti-fascism and to promote themselves as the respectable radical alternative to the mainstream parties. In addition to this they managed to retain, with a nod and a wink, their core supporters who understood that underneath the rhetoric of compromise the heart of true fascism still beats.

Like it or not, there is a vast reservoir of reaction across Britain that has been fed by the effects of three decades of anti-working class neoliberal government policy. By portraying themselves as the radical alternative to the neo-liberalism of the mainstream parties the BNP on one hand and political Islam on the other have eagerly stepped in to fill the vacuum that the Labour Party created when they abandoned their former working class ‘heartlands’.

The reason we agreed to share a studio with the BNP Press Officer is not so that we would have the opportunity of exposing them as ‘racists’ and ‘fascists’ - charges they are adept at countering, but to explain to listeners that the BNP is in essence anti-working class and that any working class person who votes for them is voting against their own interests. It is very much in our interests to get the message out to as wide an audience as possible that the BNP share common ground with everyone from Labour and the Islamists to Galloway’s vanity project, Respect, in that they all promote versions of a divisive multiculturalism that promotes ethnic and religious division at the expense of the working class as a whole.

This morning the radio station contacted me to say: “Sorry, the BNP are scared to debate with you”. Apparently, in response to the radio station contacting the BNP to let them know that the IWCA will be joining them on Monday morning’s show to give it 'a bit of balance', the BNP emailed back refusing to debate with 'the hard left' saying something along the lines of ‘the hard left are not interested in debate, but in vicious verbal attacks on us that might make good sensationalist radio but does nothing to promote our cause'. Simon Darby is now set to do an interview with the station on his own, while I will be interviewed later.

So the British National Party are happy to take on all the mainstream parties and representatives of the ‘liberal elite’ on national TV, but they suddenly go all bashful when the IWCA offer to engage in the very debate they constantly complain about being denied! Proof if it were needed (though of course it wasn’t!) that the only thing they are vulnerable to is an attack from a genuine pro-working class position.

Listeners of the radio station will of course be informed about the BNP’s refusal to debate with us and we also fully intend to explain the reasons why.

 

[butchersapron]

eh? I haven't said anywhere in particular isn't a credible platform. I'm saying that some platforms reach more people and a more influential than others. This is a statement of the obvious, that even you are going to struggle to dispute.

So why - once again - post such a banality? Just say it.

 

[articul8]

I posted it in response to the thesis that the notion of a "platform" was now redundant. Some platforms are more significant than others.

 

[butchersapron]

Again, a banality. Some things are bigger than others.

 

[articul8]

As Anthony said to Cleoptra....

yes but it matters. At the moment I could say "circles are round" and you'd attack this as the pretensions of a liberal elite to determine the form of shapes...

 

[butchersapron]

Only because you're talking out of your radius. Oh yeah, and all them shit politics.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

BIG TROUBLE!!!!

Needs first-year undergraduates with placards.

 

[articul8]

Only because you're talking out of your radius. Oh yeah, and all them shit politics.

you couldn't find your circumference with both hands

 

[butchersapron]

you couldn't find your circumference with both hands

Fuck off

 

[Citizen66]

The "NO PLATFORM" position has been perfectly well understood, on the "LEFT" anyway, for as long as I can remember. You DON'T enter into cozy "DEBATES" with the bastards - you picket the radio station/TV station where any airing of fascist views is proposed and demand that the fascists are given NO PLATFORM for their poison. This is a HUGE miscalculation by the IWCA guys. Believe me you will NEVER live it down. This error will haunt you for ever more. BIG MISTAKE !

Also for the IWCA "stuart's position" will be far too nuanced and difficult to separate from hostility to what is much more generally accepted as "multiculturalism" in popular parlance, rather than the IWCA's "special" meaning, not to fall into appearing to simply agree with the BNP that "multiculturalism is a bad thing". Suggesting on a short radio discussion that it is the BNP that is FOR "multiculturalism" will simply secure a denial of this from the BNP speaker --- and an invitation to the IWCA to join WITH the BNP to fight together against "multiculturalism" !


You are going to be IN BIG TROUBLE guys !

The problem with NO PlATFORMing and picketing the event, is that the working class who see the far right as a viable alternative to neoliberalism will just see a bunch of largely middle class politicos trying to suppress and silence that avenue without any explanation as to why.

 

[Citizen66]

Also for the IWCA "stuart's position" will be far too nuanced and difficult to separate from hostility to what is much more generally [...]

"the working class won't understand the counter argument. Best they don't hear it."

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Yep. A counter argument from the working class.

 

[ayatollah]

"the working class won't understand the counter argument. Best they don't hear it."

Bit more of a problem than simply suggesting I am setting up a stereotype of "thicko working class " types who wont be able to understand the IWCA position on "multiculturalism" --(of course MILLIONS of German workers weren't fooled by the well oiled Nazi propaganda machine in the 1930's were they ?..... Oh yes they were... VERY fooled by the clever, pseudo radical, racist rhetoric. Were these German workers "stupid" ?... maybe some ... but most were simply ensnared by racism, nationalism, and pseudo radicalism .. hence fascism's potency).

I'm afraid that I think the IWCA critique of "multiculturalism" itself is HIGHLY suspect from a number of viewpoints. Firstly it is simply NOT used by the IWCA in the generally accepted UK usage of the word , ie, "a community with many cultures and faiths living together" (sorry but to most people that's ALL it means), but in a very specialised usage to mean a form of self identity, promoted by the Ruling Class as a counterweight or excluder of working class self identity. This makes it hard in a short radio interview to clearly counterpose this usage with the generally accepted view that fascists oppose "multiculturalism" because they are only in favour of WHITE culture, and want to deport everyone else.

Secondly, in embracing the "multiculturalism as purely an anti working class ruling class ideology concept " rather than recognising it as a much more ambiguous, multi facetted phenomenum - partly playing into the ruling class's interests, but also a recognition that different bits of the current UK working class do indeed have very different cultures and beliefs - and the racial ideology engendered by the age of Imperialism still provides a barrier to workers from different cultural groups and origins working together to achieve common aims - politically as well as more generally in everyday life, the IWCA's particular "take" on "multiculturalism" could be seen by White Working class bigots all too easily as a compromise with their bigotry, rather than simply a statement about the overarching importance of working class identity. It strikes me a "critique" of "multiculturalism" of this sort wouldn't go down very well with working class muslims or Hindus, yet presumeably the IWCA tries to get its local council candidates votes from outside the White Working Class too ?

Regardless of all that... ALL your arguments for allowing fascists a platform are ones debated endlessly during the 70's onwards ...And ALWAYS endlessly rejected by EVERYONE in the general anti fascist movement, not only the Left..... and agreeing to a local station putting the bastards on air to spread their poison, rather than trying to organise against the transmission or influence the station to NOT give their poison yet another avenue of transmission, suggests something is awry with your "political compass" nowadays .

 

[bamalama]

The problem with NO PlATFORMing and picketing the event, is that the working class who see the far right as a viable alternative to neoliberalism will just see a bunch of largely middle class politicos trying to suppress and silence that avenue without any explanation as to why.

In my experience the constituency that the bnp are trying to reach have always seen antifascism in this way.I can see what ayatollah is saying here.When i first came across the iwca ideas on multiculturalism they struck me as similar to the fash call of multiculturalism is not working etc even though i knew they were completely different,and i don't think a short radio show is the best place to have that arguement with a bunch of fascists.Did the iwca object to the station inviting the bnp in the first place?

 

[love detective]

looks like the BNP have bottled it altogether now and, through fear of the potential for an IWCA appearance, pulled out

Stuart will take their place now instead for a 30/40 minute slot

obviously though i'm sure it would have been a much better situation for progressive pro working class politics if he had just stayed out of things and let the BNP get on with it

 

[miktheword]

The problem with NO PlATFORMing and picketing the event, is that the working class who see the far right as a viable alternative to neoliberalism will just see a bunch of largely middle class politicos trying to suppress and silence that avenue without any explanation as to why.

yep, and that's exactly how it was seen by a lot of football lads after the (ineffective) no platform protest at the Griffin on Question Time a couple of years back.
To Ayatollah, I can see your point re the nuances. I posted on the same football forum, after the recent week of EDL programmes, that I had long been against 'multiculturalism'.
A few minutes later, I realised that my definition , wasn't the same as what they understood by the term.

However, it's not the 70s anymore, with the previously mentioned point about social media coupled with the fact that for ten years at least, they have had credibility in the constituency the Left should be after.

For me, a large part of the reason for no platforming (attacking) their meetings was to stop the carnage in the area after locals being whipped up in an area like Bethnal Green and to stop them getting a foothold in an area - getting credibility by their street presence etc.

With the current social media available, to follow the 'no platform' argument through, says we should be devoting our time to hack into and bring down their facebook sites.

It was never a 'I'll take the moral high ground' stance with me.

We have the arguments to beat them...and they've agreed with that by their bottling the debate today.

The pros and cons of 'no platform' have to be reevaluated today in the light of their renouncing of 'punch ups' and the technology available to them.

 

[ayatollah]

yep, and that's exactly how it was seen by a lot of football lads after the (ineffective) no platform protest at the Griffin on Question Time a couple of years back.
To Ayatollah, I can see your point re the nuances. I posted on the same football forum, after the recent week of EDL programmes, that I had long been against 'multiculturalism'.
A few minutes later, I realised that my definition , wasn't the same as what they understood by the term.

However, it's not the 70s anymore, with the previously mentioned point about social media coupled with the fact that for ten years at least, they have had credibility in the constituency the Left should be after.

For me, a large part of the reason for no platforming (attacking) their meetings was to stop the carnage in the area after locals being whipped up in an area like Bethnal Green and to stop them getting a foothold in an area - getting credibility by their street presence etc.

With the current social media available, to follow the 'no platform' argument through, says we should be devoting our time to hack into and bring down their facebook sites.

It was never a 'I'll take the moral high ground' stance with me.

We have the arguments to beat them...and they've agreed with that by their bottling the debate today.

The pros and cons of 'no platform' have to be reevaluated today in the light of their renouncing of 'punch ups' and the technology available to them.

We can agree to disagree for now on the perennial issue of "No Platform" - as it is like going back to Student Union debates on "freedom of Speech" and "Show up their bigotry" arguments from my youth.

Could you enlarge on the "misunderstanding" which quickly became evident on that Football site, when you said you were against "multiculturalism" ? I assume that racist bigots assumed that YOU were a fellow bigot ? I think this is the inherent danger in the IWCA special usage and understanding of the term "multiculturalism" itself. This quite understandable "confusion" is very "convenient " when canvassing on the doorstep and a racist bigot is slagging off the growing multi ethnic nature of the UK. "Oh the IWCA is opposed to "multiculturalism" , but opposed to racism" you presumeably say ? To which the bigot presumeably replies.."well I'm against multiculturalism too ... and I really hate those blacks and Muslims !". Bit difficult "on the doorstep" to distinguish your special, "class-based understanding" of "multiculturalism" from basic bigotry I suggest.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

This quite understandable "confusion" is very "convenient " when canvassing on the doorstep and a racist bigot is slagging off the growing multi ethnic nature of the UK. "Oh the IWCA is opposed to "multiculturalism" , but opposed to racism" you presumeably say ? To which the bigot presumeably replies.."well I'm against multiculturalism too ... and I really hate those blacks and Muslims !". Bit difficult "on the doorstep" to distinguish your special, "class-based understanding" of "multiculturalism" from basic bigotry I suggest.

You clearly have a vivid imagination.

Having canvassed for the IWCA in Hackney, I have had doorstop conversations with people about multi-culturalism and more often than not people were so delighted at a political party actually bothering to talk to them it was possible to have a quite indepth conversation about an anti-racist, pro-working class critique of multiculturalism.

Unless you think all doorstep "bigots" are thick?

 

[ayatollah]

You clearly have a vivid imagination.

Having canvassed for the IWCA in Hackney, I have had doorstop conversations with people about multi-culturalism and more often than not people were so delighted at a political party actually bothering to talk to them it was possible to have a quite indepth conversation about an anti-racist, pro-working class critique of multiculturalism.

Unless you think all doorstep "bigots" are thick?

You love this accusation don't you that anyone who suggests being slippery about political terminology in an undoubtedly limited "doorstep" canvassing situation is assuming working class people are "thick". This is simply a dishonest posture on your part. You either understand the fundamental role of ideology in ALL societies in determining to a considerable degree how people view the world, or you don't , but "stupidity" is seldom the reason why people "love the Queen" , love Britain", hate Black people" etc ... it is ideology , dispensed through a myriad of means to the population over generations which dictates the general "world view" , NOT stupidity.

Now I'm prepared to believe that during your IWCA "doorstep" canvassing you are confident that you are able to clearly explain the difference between the IWCA hostility to "multicultalism" , and the more general racist hostility to what is much more universally understood as "multiculturalism" in the UK . Do I believe this is likely to be the case though ? NO I don't. I think that the IWCA critique of "multiculturalism" is classic "slippery politics" .. a useful confusion of terms which makes securing votes for the IWCA (in itself a remarkably "de-politicised" organisational name) in local elections much more possible from White Working Class voters who DO have a BIG issue with "multiculturalism" ... in its much more generally accepted usage ... ie , they don't like living in a mixed ethnic community, and they don't like black /asian people, but they DO like the espoused local working class activism ( "but we're not socialists or Labour") approach of the IWCA.

No Spanky, I don't think I have that vivid an imagination.. I think the IWCA is very seriously adrift politically... now even abandoning the long fought for "No Platform for Fascists" position of the anti fascist movement . (presumeably you don't even approve of the Postmen who, all credit to them, refuse to deliver BNP election poison ?) Tragic stuff.

 

[frogwoman]

I don't think no platform always works. I think the iwca may have made a mistake in this situation (there wasn't any local base in the area as Belboid pointed out) but i also think sometimes it may do more harm than good. What if for example you had a situation where a left wing councillor was on the council with a fash councillor? Would you refuse to put across your ideas and have any debates with them during the elections etc? There's a risk that to do so would make you look childish and worse allow the fash to put their views unopposed, to allow them to portray themselves as being against cuts, caring about the community, etc. remember they're nkt used to being attacked from the hard left. They're used to being attacked by liberals and can quite easily put on a left face and portray those liberals as hypocrites.

 

[frogwoman]

That said I am a little unconvinced whether the initial idea was a good idea. I don't think it was for the reasons fed and belboid said.

 

[Fedayn]

looks like the BNP have bottled it altogether now and, through fear of the potential for an IWCA appearance, pulled out

Stuart will take their place now instead for a 30/40 minute slot

obviously though i'm sure it would have been a much better situation for progressive pro working class politics if he had just stayed out of things and let the BNP get on with it

Even better that the radio station was more concerned with making sure the BNP stayed on the show when they said they'd pull out if the IWCA was on the same programme.... Rather clear that the show wanted the BNP on more than they wanted debate.

 

[Fedayn]

So it turns out that the IWCA will now be denied the opportunity to take part in this debate as the station wants to air the BNP 'show' as scheduled

At least some on this thread will be happy that the BNP are now not going to be given any credibility by erm, having a free reign to spout their shite in an area they clearly have their eye on, without a credible counter argument from a local pro working class progressive organisation

That's a laughable rather poor swipe, the radio show have enabled the BNP to have a free reign no-one else. Perhaps have a word with the radio station for being more concerned with making sure the BNP were on the show rather than debating with the IWCA.

 

[love detective]

i'm struggling a bit to find the kernel of the problem here - initially the IWCA were being accused of giving the BNP a boost through their participation on the show, yet the revealing insight given into the BNP's thinking by their actions, shows this to be the complete opposite of the situation - i.e. not only were they not prepared to risk being humiliated by an attack from a genuine pro working class position but decided to not even risk doing the show at all once they became aware the IWCA were aware of it. This outcome is in stark contrast to the one that would have happened if the IWCA had followed the advice given by some on here to just ignore them - then the BNP would have been given free reign, now they have no reign.

Initially the criticisms were off the poor judgement on the part of the IWCA in BBL from those who were not on the ground there nor in a position to evaluate the pros & cons of doing the thing. Now, that the judgement made from the IWCA in BBL has been vindicated by subsequent events (and the forecasts made about the boost the BNP would get from an engagement with the IWCA by some on here shown to be the complete opposite of what reality turned out to be), the attention seems to have turned, rather deftly, to either attacking the IWCA on its position on multiculturalism or for the radio show agreeing to let the BNP on in the firsts place.

The reason, Fedayn, why the radio agreed to put the BNP on the show in the first place has been made clear in Stuart's statement above (something that I note no one has even bothered to engage with) - so when faced with the withdrawl of the BNP due to the intended presence of the IWCA, the radio station made their decision to proceed with what had been originally intended, and for the reasons given already in the statement from Stuart above. The IWCA does not control the radio station, however i'd say it's a laughably poor swipe to assert that the only thing they (the radio station) cared about was allowing the BNP on it for a free reign - the reasons as to why they wanted them on it in the first place was because of their awareness that increasing numbers of people were articulating a desire to vote for the BNP, and rather than bury their heads in the sand about it, they wanted a chance to expose/confront their arguments. So this dusty headed ostrich idea that both an organisational encroachment by the BNP to the BBL area combined with an increasing articulation of pro-BNP views by people in the local area should be ignored because the BNP haven't yet actually established a political base in the area comes across as being somewhat asleep at the wheel.

One thing this shows what both the radio station and the IWCA have in common though is not to act as political gatekeepers/vanguards as to what arguments/positions people should or should not be exposed to, or that somehow the majority of people in working class communities are not intelligent enough to understand the counter arguments - especially in this day and age where No Platform for ideas you don't like is nothing but a historical artefact from another time. Likewise the idea that the left should be seen as the body that is physically preventing the self styled radical alternative to the political mainstream being heard can only cast it as reactionary & conservative in the eyes & ears of the wider populace.

Like it or not the kind of far right tendencies that have manifested in support for the likes of the BNP exist in significant numbers and de facto have political credibility whether we like it or not. These need to be confronted, not ignored, and confronted in a way that reveals them (along with the rest of the political mainstream who they profess to opose) to be the real reactionaries/conservatives, not us.

Also, a few more words from Stuart on this below, primarily in response to ayatollah:-

While some posters on U75 seem to base their concerns on the impact of our stance on multiculturalism purely hypothetical, academic (and very patronising) assumptions about working class people, the IWCA uses a tried and tested empirical approach.

Our position on divisive multiculturalism has been explained not just on the doorstep, in the local media and within the council chamber, but also several times over the last decade in our popular newsletter the ‘Leys Independent’ which was regularly hand delivered to all 5000 homes across Blackbird Leys over a ten year period. This has left very little room for any misunderstanding amongst the electorate (although it’s true that the ‘left’ have done their best with very limited success - other than within their own ever depleting circle - to portray us as racist/fascist etc).

If our electorate had been convinced that we were indeed racist or anti-immigrant, we would not have returned four city councillors (one having been voted in 3 times) off the back of the most ethnically diverse electoral ward in the city. Many of our voters, supporters, activists and IWCA Athletics Club members come from ethnic minority backgrounds. Many of these are attracted to us because of our position on multiculturalism – i.e. the fact that unlike other parties we treat them as unique individuals whose interests are best served by working in common with other working class people.

Parties such as the BNP, Labour and Respect have everything to gain by playing different ethnic groups against each other as their end game is power at all costs (with an increasingly Balkanised, easier to manipulate, society into the bargain).

The IWCA seeks to genuinely unite working class people for the greater good, so any strategy that delivers electoral success at the expense of social cohesion would be counter-productive. Even the electoral route itself has now been ditched (for the time being at least) as it has proved to work against local working class interests (i.e. because time-consuming work in the council chamber began to take us away from the very grass roots work that got us elected in the first place).

We hate the likes of the Islamists, Jamaican and Somali drug gangs and Pakistani men who prostitute under-age girls, and we have no qualms about raising these issues in the same way as we have confronted the extreme anti-social behaviour of groups who happen to be white. We understand that our feelings towards these scumbags are shared by the vast majority of decent working class people from these particular ethnic groups (who are often the biggest victims of the groups’ violence and intimidation) and we make sure to also publicise this. We will not be brow-beaten into either ignoring these issues because the fear of being accused of racism trumps any desire to actually do anything to address them (as is the case with Labour and the rest of the ‘left’) or of racialising social problems by tarring all members of these ethnic or religious groups with the same brush, in the hope of sparking a race war (ala the BNP/EDL etc). Both of these positions are racist, both complement each other.

From our experience, explaining our position to working class people from across the ethnic spectrum is an almost effortless process. The fact that some on the ‘left’ assume that this is an area fraught with danger merely exposes their own lack of practical experience in this field, their own lack of genuine empathy with working class communities and above all their own lack of faith in the intelligence of working class individuals.

 

[The39thStep]

assume that our anti fascists will now be picketing the radio station or physically stopping Darby being interviewed?

 

[Fedayn]

Initially the criticisms were off the poor judgement on the part of the IWCA in BBL from those who were not on the ground there nor in a position to evaluate the pros & cons of doing the thing. Now, that the judgement made from the IWCA in BBL has been vindicated by subsequent events (and the forecasts made about the boost the BNP would get from an engagement with the IWCA by some on here shown to be the complete opposite of what reality turned out to be), the attention seems to have turned, rather deftly, to either attacking the IWCA on its position on multiculturalism or for the radio show agreeing to let the BNP on in the firsts place.

One of my first criticisms was of the radio station for their decision to approach the BNP, so we'll let that straw man lie shall we?!

The reason, Fedayn, why the radio agreed to put the BNP on the show in the first place has been made clear in Stuart's statement above (something that I note no one has even bothered to engage with) - so when faced with the withdrawl of the BNP due to the intended presence of the IWCA, the radio station made their decision to proceed with what had been originally intended, and for the reasons given already in the statement from Stuart above. The IWCA does not control the radio station, however i'd say it's a laughably poor swipe to assert that the only thing they (the radio station) cared about was allowing the BNP on it for a free reign - the reasons as to why they wanted them on it in the first place was because of their awareness that increasing numbers of people were articulating a desire to vote for the BNP, and rather than bury their heads in the sand about it, they wanted a chance to expose/confront their arguments. So this dusty headed ostrich idea that both an organisational encroachment by the BNP to the BBL area combined with an increasing articulation of pro-BNP views by people in the local area should be ignored because the BNP haven't yet actually established a political base in the area comes across as being somewhat asleep at the wheel.

The radio station when confronted with the BNP saying they wouldn't appear if the IWCA did told the IWCA they were no longer invited. The BNP got them to keep their spokesman on and afford the IWCA a later date. The radio station made that decision, so to criticise that is not a pathetic swipe. They clearly thought it more important to give the BNP airtime than have a debate where their ideas could be quiestiond. I don't sdee how that's refutable, the evidenee of their choices and decisions is clear. Withdraw the IWCA invite and keep the BNP on the show. By the wat, I never said 'the only thing the radio station cared about' was keeping the BNP on the show, so again perhaps argue with what I said rather than what you think I said. The evidence for what they wanted most is clear the BNP being on the programme was clearly more inportant to them than the debate, or why else remove the IWCA invite to ensure the BNP stayedf on the programme?!

 

[Fedayn]

assume that our anti fascists will now be picketing the radio station or physically stopping Darby being interviewed?

Who are the 'anti fascists' then?

 

[love detective]

So just to be clear the criticisms are now about the radio station, not the IWCA yes?

 

[Fedayn]

So just to be clear the criticisms are now about the radio station, not the IWCA yes?

Both, I don't think the IWCA should have agreed to appear and i'm wondering why, given as you claim the radio station. After all we've been told the reason they wanted the BNP ideas debated was due to the concerns that manager had about his acquaintances mentioning they had thought of voting for them. The appearance of the BNP on the show was more important than having their ideas debated as is eclearly evidenced by their later decisions.