[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)

[Pickman's model]

So there is some sort of precedent for "banning" the leafleter (was it just one leafleter or were there more?) and members of the mob (those who could be identified anyway) who attacked her.

the people i can think had the undesirability of their presence communicated to them in no uncertain terms, but as TopCat says, this wasn't done through 'official channels' but by what i'd characterise as informal means and tc would call threats of violence. people like fascists and so forth, generally not people who were anarchists of any stripe ime - but i'm thinking of the 1990s, maybe early 2000s.

 

[andysays]

No there is not a precedent. I'm thinking more of threats of violence that would have been unknown to the organisers and would have upset them. This was the 80's to be fair.

OK, I misunderstood what you and PM were saying.

I can understand why the organisers wouldn't want to go down the road of banning anyone, however much they might "deserve" it, but I wonder what other actions they could reasonably be expected to take to prevent similar situations flaring up in future.

 

[andysays]

the people i can think had the undesirability of their presence communicated to them in no uncertain terms, but as TopCat says, this wasn't done through 'official channels' but by what i'd characterise as informal means and tc would call threats of violence. people like fascists and so forth, generally not people who were anarchists of any stripe ime - but i'm thinking of the 1990s, maybe early 2000s.

Understood.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I could be misremembering but I thought the organisers basically said that they wouldn’t ‘police’ the event as that’s against the spirit of anarchism and that everyone should be involved in that anyway; which is pretty much what happened although they got all the flak for it.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK, I misunderstood what you and PM were saying.

I can understand why the organisers wouldn't want to go down the road of banning anyone, however much they might "deserve" it, but I wonder what other actions they could reasonably be expected to take to prevent similar situations flaring up in future.

generally people didn't turn up and be wankers more than the once.

every year had a different wanker / group of wankers though.

 

[andysays]

generally people didn't turn up and be wankers more than the once.

every year had a different wanker / group of wankers though.

Someone (I may go back in a minute and remind myself who) was saying upthread about the 'risk' of the Green Party leafleter coming back in future and repeating their behaviour, so I was wondering if the organisers had had to face this in the past.

Personally I don't think it's that great a risk or that it needs to result in a formal banning, I'm more wondering what concrete action those who are still focussing on this particular person expect the organisers to do, assuming they can be persuaded this individual is a dangerous bigot.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

There was some pre-emotive named ban list from one of the yank anarchist Bookfairs.

It’s the wrong way to go imo. Better to make a blanket statement that x y z activity (not wearing deodorant) is not welcome than to ban a particular individual publicly.

(Worth also mentioning that at least one fash guy to my knowledge has been physically ejected from the Bookfair before. Again not by the Bookfair collective but by anti-fascists who happened to be there)

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Also it was me that said they might come back. Some of the TERFs have everything to gain by provoking a reaction and nothing to lose if that has a negative impact on the Bookfair - because they’re not anarchists or even close.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Also it was me that said they might come back. Some of the TERFs have everything to gain by provoking a reaction and nothing to lose if that has a negative impact on the Bookfair - because they’re not anarchists or even close.

I thought Helen Steele was an anarchist (although she apparently wasn’t handing leaflets out but attacked for saying those who did had the right to so).

 

[Pickman's model]

There was some pre-emotive named ban list from one of the yank anarchist Bookfairs.

It’s the wrong way to go imo. Better to make a blanket statement that x y z activity (not wearing deodorant) is not welcome than to ban a particular individual publicly.

(Worth also mentioning that at least one fash guy to my knowledge has been physically ejected from the Bookfair before. Again not by the Bookfair collective but by anti-fascists who happened to be there)

Yeh that happened at least once at ulu

 

[Pickman's model]

Also it was me that said they might come back. Some of the TERFs have everything to gain by provoking a reaction and nothing to lose if that has a negative impact on the Bookfair - because they’re not anarchists or even close.

More tefs than TERFs perhaps

 

[andysays]

There was some pre-emotive named ban list from one of the yank anarchist Bookfairs.

It’s the wrong way to go imo. Better to make a blanket statement that x y z activity (not wearing deodorant) is not welcome than to ban a particular individual publicly.

(Worth also mentioning that at least one fash guy to my knowledge has been physically ejected from the Bookfair before. Again not by the Bookfair collective but by anti-fascists who happened to be there)

I wasn't suggesting banning, more putting it forward as a hypothetical option to try to get a discussion going.

So what sort of activity could the organisers state was not welcome, given that it will be close to impossible to get universal agreement that a contentious leaflet is transphobic or whatever? (and I really don't want to reopen the dead end of whether the particular leaflet which sparked the incident was transphobic, that's a separate question)

 

[andysays]

Also it was me that said they might come back...

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was someone else, but when I went back and looked, they hadn't said anything like that, so I thought I'd imagined the whole thing...

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Yeh that happened at least once at ulu

Also Conway Hall.

 

[Wilf]

'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.


#coward

I'm certainly with you on not knowing what to think. I started out with a straightforward/simplisitc 'pro-trans' position across the range of issues and, to be honest, still hold much of that. But then I've listened to other opinions on women only spaces and concerns of postmodern/self recognition and the rest. Only honest position I can hold is not knowing and, most of all, naively hoping there could be some solidarity and comradeship in the middle of this. Even more that I shouldn't be pronouncing as to who is right. But the wetter and mushier I've got about the issues, the more certain I've got about the politics, the shit show, the viciousness - stuff which is after all about important issues in people's lives (on both 'sides'). Utterly depressing and becoming an all too common way of carrying on across the 'left'. Fucking awful.

 

[TopCat]

Green Anarchist were a relevant organisation regarding this. Bat shit crazy. Loony politics.
Did anyone try and ban them?
Most just desperately avoided their stall.

 

[LDC]

I don't think GA are relevant at all. Whatever one thinks of their politics they were very clearly anarchists, and i never heard any calls to ban them.

People seem to be forgetting that this trans thing is only a part of the dilemma the bookfair faces if it happens again. There was a whole host of demands of things it 'must do' - look at the fuss about the 'Religion is Stupid' banner for starters.

I'm actually not sure in the current climate I can imagine a Bookfair happening without it being dominated by confrontation.

 

[bimble]

Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.

 

[chilango]

It not like even the anarchist organisations (never mind the wider anarchist movement) have been able to find some common ground to unite around (afaics) to engage with this. Toxicity and division appear to be everywhere.

It's fucked up.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The whole point of idpol is about division, not solidarity. If it didn’t exist the state would invent it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.

according to an article that is, on its internal evidence, problematic, you mean.

for example, there is no such group as antifa. and even when there was there wasn't a black uniform. the accounts seem to be equivocal comments from the police. perhaps a little less credulity and a little more caution when sharing such links, bimble.

 

[stethoscope]

Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.

I'm sure a blog with dodgy views on trans people based in Canada with liberal politics is bound to be a great source of accounts as to the actions of Class War and events surrounding UK anarchism.

You're just like teuchter, rather than just being open and transparent about your beliefs and positions, you hide behind this 'just asking questions' and 'but according to this...' fake naivety.

 

[bimble]

I have been open about my views on this, spent months on here doing so but not willing to pour more energy into discussing it on here totally pointless, imo. I just posted that about cw allegedly calling the police to stop people going to a pub because it seemed relevant to the discussion above. That link just the first i found when searching for that story which i remember seeing on twitter that day.
Not sure what teuchter's got to do with anything.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

To be fair I’m fairly certain the author of that article is U.K. based and is a Marxist, not a liberal.

 

[Pickman's model]

I have been open about my views on this, spent months on here doing so but not willing to pour more energy into discussing it on here totally pointless, imo. I just posted that about cw allegedly calling the police to stop people going to a pub because it seemed relevant to the discussion above. That link just the first i found when searching for that story which i remember seeing on twitter that day.
Not sure what teuchter's got to do with anything.

i fear your critical faculties are atrophying

 

[bimble]

i fear your critical faculties are atrophying

me too.

 

[stethoscope]

Meh, perhaps so. I'm fatigued by the whole fucking business and what seems to count as politics anymore. I don't even know why I still post here so time to call it a day.

 

[Pickman's model]

me too.

another dodgy thing in that article is the claim that class war loudly oppose "carceral feminism" yet i can't find anything to substantiate that - although there's at least 20 sites carrying the article containing the claim. it seems cw are very quiet on the issue.

 

[Pickman's model]

Green Anarchist were a relevant organisation regarding this. Bat shit crazy. Loony politics.
Did anyone try and ban them?
Most just desperately avoided their stall.

i remember a movement against the monarchy demo at highgrove where man with beard out of ga was wearing a balaclava with a big bushy ginger beard sticking out from underneath, it served absolutely no purpose in disguising his identity.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

for example, there is no such group as antifa. and even when there was there wasn't a black uniform.

Antifa is frequently used in the media as a synonym of anti-fascists and she clearly means they’d adopted the black bloc look, that many involved nowadays do as a matter of principle rather than a tactic.
It’s a pretty one-sided article but at least criticise it for the right reasons and not that it ought to write expecting its audience have an intricate understanding of historical UK anti-fascism.