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

[frogwoman]

Some of the comments about banners and leaflets seem to imply that the organisers are (or should be) responsible for the content of all materials available.

Just in practical terms, I don't know how people expect this to work, quite apart from the issue of censoring or banning potentially offensive materials.

Once again, the organisers are being put in an impossible position.

I guess anyone giving out offensive material (conspiraloonery/racist/transphobic bollocks/religious preaching etc) could be asked to leave. It's been a long time since I've been but don't they do anyway with trots etc?

 

[andysays]

perhaps a health warning could be erected - perhaps along the lines of people bearing statist material beyond this point do so at their own risk

But then you get the problem of who defines what is statist, and some bunch of hot heads deciding it's them and not the organisers, and the same situation unfolds...

 

[Sue]

Yeah, I appreciate that.

But extending that to the Bookfair and practical problems with this and other issues, where and how would you say the line should be drawn around people feeling strongly that they should also be able to attend without having to face racist banners ('Religion is Stupid' one put up over the Active Distribution stall), or radical feminists saying they want to be able to attend without facing anti-feminist information?

How the fuck does this get sorted out at the Bookfair where until now people generally felt drawn together under the banner of anarchism, something that I think has now imploded?

Can the Bookfair ever happen again in the way it has in previous years?

I'm maybe being a bit dim but I don't understand the bit in bold -- are you saying that saying 'religion is stupid' is racist?

 

[LDC]

I guess anyone giving out offensive material (conspiraloonery/racist/transphobic bollocks/religious preaching etc) could be asked to leave. It's been a long time since I've been but don't they do anyway with trots etc?

Not seen any Trots giving out stuff at the Bookfair for ages. What you describe is pretty much how it has worked so far I think. The issue has never been both so polarizing with significant numbers in both 'camps' as it were, nor so mirrored in a debate going on in wider society though.

In theory that sounds OK, but then of course outside the definition of this material, who then asks them to leave? The Bookfair collective or a Anarchist Bookfair security team? And if they refuse do you physically remove them, and if so who does that? And where to? Just outside the venue doors, off the grounds completely onto the nearest street? And what if some people disagree and try and intervene to stop it?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

How have we gone from the anarchist bookfair to the anti-semitism of Tankies?

 

[frogwoman]

.

 

[LDC]

I'm maybe being a bit dim but I don't understand the bit in bold -- are you saying that saying 'religion is stupid' is racist?

There were people after the Bookfair last year that accused this banner of being racist or colonialist or something like that yeah.

TBH I can sympathize with that point of view slightly, I can see when there's a really complex mix of religion, culture, and ethnicity (like in much of the world) that banner could be seen as basically saying your culture/ethnicity is stupid.

I do think it's a shit banner really, and smacks of slightly teenage sloganeering rather than a useful political statement. But of course I don't think it should be 'banned' from the Bookfair. I don't get why we can't just tut and roll our eyes a bit more vigorously.

 

[Sea Star]

There were people after the Bookfair last year that accused this banner of being racist or colonialist or something like that yeah.

TBH I can sympathize with that point of view slightly, I can see when there's a really complex mix of religion, culture, and ethnicity (like in much of the world) that banner could be seen as basically saying your culture/ethnicity is stupid.

I do think it's a shit banner really, and smacks of slightly teenage sloganeering rather than a useful political statement. But of course I don't think it should be 'banned' from the Bookfair. I don't get why we can't just tut and roll our eyes a bit more vigorously.

An attack on somebody else's religion is not the same as leaflets designed to create what is effectively now a "hostile environment" for trans people throughout politics. I would hope that unsubstantiated lies and slogans that are obviously intended to provoke people who may well be anarchists should be challenged. Ideally in a formal way but what if the organisers sided with the leafleters?

Anyway - I wasn't there, I've seen conflicting accounts of what happened so not getting into it deeper than that.

 

[Pickman's model]

But then you get the problem of who defines what is statist, and some bunch of hot heads deciding it's them and not the organisers, and the same situation unfolds...

tbh the organisers organise the event and have never said, suggested, implied or in any other way insinuated part of their role was to police or arbitrate over disputes at the bookfair. it is therefore perverse to set them up as you do as people with a role to define things. of course you can pose hypothetical problems and demonise those who might seek to resolve them - terming them 'a bunch of hot heads' suggests that that's the only thing that can happen. if the organisers *did* take on that role there'd be people howling them down. as for a definition of what is statist, i'd suggest that campaigning through parliamentary and constitutional means might reasonably form part of a definition. if people who aren't anarchists turn up at anarchist events seeking to provoke a reaction from other people should anarchists indulge them and let them have their barney? or should they be encouraged - in as comradely a fashion as possible - to go forth and multiply? how do we as a movement maintain a certain level of order at our events - a core question and one to which i don't have the answer. but placing people who have booked the rooms and organised the event in a false position, a position they have not asked for, a position to which they do not pretend, that's utterly unfair. we as a movement have suffered from both TAFKNTs and trans activists using our event as a stage on which to play out their disagreements. it would be preferable that any repetition of this nonsense was resolved by reasoned and comradely debate: but when on the one hand you have trans activists being grossly offensive and TAFKNTs being equally vile to their opponents, you have your bunches of hot heads. it might have been better if both groups had been ejected and enjoined to continue their discussion on ducketts common or chestnuts park. sadly hot heads outside the trans and TAFKNT communities were in short supply on 28 october.

 

[andysays]

tbh the organisers organise the event and have never said, suggested, implied or in any other way insinuated part of their role was to police or arbitrate over disputes at the bookfair. it is therefore perverse to set them up as you do as people with a role to define things. of course you can pose hypothetical problems and demonise those who might seek to resolve them - terming them 'a bunch of hot heads' suggests that that's the only thing that can happen. if the organisers *did* take on that role there'd be people howling them down. as for a definition of what is statist, i'd suggest that campaigning through parliamentary and constitutional means might reasonably form part of a definition. if people who aren't anarchists turn up at anarchist events seeking to provoke a reaction from other people should anarchists indulge them and let them have their barney? or should they be encouraged - in as comradely a fashion as possible - to go forth and multiply? how do we as a movement maintain a certain level of order at our events - a core question and one to which i don't have the answer. but placing people who have booked the rooms and organised the event in a false position, a position they have not asked for, a position to which they do not pretend, that's utterly unfair. we as a movement have suffered from both TAFKNTs and trans activists using our event as a stage on which to play out their disagreements. it would be preferable that any repetition of this nonsense was resolved by reasoned and comradely debate: but when on the one hand you have trans activists being grossly offensive and TAFKNTs being equally vile to their opponents, you have your bunches of hot heads. it might have been better if both groups had been ejected and enjoined to continue their discussion on ducketts common or chestnuts park. sadly hot heads outside the trans and TAFKNT communities were in short supply on 28 october.

I'll return to this later when not posting on phone

 

[Pickman's model]

There were people after the Bookfair last year that accused this banner of being racist or colonialist or something like that yeah.

TBH I can sympathize with that point of view slightly, I can see when there's a really complex mix of religion, culture, and ethnicity (like in much of the world) that banner could be seen as basically saying your culture/ethnicity is stupid.

I do think it's a shit banner really, and smacks of slightly teenage sloganeering rather than a useful political statement. But of course I don't think it should be 'banned' from the Bookfair. I don't get why we can't just tut and roll our eyes a bit more vigorously.

the 'religion is stupid' banner has been around since about 2006, when a run of stickers bearing the same slogan was produced.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'll return to this later when not posting on phone

i look forward to it

 

[LDC]

as for a definition of what is statist, i'd suggest that campaigning through parliamentary and constitutional means might reasonably form part of a definition.

Class War out then!

 

[Pickman's model]

Class War out then!

i am not sure that class war have ever suggested pursuing a parliamentary route to ameliorate the effects of proposed legisation. in fact i'm rather sure they haven't.

 

[Sea Star]

by 'trans activists' do you mean activists who happen to be trans, and by activist, is that anyone involved in anarchism, or are trans people, by virtue of being trans, and having an opinion about themselves always going to be trans activists? Or do you mean the special use of the term "trans activists" which anti-trans campaigners use to describe any trans person they disagree with? Can a trans activist also be an anarchist, in which case are they a trans activist or just an anarchist who happens to be trans?

 

[LDC]

Didn't they stand electoral candidates recently? Anyway, was tongue in cheek, don't want to derail things anymore!

 

[Pickman's model]

by 'trans activists' do you mean activists who happen to be trans, and by activist, is that anyone involved in anarchism, or are trans people, by virtue of being trans, and having an opinion about themselves always going to be trans activists? Or do you mean the special use of the term "trans activists" which anti-trans campaigners use to describe any trans person they disagree with? Can a trans activist also be an anarchist, in which case are they a trans activist or just an anarchist who happens to be trans?

yes.

 

[stethoscope]

I do worry though when one of the bookfair responses/call outs said:

It is disappointing that, once again, LABF has let down and created an unsafe space for many comrades.

I mean, I want an anarchism that is broadly inclusive, but its anarchist bookfair not a support group or stuffy conference. It doesn't mean that dodgy and inflammatory shit can't still be robustly challenged by self-policing, people told to fuck off if they're being cunts, asked to calm it and discuss it, etc. but lets not go down any route where stuff becomes 'out of bounds' because of a leaflet, banner or a stall that might offend someone (I realise, its difficult to know where lines get drawn here as that varies for everyone).

I mean, I've seen the leaflets that were handed out, and whilst their content personally touches me, I'd have likely challenged and called it out for what it is should I have been there. It certainly shouldn't have been used against the Bookfair collective as it has, and for them to be expected to police/control what can/can't be discussed, leafletting, etc. Radical politics is fucked otherwise.

I've encountered people on protests over the years where we had disagreements over stuff but we didn't assess each others intersectionalist credentials on social media first before regarding each other as 'comrades' in a particular action. A bit of give and take, push and shove surely has to prevail?

 

[Wilf]

I remain optimistic that these issues can be overcome.

This might seem an odd way of putting it but, short of violence and intimidation, I don't particularly care what happens at the event. If it gets to the point of shouting matches again, it does nobody any good and, cliché alert, spoils it for everyone else. You just hope people will have a bit of respect for the event itself.

My anxieties are more for the organisers having to tip toe round issues, having to take responsibility for other people's bad behaviour. I imagine any future organisers might want to get into dialogue with groups wanting to participate on trans/gra debates. But the horror scenario would be getting drawn into a long running facebook spat, demands that x should be banned etc.

Sorry, that's like me trying to transfer anxiety onto you at the point you are taking steps to revive the bookfair. Maybe all the organisers can do is put a statement up along the lines of 'we expect participants to take responsibility for their behaviour. Please don't ruin the bookfair'. Anything else drags you into 'policing', responding to demands and the rest.

Edit: all said much better by Pickman's model and stethoscope .

 

[LDC]

WTF is it with this 'unsafe space' thing? Do people just really mean a bit uncomfortable or do they actually mean dangerous?

If the Bookfair is 'unsafe' how the fuck did they even manage to get there?

 

[Sea Star]

yes.

ok. glad you've cleared that one up then.

 

[TopCat]

One of the things that made me much less sympathetic to the 'just asking questions/wanting discussion' theme was hearing that the person who leafleted the Bookfair last year was planning on coming back next time it ran and do the same. And they're in the fucking Green Party, so basically couldn't give a fuck about being responsible for acting in a way that fucks the Bookfair up.

This is simple enough. They get told to stay the fuck away. Leaflet their own conference.

 

[frogwoman]

i largely agree with that. but what if someone's handing out fascist leaflets/'national anarchist' shit and claiming they are an anarchist?
or conspiraloon/beeleyite shit? where do you draw the line? it is an issue to think about, because i have a lot of problems with 'safe spaces' but there are circumstances in which people will have to be ejected.

 

[TopCat]

hardly definitive, despite the fact that the entire article is saying that antisemitism is utterly unimportant and something for rich intellectual elites to discuss over dinner, and that poor people don't worry about it/are affected by it? ok then. i love it when it when someone decides what i'm 'definitively' allowed to be upset by and view as antisemitic. and this in the context of a thread defending that paper's transphobia. great stuff.

You ain't the only arbiter in this life. Your para phrasing is a view along with everyone elses.

 

[TopCat]

i largely agree with that. but what if someone's handing out fascist leaflets/'national anarchist' shit and claiming they are an anarchist?
or conspiraloon/beeleyite shit? where do you draw the line? im not comparing the two but it is an issue to think about, because i have a lot of problems with 'safe spaces' but there are circumstances in which people will have to be ejected.

Punch them in the head.

 

[TopCat]

the 'religion is stupid' banner has been around since about 2006, when a run of stickers bearing the same slogan was produced.

I paid for those stickers!!!

 

[frogwoman]

You ain't the only arbiter in this life. Your para phrasing is a view along with everyone elses.

fantastic.

 

[Pickman's model]

ok. glad you've cleared that one up then.

you're a member of the green party and as such not an anarchist. if you have anything to offer in practical terms about how collisions like that under discussion might be prevented, why not share them? i'm seeing a lot of sniping from the sidelines and not a lot of positive engagement.

 

[LDC]

Yeah, if you're a Green Party member/activist you're pretty far down the list of who I'm going to listen to about what should and shouldn't be at the Anarchist Bookfair.

 

[stethoscope]

i largely agree with that. but what if someone's handing out fascist leaflets/'national anarchist' shit and claiming they are an anarchist?
or conspiraloon/beeleyite shit? where do you draw the line? it is an issue to think about, because i have a lot of problems with 'safe spaces' but there are circumstances in which people will have to be ejected.

Oh yeah, not claiming otherwise although I'm sure some of those examples wouldn't be tolerated and stamped upon very quickly. I'm pondering the argument though, that through identity politics and people with otherwise liberal politics being attracted to 'anarchism', has shifted the notion of what's regarded nowadays as offensive and 'unsafe', and what would be held up for rigorous debate (however much you disagree) is met with a 'no platforming' or 'I refuse to even discuss' kind of mentality. It's not an easy line I realise.

Best example I can think of in the context of this thread is that I've read all manner of rad fem books and theory over the years, pretty polemic. Some of it has really hurt, some of it has challenged my thinking, some of it I thought was batshit. What I try not to do, unless its clearly lacking any convincing argument and is just vitriol and hate for its own sake, is to just write it off and wrap myself up in a cocoon. Again, this isn't alway easy I realise, and times/moments when clearly reading something that could affect deeply isn't wise to do. It's something I've tried to live by though.