Beyond no platform?
Readers will know I am a staunch defender of the no platform policy, under which organisations like unions refuse to fund any venture that will involve allowing a fascist to have a platform. As an executive of Oxford University Student Union, I defended the concept of no platform in several debates and was fully supportive of our decision to pull the plug on Nick Griffin’s appearance on a radio station subsidized by OUSU.
I think it is clear now that the BBC are going to allow Griffin on to Question Time. Silly stunts by Peter Hain notwithstanding. It is also clear that the panel is going to be bloody appalling, with Jack Straw (he of the muslim veils comment) and Sayeeda Warsi (of the two types of election leaflet, one aimed at whites, one aimed at muslims) appearing for Labour and the Tories. There’s to be a Lib-Dem as well.
Equally clear is the protest which Unite Against Fascism are planning for Thursday evening. I have tactical disagreements with UAF – for example, I wouldn’t advocate a vote for the Libs or Cons, nor Labour unless I knew the candidate. To do so is self-defeating, as these three parties bear a fair amount of responsibility for the slowly increasing amount of support available to the BNP through disillusionment and media-pandering.
The protest is an expression of the weakness of the labour movement, rather than its strength. A stronger, better organised labour movement would have been able to appeal to the broadcast and journalistic unions to halt the BNP appearance. Yet we must get something out of such a protest other than just the psychic gratification of having opposed the BNP. What are we aiming to achieve?
Most obviously, an appearance on the Ten O’Clock news whilst Griffin and his tits (no pun intended) are inside guffawing to one another. A strong selection of speakers on the news, prepared to tell the truth – that the mainstream parties are to blame – from leading trades unionists to socialists, might very well rival Griffin’s appearance in terms of headline grabbing capacity.
What I can’t decide is this: do we want to attempt to force additional speakers into the meeting, now that it is going ahead anyway? Tony Kearns, AGS of the Communication Workers Union, for example, would make a good show – both of lambasting cuts as responsible for pro-BNP sentiment, and for lambasting the BNP as being utter hypocrites when it comes to voting for such cuts themselves – as they have in places like Kirklees.
This might also have the effect of changing the debate slightly, since the CWU are about to go on national strike against a regime of cuts and privatisations which is in keeping with the leading political philosophy of all three major parties. Having someone forced on them, at the head of a thousands-strong protest would also give that person authority to cast down Griffin’s representation of himself as speaking for the majority.
No, I don’t think so. We have to create our own platform instead which we can use to argue against the BNP, rather than legitimising them by sharing a platform with them. Otherwise we’re just confirming the liberal argument that you can’t argue against them properly unless you argue with them directly.
I sincerely hope the protest will be aimed at doing that, but I’m concerned it’ll just be a nice shout-along aimed at making activists feel better and raising UAF’s profile. I intend on going along even if it is like that, as I don’t think there are many other options at this stage.
Are we, though?
I don’t think one does have to argue with the BNP directly – but bearing in mind we’ve failed to stop them appearing, and only in that context – isn’t arguing with them directly simply one more way to argue with them?
Especially if whoever is doing it prepared to attack the BBC for hosting the BNP at all.
What is this “regime of cuts and privatisations” you talk of?
Well in the case of Royal Mail, the existing system of selling off profitable parts of the state-owned business and the future plans to sell of yet more to private enterprise, whilst allowing such private companies to use the socialised infrastructure of the postal service.
The recently uncovered ‘strategy’ document from Royal Mail goes into more detail.
More generally though, the plan by the government and the Tories to make massive cuts and sales of revenue earning arms of the state due to deficit fetishism.
“Sayeeda Warsi (of the two types of election leaflet, one aimed at whites, one aimed at muslims)”
You mean Whites and non-Whites? Or Muslims and non-Muslims.
What about white Muslims?
Very interesting.
“More generally though, the plan by the government and the Tories to make massive cuts and sales of revenue earning arms of the state due to deficit fetishism.”
Well, eventually, the deficit will have to be cut. Hardly anyone disputes that — even those who see the deficit as nothing to be worried about in the short-term.
Of course, it was nonsensical for the Tories to oppose fiscal stimulus and call for cuts in the middle of a recession.