SDL World Pub Tour Continues
A descriptive account of the SDL rally and counter-protests in Edinburgh today.
Lessons from Glasgow
Scottish Defence League members from Leeds, Scotland.
After much anticipation and preparation, today was the day of the English Scottish Defence League’s second outing. They had first appeared in Glasgow last November, with a generous estimate of 80 turning up to find themselves outnumbered by about 50 to 1, consequently finding themselves kettled in a pub by the police for their own safety.
There were two main lessons that people came away with from that encounter. First, that it had been a great victory for the anti-fascist movement, providing the confidence necessary to organise in future. And second, that there was a split in the movement over tactics. Broadly there appeared two groups: one led by the UAF/SWP under the banner of Scotland United, which favoured a parallel rally, hosting speakers from the Tories, SNP, Church of Scotland and others, and to that end actively opposed any idea of direct confrontation with the SDL. And one led by a range of activists from the SSP, anarchist groups, student groups and others (including, it must be said, individuals from UAF/SWP), which favoured direct confrontation via a march on the SDL position wherever it may turn out to be.
Fortunately and unfortunately respectively, these will once again be the two main lessons that people come away with from today’s encounter.
The combined march towards Royal Mile.
Preparation and March
Almost immediately after Glasgow there were rumours that Edinburgh would be the next destination, and so the Edinburgh Anti-Fascist Alliance (EAFA) was established to organise those preferring the tactic of confrontation.
Needless to say that plenty of anti-fascist/anti-racist posters went up around the city from both the EAFA and the UAF, as well as many city-centre shops carrying leaflets on their counters. Indeed, such was the saturation that it led a Conservative councillor to complain that anti-fascism has become a “polarising influence” — Tories on the ball as always!
Each group, of course, was advertising its own event. The UAF/SWP rally was to occur at 11.30am and march through the city centre, while the EAFA organised to meet at 9.30am before heading wherever the SDL turned up. Coincidentally, the UAF/SWP decided to start advertising for students to gather at 10am instead, just down the road from where the EAFA were meeting [Update: it looks like this was a combination of two groups; the UAF and an autonomous student group that had arrived there].
This proved to be a mistake on their part, as the EAFA decided to join up with this group at around 10.20am while they waited for news on the SDL’s arrival. This turned, consciously or otherwise, into an entryist manoeuvre, as they soon got news of the SDL’s location and marched off with the entire group in tow.
Anti-Fascists headed by the EAFA move towards the SDL position after temporary confusion.
This is where the UAF/SWP’s role became a damaging rather than a building one. Having failed to stop the entire group marching off, they set themselves up further down the road with a loud-speaker to try and convince as many people as possible into staying with them. While this first attempt failed entirely to halt the enthusiastic crowd it did succeed in sowing the seeds of confusion in the majority who were not there with a group, but rather as a response to the posters, media coverage and word of mouth.
Having heard (accurately) that the bulk of SDL members seemed to be having a morning drink near Holyrood Parliament, the march entered the Royal Mile, where the police quickly mobilised to prevent any advance.
This is where the battle of the two groups commenced, as the UAF/SWP sought to take advantage of the police lines and confusion to peel people back to their rally, while the EAFA and others sought to find a side-street past the police lines. Throw into this a sighting of SDL members in the Bank Hotel — a pub right in the centre of the march (the building in the above photo) — and misinformation being introduced about where the SDL were and what was happening by prominent UAF members, and it isn’t difficult to imagine that things were getting a little chaotic. Eventually the sizeable EAFA group found their side street — barging past a single hapless police officer, who must have been unfamiliar with the story of King Canute — and took the bulk of the protesters with them. However, it was noticeable that with two factions competing for loyalty, many unaligned protesters simply gave up and drifted off, weakening both.
The SDL find that the latest stop on their world pub tour is just too good to leave.
Kettling the SDL
Despite the commotion a significant group moved forward with the EAFA and eventually reached the pub hosting the SDL — about 80 of them in total [update: The Scotsman is reporting 40]. At this point, echoing the scenes of Glasgow, the counter-protesters trapped the SDL in their pub. Now it just became a question of the police holding their ground until buses arrived to remove the SDL from the area. This took some hours, with increasing numbers of police flooding into the area and drones flying overhead, but eventually it happened and the SDL piled onto their buses — though not before they had all their details and photos taken.
Division appears in the SDL rank and file as one brave fighter forgets to swear at passing protesters.
There can be little doubt that the day was a success for the EAFA. Their spotters found the SDL early and the EAFA led a significant group to trap them in a relatively out-of-the-way pub before they could meet up or hold their rally. Other SDL members found themselves confronted by break-away groups of protesters and escorted or kettled by police — reports of which arrived from both the train station and 20 minutes away at the Grassmarket. This will hopefully set the SDL back and discourage any future rallies in Scotland, as well as establish the organisation necessary in Edinburgh to engage in future events.
It is only a shame that a rather grotesque public factional fight cost some of the momentum along the way. It must surely be seen as imperative to sort this situation out beforehand if the SDL return, with an acceptance that while the UAF’s passive rally is a good way to involve those who wouldn’t want to be involved in an EAFA-type strategy, it shouldn’t be pursued at the expense of those who are willing to carry out the important work of direct confrontation — and certainly not at the expense of a march which is already on its way.
That’s interesting about the split in the SWP; I’ve heard in some areas it’s the SWP/UAF pushing for confrontation with the fascists.
I’ll have more considered remarks in a while, but superb article.
Great article, pretty accurately describes what happened today I think. UAFs behavior was ridiculous, but the main thing is that the SDL didn’t have their demo, and we can definitely count this as a success.
The bizarre thing is that on paper the SWP’s position _is_ to confront the fascists, but their actions in practice are to try to prevent anyone doing so. I have no explanation for this.
Well done. When the Irish community in Scotland attempt to remember ‘Bloody Sunday’ we are attacked by fascistic loyalists, BNP, NF and orange order members.
We are pelted with bricks, bottles, urine, shite by animals – I look forward to our community being defended.
Remember, at the Glasgow SDL joke they did not attack our muslim brothers and sisters – they attacked an Irish catholic pub called the Empire Bar in the Saltmarket
An accurate description and a sound conclusion.
I will add that the UAF’s position with regard to their action on the day, as verified by consensus at one of their planning meetings was that they would march if and only if the fash had been physically removed from town. The most horrible squabbling seen at the crossroads between the passive march and the active confrontation was perpetrated by Scotland United, recognised by the local UAF to be a west-coast wanky umbrella group.
@Dave Semple: Since the emergence of the *DL’s the UAF/SWP have been shown repeatedly to actively oppose any kind of actual confrontation with the *DL’s. It’s not just in Edinburgh and Glasgow, at the Leeds demo the UAF stewards handed a lad over to the police because he ‘looked like an anarchist’ and in Manchester they pretty much formed ranks with the police to prevent people from reaching the *DL march.
I’ve always known the SWP to be all empty rhetoric but the regularity of the *DL demos over the last year have shown them time and time again to be a joke.
Well done to all in Edinburgh who took to confronting the *DL.
(Nice article by the way)
Excellent front-line warts and all reporting, Gordon. Purely, from a TCF perspective, something we’re keen to have more of on the site. Clearly I’m in no position to say, but I wonder if you’d care to comment on the SWP review of events at http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20325
Purely on the subject of pubs, so the #DLs actually all really congregate in pubs for every march?
kept it pub for our own safety hahahaha who is scared off u unwashed scumbags
The SWP review is a bit of a mind-bender to read, since they spend their entire time praising exactly what they put all of their energy into stopping. But that’s not all; they then go on to conflate their rally, which was a good 30+ minutes away, with the success of the Edinburgh Anti-Fascist Alliance, without even having the courtesy to mention them.
I suppose if I am to put it simply: it is incomprehensible to me how someone could write that with a straight face. And I doubt you will get many first hand accounts that are bold enough to try and turn such vague statements as Viv Smith’s into a concrete time-line of events.
The Workers’ Liberty article joins this one in explaining the UAF/SWP’s role: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/02/20/anti-fascists-surround-scottish-defence-league-%E2%80%9Cscotland-united%E2%80%9D-tries-stop-confron
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that we can’t ignore them, how do you think people should relate to the SWP/UAF?
Also, with what justification did the people on the UAF gig give for keeping away from the SDL? Were they just afraid?
Today in Glasgow Republicans will face the loyalist/fascist EDL/SDL and like our Muslim friends we will face the hatred and violence of them. As Frank rightly asks will we get solidarity from socialists and the left as we commemorate the 14 innocent civil rights protesters shot dead by British paratroopers in Derry? It would be great to think so, but we wont hold our breath as the Scottish/Irish community has seen so often over the years.
No pasaran.
The fourteen people shot dead on Bloody Sunday should be remembered. As, by the way, should the hunger strikers. These are men of conviction, and many were socialists. But the inverse nationalism of Republicanism – as understood in a Scottish and Irish context – is reactionary and while more palatable to the Left, unleashes the same forces as motivate the SDL and BNP etc.
So the victims of the British Army will get my sympathy and rememberance; people marching in a nationalist cause will not.
What about the ordinary innocent Northern Ireland citizens who were cowardly blown up or shot by the I.R.A.-You don’t really know what went on-you don’t really know what you are talking about!!
You know I’m Northern Irish right?
OK What about the ordinary innocent Northern Ireland citizens who were cowardly blown up or shot by the I.R.A.
That was going to be my question. What about them? I’m no supporter of the terroristic methods of the IRA. Yet the civil rights marchers who were shot weren’t terrorists. The methods of the British government were equally terroristic and lawless – such as arranging for the murder of Billy Wright.
Thanks Dave for making that clear-I agree then with you.
Thanks for that account Gordon.
The SWP’s conflating the US rally w the AFA march/rally is no accident, but natural and to be expected — it happens all the time, w monotonous regularity, across all actions and movements. SW is a propaganda tool, after all.
@Liam: UAF’s behaviour was not at all ridiculous — it makes perfect sense from their perspective, and is in keeping w the actions of earlier incarnations (ANL).
@Tim: Again, not at all bizarre. It’s easy to vigorously denounce ‘Nazis’ on paper; another to directly confront them — and police — on the streets.
Last comment, I promise; surely the idea of hosting speakers from the Tories particularly and lesserly the SNP is counterproductive? It vests both of these with a progressive character neither have.
Certainly not the Tories who, in the right situation, would have people speaking at an anti-fascist rally on one hand, and supporters marching with the fascists on the other. We haven’t forgetten the Monday Club et al.
Same with the SNP: whilst I don’t know and won’t characterise what an arm of the Scottish nationalist movement is like, I can guess. This picture isn’t shaken up by the SNP’s attempt to cosy up to the capitalist class in Scotland either.
Good article. I wasn’t there, but the story sounds familiar.
Well written. Agree with what you say bout the UAF. If we followed thier example, we’d be living under fash law.
I wonder if Saudi or any of the Islam fundemaentalcountries would allow a socialist group to protest against sharia law-just a thought
That’s an interesting thought Justin. Can you explain why it is relevant? Do we live in a country that embodies Sharia Law? Did I move to Saudi Arabia and not realise?
Dave, thought you might be interested in this article below from the Times.
It looks like Sharia law is on its way here in some areas. I am no bigot or rascist though I think when the Muslim population will increase non Muslims may ultimately be subject to it where religious and political freedom will be thrown out as in Islamic Fundemantalist states. I am no supported of any Fash partys I am a socialist but I am nervous about what life under a Islamic State.
Best wishes
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courtsAbul Taher Recommend? (69) ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
Additional reporting: Helen Brooks
I am indeed interested in that Justin. I tried emailing you just now but your email address doesn’t exist. If you use your real one when leaving a comment, I’ll give you a fuller reply.
Sorry about that Dave try
the above and I think it should work!
What a familiar piece of anti-SWP rhetoric. The Anti-fascist alliances can congratulate themselves for being brave and stout and standing up to fascists. But politics takes place on other plains other than just the street and at some point you’ll have to grow up and realise that sympathy for these thugs can grow faster than the ranks of reds willing to kick their heads in. I’m all for direct confrontation with these worthless pricks – but only a mass movement can break them in the long run. The task at hand therefore is not to try to syphon off the most courageous fighters (who inevitably will be -mostly,though not all- young strong men) but to give confidence to everyone who turns up to the rally to be part of the blockade, giving everyone a role.
To do this the EAFA and GAFA will have to recognise the ways in which Scotland United have made this difficult. Their umbrella organisation out-manoeuvred UAF which remains the largest grouping capable of confronting fascism in Britain. Both UAF and the Anti-Fascist alliance have forces that are too small to overrule the crap policies, classless politics and poor tactics of Scotland United. But no mass base will be built by humiliating these people by complaining that they did not march to confront the fascists. They lack the political understanding and confidence to do so. And questioning their commitment to the cause of anti-fascism is despicable and immature. As an SWP and UAF activist it is infuriating to have my comrades on the left make accusations that we are too cowardly somehow to put into practice our stated principles on fighting fascism. The question is not whether to confront the fascists – it’s how? and with what forces? It is particularly offensive when only a few years ago when I was in the SSP I was told we didn’t need an anti-fascist campaign as the SSP would take care of things. Unfortunately that was not the case. Broad left-unity was more important than squads of fighters.
Lastly I’d ask comrades to consider one vitally important question. If the SWP is not actually against fighting fascism, directly confronting thugs on the streets – why did we on several occasions call demonstrations against Nazis in defiance of UAF, when we failed to convince a majority within the UAF branches to march?
The author of this article and others in the anarchist/far left sections cannot conceive of this as they are much more comfortable in the certainties of separatism, than the challenges of unity.
I bit.
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=14279
I’m not going to answer your criticisms Brian, because I wasn’t there on the day.
However, having read some of the comments over at Lenin’s place and elsewhere, I’m inclined to say there’s an element of SWP members who are over-keen to find anti-SWP sentiment wherever they can. In fact, I thought Gordon was balanced, admitted that first takes could be wrong and concluded by advocating a discussion around the topic, rather than recriminations. All told I thought that was fair minded.
Moreover, my own comment illustrated that from my experience with SWP members, they seem fairly up for actually confronting the fascists and inclined to think that it was other groups that had a squadrist mentality.
Though this rather undermines your own pokes at other organisations.
Thank you for your thoughts, Brian, but I’m afraid you may have misread the article rather badly.
Both of us recognise a need for a broader movement (for all the reasons you noted and others), and both of us recognise the need for direct confrontation.
You complain that I attack that broader movement for not being willing to confront, when I do not. I do not question their commitment to anti-fascism anywhere in the article, nor do I suggest that anyone is being cowardly. I have no idea where you got this from.
What I make clear is that there were two different events organised around two different tactics, and that the fight between those two events on the day damaged both.
Certainly on this issue I attack the UAF’s attempt to split the march that was already on its way to confront the SDL — something that is surprising given that the SWP’s own article claims that the EAFA’s event won the day. I attack this not least because in trying to do so they lied repeatedly to the crowd about where the SDL were, made absurd claims that the Scotland United rally was about to be attacked, and so forth. If the SWP’s policy is direct confrontation, as some have suggested above, then I find this all rather difficult to understand.
I then end by restating the need for both tactics to be used and call for better dialogue between them. Indeed, one might even say I end with a call for a basic form of unity, if one were so inclined.
Neither Sharia or Fah law sounds good to me!
Fascists prevent protests from those who disagree with their views. The last time I checked, the SDL/EDL were legal, and not even a political party. They are manifestly not racist, nor even comprised of any religious group. Do they not have a right to express their opinions?
Look in the mirror guys. Who exactly is defending freedom here?
The ones preventing “Pogromists on Tour” from getting anywhere near the mosque. Silly question.
Milgram – please read my previous comment and think a bit more before answering next time.
In argument, David Montgomery, Milgram’s response is what we call disputing your premise.
Yeah Dave. Stopping fascists by acting like fascists sounds dodgy to me. Maybe you can elighten me why you think otherwise.
There is a fundamental flaw with this article; UAF/SWP did *NOT* start publicising for students to meet at the mound at 10am. This was organised by an autonomous group of students, with no connection to either group. The idea of meeting in the middle of UAF and EAFA was to draw them together, which is exactly what happened when the EAFA marched along to the Mound to join up with our contingent.
Don’t presume we’re all under the shackles of UAF/SWP, students are capable of thinking and organising for themselves!
@DM You have a very weird definition of acting like a fascist, even using the liberal rather than the Marxist definition. A mob of people showing up outside a pub where a bunch of racists are getting boozy before they go to protest at a church is your definition of fascist? Well okay then.
But no, I’m not going to enlighten you. I’m not interested in twelve rounds of being told I’m “acting like a fascist” by someone whose definition of permissible political expression includes allowing a bunch of racists to go round trying to intimidate a generally law abiding population because of their religion.
No enlightenment there then. So much for reasoned argument. “..not interested..”
Intellectual high ground, Dave?
There was plenty of reasoned argument there; that you didn’t get the answer you wanted is neither here nor there. As for the intellectual high ground, trying to bait me hardly grasps at that, does it?
David M @35: Dave Semple can of course argue for himself, but as simply as I can put it: there is more to freedom than freedom of speech. For a longer view, see http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/?p=502 On a day when there’s quite a lot of inappropriate reference to Nazism/fascism, we should remember that the Nazi party were legal and democratically elected as well.
Gordon @29: While it is perfectly understandable that you want to defend yourself from Brian’s accusation of being anti-SWP biased for the sake of it, and oyu do so well, I think it’s also important to cut him some slack for the sake of the wider argument; Brian is merely trying to set out more fully his argument, with which I have some sympathy, that not all the anti-fascist action can or should be the preserve of ‘brave, strong young men.’ Dave has talked previously on here of how the ‘carnivaleque’ can be important, as long as it is (as you I think agree) it is in tune with other forms of action. I’ll be coming back to this theme on a post I’m writing in advance of International Women’s Day, which I contend may have become too carnivaleque to the exclusion of its ‘proper’ objectives.
Excellent article mate, it describe the situation of the day very well. I have put it on indymedia scotland (http://www.indymediascotland.org) hope thats ok. Great photos as well. For your info, there are also syndicalists and platformists involved in EAFA
Joe @36: I’m not sure that could be categorised as a “fundamental flaw”, but it could be a factual error — and if so, my apologies. If you can provide me with a little more information about the group who set it up then I will edit a corrective note into the article.
Though the main outcome of such a correction, as far as I can see, would be to cast the early actions of the UAF in a worse light.
Paul @35: It would seem that you, Brian and I are in broad agreement, and that is what I was trying (and hopefully at this second attempt succeeding) to convey to Brian in my response.
Gordon @24: Yeah, sorry, “fundamental flaw” probably too strong wording, its a great article, best reporting on the day I’ve read, so sorry if that sounded like a criticism. In terms of information about the group that organised it, I don’t really want to name any names, but was basically an ad-hoc group of Edinburgh Uni students who got pissed off by the bickering between EAFA and UAF and so we decided to start our own rally with the intention of seeing what happened on the day and acting accordingly. As it so happens, we all went with the EAFA :p
‘Bank Hotel a pub right in the centre of the march’
I thought the march was going up the Mound along George V1 Bridge and into the Meadows. Bank Hotel is on North Bridge.
Keep me right here! I’m getting confused. Did the young students with Anti-Fascist Banners want to confront the SDL members who were in the pub. If there hadn’t been 100′s of police and a huge metal police cordon erected across the Royal Mile prevent them from getting near the SDL would these young students have been ready to fight. Provoke the SDL members until voilence broke out. Were they ready for voilence? Was it going to be war outside Holyrood Palace?
I do hope I have got it wrong.
The Scotland United march went up the Mound towards the Meadows in the afternoon. This is a report from the morning following the Edinburgh Anti-Fascist Alliance, which went from the Mound up to the Royal Mile/North Bridge crossroads, and ended up at Jenny Ha’s pub near parliament. It was at the crossroads that the struggle between the EAFA and the UAF took place.
The aim of the EAFA wasn’t to get into a physical fight, but to deny the SDL room to march. This is best explained in the SSY article at http://ssy.org.uk/2010/02/getting-serious-about-the-far-right
To quote the important section:
“Let’s be clear-it was never the EAFA strategy to go and pick a fight with a bunch of thugs who were hoping for just that. What we set out to do was mobilise as many as people as possible to outnumber and surround the fascists. Although it was the police that eventually removed the SDL from Edinburgh, it was the presence of thousands of anti-fascists surrounding their location that prevented them from being able to have a march. Some people have tried to claim that EAFA were just a bunch of people who like to imagine they are hard when they are safe behind police lines. But the truth is we didn’t aim for violence, we aimed for peacefully occupying the streets with mass numbers so the fascists couldn’t take to them.”
Cheers Joe: I’ll perhaps have to read all the articles again to try to find out the following:
Did the Edinburgh Anti-Fascist Alliance have permission from the council to take this route? Did they deviate from the official route because the SDL members were in The Bank? Did they deliberately go to The Bank to goad the SDL and start chanting Scum Scum Nazi Scum etc? They didn’t get anywhere near the Jenny Ha’s pub the police stopped them at the Canongate Kirk. They only people they blocked were the residents in that area, the Royal Mile had to be closed, shops closed and lost money, buses couldn’t get past, people couldn’t get to work, residents were trapped in their homes for a period of six hours. I’m horrified to think these young students would think they can surround a group of men who have allegedly been very violent in the past without there being trouble. Did the good people of Edinburgh elect them to take this action or did they just decide to do that for themselves? I’m trying to get as much information as possible to see if financial compensation can be claimed from the Anti-Fascist groups for loss of wages & business?
What a ridiculous (and factually incorrect) post. I’m not sure what kind of debating style it is where you start off by stating that you have no idea what happened before going on make big claims about what happened, along with the finer points of people’s lives while it happened, but it needs some work.
I wrote out a tract about why all that was nonsense (from the idea that the Royal Mile was closed, to the suggestion that there was violence, to the idea that the protesters were all stuck at Canongate Kirk — there is a photograph of many beyond that in this very article — to the premise that political activity should only occur where it won’t mildly inconvenience a few people, ie. never), but somehow I don’t think it’s worth it.
All things considered though, I’d say the people and businesses of Edinburgh were probably quite pleased to avoid the *DL’s particular brand of ‘peaceful protest’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUczp6a1VFU
I used the Canongate Kirk as a reference point because it is a well known landmark however this was not totally precise. They were stuck between the Canongate Kirk and the block of flats at 112 Canongate. As you can see from this picture
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/SDL–rally–threat.6091005.jp#4962029
This article states that the Royal Mile was closed.
I know about the finer points of peoples lives because I was one of these people and witnessed what was happening in this area.
There were protesters on both sides of the pub. I’m not sure what your point is here. As outlined above, the protesters didn’t aim to get into a physical confrontation; they aimed to deny the SDL space to march — which they did.
A small section near the parliament was closed — a couple of hundred yards is not the Royal Mile (as you should know from being there rather than reading articles). And there is a parallel road that runs down to the parliament, making it the simplest diversion in the world. I’m not sure what your point is here either.
If you witnessed what was happening and were a neutral observer, you would not be asking the questions that you are asking or be making the statements that you are making (or be missing the point as horrendously as you are missing it). You might also have noticed the red and rainbow flags hanging out of flat windows in the area.
But let me ask you this, as you are clearly a ‘concerned resident’ just looking out for Edinburgh. What happens to a city based on tourism when fascists start marching through the streets attacking people from other countries?
The Royal Mile was closed as stated in the Scotsman. If you call the other side of the pub Holyrood at least three blocks away then yes they were at the other side of the pub but between them and the pub there were numerous police vehicles riot police, police cordons preventing these protesters from getting anywhere near the pub. They didn’t deny the SDL space to march the police did that. The Road that runs parallel to the Royal Mile is called Holyrood Road however it is not as you say the simplest diversion because you will find that due to the threat of attack from Islamic terrorists MI5 have instructed the government to erect bollards around the parliament as a result Horse Wynd is closed. (Check a map if in doubt.)
Alternative route is through the park no commercial vehicles are allowed in the park.
If fascists start marching through the streets of Edinburgh attacking people from other countries I will certainly not be calling a bunch of students from Heriot Watt University to come and surround them. I will call the police. I would be asking the students to stay away and not hamper the police effort.
My point is that I would rather the Anti-Fascist groups did not resort to these idiotic tactics they caused chaos and were a total nuisance . Why would you imagine that the people of Edinburgh want a bunch of students to take the law into their own hands? Why would you imagine that the people of Edinburgh want to have huge tax bills to pay for the 100’s of police necessary to protect them when they embark on their illegal and idiotic protest?
That will be all I will be saying. Good-bye.
The police had given permission for the SDL to have a demo. The protesters prevented that demo from taking place by disrupting it before it began. It’s pretty simple — I’m not sure how many different ways it can be said.
They are doing some work at the parliament; however, they only close the road while that work is ongoing, which it wasn’t on Saturday. And though I am correcting factual errors, I remain confused as to what makes these two points relevant. Roads are closed for marches all the time.
Personally I’d prefer to see a broad mobilisation to disrupt *DL activities before it can get to the stage where they are attacking people in the streets, as they did in Stoke. It has been mentioned so often recently that it has become a bit cliché, but to this end the mobilisation in Dresden is surely an example to follow.
And calm down. Such hatred of students will give you high blood pressure if you’re living in a small city with four universities and a number of colleges in it.
Gordon
Your comments brought to mind the hit single Jilted John had in 1978.
Coming to this rather late – apologies!
This is a great, concise, balanced piece of reporting. From the mid-1980s onwards I have been involved in so many events that sound uncannily like this. I have softened a little over the years in my commitment to physical confrontation and my opposition to popular frontism, and now have a bit more sympathy for the UAF strategy than I once did, but this occasssion seems to have been a time when a large-scale mobilisation of people far beyond the antifa ghetto were up for a direct confrontation with the *DL and to try and dampen this down was foolish.
The SWP line at the moment is very contradictory. They insist that the likes of the *DL are “Nazis” and therefore need to be confronted, and they take the credit for any confrontation that happens, but their default strategy is to back allianced (“United Scotland”) with Tories and liberals and to attempt to defuse any confrontations.
In 2007, there were interesting commemorative events for the 1977 Battle of Lewisham (see http://lewisham77.blogspot.com/ ). It was clear that this moment was quite important in the SWP/UAF’s sense of its history: breaking away from the pacific liberal (“United Scotland” style) All Lewisham Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (ALCARAF) to physically confront the National Front, which led to the launch of the Anti-Nazi League 1.0. The story of the Battle of Lewisham appears to have been exactly reproduced in Edinburgh at the weekend, but with the SWP/UAF in the role of ALCARAF. And yet they don’t see it.
I just noted this in the SW report:
The EDL is planning to come to Bolton on the 20 March. “We will organise even larger numbers to come to Bolton to drive them off the streets”, [Weyman Bennett] told Socialist Worker
This strikes me as a mistaken attitude. Busing activists in is a good way to turn off local people. People don’t like the EDL when it buses people in from elsewhere, but they don’t like anti-fascists either when they seem like “outsde agitators” or radical tourists. I know this from bitter experience! Most recently, I remember a Rights for Whites march in Bermondsey, with an ANL counterdemo with “Nazis off our streets” lollipops, and hearing local people basically say “they’re not your streets, they’re ours so f**k off”.
I agree Bob; one of the strong points of the Edinburgh campaign was that it was locally organised and attracted a lot of local people. Not to say “only locals are welcome round ‘ere” but yeah, people tend to be upset if their local communities are disrupted by movements with which those communities don’t identify.
There’s a month to go til Bolton (though I think it has been called off by the EDL); no doubt UAF and the Anti-Fascist groups have the resources to get local people involved and running an anti-fascist campaign.
Bob, you are absolutely right that anti-fascists must be careful not to turn up in cities and alienate people by appearing as a foreign presence. Dave gets it correct here in clarifying that this should mean that a solid native base is required, rather than blanket telling outside activists not to bother. Activists came to Edinburgh from Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, and many other places, but it was clearly an Edinburgh demonstration.
It is interesting that you mentioned this, because the EDL have announced that their next demo in Scotland will be at Lockerbie. This has obviously sparked off a bit of debate about the correct tactics to pursue.
I attended the rally in Princes Street Gardens though not the march. A good turnout, I thought. However when earlier in the week I’d been googling to find out what was happening where I got conflicting answers. This article explains why.
Gordon @ February 23, 2010 at 3:04 am
Is that right? I heard a conflicting story that the police had not given permission on the grounds that they would need too much police presence if they marched in Edinburgh. Then, when they turned up anyway, there was a lot of police presence! If you could give me the source of that information I’d be grateful.
Didn’t close italics, sorry. It was supposed to read “I heard a conflicting story that the police had not given permission etc.”
My understanding of the situation is that they were denied permission to march, but don’t need permission to hold a ‘static demo’ — or at least, that’s their interpretation and what they intended to do. This is what happened in Glasgow (I’m not sure what the situation is in England).
And yes, the Scotland United demo was quite well attended, with about 2000 from what I’ve heard. That is very positive.
I have tried to unsubscribe from this thread but you keep sending me emails if you would prefer not to hear my criticism stop the emails.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Police-urged-to-ban-Scottish.6087053.jp
‘But despite promoting tomorrow’s protest on a host of right-wing websites, the group has not sought official permission.’
According to this article the SDL didn’t get permission because they didn’t ask.
I agree with comment #4 Derryboy on the Scotsman article.
The site sends the e-mails automatically. I’m not sure how you unsubscribe (or if you can), but if you add it to your spam filter it should have the same effect. I doubt there will be too many future comments in any case.
On the matter, it looks like you may be right that in the end they didn’t apply. Of course, the outcome is the same.
I would urge every single person who took part in the Anti-Facist protest to ask questions. Read all the news articles collect as much information as possible. Look for as many pictures as possible and piece them all together. Check out people like Aamer Anwar,Kenny Macaskill and everyone involved in the United Scotland March. Find out if it was legal to keep the SDL in the pub. Ask why a counter protest march was organised when no permission had been give for an SDL march or had even been requested. When they have all the facts they should ask were the Fascists really in the pub or were they else where? I would certainly be interested in reading their findings so I will not take any steps to stop future emails at the moment.
Gordon I am so glad that you have decided that I am right on this occasion. I can assure you that I did not post anything other than facts. Why would I do otherwise?
I wouldn’t congratulate yourself too much, Ruby. Whether they were denied permission or didn’t apply is quite irrelevant to the point being discussed — that they were organising for a static demo.
The other ‘facts’ you have been posting to this article have by and large been incorrect and/or irrelevant (or with the aim to insult rather than discuss), with a clear agenda driving them. Though admittedly you have kept mainly to a Glenn Beck style ‘I’m only asking [asinine] questions’ strategy.
If I were you I’d try to find a better venue for such antics, because as Dave rightly notes (below, oddly), you’re unlikely to find much support for your attempted ‘anyone who takes direct action is a fascist’ narrative on a socialist blog.
I have looked at the information; and my lodestar is not the law – nor should the lodestar of anyone else be the law. So to answer your question, I don’t care whether or not it was legal to pen the fascists up in the Pub.
Which answers the second part of your question. Yes, the fascists were in the pub. If like one of the earlier posters you are trying to suggest that the anti-fascists are really fascists because of their actions in stopping an SDL march, then you need to go back to school and learn about the reality of fascism.
Dave Semple: I care that the government & police act within the letter of the law. Don’t you?
Wrong! Think again Gordon I was not suggesting that the anti-fascist protesters were the fascists. I think both you and Dave reacted too quickly and didn’t take time to look at the wider picture so made yourselves look studid.
Dave: Going back to school is not an option. What experience do you have of fascism? I lived in a fascist country for 10 years.
On parchuting in, just to clarify, I complete agree with Gordon. I am not at all opposed to people from outside turning up, but the priority must be the local base, and if the local base cannot be built then the outsiders can do more damage than good.
On the law, I’m with Dave, Who cares what the law says; what’s important is what is right not what is legal.
The notion that anti-fascist violence is “fascist” because it is violent is logically stupid, confusing form and content. For example, if I hit someone becuase I don’t like his laugh, or if I hit him because he is trying to chop my baby daughter’s head off, the hit might be exactly the same, but the moral content is totally different.