Though Cowards Flinch

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.

The issue of the Afghanistan war seems to be one that won’t go away. Despite Conservative attempts to co-opt public anger and frustration by waving the issue of helicopters and equipment in front of the cameras, there is no keeping away from the central question: why are we there?

As someone who has spent the past few weeks in the high street campaigning on the issue, it would appear that nobody – including many soon to be deployed soldiers – is quite sure; something echoed in the polls where a majority now support withdrawal. The result is that pro-war rhetoric has made the shift from a positive message of what British troops can achieve to the fear-mongering question of what will happen if they leave.

At the heart of this is the plight of Afghan women, who after centuries of silent oppression are suddenly championed by international governments and the Afghan constitution, which declares them equal to men in all “rights and duties before the law.” We’re told that we must remain for their sake, lest all of the gains be lost.

One could be forgiven for thinking, therefore, that under the international forces and the Karzai government a liberal philosophy of equality and liberty is blossoming.  Yet even the briefest glance beyond the disingenuous rhetoric paints a very different picture.

So how have things advanced since 2002 when Dr Sima Samar, the then Minister in charge of women’s affairs, complained to Radio 4 from her office/living room that her ministry had been given “not a single dollar” from international donors?

Far from the picture painted by the government, we find a country of lawlessness, where 80% of the population still uses traditional dispute-resolution mechanisms rather than formal judicial channels, which are universally viewed as ineffective and corrupt. These are traditional mechanisms where female family members are regarded as currency to be traded back and forth to right wrongs done by male family members, and where a rape-victim may be forced into marriage with her rapist to protect family honour.

Yet they are little better than the official judicial channels they replace. The place of rape in the Afghan legal system is ambiguous, technically falling under ‘Zina’, a crime designed to combat adultery, and which, as a result, may lead to the imprisonment of the woman instead, making reporting of the crime an inherently risky business even from a legal perspective. This injustice is emphasised by the courts themselves, where women enjoy a very low standing, and which are widely recognised to have a strong bias in favour of men regardless of the evidence, taking conservative lines over even constitutionality. If we want to travel further down the line of the official system we can even find a case where all female inmates had to be transferred to a special female prison in Kabul to prevent the widespread sexual violence and abuse being orchestrated by the guards.

However, perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of taking any judicial path is the UN report (pdf) that the “overwhelming majority” of perpetrators gain immunity through links to military commanders, politicians, militia, or just by plain sexism. This is well demonstrated by one case where, after constant and heroic campaigning by a woman and her husband, three men were convicted of rape by the Supreme Court (allegedly at the order of a military commander, who was found innocent) and sentenced to thirteen years, only to have President Karzai pardon them. The woman’s husband was assassinated shortly afterwards.

With such low chances of success, and such danger, the majority of women choose not to report violence, sexual or otherwise, at all.  It is little surprise then that self-immolation among women is so frequent and on the rise.

The problem is not only the horrific conditions that women find themselves in, but the fact that these conditions are eroding, not improving. Continued military conflict in the country puts women at severe risk, and the occupation forces have come under sustained criticism for encouraging women to take part in economic and political life while failing to provide them any protection as they do so, leading to a climate of terror and self-censorship.

The Afghan government itself is playing a more active role in this erosion of women’s rights. Twenty-three year old student Sayed Kambakhsh was made famous by The Independent after he was sentenced to death for downloading and distributing literature about women’s rights (the official crime being blasphemy), his sentence ultimately standing at 20 years imprisonment thanks to intense international pressure.

And then there’s the Shia Personal Status Law, which President Karzai signed in April. This is an act that directly contradicts the aforementioned constitution by legalizing marital rape, restricting freedom to leave the home, and allowing forced marriages, alongside many more articles that restrict and violate the human rights of Shia women.

It was this that led the Asia director of Human Rights Watch to conclude the now consensus view that “Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election.”

And when everything is said and done this is what it comes down to.  At the expense of the Afghan people the West and the Afghan government has found it expedient to empower the warlords and drug barons that have no interest women’s – or indeed, anyone’s – rights.  How can international forces claim to be fighting for the women of Afghanistan while they continue to support their oppressors?

We’ve only scratched the surface here, but it quickly becomes apparent that any defence of the occupation on the basis of women’s liberation is a farce. Not only does the Afghan government’s apparatus fail to reach the vast majority of women, but even where it does it’s found to be misogynistic, corrupt, ineffective, and often downright dangerous. At the top the government prefers to play to the warlords and clerics, implementing laws that echo those the UK government claims the troops are there to protect Afghans from.