The renewal of the Sussex's Students' Union motion maintaining that no platform should be given to Fascists stirred up a lot of debate in last term's Badger issues. Whilst some articles appear to have posed genuine questions as to how the motion would be put into practice, others were at best an ignorant, misguided and dangerous attempt to 'right a wrong', at worst an outright promotion of the BNP and fascism.Matt's article for instance (Badger Nr. 9) referred to the unfair procedure in the AGM, which allowed the opponents of the motion to brainwash the audience. It even goes so far as saying that in the end, the AGM audience was “united in hate, reminiscent of a scene from 1984. The enemy was the BNP, the BNP, violence” only to proceed, in an outraged voice, that these kind of rallies are a favoured tactic to “destroy the name of the BNP” - which is, of course, outrageous given the BNP's impeccable reputation. The laughable formulation of his argument aside, his claims are untrue: this year's AGM was remarkably well chaired and the interruptions of on-stage speakers were marginal to non-existent. Matt's concern with the ability of 'rogue' speakers to whip crowds into a frenzy in roughly 5 minutes of speaking time seems to exhibit an insidious form of bourgeois elitism in which Matt, as an isolated, proud defender of rationality stands against the hysterical mob. How can Matt be defending free speech and democratic decision making procedures if they exhibit such thorough scepticism towards the 'ordinary people' assembled for discussion? After all, how can human beings be entrusted with the power to make decisions through open debate if they are likely to fly into a rage every time someone speaks passionately about a subject?
But Matt's article doesn't seem to revolve around free speech at all – it seems to me that they have actually taken it upon themselves to defend the BNP and to argue that they are in fact respectable members of the public. According to Matt, the BNP are randomly accused of being fascist, with no substantial basis for this claim. Matt maintains that they cannot find any trace of fascist politics or ideas in the BNP. We believe it's worth noting that instead of talking about the historical and the practical origins and practices of the BNP, Matt backs up their claims by selecting a few quotes from the BNP manifesto. They do not refer to the genesis of the BNP out of the obviously fascist National Front; they do not refer to the many and recent documented ties between BNP and NF members (see Searchlight magazine for instance); and they do not discuss the increase of racial tension in areas where the BNP possess power. Yet all these factors are vital when assessing the BNP. It is only after taking these into account that we can read their manifesto as it should be read – with a bucketful of salt.
Matt however chooses to cast their critical reading glasses aside and to replace these with their goggles of wilful ignorance: the BNP's claim that multiculturalism has failed is not read as an attack on anything that is not 'British' in the UK, but as a modest proposal without practical consequences; their rhetorical claims referring to the poor and oppressed British people betrayed by the ruling regime seeking to profit from globalisation and thus from international (foreign) capital is not seen as a direct parallel to Nazi rhetoric of foreign Jews bleeding the German economy dry, but as an innocent critique of unfettered (international, greedy) capitalism. We have to ask: who is this ruling elite that is referred to? Who controls international and foreign capital? Why is UK capital any better?
A second article, written by Luke (Badger Nr. 9) approaches the discussion from a different tack. Luke's main argument seems to revolve around the notion that free speech either exists for all or for no-one. This argument highlights the purely philosophical nature of the free speech they defend. The troubling element of this position is that whilst it is framed in a thoroughly abstract way it will affect a thoroughly concrete thing – people's lives. The problem is that an approach to free speech like Luke's, fails to take into account the pervasive unequal structures of our existing society.
As German-American philosopher, Marcuse argued in 1965, in Repressive Tolerance, notions like tolerance, freedom of speech and even the right to assembly only mean something when the society in which these are exercised is egalitarian. What use is it to insist on the right of protest when you have no power and nor any influence over the decision making process? What use is it to insist on the right to free speech when you lack the resources to be heard? For the vast majority of people, 'to be heard' in any meaningful sense however, is not possible. It is only when you have the money to carve yourself a niche of the media market that your views will be presented effectively. This is possibly all the more pertinent in the age of the Internet, where everyone can have a blog, yet only a few people and organisations have the resources and time to manufacture popularity for their blogs and websites.
Furthermore, as countless feminists and anti-racists have pointed out, being heard requires not only a capacity to speak but a willingness of listeners to take you seriously – something that all too often still is lacking for women and anyone who is not a straight white man. Men still dominate public discussion; black people and especially 'non-western' cultures are still commonly portrayed as primitive and unenlightened.
Marx, in Capital Vol. 1 pointed out that most citizens in bourgeois society are free in a double sense – free in the sense that all citizens are formally given equal rights, but also free from the material goods they need to access those formal equal rights. One has to argue similarly with free speech – whilst one can have a formal right to free speech, this does not guarantee actual free speech.
But Luke is not concerned with these wider definitions of free speech. They are concerned with their narrow, traditionally liberal notion of free speech, a notion restricted to the purely formal definition as to whether individuals are directly denied or prevented to speak. And they want to grant this right to everyone, even if this means undermining the wider issues around free speech mentioned above for structurally oppressed groups in our society, which is exactly what would happen if Fascists gain platforms to speak from.
Luke demonstrates an obsession with the formal right to free speech for an explicitly fascist and violent group that denies the structural forms of oppression which result in an increased threat of violence for specific groups within our society. Their claim, “no minority needs protecting”, epitomises the lack of awareness that predominates especially amongst middle- and upper-class white men. Instead of fighting patriarchy and racism, structures that cause rape, death and assault, unequal pay, social exclusion and silence, Luke believes that organising a platform for fascists (which directly undermines the fight against patriarchy, racism and capitalism) is an important political priority of our time...
Giving 'no platform' to fascists is not an abstract argument to be held in the halls of debating societies, but the result of a concrete struggle against fascist groups throughout this century. It has been proven time and time again that letting fascists speak is giving them a space to organise. Giving fascists a space to organise is the last thing we want. The no platform strategy is one pursued to avoid open conflict that will inevitably follow if fascists manage to get a foothold in a community (such as the attacks at Chapel street market 1981, and at the 'Jobs for a Change' festival 1984 to name just two).
Finally, Bob (Badger Nr. 10), asks us primarily what the No Platform Policy is and how it operates. We believe their question to be important and the Students Union should publish information as to how the policy is enforced. Further, like Luke, Bob maintains that there is a contradiction between a motion “to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech on campus” and the existing No Platform for Fascists. We have tried to explain some of the issues surrounding free speech above and we do not want to reiterate these – suffice to say that we as students in Sussex have to decide whether we are interested in a free speech based on a purely formal notion of equality of rights or in a concept of free speech that also emphasises the need for actual, material and social equality.
In opposition to Luke and Bob therefore, we want to maintain that it is possible, and students at Sussex should be proud of this, to maintain a commitment to free speech and the free exchange of ideas, whilst maintaining both concrete support for groups suffering from structural discrimination and a tactical and effective struggle against fascists – one that denies them the right to spread their politics and violence in our community.
Kate and Alex – Black Cat Group
Reading and Sources:
Huyssen, A. 'Women as mass culture' in After the Great Divide: Modernism, mass culture, Post-Modernism
Postone, M. 'Anti-Semitism and National Socialism' available at http://www.autodidactproje
Marx, K. Capital Vol. 1.
Marcuse, H. 'Repressive Tolerance' available at http://www.marcuse.org/her
No comments:
Post a Comment