nice action, thanks.
obviously there're still some radicals left that're not only interested in hamsters.
but why are there photos of people's faces posted?
be careful! state and nazis can use the net as well...

"Human freedom, animal rights," so the slogan begins. Single issue seems a bit ridiculous to me, and the same activist can one day be liberating animals and then opposing fascists the next , without contradiction. All these struggles are interlinked and pushing in the same direction, so there seems little point in placing one cause beneath another...

Heya pink... took the words out of my mouth! It was not lost on some of there that the same Oxford uni that hosts Nick Griffin is also building a new monkey torture lab. All evil is driven by power, greed, authority and hatred - fascism and animal abuse included.

yes testing on animals to find cures for diseases is sooooo bad was it last year or the year before there was a woman who was one of the animal rights terrorists she got cancer and the treatment she underwent......was tested on animals

so much for "dying for the cause" she should have become a martyr for the animal rights terrorists

Who was the woman? When exactly was it since you bring it up? Let us know since you mentioned it to make a point.

Since all drugs are ‘tested’ on animals this gives a person no choice in the treatment they are offered, provided by an NHS they pay for with their taxes. Perhaps that is what you would like - for the patient to have no say and no choice. So whose needs are you serving?

Notwithstanding of course clinical trials with humans to see if these drugs can actually be put on the market and the drug finally coming on the market where it may have to be withdrawn to due to deaths or serious side effects in the long term which could not be predicted by lab animal ‘tests’.

The same Oxford University has tried to silence the SPEAK campaign but is prepared to provide a platform for fascists to speak. OU tries to silence criticism of it’s barbarism but is happy to hear from people who equate homosexuality with child sex abuse. What a twisted lot you are!

Also the fact that you put the words animal rights and terrorists together show how unworldly you are. Is this the same level of insight and intelligence you bring to your work.

In making such a connection I would feel certain you have never heard a bomb go off or witnessed the aftermath of a terrorist atrocity.

So you wish to defend free speech, by refusing to allow your opponents free speech?

If someone can tell me in a few simple, non emotional sentences why this protest at Oxford isn't the stupidest idea ever - I'm all ears!

you are more if a twat than a scientist....I doubt even the low level of intelligence of most vivisectors would drive them to write crap like that...still, who knows? Perhaps it's guilt over vivisection's great contribution to human, animal and planetary suffering? I feel sorry for you, your lack of humanity is equalled by your lack of intelligence. A real scientist would realise that vivisection has never cured one single person - it is impossible - but rather kills over 100,000 people in the USA each year, and tens of thousands here, and many millions of animals as well, all so fuckwits at places like Oxford Uni can gain prestige and money. I guess its these facts that make you the idiot that you are?

it's already been said here:  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386619.html?c=on#c185083

"'Free speech' might sound like a 'noble' ideal, but in practice it means those in power decide what is within the acceptable spectrum of opinion. The government allows fascists relative freedom to express themselves because they consider them useful. How many people vote new Labour 'to keep the fascists out'? Come to that, 'mainstream' politics is getting ever closer to fascism itself. The ruling class want us scared, and those who resisted the fascists last night are clearly anything but scared. If we are working class activists, we should want our enemies to be scared of expressing themselves."

I kinda agree with foUL Irvine and Co should be allowed to speak, why not ?
Or should any one considered a fascist be rounded up and shot ?
It's all part of the Society of the Spectacle, the country is run by a bunch of fascists,
political scum that do their corporate masters bidding.
Take Bayer or BASF who seem to be in line to grow most of Britain's GM grub during WW2
they were known as I G Farben who amongst other things ran concentration camps where
millions died, they also happened to have been bank rolled by Prescott(Grandaddy) Bush.
I can't really see the point of getting all upset over a couple cranks talking to a bunch
of radical chic lefty wankers in a city that along with cambridge supplies the cream of treacherous
ruling class reptiles(not literally!) that run the UK. Now if they had burnt down the whole town ...

For some the idea of stopping fascists from speaking at the union is a stupied idea as left wing people are supposed to defend freedom of speech. However as everyone knows the fascists if in power would ban all freedom of speech and kill all dissenters. the BNP stand in the tradition of the nazi party. here's a link to a picture of the founder of the BNP if your in any doubt.
 http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/images/BNP_JohnTyndall02.gif

Here is a link to redwatch, the website step up to hound anti racists or also people who they will get revenge on when they are in power. I went specifically to the page where are they now? at the top of the page the nazi brag about the death of anti nazi league member blair peach who was killed by police.

The BNP aren't to up on freedom of speech when they have beat up people who have being handing out anti fascist material. The mainstream media gives the BNP an easy time while demonising the left. The BNP would say they have the right to freedom of speech, yet what about the rights of the black, asian, jewish, gay, disabled, socialist and trade unionists who the BNP threaten and utlimately want to kill. Should we let the BNP march through a predominately black area and intimidate people because they should have the right to protest.This is not a abstract moral argument, it is a tacitcal argument, if the BNP are allowed to grow and be perceived as a viable party everyone one on this site would feel the consequences.

If the oxford union believe in freedom of speech will they be inviting any representatives of Al Qaida to talk about 9/11, of course not it would be offensive, and the person who did the talk would get locked up on anti terror charges, however the BNP who support a "holocaust type solution" to the "problems of britain" are given freedom of speech.

Speech should not be used to threatern or intimidate others, if i said i wanted to kill someone i would be in trouble with the police, whereas a party that wants to kill a whole section of society would not recieve the same punishment.

here's a link to UAF, that might outline the no platform policy better than me.  http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=71105

Foul-its pretty simple and not ironic in the slightest. Fascism is a danger to every working class community and ethnic minority in this country. Throughout history those fascist regimes that have come to power have violently crushed progressive working class organisations and initiatives, theyve rounded up their members and had them shot, tortured and imprisoned. Its all well and good preaching "freedom of speech" for those who would criminalise you were they to get into power, but arguing their right to organise isnt going to spare you when their troops are marching you off into a concentration camp or internment centre.

I'm quite happy for Nick et al to preach their views but they shouldnt expect it to be without effect.

No platform!

It has been known....

Come on then, get a proper report up.

So the BNP should be silenced because 'if they came to power they would end free speech and kill people they don't like'.

Ahh... didn't the communists silence and kill their opponents too? A lot more people died under communism than the nazis, but UAF certainly doesn't have a No Platform policy to communists.

I think you are all fascists.. both sides are as bad as each other... both modern reincarnations of Nazis and Stalinist. Don't be hypocrites about the BNP being dangerous, you'd kill them if you had the chance. You are just as dangerous as them. But I'm still amazed the anti-fascists don't see the irony of their fascist behavior.

AN IDEAL WORLD:
I'm an advocate of free-speech. If a fash wants to speak, then let's roll out the carpet, set up the podium and plug in the microphone.......but let's see if that fash can walk the carpet, step up to the podium and open his/her mouth!

The 'fash' should feel afraid to walk out their own door!

Before any trouble begins, people should be pointing and laughing at them. Unfortunately this is not so. To be effective we have to hold some kind of fear.

However, I laugh to myself when I hear Nick Griffin moaning to the press that he is being hounded/vilified/discriminated/whadever! Nick puts himself in these situations, what does he expect?!! Politicians are used to paint, egg, flour, baby-poo, but for Nick's sake I just hope he can live a quiet and peaceful life

There is either a remarkable naivete about what fascism is or Gormfront has sent its trolls over.

Organising against fascists does not make you a fascist, you seem to be confusing class struggle politics with fascism. If you set a rat trap does that make you a rat?

Fascism is something that is inherent in capitalist society, waiting to rear its ugle head, its main purpose is to crush working class autonomy and initiative in order to preserve the existing class relationships, it pits worker against worker by demonising a minority in society, in Nazi germany that minority was the Jews, in Britain the folk devils for the BNP are immigrants and Muslims. When fascists have come to power their first moves have involved liquidating working class organisations such as trade unions and anarchist groups and criminalising all dissent.

I do not believe we should look to the state to outlaw or persecute fascists, though i know this is exactly what the facsists would do to us if they were to gain power, i think there should be an initiative in our communities to stop the BNP and other fascist groups from organising, not because i disagree with their politics but because their existence is a threat to the working class in britain a a whole.

Allowing freedom of organisation for fascists is foolish, granting them platforms from which to gain credibility is a small step towards them widening their base. I wouldnt want to give a mugger a free hand by letting him into my house no more than i'd want to give fascists the freedom to organise the liquidation of me, my friends, my family or my neighbours.

I understand the philosophy of struggle vs racism etc. But I'm drawing comparison between the similar mindsets of the opposing groups.

The similarity between left-wing and right-wing extremist is that you both believe that violence is justified to eliminate your opponents. Don't think you have a monopoly on the truth as there are always two side to the coin. As soon as you decide "these people would exterminate me therefore we should kill them first" you become as bad as them. I attended several anti-BNP protests a while ago but I stopped going when I saw an elderly man beaten to the ground then kicked in the head... all the while the contorted faces of hatred screamed "Smash the Fascists!!!" The irony of the situation really hit home.
The naivety lies not in my understanding of fascism, it lies your presumed moral superiority. When we alone are righteous and are prepared to use violence to enforce our will, very bad things happen.

Indeed Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc, etc all thought they were doing great thing for society... just like yourselves and the people try to 'Smash the BNP' in Oxford. Take a step back, I am just as afraid of the likes of you gaining power as I am the BNP. 50+ million dead under communism is enough to scare anyone.

I mean *class struggle

Justin - I cannot help but think you have jumped to conclusions way too soon. Not that I wish to defend the Russian Communist Party, but it was not the people who made the 1917 revolution whose actions led to so many deaths. That was the reactionary Stalinism. Communism is about real equality, liberty, and freedom, if people do nasty things its name THEY ARE NO LONGER COMMUNISTS. There are many communists, and anarchists (and anarchists were attacked just after the the 1917 revolution) who today would practice no platform anti fascism.

Fascism on the other hand is an ideology of division and violence from the outset - they got to power through the use of para military squads. In short, there are vast differences between the national superiority of fascists and the international nature of coommunism. And I say this as an anarchist. But anyway, you go do the research yourself.

Have you never heard of 'Red Terror'? hundreds of thousand of people were murdered and sent to concentration camps in the first years of the red revolution.

Communist leader Grigory Zinoviev declared in September 1918:
"To dispose of our enemies, we will have to create our own socialist terror. For this we will have to train 90 million of the 100 million of Russians and have them all on our side. We have nothing to say to the other 10 million; we will have to get rid of them."[2]

As for freedom, there was no freedom behind the iron curtain. If you said anything against the system you could expect a '3 o'clock knock' . If you were lucky you would then have a show trial and then be sent to the gulags. If you were not so lucky you would simply go 'missing'.

The protesters at Oxford are the descendants of those who inflicted Red Terror. The only thing stopping them murdering their opponents is a fear of gaol time.

Ok, so if I oppose the nazis I become a nazi myself? So the jews that rose against the nazis in the Warsaw ghetto, and effectively took up arms against them, shooting at them and killing them, were as bad as the nazis that were deporting, gassing and killing jews by their millions?. That's a funny logic you lot have. Now, you can wait until the situation gets to be as bad as it was in the forties, or it is now in some parts of europe, or you might just want to stop them in their tracks.
I've got the impression that those of you "defending" the fascists right to free speech have an idea of them as being harmless extremists, in the sense that they have a strong rethoric, but not much else. It is not so at all. The only reason why fascists are not marching people to the gas chambers right now is because they can not do it. As soon as they gain a little bit of strength the killin begins, and you only have to look at Russia now, where there's plenty of them, to see how bad the situation can get. In fact, the idea of genocide and physical extermination of those identified as enemies is their central tennet, and that's what makes the mere existence of fascism a crime against humanity, and the difference with extreme forms of conservatism.
Also, trying to make a difference between muslim extremists, bnp-ers, stalinists, etc. is spurious. They all share a disregard for humanity, which is the root of their fascism.
For all of them, definitely NO PLATFORM!

Once again, hypocrisy from the left... so I'll flip the coin for you....
Communists have also killed millions. Far, far more than the nazis... probably 10 times as many. Eliminating their enemies was also a fundamental tenant of communist regimes... from the beginning of the October Revolution and the Red Terror that followed.... through to Stalin and the killing fields of Pol Pot.

But does this mean that modern day communists should be denied freedom of speech? No, it doesn't. Extremists should be countered by robust debate and strong laws against incitement to violence.

Just as the far-left has free speech despite the fact the communism has caused millions of deaths... so to should the far-right have free speech despite Nazism causing millions of deaths. As hard as that may be to stomach, that is the price of free speech. If groups were censored because of past crimes committed by their ideological forebears... then groups like the Socialist Alliance and UAF would also be banned because their forbears invented the gulags.

Justin the main victims of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were revolutionaries. They were the likes of the Makhnovists, Arshinov and Marchenko, revolutionary peasants and those who wanted to organise their lives free from the power of the state.

When you refer to "communism" you are referring to the actions of a hierarchical state apparatus, not the actions of people fighting for freedom from that state.

I'm personally wary of groups like the Socialist Workers Party and other "top down" organisations who seek to seize the reigns of the state because history suggests that when they do this they just become another ruling class.

The difference with anarchists, libertarian socialists and class struggle activists is that they do not seek power, they wish to abolish it.

On the point of debating with fascists i think theres a time and a place for debate with those who are sympathetic towards the BNP, there are a lot of decent people who are taken in by their rhetoric, however the core of parties like this are beyond debate. Hitler was debating with the social democrats all the way up to the point where he took power, then the words of social democrats, socialists and anarchists were muted. I also think that asking those in power to legislate against the fash is silly since they will use the same legislation to outlaw the left just as quickly. Plus those in power are the ones who provide the base for the BNP through their policies that alienate and attack working class communities.

I'd reiterate the point made above, when fascists get a foothold in power there will be no debate, you will be in a football stadium, a prison cell or a concentration camp, awaiting interrogation and probable death.

"Justin the main victims of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were revolutionaries. They were the likes of the Makhnovists, Arshinov and Marchenko, revolutionary peasants and those who wanted to organise their lives free from the power of the state."
-I don't understand how people here can have such a blinkered view of Communist history. First there was the post stating that "it was not the people who made the 1917 revolution whose actions led to so many deaths". It is a fact of history that Red Terror started as soon as the Communists came to power.

Now your also downplaying Communist atrocities by claiming that only a few anarchists (ie your people) were persecuted! Incorrect again!!! I don't want to go into a longer history essay here... but the main target of the Bolsheviks was the bourgeois.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror


"I'm personally wary of groups like the Socialist Workers Party and other "top down" organisations who seek to seize the reigns of the state because history suggests that when they do this they just become another ruling class."
-I agree totally

"The difference with anarchists, libertarian socialists and class struggle activists is that they do not seek power, they wish to abolish it.

On the point of debating with fascists i think theres a time and a place for debate with those who are sympathetic towards the BNP, there are a lot of decent people who are taken in by their rhetoric, however the core of parties like this are beyond debate. Hitler was debating with the social democrats all the way up to the point where he took power, then the words of social democrats, socialists and anarchists were muted. I also think that asking those in power to legislate against the fash is silly since they will use the same legislation to outlaw the left just as quickly. Plus those in power are the ones who provide the base for the BNP through their policies that alienate and attack working class communities.

I'd reiterate the point made above, when fascists get a foothold in power there will be no debate, you will be in a football stadium, a prison cell or a concentration camp, awaiting interrogation and probable death."

-This is seems to be the main excuse for denying people freedom of speech - That if the far right got into power they would not give free speech to others and put all their enemies "in concentration camps, awaiting interrogation and probable death".
You cannot deny people of speech to people on suspicions of what the 'might' do. This would also mean no freedom of speech for many leftists groups... as they would probably be as violent as the far right if they got into power. The only difference would be, the far right would persecute people on babsis of race, the far left would persecute people on the basis of wealth and political beliefs. In the end there would still be oppression, just different victims. The readiness to use extreme violence to silence their opponents is proof of that.
Anyhow, I'd like to thank everyone here for clearing something up for me. I was under the impression that the hard left believed in freedom of speech. Blatantly I was wrong. In my honest opinion there are many extremists on this board that are just as big a danger to free society as those at the other end of the political spectrum. The only way the fight extremism and maintain our freedoms is through open, robust debate. Any other way leads to oppression. Don't be deluded, your oppression is not any better than their oppression.


Justin
-

back at justin...

you talk about the victims of the red terror as predominantly the bourgeoisie. well, yes and no. firstly, there were hundreds of thousands of what we would call today 'anarchists'. the Bolsheviks, however, considered them to be of bourgeois sensibilties, along with many of the peasants whom they also repressed mercilessly. also, given the demographic of Russia at the time, the bourgeoisie was a very very small percentage of the population, and predominantly concentrated in the western or 'european' edge of Russia. thus if as you say the Bolsheviks targeted the bourgeoisie, they lumped into this equation all the libertarians and anarchists as well as the actual bourgeoisie. plus, many thousands of bourgeois russians fled in the early months of the war, and once the bourgeoisie was eradicated, the USSR spent the rest of its life concentrating (internally, that is) on the elimination of dissent from the left. now i'm not condoning the mass killing and imprisonment of the bourgeois population, but they alone did not constitute the bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Bolsheviks. far from it in fact.

you also misunderstand the difference between communism and Communism. the latter being USSR-style state capitalism, the former being a free, stateless society. the two are not the same thing, and should not be confused as such.

anyway, i digress.

this is not a question about what the far right 'might' do, it is about what they will do. they have always done it, always will do it, and so long as the far right are allowed a foothold in public discourse, their views will be legitimated by being given space. let them get up there and peddle their hate, but don't expect people not to get angry and shut the whole debacle down. in fact, let *them* protest at *our* meetings. why the hell not? but don't expect them to not be confronted ideologically and physically if they don't get the idea and scram.

now, it's also important to note that left wing antifascism doesn't necessarily mean violence. violence can be very oppressive, and is usually unnecessary to win a struggle for or against anything. i don't pretend to be a pacifist, but i also don't like violence. this isn't the issue. justin, you are making a massive assumption that left wing opposition to fascism is always violent. of course, as everyone knows, it is not. you are jumping from blockading a meeting or demonstrating against somethign that you don't agree with, straight to mass killing of all opponents. of course, that is a massive logical fallacy.

ultimately the protest, and the whole issue of no platform is a tactical one. how do we defeat fascism? it needs to be a dual strategy of intellectual rebuffing in the halls of public discourse (check. everyone's good at making fascists look silly), and of direct confrontation with them. with the far right is now comfortably positioning itself withing the safe confines of the electoral system and the state, it is more necessary than ever to expose the far right for the anti working class, knuckle-dragging thugs they are. in order to do this, it is not sufficient to disagree with them in a debating hall. that is a battle of ideas that could go on forever. we must organise in our communities and workplaces to say NO. the act of saying no is incredibly powerful, but is not effective unless supported by something more tangible. if someone insulted you, and you said 'that's not acceptable', they would probably come back and say 'well what's going to stop me from carrying on?'. by arguing with him, you're not rectifying the situation, you're perpetuating it. additional action needs to take place in order to actually enforce the sentiment that their behaviour is unacceptable and not to be tolerated. without this duality, you're just blowing hot air.

Apart from anything else, it seems a bit of a short-sighted idea to try and prevent debate going ahead. The 'no platform' concept is frankly a load of bollocks. You either believe in free speech, or you don't. To me a better scenario would have been this: The debate goes ahead, Griffin, Irving etc. get the verbal and factual whipping they deserve in front of a large number of people and then when they get out, anarchists beat the living shit out of them. Apart from being quite OBVIOUSLY directly contradictory to belief in free speech, preventing people from airing their views is shite from a tactical point of view. If the debate is prevented then the fash can play the 'free speech martyr' card as they have done in the past, and if not, then we look a bit crap. Far more effective to beat them in every way possible, both verbally and physically and in the end, far more satisfying... Belief in free speech goes hand in hand with freedom of expression and if we happen to express ourselves with violence against the fash, then that's their problem. Let them say what they want, discredit it, and then make them pay the consequences of what they say.

Andi Ali, an Asian student who choose to study the British National Party (BNP) at University, became a victim of racial discrimination when BNP supporters at his place of work, submitted false complaints in order to get him sacked and therefore unable to fund his research. They complained that he was an extremist for heckling the BNP and expressed support for suicide bombers, by wearing an Arabic headscarf. They also submitted numerous false allegations about him. See here:  http://www.stormfront.org/forum/search.php?do=process Already anti racist campaigners are calling this the worst case of racism they have come across in a long time.