Skip to content or view screen version

Why there must be no free speech for Nazis

redletter | 05.12.2007 12:48 | Anti-racism

by Anindya Bhattacharyya



The Oxford Union’s recent decision to debate with two of Britain’s leading Nazis – Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP) and David Irving, a convicted Holocaust denier – provoked widespread condemnation.

Unite Against Fascism joined with many others to organise a successful anti-­fascist protest. Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, described the invitations as “an absolute disgrace”.

But not everyone agreed. Bill Rammell, New Labour’s minister for higher education, spoke out in favour of giving the Nazis a platform. “We have to tolerate the expression of abhorrent views in the name of free speech,” he said.

The argument is not confined to Oxford. Last week saw students at Northumbria university in Newcastle voting in favour of a “no platform for fascists” policy.

In contrast, students at the University of East Anglia held a referendum last week that rejected no platform.

This debate over whether fascists should be entitled to “freedom of speech”, is by no means new.

It arose strongly in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany as liberals, socialists and communists argued over how to respond to the rise of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis.

It returned in the 1970s, when the National Front was sending its thugs to march through Lewisham and Southall.

While the historical circumstances vary, the broad outlines of the debate remain the same.

On the one hand, liberals tend to frame the argument in terms of free speech, arguing that however reprehensible the fascists are, they should be defeated through debate, just like any other opinion or political current.

Thuggery

Socialists, in contrast, tend to argue that fascism is not a political current like any other and should not be treated as such. Fascists are dedicated to destroying every vestige of democracy and have no misgivings about using thuggery to get their way.

Mere words are not enough to defeat them – they must also be physically confronted and excluded from public space.

Moreover, fascists do not seek out public platforms in order to test the strength of their ideas. What they seek is the veneer of respectability that such platforms provide – a veneer they desperately need in the aftermath of the Second World War and Hitler’s Holocaust.

The socialist argument is based on historical experience. Fascism first appeared in Italy in the early 1920s, when Benito Mussolini organised armed squads of war veterans to terrorise the workers’ movement by breaking up meetings and murdering trade unionists.

The state did little or nothing to stop these “blackshirts” and the fascist movement rapidly grew.

But thuggery on the streets was only one aspect of Mussolini’s strategy. The other was to court respectability by posing as a legitimate political party and contesting elections.

This two-pronged attack – pretending to be committed to democratic norms while organising terror on the ground – has remained the characteristic defining feature of fascism ever since.

The mainstream parliamentary parties in Mussolini’s time did not know how to react to the fascists. They deplored the blackshirts’ violence – while in practice doing nothing about it and insisted that the fascists had to be treated like any other party and granted the same constitutional rights.

The results were disastrous. Threatened with an increasingly militant workers’ movement, the Italian ruling class allowed Mussolini to seize power in 1922.

The fine words about democracy disappeared as the fascists abolished press freedom, suspended all democratic rights and went about expunging every trace of opposition, protest or criticism from their new “corporate state”.

Just ten years later in Germany the same pattern repeated itself. The mainstream parties of Germany’s post-war Weimar republic – conservative, liberal and social democrat – all united to condemn Hitler’s Nazis, but insisted that they had to be challenged only through constitutional means.

Once in power, Hitler threw into the concentration camps those very same people who had once defended his rights to “free speech”.

The BNP today stand in the same political tradition as Hitler and Mussolini. So the BNP are not simply a bunch of obnoxious racists – they are an organised political force that deliberately aims at smashing up what little democracy we have at present and instituting a racial reign of terror.

They have a strategy for achieving those aims – a strategy that has worked in the past and can work again.

Fortunately we too have a strategy for stopping the fascist threat. It involves recognising that fascism is an exceptional threat to all of us, and that it cannot be treated as a legitimate form of politics.

It is incumbent on all of us to unite together and prevent fascism from getting a toehold in public space.

And our resistance should not be confined to legal or constitutional means – we have to build the broadest possible movement that can physically stop the Nazis from organising.

Organisation

So what does this mean for the arguments around no platform today? We need to make clear to people that the BNP is a fascist organisation – and that as such they pose a unique danger and should not enjoy the rights granted to democratic parties.

We say no platform for fascists because of what they are and what they do, not because of their “opinions”, objectionable though these undoubtedly are.

Griffin’s strategy with the BNP over the past few years has been to try to cover up the organisation’s fascist character, a strategy pursued by the French Nazi leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

So Griffin claims the BNP has put its thuggish days behind it – he even claims to have repudiated racism. We need to explain to people that these are lies that follow a long tradition of fascist parties masking their true intentions.

We also need to make clear that no platform works, and that is why the movement has adopted it as a tactic. In Britain no platform policies have successfully prevented Nazis from organising on campus.

In France, where the argument has not been won, Le Pen’s fascists have built up an extensive student organisation, and in some cases taken control of student unions.

We also need to connect words and deeds. There is a continuity between fascist hate speech directed at ethnic minorities and physical attacks upon them.

The former encourages the latter. Giving Griffin a platform at the Oxford Union sends a signal to his bootboys on the streets – it gives them the confidence to go on the attack, with frequently murderous consequences.

Pointless

Liberal common sense tells us that democracy is a matter of exchanging views and critical reason. That is true – but there’s a lot more to it than that.

One cannot rationally “debate” with those who systematically lie about their real aims and views, nor can one “debate” those who use terror tactics and thuggery against ethnic minorities, trade unionists and anyone who disagrees with them.

And why should those who have lost their families in the Holocaust have to “debate” the reality of what happened with someone like Irving, whose only purpose is to dissemble and lie in order to muddy the waters of history – and thus pave the way to repeating Hitler.

Griffin promises an “all white” Britain, just as Hitler once promised a “Jew free” Germany. And Griffin’s politics will follow the same genocidal logic if they are ever given the chance.

That is why it is pointless to grant the fascists a platform in order to “defeat them in debate”. Such set-piece events do nothing to stop the fascists outside the formalities of the debating chamber.

They do not deter the fascists from organising – on the contrary, fascists crave the respectability and legitimacy that such “debates” inevitably confer upon them.

What does defeat the fascists – and what they are most scared of – is mass grassroots opposition to their presence. That is how the Anti Nazi League defeated the National Front in the 1970s and it is how we can defeat the BNP today.

Democracy relies on the minds and bodies of ordinary people – and it is this force that offers the means to fight fascism’s threat to democracy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.

redletter

Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

easier to understand

05.12.2007 13:30

yes some people are more equal than others and if we dont like you you cant have free speech or rights

there thats cleared that up

florence


No Platform

05.12.2007 15:08

There's a good article about the No platform stance here  http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2007/11/comment-no-platform-works.html

To hell with free speech


There must be no free speech

05.12.2007 15:27

There must be no free speech for the BNP because we are all too stupid to examine their arguments critically and might be persuaded by them.

We have the right to support New Labour - what more could anyone ask for?

Mike


Sheer Arrogance

05.12.2007 16:37

I am disgusted with the arrogant attitude displayed by those demanding that these two should not have been allowed to talk. The view rests on the assumption that the Oxford union is so influencial and well respected that merely by deigning to debate Griffin they will show him to be a "real" political figure. It shows a complete inability to form a reasoned argument - the very free speech that allows the author to decry the BNP is what allows them to express their opinion. Remove theirs and yours goes with it.


**NEWSFLASH** - The average BNP supporter does not care about the opinions of a bunch of elitist students reading classics at Oxbridge.

1. Refusing to to allow them to speak will actually *galvanise* the support that the BNP already has. They win votes precisely because they are able to walk onto rundown council estates and say, "Hey, I'm just like you, and I'll promote your views." Banning them will give them the perfect example of how the political process is closed to the common man.

2. The stance the article's writer is condoning shows total contempt for the average man in the street by implying that he will be unable to reach his own conclusion when presented with both sides of the case. Unfortunately this is repeated again and again in

3. The article also claims that the BNP are trying to cover up their fascist tendencies. Putting them in a public forum and then forcing them to justify and explain their views is the best way to show them for what they are. If you silence them then their views/claims cannot be exposed, rebutted and then duly ridiculed.

4. The article finishes with "Democracy relies on the minds and bodies of ordinary people – and it is this force that offers the means to fight fascism’s threat to democracy." However, that sentiment runs counter to the entire rest of the article. How can we rely on the "minds... ...of ordinary people" when the article is proposeing to censor the information which that can recieve.

Lastly, this whole non-story has the stink of student politics about it Some dosser on the student unions council probably thought it would be cool to ban something - I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to some politics undergrad that the petition for which they've spent the morning gathering signatures is actually condoning a facist stance.


But this is an article from Socialist Worker so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise - they can be just as arrogant, intolerant and bullying as any BNP candidate.

Steve


Free speech hypocricy

05.12.2007 18:25

I've noticed that whenever it's an example of the far-right or anti-immigrant bigots, there's always a "liberal" to support their "free speech". If a Muslim or Sikh objects to their culture being denigrated, then they're portrayed as extremists.

How were the protestors against Bezhti portrayed? As militant extremists.

Chav Man


boring thread!let fash drivel BS in private,but not on a platform of freespeech

05.12.2007 18:50

they can only walk onto some estates because they are liars whoes toff leaders hide behind the skirts of the establishment when necessary & liberals or tory skirts under the pretence of freedom of speech.
The point was many of protesters don't want free speech banned, we don't want nazis given a platform, especially as representatives of free speech.
Takes Orwell & Python to another level.

Moderators please take off any other story on banning oxford nazis again if its a repeat of what we have heard before recently & wasting space/time
Theres a lot of hear getting vbored of describing repeating these arguments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally I find it tedious & boring, but have no problem taking on bnp nazis in open debate, they hide behind such blatant lies.
I am more bothered about their bombers like Lecomber & Griffins links to Roberto Fiore a friend of Griffins from the third international who with connections to Propaganda Deu & NATO operation Gladio"resistance" network which was used in the train bombing in Bologna & murder of 85 civilians.Italian P2 was headed by the Agnelli fiat car family who were then members of the Bilderberg Group still headed by corporate american oil & banking leaders always willing to anyone for$$
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Fiore

Theres so much shit in Griffins past it hard to know where to start sometimes.
Neo Nazi British National Front attempted to enlist financial aid from Libya during the 1980s. These contacts were ended after the fascist nature of the NF was discovered during Nick Griffin's visit to Libya in 1986

Anarcho-syndicalist


Weasel words

06.12.2007 10:56

"The point was many of protesters don't want free speech banned, we don't want nazis given a platform, especially as representatives of free speech. "

Theirs is the very speech that needs protecting the most - you don't need to protect people's right to say how much they like puppies.

The right of free speech also involves the right to decide to whom you are speaking. By preventing him from addressing the Oxford Union, who had *invited* him, then you are trampling not only on their freedom of speech but the whole Union's right to free assembly.

The students and faculty who attended should be able to listen to their arguments, listen to the opposing side and then arrive at their own conclusion. If they can't, they sure as hell shouldn't be at university. If they want to protest his views, that's fine, but they shouldn't be protesting his right to express them - it just makes them look like idiots to the unwashed masses like me who apparently need to be protected from hearing this muppet speak. Maybe he's going to get me with his Hypno-Ray and I will be forced to become his loyal servant... ....no, wait, that was Ming the Merciless.

The Oxford Union is not so important that merely speaking there will win mass converts in the country at wide - despite what the students would like to think.

Steve
mail e-mail: steve.quick@hotmail.co.uk


@ No Plat

07.12.2007 11:46

" Steve there is a contadiction in the above that you posted..."
No Plat

I was referring to allowing them to speak at the Oxford Union event as that was the subject of discussion.

Steve


Banned?

08.12.2007 17:18

"Banning them will give them the perfect example of how the political process is closed to the common man"

-Steve

No body as far as I am aware has mentioned banning them, banning implies using the state to proscribe them.

You mention free speech, I guess in part I agree, If Griffin or his cohorts want to speak then they can try, I feel however than anyone spouting racist shit should not be afforded the protection of the police or state, and feel people who live in the community/city/country affected directly or indirectly by it should also have the right to stop it. For example, if the BNP wanted to March or leaflet in the community I live in, I would oppose this physically if need be, and I know the majority of the community would be doing the same. Also on free speech you say that university students are clever enough to work out and debate against someone like griffin, therefore he should be allowed to speak. O.K, so where do you draw the line with this? can he speak in schools too? if you think not, then how about colleges? 16 year olds? or would you want to censor fascism in schools, and maybe colleges, but older or brighter people can hear it? Does this mean that all Fascists are thick? wrong, hate to say it but griffin is a clever guy, an asshole, but a clever ass hole.

Anyways let me know if you want griffin to be able to talk in schools, coz if you don't where does your idea of free speech fit with that?


No Platform anywhere

antifa


Reporter is a fascist

09.12.2007 19:34




This so-called 'reporter' condemns fascism for destroying free-speech and then outlines her solution to this which is - you've guessed it - curbing free-speech. In other words this reporter is fascist.

Ditto the Dr James Watson speech at the Science Museum, which was cancelled by more high-brow liberal thugs and luddites. Science cannot progress if certain topics and debates are proscribed and outlawed. If Watson was wrong, he could have been humiliated and laughed out of the building. However, banning the debate means that he is probably right and the establishment has something to hide.

Democracy is not about being able to vote only for parties that New Labour approves of. Free-speech is not simply listening to debates that New Labour approves of. That, is a fascist dictatorship, and that is what we appear to have at present.


Rod Elliot



rod elliot
mail e-mail: rodd.elliot@virgin.net


fascist eh

10.12.2007 10:09

Well the 'reporter' is a member of the Socialist Workers' Party not Indymedia. Most activists on Indymedia would actually think the Socialist Workers' Party is pretty restrictive, top down, anti-democratic - but not fascist. I think most people involved in Indymedia however would not support bans on any one speaking, but would support bloody well stopping fascists from being able to platform they views - when that happens it's not some nice discussion about who is right, its bloody restrictive state from hell.

-