In (partial) defence of UAF

UAF, or "Unite Against Fascism" has attracted some criticism for its attacks on the BNP. After all, the BNP are a properly constituted party with electoral support. UAF is neither, so who are they to say whether the BNP should be allowed to speak?

Now, the egg-throwing was wrong; I'm not going to defend that, other than in jest (alert followers will have noticed my comment on Letters from a Tory that Nick Griffin's upset mainly flowed from UAF's failure to separate the whites before throwing them). I'm more interested in the principle of the UAF seeking to stop the BNP speaking, rather than the means.

The argument of those in favour of free speech and/or the BNP is that, like it or not, the BNP exists, it represents the views of many people, and it has been duly elected in a proper ballot. Therefore, goes the argument, we should listen to what they have to say, before dismissing it as the mindless racist claptrap that it is. I have a lot of sympathy with that view.

The UAF's view is that the BNP's policies and aims are so clearly wrong that it is not worth going through the charade of listening to them. We should shut them up immediately; there are poor benighted souls who are not as enlightened as us and cannot see through the BNP for what they really are. Rather than educate those poor dears, we should protect them from anything that they might mistakenly be persuaded by. You'll appreciate that I have rather less sympathy for this approach.

Nevertheless, I do not think that we can dismiss the UAF's approach out of hand. After all, it has a good precedent. I distinctly recall that brief golden age for actors with an exaggerated Irish accent, when the (Conservative) government banned the broadcast of pronouncements by members of Sinn Fein/IRA in the early 1990s. Instead, their words could be reported, but had to be voiced by an actor. The BBC, bless it, chose always to use actors with an almost comically thick Londonderry accent.

The justification was, of course, that the IRA chose to pursue its political objectives by illegal means, and Sinn Fein was its mouthpiece. Therefore, to limit their effectiveness, they should be barred from the platforms available to other parties. UAF's logic is identical; the BNP seek to promote a set of policies which discriminate on racial lines. This would be illegal under current law, and rightly so. Hence, UAF's logic in seeking to silence the BNP cannot be faulted.

Now, the ban on Sinn Fein/IRA speeches did not work, and nor will supressing the BNP work. Hence UAF's approach is wrong, and this defence is only partial. But their approach is a logical one based on precedent, and we should temper our criticism of them accordingly.

---oOo---

I'll end with an anecdote about the Socialist Workers' Party from my time at University, as most seem to think that UAF is a front for the SWP. The leader of the SWP during my time there was not a bright chap - he went on to join the "Nine Club", if I recall correctly. Anyway, he decided to organise a demonstration, and to get it in the news he bought a Union flag and some matches so that he could create a newsworthy spectacle. He succeeded, but not in the manner planned. The student rags the following week were filled with pictures of him, red-faced, desperately trying to set light to a non-flammable flag. Faced with the choice of which flag to buy, he had failed to check this rather significant point....

It was about then that I (foolishly) stopped worrying about the British left. If they couldn't even organise a flag-burning in a street, went my reasoning, there was no way they would get themselves elected, and no way they would be able to competently run the country. I console myself with the knowledge that I was half right.