Why I won’t be signing the UAF petition about the BNP on Facebook
Before I get going, let me give the uninitiated some background. The BNP have begun to join the Facebook networking website, and have got both members and groups on it (including, as I understand it, pages with paid ads on). Unite Against Fascism, a UK anti-fascist group that essentially grew out of the SWP-inspired Anti-Nazi League and the Socialist Action-inspired National Assembly Against Racism, has a petition to demand that the owners of Facebook remove the BNP, and a Facebook group to that effect as well.
Let me make one thing clear before I continue. I consider fascists to be the lowest form of political scum, and I would have no hesitiation at picketing a public meeting which they called, campaigning on the streets against them in an election, or any other form of grassroots political activity which enables those of us who stand against them to combat the influence which their ideas have over the political discourse in which working people participate.
But nevertheless, after some agonising I’ve decided that I still won’t sign a petition demanding that the owners of Facebook remove them.
I realise the accusations I’m opening myself up to by not doing so. They’ll range from my allegedly being a liberal who thinks that politics is a discussion shop, through being soft on fascism, to being someone who tacitly helps it grow by tolerating it. And yet, such accusations would be so far from what I’m saying, that it couldn’t be more diametrically opposite.
Of course, if the BNP are allowed on Facebook they will say vile things about many people with whom I solidarise. They will also say mean things about people like me, of my own particular stances and cultural/personal alignments in a whole raft of areas. They may also use the site to attempt to initimidate people. But the point of having a group of American capitalists remove them would be what exactly? Would it really set back their cause in the slightest? Or would it advance it just as all of the ANL/UAF inspired processions of students through council estates chanting “don’t vote Nazi” (… the unspoken bit being “But vote Tory if they’re the best choice to win, it’s not like we’re a political alternative”) have, in my opinion, contributed towards worryingly large BNP inroads into old Labour territory over the past few years?
I think there comes a point where you have to tackle idea-sets such as those held by these scum head-on, and in particular I think that the “No Platform” argument begins to wear desperately thin when there is very little prospect of the BNP’s having a Facebook group meaning that they would have any greater chance to intimidate anyone than they otherwise would. To put it crudely, unless they have invented spring loaded fists that can jump out of a computer screen, then they really can’t do anything to anyone on Facebook other than say nasty things, unless the person in question is foolish enough to leave personal details on their public profile. Further, banning the BNP from Facebook would not actually make anyone any safer – individual members could still join anyway and harvest such information as is available.
What’s more, is this what we as the left do these days when we want to take a stand against fascism? We call upon entrepreneurs to pull the BNP’s spot on a capitalist owned website? Is that it? In terms of how we specifically tackle online interventions by the BNP, I suggest that we should simply deal with them head on. I say we set up “Nick Griffin is a fucking Third Positionist Neo-Nazi lunatic” Facebook groups, or “Fuck the BNP, they’re a bunch of wankers” groups, or anything else along those lines which springs to mind. I suggest we join their groups and slag them off. I suggest we publicise as widely as possible that these bigots exist, and make explicit what they say (and take full advantage of the internet’s tendency to get people saying unguarded things in public). I suggest we solicit quotes from people singling out and damning BNP members for what they say and do. I suggest we lay into them on our own sites and blogs. But I also suggest that the stance of the radical left should not be to call upon capitalist media owners to do our job for us. And I don’t believe that we should endorse any action that would contribute towards greater corporate or state control of the internet, because that is not something which we should be doing to a medium which is currently relatively open to us.
We’re about winning people away from fascist ideas, not asking some online Daddy Warbucks to protect us from them. And that should be our stance on this issue.
Walton said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Good points.
twp77 said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I too have been reluctant to join the group for similar reasons. I think you make some very good points.
I am absolutely opposed to the liberal claptrap that claims everyone, even fascists, have the right to voice their views and I lean towards no plaform. But your view is not the liberal one, rather that you are trying to grapple what the point is in demanding that Facebook remove groups – instead of what I think is the hard work of addressing why people are attracted to fascist ideas.
For example, I was at a friends house recently and one of the young women there was saying how she hated asylum seekers because they got free housing. My friend simply said – look you’re a racist. I, an the other hand, engaged her in conversation and maintained that actually asylum seekers were not granted housing and in fact were not even allowed to work. She seemed interested in this but maintain she “didn’t know all of the statistics” but that was what she believed. Well maybe it didn’t make any difference at all – but I like to think that addressing the fallacies of fascist views is more effective than simpy kicking them off Facebook.
hakmao said,
August 9, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Picket their meetings? Surely that should be chib them if the opportunity arises?
modernityblog said,
August 10, 2007 at 1:53 am
Volty,
very well argued points, also there is another reason:
the various BNP groupings on Facebook and the thickos within the BNP in their rush to embrace new technology at Facebook have forgotten one particular feature of Facebook groups, they allow you to see who is a member of that group.
so by examining the members of the BNP’s Facebook groups it is possible to view all of their supporters and members, thus keep a tally of them and their activities. Presently, they total about 200+ (there might be some overlap.)
see http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2253326412 and
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229866503
there are a considerable number of University students in the BNP groups, my bet is that there’s a fair amount of hidden support for the BNP because thankfully there is still a stigma attached to open BNP membership, let’s hope that lasts.
voltaires_priest said,
August 10, 2007 at 6:18 am
Picket their meetings? Surely that should be chib them if the opportunity arises?
Yes. Another thing that can be done in real life but not on Facebook.
Mod;
Absolutely, that’s another good point – this way we can look at them, whereas if they were banned they could still monitor us from the sidelines.
stroppybird said,
August 10, 2007 at 7:37 am
Good post Volty, I more or less agree. We need to think tactics and banning does not make their ideas go away or stop BNP individuals being on there in a more hidden form. In fact as mod says, this way we can see who they are. As you say as well, they are more likely to expres their real views and we can publicise them and show them for the racists they are.
We need to argue, as TWP says, and counter their views.
endorendil said,
August 10, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Fully in agreement with original post.
johninnit said,
August 10, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Volty – isn’t “chib” an option on SuperPoke then?
Digger said,
August 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“Or would it advance it just as all of the ANL/UAF inspired processions of students through council estates chanting “don’t vote Nazi” (… the unspoken bit being “But vote Tory if they’re the best choice to win, it’s not like we’re a political alternative”) have, in my opinion, contributed towards worryingly large BNP inroads into old Labour territory over the past few years?”
I have participated in UAF leafleting of council estates but failed to notice hordes of students chanting, but the idea that either contributes towards the BNP making inroads into old Labour territory is bizarre.
It’s Labour pursuit of their neo-liberal policies that include an onslaught on council housing and the growth of “unaffordable housing”, combined with other spending cuts, that leaves many working class peoplethinking that Labour has deserted them and looking around for alternatives. The key question is whether organisations of the left like Respect provide the alternative.
In that respect giving out leaflets that expose the BNP as the fascist thugs they are is useful but not enough, a real political alternative has to be built.
hakmao said,
August 10, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Chibbing is going to be the demonstration sport at the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games.
Jules said,
August 11, 2007 at 10:24 am
I have to say, as an opponent of the war and occupation even I find Mr Clarke’s article disgusting.
Jules said,
August 11, 2007 at 10:24 am
Shit… wrong comments box.
voltaires_priest said,
August 11, 2007 at 10:28 am
LOL – good sentiment nevertheless
modernityblog said,
August 11, 2007 at 7:06 pm
talking of racists, I see Southpawpunch has let his mask slip:
“Margaret Hodge MP (one immigrant who should have been refused entry) ”
http://southpawpunch.blogspot.com/2007/08/facebook-faux-pas-bang-bang-no-photos.html
Margaret Hodge (nee Oppenheimer) was born in Egypt to émigré Jewish parents from Germany and Austria.
and most of us had thought that Southpawpunch’s drawing-room type of antisemitism had died off? Obviously not
he calls himself an anti-racist??? What next the “some of my best friends are….” Excuse?
Southpawpunch said,
August 11, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Modernity will be aware that I have previously exposed him as a liar on this site. Let me add his crime of malicious misrepresentation as well.
I encourage anyone who may possibly think there is anything other than nasty intent behind Modernity’s comment to click through to the link. You will then see that the comment is clearly a sarcastic remark based upon Hodge’s recent racist comments regarding the allocation of council housing to immigrants.
It hardly needs stating but I oppose all immigration controls, have previously criticised Hodge for her comments and am naturally completely opposed to anti-Semitism (and no mention of Hodge’s religious origin is made anyway) as well as all forms of bigotry. All this can be easily checked by searching on my site.
I have always been open about my politics (orthodox Trot), political background etc. I notice Modernity never has. Perhaps he would like to tell us what it is – Tory, Lib Dem, Labour, Green whatever – I really couldn’t guess.
I do know however that he is both untrustworthy and has here engaged in a deeply malevolent deception.
It also reflects badly, on the owners of this blog, that they allow such unpleasant slander. If anyone accused a fellow socialist on my site of being an anti-Semite, I would insist they provide a credible justification or I would delete their comment. That’s just another reason why I no longer visit this site.
Will said,
August 11, 2007 at 11:25 pm
“That’s just another reason why I no longer visit this site.”
har har har — the fucking irony! You’re killing me with the humour Punchbowel!
Laughing my tits off just now!
modernityblog said,
August 12, 2007 at 1:03 am
SSP wrote:
You will then see that the comment is clearly a sarcastic remark based upon Hodge’s recent racist comments regarding the allocation of council housing to immigrants.
was it? so you don’t deny the facts, just the interpretation?
I wonder, if within the Cabinet there had been an Asian or Afro-Caribbean member would you have said ” xxxxx (one immigrant who should have been refused entry)?
No, of course, not, you wouldn’t dream of it.
if it had been any other nationality, say a French person, you wouldn’t dream of signing, even in jest, “‘French person’ (one immigrant who should have been refused entry) ”, or if they were from the Middle East and were a vocal critic of the government, you’d never utter “Abu Hamza (one immigrant who should have been refused entry) ”
because that is the language of the Daily Mail, albeit in your case, the reverse Daily Mail.
Fighting racism with racism is not the socialist way, even in jest.
SSP, you happily mock Margaret Hodge’s origins? why’s that? could it be because she was Jewish? or born to Jewish parents?
is that type of racism more acceptable?
why even make such a remark, unless you have some subconscious issues with Jews?
I don’t know your motive or your psychology, but frankly anyone who uses such language shouldn’t call themselves a “socialist”
PS: I profoundly dislike Margaret Hodge’s and other Blairite’s politics, but that is never (I repeat: never) cause to use genteel English racism or invoke someone ethnic origin’s, on the sly, to attack them.
southpawpunchisdannysingh said,
August 12, 2007 at 1:47 am
The comment about immigration was made about Hodge because it was her (and not Miliband or Blair or the rest) who made the racist comments. Her open talk of discrimination is not just foul but, as an immigrant, is also deeply hypocritical – and that is worth noting.
As I wrote on my site –
“A government minister, Margaret Hodge MP, has broken with political convention and come out in support of a policy that cannot be disguised as being anything other than discriminatory against non-Brits…I think it may be significant that it would be hard for anyone, with a straight face, to argue that her proposals are anything other than open discrimination.”
http://southpawpunch.blogspot.com/2007/05/hodge-on-housing-damp-squibs-high-rise.html
And if, for example, Hewittt or Vaz (both immigrants) had made these comments then it would have been to them that I would have (and not just ‘dreamt about’) attached my remarks.
I note you fail to answer about your politics. I also can’t see anyone neutral seeing the exchange in this post as being anything other than you attempting a nasty and baseless slur. As I’m sure you are aware, there is no racist (or otherwise bigoted) comments in my remarks whatsoever.
You really are a worthless lowlife.
modernityblog said,
August 12, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Southpawpunch wrote:
Her open talk of discrimination is not just foul but, as an immigrant, is also deeply hypocritical – and that is worth noting.
worth noting, perhaps but that is not the same as saying “one immigrant who should have been refused entry”
I find your inability to engage with my points rather peculiar, I would have hoped that someone who called himself a socialist would have seen the problems of using such language?
still I suppose that when we are corrected by others we’re left with two alternatives: 1) acknowledge the issue 2) deny it
now you chose to deny the issue and go on the attack, which I can’t say I find that surprising, but it would have been good for you to demonstrate some shred of humanity by acknowledging (even if that was not your intention, and I’m being generous there) the inappropriate nature of the words “one immigrant who should have been refused entry”
all of your other tactics are rather transparent and worthless, which reminds me of “The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it”
so SSP, your inappropriate and racist comment about an immigrant will remain on the web to remind you of your subconscious hatreds and loathings
Andy Newman said,
August 12, 2007 at 9:31 pm
What I think Southprick fails to understand, is that it is impossible to libel or slander someone who doesn’t exist.
As there is no person actually called Southpawpunch, and he keeps his real identity to himself, then it is hard to see how the real person behind the ultraleft dribbling has his reputation damaged.
Anyway, I think this time Modernity has landed a punch on him.
voltaires_priest said,
August 12, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Punchie;
We’ve got a libertarian stance on what people choose to say on this blog. You’re more than welcome to lay into those who lay into you. But don’t posture around on this site pretending to be sooo offended that you “don’t post here”.
a) You clearly do post here, otherwise you err wouldn’t have posted.
b) You’re quite capable of being forthright and egotistical when you put your mind to it, so cut the sanctimony.
c) We kick your arse in terms of readership. Which is why you’re still here.
modernityblog said,
August 12, 2007 at 11:22 pm
andy,
thanks for the compliment, but it is really SSP’s own disgusting words that are his worst enemy
and its basic socialist training that you don’t fight racism with racism, so invoking an immigrant’s status (or the parents) is an appalling thing to do, for an alleged “socialist” such as Southpawpunch
even then when it was pointed out, SSP could have apologised or similar, but instead he chose to attack, which made the situation worse
SSP really doesn’t have a clue, I wished he’d fuck off back to the Tory Party and not bring socialists into disrepute
Southpawpunch said,
August 13, 2007 at 1:01 am
re: Andy Newman. I don’t engage with AN as he has previously been cavalier in publishing info that could possibly lead to legal action against comrades. See my site (search on his name) for details. I warn comrades never to disclose sensitive info to him – I had my details posted on a website for British Army ‘fans’ because of him.
And it’s quite possible to libel (‘any false or potentially damaging description of someone’) someone who uses a pseudonym – maybe even in way you can sue someone – but I’m referring to an action in my post, not the law.
Voltaires Priest, if I were you, I’d think before you base a full response on not thinking something through. It can make you look foolish.
So I don’t visit this site (and didn’t say ‘post’, by the by) but have only came here through following an entry in my web log. I have only posted (and visited) to correct a slur. I suppose you could be pedantic and say ‘well you have visited now’ but I’d advise you to stop digging.
I won’t be visiting or posting again in this thread (so feel free to make more stuff up, any of you) but I do reserve the right to do so in future, if you continue to allow other unjustified slurs about me to be published in further threads and which come to my attention through people visiting my site through links posted on yours. But I’d much rather not have to visit, believe me.
You doubtless do get more readers – left reformism is far more popular than Trotskyism at present, regrettably – but at least my numbers are published (planet icon on my site).
You may have a liberal (tarian?) stance on slurs however revolutionary socialists don’t allow someone to call someone else a ‘racist’, ‘scab’, ‘informer’ etc without justification (pretending not to understand what ‘sarcasm’ means, isn’t a justification).
Modernity, I did begin to think you might be too stupid to see the obvious sarcasm in my remark even after I explained it to you. I mean you shorten ‘Southpawpunch’ somehow to the initials of a Scottish left party. But you’re not – you’re just being deliberately obtuse.
I also note you continue not to disclose what your political affiliations are.
I can only think that someone who puts an Abraham Lincoln quote at the top of his blog, carries prominent links for unpleasant Zionists like Giyus http://www.giyus.org/partners.html who are notorious for their Megaphone tool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool (we’re not talking Israeli peaceniks here, but their enemies who support the Israeli government and their aggressions) can only be right-wing. More fool the owners of this blog for allowing you free reign here.
Southpawpunch said,
August 13, 2007 at 1:03 am
oh and I forgot to add
And it’s just simple politeness to refer to someone by their correct name or pseudonym. It allows search engines to pick up mentions of the term. It seems only fair that someone knows when they are being mentioned but perhaps you prefer to slur and run?
modernityblog said,
August 13, 2007 at 1:17 am
SSP,
again you attack when it is counterproductive
you attacking me won’t change the inappropriate and racist nature of your comments one iota
it is a common tactic, often used by Thatcherite politicians when questioned on Radio Four about some absurd and nasty Tory policy. Instead of answering the question these Tories went would seek to attack the questioner’s politics “you’re just the Labour Party supporter that’s why you’re being beastly to us Tories” rather than answering a perfectly valid political question,
such a tactic discredited the Tories then and it discredits you, Southpawpunch now
please feel free to call me any the school playground names you choose, I’m not particularly bothered one way or the other
by the way, your reading skills must be very limited, because you’ll notice I support a wide range of campaigns from ASH to MSF, the Poppy Appeal to the National Secular Society, Searchlight, any number of antifascist campaign’s and the CWU/postal workers
I have a soft spot for Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation protocol, I appreciate someone such as yourself, SSP, might not see the significance of emancipation the slaves in the USA, but that something to do with your upbringing
Also I am very keen on trade unions, something that you might do well to emulate, that is if you are even in a trade union.
Southpawpunch said,
August 13, 2007 at 1:39 am
I’ll break what I just said and write just once final time because there must be some who just can’t be bothered reading back through all the above to correct Modernity’s repeated slur.
Modernity accused me of being racist and Anti-Semitic (and inappropriate) for a remark I made about Margaret Hodge.
I directly answered this point, this ‘perfectly valid political question’ (despite his claims otherwise) – and which is the crux of the matter – by saying ‘no, I did not do any of this – I was clearly being sarcastic with my remark relating to her racist proposals about public housing for her fellow immigrants.
modernityblog said,
August 13, 2007 at 2:07 am
SSP,
you gave an excuse, not an answer
and I have repeatedly made a point that:
socialists don’t use racism to fight racism
if you can’t understand that simple concept then I wonder why you even call yourself a socialist
go ask other socialists, if they think it is appropriate to invoke an immigrant’s status (or their parents) and say ““one immigrant who should have been refused entry” in as a joke
I am fairly sure they will tell you NO, it is not the appropriate language even in jest
Will said,
August 13, 2007 at 8:08 am
Bonkers.
Truly fucking bonkers.
voltaires_priest said,
August 13, 2007 at 8:46 am
I suppose you could be pedantic and say ‘well you have visited now’
You’ve not only visited now, you’ve visited previously and furthermore you visited (and posted) again afterwards as well. I’m really not the one making a fool of himself here.
voltaires_priest said,
August 13, 2007 at 9:26 am
PS – Who the fuck is Danny Singh?
SPPisaFW said,
August 13, 2007 at 10:03 am
Danny Singh is a fictitious character invented by SPP in an attempt to lure his parodists into posting his fictitious details to prove that said parodists were vile, unprincipled bastards for outing him. The parodists do think SPP is an idiot with vile politics. The parodists do not think that is a reason to disrespect his anonymity.
Will said,
August 13, 2007 at 2:32 pm
That’s referring to a site that supposedly ‘outs’ Punchbowel as being a person called Danny Singh — but which I’m thinking yet another site set up by Punchbowel as some sort of ‘throwing peeps off the scent’ or something like that. Bizzaro (and quite possibly mad).
Will said,
August 13, 2007 at 2:37 pm
here’s where it used to be
http://southpawpunchisdannysingh.wordpress.com/
SPURT said,
August 13, 2007 at 2:51 pm
He set up the Danny Singh page then posted a link at the SPURT page assuming/hoping that the Central Committee would take the bait and ‘out’ him proving a complete lack of principles yadda yadda. Unfortunately for Punchbowl the link was deleted because it purported to violate the principle of blogger anonymity.
modernityblog said,
August 14, 2007 at 12:39 am
I think SSP has been outted sufficiently as a loon, subconscious racist and crank.
Southpawpunch said,
August 14, 2007 at 1:53 pm
As said I’ll deal with any further lies.
If a socialist really thought someone was mentally ill, they wouldn’t use terms like ‘loon’ ‘bonkers’ (what next – ‘spazz’?) but like the ludicrous claims of racism, they are just hysterical and utterly baseless allegations from social inadequates with an internet connection as their only form of contact with the wider world.
I know nothing about other sites other than my three – Southpawpunch, SouthpawpunchLife and SouthpawpunchComments but perhaps you can tell us more about the other ones Will?
I mean it was you and Hakmao who set up the other one and in Hakmao’s case sheepishly admitted it as she forget to quickly remove her name from the profile. You meanwhile have cowardly not admitted to your involvement but slipped up when you wrote in your other guise at a Scottish site (Co-op something) inadvertantly writing a comment as you, whilst still signed in as your Southpawpunch persona – I have the web reference to that at home.
I never ever leave comments as anyone but Southpawpunch. Have the guts to stand by your comments. You’re a pathetic moron who will outrageously call people ‘Nazis’
because they happen to hold communist politics.
VP. Yes, I’ve had to visit again now to deal with the abuse and I used to visit sometime ago. You oblige me to waste my time here! You stop the libel happening and I won’t be back. I’ve got better things to do
modernityblog said,
August 14, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Southpawpunchwrote:
like the ludicrous claims of racism
to bring up someone’s immigrant status (or their parents) to make a snide point,as you did, is racism
the fact that you, a highly intelligent and well educated individual, cannot see that fact is strange, but then it is characteristic of people with certain racial hangups to be insensitive to their own peculiar brand of racism
and if you don’t understand it, then you need to get someone to explain that point to you, again, again and again.
voltaires_priest said,
August 14, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Punchie;
He’s posted and you’ve refuted. He’s repeated something that I’ve not seen you actually deny saying, merely that he’s misunderstood the intent. So unless I’ve misunderstood this completely, it’s a debate about the context of something which was actually written.
Either way, if you both leave it alone it will drop, as all the best blog threads do.
PS – SP are you saying categorically that “Southpawpunchisdannysingh” isn’t you?
Southpawpunch said,
August 15, 2007 at 1:29 am
Issue summed up accurately. I was possibly foolish to be drawn in wishing to correct remarks about myself but as I’ve changed the Google alert for ‘Southpawpunch’ to include ‘-shirazsocialist.wordpress.com’, I won’t even hear of any further fiction from here.
Yes the site isn’t (and wasn’t) mine although I was interested in possibly determining authorship through a ploy. However “authors have deleted this blog” so idea couldn’t work.
I’m going to write a contributors policy for my site e.g. ‘back up allegations to a standard that would probably convince the majority of socialists’. I think your laissez faire approach is poor.
hakmao said,
August 18, 2007 at 2:03 pm
There’s doubtless little point in an exercise bound to be as efficacious as trying to move a pile of slate by shouting at it, especially as this will doubtless be lost in the bowels of Akismet, never again to see the light of day. However, in response to the day-dreaming-out-loud wishful thinking of the fantasist up thread, my involvement in taking the piss out of the thoroughly deserving pompous twat consisted of tarting up a quite unprepossessing blogger template, something which I have done for any number of people who know absolutely nothing about html and who have asked nicely — and something which, according to the fantasist dispenser of proletarian justice, indicates mental illness on my part. Would that I were good enough to be paid to edit html/css all day — I’d be a happy little mentalist. Furthermore, the fantasist alleges – not for the first time – that my friend and comrade Will is responsible for the piss-taking site, and a ‘coward’ for not admitting his involvement, when in fact there is no involvement and hence no admission required (‘Fook him, he’s a twat, I’m not going to bother me arse’). His sole ‘evidence’ being the proximity of a comment of Will’s to one by southpawpunchisafuckingwanker on a thread at SCWR. If proximity is the criterion, then southpawpunchislavrentiypavlovichberia is Modernity. Southpawpunchislavrentiypavlovichberia pontificates about ‘back[ing] up allegations to a standard that would probably convince the majority of socialists’. Here we see the standard of evidence that convinces the wannabe chekist southpawpunchislavrentiypavlovichberia.
Pickled Politics » The BNP and free speech said,
August 21, 2007 at 4:13 am
[...] Shiraz Socialist, Voltaire’s Priest explains why he won’t be signing the UAF petition and I agree. He [...]
Southpawpunch said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Hakmao, the above comments aren’t at all credible.
See
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30439535&postID=1528605465035677744
At 18.32 the fake blogger posts in the homage name, probably by mistake. 2 mins later Will does realise his mistake and posts as himself. The next post isn’t until the following day.
It is suggestive of mental illness (mentalist means something different) to spend time designing a site about someone with whom you’ve never say exchanged views on a blog or had any other form of interaction.
It’s also beyond socialist morality to assign views to someone that they patently don’t hold – e.g. your blog’s remarks that I support the North Korean monarchy.
But as ‘Nick’ states on your homage blog – ‘Southpaw paunch is a wanker but to bother your arse making an entire blog just to make that point.. that is just upsettingly pathetic.’
And rather a Chekist, in their very early correct period, than a slimy war-mongering pro-imperialist tosser as are signatories to the Euston Manifesto, like you and Will.
hakmao said,
August 21, 2007 at 4:21 pm
So a slow typist, who sits with a tab in one hand and coffee/wine in the other went to all the trouble of logging out of a blogger account, going back in, typing out a URL and html tags and managed it in less than two minutes? I could do that easily enough, but Will couldn’t do it in a month of Sundays.
I design websites and pamphlets to supplement my shit wages. Sometimes I do it for people out of the kindness of my heart. The other week I helped an old blind lady cross a busy road and find her way to the bus stop — all without asking her her views on the invasion of Iraq, the state of the NHS, or the Transitional Program. Terrible I know.
I wouldn’t want to ruin a nice delusion, particularly as you have no power and are unable to enact any of your fantasies, so believe any old chimera you like – as you do already – if it makes you happy.
Lastly, sorry to have to correct you, but Will and I are unsignatories of the dreaded Euston Manifesto.
Southpawpunch said,
August 21, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Hakmao,
The more you post, the deeper you sink.
No, I imagine the poster realised he was signed in as the wrong person and corrected it. I understand Will designed Osler’s blog so I’m sure he’s fairly swift on the keyboard.
I’m happy to be corrected if you point anything out but I’m still waiting. But will you admit to your untruths e.g. ‘unsignatories.’
That’s a new word with which I am unfamiliar. Maybe you mean you are not a signatory, like me, and so you are an ‘unsignatory’ or perhaps you mean that you signed and have now ‘unsigned’?
You certainly signed up for this apology for imperialist slaughter and remain a signatory – and Will too – according to the site of the Euston Manifesto.
http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=42
What are your fantasies Hakmao? Lots of dead believers in Islam purged of their irrationalism through superior Western rationalism, science and democracy in the form of laser guided missiles?
My fantasy is a world when imperialist apologists and purveyors of blogs that knowingly lie make no fake claim to ‘leftism’.
voltaires_priest said,
August 21, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Children, if you don’t play nice then Daddy will get cross.
Southpawpunch said,
August 21, 2007 at 9:49 pm
So play Daddy, VP. Look after your site – either delete comments when they go off the subject – which would have been Modernity’s first allegation (and has no relation to Facebook and the BNP) and would have stopped any subsequent ones – or – allow the one comment and one reply to the comments from those about whom the comment was made.
Compare your inaction to Stroppy’s action when I (accidentally) and Denham went off topic in their next to last discussion.
But there’s no point complaining about comments, if you adopt a laissez faire attitude. I wouldn’t allow it on my site.
voltaires_priest said,
August 21, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hence we have readers and commenters, and you have barely any.
As I said before it was a discussion about the context and intent of a comment that you don’t even deny having made. You’ve had as fair a bite of the cherry as anyone else. So now please go play in the sandpit or something.
stroppybird said,
August 22, 2007 at 6:03 am
Hey don’t drag me into this. I may have said stop, but I would not have deleted , just like Volty
Also on my site you posted , accidently, a comment meant not only for another post but another blog altogether. Its wasn’t just a matter of going off topic, it was miles away from the original post .
Without ploughing through all the comments here, it would seem it did evolve from something in the post. So i wouldn’t delete here either .
Chris Paul said,
August 22, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I’m letting the BNP types comment fairly freely over at mine at the moment.
They don’t expect it and quickly escalate from nasty and hateful through vicious to inciting killings.
This is rather useful stuff to have “in the can” for another time. Although naturally as they are cowards most post anonymously.
Both UAF and NAAR are human and make errors from time to time. The ballerina boycott was a case in point. Missed opportunity that was IMO.
It is worth joining some of these groups to make the contrary case or keep an eye on them but for the moment I haven’t done.
The cockier the BNP get in unmoderated forums the better – as long as we’re there to observe, record and when the time comes shame them with their own words.
voltaires_priest said,
August 22, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Agree with Stroppy and Chris.
stroppybird said,
August 23, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Volty
I don’t really spend much time on facebook (unconvinced as to its usefulness ) , what is happening re the boycott?
It seems there are loads of groups to join, but not sure what the point is?
Perhaps if I spent more time on it I might see the point, but to be honest i spend far to much time in the virtual world as it is.
hakmao said,
August 26, 2007 at 6:34 pm
You really are thick aren’t you?
What are your fantasies Hakmao? Lots of dead believers in Islam purged of their irrationalism through superior Western rationalism, science and democracy in the form of laser guided missiles?
You’re so perceptive, of course they are — I’ll start with my family shall I? On second thought, I’ll just knock your teeth down your filthy throat, you vile, low, suppurating, pus-filled growth.
marshajane said,
August 27, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Hey Volty,
Gonna bizarly go on topic here
Cheers 4 comment I realise I was a bit ranty when I wrote that having had run ins with some bnp scum on facebook – but essentially my views hold.
I did acknowledge in the post that I get the point about the state using any laws against us, and the likelihood of any law being passed.
But as I said in campaigning against them and highlighting thing they have said and done we reach out to people and engage them. (Even if that is only on facebook)
How many other political groups have anywhere near the numbers of my group?
The unison group has a 100 or so, the Labour Party group a few hundred Tories and Lib Dems even less. John4leader managed over 500 and there’s a couple that have called for signatures that have made 6 or 7 hundred.
We are now over 3 thousand! If even a tiny% of them then transfer that into real world activity against the bnp – then its worth doing.
As I said I get your point about banning – complelty disagree about no platform. We shouldn’t be giving them a platform at all.
I am getting inundated with comments from bnp mostly hateful and threats (some of them have been stupid enough to leave comments that I can trace) but I’m not going to publish them.
Louisefeminista said,
August 27, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I support the group MarshaJane set up about kicking the BNP off FB and it is a commendable thing she has done to highlight the BNP for the vile racists they are (and if the numbers on this group were translated into real activity then it shows a vibrant support for anti-fascism).
I disagree with banning them as that will drive them underground and the state can and probably would use it against the left. But it still means we don’t give fascists a platform and engage with them. We demonstrate against and highlight what their thuggery and violence involves. They don’t give a damn about freedom of speech and giving them freedom of speech is at the cost to other people (see Marshajane’s comment re threats she has been getting this precisely illustrates what they are capable of). Fascists make a political decision to use violence in putting forward their ideas. And where they active there are racist attacks this has been documented by anti-fascists organisations.
The only way is No Platform.
voltaires_priest said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Have already replied on yours MJ (and lol no worries I’m hardly one to complain about “ranting”!
). However just briefly on “no platform” in this context – we are talking about calling upon the owners of a US capitlaist enterprise to stop fascists for us, not about doing it ourselves, giving them a kicking outside of a meeting or whatever. It’s like calling on the Sun to stop Garry Bushell from writing articles, as though it’s the tabloid media’s job to fight little Englanders.
“No Platform” in this context, I would suggest, is just a mantra drained of its main meaning and substance.
marshajane said,
August 28, 2007 at 7:06 am
Volty – would you have us do nothing?
If we as the ‘left’ didn’t say anything about them being on facebook we would be adding to the air of respectability they are trying to get – with their suits and slots on the politics show.
Wherever they pop up even on a capitalist website we should be campaigning against them.
voltaires_priest said,
August 28, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Yes, we should – but not like this. It just doesn’t make logical sense to do it in this way.
The last thing I’m saying is “do nothing” – what I am saying though is that calling on capitalist organisations to do the fighting for us isn’t quite the same thing as classic “no plaform”, and that I think in this case it would be (and is) counter-productive.
Jon Rogers said,
August 29, 2007 at 10:03 am
We should surely fight facism with whatever tools are at hand (literally and metaphorically)? Calling for the BNP to be kicked off Facebook, or for BNP activists to be expelled from our unions, or for BNP activists to be thrown out of colleges are all part of ensuring that wherever the views of the far right are expressed they are contested not just in their own terms but also in a way which makes clear that these views are unacceptable to us (socialists, the working class) wherever they are expressed.
stroppybird said,
August 29, 2007 at 11:32 am
Ok, just to throw something into the mix here. And before I do I want to state , like everyone else I hate the BNP and fascists in general.
We are talking here about banning views we find offensive and which can lead to violence against the people they are spewing them about. This of course is not just black people, the BNP also hate other groups such as LGBT people , lefties etc.
What about platforms given to people who come out with vile stuff about women or LGBT people, which also leads to hatred and violence ,who are not in the BNP? When we talk about platforms this can also mean our own ones when we make alliances with religious groups who come out with offensive stuff as well.
Vile views are not just the BNP , of which we all agree are vile, even if tactically have different standpoints.
If we want no platform and want to ban people who offend us, who do we choose to ban ?
Do we link it to incitement of violence ?
Does banning actually change attitudes ot make martyrs? There are two issues here, one is if it actually works in terms of changing attitudes and reducing attacks on black people, the other is the principle of banning and who decides in a capitalist society.
Louisefeminista said,
August 29, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Stroppybird: I think there is some confusion between no platform and banning. Banning means calling for the state to implement some kind of law outlawing groups such as the BNP. No Platform essentially means not giving them any platform to put forward their vile racist ideology.
As Jon rightly points out, we use what tools are available to fight fascism and that does include sometimes calling on corporate capitalism such as FB to re-think their policy about giving a platform to the BNP. Isn’t it reasonsable that as socialists/trade unionists we demand from employers, for example, equal opportunities and anti-discrimination policies? I mean, we are in effect using the state there to do the fighting for us.
Also, the group set-up to kick the BNP off FB has probably increased the political consciousness about campaigning against racism and fascism and opened up a debate about strategy etc. And that is positive and needs active support because it hopefully it could have the potential to become a broader campaign.
You also have to understand the ideology of fascism. The underpinning of their politics is violence and intimidation. They care nothing for freedom of speech and they will attack progressive ideas whenever they see them.
“When we talk about platforms this can also mean our own ones when we make alliances with religious groups who come out with offensive stuff as well”.
To equate them as the same as some leftie group making alliances with religious orgs is wrong. Yes, they may have dodgy ideas but are they fascist? No, they are not.
Put it like this, some leftie group organises in some area, are there attacks on the rich? No. The BNP organises in some area, are their racist attacks. Yes, there usually is.
The only way of dealing with fascists is no-platforming them and that means using whatever tools we can lob at the bastards!
Solomon Hurley said,
April 18, 2008 at 12:38 pm
raincoat shoppish iliotrochanteric sphegid offishly mycetozoan bismuthous dorothy
Stiff Richards
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/unicycle/LUNIs.html