Max Moore
Staff Writer
After a week of brow furrowing contemplation, it is with feelings of reluctant obligation that I now find myself compelled to write this article. Though I had begun to question the necessity (or lack thereof) of writing a piece in defence of Fascists, upon hearing of the withdrawal of the invitation to Nick Griffin to participate in a debate on immigration at the College, I appear to have rediscovered my initial fervour and enthusiasm. However, it is not without a great deal of moral introspection and careful consideration that I now reassert myself in quite an awkward position. For the second time in a week, I feel I must volunteer myself to the frontline of an ethical paradox: to defend the indefensible.
On Tuesday evening of last week, I ventured towards the Hamilton building to attend a meeting organized by various Anti-Fascist groups in opposition to the (then) upcoming visit of Nick Griffin, Leader of the Far Right British National Party. My attendance at the meeting was prompted by nothing more than idle curiosity and intrigue, sparked from astonishment that anyone, while they could certainly oppose a position in a debate, could oppose the debate in its entirety. As a student of philosophy, I have always loved engaging with positions that run contrary to my own. In my experience, there is no better way to confirm their validity or refute them as false. However, I was to quickly discover that this was a perspective shared by few at the meeting.
The meeting had already begun by the time I arrived, with an opening introduction of the three speakers coming to an end as I took my seat. The first of these was a highly articulate, assertive and astute young speaker named Gavan Titley, a lecturer at NUI Maynooth. His talk touched on many different areas, but the part most intriguing to me was his claim that opposition to the debate was not in fact opposition to free speech. I found his argument though carefully constructed and certainly well considered, to be ultimately self-contradicting. Among his claims was the oft-touted viewpoint that with a right to free speech comes a responsibility not to abuse it. He was quick to dispel any notion of freedom of speech being absolute rather than conditional as mere lofty liberal idealism. In a disparaging manner, he questioned whether those who would invoke Voltaire and claim that they would defend to the death the right of other’s to hold despicable views, had ever actually been called to do so. I would counter that those who place restrictions on free expression, for whatever reasons cannot legitimately profess not to oppose it.
It was at this point that alarm bells began to sound. However, I was content to listen to the rest of his points and raise my issues when the floor had been opened. He then proceeded to illustrate the real impact that inflammatory speech has on the people towards whom it is directed. He complained that the proposed debate was a sham, as there would be no representation from the group at the core of the debate, that of the immigrant community and that various groups and individuals had been prohibited from speaking. It was also claimed that speeches would have to be submitted in advance and screened. I will admit that I do not know whether or not this is standard practice at major debates but I believe that this may have been necessary to keep the debate focused on the motion rather than an individual speaker, namely Nick Griffin. It is my contention that while there are certainly grounds for a scathing attack on this vile human being, this debate would have provided a prime opportunity to attack and undermine a much larger issue, that of Far Right politics in general. He then accused the Phil of indulging in sensationalism, of deliberately staging a spectacle for entertainment purposes without any thought for the real world implications which this might have. As he drew to a close, my consideration of these seemingly fair points was interrupted by a phrase that would appear and reappear throughout the meeting. No Platform for Fascists.
Again, there appeared to be another contradiction in the message being proselytised at this meeting. How could one complain that a debate was a farce because it placed limits on freedom of expression in one breath and then categorically deny the same freedom to others in the next? Once again, I decided to sit patiently and wait for the open forum at the end. The following two speakers did nothing to assuage my doubts and fears as to the mind-set of those organising the meeting, nor did they persuade me of their position. Conor Ryan of Labour Youth, in a protracted reference to the recent massacre in Norway by right wing extremist, Anders Behring Breivik, sought to emphasise danger posed by Far Right rhetoric and that the threat of violence would surely be a consequence of Griffin’s visit. Though the list of atrocities committed by those on the Far Right is as long as it is repugnant, I find this sort of “extremity as logical conclusion/guilt by association” style of argument to be unpersuasive, as it could easily and equally as unsatisfactorily be applied to those on the Left. Or proponents of Sharia Law. Or Irish Republicanism. Or Zionism. Or most National Independence movements. The list goes on. If acts of violence associated with a particular ideology are to be grounds for No Platform for proponents of that ideology, then there will be very little left that can be debated. Perhaps I will be accused of underestimating the extent of the threat posed by Far Right hate speech; however I would respond that the power and strength of the Anti-Fascist message is also not one to be underestimated.
Finally, Paul Shields, SIPTU Shop Steward in Trinity spoke of his opposition and of the Union action he would spearhead to prevent this visit. My contention here is with neither the Union or its proposed action; I do not feel it is my place to dictate how workers must feel in having to liaise with the knuckle scraping private security of the BNP. Rather I take issue with some of the rhetoric espoused by Mr Shields in particular and at the meeting in general. He spoke with a wry smile of the potential for “agitation” should the debate take place. Indeed, he seemed optimistic that such a thing would take place, which elicited a knowing laugh from much of the crowd.
Amid all this talk of the threat and danger posed by Nick Griffin, the BNP and Fascists in general here were members of the meeting gleefully discussing the prospect of violence should the event go ahead. One member of the audience later spoke of rumours of a Far Right counter demonstration that would certainly lead to violence were it to take place. With an air of self-absolution, he proclaimed that the blame for any such instances would rest squarely on the shoulders of the Phil. Euphemisms such as “agitation”; “mass-mobilisation”, “blockading” and talk of purposefully creating a fire safety hazard due to sheer numbers to have the meeting cancelled were tossed around freely. Such doublespeak seemed to be universally recognised for what it was, but the irony of it was not. Once again, the spectre of self-contradiction revealed itself.
Eventually the floor was open for discussion and I continued to wait patiently as various tributary groups stood up to plug their particular subset or to pat themselves on the back for also being filled with self righteous moral indignation that a debating society would host a controversial debate. When finally it came my turn to speak, I had a feeling that my words would be largely unpopular but at the very least I expected to be heard out. Unfortunately, upon stating my staunch opposition to Fascism in all its forms but my disagreement with the aim of the group, some members of the audience appeared to close both their minds and their ears. Not the strongest of public speakers, I was met with regular interruptions, false accusations and misinterpretations of points that were barely made. However, I do not highlight this due to some petty desire for tit-for-tat. I would like to make it clear that I was offered an apology by each person I spoke to after the meeting and proceeded to have several engaging conversations on the topic. Rather, I raise it because I found this aspect of the meeting to be endemic of everything that is wrong with this element of the Anti-Fascist movement.
In my opinion, this radical “No Platform” aspect of the Anti-Fascist movement, though certainly having both benevolent aims and motivations, is deeply misguided to the point of being counterproductive. Its passion, though in a sense admirable ultimately blinds it to the most fruitful course of action. Its fervour renders it disagreeable to rational argument. Its backward classist tone, with talk of “sherry hangovers”, mocking imitation of accents and derisive dismissal of bourgeois idealism alienates many with the same goal. I believe that I am as fundamentally, politically and philosophically opposed to the Far Right as every person in attendance at that meeting. However, I also believe that the means by which they would combat this repugnant ideology is both flawed and ineffectual. In light of this, I oppose it on both philosophical and practical grounds.
Firstly, I regard any No Platform policy towards any concept or political position as a clear denial of free speech. Censorship of thoughts and words, no matter how vile and repugnant is exactly that: censorship. I strongly believe that such a thing has no place in any society that wants to call itself free. If freedom of expression is to be conditional, then it is not free. I see it as concept so absolute, a right so precious and a value so essential to the free existence and betterment of humanity that it must never be impinged.
Secondly, I see the practical implications of the No Platform policy as being detrimental to its own aims. It does not seem outlandish to say that Nick Griffin’s controversial 2009 appearance on Question Time ended in complete and utter humiliation for both him, his party and the ideology they represent. Surely there can be no doubt that this would be the only result were Nick Griffin to speak? In speaking with Mr Titley after the meeting, I expressed concern that his was a position that would stifle the freedom of expression. He elaborated on the points he had made during his speech, explaining that freedom of speech can only be genuine when an issue is adequately addressed from all sides and that it is a two way street. I maintain that while this can be held as an ideal, it is often impractical in reality. If freedom of expression is to be reserved for conditions such as that, then too rarely will it be implemented. The sad reality is that Nick Griffin, the BNP and those of their ilk are representative of a particular constituency within the global community. By granting them No Platform, they do not simply disappear. Is it not better to have such vitriol in the public sphere so that it can be challenged and castrated, with its proponents visible and identifiable rather than consigned to a dingy pub in Lancashire? In refusing to engage it, you refuse to combat it. For if non-violence is to be preferable until it is no longer practical, then what other option is there? The dismantling and destruction of Fascist ideologies through direct debate must be seen as the best and indeed the only route to its defeat.
I have heard a particular metaphor used time and again by Anti-Fascists in defence of the policy of No Platform for the Far Right. It is said that in denying it the right to express its views, we starve it of the oxygen it craves to disseminate its hate and can thus defeat it. In keeping with this image of asphyxiation, I would like to offer an alternative. In the face of crushing rational argument, can there be any doubt that Fascism will die? Let us engage in debate. Let us be in no doubt as to who the Fascists are and what they would achieve. Allow them to say what they will and to say it loud and clear. Let us watch as we give them enough rope to hang themselves, for surely they will. And let us offer them the public sphere as the place in which to do it. Then let us watch as Fascism dangles lifeless and throw its stinking corpse on the pyre: its legacy that of defeat, its existence but a memory.
“All You Fascists Bound to Lose”
– Woodie Guthrie
