Hurrah for the blackshirts!

by Tim Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:39

Please note that the accuracy of the quote "if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." is disputed as to if it was said at all.

by protestor Sun Feb 24, 2008 19:40

Anyone else getting a tad weary of zionists whining "anti-semite" whenever their atrocious activity in the Middle East is criticised?
It really is a bit rich when you consider that many zionists aren't Jewish, just rogues who have scrabbled aboard the free property band-wagon, property stolen from the indigenous peoples of the Middle East by force.
The majority of the world's Jews are as disgusted with the zionist plunder of the Middle East as the rest of us are.

by _ Sun Feb 24, 2008 21:07

You reckon the majority of the worlds jews are in favour of those miltia in black shirts doing the Nazi salute do you?

by Heathen Mon Feb 25, 2008 00:02

It is of course quite possible to oppose both Hezbollah, and Zionism.

Hezbollah call themselves the ‘Party of God’ and seek to create an Islamic state in Lebanon (and beyond) based on Sharia law, or at least their particular Shiite version of it. Zionists believe they act in the name of their God and seek to create a Zionist state in Israel (and beyond), based on fundamentalist Judaism. We can be sure that the vast majority of Bristolians would not be welcome in any state or nation run by either of these two sets of fundamentalists.

You can of course be a Jew and oppose Zionism, or be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish. Hezbollah can be seen to be both anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish, but not anti-semitic. The Semites (basically an olde tribe) are not specifically Jewish and certainly not Zionist. One can also oppose the idea of Sharia law and the creation of an Islamic state, but not be anti-islam (nor against muslims) per se.

Got that? It does however get more complicated…the invited speaker Mousawi was banned from Ireland last year, and David Cameron (Tory twit) tried to get him banned from speaking in the UK last December, but failed. Neo-Labour, despite their anti-islam & anti-refugee propaganda, have not yet banned him, but may well try to at some point.

There is then here the issue of free speech. Is it possible to oppose neo-Labour’s crackdown on free speech and civil liberties, whilst supporting the right of someone like Mousawi to speak in the UK even though he speaks for a party that will itself prevent free speech and thought? One could adopt the position of saying ‘I defend absolutely your right to speak freely, whilst opposing absolutely your ideas.’ Personally I do not ever call on any state or authority to ban anything or anyone, as it sets a dangerous precedent and only disempowers us from acting ourselves. But I would be prepared to take any action necessary, and encourage others to do likewise, to oppose the repugnant views of individuals & groups – for example the use of mass physical force to prevent a nazi from speaking publicly.

Bristol STW in attempting to broaden the debate and engage with a wide spectrum of ideas & opinions in relation to the whole Middle East situation, and in trying to show the broader aims of the US led coalition in the region, should be applauded. However this specific meeting is part of a national STW tour (see their website), and reflects the confused & opportunistic politics of STW nationally – dominated as they are by the increasingly desperate SWP, whose every action is designed solely to increase recruitment to their ranks. The third speaker of the evening is John Rees, the current leading light of the SWP (socialist workers party - sic) and member of their (unelected, of course) executive committee. Their belief in ‘leadership’ tends them towards dealing with other ‘leaders’, hence the invites to specific foreign speakers on this tour, when we may have got a much more balanced view of the Lebanese situation from a speaker unattached to a group such as Hezbollah. The SWP, like Hezbollah and the Zionists, are of course inherently anti-democratic.

Perhaps the historically independent Bristol STW, who have fought long and hard to resist domination by the SWP, should disavow themselves from the meeting, or at the least oppose it in its current form, raising clearly the cry of No Gods, No Masters.

by protestor Mon Feb 25, 2008 07:29

Israel has brutally wiped Palestine off the map, ably assisted by the Fourth Reich,
namely the United States of America.

by Tim Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:16

I am up for going to this talk because I have a suspicion that out media and powers that be often muddies the water of what 'enemy' people are really saying. I would like to hear what he has to say first hand and ask the difficult questions, and if there is racism of any form, I am out.

But we have to know for sure. For example; Iran's president has allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Did he? How many of us know or know though rumour and who creates the rumours? I quote,

"Two other well-established translation sources confirm that Ahmadinejad was referring to time, not place. The version of the October 26 2005 speech put out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, based on the Farsi text released by the official Iranian Students News Agency, says: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." (NB: not "wiped". I accept that "eliminated" is almost the same, indeed some might argue it is more sinister than "wiped", though it is a bit more of a mouthful if you are trying to find four catchy and easily memorable words with which to incite anger against Iran.)"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13641.htm

And more...
http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/ahmadinejad-we-are-not-....html

by protestor Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:56

Most informative, excellent links.

by War=Peace??? Mon Feb 25, 2008 13:09

Good to see the usual borderline anti-semitic nonsense from those who consider themselves the left...

'Hezbollah can be seen to be both anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish, but not anti-semitic. The Semites (basically an olde tribe) are not specifically Jewish and certainly not Zionist'

Linguistically you are correct insofar as the Semites refer to the descendants of one of Noah's sons, which covers Jews, Arabs, Assyrians and others... However in general usage it refers only to Jews, and claims which disavow the contemporary meaning appear as little more than attempts at linguistic obscurantism.

'Zionists believe they act in the name of their God and seek to create a Zionist state in Israel (and beyond), based on fundamentalist Judaism.'

While this is certainly true of a very small minority of Zionists to claim this as a universal truth is somewhat akin to declaring every citizen of the United Kingdom an avowed supporter of the BNP.

'Zionism is an international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine, and continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.[1]

Although its origins are earlier, the movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. The movement was eventually successful in establishing Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. Described as a "diaspora nationalism,"[2] its proponents regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[3]

While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood is thought to have first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era (i.e. up to 70 CE),[4][5] the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[6] It constituted a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.[7]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

'Israel has brutally wiped Palestine off the map, ably assisted by the Fourth Reich,
namely the United States of America.'

In 1947, faced with increasing calls by the 630,000 Jews living in Palestine for a self governed jewish state, the UN devised a partition plan which sought to create two states, one legislated by Jews, one legislated by Arabs (although neither would be ethnically 'pure' states). The Arabs - who incidentally had the lovely Mohammed Amin Al-Husayni as the Grand Mufti, or chief cleric, of Jerusalem at this point, (for those who dont know, he was an ally of Nazi Germany, who in the words of Hannah Arendt 'The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East') - rejected the plan, opting for war instead. And lost...

Although US President Truman was the first leader to acknowledge Israel as a state 'U.S. policy was geared toward supporting the development of oil-producing countries, maintaining a neutral stance in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and preventing Soviet influence from gaining a foothold in Iran and Turkey. U.S. policymakers used foreign aid in the 1950s and 1960s to support these objectives.

U.S. aid to Israel was far less in the 1950s and 1960s than in later years. Although the United States provided moderate amounts of economic aid (mostly loans) to Israel, at the time, Israel's main patron was France, which supported Israel by providing it with advanced military equipment and technology.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-United_States_relations

US support for Israel only became a significant factor after the Six Day War in 1967. While Arab leaders, notably Nassar (Egypt) and Hussein (Jordan) claimed the at US and UK supported the Israelis in the war, this claim was dismissed not only by the UK, US and Israel, but also by the USSR and eventually King Hussein himself.

While the Six Day War was where Israel claimed the territories of Gaza and the West Bank - whose 67 borders present the possibility of a contemporary independent Palestinian state, it should be noted that they were seized from Jordan and Egypt, rather than Palestine, which had not existed since 1948.

Criticisms of Israeli military and economic actions against the Palestinian people are frequently justified (and indeed many are sourced from pro-peace groups based in Israel). However spreading nonsensical historical distortions under the guise of Palestinian solidarity, or welcoming speakers whose positions call for the destruction of sovereign states as a spokesman for peace go a long way to undermining the credibility of individuals and groups who claim to be left wing.

by Tim Mon Feb 25, 2008 14:58

In all the bluster of condemnation of those willing to hear the voices of other groups like Hezbollah ( and I am no expert on their position) why is it we hear so little about the racism that runs the other way? I quote:

"UN: Israel must stop discrimination against Arabs, Palestinians"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/835392.html

Arabs who are Israeli citizens are second class citizens, while a foreign national, such as a British person, who happens to have the same religion/ancestry can move there and has more rights than somebody who is born there.

So to follow the logic espoused of not giving a platform to racism, we should not only ban Hezbollah but any representative of the Israeli state?

by War=Peace Mon Feb 25, 2008 18:02

'In all the bluster of condemnation of those willing to hear the voices of other groups like Hezbollah ( and I am no expert on their position) why is it we hear so little about the racism that runs the other way?'

??? Am I to understand from this comment that you get the majority of your news from The Daily Mail and US Fox News? If you read liberal UK media such as the Guardian or the Independent the commentary tends to be just as critical of Israeli actions as it is of Hezbollah. For example check out any piece Robert Fisk has written on the conflict (or spend 10 mins looking around their websites). If you get a fair amount of news from alternative sites such as Indymedia or Z Magazine then most coverage will be anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, to the point that some of it borders on racism (just like I'm guessing Fox News does... not really being a Rupert Murdoch fan I don't tend to watch it)

This is somewhat underlined for me by the irony that you link to an article from an Israeli newspaper to illustrate your argument regarding the racist nature of the Israeli state. Within Israeli society and politics there is a huge amount of racism. And at the same time there are a lot of people who openly acknowledge this and campaign against it. When was the last time you read an article by a member of Hezbollah denouncing the racist nature of his organisation, calling for peace and equality? I certainly never have.

When you ask whether or not we should ban all representatives or spokespeople for the Israeli government, would you include the 12 Arab members of the Knesset (Jewish parliament), including Rajeb Majadele, the current minister for Science, Culture and Sport, the first Muslim Arab Minister (a large number of Israeli Arabs are Bedouin, Druze or Christian)? What about the labour ministers who have campaigned for peace and a two state solution? Then again the campaign for academics to boycott Israeli scholars/universities sought to do this... It was defeated on the grounds that including the moderate elements and holding dialogue and supporting them was a more productive route...

If we were indeed to no platform all speakers who have racist views, or participate in racist regimes, then would that not equally discount most Arab nations? Certainly all the Middle Eastern regimes who expelled their Jewish populations between 1948 and 1968 would fall foul of this rule.

It seems somewhat different to me to be prepared to enter into a dialogue with someone implicated in a regime which discriminates against minorities (religion, sex, ethnicity etc) - which in Israel's case, though serious and deplorable in many ways, at least allows its 1.4 million Arab citizens to vote, be members of parliament, receive health care (though not to the standard of Jews) and education (again not to an equal standard - and therefore something which really ought to be changed) - compared to representing an organisation which has repeatedly called for the violent removal of a sovereign state. Whether the quote you challenge earlier in this thread (admittedly not from Hezbollah) was intended to call for Jews to be wiped off the map or eradicated from history is irrelevant (aside from suggesting that you believe that languages translate perfectly, something which is is not really true) if you are in favour of such actions, as Hezbollah are, then you are not a supporter of peace.

Furthermore, to host such a speaker at a Stop the War called meeting is an entirely Orwellian action. Were the speaker to be invited to a showcase of a broad range of opinion on Middle Eastern politics, it would be one thing, and perhaps having a Hezbollah speaker would be both interesting and appropriate. But for a group who promote war to be hosted by those claiming to be in favour of peace is lunacy.

by Bristol Respect Blog Tue Feb 26, 2008 01:06

Mehrnaz Shahabi of Bristol Stop the War group responds to the critics at the Bristol Respect blog

http://bristolrespect.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/exclusiv...0%9d/

by Tim Tue Feb 26, 2008 08:23

I think you misconstrue what 'Orwellian' means.

But to quote you, 'then most coverage will be anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, to the point that some of it borders on racism'

Could it be that the Israeli state, as the dominant force in the struggle there is a bully? Could the coverage be anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian because we see there is an underdog and we wish to see justice? There are way more Palestinians killed than Israelis. It would be great to see peace, so no body is being killed and wishing for justice there is not the same as supporting every Palestinian action taken.

I would also take issue which that charge that reporting is bias - how can you then report on the actions of the Israelis such as the collective punishment on Gaza? It seems to me (as has been alleged) that the charge of racism is being used to defend injustice. Is it now being used to silence free speech?

by War=Peace Tue Feb 26, 2008 14:31

In the context used above was a reference to George Orwell's famous text 1984. In this novel, the Party use the slogan 'War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.' These slogans alongside the Ministry of Truth (which spreads propaganda) the Ministry of Love (torture), Ministry of Plenty (rationing) and Ministry of Peace (War) are emblematic of the twisted logic by which 2+2=5...

This is exactly the kind of logic which sees the Stop the War coalition welcome a speaker to Bristol who believes in waging a military conflict to remove a nation state, ending with either genocide or the forced displacement of millions.

You say that it would be great to see peace so that no one is being killed - Palestinian or Israeli. I would agree - but with the stipulation that wiping out one of those populations is not a peaceful way to bring about peace. Its a bit like saying that I believe in nuclear disarmament. But not nuclear disarmament via nuclear warfare (each bomb you drop means there's one less nuclear weapon...)

'It seems to me (as has been alleged) that the charge of racism is being used to defend injustice. Is it now being used to silence free speech?'

We don't live in the USA. The UK does not have a freedom of speech law. In fact you can be imprisoned for saying various things, incitement to racial hatred being one obvious and pertinent example.

The idea that criticising Hezbollah, or STW for inviting them to speak at an anti-war event is a defence of Israeli policies in Gaza and West Bank, or comments upon the status of health care for Arab Israeli's is beyond ludicrous. If STW wanted to create a dialogue on those issues they could have brought over a speaker who campaigns for Palestinian Solidarity, a representative of a Palestinian workers union, an Arab Israeli spokesperson etc etc. Had they done so I don't think anyone on Bindymedia would have been critical of their actions. They didn't however decide to do this. They are bringing a spokesperson from the 'Party of God' who openly declare that one of their primary goals is the destruction of Israel.

Consequently they are illustrating why the STW movement, which 5 years ago had 2 million demonstrators on the streets of London has become a political laughing stock which has alienated the vast majority of those protesters and activists.

by Emma Tue Feb 26, 2008 17:33

Human Rights Watch condemned both sides in the recent reports. As with most war, its the civilians who suffer.

Why They Died: Civilian Casualties in Lebanon during the 2006 War
http://hrw.org/reports/2007/lebanon0907/

by Martin Summers - Bristol Stop the War Coalition Tue Feb 26, 2008 21:47 rolandandjeanne at yahoo dot co dot uk 245 Stapleton Road, Bristol, BS5 OPG 07730679894

As readers will see I have given my full name. To post without doing so is in my view cowardly and deceitful. I see that those in favour of hearing Ibrahim Mousawi have at least given their correct personal names (unlike those who want to prevent him speaking). As a long standing activist in Bristol Stop the War I feel like reminding the critics that we are a Stop the War (on terror) group - not necessarily pacifist and definitely not fascist (doesn't that cap fit better those who don't want to hear other points of view?). Mousawi has been quite properly invited to speak at an open public meeting at which critics who accept open debate are perfectly free to attend and contribute in a critical fashion if they so wish. I find it a trifle bizarre that those who probably consider themselves "libertarians" are lining up with Tory halfwit David Cameron to prevent open discussion of the very serious issues of war and peace which this meeting will address. During the Irish struggle in the 1980s spokespeople for the Irish Republican movement were similarly censored with similar stupidity. I personally am opposed to Isreali Likud, the UDA and the British Conservative Party (I'm not too fond of many so called "anarchists"). I do not presume that gives me the right to ban them from public meetings. No holds barred dialouge was the only thing which has brought a fragile peace to Ireland and it is the only thing which will bring peace in the middle east and elsewhere.

by The Bristol Blogger - The Bristol Blogger Tue Feb 26, 2008 23:40

Could you indicate where this call for a ban is please? Or is Bristol Stop the War making that bit up as they go along as well?

by protestor Wed Feb 27, 2008 07:59

"Wouldn’t it be great if at least one city in the UK could organise the kind of welcome a murderous, hate-filled scumbag like Mousawi really deserves? "

Who are you trying to recruit to do this then, Bristol Blogger?

Doesn't sound much like promotion of free speech, does it - more like incitement to violence.

by clive hammond Wed Feb 27, 2008 09:45

The issue is surely that some have absolute faith that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Just a few months ago the BNP were prevented from speaking at the Oxford Union (I am no supporter of the BNP - far from it) and there was much debate on that on BIM.

Some who wanted their "Freedom" to protest managed to deny the BNP their freedom to speak as invited by the Oxford Union.

Those that stopped the event clearly felt that their rights were greater than others.

It seems the same is happening again.

It may be that Mousawi is all that the Bristol Blogger says he is. Certainly from where I stand I see little difference between Israeli violence and any other violence - Mousawi inspired or otherwise.

Only when people like Mousawi (and all the other factions) see that the rest of the world does not see things in the black or white of their absolute faith will we perhaps be able to move forward.

Isolating the protagonists so that they "live in a bubble" of self serving mutual enforcement of their ideology will never work.

Let him speak

THEN let us judge what he has to say. If nothing else this would demonstrate that we can deal with issues without violence. If we show violent protest Mousawi will probably feel more "at home". But if we listen carefully and debate with him openly, he is more likely to be convinced that violence only begets more violence.

There are far too many who wish to stifle debate and stamp out other valid ideas.

by imc volunteer Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:19

Were the Bristol Blogger's article to have contained text which we considered to be incitement to violence, BIMC would be legally obliged to hide or remove it, or we could be prosecuted. As has been pointed out, unlike the USA, the UK does not have a law guaranteeing free speech, and certain speech acts, such as incitement to violence or racial hatred are against the law and can result in prosecution.

The Bristol Blogger's words make no mention of what kind of appropriate welcome he wishes Mousawi to receive, my personal interpretation of the Blogger's call for an is that the he should be met with an empty hall. At no point in his article is violence towards Mousawi suggested.

On the one hand Bristol Stop the War and their supporters seem to be complaining about infringements on their freedom of speech, a freedom which don't exist in this country, and then on the other they are publishing material which is deliberately designed to intimidate Bristol Indymedia into removing articles which criticise their actions on legal grounds. This seems more than a touch hypocritical.

by clive hammond Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:53

Well sorry BIM Volunteer but nowhere does an "empty hall" figure in the rhetoric from the Bristol Blogger.

What does come across is a somewhat visceral hatred demonstrated by the language used.

Just my personal interpretation that I assume is as valid as anyone else’s.

by jv Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:45

As someone who has previously been (but is not currently) directly active in Bristol Indymedia and Bristol Stop The War, I have to concur that to raise any kind of threat of legal action against Bristol Indymedia is completely unacceptable. I hope 'protester' was making an off-the cuff remark, without realising the pre-history involved here, namely Bristol Indymedia having previously been shut down on another claimed (and dropped) incitement charge, or the ease with which such a statement can appear as that of Bristol Stop The War generally. As with the last time Bristol Indymedia was shut down, the Bristol Stop The War networks would again be used extensively to help relaunch it.

*Back on-topic*

Bristol Blogger is perfectly entitled to organise a counter-protest or to encourage non-attendance, as Martin Summers clearly states (someone as much at the heart of Bristol Stop The War as anyone can be), "Mousawi has been quite properly invited to speak at an open public meeting at which critics who accept open debate are perfectly free to attend and contribute in a critical fashion if they so wish."

Martin Summers also says, "No holds barred dialouge was the only thing which has brought a fragile peace to Ireland and it is the only thing which will bring peace in the middle east and elsewhere." And with this I also have to concur, my preference is that Bristol Blogger should organise a counter-protest in preference to the silence of non-attendance. It may even help up the level of debate, but unfortunately, as with here, and most other forums you care to look, it is more likely people will continue talking at each other, while paraphasing what was really said or intended from fixed positions. It can look like debate, but rarely ever is.

In many wars it is often those individuals who appear to be (or are also presented as) the most extremist blood thirsty elements, who turn out to also be those who want peace and are in a position to open up the debate, and that path to a fragile peace. If any comparisons can be made with the IRA, it is that it is the most militant elements who eventually disarmed the IRA (at least in terms of open hostilities, but it can take generations for a conflict to truly be resolved, and in the case of both Ireland, as well as Palestine/Israel, probably will.)

Is Ibrahim Mousawi one such an equivalent element, and open to a genuine dialogue? We will only ever find out by having that dialogue. Does Ibrahim Mousawi have a similar level of influence over Hezbollah as Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinnes did over the IRA army council? In a sense, we should hope so, as these are the people who need to be reached. At this level any relationships between the military and the voice are bound to be deeply intertwined, regardless of the exact definitions individuals are officially given.

One More Point:

Heathen writes, "Bristol STW in attempting to broaden the debate and engage with a wide spectrum of ideas & opinions in relation to the whole Middle East situation, and in trying to show the broader aims of the US led coalition in the region, should be applauded. However this specific meeting is part of a national STW tour (see their website), and reflects the confused & opportunistic politics of STW nationally – dominated as they are by the increasingly desperate SWP, whose every action is designed solely to increase recruitment to their ranks."

I have to generally agree with both parts of this, but this is a long running tension, and nothing new. Also, if we are being manipulated by Ibrahim Mousawi, then the debate can still be had, we can find out just how genuine he is, and play our own game of finding those necessary voices, and the same applies to any party attempting to squeeze it owns gains out of the process. The debate can still be, and still should be, had.

Heathen continues, "Perhaps the historically independent Bristol STW, who have fought long and hard to resist domination by the SWP, should disavow themselves from the meeting, or at the least oppose it in its current form, raising clearly the cry of No Gods, No Masters."

We should also alert to any other tendency attempting to impose their own exclusive slogans upon the anti-war movement. Important a voice as the slogan "No Gods, No Masters" represents, replacing Socialist manipulation with Anarchist slogans, is easily interpreted as just one more attempted manipulation, of what was always meant to be a non-aligned coalition, to be avoided. But neither is this the same thing as saying this voice should not be heard. It is difficult to avoid the reality that religious attachements have a lot to answer for in all this, on all sides, along with old-fashioned competition for increasingly scarce respources.

by War is Peace Wed Feb 27, 2008 13:10

As has already been pointed out, no one on this board has said that Mousawi should not be allowed to speak in the UK (we'll leave that to the Tories). The idea that this is an issue over freedom of speech is a STW initiated strawman. What STW has been criticised over is their decision to invite a speaker who represents an organisation who call for the destruction of a sovereign state by military means, the forced removal - by genocide or deportation - of its inhabitants and the creation of an Islamic state in its place.

Had Mousawi been invited to speak at a debate regarding conflicts in Lebanon or the current Lebanese political crisis then there would be no complaints from me. He would be an entirely relevant and appropriate speaker. What I oppose is an anti-war group putting on a pro-war speaker in what is not a debate but a speech. Similarly if Unite Against Fascism had a meeting where they had invited an unopposed speaker from the National Front, or if the Hands Off Iraqi Oil Campaign arranged a platform for BP and Shell to talk unopposed then I would have to revise my opinions of those organisations and the sincerity of their aims.

Regarding the BNP debate at Oxford with which Clive Hammond parallels this event

'Luke Tryl, president of the Oxford Union Debating Society, said "the men were not being given a platform to extol their views, but were coming to talk about the limits for free speech".

"They will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7110758.stm

This is clearly not the case with the STW event on Friday. Thus the comparison is thus a poor one. If STW wanted a debate about the future of the middle east and invited Hezbollah and Likud alongside non-racist organisations then that would have been controversial but understandable. Inviting a group such as Hezbollah to speak unopposed at an anti-war meeting however, does nothing but destroy the credibility of STW as an anti-war and anti-racist organisation.

As regards violence: it seems most interesting that those who call for war and slaughter elsewhere see violence in the words of others here.

by The Bristol Blogger - The Bristol Blogger Wed Feb 27, 2008 14:38

War is Peace, these people are an utter joke. Since when did anyone have to start "promoting" free speech as some sort of end in itself? Personally I haven't recently booked a room, served up some tasty nibbles and provided a platform for any white supremacists. Does that mean I am against free speech?

As for their whining about violence here while promoting it in the Middle East, it was their new found hero Orwell who once said, "The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I have said, it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality."

No doubt someone will be along soon to tell me I've misconstrued what Orwell means ...

by clive hammond Wed Feb 27, 2008 16:46

The point is not the semantics of how the event is/was organised.

Surely the point is that some call for certain "freedoms" for themselves but seek to deny those same freedoms from others.

It matters not that one was set up as a proper debate and one some kind of speech or lecture.

The issue is that some want to stop it, And some want to

" .............organise the kind of welcome a murderous, hate-filled scumbag like Mousawi really deserves? "

And whatever the Bristol Blogger had in mind when he wrote that - It does not instil the concept of an empty lecture theatre to my mind. No I see more of the stupidity that handed the BNP a publicity coup.

by Heathen Wed Feb 27, 2008 23:15

Is Clive that it allows odious ideas the oxygen to get going. As I’m sure you’ve learn’t from history, sometimes those odious ideas grow into parties or groups or cults that gain enough power to take control of a society.

Will you still be sitting there tapping away at your pc arguing for free speech, when the next nazi/Stalinist/religious fundamentalist or other authoritarian regime comes kicking in your door to take you away for demanding or practicising free speech? It’s happened in the past, and it happens now in countless states around the world. Personally I wont be waiting that late before trying to stop them here and elsewhere.

And the semantics of how an event is organised, and who is invited to speak, are important – not least because it gives us a pointer as to how the organisers will behave in the future, who they believe it is acceptable to work with, and how they respond to their critics. In this instance we have individuals from Respect/SWP within Stop the War arguing that opposition to Hezbollah is somehow anti-arab, pro-Israeli, even racist; twisting the free speech debate by suggesting that opposition is akin to asking the state to ban them; adopting the outrageous Blairite position of suggesting that if don’t agree with them then you are somehow in favour of their opposition (remember Blair’s insinuation that if you oppose the war on terror you must therefore be for the terrorists); and inferring that they are speaking for Bristol STW as some sort of leader when in fact they are merely making a personal point of view not issuing an agreed Bristol group statement.

Lastly I would sugest that there is no such thing as ‘no-holds barred dialogue’ when 2 or more parties in a conflict talk, it is merely what happens when the superior power in that conflict is finding it just a bit too costly to continue as they are. The Palestinian people will not achieve unhindered freedom by sitting around a table with Israel, the US, the British or anyone else. And nor will the Lebanese.

by clive hammond Thu Feb 28, 2008 08:24

....because so far not all of the factions have ever done it!

If peace and "unhindered freedom" are the goals, then lobbing missiles and getting young kids to blow themselves up on buses is never going to achieve it either. All that does is ensure that future generations feel anger and the violence just flows down the generations.

There is never a "problem" with absolute free speech - because when you have it the weight of numbers of the majority ensure that the extremist minority can be heard but dismissed for what they are.

If you are advocating the demise of freespeech because it causes YOU a problem with YOUR agenda - then by default you have aligned yourself alongside the "Nazi/Stalinist/religious fundamentalist or other authoritarian regime" you mention in your post.

by War is Peace Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:49

'If you are advocating the demise of freespeech because it causes YOU a problem with YOUR agenda - then by default you have aligned yourself alongside the "Nazi/Stalinist/religious fundamentalist or other authoritarian regime" you mention in your post.'

Alternatively you could be aligning yourself with social democratic liberal capitalist systems such as those which exist in the UK and indeed all over Europe.

Clive seems to believe that we have freedom of speech in the UK. He is wrong, presumably from having watched too much imported American TV. In this country, as with the rest of Europe speech acts such as incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence are criminal offences. If a speech act/communicative act is a criminal offence then free speech does not exist. I'm getting tired of saying the same thing...

Wrongly calling someone a Nazi/Stalinist/Religious Fundamentalist because they happen to disagree with you isn't exactly very respectful (you sound like a moderate European Social Democrat just doesn't have the same ring to it). However it is quite entertaining to see Clive's tirade for once being against the laws that govern this country rather than supporting them.

'There is never a "problem" with absolute free speech - because when you have it the weight of numbers of the majority ensure that the extremist minority can be heard but dismissed for what they are.'

Actually in times say of war the limited freedoms (of speech and others) we do have are frequently reduced, for example in WW2 the freedom to (for example) speak to Germans was removed... This kind of speech act could clearly be problematic for the liberty of the nation, and so was temporarily rendered illegal.

Furthermore regimes such as Sweden have stringent laws which prevent the advertising towards children. In this case a communicative act is made illegal as its targets are not considered to be able to rationally evaluate the content of the speech act, and are consequently likely to be unduly influenced by it.

In most cases free speech is a useful concept. Universalising it however, that is abstracting it from a cultural and historical context, is somewhat dangerous.

by clive hammond Thu Feb 28, 2008 13:56

However you package it up - it still boils down to some on here that demand the freedom to do what they want to support the agenda they are working to, but at the same time these individuals see freedom of speech as unfair as it applies to others who have a different agenda.

I repeat - Freedom of speech is never a problem unless you yourself wish to act as a dictator.

Quoting what happened 60 odd years ago during the time when we as a country were fighting the Nazi/Fascist alliance is so pathetically puerile as to be laughable.

And yes I do object to todays assaults on our Freedom to make religious jokes and to say anything and everything that we want. But I see this as being born of the silly Political Correctness brigade rather than any fascist plot.

This PC nonsense allows the like of a lady that told me once that I should not ask for my coffee "white" but I should say "with milk" or "without milk" - I just laughed.

I am laughing again now.

by War is Peace Thu Feb 28, 2008 15:24

Andrew - Freedom of speech means allowing racists, sexists, fascists, homophobes, bigots, genocidal manics, pro-paedophilia perverts and other groups who seek to repress freedoms (of speech or otherwise) the same right to express themselves without recourse from the law as everyone else. (as has repeatedly been pointed out this legal freedom does not exist in the UK or Europe)

This issue of nation or continent wide legal dictates is far removed however from supporting a pro-war organisation by giving them a platform to speak unopposed at an anti war event. No one on this forum has called for this to be deemed illegal, or for it to be met with violence (however many times Clive wants to deceive himself otherwise). What a number of people have said is that it is hypocritical for an anti-war group to support a racist pro-war organisation, and that STW's popularity, which was immense five years ago will continue to wither in the face of such actions.

'I repeat - Freedom of speech is never a problem unless you yourself wish to act as a dictator.'

Perhaps you should look the word 'never' up in the dictionary. It means without exception. If anyone can find a historical circumstance in which free speech was limited with good reason by people who did not wish to act as dictators then your statement is false. I'm guessing this is why instead of attempting to refute the argument which was posited regarding freedom of speech in a time of war - with Britain in WW2 being presented as as a concrete example - you merely chose to start hurling insults around.

If you wish to put your toys back in your pram and make a reasoned statement regarding freedom of speech in the UK today I would probably agree with you. However this is different from the universal statements contained in your last two posts. This would however, be entirely off-topic.

This has been a thread about a anti-war movement giving an unopposed platform on a UK tour to a racist pro-war speaker. Not about UK laws governing incitement to violence or the racial and religious hatred act 2006 - ie the legal framework which exists within this country which means that there is not freedom of speech. If you wish to rail against certain laws within this country can i suggest writing an article and posting it to UK Indymedia, where it would be entirely relevant.

by clive hammond Thu Feb 28, 2008 17:41

So come on - lets have a vote on the following:-

"Free speech - a good thing even if it gives the extremists the opportunity to be heard?" - Yes or No

And PLEASE - no more word wooze trying to prove that because we have a few PC numpties out there trying to protect various minorities from having jokes said about them of being offended when I ask for "black" or "white" coffee that we no longer have Freedom of speech!

For me the answer above is a catagoric - YES.

May I politely suggest that now is the time for a simply YES or NO response.

by protestor Thu Feb 28, 2008 18:52

.... with my "incitement to violence" post, it was in no way intended to cause problems for BIMC, who gives us an invaluable voice which is greatly appreciated.

I admit that my post, taken in isolation, could have a greater impact than intended, but it was simply a response to the immediately previous post by the Bristol Blogger, where he denied that he was advocating banning this speaker, and accused Martin Summers of making it up:-

"Could you indicate where this call for a ban is please? Or is Bristol Stop the War making that bit up as they go along as well?"

The underlying theme of his article is distain for this speaker and amazement that Stop the War should invite him to speak. He then ends his article with the sentence:-

"Wouldn’t it be great if at least one city in the UK could organise the kind of welcome a murderous, hate-filled scumbag like Mousawi really deserves? "

So to deny that his article is advocating the banning of this speaker on the grounds that he never used the word "ban" shows that the Bristol Blogger is as adept a weasel word-smith as Alistair Campbell.

by not a sexist Sat Mar 01, 2008 15:22

"I can only hope that the SWP fall to bits and a genuine, inclusive anti-war movement can grow in its place - regardless of race, religion or whatever."

It'll have to be someone other than you who does it then Andrew, because a foul mouthed sexist who wants to exclude entire sections of the left is never going to manage to do anything other than shout incoherent abuse, while everyone else gives you a very wide berth.

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/687991

by sapphire Sat Mar 01, 2008 18:23

The Bristol Blogger couldn't even be bothered to up to his own protest!

What a joke. What a coward!

That is now clear to everyone.

by sapphire Sun Mar 02, 2008 13:27

"Not to mention anymous keyboard heroes like you..."

Don't you mean anonymous keyboard heroes like the Bristol Blogger you don't even turn up to their own protests. The definition of a self-appointed armchair activist if ever there was one, but because he calls himself an anarchist, he will always suffer the delusion that he isn't a pompous self-appointed leader, and one without any balls or backbone too.

by The Bristol Blogger - The Bristol Blogger Sun Mar 02, 2008 13:51

Is the SWP now running the appointment process for local bloggers? How do you apply? And what qualifications do you need? An Oxbridge degree and a toff background by any chance?

by sapphire Sun Mar 02, 2008 17:00

It really is truly sad how anarchists seem convinced that the only people who disagree with them must be the SWP. It is this delusion that only the SWP disagree with them, and that the rest of the population must be closet anarchists, which strangely enough makes them identical to the SWP, who suffer a similar delusion that anyone who disagrees with them must by definition be an anarchist.

The idea that the general population don't have anytime for either of you is the one thing neither of you can face up to.

You deserve each other.