Comments on: should “we” ban the bnp?

By: bill stickers

bill stickers — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:01:17 +0000

ah, this is a totally SWP based interpretation of No Platform though. Its funny you go *all the way back* to the 1990’s NUS decision for the misty origins of no platform! The actual tradition has nothing to do with state bans, that isn’t what anyone except maybe the SWP take it to mean either. Its not about banning their media or creating new laws to stop the BNP from saying what it likes. As you point out, we the Left would be subject to the same law – calling for class hatred and war, just as bad as race war from the judicial standpoint.

No Platform means a stance of No Platform will be taken in the Left, and we will prevent our opponents on the far right from having a platform. Wherever. However. Passing motions in the NUS isn’t neccessarily part of that at all, universities should not even be able to DREAM of hosting the BNP et al.

The whole failure of the No Platform argument is when its rolled out as liberal good sense. It isn’t. Its socialist good sense. If you are a liberal, its going to be very alarming to you, sounding very much like one group of thugs want to silence another group of thugs at the expense of public order and the Enlightenment principle of ‘i’d die for your right to say it’ etc etc

I actually think No Platform is *less* worrying to people when its played as “i don’t want racists on my streets so i hit him” rather than “i think the state should ban a party with 1million votes cos i think it has a nazi past”.

So, in short – i’m with your critique of the SWP’s disgracefully shit argument for a state ban. But that is not what No Platform means, and i think the left should continue to hold a No Platform approach to the BNP. If we cannot stand up for our revolutionary politics, in what sense are we revolutionary?

“Working people will only trust a political party that not only offers real change to the status quo, but appears to know how to do it. This is why community organising is so important, this is why Scottish Socialists despite the splits are doing better than their English and Welsh counterparts.” – there’s a pretty good critique of that approach here, on your own site:
http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/electoral-parties-lets-not-put-old-wine-in-new-bottles/#comment-3550

By: Richie

Richie — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:34:30 +0000

No nazi has a right to speak in my ear shot- they are advocating murder on a genocidal scale and as such place themselves outside any form of reasonable debate.
If you think that debating with them will produce anything you have no knowledge of how they operate- remember they want us dead!
I will talk to people with dumb assed racist attitudes (I have an extended family) but members of the BNP will receive only blows.
Advocating a decent just and caring alternative to all authoritarianism is the counter to the scum- they have nothing to say on that issue.

By: Andrew Coates

Andrew Coates — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:40:59 +0000

Well said.

But we do actually go out and fight with solidarity and love.

Ipswich Unemployed Action is based on this.

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:09:41 +0000

As The BNP were elected by 1,000,000 people democratically.It would be impossible to ban them surely.If you ban their speaking then you are also banning the 1,000,000 from making a free choice in their voting.So all those people arent allowed to speak either then?
Every site is going on about them Nazis etc etc. They were elected like it or not.The only way is to leave them alone and listen to them speak.The public will decide.No one can decide for them.If not then we would be living in a communist Britain,Which could be worse than the BNP.
I am not saying theyre right or wrong.I am saying we have had enough of all this racist,facism,etc.Surely theres something else you could discuss.