There was another anti-BNP protest today, organized again by Unite Against Fascism (UAF), who also organised the recent egging of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons outside Parliament. The meeting was slightly different and better organised, as there were stalls, more leafletting, and thankfully a PA system. The turnout was a little lower, maybe around 150-200, but I didn't recognize many there who were at the previous protest. I heard all the speakers, and definitely agree with the sentiment, though more or less with the arguments.
The aim of the meeting this afternoon was about recruiting people to distribute leaflets much more widely and get the message out for a large rally to be held on 27 June at 11am in Barker's Pool. That square can easily hold 1000 people without looking near full, and it would probably take three times that amount to get a crowd that looked like it dominated the space and not the other way round. Sadly, I don't think they're going to get more than 1000 people, and maybe many less.
Why? Well, it's not that the UAF is a terrible organization, it isn't, as it has been taking the lead on this issue since well before the European elections, and that's to their credit. The problem is that isn't able to connect beyond the audience it already has. There are three points where I think it must improve if it's going to build the level of support needed to be successful. The order is deliberate, with the first being the easiest and the one they could implement within two weeks.
1) All three of the stalls and all but one of the seven speakers were from socialist groups or unions. (I'm including the UAF in this count, as although it does have broad support from the three major political parties and various independent groups, its main backers and organizers are from unions.) Of the three stalls, one was for the UAF which is expected, but the other two were for the Socialist Party and the Socialist Worker. Of the speakers, one was UAF, five were from unions (although one of these was a local students' union, which is not exactly the same thing), and the remaining one from an Irish community group.
I don't want to sound harsh, or dismissive of these groups, but they simply don't provide a full spectrum of citizens in the city. I understand that the three main political parties have agreed in Sheffield not to campaign against the BNP to avoid the impression that they're 'ganging up' on them, and instead leave it to community and other groups. But why where these groups not better represented? Maybe they had been invited but turned it down? I don't know. All of the speakers mentioned the need for those threatened by the BNP to come together, to build a coalition of faiths, enthicities, sexualities, political beliefs, disabilities, but only one speaker actually represented any of them. The non-UAF groups and literature present was not only tangential to the cause, but created a 'branding' for the protest that I feel would put many people off.
The UAF shouldn't tell these groups not attend, as that too would prevent the creation of a broad coalition. But it should work hard to get other groups to come along too: promise them a chance to speak, space for their stall, and that they won't be second play to the socialists and unionists. Relevant groups must exist in Sheffield, and they too will have their own supporters and networks from which the campaign can benefit. I don't know if this lack of diversity in groups is the same all over the country, or just here, I haven't been to meetings elsewhere. But there needs to be all kinds of people and speakers at the next rally, as these groups must represent themselves in the campaign.
A Socialist Worker flyer handed out at the meeting.2) The language used in attacking the BNP sometimes seemed misplaced. Not all speakers, but one or two in particular, spoke in a way that I found alienating due to its hyperbole. Nobody should shrink from calling the BNP fascists, and racists, and xenophobes: because that's what they are. Nor should we apologize for campaigning vigorously against what is, admittedly, a small and relatively powerless political group: because we know that they're dangerous and need to be tackled now. However, the continual use of the phrase "Nazi BNP" strikes me as ill-considered. Making the statement once that the BNP are linked to the Nazi party, is important and necessary. Reminding listeners that they share ideology and beliefs allows for an obvious and useful comparison. But constant repetition, the unfailing preceding of "BNP" by "Nazi" as if though we don't know who the BNP are and we can't remember what they stand for is not only insulting, but likely to lead to a devaluation in its rhetorical power. We use wisely what we use sparingly.
Likewise, one speaker made a brilliant thought out argument about hate crimes. She spoke about how the presence of a locus of hate in a community (in this case a bookshop) lead to a normalization of hate, and a consequent rise in hate crime. This is understandable, this is something I can connect with and take with me when I think about why I want to stop the BNP, and inform any actions to stop even the seeds of hate from being scattered. But another speaker ruined this message. She sledgehammered the Holocaust into her speech, almost promising that it was only one election away. It was out of proportion, and it wasn't something I could use. I felt that were genocide really to be taking place I would be powerless to stop it, yet I knew the likelihood of it actually happening soon was ridiculously small. Her words and her images demotivated me, but not because I disagreed that genocide is a bad thing, rather because they stripped me of power and credulity.
Language must be moderate and careful, and it must reflect in the listener their own understanding of both what is happening, and what can be done.
3) There seemed to be little reconciliation with those who voted for the BNP. Only one speaker mentioned that their success was partly a protest vote against not only mainstream political parties but the conditions they find themselves living in. She recognized that they have to be offered something else, something they can grab onto if they are to let go of the BNP. I agree with this, very strongly. Racism and intolerence is undoubtedly present in those communities where the BNP was strongest, but so is poverty and deprivation. The idea of scapegoating others must be very appealing to those who see problems all around them, and this is why the BNP succeed in capturing so many votes. The number of people primarily motivated by racism is probably small in comparison with those who just want to feel like there is some kind of solution to their situation.
Without giving these voters another way of conceiving of the social and economic landscape, attacking the BNP is akin to attacking them, and that could make matters worse. Ignoring the reasons why they voted BNP for fear of validating their worldview won't lead anywhere. Of course no campaign against the BNP should debate on their terms, but it should address the very real greivances people have, and seek to offer an explanation that doesn't rely on scapegoating.
----
Well, another very long post. I hope the rally on 27 June goes well and is well attended. I aslo hope to be there myself, and will be looking and listening to see how they intend to move the campaign forward.
Edit: There was a member of a faith group present at the Monday protest, which goes partly to my first point. Obviously though, the fact that I was at that rally and wasn't aware he was there still makes the point more or less valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment