Eh?

My mum was an anti-racist activist in the 70s and 80s. She fought the National Front in Newham, Wood Green and New Cross; she helped organise marches after the murder of Altab Ali in Whitechapel; she participated in neighbourhood police-monitoring groups, at a time when the Metropolitan police faced intense criticism from black and Asian community groups for its failure to adequately investigate racist murders, its protection of the NF from counter-protesters, and inflammatory “swamp” style policing. I grew up listening to her stories with the sense of awe you might feel when hearing about the labours of Hercules: these feats are impressive, but ultimately consigned to the past. Skinheads, swastikas, Paki-bashers – such monsters had long been laid to rest. The past felt so distant, it may as well have been myth.

Whut?

its protection of the NF from counter-protesters

The police should not protect people going about their lawful business from the attentions of the mob?

28 comments on “Eh?

  1. If you dig into a pile of horseshit you don’t find a pony. Here’s from later in the article:

    The demand for adequate social housing provision is something that transcends race, religion and settled status. The London Renters’ Union aims to bring together tenants from all walks of life to collectively agitate against extortionate rents and rogue landlords. If projects such as these can link up migrants and people of colour whose conditions are hobbled by right to rent legislation with economically precarious white Brits who’ve been taught to blame foreigners for the scarcity of cheap homes, then the far right is effectively outflanked on what has been some of its most secure terrain.

  2. Ash Sarkar is an asian communist. I suggest that if she doesn’t like English people in England advocating for their own rights, she should find another country with more compliant natives.

  3. I clicked through to the article and tried to read it. There is absolutely no logical sense or coherence to it. It’s basically just word salad pushing various standard leftist arguments for why left is good and right is bad. The suggestions are just statements of good intentions with nothing actionable or any details.

    It also positions Corbyn and McDonnell as the stalwarts against anti-semitism.

    Basically completely disconnected from reality. These people are crazy

  4. I thought the default position was to claim that ones parents or grandparents or even oneself were at cable street – Corbyn claims his mother was there (no proof required) so she’s missing a trick there. According to my calculations the claims of lefties would lead one to believe that 2,000,000 protesters were there rather than 20000. Also no mention of the protesters rioting against the police when the BUF was dispersed.
    My personal favourite was this – “Just look at the United States – the culture industry is undoubtedly progressive in its output, and yet the combined forces of YG, Mark Ruffalo and Beyoncé couldn’t keep Donald Trump out of the White House.” No wonder Trump won.

    It seems one of her greatest causes is supporting Islam – how did that work out for the communists in Iran when the mullahs took over ?
    Another village missing it’s idiot.

  5. Re “its protection of the NF from counter-protesters” – would a bloodbath honestly have been preferable, so long as the right side won? I’ve got zero truck with the far right, but I do want to see town centres free of political violence. I’m pretty sure she would be quick to complain if a left-wing demo was attacked by counter-protestors and the police didn’t “protect” them.

    The best the police can do in these circumstances is keep the two sides apart, try to manage the incident passing off without violence, and keep an eye out (either to apprehend now or later) those people who are breaking the law.

  6. “Re “its protection of the NF from counter-protesters” – would a bloodbath honestly have been preferable, so long as the right side won?”

    Many people think so. Many believe “winning” is the entire purpose and point of the game.

    The question they would ask in return would be “Wouldn’t a bloodbath be better than letting the Fascists keep winning more support until they take over society?” (Or indeed, many other less violent forms of not letting such people go about their lawful business.) Is a minor bloodbath now better than the *major* bloodbath you’d have to have to kick them out of power once they took over? Anyone remember World War II?

    We’ve had the same argument about Islam. Should radical Islamists preaching (but not practicing) jihad who are as such just “going about their lawful business” be allowed to do so without interference by the police?

    I’d say yes to both, because I think the free speech principle itself is worth standing up for, even if I despise what they’re using it to say. But as you know, there are others who argue otherwise. “What if you’re wrong about the virtues of political freedom, and they win? Don’t people who advocate denying political rights and freedoms to others thereby forfeit their own?”

    It’s an interesting question to debate.

  7. @NiV “It’s an interesting question to debate.”

    There is no question worth debating with the left.

    They don’t debate. They believe they have devine truth.

    The mistake the right has been making since Mrs T was booted out was to believe that the left could be reasoned with and were open to persuasion. That it was worth explaining things to them in the hope they’d understand. That they shouldn’t be offended.

    The left get offended as a profession.

    It is not that the left know nothing, it is that they know so much that isn’t true.

  8. “The mistake the right has been making since Mrs T was booted out was to believe that the left could be reasoned with and were open to persuasion. That it was worth explaining things to them in the hope they’d understand.”

    I know the feeling! 🙂

  9. Smug in your own left-sucking certainty as ever NiV.

    The left are an increasing danger because we have sat back and let them win the propaganda war and smear their evil shite everywhere. That and the fact that their creed channels adolescent angst into lifelong fanatical evil.

    When you see that senile SOS Corbyn you are watching a clapped out relic of adolescence still trying to stick it to middle-class Mummy and Daddy.

    We may have to fight fire with fire just to win. That creates a danger that scum arises on our side who will want permanent “emergency” so they can lord it for ever.

    But if the left win everything good is fucked. Likely for numerous lifetimes not just ours.

    So we still can’t let them win.

  10. The left don’t have principles, merely opinions.

    It doesn’t matter what someone does, it’s who they are.

    Trump is a fascist who cheated to win the presidency.

    Jeremy Corbyn is an honest, sincere politician who is a crusader against racism.

    You can’t debate an opinion when facts are irrelevant to one of the debaters.

  11. Diversity means people who have been in your country for five minutes (and their equally ungrateful offspring) get to tell you what opinions you’re allowed to express.

  12. Don’t people who advocate denying political rights and freedoms to others thereby forfeit their own?

    Imagine having even the most superficial acquaintance with human history – or even the history of Britain since about 1997 – and believing this.

  13. @NiV: The question they would ask in return would be “Wouldn’t a bloodbath be better than letting the Fascists keep winning more support until they take over society?” (Or indeed, many other less violent forms of not letting such people go about their lawful business.) Is a minor bloodbath now better than the *major* bloodbath you’d have to have to kick them out of power once they took over? Anyone remember World War II?

    But a bloodbath at Cable Street didn’t happen, and Mosely’s Fascists never came into power. QED.

  14. Should radical Islamists preaching (but not practicing [sic]) jihad who are as such just “going about their lawful business” be allowed to do so without interference by the police?
    I’d say yes to both, because I think the free speech principle itself is worth standing up for, even if I despise what they’re using it to say.

    Numbers matter there! Just one? Perhaps. But tens of thousands? A couple of million? Surely, No!

    An Oxbridge entrance question used to be: ‘To what extent should we tolerate the intolerant?’ You need to think that over, NiV.

  15. @theopratus – if someone went round shouting death to muslims, behead those who insult christianity I’m sure the authorities would act differently. Surely islamic preachers are inciting hatred ( ie just as it says in the koran – a hate manual)

  16. Moqifen

    Quite so, unfortunately.

    A liberal society should prohibit incitement to violence, not incitement to hatred. The classical liberals (Locke, J S Mill) premised their doctrines on the assumption of a racially homogenous (and basically christian) society. In this context, a few Islamists promoting literal jihad (religious violence) would not be much of a problem.

    In a still basically Christian, yet now multi-racial and multi-faith, society, we cannot afford to be so tolerant. Anyone who threatens violence should be prosecuted. Given its incompatibility with western values, Islam should be disadvantaged, and its adherents encouraged to repatriate.

  17. “Wouldn’t a bloodbath be better than letting the Fascists keep winning more support until they take over society?”

    Isn’t there a presumption there that a few whispy bearded liberals are going to be the ones walking away from the bloodbath?

  18. @HiV

    “Should radical Islamists preaching (but not practicing) jihad who are as such just “going about their lawful business” be allowed to do so without interference by the police?

    I’d say yes to both, because I think the free speech principle itself is worth standing up for, even if I despise what they’re using it to say.”

    Criminal activity – inciting violence – is not protected as free speech. Dumbass.

  19. “Smug in your own left-sucking certainty as ever NiV.”

    I’m not the one copying the left’s tactics…

    “The left are an increasing danger because we have sat back and let them win the propaganda war and smear their evil shite everywhere. That and the fact that their creed channels adolescent angst into lifelong fanatical evil.”

    Uh Huh.

    As the race activists would put it: “The National Front are an increasing danger because we have sat back and let them win the propaganda war and smear their evil shite everywhere. That and the fact that their creed channels adolescent angst into lifelong fanatical evil.”

    Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    “We may have to fight fire with fire just to win.”

    Fight fanatical evil with your own fanatical evil?

    “But if the left win everything good is fucked. Likely for numerous lifetimes not just ours. So we still can’t let them win.”

    1980s race activists: “But if the National Front win everything good is fucked. Likely for numerous lifetimes not just ours. So we still can’t let them win.”

    “The left don’t have principles, merely opinions.”

    True. But are the right any different? After all, as Exxy says: “We may have to fight fire with fire just to win.”

    “Diversity means people who have been in your country for five minutes (and their equally ungrateful offspring) get to tell you what opinions you’re allowed to express.”

    Yep. They’re adapting and fitting right in! Just like the natives!

    Or are you not telling them what opinions they’re allowed to express?

    “Imagine having even the most superficial acquaintance with human history – or even the history of Britain since about 1997 – and believing this.”

    Imagine!

    “But a bloodbath at Cable Street didn’t happen, and Mosely’s Fascists never came into power. QED.”

    Yes. Mosely stopped the march in order to prevent one.

    But which Q does that D?

    “Numbers matter there! Just one? Perhaps. But tens of thousands? A couple of million? Surely, No!”

    So you’d tell the race activists that if there’s only one Fascist marching, they shouldn’t bother (‘perhaps’!), but if there are tens of thousands then anything goes?

    “An Oxbridge entrance question used to be: ‘To what extent should we tolerate the intolerant?’ You need to think that over, NiV.”

    Have done and am doing. You?

    “if someone went round shouting death to muslims, behead those who insult christianity I’m sure the authorities would act differently”

    I’m pretty sure people have done that. The EDL and NF have gone on marches, and been protected by the police, yes?

    “Criminal activity – inciting violence – is not protected as free speech.”

    Abolished in 2008, by the Serious Crime Act 2007.

    However, the it was not the incitement as such that was considered criminal, but that a crime was caused to happen. Causing it to happen, or attempting to make it happen, by *saying* something did not excuse it. But saying it with no definite expectation that it would be done as a result is just speech. It requires mens rea.

    Jolly good job, too. Or some people here would be in a lot of trouble! ‘Ecksian Purge’, anyone?

    “The classical liberals (Locke, J S Mill) premised their doctrines on the assumption of a racially homogenous (and basically christian) society.”

    I must have missed that bit. So far as I can see, the arguments they presented apply generally.

    What sort of societies does Mill consider in his essay?

    Wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests, and its feelings of class superiority. The morality between Spartans and Helots, between planters and negroes, between princes and subjects, between nobles and roturiers, between men and women, has been for the most part the creation of these class interests and feelings: and the sentiments thus generated, react in turn upon the moral feelings of the members of the ascendant class, in their relations among themselves.

    “Planters and negroes”? Racially homogeneous?

    History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries. To speak only of religious opinions: the Reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther, and was put down. Arnold of Brescia was put down. Fra Dolcino was put down. Savonarola was put down. The Albigeois were put down. The Vaudois were put down. The Lollards were put down. The Hussites were put down. Even after the era of Luther, wherever persecution was persisted in, it was successful. In Spain, Italy, Flanders, the Austrian empire, Protestantism was rooted out; and, most likely, would have been so in England, had Queen Mary lived, or Queen Elizabeth died. Persecution has always succeeded, save where the heretics were too strong a party to be effectually persecuted. No reasonable person can doubt that Christianity might have been extirpated in the Roman empire.

    Uniformly Christian? The Romans?

    Mill discusses the Romans, Greeks, Spartans, slaves, the French Revolution, the persecution of atheists, the Catholic-Protestant religious wars… Hmm.

    “In a still basically Christian, yet now multi-racial and multi-faith, society, we cannot afford to be so tolerant.”

    Ah! Of course! There’s always an excuse!

    And don’t you think the anti-racists on the left both *can* and *do* say exactly the same thing? They have to fight fire with fire, intolerance with intolerance, evil with evil…

    As Orwell said: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” We just take turns wearing the boot.

  20. Not going to fisk your deserts of drivel NiV–too late at night.

    But if my solution is bad (and I don’t disagree there) –you have none at all. The great Jihadi conversion scheme shows how big a fool you are.

    The left would kick your head in in 30 seconds flat. Or maybe a bit longer if they wanted to hear you beg and heap shite on your former beliefs in a (vain) attempt to save your life.

    Against nasty evil and violent people you have NOTHING. I at least am willing to meet the bastards head on. All you can offer is fantasy island fuckwittery.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.