This debate over whether fascists should be entitled to “freedom of speech”, is by no means new.

It arose strongly in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany as liberals, socialists and communists argued over how to respond to the rise of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis.

It returned in the 1970s, when the National Front was sending its thugs to march through Lewisham and Southall.

While the historical circumstances vary, the broad outlines of the debate remain the same.

On the one hand, liberals tend to frame the argument in terms of free speech, arguing that however reprehensible the fascists are, they should be defeated through debate, just like any other opinion or political current.

Socialists, in contrast, tend to argue that fascism is not a political current like any other and should not be treated as such. Fascists are dedicated to destroying every vestige of democracy and have no misgivings about using thuggery to get their way.

Mere words are not enough to defeat them – they must also be physically confronted and excluded from public space.

Moreover, fascists do not seek out public platforms in order to test the strength of their ideas. What they seek is the veneer of respectability that such platforms provide – a veneer they desperately need in the aftermath of the Second World War and Hitler’s Holocaust.

The socialist argument is based on historical experience. Fascism first appeared in Italy in the early 1920s, when Benito Mussolini organised armed squads of war veterans to terrorise the workers’ movement by breaking up meetings and murdering trade unionists.

The state did little or nothing to stop these “blackshirts” and the fascist movement rapidly grew.

But thuggery on the streets was only one aspect of Mussolini’s strategy. The other was to court respectability by posing as a legitimate political party and contesting elections.

This two-pronged attack – pretending to be committed to democratic norms while organising terror on the ground – has remained the characteristic defining feature of fascism ever since.

The mainstream parliamentary parties in Mussolini’s time did not know how to react to the fascists. They deplored the blackshirts’ violence – while in practice doing nothing about it and insisted that the fascists had to be treated like any other party and granted the same constitutional rights.

The results were disastrous. Threatened with an increasingly militant workers’ movement, the Italian ruling class allowed Mussolini to seize power in 1922.

The fine words about democracy disappeared as the fascists abolished press freedom, suspended all democratic rights and went about expunging every trace of opposition, protest or criticism from their new “corporate state”.

Just ten years later in Germany the same pattern repeated itself. The mainstream parties of Germany’s post-war Weimar republic – conservative, liberal and social democrat – all united to condemn Hitler’s Nazis, but insisted that they had to be challenged only through constitutional means.

Once in power, Hitler threw into the concentration camps those very same people who had once defended his rights to “free speech”.

The BNP today stand in the same political tradition as Hitler and Mussolini. So the BNP are not simply a bunch of obnoxious racists – they are an organised political force that deliberately aims at smashing up what little democracy we have at present and instituting a racial reign of terror.

They have a strategy for achieving those aims – a strategy that has worked in the past and can work again.

Fortunately we too have a strategy for stopping the fascist threat. It involves recognising that fascism is an exceptional threat to all of us, and that it cannot be treated as a legitimate form of politics.

It is incumbent on all of us to unite together and prevent fascism from getting a toehold in public space.

And our resistance should not be confined to legal or constitutional means – we have to build the broadest possible movement that can physically stop the Nazis from organising.

Organisation

So what does this mean for the arguments around no platform today? We need to make clear to people that the BNP is a fascist organisation – and that as such they pose a unique danger and should not enjoy the rights granted to democratic parties.

We say no platform for fascists because of what they are and what they do, not because of their “opinions”, objectionable though these undoubtedly are.

Griffin’s strategy with the BNP over the past few years has been to try to cover up the organisation’s fascist character, a strategy pursued by the French Nazi leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

So Griffin claims the BNP has put its thuggish days behind it – he even claims to have repudiated racism. We need to explain to people that these are lies that follow a long tradition of fascist parties masking their true intentions.

We also need to make clear that no platform works, and that is why the movement has adopted it as a tactic. In Britain no platform policies have successfully prevented Nazis from organising on campus.

In France, where the argument has not been won, Le Pen’s fascists have built up an extensive student organisation, and in some cases taken control of student unions.

We also need to connect words and deeds. There is a continuity between fascist hate speech directed at ethnic minorities and physical attacks upon them.

The former encourages the latter. Giving Griffin a platform at the Oxford Union sends a signal to his bootboys on the streets – it gives them the confidence to go on the attack, with frequently murderous consequences.

Pointless

Liberal common sense tells us that democracy is a matter of exchanging views and critical reason. That is true – but there’s a lot more to it than that.

One cannot rationally “debate” with those who systematically lie about their real aims and views, nor can one “debate” those who use terror tactics and thuggery against ethnic minorities, trade unionists and anyone who disagrees with them.

And why should those who have lost their families in the Holocaust have to “debate” the reality of what happened with someone like Irving, whose only purpose is to dissemble and lie in order to muddy the waters of history – and thus pave the way to repeating Hitler.

Griffin promises an “all white” Britain, just as Hitler once promised a “Jew free” Germany. And Griffin’s politics will follow the same genocidal logic if they are ever given the chance.

That is why it is pointless to grant the fascists a platform in order to “defeat them in debate”. Such set-piece events do nothing to stop the fascists outside the formalities of the debating chamber.

They do not deter the fascists from organising – on the contrary, fascists crave the respectability and legitimacy that such “debates” inevitably confer upon them.

What does defeat the fascists – and what they are most scared of – is mass grassroots opposition to their presence. That is how the Anti Nazi League defeated the National Front in the 1970s and it is how we can defeat the BNP today.

Democracy relies on the minds and bodies of ordinary people – and it is this force that offers the means to fight fascism’s threat to democracy.

NO PLATFORM FOR THE BNP!

Join the protest, 25^th March Crown house, St leonards, from 6.00 pm

The BNP have been invited to attend an election hustings debate along side the main political parties. The BNP is a Fascist Party, debating with them only gives them the credibility and publicity they desire to spread their racist lies. The BNP today stand in the same political tradition as Hitler and Mussolini. The BNP are not simply a bunch of obnoxious racists – they are an organised political force that deliberately aims at smashing up what little democracy we have at present and institute a racial reign of

Terror!

Fortunately we too have a strategy for stopping the fascist BNP threat. It involves recognizing that fascism is an exceptional threat to all of us, and that it cannot be treated as a legitimate form of politics, nor given a platform to spread race hate and lies.

Join the protest and lets say NO to the bnp in Hastings!

For more information contact hastingsuaf@yahoo.co.uk

Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/HASTINGS-UNITE-AGAINST-FASCISM/319736376510

To suggest the bnp are just another normal party fails to consider the nature of the bnp, their history and any debate could end up improving their standing in Hastings.

If you look at the history of the bnp and its leaders, you will see they have a long history on the extreme right. Most of their leading figures have extreme right wing views from their leaders denial of the holocaust down to a recent interview with “Mark and Joey”, on Radio 1’s Newsbeat where by Mark Collet pretends to be “just an average bnp voter”. But if you dig a bit deeper you find his dispatches appearance on “young, Nazi and proud” bestowing the virtues of Hitler and is quoted as saying he’d “rather his children grew up in nazi Germany then his home town” and is currently head of publicity and editor of the bnp tabloid Voice of Freedom.  This does not represent a party who believe in, or respect democracy.

Also Nick Griffin and his closest supporters have shared a platform with the likes of David Duke former grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, the fascist American group National Alliance, NPD fascists from Germany and the Italian Nazis, Forza Nuova. Does this look like a party who have any belief in democracy other then an opportunity for publicity and legitimisation? So debating with them will only strengthen their position in Hastings and St Leonards.

The bnp may have changed from boots to suits but a leopard cannot change its spots. Since Nick Griffin took over he has seen how the French FN operate, expensive suits, well turned out, playing down the main themes of their constitution and ideas to appear mainstream and attractive to the public. But scratch the surface and like the French FN you will find the same Nazi values lurk beneath. The bnp may try and look like a normal party, may try an act like a normal party but it is a fascist party. There must be no debate with fascists.

You may consider the bnp to be just another “trend” of Liberal Democracy so frame the arguments about debating with them in terms of free speech. Suggesting no matter how reprehensible the fascists are they should be defeated through debate, like any other political trend. But we believe Fascism isn’t another political trend and should not be treated as such. The fascist bnp are dedicated to destroying every vestige of democracy and use violence as well as democracy to achieve this. Liberal common sense tells us that democracy is a matter of exchanging views and critical reason. That is true – but there’s a lot more to it than that.

Can you share a platform and rationally “debate” with those who systematically lie about their real aims and views? Can you really “debate” with those who use terror tactics and thuggery against ethnic minorities, trade unionists and anyone who disagrees with them?

The bnp do not seek public platforms to test the strength of their ideas, what they seek is the veneer of respectability, which a platform provides. As the BBC appearance on Question time and BBC South East have shown. The down side of this was, in many peoples eyes the bnp came out of question time as the “hard done by” party, as the entire show ended up focused on the bnp. Leading to 2000 new member requests. Sharing a platform on this occasion did not defeat the bnp. Sharing a platform and debating with the bnp will not expose them or defeat them.

The bnp have recently been forced to change their constitution to allow Black and Asian people to join but this does not mean they are no longer racists. Soon after the forced change a black member appeared on their website claiming to be one Daniel Muranbuti. In truth it was a photo of an American called Oscar Grant, a young father shot by a police officer while returning from San Francisco after a New Years Eve party. As mentioned earlier a leopard does not change its spots. The bnp are still a racist/fascist party.

Debating with the bnp could also lead to them gaining more support across the town. With the general election coming many of those standing will attempt to take some of the bnp vote by talking tough on such issues as immigration. You need to remember immigration is something to be celebrated, with all the positive aspects it has added to this country. This will not defeat the bnp but fuel their support. History has shown if you give the bnp an inch they will not go away but come back for more then a mile!  There is a real danger any debate could end up with parties lurching to the right to steal the bnp argument. This will not defeat the bnp, and may end up increasing their support.

The bnp do not have a single elected representative in Hastings or St Leonards, have finished no where each time they have stood and as yet do not have a solid base in the town. We are concerned about why they have been invited to participate in this debate, this being the case?  We suggest it was done for the publicity inviting the bnp would generate, without considering the dangers of giving them a platform to spread their hate and lies.

There are over 90 different nationalities living and working in Hastings and St Leonards, what message does this give out to them to see their political candidates debating with a party who would have them thrown out of the country? Or the people of St Leonards who were lambasted by Nick Prince in BBC Southeast’s inside out, who said it had become “like Asia” and “wasn’t British”.

The foreign tourists and workers who have chosen to settle in Hastings and St Leonards, have had a positive impact, helped local business, the local economy and play a role in the success and vibrancy of Hastings and St Leonards. The bnp will only focus on the negative to justify their brand of divisive politics, and if given the chance destroy the success of everybody in Hastings.

There is more to the political compass than just left and right wing. Left wing basically means that the poor majority benefit, while right wing means that only the rich benefit from the policies. That's all it means, so it is possible to be a left-wing fascist. In fact, Hitler's party was called "The Nationalist-Socialist Party", which is where we get the term Nazi.

This diagram gives a pretty good explanation of what I mean anyway
http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

Lets break down the English Democrat's Policies:

English Parliament
Their plans to break down the Union is certainly nationalist, but it is also slightly anti-authoritarian because it gives power over deacons made to those it effects most.

European Union
They want a referendum, which is anti-authoritarian. The EU also dictates to its individual members, which means again, anti-authoritarian by breaking away from it. Most businessmen love the EU though, it supplies them with a constant stream of near-slave labour and allows them to trade with tax breaks, so opposing it is left wing.

Traditional counties
They want to restore the "traditional" county borders within the UK. This is conservatism (not to be confused with the Tory party). It has no place on the left-right scale although; because it's a referendum thing it's anti-authoritarian again.

House of Lords
Their plans to have the Lords elected is liberal.

Immigration
Now this is where we get down to the nitty gritty.
"The party's manifesto states, "we need to change immigration policy so that it better reflects the needs and wishes of the English people". A points system for entry to the UK, based on the Canadian and Australian models, is advocated. The party's manifesto also suggests that the country should withdraw from international conventions on asylum and immigration."
This is highly nationalistic and just like with the EU stuff, will no doubt upset businesses more than the public at the moment making it left wing. The withdrawal conventions of asylum in particular are worrying as that is the denial of humanitarian aid to refugees. It makes it very clear that they value the life of somebody born overseas less than somebody born here, which is dehumanisation and fascism to a tee.

Looking at these policies, the English Democrats are mainly left wing and Liberal, however, the rampart nationalism and dehumanisation of other global citizens bumps them right up to fascism. If it hadn’t been for that element in it, they would have basically been about where the Green Party is on that compass.

There is more to it than just policies though. Looking at the track record:
- The Mayor of Doncaster attempted to ban Gay Pride.
- The same guy denied council services to new immigrants and asylum seekers by axing interpreter’s services for no reason other than saying that they didn’t deserve to be able to communicate with the council.
- They make agreements with more openly racist parties like England First and the BNP to not stand candidates against each other.

It starts to become even more clear that the English Democrats have a fascist agenda now doesn’t it? Remember too, Hitler never did get through his elections with a manifesto that he would invade most of Europe, or that he'd implement the final solution. Whenever a politician says something dodgy, always assume that it's only the tip of the iceberg of what they have planned.

Well done to everybody who braved the cold, rain and wind to make sure every house in St Helens ward received a reason not to vote bnp leaflet... It appears with their 93 votes the bnp have yet again failed to make any progress. Isn’t it about time they realised Hastings isn’t persuaded by them. Will never be persuaded by them and frankly wants nothing to do with them

Ok you can have your argument about their democratic right to stand, not that they share democratic values, but when your result is that bad. It must make you want to pack up and go home?

But if they persist I am sure the good folks will make sure they continue to receive the same miserable vote each time.

Seems a clear enough message to tell them they are not wanted round here.