Is using violent disorder to deny others their right to peacefully march a good thing? Does the right to free speech depend on whether we approve of the message?
I don't think the fascists were peacefully marching. Fascism is a violent and racist ideology, organising in streets amongst the Jewish community to deliberately stir up anti-Semitic hatred and violence. Just across the sea, Hitler was already in power and there was a real fear that fascism could take hold in Britain. If more people had stood up to Hitler in this way before he came to power, history may have been different. There's a saying, that goes something like this: "Fascists have declared a war against society, we must fight back." Freedom of speech and action, in the JS Mill conception, extends insofar as anyone can say or do anything they like, so long as it does not impinge on another's rights to freedom of speech or action. The fascist hate speech, and their violent militaristic tactics to oppress the Jews of East London did just that, and the Jews and leftists had every right to stand up for themselves....
Well, every account I can find says the fascists didn't really get to march. The violence was between the anti-fascists and the police who were trying to allow the march to proceed. While Fascists are certainly not peaceful in their ultimate aims and objectives, they're often smart enough to restrain themselves when it suits their agenda. Doing so allows them to point to their opponents violence and say "see - this is what they're like." People like Moseley were brilliant at this sort of propaganda. The biggest danger we face from Fascists is from them winning the ideological battle in people's minds, hence I don't like the sort of historical revisionism that turns a simple riot into the anti-fascists "finest hour".
That's a good point, and I think it's certainly true of the BNP today. They have gone to great lengths to cast off their old image of supremacist violence. And also, it's true that the BUF did not organise violently to the extend that the SA did in Germany. But the BUF was tainted with violence in means, directed towards ends that were, as you say, not peaceful. In these instances, I'm a believer in fighting fire with fire, and water with water. The tactics used to oppose a fascist or Nazi organisation should reflect the times, the context and the particular opponent. Antifa and the Anti Nazi League, in using violent tactics to smash the National Front off the streets, were I would say, entirely justified. The NF were an extremely violent and militant organisation, and when they used violence to support their cause, violence against them was appropriate. The BNP now, however, use largely peaceful means to spread their vile message. And though the message remains as abhorrent as ever, tactics used against them should reflect the fact that their means are not so violent any more. So I'd support the peaceful tactics used by Unite Against Fascism in trying to get the anti-fascist vote out to the ballot box, and in educating people in the evils of the far right. Like you say, if violence is used to resist a peaceful far right opponent, they can just turn around and denounce our tactics, and gain the moral high ground themselves. So, I'd go with Newton's law, that actions should have an equal and opposite reaction....
It's an interesting discussion. It was a different era, and with Hitler in power in Germany the rise of fascism in the UK was a very real possibility. For that reason, and the deliberate provocation and violent history of the BUF, it's difficult to pass judgement on the actions of the anti-fascists, even though what they were doing was suppressing the lawful free expression of others. As a general principle we should aim to fight fire with water, and not to sink to the level of those whose tactics we abhor. If this were to happen today with a BNP march I would deplore any violence on the part of anti-fascists, but as Peace says, the circumstances are very different now. One interesting phrase in that article caught my eye regarding the introduction of the Public Order Act and the legacy of Cable Street in things like the banning of protests near Parliament. I'm not sure the latter had very much to do with violent protests but it's an interesting idea that the Cable Street 'victory' might have been quite counter-productive because of the imposition of strict regulations on protesting which came about as a direct result.
That's another thing: I can't fathom how the BBC made the Parliament square regulations part of the "legacy" of Cable Street. It was pretty much all about Brian Haw. (Good old Brian, nice chap but completely insane.)
This is true, that link was a bit shaky, but the Public Order Act was introduced as a direct result of Cable Street, and you could see the imposition of restrictions on protesting as part of a tradition which began with that incident. Maybe that's what the author was getting at.
The only physicality I've been involved with was with the NF, there was more of them I say. I dislike violence immensly but seem happy to bash a Faschist. Regarding the POA, it would of happened eventually because of something, as the size of population grows, better control of crowds is probably required.
