By Sita Balani / @sitainshort
In 1982, 12 young Asian men from Bradford took the stand in court on charges of making explosive devices with the intent to cause damage to property and persons, facing penalties of up to life imprisonment. The previous year they had devised makeshift petrol bombs out of milk bottles in preparation for anticipated attacks by skinhead gangs. The men pleaded “Not Guilty” on the grounds of necessity, under the rallying cry that ‘Self-Defence is No Offense’. With characteristically brilliant legal representation from Gareth Peirce and Ruth Bundey, the Bradford 12 won their case: a jury acquitted them of all charges.
Yesterday, 6 young Asian men from Birmingham pleaded guilty to engaging in preparation for acts of terrorism. They were arrested in June last year after being stopped for a driving offense travelling from their homes in Birmingham to Dewsbury, where they intended to intercept a demonstration of English Defence League supporters using guns, knives and homemade bombs. The men will be sentenced on the 6th June and face lengthy prison terms.
Beyond their outcomes, there are many, significant differences between these two cases. They both, however, reveal something about the times in which they occurred. Both groups saw their targets as lying beyond the Far Right’s street level boot boys. Found alongside the weapons, in the car on its way to Dewsbury, was a letter damning the EDL, David Cameron and the Queen: a triumvirate we might consider to represent popular racism, neo-liberalism and neo-colonial wars, and British imperialism. The Bradford 12, though secular in their critique, also acted against institutional racism as well as to the racist violence, which one of the 12 described as ‘a way of life’ that went unchallenged by the police, the courts and the government.
Nick Lowles of anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate condemns both the EDL and the Muslims who set out to attack the rally, suggesting that the only possible response is ‘A Plague on Both Their Houses’. However, this liberal line fails to engage with the enormous difference between these groups. According to campaigner Aviva Stahl from Cageprisoners,
‘Treating the EDL and “Islamic extremists” as moral equivalents is wrong… one is embedded in the structure of white supremacy and one isn’t. We also can’t pretend that we can deal with white racism and “extremism” in the same ways without feeding into Islamophobia. Lowles seems to be suggesting that white people have the right and the ability to decide what constitutes “good” Islam and “extremism/Jihadism,” instead of asking the more pressing question: why are some British Muslims so alienated?’
Notably, Lowles does nothing to position himself within the debate, rather he steps outside of it to take a paternal, ‘expert’ role, describing both groups as ‘extremists’ caught in a vicious cycle of attack and retaliation, with no acknowledgement of the wider context of Islamophobia.
Lowles’ analysis highlights one of the key issues with anti-fascist organisations: they are often national organisations, with shallow – if any – roots in local Muslim communities. They take enormous pride in their heritage in the big battles on Cable Street or at Lewisham, but with little emphasis on the daily realities of institutional Islamophobia. They rarely discuss autonomous, black community responses to the Far Right, so stories such as the surprising and heartening victory of the Bradford 12 get lost, discarded from the ‘official’ whitened-up histories of British anti-fascism. National anti-fascist organisations suggest that we must fight fascism or we face a future that would resemble the Third Reich, yet many in Britain – especially undocumented migrants and Muslims regardless of immigration status – already experience dawn raids, indefinite detention and deportation or extradition. It is easy to hide behind the uncontroversial slogan of anti-fascism, with all of the despicable connotations the F word evokes, but neither Hope Not Hate nor Unite Against Fascism appear to be campaigning against endemic racism.
In contrast, the young men of the Bradford 12 were part of wider anti-racist struggles, cutting their teeth in the Asian Youth movements that rose up to challenge immigration controls, racist policing and the also the ‘solid wall of Asian organisations which maintained the status quo,’ according to an excellent report by The Race Today Collective. While, for many of us, the political affiliations of the men who intended to intervene in the EDL rally are less immediately intelligible or attractive than those of the Bradford 12, we must find a response that goes beyond the Hope Not Hate’s simplistic derision. This response will come more easily if we are open to the critique that motivated these so-called ‘extremists’ just as it motivated the Bradford 12 and the Asian Youth Movements – the critique of the government, imperialism and street violence. If we were all driven by these concerns – not to violence, but to solidarity based on mutual respect – we could begin to challenge the systemic racism that forms the unspoken basis of British society.
9 Comments
I agree about the limitations of anti-fascist campaigns but I think it’s less to do with them being “national” and more that an anti-fascist campaign necessarily has to be limited in order to be effective, ie to stop actual, structured fascist groups from organising either on the streets or in elections. So I wouldn’t set them up as antagonistic to broader (and equally necessary) anti-racist action. To me the point is that an anti-fascist campaign needs to be plugged into a wider movement – while remaining relatively limited in terms of what it organises around. The ongoing oppression of undocumented migrants etc is not itself fascism, rather it shows us that fascism’s not the only thing that needs to be fought, if you see what I mean.
Also I wouldn’t be too dismissive of the Cable Street “tradition” – it too was an autonomous community response from the people targeted by racism (and was opposed by “official” Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies). So again, rather than set that up as antagonistic, I would argue that the true meaning of those “big battles” is argued for – not least because it is a way to undermine the claim (made by fundamentalists of various kinds) that islamophobia is the result of some inherent clash between Islam and the west, and to situate it in a broader context of structural racism.
Thanks for the comment, Daniel.
I’m certainly not dismissive of the Cable Street tradition, but these anti-fascist organisations can be pretty selective in terms of which histories they celebrate, and they seem pretty uninterested in autonomous South Asian resistance, which is, in my view, significant and telling. Also, UAF and the like have at various times acted in line with previous ‘official’ organisations to stifle community-led resistance.
I don’t mean that they are in direct opposition to wider anti-racist struggle, but in their distance from and silence regarding fighting systemic racism they perpetuate the idea that racism is simply the domain of Far Right organisations.
Interesting piece. Do you not feel that the difference is the Bradford 12 were defending their homes and their neighbourhood while the six from Birmingham were taking the fight to someone else? In other words, it was more offensive than defensive.
The problem with national and dogmatic organisations like UAF and HnH is that they are populist and appeal almost exclusively to young white liberals, generally students. Some of these people are burdened with an over abundance of White Guilt and try to assuage that by defending the ethnics against the nazi skinheads. For a while at least. Then their interest wanes and they move on. The core of the UAF etc support comes from a pretty narrow demographic and thier experience of racism is second hand, at best, and all they know of it is through vicarious tales of violence from asian and black victims. They have no real idea of the history of racism and anti semitism in the UK and, as has been noted, only know of a few examples like the battle of cable street, where whitey fought the black shirts and fascism was defeated forever, and remain wholly ignorant of the struggles and efforts of minority groups. This is deliberate. The information is there to be found, but the leaders of these organisations never talk about it, at least not very often and not openly. And any organisation that claims to be Anti Racist and has the leader of the conservative party as a member is having a laugh, frankly.
I have seen a crowd of anti fascist protesters cheer and shout support when cable street is mentioned but shuffle thier feet and look uncomfortable when a young Kosovan female tells a story of harrassment and abuse by NF members a few weeks ago. Its too real and its too far outside thier own experience and they just can’t relate. Its much easier to clothe oneself in the glory of the past than deal with the harsh realities of today.
If HnH and UAF where to tell thier supporters that they were holding a day of action in solidarity with a south indian group who were trying to bring pressure on a local police force to charge a constable with racist abuse, or that they were spending the day handing out lealets showing that anti semitism was still rife in britian, the numbers would fall away dramatically. its much more effective (and profitable) to have a few grandstand days a year and pretend that its having an effect. everybody goes away feeling that theyve done thier bit and our immigrant friends are safe until the next EDL march. Very few of them would go to a community centre to attend a discussion on a legal challenge to sub standard housing for Somalian refugees, as though it was any less important or relevant to anti racist action.
There are smaller autonomous groups of anarchists and other activists who are aware of the bigger problem but we recieve absolutely no support from UAF. In fact, we have too often found ourselves being actively obstructed by them, even pointed out to the police at demos!
we are 100% proactive and work with individual victims of racism as as well as pressure groups. We see and highlight the political, economic and institutional racism that is prevalent in our society, but the part time antifascists of UAF simply dont want to know. they just want to wave thier flag and shout ‘NAZI SCUM!’ at the tiny and insignificant EDL or BNP for a few hours. This suits them well, as it means they don’t lose too many supporters to other groups and they get to sell more papers. They have exaggerated the threat posed by the EDL and have fooled 1000s of students into thinking that they are combatting racism by taking to the streets, when its right there in front of them every day, they just dont see it because, for the main part, it doesnt affect them.
I disagree with you, Sita, when you say that the populist antifascist groups are not in direct opposition to the wider struggle. They are. Anti racism is a means to an end for them, and by focussing entirely on the new wave of boot boys, they are, by act of ommission, allowing the deeper roots to go unchallenged.
yours
cris
Scottish Antifa
Thanks for your thoughts Chris. Yes, that’s definitely one of the differences I was alluding to (though perhaps I ought to have been more explicit – the cases are not equivalents, but both reveal something of their context), and I think it speaks to what’s changed in Britain in the last thirty years. I think one of the continuities though can be found in how national anti-fascist organisations (then as now) fail to genuinely engage with the communities most vulnerable to far right racism. I intend to address some of these changes in an a piece I’m writing on the legacies of state multiculturalism on community responses to racism.
Thanks Cris for your thoughts.
Sorry. There’s a big difference between a bunch of blokes defending their manor and a car full of guys tooled up and looking for a row. I can just imagine the EDL having a great time reading this and then plastering a load of “Violent Muslims apprehended before getting a chance to disturb peaceful protest” style articles all over the place. Stuff like this does not help. The guys in the car might as well be distributing leaflets for the EDL. A serious own goal.
Yes, of course there’s a difference – which I allude to in the article and make more explicit in the comment below. My concern is making the comparison is to try to start the conversation about what’s changed and what’s stayed the same in the last thirty years. If in the early 80s, groups of young Asian men who faced Far Right violence acted defensively, what – thirty years later – motivates their counterparts to act on the offensive? Mainstream anti-fascist organisations taking this liberal position of ‘oh you’re all as bad as each other, stop it’ doesn’t engage with the realities of state Islamophobia, which is the context of both the EDL and the Dewsbury bomb plot.
I’m not sure the article was really trying to denigrate the cable street tradition. Just marginalizing it’s centrality. I find some of this ‘liberal ant-fascism’ (for want of a better term) to be slightly problematic. I think there is a danger it can quite easily get pulled into ‘old blighty under the bombs’ narrative, where the british story stops after ww2, gloriously defeating fascism. Oswald Mosley and Hitler have become bogeymen, it’s all black and white [sic], while UKBA is hardly ever mentioned (neither, for that matter, are the pre-war Alien Acts passed in order to stop jews coming into britain). Nor are other histories of resistance, such as the article points to. Sometimes when the ‘big battles’ are spoken about (there hasn’t been one in a while now, has there?) I feel like there is a certain nostalgia for ‘easy anti-fascism’, we are the good guys, they are the bad guys. That sort of thing.
Jacko and Sita. I don’t find this ‘defensive’ vs. ‘offensive’ debate very fruitful. Intercepting the EDL before they go out on a march could still be view as defensive. What is comparatively more interesting (though I stress, I think this can be overplayed) is, as the article alludes to, the different meanings these actions are given (secular 30 years ago, ‘religious’ now) which, I would argue, mirrors the racialized logic of UK boarders and foreign policy (note also the use of ‘terrorist’ in describing the men now).
Nice post cris, a lot of good stuff in that. There is SO much work to be done which isn’t your usual bus into a town, shout a few slogans, go home, sort.
I absolutely agree that the ‘plague on both their houses’ position is wrong and rooted in, ultimately, a political philosophy that fails to recognise race (and class) power structures.
But I think an obvious problem with this article, and some of the subsequent comments, that it attributes an objective to UAF that it has never claimed for itself. It is a united front anti-fascist organisation. It’s aim is to draw together the maximum range of forces possible to oppose fascism’s political expression. It does, in fact, work to oppose racism in general, as far as its limited resources must allow, because I believe it sees that racism is the cutting edge on the back of which fascism grows. But there are other organisations out there that attempt a broader, more ideological challenge to racism, and UAF would weaken itself to seek to duplicate this work.