No platform for SWP
- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Someone mentioned this on another thread, but I think it merits a separate one. Some group at Sussex University has banned the SWP from participating as such in its demonstrations. Read this mealy-mouthed justification:
I know this is a case of the biter bit, but there is a principle involved here. We are equally opposed to the SWP being no-platformed as we are to this being done to the BNP, UKIP, etc., despite their record of breaking up our debates with the NF in the past.
We're even prepared to publicly debate with them too and expose their mistaken ideas before an audience of interested workers.
I'm surprised by the claimed SWP agreement in this part
Quote:The Anti-Privatisation Campaign at Sussex University formally requested to the Socialist Works Party that they refrain from bringing any placards, banners, posters, papers, or other paraphernalia that displays the Socialist Worker logos to our demonstrations. The SWP have responded in agreement, and they will no longer be bringing any memorabilia to our events.Perhaps Callinicos hasn't got rid of all the intersectionalists he thought he had. I think its fair to call this a 'ban', if we are to continue with the definition used in the revleft debate with Blake's baby over the SPGB ban from the Anarchist Bookfair. There 'ban' was distinguished from bringing paraphenalia inside (which was the SPGB experience of the bookfair) from 'banning' individuals from entering (which was the ICC CWO French sections censorious spat).Perhaps it could be argued to play devils advocate, that rather than censors falling out, this seems like a supportable 'ban', as 'banning' not free speech but something visible and liable to cause needless understandable trauma, distress and upset? No-one's stopping people who may be members of the SWP speaking on a platform.It wouldn't necessarily be the SPGB approach, who might be keen to get the SWP politics publicly on record and confront the politics on a platform. But this is also the line taken by the Weekly Worker http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/swp-sign-of-the-times
jondwhite wrote:Perhaps it could be argued to play devils advocate, that rather than censors falling out, this seems like a supportable 'ban', as 'banning' not free speech but something visible and liable to cause needless understandable trauma, distress and upset?That's precisely the excuse that theperson who posted the justification for banning SWP "paraphernalia" invoked. Frankly, I don't believe that the presence of SWP placards or whatever on a demonstration causes anyone "trauma, distress and upset" and I don't believe the person who claims that they cause them this. And even if it did this would not be a justifiable reason for banning placards, papers, etc. After all, where would it end? All sorts of things cause different people offence. I find the flag of St George's and christian icons of someone being crucified offensive, but I am not in favour of banning them.Banning things because they "offend" someone is the new intolerance which unfortunately seems to have embedded itself in certain would-be radical circles.
It gets worse for the SWPhttp://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/swp-stall-turned-over-by-autonomist-police/
Very disturbing. It reflects worse on the censoring perpetrators. Let's hope this sort of thing doesn't spread It's got to be condemned out of hand.
Weekly Workers take on it , broadly similar to our own disapproval of so-called censorship. http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1006/nus-autonomist-bankruptcy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.