Questions after Newcastle anti-EDL march

Submitted by Newcastle on 26 May, 2013 - 5:47

On 25 May between 500 and 700 anti-racist activists, trade unionists, anarchists, and socialists marched against the English Defence League. (Police and local press report 300, organisers claimed 1,000 and, later, 2,000.) Between 1,000 and 1,500 EDL supporters marched in opposition to an Islamic faith school. (Police report 1,500, while the EDL claim 5,000-plus.)

The EDL’s march was planned before the Woolwich murder, but the racist backlash being whipped up since then will have helped the EDL swell their numbers. The anti-racist counter-demo, how it was organised in advance, and the role of the organisers in the police’s arrests of some socialists and anarchists for attempting to join the march, raise serious questions.

The march was initiated by the SWP and Dipu Ahad (a Labour councillor). In the run up to the demonstration, closed meetings were held including the Trades Council, the SWP, the Socialist Party, and councillor Ahad, but which explicitly excluded AWL, the Revolutionary Communist Group (who publish Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism), anarchists, and other key trade union, anti-cuts, and student activists (it is claimed a vote was taken to exclude certain groups/individuals).

• When comrades from RCG attempted to attend an organising meeting, they were barred. Worse still, sexist and violent behaviour was used. A member of SP was threatened with exclusion if she supported them.

• Following this socialists, including AWL members and others, were blocked from the Facebook event for the protest, “accused” of being anarchists (and one accused of being a fascist) by either SWP or councillor Ahad. This was for simply asking questions.

• The organisers threatened that the police would prevent those banned from attending a public meeting held on Thursday 23 May, and the demo itself.

• At Thursday’s public rally, 50 attended but a number were prevented from doing so by the police/organisers. AWL members chose not to attend, as it was clear we wouldn’t be allowed in. RCG members and anarchists who tried were taken to one side by the police, who had a list or were told (apparently by SWP) who to exclude.

• And finally, at yesterday’s demo, half an hour before the start time, police arrested 12 activists (including seven members of RCG), apparently on instruction from the demo organisers. I do not know who gave the order. I do not know who was chief steward for day, or police liaison. We do not know if it was councillor Ahad or SWP members. But the organisers of the Facebook event were two members of SWP, one of Counterfire, and one Labour councillor. The SWP have not distanced themselves from the arrest. The article on the Socialist Worker website doesn’t mention this (amongst other inaccuracies).
[A Counterfire member since the demonstrations has stated they were added as an organiser on facebook a few days before the demonstration and were not complicit"in things that may have been wrong with Newcastle Unites: from sexist intimidation to barring people from meetings, from weaknesses in mobilising the unions to the realtionship with the police".]

This should raise serious concerns for activists and socialists who think that discussing how we fight the rise of the EDL and far right is important.

It raises questions about how police can use existing powers to arrest socialists and activists for just attempting to attend a march because they have been told they may “cause trouble”.

Workers’ Liberty has clear criticisms of how SWP/ UAF organises anti-EDL actions, and about the democracy of UAF and other SWP-led fronts. Equally, we have serious criticisms of the RCG, whose sectarian attitude towards Labour Party members and trade unionists can often lead to unnecessary division.

But these discussions cannot be ignored. And by attempting to sideline them, or ban those raising them in the name of “unity”, has led not to a big united turnout, but perhaps a smaller turnout than we could have achieved, and after the demonstration no honest assessment.

In February, with some limited support from trade unions, we built a demo of 2,000 against council cuts in Newcastle. This was led by community activists, rank and file trade unionists and students. This demonstration included all left groups working together.

The chief steward for that demonstration (an elected union representative at the city council and AWL member) was excluded from helping to build the demonstration against the EDL, presumably because of his politics, but so were other socialists, key anti-cuts activists, trade unionists and leading student activists at both Newcastle and Northumbria universities. The SWP could apparently work with those people in February, but not in May against the EDL.

Was exclusion after a political discussion? Did groups meet and realise they couldn't agree on tactics. No. “Newcastle Unites”, the coalition that formally organised the demo, was initiated by the SWP with a local councillor and excluded those who they disagreed with (or those who they felt would challenge their politics).

While there were more Labour councillors on this demo than have marched in Newcastle for many, many years, there were very few union banners. The TUC’s Northern region and Unison provided information about the march but did not endorse it. Presumably this was in part due to the involvement of the SWP in the leadership of this event (both Northern TUC and Unison take a politically hostile attitude towards campaigns lead by SWP).

So although it had involvement of councillors, the SWP failed to include the traditional conservative union bureaucracy, which is normally something they use to justify the lack of clear socialist politics and lack of discussion of tactics, on anti-fascist actions they organise. So their exclusion of the left of the labour movement did not even help them mobilise much support from the right.

Where to do we go from here? We need:

• An honest assessment on why and how police banned and arrested socialists and other activists, including raiding their homes. Who gave them this information and why?

• An honest discussion on tactics and strategy, including how to get trade unionists and their unions to build for such protests.

Let's not shy away from the truth, no matter how bitter it may be.

Comments

Submitted by AWL on Mon, 27/05/2013 - 21:54

The following was posted on Facebook by a local member of the SWP:

FRFI weren't welcome in the campaign because of a) alleged past violence b) publicising meeting details online that resulted in death threats c) ridiculous sectarianism to Labour which was stopping anything getting done.

At one of our pre-march rallies the police were asked to come by labour councillors following death threats. The councillor did say, upon being asked, that FRFI was the group that wasn't welcome in the meeting. We as SWP members had a discussion with people around why we thought this wasn't the way to go about it. But we weren't about to make it a point of unity 2 days before the march given what happened in woolwich and given the fact the councillor was working day and night to put people in the street and comes from the community most demonised by the EDL.

On the day of the demo no SWP member passed on any details to the police and it is frankly ludicrous to suggest this. If some of the tu/labour stewards were asked about FRFI by the police, they may well have been given the same answer as they got in the meeting. FRFI were congregating at the top of a nearby street (telling people that our march had already set off when it hadn't). The police saw them, saw their paper and I assume arrested them. I obviously condemn this as they had done nothing. But the idea that the demo would have been bigger if they had been included is ridiculous. All they do is put people off, attack Labour and bang on about Cuba. That doesn't build demos it makes them smaller and I will defend excluding them from the meetings all day if I think their presence will make our anti fascist demos smaller and less safe.

In terms of other groups, I'm not generally in favour of excluding people (democratically as we did vote on it) willy nilly. I'm certainly not in favour of excluding the AWL from anti-fascist demos. I think it would be good to have a constructive dialogue and discussion. But when someone uses their right to partake in an open and democratic campaign to destroy that campaign and drive away working class muslim labour supporters, I'm going to take issue.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.