Working Class Heroes with nothing to do

Spikymike on libcom

Jan 16 2018 18:15

Not unsurprisingly this split in the AF has attracted some unwanted interest from other of the tiny groups claiming their place in the anarchist and communist milieu - from some confused sympathy for the 'Communist Anarchism' element by members of the SPGB to outright hostility towards both sides of the split and plain nastiness from the sectarians of the 'Northern Voices' outcasts, well known for their regular misinformation and lies directed at other anarchists. Not much sign here of cooperatively tapping in to any 'collective knowledge'.

INEVITABLY Christopher Draper's witty account of the decline and fall of the rather pretentiously labelled 'Anarchist Federation',  has stirred-up some chat room types who once spent their lives seeking out left-wing 'talking shops' in pub rooms.  Michael Ballard, who on libcom uses the pseudonym 'Spikymike'  and has lived in south Manchester for years, originates from the London-set and is one such figure.  He seems to have moved to the Midlands as a student and later settled down into  a career at Manchester City Council, ultimately rising through the incremental scales to ultimately reach the heights of Housing Manager.

Mr Ballard was very much a white-collar worker who fetishize the working class from afar.  He solemnly pontificates upon what he pretentiously describes as 'the anarchist and communist milieu'.  Milieu according to one dictionary means 'the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops'.  

Yet just now it's easy to see that something has 'occur[ed] and develop[ed]', with everything falling apart and with the Anarchist London Bookfair organisers throwing up their hands despair rather than risk another disaster like last year with the feminist constituency and the Trans community disputing with each other over the who has the right to use of the 'Ladies' toilets.

Mr. Ballard, who although now retired was always anxious to protect his status as a housing manager, has never been at the centre of any action in Greater Manchester.  Though, he talks here of the 'anarchist milieu', he has never described himself as an 'anarchist' and he usually hangs around meetings pontificating on the actions of others:  like the Manchester electricians fighting the blacklist who he challenged for their lack of consciousness of the 'class struggle' as a bit of a boss himself he knows all about 'class struggle'.  Normally, these people represent an interesting 'type' who want to preserve their double life, often have very little to do with themselves, and on a recent thread Ballard has described himself as 'a loner' reduced to putting comments on libcom.

Yet, the fall out which followed with Nick Heath's 'Anarchist Fed.' splitting up, was a natural consequence of the slippage in Mr. Heath's strangle-hold on the federation, after several provincial sections took unilateral action supporting the trans-sexuals faction by signing open letters, and denouncing the feminists and the bookfair organisers.   

******

SAD END TO A GREAT INSTITUTION!

'Bookfair couldn’t guarantee the banner’s safety', said Dave Douglass
 

by Dave Douglass (South Shields}

THE annual Anarchist Bookfair in London was for many many years the highlight of the Anarchist and radical Marxist calendar.   It brought together the most splendid , vivid fascinating and eccentric, profound and trivial, exciting and profane, hilarious and spiritual assortments of people.   They came in thousands, they bathed in the rainbow variety of factions, tendencies, visions and issues.   Workshops and presentations, entertainment and discussion filled the entire day as the crowds crammed past stalls laden with literature and art, T-shirts and stickers, posters and badges, cards and calendars, a myriad of interesting and unique stuff you would never find anywhere else under one roof.   The Vegan food commune outside the venues hawked the most interesting of pastries and butties, tatties and cakes, rich wonderful chocolate cakes and angel cakes which tested the will power of the most dedicated of health freaks.  In my own judgement the Anarchist bookfair almost vied with the Durham Miners Gala (almost) in terms of ‘not to be missed’ events.  Ancient aud Anarchists rubbed shoulders with the Mohican punks of yesterd-a-year, born again hippies, young activist, and what a Glasgow paper talking of the anti polaris demonstrators of the 60’s called ‘ beardies, weirdies and lang lagged beasties’ 
 
Sadly the great spirit of comradely diversity, the ‘let a million flowers blossom let ten thousand schools of thought reign’ which Mao had once said and may actually at one time believed, had started to change and smoulder into authoritarian intolerances.  In a gradual change of attitude which I think has spread from the Ultra PC ‘no platforming’ ‘shut them up’, ‘safe space’ evangelists of the US campuses, only very particular schools of thought would be allowed to be heard.  

Invited to speak one year I suggested I bring the famous ‘red’ miners banner of the Follonsby Lodge.   The banner originally drafted in 1928 famously sets forth the options and variety of radical working class ideologies and ‘roads’ depicting as it does Social Democracy, Bolshevism, and Anarcho-syndicalism, the ballot box and the gun, in the form of Kier Hardie, James Connolly in the uniform of the ICA, V.I.Lenin , A.J.Cook and George Harvey.  The banner encapsulates the trajectory of ideological struggle and events which led through the birth of the IWW, the ILP, the development of the Soviets, the General Strike, The Easter Irish rising and the Russian revolution.  In this trajectory the debate around the nature of the state and working class democracy ideas of the anarchists and syndicalists, the Industrial Unionists, how society could function once capitalism was defeated were all marked by the birth of this banner. 

I had concluded that the Anarchist Bookfair was an ideal platform to retell this story and the way in which working class history had developed.   'Nope’, I was told , the bookfair couldn’t guarantee the banner’s safety.  One look at the central portrait of Lenin flanked by the hammer and sickle would be enough to stifle any debate and could lead to the destruction of the banner.   It was an early demonstration of the chain of thought which would seek to re-write history by tearing down all statues and memorials and references to un-pc historic figures.   It would be the fingers in the ears while shouting 'lalala’ to stop the sound of words too wounding to be heard. 
 
Then four or five years ago we had a gang attack on Comrade Brian Bamford of the Northern Anarchist Network.  Brian has a knack of rubbing folk up the wrong way it must be said, he had been irreverent to an old stalward of traditional anarchism who had passed away, Brian’s obituary was thought to be insensitive, which it undoubtedly was.  But it led to his stall being turned over his books trashed and he beaten up and sprayed with ketchup.  This was in the middle of an event of Anarchists who are supposed to believe we can govern ourselves without enforcement and laws imposed upon us.   It got worse, as first Brian then members of his group were banned from regional anarchist bookfares, not simply from having a stall but attending on pain of violence.   Book and Newspaper shops which stocked the NAN magazine were visited and warned not to stock the journal, the printers likewise were given the Gypsies Warning.   He hasn’t mounted a bookstall since. 
 
Last year, a section of the Anarchist wing fighting alongside the PKK against ISIS were invited to speak at a workshop.  The hall was invaded by students from the Gulf states who although purporting to be progressives were basically supporters of the Jihadists and Theocrats.  They stamped and chanted and no platformed the speakers.  Bending over backward to preserve our traditions of free speech they were invited to present an alternative view before the anarchists spoke, which they did, and then broke up the meeting and stopped them being heard. 
 
This year was the final straw.  One of the anarcho-feminists had been circulating a leaflet saying why they didn’t allow transmen to attend women only sessions and workshops, when she was surrounded and shouted down and threatened by a gang of 'transmen’, who not only stopped those sessions but demanded a whole list of demands from the bookfare in general be met.  This was as to content of stalls, workshops, items displayed and on sale.  The organisers under a constant barrage have just said ’bollox’ you organise your own, we’re done’.  ‘That’s it, were done organising this event’. 
 
I cannot in conscience blame them.  The only way to stop this march of intolerance would have been to not tolerate it and to physically impose free thought and free speech on people who plainly don’t believe in it.  Which would be a contradiction too hard for Anarchists to cope with.  Its a sad reflection on where mostly middle class ‘safe space’ victim-mongering, no-platforming , witch hunting, tyranny has taken us.   It is a very sad day in my view.  We have to ensure that this intolerance and denial of free speech and basic liberty is not fed into working class organisations and events. 
 
Tyneside anarchists in conjunction with the Follonsby Wardley Miners Lodge Association will be hosting a Guy Fawkes Workers Bookfare in Newcastle next year, Nov 3rd.   This will be an opportunity to present books on working class political ideology and history and progressive thought which one would not get the chance to see in conventional book venues. It will very much be in the tradition of the once famous bookfare although we don’t expect the same numbers.   At this bookfare the principle of free speech and political liberty will be guaranteed, and anyone who doesn’t accept the principle ‘left’ or right will be not invited and if necessary excluded. 
 www.fiveleavespublications.blogspot.com/2012/10/  

******

PEACE NEWS DEFENDS FREE SPEECH!

ACTIVISTS need to find better ways to struggle with each other and to fight with each other, argues Milan Rai

'People ask me how we would defend the bookfair from a fascist attack, but I’m not worried about them out there.  I worry about what we might do to each other in here.’ – one of the organisers of the London Anarchist Bookfair, [said] on 28 October.
A few hours later, a group of trans rights activists stopped some feminists handing out leaflets that they found oppressive to trans women.  A nontrans woman, Helen Steel, objected to this censorship. About 30 trans rights activists then surrounded Helen Steel and shouted at her for having stood up for the leafleters.
The confrontation went on for a long time.  Some people (including members of the bookfair collective) surrounded Helen Steel to protect her from possible assault.  An unknown person then tripped the fire alarm, leading to an evacuation of the building.

After the bookfair, there was sharp criticism of the organisers.  The collective have decided not to organise the London Anarchist Bookfair next year.  We’ve published lots of relevant documents in this issue, in full or (in one case) nearly in full, to give PN readers the chance to make up your own minds about what’s happened at one of the most important radical gatherings in Britain.

We believe this conflict has wider significance for grassroots movements for change, not just in Britain,

Steel by name

Our starting point is that standing up for free speech is necessary and important.  It is appalling that 30 activists gathered to threaten someone for standing up for the right to leaflet. It is shocking that people in the crowd shouted ‘ugly TERF’, ‘fucking TERF scum’, ‘bitch’, and ‘fascist’ at her because she refused to accept their harassment of two women leafleters.  This kind of bullying is completely unacceptable. (The word ‘TERF’ is now mostly used as a derogatory term meaning ‘someone with transphobic views’.   It originally stood for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’.)   It’s shameful that groups have issued statements of solidarity with the trans rights activists without criticising this intimidation.

When Helen Steel stood up for freedom of speech, when organisers of the bookfair helped to protect her, these were courageous and principled acts.

We shouldn’t allow anyone, whether the government or any activist group, the right to dictate what ideas should be allowed to circulate.  Freedom of speech is deeply connected to freedom of thought. Most of us discover what we really think by talking with others, by expressing ourselves, and then hearing other people’s responses.  Everyone should have the chance to find their own political truths, to make mistakes, to grow and to stand on their own feet intellectually.

There is an old slogan: the answer to bad speech is more speech. In 1969, US anarchist Noam Chomsky wrote: ‘a movement of the left condemns itself to failure and irrelevance if it does not create an intellectual culture that becomes dominant by virtue of its excellence and that is meaningful to the masses of people who, in an advanced industrial society, can participate in creating and deepening it’.

Our arguments should become dominant by virtue of their excellence, not because we have shouted down the other side.

Shutting down debate – by shouting people down or blockading a talk or triggering a fire alarm – can be seen as a lack of confidence, a lack of belief that you have the arguments to win the argument.

Free speech

Defending someone’s freedom of expression is not the same as approving of what they are saying. Chomsky points out:  ‘If you’re in favour of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.  Otherwise you’re not in favour of freedom of speech.’

When should free speech be limited?  Chomsky stands with the US supreme court ruling of 1969 which said that speech should always be protected from legal punishment except when people are trying to incite, and likely to produce, ‘imminent lawless action’ with their words.  According to this standard, the law should not be used to stop or punish speech that justifies or advocates oppressive violence in general.  The law should only be used against speech when those words are being used to try to start an actual violent attack right here, right now (‘imminently’).

Whatever else you might say about them, none of the gender-related leaflets passed out at the bookfair either justified or tried to incite anti-trans violence.  The nearest the bookfair came to imminent violence was when 30 people surrounded Helen Steel.

It has been claimed that what was written in these leaflets was a form of violence.  This is to bend the meaning of words completely out of shape.  Offensive or oppressive speech is not violence.

If you choose to define oppressive speech as violence, and if you accept the right of violent self-defence, then it is justified to carry out violence against pretty much everyone, because we all say things that are oppressive or that can be seen as oppressive.

Yes, hate speech can help create a climate of intolerance and hatred which encourages violent attacks. That doesn’t mean hate speech is violence or that it should be subject to legal punishment. (We’re not saying the leaflets were hate speech.)

How to destroy ourselves

In our last editorial, we described how conservatives, liberals, socialists and communists all helped to create an authoritarian climate in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, paving the way for Nazism (PN 2610–2611).

The socialist SPD banned meetings, newspapers and demos.  The communist KPD broke up meetings.  Together, they undermined democratic habits and independent thinking within German working-class movements, leaving them paralysed when the Nazis came to power.

When we stop public discussions, either through the law or through some kind of force (like a fire alarm), we move politics away from debate and persuasion, what pagan activist Starhawk calls ‘power with’, towards the world of force and compulsion, what Starhawk calls ‘power over' others.  If politics turns into a ‘power over’ game, the winners will be those who are most brutal.  That outcome won’t favour any kind of feminist.

Every time disruption or threats make it impossible to hold a public meeting – whoever is speaking, whatever their views – we undermine free speech and we weaken our already weak movements for change.

We need to find better ways to struggle with each other and to fight with each other, to disagree deeply while continuing to work together where we can.  We need to create bigger, stronger activist organisations, independent media, radical publishers and bookfairs.  We need to support the London Anarchist Bookfair, not destroy it.  We should be inspired how it makes freedom work.

Editorial note: In five articles ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), Peace News is documenting the free speech conflict at this year’s (2017) London Anarchist Bookfair. The origins of the Anarchist Bookfair are briefly recounted here, and the issues concerning free speech are the subject of this issue's editorial above.

The Helen Steel Story in Peace News:

N.V. editors:  Below is the first of several articles published in Peace News which we believe deserves wider circulation:

*****

[Editorial note [from Peace News]: In five articles ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), Peace News is documenting the free speech conflict at this year’s (2017) London Anarchist Bookfair, starting with one of Britain’s best-known anarchists [Helen Steel].

The origins of the Anarchist Bookfair are briefly recounted here, and the issues concerning free speech are the subject of this issue's editorial here.]

***

'PEACE NEWS' article by Helen Steel:

I was in the process of writing a longer article around the events at the Anarchist Bookfair on Saturday [28 October 2017], but I am also trying to stay on top of the rest of my life while dealing with the horrendous bullying of people around me which is underway by some trans activists and allies.

I have been traumatised by my experiences on Saturday and by events since, resulting in a lack of sleep and inability to concentrate.

I wanted to complete the longer article, but as lies are being circulated by those who attacked me, I feel I have to put out a shorter statement now.

When I refer to trans activists in this statement I mean people who are activists on trans issues, I do not mean that all of them were trans, nor that they represent the views of all trans-identifying people.

“Refusing to validate other people’s belief systems is not the same as threatening to harm them.”

For those who don’t know what ‘TERF’ means, it is an acronym for ‘Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist’, but whatever its origins it is currently used as a term of abuse to dehumanise women and so excuse violence and bullying against them.

I thank everyone who is taking a stand against bullying and I urge more people to stand in solidarity too.

Those trans activists and allies who are carrying out the bullying can be defeated by growing numbers of people resisting that bullying.

This will facilitate a proper space for the concerns of women and trans-identifying people to be discussed.

Short statement on the facts:

• The Tories are planning to amend the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to include ‘Gender Identity’ as a protected characteristic in law.  This does affect women and as such, women have a right to express their views on this issue.
• I am aware of three leaflets which were distributed at the Bookfair. I did not actually write or distribute any of them, but I supported other women’s rights to distribute them.
• The three leaflets that were distributed [are displayed on the Helen Steel solidarity website].
• None of them call for violence against trans-identifying people, obviously I would not have supported them if they had.
• Refusing to validate other people’s belief systems is not the same as threatening to harm them.
• Bullying people to force them to accept your views does harm people.
• If you think that other people should not be allowed to question your ideology, it makes you an authoritarian NOT an anarchist.
• Women are oppressed in our society on the basis of our sex, those who deny this perpetuate that sexism.
• It is a basic concept of progressive politics that oppressed groups have the right to self-organisation and autonomy in their fight against their oppression.
• I intervened to stop the bullying of two women who had been distributing leaflets about the GRA at the Bookfair and who were surrounded and being threatened by trans activists. Women’s voices have been silenced throughout history, which is why so many people have internalised misogyny and the assumption that women’s concerns are unimportant.
• Half an hour later, I was surrounded for over an hour by a baying mob of around 30 trans activists who shouted misogynistic abuse in my face and at others, and who would not leave me alone. This included: ‘ugly Terf’, ‘fucking Terf scum’, ‘bitch’, ‘fascist’ and more.  That kind of behaviour should have no place in anarchism or any other progressive politics.
• Despite that provocation, I did not at any time threaten or assault anyone. No trans activists were threatened by anyone else in my sight or hearing.
• While I was surrounded, I saw a man’s hand moving towards my face and when it was within inches of my face I blocked it and pushed his arm away.  He then started shouting that I had assaulted him and I should be thrown out.
• Some of those in the baying mob tried to stoke anger and division by calling me a snitch, making false claims that I had filmed them assaulting a feminist at Speakers’ Corner [in central London] and had handed that footage to the police.  Footage of the incident is available and actually shows me intervening to protect the victim of the assault, not filming it.  The videos embedded in this article [link given below] show what actually happened, please do watch them and see the truth for yourself.
• Their claim of ‘snitch’ in the circumstances is obscene in any event – when you assault women you do not get to claim the moral high ground by complaining that they have reported your behaviour to the police.
• Those in the mob asserted that the leaflets setting out women’s concerns about the GRA should not be handed out because they amount to violence against trans people.  They then used this to justify actual physical violence and intimidation.
• They didn’t care about the distress caused to others in close proximity, including children. Nor did they care about the trauma they cause to women by surrounding us, threatening us and using violence to silence women’s voices, repeating the patterns women face throughout our lives when reporting sexual harassment or assault or other sexist behaviour.
• Women’s experiences are always erased – we are asked what were we wearing at the time, what did we say and do. Always the message is; as a woman it’s your fault, shut up. So what’s new here?
• It is absolutely ludicrous that anyone could think that the behaviour of the mob was justified in any way by my actions or those of other women. That is victim-blaming. People need to take a reality check.
• Progressive people need to call out sexism, male dominance and violence and stop protecting sexist behaviour. Those offering support to bullies need to stop appeasing sexist behaviour.
• Nonsense claims equating feminism to fascism are an insult both to feminists and to those who have endured racist and state violence under fascist regimes.
  

Of course I believe that all trans-identifying people have the right to live their lives free from harassment and abuse, as does everyone.  But I note the double standards that while women are repeatedly told to explicitly affirm that right, there is never a requirement on those advocating for trans issues to acknowledge the level of violence and harassment that women face or to state their opposition to sexist abuse, or to challenge the outrageous statements made by some trans advocates which repeatedly deny women’s experiences and silence women’s voices.  This is a power imbalance based on the long-held expectation in society that women should be subservient.

It is notable that a statement issued a few days ago, calling for groups to boycott the Bookfair in future, makes no mention of sexism or of women’s rights or for the provision of women-only meeting spaces.

There is no acknowledgement at all that women are subject to oppression, sexual violence and harassment on the basis of our sex. It appears that those who have signed the statement are in denial about women’s experiences in much the same way that the rest of society is.  Only the recent and snowballing reports of sexual harassment and assault in Hollywood, parliament and via #MeToo [on social media] have started to awaken people to reality.  It is time those who signed up acknowledged that reality too.

The Anarchist Bookfair organisers do a huge amount of work to facilitate an amazing event which allows thousands of people to learn about alternative views and experiences of oppression and to discuss ways to improve society for the benefit of all.  The self-entitled mob attacking women for leafleting thought they had the right to dictate who could say what in that space rather than arguing their views and listening to the counter-arguments to develop critical thinking.  They need to think again.

I am lucky to have so many friends and comrades who put themselves in the line of fire to protect me. I thank them for this, especially those who were assaulted and abused.  I also thank everyone who has sent messages of solidarity and support which are enabling me to get through this horrendous experience.  I include in my thanks those trans-identifying people and supporters who may not agree with my views but who recognise the importance of women being able to speak too and who are resisting the intimidation they face from people claiming to act in their name.

I want to add that a couple of people have commented that while they agree with women being able to speak on these issues, they feel that in a few places the wording used is not helpful.

The problem with requiring leaflets to be perfectly-worded before they can be distributed is that it excludes very many people from being able to express their opinions.  Only the confident will feel able to speak.

It particularly excludes those born female who are generally socialised from a young age to keep quiet about their views and so who are less confident about expressing them.  Perfection is certainly not a qualification used to prevent men from speaking.  And ultimately, who decides what is right? That is the purpose of having debate, so we can all clarify our thinking.

Letter in 'Weekly Worker'

 N.V. Editor:  The Weekly Worker this week carried a letter from Danny Daly, which questions the absurd logic of some narrow-minded anarchists who reject the historical 'melting pot' approach of the successful London Anarchist Bookfair that has been going for 35 years.  Particularly loud in calling for disassociation from the traditional London Anarchist Bookfair has been elements within the Anarchist Federation tendency such as 'AFED TRANS ACTION FACTION', 'Edinbugh Anarchist Federation', Liverpool A.F., and South Wales A.F.   We publish the letter below because it chimes with what Dave Douglass has said in his statement.  We believe in the assertion of a positive freedom which removes those who seek to censor, gag and silence others.  We want a policy of diverse views and differences which in recent years has been undermined by certain orthoxies which are now violently intolerant of views they disagree with.

Safest space

AND so we bid farewell, for now at least, to the Anarchist Bookfair, London’s only major anarchist-orientated event for the last 34 years. For those who don’t already know, the Anarchist Bookfair collective this year won’t be attempting a 35th year, following threats of a boycott and active picketing by certain groups and individuals.

This is due to a small group of radical feminists handing out leaflets opposing changes to the Gender Recognition Act. This caused quite a stir among the trans activists present, who surrounded those handing out the leaflets and demanded their ejection.  When bookfair collective members such as Helen Steel attempted to intercede to stop what was likely to spill over into violence, she was herself surrounded and called names such as “ugly terf”, “terf scum”, “bitch” and - most amazingly -
“fascist”.  This was all justified on the basis of demanding a safe space for trans people to express themselves.  As far as Helen Steel or the collective were concerned, the bookfair attempted to accommodate both groups to put forward their positions.   But, as far as I’m concerned, nobody was being threatened by a leaflet debating a big issue for many feminists.

Of course, the groups who denounced the bookfair did not see it this way.  The logic of safe spaces in this particular instance seems basically to destroy the very essence of the bookfair itself: namely a space for all ideas to be exchanged and argued out.  But it seems that name-calling, physical confrontation et al do not challenge safety at all - as long as only the correct positions are allowed.   A Strange logic indeed.

The bookfair has always been an eclectic mix of political causes and positions, all loosely orientated around the broad organisational and historical traditions of anarchism.  All the way from anarchist communism to full-on anti-collective individualism.  You would often see Catholic worker or other Christian anarchists mere tables away from an old punk with a banner proclaiming all religion as murderous and bigoted.  The understanding obviously being that this was an open platform for the exchange of ideas, a forum to find common ground for struggle in the future.  And many initiatives were indeed sprung from this melting pot over the years.

I look forward to the new and ‘completely safe’ incarnation of the bookfair in the coming years, as seen by those who opposed its previous model.  Without the messiness of the plurality of positions, those left with the right politics will be able to really buckle down to the serious issue of winning the hundreds of totally separate campaigns brought into focus.

And so now the anarchist movement finds itself in a position where it no longer needs to worry about differences of position or orientation of activity.  Every group and individual can have their own complete anarchism without fear of challenge or debate, with all the anxiety-inducing rage such ‘liberal’ concepts seem to bring up among younger comrades these days.  For, as we all know, the safest space is, of course, no space at all.

Danny Daly
email

SORRY END TO A GREAT INSTITUTION

by Dave Douglass (South Shields}

THE annual Anarchist Bookfair in London was for many many years the highlight of the Anarchist and radical Marxist calendar.  It brought together the most splendid , vivid fascinating and eccentric, profound and trivial, exciting and profane, hilarious and spiritual assortments of people.  They came in thousands, they bathed in the rainbow variety of factions, tendencies, visions and issues.  Workshops and presentations, entertainment and discussion filled the entire day as the crowds crammed past stalls laden with literature and art, T-shirts and stickers, posters and badges, cards and calendars, a myriad of interesting and unique stuff you would never find anywhere else under one roof.  The Vegan food commune outside the venues hawked the most interesting of pastries and butties, tatties and cakes, rich wonderful chocolate cakes and angel cakes which tested the will power of the most dedicated of health freaks.  In my own judgement the Anarchist bookfare almost vied with the Durham Miners Gala (almost) in terms of ‘not to be missed’ events.  Ancient aud Anarchists rubbed shoulders with the Mohican punks of yesterd-a-year, born again hippies, young activist, and what a Glasgow paper talking of the anti polaris demonstrators of the 60’s called ‘ beardies, weirdies and lang lagged beasties’ 
 
Sadly the great spirit of comradely diversity, the ‘let a million flowers blossom let ten thousand schools of thought reign’ which Mao had once said and may actually at one time believed, had started to change and smoulder into authoritarian intolerances.  In a gradual change of attitude which I think has spread from the Ultra PC ‘no platforming’ ‘shut them up’, ‘safe space’ evangelists of the US campuses, only very particular schools of thought would be allowed to be heard.  

Invited to speak one year I suggested I bring the famous ‘red’ miners banner of the Follonsby Lodge.   The banner originally drafted in 1928 famously sets forth the options and variety of radical working class ideologies and ‘roads’ depicting as it does Social Democracy, Bolshevism, and Anarcho-syndicalism, the ballot box and the gun, in the form of Kier Hardie, James Connolly in the uniform of the ICA, V.I.Lenin , A.J.Cook and George Harvey.  The banner encapsulates the trajectory of ideological struggle and events which led through the birth of the IWW, the ILP, the development of the Soviets, the General Strike, The Easter Irish rising and the Russian revolution. In this trajectory the debate around the nature of the state and working class democracy ideas of the anarchists and syndicalists, the Industrial Unionists, how society could function once capitalism was defeated were all marked by the birth of this banner. 

I had concluded that the Anarchist Bookfare was an ideal platform to retell this story and the way in which working class history had developed.  'Nope’, I was told , the bookfare couldn’t guarantee the banner’s safety.  One look at the central portrait of Lenin flanked by the hammer and sickle would be enough to stifle any debate and could lead to the destruction of the banner.  It was an early demonstration of the chain of thought which would seek to re-write history by tearing down all statues and memorials and references to un-pc historic figures.  It would be the fingers in the ears while shouting’ lalala’ to stop the sound of words too wounding to be heard. 
 
Then four or five years ago we had a gang attack on Comrade Brian Bamford of the Northern Anarchist Network.  Brian has a knack of rubbing folk up the wrong way it must be said, he had been irreverent to an old stalward of traditional anarchism who had passed away, Brian’s obituary was thought to be insensitive, which it undoubtedly was.  But it led to his stall being turned over his books trashed and he beaten up and sprayed with ketchup.  This was in the middle of an event of Anarchists who are supposed to believe we can govern ourselves without enforcement and laws imposed upon us.   It got worse, as first Brian then members of his group were banned from regional anarchist bookfares, not simply from having a stall but attending on pain of violence.   Book and Newspaper shops which stocked the NAN magazine were visited and warned not to stock the journal, the printers likewise were given the Gypsies Warning.   He hasn’t mounted a bookstall since. 
 
Last year, a section of the Anarchist wing fighting alongside the PKK against ISIS were invited to speak at a workshop.  The hall was invaded by students from the Gulf states who although purporting to be progressives were basically supporters of the Jihadists and Theocrats.  They stamped and chanted and no platformed the speakers.  Bending over backward to preserve our traditions of free speech they were invited to present an alternative view before the anarchists spoke, which they did, and then broke up the meeting and stopped them being heard. 
 
This year was the final straw.  One of the anarcho-feminists had been circulating a leaflet saying why they didn’t allow transmen to attend women only sessions and workshops, when she was surrounded and shouted down and threatened by a gang of 'transmen’, who not only stopped those sessions but demanded a whole list of demands from the bookfare in general be met.  This was as to content of stalls, workshops, items displayed and on sale.  The organisers under a constant barrage have just said ’bollox’ you organise your own, we’re done’.  ‘That’s it, were done organising this event’. 
 
I cannot in conscience blame them.  The only way to stop this march of intolerance would have been to not tolerate it and to physically impose free thought and free speech on people who plainly don’t believe in it.  Which would be a contradiction too hard for Anarchists to cope with.  Its a sad reflection on where mostly middle class ‘safe space’ victim-mongering, no-platforming , witch hunting, tyranny has taken us.   It is a very sad day in my view.  We have to ensure that this intolerance and denial of free speech and basic liberty is not fed into working class organisations and events. 
 
Tyneside anarchists in conjunction with the Follonsby Wardley Miners Lodge Association will be hosting a Guy Fawkes Workers Bookfare in Newcastle next year, Nov 3rd.   This will be an opportunity to present books on working class political ideology and history and progressive thought which one would not get the chance to see in conventional book venues. It will very much be in the tradition of the once famous bookfare although we don’t expect the same numbers.   At this bookfare the principle of free speech and political liberty will be guaranteed, and anyone who doesn’t accept the principle ‘left’ or right will be not invited and if necessary excluded. 
 fiveleavespublications.blogspot.com/2012/10/

******

2017: London Anarchist Bookfair Statement

NO BOOKFAIR NEXT YEAR, AFTER VIOLENCE THIS YEAR

AS many people know there was an incident towards the end of the 2017 London Anarchist Bookfair.  Many statements have been written both supporting and condemning the organisers of the event.

At first, as in previous years, we were inclined to not respond to these statements.  However, because of the claims being made, and our views about future bookfairs we feel, unfortunately, that we need to respond.  We have produced two statements.  The first is a statement about the events on the day. The second is a response to a statement being circulated and signed by a number of groups critical of the Bookfair and its organisers.

We are responding because people have made it clear to us that we need to.  Others may want to continue the discussion.  We won’t be making any further comments.

Our statement on the incidents on the day.

Our statement in reply to the "Response to the London Anarchist Bookfair 2017".

Helen Steel & the problem of bullying

Editorial introduction:  Northern Voices has been aware of an incident that occurred at the London Anarchist Bookfair last Saturday.  Last Tuesday, I contacted a bookfair organiser to ask for an official statement as to what happened.  The reply we received was:

'The Bookfair collective are trying to find a time we can all meet to debrief, discuss and talk about putting out a statement. We hope this will be soon but can’t say anything further at this time.'

 Northern Voices is still awaiting an official statement from the bookfair organisers, but in the meantime there have been accounts of what happened on various websites including mumsnet; past tense; libcom to mention but a few.  The Anarchist Federation has issued a statement and some of their AF sub-groups in Edinburgh, Liverpool and South Wales have been trying to put pressure on the bookfair organisers to specifically legislate against certain people they disagree with.  Below we publish a statement from Helen Steel, a well-known campaigner against injustice, police spies and a core supporter of the Blacklist Support Group.  

While we haven't formed a view with regard to the plan by the Tories to 'amend the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to include Gender Identity as a protected characteristic in law' (see reference in bullet point [1] below), we are deeply concerned about the methods used by some groups to stifle debate.  Because of this we are publishing the statement issued last night by Helen Steel, with a link to her full statement.  

Our concern doesn't just relate to this one case.  Indeed not, it relates to a series of attacks on individuals going back a number of years.  This started with censorship in publications like Freedom and the banning of certain groups and individuals at anarchist bookfairs in Manchester, and has now ended up with physical attacks on Helen Steel and others at the famous London Bookfair.  The London Bookfair organisers must now consider what they must do to resolve these problems which have become institutionalised in the anarchist community, and we up here in the North don't envy them in this task.
******

HELEN STEEL'S STATEMENT:

I was in the process of writing a longer article around the events at the Anarchist Bookfair on Saturday, but I am also trying to stay on top of the rest of my life while dealing with the horrendous bullying of people around me which is underway by some trans activists and allies. I have been traumatised by my experiences on Saturday and by events since, resulting in a lack of sleep and inability to concentrate. I wanted to complete the longer article, but as lies are being circulated by those who attacked me, I feel I have to put out a shorter statement now.

When I refer to trans activists in this statement I mean people who are activists on trans issues, I do not mean that all of them were trans, nor that they represent the views of all trans identifying people. For those who don’t know what TERF means, it is an acronym for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, but whatever its origins it is currently used as a term of abuse to dehumanise women and so excuse violence and bullying against them.

I thank everyone who is taking a stand against bullying and I urge more people to stand in solidarity too. Those trans activists and allies who are carrying out the bullying can be defeated by growing numbers of people resisting that bullying. This will facilitate a proper space for the concerns of women and trans identifying people to be discussed.
Short statement on the facts:

• The Tories are planning to amend the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to include Gender Identity as a protected characteristic in law. This does affect women and as such, women have a right to express their views on this issue.
• I am aware of three leaflets which were distributed at the Bookfair. I did not actually write or distribute any of them, but I supported other women’s rights to distribute them.

For more go to: https://helensteelbookfairstatement.wordpress.com/

London Anarchist Bookfair Collective Statement

 6th November 2016 Via Kurdish Solidarity Network, by e-mail.

AMIR Taaki contacted us a week or so before the Bookfair asking that he be given space to speak about Rojava.  Below is the statement we sent out in respect of this on the Friday before the Bookfair. 

Leila Al Shami would define herself as an anarchist. Robin Yassin-Kassab would not. They co-wrote a book “Burning Country, Syrians in Revolution and War” and it was because of the issues in this book that we asked them to speak at this year’s London Anarchist Bookfair. We stand by this decision. Leila and Robin also asked Shiar Neyo, a Syrian Kurdish anarchist, to speak as well.

Amir Taaki and around 15 others decided to occupy the stage at the start of this meeting. We are still unsure if this was on the false accusation that we wouldn’t let him speak or his accusations that Robin Yassin-Kassab supports fascist groups.

There were a large number of people present who wanted to hear the speakers, so to progress the meeting those present let Amir could speak for 10 minutes at the start of the meeting. This he did. But this wasn’t enough for Amir and his followers. They still refused to let the meeting continue and silenced anyone who tried to speak except for Amir. Robin left the room although Leila stayed.

The Bookfair has a policy of “no filming” at the Bookfair and when we saw one of Amir’s group filming we asked her to stop. This she constantly refused to do even though people in the room were asking her to stop as it could compromise some people’s security. Eventually someone took the filming equipment from the woman which led to a very short scuffle lasting no more than a few seconds.

We asked Amir and his associates if they would now leave the stage and let Leila speak and the meeting continue. Amir refused stating that Leila is also tainted as she is connected to Robin. As it was obvious Amir considered himself to be the only legitimate voice of what’s happening in Rojava we, as the Bookfair organisers, cancelled the meeting and asked people to leave. We left the room to Amir, his group of (we assume) supporters and 2 or 3 other people.

We are disgusted by the way that Amir and his associates behaved. Firstly, a number of people wanted to hear what Leila and Robin had to say. Many were Kurds, Arabs and Syrians and some had travelled to the Bookfair specifically to be part of this discussion. We apologise to all these people and to Leila, Robin and Shiar.

Secondly, we know some people wanted to ask Robin about the accusations being made against him by Amir.

Thirdly we find it ironic that in the end the only people who heard from Amir were a load of people who he already knew. Amir and his friends left the Bookfair immediately after the meeting and did not participate in further meetings.

The meeting about Rojava did happen later on at the Bookfair, as scheduled, and over 100 people participated in a good debate. The Bookfair collective welcomes this debate (as we have in previous years) and will do so again in future years if it’s appropriate.

We have seen emails stating that Amir and co’s actions could damage support for the Kurds and/or Rojava. From the London Anarchist Bookfair’s perspective we in no way blame any sections of the Kurdish community. These were the actions of a very small group of people (some Kurdish – some not) who decided (1) they wanted to close down any free discussion on the issues, and (2) only the word of Amir could be heard. Likewise, we hope our Kurdish comrades do not see the actions of Amir and co as having the support of most anarchists. He does not represent anarchism as we perceive it.

There were over 70 meetings at this year’s Bookfair and over 100 stall holders. Amir and co disrupted one meeting which most of those at the Bookfair didn’t even realise had happened. We need to keep this in perspective.

Many discussions were had with Amir before the event explaining he wasn’t being stopped from contributing – which was his initial request. At no time initially did he say Robin shouldn’t be allowed to speak. He only made this demand when we explained to Amir he couldn’t speak from the stage and the meeting wouldn’t be “his meeting”. We wonder just how much of this story those who supported Amir on the day knew.

Statement from the London Anarchist Bookfair Collective, 28th October 2016 (the day before the Bookfair)

The London Anarchist Bookfair has Leila Al Shami and Robin Yassin-Kassab speaking at this year’s Bookfair. As the description on our website states “Leila and Robin will discuss the current situation in Syria with a focus on grass-roots resistance to all forms of authoritarianism.” Leila would describe herself as an anarchist and we know Robin wouldn’t. However we have often had non anarchists speaking when we think they have interesting things to say. Amir Taaki has made allegations against Robin both to us and to Robin & Leila. Robin categorically denies these allegations.

Amir contacted us about a week ago telling us we needed to let him speak signing off by saying “I’d love to speak at the anarchist book fair, only if you give me a good speaking slot and advertise it properly”.

We explained to him that the programme was fully booked, all the publicity had now gone out and the programme printed but he, like anyone else, is welcome to attend the Bookfair and any meeting to participate in the debates. His reply to us was “I want 1 hour to talk from the Syrian and technology talks”. Again we explained that at this late stage it just wasn’t possible but again said come and take part in the discussion. We have also had a friend of Amir’s call us telling us we must let Amir speak. We have never said he can’t speak. We have said we are not going to change the main speakers but that doesn’t stop him participating from the floor as the meeting will be a general discussion. We have discussed this with Amir as well by phone. It is now that Amir is making allegations against one of the speakers.

Amir is also claiming “This event is not having anything about Rojava, even though their main talk is about Syria. They’re trying to sideline Rojava”. He also calls Robin “the main speaker” at the Anarchist Bookfair. Both of these points are untrue.

Firstly, we do have a meeting about Rojava and this is a separate meeting to the one we are having about Rojava. We also have a meeting about the situation in Turkey. Amir has been told this but decides to say something completely different.

Robin is not the “main speaker” at the bookfair. We have 70 meetings and as the organisers we see all the meetings and discussions have equal billing. We have a number of speakers coming in from outside the UK and we feel it is an insult to these and speakers from within the UK to describe one person, as Amir does, as the “main speaker”. We would question why anyone who would define themselves as an anarchist would “rank” speakers in order of importance.

We cannot, and would not, stop Amir expressing his views. However we don’t agree with them for the reasons stated above.