The selective pursuit of fascism at the LSE
The LSE is in dark times, fascism is swamping the campus,
one can’t walk down Houghton Street without being barracked by agitators glorifying
Mussolini. Cries that Franco-ism once again is ‘la moda’ are met with long and
stormy applause. Work in the library is near impossible for the sound of
jackboots and vigorous Sieg-Heil-ling. The courageous yet futile attempt of the
proposers of the ‘No Platform’ to placate this tide have unsurprisingly been
defeated in the Student Union and now surely it can’t be long before an
enabling act is upon us. In the words of Albus Dumbledore, soon each one of us
will have to choose between what is right and what is easy.
But to return to reality for a moment, and to fight the
temptation to which some have seemingly conceded, to think that the LSE is
somehow at the centre of a climatic struggle against the insidious march and
return of fascism, the ‘No Platform’ motion and the limited debate on it which
took place raises some important and interesting issues. With no doubt the motion in its random,
desperate and arbitrary composition of banning fascists, rape apologists and
holocaust deniers all under the same banner was most definitely a sad and
soiled caricature of how mind numbing student politics can be. Is anyone else left
wondering why perhaps Satan worshipers or speakers endorsing cannibalism weren’t
included in this unwieldy collection? However there are some serious points which
should be excavated as diamonds from the dung hill.
Firstly the refusal of the proposers to accept the original
or any variation of the amendment that proposed adding the crimes of communism
to the list of ideologies that should be banished from campus. It must first be
pointed out that this amendment came from the university’s small number of libertarians
who certainly didn’t support the motion’s move to further corrupt the right to
freedom of speech, which has come under repeated attack recently, but instead
wanted to at least try to introduce a measure of intellectual consistency to
the motion. The amendment would have benefited from not using the very broad
term ‘Communism’ but instead ‘Marxist-Leninism’ or ‘Maoism’ but its thrust was
still most certainly valid. The
proposers of the motion seemed shocked that their explanation for their refusal
to accept the amendment was met by laughter and vocal disbelief. As they
explained communism is an inclusive ideology a world away from fascism which is
focused on exclusion. Surely this is reason enough to ignore the crimes of
Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky, their enslavement, execution and torture of
millions. After all they did so with good intentions didn’t they?
This quite hideous piece of moral relativism and apology for
sadism, which was hopeful y and most likely born out of ignorance, is congruent
with a wider common laxity of popular indignation and condemnation with which
the crimes of communist and socialist ideologues are met by society at large. Quite
rightly we all spit on the image and memory of someone like Adolf Hitler but when
it comes to a figure like Leon Trotsky, a nutcase equally committed to
slaughtering, torturing and locking up thousands of his fellow human beings,
the jury is still very much out. We correctly remember the massacre of
innocents on the basis of race under the banner of the swastika but turn a comparatively
blind eye to the greater number of victims that suffered under the banner of
the hammer and sickle on the basis of social class. Very dangerously and
repugnantly suffering is made exclusive and those who are often first to be
written off are those who were persecuted for the crime of owning property or
capital. The Bourgeois doesn’t deserve tears to be shed over them, they can
quite simply be forgotten. This is certainly a message which finds an ally in
ULU’s decision to boycott Remembrance Sunday on the historically vapid claim
that the First World War was nothing but a capitalist conspiracy to slaughter
the working classes of Europe.
Secondly, if this wasn’t already enough, very credible
concerns were and should be raised as to how such a motion would be applied.
Let’s put to one side for one moment the important arguments that were made in
the union’s debate against the motion, centred on the need to defend the freedom
of speech on campus and freedom of thought, as well as the insult the motion
posed to the ability of students to defeat and dismiss far right ideologues on
their own intellectual merits rather than being guided and vetted by our
enlightened Student Union. This commentator for one has serious doubts that
such a motion would have been anything but selectively applied. White middle
class males such as David Irving would be immediately and firmly relegated from
any hopes of ever being able to peddle his distortions of history in the
service of holocaust denial at the LSE. But what about those other advocates
and bed fellows of holocaust denial or anti-Semitism which might well have
escaped censorship? The response to the question posed by this author at the union
debate, inquiring if advocates of Hamas or other Islamist groups which have a
less than enlightened attitude towards the European holocaust would be banned
under the ‘No Platform’ was met by the proposers as being an unnecessary attack
and offense to the university’s Muslims. After all we’re all multiculturalists aren’t
we? So holding all groups to the same moral standards just isn’t cricket is it?
God forbid, it might even commit the capital offence of offending someone.
It can only be presumed what the proposers of the ‘No
Platform’ would have said in response to another inquiry that is worthy of
being highlighted. This is, Hamas aside, if the proposes would be willing to condemn
the students who quite rightly stand up for the rights and dignity of the
people of Palestine for not at the same time being willing to condemn the Palestinian
Authority for being led by a man, Dr Mahmoud Abbas, who’s doctoral thesis is a
junk piece of history which presents the holocaust as a fantasy manufactured by
Zionists. In the face of such an issue one can only imagine that the union
would elect to do that which is easy and ignore the issue instead of doing that
which is right or at least that which is intellectually consistent. As for the
Iranian government’s flirtations with holocaust denial under Mr Ahmadinejad, it’s
probably best not even to get started.
When it comes to attacking the likes of David Irving, Anders
Breivik, Nick Griffin or the EDL its no holds barred because we are such
non-conformist and edgy moral crusaders here at the LSE. However speaking up
against anyone or any group that it isn’t our archetypal image of fascism or anti-Semitism
and the call to arms seems to falter. The case in point at the debate over
motion was the proposers willingness to ban George Galloway on the charge of
rape apology but to hesitate to do so similarly for his services in being the
mouthpiece and shameless apologist and glorifier of Baath Party fascism in Iraq
and Syria as well as his fundraising and support for anti-Semitic groups such
as Hamas and Hezbollah. Say something repugnant in regards to sleeping with
someone whilst they are unconscious as being merely ‘bad sexual etiquette’ and
you won’t eat in this town again but publically salute the bravery and indefatigability
of Saddam Hussein then nobody seems to care if you’re at their dinner table. Just as Ken Livingston can get away with
embracing Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a cleric who believes homosexuality should be punished
by death and that its reasonable for a husband to beat his wife as long as it’s
done with restraint and moderation, doddering figures like Tony Benn can be
lavished with praise even though he’s publically said that Mao Tse Tung has to
be viewed as a great figure of Chinese history.
Being on the left and posing as a radical or an opponent of American
imperialism is all too often a moral passport to spew whatever obscenities you
should so desire. May it be said that if we are to have bans and curtailments
of freedom of speech then there are just as worthy candidates as Tommy Robison
who are being overlooked.
