March bans hit the left

Scan page 16

Published by the Socialist Organiser Alliance, 28 Middle Lane, London NB, Printed by East End Offset Lid. Loud F'1. Registured as a newspaper at the Post Office. Signed articls do not necessarily represent the views of the SOA. In other words in seven sible for requesting many of LO 101 1451. FROM the moment the Home Secretary granted McNee's request for a one month blanket ban on marches in Greater London it was obvious that the turn out against the fascists in Fulham last Sunday would be no more than perfunctory.

As it was, in fact, had the police not been there, we probably would have been smashed!

A combination of bans on all marches (except those "customarily" held) and police/SPG swamping operations in the relevant area, immediately reduced not only the numbers attending, but also any purpose or direction to a counter-demonstration.

Cat and mouse

The anti-fascists are reduced to playing a pointless cat and mouse game, with the Met in the role of the cat!

Since March 5 of this year, there have been 18 bans under the provisions of the Public Order Act of 1936.

In other words months of this year we have had six times as many bans as in the entire last decade.

In London alone, out of about 190 days, only 89 have been free from ban restrictions.

Without exception, all the bans have been imposed in response to threatened marches by one of the fascist groups, NF, BM or NNF.

Riff-ratf

Simply at the drop of an application to march at the local constabulary, the fascists are able to cancel the right to protest.

David Bruce, activities organiser of the NF may bombastically ask "why are they so frightened of us?" but the answer certainly does not lie in a fear within the ruling class of the NF's riff-raff processions.

Since the Tories' coming to power, the use of the Public Order Act has surthe late 1930S, When three passed anytning known since month rolling bans were regularly renewed (though it's not just the Tories: Labour councils are responsible for requesting many of bans).

And, as in the '30s, so today: the bans are formally aimed at the fascists but actually hit harder at the left and the labour movement. It was not fear of Mosley that prompted the 1936 Public Order Act but the fear of more Cable Streets.

Peter Hain of the Anti Nazi League suggests that a way around this would be if the state would only ban fascist demonstrations. Perhaps the 'incitement to hatred" section of the 1976 Race Relations Act could be used Councillors Many in the leadership of the ANL and many Labour councillors suggest banning fascist marches because they genuinely view fascist marches as a problem of "keeping the peace" - clear the fascists off the streets by invoking some administrative measure.

Unfortunately they have realised only slowly that these bans have hit the labour movement more than the far right.

Cancelled CND demos, solidarity events. trade union marches - this has been the real toll of the bans. Plus massive and unwarranted publicity for the fascists.

Foolhardy

To think the state will relinquish such a useful weapon against the labour movement is foolhardy, in the least. And to think that the state will use the Race Relations Act to ban only fascist marches and events is to ignore how such reformist laws are every day more and more an irrelevance as the state tightens its grip over the black and Asian communities.

Gangrene

The problem is not enabling the state to 'keep the peace' , but enabling the labour movement to deal with the fascist gangrene in this society:

it can 1 in no way be in the interest of the labour movement to demand _ the state banning of fascist marches. We must deal with our enemies ourselves.