The Wootton Bassett protest
Paedophiles have a right to free speech, for example, much as we might loathe the content of what they're saying - but it's probably best they don't do it outside a primary school. If that were proposed - and I'm guessing it won't ever be, but stick with me - that would be provocative, inflammatory and would run the maximum risk of creating a violent reaction.
I have similar feelings about Al Muhajiroun and the idea posited on the Islam4UK website about holding a parade through Wootton Bassett to remember Muslim victims of the Afghan war. Now, as I strenuously try to point out at all times, I'm not a 'no platform' kind of person - but I think it's disingenuous to neglect the context of where the platform might be, and whether somewhere else might be a bit more suitable, and a bit less provocative.
Which isn't to say I don't find the Wootton Bassett parades mawkish and exploitative of service families' genuine grief, because I do. As Matthew Parris so eloquently put it a little time ago, there's a danger that we end up depicting dedicated service people as little more than victims, which isn't quite the case. Yes, these are underpaid, badly treated, underequipped public-sector workers, often young men barely out of school, but that isn't to say we should treat them with the kind of lachrymose sentimentality reserved for children with cancer or special-needs folk - they know the risks, they are dedicated to their job and they very often enjoy what they're doing.
What the repatriation ceremonies - streamed live on news channels with reporters describing the hearses' procession in hushed tones - have done is to distill the war into one set of casualties - specifically 'our' soldiers who have died. And I think that misses the point in two ways. Firstly, it's important to remember that war doesn't, unfortunately, kill good guys and bad guys, ie 'our boys' and the evil Taliban - mistakes can be made, soldiers can be killed by friendly fire and civilians can be caught up in it too. Secondly, it takes attention away from the living repatriations - those soldiers who come back to Britain injured, disabled or deeply traumatised. Also, I think it runs the risk of becoming a tool for propaganda - Nick Griffin, of course, has turned up at a repatriation, but there's another side, too. Who wouldn't want to harness the positive feeling towards service personnel, and try to ride on the back of it, however carefully? The BBC's Question Time even came from the town recently, showing that broadcasters recognise how the town's name resonates with the public. What better place to hold a protest - or worse?
Still, if these repatriation events give families a genuine chance to grieve in public when they want to, and for others to show their appreciation of the efforts of those fighting on the other side of the world, then it's not for me to stand in judgement, thinking I know better. I may not agree with the conflict in Afghanistan but I do understand how others do value its importance, and how it's important for families to make some ritual sense when a loved one dies, whether that's in private or public.
Is it right to allow someone to hijack the Wootton Bassett 'brand' (as it has now sadly become) for the purposes of furthering their own agenda? Even the odious Griffin managed not to be an inflammatory presence, but then he didn't announce his arrival with bells and whistles beforehand. You have to wonder whether the announcement on Islam4UK was really a well thought-out plan for a genuine march, or something to generate as much publicity as possible for the group - which of course it has ended up doing. A loud and noisy march through central London wouldn't have created as much heat and light as this intention to march through a sleepy Wiltshire town has done - so it's a propaganda win, in that sense, regardless of how much condemnation there has been.
You also have to bear in mind the idea of creating a precedent. If this group do get to protest through the town, others may see the huge amount of publicity generated and may want to as well. And I'm inclined to agree with Dave Osler, who says:
But context is everything, and this move is an obvious provocation from what is effectively a front organisation for banned Islamist faction Al Muhajiroun, who are manifestly not peaceniks of any description.
It has been suggested that the announcement is simply a stunt on the part of the publicity-savvy [Anjem] Choudary, and I very much hope that is the case. If it goes ahead, it will inevitably generate a huge counter-mobilisation likely to boost the fortunes of the fascist British National Party ahead of an impending general election. Choudary either does not care about this, or positively relishes the prospect.
And that's the real problem. If this whole business is about creating a punch-up rather than genuinely honouring Muslim war deaths, then it's pretty shabby. It brings to mind the English Defence League plans to protest outside mosques - provocative, nasty and downright stupid, leaving you with a suspicion that violence or an angry reaction wouldn't be entirely disapproved of, if it did happen. The people of Wootton Bassett didn't ask for troops to come through their high street in coffins, but that's what ended up happening due to their proximity to an air base. Do they deserve other protests cluttering their streets? I'm not so sure they do. This isn't 'no platform', it's 'maybe the platform shouldn't quite be here in such a provocative place'.
I note that the Islam4UK website appears to be down at the moment, presumably under the enormous weight of traffic this stunt has created. So it's a victory of sorts, without ever having to have the protest in the first place. I can't think that Al Muhajiroun will have garnered very much more support from this whole business, though.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 5th, 2010 - 09:30
Dave Osler appears to come to the opposite conclusion to you shortly after the passage you cite. So how come you don't agree with him?
January 5th, 2010 - 10:14
They should be allowed to march, without doubt, but everybody who has signed a facebook group (and subsequently feel much better about themselves for it, in a look at me I hate terrorists kind of way) should get themselves down to Wootten Bassett and peacefully pay there respects to the people they care so passionately about.
Never agreed with silent funeral parades anyway, we should be celebrating the bravery and dedication. Just like with many public sector workers on these shores.
Surely the right to freely protest, to speak freely, and live freely, is what the soldiers are fighting for anyway?
If we keep changing our laws and society to adapt around the dangers of terrorism then they win. That is their intention remember. To change our 'free' society.
We must not forget the many citizens who went to work on Sept 12th 2001 in New York or July 8th 2005 in London, or indeed for many years in Belfast, they are soldiers too. Carrying on as we did before, exactly the same, is the only way to beat these people. As tough as that may be.
January 5th, 2010 - 10:16
Yes, these are underpaid, badly treated, underequipped public-sector workers, often young men barely out of school
Soldiers are better paid and better treated than most young working class men, and they're generally not underequipped (this is a meeja myth that's been running since the 19th century – opposition politicians pretend that the occasional logistics cock-up is a sign that the evil warmongers in Westminster are sending Our Boys to their avoidable doom through penny-pinching).
The rest of the piece is spot on, though.
January 5th, 2010 - 10:17
To Paul H: I don't think it's the opposite conclusion, just slightly different.
January 5th, 2010 - 10:57
I've always found the Wootton Bassett repatriations to be a most sickening kind of political demonstration. Macabre, jingoistic theatre designed to solidify support for the wars, or at least 'our boys'*. And now we've got Armed Forces Day, a proliferation of parades through town centres, soldiers, sailors or airmen at nearly every major sporting event. Not that I think a two-bit group of nuts should hold a parade designed to start a riot – but I think it insignificant in comparison to the mobilisation of the state propoganda machine, which, despite (or perhaps because of) its sheer size, passes by unremarked. There will be pages upon pages of news content commenting on the aims of Islam4UK, yet I didn't see a single column stripping down the propaganda theatre of the repatriation ceremonies.
*I've never understood the argument that you've got to support 'our boys', no matter that you disagree with their mission, or even think it a crime. Sure, they're following orders, they're not politicians, and they're young and brave – but this applies to pretty much ALL soldiers. Do I have to support the 'lads' of the Chinese Liberation Army in Tibet? Those Russian 'boys' in Chechnya? Or am I only bound to support soldiers occupying another country, taking part in a war that is killing the local population by their thousands and propping up local gangsters, when they hold the same passport that I do?
Mind you, 'you've got to support our boys' easily slips into, 'you've got to support our wars'. When Help for Heroes was first launched I thought, 'balls, now rugby has been overtly recruited to supporting the murderous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.' My mood was lifted when the early press coverage appeared to be arguing that yes, you've got to support 'our boys', because they come back severely injured, but wanting them to have proper physical and psychological care does not need you to support the war in which they suffered damage. However, it wasn't long before people speaking for Help for Heroes were talking about 'our boys' protecting our freedom.
January 5th, 2010 - 10:58
Reminds me of the British Union of Fascists and their walk down Cable Street in London (populated by jews at the time). It was only to provoke controversy and increase tensions. And it turned into a bloody battle.
Similarly with Orange Order marches.
I don't think they should be allowed to protest on public safety grounds.
January 5th, 2010 - 13:06
Hang on – the far right have for eons been allowed to march through areas of racial diversity.
I say let them march in Wooton Bassett. After all it is only a symbolic demonstration not a mass rally of tens of thousands.
January 5th, 2010 - 16:59
'badly treated, underequipped public-sector workers, often young men barely out of school'- young women too.
January 5th, 2010 - 21:14
There's part of me that wants the march to be banned on public order grounds, because I can definitely see there being trouble, but then any time the Mail kicked up a fuss about a demonstration you could use the same argument. So it should go ahead on principle.
As for the repatriation ceremonies – I don't have too much of a problem with them. If the army/families of the dead want to do that sort of thing that's up to them, and yeah, maybe some soldiers – maybe a lot – enjoy their job, but those that die in Iraq and Afghanistan are dying because it's where they were sent.
And for some people it's one of very few plausible options. We can't really know whether Soldier X loved his job and went to it by choice or was forced into it by it being the only steady paid job he could find, so I think it's better to assume the 'best'. Not that that's great.
I do mind the mawkish sentimental co-opting of it all by the media though, like when the Sun putting a poem by the young daughter of a dead soldier on the front page to try to drum up support for Our Boys (which is what it was on the front page for, really).
January 6th, 2010 - 00:38
Islam4UK has been DDos'd with denial of service attacks, I heard.
Let us not forget this isn't a band of motivated jihadists, but Anjem Choudary, who is nothing more than a media whore who wants to get his beard on the telly.
And yes, supporting Our Boys is a moral obligation, because they have the onus of being shot at, especially after being sent into afghanistan with nothing but their fingers to shoot with (Some troops were sent in with only five bullets each). Our Boys are often still children, aged 16 or 17, too young to smoke but still old enough to don some ill fitting fatigues and chance it with enemy IED's. Not supporting our boys is an ill informed and spiteful statement against people who have joined up with every intention of supporting their country and it's basic ideals – freedom and democracy – and that includes supporting you, at the possible expense of their lives.
January 6th, 2010 - 09:12
Pavlov's Cat – "supporting Our Boys is a moral obligation". But what does this actually mean? Do we support them by supporting the war? Or opposing it?
Personally I think it's an obscene farce and the deaths are doing no good, so I think it is in the interest of the troops to be withdrawn.
Anton – "I don't think it's the opposite conclusion, just slightly different." He says we have to defend their right to march in WB and you say not. In that slight difference lies the crux of the matter. If you're going to "slightly" abridge people's right to free expression and assembly you'll have to come up with something "slightly" more convincing. I'm not saying that it should never be done, but it needs a robust justification. Everything I see about this convinces me that the antis are being moved by either unacceptable motivations (from racism to sentimentality) or by the difficulty of going against the stream, but it's precisely when it's difficult that the principles count.
January 6th, 2010 - 23:52
And yes, supporting Our Boys is a moral obligation, because they have the onus of being shot at
AIUI, so do the Somali pirates and the Taliban. That isn't a dig at the troops, just a dig at idiots who believe that 'being shot at' is a proxy for 'is morally good'.
especially after being sent into afghanistan with nothing but their fingers to shoot with (Some troops were sent in with only five bullets each).
Bullshit.
Our Boys are often still children, aged 16 or 17, too young to smoke but still old enough to don some ill fitting fatigues and chance it with enemy IED's.
True; raising the smoking age was a stupid and petty move.
Not supporting our boys is an ill informed and spiteful statement against people who have joined up with every intention of supporting their country and it's basic ideals – freedom and democracy – and that includes supporting you, at the possible expense of their lives.
Supporting us? Do piss off. There hasn't been a British military action which made a blind bit of difference to the safety of the people of mainland Britain since 1945.