The Rise of the Far Right

[Hook]

I think it’s helpful to see a university as several different kinds of spaces, operating according to different logics and standards. “Freedom of speech” is often invoked in relation to all of them but doesn’t necessarily capture the logics at work in any of them.

The seminar/lecture room is one kind of space, and this is where “listening, studying and understanding” is an unambiguous priority. But in reality freedom of speech isn’t a very meaningful concept here for that very reason. What matters is what constitutes a nourishing learning environment, including what kind of materials and ideas are discussed. Academic freedom is the order of the day here: educators get to decide what’s admitted and excluded, not the government, not (even) students, not “gender critical” political activists or any other kind. There is absolutely no obligation for educators to expose students to any old shit that comes up just because it’s there and in the news. If they do choose to let that material in they’re under no obligation to take it seriously. A chemistry lecturer doesn’t teach phlogiston theory as a legitimate account of oxidation and leave it up to students to decide what theory they prefer, although they might mine it for educational value. Likewise a cultural theory based on the idea that one race is superior to another would be treated as evidence of intellectual retrogression if it cropped up in a responsibly-led seminar. “Gender critical” feminism too, at least as far as I’m concerned.

Anyway my main point is that there are other spaces on campus where learning etc is not necessarily the priority, especially not the agonistic kind you seem to be talking about. Students don’t necessarily need to be confronted with challenging material in student counselling, for instance. Or the student bar, or the film club, or even the debating society. All of these spaces have their own logics for determining what is taken up, what’s left out and so on, and nobody has a god-given right to pitch up and insist on being taken seriously or given a “platform”.

As I understand it the film in question was being shown in one such space not as part of a curriculum: nobody’s freedom of speech has been shut down (because that’s not really a relevant operating principle here) nor anyone’s academic freedom compromised. Someone made a decision to show an intellectually regressive film that attracts aggressive, small-minded and often violent people onto campus, and feeds the misogyny, homophobia and transphobia that are already a significant part of campus life in most universities; other students protested and succeeded in reversing the decision. All part of the give-and-take of managing these spaces, it seems to me, and about as far away from a loss to learning as I can easily imagine. Very teachable moment I’d have thought. Proud of these students.

Good post. I think you make several valid points.

Just one point of clarification: I was not arguing for agnostic learning, nor do I even think that’s possible. All universities have an intellectual philosophy based on how they want to prepare students for the real world. I would hope that they teach tools and methods for separating fact from harmful propaganda.

When one group of masked people (which we assume are students, but who knows), no matter how morally correct or well intentioned, uses the threat of violence to shut down a screening, I think it’s a problem. Even worse, I think it’s a sign of fear and weakness. And isn’t that exactly what the propagandists are trying to create? As I said earlier, all that’s been accomplished is giving a crappy little pseudo-documentary a lot of unearned publicity.

 

[Seanm]

Good post. I think you make several valid points.

Just one point of clarification: I was not arguing for agnostic learning, nor do I even think that’s possible. All universities have an intellectual philosophy based on how they want to prepare students for the real world. I would hope that they teach tools and methods for separating fact from harmful propaganda.

When one group of masked people (which we assume are students, but who knows), no matter how morally correct or well intentioned, uses the threat of violence to shut down a screening, I think it’s a problem. Even worse, I think it’s a sign of fear and weakness. And isn’t that exactly what the propagandists are trying to create? as I said earlier, all that’s been accomplished is giving a crappy little pseudo-documentary a lot of unearned publicity.

Thanks, although I meant “agonistic”, must have been autocorrected. As in, learning as a kind of contest or trial of strength.

I’m not bothered about masks, really: it’s routine on protests, especially against the far right, for some to hide their identity because otherwise you end up on fascist websites for targeting. Some students will also have good reason to want to hide their identity from university authorities, plus British newspapers specialise in doxxing student activists - literally putting their names and photographs on their front pages and smearing them. The U.K. is a very hostile environment right now for politically active young people, especially young trans people and their allies.

I don’t know about these threats of violence? The university cited fear of violence but a) from whom and b) they’re almost certainly full of shit.

Is it a sign of weakness to refuse to indulge a crappy little pseudo-documentary? I don’t know. These people demand *all* the bandwidth, and the demands are insatiable: if it shows strength and open-mindedness to debate them this week, how about next week, when they turn up again, repeating exactly the same crap, having conceded nothing? And the week after that? In every single space they can occupy? At some stage the strong thing to do is to refuse the demand, refuse the “debate”. It’s for suckers, honestly.

 

[paulfromcamden]

When one group of masked people (which we assume are students, but who knows), no matter how morally correct or well intentioned, uses the threat of violence to shut down a screening, I think it’s a problem.

On the subject of alleged violence all I would say is that I'd be wary of taking any Graun reporting of trans stories entirely at face value. It's not a trans-friendly publication.

Contrast with the Pink News headline: Adult Human Female film screening blocked by Edinburgh university students doing the conga

Was about to make the same point about masks as Sean. It's not meant to intimidate, it's for the protection of protestors. On this occasion the far-right Scottish Family Party were filming students. They have a track record of online harassment.

 

[DonQuixote99]

I assumed that if they were evil enough to do it once, then they would just keep doing so.

My point was that, in either case, democracy is ruined, and it’s just of question of who becomes dictator. We could hope for a benevolent dictator, and a return to elections someday, but that could take a long time.

Not saying I have an answer. Both approaches seem very problematic.

Yes, revolutions for the most part don't have a great track record. It's not a thing to be hoped for, it's a desperation measure.

 

[DonQuixote99]

I was born at the end of a 40 year long fascist dictatorship. They’re notoriously difficult to topple…

All the more reason to call it off pre-emptively.

 

[Hook]

Thanks, although I meant “agonistic”, must have been autocorrected. As in, learning as a kind of contest or trial of strength.

I’m not bothered about masks, really: it’s routine on protests, especially against the far right, for some to hide their identity because otherwise you end up on fascist websites for targeting. Some students will also have good reason to want to hide their identity from university authorities, plus British newspapers specialise in doxxing student activists - literally putting their names and photographs on their front pages and smearing them. The U.K. is a very hostile environment right now for politically active young people, especially young trans people and their allies.

I don’t know about these threats of violence? The university cited fear of violence but a) from whom and b) they’re almost certainly full of shit.

Is it a sign of weakness to refuse to indulge a crappy little pseudo-documentary? I don’t know. These people demand *all* the bandwidth, and the demands are insatiable: if it shows strength and open-mindedness to debate them this week, how about next week, when they turn up again, repeating exactly the same crap, having conceded nothing? And the week after that? In every single space they can occupy? At some stage the strong thing to do is to refuse the demand, refuse the “debate”. It’s for suckers, honestly.

Call me old fashioned, but I disagree that “refusing to debate” can ever be seen as a strong position in an educational environment.

IMO, security should have been provided, the movie should have been screened, and it should have followed by a panel discussion during which it could be ridiculed. A missed opportunity to advance the defense of Trans rights IMO.

That said, I am only going by what I’ve read in the article and here on PFM. As a resident, I will of course accept that you know more about the UK’s situation than I do.

 

[Hook]

On the subject of alleged violence all I would say is that I'd be wary of taking any Graun reporting of trans stories entirely at face value. It's not a trans-friendly publication.

Contrast with the Pink News headline: Adult Human Female film screening blocked by Edinburgh university students doing the conga

Was about to make the same point about masks as Sean. It's not meant to intimidate, it's for the protection of protestors. On this occasion the far-right Scottish Family Party were filming students. They have a track record of online harassment.

Thanks for your comment on the Guardian. I am not a regular reader, and only became aware of this situation we are discussing because the article was posted here a few days ago.

As I said earlier, I fully support student rights to peacefully protest. I also believe that the university is responsible for providing adequate security so that protesters do not feel intimidated. Had they done so, protesters and counter-protesters could have been kept well separated.

Getting your picture taken at a protest is certainly nothing new. Had mine taken quite a few times in the ‘70s. Always assumed it was undercover cops, but who knows. You make a good point about social media making this much more of an issue today.

 

[Cheese]

Let’s try a hypothetical. What do we do if the GOP nominates a real, dyed-in-the-wool Neo-Nazi for President in 2024? Do we allow the election to play out, and hope for the Nazi to lose? Or do we declare martial law, and cancel future elections?

Tested three times in France, once with Jean-Marie Le Pen, twice with his daughter Marine. Fortunately, the country is not (yet) ready for such a person to run the country, so Macron had an easy game. The opposition of the entire political class as well as of the media towards the far right has been massive and works well.
The current situation is mainly due to the sorry state of the Left, and it hasn’t improved since. Fake alliances bodged together by selfish Melenchon won’t last. As such I am worried about the next presidential election, with no serious opposition against Le Pen. I hope Macron can build up a successor until then, although this doesn’t look easy given his current all-time low in the polls.

 

[Seanm]

Call me old fashioned, but I disagree that “refusing to debate” can ever be seen as a strong position in an educational environment.

IMO, security should have been provided, the movie should have been screened, and it should have followed by a panel discussion during which it could be ridiculed. A missed opportunity to advance the defense of Trans rights IMO.

That said, I am only going by what I’ve read in the article and here on PFM. As a resident, I will of course accept that you know more about the UK’s situation than I do.

"Refuse to debate" frames the issue in a misleading way, I think (and in a way that's useful to terfs and fascists). What's at stake here isn't a contest of ideas but an occupation of space. Gender critical ideas are dogshit, like creationism or something, but it doesn't matter to them because it's not the point. The point is to protest the visibility of trans people in these spaces and insist on their own.

Better to frame it as "refusing to prioritise" or "refusing to subsidise" because every time you lay on screenings, security and panels for these people you take resources that could be used to support rational debate that's meaningful to students and use it to advertise bullshit for resentment-addled seniors. It's a waste of everyone's time and it pollutes public discussion, both on campus and off it.

The specifics of the UK situation are worth considering because we currently have a right wing government that boasts about having made no-platforming illegal (unlawful? Anyway universities can be fined for it). Is this because they love free speech and want to maintain a diverse intellectual ecosystem? All other signs point to no. They're deploying universities in a wider media war against minorities, young people and the left. Fascists and terfs are doing exactly the same thing and I hate that we have to subsidise them while they do it.

 

[Tony L]

There is a huge false-equivalence aspect to it too, e.g. it really is not necessary to get a flat earther onto every program about astronomy. Right-wing GC ideology is just bigotry and needs to be dismissed as such. It is not worthy of debate as it fails all logical scrutiny.

The thing that I find the most terrifying is the way the political right and their associated religious extremists have successfully spun this into a highly orchestrated trans panic where in reality we are talking about a tiny vulnerable minority that amounts to at most around 0.2% of the population (gov.uk census suggests 0.1% trans men, 0.1% trans women). They are a threat to absolutely no one and need our respect, support and protection. We need to absolutely reject all right-wing demonisation and scapegoating and call it out as the fascism it is.

 

[Ted-M]

You need to place it in the context of what is currently an existential threat to one of the smallest and most vulnerable minority groups in society. Ask yourself the larger question as to why this totally harmless group is being demonised and having their basic rights to exist removed by increasingly right-wing governments here and in the USA. A group routinely murdered in many Islamist states just for existing.

You're posing a completely different question to those raised by the women (and men) in the film, whilst at the same time denying them the right to even raise questions or have opinions by demonising them as far right hate speech facists, comparing them literally with nazi Germany. Maybe you're doing what you purport to stand against? You'd think it was just an endless parade of women talking about how they hate trans people, which of course it isn't at all.

Most of us will never even meet a trans person in our lives. I’m 59 years old, spent many, many years on the more outsider fringes of the art scene, and even then I think I’ve only met three. Ask yourself what the motivation of this film is? Who is it protecting? Who’s rights is it trying to remove? It may be gently worded and have a veneer of acceptability, but the underlying premise is to increase ‘trans-panic’ and erode basic human rights from an exceptionally vulnerable and tiny minority group.

The motivation of the film is mostly to present the argument that womens' rights are linked to sex, not gender. And to show how women are routinely silenced, sacked, abused, threatened and harassed for expressing that view. Does that not trouble you in the slightest? Who gave them any right to have an opinion on being female anyway? They should just shut the fk up!

PS The question I’d really like to see an answer to is who exactly paid for it? I think I can guess, but it would be interesting to know.

Seeing as it looks like it cost about twenty-five quid to produce it could be literally anyone. I don't actually think it's a particularly good film as such but the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether you or me or anyone else like it or agrees with it.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

But is that a defensible argument? Are women's rights linked to sex and not gender? If so, why so? I suspect the answer is something like 'because men said so'.

 

[paulfromcamden]

@tedmanzie you've defended GC views quite a number of times on the forum. What are your own views on trans rights?

 

[Finnegan]

When one group of masked people (which we assume are students, but who knows), no matter how morally correct or well intentioned, uses the threat of violence to shut down a screening, I think it’s a problem. Even worse, I think it’s a sign of fear and weakness.

No, and with respect, that’s classic blind spot liberalism. Back in the early 90’s an Australian film, Romper Stomper, was doing the rounds. The film concerned a gang of Nazi skinheads beating up Asians in Melbourne. The film, although it stylised and romanticised Nazi violence, ultimately portrayed the gang as a bunch of losers. But that wasn’t the point. In England, fascists began to organise around screenings and so it was (rightly) picketed by the Anti-Nazi League.

Similarly, in 2009 the BBC One’s flagship political programme, Question Time, featured the then leader of the fascist British National Party. Although he was utterly humiliated on the show, he used the episode to claim ‘victimhood’ and in subsequent days and weeks BNP membership soared.

We know from history that fascism left unchecked does not go away, it grows and strengthens. Openly debating fascism might, to a degree, lead to its incoherence being exposed, but it is far more likely that it gains credibility and drags the debate to the right.

I know you’re referring to the trans debate rather than fascism per se, but public opposition is of vital importance. And in any case, the line between outright fascism and the war on trans is becoming increasingly blurred.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The problem with trying to debate fascism with fascists is that the sort of people who may be open to a fascist view are largely impervious to reasonable debate and won't be swayed by it. We saw this in the Brexit stuff, Leave had all the rational arguments and was just dismissed as 'project fear'. You can't win an argument with a fascist because even if you 'win' the argument, it won't change any minds, so even trying is pointless. Don't wrestle the pig, etc.

 

[Ted-M]

There is absolutely no obligation for educators to expose students to any old shit that comes up just because it’s there and in the news. If they do choose to let that material in they’re under no obligation to take it seriously. A chemistry lecturer doesn’t teach phlogiston theory as a legitimate account of oxidation and leave it up to students to decide what theory they prefer, although they might mine it for educational value. Likewise a cultural theory based on the idea that one race is superior to another would be treated as evidence of intellectual retrogression if it cropped up in a responsibly-led seminar. “Gender critical” feminism too, at least as far as I’m concerned.

Agreed that physics teachers have no obligation to teach 'Flat Earth Theory' but gender critical feminism is hardly 'creationism' seeing as 'gender identity theory' only appeared about 5 minutes ago.

But is that a defensible argument? Are women's rights linked to sex and not gender? If so, why so? I suspect the answer is something like 'because men said so'.

Of course they are linked to sex, but as I'm not a woman I'm not going to try and explain it.

 

[paulfromcamden]

And in any case, the line between outright fascism and the war on trans is becoming increasingly blurred.

Quite.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Of course they are

I know you don't want to get drawn on this, and I'm not trying to force the debate on you, but the 'of course' bit here is the nub of it, I suspect.

 

[paulfromcamden]

I'm not a woman I'm not going to try and explain it.

So it's OK to repeatedly defend GC views but you don't feel it's you place to say why you think that because you're not a woman? Not sure how that really works tbh.

 

[Tony L]

The motivation of the film is mostly to present the argument that womens' rights are linked to sex, not gender. And to show how women are routinely silenced, sacked, abused, threatened and harassed for expressing that view. Does that not trouble you in the slightest? Who gave them any right to have an opinion on being female anyway? They should just shut the fk up!

No one is saying any of that. Even slightly. The overwhelming majority of feminists support trans rights, and by a simply massive extent. The GC thing is a radicalised fringe. Again please do some proper research. That research should obviously also include listening to the trans community itself.

I will once again link to Innuendo Studios superb Alt Right Playbook series as this explains so much about the current culture war we have been dragged into and how the basic concept of human rights for trans people has been made a front line. One of the lessons from the series that weighs heavily on me is the minority groups dragged into these entirely manufactured right-wing culture war battles, the refugees, trans folk etc, are only ever used as the ball. They are never platformed, never listened to, and no effort is ever made to understand their perspective or life-experience. They are just a topic kicked between white Christian cishet power-groups to score points.

That said I will not accept any of your attacks. My position here is to stand firm against fascism in all its forms and my moderation technique has been to provide outlinks to the actual communities under attack and try and get people to hear their concerns in their own voices. It is not my place to speak for them. I am simply not qualified to do so, and unlike many I am intelligent enough to grasp that. I just wish to be a sympathetic ally and ensure my website is a safe space in an increasingly hostile internet.