Nottingham May Day - one anarchist's perspective
Published:
May 05, 2012 17:25
by An Anarchist |
Neighbourhoods:
This year Notts Trades Council decided to organise a march and rally for May Day. Amongst the expected representatives of trade unions and activist groups, their star speaker was to be Sir Alan Meale, Labour MP for Mansfield and loyal Blairite. This, unsurprisingly, caused a lot of controversy in the run up to the event. A march of a few hundred trade unionists, socialists and anarchists went from the Forest to the Congregational Hall for the rally. A number of speakers from trade unions and Notts Uncut spoke, but Meale was prevented from speaking by vocal protests and an intervention with placards. Many trade union leaders were furious and used physical and verbal aggression in an attempt to end the demonstration. After the rally, Autonomous Nottingham organised a demonstration against workfare in the city centre.
Some background
It was all change on May Day this year. After increasing pressure from council bureaucracy the May Day organising group, a collective of grassroots activists, decided enough was enough last year and they wouldn't be organising another event. This left the stage open for other groups to take it on and do their own thing. The Notts Trades Council decided to organise a march and rally, at which the star speakers were to be Mark Serwotka of the PCS union and Sir Alan Meale, Labour MP for Mansfield.
This immediately caused a lot of controversy within the left and the anarchist movement. The division brought about deep divisions in Notts SOS, the anti-cuts group, which has been putting a lot of pressure on the Labour party to change its "not so deep, a bit more slowly" approach to the cuts. Locally, Labour-dominated Nottingham City Council has been swinging the axe with abandon leading to massive job losses and reductions to services. Many were angry that a representative of this party was being invited to have a platform on "our day". Similarly, those opposed to the Labour party's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its ID cards scheme, its implementation of tuition fees in higher education and its crackdowns on migrants were adamant that Meale was the wrong person to invite, as he supported all of these policies. As if these weren't enough reasons, Meale was one of the MPs caught with his hand in the till, claiming tens of thousands of pounds of expenses for gardening and redecoration of his home. As a result of these deep disagreements, an open letter to the Trades Council asking them to withdraw their invitation to Meale and the "anti-working class politics he represents" was written by Autonomous Nottingham and Nottingham Anarchist Federation.
In response, the Trades Council wrote to Autonomous Nottingham requesting a meeting with us, something that we initially agreed to engage with. However, at the last minute they let us know that withdrawing the invitation to Sir Alan would not be up for discussion. Given this unwillingness to negotiate, we did not see what the point of such a meeting would be and the Trades Council representatives did not come.
The March
Today, a few hundred people gathered on the Forest with banners, flags and placards. One of the first people I met was a photographer who said he was doing a project on the decline of trade unionism. "I think I've come to the right place!" he joked. Not really the most uplifting start to the day, but maybe a fair point. We left surprisingly promptly, causing the coppers to scramble into their vans to block Mansfield Road in time. The march featured the usual lefty chants and there was a good breeze to move all of those flags and banners. It was all very good natured apart from when an anti-workfare banner ended up in front of the main Trades Council banner which the cops got all arsey about.
Initially we were told that we were going to be marching to Speakers' Corner, in the town centre, for a rally, but at the last minute this was changed to the Congregational Hall, tucked out of the public eye. It turns out the Trades Council couldn't book the Square because there was a patriotic parade for some soldiers going on.
The Rally
By the time I got inside the building, someone had already cornered Meale who had denied all of the objections people had raised about him, despite the fact that they are a matter of public record. First up was a speaker from the Communication Workers Union, who talked up breaking the law to organise pickets in defence of workers rights. So far, so good. Then, the MC announced it was Meale's turn to speak and the hall errupted into protest. A large group at the back of the hall blew whistles and a vuvuzela, shouted loud accusations, slow clapped and booed. Meanwhile, a second group with placards stepped in front of the podium. The placards said something like "That would be SIR Alan Meale..." "...who claimed £11,000 in expenses" and there were others about "Labour: Different butchers, Same knife". Most were people we knew but there were many others who agreed with our protest.
Trades Council heavies moved in and started trying to physically intimidate people into stopping but it didn't work. "Look at the clothes he's wearing!" was tutted at one of the anarchists. We were also called "fascists". Those holding placards at the front were particularly adamant about not moving and eventually the exasperated MC gave up and moved on to the next speaker. Calm resumed.
There were then a number of trade union speakers, many coming out with a lot of platitudes about how passionately they were committed to "taking action" although I've never seen most get involved with anything except other trade union rallies. Some speakers were openly contemptuous of the anti-Meale protests whilst others were more open to the idea of differences of opinion within the labour movement. One speaker, an AWL activist, made the rather contorted claim that it was right to involve the Labour party in the movement because we need to worm our way into the party and take it over for the working classes! That's not an argument that would fly in my workplace and I doubt it would at his either.
By far the best speaker, who received the loudest applause, was the only speaker representing an activist group. The Notts Uncut speaker launched into a blistering attack on Alan Meale, speaking about kleptocracy - rule by thieves - and finishing by asking "Why did you vote for the war in Iraq? Why did you vote for ID cards? And why did you pick on asylum seekers?" The speech was immediately claimed by the MC as evidence that the Trades Council weren't in agreement with Alan Meale, which seemed rather unbelievable.
Finally, all the other speakers were done (as many had predicted, Mark Serwotka didn't turn up) and another attempt was made to give the humiliated looking Meale the platform. Again, a wall of placards went up and this time the response was more hostile. A number of large men from trade unions leapt to the front and started physically manhandling the protesters, pointing and shouting in their faces. We were accused of censorship and suppressing the free speech of a man who can make speeches in the Houses of Parliament any day of the week! "Freedom of speech" is a value that Meale helped to take away from the victims of wars he voted for, from Iraqi workers under a neoliberal puppet government and from the asylum seekers he wanted locked up.
I have to admit though, I wasn't sure about continuing to block Meale from speaking. We had clearly made our point and Meale had been totally humiliated by protests on and off the platform. I was almost interested to hear how he would respond to the blistering criticism. But I also wanted to stand by comrades who were being treated so poorly by the trade union movement, whose picket was not just being crossed but was being broken up by thugs. We had heard a lot about solidarity from the Trades Councils speakers and I was going to uphold that value even if they were going to make a mockery of it. It was also a great relief to break the monotonous passivity of the setup, where we were expected to sit down and receive the wisdom of "our leaders" with unthinking applause. We answered back, and they didn't know how to engage in the conversation.
It worked. Meale, who had obviously been ready for a taxi home for the past hour or so abandoned his speech and the meeting broke up in scenes of acrimony and disgust. The parting shots were fired by the MC who waxed lyrical about how democratic the Trades Council is and how if we'd wanted a voice we should have put ourselves up for election within our trade unions. He clearly didn't understand that anarchists are opposed to the sham of representative democracy, in no small part because it allows unaccountable cliques like theirs to make bloody awful decisions like inviting Alan Meale. Not to mention that many of us are unemployed or in precarious work that the unions simply won't touch. Not to mention that those of us who are involved in trade unions are sick to death of being sold out by their leaders and have little confidence in them to stand by us any more. The sad fact of the matter is that the trade union bureaucracies have become so divorced from ordinary workers that they can't see why continuing to support the Labour party is so alienating to us.
No doubt the finger will be pointed at "the anarchists" as the troublemakers who ruined May Day (even though there were many more in support of the protest than just us), in an attempt to gloss over the underlying schisms that were exposed today. There is a massive disconnection between relatively comfortable, unionised workers in stable jobs and those who are unemployed or in precarious work, who are not seen as a priority for the unions. There is a lack of understanding between those who do a lot of "organising" of other people but rarely get involved in the nitty gritty and those for whom direct action is a way of life. The decision to invite Alan Meale betrayed a fundamental lack of solidarity by the Trades Council towards all those working class people who were fucked over by the Labour party whilst it was in government.
Workfare demo
To wind down, and to prove that we were about more than just A to B marches, anarchists organised an anti-workfare demonstration that followed the rally. Workfare is a name adopted for all of the many government schemes to force the unemployed into work whilst only paying them their benefits. It is an attack on the unemployed, who are made to do unskilled labour, with no prospect of a permanent job at the end, as well as an attack on paid workers whose pay and conditions are undercut by free labour from the Job Centre.
We took a "Workfare ain't fair" banner and a bunch of leaflets on a short tour of Top Shop, Holland & Barrett and Poundland, just a few of the companies profiting from free labour. We had a lot of good conversations with members of the public about the issues involved and why we see workfare as an attack on workers and the unemployed alike, including making links with some workers who were being exploited at their workplaces. Many of the workers in the shops we targeted didn't know anything about workfare and had no idea what their employers were getting up to, so we managed to raise awareness there as well as on the street.
All in all it was a pretty good day that will hopefully make the traditional and complacent trade unions aware of the need to 'up their game' if they want to remain relevant.
Comments
video
Published: May 05, 2012 18:28
by
sh
I was there too and was too far back to see any of the physical and verbal aggression you describe.
I did take some video of Pete (from Nott's uncut)'s speech and of the Meale protests on my mobile and would be happy to post if there is somewhere to upload it.
Another view (of some of the event)
Published: May 05, 2012 18:35
by
B
I was in the hall listening to the speechifying and enjoying some of it, and cringing at other bits. I also think it was a very bad idea on the part of the Trades Council inviting (Sir) Alan Meale along – class traitor and warmonger that he is. I was aware of the A.Fed / Autonomous Nottingham call for him to not speak, and the likelihood of some sort of stunt/heckle/walk out or whatever.
When the time came though, I thought what was done was a wrong headed tactic. I have much love and respect for the two people who stood up and blocked the platform with their placards, and the others that eventually joined them, but I don't think it was the right thing to do. I thought it looked like an attempt to stop the meeting, or at least dictate who should have the platform.
This was a Trades Council event, not a fascist meeting. I don't think we should be trying to disrupt the meetings of workers organisations. And I think no-platform is quite a distinct tactic that we reserve for fascists.
By all means heckle. Do some sort of theatrical stunt. Perhaps more importantly challenge Alan Meale. Ridicule him. Expose his lies. But don't try and no-platform him. And don't try and dictate to a workers organisation (fucked up though their decision was) from the sidelines like that.
Some of the indignation from the floor was understandable. Some of the comments about this being a workers meeting, and it not being for any one small group like AFed to disrupt it were genuinely felt.
Some of the comments on the floor were getting increasingly hostile to the anarchists where I was sitting however, and a few people were shouting for the anarchists to “get off” or “go home”. I wasn't very supportive of what they had done, but I couldn't have stood and watched the anarchists dragged off to make way for Sir Warmonger Alan Meale. So I started shouting “Alan Meale should go home” and things to that effect. I was very annoyed with both the anarchists and the Trades Council, and the people sitting around me. Very soon I stood up and walked out, shouting things about Alan Meale on the way.
In all quite an upsetting day, and one that sets back the chances of broader unity or discussion across the different strands of class struggle politics.
Having said that I wasn't there to see how it went, after walking out.
Let's get real........
Published: May 05, 2012 19:33
by
noone
No one stopped Sir Alan Meale MP from speaking; the protest was silent, the only noise and physical confrontation initiated by others in the hall not part of the silent protest; and I neither judge nor criticize their response.
Sir A Meale is a seasoned politician who could, if he so wished, have stood up and used the microphone to give whatever speech he had printed off from his “Trade Union appearances” folder. The fact he choose not to do so is evidence, perhaps, of the fact that he had nothing to say which would be a credible response to the speeches he had listened to beforehand. Speeches, he was forced to listen to precisely because of the placard statements raised at the front of the speakers’ platform at the beginning of the meeting. This action caused a decision by the MC to put Sir Alan Meale MP’s speech back from the beginning to the end of the speeches. So, he was not able to “get on and get out fast” in his taxi home as planned. I hope that from what he heard the speakers say he will realise that time is running out for the representative democracy he is a part of.
As one speaker said “expect us” And I add “expect nothing” from a system in which vested interest and elitism breeds contempt for everyone outside that elitist privileged bunch of self centred politician of whatever party colour of affinity. Day after day they make obvious that they don’t care about anything or anyone other than as a means to keep power for the few at the expense of the many. Something Sir A Meale’s self evident cowardly behaviour and contemptuous attitude to those he had come to speak do so eloquently demonstrated today.
video on YouTube
Published: May 05, 2012 20:52
by
sh
video of the Meale protest (at the start of the May Day event)
Published: May 05, 2012 23:08
by
sh
video of the Meale protest (at the start of the May Day event)
https://vimeo.com/41626666
(password indymedia)
Perfect May Day
Published: May 05, 2012 23:27
by
Mika Salo
I had the utterly perfect May Day in Nottingham.
No worries about speakers from political parties, trade union leaders, unrepresentative people who represent no one other than themselves, people who join/leave/join for a bit/leave/dedicate the rest of their lives to undermine others, there was no one even SLIGHTLY racist, no sexists, no homophobes, no bigots, no Sun or Mail readers...
I sat at home on my own, and I think I should be congratulated for organising a May Day celebration that agreed 100% with exactly everything I feel.
I'm aiming this a 'B' but also any other critics of today's action
Published: May 05, 2012 23:50
by
A different Anarchist
you said that 'This was a Trades Council event, not a fascist meeting... And I think no-platform is quite a distinct tactic that we reserve for fascists.'
How can you denounce our tactics when you admit it is acceptable to use them on other people. I just think it is out of order to tell us that we are 'dictating' who was speaking on the platform. I am well aware that people will accuse us of being out of order for what we did but you must remember that we were violently and aggressively attacked by labourite thugs in the meeting. It is not unfair for us to refuse to allow a KNIGHTED labour M.P to speak at a may day event. May Day was traditionally an anarchist celebration in remembrance of the martyrs who were brutally murdered by the state in the usa in 1887. Denounce us all you wil but remember that without us and our political history you would have no may day. you are right it was an upsetting day.Upsetting to see that the trades council, instead of making it a celebration of workers rights on the one day that is set aside for us to kick back and relax, organised a rally and speakers as if it was a strike and subsequent rally. this was supposed to be a day for the workers to enjoy TOGETHER. Not sit in a hall that was nigh on inaccessible to disabled people, out of the way of the pubic and sit and be preached to about things we already know.
As I have said before, 'B' you admit it is a legitimate tactic to use but only on certain people, what makes war mongering, expense theiving, knighthood holding maggots like alan meale exempt from this? In my view nothing.
today was a victory in many senses and a failure in others I just hope that the trades council realise that they are not the be all and end all of workers struggles and certainly not define the left in this city. Hopefully next year the may day celebrations will be the celebration they are meant to be.
Any lingering doubts...
Published: May 06, 2012 07:46
by
Joe Hills spinning ashes
.. I may have had about the anarchists actions during the Nottingham May Day 'event' were completely dispelled when I saw the photos from the march. Sir Alan Meale did not attend just as one of the speakers. The Trade Union Council organisers let him walk at the front of the march and the rear was brought up with propobably the biggest banner of the day, representing the Labour Party. It looked like a Labout Party recruiting drive!
I don't need to repeat here the litany of shameful anti- working class actions of the Labour Party over many years now, in light of which I am wholly disgusted by the class traitors that are Notts Trade Union Council. Pathetic excuses of trying to change from within have been dribbled out for years. They won't wash anymore and are no justification for the unions' continued financial, political and moral support for the Labour Party. The whole event was shameful and appalling disrespect to the Haymarket Martyrs.
Less of this sort of thing?
Published: May 06, 2012 09:01
by
Dave.
Things like this never happened on the previous six MayDays organised by the old team, how sedate, uncontroversial and fluffy they were in comparison.
Shame on Trades Council for choosing such a crappy, inaccessible place for their Labour Party rally, so much for caring about those with disabilities.
All I will say to yesterday is, Well done to those who showed their dissent and let's hope there is 'More of this sort of thing' in the future. There certainly needs to be.
Minor Details
Published: May 07, 2012 10:13
by
Mika Salo
You're right Dave et al. The Trades Council DID deliberately pick a location for the rally that was inaccessible. So much so that, all the people with disabilities I saw on the march were also in the rally. And the Trades Council MUST be condemned for that. There certainly is NOT any disabled access at the hall, other than the ramps, the stairlift and so on.
No, the site was not ideal. Where would you have gone then? Outside? Given the weather in the days before and after, would you have taken the chance of getting piss wet through? So, Dave, you've got 48 hours to find a perfect location for a rally. Off you go, good luck. Those in the know, know from experience, have stated previously what dealing with Nottingham Shity Council is like, and gave up! How hard core is that! The TUC even invited the previous organisers to be involved, and they all said "no". Genuine class warriors here, never giving up the good fight and all that.
Joe Hill, you're right too. A Labour Party banner at the back of the march does make the whole day look like a Labour Party recruitmnt event. I couldn't tell the difference. Honestly. Good to see anarchists and so many people turning up to a Labour Party Recruitment Event (or should that be wankfest?") In fact, over a thousand different people asked me to join Labour.
BTW, happen to agree with your comments about the unions, including my union, and Labour. But now I'm a class traitor, so why should I care any more?
Aaaaahhhhh, diddums. "Mummy, mummy, they've got a banner. I want one too!". Just a thought here, I don't know, I thought this was supposed to be the vanguard of the glorious struggle, where the whole working class will be inspired to rise up by the actions of heroes - who get upset at a Labour banner?! You want a bigger banner, go make one!
Also good to see that activists have studied the current political and economic situation, and have decided the best course of action is to attack others on the left.
"May Day was traditionally an anarchist celebration..." Two points:
1) May Day has been celebrated for centuries, a long time before 1886.
2) So where was any sort of anarchist May Day event? Not even a get together for a beer at the Sumac. OK, there was a meeting on 1 May, an amazing party and celebration no doubt we'll be told?
Anyway, I've got better things to do than be a keyboard warrior, so I'll finish on this. No, the TUC event was not perfect. No, I don't like Alan Meale. No, I'm not impressed by what people did on Saturday. And I look forward to seeing a much bigger and better May Day next year now so many people are at last active for May Day.
Don't be stupid
Published: May 07, 2012 10:50
by
Pete
I have put up my observations of the Afed's action at <a href="http://www.workersliberty.org/blogs/pete/2012/05/06/2012-may-day-demonstration-nottm-afed-throw-tantrum">http://www.workersliberty.org/blogs/pete/2012/05/06/2012-may-day-demonstration-nottm-afed-throw-tantrum</a>
It looks from the ‘more of this sort of thing’ comment and other comments above that AFed are now to consider themselves the police force of the trade union movement in Nottingham, with the right to go into trade union meetings and stop anyone whom they don’t think trade unionists should listen to. Talk about authoritarianism!
You claim to be trade unionists, but why are none of you involved in going to Trades Council and democratically deciding who the speakers should be!
Can you people get out of your own head’s for a brief minute!
What would you do in a wide democratic campaign, not just with yourselves, and a group intended to disrupt it if you didn’t meet their demands. If 2 or 3 people delegated with organizing your meeting conceded to those demands? Would you expect others in that campaign might object to those 2 or 3 people acting undemocratically! Wouldn't that be an example of 'bureaucratic behaviour' that anarchists are supposed to be opposed to?
Of course, the Trades Council officers had to respect the decision of Trades Council, that they probably didn't like, and I certainly didn't like, of inviting Meale.
If you had chosen to meet with the Trades Council officers instead of refusing, you might have been able to agree some way that Meale’s record could have been brought to the attention of the meeting whilst not opening those officers to being accused of acting bureaucratically.
No instead, you make a threat - either the Trades Council officers pull Meale - overruling an earlier wider made decision of Trades Council – or you refuse to meet and there will be trouble on the day.
If someone was to try and stop on of your meetings because they didn’t like something your speakers stood for or said. Would you accept that! No, would you be angry, I think so!
You say Meale is a shite in so many ways. Many trade unionists would agree, but those trade unionists would probably also think that people who threaten to disrupt TU meetings are shite!
And don't be dishonest, if Alan Meale had stood on a chair you would have let him speak over your heads. You know you wouldn't!
And Colin(?), really, the Trades Union Council are class traitors because they had 1 proposed speaker like Meale and 9 speakers from striking unions including unions fighting against a Labour Council. Grow up!
Dear Pete
Published: May 07, 2012 14:55
by
May Day Attendee
Please do not disrespect the disabled people who did attend with you arrogant comment about the accessibility of the hall. I confess that unlike you I did not check that all those disabled people who wanted to attend were able but I can confirm that the stairlift was not operable.
May Day celebrations do indeed reach back a long time but you know as well as anyone that MayDay as a working class event does not!
But otherwise thank you for your mature and intelligent contribution to working class struggle.
Enjoyed your blog by the way.
Freedom for Tooting!
Who are you talking to?
Published: May 07, 2012 15:00
by
Claire
Pete, you're a bit confused. No one in the AF has made any of the comments above. We haven't said anything yet. And the AF was not invited at any stage to meet with TC officers. Anarchism in Nottingham is not the same as Nottingham AF.
You claim to be trade unionists, ???
Published: May 07, 2012 15:12
by
onone
err where did this come from?? I can categorically say that that "I am not nor ever have been a member of ......."
Back to Pete
Don’t post personal judgements about people you don’t even know. This place is for news, comment and debate about issues and events and not for personal and meaningless vitriol. Start getting your energy behind things that really matter, slagging people off (some you don’t know anyway) is puerile and pointless and not what the newswire is for.
Reply @May Day att @Claire @onone
Published: May 07, 2012 15:40
by
Pete
If I am confused I am not the only one.
@May Day attendee I haven't made any comment, arrogant or otherwise, about the accessibility of the hall.
@Claire - perhaps you will share with me who will accept responsibility for yesterday - was it Autonomous Nottingham or AFed or both. The poster of this article claims to be involved in the disruption which you fronted. Were you in no way involved in the meeting that he proudly claims to have boycotted? If not, I withdraw that criticism of AFed, it should be a criticism of Autonomous Nottingham and the author of this post. But Claire, some of the explicit 'no platforming Labour' stuff we are reading here and elsewhere is outrageous. Presumably your statement will make clear what AFed's position is on this - I think it will have considerable importance on whether non-anarchists will bother to work with you again.
@onone again if you are not AFed, the my criticism is of AFed and their claim to be serious trade unionists, not you. Read it! If you are in AFed then be aware that I am having a number of exchanges with AFed people who claim that most AFed are trade union officers. What are we to believe?
Finally, on blogs like this with largely anonymous contributors, it is difficult to know who you are arguing with, if I guess wrongly then maybe more people should have the guts to say who they are. It makes accountable democracy a little easier.
To Pete and Mika
Published: May 07, 2012 16:01
by
May Day Attendee
Sorry I did get you mixed up in my earlier post. Anyway, you will hopefully be able to decipher from my actual comments which are directed to each of you. Again, sorry for the confusion
You can each have the Freedom For Tooting.
PS I am not a member of a trade union so you can discount my views with a clear conscience.
no title
Published: May 07, 2012 16:04
by
someone
Hey Pete,
Have a look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_a_life
just wondering
Published: May 07, 2012 16:38
by
anarcho agitator
Why does it matter if people are trade unionists or not. Trade unions do not facilitate effectively those in private sector commercial work. and due to the small amount of people who are unionised in the private sector actually makes them a target.
pete's comments only show the ignorance and trade union biased that is present within the AWL. the working class are the working class whether unionised or not. The fetishisation of the trade unions is what leads to division within the left. trade unions are not and never will be the be all and end all of class struggle nor will they ever be the same vehicles for social change that they were in the early 20th century. Trade Unions are a decrepit mangy vulture circling the rotting corpse of the labour party whilst being shot at with the high powered rifles of the tory party. Voting labour will never get us anywhere and will never get trade unions anywhere. if they were really in favour of trade unions surely the would have repealed the anti trade union laws during their time in power rather than fight foreign wars in the name of capitalism
On the AF
Published: May 07, 2012 17:43
by
Claire
To Pete, I didn't say the AF wasn't involved. Some of us were - obvioulsy!!! I just mean what I said. Anarchists in Nottingham and Nottingham's Anarchist Federation are not the same thing. The AF was involved, other anarchists were involved, and so were non-anarchists. You misunderstand us if you think the AF dominates Anarchism in Nottingham. We don't even want to! You massively under-estimate the extent, variety and vibrancy of anarchism in the city. We've known you for absolutely ages, and you still think we are in charge of it or something? You don't seem able to understand the first thing about a movement that you claim to know well enough to critique it.
On the AF and the unions
Published: May 07, 2012 17:57
by
Claire
Pete, we can have major criticisms of the unions, which we do, and also have members who are officers in unions (if the position is unpaid), which we also do.
But I don't know that we would say that we are 'serious trade unionists' in the sense of meaning that we consider the unions as a primary vehicle for social change or put most of our activist energy into work within them accordingly. They are just one place in which we struggle. We are 'serious' about workplace solidarity and seek to work with radical workers of all types. I won't go on too much - you can read it all on our website and publications - but we are most serious about organising without the constraints that the unions put on radical engagement, by dividing up workers in the same workplace into different unions, for example. 'Trade' unions, by definition, block united action in a workplace. So we are not committed to trades unions as such, but to work place organisation.
@Claire
Published: May 07, 2012 18:36
by
Pete
I direct my comments at those I know, as much as I can, and ideally those whom I have worked with. I hope that there can be a more meaningful exchange with such people. That is why I direct my comments at AFed who I have worked with and I know were involved.
Those I don't know, Autonomous Nottingham, I haven't a clue who they are. Exchanges with unknown people usually ends up in childish and meaningless abuse - Pete 'get a life' whatever - Pete calls the cops - for fuck's sake.
But if AFed were involved, you share the responsibility. One of the tragedies, and I do consider it tragic, is that reasonable debate ends during such confrontations. I tried to talk with a few of the people involved in your stunt, one of them told me she was AFed but with the screaming and shouting, which we were both doing in order to be heard, it was impossible to discuss.
You (and the others involved) seriously miscalculated. You didn't understand that workers defend their meetings from physical disruption. It is an instinct and a good one, for whenever the cops or fascists ever try to move in. Meale had f' all to do with their reaction. I know there were many people far more angry than I was. Those I know are people who have disdain for Labour's frontbench, have faced victimisation at work whilst organising workers against the bosses. And these are the people you make enemies of with your tactic.
If you don't like them talking, arguing or whatever they want to do with Labour right-wingers - you have to recognise you have no right to overrule them. Organise separately, make known your views but don't impose yourselves as unaccountable police.
Why some choose anonymity
Published: May 07, 2012 21:03
by
no idea who
In his post Pete says
“on blogs like this with largely anonymous contributors, it is difficult to know who you are arguing with, if I guess wrongly then maybe more people should have the guts to say who they are. It makes accountable democracy a little easier”.
You might want to think for yourself (if you can) why people who are really politically engaged may wish to protect their anonymity. Some guard anonymity because they are prepared to put both physical & emotional health (and personal freedom) on the line to fight for social change and injustice wherever it occurs. Accountable democracy counts for nothing when you are facing the machine of the state. That takes real guts mate.
Sad that you cannot debate unless you know someone’s name!
To all commenting on this thread
Published: May 07, 2012 21:13
by
A moderator
This is clearly a controversial article and it is good that people are using the comments to debate it.
However, we have received complaints about the personalised and abusive nature of some of these comments. Please keep your comments to discussing the content, rather than the authors or actors, of the issue. Any comments that are abusive will be hidden.
Well said by the mods
Published: May 07, 2012 21:32
by
Peter Pans pal
This should not have become personal by a poster early on in this thread.
This is a news wire for debating and commenting on issues and events. It is about principles and not personalities.
Yours sincerely
Tinkerbell
Second star to the right and straight on til morning
Sad to see liberalism being used to attack direct action against the bosses
Published: May 07, 2012 22:43
by
An autonomous one
@Mika Salo
"Also good to see that activists have studied the current political and economic situation, and have decided the best course of action is to attack others on the left."
You say this sarcastically, but I actually think this as a good choice, tactically. In a moment where, around Europe, power is flowing away from the right and back towards a false left opposition to austerity, it is precisely the right moment to be exposing that falsehood. It's just a pity that Notts TUC haven't caught up.
"So where was any sort of anarchist May Day event?"
I know for a fact that some of the previous May Day committee have come to a few Autonomous Nottingham meetings with the aim of organising something different and some tentative plans were underfoot, but we felt that once the TUC had organised a big lefty event it would be silly to try to compete with it. I'm sure if we had, we'd be getting complaints of being divisive and trying to undermine support for the rally. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Also, there was a demonstration against workfare. Perhaps you overlooked that part of the article.
@Pete
"It looks from the ‘more of this sort of thing’ comment and other comments above that AFed are now to consider themselves the police force of the trade union movement in Nottingham, with the right to go into trade union meetings and stop anyone whom they don’t think trade unionists should listen to. Talk about authoritarianism!"
I think this is a rather wilful misunderstanding of the action. How the protesters (a far broader group than just AFed, or even anarchists, as you should know) acted as a "police force" is beyond me. Are mobs who heckle politicians also police forces? Were the No Borders activists who disrupted a Barnardo's concert in the Albert Hall in protest against their role in the detention of children acting as a police force? Of course they aren't and weren't. They were taking direct action against the people who exploit us as were the protesters against Alan Meale (not against the TUC, whatever you say).
At any rate, in what way did we force Sir Alan not to speak? The way I saw it, Alan decided it would be too embarassing to try and was too humiliated to bother. He only came to bolster fake working class credentials any way.
This was not just a trade union meeting. I'm sure that if it had been any other day nothing nothing would have happened. But it wasn't, it was May Day - a day when workers of all stripes and none have traditionally come together in the city. To have invited someone so obviously divisive to headline was a provocation that begged a reaction. The open letter gave the TUC an opportunity for engagement which they spurned. If they thought we were going to take it lying down, they were mistaken.
As an aside, I really do not understand this: "We've invited him but we don't agree with him" line. I have never been to any other political meeting where someone with totally antithetical views to those of the organisers has been invited, just for a bit of colour. This was a rally, not a debate.
"You claim to be trade unionists, but why are none of you involved in going to Trades Council and democratically deciding who the speakers should be!"
Pete, for someone who talks exceedingly patronising about the ignorance of "AFED" and how they are all just beginning to learn, you are extraordinarily ignorant about the basics of anarchism. Please do your research before coming out with lines of argument such as this.
"No instead, you make a threat - either the Trades Council officers pull Meale - overruling an earlier wider made decision of Trades Council – or you refuse to meet and there will be trouble on the day.
There was no threat made. The groups involved in the open letter formulated their objections to the decision. The meeting was never refused - the Trades Council refused to negotiate, and in the light of that we stated that we didn't think there would be much point in meeting (I mean, what else would we discuss if the only relevant topic was already ruled out?) That refusal precipitated the direct action against Meale and no one else.
"If someone was to try and stop on of your meetings because they didn’t like something your speakers stood for or said. Would you accept that! No, would you be angry, I think so!"
Absolutely. But I wouldn't question the tactic. Then again, we don't invite Blairite politicians to our meetings so we've never had the opportunity to find out.
"Many trade unionists would agree, but those trade unionists would probably also think that people who threaten to disrupt TU meetings are shite!"
Many also wouldn't, including those who joined us and applauded us (including doing so quietly afterwards, once the TUC's heavy mob had finished throwing their weight around).
"And don't be dishonest, if Alan Meale had stood on a chair you would have let him speak over your heads. You know you wouldn't!"
I can't speak for those who held placards. But there was no conspiratorial plan to stop Meale from speaking. Some came with the placard idea. Others wanted to heckle. Others, who we don't even know, joined in with us. Perhaps we got too carried away when we saw we could actually make the fucker run. Whatever the reason for the mob being more successful than we thought we could be, I'll shed no tears for making the parasite leave town with his tail between his legs. I'm just disappointed that someone who calls himself a socialist is coming out with such laughable liberal crap in defending him.
"One of the tragedies, and I do consider it tragic, is that reasonable debate ends during such confrontations."
Who ended the reasonable debate? Surely the TUC who refused to negotiate on the issue of inviting Alan Meale to Nottingham's May Day celebration.
"You didn't understand that workers defend their meetings from physical disruption."
The meeting was never at threat as well you know. Only the photo op for a neoliberal enemy of the working class.
"It is an instinct and a good one, for whenever the cops or fascists ever try to move in."
But not in defence against those who instruct the cops, it would seem. They seem to be able to worm their way into the TUC's hearts and minds very easily these days. But after all, power talks. And, out of interest, do you consider the protesters to be on a par with cops and fascists?
"If you don't like them talking, arguing or whatever they want to do with Labour right-wingers - you have to recognise you have no right to overrule them."
If that was what they wanted they should have arranged it on another day and advertised it as such. Instead they enshrined Sir Meale as one of the leaders of the labour movement, let him lead the march on our day, let him be a headline speaker at the rally. That was indefensible, and was why he was opposed.
A question for Mika Salo & Pete
Published: May 07, 2012 22:48
by
An autonomous one
How do you respond to this very interesting paragraph of the original post?
"There is a massive disconnection between relatively comfortable, unionised workers in stable jobs and those who are unemployed or in precarious work, who are not seen as a priority for the unions. There is a lack of understanding between those who do a lot of "organising" of other people but rarely get involved in the nitty gritty and those for whom direct action is a way of life. The decision to invite Alan Meale betrayed a fundamental lack of solidarity by the Trades Council towards all those working class people who were fucked over by the Labour party whilst it was in government."
Even more of this sort of thing.
Published: May 08, 2012 08:08
by
Dave (real name, not pseudonym).
Mika, aka Dave K if my feelings are right, Pete and others, correct that the previous organisers were asked if we wanted to help with this years event but turned it down. Wrong on the reason. It wasn't due to having to work with Nottingham Shitty Council, it wasn't even having to work with the cops (both of these organisations were fairly easy to work with). It was working with Trades Council that was the final nail in the coffin. They had the attitude, and expressed it, that as they were paying for the event they had the final say. Or in other words, 'We own it so we say what goes on'. As an aside, this attitude continued with Notts. SOS where a certain local CWU rep in particular, but not just him, lost no time in threatening SOS that Trades Council demanded this, that and the other and would withdraw support/funding if they didn't get their way. On another occasion, when the posties were organising a demo in Beeston early 2011, he issued constant threats to those having the audacity to say they might not attend. Shock, horror that active, committed trade unionists should contemplate making their own mind up on what they do in their own time.
Anyway, back to Saturday. Not everyone protesting was an Anarchist, I'm not for a start; not every Anarchist is in the Anarchist Federation (AF); I saw Anarchists inside the hall who did not join in the protest, jeering, slow-handclapping and all; it's called thinking for yourself, NOT blindly following some sect/party line. That is why I joined them at the front. I had no idea they were going to do it and was concerned with the open hostility directed at them from some in the audience and so suggested to others we should join them. In other circumstances you would call it support and solidarity.
For anyone to suggest that Meale was prevented from speaking by this action is ludicrous. He had a microphone where Mika controlled the volume, he was raised above the protesters and he is a well-seasoned speaker well used to this sort of thing, or should be if he's ever faced the real public rather than a stage-managed one.
And finally, (this is particularly aimed at Pete who in his article to the phonebox-sized membership of the National AWL called the protest/protesters 'patronising'). To infer some of the protesters were drawn in and got carried away because of their youth is the height of patronising people; and this from someone who works in education too. Some role model he is.
Trades Council don't own MayDay, Trade Unions don't own MayDay, nobody owns MayDay. It's a public event, not a private party where attendance is by invitation only and on the understanding attendees will 'behave themselves'.
@ An autonomous one
Published: May 08, 2012 08:32
by
Pete
There is no 'wilful misunderstanding on my part' that is how it looked to most people other than yourselves. That is my point of you having to get outside of your own heads and see yourselves as others see you.
Saying that it is 'direct action' doesn't evade the facts of the case. The police take direct action. When you coerce a body into something it was not planning to do you act as a 'force' that is unaccountable to them.
You say you were taking action 'against Alan Meale not against the TUC', again you simply do not understand that those who opposed you didn't see it that way, they saw you disrupting their event. Again get outside your own head.
When anyone takes direct action you consider how this is seen by those who see it or hear about it and how that will develop the particular struggle you are involved in. I am sure the No Borders activists thought about this.
You can justify direct action as a political expression, or you can look it as political communication. I fear anarchists too often think it is just self expression.
It is possible that you don't care what trade unionists (most there) and Labour Party members (some there) think about you. That is your choice.
"I have never been to any other political meeting where someone with totally antithetical views to those of the organisers has been invited". Then you have a very limited experience, probably too long going to meetings with people just like yourself. And I don't know exactly that you can call him 'antithetical', hypocritical maybe. I heard a friend of Ross tell Ross that Meale told her he was going to speak in favour of the public sector strikes. We'll never know.
Look one union thought they would like Alan Meale to come, I don't know why: they probably vote for him and want to find out what his views were now. They probably wanted to hear when surrounded by a left wing trade union audience what he would say, so they could later lean on him 'you said... then do it!' Remember this was Notts Trades Council, and there is no Autonomous Mansfield or Autonomous Worksop.
You say "Who ended the reasonable debate? Surely the TUC who refused to negotiate" - your 'negotiation' consisted of an edict and then a refusal to discuss, so I think you ended the debate.
btw - I am happy to debate with you about this instead of this online confusion but you probably have me down as a 'class traitor'.
Finally, I sense that you think that May Day is YOUR May Day and no-one elses on the grounds that some of you had organised events on that day when trade unions weren't putting much work into it. You felt as though you had some right of veto. That the meeting at the end of the event therefore 'wasn't a trade union meeting'.
But for the vast majority of my time in Nottingham, May Day events were organised by the trades council, throughout most of the 70s and 80s frequently getting thousands out. So it is silly for anyone to claim general ownership over all May Day events.
Maybe we should just recognise that Autonomous Nottingham and the Trades Council should just operate separately. Trade unions are, by their nature, more politically diverse and have to respect that diversity.
@An autonomous one. I don't think there is a 'massive disconnect'. There is an engineered disconnect between the public sector, although few if any will consider that they are in 'stable jobs', and the private sector which has not yet fully recovered from the days of Thatchers. How do we respond? By continuing to fight where we are, setting an example of militancy, as workers fearful of joining unions or striking see the value of fighting, helping them organise in their own collective self-defense. You will know that Thatcher changed the law so that unions could only take legal action on their own disputes and then only after jumping several hurdles. Those laws have been effectively defied on occasions. We have to organise to defy them for good and all AND make an incoming Labour govt get rid of anti-union laws which will only be after very fierce argument but one that you quite evidently you don't want to be a part of.
Anyway that is it from me for a few days, I have got to put some work in organising our strike on Thursday.
Down with Thatcher!
Published: May 08, 2012 11:29
by
Wolfie
Perhaps if you haven't found an effective response to Thatcher's anti union legislation after more than a quarter of a century you might try an alternative to hoping that one day Labour might do something, you might want to consider if you are on the right track.
But I admire your persistence
misjudgement
Published: May 08, 2012 11:55
by
reallyoldhippy
Pete "that is how it looked to most people other than yourselves." I love the way trots think they speak for most people. I love the way that Pete thinks "the workers" won't put up with their meeting being disrupted and thus anyone not willing to sit placidly by and be lectured by an oppressor on mayday is not one of "the workers".
With AWL NUT speakers prominent on the platform, it is surprising they couldn't muster enough workers to carry even one NUT banner. Coupled with the fact that there were far more Labour Party bods in attendance than there have been for many years might lead some to the conclusion that AWL activists put more effort into getting Labour numbers up, rather than their own unions. This fits in with AWLs love affair with Labour, with its membership of the Labour Representation Committee, with its quest for elected office in the party. Alan Meale would have been the perfect choice, a big name local MP to draw the faithful in and gain
kudos in the Labour movement. Because, strangely, the AWL still sees the Labour Party as part of the Labour Movement in spite of labelling it a Bourgeois Party.
But some nasty anarchists threw a spanner in the works. And Pete wants to know "who's responsible?" To organize a mayday event, billed as "Defending Workers Rights" and then to invite a warmongering politician who has done nothing to defend workers rights and attacked a fair few of them and NOT expect opposition shows misjudgement of the highest order. The responsibility lies with the Trades Council.
And for May Day 2013...
Published: May 08, 2012 12:53
by
Serge Forward
Ace! Maybe next year we'll see Notts Trades Council invite Notts Chamber of Commerce, a speaker from the CBI or maybe even a local rep from the local Federation of Small Businesses. And no doubt Pete and the AWL will once again denounce as anti-democratic anyone who thinks of challenging the free speech of such worthies.
By the way, I've had some involvement with Trades Council committees in the past, and decisions of who to invite are made by a small group of people with very little in the way of accountability. However, The TUC I've had dealings with has been relatively clued up. But the clique currently running the TUC in Notts seem to be a complete and utter waste of space, with their tongues firmly up the wheeto of the atrocious Sir Alan Meale. They should hang their heads in shame, as should their pet poodles in the AWL.
AWL? Labour's apologists!
Published: May 08, 2012 13:30
by
Eastender
Truly amazing ( actually it's not) to see the AWL running to the defence of Sir Alan Meale, the pig who was caught with his snouiut in the trough!
Scratch a Trot and what do you get.? A defender of labourism and social democracy masquerading as a revolutionary
Trade unions do not speak for the majority of workers any more
Published: May 08, 2012 16:11
by
Disillusioned trade union member
I don't know who Pete is, but his view of trade unions seems to be stuck in the 1970s and '80s that he reminisces about. These days the number of union members is dwindling and the number of active members is tiny. This is because the unions have lost the respect of most workers, and not just because they were neutered by Thatcher.
I work in the public sector, in a highly casualised team of around 40 workers. Aside from myself, only one other person is a union member. Oh yeah, and our boss, which makes for interesting encounters on the picket line. Last year, we all had our contracts redrawn up and there was massive anger because we all had to take a pay cut, for some people, a comparatively large one. But despite a lot of conversations on the subject, not one person joined either of the unions active in our workplace.
I can see why. The unions left it to us to individually be fobbed off by our bosses.
Since then we've had the massive public sector strike of N30 which actually looked quite promising on a national level. Locally, out of a branch of hundreds of members I think about 8 actually got out of bed to go on the picket line. They didn't even bother emailing members to say where the picket lines would be. Hardly an inspiring response. Since then, our union has backed down from its always pretty fake looking opposition to the pensions cuts. Neither experience really makes our union look any more attractive to workers to join.
I'm sure Pete will say I should get more involved in the union, become a rep and push for more action. The thing is, having met some of the old guard on the picket line now, I would basically be pushing on my own. There seems to be a bit of an old boys club who like to kick back and get their union money without having to put any effort in. Why would I put loads of effort into fighting against these people's apathy just to be sold out by the top dogs any way? It doesn't make any sense.
I don't think most workers take trade unions in this country seriously any more, perhaps because of the effect of a lot of experiences like mine. To act as if the labour movement is composed of members of trade unions and no one else is pretty dismissive and is guaranteed to tarnish the image of the trade unions even further.
Do you understand what direct action is?
Published: May 09, 2012 18:08
by
Another anarchist
Pete, I'm not sure you understand what direct action is.
"You can justify direct action as a political expression, or you can look it as political communication. I fear anarchists too often think it is just self expression."
Neither. It's not about expression or communication, there are lots of other tactics that are more suited to those tasks. Direct action, at its best, is about acting in ways that physically disrupts our enemies from functioning. A Blairite MP is clearly an enemy of our class, so direct action that chases him off is successful. If anything, it's less about communicating our own values, and more about disrupting the channels used to communicate the ruling class's ideas. From what I hear, it sounds like the job was done quite successfully this time round.
"It is possible that you don't care what trade unionists (most there) and Labour Party members (some there) think about you. That is your choice."
I don't think trade unionists are a homogenous bloc, so I don't recognise "what trade unionists think" as being a very meaningful category. If what Labour Party members think is in any way reflected by the policies of the Labour Party, then yeah, fuck them. If what they think isn't reflected by their party's policies, then we're back to them not being a homogenous bloc who all think the same think. It is possible that you don't care what the vast majority of the working class who aren't in the unions think, since you don't really show any understanding of the fact that we exist. That is your choice.
Worker-in-Favour-of-Bollocksing-Normality Shocker!
Published: May 09, 2012 22:44
by
a different Disillusioned etc
A milkcrate and nearby parking meter would have done Whatshisface as a podium to thump his dirge from, if he and his (presumed?) parliamentary parquet-polishing supporters found the hall too contested - but truly wanted to meet their severely disempowered detractors as evenly-resourced equals.
Blatantly, though, a working part of the miserable institution (and as such the closest thing to living material enemy of fully and freely lived humanity) wouldn't have his Moncrieff's, oak-lined sensibilities injured by stooping like that. A man who is in no need of platforms at all, since his direct involvement in the destruction, degradation and manipulation of life is a given already.
Dissent won this game squarely. It's funny too, in a wholesome sort of way. And I enjoyed the contest as an unaffiliated, shit-paid worker and union member. This will at least keep me cheerful through the terrible turn-outs and labourite droning matches tomorrow.
Meale-y mouthed and the neo-Na(nny)rodniks
Published: May 09, 2012 23:16
by
Also disillusioned
But do the anarchists think that we really need political nannies to protect us from the Meale-y mouthed?
Anarchist Federation document
Published: May 10, 2012 07:36
by
Claire
I mean 'No' (full stop).
The AF are writing a couple of articles together to explain more about our perspective on this, which we'll publish in the next couple of days. Sorry it's taking us a while.
Nan-archy
Published: May 10, 2012 13:50
by
Still also disillusioned
Did you ask the meeting whether they wanted Sir Meale-y to speak? You could have made your point, started some discussion and not behaved like the (nan)archist thought police?
Thought police? Get a grip!
Published: May 10, 2012 17:37
by
Super Gran-archist
"You could have made your point, started some discussion and not behaved like the (nan)archist thought police?"
We made our point with the open letter. The trades council refused to engage in discussion because they'd already done a deal with Mealy mouth for his coronation at the fount of the trade union movement. We felt we need to act to stop him getting the photo op he was obviously gagging for.
Don't you think it's a little bit melodramatic to call us the "thought police"? After all, it was clearly Meale's choice not to speak because he didn't want to ruin his image any more than it already had been. Liam managed to speak to the audience whilst the action was going on - why couldn't Meale? Because he couldn't really be arsed. He isn't really passionate about those issues. He's got more important asses to kiss. He didn't give a toss about whether his loyal fans got to hear him or not.
I could just as well make the argument that the "tiny clique" of the trades council are "thought police" for unilaterally deciding who gets a platform on May Day and who doesn't. That was the issue after all. If it had been any other day of the year, no one would have batted an eyelid about you gathering to hear the silky tones or our lord Meale, lulling you all into slumber with the news that the Labour party are against the cuts and have the best interests of every loyal voter at heart.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that when a Blairite warmongerer gets called on his shit on May Day there are still people leaping to his defence. Super Gran-archist says "Direct action gets the goods. Now stop whingeing or you won't get to play out!"
Disillusioned all the more
Published: May 10, 2012 22:30
by
Gran-archy nan-archy
'Don't you think it's a little bit melodramatic to call us the "thought police"?' Possibly, tho' there's been more than a little melodrama here. What I think is that your action was in practice little different from 'the "tiny clique" of the trades council' who agreed to invite the MP to the event. You both acted as ideological police, deciding who we should / shouldn't get to hear on May Day. the TD hide behind some cosy trade union rhetoric; the anarchists rhetoricize in grander style, as defenders of 'our class'.
Given that the trade union 'movement' actually includes a large number of Labour Party members - whether we agree with them or not - the invitation to one of the TC's local MPs is not entirely illegitimate. When you sought to enter into discussions with the TC (do please point me to the link for the open letter) on whose behalf was this? When you felt you 'needed to act to stop him' - again on whose behalf? If you're not 'thought police' why didn't you let the meeting decide?
'... there are still people leaping to his defence'. It doesn't follow that because people are questioning your actions they are leaping to Alan Meale's defence. Arguing that:
a. Meale had a right to speak, or
b. there is an issue of free speech, or
c. like it or not the trade union 'movement' is a very broad church, or
d. the anarchists with their placards & whistles attempted to police the meeting
is not to defend Alan Meale as an individual - and certainly not his political practice. But there might be some principles here.
Of course, you're right about Alan Meale. But where do you draw the line? Do you 'no-platform' other local MPs? Are they not also meal-y mouthed? Or are they not quite so...(At least 2 of them are or have been on the 'front bench payroll'). Do you include Labour Party members whom knowing exactly what these MPs do, go out and canvass for them and run their local party machines? What about Stalinists? Stalin was not without blemish - the odd mass murder for example. Or the Socialist Party who as Militant threatened to 'name names' after the Poll Tax riots? Or the SWP whose history of opportunistic manipulation of grassroots campaigns is well-known. Or the Trots in general because they genuflect at the shrine of Trotsky who took no prisoners from amongst the anarchists or the sailors at Kronstadt?
Do keep up old chap!
Published: May 11, 2012 08:07
by
Super Nano Gran-archist Free Speech Destroyer
"What I think is that your action was in practice little different from 'the "tiny clique" of the trades council' who agreed to invite the MP to the event."
Not really. No neoliberals were invited by us.
"You both acted as ideological police, deciding who we should / shouldn't get to hear on May Day."
The trades council decided who the speakers were. We decided who we wanted to speak over. Or do you now think we should have been forced to remain silent and respect their authority? Free speech is for everyone, right, or only just controversial speakers?
"When you sought to enter into discussions with the TC (do please point me to the link for the open letter) on whose behalf was this? When you felt you 'needed to act to stop him' - again on whose behalf?"
https://nottingham.tachanka.org/articles/2524
I can only speak for myself. I acted on my own behalf at all times.
"If you're not 'thought police' why didn't you let the meeting decide?"
Because I'm an anarchist. I think everyone can make their own decisions about what they do and do not do. My objection was to Meale being allowed to speak without being challenged. That wouldn't have changed if the majority of people in the room told me to shut up. They'd have had to carry me out, which, funnily enough, they didn't care enough about hearing Meale speak to do.
I see you don't deny that Meale could have spoken if he'd wanted to. So, remind me, where is the freedom of speech issue again?
"Of course, you're right about Alan Meale. But where do you draw the line?"
Read again the bit about May Day being a special day.
You say you're not leaping to Meale's defence, but then why do you favour his free speech over mine?
Accessibility
Published: May 11, 2012 10:16
by
Disabled Person
Regarding all the comments on the accessibility of the building:
I am a full time wheelchair user who was unable to attend the event due to medical reasons. If I would have been there I'd sure as hell would have done what I could to stop Meale speak. However I would have been forced to shout through the doors as I have learned in many bad experiences that:
A STAIRLIFT DOES NOT MAKE A VENUE ACCESSIBLE
Stairlifts are horrible. When they are not broken, no one knows who has the key to operate them, knows how to operate them etc. If you dare to go on them, it is always a big gamble whether you can come down again or whether you are in for a nice 6hr wait for an engineer.
So a stairlift does not make anything accessible. Able bodied normalities who try to be funny by mocking those who are experienced enough to point this out know as much about accessibility issues as David Cameron about being skinned.
In a way stairlifts are very much like the Labour party: All shiny and full of promise, but if you are stupid enough to rely on them you're in for a nasty surprise.
Thanks Gran
Published: May 11, 2012 11:46
by
Dis-illusioned still
Dear Super Nano Gran-archist Free Speech Destroyer
Thank you for explaining your point of view. You are an anarchist, there are no strings on you. I am glad 'our class' has you on its side.
I think I have caught up now, and you have been very patient.
Best regards
Free speech?
Published: May 11, 2012 17:24
by
Still Disillusioned but it's Friday
Dear Super Nano Gran
This is my last post - honestly. although I am genuinely interested in your point of view. Can I press the point of free speech one last time? It may be that you think 'freedom of speech' is nothing more than a liberal prejudice, although it would be strange for an anarchist not to sense the slippery slope involved in denying free speech to people we disagree with.
But you say I defend Meale's free speech over yours. This is untrue. What I am defending is:
a. his right to speak as an invited speaker (whether we approve or not) and
b. my right as a wage slave to hear points of view I may disagree with and not to be prevented from this by someone deciding on their own say-so who I should or shouldn't hear.
You asked where the freedom of speech issue was. The report at the top of this page states 'Meale was prevented from speaking by vocal protests and an intervention with placards', and you yourself made the point that 'The trades council decided who the speakers were. We decided who we wanted to speak over'.
This speaks for itself doesn't it?
But thank you for your time, and a very honest explanation.
Anarchist Federation and May Day
Published: May 11, 2012 21:13
by
Claire
Dear all,
In case you want to read them, the Anarchist Federation locally has published two articles on its blog in relation to this year's May Day and the intervention against Sir Alan Meale. One is about us and one is about the day itself: http://nottsblackarrow.wordpress.com.
Yours
Claire
Notts AF
A dignified protest
Published: May 11, 2012 22:59
by
Chris
I wasn't able to be there this year, but I have been told what happened by a number of people and watched the video. I am one of the group who organised previous recent May Day events. We began organising them because no-one else was.
If I had been able to attend this year, I would have joined in the protest at Sir Alan Meale. I participated in the previous May Day group as a supporter of asylum rights. Sir Alan has consistently voted to oppress those seeking asylum, for example by voting for the withdrawal of support from immigrants and asylum seekers.
Organising previous May Days has been made difficult by the city council, but, as Dave said, it's the trades council who really were hard to work with. That, and burnout, is why I withdrew.
Each year, we asked and begged unions to join in. But each year we got a pitiful response. They promised hundreds, but on the day it was usually just a handful (except for the year when Communications Workers were in dispute).
Last year, the Trades Council insisted that the promotional leaflet should have logos from all the unions on it (even though most would not turn up in numbers sufficient to hold even one tiny placard). So, to keep them happy, we added the logos. But not the prison officers'. They insisted the POA should have their logo on too. We refused to align ourselves with screws, and the Trades' Council produced their own leaflet which gave the appearance that they were organising the day - but neither their leaflet last year nor this year was tainted by the POA! (What was going on?)
What's all this about free speech? Free speech is owned by the powerful and wealthy, those with easy access to the media and the centres of power. The rest of us can only be heard by shouting, by waving placards, by using our ingenuity and our guts. It appeared from photos, reports and the video that those protesting against Sir Alan were dignified, non-intimidating and brave.
Free speech for Sir Alan? This self-serving, expenses-swindling, warmongering, ID card-loving, authoritarian gets every chance to speak. He even gets paid for it with our money! Let's not feel sorry for him, that he felt too intimidated by some placards to speak over the top of them.
If you want to know what Sir Alan thinks, I'm sure you'll find plenty more opportunities.
AWL site
Published: May 13, 2012 11:14
by
Claire
There are some really interesting comments on AWL Pete's blog now: http://www.workersliberty.org/blogs/pete/2012/05/06/2012-may-day-demonstration-nottm-afed-throw-tantrum
I wanted to comment on one of them which says that the AF hasn't contributed much to the fight for pensions. Three of us - UCU and Unison - were on strike each time our union sruck and peopled our picket lines fully each time. We helped organise the strikes in our workplaces and are amongst a very tiny handful of activists there. In our statement we note that we were involved in organising the strikes last year. Three of us attended (well two of us, and one other person who was there joined us subsequently) and that's the meeting we describe where trade unionists threatened each other with violence and the chair had to tell them to take it outside (the air thick with testosterone, yuk) and a rep from a union not actually on strike (i.e. relatively neutral) tried to mediate by threatening both parties with violence! Most of us visited picket lines when we weren't on strike, one of us using up some of his holiday leave, and went with Notts UnCut to take breakfast to picket lines.
Another comment says that not all anarchists at May Day supported our intervention. If that's true, they haven't said as much anywhere that I know of (but are happy to stand corrected) and certainly not to us. We have had numerous messages of support from anarchists and other anti-authoritarians who could/did not attended to say that they would have joined our intervention if they had.
apparently there were...
Published: May 14, 2012 20:34
by
paying attention
"I saw Anarchists inside the hall who did not join in the protest, jeering, slow-handclapping and all"
quoted from Dave, above
Certainly did,......
Published: May 14, 2012 22:41
by
Dave.
Certainly did, but not joining in doesn't automatically mean not supporting; it means simply that, not joining in.
Some people are more quiet and reserved than others, or just want to observe, that's all.
I, and I'm sure others, don't always join in every protest/picket I see but it doesn't mean I don't support them.
Notts TUC response
Published: May 15, 2012 06:52
by
Free speech?
People might be interested to know the Notts TUC's response to the May Day protest.
The write-up on their website makes no mention whatsoever of the protests, rather conveniently airbrushing them out of history: http://www.nottstuc.org/2012/05/video-hundreds-join-notts-trades.html
Likewise, NottsTUC's video on YouTube focuses on what Labour MP Lillian Greenwood thought about the day, and lots of shots of Labour party banners (anarchist blocs conveniently not featured): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNW1-isw2Uw
I'm afraid I haven't been able to check out the Facebook or Twitter reports because Autonomous Notts has been blocked on both platforms by Notts TUC. As you can see, democracy and free speech are values that Notts TUC proudly upholds!
Mayday, mayday!
Published: May 20, 2012 11:06
by
Bob Cann
I'm an anarchist who was present at Mayday but chose not to take part in the protest against Alan Meale. Yet I agreed with it 100%. It was a bright spot in an otherwise humdrum occasion.
I know the group who organized the last few Maydays and so have been well aware of all the hard work they put in to make the event informative, inspiring and entertaining. This was achieved despite the best efforts of councils, both city and trades. However, it seemed that no pleas or urgings could get the trade unions with their banners to turn out, although there were some honourable exceptions to this - eg there were lots of Communication Workers with us in 2009 when they were in dispute.
I was therefore angered by the vindictive and manifestly untrue remark from a speaker who claimed that the fiasco on May 5th was "...the best organized Mayday ever". While it's true that a few more people turned up to march, because some trade union members finally condescended to get out of bed, but "organized" it was not. How different from Nottingham's first Mayday in 1894 when thousands of enthusiastic trade unionists marched from the Forest.
The rally was supposed to be in the Square but somehow the booking arrangement didn't work and the military got there first. So the rally ended up well out of public gaze to the Congregational Hall. Not a brilliant choice as it has no wheelchair access (dodgy chair lift doesn't count). So the converted were preaching to the converted and the unconverted outside were blissfully unaware of what was going on.
One of the advertised main speakers, Mark Serwotka of the PCS, didn't appear. This left us with the other main speaker, Alan Meale, MP for Mansfield. It's hard to think of a more unsuitable choice for an event that is about international worker's solidarity unless it's Ann Widdecombe (perhaps next year, Ann). Apart from the ... er... misunderstanding about his expenses, his voting record hardly gives you optimism for the future - unless you think that the world's problems can be solved by banning fox hunting. He was in favour of ID cards, is in favour of a stricter asylum system and in the crucial Iraq war vote on whether the second UN resolution was necessary, he voted 'no' with the majority and the UK's war machine rolled.
One glance at the uninspiring leaflet design for Nottingham Mayday 2012 told you pretty much what you were in for. In the hall, there was 'them' behind tables on stage talking and 'us' in the audience listening - entirely a product of the old fashioned authoritarian left, failing either to reach out to the uncommitted or to comrades from other countries.
Autonomous Nottingham conversation on May Day
Published: May 26, 2012 20:39
by
One of the Autonomous
Autonomous Nottingham have published a conversation between three people with different views on the anti-Meale action. You can read it here: http://network23.org/autonomousnottingham/2012/05/26/making-a-meale-of-it/
Latest articles feed
Alan Meale's Politics
Agood report on the May Day events.
I have sent the following email to Alan Meale MP:
"Dear Alan Meale,
Today outside the Congretational Hall in Nottingham you examined a leaflet I was distributing about you which said:
· He supports Labour’s public spending cuts programme.
· He does not support strike action taken by public sector workers in defence of their pensions.
· He supports the war of terror being waged against the people of Afghanistan.
· He supports measures to reduce numbers of asylum seekers allowed into Britain
He was one of the MP’s found to be making excessive expenses claims.
These are the reasons why many people at the May Day rally considered that it was not appropriate for you to speak. You denied that any of these statements are true. If this is the case then it would be useful if you would clarify your position on these matters. You could place a statement on your website. If you have been misrepresented then I would be happy to issue a retraction and apology.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Yours sincerely,
Ross Longhurst"