DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Transphobia at the London Anarchist Bookfair 2017

487 posts / 0 new
Last post
darren p's picture
darren p
Offline
Joined: 5-07-06
Nov 10 2017 09:31

Well no Bookfair next year and, at a guess, ever again. Can't say I'm surprised...

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 10 2017 11:04

Re-posting two statements from the Anarchist Bookfair Collective, they're word documents linked from the front page of http://anarchistbookfair.org.uk/. edit - not an endorsement of the contents at all see posts below

Anarchist Bookfair Collective wrote:
There have been a number of demands that the London Anarchist Bookfair Collective put out a statement on the events at this year’s Bookfair. Since we started drafting one there have inevitably been a range of statements, open letters etc. Elsewhere we will set out where we think this leaves the Bookfair collective, the Bookfair and the wider movement. Here we will try and set out some sort of position on the events of the day. It’s probably useful to keep the two separate.
Before we start, we want people to remember there were a huge number of positive things about the day; it felt more diverse, there were a lot of people who had not been before, there were some excellent outward looking meetings, the Swiss comrades raised more than £700 for G20 defendants, the Rebel Riot tour went down a storm and they’ve secured help and funding to set up a social centre in Myanmar, a comrade who came over from Hong Kong is going back to set up a bookfair there, as is another from Bulgaria we hope, and there were some great books too! What people are expecting us to make a statement about are two incidents and some leaflets. Like many, many other groups we don’t all think the same but have tried to come to some consensus. From the demands being “made” of us we know we won’t satisfy everybody. In fact we may alienate a range of people, and we may have people who presently are trying not to take sides disagreeing with us as well. All we can say to everyone is these are our thoughts.

There were some leaflets being handed out against the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act

We are all unhappy about the contents of the leaflets we have seen. One is clearly meant only to provoke, the other fails to even acknowledge the real fears and discrimination that many trans people face in everyday life and, by failing to do so, itself becomes provocative and therefore offensive. We had not seen the leaflets before the problems started and most of us did not get to see the contents until the end of the day. As anarchists we feel “banning” and “no platforming” are actions that should only be used as extreme solutions and, while the leaflet did cause offense and hurt, we will only remove literature or people from the Bookfair in extreme circumstances and not just because we disagree with it or them, even if they do cause offence.

As the Bookfair collective we have been working most of our lives to oppose oppression and we see worrying tendencies on both sides of this debate to ban, oppress and win the argument by force. We know people who feel strongly about this; who feel deeply hurt; and who feel angry. We see the contradictions, we see the splitting of our movement, and we see and feel the pain caused. Unfortunately we don’t have the answers but we are prepared to be part of any group that wants to look for a less oppressive way to deal with this debate within our movement.

We are also aware that views and attitudes vary widely. People who disagree strongly with the leaflets’ contents do not all think it’s useful to call the people distributing them fascists, or that anyone failing to condemn them should be attacked. People in our movement have a range of different views about gender, women’s spaces and so on. People who step in to stop a woman being mobbed don’t necessarily share her views or even claim understanding of all the issues. No one voice speaks for everyone on either side.

The jumping to confrontation, the retreat into “No debate” only hardens positions, poisons political and personal relationships and makes the possibility of any sort of resolution less possible. We don’t see any winners emerging out of this toxicity.

The fracas

Let’s get one thing straight. We did not step in to support people promoting transphobic hate speech. We saw two women (who had been handing out leaflets) being attacked by a group of people and separated them from the group. A member of the collective was hit by the people handing out the leaflets while trying to move them away from the stalls and lifts. The two women left the venue. The woman who was later mobbed by up to about 30 people did not hand out the leaflets or have anything to do with their production or distribution – she simply said that they had the right to distribute them. For expressing this view, she was mobbed by a crowd of people some of whom, had we not stepped in, appeared bent on physically attacking her. We and other stall holders stepped in to prevent this from happening. If any individual within our movement is threatened with physical assault at the Bookfair we always try to do what we can to protect that person, and have done so (sadly too often) at previous Bookfairs over a number of different strongly felt issues, regardless of whether we personally share their views.

We have been accused of “protecting a fascist” and of being transphobic ourselves. All of us in the collective have physically confronted fascists on the streets, at meetings and in print, and we are baffled and upset by these accusations. Accusing a person of being a fascist because you don’t like their views is dishonest and dangerous. We are not going to apologise for protecting someone being mobbed by a group of up to about 30 people, and, along with others, preventing an ugly situation from deteriorating further.

Obviously a lot of people are going to disagree with this, but anyone who seriously thinks that up to about 30 people shouting and threatening one woman, and in the process intimidating disabled comrades and children, was a “beautiful moment of direct action” should consider taking a look at themselves and their politics.

Finally to those who decided to smash and set off the fire alarm, and to anyone who thought it was clever - have you thought about the effect it had on the creche and older kids space, the numerous meetings taking place at the time, or relations with the venue? A number of children having to be led out of the older kids space were crying and talking about Grenfell. They thought it was a real fire and were really scared. This action definitely didn’t make it a safe space for them.

The end

We are unsure how this debate within our movement (and beyond) will work itself out, as there is a wide range of strongly held views. What we are sure of is that next year there are people who would want us to ban those sharing the views of the leafleteers or those who stickered the loos, others who would want us to ban people who were in the group of up to about 30 or those who set off the fire alarm. We are not prepared to ban any of these people, and, while people think the way to resolve their differences is to disrupt and shut down meetings, like the Syria meeting last year, or the whole Bookfair this year, by shouting at and fighting each other, we haven’t the appetite or the energy to organise next year’s Bookfair.
More positively and perhaps unsurprisingly we have had contacts from a range of people who do see the need for debate and discussion on the issues and the events. We don’t think our collective is the right facilitator but are prepared to work with anyone who, like us, would like to look at ways we work these (strongly felt) disagreements within our movement out face to face. If we don’t, the only winners will be capitalism and the state.
(Please note: While others may want to continue this discussion online. We won’t be making any further comments.)

Anarchist Bookfair Collective wrote:
A few days ago, someone sent us the following open letter - https://londonbookfairopenletter.wordpress.com/. Initially we didn’t want to write a point by point response but feel it is necessary to reply to the accusations and the demands made of us.

For the record: the current Bookfair Collective will not be organising a Bookfair in 2018. Organising an annual event attended by over 2000 people is a huge amount of work - finding and negotiating with venue providers, organising the equipment needed, booking stalls and meetings, printing and distributing leaflets and programmes, as well as finding overseas speakers and the money to pay for them. Pretty much every year we receive some accusation of heinous behaviour and demands that we implement a list of externally formulated policies. We could look at this one and dismiss it as more of the same; ignore it, say the groups are not representative, if we leave it people will lose interest, etc. But at the same time we are aware that many groups who have been pressed to sign up for it have not and we do need to set out a response as much to them as to the signatories and others who have read it.

What hurts us most is we know a lot of you. A number of the signatories to the open letter are groups we know and have worked with over the years; sometimes many, many years. Yet not one of you has tried to contact us as individuals or as the Bookfair collective to ask our views before you signed the open letter, even though some people appear not to have read all of it before signing. We thought of many of you as friends. We were obviously wrong. We guess it’s easy to sign a statement. It’s a lot harder to actually talk to people and try to work things out. We are also tired of being told what to do. We are told to ban people. We are told have this or that policy. We are told this or that group can/can’t have stalls. We are told we shouldn’t have a certain venue. We are constantly told we get it wrong. However, no one has offered to join the Collective and help us make the Bookfair better or offered to take it on.

We find it sad that so many individuals and groups jumped in to sign an open letter that accused of us allowing events that “terrorised” trans people and did not grant “the bare minimum conditions for trans and gender-variant comrades to take part in the event”. We wonder if everyone signing the open letter really thinks that trans and gender-variant comrades felt intimidated coming to the Bookfair? From what we saw and have heard, many members of the trans community were quite happy to be there. Indeed some disagree with the open letter and have expressed unhappiness about the behaviour of the group of up to about 30 people who chose to demand their view set the agenda.

We have in the past been called fascists by many individuals, sometimes for as little as asking for a donation towards the event; more often for asking people not to bring in dogs (for the safety of children) or not to use cameras. We also got called fascists on Saturday by a number of people. It seriously concerns us how easy this terminology is thrown about in the anarchist milieu. Survivors of the Spanish Civil war, survivors of the death camps, political activists in Pinochet’s Chile, activists in parts of the world today and many others who have been at the blunt end of actual fascism are done a disservice by this indiscriminate use of the word. We feel that the Bookfair is not the place for tactics used on demos against fascist groups and cops. Some of us are traumatised enough by activism and look forward to enjoying an event where we can see friends and exchange ideas without the pressure of these actions.

We agree 100% with the part of the open letter that says “Calling out harmful behaviour is about holding each other to the commitment that we can do and be better.” However, we find it sits uncomfortably with a large group of people threatening one person and find it difficult to believe some of those who signed this statement don’t either.

Three years ago a group of people came to tell us they were about to kick out an undercover cop. The person accused was visibly shaken and scared as the group was about to physically eject them till someone realised they had “the wrong person”. People are unhappy that the Bookfair collective doesn’t have a safer spaces policy. But we have always questioned who these policies are for? Is it OK for a space to be safe for one group but not for others who have different views? AFem 2014 was an attempt to make an event similar to the Bookfair without cis-men and with a safer spaces policy. Having seen the result, does anyone wonder why the organisers of that event (many more than we are) didn’t feel they had the energy to do another one?

The statement claims “organisers have stepped in to defend and support those who use oppressive, violent and dehumanising language to perpetuate racist, colonial and patriarchal systems of oppression”. Do all of you feel comfortable signing these accusations against us, presented without examples or proof? Many of you have worked with us for years and happily speak to us about stall and meeting bookings year after year. Isn’t it disingenuous to come to an event or book a stall or meeting, and, in many cases, be very friendly with us when you know us to be racist, colonialist and patriarchal? Did you not think of challenging us over the years about this?

This brings us onto the demands. Despite your claim that you have “been progressively alienated over the years by the culture of the Bookfair”, not one of you has ever come and offered to either get involved or to take the event on. In 2013 or 2014 demands were made of us to implement a safer spaces policy and to ban certain individuals. These “demands” were sent to us just over a week before the Bookfair. We refused, as, given the timeframe, we had no time to discuss the lengthy demands and their serious implications. After the Bookfair we contacted the groups who had made these demands to discuss how we could work together and we set up a meeting, but were met with silence.

You ask that the date of the Bookfair doesn’t clash with the UFFC demo. Where possible we have always tried to avoid a clash. There have been years where we can’t get the venue any other weekend (a couple of times when we were at Queen Mary’s). We got kicked out of Queen Mary’s and Central St Martin’s because of the behaviour of some people. Shit happens – we move on. We put tweets out asking for people to help us find a new venue. A few friends suggested places but all were unsuitable for either access or space reasons.

The secondary school in Tottenham was ideal for everything we needed. However, the only Saturday the school could offer us clashed with the UFFC demo. We were not happy about this, but had to weigh it up against access requirements, space requirements, financial requirements and venues actually wanting the event in the first place. We have probably visited over 100 venues over the last 10 years to try to find suitable spaces. Maybe those making demands like this should be prepared to take some responsibility for finding a suitable venue? Otherwise one can only assume their brand of anarchism is getting others to do things so there is always someone else to blame.

By the way, we maintain a dialogue with UFFC. We put their demo on the Bookfair leaflet (of which we produce and distribute 20,000) and programme. We also promote their demo on social media and are happy for people to go to the demo rather than the Bookfair. Ironically on years the Bookfair hasn’t clashed with the UFFC demo, and most of us have gone, the numbers on the demo don’t increase, which says loads to us about “our” movement.

You state we should have “A clear statement outlining the politics the LABF is committed to, what kinds of behaviour and views are unacceptable and unwelcome at the Bookfair”. Have you looked at our website? There is a statement there. We suspect some of you signed the open letter without checking the website. We suspect others mean “we don’t like your statement”. If that’s the case, then be honest and say what you mean. Again, we feel not so much upset as frustrated about this.

Regarding points 4, 5 and 6: It really saddens us that comrades can sign up to these points without talking to us or thinking through and substantiating what they have signed up to. We will take them separately below.

Regarding “a commitment to incorporating anti-racist and decolonial struggle into the Bookfair”. Every year we actively approach groups and individuals to try and make the event more diverse. We pay fares and, when we can, put on nationwide tours for speakers. Have you forgotten Lorenzo and JoNina, the ex-Panthers? Have you forgotten Lindela from Abahlali baseMjondolo? Have you already forgotten Rebel Riot this year? This year we also tried really hard to get comrades from Kurdistan, Turkey, Tunisia, Venezuela (and in the past Gaza), to attend. Many of the non-white speakers at the Bookfair have been invited by the collective. Every year we also try to get local non-white groups to speak. Most don’t want to because the event, in common with the movement as a whole, is so “white”. Do you really think the Bookfair Collective alone is responsible for the current lack of diversity across the whole movement?

You say we should make space for workshops and meetings for people of colour or queer and trans (point 5) and people with disabilities (point 6). How are we not providing space? Anyone can contact us to suggest or book a meeting. Anyone can book a stall. We actively encouraged a trans rights group who had tried to book a stall last year, but contacted us too late, to book early this year, but they opted to do something else on the day. It’s interesting that because there wasn’t a meeting with “trans” or “queer” in the title some of you seem to think there were no trans speakers, implying that the only thing people of trans experience can talk about is their gender.
Regards the demands around accessibility in the open letter, again we ask how you can sign this statement without talking to us or looking at what’s been achieved over the years. We work with DPAC, we have signers on hand (3 this year) at the Bookfair to interpret for people at meetings and round stalls if needed. We have touch typists on hand for those who are hard of hearing. We spend ages finding venues that are accessible and we mean the whole venue. Yes, there are problems. Venues often don’t “get it” so we fight them on this. We had started to get there with the new venue. We had eight keys cut for the lifts, of which two were on the DPAC stall.

We ask people who want to attend meetings or films to let us know in advance so we can get meeting notes and further info in advance to make the meeting as accessible as possible (this is all on our social media and website). This year we offered to pay for cabs to and from the venue for anyone with mobility difficulties. We specifically have a Bookfair access stall, staffed by trained people (some of whom have disabilities themselves) to support this work. Are you claiming that all your venues, offices and events are as accessible?

Several of us were incredulous when we saw point 7. We find it hypocritical that some of those signing the open letter (and we accept it’s only one or two) have not only taken photos at a previous Bookfair but circulated them publicly. There were people in the “melee” on Saturday taking photos of the person being attacked as well as of us trying to defuse the situation and comments shouted at us included “your face will be all over social media by tomorrow”.

We think it’s time for everyone to take a moment to reflect on the event and the state of the anarchist movement in general, to think how we can move forward in a more positive way. However, we have decided not to organise another Bookfair in 2018. This is because we can’t agree to implement the list of demands in the open letter and don’t expect many of the groups and individuals who signed it, or made their own statements, to accept our response. We are sad to disappoint all those who, like us, value the Bookfair and the contribution it has made to the movement. We are sad that incidents that it may have been possible to resolve have been widened out and entrenched. Our decision reflects an increasingly toxic atmosphere, which we do not want to concede to or facilitate. We also have very serious concerns about organising a Bookfair knowing that we, those who wished to attend and the venue would face attempts at harassment and disruption.

To reiterate: We will not be organising the Bookfair in 2018. For all those who think we did such a terrible job, who feel we didn’t get it right for people of colour, trans people, disabled people and probably others as well, show us how to do it properly. The Bookfair in 2018 is yours. We won’t come along and make trouble; we won’t denounce you on social media; we won’t criticise from the sidelines. But we are really interested to see how you solve all the problems you raise in your statement and implement your list of demands.

Last but not least, thank you to all those who have sent messages of support and those of you who have at least called / emailed to question us about the events and our thoughts even if you don’t agree with us.
(Please note: While others may want to continue this discussion online. We won’t be making any further comments.)

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 10 2017 11:31

Like Darren says, there will not be one next year. Statement from the Bookfair collective here, and a response to the open letter: http://anarchistbookfair.org.uk/

While personally I have a lot of respect for some of the Bookfair collective, unfortunately in their statement on the events they do not in my view properly condemn transphobia, nor do they put any responsibility on Helen at all for what occurred, despite the fact she was defending hate speech, and despite the fact she is an active transphobe herself.

They also effectively defend the right of people to actively organise and promote transphobia in the Bookfair, which I simply do not believe they would allow for people distributing racist, sexist or homophobic propaganda.

My hope would be that they change their views on this. Perhaps it seems that their long friendship with Helen, and her long record of otherwise exemplary activism, and perhaps lack of personal/political relationships and empathy with/understanding of trans people has led them to think that transphobia is not "as bad" as racism or homophobia.

This being the case, I think it is right that they are not going to organise the Bookfair next year - or again TBH until they re-evaluate their views on trans people.

In terms of their response to the open letter, I think much of the response is fair enough. As I mentioned above some of the criticism/demands was completely overblown and criticised them for things outside their remit or control.

So basically I hope that other people, including those who criticised the Bookfair collective, will get together and organise a similar event next year, at which all types of discriminatory and anti-working class behaviour is prohibited (of course enforcing such prohibition is a separate issue, but making a commitment to exclude it is the first step). And I would also hope that the current Bookfair collective would help anyone who does step up to do so, by sharing contacts, experience and media infrastructure like the Bookfair website, Twitter and FB page.

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 11:37

Bookfair evades accountability to the very end. They'd rather shut it down than be accountable.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 10 2017 12:26

libcom didn't sign any of the open letters but we did discuss doing so, and e-mailed the bookfair collective telling them this, with some specific questions about their views.

This paragraph from the bookfair collective statement, and some other sections like it suggests they think the mayday4women group's views and activities before, during and after the bookfair are an acceptable range within what should be tolerated at anarchist events even if they think the leaflets themselves are 'offensive'.

Anarchist Bookfair Collective wrote:
We are unsure how this debate within our movement (and beyond) will work itself out, as there is a wide range of strongly held views. What we are sure of is that next year there are people who would want us to ban those sharing the views of the leafleteers or those who stickered the loos, others who would want us to ban people who were in the group of up to about 30 or those who set off the fire alarm. ... We are not prepared to ban any of these people
...
we are prepared to be part of any group that wants to look for a less oppressive way to deal with this debate within our movement.

I looked up some old threads on here from about 2007-8-ish around trans issues and found tonnes of transphobic shit, especially put forwarded by revol68 (who's since been banned some time ago after multiple short term bans, but it took several years for that to happen), but also people accepting some of his points and/or defending his right to put things forward.

We had very lax moderation rules on this site for a number of years, and it led to an incredibly toxic atmosphere for a long time. A lot of this was because we didn't make a sufficient distinction between political disagreements, rudeness/swearing, and bigotry - and when people complained about this (usually informally rather than via an open letter or anything), we mostly dismissed it as criticism of strongly held political views and/or rudeness. Eventually enough people had a go at us, we developed a better understanding of these dynamics and some of the issues involved, and we started tightening things up.

This doesn't mean we've fixed those issues. Some of the people who left the site for good reasons haven't returned, the posts of some bannees are still in old threads that people can come across randomly and assume is acceptable on the site now, our current moderation is under-resourced which makes it inconsistent. Also we still properly fuck up sometimes.

Reading these statements, I can see some defensive arguments I might have made a few years ago 'Look, we're trying to do all these things, people should be able to discuss things and work it out' and it completely misses the point that people were using the bookfair to distribute essentially hate literature.

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 13:25

The statement, (which I skim-read looking for mention of the TERF and didn't find it so won't bother reading again), is an exercise in deflection. It's not about the open letter being less than fucking perfect. It's about their actions on the day. That tweet is still up there for all to see. The LABF will defend a TERF and fall on their fucking sword doing so. And there's the other issue of them booking a venue where a labour dispute was taking place, effectively scabbing.

The LABF has fallen short of what is expected from an *anarchist* organisation. I'm sure liberals are fine with shit like this. But we aren't liberals. Hope more enlightened people can take this forward.

satawal
Offline
Joined: 12-05-10
Nov 10 2017 13:33

Oranj: "Bookfair evades accountability to the very end. They'd rather shut it down than be accountable"

I think you mean: Some people decide to withdraw their voluntary labour, and actively call for the continuing of the project by its critics.

There you go, fixed it for you.

Fozzie's picture
Fozzie
Online
Joined: 4-12-03
Nov 10 2017 13:49
Oranj wrote:
And there's the other issue of them booking a venue where a labour dispute was taking place, effectively scabbing.

I've only skim read your post, but this is the first I have heard of this dispute? What are the details?

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 17:17
satawal wrote:
Oranj: "Bookfair evades accountability to the very end. They'd rather shut it down than be accountable"

I think you mean: Some people decide to withdraw their voluntary labour, and actively call for the continuing of the project by its critics.

There you go, fixed it for you.

Deflecting criticism back at the critics isn't being accountable, its evasion. Their statement effectively read as a 'We're right and we'd do it again'. Their position of neutrality between oppressed and oppressor has fuck all to do with anarchism, neither has free speech for hate groups.

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 16:57
Fozzie wrote:
Oranj wrote:
And there's the other issue of them booking a venue where a labour dispute was taking place, effectively scabbing.

I've only skim read your post, but this is the first I have heard of this dispute? What are the details?

T.Chances is the venue. Workers were made to work 13 hour shifts, not getting paid, and community orgs getting pushed out of the venue.

Fozzie's picture
Fozzie
Online
Joined: 4-12-03
Nov 10 2017 17:03
Oranj wrote:
Fozzie wrote:
Oranj wrote:
And there's the other issue of them booking a venue where a labour dispute was taking place, effectively scabbing.

I've only skim read your post, but this is the first I have heard of this dispute? What are the details?

T.Chances is the venue. Workers were made to work 13 hour shifts, not getting paid, and community orgs getting pushed out of the venue.

So not the actual venue of the Bookfair then.

I've not been able to find anything online about the T Chances dispute - is there anything I have missed?

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 17:15
Fozzie wrote:
Oranj wrote:
Fozzie wrote:
Oranj wrote:
And there's the other issue of them booking a venue where a labour dispute was taking place, effectively scabbing.

I've only skim read your post, but this is the first I have heard of this dispute? What are the details?

T.Chances is the venue. Workers were made to work 13 hour shifts, not getting paid, and community orgs getting pushed out of the venue.

So not the actual venue of the Bookfair then.

I've not been able to find anything online about the T Chances dispute - is there anything I have missed?

No, the after parties (two of them) weren't at the bookfair.

I didn't learn this online, but from a comrade at the pub opposite.

Antifa Armadillo
Offline
Joined: 2-11-17
Nov 10 2017 17:18

The only good thing that can be said about the LABF statement, as far as I'm concerned, is that it means that the AFed proposal of a 'rival bookfair' will no longer be in direct competition with a better known bookfair. By refusing to take any responsibility at all, the LABF collective have at least opened the field.

Apart from everything Mike Harman and Oranj have pointed out above, what gets me about the LABF collective statements is that they outright acknowledge that these issues have been raised in one way or another many times over the past few years. They complain that no one has ever joined them to improve the organisation of the bookfair, but on the other hand, I can't remember ever seeing an invitation being circulated by the collective to join in and find ways to deal with all the issues that have been raised. In that context, saying 'well, no one's ever stepped up' sounds like a dodge. It looks even dodgier given that the substantive response to the issues with the anti-trans hate literature suggests that they wouldn't want to change anything even if people did somehow join in the organising.

I really hope that we take advantage of the opportunity here to get together and demonstrate that it is indeed possible to organise an anarchist bookfair in London that has all of the positive aspects of the event as we've known it, whilst actually drawing lessons from all the issues that have arisen in previous years, with an inclusive approach to organising that actively draws people in rather than merely resorting to 'you didn't join in and eventually gave up after we dismissed you' as an excuse for not taking justifiable criticism on board.

Antifa Armadillo
Offline
Joined: 2-11-17
Nov 10 2017 17:21

As for the T.Chances dispute, I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of the leaflet the workers were handing out there on Twitter, so I imagine it would be possible to track those down there.

Fozzie's picture
Fozzie
Online
Joined: 4-12-03
Nov 10 2017 17:22

Presumably the comrade in the pub opposite had also raised this with the Bookfair collective prior to to the event?

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 17:28
Fozzie wrote:
Presumably the comrade in the pub opposite had also raised this with the Bookfair collective prior to to the event?

One would assume anarchists would check in with workers at a venue beforehand before booking it, for any such disputes. That's what we do in the IWW...

Antifa Armadillo
Offline
Joined: 2-11-17
Nov 10 2017 17:32
Oranj wrote:
One would assume anarchists would check in with workers at a venue beforehand before booking it, for any such disputes. That's what we do in the IWW...

And given that these workers were printing flyers, one imagines that they would have sought to raise the issue themselves. It seems hard to believe that whoever booked the venue for the bookfair would have been unaware of the dispute.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 10 2017 18:13

Sounds like an added smear for good measure.... an' they're scabs as well!!!11! You really think the bookfair collective met and decided to do some scabbing on the side?

Deary me.

Fozzie's picture
Fozzie
Online
Joined: 4-12-03
Nov 10 2017 18:18

Once again I’ve only skimmed Oranj’s posts above, but I haven’t seen any evidence of the Bookfair collective being scabs or even knowing about the dispute that was brought up by the comrade in the pub across the road whilst the Bookfair was happening.

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 18:23
Serge Forward wrote:
Sounds like an added smear for good measure.... an' they're scabs as well!!!11! You really think the bookfair collective met and decided to do some scabbing on the side?

Deary me.

The fact remains that there was a dispute at the venue and no-one seems to have listened to the workers. But never mind all that, anarchism is about partying right?

[I didn't even mention that David Rovics, one of the 'stars' booked, is friends with Gilad Atzmon, who is a holocaust denier. Oh, slipped up there.]

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 10 2017 18:27

I couldn't find any leaflets for the T. Chances dispute on twitter, although may not have figured out the right search terms.

There's enough concrete things to deal with on this thread, so if someone has documentation of a dispute at the after-party venue please post it, otherwise I don't think it's going to help with the discussion here at all. If this was widely known I'd have expected to see it in the open letter.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 10 2017 18:45
Oranj wrote:
[I didn't even mention that David Rovics, one of the 'stars' booked, is friends with Gilad Atzmon, who is a holocaust denier. Oh, slipped up there.]

Another smear! Guilt by association (once removed) this time. Damn them bookfair people for booking someone who is friends with a Holocaust denier. Shame on them for not knowing more about the friends of people booked to perform at the social. Are you for real, you chump?

Antifa Armadillo
Offline
Joined: 2-11-17
Nov 10 2017 19:01
Oranj wrote:
I didn't even mention that David Rovics, one of the 'stars' booked, is friends with Gilad Atzmon, who is a holocaust denier. Oh, slipped up there.]

Rovics actually published a defence of Atzmon's racist tract 'The Wandering Who' in response to the Palestinian call for the solidarity movement to stop damaging the Palestinian struggle by associating with racists and fascists like Atzmon. The statement can be found on Rovics' website under the title 'Disavowing Disavowal'. The issue has been raised with Rovics in the interim to see if Atzmon's fascist sympathies, which he isn't even hiding at this point, had led him to reconsider his support, and Rovics just utterly dismissed it.

Antifa Armadillo
Offline
Joined: 2-11-17
Nov 10 2017 19:10
Mike Harman wrote:
I couldn't find any leaflets for the T. Chances dispute on twitter, although may not have figured out the right search terms.

I've been looking for it as well, and I'm not finding it either, which is quite frustrating, since I held a copy of it in my hand and didn't think to get a quick picture of it for just this sort of occasion. The search terms turn up so many irrelevant results that it's buried.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 10 2017 19:31
Serge Forward wrote:
Damn them bookfair people for booking someone who is friends with a Holocaust denier. Shame on them for not knowing more about the friends of people booked to perform at the social.

He's not just friends with him, as Antifa Armadillo pointed out he's published a defense of Atzmon's book, it's easy to find.

The bookfair collective might well not have known about the association, I hadn't heard of Rovics until he was brought up here (although presumably someone heard of him enough to book him).

However an easy thing to do when something like this is brought to your attention is to say 'sorry, we fucked up, we won't book him again' - or if you knew about all this and think it's fine, then defend the decision and take the flak for it.

Serge you have a lot of opinions about people's opinions on the bookfair, but none on the statement it seems. Your last post on here was 'we'll just have to agree to disagree' which was frankly a shit response to my comment, and you're not even sticking to that.

Antifa Armadillo
Offline
Joined: 2-11-17
Nov 10 2017 19:36
Mike Harman wrote:
The bookfair collective might well not have known about the association, I hadn't heard of Rovics until he was brought up here (although presumably someone heard of him enough to book him).

Rovics is pretty well known, and actually - unfortunately given the fact that he turns out to be a dodgy bastard - quite a good songwriter. That's probably part of why it's been so hard to raise the issue around his defence of Atzmon's racism, because a lot of people simply don't want to hear about it. In that sense, I wouldn't be surprised if the organisers hadn't been aware of it.

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 19:54

I've been banging on about Rovics since 2014. No-one wants to know. Muso's get a pass.
He still keeps getting booked all over the place - by anarchists, some of whom I know and know full well his association with Atzmon.

Antifa Armadillo
Offline
Joined: 2-11-17
Nov 10 2017 20:00

I found a photo of the T-Chances flyer here: https://ibb.co/kpoyOG

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 10 2017 20:07
Mike Harman wrote:
Serge Forward wrote:
Damn them bookfair people for booking someone who is friends with a Holocaust denier. Shame on them for not knowing more about the friends of people booked to perform at the social.

He's not just friends with him, as Antifa Armadillo pointed out he's published a defense of Atzmon's book, it's easy to find.

The bookfair collective might well not have known about the association, I hadn't heard of Rovics until he was brought up here (although presumably someone heard of him enough to book him).

However an easy thing to do when something like this is brought to your attention is to say 'sorry, we fucked up, we won't book him again' - or if you knew about all this and think it's fine, then defend the decision and take the flak for it.

Serge you have a lot of opinions about people's opinions on the bookfair, but none on the statement it seems. Your last post on here was 'we'll just have to agree to disagree' which was frankly a shit response to my comment, and you're not even sticking to that.

Mike Harmon, if the allegation that Rovics associates with an anti semiite like Atzmon, then he is a cunt. However, to then suggest that the bookfair people are somehow tarnished by Rovics' associations is also a cunt's trick.

I've already made my view of this clear on several occasions. I think the most measured response to this was that by the AF trans action faction https://afed.org.uk/afed-trans-action-faction-statement-in-response-to-events-at-london-anarchist-bookfair-2017/ - though I disagree somewhat with the second paragraph in that statement.

Mike Harmon, sadly your politics have deteriorated and my respect for you as a poster on here is rapidly evaporating.

Oranj's picture
Oranj
Offline
Joined: 18-03-13
Nov 10 2017 20:07

'unaccountable management clique'..sounds familiar

Topic locked