UK: Fascist addresses public school
01 November 1998
A leading figure from the fascist British National Party (BNP) addressed 200 senior students, half of them black or Asian, at a meeting of Dulwich College's sociological society in November. Michael Newland, the BNP's press officer, spoke to the public school, which charges fees of ?7,000 a year, after receiving an invitation from a student. The decision to allow Newland to speak was defended by the Master of the school, Graham Able, who explained in a letter to the Times newspaper:
"The invitation was issued by a member of the [sociological] society, a sixth-former of Asian background, and the meeting was one of a series exploring the extremes of British politics."
Able's attempt to shift responsibility for the debacle to one of his students is irresponsible. The fact that an Asian youth naively invited a speaker from an organisation whose leaders and membership have a string of convictions for violent racist attacks is less a justification than an excuse; the potential repercussions of the invitation were clearly ignored. If the BNP were merely concerned with disseminating their propaganda - which in the "post-fascist" era carefully disguises the ideology of the concentration camp behind demands for "communal" human rights - it would be reason enough for concern. Previously fascists have passed themselves off as "students" only to unleash a torrent of racist violence. A spate of brutal attacks on students from Southwark College in south London in 1993 is an example of the BNPs academic inclinations (see Statewatch Vol. 3, no 1).
Far-right violence was a growing problem throughout the 1980s when public events were subject to regular attacks by racists and fascists, particularly members of the BNP. Many of these attacks were coordinated on the basis of low-level intelligence gathered by fascists or their supporters at such public meetings. This forced anti-racists to take precautions to secure public events from attack and to formulate a "no platform" policy which committed the movement never to share a platform with racists or fascists and to oppose their participation in public meetings. The problem was alluded to by the Commission for Racial Equality who, in a press statement condemned the invitation, noting that: "The BNP has a creed of hatred that is directly opposed to values of human rights and equal treatment."
Able also defends his decision to allow Newland to speak by asserting that the meeting was exploring "the extremes of British politics." Because parties of the left, such as the Socialist Workers Party and the Anti Nazi League, have addressed school meetings the BNP should have an equal right to do so, he claimed. However, neither the SWP nor the ANL promulgate a policy of genocide, advocating the extermination of entire ethnic groups. The BNP, in line with other European fascist parties, no longer advocate the policies of Adolf Hitler in public but they maintain an important role in disseminating holocaust denial material. Their overt strategy tends towards "populist" rights for whites campaigns backed by violent physical force - invariably on soft targets. If Able had sought advice he would have discovered that the BNPs abhorrent views and predilection for violence led to student protests that prevented Newland from addressing a meeting of Southampton University's debating union in 1995.
Newland's talk was clearly toned-down for the occasion but still condemned immigration and voiced support for the repatriation of black and Asian people residing in the UK; it also promoted "communal human rights", a euphemism for the BNPs racist "rights for whites" campaign. He studiously avoided mentioning the BNPs roots in the fascist movement and their advocacy of the policies of Adolf Hitler. Notably absent was any reference to the criminal convictions of the BNP's leaders for crimes ranging from bomb attacks on political opponents, arson attacks on mosques and synagogues and possession of firearms t