Watching the Redwatchers
When members of our University are targeted by fascists, all of us are threatened
Redwatch, the far-right website dedicated to exposing communists and anti-Nazis, seems at first glance something easily ignored. They reserve a great deal of their vitriol for organisations such as the Anti-Nazi League, and attempt to undermine them with their razor-sharp wit. Presumably with this intention, the acronym ANL becomes ANaL: so it is that violent neo-Nazis and far-right nationalists seem so distant from the everyday reality of life at the University of York.
When the face of Yorkshire Evening Post journalist Pete Lazenby adorns the front page of Redwatch, though, the organisation suddenly feels that bit more real, more unpleasant and more dangerous. What ought to seem more insidious to us at the University is that the site features pictures of a former YUSU president and a current University lecturer, both discovered in an investigation by Nouse. Associated with violent neo-nazi groups such as Combat-18 and Aryan Unity, it seems legitimate to ask why Redwatch hasn’t been shut down. The site has also been linked to members of the British National Party. While the BNP denounces it, the connection certainly speaks volumes about attempts by this political party to don the garb of respectability.
Bizarrely, Redwatch claim the high-ground, proclaiming themselves a bastion of free speech. The aim is presumably to show the reds that they can’t get away with compiling information on White Nationalists. This is nothing more than a tit-for-tat response, an act of self-defence to prevent the persecution and silencing of neo-Nazi groups. The site states that it exists only to “identify potential attackers from violent Marxist groups”. Such an argument sits rather uncomfortably with the pictures Redwatch displays, including pregnant women, children and old people carrying a peace flag, next to some bloke playing the bongos. These seem unlikely suspects for those seeking the vanguard of a Marxist army.
While the site denies being a hit-list, investigations by the Guardian have exposed a secure e-mail network which has been used to pass around individuals’ addresses at home and work, and discuss launching campaigns of violence. This is the far more sinister side of an organisation which might otherwise appear farcical. Soon after having their details posted on Redwatch, several people have received death threats, and the Guardian reports the stabbing of a union activist at his home after being identified on the site. It is deeply worrying that a site like this should mention anyone associated with our University.
If Redwatch is associated with violent individuals, how is it allowed to continue? Several MPs who are featured on the site have petitioned the government for its closure. There are, however, several reasons why it would be difficult to shut Redwatch down, mostly inherent in the cross-border nature of the web. For one thing, it is very difficult to take any direct action as the site is hosted in the United States. While there have been discussions about closing the site down, any attempt would almost certainly fall foul of the First Amendment. Also, the site has attempted to protect itself with an impressive array of disclaimers. Even if it were stopped in the U.S., the site claims it has the capability to instantly re-launch from Slovakia, a point which was made by the Home Office spokesperson who talked with Nouse. No matter whether you think the site ought to be banned or not, the practical obstacles to doing so are probably insurmountable.
It is this that makes exposés like those in the Guardian and Nouse so very important. At a time when journalism is often maligned as sensationalist and irresponsible, such investigations show what defending free speech really looks like. On balance, I don’t believe that Redwatch should be banned, although this feels close to defending the indefensible. Posting pictures of people on the internet must be allowed in any free society, however malign the intention. But intimidation must be opposed, and violence prevented. Proving the links between its activists and activities that are unambiguously illegal is a much more effective way of fighting back, and maintaining real freedom of speech.
Whether you think Redwatch should be banned or not, and a great many think it should, it is impossible to dismiss the violence that Redwatch espouses and the connections its activities have to attacks and intimidation. However, perhaps the most notable thing about the website is the feeble way in which it attempts to justify itself. The ultimate irony rests that Redwatch cites freedom of speech as a defense, when in truth it has nothing to say.
Loading ...
IF RED WATCH IS SPEAKING AND PUBLISHING THE TRUTHS THEN NO ONE CAN COMPLAIN
BUT THEIR FIGHT IS WITH A TRAITOROUS PARLIAMENT WHOSE LIES AND CONCEIT IS DESTROYING BRITAIN FOR MANY WORKING CLASS PEOPLE ARE CERTAINLY WITH THEM AND THEIR RANKS ARE GROWING
‘Speaking and publishing the truths’? So you find it acceptable that whilst giving out anti-BNP leaflets in Acomb last week (exercising the right to freedom of speech that the BNP claim to defend) we were photographed by Ian Dawson, a BNP National Group Support Officer, and told that our photos would be appearing on Red Watch? This is the same person that told a member of the university’s Islamic Soc who was leafletting to “get out of his country”. There is no place in Britain for any party that relies on tactics of intimidation. For a party that claims to be fighting a ‘traitorous parliament’ they seem to only target groups and individuals within society rather than institutions.
What truth would Redwatch be speaking and publishing? What kind of a political truths are the addresses, phone numbers, job descriptions and even license plates of people who are prepared to speak out against racism? It is a cowardly attempt to stop people exercising their right to freedom of speech, and speaks volumes about the validity of their political arguments if these are the tactics they need to fall back on. It also speaks volumes that despite this intimidation; and in the face of death threats, violent attacks, knifings and fire-bombings there are still people willing to openly oppose fascists like the BNP and protect our society from them.
As for the idea that the BNP would represent the interests of the working class, it only takes a second to realise that it isn’t the case. The BNP are a fascist organisation, opposed to the welfare state, whose purpose is to spread racism and blame the failings of a political system on the innocent and vulnerable people who are its worst victims.
Also, if we are to talk of ‘speaking and publishing the truth’, it bears remembering that the BNP deny the occurence of the holocaust: they aim only at spreading lies, division and fear.
Do fascists always leave caps lock on?
I believe that there is a third side to this discussion, and I would like to persuade you that it is the best.
Most of us agree that the actions of Redwatch are repugnant and immoral, and that fascism, racism and misinformation are evils. However, most of us agree that the freedom of the press and the right to publish as one wishes are very important.
I think that the way we can clear this up is to distinguish between moral and legal desires. I believe that it is immoral to publish hateful articles, but that it should never be illegal. It should never be illegal because, were any organisation to be granted the right to censor and to control information, such an organisation would become far too powerful and would itself constitute fascism.
We must counter the lies of fascists with clear, well-researched articles, and counter their shouts of hate with sensible argument. We must never recourse to fascist methods ourselves.
Actually, I’ve changed my mind a bit. I think that Redwatch should be prohibited from publishing personal information on anybody; I thin k that this is both immoral and desirably illegal, since invasion of privacy causes people to be less open about sharing views. I still think that they should be permitted to continue publishing any fascist arguments, and indeed to spread misinformation. In any case, I think that it is a better use of our time to disseminate correct information and anti-fascist arguments rather than to try to curtail the Rewatch members’ freedom of speech.