Who thought it was a good idea to let the RCP into City Hall?
City Hall’s counter-propaganda over Rise found its way into Comment is Free today. BoJo’s cultural underling, Munira Mirza, claims that removing the anti-racist message means they’re now “Doing anti-racism for real.”
Really, Comrade Mirza? Let’s have a look at her argument:
To give some background: in 1996 the Trades Union Congress and various political groups organised Respect (later renamed Rise), intended as a festival against racism. One of the organisations involved was the National Assembly Against Racism (NAAR). In 2000, the then newly-elected Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, effectively nationalised the event by giving it large sums of public money. Several of Ken’s key aides at City Hall had links to NAAR, including Lee Jasper.
Do I detect the none-too-subtle presence of a strawman or five? Apparently, heavy state funding equals nationalisation. Which is strange, given that nationalisation is usually taken to mean state-ownership and direction of an event - not funding. The NHS is nationalised. The railway network, which receives heavy state subsidisation but is directed by private companies, is not. You’d hope that someone who held public office might know the difference, lest they attempt something risky like allowing vicious asset-strippers into the GLA for a period of public service (Oh. Wait…)
Or could it just possibly be that Mirza wants to associate Rise with nationalisation, and consequently with us bastard socialists? Nothing selective about her use of language, not at all…
Oh - and the same goes for her mention of Lee Jasper. The clear intent is to associate NAAR with Lee Jasper and thus with corruption, despite the rather glaring fact that NAAR isn’t under investigation for such.
Over the years, Rise was proclaimed by Ken & Co as a key weapon in the fight against racism and fascism. In reality, it became an annual jamboree for Ken’s favourite political activist groups, many with no clear link to anti-racism. The Cuba Solidarity Campaign, Socialist Workers Party and CND, among others, brought in their armies of volunteers to man stalls, hand out leaflets, sell newspapers and rattle donation buckets. The “community” area of the festival looked more like Sussex University freshers’ fair circa 1970. Not without good reason did Rise become known as “Kenstock“.
So, Mirza objects to the presence of political groups? Fine. Never mind the fact that those groups weren’t there because Ken asked them (perhaps she should ask the SWP for their views on Ken…), but because they wanted to be. Or that they’ve stalls at a host of other, entirely apolitical events, for much the same reason.
Oh, and the fact that most people simply ignore the stalls and wander straight off to the music - and have the choice to do so.
No, it’s clear that because Ken was a socialist, he allowed these groups in to peddle their pinko-peacenik ideologies on his behalf. Perhaps Mirza’s bitter because the RCP didn’t have a stall?
But, apparently, these bearded commies are a serious problem:
The deterrent effect of this highly politicised atmosphere should not be underestimated. Although the event was supposed to be inclusive and attract people from ethnic minorities, the GLA’s own research (conducted while Ken was mayor) shows that 65%-70% of attendees in the last two years were white. That is disproportionately whiter than the population of London.
Yes, very true. Unfortunately, Mirza then leaps to:
It seems reasonable to conclude that the political baggage and relentless sloganeering was actually putting people off. And no doubt many individuals and families who did come on the day were there primarily for the music or a nice day out.
No, it’s not reasonable to conclude that a few ill-attended stalls on the fringe of an event should drive down attendence by ethnic minorities. Where’s the evidence to suggest that? None. The GLA’s research did not report that potential concert-goers were put off because a few deranged Trotskyites might waggle their beards at them. There’s no evidence for that, or any other hypothesis as to why attendence isn’t very mixed - because the GLA didn’t ask.
It could easily be the previous choice of artists, or the weather in different part of London, or any number of factors. We can’t know, as we haven’t got anything to base our assertions off. But that hasn’t stopped Mirza…
Londoners deserve a great, free music festival with excellent bands from around the world. They don’t need to be hectored about why racism is bad or accosted by activists explaining why Castro is a hero. We don’t have anti-racist fireworks on New Year’s Eve and we don’t need to organise an anti-paedophile concert to prove our moral credentials on the issue.
Who mentioned paedophiles? Mirza looks to be playing games with language to make false associations again. Perhaps to compensate for her inability to make a consistent or logical argument. She’s entirely missed the point, here; Rise is, and always has been, about anti-racism. That’s why it exists. The concert is a means to communicate that message. The other groups that fund the event - particularly Unison and the TUC - know that and are committed to it.
If Mirza wants Londoners to have another free concert, then that’s great. But when she wants to cut the anti-racist elements out of an anti-racist festival with music attached - that’s not.
Sectarian political festivals are not the way Londoners want their money to be spent.
Anti-racism’s sectarian? The last person I heard make that argument was Richard Barnbrook.
Most of us, I suspect, just want to be trusted to get on with other people and not be instructed by activists about the dangers of racism.
Tell that to Barnbrook, and all of the 128 609 fascists who voted for him.
That’s why the GLA has decided to go ahead with Rise this summer, but to change the emphasis. We are stressing the cultural aspects of the festival and keeping the vibe positive. We are also bringing in grassroots ethnic and community organisations that have not previously been involved. Above all we are making Rise fun. As a result, the festival will hopefully attract a more diverse audience.
Let me translate that “keeping the vibe positive”: We’re going to ignore racism in public from now on. That’s what she means, as borne out by the total excision of Rise’s original purpose. And it won’t work. I hope Vamp won’t mind me quoting his original comment on this, but he has it exactly right:
Defeating racism is not purely a matter of dissuading those with such views but also mobilising those in opposition to it. I would refer you also to my write-up of Love Music Hate Racism: there is nothing more disastrous for the far-right than a gathering which loses them any of the young and I reckon that the sight, for instance, of Skream and Benga annihilating any notion of cross-racial incompatibility during their collaboration could well have such an impact. If you know of a better way to get a horde of youths together than a free music concert then be sure to let me know, as well as Richard Barnbrook who seems to have been struggling lately.
Mirza is absolutely correct that a concert is a great way of getting everyone together; that’s the original organisaers chose a concert in the first place. What she misses is that many are unaware of just how pervasive the problem is, and the fact that it needs challenged. Not everyone will come to the concert itself, mix with each other and solve the problem magically, as she wants - simply because not everyone will make it to the gig. It won’t have the desired effect.
But a festival combined with an anti-racist message will. Those who turn up will hopefully wake up to the danger of racism; they might become involved, and will certainly tell their friends. And so people become aware of racism, and something actually gets done.
Londoners voted for change on May 1 and the new Rise is part of that change. Out will go the political sloganeering and heavy-handed propaganda but by bringing Londoners from different backgrounds together to share their love of music Rise will be doing anti-racism for real.
She’s spelled those last two words wrong. What she means is we’re “doing anti-racism to death.” The original concerts brought people together and achieved the soft-power affect desired; the overt anti-racist message capitalised on that and actually drove the message home. The new festival will lack that extra impact, and so may well simply be wasted as an opportunity to challenge division and hate.
Perhaps turnout may be higher or more diverse this year. But that won’t be because the political message died, as Mirza suggests. Her assertion that this put people off was just that; an assertions with no reasonable basis. It’ll probably have more to do with the presence of truly excellent artists like CSS - or maybe just a decent weather forecast.
One thing’s for certain, though: it just won’t be the same.
EDIT: And, oh look! Barnbrook welcomes the move.
Good work.
I always enjoy these pontifications; it’s like heading into the fallacy factory.
If ever an article was in need of a fisking…
Excellent work, Douglas. This woman is clearly of the highest order.
We are stressing the cultural aspects of the festival and keeping the vibe positive
Was a personal favourite. “Stressing the cultural aspects”, are they? The cultural aspects of London? Through asking a bunch of Brazilians {perhaps under the impression that they were intending to make people “Rise” against racism when they agreed} to play?
I consider CSS a highly talented and infectiously fun band but they are saturated in Brazil and their break-through single Let’s Make Love (And Listen To Death From Above) contained a reference to a Canadian synth-metal band.
I am especially uncomfortable given London’s troubled relationship with Brazil. Let’s hope they stay well away from the police, shall we?
The error here is that she has left the festival effectively meaningless. There are a horde of London bands who can play to a superb standard and draw in large numbers. If she was attempting to showcase the city’s talent then fine, she could have asked Foals. If the anti-racism angle had been kept then CSS would be perfect.
As it is this is left a meaningless exercise in public spending that I would certainly enjoy but which could have been something meaningful but for the prejudices apparently scaring away some small minded Tories. The Conservative Party are funding a public event purely to make some people feel happy. What other policies based around this “Circus before bread” principle can we expect to behold, I wonder?
Talk about sore losers. Why not fund your own ‘anti-racism’ festival instead of shoving your extremist politics down people’s throats - and expecting them to pay for the privilege? Mirza is a far better and more effective opponent of racism than you lot.
It’s extremist to oppose racism now? Score one for the 18th Century, it’s making a comeback…
If we’re to take your attitude, we might as well go all the way; why not fund your own music festival instead of shoving your musical tastes down peoples’ throats? Not every London taxpayer will attend the festival, and not every one is going to, as inevitably it won’t be to some peoples’ tastes. Using your logic, that it’s illegitimate for the state to fund an activity because some object to the perfectly legitimate content, public festivals simply shouldn’t take place.
Would you prefer that?
As it happens, dear Mr. Watch, it is not all that “extremist” to be opposed to racism. That was what the festival was about previously and it seems that your only objection is a bunch of harmless far-left activists sitting around selling their low-grade newspapers, something which changing the name does nothing to prevent.
The taxpayer is still shelling out for this, but apparently it is now an event about “culture”, seemingly Brazilian contemporary pop music culture.
Haven’t you got Trotskyites to troll?
I love the idea that anyone who opposes Ken’s ‘anti-racism’ festival must, ergo, be soft on racism. Presumably, by that twisted logic, if Rise had been branded as ‘London United Against Paedophilia’ and Boris had then dropped the crude sloganeering, you would condemn him for being soft of child molesters.
I also love the idea that a bunch of white extremists (you lot) are quite happy to condemn someone like Munira Mirza for being insufficiently anti-racist. Does it ever occur to you that she might have better and more effective strategies for defeating racism than holding a preachy event staffed by Castro-ites and Trots?
Hello Mr. Strawman. You seem to have missed the point you address when it was raised in the article. Please read more carefully? I note that you’ve failed to answer the points raised, too. You objected to anti-racist content in a music festival, calling it “extremist.” It seems natural to conclude from your own words that you find anti-racism extreme. Or perhaps you didn’t express yourself clearly enough?
Oh - and Mirza isn’t white, therefore she instinctively knows how to tackle racism? Is that your other point? Aside from the racism inherent there (that white people, by contrast, don’t at all know how to tackle racism), it’s laughable in itself. Her strategies for tackling racism - ignoring it - have already been dissected.
Apologies for feeding the troll, btw.
I’d also regard an anti-paedophile music festival as preachy and weird. And if I found parasites like the BNP and the Monday Club (the right wing equivalents of the SWP and Socialist Action) controlling it then I’d make radical changes.
Rise was a leftist jamboree - are you denying that? WTF was the pro-Castro Cuba Solidarity Campaign doing running a stage? Why were Trots wearing official Rise t-shirts handing out their propaganda? Who decided that loony sleaze-merchant Lee Jasper should get to speak from the main stage every year?
Being against racism isn’t extreme - in fact NOT being against racism is extreme. However, we shouldn’t conflate opposition to racism with signing up to a Trot agenda on race.
You’re aware Mirza is a member of the Manifesto Club then, I take it?
You object to the assorted political stands? Fine, get rid of them. No-one particularly loses out if Socialist Worker isn’t handed out at the door. But why remove the anti-racist message? That’s hardly trotskyite propaganda, but about as mainstream as it gets. It’s not supporting a “trot agenda” to proclaim that London is united against racism.
Why not London United Against Paedophilia or Climate Change too? Attempts to politicise public space are preachy and patronising and they degrade all of us. We have elections and campaigns for that sort of thing. Mirza gets it; you obviously don’t.
The limitation of politics to election time is precisely what’s wrong with politics in the UK at present. People are encouraged to think in terms of voting this way or voting that way, or probably not at all as the mainstream options are barely palatable. Our rulers are left unwatched and unscrutinsed by the public, except at election time when they decide to snipe at each other for a change.
We’re encouraged to see this as evidence of lightweight politics which there’s no real point in engaging with. People thus have no reason to engage with politics, and so don’t - and so democracy suffers. The politicisation of public space isn’t patronising but empowering, and possibly all that can cure mainstream politics in this country. It’s a matter of connecting people with issues, and from there with politics.
Mirza probably gets that, actually. After all, the RCP approve; “the worse, the better” is one of Furedi’s favourites, I believe…
Good - if you’re genuinely concerned by the decline in participatory politcs, can we assume you support Swiss-style direct democracy? That would do a hell of a lot more to re-engage the public than cheap and disingenuous sloganeering at a music festival.
Direct democracy on any scale is unlikely to work with a cynical and generally depoliticised electorate. I suspect public life would have to be radically repoliticised before such a change were possible; people would in effect have to want the system before they were willing to make it work. So more campaigning and public politics before that becomes at all possible, actually…
Whaaaat? Let me get this right. Are you saying that a local referendum on, say, Heathrow expansion (that would be binding on the powers-that-be) couldn’t work and would not attract mass participation?
People are crying out to be heard - they don’t need preachy music festivals to ‘re-politicise’ them.
But Heathrow expansion affects the whole country. It’s not just about the Ealing residents who’ll get more job opportunities but also cars round their area, it’s about people in the whole of London who get to use the new services and resist competition from Paris and Frankfurt but will also have flight paths over their houses and about the whole of Britain, which will be benefit from a boost to the economy but also make our CO2 emissions targets more difficult to meet.
Is it very difficult,, therefore, to determine who should comprise the electorate on local issues. Meanwhile, on a national level, almost everyone will vote for more money for schools and hospitals but who’s going to vote for more taxes? Or you can have votes on every single tiny issue and no one will bother turning up. It’s a mad system.
On this point, I think Douglas makes a valid argument. For young voters in particular, there is significant interest in political issues but not necessarily in “Politics” and Westminster elections. Therefore, mass movement events tackling issues like racism and climate change as a community can be positive forces for our city. To disaffiliate with Cuban Solidarity groups or Socialist Action is perfectly right but this should not be an excuse to remove an important event to tackle racism from the calendar.
I find no refutation to the suggestion that Doug is not, in fact, a Trot. Ergo, “watching” him might be a waste of everyone’s time…
I find no refutation to the suggestion that Doug is not, in fact, a Trot. Ergo, “watching” him might be a waste of everyone’s time…
You never know, Ali. He could just be hiding it very well.
TW - assuming you are an actual Watcher rather than a poor troll {never a wise assumption on the internet} I am still awaiting an explanation as to why simply banning political leafleting would not have been a better response than altering the festival’s name. Also some evidence for Mirza having any decent ideas on how to tackle racism besides pointing out that she’s not white {I could tell} would be nice. If she has “Better and more effective” ideas then I’d love to hear them.
We wouldn’t like to “positively” discriminate, would we?
[...] Scribo Ergo Sum have also fisked this article, while Lenin ably savages Mirza’s ‘anti-paedophile concert’ appeal to ridicule: “Over 5% of London voters selected a far right racist candidate for mayor. The BNP has councillors across the country, and has received well over 100,000 votes in local elections. In some areas it has received stupendous majorities. And it’s not just the BNP. The National Front, more explicitly Nazi than the BNP, made five digit votes in London. This is all in the context of a rising arc of racist violence in the UK. If militant paedophiles had garnered this level of support in the context of a surge of child-molestation, would there be carnivals in the park with a subtle, non-too-explicit message against raping children?” [...]