Letter: Advocacy of force and free speech

Sir: Andrew Marr's article 'A duty to hear muttonheads' attacks the views expressed in the letter which I, Paul Foot and others wrote to the Independent (8 April) and in Paul Foot's subsequent Guardian column. Most of those who signed the letter are not members of the Socialist Workers Party. But those of us who, like Paul and I, are SWP members are used to hearing the old chestnut that we, too, advocate violence and are therefore 'red fascists', as the press in the Seventies described us.

Mr Marr, like his precursors, argues that if we were consistent in our argument, we would end up the victims of the very policy of no platform that we urge in the case of Nazi organisations.

But would Mr Marr have argued that the French Resistance was wrong to fight the Nazis? Were London's East Enders wrong to block the path of Mosley's blackshirts at Cable Street in 1936? Or does he believe that fascism must grow to epidemic proportions before we can ask that its proponents be denied free access to the media?

The point at issue here is not 'the use of force in general'. The real question is: 'Who is using the force and for what ends?' When Nelson Mandela or Gerry Adams advocate the use of force, they do so as part of a wider struggle for greater freedom and democracy. When the Nazis use force, it is part of a wider attempt to deny elementary rights to trade unionists, socialists, black people and many other sections of the population.

I urge Mr Marr, other journalists and Independent readers to take heed of Hitler's own admission:

Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and, from the first day, had smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.

Yours,

JOHN REES

Socialist Workers Party

London, E3

14 April