Talk:Unite Against Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somone commented on the page asking "does the author mean NATFHE trade union?". Google search does not return any trade union called NATFI. Searching NATFHE "Unite Against Fascism" "trade union" returns 393 pages, so I have changed NATFI to NATFHE. --Ezeu 23:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Funding? 2 Last two sentences 3 Unite Against Freaks 4 This is a left-wing group

[edit] Funding?

Where doe's the UAF's funding come from? RichardLangford 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual membership and donations. Also affliation and donations by groups, particularly trade Unions.--JK the unwise 07:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last two sentences

The anti-fascist magazine Searchlight disaffiliated from UAF after an argument over tactics to defeat the BNP. They feel that people should not be allowed to freely choose to vote for the BNP but should be persuaded or as a last resort intimidated into not voting for them.

Who feels that people should not be allowed to freely choose to vote for the BNP but should be persuaded or as a last resort intimidated into not voting for them?--Knowledge33 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: neither Searchlight nor UAF. I have removed this silly sentence! BobFromBrockley 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unite Against Freaks

Does anyone not agree that this organisation is a bunch of politcally-correct obssesed freaks who have somehow managed to organise themselves. The whole issue of political correctness is a screwed up and bias one - I mean UAF beleive that it's not right for a country to hold a policy onimmigration restrictions or border control. Is it wrong to refuse entry? Anyway the people that do get through feel the need to change everything in our country to be like their's - I mean if your own country is bad enough to leave it then why drag it into your new one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.5.57.189 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Your stupidity is rivaled only by your level of obnoxiousness. 82.176.211.33 14:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst this may not be an appropriate place for his rant, his argument is most definitely not stupid.

[edit] This is a left-wing group

I don't see how it's POV to identify this group as one that attacks "right-wing" groups, given that its claim that the groups it attacks are right-wing does not automatically mean that all of them are, while identifying UAF as "left-wing"-- its leadership is entirely left-wing, if not far left-- is considered non-POV. Maybe Leftists at Wikipedia don't want the organizations they support to be identified as such, while identifying any group right of center as right-wing, but that's a clear bias that Wikipedia seeks to abstain from.

--Gerkinstock 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... although it's true that Ken Livingstone and Weyman Bennett are left-wing, that doesn't necessarily mean the organization is - it claims to want to "unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat" (by which it means the BNP) [1], and its supporters include, for instance, David Cameron, who isn't left-wing [2]. And being opposed to the far right doesn't make UAF left-wing; it's in principle compatible with a centrist or moderate right wing position. Does UAF do anything else other than campaign against the BNP, which would lead you to believe it is left wing? VoluntarySlave 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with VoluntarySlave. I can't see what is added by calling it left-wing. It is led by leftists (not least the obviously left-wing SWP), but its stated aims are not at all left-wing, nor is its practice. Unless you call a vague support for liberal democracy, or the use of the ballot box to further political aims, as left-wing. David Cameron is a pretty irrefutable argument for not calling UAF a left-wing organisation. Are there any other views? If not, I will once again take out the adjective. BobFromBrockley 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do they only seem to oppose radical right-wing groups? Europe is overloaded with radical leftist groups. They don't oppose Socialist or Communist groups, which are as at least as fascistic (lowercase "f") as the right-wing groups they oppose. Non-leftist groups don't attack only right-wing groups (i.e., a non-left wing group would not attack Fox News for its bias while not also attack The NY Times or Bill Moyers for their biases). Gerkinstock 04:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - could it be that their name is United Against Fascism? You could argue that some ultra-left groups behave in a way that is similar to fascism, but you'd be hard pushed to call them fascists. It may also have escaped your notice that the fall of Communism has meant that there isn't much employment for the Unite Against Stalinism brigade. I guess the final point is that the far right stand candidates in UK elections, where they demonstrate their thuggish tactics and racism. The far left don't (obviously that would imply that they believed that democracy rather than revolution could deliver their goals). Duncan 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are against right-wing extremists, but are not opposed to left-wing extremism (which resulted in more killing, subjugation and famine in the 20th century than all other centuries combined). And it is an outright lie to say right-wing extremists engage in violent tactics but left-wing extreminists (Communists, Socialists, Anarchists) do not. See http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext19/Rioting.html. The far left are notorious for promoting extreme views and threatening violence, just as the far right are. Perhaps you are part of that group and wish to deny their extremism, but this isn't supposed to be a Leftist propaganda scribe. --Gerkinstock 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it follows that, because they focus on the far right, they are therefore left-wing. The organization could be centrist, and identify the far-right as a more severe threat to centrism than the far-left; the fact that the group is supported by moderate right-wingers like David Cameron suggests that this is the case. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what we think; what matters is, is the claim that UAF are left-wing sourceable? VoluntarySlave 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with VoluntarySlave. It is completely irrelevant to this question whether the left has been violent or extremist. Being against one form of extremism doesn't necessitate being against another. Being against right-wing extremism doesn't mean being left-wing. These points are all surely obvious. Please give some sort of evidence for UAF being left-wing. Evidence that it is NOT left-wing is already in the article: David Cameron's support. Look at the other signatories here http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4 You'll see people like Peter Bottomley and Teddy Taylor - Tories, moderate right-wingers. You'll see Kalim Siddiqui, right-wing by most definitions. And you'll see loads of middle of the road and almost apolitical people like David Gray. Read UAF's statement of views http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=3 and you'll find nothing left-wing (unless opposing racism, Islamophobia, anti-semitism and homophobia are in themselves left-wing!)

I don't want to revert again - it'd probably break a wikipedia rule - but it looks like the consensus is against the words "left-wing" being in there, so please someone else revert! BobFromBrockley 16:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)