'Antifa' vs. the 'alt-right': Comparing anti-fascists to those they oppose is unfair
Racist protesters have prompted violence in Canada before, writes Steven Zhou, pointing to fights with Nazis
Recent clashes between "alt-right" protestors and anti-fascist activists in Quebec City and Montreal have prompted some commentators to label the latter as a counter-productive force in the fight against far-right politics.
- Far-right group claims PR victory after duelling protests in Quebec City
- Quebec's Antifa movement on rise in response to growth of far-right groups
Criticisms centre on the observation that "Antifa" — an umbrella term for a disparate range of anti-fascist forces — mirrors its "alt-right" (or far-right) enemies when it engages in violent resistance and tries to deny the other side's right to demonstrate and organize in public.
Pundit and former CBC journalist Rex Murphy took this perspective to its extreme in a National Post column earlier this month when he called anti-fascist activists "despicable fascists" who "read Marvel comics" for their news and are delusional in their alarmism against the rise of white-supremacy.
It's important to note that such attacks don't necessarily derive from anger at anti-fascist activists, but rather at their exaggerated caricature: scary gatherings of masked outlaws determined to destroy a peaceful status quo.
The truth is far more complicated.
Activism that physically confronts fascist forces stretches all the way back to the interwar years, even in Canada, when anti-fascist forces came out onto the streets to beat up Nazi sympathizers, who were eventually driven out of entire neighbourhoods.
Just like today, many liberal critics suggested back then that the fascists would eventually go away if only left alone and not confronted.
The label "Antifa" itself is misleading, since it implies a cohesive group of like-minded people with the same set of agreed-upon strategies and tactics. This is false.
Anti-fascists in Berkeley who employed tactics of the "Black Bloc" — self-professed anarchists who engage in property damage and other forms of violent protest — don't necessarily have any tangible connection to anti-fascists in, say, Montreal or Charlottesville.
Some may choose to deny "alt-right" protestors a public forum via violent means, while others in a different city may choose simply to outnumber their opponents. In the end, it's usually the most violent stuff that makes the news.
For most outbreaks of violence at these demonstrations, it was alt-right and anti-Muslim activists (often armed with baseball bats and metal-plated vests) who instigated an altercation, despite being vastly outnumbered for the most part. For example, on the morning of May 6, at Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square, Kevin Metcalf, a journalist who monitors "alt-right" activity, says he was assaulted at a rally by anti-Muslim protestors who also knocked down his cameras. Metcalf has pressed charges.
This isn't to absolve those few anti-fascists (among countless factions) who engage in offensive violence, but it certainly complicates the image of a monolithic "Antifa" hell-bent on sabotaging society.
Conversely, the "alt-right" is also more of a big-tent movement than a homogenous one, but its adherents are happy to march and demonstrate with openly white supremacist and pro-Nazi forces. Some anti-fascist activists may engage in offensive violence, but they're not advocating for or implicated in schemes to advance a white supremacist agenda.
If there is a loose thread that runs through anti-fascist circles, it's the tactical decision to deny racist or "alt-right" forces a public platform. This is known as "de-platforming" and has been articulated by anti-fascist activists and academics alike, such as George Ciccariello-Maher of Drexel University.
Anti-fascist forces took the streets way back before the Second World War to clear public spaces of Nazi sympathizers
This is where today's anti-fascist outlook upsets the age-old liberal consensus: that even the most despicable ideas should be allowed a platform in an open society.
Fair enough, but this is a protection against state repression, not against opposition in civil society. The state has a legal and physical monopoly on the usage of violence so, as a precautionary check, it must not be allowed to violently impede ideological exchange.
Within civil society, where the consequences of ideas actually play out in real time, things are less clear-cut. For instance, even in the freest arenas of ideological exchange, such as universities, there are certain ideas that are simply no longer entertained, like the neo-Nazi perspective or the Ku Klux Klan's perspective. These are ideas that, by consensus, belong in the dustbin of history.
To allow such ideas to surface in public would be to allow them to grow, project power, intimidate and pursue ends that are contrary to the principles that undergird important institutions. It would be like allowing a disease to metastasize within the body politic.
This is why anti-fascist forces took the streets way back before the Second World War to clear public spaces of Nazi sympathizers, thus marginalizing their presence.
Proponents of the live-and-let-live strategy never seem to provide historical evidence to back up their claims. Today's "alt-right" is signing up new members, has allies in government, and takes advantage of online spaces to organize. In other words, today's atmosphere has proven to be conducive to the growth of newly emboldened fascist forces. It's hard to see how public displays of force in the middle of Toronto or Berkeley or elsewhere somehow slows down this emboldening process to the point where they'll all just disappear.
Pundits like Murphy can talk ad nauseam about how "Antifa" engages in violence, but that doesn't actually address the issue. The real problem is the current strain of newly emboldened neo-fascists and racists who see themselves as the vanguard in the fight to protect "Western values" or to create a purer white enthno-state, free of Muslims and Mexicans.
We may all be troubled by the offensively violent aspects of anti-fascist tactics, but until someone can come up with a program that actually diminishes organized fascism in the real world, they should think twice before conflating the problem with those who are trying to solve it.
This column is part of CBC Manitoba's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
