IMG the | IMGpapers 1976

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 1-1 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 4 of the scan

International Marxist Group? In the first instance we reject the social democratic and Communist Party assessments of the ban. They see the ban as substituting mass anti-fascist actions. Joderlying their positions is the Sef that the bourgeois State is te capable of dealing with the Era is compuseiy wrongand nas the objective effect of demobilisng anti-fascist militants. It chus prevents a real awareness of the problem from being debated, cussed, acted on by But from this can we proceed and say that we are in principie pposed to any bans imposed by he bourgeois democratic State on aciat or racist activity?

ABSURDTIES Wereply clearly and say: No, we specifically directed apaine the fascists, any more than we are opposed to anti-sexist laws or the laws on industrial safety or child labour.

Opposing such bans in principle can lead to manifest absurdities, bans The use of the Public Order Act to ban the fascists from of Socialist Challenge. What is the attitude of the such as arguing against local councils disallowing the use of meeting halls. The point we stress is that any ban should be in defence of the democratic rights of minority) and not an overall law hanning 'all processions" Why has the far Teft been demonstrating (abstracting the moment the question of its growing mumbers since the Red Lam Souare Darlie in June 19047 Precisely because we recognise faschum aerepronal politica. current which has the ultimate aim of destroying all working class organisations.

The fascists are not in Tameside to defend free speech, but to SELACKLIC nghts minority today and the workers"

reason a specific ban against the fascists under a classe of the Race Relations Act or an anti-racist clause of the Public Order Act itself cannot be opposed on the hasis of some abstract principle.

This is not what has happened in Tameside. A not-specific clause has deliberately been used to ban County Durham

----- pull-quotes -----

marching in Tameside has led to a wide-ranging debate on the left. Naturally this debate has been reflected in the pages