At least Nick Lowles is clear about his political motivations in an article against the EDL. (The BNP down, one to go?) He admits it's a thoroughly political article. It's political because he sees the problem as political. More specifically, it's a question of British politicians failing to follow the ‘advice’ of far-leftists like himself and his communist-run magazine , Searchlight (as well as Hope Not Hate). Here he more or less admits to his own political motivations for fighting the EDL and wanting it banned. This is a far-leftist campaign from head to toe and Nick Lowles makes that clear with his rants against this Government’s failure to do this, that and the other against the EDL… and much, much more.
Justifying the banning of the EDL is a bit of a tricky manoeuvre for people like Nick Lowles. After all, communists are all for freedom of speech, aren’t they? Are they hell! They never have been and they aren’t today. But that freedom-loving image is important. It appeals to naive students. Lowles even has the decency to admit, to his readers, that
"there will be understandable fears about other ways such laws might be used to silence dissent and freedom of speech".
Oh! So he does care about dissent and the freedom of speech? Not quite. He believes in the right examples of dissent. He believes in the correct examples of freedom of speech. That is, dissent and free speech which he and his fellow Leftists agree with. If they're bad examples of free speech or dissent, then he's absolutely against them. Basically he wants to ban them (though he hasn’t the honesty to use the word ‘ban’). Just as the Left has always wanted to ban things and has done so in the countries where it gained power.
Of course what’s the use of being pro-dissent and pro-freedom of speech if you're highly selective about which examples of dissent and free speech you're in favour of. Basically, if you're selective in Lowles’ manner, you're not, in fact, in favour of free speech and dissent at all. As Voltaire famously said (to paraphrase):
"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."
Clearly Lowles doesn't agree with Voltaire. Then again, Lowles is by far the greater thinker of the two.
Lowles actually cites one good example of free speech and dissent. He thinks it was a bad thing to stop striking miners "travelling around the country (as happened in 1984)". However, it was a good thing to stop ‘football hooligans’ doing the same. More relevantly, Lowles thinks it would be a good thing to do this to the EDL – stop them travelling around the UK.
So it's clear that Lowles is extremely selective about who has the right to dissent and free speech. The EDL? No! Striking miners, Muslims, Unite Against Fascism, anti-fascists, unionists, etc? Yes! What a travesty of support for freedom and dissent. Who would buy Lowles' distorted vision of what these things? Communists like Lowles, that’s who!
*) From the Hope Not Hate website:http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/English-Defence-League-time-to-act