SHOULD BLACK SHIRTS BE BANNED ?
THE scenes at Sir Oswald 3losley's British Fascist meeting a week ago raise issues which no Govern- ment can ignore. As to what actually took place there is the usual conflict of evidence, but with the preponder- ance of it pointing decisively to one conclusion. There was a turbulent movement of opposition to the Fascists, represented by disturbances outside the hall and inter- ruptions inside. The hostile crowd outside undoubtedly included both Communist and Socialist elements as well as a great many people who were neither. Whatever the character of the interruptions in the hall there is no question that they evoked displays of gross brutality on the part of blackshirt stewards. Of that abundant evidence has been provided, and a great deal more could be, by persons of unquestioned credibility who attended the meeting from curiosity. But it is enough to cite as witness one of the most ardent admirers of Sir Oswald Mosley, Mr. Ward Price, a colleague of Lord Rothermere and special correspondent of the Daily Mail, in which journal (on June 8th) Mr. Price wrote a descriptive account of the Olympia meeting. When Mr. Ward Price's point of view, and the fact that he was writing during or immediately after the meeting, before any public controversy about blackshirt violence had arisen, are borne in mind, his remarks on what happened will be appreciated as significant : " As, one after another," wrote Mr. Price, "the gangs of Reds for whom the Communist organizers had bought tickets started their shouts of ' To hell with Mosley 1 ' in different parts of the vast- stretching hall a sturdy squad of blackshirted figures would be upon them: in an instant, punching, pulling and pushing with such vigour that after a very few moments of interruption the struggling rowdies would find themselves outside with black eyes and bruised bodies as the only practical results of their disturbance."
That is quite sufficient corroboration of the allegations of various Conservative M.P.'s and others regarding the methods deliberately and systematically adopted by Sir Oswald 31Osley's followers.
But while the Olympia affair has raised certain issues it has not created them. They were there already. It has only forced them to the front. They have nothing to do with Sir Oswald Mosley's political doctrine. So far as that has been defined there seems to be nothing very new or very striking about it. On tariffs Sir Oswald is a die-hard like Sir Henry Page-Croft. On India he is a die-hard like Sir Michael O'Dwyer. On Empire Free Trade he appears to be a follower of Lord Beaver- brook ; on armaments a follower of Lord Rothermere. His talk about the blackshirt corporate State and what it will do for employment is worth just as much and as little as Sir Stafford Cripps' talk about what the Socialist State will do for unemployment, and when he supplements the demand (which a great many other people have made before him) for higher wages and higher salaries with a peroration about " the standard of sublime sacrifice and the call to high endeavour," it is permissible to ask what particular sacrifice Sir Oswald's ebullient young men (not all of whom, it is rumoured, serve Sir Oswald for nought) have been making so far. All that, of course, is perfectly legitimate. Anyone is free to put forward any political programme, trite or original, that he chooses, provided it implies no attack on public order, and if the spectacle of Sir Oswald, with a political past as variegated as his political future is problematic, making his spot-lit progress up Olympia or the Albert Hall between rows of his saluting followers, inspires the admiration of a section of the youth of today then Sir Oswald is no doubt getting the kind of recruits he deserves.
So far the blackshirt organization is acting entirely within its rights. With all the play he makes with " the heart and soul of Britain," " the glorious standards of Britain " and so forth, Sir Oswald fails rather con- spicuously to gauge the preference of the British people for its own methods and its own traditions when he borrows the name of his movement and the garb of his followers from Italy and his own personal pose from Signor Mussolini. But that, again, is his own affair. What is not at all his own affair is the threat that his organization in its present form presents to the public peace. Uniformed blackshirts are not at present a public danger, and British good sense is such as to make it unlikely that they ever will be, but they are a very considerable public nuisance, and while the Englishman is traditionally tolerant of minor nuisances serious nuisances are matters for the Government to take in hand. Political uniforms are something entirely new in this country. In other countries they have existed long enough to demonstrate the disastrous effect of the existence of uniformed forces on individual freedom and public peace, and it remains to be seen whether Sir Oswald Mosley in his attachment to foreign models possesses either the will or the capacity to impose restraints consonant with the standards habitually prevalent in these islands. There was little to suggest that at Olympia last week. And from the anger and bitterness the scenes at Olympia evoked consequences will follow inevitably. More than ever the spectacle of blackshirts in the streets, particularly of blackshirts marching in some sort of semi-military formation, will act as provocation to disturbance. Disturbances, if they do arise, must be quelled—and by blue-coated police, not by self-appointed blackshirt irregulars—but it is a great deal better to prevent their arising at all. The question is how to do that best.
The answer to the question is not difficult. The best way to do it would be to ban political Uniforms. But there are arguments against that as well as for it. That the House of Commons recently refused consideration of a Bill for this purpose, introduced unwisely and not under the most favourable auspices, is not conclusive. Nor is the difficulty, by no means insuperable, of defining political uniforms and deciding whether other emblems, such as banners, should come under the ban too. Much more important is the question whether the prohibition of uniforms would involve an undue limitation of personal freedom. Here it is wiser to be realist than doctrinaire. Englishmen for generations have fought their political battles, held their political meetings, carried out their Parliamentary elections, as ordinary citizens, not as uniformed and drilled battalions. The system has worked well. There are no good reasons for changing it. And if a change, in the form of an importation of foreign methods and exotic emblems, makes, as it unquestionably does make, for disturbance of the public peace, then the trespass on personal freedom involved in a decision that political demonstrations shall be conducted on lines traditionally familiar in this country is a lesser evil than the continuance of disturbance. For if we are to have black Fascist formations we must equally tolerate red Communist formations, and the Government will do wisely if it acts before they take shape. It is folly to be blind to what has happened in other countries. There can, of course, be no question of banning the Fascists as a political organization. They have as much right to exist as Conservatives or Liberals. There is no reason why they should not wear black shirts in their homes and their drill' yards if they want to drill. But black shirts and any other kind of shirts as political emblems can very properly be kept off the streets, and if the Government comes to that decision it will deserve general support.
Previous page
