How have local people responded since we started to raise our concerns about distribution of The Light ‘newspaper’ in Stroud district?

On 29th January, a group now known as Community Solidarity Stroud District started leafleting about a publication regularly distributed on Stroud High St, in Dursley, and occasionally in other parts of the district – including through door to door posting through people’s letterboxes. Our leaflets pointed to a lengthy article “Why are people in Stroud handing out a paper that defends Holocaust denial and antisemitism?”, the first of a planned series dealing with the paper in the content. We’ve had a range of reactions when chatting with people either while leafleting or in other conversations, and before we continue with the series we wanted to address some of these

First, while we’re grateful to all the people who have engaged with us and had conversations about The Light, we want to extend particular thanks to those who have shown their support. As of 17th May, 268 people have added their names to a short statement, “We the undersigned are residents of Stroud, Dursley, and other parts of Stroud District, and do not want to see The Light paper being distributed where we live. We have our own criticisms of the government’s approach to the pandemic. However, we are alarmed by The Light’s use of the pandemic to push support for antisemitism, Holocaust denial and racist hate speech – as well as for denial of climate change, NHS-bashing, and other reactionary views.” If you have not already done so, you can add your name at: tinyurl.com/TheLightStatement.

Secondly, we want to welcome that even where people have not gone so far as to sign the statement, we have had many constructive conversations with people who have some degree of sympathy to The Light, who acknowledged that their piece defending Graham Hart despite his conviction for inciting racial hatred wasn’t something they approved of, or who at least listened to us and understood that our concerns about Holocaust denial and other forms of antisemitism are genuine and important. 

Other responses have been more difficult – ranging from evasive to antisemitic. And these are those we feel need a fuller response

1. Perhaps the most common response we have received has been some degree of acceptance that the article we focused on wasn’t perfect – or shouldn’t have been written (depending on the person), followed by a claim it doesn’t matter because it is “only one article”. In a recent letter to the SNJ, Richard House writes that our piece “is based on just one article out of perhaps 300-400 since the paper was founded”. This is a very strange response – but because so many people have made it it is important we discuss it. First, the opening paragraph of our piece reads “we are alarmed by the Light’s use of the pandemic to push support for racist hate speech – as well as for denial of climate change, NHS-bashing, and other reactionary views, which we will address later in the series.” We couldn’t have been clearer that this isn’t about one article – it’s about the publication as a whole. We focused on one article at first both because it was a particularly horrific example, but also because we had to start somewhere. We will, in time, write detailed pieces on many more of the 300-400 articles (starting with a piece on the nearly 20 articles pushing climate contrarianism), but choosing one as an example does not mean that is the only problem. In our piece we highlighted how key facts from the case in question were missing from the coverage, asking “How does it serve anti-racism, truth, or free-speech to mislead readers about antisemitic speech and threats of violence?” We are inviting readers to see this article not as a rare lapse, but as indicative of the attitude of the paper to facts and evidence, as well as tolerance for bigotted, racist, and other nasty views.
2. We’ve also been accused of being divisive, which is a claim we find almost laughable given what is being defended. In our leafleting, conversation and articles we have been careful to remain calm and polite, despite the fact we are dealing with a paper than – in this particular instance – was defending someone who broadcast that Jews (like some of us) were “like rats”, “filth” and needed to be “wiped out”. The idea that for pointing out this is indefensible we are the ones causing division is an astonishing inversion of reality.
3. An accusation that what we are doing represents ‘cancel culture’, or ‘censorship’. We made clear in the original long piece, and in our behaviour while protesting (leafleting, having conversations), that we are not seeking to appeal to any government authority to prevent the stall handing out The Light from taking place, nor to achieve this objective directly ourselves. Instead, we made an appeal asking that people “that you take the time to listen, to research the subject. We ask that you think very carefully about whether you want to continue reading, sharing – even writing for – The Light.” We even noted that the apparent defence of free speech seems a bit strange, saying: “It seems clear that freedom of speech is only of interest to The Light when it is the freedom to peddle hatred, misinformation, or falsehoods. When criticisms of this behaviour are made, the freedom of speech of those making criticisms isn’t welcomed.“
4. Blatant antisemitism. The worst responses we have had – either in the street or in online spaces – have involved a doubling down on Holocaust denial and further antisemitic conspiracy theories. One defender of The Light argued in comments under an SNJ article that the only reason the paper was covering activity by a group of Jewish people and their friends concerned about Holocaust denial and antisemitism, was because the paper is owned by a “Jewish company”. Even if this were the case, it’s a very strange argument to suggest that Jewish people cannot have legitimate reasons to oppose Jew-hatred and Holocaust denial, but the idea that the presence of Jewish people working in media organisations or attention is given to antisemitism means “the media is controlled by Jews” is of course a long-running antisemitic conspiracy theory. Another person defending the paper came up to the stall to tell us “it does all go back to the Jews”, while one accused a member of our group of being an “Israeli government agent”, despite no reference in any of our content or conversation to matters concerning Israel. Again, the suggestion that merely by dint of being Jewish someone is a tool of another state is a long-running antisemitic belief. Perhaps the worst of this was a woman who hands out The Light regularly telling us “the Holocaust did not happen as we’ve all been told”.
5. Finally, it has been suggested that we and the people who distribute The Light should talk to each other and explore our differences. We are open to the idea of a well-facilitated conversation if a neutral chair can be found and ground rules agreed upon – in private, without grandstanding. We will keep an open mind on how useful this might be. We’ve repeatedly emphasised that there are areas where we are happy to have conversations. We of course ask people to reject, condemn, and apologise for the endorsement of racist hate speech. In the meantime, we’ll continue with our approach, encouraging people to educate themselves about the content in The Light and to decline to get involved in distributing it.