As free speech comes under
attack in the Fire Brigades Union, members say…
NO TO
CENSORSHIP!
Controversy has again
erupted in the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), following news that the ruling
executive council (EC) has voted to BAN union members from using a
public website.
The move – which was
OPPOSED by the newly elected General Secretary, Matt Wrack – has been
condemned by the union’s rank and file members, one of whom described
the EC’s actions as being “in the best traditions of a tinpot eastern
European dictatorship”.
If FBU members breach
the rule by using the website, they could find themselves disciplined or
even expelled from the union. The vote was carried at the executive
council meeting on 8th June, following a resolution tabled by the EC
member for Scotland, John McDonald, which called for the website’s
proscription. Six members of the nineteen member EC sided with Wrack in
opposing the resolution. They were Dean Mills, Jim Barbour, Mick Shaw,
Keith Handscomb, Bob Blackburn and Dave Green. All other EC members who
were present at the meeting voted in favour of the ban.
The www.uk-fire.net
website was set-up in 2002 by a Greater Manchester firefighter and
FBU member. Since then, it has established itself as one of the most
popular websites throughout the entire trade union movement and has won
widespread acclaim, including coming third in Labourstart’s trade
union website of the year competition in 2003.
The website, which was
a key focal point for many FBU members during the national pay dispute,
operates open forums, where fire service workers can log-on and
contribute their views to any number of discussions regarding their
service and union. It is thought that, since its formation, the
uk-fire.net site has been visited by thousands of the nation’s
firefighters, as well as a number of senior officers and employers, who
log-on to catch up with the latest news. During the pay dispute, even
the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, admitted to the House of
Commons that he had visited the website to get a feel for what
firefighters were saying.
In fact, if a
development of any significance occurs within the UK fire service or
Fire Brigades Union, the chances are that the uk-fire.net site
will be first with the story. The website is administered on a
day-to-day basis by a number of volunteers, most of whom are
firefighters. Financially, it relies on the benevolence of its
supporters.
In recent times, many
contributors to the website, though strongly loyal to the FBU generally,
have been highly-critical of the union’s leadership, mainly due to what
they see as the mishandling of the national pay campaign and the
inadequate deal that settled the dispute. Many appear to have lost faith
with the union’s leaders, a view that was reinforced by the decisive
victory of Matt Wrack last month in his contest with Andy Gilchrist for
the position of FBU general secretary.
Not surprisingly, the
FBU executive council’s decision to ban union members from using the
site has caused widespread fury. It is reminiscent of the union
leadership’s decision last year to ban the rank and file grouping
Grassroots FBU, which was formed with the intention of reclaiming
the union for the members, following the fall-out from the pay dispute.
The official reason
given by the EC for the ban is that the website is infected with
racists, sexists and homophobes and allows personal attacks on officials
of the union.
An insider told us,
“Just like the ban on Grassroots FBU, the only reason the uk-fire.net
website has been banned is because it was saying things that certain FBU
leaders didn’t want to hear. The stuff about the site being infiltrated
by racists is a red herring. I look at the site regularly, and I can
count on the fingers of one hand the instances in three years where
somebody has expressed what could be deemed as a blatantly racist view.
Yes, some of the criticism aimed at senior officials is sometimes a bit
over the top, but that is in itself no reason to ban the entire website.
I’ve known occasions when senior officials have been personally
castigated at branch meetings, but no-one would dream of banning branch
meetings. And when people do sail close to the wind on the website, the
site’s administrators do an excellent job in keeping things civil.”
The real reason, said
the source, is that the website had shone a light on the dubious
operating methods of the FBU leadership, “The site exposes their
failings constantly. For too long the union’s leaders have got away with
running our union with arrogance and contempt for the views of the
members. In the last couple of years, particularly, they have run the
union into the ground. They totally messed-up the pay campaign, got us
one of the worst deals in industrial history, and have been extremely
wasteful with the union’s finances. The uk-fire.net website has been
instrumental in holding them to account. It has allowed ordinary rank
and file members of the FBU to network and organise in a way never
before possible They see it as a threat. That’s why they want to destroy
it.”
Another well-placed
source told us, “One might have thought that the overwhelming victory
for Matt Wrack in the general secretary election would convince these
people that there is a wind of change blowing through the FBU, which is
pretty much unstoppable. Members are sick and tired of the arrogance,
the contempt for democracy and the witch-hunting of anyone who speaks
out. The attack on the uk-fire.net site is another desperate attempt by
the old guard to maintain their rule. Unfortunately for them, it is
destined to fail.”
“Stitch-up”
The controversy
intensified when it was revealed that John McDonald tabled the
resolution banning the website WITHOUT the authority of his own members.
EC members should only move formal resolutions if they have been
sanctioned by the appropriate regional or sectional committee and, on
matters which directly affect members, following consultation at branch
level. An FBU member from Glasgow described the affair as a
“stitch-up”, and said that McDonald had some serious questions to
answer.
“McDonald’s behaviour
is contemptible. He effectively wrote the resolution himself, and not a
single rank see or discuss it. The resolution was not reflective of the
views of Scottish members, and McDonald had no place to put it before
the executive council Members in Scotland are seething about McDonald’s
antics and are calling for his head.”
The
PHOENIX has also
learned that the resolution was NOT circulated to EC members seven days
prior to the EC meeting, as is the required procedure. An EC insider
told us, “The whole affair stinks. The resolution was circulated by
the president, Ruth Winters, during the tea-break at the meeting, rather
than seven days in advance, as she is required to do. Even the new
general secretary had no knowledge of it. It was clearly a move designed
to give us limited time to prepare counter-arguments, though I’ve no
doubt the EC members who supported the resolution had had prior sight of
it. When questioned, Winters became rather flustered and started
waffling. It was a real set-up, something Joe Stalin would have been
proud of!”
It has also been
suggested that the move was linked to the private discussions held over
dinner on the eve of the EC meeting between several members of the
executive council and ex-general secretary Andy Gilchrist.
The decision to ban
the website is a high-risk one by the union’s executive council, with
some members already apparently exploring the possibility of taking
legal action under the Human Rights Act. Critics suggest that the
alleged concerns about “personal attacks” are simply a cover for the
real reason for the ban, which is that the website gives vent to
oppositionist views in the union that challenge the executive council’s
agenda.
An FBU branch official
from the north-east of England told us, “This is about people’s civil
liberties as much as anything else. For the EC to think that it can
instruct the union’s members not to visit a public forum and have their
say is like something from behind the Iron Curtain. It’s ironic that the
EC is perfectly happy to support workers fighting for democracy and free
speech in places like Colombia and Iraq, but at the same time is trying
to force through such repressive and draconian measures at home. Wasn’t
it Voltaire who said, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll
defend to the death your right to say it’?”
Most controversial of
all is the proposal by the EC to use members’ money to take legal action
against those same members for libel, a charge for which there is no
legal aid in defence.
The election of Matt
Wrack was clearly a shot in the arm for FBU members. But it would appear
that the new general secretary has a major battle on his hands to wrest
control from the forces on the executive council loyal to ex-leader Andy
Gilchrist. Officials supporting Wrack are clear that his election will
not by itself transform the FBU. For that to happen there needs to be a
shift in the balance of power on the EC. For the “old guard” on the EC,
meanwhile, it would appear that the war against its own members
continues to take priority over the war against fire service employers.
The FBU EC STATEMENT
”This committee condemns the predominately
anonymous and venomous personal attacks on FBU members and officials
posted on the UK–FIRE web site. The vicious attacks fail to treat
members with dignity and respect and are contrary to the rules and
policies of the FBU.
This committee notes the concerns reflected at conference 2005 of
potential and actual infiltration and use of the site by the BNP and non
FBU members.
Many of the postings are of a sexist, racist or homophobic nature and
are contrary to the aims of the unions “All Different All Equal”
policies.
This committee calls on the Executive Council to :
Rule that membership; administration and posting on the UK – FIRE web
site are contrary and prejudicial to the interest of the union.
Instruct that no member or official should participate in the aims,
objectives or administration of the site by posting on the site,
operating or helping to operate it or having any dealings with the site
except dealings specifically to ask for the removal of material on the
site.
Rule that the site acts outwith the democratic structure and democratic
processes of the union.
Seek further legal advice to identify and take legal/IUD action against
the site, its operators, contributors and against members who offend or
breach FBU rules and policies.
That a standing EC subcommittee be established with a remit to ensure
that members and officials who are the subject of postings on this or
other websites which undermine the aims and policies of FBU are afforded
the full protection of the FBU. The remit of the committee will include
identifying and initiating the appropriate action against any member or
official who fail to uphold the aims and policies of the FBU on this
site or any other website.”