Is it OK to call the far right Nazis?

As England and Northern Ireland burned last week a hashtag took off on social media: #FarRightThugsUnite.

The slogan looked, at first glance, like a call to action from self-aware racist rioters.

It was nothing of the kind. This was a collective cry of protest over the very use of the term “far-right” to describe those who carried out - or inspired - widespread violent disorder.

Lots of people with strong anti-immigration views - including those nobody has ever accused of torching a refugee hotel or throwing rocks at police - posted their pictures under the hashtag.

The subtext: how dare you call us far right; we are just decent citizens. There was another slogan too: “We are not far right, we are just right.”

Read More: 

A quick scroll through the old Twitter - now rebranded X by its radical right-wing Trump-endorsing owner Elon Musk - tells another story.

Many of those taking offence at the term “far right” also used the movement’s buzzwords: not least referring to Muslim Britons as “invaders”.

The rise of the far right across Europe and north America has raised lots of questions. One of the perhaps least pressing has been: “What do we call these people - and the ideology they push?”.

This has come to a head over the last few weeks. 

The biggest problem: for years in the UK it has been considered counter-productive, even rude, to equate the 21st century’s far right with their 20th century predecessors, especially in Italy and Germany.

Thomas Weber thinks it is time to re-assess that. The German-born history professor at Aberdeen University  is a leading global expert in Hitler and the Nazis.

“For years in Britain people have not used the word Nazis because this was seen as crying wolf,” he said. “Well, now the wolves are coming.”

“In the past the term Nazi was so overused it lost its value.”

This is a familiar concern. In the early days of the internet, for example, a lawyer named David Godwin came up with a much repeated line that the longer an online discussion goes on, the most likely it ends up with a comparison with Hitler or the Nazis.

This Godwin’s Law - and the related idea of Reductio ad Hitlerum - has cast a long shadow on how we think about Nazis. So the terms of the 20th century are seen as slurs, as ways of shutting down debate. That, certainly, is how the anti-immigration online activists seem to feel about ‘far right”.

Weber, however, is not coy about comparisons between modern far right movements and the Nazis. He stresses that far right actors now behave and believe very much the way the extreme nationalists of the 20s, 30s and 40s did. 

So, Hitler, he says, in his early years campaigned for repatriating migrants. The future Fuhrer also latched on to other wider grievances  - just as today’s radicals do.

“If you look at the history of the Nazis, you can see how similar they are to today’s radical right,” Weber said.

Have the rules of public discourse caught up with Weber’s observation? Or the rise of the far right, whether in its violent form or not? Is it still considered beyond the pale to call people Nazis - even if they adhere to far right policies or politics not too different from Hitler’s?

There was a big test of this last month. 

The body that regulates Scotland’s councillors some time ago received complaints about a councillor in Glasgow, Elaine Gallagher.

In a speech the Green - the first trans-woman to sit in the city’s council - had claimed an early 2023 rally by gender critical feminists in George Square was “attended by Nazis”.

The Herald was among the a number of news outlets which reported the presence of well-known figures on the Scottish far right at the rally.

Videos from the event show that at least one radical activist was challenged by feminists at the event who recognised him. 

There is nothing unusual about far-right activists turning up uninvited at events. 

Elaine Gallagher

And they have a track record of attending rallies against trans recognition laws - albeit, observers stress, being vastly outnumbered by people who do not share their views on race.

Gallagher was not calling all people who were at the rally Nazis. But some took offence, thinking the slur could be applied to all or many attendees, and complaints about her were organised, openly, on social media.

At the end of last month the Standard Commission for Scotland formally cleared Gallagher of breaching a code of conduct for councillors. It decided that her freedom of speech trumped the upset her words had caused.

Yet the ruling has sent a wave of quiet angst through Scottish political circles. That is because the woman who chaired the particular panel, Lezley Stewart, chose to chastise Gallagher.

Stewart said: “The Standards Commission, and indeed the public, expect politicians, including local councillors, to lead by example and be respectful at all times. This includes refraining from using language that inflames what is already an extremely polarised and toxic debate. 

“The Panel noted that a failure to do so only serves to lower standards of public discourse and encourage the exchange of abuse, rather than reasoned and respectful debate.” 

Is it disrespectful to refer to white nationalists linked to several far right parties as “Nazis”? Or was this just an example of the basic terminology of political science?

Councillors and MSPs rarely openly criticise the commission and usually respect its thinking - even if they might privately quibble with individual rulings.

But the wording of the rebuke to Gallagher - and the underlying assumption that calling people Nazis is beyond the pale of polite political discourse - has got tongues wagging.

There is now a danger, whispered some, that Scottish politicians will be reluctant to call out the far-right in case using standard terms gets them in trouble with their watchdog.

Is the Standards Commission - and bodies like it - stuck in a paradigm of a time before the rise of neo-fascism, social media disinformation and anti-muslim pogroms? Are its rules of courteous debate - its ideology - fit for purpose? 

That is a tricky question.

Even a few opponents of the Gallagher and the Scottish Greens suspect not. The SNP group on Glasgow City Council gently broke cover. It did not criticise the commission, stressing that its Green rival was cleared.

A car on fire during a riot in EnglandA car on fire during a riot in England (Image: (Owen Humphreys/PA))

It said in a statement. “We note that the complaint against Cllr Gallagher was dismissed by the Standards Commission. It is vital that elected members are able to robustly challenge the far right.”

Scottish Greens Justice spokesperson, Maggie Chapman MSP, did not comment on the ruling or the remarks made about her party colleague. Instead she talked about what to call the racists rampaging in British cities last week.

“Words matter, and we all have a responsibility to call out fascism when we see it. We should not be afraid of calling it what it is and standing against it,” she said. 

“The debate about language is often full of red herrings. But when a group is abusing and terrorising a community based on their race or belief, or when they are trying to set fire to a hotel with refugees in it, these are the hallmarks of fascism.

“Yet we have seen parts of the media referring to them as ‘protesters’ or suggesting that they are merely one side of a debate. This is deeply irresponsible and gives these riots a legitimacy and a respectability that they simply do not deserve.

“We must never allow ourselves to be complacent in the fight against fascism, not when there are groups actively looking to fuel division and hatred on our streets.”

“There is a role for all politicians in standing with our communities to face down the growing threat from the far right, particularly with Muslim constituents and others who may be feeling targeted.”

Ms Chapman added: “I am not going to tell people from marginalised communities how they should describe those that would do harm to them. What I will do, and what we should all do, is stand in solidarity with them and against those that would do them harm.”

Far rights thugs - as last week's supposedly ironic hashtag suggested - are, indeed, united. Is it OK to call them out?