‘Resistance Street’ film premieres in London this week – but not in Unite buildings, against the wishes of Unite officers and reps

The Unite union has continued its trend under general secretary Sharon Graham of banning left-wing films and books by blocking showings on its premises of a new documentary by Richard David – despite its equalities directors first offering maximum help.

‘On Resistance Street’ trailer

The film was shot over a two year period in England, Belfast and New York and features renowned musicians, bands, writers and commentators looking at the role music plays in the fight against Fascism and racism. Siobhan Endean, Unite’s equalities director, initially responded to David’s approach:

Thank you for your email that you sent to our Executive Council. My role is working in the field of equalities within unite and I would be very keen to help you as much as I can. You asked for an email address for our general secretary it is [redacted]  I would also be very grateful if you could share a link to your film, and I will see what can be done to support the film.

However, within a short time this willingness to help was withdrawn, prompting the film’s creators to write directly to Sharon Graham:

Dear Sharon,
I am writing to you as the writer-director of the new British feature-length documentary ‘ON RESISTANCE STREET’, which received its sold-out international premiere in Belfast, at the Queen’s Film Theatre on October 19th 2023.

The film was a two year independent production, shot in England, Belfast and New York. It is an in-depth examination of the role which music has played historically in the fight against Fascism, racism, bigotry and Right Wing ideology.

As such it contains contributions from a wide array of musicians, Trade Union leaders, activists, authors, historians and commentators. These include members of The Sex Pistols, Steel Pulse, Aswad, Stiff Little Fingers, The Levellers, The Men They Couldn’t Hang, The Defects and The Outcasts. There are also contributions from contemporary British artists such as the East London based Grime Star Lady Shocker, who performs individually but is also a founder member of the
ground-breaking ‘Female All-stars’ Grime collective.

Other contributors include: Matt Wrack FBU Leader, Weyman Bennett, national co-ordinator of ‘Stand Up to Racism’, Chris Salewicz, biographer of Joe Strummer and Bob Marley, Anti-Fascist author and historian Rick Blackman, feminist historian and author Louise Raw, Clash ‘Rude Boy’ movie star Ray Gange, leading female Black Lives Matter activist Chantelle Lunt, Terri Hooley, founder of ‘Good Vibrations Records in Belfast, Mexico City Trade Union leader Fernando Luna, New York State Union organiser Dan Gniewekei and others.

The film also shows as to how a new Trade Union, was created in Mexico City, with between 3-400 members, this after a year of online video call consultations, between British, American and Mexican members of an online Clash fans group named ‘Clash Fans Against The Right’. The members involved were full-time Union officers in their own countries. That group was founded by myself and Robin Banks, in direct response to Boris Johnson’s ludicrous and deeply cynical claim that The Clash were one of his ”Two favourite bands”, that obscene announcement contained inside an official Conservative Party political broadcast in November 2019.

That social media group has since evolved into a real life Anti-Racism organisation named ‘Resistance Street’, which has staged live music events in London, Liverpool, New York and Belfast over the last two years. These events also featured many political speakers including Trade Union leaders like Matt Wrack. In its third section, ‘On Resistance Street’ traces that evolution and shows how social media can be harnessed and utilised powerfully on behalf of the Left, when people pool their intellectual and creative strengths.

The film was produced by myself and Robin, the lifelong friend of The Clash’s Mick Jones, who was immortalised in the band’s song ”Stay Free”. A song written by Mick himself and about their friendship. Robin and I were both friends of the late Joe Strummer, whose lyrics and quotes appear at various stages of the film.

This letter is sent in direct conjunction with a recent proposal which originated via friends of mine who are Unite Officers and Shop Stewards in Southampton, the city in which UK production was based. This followed another sold-out Southern regional premiere screening at Solent University Film Theatre on November 17th. The proposal was that there would be a special screening of the film for Unite members, Anti-Racism activists and other members of Trade Unions at the Unite-The Union HQ in Southampton.

I have personally attended previous Anti-Racism documentary screenings at the HQ, which were well supported and successfully received, audience-wise. Secondly, it was proposed that following that initial event, this could act as springboard for a series of special screenings in Unite HQ’s across the country.

Both Robin and myself were only too delighted at this proposal, given it had always been our hope that special political screenings could materialise via agreements with Trade Unions.

Many people who have seen ORS, have commented on its in-depth educational value. The film not only chronicles music’s role in this battle as stated, but charts the entire drift towards the political Right in America, Europe and Britain, as we confront the present. As such, the ascendancy of Trump, the Brexit campaign and the British and European Far Right are all documented, with emphasis on the now alarming authoritarian stances of the current Conservative government in Britain.

We emphasise that given our own political convictions formed over a lifetime, we were absolutely perfectly happy to see this screening and the proposed series across the country, take place with us making not a single PENNY of profit from it all.

We have now been informed that this proposal is not possible, in direct relation to a relatively recent motion passed by the Unite-The Union National Executive.

As you are well aware, that motion has forbidden the screening of any documentary films in Unite-The Union buildings, unless they are specifically to do with working conditions, wage disputes and industrial relations.

The officers and Shop Stewards concerned were truly shocked by this motion. So are we. Firstly, such films are few and far between and are only likely to be made if they were commissioned by Unions individually or the TUC.

Secondly and more importantly, this decision was taken without consultation of your regional political education officers, general membership or indeed the Unite-The Union Community section. As such, we believe this amounts to a Stalinist-style decision and one which stands directly at odds with the overall principles and history of Anti-Fascism and Anti-Racism in Britain.

It is a decision which consequently denies workers/members the opportunity to watch a film like this inside a recognised Union environment. It is a decision which raises serious questions concerning your Union’s commitment to Anti-Racism in general and which constitutes a gross act of cultural censorship.

Working class cultural activism and creativity should be an absolutely integral part of any genuine political education programmes. Particularly when it is based inside energies challenging racism in Britain.

The Shop Stewards and officers all voiced that belief and it is one we share and endorse completely. We are of course aware of the furore caused via screenings or potential screenings of the Jeremy Corbyn film ‘The Big Lie’.

We shall not comment further on that, other than to say until we hear differently, we have to assume that this motion was passed as a knee-jerk, supposedly politically expedient reaction, to all that. If you are of the view that there are other bona-fide reasons behind the motion, we would very much like to hear what they are.

In light of all this, we are now requesting the following:

• That your National Executive convenes to formally re-assess this decision.

• That in doing so, the Executive democratically consults fully with your regional political education officers and only reaches a final decision after such consultations.

If this does not happen, we believe it makes an utter mockery of their supposed role and programmes. We also believe strongly that there should be further extended consultations with appropriate representatives of Unite The Union-In The Community, this also on a regional basis.

It is our conviction that the current decision cuts right to the heart of supposed ‘democracy’, as related to fundamental ethics and principles of Trade Unionism within ‘Unite-The Union’. We believe this decision should be reversed. We believe that these matters will attract widespread attention and public interest within the public domain. With that in mind, we request a formal response from yourself at the earliest possible point.

In Solidarity.
Richard David
Robin Banks

The pair received a response from Sarah Carpenter, Unite’s newly-promoted (without proper process, according to union insiders) ‘Executive head of operations’. The reply, while anodyne in its language, confirmed that Unite has no intention of reversing its ban – and did not address any of the makers’ concerns about the political motivations behind it:

Dear Richard and Robin,

Thank you for your letter which you sent to the General Secretary on 18 December. The GS is currently involved in industrial disputes and has asked me to respond.

Your letter rightly refers to a decision made by the union’s Executive Committee (made up of lay members, elected democratically by and from the wider membership), which was debated and agreed by them at their meeting in September 2023. This decision was ‘That Unite should not use its premises or resources to show or promote any external films or other content that does not relate to our industrial agenda to support the pay, terms and conditions of our members and/or support existing Unite policies. In this context the Union should be especially careful to avoid appearing to endorse any material which causes unnecessary offence to members.’

This would mean that we cannot show any films unless there is a clear link to our industrial agenda. The film you have produced looks fascinating and I am pleased to see that you have found venues where this can be shown. However, from the information you have sent I do not see that there is a link to our industrial agenda, and so we are not able to use Unite premises or resources to show or promote this film.

Carpenter has been accused, acting on Sharon Graham’s behalf, of threatening a soon-to-retire regional official with the loss of his pension bonus if he did not cool his support for the people of Palestine against Israel’s genocide – and of cancelling showings and readings of films and books showing the pro-Israel lobby’s sabotage of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party and exposing abuse by Starmer’s Labour toward left-wing party members.

Sharon Graham has been alleged by Unite insiders to have:

• banned Unite officials and national banners from pro-Gaza protests
• banned and smeared films and books exposing the ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam
• placed an official under investigation who refused to cancel a Palestine solidarity fringe event at Labour’s 2023 annual conference
• told her chief of staff to threaten a soon-to-retire official with the loss of a pension bonus if he did not soften his support for Palestinians

Her supporters also prevented debate and votes on Gaza at a March meeting of the union’s elected executive.

Apart from the issue of Gaza, her tenure as Unite boss has also been marked by a string of other allegations – which neither she nor the union has denied – including destruction of evidence against her husband in threat, misogyny and bullying complaints brought by union employees. She is also embroiled in both an employment tribunal for discrimination and a defamation lawsuit brought by Irish union legend Brendan Ogle for the union’s treatment of him and comments made about him by Graham and her close ally Tony Woodhouse.

‘On Resistance Street’ will receive its London premiere at The Gate Picturehouse Cinema in Notting Hill on
Wednesday April 17th. That will be followed by a short theatrical run across Britain. The film will then feature in a wide number of national and international Film festivals.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

In a way, our memory culture both in Germany and in Israel is an exact reversal of the reality revealed by the film. Perhaps that's why the film seems to annoy many people in Germany, who complain that it shows the "perpetrator's perspective." But memory must also be a memory of perpetration and its normalization; that is the difference between an honest memory and a convenient one....

Read More

I’m troubled by writers who never ask themselves, “What if I didn’t do this?” Some things should be passed over in silence. I felt that way last fall when Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour came out in theaters. When I noticed aging male film critics rushing to see this nearly three-hour concert film so they could write about it, I was embarrassed for them.

During a recent interview for Laura Kuenssberg's Sunday morning BBC show, Ralph Fiennes – esteemed actor, director, and producer of both film and theatre – currently starring in a production of Macbeth, was asked about trigger warnings and whether he felt audiences have gone "too soft".

“I think they have, yes," he responded.

"There are very disturbing scenes in Macbeth, terrible murders and things,” he said, with Kuenssberg pointing out that their use had been ‘banned’ from the current production, “but I think the impact of theatre should be that you’re shocked and you should be disturbed. I don’t think you should be prepared for these things. And when I was young, we never had trigger warnings.”

A week later on Kuenssberg's Sunday morning show, actor Matt Smith was asked for his take and enthusiastically agreed. “I worry sometimes that we’re moving towards a sort of sanitised version of everything and we’re stripping the danger and the invention and the ingenuity out of everything,” said Smith, himself currently starring in the West End in An Enemy of the People. “Isn’t art meant to be dangerous?”

It is tempting to dismiss Fiennes’ comments as simply those of another grumpy, entitled older white man feeling threatened by something which barely affects him, particularly when they appear to invoke the idea that simply because something didn’t happen when he was young, that it must be innately bad. But does he and Smith have a point?

Clearly, on the face of it, they do.

Their points about the need, and the right, of art to challenge its audience are perfectly valid and, as high-profile performers, they may feel duty-bound to use their platforms to defend the right of the arts to do this.

But are trigger warnings really the thing the arts need protecting from?

Firstly, we need to be clear what it is we’re actually talking about here.

There seems to be a conflation in many people’s minds between trigger warnings and censorship. Of course censorship is the enemy of art, but this is not what we’re talking about.

A trigger warning doesn’t dictate or censor the content of any play, film or exhibit. Nobody is sitting at the side of a stage with a red felt tip and putting a giant X through huge swathes of dialogue because they might upset members of the audience. They are simply there to make the audience aware of anything that may otherwise have forced them to unexpectedly relive a past trauma.

As an example, I’ve never been the victim of sexual assault, but someone sat with or near me may have been, and if that is depicted on stage, then I’d want them to have been able to have had the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to view such content beforehand.

Surely any reasonable person would want the same? In this instance, the trigger warning isn’t aimed at me and its presence has absolutely no impact on me. But it may have proved helpful to someone else.

Fiennes and Smith’s points about theatre, and art in general, having the right to be confrontational and dangerous, and to make its audience uncomfortable, are indisputable. But trigger warnings aren’t there to prevent this. If anything, they provide performers with more freedom to tackle difficult and challenging subject matter, in the full knowledge that the audience has been forewarned.

In real terms, it is hard to discern any meaningful difference between trigger warnings and the British Board of Film Classification certificates we’ve all been used to for decades.

Broadening the issue beyond the theatre into a wider cultural context, there is a genuine, grown-up discussion to be had around this.

A recent screening of Mel Brooks’ classic comedy Blazing Saddles on HBO Max drew ire due to a lengthy pre-screening content warning in which film expert Jacqueline Stewart described not only the frequent racist language in the script, but also the film’s plot and themes, even some spoilers.

While the reaction to this in some quarters was predictably hysterical, it was hard to watch without feeling talked down to. No audience wants to feel like they are being lectured or, worse, infantilised.

But examples like this are the exception rather than the norm.

An A4 sign in the lobby of a theatre describing any potentially triggering content isn’t going to hamper the enjoyment of anyone. In fact, most people probably won’t even notice it, because they aren’t actively on the lookout for it. But they may prove to be a useful tool for the small number of people who are actively looking for such a sign.

That’s all they really are, a useful tool, one which most people probably won’t feel the need to use.

Being upset about the presence of trigger warnings is a bit like being upset by the presence of disabled toilets – if you don’t need them, then they’re not aimed at you. Ignore them, and enjoy the rest of your evening, and let those that need them make use of them as they see fit.

Fiennes spoke for barely a minute about trigger warnings over the course of his nine-minute interview on Kuenssberg's show. Aside from that topic, he talked about his anger over plans to build an energy hub in the Suffolk countryside for twice as long, and became far more animated and impassioned, almost jumping out of his seat to make his point. If you watched the interview, you got the impression that this issue was far more important to him than the one that has been generating the most headlines.

Their brief remarks about trigger warnings have been almost the only things reported that they said – and it’s hard to surmise that this is for any other reason than the fact that they can be portrayed as divisive.

Comments about energy hubs or underfunding of the arts and rocketing ticket prices – the latter two both far more pressing issues which Fiennes also spoke about – simply don’t give as good copy, and can’t be used to stoke the culture war.

An update to Arts Council England’s policies warning organisations it funds to be wary of “overtly political or activist statements”, which came just days after Fiennes’ interview, is likely to be of far more concern to artists and patrons.

There are many things threatening the future of the arts in the UK, but trigger warnings are not one of them.