We had agreed with the people organizing the meeting that we would attend at 09:00 in the morning to carry out the first training activity within the framework of the anti-fascist project.

When we arrived at the factory we encountered the first obstacle. The shop stewards had informed the company that the action would start at 10am. In the end, due to space issues, we did not start until 10:30. 

On the other hand, there was another surprise: no trade union delegate from Solán de Cabras came, but two delegates from the same industrial estate, two trade union representatives (a man and a woman) from the Mercedes company, did attend. To this inconvenience I must add the detail that both the general secretary and the organising secretary of the CCOO Castilla La Mancha industry federation, i.e. experienced people and leaders, attended and participated in the training, distorting the training itself, something I will explain later on. 

So, after 10.30 in the morning, I  proceeded to follow the scheduled tabled but one hour and a half after. 

Since in the end there were not 30 participants, but approximately 12, I had to readjust the groups, assigning group A the migrant issue and group B the gender issue. We assigned specific characters to each group. The theatrical representation was quite successful. The conclusion reached by both groups was similar, that is, both groups turned to the union to solve the hypothetical problems we had presented to them.

I did not introduce the figure of observers who would make a presentation despite having it written in the Cocogram because we felt it was not necessary and I thought the two facilitators could handle it.

I improvised because I had planned for each group to make a presentation about what they had felt and discussed, but being so few participants, I thought it was better to do it in plenary. I believe that collective reflection is a very powerful tool to consolidate learning since it can bring other points of view, which can enrich the understanding of the topic in addition to fostering a sense of community and mutual support, considering also that there were two colleagues from Mercedes who openly shared how their company applauds far-right ideological stances.

Seeing how the dynamics developed, I believe that the figure of the observer was indeed necessary because we would have introduced someone whose main task was to observe, analyze, and reflect on the dynamics, discussions, and resolutions that arose during the activity, which would have provided me with a more objective and constructive analysis at the end of the session.

In any case, I believe that, over the months, what I learned in ETT1 and ETT2, as well as their intermediate seminars, have helped me understand how necessary it is to carry out proper project planning and how important it is to have an alternative plan if problems arise.

The observer slide if I had have to repeat the dynamic

The training was attended by two people who are part of the union leadership in that region and from my point of view this was not at all positive because they did not allow the people who were quieter to speak and because they made people feel self-conscious. In addition, I observed how one of the leading cadres inadvertently made value judgements during the debate, showing opinions contrary to the objectives I had set ourselves. This is whatI call a negative disrupter or an obstructor.

Despite the difficulties in motivating people to speak, I found some responses from participants. 

-Unions do not know how to fight fake news effectively.

-The role of socialising the work and being able to work with objective information is very important. 

The words frustration, helplessness and propaganda around workers who present themselves as right-wing extremists was also an issue.

-It is necessary to link trade union action with training and culture. 

-It is important that we do not point the finger at the weakest, which is what the extreme right does with hate speech. 

-The ultra-right tries to sell the discourse that "we are not all equal", thus eliminating the concept of tribe.

At this stage of the debate, we were listening to the participants, both Celia (the other facilitator who came with me) and José Antonio and. During this phase of the debate, I had to gather the conclusions, but above all, what I was most interested in was knowing if in the end we were able to use more and better arguments to fight the right or far right as well as to give them tools to properly argue against these attitudes in both factories, Mahou and Mercedes, and to combat them.

At the beginning of the dynamic, I had asked them to hang their expectations on a foam board we had made for them and that, if at the end of the training, they considered that they had adequately understood how to combat hate speech, they should remove the post-its and take them home. Almost none of them removed the post-it, which led me to think that indeed, I had not been able to provide them with adequate conclusions and that the dynamic had not been appropriate because the objectives I had set were not met. I believe this is also because I had been working on this project for a very short time and not even I had been able to do a job of introspection, counter-argumentation, and deepening in the matter, which would have helped me guide the participants to understand what are the best tools and strategies available to combat hate speech.

Perhaps an external expert on this issue would have helped in this regard. At the time of teaching this course, I was not yet competent enough in the anti-fascist field to be able to draw firm and confident conclusions.

As I came out of this training very dissatisfied, thinking that I had to change the dynamics. Role-playing is definitely not the right thing to do because given the complexity of properly identifying hate speech and how to combat it, it's necessary to engage in some form of dynamic that requires a deeper process of introspection and analysis. I think that analysis can play a key role in understanding the broader context within which hate speech operates, including its historical roots, its impact on society, and the mechanisms through which it spreads. By engaging in analysis, participants can develop strategies that address not only the symptoms of hate speech but also its root causes. 

At the time, after this experience , I decided that I had to change some things that we had to incorporate. Parallel to this dynamic, I was producing an interactive guide that gives guidelines on what are the elements that the extreme right uses to fuel hate speech. If I was able to spark reflection in the delegates and give them the tool, I would have planted a Seed.

So, I proposed to the working team:

Incorporate the dynamics with the guide developed or with elements of the guide as a theoretical basis. I believe the interactive guide complements and integrates perfectly with the dynamic I have corrected and adapted. After all, as adults, we need certain conceptual frameworks to direct the educational process, especially in something as complex as understanding the theoretical foundations that promote hate speech. I think that after a shared analysis dynamic like the one I have proposed from this experience, the guide serves as a complement. Moreover, the interactive guide is dynamic because it is made in a genially way so that participants or those who have access to it can access its theoretical content whenever they want. It can also be useful for those who want to delve a bit more into the topic and to mentally fix the concepts that have been worked on in the dynamic.

1. Avoid such a high difference in levels. Union leaders at the same level with plenary dynamics distort. 
2. It is not enough to give representatives a cocogram. Give them a written timetable so that the participants have it as a guide and can read what the objectives are. They should also be given the activity sheet for the exercise so that they can use it as a basis for their work. The dynamics that will be done from now on should be explained.
3. Questions that can improve the guide or add additional elements to the guide should be incorporated in the concluding work and in the evaluation. 

Following this conclusion and a period of reflection, I designed a new dynamic that would be applied in September, in another course, also aimed at a company. This time a company named Incarlopsa, which specializes in the packaging and cutting of Iberian ham. Thus, I invited the union section to participate in the dynamic. On this occasion, I was also accompanied by two colleagues. The theoretical explanation was lighter and more agile. Certain theoretical frameworks were simply established in which the reason why the union is anti-fascist was explained to them. This time, I arrived at the classroom in advance. The training room was not the best in the world, but I was able to arrange the tables into groups. Also, I had the names of the participants, so I placed a card with the name of each participant before they arrived in the class, ensuring as well that there was a good balance between women and men. The dynamic consisted of the following:

They had to choose a card at random. On the cards, there were hate speeches. They had to answer  the following questions:

"Climate change is just a theory, there's no real evidence that it exists."

"This gender ideology is going to ruin families."

"Unions are useless, they spend the subsidies on seafood and are just a bunch of lazy people."

"Now it seems you can't talk about gays without being sanctioned at the company. So much diversity protocol, but the salary still doesn't increase."

"Why do you ask for equality? Real equality already exists."

"Unions don't solve my issues, the ones who solve your problems are lawyers, and you have to pay for them. A bunch of crooks sucking from the pot. If you're not affiliated, they don't understand you."

"Feminism is an ideology that wants to destroy the traditional family."

"Muslims just come to live off welfare and then return to Morocco to live lavishly."

"So much ecology, so much ecology, but I can't afford the shopping basket."

"Immigrants come here only to take advantage of our resources and commit crimes."

"If there wasn't so much immigration, we wouldn't have so many problems with crime."

"Immigrants take jobs away from Spaniards."

"Modern feminism only seeks to confront men and women."

"Women already have equality; feminism now only seeks privileges."

"The Earth has always had temperature changes, it's nothing new."

"Ever since more immigrants arrived, the neighborhood is no longer safe."

What symptoms, symbols, or similar situations do you believe you have identified in your work or social environment that lead you to think that there is someone susceptible to using far-right discourses in the workplace?

How did you react?

Then, read again the sentence you have chosen (the one on the card or another) and analyze the discourse it contains (fallacy, exaggeration, or weak points).

Share the answers with your colleagues.

Now, based on your debate, develop a valid argument that dismantles the sentence you have chosen.

Name a person who will act as a spokesperson and summarize your discussion.

Duration:

45 minutes

Materials:

Flip chart. Colored markers. Personal experience.