T Reznor Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Goodness me, it's still dificult to get through to some people. The pinciple of freedom of speech is applied to EVERYBODY, not just people you agree with, or it's not freedom any more. Proposing the banning of a political party on the grounds that you think they would probably subvert the system if they were not banned is NOT freedom, or democracy - it's just a different kind of totalitarianism to the one you seek to suppress. There can be no half-measures in this, especially not when it is apparently YOUR self-elected judgement which decides who is to be banned and who not. And the other thing. Chickenshit faggotts? What makes me chickenshit or a faggot for supporting the right of all inviduals and parties to a free voice, whether I agree with them or not? Abusive and insulting expressions like that merely reveal that you have reached the end of your intellectual capabilities and are unable to sustain any further arguments supported by logical thought so you give up and turn nasty. Everyone but you can see it's an admission of defeat. And who, I wonder, are people of "my ilk"? You have no idea what my ilk might be, beyond the fact that I believe in free speech and democracy. So if everyone else who does so is also a chickenshit faggot, I presume you will be happy to see the alternative - an extremist, prejudiced and bigoted party in power. You make no sense, have no logic, nor apparently the cognitive ability to comprehend the issues you're dealing with. the irony of free speech and the BNP is that they have the affiliated Redwatch site, so if anyone publically speaks out against them, their name, address and telephone no are added to the site and depending on who it is then people are either intimidated or attacked. That is not free speech, but an example of the type of society they want us to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny rotten Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 And you think that the only way to beat them is to abandon the principles you're defending and behave like they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Goodness me, it's still dificult to get through to some people. The pinciple of freedom of speech is applied to EVERYBODY, not just people you agree with, or it's not freedom any more. Proposing the banning of a political party on the grounds that you think they would probably subvert the system if they were not banned is NOT freedom, or democracy - it's just a different kind of totalitarianism to the one you seek to suppress. There can be no half-measures in this, especially not when it is apparently YOUR self-elected judgement which decides who is to be banned and who not. I agree with you. When I was at uni the Students' Union had a rule that went something like "We refuse participation to those who wish to use their right of free speech to deny that right to others." Which if you think about is a pretty self defeating rule, since the rule itself seeks to deny the right to freedom of speech to others, it is in contravention of itself. We can't dictate what other people think and the only way to defeat them is by arguing the toss with them. Rather than have them muttering in backstreet pubs, lets have them out in the open and lets have them standing for election because when the Manx people have rejected them comprehensively and laughed them off this Island they won't be able to bleat about conspiracies and bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Reznor Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 And you think that the only way to beat them is to abandon the principles you're defending and behave like they do? no, absolutely not. As Ted Nugent (well know republican said about Nazi groups) said, "we need free speech to expose these morons for who they are!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 extremist, prejudiced and bigoted party in power Yet that is essentially what the BNP could be. The BNP are prejudiced, quite extreme, and bigoted. Read their manifesto. You'd think that the supporters are fantasists for some return to 1930s society with an empire to boot. No thanks! The BNP only ramble on about the virtues of democracy and freedom of speech because it allows their ignorance and hate to have a supposedly credible voice. The BNP have only need democracy and freedom of speech and expression as a tool to attempt to gain power. If in power, however, such virtues would be incompatible with BNP policies as homophobic and racist policies only serve to curb freedom of speech and expression. Policies that would oppose civil partnership and would aim to re-establish Section 28 are nothing but thr curbing of freedom of expression. Therefore, I see no reason why the BNP, a fascist party, should be given the use of a political system that is underwritten by the values of individual liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny rotten Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Therefore, I see no reason why the BNP, a fascist party, should be given the use of a political system that is underwritten by the values of individual liberty. ...because, and pay attention bcause this is the bit all of you seem to be struggling with today, because TO DENY THEM THE FREEDOM TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLES YOU SAY YOU UPHOLD. Saying what you do is a complete oxymoron, with the emphasis on moron. Freedom of speech only for those people whose views you agree and not for those you don't IS NOT FREEDOM, it is totalitarianism and makes you the same as them. Got it yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Reznor Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Therefore, I see no reason why the BNP, a fascist party, should be given the use of a political system that is underwritten by the values of individual liberty. ...because, and pay attention bcause this is the bit all of you seem to be struggling with today, because TO DENY THEM THE FREEDOM TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLES YOU SAY YOU UPHOLD. Saying what you do is a complete oxymoron, with the emphasis on moron. Freedom of speech only for those people whose views you agree and not for those you don't IS NOT FREEDOM, it is totalitarianism and makes you the same as them. Got it yet? PS Johnny Rotten has always been against racism.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 I disagree Declan because the BNP in attempting to gain more support have only attempted to downplay or scrub out their policies to become more acceptable. For example, up until 2004 the BNP wanted homosexual re-criminalised, this has been dropped, but why? I doubt very much their opinions on this have changed. Rather it only adds to the opposition from the public. Further, in some particular topics such as immigration are overplayed to appeal to the irrational fears of the 'layman'. In other words the BNP use their political platform to advance an agenda that does not represent the extent of their reactionary desires. This is another good reason why they should be denied such a platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 I understand perfectly why the BNP needs freedom of speech to gain support yes. I further understand why it would seek to oppose this and freedom of expression. These principles contradict BNP policies toward racism and homosexuality. Though rather than going over old ground. Would you disagree that BNP policies seek to curb freedom of expression? If so, why do you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 No LDV! That is another good reason why we should oppose them. If we point out to people what you've said they won't transfer their support to them. If we ban them because of their views or what we assume to be their views, we are no better than they are. That isn't being democratic or liberal or even politically correct. It is being fascistic. (Hello Phildo!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 To be quite honest I do think it is missing the point in talking about denying a platform whether right or not. It is only the point that such a fascist party can only gain support from downplaying policies once they have a platform that I think should maybe give concern. Such policies are being downplayed and scrubbed in the case of the BNP. It is for me a contradiction either way. Certainly I would agree with you Declan that exposure is the most important thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny rotten Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Isn't ANYBODY paying attention? You're all here with your heads up your vaious bottoms saying that free spech is a vital part of democracy AS LONG AS WE'RE CAREFUL WHO WE ALLOW TO USE IT. As long as YOU think the BNP is wrong WE ALL should deny them free speech. This is NOT democracy. You're living in a country ruled by the longest-survivng democratic system of government in the world and yet none of you undrestand what democracy is. It's not a reward for the well-behaved political party, it's not a treat you give to everyone with a policy that you happen to agree with. It's a RIGHT, and you cannot withold it from ANYONE for ANY reason, especally not one as flimsy as your supposition that they might treat it badly, or the whole system comes to an end, and you destroy the very thing you were fighting to save. Let them treat democracy badly if they want. It's healthy enough to kick them up the arse and carry on without them. That's how it works. Here's a thought for you. Pass an Act that says fredom of speech is banned from political parties with offensive views and let the BNP be banned under that law. Wait ten years until the BNP's less radical successor gets voted into power and then uses your law to ban all other parties except for itself. Who will you complain to when they come to lock you up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Isn't ANYBODY paying attention? Haven't I been saying the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 I am paying attention. It is just the fact of the BNP being fascist that makes me question the necessity of freedom of speech. This because the BNP would only seek if in power to take that away from people, as well freedom of expression and movement. Not sure if freedom of speech is more important than the need to protect people from the fear of oppression. Freedom of speech is not universal in our society in any case. Not completely sure, on reflection, what is best. Though I do fully appreciate the BNP need for freedom of speech to espouse lies about race and homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny rotten Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Oh, my God! "It is just the fact of the BNP being fascist that makes me question the necessity of freedom of speech. " You being the final arbiter in the matter? In a true democratic society it is not the prerogative of the individual to decide that a given opinion or party is unnaceptable and must be denied free speech. If you accept that free speech is a fundamental foundation-stone of democracy, you must accept that free speech is not an option but a necessity. Free does not mean free to anyone you agree with, nor even free to anyone most people agree with, and definitely NOT closed to anyone you disagree with, or even closed to anyone most of us disagree with. Free speech does exactly what it says on the tin - it's free, open to all, no matter what theie opinion. Otherwise it's not free, and a democracy becomes a totalitarian state. Please look up free in a dictionary, or even free speech on google and see if you can grasp the idea that it is "free" and not "free, apart from..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.