butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Depends what you think the left says. If you want them both banned then you're on no left i want to be a part of. That's not a 'free speech' argument either.
“Kill gays” preacher hosted by London universities
- Thread starter Skin
- Start date
Depends what you think the left says. If you want them both banned then you're on no left i want to be a part of. That's not a 'free speech' argument either.
That's what Tatchell got wrong, calling for it to be banned rather than opposed. Asking the state or educational establishements to start acting as Censors is not a good path to go down.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Standard Green/Tatchell argument - (or their members are screaming that the edl are BNP). Politically worthless.
It's not a question of wanting anything 'banned' - I believe that these decisions should be made by the students of the institutions involved. That being said, I think there are right and wrong decisions, and I have no problem with those that disagree with a speaker campaigning for a different outcome, which they got here. I wouldn't invite either to speak without some particular reason to do so. Ultimately these episodes are just distractions, both from real problems facing universities and their students and the larger national picture.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Who made the decision then?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So not 'the students of the institutions involved'?
I guess all I'm saying (and it's not much, I'm basically just bored) is that given the choice between A) upsetting large numbers of students and the general population, bad publicity for the uni, and high costs of controlling demos and B) stopping a lecture, perhaps suggesting that they invite him in a way unrelated to the uni, I would choose A), and I don't blame the Uni for making that choice.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So how does that then effect your original point?
Maybe what Tatchell should have done was call for a peaceful protest and make a statement saying he is expecting the Islamic society to challenge their guest on these views. That would have forced the Islamic society into a position on it.
Instead the Fundie will be able to claim western values are a hypocrisy because he got banned. Still at least Tatchell had the balls to be vocal against Islamic extremists, and he has applied his banning people to speak idea universally.
Instead the Fundie will be able to claim western values are a hypocrisy because he got banned. Still at least Tatchell had the balls to be vocal against Islamic extremists, and he has applied his banning people to speak idea universally.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Exactly. Perhaps the best solution would be to let him speak with a police officer present, on the understanding that, if he decides to solicit murder, he gets arrested on the spot.
Or skip the police officer, deputise Mr Tatchell as a special constable, and hope for a repeat of the Robert Mugabe incident.
Did I have one?
I guess I feel that 'why do you oppose Griffin's appearance but not Usamah's' is, of course, just a mirror of 'why do you support Griffin's appearance but not Usamah's'. Hypocrisy isn't the issue, it's just the sides, if you're willing to accept them as defined.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I agree. Best to let him speak, with a full contingent of protestors outside to show the other viewpoint, in the best tradition of a free and democratic society.
Similarly, the UK should have allowed Minister Farrakhan to enter; the Westboro Church should have been allowed to enter, etc.
The difference griffin has alot of opposition and resistance which is a good thing.
The difference being is a Islamic extreamist can say pritty much the same and have allmost a clear run. And most of the resistance comes from people making snide remarks about spelling and grammer etc. {from the person who talks about it}
Both The bnp and Islamic extreamists need resisting
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
you're a fine one to go on about spelling and grammarThe difference griffin has alot of opposition and resistance which is a good thing.
The difference being is a Islamic extreamist can say pritty much the same and have allmost a clear run. And most of the resistance comes from people making snide remarks about spelling and grammer etc. {from the person who talks about it}
Both The bnp and Islamic extreamists need resisting
The difference griffin has alot of opposition and resistance which is a good thing.
The difference being is a Islamic extreamist can say pritty much the same and have allmost a clear run. And most of the resistance comes from people making snide remarks about spelling and grammer etc. {from the person who talks about it}
Both The bnp and Islamic extreamists need resisting
See, this is where I get confused - do you really believe that extremist Muslim preachers encounter less opposition than white nationalists etc.? How many arrests/prosecutions/deportations etc. have there been for each group? Extremist Islam has no widespread support and is not gaining power within political avenues. It is primarily a criminal/security issue that should be dealt with by the appropriate authorities - and it is. The threat from the far-right however is a political problem and hence should be opposed through the same channels. I don't believe that straightforward opposition/protest/challenge is the answer, of course, and I think without a genuine re-engagement of the working class by political parties all the banning/demos etc. in the world won't make much difference.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I agree. I'm dubious about allowing Mr Usamah to speak because of his previous activities, not because he's offensive. I'd be saying the same if a UCL society invited round a speaker who was an unrepentant window-smasher.
Poo Flakes
Active Member
I am always torn abou these things. All sorts of very anti-social ideology can be promoted by professors, journalists, and professionals under the guise of freedom, science, or, more recently, 'fairness'. Just see some of the poltical rhetoric coming out of right-wing athiests. That is, admittedly, a different league from explicitly advocating killing or persecuting minority groups, but, in practice, a lot of these loons - particularly Nick Griffin - have and will never have any real power (admittedly some sheikhs do wield some powers).
I guess my point is that in a world where Obama, Gore, Kissinger, Freidman, and Hayeck are nobel laureates, the left complaints of Griffin going on Question Time seem so petty.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
You forgot the sentence beginning with "And"!you're a fine one to go on about spelling and grammar
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
you don't start sentences with 'and'
It's perfectly appropriate to start a sentence with 'And' sometimes: And yes, I know how lonely life can be. The shadows follow me and the world won't set me free - see?you don't start sentences with 'and'
I dunno if he does really:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/27/highereducation.studentpoliticseducation
OK he's probably not advocated the murder of black people but I'd wager he's used racist abuse in the past and he counts as a white supremacist.
Similar threads
