Griffin + Collett cleared

[detective-boy]

If they say it in public, show how they are wrong.

Is trying to prevent his sort of view being propogated a symptom of our lack of confidence in our society being able to repel it? Do we fear that if he is allowed to be heard then he will find increasing amounts of support in the country, to the stage where members of minority groups (based on any characteristic) will be victimised by the majority, in provision of services, in law, in physical terms or whatever?

 

[detective-boy]

Racial Hatred has been illiegal since the 60's and no political parties other than the BNP and worse favour overturning this.

Has it though? Is hating someone because of their race a crime? I think not. Encouraging someone else to hate them because of their race is though.

 

[JoePolitix]

Is trying to prevent his sort of view being propogated a symptom of our lack of confidence in our society being able to repel it? Do we fear that if he is allowed to be heard then he will find increasing amounts of support in the country, to the stage where members of minority groups (based on any characteristic) will be victimised by the majority, in provision of services, in law, in physical terms or whatever?

No but it only takes one or two riled up psychopaths to lead to death and destruction.

 

[JoePolitix]

Has it though? Is hating someone because of their race a crime? I think not. Encouraging someone else to hate them because of their race is though.

Yes, thats what I meant.

 

[TAE]

I said people support their *right* to make such remarks.

No, you said: "I'm just trying to test the water as to which exact forms racist hatred some of the contributers are prepared to support."

I am not prepared to support any forms of racist hatred.

I'm not advocating making everything which I find objectionable to be made illegal (now whos erecting the straw man?).

I never said you did, I was merely stating where I stand.

I find inciting hatred against minority communities abominable and incompatable with a free society that ensures the right of people to live in freedom from hatred and the threat of violence.

Me too, but I don't think you can legislate against hatred. You can however legislate against (the threat of) violence.

Slander (knowingly telling lies about others) could also be considered for legislation.

 

[.r.u.i.n.e.d]

This is the sort of difficult area which I referred to.

Starting from:

1. I think Religion X is misguided, and not as good as mine, religion Y. You should convert.
2. I think Religion X is wrong. You are foolish to follow it.
3. I think Religion X is dangerous bollocks. It should be banned.
4. I think people who follow Religion X are stupid and they should be encouraged to convert.
5. I think people who follow Religion X are dangerous and they should be banned from following it.
6. I dislike people who follow Religion X and you should dislike them too.
7. I hate people who follow Religion X and you should hate them too.
8. People who follow Religion X are so hateful their property should be attacked and I encourage you to go and do it.
9. People who follow Religion X are so hateful they should be physically attacked and I encourage you to go and attack them.
10. People who follow Religion X are so hateful they should be killed and I encourage you to go and kill them.

I think most people would agree that the line should be drawn somewhere between 1 and 10 ... but where.

In relation to race it is drawn at 7 - incitement to hatred based on race. Why would it be inconsistent to draw it there in relation to religion as well. Sure, it is a thought, a choice, but why should encouragement of active hatred of people (and not just criticism or hatred of their religion) be
allowed on any basis?

I like the way you've put this. My view though is that in the case of race it's reasonable to draw the line at 7, inciting racial hatred, because people don't have any choice at all about what race they are.

In some sense, you have some choice over what you believe, - or at least you bear some responsibility for what you choose to assent to. Some belief systems, whether or not they're called religions, truly detestable, and ought to be hated. So as far as religion is concerned, I think the line should be drawn at 8- encouraging violence..

(I don't think that Islam is detestable, though from what I've heard, there is some truth in Griffin's criticisms of the Koran, but, I haven't read it, so I don't know. I reckon Muslims could learn a lot from the West about tolerance and sexual equality. But I reckon we could learn some things from Islamic law too.)

 

[Haller]

Really? So I suppose anti-fascists in the east end should have allowed Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts march through the streets freely expressing themselves by saying "the yids, the yids, we've got to get rid of the yids" then? I suppose the ant-fascist movement has been wrong to no platform the NF, deny them free speech and smash up their meetings?

To support fascist "free speech" is a disaster - why let these vermin hang themselves when we could hang them earlier?

The question is surely about legal sanctions, not the actions of other individuals or groups.

And you're sliding here from racism to fascism - there's no law (nor should there be) against fascist beliefs.

 

[detective-boy]

And you're sliding here from racism to fascism - there's no law (nor should there be) against fascist beliefs.

Has there ever been a fascism that was not, at least to some extent, racist?

 

[Haller]

Has there ever been a fascism that was not, at least to some extent, racist?

Difficult to answer since there's never been a human society that was not, at least to some extent, racist. There's never been a mainstream British political party that was not, at least to some extent, racist.

The point is simply that fascism and racism are not synonymous. The law against incitement to racial hatred does not simply apply to members of fascist groups.

And racism is not integral to fascism. It is not one of the defining features of fascism as a political philosophy. Hatred of trade unionism is, so is hatred of communism, but not - as far as I'm aware - hatred of another race.

To take a fictional example, I don't remember Miss Jean Brodie espousing racism in her support for Mussolini (mind you, it's a long time since I read the book - could be wrong). And, a semi-fictional example, I don't think Bowie was espousing racism in his Thin White Duke phase when he talked about the desirability of a fascist dictator in Britain.

I know it's a diversion from the main issue of the thread, but confusion between terms is dangerous.

 

[detective-boy]

I know it's a diversion from the main issue of the thread, but confusion between terms is dangerous.

I think that is a fair concern. But are the BNP really fascist? Or are they simply using it as a convenient camoflage for their actual racism?

 

[Haller]

I think that is a fair concern. But are the BNP really fascist? Or are they simply using it as a convenient camoflage for their actual racism?

Christ knows where they're at these days.

I do remember the slogan 'the National Front is a Nazi Front' back in the ANL/RAR days, and it was hugely successful, since it very clearly identified the NF with the enemy that many of its potential supporters had fought against in WW2. The fact that terms like 'Nazi' and 'fascist' were used with a little more discrimination made their use much more effective.

 

[Epicurus]

Yes.

WOW!! So there are still some Stalinist’s about, that’s interesting.

I take it you are also in favour of ID cards CCTV everywhere and the right of the state to interfere in consensual sex acts between consenting adults.

Well you are getting all that so I hope you enjoy it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not an expert on BNP policies, but if you use the term 'fascism' in the Mussolini sense rather than the Hitler one, it is fundamentally a utopian nationalist idea intended to unite the people, rich and poor in a 'vertical' arrangement. Mussolini's particular brand of fascism was not inherently racist, just ultra-nationalist - seeing the Italian people as one big family.

Franco and Peron took this idea on - essentially, it means that everyone in a particular line of work or area of concern is united in one set of common interests, from the boss of a company down to its most lowly employee, and those in charge are (in a very tautological way) in charge because they deserve to be. Leaders emerge and those with the gumption to take power are the right people to be in power by definition. This contrasts with, and denies the legitimacy of, a 'horizontal' way of looking at people's common interests, on which trade unions are based, for instance, seeing workers for different companies as sharing common interests because of their shared position in relation to power/ownership.

Someone may be able to comment on the BNP and say whether their basic philosophy is an essentially 'vertical' one. If it is, then it is very fair to call them fascist.

 

[rauscher]

Is Blair better than Griffin?

Blair instigated the mass murder, slaughter, of Iraqis because of ... weapons of mass destruction(?), rogue states(?), terrorism(?) - who knows? Does this not incite racial hatred? Griffin is essentially a diversion. The real racist threat comes from Blair/Bush who went to war against muslims. The agenda is not set by pigmys like Griffin. The agenda has been created by the 'leadership of the western world.' Griffin feeds off that and should be opposed but he is not the source or even a significant player in the game.

 

[JimPage]

Christ knows where they're at these days.

I do remember the slogan 'the National Front is a Nazi Front' back in the ANL/RAR days, and it was hugely successful, since it very clearly identified the NF with the enemy that many of its potential supporters had fought against in WW2. The fact that terms like 'Nazi' and 'fascist' were used with a little more discrimination made their use much more effective.

but the tactic doesnt work any nmore and has failed to do so for years against a euronationalist BNP

 

[Haller]

but the tactic doesnt work any nmore and has failed to do so for years against a euronationalist BNP

And, of course, WW2 has slipped into the far distant past, rather than being the live cultural issue that it still was in Britain in the late-'70s.