Griffin prevented from lecturing at my University

[GarfieldLeChat]

Actually I never said you had aligned yourself with fascists. On the other hand, you have repeatedly refered to the anti-fascist teachers and students that blocked Griffin from speaking as "fascists" which is rather bizzarre.

yeah true enough no direct sayso more snide insiutation...

along with the other anti fash bashers... intresting with us or against us rhetoric...

 

[JoePolitix]

yeah true enough no direct sayso more snide insiutation...

Well snide insinuation is my specialist area

For the record I don't think you are aligned with fascists or a fascist or any such thing - just very wrong on this issue.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You miss the point Matt. glc supports giving the BNP a platform on the basis that he thinks free speech is an unconditional and unequivocal right. I was pointing out that if you take this argument to its logical conclusion you would indeed would have to have supported the right of the Blackshirts to march through east London yelling anti-semitic slogans.

or to march against it....

btw please don't use the racist perjoritive 'anti-sematic' to mean anti jewish or judeophobic; there's nothing anti arab about saying yids out, there is some thing judeophobic about it but to negate arabs as a semetic tribe and to wholesale lump all semities as beign jewish is racist. one would consdier that your underlying message might be better served with accurate use of terminology, particually if standing on an anti racist platform using perjoritve racsit terminology doesn't support your case. for refference like...

 

[JoePolitix]

or to march against it....

btw please don't use the racist perjoritive 'anti-sematic' to mean anti jewish or judeophobic; there's nothing anti arab about saying yids out, there is some thing judeophobic about it but to negate arabs as a semetic tribe and to wholesale lump all semities as beign jewish is racist. one would consdier that your underlying message might be better served with accurate use of terminology, particually if standing on an anti racist platform using perjoritve racsit terminology doesn't support your case. for refference like...

Technically correct but in this country anti-semitism is understood in common lexicon as anti-jewish racism which is the context I use it in. Judeophobic is equally problematic because it denotes hostility toward the jewish religion rather than the racial form it takes with the fash.

Anyway I'm off out for some pie, mash and good ol wes' country cider..

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Well snide insinuation is my specialist area

For the record I don't think you are aligned with fascists or a fascist or any such thing - just very wrong on this issue.

i understand essentailly this is thigys law innit someones mention nazis so we all go home...

fascism is a problem but not one we can legistlate for or against but one which must be a sucessive prgram of education against explotiation or maniplulation of wrokign classes (and others for that matter) from scapegoatism and simple answers to a more rounded viewpoint.

however, when you go down the route of a prescribe viewpoint being the only one it is more dangerous and ultimatly far more damaging to soceity.

you think that the "terroist" situation would be best served by open frank communciation and resoultion or by secrecy and underground actions??

same goes for fascists.

 

[Meltingpot]

You miss the point Matt. glc supports giving the BNP a platform on the basis that he thinks free speech is an unconditional and unequivocal right. I was pointing out that if you take this argument to its logical conclusion you would indeed would have to have supported the right of the Blackshirts to march through east London yelling anti-semitic slogans.

No, because they were doing that specifically to intimidate. It's not the same as expressing one's own political convictions in a forum which allows them to be examined by rational debate.

For what it's worty, I think Griffin should have been allowed to speak as long as he paid for his own security.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Technically correct but in this country anti-semitism is understood in common lexicon as anti-jewish racism which is the context I use it in. Judeophobic is equally problematic because it denotes hostility toward the jewish religion rather than the racial form it takes with the fash.

again i have issue with the ideal that judeaism is one of racial origins as this initself is a fascist idea rather than a reality (though this prolly derails the thread into the concept of there being no 'races' merely cultural superiority/domenance and supression)

 

[TremulousTetra]

is that' what i have said or jsut the straw man you have built think about it...

your living room isn't a public place is it there would be no reson why any group should wish to promote itself from it...

a universicity isn't however comparible with a living room if your concept of scael or proportion is that badly warped then, forgive me if i don't take anything else you say very tollerently.

You've already acknowledged part of my point;

Quote:
Originally Posted by chilango
Yeah, but...

...it's not like anyone can just wander into University and hold a meeting/lecture. The University is private property, no? So you have to ask permission. Which the Uni has every right to deny - and does - to whoever it wants.

true enough but then wouldn't it have been more honest to say actually nick griffin you're not welcome here fuck off rather than oh we might have a riot on campus so we couldn't possible have this happen...

Your right the uni should have said fuck off we don't want you. Doing so does would not make them fascist. Your position that any who doesn't GIVE fascists a platform is fascist, is utopian and absurd IMHO.

bnp had a national campaign petitioning the national trust no to allow gay marriages on trust property. Should they not have a right to do this?

 

[TremulousTetra]

or to march against it....

if the fash iyo have the free speech right to march for the state to throw "yids out" why not vice verser? You give fash unlimited free speech, but deny anti-fascist the same rights, why?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

if the fash iyo have the free speech right to march for the state to throw "yids out" why not vice verser?

i assume this is saying if the fash have the right to march agains yids why can't you march against the fash?

i'd reffer you backt o my post and ask you reread it. this is precisely what i haev said ou can have the freedom to march for or against anything...

 

[audiotech]

so that's proof they haven't changed since the 30s and 40s?

The BNP still hold to an ideology with direct links back to the BUF and their members and supporters act like twats.

Times change, but the song remains the same.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

The BNP still hold to an ideology with direct links back to the BUF and their members and supporters act like twats.

Times change, but the song remains the same.

this in effect will much like the unreformed tories meant hat hey becoem less and less rlevant except for a hardcore of ever dwindelling numpties anyways let em speak and hopefull it'll be like putting butter on grandads back (after which he went downhill quickly... etc)

 

[Soul On Ice]

You miss the point Matt. glc supports giving the BNP a platform on the basis that he thinks free speech is an unconditional and unequivocal right. I was pointing out that if you take this argument to its logical conclusion you would indeed would have to have supported the right of the Blackshirts to march through east London yelling anti-semitic slogans.

I doubt there are many people who think "free speech [or expression] is an unconditional and unequivocal right." We do have limits on freedom of speech and expression, such as:
- preventing the distribution of child pornography
- preventing the incitement of racial hatred
- preventing people from encouraging others to carry out violent acts

You may well say Nick Griffin are guilty of the last two, but to ban them from speaking at a public venue before you know precisely what they are going to say, does smack of authoritarianism. And it worries me because it is not dissimilar to the actions of past fascist regimes around the world and it also gives the BNP some "martyr" status.

I'd rather hear what they have to say and, if it is unlawful then they should be prosecuted, and if it is not then it should be publicly challenged. If the law needs changing cos they manage to slip through some loopholes, then let's do it.

That said, it is totally another thing for a university to cancel / ban and event if they have concerns over public order.

 

[TremulousTetra]

i assume this is saying if the fash have the right to march agains yids why can't you march against the fash?

i'd reffer you backt o my post and ask you reread it. this is precisely what i haev said ou can have the freedom to march for or against anything...

so you support the free speech of anti-fascists to call for no platform?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

so you support the free speech of anti-fascists to call for no platform?

you can call for fish and chips to be deleivered to every home on a sunday if you like and i'll defned your right to say it; doesn't however mean tatic support for the cause you espouse however....

 

[TremulousTetra]

you can call for fish and chips to be deleivered to every home on a sunday if you like and i'll defned your right to say it; doesn't however mean tatic support for the cause you espouse however....

So you do indeed support the free speech of anti-fascists to call for no platform!

So you say anti-fascists are fascists. What is your definition of fascist?

PS. You don't support the cause or the tactic i espouse?

 

[Darios]

Sometimes a judgement call has to made. I'm not a fan of utilitarianism, but in this case the freedom of the few i.e. the fash to whom you'd give a platform, has to be weighed against the greater good of society and the citizens who live in that society.

What is the difference between this argument and the argument used by states again and again, both past and present, to destroy the "freedom of the few" for "the greater good of society"?

And context won't cut it - we're talking about the same species of argument.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

(1)So you do indeed support the free speech of anti-fascists to call for no platform!

(2a)So you say anti-fascists are fascists. (2b)What is your definition of fascist?

PS. (3)You don't support the cause or the tactic i espouse?

1 yes that's what i've said all along... but i don't support the call itself merely the right to call for it.

2a Nope not said that anywhere stop errecting Strawmen to support your argument and creating fictious arguments. It debases your point and invaildiates any logic contianed within it.

re anti fascists are fascists: that's not what i've said at all you need to put down your prejudices and look again at what i've said. any action by whoever, which seeks to prevent anothers action either forcefully or by outright legistlative rule is by definition fascist;

what is the difference between saying yids out and bnp out? is it not one sectarian group seeking to limit the expression or activities of another? what you find abhorent about the BNP is in fact very same action you are seeking to take against them. Then your vailidity, your mens rea, is in effect null, by becoming the thing you loath. now i accept that the finer points might be wholley different, however the methodology is mirror image identical. ergo if one is fasist by the actions taken so is the reverse.
2b fascist small f; collection of authroitarian actions designed to limit and control people, introduce monotype thought in order to reenforce the poltical dogma of Fasism large F; the political ideals of fascism which enforces the ideal that the greater good is more important the the needs of the indivual, as reenforced by the state.

what's your definitions?

3 i support your right to say whatever you choose to say. I may or may not support what you say however this agreement or nonagreement doesn't affect my support of your right to say it.

 

[chilango]

I think it is very important. The idea of no platform, is not calling for people to not be allowed to have political viewpoints. It is not calling for the banning of political parties. What it is calling for is for the right of people to promote fascist viewpoints to be denied. People who control them platforms have every right to deny access to those platforms, the BBC, universities, public buildings, and even the streets I would argue.

now you could argue this is attack upon freedom of speech. You are allowing me to think what I want, but you are not allowing me to say what I want. And it is true. The fascist are being denied civil liberties that other people enjoy. again this is something that happens every day, it is not something that just happens to fascist. Socialist worker cannot demand the BBC etc give it a platform for its views.

But denied by who?this is an important point too. The denial of these platforms should be the act of working-class people. Not the state. The state can be used by the people to deny this access, but it should come as a result of pressure. Pressure from "the masses". Or pressure through the organisations of working class people, trade unions etc. If anti-fascism is organised in that way, then I think you can rightly deny fascist even the right to use public spaces/the streets as a platform to fascism, because these are our streets.

Exactly.

 

[disownedspirit]

Exactly.

exactly

 

[Azrael]

I doubt there are many people who think "free speech [or expression] is an unconditional and unequivocal right."

Anyone who supports the First Amendment would think exactly that. That's rather a lot of people.

We do have limits on freedom of speech and expression, such as:
- preventing the distribution of child pornography
- preventing the incitement of racial hatred
- preventing people from encouraging others to carry out violent acts

A lot of confusion about what constitutes "free speech" on display here. Bans on child pornography and the incitement of violence are not restrictions on "free speech". (The freedom to give any opinion on any subject.) Banning the incitement of "racial hatred" is a restriction on free speech, and one I addressed a few pages back.

Supporting "some" free speech is a contradiction in terms. Free speech is an absolute. In true doublethink style everyone claims to support it but very, very few (at least in the UK) actually do. Free speech is not an easy thing to support: you have to allow loathsome people like Mr Griffin to say loathsome things.

Personally I think that debating where instead of whether to limit free speech is dangerous beyond the telling of it. It gives governments power they absolutely should not have, and like most tyrannical moves, it begins from the best of motives.

(As for facists deciding to march through streets with a high Jewish population while shouting "clear out the yids", that constitutes fighting words in anyone's book. Again, not an issue of "free speech". To give John Stuart Mill's quaint but effective example: stating that the Corn Laws are wrong is free speech; stating that the Corn Laws are wrong in front of a baying mob outside the farmer's house is incitement.)

 

[Azrael]

As for "no platform", that's a blatant attack on freedom of speech, and just goes to show that neither Left nor Right enjoy a monopoly on authoritarianism.

It also displays a telling mistrust of people's common sense. Free speech rests on the principle that dangerous ideas are best defeated with debate and not censorship. If people are so feeble they need protecting from Mr Griffin's half-baked gibberish, then by extension all manner of censorship is justified. The Reids and Howards of this world must love this argument.

Stick fascists on a platform and make them defend their odious incoherence. Watch them crumble. Censorship tells them that they're dangerous; tells them that you're afraid of what they say. Makes them think that they're speaking forbidden truths. Which is exactly what they want to hear.

 

[TAE]

I think both sides in this argument have good points. On the one hand I would not want to restrict the free speech of anyone, on the other hand I do not want the fascists poisoning the minds of those around me. Tough call.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Garfield, please try to believe me, I am not, I emphasise, I am not trying to bastardise your arguments. I am not trying to create strawmen. Just because you have written your logic clearly, doesn't necessarily mean I will interpret them in the way you want me to. This is the witness paradox, 10 people can see exactly the same events, and still give 10 different accounts of what happened. This is due to us all having our own "memory matrix". Okay, to the substance of your argument.

what is the difference between saying yids out and bnp out? is it not one sectarian group seeking to limit the expression or activities of another? what you find abhorent about the BNP is in fact very same action you are seeking to take against them. Then your vailidity, your mens rea, is in effect null, by becoming the thing you loath. now i accept that the finer points might be wholley different, however the methodology is mirror image identical. ergo if one is fasist by the actions taken so is the reverse.

you accept that the finer points may be wholly different, but before we come to that I have to give to you that you are mostly correct. It is exactly what the antifascist argume, that this action of no platform is an extreme action, not to be applied generally. Not to be applied to the Conservatives, reformist, or any other group. Nobody is denying it is a kind of mirror, to what the fascist are doing. Let me just illustrate this before going on to the finer points.

If you threaten me with a gun, am I wrong in picking up a knife to defend myself ? This is the analogy I would draw. Fascism threatens to at least ban all political opposition, and possibly throw them into concentration camps. In return I am against banning of fascist parties, responding with a lesser level of threat, to deny them a platform. So as I have already conceded there is some degree of mirroring of what the fascists want, but it doesn't go all the way, we do not want to ban fascist parties. But there is an even more important distinction.

any action by whoever, which seeks to prevent anothers action either forcefully or by outright legistlative rule is by definition fascist;

I don't see how this can be true. If the policemen tried to stop somebody from hurting somebody, he is not being a fascist. The state continually stops people from doing what they want to, this is not fascist. This is a much better definition in my opinion.

fascist small f; collection of authroitarian actions designed to limit and control people, introduce monotype thought in order to reenforce the poltical dogma of Fasism large F; the political ideals of fascism which enforces the ideal that the greater good is more important the the needs of the indivual, as reenforced by the state.

as you say a collection of authoritarian actions to control people to introduce monotype thought. I accept that no platform is extreme, but it is intended to maintain pluralist thought, not monotype thought, and so is distinguished from fascism. I'm sure you will concede this. You may think it is an inappropriate strategy, a counter productline strategy, but surely you can see it is not a fascist strategy.

PS. Azrael you are misinterpreting what has been said. this isn't anything to do with the left imposing anything, have a look again at what I said in the post and 42, which other no platform people agreed with

 

[Azrael]

PS. Azrael you are misinterpreting what has been said. this isn't anything to do with the left imposing anything, have a look again at what I said in the post and 42, which other no platform people agreed with

Read it first time around. It makes little difference to me if censorship comes from the people or from the state: censorship in any form attacks the priciples of free speech.

Personally I support free speech not as some abstract imperative, but because I believe open debate is the best way to attack and defeat the bankrupt and dangerous views held by Griffin and company.

 

[disownedspirit]

Read it first time around. It makes little difference to me if censorship comes from the people or from the state: censorship in any form attacks the priciples of free speech.

Personally I support free speech not as some abstract imperative, but because I believe open debate is the best way to attack and defeat the bankrupt and dangerous views held by Griffin and company.

sorry Azreal but freedom of speech is an abstract thing, if you think freedom of speech exists then try walking into work and telling your boss that he is a cunt, if you dont get sacked try telephoning his boss and calling him a kiddy raping whore

if after that you still have a job then maybe freedom of speech is alive and well, otherwise it is just freedom of speech for the fascists and not for me and you



i think mr mp3 has hit the nail on the head

 

[TremulousTetra]

Read it first time around. It makes little difference to me if censorship comes from the people or from the state: censorship in any form attacks the priciples of free speech.

Personally I support free speech not as some abstract imperative, but because I believe open debate is the best way to attack and defeat the bankrupt and dangerous views held by Griffin and company.

nobody is banning them, they are not denied their free speech. The community has every right to say you are not using our facilities as a platform for your heinous views, they are after all our facilities.

 

[Azrael]

sorry Azreal but freedom of speech is an abstract thing, if you think freedom of speech exists then try walking into work and telling your boss that he is a cunt, if you dont get sacked try telephoning his boss and calling him a kiddy raping whore

if after that you still have a job then maybe freedom of speech is alive and well, otherwise it is just freedom of speech for the fascists and not for me and you



i think mr mp3 has hit the nail on the head

Freedom is speech is the freedom to give any opinion you choose without being punished by the law. It is not the freedom to call your boss a cunt, tempting as that may be. So far as I'm aware, there's no "call your boss a cunt" exception for members of the BNP, England First, or any rag-tag facist set-up.

 

[Azrael]

nobody is banning them, they are not denied their free speech. The community has every right to say you are not using our facilities as a platform for your heinous views, they are after all our facilities.

Quite right too, I said as much a few posts back. I just questioned if this was the best way to deal with Griffin's mob.

Regardless, I'm sure Griffin will continue to have trouble booking venues.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garfield, please try to believe me, I am not, I emphasise, I am not trying to bastardise your arguments. I am not trying to create strawmen. Just because you have written your logic clearly, doesn't necessarily mean I will interpret them in the way you want me to. This is the witness paradox, 10 people can see exactly the same events, and still give 10 different accounts of what happened. This is due to us all having our own "memory matrix". Okay, to the substance of your argument.

but you are setting limits on an absolute, firstly this is an impossiblity, period, secondly to even attempt it you mst be damn sure of your argument and whatever noble notion you have of preventing a hienous group from promoting their maliginant viewpoints, it doesn't diminish that adopting the clothing of your enemies causes you to be mistaken for them in action.

extreme action does not begat extreme action. this is the route of relatiation, tit for tat tactics create escaliation not resolution.

you accept that the finer points may be wholly different, but before we come to that I have to give to you that you are mostly correct. It is exactly what the antifascist argume, that this action of no platform is an extreme action, not to be applied generally. Not to be applied to the Conservatives, reformist, or any other group. Nobody is denying it is a kind of mirror, to what the fascist are doing. Let me just illustrate this before going on to the finer points.

you are drawing an imaginery line in the sand you think for second that the conservatives or even labour wouldn't intern people based on race, ethnicity, relgious beliefs or poltical beliefs if they thoguht for a second they could get away with it... (some might argue they already do in far greater numbers than the BNP ever have).

you are also seeking to say this form of poltical belief is actually wrong, perverse or corrupt from within a ship in the bottle system. all forms of poltics is an extra layer on top of the daily workings of humanity all of it it's either a reactionary to it or incitement to involve oneself in it.

if you are going to have a no platform action then have it against all poltical dogmas not just one of them which you highlight as being the worst on a nondefined scale.

they are all as bad as each other, by this i mean any system which seeks to limit the freedoms in a prescribed method is a limitation on humanity, there might be more libveral agendas, more pleasent methodologies however go outside those confines and you will find yourself constrained.

you cannot win an argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lalalalala can't hear you, which is essentially what no platform does, it's not big is not clever more over in any decent society it's not an adult method of resolving conflict. This method only seeks to draw in conflict not to remove the barriers to conflict but to reenforce them. the only way to win an argument is to best it, prove it falacious, not to deny it.

If you threaten me with a gun, am I wrong in picking up a knife to defend myself ? This is the analogy I would draw.

daft analogy in real life if i had a gun i'm not going to let you near the knife draw... and besides i'd still be more likely to shot you than you would be to get to the knife get it to your hands and then attack me with it....

equally it suggests that you think that only by equallised action of similar extremity can you resolve difference. in poltical terms this simply isn't so. this is poltics of mutually assured destruction nothing less...

Fascism threatens to at least ban all political opposition, and possibly throw them into concentration camps.

no it doesn't Nazism seeks to do this, many would argue that in fact nazism wasn't any more representational of fascist poltics that stalinism is of communism. please try and at least not confuse the two; it trivialises the points you are making. really stay away from the reactionary hysteria and concentrait more on the actually facts on the ground. (and again if we're talking about modern day concentraition camps i'd suggest a visit to yarls wood... a detention centre in befordshire made famous by the fire and the lack of fire alarms etc....just so you have an idea of what the groups you don't oppose can do if you are outside of their prescribed limits...) there is no stated or unstated policy (they may have in private meetings but certianlly not which is publiclly avialble to my knowledge at least) by the BNP to have built any concentration camps. (judging by the level of whooping in the regular press about detention centres being a good thing i doubt few in this country would be against them after a little whipping into shape by the meejah anyways...sadly)

In return I am against banning of fascist parties, responding with a lesser level of threat, to deny them a platform. So as I have already conceded there is some degree of mirroring of what the fascists want, but it doesn't go all the way, we do not want to ban fascist parties. But there is an even more important distinction.

nope the destinction is clearl cut this way leads to trouble, you start with a nobel ideal and then quickely it descends into tolatitarianism.

for example the CJB/CJA (criminal justice and public order bill/act) started out being an attempt(in the parts i'm reffering it covered many things...) to protect land owners from illegal gatherings which cased misery and untold damage by illegal parties. a reasonable enough aim consdiering there were great problems at the time, this after several rewrites became the banning of any group over 3 meeting where there was playing of music made up of wholley or partially repeative beats with out prior consent of the local police... which is a barbarity making school discos illegal, home church groups illegal weddings birthday parties etc... it also was then used as the coruner stone to in introduce further and further stringent legislation tightien the screw for many many people including the introduction of asbos (the allowence of heresay as evidence in courts.) and finally the removeal of habius corpus.... from little accorns grow mighty oaks....

so no matter what the good intention once unleashed these things have a mind of their own and history has shown this tactic never ever resolves matters and largly makes things much worse for all not just the extremist group you intially wished to prevent.

this is why it's a shit tactic...

I don't see how this can be true. If the policemen tried to stop somebody from hurting somebody, he is not being a fascist.

sorry ami reading this right the indivual police officer mighten be a fascist but if you can find a more fascist organiseation which is legal i'd like to know. the whole concept of the bow street runners is inherently fascist organiseation (i'm begining to wonder at this point if this isn't an eleborate troll tbh)

The state continually stops people from doing what they want to, this is not fascist.

erm the state as a conept is also inherently fasicst...

This is a much better definition in my opinion.

but mine isn't an opinon based defintion; it's a poltically defined one that's the point isn't it? either you know what fascism really is or you don't, there isn't much opinion to be had on the matter anymore than you know what choclate is or you don't. you can't kinda know what choclate is. you can't have an opinion on what chocolate is, it's predefined, you are either in cocordance with that definition or you aren't. and if you aren't then you need to come up with a really good refined defintion of what choclate is which would be accepted to replace the current one. opinions don't enter into it. ever.

as you say a collection of authoritarian actions to control people to introduce monotype thought.

the accepted poltical defintion of facsim small f yes Fascim large F needs the colusion of the state and to have the needs of the many outweight the wishes of the few tacked on ...

I accept that no platform is extreme, but it is intended to maintain pluralist thought, not monotype thought, and so is distinguished from fascism. I'm sure you will concede this. You may think it is an inappropriate strategy, a counter productline strategy, but surely you can see it is not a fascist strategy.

nope it's not pluralist is it if seeks to prevent oneside from contributing.... it's monothought, authoritarian control of people and seeks to coerce and colude with the state in order to achive it's objective... don't hold your meeting or well raise merry hell around you with our protest... that's a direct threat. and one which is no less palttable becuase it's aim is a 'fluffy, nicey nice' ideal... goign back to your previous refference would it make it better if i painted teddybears and put a pink ribbon on the barrel of my gun, when i shoot you, so it shows a nicer intent?

PS. Azrael you are misinterpreting what has been said. this isn't anything to do with the left imposing anything, have a look again at what I said in the post and 42, which other no platform people agreed with

but it is imposing a will, an ideal, a perspective on others. period...

you will think like this otherwise it's verboten and you have commited thought crime.... you are free to to do as we tell you.... in other words...