Phone a fascist
Glad to see my old student union is still run by sensible types who won’t allow idiot journos to give a platform to the BNP.
About Antonia
I'm a Labour councillor for Rose Hill and Iffley ward in Oxford. More information about me here.
Email: Click here and delete NOSPAM
More information
Recent Comments
- Martyn Leman: And thanks
- Martyn Leman: Antonia, drop me a line and I'll explain what I've been through over the last few years. This really is...
- Mark: Nice to see you back.
- Antonia: It's down Martyn. Don't get so over-excited.
- Martyn Leman: PLEASE REMOVE THE ABOVE POST IMMEDIATELY. THIS POST CONTAINS PERSONAL EARNINGS INFORMATION AND LIBELOUS...
Categories
Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
- September 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
Friends who blog
Labour etc
Feminist
Definitely not Labour
Other
Subscribe
And glad to see certain Lib Dems are still happy to be useful idiots for the far right whenever they get the chance…
“Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, has attacked the no-platform policy, arguing that it only serves to sidestep political issues.”
A Lib-Dem complaining about political issues being sidestepped? They might as well have interviewed a kettle about a pot being black.
Do you equally agree with restricting freedom of speech for Galloway, Repsect and terroist apologists?
I’m curious you see. If you do then good. I look forward to your outrage at them being given platform. After all, both the BNP and Respect are scumbags right?
And if you’re wondering, I would give a platform to all of them. Then I’d rip their arguments apart with reason.
Dizzy,
Do you understand the difference between ‘not being invited on to a student radio programme’ and ‘restrictions on freedom of speech’. Does the fact, for example, that you and I haven’t been invited to appear on it mean that our freedom of speech has been restricted?
Freedom of Speech…
Glad to see that this Labour Party councillor believes in freedom of speech and open discussion….
Oooh, what an odious person you are.
Do the good burghers of Oxford know you’re planning the overthrow of freedom and liberty from the bowels of their fair town?
You know, it does seem you are being a tremendous hypocrite. Obnoxious though the BNP are, they have not bombed civilians in Iraq unlike Blair.Like the Labour Party the BNP is basically a socialist organisation: just read their collectivist policies, in other words the BNP is a party of the left.
And like all parties that seek to attain government, they should be engaged in full open debate, their policies exposed and demolished. Its quite easy really-
Umm…
Why are you frightened to listen to the BNP?
Is it because compared to your Fascist Nulabour leader, who invades countries and murders their inhabitants on the direction of an American oil; millionaire, even the BNP are going to look restrained and liberal?
So in effect you believe in freedom of speech, but only when it agrees with your own ideas. Maybe you should think back to the days when Mrs Thatchers government banned comments by certain Irish political speakers/groups and the howlings out outrage from the left wing over that.
Seems that you have more in common with a fromer Tory government than you care to own up to.
Don Paskini,
There is a huge difference. If I am not invited to speak to Oxide, that is fair enough. If, however, there is a policy to stop me being invited to speak to Oxide because of my beliefs then are we better than the BNP at all?
The best way to take on these people is through open discussion and debate. If they are as disgusting, stupid and repugnant as people surely your average Labour councillor would be able to take them on?
Would Oxide a few years ago have been allowed to speak to Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed? Probably…
RS
[...] Like I said. [...]
“Do you understand the difference between ‘not being invited on to a student radio programme’ and ‘restrictions on freedom of speech’.”
Do you understand the difference between ‘not being invited on to a student radio programme’, and ‘being invited onto a student radio programme but that programme being forcibly cancelled by the students’ union’? Pillock.
Stumbled upon this. Antonia - glad to see that the dreaming spires didn’t knock the hypocrisy out of you. You’re still every bit as cringe-worthy.
Not allowing a legal, democratic party to have a voice. Very ‘NuLab.’ Still, you can’t stifle people’s thoughts yet, can you.
The student union is perfectly well entitled to decide who appears on the radio station, and even has democratic structures where its decision can be held to account and challenged. Speaking on Oxide cannot, by definition, be a right. The BNP have a strategy where they want to be seen as a legitimate political party which gets invited on to things like this, and will be angry that this opportunity has been denied to them.
There are plenty of opportunities to debate with the BNP on t’internet if that’s something which you are keen to do, and let me know how you get on with exposing their ideas in debate (you might want to try and do a bit of research or come up with a better quality of argument first though, if this thread is representative of your usual standard, mind).
Better still, rather than whining when OUSU denies fascists a platform to help them gain respectability, why not go and do something useful like campaign against them in the upcoming local elections if you are that bothered about challenging their ideas?
Dear Reactionary Snob, dodgy geezer, Ross Parker, Fidothedog,
I’m assuming none of you actually are BNP or Nazis (if you are I hope you snap out of it soon) but basically decent people.
This notion that:
“The best way to take on these people is through open discussion and debate.”
Is there an evidence base you can make reference to for that or is that something which simply believe is true and have never really thought about?
I ask because once upon a time - when I was young and I first went to university - I thought that too, and then someone - Dan in fact - pulled me up on it and I changed my view. But consider, as I did then, the following points:
(i) there are all sorts of revolting minority views that neither you nor I agree with in the world, and we do not in fact believe that for most of them the way to tackle them is to give them the oxygen of publicity.
(ii) The media, for all their faults, also usually realize this. You will not see on the television sharp-suited cannibals defend their practices, nor wannabe rapists outlining their position on the insignificance of women’s views and wishes. Nor yet will you see people who dream of being axe murderers being given the chance to defend the position that their favoured activity is as normal and acceptable as mountain-walking. Student radio does not invite people on air to make the case for paedophilia. Why, exactly, should Nazism be different?
(iii) the argument that reason can defeat nonsense and evil is a correct one. But it is only true ceteris paribus (all other things being equal). And, apart from anything else (social factors, for example, and the existence of mass media) often it takes a lot longer to show that something is nonsense than it does to say something that is nonsense. If you offer ten minutes to a person talking offensive malignant nonsense and ten to a person who has to debunk it all, you are weighing the scales in favour of the nonsense-speaker.
(iv) If it were genuinely true that the best way to combat fascism and the spread of fascism in the United Kingdom was to have open debates everywhere so people could decide the issue afresh in each generation (perhaps afresh in each week?), then the governments of all countries concerned to stop Nazism would be funding BNP speakers on soapboxes on street corners, albeit with a nice liberal speaker. There would be a state-funded Racist Roadshow, as racists went round the country exposing their views, fists, etc., and allowing liberals to follow them about explaining in detail how it wasn’t true. You may have noticed this doesn’t happen: you probably think it’s absurd - all I would suggest is that it is a corollary of the notion that giving these revolting people a platform to spread their views is the best way to defeat them, and that if you find it an absurd idea, you should reconsider your opposition to no-platform policies.
I hope you’ll change your mind. I did.
“Is there an evidence base you can make reference to for that or is that something which simply believe is true and have never really thought about?”
You’ve not been watching this series of Shipwrecked then.
The shocking and concerning rise of the BNP in local politics is the product of the supposed ignorance of the main parties.
You do yourself and Labour no favours by supporting censorship of extreme left-wing democratic parties whether they’re vile or not. Respect is as vile by the way.
Hello all,
That’ll teach me to post and then go away for the weekend!
Dizzy - no, I wouldn’t no platform RESPECT or George Galloway. Their views are not mine, but they aren’t racist or fascist. Some of the more radical Islamists active in the UK at the moment, though, may well fall within the type of no platform policy I support - Hisb’ut Tahrir, for example.
When I was at university, the debating society (called, unhelpfully, the Oxford Union) invited David Irving to speak. In their arrogance, they asserted that the intelligence of Oxford students would easily rebut his Holocaust denying antics; of course, it took a judge hundreds of pages to do just that in the libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, so forgive me for not believing that all that is needed to do down the fascists is some well-turned phrases. And even if the no-platformed speaker were allowed to speak and comprehensively rebutted, they still get to boast about speaking on “Oxford University radio”. I wouldn’t want to give them one extra ounce of credibility.
Friends who joined us from Tim Worstall’s / Devil’s Kitchen: hello, welcome. Try to play nice - we’re generally polite to one another here, though I know that may be hard for you.
Machiavelli - not planning the overthrow of freedom and libert, no, but thanks for your concern.
Struan - not exercised whether the BNP are left or right, just in making sure that their wrong politics gets no foothold in the UK.
Dodgy geezer - yes, do bandy around words like fascist, it strengthens your case so.
Fido - don’t think I ever claimed to be in favour of freedom of speech - I think the right to live in safety is more important.
Ross Parker - do I know you?
Malcolm - people get to believe what they want. They don’t get to inflict racism and fascism using public money or to the members of organisations that set their own rules.
Gavin - I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Don and Tim - thanks for holding the fort while I’ve been away.
“Fido - don’t think I ever claimed to be in favour of freedom of speech - I think the right to live in safety is more important.”
This, of course, was Labour MP Nick Palmer’s line on 18DS when I raised concerns over the Violent Offender Orders. He defended the government’s right to arbitrarily restrict one’s freedom when one has not been convicted of anything by using this argument.
I believe that Charlie Clarke (and Princess Toni) used the same argument to justify the restrictions on personal liberty that he introduced after 7/7; something like, “the ultimate human right is to walk the streets in safety”.
It is a very poor argument: to restrict people’s freedom in the name of freedom is hypocritical and dangerous.
DK
Antonia: it may have taken a judge 100 pages to conclusively prove that David Irving is an anti-semite and a crap historian, but when BNP press officer Phil Edwards was interviewd by The Lip magazine he managed to make a complete arse of himself in the space of two pages.
So you say that and I quote your own words here that “don’t think I ever claimed to be in favour of freedom of speech - I think the right to live in safety is more important.”
Yes I agree in part, however freedom of speech is also important be that from George Galloway, radical islamic clerics or anyone else no matter how barking that persons/organisation is and lets face it you can not get any more barking(or is that purring?) that George Galloway.
Anyway back to the BNP, a large part for there rise is that fact that we get soundbites from other parties and denying that a platform will only allow then to bash Labour, claim infringement of there views and so and so forth.
On a final note I agree with DK on this one, that restrictions on freedom damage us all.
‘Machiavelli - not planning the overthrow of freedom and libert, no, but thanks for your concern.’
what we have seen recently is that this means freedom and liberty as defined by the Labour Party
this so far unstoppable rise of authoritarianism is such that maybe the time has come for Labour to be ‘no-platformed’ too….
“what we have seen recently is that this means freedom and liberty as defined by the Labour Party”
Who should define what freedom and liberty are if not the democratically elected government? The opposition? Guardian readers? John Rawls?
Well the Guardian seem to already hold the idea that they know what is best for us mere plebs, those who disagree with its St. Polly of Poor Facts should be talked down to and patted on the head until they become good socialists.
Sounds a tad like our government of late…
Tim F
I’m no fan of the USA, but when they quit the UK, they had the sense to draw up a Constitution and Bill of Rights that ultimately safeguards every person’s right to freedom of speech, association and thought, irrespective of who or whatever is returned as the democratically elected government.
Here, we don’t have an equivalent, and what we have is the Labour government, elected by a mere 22%, legislating their brand of ‘received truth’ on everyone else, with little that the majority can do to counter it, no matter how out of touch or wrong many of us see it to be. At the same time, the right and opportunity to protest is being gradually whittled away and removed.
There is now legislation on the books that makes it illegal to be, think or act differently from some of the government’s visions, with more on the way. This is irrespective of whether or not these aspirations are grounded in reality or not, and often merely just reflect the prejudices of the different groups of supporters or cronies it choses to listen to
The deluge of legislation has ‘criminalised’ so many things that lots of people don’t see as intrinsically wrong, and in the recent past would never have remotely been condidered to be crimes at all.
We never had any real libertarianism, but what little we had seems to being killed off before our eyes
The ‘no-platform’ stance put forward here is merely another part of this insideous ideology in practice, and I would oppose it if it were the product of Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems, the unspeakable BNP - or even the Guardianistas.
“I’m no fan of the USA, but when they quit the UK, they had the sense to draw up a Constitution and Bill of Rights that ultimately safeguards every person’s right to freedom of speech, association and thought, irrespective of who or whatever is returned as the democratically elected government.”
sorry, I don’t like written constitutions - I think they’re undemocratic and they stagnate political culture. And the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect everyone. It didn’t protect slaves when it was drawn up and it doesn’t protect inmates at Guantanamo bay now.
“Here, we don’t have an equivalent, and what we have is the Labour government, elected by a mere 22%, legislating their brand of ‘received truth’ on everyone else, with little that the majority can do to counter it, no matter how out of touch or wrong many of us see it to be. At the same time, the right and opportunity to protest is being gradually whittled away and removed.”
Labour won a general election. Three in a row, in fact. When you talk about “the majority” who share your opinions I can’t help but wonder if you’re mistaking the majority for those with the educational background and financial clout to shout louder than other people. If a majority of people really felt Labour’s “insidious ideology” ran through everything our government does, I don’t think we would’ve won so many elections. On protest, that’s no change. Nothing Labour has done to prevent protests has been worse than what Thatcher made the police do to the miners.
“There is now legislation on the books that makes it illegal to be, think or act differently from some of the government’s visions, with more on the way. This is irrespective of whether or not these aspirations are grounded in reality or not, and often merely just reflect the prejudices of the different groups of supporters or cronies it choses to listen to”
By legislation that makes it illegal to be, think or act differently from the government, are you referring to recently passed legislation preventing service providers from discriminating against gay people? Of course legislation reflects prejudices of different groups of supporters. But some prejudices (against rich people, against paedophiles) are legitimate and others (against black people, against women) aren’t.
“The deluge of legislation has ‘criminalised’ so many things that lots of people don’t see as intrinsically wrong, and in the recent past would never have remotely been condidered to be crimes at all.”
In the relatively recent past people didn’t consider slavery to be a crime. Now they do. Political culture moves on, and if government legislation doesn’t reflect the attitudes of the society we live in there’s something wrong.
Commenting directly on no platform, I would ban the BNP if I could, seize their membership rolls and prevent them from joining other political parties or trade unions. I think we have to smash their organisation and I don’t care how we do it. If we can do it through argument, fair enough. But it’s a tactical decision, not a principled one. Free speech is a luxury, not an inalienable right. I don’t give my enemies guns to shoot me with.
fascinating…..
DonPaskini,
”The student union is perfectly well entitled to decide who appears on the radio station, and even has democratic structures where its decision can be held to account and challenged.”
I agree entirely. However, I think it neither wise nor prudent to bar a legitimate political party from speaking on a radio show. I despise the BNP and everything they stand for… however, if we agree that they are a legitimate party (and we must if they are allowed to stand in elections) I cannot see why we should treat them differently to other parties.
‘Speaking on Oxide cannot, by definition, be a right.’
I don’t think I ever claimed it was. My point was merely that there was a huge difference between choosing not to invite someone and having a written policy not to invite someone because of their views.
‘The BNP have a strategy where they want to be seen as a legitimate political party which gets invited on to things like this, and will be angry that this opportunity has been denied to them.’
Of course they will be. My point was, why not get them on the show and ask them some questions. Such as ‘Do you really think it was a sensible policy to ban all Muslims from flying into and out of this country last summer as it says on page x of your website?’.
‘There are plenty of opportunities to debate with the BNP on t’internet if that’s something which you are keen to do, and let me know how you get on with exposing their ideas in debate (you might want to try and do a bit of research or come up with a better quality of argument first though, if this thread is representative of your usual standard, mind).’
Ho ho ho. What is the point of arguing in cyberspace? Get them into the public spotlight - on TV, on radio, in student unions and highlight them for what they are.
”Better still, rather than whining when OUSU denies fascists a platform to help them gain respectability, why not go and do something useful like campaign against them in the upcoming local elections if you are that bothered about challenging their ideas? ”
I would contend that you give them respectability by not allowing them to speak - they can then claim, legitimately, that they are being denied the freedom of speech, that every other party can speak to Oxide but not them. This is not a terrorist group that we are talking about, although the Oxford Union allowed Gerry Adams to speak in the 1980s, but a party allowed to stand in elections.
I would happily campaign against, debate against and, if needs be, stand against the BNP. I view them as a social ill, but I believe the reason they are gaining numbers is, among many other reasons, they can claim that they aren’t listened to, aren’t given exposure.
If these people are as repugnant, disgusting and repellent as you seem to think why not have faith in the British public to see that?
RS
sorry, I don’t like written constitutions - I think they’re undemocratic and they stagnate political culture. And the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect everyone. It didn’t protect slaves when it was drawn up and it doesn’t protect inmates at Guantanamo bay now.
You do realise that there is a democratic process to change the US constitution, right? And that that process has been used on a number of occasions? You realise that the bar for such a change is set rather high on purpose?
Your version of democracy sounds to me rather like the tyranny of the majority. You are the proverbial wolves voting with the sheep over what’s for dinner.
Let’s consider, say, joining the Euro. If the majority wanted to join it, we should, because that would be democratic, right? What about if we were to hold a referendum every few years, to find that the percentages in favour of the Euro were 43%, 48%, 42%, 37%, 52%. Do you suddenly declare that a majority of people support the Euro, and go ahead and join? Do you think that’s a democratic action?
Political culture moves on, and if government legislation doesn’t reflect the attitudes of the society we live in there’s something wrong.
So if a majority of people decide that adultery is wrong, say, the government of the day should legislate to make it illegal. If society turns to religion, and becomes dominated by “fundamentalist” Christians and/or Muslims, we should go back to imprisoning gays?
“the bar for such a change is set rather high on purpose”
I think that’s a problem. It means the moral logic of an earlier generation is put on a pedestal. It’s easier to change
“Your version of democracy sounds to me rather like the tyranny of the majority. You are the proverbial wolves voting with the sheep over what’s for dinner.”
All collectivism is to some extent the tyranny of the majority. Better that than the tyranny of the minority.
“What about if we were to hold a referendum every few years, to find that the percentages in favour of the Euro were 43%, 48%, 42%, 37%, 52%. Do you suddenly declare that a majority of people support the Euro, and go ahead and join? Do you think that’s a democratic action?”
If the referenda were advertised as binding there would be little voice. But the paradigm is a little odd. Do you think we should have regular referendums as a kind of state equivalent of MORI?
“So if a majority of people decide that adultery is wrong, say, the government of the day should legislate to make it illegal. If society turns to religion, and becomes dominated by “fundamentalist” Christians and/or Muslims, we should go back to imprisoning gays?”
There’s a peculiar kind of liberal atomism embedded in your logic. Moral logic isn’t the domain of individuals making decisions which are subsequently aggregated. Neither are there set procedural rules about what “should” happen given various types of societal change. Politics is about power.
Sorry for leading the topic off the central point, though amusingly we’re getting very close to discussing the academic other Tim namechecked in an earlier comment.
I’m not going to get too heavily into this, suffice to say that I rejected the idea of ‘no platform’ a long time ago as counterproductive for reasons that this thread make perfectly clear - it merely allows the BNP to claim that they’re being censored and lay claim to a piece of moral high ground they do not deserve.
The way to deal with the BNP is to ensure that their view do not go unchallenged.
However, to those of you trying to up the US Bill of Rights, can I just point out that the First Amendment starts with ‘Congress shall make no laws…’
While, in the US, the state cannot limit free expression, except in certain circumstances - e.g. the classic shouting ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre, and the are ‘hate speech’ laws in a number of states - the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, so the comparison in the case is a facile one.
Unity,
I’d be interested in hearing more about your views on no platform.
I think the BNP get far more from being interviewed by a couple of student journos who aren’t as clever as they think they are (with the BNP spokesperson therefore running rings round the interviewers) than they do from being denied that opportunity. Every other political party or cause loses far more than it gains when restricted in access to the media, and the reward of being able to say ‘We are being censored’ doesn’t seem to outweigh the negatives.
‘the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, so the comparison in the case is a facile one’
Sure, the radio is within its rights to interview or not to. No problem with that, even if some of us don’t like the basis on which it chooses not to
On freedom of speech, as a broader issue, and who determines what our freedoms and liberties should be, I merely expressed the view that I should rather have, however imperfect, something like
‘Her Majesty’s Government’ shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This would at least provide some protection against the present government, or any other elected government for that matter, from imposing its particular prejudices on all of us
That didn’t seem too unreasonable to wish for - albeit I realise that it is a total waste of time to have any real expectation thereof - from any UK government
Slight problem with not establishing a religion - we’d have to disestablish the one we’ve already got first, but then I’m game for that - but otherwise, yes, a constitutional guarantee of free expression, etc would be a good thing.
Of course, what you also do in the process is place a defined limit on Parliament’s sovereignty, but again that an egg I’ll happily see broken in return for a decent omelette.
One of the reason I pointed out the limitation on the First Amendment was simply that having spent much time in past debating on US political forums, that one used to come out all the time whenever a moderator tried to step in to curb a particularly egregious use of ‘free speech’ by a poster.
It’s a common fallacy amongst many Americans that the First Amendment applies everywhere, and boy do they whine well told that it doesn’t.
Don: I will write something on no platform, but not here - it would be too long for a comment and this is Antonia’s blog, not mine.
I don’t normally leave comments simply plugging my own blog posts. But since I did one addressing a lot of these issues ages ago, and I can’t be bothered to write all the arguments again, I will:
http://letsbesensible.blogspot.com/2005/02/nick-griffin-and-freedom-of-speech.html
Tim F:
If the referenda were advertised as binding there would be little voice. But the paradigm is a little odd. Do you think we should have regular referendums as a kind of state equivalent of MORI?
The scenario I described appears to be almost exactly the gameplan of the supporters of the “EU Constitution”. Their response to having some countries decide not to ratify that document is to wait a couple of years, then try again. It is particularly odious and anti-democratic, because signing up to the EU Constitution is a more or less irreversible process. Supporters of the EU Constitution only have to succeed in getting support once, whereas its opponents have to win every time the subject comes up.
This is (one reason) why I consider some form of supermajority to be far more appropriate than a simple majority in such cases.
Good to see the Left are as keen as ever to preserve our freedoms… Perhaps you will ban Tories from speaking in the Lords?
Raw Carrot: who’s “our”? Fascists?
No, I refer to the British people, and while you may strongly disagree with the BNP on their policies that is no reason to have them banned as seems the intention of the Left.
Having said that, I’ll let you ban the BNP/National Front/Tories/UKIP if I can ban parties with a statist agenda as statism really deeply offends and upsets me - probably as much as the BNP upset you.
Fair deal?
P.S. Shouldn’t you try to rehabilitate “fascists” (referral order/ASBO anyone?) rather than just punish them?
I haven’t suggested banning the Tories. One thing at a time.
It’s not simply a matter of strong disagreement; they’re fascists. I think parties openly organising for fascism should be banned. I think parties openly stirring up racial hatred should be banned. Yes, I disagree with them, but that’s not why I’m suggesting they should be banned - otherwise we’d have to ban the Lib Dems, Greens, Respect etc as well.