h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I posted this on another site a short while ago and felt like posting it here too. I would post it in Ask but fear a flame war would ensue!

'Today I received, an email from PCS pertaining to a BNP conference and appearances at The Oxford Debating Society by Nick Griffin and David Irving.

Regarding the former: the email attachment suggests participating in the Unite Against Fascism demo outside the BNP's conference. Fair enough. It also suggest complaining to the people that run the hotel hosting the conference. This doesn't sit easily with me. The BNP are a legitimate, if (to my mind) somewhat offensive, political party. Would it really be ethical to suggest that the hotel proprietors deny their facilities on the grounds of their customers' political beliefs?* Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that we, as a union, stand against?

Regarding the latter: The Oxford Debating Society is just that: a debating society. They regularly book controversial guests and then, so I've been told, rip them to shreds. I think it's a good thing that we live in a nation where people who we vehemently disagree with have the right to put their point of view. If they are silenced how can we possibly counter their arguments?

We are lucky to have free speech but it works both ways: this PCS email seems to advocate freedom of speech for those we agree with while silencing those we don't.

Any thoughts?


*I'm not naive enough to think that the proprietors aren't BNP supporters, but one can't make that assumption.

I agree with you entirely Roymondo .... that's a lot of peoples view of free speech - only when I agree with it. We see it a lot in Northern Ireland.

We either have it or we don't, I daresay they'll all debate 'til their hearts content - but at the end of the day everyone will go home with the same views they arrived with.

Be the voice of reason in this

even.

I am trying to stir up the other forum a bit: it's home to the apathetic activists I've mentioned in the past. I figure that posting something like that should get some sort of response! Unless they all agree with me, which seems unlikely!

Exactamundo Roymondo Its freedom of speech or its no freedom of speech, it can never be freedom of speech *only in those cases that 'we'/'I' see to be right* that way is censorship pure and simple and non freedom of speech. AS vial and disgusting cretures as BMP members are I'd be equally disgusted if their freedom of speech was removed as I would for any other political group. Blimey. World war three just started outside my house where is the gas mask and the tin helmut best go hide in the basement

Yes I think you were probably wise not to post this in ASk Roy

I too agree that the debate should happen. In the last few years the BNP have tried to paint themselves as a really reasonable party, though that undercover film made last year, suggested very much otherwise.

Engaging these people with clever debate, and exposing the *truth* of them is definitely the way to go. Banning debate only lets them represent themseves to the world as poor martyrs being unreasonably gagged.

What about Holocaust deniers? Should they be free to put their theories forward? The BNP promote a racist agenda that isn't actually that different from the Islamists. The BNP discriminate on the basis of skin colour, Islamists (and religionists in general) on which sky pilot you point your bum at.

Personally, I'd like to see the BNP out in the open and their "policies" ripped to pieces because at the moment, there's an impression that they're "tough on immigration & the EU" at a time when a lot of people are concerned about these issues and the leading parties don't seem to have a handle on them.

Didn't someone long dead & famous (Oscar Wilde? Rupert Brook? Winston Churchill?) make a famous quote regarding this; along the lines of:

"I disagree totally with your opinion, but i will defend to the death your right to say it."

zdt

Re: holocaust deniers. The whole thing is so pathetic I wonder if I'm dreaming it. Banning someone for denying the holocaust? Making it a criminal offence? Ye gods. They must think he's got a pretty good argument if they're *that* scared of people hearing it.

*big glass of Devil's Advocaat going on there, but you know what I mean.

I'm with you all the way Roymondo

There are some bloody sick viewpoints about all sorts out there, but free speech is free speech. Anyway, it's good to see what the enemy have to say, so we know exactly why they're wrong

With regard holocaust deniers, I think its pretty daft in some ways in practice. But I can sort of understand why the Germans have the law. It's like a great big statement of ackowledgment about what the Nazis did in WW2, and how much they wish to face up to that. I think making the nazi salute is also illegal there. I think these laws will eventually change when the event receeds more and more into history and any idiots around who deny it will just be locked in looney bins Not sure if I'm right though. More devil's advocaat here.

It would certainly be crazy if we had the law here.

Devil's advocaat: Served in a shot glass. Half shot of gold schlagger (symbolising greed) floating half shot of advocaat (symbolising advocaat) floating tiny little band of Tabasco sauce. Snort the salt. Squeeze the lemon into your friend's eyeball. Sit down abruptly on the shot glass and perform a forward roll over the threshold of PC world.

Hang on a second. Free speech allows for unprincipled or immoral views. Doesn't that then apply to the people who want to try to stop other people saying things by saying that they should not be allowed to say them?

those things are strong.

My god that devil's adovocaat sounds good.

I was just putting forward the idea that because what happened in Germany was so impossibly appauling, in fact like many people I can still hardly get my head around it, in fact I myself sometimes wonder if it could be true that millions of people were systemantically murdered like that in a moderm western European country, because of their race or sexuality, that maybe it makes sense in the short term to enshrine the denial of it, in law, in the country where it happened.

It does make some sense to me, for the specific reasons I give, in that particular country, for a period of time.

And I'm absolutely not saying I'm sure that it's the best thing to do. I'm saying it makes sense to me on one level why they have what appears to be a quite ridiculous law.

I just broke my monitor and glasses. Bleedin' Devil's Advocaat.

Nice though.

I see your point Effers. I suppose that it will take a long time for the wounds to heal (I too have difficulty comprehending the scale of the holocaust) so wonder if the German law is not sop much about silencing a nay-sayer as it is about maintaining a tactful silence.

I don't think it's about a tactful silence at all. I went over there on an exchange and one of the first things my penfriend did(after giving me a veal sausage that made me vomit uncontrolably) was go through a book of photographs from concentration/death camps. It was heart rending stuff and he was crying and trying to explain that showing the pictures was important to stop such things ever happening again. And this is a fourteen year old.

That's just one thing though I guess.

Maybe they've had to do this in Germany (and Austria) because there are still a lot of people around who supoort or supported the holocaust. The Nazis didn't work in a vacuum - they were tremendously popular. Whereas in this country, facism has been utterly rejected by the vast majority whenever it rears it's head.

Which makes todays Queens Speech all the more surprising. Buried in the detail is a proposal for a Bill to allow unions to eject & refuse entry to members of political parties. The party named of course is the BNP, everyone's favourite boogeyman bye-word, but once the law is there how long before members of the Tories can't join a union, or Lib-Dems?

Why don't they just make the BNP illegal and be done with it?

Yeah it's a tricky one. 99.9% of the time I'm all for free speech, bacuse if people talk rubbish it's best to be able to confront it and show it for the rubbish it is. I'm not sure that holocaust denial is best not to be enshrined in law, unless its some kind of statement. I reckon it should be repealed fairly soon. They've made their point. I reckon the vast majority of people will just ignore the deniers as idiots, because there's huge amounts of evidence, however much the deniers witter on.

I think all law is a kind of statement. Although if it wasn't a couple of sneaky ones that were would be pretty bad.

You have the right to scream your head off. Anything you scream your head off about may be used against you in a court of law. We do not have the right to deny you a blanket or potty, but we might do it anyway if you keep being cheeky.

Have to say I agree Romondo shotrly before leaving the council's direct employ where I was a member of Unison there was a creepy circular from the union.

Following the election of a record number of BNP councillors it urged all members to go on a demo and to refuse to communicate with or follow any orders or requests from BNP councillors

Now I can guess why you kept this off ask and so you can probably guess how I feel about the BNP but refusing to deal with democratically elected officials on the grounds of their politics is much more of a kick in the teeth to the electors than to the counicilors.

What gives the union the right to subvert democracy in this way?

On another thread we are discussing how men dont talk about health and let cancers grow, the consensus seems to be that getting things out in the open and dealing with them is the best way to do things. i think the same applies here.

one love