|
U-Know! Forum » rightwing Dutch politician assassinated |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
cancer boy 977 posts |
May 07, 2002, 17:23
|
||
|
>Tho as its from an article in the >Daily Torygraph, I do find it hard to >believe anythig thats in there. The news coverage is normally pretty accurate, you must be thinking of their editorial pages ;)
|
|||
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
May 07, 2002, 17:27
|
||
You're right that there are no absolutes as regards people's experiences informing their political beliefs. Some of black culture has produced some of the most vocally homophobic bullshit around, for example. However, there IS undoubtedly a greater propensity for gay people to question deeper the beliefs and values which 'straight' society takes for granted. When you say 'What's being gay got to do with anything?' you're denying the fact that, as Merrick has pointed out, this guy felt his sexuality was under attack from Islamic culture. This seems central to what formulated the guy's ideas. He had already gone through some degree of social exclusion by being gay, so evidently felt able to grasp the nettle and espouse a view which ostracised him further from much of the society he lived in. I'd say that in this case being gay has a lot to do with it. The press are approaching it from the wrong angle maybe, but homophobia seems to have been a pretty important motivator for him.
|
|||
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
May 07, 2002, 18:42
|
||
|
too right I don't buy all this "I'm against Islam, but not Muslims" crap ... these people are bigots, just with a shiny suit and a smile. I've gone steaming into crews of BNP/NF/Blood and Honour types often enough in my past to stand as a hypocrite if I was really that upset that he was gone .... I don't really go for murder myself, but Tears for Dead Fascists? not today, I'm afraid. Too many innocent people dying of war and god knows what else each day to feel sorry for http://www.guilfin.net/gallery/?id=pxINET614 RG
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 07, 2002, 18:47
|
||
|
'sorry, but that is overwhelmingly what racists & nazi's DO say today - "yes its all very well in there own country, but not in mine"' Three things with this: one, just cos racists and Nazis would agree with something you say, that doesn't make you racist or Nazi. If Hitler said water is wet I wouldn't agrue that it was dry. Two; many racists and Nazis generally say that it isn't alright in any country. Three: That's not what Pim Fortuyn was saying. His statement was that Islamic culture is extremely repressive and homophobic and such values have no place in a tolerant society, that such values in individuals are clearly disapproved of and threrefore culturally they should be diapproved of. (I'd fully agree with that, and chuck Judaism and Christianity into the bag too, btw.) 'Have the police and the tories really killed more people than the Nazi’s? Of course they have. But is that violence there MAIN orgainising tool?' The threat of violence is precisely what gives the police all their power. It - and our fear of it - is their only source of strength, their only organising tool. 'I think the ANL are actually very clear in not just calling any racist a fascist/nazi' This simply ain't true. There are lampposts on my street with ANL stickers against the BNP saying 'Don't Vote Nazi'. Whilst 'nazi' has powerful emotive value, it is inaccurate and easily disproven and thus makes it look like the ANL are crying wolf. '(I see no meaningful difference between those two terms).' Fascism is a centralised form of nationalistic government with little power of democratic change and usually a strong militaristic bent. Nazism is fascism with a far greater emphasis placed on dictatorial principles and the strong power of the state and the subservience of the individual to the state. People like Berlusconi and Fortuyn are clearly not Nazis. They are deeply ideologically opposed to essential parts of Nazi thinking. They want *less* state control, *less* public spending. Thus I do say categorically that Pim Fortuyn was not a Nazi. The BNP are not Nazis. Saying they are only makes the accuser look like Rick in the Young Ones calling any authority figure a fascist. It actually works against the genuine threats that racists present. "And finally, actually I would agree with Mr B, he did know what he was doing, and what he was risking. In the same way that I do when I go on anti-nazi demo’s/actions. " In which case, if you get killed by a bunch of NF twats, should we dismiss it with a casual 'he knew the risks'?? Or should we oppose the killing of people for using their freedom of speech?
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 07, 2002, 18:53
|
||
|
'Free speech is fine up to a point.' If you don't believe in freedom of speech for opinions you dislike then you don't believe in freedom of speech. That's fine, and there are certainly good ideas against freedom of speech, but you can't deny freedom of speech and claim to support it. 'evil should have no platform.'. Who gets to decide what is evil? 'As soon as one person begins to espouse views against minority groups attempting to live in peace in another country then he or she risks this sort of treatment.' They do indeed. I've heard people say this about people on MayDay demonstrations, Carlo Giuliani, Martin Luther King. You are saying that by *risking* it he *deserved* it. Which is a nonsense.
|
|||
necropolist 1689 posts |
May 07, 2002, 21:48
|
||
|
Many good and interesting points there. Yes of course its true that occasionally we do agree with racists/fascists – but incredibly rarely on the question of race. ‘Modern’ racists and fascists (or perhaps I should say speakers for fascist parties) are rarely as crude as to simply say ‘I hate black people, they are sub-human’, because they know that isn’t an argument that will win many supporters. So it becomes an argument about culture, and ‘protection’ of ‘our’ culture. This not only allows them to find more supporters in this country, it also allows them to find allies in foreign countries –for instance amongst the Hindu nationalists. The moron Beacon, and other BNP leaders, leaders of the Italian fascist party, and many others have used this line when they try to say they’re not racist – its just about protecting ‘our’ values. But of course with them its obvious bullshit. Did Fortuyn actually use that line of argument? I’m not an expert on the bugger by any means, like everybody else (I assume) I’ve only read the same articles that have been in the papers/quoted on here in the last day or two. But from what I’ve read I am very suspicious about his using being gay to justify another bigotry. Clearly a well-read and in many ways intelligent man, I find it impossible to believe that the only time he came across homophobia in religious/cultural work when reading Islamic material. As you say Merrick, there’s just as much bigotry in the other main religions, so why did he not choose to MENTION those? To solely mention Islam? There is no intellectual rationale, so for me, it must be a basic racist bigotry.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
May 07, 2002, 21:49
|
||
|
Okay, next point….is violence the main threat used by the police? I don’t think it is actually. Clearly its always there in the background, and very frequently it is pushed to the foreground, and does become the main tool they use. But on a day-to-day basis what they mainly use is the threat of removal of liberty. If you were to tot up the percentage of time the police spent being actively violent in the pursuit of their aims, and the percentage of time fascists use similarly, I’d be fairly sure the fascists would come out on top. As it were. As for the distinction between fascism and nazism, I’m kind of amazed at your argument. From what you wrote, nazi’s are just the same as fascists, but more so. So doesn’t that mean they are basically the same? There are no fundamental differences (as there are between right-wing tories and fascists), so I think we may as well call them by the same name. And I prefer to call these people ‘nazi’s’, because, yes it reminds people of Hitler, and the real face of fascism. It leaves no stone for the scum to hide under, and that’s a good thing. And from your description of fascism, well its very vague (as of course it would have to be when you have to put it in a couple of sentences) and would include all sorts of regimes I would call right-wing, authoritarian, dictatorial, but not fascist (Pinochet’s Chile, Iraq, Saudi Arabia for example). I DO think its important to define such terms well, and not bandy them about to freely as it demeans them. But when you see a nazi you call them a fucking nazi. >The BNP are not Nazis. Saying they are only makes the accuser look like Rick in the Young Ones calling any authority figure a fascist. Uhh, come again? If you’re gonna say something like that at least try and justify it! Look at YOUR definitions (fascism = centralised, anti-democratic, nationalist, individual subservience to the state – nazism = the same but ‘far greater subservience & more dictatorial) and tell me why that doesn’t fit the BNP? Sorry, but it sounds like you’re rejecting the description of them as Nazi’s simply because its what the ANL call them. Berlusconi/Fortuyn & fascism. From what I’ve read, neither of them, probably are out and out fascists. I do not believe in there supposed anti-statism tho. Again, fascist/nazi parties (not to mention Thatcher) used exactly such arguments before they took power – they were on the side of the little people supposedly don’t forget – its just that they were lying! Of course this doesn’t mean that Fortuyn/Berlusconi were necessarily lying, but it is worthy of note I think. Especially when you look at there allies. I gather Fortuyn didn’t really have any, as his organisation was to nascent to have made any real ones yet, but look at Berlusconi. He may not be a fascist, but a hell of a lot of his friends are. Which makes him incredibly suspect and untrustworthy on any issue where race is concerned. Freedom of speech is another thing, but as I’ve just realised I’ve filled two pages of A4 with my ramblings so far…I think I’ll try and save it and use it as the start of a whole new thread instead. peace, love & revolution
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
May 08, 2002, 08:44
|
||
|
I think I fully agree with you Merrick, but .... >> (I'd fully agree with that, and >> chuck Judaism and Christianity >> into the bag too, btw.) Too right ... but why didn't he do so? Was Islam an easier target? I presume he aimed at them as a minority and chose not to attack the other religions. Singling out one enemy is a Nazi tactic. So that doesn't fit somehow. >> 'Have the police and the tories >> really killed more people than the >> Nazi’s? Of course they have. Erm .... which Nazis are you refering to? Not the ones that killed 9 million Jews and 20+ million Russians in WWII obviously.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
May 08, 2002, 08:51
|
||
|
We all laughed when Dubya said "There should be limits to freedom" And I laugh at you now! People can say what they like. But the masses should be educated in such a way as to be capable of realising that these people are spouting shit. As Merrick said, many people said that Martin Luther King was a dangerous man with dangerous ideas. By your own critria he would have been silenced because the majority disagreed with him. My main concern is still why Fortyum didn't raise issue with other religions too. What he said was unfortunately correct about Islam threatening his lifestyle, but he forgot to say that all religion does exactly that too.
|
|||
|
Mr B 53 posts |
May 08, 2002, 12:19
|
||
|
'If you don't believe in freedom of speech for opinions you dislike then you don't believe in freedom of speech' Sorry Merrick but the stance of extreme right wingers arent 'opinions' and dont deserve rational debate. I would like to hear you saying 'lets hear what they have to say' when the bastards are jackbooting down your street or firebombing your fucking house. I would love a nice cosy world where there is tolerant philosophical debate amongst all, but it wont make the victims or thier families feel safe at night. INcidentally, MLK is as relevant a comparison to this guy as Che Guevara is to Stalin.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
