|
U-Know! Forum » It's really gonna kick off (well....maybe) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Oct 22, 2009, 19:21
|
||
|
I agree. I don't see why a political party championing an ideology which itself negates freedom of speech for those it opposes should have an automatic moral right to free speech themselves. Surely civil rights also entail civil responsibilities? If neo-Nazis are entitled to express their views, where does it stop? Are paedophiles then entititled to do the same? It's a truism, but that doesn't make it any less true. I'm hoping against hope that a member of the studio audience will trip Griffin up and expose his true colours by asking him a question like "What is the BNP's stance on inter-racial marriages"?, but sadly with them having been preliminarily "vetted" for any overt anti-fascist presence this seems pretty unlikely. As for New Labour, this will be the last nail in their coffin. If Jack Straw is the most quick-witted and incisive opponent they can muster, the last vestiges of credibility they have left will disappear.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Oct 22, 2009, 20:48
Oct 22, 2009, 20:31
|
||
|
It's a pain in the ass to have to suffer the free speech of people like Griffin, I'm not denying that. It means that we have to constantly rebut whatever they're spinning. But in a way that keeps us on our toes and galvanizes us. And I was being a bit general about the venue: I suppose if I were the president of the BBC I'd tell the fascists to go find some other way to spread their message, I wouldn't accommodate 'em. My point is, the denial of free speech goes both ways.... If we in the west actively seek to silence it, we have no right to bitch if others do. And that'd be a terrible surrender if, for example, we no longer had the moral authority to decry the silencing of human rights activists struggling under tyrannical governments, for example. I hold fast to what I said earlier. The best way to shut down a fascist isn't to make a boogyman of them, it's to make a fool of them, loudly, and often. Boogymen are feared... fools are derided.
|
|||
sanshee 1080 posts |
Oct 22, 2009, 20:55
|
||
|
Hi, I'm Scottish, fae the 'Central Belt' (if that's still what it's called!) and I've never heard of any of that going on. Has it been in 'the news'? x
|
|||
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Oct 22, 2009, 21:51
|
||
|
See the trailer. "already controversial, but it's finally happening" or some shit. Well done Dimbleby. Big ratings for you and Nazis win whatever happens. I won't be watching. Fuck you and your programme. Curb Your Enthusiasm's on More4. x
|
|||
Jim Tones 5142 posts |
Edited Oct 22, 2009, 21:57
Oct 22, 2009, 21:57
|
||
|
mojojojo wrote: See the trailer. "already controversial, but it's finally happening" or some shit. Well done Dimbleby. Big ratings for you and Nazis win whatever happens. I won't be watching. Fuck you and your programme. Curb Your Enthusiasm's on More4. x I'm watching it hoping it will be the 'car-crash' tv that most folk think- I could be horribly wrong though
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited Oct 22, 2009, 22:19
Oct 22, 2009, 22:10
|
||
|
Thing is, some of those who are complaining about his appearance will (even though they may balk at it)automatically defend his 'democratic right' to stand for election. I'm confused at that. Ban the fucker altogether (screw his democratic rights I say) or don't, really. He's been interviewed on R4's 'Today' shebang quite a few times already for one! IMO, a far more serious platfrom than 'Question Time', altrhough it won't reach as many people I imagine. I think there's too much burying heads in sand around this issue. What, do we pretend he don't exist and hope he goes away? They have 'been elected' proper here and there. It has to be dealt with. Simply barring him from 'Question Time' seriously diverts our attention from the real menace here. x
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 22, 2009, 22:55
|
||
|
sanshee wrote: Thing is, some of those who are complaining about his appearance will (even though they may balk at it)automatically defend his 'democratic right' to stand for election. I'm confused at that. Why? I accept the right of bigots to vote and to stand for election, but I try to avoid inviting them into my home. I also don't like seeing them taking part in mainstream political debates. Why is that confusing? sanshee wrote: Ban the fucker altogether (screw his democratic rights I say) or don't, really. I want to see a world where the hateful racism of the BNP is constantly opposed so that it withers and dies. Sitting down and discussing the issues of the day with them does not seem to be a step in that direction. But I don't want to see that world so much that I'm willing to become a fascist myself. This is why we don't ban them altogether. I think everyone acknowledges that such bans run the risk of being counterproductive; driving these views underground, portraying the fascists as victims of state oppression. sanshee wrote: He's been interviewed on R4's 'Today' shebang quite a few times already for one! Exactly. He's not being censored. And nor should he be. Don't you see any difference between interviewing the BNP, scrutinising them and forcing them to justify their warped beliefs; and inviting them onto a mainstream show with high ratings to give their views on the postal strike and Afghanistan? I believe the change in context is extremely important. It surprises me that most others don't.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Oct 22, 2009, 23:20
|
||
|
Jim Tones wrote: If you watch the programme- does it mean you are a nazi? Or does it just mean you can't get off the sofa and there's cack all else on? http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-to-watch-instead-of-question-time.html
|
|||
Hob 4033 posts |
Oct 22, 2009, 23:29
|
||
|
Just been watching the BBC news coverage of the demo, and a thing that stuck in my mind was the presumably deliberate and considered insertion of a sentence about how television programmes don't give politicians power, but voters do. Could that be part of what this current BNP question time thing is about? Is it some attempt to use the BBC to frighten people to get out and voting? Or is that just a bit of a cop out for the beeb to be able to say 'Well you viewers are the ones who voted him in, not us...'. Personally, I'd have liked to have been able to ask him if, as the leader of a party whose campaign literature in my neck of the woods included plans to effect the removal of funding and consideration for disabled children, he recognises that the holocaust he likes to deny was heralded by the removal of the right to life from the same set of children his party wishes to marginalise. Next time the twisted cowardly shits stand here, I'd love to think I could get out there and find ways to discredit them in the eyes of their target voters. I mean really, targetting disabled kids as a scapegoats. How low is that? So if nothing else, thanks BBC for reminding me how much I despise the BNP.
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Oct 22, 2009, 23:34
|
||
|
I don't know what the fuss is all about. On Fox News over here, we have got 3 dicks in a row every single night spewing the same shit. Glenn Beck Bill O'reilly Sean Hannitty I just ignore the fucks. {And the network in it's entirety}
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
