|
U-Know! Forum » Nick Griffin gets egg on his face |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Jun 12, 2009, 01:08
|
||
|
Yes, he's been speaking, post being "egg'd", but in the news clips I have seen he has been talking about being attacked, both personally and his freedom to speak. The egg-throwers are giving him the opportunity to appear on TV, with a cover of being attacked and being victimised. Without the egg-throwing, Griffin would have to talk "policy"...and that's where he is vulnerable. Other than "it's fun", which I won't comment on, what do these people throwing eggs hope to achieve? Do they think Griffin will retreat from public gaze in case someone lobs a prolate ellipsoid, thin-shelled, reproductive body of a bird at him?
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Jun 12, 2009, 04:27
Jun 12, 2009, 04:27
|
||
|
My response spiralled into a blog post. Sorry about that. The most relevant bit, though, is the final three paragraphs. They are in response to the question... geoffrey_prime wrote: Other than "it's fun", which I won't comment on, what do these people throwing eggs hope to achieve? ... this isn't really a Free Speech (capital letters) issue. The "right to free speech" is about the freedom to express your views -- yes, even reprehensible ones -- without fear of prosecution. What it isn't about, is guaranteeing anyone the right to be the loudest speaker in a given public place. The BNP have the right to stand for election. They have the right to distribute leaflets, publish a web site, hold meetings and so forth. But when they start to spout their vile garbage in public, then others have the right to express their disgust. To heckle. To shout them down if they see fit. As for what this achieves...? It is a stark message to those 800,000 voters -- and to anyone tempted by the rhetoric of fascism -- that these views are contemptible. As are those who espouse them. It is a demonstration that those who would give voice to racism will be challenged. A reminder that the rest of us won't allow this prejudice to gain ground. Griffin should not be arrested for stating his views. But each time he does so in public, he should be challenged. And each public utterance of racism should be drowned out by a thousand voices in opposition. ------ The whole piece is here: http://numero57.net/?p=1367
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Jun 12, 2009, 10:07
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: the only think I can find to complain about is that it was eggs rather than bricks. This is the point that I made in our earlier discussion, that people all agree that disruptive and violent protest is justified. People only speak out against it if they think the particular case doesn't warrant it. That's fine if that's someone's view, but it often gets hidden behind a cloak of false nobility that 'all violent protest is wrong'. I've yet to meet anyone who really holds such a position. What we should really discuss on every occasion is whether the particular case warrants it. Yeah, but the difference is I thought that in a moment of anger but, in reality, would never throw or a brick at another person. No matter how vile an example of the human race they are. I still do think that violent protest is not the way forward, and is more aboout the violent protesters desire to commit violent acts, and then justify them, rather than about any cause. Pin out, hand grenade thrown, wait for flack. PS, Merrick- their is a sweet shop called Merricks in a lovely town called Hitchin - you behind the counter????
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jun 12, 2009, 21:04
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Yeah, but the difference is I thought that in a moment of anger but, in reality, would never throw or a brick at another person. No matter how vile an example of the human race they are. I still do think that violent protest is not the way forward, and is more aboout the violent protesters desire to commit violent acts, and then justify them, rather than about any cause. Yes, the state has the monopoly on the legitimate use of political violence. pooley wrote: Merrick- their is a sweet shop called Merricks in a lovely town called Hitchin - you behind the counter???? Fuck. Cover blown.
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Edited Jun 13, 2009, 19:17
Jun 13, 2009, 19:06
|
||
|
...well put. Good to read some sense here. Best to let him bury himself. 8)
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Jun 14, 2009, 10:16
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Then again... jshell wrote: By allowing Griffin his (democratic) right to speak and air his views, the mystery is broken Give him the mic and he comes out as a climate denier http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jun/09/climate-change-oil Good catch, I didn't notice that... oooh, ooooh, hold the phone - hope you're not suggesting coz I posted a thread on MMGW, that I'm in any way supportive of the BNP...no, seriously for a minute here!!!! Line in sand, I'm bloody not! I'm still, when I get time, trying to read up on both sides of MMGW debate though. Climate change in my mind is definite!! Human-generated carbon emission effects is where I'm reading most just now....
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jun 14, 2009, 14:53
|
||
|
jshell wrote: oooh, ooooh, hold the phone - hope you're not suggesting coz I posted a thread on MMGW, that I'm in any way supportive of the BNP... I think, like any party, they have one or two things you'd agree with, whoever you are. I really like the BNP's policies about promoting organic farming and a total ban on GM crops, and for the right reasons (ie it's not about a food scare, it's about taking control of agriculture away from agribusiness and put it in the hands of farmers and consumers). But that doesn't mean I don't think they're vicious Nazis who should be strung up by their conkers.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Jun 14, 2009, 15:08
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: oooh, ooooh, hold the phone - hope you're not suggesting coz I posted a thread on MMGW, that I'm in any way supportive of the BNP... I think, like any party, they have one or two things you'd agree with, whoever you are. I really like the BNP's policies about promoting organic farming and a total ban on GM crops, and for the right reasons (ie it's not about a food scare, it's about taking control of agriculture away from agribusiness and put it in the hands of farmers and consumers). But that doesn't mean I don't think they're vicious Nazis who should be strung up by their conkers. .....jshell fucks off to actually read-up on BNP policies.......
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Jun 15, 2009, 12:30
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: Yeah, but the difference is I thought that in a moment of anger but, in reality, would never throw or a brick at another person. No matter how vile an example of the human race they are. I still do think that violent protest is not the way forward, and is more aboout the violent protesters desire to commit violent acts, and then justify them, rather than about any cause. Yes, the state has the monopoly on the legitimate use of political violence. pooley wrote: Merrick- their is a sweet shop called Merricks in a lovely town called Hitchin - you behind the counter???? Fuck. Cover blown. Can I have a bag of Kola Kubes, please? I'll even check em at a racist if I can get a discount!
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jun 16, 2009, 09:54
|
||
Make it 20p worth of black jacks instead.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
