Limits of Toleration

[Griffin NoName]

Given the Monastery is all about toleration, it seems strange we haven't had a serious debate about this yet. (perhaps this should be in the serious section?).

I am horrified to learn that the British National Party (BNP), which I regard as a political party devoted to thugs and which may be about to be called to account on racism, is to be on one of my favourite BBC TV programmes, Question Time - a serious but enjoyable political debating programme (the BBC has to demonstrate impartiality which is the justification for the decision to invite the BNP).

My instinctive response is that any political party which holds racism as a central tenet should be shunned. It genuinely scares me that people with such views are given platforms to promote their beliefs and raises the specter of the how the Natzi party gained power and all that followed. That this flies in the face of Freedom of Speech is a problem for me. Is it better to have it out in the open ratehr than hidden due to repression of freedom of speech and where is the dividing line between this and a platform for promotion of thuggery and racism to be drawn and how?

So who is for total Freedom of Speech and who is for some form of control and how should that be achieved?

[Swatopluk]

Personally I am for certain limits to free speech but those should apply only to closely defined extreme examples. Those may not be the same in every place. For example it would be not very useful to make a law against Holocaust denial in Japan.
Anything that can be reasonably construed as instigation of violence in public should in my view be open to ban.
'Simple' racism is a grey area. Once it goes into direct intimidation, I am open for legal measures but the borders are of course fluid.
As for the BNP on TV, get capable opponents that are able to tear them a new one. I think Britain still has a few of those (over here we unfortunately haven't any more). One problem over here is that the conservative parties like to fish in the brown waters at election time (the CSU's official dogma is: NO democrats to the right of us). As a result there is a certain unwillingness to go really after the brown agitators because xenophobia is something that can be exploited in pusuit of votes. They have no qualms of course to insinuate that the moderate left is in cahoots with the fringe left. Not as extreme as in the past but some still regret that "Their orders come form Moscow" lacks a bit of credibility these days (although the pipeline deals with Russia made by the Schröder administration allowed a brief revival).
What I do not like is that existing laws are not applied equally. Catholic archbishops can utter filth without legal consequences that would get other mere mortals (rightfully) behind bars.
What is considered 'normal' in the US would mean overtime for the courts over here. And media outlets like Radio Marya in Poland should imo not just be closed  but razed, the ground salted and the people behind it receive the treatment they so freely call down on their enemies (esp. Teh Jeeews; blood libel charges are part of the normal diet).

[Darlica]

I think this should be in the serious discussion section.
Because we should have a serious discussion about it...

We have a Church election coming up at the end of the month and our equivalent of BNP, SD (Sverigedemokraterna Swedish Democrats) are using it as a gateway. To sit in the parish council gives an air of respectability which they want as a platform for next years elections to the parliament where they are aiming for a role where they can tip the scale of power towards anyone how give in to their demands... 

I am very low at the tolerance scale when it comes to racists, fascists and Nazis, religious fundamentalists or anyone else who claim they are better one, based on; colour of skin, religion, ethnicity, sex/gender, sexual preferences and disabilities.   

Other nut jobs one can have an argument with and try to smack down trashing their arguments and turning the remains of their own logic against them, but the lot mentioned above have an ugly tendency to turn to violence when they are intellectually defeated, thus they have no raison d'être in a democracy... They have gained their red card before the match has even started to use a sports analogy.

[Swatopluk]

Therefore keep the fifteen ton weight handy! 

[Darlica]

And a crane I assume... 

[Griffin NoName]

OK I moved it. But it is still a Debate. If only we have someone who promotes disgusting politics.

As for the BNP on TV, get capable opponents that are able to tear them a new one.

Question Time is designed to do this. But in my book it gives them airtime and therefore risks promoting their ideas. I believe, as said above, that no amount of "discussion" by oponents will persuade their voters and potential voters of their thorough nastiness.

[Darlica]

I don't know, as I said my tolerance is low but I don't think this lot can be ignored to death.

The main problem as I see it is that mainstream media doesn't take them as serious as they should. They should get together and smoke them out! Go over the organisations and expose them, report about every crime people connected to the organisations has committed, put them between a rock and a hard place. 

Now as I said, these are people prone to threats and violence so it would probably take persons so well-known, loved and respected by people in general to stand behind the perusal people they don't dare to touch because that would be really bad publicity. The goons and thugs might want to strike against these people but the brain trust would hold them back.
A lone journalist on a mission would be dead meat, but they can't bully the whole media collective (editors in chief of every major newspaper well known TV journalists etc. ) if they joined forces.

Now I guess hell will freeze over before that happen, but I still think that is what it would take to get people to realise that these people isn't just "nationalists" who loves their country...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

When freedom of speech becomes freedom to lie repeatedly with no consequence it becomes a problem (see the US for the past 9 years). Unless there is a clear mechanism to shoot down libel, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, then there isn't really a 'democratic' freedom of speech, but mob mentality which shouldn't have place in a democratic society. For instance, if we deal with an holocaust denier he must be taken to court to legally prove his point, and in the absence of proof the individual should be fined or arrested depending on the damage created by the misinformation.

The problem is on of harm: what happens if we are dealing with a UFO conspiracy theorist? Shoud (s)he be fined or arrested for conjecture? How do you prove that any particular speech is harmful?

[beagle]

When freedom of speech becomes freedom to lie repeatedly with no consequence it becomes a problem (see the US for the past 9 years). Unless there is a clear mechanism to shoot down libel, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, then there isn't really a 'democratic' freedom of speech, but mob mentality which shouldn't have place in a democratic society.

Well of course some would say that the reason the smaller parties have been growing here recently is precisely because there are certain issues (EU etc) where the larger parties have lied through their teeth ("It's not a constitution really").
When people are lied to, know they're being lied to, and know the people doing the lying know they know they're being lied to and don't care, you begin to understand why any other party starts to look like an improvement.  Personally this wouldn't propel me any further away from the mainstream than UKIP (which has moved into second position and is rapidly becoming mainstream here), but for major parties (stand up Labour and Liberals) to think they can say one thing on a manifesto and do something else afterwards is asking for trouble, guaranteeing to make people angry enough to consider the lunatic fringe such as the BNP.
Threatening (possibly correctly) that the BNP would rig elections if they ever got to power is a bit rich coming from people already conniving in the suppression or rigging of EU referenda.

[Griffin NoName]

Maybe I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but IMO UKIP is just cleverer than the BNP at disguising themselves (eg. by not having a racist constitution).

As for saying one thing and doing another, I always assume most politicians do this regardless of party. It almost seems like a job description to me.

[beagle]

Maybe I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but IMO UKIP is just cleverer than the BNP at disguising themselves (eg. by not having a racist constitution).

Depends if you equate nation-statism with racism. You might just think it's the natural unit of governance. And if we don't, why do we praise Gandhi for achieving it for India, and accept the establishment of Eire?
The Greens don't want the EU superstate either, nor the Bennite remnant of the Labour party.

[Griffin NoName]

Depends if you equate nation-statism with racism.

I guess I do.

You might just think it's the natural unit of governance. And if we don't, why do we praise Gandhi for achieving it for India, and accept the establishment of Eire?

Um. I don't know. Something about the under dogs?

The Greens don't want the EU superstate either, nor the Bennite remnant of the Labour party.

Ok, you got me chuckling. And now the chuckle is wearing off I am still grinning.

But....when the red and white flags come out I hate it. They seem to be particularly attached to football hooliganism, that oh so English sport. And if that is nation state, then yes it does appear to me to be racist. I must admit I can't get my head around those of the Cambridge dons whom I know indulge in this, nor the politicians. I don't think I am alone in this although I wouldn't necessarily expect all beagles to agree.

Strangely I don't mind the Union Jack fluttering about. But then I am a woman so I can be inconsistent.

[beagle]

Nice image. Rampaging hordes of tweed clad dons hurling decanters onto the pitch accompanied by obscene chants in ancient Greek. In my experience they tend to prefer other vices though, and leave that sort of thing to the first year boaties and rugger* crowd.


*
Rugger - a game for yobs, played by gentlemen.
Football - a game for gentlemen, played by yobs.

[Griffin NoName]

*
Rugger - a game for yobs, played by gentlemen.
Football - a game for gentlemen, played by yobs.

Class wars are

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Mmm, a delicate line to be tread.

Stirring up a riot <--- a no-no
Denying the Holocaust. Evil, wrong, but not something I think anyone should be dragged off the court for.

Regarding racism, etc. I don't think, in good consciousness, that I can tell anyone not to talk about it, excluding certain circumstances (see the rioting bit). It gives them the opportunity to spout, but also gives everyone else a chance to mock the living daylight out of them. And mockery and the threat of ostracism is the best way to keep them (or anyone) quiet.