Does 'merely' thinking a certain way make you a '-phobe', '-ist' etc

[LordChaverly]

There's also a delicious irony that exists when the supporters of the EDL, BNP etc lament the restrictions to their freedom of speech when the organisations they belong to would seek to do the same to people they disagree with.

 

Personally I've consistently supported the rights to speak of the BNP/EDL, however their supporters seem to believe they experience unfair censure whilst the radical Muslims escape attention, which isn't the case.

 

With respect bf, you are completely wrong on this point. Radical muslim groups have been indulged and tolerated for years, whereas the BNP and EDL have generally been ostracised and vilified at every conceivable opportunity. Examples of this are the selective tolerance of university authorities and (just as importantly) lecturers' unions towards these groups. whereas the BNP has been (rightly) forbidden to operate on university campuses, extremist Islamic societies have been given virtual free reign (it is no wonder that it was recently estimated that over 60 suicide bombers or would-be bombers have had associations with these societies). More recently, in its dubious wisdom Channel 4 decided to offer platforms to assorted islamic extremists, something they would never do in relation to the BNP or EDL. Moreover, these groups still find it relatively easy to hire public buildings (safe in the knowledge that, far from being harassed by leftist groups, their 'right to a platform' is likely to be supported by them).

[Halibut]

With respect bf, you are completely wrong on this point. Radical muslim groups have been indulged and tolerated for years, whereas the BNP and EDL have generally been ostracised and vilified at every conceivable opportunity. Examples of this are the selective tolerance of university authorities and (just as importantly) lecturers' unions towards these groups. whereas the BNP has been (rightly) forbidden to operate on university campuses, extremist Islamic societies have been given virtual free reign (it is no wonder that it was recently estimated that over 60 suicide bombers or would-be bombers have had associations with these societies). More recently, in its dubious wisdom Channel 4 decided to offer platforms to assorted islamic extremists, something they would never do in relation to the BNP or EDL. Moreover, these groups still find it relatively easy to hire public buildings (safe in the knowledge that, far from being harassed by leftist groups, their 'right to a platform' is likely to be supported by them).

 

They already have. Fail.

[Kaimani]

Can you effectively challenge intolerance by tolerating it? I don't think you can. Challenging intolerance is not jettisoning values of tolerance, it's standing up for them.

 

never a truer word spoken.

told you I'd steal your phrase halibut.

[Kaimani]

The selective moral blindness of the types you mention is a well-known phenomenon (well documented, for example, in Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia'). Indeed, this syndrome is alive and well on Sheffield Forum, judging by the laudatory references by certain posters over the years to such moral luminaries as Lenin, Trotsky, Castro and Scargill, often paralleled by defences of the 'right to free speech' of Islamofascist groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir. Why these types are so attracted to tyrants, mass murderers and autocrats of one kind or another is a mystery (perhaps best explained by the theory that they have autocratic mindsets themselves).

 

i've got to agree with your basic premise. i have seen though that is more a symptom among the student awakening population who soon find their way and tweak their ideologies to more coherent ideologies.

i'll give you one funny one= I'm bobo shanti(more or less) who believe they are 'Israelite too, but all my sympathies lie with Palestine. there's no apparent contradiction for me there.

the same accusation you leveled again liberals is no less true for thr Right though.

[Kaimani]

There's also a delicious irony that exists when the supporters of the EDL, BNP etc lament the restrictions to their freedom of speech when the organisations they belong to would seek to do the same to people they disagree with.

 

Personally I've consistently supported the rights to speak of the BNP/EDL, however their supporters seem to believe they experience unfair censure whilst the radical Muslims escape attention, which isn't the case.

 

every crackpot weirdo gets their time to speak. it sells the papers and, ironically, helps some of the more inept mainstream politicians(not sure who I'd exclude if i had to write a list) look very sane and wise.

[boyfriday]

With respect bf, you are completely wrong on this point. Radical muslim groups have been indulged and tolerated for years, whereas the BNP and EDL have generally been ostracised and vilified at every conceivable opportunity. Examples of this are the selective tolerance of university authorities and (just as importantly) lecturers' unions towards these groups. whereas the BNP has been (rightly) forbidden to operate on university campuses, extremist Islamic societies have been given virtual free reign (it is no wonder that it was recently estimated that over 60 suicide bombers or would-be bombers have had associations with these societies). More recently, in its dubious wisdom Channel 4 decided to offer platforms to assorted islamic extremists, something they would never do in relation to the BNP or EDL. Moreover, these groups still find it relatively easy to hire public buildings (safe in the knowledge that, far from being harassed by leftist groups, their 'right to a platform' is likely to be supported by them).

 

I hear what you say, I was really thinking about the recent banning of Islam4UK, the imprisonment of Abu Hamza and the arrest of the poppy burners..all of whom thoroughly deserved a firm kick up the backside.

 

However I agree that extremists seem to exist freely in isolation, yet I wouldn't support a ban on a BNP university lecturer any more than I would an Islamist-one provided it didn't interfere with their jobs-witch hunts often result in undesirable outcomes.

 

The BNP's Andrew Brons was a long time lecturer at Harrogate College and it would have been wrong, in my opinion, for him to be dismissed from that position because of his personal beliefs, provided of course they didn't impact on the performance of his students.

 

My memory may be deserting me, but wasnt the NF's Martin Webster a lecturer at Hudds Poly in the 70's?

 

I think we're broadly in agreement, in that freedom of speech should only exist provided it doesn't materially affect the lives or safety of others, whether it's Muslims shouting abuse at homecoming soldiers or EDL members burning the Koran outside mosques.

[Kaimani]

With respect bf, you are completely wrong on this point. Radical muslim groups have been indulged and tolerated for years, whereas the BNP and EDL have generally been ostracised and vilified at every conceivable opportunity. Examples of this are the selective tolerance of university authorities and (just as importantly) lecturers' unions towards these groups. whereas the BNP has been (rightly) forbidden to operate on university campuses, extremist Islamic societies have been given virtual free reign (it is no wonder that it was recently estimated that over 60 suicide bombers or would-be bombers have had associations with these societies). More recently, in its dubious wisdom Channel 4 decided to offer platforms to assorted islamic extremists, something they would never do in relation to the BNP or EDL. Moreover, these groups still find it relatively easy to hire public buildings (safe in the knowledge that, far from being harassed by leftist groups, their 'right to a platform' is likely to be supported by them).

 

got to disagree with the fact that extremist Islamic organizations are given free reign. it's law that extremist organizations are barred. only thing is when and organization says 'its wrong to kill in Iraq' for example and holds a rally, the news scream extremist when that same organization said the same thing and held an overnight Virgil for the London bombings etc.

[Cyclone]

With respect bf, you are completely wrong on this point. Radical muslim groups have been indulged and tolerated for years, whereas the BNP and EDL have generally been ostracised and vilified at every conceivable opportunity.

Are you deliberately confusing the right to free speech with being liked? Ostracising a group because you dislike what they say is not the same as denying them the right to say it.

Examples of this are the selective tolerance of university authorities and (just as importantly) lecturers' unions towards these groups. whereas the BNP has been (rightly) forbidden to operate on university campuses, extremist Islamic societies have been given virtual free reign (it is no wonder that it was recently estimated that over 60 suicide bombers or would-be bombers have had associations with these societies). More recently, in its dubious wisdom Channel 4 decided to offer platforms to assorted islamic extremists, something they would never do in relation to the BNP or EDL. Moreover, these groups still find it relatively easy to hire public buildings (safe in the knowledge that, far from being harassed by leftist groups, their 'right to a platform' is likely to be supported by them).

Surely a libertarian will support the right of the BNP to hold it's opinions, whilst simultaneously disagreeing with (and maybe campaigning against) those opinions. The same applies towards various aspects of Islam.

 

You are looking for some sort of double standards where none exist.

[flamingjimmy]

got to disagree with the fact that extremist Islamic organizations are given free reign. it's law that extremist organizations are barred. only thing is when and organization says 'its wrong to kill in Iraq' for example and holds a rally, the news scream extremist when that same organization said the same thing and held an overnight Virgil for the London bombings etc.

 

What does how the news report on some protest somewhere have to do with his claim about Islamist organisations having free reign to operate in British universities, esp when considered alongside far right groups.

 

He didn't say they have free reign to do whatever they want or say anything they want anywhere, his claim was a lot more specific than the one you have responded to here.

[Wildcat]

......

 

I think we're broadly in agreement, in that freedom of speech should only exist provided it doesn't materially affect the lives or safety of others, whether it's Muslims shouting abuse at homecoming soldiers or EDL members burning the Koran outside mosques.

 

In both those cases are they not unnecessary provocations and insults likely to incite breaches of the peace such that there is good reason to ban such protests in those locations? and move them away when they do occur, like happens when people protest outside shops?

 

For those that think freedom of protest should be universal and protected.... why is it always EDL protests people seem to complain about? What about far larger restrictions on freedoms like the way Meadowhall, not only does not allow protests but won't even allow charity collectors to rattle their tins outside shops.