howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 February 2009
21:0215712that is mike webb that you are referring to.
now incapacitated from a pleasure cruise.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
19 February 2009
21:0615713mike webb looked fine when i spoke to him on tuesday,still laughing and joking.actully i think he went to africa and not on a cruise.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 February 2009
06:0215722Now you are suggesting that I think you called me a bully and nothing could be further from the truth! Harsh replies - to the point perhaps. Please just re-read what I have said carefully, over several posts.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
20 February 2009
09:4815726To take up Berns point that words hurt...I see that the UK Border Agency who do such a sterling job here in Dover keeping drugs out, have also elsewhere succeeded in keeping some very harsh American bible thumping preachers out. I agreed myself about the exclusion of that Dutch extremist last week and likewise I am in harmony with this latest exclusion. These latest excluded people, preaching the so called word of God, are violently homophobic..ie against homesexual practice of all kinds and in all ways. They of course only spout words but words so nasty that it potentially could set the position of homosexuals back 50 years..and we all know what it was like then for homosexuals, prison and worse.
So where does this leave us on Free Speech. Its the greatest red herring amongst the chattering classes this term Free Speech...defend to the death your right to do it etc etc...but thats all baloney. Nobody is prepared to die so that this reverend can have Free Speech. Free Speech is a great misnomer.
We deny Free Speech to extremists, radicals, de-stabilisers and so on...as it should be too. I wouldnt give a platform to Hitler myself. Yes we have Free Speech of sorts, but only if you get rubber stamp approval first.
Guest 650- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 542
20 February 2009
10:0815727I find the blog by Iain Dale rather muddled. The words superficially look good, but he's conflating like crazy. I think what he's trying to say is that we can debate issues, and learn from others. This would presumably be the humility he's talking about. Yet at the same time he talks about a freedom to be rude, and adds that this is a freedom not to conform. Where is the humility in that, and the listening to and learning from others?
Furthermore, this freedom he's claiming occurs, it would seem, on the back of other people who "conform". Exactly what kind of freedom is this? It sounds rather more to me like use, even exploitation, of other people, with a hint of disparagement, and that, I would suggest, is not humility at all - but downright arrogance.
I don't find this article persuasive. If he is trying to advocate debate as a means for furthering "knowledge" there are perfectly valid - and more productive - ways of debating without insulting other people. Indeed, if he is trying to promote objectivity (which I think he is, but can't be sure, owing to his conflations), then he might first like to consider that there is little more subjective than being rude.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
20 February 2009
10:4815729Beautifully put Maggie, I only wish my response to this article was as eloquent as yours.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 February 2009
11:4515731Free speech is for everyone or no-one.
You cannot deny it to those with whom you disagree even if they are extremist radicals. Yes, if they are advocating violence, or urging anyone to commit an illegal act, then they are complicit in such crimes and should be dealt with by the law, that cannot be justified.
Whether they are BNP or Communists they have a right to stand for election and to have their say, subject only to the limitation of what I just said and, of course, the laws of libel. Try to ban them from speaking and drive them underground and you will act as recruiting sargeants for them. The best way to defeat them is through democracy, trusting people and through common sense and reason.
Yes - I may disagree with them but I would fight for their right to be heard.
I see today that in Sevenoaks the BNP have taken a Council seat off Labour, apparently it was Labour's safest council seat in Kent and it is the BNP's first win in the South East. The Labour vote simply collapsed to them (the Conservative vote held stable at 25%).
We should be asking why that is, why is it that traditional Labour supporters no longer believe that Labour are speaking for them. Could it be issues such as we are discussing here in this forum. The attempts to condemn the innocent use of words as rascist. Could it be what I warned about earlier, the effect of branding quite ordinary people without a racist bone in their body as rascist because they might like gollys or whatever. A huge gap has developed between the approved 'new Labour' language and what ordinary people use in their daily lives.
Well meaning (or naive) attempts at racial harmony and understanding creating a backlash of resentment.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
20 February 2009
13:0215736The govt can't enforce racial harmony that can only be achieved by society and by us as individuals.Bigots whatever colour could and should not be tolerated.
As for defending the rights of free speech it sounds noble but if another mans free speech incites riots violence and racial hatred then just how far do you allow it.Free speech is admirable for a person with a reasoned and well thought out argument but the fanatics that wish to crush British society and adopt another quite alien to us by means of violence should not be given the time of day nor should they be afforded the benefit and luxury of free speech.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
20 February 2009
13:4915737This makes for interesting and disturbing reading. Given my job I'm not going to get involved discussing it, but thought I would throw this in to show you:
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/article/default.asp?article_id=57534Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 February 2009
13:5615738Well said Adam.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
20 February 2009
15:1815743well stunned i must say,whatever next.the next we know it will be against the law for a white person to cross the road next.
20 February 2009
16:1915750What on earth is up with you all?! No-one is suggesting that anyone rolls over or that we tolerate bad behaviour or incitements to violence in the token name of free speech. What is being said is simply that with freedom of speech comes responsibility to use it wisely, and those who use it as a cover or pretext to spread violence and hatred lose the right to it. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about the intent and consequence. Whether I agree or disagree with what is being said does not matter - the outcome of it being said publicly does matter. And no-one, as far as I can see, is saying that we should categorise ourselves as racist/homophobic/whatever because there are some who are those things - just that we need to be aware that what we say matters and can hurt and kill.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
20 February 2009
17:2815761for somthing that happend 3 years agoits taken a long time to come to light.if the chap was offended then why didnt he say somthing then.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 February 2009
17:3115762Interesting is it not Bern that those opposing free speech keep using the encouragment of violence or terrorism as an excuse to do so. None of us, as you say, who are advocating free speech are also supporting anyone who encourages violence yet they keep repeating the same.
You and I can disagree exactly where the line should be drawn but at least we can agree with that one!
20 February 2009
18:4115770Thank goodness!! What I am reading in this thread is that we all have standards and values, which include free speech as a fundamental, but which draw the line at free speech that incites. That seems perfectly reasonable!!! It also has the advantage of not being rocket science! Hurrah!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 February 2009
19:0015777paul
i think that is a bad comparison with the dutch politician and the american bible bashers.
the latter have openly called for people to kill homosexuals, there is no way that they would be allowed into any western country.
i don't see that the dutchman advocated any kind of violence.
then again, i do not know for sure, he was not allowed to give his views here.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
21 February 2009
00:0115802The surveys post the bye election Swanley seem to indicate that people wanted change from the status quo. This is effectively a protest vote by the people of Swanley.
Howard you are right that there is a huge difference between an elected representative of one of our neighbours, who as you say has not advocated violence only warned in a rather strange little film and in slightly immoderate terms against the perils of spreading anti western radicalism in Islam and an extremist Christian group from the USA advocating violence against homosexuals, catholics, in fact anyone who is not part of their sect.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
21 February 2009
00:0915803ross
i have always advocated free speech from any quarter.
anything other than that just adds credence to extremist views.
i only draw the line when it comes to someone openly advocating violence or law breaking.
unfortunately the southern states of our friends across the pond seem to breed the afore mentioned.
the anti abortionists there(i do have a certain sympathy with their views) encourage the murder of doctors and staff involved in this practice.
we have always been a country that has had no problem with crackpot views as long as they are harmless to our citizens.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
23 February 2009
00:2315915Why is this "words hurt" protection so selective though? That is one of the many things that annoys me about political correctness. Moreover those who support it seem to act as if their point of view was so morally and logically fireproof that anyone who disagrees is retarded and in some way morally deficient.
I have been offended by the culture I grew up in ever since I was old enough to understand what was going on. I don't expect it to change and I expect and children I might have - and their children - to experience the same.
And? I deal with it. I use it to motivate me.
I suggest others do the same just a little bit and do not descend into a pit of defensive self pity where they cannot even take a bit of banter and ribbing and create a tense, uncomfortable society and a culture of fear.
Maybe then we might recapture our sense of humour and all get along more easily.
I have discussed this several times with members of ethnic minorities and the message is always the same - everyone chill out. We're not as bothered as you think .
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
23 February 2009
08:3615917Andrew very interesting...but re your last paragraph ...you may have gathered by now that Im Irish and we ourselves have had a fair bit of stick over the years. But an interesting thing happened a few weeks back on BBC TVs Question TIme. The head of British Airways is Willie Walsh and he is very Irish with accent to match. They were dealing with this very subject and a member of the audience asked him if he would be offended if someone called him a Paddy.
To my initial surprise he said he would.. and be very offended. Im as Irish as he is and there we are, I wouldnt be offended by it, as I can assure one and all Ive been called a lot worse. I was hardly off the boat and evryone called me either Pat or Paddy way back then in the non pc Seventies...so I just figured it was the norm. There wasnt any malice in it though as I quickly realised.
My point is though, and Im going round the houses a bit, is that when you talk to ethnic minorities there isnt one answer that applies to all. One guy might not be bothered by the term golliwog where the next one might.
I was glad later though that Willie Walsh said what he did, as it kind of draws a line of boundary for the modern age.
