Hello Does anyone know whether there is a demonstration in support of the right of the Union speakers' freedom of speech going on tonight, and where it might be meeting?
I've seen plenty of posters up and around town questioning the right of Griffin and Irving to speak! And promises of demonstrations against them, police threats &c &c. That constitutes questioning if you ask me...
But it's not about free speech. It's about their invitation to a private body. The two issues are separate - I think they should have as much right as anyone to spout their hate on Speaker's Corner etc without being given legitimacy by a Union invitation.
That said, I don't know of any demo, but hope you have a good night and come to no harm.
Er, linking me to libertarian ravings that call MPs 'cunts' is not the way to convince me of the correctness of your position. I will be off now (if you are interested in my position, it's the last post in my LJ); have a good evening.
Wow that's blogger has a really poor understanding of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean anyone has the right to say things without cricism. In fact the right to criticise (and saying someone should be ashamed for their decisions is just criticism) is the *essence* of free speech.
Free speech doesn't mean anyone has the right to say things without criticism.
You are absolutely correct. It does, however, mean the right to say things without being suppressed by force. The OU turning these rascals down could be argued as not being a suppression of free speech because they have no right to speak there in the first place (it's a private club). I think that those who get particularly upset about this subject and are on the side of free speech feel that the disapproval of the BNP is state-sanctioned and approved and they do not like this.
Read the article he linked. It specifically said Dr Lewis demonstrated "impeccably his vile illiberalaity and particular disdain for differing views and opinions" for daring to say only that "the students should be ashamed" with no suggestion at all that he thought the government or any other organization should force them to change their mind.
I read the article before I made the comment. Here's a quote from elsewhere that sums up what I meant, above:
“We live in a country where the old boundaries between state and voluntary activity have been so blurred by subsidy and regulation and deals behind the curtain, that advice [from a government minister, in this case] is fast becoming the same as instruction.”
That is indeed a danger of the government intruding so extensively in the daily life of its citizens.
However I don't even see advice in there. Only criticism for the decision already made. To believe it applies here you would have to believe that government ministers can't ever take a position on anything for fear of quashing the free speech rights of people who disagree.
In this case there has been government action to prevent members of that party entering public office, and so on. If one were to see a government minister complaining that (for example) a member of the tory party was a bit nasty and should not be invited it would seem different, as members of that party don't have any sanctions against them or prosecutions of their leaders.
Government Minister, mind, correct me if I'm wrong but Julian Lewis is a Conservative MP, isn't he? In which case it's even less Government pressure than if it were a Minister.
Ah, yes. I think that I was getting confused between that and the Gabb article I linked to where the chap making such remarks is indeed in the government. Gabb would probably say that all politicians were much the same anyway and so it wouldn't matter. I doubt that the tories would be any less unfriendly to the BNP than Labour.
Reply
Reply
That said, I don't know of any demo, but hope you have a good night and come to no harm.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The chap is a cunt, though.
Reply
Reply
You are absolutely correct.
It does, however, mean the right to say things without being suppressed by force. The OU turning these rascals down could be argued as not being a suppression of free speech because they have no right to speak there in the first place (it's a private club). I think that those who get particularly upset about this subject and are on the side of free speech feel that the disapproval of the BNP is state-sanctioned and approved and they do not like this.
Reply
Reply
Reply
“We live in a country where the old boundaries between state and voluntary activity have been so blurred by subsidy and regulation and deals behind the curtain, that advice [from a government minister, in this case] is fast becoming the same as instruction.”
You may believe that, or you may not.
Reply
However I don't even see advice in there. Only criticism for the decision already made. To believe it applies here you would have to believe that government ministers can't ever take a position on anything for fear of quashing the free speech rights of people who disagree.
Reply
In this case there has been government action to prevent members of that party entering public office, and so on. If one were to see a government minister complaining that (for example) a member of the tory party was a bit nasty and should not be invited it would seem different, as members of that party don't have any sanctions against them or prosecutions of their leaders.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment