(no subject)

[caddyman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7736794.stm

Being vile is not a crime. If it were, the prisons would be far, far fuller than they are or the planet would be quite sparsely populated. One or the other.

This sweeping and probably facile observation is brought to you following the revelation that a list of BNP¹ members has been published online. I shall take the various news agencies’ and rumour mongers' word for it; a quick and sweeping Google search failed to turn the list up, though it did return a lot of links to outraged newspapers and bloggers. I daresay I could find it if I looked harder, but frankly I’m not sure if I want to know if my local vicar is a fascist.

Actually, I don’t want to know who my local vicar is at all.

The point of all this, is that I worry about the thought of all the self-righteous do-gooders and holier-than-thou-ers who are ready to march on, fire bomb and generally make life unpleasant for BNP members. In some ways I have a deal of sympathy for them; no-one wants to think that the copper down the road, the vicar in the church and the teachers in the infants school are all rabid neo-Nazis or similar, but frankly I’m not over enthused by would-be militant neo-communists and anarchists flapping about in vicious indignation either.

Jackboots or hobnail boots? A charming choice.

We either live in something that pretends to be a democracy or we don’t. We either have freedom of speech or we don’t. And if we do have all those things², we have to allow that the benefits of a free society apply to all and that it is no crime to be vile and unpleasant, provided that you are vile and unpleasant within the rules.

It is easy to forget that just because one thing is unpalatable, the opposite view is not necessarily any more acceptable, especially when their preferred methods are remarkably similar: infiltrate and subvert.

Extreme ideologies should be met with reasoned debate and held up to the light of reason, so that they can be seen for what they are and disposed of. Whipping up the mob into a frenzy and leading them with flaming brands just makes everything spiral, polarise and get plain nasty.

They’re as bad as each other.

¹BNP: The British National Party. An unsavoury bunch of far right agitators who may or may not be fascists depending upon semantics, but who are vile racist, homophobic and generally unpleasant scum in any case.

²Debatable in itself.

Comments

[oldnick.livejournal.com]

They were on a blogspot page. That particular page has now been taken down.

The only point I'd take issue with you on is your comment about preferred methods. Besides infiltrate and subvert, I'd add create fear.

(Unless you consider that comes under subvert?)

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Fair comment.

[sack-boy.livejournal.com]

http://www.upmystreet.com/findmynearest/search?category=church

And plonk in a post code that defines your value of "local".

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I award thee the Stalin Award First Class with Oak Leaf Cluster for missing the point so completely.

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

They're around, and it's been c&p'd across the web now.

Another LJ friend posted a link and, curious about a former lab partner and (then) BNP campaigner, I took a peak.

I didn't find the lab partner (I hoped I wouldn't, the last time we talked they'd changed an awful lot), but I did find an old schoolmate who died last weekend, and I regretted looking in the first place.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I haven't found the list, but I think I'd like to see it. It's a little bit like prodding the dead thing on the beach; you know you really don't want to or ought not, but you can't quite help yourself...

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Whilst I don't agree with the BNP, I find the way that they're treated to be not only sad, but totally hypocritical. The whole "we must uphold our civil liberties, which clearly means that the BNP should be gagged" mentality is astonishing, and I simply cannot understand how any sane person could fail to see the inherent contradiction in it.

[romney.livejournal.com]

Extreme ideologies should be met with reasoned debate and help up to the light of reason, so that they can be seen for what they are and disposed of.

Accurate, succinct, and memorable.
May I use this elsewhere - with credit if you wish?

[romney.livejournal.com]

...and is that "help up" or "held up"?

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Held up.

Help up makes no sense in context.

...and yes, if you want.

[romney.livejournal.com]

Ta.
I thought you might have meant "helped to see the light of reason" or "helped to the light of reason" (which I like)

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Rather more poetic than my version!

[fen-wolfchile.livejournal.com]

I can't remember the quote exactly, or who said it but it went along the lines of:

'I may not agree to what you say but I defend with my life your right to say it.'

[fencingsculptor.livejournal.com]

It was Voltaire I believe.


The Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkey .....

[maleghast.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a famous mis-quotation of Voltaire... ;-)

Sorry, but there is a teacher somewhere out there who would hunt me down and punish me if I did not point the above out, I know it's a dreadful bit of pedantry...

see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire under Misattributed...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.
Another possible source for the quote was proposed by Norbert Guterman, editor of "A Book of French Quotations," who noted a letter to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770) in which Voltaire is quoted as saying: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" ("Monsieur l'abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire"). This remark, however, does not appear in the letter."

[fencingsculptor.livejournal.com]

FencingSculptor once said of Voltaire's Candide, "I disagree I think it's utter Cr@p, but if you want to argue the point I'll fein interest while you do so, but I should point out I'll be thinking..."it's cr@p, it's cr@Pit's cr@Pit's cr@Pit's cr@P" all the time you're talking."

Cr@p book if memory serves. Assessment based purley on the fact that a female character was raped, murdered, and cut up into little bits, had a propensity to pop back into story at a later point......

[maleghast.livejournal.com]

I'll have to take your word on it, having never read it, but the misattributed quotation is probably an attempt to convey a stated opinion of Voltaire's in his 'Essay on Tolerance', which is more accurately translated as:

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

I could find the French and a full citation, but I'm hoping that you're not that bothered.

Candide is one of those books that I've been meaning to read for about 20 years; I'm starting to think that I may indeed be able to go my whole life without reading it... ;-)

[ellefurtle.livejournal.com]

I made 5 pages! *proud*

[maleghast.livejournal.com]

*applause*

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

Nah, he said it.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Eh? Who said what?

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

Voltaire

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Ah.

I was getting lost with what bit threaded where.

[keresaspa.livejournal.com]

Although I suspect that I may be included in the above "would-be militant neo-communists and anarchists" (although there is no "neo" here) I must admit that I disagree with the prevailing attitudes on the extreme left regarding the BNP with the whole banning and No Platform stuff. If the BNP are wrong (and they are) they must be faced head on and the wrongness of their crap exposed. Lord knows I am no Liberal Democrat but I'll at least give them credit for doing just that in Oldham and as a result what was once one of the BNP's top towns is now a mere afterthought for them. OK, part of that was to do with internal splits but direct confrontation of lies played a big part too. If that means engaging BNP members in public debate in order to do so then that’s how it must be. Banning the BNP doesn't take their opinions away and attempting to place a cordon sanitaire around them just makes them look like the victims. It may make me a heretic amongst "would-be militant neo-communists and anarchists" but I stand by it.

[maleghast.livejournal.com]

X-Posted from my comment on same subject on the journal of one s0b

I was very worried when I heard that this list was not only 'in the wind' but also that it had been published on the 'net.

Please bear in mind that I have about as much time for the BNP as I have for being castrated without anaesthetic by a blind Bolivian midget hopped up on coke and wielding only a rusty spoon, but even then I do believe that the right to hold opinions (such as it is in the UK already) is an important one.

The inevitable shit-parcels and not-so-subtle intimidations, even the odd beating are not only unacceptable - abusing someone for their thoughts is such a double edged sword it always cuts the wielder as well - but it weakens the position of well-meaning and non-violent anti-fascists everywhere.

I hope that good sense prevails, that there are no opportunistic reprisals or 'punishments', after all standing up against hate does mean banishing it from one's own heart to begin with (easier to say than do, but important nonetheless).

Just my 2p...

(frozen) Re: A

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

"Pray tell"?

(frozen) Re: A

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I mean, are you seriously equating setting up a trade union to organising a 'paki bashing' squad?

No and you know I'm not.

But just so that we can put the anarchy = passivism argument straight under the turf, we should recall that such luminaries of the anarchist movement as Johann Most and Emma Goldman advocated violence to overthrow capitalism.

However, I concede the point: Anarchism is so-ill defined and subject to so many schools of thought beyond the abolition of 'rulers' that it is a meaningless phrase.

I'm not quite sure where you got the impression that was defending the BNP, apart from natural competitiveness.

As to left-wing passivism generally, is there any point in debating it? If I mention violence during the miners' strike or during the poll tax riots, you will smugly point out that they are simple responses tpo acts of repression from a right-wing establishment therefore exculpating the left of all blame.

So there can be no meaningful debate and I do not propose to try.