Freedom from speech?
This morning dear readers we revisit that old chestnut, freedom of speech with the news that
Protests are expected at Oxford University when two controversial figures arrive for a free-speech event. Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, and David Irving - jailed for denying the Holocaust - are to take part in an Oxford Union debate.
Nasty Nick & ex-con Irving are both deeply unpleasant individuals who both have the right to be rotting in a shallow unmarked grave – notwithstanding that they do have the unfettered right to the freedom of speech, however ZANU-Labour want to define it right this week. This doesn’t alter the fact that they are both racists: then again so is the promoter of buggery & appeaser of Muslim terrorists Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday. Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by “clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” had led to “the worst of all worlds”. In a wide-ranging interview with a British Muslim magazine, the Anglican leader linked criticism of the United States to one of his most pessimistic declarations about the state of western civilisation
Now what I love about this is that certain members of the painfully liberal Oxford Union think that both Nick & Dave should be denied a platform pretty much in the same manner as Irving has denied the holocaust – in an arbitrary & unilateral manner. I am very very uncomfortable about the leader of our ersatz Nazis & one of their apolpgists being given any platform (other than one that comprises part of a scaffold) but I am even less comfortable about a bunch of liberal academics & students trying to rule on who deserves to be heard or not. That is a real threat to freedom of speech
Comments
I always thought "the leader of our ersatz nazis" was the one eyed c*nt of doom himself, Messer G Brown.
At least Swift Nick doesn't demand my unqualified worship of his every thought and deed.
Posted by: Robert the Biker | November 26, 2007 12:36 PM
the trouble seems to be the detachment from reality that educational institutions enjoy, of course you are right about free speech, so far anyway, the trouble with the BNP is that because the tories are now centre left it is only BNp and UKIP who care about England and the English. In your opinion which is the least evil, communism/stalinism or nazism? I believe history teaches us that the jews,russian soldiers, gypsies etc fared less worse under Hitler than Stalin.
Posted by: chris Edwards | November 26, 2007 12:59 PM
Chris,
If you were to ask me, they were as bad as each other; trying to compare them and decide who was worse is simply moral equivalence in my book.
I reckon he whole left right thing is horse poo as well. It's totalitarians vs freedom that matters.
Posted by: The Remittance Man | November 26, 2007 3:58 PM
Point taken re the leftists, but isn't it time you shook off your prejudice against any white person who shows the slightest syptoms of 'racism', no matter what the context. Last week it was the late Ian Smith, now it's these two. Coming from an outright lefty this might be excusable - they're all idiots, after all, and beyond help. But coming from someone who has such a firm grasp of the nature of the enemy we face (as you do), it seems a bit, well, cowardly. In a way you remind me of those numerous Tory MPs who plainly know the truth of a problem but run a mile rather than actually facing up to it or taking the action required to solve it, lest they break some PC taboo. Then again, maybe you're a PPC for the party - if so, then admit it and at least we'll know where you're coming from.
If this is not the case, then isn't it time that you were honest with yourself (and us) and admitted that, yes, a huge part of the problem we face is racial in origin - as it was for Ian Smith. This is not something to be proud of or celebrated, but neither is it to be ignored or downplayed. It is a simple fact and has to be acknowledged as such if a solution is to be found.
Furthermore (and it pains me to have to point this out) having a racial component to one's character is no more evil / dangerous / threatening than having a sexual or an intellectual component - it is quite simple part of the human condition and has been from time immemorial. This is doubly true when one's race - be that black, white, whatever - is perceived to be under threat.
Put another way, you recently wrote that you were thinking about emigrating. Translated, this means you fully understand the nature of the threat to our collective future and might, in simple terms, flee rather than fight. Nick Griffin, for whatever reasons, has decided to fight. Were this 1939, you would be the man enquiring about tickets to somewhere far away; he would be the one outside the recruitment office ... And you are the one doing the condemning. Think about that.
Posted by: mexicano | November 26, 2007 5:09 PM
There's already an appropriate tradition established for Canterbury Archbishops such as these: January 10, 1645 William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, beheaded for treason.
It's better that it happens based on Tradition, rather than being committed by Intefada thugs who have expressly declared themselves - and about which the dullwitted Archie seems to know nothing but appeasement.
Posted by: DirtCrashr | November 26, 2007 8:08 PM