Is discrimination ok...
Discussion
Interestingly this was covered on Have I Got News for You last night.
It's difficult, I like the idea that the palace can send a message that Griffin isn't welcome because of his views but on the other hand if the palace decided to ban Clarkson for his environmental views I'd think that was unfair.
The danger is that Griffin will get lots of publicity from this and win either way.
It's difficult, I like the idea that the palace can send a message that Griffin isn't welcome because of his views but on the other hand if the palace decided to ban Clarkson for his environmental views I'd think that was unfair.
The danger is that Griffin will get lots of publicity from this and win either way.
Stevenj214 said:
No. Freedom of speech means for those views with which you disagree, as well as for those views with which you agree. They are scum, stupid, racist, pig ingorant fools. But they have the right to say these things, the same right I have to say they are stupid racist pig ignorant fools.
Jasandjules said:
Stevenj214 said:
No. Freedom of speech means for those views with which you disagree, as well as for those views with which you agree. They are scum, stupid, racist, pig ingorant fools. But they have the right to say these things, the same right I have to say they are stupid racist pig ignorant fools.
[quote=Karl]
They are scum, stupid, racist, pig ingorant fools. But they have the right to say these things, the same right I have to say they are stupid racist pig ignorant fools.
Jasandjules said:
No. Freedom of speech means for those views with which you disagree, as well as for those views with which you agree. They are scum, stupid, racist, pig ingorant fools. But they have the right to say these things, the same right I have to say they are stupid racist pig ignorant fools.
Karl said:
I disagree. It's one thing to allow freedom of speech, and in particular allow debate on controversial subjects, but I think that allowing Nick Griffin to "lunch" with the Queen could be seen as accepting that he as a place in mainstream politics. He doesn't.
I am afraid that is up to the voters. As they have won some council seats the voters are telling us that he has a place in mainstream politics. Or at least as much of a place as other fringe parties do.Edited by s2art on Saturday 23 May 15:23
Edited by s2art on Saturday 23 May 15:24
s2art said:
[quote=Karl]
They are scum, stupid, racist, pig ingorant fools. But they have the right to say these things, the same right I have to say they are stupid racist pig ignorant fools.
Jasandjules said:
No. Freedom of speech means for those views with which you disagree, as well as for those views with which you agree. They are scum, stupid, racist, pig ingorant fools. But they have the right to say these things, the same right I have to say they are stupid racist pig ignorant fools.
Karl said:
I disagree. It's one thing to allow freedom of speech, and in particular allow debate on controversial subjects, but I think that allowing Nick Griffin to "lunch" with the Queen could be seen as accepting that he as a place in mainstream politics. He doesn't.
I am afraid that is up to the voters. As they have won some council seats the voters are telling us that he has a place in mainstream politics. Or at least as much of a place as other fringe parties do.Edited by s2art on Saturday 23 May 15:23
Edited by s2art on Saturday 23 May 15:24
Just because you don't like their views doesn't mean you can silence them. Then we don't have freedom of speech and definitely no democracy.
I am very uncomfortable about the way every politician and journalist is jumping on this anti BNP bandwagon. I don't want to see them in power, but freedom of speech means just that. If they break the law then they can be prosecuted. The problem is that whatever they say is interpreted by the media and the politico's to suit their own leanings. I was chatting to an ex business partner the other day who is going to vote BNP. That's his decision and whilst I think he's wrong, I also feel that it is his right to cast his vote as he chooses.
The danger of always vilifying extreme parties, is that you get voters saying how terrible they are, but then going on to vote for them. This vote might just be a protest or based upon one popular policy they have in their manifesto. With everyone making their criticisms often based on no more than their own prejudice, this can solidify these "one of" protest voters into regular supporters - this is where the real danger lies. The best policy is to totally ignore them. If they manage to win a few seats - good. They can then be judged on their deeds not on media hype.
The danger of always vilifying extreme parties, is that you get voters saying how terrible they are, but then going on to vote for them. This vote might just be a protest or based upon one popular policy they have in their manifesto. With everyone making their criticisms often based on no more than their own prejudice, this can solidify these "one of" protest voters into regular supporters - this is where the real danger lies. The best policy is to totally ignore them. If they manage to win a few seats - good. They can then be judged on their deeds not on media hype.
Jasandjules said:
It is a political party. People vote. This is a democracry, and therefore, whilst he is a pig ignorant fascist fool, he has the same right to spout his bile as the Labour party do to spout theirs.
Where would we stop otherwise........... Does HM allow labour politicians who voted for the illegal war in Iraq or politicians who are for expanding the role of the European Union (which arguably would lead to the dissolution of the monarchy)Freedom of speech is very much a two way street, we should use our own judgement over who we should listen to rather than relying on the judgement of the media and government, both of which are fairly abysmal
Edited by AndrewW-G on Saturday 23 May 16:54
Discrimination is a perfectly normal part of making decisions. I discriminate against cabbage and choose not to eat it whereas I love peas. When you make your decisions based on discriminating against race, colour, religion or gender then it is very likely to be unacceptable. Shades of grey as ever, I think.
James. said:
Discrimination is a perfectly normal part of making decisions. I discriminate against cabbage and choose not to eat it whereas I love peas. When you make your decisions based on discriminating against race, colour, religion or gender then it is very likely to be unacceptable. Shades of grey as ever, I think.
Not in this case. Personal taste is rather different. I discriminate consistently against gender when choosing sexual partners. Is that unacceptable?As has been said, freedom requires free speech.
s2art said:
James. said:
Discrimination is a perfectly normal part of making decisions. I discriminate against cabbage and choose not to eat it whereas I love peas. When you make your decisions based on discriminating against race, colour, religion or gender then it is very likely to be unacceptable. Shades of grey as ever, I think.
Not in this case. Personal taste is rather different. I discriminate consistently against gender when choosing sexual partners. Is that unacceptable?As has been said, freedom requires free speech.
My initial post was to put the opinion out there that discrimination, per se, is perfectly normal.
Does anyone else find that these types of post are really often designed to see who can most eloquently debate in writing? These debates are soooo much easier verbally!
Stevenj214 said:
What's wrong with discrimination against people you dont like when inviting them to your home? It's not a freedom of speech issue any more than me asking my pals not to bring their prick of a flatmate round.You think it’s bad in the UK, in Italy, there are parts of cities and towns whose councils are overtly racist – they even have their own laws stating that food outlets and restaurants MUST prepare and sell Italian food only. There are reports of Indian, Greek and Chinese restaurants being forced to close, because the ‘Go against and try and dilute Italian culture’ Some of the local authorities make the BNP seem quite moderate by comparison.
Because of what I’ve seen and heard in Italy, the BNP would be a very bad thing for the UK, without a shadow of a doubt – what makes the UK so special is that it is culturally colourful – it has great food (especially British Indian, Greek and Chinese), and on the whole, we all do get on really well (although seemingly less so after over a decade of failed labour socialist experiments). If the BNP did do well (which I don’t think they will, as the UK public aren’t as intolerant as the main parties like to think) – the main parties have no one to blame but themselves - they are the very people who cose to use a 'divide and rule policy' - perhaps fringe parties gaining votes are a by product of Labour's own over-controlling policies.
Because of what I’ve seen and heard in Italy, the BNP would be a very bad thing for the UK, without a shadow of a doubt – what makes the UK so special is that it is culturally colourful – it has great food (especially British Indian, Greek and Chinese), and on the whole, we all do get on really well (although seemingly less so after over a decade of failed labour socialist experiments). If the BNP did do well (which I don’t think they will, as the UK public aren’t as intolerant as the main parties like to think) – the main parties have no one to blame but themselves - they are the very people who cose to use a 'divide and rule policy' - perhaps fringe parties gaining votes are a by product of Labour's own over-controlling policies.
glazbagun said:
Stevenj214 said:
What's wrong with discrimination against people you dont like when inviting them to your home? It's not a freedom of speech issue any more than me asking my pals not to bring their prick of a flatmate round.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff