Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Rise of the far right in Europe.


Sugar Ape
 Share

Recommended Posts

Perhaps. It obviously depends on context. If it's said rather jokingly on a fairly obscure Liverpool forum, probably not.

 

If Owen Jones goes on Radio 2 and tells people to take to the streets and hang Tories or batter them etc, you'd argue that it's justified if he gets in a bit of bother.

So if I say it to one person it’s ok? How many members on here?

 

See why this is hard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate preachers you say?

Littlejohn driving a teacher to suicide.

Hopkins promoting the Fascists trying to drown people in the Mediterranean.

The headline writers who routinely tell us that refugees, immigrants and Muslims are a threat to our security and our way of life - and that the PC liberal elites will do nothing to defend us.

etc.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Littlejohn driving a teacher to suicide.

Hopkins promoting the Fascists trying to drown people in the Mediterranean.

The headline writers who routinely tell us that refugees, immigrants and Muslims are a threat to our security and our way of life - and that the PC liberal elites will do nothing to defend us.

etc.

I think you missed my point.

 

Hate preachers are now going to prison. This may have unintended consequences for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only there were judges, capable of, y'know, using judgement.

 

What unintended consequences are you thinking of?

You mean like now?

 

I’m thinking of religious groups marching with placards, preachers openly spouting hate. Or will there be exceptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like now?

There's plenty of scope - and need - for a stricter application of laws against incitement to hatred. Specifically, I'd like the newspapers to have a degree of accountability proportionate to their influence. Contrary to some people's fears of censorship, holding hate-preachers to account would improve our democracy and freedom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like now?

 

I’m thinking of religious groups marching with placards, preachers openly spouting hate. Or will there be exceptions?

Why would there be exceptions? If anything, I'm calling for fewer exceptions. If you stand on a street with a placard saying "Muslims support terrorism" you might get cautioned by the Police; if you put the same lie on a headline in thousands of shops throughout the country, the law won't do anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would there be exceptions? If anything, I'm calling for fewer exceptions. If you stand on a street with a placard saying "Muslims support terrorism" you might get cautioned by the Police; if you put the same lie on a headline in thousands of shops throughout the country, the law won't do anything.

Ha ha. Is there not a reason it’s not challenged? Evidence. Something the courts seem to rely on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m still thinking this may have some unintended consequences for you. Reading passages from books might become problematic.

I'm not convinced.

 

It should be fairly easy to draft a law against hate speech, with guidelines (along the lines of those promoted by IHRA or Tell MAMA) to clarify the difference between hate speech and free speech. The "unintended consequences" might be a few controversial court cases. The intended consequences would be a reduction in violence and a more positive political climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do try to understand.

I'll do my very best to understand your complex two or three sentences. It's a wonder I got through a Masters and a Doctorate, but maybe it'll finally be worth it if I can crack your particular brand of brilliance.

 

I started by saying that our best-selling papers effectively incite violence on a regular basis.

Well, to be more accurate you said 'It is commonplace for our best-selling national newspapers to effectively incite violence against minorities with impunity'.

 

I assumed that any literate, intelligent person in the UK would have noticed this trend. I didn't think examples would be required, but I gave a couple anyway.

Any intelligent person asks for evidence of claims made. It might be acceptable practice where you're from to accept the words of a guy ranting on the internet, but not where I was taught. You haven't provided any, so that's a load of bullshit. Again. What you did was make up a couple of words and put them in quotes with no links to anything, no resulting acts of violence.

 

Contrary to your false claim, I never made anything up.

You made two things up. One is above. The other was that unbelievable ridiculous post full of nonsense, firstly stating my view for me and then judging that view to be incorrect. Pure fantasy.

 

Just to be clear: do you or do you not understand and accept the well-documented causal relationship between hate speech and hate crimes? (From your posts so far I've assumed you don't, which is why I said you were wrong. If you do understand that relationship - and the consequent need to hold hate-preachers accountable - then I'll take it back.)

I'd like to see examples of your first claim, and then examples of the 'well-documented' causal relationships you're referring to. Standards, you see. I accept things with evidence, not angry words of self-righteous indignation.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced.

It should be fairly easy to draft a law against hate speech, with guidelines (along the lines of those promoted by IHRA or Tell MAMA) to clarify the difference between hate speech and free speech. The "unintended consequences" might be a few controversial court cases. The intended consequences would be a reduction in violence and a more positive political climate.

Tell MAMA? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll do my very best to understand your complex two or three sentences. It's a wonder I got through a Masters and a Doctorate, but maybe it'll finally be worth it if I can crack your particular brand of brilliance.

 

 

Well, to be more accurate you said 'It is commonplace for our best-selling national newspapers to effectively incite violence against minorities with impunity'.

 

 

Any intelligent person asks for evidence of claims made. It might be acceptable practice where you're from to accept the words of a guy ranting on the internet, but not where I was taught. You haven't provided any, so that's a load of bullshit. Again. What you did was make up a couple of words and put them in quotes with no links to anything, no resulting acts of violence.

 

 

You made two things up. One is above. The other was that unbelievable ridiculous post full of nonsense, firstly stating my view for me and then judging that view to be incorrect. Pure fantasy.

 

 

I'd like to see examples of your first claim, and then examples of the 'well-documented' causal relationships you're referring to. Standards, you see. I accept things with evidence, not angry words of self-righteous indignation.

Obviously, I don't have your massive brain, so I can't see the massive gulf of difference between saying something is commonplace and saying something happens regularly.  I'll get my dunce cap and sit in the corner.

 

Meanwhile, I'll give you one of the links you so desire, just to get you started.  As one of Britain's leading academics, you can carry out any further research yourself easily enough.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-daily-mail-fuelling-prejudice-racist-violence-hate-crime-speech-uk-ecri-report-a7351856.html

Police statistics have shown a sharp rise in Islamophobic, antisemitic and xenophobic assaults over the past year, amid growing tensions in Britain and across Europe.

As well as attacks on religious buildings, migrants from Eastern Europe have been targeted since the vote for Brexit, including a student stabbed in the neck for speaking Polish in Telford and killing of a Polish man in Harlow.

“It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians,” said ECRI chair Christian Ahlund.

But, of course, you know this.  You do accept and understand the causal relationship between hate speech and hate crimes, otherwise you wouldn't be getting your knickers in a twist about me assuming that you don't.  (As I've already said, if I've read that wrong I'll take it back; no need to keep banging on.)

 

If you want to conduct further research about the regularity of hate-speech in our best-selling newspapers, take a look at any random month's worth of headlines from the Mail, Express, S*n and Star.  Try it.  Look at last month or look at next month; I'll pay your TLW membership for next year if you can find a month in which those four papers between them don't reach forty negative (and misleading) headlines about immigrants and/or refugees.

 

Just to be clear on the two things you claim I made up.  The first one (that our bestselling papers regularly publish hate-speech)  is so fucking obvious that I thought anyone would know it, not from "a guy ranting on the internet" but from living in the UK with your eyes and ears open; apparently I was wrong, so since you're happy to take the word of a link provided by a guy on the internet, I've just provided one.  The second thing, as I've clarified, was something I (reasonably) inferred from your posts.  So, not "pure fantasy" at all, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you have to pay? I’m genuinely confused.

So am I, apparently.  I thought they had a paywall.

 

I've read it now.  It's not in any way relevant to the point, which is that this is a useful example of how it's possible to define hate-speech without cramping free speech.

https://tellmamauk.org/a-working-definition-of-anti-muslim-prejudice/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So am I, apparently. I thought they had a paywall.

 

I've read it now. It's not in any way relevant to the point, which is that this is a useful example of how it's possible to define hate-speech without cramping free speech.

https://tellmamauk.org/a-working-definition-of-anti-muslim-prejudice/

So using Tell Mama, an organisation that’s been discredited, has no bearing?

 

This is the type of bollocks that let’s Yaxley get a foothold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So using Tell Mama, an organisation that’s been discredited, has no bearing?

 

This is the type of bollocks that let’s Yaxley get a foothold.

Play the ball, not the man.  The working definition undoubtedly stands as a useful example that such definitions are possible.

 

In any case, Tell MAMA hasn't "been discredited".  It's been criticised by the Telegraph; other people have defended the important work it does and questioned the findings of that Telegraph article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_MAMA#Andrew_Gilligan's_pieces_in_The_Sunday_Telegraph

 

Your reference to Yaxley-Lennon is as misplaced as your apostrophe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Play the ball, not the man. The working definition undoubtedly stands as a useful example that such definitions are possible.

 

In any case, Tell MAMA hasn't "been discredited". It's been criticised by the Telegraph; other people have defended the important work it does and questioned the findings of that Telegraph article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_MAMA#Andrew_Gilligan's_pieces_in_The_Sunday_Telegraph

 

Your reference to Yaxley-Lennon is as misplaced as your apostrophe.

It’s been defunded, it’s been discredited.

 

Just apply the same standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...