Rise of the far right in Europe.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I'm absolutely sure the hate speech laws are underused. It is commonplace for our best-selling national newspapers to effectively incite violence against minorities with impunity.

I’d certainly appreciate links to incitement of violence in best selling national papers, mate.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I’d certainly appreciate links to incitement of violence in best selling national papers, mate.

You've never seen a Daily Mail headline calling anyone who opposes a hard Brexit a "traitor" or an "enemy of the people"? Or the S*n lying that British Muslims support terrorism? Or any of the other countless examples from the Express or Star or from hate-preachers like Farage, Little John or Hopkins?

 

Or do you assume that these are just reasonable expressions of opinion which are completely unrelated to spikes in racist violence?

 

It's not a question of censorship or authoritarianism. It's about holding people accountable for the consequences of their actions.

[Rico1304]

The highest increase in racial violence is against the Jews isn’t it?

[Numero Veinticinco]

You've never seen a Daily Mail headline calling anyone who opposes a hard Brexit a "traitor" or an "enemy of the people"? Or the S*n lying that British Muslims support terrorism? Or any of the other countless examples from the Express or Star or from hate-preachers like Farage, Little John or Hopkins?

 

Or do you assume that these are just reasonable expressions of opinion which are completely unrelated to spikes in racist violence?

 

It's not a question of censorship or authoritarianism. It's about holding people accountable for the consequences of their actions.

Leaving aside that you didn’t give any examples of what was claimed... This is entirely different from what was being spoken about previously. Holding people to account for incitement to violence is entirely different to denying people a platform to express their views.

 

The first, which wasn’t the discussion I was having, isn’t to do with authoritarianism and censorship. The second, which I was, absolutely is.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Yes, really. Had you only considered it before making your previous post.

 

 

A proactive approach to hate speech. Huh. I don’t think you and I are capable of having a meaningful discussion, unfortunately. I’m not a big fan of thought-crime, I’m not a big fan of censorship, I’m not a big fan of restricting views because I personally don’t like them. That’s why I’m not a fascist. I don’t plan on endorsing fascistic, authoritarian measures any time soon.

Not sure you've understood my point.

 

I didn't say adopt a proactive approach to hate speech. I thought it was fairly obvious that my comments related to speech that called for violence, be it explicit or strongly implicit calls.

 

Yes, we can punish these people under the existing laws. But that's after they've already called for people to take to the streets. And maybe after an innocent person has been hurt.

 

Warn them once not to call for people to fight etc. If they don't follow this advice, take away their platform. Free speech must also be responsible speech. I agree, there's no discussion to be had. I'll always lean towards the right for an individual to not have their head kicked in over the rights of a shit stirrer to stoke up trouble.

[Rico1304]

Not sure you've understood my point.

I didn't say adopt a proactive approach to hate speech. I thought it was fairly obvious that my comments related to speech that called for violence, be it explicit or strongly implicit calls.

Yes, we can punish these people under the existing laws. But that's after they've already called for people to take to the streets. And maybe after an innocent person has been hurt.

Warn them once not to call for people to fight etc. If they don't follow this advice, take away their platform. Free speech must also be responsible speech. I agree, there's no discussion to be had. I'll always lean towards the right for an individual to not have their head kicked in over the rights of a shit stirrer to stoke up trouble.

How far right do you have to be not to be able to speak? Blair? Conservatives? If you implement it how quickly would you think the government of the day would shut down any dissenting speech?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The highest increase in racial violence is against the Jews isn’t it?

Maybe. The highest incidence of hate crime is still, I think, against Muslims. Far right thugs of all stripes are happy to propagandise against and assault all their usual targets - Jews, Muslims, immigrants, anyone LGBTQ+, anyone non-white, lefties, trade unionists, etc. It's important for those of us who opposes Fascism to keep the spirit of "an injury to one is an injury to all" and not get drawn into sectarianism or any "I'm more of a victim than you" contests. Solider or bust.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Leaving aside that you didn’t give any examples of what was claimed... This is entirely different from what was being spoken about previously. Holding people to account for incitement to violence is entirely different to denying people a platform to express their views.

 

The first, which wasn’t the discussion I was having, isn’t to do with authoritarianism and censorship. The second, which I was, absolutely is.

So you do assume that the normalisation of hate speech is unrelated to increases in violence against minorities.

 

You are wrong.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

How far right do you have to be not to be able to speak? Blair? Conservatives? If you implement it how quickly would you think the government of the day would shut down any dissenting speech?

Nobody mentioned political leanings. If you call for people to be violent, measures should be taken to restrict your ability to make such calls. On top of any liability under the existing laws. Be you on the left or right.

 

The details and minutae would need sorting out, obviously. But, it's not about stamping out dissent. Just irresponsible speech that can have real, life changing consequences.

[Numero Veinticinco]

So you do assume that the normalisation of hate speech is unrelated to increases in violence against minorities.

 

You are wrong.

That’s up there with the most ridiculous posts I’ve seen in any political discussion in my decade on this forum. Well job.

[Rico1304]

Nobody mentioned political leanings. If you call for people to be violent, measures should be taken to restrict your ability to make such calls. On top of any liability under the existing laws. Be you on the left or right.

 

The details and minutae would need sorting out, obviously. But, it's not about stamping out dissent. Just irresponsible speech that can have real, life changing consequences.

The Rise of the Far Right in Europe?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

The Rise of the Far Right in Europe?

Wowsers. You are allowed to make a general point in a more specifically geared thread. No?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

That’s up there with the most ridiculous posts I’ve seen in any political discussion in my decade on this forum. Well job.

In what way ridiculous?

 

Do you recognise the (well-documented) link between hate speech and hate crimes or not?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The Rise of the Far Right in Europe?

Really?

 

The scourge of the "Islamic Positive Thread" being pedantic about sticking to the thread title?

[Rico1304]

Wowsers. You are allowed to make a general point in a more specifically geared thread. No?

Ok, are you happy for the people with the ‘Die Trump’ placards yesterday to be convicted?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Ok, are you happy for the people with the ‘Die Trump’ placards yesterday to be convicted?

No. They're wishing him dead. Specifically him. They're not suggesting that people should take to the streets and fight.

 

One wishes death on a specific individual. The other could lead to mobs beating up innocent people. If they had banners saying "Kill Donald Trump" then there'd be a suitable comparison.

[cloggypop]

Die Trump is grammatically correct in his immigrant family's original German.

[Numero Veinticinco]

In what way ridiculous?

The one where you made a load of shit up, didn't have anything to do with anything I said, and then declared me wrong on the made up stuff. That's pretty daft in my view. I'm going to hang out and wait for the examples of incitement of violence in best selling national papers before going any further down this particular road. I'm not going to spend my Sunday afternoon arguing against things that haven't been defined.

[cloggypop]

You are deffo spending your Sunday afternoon arguing though.

[Rico1304]

Really?

 

The scourge of the "Islamic Positive Thread" being pedantic about sticking to the thread title?

Ha! Without one you might not have the other.

[Rico1304]

No. They're wishing him dead. Specifically him. They're not suggesting that people should take to the streets and fight.

 

One wishes death on a specific individual. The other could lead to mobs beating up innocent people. If they had banners saying "Kill Donald Trump" then there'd be a suitable comparison.

Oh good, so anyone saying theyd hang Tories is doing time then? Seems daft to me.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The one where you made a load of shit up, didn't have anything to do with anything I said, and then declared me wrong on the made up stuff. That's pretty daft in my view. I'm going to hang out and wait for the examples of incitement of violence in best selling national papers before going any further down this particular road. I'm not going to spend my Sunday afternoon arguing against things that haven't been defined.

Do try to understand.

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

 

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

 

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.)

[Rico1304]

Do try to understand.

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

 

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

 

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.)

Hate preachers you say?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Oh good, so anyone saying theyd hang Tories is doing time then? Seems daft to me.

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.

[cloggypop]

Surely hanging Tories is just self defence?