• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

BNP leaflet through my door

Sorry still missing what your point is?

The egg throwing was wrong - I assume you agree with this?

Is it that you think the protesters use of their right to speech and protest was wrong?
 
No, no, no, I believe their active desire to prevent the BNP from speaking was wrong. I don't mind them protesting.
 
They had the same rights as the protesters had. As I said above whilst we have a right to free-speech we do not have a right to free-speech at the expense of someone else's free-speech.

If I want to exercise my right to free-speech and stand in a public place and make a statement about the necessity of a criminal justice system, then the loony behind me making a statement that the martins have landed, has just as much right to make his statement even at the same time as I do.

The BNP, as the result of being a recognised political party, already has more rights than you and I do when it comes to getting their message across, what they don't have is a right to free-speech that trumps our right of free-speech.
 
Yet the protestors did not want the BNP to exercise their free speech. I believe they are wrong for doing so, and make a mockery of the idea of free speech.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Yet the protestors did not want the BNP to exercise their free speech. I believe they are wrong for doing so, and make a mockery of the idea of free speech.
Click to expand...

Again I'm just able to connect the dots with your argument. The only way I can make your argument make sense is if you are saying that the BNP's right to free-speech trumps the right of the protesters' to exercise their right of free-speech.

The idea of free-speech is that it is a right we all have.
 
The BNP were set to have a press conference, and the UAF protestors turned up and attempted to force them off the Parliament lawn, complete with eggs. I object to them wishing to deny the BNP their right to exercise free speech. I don't mind them protesting in the background.

In this case, the UAF believed their right to free speech trumped the BNP's. As their head said: 'I believe in free speech, but not for fascists'.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
The BNP were set to have a press conference, and the UAF protestors turned up and attempted to force them off the Parliament lawn, complete with eggs. I object to them wishing to deny the BNP their right to exercise free speech. I don't mind them protesting in the background.

In this case, the UAF believed their right to free speech trumped the BNP's. As their head said: 'I believe in free speech, but not for fascists'.
Click to expand...

The BNP were set to have a press conference in a public place as is their right, the protesters decided that they also wanted to exercise their right to free speech in a public space.

What you are now quite clearly advocating is that the BNP's right to free speech should be at the expense of the protesters' right to free speech i.e. "I don't mind them protesting in the background.".

Neither the BNP nor the protesters have a right to the "foreground" in matters of free-speech.
 
I think what Undesired Walrus is trying to say is that the BNP have the right to say whatever it is that they want to say without being physically forced from wherever it is that they're standing to say it.

The protesters do indeed have a right to protest, but their actions actually denied the BNP from exercising their right to free speech.

Personally I think that throwing eggs at such people is counter-productive. It almost gives them an air of respectability. They can say afterwards, "Look, people are scared of what we have to say, because they know it's true."

The way to deal with these scumbags is to let them speak, and then show them for the lying scumbags they really are. Let them hang themselves on their own words, because they can't produce any real evidence to back up their ideas. Stay calm, address their arguments. Laugh at them, make them the joke they deserve to be.
 
wollery said:
I think what Undesired Walrus is trying to say is that the BNP have the right to say whatever it is that they want to say without being physically forced from wherever it is that they're standing to say it.

...snip...
Click to expand...

And I totally agree with this.

wollery said:
The protesters do indeed have a right to protest, but their actions actually denied the BNP from exercising their right to free speech.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. The BNP's right to free speech was not squashed, they could have stayed and said whatever they wanted, no one stopped them doing that. (Caveat - yes I know there were physical scuffles and so on, which as I said were and are wrong, but we are talking more in principle here.)

wollery said:
Personally I think that throwing eggs at such people is counter-productive. It almost gives them an air of respectability. They can say afterwards, "Look, people are scared of what we have to say, because they know it's true."
...snip...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it an "air of respectability" but I agree with your sentiment.

wollery said:
The way to deal with these scumbags is to let them speak, and then show them for the lying scumbags they really are.

...snip..
Click to expand...

You could try that, although I would say it is not known for being very succesful at curtailing extremist views and groups.

wollery said:
Let them hang themselves on their own words, because they can't produce any real evidence to back up their ideas. Stay calm, address their arguments. Laugh at them, make them the joke they deserve to be.
Click to expand...

And drown out their minority view - often extremists get a disproportionate amount of attention to get their message across in public because they are not opposed in public. I would 100% support, for instance, that at any public place a BNP politician or supporter tries to speak that the area is saturated with people making a huge noise and drowning out their minority views.

What gives groups like the BNP the "air of respectability" is to be treated like a serious group with reasoned views and sound policies.
 
Darat said:
And drown out their minority view - often extremists get a disproportionate amount of attention to get their message across in public because they are not opposed in public. I would 100% support, for instance, that at any public place a BNP politician or supporter tries to speak that the area is saturated with people making a huge noise and drowning out their minority views.
Click to expand...

But such activities would allow the BNP to appear on the news above the banner: 'Protests disrupt BNP press conference', wheras if they are talking blithering rubbish on TV, it's unlikely it's going to make the 10 o'Clock news.

This works with the Monster Raving Loony Party, or Veritas.

What gives groups like the BNP the "air of respectability" is to be treated like a serious group with reasoned views and sound policies.
Click to expand...

The UAF make them out to be more important than they actually are, and more dangerous than they actually are. This is a party, remember, that hasn't increased its share of the vote (And only became elected because of the awful PR system), and did terribly in London in the recent elections.

The moment the Archbishop, for example, gives a prime-time (Or church's equivalent of 'prime time') address on the danger of the BNP, that shoots them up in the 'importance' stakes. Griffin is granted a quote on the third paragraph of a BBC news story about the Archbishop's words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom