A bit of a chinwag
by hakmao, 14 February 2008
You have heard the ‘argument’ countless times - ‘the only way to defeat [neo-]nazis is to let them say their piece and then confront their lies in a nice cosy debate’. The success of this time-honoured technique is well documented:
Kindly Mr Himmler, President of the Landshut Debating Society
Not that the Vancouver Public Library appears concerned about confronting anything:
The role of the public library, however, is to provide a forum for … a wide range of views, including those that may be considered unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable.
Hey, they should cut out the middle man and burn their own books. The Gadgie has a different idea about the function of libraries:
I have a more unfashionable view of public libraries. I think they are there to lend books. If there is a subtext, their role would also be to promote the enjoyment of reading, learning and critical thought. I cannot see their mission to be the propagation of lies.
[…]
I do not want to live in a society that bans books, imprisons journalists, persecutes writers and closes down newspapers. In that sense I am a free speech militant. However, we should notice something here. The writers trying to weasel their way to acceptability tell lies and seek to suppress truth. They are the book burners and the censors in the making, using ‘intellectual freedom’ as a cover. To support free speech is not a neutral act, it is to be a partisan for truth. Above all, it is to be a partisan for humanist values.
Partisans do not meekly surrender to lies. Partisans do not wallow in the fake neutrality of ‘balance’. That is cowardice. Partisans contest, challenge and ridicule. They may not ban it, but they treat nonsense with contempt. They refuse to legitimate the vile filth of murderous prejudice, rooted in lies and dripping with irrational hatred. And they most certainly do not allow public institutions to host rabid nonsense in the name of ‘free speech’.
Comrade Glavin lets fly here.
Nowadays, perhaps especially among the urban intellectual caste, you cannot raise your voice against even the most foul antisemite, if that same antisemite uses words such as “Israel” or “Zionist” in the same breath as his other veiled utterances of Jew-hatred. You will be told that you are equating legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. You will be told, ‘This is part of a legitimate debate.’ But if you say, no it isn’t, you will be told, ‘This is just how the Jews suppress free speech to silence criticism of Israel.’ If you say, ‘That sounds like one of those old antisemitic canards; show me some evidence that it is true,’ you will be called a Zionist, which is one of the worst things you can call someone these days. If you talk back, you will hear someone calling you a Zionazi. You will soon hear people telling you to shut up.
Thursday 14 February 2008 at 23:59
There is another aspect to this.
If you seek, in any way, to suppress what may be said in public, then you are only making a rod for your own back. For what is suppressed in public, will be declared in private.
I believe we have to let the dog see the rabbit and even bare his teeth, so that more importantly we let the rabbit see the dog, and count his teeth. We are always better off knowing how much trouble we are in.
Friday 15 February 2008 at 0:17
I see the rabbit. I know very well the trouble we’re in. I don’t intend to debate with it.
You want to, help yourself. Just don’t get too close is all.
Fair warning to you.
t
Friday 15 February 2008 at 0:22
Yes, I agree with Monty. When I went on a safari many years ago, I was told: a visible lion is a safe lion. The dangerous lion you can’t see, it is hiding too well. So we need to know what is being said, and maybe more importantly, by whom.
I am much more frightened of the Indecent leftists who cache their hatred in lofty words of human rights and “antiracism” than I am of someone like Felton. But I find even scarier the spectacle of the two shilling for each other in the name of freedom of speech.
Friday 15 February 2008 at 0:32
I wish stupid right wing pigs would learn the language before coming on sites like this and talking out of their fucking arseholes.
Stop embarrassing yourselves you stupid pig-ignorant fucks.
Gawwwd — I am losing patience with.
I blame Harry’s Place for all of this pomo shite about ‘free speech’ gaining currency.
Kill fash — beat them up.
Friday 15 February 2008 at 3:00
What Will said.
Friday 15 February 2008 at 10:05
I support freedom of speech. Notably the right to tell idiots to go away. And I also support freedom of association. Notably the right to have nothing to do with idiots.
It’s good to see Will and Flea exercising these rights. It’s a shame to see some people demanding that they not use them.
And if you see a lion coming right for you, teeth and claws bared, the correct response is not “Oh it’s alright we’re safe because we can see the lion, imagine how much trouble we’d be in if we couldn’t see it!”.
Friday 15 February 2008 at 12:48
“And if you see a lion coming right for you, teeth and claws bared”
Lions are dangerous to humans, as a rule. And some humans’ flesh is particularly sweet to certain lions. So the sweet-flesh humans are always extra careful when they see a lion, and maybe are even prepared, or maybe even they figured out a way to neutralize him. You can’t do that if the lion is a subversive lion about whose tastes you know very little.
One thing is for sure: take a hungry lion and put it in a cage and people will start feeling sorry for him and demand that you let it out. Or they may form a mob and unleash that lion themselves, and show him where the sweet-flesh humans can be found. Out of pity for his hunger and the poor, oppressed beauty of his mane.
Friday 15 February 2008 at 14:51
Quit the fucking animal analogies please. These are not lions, rabbits, wombats, gnus or any other bloody creature. They are fascists.
If they are out and visible it means they are recruiting, organising and gaining in respectability. If they are invisible, that means they are in their back bedrooms indulging in their vile fantasies with a box of Kleenex and are wholly irrelevant.
Why do you think that the far right have invested so much effort in appearing respectable across Europe if not to advance their cause? If they are seen as a bunch of thugs and deluded obsessives they have no hope and will only crop up on radio phone-ins. Give them a respectable platform and they will use it.
Friday 15 February 2008 at 16:34
Our beloved Montreal Simon (whose web lodge you should all make a habit of popping in on) sent me a note with the best idea I’ve encountered so far. It involves peanuts and pizza, the Thornhill, Ontario Branch of the Chaim Herzog Battalion of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, whistles, and “those things you blow on New Year’s Eve”.
It seems to me this would be consistent with the Gadgie’s sensible analysis, and also Noga’s concern that we must be in a position to see the whites of their eyes. A basis of unity:
A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down their pants.
Monday 18 February 2008 at 2:14
Josh Scholar is a stupid ignorant CUNT.