Liberty 'n' that
Unlike Donald Rumsfeld, Nick Griffin was found not guilty of stirring up racial hatred this week. It's amazing how many things freedom looks like to different people: A tyranical dictatorship (for the Sunni Iraqies or the Aryan Nazis); Jihad (to those who believe paradise proceeds martyrdom); political correctness (to the BBC); uni-culturalism or indigenous people's national perogative (to the BNP); or the liberty of Christ (to Christians).
As for me, I can't stand the BNP, but when it comes down to a threat to democracy and people governing the mis-alignment of our cultural orthodoxies, I think there's nothing more dangerous than politically correct taboos and trying to justify what is in a very real sense freedom of speech.
I think a fair moral yardstick of the modern (and postmodern!) age is the UN Universal Decleration of Human Rights, which says in Article 19:
``Everyone has the right to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.``
The BNP tend to advertise views that question the rights of others based on indigenousness, however, the views offered by the nature of Political Correctness question the rights of the people to express their views. And in the case of the lesser of two evils, I can't argue that denying a person's or organisation's right to free speech in the name of freedom is anything but a juxtoposition of the moral highground. In the words of Nick Griffin:
"I was hauled over the coals for describing Asian criminals as Asian and their white victims as white. That's not a crime, that's the truth of the matter,"
The BBC seems to be claiming this is tantamount to verbal Kristallnacht. As much as I don't pretend to know what the actual words used at the BNP rally were (I can't find a media source to comment on what the actual slogans were) I still don't see how this case ever got to court.
As for the `BBC abusing their position` as quoted by Griffin, I think I agree. The BBC, being a squeeky clean corperation like things to be clear cut, so let's make clear what the charges were. Griffin was quoted as calling ``Islam a wicked and vicious faith`` to which the courts played host a case of racism. Maybe I've lost touch with reality for a second, but racism is based on the discrimination of race/ethnicity, skin colour, and perhaps nationality at a push - not religion! And the issue of this confused attitude isn't confined to the BBC:
Chancellor Gordon Brown has told the BBC race laws may have to be revised in light of the acquittal. - BBC news
My take on all this is the BNP are bunch of tits for even thinking let alone plaquarding these thoughts, but to make laws against this is political paranoia. I wish the liberalists would eat their dictums and understand that these peoples words will be their own obituaries. I have faith in our current political system that the Algo-reich is an impossibility, and that any further attempt to quash the voices who don't agree with one aspect of regressive liberalism is undeniably unconstitutional and taking away someone's right to say something horrific is far more disgusting than anything a person or people could say.
As for me, I can't stand the BNP, but when it comes down to a threat to democracy and people governing the mis-alignment of our cultural orthodoxies, I think there's nothing more dangerous than politically correct taboos and trying to justify what is in a very real sense freedom of speech.
I think a fair moral yardstick of the modern (and postmodern!) age is the UN Universal Decleration of Human Rights, which says in Article 19:
``Everyone has the right to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.``
The BNP tend to advertise views that question the rights of others based on indigenousness, however, the views offered by the nature of Political Correctness question the rights of the people to express their views. And in the case of the lesser of two evils, I can't argue that denying a person's or organisation's right to free speech in the name of freedom is anything but a juxtoposition of the moral highground. In the words of Nick Griffin:
"I was hauled over the coals for describing Asian criminals as Asian and their white victims as white. That's not a crime, that's the truth of the matter,"
The BBC seems to be claiming this is tantamount to verbal Kristallnacht. As much as I don't pretend to know what the actual words used at the BNP rally were (I can't find a media source to comment on what the actual slogans were) I still don't see how this case ever got to court.
As for the `BBC abusing their position` as quoted by Griffin, I think I agree. The BBC, being a squeeky clean corperation like things to be clear cut, so let's make clear what the charges were. Griffin was quoted as calling ``Islam a wicked and vicious faith`` to which the courts played host a case of racism. Maybe I've lost touch with reality for a second, but racism is based on the discrimination of race/ethnicity, skin colour, and perhaps nationality at a push - not religion! And the issue of this confused attitude isn't confined to the BBC:
Chancellor Gordon Brown has told the BBC race laws may have to be revised in light of the acquittal. - BBC news
My take on all this is the BNP are bunch of tits for even thinking let alone plaquarding these thoughts, but to make laws against this is political paranoia. I wish the liberalists would eat their dictums and understand that these peoples words will be their own obituaries. I have faith in our current political system that the Algo-reich is an impossibility, and that any further attempt to quash the voices who don't agree with one aspect of regressive liberalism is undeniably unconstitutional and taking away someone's right to say something horrific is far more disgusting than anything a person or people could say.
posted by Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) @ 4:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home