Fair enough, but you (and the other people who answered) have avoided facing the dilemma which is the crux of the theoretical question, which is: what to do when the human rights of two individuals clash.andymackem wrote:Fair question, Laz.
As for the Hitler question, no I wouldn't. Making the Nazi's a covert organisation would have had little impact on their appeal, which was built around dismantling the 'establishment' which had precipitated the desperate state of 1930s Germany. If the fascists hadn't won popular support another extreme group (probably communist) would almost certainly have done so in that climate. IMHO, of course. Looking at the record of the USSR and their contribution to the 55m killed in the Great Patriotic War, plus the 30m+ of the purges, the impact of the Ukraine famine etc, etc, etc I can't see that being an improvement.
I support all the human rights - the right to freedom of expression (i.e. free speech) and the right to live. I'm sure you do too.
And in a situation where the human rights of two individuals clash - like in the theoretical situation I proposed - I would rate the right to live as having a higher priority than the right of freedom of expression.
Because you can give someone back their right to free speech, but you can't give back life after you've taken it away
maybe harsh, but it brought up the right visual image. Calling something you dislike 'fascist' is easy, and it's a term that's bandied around far too easily. I see Blair's government as overly-authoritarian and arrogant, but I won't describe their law of inciting racial hatred (or any other law they have passed that restricts free speech) as 'fascist' because it isn't.andymackem wrote:Rik from the Young Ones? Hmm. Harsh, frankly.
A system which comprehensively demonstrates the flaws in racist thinking is the ideal, and it would work in an ideal world. And therein lies the problem.andymackem wrote:But I'm not a big fan of laws against inciting racial hatred. I'd be much more comfortable with a system which comprehensively demonstrated the flaws in the thinking; not one which simply says don't think things we don't like. But that's hard work. Something about eternal vigilance, IIRC.
In the real world, people are swayed by oratory, whether it's the words of a man on TV or a bloke in the pub "spreading posion where there was just confusion".
It's all too easy in those circumstances for a hate-filled ideology like racism to gain ground and spread like a cancer. Eternal vigilance is needed indeed. And No Platform.