Heartland

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.

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.

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

andymackem wrote:Rik from the Young Ones? Hmm. Harsh, frankly.

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: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.

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.

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.

lazarus corporation wrote: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.

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

The right to freedom of speech doesn't kill people, though. Even if you say 'we should kill andymackem', those words in themselves won't kill me. And I'd have to hope that no-one would be daft enough to attempt it 'because he said so'. I would, of course, retain the freedom to make an articulate defence of my existence (which could be challenging, but there you go).

Where individual rights clash, which they do regularly, it is almost impossible to impose a compromise. People won't stop being racist because you tell them it's illegal. They certainly won't stop if you fine them or lock them up for it.

It's the flaw in the 'Respect' agenda as well. How does my neighbour's right to a good night's sleep square with my enthusiasm for Scandinavian rock bands? Common sense tells both of us I can crank up the volume at midday but should turn it down at midnight. But putting that onto the statutes is a nightmare - witness the Swiss laws about not mowing your lawn on Sunday and not flushing the lav after 11pm (or whatever ...).

LazCorp wrote: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.

You didn't think it was just a touch rhetorical, given that we were discussing neo-nazis? And when it drew a response along the lines of 'would they allow any freedom of speech' I'd have to suggest the point has rather been nailed. Censorship wasn't the Third Reich's worst, or most unique crime, but it was a crime. Seems bizarre to use those tools to prevent a recurrence, but I think we actually agree on that anyone.

LazCorp wrote: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.

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.

That position does of course pre-suppose that there _are_ flaws in racist thinking. Given humanity's tribal nature (whether that tribe is derived through faith, gender, family, social grouping, fashion or whatever) you could argue that racism is in fact a natural human condition.

You could also argue that it is something we should seek to move away from, but history would suggest that you can't make different people like one another, and you certainly can't do it by telling them how they should think.

People are swayed by oratory, but they are also swayed by experience. When I first moved to London I went into a pub in Hounslow and was the only non-Asian in the place. And it was intimidating. I felt uncomfortable. Is that because I'm racist? I wouldn't feel intimidated in a bar full of complete strangers who were white.

My perceptions of the various countries I've visited are strongly slanted by the small and unrepresentative sample of inhabitants I've met. It's unfortunate that the French people I've met have by and large been less helpful and friendly than the Germans, but part of that translates as an instinctive view that Germans are somehow 'nicer' than the French. Based on barely 20 casual acquaintances from a combined population of 100m+, that's absurd. But it's more real to me, because it's my experience.

Ultimately that, more than what people read in the Express or say down the pub, will determine the fate of any immigrant community. We have moved on from the uncertainties of the early C20. People will take their cues from what they see in their daily lives far more than what they hear about elsewhere. The BNP's on-going failure to make serious political headway despite a prominent murmuring campaign (not least in the Express) rather underlines the point.

markfiend wrote:Somewhere along the line, the more "intelligent" neo-nazis must know that they're wrong, surely?

I mean, the whole holocaust-denial thing, do they stick their fingers in their ears going "la la la I can't hear you" whenever they're presented with evidence?

I used to wonder about this quite a lot. The conclusion I came to is that the majority of those holocaust revisionists publicly purporting to be, ahem, academics clearly know that their claims are spurious. The intention behind holocaust denial is simply to gather more support for their cause / movement. They don't care whether those they are trying to convert know the truth, at this stage at least; it's just a stepping stone.

Those further down the neo-nazi food chain are either taken in by this, or go along with the official line for reasons similar to those I just mentioned.