Browse Sections

Interactive

Popular Sections

Weather

Patchy clouds

Personal Finance

Balance Transfer

Card	Typical APR

Virgin Credit Card	16.6%
Barclaycard Platinum	15.9%
NatWest Platinum	16.9%
Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum	16.9%
Egg Card	16.9%

Customers with a 'good' credit profile

Company

Typical APR

Platinum Exclusive	7.8%
Sainsbury's Personal Loan	7.9%
Alliance & Leicester	7.9%

Fees may apply

Barlow's brief

| Submit Comments | Comments (21) |

Right to be heard

Vic Barlow

June 24, 2009

I HAVE never voted for the BNP and suspect I never will, but almost a million British people did.

Listening to leader Nick Griffin’s planned speech outside Parliament provided a good opportunity to discover why.

I’ve heard the ugly rumours and read the alarming stories; this was a chance to check out their leader first-hand.

That opportunity was denied by a raucous group of protestors who disrupted the proceedings by pelting Mr Griffin with eggs.

Where were those demonstrators when Abu Hamza and his ilk were preaching hatred and violence? Were it not for the condemnation of our allies, those extremists would still be wandering UK cities spreading their poison.

Whether we like it or not, Nick Griffin won his seat at the European Parliament in a democratic election and has a right to be heard. Abu Hamza and co detest democracy, but were free to spread their gospel of hate unhindered.

I suspect the more we hear from the BNP the less we will like, but providing they stay within the law, they should be heard. To deny them is an insult to one million voters.

Had the idiots who threw eggs remained silent, Nick Griffin may have condemned himself.

Thanks to a bunch of undisciplined rabble, we shall never know.

The views on this page are Vic Barlow's and not necessarily those of the Express

| Submit Comments | Comments (21) |

Most recent user comments 21 of 21

1 Show 25 | 50 per page

There was an error in my original posting - "pre-determined views" should have been "pre-determined rules".

MaccForum.co.uk,
27/06/2009 at 06:16

voice of reason. VERY GOOD! I will send you some rotten tomatoes, how many pounds do you want?

mogangirl,
27/06/2009 at 01:20

"You two have not had a good ole discussion for a while, it is good to see. "

Hi Slinky. Good to see you; been a bit quiet recently. We have to keep upholding the cause of freedom of expression in Macc against all odds! Don't let them grind us down.

MaccSpider, Support Simon Singh: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
26/06/2009 at 20:38

The problem with the idea of racist views being exposed to scrutiny is that these extremists are just the tip of the iceberg.

The culture exists for such views to thrive. Take your earlier example of the Daily Mail which regularly whips up a divisive frenzy about immigration, aylum seekers, travellers and all the other media folk devils. Mr Barlow's own ill informed comments in the past on these issues have been allowed to go unchallenged, not to mention Nicholas Winterton, who doesn't like multi-culturalism!! All this goes to legitimise far right groups like the BNP.

Also, in the European elections their 'success' was only due to the electoral system used and voter apathy, not any increase in support.

So, the answer has to be to not allow these facists a forum for their racist rants. As I said before, freedom of speech is a privilege. No-one has the right to put forward expressions of hatred and intolerence, and despite Mr Barlow's comments, they have no mandate to do so.

So, wherever these people gather and assemble it is important that they are not given any legitimacy. They are not and never will be part of the democratic process. Now, let's get the eggs!!

Voice of Reason,
26/06/2009 at 16:49

"reality is that such individuals have violated the pre-determined views" Hmm, seems clear enough. My feeling is that free speech is an ideal, whatever the pre-determined views of anyone who would want to suppress those who have views they do not like. So, yes, the Hamzas and BNPs should be allowed to expose their views to public scrutiny and debate. In fact it is the uncritical defence of pre-determined views and the unwillingness to countenance other viewpoints, i.e. views not tempered by experience or evidence, that is the enemy here. Those who spew hatred cannot do so when challenged and their views are held up to scrutiny. So I deplore the views of the Hamzas and BNPs of this world. I also deplore the actions of those with pre-determined views who fear alternatives and bully those who try to express those alternatives. Wouldn't you agree?

MaccSpider, Support Simon Singh: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
26/06/2009 at 14:06

"So, to summarise, you would censor or ban those who disagree with you. Glad we now have that clearly".

It is of course exactly this type of deliberate mis-characterisation, to which I was referring earlier. *yawn*.

The more important question is this; if the BNP and its members do NOT express views or try to incite unlawful acts - should they be "allowed" to participate in the public discussion space? If not - why not?

MaccForum.co.uk,
26/06/2009 at 13:03

"Like Griffin, Hamza preaches hatred and intolerence, and tries to divide our diverse, multi cultural society. "

Quite agree. Both loathsome in what they say. I wonder whether we should also be including some "respectable" mouthpieces as well. The Daily Mail springs to mind as doing exactly the same, although, perhaps, not to the same degree.

MaccSpider, Support Simon Singh: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
26/06/2009 at 12:24

You two have not had a good ole discussion for a while, it is good to see.

slinkywizard, Macclesfield
26/06/2009 at 09:36

This debate is getting clouded by this talk of censorship. Censorship is not the issue here. Mr Barlow challenged the right of people to make a stand against the hatred and contempt expressed by the BNP. I say they were right to take the action they did and not allow Griffin to spout his racial hatred in public. The law prevents him from doing this anyway. Freedom of speech is not a right, it is a privilege. Griffin and his supporters lose that privilege when they deny the right for other people to live in harmony and safety. The only part of Mr Barlow's article I agree with is his comparison of Griffin with Abu Hamza. Like Griffin, Hamza preaches hatred and intolerence, and tries to divide our diverse, multi cultural society. They should both be stopped!

Voice of Reason,
26/06/2009 at 09:34

A thought for discussion:

Does censorship exist because of the fear or inadequacies of the censors, i.e. to protect them from scrutiny, challenge etc, does it work to protect others, i.e. society or, a final alternative, is it ultimately counterproductive?

MaccSpider, Support Simon Singh: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
26/06/2009 at 09:03

"It's easy of course, to mistake or even to deliberately mis-characterise the exclusion of individuals from public and private discussion spaces, as being due to the viewpoints expressed, when the reality is that such individuals have violated the pre-determined views and conditions that govern that space, and to which all are subject."

So, to summarise, you would censor or ban those who disagree with you. Glad we now have that clearly.

However, back to the subject, how do we decide what is legal or can be said? We support those calling for killing (if only as an accidental byproduct of action) in some cases and condemn it in others. Is there some moral absolute that can be applied or is it a matter of expediency?

MaccSpider, Support Simon Singh: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
26/06/2009 at 08:54

With due respect to everybody on here.

The problem for us all, where the BNP are concerned is the fact that, the uneducated and the niave will follow them like sheep, particularly with what the banks and Mps have done on the british ratepayers for years on end. just like they did Hitler. I think that says it all in a nutshell

mogangirl,
26/06/2009 at 00:37

"Glad to hear that you support the principle that people that disagree with you should always be allowed to have their say".

You "heard" wrong. I don't support that principle without reasonable predetermined rules and conditions, that are applied equally to all involved [such as the laws of the land]. It is reasonable to expect that violations of such boundaries should alter the "rights" of such individuals to continue to express their views, in that arena. So for example, if the individuals in the BNP were advocating for, or attempting to incite the "killing of racial minorities" or other criminal acts, it would be reasonable to take legal action against them, and to restrict the access of the individuals concerned, to the space in which such advocacy takes place.

It's easy of course, to mistake or even to deliberately mis-characterise the exclusion of individuals from public and private discussion spaces, as being due to the viewpoints expressed, when the reality is that such individuals have violated the pre-determined views and conditions that govern that space, and to which all are subject.

MaccForum.co.uk,
25/06/2009 at 21:01

Godwins law would not apply here as it is a piece of factual evidence from history as opposed to comparing something (in a hyperbolic fashion) to the way that the Nazis etc acted IMO

MaccSpider, Support Simon Singh: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
25/06/2009 at 16:56

Vic, Hitler was democratically elected in 1933 (and sod Godwin's Law!). At that point, was it wrong, therefore, to try and oppose the Nazis? The people had spoken - are they always right? Is there a principle - let's use, for argument, the torture of the Jews on Krystallnact - that just may transcend 'democracy'?

Voice of Reason is right below - far from being 'undisciplined', I suspect that these people had every intention of chucking eggs at the scum: it was a planned act. Good luck to them! That's the way our fathers and grandfathers dealt with their sort - and it's always been the only language Nazis understand.

PeteF,
25/06/2009 at 16:33

" Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons were democratically elected, and have as much right to be heard as anyone else elected. "

Glad to hear that you support the principle that people that disagree with you should always be allowed to have their say.

However, I wonder whether would we change our minds about the BNP if, say, they advocated killing racial minorities, compulsory euthanasia for mentally ill people and so on. Is there a point where we have to say that people are wrong, no matter how many of them there are or, alternatively, how many support them?

MaccSpider, Support Simon Singh: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
25/06/2009 at 13:49

Exactly how much hatred and bile are you prepared to allow this nasty man to spout? He has denied the holocaust ever happened, admires Hitler and hates all that our multi-cultural, diverse and tolerant society stands for. The organisation he leads masquerades as a bona fide political party that wants to engage with the democratic process, but does not allow black or Asian people to join. They incite racial hatred and division in all their literature.The people Mr Barlow describes as 'indisciplined rabble' are part of a long proud tradition in this country of standing up against fascism and racial hatred. All power to them!

Voice of Reason,
25/06/2009 at 13:41

Finally, a comment from Mr. Barlow that I can agree with. While I personally find nothing of merit in the policies of the BNP, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons were democratically elected, and have as much right to be heard as anyone else elected.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself". --- Thomas Paine

MaccForum.co.uk,
25/06/2009 at 13:24

It seems gthat it is convenient to forget the bile that was spewing forth from the preechers of hate. It was a lot to do with it, that the rest of the world and our allies found his ranting repugnent.

Griffins rants are nothing like the same hatred, but hatred they are.

The more he can speak then the more the public will see him for what he is, a fascist thug with polies of hatred. I have not heard him calling for jihad and murders like Hamza.

E.T., Macclesfield
25/06/2009 at 13:22

"Were it not for the condemnation of our allies, those extremists would still be wandering UK cities spreading their poison."

This is not actually true.

Many, many people condemned Abu Hamza and to try to otherwise is really very poor. One million people may have voted for the BNP, however the quantity does not mean that they are right in their judgements.

A sorry state of affairs indeed.

MaccSpider, Support Simon Singh: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340
24/06/2009 at 15:50

Quite right. If they let Griffin speak then his obscene, hatred and rants would be obvious and deter people from voting for an obscene, repulsive, hateful bunch of thugs.