Apparently the BNP are going to be hosting a speech with the 'historian' and Holocaust denier David Irving in Coventry. There is also a protest being organised for outside, would be good to see some cross-party support for it.
Actually, John, you might want to double-check that. I put my post up at about 10am this morning - a good 2 hours and 50 minutes before your comment. My blog is at www.mikerouse.net
I would be wrong if I was calling for them to not be allowed to have a meeting. But I'm not. I'm merely supporting a protest against them. Big difference. So actually, you're very wrong here.
That's disingenuous. They used false details to book the meeting room, no doubt trying to avoid this sort of thing, and it seems that now the meeting has been cancelled by the venue (confirmation is still forthcoming). Protests will cause cancellations.
It's not disingenous at all. I am more than happy for the BNP to have meetings. But the way to deal with their argument is by standing up to them and pointing out how wrong they are. Having a protest does not, by necessity, cause a cancellation. If anything is disingenous it is to conflate protesting against the BNP as wanting to remove their free right to be wrong.
In this case the threatened protest has had the effect of causing a cancellation. The protest you're supporting is organised by Searchlight, through its spin off Stop the BNP, which boasts on its website that "The promise of an invitation to speak to the European Society at St Andrews University rapidly evaporated after the university "raised concerns" about "security and use of their property"." And further asks people to call the club in Coventry where Irving was booked to "tell the management what you think of the club giving space to this man and his Nazi supporters"
This protest is organised by people who are openly trying to stop Irving speaking.
On a different tack, in what way are the pathetic losers of the BNP worse than the clerical fascists of RESPECT? Where are the protests in East London? Where are the protests outside communist party meetings? Communists killed three times as many people in the twentieth century than did fascists.
The anti-BNP hysteria is contrived. They are just one of a number of deeply unpleasant forces in contemporary politics, all of whom are entitled to free speech, open derision and general contempt.
You've not read this blog very much have you? I hate the BNP and REPSECT equally. The BNP are white-power socialists, whilst Repesct are Trots, mysognist, homophobe Islamists.
Where are the protests? God knows. Probably mostly too afraid of being called Nazis by the oppressive Gramscian cultrue war that the Right has been losing for so long.
The BNP hasn't cancelled. Bloody hell, Dizzy. Is this how you react to being challenged? I've demonstrated that the purpose of the protest IS to PREVENT the event, and it seems to have succeeded. In return, you go and swear on my blog.
I always swear if someone start's talking bollocks, especially if they say I have said or done things that I clearly have not. You havn't challenged me, you've conflated my support for an outdoor protest, with support for restriction on free speech. That's not a challenge, it's just weak argumentation.
You have not demonstrated that the purpose of the outdoor protest was to prevent either. You have shown that the organising body of the outsdie protest has also encouraged people to tell the management what they think of the idea. That is not the same thing. The management can freely ignore them as I would if it were me.
My support was clearly for a protest outside whilst the event was happening, not for forcing the BNP to not be there. Have a look at my words, I said I supported a protest outside. Now, just because some of those people might take it further, it does not follow that my support for their limited process makes me equally guilty for all their other actions. That's a bit like saying that because I am a Tory I am responsible for what Anthony Eden did 20 years before I was born. I swore on your blog because you're talking fucking bollcoks, and it is by no means unsual to see me swear if you read the comment here or elsewhere.
You found yourself supporting a protest DESIGNED to stop this meeting taking place, organised by a group who boast of successfully stopping other such meetings taking place. Perhaps that's not what you intended, but it's what happened.
I think you should admit the mistake, but that's obviously not the way you work.
You found yourself supporting a protest DESIGNED to stop this meeting taking place
No I didn't. I found myself supporting a protest outside the building. Period.
think you should admit the mistake, but that's obviously not the way you work.
I havn't made a mistake. You have invented a mistake instead by implying that it is not possible to support X without supporting all the aims of Y that organises X. That is clearly bollocks reasoning. As I said on your blog, I support UKIP's protests and calls for a refrendum on the EU Constitution, but I do not support UKIP.
The stated aim of this protest was to prevent the meeting taking place, because that's what Searchlight want with every BNP event. They're fighting trench warfare and have no interest in principles of free expression.
Know what I think? That you didn't check, didn't see who was organising the protest, didn't look up their aims and so didn't realise they were book burners when you first posted, and that the rest of this has been a fog machine.
Actually I did check it, as I said above, more than once, I supported a protest outside. That would be the same one that they listed when they said but you didn't quote:
"If you want to protest outside, go to the Royal Warwicks Club, Tower Street, Coventry CV1 1JS. Doors open at 7pm."
However, it now turns out that there may not even have been a meeting taking place in the first place other than a book club meeting to discuss Stalin.
The only fog machine is in your reasoning that states that I cannot support a protest against the BNP without wholly supporting the beliefs of the organisers of the protest.
The evidence to support the holocaust claims is miniscule, and false, and not at all “overwhelming.” But, the ongoing campaign to make the holocaust evidence appear “overwhelming” is awesome and ongoing. It is holocaust propaganda itself which is “overwhelming”–but NOT the evidence. The “holocaust” is a big lie repeated many times.
If David Irving does deny the “holocaust.” then good for him.
What a fantasist! The man thinks he's a philosopher. Let's have it right: he's a filthy police informer, a snitch, a disqualified company director, an embarrassment to his own family, a petty criminal, a university failure, and an imbecile who can't even get his lies straight.
24 comments:
Coventry is Mike Rouse's constituency, nowt on his blog about it.
Given that Coventry suffered heavily from the blitz, I think that Irving has got a bit of cheek turning up there.
"Coventry is Mike Rouse's constituency, nowt on his blog about it."
huh?
Actually, John, you might want to double-check that. I put my post up at about 10am this morning - a good 2 hours and 50 minutes before your comment. My blog is at www.mikerouse.net
Irving and the BNP have as much right to free speech as bloggerheads and Craig Murray. You're very wrong here.
I would be wrong if I was calling for them to not be allowed to have a meeting. But I'm not. I'm merely supporting a protest against them. Big difference. So actually, you're very wrong here.
There was I thinking that denier was something to do with stockings!
That's disingenuous. They used false details to book the meeting room, no doubt trying to avoid this sort of thing, and it seems that now the meeting has been cancelled by the venue (confirmation is still forthcoming). Protests will cause cancellations.
It's not disingenous at all. I am more than happy for the BNP to have meetings. But the way to deal with their argument is by standing up to them and pointing out how wrong they are. Having a protest does not, by necessity, cause a cancellation. If anything is disingenous it is to conflate protesting against the BNP as wanting to remove their free right to be wrong.
In this case the threatened protest has had the effect of causing a cancellation. The protest you're supporting is organised by Searchlight, through its spin off Stop the BNP, which boasts on its website that "The promise of an invitation to speak to the European Society at St Andrews University rapidly evaporated after the university "raised concerns" about "security and use of their property"." And further asks people to call the club in Coventry where Irving was booked to "tell the management what you think of the club giving space to this man and his Nazi supporters"
This protest is organised by people who are openly trying to stop Irving speaking.
On a different tack, in what way are the pathetic losers of the BNP worse than the clerical fascists of RESPECT? Where are the protests in East London? Where are the protests outside communist party meetings? Communists killed three times as many people in the twentieth century than did fascists.
The anti-BNP hysteria is contrived. They are just one of a number of deeply unpleasant forces in contemporary politics, all of whom are entitled to free speech, open derision and general contempt.
You've not read this blog very much have you? I hate the BNP and REPSECT equally. The BNP are white-power socialists, whilst Repesct are Trots, mysognist, homophobe Islamists.
Where are the protests? God knows. Probably mostly too afraid of being called Nazis by the oppressive Gramscian cultrue war that the Right has been losing for so long.
Oh yes, and the BNP are a big bunch of wuss's if they cancelled because of a few protests.
I get the rss feed.
The BNP hasn't cancelled. Bloody hell, Dizzy. Is this how you react to being challenged? I've demonstrated that the purpose of the protest IS to PREVENT the event, and it seems to have succeeded. In return, you go and swear on my blog.
I always swear if someone start's talking bollocks, especially if they say I have said or done things that I clearly have not. You havn't challenged me, you've conflated my support for an outdoor protest, with support for restriction on free speech. That's not a challenge, it's just weak argumentation.
You have not demonstrated that the purpose of the outdoor protest was to prevent either. You have shown that the organising body of the outsdie protest has also encouraged people to tell the management what they think of the idea. That is not the same thing. The management can freely ignore them as I would if it were me.
My support was clearly for a protest outside whilst the event was happening, not for forcing the BNP to not be there. Have a look at my words, I said I supported a protest outside. Now, just because some of those people might take it further, it does not follow that my support for their limited process makes me equally guilty for all their other actions. That's a bit like saying that because I am a Tory I am responsible for what Anthony Eden did 20 years before I was born. I swore on your blog because you're talking fucking bollcoks, and it is by no means unsual to see me swear if you read the comment here or elsewhere.
You found yourself supporting a protest DESIGNED to stop this meeting taking place, organised by a group who boast of successfully stopping other such meetings taking place. Perhaps that's not what you intended, but it's what happened.
I think you should admit the mistake, but that's obviously not the way you work.
You found yourself supporting a protest DESIGNED to stop this meeting taking place
No I didn't. I found myself supporting a protest outside the building. Period.
think you should admit the mistake, but that's obviously not the way you work.
I havn't made a mistake. You have invented a mistake instead by implying that it is not possible to support X without supporting all the aims of Y that organises X. That is clearly bollocks reasoning. As I said on your blog, I support UKIP's protests and calls for a refrendum on the EU Constitution, but I do not support UKIP.
And here's what I replied:
The stated aim of this protest was to prevent the meeting taking place, because that's what Searchlight want with every BNP event. They're fighting trench warfare and have no interest in principles of free expression.
Know what I think? That you didn't check, didn't see who was organising the protest, didn't look up their aims and so didn't realise they were book burners when you first posted, and that the rest of this has been a fog machine.
Hey Dizzy, good to see you tying yourself up in knots again!
Actually I did check it, as I said above, more than once, I supported a protest outside. That would be the same one that they listed when they said but you didn't quote:
"If you want to protest outside, go to the Royal Warwicks Club, Tower Street, Coventry CV1 1JS. Doors open at 7pm."
However, it now turns out that there may not even have been a meeting taking place in the first place other than a book club meeting to discuss Stalin.
The only fog machine is in your reasoning that states that I cannot support a protest against the BNP without wholly supporting the beliefs of the organisers of the protest.
"Hey Dizzy, good to see you tying yourself up in knots again!"
Hardly.
. . . not to mention flying off the handle!
Apologies, my mistake re Mike's blog.
The evidence to support the holocaust claims is miniscule, and false, and not at all “overwhelming.” But, the ongoing campaign to make the holocaust evidence appear “overwhelming” is awesome and ongoing. It is holocaust propaganda itself which is “overwhelming”–but NOT the evidence. The “holocaust” is a big lie repeated many times.
If David Irving does deny the “holocaust.” then good for him.
Laurence Boyce said...
.... not to mention flying off the handle!
I'm on the blob
Peter Risdon has got to be kidding.
What a fantasist! The man thinks he's a philosopher. Let's have it right: he's a filthy police informer, a snitch, a disqualified company director, an embarrassment to his own family, a petty criminal, a university failure, and an imbecile who can't even get his lies straight.
See: http://www.nobodylikesagrass.com
And judge for yourselves...
Post a Comment