My open challenge to a debate

It will be a recurring theme on this site that the extreme left simply do not debate. They scream, they shout, they intimidate and often resort to force but they just don’t debate.

This is a crucial point to bear in mind. Debate is a cornerstone of any honest and democratic society.
So with this in mind, I would like to make an open challenge to any member of any organisation for a fair and sensible debate. I make these points.

1) There should be no limits on free speech beyond that of common law.

2) The UAF and their affiliate groups are hypocrites of the highest order.

3) There is a clear political and moral difference between nationalism and Nazism.

4) Expressing articulate, reasoned and peaceful objections to immigration or a particular religion is neither bigoted nor racist.

Anyone who wants to debate these issues can do so with me. We can use any neutral web site and we can set out any ground rules beforehand.

So far the number of takers to this offer is…..nil.


4 Responses to “My open challenge to a debate”

  1. You idiots Says:

    1) So is Al Queda to be given free speech? I’ll wager your answer is no. Lone fascists aren’t a problem. It is organisations that need to be restricted. The BNP as an organisation should be punished for their violence.

    2) Bollocks. The BNP are the hypocrites. They argue for freedom of speech at the same time as having the desire to disenfranchise large sections of the population. Not only that but they use violence to achieve their aims as stated by Griffin himself.

    3) Perhaps. However, the BNP are not simply nationalists. They are fascists. Race need not come into your assessment of society if you are a nationalist, for the BNP, you aren’t British if you aren’t white. As reflected by numerous statements and their stated aim of an all-white Britain.

    4) No it isn’t. Scapegoating immigrants and particular religions for a society’s ills however is.

  2. Jonathan Holt Says:

    1) In principle I agree with this, however, in practice limitations of varying types have always existed in relation to free speech. Sometimes limitations on speech might be necessary to preserve social cohesion and stability. For example, during WWII the British government would not have permitted pro-Nazi sentiments to be expressed. Nonetheless, I support free speech where I can, and I am happy to debate the issues which BNP sympathisers raise on their merits.

    2) I don’t accept a ‘no platform’ policy as a legitimate strategy. Why turn the BNP into martyrs for free speech? Personally, I don’t see the value in that and I am inclined to agree with you.

    3) I agree, but many BNP members have links to Neo-Nazi organisations / publications etc. Combat 18 and the National Front feature prominently among the right-wing political dalliances of many BNP activists:

    4) Agreed, but do the BNP express “articulate and reasoned objections”? Sentiments expressed by Nick Griffin would suggest otherwise, and indeed hint at a white supremacist agenda:

    In 1995 he wrote in the Rune, “the electors of Millwall did not back a post modernist rightist party but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan ‘Defend Rights for Whites’ with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate.”

    In April 2001 Griffin spoke to the American Friends of the BNP. He said, “So, what are we now doing with the British National Party? Well we tried to simplify its message in some ways and to make it a saleable message. So it’s not white supremacy or racial civil war or anything like that, which is what we know in fact is going on, and we’re not supremacists, we’re white survivalists, even that frightens people. Four apple pie words, freedom, security, identity and democracy.”

  3. Jonathan Holt Says:

    >>>We can use any neutral web site and we can set out any ground rules beforehand.<<<

    I suggest you respond in full to comments made in the following facebook discussion group:

  4. 1) disagree: common law restraints on incitement don’t cover cases where the people against whom crime is being incited are not specific and identifiable individuals, but it’s precisely this kind of incitement which leads to lynchings, house-burnings and so on. The blood libel and its impact on antisemitic attacks in pre-WWII Europe is a good example of something which is not illegal under common law but is legal, rightly, under the Incitement to Racial Hatred statutes.

    2) think they’re wrong – never been a fan of “no platform”. can’t see how they’re hypocrites though. I’m guessing you’re going down the “ooh, but some of these people once met Islamists who think really awful things” route, but uniting people who disagree against people they all hate even more isn’t hypocritical, it’s just sensible.

    3) yes, Nazi-ism literally speaking was an ideology that was only meaningful in Germany between the late 1920s and 1945. However, the main component to its ideology was nationalism, so pointing out the similarity is entirely reasonable.

    4) agree 100% with the statement. disagree 100% with the idea that expressing articulate, reasoned and peaceful objections to immigration or a particular religion is what your lot do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: