Jump to content

Welcome to Rune Tips, the first ever RuneScape help site. We aim to offer skill guides, quest guides, maps, calculators, informative databases, tips, and much more to help you get the most from the Massive Online Adventure Game, RuneScape, by Jagex Ltd © 2009.

Report Ad

Welcome to Forum.Tip.It
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Holocaust Denial, the BNP and freedom of speech


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#61
rushrock
[ Display Name History ]

rushrock

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined:2 August 2006
Okay.



The power of speech, as you say, is powerful enough to persuade a nation to go under the rule of a bad ruler. I say that's pretty unlikely in this modern world, but even though it's possible, it's a risk we need to take. You can't take away people's right to free speech because they try to take away people's rights. It's not right. It's not right that the idiots who say those things say them, but it's just not right to take away that right. Even if they're racist. Instead, have a good defense; don't just ban them because you don't like them. Of course, yomom, people can be charismatic. They can persuade, and even though I don't think that persuasion is strong enough to turn an entire nation under their rule, I could be wrong. You might be right that a ruler could do that, but it's probably not going to happen (we're in a modern society for god's sake), and if it does, something will be done about it. We need to take that risk, I say.



Is that sufficient enough, Bubsa?

#62
Bubsa
[ Display Name History ]

Bubsa

    Troll General

  • Members
  • 13,145 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:(>'.')>O hai<('.'<)
  • Joined:19 June 2004
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
...All I can say is: I hope in a year or two you look back on what you have just written and ask yourself, "What the hell?"



It's so full of contradictions and innaccuracies, I just don't know where to begin, without having to repeat myself, so I'm not going to bother.



Seriously, don't address me on the issue again, you make my head hurt.

#63
rushrock
[ Display Name History ]

rushrock

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined:2 August 2006
^ Please, bother. There isn't much to repeat, anyway. You barely said a damn thing.



What is so god damn bad about saying that people have a right to whatever they [bleep]ing want to say that you have to get all pissy about it? I'm no expert at this crap. I posted my opinion and backed it up as well as I could, if that's not sufficient for you then go to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this statement: People have a right to their opinion. No matter how completely racist or insensitive it is. Live with it, and let this crap die out.

#64
Bubsa
[ Display Name History ]

Bubsa

    Troll General

  • Members
  • 13,145 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:(>'.')>O hai<('.'<)
  • Joined:19 June 2004
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

^ Please, bother. There isn't much to repeat, anyway.




Live with it, and let this crap die out.




And thus, my point is complete :lol: You're a walking contradiction, frankly, you're not worth the time or effort.



I attempted to leave the discussion, and I get barraged with this?



What is so god damn bad about saying that people have a right to whatever they [bleep] want to say that you have to get all pissy about it? I'm no expert at this crap. I posted my opinion and backed it up as well as I could, if that's not sufficient for you then go to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this statement: People have a right to their opinion. No matter how completely racist or insensitive it is.




Calm down, diddums, no need to get personal. You'll work yourself up into a state.



Believe me when I say, I've been banned for saying less than that :lol:

#65
rushrock
[ Display Name History ]

rushrock

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined:2 August 2006
^ I meant that people should live with the few idiots who post racist, insensitive crap like this and let those few idiots die out.



So please, bother to say where I've gone wrong. You haven't told me anything useful so far.



So, what was wrong with my statement? Please tell me.

#66
rushrock
[ Display Name History ]

rushrock

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined:2 August 2006
Yomom, when I say that most of America won't get conned into charismatic leaders, I mean it. America, I think, is very skeptical nowadays on leaders and can detect them fairly well.



Remember Hitler? He emerged from a time where everyone was in a bad state. Germany suffered a humiliating loss at World War 1, there were debts to be paid, and confidence was low. Then Hitler comes in and motivates everyone by scapegoating all of the Jews (and everyone else he hated). Hitler gave everyone hope in that bad time, and everyone just obeyed. They had no other choice.



People will generally only be persuaded by a ruler like that in times of crisis. And even then, you still have to depend on everyone to see through their disguise. You have to trust them and let everyone be in control of their own thoughts, because they'll come around. Banning people like the BNP party from speaking won't do any good. If you put limits on what's acceptable and what's not, you're no better than those who are trying to speak the crap, and not only will people lose confidence, but the actual people trying to speak their crappy views will just get more popular in the long run.

#67
BlueTear
[ Display Name History ]

BlueTear

    Dark Wizard Robe

  • Members
  • 834 posts
  • Location:Sweden. No polar bears sighted as of yet.
  • Joined:18 June 2004

Free speech is, metaphorically, 'God-given' (as in a natural right). You said it yourself "you can't just take it away". Exactly, you can't just take it away, but if you have a reason to you can. Do you object to jail because a murderer has a right to freedom? I'll wait to see if you catch on or not, i suppose, by your answer of the last question.

The murderer committs and is charged with a crime. AFAIK no court has as of yet seen fit to charge the debaters in this specific instance with any crime, which means they havn't comitted one.



Until they've been found guilty of something that is actually illegal, they have the same rights as anyone else and should be treated as such, no matter what their opinions might lead to.





And silencing them by refusing to invite them to debates doesn't work. Arguments that are allowed to go unchalleged are by far too easy to percieve as arguments that cannot be challenged, which is a lot worse than any "martyrdom" from being under fire constantly. And as other people have said, more rope to hang themselves with.
-This message was deviously brought to you by: Posted Image

#68
warri0r45
[ Display Name History ]

warri0r45

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,854 posts
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Joined:2 September 2005

Free speech is, metaphorically, 'God-given' (as in a natural right). You said it yourself "you can't just take it away". Exactly, you can't just take it away, but if you have a reason to you can. Do you object to jail because a murderer has a right to freedom? I'll wait to see if you catch on or not, i suppose, by your answer of the last question.

The murderer committs and is charged with a crime. AFAIK no court has as of yet seen fit to charge the debaters in this specific instance with any crime, which means they havn't comitted one.



Until they've been found guilty of something that is actually illegal, they have the same rights as anyone else and should be treated as such, no matter what their opinions might lead to.





And silencing them by refusing to invite them to debates doesn't work. Arguments that are allowed to go unchalleged are by far too easy to percieve as arguments that cannot be challenged, which is a lot worse than any "martyrdom" from being under fire constantly. And as other people have said, more rope to hang themselves with.




I tend to agree with this and I see some positives to something such as law against incitement of ethnic or racial hatred, for example.

#69
GrimHams
[ Display Name History ]

GrimHams

    Skeleton Shield

  • Members
  • 1,126 posts
  • Location:England
  • Joined:12 May 2005

I wonder what the BNP's view on the right to free speech of say an Islamic fundamentalist would be? I'll let you answer that one




I don't agree with them, and they actually do incite racial hatred, the BNP doesn't. The BNP doesn't go to muslims countries and try to change their society in a negative way so i don't think they should do the same to us.



'm sorry, that's a pretty staunch belief to suddenly change from (and I quote)



"I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria"



to, "oh sorry, I was wrong, oops!". I want a bit more proof then that before I believe this particularly shady leopard has changed his spots.




I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise that peoples opinions change, there is no genuine point to bring up the Holocaust as part of a modern political party, it has no basis on the BNP and as i have said should be left to historians. Don't bring up an old quotation where Nick said on Monday that the BNP does think the Holocaust happened. Also Nick said in the past that he believes there isn't concrete enough proof that the Holocaust happened in the severity thats publisised, not that he denies that the Nazi's killed some jews. I think the Holocaust happened and the current stance by Nick and the BNP is that they don't refute it.



Finally, I'd like to show you exactly where, legally the right to freedom of speech comes from - the ECHR - Article 10 if you want the exact reference. Now, guess what else we have in that document, I'll tell you - Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination. Now you can waffle for as long as you like about how the BNP isn't racist because is doesn't "hate" it just "recognises differences" - well I've got news, discrimination doesn't mean hate - it means to believe in fundamental differences in people because of their origin/religion/gender/orientation - a clear breach no?




Nick was trialed for the "incitement of racial hatred", a law that doesn't apply to the modern BNP's beliefs, and came off innocent in 2006 . . http://news.bbc.co.u...ord/6135060.stm And i can assure you that if there was even a hint that he was infact inciting racial hatred he would have gone down for it. Take Nick to court if you really think hes inciting racial hatred, because it would be profitable for the BNP's cause to prove wrong again.



The BNP crying about unqualified free speech when their main policies go against the same document that it stems from is obvious hypocrisy. I don't think I need to say anymore.




Why don't people like you, instead of trying to take away legitimate political parties like the BNP's speech challenge them and win if you're in the right. The BNP are crying about this? nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds.



P.S. before you accuse me of being liberal, left wing, PC or otherwise then let me assure you there are plenty of people on this board that will testify otherwise (especially GingerWarrior - the number of socialist/non socialist arguments woo :lol: ). Let it be known that it is not only the political left that disagree.




I don't believe for a second that only the left are against the BNP.



If the BNP stayed in the racist past i wouldn't have joined, nor would i support their right to promote racism, but they are no longer racist and it seems the likes of the protestors are angry because Nick's views will make sense to a growing amount of people.

#70
Ginger_Warrior
[ Display Name History ]

Ginger_Warrior

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 8,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sheffield, UK
  • Joined:10 July 2006
  • RuneScape Status:P2P
  • RSN '07:CN G Warrior

I don't agree with them, and they actually do incite racial hatred, the BNP doesn't. The BNP doesn't go to muslims countries and try to change their society in a negative way so i don't think they should do the same to us.


Surely, you've contradicted yourself there. You advocate your own 'free speech', saying everyone has a right to it, then you say that? That aside from the fact the BNP do arguably incite racial hatred.



Why don't people like you, instead of trying to take away legitimate political parties like the BNP's speech challenge them and win if you're in the right. The BNP are crying about this? nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds.


You're just not catching on to this are you? You have no right to free speech if that speech is racist. We can go in loops all day and we can spell out the very definition of racism if you carry on misunderstanding it. Also, by that logic, why don't you allow Islamic Fundamentalists to speak out, if you're so confident you can win because you're right? You seem to accuse us of denying rights to to you, then you do the very same thing to someone else.



If the BNP stayed in the racist past i wouldn't have joined, nor would i support their right to promote racism, but they are no longer racist and it seems the likes of the protestors are angry because Nick's views will make sense to a growing amount of people.


No.



Nick Griffin says you're not racist. The two are completely different. I look at your policies, they are clearly aimed and justified by creating a clear discrimination between the White British race, and all other races present in this country. Hateful or otherwise, that is still racism.



nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds.


Considering most of the news on the BNP website comes from the far reaches of the media, I'd have to question which of us is in actual fact "brainwashed".

#71
baron8000
[ Display Name History ]

baron8000

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 April 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None

Finally, I'd like to show you exactly where, legally the right to freedom of speech comes from - the ECHR - Article 10 if you want the exact reference. Now, guess what else we have in that document, I'll tell you - Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination. Now you can waffle for as long as you like about how the BNP isn't racist because is doesn't "hate" it just "recognises differences" - well I've got news, discrimination doesn't mean hate - it means to believe in fundamental differences in people because of their origin/religion/gender/orientation - a clear breach no?




Nick was trialed for the "incitement of racial hatred", a law that doesn't apply to the modern BNP's beliefs, and came off innocent in 2006 . . http://news.bbc.co.u...ord/6135060.stm And i can assure you that if there was even a hint that he was infact inciting racial hatred he would have gone down for it. Take Nick to court if you really think hes inciting racial hatred, because it would be profitable for the BNP's cause to prove wrong again.





I warn you, don't argue law with - I just spent 8 weeks being tutored by some of the finest constitutional lawyers in the world - the difference in scope between a breach of UK criminal statute and the constitutional theories of rule of law and fundamental human rights is massive. This is not about being taken to court or being charged, this is about legalistic and socio-political theory, please learn the difference.



The BNP crying about unqualified free speech when their main policies go against the same document that it stems from is obvious hypocrisy. I don't think I need to say anymore.




Why don't people like you, instead of trying to take away legitimate political parties like the BNP's speech challenge them and win if you're in the right. The BNP are crying about this? nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds.




I don't need to challenge them and win, the major political parties are doing that just fine at the moment - the simple fact the BNP was, is and will always be a minority party voted for by the brainwashed, uneducated and easily swayed is a testament to our system and population. Also, I do intend a career in either law or politics - I'm sure i'll come across them either way.



Everything else Ginger Warrior dealt with just fine for now - I may have put some things slightly differently, but I won't for the sake of clarity (always getting there first Ginger, honestly :lol: ).

#72
assassin_696
[ Display Name History ]

assassin_696

    The Karma Police

  • Members
  • 6,963 posts
  • Location:Out of the blue and into the black
  • Joined:21 January 2005

You seem to have misinterpreted what I'm saying with that second paragraph. I don't believe in censorship against anyone who doesn't agree with me. I believe that a diversity of opinion is a healthy thing because, as you rightly point out, it allows people to think more carefully about their own judgements. David Cameron may annoy the heck out of me, but he certainly has a right to air his views on political issues; and, much as I hate to say it, the fact he opposes the government forces the government into actions it wouldn't otherwise do.



The difference between David Cameron and Nick Griffin is that David Cameron does not openly claim in his manifesto that he'd deny the very rights he uses to other people if he were to get into power. Aside from the blatent hypocrisy of the BNP's claim to "free speech", the messages the BNP preach are actually dangerous and cause racial tensions and unrest, which itself leads to crime and further instability.



As said, if they do not wish to show the tolerant behaviour towards ethnic minorities that they except us to give to them as an extreme-right wing organisation, then I see no reason to give them that tolerance. I suppose in that light, you could call it retribution, only I'm not trying to scapegoat minorities which can't defend themselves for my own problems.




Sorry, I hate to respond to a post as considered and reasonable as yours with a YouTube video but i'm so busy at the moment I think this is better than nothing.



This speech/debate puts forward what I feel to be the best defence for the freedom of speech for all. It's split into two videos and they shouldn't take much more than 10 minutes to watch, and they really are worth it. Hitchens covers all the points I would and many more in a much more impressive and eloquent way than I ever could.



1 2
"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

#73
rushrock
[ Display Name History ]

rushrock

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined:2 August 2006
^ Brilliant speech.

#74
Satenza
[ Display Name History ]

Satenza

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom/Belgium/France
  • Joined:18 November 2005
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
They gave them the platform so they could no longer play the victim, it was never about trying to elevate any extreme right wing parties. It was giving them a voice so their voice could be shown to be what it was, not a victim but a bully. In the case of the BNP leader, that is.
Posted Image
With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

#75
Leylen
[ Display Name History ]

Leylen

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 161 posts
  • Joined:18 June 2004

Why should they be given the right to publicy speak when they abuse the freedom of it for others, themselves?




give an example of either of those men not giving someone a chance for a fair open debate?

#76
Bubsa
[ Display Name History ]

Bubsa

    Troll General

  • Members
  • 13,145 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:(>'.')>O hai<('.'<)
  • Joined:19 June 2004
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Why should they be given the right to publicy speak when they abuse the freedom of it for others, themselves?




give an example of either of those men not giving someone a chance for a fair open debate?




Uhh, Lol? Way to take my statement completely out of context.

It's not a debate, it's about the right to speak for who you are. These people use the right to speak for who you are, to incite violence to prevent other people, mainly Muslims, the right to speak, be, live and breathe for who they are, both physically and mentally.



That unfair enough, for you?

#77
mrpez
[ Display Name History ]

mrpez

    Ghost Cloak

  • Members
  • 1,765 posts
  • Location:The Far Side.
  • Joined:25 September 2006
I agree, the Holocaust never happened. The sky isn't blue either.

#78
Leylen
[ Display Name History ]

Leylen

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 161 posts
  • Joined:18 June 2004


Why should they be given the right to publicy speak when they abuse the freedom of it for others, themselves?




give an example of either of those men not giving someone a chance for a fair open debate?




Uhh, Lol? Way to take my statement completely out of context.

It's not a debate, it's about the right to speak for who you are. These people use the right to speak for who you are, to incite violence to prevent other people, mainly Muslims, the right to speak, be, live and breathe for who they are, both physically and mentally.



That unfair enough, for you?




You are denying both these men the right to be who they are physically and mentally. Nick Griffin has also debated with muslims on televised debates before, and usually been shouted down, and Irving has never displayed an opinion on them that I am aware of... being a simple historian trying to present a point of view and having groups of violent protesters try to stop him. You might want to consider the irony of having a large group of people at a freech speech event protesting trying to correct an error in history (if it exists) because it is not popular.



Also muslims have no bearing on someones right to present their opinions and views. Which we all have, stick to the point.

#79
Leylen
[ Display Name History ]

Leylen

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 161 posts
  • Joined:18 June 2004
I also found this arcticle amusing

http://www.oxfordmai...1857427.0.0.php



Mr Bennett said: "The vote is a disaster for democracy."



which says it all really.

#80
BlueLancer
[ Display Name History ]

BlueLancer

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,114 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:20 June 2004
  • RuneScape Status:None

People have a right to their opinion. No matter how completely racist or insensitive it is. Live with it, and let this crap die out.




They have a right to an opinion that all the jews in the world should die as long as they don't execute their plans. Those people are twisted, but nonetheless have a right to their opinions.



But if those people decide to voice their opinions publicly, even in European countries which are very liberal, voicing racist/genocidal/oppressing opinions in public can and will land you a jail sentence for hate crimes.



If that sick person talking on TV has even the opportunity of making five people execute the plans he's talking about, the TV channel has failed and is an accomplice in murder.



Would I have the right to terrorize your family on public television or a newspaper claiming "I'm taking every chance I got at killing your entire family one by one". That's not freedom of speech. Allowing that kind of a person to open his mouth in public is a threat to ordinary society.



I also found this arcticle amusing

http://www.oxfordmai...1857427.0.0.php



Mr Bennett said: "The vote is a disaster for democracy."



which says it all really.




ATTENTION PEOPLE!



As young people I am sure you have noticed a sharp rise in the number of foreigners in our country. This is bad news for us because it breaks up our communities. They often don't speak our language and it sounds awful. If immigration is not stopped within three decades we will be outnumbered 80 to 1 in our own country and will be an ETHNIC MINORITY here. Vote BNP as soon as you're old enough. They're the only party that put British people first.




How can some brits actually vote for this racist filth? :? They keep inventing numbers as a justification for xenophobia?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users