Comments on: Opinion: First they came for the Nazis  http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:35:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Laurence Boyce http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11968 Laurence Boyce Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:42:58 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11968 I don’t believe it! There was I thinking that the title phrase “first they came for the Nazis” could scarcely be more ridiculous. Now I learn that the same phrase was used in all apparent seriousness by the Libertarian Alliance in 2004. Responding to the news that some BNP bank accounts had been closed down, <a href="http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr028.htm" rel="nofollow">Dr Chris Tame said</a>, “The principle is political freedom and freedom of expression. First they came for the Nazis . . . who will be next?” Gaaa!!! I can’t take any more!!! I don’t believe it! There was I thinking that the title phrase “first they came for the Nazis” could scarcely be more ridiculous. Now I learn that the same phrase was used in all apparent seriousness by the Libertarian Alliance in 2004. Responding to the news that some BNP bank accounts had been closed down, Dr Chris Tame said, “The principle is political freedom and freedom of expression. First they came for the Nazis . . . who will be next?”

Gaaa!!! I can’t take any more!!!

]]> By: Hywel http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11904 Hywel Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:02:13 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11904 The 2006 act may or may not be tougher than these provisions but it isn't (or wasn't about a week ago) UK law over a year after being passed by Parliament. The 2006 act may or may not be tougher than these provisions but it isn’t (or wasn’t about a week ago) UK law over a year after being passed by Parliament.

]]> By: Angus J Huck http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11903 Angus J Huck Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:49:49 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11903 According to the report in "The Guardian", no changes to UK domestic law will result. http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,2061767,00.html I do have difficulty with attempts to legislate against "race hate". In my opinion, this kind of thing is best dealt with as a public order issue. If a rabble-rouser exhorts a bunch of skinheads to burn down synagogues, then of course he should be prosecuted. He is inciting people to do something criminal and intends them to do it. The likes of David Irving, on the other hand, thrive on the kind of publicity their enemies give them. They scribble, but they don't actually encourage people to break the law. That's the crucial distinction, as I see it. Britain has no need for entnazifizierung laws, for the simple reason that we never came close to electing a Nazi government. The following link is a Bronze Age vase adorned with swastikas. It is legal to display it, and we can be trusted to look at it (I think). http://perso.wanadoo.es/historiaweb/antiqva/viajes%20miticos/la_estela_de_ategua.htm According to the report in “The Guardian”, no changes to UK domestic law will result.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,2061767,00.html

I do have difficulty with attempts to legislate against “race hate”. In my opinion, this kind of thing is best dealt with as a public order issue.

If a rabble-rouser exhorts a bunch of skinheads to burn down synagogues, then of course he should be prosecuted. He is inciting people to do something criminal and intends them to do it.

The likes of David Irving, on the other hand, thrive on the kind of publicity their enemies give them. They scribble, but they don’t actually encourage people to break the law.

That’s the crucial distinction, as I see it.

Britain has no need for entnazifizierung laws, for the simple reason that we never came close to electing a Nazi government.

The following link is a Bronze Age vase adorned with swastikas. It is legal to display it, and we can be trusted to look at it (I think).

http://perso.wanadoo.es/historiaweb/antiqva/viajes%20miticos/la_estela_de_ategua.htm

]]> By: Laurence Boyce http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11866 Laurence Boyce Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:29:44 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11866 The aims are admirable insofar as they attempt to combat pernicious and ascendant racism. What was absent in so much of last week’s commentary was any acknowledgement that the Eurocrats might just be trying to deal with a deep and pressing issue here. Instead, they were routinely portrayed as being the pocket Hitlers themselves. By all means let’s contend that the proposed legislation is misguided, or indeed make an argument against European interference. But for Pete’s sake let’s at least recognise the problem. The aims are admirable insofar as they attempt to combat pernicious and ascendant racism. What was absent in so much of last week’s commentary was any acknowledgement that the Eurocrats might just be trying to deal with a deep and pressing issue here. Instead, they were routinely portrayed as being the pocket Hitlers themselves. By all means let’s contend that the proposed legislation is misguided, or indeed make an argument against European interference. But for Pete’s sake let’s at least recognise the problem.

]]> By: Hywel Morgan http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11863 Hywel Morgan Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:54:14 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11863 "the aims of the law are admirable, but the way of doing it is wrong." But what are the aims of the law? Basically to make it a crime to say something which isn't true. In any rational political sphere saying something that isn't true is easily defeatable by the force of reason? “the aims of the law are admirable, but the way of doing it is wrong.”

But what are the aims of the law? Basically to make it a crime to say something which isn’t true. In any rational political sphere saying something that isn’t true is easily defeatable by the force of reason?

]]> By: Angus J Huck http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11862 Angus J Huck Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:11:10 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11862 I'm a little bit mystified by all this. Is the author referring to the decision of the 27 EU Justice Ministers not to order member states to ban "Nazi symbols", Holocaust denial and Armenian Genocide denial? While I fail to see why the EU should have the power to tell national parliaments how to make their criminal law, the decision was quite sensible, and the banning tendency didn't get what they wanted. A prohibition on "Nazi symbols" would have caused great offence to Hindus, for whom the swastika is a sacred symbol, and to Basques, for whom the lauburu is a national symbol. And a ban on the swastika would require the British Museum to withdraw some of its exhibits (including not a few Ancient Greek vases). The author might also mention that the faltering emergence of a public interest defence to defamation helps lift the greatest single restraint on free speech in this country. I’m a little bit mystified by all this. Is the author referring to the decision of the 27 EU Justice Ministers not to order member states to ban “Nazi symbols”, Holocaust denial and Armenian Genocide denial?

While I fail to see why the EU should have the power to tell national parliaments how to make their criminal law, the decision was quite sensible, and the banning tendency didn’t get what they wanted.

A prohibition on “Nazi symbols” would have caused great offence to Hindus, for whom the swastika is a sacred symbol, and to Basques, for whom the lauburu is a national symbol. And a ban on the swastika would require the British Museum to withdraw some of its exhibits (including not a few Ancient Greek vases).

The author might also mention that the faltering emergence of a public interest defence to defamation helps lift the greatest single restraint on free speech in this country.

]]> By: Laurence Boyce http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11858 Laurence Boyce Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:38:01 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11858 I tend to agree with you, as I hinted above, that race hate laws are in all likelihood going to prove counterproductive. But last week’s reaction was just so over the top that I had to get this off my chest. As for allowing error to promulgate, again there must be limits to this principle, especially in the arena of education. I’m thinking of those <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1389500,00.html" rel="nofollow">creationist schools</a> again! I tend to agree with you, as I hinted above, that race hate laws are in all likelihood going to prove counterproductive. But last week’s reaction was just so over the top that I had to get this off my chest. As for allowing error to promulgate, again there must be limits to this principle, especially in the arena of education. I’m thinking of those creationist schools again!

]]> By: John S http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11857 John S Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:23:15 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-first-they-came-for-the-nazis%c2%a0-714.html#comment-11857 The greatest question that every liberal has to face is that of tolerance; specifically, how much do we tolerate the intolerant? My answer is, significantly different to your own, but it's no longer the position I took in my youth of 'if I'm not tolerant to them I can't reasonably demand they be tolerant of me', although I have yet to convince myself that that is actually an unreasonable position. Instead, I invoke JS Mill; error has to be allowed to promulgate. In the ensuing collision between truth and error, truth is forced to clarify itself, becoming more obvious and accurate, and error is shown to be wrong, to be lies, to be unconscionable. It's the same reason I dislike people no-platforming the BNP. How can we take on their poison and destroy them and their lies if we never engage with them? If we ban expression, the people holding these views will not go away, and will not change them. It simply gives them a tagline - "We've got the truth the establishment doesn't want you to hear". Their filth is never challenged, and the people listening to them are sucked in, and lost for good. I'm not worried we're entering a totalitarian state, the aims of the law are admirable, but the way of doing it is wrong. The rules of engagement for the new forms of technology may indeed need to be rethought and redefined, but banning speech, however repulsive, will not end it - it will simply stop us from being able to combat it, because it won't be in the same arena. If we want to have any chance of ending it, we need to have well observed, well evidenced public debates, where those who wish to lie about history can be shown as the peddlars of hate that they are. The greatest question that every liberal has to face is that of tolerance; specifically, how much do we tolerate the intolerant?

My answer is, significantly different to your own, but it’s no longer the position I took in my youth of ‘if I’m not tolerant to them I can’t reasonably demand they be tolerant of me’, although I have yet to convince myself that that is actually an unreasonable position. Instead, I invoke JS Mill; error has to be allowed to promulgate. In the ensuing collision between truth and error, truth is forced to clarify itself, becoming more obvious and accurate, and error is shown to be wrong, to be lies, to be unconscionable.

It’s the same reason I dislike people no-platforming the BNP. How can we take on their poison and destroy them and their lies if we never engage with them? If we ban expression, the people holding these views will not go away, and will not change them. It simply gives them a tagline – “We’ve got the truth the establishment doesn’t want you to hear”. Their filth is never challenged, and the people listening to them are sucked in, and lost for good.

I’m not worried we’re entering a totalitarian state, the aims of the law are admirable, but the way of doing it is wrong. The rules of engagement for the new forms of technology may indeed need to be rethought and redefined, but banning speech, however repulsive, will not end it – it will simply stop us from being able to combat it, because it won’t be in the same arena. If we want to have any chance of ending it, we need to have well observed, well evidenced public debates, where those who wish to lie about history can be shown as the peddlars of hate that they are.

]]>