Hmm . . . yes . . . totally bizarre.

Earlier this year, the EU justice ministers decided not to tell Member States to ban the swastika. If they had done, the Spanish government would doubtless have been the first to act. They would have had the excuse to ban the lauburu, the ancient symbol of the Basques. One can imagine the Guardia Civil gleefully sandpapering laubururik off gravestones.

Banning symbols is just about as crazy as worshipping them.

And yes, I am more than happy for the Church of England to fly St George’s cross from their church towers, even though certain “anti-racists” claim it is “racist” so to do.

Just made a mistake.

I merely made a statement that was a general observation about the way thought, particularly on certain subjects, is often closed down through the use pejorative name calling with the intention of simply ending a discussion.

Tell you what. Tune in to our debate on 18 Doughty Street in a couple of weeks, and let’s see who is doing all the bullying and name calling. I am determined to be as courteous as possible to Donal, though I very much doubt I will succeed. Whereas Donal has already indicated his intention to fight dirty and be abusive. Let’s hope that’s just a lot of hot air. (By the way, now it’s your turn to say that you were in no way referring to me, that I’ve leapt to another conclusion, set up a straw man, etc. Zzzzz.)

I think [Donal] can speak for himself as he has shown in this thread.

Well hardly. It’s mostly just been puerile abuse.

You flew off the handle at calling me mealy-mouthed for saying I thought ending apartheid was a honourable goal.

Sorry I’ve re-read comment 44, and I’m afraid that I still think it was mealy-mouthed – the whole of it. Just my opinion. Nothing more.

I have to admit I was actually quite surprised at it, and the only thing I can put it down to is that I am a Tory, and you can’t get past that when you read what I write.

Nope. I have absolutely no problem with Conservatives or Conservatism per se. It’s a perfectly respectable political position, and I’m just sorry to see it tarnished.

The law is the law is the law.

Now that definitely is a tautology.

ANC, IRA, Al-Qaeda, PLO

Here it is again:-

Ez izan eta bai uste
Sasipeko masuste

“Not to be but to think one is the blackberry under the bramble bush”

Nouveau riche family, minor public school, redbrick university, high street solicitor. Not exactly David Cameron, is he? No wonder he has such an inferiority complex.

Made a mistake to say it? Or made a mistake to even mention it?

I think there are many Conservatives who would quite like to ignore Donal, which might be part of the reason why my article was rejected for Conservative Home. Then rejected again after I had toned it down considerably. Which is fine, it’s their site, but once again a mistake I fear.

I wasn’t talking about Donal, but again, you knew that.

If by “rightthink,” you mean my belief that all races should be accorded equal treatment, then I’m afraid I’m guilty as charged.

No I didn’t mean it like that, but again you knew that.

You poor sensitive soul, I was not aware that I had hurt your feelings!…you have come across as very mealy-mouthed with your lawyerly defence of Donal’s cynical and nasty post, (or his right to say what he said, or whatever the hell it is that you’re trying to argue).

I’m not hurt Laurence, I’m just a bit confused at your need to lash out at me with invective personally. And you might not that I have not actually directly defended Donal. I merely made a statement that was a general observation about the way thought, particularly on certain subjects, is often closed down through the use pejorative name calling with the intention of simply ending a discussion.

Just because I haven’t attacked Donal, but also haven’t agreed with you doesn’t mean I am defending him. I think he can speak for himself as he has shown in this thread. As far as I am concerned the starting point for our discussion was what I wrote in general, and you flew off the handle at calling me mealy-mouthed for saying I thought ending apartheid was a honourable goal. I have to admit I was actually quite surprised at it, and the only thing I can put it down to is that I am a Tory, and you can’t get past that when you read what I write. I could be wrong on that of course, but it seems to be the only explanation I can think of for the way you have approached everything I have said.

But who is rewriting history? [snip]

I didn’t say anyone was, I said it was important not too, and specifically it was important not to be dismissive of those positions of history that one might not like. This is especially the case when the subject has deep political entrenchment embedded in the traditional positions that are taken during the discussion.

Forgive me, but is that not just pure tautology?

Not if you believe the law is the law is the law, and you make your judgment on that basis.

No, Donal can say what he likes. But I happen to believe that he has made a mistake.

In other words you are saying that it should be ignored.

I think there are many Conservatives who would quite like to ignore Donal, which might be part of the reason why my article was rejected for Conservative Home. Then rejected again after I had toned it down considerably. Which is fine, it’s their site, but once again a mistake I fear.

In other words you’re implying some sort of element of “rightthink” about the subject.

If by “rightthink,” you mean my belief that all races should be accorded equal treatment, then I’m afraid I’m guilty as charged.

I’m sorry, but which argument am I losing here?

I can’t remember. Probably all of them. But if I might be allowed to proffer some advice, you Conservatives really need to concentrate on winning elections, not arguments.

If you read back in here to before you started to lash out at me personally . . .

You poor sensitive soul, I was not aware that I had hurt your feelings! In fact I’ve seen you many times on 18 Doughty Street, and thought that you seemed quite a reasonable chap. But I’m afraid that on this occasion, you have come across as very mealy-mouthed with your lawyerly defence of Donal’s cynical and nasty post, (or his right to say what he said, or whatever the hell it is that you’re trying to argue).

I said that I believed it was “important historically to maintain perspective and not rewrite history.”

But who is rewriting history? More to the point, how on earth could anyone rewrite the history of the apartheid era? There have been endless books and documentaries on the subject, highlighting both the good and the bad. Then there are the transcripts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. All 684 volumes of them. The revisionists have so got their work cut out.

I think you overestimate Donal’s singular influence on the electorate.

Trouble is, Donal’s not the only one, is he?

My opinion on the matter is that he got the sentence that the law said he should get for the crimes it said he committed. It wasn’t too short, it wasn’t too long, it wasn’t just right, it just was.

Forgive me, but is that not just pure tautology?

I live in the present not the past.

Ah, would that the same could be said for the rest of the Conservative party!

Whoever said that anyone did? You’re really having trouble getting this I think. I’m saying that you’re attacking Donal decision to remind people of the “darker side to Mandela”. By implication you are saying he shouldn’t be talking about that. In other words you are saying that it should be ignored. In other words you’re implying some sort of element of “rightthink” about the subject.

This is ridiculous. If I want to shut down the discussion, then why am I debating with you on this Blog?

Obviously I was referring to the intellectual sense of closing the debate, as illustrated above, not in a literal sense. But I think you knew that.

I’ve noticed that this “you’re shutting down the debate” line, seems to be increasingly deployed by those losing the argument.

I’m sorry, but which argument am I losing here? If you read back in here to before you started to lash out at me personally (something which I have not done to you I should add), I said that I believed it was “important historically to maintain perspective and not rewrite history”. You then leapt to create multiple straw men in your responses, usually along the line of saying that because I said I wouldn’t do X, I was saying that you had done X. What I’m driving at here is that I’m not losing an argument because we’re not actually having one. Thus far you’ve not really argued against anything I’ve said, you;ve simply been arguing with straw men.

Likewise, risible and paranoid.

Tu quoque and ad hominen in one sentence? I’m impressed.

Only because Donal and his mates are going to keep the Conservatives out of power for a generation. That’s all.

I think you (a) overestimate Donal’s singular influence on the electorate, (b) are making ad hominen circumstantial assumptions (re: his mates), and (c) don’t seem to realise that should the election come next year we have been out of power for a generation already.

So . . . was 27 years too long, too short, or was it just the right length? You must have some opinion on the matter.

Err perhaps I didn’t explain it properly. I will try again. He broke the law and received the sentence accorded to the law he broke. My opinion on the matter is that he got the sentence that the law said he should get for the crimes it said he committed.It wasn’t too short, it wasn’t too long, it wasn’t just right, it just was. That is my opinion.

Wow! Is all I can say.

Why wow? Laurence I live in the present not the past. The statue doesn’t mean that much to me, and frankly you can put flowers behind his ears and prasie him as a God amongst men, or you could make it look like a broom handle has been shoved up his arse. It’s a totally peripheral to my original comment and much wider general observation.

Ez izan ez uste
Sasipeko masuste

“Not to be but to think one is the blackberry under the bramble bush”

I see that one of South Africa’s opposition politicians has been arrested and accused the ANC government of behaving like the apartheid regime. Still, I guess it serves her right for endorsing the ANC line, eh Laurence?

Oh and by the way, if you think I have even BEGUN to be abusive towards you yet, you ain’t seen nothing yet…

Who ever said that some of the ANC’s actions were not technically illegal?

You are after all saying that ending the anti-apartheid movement was a moral imperative because of its injustice, and you’re then using the same hard line moral imperative to close down intellectual freedom, honesty and open discourse about history.

This is ridiculous. If I want to shut down the discussion, then why am I debating with you on this Blog? And why am I going to debate Donal on 18 Doughty Street? Donal has been so personally abusive to me that I would have every right to pull out. But I’m still going to face up to him. I’ve noticed that this “you’re shutting down the debate” line, seems to be increasingly deployed by those losing the argument.

In the moral name of liberty and freedom you come, yet you’re very quick to use those moral to restrict intellectual freedom and discussion on subjects you consider should not be discussed.

Likewise, risible and paranoid.

Why do I have to be embarrassed?

Only because Donal and his mates are going to keep the Conservatives out of power for a generation. That’s all.

Sorry, but can you list them [the ironies] for me, specifically in relation to me?

I don’t feel I really know you that well. But in general, the ironies are too numerous to mention. There’s a nice one here.

Well he was convicted on numerous counts of treason wasn’t he? Now, whether you think the conviction was sound or not is of course a matter for debate, but technically speaking they were hardly going to send him to an Open Prison for a couple of years.

So . . . was 27 years too long, too short, or was it just the right length? You must have some opinion on the matter.

To be honest I don’t really care [whether or not we place a rubber tyre around the neck of his statue]. If we did it would probably get nicked anyway.

Wow! Is all I can say.

Similarly, your distinction between empirical truths and moral ones. It’s true enough that something can be empirically true without implying any moral value – “this knife is sharp”. However, there are some empirical truths that certainly should lead to moral judgments – or would in most people. You have views as to the factually provable differences between races, and because of these believe that Apartheid is factually wrong. To say that you make no moral judgment after reaching this factual conclusion is odd to say the least.
However, one doesn’t have to follow your thinking: It makes perfect sense for me to think that “the cause Mandela fought for [was] right, whilst equally saying that the manner in which he and other[s] went about it at times was legally wrong”. It was legally wrong under South African law – I just think it was morally wrong for the South African Government to operate Apartheid and take the actions that they did (you see, I too am a positivist!!)

There is also very good reason for the differentiation I made. When I talk about philosophical truths I am actually referring to empirical truths rather moral ones. Ss for me, apartheid is empircally wrong, as opposed to morally wrong. Now I imagine that might be taken by the less honest person as “Dizzy say’s apartheid was not morally wrong, ergo he thinks it was morally right”. However, what I am saying is that I think neither of those things and instead frame apartheid against that which I know to be empircally true and ask, does it contradict that? If so it is not wrong in a moral sense but wrong in an empirical one.

Really though, the point being discussed here is that for Laurence it seems that one cannot both acknowledge the cause Mandela fought for as in somewhere being right, whilst equally saying that the manner in which he and other went about it at times was legally wrong. I don;t see a contradiction between those things because of a positivst approach to law and morality.

Surely being a legal positivist just means that you don’t think “moral imperatives” should have any legal force without specific legal enactment, or that there’s any necessary link between something’s status as law/not law and it’s moral value.

I presume you’re actually implying you don’t believe in moral authoritarianism – ie “what I believe is right is right and everyone else should be made to act the way I think is right”

“[Dizzy] Do I think Aparthied was wrong – Yes. Not as a moral judgement [sic] but because it contradicted something I hold to be a philosophical truth about the equality of free men.”

I don’t really understand why you feel the need to differentiate between moral judgments and “philosophical truths” here – it’s your moral judgment that Apartheid was wrong, based on your belief about philosophical truths.

1: Do I think Aparthied was wrong – Yes. Not as a moral judgement but because it contradicted something I hold to be a philosophical truth about the equality of free men.

2: Do I think the anti-Aparthied movement was therfore a correct cause – Yes. Because it sought to apply that philosophical truth of the equal status of free men.

3: Do I think that the anti-Apartheid movement commited crimes? Yes.

4: Do I think that because the anti-Apartheid movement was philosophically correct that the crimes it committed were not crimes? No.