Last week’s unveiling of a nine foot bronze statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square was a nice way to round off the British summer (such as it was) – a happy occasion to unite black and white, left and right, in honour of the man who emerged with the utmost humility after 27 years imprisonment, to lead South Africa out of the shocking injustice that was the Apartheid era.
Fulsome tributes were paid by Lord Attenborough, Wendy Woods, and the Mayor of London. “The most inspiring and greatest leader of our generation,” said the Prime Minister, “and one of the most courageous and best-loved men of all time.” And everyone cheered and clapped their hands raw. Well, everyone except for Donal Blaney.
In a tired and predictable throwback to Conservative attitudes of the 1980s, Blaney decided that this was a fitting moment to remind us all of a darker side to Mandela. “One must not forget,” he intoned, “that he raised funds for the ANC’s armed wing, arranged paramilitary training, and led an armed struggle against Apartheid. He was no Gandhi.”
This sudden conversion to pacifism will undoubtedly come as a shock to many who are more familiar with Blaney as the last man in Britain who still thinks that the Iraq invasion was a good idea. In a reference to the practice of “necklacing”, a gruesome method of retribution which tragically spread through the townships during the late ’80s, Blaney proposed that, “instead of laying a garland at the feet of Mr Mandela’s statue or about his neck, maybe someone should be placing a rubber tire there instead.” A bit politically incorrect is young Donal – not to mention cynical, ungracious, and crass.
Of course it’s hard to see what Mandela could have done to put a stop to necklacing, seeing as he was being detained against his wishes at Pollsmoor Maximum Security Prison – though doubtless Blaney would have been praying earnestly for his release, devout Christian that he is.
But it’s not difficult to understand why Blaney’s hackles might have been raised. There were times during last week’s event when even I felt that it was starting to turn into a Labour love-in, as extravagant praise was heaped upon Gordon Brown and Mayor Livingstone, both for making the day possible and for being long and steadfast supporters of the anti-Apartheid movement. But the truth is that if Conservatives were feeling a bit left out and were having to cheer Mandela through gritted teeth, then really they only have themselves to blame.
Mandela’s personal long walk to freedom finally ended when he strolled out into the African sunshine on 11th February, 1990. The Prime Minister at the time was Blaney’s hero Margaret Thatcher, who three years earlier had declared: “The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation. Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land.”
But suppose that instead of playing to the right-wing gallery, Thatcher had been in the forefront of the campaign to free Mandela and end Apartheid. Who knows, we might then have been able to witness the extraordinary spectacle of an elderly Lady Thatcher warmly embracing an even more elderly Mandela in Parliament Square, to the enthusiastic applause of her old enemy Ken Livingstone. But alas it wasn’t to be; she was nowhere to be seen.
Last week on internet TV politics channel 18 Doughty Street, Iain Dale made the following quip about me (@ 44:25): “Bear in mind that Laurence is a Liberal Democrat – well he says he is, but everything he always says is Conservative.” It’s not an unfair remark. I do indeed lean to the right politically, and I don’t need to tell you how thoroughly fed up you are with the barrage of criticism I keep up against our own leadership and direction as a party.
But from time to time, it’s useful to be reminded of why I will almost certainly never be a Conservative. It is because if the unreconstructed Thatcherites ruled the world, the Apartheid regime would in all likelihood still be intact.
* Laurence Boyce is a Liberal Democrat member.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Encounters
The Time I Met Paul O'Grady and Lily Savage at the Same Time
Satisfaction with the NHS falls to lowest level since records began in 1983
Ed Davey launches Lib Dem local elections campaign in Berkhamsted
My tweets
UK Government to reintroduce Victorian prison hulks?
Roads and pavements improvements for the West End 2023/24 #dundeewestend
Roland
Gordon
Jacon Connor
Paul Barker
David Raw
69 Comments
You clearly lead an exciting life, don’t you Laurence! I see you haven’t yet come onto 18 Doughty Street to debate Mandela with me – I guess the yellow streak that runs through you is cowardice as well as the colour of the party you support 🙂
Would you care to explain this video, in which Mandela is seen singing a traditional song in which he calls for whites to be killed?
Yes, I’ve seen those videos. There’s a white man in there too. He must be a complete idiot. Maybe somebody can find some videos of the Federation of Conservative Students singing, “Hang Nelson Mandela.” As for debating you on 18 Doughty Street, not only have I said I’m up for it, but I’ve badgered Iain twice now. This time I’ll leave a message on his Facebook wall so that nobody can be in any doubt.
I still think the invasion of Iraq was the right course action to take when we did it.
Laurence, as you know, I have replied on Facebookand invited you on at a time of your choosing.
Er, yes. As of a few minutes ago. I’ll be in touch!
By the way Iain, what do you think of Donal’s remarks? Or couldn’t you possibly comment?
OK Dizzy, so there’s two people who still think it was a good idea. And what do you think of Donal’s remarks?
Laurence: the allegation of the “Hang Nelson Mandela” stuff aimed at FCS has, unfortunately, been shown to have been complete nonsense and resulted in damages being paid. But if you want to trot out unsubstantiated defamatory statements again, that’s your funeral.
You will also find that while you coterie of friends (limited in numbers although it may be) may all prefer to appease Jihadists, lots of people remain supporters of our troops overseas. It’s a shame you would prefer to cut and run, irrespective of the consequences on the people of Iraq, and irrespective of what that will mean in the long run for us.
But as these are your (characteristically ill-thought out) views, and this is a free society (at least until the Jihadists impose their will on us) you are entitled to them of course.
Donal, Tim Montgomerie recently said on Conservative Home that “I remember going to a Conservative Collegiate Forum event at the turn of the nineties and ‘my fellow Conservatives’ were singing ‘hang Nelson Mandela’ after they had had one too many beers“.
Perhaps you’d like to sue him?
Dear, dear Paul: I never said I would sue anyone. So in your haste to help out your little chum Laurence, you may wish to be a little more careful yourself. You silly boy.
Oh and for the record, FCS and CCF are different organisations. But, hey: why let the facts get in the way of an attempted debating point.
Donal, I find the condescension works best when you’ve also got a leg to stand on. Alas, you do not. I’m sure we’re all aware of the fact that the YCs, FCS and CCF were different organisations, all official Conservative youth organisations. I’m sure we’re all also aware of the Hang Mandela posters the FCS produced, and the charming songs they all liked to sing. Do OUCA still sing ‘Riding’? So sorry to hear you’re not in litigious mood though, we could have had a little fun there!
I see you are unable to admit when you are wrong. I guess this (along with bad breath, lack of judgment and woolly thinking) must be a trait of LibDems then.
When were these Mandela posters produced? By whom? Show some evidence…ah, you cannot.
Bad luck little fella. Off you go back to nursery and enjoy your lollipop.
Donal, do you know Grant Schapps? I’m sure you would get on with him very well.
Donal, I’m sorry that you’ve descended into ad hominem so quickly. Your nursery jibe aside, you are correct that I’m considerably younger than you. We’ve all enjoyed your semantic quibble over which official Conservative youth organisation Mr Montgomrie happens to have been a member of in the 1990s, you accept such songs were sung? Naturally, the FCS could not have sung them in the 1990s, as they had been disbanded! He was of course, just one example. Clearly a rather more honest man than yourself.
Do you think, perhaps, that this is an FCS poster?
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1445/mandelakx4.png
Donal, I have spoken out in the clearest possible terms about the problem of Islam – a problem which has been made considerably worse by the Iraq debacle. But here’s the thing: if you want to speak about Islam (or black gun crime, or immigration, or whatever), it really does help first to establish your anti-racist credentials beyond reproach. Your blog is littered with whining complaints that when the left talks about these issues, that’s OK; but when the right tries to talk about them, then they’re “racist.” Well it’s hardly surprising if that is the general perception, given remarks like yours about Mandela. That’s the trouble with the FCS story. I’ll take your word for it that it’s completely untrue. It’s certainly believable though isn’t it? When are you going to wake up to the fact that the problem is not the liberal-left PC hegemony. The problem is you.
By the way, just for the avoidance of any doubt, may I make it clear that Donal absolutely does NOT want to hang Nelson Mandela. Though he did tell me last week that he thought the 27 year prison term was “about right.”
An article truly worthy of the kindergarten debating club.
Thanks Donal.
Nelson Mandela was several things. He was an icon for the struggle against apartheid.
He also at times resorted to violence, the ANC did use terrorism, but has since renounced it. Just as nobody thought Sin Fein would ever form part of a government a few years ago.
He was also one of the architects of a peaceful transition to full enfranchisement.
I’d rather we didn’t spend tax payer’s money on this sort of thing at all, but Mandela is no worse than some of the other statues we have around London and he did achieve a lot (although perhaps not enough given the corruption within the ANC today)
Mandela deserves to stand alongside figures like Cromwell for transcending questions of politics and of right and wrong in order to see through a necessary change.
Although the anti-apartheid movement was supported by the class-consciousness of the trades unions, which is why he is appropriated as an icon of the left, most admirably it is his irrepressible humanity that shines through, which remains his lasting appeal.
I think it’s a perfectably reasonable to point to make that Nelson Mandela was no angel was considered a terrorist for his actions for many many many years by just about everyone in this country.
Sitting around saying what a wonderful human being he is just emphasises how international politics can change when you see people’s actions in a different light.
#20 No sweeping generalisations from you!
Obviously every person has different shades to their character, but just like there are times and places to show them there are also times and places to recognise those different aspects – so show some decorum, please, otherwise one might ask you to expand your opinion of other modern icons (say Diana, PoW, for example)…
Letterwriter: “was considered a terrorist for his actions for many many many years by just about everyone in this country”
Really? Just about everyone? Got some polling data to back that up? Because while I’ve met a small number of people (mostly either Tory ideologues or white supremacists) who did think that, most of the people I’ve met didn’t.
Methinks you’re guilty of more than a few logical fallacies in that assertion, statistics of small numbers being one of them.
The Donal v Laurence debate will be taking place during the week of 24 September. I will be the unlucky guy keeping them apart. Thank God I am on holiday for the next 2 weeks…
Provided Laurence brings breath spray you won’t have to worry Iain.
He fights dirty for a nice Christian gentleman, don’t you think?
Why have Laurence on 18DS Iain?*
He has virtually no standing within the Liberal Democrats other than writing the occasional posting here. As far as I can tell I should be angling for an invite too 🙂
*Although to be fair the answer “My channel so I invite who I like. If you don’t like it go set your own one up” is probably a fair enough response 🙂
I’m not going to appear as a Liberal Democrat. I’m going to appear as a human being.
I don’t know Donal – but I would like to understand a little more of the tenets of his faith. On paper it is a faith we share, but at some point we seem to have a different idea about us all being created equal in the image of God (sorry to bring God into it Laurence!). I have just returned from Northern Ireland, a land in which I served (in the army) 30 years ago. I find it humbling to be there and witness the remarkable changes, the vibrance of Belfast, the sense of normality, the strangeness of feeling safer in Aldergrove or Belfast City airports than in Heathrow or London City…….. Peace has a high premium, whoever has contributed to it. I genuinely find it hard to understand how those who condemn Mandela fighting for the poor and oppressed, laud Bush, fighting for the rich and powerful. Often the same people who oppose abortion but support hanging………..hmmmmmm
You were in the army?! Phwoar!!! Anyway, if you want to understand Donal’s Christianity, then you need to read this book – it’s one of his favourites. Only please make sure you have a sick bag at the ready. I’m sorry you do God Linda, but I still think you’re gorgeous. 🙂
I’d rather fight dirty, Laurence – most people would see it as fighting effectively – than to BE dirty. And have breath like yours.
I wish I could actually understand these insults. Did we share a kiss once Donal?
Look at Donal’s blog today. He thinks foot and mouth disease is “fatal”. Clearly veterinary medicine is not his specialist area. If only he had stayed in the British Virgin Islands.
I don’t know the book, but I presume it comes from the terrible stable of what masquerades as Christianity in the right wing Zionist fundementalist evangelical backwaters across the pond and far from promoting peace (particularly in Israel) impede it. Anyway rant over………..
Er . . . yes that’s about the size of it. By the way, I heard a great joke today. “The last people who listened to a Bush spent the next forty years in the wilderness.” Boom boom!
Having had a pop at Donal Blaney, on to the serious matter of Nelson Mandela.
First, the comparison of Mandela with Gandhi. No, Mandela is certainly not Mohandas K Gandhi. He doesn’t defend reactionary Hindu values, such as caste and arranged marriages, and he doesn’t promote a cult of poverty (indeed, he has even condemned circumcision).
Secondly, Mandela and violence. What is remarkable about the ANC and its resistance to the apartheid regime is the limited use of violence. The few military actions were directed against political targets (such as Verwoerd and the Sasol plant), not against white people per se.
I like to compare South Africa with Algeria.
When the FLN took control of the latter in 1963, the first thing they did was ethnically cleanse the entire French population. They then proceeded to run the country on semi-communist lines, and persecuted the Berber minority. Algeria continues to languish in poverty and is plagued with Islamist violence. Many Algerians must be wondering why they ever bothered to evict the French.
When Mandela and the ANC took office, by contrast, they made every effort to maintain stability and promote reconciliation. Did they ethnically cleanse the white population? NO. Did they turn on Zulus who had supported Buthulezi? NO. Did they nationalise the economy? NO. Is South Africa an impoverished basket case like Algeria? NO.
Given the facts, it isn’t hard to see why Nelson Mandela has such iconic status.
I meant to say “political and economic targets”.
Angus: foot and mouth is fatal to the animals infected. They get slaughtered! If only it was not only Aberdeen Angus at risk but Angus Huck too…
Laurence: your reputation precedes you. I will look forward to meeting you on air at 18DS. It might help you overcome your spinelessness but I doubt it.
Laurence: 40 years in the wilderness is more than 85 years your party has spent in the electoral wilderness though 🙂
I think 40 is less than 85 in fact, but I take your point. Interesting though to speculate for how long you and your mates are going to keep the Conservatives out of power.
Gandhi has some clay on his feet, he wrote that Germany would remember Hitler as: ‘a genius, a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more.’
My enemy’s enemy…
And Mandela certainly never said that; so I guess he was indeed no Gandhi.
Donal Blaney behaves recklessly for an enrolled solicitor.
I guess he’ll get himself struck off one of these days.
Still, very silly of Donal to get caught out over foot and mouth. Does rather damage his credibility.
> Still, very silly of Donal to get caught out over foot and mouth. Does rather damage his credibility.
I wasn’t aware that he had any?
Laurence, apologies for not answering you sooner. The answer is that I think it’s important historically to maintain perspective and not rewrite history. What Donal said is nothing that I have not heard a thousand times from Safa’s that I know who are anything but racist but who dislike the way in which the ANC has in recent years been portrayed as something that it previously was not. That’s not to say that what it wanted to achieve against apartheid was not an honourable goal, but to ignore the manner in which it tried to go about it in many cases, and more crucially to attempt to portray historical honesty as evidence of latent racism, is, I’d say, the sort of intellectual discourse that one would expect to get from an ant that had been sat on a copy of Dante with the assumption that it could read it.
Hey Dizzy, you couldn’t try and be a bit more mealy-mouthed could you? The dismantling of Apartheid was an “honourable goal” – love it! But I’m really not sure about all this historical revisionism of the ANC. I wonder if it isn’t going on purely in the minds of Conservatives. Who is denying the violent past of the ANC exactly? Certainly not Mandela who has been very open about it. And what, pray, is one supposed to do when one is denied the vote and is suffering prolonged discrimination and oppression? Here is David Cameron, writing a year ago following his visit to South Africa:
In Soweto, one of the most visible symbols of apartheid’s cruelty is the power station. It was built in the centre of the black township to protect the white population of Johannesburg from pollution, but the people of Soweto were not allowed to use the electricity that it generated. Despite such an injustice, the remarkable thing about South Africa is how the move to black majority rule has been achieved with such stability. My overwhelming impression from visiting the Hector Pieterson museum in Soweto is not how violent the armed struggle or Soweto uprisings were, but how restrained.
Quite frankly, if any Conservative cannot find it within themselves to emulate the graciousness of their own leader on this matter, then they should just shut up.
Hey Dizzy, you couldn’t try and be a bit more mealy-mouthed could you?
:rolleyes:
The dismantling of Apartheid was an “honourable goal” – love it!
I don’t understand, are you saying it wasn’t? Or was that supposed to be a bit of deliberate irony when linked with your previous sentence to make a vague insinuation that I am either (a) being disgenuous, (b) really a raging bigot who wants to murder anyone who is not white, or (c) possibly both?
But I’m really not sure about all this historical revisionism of the ANC.
Errr… I didn’t say there was historical revisionism per se. What I said was that to portray historical honesty as evidence of latent racism, was intellectually fatuous. There was a period in history when the ANC were a engaged in terrorist activity in South Africa. That is a matter of historical reality. Attacking someone for saying that is what is wrong.
And what, pray, is one supposed to do when one is denied the vote and is suffering prolonged discrimination and oppression?
Become a terrorist of course…. well that is what I’d do anyway.
Quite frankly, if any Conservative cannot find it within themselves to emulate the graciousness of their own leader on this matter, then they should just shut up.
Don’t you think it’s just a tad ironic to be agressively attacking someone, make daft insinuations, and then talk about “graciousness”?
Incidentally, just to throw a spanner in the works, the terrorist I most admire is George Washington.
I don’t understand, are you saying it wasn’t? Or was that supposed to be a bit of deliberate irony when linked with your previous sentence to make a vague insinuation that I am either (a) being disingenuous, (b) really a raging bigot who wants to murder anyone who is not white, or (c) possibly both?
I’m sorry, but it’s funny sometimes the way you guys can’t hear how you sound. I would have said dismantling apartheid was a “moral imperative,” but maybe that’s just pompous lefty language.
I didn’t say there was historical revisionism per se.
I think you may have done.
What I said was that to portray historical honesty as evidence of latent racism, was intellectually fatuous.
I haven’t accused anyone of racism as it happens. But if the cap fits . . .
There was a period in history when the ANC were engaged in terrorist activity in South Africa. That is a matter of historical reality. Attacking someone for saying that is what is wrong.
OK, now you are being just a touch disingenuous. Donal’s piece was a little bit more than a technical justification for the use of the word “terrorist.” When Donal says “terrorist,” it’s meant as a sneering justification for locking someone up for 27 years, a sentence he described to me as being “about right” in length. Were you really not in the least bit embarrassed when you read his post?
Don’t you think it’s just a tad ironic to be aggressively attacking someone, make daft insinuations, and then talk about “graciousness”?
I think that when it comes to observing Conservative reaction to Mandela, the ironies just pile up sky high.
Anyway, what do you think Dizzy – 27 years for Mandela was about right, was it? And should we, or should we not, place a rubber tire around the neck of his statue?
I’m sorry, but it’s funny sometimes the way you guys can’t hear how you sound. I would have said dismantling apartheid was a “moral imperative,” but maybe that’s just pompous lefty language.
Well I’m a legal positivist so I don’t really believe in moral imperatives, or more correctly expressed in my mind as Kantian categorical imperatives. This is mainly because moral and caterorical imperatives have a tendency towards tyranny. Especially tyranny of thought. You say it’s funny that we can’t hear how we sound, but you see, when I say the anti-apartheid movement had an “honourable goal” I’m not making a moral judgement I’m making a philosophical one based on a single and fundamental philosophical principle that man is ultimately born equal by virtue of the fact that he has it within his power to kill another man if he so chooses. For me political sovereignty in the form of the state should not restrict that ultimate equality unless authorized to do so by the state through law, good or bad. As such, the anti-apartheid movement itself was honourable because it sort that equality between human beings. However its mean of doing so in many cases remained illegal. I’m not willing to sit here and be dishonest and ignore that fact.
I think you may have [said there was historical revisionism]
Perhaps you’ve misunderstood me then so I shall try again. What I said was that the manner in which those that talk about the ANC in terms of what they did are closed down and treated with disgust actually perpetuates an element of historical dishonesty that is guided by a moral imperative that leans towards something akin to “rightthink”. I consider it dangerous, and illiberal.
I haven’t accused anyone of racism as it happens. But if the cap fits . . .
I didn’t actually say that you did, I responded by making a general point about the manner in which closing down discussion by making such accusations, explicitly or implicitly, is weak. Although again, it merely reinforces why I don’t like moral imperatives because they produce such outright self-contradictory positions. 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.
Having said all this though I’m actually glad that my last response was sufficient enough to lead you down the route where you said “if the cap fits…” because it illustrates the point about the closing down of discourse so beautifully, as well as highlighting the contradiction inherent in your own political position. 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. Again, it’s not very liberal.
OK, now you are being just a touch disingenuous.
Not at all. Look, Donal is a ranter and as much as he may use language in a particular way, just like ranters from all sides of the political spectrum do, for me there is layered meaning and elements of truth within it. Which I as a legal positivist can see and readily accept. I do however reject the moral imperative that drives him much as I do the same for you.
Were you really not in the least bit embarrassed when you read his post?
Why do I have to be embarrassed? I’m not his keeper, and I believe in intellectual freedom. To be embarrassed of an idea seems to me to be scared of ideas, and that is far more worrying to me than anything someone might actually say.
I think that when it comes to observing Conservative reaction to Mandela, the ironies just pile up sky high.
Sorry, but can you list them for me, specifically in relation to me? I mean, at least do me that decency. After all, I pointed out something that seemed a tad ironic and explained why, you’ve just said “there is irony” but not actually said where. I’m genuinely interested to know what I have thus far said in relation to Mandela that is creating sky high ironies piling up.
Anyway, what do you think Dizzy – 27 years for Mandela was about right, was it?
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. Like I’ve already said, I’m not a big fan of using moral imperatives to make judgements especially on history. I rather deal with is than oughts. You’ll probably call me mealy-mouthed for that, but I’m not a moral authoritarian, so I don’t know what else I can say.
And should we, or should we not, place a rubber tire around the neck of his statue?
To be honest I don’t really care. If we did it would probably get nicked anyway.
Let me just add to that so it’s plainly understodd Laurence:
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.
“[Dizzy] I’m a legal positivist so I don’t really believe in moral imperatives”
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.
Admittedly I should have stressed the non necessity of a “link” between law and morality. This said, I am still no someone who beleives in moral imperatives. They have a tendency to lead towards political ends such as fascism.
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.
Sorry, “moral imperatives” seems an odd phrase to me. An imperative requires action – surely a key factor in thinking that something is “morally right” is that it requires/prohibits action in most circumstances (even if you only believe your morality requires your own action. It would seem nonsense to say “I believe this is morally wrong, but that’s just a statement about how I feel and knowing it doesn’t motivate be in *any way* to act in accordance with it”).
What you seem to object to is moral authoritarianism – using law to force certain value judgments on people. I’m not sure that necessarily arises out of you being a legal positivist, as being a positivist just means that you don’t think (a) a law has to be morally right to be a law and (b) that laws necessarily have moral force.
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!!)
However its mean of doing so in many cases remained illegal. I’m not willing to sit here and be dishonest and ignore that fact.
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.
So we’re going to be out of power for a generation are we Laurence? Well with you being a LibDem, you should know! We’re a lot closer to power than you are!
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…
Donal Blaney reminds me of that very old proverb:-
Ez izan ez uste
Sasipeko masuste
“Not to be but to think one is the blackberry under the bramble bush”
Who ever said that some of the ANC’s actions were not technically illegal?
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.
By implication you are saying he shouldn’t be talking about that.
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!
No, Donal can say what he likes. But I happen to believe that he has made a mistake.
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.
Sorry, I made a mistake copying out my proverb.
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.
Hmm why have my posts not appeared
Hmmm is there some sort of maximum post character limit? I cannot post my response to Laurence but can post short things.
c’est la vie, I emailed it to myself the first time it failed so will post later when I get a chance. Football is on now.
Doesn’t the old adage say that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter?
ANC, IRA, Al-Qaeda, PLO
Sorry, Dizzy – your longer posts fell into the spam trap. Now released.
Made a mistake to say it? Or made a mistake to even mention it?
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.
I take it all back. Let it never be said that Donal does not possess a passionate commitment to equality.
Odd that an “anti-racist” organisation should be in favour of banning a symbol sacred to the Hindu religion.
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.
Odd that an “anti-racist” organisation should be in favour of banning a symbol sacred to the Hindu religion.
Hmm . . . yes . . . totally bizarre.