Free Speech in the UK

[mongrel]

The prima facie case is there. He writes racist articles. You are aware of his comments regarding the National Front. His later comments made dodgy references to Muslims. Now show us where he has retracted or repented such views.Actually don't bother, because I doubt such evidence exists.

What is relevant though in a thread titled 'free speech' in the UK is that the New Statesman was entitled to come to a view that Scrotum is a racist, based on his works , and was entitled to publish those views (as 'free speech'). The fact it was , in part a hatchet job does not detract from that, nor the issue that this would embarass his employer . After all, as I have pointed out much of the UK press lies in order to promote some political point and have done for decades.

[Cope]

The prima facie case is there. He writes racist articles.

The lines of text you're referring are not substantial enough to support the assertion that Scruton "writes racist articles"; on a factual basis alone, and even if I believe the cited lines qualify as "racist" (which I don't), you have only presented a single article not articles pl. And again, this isn't actually relevant because it has nothing to do with the case which was being discussed. My raising of the The New Statesman's attempt smear Scruton doesn't oblige me to justify everything he has ever said.

[mongrel]

You seriously don't believe his lines were racist? That beats everything. I didn't take your views about his saintliness seriously. You keep on confirming why that should be. Could rip your comment apart on that alone.

But enough of your nonsense, back on topic . Fact remains, it is not about what you think, it is about what the New Statesman thought. It made that view known. Are you saying they should be denied free speech in the UK and not be allowed to publish it? That it should doff it's cap to Old Etonian establishment and stay silent whenever it appoints any old bigot to some job for the boys? Yes it was a hatchet job, but much of the British press does that on a daily basis. Most of their targets don't have friends in high places and they actually suffer real detriment. Some champion of 'free speech' you are.

[Cope]

You seriously don't believe his lines were racist? That beats everything. I didn't take your views about his saintliness seriously. You keep on confirming why that should be. Could rip your comment apart on that alone.

This is just an affirmation that you actually don't know what racism is.

But enough of your nonsense, back on topic . Fact remains, it is not about what you think, it is about what the New Statesman thought. It made that view known. Are you saying they should be denied free speech in the UK and not be allowed to publish it? That it should doff it's cap to Old Etonian establishment and stay silent whenever it appoints any old bigot to some job for the boys? Yes it was a hatchet job, but much of the British press does that on a daily basis. Most of their targets don't have friends in high places and actually suffer real detriment. Some champion of 'free speech' you are.

Another ludicrous argument, complete with the usual doses of whataboutism and false implications. You've literally gone from whining about "hatchet jobs" to now openly supporting them. Just laughable.

[Ludicus]

The prima facie case is there. He writes racist articles.

Muslims are demonized; Islamophobia does not exist.He writes about the "invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East" in Hungary; and yet, the total number of asylum applications to Hungary last year was under 1,000. Here, Statistics
The left? normal people is not leftist. 'Pessoas normais não são de esquerda', afirma filósofo conservador
------
He writes, "I once wrote that homosexuality is ‘not normal’, but nobody has told me where, or why that is a particularly offensive thing to say. Red hair too is not normal, nor is decency among left-wing journalists".

Oh dear.
----
He goes on,
"...as the world knows, indigenous anti-Semitism still plays a part in Hungarian society and politics, and presents an obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty among ethnic Hungarians and Jews"
Well, Hitler also felt that Jews could never be fully-fledged German citizens...
---
I like this guy, How I, an Australian Jewish-atheist, became a German citizen| Antony ...

My identity is a conflicted and messy mix that incorporates Judaism, atheism, anti-Zionism, Germanic traditions and Anglo-Saxon-Australian beliefs. And yet I both routinely reject and embrace them all. It sounds exhausting but it’s actually invigorating. I never feel I belong anywhere. I can’t be a Jew, atheist, German or Australian without a bundle of caveats.Perhaps that just makes me human.

[Axalon]

... Islamophobia does not exist.

Correct, it does not exist. Islamophobia is a manufactured term for a fake condition that does not, and can not, exist. As I have already pointed out in this very thread... I quote...

Islamophobia is a BS-term, built on a BS-premise, devised to provide a BS-excuse, for a BS-movement. Its a poorly disguised propaganda-term that aims to shield and protect Islam from any valid, rational and warranted criticisms. The term of "Islamophobia" was crafted out of a blatant misuse of the meaning and context of "phobia". Its devised to suggest to us that Islam is something supposedly "rational" and/or "natural" - while any criticism of the same would thus be supposedly "irrational" and/or "unnatural". In short, the concept of "Islamophobia" is a construct, devised to serve a lie while dressed up and sold to the world as a truth. The term as such makes as much sense as "Naziophobia" or "Communistophobia" would do - and has as much credibility as any such terms would have... Yup zero.

Just saying...

So there you have it... The entire concept is BS.

- A

[mongrel]

Correct, it does not exist. Islamophobia is a manufactured term for a fake condition that does not, and can not, exist. As I have already pointed out in this very thread... I quote...




So there you have it... The entire concept is BS.

- A

I guess that for you the Christchurch massacre was imaginary too.Lets be away with the off topic sectarianism.

This is just an affirmation that you actually don't know what racism is.

Oh I do, but it shows that you did not read the article, or did not comprehend it or you have the empathy of a brick, or you are quite content about people lying about UK migration issues for a (racist) American audience. Prove me wrong , whilst staying on topic, by opening a Thema Devia thread on the article. I will quite appily tear that article a new one. But again the thread isn't about me.

I put it to you whether, on free speech grounds whether it was wrong for the New Statesman to say what they did ( my views on free speech are not relevant, but I don't believe in unfettered journalism). You seem to be stuck for an answer.Shall we accept that the New Stateman did indeed excercise it's right to speak freely about this bigot's suitability for a non-job, regardless of whether you liked it, or not.

[Cope]

Oh I do, but it shows that you did not read the article, or did not comprehend it or you have the empathy of a brick, or you are quite content about people lying about UK migration issues for a (racist) American audience. Prove me wrong , whilst staying on topic, by opening a Thema Devia thread on the article. I will quite appily tear that article a new one. But again the thread isn't about me.

You are conflating matters of migration, religion and race. The production or regurgitation of false or misleading claims about migrants and/or migration isn't immediately to be assumed to be "racist".

I put it to you whether, on free speech grounds whether it was wrong for the New Statesman to say what they did ( my views on free speech are not relevant, but I don't believe in unfettered journalism). You seem to be stuck for an answer.Shall we accept that the New Stateman did indeed excercise it's right to speak freely about this bigot's suitability for a non-job, regardless of whether you liked it, or not.

I don't think you really know what free speech really means. At no point have I claimed that Eaton, the journalist who deliberately misrepresented Scruton's views should be imprisoned.

[mongrel]

You are conflating matters of migration, religion and race. The production or regurgitation of false or misleading claims about migrants and/or migration isn't immediately to be assumed to be "racist".

This thread is not about my views on anything. I have invited you to defend your own on this Scrote elsewhere, either put up or shut up is the term commonly used for such a circumstance.

I don't think you really know what free speech really means. At no point have I claimed that Eaton, the journalist who deliberately misrepresented Scruton's views should be imprisoned.

It is not about me or you it is about whether the New Stateman is free to publish its opinion. What part of this is not getting through to you?

By you stating that it was not illegal the answer is yes, the New Stateman is free to publish its opinion. So in the UK people are free to excercise free speech to criticise bigots without fear of incarceration. What is wrong with that?

[Ludicus]

Correct, it does not exist. Islamophobia is a manufactured term for a fake condition that does not, and can not, exist

I guess you love them.Suspended for doing something that does not exist.Poor guys, really unfair.
Conservative members suspended for online Islamophobia.

[Cope]

This thread is not about my views on anything. I have invited you to defend your own on this Scrote elsewhere, either put up or shut up is the term commonly used for such a circumstance.

Resorting to the incoherent "the thread isn't about me" position again I see. No one has made any claims about you, only your characterizations of others as racist on the basis of limited evidence. As for you "invitation", I shall continue to respond to your comments as I see fit; so far as I know, it is neither your job nor your prerogative (as much as you wish it were) to moderate my expressions.

It is not about me or you

No one has made any personal references.

it is about whether the New Stateman is free to publish its opinion. What part of this is not getting through to you?

The introduction of the New Statesman to the conversation had nothing to do with it being "free to publish its opinion"; it was raised because one of its journalists had sought to smear, by way of willful misrepresentation, one its interviewees.

By you stating that it was not illegal the answer is yes, the New Stateman is free to publish its opinion. So in the UK people are free to excercise free speech to criticise bigots without fear of incarceration. What is wrong with that?

Again, you're simply exposing your own laughable hypocrisies. Throughout the recent history of this thread you've dedicated endless posts to whining about the press fabricating stories, yet now, after having been presented with evidence of the New Statesman having manipulated its readership and defamed a man, you demand to know "what's wrong with that?" I really shouldn't have to explain to you why lying is wrong.

[mongrel]

Resorting to the incoherent "the thread isn't about me" position again I see. No one has made any claims about you, only your characterizations of others as racist on the basis of limited evidence. As for you "invitation", I shall continue to respond to your comments as I see fit; so far as I know, it is neither your job nor your prerogative (as much as you wish it were) to moderate my expressions.

Pedantic nonsense. Are you up to the challenge or not? If you think his his AR article was not racist the burden is upon you to prove it . Clearly you aren't able to defend the article, so just say you just not up to the challenge and move on.

No one has made any personal references.

Bollocks

The introduction of the New Statesman to the conversation had nothing to do with it being "free to publish its opinion"; it was raised because one of its journalists had sought to smear, by way of willful misrepresentation, one its interviewees.

You brought the New Stateman into the conversation, whining about the impact it had on this dying bigot. The link to free speech is tenuous, given that Scrotom and his establishment friends were free to respond to the article, completely unhindered.

Again, you're simply exposing your own laughable hypocrisies. Throughout the recent history of this thread you've dedicated endless posts to whining about the press fabricating stories, yet now, after having been presented with evidence of the New Statesman having manipulated its readership and defamed a man, you demand to know "what's wrong with that?" I really shouldn't have to explain to you why lying is wrong.

How many times, it not about Mongrel.The thread's title makes no reference to lying. Lying can be 'free speech' too. Otherwise we would have to silence anything Boris Johnson says.

I don't beleive in unlimited press freedom, I have mentioned this frequently in my posting history. It is you who is critising the New Statesman for doing what UK publications do on an almost daily basis and yet whinging about freedom when an industry body lawfully comments on an issue well within its remit.The only issue I have with the New Statesman is that there is sufficient material out there to question Scrotom's suitabilty for a public sector non-job without the need to create more.

[Cope]

Pedantic nonsense.

I see you don't know what pedantry actually is.

Are you up to the challenge or not? If you think his his AR article was not racist the burden is upon you to prove it .

No mongrel it isn't. If you are going to make an accusation of impropriety, you have to prove it. That's what innocent until proven guilty means.

Clearly you aren't able to defend the article, so just say you just not up to the challenge and move on.

It isn't my job to "defend the article". You conflated some of the inaccurate claims Scruton made about migrants/migration and religion with racism, decried him as a racist, justified the New Statesman's hit-piece against him (despite it being totally unrelated to the article in question) and then danced on his prospective grave.

Bollocks

Not an argument.

You brought the New Stateman into the conversation, whining about the impact it had on this dying bigot.

I've just explained why it was introduced.

How many times, it not about Mongrel.

How many more times do I have to state that no one is making it about you? This is a debate and discussion forum where we criticism the arguments other people make; if you can't handle that I have no idea why you're here. If you feel that you're being personally attacked (which you aren't) report the offending posts.

The thread's title makes no reference to lying. Lying can be 'free speech' too. Otherwise we would have to silence anything Boris Johnson says.

The fact that lying can fall within the scope of free speech doesn't mean that I should have to explain to you why lying is wrong. At no point have I argued that Eaton should be jailed or sacked.

I don't beleive in unlimited press freedom, I have mentioned this frequently in my posting history. It is you who is critising the New Statesman for doing what UK publications do on an almost daily basis and yet whinging about freedom when an industry body lawfully comments on an issue well within its remit.

I have made perfectly clear that the problem I had with the New Statesman was the misrepresentations it printed for which it subsequently apologized. To reiterate, the reason that the Scruton hit-piece was raised in the first place was to debunk your ludicrous claims that so-called "political correctness" was a myth created by the Murdoch press. This I did by introducing a case which showed that some writers on the do in fact attempt to police the language and expressions of others by fabricating instances of racism/bigotry.

The only issue I have with the New Statesman is that there is sufficient material out there to question Scrotom's suitabilty for a public sector non-job without the need to create more.

Yet so far you've only presented a single article he wrote 13 years ago - which doesn't even show what you think it shows - to support this claim. The reason that the Statesman fabricated evidence against Scruton is precisely because, despite your insistence that there's a mountain of hidden material proving his bigotry, there actually isn't.

[mongrel]

I see again that you are not up to the challenge . On whether it is your job to defend the indefensible, perhaps I should open a thread myself later today and tear your claims of Scrote's wokeness to pieces. Otherwise, I for one am not interested in your whinging.

This politically correct bollocks you use, 'policing language' means nothing in the UK. The work of the Scrote, well some of it, he's not a one-trick pony, suggests he is a racist arse, not just the old article , as Ludicus says, his recent comments about "invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East" is questionable. There are also issues about his editorship of the Salisbury Review back in the day . If he has a problem with a newspaper calling him out he can speak out. If he isn't a racist arse he can sue. He chose not to.

[Cope]

I see again that you are not up to the challenge . On whether it is your job to defend the indefensible, perhaps I should open a thread myself later today and tear your claims of Scrote's wokeness to pieces. Otherwise, I for one am not interested in your whinging.

This is just yet another non-response packed with the usual presumptions. If you want to open another thread about Scruton's supposed "racism" feel free: why you won't just demonstrate it here is beyond me.

This politically correct bollocks you use, 'policing language' means nothing in the UK. The work of the Scrote, well some of it, he's not a one-trick pony, suggests he is a racist arse, not just the old article , as Ludicus says, his recent comments about "invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East" is questionable. There are also issues about his editorship of the Salisbury Review back in the day . If he has a problem with a newspaper calling him out he can speak out. If he isn't a racist arse he can sue. He chose not to.

Once again, you actually have no real evidence of Scruton's alleged racism so you just resort to intellectually lazy (and fundamentally meaningless) claims such as "if he isn't a racist arse he can sue".

[Ludicus]

Once again, you are wrong, ep1c_fail.
-----

suggests he is a racist arse, not just the old article , as Ludicus says, his recent comments about "invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East" is questionable.

Indeed, he is a racist arse. The transcript of the interview shows that Scruton made ugly comments and racist stereotypes about Islam. Ipsis verbis:"the Hungarians were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East". And.. that's a lie.
He even dismissed the idea of Islamophobia (previous post) as, sic "invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue which we are all worried about"
And... that's another blatant lie. The first recorded use of the term was in 1923 in the Journal of Theological Studies 25/97 pp. 101-9 (recommended reading:Contesting Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim Prejudice in Media, Culture and Politics).

Following the same reasoning -"Muslim Brotherhood invented Islamophobia"- why hasn't he said that the word homophobia was invented by homosexuals? Scruton also believes in the existence of an "Arab mind that place vengeance before justice"; and according to Scruton, Palestinians have a "habit of living by violence".
And I could go on.

The book cover illustrates the irrational collective hysteria, the anti-Muslim hate: the Christian crusader (EDL) faces the imaginary enemy.



------
------
Know Your Enemy: Racism and Islamophobia – University of Bristol

‘Islamophobia’ generally refers to irrational antagonism towards Islam and/or Muslims also typically based on myth, caricature and misleading stereotype. Strictly speaking, a ‘phobia’ is a clinically observable anxiety disorder defined by recurrent and excessive fear of an object or situation. The term has, however, been extended to include individual and collective hostility towards minorities such as homosexuals (homophobia), foreigners (xenophobia) and Islam/Muslims (Islamophobia).
Racial and anti-Muslim discrimination can clearly overlap, particularly in England and Wales where over 90% of Muslims are non-white.

----
Recommended reading,PDF.
Islamophobia - Runnymede Trust

[Cope]

Once again, you are wrong, ep1c_fail.

I'll be waiting for evidence.

[Aexodus]

Once again, you are wrong, ep1c_fail.
-----

Indeed, he is a racist arse.

How so?

The transcript of the interview shows that Scruton made ugly comments and racist stereotypes about Islam. Ipsis verbis:"the Hungarians were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East". And.. that's a lie.

How is that racist?

He even dismissed the idea of Islamophobia (previous post) as, sic "invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue which we are all worried about"
And... that's another blatant lie. The first recorded use of the term was in 1923 in the Journal of Theological Studies 25/97 pp. 101-9 (recommended reading:Contesting Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim Prejudice in Media, Culture and Politics).

Indeed, but I wonder what the definition it was used under in 1923 was. It’s worth adding that as a term it didn’t exist in the political lexicon until the Runnymede Trust popularised it in 1997 under the leadership of one Trevor Phillips.

Following the same reasoning -"Muslim Brotherhood invented Islamophobia"- why hasn't he said that the word homophobia was invented by homosexuals?

Well he probably doesn’t care about what gay people do, and the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t comparable to all homosexuals, or some homosexuals.

Scruton also believes in the existence of an "Arab mind that place vengeance before justice"; and according to Scruton, Palestinians have a "habit of living by violence".
And I could go on.

You’d need to, as none of this is racist.

The book cover illustrates the irrational collective hysteria, the anti-Muslim hate: the Christian crusader (EDL) faces the imaginary enemy.



------
------
Know Your Enemy: Racism and Islamophobia – University of Bristol



----
Recommended reading,PDF.
Islamophobia - Runnymede Trust

Your source (Runnymede) claims that Islamophobia is racism. This is incorrect, as Islam is a religion.

[mongrel]

This is incorrect, as Islam is a religion.

Were you not the person who thought that denying a black British person cancer treatment despite paying tax/NIC for decades, for no obvious reason wasn't racist (Windrush Scandal)? I do not think you are particularly able to comment on such matters competently.

Religions don't consist of as Scrote put it,invading tribes, only people can be described so.Scrote's a racist. Arabs and Palestinians are people . To suggest that they all "place vengeance before justice" or are inherently violent is racist (Not Islamophobia because not all Arabs are Muslims).
Will explain more in another forum. Firstly though a cup of tea and some XCom.

Edit:
My two cents on Scrotum's dishonesty on race , religion and migration.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...2#post15836152
.

[Axalon]

I guess you love them.Suspended for doing something that does not exist.Poor guys, really unfair.
Conservative members suspended for online Islamophobia.

I'm going to do a wild guess here (too)... If you could prove me wrong about "Islamophobia" you instantly would - but you haven't done that. Nope, instead you decided to resort to dumb insinuations (on my behalf) probably because you were not able to prove me wrong here. As in proving that the concept of Islamophobia, (or naziophobia, or communistophobia) are actually a real condition(s), and not a fake and manufactured one(s). By all means, go right ahead and prove me wrong if you can... Whenever ready...

- A