Sack this revolting specimen

[P. G. Tipps]

How attitudes have changed, Flosshilde! Support for violence of any kind is inexcusable, especially from an MP. Somehow, I don't think she would have survived very long in the House of Commons, these days?

However, I do feel sure we are all equally condemnatory of those who carried out, say, the following actions ...

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/hate-crime-gay-activists-vandalize-mark-driscolls-mars-hill-church-in-portland/

People who resort to such violence are undoubtedly guilty of 'evil' whoever and whatever they are .. gay or heterosexual or both!

A plague on all their houses, I say!

[Serial_Apologist]

How attitudes have changed, Flosshilde! Support for violence of any kind is inexcusable, especially from an MP. Somehow, I don't think she would have survived very long in the House of Commons, these days?

However, I do feel sure we are all equally condemnatory of those who carried out, say, the following actions ...

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/hate-crime-gay-activists-vandalize-mark-driscolls-mars-hill-church-in-portland/

People who resort to such violence are undoubtedly guilty of 'evil' whoever and whatever they are .. gay or heterosexual or both!

A plague on all their houses, I say!

Without more background it's hard to reach any conclusions. It seems to have been property rather than people attacked.

[waldo]

Something I read in a book review today -

In 1988, during the debates in Parliament on Section 28, the offices of a gay newspaper (Capital Gay) in London were firebombed. The Conservative MP Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman said, in the House of Commons, that it was "right that there should be an intolerance of evil." The evil being (should I need to point it out) not the attempt to harm or kill people, but homosxexuality.

Do you think she should have been allowed to say this? Or do you think there should be a law which prevented her and/or provided for a prosecution of some kind?

(Serious question. Not after a fight.........)

Another interesting situation followed the publication of the Satanic Verses. Keith Vaz, who is now chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee and considered to be a kind of wise elder statesman in the Commons, marched at the head of a crowd waving placards demanding the book was banned.........You may remember that Rushdie's books was said to be blasphemous and offensive to Muslims.

[amateur51]

Do you think she should have been allowed to say this? Or do you think there should be a law which prevented her and/or provided for a prosecution of some kind?

(Serious question. Not after a fight.........)

Another interesting situation followed the publication of the Satanic Verses. Keith Vaz, who is now chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee and considered to be a kind of wise elder statesman in the Commons, marched at the head of a crowd waving placards demanding the book was banned.........You may remember that Rushdie's books was said to be blasphemous and offensive to Muslims.

Was Mr Vaz, MP representing his own views or those of his Muslim constituents? Or both?

(Serious question. Not after a fight.........)

[waldo]

Was Mr Vaz, MP representing his own views or those of his Muslim constituents? Or both?

(Serious question. Not after a fight.........)

His views. He led the march and addressed it. He also wrote articles saying we ought to ban the book. (He has also argued for the banning of other "anti-Muslim" books and is still doing so.......)

This was at a time when Rushdie was in hiding because the Supreme Leader of Iran had placed a fatwa on his head and there were very real fears he would be killed.

[french frank]

Something I read in a book review today -

In 1988, during the debates in Parliament on Section 28, the offices of a gay newspaper (Capital Gay) in London were firebombed. The Conservative MP Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman said, in the House of Commons, that it was "right that there should be an intolerance of evil." The evil being (should I need to point it out) not the attempt to harm or kill people, but homosxexuality.

Kellett-Bowman (who was a good deal to the right of M. Thatcher) certainly made her repellent views very clear elsewhere, but although this is apparently an oft-quoted 'infamous saying', it isn't quite clear what she was referring to. In the context of the debate about Section 28 it could equally have referred to the journalistic aspect of 'spreading the word': it closed Capital Gay. The firebombing was not presumably intended as a physical attack on gays since the offices were empty, it being the middle of the night - at least, the editor reported that he was woken up by the phone ringing and had to get dressed to go and investigate.

Did she have the right to express those views? In practice, it depends on who she was saying it to and where/when, so, yes, with conditions. In Parliament she had Parliamentary privilege anyway.

Incidentally, I knew one of her sons (or possibly a stepson) as a student probably shortly before this incident when he joined, I think, the SDP. We were all too polite to ask him what it was like being saddled with the name of Kellett-Bowman.

[P. G. Tipps]

Kellett-Bowman (who was a good deal to the right of M. Thatcher) certainly made her repellent views very clear elsewhere, but although this is apparently an oft-quoted 'infamous saying', it isn't quite clear what she was referring to. In the context of the debate about Section 28 it could equally have referred to the journalistic aspect of 'spreading the word': it closed Capital Gay.

Yes, to be scrupulously fair to the memory of the now-deceased MP, it is not entirely clear what the lady was referring to here, and in fact the words themselves were only 'overheard' by another MP, it is said.

Your use of the word 'repellent' gets us straight back to the main point. Hopefully, the huge majority of folk would consider any support for violence (whether it is against the person or property) as 'repellent'. Apart from anything else, such actions are criminal offences, pure and simple.

However, would you have considered an attempt by the police to close the Capital Gay pub in the 1980's as 'repellent'? If so, such a view would almost certainly not have been held by a clear majority of the population. What must be remembered that, in those days, many would have found the very existence of the pub as equally 'repellent'!

If we demonise the views on homosexuality of the opera singer, and very likely the overwhelming majority of folk in Eastern Europe, we are almost certainly also demonising the sincerely-held views of our own parents in a society which was very, very different from the one that exists today.

I have no problem with Ms Iveri having to take the consequences for her verbally-violent, obscene outburst which was indeed repellent, imv. However, I would find it somewhat worrying if she has been dismissed for her views (however wrong-headed) rather than her crass behaviour!

[french frank]

If we demonise the views on homosexuality of the opera singer, and very likely the overwhelming majority of folk in Eastern Europe, we are almost certainly also demonising the sincerely-held views of our own parents in a society which was very, very different from the one that exists today.

I sense that people don't want to move away from discussion of the current events, but, for me, you touch on a more broadly philosophical point which I find thought-provoking.

In Bristol there are those who want to remove the statue of 18th c. philanthropist Edward Colston and all other reminders of this 'evil man'. He gained his fortune from the slave trade. But was that 'evil' in the 18th c.? Slavery had been considered 'natural' right from the time of ancient Greece. At a particular time in the evolution of our civilisation, the wider aspects were understood, the appalling suffering of other human beings appreciated and the abolition movement began. But that came after Edward Colston.

Similarly, most of our older generations in the 19thc. and 20th c. were brought up, either to know nothing at all about homosexuality, or to learn via the occasional news 'scandal' of some (often famous) person being prosecuted. Whereas slavery seemed 'natural', homosexuality seemed 'unnatural'. In both cases, human beings suffered enormous pain.

Like Edward Colston, Kellett-Bowman could (one might argue) be understood as a product of her time, and being a staunch Conservative, considerably more resistant to changing attitudes than the more progressive sections of the population. In her case, I see her as standing on the beach as the tide reached the level of her mouth: in the end she became an irrelevance in the natural course of events.

In Eastern Europe and beyond, much of the population is 'behind' the West. I would suggest that, within their own populations, the West should accept their existence and believe that the world is changing. In the West we have different standards and are entitled to show our disapproval: which merely brings us back to the beginning - how we are entitled to show our fundamental disapproval? In this particular case, I would say, not by silencing them but by allowing them to take the consequences. So which consequences are legitimate?

My instinct is to say, for instance, in the case of the 'street preacher' who was arrested: yes, considering all the circumstances, it WAS a correct legal decision. He deliberately courted the anger of the public and was arrested as much for his own protection. There was clear evidence that he understood his action to be provocative (he covered his sign board in black plastic to avoid any trouble on the bus) and he was charged with a Public Order offence, not for his opinions.

Which probably gets us nowhere - sorry for being so prolix about it :-/

[waldo]

My instinct is to say, for instance, in the case of the 'street preacher' who was arrested: yes, considering all the circumstances, it WAS a correct legal decision. He deliberately courted the anger of the public and was arrested as much for his own protection. There was clear evidence that he understood his action to be provocative (he covered his sign board in black plastic to avoid any trouble on the bus) and he was charged with a Public Order offence, not for his opinions.

Which probably gets us nowhere - sorry for being so prolix about it :-/

I tend to feel that the preacher had every right to wear that sign. My view is that other people are responsible for their actions - not him. Saying that someone is deliberately being provocative means, effectively, that responsibility for criminal or violent behaviour is transferred to the person who isn't behaving violently. It gets thing the wrong way round. If I see something that makes me upset or disgusts me or I disagree with, it is then entirely up to me if I resort to violence or start throwing bricks through windows. It is no-one else's responsibility.

The same arguments are used all the time to ban things people don't like. They were used, for instance (to go back to an earlier example), against the publication of the Satanic Verses. The books was said to be so offensive to Muslims that it was "provocative"; it would "cause" violence. Muslims would be so enraged and upset, they would go out and start trashing property and killing people. It would not be their fault, but his - because he was the one who was "deliberately" courting public anger.

The same arguments can be used to suppress a gay pride march. Aren't they simply courting public anger? Being provocative? In which case, if someone takes out a baseball bat - so be it.

At the end of the day, we simply have to say that people are responsible for their own actions. In a society where there are so many conflicting views about what is right and wrong, godly or ungodly, we just have to accept that we are going to be offended and irritated and appalled on a fairly frequent basis. It is the price we pay for being able to say what we believe, without getting arrested or beaten up.

Indeed, if you agree that it was right for the preacher to get arrested (even though he was attacked!), shouldn't you also think the gay pride marchers in Russia etc should be arrested (even when they are attacked!).........

[french frank]

I tend to feel that the preacher had every right to wear that sign. My view is that other people are responsible for their actions - not him. Saying that someone is deliberately being provocative means, effectively, that responsibility for criminal or violent behaviour is transferred to the person who isn't behaving violently.

Which may be quite right: take the man who jeers at another man, saying he's been having an affair with his wife? If he's attacked, is it solely the attacker who is responsible? Provocation is provocation, surely, where Public Order is ultimately involved?.

They were used, for instance (to go back to an earlier example), against the publication of the Satanic Verses. The books was said to be so offensive to Muslims that it was "provocative"; it would "cause" violence. Muslims would be so enraged and upset, they would go out and start trashing property and killing people. It would not be their fault, but his - because he was the one who was "deliberately" courting public anger.

I think there needs to be some evidence that the provocation was 'deliberate', other than 'It must have been obvious'. Much of the outrage seems to have stemmed, not from Rushdie's opinions, but from a naive reading of what was a sophisticated work of Western literature. 'Rushdie should have known better' isn't high quality evidence of deliberate provocation.

The same arguments can be used to suppress a gay pride march. Aren't they simply courting public anger? Being provocative? In which case, if someone takes out a baseball bat - so be it.

And in some circumstances, that might be exactly what was intended. Indeed Iveri claimed her anger was roused because of the time and place that the gay activists chose to march. I don't think a public march in this country would 'court public anger' even if it angered individuals. No one can predict the actions of every individual.

At the end of the day, we simply have to say that people are responsible for their own actions.

(Yes, I acknowledge the selective quote!) I agree, and would include the caveat that one's right to express one's opinions in public is not absolute. One has responsibilities too.

[waldo]

Which may be quite right: take the man who jeers at another man, saying he's been having an affair with his wife? If he's attacked, is it solely the attacker who is responsible? Provocation is provocation, surely, where Public Order is ultimately involved?.

I think there needs to be some evidence that the provocation was 'deliberate', other than 'It must have been obvious'. Much of the outrage seems to have stemmed, not from Rushdie's opinions, but from a naive reading of what was a sophisticated work of Western literature. 'Rushdie should have known better' isn't high quality evidence of deliberate provocation.

And in some circumstances, that might be exactly what was intended. Indeed Iveri claimed her anger was roused because of the time and place that the gay activists chose to march. I don't think a public march in this country would 'court public anger' even if it angered individuals. No one can predict the actions of every individual.

(Yes, I acknowledge the selective quote!) I agree, and would include the caveat that one's right to express one's opinions in public is not absolute. One has responsibilities too.

It seems to me (though I could be wrong) that you are simply picking and choosing between those acts you happen to support, and those you don't. You support people's right to be homosexual, so you don't approve when someone wears a placard saying it is evil. Because you don't approve, you then class this as an act of "provocation" and support it's being banned. When, on the other hand, you don't support the underlying cause, you then claim that there isn't real "provocation". You have no sympathy for Muslim's who claim they are being offended, so you don't accept that Rushdie was being provocative, so you don't accept he should have been banned.

I just don't see what else is going on with your thinking here. That is the problem with the concept of provocation. It simply allows us to use our own moral views (or prejudices) to silence our opponents. The black man who walks down the wrong street in Mississippi (in 1955) is being "provocative". So let's ban him. The woman who demands the vote in Saudi Arabia is being provocative. Let's ban her, too.

Every moral cause, whether it is the end of slavery or rights for women, begins with a small minority who have to counter the feelings and arguments of the majority. They threaten deeply held feelings and entrenched patterns of existence. In those circumstances, "provocation" or inciting violence or a "public order offense" is just too easy to claim. It is, in fact, just what the authorities always do claim. They do it in this country, too. Marches and protests have been banned here, in recent years, because they might be said to be provocative. (Usually Muslim or "Far Right" marches.) All that is really happening, of course, is that the authorities simply ban the expression of those views they don't like, and allow the ones they do.

One of the many consequences of this outlook, is that there are countless people in Britain who no longer feel they can speak their minds. It is now generally accepted that the media had not allowed a proper discussion on immigration (something people feel very strongly about) because they were afraid it would fall foul of "hate" laws or other public offense restrictions. The idea seems to be that you can't discuss something because somewhere else another person may get upset about it and then commit a violent act - which would, by the current logic, be the fault of the people who were having the discussion. Madness! Absolute madness!

[amateur51]

It seems to me (though I could be wrong) that you are simply picking and choosing between those acts you happen to support, and those you don't. You support people's right to be homosexual, so you don't approve when someone wears a placard saying it is evil

I have a problem with this. Is there a right to be homosexual? Or heterosexual? It implies a choice. It ain't.

In UK we don't burn books and we don't threaten authors with death. I'm sure that these values are some of Mr Gove's British values.

The Press never stops addressing immigration, bless 'em.

[french frank]

It seems to me (though I could be wrong) that you are simply picking and choosing between those acts you happen to support, and those you don't. You support people's right to be homosexual, so you don't approve when someone wears a placard saying it is evil. Because you don't approve, you then class this as an act of "provocation" and support it's being banned. When, on the other hand, you don't support the underlying cause, you then claim that there isn't real "provocation". You have no sympathy for Muslim's who claim they are being offended, so you don't accept that Rushdie was being provocative, so you don't accept he should have been banned.

I just don't see what else is going on with your thinking here.

Let me expand then - though I have already referred to the point. Our preacher travelled to his public space in a bus, but he covered up the wording as he didn't want to be attacked in the bus. Therefore he was aware that the likelihood was that in a public space he would provoke a hostile reaction, but he did it anyway. (And continued to do so when asked to stop). If his sign had instead said "Blacks Go Home" or "No Irish Here" or "East Europeans are Thieves: Stop the Invasion", the point about provocation would still apply if the likelihood was that he had good reason to believe he would provoke anger and/or violence: the issue of homosexuality doesn't come into it. You may shift your ground and say that those are, broadly speaking, human rights issues so if I support one I'll support them all. I'm trying to think of one where I might disagree with the sentiment but not with the protest:

"Liberal Democrats are Scum: join the Anti-Lib Dem protest." :-) That is not a sentiment I agree with (booh! hiss!) but I would accept people's right to express it (I have to - here - regularly!); and if they marched to a Lib Dem conference and stood outside I suspect they would survive as long as they didn't make so much noise that people couldn't hear the speeches in the hall. I don't think that would be 'provocative' because in a democracy politicians expect criticism/protest, strong or weak, in some form or another.

That is the problem with the concept of provocation. It simply allows us to use our own moral views (or prejudices) to silence our opponents. The black man who walks down the wrong street in Mississippi (in 1955) is being "provocative". So let's ban him. The woman who demands the vote in Saudi Arabia is being provocative. Let's ban her, too.

I think that just shows the difficulty of finding persuasive examples. Does the black man perform his act in the expectation of provoking a hostile retaliation? If yes, he is being provocative and if he proceeds, he must take the consequences (even if we support his right to walk down the street). But one needs to supply the evidence of what his expectation was. That is the problem, not the concept. In some cases, provocation is more than the intention: confrontation is the political weapon.

Every moral cause, whether it is the end of slavery or rights for women, begins with a small minority who have to counter the feelings and arguments of the majority. They threaten deeply held feelings and entrenched patterns of existence. In those circumstances, "provocation" or inciting violence or a "public order offense" is just too easy to claim. It is, in fact, just what the authorities always do claim. They do it in this country, too. Marches and protests have been banned here, in recent years, because they might be said to be provocative. (Usually Muslim or "Far Right" marches.) All that is really happening, of course, is that the authorities simply ban the expression of those views they don't like, and allow the ones they do.

Yet, I thought you agreed at one point that the right to freedom of speech was NOT absolute. Did I misunderstand?

One of the many consequences of this outlook, is that there are countless people in Britain who no longer feel they can speak their minds. It is now generally accepted that the media had not allowed a proper discussion on immigration (something people feel very strongly about) because they were afraid it would fall foul of "hate" laws or other public offense restrictions. The idea seems to be that you can't discuss something because somewhere else another person may get upset about it and then commit a violent act - which would, by the current logic, be the fault of the people who were having the discussion. Madness! Absolute madness!

I concede that that is a problem (that people feel unable to express certain opinions) but not because 'somewhere else another person may get upset about it': we have to take the risk that an act by an unhinged individual is unpredictable. But that is the point about the evolution of views - on slavery, on homosexuality. Attitudes change over the years. There may well be uncomfortable moments in history where, in any society or community, opinions are equally divided. I can only say that in those cases one has to wait until the movement becomes clear and passes a tipping point. I'm not sure that that should be the time to create a universal law on all matters.

[waldo]

I have a problem with this. Is there a right to be homosexual? Or heterosexual? It implies a choice. It ain't.

In UK we don't burn books and we don't threaten authors with death. I'm sure that these values are some of Mr Gove's British values.

The Press never stops addressing immigration, bless 'em.

Not too long ago, it was illegal to commit a "homosexual act" in the UK. That is what I meant by right. People now have the legal right to commit such acts; before 1967, they didn't. That's a fact.

As for Gove's "British Values", the very words make my blood run cold. The hidden agenda here is that the Tories are essentially anti-human rights and are waging a campaign in preparation for a withdrawal from The European Convention on Human Rights. If they win the next election, they probably will withdraw from it. However, in order to pretend that they aren't against rights (which they are; they always have been), they refer, instead, to "British Rights". So, "we aren't against Human Rights at all. We just have own, unique culture and traditions which we want to respect in this country." It's a long-distance propaganda war and has the support of the most of the "right wing" press, which keeps banging on about the fact that it is not easy to deport terrorists to countries where they will be tortured. The implications for threatened minorities are very, very frightening. (The great bulk of recent legislation granting full rights to gay and lesbian people was actually forced on the government by its European obligations. Needless to say, not too much coverage of this angle in the Mail or Telegraph.)

The Chinese, incidentally, do the same. They respect human rights, too. It's just the case that Chinese values and traditions are different.........

[Serial_Apologist]

I concede that that is a problem (that people feel unable to express certain opinions) but not because 'somewhere else another person may get upset about it': we have to take the risk that an act by an unhinged individual is unpredictable. But that is the point about the evolution of views - on slavery, on homosexuality. Attitudes change over the years. There may well be uncomfortable moments in history where, in any society or community, opinions are equally divided. I can only say that in those cases one has to wait until the movement becomes clear and passes a tipping point. I'm not sure that that should be the time to create a universal law on all matters.

It's a difficult one - one that the right will argue permits of slippery slopes and thin ends of wedges. It wasn't helped on yesterday's very interesting Start The Week on Radio 4, where the lesbian Julie Bindel argued against many in the gay community claiming sexual orientation to be innate. For her it was a choice: but on what grounds should anyone object to her exercising her free choice? I agree with her, of course; but to my religious friends I have to argue past my position that oppression stems first and foremost from class in the assumption that historical change secured will kiss goodbye to oppressing others practices of beliefs and sexual inclinations not harmful to those not holding to them.