When even democracy isn't acceptable.

NIMAN

I got to thinking about this today when I heard that riot police had been called to the European Parliament in Brussels as protestors arrived to 'welcome' Marine Le Pen there.

Surely this woman was elected fairly and squarely, and those that voted for her are entitled to their opinion as much as those who don't agree with her views?

Same thing could be said for UKIP, BNP, Sinn Fein, TUV, Jolene Bunting, Golden Dawn etc. People are allowed freedom of choice to vote for whoever they choose, yet some simply can't let this happen.

Either democracy is allowed to function or its not.

Nodin

NIMAN wrote: »

I got to thinking about this today when I heard that riot police had been called to the European Parliament in Brussels as protestors arrived to 'welcome' Marine Le Pen there.

Surely this woman was elected fairly and squarely, and those that voted for her are entitled to their opinion as much as those who don't agree with her views?

Same thing could be said for UKIP, BNP, Sinn Fein, TUV, Jolene Bunting, Golden Dawn etc. People are allowed freedom of choice to vote for whoever they choose, yet some simply can't let this happen.

Either democracy is allowed to function or its not.

Racists, anti-semites and the like are an exception to the rule.

Sulla Felix

NIMAN wrote: »

I got to thinking about this today when I heard that riot police had been called to the European Parliament in Brussels as protestors arrived to 'welcome' Marine Le Pen there.

Surely this woman was elected fairly and squarely, and those that voted for her are entitled to their opinion as much as those who don't agree with her views?

Same thing could be said for UKIP, BNP, Sinn Fein, TUV, Jolene Bunting, Golden Dawn etc. People are allowed freedom of choice to vote for whoever they choose, yet some simply can't let this happen.

Either democracy is allowed to function or its not.

The protesters are entitled to thier opinion too, no?

NIMAN

Of course the protestors are entitled to their opinion, but do they only want democracy on their terms?

What about the 25% of the electorate that voted Le Pen in? Are their opinions worth any less than those who don't agree with the policies?

oscarBravo

I'm on record as being critical of democracy for a lot of reasons, but Le Pen was elected on the same basis as every other MEP. I don't have to like her, but I can't argue that she has no right to be there.

If people don't want her in the EP, they should vote for someone else.

Nodin

NIMAN wrote: »

Of course the protestors are entitled to their opinion, but do they only want democracy on their terms?

What about the 25% of the electorate that voted Le Pen in? Are their opinions worth any less than those who don't agree with the policies?

Well nobody is stopping Le Pen take her seat. I wouldn't say that was justified unless there was a real risk of them getting actual power.

As for the worth of opinions, it would depend what those opinions are.

Jonny7

NIMAN wrote: »

Either democracy is allowed to function or its not.

It's not exactly an either/or situation

People are whimsical and can be swayed easily - by candidates.. by the public mood.. by recent scandals.. by recent events

It's a phenomena that has been known since democracy first sprang up - and has been taken into account in many cases

A perfect example is, as you mention, the recent Euro elections, a party like FN getting nearly 25% of the vote - yet in national election, they will not get anything close to that

The Madrid train bombings were widely acknowledged as having affected the Spanish elections. Sure we voted against Maastricht, and then for.

FN have won their seats fair and square - but with a v low voter turn-out, and in elections that are traditionally seen as protest votes against the establishment - and as someone else mentioned, protesters have every right to protest

Manach

Looking at other countries, there does seem to be a turn out for the more non-central partys: from both sides of the spectrum. Considering the events over the past few years it is hardly a surprise that some measure of a protest vote has emerged to shake-up the Brussels status quo.

Scofflaw

Manach wrote: »

Looking at other countries, there does seem to be a turn out for the more non-central partys: from both sides of the spectrum. Considering the events over the past few years it is hardly a surprise that some measure of a protest vote has emerged to shake-up the Brussels status quo.

And no harm in that at all. But some of the chosen shaking tools represent something more than just a shakeup. It's possible to duly elect those who aren't content with democracy as a status quo.

Otherwise, though, yes, she's duly elected, people are exercising their right to protest that, the riot police get called for the latter if they overstep the accepted bounds of that right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

crockholm

Nodin wrote: »

Racists, anti-semites and the like are an exception to the rule.

And who exactly gets to decide who/what philosophies are an exception to the rule? Would that be yourself Nodin? How Kim Jong Il-esque.

padma

I wouldn't say its right to be lumping Sinn Fein in with the BNP, UKIP, FN Golden Dawn and the likes, absolute totally different party, totally different philosophy too. more of the usual trying to put Sinn Fein in with the wacko's...it should be noted that the rise of hate parties that believe in segragation will lead to a rise in parties that believe in equality and fairness in society. hence you have a movement in Europe of racist parties and to counter it there is a rise in parties of equality.

Regards

Nodin

crockholm wrote: »

And who exactly gets to decide who/what philosophies are an exception to the rule? Would that be yourself Nodin? How Kim Jong Il-esque.

Racism and sectarianism are beyond the pale. It's a fairly easy standard to measure by.

joe swanson

padma wrote: »

I wouldn't say its right to be lumping Sinn Fein in with the BNP, UKIP, FN Golden Dawn and the likes, absolute totally different party, totally different philosophy too. more of the usual trying to put Sinn Fein in with the wacko's...it should be noted that the rise of hate parties that believe in segragation will lead to a rise in parties that believe in equality and fairness in society. hence you have a movement in Europe of racist parties and to counter it there is a rise in parties of equality.

Regards

Its completely apt given the recent history of some of their tds, mps, mlas etc.

Manach

Manach wrote: »

Looking at other countries, there does seem to be a turn out for the more non-central partys: from both sides of the spectrum. Considering the events over the past few years it is hardly a surprise that some measure of a protest vote has emerged to shake-up the Brussels status quo.

The opposite in general, less turn-out for the major parties. The turnout here was low, in Britain it was pitiful. Add 10% each for Labour and the Tories once they bother getting the vote out in the GE.

padma

joe swanson wrote: »

Its completely apt given the recent history of some of their tds, mps, mlas etc.

I dont see them sprouting hate...racism...segragation..anti muslim...anti black...anto foreigner sentiment...so no...no matter how much you dont like them...you are wrong to throw them in with the right wing parties like ukip bnp and there equivalent in europe etc..

Wasnt so long ago bnp were out marching against paddys..

gandalf

I don't see how people demonstrating against certain parties is damaging democracy in any way. I'd see it as strengthening it. Once the protests don't turn violent then people are entitled to make their voices heard.

The problem these days is protests tend to be hijacked by fringe extremist groups. All you have to do is look at some of the recent protests in Ireland hijacked by Eirigi.

belacqua_

padma wrote: »

.anto foreigner

Haha, ah, that cheered me up.

woodoo

crockholm wrote: »

And who exactly gets to decide who/what philosophies are an exception to the rule? Would that be yourself Nodin? How Kim Jong Il-esque.

Some of the new left are very intolerant in their thinking. They decide what is acceptable or not and try to shut down what they don't like.

comongethappy

woodoo wrote: »

Some of the new left are very intolerant in their thinking. They decide what is acceptable or not and try to shut down what they don't like.

Example?

crockholm

woodoo wrote: »

Some of the new left are very intolerant in their thinking. They decide what is acceptable or not and try to shut down what they don't like.

Agreed.I don't agree with much of what Richard Boyd Barret has to say,but as he was fairly elected he has every right to air his veiws to the Irish people in Parliament without being impeded.

All that said,I still Believe that Citizens have the right to fair protest,which I Believe is equally important as any politicans platform.

I just don't agree with some of the more vocal people who Think that because they don't agree with a politician/party, said people should be "put to silence"

Nodin

woodoo wrote: »

Some of the new left are very intolerant in their thinking. They decide what is acceptable or not and try to shut down what they don't like.

You might flesh that out with a few examples.

KOTSC

comongethappy wrote: »

Example?

One example that springs to mind a ukip conference' so called anti fascist protesters try to disrupt and shut down a political conference of peoples views they dont agree with' nigel challenges the so called anti fascist protesters to counter argue his views' they cant do that' all they can do is shout shout and shout- i cant post links as not enough posts' google (UKIP Leader Nigel Farage Hove June 2013 1/5) on youtube.

pO1Neil

NIMAN wrote: »

I got to thinking about this today when I heard that riot police had been called to the European Parliament in Brussels as protestors arrived to 'welcome' Marine Le Pen there.

Surely this woman was elected fairly and squarely, and those that voted for her are entitled to their opinion as much as those who don't agree with her views?

Same thing could be said for UKIP, BNP, Sinn Fein, TUV, Jolene Bunting, Golden Dawn etc. People are allowed freedom of choice to vote for whoever they choose, yet some simply can't let this happen.

Either democracy is allowed to function or its not.

Fina Gael, The Tories etc... People didn't like her, they protested against her that's democracy in action.

comongethappy

Protesting against some French quasi-fascist is not a subversion of democracy.

RandomName2

Nodin wrote: »

Racism and sectarianism are beyond the pale. It's a fairly easy standard to measure by.

Why should people who are racist or sectarian by nature be barred from entering politics? Even those who espouse racist or sectarian policies? Notwithstanding that both those terms are fairly broad at the best of times.

Ireland has its fair share of extremist parties. Socialist, Communist, Sinn Fein, and arguably, the Christian Solidarity Party in the republic, and (north of the border) TUV and PUP. The most "beyond the pale" of those ideologies is naturally Communist, not that there's any risk posed by the CPI.

No, the problem is when there's an armalite with the ballot box - the undermining of political process and threat of insurrection or coup. As long as both the constitution and rule of law is protected, even extremist ideologies can be accommodated.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Racism and sectarianism are beyond the pale. It's a fairly easy standard to measure by.

Perhaps, if the term "racist" had not been so heavily abused by people like yourself as to be rendered meaningless.

Nodin wrote: »

You might flesh that out with a few examples.

Try doing a Google Video search for "Nigel Farage Scotland"

Plenty of examples there.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

Why should people who are racist or sectarian by nature be barred from entering politics?.

Because neither have any basis in fact, and threaten to bring about hardship for sections of society should they get into power even at a local level.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ireland has its fair share of extremist parties. Socialist, Communist, Sinn Fein, and arguably, the Christian Solidarity Party in the republic, and (north of the border) TUV and PUP. The most "beyond the pale" of those ideologies is naturally Communist, not that there's any risk posed by the CPI.

Just to point out, I think the CPI have disbanded.

crockholm

Nodin wrote: »

Because neither have any basis in fact, and threaten to bring about hardship for sections of society should they get into power even at a local level.



Just to point out, I think the CPI have disbanded.

You could well be describing communism in your first sentence,yet they are free to have their voices Heard.

I honestly get more worried by the future of European politics when I start hearing people wanting to deny others the right to their opinion,no matter how odious.

What is the alternative?

amorphous

Nodin wrote: »

You might flesh that out with a few examples.

Google "University College London bans Nietzsche club"

Nodin

amorphous wrote: »

Google "University College London bans Nietzsche club"

I'd suggest reading up on that a bit more.

Nodin

crockholm wrote: »

You could well be describing communism in your first sentence,yet they are free to have their voices Heard.

...one could argue about the communists. There is however no argument as regards the racists at all.

crockholm wrote: »

I honestly get more worried by the future of European politics when I start hearing people wanting to deny others the right to their opinion,no matter how odious.

What is the alternative?

People are perfectly entitled to their opinion. They just aren't entitled to inflict it on anyone else.

RandomName2

Nodin wrote: »

Because neither have any basis in fact,

I don't really see what facts have to do with political beliefs.

Nodin wrote: »

and threaten to bring about hardship for sections of society should they get into power even at a local level.

Really? So it would be legal, even at a local level, for a "racist" political body to single out a particular race in terms of tax, jobs, or civil liberties?

I mean a party like Sinn Fein would be racist in terms of what it considers to be "Englishness", but I couldn't see what harm they could do to that end. Oh, they could promote cultural nationalism, pump more money into maintenance of the Irish language, etc. much like Fianna Fail did in its right-wing heyday, but I find it hard to see how they could single out sections of society for hardships.

Nah, the danger posed by any lunatic fringe (or lunatic centre) is when they have a militia, or even the force of the threat of violence, to exact political change.

FWIW, Communists groups have been known for this, albeit not in Ireland.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't really see what facts have to do with political beliefs..

You're being a bit glib there tbh.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really? So it would be legal, even at a local level, for a "racist" political body to single out a particular race in terms of tax, jobs, or civil liberties?

.

In theory, no. However cases would have to taken and theres the risk that the law could be changed should such a group gain power.

carpejugulum

So how is democracy threatened in your example, OP?

Tony EH

NIMAN wrote: »

I got to thinking about this today when I heard that riot police had been called to the European Parliament in Brussels as protestors arrived to 'welcome' Marine Le Pen there.

Surely this woman was elected fairly and squarely, and those that voted for her are entitled to their opinion as much as those who don't agree with her views?

Same thing could be said for UKIP, BNP, Sinn Fein, TUV, Jolene Bunting, Golden Dawn etc. People are allowed freedom of choice to vote for whoever they choose, yet some simply can't let this happen.

Either democracy is allowed to function or its not.

There's no such thing as democracy.

benway

I love this.

*WAAAAAAH*

"Lefties" are so intolerant (of fascism, racism, sexism, bigotry, oppression, injustice, inequality, abuses of power, etc., etc.)

They should all be tolerant (of fascism, racism, sexism, bigotry, oppression, injustice, inequality, abuses of power, etc., etc.) and let good old common sense charter right wing folks have their way.

*WAAAAAAH*

Of course, it might be quite telling to compare the level of tolerance these right wing victims show for, say, the unemployed, immigrants and other excluded groups who they see as their social inferiors, but that's another story.

The excellent Corey Robin makes a compelling case that, far from being an aberration, this kind of posturing has been a defining characteristic of conservative thinking at least since Burke's salty tears for Marie Antoinette. And that's kinda like this thread.

OP, is there any suggestion that anyone prevented Marine of Arc from taking up her seat in the parliament? Has anyone tried to guillotine her or burn her at the stake? No? Standards for martyrdom are definitely slipping these days.

RandomName2

benway wrote: »

"Lefties" are so intolerant (of fascism, racism, sexism, bigotry, oppression, injustice, inequality, abuses of power, etc., etc.)

Liberals being illiberal is something of a defining characteristic tbh.

benway

Whereas right-wingers like Marine and chums are noted for their tolerance of all races, colours, creeds and shades of political opinion?



Pretty funny and kinda telling that it's "lefties" and "liberals" who are under attack here for their supposed intolerance.

Btw, are you seriously trying to suggest that contempt and opposition towards the things I mentioned is somehow illiberal? That's some fancy mental gymnastics if you are.

Scofflaw

A liberal can tolerate intolerance only as long as it is not practically expressed. The whole point of a political movement, though, is to express things practically. Private opinions and public action are different things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

NIMAN wrote: »

I got to thinking about this today when I heard that riot police had been called to the European Parliament in Brussels as protestors arrived to 'welcome' Marine Le Pen there.

They are perfectly entitled to protest and/or show their opposition as long as they do not attempt to override or otherwise pervert democracy (e.g. stop her from taking up her mandated position). Just because someone wins an election, doesn't mean you suddenly have to agree with them.

Nodin wrote: »

Racism and sectarianism are beyond the pale. It's a fairly easy standard to measure by.

Define it concisely and easily in less than 100 words then. If your definition can't be twisted to silence those it may not have originally been designed to target, then you have a point.

Otherwise, you haven't thought things through at all, I'm afraid, and your claim of easy standards is complete nonsense.

woodoo wrote: »

Some of the new left are very intolerant in their thinking. They decide what is acceptable or not and try to shut down what they don't like.

That would be because some of the new left are really just the old left with new branding. If far right groups can reinvent themselves to appear more appealing to mainstream politics, what makes people think that the far left didn't do the same?

RandomName2

benway wrote: »

Btw, are you seriously trying to suggest that contempt and opposition towards the things I mentioned is somehow illiberal? That's some fancy mental gymnastics if you are.

Saying that party X should not be allowed exist/take its seats because Y, is inherently illiberal, although there are arguments which may support such a position.

However, I generally find that parties (or individuals) who describe themselves as liberal tend to favour large, interfering governments and the micro-management of society. The brand and the product do not match up.

And whoever said the far-right were libertarian?

SeanW

benway wrote: »

They should all be tolerant (of fascism, racism, sexism, bigotry, oppression, injustice, inequality, abuses of power, etc., etc.)

Only from what I've seen, Leftists are more than happy to tolerate these things, plus many more. It only depends on who is doing them.

You've also shown a certain flexibility with many of those terms, so that they mean something totally different to what they seem.

As to your side being being intolerant and having a dubious committment to democracy, well, that's been proven fairly well by my favourite leftist here :rolleyes:

I was also in Cork during the time when one of the UCC societies invited BNP leader Nick Griffin to a debate. FWIW I have no sympathy with the BNP whatsoever, but the behaviour of the Left was beyond apalling. Long haired freak thugs running around the place talking about how they were going to "use violence to" in their words "protect democracy." I also recall reading boards posts threating to bring busloads of other leftists in to "**** up UCC." Charming.

But we know from the sort of reaction Nigel Farage gets quite frequently whenver he travels, attends conferences etc. we know that as far as the left is concerned, there is no difference between being a racist and being a conservative.

And we also know that the same leftists take a different view of racism, sexism, sectarianism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and other things, depending on who is the perpatrator. That's why an inoffensive person like Nigel Farage is hounded by leftist thugs wherever he goes, but Anjem Choudhury and his fellow travellers attract almost no attention whatsoever. It also explains to me why no leftist talked about the recent Jewish Museum shootings in Belgium.

The Corinthian

SeanW wrote: »

Only from what I've seen, Leftists are more than happy to tolerate these things, plus many more.

Depends on what you mean by a Leftist. Left-wing politics is not a homogeneous school of thought and many are based on pretty ridged ideologies that are every bit as intolerant as any right-wing belief system.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

I was also in Cork during the time when one of the UCC societies invited BNP leader Nick Griffin to a debate. FWIW I have no sympathy with the BNP whatsoever, but the behaviour of the Left was beyond apalling. Long haired freak thugs running around the place talking about how they were going to "use violence to" in their words "protect democracy." I also recall reading boards posts threating to bring busloads of other leftists in to "**** up UCC." Charming..

Would the BNP power discriminate along racial lines? Yes. Then theres no need to tolerate their nonsense.

GaelMise

NIMAN wrote: »

I got to thinking about this today when I heard that riot police had been called to the European Parliament in Brussels as protestors arrived to 'welcome' Marine Le Pen there.

Surely this woman was elected fairly and squarely, and those that voted for her are entitled to their opinion as much as those who don't agree with her views?

Same thing could be said for UKIP, BNP, Sinn Fein, TUV, Jolene Bunting, Golden Dawn etc. People are allowed freedom of choice to vote for whoever they choose, yet some simply can't let this happen.

Either democracy is allowed to function or its not.

Why are you putting SF in with a shower of Right wing, anti immigration nuts?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Would the BNP power discriminate along racial lines? Yes. Then theres no need to tolerate their nonsense.

Says you!

"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is the centrepiece of a democratic free society. Anything less and you are not a protector of democracy but an enemy of it.

We know that the left opposes democracy because of its willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with.

We know that the left does not distinguish between inoffensive conservatives like Nigel Farage and racists like Nick Griffin.

We know that the left has twisted the word "racist" beyond recognition and rendered it nearly meaningless.

We know that the left does distinguish between "right wing" people like the above and "other cultural groups" such as the Islamic-right, which gets a pass for much worse than any of the above.

The only question I have is why?

SeanW

GaelMise wrote: »

Why are you putting SF in with a shower of Right wing, anti immigration nuts?

Are you asserting that anyone who wants limits on immigration is insane?

GaelMise

SeanW wrote: »

Are you asserting that anyone who wants limits on immigration is insane?

No, just that the stance on immigration common to most of that particular list excluding SF is nuttier than your average bear.

SeanW

GaelMise wrote: »

No, just that the stance on immigration common to most of that particular list excluding SF is nuttier than your average bear.

Please explain, with particular reference to UKIP.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Please explain, with particular reference to UKIP.

Indeed, Here's some recent reference material he can use to back the "nuttier than the average bear" comment.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27116110

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27177864

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukips-nigel-farage-tells-lbc-radio-i-dont-want-romanians-my-neighbours-audio-1448900

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/13/british-asian-ukip-supporter-quits-party-racist-populism-sanya-jeet-thandi

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukip-playing-race-card-im-quitting-the-party?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10806286/Ukip-candidate-suspended-after-calling-Muslims-devils-kids.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-handed-fresh-embarrassment-as-backer-demetri-marchessini-claims-theres-no-such-thing-as-marital-rape-9308272.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/29/ukip-wycherley-mo-farah-racism-row-facebook

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/24/ukip-member-broadcast-suspended-racist-tweets

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/27/ukip-farage-racism-lenny-henry-politics-europe

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ukip-branch-chairman-london-is-being-ethnically-cleansed-of-white-people-9448154.html

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/27/newly-elected-ukip-councillor-who-said-fk-the-poofters-suspended/

View

SeanW wrote: »

We know that the left does not distinguish between inoffensive conservatives like Nigel Farage and racists like Nick Griffin.

Making racially motived comments about Romanians is hardly "inoffensive" by most peoples' standards.

If you are willing to defend such a person that speaks volumes about you.