Comments on: No Platform

By: Having the decision made for you | Sim-O

Having the decision made for you | Sim-O — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:35:26 +0000

[...] have been a couple of posts on this blog recently, debating the policy of No Platform with regard to the [...]

By: leicesteruaf

leicesteruaf — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:24:28 +0000

It is a common misconception that the ‘No Platform’ position means denying freedom of speech to fascists. However this is not true. Of course anyone is allowed to say whatever they want in this country. However it must be said that there is a massive difference between allowing someone to say what they want and giving them a soapbox and megaphone to say it with. ‘No platform’ denies them the opportunity to speak to a wider audience. Whether Griffin’s racist arguments are destroyed on question time or not is pretty irrelevant because the fact that they have been allowed on question time lends them a massive amount of respectability to the average voter. In several other countries where Nazis have been accepted into mainstream political life in this way, their power has increased tenfold. The ‘No platform’ stance taken by British anti-nazis put so much pressure on the NF in the seventies that they split, and their movement went ‘underground’ (where it belongs, frankly). Ironically the only reason we are allowed to have this debate now is because ‘No platform’ in the past has worked. We should all remember this fact.

By: No Platform – A response | Sim-O

No Platform – A response | Sim-O — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:35:46 +0000

[...] have been kindly invited to respond to a previous blog that argued the No Platform policy advocated by UAF is not the correct approach. Whilst I [...]

By: Daniel Hoffmann-Gill

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:57:50 +0000

LFAT is twat, a real twat. Ahywho, I agree that the BNP in a deabte situation should be allowed to speak so that the paper thin ideas can be torn apart. .-= Daniel Hoffmann-Gill´s last blog ..Gordon Brown is a Sexy Bitch =-.

By: Sim-O

Sim-O — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:29:53 +0000

Yes. To a degree.

When that political opponent is advocating the expulsion of my family from their home, their country, I think it is entirely justified.

The BNP is based on violence and the threat of violence and the stripping of rights for whole swathes of this countrys’ citizens. Against an opponent like that a bit of egg throwing to shut them up is not a bad thing.

If the UAF escalated their egg throwing to drilling kneecaps or executions then obviously I would have to have a rethink.

By: Letters From A Tory

Letters From A Tory — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:54:29 +0000

“I believe that the direct action, of the type the UAF use is excellent.”

Oh, you mean that use of violence to oppress political opponents? How wonderfully ironic that a supposedly anti-fascist organisation should behave in such a way.
.-= Letters From A Tory´s last blog ..The state of the Labour blogosphere =-.

By: Liberal Conspiracy » BNP on Question Time: a farce made in heaven

Liberal Conspiracy » BNP on Question Time: a farce made in heaven — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:19:41 +0000

[...] from the Continent Soho Politico: Iain Dale doesn’t understand freedom of speech Sim-O: No Platform · About the author: This is a guest post. Paul Sagar is a part-time researcher for the Tax [...]