To think this is a new low even for Farage?

[LouiseBrooks]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/20/nigel-farage-accuses-jo-cox-widower-brendan-cox-of-supporting-extremism

"Farage said: “Well, of course, he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox. He backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means.”

I really hope that Hope not Hate sue him.

[53rdAndBird]

But WrongTrouser, Nigel Farage is the one who said a politician (Angela Merkel) bore some responsibility for the terrorist attacks. That's what Brendan Cox was responding to. If you want to complain about people blaming politicians rather than the actual murderer(s), why aren't you criticising Farage, who actually did do that, rather than Brendan Cox, who didn't?

[PossumInAPearTree]

The US wouldn't give him a green card . I thought you had to prove yourself useful or that you did a job no American could do...

If it's a requirement Melania Trump managed to meet, it's not that exacting.

I dunno, I think she probably has to do one or two things which most Americans wouldn't want to do. I know I wouldn't want to.....

[53rdAndBird]

And this:

for some reason, some things are deemed sayable and some not

Really? Come on, now. Everything Nigel Farage says is clearly 'sayable'. He gets paid a small fortune for saying it. He's on TV, radio, all over the Internet, saying it all the time.

Criticism and disagreement are not anti-free-speech. They are part of free speech. We need to be able to criticise public figures, especially politicians. We will be in a much worse place as a country if we can't do that. And I promise you, Nigel Farage is not such a delicate flower that he can't handle any disagreement with his words.

[WrongTrouser]

But WrongTrouser, Nigel Farage is the one who said a politician (Angela Merkel) bore some responsibility for the terrorist attacks. That's what Brendan Cox was responding to. If you want to complain about people blaming politicians rather than the actual murderer(s), why aren't you criticising Farage, who actually did do that, rather than Brendan Cox, who didn't?

I don't think the two are analogous.

a) Farage was saying that a politician's policy decisions have lead to a situation which makes terrorist atrocities more likely (I am not saying I agree with him, I am just clarifying what he said.)

b) Cox was saying (well, implying) that a politician is responsible for someone who holds an extreme version of the politician's views and commits violence as a result.

These are not the same.

a) is saying action x has led to result y.

b) is saying if someone holds belief x they are responsible for the actions of anyone who holds belief x (even if that person holds are more extreme version of the belief). They are not.

Type a) statements are pretty mainstream in discussing politics. I have frequently heard people blame Blair for causing instability in Iraq and resulting terrorist murders. Political decisions have effects.

Type b) comments are really just slurs. Taken to the extreme you get Polly Toynbee type articles trying to suggest that anyone who wants to leave the EU is somehow in common with Jo Cox's murderer.

[user1471451327]

Wrong Trouser
Even if you were right in your interpretation of what Farage said about Merkel, (which I dont agree with but for the sake of the discussion)...

.....how, when Brenden Cox politely disagrees with him, does it give Farage licence to accuse Cox of siding with "extremists" or accuse Hope not Hate of pursuing "violent and undemocratic means”?? This is the alleged defamation of which we speak... and to date none of you Farage fanclub have acknowledged what a shitty thing it is to say to a man whose wife was murdered by a fascist

[53rdAndBird]

b) Cox was saying (well, implying) that a politician is responsible for someone who holds an extreme version of the politician's views and commits violence as a result.

No. Cox was saying that holding a politician personally responsible for the crimes of an extremist is not on, and that Nigel Farage in particular is on a slippery slope if he wants to pull that one.

Merkel and Farage have both made political decisions. If it's fair game to blame Merkel for terrorist murders that she didn't commit or incite, but that could (possibly? we don't even know who did it) be linked to political decisions she made, that's fair game for Farage too. If it's a slur to blame him for what Thomas Mair did, it's a slur to blame her too.

You can't have it both ways and then complain that Farage, who started this whole conversation, is the unfortunate victim.

[birdybirdywoofwoof]

This is exactly what I mean about warped perspective. To get NF into the byline of a response within 24 hours of an atrocity and be more interested in berating him than the person and/or organisations/idoliologies responsible for mowing Christmas revellers down just seems deeply warped to me and a sign that something is going very wrong.

Interesting. And yet you don't seem interested in the fact that within 24 hours of the atrocity and with virtually no information on the perpetrators avaliable, Farage was berating Merkel more than the person/person and/or organisations/ideologies responsible for mowing Christmas revellers down and that, for some, reason doesn't seem deeply warped to you or a sign that something is going very wrong?

[WrongTrouser]

I am not a member of the Farage fan club.

If you read my last post you will see that I don't agree with your premise and don't see anything "polite" about Cox's tweet to Farage.

I also think Twitter is a daft way to engage in political discussion.

[Isitadoubleentendre]

At least Farage goes out there and actually works for his salary. He is constantly on radio stations and the TV, so I would say he earns his salary. Compare that to most politicians who only come forward when there's a general election, yet are still happy to claim their wages.

Wtf?

Wow, you really have no idea what is involved in being an MP do you? Do you really think that any.politician who doesn't spend their time plastering their own ugly mug all over the telly and saying things they know will stir up shit is just lounging around at home?

'most politicians who only come forward when there is a general election'.

So you don't think they spend their days sitting in hours long committee meetings, public surgeries, reading and answering letters, debates in parliament?

No, its just going on the telly innit.

For fucks sake.

[Isitadoubleentendre]

Well said birdy

Farage is the absolute ultimate in being able to dish it out but not being able to take it back.

[WrongTrouser]

I think one of the problems with these discussions is that there seem to be a lot of assumptions made, particularly as regards views on NF (eg see the fanclub comment). Just because I criticise a Guardian article, really, really doesn't mean I agree with everything NF says. Just because I think Brendan Cox's tweet was uncalled for and incendiary, doesn't mean I agree with everything NF says.

I have never said I support his comments about Merkel. I agree that it is probably best to avoid drawing conclusions and apportioning blame for an atrocity until we actually know who was involved.

[user1471451327]

Wrong Trouser
...1. you still have not made any negative comment about Farage's appalling and serious allegations against Cox and Hope not Hate

1. you call Cox's polite response to his public comment on twitter "uncalled for and incendiary" without seemingly any irony
   

yet are offended I called you one of his fanclub. Precisely what does Farage have to do to provoke any form of criticism from you?

[Isitadoubleentendre]

But WrongTrouser, Nigel Farage is the one who said a politician (Angela Merkel) bore some responsibility for the terrorist attacks. That's what Brendan Cox was responding to. If you want to complain about people blaming politicians rather than the actual murderer(s), why aren't you criticising Farage, who actually did do that, rather than Brendan Cox, who didn't?

Yes exactly. Wrongtrouser Brendan Cox was saying we shouldnt implicate politicians in acts of terrorism. Which seems to be what you are saying as well. So you and Brendan Cox agree, yes?

[Isitadoubleentendre]

Or is it only wrong when 'lefties' do it?

[LouiseBrooks]

I think Brendan Cox's tweet was uncalled for and incendiary




You appear to be the one with the "warped perspective".

[Peregrina]

I thought Cox's tweet was very mild. I don't understand the apologists for Farage.

[WrongTrouser]

I'm interested in having a discussion about this issue but I'm really not interested in getting into one of those threads where people start telling me what I think. I am not a fan of N Farage. I thought his comments about Merkel were ill judged and that (as I did say earlier) no-one should be drawing conclusions and apportioning blame until we actually know who the perpetrator(s) is/are.

I don't understand the "is it only wrong when "lefties" do it?" question. I am a "leftie" so it's unlikely I would think that.

I wasn't offended at being told I was in Farage's fan club. I said it was incorrect.

Yes exactly. Wrongtrouser Brendan Cox was saying we shouldnt implicate politicians in acts of terrorism. Which seems to be what you are saying as well. So you and Brendan Cox agree, yes?

I don't believe this is what he was saying and I think he was implying more. But again, this is why tweets are not a very good vehicle for political conversation.

[53rdAndBird]

WrongTrouser, what do you think about Nigel Farage's comments in response to Brendan Cox?

He said: "Well, of course, he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox. He backs organisations like Hope not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means."

[Isitadoubleentendre]

My 'lefties' comment was because you appear to think its ok for Farage to link a politician with an act of terrorism but not for Guardian writers to do the same?

I thought it was quite clear what Brendan Cox was saying - that linking politicians with terrorism is a slippery slope because one could fairly easily link Farage with Tommy Mair if that was the road one wanted to go down. He wasn't saying that Farage was responsible for Jo's death (although im sure in the privacy of his own mind he probably does, I think I would) but that if you wanted to start going down the path of blaming politicians for extremist acts, then they natural conclusion would be that you could say that Farage was in some way responsible for Jo's murder.

Farage responds by going off on a rant about Hope Not Hate rather than having the decency to shut the fuck up about it. Can you imagine what his response would be of his wife was murdered by an extremist and then someone slagged him off on the radio?

[WrongTrouser]

I think he was unwise and wrong to say that.

I have no idea whether his comments about Hope not Hate have any validity, but even if they had, he should not have said this in relation to Brendan Cox.

I don't know much about HnH but what little I do makes me very suspicious of them. I can't find it at the moment but they published some research about referendum voting which was all dressed up as objective fact but had a good proportion of "leavers are just miserable social failures" type findings. I'll link if I can find it. They also suggested that the drop in leave support in polls after the murder of Jo Cox was because people turned away from leave because it was it was "associated" with the murder and the extreme right/racism. Of course another explanation would be that people didn't tell pollsters they were voting leave because they didn't want to be (incorrectly for the most part) judged as racist/extremist, rather than that they themselves saw any connection between their thoughts on the EU and the despicable murder of a young mother. The fact that the actual leave vote was higher than the polls would suggest this second explanation is more likely. So from what little I know of them, I don't have much time for them. As to the violence and undemocratic allegations, I have no idea.

[WrongTrouser]

Xpost, my post was in reply to Bird

[WrongTrouser]

I have had a think and am going to have another go at articulating my position.

BC is effectively saying to NF, "don't say that a politician is responsible for a terrorist atrocity. If you do, the finger will point at you." Is that a fair paraphrase?

So, this is why people are saying he is trying to shut down and silence NF. Because he is saying "you can't say that". He could say any number of other things - "you are wrong because xyz, it is inappropriate because abc". He could argue. But he isn't, he is saying "you can't say that". And the reason he is giving doesn't really stand up to logical scrutiny. If BC really believes that NF is responsible for JC's murder, shouldn't it be said? Why is BC saying, effectively, let's all not talk about this, otherwise you won't come out of it well? And just because,attempts to shut down a line of discussion are not successful, doesn't stop them being attempts, they are just failed attempts.

Has anyone not see Jonathon Pie's Trump rant yet?

m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=GLG9g7BcjKs

He explains how the left has lost the habit of arguing and debating, and that now it is all about saying "you can't say that". As he rants, it doesn't work.

And BC's tweet relies on the view that if we can say one politician is responsible for a murder, we can say another is. Everso slightly simplistic. We should judge each case individually. Are we really saying now that it is never right to say a politician's actions have caused murder? How about other deaths, can we blame them for those? Are we no longer allowed to blame Thatcher for all the misery her government caused? How are we going to tackle the growing threat of terrorism if we are not allowed to discuss the role of politicians in relation to it?

To clarify, I am not saying NF's comments were right. I am saying the,answer, if you disagree, is to argue, not to say "you can't say that".

I think this is what's been happening increasingly in political/public discourse over the last few years. Things have got mighty complicated, but instead of facing that and trying to understand the implications, the left (and I am discussing the left because that is my way of thinking and for me, the only hope for a better world) keeps trotting out simplistic soundbity type answers which then everyone latches on to and it becomes harder and harder to challenge. Incidentally I did read on another thread that HnH were one of the main instigators of the whole university no platforming thing, interesting if it's correct.

To summarise my lengthy post, people need to argue, not tell other people to be quiet. Apart from anything else, it doesn't work.

[WrongTrouser]

nb JP is a tad sweary.