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.

wrong Trouser I just wanted to say having skimmed thread I think you have held your own really well here and I think I get what your saying Its important people like you keep on speaking out.

There is very much a far right specter looming over the whole of the EU but I believe the pendulum as swung that way due to very far left politics dominating us for decades. Both extremes are terrifying actually.
I heard very interesting comment on Radio the other day " Are the present times, starting to resemble the 1930's!" And a historian came back with " Its the only history largely taught in schools, so its most peoples only historical reference"
I think there is a great deal of truth in that. We see posters on here never ever admitting there is violence and trouble in the Far Left.
Anyway rambling and probably way off topic, but Wrong and Bill people are reading

Would you care to expand on that a bit more? How do you know? What are the implications for them

I think a lot of the rhetoric, the tweets, social media, comments from right wing politicians and the right wing media can easily be used as 'recruiting sergeants' for IS.

If you wanted to alienate people, then many of the comments made would do just that. It must be very easy to radicalise people, to tip them over, to convince them they are hated if you can use the many examples out there.

As said upthread, there are people who feel that things are against them. That society has gone too far. It doesn't take much to tap into and manipulate them to act on those feelings.

very far left politics dominating us for decades

Eh? In the UK?

Who are you describing as "very far left"? Cameron? Blair? Thatcher?

No the ideology of the EU - no borders etc.

winky Your points are interesting and I don't know if you are correct or not about rich elites not caring. My gut feeling is that a lot of the "haves" are actually very, very confused at the moment and are really struggling to understand what's going on, why people voted for Brexit against the advice of almost anyone with any power (I am not ignoring Farage, Johnson etc but in general terms most politicians and institutions supported remain), and why Americans elected Trump.

I think some (a minority) are genuinely trying to understand what is happening politically, but a huge number, and many of the more vocal, are not and are just hitting out in fear and anger - hence all the stupid, uneducated, racist, old etc etc slurs against leave voters. I do think a lot of people are still in denial about how many people voted leave in the UK and that it was 60-70% in vast swathes of England.

A lot of the more virulent stereotyping of leave voters just doesn't stand up to the most cursory look at the actual figures, but I think some people cannot bring themselves to letting this reality sink in and find it easier to stay with the cartoonish representation of leave voters as Farage loving, right-wing, uneducated poor (or extremely rich, depending on your take) people. I am not meaning anyone on this thread by this, this is my general observation.

Wrong trouser, 9 areas in England voted overwhelmingly to leave by over 70%.

Do you know the demographics of these areas? I don't. High unemployment? Many young people? Levels of immigration there? It would be interesting to know.

I think the Brexit vote itself was an angry and fearful one.

We live in interesting times and it's going to be a very cold wind for a good few years.

wrong

It was very high 60's where i am

No idea why....

I agree with the cartoonish representation of leave voters but i am sure you will agree that the same is happening to remain voters

And i also agree with zevit i have enjoyed your posts

BTW, don't comfort yourself that "it's just that people don't know history".

I didn't study the 1930s at school at all: my historical references are considerably broader than that.

I see parallels with the 1930s but also, more so, with 1914.

This doesn't make me happy, and I'm not saying it "for effect" or for pleasure, but because it's what I actually see.

Countries don't just wake up one morning with dictators, or genocides, or in total war. There are roads they travel to get there. They are well-known roads. They have a lot of landmarks which commonly appear along the way. And when you see yourself passing those landmarks, you have to ask whether you want your country to continue on this road. Or whether to take a breather. To turn off onto another path. To not continue along the road.

Actually i lied

One area was 55%, one was 63% and one of the cities 58% and the other 53%

Ish

Hi Pausing I must apologise if you feel I am picking up on something you have said I must admit I have not read any of your posts apart from your last one did you mention the 1930's?

It just sprang to mind when Wrong's post said something. In general on here and elsewhere I hear much of the reference to the conditions of that period of history and an almost obsession with the Far Right when actually the far left are as bad if not far far worse - in terms of numbers of people murdered and held prisoner under strict regimes.

When I heard this comment about education - a penny dropped for me. That is all.

Trump regarding his stance on the CIA and the hacking scandal.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/13/13919500/russia-hack-election-trump

Also his stance on Muslims in the USA. This is already starting to backfire, with him wanting all companies to list those who are Muslim.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/22/donald-trump-says-berlin-attack-proves-right-banning-muslim/

I see parallels with the 1930s but also, more so, with 1914

The Today programme has been asking historians what year 2016 is like in history.

1914 was mentioned.

IS cheered Brexit because it would lead to destabilisation.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/isis-brexit-news-eu-referendum-result-praises-response-islamic-state-daesh-political-crisis-crusader-a7109781.html

No apology needed. (I don't think I've said anything about the 1930s on this thread.) It was a general comment in response to your quoting of "Its the only history largely taught in schools, so its most peoples only historical reference".

So your penny dropping might well be accurate for your own personal experience, but isn't for mine.

I've never been under any doubt about the violence of far left regimes - I grew up in the era of the Red Menace, and cheered when the Berlin Wall came down.

My concern isn't that landmarks are appearing under what might be termed a right wing flag, but that they are appearing at all.

And of course this link is always worth repeating, till it finally sinks in!

medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with-brexit-trump-a3fefd154714#.p304x8f48

very far left politics dominating us for decades

Where? When? Who is us?

Very far left politics is communism. Can you name a country in the EU that has this form of politics? And can you please explain how they have dominated?

And far right hasn't dominated either, though once far right are seen to win, Brexit and Trump, domination of the far right becomes a frightening possibility.

BillSykesDog
the left are going to have an extremely hard time arguing against it; because they have spent the last 20 years beavering away trying to curtail their opponents rights to expression it is going to be tough for them to oppose things going in the other direction. And this will be a rod they have made for their own backs I'm afraid.

Massive rewriting of history. One of the biggest protectors of freedom for expression in this country since WW2 is the ECHR, which us allow us to balance free speech with protecting against defamation, invasion of privacy and incitement to violence etc; which some on the right like the editor of the Daily Mail repeatedly seek us to no longer be signatory to (even at the same time seek to rely on the ECHR in court when it suits them).

Even UKIP was reported to have consulted lawyers re defamation in 2006 against Cameron, suggesting they are happy to use the law if it suits them. To do that and then winge about others doing the same is a tad hypocritical.

The reality is that politicians like Nigel Farage trade on "British values" when it suits them but then struggle with British values concepts like an independent, unelected judiciary, rule of law, unwritten constitution etc when it does not. You cannot cherrypick as they are all integral to our democracy.

My gut feeling is that a lot of the "haves" are actually very, very confused at the moment and are really struggling to understand what's going on, why people voted for Brexit against the advice of almost anyone with any power (I am not ignoring Farage, Johnson etc but in general terms most politicians and institutions supported remain), and why Americans elected Trump.

I don't think that's true at all. We do understand what you have done. We're not confused. We just think its 'bad'. We think it was/is the most stupid choice.

When I read MN, I am constantly amazed how little people understood the implications of Brexit.

I wouldn't say it was a rejection of the left. I don't understand this characterization of a struggle between left and right, (especially coming from posters who previously argued that Brexit appealed to people from both left and right?!?!)

It was populism. Simple solutions/sound bites to the massively complex issue of globalism.

Most remainers or anti-Trump people believe your choices are going to make the world far more unstable for all us and will lead to far more financial hard-ship for all of us.

And yet, ironically, we're still expected to come up with 'the plan'.

For most people, opting to take the alternative supported by the monstrous IS, the dictator Putin, the racist Le Pen and the great big racist toddler Trump would give them pause for thought. Not everyone though, clearly.

A slippery slope is a logical fallacy: " the problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."

So Farrage is guilty of making a logical fallacy, and Cox is legitimate in pulling him up on it. Using Farrage's own standard if Merkel needs to (in his words take responsibility for: " a whole number of social and terrorist problems" then Farrage must take responsibility for the ones that led to the murder of Jo Cox. Brendad Cox isn't saying Farrage is responsible, what he is saying that his argument is flawed, but if it is applied to Merkel then in must apply to Farrage too.

It is obvious on here that people don't want this to be the case, hence the attacks on Cox himself, and the further fallacy about "shouting down". It appears to me that the shouting down accusation is always brought up by people who want to be able to say what they want, but wish to silence others critical responses. It is not shouting down to claim that a response is racist because racist statements making sweeping generalistations ( another flaw) based on prejudice. It is not shouting down to oppose something. The Jonathan Pie rubbish is constantly referred to (although I'd be fairly wary about the vested interest of someone who is taking Russia Today's pound) but in its self that is fundamentally incorrect too. In a country where 1 in 5 newspaper front pages were negative about immigration and it was openly debated on TV, where people use right wing language all the time, to claim that we are "not allowed to talk about it" is incorrect. Its an example of the alt-right tactic of trying to appear persecuted, whilst actually holding all the advantages and it should be challenged.

We need also to examine the language used, the defenders of Farrage on hear have pointed to the mental health of the perpetrator to negate responsibility, and claimed that it was not a terrorist incident because of it. However Michael Adebowale one of the Lee Rigby killers also had a history of mental illness yet they would have no qualms about calling him a terrorist, the double standards are breathtaking.

One of the biggest protectors of freedom for expression in this country since WW2 is the ECHR

What an absolute load of rubbish. It only pays lip service to freedom of expression and actually makes it subject to a raft of other conditions which actually strongly curtail the right to freedom of expression. In fact there are several other articles contained in the ECHR, particularly article 8, the right to family life and privacy. This has lead to a situation where rich people can stop poorer people from saying things which are true which they don't like. European and British laws curtailing freedom of speech are so stifling that the USA has had to pass legislation to protect the fifth amendment. To claim that the ECHR has protected freedom of speech is a joke, absolutely laughable. It contains so many caveats limiting it that it's claim to protect freedom of speech is worthless.

And the problem is that you don't seem to know the difference between defamation (complaining about something which is untrue) and the things the ECHR stifles. Which is things which are true but inconvenient.

I'm not complaining about Hope not Hate's right to complain about defamation. They have a right to do that. But for all the disingenuous innocent faces on here, it's well known that along with the UAF, Hope not Hate are the EDL of the left wing - it's violent, threatening bully boy wing.

It's not just in a legal sense either - look at left wing Twitter mobs who chase people like Tim Hunt out of their jobs on dubious grounds. And no platforming etc, etc, etc.

We're living in an era where the left wing are trying to enforce their own brand of internet based McCarthyism on public life.

And it's stupid. Tides do turn. And if you don't protect the rights of people you disagree with to speak, who will protect you when it's your turn to face a mob? Nobody should ever assume that they will always be protected by having the same opinion as the majority or those with the loudest voices.

BillSyke Dog

All of what you described are not limited to the left. The biggest recent user of twitter storms etc have been the alt right, like gamer gate, etc, the vilification of the appeal judges, even stupid things like the hounding by people professing to be "anti SJW" of the black actress playing Hermione Grainger on stage for daring to be black.

I am quite the libertarian and support the left wing campaign against No Platforming highlighted in Spiked. But no platforming is also used by the right when it suits them such as the Daily Mail refusing to allow Shona Joly the barrister an opportunity to respond to the appalling personal criticisms of appeal court judges (which by English convention they are unable to do themselves).

I am also very strongly for actual truthful facts.So where is the evidence that Hope Not Hate, the organisation, are "violent, threatening bully boy wing." ? To date you have not provided any (and BTW UAF is a totally separate organisation so don't conflate the two)

So Farrage is guilty of making a logical fallacy, and Cox is legitimate in pulling him up on it. Using Farrage's own standard if Merkel needs to (in his words take responsibility for: " a whole number of social and terrorist problems" then Farrage must take responsibility for the ones that led to the murder of Jo Cox

I might be missing something here ( and I probably am ) but Merkel is being blamed because as a man I saw on TV called Douglas Murray said - " at all the entry points across the EU for migrants arriving there have no facilities to check who these people are and where they have come from, as there are few Syrian refugees and actually a great many men from North Africa, sub Saharan Africa and the middle east etc etc".

Bill Sykes Dog
It only pays lip service to freedom of expression and actually makes it subject to a raft of other conditions which actually strongly curtail the right to freedom of expression. In fact there are several other articles contained in the ECHR, particularly article 8, the right to family life and privacy. This has lead to a situation where rich people can stop poorer people from saying things which are true which they don't like.

So you are saying the Art 10 right is too limited but are not giving any examples of which limits to free speech you object to. You already support the law on defamation so what other limitation do you have problems with?

^Liberty sets out the limitations against Art 10:
"Article 10 is a qualified right and as such the right to freedom of expression may be limited. Article 10 provides that the exercise of this freedom “since it carries with it duties and responsibilities” may be limited as long as the limitation:

is prescribed by law;
is necessary and proportionate; and
pursues a legitimate aim, namely:
the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
the prevention of disorder or crime;
the protection of health or morals;
the protection of the reputation or rights of others;
preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In considering questions of proportionality the potential for a ‘chilling effect’ on expression, the value of the particular form of expression, the medium used for the expression (i.e. newspaper or television) will all be taken into account, along with other considerations.^

So which do you object to? Ideally with examples

Alternatively if you are complaining about the balancing act with Art 8, give a precise example a case where the balance was wrong in your opinion?

With regard to stuff like twitter storms they are ironically (unless they breach criminal law) a form of freedom of speech, albeit crude and distasteful in many situations. What is the alternative? Banning people from expressing their views on twitter? Presumably that is not what you are advocating for.

The USA has had to pass legislation to protect the fifth amendment. please explain this because I cannot find what you are talking about

You talk in generalities when the law need nuance to balance all the competing interests