Yay! A thread I can disagree with Byron on!

Am I utterly opposed to the BNP, and all forms of racism and fascism? Of course. But that means I'm also opposed to curtailing the right of the individual to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

If I oppose a University for throwing out a student for being a member of a far left organization then I have to oppose the expulsion of someone from the far-right. If he is involved in violent attacks then let it be proven in court and dealt with accordingly. If I don't like what he has to say then I have two choices - don't listen, or argue back.

As for educating fascists, I would have thought that was the best thing for them. How better to cure them of such madness?

However loathsome we may find someone else's opinion, we cannot curtail their freedom because we don't like it. That's totalitarianism and a hair's breadth from fascism. I won't let my disdain for his views become intolerance, and thus a hypocrit. I won't allow myself to drop to their level.

There are only two things I hate; those who are intolerant of other people's cultures........and the Dutch.

---

by JayjayYay! A thread I can disagree with Byron on!

---

We must argue Anarchism sometime.

---

Am I utterly opposed to the BNP, and all forms of racism and fascism? Of course. But that means I'm also opposed to curtailing the right of the individual to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

---

“I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it,” are the words used by SG Tallentyre to surmise Voltaire’s philosophy, and he was right. It is essential that we do not try to silence those with whom we disagree. However …

---

If I oppose a University for throwing out a student for being a member of a far left organization then I have to oppose the expulsion of someone from the far-right. If he is involved in violent attacks then let it be proven in court and dealt with accordingly. If I don't like what he has to say then I have two choices - don't listen, or argue back.

---

The BNP’s members have a record of neo-Nazism and violent attacks. Its literature has clearly had the intent of inciting race-hatred. Its stated aim is to deport every black citizen from the country. It wants to criminalize the media from “promoting” homosexuality, and has suggested the majority of gay people are paedophiles. This is the organization is represented by Tony Wentworth at Manchester, an organization which is explicitly racist and homophobic, and has expressed polices of inciting hatred and causing harm to others. He will use the degree he gains there to further his career and standing in the BNP, and the name of the University will be associated with the BNP.
An institution should have the right to decide to what purpose its awards are put to when that purpose can demonstratably be shown to have the intention of causing harm to innocent people. Wentworth should under no circumstances be silenced, nor should the University prevent BNP literature from coming on site, but it should, I think, be allowed to prevent its resources and acclaim being misused for these ends.

---

As for educating fascists, I would have thought that was the best thing for them. How better to cure them of such madness?

---

It failed with Mark Collett, who graduated from Leeds, and the fact he’s leading the Young BNP is a strong indication he’s already long gone. Far more likely the University’s teaching will be misused to give the BNP credibility, in Manchester’s name.

---

[b]However loathsome we may find someone else's opinion, we cannot curtail their freedom because we don't like it. That's totalitarianism and a hair's breadth from fascism. I won't let my disdain for his views become intolerance, and thus a hypocrit. I won't allow myself to drop to their level.

---

Intolerance of the intolerant is something I can live with. It’s why I can support laws which prosecute incitement to violence and racial hatred, and call for laws to extend this to other forms of prejudice. When someone’s opinions can be clearly shown to have the intention of causing harm to innocent people, I think it’s fair for the law to take sufficient steps to protect their intended victims from harm.

This is, of course, a different issue to the one here, but the principal remains the same. An institution should retain a degree of autonomy; it should of course be prevented from discriminating against someone for who they are, or in most cases what they believe, but should, I think, be allowed to remove them if they can clearly be shown to be giving their energies towards an organization with the express intent of harming others.

To be fair to Manchester University, their hands could be tied here, and I seriously doubt the worthless piece of human excrement included “member of the Young BNP” on his Ucas form!

If I cannot say I am master of my own mind, then how can I claim to be free? If I have not the right to fill my mind with racist, homophobic and misogynistic filth then what rights do I have?

If I say 'throw him out', how can I complain when someone else wants me out because they find my views offensive? At the end of the day, what are our issues with this Tony Wentworth? We don't like his views. We consider his views and actions to be an incitement to violence. We suspect he may be involved in violence. The last we have no evidence of, the middle is merely our opinion and unproven, and the first irrelevent.

Let's try a little role reversal. Let's take Tony the Nazi out of the picture and replace him with Jayjay the Anarchist. I am opposed not only to this state, but to all states. I am therefore opposed to democracy. There have been a number of incidents of Anarchists destroying shops and public monuments, they are a menace to society with no respect for law and order. By allowing Jayjay to remain a student we are allowing this hoodlum to use University resources to plot the destruction of the University, of Law, and the nation. We give respectability to his views and those he plots with. We must throw Jayjay out of this institution!

Tell me Byron, will you stand by my side when they come for me?

I cannot accept that it is a crime to hold an opinion or to be a member of a political organization. We must be allowed to think what we want and to associate with who we choose. These are basic human rights. Unless Wentworth is caught commiting a crime, or he fails to complete course work, then the University can have no grounds to expel him.

Do we really want a left-wing big brother? Do we really want the right to control people's opinions? Do we really want 1984? I will do everything I can to oppose the BNP and the sick opinions they espouse, but I'll do it by trying to persuade people why they're wrong. Demonizing only makes moral martyrs out of them.

And yes, we must discuss Anarchism sometime. Been far too many debates recently where we seem to have been parroting each other. Makes a pleasant change.

---

by Byron
Intolerance of the intolerant is something I can live with.

---

But by accepting this you become that what you hate By, kind of a vicious circle really.

I think Jayjay said it best,

---

by Jayjay
If I oppose a University for throwing out a student for being a member of a far left organization then I have to oppose the expulsion of someone from the far-right.

---

In silencing someone's opinion becasue it doesn't agree with what you hold right, surely you become as bad if not worse than them?

---

by Jayjay
If I cannot say I am master of my own mind, then how can I claim to be free? If I have not the right to fill my mind with racist, homophobic and misogynistic filth then what rights do I have?[/b]

---

I would not attempt to deny anyone to fill their mind with anything, however repugnant; it would be untenable to do so, and if I desired it, I may as well change my name to O’Brien right now.

---

If I say 'throw him out', how can I complain when someone else wants me out because they find my views offensive? At the end of the day, what are our issues with this Tony Wentworth? We don't like his views. We consider his views and actions to be an incitement to violence. We suspect he may be involved in violence. The last we have no evidence of, the middle is merely our opinion and unproven, and the first irrelevent.

---

There is ample evidence of the BNP’s history of perpetration of violence and incitement to it. It’s leaders have a high number of convictions for racist violence: it’s literature calls all Muslims terrorists; it has said gays are paedophiles; film from it’s conference, shown on Young, Nazi and Proud, clearly shows its motley collection of wannabe Aryans calling for black people to be chucked out the country, and spreading provable lies about ethnic minorities with the intention of inciting hatred.

It then depends if you believe in guilt by association and membership, which I do.

---

Let's try a little role reversal. Let's take Tony the Nazi out of the picture and replace him with Jayjay the Anarchist. I am opposed not only to this state, but to all states. I am therefore opposed to democracy. There have been a number of incidents of Anarchists destroying shops and public monuments, they are a menace to society with no respect for law and order. By allowing Jayjay to remain a student we are allowing this hoodlum to use University resources to plot the destruction of the University, of Law, and the nation. We give respectability to his views and those he plots with. We must throw Jayjay out of this institution!

---

Ah, but Anarchists, by their very nature, do not belong to a cohesive political party with stated aims and objectives. And even if they did, I have never seen any Anarchist who believes in racial cleansing, only the principal of abolition of government. If JayJay the Anarchist belonged to a party with the clearly stated aim of bombing businesses and murdering MPs, and was thus actively inciting violence, then maybe there would be grounds for removing him from the University. But he doesn’t (or does he? )

If Tony Wentworth believed what he did without being a member of the BNP, then it would be as repugnant as his vile views to remove him from Manchester University. When he can be shown to be actively supporting a party in the proliferation of proven lies with the intention of inciting hatred and violence against a group who have no more similarity than their genetics, and the expressed intent of deporting non-whites from the country, I think it’s different. Is this subjective? Of course it is. Should one rule apply for all? As far as possible, yes. Should there come a point where the harm someone will be causing should allow an institution to choose? Yes, I think there should.

---

Tell me Byron, will you stand by my side when they come for me?

---

If you mean be on the barricades of an Anarchist revolution, not a chance!

---

I cannot accept that it is a crime to hold an opinion or to be a member of a political organization. We must be allowed to think what we want and to associate with who we choose. These are basic human rights. Unless Wentworth is caught commiting a crime, or he fails to complete course work, then the University can have no grounds to expel him.

---

Universities are already, by their very nature, selective. They choose who they’re going to have based on the criteria of merit. This is an extension of that, albeit one into highly contentious territory. I have already said Wentworth must be allowed to believe in his delusions, so we come onto association. Should he be barred from entering Manchester University territory? Provided he isn’t actively inciting violence or causing a nuisance, no, I don’t think he should. Should he be prevented from holding a Manchester University degree? Yes, because of the ends towards which that degree will be put, and the credibility it will give to the Young BNP.

This comes down to whether or not beliefs serve as sufficient criteria to refuse someone a University place. In virtually all cases, they do not. However, when it can be clearly shown that the degree will be used by a party with a policy as extreme and dangerous as the self-stated aims of racial cleansing, I believe the University should be allowed to make up its own mind, nothing more. If they choose to allow Wentworth to remain, then that decision should be respected. However, if they decide to remove his sorry carcass with no more regard than is given to sweeping away dung in the street, then that too should be upheld.

---

Do we really want a left-wing big brother? Do we really want the right to control people's opinions? Do we really want 1984? I will do everything I can to oppose the BNP and the sick opinions they espouse, but I'll do it by trying to persuade people why they're wrong. Demonizing only makes moral martyrs out of them.

---

It’s a difficult line to draw. Does it ever become justifiable to curtail what somebody says, however extreme? Yes, I think on occasion it does. To give the example of John Stuart Mill: “Opposing the Corn Laws is freedom of speech; opposing the Corn Laws before a mob assembled outside a farmer’s house is incitement.” If a BNP member was standing in the Oldham riots and calling for the local Asians to be massacred, should he be stopped by force? Yes, I think he should.

Disproving the BNP’s Nazi lies is a powerful weapon against them, and no one should be prevented from voting for them. (Though I think anyone who does is either stupid, negligent or depraved, no exceptions.) Arresting their members without just cause is also wrong. But allowing a University to choose not to have its name associated with them isn’t. Advertisers can withdraw their product from promoting something of which they disapprove, and this is a similar principal. There should be far stricter criteria required before a University can act in this way, but there should come a point, I believe, where it can do so.

---

[b]And yes, we must discuss Anarchism sometime. Been far too many debates recently where we seem to have been parroting each other. Makes a pleasant change.

---

“We’re not the Judean People’s Front, we’re the People’s Front of Judea!”

---

by MonSTeR
But by accepting this you become that what you hate By, kind of a vicious circle really.

In silencing someone's opinion becasue it doesn't agree with what you hold right, surely you become as bad if not worse than them?

---

I'm not advocating silencing someone's opinion though, just advocating the right of a University to choose not to have its name associated with them.

Does that make me as bad as a Nazi?

Well, I can never get the goosestepping right for one.

Personally I disagree with a lot of Conservatives but does that mean they should be chucked out of college/uni just because I go there? How arrogant to think taht you're belief is the only valid one (not that I'm condoning the B.N.P, far from it, but you get the point)

---

by Jayjay
And yes, we must discuss Anarchism sometime. Been far too many debates recently where we seem to have been parroting each other. Makes a pleasant change.

---

Well I have just set up a thread...

---

by Havoc
Personally I disagree with a lot of Conservatives but does that mean they should be chucked out of college/uni just because I go there? How arrogant to think taht you're belief is the only valid one (not that I'm condoning the B.N.P, far from it, but you get the point)

---

Ah, but where have I said that? Believing that those who didn't believe as I do should be penalized wouldn't be arrogant, it would be tyrannical. But I have not said that; it would be a disgrace if all the Tories were chucked out of a University. Hell, it would even be a disgrace if the members of a party that believed in voluntary repatriation and the illegality of homosexuality were removed. But believing there should be restraints placed on those who actively seek to harm others against their will is very different. Virtually all of us believe in this – imprisoning murderers, for example. It comes down to where you draw the line with this principal.

When the party can be actively shown to be inciting hatred and violence, it transcends belief. A society has a right to protect itself, and its minorities, from those who actively seek to do them harm. The BNP, clever in its wording, has not explicitly stated its Nazism, belief in involuntary eugenics and support for ethnic cleansing. While it does not do so, there can be no grounds for banning it. However, it is in an interim stage where it can be shown to be actively inciting hatred of minorities, and spreading lies for this purpose. This is why, while I have no desire for it to be banned at present, I do believe Manchester should be allowed not to associate its name with the Nazi BNP.

This actually has more to do with the extent of an institution's right to autonomy than it does with silencing the individual in question, because no one has yet suggested that, least of all me.

---

by Byron

I'm not advocating silencing someone's opinion though, just advocating the right of a University to choose not to have its name associated with them.

---

My mistake I was inferring more than you were implying

I'd just like to state for the record, that as a student at Manchester Uni I find the beliefs and actions of the BNP repulsive. There are rules in place, in the union at least, that no member should ever discriminate against any other on any basis (vague but you get the point). There have also been rules made or motions passed that bans any racist group from promoting themselves or placing their opinion across in the student paper 'Student Direct' and with these rules I agree completely. I also know first hand some very dedicated, brave students who actively campaign against the BNP right on their own doorstep in more volatile areas such as Burnley and Oldham, risking bricks, sticks and stones to discredit the BNP and show them up for the racist thugs that they are (and believe me they are - the leader of the BNP in one of these towns was a twice convicted rapist and when the student Anti-Nazi league put up posters to inform everyone of this, they were chased by an angry racist mob)

I think the trouble with banning someone from the uni (the union is a different story) for advocating facist beliefs is where to draw the line. You could end up with a witch hunt scenario, 'he's a facist - he doesn't like asylum seekers' and so on and so forth. I have to agree with the freedom of speech issues here also, if this student is breaking the law, then it is for the law to deal with him, and if that contravenes University rules, then by all means expell him. Imagine the fuel it would give to the BNP to show how their members can't go to University. To be honest Byron, I think banning the guy would do far more harm than good.

---

by Byron
It then depends if you believe in guilt by association and membership, which I do.

---

If this is the case then
All muslims are terrorists
All americans are gun-toting murders
All priests are Paedophiles
etc...

Everyone has the basic right to an education. If we start by denying one person purely on what they 'might' do with the education then this becomes discrimination in itself.

---

by Vinnie
(quotes)

If this is the case then
All muslims are terrorists
All americans are gun-toting murders
All priests are Paedophiles
etc...

Everyone has the basic right to an education. If we start by denying one person purely on what they 'might' do with the education then this becomes discrimination in itself.

---

Unless Islam includes mass murder in its tenets, the US Contitution has been likewise altered, and the 39 Articles of Anglicism now stipulate paedophillia as compulsory, your comparion is an entirely specious one. Tony Wentworth has signed up to an organisation that explicitally states it wants to ethnically clenze the United Kingdom for white people, he isn't a member of a belief or organisation who's name has been co-opted by others for their own ends.

Everyone has the basic right to an education, and Wentworth has had that: he must have been educated up to A-level standard to get into Manchester in the first place. Higher education gives many additional advantages, but is also far more costly, and I don't think that cost should be squandered on someone who has, through his membership of a Nazi party, explicitally said he wants a white-only nation, and is willing to spread lies and disninformation, and incite violence, to achieve those aims.

Killer: a very interesting reply, and I'm both heartened and unsurprised that the Manc students are giving the BNP very short shrift. And you may of course be right about it doing more harm than good; the reason I've drawn the opposite conclusion is because of the way the BNP manipulated Mark "Winston Churchill was a ******* ****" Collett's attendance at Leeds University. You're very right to guard against witchhunts, which this could of course become; it all boils down to how it's handled, and no one would deplore a McCarthyist black list more than me. However, if criteria were rigidly defined about the sort of direct incitement to violence and hatred required, I think the risk could be drastically reduced.

Ok, I read the first few posts of this thread but, to be honest, I can't be arsed with the rest of it as it's too ******* long. I'd just like to say that I think it would be dreadful to deny anyone an education just because of their political views. If he personally does anything to harm the university or its students, then it would be fair, but as it is this sounds similar to the situation I've read about in 1950s USA when people who had done nothing wrong were persecuted for being communists. People are entitled to their views, surely?

(Edited by Staff 19/11/2002 13:54)

---

by Byron

Unless Islam includes mass murder in its tenets, the US Contitution has been likewise altered, and the 39 Articles of Anglicism now stipulate paedophillia as compulsory, your comparion is an entirely specious one. Tony Wentworth has signed up to an organisation that explicitally states it wants to ethnically clenze the United Kingdom for white people, he isn't a member of a belief or organisation who's name has been co-opted by others for their own ends.

---

I agree with you here By. Guilt by association is fine within limits. If you join a terrorist organisation, that pretty much makes you a terrorist in my view, whether or not you personally have ever bombed anything. But being a member of a group of people who've decided to do something in the name of somehing else is quite different.

---

by Byron

Everyone has the basic right to an education, and Wentworth has had that: he must have been educated up to A-level standard to get into Manchester in the first place. Higher education gives many additional advantages, but is also far more costly, and I don't think that cost should be squandered on someone who has, through his membership of a Nazi party, explicitally said he wants a white-only nation, and is willing to spread lies and disninformation, and incite violence, to achieve those aims.

---

But here I disagree. Whether it's your intention to do so or not, what you're saying here advocates withholding a man's right to education based on the fact that his political/societal ideals are different from those you hold and/or believe to be "right".

---

by Lori
Ok, I read the first few posts of this thread but, to be honest, I can't be arsed with the rest of it as it's too ******* long. I'd just like to say that I think it would be dreadful to deny anyone an education just because of their political views. If he personally does anything to harm the university or its students, then it would be fair, but as it is this sounds similar to the situation I've read about in 1950s USA when people who had done nothing wrong were persecuted for being communists. People are entitled to their views, surely?

---

The comparison with the McCarthy era is certainly a valid one, but I do believe there are some distinct differences. The USA's witchhunts targeted all communists, not people from a specific organization. It was also government orchestrated on a national level, not a matter of a single institution making its own decision about a single individual.

Being a member of a Nazi Party, as Tony Wentworth is, is more than a view, its a dedication to a creed with the aim of eradicating a large proportion of the population off the planet. Society has the right to protect itself from madmen like him, and institutions should have the right to ensure their plaudits are not used to further their cause.

Is it discrimination? Certainly. Is it a discrimination I can live with? Yes.

---

by Byron

Is it discrimination? Certainly. Is it a discrimination I can live with? Yes.

---

Some really are more equal than others!

---

by MonSTeR
[b]But here I disagree. Whether it's your intention to do so or not, what you're saying here advocates withholding a man's right to education based on the fact that his political/societal ideals are different from those you hold and/or believe to be "right".

---

You know, in a sense, you're right. But to an extent, some ideals have to be imposed on others: it could be argued prohibiting all murder infringes someone's right to justifiable vengeance, but we do so because it's the only tenable solution.

This follows along a similar vein - I don't want him chucked out of Manchester Uni because he believes differently from me, I want him chucked because he thinks it's his right to persecute innocent people against their will for no more crime than being who they are, and he would further this cause with the credibility a Manchester Degree would bestow. What I'm proposing for him is not even a fraction of what he proposes for others; I don’t believe in unlimited tolerance where the lives of innocent people are at stake, because it defeats the entire purpose at the heart of toleration. For a society to protect its minorities, inevitably, for their protection, it has to be intolerant of certain fanatical minorities who seek to do their fellow citizens harm.

There comes a point where the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the one, and I think this is one of those circumstances.

"Some really are more equal than others"? Yes. An innocent man is more equal than a murderer, and I apply the same to Nazis.

(Edited by Byron 19/11/2002 14:20)

---

by Byron
"Some really are more equal than others"? Yes. An innocent man is more equal than a murderer.

---

Though I have some issues with your extrapolations from this tenet, I have to admit I find that the above is hard to argue against.

Intellectually I think I could do it, but emotionally, I think there's an intrinsic right/wrong thing going on that stops me.

Starting to feel a little hypocritical here

(Edited by MonSTeR 19/11/2002 14:47)