O/T When did the right wingers....

[KerrAvon]

People like Kerr seem to think its ok to hold racist views even though he would say he is not a racist himself because in some warped way racists have a right to be racists because that is democracy. If you want to hate groups of people that is your right sort of mentality.Not very democratic though for the minority groups who have to put up with it though is it?

I don't think it is up to you, me or anyone else to dictate how people should think, Roly. That way lays people being ‘disappeared’ in the middle of the night for holding dissident views.

I can see that you are a big fan of labels, in which case you could call me a realist or a libertarian (I appreciate that there are other labels that you would probably prefer to apply to me), in that I recognise that people can and will hold a range of views, many of which I would vehemently disagree with, but which they are perfectly entitled to hold. I also think that people are entitled to express their views, whether I agree with them or not, provided that they remain within the limits of the law. Nobody has the right not to be offended in a liberal democracy such as the one that we are fortunate to live in.

Of course you have the absolute right to oppose and argue with any views that others express. I believe in the market place of ideas in which debate and discussion are the best way to try to get at the truth. All very unfashionable, I know. It must be so much easier just to shout racist or any other form or ‘ist’ or ‘phobe’ than to argue a point. Reverting to name calling or simply trying to stop people expressing views that you don’t agree with isn’t the answer though. As I pointed out last week, gf is a bigot, but so are you in your own way.

[KerrAvon]

I'm delighted fire that you made a contribution to one of the Labour Party's greatest achievements , yes I am aware the tories have a misguided claim to be the architect's but it was Labour who built it .

It was the Liberals who established the welfare state in 1911 - 13 years before the first Labour government. David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill were the people who drove the National insurance Act 1911 through Parliament. It was then William Beveridge, a Liberal, who was the architect of its further development in his report that was prepared at the direction of the National Government during World War 2

[mikemiller]

So if you were a non-white patient would you be happy having a hard-core racist as your doctor, or even as an administrator involved in your case? Thankfully that's not how the NHS usually works, although, from what we have been told (if true) a few scumbags slip through the net. Far too abstract KerrAvon and not addressing the realities of the situation.

[rolymiller]

Think you make some very reasonable points there Kerr to be fair. I agree that you cannot force people into accepting your beliefs because that is where totalitarianism lies. I also believe that people are socialised differently so will have different views. It certainly wouldn't be much fun if everyone had the same view point. The only comment I would make is that certain matters border on being offensive or totally unfair. Now this is ok if you can address these matters through law but law as I'm sure you know us a subjective thing people who lack power cannot change the law in their favour compared with more powerful people. What I am trying to say in terms of the law is that I believe racism is not taken as seriously as it should be by the law because powerful people who make laws are not interested in serving minority groups they are for instance more interested in curving union power to protect the wealth of the rich and powerful.

[rolymiller]

I know you will say we all make laws through the ballot box and parliamentary democracy but is this truly democratic? What about press bias ? What about big business backing one party rather than another? If we had a truly democratic society we wouldn't have the problems we have with equality I believe. Yes parliamentary democracy is better than totalitarianism but to have a truly progressive society we need something much better something that genuinely represents everyone fairly.

[great_fire]

Of course you have the absolute right to oppose and argue with any views that others express. I believe in the market place of ideas in which debate and discussion are the best way to try to get at the truth. All very unfashionable, I know. It must be so much easier just to shout racist or any other form or ‘ist’ or ‘phobe’ than to argue a point. Reverting to name calling or simply trying to stop people expressing views that you don’t agree with isn’t the answer though. As I pointed out last week, gf is a bigot, but so are you in your own way.

And you still won't admit to saying that the grooming gangs in Rotherham were an invention of the BNP.

And more importantly, whether you actually believed that at the time or were, like the council, trying to cover it up to preserve "community cohesion".

[KerrAvon]

So if you were a non-white patient would you be happy having a hard-core racist as your doctor, or even as an administrator involved in your case? Thankfully that's not how the NHS usually works, although, from what we have been told (if true) a few scumbags slip through the net. Far too abstract KerrAvon and not addressing the realities of the situation.

The reality of the situation is that people hold a range of views, mike. How do you propose to change that? As Roly acknowledges history is littered with examples of people being sent for 'political ee-education' or 'final solutions' for holding dissident views.

If I were a non - white patient being treated by a hard core 'racist' then I would be totally oblivious of his ot her views unless he or she chose to express them. At that point, it would become a question of whether his or behavior in expressing those views was inconsistent with his or her continued employment. That doctor is entitled to hold those views, however.

One of the issues is that words like 'racist' are over used and poorly defined. In my opinion, the country might be a more settled place if we could have a reasoned political debate about immigration, but we can't, in part because people fear being shouted down as being 'racist' forc expressing what might be well reasoned views.

On a less abstract point, gf makes a point about the Rotherham CSE scandal. Neither report into it suggests that it was covered up in the way that he suggests, but both confirm that there was a fear about mentioning the ethnicity of the majority of perpetrators. Surely you can accept that didn't help to address the issue and to protect children?

[KerrAvon]

Think you make some very reasonable points there Kerr to be fair. I agree that you cannot force people into accepting your beliefs because that is where totalitarianism lies. I also believe that people are socialised differently so will have different views. It certainly wouldn't be much fun if everyone had the same view point. The only comment I would make is that certain matters border on being offensive or totally unfair. Now this is ok if you can address these matters through law but law as I'm sure you know us a subjective thing people who lack power cannot change the law in their favour compared with more powerful people. What I am trying to say in terms of the law is that I believe racism is not taken as seriously as it should be by the law because powerful people who make laws are not interested in serving minority groups they are for instance more interested in curving union power to protect the wealth of the rich and powerful.

What additional laws do you want to address 'racism: and which Trade Union laws do you want to repeal?

[KerrAvon]

I know you will say we all make laws through the ballot box and parliamentary democracy but is this truly democratic? What about press bias ? What about big business backing one party rather than another? If we had a truly democratic society we wouldn't have the problems we have with equality I believe. Yes parliamentary democracy is better than totalitarianism but to have a truly progressive society we need something much better something that genuinely represents everyone fairly.

Churchill once said something along the lines that Democracy was imperfect, but was better than every other system of government. I don't have time to look it up, but it's worth it as he said it much better than me.

We have a free press. Long may it continue. The enthusiasm of people on the Left at the moment to complain about bias in the MSM, whilst repeatedly linking to The Guardian suggests that what they are really upset about is the MSM not agreeing with them.

If you are upset about business backing one party, how do you feel about the TUs bank rolling Labour? McCluskey and The Great Leader are becoming a double act to rival Little and Large.

[KerrAvon]

And you still won't admit to saying that the grooming gangs in Rotherham were an invention of the BNP.

And more importantly, whether you actually believed that at the time or were, like the council, trying to cover it up to preserve "community cohesion".

I didn't say it and so I won't admit it.

Do you agree that the BNP tried to use the tragedy for political ends?