Pretty sure the outrage is entirely your own, but nice of you to pick and run such a particularly dishonest journalistic trope.

Why do you think it is dishonest?

So much for diversity of opinion in the leading university in Britain. Nice to see the Left continuing their usual Stalinist approach to people with political views that diverge from their own. Let me suggest if you don’t like an opinion, the best thing to do, especially in a place of learning like Oxford, is to engage their ideas.

Not to heap bundles of wood for a bonfire for the heretics.

Good on Exeter.

Oxford has hosted many controversial speakers including mass murderers like Henry Kissinger and religious nut jobs like mother theresa – why are the latest group of god bothering simpletons such a problem?

Freedom of speech means just that – I’m glad the toffs at Oxford are sticking to their guns.

Yep, university should be about unfettered exploration of various views and ideas, no matter how offensive they may be. Its a case of regulated speech and thought, and that should be more offensive to people who attend universities than the lame homophobic ideas of christian concern. Protest against their ideas, but dont seek to use university authorities to limit speech.

Incidentally, this isn’t a case of ‘Oxford University’ hosting a conference. It’s a case of Exeter College hosting a conference. The colleges are pretty autonomous in this regard, and I’d be very surprised if there were any question of the University having been asked for, or having given permission or authority for this.

#4 Let’s be honest, this isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about making money. They’re having a conference, not speaking in a debate.

Now I accept colleges need to raise money, but if they find alumni are so incensed by the way they choose to do it that they return degrees, they’re certainly not going to give them money, and a large percentage of the money colleges receive comes from alumni.

“Why do you think it is dishonest?”

Point me to a few genuine occurrences of outrage, if you like. Outrage suggests a wide, strong reaction to an event, not someone on a blog getting annoyed. Sunny’s entitled to his views, they’re not illegitimate, but he’s not entitled to invent a popular reaction which simply isn’t there. He’s reporting something which doesn’t exist in order to big his views up.

There’s why it’s dishonest. It’s a staple of the tabloids, for what it’s worth.

Servant hearted? Does this mean accepting your life as a serf or something? Workfare must be right popular with them folks.

“Michael Amherst contacted Liberal Conspiracy earlier in the week to express his concern that the College was ignoring students.”

This sounds a lot better when you realise it actually means “…the college was ignoring the zealots who want all views they disagree with silenced”

What does the L in LC stand for again?

@ 7 timf

“Let’s be honest, this isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about making money. ”

False dichotomy. Exeter is trying to make money, Sunny and his mates are trying to repress freedom of speech. And even people who turn a profit are entitled to freedom of expression.

SMFS,

It’s a bit difficult to “engage their ideas”, since it’s a private conference, not a public debate.

If Exeter alumni object to the types of event their college is hiring itself out for, it’s hardly ‘Stalinist’ for them to voice their perfectly legitimate concerns.

Still, nice to see you offering your full support to bigots and theocrats, merely because it annoys ‘the left’. What a very grown-up position to adopt.

#4 Let’s be honest, this isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about making money. They’re having a conference, not speaking in a debate.

Doesn’t “having a conference” involve speaking?

(Not to mention things like ‘freedom of association’ and ‘freedom of assembly’.)

Yeah shut down and exclude views that we don’t like. That’s liberal.

On Wednesday, graduate Michael Amherst kicked off a firestorm by returning back his graduate degree over the “total lack of contrition” shown by the College over the incident.

Degrees are awarded by the University, not the College, so that’s a spectacularly roundabout way to make your point. Plus, what is a ‘graduate degree’? Your standard 2:1 etc is an undergraduate degree; your DPhils and MPhils are post-graduate degrees.

Also, ‘returning back’? Can’t we at least try for some basic literacy in a piece about Oxford?*

*I will now make at least one typo/grammatical howler in this thread. It’s Muphry’s Law.

They’re a bunch of bell-ends but the correct response to views you disagree with is to exercise your own right to free speech by mounting a protest and riding the publicity, not to throw a hissy-fit and censoring them. And I doubt we’d be getting so much ‘outrage’ if these were other, equally homophobic, but non-Christian speakers.

Your right to be offended, sincere or otherwise, should not trump either free speech or the right to free assembly.

[7] the format is secondary (conference/debate/workshops, etc) the guiding principle is one of freedom of expression which entails choice of speaker, content of session and so on.

You are accusing the organisers of financial cynicism, unfortunately the OP does not give any background to the thinking of the Exeter bods – perhaps they just wanted to illustrate how toxic elements can pervade all religion?

Let’s not just laugh this off as Sunny playing games, because this kind of drip drip propaganda can be very effective in changing the parameters within which debate can take place.

It is already impossible to legitimately express a racist viewpoint- such uttrance is effectively banned and this kind of article is an attempt to shut down the expression of a view that says that homosexuality is a treatable disorder. As we have found with racism, stupid opinions are not challenged by attempting to deny them a forum in which they can be expressed.

Next we will have attempts to have misogynistic and disablist views outlawed and finally any view that conflicts with the progressive, liberal consensus because, once the principle of suppressing free speech has been established, that door is ajar.

@ 12 Larry

“If Exeter alumni object to the types of event their college is hiring itself out for, it’s hardly ‘Stalinist’ for them to voice their perfectly legitimate concerns.”

I’m not going to call it Stalinist, but their demands are authoritarian. You’re mixing up the voicing of opinion (which they are entitled to do) with the opinion itself (which in this case is authoritarian).

Before restricting any activity you don’t like you should ask yourself two questions:

(1) Is banning this activity proportional to the dangers of permitting it?

(2) Is banning this activity setting a precident which will come back and bite me in the arse?

Even religious wackjobs are starting to recognise that their campaigns against hate speech are now being used against them. When you are less liberal than Inyat Bunglawala you really need to stap back and take a look at yourself.

Pagar, everything which is going on here should be totally acceptable to a libertarian* principles.

Exter college is a private body. Christian Concern is a private body. They have come to a private arrangement in which the one hires out premises to the other, as they have every right to do.

However, some individuals affiliated to Exeter are displeased, and are exerting their influence to alter the terms of the arrangement. As they have every right to do.

Another private individual (Sunny) with a website (LC) and sympathy for those individuals’ cause, is expressing support. As he has every right to do.

You cannot believe that any of this amounts to anyone “effectively bann[ing]” anything, without conceding the heart and soul of libertarianism, which is that it is the state which bans things, and if only it would leave people alone to organise to their own private arrangements, then everything would be wonderful, and unicorns would poop rainbows.

*Except where libertarian stands for ‘generic right-wing gobshite’, i.e. almost always.

@ 18 pagar

“It is already impossible to legitimately express a racist viewpoint”

Only in that most people consider these views to be wrong. I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimately” here, but it’s totally possible to express racist viewpoints.

“Next we will have attempts to have misogynistic and disablist views outlawed”

AFAIK racist and homophobic statements are not illegal beyond incitement to violence (which is illegal in its own right), although they can get you into hot water.

Chaise, students and alumni of Exeter have a perfectly legitimate interest in for what purpose and by whom their college grounds are used.

Their expressing their views to the college bosses is not ‘authoritarian’ any more than I am being ‘authoritarian’ in failing to invite the BNP member who lives down the road into my house for tea.

If any third party was to prevent me (or Exeter) from doing so, that would be authoritarian, no question. That’s not what’s happening.

*Groan* We’re not going to have to patiently explain the difference between platforms and free speech again are we? It gets very tiresome.

@ 23 Larry

“Their expressing their views to the college bosses is not ‘authoritarian’ any more than I am being ‘authoritarian’ in failing to invite the BNP member who lives down the road into my house for tea.”

You’ve completely ignored what I said. Expressing views =/= the views themselves. The former is not authoritarian. The latter, in this case, is. The fact that people are free to say what they think doesn’t save their thoughts from being objectionable.

@ Larry

everything which is going on here should be totally acceptable to a libertarian* principles.

Of course you are absolutely correct, however I am still entitled to express my view as well.

The problem lies in the coercion attempted by the former student to persuade the college to change its policy. That is illiberal. Also, the end game of the kind of article Sunny wrote, and the kind of climate such articles create, is to have homophobic views proscribed by statute law.

@ Chaise

I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimately” here, but it’s totally possible to express racist viewpoints.

If you want to be arrested…….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093789/Phil-Gannon-Liverpool-fan-monkey-gesture-Facebook-supporter-Luis-Suarez.html

[23] “expressing their views to the college bosses is not ‘authoritarian’ – indeed, they are free to object/complain, or even return their degree, whatever that means (since I assume the qualification will still be cited when applying for jobs or further study, but I digress).

Presumably objections to the christian brothers, or whatever they are called, is based on the fact that their outlook/beliefs do not comply sufficiently with a proscribed view of the world?
In short I assume there is a list of approved opinions and failure to adopt them will almost invariably provoke ‘outrage’ or at least some degree offense amongst those who are less robust in dealing with life’s occasional disappointments?

When, or how did we become so exquisitely offense prone?

@27 When we stopped holding complacency and apathy as virtues.

[28] “When we stopped holding complacency and apathy as virtues” – do you mean the censor’s work is never finished until everybody has seen the light?

Censor eh? That’d be a resounding ‘yes’ to my question up at 24 then.
Answer me this, if Exeter decides to side with it’s allumni and tells said group to piss off elsewhere, in what way are they censored? Are you claiming that without Exeter they won’t ever be able to express their views? Not even on the Internet? The street? Pubs? A hotel function room?

Presumably, having returned his degree, Mr Amerhurst is no longer an alumnus of Exeter College anyway, so his view has less purchase there?

I understand the concern here (and I am seriously surprised about the lack of what-aboutry in the thread below) but to be honest, if a convention of evil Satanists who wish to take over the world and ban everything anyone likes, and discriminate against everyone not called Fred, should happen to want to book a conference somewhere, surely that is purely a financial decision. Hosting a conference implies no support for the cause…

Incidentally, if you are Satanist called Fred, I may have an interesting opportunity for you…

[30] “in what way are they censored” – in the sense that there is an attempt to prohibit views that deviate from those deemed acceptable on the list.

The idea this is to do with protecting free speech is laughable. Christian Concern ate welcome to host their bigotry somewhere else.

If I hosted an article by the BNP or by some Davud Duke character the same people defending this would be having kittens in outrage that I gave them a platform. So enough if your faux concern for liberty please. That is not being threatened here.

@pagar #18:

this kind of article is an attempt to shut down the expression of a view that says that homosexuality is a treatable disorder

Could we discuss the firestorm that would be ignited by any claim that religiosity in general, and adherence to Christianity in particular, is a treatable disorder?

Sunny,

If I hosted an article by the BNP or by some Davud Duke character the same people defending this would be having kittens in outrage that I gave them a platform. So enough if your faux concern for liberty please. That is not being threatened here.

Actually if you hosted that article, we’d probably be praising you for free speech (well, actually you’d have every commentator (just about) piling in on criticisms of the poor arguments etc, but we would think that). That is of course on the assumption you were hosting it for debate or as a right of reply – if you were hosting it because you’d changed allegiance I think I’d be too busy hunting flying pigs to comment.

But liberty is threatened every time someone takes away a bit, however small, because it may not be won back. And liberty is a common good, so one person losing a bit may mean we all lose it. To try and stop an organisation, however repugnant, using a facility might mean that you set a precedent where only ‘acceptable’ organisations can use that facility. And if acceptable changes to include say racism (which it has in the past) this could come back to bite you – the loss of liberty is perhaps permanent, whilst those who suffer from it may change.

@ 24 Cylux

“*Groan* We’re not going to have to patiently explain the difference between platforms and free speech again are we? It gets very tiresome.”

It’s not that we don’t get the difference, it’s that we disagree with you about what consititutes an attack on freedom of expression. Pretending that anyone who disagrees with you is just too stupid to understand the argument is ALSO very tiresome.

@ 33 Sunny

“If I hosted an article by the BNP or by some Davud Duke character the same people defending this would be having kittens in outrage that I gave them a platform”

Um, the people defending this are people who don’t believe in a no-platform policy, so this is quite evidently false. Could you explain why you think that I and others would have a different view on freedom to express racist views than we do on freedom to express homophobic views? It seems a pretty strange claim.

@ 33

Oh, and it’s hardly painful to be accused of a “faux concern for liberalism” by a supporter of illiberal policy. Pot calling the washing machine black.

@ 26 pagar

“If you want to be arrested…….”

Hmm. What was he charged with?

(BTW, I love it when the Mail can’t accept comments for “legal reasons”. There’s a certain pattern to the stories that shows up on…)

@32 So, refusing to provide a platform to views, or objecting to said platform being provided is now censorship eh? Wonder when the BBC will be green lighting my new piss-poor mini-series then. Remember, if you object you’re a censor.

Let’s be clear- Christian Concern is a legitimate organisation. They campaign around a number of issues from what might be described as conservative (small c) Christian perspective. They do so openly, honestly and within the processes of democratic engagement. Sunny Hundal finds their views distasteful.

I don’t think that any organisation or individual has the right to a specific platform or venue, although I think it would be naive to conceptualise censorship as something that happens purely by fiat and to ignore private organisations and companies as agents of suppression of unpopular views. I also have no objection to members organisations boycotting certain speakers or organisations by refusing to host them, in order to express their distaste at their views or actions- particularly when they’re involved in public policy- or to express solidarity with certain groups, so long as they’re open about why they’re doing so.

However that’s not what’s happening here. Like Pagar, I think that Sunny’s doing something much more underhand, which is attempting to manipulate the boundaries of acceptable debate in order to place Christian Concern outside it like the far right, thus delegitimising them. He does this by suggesting that it’s somehow illegitimate for Exeter College to host their conference, and imputing a general outrage at this decision without presenting any evidence that this “outrage” extends beyond himself and his informant.

The innuendo about their political activities also falls into the same category. What they’re doing is quite openly campaigning and lobbying for particular policies, encouraging their members and supporters to actively engage in the political process, and cooperating with like minded politicians to achieve their goals. This is something that many organisations, across the political spectrum, do but in their case it’s portrayed as intrinsically sinister, when there’s no evidence they’re leveraging undue influence or acting outside normal democratic processes.

I’m someone who’s relatively socially conservative, but is more active in left-wing political causes and I can say from experience that Sunny would do well to remember that those who live by this particular sword can also die by it (see for example Harry’s Place).

Cylux,

So, refusing to provide a platform to views, or objecting to said platform being provided is now censorship eh? Wonder when the BBC will be green lighting my new piss-poor mini-series then. Remember, if you object you’re a censor.

Try and get a grip on rational argument please? Refusing to provide a platform is not censorship (it’s your personal choice) – trying to get others to refuse a platform is clearly censorship, as you are trying to force others to block out views you don’t like. It might be right in your view, but it is still censorship (which is not actually an evil thing – it is the use of censorship that can be evil).

As to the BBC analogy, the BBC always censors (as do all TV channels) on grounds of perceived quality and audience (numbers and appreciation). Because it has to make choices about how to fill all available slots and how to spend its money. If Exeter College had had two bookings, one for this bunch of Christian nutters and one for the Nice Christians who Stroke Kittens (actually that sounds quite sinister…) for the same time, they would have had to make a decision of the same sort (and hopefully gone for the kitten strokers), but this was clearly not that sort of decision (or my hypothetical Fred-favouring Satanists above lost out…).

Mind you, if you have a piss-poor miniseries, BBC3 probably has a slot. There has been plenty of those on there so far (and, to be fair, some good ones as well).

@ 40 Cylux

Wot Watchman said. If your piss-poor mini-series gets the green light, but then is taken off the airwaves due to pressure from interest groups who object to it portraying jam sandwiches in a poor light (or whatever), that’s censorship. It’s not arrest-dissenters censorship or Chinese-internet-policy censorship, but it’s still a successful attempt to get a dislike view removed from the public eye.

Likewise, if Sunny decides not to run an article, that’s fine. If you or I decry an article he writes, that’s also fine. If you and I put pressure on him to remove an article because of its clear pro-jam-sandwich agenda, that be censorship.

[40] “So, refusing to provide a platform to views, or objecting to said platform being provided is now censorship eh? Wonder when the BBC will be green lighting my new piss-poor mini-series then” – this analogy doesn’t quite work since you are perfectly free to submit your magnum opus whenever it suits you.

Of course it might be different if, for some reason, you were to be prevented from submitting your work, or if the mini-series was made but not broadcast due to the fact your ideas do not fit in with a proscribed world view.

If we take a look at the sort of stuff that censors have tried to ban, it is usually the censor rather than the artist who ends up looking foolish.

By “hosted” you mean “rented space” as opposed to sponsored.

I can’t believe they were so desperate for business.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to equivalent UCL, SOAS etc. exposés when their ISOC’s host one of the usual “kill the gays” hatemongers.

we’d probably be praising you for free speech

Err no you wouldn’t.

Could you explain why you think that I and others would have a different view on freedom to express racist views than we do on freedom to express homophobic views? It seems a pretty strange claim.

That is not the claim – the claim is that these people are not being “denied their freedom of speech” – that would happen if we wanted them banned from every place in the country.

It really annoys the hell out of me when people misunderstand the concept of free speech and no platform and then write wanky statements like “what does L in LC stand for again?”.

, I think that Sunny’s doing something much more underhand, which is attempting to manipulate the boundaries of acceptable debate in order to place Christian Concern outside it like the far right, thus delegitimising them.

That is *exactly* what I’m doing and I have no problems admitting it. Organisations such as these have the right to exist in democratic society but that doesn’t mean sensible people should associate with them.

I see homophobes like that no different to the KKK or the BNP. They also claimed not to be racist. If people want to associate with them I’d also be pretty annoyed.

I notice the film focusses on abortion – Sunny supports termination at 39 weeks, and there are medical ethicists who are now suggesting that the newborn can also be killed (on the basis that it has not attained personhood)
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract

Some became very upset about calls for infanticide, or whatever the politically correct word is for such actions, even going so far as to threaten those who would entertain such thoughts.

Perhaps if nobody says anything that is remotely controversial ever again then one or two of these niggly problems (like understanding what god REALLY wants) might just go away?

Anyway, I’m looking forward to equivalent UCL, SOAS etc. exposés when their ISOC’s host one of the usual “kill the gays” hatemongers.

I’m looking forward to you treating Muslim and Christian homophobes with equal outrage too.

Sunny,

I would praise you – I know my mind better than you do thanks.

I would also suggest that it is an odd definition of liberalism that seeks to limit freedoms – the substantive point of my reply to you being that limiting the freedom of one limits the freedom of all – but if you wish to self-define yourself as such, good luck.

Me – I think we’d all be better off if we stopped creating little bubbles for these idiots in which they can shout without being shouted down and actually argued with them. It’s not likely they are going to win is it?

That is not the claim – the claim is that these people are not being “denied their freedom of speech” – that would happen if we wanted them banned from every place in the country.

“You’re free to protest elsewhere” was an argument used in court against the Occupy St Paul’s lot.

@ Sunny

Like I said to Cylux, there’s a difference between not understanding free speech and no platform, and having a different view to you about how these ideas interact. If your strongest argument is just ”people who disagree are too stupid to understand! Nyah!”, it suggests you haven’t actually thought it through.

You’re trying to minimise the audibility of people you disagree with. That’s not the action of someone who wants an honest debate.

Isn’t it sweet how those keyboard libertarians get their knickers in a twist because a website expresses criticism of a view?

Isn’t Sunny or LC allowed to express his view against homophobia? How does your “libertarianism” work? One way only?

To be fair to Sunny, I don’t think in the article he backs the call for Exeter College to prevent CC having the conference; he is just reporting that someone else is protesting (although he may well actually agree).

On the issue of freedom of expression, the college have the freedom to let these people have a conference if they want to. If we’re demanding that they shouldn’t be allowed to provide the venue, then that probably would be a limit on the freedom of trade of Exeter College. If they decide not to host it then it’s up to them.

Of course it gets difficult when public funds are involved, but then public funds are everywhere, so if we started getting moral strings attached to that then we’d end up with funding being given to groups that adhere to the state line on every issue.

@ Claude

“Isn’t it sweet how those keyboard libertarians get their knickers in a twist because a website expresses criticism of a view?”

I think it’s sweet that you apparently think anyone who disagrees with no-platform policies is a libertarian. There are more than two political standpoints you know.

“Isn’t Sunny or LC allowed to express his view against homophobia? How does your “libertarianism” work? One way only?”

Yeah, people who believe that every view has a right to be heard are definitely going to be against someone expressing their view!! Nice one!!!!!11

It’s really quite simple.

Group A and Group B are associated.
Group B then associates with Group C.
Group A does not want to be associated with Group C, even by proxy, so breaks ties with Group B.
Group A also feels others (group D) who associate with Group B may not wish to be associated with Group C, so makes public their break in ties.
Group E assists Group B make it public.
Group B is left to decide if it wishes to continue to be associated with Group C at the possible cost of not being associated with group D.

That’s it.

@ 3 – Let’s be clear this isn’t the college hosting a symposium it’s renting out space – I suspect that the students aren’t invited at all. The whole ‘universities are about ideas’ line falls foul in this case the college is simply trying to make money.

@8 – A single person can express outrage. What you choose to redefine outrage as has little bearing.

@18 – ‘legitimately express a racist viewpoint’ I’m not quite sure what you’re saying but you might want to work on your phrasing.

@31 – Alumnus means graduate or former student – so he still would be one.

@35 – Freedom To and Freedom From are always going to conflict at some point. If we desire maximal liberty we have to accept we’re not going to have all of both. Just Freedom To is Anarchy, not Liberty.

@41 – Christian Concern are closely linked with the Christian Legal Centre and both have been criticized for making misleading claims with no evidence to support them. I’m not quite sure how you’re defining legitimate organisation. Their honesty is certainly in question.

@47 – There is a difference between suggesting something is good and suggesting that an argument can be formed to say something is good (or bad).

@48 – But this conference is exactly one of those little bubbles.

Didn’t mention the C word once.

trying to get others to refuse a platform is clearly censorship, as you are trying to force others to block out views you don’t like.

Well, no it really isn’t. For a start you trip yourself up with

Mind you, if you have a piss-poor miniseries, BBC3 probably has a slot.

you see that is a candid admission that other platforms are available, the views are NOT blocked out, they are simply prevented from being aired from a platform of prestige which can grant them an air of legitimacy.
For example – which of the two statements sounds better?:
1: Gary Smith gave a talk to a rapt audience in the conference room of the Juggers hotel.
2:Gary Smith gave a talk to a rapt audience at Exeter University.

It’s the same reason why leading evolutionary biologists usually refrain from debating young earth creationists, because just having debated the biologist (even if they got torn to shreds) looks far better on their CV than it should.

[56] ‘legitimacy’ – are you saying that god’s word is not legit, or just that the crazed christian brotherhood have got the wrong end of the stick?

All manner of claims are made on behalf of god, a lot of which is quite at odds with any form of rational thinking – so are we saying that ALL religious viewpoints are illegitimate (and should thus be denied a wider platform) or just the bits that clash with our fluffy liberal preferences?

57 – I think care needs to be taken here not to fall into the fallacy of equivocation with regard to the word legitimate. Cylux seems to be using the word to mean sanctioned approval, A&E seems to be using the meaning of in accordance with logic.

Also I’d add that all manner of claims are made on behalf of God, a lot of which is quite at odds with all manner of claims that are made on behalf of God.

I would also suggest that it is an odd definition of liberalism that seeks to limit freedoms

I’d agre, but that’s not what is being happening here.

chaise: You’re trying to minimise the audibility of people you disagree with. That’s not the action of someone who wants an honest debate.

Let’s be clear about this. I wrote up a story of how various students at an Oxford College were outraged that their College would happily rent space to an extremist organisation that has happily demonised gays and tried to deny them rights.

Yet the only response some of you folks can come up with in response is the fallacious accusation that somehow this is an attack on democracy and free speech. and you’re accusing me of not getting the point?

Sunny

The idea this is to do with protecting free speech is laughable. Christian Concern are welcome to host their bigotry somewhere else.

Who are you to try to dictate where they can hold their conference?

Hannah

I think that Sunny’s doing something much more underhand, which is attempting to manipulate the boundaries of acceptable debate in order to place Christian Concern outside it like the far right, thus delegitimising them.

Sunny

That is *exactly* what I’m doing and I have no problems admitting it.

And there’s the rub.

First you put their views outside the boundaries of acceptable debate, then you petition the government to make the expression of those views illegal. We have seen the pattern before.

“I don’t believe in the holocaust”

Quick. Lock him up.

“Blacks have lower average IQ’s than Caucasians”.

Hate crime!!!

[59] “I wrote up a story of how various students at an Oxford College were outraged that their College would happily rent space to an extremist organisation that has happily demonised gays and tried to deny them rights” – if homosexuality is rejected due to deeply held religious beliefs about how god has ordered the world (however risible such views might seem to a secularist) how does it make those who hold such views as ‘extremists’ – imbeciles, certainly, but extremists ……. ?

When they train people to take influence in the media, government and legal system so that they can impose a viewpoint which is not held by the majority of people. They are unabashed in their intent. I’m not slurring them, this is what they say they want to do.

First you put their views outside the boundaries of acceptable debate, then you petition the government to make the expression of those views illegal.

Or in other words you’re not criticising Sunny for anything he’s actually done or said, but for something you’ve caught a glimpse of in your crystal ball.

Personally, I happen to believe (a) that holocaust denial is outside the boundaries of acceptable debate, and (b) that it shouldn’t be a crime. Yes, it’s possible.

See, what I don’t get, pagar, is that libertarians *must* believe that civic society is able to regulate itself without state intervention. Yet, as soon anyone actually tries to play a role in that process, say by registering their opinions with organisations of which they are members, or by expressing their own opinions on their own websites, then suddenly you’re all up in arms about “effectively banned… shut down the expression… outlawed… suppressing free speech”. None of which is actually happening here.

There are 3 options with how to deal with offensive opinons such as holocaust denial or the gay-disease-hypothesis:
(a) a state ban
(b) people and organisations respond in their own ways using their own property and resources
(c) neither of the above, and everyone welcomes bigots and holocaust deniers with open arms wherever they go

You seem to believe that 3 is the only ‘liberal’ option. Peersonally, I go for (b), which is exactly what I see happening here.

[63] “b) people and organisations respond in their own ways using their own property and resources” – even if you are a B&B owner?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hotel-owners-set-up-by-gay-couple-who-sued-2159371.html

people and organisations respond in their own ways using their own property and resources

You mean like with the smoking ban?

Sunny said he was “attempting to manipulate the boundaries of acceptable debate in order to place Christian Concern outside it like the far right, thus delegitimising them.”

I accept that there can be different interpretations of “delegitimise” but “to make invalid, illegal, or unacceptable” seems about right.

Again – Freedom To vs Freedom From – can’t have all of both. John Stuart Mill covered this 150 years ago.

@ 59 Sunny

“Let’s be clear about this. I wrote up a story of how various students at an Oxford College were outraged that their College would happily rent space to an extremist organisation that has happily demonised gays and tried to deny them rights.”

I assumed that you supported the students in this – based at first on your leading title and the overall tone of the piece, then your responses within the comments. If you disagree with the students, or are simply reporting the story without judgement, as one might deliver the weather forecast, let me know.

“Yet the only response some of you folks can come up with in response is the fallacious accusation that somehow this is an attack on democracy and free speech. and you’re accusing me of not getting the point?”

Calling it an attack on democracy is fallacious, or at least hyperbolic. It is, however, a clear attempt to silence opponents rather than engage with them (again, this is on the assumption that you support the students). You can call that an attack on free speech or not, but it’s definitely illiberal and bad news.

@ 67 Voodoo

“Again – Freedom To vs Freedom From – can’t have all of both.”

Yep. When it comes to freedom of expression, I for one support Freedom To. Except in special cases where it’s not the content that’s the issue (e.g. kids discussing politics in class should still shut up when told, not because of their politics, but because they’re disrupting the class).

@ 63 Larry

“Personally, I happen to believe (a) that holocaust denial is outside the boundaries of acceptable debate, and (b) that it shouldn’t be a crime. Yes, it’s possible.”

Sure, depending on what you mean by “acceptable” in this context. I personally feel that you should have the right to deny the holocaust, and that I would tell you to go fuck yourself for doing so.

“You seem to believe that 3 is the only ‘liberal’ option. Peersonally, I go for (b), which is exactly what I see happening here.”

I can’t say for certain, but I think Pagar’s view on this is roughly the same as mine. If so, that’s a straw man. Nobody’s saying that Exeter should have been forced to host this event if it didn’t want to.

Your triptych isn’t wrong, but it misses a level of subtlety by ignoring the influence of third parties, which is the issue here. What happened with Exeter is a clear case of (b): they decided to host the event on their own property. The problem is with people then trying to pressure them out of it *purely out of the desire to oppress the opposite viewpoint to their own*.

For the record, I’m not a libertarian and I fucking hate homophobes. Used as an insult, I personally find “faggot” to be the most disgusting word in the English language. But if a gay pride event or a liberal-socialist event or whatever was facing the same kind of exterior pressure, I’d disagree with the people trying to shut it down for exactly the same reasons. Abandoning that principle because it was being used to defend someone I hate would be pure hypocrisy.

@a&ecn #64:

[63] “b) people and organisations respond in their own ways using their own property and resources” – even if you are a B&B owner?

I happen to believe that it is no function of a B&B owner to dictate to me with whom I sleep in the room I have rented from them.

I also believe that it is no part of the function of a B&B owner to impose their beliefs on others to the extent of dictating their behaviour (differentially dependent upon their sexual orientation) within the rooms they have placed on the public market for rent.

4. the a&e charge nurse

Oxford has hosted many controversial speakers including mass murderers like Henry Kissinger and religious nut jobs like mother theresa – why are the latest group of god bothering simpletons such a problem?

It is a sad commentary on the West that either of those speakers is regarded in any way as controversial. Name three people Kissenger killed. Mother Teresa did a lot more with her life to help the poor and the suffering than anyone I see around here. Who are you to criticise her?

But Oxford has hosted extremists. Someone at Woolfson college is wanted for crimes against humanity in Poland. I am sure Zygmunt Bauman has been to speak a few times. A couple of colleges were strongholds of Marxist Leninism in their time. Even if you ignore that, Oxford is accepting money from Gulf Rulers to set up an Islamic centre – even though they have an excellent group of Arabic scholars already. Alas, they are scholars and what the Gulf Rulers want is something a little different. That is where the real problem with extremism lies but of course no one is protesting that.

tim f

Now I accept colleges need to raise money, but if they find alumni are so incensed by the way they choose to do it that they return degrees, they’re certainly not going to give them money, and a large percentage of the money colleges receive comes from alumni.

A large percentage does not come from alumni. British people do not donate in the way Americans do. But it is possible that Exeter may have to rethink if the alumni are outraged. Are they? We have a complaint by all of one graduate there. If truth be told most of their alumni are likely to agree with the Christians than with the protesters.

Larry

It’s a bit difficult to “engage their ideas”, since it’s a private conference, not a public debate.

Then it is a private act between consenting adults and it is none of anyone else’s damn business is it?

If Exeter alumni object to the types of event their college is hiring itself out for, it’s hardly ‘Stalinist’ for them to voice their perfectly legitimate concerns.

No but of course this is not an isolated incident. It is exactly the extreme case that people use in the case of the Christian B&B owners – the aim is not to stop Exeter providing a venue. It is to stop anyone providing a venue. That is why the aim is Stalinist. That Gay couple could have found another B&B but in fact they went out of their way to seek out that to be offended in. They had plenty of choice and so the liberal option was to let the B&B owners do what they like. This is part of a larger campaign to make sure no politically correct views are allowed to be expressed anywhere in the UK. So if Exeter caves, no Christians will be allowed to hold a conference anywhere.

Still, nice to see you offering your full support to bigots and theocrats, merely because it annoys ‘the left’. What a very grown-up position to adopt.

No, I support the bigots and theocrats because of their basic fundamental freedoms are my basic fundamental freedoms. Not that I accept they are bigots, well maybe, but definitely not theocrats.

Try this from a recent FT news report:

Oxford university receives £26m
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41c9aef0-62e7-11e1-9445-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1o0UsQJox

As reported:

Oxford and Cambridge are the best endowed two British universities by some distance. The two universities have investment assets worth more than £3.3bn and £4bn respectively. The remaining UK universities have only £2bn of such assets. Edinburgh, in third place, has £200m.

71. Robin Levett

I also believe that it is no part of the function of a B&B owner to impose their beliefs on others to the extent of dictating their behaviour (differentially dependent upon their sexual orientation) within the rooms they have placed on the public market for rent.

Two of the great myths of the Left, well Hard Left, are the Battle of Cable Street and the death of Blair Peach. In both cases Marxist Leninists were trying to prevent people whose views they did not like speaking at a private venue.

Would you care to endorse the police actions in both cases?

But of course you so believe. I do not. Dictating behaviour is perfectly reasonable function among B&B owners. Don’t smash things. Don’t play loud music all night. Don’t use drugs. Don’t bring three dogs. I also think they have every right to refuse custom to anyone on whatever grounds they so choose.

@74: SMFS: “Two of the great myths of the Left, well Hard Left, are the Battle of Cable Street and the death of Blair Peach. In both cases Marxist Leninists were trying to prevent people whose views they did not like speaking at a private venue.”

That’s more of the familiar rewriting of history by SMFS. Try this account in Wikipedia of the Battle of Cable Street in October 1936:

“The Battle of Cable Street took place on Sunday 4 October 1936 in Cable Street in the East End of London. It was a clash between the Metropolitan Police, overseeing a march by the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Mosley, and anti-fascists, including local Jewish, socialist, anarchist, Irish and communist groups. The majority of both marchers and counter-protesters travelled into the area for this purpose. Mosley planned to send thousands of marchers dressed in uniforms styled on those of Blackshirts through the East End, which then had a large Jewish population.”

One political response to the Battle was Public Order Act in December 1936, which banned the wearing of political uniforms in public places or for public meetings. That has stayed on the statute book and I’ve never detected evidence of any serious campaign to have that section repealed on the grounds that it was an unacceptable infringement of personal freedom.

22. Chaise Guevera

Only in that most people consider these views to be wrong. I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimately” here, but it’s totally possible to express racist viewpoints.

And that it may be a crime. It depends on what you mean by possible. If you mean that you can whisper it to your wife while you’re in bed with the covers over your head, well yes. You could even probably do it in your local pub. But you cannot expect to do it without serious consequences in a public place. As Carol Thatcher might tell you. We have tenure for academics specifically to protect them when they express unpopular views. But if you say something someone else deems racist you will be fired anyway. As Frank Ellis was.

So it is hard to know in what sense it is possible to express a racist view. Sure, no one will leap up and physically gag you. But you had better prepare yourself for unemployment.

I would have thought the legitimate is obvious too. We can’t have a reasonable discussion of IQ tests and why young Black boys do poorly at school. Partly because that discussion would be racist but also because a lot of people would think it was racist. A lot of discussion about immigration and the like is closed down (or at least the Left tries to close it down) by the threats of racism.

AFAIK racist and homophobic statements are not illegal beyond incitement to violence (which is illegal in its own right), although they can get you into hot water.

That is not true. The Racial and Religious Vilification Act of 2006 makes it a criminal offense to say or write anything that has the intent of stirring up religious or racial hatred. The intent was the great victory of the House of Lords given the original legislation wanted to ban anything that had the possibility of stirring up such hatred.

75. Bob B

That’s more of the familiar rewriting of history by SMFS. Try this account in Wikipedia of the Battle of Cable Street in October 1936:

My mistake then. The BUF wanted to use the public highway. Even less justifiable to try and stop them. End of story.

An error of fact, not a rewriting of history. The point remains.

One political response to the Battle was Public Order Act in December 1936, which banned the wearing of political uniforms in public places or for public meetings. That has stayed on the statute book and I’ve never detected evidence of any serious campaign to have that section repealed on the grounds that it was an unacceptable infringement of personal freedom.

I am sure. But we have accumulated a lot of legislation that slowly chokes out our freedom. I can’t get much worked up about it because I don’t know anyone who wants to wear a political uniform in public – and those that do tend to be rather nasty people. But it is an infringement of personal freedom. Not as bad as what the Communist Party was trying to do of course.

63. Larry

Personally, I happen to believe (a) that holocaust denial is outside the boundaries of acceptable debate, and (b) that it shouldn’t be a crime. Yes, it’s possible.

And yet the double standards of the Left on this are notorious – denying the genocide in Cambodia, for instance, is not only not a crime, it is not even an offense. A small number of British academics have in fact done so. Their academic careers have continued apace. Denying the genocide in the Soviet Union was more or less a right of passage for the Left until the USSR collapsed. Remember that people like Compass even honour and respect people like Zygmunt Bauman who actually took an active part in the Stalinist genocide. Someone like Chomsky can make an entire career very carefully minimising Communist genocide – including most famously that of the Khmer Rouge – while being very careful not to say too much himself – and yet he is a hero on the Left.

So it looks a lot like your objection to Holocaust denial is based on some other extra factor apart from the genocide.

Mind you the Left also has that extra factor – people who do not deny it. People like Eric Hobsbawm who lied for Stalin and even now does not deny the mass murder. He simply says it was worth it. Not many neo-Nazis go that far. Still Hobsbawm is a perfectly acceptable figure in British academia and social life.

See, what I don’t get, pagar, is that libertarians *must* believe that civic society is able to regulate itself without state intervention. Yet, as soon anyone actually tries to play a role in that process, say by registering their opinions with organisations of which they are members, or by expressing their own opinions on their own websites, then suddenly you’re all up in arms about “effectively banned… shut down the expression… outlawed… suppressing free speech”. None of which is actually happening here.

If it was an isolated incident, by all means. It would be entirely reasonable. But we know it is not. It is part of a wider campaign to impose Stalinist orthodoxy on the whole of Great Britain by denying these sort of people any venue, anywhere, to speak, ever. That is why it is a threat. Backed up by State power.

You seem to believe that 3 is the only ‘liberal’ option. Peersonally, I go for (b), which is exactly what I see happening here.

But do you extend that to B&B owners?

SFMS: “I am sure. But we have accumulated a lot of legislation that slowly chokes out our freedom. I can’t get much worked up about it because I don’t know anyone who wants to wear a political uniform in public ”

In the 1920s and 1930s, paramilitaries belonging to the Facists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany made much of wearing uniforms for parades and intimidation. The British Union of Fascists tried it on. By accounts, the sections of the Public Order Act banning the wearing of political uniforms have been most often invoked post-WW2 against Sinn Fein and the IRA – that Act doesn’t apply in Northern Ireland.

Whatever the extent of repressive legislation, the opening up of online forums and the blogsphere in 1990s has been a hugely liberating experience as well as creating new channels for international communication which governments have found it very challenging to control. Once a carefully protected national secret leaks out onto the web, that’s it. Containing it thereafter becomes virtually impossible. In what has been dubbed “Horsegate”, the Daily Mail is now reporting that Cameron did indeed ride the horse that the Met loaned to Rebekah Brooks to look after in its retirement.

SMFS – TLDR

79. Bob B

Containing it thereafter becomes virtually impossible. In what has been dubbed “Horsegate”, the Daily Mail is now reporting that Cameron did indeed ride the horse that the Met loaned to Rebekah Brooks to look after in its retirement.

Not quite sure how you got there from Cable Street Bob. Especially given the police always give their retired horses to upper middle class women with properties in the countryside to look after. What else do you think they are going to do with them? Export them to France for sausages.

But perhaps you could go over it one more time but slowly?

80. Larry

Did not. Could not. Whatever.

@81 SMFS: More slowly about Cameron riding the horse that the Met had loan to Rebekah Brooks for a peaceful retirement?

Sure, try this report in The Telegraph:

Horsegate: How The Daily Telegraph forced the Prime Minister to admit he rode Rebekah Brooks’ ex-police horse

Prime Minister David Cameron has finally admitted riding Rebekah Brooks’s ex-police horse, and apologised for three days of “confusion” about the affair, after three days of questioning by The Daily Telegraph. This is how the information was dragged out of Downing Street.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9119717/Horsegate-How-The-Daily-Telegraph-forced-the-Prime-Minister-to-admit-he-rode-Rebekah-Brooks-ex-police-horse.html

The important insight is that with the web, politicians have a problem with personal secrets because they are going to look deceitful if they maintain denials and the secret leaks anyway. Once it’s out on the web, that’s it and the politician’s credibility has gone. Cameron, who isn’t stupid, realised that and decided – wisely – to come clean about riding the horse.

Name three people Kissenger killed.

Name three people Charles Manson killed.

Of course, I couldn’t name someone that Dr K bludgeoned to death personally but here’s a lot of people to whose deaths he contributed.

Chaise: It is, however, a clear attempt to silence opponents rather than engage with them

Errr no – it’s an attempt to point to the university that letting homophobic organisations such as these to host events gives them an air of credibility and helps them spread their message of bigotry. They are welcome to do so somewhere else.

As for “engage with them” – I have an idea – YOU do it. I get the feeling that gay students across the country who get bullied for their sexuality don’t want to sit around engaging with bible-thumping idiots like Christian Concern in the hope it will lead somewhere.

It’s called a democracy – people are perfectly allowed to petition organisations against or for stuff. Just because a bunch of you are whining that it somehow shuts down free speech doesn’t make their actions any less democratic.

[72] BenSix @84 beat me to it with regard to the gruff voiced mass murderer.

Opinion of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was changed forever by the Hitch – he said, amongst other things, “She (mother T) spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit.

I believe both, in their day, were welcomed by the Oxford toffs – the christian brothers on the other hand have done no more than hire a room (by the sound of it) – yet their interpretation of god’s wishes, even though it coincides with a great deal of religious thinking on the matter of homosexuality, is somehow beyond the pail.

I just don’t get it.

[71] well I respect your opinion, Robin – this is not an easy one, and ultimately required the involvement of the courts (which seems a bit heavy handed).

Blackpool is well known for being a town that is welcoming to gay men and women (the brighton of the north) – quite why these two guys had to pick on a bedsit owned by god-fearin’ christians is beyond me, especially when there are plenty of ‘BAGs’ (blackpool accommodation for gays)
http://www.bagsblackpool.com/

On balance I think small business owners should have the right to determine the nature of their business activities although I recognise that this might not please everybody.
In parenthesis I understand why those who have been discriminated against are becoming more assertive, that is perfectly understandable as well.

With regard to the christian brother, and even the Blackpool B&B owners perhaps this quote by Quentin Crisp will bring a smile to your face?
“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.”

83. Bob B

Sure, try this report in The Telegraph:

More a request for relevance and an explanation of how you got from what we were talking about to this horse.

Horsegate: How The Daily Telegraph forced the Prime Minister to admit he rode Rebekah Brooks’ ex-police horse

This has to be the biggest non-story in recent times. The police give horses they no longer want to a charity which hands them out to anyone, basically, with a stable who happens to want one. Rebekah Wade was one such person. Big deal. Where is the scandal?

84. BenSix

Name three people Charles Manson killed.

Well all of them. Someone who kills under the direction of someone else is not the only person guilty of murder. If I pay someone to kill someone else, I am not innocent. I would be guilty of murder.

Of course, I couldn’t name someone that Dr K bludgeoned to death personally but here’s a lot of people to whose deaths he contributed.

He did no such thing. Or rather as he was in the government and there was a war going on, some people did die. But those deaths were not murder. Nor is refusing to grossly interfere in the internal affairs of several Latin American governments remotely close to murder. This is just delusional.

85. Sunny Hundal

They are welcome to do so somewhere else.

Where for instance? Where could they meet that someone would not object to – and you would not endorse than objection?

I get the feeling that gay students across the country who get bullied for their sexuality don’t want to sit around engaging with bible-thumping idiots like Christian Concern in the hope it will lead somewhere.

You would have to prove there are any Gay students across the country being bullied for their sexuality. Although nice attempt to change the subject.

86. the a&e charge nurse

BenSix @84 beat me to it with regard to the gruff voiced mass murderer.

So he is a mass murderer now? I love the left. Actual mass murderers are heroes while people like Kissenger who killed no one – and Ben Six produced no evidence to the contrary whatsoever – is.

Opinion of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was changed forever by the Hitch

That would be interesting if Hitchens – a long time supporter of mass murderers – had any opinion worth hearing. Given his unrepentant support for people like Lenin and Pol Pot this is all a result of Leftist delusion rather than moral credibility. His opinion is simply worthless. If it wasn’t he wouldn’t have spent his life devoted to bringing mass murder to the West.

he said, amongst other things, “She (mother T) spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.

That is interesting but of course untrue and irrelevant. She did not force anyone to become pregnant. She may have opposed birth control and it is possible that this has some link to poverty, but she was not in control of government policy. Her private opinion is simply that. Hitchens is in no position to throw stones where private opinions are concerned given the genocidal nature of most of his opinions over his lifetime.

And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan.

I am not sure friend is the right word. She took money from people who wanted to donate it. Rightly. So what?

Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been

Which is simply a lie. It is not hard to see where the money went. Mother Teresa started her own order in 1950. She started out with twelve members and one hospice in Calcutta. When she died, her order was huge:

Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity at the time of her death had 610 missions in 123 countries including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children’s and family counselling programmes, orphanages and schools.

So that is where the money went. While Hitchens spent his life – and every single penny he earnt as far as I can see – boozing, chasing women and pontificating in public, Mother Teresa devoted her life to poverty, chastity and hard work on behalf of the poor. No wonder Hitchens hated her.

“I’m looking forward to you treating Muslim and Christian homophobes with equal outrage too.”

It’s a deal!

Though the former tend to favour the “kill”, the latter the “cure”.

Both bad but I know which is worse.

[88] “Hitchens spent his life – and every single penny he earnt as far as I can see – boozing, chasing women and pontificating in public” – this reminded me of the George Best quote, “I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered”.

Our Agnes gave paracetamol to patients in need of palliative care – to my mind such behaviour was driven by religious fanaticism rather than any insight or empathy into a dying persons situation (accepting that care options may have been very limited for those in dire poverty).

Taking money from a sinister tyrant like Duvalier reinforces the suspicion that Aggie expressed very poor judgement on important matters.

The Hitch did not exhibit any such pretensions – he was an ideas man who stands or falls by the quality of his commentary – it’s like comparing apples & oranges.

“That is *exactly* what I’m doing and I have no problems admitting it. Organisations such as these have the right to exist in democratic society but that doesn’t mean sensible people should associate with them.”

I’ve developed a distaste for this type of political discourse, having seen it in action many times. It’s not that it somehow foreshadows formal censorship, as Pagar suggested; nor that it denies them access to a particular platform- as you say, “they are welcome to do so somewhere else” (although this begs the question whether you’d be happier with any other venue hosting them)- it’s that it’s an underhanded means of debate that is the antithesis of a healthy and rational political and academic culture. It’s a style of politics personified by the protestors in the video in this article, screaming down opposing world views with insults and slogans rather than attempting to defeat them in open argument.

I’ll say once again, Christian Concern are a legitimate organisation with a worldview that you find distasteful. They use legitimate democratic methods to campaign against the liberalisation of marriage and abortion laws. They’re not the KKK, a violent organisation, who throughout their history conducted a campaign of terror against black Americans. If you disagree with their views your entitled to argue against them in whatever form you want but not to declare them a priori out of bounds.

90. the a&e charge nurse

this reminded me of the George Best quote, “I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered”.

Yes. That would be amusing. If the comparison was not spending it on the dying in the Third World. Wasted indeed.

Our Agnes gave paracetamol to patients in need of palliative care – to my mind such behaviour was driven by religious fanaticism rather than any insight or empathy into a dying persons situation (accepting that care options may have been very limited for those in dire poverty).

That is interesting. But Hitchens gave them nothing. As has Cylux and a number of other arm chair critics. The alternative was not palliative care or a paracetamol. It was a paracetamol or nothing. She ensured the poorest of the world’s poor died with someone caring. Someone holding their hand. Someone cleaning up their shit. Of course it was driven by religious fanaticism. Reasonable people stay at home with a nice glass of wine and go tut-tut. Only the religious fanatics throw their lives away working in India’s slums.

Taking money from a sinister tyrant like Duvalier reinforces the suspicion that Aggie expressed very poor judgement on important matters.

On the contrary, she is directly in line with Catholic teaching and basic decency. She could not know the money was stolen. Even if it was dirty, she could not known the motivation behind Duvalier’s donation. Only God can see into his heart. What she can know is that if he wants to work towards saving his own soul by a charitable donation, she has no right to deny him the opportunity. She is obligated to take the money.

And to be honest, the money went to a good cause. Hard to think of a better way to use the money if you want to help the poor of the Third World.

The Hitch did not exhibit any such pretensions – he was an ideas man who stands or falls by the quality of his commentary – it’s like comparing apples & oranges.

That is, he was a parlour pink who jumped ship and became a rent-a-quote neo-con shill. Big deal. Mother Teresa provided more comfort and help to the poor than Hitchens and every single one of his fans put together.

@91 What argument do you think there is to be actually had, exactly?

[92] SMFS, you are entitled to your rose tinted view of what Mother T did, and her motives for doing so, but we are digressing slightly?

The point of the OP was that it is right to ban the brothers evangelical work in oxford on the basis that they are ‘extremists’.

To my mind this christian group are merely continuing the proud tradition of religious gay bashing, a phenomena that is both ubiquitous and timeless amongst the theisms.

I ask again what distinguishes this group from the longline of religious authorities that claim homosexuality is wrong – cjcjc @89, he-hee, that made me chuckle!

Hannah @91, agreed – the quest for universal acceptance (which should be the hallmark of any fair society) inevitably require some degree of patience or explanation given the deep cultural and religious roots that may, in some circumstances, be the antithesis to such aspirations.

@ 76 SMFS

“So it is hard to know in what sense it is possible to express a racist view. Sure, no one will leap up and physically gag you. But you had better prepare yourself for unemployment.”

Well, given your take on the B&B owners, wouldn’t you support that? The person’s employers can decide to do what they like with their business? Personally I feel it’s too easy to sack people for non-work-related reasons, including this one.

“I would have thought the legitimate is obvious too. We can’t have a reasonable discussion of IQ tests and why young Black boys do poorly at school. Partly because that discussion would be racist but also because a lot of people would think it was racist.”

We DO have discussion about why young black boys do poorly at school. Although I agree that if a scientist proved that different races had notably different IQs, they’d face a barrage of accusations of racism regardless of how good their evidence was.

“A lot of discussion about immigration and the like is closed down (or at least the Left tries to close it down) by the threats of racism.”

Some of the left. I feel the race card is often played too quickly, although this comes into the territory of other people using their freedom of speech rather than obstructing your freedom of speech.

“That is not true. The Racial and Religious Vilification Act of 2006 makes it a criminal offense to say or write anything that has the intent of stirring up religious or racial hatred. ”

Is that how it’s phrased? Badly written law, then.

@ 85 Sunny

“Errr no – it’s an attempt to point to the university that letting homophobic organisations such as these to host events gives them an air of credibility and helps them spread their message of bigotry. They are welcome to do so somewhere else.”

As UKliberty said, Occupy were told they were welcome to protest somewhere else. You cool with that?

“As for “engage with them” – I have an idea – YOU do it.”

That’s fine, you don’t have to get involved in a conversation you’re not interested in. But how can I engage with them if you’re going to try to shut them down? Is there something special about Exeter that I’m missing? I’m not saying you have to join the conversation, I’m saying you shouldn’t try to prevent other people from having a conversation.

“I get the feeling that gay students across the country who get bullied for their sexuality don’t want to sit around engaging with bible-thumping idiots like Christian Concern in the hope it will lead somewhere. ”

That’s up to them. The whole POINT is that people should have the choice to talk or not.

“It’s called a democracy – people are perfectly allowed to petition organisations against or for stuff. Just because a bunch of you are whining that it somehow shuts down free speech doesn’t make their actions any less democratic.”

I see you’re still flailing this straw man around even though I made it clear that I’m not accusing you of being anti-democratic. Run out of arguments?

@88 SMFS: “This has to be the biggest non-story in recent times. The police give horses they no longer want to a charity which hands them out to anyone, basically, with a stable who happens to want one. Rebekah Wade was one such person. Big deal. Where is the scandal?”

According to several press reports, Downing St was very tardy before finally confirming that Cameron had indeed ridden the horse that the Met Police had loaned to Rebekah Brooks for a peaceful retirement. Why the reluctance to confirm the truth if there was nothing untoward?

My understanding of press reports is that the horse was loaned by the Met on the condition that it would not be ridden.

@ 91 Hannah

Well said!

@ 97 Bob B

“According to several press reports, Downing St was very tardy before finally confirming that Cameron had indeed ridden the horse that the Met Police had loaned to Rebekah Brooks for a peaceful retirement. Why the reluctance to confirm the truth if there was nothing untoward?”

To make an obvious point, there’s a difference between “untoward” and “something that papers can spin to make it look like a scandal”.

@ Chaise

if a scientist proved that different races had notably different IQs, they’d face a barrage of accusations of racism regardless of how good their evidence was.

“Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests performed in the United States have consistently demonstrated a significant degree of variation between different racial groups, with the average score of the African American population being lower— and that of the Asian American population being higher— than that of the European-American population”

You correctly deduce that there are a lot of people postulating any reason for such findings, other than a congenital propensity based on race.

“The first is that these gaps reflect a real difference in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function. A second position is that differences in average cognitive ability between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors. A third position holds that differences in average cognitive ability between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves. Finally, a fourth position is that either or both of the concepts of race and general intelligence are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

What continues to puzzle me is the continuing enthusiastic espousal of homophobia by elements in the church along with the complete neglect of the following explicit commandments in Deuteronomy 22:

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Deuteronomy 22:20-22
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/deu022.htm

Exactly what are the theological grounds for this asymmetry? I think we should be told.

@ 100 pagar

I hear tell that the studies showing notable average differences in intelligence between races are deeply flawed. But I can’t trust that, precisely because I know that the scientists who announce those results are immediately accused of racism and made into pariahs. The amount of fuzz around the issue makes it impossible for me to know what’s actually true.

That said, if I were a scientist who discovered solid evidence for racial intelligence disparity, that would be a rare case where I’d be tempted to conceal the facts, because of the certainty that people would misuse the data to pursue racist agendas.

@SMFS #76:

The Racial and Religious Vilification Act of 2006 makes it a criminal offense to say or write anything that has the intent of stirring up religious or racial hatred.

Really? Making up legislation now?

First, the Act was the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Secondly, the Act also requires the acts, words or written material to be threatening.

@Chaise #96:

As UKliberty said, Occupy were told they were welcome to protest somewhere else.

Not quite the case. There was no problem with them protesting at St Paul’s; it was the indefinite presence of a tented village on a combination of the highway and someone else’s land that was the problem.

@ 104 Robin

Fine, but it stands as a hypothetical. If you say that a group is welcome to express its unpleasant opinions, but oppose them being allowed to do so in the place that they want to do so, you need a good reason for that opposition. In this case, the ONLY reason is that the view is disliked. This shows that the protesters ARE trying to shut down debate. It also begs the question of where homophobic views are “allowed” to be expressed.

If Exeter refuses to host this event, and the organisers hold it at another venue, is that ok? If so, what makes Exeter an unacceptable venue, specifically? If not, how can that be called anything other than repression of freedom of expression?

@96

But how can I engage with them if you’re going to try to shut them down?

They’re not having a conference in order to engage in debates with people who disagree with them. So you can’t engage with them there anyway.

if I were a scientist who discovered solid evidence for racial intelligence disparity, that would be a rare case where I’d be tempted to conceal the facts, because of the certainty that people would misuse the data to pursue racist agendas.

Jaw drops.

And there it is in all it’s glory, stripped naked for all to see and not a pretty sight. It is the kernel of the tipping point at which the progressive project becomes unsupportable.

“If the truth doesn’t fit our agenda, we will conceal it- for your own good of course and because you can’t be trusted with it.

In fact, truth is really no more, and of no more value, than that which I can convince you it is.”

That’s right isn’t it, Chaise?

Ha ha ha………..

@ 107 pagar

Congratulations. You don’t understand words like “rare” and “misuse” and you ignored most of my post. What a freaking brain surgeon.

To clarify (or rather, repeat): I would be tempted to keep the information secret for fear it would be MISUSED. That means “used incorrectly”, look it up.

Of course I don’t think truth is relative or unimportant. That’s something you made up out of whole cloth, because you think your inability to read justifies sneering at people.

Fuck’s sake.

@ 106 Cylux

Can’t engage them anywhere else either, if the event organisers are pressured into cancelling.

@109 Well no you won’t because its a training conference anyway, and unless you’re there to be trained up in advancing the cause of Nadine Dorries style political Christianity you wouldn’t be engaging with them at all if it was in the dog & ducks function rooms or Cambridge’s main lecture hall.

@ 110 Cylux

When does this lead to censorship being great?

@111 The argument you made was that disagreeing with Exeter college renting out its space to this group was preventing ‘conversation’ and debate with this group. That isn’t the case, because none of that will be going on anyway. Censorship doesn’t even come into it.

@105. Chaise Guevara: “Fine, but it stands as a hypothetical. If you say that a group is welcome to express its unpleasant opinions, but oppose them being allowed to do so in the place that they want to do so, you need a good reason for that opposition.”

I am intervening late in this thread and I do not follow some of the nuances in earlier comments. Robin’s comments have been logical (not a personal attack on him) but they don’t get down to the rub about how society accommodates unconventional people.

UK society, the police, government agencies have accepted — after much ugliness — that a few citizens who follow an unconventional faith should be permitted to conduct ceremonies at Stonehenge. Most of us find their beliefs bizarre but the cost:benefit analysis correctly concluded that potential damage to a historic space (or the power relationship between citizens:government) was inconsequential. Resolution was provided outside litigation or law reform; resolution was provided by civility.

I accept that Stonehengers are not “offensive” and that the example is a bit abstract. But the answer to any civility question is civility.

If a racist organisation wishes to book a conference at a UK university, what is the problem? Conference organisers do not buy the University. Racists intermingling with fellow racists is a NEW problem? For PR reasons (by potential hosts), then, the BNP finds it difficult to find event locations because it has been black listed. I am not going to talk about how black and white lists do not work and presume that you can search it on Bing.

@ 112 Cylux

“The argument you made was that disagreeing with Exeter college renting out its space to this group was preventing ‘conversation’ and debate with this group. That isn’t the case, because none of that will be going on anyway.”

I think a couple of seperate points have been mangled, probably by me. Point one is the general rule that you address views you dislike by arguing with them, not silencing them. Point two is that people have a right to say what they think, and trying to get a third party to shut them out because you don’t like what they’re saying is censorious.

“Censorship doesn’t even come into it.”

It’s censorship regardless of whether it’s a dialogue or a statement.

@ 113 Charlieman

Blacklists are straight-up creepy, and people who want to push unpopular views underground are probably more dangerous than the holders of those unpopular views.

The “BNP in the police” thing was a difficult one. I feel that it’s unreasonable to sack someone due to their political affiliations unless they’re directly relevant to the role. But does membership of a racist organisation indicate that you’re not fit for a job that gives you duty of care over other human beings? On the one hand, the idea of a BNP supporter getting the power to arrest black people, and to be involved in investigations involving non-whites, worries me. On the other hand, the fact that someone is racist doesn’t mean they’re also unprofessional.

What WAS ridiculous was when those people picketed a ballet group because one of its dancers was a BNP member. Her political views have nothing to do with her job.

It’s funny how Sunny is concerned about this christian event – but when was the last Islamic event he raised?

In just 2 minutes googling I find an Islamic speaker who has had platforms at a dozen UK universities in the LAST MONTH- that Sunny should be raising here on LC:

Hamza Tzortzis is the guys name.

He has said:

We as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom. We see under the Khilafa (caliphate), when people used to engage in a positive way, this idea of freedom was redundant, it was unnecessary, because the society understood under the education system of the Khilafa state, and under the political framework of Islam, that people must engage with each other in a positive and productive way to produce results

See his own site that lists where he has spoken recently:
- http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/?page_id=667

See the video where he says the above:
- http://www.youtube.com/v/KOw4Mk1QK84

And these guys list more of his history
- http://standforpeace.org.uk/sfp/?p=21

[112] are you arguing for a blanket ban on ALL religious groups, since they hold more or less the same negative view (in varying degrees) about homosexuality.

I mean which religion promotes gay marriage, or adoption by gay parents – or which religion does not have a centuaries old tradition of regarding homosexual relatonships as being against the will of god – as cjcjc says the disposition of religious authorities has been to kill, cure or marginalise?

I ask for the 2nd or 3rd time now what is it distinguishes this lot from all the rest – what is it that makes them so extreme that they can’t have the hall – maybe those in favour of a ban could shed some light?

@pagar #107:

Witness the climate scientists who are entitled not to share their data when it does not fit their warming hypothesis

Missed that one; could you give me a link?

@116

I ask for the 2nd or 3rd time now what is it distinguishes this lot from all the rest – what is it that makes them so extreme that they can’t have the hall – maybe those in favour of a ban could shed some light?

Well there is the small point that this group happens to actually have rented the space, as opposed to ‘the rest’ who haven’t rented the space out for an event at this time, so there’s no need to condemn the University for renting out space to Anjem Choudary’s latest rent-a-mob group.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted. But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates. He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

[118] well that’s an answer of sorts, I suppose – they rented the hall ……

Care to have a stab at the substantive point, i.e. the implied notion that such thinking must lead to a ban on any religious group, since theisms tend to have a problem with ‘practising homosexuals’ (to use the ridiculous phrase bandied about by those who take this sort of guff seriously).

I must admit, I’m not holding my breath waiting for a sensible answer.

Care to have a stab at the substantive point, i.e. the implied notion that such thinking must lead to a ban on any religious group, since theisms tend to have a problem with ‘practising homosexuals’ (to use the ridiculous phrase bandied about by those who take this sort of guff seriously).

It MUST lead to a ban must it? Of ANY religious group? Can’t say I follow your logic there. I fail to see why a blanket ban is required instead of the current case-by-case method we have at the moment.

[121] “I fail to see why a blanket ban is required instead of the current case-by-case method we have at the moment” – so what are the christians saying that makes them extremist (compared to other religions) – are they not just expressing their faith, no matter how misguided it might be?

Or maybe it’s OK to object to other people’s life choices as long as such views are kept behind closed doors

The christians have a point of view, many disagree with – isn’t that allowed any more?

@119. pagar: “Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.”

Overall, I believe that use of fossil fuels increases CO2 presence in the atmosphere which increases global warming. Without the problem of global warming, I would be sympathetic to realistic measures to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. The creation of fossil fuels was a one off event that we should not waste.

Omniscient scientists tell us that global warming is a problem and that they have evidence. Politicians tell us that the omniscient scientists tell us that global warming is a problem.

It is all about belief. I believe, on probability, that burning fossil fuels will cause many problems.

But the omniscient scientists turned into politicians. The wise people who were supposed to advise us about practicalities became controllers. The principle that you share knowledge with other scientists was dismissed; climate scientists only shared their data with sympathisers.

Oil companies lie to politicians about their businesses. Climate scientists have created their own envelope of distrust. Which set of liars should we believe?

Sunny is completely right about this (and this is the third article in a row I have agreed with, must be the work pressure) there is nothing about liberalism that demands we have to hand every lunatic a megaphone. Mind you, I agree with cjcjc that it will be a long wait before Sunny denounces with equal passion the murderous homophones that are regularly hosted by SOAS and who have a less impassioned dedication to the annoying Nazarene. Still, maybe this is the start of something!

@pagar #119:

Your claim was in relation to:

the climate scientists who are entitled not to share their data when it does not fit their warming hypothesis

Could you let me have a reference for that?

@ Robin

Your claim was in relation to:

Could you let me have a reference for that?

“Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.”

What am I missing?

@cjcjcj:

If you like Israel so much why don’t you fuck off back there?

@60:

Go back to Stormfront as I’m sure they believe that Lower IQ crap over there.

95. Chaise Guevara

Well, given your take on the B&B owners, wouldn’t you support that? The person’s employers can decide to do what they like with their business? Personally I feel it’s too easy to sack people for non-work-related reasons, including this one.

Not if you have tenure. Or work for the government. But I strongly believe that a private business owner has the right to sack someone for racism. Any reason really. But where the racism is not shown to impact someone’s performance of their job, I don’t see why it is even an issue. BNP members ought to be allowed to be teachers and policemen until such time as they show they have done something wrong.

We DO have discussion about why young black boys do poorly at school. Although I agree that if a scientist proved that different races had notably different IQs, they’d face a barrage of accusations of racism regardless of how good their evidence was.

But not a reasonable discussion. Because we are not allowed to talk about the issue seriously. Every single test we have for what we think is intelligence shows Black boys do worse than White ones. Admittedly they also tend to show that African origin children do better than Caribbean origin ones and so it is likely to be a cultural issue, but the science is on the side of different races have noticably different IQs. And yes people who say this are accused of racism.

Some of the left. I feel the race card is often played too quickly, although this comes into the territory of other people using their freedom of speech rather than obstructing your freedom of speech.

Not when it comes with a near monopoly backed by the government. The BBC will not, for instance, allow equal time to views held by the mainstream of British society. Or much time at all.

Is that how it’s phrased? Badly written law, then.

In what sense is it badly written? It does what it was meant to do.

“the murderous homophones”

It’s the synonyms you really have to watch out for.

@ Buckweat

If you like buckwheat so much, why can’t you spell it!!!!!????!1111

@ SMFS

“Not if you have tenure. Or work for the government. But I strongly believe that a private business owner has the right to sack someone for racism. Any reason really. But where the racism is not shown to impact someone’s performance of their job, I don’t see why it is even an issue. BNP members ought to be allowed to be teachers and policemen until such time as they show they have done something wrong.”

That’s fair. It does worry me that sacking police officers for being BNP members etc is a clear case of discrimination.

“But not a reasonable discussion. Because we are not allowed to talk about the issue seriously. Every single test we have for what we think is intelligence shows Black boys do worse than White ones. Admittedly they also tend to show that African origin children do better than Caribbean origin ones and so it is likely to be a cultural issue, but the science is on the side of different races have noticably different IQs. And yes people who say this are accused of racism.”

When it comes to education, I find this isn’t the case. People worry about it and publish studies on it, and tend to come to the same conclusion as you: cultural issues. Which is pretty blatantly going to be a factor. I agree that this sort of thing can be shut down by appeals to consequence, but in my experience it doesn’t happen in this particular situation.

“Not when it comes with a near monopoly backed by the government. The BBC will not, for instance, allow equal time to views held by the mainstream of British society. Or much time at all.”

Agree that the BBC is a special case. Disagree that it’s biased.

“In what sense is it badly written? It does what it was meant to do.”

Well, Robin above suggests you’re wrong about the law, so I need to wait on that. But I don’t think it’s meant to outlaw the expression of prejudice, it’s meant to outlaw the use of prejudice to directly incite violence. Which makes it redundant given our existing laws, of course.

If it IS meant to outlaw the expression of prejudiced opinions, I’ll replace “badly written” with “bad”.

102. Chaise Guevara

I hear tell that the studies showing notable average differences in intelligence between races are deeply flawed. But I can’t trust that, precisely because I know that the scientists who announce those results are immediately accused of racism and made into pariahs. The amount of fuzz around the issue makes it impossible for me to know what’s actually true.

The science of the studies is clear. As are the results of the British and American education systems. As is any IQ test you care to give to a large population. You get absurdities like the exams that the New York Fire and Police Departments traditionally use being held to be racist because so few Black men pass them. So they have been dumbed down to the point of uselessness – some 90% of Black men now pass them, but unfortunately so do some 99% of White men. The difference remains. So they are being sued to make the exams oral on the grounds that Black culture privileges oral language.

I think, if you used any test for intelligence, even if you wrote it in Ebonics using examples drawn from ghetto life, East Asians would come out on top.

That said, if I were a scientist who discovered solid evidence for racial intelligence disparity, that would be a rare case where I’d be tempted to conceal the facts, because of the certainty that people would misuse the data to pursue racist agendas.

Which is more or less what is happening. Except most people try to shout down people who say otherwise. Look at the hounding of James Crick. And every now and then they fake the evidence. As with Stephen Jay Gould and his otherwise excellent Mismeasure of Man.

Robin Levett

Really? Making up legislation now?

First, the Act was the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Secondly, the Act also requires the acts, words or written material to be threatening.

Sorry Robin but you want to go down this route?

1. A minor error in the name is irrelevant. I do not post under oath. Nor is my memory infallible. Does the law exist? Yes it does. Does it prove that what Chaise said was wrong? Yes it does. Is your objection asinine? Yes it is.
2. I am not going to include every single little legal phrase in every blog post. I do not have the time. Nor do I care to check. This is not a legal proceeding. Does it make any difference at all? No it does not. Is Chaise still wrong? Yes he is.

You’re wasting my time.

It does worry me that sacking police officers for being BNP members etc is a clear case of discrimination.

Not without good cause, given that there are immediately going to be big honking concerns over their ability to conduct their duties and themselves honestly when ethnic minorities are involved. If I were a second generation immigrant I wouldn’t exactly find a BNP police officer to be all that trustworthy when it came time to report crimes committed against my person.

132. Chaise Guevara

When it comes to education, I find this isn’t the case.

And yet Oxbridge finds it nearly impossible to admit anyone of Afro-Caribbean origin because they simply do not do well enough in school. In education one thing we know is that Afro-Caribbean origin children, especially boys, do poorly.

People worry about it and publish studies on it, and tend to come to the same conclusion as you: cultural issues. Which is pretty blatantly going to be a factor. I agree that this sort of thing can be shut down by appeals to consequence, but in my experience it doesn’t happen in this particular situation.

No, they publish studies on it and come to a different conclusion – racism. It is not acceptable to blame Jamaican culture for poor performance. That would be privileging Eurocentric norms of normativity. What is more it would also strongly suggest we need less multiculturalism and more assimilation. If you know of any study that suggests cultural reasons I would be happy to see it.

The debate over education is conducted without any reference to the evidence. Anyone who tries to talk about the evidence is shouted down by being accused of racism. As we saw with Francis Crick.

Agree that the BBC is a special case. Disagree that it’s biased.

That does not surprise me.

Well, Robin above suggests you’re wrong about the law, so I need to wait on that. But I don’t think it’s meant to outlaw the expression of prejudice, it’s meant to outlaw the use of prejudice to directly incite violence. Which makes it redundant given our existing laws, of course.

No he doesn’t. He is quibbling about the words I used. No more. The law says:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/notes/division/2

“4.The new offences apply to the use of words or behaviour or display of written material (new section 29B), publishing or distributing written material (new section 29C), the public performance of a play (new section 29D), distributing, showing or playing a recording (new section 29E), broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service (new section 29F) and the possession of written materials or recordings with a view to display, publication, distribution or inclusion in a programme service (new section 29G). For each offence the words, behaviour, written material, recordings or programmes must be threatening and intended to stir up religious hatred. Religious hatred is defined as hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.”

There is nothing about directly inciting anything. Nor is there anything about violence. It just says that the Court has to find the words, in whatever form, threatening and intended to stir up hatred.

If it IS meant to outlaw the expression of prejudiced opinions, I’ll replace “badly written” with “bad”.

The opinions do not even have to be prejudiced. If some Sikhs said they found a play threatening and inclined to make their neighbours hate them, it could be banned by this law if they could find some PC judge to agree with them. The words do not have to be false. This is why Rowan Atkinson campaigned so hard against this law – most of his life’s work could be banned.

It might be handy if someone could draw up a list of all the organisations and people who should be denied venues to hold their meetings and events.
I presume that the OP writer thinks this backward christian group should be on it.
Who else? The BNP and the EDL of course. What about ”climate change deniers”?
All kinds of contrarians. Maybe even UKIP? They still have that Lord Pearson don’t they?
He’s a right islamophobe. And what about selling the Daily Mail and the Sun on university campuses? There were some campaigns to get them banned from some university shops.
And remember this:

David Coleman, a professor of demography at Oxford and co-founder of the think-tank Migration Watch UK, has become the target of a student campaign to force him out of the university over his affiliations.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=208017

Some people are always ”outraged” about something or other.
The christian group are very reactionary, but black listing them is a draconian step I think.

@pagar #126:

“Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.”

What am I missing?

The bit about the data not supporting the global warming hypothesis?

The bit about the fact that the data was not his to share willy-nilly?

134. Cylux

Not without good cause, given that there are immediately going to be big honking concerns over their ability to conduct their duties and themselves honestly when ethnic minorities are involved. If I were a second generation immigrant I wouldn’t exactly find a BNP police officer to be all that trustworthy when it came time to report crimes committed against my person.

People join political parties for all sorts of reasons. Doesn’t mean they agree with everything the party says – or that they hold these views with any degree of passion.

I fail to see why a member of the BNP would have more trouble carrying out their job as a policeman than a member of the SWP would as a teacher. Or why a second generation immigrant would be more at risk from one than a farmer who owns three cows would from the other.

@SMFS #133:

Sorry Robin but you want to go down this route?

1. A minor error in the name is irrelevant. I do not post under oath. Nor is my memory infallible. Does the law exist? Yes it does. Does it prove that what Chaise said was wrong? Yes it does. Is your objection asinine? Yes it is.
2. I am not going to include every single little legal phrase in every blog post. I do not have the time. Nor do I care to check. This is not a legal proceeding. Does it make any difference at all? No it does not. Is Chaise still wrong? Yes he is.

The trouble is, someone who can’t be bothered to get the name of the law right very often doesn’t get the law itself right, as here.

The word “threatening” imports a requirement that the acts or words put the listener in fear of imminent physical harm. Now call me an idio,t but I think that makes Chaise’s comment that the Acts is “meant to outlaw the use of prejudice to directly incite violence” closer to being right than you.

Oh, and (i) “threatening” is (for relevant purposes) an objective test – so your Sikh case doesn’t work; and (ii) you’ve forgotten about new section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

@Charlieman #133:

Robin’s comments have been logical (not a personal attack on him) but they don’t get down to the rub about how society accommodates unconventional people.

I’m not quite sure how deeply conservative members of the national religion of the country get to be defined as “unconventional people”, but still…

For what it’s worth, my view is that the right to freedom of speech does not carry with it the right either to an audience or to a chosen platform. I do not see as censorship the actions of those associated with Exeter College trying to persuade it not to offer a platform for the expression of the views of Christian Concern; just as I would not consider my local Constitutional Club (if indeed I have one…) was censoring the views of Gay Pride in declining to accept a booking from them.

@SMFS #74:

Dictating behaviour is perfectly reasonable function among B&B owners. Don’t smash things. Don’t play loud music all night. Don’t use drugs. Don’t bring three dogs.

“differentially dependent upon their sexual orientation”? I knew some smart-a*** would try this one on, hence the addition of that clause.

I also think they have every right to refuse custom to anyone on whatever grounds they so choose.

You have no problem with “no blacks, no Irish”? Well of course you don’t.

If you offer a public service for your own profit, you do so on the terms set by the public. That means that you have basic food hygiene and fire precautions, safe premises, and don’t illegally discriminate between your guests.

@ Robin

The bit about the data not supporting the global warming hypothesis?

The bit about the fact that the data was not his to share willy-nilly?

Th fact is that UAE refused to release the source data on the basis that they did not have the permission of those who “owned” the data to do so. You have to ask why not?

In fact, when the data was leaked, it was shown that it did not support the “hockey stick” graph as there has been no evidence of warming over the last 10-15 years.

The point was not that the data was not shared “willy nilly” but that it was selectively shared with scientists who were fellow travellers.

@ Robin

The word “threatening” imports a requirement that the acts or words put the listener in fear of imminent physical harm.

Nonsense.

It means whatever it is interpreted to mean by the police, CPS and judiciary.

Or are you suggesting that Patrice Evra was in fear of imminent physical harm from a gesture made by a spectator that he didn’t even see?

@pagar #142:

Th fact is that UAE refused to release the source data on the basis that they did not have the permission of those who “owned” the data to do so. You have to ask why not?

For someone who bases his entire political philosophy on the primacy of property rights, you’re being remarkably cavalier here with the property rights of the owners of the raw data that was used to create the UAE’s data set. The data was shared by the owners, other national meteorological services in the main, on terms that it would not be released “into the wild”. This is because meteorological data has a measurable financial value.

In fact, when the data was leaked

No data was “leaked”; an archive of emails was stolen, and subsequently the raw data used in the creation of the UAE’s data product was released under FoIA, after negotiations with the owners of that data. In the event, the ICO forced UEA to disclose Trinidad’s data notwithstanding their continued refusal. Given your unquestioning support for property rights, you will no doubt condemn that decision of the ICO?

See: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2011/July/crutem3

, it was shown that it did not support the “hockey stick” graph as there has been no evidence of warming over the last 10-15 years.

Nothing in the raw data released shows that CRU was in any way inaccurate.

You also miss out an important couple of words in Professor Jones’s statement. He referred to their being no”statistically significant” warming. The data showed warming, but the warming was not, over the 15 years to 2010 significant to the 95% level – that is, there was more than a 1 in 20 chance that the apparent warming was a statistical blip.

Oddly, no-one repeating this meme ever refers to the fact that if you change the year start to 1994, the warming does then reach the 95% level – that is, over the 16 years from 1994 to 2010, there was statistically significant warming (I really can’t imagine why not). Bearing in mind that the rule of thumb is that 30 years of data is necessary to establish statistically significant trends in climate data that is a significant finding.

More generally, the “hockey-stick” has been supported by so many separate and independent data sets and studies that a single study to the contrary is itself probably not statistically significant.

The point was not that the data was not shared “willy nilly” but that it was selectively shared with scientists who were fellow travellers.

No. The raw data was used in the creation of the CRUTEM3 data product, which is and has always been available from the UEA. While it was shared with other climate researchers, that sharing was not in accordance with the terms upon which it had been provided by the data-owners. That doesn’t however justify compounding the breaches by sharing with self-styled climate auditors with no interest in using it for scientific research.

By “fellow-travellers” you presumably mean those who accept that the data – all of it – supports the propositions as to AGW derived from over 150 years of science?

@pagar #143:

Nonsense.

It means whatever it is interpreted to mean by the police, CPS and judiciary.

Of those three, the judiciary has the final and decisive word. It has decided that “threatening” requires threat of imminent physical harm.

Or are you suggesting that Patrice Evra was in fear of imminent physical harm from a gesture made by a spectator that he didn’t even see?

Has there been a conviction on this basis? I’d have thought it would be appealable, if so…

Robin @144

No data was “leaked”; an archive of emails was stolen

A lot of raw data was also leaked, especially for the Russian stations. I remember working on it at the time.

Given your unquestioning support for property rights, you will no doubt condemn that decision of the ICO?

Not at all. I don’t believe in intellectual property rights.

over the 16 years from 1994 to 2010, there was statistically significant warming

Not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether this is warming is in any way remarkable, given that we are emerging from a mini ice age.

That doesn’t however justify compounding the breaches by sharing with self-styled climate auditors with no interest in using it for scientific research.

We are both agreed that the data was shared with those scientists who were in agreement with the AGW hysteria and not with those who were sceptical. That was what I meant when I said

Witness the climate scientists who are entitled not to share their data when it does not fit their warming hypothesis.

Glad we’ve got that settled.

Has there been a conviction on this basis? I’d have thought it would be appealable, if so…

As far as I am aware, the man was arrested but has not yet been charged with any offence.

I imagine that the CPS and police are currently pondering what law they can use to get him in front of a court but I would have thought that the Racial and Religious Hatred Act would be favourite although I suppose they may go with breach of the peace because of the difficulty you outline above.

The one thing we can be sure of is that he will be charged with something, because the lynch mob demands it.

Ban the catholics as well – hang on, they haven’t booked the room, so that’s alright then?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109982/Cardinal-Keith-OBrien-brands-Camerons-gay-marriage-plans-grotesque.html

As per the inquiry @101, I’ve still had no feedback on when the next stoning of unchaste damsels and adulterers is scheduled for, only more expressions of homophobia and the latest diatribe about marriages between same-sex couples from that religious intitution specialising in the sexual abuse of the young. The churches really do need to get their acts together because they are looking hypercritical and ridiculous.

@148

Ban the catholics as well – hang on, they haven’t booked the room, so that’s alright then?

Well, you’re the only one who’s been calling for a ban in this thread, us no-platform types have been arguing along the lines of Robin Levett @140, so you’d best figure that one out for yourself.

@ Robin

I would not consider my local Constitutional Club (if indeed I have one…) was censoring the views of Gay Pride in declining to accept a booking from them.

And yet the local B&B would be?????

[150] “Well, you’re the only one who’s been calling for a ban in this thread” – oh, FFS, I have said no such thing – I have said the christian brothers view on homosexuality is ENDEMIC amongst the main religions.

I have repeatedly asked how you distinguish this lot from the rest – the best, or indeed only answer (so far) was stuff and nonsense about them booking the room.

Continue to willfully ignore such questions if you want to – everybody else has, confirming my suspicion that there is no meaningful principle underlying the calls to stop them using the room (as suggested in the OP, not by me).

I align myself with Chaise, Pagar, et al, – groups such be free to express controversial opinions so long as they do so within the law – and instead of trying to shut them down WE (liberals) should work harder to explain why they are wrong.

Pagar @ 146

What is in dispute is whether this is warming is in any way remarkable, given that we are emerging from a mini ice age.

Bollocks!!!!!!!! Whether it is ‘remarkable’ or not is not the central issue, the issue is what has caused that warming.

People in their 80s die every day in this country. If the police are called to a house where an 85 year old is dead, the police are not there to decide if that death is statistically significant or not. If they find an ice pick in the woman’s forehead, that becomes ‘remarkable’, not the statistical likelihood of a natural death at that age. just because millions of people die of natural causes evey year on the planet does not mean that the concept of ‘murder’ is wrong.

Bob 101 and 150

> The churches really do need to get their acts together because they are looking hypercritical and ridiculous.

Bob, sadly it is only yourself that is shown as ridiculuous – not the christian you so often criticise on LC.

Several times on LC you have made the same wrong-headedd claims – several times I and others have explained why.

Is there any hope that this time you’ll listen?

Here’s the facts:

The Two errors Bob keeps making
=========================
i) cherry picking a verse from someone else’s religion, and interpreting it yourself without any reference to that religion’s own scholars and exponents.

That is obviously just plain stupid.
If Bob’s interpretation says that christians cant help the poor (which Bob has claimed on LC) and quotes a bible verse to support it: but the evidence from what christians actually do and say is the opposite. Guess what. Bob’s interpretation is wrong. No matter whether Bob thinks the christians are interpreting their book irrationally or not – it is their book and only christians today are the authority on what it means today. No one else.

ii) that christians are obliged to obey the Old Testament.

Obvious rebutall – who do christians eat pork Bob?

Read up ‘New Covenant’ to understand that Christians don’t treat the OT as a source of laws for today’s behaviour.

A&E

> confirming my suspicion that there is no meaningful principle underlying the calls to stop them using the room

You’re spot-on right.

Instead of any ‘meaningful principle’ – I fear that Sunny and many on LC have a bigotry against christianity, and that is the underlying motive exposed in this thread.

Hence the demonstrated desire on LC to avoid criticism of illiberal aspects of non-christian faiths such as Islam.

@ 135 SMFS

“And yet Oxbridge finds it nearly impossible to admit anyone of Afro-Caribbean origin because they simply do not do well enough in school. In education one thing we know is that Afro-Caribbean origin children, especially boys, do poorly.”

I think you misread my comment – when I said I didn’t find “this” to be the case in education, “this” was the idea that we can’t talk about race issues. I’ve seen quite a lot of dialogue about different educational success rates by groups.

“No, they publish studies on it and come to a different conclusion – racism. It is not acceptable to blame Jamaican culture for poor performance. That would be privileging Eurocentric norms of normativity. What is more it would also strongly suggest we need less multiculturalism and more assimilation. If you know of any study that suggests cultural reasons I would be happy to see it.”

See below

*Racism IS a cultural issue.

*Identifying racism as *a* cause does not mean assuming it is the *only* cause.

*It’s a leap to say this means we need “less multiculturalism”. More accurate to say that there are certain cultural elements we would be better off without, like the “acting white” phenonemon in the US and probably here too, where black inner-city kids are accused by their peers of “trying to be white” if they work hard at school. And crab-bucket mentality in general.

So here’s your example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting_white . The page links to the original report that investigated the issue.

“The debate over education is conducted without any reference to the evidence. Anyone who tries to talk about the evidence is shouted down by being accused of racism. As we saw with Francis Crick.”

Could you link that?

“That does not surprise me”

Fascinating.

“No he doesn’t. He is quibbling about the words I used. No more.”

No, he’s arguing about the intended applicability of the law too.

“There is nothing about directly inciting anything. Nor is there anything about violence. It just says that the Court has to find the words, in whatever form, threatening and intended to stir up hatred.”

Threatening behaviour is illegal anyway, so what’s the problem? If a mugger threatens to punch you and makes you hand over your wallet, should that be perfectly legal?

“The opinions do not even have to be prejudiced. If some Sikhs said they found a play threatening and inclined to make their neighbours hate them, it could be banned by this law if they could find some PC judge to agree with them. The words do not have to be false. This is why Rowan Atkinson campaigned so hard against this law – most of his life’s work could be banned.”

Has there actually been a case of comedy, literature or whatever being banned under the law? When Atkinson and Co. were complaining about it they seemed to have a very different idea of what the law would do than the law-makers themselves.

@pagar #155:

And yet the local B&B would be?????

No. The local B&B, in refusing to honour a contract with a gay couple, would be (i0 in breach of contract and (ii) interfering with the right of the gay couple to live their life within the law and (iii) doing so for reasons solely connected with their sexual orientation. It’s described in the ECHR as the right to family life and the prohibition of discrimination. The state is required to guarantee those rights.

I have repeatedly asked how you distinguish this lot from the rest – the best, or indeed only answer (so far) was stuff and nonsense about them booking the room.

Stuff and nonsense about them booking the room? That’s the whole bleeding reason there’s even a protest! It’s not like there’s any inconsistencies here in how and when calls for someone to be refused a platform arise.
As for how we distinguish this lot from the rest, well, if you can’t tell the difference between Christian Concern and groups like the Gay Christian Network and Courage* then no wonder you have problems grasping salient points.

*Who tend to focus more on the teachings of Christ, son of God and God incarnate, whom you would think would be the first port of call for all Christians given that his teachings are straight from the horses mouth, rather than the earlier Leviticus and the later Saul of Tarsus, but I digress.

@pagar #144:

A lot of raw data was also leaked, especially for the Russian stations. I remember working on it at the time.

“workign on it at the time”? Are you sure you’re not thinking about either the Yamal data, which McIntyre was harassing Briffa about; or the claim from the Russian IEA that CRU had cherrypicked their data? Perhaps you could give a reference to the idea that raw data was stolen as well. (I prefer “stolen” to “leaked” – it’s so much more accurate).

Not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether this is warming is in any way remarkable, given that we are emerging from a mini ice age.

Are we? When was this (global) “mini ice age”? Exactly how long does it take to “emerg[e] from a mini ice age”? At what point – after having reached and exceeded pre-mini ice age temperatures – do we say we’ve actually finished emerging?

Even if we are emerging from a mini ice age, so what? The question is what physical processes are at work and what continuing effect will they have. We know we’re pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and we know that that will lead to warming.

You still haven’t begun to demonstrate that the data doesn’t support the scientific consensus that global warming is happening, and that we are causing it.

@ Robin

The local B&B, in refusing to honour a contract with a gay couple

Nice try.

But you were talking about declining to accept a booking, not refusing to honour a contract.

@161

But you were talking about declining to accept a booking, not refusing to honour a contract.

Well the incident in question the civil-partnershiped couple had booked and paid for the room, it was only when their taxi arrived after their day out, and the owners realised that the couple intending to stay where husband and husband, not husband and wife, did the owner come flying out of the b&b offering a full refund and explaining why it was that they wouldn’t be staying there.

@ Cylux

Well the incident in question the civil-partnershiped couple had booked and paid for the room

In those circumstances, the B&B owners were in the wrong and were entitled to be sued for the breach of contract.

[159] I have never claimed that every single religious group oppose gay relationships, just that most do, as the catholic cardinal’s blundering (picked up on a recent thread) reminds us.

You have linked to a recently formed pro-gay christian group that few have probably heard of?
Such views are at odds with the overwhelming consensus amongst theisms (on the matter of gay relationships) – this is the general point I am trying to make.

You pick up on LC’s debate on Anjem Choudrey’s attendance at the Hay.
You will see from my comment @83 (on the thread you link to) that I say exactly the same thing about those who expound ideas fluffy liberals might take exception to (in AC’s case a desire for the nastier elements of Islam) – such people should still be entitled to express controversial opinions even at public events.

In general I think there are far greater dangers from polarising different factions rather than hearing more about why they think the way they do – such polarisation lies at the heart of conflicts like Palestinian/Israeli or Northern Ireland.

Anyway, I think we have both probably bored on enough about this now – perhaps we can just agree to disagree on this occasion?

@155: Just visiting

Predicatably, your post amounts to more personal abuse, not rational argument.

It’s avowed Christians who are cherry-picking verses out of the Bible.

No one has posted robust theological reasons for the serial neglect of the explicit commandments set out in Deuteronomy 22:20-22, as linked @101, for the execution of unchaste damsels and adulterers.

Unattached, dispassionate observers are left to puzzle about the reasons for that serial neglect compared with the regular effusions of homophobia.

I think we are entitled to know from Christians why they are cherrypicking which bits of the Bible they choose to follow and which bits they don’t. Straight answers are long overdue.

@pagar #161:

But you were talking about declining to accept a booking, not refusing to honour a contract.

I thought you might engage with the contractual issue, and not the human rights issues. Now go back and deal with (ii) and (iii) in my comment; which apply to both situations.

Cylux

so… you’d stop Exeter renting it’s rooms to this one group.

OK What other groups would you apply the same too? Can you list them? Off the top of your head, just the ones you’re aware of right now.

JV

PS: Looks like these guys have the same concept as you of silencing groups they don’t like – though I’m sure you’d disagree with the violence they threaten:

Talk at Queen Mary University ‘Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society’ cancelled:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/966

The fact that the case was pursued as a breach of the ECHR was just a piece of red meat for the permanently angry. The substantive issue was that reneging on an agreement to allow the gay couple to stay was a breach of contract. Advertising rooms for rent is an ‘ invitation to treat ‘ where one party is offering to accept offers. When the party making the offer accepts the other party as an offeree, then a contracted agreement exists. They can’t then turn around at a later date and add conditions to the contract that never existed when the contract was agreed. A hotel can’t invite offers for rooms and say dogs are welcome, and then when someone who has booked a room with their dog tries to check in add a condition that the dog must have a bushy tail.

Appeals to it’s my property and I can do what I like are tripe. As soon as you make invitations to treat and enter into contracts for the rooms they are no longer an entirely private sphere. You can’t enter into an agreement to rent a room to a gay couple, then later add no gays allowed without breaching the contract that contained no conditions about gays.

So Richard – the way you phrase that, suggests that you’d be happy if the b&B had a ‘no gays’ notocve on it;s front door, website and answering machine ?

Why discriminate against same-sex couples but not those sinful adulterers and unchaste damsels?

Bob B 165

Ok, so you didn’t read my post then. Sigh.

> I think we are entitled to know from Christians why they are cherrypicking which bits of the Bible they choose to follow and which bits they don’t.

Bob – take off your blinkers
- Christians eat pork.
- They don’t mandate circumcision.

QED – they don’t treat the old testament as a book of rules to be followed 100% by Christians.

If you genuinely want to know how christians interpret their holy book – then you must read what THEY write about it. Read their theologians.

Don’t come to LC expecting to get an answer !

Let’s agree a new rule – eh ?

No more posting on LC your random choice of old testament verses.
Instead – you’ll do some reading of christian theologians.

Is that a deal?

Once you’ve read a book written by christian scholars, on what they interpret their holy book to mean: then come back here if you wish with queries.

171. How very Catholic. So the people are too stupid to understand their Bibles. They have to have them explained to them via a third party?

The church never trusts the people.

@ Robin

I thought you might engage with the contractual issue, and not the human rights issues.

But of course.

Richard above makes the argument better than I could.

If you are saying that supra state pronouncements, in whatever fanciful terms they are expressed, trump individual property rights I don’t agree.

@171 JV: “Bob – take off your blinkers – Christians eat pork. – They don’t mandate circumcision”

Since Christians aren’t currently insisting on killing adulterers and unchaste damsels, does that mean adultery and pre-marital sex for girls are now OK, just like eating pork and giving up on male circumcision. That’s probably just as well, seeing as half babies are now born to unmarried couples but Deuteronomy 22 was very emphatic in those commandments about killing unchaste damsels and adulterers. As best as I can gather from the Bible, eating pork and missing out on circumcision didn’t mean automatic death sentences.

If this Christian couple running that B&B boarding house are so worried about sinful carryings on by their paying guests, they could always require their guests to wear one of those chastity devices which seem to be popular in some quarters from what I read on the web.

157. Chaise Guevara

I’ve seen quite a lot of dialogue about different educational success rates by groups.

Such as?

*Racism IS a cultural issue.

Yeah but not their culture, our culture. Thus it is our fault not theirs. Although I think there is an element of anti-White racism in some African origin communities which explains some of their lack of success.

*Identifying racism as *a* cause does not mean assuming it is the *only* cause.

I would love to hear from anyone who thinks White racism and Black genes are both causes of low educational attainment. Of course it is not the only cause. We all know Thatcher is to blame as well, right?

*It’s a leap to say this means we need “less multiculturalism”. More accurate to say that there are certain cultural elements we would be better off without, like the “acting white” phenonemon in the US and probably here too, where black inner-city kids are accused by their peers of “trying to be white” if they work hard at school. And crab-bucket mentality in general.

Well I would agree, but that is by definition a call for less multiculturalism. They have to stop acting as they think Afro-Caribbean boys should and start acting like we think White boys should. Assimilation in other words. You can’t ring fence culture and insist that a living culture retains the nice bits. It is a package deal where you don’t get to pick and choose.

So here’s your example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting_white . The page links to the original report that investigated the issue.

Even there:

“Ogbu made a related claim in his 2003 book, Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement, concluding that black students’ own cultural attitudes hindered academic achievement and that these attitudes are too often neglected. However, as Ogbu made clear in his seminal work Minority Education and Caste (1978), school disengagement among caste-like minorities occurs because of the glass ceiling placed by white society on the job-success of their parents and others in their communities.”

Could you link that?

Sure, but how about a link to James Watson instead?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566468/Nobel-scientist-snubbed-after-racism-claims.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566699/James-Watson-suspended-over-racism-claims.html

No, he’s arguing about the intended applicability of the law too.

No he is not. We cannot be sure about the intended application. Although the actual intention of the New Labour government was worse – this is what we got after the House of Lords struck out the worst bits – over the strong objections of the government.

Threatening behaviour is illegal anyway, so what’s the problem? If a mugger threatens to punch you and makes you hand over your wallet, should that be perfectly legal?

That depends on what you mean by a threat. Given the absurdities of the law, this is obviously intended to stop working class people expressing their views. Whether or not actual violence was intended. A mugger who means it is a problem. Someone who does not, does not. We have seen this stupid approach to “threats” with people who tweet “threats” to airports and the like. The Courts and police cannot be trusted to determine what a threat is.

Has there actually been a case of comedy, literature or whatever being banned under the law? When Atkinson and Co. were complaining about it they seemed to have a very different idea of what the law would do than the law-makers themselves.

Not yet. I don’t think Atkinson did actually. I think they were on the same page. The point is not that the law has yet to be applied. The point is that it will be, it will be applied in ways it was not meant to, it will expand as judges and lawyers use it to build their Empires – and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals are very good examples of this – and it will have a chilling effect. A mistake.

145. Robin Levett

For someone who bases his entire political philosophy on the primacy of property rights, you’re being remarkably cavalier here with the property rights of the owners of the raw data that was used to create the UAE’s data set. The data was shared by the owners, other national meteorological services in the main, on terms that it would not be released “into the wild”. This is because meteorological data has a measurable financial value.

Sorry but could you produce any evidence at all that anyone who provided data to the UAE did so on condition that it was not released. Evidence in the sense of something they said, not something that Jones later claimed.

It is unusual for people to refuse public access to data that the public has paid for. Which is what virtually all the data used by UAE is.

Nothing in the raw data released shows that CRU was in any way inaccurate.

For various definitions of inaccurate. The problem is such data is always adjusted and not all of it is used. As long as the CRU is reluctant to explain the logic of what they do – almost always in the general direction of warming – it is hard to know if they have been inaccurate or not.

More generally, the “hockey-stick” has been supported by so many separate and independent data sets and studies that a single study to the contrary is itself probably not statistically significant.

Name three.

No. The raw data was used in the creation of the CRUTEM3 data product, which is and has always been available from the UEA. While it was shared with other climate researchers, that sharing was not in accordance with the terms upon which it had been provided by the data-owners. That doesn’t however justify compounding the breaches by sharing with self-styled climate auditors with no interest in using it for scientific research.

Available in what sense? In the sense that it was not available? Yes they shared it, as pagar said, with the other members of the Team. They refused to share it with people who are actually doing solid science – and getting academically published – like Steve McIntyre. It remains to be seen if it was shared in accordance with the terms it had been provided.

141. Robin Levett

For what it’s worth, my view is that the right to freedom of speech does not carry with it the right either to an audience or to a chosen platform. I do not see as censorship the actions of those associated with Exeter College trying to persuade it not to offer a platform for the expression of the views of Christian Concern; just as I would not consider my local Constitutional Club (if indeed I have one…) was censoring the views of Gay Pride in declining to accept a booking from them.

I agree. Or I would if this was not part of a wider campaign to deny such people a platform anywhere. One Oxford college means nothing. All of them does.

Robin Levett

You have no problem with “no blacks, no Irish”? Well of course you don’t.

Not as a matter of law. Whatever personal issues I may have, it should not be the job of the government to intervene.

If you offer a public service for your own profit, you do so on the terms set by the public. That means that you have basic food hygiene and fire precautions, safe premises, and don’t illegally discriminate between your guests.

That is to confuse what is the law with what should be the law. The law is wrong in this case.

Robin Levett

Of those three, the judiciary has the final and decisive word. It has decided that “threatening” requires threat of imminent physical harm.

For now. We shall have to see how it pans out in the long run.

Has there been a conviction on this basis? I’d have thought it would be appealable, if so…

Another defect with the law then – all it does is inhibit free speech and provide decades of legal work for some overpaid parasites. At huge cost to the rest of us.

Bob B 174

in Dragon Den style – I’m out.
You really are unswerving in your refusal to listen to what is said to you.

> As best as I can gather from the Bible …

That sums you up Bob – you approach a holy book, of a religion you hate and criticise at every opportunity on LC – and when you get stuck you come and post your criticisms on LC instead of making the effort to do even the most basic research on that religious groups own views. Even your whole question is about what their own views can be !

And even when the unproductiveness of that approach is spelt out for you – you ignore it and carry on trying to interpret the holy book from your little bubble that is totally disconnected from christianity’s own thinking.

Any anthropologist would dismiss you as a crank.

Here’s my last analogy :
What you are doing is as stupid as posting on LC saying ‘Physicists really need to come clean how they think the universe can be full of dark matter that we cannot measure; that is some arbitrary religious faith they have there – here’s an equation from Newton, and as far as I can tell it says nothing about dark matter” -and then when someone suggest you might want to read up some quantum-physics-for-the-general-public kind of books, or even spend some time watching Brian Cox on TV- you pointedly refuse and come back to LC repeating again the fact that you don’t understand the raw equations and again criticising physicists!

I’m out !

“Sorry but could you produce any evidence at all that anyone who provided data to the UAE did so on condition that it was not released. Evidence in the sense of something they said, not something that Jones later claimed.

It is unusual for people to refuse public access to data that the public has paid for. Which is what virtually all the data used by UAE is.”

– have you tried getting public access to the raw data for any medical / pharmaceutical research.

I think you will find it is pretty normal for this not be released.

There is a big difficulty with this climate change sub-thread. Those that do not accept the climate change discussion are not climate scientists, and do not have the detailed grasp of the methods of analysis nor the models involved. They then attributed higher significance to many insignificant facts, and lower significance to more significant ones.They think – or rather belive – they are arguing on a rational basis, when in fact their fundamental position on it is emotionally based. I am going to stick my neck out a bit here, and say, mine is too. But at least I have the honesty to know that I have a position, and tend to listen more to the information that fits my model.

The problem we have is this emotional debate will not lead to a scientific conclusion.

Sally

> So the people are too stupid to understand their Bibles. They have to have them explained to them via a third party?

No it is Bob, (who stands outside of christianity) of course that has the understanding gap, not ‘the people’, not christians.

Swap ‘christian’ for ‘hindu’ and ‘old testament’ for the Vedas: you get the picture. Alot more people on LC would be criticising Bob’s approach in that case, I imagine.

Davidh

That is a bit dishonest is it not – bringing in a totally seperate area of science – where there is a huge minefield of legal issues /data protection practise; which of course does not apply one iota to climate change data.

> have you tried getting public access to the raw data for any medical / pharmaceutical research. I think you will find it is pretty normal for this not be released.

SMFS 177

>> Has there been a conviction on this basis? I’d have thought it would be appealable, if so…
>
> Another defect with the law then – all it does is inhibit free speech and provide decades of legal work for some overpaid parasites. At huge cost to the rest of us.

Sadly you are right.
Many of us who share a desire for the ‘world to be a better place’ – have a strange blindness when it comes to lawyers – we overlook the natural result of their self-interest, which takes their focus away from ‘justice’ which we assume it to be; and instead they behave in a manner that maximises their own outcomes.

ie maximising the number of hourd they can bill for !

An example from an employment tribunal I was involved in last month: the panel of 3 includes a part-time one who is a solicitor, who is on the other side of the table the rest of the week. So he has a natural self interest that works against making the law work fast or smoothly: being hourly paid he’d lose money!

The result: the hearing was held on one day – but instead of the panel deciding that day, they wait 3 weeks, until the exact same 3 are on duty together again: and will meet then to decide !

Result – (a) their heads are full of 3 weeks of other cases, so inevitably will have forgotten stuff, despite the best possible note taking = less sensible decision will be taken

And (b) justice is on hold for 3 weeks whilst the case is parked !

Hard for me, working for a small company in the private sector where efficiency and being quick for clients is paramount, to imagine how a culture like that stays so fat and lazy without an outcry.
The problem is the people who could change it, the senior people in law – are themselves (or were) hourly paid solicitiors/lawyers and so would be turkeys voting for christmas!

Even your local small-town solicitors still charge £200 / hour for routine stuff.

179. davidh

– have you tried getting public access to the raw data for any medical / pharmaceutical research.

No but how much of that is funded by the public purse? If it is, it ought to be open

There is a big difficulty with this climate change sub-thread. Those that do not accept the climate change discussion are not climate scientists, and do not have the detailed grasp of the methods of analysis nor the models involved.

Sorry but this is just irritating – the people involved in climate science do not have a detailed grasp of the methods of analysis or the models involved. As someone with actual real academic training in these sorts of models, I get annoyed by people who clearly do not understand them comment on the work of other people who clearly do not understand them. The climate models are garbage from beginning to end. As for analysis, Steve McIntytre has comprehensively shown they do not understand that either. Climate science is a refuge for third rate scientists who lucked out into the Big Time.

They then attributed higher significance to many insignificant facts, and lower significance to more significant ones.

And yet something like Yamal shows that the people involved do not understand even basic analysis either. We are risking the world economy of the basis of something that would disgrace a PhD student.

They think – or rather belive – they are arguing on a rational basis, when in fact their fundamental position on it is emotionally based. I am going to stick my neck out a bit here, and say, mine is too.

I don’t think there is a lack of emotion on either side in this debate. At least someone like Steve McIntyre tries hard.

@ 175 SMFS

“Such as?”

Um, I just gave you a link.

“Yeah but not their culture, our culture. Thus it is our fault not theirs. Although I think there is an element of anti-White racism in some African origin communities which explains some of their lack of success.”

So you’re only interested in explanations you like the sound of?

“I would love to hear from anyone who thinks White racism and Black genes are both causes of low educational attainment.”

Whoosh, there go the goalposts! You do know that culture and genes aren’t the same thing, right?

“Well I would agree, but that is by definition a call for less multiculturalism.”

No. You could end up finding that the perfect system had MORE multiculturalism, if that’s something that we can even measure. E.G. you could encourage white British people to adopt a foreign work ethic.

“They have to stop acting as they think Afro-Caribbean boys should and start acting like we think White boys should.”

No, they have to start acting like we think *all* boys should.

“Assimilation in other words. You can’t ring fence culture and insist that a living culture retains the nice bits. It is a package deal where you don’t get to pick and choose.”

Not always true. For example, I’d say that Christianity has improved in terms of getting rid of nasty bits.

“Ogbu made a related claim in his 2003 book, Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement, concluding that black students’ own cultural attitudes hindered academic achievement and that these attitudes are too often neglected. However, as Ogbu made clear in his seminal work Minority Education and Caste (1978), school disengagement among caste-like minorities occurs because of the glass ceiling placed by white society on the job-success of their parents and others in their communities.”

You’re moving the goalposts again. Why should researchers ignore examples of racism they find? Because you find that admitting racism exists is somehow politically incorrect? The point is, you asked for an example of researchers saying that a demographic is being hindered by its own culture; I have provided it.

“Sure, but how about a link to James Watson instead?”

Could be a case of what you describe. It’s hard to tell from the article how valid his research was.

“No he is not. We cannot be sure about the intended application.”

Every time you speak in first-person plural or say that something is “sure”, what you mean is “this is my opinion that I’m trying to blindly claim is indisputable”. As now.

“That depends on what you mean by a threat. Given the absurdities of the law, this is obviously intended to stop working class people expressing their views.”

You can add “obviously” to the above list of weasel-words too. Please provide a link to the bit in the law that says it’s only to be used on working-class people. Or are you suggesting that such views are limited to working-class people?

“Whether or not actual violence was intended. A mugger who means it is a problem. Someone who does not, does not. We have seen this stupid approach to “threats” with people who tweet “threats” to airports and the like. The Courts and police cannot be trusted to determine what a threat is.”

Agreed there have been stupid applications. Who do we trust, though, if not the police or the courts?

“Not yet. I don’t think Atkinson did actually. I think they were on the same page. The point is not that the law has yet to be applied. The point is that it will be, it will be applied in ways it was not meant to, it will expand as judges and lawyers use it to build their Empires – and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals are very good examples of this – and it will have a chilling effect. A mistake.”

Well, time will tell. Personally I’m of the view that the first attempt to outlaw literature under this law would kill the law dead.

I’m admittedly unclear on the rationale for the connection between genetic inheritance of IQ and instances of homophobia in Oxford but thought to recap this:

“Though white children in general do better than most minorities at school, poor ones come bottom of the league (see chart). Even black Caribbean boys, the subject of any number of initiatives, do better at GCSEs”
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14700670

By a report on the BBC website:

“Government figures show only 15% of white working class boys in England got five good GCSEs including maths and English last year. . . Poorer pupils from Indian and Chinese backgrounds fared much better – with 36% and 52% making that grade respectively.” [January 2008]

These findings will probably confirm many prejudices about the white working classes.

185
Perhaps you can treat us all to your favourite quote from Orwell as the last piece of evidence to confirm the said prejudices.

@186

The instructive insight is that the quotes @185 are from long since the demise of Orwell but I think he would have found the outcome of that research study interesting. The challenging question is whether we should attribute the evidence of relatively poor educational attainment of poor white working class 16 year-olds, as compared with other ethnic minorities, to adverse genetic or environmental factors. As the environmental factors apply to girls as well as to ethnic minorities, the implication is that the influence of genetic factors is the more important. But I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

187
So what genetic factor do you think affects white, working-class boys but not girls and ethnic groups, btw, last time I looked, ethnic groups they consisted of both sexes and middle and working-class (class defined by income) I think you need to tease apart the things you are comparing.

[188] difficult question which not even the ‘experts’ seem to agree about?

First we have Cordelia Fine – author of ‘Delusions of Gender’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VbN2vV5Lz4

Meanwhile Simon Baron Cohen offers a rather different perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crmDSDeCEp4

There is stuff about boys having larger brains (on average) while girls are generally more advanced with language acquisition – as with all nature/nurture debate there is usually at least some interaction between the two?

So Much For My Dwindling Sense of Self – why do you bother? Why would anyone reading this site have any interest in trawling through your pompous, long-winded reactionary whinging? What are you hoping to achieve?

[ BTW the fact that if your reply lasts more than two lines I won't read it, just as I can't last beyond two lines of anything else you 'write'. There's a clue there to the pointlessness of it. ]

@ 190

“So Much For My Dwindling Sense of Self”

Le mot juste!

@ SMS as someone with actual real academic training in these sorts of models, I getannoyed by people who clearly do not understand them comment on the work of other people who clearly do not understand them.”

clearly you don’t have as great an understanding as a PHD specialist in climate science you dullard.

184. Chaise Guevara

Um, I just gave you a link.

Really? I don’t think you did.

So you’re only interested in explanations you like the sound of?

Well obviously. But it is irrelevant. That is not what we are talking about and you are trying to change the subject.

Whoosh, there go the goalposts! You do know that culture and genes aren’t the same thing, right?

Hence my interest in people who blame both. Just because it is over your head…

No. You could end up finding that the perfect system had MORE multiculturalism, if that’s something that we can even measure. E.G. you could encourage white British people to adopt a foreign work ethic.

How would that be more multicultural? We would be meeting in the middle. Assimilation of British people to foreign work habits. Difference would be reduced.

Not always true. For example, I’d say that Christianity has improved in terms of getting rid of nasty bits.

Except it is dying. You can’t cut at it and not expect consequences.

You’re moving the goalposts again. Why should researchers ignore examples of racism they find? Because you find that admitting racism exists is somehow politically incorrect? The point is, you asked for an example of researchers saying that a demographic is being hindered by its own culture; I have provided it.

He did not find it. He assumed it. I am not moving the goalposts.

Could be a case of what you describe. It’s hard to tell from the article how valid his research was.

It wasn’t his research, it was his opinion. And of course it is a case of what I described. A world-reknown scientist is drummed out of the UK because he mentioned in passing Africans may be dumber than Whites. Suspended from his academic job too.

“We cannot be sure about the intended application.”

Every time you speak in first-person plural or say that something is “sure”, what you mean is “this is my opinion that I’m trying to blindly claim is indisputable”. As now.

I am impressed. I specifically and clearly claim we cannot know something and you fail to read it or understand it and claim that I am claiming it is indisputable. We cannot be sure about the intended application. I do not read minds. You do not, I assume, read minds. Politicians lie. Thus we live in a state of not being sure what their opinions are. Your comment is as irrational as it is inaccurate.

Or are you suggesting that such views are limited to working-class people?

No, but Middle Class people know how to use code words and phrase their opinions in a way that will avoid the law. The poor do not. The middle class are not any more or less racist than the working class in my experience. They are just more hypocritical in what they say.

Agreed there have been stupid applications. Who do we trust, though, if not the police or the courts?

No one. Which is why it should not be banned.

Well, time will tell. Personally I’m of the view that the first attempt to outlaw literature under this law would kill the law dead.

That was not my experience during the Satanic Verses fight when a tiny minority of people defended Rushdie. We already have few problems helping other people ban views – an Australian anti-Semite has been arrested in London and deported to Germany for denying the Holocaust …. in Australia. And the leaders of British intellectual life – the Universities – have been warmly banning unpopular views for a long time. It may be that 7-7 changed British attitudes. But I doubt it.

188. steveb

So what genetic factor do you think affects white, working-class boys but not girls and ethnic groups, btw, last time I looked, ethnic groups they consisted of both sexes and middle and working-class (class defined by income) I think you need to tease apart the things you are comparing.

Well clearly it is not 100% to do with genes. I hope it has nothing to do with genes. But the point is the evidence seems to suggest it has something to do with genes and we ought to be allowed to talk about it without heavy handed bullying and censorship.

Is that an unreasonable position to take?

190. Arthur Seaton

So Much For My Dwindling Sense of Self – why do you bother? Why would anyone reading this site have any interest in trawling through your pompous, long-winded reactionary whinging? What are you hoping to achieve?

I don’t know but a feel a sudden rush of validation.

[ BTW the fact that if your reply lasts more than two lines I won't read it, just as I can't last beyond two lines of anything else you 'write'. There's a clue there to the pointlessness of it. ]

Well I am sad to hear that. But I don’t cater for people who find the Sun heavy going. You will have to keep on ignoring me. See – two lines.

192. tigerdarwin

clearly you don’t have as great an understanding as a PHD specialist in climate science you dullard.

Who the hell has a PhD in climate science? There are no such things. Not even someone like Mann has a degree in such although he is close. More to the point, it does not follow that because some Third rate physics student did a third rate doctoral degree in some other field they have a clue about the mathematics involved. As Phil Jones’ e-mails show. Which is odd because his doctoral thesis was on the vastly simpler problem of modelling river flow.

So no, given the track record of most climate scientists so far, they do not have an even slightly competent grasp of the mathematics involved in modelling the world’s atmosphere. Or they would not even try.

194
Don’t be daft, I’ve bullied no one, I have asked a question with regard to another poster’s statement, who hasn’t yet replied. If someone asks me to clarify a statement or provide evidence, I do so, I do not interpret it as being bullied. You are now clutching at straws.

195?!?!?!? 195?!?!?!?! I wrote comment 53 and have had 142 emails since then – is there really that much to be said on this post?!?! I should look into how I stop receiving the emails, however I had thought it might have stopped by now!!

“It’s funny how Sunny is concerned about this christian event – but when was the last Islamic event he raised?”

Well, Sunny fastidiously avoids stories about Muslim homophobes while jumping eagerly on every story to do with Christian homophobes.

Thus he is happy enough to cover the issue of Christians who oppose gay being allowed to marry but not at all keen to mention Muslims who oppose gay people being allowed to live.

If you don’t believe that, then search the archive. You will find plentiful coverage of Christian homophobes and almost zero of Muslim ones. Now ask yourself: are the religious preachers in this country who advocate the execution of homosexuals overwhelmingly Christian or overwhelmingly Muslim?

Then try and account for the inversely proportional coverage.

This is about Sunny’s beef with Christians, not any principled liberal opposition to homophobia.

This patronising charade may make Sunny and some posters feel good about themselves, but from my perspective it’s no bloody use at all. I am not impressed by people who will fulminate against those who oppose gay marriage but not utter a peep about those who say gay people should be killed. Evidently Sunny thinks all gay people are gullible idiots.