Posts
Yikes. Tough one. I personally am in favour of people being free to wear what they wish, and I'm against going round banning stuff. I'm also a moral liberal, and looking back on the repressed times from Britain's past makes me uneasy. I'm reading Love and Mr Lewisham by H.G. Wells at the moment and a man talking to a woman is so scandalous that the man looses his job. I don't like that, and the full veil is, to some extent, an extension of that. But no one should be forced to wear, or not wear, anything they don't want to. The example was given on radio when discussing this that it may be legal to be naked, or very close (see most adverts) but illegal to be fully clothed.
Now I'm not sure how far the practical concerns go. Is there any evidence that there is a security issue? If so then that is important. The problem will be loudmouthed wind-up merchants on both sides, meaning that a sensible, rational discussion is impossible. Both sides that is.
Communication - it doesn't make me very comfortable to speak through the letter box slit as so much of human communication is non-verbal and thus suppressed. But that's not a good enough reason to ban something.
One thing the mrs always says, and I agree, is that the woman should not be seen as the evil sexual temptress. I see women looking lovely, but I am responsible for my actions based on that, they are not.
The issue is also force. Is the woman forced to wear the veil? If she is, there is a problem. If anyone is forced to wear something that is a big problem
"Writing in the Independent, journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who chairs the group British Muslims for Secular Democracy, said she supported restrictions on wearing the face veil in key public spaces."This covering makes women invisible, invalidates their participatory rights and confirms them as evil temptresses. "I would be more inclined to agree. However, I don't see many white converts in the full veil where I come from, they are usually small, black and very quiet.
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Monday, 9 November 2009
Tony Benn and the Tories
The other day I called him Tony Bandwagon Benn.
"Tony Benn doesn’t hate the Tories anymore".
Interesting:
"There are issues I find myself in agreement with some of the Tories on, particularly on civil liberties,” said Benn. “All this security state stuff is very, very worrying. Libertarians like David Davis, a right-wing Conservative, resigned over the government’s 42-day detention law and I went to speak for him.” He said he also agreed with the Conservatives over the Lisbon treaty.
Steady on, mate. Socialists shouldn’t find themselves in agreement with the Tories on anything. Ever. We might share the Tories’ opposition to given aspects of New Labour authoritarianism, but that is a different thing entirely from being in agreement with them. The difference is one of nuance, perhaps, but nevertheless vital to grasp."
"
You don’t jettison your underlying ideas, but you do have to sharpen up your arguments. So while I do still want to see the bourgeoisie swinging from the nearest lamppost, it has finally dawned on me that this is something of a long-term strategic perspective.
But at the same time, this means that I have a different ideology to that of the Tories. And that I want to be divided from them, as they will want to be divided from me.
That is why Benn is wrong to privilege issues over ideologies in seeking out alliances. I fear that his newfound tendency to elision brings him to the brink of final political collapse."
To me, Benn will never recover from opposing Foot. Now he's jumping into bed with Tories.
I applaud David Davies for being a libertarian who resigned over the 42 days detention. And what happens to him? Backbenches.
I may oppose authoritarianism, but I don't support the Tories
"Tony Benn doesn’t hate the Tories anymore".
Interesting:
"There are issues I find myself in agreement with some of the Tories on, particularly on civil liberties,” said Benn. “All this security state stuff is very, very worrying. Libertarians like David Davis, a right-wing Conservative, resigned over the government’s 42-day detention law and I went to speak for him.” He said he also agreed with the Conservatives over the Lisbon treaty.
Steady on, mate. Socialists shouldn’t find themselves in agreement with the Tories on anything. Ever. We might share the Tories’ opposition to given aspects of New Labour authoritarianism, but that is a different thing entirely from being in agreement with them. The difference is one of nuance, perhaps, but nevertheless vital to grasp."
"
You don’t jettison your underlying ideas, but you do have to sharpen up your arguments. So while I do still want to see the bourgeoisie swinging from the nearest lamppost, it has finally dawned on me that this is something of a long-term strategic perspective.
But at the same time, this means that I have a different ideology to that of the Tories. And that I want to be divided from them, as they will want to be divided from me.
That is why Benn is wrong to privilege issues over ideologies in seeking out alliances. I fear that his newfound tendency to elision brings him to the brink of final political collapse."
To me, Benn will never recover from opposing Foot. Now he's jumping into bed with Tories.
I applaud David Davies for being a libertarian who resigned over the 42 days detention. And what happens to him? Backbenches.
I may oppose authoritarianism, but I don't support the Tories
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
A liberal (Socialist) take on free speech and the BNP
Not my words, but my sentiment:
"The fact that other parties are trying to silence a minority voice makes them no better than the BNP.
Rational people are unlikely to vote for them so why is there such a furore?
Censorship and biggotry go hand in hand, it breeds discontent and hatred.
There will be a backlash if they try to prevent this, it is irrelevant that the government and other parties disagree with alternative viewpoints, the simplest fact that the governemnt are legislating against free speech and opinion is an attack on all our freedoms.
Let them have their say, let us make up our own minds. The only way BNP will benefit from this is if their argument is more convincing than others and if that is the case than maybe the other parties don't have the right people or ideas.
BTW I totally disagree with the BNP policies."
"The fact that other parties are trying to silence a minority voice makes them no better than the BNP.
Rational people are unlikely to vote for them so why is there such a furore?
Censorship and biggotry go hand in hand, it breeds discontent and hatred.
There will be a backlash if they try to prevent this, it is irrelevant that the government and other parties disagree with alternative viewpoints, the simplest fact that the governemnt are legislating against free speech and opinion is an attack on all our freedoms.
Let them have their say, let us make up our own minds. The only way BNP will benefit from this is if their argument is more convincing than others and if that is the case than maybe the other parties don't have the right people or ideas.
BTW I totally disagree with the BNP policies."
Friday, 18 September 2009
liberal reforms
"it is "pointless to persist with the conventional responses to the increase in crime. More police, more prisons and more effective judicial procedures are clearly not working, except in so far as they satisfy a patent public thirst for retribution.""
from a book written by Tory MP Alan Duncan.
I don't like sticking huge quotes in here, but it's such good and interesting stuff. Not sure if any of this will make it's way through to being policy, but it's very encouraging that they are willing to go against the grain.
"They add that "deterrence is an increasingly empty threat, and nobody seriously believes that a spell in prison is capable of reforming or rehabilitating the criminal character. A criminal record only makes it harder to re-enter normal civilian life, turning a significant minority of people into career criminals and so making crime an even more intractable problem"."
let's hope that liberalism wins the day and these are the sorts of things we can expect from Duncan and the new Tories.
Cameron is, apparently, a libertarian, so let's hope he puts his money where his mouth is:
"The sensible solution, they say, is not to treat the symptoms of crime but the causes, including the "demoralised condition of young people in many inner cities today" and - perhaps to the relief of rightwingers worried where all this is heading - "the lack of any culture of ... self-improvement in those parts of society where the majority of people are dependent on state handouts".
The chapter on all this was in the hardback version, but mysteriously disappeared from the paperback version. However, there is a link to it on his website if you want to read more.
In the same book, Duncan famously argued for the legalisation - or at least the decriminalisation - of drugs, which isn't Tory policy. The assumption that prison doesn't work and only makes crime worse isn't likely to be in the Tory manifesto either. It's a long time since the Conservatives have wanted us to hug hoodies, but it's interesting to know where Duncan's sympathies really lie, nonetheless."
from a book written by Tory MP Alan Duncan.
I don't like sticking huge quotes in here, but it's such good and interesting stuff. Not sure if any of this will make it's way through to being policy, but it's very encouraging that they are willing to go against the grain.
"They add that "deterrence is an increasingly empty threat, and nobody seriously believes that a spell in prison is capable of reforming or rehabilitating the criminal character. A criminal record only makes it harder to re-enter normal civilian life, turning a significant minority of people into career criminals and so making crime an even more intractable problem"."
let's hope that liberalism wins the day and these are the sorts of things we can expect from Duncan and the new Tories.
Cameron is, apparently, a libertarian, so let's hope he puts his money where his mouth is:
"The sensible solution, they say, is not to treat the symptoms of crime but the causes, including the "demoralised condition of young people in many inner cities today" and - perhaps to the relief of rightwingers worried where all this is heading - "the lack of any culture of ... self-improvement in those parts of society where the majority of people are dependent on state handouts".
The chapter on all this was in the hardback version, but mysteriously disappeared from the paperback version. However, there is a link to it on his website if you want to read more.
In the same book, Duncan famously argued for the legalisation - or at least the decriminalisation - of drugs, which isn't Tory policy. The assumption that prison doesn't work and only makes crime worse isn't likely to be in the Tory manifesto either. It's a long time since the Conservatives have wanted us to hug hoodies, but it's interesting to know where Duncan's sympathies really lie, nonetheless."
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Libertarianism
Julian Ware-Lane (top bloke) has written something on libertarianism for Labour list. Here's my two pennies worth:
"Mr Ware-Lane, top work. I wanted to get involved on here because there will be less people than Labour List and we can hopefully involve in a discussion about it, rather than have idiots shouting.
I am a liberal socialist, in that on social matters i am pretty much a libertarian. I believe in legalisation of drugs on the basis of liberty, although i am willing to balance this against the wider social picture.
economically i'm very much a socialist.
while I am in some senses a libertarian, i support the right of people to choose to loose some of their liberty (e.g. CCTV) to gain some. Classical liberalism, social contract etc.
Speed cameras are such a devisive thing. To me, the people who argue against them tend to be the ones who support tougher sentancing and cracking down on crime. Other people's crime. And that tends to be the libertarian case, to give themselves more liberty. In some cases it may mean liberty for others too, but they tend to see the the case for liberty through their own eyes.
I support things like higher taxes (an infringement on economic liberty) in order to bring about things which enable liberty, such as healthcare or education"
"Mr Ware-Lane, top work. I wanted to get involved on here because there will be less people than Labour List and we can hopefully involve in a discussion about it, rather than have idiots shouting.
I am a liberal socialist, in that on social matters i am pretty much a libertarian. I believe in legalisation of drugs on the basis of liberty, although i am willing to balance this against the wider social picture.
economically i'm very much a socialist.
while I am in some senses a libertarian, i support the right of people to choose to loose some of their liberty (e.g. CCTV) to gain some. Classical liberalism, social contract etc.
Speed cameras are such a devisive thing. To me, the people who argue against them tend to be the ones who support tougher sentancing and cracking down on crime. Other people's crime. And that tends to be the libertarian case, to give themselves more liberty. In some cases it may mean liberty for others too, but they tend to see the the case for liberty through their own eyes.
I support things like higher taxes (an infringement on economic liberty) in order to bring about things which enable liberty, such as healthcare or education"
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
BNP on the BBC
This again. There's a lot of it about.
i’m not happy about the lack of consideration for free speech on Liberal Conspiracy.I thought it was supposed to be a LIBERAL forum. Being a liberal means tolerating those you don’t agree with, even when they are nasty racist nutters. the point is that everyone seems to be calculating what to do on the basis of what will do most damage to the BNP, rather than considering what is best for democracy. I know the BNP in power is bad for democracy as we all know what they’d do, but i’m getting pretty sick of so called ‘liberals’ trying to deny basic liberal rights to people they disagree (very strongly) with.
"This article does rather seem to imply that the British public are inbred morons, ready to march straight to the ballot box and vote for whichever candidate has the nicest sounding name. I have a bit more faith in them than that (most of them, anyway).”
I don’t. (prove me wrong, britain, prove me wrong)
Benevelont dictatorship is the way forward I say. I only post here because nobody has created ‘authoritarian conspiracy’ yet.
More seriously, the problem isn’t so much the BNP’s appearence, but the fact nobody else in the mainstream parties is going to be capable of making pro-immigration arguments. We’ve had over a decade of hysteria about immigration that leads to moronic comments about britain having an open door policy (it doesn’t – anyone who thinks this is asked to explain why it would be necessary to have a campaign to allow Iraqi interpreters into the UK if we actually did have an open doors policy) and frequent inaccurate assertions about the benefits immigrants are entitled to. So much so that I doubt even the more literate and nuanced members of the anti-immigration brigade would be capable of writing a few paragraphs that put the pro-immigration case if a gun was stuck to their head – which isn’t the case with other political issues where most people at least know some of the arguments against their own position. I’d rather see Griffin face a couple of academics from Compas or the centre for migration policy research than a couple of loyal party hacks reciting the party line.
For that matter I’d rather see an entire panel of experienced academics discuss the issues of the day than a bunch of party loyalists more interested in making soundbites. Imagine a panel comprising proffessors of economics, criminolgy, international relations, history, social policy and physics. Now that would be worth watching."
Bearded Socialist:
"I'm certainly with you on the panel of specialists rather than party hacks, sounds amazing. But there would only be you and me watching it because it's 'boring'. Even if we got thousands to sign up to support it, it wouldn't never get off the ground because it's not 'young' or 'sexy' enough.
On addressing the issues, you're quite right.
The media are full of stories every day about migrants coming over here, stealing our jobs, lazing around on benefits, committing crimes, overtaking our culture, putting down the ingenous people.
I don't think it's true, but the fact that it's there all day every day makes it become near enough true.
That, to me, is a big part of the problem. I wonder how much of the BNP's support comes from personal experience, how much from the media"
i’m not happy about the lack of consideration for free speech on Liberal Conspiracy.I thought it was supposed to be a LIBERAL forum. Being a liberal means tolerating those you don’t agree with, even when they are nasty racist nutters. the point is that everyone seems to be calculating what to do on the basis of what will do most damage to the BNP, rather than considering what is best for democracy. I know the BNP in power is bad for democracy as we all know what they’d do, but i’m getting pretty sick of so called ‘liberals’ trying to deny basic liberal rights to people they disagree (very strongly) with.
"This article does rather seem to imply that the British public are inbred morons, ready to march straight to the ballot box and vote for whichever candidate has the nicest sounding name. I have a bit more faith in them than that (most of them, anyway).”
I don’t. (prove me wrong, britain, prove me wrong)
Benevelont dictatorship is the way forward I say. I only post here because nobody has created ‘authoritarian conspiracy’ yet.
More seriously, the problem isn’t so much the BNP’s appearence, but the fact nobody else in the mainstream parties is going to be capable of making pro-immigration arguments. We’ve had over a decade of hysteria about immigration that leads to moronic comments about britain having an open door policy (it doesn’t – anyone who thinks this is asked to explain why it would be necessary to have a campaign to allow Iraqi interpreters into the UK if we actually did have an open doors policy) and frequent inaccurate assertions about the benefits immigrants are entitled to. So much so that I doubt even the more literate and nuanced members of the anti-immigration brigade would be capable of writing a few paragraphs that put the pro-immigration case if a gun was stuck to their head – which isn’t the case with other political issues where most people at least know some of the arguments against their own position. I’d rather see Griffin face a couple of academics from Compas or the centre for migration policy research than a couple of loyal party hacks reciting the party line.
For that matter I’d rather see an entire panel of experienced academics discuss the issues of the day than a bunch of party loyalists more interested in making soundbites. Imagine a panel comprising proffessors of economics, criminolgy, international relations, history, social policy and physics. Now that would be worth watching."
Bearded Socialist:
"I'm certainly with you on the panel of specialists rather than party hacks, sounds amazing. But there would only be you and me watching it because it's 'boring'. Even if we got thousands to sign up to support it, it wouldn't never get off the ground because it's not 'young' or 'sexy' enough.
On addressing the issues, you're quite right.
The media are full of stories every day about migrants coming over here, stealing our jobs, lazing around on benefits, committing crimes, overtaking our culture, putting down the ingenous people.
I don't think it's true, but the fact that it's there all day every day makes it become near enough true.
That, to me, is a big part of the problem. I wonder how much of the BNP's support comes from personal experience, how much from the media"
Friday, 21 August 2009
Ban the bastards
From Pickled Politics
"From Hope Not Hate:
The Home Secretary has just announced that the anti-Islam march in Luton will not be taking place. In fact, as a precautionary measure, all marches have been banned in the town for the next three months.
This is a massive victory for everyone who joined our protest yesterday. Over 14,000 letters were sent urging a ban and our voices have been heard. Thanks to everyone who sent off a letter. We have won and Luton is a safer place because of it. This is just further proof of what we can achieve when we get organised."
I'm not in favour of banning things. I mean, the left would be up in arms if an anti-war march or anti-racism march had been banned, or if all marches had been banned for three months. It's very difficult, because i'm a liberal sort and anyone going against that naturally rubs me the wrong way. But where to draw the line? The whole idea of being a liberal is tolerating those who disagree, but if they really are racist or anti-Islamic they may deserve to be banned. It's a bit of a liberal paradox.
I don't like the glee that lefties of this sort take in banning people who disagree with them.
If they are an illegal group then fair enough i suppose as they have fallen foul of the law
"From Hope Not Hate:
The Home Secretary has just announced that the anti-Islam march in Luton will not be taking place. In fact, as a precautionary measure, all marches have been banned in the town for the next three months.
This is a massive victory for everyone who joined our protest yesterday. Over 14,000 letters were sent urging a ban and our voices have been heard. Thanks to everyone who sent off a letter. We have won and Luton is a safer place because of it. This is just further proof of what we can achieve when we get organised."
I'm not in favour of banning things. I mean, the left would be up in arms if an anti-war march or anti-racism march had been banned, or if all marches had been banned for three months. It's very difficult, because i'm a liberal sort and anyone going against that naturally rubs me the wrong way. But where to draw the line? The whole idea of being a liberal is tolerating those who disagree, but if they really are racist or anti-Islamic they may deserve to be banned. It's a bit of a liberal paradox.
I don't like the glee that lefties of this sort take in banning people who disagree with them.
If they are an illegal group then fair enough i suppose as they have fallen foul of the law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
