This is an inclusive community forum. Posting support and links to a self-confessed racist would appear to be a deliberate provocative and divisive act (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Westo ... olitician) for background.
I am therefore closing this thread and suspending the poster. Please take any issues with this to Town Asylum.
Admin
If this is 'an inclusive community forum' why did you allow publication on this forum of the cartoons of Muhammad which you knew would hurt and offend Muslim readers?
In my view censoring racist, anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic views is counter-productive - it merely enables racists, anti-Semites and anti-Islamists to present themselves as victims. The way to combat racists, anti-Semites and anti-Islamists is to demonstrate by rational argument that their views are absurd, misguided, wicked, or all three.
I felt this one could have just been shifted to the pub. Allowing squashedcommuter to raise, and be challenged on, his racist views might have been fun. Or it might have gotten ugly and given admin a headache. We'll never know!
By keeping the thread visible we at least have a nice little Daily Mail prism through which to filter any more posts from the OP.
Wile I think Squased Commuter is full of crap an the stuff he was quoting from Churchill was indeed racist I tink admin made a mistake in locking the thread. Surely the best way to have a debate about rcaism and about some nutjob standing for a raciost political party is to allow the original post to stand and people to talk about it. There is no doubt in my mind that Churchill was a racist and so is Commuter but locking the thread and actually suspending him jus make it look like a martir. It also mean him an the other Daily Mail idiots can bang on about politcal corectness which is just tedyous.
Robin - you point about not removing the Hebdo Cartoons is a separate decision based on different criteria. It was a difficult one and deserves to be discussed but in its own thread. Over to you! Meanwhile I'll address why I did what I did. I'm not going to justify it 'cos it may be the wrong decision. That's up to you to decide individually. Feedback is welcome.
Decisions like this are seldom based entirely on the contents of a single post. In this case I saw at the final realisation of posts over a period of time of a wish to use STF as a platform to put a white supremacist racist in the election for Lewisham West. Whilst I doubt whether there is even remotely approaching half of the required number of sponsors to be recruited here - is a community forum open to all ethnicities the place for this? I also have to confess that racists are a particular demon for me and this will inform my reaction. As does any association with the EDL & BNP.
Please note my use of the term racists. I distinguish this from racism which may be practised by racists and, unconsciously, by people who do not regard themselves as racist. I try and distinguish between the two.
My choice was:
1) To let it go
2) To remove it
3) Move it to the Pub
4) Hope Robin or others would deliver a withering response
5) To close it with reasons
I think 1) & 2) are ducking an issue that cannot be ducked. 3) was one I seriously thought of but the objective of the post was the intention to do something here in Sydenham. It wasn't a discussion issue, it was as call to action. Town Hall is the place to do that. Otherwise its just ducking out again.
Which left 4). The problem was late on Saturday night it hadn't been made. I was out all day Sunday so would not have been able to intervene if things got out of hand. So I went reluctantly for 5). I do realise that victim-hood is very important to these people and I was feeding it. But this contribution is insignificant in the broader picture. In the end should we allow white supremacists to share our platforms?
I don't have a problem with them running their own websites and forums if they can stay within the law. But racists who campaign for the removal by unspecified means of people from our community based solely on their colour will always have a problem with me and hence my moderation. You have to make your own decision on that.
Trouble is Squashed Wossname will now see this as a censorshp of freedome of speech and will bang on about it to his racist little hearts content. This is a tactic used by racists and homphobes and all the other sick prats who have those sort of twisted views they say they have a right to be sick prats and the likes of you banning them justifies there sick prat ideas. Surely the rest of us are more than able to knock there stupid sick prat ideas? I feel you have misjuged this hugely.
I have not done anything that can't be undone. If there is a consensus here that I should unlock the thread and unsuspend the OP then I will. Over to you ...
Robin Orton wrote:In my view censoring racist, anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic views is counter-productive - it merely enables racists, anti-Semites and anti-Islamists to present themselves as victims. The way to combat racists, anti-Semites and anti-Islamists is to demonstrate by rational argument that their views are absurd, misguided, wicked, or all three.
I have seen plenty of racist comments go unchallenged on this forum, so please don't pretend that by allowing complete freedom to offend that you will defeat these comments. It is a lovely idea, but you might as well claim that rational argument should have been used by the Danish police at the weekend rather than shooting the poor racist victim who was merely carrying out his right to massacre people in cafes or in synagogues.
I don't care when racists claim to be the victims of censorship, of a CIA conspiracy, Islamification of the country, or fluoridisation. I'm really not convinced that freedom of speech should be extended to offensive lies.
Should the thread and the poster be reinstated? I really don't care either way. But if admin found it offensive then that is good enough for me.
I accept Admin's and Michael's implied rebuke that if one keeps bleating on about defeating racists etc by force of argument, it is incumbent on one actually to try to do so. The trouble is that, on reflection, I suspect that's very difficult in the limited space, time and expertise which is in practice is available to those of us who post here.
The basic problem with convinced racists etc, I suggest, is that their whole world-view is, from the perspective of the rest of us, badly skewed - partly because of their personalities, part because of their upbringing, partly because of their education (or lack of it), partly because of their life experiences (or lack of them). One can't unskew people's world-view just by saying 'you're a racist, and you shouldn't be' or by quoting statistics or trying to explain history, biology ,anthropology, sociology, ethics or theology to them.
On the other hand, challenging them (even if we're not going to convert them) is perhaps exactly what nevertheless we ought to be doing - preferably I agree, in the form of a 'withering response' (though I myself don't do withering, I fear.) I was in fact toying with the idea of responding to SquashedCommuter when the thread was locked, but only to say how glad I was that Sydenham wasn't the sort of place where an obviously racist candidate would get more than a handful of votes.
I still have doubts about whether the thread should have been locked and the poster suspended (I assume he can at some time be de-suspended, subject to future good conduct?) , but I now see that the issue is not as clear-cut as I originally presented it. Perhaps reversing the decision at this stage would give the wrong message. But I am happy to leave the issue to Admin.
I agree that the chances of changing someone's mind on ANY subject they have fixed views on via forum discussion are vanishingly small. Like Robin, though, I wanted the opportunity to say no thank you very much, we'll have none of that sort of thing here. Effectively, to do what admin did, but as a community.
Your wishes are my command (well sometimes). I'm unlocking the thread and unsuspending the OP. I leave it to others to administer suitable rebukes, warnings and heavenly advice.
admin wrote:In this case I saw at the final realisation of posts over a period of time of a wish to use STF as a platform to put a white supremacist racist in the election for Lewisham West.
Dear admin,
Firstly, thank you, after consideration, for allowing me the privilege to continue to post on this forum.
Thank you also to other citizens who campaigned for freedom of speech and have made some interesting points which have left me deeply in thought.
In my recent posts I have also been defending this gentlemen for his views on morality which some UKIP supporters appear to be harassing him about.
Liberty GB are not perfect. I disagree with them on many specific points and am not fond of some of their associations. However they address some serious issues and make points I find very interesting. I broadly agree with many of their stances.
Many people strongly disagree with the Iraq war but will still vote Jim Dowd who voted very strongly for it. The possibility of supporting Liberty GB has left me in a deep complex dilemma.
I would like to thank you again for providing this forum and allowing freedom of speech.
I am also very curious as to how I managed to give you this vision of wanting a "white supremacist racist". I'd be grateful for any guidance on this.
My question is to ask whether everyone has some sort of racist (probably should say patriotic) views to some extent that only come to the surface once they are personally affected, which Sydenhamites by and large aren't since it's a mixed and integrated community generally.
What would views be though if Sydenham were gradually taken over by "incomers" who naturally want to clump together and current Sydenhamites found themselves desiring to leave, in effect pushed out, as has happened in various areas of London and the country? Isn't that more a frightened self-survival response in the face of a territorial takeover albeit by creeping rather than outright aggressive military action? Are individuals to be considered racist if one of many who begin sentences starting with "I've nothing against them, but..."? As they have re refugees through the ages, especially relating to jobs, though currently in London more about housing justifiably or otherwise.
I don't think immigration (wanting restriction of) and racism itself can be deemed synonymous. There's no doubt in my mind however that some people are simply incapable (probably by instinct as much as inculcation or they wouldn't be drawn) of accepting anyone who's not like them - wherever in the world.
So is non-racism really just taught thus learned tolerance - that is, until some sort of perceived line has been crossed or a fear that it could be? Personally, I suspect it is.
The far-Right in this country i.e you, Liberty GB and the rest have a serious credibility problem. Backing Winston McKenzie is not going to help with that. What a joke.
mosy wrote:What would views be though if Sydenham were gradually taken over by "incomers" who naturally want to clump together and current Sydenhamites found themselves desiring to leave, in effect pushed out, as has happened in various areas of London and the country?
I wouldn't care. It happens everywhere. We're all incomers. And it happens in reverse too. No one on here is posting worried about all the African and Caribbean 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who can no longer afford to live in South West London because of all the affluent, white incomers "who naturally want to clump together". Why is that?
mosy wrote:in the face of a territorial takeover albeit by creeping rather than outright aggressive military action?
That is very loaded language to use. It's exactly the kind of militaristic language the like of the Telegraph use to wind up the UKIPs. Don't fall for it.
mosy wrote:Are individuals to be considered racist if one of many who begin sentences starting with "I've nothing against them, but..."?
It's usually the second half of that sentence that is the racist bit.
mosy wrote:So is non-racism really just taught thus learned tolerance - that is, until some sort of perceived line has been crossed or a fear that it could be? Personally, I suspect it is
Absolutely not. No one is born racist. Racism is learned behaviour, often so deeply ingrained in culture that it is implicit. Like Nigel's racism for example.
I've tried to answer but keep finishing up with 99 pages. Suffice to say to say that there are practical aspects that have nothing to do with racism, just too many people for our infrastructure for example.
