Anti-Fascists Ruined a Speech by the Leader of the French National Front at Oxford Uni Last Night - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Swineflu;47090888]These so called "Anti-Fascists" are extremists just like any neo-nazi is. In some cases they're even worse.[/QUOTE] To be anti fascist to the point of stopping someone from expressing their opposing views is pretty facist.

There's another interesting aspect here, even if the university didn't make use of it (for political reasons, I assume): The right* of Le Pen to speak in accordance with the law was something that could have been implemented by force** in this case. It would have been entirely within the university's right to temporarily ban violent protesters from the premises. Then, they could have called law enforcement to have them fined and/or removed by force should they refuse to leave. Free speech in face of opposition by others than the state is something that is implicitly guaranteed by property rights in most countries I know of. It's not explicitly spelled out in the law because the existing regulation already goes beyond what's necessary in that regard. (In fact, had the speech by Le Pen been an officially registered event in public space in Germany, police would have ensured their ability to go through with it [I]automatically[/I], as they do for "deployments" by neo-Nazis. I imagine the situation is not much different in France or Britain.) *Of course in this case it's a conditional right, but it only depends on the property owner and is ensured against all other kinds of opposition ([editline]edit[/editline] even if disrupted from outside the premises, through other means). **Enacted by law enforcement in their official capacity, and strictly as necessary. Protection against harm is only lifted as necessary to prevent someone from doing harm after all, generally speaking. Naturally there would have been some political fallout for the university by doing this, but I imagine it would have been manageable had they restricted the ban to violence and disruption (trying to drown out any speaker through volume) only. That kind of behaviour is frowned upon enough to be (conditionally) illegal, after all, even outside of property law.

[QUOTE=Fetret;47094136]I'm seriously asking here, what was the reason for denying the loan? I mean the actual official reason? Because loaning money to someone/something that cannot be reasonably expected to pay it back is basically a donation dressed up to seem more acceptable.[/QUOTE] [url]https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lepoint.fr/politique/le-fn-devoile-les-lettres-de-refus-de-pret-de-quatre-banques-francaises-08-12-2014-1887924_20.php&usg=ALkJrhjvIwvygLayIzvQW50aIJ6aqVShsA[/url] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;47094161]We don't invade other nations and claim territories as our own. We don't get opponents to the president exiled or eliminated to suppress opposition. We don't vote laws to directly fuck over a part of the population because they're part of a minority. That alone puts us on ground to actually legitimately and rightfully criticize Russia. There is no sensible comparison to be made between sending troops on foreign soil in a war context and outright invading populated land to claim as your own. Your whole point on debating/voting on programs and not names makes no god damn sense because for one you literally just dismissed two political parties based on the name of their latest leaders and for two Marine Le Pen is outright praised like the savior of France by her followers more than any other party praises their own leader. The sheer cult of personality that's built around the Le Pen family is astounding, and most of the followers and activists of the party use some very shoddy stratagems to promote the party, notably by covering every possible inch of walls of public ad space with banners praising Le Pen and promoting homophobia (I've seen a shitton of those during the talks about the gay marriage laws, all bearing the FN letters, colors and logo), and not just during election time but at absolutely any time of year - at my university, all the public ad spaces get entirely replaced by what I can only describe as FN propaganda every week, with no program or mention of a program at all - it's just Le Pen's name or her face directly associated with buzzwords like "true French values" or "France to the French" (what the fuck does that even mean), glorifying her above all else. This is something I've literally never seen any other party bother doing. Hell, during last elections most of the official spots for candidate posters (which cannot be legally tampered with and are strictly reserved to one per candidate) were replaced by FN posters, and when the local service replaced them, people did the exact same thing again. FN supporters are outright obsessive with their promotion of Le Pen as a savior of sorts. So yeah, don't try to argue about politics being about names rather than program with the FN being an exception when the FN is in fact the absolute worst offender of this trend.[/QUOTE] Except Crimea is an incredibly different matter which could be compared to our Alsace / Moselle. I'm not dismissing two political parties based on their latest leaders, I'm dismissing their suicidary politics over the last decades. Sarkozy is equally praised in its party, if anything Marine Le Pen is widely criticised in the FN, some preferring his father's liberal view on economics, others rooting for Chauprade who has been recently evicted. Hell even during Jean-Marie Le Pen's era they had opponents, people tend to forget about Bruno Mégret. You're using anecdotal fallacies here, during the mayor elections in my town, every FN poster was tagged, often adding a hitler's mustache to the FN candidate's photo. I've seen far worse posters about gay marriage made by the UMP and as far as I know, Marine Le Pen hasn't taken half as part as the UMP in the gay marriage debate. I myself am in a right wing association sharing common grounds on both UMP and FN, I know both parties and some of their militants, the UMP ones I know are god damn zealots, they'd choke on Sarkozy's dick any time of the day every day. Yet that does not make the UMP a party almost entirely filled with such zealots. I never said the FN is an exception to the whole "politics is about name" fact, I'm just saying your argument is mostly "they're from the Le Pen family and the Le Pen family is bad, therefore the FN is bad". You're free to think and claim that, but don't try and use this in an argument for there shall be no argument at all.

[QUOTE=AlexDeviant;47093379]gb is up there with sweden how pathetic truly the 2 countrys we need to get the fuck out of Europe.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index[/url] Look at where my country is in that list and then try to find your own.

[QUOTE=headshotter;47094735][url]https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lepoint.fr/politique/le-fn-devoile-les-lettres-de-refus-de-pret-de-quatre-banques-francaises-08-12-2014-1887924_20.php&usg=ALkJrhjvIwvygLayIzvQW50aIJ6aqVShsA[/url] [/QUOTE] From what I can understand from the article (seriously thanks) the banks either refused because they were not lending in France (UBS) or they did not want to be seen as taking sides in matters of politics (CIC and BNP Paribas). The only one I am not really sure about is LCL. Do these banks actually donate or give loans to other parties? If not again I see no problem with them denying FN. If they do however you do have a point.

[QUOTE=Fetret;47095098]From what I can understand from the article (seriously thanks) the banks either refused because they were not lending in France (UBS) or they did not want to be seen as taking sides in matters of politics (CIC and BNP Paribas). The only one I am not really sure about is LCL. Do these banks actually donate or give loans to other parties? If not again I see no problem with them denying FN. If they do however you do have a point.[/QUOTE] They do, the UMP is currently crumbling under debts.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;47092332]They still have the right of free speech. Let them have an open debate, and if they show some arguments that have bullshit logic, you can publicly make a laughing stock out of them. Now on the other hand you paint them as martyrs, who will gain just more people on their side simply because they are getting oppressed.[/QUOTE] The right to have a platfrm is not the same as the right to free speech and we all know the rhetorics this kind of politician is using, there's no reasonable arguing with them.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47090884]That's called the "horseshoe theory". Pretty much.[/QUOTE] So basically "Argument to Moderation" and "Middleground Fallacy" Being a centrist does not give you the best of both worlds. The horseshoe theory is only sound when you perceive politics to be a one-dimensional spectrum, when in reality it's far more complicated than that.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;47096333]So basically "Argument to Moderation" and "Middleground Fallacy"[/QUOTE] You do realise this is the fallacy fallacy right? The point of the horseshoe theory is that while say Fascism and Communism may have different ideologies and histories and all, in practice they heavily resemble each other.

[QUOTE=Jsm;47094515]To be anti fascist to the point of stopping someone from expressing their opposing views is pretty facist.[/QUOTE] 'Fascist' isn't a catch-all term for things you don't agree with Jsm. You don't see antifa stopping speeches like this and then turning around to proclaim the glory of the state and the superiority of [I]x[/I] race do you? They're not fascist for combating fascism. Authoritarian maybe, fascist no.

[QUOTE=Jund;47092859]it's easy to say that it's violating your freedom of speech when they're against something you're disposed to freedom of speech protects you from the government censorship and means the government, through the police, will try to defend you from illegal harm because of your views to the best of its ability social experiment go up to the largest black man you can find and say that niggers belong in chains. in the second before you fall unconscious, contemplate whether or not he is silencing your right to freedom of speech no, you are a dumbass[/QUOTE] actually going by my experience with human beings he'd probably just get confused and tell you to fuck off. Black people aren't orcs, they aren't all looking for an excuse to smash your face in. You racist fuck.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47090902]This reminds me of that one time where a bunch of feminists went and interrupted an MRA speech at a Canadian university. They activated the fire alarm, so everyone had to be evacuated from the building, preventing the speech. Yet they're the ones who play the "I am oppressed, I want freedom of speech!" card at every chance they get. [hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80[/hd] I just can't take none of these people seriously anymore.[/QUOTE] are you actually comparing antifa with MRAs?????? thats wild dude

[QUOTE=kitteh-nator;47098241]are you actually comparing antifa with MRAs?????? thats wild dude[/QUOTE] [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1450125&p=47090981&viewfull=1#post47090981"]Please refer to this post[/URL]. Geez, it remided me of it because one group of activists censored another, not because MRAs and fat tumblrinas.

still, you're reminded of manchildren who get upset over videogames and 'muh male rights' because of people who are standing up for an [I]actual problem[/I] facism is still huge in europe (especially with the current uprising of pegida) and the fascist way of thinking is actually a huge problem if censorship means that fascists dont get to spread their ideologies then im all for it

They had a brief report on this last night (Sky News?) and I have up paying too much attention after a crazy-eyed hippie said we should ban fascist based groups. Erm. Yeah.

[QUOTE=kitteh-nator;47099555]if censorship means that fascists dont get to spread their ideologies then im all for it[/QUOTE] i'm not too fond of communists myself. can we censor them too?

[QUOTE=Fetret;47092137]Thank you! I came into the thread to say the same thing and I'm glad someone beat me to the punch. Obviously Vice is not the best source for news of this kind (or perhaps news of any kind) but still people seem to have a tough time grasping what freedom of speech actually means. Why was there no outrage months/years ago when those bikers were drowning out WBC pickets with their engine noises?[/QUOTE] Simple, the WBC isn't popular, right now neo-Nazis are upswinging hard in Europe.

[QUOTE=Deng;47099637][QUOTE=kitteh-nator;47099555]if censorship means that fascists dont get to spread their ideologies then im all for it[/QUOTE] i'm not too fond of communists myself. can we censor them too?[/QUOTE] Yea, and while we're at it, let's censor muslims too.

because communism and islam are always inherently evil just like facism

[QUOTE=kitteh-nator;47099973]because communism and islam are always inherently evil just like facism[/QUOTE] well, what if i see communism as inherently evil? what then? what do we use to measure evil? the deaths caused by its followers? language? how do you determine who to let speak or not?

[QUOTE=Killuah;47096249]The right to have a platfrm is not the same as the right to free speech and we all know the rhetorics this kind of politician is using, there's no reasonable arguing with them.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1450125&p=47094520&viewfull=1#post47094520"]The right to a platform is also (conditionally) protected though.[/URL] Their anchoring in law is usually pretty much equivalent, and for good reason: There are other ways to silence someone than preventing them from speaking.

[QUOTE=kitteh-nator;47099973]because communism and islam are always inherently evil just like facism[/QUOTE] I think silencing non violent dissent through violence is an inherently evil act. What gives your opinion on what's evil and what isn't more weight than mine?