Saturday, February 10, 2007

Antonia Bance: totalitarian twat

Via Timmy, I'm delighted to see Antonia Bance, NuLabour Councillor, backing the shutting down of free speech; what else would you expect from a sockpuppet of totalitarian, Lefty scum?
Glad to see my old student union is still run by sensible types who won’t allow idiot journos to give a platform to the BNP.

First, since when has any fucking student union been run by "sensible types"? They are all run by students, for fuck's sake.

The second point is ably raised by Dizzy in the comments.
Do you equally agree with restricting freedom of speech for Galloway, Repsect and terroist apologists?

Yeah, right. The awful Antonia probably donates her pocket money to George Galloway.
I’m curious you see. If you do then good. I look forward to your outrage at them being given platform. After all, both the BNP and Respect are scumbags right?

And if you’re wondering, I would give a platform to all of them. Then I’d rip their arguments apart with reason.

Yeah, but that's always a problem for Lefties, especially smug ex-Oxbridge student Lefties. The trouble is that Lefty arguments are, themselves, so easily demolished by reason, history and current events that they aren't too keen on giving a platform to people who disagree with them. And, odious though Nick Griffin's views are, he is very far from being a stupid man; I am willing to bet that his arguments are far more persuasive than anything that fucking Oxbridge student Lefties would be able to field.

Dizzy is taken to task by someone who patently hasn't read the article (or hasn't, at least, understood it).
Do you understand the difference between ‘not being invited on to a student radio programme’ and ‘restrictions on freedom of speech’. Does the fact, for example, that you and I haven’t been invited to appear on it mean that our freedom of speech has been restricted?

But, my dear chap, Griffin was asked onto the radio show and then the student union stepped in and cancelled the interview against the wishes of both Griffin and the radio show producers.
An Oxide Radio interview with Nick Griffin, the Chairman of the British National Party, has been forcibly cancelled by OUSU.

The proposed interview was pulled because OUSU subscribes to a no-platform policy designed to prevent far right groups from using student unions to promote their views.

James Macadam and Max Seddon, co-hosts of the radio show ‘The Big Idea’, had organised a phone interview with Griffin to talk about Britishness on the show next week.

The presenters of the show have received a handwritten death threat and emails warning them to back out of the interview. Macadam and Seddon said that they were prepared to continue despite the threats before OUSU stepped in and cancelled the interview.

Oxide Radio is run by Oxford Student Services Ltd, the commercial arm of OUSU. It is subject to the constitution of the Student Union and is therefore obliged to conform to its no-platform policy. OUSU sabbatical officers have the right to censor any content that they disapprove of.

OUSU President, Alan Strickland, said, “There was no way we would let a fascist group use any of the Student Union’s facilities or services to spread its message of division, offence and hate.”

I see, Alan; so, would you let George Galloway go onto the programme? Unfortunately, the OUSU page listing the various campaigns which are endorsed currently leads to a 404 dead link. However, this picture might entertain you all.



Tell you what, perhaps if we were to email Alan Alan Strickland then he would be happy to provide all of the details: president@ousu.org

Now, I don't know what the relationship between the OUSU and The Oxford Union is, but perhaps you'd like to peruse the latter's list of august speakers?
Last year, Yasser Arafat made his first international speech after the Israeli elections.

In the meantime, the OUSU website has details all of those lovely Equal Opportunities areas that Oxford likes to cover.



I assume that there was no space "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Association" there, at all? No, because Lefties don't like those two, you see; it allows people to criticise and argue with them and Lefties really don't like that. Pig-ignorant student Lefties (there's a certain amount of tautology there, sorry) especially don't like it up 'em; do they, Antonia?

Councillor Antonia Bance, ladies and gentlemen, endorsing the stifling of free speech just like her NuLabour masters would have wanted. Ain't she due a promotion...?

UPDATE: thank you to canker in the Haloscan comments, who points out that Antonia's alma mater apparently wasn't sensible enough to refuse Nick Griffin entry in the first place.
One point of information: Nick Griffin is himself an Oxbridge student: Downing, Cambridge (Law).

I am sure that Antonia will try to ignore that fact though.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

There isn't a relationship between the Oxford Union and OUSU. The only thing they have in common is their tendency to attract the worst kind of hack.

The former is a privately-funded forum for debate and attracts world-class speakers, including many that are mad, bad or dangerous to know. It provides its members with various bars, balls, debates and other entertainment.

The latter relies on the taxpayer, via the University itself, for its existence and provides various lefties with a platform to air their views. It has famously failed to provide anything as useful as a student venue.

Clarice said...

Why do you call people whose views you consider wrong or heinous, "cunts" and "twats"? Do you think it reinforces your argument?

Devil's Kitchen said...

My dear Clarice, this is The Devil's Kitchen: this is what I do. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.

You will find pertinent points within my posts: I call people cunts because they annoy me.

DK

Anonymous said...

For a while I entertained encouraging OUSU to create a "Free Speech Campaign" but it would be just as useful as all of their other campaigns. So I'm not going to bother.

Mr Eugenides said...

Do you still hear the cunts screaming, Clarice?...

Reactionary Snob said...

I'm not a fan of this no position idea re: the BNP - the only way to show them for the racist idiots they are is to destroy them in public debate, preferably in front of a packed gallery of guffawing students.

RS

james higham said...

...what else would you expect from a sockpuppet of totalitarian, Lefty scum?...

Where do I start? I came here to make some smartarse comment and found myself rivetted to the post, if not the f--ks and c---s.

I've only just finished a totalitarian type piece myself and my mood is currently angry. I vigorously underscoere every line of this post.

Also like Anonymous and Reactionary Snob's comments here. How, how, can we organize enough to stop these toe-rags [in the post, that is, not your commenters]in their tracks?

Anonymous said...

Griffin is clever but he is also evil - I expect banning him is what he wants.

I remember his level of political discourse from when he was in Cambridge - he threw a live firework into a Fabians meeting with the result that everyone was deafened for 2 to 3 hours.

Perhaps if the Police had prosecuted then - perhaps this odious scum would have had a criminal record and have got nowhere politically

Reactionary Snob said...

But, anonymous, even if he had been prosecuted the BNP would still be about - possibly not as large as it is know but still about.

We have to look to why people are tempted to vote for these people - we can only do this by discussing with them and debating with them.

Guardian apostate said...

reactionary snob - I'm considering voting for the BNP at the next available opportunity. Having perused the BNP website and considered much of what Nick Griffin has recently said or written I have found no racism or any indication that he's 'evil' (courtesy of anonymous) or idiotic. I look forward to you convincing me to do otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a fan of this no position idea re: the BNP - the only way to show them for the racist idiots they are is to destroy them in public debate, preferably in front of a packed gallery of guffawing students.
------
Whenever he's been taken on in a debate he's took them to the cleaners. That's why theres no platform.

Reactionary Snob said...

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1078

You wouldn't say that that story from the BNP's own website was racist?

Off the racist point, I would argue that their economic policies are truly idiotic.

Whether I think they are racist or idiotic is neither here nor there - I think the British public are much wiser than we give them credit for. Whether you vote for them or not, is up to you - and I would fight to the death for you to vote that way even if I find the beliefs of the BNP abhorrent.

RS

Anonymous said...

Reactionary Snob (and anyone else, for that matter) - I would be interested which views (listed in the BNP manifesto) you find abhorrent.

Guardian apostate said...

reactionary snob - the obvious point is that muslims are followers of a religion and so while suggesting a temporary ban on muslims flying may be considered a little 'over the top' it most definitely is not racist. The wider point made in the article, which I feel sure is the main one they wanted to highlight, is how the authorities will happily target white working class football fans but wouldn't dare do a similar thing if any members of Britains ethnic minorities were involoved. It's this hypocrisy that incenses so many who support the BNP. It seems the only ethnic group that it's perfectly ok to discriminate against is the white British (I think it's referred to as positive discrimination). As someone else pointed out, in any recent debates Nick Griffin has wiped the floor with his fellow debaters. I found much of what he has to say to be worth listening to and reflecting on. Who knows, maybe you would too?

Reactionary Snob said...

It's unlikely - his maths don't add up, and I believe that the government's first duty after security is to run the economy. If you believe that globalisation is a bad thing, that immigration is a bad thing and that nationalising industries is a good thing... well, on you go.

You don't think saying that banning ALL Muslims from travelling into and out of this country is racist? You are picking on an ethnic group because of their ethnicity for god's sake...

Furthermore, even if this is the case, the article is contradictory - are they saying that white football fans shouldn't be banned from travelling? And if they shouldn't, why are they proposing a policy (i.e. banning a group simply for being part of a group) that in the same article they are saying is wrong-headed?

Who have you seen Griffen debate against? Most people have a no platform policy - I'd be genuinely interested to kow.

RS

PS - on abhorrent nature of the manifesto. Firstly, I don't think you can judge a party (any party) purely on its manifesto but on their words, deeds and actions. Secondly, example A 'once such inequalities have been ended different ethnic groups within the population will have money spent on them according to the percentage of the taxpaying population they make up'. I don't believe in allocating funds by ethnic group - do you? A curious prospect don't you think? Example B - 'while the dumping of asylum seekers on our communities is fundamentally the fault of our government, BNP councillors will do everything in their power to prevent asylum seekers being dumped in our areas'. A genuine asylum seeker has no place here - what a welcoming place Britain would be? I have no problem with people genuinely seeking asylum - do you?

Reactionary Snob said...

PS - almost certainly he would be worth listening to - that's my point, I think the BNP should be heard, should be debated against, should be on Question Time etc. I think almost all politicians are worth listening to - it helps the overarching political process.

RS

Gavin Ayling said...

I met Antonia at a conference last summer and, while I inevitably disagreed with her on a lot, I thought she had integrity.

How disappointing that she's conforming to type.

Anonymous said...

What's the objection to listening to and debating with any legally constituted political party?

Oh yes, someone might agree with some of what they say, God forbid!

Guardian apostate said...

reactionary snob - your summary of the BNP's economic policies seem simplistic to say the least. The BNP seem to model their policies on that of countries such as Japan and South Korea. Their proposals are far more mixed than you give them credit for. Although I was relatively relaxed about immigration initially in my opinion it has gone far too far. Apart from any other arguments that may be presented this is a small country in terms of land size and to greatly increase the house building programme and in the process cover large areas of precious green belt is scandalous.

Again, muslims are adherents of a religion and are most definitely not an ethnic group. The article merely highlights the hypocrisies involved in many Government actions and as far as I can see the BNP's proposals are no more than to create a level playing field in these matters. If you can greatly restrict all football fans travelling abroad in order to restrict the actions of a few (football hooligans) then you can do the same for any other group ie muslims.

There have been 2 recent debates that have come to my attention. Both of them, from memory were on the radio. I'm sorry but I can't remember where I heard them.

Their proposal to allocate funds by ethnic group is a reaction to the grossly disproportionate funding received by non-white English ethnic groups. A good example would be schools, where white working class English pupils are beginning to fall behind. No surprise when ethnic pupils receive much of any extra funding. I doubt the allocations will be exact, just a lot less unfair.

The asylum point is complex. Essentially asylum seekers are meant to seek refuge in the nearest country. Many have travelled over several continents to apply here. The high number of failed applications give some hint that many, if not most, asylum claims are bogus. If any French or Irish are need of asylum we should indeed help but there is a limit on what we can do where the rest of the world is concerned. You must surely accept that there is a limit? I'd love to discuss this with you some more but my tea's ready and I'm hungry.

Not so long ago I thought a lot like you but I'm afraid I've come to change my mind. My experiences have made me come to dislike mass immigration for a variety of reasons. It is for this reason that I shall be voting BNP.

Anonymous said...

Reactionary Snob - the reasons you have listed do not strike me as sufficient to be labelled 'abhorrent.' In your 'PS,' your first sentence virtually acknowledges that there is nothing in the BNP manifesto which would be classed as abhorrent. You then state that you do not agree with allocating funding according to ethnic group. Agreed, however this is no more 'abhorrent' than methods used by the National Lottery, local councils, countless charities etc.

Your second point refers to the BNP's view that asylum seekers have no place in Britain. Well, according to the Dublin Convention, the vast overwhelming majority do not, as they will have travelled through numerous European countries to get here. I would certainly neither call this view 'abhorrent.'

Whilst you are entitled to your views on the BNP, the token rhetoric used by newspapers and commentators such as yourself when referring to the party is ill-informed, unnecessary and unjustifiable. The fact remains that there is noting in the BNP's manifesto that anyone could possible class as racist or 'right wing.'