Re: Question Time with Nick Griffin

On 25 Oct, 09:39, "Norman Wells" <no-...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 24 Oct, 15:05, "Norman Wells" <no-...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Who,
specifically, represents anarchists and animal rights activists? Who
has any authority to speak on their behalf and be held to account
for their actions? If no-one, why should anyone from them be invited
to appear? That would be utterly pointless.

There are spokespeople for animal rights activists.

Who specifically?  And what authority do they have to speak on behalf of
others?

Anarchists, by
their very nature, do not have representatives though they may feel
inclined to speak as individuals if invited.

Pointless.  Anyone can do that down the pub.

There's no point in having anyone on Question Time who represents
no-one and is responsible for nothing. It would be as worthless as
listening to a drunk down the pub.

Wrong, they can represent certain minorities numbered in several
thousands.

What is their authority for doing so?  How exactly have they been selected
to 'represent' those minorities?

Problem is when
they presented the facts about animal torture in the UK it would
horrify and stun the audience. Face it, dissenters are never
welcomed by the establishment nor given the oxygen of publicity.

When they can put up credible representatives of sizeable
organisations then they would have a point. Who would you suggest
represents the interests of the anarchist community?

By its very nature it does not have a hierarchy

No-one can therefore speak for them, commit them or be held to
account for their actions.

But their individuals can give their own POV.

Everyone's an individual, but no-one wants to watch Question Time to hear
the individual rantings of irrelevant nonentities with no mandate or
authority, which they can do quite easily with more pleasure down the pub..

I have little doubt that
some MPs differ in their opinions from their party but they are
allowed to speak.

As the elected representatives of their constituencies they have the
necessary authority and mandate.

That's how they like it of course. But they can hardly
complain when they're totally ignored. Even the Greens started out
down that road, all very egalitarian, no leader and all that, but
with no official spokesman they found they were ignored too. So, now
they have a leader who makes appearances all over the place. It's up
to the anarchists and activists to decide what they want. If they
want to be heard, they'll have to give up their principles. If they
keep their principles, they'll be ignored. Their choice.

They don't wish to be compelled to emulate or take part in a
hierarchical oppressive system in order to cosy up to the BBC.

Tough.  They've chosen that route.  The consequences lie with them.

Who would you suggest represents the interests of
the animal rights lobby? And what credentials do they have for such
representation?

Given that the animal rights movement is quite large and
world-wide, I am sure they have plenty of spokespersons available.

I asked who you would suggest. Apparently, you have no answer. Again,
therefore, since they can't even organise themselves properly, they
deserve to be ignored.

I would suggest Heather Nicholson, the woman who has been sentenced to
11 years for 'conspiracy to blackmail'. I am sure she has had plenty
of opportunity during her sojourn in prison to formulate a suitable
speech against our repressive State system.

And she'll thankfully have plenty more.  But I don't think they let people
out of prison to appear on Question Time.  It's one of the privileges you
lose, you see.  Anyway, what mandate would she have to speak on behalf of
other animal rights thugs?  Has she been appointed as their spokesman?  Is
she their leaderene?



Also any of the others to be found here and who are probably the most
vociferous:

http://www.shac.net/features/prisoners.html

Strange that you should _want_ to be represented by criminals who indulge in
death threats, mail bombs, bricks through windows, hitting people over the
head with baseball bats, intimidation, paint stripper on cars, blackmail,
and digging up the deceased, though.  Do you really think they're the best
people to convince the great British public of the merits of your cause?
Because I think the effect would actually be the opposite.  Is that really
the best you can do?

Problem is they
are largely outlawed and persecuted by governments and their medias,
because they represent a threat to the economic viability of animal
testing and support corporations and therefore are not acceptable to
the BBC.

They are outlawed because of what they get up to just for fun, Doug.
Like death threats, mail bombs, bricks through windows, hitting
people over the head with baseball bats, intimidation, paint
stripper on cars, blackmail, and digging up the deceased. Criminals
who do that don't deserve a platform for their views, nor does
anyone who won't disown them.

What about the much larger number of animal rights activists who are
not outlawed for those reasons.

How many are there who disown such activities?  Are there any?

No, they were there for the reasons above. But being elected and
having a sizeable popular following will always help.

Well of course it will. Being allied in some way to the
establishment is bound to to be a bonus but this is about
minorities which are not.

I don't think the BNP is usually regarded as being 'allied in some
way to the establishment', but perhaps you do?

They are part of the so-called democratic system are they not? That is
the very reason given for them being invited by the BBC.

If you want to play a game with someone else's bat, Doug, you have to play
by their rules.  Otherwise, you don't get to play at all.

If anarchists,
animal rights activists, anti-war campaigners and any others plucked
from the rag-bag of single issue groups you support can demonstrate
a similar following, then they too would have a case for appearing
on Question Time. But they can't, partly because they can't even
organise themselves, and partly because they have nothing like that
level of support.

Animal rights activists have a considerable following but they have
all been tarred with the same brush by the State and the media because
they threaten an unethical industry.

They're tarred with the same brush, Doug, because they won't dissociate
themselves from the thugs within their ranks.

Fortunately activists seem to get lots of publicity regardless of
the BBC, though even as I write the BBC TV is reporting an anti-war
march in London, even if they don't allow them on their precious
discussion programs.

That's alright then. What are you complaining about?

It should be obvious by now, even to you. Some minorities are selected
for invitation by the BBC and others are not and it seems to be based
on compliance or not with our political system.

It's based on demonstrated public support, authority to represent others,
and accountability.  Anyone else doesn't count and is of no interest to
anyone.

Due to the repetitive and circular nature of your replies I no longer
feel obliged to continue with you and will respond to others instead.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question Time with Nick Griffin
    ... There are spokespeople for animal rights activists. ... And what authority do they have to speak on behalf of others? ... hierarchical oppressive system in order to cosy up to the BBC. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... that he cares to speak. ... certainly does not entitle him to standing as an authority on those ... (in my opinion with Ernst Mayr coming in as a close second). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... qualified to speak with my father about his craft on an equal basis. ... Daniel Dennett about evolution in general. ... authority, and it shows. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... You do not understand what "Argument from Authority" is. ... Because Dawkins and Dennet have studied genetics and evolution, ... in the world (in my opinion). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... Here we see how implacable and red-faced Dana Tweedy is. ... authority, and it shows. ...
    (talk.origins)