redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Indeed, there is a very big difference between workers determining someone is no platformed and states doing it.
Right-wing pundit Candace Owens now barred from New Zealand as well as Australia
- Thread starter Serene
- Start date
Serene
Slightly disgruntled
I dont think the protagonist is just catering for racists. She is going for the full gamut.
Does anybody remember the Sheik Raed Salah episode when he was barred entry to the UK after he had arrived here? 
I think he was a problematic figure but he nevertheless might have had something interesting to say as a Palestinian member of Israel's Knesset. I like the idea that I/we should get to decide what we want to hear and come to our own conclusions about it, not the state deciding for me/us.
With Candace Owens, she's not going to say anything you can't readily find online. So this whole barring of her is a bit of a nothing burger either way. Except the principle that the state should not be deciding what we get to hear and should not be deciding who we choose to listen to.
It's a reality of the 21st century that reactionary and even dangerous views are all over the internet. My hope is that people, especially young people, will inoculate themselves through exposure to these ideas. Because you can't keep people in a bubble and they will come across these ideas anyway.
I think he was a problematic figure but he nevertheless might have had something interesting to say as a Palestinian member of Israel's Knesset. I like the idea that I/we should get to decide what we want to hear and come to our own conclusions about it, not the state deciding for me/us.
With Candace Owens, she's not going to say anything you can't readily find online. So this whole barring of her is a bit of a nothing burger either way. Except the principle that the state should not be deciding what we get to hear and should not be deciding who we choose to listen to.
It's a reality of the 21st century that reactionary and even dangerous views are all over the internet. My hope is that people, especially young people, will inoculate themselves through exposure to these ideas. Because you can't keep people in a bubble and they will come across these ideas anyway.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Being barred from entering the country has nothing whatsoever to do with the state attempting to stop her views being heard. As you say, anyone can listen to them online with a few button clicks.
The entry bar is a token gesture, making the statement "We think you're disgusting. Fuck off and do it elsewhere".
Good.
In this case yes. But not in the Raed Salah case, unless you read Arabic or Hebrew. There are principles at stake.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Exactly.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
If it stopped at that.
But allowing the state the power to define acceptable speech and indeed to define “told to fuck off” is a mission creep to authoritarianism that may one day include your posts on these boards.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
There was an interesting piece in the LRB by Sheila Fitzpatrick about soviet dissident's, how they were seen as anti-social and how they often ended up in the orbit of western forces.
That's internal voices rather than external but still
www.lrb.co.uk
For me this is not so much a point of principle, but a practical action. Outsourcing this type of action to the state (and sometimes capital) has harmed workers self-confidence, which has in turn been part of the process that has encouraged the growth of hard right populism.
That's internal voices rather than external but still
Sheila Fitzpatrick · Disturbers of the Peace: Learning to Love the Dissidents
The dissidents’ questioning of established Soviet truths itself had Soviet roots. Many had come of age in the period...
www.lrb.co.uk
For me this is not so much a point of principle, but a practical action. Outsourcing this type of action to the state (and sometimes capital) has harmed workers self-confidence, which has in turn been part of the process that has encouraged the growth of hard right populism.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well that's the obvious argument but this isn't that though. When that starts to happen, I'll complain about it.
It's reasonable but wrong. I don't think laws against Holocaust revisionism are some sort of dastardly plot.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Define “starts”.
Furthermore, I strongly suspect her “desire to visit New Zealand” was actually rather a search for somewhere likely to ban her, so she can include it in her performance piece They Don’t Want to Let Me Tell The Truth. And this has played into her hands.
I’d rather the story was more like Cable Street: plucky community and its allies defends itself against fascism.
This is a good point. It's certainly not harming her.
This is hardly new though is it. Many political speakers, musicians, controversialists have been denied working visas for fear of fomenting insitement.
List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
Again, she's not being denied free speech. She could probably go to Aus / NZ for a holiday. No one has the right to do the work they want, where ever they want, when they want however.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No. It’s an alt right grifter diagnosis bullet point.
Boo Radley75
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Do you know how hard it is, even for honest people to get a working visa down under. The Kiwis have simply decided they have no working need for a racist grifter, the same as Australia, which is fair enough.This is hardly new though is it. Many political speakers, musicians, controversialists have been denied working visas for fear of fomenting insitement.
List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Again, she's not being denied free speech. She could probably go to Aus / NZ for a holiday. No one has the right to do the work they want, where ever they want, when they want however.
This isn't what would happen though is it. She'd turn up, do a paid gig. Protesters outside would be cast as the left trying to shut down free speech, dictate what can be spoken about. You can't win just by rolling over an dletting these people rabble rouse, getting rich off it, where and whenever they want.
Every entity has the right to decide who's invited within it's jurisdiction and for what purposes. I don't actually agree with a universal principle of letting whoever go wherever for whatever anyway beyond some utopian ideal.
They will use anything. Twisting yourself in knots because the alt right might make capital on sticking to a principle is totally counter productive.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
On the other hand, Germany has had quite strict anti-fascist speech laws and is about to see AfD get its biggest ever vote. So clearly telling people they can't talk about it isn't stopping anyone from supporting or growing it.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
All this "creep" stuff and the notion that it's a slippery slope that could eventually lead to censorship of these boards is just an anarchist thought experiment, imo, Pilch. Similarly I think the 'martyrdom' element is crediting her with undue foresight.
The reality is that the state does exercise control over aspects of our lives, and necessarily so in many cases. We just disagree with the extent of how much is acceptable.
I don't believe in freedom of speech. Incitement absolutely should be illegal. Where it blurs is with the right to cause offence, and whilst I don't necessarily agree with people being imprisoned or otherwise punished for doing so, I see no reason to allow people from other countries to come and punt their hatred when a simple refusal of a visa is enough to send the message that we reject their views. We've got more than enough home-grown racists, thanks.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Tommy Robinson used deliberate contempt to court to pretend he’d been silenced.
I’m not twisting myself in knots. I’m describing a behaviour.
The point about the state and mission creep is the substantive point.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It has historical precedent, though, so it’s not imaginary.
There may be good reasons to restrict where people go and for whatever reason. Disease control eg. during Covid might be one, combating organised international crime might be another. That the government doesn’t like the cut of someone's jib is a terrible reason and will backfire on the left.
I’m not twisting myself in knots. I’m describing a behaviour.
The point about the state and mission creep is the substantive point.
I don't understand where you're coming from TBH. I forget the exact details but should TR have been allowed to film and make capital around the grooming gangs court cases in the manner he did.
The right piss and moan about freedom of speech but are quite happy to shut others down anyway. They'll use anything, ignoring logical controdictions. Slippery slope arguments are usually bunk. If we were talking about curtailing someone's right to express odious opinions altogether, of course I'd be against that.
Any polity, in this case a state level one, has the right to decide who is allowed to do what work within it's borders. The tension between anarchism and the existence of the state aside, I don't think you'd disagree with that principle?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I think it is to the extent that you gave (state censorship of the boards) or to the extent that I would find concerning.
Do you have any examples of it happening?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I can tell. It’s the same place I always come from on this question. The argument I’ve made on those boards for a quarter of a centrist. And the thread has gone the way I predicted.
It’s a straightforward position: don’t give the state the power to define acceptable speech or extremism.
This is the crux of why I don't think there is a case for banning people AT ALL. Why do foreigners have less right to hate speech than citizens? What is achieved by this double standard?
Similar threads
