tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5620102823195063256..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Geert Wilders refused entry to UKRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-42506622900520600982009-02-23T21:53:00.000+11:002009-02-23T21:53:00.000+11:00"Russell, how does this compare to someone like Ho..."Russell, how does this compare to someone like Holocaust Denier David Irving being prevented entry into Australia? "<BR/><BR/>An event such as the Holocaust is an absolute and can only be viewed from the objective.<BR/>An ideology such as Islam and it's holy book the Qu'ran being linked to violence are open to interpretation and can be viewed from the subjective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-16001703978705728562009-02-14T03:39:00.000+11:002009-02-14T03:39:00.000+11:00Opponents of free speech always make the point tha...<I>Opponents of free speech always make the point that free speech does not mean freedom to shout "Fire!" (falsely) in a crowded theatre. But that analogy has got to be applied very narrowly or else exceptions eat up the rule. Opponents of free speech don't add that the analogy was applied in a very shonky way in the American court case where it originated, or that that case is now probably bad law.</I><BR/><BR/>Good points.<BR/><BR/>As a fiction writer, I can think up circumstances in which it would be <I>good</I> to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I recall an episode of the TV show <I>The Pretender</I> in which claiming there was a bomb in a public building was played as the right thing to do — the threat which was actually lurking was much scarier.<BR/><BR/>This would seem a silly point to make, if I hadn't seen so many people try to defend "enhanced interrogation techniques" by appealing to storylines from <I>24.</I>Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80917961767781079842009-02-13T15:24:00.000+11:002009-02-13T15:24:00.000+11:00Great comment Russell. It's a balancing act, no ab...Great comment Russell. It's a balancing act, no absolutes, but preference is given to free speech except in the most extreme cases I suppose.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-65191249260020042162009-02-13T14:49:00.000+11:002009-02-13T14:49:00.000+11:00I wouldn't analyse it in quite Udo's way, but he m...I wouldn't analyse it in quite Udo's way, but he makes a very fair point: Wilders is kept out while people who seem at least as evil and bigoted are allowed in. Clearly, that's a situation to be avoided if at all possible. Let them all in.<BR/><BR/>That said, there may well be circumstances in which you have to cancel some meeting or presentation, or whatever, no matter how "nice" the presenter is. <BR/><BR/>Imagine that someone innocuous or even admirable, like Bono, is about to give a concert or deliver a speech on aid to the Third World. Then there's a credible, imminent bomb threat. You'd cancel (or at least postpone) the event - not because Bono is a bad guy, but because you really have no choice in the interests of public safety. <BR/><BR/>What if you have a speaker who openly says in his public speeches - aimed to infuriate Muslim extremists - "Come here and bomb me"? <BR/><BR/>There comes a point where it is irresponsible to act in certain ways (even verbally) or to allow such conduct to go ahead in the time and place announced. But it's a strict test. Opponents of free speech always make the point that free speech does not mean freedom to shout "Fire!" (falsely) in a crowded theatre. But that analogy has got to be applied very narrowly or else exceptions eat up the rule. Opponents of free speech don't add that the analogy was applied in a very shonky way in the American court case where it originated, or that that case is now probably bad law.<BR/><BR/>We should be making sure that we cancel events, keep people out of the country, or whatever it is, on <I>public safety</I> grounds only when there is an imminent, credible threat. We should also make sure that we do no more than is really necessary. E.g., if there's a credible bomb threat, some speaking engagement by Wilders may need to be cancelled or postponed. But that's not a reason to keep him out of the whole country. <BR/><BR/>It's certainly not enough that someone, somewhere in the jurisdiction, may riot. There's always the risk of people somewhere in the jurisdiction rioting if they take offence at ideas that they don't like and decide to go on a rampage in response. That's not the sort of risk that should intimidate the authorities. Their role is to protect free speech, not to placate irrational people who don't believe in it.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63455807760066528172009-02-13T14:15:00.000+11:002009-02-13T14:15:00.000+11:00What's your opinion of Udo's take? I agree with th...What's your opinion of Udo's take? I agree with the idea that we shouldn't decide our actions on supposed threat of people who could get offended. That sort of self-censoring isn't great for freedom of speech...Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3565234710425404192009-02-13T13:46:00.001+11:002009-02-13T13:46:00.001+11:00Yeah, that makes sense. Like the Ben Stein kerfuff...Yeah, that makes sense. Like the Ben Stein kerfuffle recently.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46039084107802008892009-02-13T13:46:00.000+11:002009-02-13T13:46:00.000+11:00btw, I didn't realise when I posted that Udo had a...btw, I didn't realise when I posted that Udo had also posted on it. He has an interesting take:<BR/><BR/>http://ethxblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/good-ol-british-hypocrisy.htmlRussell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8607951556348532132009-02-13T13:41:00.000+11:002009-02-13T13:41:00.000+11:00In Irving's case, I'd let him in. I despise him, b...In Irving's case, I'd let him in. I despise him, but I don't think there's any good case to keep him out of Australia. There <I>might</I> be a case to keep him out of Germany, but I wouldn't even want to commit myself to that.<BR/><BR/>OTOH, if a local university invited him to give some kind of prestigious address, such as an address for a graduation ceremony, I'd be protesting against its choice.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14448513135187308732009-02-13T13:15:00.000+11:002009-02-13T13:15:00.000+11:00Russell, how does this compare to someone like Hol...Russell, how does this compare to someone like Holocaust Denier David Irving being prevented entry into Australia? (I think he was denied entry). Irving spouts all sorts of obscene, hurtful, nonsense but I think letting him spout it a good thing in that he isn't made into a martyr and his views can be seen for what they are. I think along those lines with Wilders too. I guess with Wilders there is a public order/safety angle. Though I don't think that because the offended party (some mad Mullah for example) says <I>we won't be responsible for what happens if you let him in</I> that we should bow to them. But then again, he is picking on a group of people who are marginalized. Only a few muslims from what I can tell deserve the opprobium they receive.....Anyway, I have no answers, I guess as you say, when it's ambiguous and in doubt, then don't block his entry....Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-29937754652012603492009-02-13T12:44:00.000+11:002009-02-13T12:44:00.000+11:00Thank you for this Russell. I have been troubled ...Thank you for this Russell. I have been troubled by the immoderate reactions on both sides of this. Few seem to realise that this is a difficult situation, probably engineered to be that way by Wilders. This is a situation where simplistic analyses seem to swamp any real attempt to understand what is going on. I don't know if Wilders has a martyrdom complex, but he sure knows how to stir things up, and I find his attitude worryingly common (although usually from those who remain anonymous). I agree with you - he should have been allowed in, but with great reluctance.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com