Welcome to the pantomime season
Monday, October 26, 2009 Further to my previous post, Dennis Hayes, founder of Academics For Academic Freedom and Professor of Education at the University of Derby, has this to say about last week's Question Time which continues to arouse strong feelings on all sides.
Writing on The Free Society website, Dennis argues:
That there was a very dull ‘debate’ on this particular Question Time was partly due to the focus of the programme which was a pantomime denunciation of a ‘villain’ who seemingly held nothing but unacceptable ideas. Booing was allowed in case anyone was in doubt about the fact that this was a pantomime debate.
The pantomime inside the BBC was preceded and accompanied by another pantomime outside, a pantomime protest. It was a frolicsome affair, with stunts, fancy dress, face masks and token incident for activists with some arrests. But the protesters were booing not only the BNP but ordinary people, who they saw as stupid and impressionable, so stupid and impressionable that the protesters were worried they would succumb to the BNP’s arguments and go out and commit racial ‘violence’ en masse.
But the real pantomime was the pantomime of protest itself. It was a protest not to achieve any radical social goal but a reactionary act intended to censor and ban. In other words, it was not a ‘protest’ at all ...
But what really came out of the pantomime debate and the pantomime protest was the knowledge that we have all, over sixty-one million of us, lost something. What we have lost is the idea of public debate. That is, debate that takes the public seriously. Debate for participating adults; not debate that is choreographed, or censored, as if it were for children with learning difficulties ...
'Debate' in most of its contemporary forms is nothing more than booing people who have the wrong ideas and pressurising them to adopt the correct ideas through emotional blackmail. This was the sorry truth that was made explicit last Thursday. But that also failed.
The pantomime debate also revealed, in the widespread discussion and the responses of many people, that both the BBC and the banners are wrong. Ordinary people are sensible, thoughtful and up for a debate. The challenge is for the BBC and other institutions populated by our ‘betters’, along with their mobs of banners, to overcome their contempt for ordinary people and engage with them in debate. If they can’t bring themselves to do this they may end up sharing the dustbin of history alongside ‘No Platform’.
Full article HERE.
Reader Comments (16)
I could not agree more with this article. Debate has been discouraged and we are being told what to eat, do and even think. We are not able to listen to the policies and arguments of the BNP and make up our own mind. The BBC had to manipulate the program and change the format in case Nick Griffin spoke any sense or came across as likeable. The end result was to make many people sympathetic towards the BNP as what happened to Nick Griffin bordered on the very Facism that his party is accused of advocating.
The very same people stifled debate concerning the smoking ban but got away with it. Second hand smoke is the emperors new clothes but no politician or journalist will say anything. Their fear of the fASHists prevents them from telling the truth or even questioning the myths.
It may not sit comfortably with some people but the treatment of Nick Griffin by the BBC and the mainstream media is to be thoroughly condemned. They attacked smokers and got away with it and are now mauling an elected MEP because they do not like what he believes. This behaviour has got to stop.
Prior to the QT debacle I wanted to know all about the BNP. Oh yes, I'd heard of them and their train of thought, after all there had been many a TV/newspaper article denouncing them but I never really heard a proper debate with the BNP and their detractors. I am probably the type of person the BNP wish to attract, working class, no formal educational qualifications and having a feeling of 'disenfranchisement' from my now ex Labour party, and would never think of voting for the other so called "big two" Tory or Lib Dem. Now I could say, like most commentators about this subject, that I would never vote for the BNP so that I could distance myself from being tainted as a sympathiser, but I wont. I want to hear from every side of every debate that takes my interest in this hard to follow, ever changing, political landscape. In other words I want to be treated as a thinking human being, not an assimilated drone.
Even though Nick Griffin went on a national TV political show where there was not a one to one/interviewer/interviewed scenario but a cross section of politicians and audience (not sure about the latter) he was woefully unprepared for what transpired. He came across, to me at least, as a bumbling oaf who seemed to be trying to distance himself from his past ramblings about race, religion and the indigenous people of the UK, or was he merely talking about England?
As far as the Smoking Ban Experiment is concerned I can see certain similarities when it comes to QT, demonisation and the 'gang' culture. It has always assumed (or rather forcefully stated) that the debate is over, end of! Well it's far from over, end of!
PS: The debate about Forest being "tobacco funded" therefor precluding them from debate, as espoused by groups like ASH (spit) et al, is erroneous and treats the free thinking smoker and non smoker in a derisory fashion. Pro Choice groups should not fall into this way of thinking.
What happened to Nick Griffin borders on the very facism that his party is accused of advocating.
What are decent people to think when they see this type of carry on by the so called establishment, only to start questioning what sort of values are we trying to uphold when the very people we thought were upholding them are behaving like fascists themselves.
This has been a very dangerous and damaging caper that the establishment has carried out, in that it has exposed their veneer of political correctness that is keeping the rest of us under control.
Maybe it will prove to be a good thing in the long run, as hopefully it will start to reveal the emperors clothes and bring the pack of cards tumbling down.
Hopefully people will begin to realise that the smoking ban was the start of this same dangerous but insidious and more subtle manipulation of the populace at large.
Its ironic that a lot of these so called laws that are intented for 'our own good' are impinging in a drip drip fashion on our liberties.
And with very little resistance, we are fast becoming the Stepford Wives.
I think too many people on here are deluded by what is happening and what the general public really think.
I wrote a piece last week on ConservativeHome regarding the current issue with the BNP.
This, (below) was part of my text:
"The third, is the smoking ban, which clearly needs amending. We have 60 pubs a week closing down in a time when we should be doing all we can to help business and keep it afloat. A simple amendment, allowing both smoking and non smoking venues, is all that is needed. It works in other European countries such as Spain, it could just as easily work here.
Both the BNP and UKIP have expressed their clear views on all three issues, whilst the Tories, Labour, and Lib-Dem have sat on the sidelines, like the three "unwise" monkeys, too scared to speak the words the British electorate want to hear.
I am a dyed in the wool Tory voter, but I am fed up to the teeth with constantly trying to defend my party on these issues. "What are the Tories views on this?" I am asked, and to be honest, I just do not know!"
_________________________________
I had quite a number of replies to this piece, one of which I have partly posted below:
"On the third issue I've no idea what position they take. I hope they do not water down the smoking ban, it would be a big step backwards. But considering all the other problems facing this country, what happens in pubs is the least of my worries so I can live with such a change"
_______________________________________
I can assure everyone that this was the general response from everyone, and they are not all Tories, they stretch across the board.
I have said time and time again, without anyone taking any bloody notice, that smokers need to change their tactics if they want something done about the ban. Voting for soppy little parties like the BNP won't do a damn thing. Even if they did win the general election, which is as likely as Donald Duck winning it, they could never get an overturn of the smoking ban through parliament, neither could the Conservatives, or Lib-Dems or any other party, except the current Labour Party with its massive majority.
So do yourselves all a favour and forget all this extreme right wing posturing, all it will get you, and all the other smokers, is an even worse name than we now have.
What Peter? And the Tories will be our salvation and amend the smoking ban??? The Tories are now NuLabour in sheeps clothing and not worth a shite. As a now floating voter I am looking at a "soppy little party", you know, the one you dare not mention, UKIP.
The The tory party always was the enemy of the common people but the smoking ban transends every walk of life and still they say that they would NOT change the smoking ban, no political party would. This came from one of their chief mouthpieces and said in open forum at the recent party conference.
I wouldn't trust the tories as far as I could throw them as far as the smoking ban is concerned, and much more besides.
Tell me John, where did I say the Tories would amend the smoking ban? I said just the opposite in fact, i.e
"they could never get an overturn of the smoking ban through parliament, neither could the Conservatives, or Lib-Dems or any other party, except the current Labour Party with its massive majority"
Please read my posts properly before you jump to condemn!
I stopped watching Question Time. I watched it last Thursday because I wanted to hear what Griffin had to say, rather than what others say that he says. What a farce. As for David Dimbleby, his late father would be ashamed.
I know there is a better clip, but look at what Question Time led by the pathetic Dimbleby has become. Watch out for what happens between Harman & Dim,bleby then what he does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtANCL3lAoo
@John - An article in New Statesman, written by two academics, suggests that the common understanding that the BNP attracts disgruntled traditional Labour voters might be misplaced and that disgruntled Tories/LibDems are just as likely to vote for them! Their potential pool is, therefore, larger than people have complacently thought; the mob mentality seen on QT reflects the anger felt by many at HMG's bullying and then Andrew Neather's revelation seems to confirm, not only that, as many had already suspected, the Government has not been honest but also, that the BNP have been right all along. I think that it would be dangerous to continue to dismiss them. In fact, I think that the mainstream parties' politicians no longer do and are in a blind panic about how to deal with it. In cynical mode I find it odd that the QT appearance and Neather's revelation co-incide and only a few months before the GE - might a predicted level of civil unrest require the GE to be postponed?
Please bear with me. This is relevant. From my O Level Latin nearly 60 years ago, I know that the word ‘moral’ derives from the Latin word ‘mos’, meaning custom. A few years later I attended a University course in Ethics. I failed that but I do recall that one of the issues studied was the connection (or not) between what is right, wrong, ‘moral’ or good. A simple example of what might be right, moral and good would be to have several wives in one culture and only one in another.
On Radio 5 Live this morning I heard part of a Phone-in, in which Nick Griffin’s remark on TV that he found the idea of two men kissing ‘creepy’ was discussed. Callers felt that to counter this approach, what they called ‘education’ was needed. Presumably the purpose of the education would be to teach that for men to kiss was customary and was therefore moral – according to the origin of the word ‘moral’.
The discussion switched to the issue of bullying of homosexuals which all would agree should be resisted. Bullying may happen but it is not the custom of our land. Yet. Nor should it ever become customary. That includes the bullying of all minorities, even our MPs, some of whom have made a rather pathetic fuss about the obloquy they received over expenses.
Well, you see where I’m going. What about the sight of two men smoking?
Another lovely piece of Historical Irony:
Rentacrowd 'protesting' against 'Fascism'.
Reminds me of the Munich beer-halls in the Thirties - but without those horrible shirts (never cared much for brown, myself).
Happy days !
Norman -
Sorry to hear that you failed your Ethics course.
That would be quite impossible now (All shall have prizes).
The Left's apparently humane defence of homosexuality (which should NEVER have been an issue for the State in the first place) as ever masks a darker purpose:
The generalised assault on the Family - with all its archaic, localised loyalties.
Loving Big Brother requires ALL our attention.
On a related theme:
If (as I do) I object to 'Gay Adoption' , does that make me 'homophobic' ?
If so, then what of my HOMOSEXUAL friends who ALSO object (even more vehemently, in some cases) ?
Life is SO complicated these days.........
PS:
'Homo' - from the Greek 'Homoios' (The Same)
'Phobia' - from the Greek 'Phobos' (Fear).
Hence, 'Homophobia' = 'Fear of the same'.
Nope - still don't get it !
Martin V: thanks for those comments. Re 'homophobia', I would say 'Snap'. I have more than once wondered about the etymology of that word. Its lack of logic exposes the perils of the slogan thinking that the media regurgitate uncritically. As for the undermining of the family I would suspect a cultural link with a decline in the independence of Parliament from the Executive and the modish, never-ending fidgeting with and destruction of our traditions over the past 40-odd years, from decimalisation and metrication to the repeated re-hashing of Anglican liturgies and perpetual revolution in educational principles and practice. Talking of education and the broadcast references to the need for it over matters of homosexuality which I mentioned earlier, what would children be told, presented with (a) a picture of two men kissing and (b) two men smoking?
I was, in the 50s and 60s, like many of the 'angry young man' generation, very anti-establishment.And with due cause maybe.But I suspect our dissent led, in due course, to the creation of our new, unlovely political 'Establishment'.
It wasn't really so long ago that our codes of conduct and notions of right and wrong were based on the application of interpreted Judaeo-Christian tradition. Some prescriptions were enshrined in the law of the land ("Thou shalt not kill"), breach of others was punishable by social opprobrium ("Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife"). It seems to me that the decline of the Church is in direct proportion to the rise of the State. Practising homosexuality is a good example: when the Church took a hard line, the law reflected this, with homosexuals being criminalised; the CofE relaxed its stance and the law changed accordingly, with homosexual practice no longer a criminal offence (so homosexuals were protected from criminalisation and people who objected strongly were allowed to do so). Then we got the authoritarian NuLabour which used the law to impose its view that those who object to practising homoxexuality should be criminalised. The CofE hasn't raised a murmur in protest at the demand that everyone share, on pain of prosecution, this Government's attitude. As Norman says, NuLabour is hijacking the law to enforce its notions of 'good' and 'bad' which are driven by politicians' own selfish agenda whereas, although the Church has got it spectacularly wrong in the past, its motives have been rooted in the teachings of a noble individual
I agree wholeheartedly with you Joyce when you say that the church doesent raise a murmur when the law turns around to bite the very people who try to uphold a moral and ethical code, opening up a world from which all our earthly taboos have been erased without being subject to the censorious gaze of society.
The old ethics of shame and restraint served a powerful purpose.
What protection does that leave us and especially the young, in the absence of a strong moral code.
I increasingly find this Government ever more sinister, Ann. I can't think of an example where a Government that wants to exert total control of its people has allowed religious institutions to exist with autonomy. In the UK, the formal Church, the CofE, now presents very little threat to a rampaging Government. I wonder what steps would be taken were it to show some assertive leadership?
I've mentioned Andrew Neather's revelation a few times. I don't believe for a minute that New Labour has covertly deliberately engineered a policy of mass immigration because of some woolly-minded notion that society benefits from diversity and its own advisers showed that the spin about economic benefit is false. I find it hard to conclude other than that the Government wanted to de-stabilise the UK and that the CofE has, unwittingly, colluded in this.
I am not a historian and am perhaps too easily governed by instinct. It may be, also, that to resort to the Internet to look things up is not the way of a real scholar. I would simply say that the Green movement, with alleged global warming, and health authoritarianism, already seen by many as a new religion, may have strong parallels with the development of the Catholic Church before the Reformation.
Perhaps, as such, we are part of a historical tide which has yet to turn and we await our Martin Luther. I vaguely knew – and checked on the Internet – that Luther sparked the reformation by protesting about Indulgences – roughly speaking remission of the penalty for sin through cash payments – and this led me, through a memory of the Canterbury Tales to the article The 21st century Pardoners Tale: a complete comparison between Indulgences and Carbon Credits which can be found here http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4153
Global warming and healthism we have observed, are a kind of new religion. The original Reformation was facilitated by the invention of the printing press, I read. May the Internet have the same role for us in reversing this secular religion.
Now I’ll turn my mind to other things for a day or two.