Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #1 
It looks like the Leftist and Islamist enemies of free speech are even more dangerous than ever:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/andrew-bolt-forced-to-move-kids-after-death-threats/news-story/ad73e2272cf03d0289f956f039776e1d

Quote:
In an interview on his Sky News program with One Nation spokeswoman Pauline Hanson, the conservative commentator said the lives of his family had been threatened yesterday, forcing him to move his children to keep them safe.
 
“I spent some of my day moving my kids out of my home after yet another death threat from an Islamist supporter of Islamic State,” he said.
 
“It’s been a very stressful day.”
 
Revelations of a threat come less than 24 hours after Bolt wrote an editorial about Australia’s Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohammad. “The Grand Mufti of Australia has just proved that Pauline Hanson is right to feel threatened by Islam in this country,” he wrote in Melbourne’s Herald Sun.
 
He criticised the mufti for saying in an open letter that criticism of anti-gay comments by Sheik Shady Alsuleiman risked inciting Islamic extremism.
 
“Again and again, whether the mufti means this or not, the clear inference is that if we criticise Islam or his clerics, we risk death,” he wrote. “What free society can tolerate such an implied threat or danger? How can the mufti not see that the true responsibility for Islamist terrorism lies not with the victims but with the perpetrators — and with the faith which seems to ­licence them to mass murder?”
 
Bolt revealed the threat while speaking to senator-elect Ms Hanson, who has also borne criticism for her comments about Islam.
 
Bolt confirmed to The Australian he had recently received “a string of death threats”.[/QUOTE]
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #2 
I think it is crucial not to mirror the left and make too much of this sort of thing. They have a tendency to try and depict death threats and extremism as representative of entire rightwing causes, if not the entire right itself. We saw Brexit almost end in defeat in this way. We shouldn't respond in kind. We should be more sensible and point out that because a few nuts make threats, it doesn't necessarily discredit a whole movement.

Let's not forget, we will likely lose a contest of this sort with them anyway; they have control of the tone-setting media outlets that can successively tar those they don't like. For example, whatever ones thinks of the likes of the BNP or EDL (or their Australian equivalents), it is more often than not (as far as I have seen) their left-wing rent-a-mob opponents - the so called anti-fa - who start violence at rallies. Yet the violent nature of the anti-fa movement receives very little attention in the mainstream media, which will often give the impression disruption at such rallies is the fault of far-right groups. The truth - that left-wing rent-a-mobs and anti-fa are at least as troubling for our political discourse as the far-right - doesn't get out because the tone-setting media do not report it.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #3 
Well I know what the Antifa movement are, a clearly intolerant, anti-democratic movement that seeks to shut down free speech and public debate. The BNP have dwindled to irrelevance and the EDL has also declined. Conservative commentators have repeatedly highlighted the anti-freedom hypocrisy of the Antifa crowd and their "boneheaded illiberalism" as one commentator put it. But please, spare me your pretentious sanctimony every time I state I have no intention of ceding ground to the enemy.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #4 
If you do not wish to have your opinion questioned or to engage in any sort of debate, then you are free to start your own blog and disable comments.

I'm not sure what you mean by ceding ground. There are times when the political atmosphere can be so toxic that it is right to link threats and extremism to it, but in general it is best not to tar broader movements with the actions of the fringe. This is just sensible and is the common sense and decency we should be standing up for. If it strikes you as sanctimonious then it may be because you are a narrow ideologue who'd rather engage in petty political point scoring. I don't see what monarchism gains from being linked to that sort of conservatism.

That conservative commentators have noted the illiberalism of the anti-fa is clearly neither here nor there, unless you are suggesting this has got the message out more generally. Often you make responses that are just non sequiturs.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #5 
I wasn't even bringing monarchism into this. I agree that the fringe can easily taint much broader movements but we on the Right have tried very hard to distance ourselves from the lunatic fringe entirely. It's the liberal Left who have acted as virtual apologists for the lunatic fringe out there. To me, "common sense and decency" means fighting against your enemies by exposing them in public, be they leftists, Islamists or whoever else. It's not point scoring, it's doing the right thing. If you call me a narrow ideologue, then what are you? I guess, someone who sees himself on somehow a higher intellectual plane to the rest of us, which believe you me does not go down well with me.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #6 
That is almost the exact opposite point to the one I was making. My point was that, in general, the lunatic fringe shouldn't taint a broader movement. There are times when such a movement can be so toxic that some links can be legitimately explored. But in general, there are always nut cases, and broader movements should not be held responsible for them. Instead of trying to join the left in this game of guilt by association, we should take the higher ground and point out that you're not responsible for fringe individuals. It is fine to show that the left are hypocrites here - they blame the right for faults they overlook in their own side. But it is as silly to claim a left-wing nut tarnishes the whole left as much as it is to claim a rightwing nut tarnishes the whole right.

This is not an academic or intellectual point. Didn't you just see how close Brexit came to failure over just this kind of political point scoring nonsense? Even as it is, perhaps the leave vote would have been higher without it, and hence the likelihood it will be evaded less.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #7 
Unfortunately when you have SJWs and things like the #BlackLivesmatter and #RhodesMustFall movement, the broader liberal Left appears to be in wider agreement with their sentiments, if not necessarily their goals and provides cover. It's because of this that a backlash is inevitable, which has led to the emergence of a more populist Right current in opposition. Now I'm surprised that you're interested in arguing with me at all, when you thought you said you had enough last year?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #8 
But I don't think even SJWs or BLM are necessarily responsible for death threats or the violent or extreme fringe of their movements. I think we should establish a high threshold for tarnishing a whole movement with such things, because guilt by association is morally and intellectually wrong - we shouldn't be held responsible for some nutcase who has somewhat similar views.

I am allowed to change my mind. It wasn't arguing with you that I minded. I just didn't want to disrupt the board with unnecessarily heated exchanges (though little of that was my fault). But I have said my piece on the topic of this thread and therefore have little to add as it is.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #9 
Well as it stands you have little to add to any of our causes anyway and you've shown it in the past two years.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
Well as it stands you have little to add to any of our causes anyway and you've shown it in the past two years.


And you do what for monarchism and conservatism? Except for post lots of stuff here.

Maybe I misunderstood but you once or twice seemed to suggest you don't even care to discuss these things with those who don't already agree. As you seem incapable of serious intellectual discussion or even following a basic train of reasoning this is probably a good thing , but it does make one wonder why you always talk as if you are fighting great battles for the cause.

I don't know if I contribute much to our causes but I hope too. I am an academic at the beginning of my career and hope to write on monarchism, and have already written on conservatism. It isn't much but I would be more than willing to put it up against your contributions.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
And you do what for monarchism and conservatism? Except for post lots of stuff here. Maybe I misunderstood but you once or twice seemed to suggest you don't even care to discuss these things with those who don't already agree. As you seen incapable of serious intellectual debate or even following a basic train of reasoning this is probably a good thin , but it does make one wonder why you always talk as if you are fighting great battles for the cause.


Well for one I firmly believe in education and advocacy for the cause, and a major part of it is countering and exposing the lies forwarded by our enemies. I have no problem with disagreement or criticism but you do seem to be a fussy and niggly person who things that there is a duty to find fault with everything a poster makes. You act as if you're doing everyone a favour with this, when really you're just showing your pretentiousness and arrogance.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV


Well for one I firmly believe in education and advocacy for the cause, and a major part of it is countering and exposing the lies forwarded by our enemies. I have no problem with disagreement or criticism but you do seem to be a fussy and niggly person who things that there is a duty to find fault with everything a poster makes. You act as if you're doing everyone a favour with this, when really you're just showing your pretentiousness and arrogance.


Utter nonsense. I am certainly someone who likes discussion. But that is completely legitimate on a message board. I help manage a forum and frequent a couple of good blogs. These are slightly more debate oriented than here, but my posting style is still completely normal and legitimate on most forums or blogs.

The truth is that you are just paranoid and cannot take criticism. With other posters you will often run away after posting some mealy-mouthed non sequitur. With me you get whiny and abusive. I don't respond to anything but a few of your posts. How many of your threads or posts from the past few weeks have I responded to? But I will respond to your comments if I wish. You can continue to ask childishly and disruptively, or you can act like an adult and either ignore me or respond in a sensible and constructive manner.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #13 
David's and my previous exchanges with Wessexman were not edifying and caused the forum considerable harm. And I don't claim to have behaved any better in them than anyone else. As I seem to remember Wessexman observing, I was unable to respond to him with any grace, and that is true. I am not going to participate any further than this in Round Two. I will say that, while Wessexman says here that he bore little fault for the earlier ructions, he seems to have studiously avoided the causes for offence he gave before and his contributions have been reasonable and constructive, even if I didn't always agree with them (and sometimes I even did). I nevertheless decided that it would be better not to engage with him at all so long as he continued to speak and act reasonably, thus avoiding any risk of the earlier events recurring, and recommended that policy to David privately.

I can't see that he was unreasonable in this thread either, until the discussion deteriorated into personalities. Which did not take long at all. If I actually held the position of moderator rather then the empty title anywhere but the currently moribund Royal Genealogy section, I would require the discussion to terminate immediately. As things are, I can only ask both of you please not to continue it and let it deteriorate further, which will only hurt not help the forum as a whole.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #14 
I will say that David has an admirable knowledge of global politics and the politics and monarchies of many places around the world.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #15 
Just where have I "run away" from discussions on this forum? In case you forgot, I've been here for a while and know people online outside this forum. I have always been courteous and considerate to others in discussion. I treat people with precisely the respect or disdain they deserve. If I show Wessexman any disdain it's because I think he deserves it. I will say no more.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: