The National Party (Also known as the Lets spread some hate party...)

Trent Houseboat · 23-11-2016 1:03pm

FA Hayek wrote:

It appears that for the 'progressive establishment' to silence someone all they have to do is scream 'Hate Speech' even though the primary motive is often to not let them speak in the first place. So, how can it be hate speech if they actually say well, nothing.

I do not like many of his views but he should be allowed air them. In fact his views are pretty much the same as Dr. Ali Selim and he is given a platform on the national media all the time, without the enlightened virtuous left silencing him at every opportunity. In fact, if he was denied a platform in the Merion Hotel I can imagine an anti-islamiphobia campaign on Facebook. The regressive left, it never fails to disappoint.

Progressive establishment, sounds utterly terrifying

The regressive left certainly haven't let you down in the scenario you concocted in your head. What pleasure can you get from being morally superior to people you've made up?

Let me try:
I saw a brown man today and didn't abuse him like a right wing stawman brigade would've.
Nah, not doing anything for me.

If they had booked the hotel as a religious group, I don't think they would have been cancelled upon. But membership of a political party is not a protected class in this country as religion is.

Do you think political belief should be protected or do you think religion belief shouldn't be? I can see arguments for and against the protection of either. As beliefs, they exist only in the heads of the holders.

meeeeh · 23-11-2016 3:35pm

Hotel has every right to cancel the event. They are not charity providing platform to any looney group around. I think there should be no issue there.

But morons complaining about people like that forming a party are single handedly responsible for rise of the looney right. If you shut down any discussion, limit people to media, social media and message boards that are attended by like minded individuals, you shouldn't be really surprised when it turns out predictions were wrong and there is whole cohort of people who are afraid to publicly disagree 'acceptable thinking' but will gladly do it under cloak of anonymity. So yeah if people want to see more Trumps elected keep signing those fb petitions, send protest letters and shout everyone down.

Mancomb Seepgood · 23-11-2016 4:12pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

If they had booked the hotel as a religious group, I don't think they would have been cancelled upon. But membership of a political party is not a protected class in this country as religion is.

Do you think political belief should be protected or do you think religion belief shouldn't be? I can see arguments for and against the protection of either. As beliefs, they exist only in the heads of the holders.

If it had been booked by Scientology or another highly controversial religious group it probably would have been cancelled. If it had been booked by Methodists, probably not. A hotel would balance the revenue received against the negative publicity attracted. It's pretty understandable under the circumstances.

Whether the campaign to get the event cancelled or not was such a good idea, I'm not certain. It probably earned this group more publicity than they would otherwise have received. The Merrion is a very expensive hotel, the "National Party" appear to have deep pockets.

PopePalpatine · 23-11-2016 6:31pm

Come to think of it, I remember hearing about a guy who bet something like €10-15k in betting shops across Dublin on Trump winning. Maybe that's where their money comes from...

...or, it could be Barrett getting the money from Jugendschutz's ultramontanist patron Tom Monaghan under the guise of yet another fundamentalist Catholic group. After all, the National Party wasn't actually registered as a political party with SIPO, but rather a "third party" for referendums.

Peregrinus · 24-11-2016 2:38am

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Do you think political belief should be protected or do you think religion belief shouldn't be? I can see arguments for and against the protection of either. As beliefs, they exist only in the heads of the holders.

All ideas exist only in the heads of the holders, Trent. That's what makes them "ideas". The question is whether people's freedom to have, and express, ideas is something the law should protect.

Just a thought; atheism and agnositicism are ideas about religious questions. if people aren't free to express thoughts about religion, that could leave atheists and agnostics in a vulnerable position. Just sayin'.

recedite · 24-11-2016 9:44am

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

If it had been booked by Scientology or another highly controversial religious group it probably would have been cancelled. If it had been booked by Methodists, probably not.

You're assuming the hotel always has a free choice to make a purely commercial decision. In the above religious scenario they would be constrained by equality laws and must treat both equally. In the actual political scenario, it was different. The constraining factor was more likely to have been the threat of violence and public safety.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

After all, the National Party wasn't actually registered as a political party with SIPO, but rather a "third party" for referendums.

Open to correction on this, but I think SIPO is only for public office holder's, so would apply after they got somebody elected. Up until that point they are more in the nature of a "third party" type lobby group, which is what they registered as. Third party in the sense of being neither in public office nor being the ordinary joe public.

Skrynesaver · 24-11-2016 11:07am

recedite wrote: »

In the actual political scenario, it was different. The constraining factor was more likely to have been the threat of violence and public safety.

That's the second time you've implied anything other than a widespread expression of revulsion was the motivation for refusing to associate their (expensively maintained) reputation with fascism.

I strongly suspect the idea of seeing their name in shot with a fascist spokesman was sufficient for their brand manager to "open a discussion" with their bookings office.

Trent Houseboat · 24-11-2016 12:08pm

Peregrinus wrote:

All ideas exist only in the heads of the holders, Trent. That's what makes them "ideas". The question is whether people's freedom to have, and express, ideas is something the law should protect.

Just a thought; atheism and agnositicism are ideas about religious questions. if people aren't free to express thoughts about religion, that could leave atheists and agnostics in a vulnerable position. Just sayin'.

Thanks for the condescension, Peregrinus. I'm aware of ideas only existing in peoples' heads, that's why I said it. Religion is the only belief that is a protected class in this country. Age, race, membership of the travelling community, gender and sexuality exist outside of peoples' heads. My question was why one is protected and the other is not.

I don't think atheists or agnostics are a protected group in this country. So a hotel could gladly refuse an atheist group service and suffer no consequences.

I was talking about booking a conference room in a really don't understand what you're "just sayin'".

Hotblack Desiato · 25-11-2016 12:44am

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Thanks for the condescension, Peregrinus.

He's consistent if nothing else.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-11-2016 12:49am

recedite wrote: »

You're assuming the hotel always has a free choice to make a purely commercial decision. In the above religious scenario they would be constrained by equality laws and must treat both equally.

This raises questions about the boundaries between religion and politics and why nasty ideas can gain a freer pass under the guise of religion than they would under the guise of a mere political party.

I don't really think I need to elaborate further, save for saying I detest islamists equally as much as I detest fascists.

The idea of giving religion special protection is laughable, it ends up with supposedly secular states having to decide in their courts which ideologies of abuse and hate are 'valid religions' and protected and which are merely 'political' or 'invalid religions or cults' and are not protected.

Peregrinus · 25-11-2016 2:57am

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Thanks for the condescension, Peregrinus.

You're welcome! I make no charge for this.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I'm aware of ideas only existing in peoples' heads, that's why I said it. Religion is the only belief that is a protected class in this country. Age, race, membership of the travelling community, gender and sexuality exist outside of peoples' heads. My question was why one is protected and the other is not.

Nitpick: sexual orientation is a protected ground and, so far as we know, it exists only in people's heads - i.e. it's a purely mental phenomenon. And of course marital status is a legal construct which exists only in people's heads - there's no physical difference between married and single people; the difference lies entirely in how we regard the relationship they have chosen to enter into.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I don't think atheists or agnostics are a protected group in this country. So a hotel could gladly refuse an atheist group service and suffer no consequences.

You think wrongly, I'm happy to say; atheists and agnostics are indeed protected under the religion ground. Under the Equal Status Act it is forbidden to discriminate between people on the basis "that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not".

recedite · 25-11-2016 4:22pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This raises questions about the boundaries between religion and politics and why nasty ideas can gain a freer pass under the guise of religion than they would under the guise of a mere political party.

Its a good point, and a common sense one IMO.
Take for example the "gay cake" case in NI where the judge said the baker "might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message" - he was offering a common sense solution. But in strict legal terms he was wrong to add in the word "political" there, which is something I suspect will come back to bite him in some way when that case hits the SC.
The baker was always free to discriminate against political messages he didn't like (provided of course he felt safe doing so, which is by no means a foregone conclusion in NI).

Peregrinus · 25-11-2016 4:43pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Thanks for the condescension, Peregrinus. I'm aware of ideas only existing in peoples' heads, that's why I said it. Religion is the only belief that is a protected class in this country. Age, race, membership of the travelling community, gender and sexuality exist outside of peoples' heads. My question was why one is protected and the other is not.

I think the short answer is that history has shown there is a need to assert and defend the freedom of religion. There’s a long history of abuse where the freedom of religion is not asserted and defended – from states trying to control the population through control of the established church, to states trying to force particular religious beliefs or practices on people in the wars of religion, to states taxing people to support churches that they do not belong to, to states victimising people on account of religion by, e.g, giving Protestants priority access to government services over Catholics (in Northern Ireland) or stripping Jews of citizenship (in Germany). This has been widespread enough, and has continued for long enough, right down to our own time, that it’s pretty well undeniable that the freedom of religion is a principle that still needs to be asserted and defended.

The question really is not “should freedom of religion be asserted and defended?” so much as “should freedom of political opinion/action/organisation be asserted and defended?” And while the answer “yes, it should” might leap to our lips, a moment’s thought shows that the cases are not quite on all fours. The view that the present Irish state is illegitimate, and that is is permissible and indeed obligatory to take up arms against it with a view to destroying it and reasserting the authority of the 32-county republic with the Army Council at its head is plainly a political position, but few of us would accept that the State is bound to accept that, and forbidden from penalising those who pursue it. Treason, rebellion, etc are all political stances; while a militant anarchist might argue that there is an inherent right to treason, etc, most people, and I think probably no states, would agree.

Absolam · 27-11-2016 4:48am

recedite wrote: »

Its a good point, and a common sense one IMO.
Take for example the "gay cake" case in NI where the judge said the baker "might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message" - he was offering a common sense solution. But in strict legal terms he was wrong to add in the word "political" there, which is something I suspect will come back to bite him in some way when that case hits the SC.
The baker was always free to discriminate against political messages he didn't like (provided of course he felt safe doing so, which is by no means a foregone conclusion in NI).

Except for the fact that in Northern Ireland political opinion enjoys the same protection from discrimination as religion (and sexual orientation)?

recedite · 27-11-2016 1:07pm

Absolam wrote: »

Except for the fact that in Northern Ireland political opinion enjoys the same protection from discrimination as religion (and sexual orientation)?

Is that in fact, a fact?
Mainstream UK law specifies certain grounds or "protected characteristics" similar to Irish law. If you are aware of some extra provision that applies in NI, please share it with us. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I'd be interested to learn of it. If in fact, it exists.

Absolam · 27-11-2016 1:35pm

recedite wrote: »

Is that in fact, a fact?
Mainstream UK law specifies certain grounds or "protected characteristics" similar to Irish law. If you are aware of some extra provision that applies in NI, please share it with us. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I'd be interested to learn of it. If in fact, it exists.

Yes, I believe that fact is, in fact, a fact. According to the The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998:
“Discrimination” and “unlawful discrimination”
3.—(1) In this Order “discrimination” means—
(a)discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion; or
(b)discrimination by way of victimisation;
and “discriminate” shall be construed accordingly.
(2) A person discriminates against another person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of this Order if—
(a)on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or
(b)he applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same religious belief or political opinion as that other but—
(i)which is such that the proportion of persons of the same religious belief or of the same political opinion as that other who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that religious belief or, as the case requires, not of that political opinion who can comply with it; and
ii)which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the religious belief or political opinion of the person to whom it is applied; and
(iii)which is to the detriment of that other because he cannot comply with it.

recedite · 27-11-2016 7:07pm

That seems to be employment law, which is only a subset of equality law.
So it would not apply to either the gay cake scenario, or a political party booking a hotel.

Also I have to say, in terms of the usage of the English language, its possibly the worst draft I have seen in a long time.
No awards for the use of plain English there

Absolam · 28-11-2016 2:01am

recedite wrote: »

That seems to be employment law, which is only a subset of equality law. So it would not apply to either the gay cake scenario, or a political party booking a hotel.

Well, the title seems to imply it's a little more than employment law "The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998".
Rather than considering what seems though, it would probably be more relevant to read the Order, wherein we discover it is not in fact restricted to employment but also, for instance, the provision of services;
"Discrimination in provision of goods, facilities or services
28.—(1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services—
(a)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them; or
(b)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with goods, facilities or services of the same quality, in the same manner and on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other members of the public or (where the person so seeking belongs to a section of the public) to other members of that section."

Whether or not you consider it a subset of equality law, it certainly does, as I said, provide political opinion with the same protection from discrimination as religion, so the consideration of political opinion by the Judge's in the gay cake case might very well have been founded on a better understanding of the legislation than your own? Perhaps they simply had less difficulty with reading it.

Of course, two of the examples given for discrimination in the provisions of goods and services are
"(b)accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or other similar establishment;
(e)facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;"
which would appear to rather rubbish your assertion about a political party booking a hotel as well.

recedite wrote: »

Also I have to say, in terms of the usage of the English language, its possibly the worst draft I have seen in a long time.
No awards for the use of plain English there

Apparently... so bad you couldn't even understand the bit about discrimination in the provision of goods and services?

recedite · 28-11-2016 11:05pm

Sadly I didn't have the attention span to get more than halfway through it myself, but yes you are right, and I stand corrected. Thanks for enlightening us.

Absolam · 29-11-2016 12:53am

That would certainly explain it. You're more than welcome

recedite · 03-12-2016 4:04pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This raises questions about the boundaries between religion and politics and why nasty ideas can gain a freer pass under the guise of religion than they would under the guise of a mere political party.

Well we have discovered that the NI equality laws are more comprehensive than those in other parts of the UK or in RoI. "Its an ill wind that blows no good" and the legacy of "the Troubles" also makes NI hospitals a good place to go for their expertise in gunshot wounds and kneecap injuries.

Holland on the other hand, still has a lot to learn...

According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression

Peregrinus · 05-12-2016 5:02am

recedite wrote: »

URL="http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/739275/Dutch-watchdog-OK-send-gay-people-death-threats-Muslim"]Holland on the other hand, still has a lot to learn..[/URL].

I'm going to be a tiny bit sceptical on this one. From a quick google, the only even vaguely mainstream news outlet carrying this story is the Express. All the other sites that carry it have names like terrorismwatch.org, politicalstew.com, pegida.uk, pcwatch.blogspot.com. And they all repeat the Express report verbatim.

The Expess credits the report to Nick Gutteridge, whose extensive published articles have a limited number of themes - "'Stop INSULTING voters!' Leavers AND Remainers DID say Brexit meant no more single market"; "BETRAYAL OF THE ENGLISH: Scottish MPs STILL rule England after Cameron 'sold voters a pup'"; "Migrant crisis: Club-wielding refugees fight running battles near Stalingrad Metro, Paris"; "Calais rape: Female journalist 'assaulted by refugees' at Jungle Camp". The same Nick left his previous job in 2014 after his editor had to publicly apologise for a piece by Nick that blamed the Hillsborough stadium on football hooligans, the findings of the Hillborough Independent Panel and the widespread publicity that attended them having apparently completely escaped his attention. A year later he was in trouble for writing an article ("UK next? Doc's warn AIDS TB and diseases eradicated generations ago brought in by migrants") based entirely anonymous material which, it turned out, he had sourced from Prophecy Update, a right-wing millenial Christian website ("WATCHING FOR THE SIGNS OF THE COMING CHRIST").

So, yeah, I'm not saying there's nothing behind this story. I'm just saying I'd like to read another take on it.

recedite · 05-12-2016 1:17pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, yeah, I'm not saying there's nothing behind this story. I'm just saying I'd like to read another take on it.

You don't trust the Brits then. Hows your double dutch?
De homos and de moslims.

Peregrinus · 05-12-2016 1:47pm

Well, as I said, I never said there was nothing] behind this story. And I do note that, unless Google Translate is letting me down (which is unthinkable, surely?) this report does not confirm the claim by the Express that MiND said homophobic abuse "was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression". This report only says that MiND said negative statements by Muslims about gay people should be seen in the context of faith. Nothing about them being justifiable, and no sideswipes at religious freedom laws.

Who am I to believe? Long years of experience have taught me not to believe the Express, but I have no particular reason to believe the Piost either. I'm suspending judgment until I see the offending statement by MiND, rather than any journalists representation of what the statement was supposed to have said.

Obviously MiND said something that they're not prepared to stand over, since they have withdrawn their initial statement, and apparently very quickly. But, as to exactly what it was, il nous faut du scepticisme, et encore du scepticisme, et toujours du scepticisme!

recedite · 06-12-2016 3:39pm

I think you're overlooking the obvious here. Everybody knows that de moslims say some very nasty things about de homos. So its not much of a story... unless you're interested in the finer points of equality law and the balances at play between freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and what exactly constitutes the dividing line between those and "hate speech".
Which most people aren't particularly fascinated with.

FA Hayek · 06-12-2016 11:32pm

Remember this?
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/16/gay-activists-have-met-their-match-with-muslim-barbers

Another take on the gay wedding cake controversy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

Double standards alive and well but Muslims are a minority, so they must be protected and when I say protected, exempt for the usual laws and standards applied to the rest of the population.

Doesn't make sense? Of course it doesn't, but that is the progressive mindset for you.

Peregrinus · 07-12-2016 2:22am

recedite wrote: »

I think you're overlooking the obvious here. Everybody knows that de moslims say some very nasty things about de homos. So its not much of a story... unless you're interested in the finer points of equality law and the balances at play between freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and what exactly constitutes the dividing line between those and "hate speech".
Which most people aren't particularly fascinated with.

But the story wasn't "Muslim's say nasty things about Homos"; it was "Dutch regulatory body says its OK for Muslims (but no-one else) to say nasty things about Homos". That would be a big story.

recedite · 08-12-2016 1:41am

Well it was apparently only some kind of regional "hotline" complaints service, and they seem to have backtracked on their original advice as soon as the media got involved.
But the very fact that it happened at all shows the people operating the service have a lot to learn.

Absolam · 08-12-2016 2:03am

Perhaps it shows that they just learned what they had to learn?

As in... don't send out Press Releases without considering how they may be interpreted first.

Peregrinus · 08-12-2016 2:16am

Pehaps what we should learn from this is that they have learned what they had to learn, and we also should be open to learning what we have to learn?

The National Party (Also known as the Lets spread some hate party...)

Comments