Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby BadgerJelly on September 20th, 2017, 3:35 am 

Is this the right way to go?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/neo-nazi-group-national-action-first-far-right-body-banned-uk-1596027

National Action wrote on their November report posted on their website: "As is clearly stated on the National Action website we neither sanction or endorse terrorism, and in our three years of existence no member of National Action has been arrested for even an act of petty violence.

"Even the cutting edge humour regularly employed by members of our youth group which may go over the heads of some people, would still have to be deliberately misrepresented by a malicious third party.

"In relation to irreverent tweets made about the dead MP, this week this same Western media have been berating the dead Fidel Casto for imprisoning individuals for daring to 'show contempt for his figure'. We are reminded of the hypocrisy of the 'free speech' march held by western leaders following the Charlie Hebdo attack that was immediately followed by hundreds of raids and arrests across Europe for speech related offences – we don't forget things like this."

Update: The Home Secretary has confirmed the group will be banned in the UK. Rudd said: "I am clear that the safety and security of our families, communities and country comes first. So today I am taking action to proscribe the neo-Nazi group National Action.

"This will mean that being a member of, or inviting support for, this organisation will be a criminal offence. National Action is a racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic organisation which stirs up hatred, glorifies violence and promotes a vile ideology, and I will not stand for it.

"It has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone."


I am suspicious of this being taken as a first step. Does it make sense to make being member of a party "illegal" if the party makes the official statement that it is against terrorism?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4492
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Braininvat on September 20th, 2017, 10:01 am 

I suppose the broader question is that of what DO they advocate, in terms of furthering their agenda. If it is lawful changes in legislation, then of course they would just be another political action group, albeit an especially repellent one (like the Republican party in the U.S.). Saying you are against terrorism doesn't necessarily mean you are against other forms of violence, and it would be important to clarify what those might be before outright banning. Like you, I would be wary of a "slippery slope" that led to banning other groups whose ideology the present government doesn't much like. Many oppressors have begun their reign of terror with phrases like "the safety and security of our families...."
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5761
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Neri on September 30th, 2017, 6:44 pm 

The above comments bring into sharp focus the difference between U.S. law and the laws of other countries [which now, sadly, include England] on the question of free speech.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that not only speech that the majority (or the so-called intelligentsia) finds acceptable but even the expression of ideas odious and shocking to others are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, Nazis and Stalinists may peacefully assemble to express their ideas, and people may publicly burn the U.S. flag, the Quran or the bible and may express ideas that are racist, anti-Semitic or sexist.

The court has observed that the remedy for odious and shocking speech is not governmental suppression but more speech—that is, the expression of verbal opposition. This may properly be taken as a rejection of the notion that the government may properly suppress politically incorrect speech.

The rational basis for the U.S. view is not, as some have suggested, the idea that if the government is allowed to suppress politically incorrect speech, it is only a matter of time before “correct speech” is also suppressed.

Rather, the U.S. view is based upon the conviction that no one has a “direct pipeline” to truth and that only the commerce of opposing ideas moves us in the direction of truth—though absolute truth may never be within in our grasp.

Indeed, experience shows that the greatest abuse of truth is given by those who are completely sure of themselves.

However, this does not mean that hate groups may engage in criminal acts. Nor does it mean that the government may not provide for additional punishment for the commission of crimes motivated by racial hatred, anti-Semitism or any other such belief.

Foe example, in the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993) [www.law.cornell.edu], the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Wisconsin statute that provided for additional punishment above the maximum otherwise allowed by the Wisconsin Crimes Code for offenses motivated, inter alia, by racial hatred [“sentence enhancement”].

In that case, Mitchell said to other black youths gathered on the street: “You all want to **** somebody up? There goes a white boy; get him.” [language taken directly from the court’s opinion]. Mitchell and the others attacked the boy, beat him severely and stole his tennis shoes. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.

Mitchell was convicted of aggravated assault. The jury also found as a fact that his crime was racially motivated. This enhanced the maximum allowable sentence from two to seven years, and the trial court imposed a sentence of four years in the state prison.

On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the lower court and held that the enhancement statute violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it punished the expression of one’s thoughts.

The U.S. Supreme Court by unanimous vote reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court and held that not only the quality of one’s criminal acts but also the motive for them may properly be considered at the time of sentencing. The Wisconsin statute did not punish Mitchell for expressing his thoughts but rather for his acts as aggravated by his racial motive. That is, his victim was selected for no reason other than the fact that he was white.
Neri
Active Member
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Neri on September 30th, 2017, 6:48 pm 

The U.S. Supreme Court wrote the actual four letter word used by Mitchell and did not depict it by four asterisks.
Neri
Active Member
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
BadgerJelly liked this post


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby wolfhnd on September 30th, 2017, 9:44 pm 

Bad idea, the hypocrisy of banning this group and being soft on radical Islamists will not be lost on those that would otherwise have no interest in such matters. The more glaringly hypocrisy is the open display of the hammer and sickle at Jeremy Cornyn rallies. A symbol that represents the murder of more innocent citizens than the swastika.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Braininvat on October 1st, 2017, 10:43 am 

To be fair, the hammer/sickle is not specifically a symbol of Stalinist purges and induced famine. Any more than the Stars and Stripes are specifically a symbol of nasty things the U.S government did in the past. When we show respect to the flag, we are not thinking "Hooray for the slaughter of First Peoples" or "Three Cheers for Japanese internment camps!" or "Yay! Government experiments using African-Americans without their consent or knowledge!" I suspect that the situation is analogous for most Russians and for socialists generally.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5761
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Neri on October 2nd, 2017, 10:43 am 

Braininvat:

Apparently, the Russians themselves do not accept your analysis, for they have abandoned the hammer-and-sickle flag and have adopted a tricolor instead.
Neri
Active Member
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Braininvat on October 2nd, 2017, 11:44 am 

Sure, that was a good move for them. Just saying that when the H&S was the flag, I don't think many Russians were seeing that negative symbolism. What percent of Russians would or would not agree with my analysis is not something I am privy to, nor was that really my main point. I don't think Cornyn supporters are seeing the flag and thinking "Stalinism is great!" Most people ignore (or are ignorant of) the darker symbolisms that can lie within old flags. That was part of the problem in the South - many people were just waving Confederate flags to say they were proud to be Southerners, and didn't really think it through, didn't consider what else it might represent to someone whose ancestors lived in chains and shackles.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5761
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Neri on October 2nd, 2017, 3:07 pm 

Braininvat:

If, when Stalin ruled, anyone burned the hammer-and-sickle flag, he would surely be and tortured and sent to a Siberian gulag. Much the same would be true of Hitler and the swastika. Both banners represented a political party ruled by a ruthless dictator. Hence, it may be said with considerable justification that one who flies the swastika is a Nazi and one who flies the hammer and sickle is a Stalinist.

The difference between these seemingly divergent political philosophies is more theoretical than real. In theory, a Nazi is a nationalist and a Stalinist is an internationalist. Because the Nazis used the expression, “nationalist”, that term has come to imply chauvinism or jingoism.

Thus, it is said that Hitler sought to dominate other nations, because he believed that Germans were genetically superior; and that Stalin sought such dominance because he believed that Marxism was a superior political philosophy. Either way, the result was the same—a previously independent nation state was ruled against its will by a foreign dictator. What we actually have in both cases are megalomaniacs seeking to glorify themselves by acquiring absolute power over other nations.

The socialists, while condemning Stalinism, claim that it was superior to Nazism, because Stalinism at least had the benefits of socialism. However, this ignores the fact that Nazism too was socialist. Indeed, this was included in the name of the party. The generous social welfare programs of the Kaiser were continued, even expanded, by Hitler. Both Nazism and Stalinism amply demonstrated inhuman violations of the right to life and liberty. Accordingly, it is not improper to draw a moral equivalence between the two.

In the U.S., the adamant expression of support for either political philosophy is allowed so long as it does not involve violence or the destruction of property. However, all others are permitted to express, as adamantly, their opposition to such abhorrent political ideas.

The American flag represents the unity of all the states that comprise the U.S. and that are founded upon the principles embodied in the Constitution. Thus, the stars in the flag represent all the states of the union, and the stripes represent the original thirteen colonies that declared their independence from Great Britain.

Because the southern states believed that the institution of slavery was threatened by the election of Abraham Lincoln, they seceded from that union and formed the Confederate States of America, which too was founded upon certain principles, the chief of which was slavery. Hence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the confederate flag represents that odious institution.

Under the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, any person is free to fly the confederate flag on his own property or in a public place. However, because it has no status as a matter of law and is merely the banner of a vanquished entity, the confederate flag may not properly be flown on State or Federal property.
Neri
Active Member
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Braininvat on October 2nd, 2017, 4:08 pm 

Much of your lecture is factual, but somewhat tangential to my earlier point and the thread generally. Though there are similarities between Naziism and Stalinism, your equivalence is slightly off with respect to the fact that the Nazi flag represents only the Nazi regime. The Hammer and Sickle, however, existed before and after Stalin, and stood for the unity of workers (hence its depiction of job tools commonly used by the working class), and therefore is not purely a symbol of Stalinism. While I don't at all disagree that the H&S is presently a poor choice for a rally for democratic Socialism, with its ugly resonance and all, I do not believe that Cornyn supporters are using it to represent anything but worker solidarity and modern Socialist economic policies. Thus, I don't see them as much equivalent to Nazis or advocates of fascist genocidal regimes. Inhuman treatment of people is not an inherent attribute of modern European Socialism. A logical analysis of the following syllogism:

P1: Some past socialists were Nazis or Stalinists.
P2: Candidate X is a socialist.
C: Therefore, X is a Nazi or a Stalinist.

Find that it is not logically sound. I am fairly certain, for example, that Sen. Bernie Sanders is not a Nazi.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5761
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Neri on October 2nd, 2017, 9:35 pm 

Braininvat,

A Few Facts:

The hammer-and-sickle symbol was not even conceived of until after the October revolution of 1917.

In 1924 after his assent to power, Stalin ordered that the hammer and sickle was to be the official symbol of the Soviet Union, and it remained so until 1991—that is, during the entire term of his dictatorship. Hence, it is fair to say that this symbol was the face of Stalinism for some 67 years.

There can be no question that the rule of Stalin was unspeakably murderous and inhuman.

[The seven prior years of the Lenin regime hardly evinced a rule of justice and human decency. By employing the secret police (the Cheka), he instituted the Red Terror, brutally suppressing all political dissent. He ordered the murder and dismemberment of the entire Russian royal family and fabricated a cover-up that was continued throughout the Stalinist regime. In 1921, He ordered the invasion of Georgia and, by force of arms, annexed it into the Soviet Union. Lenin appointed Stalin to manage the invasion, for Stalin had the reputation of being particularly brutal and ruthless.]

Communists throughout the world, including those in the U.S. (such as the Rosenbergs) enthusiastically supported Stalin throughout his lifetime.

With these facts in mind, my logic is simple and direct:

Because the hammer-and-sickle flag is indeed a symbol of Stalinism, those who employ it to advance a political agenda are Stalinists as much as those who employ the swastika in the same way are Nazis.

As far as Mr. Corbyn is concerned, I cannot say unequivocally that he is a Stalinist; for, as far as I know, he did not display the hammer and sickle to advance a political agenda. On the other hand, he did stand upon a red bus and address a demonstration of the communist party on May Day. The demonstrators were carrying placards depicting the hammer and sickle. These facts, although they are quite suspicious, are not sufficient to prove that Corbyn is a Stalinist. The same cannot be said of the demonstrators.
Neri
Active Member
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Neri on October 3rd, 2017, 1:38 am 

Correction:

Stalin ruled the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953, some 29 years.

Sorry, apparently I had a brain cramp.
Neri
Active Member
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby mitchellmckain on October 3rd, 2017, 4:04 am 

Frankly the term "Stalinism" is a total smokescreen to hide the fact that the killing began in 1917 with Lenin and continued with nearly every communist takeover since. Sure Stalin was a particularly murderous paranoid, but we see a pattern of slaughter of civilians all throughout the world in the spread of Marxist-Leninism and it is total BS to suggest this was because of any imitation of Stalin. It all points to this being the routine method of pacification of the populous by any communist regime, and the principle reason for the high numbers under Stalin was simply the size of the region of the world which he pacified especially places like Ukraine and Mongolia who resisted him.

But the slaughter of civilians was just as horrific in China, Cambodia, North Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Vietnam and Ethiopia, and Stalin had nothing to do with them.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby toucana on October 29th, 2017, 6:24 am 

Just to bring this thread up to date :

Eleven members of the National Action' group were arrested on suspicion of terrorism related offences at the end of September 2017, and six of them, including the leader Chris Lythgoe have now been charged and have appeared in court.

http://news.sky.com/story/man-bought-gladius-machete-to-kill-labour-mp-rosie-cooper-court-hears-11100618

One 22 year old man who cannot be named for legal reasons is charged with purchasing a 'gladius machete' in order to behead the Labour party MP for Lancashire West Rosie Cooper. He is also charged with threatening to kill a female police officer.

gladius.jpg
gladius machete


This development lends a certain novel edge to the group's statement on their own website that was quoted earlier in this thread
"Even the cutting edge humour regularly employed by members of our youth group which may go over the heads of some people, would still have to be deliberately misrepresented by a malicious third party.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 812
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)
LomaxBraininvat liked this post


Re: Neo Nazi Party now "Illegal" in UK

Postby Lomax on November 5th, 2017, 10:29 pm 

Racism and homophobia are not in themselves terrorism. Various members of National Action have been arrested for plotting terrorism - but given that the leaders were not among them, we must assume the orders didn't come from the top, nor from the party platform itself. Amber Rudd's statement (as featured in Badgerjelly's post) does not even attempt to accuse the party of conducting terrorism. She goes no further than to say it has hateful views. I asked myself this question: would we ban the Conservative party if Iain Duncan Smith and Marcus Jones were arrested on suspicion of plotting terrorist acts? I suspect we would not.

Regarding the tangents: I am surprised to find nobody mentioned that the Swastika, like the Hammer and Sickle, is older than the movement(s) with which we now associate it. And amused to see mitchellmckain asserting that Stalin had nothing to do with East Germany.

As for socialism, it means "control of the means of production by the workers" (or, variously, "the community"). In Nazi Germany the means of production were wholly the property of the Nazi party, just like everything else. In Soviet Russia the means of production were wholly the property of the Soviet party, just like everything else. But labels will persist in superseding facts.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK



Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron