Bellatrix

Regarding Dr Sean Gabb:

It's our understanding that when Dr Gabb was invited to speak at the Exeter rally nobody involved had any idea as to some of the more extreme views held by him. He did not express these opinions in his speech and people only became aware of his views when he posted an account on his own blogsite, later repeated on this forum.

While we accept that Dr Gabb has every right to hold his own opinions it was felt that these were totally at odds with the views of the party. Accordingly, within a very short space of time of his views being made public, the invitation to Dr Gabb to speak at the North West rally was withdrawn.

To make it clear, Dr Gabb is not a member of UKIP, has no desire to be a member of UKIP, did not express any of his extreme views at Exeter and his invitation to speak at Morecambe withdrawn.

Dr Gabb was informed of the party's decision early this morning and accepted the situation with good grace although he will obviously be writing about the matter on his own website.

B.A.Ware

Its nice to see UKIP acting so swiftly to correct this situation, well done

__________________
We’re not just about Europe.

Ea of Dune

Agreed, the anti-EU movement dosen't need to be soiled with the brush of being associated with those who turn a blind eye to peadophilia.

Ea of dune

harryaldridge

Again, I am not disagreeing with you. I do not agree with Sean Gabb's views on this matter at all. But thoughts do not necessarily lead to actions, as you claim. Just because I think he is entitled to hold his views does not mean I endorse them in the slightest, and i certainly don't, but of course he still has the right to hold such views and to make his views known. The rest of us all have the right to tell him to get f***ed and to ignore him if we so wish. That is the nature of freedom.

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

Geoffrey Collier

harryaldridge: You are wrong on almost every point. For a start, citizens of the UK (or U.S.) have never had an absolute right to the freedom of speech. What we say has ALWAYS been subject to location, audience, medium and intention.

What we are being told, is that Dr Gabb was invited to speak at a UKIP conference, yet ALL invitees were unaware of his dominant opinions. Despite
this lack of informatiom, that was no impediment to an invitation being made to him to seek a nomination to be a candidate for the European Parliament, to represent UKIP. Indeed, such was the enthusiasm for his support, a favourable ranking for him, on the electoral list, was discussed.

Are we being told that a senior Party member, of his/her own volition, made that offer to Dr Gabb on their own initiative? Who was that person and what disciplinary action is being taken?

This has been an error of monument proportions, incredible damage has been done: and, as we could predict with certainty, the fault lay not in the membership but the leadership. Never again must toleration be used as an excuse for cowardice, or perversity, merely an exercise in free speech.

devilskitchen

That is not a virtue.

Really? Have there been front page headlines in The Sun? Or The Mail?

Dr Gabb has published a clarification of his intent. It is not one that I necessarily agree with, although his point about the law only coming into force in 1994 is correct.

However, I would say that communications developments since then have rendered the greater part of his argument obsolete.

__________________
Unio Europaea delenda est

harryaldridge

It is often said that the limit on freedom of speech is "shouting fire! in a crowded theatre". Indeed this may be the case, but speaking ones opinions passively is most certainly an action which is and should be permissable.
Indeed. If one did not know his opinion on this issue then why would one a) not offer him a candidacy since he is an eminent proponent of liberty, or b) have cause to think he might hold such an extreme minority (of 1?) view? I think had the fact been known before hand he would not have been offered the seat, and indeed the offer should be withdrawn as I believe it has.
I do not think damage has been done at all. How? An honest error on the part of UKIP for offering him the seat without knowledge of his other beliefs can hardly be construed as an error of monumental proportions!
And I say again, he, as you and I, should have absolute right to hold opinions and speak of them. That does not mean anybody condones or agrees with them.
If I knew a carpenter who was an extreme racist, would it be wrong to listen to his advice on carpentry? Just because he held some disgreeable views does not preclude his other opinions or knowledge from being perfectly valid and interesting.

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

FreedomIsYellow

I think there have been a lot of knee-jerk reactions following Sean's article the other day and I think many are simply not clear on his position.

He is against the production of child pornography - this is quite clearly stated in his article on the LA:

Free Life Commentary No 170, 12th March 2008

Sean is a great asset to the defence of true liberty and the reason I'm writing this is I feel he has been done a great disservice by members of the UKIP.

Richard Allen

I don't see any major damage in what has happened as for once the leadership has moved quickly. I am bothered however about purportedly senior members of UKIP offering high places on the MEP lists to people who are not even members of our party and whom we have not vetted. This is not only stupid but treats our members with contempt.

david H

There is no equation between speaking to a BNP meeting and encouraging(not tolerating) child pornography. This shows the essential corruption and degredation of those who run UKIP. If a member believes there has been treason committed by senior politicians you throw him out but if one better known encourages child pornography you ask him to become a canddate!
Why not disabuse the member who believes there has been treason. Or has there but you seek to cover it up? Further, you must now state clearly: does UKIP support child pornography or not? You are trying to obfuscate the issue.
Harry you are corrupt to allow him those opinions and that is not the nature of freedom at all. That is the nature of decadence: people allowing others to commit evil on those who need our protection. It is our duty to protect the innocent and defenceless. This attitude allows a climate of permissability where these acts become permissable. The thought is actually a desire not a cold idea and leads to the act(s).

__________________
"You think you are combatting prejudice but you are at war with nature". Edmund Burke.

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-98-1127.html