Thread: Sean Gabb at Exeter

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

Originally Posted by david H

No, Harry some views have to be beyond the pale. For how long is it just a view? Thought leads to action and remember the one expressing the view is fortifying and encouraging others. It helps build up the moral climate of permission or prohibition because we don't live as isolated individuals but share a world and thus influence each other. Those who preach otherwise are philosophically bancrupt.
You said "everyone is entitled to his views" and are therefore justifying them. Have a good look at your children or grandchildren next time you think that.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

That is not a virtue.

This has been an error of monument proportions, incredible damage has been done

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).