Thread: Sean Gabb at Exeter

I drove down to Exeter last Saturday the 8th March 2008, to speak at a
United Kingdom Independence Party rally. If I had bothered checking in
advance that the round journey would be 600 miles, I might have declined
the invitation. I am glad, though, that I did not check, and that I did
accept.

Imagine, if you can, a party rally, put on by one of its regional
branches, and attended by several hundred decent, ordinary people.
Imagine, then, being able to watch a dozen or so people called to the
podium to speak fluently and with passion about what they truly think.
Imagine also being able to mingle throughout with the leaders and elected
representatives of that party. Imagine all this, and you have UKIP.

I watched parts of the Liberal Democrat conference on television
yesterday. As with all the Regime Parties, these people talk about the
need for commitment and fundamental change, and then carefully avoid
saying or promising anything that might resemble either commitment or
change. What I saw on Saturday with my own eyes was politics as it always
used to be in England.

I last voted Conservative in 1997. Since then, I have voted UKIP whenever
possible. So far, I have done this as a means of punishing the
Conservatives for being so dreadful. I will now vote UKIP because I like
the party and because I admire its leaders.

I will not summarise my speech, as I made a video record of it, and of
the one made by Marc-Henri Glendening of the Democracy Movement. There
was some coordination between us, and so our speeches are worth watching
one after the other. I am never happy with filming in a room where public
address equipment is in use, but the sound quality is adequate. Our
speeches are available courtesy of Google Video.

Sean Gabb & Marc Glendening speak at UKIP Rally, Exter, 6th March 2008

In time, I hope, UKIP will make its own video footage of the whole rally
available on-line.

Now, though it was right to say how much I enjoyed myself last Saturday,
the real purpose of this article is to confirm in writing what I did say
then several times. I was approached by one very senior person in UKIP
and by someone who has the ear of other senior persons, and asked if I
would like to stand in the European Elections, and with a position on the
party list that would give me some chance of being elected. I said no,
but am not sure if my refusal was taken as more than false modesty.

There would be certain advantages in having me as a candidate. I am a
clear and prolific writer. I speak reasonably well without notes. I can
think on my feet. I know how to handle the media. I am not that old, nor
particularly displeasing to look at. I have shown no tendency as yet to
megalomania, and most of the things in my private life I would not have
known are more comical than scandalous.

This being said, my answer is still no. I do not wish to stand with any
party endorsement in any election that I might win. Here are my reasons.

First, I am Director of the Libertarian Alliance. This is a non-party
organisation. I accept that we have had our greatest impact during the
past thirty years on the youth movement of the Conservative Party, and
that we now have a certain influence within UKIP. But we do have
supporters in the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties. For all these
parties are loathsome at the top, there is some chance of libertarian
pressure from the membership. And there are still some libertarians who
do not share my opinion of the European Union. It is one thing for the
Director of the Libertarian Alliance to say what he thinks as an
individual, but quite another for him to be a UKIP candidate.

Second, I have certain qualities that, while useful for directing the
Libertarian Alliance, rule me out as a party politician. I am poor at
giving and taking instructions. I am not much of a team player. I have
little charm, and am easily bored with the ordinary things of life. What
interests me is often seen by others as unimportant or obscure. In
politics, I would be another Enoch Powell, but without the brilliance.

Third, there is the nature of my opinions. I may believe in withdrawing
from the European Union, and I may be a firm patriot. But I have also
spent much of the past thirty years trying as clearly and persuasively as
I can to say things that most would regard as not on but considerably
beyond the lunatic fringe in politics. I believe in legalising all drugs.
I am not for decriminalising possession of small amounts of cannabis for
personal use, or for diverting the enforcement budget to "education". I
would make it no more illegal to buy a packet of heroin than it is now to
buy a packet of tea; and I would not allow the authorities to spend a
penny of our money on telling us whether and how to use it. I believe in
repealing all the race relations and other hate crime laws. I would allow
employers and landlords to qualify their advertisements with phrases like
"niggers and faggots need not apply". I do not believe possession of
child pornography should be a crime. I do not even believe it should be a
crime to publish child pornography here that was made abroad by and with
foreigners.

I like to think I can justify these opinions - plus all the others I
cannot be bothered to mention or may have forgotten that I hold. I should
also emphasise that, while I do not think they should be illegal, I do
not necessarily approve of the things just mentioned. But it should be
clear that no party mad enough to adopt me as a candidate would get a
fair hearing ever again in the media.

And so, I wish UKIP well. I wish it more than well. It is our last and
our best hope in politics. I enjoyed last Saturday in Exeter. I look
forward to the weekend after next at another rally in Morcambe. If I am
seriously asked, however, to do more than this, my answer must be thanks
but no thanks.

I do not believe possession of
child pornography should be a crime. I do not even believe it should be a
crime to publish child pornography here that was made abroad by and with
foreigners.

Surely this goes against a Libetarian point of view though? It's not like children have a choice in the matter, most are sex slaves, kidnapped or forced into it through poverty. I am totally against the above! It's wrong thoroughly wrong in my opinion and I can't see how you can justify the above stance.

I agree with him on the drugs issue though, we need amssive reforms in our drug laws. Even though I'm not into it myself I honestly think it's the only way we can crush the crime that surronds the drug trade.

Ea of dune

Quote:
I believe in
repealing all the race relations and other hate crime laws. I would allow
employers and landlords to qualify their advertisements with phrases like
"niggers and faggots need not apply". I do not believe possession of
child pornography should be a crime. I do not even believe it should be a
crime to publish child pornography here that was made abroad by and with
foreigners.

B.A.W Is this a wind up

I don't think it is - scary isn't it? How come these extremists are attracted to UKIP? Don't they realise that in order to get a sizeable vote, policies adopted must appeal to the majority.

I wonder if UKIP members support his point of view on the topic?

Ea of dune

Originally Posted by B.A.Ware

I still think its a wind up no one with an once of brain cells could possibly try and attempt to justify child porn.

Agree 100%.

So,david H,can you say where this account of his time in Exeter came from?

It seems to have been written only in the last couple of days doesn't it?

Where did you find it?

It comes from the South West rally

Only a few weeks ago, UKIP members and former UKIP members, arranged in Bournemouth a public meeting to discuss policies and, listen to speakers, concerned about serious issues, which affect the lives ordinary voters.

Several of our invited speakers, Professor Congdon, for example, reluctantly withdrew following pressure from senior UKIP figures and their EU paid employees. Yet, it appears, that the attendance of Sean Gabb at Exeter was known and approved by those same individuals.

Can any person, who resides on the right side of sanity, see how the cause of UKIP, was enhanced by those sick opinions espoused by Mr Gabb? Was it a mistake for which the leadership would like to apologise? Did Mr Gabb receive any financial assistance, from UKIP funds, to defray his costs? I know not.

An American Supreme Court judge, once defined the limits of free speech, as being a prohibition on shouting, 'Fire', in a crowded auditorium, when it was known that no fire existed. Perhaps, future UKIP conference organisers, should bear in mind, the spirit of that jugement, when they next approve sick obscenities as being within the parameters of free speech and the Party's own cultural map. What a dreadful thing for them to have done.