Sean Bresnahan ✒ As I’ve long made clear, I have no issue with the concept of an ‘agreed’ Ireland of itself alone (for the form of any would-be Irish Republic must surely be agreed by its citizens). 


The problem, however, is that we do not know what is actually meant by those who employ the term. There is a real danger that it intends towards a continuing British involvement in our country — post-any ‘Yes’ vote border poll — and that this is what stands to be ‘agreed’ in that event (i.e. the nature of whatever role is to be afforded London).

My own views on agreeing any would-be ‘new Ireland’ are that Britain must declare her intent to withdraw and that a constitutional convention, from there, should determine new governmental arrangements. These arrangements should be island-wide, proceeding upon the uninterrupted sovereignty and unity of the Republic. Prisoner releases, with a full and proper amnesty, must be integral here too. Is the post-border poll ‘agreed’ Ireland construct of constitutional nationalism in line with such a framework?

That the Irish Republic should be reconstituted by referendum is a revolutionary political notion. That this same Republic should proceed upon the winning of a border poll is a reduced derivative of the same demand. Ultimately, however, it would still set towards the same prescription — this being the Irish Republic. What matters less, through all of this, is the means employed to effect such a shift. What matters more is the nature of that shift itself, and the political order it speeds.

Much, here, depends on the specifics as to what any border poll vote will be ‘on’ and in this lies the key point of danger. Thus, we must be wary of internalising its legitimacy, for it seems destined towards an ‘agreed’ Ireland framework still bound within the totality of relationships — which if so would put pay to any notion or pretence of a stand-alone republic.

On whether people should vote or how they should vote, should they vote at all, much here depends on what is actually being asked come the time. In the meantime, the work needing done is to grow the idea that Ireland, reunified, should be an independent 32-county republic — for there is no guarantee, whatsoever, that this will wash out on the far side of a ‘Yes’ (indeed it reads to me that this won’t be the case as things stand).

I think we can work on securing this core understanding without necessarily having to buy into a border poll, as though it were a fair means to determine our future. If we can get this much in the bag then we can take the rest as it comes, as this is the critical matter.

On the forward relationship with Britain, there will always be a relationship between Ireland and Britain and few would dispute that. They are our nearest neighbours and we have a lot of connections with those on that island — be they economic, cultural or whatever. But that relationship must be predicated on respect for the other’s sovereignty.

Britain has no more right to be involved in Ireland or to be shaping our affairs than does France or Spain, even China. It is long past time that Britain recognised and made way for the sovereignty of the Irish people. If and when she has done so, we will no doubt work together on many issues of a mutual concern and interest.

With regards to the decision of others to engage the border poll in a similar fashion to the Brexit vote — as a means to impact how the wider political process develops — I’ve always sought to encourage that effort, though yes being critical of some things, such as what I perceive as the unnecessary focus on the border poll itself over all else — namely the wider process around it and which we do not have sufficient detail of. Unfettered support for a border poll, absent such detail, is surely problematic (to say the least).

My position at the time of the Brexit vote was that it was a matter for the British people of themselves, as it related to their sovereignty and not ours. But I said this in the context and on the basis that they should afford to us the same dignity, which they should. I also expressed hope that the British would go for EU withdrawal as it surely would destabilise normalisation, as was then ongoing, which it clearly has done in the years since that vote.

There are some who took this logic further and who argued at that time for an active participation — for a ‘Leave’ vote to be entered into as it would serve to destabilise the state. Some of those concerned now argue for a similar approach to be taken to any border poll, as it too could destabilise the state. For them, thus, we should be active participants canvassing for a ‘Yes’. It’s a valid argument that warrants consideration, the pitfalls I’ve spoken of aside.

Through all of this, we must speed greater efforts towards securing an understanding that if Ireland is to be reunified — by border poll vote or by whatever else — that it is then automatic that full British withdrawal proceeds and that a 32-county sovereignty is birthed, in the form of an all-Ireland republic. I can work with anyone on this particular aspect of campaign without having to share in the particulars of their approach to a border poll. There, indeed, lies the scope for cooperation between Irish Republicans of whatever hue.

At the finish of the matter, a border poll has no right or jurisdiction to determine Ireland’s political status. Should one be held and passed, however, it should not prevent us from arguing that it establishes a further imperative on Britain to leave. This is perhaps the most important thing to note of the process unfolding. To those already engaging it, keep doing the things you are doing — some of the campaign work is excellent. Just don’t bind your appeals and efforts so tightly to a border poll alone of itself. Make the campaign not for a border poll, per se, with that as the frontispiece, but instead for the Irish Republic.

Sean Bresnahan is an independent Republican from Co. Tyrone who 
blogs @ Claidheamh Soluis. Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79

Specifics Of The Border Poll Process Will Dictate What Washes Out

Sean Bresnahan ✒ As I’ve long made clear, I have no issue with the concept of an ‘agreed’ Ireland of itself alone (for the form of any would-be Irish Republic must surely be agreed by its citizens). 


The problem, however, is that we do not know what is actually meant by those who employ the term. There is a real danger that it intends towards a continuing British involvement in our country — post-any ‘Yes’ vote border poll — and that this is what stands to be ‘agreed’ in that event (i.e. the nature of whatever role is to be afforded London).

My own views on agreeing any would-be ‘new Ireland’ are that Britain must declare her intent to withdraw and that a constitutional convention, from there, should determine new governmental arrangements. These arrangements should be island-wide, proceeding upon the uninterrupted sovereignty and unity of the Republic. Prisoner releases, with a full and proper amnesty, must be integral here too. Is the post-border poll ‘agreed’ Ireland construct of constitutional nationalism in line with such a framework?

That the Irish Republic should be reconstituted by referendum is a revolutionary political notion. That this same Republic should proceed upon the winning of a border poll is a reduced derivative of the same demand. Ultimately, however, it would still set towards the same prescription — this being the Irish Republic. What matters less, through all of this, is the means employed to effect such a shift. What matters more is the nature of that shift itself, and the political order it speeds.

Much, here, depends on the specifics as to what any border poll vote will be ‘on’ and in this lies the key point of danger. Thus, we must be wary of internalising its legitimacy, for it seems destined towards an ‘agreed’ Ireland framework still bound within the totality of relationships — which if so would put pay to any notion or pretence of a stand-alone republic.

On whether people should vote or how they should vote, should they vote at all, much here depends on what is actually being asked come the time. In the meantime, the work needing done is to grow the idea that Ireland, reunified, should be an independent 32-county republic — for there is no guarantee, whatsoever, that this will wash out on the far side of a ‘Yes’ (indeed it reads to me that this won’t be the case as things stand).

I think we can work on securing this core understanding without necessarily having to buy into a border poll, as though it were a fair means to determine our future. If we can get this much in the bag then we can take the rest as it comes, as this is the critical matter.

On the forward relationship with Britain, there will always be a relationship between Ireland and Britain and few would dispute that. They are our nearest neighbours and we have a lot of connections with those on that island — be they economic, cultural or whatever. But that relationship must be predicated on respect for the other’s sovereignty.

Britain has no more right to be involved in Ireland or to be shaping our affairs than does France or Spain, even China. It is long past time that Britain recognised and made way for the sovereignty of the Irish people. If and when she has done so, we will no doubt work together on many issues of a mutual concern and interest.

With regards to the decision of others to engage the border poll in a similar fashion to the Brexit vote — as a means to impact how the wider political process develops — I’ve always sought to encourage that effort, though yes being critical of some things, such as what I perceive as the unnecessary focus on the border poll itself over all else — namely the wider process around it and which we do not have sufficient detail of. Unfettered support for a border poll, absent such detail, is surely problematic (to say the least).

My position at the time of the Brexit vote was that it was a matter for the British people of themselves, as it related to their sovereignty and not ours. But I said this in the context and on the basis that they should afford to us the same dignity, which they should. I also expressed hope that the British would go for EU withdrawal as it surely would destabilise normalisation, as was then ongoing, which it clearly has done in the years since that vote.

There are some who took this logic further and who argued at that time for an active participation — for a ‘Leave’ vote to be entered into as it would serve to destabilise the state. Some of those concerned now argue for a similar approach to be taken to any border poll, as it too could destabilise the state. For them, thus, we should be active participants canvassing for a ‘Yes’. It’s a valid argument that warrants consideration, the pitfalls I’ve spoken of aside.

Through all of this, we must speed greater efforts towards securing an understanding that if Ireland is to be reunified — by border poll vote or by whatever else — that it is then automatic that full British withdrawal proceeds and that a 32-county sovereignty is birthed, in the form of an all-Ireland republic. I can work with anyone on this particular aspect of campaign without having to share in the particulars of their approach to a border poll. There, indeed, lies the scope for cooperation between Irish Republicans of whatever hue.

At the finish of the matter, a border poll has no right or jurisdiction to determine Ireland’s political status. Should one be held and passed, however, it should not prevent us from arguing that it establishes a further imperative on Britain to leave. This is perhaps the most important thing to note of the process unfolding. To those already engaging it, keep doing the things you are doing — some of the campaign work is excellent. Just don’t bind your appeals and efforts so tightly to a border poll alone of itself. Make the campaign not for a border poll, per se, with that as the frontispiece, but instead for the Irish Republic.

Sean Bresnahan is an independent Republican from Co. Tyrone who 
blogs @ Claidheamh Soluis. Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79

31 comments:

  1. Referendums often tend to be the method of deliberation of tyrants.

    The Brexit referendum was therefore a serious aberration for liberal democracy enabling as it did the most disastrous decision taken by the UK arguably in its history as a result of the actions of liars, fraudsters, nativist/xenophobic dogwhistlers, dark money and Putin's troll army. Brexiteers posited an idea of sovereignty that is unsustainable in an interdependent world. The same can be said for Sean's ambition of an impossibilist Republic.

    The British government has said that it has no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement and the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act is an outworking of this declaration. When will Sean's brand of Republicanism ever realise that their game is up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It needs established, as a point of principle, that should Ireland ever be reunited that it will be so as an independent 32-county republic. This can’t be subject to any would-be agreement, to be mapped in the future and after the fact, and, indeed, it must be the foundation on which any such would-be agreement in the future is built. Such a republic is far from ‘impossibilist’ and is standard fare the world over. We are entitled to our due here and we will have our due, when Ireland long a province will at last take her place among the nations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean

      An actually existing Irish nation state (and Republic) has taken its place among the nations of the world.

      Delete
  3. Barry your just a conspiracy theorist. Brexit was the democratic expression of people fed up being outnumbered in their lovely little chocolate box English villages by Romanian beggars and E. European minimum wage earning whordes. Wealthy like the out sourcing of industries to third world countries for profits prefer said profits over paying a living wage. More to come though coz rather than teaching the Tory Party a lesson via Nigel Ferage they it handed them s free ticket back to the victorian era regarding labour standards. Enjoy what's coming. But Ireland and Gibraltar did well from it all. Hope the unionists see sense and get stuck into all Ireland Politics in an EU context. Votail EU votail big subsidies and lots of dosh.
    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
  4. Barry,
    Referendums being an in welcome change in liberal democracies is that implying they are anti democratic? I'm at a loss as to why people still talk about Russian trolls when tech companies as we speak are censoring information in favour of the liberal democratic establishment. Abuse of technology can't just be an issue when the Russians do it.
    Brexiteers won a legitimate referendum, that's it. Just as the establishment won one in Scotland. I don't hear any outrage about the scandalous one sided media over here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David

      The voters in Scotland were given a comprehensive roadmap to independence by the Yes campaign. No such roadmap was given by the Leave campaign in the EU referendum - no mention of leaving the single market and customs union and the possible effects on the island of Ireland in the form of a visible border.

      Young people between the ages or 16 and 18 had the vote in the Scottish referendum; they did not in the Brexit referendum which is important as young people are overwhelmingly more likely to be favour of Remain. Nor did EU citizens resident in the UK and British expatriates in Europe have the vote - two groups with a significant stake in the outcome.

      While there were deep passions in the Scottish ref campaign there was nothing like the whoppers told by Leave: the £350m a week that the UK was paying to Brussels and which could be used to fund the NHS; that 75m Turks were set fair to come to the UK: that the UK would be able to negotiate the easiest trade deal in history after leaving the EU.

      The nativism and xenophobia stirred up by Leave campaigners (remember Farage's Breaking Point poster of Syrian refugees poised to overrun Europe and Britain) led directly to the murder of Jo Cox MP by a far-right terrorist. Do you remember the outbreak of hate crime against EU residents and BAME people in the aftermath of the referendum vote. I don't think anything like that happened in Scotland.

      Nor did either the Yes and No campaigns in Scotland have the access to the illegally harvested data from Facebook that Leave had from Cambridge Analytica.

      You are entitled to your view that tech companies are engaging in censorship. For me they have every right (or a societal duty) to close the accounts of people inciting hate and violence whether they are POTUS or not. The trolling activities of the Internet Research Agency in spreading lies and disinformation during election campaigns were actively harming proper democratic deliberation.

      Referendums when conducted in the climate of raw emotions, lies and misinformation engendered by decades of Europhobic press propaganda (step forward Boris) as was the case with Brexit are damaging to representative democracy as power shape a generation changing decision was entrusted to a public that was badly misinformed on it.

      Delete
  5. Things going spiffingly for Boris and Co. These vaccines could be the modern version of deliberately created famine and land clearances to replace people with sheep. This time to replace mask wearing stinking of piss geriatric sheep to fix the pension defecit after successive governments on both sides of the fake two party democracy pilfered numerous pension pots. Global trade deals will be sweat shops R-US. Too far fetched? These people have form. Or maybe history is now banned too...Pol Pot rocks!! I thought 2021 was going to be boring. These pissy pensioners will be dropping like flies it gonna be rite up there with gladiator entertainment and Austwitz.. Wonder could we get it on TV take bets on what geriatric pops ther cloggs first after a jab in the big brother house? I'm checking out which county has a majority of oldies..I think Pablo could lay claim to an entire county soon. Our revenge will be the laughter of our children never looked better!
    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry

      "These vaccines could be the modern version of deliberately created famine and land clearances to replace people with sheep."

      There is no point in debating Covid-19 rationally with someone so wedded to mistruths about the death toll caused by the virus that he sounds like a Holocaust denier and who peddles such gross nonsense about the medical weapons that hopefully will defeat this scourge.

      Can I ask you once again, Larry why are you attracted to such conspiracy myths? Where is the qui bono factor for you in them.

      I get your views on the pilfering of pension pots and surrender to bankers by governments of the recent past. I do not necessarily dissent from them. But governments in democracies cannot be irreducibly evil at all times.

      Delete
  6. Barry
    Covid19 is a nasty flu. Oldies are more vulnerable than during the seasonal flu. However the testing is flawed, everyone knows this but nothing is done. It is common knowledge the stats on positive tests are massively exaggerated and deliberately presented like body counts not asymptomatic irrelevances. I believe had the NHS been properly funded over the years there would be no crisis in the wards. Nor should this virus have resulted in a pandemic being declared. It is pure drama and overkill excuse the pun. Good job Pfaizer and Gates got immunity from prosecution before bullying shareholding political leaders to roll out their vaccine. 29 oldies dead in Norway after getting the jab. Norway reconsidering the vaccine and medical staffs in a few countries including USA refusing to take or administer the vaccines. The wheels are coming off scamdemic vaccine Barry. At what point do you start to contemplate critical thinking and stop being a couch potato munching whatever the TV lobs your way? Interesting that everyone died WITH covid-19 even if hit by a train. But Pfaizer now saying the oldies dying after the jab were old and terminally ill already and deaths were within expected estimates. How caring. So no-one will die FROM the vaccine. No wonder countries and medics pulling back on the issue. But censorship may be increased to counter that inconvenience.
    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry

      So how do you account for the deaths of so many young people from the virus.? How do you account for the appalling breathing problems experienced by people who have contracted the virus necessitating treatment on ventilators. Covid 19 is of the SARS-Covid variety as detected by WHO vaccinologists; it is NOT merely a nasty flu.

      ONS statistics for England from September to December 2020 reported 20,000 more than usual excess deaths. Over the same period, 28,000 deaths were recorded with Covid-19 recorded on the death certificate. Take away the 8,000 who probably died from other conditions that leaves 20,000 deaths very probably attributable to Covid-19.

      The deaths of 29 elderly people with underlying health conditions in Norway were after administration with the Pfizer vaccine; the only one available in Norway. Yes there well be safety issues with that vaccine; there are five other vaccines with varying degrees of efficacy as proven from clinical trials. I personally would go with Oxford/Astra-Zenica; the fruits of trans-European co-operation (slap it up Brexiteers) and approved by MHRA.

      All vaccines carry a degree of risk however small. There is a far greater risk to public health when drop in vaccine uptake leads to fall in herd immunity below safety levels as the remergence of measles in so many parts of the world due to the MMR hoax (now there was a real scandemic).

      The abject funding of the NHS is certainly another factor in the Boris's handling of the pandemic but not having a lockdown sooner and not having had an "oven-ready" Test, Track and Trace system from the off compounded this problem to an exponential degree.

      Delete
  7. After the experience of nationalists with media throughout the conflict in the wee 6 I think critical thinking should be taught in schools after a the successful upcoming border poll. Media should also be free of lazy worthless employees who simply read out government propaganda.
    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hoping to set up an Irish franchise of Fox News; sorry I meant Infowars, Larry?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Barry,
    One of the main arguments of no campaign in the Scottish independence was that no such roadmap existed, we didn't know what currency would be used. I struggle to believe people who voted leave, didn't realise they would be leaving the single market, it seems to be self explanatory.
    The parameters of both referendum were different but each side knew that going in and accepted it. There was complaints in Scotland too, who should be considered citizens etc, it wasn't plain sailing.
    I don't accept lies told in the brexit referendum were worse than the Scottish independence. I lived here at the time and every day in the media, you had articles saying, the healthcare would collapse, the education likewise, more susceptible to attacks from Russia, culminating in a front page advertisement in every newspaper of the vow a declaration singed by the leaders of the Scottish Tory, Labour and Lib Dems saying if people voted no, devolution powers would be extended , seven years later it's still not happened.
    There was a small outbreak of violence against English people living in Scotland, nothing major.
    I don't use social media, so it's not something I'm passionate about, from the outside looking in, it seems to me to imbalanced, therefore censorship.
    All politics are conducted in toxic circumstances, look at the yank election just passed. The public have a duty to inform themselves, otherwise you could have that argument after ever election, for example the one just past in the US, people could say it wasn't on the main stream media enough that Biden had a rape allegation so so forth Do you believe referendums have a place in representative democracy?

    ReplyDelete
  10. David

    I would argue that it was not self-explanatory that voting Leave in the EU Ref meant automatic departure from the Single Market. I could accept a vote to leave the Political institutions of the EU (Commission, Council of Ministers, European Parliament).

    To leave the single market was an altogether different matter as it has rubbed up against the terms of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement creating an irreconcilable legal clash between leaving the single market and customs union and the commitments to no trade barriers on the island of Ireland or on the Irish Sea. But of course the Bad Boys of Brexit never told us that.

    Referendums are best avoided in liberal representative democracies as they tend to be poor deliberative mechanisms for the resolution of complex issues which are better left to legislators. They are only suitable for decisions on fundamental constitutional matters such as the dual referenda to ratify the Good Friday Agreement North and South and the devolution and Indy referendums in Scotland. Had the UK ever decided to enter the Euro; then I believe there should have been a referendum. I would also have agreed with the constitutional changes to the EU proposed in the Lisbon Treaty being put to the UK electors in referendum.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Barry,
    I don't think we can take the self explanatory debate any further, it's opinion based.
    I understand your point surrounding GFA but again if you're voting on something, you should have a decent understanding of it, relying on the honesty of politicians is naive in the extreme.
    I'm a wee bit confused. You say referendums are best avoided in liberal democracies and the should only be used in fundamental constitutional matters, surely brexit falls under that category? Even if not technically, then the upheaval involved would warrant a referendum?
    I was glad when brexit occurred. I am of the belief that workers rights are easier to obtain in a national democracy rather than a multinational organisation, with the input of European roundtable of industrialists etc. Now I'm not sure, I make a point of watching right wing YouTube channels and they are all brexiteers. They seem far more concerned about some poor child making it across turbulent waters and God forbid into their country than they are of enhancing workers rights.

    ReplyDelete
  12. David

    There was no need for a binary Yes/No EU referendum. David Cameron only called in order to call off the dogs of the right-wing Europhobes in the Tory Party and ended up crashing his leadership and the country.

    For the EU referendum to have been an effective and fairer deliberative device; there should have been three options on the ballot paper: Remain; leave single market and customs union and leave EU political institutions. I go back to my original point; leaving the single market should not have been countenanced because of the UK's international treaty obligations under the GFA and that point should have been made over and over again throughout the referendum campaign.

    You appear to contradict yourself in your last sentence when you say Brexiteers are more concerned with migration than of enhancing workers rights; having just stated that workers rights are easier to obtain in a national democracy.

    Too right they are! Prominent Brexiteer Young Turks like Priti Patel and Liz Truss in Britannia Unchanged in 2012 described British workers as the laziest in Europe and looked forward to the sunny uplands of a lean market economy with a bonfire of deregulations of workers rights.

    So I would not be sanguine about workers' rights in Brexit Britain as our Brexiteer friends are straining at the leash to take a wrecking ball to the labour and environmental rights Britons previously enjoyed in the EU.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David

    I should also have listed Kwasi Kwarteng as one of Brexit Britannia's liberators who right now is looking at how to emasculate workers' rights.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Barry in case you hadn't noticed the only people censoring are the liberals. Something to fear?

    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
  15. Larry

    "The only people censoring are the liberals." Where? China? Russia? Hungary?

    ReplyDelete
  16. USA Barry. We got a Bruce Jenner nominated by Biden to the senate. All PC distraction. Nobody be grabbing that freak show by 'anything'. 😂 FB Twitter all liberal pussies want to ram their junk down everyone's throats but now don't want a response. Planets gone insane. Just wondering Barry do you type with a flashlight under your bed? Or were all your typing disasters down to no night sight?
    Larry Hughes

    ReplyDelete
  17. Barry,
    Binary questions have wider consequences. If people are unaware of that given the technology that exists in western society. That's their shortcomings.
    I don't think I do contradict myself. Simply put I thought brexit was an ideal opportunity for the British trade unionists to solidify with the wider community and negotiate better working rights. It seems the immigration antagonists have done well putting their agenda front and centre witch is a shame.
    Do you live in England, if so you'll know better than me the mood, I just watch YouTube videos. I live in Scotland and here there is definitely a shift to the right in working class areas. I've worked on building sites since I was sixteen. In Ireland and Scotland and in both countries and in both, particularly Scotland, every site I was on was ninety percent left-wing, trade unionists. Now, it's fifty fifty, maybe majority right-wing. That has been creeping in since 2008.
    The trade unionists and socialist movement have lost the fight for the soul of the working class. More and more what passes for left-wing is middle class cultural nonsense and less about workers rights. That's were our strength lay, if you're fighting for the same outcome being Irish, Scottish, Nigerian or Polish was immaterial, certainly in the work place. Now the right-wing have somehow convinced people that Farage is anti establishment and that the source of their problems are eastern Europeans and Syrians. It's depressing. It's also a failure on our behalf.
    I seen Brexit as a chance to rejuvenate workers rights movements, I no longer see that instead I see work mates with surnames like O'Neill, O'Shaughnessy etc talk about bloody foreigners. Not all, a few years when Syrian refugees came to Coatbridge There was a group set up to help up to help find accommodation, employment, language skills, so on and the number of volunteers was heartening. The negatives outweigh the positives though.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Larry

    Far right filth of all kinds like Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Conspiracy nuts, misogynists etc. have flooded the internet with no pushback from legal authorities and Big Tech until now.

    If you think you are oppressed by the PC police because it is socially unacceptable to say the N or P words or to deny the Holocaust then fuck off to Parler or some other Dark Web site and get aroused to the point of climax by the fascist porn on view there.

    Just about to watch America consign Trump to the lavatory of history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry - people should be allowed to deny the Holocaust. It is an idea, even if a terrible one. They should not be allowed to call a person a nigger. That is a hate filled insult.

      Delete
  19. Anthony,
    Does a problem lie in the definition of hate filled insult? Nobody would deny nigger falls in that category, but could words that criticise wall street for example be termed a hate filled insult to nullify criticism of said group? Much in the same way Zionist equate genuine criticism of Israel with antisemitism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah, I think to some extent it has to. Sometimes an insult can include an idea; alternatively an idea can be depicted as an insult for the very purpose of suppressing it. That is what Blasphemy is premised on.

      Delete
  20. AM

    Social media companies have the right to kick Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, Covid-19 deniers etc. off their sites. The state, on the other hand, should never criminalise these acts of "free speech".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. as much right as they have to remove those those insist the Holocaust happened, that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda, that Covid 19 is a serious threat.
      I agree that the state should not criminalise freedom of opinion. I think it can educate against what is being expressed such as Holocaust denial. Irving was not ruined by Austria jailing but by Deborah Lipstadt ridiculing him.

      Delete
  21. Anthony,
    Can free speech exist with curtailment? Watched John Brennan talk of domestic terrorists in the US, he basically put everyone on the list, antifa, right wing militias, libertarians. If the terrorists list is anyone with a anti establishment idea, could then big tech not use said list to ban any ideas from anyone associated with these groups?
    During the covid debate not the 5g stuff, I don't know what that meant, or the excess deaths, the genuine debate between epidemiologists on the best way to deal with this, there was people attacking epidemiologists on the anti lockdown side, people without any scientific background or independent ideas, a lot of the attacks were about potential interest rather than the substance of their argument. Are we then in danger of creating new blasphemy laws protecting establishment science, proven or otherwise, a sort of secular dogma?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David - absolute free speech cannot exist with curtailment but if we were advocates of absolute free speech we would endorse free speech that was used to bully and intimidate other people out of using free speech. Indeed we would even advocate its use when people use it to shout "nigger" at black people urge others to kill. I have never been an advocate of absolute free speech for that very reason. I am an advocate of unlimited free inquiry. I think during the Covid debate there has been an attempt to close down alternative opinions to the consensus not because they were insults but because they were ideas supporters of the consensus did not approve. That in my view is a retrograde step.

      Delete
  22. I don't know where I stand on this. I'm drawn to absolute free speech but the pitfalls are potentially a marginalisation of people through intimidation which negates free speech in the first place. You've a way of answering questions in a thought provoking manner, that the reason for the questions.
    Free inquiry sounds ideal, but there is part of my brain saying if the can curtail absolute free speech they can do so with inquiry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we never actually have absolute free speech - it is always limited by a number of factors, location, for example. Of course they will curtail free inquiry given half a chance. But they could quite easily allow the insults to continue and suppress the ideas.

      Delete