Ludwig, it is not the opinions that matter, it is the manner in which they are expressed.

>>Do you really think that the expression of opinions such as those of Powell or Polycarp dangerous?<<

Enoch Powell was a highly intelligent but emotionally complex character. He was convinced that the level of immigration into the UK was detrimental to the country's wellbeing, and had every right to express those opinions. Where he overstepped the mark was not in the holding of those views, or indeed the representation of those views as being in line with those of his constituents, but in the manner in which he chose to express them.

"Rivers of blood" was both over-emotional, and highly inflammatory. That was the reason he was fired.

Sir Oswald Moseley was a highly intelligent but emotionally complex character. He was convinced that the impact of Jews and foreigners on the UK economy was detrimental to the country's wellbeing, and had every right to express those opinions. Where he overstepped the mark was not in the holding of those views, or indeed the representation of those views as being in line with those of the British working class, but in the manner in which he chose to express them.

Holding mass rallies to inflame the "patriotism" of those workers was wrong, regardless of the fact that his Fascist counterparts in Europe turned out to be a bit on the nose. That was the reason he went to jail.

Boaz has a morbid fear of Islam. That is his prerogative. What I object to is his constant use of arcane and irrelevant material to justify projecting his fears onto other people.

>>What about the complete non-expression or suppression of views like these, which a large section of the [British and Australian] community clearly share?<<

These views are not suppressed, in either country. It follows that they are not being expressed.

Given that they are not being expressed, what evidence is there that these views are actually held?

Pericles, very well put.

“…it is not the opinions that matter…”

Ok Pericles, glad to hear it. But this does sit in stark contrast to your earlier statement;

“…you fail to see how dangerous your opinions can be.”

Never mind. Thanks for the clarification.

“…it is the manner in which they are expressed.”

Well, maybe so. But only if there is incitement to violence or hatred, or abject hatred expressed or defamation or grossly incorrect information purported to be factual, etc.

Apart from obvious misdemeanours like these, don’t we all have the right to express our opinions in such a manner as to have the maximum impact? That is, with real conviction and passion.

I don’t think that there was anything wrong with Enoch Powell’s speech. I can’t imagine how he could have said what he needed to say in a manner that would have been more acceptable. I think it was purely his opinion that saw him dismissed from his position by Edward Heath. Heath said that Powell was dismissed because he interpreted his views as “racialist”. So it was pretty clearly Powell’s opinions that got him sacked, and not any untoward expression of them. Indeed, he was a most eloquent orator.

I doubt that there would have been any way that he could have delivered that message in such a manner as to have it count for something without being rolled for it, within the political climate and immigration-supporting political mindset of the time.

continued

“These views are not suppressed, in either country.”

You reckon Pericles?? I’d say they are highly suppressed. There are very few people who would be willing openly express them, beyond a small circle of their buddies. Sure, there is a pretty open expression on OLO, but mostly by those who write under a pseudonym. No one in an influential political position dares express such views. But I bet there are some who hold them. I’m sure Pauline Hanson wasn’t alone.

“…what evidence is there that these views are actually held?”

OLO and various other forums where people can speak their minds (openly but mostly anonymously).

Ludwig, selective editing is impolite.

For example, if I said to you...

"Ludwig, first you claim '[these views] are highly suppressed',

A moment later you say 'there is a pretty open expression'

Which do you mean, Ludwig?..."

...you'd be a little miffed at my deliberate selection of phrases out of context.

So allow me to put what I said, and you sneered at, back into context.

I first pointed out the following to Boaz:

"So utterly convinced of your own rightness, that you fail to see how dangerous your opinions can be."

As I had made clear in the post itself, and on many previous occasions, it is the manner in which Boaz chooses to deliver his opinions that causes me to react to his rabble-rousing antics. I know many people who hold similar views to Boaz, and who express them at every opportunity, but who do not stand on a soap box (literally as well as metaphorically, apparently) to harangue anyone who passes by with their bilious invective, designed to inflame passions and to incite aggressive action.

His opinions are dangerous because of the manner in which he transmits them. Ergo they are, in this context, dangerous in themselves.

"Ludwig, it is not the opinions that matter, it is the manner in which they are expressed."

In context. Totally consistent.

And yes of course there are some people who share Boaz' views, and who express them quite forcibly on this forum, and in many other places too. Piers Akerman springs to mind, as does Mark Steyn. But both stop short of incitement to hatred, fear and loathing.

Our politicians may well hold similar views - I suspect John Howard was deep down more rabidly racist than Hanson - but they repress it.

But only because if they admitted it, they'd be unelectable.

But the beautiful fact of the matter is that they are very much allowed to speak their minds in Australia, should they indeed have the courage of their convictions.

Only, not by invoking "rivers of blood".

The INFAMOUS Enoch Powell. Oh Yes.
When he was the Conservative Health Minister it was his policy to recruit West Indians to Britain to fill the Labour Intensive Jobs within the National Health Hospitals. He was an out and out Hypocrite who created racial hatred within Britain. Sacked by Prime Minister Edward Heath he joined the Ulster Unionist and continued with his politics of hate within Northern Ireland. This helped the INFAMOUS Margaret Thatcher for eighteen years which kept her in office while she sequestrated Trade Union Funds and divided the Nation while closing down British Industry and Privatising all the Utilities placing them into foreign hands. While her Husband and Son were reaping the benefits privately to the detriment of the British People. Enoch Powell will only be remembered as the Sir Oswald Mosely the Second. Nothing was so frightening watching his boot boys the skinheads going around beating up anybody with a brown or black skin.
We in Australia have witnessed here in Australia the views of Pauline Hanson a woman who was just as dangerous but fortunately could not string two words together.