"Alt-left" Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[NineBerry]

The universality does not apply to racists while engaged in racism. It's really that simple.

[Jason]

I know that's the position of the left, I want to see the case made. That's what we've been getting at. Assertions aren't worth anything.

Working within the framework of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, show me that the Nazis at Charlottesville are excluded from the universality of those rights. Also, are they excluded from having human rights generally or just in the specific case of committing a particular act?

[Svartalf]

[NineBerry]

I have already quoted the relevant passages. They don't have specific rights when these rights are used to contravene the rights or principles of the declaration.

[Jason]

But how were they contravening the rights and/or principles of the declaration? You quoted article 7 but failed to show that they were inciting to discrimination against the rights (as defined in the declaration) of others.

[Jason]

They don't have specific rights when these rights are used to contravene the rights or principles of the declaration.

So does this use of rights to contravene the rights of others revoke their specific human rights only at the time, specifically is their right to assembly nullified thus their assembly is deemed unlawful and are required to disperse, or does it revoke their human rights generally and for all time?

[NineBerry]

Universal rights are universal. So, they are not removed. It is just that they cannot claim they have a right to assembly under the declaration of human rights for such an assembly that contravenes the declaration's principles.

[Jason]

Universal rights are universal. So, they are not removed. It is just that they cannot claim they have a right to assembly under the declaration of human rights for such an assembly that contravenes the declaration's principles.

That's what's important.

I accept that if they were using their right of free speech and/or right of free assembly to contravene the rights and/or principles set out in the charter that speech and/or assembly was not lawful and not protected. The nuance the left isn't heeding is that these Nazis still have the rights set out in that charter.

[JimC]

Siva wrote:

As we correct the minds of the ancillary members who are amenable to argument and the children of these bigots, generation by generation they become fewer in number and their ideology dies. This has been happening for almost a century now and there's been much success in whittling down their numbers.

That was certainly the hope after WW2. However, in recent years Nazi ideology has made something of a comeback...

Now, if the right wing protestors in Charlottesville stuck to a peaceful protest against the removal of the statue, then their right to do so need not be questioned. However, by parading in KKK fashion with flaming torches, and chanting anti-Jewish slogans, they put themselves in a position where Poppers injunction not to tolerate the intolerant becomes a valid argument. To me, it would be reasonable for authorities to shut down such a march. Not that this would ever happen in the US, particularly in the South, where it is highly likely that a majority of law enforcement officers would tend to side with the right wing protestors.

[Jason]

No reasonable person wants to see the KKK, or Nazis, marching down the streets of their town. But the fact is they have the same rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as everyone else. If, in their exercise of Free Assembly, they cross the line and are using that right to deny the rights (under the same charter) of others then it's clear their assembly is not protected by the rights laid out in the charter and can be dispersed without infringement (similarly for Free Speech). That does not mean that their Human Rights have been revoked, it just means that in that instance they do not enjoy the right of Free Assembly. If they cross that line, then I'm with you. The authorities should shut them down and disperse them.

But we can't go about denying people their Human Rights. We can't destroy the foundations of our society to eliminate any group, no matter how odious, vile, and disgusting.

[Brian Peacock]

Sure, free assembly is an important right, even when people want to assemble shouldering semiautomatic rifles and chanting "Jews will not replace us!"

Do I detect a note of sarcasm? Maybe you can make the case for when and how universal human rights ought to be suspended. I'm all ears.

I don't know why you'd ascribe that position to me. Do you think it's reasonable for society to wait until a group actually carries out the acts they assemble under before the state has a responsibility to intervene? If so then I've got some news - people are already carrying out attacks and murders in the name of far-right politics in the US.

I've challenged you with before with this (and I'd grant there's no ready all-purpose answer), but I think you're getting caught in a specific type of quandary here: one which defends, secures and protects the rights of those who promote a credo that seeks to limit or undermine the same securities and protections for others.

Now, while I think every person's opinion is their own affair the alignment of particular kinds of personal political opinions into para-militarised groups who conspicuously and publicly display their allegiance to both the principles of subverting the universality of human rights for others and the necessity of threats of (and in some cases actual) violence to achieve their declared goals strikes me not only as an attempt to forcefully intimidate others (the community, society at large, the State) but also as fundamentally opposing the basic freedoms on which an ordered, civilised society depend - which in fact are the very freedoms you are citing in defence of their action.

Personally, I don't think these kinds of neo-Nazi/far-right groups are actually interested in engaging in a political process that necessarily relies on compromise, restraint, and the acceptance of certain pre-conditions (such as the rule of law and the universality of human rights). They strike me as more involved in projecting power and invested in creating a justification for the kinds of action which will, in their own eyes, always place them at the very centre of their own violent hero narratives.

[Jason]

That's a complex and difficult question. You're asking if we can't relieve ourselves of these expected egregious offenders by instituting some orthodoxy and denying some freedom. While, in this case, I think the side of righteousness is not in question in general this is not a precedent I'm prepared to set. What is your argument when, in the future, there's a movement to bar Muslims, for example, from the right of Free Assembly? Do you have an argument prepared why only Nazis are excluded from the UDHR?

And in this dystopian future, who decides which groups are Nazis, Muslims, and whatever else mission creep has us bar from being party to the UDHR? I'm a Nazi sympathizer according to Animavore and his types for sticking to my argument about the universality of Human Rights. I suppose that I, and anyone of similar mind, would easily be barred from having rights as well.

I think the present UDHR is as neutral, unbiased, and antithetical to prejudice as it is possible to be and those are all necessary things in a document that sets out something so important and fundamental in diverse societies of many creeds and beliefs.

[JimC]

That's a complex and difficult question. You're asking if we can't relieve ourselves of these expected egregious offenders by instituting some orthodoxy and denying some freedom. While, in this case, I think the side of righteousness is not in question in general this is not a precedent I'm prepared to set. What is your argument when, in the future, there's a movement to bar Muslims, for example, from the right of Free Assembly? Do you have an argument prepared why only Nazis are excluded from the UDHR?

And in this dystopian future, who decides which groups are Nazis, Muslims, and whatever else mission creep has us bar from being party to the UDHR? I'm a Nazi sympathizer according to Animavore and his types for sticking to my argument about the universality of Human Rights. I suppose that I, and anyone of similar mind, would easily be barred from having rights as well.

Some general guidelines for restricting their public actions could be whether they are advocating the violent curtailment of the rights of others. And it's not even about saying they will be arrested if they publicly declare those views, or that the groups they congregate in be made illegal. It would be enough, perhaps, to impose restrictions on public protests which clearly advocate violence and hatred towards particular races or ethnic groups. Not just neo-Nazis, either; those fundamentalist Islamic groups who want to shout "death to the infidels and jews" or certain violent anarchist groups that simply want to trash public property.

Public protest is an important right, as is freedom of speech, but neither are unlimited in their scope - a version of Popper's creed suggests where some reasonable limits apply. But the point where the limits apply should indeed be the subject of important public, political debate, and perhaps judicial review.

[pErvinalia]

And in this dystopian future, who decides which groups are Nazis, Muslims, and whatever else mission creep has us bar from being party to the UDHR?

The slippery slope is always invoked in these sorts of debates. Do we actually have any real and significant examples of a slippery slope ever happening?

[Hermit]

And in this dystopian future, who decides which groups are Nazis, Muslims, and whatever else mission creep has us bar from being party to the UDHR?

The slippery slope is always invoked in these sorts of debates. Do we actually have any real and significant examples of a slippery slope ever happening?

The House Committee on Un-American Activities was formed in 1938 to ferret out German-American Nazis. Then its scope expanded to ferret out Americans who spied for the Soviet Union. By the time Joe McCarthy was through with it, thousands of Americans had lost their jobs, blacklisted as communists or communist sympathisers, which, as we know today, next to none of them were.