Geert Wilders (PVV) announces Fitna sequel

Page 3 of 5 [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Apr 2011, 11:37 am

aspie1968 wrote:
You realise that as an autistic person, most of the nationalist "fit in or get lost" types would want to take all your rights away? UKIP want to go back to the 1950s, which means an institution for you. For them, you're one of the 'nutjobs'.


Can you point me to the link where UKIP want to a) go back to the 1950s (nasty slur, that one - unless you think wanting to leave the EU will automatically take us back to the 1950s?), b) put autistic people in an institution and c) where they call autists nutjobs?

Many of the people I know who are involved in UKIP are actually neurodiverse themselves - much so than people from the other main three, in fact. There is a strong, strong anti-conformist and libertarian tendency in my party - i.e. the opposition to the increasing monitoring of home educators, the anti-prohibitionist rhetoric, anti-ID cards, et al.

"Fit in or get lost" only applies to those who break the law/don't respect other people's rights here in Britain. People on the autistic spectrum generally do this.

I think you're comparing UKIP to the likes of the BNP, who are an entirely different kettle of fish. Your comments describe the BNP to a tee.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

04 Apr 2011, 12:04 pm

There is this:

http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/ukipeducation.pdf

Their education policy, which says that they want children with learning difficulties removed from mainstream school and put into 'special schools' because trying to integrate them deprives other kids of attention.

It also says that they are committed to getting rid of the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. So you can say goodbye to your right to equal treatment.

I have to say, having read that document, it does look very much like they want to bring back the education system from when I were a lass, which wasn't the 1950s but it ain't that far off.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Apr 2011, 1:04 pm

If you ask me, that makes sense. There's no point in keeping an obviously disabled child in the class if he/she isn't going to learn anything - what's the point?



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

04 Apr 2011, 2:11 pm

The point is that children with learning difficulties are equal to children without and have the same rights as them. If you take away their right to go to their local school, just like all the other kids in their road, you are discriminating against them and isolating them from their peers.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Apr 2011, 2:18 pm

In my experience they are equal but different. They have different needs to the majority of children. Their needs can't be easily dealt with in class so it makes sense to take them where they will have their needs met.



aspie1968
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 48

04 Apr 2011, 8:06 pm

Well, a UKIP MEP labelled a meeting of the European Parliament as 'Parliamentary Autism', using autism as an all-purpose label for stupidity, selfishness or closed-mindedness. They claim that criticising this abuse of the word 'autism' is unproblematic and their critics of 'political correctness gone mad'.
http://blog.ukipwatch.org/2006/01/ukip- ... -jibe.html

They also allegedly banned a member from standing for parliament because he has a disability.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ility.html

And they only mention disability twice in their manifesto. Both times it's to criticise inclusive provision.
http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/in ... manifesto/

As to where they say these things. Usually, UKIP don't literally say what they mean, as their discourse is based on connotative signification. Aspies often miss connotative signification because it's being transmitted extra-literally between NT people. So they don't say, 'let's go back to the 1950s', they use images and phrases which connote the 1950s to their NT supporters. They talk about a time when Britain was great, which was pre-EU, pre-human-rights and pre-welfare-entitlements, which presumably means 1950s or before. They have a list of 1950s policies they wish to restore. They don't like human rights. They don't like the 'culture of entitlement' (meaning the idea of equal rights and the idea of the welfare state) (see http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news ... s-for-ukip). “Culture of entitlement is an concept mainly promulgated by conservatives and meant to encapsulate the social norm whereby a society comes to expect government entitlement programs to provide employment opportunities, health care, or general access to things that have come to be perceived by many others (such as progressives) as basic human rights” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_entitlement). They also believe in running things by 'common sense'. That means, what's obvious to NT's (or more precisely: what's obvious to their particular group of NT's). And so on.

What happens if a party which doesn't believe in the 'culture of entitlement' (welfare rights) sets up special schools for people with disabilities? I'm actually quite sympathetic to special schools, if it's done in a welfare-minded kind of way, i.e. it's non-stigmatising and is a way to meet someone's needs better – it's still problematic in terms of inequality but it's better than being stuck in a mainstream school which only caters for NT's. (It's a poor substitute for truly inclusive mainstream schools but it's better than nothing). But this is very different from the idea that children should be removed from mainstream schools because they're disruptive (take attention from the others). This discourse on disruptiveness has replaced the discourse of special needs in British schools, to the immense detriment of autistic children (see http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14374510). This is a direct product of a move away from 'entitlement' towards 'discipline'. And UKIP are all for taking this further. UKIP want to make it far easier to expel children and to legalise corporal punishment (http://pagewithaview.co.uk/2010/11/01/u ... n-schools/). In other words, UKIP want to worsen an already authoritarian and exclusionary system. They're all for autistic children being beaten raw because they can't control meltdowns at the age of five, and expelled rather than helped because their needs are too expensive to meet. They're for strict mainstream schools where there's nothing like IEP's and where anything out of place – stimming, meltdowns, distractedness – are treated as a discipline problem to be dealt with by punishment. People shouldn't think they're 'entitled' to any recognition of their needs, they believe in the 'common sense' approach instead. UKIP aren't interested in getting autistic children's needs met, they're interested in getting them out of sight and out of mind, to special institutions where they won't have any opportunities and will just be hidden away.

And this is symptomatic of their approach to difference in general – they hate autistic people for the same reason they hate Muslims. They're fixated on a sense of sameness, on an idealised version of the in-group ('we' the true British who all think alike and have the same 'common sense'), think this in-group can do no wrong, and blame out-groups for all the problems. Perhaps they accept Tequila because they make an exception for someone who can act close enough to NT and who shares their ideology, just as the BNP have a Sikh member now because he hates Muslims as much as they do. But ideologically, they're against difference. If you want to understand how their ideology really works, I'd suggest reading Klaus Theweleit and Slavoj Zizek, who have it down to a tee. It's exactly the same kind of politics which salafi-fundamentalists practice: there was a golden age, we've lost the golden age because of what others call progress, this progress has benefited the other at our expense, the other is evil, the other has robbed us of our deserved greatness, this greatness can be restored by snatching back what the other has stolen. It always ends in tremendous violence against the other to keep them subordinate or to act out scapegoating. It's not an agenda anyone who isn't extremely close to the stereotypical norm can afford to give an inch to. Though I've noticed in practice that many people who go this way are actually very insecure about their own identities (white racists with black grandfathers and so on), and reassure themselves about belonging to the in-group by overidentifying with it and taking it further than the in-group themselves would.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Apr 2011, 10:11 pm

aspie1968 wrote:
Well, a UKIP MEP labelled a meeting of the European Parliament as 'Parliamentary Autism', using autism as an all-purpose label for stupidity, selfishness or closed-mindedness. They claim that criticising this abuse of the word 'autism' is unproblematic and their critics of 'political correctness gone mad'.
http://blog.ukipwatch.org/2006/01/ukip- ... -jibe.html


Can't say I'm particularly bothered about that. I don't think 'autism' was meant in that sense, more a sense of extreme rigidness and inability to listen. So, yes, rather like aspects of autism in many ways.

Also, that blog is infamously anti-UKIP - take a look at the history of some of the people behind it, for instance. Most of the people who contribute to that blog are no longer even UKIP members.

Quote:
They also allegedly banned a member from standing for parliament because he has a disability.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ility.html


It's interesting you should say this. UKIP themselves provided the Grauniad with the e-mails back in 2007. If you want to read them, click here. It was more down to him being unable to campaign for them due to his disability more than anything else. A candidate needs to be able to be out and about during election time. Also significant is the fact that the chap didn't get back to the Guardian when asked.

Quote:
And they only mention disability twice in their manifesto. Both times it's to criticise inclusive provision.
http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/in ... manifesto/


It is true that they need to develop themselves more as a political party rather than simply being a one-issue populist voice - i.e. to get out of the EU. Problem is with that though is that the more they do this the less appealing they will be to other people on the political spectrum, although they are looking at having a pop at the Labour vote next time, bringing some of the Labour traditionalist anti-EU types over.

I can ask my local PPC about this if you like next time I see him?



Last edited by Tequila on 04 Apr 2011, 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Apr 2011, 10:23 pm

aspie1968 wrote:
As to where they say these things. Usually, UKIP don't literally say what they mean, as their discourse is based on connotative signification. Aspies often miss connotative signification because it's being transmitted extra-literally between NT people. So they don't say, 'let's go back to the 1950s', they use images and phrases which connote the 1950s to their NT supporters. They talk about a time when Britain was great, which was pre-EU, pre-human-rights and pre-welfare-entitlements, which presumably means 1950s or before.


No; UKIP talks about a time when it was self-governing and how it wishes for Britain to be self-governing once again. Nothing wrong with that though I agree that such sentiments aren't always helpful in the way they can be seen (plays to the Daily Mail wing of UKIP; I'm on the classical liberal wing). UKIP tends to shy away from overt nationalism; it is more an independentist party than nationalist, though it has nationalist characteristics (as do many other Continental anti-EU parties, most of whom are extremists in the EP, though there are some exceptions - a lot of anti-EU parties in Continental Europe are actually socialist).

Can you explain? I can think of one at the moment - Churchill, say - but he was anti-federalist. You'll find that the BNP are more guilty of this than are UKIP.



Last edited by Tequila on 04 Apr 2011, 11:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Apr 2011, 10:36 pm

aspie1968 wrote:
They don't like human rights.


Now, that's not true, is it? They're against the HRA. That's different.

Quote:
They don't like the 'culture of entitlement' (meaning the idea of equal rights and the idea of the welfare state) (see http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news ... s-for-ukip). “Culture of entitlement is an concept mainly promulgated by conservatives and meant to encapsulate the social norm whereby a society comes to expect government entitlement programs to provide employment opportunities, health care, or general access to things that have come to be perceived by many others (such as progressives) as basic human rights” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_entitlement).


No, it doesn't mean that: they mean the fact that many people seem to think they're entitled to benefits for the mildest thing. For example, people who had a disability in the past (say, ten or fifteen years ago) but are still claiming for that disability years later even though they've fully recovered. That's the problem with the present state: it rewards laziness and never seems to think that people's circumstances can change for the better. The system is overtly bureaucratic and wasteful and I have first-hand experience of just how monstrously, ludicrously wasteful it is. I can give you examples if you like.

Quote:
They also believe in running things by 'common sense'. That means, what's obvious to NT's (or more precisely: what's obvious to their particular group of NT's).


You'll find a lot less crime if things were run in a 'common sense' fashion. Decent sentencing and punishment for offenders whilst leaving everyone else out of it. Can't see anything wrong with that. Unless you think chav scum who beat and terrorise people (especially those they consider 'weak') shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

05 Apr 2011, 3:49 am

Tequila wrote:
aspie1968 wrote:
They don't like human rights.


Now, that's not true, is it? They're against the HRA. That's different.


They say they are committed to withdrawing from the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR was instigated after the war to ensure that horrific humans rights abuses which were discovered in the concentration camps never happened again in Europe. It has nothing to do with the EU. It's a document that sets out our basic human rights, a right to be free from torture, a right to be free from slavery, a right to be free from arbitary imprisonment etc. They don't want British citizens to have those rights. Churchill, the driving force behind the ECHR, will be turning in his grave



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

05 Apr 2011, 3:57 am

MotherKnowsBest wrote:
It has nothing to do with the EU.


Ask the EU if we can repeal the HRA and stay in the EU then.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

05 Apr 2011, 4:31 am

To be in the EU you have to be signed up to the ECHR because the EU is signed up to it. To be signed up to the ECHR you do not have to be in the EU. Many countries, like Russia, Greenland, Norway, Turkey are signed up to the ECHR but are not part of the EU.

Why are you against the Humans Rights Act? Why are you against a law that gives you protection against discrimination that you never had before? I've already used it to protect myself. I was thrown out of a visitor attraction in London because I have to use a walking aid. I sued the buggers and won and now others won't have to endure the humilation I did. How is this a bad thing?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

05 Apr 2011, 12:15 pm

Because it means we can't send foreign criminals back to their countries of origin, even if they commit crimes here in the UK.

What about the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim for instance, who knocked down a young girl in Blackburn with his car and failed to stop? I'm not that interested in his human rights and for two reasons:

a) If you were in Britain as a migrant, you should be on your best behaviour and keep yourself to yourself
b) If something did happen, you should be on your best behaviour

I see no reason whatsoever why Britain should continue to allow foreign garbage to stay here after they've committed crimes. Send them back. If they were that bothered about their status here they wouldn't have left the poor girl to die in the first place.

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/libertyce ... ed-ibrahim) claims that blaming this case on the likes of the HRA is misguided. I believe that it is not so. He clearly likes pissing on the hospitality of the people of this country (owing to his multiple convictions) so he can't think that much of his hosts.

Sod that; send him back. Northern Iraq is relatively stable these days anyway.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

05 Apr 2011, 1:14 pm

I agree with you that people like that should be sent back. But I disagree that punishing all the innocent vulnerable people protected by the Act by taking away their rights is the way to go about it.

One thing I learnt during my law studies is that the media like to blame the EU and/or the ECHR for everything, even if it has nothing to do with them. I also learnt that the government likes to allow this to continue because it takes the heat of public frustration away from them. I'll give you an example.

A few years ago the country was up in arms when the EU decided that shops had to sell food using metric instead of imperial measures. Do you remember the furore? Does it therefore come as surprise to find out that the Act of Parliament bringing in metric measures received Royal Assent in 1865, before the EU was even a glint in the coal and steel industries eye? Or that the EU, who normally required metrification prior to membership had removed this condition from the UK and allowed them to keep imperial measures? And that the driving force behind getting rid of the imperial system was the UK government who thought it would make it easier for British businesses to operate in Europe? I was very surprised when I learnt it and also a tad pissed off at the governments deception.

I'm currently living in Sweden. They are in the EU, signed up to the ECHR and they have equality legislation equivalent to the HRA. They send criminals back to their own countries without any problems. Doesn't that give the impression that the fault is somewhere within the UK system?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

05 Apr 2011, 3:42 pm

MotherKnowsBest wrote:
I agree with you that people like that should be sent back.


Good; I'm glad. There is no place in this country for people like him. It's a pity we are not as efficient in sending back even foreign criminals that are intra-EU (http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/scandal-of-the-migrant-criminals-in-britain-how-legal-lunancy-left-serial-sex-offender-free-to-kill-girl-12/).

Quote:
But I disagree that punishing all the innocent vulnerable people protected by the Act by taking away their rights is the way to go about it.


Like whom? Is it just foreign pieces of trash that are suitably protected by this law or are there others? And why can we not have a vote on this? What happens in non-ECHR foreign countries? I haven't noticed the roof caving in there. They can send their pieces of trash back, no worries.

I have noted the fact that this seems to be predominantly a UK phenomenon though. I don't see other countries (as such) wanting to abolish it - though they show their disagreement in other ways. I suspect it's, as you hint?, judicial activism.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Apr 2011, 4:09 pm

Tequila wrote:

I have noted the fact that this seems to be predominantly a UK phenomenon though. I don't see other countries (as such) wanting to abolish it - though they show their disagreement in other ways. I suspect it's, as you hint?, judicial activism.


What plans are there for home born Muslim thugs or converts who are home born and become Muslim thugs?

ruveyn