You're thinking of the ST as it once was.

For Cycloon and anyone else who's interested.

Any Questions 29/07/11

Q: “In light of the recent tragic events in Norway, is it time we devoted more time and energy in this country to countering domestic extremism?”

Mehdi Hasan, another panellist, asked the questioner whether he was referring to “right-wing” extremism in addition to Muslim extremism, which the questioner confirmed. Part of the answer proferred by Ms Kite was as follows:

“I would be extremely cautious about going down the route of saying that there is a dangerous new extremist, right-wing, evil, force on the march in Britain, because I don’t think there is … I would say there have been plenty of left-wing mass murderers in history. There was a guy called Hitler who ran a party called the National Socialists…” (Full response: Any Questions, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 9_07_2011/ )

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Jeebus, how hard is it to just mention Mao or Stalin?

Norman Tebbit made a similar assertion on the same programme earlier this year.

Since the end of World War Two the word "Communist" has been used by the American far-right to describe anything of which they disapproved and as such, is similar to the current re-appropriation of the word "gay" to mean 'rubbish' or 'stupid'.

As far as I am aware this whole Nazis=left-wing shite started in the USA about 5 years ago amongst the Tea-Party, Fox News and the more batshit elements in the GOP. It fails to stand up to even the slightest analysis of course, but that's not the point, it is after all, playground name calling.

Hitler=bad + socialist = bad, conclusion = Hitler was a socialist.

Goodnight Vienna.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

I'm glad I'm not teaching history any more...

I suspect the fact that people like yourself aren't teaching History anymore Malcolm is a large part of the reason these tossers can get away with saying this rubbish.

I recall an, otherwise quite bright, mature student to whom I had the pleasure of teaching KS Communications. Who, upon hearing my explanation that English is largely rooted from French and German, enquired if that was because of "the German occupation in World War Two". NB We were NOT in the Channel Islands.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

That just sounds so childish coming from a writer for a highly respected (in some quarters ) newspaper

_________________
'Because we've reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us'

There are only two possible explanations for her statement:

1 - she is genuinely ignorant of the origins, history and policies of one of the most negatively-influential movements of the modern age, or
2 - she is a cynical, dissimulating, right-wing propagandist.

Neither option bodes well for political analysis. At a major newspaper. Owned by News International. Oh..

3 - She is being deliberately provocative to make a name for herself.

'Doing a Toby Young' as it were. If so, it's worked, we're all talking about her and I, for one, know much more about her now than before I heard that broadcast.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Spotted.

She is also a columnist for The Mail - with her views it would be strange if she weren't.
Her latest contribution (yesterday) attracted this in the comments:



* Teresa means Any Questions not Any Answers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -boys.html

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

I wonder if Kite is another of these "real education" rightwingers.

I've just done a Toby (Number 2, how appropriate)

Where do we stand on "no platform"?

I got called (indirectly) a "free speech idiot" on another board for saying I thought it was right for the EDL to be interviewed on Newsnight because they were part of the Breivik story. Generally though, I'd ignore them. The BNP I'd allow a limited bit of airtime too (like Griffin on Question Time) because they get some votes. But I think it's very important there are protests too, so that it's clear they aren't like other parties.

The problem is, I think, that the no platform people think that if the BNP were kept off the screens, then it would be a victory for left-wing popular politics. It would and it wouldn't. Though the pressure for it would indeed be coming from the left, the decision is still taken by the right of centre establishment. The same people will exclude revolutionary leftists from debate too, and Palestinians and any modern equivalent of the ANC.

Above all though, I think, Northern Ireland makes "no platform" untenable. We have to hear from dissident republicans and loyalist paramilitaries, or else we can't report it properly. We can't really have them on and not the EDL.

I'm talking only about national politics. For a student body or whatever, no platform is a great idea.

As I said on the Norway Attacks thread of Lennon's appearance on Newsnight:

"But if he isn't allowed on Newsnight then it gives credence to his claim that the EDL are denied freedom of speech. I'd much rather have him on TV, yes "give him a platform" if you will, and let him expose himself for the tosser he is. Give 'em enough rope as they say."

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...