Re: AUT: GA shit

[Luther Blissettt <blissett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Luther,
>
>A few comments on your comment about free speech. I find puzzling both
>the logic and ethics implied in your statement, that one should not
>"defend free speech for fascists, Ku Klux Klan etc.," as that is
>exactly the position of a Hitler or a Stalin--that is, one permits
>freedom of speech only to those whose views one agrees with while
>disallowing that same freedom for anybody whose opinions one does not
>like.

What I think is puzzling here is the logic and ethics which impute to my
statement. Hitler and Stalin were both totalitarian leaders who could
implement the suppresion of free speech. However, I have not advocated the
suppression of GA, all I have argued against is becoming involved in the
defense of these people.

>In fact, there are speeches that are far more consequential to
>human lives than the "rubbish" put out by fascists and
>Holocaust-deniers.  Take the doctrine of neo-liberal economics (whose
>respectability and wide acceptance within the academy and mainstream
>political discourse far outweigh the impact of anything produced by
>some crazed neo-fascists' rants or the so-called Holocaust
>revisionists' absurd distortions & elision of history) taught in dept.
>of economics and business schools; now, should we revoke those
>people's right to teach on the grounds that what they are teaching are
>causing massive number of people to die (which it is)?

Your point about neo-liberalism may or may not be true. But as far as
understand there are no defense campaigns trying to defend neo-liberals
against repression which invite radicals to participate, and hence is
completely abstract. As I am not involved in the management of any academic
establishment or state institution, I cannot revoke anyone's right to
teach. This seems to be liberal parlour talk.

> Absolutely not, and for the same reason that I mentioned: a principled sta=
nd
>>on freedom of speech requires one to defend the right of those people
>whose opinions you may despise, morally or otherwise; anything less is
>stooping to the level of a totalitarian.
>
>Manuel

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. When the 'Soviet' union still
existed there were all sorts of right wing campaigns in defense of
pro-capitalist critics of the 'Soviet' regime. These were often connected
with a miasma of emigr=E9 orgnaisations which were riddled with all sorts
state security services. Are you suggesting that a refusal to have anything
to do with these people was 'stooping to the level of a totalitarian'. In
the end your position of a principled stand on freedom of speech is empty
rhetoric. To return to Steve Booth's article:

>"Let a thousand AUM cults sarinate...
>The Tokyo sarin cult had the right idea. The pity was that in testing the
>gas a year prior to the attack, they gave themselves away. They were not
>secretive enough. They had the technology to produce the gas but the method
>of delivery was ineffective. One day the groups will be totally secretive
>and their methods of fumigation will be completely effective..."

What does this mean:
After witnessing the accidental death of a fellow cult member, Shuji
Taguchi decided he wanted to leave the AUM cult. Worried about the adverse
publicity and even criminal charges, he was murdered by the cult. Tsutsumi
Sakamoto, a human rights campaigner started the Society of AUM Supreme
Truth Victims to defend those who had suffered at the hands of the cult.
After a radio broadcast where he criticised the cult in autumn 1989, he was
murdered along with his wife and child.

These are the measures which the cult used to ensure secrecy, yet Steve
Booth says they were not secretive enough!!!

It is true that I do not agree with the view that campaigns through the law
courts are effective, one obviously held by Sakamoto, yet this does not
imply that I support his suppression by the AUM cult. It is ironic that GA
call for the support of those who believe in free speech whilst at the same
time advocate a movement which murders anyone who dares criticise them.

Let us move betond the shadow world of bourgeois rights and free speech
campaigns. It implies a seperation between speech and action. In reality
those campaigning for GA are supporting GA as a political group. They
choose to undertake that activity rather than engage in some other activity
- like defending Mordechai Vannunu to take a single example. They
prioritise GA over other possible things they could do. Thus support for GA
involves supporting their politics, though not necessarily agreeing with
their politics.

I object to people supporting their politics on the grounds I outlined in
that earlier posting - and particularly on a list like autopsy. This no
more makes me totalitarian than your defense of Booth's 'right' to advocate
the murder of any critics makes you totalitarian. It simply makes you
misguided.

http://www.unpopular.demon.co.uk
http://www.dsnet.it/qwerg/blissett/bliss0.htm
http://www.skatta.demon.co.uk
http://www.geocities.com/~johngray




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---