Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Laurence Fox

Bellend Laurence Fox Joins London Mayor Race.

with 6 comments

 

I used to like Lewis, me, now I can’t watch it when this geezer comes on. 

(Why do all the breaking new stories come in the bleeding evening).

Laurence Fox joins London mayoral race on anti-lockdown ticket

Guardian.

Activist from acting dynasty says he wants to speak up for ‘those who are being dominated into silence’

Fox joins a motley cast of candidates including fellow lockdown sceptics Piers Corbyn and Brian Rose, the former Wall Street banker and host of YouTube channel London Real, which famously aired a controversial interview with conspiracy theorist David Icke early in the pandemic.

An esteemed commentator says,

Attention Seeking Bellend Wants New Career. Also note that his entire run for mayor is being funded by a single donation of £420k from a former Tory benefactor.

What  a Geeze!

Image

 

 

 

Written by Andrew Coates

March 6, 2021 at 9:26 pm

Laurence Fox (Reclaim Party) Pokes Fun at Disabled People and Covid Sufferers.

with 3 comments

Image may contain: one or more people, text that says "Laurence Fox @LozzaFox After a long period of consultation with myself, an extended review period and proper due diligence conducted with myself, I've received the badge that I ordered from Amazon. Thank you for being there for me. #anxiety NOULEW NOL mask EXEMF Iam exempt from wearing face covering. மரதாத தh"

 

The controversial actor has been busy buying online but was told by irate twitter users that “the only thing you are going to be exempt from is future employment

Foxy’s biggest supporters come from Spiked, the ex-Living Marxism/RCP, network,

Laurence Fox and the woke McCarthyists

Brendan O’Neill, for it is her,

Disagree with the cultural elites and they will try to destroy you.

Here is another,

The culture war affects everybody’

Laurence Fox tells spiked why he set up a political party to fight wokeness.

Barely a week goes by without Laurence Fox trending on Twitter. Since his explosive appearance on Question Time earlier this year, the actor-turned-activist has made a number of controversial interventions in the culture wars. His criticisms of cancel culture have, ironically, led to him being denounced and blacklisted by his fellow actors and other media types. Now he believes that something must be done about the dominance of woke culture, and he has set up a party called Reclaim to combat it. spiked caught up with Fox to find out what he hopes to achieve.

Or as the old Red-Browners say,

This is said to be the new national populist cause célèbre.

 

Others take a different view.

Even a Tory MP says.

https://twitter.com/Simon4NDorset/status/1350381712803590144?s=20

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Andrew Coates

January 16, 2021 at 1:56 pm

Free Speech? Contradictions: from Laurence Fox to Cambridge Free Speech Row.

with 3 comments

Image may contain: 2 people, text that says "22:28 。ㅇ… THE PARTY. Laurence Fox @LozzaFox @LozzaFox blocked you You are blocked from following @LozzaFox and viewing @LozzaFox's Tweets."

 

Latest Victim of Laurence Fox War on Free Speech.

Laurence Fox and his Reclaim ‘Party’ have been on a roll recently.

With some fellow swells he celebrated Christmas early with this fête,

Laurence Fox has boozy Christmas dinner ‘business meeting’ with Reclaim party colleagues at upmarket London restaurant on last day of Tier 2

Champers was served for the free speech warriors.

This £195 bottle of Pol Roger Cuvée Sir Winston Churchill 2009 had a joke racism slur added

 

How we laughed!

Now come a melt and he’s blocking people’s freedom of expression.

Still – he’s happy:

Foxy is not the only one who’s got in a pickle with arguments about free speech.

The Guardian publishes this article .

The free speech row at Cambridge will restrict, not expand, expression

Hateful or discredited viewpoints explicitly targeting minorities do not merit debate in any institution that values freedom of thought.

One imagines they savoured that line, long and at length.

The academics continue,

Free speech can become a Trojan horse to gain space and attention for retrograde ideas that do not really merit debate. Pretending that all ideas must always be treated as equally valid and worthy of discussion in the idealised “marketplace of ideas” allows discredited ones – such as race science – to be covertly rehabilitated.

This Blog takes the standpoint of Kenan Malik, one these academics attack.

Commentator Kenan Malik, for example, has welcomed the vote as evidence that “one can tolerate something while also challenging it”.

This is what Malik said, and could not have been put better.

Ideas can be tolerated without being respected. The distinction is key

As with tolerance, this aspect of respect has also shifted in meaning. Many now demand that we should respect not just the individual but also his or her beliefs. “Since human beings are culturally embedded,” the political philosopher Bhikhu Parekh argues, so “equal respect for persons… entails respect for their cultures and ways of life”.

This conflation of people, cultures and beliefs is a dangerous move. It is what racists do in refusing, for example, to recognise the difference between criticism of Islam and hostility to Muslims. Drawing a distinction between people and ideas is essential both for the equal treatment of people and for the capacity to challenge and change ideas.

As with tolerance, this aspect of respect has also shifted in meaning. Many now demand that we should respect not just the individual but also his or her beliefs. “Since human beings are culturally embedded,” the political philosopher Bhikhu Parekh argues, so “equal respect for persons… entails respect for their cultures and ways of life”.

The next paragraph focuses on a major issue.

This conflation of people, cultures and beliefs is a dangerous move. It is what racists do in refusing, for example, to recognise the difference between criticism of Islam and hostility to Muslims. Drawing a distinction between people and ideas is essential both for the equal treatment of people and for the capacity to challenge and change ideas.

In other words, we can follow Voltaire (Traité sur la tolérance) in arguing for tolerance,.

Toleration is the prerogative of humanity; we are all full of weaknesses and mistakes; let us reciprocally forgive ourselves. It is the first law of nature.

La tolérance, c’est l’apanage de l’humanité; nous sommes tous pétris de faiblesse et d’erreurs; pardonnons-nous réciproquement nos sottises. C’est la première loi de la nature.”

At the same we can agree with his call to fight religious (or other)  abuses, “Ecrasez l’infâme’!”

We can admire religious individuals and their acts of kindness – goodness is too important to be a matter of faith –  while criticising, even mocking, the beliefs the hold.

 

Priyamvada Gopal and Gavan Titley consider that “hateful or discredited  ideas” targeting minorities should not be permitted – perhaps they could suggest a list of these ideas, a black-list that they coud draw up to be used as the basis for what is and what is not permitted.

Yet they also back the right to take more direct action – the original focus of No-Platform (at least in our bit of the  leftist circles in the 1970s). Which is not the same as ‘cancelling” ideas.

Or as say ” The right to object to, and protest against, invited speakers is itself an exercise of free speech, enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

We do not need a lachrymose defence of stopping somebody expressing views we dislike or oppose on the basis of people’s hurt feelings.

One wonders why this gets signalled out?

Cambridge’s recently adopted wholesale the IHRA definition of antisemitism – a move that the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, has demanded of all universities. Yet, like the Prevent duty, this imposed definition poses serious dangers to both free speech and academic freedom, as they both withdraw certain kinds of political speech from the supposed “marketplace of ideas” and reclassify them as punishable political acts.

The two sides of the scholars’ argument: the assertion that certain views do not “Merit” debate in certain “institutions”, and the defence of protesting freely, voicing disagreement,  against them are in plain and simple conflict.

Just like Laurence Fox they are caught up in the contradictions they talk about.

 

Written by Andrew Coates

December 20, 2020 at 11:48 am