Why Peter Hitchens is wrong about “Liberal Bigotry”

Those who tuned in to last night’s ‘Question Time’ will have witnessed the ever-furious Peter Hitchens making the following remark:

He [Will Self] said quite falsely that people who are against homosexual marriage didn’t like homosexuals. This extremely unpleasant lie is repeatedly told by those who do not wish to debate this subject, and who would hound anybody who stood in their way out of it, with abuse and lies.

And this is the problem which our country faces. There is a new liberal bigotry which will not tolerate – and increasingly wishes to suppress – conservative opinion.

This is, of course, a deliberate fallacy. Peter Hitchens used this argument to basically try and disregard the opinions of those who hold liberal beliefs, rather than conservative ones.

But there is a difference between ‘bigotry’ (from the social Right) and so-called ‘liberal bigotry’ (from the social Left).

Regular bigotry might involve, say, someone arguing that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have equal rights. This is bigotry, as it attempts to deny an oft-persecuted minority from enjoying the same freedoms as straight people. This minority will consequently suffer, not due to opinions they hold, but because of who they are.

‘Liberal bigotry’, as Hitchens puts it, is quite different. What he calls ‘liberal bigotry’ is simply a socially-liberal person (Will Self, in yesterday evening’s case) dismantling his socially-conservative arguments.

Engaging in debate and proving someone’s argument to be flawed can not be considered bigotry.

Socially-liberal people will listen to your views, and they won’t stop you from airing them on national television (unlike Hitchens, who seemed very keen to talk over people). But if those people see flaws in your arguments, or notice a false basis which underlies your opinion, then they are allowed to speak against it. It’s called “having a debate”. And just because everyone doesn’t agree with you, it doesn’t make them ‘liberal bigots’.

It seems that Peter Hitchens wanted to quick easy way to disregard Will Self’s rational and well-thought arguments, so he decided to tar him with the absurd ‘liberal bigotry’ label instead.

Hitchens may have fooled some, but I don’t think he fooled many: to most people, it was clear that his arguments had simply reached a dead end, and he decided to resort to accusations in order to try and discredit his opponent.

He later went on to claim that liberal bigotry is “the worst kind of bigotry”.

I’m sure that black people who’ve been discriminated against based on the colour of their skin, or homosexual people who’ve been discriminated against based on their sexuality, will shed many tears for poor Mr Hitchens, who faced so much discrimination (read as: reasoned arguments which opposed his own opinions) on ‘Question Time’ last night.

To finish off, here are a few nice sarcastic quips from Twitter on the issue last night:

“Liberal bigotry is so terrible. It allows you to say whatever you want but just not that you should be allowed to discriminate.” (@Endless_Psych)

“Liberal bigotry is the worst kind because they tend to daub non-racist slogans on the shops of indigenous Britons.” (@Natt)

“Hold on Hitchens, is ‘liberal bigotry’ actually worse than hanging black people from trees or stoving in a gay mans head?” (@LukeMackayCooks)

“I’m going to go out today and subjugate loads of wealthy white men with my Liberal bigotry. Really make their lives *hell*” (@shornkoomins)

“Liberal bigotry is worst of all because it thinks it’s so enlightened”, says the guy who uses supposedly divine scripture to justify his.” (@Mindless__drone)

That’s all for now!
As always, all comments are welcome
except for those with conservative opinions due to my liberal bigotry


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

24 responses to “Why Peter Hitchens is wrong about “Liberal Bigotry””

  1. PRH says :

    Calling anyone against gay marriage homophobic is not dismantling any argument, you stupid twat. It is a clearly bigoted statement.

    • digitalnativeuk says :

      The statement alone doesn’t dismantle the argument, no.

      But show us one argument against equal marriage which *isn’t* originally rooted in homophobia, and we’ll start to take your views seriously.

      • martin says :

        I have seen this political debate on Question Time,I didn’t find one part in which Will Self in talking to Peter Hitchens was ‘dismantling his socially-conservative arguments’ he simply smeared people of opposing views to his as being racist and homophobic with no factual/empirical evidence in which to base these claims upon.In the time honoured traditions of the Left,he simply attacked someone for not believing a set of principles in which he(Self)espouses.
        In much the same way as New Labour attacks and smears people who rightfully
        are concerned with the deliberate social experiment/engineering that we call mulitculturalism.In fact the two subjects are intertwined.I have seen many other lefties grandstanding on Question Time before,namely Owen Jones who constantly interrupted and spoke over Peter Hitchens even after he had been given plenty of air time.Jones was rabidly salivating at the mouth everytime the word race and gay is mentioned,ready to smear and tar people with the racist or homophobe card.Some of your supporter’s who has commented in your blog are also guilty of this liberal bigotry whereby we smear people of an opposing views based on wealth or background.My case in point @Shornkoomins “I’m going to go out today and subjugate loads of wealthy white men with my Liberal bigotry. Really make their lives *hell*” this would indicate that he has an issue with white people and whether they are wealthy or not.We do not criticise people who are from a background of poverty so why the hell should it be ok to attack people for being wealthy?What the colour of his skin has to do with anything is beyond me.“Liberal bigotry is worst of all because it thinks it’s so enlightened”, says the guy who uses supposedly divine scripture to justify his.” (@Mindless__drone) again we don’t criticize people for their backgrounds,origins,or sexuality so why is it ok to criticize people for their religious beliefs?This country IS in the throes of liberal bigotry, a form of political correction that is choking this country to death.It’s interesting to note that same sex couples who are COHABITING (not even in a civil partnership which is marriage in all but name anyway)get more financial relief when it comes to social housing and mortgages than same sex couples who are married.Now where is the equality in that?How can certain minorities get more state assistance than the majority?Where is the fairness.Same sex marriage IS a ttrivial matter compared to the breakdown in society,erosion of family values and human rights in the Uk.Political correction and the drive for equality and diversity actually creates division within society.

      • Common sense politics says :

        Definition difference. By definition a marriage is between two people of different sexes, a civil partnership is a union between two people of the same sex.
        I’d wager the individual who wrote this article holds liberal ideologies and would readily hound those with conservatives ones. Hitchens hits the nail on the head here, this author is an idiot.

      • digitalnativeuk says :

        1/ The concept of ‘marriage’ has had multiple definitions throughout history and does not necessarily refer to “two people of different sexes”

        2/ Definitions of all sorts of words change over time. Language evolves, as does society.

        3/ To focus on the ‘definition’ of a word, as the crux of your argument to deny same-sex couples the same treatment and equal rights under the law as heterosexual couples, shows a real desperation on the part of anti equal marriage folks.

        For people go to such great lengths to “preserve” the precise definition of this one particular word suggests that there may be an underlying agenda. Of course, such people can deny this as much as they like, but they ought to at least have the honesty to reveal their genuine motivation behind their opposition to equal marriage…

  2. PRH says :

    You don’t know what my views are. You have assumed. More bigotry.

    • digitalnativeuk says :

      My comment was not aimed towards you personally, it was aimed generally towards anyone who disagrees with equal marriage rights for gay couples.

      I’d love to hear what your views on equal marriage are, though!

    • futiledemocracy says :

      Bigotry, is intolerance based on nothing of any substance. I have not seen one anti-gay marriage argument based on anything of any substance. It is all rooted in bronze aged “rules” carefully cherry picked. This is bigotry. But if you have some sort of miraculous view that isn’t based on bigotry, I will be more than happy to pay attention to it! Go ahead, squire…..

      • chris leyton says :

        How about marriage as a way to encourage and provide services bearing towards childbirth. It is my opinion that children born into a family consisting of a mother and father have the best start in life and why should society not be geared towards providing this security?. We all know two homosexual people can not have children naturally so why should a comfortable nest not be encouraged for two fruit bearing birds while leaving the barren nest alone but not forgotten or neglected ?. For me it seems like priority should be given to survival over ethics. Does this thought make me a bad person ?

  3. Matt says :

    He might know what your views are if you opened with them. A discussion goes nowhere if you give some vague statement and then get offended when people don’t fully understand. Please explain how being against gay marriage is NOT a form of homophobia, and if you aren’t prepared to do that then you should not have engaged in this discussion in the first place.

  4. boredbyliberalbigots says :

    The issue has nothing to with being bigoted against homosexuals. It is all to do with forrcibly redefining something that means one thing into something completely different. Its no different than objecting against an activist group of netball players who want to play in the football league and be known as footballers. Homosexuals should accept the cards they have been dealt with in life and stop thinking they can be part of a group where they don’t belong. And will self destroyed no argument made by kitchens. He just made a fool of himself with his bigoted drug ruined pea brain malfunction.

    • PROFESSOR X says :

      Yeah – infact, why don’t we just pen up all the homosexuals and gas them? It HAS been proven that they can’t integrate into society, what with their uncontrollable attraction to EVERY member of the same sex and their descent into paedophilia. Being gay is just the start of a dangerous slippery slope. If they want to integrate into society, they should stop attention seeking and just go back to being straight, like how God made them. Either that or kill themselves. In short, you’re a fucking moron and should just shut the fuck up.

      • boredbyliberalbigots says :

        Point proved. Liberal bigotry at its most moronic prof. The fact that you’re so wound up by an opinion that you disagree with and can’t help but resorting to schoolyard insults and swearing truly shows who the bigots are. Just like the drug ruined idiot will self showing himself up by saying that ahyone who doesn’t want to redefine marriagem must be a homophobe(whatever that is), you my friend fall right into the same shameful cstegory. Pathetic really for a civilised society to have knuckle draggers spouting their hatred so willfully over something so trivial. You should consider some valium before you take to the keyboard

      • digitalnativeuk says :

        Although “Professor X” used strong language, and maybe made his retort a little too personal, the underlying points that he made were trying to show how ludicrous it is to consider homosexuals as “lesser beings”. He was using an ‘appeal to ridicule’ against your argument, and he was effectively challenging you to justify treating people differently based solely on their sexual preference. If you cannot do so then, logically, your argument would become void. (And that’s not “liberal bigotry”… that’s just how rational debate works).

        On a side note, the way you dismiss homophobia (ie. “whatever that is”) may go some way to explaining why you hold your anti-equality views. Were you trying to suggest that homophobic behaviour doesn’t exist? If so, then I’d suggest you look into the issue a little deeper before forming an opinion. (Again, that’s not “liberal bigotry”… that’s just stating that rational debate needs to be based on facts and evidence. And there is most certainly evidence for homophobia existing. If one wilfully chooses to ignore facts, then the argument once again becomes void, and pointless. Arguments need to be somewhat justified in order to be taken seriously.)

        Also, calling equal marriage “so trivial” again seems to suggest that you are not aware of how passionately many people take this issue. Perhaps it seems ‘trivial’ to you, but it is important to others. Maybe it’s because it has never affected you? Try to imagine that you were denied the right to marry the person you loved, whilst others in society were able to do so freely. This is a genuine issue that affects real people, and a decent society shouldn’t hold them back just because some people oppose it based on emotional/religious/illogical grounds.

        Gay people getting married won’t actually affect you (or other anti-gay marriage people) in any way, yet it’ll be a huge step towards equality for them. I think that, rationally, one could argue that ‘equality for all’ is a higher priority than keeping anti-gay people happy, particularly since the policy won’t directly affect them at all.

    • PROFESSOR X says :

      And if a kitchen says it, it has to be true, because it’s a kitchen that has learnt how to speak and it should be respected for that.

      (This is a joke about you making a typo)

  5. boredbyliberalbigots says :

    Lets just not even bother about prof x’s silly attempt to communicate like an adult as he/she clearly isn’t capable. Lets concentrate on your attempt to look balanced and informed.
    Firstly, what’s with the “lesser beings” bit? Am i supposed to hafe written that somewhere as the use of quotation marks suggest or like all driberal bigots are you making things up to back up and justify a weak argument?
    Secondly, my point has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals. It’s completely to do with exposing the liberal bigotry that silly little prof-x, Will Self and you have been infected with.
    You are quite incapable of accepting that there are views held strongly by other people that differ from your own. And when you encounter such opinions you automatically label the holder of the views homophobic(whatever that means). Btw, the term homohobic makes no sense as the use of ‘phobia’ means an irrational fear. So lets call it what it is – anti gay, ok.
    Thirdly, you talk about rational debate yet you offer nothing other than a lame attempt at disecting my point and regurgitating back a load of pseudo liberal sophestry that unconvincingly tries to suggest that my point is to be against gay marriage rather my actual point that is against liberal bigotry and intolerance.
    Lastly, the marriage issue is certainly trivial. Considering that 0.3 of 1% of the population are in cival partnership and that the the main stream gay community (decent people with more important things to worry about unlike the upstart rent-a-grievance morons like WIll (give heroin to my) Self) couldn’t give a stuff about it and even support leaving the law as it is. Also, marriage as an institution is dying out as it becomes less popular so i say again, it is very trivial other than to a minority of political chancers and wannabe revolutionaries. And considering the untold millions that have been spent on this ludicrous notion when we have old people dying in their homes because they can’t afford to turn their heating on, the people pushing this should hang their heads in forever mortal shame.
    So digitalwhateryourname is, i won’t say nice try because it was far from. But as you obviously can’t offer any actual factual debate, it seems that you’re just wasting eveyones time with your soundbites and practiced fake rage. Sorry pal but no cigar.

    • digitalnativeuk says :

      I’ll just summarise a quick response this time…

      1) “lesser beings” was my shorthanded way of summarising the way in which you appear to view gay people, i.e. those who don’t deserve the opportunity to legally marry the person they love. If you viewed them as equals, you’d want them to have an equal right to marriage, whereas you clearly don’t. Therefore I believe my shorthand term was justified, in relation to your perspective on the issue of equal marriage.

      2) You keep saying your point is not about gay marriage, and is actually all about ‘liberal bigotry’. But your original comment (Yesterday, 8:38pm) was almost entirely about the subject of gay marriage. So, that is why myself and others have responded accordingly. So don’t bother trying to paint us as “topic-avoiders”, because we are merely responding to the topic that you originally spoke about!

      3) Yes, the term ‘homophobia’ implies an irrational fear. But it has become well-accepted as a term to refer to fear *or* contempt, or an aversion to, homosexuality. You know it does, I know it does. It might be etymologically flawed, but we all know exactly what it really means when we refer to it.

      4) You use statistics to try and denounce the idea that equal marriage law should be passed, whereas I’m basing it on the fundamental principle of equality for all consenting adults. I’m sure many homosexual couples will end up getting married once the legislation has been implemented. Oh, and a majority of people in this country support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, don’t act like it’s just a few “liberal loonies” who care and believe in it. (As I said, it’s about equality for all citizens. That’s why people think of it as a genuine issue, and not just a trivial one).

      And finally, the old “if money wasn’t spent on X, it could’ve been spent on this other good cause instead!” argument is unconvincing and overused. If you truly believe that this government would have given the equivalent amount of money to old people who can’t afford heating, then I think you are very much overestimating their level of compassion!

  6. boredbyliberalbigots says :

    Once again, avoiding the point with a lame defence of your earlier easily dismantled rant. And once again naively insisting that i’m anti gay because i don’t agree with the idea of redefining a tradtional religeous institute without due process and full debate. Mabev i’m anti gay because i don’go,into gay bars too. That would make a real gay basher.
    The fact is you are a stuck record on slow play. A keyboard warrier that thinks he’s more intelegent than his performance at school proved. A one trick intolarant little pony with nothing to say and saying it too loudly. Your assumptions based on such little information, including earler postscwith others tell us far more about you than i’m sure you’d like to give away.
    Bored now. These trolls are so low grade

    • digitalnativeuk says :

      It’s a shame that you feel so adamant that you’ve “won” the debate at hand. However, fortunately these comments will allow people to see that you:

      a) avoided valid responses to the debate that you started in your original comment.

      b) resorted to pure name calling rather than responding with reasoned/logical points (eg. one trick intolerant pony, troll, keyboard warrior, etc.)

      And c) that you are blatantly using the “liberal bigot” label to dismiss a valid opposing argument.
      In much the same way as the Right accuses liberals of dismissing right-wing arguments by labelling them as “bigoted” (etc), you’re effectively doing exactly the same by dismissing arguments that *you* don’t like by labelling them as “liberal bigots”. You’re basically acting like the different side of the same coin.

      Of course, if you look back carefully at our comments, not once have I resorted to direct name-calling as you have, and not once have I referred to you as a homophobe. The thing that you call “liberal bigotry” has not occurred at all during this debate; I’ve not shut down any of your arguments, I have responded to them with my own considered view.

      The fact that this has resulted in you claiming to be “bored” of the “troll” speaks volumes. I can see that you probably won’t ever change your own personal view on the issue, but I think that society as a whole will move forward progressively and legislate to allow equality for all.

      I think that in a hundred years time, the issue will be long resolved, and the generations of the future will hardly be able to believe that equal marriage for all consenting adults was ever an issue in such recent history!

      I guess values change over time, and we’re in a transitional period where there is a strongly divided opinion on this issue. But, much like the “controversial” issues about equal rights for women, and for black people, I’m sure that equal rights for gay people will soon become a universally accepted norm in this progressive country of ours 🙂

      Thank you for your comments; overall, I feel that we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  7. onenationtory says :

    If I may I will now attempt to explain some objections to same sex marriage. The fundamental problem, not so much with the concept of gay marriage, but with the concept of marriage behind the current bill, is summed up by Self’s ‘anyone should be allowed to marry anyone’. It is the idea that marriage is simply the formalisation of an existing long term relationship, and nothing more. It isn’t. Marriage is a social institution with a specific social function, the raising and socialisation of children. That is it’s primary purpose, with several other purposes based on that dynamic. It formalises and commits two people to each other in a much more solid and binding way, strengthening households and thus improving social capital. It binds different families together, as there is a reason the family of our spouses are then known as our ‘mother IN LAW’ or ‘sister IN LAW’. The idea is that our ties to them are now as binding as those to our own blood relations. All of this is founded on the primary purpose of marraige which is designed to create a stable environment for children, and this design, as it is based on that objective, then becomes strong enought to provide the other benefits even if the couple never have children. One of the main ways in which this new bond is formed is by the principle of consumation and adultery, that is once you have engaged in sexual intercourse with each other having gone through the wedding ceremony you have now entered the new state of being known as marriage, and that now to engage in sexual intercourse with someone other than your spouse is to break that sacred bond which is ground for your removal from that exhalted status. This all symbolically links marriage with procreation, providing the framework on which all the other social benefits rest. Having said all this, obviously gay couples are equally capable of displaying that level of commitment to one another and providing a stable environment for children, so there is no inherent moral reason why they should be excluded. The objections come down more to unfortunate facts of biology. There is no obvious homosexual sexual act that can be considered consumation, in the way vaginal intercourse can with a heterosexual couple, or at least that is the opinion of the legal experts advising the government. The answer then to my way of thinking, must be one of four options. One we bite the bullet and come up with a definition of gay consumation, or allow one to develop through case law relating to civil partnerships. Two we try to come up with some alternative, non sexual means of creating that special bond. Three, we create gay marriage, but specify that it is to be considered a separate institution from straight marriage, or four we leave things as they are. The government has discounted options one two and four, and gone for option three, except rather than implying it is a separate institution they have implied they are to be considered the same institution, leading to my main objection at the start of this comment. The definition for marraige they have com up with carries none of the social expectation of binding commitment that traditional marriage does, and if they are to continue to insist that they are the same thing that will I think lead to the dismantling of those bonds within heterosexual marriage, thus rendering the institution pointless.

    • digitalnativeuk says :

      Thank you for your reply. Nice to see a pretty coherent, well thought-out response from the “anti-same sex marriage” side of the argument!

      However, I’d question that marriage is always necessarily “a social institution with a specific social function, the raising and socialisation of children”. What about older couples who marry, or those who are infertile? By your logic, you’d have to dismiss their desire to marry on the same basis, that they cannot fulfil the ‘social function’ of raising children.

      And even if this was traditionally the case, I would still question whether the fact that gay marriage cannot fulfil this “specific social function” means that it shouldn’t be allowed to take place.

      Even if marriage is used to fulfil that social function in MOST cases, it is additionally used to formalise an existing relationship – in ALL cases. There are a variety of reasons behind marriage, with a desire to formalise the long-term commitment being just as important (if not more-so, for many people) than providing a foundation upon which children may be conceived and raised.

      Finally, I’d also raise an eyebrow at the obsession with “consummation” of a marriage. It seems weird that anybody besides the bride and groom should know, or care, about whether they’ve had intercourse following their marriage. Especially, I don’t see why anyone would care which *type* of sex the married couple have had (and therefore, why anyone would care about what homosexual act – if any – should count as “consummation” following a same-sex marriage).

      Unfortunately, when people who are against same-sex marriage use these kind of arguments (eg. mentioning consummation, which seems like a bizarre thing to focus in comparison to the arguments in favour of equality for same-sex couples), it ends up just looking as if the anti-equal marriage team are clutching at straws. And that can come across as seeming like they are trying to justify their pre-existing desire for gays to be denied the right to equality.

      (Although I hasten to add that I’m not accusing you of that; your arguments seem well-considered, at the very least, even if I disagree with the conclusions. But there are some people who use those nuanced, minor arguments just for the hell of it, even though those arguments actually seem comparatively irrelevant compared to the bigger issues, eg. equality, anti-discrimination, sexual rights, etc.)

      • onenationtory says :

        I understand your objections but I feel I answered them in my first post. First of all, let me stress again that I am not opposed to Gay marriage per se, merely to this specific bill which I feel has been rushed and not properly thought through. The main point for me is this. The primary social function of marriage in western, judeo-christian thought, has always been to provide a stable environment for the raising and socialisation of children. (just to clarify I use Judeo-Christian as a purely anthropological term here) It is not the only function, certainly not, but it is the bench mark, and the marriage institution must be designed in such a manner as to be strong enough to provide that environment, and all the other social benfits and personal benefits of marriage come from that strength. I did say in my first post that those benefits then continue to exist even if the couple don’t or can’t have children, because they have entered into an institution which provides that requisite level of commitment. That is also the reason for the importance attatched to consummation, as it symbolically ties marriage to procreation, even if procreation is not the objective for the couple entering the marriage. The formalisation of a long term relationship is an important function too, but again you could argue that a long term relationship in and of itself doesn’t need formalisation. The point of marriage is that you have entered this new state of being and commitment, which makes the relationship binding in the eyes of society. That is why, even with our country’s relatively relaxed divorce laws, you cannot simply get a divorce just because you are no longer satisfied with the relationship. Formally at least, you have provide some justification to end it. The importance of this is that it provides further obligation for people to strive in order to make the relationship work, perhaps beyond that which they might normally do for a cohabiting relationship, and the symbolic justification of this again is that you have committed to a relationship that is strong and binding enough that it would provide a stable environment for children, should you have any. Finally, there is absolutely no reason why a gay couple cannot provide that level of commitment, stability, social capital etc. The only difficulty is simply the consummation part. I’m not saying that’s an insurmountable problem at all, the problem I have is that the government hasn’t even tried to surmount it, and that is because they (probably without even realising it) have a completely different conception of what marriage is and what it’s about, from the one which provides all the social benefits which they want to promote.

  8. scott says :

    Hitchens was right about the “new liberal bigotry”

    You hear a form of it everywhere, usually from middle class students, constantly the word “racist” is so overused that – in my opinion – dilutes the meaning and is a direct insult to people who do suffer from GENUINE racism.

    I recently got into politics/voting as I’m hurtling towards 30 and started looking into various parties on youtube and researching who best suited my mindset.
    When I got to UKIP and heard many of the debates I decided to travel up (from cornwall) and watch a conference in hove – yes the cornish really do leave once and a while – but I was taking in by Farage and had to see him live.

    What the hell did I get upon there – screaming and shouting – had to be escorted by the fucking police!
    UAF – though I has no idea what it was at the time, I thought people were sick, they shouted Nazi at me and one called me a fascist!
    Maybe – and only for a second – I thought I had arrived at a BNP conference, as looking on youtube researching all the parties this group came up on the BNP part – so I figured they are just wierdo’s – for gods sake we will never have nick griffin as prime minister – it wouldn’t happen!

    Once inside and chilled a little Nigel speaks and these people start chanting hatred at him, it was horrendous, a few were taking out by either police or bouncers I’m not sure, kicking and violent, these people are the same types that call hitchens homophobic, that call anyone who says “they no longer recognise their town” racist or xenophobic or anyone who distrusts a certain religion as “nazi”… these words are so easily driven from their mouths but are the height of intolerance of differing opinions and ANTI-democratic!
    For gods sake can we not have democracy where everyone’s opinions are heard? challenged- yes… but respected – please.

    The BNP act within the law – if they didn’t they would be closed down, freedom of speech MUST be untouched because if you allow the government to hinder it you end up in a dictatorship allowing certain people to speak and others not, do you really want to live in a country like that – you will be no better than Syria, from what I heard at Sussex liberal bigots are on the rise – completely intolerant of any other opinion than their own, using violence to suppress, I put it to you … UAF has become the one thing they campaign against – they are the fascists, with chants like “SMASH THE BNP”… I would put it “DEBATE WITH THE BNP” their arguments are outdated and impossible to back up with any sense of realism, SO DEBATE BUT NOT SUPPRESS OR DESTROY!

    Liberal bigotry is real and alive, it has to stop, I invite you to a passage I think best suits liberal bigots with a summary of their own ideology:


    • Rhoderick Gates says :

      “For gods sake can we not have democracy where everyone’s opinions are heard?”

      Not as far as the tabloids are concerned, no. They take a socially conservative line. I’ve yet to read socially liberal stuff from The Sun to the Daily Mail.

      Name calling is something anyone can engage in, to shut down debate. Political ideology has nothing to do with it. The same as with bad manners generally.

      You want examples of ‘bigotry’? How about what seems to be the stereotype, like stated in You Tube comments that ONLY left-wing people interrupt other panelists, etc? How about socially conservative biased tabloids that appear to have taken a clear editorial line of social conservatism? Aren’t those two clear examples of ‘bigotry’?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: