And still they come ... in response to the latest pieing episode (actually an egging of Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party), the usual crowd of wowsers and pursed-lip good-government types come out of the woodwork, sorrowfully wagging their fingers and telling us "this is just what the BNP want", and "this sort of thing makes people sympathetic to the BNP". And once more I say "where's the evidence?" Nick Griffin certainly doesn't look like he's executing the culmination of a cunning master plan to gain favourable publicity - he looks like he's being egged and not enjoying it. And I really don't understand the sort of mind that would look at the chubby fascist with yolk running down his coupon and say to themselves "gosh they must have a really important point to make if the so-called anti-fascists have to stoop to these depths to silence them". Rather than, say, my own reaction, which was roughly "Cracking shot, sir!". As I've noted before, there's a Laffer Curve implicit here. If nobody ever egged Nick Griffin, then he'd never get egged, which I presume nobody wants. On the other hand, if he was egged every single time he went out, then he'd never leave his house - result, no eggings. But I really don't believe that we're on the right hand side of that Laffer Curve, not yet.
And in this particular case, the egging itself is actually a very important speech act and a significant contribution to our national debate. Based on the fact that they got two MEPs elected, non-white British citizens might justifiably be looking with suspicion at their white neighbours today, thinking that a significant proportion of us were secretly harbouring fascist sympathies. In fact this isn't true; the absolute number of BNP votes was slightly down on 2004, and their electoral success was purely an artefact of overall low turnout. It's therefore an important point to be made, to our own population and to the world's watching media, that Nick Griffin isn't in fact a newly popular and influential political figure; he's a widely reviled creep who not only doesn't lead a phalanx of jackbooted supporters, but actually can't even set up for a TV interview without being pelted with eggs. The voice of the British populace does not shout "Hail Griffin!", it shouts, "Oi Fatty, cop this! [splat]". And the only efficient and credible way to demonstrate to the world that Griffin is regarded as an eggworthy disgrace, is to actually and repeatedly pelt him with eggs.
Tangentially related question: should egging fascists be an acceptable form of speech? Should the Supreme Court protect it? I mean, in practice, presumably it is not a crime with a heavy penalty. But should it be a crime at all?
Remember the golden rule of democracy--if you can do it to them, they can do it to you. I imagine Mr. Davies would have a problem with the repeated egging of Labor leaders.
Right on, hopper. Are we talking about egging fascists? Or egging politicians we don't like? Or egging public figures we don't like? Or just egging people we don't like?
I can't think of the name of the documentary right now (maybe someone here can), but it involved well dressed lefties presenting themselves as economists to business groups and making outragous claims to see how far they could go before anybody noticed they were FOS. They got very far indeed, including disrupting UN conferences and getting interviewed on major television news shows.
It was all good and fun except for one thing--if everyone did it, government would freeze up and whole economies would collapse.
Fun or not, society simply can't work that way.
The act of egging people for speaking in public is an admission that you don't have a rational argument against them. It does not bode well for liberalism in Britain that the best answer they have to fascism is to attempt to generate a climate of contempt against them. If BNP devotees start beating up the eggers with pipes, I seriously I suspect the public's response will be "Cracking good shot."
Anyway, in my experience Leftists think everyone who disagrees with them are fascists-in-waiting (in 2000 I was told GWB was a fascist), so it would be a mistake to grant this method any shred of legitimacy.
It varies a lot by jurisdiction, but IIRC under common law egging actually qualifies as assault (but not battery).
I doubt the question will ever be seriously raised over here, for the same reason the British MPs can shout each other down in the spirit of good-natured discourse, but one untoward outburst from Dick Cheney makes media headlines for a week. Different political cultures.
I do wish our president and congress had to meet and debate the way Parliament does.
As for eggings, why waste a perfectly good egg? Assaulting someone isn't free speech, it's assault. And it's assault designed to limit their free speech. Much better to throw pies. Then it's an offering of food and comfort and something else to do with their big mouths instead of an assault. (Remember: raw or undercooked eggs present a significant health risk, or so every menu tells me. But there's never a warning about the pie.)
Tangentially related question: should egging fascists be an acceptable form of speech? Should the Supreme Court protect it? I mean, in practice, presumably it is not a crime with a heavy penalty. But should it be a crime at all?
If serious, this is bar-none the stupidest post that you've ever written.
Or perhaps, a post that is mild and slightly tongue in cheek? Could it actually be that M. McCardle is not actually suggesting we rush out to to egg every political leader we can find?
Have just read further down, and it appears this is the blogroll of All Literalism.
If serious, this is bar-none the stupidest post that you've ever written.
Is that so? Then in the spirit of racous, neoclassical egg throwing...congratulations on having topped the dame in your response!
How about rocks? What about really small rocks? Sand? Can we throw sand in their faces? Powder, even?
Or bread rolls. Can we pelt them with tomatoes? Can we splash blood, or even simulated blood on them? Kool Aid? Hair dye?
What about Nerfs? Can we shoot them with Nerfs?
Or is it reasonable to presume that they might think that the powder is possibly anthrax, or something like that. Or that the "blood" is actually a dangerous chemical. Or that the nerfs have sharp steel cores.
Etc.
I remember reading something about swinging arms and tips of noses. That always made sense to me.
I have a brother in law from the deep south. He's always posited an interesting opinion on one of the roots of the "War of Northern Aggression" as the US Civil War is sometimes still referred to down there.
He reminds me that the Antebellum South had become an area of rather overly dramatic senses of "honor." We had slipped down the slope such that it was no longer sufficient to rebut a "slight" with vigorous debate, or even legal proceedings.
First it slipped to "fisticuffs." Then to swords. Then to pistols.
There was some of this in the North, of course (ask Hamilton), but he believes - and I agree - that it much more prevalent in the South.
And, essentially, the South viewed the election of Lincoln as being akin to a giant "slight" to their honor. He's no fool, and we all realize that it's not this simple. There are a lot of reasons - but he thinks this contributed.
For all I know there are Ph.D's already written about this, but I thought I'd toss it out here given the subject.
I'm a firm believer that there should be a very steep step function between verbal/written (including at the ballot) debate and any form of physical confrontation.
That includes egging fascists.
This is not a slope that you want to start down.
And, btw, modern liberalism actually aligns with quite a few fascist "attributes," depending upon which definition you follow.
Payback is... well, you know.
<sardonic>I object! According to previous discussion on this blog, referring to this party as fascists is an unfair attempt to shut down debate as there is insufficient evidence that they have succeeded in torturing Gramsci to the degree required for them to be considered authentic fascists.</sardonic>
"should egging fascists be an acceptable form of speech?"
The problem with this is that you can't really restrict it to fascists. The question is: "should egging those who you strongly disagree with be an acceptable form of speech?" or "should it be acceptable for those who strongly disagree with me, to egg me?"
If the fascists were egging their political opponents, say minority rights activists, I suspect that no one would be asking these questions.
The eggings strike me as suppression of (admitably, very odious) speech. Kind of fighting fascism with fascism.
Egging fascists, politicians, flag burners, economists, newspaper reporter, lawyers, used car salesmen and other annoying people should be strictly illegal. The penalty should be a $25 misdemeanor fine. Prepayment of the fine is acceptable.
"Prepayment of the fine is acceptable."
Can we get prepaid swipe cards like some jurisdictions tried for speeders?
It varies a lot by jurisdiction, but IIRC under common law egging actually qualifies as assault (but not battery).
At common law (to use a lawyerly and pretentious locution of the type to which I am prone), a battery is an offensive or injurious touching, while an assault is either an attempted or a threatened battery. So throwing an egg is an assault, hitting your target is a battery.
The distinction has been muddled by our somewhat bizarre societal penchant for euphemism; "Rape" has in many places been changed to "Sexual Assault," which makes no sense in light of the continued existence of the lesser crime of "sexual battery" (i.e., groping).
Kind of fighting fascism with fascism.
Very, very well put. Precisely. Exactly. Couldn't have said it better, and probably would never have thought to.
The U.S. 1st Amendment is probably the single most cause of admiration (and envy, the good kind) by other developed nations. I spend no small part of my mails defending more "European" (or sometimes Japanese, Canadian or Australian) solutions to American problems, but, as far as free speech goes, nobody holds a candle to the U.S.
Let me put my lefty hat on and quote Chomsky on this: 'Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.'
I've been living in the U.S. for three years now, and, from personal experience, I think Chomsky expresses something deeply ingrained in the American culture. I'm convinced that the vast majority of people are instinctively hostile to even light intrusions on the rights of others to express their opinions. I find this truly admirable.
Getting back to topic, Britons have plenty of other ways to manifest opposition to Nick Griffin. This egging thing is shameful and it may even be counterproductive (it potentially victimizes Griffin). So are, for instance, the laws in a number of European countries that criminalize holocaust denial (something that falls neatly in the category "views you despise").
quote Chomsky on this: 'Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.'
Well I despise Chomsky (as a political theorist) but assuming he actually said this it's probably the first political thing he's said I agree with.
There you go.
Throwing an egg is a physical act of aggression, the purpose of which is to cause physical discomfort the victim.
If it was Al Gore being hit by eggs from climate skeptics, they would be demanding the death penalty.
Of course it is a crime... it's battery. Nobody would consent to that. Shame on the anti-fascist fascists.
As to Fascist, there seem to be two requirements, one met and one not met. A fascist is usually Volkish, that is the fascist purports to remove the unfair treatment of the Volk and expand its influence to what it deserves to have. The second requirement is that there be a single Fuehrer or Duce or a principle of single, central leadership. This doesn't seem to be part of the nBNP'a agenda. So wny not just call it a racist group and stop yelling "fascist"?
As to egg-throwers (and compare civil rights litigants): how many of these people voted? How many of these people participated in any campaign to defeat the racists? I suspect the percentage is miniscule.
Not that I agree with your definition of fascism, but they do have a single leader. He's hilarious, but Nick is their Duce. It's why they're very quietly anti-monarchists - he wants the throne for himself, no Victor Emmanuel BS.
The BNP came out of the UK's National Socialist Movement, who transitioned into the National Front of the 80s, and now are the BNP. Same idiots who did/would have followed Mosley around back before the War. One of their 2 MEPs is an old National Socialist: Andrew Brons, great guy who said that a double Gold medallist wasn't fully British. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5524684/Kelly-Holmes-is-not-fully-British-says-BNP-MEP-Andrew-Brons.html
Of course no one should egg fascists. Pray for asteroids at their marches, and have them VERY well policed so that their heads get cracked if they step out of line. In other words, just as we do for any other member of the extreme left.
Even in the United States, you're not allowed to burn somebody else's flag. Ruining other people's property (their clothes) or even imposing a cost to have it restored (dry-cleaning) is vandalism, not free expression.
Let's posit a general rule: If the best you can come up with in the way of discourse against a political enemy is eggs, your movement is even more idiotic than his.
The voice of the British populace does not shout "Hail Griffin!", it shouts, "Oi Fatty, cop this! [splat]".
I should point out that this is at the very best pale shadow of Wodehouse.
What does the left have but eggs, real or metaphorical? Sarah Palin says we need to drill for oil domestically to improve energy security and provide high-paying blue collar jobs. The left says she looks like a trailer park slut.
Sounds like a spirited debate. Is Letterman the left? I didn't know he had achieved tier Limbaugh.
There is simply so much wrong with this. . .why would you insult people who live in trailer parks? You an elitist or something? Or just lobbing one off from the right?
Let's posit a general rule: If the best you can come up with in the way of discourse against a political enemy is eggs, your movement is even more idiotic than his.
The reason you egg fascists is that unlike conventional political discourse, the success of the movement is not based on rationality, but on power and pride.
The power of fascist movements is based on the ability to make their followers feel that they have power that is unrestricted by petty laws. It's why they tend violent.
When a leader is egged, first his aura of invincibility is shattered, but more importantly, unless he can pick up a baseball bat and reduce his egger to paste, it makes it clear that he's subject to the rule of law. He's merely a man, and not a gateway for his angry followers to get power to smash their enemies.
Better arguments against fascists don't work as long as their leaders can continue to convince their followers that soon they'll respond not with pansy words, but with an iron bar to the skull of those who would dare speak against them.
That's why egging fascists, as opposed to environmentalists or almost any other group on the left tor right, is an effective attack on them. For other groups, it would only allow them to wallow in their victimization and gather them more followers.
Ein Reich, ein yolk? That's a pretty low bar for fascism. Granted that it is technically assault and battery, but I would despise a politician who pressed charges. I suffer that much ill-use on the subway fairly regularly.
Egging is apparently a traditional English expression of disapproval:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=217280
Rotten vegetables were often used, although I guess you would have to draw the line at pumpkins.
More recently, people have tossed marshmallows at politicians they dislike. There is obviously an intent to annoy or ridicule, but equally obviously no intent to harm.