Monday 1 January 2007

A Political Redefinition of Vociferousness

Simone Clarke, a ballerina with the English National Opera, makes no public statement of her support for the British National Party until The Guardian exposes her as a member [1], whereupon she gives an interview to The Mail on Sunday in reply to her critics [2], whereupon Lee Jaspers, chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism, calls her “a vociferous member” of said party [3].
.....Perhaps, in this spirit, we should redefine politics as above all that which holds language sacrosanct.

[1] “Exclusive: inside the secret and sinister world of the BNP”, The Guardian, 21st December 2006.
[2] Elizabeth Sanderson, “The BNP Ballerina”, The Mail on Sunday, 30th December 2006.
[3] Quoted by Hugh Muir, “BNP ballerina defies rising clamour to sack her”, The Guardian, 1st January 2007.

13 comments:

Deogolwulf said...

A Happy New Year to you all.

dearieme said...

And you.

Cirdan said...

1. The public discovery of Ms. Clarke's BNP membership doesn't constitute compulsion to publicly declare support for BNP policies: she could simply have argued that she had the right to join the party of her choice and left it at that. Instead, in the interview, she repeatedly makes plain her active adherence to those policies. Vociferous is a synonym, or near-synonym, of insistent and vehement. Lee Jaspers is guilty of, at worst, an infelicity of speech.

2. Simone Clarke (in her Mail interview):
It's not about removing foreigners.

BNP General Election Manifesto (2005), page 14:
we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of all bogus asylum seekers, all criminal entrants and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants and their descendants who are legally here are afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.

Ms. Clarke, in the interview, claims to have read the BNP manifesto. It contains the provisions set out above which call expressly for the removal of foreigners. Whose is the more obvious perversion of language?

Anonymous said...

"The public discovery of Ms. Clarke's BNP membership doesn't constitute compulsion to publicly declare support for BNP policies: she could simply have argued that she had the right to join the party of her choice and left it at that."

1. Having your name splashed all over a major newspaper in an accusatory fashion does sort of compel you to state your reasons and defend yourself in public, no?

Keeping quiet as a mouse until reacting to public attack is rarely what we mean when referring to someone who is "vociferous" about their politics.

2. "Whose is the more obvious perversion of language?"

Membership in a political organization does not require a 100% dedication to whatever program or manifesto it applies. She herself is rather clear about this in the interview:

"I'm not too proud to say that a lot of it went over my head but some of the things they mentioned were the things I think about all the time, mainly mass immigration, crime and increased taxes. Those three issues were enough to make me join so I paid my £25 there and then."

You did actually read the interview, no?

Cirdan said...

[1. Having your name splashed all over a major newspaper in an accusatory fashion does sort of compel you to state your reasons and defend yourself in public, no?]

There’s a clear distinction between defending one’s choice of a party and affirming its policies. Once her membership of the BNP was public, she would have been well within her rights to argue that her choice was defensible, perhaps on the grounds that she was exercising her freedom of association. She chose to make the case that BNP policy was sound.

[Membership in a political organization does not require a 100% dedication to whatever program or manifesto it applies. She herself is rather clear about this in the interview]

Not directly relevant. Ms. Clarke claims that the BNP isn’t about ‘removing foreigners’. She then admits that she joined the BNP because of their immigration policy (such as it is). The BNP Manifesto makes it plain that it is party policy to remove all foreigners (foreigners refers, no doubt, to all non-white residents of the UK). Ms. Clarke has, by her own admission, read the BNP manifesto, especially those parts concerning immigration. Assuming she has basic reading-comprehension, it is reasonable to suppose that she noticed this point. Subsequently, she has claimed that it is not about removing foreigners. It is entirely reasonable to infer that she is lying. Lying may be a venial sin, but it is certainly not less venial than Lee Jaspers’ verbal imprecision.

The point is important. Every major political party is committed to lowering crime, taxes, and the rate at which foreigners enter the UK. Her desire for those outcomes underdetermines which party she should join. The parties differ in the means they intend to adopt to that end. It is entirely reasonable to infer that she joined the BNP because of the manner in which it intends to regulate immigration. The BNP intends to reduce immigration by removing all non-whites. It is reasonable to infer that she was lying about why she joined the BNP.

Cirdan said...

Finally. If ethnic cleansing is the forcible removal of an ethic group or groups from a territory, the BNP, or at least its leader, is committed to ethnic cleansing. This, I take it, is not a secret. As it happens, ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. (See Article 7(d) of the statutes of the International Criminal Court) So, on the one hand, we have Ms. Clarke who willingly joined, almost certainly lied about her reason(s) for joining, and publicly affirmed the policies of, a party whose leader has explicitly declared his intention to commit a rather serious crime. On the other, we have Lee Jaspers, who expresses his disapproval of this state of affairs in a grammatically sub-par way. Political language is not obviously the most pressing issue here.

Anonymous said...

"There’s a clear distinction between defending one’s choice of a party and affirming its policies. Once her membership of the BNP was public, she would have been well within her rights to argue that her choice was defensible, perhaps on the grounds that she was exercising her freedom of association. She chose to make the case that BNP policy was sound."

There is? How can you effectively defend joining a party without to some degree defending the party?

"Not directly relevant. Ms. Clarke claims that the BNP isn’t about ‘removing foreigners’. She then admits that she joined the BNP because of their immigration policy (such as it is). The BNP Manifesto makes it plain that it is party policy to remove all foreigners (foreigners refers, no doubt, to all non-white residents of the UK)."

Some points:

One: She states clearly that the important thing for her is stemming the flow of new arrivals. You fail to explain why you have to accept a party platform 100% in order to join a party - a criteria very few political party members (if any) live up to. Your only stated reason for disbelieving her rationale (see below) is at best borderline bogus.

Two: You take great liberties "interpreting" (I.e. "twisting") the facts at hand. For instance, if indeed "every major political party is committed to lowering crime, taxes, and the rate at which foreigners enter the UK" how could the UK immigration situation have reached its current state?

The major parties in virtually all European countries save Finland simply have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to immigration due to their long-standing and blatant choice to ignore public opinion on the issue.

Also, you should be able to concieve of the notion that there is a difference in approaches and ambitions between parties, even when stated goals are the same. The BNP, for instance, no doubt intends to limit immigration more heavily than either the Tories or Labor while using a more repression-oriented crime fighting strategy.

Furthermore, you have in short order redefined "foreigner" to "non-white", and "voluntary resettlement"* to "ethnic cleansing", which you then in a further leap of logic make the equal of the actual kalashnikovs-n-machetes style ethnic cleansing of crime-against-humanity fame. Heh.

Finally, I have no doubt the BNP contains a fair assortment of racists and skinheads and yobs. But given the complete incompetence and lack of credibility of all major parties on the issue of immigration, I can hardly blame those who support it.

Whatever repressive laws, etc. that the BNP could implement should it reach power are (highly) hypothetical. Those currently implemented with your support by your political allies in the establishment, be it thoughtcrime legislation, limits on organizational freedom or a spectacularly irresponsible immigration policy are very real and actually on the books.

* "Cash for moving back" programs already exist in Europe, they are merely not generous enough to make much of a dent. It is unknown whether they also constitute a crime against humanity.

Akaky said...

I am clearly missing the point of this tempest in a teapot. Ms. Clarke is a ballerina; she must be a good one or the English National Ballet would not have hired her. How then does her opinion of foreigners in general, and nonwhite foreigners who reside in the UK in particular, effect in any way her ability to stand on her toes and twirl around? Are the guardians of political correctness afraid that she will somehow incorporate her political beliefs into her next performance of Swan Lake or that someone watching Ms Clarke perform Giselle will somehow come away from her performance loathing minorities? The notion of firing people for what they believe is a singularly chilling one; I was not aware that thoughtcrime had been written into the British penal code.

Anonymous said...

"I was not aware that thoughtcrime had been written into the British penal code."

You must not have been paying attention. Thoughtcrime is a staple of European jurisprudence these days.

Cirdan said...

[One: She states clearly that the important thing for her is stemming the flow of new arrivals. You fail to explain why you have to accept a party platform 100% in order to join a party - a criteria very few political party members (if any) live up to. Your only stated reason for disbelieving her rationale (see below) is at best borderline bogus.]

Ms. Clarke believes it is important to stem the flow of immigrants. That preference is consistent with the stated immigration policies of every serious political party in the UK, therefore that preference underdetermines her choice of the BNP. BNP immigration policy is unique in calling for the removal of all foreigners. By the method of difference, infer that she joined the BNP because of its commitment to the removal of foreigners.

The BNP Manifesto clearly states that it is party immigration policy to remove all foreigners. By her own admission, Ms. Clarke read the Manifesto and gave special attention to the sections on immigration, tax and crime. She makes it plain that she joined the BNP because of its policies on these three issues. ["...Those three issues were enough to make me join so I paid my £25 there and then."] In the Mail interview, she said (of BNP immigration policy) that it was ‘not about removing foreigners.’ That, as we all know, is false. Therefore, to assert that BNP immigration policy is not about removing foreigners is to assert a falsehood. We know she read the section on BNP immigration policy because she said so herself. Since Ms. Clarke read the BNP manifesto’s section on immigration, and then knowingly asserted the contrary of the plain meaning of the manifesto’s immigration provisions, she lied. The lie about, and her assent to, the policy are independent issues.

You argue that it is possible that she doesn’t agree with all the immigration provisions of the manifesto. (At least that’s how I read your claim. You give two different and non-equivalent formulations of a claim in this neighbourhood: Here, you say that membership in a political organisation does not require 100% dedication to its program; whereas here you say that one doesn’t have to accept a party platform 100% in order to join a party. )

Your evidence is thin. Ms. Clarke says that she read the manifesto and took it at face value. That clearly implies that she accepted the parts of the manifesto she read and understood. You argue that since she claimed not to have understood the whole of the manifesto, we should conclude that she does not support its provisions. That is fallacious. Perfect understanding is not, in general, necessary for assent: many voters do not fully grasp their party’s economic policy, they still support those policies because they believe them to be a consequence of the basic commitment they made when they joined the party. There’s no serious argument from Ms. Clarke’s lack of understanding to her lack of assent.

Even if your claim is sound, it doesn’t rebut my argument. To do so, you need to show that she does not accept BNP immigration policy in particular. You have given no serious evidence whatever to show that she doesn’t. Since the BNP’s immigration policy caused her, by her own admission, to join the party, there is a strong presumption that she does support it.

People usually join a political party because they agree with its key policies. That someone has joined a political party is very good evidence that they agree with the central policies of that party. When members of a political party fail to give their assent to a particular policy, it is a safe bet that that policy is not ideologically central to the party. The BNP’s immigration policy (and, in particular, the removal of foreigners) is not just central, it is almost the BNP’s raison d’etre. Since Ms. Clarke freely joined the BNP, it is tremendously likely that she backs their immigration policy. You, on the other hand, would have us believe that she joined a party whose central policy she was indifferent or averse to. That is implausible on its face.

There’s, of course, other compelling evidence that she assents to BNP immigration policy, she says that: "I read the manifesto and I took it on face value." Since she read it and saw fit to speak about it, we must also presume she understood it.

Your earlier complaint is irrelevant: from the fact that some of the manifesto went over her head, it doesn’t follow that all of it went over her head, and it certainly doesn’t follow that the section on immigration did. You need to show some specific, compelling reason that Ms. Clarke neither understood nor assented to the central plank of the BNP’s immigration policy. You haven’t.

Anonymous said...

"By the method of difference, infer that she joined the BNP because of its commitment to the removal of foreigners. "

That method is seriously flawed however, as empirically, no UK major party has suggested curbing immigration to anything near the extent that the BNP would. Using the method of difference in this case requires that "Immigration reduction" be a binary issue which all parties subscribe to. This is patently false in virtually every fashion imaginable.


"That, as we all know, is false."

As I make clear above, the only thing that can clearly be established as "false" is your use of the method of difference.


"Even if your claim is sound, it doesn’t rebut my argument. To do so, you need to show that she does not accept BNP immigration policy in particular. "

The best evidence, again, is in the interview, where this is excactly what she is stating, I.e. what matters to her is curbing immigration.

You, of course, claim that she is lying, based on an application of logic that is plain wrong. (I.e. to reach your result you have to assume that "curbing immigration" is a binary political variable. Which it is not, any more than "lowering taxes" is a binary variable)


"At least that’s how I read your claim."

Your reading was correct - and there is hardly any contradiction in my statement - few party members are nor 100% dedicated, nor 100% accepting of the platform of their party of choice.


"You, on the other hand, would have us believe that she joined a party whose central policy she was indifferent or averse to. That is implausible on its face."

This is incorrect - immigration reduction, which is her stated reason, is most likely the biggest draw to the BNP. BNP is, simply put, the "anti-immigration party".


"You need to show some specific, compelling reason that Ms. Clarke neither understood nor assented to the central plank of the BNP’s immigration policy. You haven’t."

How about her own assertion, as stated in the Daily Mail? Oh, right, that is "a lie", as established through the use of "the method of difference". Meh.

Cirdan said...

[...and "voluntary resettlement"* to "ethnic cleansing", which you then in a further leap of logic make the equal of the actual kalashnikovs-n-machetes style ethnic cleansing of crime-against-humanity fame. Heh.]

It has long been BNP policy that all non-white residents of the UK should be forcibly deported. Nick Griffin has sometimes said that compulsory repatriation would be limited to non-white residents who either arrived in the UK after 1948, or whose parents arrived in the UK after 1948. Subsequently, "compulsory repatriation" was softened to "voluntary removal". The sincerity of this policy change may be gauged from the following:

1. Griffin has repreatedly and openly said in public that he still believes in compulsory repatriation and only maintains the voluntary repatriation line for PR purposes. [See the interview with Nick Ryan in The Times, 10 April 1999, and the one in Wales on Sunday, 1996.]

2. Griffin has repeatedly supported ethnic cleansing in other countries: he openly and publicly applauded the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanian Muslims during 1998 and 1999. He has also, again, quite publicly, called for the forcible repatriation of British Muslims.

Cirdan said...

[That method is seriously flawed however, as empirically, no UK major party has suggested curbing immigration to anything near the extent that the BNP would. Using the method of difference in this case requires that "Immigration reduction" be a binary issue which all parties subscribe to. This is patently false in virtually every fashion imaginable.]

1
(a). Let N be the UK net percentage immigration rate. For all values of N ≥ 0 which the BNP might adopt, there is a serious political party which has advocated, as a matter of policy, a lower or equal value of N. (Seeing as UKIP, Veritas, etc. have announced policy preference for N = 0)

(b). Therefore, any given value of N underdetermines Ms. Clarke’s choice of party. Therefore , N is a poor candidate for the role of explaining Ms. Clarke’s choice of the BNP. Luckily for us, BNP immigration policy famously includes the commitment to remove all immigrants. This is a significant, and salient difference. Importantly, Ms. Clarke evinces knowledge of it. So it is not just generally salient, it is salient for her. It has been part of BNP immigration policy since the founding of the party, indeed, it is the central plank of BNP policy. Therefore, it is safe to suppose that the BNP are sincerely committed to it.

(c). The method of difference: If an antecedent circumstance is present only on those occasions when a phenomenon occurs, it may be inferred to be the cause of that phenomenon.

No other serious party has expressed a preference for expulsion. Ms. Clarke makes it clear that it was immigration policy that caused her to join the BNP. We know that she was aware of this aspect of BNP immigration policy. Hence, by the method of difference, it is safe to infer that it caused her to join the BNP.