Script - EUDC 2008 GF: THW ban Nazi and Soviet symbols OW

EUDC 2008 GF: THW ban Nazi and Soviet symbols

OW: Jonathan Leader Maynard (King’s College London A)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExaP0ZBYA3s

Mr. Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen. No one on opposition has claimed to you today, that the meaning of Nazi and Soviet symbols is not ambiguous, or that it is not wrong, or that the people who believe it are not filth. We have claimed that that is not enough. There are 3 reasons why.

I’m gonna talk first of all about what is the power of symbols, what Simon missed about Louis’s extension, which is that the harms that they talked about actually depends upon the analysis they have never given us. Secondly I’m gonna talk about right to express symbols and why we don't think they’re based upon whether those symbols are right or not. And then thirdly I’m gonna talk briefly about how societies do tackle extremism and difficult discourse.

So what is a power of symbols ladies and gentlemen? Well we say of course symbols do have power. We don't deny that on opposition. We said couple of things. First of all, that power works both ways. We think that the power that symbols have to stand for things that are wrong is also a power to constitute that wrongness in everyone who knows that it’s wrong. When Will got up at very beginning and said that like there is a constitutional meaning and that symbols constitute meaning we say yes. And we think it’s important the Nazi symbols and Soviet symbols constitute our understanding of evil. And we think our understanding of evil and our understanding of those symbols is lessened if you remove our ability to look at them. We also say that power is entirely dependent upon how it is used. And they proposed that symbols just by existing have a kind of harm and never analyzed why that harm exists, and we’ve done that.

So, there is two powers I want to look at that they have, there is a power to offend and oppress which is the most we had, and then briefly I’ll deal with the power to radicalize and convert. So, yes, we do think symbols offend. We do think they stand for ideas which we hate, and we do think that it makes people scared. My response to that is good. We think they SHOULD scare people because we think they represent more fundamental ideas that exist in society that are scary. We think that symbols represent what the people who follow them stand for, and they will stand for those things whether they hold the symbols or not, ladies and gentlemen. So we think it is good that we can see the people who we should be afraid of. We think it’s good that we can see the symbols by which they stand and the people from history that they associated with, ladies and gentlemen. They talked to us about relations of power. We say that first of all ,this is the oppression. If actually there is relation of power already in place and the symbol reinforces that, then we say your actual danger there is the people who use these symbols get into positions of power. We say that is much much easier if you ban them from using the very symbols which allows us to identify them as extremist, and associate themselves with the evil, which we stand again. No thank you. We say that if they remove and just use other symbols, it’s much more easy for them to get into positions of power, no thanks, and we say those new symbols become dangerous. We say the other power they gave us, no thank you, is the power to create, to cause fear and to scare people. And we said yes. I’m scared about fascist groups, ladies and gentlemen. I’m scared about militant communists. I’m scared about that because of what they believe. Unfortunately, I don't think that everyone out there knows everything that fascist party stand for or everything that militant communists stand for. And so they might not fight against them with further as I do just by finding out their beliefs. I think it is useful that instead a whole broad stratum of the population can come out and fight against these people by identifying them as evil, not by looking at the manifesto on their website but seeing that they carry the banner of a man who murdered 6 million Jews, ladies and gentlemen. I think that is useful. I also say that if you do think that fear is a harm, ladies and gentlemen, if you do think symbols can hurt people, they can hurt people a lot more if people never have to confront those ones from history. We say putting up banners in society like Nazi symbols and Soviet symbols helps because people have to deal with them, ladies and gentlemen. Other symbols might be dangerous as well. It’s not just a Swastika, and it’s not just a Soviet symbol, ladies and gentlemen. We say society can be more resistant, can be more capable of dealing with fear if they have to confront it, ladies and gentlemen, and don’t wrap themselves inside a bubble. No thanks.

We say that equally the power to radicalize and convert depends upon the very different use, no thanks, of these symbols, that actually were given in history. There was a reason why Nuremberg rallies were million strong and not 40 skinheads walking down the backyard, ladies and gentlemen. We think they look pathetic, we think they look defeated, we think they look ridiculous, and we think that is good.

So secondary, no thanks, oh all right, Simon go ahead.

POI by Simon: Okay so if, as you claim, it is so useful for these groups, when we ban their symbols and make them a taboo, then why do they fight back so often when we try to do it?

Because Simon, I don’t think that Nazis are very clever. I think if they chose the best tactics to get into governments, they might, if they just wanted power, they might stand for something else.

We say the right to express symbols was only briefly argued by Alex, let me just deal with it briefly. He said the reason why you don’t have the right to express symbols is because they’re not necessary to your participation. They’re not necessary to your identity, to your expressions of your belief. We first of all say, WHY? Why is that not up to the individuals to decide, ladies and gentlemen?(神台詞キター＼(^o^)／) We say look at religions. We say look at political party that has symbols. We say look at the flag of countries. Participation is meaningless if it is divorced from the identity of the individual involved. If they can’t use symbols to express their identity, we say that’s a problem. So they do have a right. We also say it somewhat undermines the props claims to defend the cause of freedom if they think that the state can legitimately articulate to individuals what does and does not constitute their identity. No thank you. We think that’s also called oppression.

So the final idea we heard from side proposition is, ah but this is different, because these symbols just are beyond the pail. They’re just evil in a way that nothing else is. First of all, ladies and gentlemen, I want to know where that line is drawn. I want to know where it is that something suddenly becomes self-evidently evil. Because clearly, not everyone agrees ladies and gentlemen. And what happen, what happen when we brought it deeper, and answer that question, and said what about other symbols, what about skinheads? Then Will gave us a response, Oh well, we can ban them too. So, at the end of the day, why not just rock them up? Why not just put all the extremist in prison if everything that they say and everything that they do is so wrong, ladies and gentlemen. We say it’s because that there are some rights that are fundamental no matter what you say. It’s because there are some rights that are fundamental even if you’re wrong, ladies and gentlemen(かっこよすぎばろた、、、). And that because we can’t draw that dividing line, we can’t know when this power that they are giving to a state would be abused, that we can’t do it.

We finally say that the real post-historical catharsis, ladies and gentlemen, the real time when societies deal with the problem with extremist in their midst when they have to face them, when they have to argue against the abilities. When people have to go out on the street and people carrying Nazi flags and say “Down with fascism! Down with racism!” We say that is a better way for societies to be cured and preventing them ever having to deal with that problem, ladies and gentlemen. We have shown you that proposition has misconceived the power of symbols. We have shown you that they have established nothing to the fact that there is no right to express symbols and they have misunderstood the way the society deal with extremism. Don’t wrap people with bubble Ladies and gentlemen. Make them deal with it. I’m proud to stand on opposition.

人生で聞いてきた音源の中で二番目に好きなspeech。多分一番聞いてる。MOがあれだけしくってる中でここまでOWでゴリ押すのはすばら。

We do think they stand for ideas which we hate, and we do think that it makes people scared.

My response to that is “good”.

とかかっちょよすぎない？相手が散々騒いだハームを完全にconcedeして勝とうとする姿勢。潔すぎるイケメンすぎる。

it’s because that there are some rights that are fundamental no matter what you say! It’s because there are some rights that are fundamental even if you’re wrong, ladies and gentlemen

まぁ要は間違ってるってのが禁止の理由にならないからbanの理由にならないって話なんだけど、ここまで開き直ってrightをカッコ良いセリフで守る人初めてみた。大会で一度は使ってドヤ顔したい言い回しNo.1。

まぁ何が好きかっていうと、相手があれこれ時間をかけて作ってきたargumentをちまちま潰しにいくんじゃなくて、一言で根本から一刀両断するその切れ味！美しい、、、(まぁさすがに強引過ぎて負けちゃいましたが)

聞きやすいし、特にmeta-debate的にも大事な思想が綺麗に含まれてるからぜひ聞いてみてね。

今回で言えば「expressionを禁じるcriteriaは何か？」ってのをきちんと頭に入れておくことで「発言が間違ってるだけじゃbanの理由にはならないよね」って反論が打てるとか

「ただハームがあるってだけじゃそっちの優位にならないよね。(これは結局、ハームがあるのをconcedeした上でA.P.を踏まえるとそのハームを甘受した方が良いっていう、優位性の証明に持って行く)」

とか。

要はS.Q.とA.Pのコンペアだったり、principleの正当性の話なのですが、まぁ海外のすごい大会でも重要な考え方、戦略として使われてるんですよ。ぜひみんなも身につけて、上みたいにカッコよく言えるといいね！