Talk:Rivers of Blood speech
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
maybe i'm just a squemish liberal but i don't realy like having a national front link on this page. A text is a text, but the NF are not a good site for any information...
- My initial reaction too but reflected that it's a free speech thing and people can make up their own minds. I couldn't find any libertarian sites hosting the speech.Cutler 20:24, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. It seems NPOV to me... I'll host it! (ricjl 10:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))
Why is this separate from Enoch Powell? Surely these patagraphs don't make sense except as part of his career? Wetman 00:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Unjustified removal of material
I'm afraid you can't really just go and cut out the balance of view because it doesn't fit with one's ideals - neutral doesn't mean subscribing to this ridiculous notion that any mention of racial tensions is taboo. Since you have the side of the argument that the speech should immediately be condemned (not exactly neutral), you have to then balance it out with the possibility that it contained elements of truth. Powell's speech can be interpreted in many different ways and I think a lot of people can appreciate the message that failing to integrate another culture into your own can cause problems - for example Pakistan's ambassador to the UN's recent comments. [1]
[edit] Purpose of last paragrpah of speech
The immediately preeding sentence an part of the paragraph is "For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish." Rich Farmbrough 19:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
