It takes a nation to protect the nation
Its better to think of dialogue as no different from a street fight. Then, there is no issue of “that’s not fair”, but instead “how do I counter that dirty trick?”. I will go thru some examples in this video.
1m20s: Comparing women with those wearing a crash helmet. Must first recognise when someone is arguing in bad faith, as Kay Burley is. In that case, there is no point in giving further explanation, like explaining that as a human with thousands of years of evolution, we feel more comfortable when we can see someone’s face. It will be never ending, and she will deny any common ground of knowledge or human experience between you. You will end up trying to explain how we evolved from apes or something, and run out of steam. Instead, just put it out there then say “That’s my experience. I leave it to the viewers to decide for themselves whether they think a burqa hides the face in the same way that a crash helmet does. And I leave it to the viewers to decide if they feel uncomfortable speaking to someone in front of them whose face is hidden.
When she says “what’s that got to do with anything”, Andrew Bridgen is too kind. He should reflect that back to her like “which part of this are you struggling to understand?” She will try to fob off that question, but he should persist with something like “Its a simple enough question. Is the problem that you can’t remember the points we just discussed? Or is it that your are incapable of expressing what you see as flawed argument?”
One should also have a rule about repetition. You should never answer the same question 3 times. On the 3rd time, you should say “You’ve already asked me that question twice. Are you too stupid to realise that?”. Yes, its rude, but its rude to ask anyone the same question 3 times - you aren’t a performing seal. If the interviewer is showing clear bad faith, then I wouldn’t even answer the same question twice.
When she laughs, he can also laugh, after all it is funny that she shows such a juvenile lack of professionalism.
3m36s: Raises issue of Simon Weston who can’t show expressions due to burns received in combat, while fighting for Britain. It is hard to cover all the issues here in a Youtube post. First note that it doesn’t help complaining about the dirty trick, just like it doesn’t help complaining about a head butt. But you need to notice what is going on. There are 2 things happening here. There is something dirty, which you can feel immediately, and there is a logical flaw in her argument, which may not be obvious in the heat of the moment. If you are trying to be honest and you receive a dirty trick, its pretty certain that your opponent has exposed themselves in doing it, so just counter-attack the dirty trick, and see if the logical flaw comes to you along the way.
The counter-attack could be something like “So you are comparing Simon Weston to a burqa clad woman?. I think that not only will my friend Simon be upset by that, but also you will be receiving a letter from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Are you going to apologise now, live, on air, immediately, or are you going to wait for the court case? Are you saying that Simon’s injuries have stripped him of his masculinity? Or that they’ve stripped him of his humanity and communication? Are you saying that his injuries have made him to be look like something from a foreign culture? What exactly are you saying???? You say he was hideously burned and ask if that offends me. What offends me is you calling Simon Weston hideous. If anything is hideous right now it is you, you are a disgraceful human being.”
The logical flaw is that Simon isn’t hiding the feelings in his facial expressions. The facial expressions are, I presume according to Burley, reduced, but he still expresses himself with the rest of his body. But the woman in the Burqa DOES express feeling through her facial expressions, BUT is deliberately hiding them. Simon is not deliberately hiding anything, positive or negative, and probably expresses as much as everyone else in the end. But the burqa clad woman is deliberately hiding both her identity (raising security issues) and her feelings (raising issues of social integration). We need to know whether the person in front of us, hates us, or accepts us.
5m06s: Listen carefully to the tone of voice, in the final “how do you feel about that”. It actually goes higher and weaker. She realises that she is going on increasingly shakey ground, but since Andrew has let her get away with it so far, she decides to chance it.
There is another general principle, that if all you ever do is defence, then eventually, your opponent will get through. As the security services say, "We have to get lucky every time, but the terrorists only have to get lucky once". So attack is essential to winning. There are several default attack forms available in any of these types of discussion, but I'll just give one here.
Andrew should ask Kay why she is so keen to defend the wearing of fascist regalia. She can't deny that the burqa is a symbol of Islam, so she will deny that Islam is fascistic (and obviously get very upset about that assertion). You then ask if you can discuss whether Islam is fascistic and she will say no. So now she is being fascistic in demanding what Andrew is allowed and not allowed to talk about. Then ask her if she admires the Nazis and how they also shut down discussions.
Going back a step, she can't allow you to discuss whether Islam is fascistic. None of us can discuss that. We cannot have a parliamentary enquiry into that question, and whether or not the Quran includes hate speech and encourages hate, because its a Pandora's box, once its opened, you can't put it back. Muslims know it, and their cowardly quislings like Kay Burley, also, deep down, know it.
Once that question is raised in a public and open manner, the whole game is over. There are far better experts than I on the internet to argue that Islam is a totalitarian and therefore fascistic ideology, but here's a few tasters:
You get the idea. Of course, several of the aspects above are clearly already illegal in the UK, but secular democracy is such a flaccid and cowardly system that it lacks the strength to even exert its own pre-existing laws on a superior system like Islam, never mind create new ones to outlaw it.
Of course this is all ridiculous. We should not even be having this conversation. There should be a 4th arm of every secular democratic government charged with investigating subversive replacement movements which are anti-democracy and pro-totalitarian. This is the the organisation I have previously called POS (Protector of the Open Society). Muslims are merely exposing and exploiting a serious vulnerability that's been there since day one.
Great analysis Alan.
Right at the end though she says she agrees that the burqa has no place in our society. Was she just toying with Andrew? Weird
Thanks. Yes, I think that is Kay Burley, but in a clio from a different interview where she is confronting a veiled Muslim woman.
Actually, if anything, it shows that she does attack both sides equally, and has not got an agenda to promote Islam. It shows she is doing her job as interviewer and challenging the interviewee.
But in either case, this isnt about Kay Burley, its about how to defeat various 'dirty tricks' in discussions. Although, having said that, discussons are 50% dirty tricks, so the tricks are not strictly dirty, just par for the course.