Pat Condell is wrong

In the past few weeks a few of us have been considering whether Pat Condell voting UKIP damages his atheist/skeptic credentials. He outlined his position in this video called Vote Small, Think Big, which some idiot false-flagged on YouTube. Basically he thinks all the politicians are lying, have nothing whatsoever to do with democracy or representation, so he’s voting UKIP because he wants to pull out of the EU, so that laws are made exclusively by the same politicians who he just described as liars and crooks. Yeah, makes good sense. He thinks that within the next 5 years, the EU is going to erode British sovereignty to such a level that the Westminster government won’t mean anything (yes, the same EU that can’t even pass basic democratic reforms – I wonder how he thinks they’re going to get anything like this done?). As evidence for this he says that 75% of our laws now come from Europe, which I don’t dispute, but most of them are trade laws, and the UK doesn’t have to sign up to any of them – ultimate sovereignty still lies with the British government and the British Parliament. But he doesn’t mention any of these laws that he has a specific objection to, what’s the problem?

For some reason Pat also thinks all the main 3 UK parties are committed to an EU super-state, it’s like the ravings of a conspiracy-theorist. I’m not in favour of an EU superstate, not on principle but because I don’t think it would be practical, Europe is too diverse. Does Pat think all the other countries are in favour of giving more power to Europe? I certainly don’t. I think he’s just been reading the Mail a bit too much. But in this same video he praises the American system, which is roughly the same size, has a large population (although admittedly not quite as big as the EU) and is run using the same federal system which would presumably be used in an EU superstate. Why is one acceptable but the other an erosion of sovereignty? A difference in language? Perceived nationality?

UKIP are so far away from most atheists’ choice that I was kind of surprised. I knew he was right-wing but not that much. UKIP are climate change denialists, they support Christian Britain and they’re generally anti-science. Can voting for all this be justified by their anti-Europe stance? Of course I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s not on ‘our side’, if there is such a thing, but it seems particularly naive of him to be so totally taken in by Daily Mail lies. He then clarified his position a bit in this second video.

What’s very strange is that the end of this video focuses on UKIP’s anti-Islam policy, something he didn’t mention at all as far as I remember in the original video. He refers to ‘the world’s two fascist religions of Christianity and Islam’, and yet he’s voting for a party which supports one of them and hates the other. It really doesn’t make sense. He also blames multiculturalism for extremists trying to take away freedom, indicating that he doesn’t see any difference between expansionist Islamic extremism and Islamic culture. He may as well have used the phrase ‘NuLieBore’s failed experiment’, we know that’s what he means.

I don’t know what else to say.


11 Responses to Pat Condell is wrong

  1. Sarah Eddings says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Condell values fascism more than rationality, science and freedom. I think he is really a closet Daily Mail reading paranoid that is so scared of a few loud mouthed islamists that he’s willing to vote for a bunch of right wing raving lunatics that would repeal human rights and safety laws, and ignore global warming; as well as backing irrational treatments like homeopathy, that we’ll all have to pay for.
    I fervently hope that all sceptics and atheists worthy of the name distance themselves from this right wing buffoon.

  2. grammarking says:

    I don’t know if I’d go that far. He’s not a fascist, at least not intentionally so, and I wouldn’t make that kind of judgement unless I knew him personally, which I don’t. What I have realised is that although Pat is an atheist, he doesn’t appear to be a skeptic. He said himself in the second video that he’s opposed to religion on political grounds rather than philosophical ones. It seems clear to me that he is against people and what they do rather than what they believe. If you look back through his videos you can see that he doesn’t concentrate much at all on scientific issues or on the reasons why people are wrong. Without this focus on skepticism and critical thinking, I think he’s just been taken in by the Daily Mail and their ilk, just like a lot of other people have.

  3. RichardC says:

    The claim that “75% of UK law comes from the EU” is absolute rubbish. Here’s a video to prove it;

    This is nothing more than him parroting UKIP’s Anti-EU rhetoric…Like Bill O’reily or Beck does on Fox News.

  4. Simon Hawthorne says:

    Thankyou for making a very rational and clear cut case against Pat Condell. The man should not be in any way a person atheists look up to especially with his most recent ravings against the Cordoba house. He really is nothing more than a raving bigot scared of brown skinned foreigners. You should be the face of atheists. 🙂

    From a theist.

  5. grammarking says:

    When Pat’s talking about religion, he’s usually spot on. He’s just an atheist from a practical point of view rather than a skeptical/rational one, so whereas he’s perfectly primed to cut through the bullshit on religion, he’s taken in completely by the kind of bullshit spouted by the Daily Mail.

  6. American Deist says:

    It sounds as if Condell stuck with the devil he knew. Radical Islam (European) seems very powerful, and very much out of control. Compared to the alternative, I would choose the side not on the side of Islam.

    American Deist

  7. Jo says:

    I can totally relate to Pat here.

    Our sovereignty here in Australia is being sold out to the UN. Infact it’s happening in all western countries.

    I wouldn’t care what religion a person subscribed to (I’m an atheist), if they protect our freedoms (which our governments aren’t doing) then they have good enough morals for me.

    Tired of the bankers and corporations compromising the government. They seem just a bit deadlier than the churches atm. Priorities.

  8. Gary Elwood says:

    Pat Condell is amazingly articulate and passionate!
    I am an atheist stuck in the United States.

    I cannot speak about his particular voting habits, because I would have to ask him what they are.
    Or, since a person can lie about them, be a fly on the voting booth wall to see how he actually votes.

    But, that aside, there is nothing racist about him.
    Surely, there will be things I disagree with him.
    In fact, my main disagreement with him is the same disagreement I have with everyone over any political issue. And that is the condemnation of violence as “always bad” and “never justified”. BULLSHIT!
    Why violence? For what purpose? I support the use of force against religionists in Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and against extremist free-market bankers and corporate-welfarists in the USA. I support a full-out nuclear war between these two countries in order to end both of them.

    As much as I want to punish the Islamic suicide bomber, or just bomber, for murdering a cartoonist who expresses HIS freedom of speech to draw a picture of Mohammed, these singular dramatic acts are already illegal. Therefore, there is already a legal system in place to stop them.

    But I am much more concerned about LEGAL injustice: the right by authorities in Iran to imprison people who speak out in favor of atheism or the right of adults to have consensual sex, or to murder people who want to have adulterous affairs.

    These legal injustices are what need to be stopped by force, nuclear force if necessary.
    Same, too, with legal injustice of the Federal Reserve, massive corporate-military welfare, tax breaks for corporations and churches in the USA.
    Again, only quick VIOLENT action will stop these.

    My disagreement with this extremely mindless “violence is bad” mindset in media and the public is more fundamental than its use by or against any particular political cause, like religion or financial terrorists like Bank of America and Citigroup and Chase.

    Why should one look at violence and say that no matter what the positive net effect is, only the negative effect matters, hence, that “violence is never justified”, but then not say the same thing about imprisonment?

    There is no logically consistent, simply no logical sane rational reasonable reason for not saying the same thing about imprisoning a person.

    If you believe in this “no violence justified” bullshit, then you had damned well better accept that it is wrong to put someone in prison, no matter if they are a murderer a rapist a child molestor a drug dealer or a maker of bad pop tunes. The negative effect to them makes it unjustified, no matter what the net positive effect is.

    Anyway, as far as Pat Condell’s particular voting habits: if you say he is voting for a rightwing christian global-warming denier bunch of idiots, then I cannot explain it. Isn’t there a Green Party or a Socialist Party he can vote for?

    I am a Green Party member. Regrettably, there exists NO political party that everyone will agree on. Perhaps, Pat Condell has to choose the one fighting the most immediate issue in his opinion.

    I vote Green, Socialist, or Communist here in the USA, because, at the moment, they are the only political parties who truly fight massive corporate welfare and financial terrorism, fight for prison reform, fight to legalize marijuana.
    I will let them slide on their idiotic extremist “no-war” stance because the good they would do outweighs the negative.

    • grammarking says:

      You may be an atheist but some of your comments are pretty irrational.

      Wtf, nuclear war?! You know that’d be so much worse than whatever religionists are doing in Iran and Saudi Arabia, right? Whilst I agree in principle that violence isn’t always wrong (where it is used it must be necessary and measured), I think you’d have to justify your claim that only violent action will end legal injustices. I note, by the way, that most of those injustices are fiscal in nature – do you really think violent solutions are the best way to solve disputes that are, yes, unfair, but at the end of the day not killing anyone?

      Lastly, yes, the Greens, Socialists etc are much better established here in the UK than they are in the US. The Greens even have a Member of Parliament in London and they have plenty of members in the Scottish Parliament and local councils. Pat Condell didn’t vote UKIP because he had noone else to vote for, he voted UKIP because he’s on the far right.

    • BeachJustice says:

      You’re advocating nuking a population when the criminal justice system purportedly sentences a homosexual to death.
      In principle similar to the NAZIs embracing the holocaust because some members of the Jewish community were seen as using their position as bankers and businessmen to attack indigenous German industry.
      You’re a madman to advocate nukes in response to anything but being explicitly threatened with nukes. You’re insane and particularly dangerous.

      You have the right to speak as you wish but you are still a danger to civilization.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: