Facts about fluorosis – not a worry in New Zealand

This sort of serious dental fluorosis does not occur in New Zealand

A recent issue of the Fluoride Exposed Newsletter gives us the facts about dental fluorosis – a subject very often misrepresented by opponents of community water fluoridation.

Fluoride Exposed also explores what U.S. Surgeon Generals have done to promote prevention of both tooth decay and fluorosis in an article on their website, Is fluoride good for your teeth?:


Ever notice how words ending with “-osis” sound a bit scary?  That’s because “-osis” is a suffix (from the Greek) commonly used to describe disorders or abnormal states. Tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis…no fun. Those are serious.

Dental fluorosis is one of those things that sounds scarier than it actually is… at least if you live in a country like the good old U.S. of A., where public health and environmental protection agencies and organizations have made the scary kind of dental fluorosis (severe dental fluorosis) exceedingly rare.

Dental fluorosis is a little like blood pressure.  When it’s low, you’re good – in fact, mild dental fluorosis can protect your teeth from cavities.  Moderate dental fluorosis describes the appearance of tooth enamel when kids get exposed to a bit too much fluoride.  Changes range from barely visible white spots or streaks (in most cases) to white spots that are a cosmetic concern.  Severe forms involve staining and pitting.  These severe forms of fluorosis are super rare in the U.S. – because we have those protections we mentioned. In the States, we make sure fluoride isn’t too low or too high in drinking water.  It’s only in regions such as rural India, China, and the African Rift Valley, where severe dental fluorosis commonly reaches an actual disease state and affects tooth health and function.  But in the U.S., fluorosis is one of those things that’s not as scary as it sounds.

As you may already know, fluoride gets into your tooth enamel during the remineralization process and forms a super compound called fluoroapatite that resists decay.  For this reason, our dentists want us to get fluoride, ideally through drinking water and fluoride toothpaste.  Or if you’re in a community without fluoridated water, there are dental treatments and dietary supplements you can get.

But if a child who’s still developing teeth gets too much fluoride, dental fluorosis can occur while the teeth are still forming under the gums.  Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2004) tells us that less than one-quarter of persons aged 6-49 in the United States had some form of dental fluorosis.

They even made a chart that shows the severity level of those affected:

Note: One interesting factoid: In this study, the rate of fluorosis for teenagers aged 12-15 was forty percent! That’s significantly higher than the rate for all age groups taken together.  It’s a data point we’ll be keeping an eye on in future studies.

According to the American Dental Association (ADA), the mild and moderate forms of dental fluorosis we have in the U.S. do not negatively affect the health of your teeth. It’s actually even correlated with some good things.  For example, rates of dental fluorosis are higher in kids whose teeth are more resistant to tooth decay.  Makes sense, right?

That said, we can make sure a child’s amount of fluoride is “just right” – enough to provide cavity protection, but not enough to cause visible changes in the tooth enamel.
5 ways to prevent kiddos from ingesting too much fluoride:

    1. Don’t give kids fluoride supplements if your drinking water is already at or above the recommended fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L.  You can find out if your water system fluoridates and at what level from this cool site from the CDC: https://nccd.cdc.gov/DOH_MWF/Default/Default.aspx.  Or call your water utility provider.
    2. If your drinking water contains greater than 2 mg/L of fluoride, children 8 years and younger should use an alternative source of drinking water.  A little less than 1% of Americans on public water systems have fluoride above this level.
    3. If you have well water, have it tested for fluoride levels, and again, use an alternative source for kids if fluoride is more than 2 mg/L.  Use an alternative source for everyone in the family if it tests at or above 4 mg/L.
    4. Use only a rice-grain-sized amount of fluoride toothpaste to brush kids’ teeth if they’re younger than 3.
    5. For kids who are 3-6 years old, use a pea-size amount of fluoride toothpaste, and supervise these preschool kids when they brush so they don’t swallow too much fluoride toothpaste.

So that’s it! Dental Fluorosis: it’s a scary name, but not a big worry in the U.S.

Whew! One less “-osis” to freak out about!

Subscribe to the Fluoride Exposed newsletter.

Similar articles

Advertisements

We need more post-publication peer review

We often tout peer review as the reason for accepting the veracity of published scientific studies? But how good is it really? Does it ever match the ideal picture people have of it? And what about peer review before and after publication – are we neglecting these important stages?

Pre-publication peer review

Here I mean the collective process of evaluating ideas and presentations together with scientific colleagues. It’s great when it happens. Ideas flow and the critiques help prevent mistakes from persisting

This happens during discussion of research proposals and of research results. It happens during preparation of presentations.

But, unfortunately, it does not always happen – in fact, I suspect it may be relatively rare. When scientific reforms were introduced into New Zealand almost 30 years ago I noticed some scientific colleagues became less forthcoming about their ideas and research proposals. An air of competition seemed to destroy the previous cooperation.

Maybe things are better now. Hopefully there is less completion between individuals and within groups and institutions – although I imagine the competition between institutions will always be a problem. Quite apart from competing for grants humans simply identify with their own groups and fall victim to the “them vs us” problem.

Publication peer review

There is an impression that publication peer review happens only when the paper is submitted to a journal. But I think some of the best reviewing of a draft paper actually comes from colleagues before submission. That is why I strongly appreciated the institutional requirements I experienced that a draft paper be peer-reviewed within the institution before submission.

Unfortunately, not all institutions require this. I sometimes think many universities which don’t require this are taking “academic freedom” too far.

Perhaps some scientists see this as only landing extra work on them – but surely knocking a paper into better shape before submission is beneficial to both authors (getting a better draft)  and institutes (maintaining a reputation with journals).

Then there is the peer review organised by the journal. Many people think that is the only peer review. Just as well it isn’t because it can be very bad.

I am sure many poor quality papers slip through to be published simply because reviewers do not do a good job or spend insufficient time on that job. Personally, my impression of reviewers and journals drop when I see reviewers comments indicating a lack of attention or responsibility. Even worse, when I have had a paper accepted by an editor saying the reviewers had no comments I seriously questioned the quality of the journal and the advisability of submitting to it in future.

Still, when an author gets conscientious reviewers and comments indicating the paper has been read carefully an author can’t help but be appreciative – even if it means more work knocking the paper into shape.

As a reviewer, I always attempted to do a thorough job – even if it meant producing an over-long and detailed report. I once a received, via an editor, a response from an author I had reviewed expressing appreciation of the detail so I know such attention to detail is worthwhile.

I think most scientific authors will have occasionally faced the problem of brief or perfunctory reviewing of their submitted papers and can, therefore, understand the feelings behind that note.

Post-publication peer review

This is hardly ever considered. Once published the authors move on – their job is done. Readers also tend to be very accepting of published papers – after all peer review means that the paper’s findings must be trustworthy.

But this is obviously not the case. I think the slogan “reader beware” applies just as much to the scientific literature as it does to the news media. The reader should not automatically accept reported findings or conclusions as correct – just because the paper was peer-reviewed. They should do their own due diligence, consider all papers critically and avoid automatic acceptance.

Formal post-publication peer review can occur – but it is not as common as it should be. Some online journals provide space for readers comments. Helpful to the author but not adequate for proper evaluation.

The best post-publication peer review comes from published critiques because they become part of the established literature and available to anyone following up a subject or reviewing a field. Some journals provide space for shorter critiques of this sort – not requiring these authors to present new and original data but simply critique what has been published. Of course, despite the lower requirements such critiques should undergo their own peer review consistent with the policies of the journal.

The ethics of post-publication review

This is sore point for me – having had an editor recently refuse to consider a critique of mine (see Fluoridation not associated with ADHD – a myth put to rest). 

Surely there is a moral obligation for a journal, and its editor, to consider submissions of critiques of paper they have published? This is the obvious place for a critique – and the journal can normally then offer the right of reply to the original authors.  The writer of a critique should not have to search out an alternative journal – especially as the lack of new data or new research in a critique makes its acceptance by an alternative journal problematic. Nor should the original authors be denied an automatic right of reply which can be provided by the original journal.

Authors of a critique can face obstacles like the cost of publication. An original paper may be published in a journal which extracts publication fees from the author. It is the original authors decision whether or not to publish in such journals. But it seems unethical to expect the submitter of a critique to pay such fees. That puts a financial hurdle in the way of proper scientific peer-review. The original authors’ institution may be prepared to cover the cost of publication but institutions are unlikely to financially cover critiques in the same way.

The other obstacle is, of course, the attitude of editors. It is surely just common sense that critiques should undergo the normal peer review but when journals or editors refuse outright to even consider a critique, to not even enable it to undergo peer review, then that is ethically wrong.

Similar articles

Cassini plunges into Saturn tonight – a grand finale

Starting at 10.31 pm NZ time tonight

Key Events

Sept 15:

10:31a.m. UTC (3:31 am PDT) – Cassini’s final entry into Saturn’s atmosphere begins

10:32 a.m. UTC (3:32 a.m. PDT) – Spacecraft loss of signal comes one minute later

11:55a.m. UTC (4:55 a.m. PDT) – Predicted final loss of signal on Earth

Similar articles

What’s with the anti-fluoridationist promotion of dental health programmes?

“Healthy Teeth, Happy Smile” leaflet promoting dental health programme in Leicester, UK

Anti-fluoride campaigners often promote dental health programmes which they argue are alternatives to community water fluoridation. But seem not to understand that these programmes usually include fluoride dental treatments.

It’s probably a result of some tactical thinking – “let’s promote a positive message to overcome the publicly perceived negativity associated with our opposition to a social health policy like fluoridation.” In fact, some New Zealand anti-fluoride activists have specifically expressed it this way.

But the sting in the tail of this tactic is their promotion of the idea these programmes are an alternative to community water fluoridation (CWF). In reality, they are not genuine about their positive support of a social health policy – they still want to convey a message of opposition to CWF by pretending these policies are successful alternatives.

These programmes may be successful – but they are not alternatives to CWF.  Health authorities promoting them usually see them as complementary to CWF  – certainly not substitutes or alternatives. In fact, these dental health programmes usually include fluoride varnish treatment for children’s teeth.

An example is the “Healthy Teeth, Happy Smile” programme reported as being very successful in the UK city of Leicester. See  City with worst tooth decay in children sees marked improvement). It aims to improve the dental health of young children and includes exercises like supervised tooth brushing in nurseries and linking families up with dentists. The image above shows the first page of a leaflet about the scheme. Notice that it encourages fluoride varnishing of the teeth of young children and offers this free (the image below shows the relevant detail from the leaflet) and yet Fluoride Free New Zealand, the local anti-fluoride group, is promoting it!

The Leicester City Council in its promotion of the scheme lists the following actions for parents:

  • take your child to see the dentist before they are one and go regularly
  • brush your child’s teeth as soon as the first tooth appears
  • brush at least twice a day
  • don’t rinse after brushing just spit the toothpaste out
  • use a fluoride toothpaste
  • ask your dentist about fluoride varnish
  • limit sugary drinks and snacks to meal times only.

The scheme is based on the Oral Health Promotion Strategy for pre-school children which describes its objectives as:

 Optimising exposure to fluoride
 Gain multi-partnership support in order for everyone to play a role in
improving oral health
 Improve preventive and routine dental attendance
 Improve parental skills on caring for children’s oral health

So hardly an alternative to fluoride or CWF.

I have written about other dental health programme which anti-fluoride activists misleadingly promote as alternatives to CWF before.

For example:

The Nexo programme on Sweden – Fluoridation: Open letter to Democrats for Social Credit;

The Scottish ChildSmile programme – ChildSmile dental health – its pros and cons and ChildSmile – a complement, not an alternative, to fluoridation.

I have also made the point that in New Zealand the different District Health Boards often have dental health programmes which incorporate elements of all the three programmes discussed here. They are not run as alternatives to CWF – although some health boards do put extra resources, such a fluoride tooth varnishing into the non-fluoridated areas. For obvious reasons.

Examples are the Mighty Mouth Dental programme run by Counties Manukau District Health Board and the Healthy Smile, Healthy Child programme run by the Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Dental Association.

Whether or not health authorities choose to give their dental health programmes catchy titles such programmes are important. CWF is not a magic bullet and oral health is also served by complementary programmes like these which incorporate education, early training in the use of toothbrushes, connecting families with dentists and use of fluoride varnishes.

Just don’t be fooled into thinking such programmes are substitutes or alternatives to CWF. Especially don’t be fooled by activists who are not seriously promoting dental health but simply attempting to fool people by pretending such programmes could be used instead of CWF.

Similar articles

Non-violence in the defence of free speech

I have always been a fan of nonviolent tactics in social movements. Being old enough to have seen the apartheid arrangements that existed in the US during the 5os and 60s and follow the movement to break this I have often wondered why the nonviolent methods used by Martin Luther King and his allies have not been adopted more widely.

In particular, it seems to me that the political situation in the US could do with some nonviolent political tactics at the moment.

So I was fascinated to see the video by Joey Gibson from the Patriot Prayer group. Fascinated to see the tactic being advocated now. But also fascinated to see the tactic being advocated by the founder of the Patriot Prayer group which is often described as “right-wing.” Even described by the US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California, as attempting to hold a “white supremacist rally.” Incidentally, Gibson is not even white – nor are many of his colleagues in Patriot Prayer.

It may be hubris on Gibson’s part, but he is claiming success for these tactics used in the recent Berkeley confrontation. He and his colleagues were beaten by extremists and had to be retrieved by police, but did not retaliate. They adopted a passive stance. He now claims this was instrumental and the apparent shift by the media, and some politicians, to recognise the danger presented by extremist violent groups like Antifa and their misleading charges that advocates of free speech are white supremacists.

If these tactics are having the success Gibson claims then I hope the success continues. It’s about time some sense came into the current political situation in the US and we should not denigrate these tactics just because we may not like some of Gibson’s political or religious views.

Similar articles

August ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking

Image Credit: The Popularity of the Blog

Please note: Sitemeter is no longer working so the total number of NZ blogs in this list has been drastically reduced. I recommend anyone with Sitemeter consider transferring to one of the other meters. See  NZ Blog Rankings FAQ.

Every month I get queries from people wanting their own blog included. I encourage and am happy to respond to queries but have prepared a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) people can check out. Have a look at NZ Blog Rankings FAQ. This is particularly helpful to those wondering how to set up sitemeters. Please note, the system is automatic and relies on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.

Here are the rankings of New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics for August 2017. Ranking is by visit numbers. I have listed the blogs in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers. Meanwhile, I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any or wish help adding publicly available stats to your bog.

You can see data for previous months at Blog Ranks

Subscribe to NZ Blog Rankings Subscribe to NZ blog rankings by Email Find out how to get Subscription & email updates Continue reading

Fluoridation not associated with ADHD – a myth put to rest

Fluoridated water is NOT associated with ADHD: Photo by mtl_moe

The myth of community water fluoridation causing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is just not supported by the data. I show this in a new paper accepted for publication in the British Dental Journal. This should remove any validity for the claims about ADHD by anti-fluoride campaigners.

Mind you, I do not expect them to stop making those claims.

The citation for this new paper is (will be):

Perrott, K. W. (2017). Fluoridation and attention hyperactivity disorder – a critique of Malin and Till. British Dental Journal. In press.

The Background

The fluoridation causes ADHD myth was initially started by the publication of Malin & Till’s paper in 2015:

Malin, A. J., & Till, C. (2015). Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association. Environmental Health, 14.

It was quickly taken up and promoted by anti-fluoride campaigners – becoming one of their most cited papers when claiming harmful psychological effects from fluoridation. Part of the reason for its popularity is that it is the only published paper reporting an association between community water fluoridation (CWF) incidence and the prevalence of a psychological deficit. All other reports on this used by anti-fluoride campaigners are based on studies made in high fluoride regions like China where fluorosis is endemic. Those studies are just not relevant to CWF.

While many critics rejected Malin & Till’s conclusions on the simple basis that correlation does not mean causation I decided to look a bit deeper and test their statistical analyses. This was easy because they used published US data for each US state and such data is available for many factors.

I posted my original findings in the article ADHD linked to elevation not fluoridation. This showed that a number of factors were independently associated with ADHD prevalence (eg., home ownership, poverty, educational attainment, personal income, and % of the population older than 65) and these associations were just as significant statistically as the associaiton reported by Malin & Till.

However, multiple regression of possible modifying factors showed no statistically significant of ADHD prevalence with CWF incidence when mean state elevation was includedd.

The importance of elevation was confirmed by Huber et al. (2015):

Huber, R. S., Kim, T.-S., Kim, N., Kuykendall, M. D., Sherwood, S. N., Renshaw, P. F., & Kondo, D. G. (2015). Association Between Altitude and Regional Variation of ADHD in Youth. Journal of Attention Disorders.

Huber et al., (2015) did not include CWF incidence in their analyses. I have done this with the new paper in the British Dental Journal.

Publication problems

I firmly believe that scientific journals, like  Environmental Health which published the Malin & Till paper, have an ethical obligation to accept critiques of papers they publish (subject to peer review of course). Similarly, it is appropriate that any critique of a published paper is made in the journal where it was originally published. Implicit in this arrangement, of course, is that the authors of the original paper get the chance to respond to any critique and that the response be published by the original journal.

Unfortunately, this was not possible for this paper because the Chief Editor of  Environmental Health,  Prof Philippe Grandjeansimply refused to allow this critique to be considered for publication. No question of any peer reviuew. In his rejection he wrote:

“Although our journal does not currently have a time limit for submission of comments on articles published in EH, we are concerned that your response appears a very long time after the publication of the article that you criticize. During that period, new evidence has been published, and you cite some of it. There are additional studies that would also have to be taken into regard in a comprehensive comment, as would usually be the case after two years. In addition, the way the letter is written makes us believe that the letter is part of a controversy, and our journal is certainly not the appropriate forum for a dispute on fluoride policies.”

My response pointed out the reasons for the time gap (problems related to the journals large publication fee), that no other critique of the Malin & Till paper had yet been published and that any perceived polemics in the draft should normally be attended to by reviewers. This was ignored by Grandjean.

While Grandjean’s rejection astounded me – something I thought editors would consider unethical – it was perhaps understandable. Grandjean is directly involved as an author of several papers that activists use to criticise community water fluoridation. Examples are:

Grandjean is part of the research group that has published data on IQ deficits in areas of endemic fluorosis – studies central to the anti-fluoride activist claims that CWF damages IQ.  He has also often appears in news reports supporting research findings that are apparently critical of CWF so has an anti-fluoridation public standing.

In my posts Poor peer-review – a case study and Poor peer review – and its consequences I showed how the peer review of the original Malin & Till paper was one-sided and inadequate. I also provided a diagram (see below) showing the relationship of Grandjean as Chief Editor of the Journal, and the reviewers as proponents of chemical toxicity mechanisms of IQ deficits.

So, I guess a lesson learned. But the unethical nature of Grandjean’s response did surprise me.

I then submitted to paper to the British Dental Journal. It was peer-reviewed, revised and here we are.

The guts of the paper

This basically repeated the contents of my article ADHD linked to elevation not fluoridation. However, I tried to use Malin &Till’s paper as an example of problems in ecological or correlation studies. In particular the inadequate consideration of possible risk-modifying factors. Malin & Till clearly had a bias against CWF which they confirmed by limiting the choice of covariates that might show them wrong. I agree that a geographic factor like altitude may not have been obvious to them but their discussion showed a bias towards chemical toxicity mechanisms – even though other social factors are often considered to be implicated in ADHD prevalence.

Unfortunately, Malin & Till’s paper is not an isolated example. Another obvious example of confirmation bias is that of Peckham et al., (2015). They reported an association of hypothyroidism with fluoridation but did not include the most obvious example of iodine deficiency as a risk-modifying factor in their statistical analysis

Of course, anti-fluoride campaigners latched on to the papers of Peckham et al., (2015) and Malin & Till (2015) to “prove” fluoridation was harmful. I guess such biased use of the scientific literature simply to be expected from political activists.

However,  I also believe the scientific literature contains many other examples where inadequate statistical analyses in ecological studies have been used to argue for associations which may not be real. Such papers are easily adopted by activists who are arguing for or against specific social policies or social attitudes. For example, online articles about religion will sometimes refer to published correlations of religosity with IQ, educational level or scoio-economic status. Commenters simply select the studies which confirm the bias they are arguing for.

These sort of ecological or corellations studies can be useful for developing hypotheses for future study but it is wrong to use them to support an argument and worse as “proof” of an argument.

Take home message

  1. There is no statistically significant association of CWF with ADHD prevalence. Malin & Till’s study was flawed by lack of consideration of other possible risk-modifying factors;
  2. Be very wary of ecological or correlation studies.Correlation is not evidence for causation and many of these sudues iognore other possible important risk-modifying factors.

Similar articles

From Charlottesville to Boston – a lesson

Participants in Boston’s Free Speech rally. Speaker is Republican Senate candidate Dr Shiva Ayyadurai. Not a Nazi or white supremacist in sight. Was the media feeding me porkies?

Funny thing – I have become more worried about the lessons of the Boston “free speech” rally than the Charlottesville white supremacist demonstration. Here’s why.

There is nothing new about fighting Nazis, neo-Nazis and fascists in street demonstrations. Many on the left did this, and did it violently, in the lead up to the second world war. It’s happening in Europe again – and, more seriously, in Ukraine.

Participants in genuine anti-Nazi actions are usually proud of what they did. It is one thing to attempt to get one’s head around the concept that freedom of speech should allow expression of racist views but I guess once the violence starts the moral issues become clearer.

So while we can debate the role played by anarchists, Antifa, and outright thugs on both sides in Charlottesville there does seem to have been an excuse there for moral outrage and the inevitable conflict is understandable.

But what about Boston? I originally thought the “free speech” rally held this last weekend was really about white supremacism. The mainstream media told me this. The 15 – 45 thousand demonstrators against the rally convinced me of this. I had absolutely no sympathy for those in the rally and identified morally with the counter-demonstrators. But I was thankful that police organisation prevented conflict – at least conflict between the rally participants and the counter demonstrators (fighting did break out between some counter-demonstrators and the police).

But I was wrong

I was misinformed by the media. It wasn’t until I got involved in a social media discussion that I decided to check out what was really happening in Boston. I checked out who organised the free speech rally and what their aims were. I tried to find out who spoke at the free speech rally and looked for videos of speakers and the whole event online.

In fact, the “free speech” rally organisers were not white supremacists or Nazis. Conservatives or “right-wingers” perhaps. But they do seem to have genuine interests in free speech and the various speakers represented a range from conservatives to Green Party members – and a Dr Shiva Ayyadurai, a Democrat currently standing for the Senate (See the video of his speech above). the placards were anti-Monsata and pro-Black-Lives Matter.

Here is what the Boston Free Speech people say about their rally:

“This Free Speech Movement is dedicated to peaceful rallies and are in no way affiliated with the Charlottesville rally on 8/12/17

While we maintain that every individual is entitled to their freedom of speech and defend that basic human right, we will not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence.

We are witnessing an unprecedented move towards sweeping censorship that undermines our democratic system. We are witnessing increasingly regular incidents of political violence being used to silence political opponents. We are witnessing our social media and online communities purging both progressive and conservative content from their networks. We oppose all instances of censorship. We believe that the way to defeat and disarm toxic ideas and ideologies is through dialogue and reason, and that attempting to silence any voice by force of mob or force of law only empowers the radical elements of society and divides us.

There is a lot of misinformation in the media slandering our name by likening our organization to those that ran the Charlottesville rally. THIS COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! “I can tell you the march we had in May…That group pulled a permit, they worked very well with us” as stated by Boston Police Commissioner William Evans in a press conference Monday (8/14/17)

We are a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents and we welcome all individuals and organizations from any political affiliations that are willing to peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties. Join us at the Parkman Bandstand where we will be holding our event. We look forward to this tide-changing peaceful event that has the potential to be a shining example of how we, in the city of Boston, can come together for the common goal of preserving freedom of speech for all and respectfully discussing our differences of opinion without engaging in violence.”

So, in Boston we had a very small gathering (probably well under 100) exercising their free speech at a permitted rally in the Band Rotunda. (Yes, there were apparently more, including some of the programmed speakers, who couldn’t get through the crowd of counter demonstrators which had blocked of entrances).

They were surrounded by 15 – 45 thousand counter demonstrators yelling a stream of abuse at the rally participants – accusing them of being Nazis, etc. Fortunately, the police had manned a cordon to keep the two groups well separated. I say fortunately because it did remind me of those brave anti-apartheid demonstrators who had invaded Hamilton’s Rugby Park in 1981 to prevent the Waikato – South Africa Rugby game. On that day the police helped to prevent some of the violence.

An aerial view shows how counter-protesters vastly outnumbered a few dozen participants at a ‘free speech’ rally (rotunda) in Boston. Image credit: Daily Mail.
This brought back memories of how the police protected anti-apartheid demonstrators on Hamilton’s Rugby Park in 1981. Photo Credit: Daily Mail.
 My lesson

The presence of a small number of white supremacists in society is probably inevitable and shouldn’t concern us too much. Similarly, the presence of a relatively small number of anarchists and thugs who attend such demonstrations with the aim of creating violence is also probably inevitable. The police in Boston showed how this could be handled in a relatively painless way.

So these minor groups really don’t concern me too much. Nor do honest anti-fascists who attempt to close down white supremacy manifestations.

But that was not the case here. What we had was a huge crowd of counter-protesters who thought they were opposing racists and Nazis – but they weren’t. They were opposing free speech.

These people were misinformed and misled. Misinformed and misled by the mainstream media and politicians who insist on labeling proponents of free speech white supremacists.

Nazis and anarchists do worry more. But not as much as a misinformed mass movement.

Similar articles

Hypocrisy, irrationality and wise words from Monty Python

I wonder how many others feel like me.

All the old sureties seem to have disappeared. Political words like “liberal” and “conservative” no longer mean what I thought they used to mean.

“Liberals” are attacking “freedom of speech” demonstrations. And those fighting for “freedom of speech” seem to be Nazis – if you can believe the media.

What next, are we going to see nighttime demonstrations of book burning by “anti-fascist liberals!”

How is one to think anymore. Or at least, to think independently and objectively and not simply adopting the slogans and group thought pushed down our throats by the media.

Even if all the wild claims being made by media and demonstrators are true – that those demonstrating for freedom of speech are “Nazis” “white supremacists,” or just outright “conservatives” – what happened to the old adage I was brought up with:

“I don’t for a minute accept what you say – but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!”

So in these days of confusion and lack of any reliable moral compass when it comes to understanding politics, I have had to turn to that one reliable source of guidance – Monty Python.

I have always enjoyed the “Galaxy Song” from “The Meaning of Life.” And more than ever I am finding solace in the last lines of that song:

“So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere out in space,
‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth!”

Similar articles

Are we all anti-fascist now?

US neo-Nazis and fascists supporters march in Charoltsvill, USA.
Image credit: Alejandro Alvarez/News2Share via Reuters

Wouldn’t that be nice? What if the current almost universal condemnation of fascism by the main stream media and social media commenters were genuine.? That it represents an abhorrence for fascism and its modern supporters who attempt to revive it – and not just partisan politics.

Because fascism is abhorrent. And it does have its modern apologists, even revivalists. It is not new, even in the US, and people shouldn’t be surprised at its manifestation in Charlottesville.

After all, we have seen similar actions in other parts of the world – in parts of the world which understandably understand fascism and its consequences far better than the average US citizen does.

Thousands of nationals, neo-Nazis and pro-fascists march in Kiev, Ukraine, on the anniversary of the birth of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.
Image credit: South China Morning Post.

Yes, I know. Our media tends to treat the marchers in Kiev and Riga as “freedom fighters” and not what they really are – supporters of  Nazi collaborators and those organisations derived from them which still exist today and play a role in the politics of those countries. But, unlike the USA, those collaborators were responsible for thousands of deaths of their fellow citizens(see my article Don’t put all the blame on the Germans – a lesson from World War II).

Supporters of Latvia’s Waffen-SS legion hold an annual commemoration Nazi SS division formed from Latvians during World War Two. Image Credit: The Telegraph.

 

Sculpture of the “Unbowed man” at the Khatyn Memorial site near Minsk in Byelorussia. The sculpture depicts Yuzif Kaminsky, the only adult to survive the massacre by Ukrainian Nazi groups, holding his dead son Adam.
Image credit: John Oldale.

Which brings me to my real message – my suggestion for action

Why not take advantage of this new-found anti-fascist feeling? Rather than let the lessons of Charlotteville disperse and die out why not do something meaningful and specific? Something that might last. And something with an international influence.

My suggestion – the US should change its stance next time the regular United Nations General Assembly resolution on “Combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” comes up.

The resolution expresses concern about the fact that in some countries, famed Nazi movement leaders and former members of the SS are honoured, and monuments to fighters (e.g partisan heroes) against fascism are demolished or subjected to desecration. It calls on states to pass legislation prohibiting the denial of crimes against humanity and war crimes during the Second World War.

It was last passed in November 2016. Then the only countries voting against the resolution were Ukraine, the United States and Palau!

Just imagine, if the US goes with its current anti-fascist feelings it could, at last, vote for this resolution. Of course, Palau as a client state will also automatically reverse its vote.

As for Ukraine – well, who could say the country is such a mess. Chances are the current government in Kiev may not be in power next time the vote occurs. But, unfortunately, the extreme nationalist and neo-fascist forces which seem to dictate affairs in that country will still be around.

But what about closer to home

Can not New Zealand also learn from the current anti-fascist feelings emanating from the USA? New Zealand traditionally takes the cowards way out and abstains on this resolution. Apparently aligning itself with the 131 countries supporting the resolution in 2016 would have caused too much displeasure from the USA – something we still seem to be afraid of. So we joined the group of 48 countries that abstained.
But, I guess, if the USA changed heart and voted for the anti-fascist resolution we would meekly snap into line and also vote for it.

A job for the US (and NZ) House of Representatives?

OK, the current US president may be even less willing than previous presidents to take a real international stand against fascism. But don’t we have some recent history that might provide a solution. Why don’t the US Congress and Senate follow on from their recent almost unanimous resolutions constraining the president in his handling of international affairs?

They made it impossible for President Trump to take any action on sanctions against Iran, North Korea and the Russian Federation without a decision from Congress.

So why not a near unanimous Congressional resolution demanding the USA in future votes for this resolution in the UN General Assembly? A resolution that prevents the US Ambassador from voting against it again without a decision from Congress?

Perhaps the New Zealand Parliament could place a similar restriction on our representatives at the UN

After all, aren’t we all anti-fascist now?

Similar articles