"We threw the pie because we didn`t want to engage in debate and legitimise what he was saying."
is the explanation given by a spokeswoman for No Borders, a radical pro-immigration group in Britain after Phil Woolas, Minister For Immigration, had been hit with a pie believed to made of "Bourbon Cream biscuits and vegan cream."
[BBC NEWS—Migrant row minister hit by pie
] She also said "What he was spouting were right wing anti-immigration policies. The danger is that people like him are making such views mainstream."
And what, you might ask, where these right-wing policies? Something to do with race or religion, the two main problems with immigration to the UK? No, even the Minister for Immigration can`t talk about that in the UK, he`d be investigated by the police. His sin was to suggest the possibility that their could be numerical limits
to the number of immigrants to the United Kingdom, and that the British population should not exceed 70 million
Of course, the refusal to engage debate is typical—Ann Coulter described this style of argument in 2005:
Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in The New Republic: Bush is an "instinctive anti-intellectual" and his administration hostile to "fact-driven debate." In a favorable contrast, Clinton is "the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates." Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, The New York Times` Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research."I`m not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food.[AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: IT`S ONLY FUNNY UNTIL SOMEONE LOSES A PIE, November 13, 2005]