Jump to content


- - - - -

Sign the petition and fight the BNP


131 replies to this topic

#41 Blugh Grant

Blugh Grant

    Played by Adrien Brody

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,570 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Limbo
  • Original Name: blueswannabe

Posted 09 June 2009 - 01:44 PM

QUOTE (dadfad @ Jun 9 2009, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (el_burton @ Jun 9 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (richey @ Jun 9 2009, 05:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE ( Germany in the 1930s)
You can't call it democracy if you throw out an elected party because you don't agree with them.


Say what you like, they were democratically elected. It's what happened once they were in power that should have been stopped (and would be stopped in any major Western nation now).

That's kind of my take on it. Looking at it all, I'm probably against 99.9% of everything this guy stands for (maybe 99.99999999999%), but he was democratically elected. You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth when talking about a democracy, either it is or it isn't. Kind of like being "a little bit pregnant." It's not a democracy if you only think what is "okay" should be allowed. You can't go around saying "Oh, yeah Democracy is great stuff. We're a Democratic nation. Rah-rah Democracy..." and then tack on "... but only if you agree with me."


QUOTE (richey @ Jun 9 2009, 12:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I honestly cannot believe people are arguing with me over this. I'm actually stunned.


(And that's what they said then.)


Because someone disagrees with you about what "should be allowed" in a democracy doesn't mean they don't agree with you that this guy is probably a scum. Like me, I think he has the right to stand because obviously enough people voted for him to do so, but I think I'd hate everything about this guy both politically and personally if I ever met him.

He's probably "the other side of the pendulum." When enough people perceive the political or social "pendulum' has swung too far in one direction, the reaction is usually that many normally "middle of the road" citizens will gravitate to the extreme opposite side. One of the truisms of political and social change.

And you can look at the bright-side. Maybe he'll be like many of our political-hacks over here. Like... oh... Senator Robert Byrd. Like many Democrats if you look back a few years into their past, he used to be a Klu Klux Klan Grand Kleagle (recruiting officer and propagandist) and now he'd shine Obama's shoes (if Obama'd let him laugh.gif ) and spits and sputters and drools all over himself making speeches about reforming immigration to make it easier to come in and get citizenship, etc. So maybe, if like most politicians he finds it helps his popularity and his pocketbook in the long run, even Griffin could change. Hell, he could be a Liberal Socialist ten years from now! laugh.gif


Yes.

QUOTE (mandible @ Jun 9 2009, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm shocked at how self-important some people are being over this.

People only want freedom of speech when everybody says the same things as they do.

I do not support the BNP, but I support their right to exist and stand for election.


Yes, up to a point. Up to the point where the party's existence is infringing upon the rights of others to be able to live freely without being the target of prejudice.
Posted Image

there seems to be an objective reality that a determined individual can penetrate if he is willing to challenge the confining chimeras of markets and machines

It was written that I should be loyal to the nightmare of my choice

http://theonlythingy...d.blogspot.com/

#42 Dave C

Dave C
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,516 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staffordshire
  • Original Name: Dave C

Posted 09 June 2009 - 01:47 PM

QUOTE (mandible @ Jun 9 2009, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm shocked at how self-important some people are being over this.

People only want freedom of speech when everybody says the same things as they do.

I do not support the BNP, but I support their right to exist and stand for election.

Correct

#43 zooloo

zooloo

    Da-Da-Da

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:I live in your eyes
  • Original Name: zooloo

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:19 PM

For tuppence worth I'd like to say that people trying to understand "Why BNP" should be applauded.

The alternative being "They're bad because I say so and that's it" is damnable.

You made me smile smile.gif Ta GTU
Life is like a musical by Andrew Lloyd-Webber. Very popular and not as bad as some would have you believe. That is, unspeakably awful but mercifully brief.

#44 Mick!

Mick!

    So say we all.

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Omicron Persei 8
  • Original Name: Darke734

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:28 PM

Is it that simple, though? Yes, people should all definitely be free to feel and think and act however they see fit. However, when the actions of a particular person/group infringes on the human rights of others, don't you have to draw the line? The BNP are racist, no matter how they try to dress it up. Of course, if they want to go about hating people for their race, they can do that. But voting them into positions of power? The BNP would very gladly introduce policies that would completely destroy any democracy that exists in this country.

I do my best to stay out of political debates, as my knowledge is limited at best. It was just all the "oh you're just saying if you don't like it it's not allowed" stuff was irritating me.
Posted Image

Whodaman!?

#45 dadfad

dadfad

    dadfad

  • Ombudsman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,058 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Donator:Yes, Once
  • Original Name: dadfad

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:32 PM

QUOTE (blueswannabe @ Jun 9 2009, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (dadfad @ Jun 9 2009, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (el_burton @ Jun 9 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (richey @ Jun 9 2009, 05:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE ( Germany in the 1930s)
You can't call it democracy if you throw out an elected party because you don't agree with them.


Say what you like, they were democratically elected. It's what happened once they were in power that should have been stopped (and would be stopped in any major Western nation now).

That's kind of my take on it. Looking at it all, I'm probably against 99.9% of everything this guy stands for (maybe 99.99999999999%), but he was democratically elected. You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth when talking about a democracy, either it is or it isn't. Kind of like being "a little bit pregnant." It's not a democracy if you only think what is "okay" should be allowed. You can't go around saying "Oh, yeah Democracy is great stuff. We're a Democratic nation. Rah-rah Democracy..." and then tack on "... but only if you agree with me."


QUOTE (richey @ Jun 9 2009, 12:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I honestly cannot believe people are arguing with me over this. I'm actually stunned.


(And that's what they said then.)


Because someone disagrees with you about what "should be allowed" in a democracy doesn't mean they don't agree with you that this guy is probably a scum. Like me, I think he has the right to stand because obviously enough people voted for him to do so, but I think I'd hate everything about this guy both politically and personally if I ever met him.

He's probably "the other side of the pendulum." When enough people perceive the political or social "pendulum' has swung too far in one direction, the reaction is usually that many normally "middle of the road" citizens will gravitate to the extreme opposite side. One of the truisms of political and social change.

And you can look at the bright-side. Maybe he'll be like many of our political-hacks over here. Like... oh... Senator Robert Byrd. Like many Democrats if you look back a few years into their past, he used to be a Klu Klux Klan Grand Kleagle (recruiting officer and propagandist) and now he'd shine Obama's shoes (if Obama'd let him laugh.gif ) and spits and sputters and drools all over himself making speeches about reforming immigration to make it easier to come in and get citizenship, etc. So maybe, if like most politicians he finds it helps his popularity and his pocketbook in the long run, even Griffin could change. Hell, he could be a Liberal Socialist ten years from now! laugh.gif


Yes.

QUOTE (mandible @ Jun 9 2009, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm shocked at how self-important some people are being over this.

People only want freedom of speech when everybody says the same things as they do.

I do not support the BNP, but I support their right to exist and stand for election.


Yes, up to a point. Up to the point where the party's existence is infringing upon the rights of others to be able to live freely without being the target of prejudice.


And this is the point where a free society should tread very lightly. It should not be a crime to think, whether good thoughts or evil. Or even speak, good words or evil. It should only be a crime to act in evil. Not to think "I hate those damn Kazahkstanis. I'd like to punch one in the nose." Or even say "I hate those damn Kazahkstanis. I'd like to punch one in the nose." But if you walk up to a Kazahkstani and punch him in the nose, the Code of Law should come down on you hard with both feet. Just as it should if I punched some guy walking down the street in the nose who I never met but I was just in a bad mood and felt like punching somebody.

It's a very slippery slope making a thought or a word a crime instead of an actual deed. Because like the nose of the camel stuck under the tent, once a thought becomes a crime, even a truly malicious thought, it's now only a matter of degree, and the power to punish thought has been granted and established. And its "nose" will come farther and farther into your tent, subject to the whims of those who would control it. And there is little doubt there are those who want to do so. I would guess this Nick Griffin (the very person whose political freedoms we're debating) would be among them. Make it crime to think or say "Those damn Kazahkstanis." and tomorrow it could easily be someone saying "That damned government. We need a change." that's a crime.

The degree of personal freedom of a society is not measured in how much of the acceptible it will allow, but by how much of the unacceptible and offensive it will tolerate.

Un-plugged is not the same as never-was-plugged-in-to-begin-with.

jacksontz.jpg

 

John Jackson -My Teacher and My Old Friend

When the roll is called up yonder he'll be there...


#46 spacecrumbs

spacecrumbs
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,367 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Not there
  • Original Name: spacecrumbs

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:36 PM

QUOTE (dadfad @ Jun 9 2009, 11:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It should not be a crime to think, whether good thoughts or evil. Or even speak, good words or evil. It should only be a crime to act in evil. Not to think "I hate those damn Kazahkstanis. I'd like to punch one in the nose." Or even say "I hate those damn Kazahkstanis. I'd like to punch one in the nose." But if you walk up to a Kazahkstani and punch him in the nose, the Code of Law should come down on you hard with both feet. Just as it should if I punched some guy walking down the street in the nose who I never met but I was just in a bad mood and felt like punching somebody.

It's a very slippery slope making a thought or a word a crime instead of an actual deed. Because like the nose of the camel stuck under the tent, once a thought becomes a crime, even a truly malicious thought, it's now only a matter of degree, and the power to punish thought has been granted and established. And its "nose" will come farther and farther into your tent, subject to the whims of those who would control it. And there is little doubt there are those who want to do so. I would guess this Nick Griffin (the very person whose political freedoms we're debating) would be among them. Make it crime to think or say "Those damn Kazahkstanis." and tomorrow it could easily be someone saying "That damned government. We need a change." that's a crime.


+1

#47 spacecrumbs

spacecrumbs
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,367 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Not there
  • Original Name: spacecrumbs

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:40 PM

Anyway I just signed up to the poll thing. I figured it couldn't hurt.

Edited by spacecrumbs, 09 June 2009 - 02:41 PM.


#48 Mick!

Mick!

    So say we all.

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Omicron Persei 8
  • Original Name: Darke734

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:45 PM

I agree with all of that, but to expand on your example, if someone says "I hate those damn Kazahkstanis. I'd like to punch one in the nose. Would you like to punch one in the nose too? Vote for me and you can punch them in the nose as much as you like", what do we do?

Apparently, vote for them...
Posted Image

Whodaman!?

#49 spacecrumbs

spacecrumbs
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,367 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Not there
  • Original Name: spacecrumbs

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:57 PM

If it's clear they're planning to punch people on the nose then it's a police matter.

#50 mandible

mandible
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,972 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: mandible

Posted 09 June 2009 - 03:28 PM

QUOTE (blueswannabe @ Jun 9 2009, 10:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (mandible @ Jun 9 2009, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm shocked at how self-important some people are being over this.

People only want freedom of speech when everybody says the same things as they do.

I do not support the BNP, but I support their right to exist and stand for election.


Yes, up to a point. Up to the point where the party's existence is infringing upon the rights of others to be able to live freely without being the target of prejudice.



Because other parties would not take advantage of political ignorance by using spin and lies, and making promises they won't keep.

Because other political parties would never be prejudiced... catering to the rich, and abandoning the poor, sending people to their deaths to invade a country and kill innocent civilians.

The BNP is seeking to "defend" the country from what it sees as an economic and cultural invasion. Not to enforce rule on other nations. The majority of their policies are ignorant, poorly thought out, and don't take account of the dolescum culture of white Britons that is truly driving this country into the ground. However, I don't believe that the main parties can take that much of a moral high ground in comparison.

The main difference is the sugar-coating and spin added by the main parties.

In some ways the BNP's crusade can actually be considered more political than the Labour party's. Yes, it's rough, and massively ill-informed, but it's not based on infringing upon the rights of other countries through bloodshed, but thruogh a xenophobic paranoia that we could suffer the same fate as those we have colonized, or tried to colonize for centuries before.


Posted Image

#51 w00dy

w00dy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:alicante
  • Original Name: w00dy

Posted 09 June 2009 - 03:38 PM

the only way to beat people such as the bnp, is to steal thier children - not with social brainwashing (such as is now the trying scoial case, propper, they try so hard to influence our thinkings) - but with love. give a man a fish and he will eat for a day but give him a net, then tell him which side of the boat the fish are on and the ######er will love you for the rest of time. you cannot defeat cain with cain

   ------->Numbers<-------

        ^^latest musics^^

go on give it a listen, it's good.

 


#52 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:15 PM

I haven't said here that we shouldn't let the BNP air their ideas, nor that we should ban them, or that we shouldn't be in a democracy. Yet people here seem to think that I've said that people are only allowed to speak their views if I agree with them... that's not what I'm saying at all.

The ability to campaign against them by signing a petition, basically peaceful protest, is my democratic right, just as much as it is theirs to stand for an election - in fact, more so. The only one here who has argued for banning their existence is Haggis, and he actually has a point. Their very constitution is illegal, simple as that. However, an open debate would be very useful - rather than brushing it under the carpet, we need to challenge the BNP's lies and give people the facts. It's tricky. I support the legislation that could ban them, but I certainly wouldn't want to make them martyrs - and I'd prefer to try to change the minds of those who believe their propaganda. This is a huge issue - they are only a fringe party, sure, but the amount of people that have said to me recently in conversation about the BNP that they "have some good ideas but I don't like all of them" (or words to that effect) has genuinely shocked me. The very things that they stand for are disgusting and a disgrace to their nation. (The irony is that Nick Griffin is a nationalist, and I've never been more proud to be British than when someone smacked that ######er with an egg.)

Saying that I shouldn't be signing this petition because they were democratically elected is ridiculous. Is it undemocratic to sign a petition now? Over 30,000 have signed this - that's many more than voted for them. A democracy doesn't just mean that you get to put a cross in a box every now and again. It doesn't just mean that you have the freedom to talk out of your arse, either. It also means that people have access to information, that we have the open exchange of ideas and debate, and that people are given the facts they require to make an informed choice. I don't know how true it is that "most people that signed the petition probably didn't vote" (I did vote, and I'll give Alex one guess as to who I voted for). But I'd wager that most that voted for BNP candidates aren't in full possession of the facts.

QUOTE (darke)
Is it that simple, though? Yes, people should all definitely be free to feel and think and act however they see fit. However, when the actions of a particular person/group infringes on the human rights of others, don't you have to draw the line? The BNP are racist, no matter how they try to dress it up. Of course, if they want to go about hating people for their race, they can do that. But voting them into positions of power? The BNP would very gladly introduce policies that would completely destroy any democracy that exists in this country.

I do my best to stay out of political debates, as my knowledge is limited at best. It was just all the "oh you're just saying if you don't like it it's not allowed" stuff was irritating me.


Me too. You're spot on.

Spacecrumbs quoted Mill to me. Is that from 'On Liberty'? It's been a while since I read that, but as I understood it, it's central message was basically, do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I have no problem with that at all, but as much as we need to address this threat, we need to remain vigilant, because they may (probably usually do) break hate laws. The idea that we should defend the BNP's 'freedom' because they aren't harming anyone is crazy.

"We have the ability to back up our slogan 'Defend Rights For Whites with well-directed boots and fists... non-whites have no place here at all and we will not rest until every last one has left our land." - Nick Griffin - Member of European Parliament.

QUOTE (el_burton @ Jun 9 2009, 06:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What needs to happen is the major parties need to do something about immigration - illegal immigration, that is. At the moment they're all too scared of appearing racist or politically incorrect to actually tackle the issue, and it needs to be tackled. If they do so, then a lot of the BNP's vote would disappear.


QUOTE (dave cc)
Alex is absolutely spot on. The more that the major parties rufuse to deal with issues like illegal imigration, amongst other things, the more people will vote for the BNP.


I actually could not disagree more here. This is the way that the major parties currently look at it, and I really don't think it's working.

The main reason the right has enjoyed an upsurge of late is a media offensive against the EU and negative headlines about immigration, asylum and terrorism. So people argue that BNP gains mean that the major parties need to tackle the issues, so they come out and say things like "oh, but we ARE doing our best to control immigration, we ARE stopping too many from coming in and swamping this country, we ARE defending our borders, we are sending people home every day, we DO want to provide British jobs for British workers, etc etc." All this does is vindicate the BNP's arguments, and reinforce voters' perception that this is something negative that they really ought to be concerned about. So people remain concerned. The BNP will just say, "well sure, but you're not doing it well enough, we can do it better".

The major parties know the truth - that immigration benefits this country's economy and we'd collapse overnight if we stopped it, and the EU is beneficial - yet they're too scared to say it, because it doesn't make headlines in the right-wing press. What we need is an open debate, and the major parties, especially Labour (who have lacked balls on this for years), to make the case FOR immigration. They're too interested in appearing to look "tough", which as I say, just comes across like the right-wing parties were right all along. Instead of trying to defuse the threat by moving into their space and stealing their policies, just dancing to their tune and doing nothing whatsoever to fight against their lies, I would love it if a high-profile figure would just stand up and say "No. I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this. I've no interest whatsoever in pandering to xenophobia, and leaving the EU, and reducing immigration, because it would be disastrous for this country. The facts are that... (A, B and C). We should be supporting this instead of saying 'bloody foreigners stealing all our jobs etc' because of... (X, Y and Z). It's not true because (etc etc)." There's a huge perception gap that nobody with much influence seems to be doing much to challenge.

As an interesting side note, a survey recently asked people what they knew about asylum seekers/refugees, and funnily enough, found that most people don't know what they're talking about.

http://www.independe...rs-1699213.html
My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#53 Orchestrazia Ardwick

Orchestrazia Ardwick

    The most inept that ever stepped

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 63,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ЯEPUБLIC OF MAИCUИIA
  • Original Name: el_burton

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:20 PM

A lot to digest there, but for starters waaay more than 30,000 people voted for the BNP - they got nearly a million votes nationally in the European elections.

Edited by el_burton, 09 June 2009 - 05:21 PM.

cheryl.gif


#54 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:22 PM

QUOTE (el_burton @ Jun 10 2009, 02:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A lot to digest there, but for starters waaay more than 30,000 people voted for the BNP - they got nearly a million votes nationally in the European elections.


I mean the ones that got elected to the EU Parliament. That's what the petition is about.
My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#55 Orchestrazia Ardwick

Orchestrazia Ardwick

    The most inept that ever stepped

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 63,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ЯEPUБLIC OF MAИCUИIA
  • Original Name: el_burton

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:24 PM

Still wrong, I'm afraid. In the two regions where they got elected, they got over 250,000 votes in total.

cheryl.gif


#56 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:36 PM

QUOTE (el_burton @ Jun 10 2009, 02:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Still wrong, I'm afraid. In the two regions where they got elected, they got over 250,000 votes in total.


Apologies, I just checked and I had misread it. It was the BNP "won by 1200 votes" or whatever, not "won" that many votes. It's the difference. The Greens were only about 0.3% of the vote away from winning. Gutted.
My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#57 spacecrumbs

spacecrumbs
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,367 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Not there
  • Original Name: spacecrumbs

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:50 PM

QUOTE (richey @ Jun 10 2009, 02:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Spacecrumbs quoted Mill to me. Is that from 'On Liberty'? It's been a while since I read that, but as I understood it, it's central message was basically, do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I have no problem with that at all, but as much as we need to address this threat, we need to remain vigilant, because they may (probably usually do) break hate laws. The idea that we should defend the BNP's 'freedom' because they aren't harming anyone is crazy.


Yes, but it's an interpretation. I couldn't find a satisfactory quote.

I don't disagree that we should remain vigilant, they should be treated with every suspicion, but yes we should defend their freedom, as dadfad pointed out it's essential we do. If it seems as though they are causing or planning to cause harm then I would love to see them rendered unable to. I think that would send the perfect message if we had solid proof, but otherwise it merely kills the democratic process and furthers their course by making martyrs of them as you say.

Also, you say you don't want the BNP banned, or anything like that, but you seem to think many people here saying the same thing is crazy. What do you want done?

#58 spacecrumbs

spacecrumbs
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,367 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Not there
  • Original Name: spacecrumbs

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:55 PM

Also, I thought this was potentially quite good news:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/8092235.stm



#59 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 09 June 2009 - 06:05 PM

QUOTE (spacecrumbs @ Jun 10 2009, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (richey @ Jun 10 2009, 02:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Spacecrumbs quoted Mill to me. Is that from 'On Liberty'? It's been a while since I read that, but as I understood it, it's central message was basically, do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I have no problem with that at all, but as much as we need to address this threat, we need to remain vigilant, because they may (probably usually do) break hate laws. The idea that we should defend the BNP's 'freedom' because they aren't harming anyone is crazy.


Yes, but it's an interpretation. I couldn't find a satisfactory quote.

I don't disagree that we should remain vigilant, they should be treated with every suspicion, but yes we should defend their freedom, as dadfad pointed out it's essential we do. If it seems as though they are causing or planning to cause harm then I would love to see them rendered unable to. I think that would send the perfect message if we had solid proof, but otherwise it merely kills the democratic process and furthers their course by making martyrs of them as you say.

Also, you say you don't want the BNP banned, or anything like that, but you seem to think many people here saying the same thing is crazy. What do you want done?


I meant it's crazy to say they're not harming anyone: of course they are (hence the aggressive Griffin quotation).

The tricky thing is that in the UK we have a law against "inciting racial hatred" (and against racial discrimination). They have the freedom to stand, sure, and to speak, but with those certain limitations. The problem of course is that by definition, the BNP racially discriminate and incite racial hatred, they do so to their very core.

What do I want? Their political extinction. In other words, I don't have a problem with their existence, but I want their vote to be negligible. Dickheads like that will always exist, but they don't have to be resurgent. I want them to be a laughing stock, because the vast majority of Britain understands the contribution that immigrants and those of other ethnic backgrounds make, economically as well as culturally, and Britain's history as a melting pot of Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Romans, Celts, etc etc, and that immigration has always happened and has always benefited us, and to understand that the BNP's talk of stopping this to defend white "indigenous British people" is utterly ridiculous. We're only going to get there with an open debate and challenging racism whenever we hear it. If I hear a friend/colleague saying something racist I don't let them get away with it.
My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#60 spacecrumbs

spacecrumbs
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,367 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Not there
  • Original Name: spacecrumbs

Posted 09 June 2009 - 06:25 PM

QUOTE (richey @ Jun 10 2009, 03:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (spacecrumbs @ Jun 10 2009, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (richey @ Jun 10 2009, 02:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Spacecrumbs quoted Mill to me. Is that from 'On Liberty'? It's been a while since I read that, but as I understood it, it's central message was basically, do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I have no problem with that at all, but as much as we need to address this threat, we need to remain vigilant, because they may (probably usually do) break hate laws. The idea that we should defend the BNP's 'freedom' because they aren't harming anyone is crazy.


Yes, but it's an interpretation. I couldn't find a satisfactory quote.

I don't disagree that we should remain vigilant, they should be treated with every suspicion, but yes we should defend their freedom, as dadfad pointed out it's essential we do. If it seems as though they are causing or planning to cause harm then I would love to see them rendered unable to. I think that would send the perfect message if we had solid proof, but otherwise it merely kills the democratic process and furthers their course by making martyrs of them as you say.

Also, you say you don't want the BNP banned, or anything like that, but you seem to think many people here saying the same thing is crazy. What do you want done?


I meant it's crazy to say they're not harming anyone: of course they are (hence the aggressive Griffin quotation).

The tricky thing is that in the UK we have a law against "inciting racial hatred" (and against racial discrimination). They have the freedom to stand, sure, and to speak, but with those certain limitations. The problem of course is that by definition, the BNP racially discriminate and incite racial hatred, they do so to their very core.

What do I want? Their political extinction. In other words, I don't have a problem with their existence, but I want their vote to be negligible. Dickheads like that will always exist, but they don't have to be resurgent. I want them to be a laughing stock, because the vast majority of Britain understands the contribution that immigrants and those of other ethnic backgrounds make, economically as well as culturally, and Britain's history as a melting pot of Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Romans, Celts, etc etc, and that immigration has always happened and has always benefited us, and to understand that the BNP's talk of stopping this to defend white "indigenous British people" is utterly ridiculous. We're only going to get there with an open debate and challenging racism whenever we hear it. If I hear a friend/colleague saying something racist I don't let them get away with it.


I think free speech should be just that. It's too valuable to put limits on, despite what can happen.

I always considered them a laughing stock or a good news story for everyone to read and feel better about themselves. I was shocked when they won one MEP seat, amazed when they won two. Like I said I signed the petition, but I don't see much point in it. I'd do something else if I knew what.

Without meaning to turn this into a discussion about my beliefs. I don't have strong views on immigration because I don't believe in land ownership or the welfare state, but I generally agree with you that it's a good thing. I was surprised at the number of parties available for me to vote for that were anti-EU in the elections.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Please consider donating to GuitarZone.com.
With more and more people using ad blocking add-ons for browsers, ad revenue has plummeted.
If you can spare even US$5 it would mean a lot to help pay for GZ's monthly server bill.
Thank you to all. Cheers! --Rob



Method #1: PayPal



Click 'Donate' above
to donate with any
major credit card or
existing PayPal funds.


E-mail on record with PayPal
[ ]



Method #2: Bitcoin


Option A )  Scan Bitcoin QR Code


Scan above box with mobile phone, or click...



Option B )  Copy and Paste Bitcoin Address

  13NA7exoZVPGBAxnKXcQAz35JQ5PvnhYDE  


Copy above address and paste into Bitcoin app...



Learn more about Bitcoin...