RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Starbuck09 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:16:23 PM)

The B.N.P. party has been attacked consistently when it's members have been in public. The list of membership was private and it's publication was a terrrible, low and shameful blow to democracy in my country.
Of course it is okay if the B.N.P. are VOTED into power that is the whole point of a democracy, who are you to decide what ideas are up for election? If the only way we can control what people think is through violence what type of government would we then have? Don't you understand that it is never leaders that are problem's but the people. You think hitler would have got into power if Germany had been populated by liberal democrats? If the majority of people want to vote for the b.n.p. then that is their perrogative and our failing in persuading them not to.



Starbuck09 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:17:46 PM)

 Bu so far they have played fair apocalypto. If they were to attempt to seize power by force I would be the first to calfor their destruction.



Politesub53 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:20:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: numuncular

thats where its an aggravating factor though. I'm talking about nick griffin standing up and saying islam is vile, which he can do (and when a prosecution was attempted it failed) whereas he cant say that black people are vile.



Im not sure why you insist he can say one thing about Islam but not about black people, considering the law is there for you to read.

Getting onto Griffins comments, he was given two trials in 2006 and found not guilty at the second one. All this due to an undercover sting by the BBC which you accuse of giving him the time of day.



Politesub53 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:21:48 PM)

One point being missed here is the BNP got less votes than in the last European election. They only got a bigger percentage due to a smaller turnout.



Starbuck09 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:23:06 PM)

 That is a very good point politesub and I think that that is far more shameful and threatening to democracy than the B.N.P.



Politesub53 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:27:06 PM)

We all know they wont do anywhere near as good in the general election Starbuck. As I have said already, this is just a protest vote.



LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:28:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09
If the majority of people want to vote for the b.n.p. then that is their perrogative and our failing in persuading them not to.


Exactly, and stunts like the one today do not dissuade sympathy for these violent thugs but rather encourage it. What UAF, Antifa et al must ask themselves is, if violent confrontation with people who like that sort of thing has not worked so far, how exactly is it meant to work now, with the TV cameras running?

And as for the refusal of the mainstream to debate them - the impression is that the mainstream has nothing to counter them, so they must be in the right. This refusal to counter them has left them a vacuum in which to grow and we now see the result. Dismissing the BNP as racist is the popular line of course - yet when the ordinary person goes to their website, he finds no evidence of this except as a distortion. The impression then is that the mainstream are using the racism excuse to avoid talking about and resolving the problems of ordinary people for which they voted BNP as the only party apparently interested - and ordinary people are hardened to regular supporters as a result.

Heaven help us if what we've seen so far is the best answer we can come up with

E



Starbuck09 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:30:46 PM)

 I completely agree with Ellen and politesub on this.



Apocalypso -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:42:05 PM)

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Exactly, and stunts like the one today do not dissuade sympathy for these violent thugs but rather encourage it. What UAF, Antifa et al must ask themselves is, if violent confrontation with people who like that sort of thing has not worked so far, how exactly is it meant to work now, with the TV cameras running?

While I'd agree with you that the current battleground is for hearts and minds (as I've made clear, my interest is in effective strategy), you're missing out on why that is.

It's because of the work done by the now defunct Anti Fascist Action, which lead the BNP's then deputy leader Tony Lecomber to announce in 1994:

"'the battle to control the streets is over and there will be no more meetings, marches, punch-ups".

So, violence has worked previously.  That doesn't mean its the right tactic in the current situation necessarily.  But why should we base that decision on anything other than effectiveness?



LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:47:56 PM)

violence might work when your opponent is clearly identifiable as a far right nutjob (even if the far right nutjob finds it all terrific fun) - but Griffin has been very clever in dissociating the BNP from that image. today is an example of how violence now looks - and it looks bad when theyre dressed smartly like respectable citizens and in public at least convey themselves as such, and you look like the sort of people that middle England crosses the street to avoid, and behave that way too.

E



numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:48:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: numuncular

thats where its an aggravating factor though. I'm talking about nick griffin standing up and saying islam is vile, which he can do (and when a prosecution was attempted it failed) whereas he cant say that black people are vile.



Im not sure why you insist he can say one thing about Islam but not about black people, considering the law is there for you to read.

Getting onto Griffins comments, he was given two trials in 2006 and found not guilty at the second one. All this due to an undercover sting by the BBC which you accuse of giving him the time of day.


I have read what you posted, though unlike you I actually understand it, a hate crime is simply an aggravating factor to another crime, eg if you assault someone and have shouted "paki" whilst doing it the common assualt becomes a racially aggravated offence and the sentence would reflect this. Saying that Islam is vile isnt covered by that law unless you were smashing a muslims car or skull whilst doing it.
It is however an offence to merely say in public that black people are vile, covered by a completely different law.
that is why the bnp target islam and not black people.



Starbuck09 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:48:51 PM)

 Of course violence works but that doesn't make it right apocalypso. I could defeat the B.N.P. if i was in power by sending all it's members to concentration camps but that still wouldn't make it acceptable behaviour for a democracy.



numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:50:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

violence might work when your opponent is clearly identifiable as a far right nutjob (even if the far right nutjob finds it all terrific fun) - but Griffin has been very clever in dissociating the BNP from that image. today is an example of how violence now looks - and it looks bad when theyre dressed smartly like respectable citizens and in public at least convey themselves as such, and you look like the sort of people that middle England crosses the street to avoid, and behave that way too.

E


and he's able to be clever in that respect because he lies on tv and gets away with it. so surely it makes sense to stop him speaking on tv wherever possible.
todays appearance was him and the ex NF leader stood next to him complaining about the unfair press they were getting and how the establishment is out to get them and smear them. does anyone think they'd have answered any questions after honestly?



LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 4:54:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: numuncular

and he's able to be clever in that respect because he lies on tv and gets away with it. so surely it makes sense to stop him speaking on tv wherever possible.
todays appearance was him and the ex NF leader stood next to him complaining about the unfair press they were getting and how the establishment is out to get them and smear them. does anyone think they'd have answered any questions after honestly?



then it is up to our mainstream politicians to indicate the lies and demonstrate why they are lies

he's been elected, alongside that troll, so like it or not he's going to get a lot of airtime by comparison to before, and a lot of your and my tax money to finance him and his merry band.

we should also not forget the lesson learned from the ridiculous treatment of Gerry Adams (the dubbing over with a silly voice) in the 1980s - which served only to harden support for the IRA at that time even amongst more moderate Republicans.

E



numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 5:19:32 PM)

a pleasant surprise:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2472738/Britain-under-the-British-National-Party.html



LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 5:39:13 PM)

Another own goal? And in print this time?

We all know what the BNP's ideology and true policy is from the rank and file up to the leadership - the problem is that their official literature doesnt report it. "Not proven" I think they'd say in a Scottish court.

This plays right into the hands of the BNP complaining about how the media misrepresents them and tells lies and smears about them (the intended subject of today's aborted press briefing). Most people are not going to go to the effort of researching any further than the BNP website after all, which is pretty benign all in all.

Instead of concentrating on this sort of tripe, the media and mainstream would do far better to understand that most of the people who voted BNP and many of its membership did not vote or join because they are racists, but because the media and the mainstream have ignored and continue to ignore the problems and concerns of ordinary people - and instead deal with those concerns, which are not race but everyday things like housing, employment, law and order et al.

This isnt difficult - debate them, dont talk about racism its presence or absence - debate them on the real reasons for their recent successes!

E



numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 5:57:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

This isnt difficult - debate them, dont talk about racism its presence or absence - debate them on the real reasons for their recent successes!

E


personally I think their recent success is because theres 940,000 racist cunts in this country. protest or not I dont think anyone could vote BNP and not be racist.
and its impossible to debate them on their views since they lie about them and are disciplined enough to continue to do so, the best you can hope for is mark collet style exposé but even that person is just sidelined and they go on with their lies



LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:06:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: numuncular

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

This isnt difficult - debate them, dont talk about racism its presence or absence - debate them on the real reasons for their recent successes!

E


personally I think their recent success is because theres 940,000 racist cunts in this country. protest or not I dont think anyone could vote BNP and not be racist.



Then I am afraid that you are misguided in that notion, and that will simply not help.

Also consider, if one brands them all "racist cxxts", how will one bring them back to sanity? Rather, knowing the British character, they will resist such efforts.

We must resist all extremes in this, or risk becoming that which we would truly resist, whether from right or left.

And we must use this opportunity to change things for the better as a whole - and we're not talking about MPs expenses on that.

E



numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:20:24 PM)

do you really think that anyone who isnt a racist would vote bnp?



LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:23:26 PM)

I know so

on the other hand, anyone who is a racist would undoubtedly vote BNP

but the two ought not be mixed up as one
E



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.3115234