RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech

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

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

Message

numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:29:05 PM)
and what is this "non-racist"s justification for voting bnp? because I'm sure I dont know anyone so stupid they dont know bnp is racist. and frankly I think voting bnp automatically makes you one.

LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:36:47 PM)
like I've said, many have joined and many more voted because of matters regarding which they dont feel the mainstream listens to them; the mainstream can write it off as being about the unpopularity of Brown or Labour in general, or the expenses thing, but these are red herrings. The success of the BNP is not due to rising racism but because they have been listening to people's concerns and then given the impression back that these are matters on which the BNP echoes their views. E

kittinSol -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:36:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: numuncular a pleasant surprise: http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2472738/Britain-under-the-British-National-Party.html It's the Scottish Sun, that's why [:(] .

kittinSol -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:39:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen like I've said, many have joined and many more voted because of matters regarding which they dont feel the mainstream listens to them; Which matters, LadyE? Everybody knows what the rhetoric of the far-right consists of: finger-pointing at 'the others'. People vote for far-right parties because it offers the easiest way out: a final solution.

numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:40:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen like I've said, many have joined and many more voted because of matters regarding which they dont feel the mainstream listens to them; the mainstream can write it off as being about the unpopularity of Brown or Labour in general, or the expenses thing, but these are red herrings. The success of the BNP is not due to rising racism but because they have been listening to people's concerns and then given the impression back that these are matters on which the BNP echoes their views. E so are these people so naive that they dont know bnp is racist?

LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/9/2009 6:53:07 PM)
of course theyre naive, and gullible too! we have to understand that the bulk of the population are simply not as sophisticated in their thinking and deliberations as the self selected group we might find here - look which newspapers sell best - The Sun, for goodness sake and others like it. Look what passes as entertainment on TV and how documentary programming has been down browed or dropped altogether to "meet the market". there is a hard core of racists in there of course-and then another sizeable group who dont care for or against racism, but I am sure as sure can be that the bulk of them are not racists and wouldnt necessarily understand what that means anyway. Yes, I sound like an elitist dont I? I dont apologize for it. when these people tell the BNP their legitimate concerns about housing, employment, education health etc and the BNP echo this back to them - exactly like the mainstream doesnt, of course thats attractive. Especially by comparison to the mainstream whose response is something along the lines of "dont be so silly peasants" E

Politesub53 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 1:57:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: numuncular I have read what you posted, though unlike you I actually understand it Patronising me doesnt make you right. quote: 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. If you have a link for such a law, why dont you post it ? Griffins trial that I mentioned earlier was for calling Islam " a wicked and vicious faith " He was tried for using words intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. Which you constantly claim cant be done. The Police and CPS took him to court where he was found not guilty by a jury, as far as I know still the cornerstone of the UK justice system. While I am at it, he has also been tried and convicted for remarks denying the holocaust.

stella41b -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 2:43:00 AM)
There's such a thing as 'tactical voting', however unfortunately we have sections of the media who are only too willing to involve the numpties in our society in tactical voting. You don't need to be a racist to vote for the BNP, as the party has managed to garner support from some of the 'yuppie offspring' who don't give a monkey's about anyone but themselves and who are against anyone who are not like them.

numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 7:49:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 If you have a link for such a law, why dont you post it ? if I had been using links to back up my points previously then it would be fair enough to expect that... arguments dont neccessarily require hotlinks! but since you asked nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_racial_hatred specifically doesnt mention relegion. and you'll notice that the law that then does include relgious hatred came after his offence, griffins defence was that religion wasnt a race. he got off. the law was then amended.

Starbuck09 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 8:16:05 AM)
I think a point is being missed here, the motivations of those who vote for the B.N.P. are irrelevant they choose to do so and in a democracy where so few vote more power to them for exercising their power. The question is not why are they voting for this party but why are they not being persuaded to vote for someone else.

Marc2b -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 9:01:24 AM)
Okay, I don’t know the details of the BMP but, taking the word of what folks have written here, they sound like a serious pack of assholes. There are two things about freedom of speech that I think is important to point out. First, if you deny somebody their right to free speech simply because you don’t like what they say, then you have no basis in which to assert your own right – you have already acknowledged that it is okay to deny the right to free speech based upon whims and personal opinion. Rest assured there is somebody out there who would like to shut you up. Second, one of the beautiful things about freedom of speech is that it makes it easier to spot the assholes. LadyEllen is quite right that screaming and throwing things is the wrong response. It just makes the assholes look good. The next time the BMP (or the Klan or any pack of racist, hate filled, dickheads) hold a rally I would recommend a different response. The protestors, instead of shouting should gather around them and then all turn their backs upon them. Say nothing, do nothing, just keep their backs turned toward the assholes. That will send a much more powerful message, not just to the racists but to any third parties who are watching, be it in person or on the news.

Starbuck09 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 9:12:41 AM)
No Marc I think that tactic is equally flawed. The B.N.P. are no fools they are for the most part far more politically savvy then their opponenents. Where they differ is that they have some fairly extreme beliefs [along with many reasonable ones] that make them attractive to lots of people. [I think it's worth pointing out here that BNP got a million votes in the european election that's a quarter of the conservative vote not just fringe lunatics.] The only way these people will be dissuaded from voting for the BNP is if they see someone else with better arguments or solutions who can counter the bnp's views succesfully. I loathe the labour party but if all the opposition could sum up in the way of argument was to simply ignore them whenever they debated I would not vote fro them in a million years.

Marc2b -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 3:15:44 PM)
quote: No Marc I think that tactic is equally flawed. The B.N.P. are no fools they are for the most part far more politically savvy then their opponenents. Where they differ is that they have some fairly extreme beliefs [along with many reasonable ones] that make them attractive to lots of people. [I think it's worth pointing out here that BNP got a million votes in the european election that's a quarter of the conservative vote not just fringe lunatics.] The only way these people will be dissuaded from voting for the BNP is if they see someone else with better arguments or solutions who can counter the bnp's views succesfully. I loathe the labour party but if all the opposition could sum up in the way of argument was to simply ignore them whenever they debated I would not vote fro them in a million years. I'm not advocating never debating them in appropriate forums - certainly you have to counter their arguments. When they hold their rallys, however, their show pieces - that's a different story. As LadyEllen pointed out, if you try to shout them down, if your hurl things at them, then they come off looking sympathetic. People have a tendency to feel sorry for someone who looks like they are being ganged up on. A deliberate "we are ignoring you," gesture sends a message that what they are saying isn't worth listening to - which I think would be particularly effective if they are spouting racist crap.

Politesub53 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 3:27:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: numuncular if I had been using links to back up my points previously then it would be fair enough to expect that... arguments dont neccessarily require hotlinks! but since you asked nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_racial_hatred specifically doesnt mention relegion. and you'll notice that the law that then does include relgious hatred came after his offence, griffins defence was that religion wasnt a race. he got off. the law was then amended. You made the following statement, which i said wasnt true. quote: 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. You are right, the prosecution failed, but he was tried for making inflamatory statements. Laws have now been introduced to make prosecution easier. So your ORIGINAL standpoint, that he cant be tried for saying things about Islam, patently wasnt true. How hard can this be to understand ? Edited for spelling.

numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 3:43:27 PM)
yes I didnt realise the law had been changed so its a bit odd that he still does it. we both got things wrong, oh what a terrible day.

Politesub53 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 3:46:22 PM)
Another point is that even if tried under current laws, intent to stir up hatred needs to be proved. ( from my understanding of things ) That could be nigh on impossible.

numuncular -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/10/2009 6:08:55 PM)
I got stopped for "suspicion of intent" (to go to an illegal party) once!

Jack45 -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/12/2009 12:18:24 PM)
Looks like the Democrats in the Congress here will pass a "Hate Crimes" law that will, without a doubt, be extended to speech. Just like in old Stalin's day. Silencing people is not a good idea.

LadyEllen -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/12/2009 5:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jack45 Looks like the Democrats in the Congress here will pass a "Hate Crimes" law that will, without a doubt, be extended to speech. Just like in old Stalin's day. Silencing people is not a good idea. I'd be interested in hearing which statutes of the USSR might have constituted laws that had the same intent and effect as the hate crime laws being considered in the US and/or in place over here in the UK? Unless of course youre merely trying to conflate the politics of Obama with those of Stalin for some reason and/or youre confused about the nature of hate crime laws? No one is being silenced, apart from those who see no problem in singling out groups for generalised vilification and/or violence for no other reason than their difference. E

Apocalypso -> RE: the BNP, the UAF and free speech (6/13/2009 4:47:01 AM)
While the group behind it is possibly too radical for most, this analysis of the results is still worth reading- http://www.iwca.info/?p=10141

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875