Should extreme political groups be allowed?
0
I think I just need reassuring...
Just as a bit of an intro for those not in the know, The British National Party are Nazis. Here's some further info (wiki):
In the wake of scandals involving ruling members of Parliament, The British National Party and others like UKIP are gaining a number of seats on local councils; as if this weren't bad enough, they are set to get a member of European Parliament, likely their swine of a leader Nick Griffin. Then again, I am aware of the majority opinion about free speech, and much of the popularity they are set to achieve is rather through abstaining from voting than physical votes. All the major parties and publications denounce them, but people want change, and with the high proportion of immigrants in this country (a lot of skilled workers, doctors etc) and the 'war on terror' people are regressing to Nazi ideals. I've seen arguments about them in live streams, on news stories and in forums...I just want to go abroad for a while and hope it blows over tbh. :P
So, should they be allowed tv broadcasts and publicity like the other parties, or even to exist?
Just as a bit of an intro for those not in the know, The British National Party are Nazis. Here's some further info (wiki):
- only allows white members
- according to its constitution, the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." The BNP also proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."
- the BNP asserts that there are biological racial differences that determine the behaviour and character of individuals of different races, although it also claims that it does not regard whites as superior to other ethnic groups. The party claims that preference for one's own ethnicity is a part of human nature.
- the BNP proposes to reintroduce corporal punishment, and to make capital punishment available for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers. In addition to increasing military defence spending, the BNP plans to reintroduce compulsory national service. The BNP proposes that citizens should keep a rifle and ammunition in their homes. It proposes "to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire [sic] as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles"
- the BNP, its former leaders and present leader, Nick Griffin, have promoted anti-semitism and Holocaust denial or revisionism in the past. In 1996, writing in his own publication, The Rune, Griffin stated that:
I am well aware that orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into soup and lampshades. I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria.
The following year, during a Cook Report documentary he stated:
There is no doubt that hundreds, probably thousands of Jews were shot to death in Eastern Europe, because they were rightly or wrongly seen as communists or potential partisan supporters. That was awful. But this nonsense about gas chambers is exposed as a total lie.
- the BNP is opposed to allowing veteran British Army Gurkhas the right of settlement in the United Kingdom. On 12 May 2009, in an radio broadcast on BBC's Five Live, the BNP's leader, Nick Griffin, told presenter Nicky Campbell that on the issue of allowing retired Gurkhas the right to settle in Britain: "We don't think the most overcrowded country in Europe, can realistically say, 'Look, you can all come and all your relatives.' Griffin went on to say, "When the Gurkhas signed up - frankly as mercenaries - they expected a pension which would allow them to live well in their own country."
- its head of legal affairs, Lee Barnes, wrote on the party's website about the 2006 Lebanon War: "As a Nationalist I can say that I support Israel 100% in their dispute with Hezbollah. In fact, I hope they wipe Hezbollah off the Lebanese map and bomb them until they leave large greasy craters in the cities where their Islamic extremist cantons of terror once stood."
- according to its constitution, the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." The BNP also proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."
- the BNP asserts that there are biological racial differences that determine the behaviour and character of individuals of different races, although it also claims that it does not regard whites as superior to other ethnic groups. The party claims that preference for one's own ethnicity is a part of human nature.
- the BNP proposes to reintroduce corporal punishment, and to make capital punishment available for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers. In addition to increasing military defence spending, the BNP plans to reintroduce compulsory national service. The BNP proposes that citizens should keep a rifle and ammunition in their homes. It proposes "to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire [sic] as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles"
- the BNP, its former leaders and present leader, Nick Griffin, have promoted anti-semitism and Holocaust denial or revisionism in the past. In 1996, writing in his own publication, The Rune, Griffin stated that:
I am well aware that orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into soup and lampshades. I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria.
The following year, during a Cook Report documentary he stated:
There is no doubt that hundreds, probably thousands of Jews were shot to death in Eastern Europe, because they were rightly or wrongly seen as communists or potential partisan supporters. That was awful. But this nonsense about gas chambers is exposed as a total lie.
- the BNP is opposed to allowing veteran British Army Gurkhas the right of settlement in the United Kingdom. On 12 May 2009, in an radio broadcast on BBC's Five Live, the BNP's leader, Nick Griffin, told presenter Nicky Campbell that on the issue of allowing retired Gurkhas the right to settle in Britain: "We don't think the most overcrowded country in Europe, can realistically say, 'Look, you can all come and all your relatives.' Griffin went on to say, "When the Gurkhas signed up - frankly as mercenaries - they expected a pension which would allow them to live well in their own country."
- its head of legal affairs, Lee Barnes, wrote on the party's website about the 2006 Lebanon War: "As a Nationalist I can say that I support Israel 100% in their dispute with Hezbollah. In fact, I hope they wipe Hezbollah off the Lebanese map and bomb them until they leave large greasy craters in the cities where their Islamic extremist cantons of terror once stood."
In the wake of scandals involving ruling members of Parliament, The British National Party and others like UKIP are gaining a number of seats on local councils; as if this weren't bad enough, they are set to get a member of European Parliament, likely their swine of a leader Nick Griffin. Then again, I am aware of the majority opinion about free speech, and much of the popularity they are set to achieve is rather through abstaining from voting than physical votes. All the major parties and publications denounce them, but people want change, and with the high proportion of immigrants in this country (a lot of skilled workers, doctors etc) and the 'war on terror' people are regressing to Nazi ideals. I've seen arguments about them in live streams, on news stories and in forums...I just want to go abroad for a while and hope it blows over tbh. :P
So, should they be allowed tv broadcasts and publicity like the other parties, or even to exist?
0
To me Extreme Political Groups are like Religious Extremists. They are all enforcing some sort of law about god or ethics or anything. Political Groups shouldn't be taken down though. IMO though Religious Extremists do need to be restricted
Edit: Extreme Political groups do need to be restricted on there actions but not there ideas.
Edit: Extreme Political groups do need to be restricted on there actions but not there ideas.
0
Granted I'm from the United States, so my opinion doesn't really hold water. However, I think they should have the right to exist and not to be censored in anyway. People just have to hope they understand the potential ramifications of supporting a party like that. Ideally they wouldn't, but if they do and the party manages to gain power than that's good for them (albeit not for too many others.)
That was very idealistic of me, but I still like to think things can operate that way.
I will admit though, as I even say that there are several activist groups that I wish didn't exist and I would give anything in the world for them to be disbanded by one method or another. Personal opinion ends up clouding a person's judgment every time, and to say that it doesn't is deluding one's self.
That was very idealistic of me, but I still like to think things can operate that way.
I will admit though, as I even say that there are several activist groups that I wish didn't exist and I would give anything in the world for them to be disbanded by one method or another. Personal opinion ends up clouding a person's judgment every time, and to say that it doesn't is deluding one's self.
0
No problem, all opinions are welcome. Doesn't have to specifically refer to the BNP, it's just an example relevant to me.
I generally agree that ideas shouldn't be censored, but the problem is that they get all this airtime from organisations the public don't like, and people are only getting the basic messages. A lot of people want immigration to stop, but don't stop to consider that the BNP or UKIP might be hapless in governing the country. The fact that the flaws of mainstream parties are being aired so much is also detracting from the good things that people take for granted. I think, to be honest, that at least as long as public opinion towards and confidence in politics is so low, that these parties should not be voting options.
I generally agree that ideas shouldn't be censored, but the problem is that they get all this airtime from organisations the public don't like, and people are only getting the basic messages. A lot of people want immigration to stop, but don't stop to consider that the BNP or UKIP might be hapless in governing the country. The fact that the flaws of mainstream parties are being aired so much is also detracting from the good things that people take for granted. I think, to be honest, that at least as long as public opinion towards and confidence in politics is so low, that these parties should not be voting options.
0
doswillrule, did you see the guardian cartoon on the BNP and the expense scandal? (Rowson I think, who is a genius in my eyes) I'm no fan of the guardian, but it summed it up pretty nicely.
I've been following the obliteration of labour in the county elections and the rise of BNP/UKIP pretty closely. To me, though, from an outsider's perspective, the BNP isn't all that dangerous by itself. They'll garner (and already have) the vote of those who want to slap labour in the face for the expenses frauds, those who are dissatisfied with the "establishment" (and perhaps rightfully so). Their martial rhetorics and self-presentation may be more unsettling at first than the tory or new-labour style chest-beating (although "seas of blood" wasn't so nice and squeaky either). But on the other hand, the BNP can hardly hope to gain the majority over prolonged periods with such outlandish demands, it tends to scare people off, too.
No, the BNP by itself isn't going to amount to much. The much bigger problem is that the BNP's demands will cause the rest of the spectrum to travel even more to the right, because they want to one-up the BNP's outlandish demands by being "more catholic than the pope". That's a huge issue, especially with labour and the tories; the LibDems (as much as I revere some of them, such as the Lady Chilthorne Domer) don't and never will amount to much. The tories have already incorporated some of the BNP rhetoric under IDS and Howard; and "new laba'ath" and their taste for authoritarianism go in the same direction. Remember Howard's campaign against immigrants and travellers? That was an attempt to encroach on BNP turf, and it was the same under the "quiet man".
And that's why outlawing the BNP wouldn't help; their irate rhetorics and outlandish demands will continue to live on, even if you ban the party. Instead, the major players (tories/labour) need to find a different strategy to deal with right-wing populism. Neither the currently popular strategy of simply encroaching on rightest-wing territory, as Sarkozy's UMP does, nor the briefly popular "cordon sanitaire" Ã la Belgium will work.
I've been following the obliteration of labour in the county elections and the rise of BNP/UKIP pretty closely. To me, though, from an outsider's perspective, the BNP isn't all that dangerous by itself. They'll garner (and already have) the vote of those who want to slap labour in the face for the expenses frauds, those who are dissatisfied with the "establishment" (and perhaps rightfully so). Their martial rhetorics and self-presentation may be more unsettling at first than the tory or new-labour style chest-beating (although "seas of blood" wasn't so nice and squeaky either). But on the other hand, the BNP can hardly hope to gain the majority over prolonged periods with such outlandish demands, it tends to scare people off, too.
No, the BNP by itself isn't going to amount to much. The much bigger problem is that the BNP's demands will cause the rest of the spectrum to travel even more to the right, because they want to one-up the BNP's outlandish demands by being "more catholic than the pope". That's a huge issue, especially with labour and the tories; the LibDems (as much as I revere some of them, such as the Lady Chilthorne Domer) don't and never will amount to much. The tories have already incorporated some of the BNP rhetoric under IDS and Howard; and "new laba'ath" and their taste for authoritarianism go in the same direction. Remember Howard's campaign against immigrants and travellers? That was an attempt to encroach on BNP turf, and it was the same under the "quiet man".
And that's why outlawing the BNP wouldn't help; their irate rhetorics and outlandish demands will continue to live on, even if you ban the party. Instead, the major players (tories/labour) need to find a different strategy to deal with right-wing populism. Neither the currently popular strategy of simply encroaching on rightest-wing territory, as Sarkozy's UMP does, nor the briefly popular "cordon sanitaire" Ã la Belgium will work.
0
gibbous wrote...
doswillrule, did you see the guardian cartoon on the BNP and the expense scandal? (Rowson I think, who is a genius in my eyes) I'm no fan of the guardian, but it summed it up pretty nicely.I didn't, and annoyingly I couldn't see it on the site. I tend only to read the Guardian when I find one on my daily train journey, which in the South East isn't often.
I've been following the obliteration of labour in the county elections and the rise of BNP/UKIP pretty closely. To me, though, from an outsider's perspective, the BNP isn't all that dangerous by itself. They'll garner (and already have) the vote of those who want to slap labour in the face for the expenses frauds, those who are dissatisfied with the "establishment" (and perhaps rightfully so). Their martial rhetorics and self-presentation may be more unsettling at first than the tory or new-labour style chest-beating (although "seas of blood" wasn't so nice and squeaky either). But on the other hand, the BNP can hardly hope to gain the majority over prolonged periods with such outlandish demands, it tends to scare people off, too.
There are a couple of things that worry me here. Firstly, the amount that the BNP/UKIP are being discussed instilling interest and doubts in people's minds; if anything, UKIP are more dangerous as a middle ground - nationalists who don't want to look racist. Second is Nick Griffin - he has adapted their policies a number of times to reasonable effect. As soon as he came to power he diverted their attention from the Jews to Muslims in accordance with the times, and then worked to gain support among Jews and Jewish groups. Unfortunately he isn't stupid, and whilst not in the league of Hitler (for example) in that sense, I think he and his officials are more than capable of manipulating a situation like this.
No, the BNP by itself isn't going to amount to much. The much bigger problem is that the BNP's demands will cause the rest of the spectrum to travel even more to the right, because they want to one-up the BNP's outlandish demands by being "more catholic than the pope". That's a huge issue, especially with labour and the tories; the LibDems (as much as I revere some of them, such as the Lady Chilthorne Domer) don't and never will amount to much. The tories have already incorporated some of the BNP rhetoric under IDS and Howard; and "new laba'ath" and their taste for authoritarianism go in the same direction. Remember Howard's campaign against immigrants and travellers? That was an attempt to encroach on BNP turf, and it was the same under the "quiet man".
I know what you mean. I'm labour through-and-through, but am becoming increasingly frustrated with the party, could never vote tory, and the Lib Dems have other policy problems, Clegg is uninspiring and you can't see them getting in under any circumstances. It's a bit of a joke.
And that's why outlawing the BNP wouldn't help; their irate rhetorics and outlandish demands will continue to live on, even if you ban the party. Instead, the major players (tories/labour) need to find a different strategy to deal with right-wing populism. Neither the currently popular strategy of simply encroaching on rightest-wing territory, as Sarkozy's UMP does, nor the briefly popular "cordon sanitaire" Ã la Belgium will work.
Certainly; I just hope that they take some time to specifically counter it before the general election, at least rather than the current vein of appeasement.
0
doswillrule wrote...
I didn't, and annoyingly I couldn't see it on the site. I tend only to read the Guardian when I find one on my daily train journey, which in the South East isn't often.Found it, it's actually Riddell, not Rowson...my apologies to Mr. Rowson.
Spoiler:
PS: I don't read the guardian either, just Rowson's cartoons. The rest of it is the usual journo shod, as exemplified by that incredible "Knox can't be guilty of murder...because...because...she's female!" piece.
There are a couple of things that worry me here. Firstly, the amount that the BNP/UKIP are being discussed instilling interest and doubts in people's minds; if anything, UKIP are more dangerous as a middle ground - nationalists who don't want to look racist. Second is that Nick Griffin isn't stupid - he has adapted their policies a number of times to reasonable effect. As soon as he came to power he diverted their attention from the Jews to Muslims in accordance with the times, and then worked to gain support among Jews and Jewish groups. Unfortunately he isn't stupid, and whilst not in the league of Hitler (for example) in that sense, I think he and his officials are more than capable of manipulating a situation like this.
To some extent I agree. The far larger potential I see in the UKIP though is their pandering to nostalgia. They're constantly playing the record of the quaint Britain with red brick houses, white fences, neat gardens and a happy and rosy John Bull in the midst of it. I think that strikes quite a chord with people, when juxtaposed to the demons of globalization, EU, ... you name it. And people don't have to feel bad about being "racist", because the UKIP isn't! It just wants good old 1950s Britain back! Which just so happened to be free of foreigners, criminals, hoodlums, youngsters, jobless or travellers! Hooray!
The BNP by comparison is for the jackboot fraction. No wonder the leaked BNP supporter list includes a host of high-echelon army and police officers. No majority-garnering potential there however.
I know what you mean. I'm labour through-and-through, but am becoming increasingly frustrated with the party, could never vote tory, and the Lib Dems have other policy problems, Clegg is uninspiring and you can't see them getting in under any circumstances. It's a bit of a joke.
By domestic standards, I'm centre-right-wing - staunch adherent of the welfare state, and of laicism, slightly xenophobic (mea culpa!), strongly anti-authoritarian, anti-EU. But even so, I'm far left of Blairite-Brownite labour. Modern, "new" labour is Thatcherism with a mad eyeball (Blair) and a few extra poonds (Brown) to make it easier to swallow. The whole police-and-surveillance fetishism on one hand, and the slow, but sure axing of NHS and the education system and the gradual softening of employee protection standards on the other hand under new labour really, really bother me.
Sorry, to me labour is a lost cause, as is most of Social Democracy in Europe.
Certainly; I just hope that they take some time to specifically counter it before the general election, at least rather than the current vein of appeasement.
I expect Cameron to just stay where he's at now and dither a bit. He's gonna keep his feel-good shine glowing and have some backbenchers yelp some BNP-proof bullshit every now and then, for the sake of media-worthy "gaffes". Giving the BNP/UKIP the full "hug of death", as Sarko did with the Front would damage his carefully built proper guy image.
Labour's melted down on their own, but not due to their policies. They'll go for some disastrous infighting, but not budge as far as their political position (half a hairsbreadth left of the tories) goes.
The libdems are just sad, they're like a three-legged, one-eyed puppy. Nothing to say here.
BNP/UKIP will get their twenty to twentyfive per cent (together, in total) with their "BRITAIN FULL UP! ROAR!" shouting and their merry melodies of John Bull And His Quaint Suburban Home respectively.
Plays out to a decade or two of Tory dominance to me. Sigh.
The 'war on terror' people are regressing to Nazi ideals. I've seen arguments about them in live streams, on news stories and in forums...I just want to go abroad for a while and hope it blows over tbh.
Abroad where to? Same shit, different name all over everywhere.
Basically, you have two choices - stay in developed nations and suffer the boot of the panopticon.
Or, move elsewhere and suffer in the midst of child soldiers and malaria. Terrific.
Might as well stay home and duck and cover.
0
Plays out to a decade or two of Tory dominance to me. Sigh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm
With those sort of results its pretty much a sure thing now.
0
Religion v.s a culture completely composed of just literally drawings?
well more proof as to why i became agnostic (lost faith in god)
well more proof as to why i became agnostic (lost faith in god)
0
Extremism in ANYTHING should be outlawed. Religion and politics just breeds more extremism than anything else.
It doesn't matter what it is. "It" can be the most inconsequential thing in the universe. Extremism should be disallowed even in that. Whatever it is. Everything, basically, needs to be without extremism.
It doesn't matter what it is. "It" can be the most inconsequential thing in the universe. Extremism should be disallowed even in that. Whatever it is. Everything, basically, needs to be without extremism.
