BNP egg throwing incident

[Ken L]

The BNP are the same as Nazis and cannot be tolerated in a supposedly civilized society.

 

I had the same from a union rep at work today. Utter balony. They are a legal party duely elected via the democratic process. Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.

More egging will simply result in a string of prosecutions for common assault and Griffin and co will be laughing their collective a***es off because right now, one of the few effective stratgies for highlighting what sort of people the BNP are is to point out that their senior membership have a string of convictions for assault. This isn't going to carry much weight when you give them the oppertunity to point out that x number of card carrying Labour (presumably) party members also have assault charges against them for attacks on elected MEP's.

[snakey1]

To be honest i think that every time Griffin turns up he should have eggs thrown at him. remember Hitler used the democratic process to gain power then abolished elections as soon as he got it. The BNP are the same as Nazis and cannot be tolerated in a supposedly civilized society.

 

Also the new equalities bill going through parliament could make the BNP illegal as they don't allow non whites to be members so hopefully they can be suspended from being MEP's.

So its alright to change the law to stop people geting elected if you don't happen to like their views? strange as by doing so your supporting the same ideas that Hitler had and that you also accuse the BNP having, Hitler gets elected to power then abolishes elections to remove any opposition he may have, Mr Brown does'nt like the fact that 2 BNP members were democratically voted in by the public and so proposes a change in the law to stop it happening again Hmm sounds a bit similar to me.

As for not being tolerated in a civilised society I thought that was a defining part of being civilised, tolerating other peoples beliefs(or is that just a one way thing).

Like them or loathe them they were democratically elected and if you going to change the law to remove them undemocratically then your bringing yourself down to their level and losing any moral high ground you may have IMO.

Edited June 16, 2009 by snakey1

[chesters1]

I had the same from a union rep at work today. Utter balony. They are a legal party duely elected via the democratic process. Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.

More egging will simply result in a string of prosecutions for common assault and Griffin and co will be laughing their collective a***es off because right now, one of the few effective stratgies for highlighting what sort of people the BNP are is to point out that their senior membership have a string of convictions for assault. This isn't going to carry much weight when you give them the oppertunity to point out that x number of card carrying Labour (presumably) party members also have assault charges against them for attacks on elected MEP's.

i posted on another mention of the BNP's "criminal" acts another far far longer one of the other parties convictions somewhere ,as they say "those that live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones" or words to that effect

[Peter M]

So its alright to change the law to stop people geting elected if you don't happen to like their views? strange as by doing so your supporting the same ideas that Hitler had and that you also accuse the BNP having, Hitler gets elected to power then abolishes elections to remove any opposition he may have, Mr Brown does'nt like the fact that 2 BNP members were democratically voted in by the public and so proposes a change in the law to stop it happening again Hmm sounds a bit similar to me.

As for not being tolerated in a civilised society I thought that was a defining part of being civilised, tolerating other peoples beliefs(or is that just a one way thing).

Like them or loathe them they were democratically elected and if you going to change the law to remove them undemocratically then your bringing yourself down to their level and losing any moral high ground you may have IMO.

 

No you cannot tolerate those who want to end our freedoms, you cannot tolerate those who want to persecute certain sections of society and you cannot tolerate those mealy mouthed snakes who want to use the democratic process to end our ability to be democratic. What is wrong with a law that says political parties must accept as members all sections of the community without reference to race culture religion or colour of skin? It will show the BNP up as exactly what they are because they don’t allow non whites to be members. Well that’s racist and racism is illegal and this extension to the law on equalities is actually in keeping with all previous equalities law. They want the votes of BME communities, Griffin said so, but they won’t allow them to be members? Well they should not therefore allow them to be a political party.

[corydoras]

What is wrong with a law that says political parties must accept as members all sections of the community without reference to race culture religion or colour of skin?

Nothing. It should be mandatory. Even in Scotland we let English folks join the SNP if they want to . They, the BNP should be forced to change their name to the English Nationalist Party, I'm sure that I speak for most of my fellow Celts when I say that we want nothing to do with them. My Grandad fought in a war to keep b@stards like that out of power.

[Ken L]

QUOTE (Peter M @ Jun 19 2009, 04:28 PM)

What is wrong with a law that says political parties must accept as members all sections of the community without reference to race culture religion or colour of skin?

 

Nothing. It should be mandatory

 

I tend to agree but then again, I also tend to agree with their counter argument - even if they spread it a bit thin by citing the likes of "Jewish Telegraph" as examples.

As long as you have exclusive clubs pushing the interests of one ethnic group in society over those of everybody else, you can't moan when someone creates a group or a club or a political party exclusivly to represent the interests of what the BNP likes to call "indigenous British folk".

 

If I had my way, I'd either declare every single organisation listed in the above link illegal (including the BNP) or force them to represent and accept anyone who walked through the door regardless of race or creed. Then and olny then might we see people get where they're going on merit alone rather than because they're being pushed by somebody or because someone somewhere has a quota to fill.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Ken L

[Peter M]

There is nothing wrong in starting an organisation representing one particular group or another, particularly if you feel that a group is being discriminated against. The BNP though believe that a certain section is in fact superior to others and should dominate at the expense of other groups. Mostly its the insidious way that these groups attempt to push what is in fact out and out facisim that i really hate. Britain has a tradition of being a tolerant society but it can't be so tolerant as to allow the BNP or Al Queda or any other like group to be able to spread their poison.

[Ken L]

The BNP though believe that a certain section is in fact superior to others

 

I've no doubt that the BNP is filled with people who hold those views (as doubtless are other parties) but I suspect that you'd have a very hard time finding evidence to indicate that that is the formal position of the party as a whole.

 

I may have said this before but it's ironic that anti-racism legislation ensures that there is very little evidence from the BNP's website or manifesto or in the recorded speeches of its leaders to indicate that the BNP (as an organisation) holds the belief that a certain section of society is in fact superior to others.

[barry luxton]

I tend to agree but then again, I also tend to agree with their counter argument - even if they spread it a bit thin by citing the likes of "Jewish Telegraph" as examples.

As long as you have exclusive clubs pushing the interests of one ethnic group in society over those of everybody else, you can't moan when someone creates a group or a club or a political party exclusivly to represent the interests of what the BNP likes to call "indigenous British folk".

 

If I had my way, I'd either declare every single organisation listed in the above link illegal (including the BNP) or force them to represent and accept anyone who walked through the door regardless of race or creed. Then and olny then might we see people get where they're going on merit alone rather than because they're being pushed by somebody or because someone somewhere has a quota to fill.

 

Here is a link to another secular organisation.

 

http://bnp.org.uk/2008/10/president-of-the...discrimination/

[Ken L]

Some fairly selective and deliberatly misleading use of quotes in that link. I'm sure that Commander Dizaei didn't call for “Positive Discrimination".

 

“Positive Discrimination" is illegal.

 

He might however have called for “Positive Action, which isn't.

 

Trouble is, I've been on a bunch of equal ops courses and nobody has ever been able to give me a logically defencable argument that could distinguish between the two.

 

 

Edit: I just re read the post above and only caught the inference that the BNP is a secular organisation on the second reading. Far from being secular, the BNP would like nothing more to officially present themselves as a party of Christian values.

The trouble is, the general synod of the CofE passed a resolution against them in February 09 and publicly castigated them for their use of the poster featured in this link during the run-up to the recent Euro elections.

That the CofE were right to have taken this action was a rare moment of agreement on matters religious between me and a mate who is a curate of his local church.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Ken L