Vote B.N.P.

[HeinzHines]

Fao: cloud

You cant seriously be defending the BNP?

Why would they change if they became a more mainstream party? Surely they would get more radical in their facist/racist ways if given positions of power?

[Alvin Starclusk]

I saw Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes (plus some others) whilst driving through Camberwell today. They took bloody ages to cross the road, and on a red man as well. What sort of example is that to our children???

[Biz]

DO NOT VOTE BNP The BNP ARE A BUNCH OF RACIST NAZI ASSHOLES

http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/

[Cloud]

You cant seriously be defending the BNP?

What's wrong with defending their human rights? They have a right to freely associate and hold their opinions' date=' even if it's controversial. Don't you think standing up for democracy is a good thing? I'm not defending their message - I think it's a load of bollocks, the concept of a British party is bad enough (hence why I'd never vote Tory in a million years, current political alignment aside), let alone a blatantly racist party with no concept of how immigration is critical for Scotland.

Why would they change if they became a more mainstream party? Surely they would get more radical in their facist/racist ways if given positions of power?

Why wouldn't they? You'll find lots of ex communists in power throughout Eastern Europe, the successor parties to the communist parties in a lot of states are now well respected - for instance, the PDS (former SED, party that ruled East Germany) gains a decent amount of the vote in the former East these days - despite standing for democratic socialism these days.

Ultimately the BNP have to be defeated through the ballot box. Not through undemocratic measures that mean stooping as low as they do when it comes to denying others rights. The BNP will go away if they get thrashed a few times at the ballot box, but the only real way to do that is to present a credible alternative to what's currently on offer. The BNP attract a protest vote, sure, but if a credible right wing party come along, I dare say the BNP vote will collapse.

[HeinzHines]

What's wrong with defending their human rights?

For the simple fact they are clearly racists.....why should you defend someone who cleary has wrong views about this world....its about as fucking stupid as saying 'I didnt like what the Nazis did, but i will defend their right to believe in what they want to' and no, that isnt a totally irrational comparsion.

[framheim]

i think it's also worth pointing out that communism and fascism are two very different things.

[salsadecacahuete]

For the simple fact they are clearly racists.....why should you defend someone who cleary has wrong views about this world....its about as fucking stupid as saying 'I didnt like what the Nazis did' date=' but i will defend their right to believe in what they want to' and no, that isnt a totally irrational comparsion.[/quote']

as much as they are completely racist, and to most sane people this is a bad, bad thing, human rights are there to serve everyone in the same way. the whole everyone is created equal thing.. even if they don't happen to believe that everyone is, in fact, equal...

i'm going to have to agree with cloud in that they should have the right the speak balls if we have the right to speak, what to them, might seem like balls...

it still doesn't mean anyone here thinks they're good people or they're right.

[framheim]

as much as they are completely racist' date=' and to most sane people this is a bad, bad thing, human rights are there to serve everyone in the same way. the whole everyone is created equal thing.. even if they don't happen to believe that everyone is, in fact, equal...

i'm going to have to agree with cloud in that they should have the right the speak balls if we have the right to speak, what to them, might seem like balls...

it still doesn't mean anyone here thinks they're good people or they're right.[/quote']

but do they have the right to participate in democracy when they are against it?

[salsadecacahuete]

but do they have the right to participate in democracy when they are against it?

well, vegetarians have the right to eat meat, even though they're against it...

and some vegetarians eat fish, which i don't get. but, um, let's see. we live in a democratic society.

so sure. let 'em knock themselves out.

[McGoatski]

depends who they asked i guess. you gotta take all statistics with a pinch of salt.

Well, 98.5% of them. (1.5% margin of error)

[Preid]

Im voting BNP

Cant be worse than what we've already got

[Cloud]

i think it's also worth pointing out that communism and fascism are two very different things.

Are they?

I thought it was generally accepted that communism (as implemented' date=' not as a theory) and fascism had some very similar characteristics - for example,

The BNP's policies for government include mass nationalisation of industry, full conscription and repatriation of immigrants and their descendants.

See any similarities?

but do they have the right to participate in democracy when they are against it?

This is probably the biggest question there is about the BNP and other extreme political parties. It's a difficult one, but I think ultimately, the essence of democracy means that you can't stop people from standing on a platform to scrap democracy. Technically, wouldn't voting in a party committed to nationalising everything also be against democracy if it was against the involved people's will?

[framheim]

yes they are. i thought i'd put it in terms you'd understand, so i just looked it up in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

yes there are similarities but they are different ideals. you also shouldn't take stalism or maoism as prime examples of communism, despite those being the preminent forms.

nationalised industry is ran for the people so i don't see how it can be against the people.

[Cloud]

yes they are. i thought i'd put it in terms you'd understand' date=' so i just looked it up in wikipedia:

[url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

yes there are similarities but they are different ideals. you also shouldn't take stalism or maoism as prime examples of communism, despite those being the preminent forms.

But those forms showed us what communism is capable of.

Let's take Gorbachev as an example of a liberal communist. He's widely regarded as a good guy, isn't he, in the West?

The same man sent the troops into the Baltic states and was ultimately responsible for the Vilnius Massacre and additionally incidents in Latvia and Estonia. And if he's considered to be a "good" communist, god help us all if bad communists ever take power here.

So ultimately, if both wings believe in totalitarianism, both sides believe in nationalisation, both sides go in for compulsory military training..what's the difference to the average man in the street? From where I'm standing, both communist and fascist regimes would be horrible to live under.

nationalised industry is ran for the people so i don't see how it can be against the people.

Okay, let's see - the most obvious one that comes to mind is that nationalised industries tend to be incredibly wasteful. Look at the NHS with all the money being pissed down the drain on middle management - so how can it really be for the people when the people aren't getting value for money? The NHS is starting to be considered a black hole for money - so how can it be for the people when so much money is getting squandered?

Obviously privitisation is a bad thing in some respects - looking at the shambles of the rail industry these days shows how we're paying out money for a service worse than under BR - but that could be argued to be a result of the Tory rush to get it done before they were ejected from power.

An interesting comparison -

Hitler "only" killed 6 million Jews. Stalin killed up to 30 million. What's the difference, really? One was in the name of fascism, one was in the name of communism, so really, aren't they a lot similar than people will admit? I'll concede that they were both extreme versions of the ideology, but given that both of them have shown to be dangerous in the wrong hands, shouldn't we talk about banning communists too?

[framheim]

we would probably be talking about banning communists if it was the same situation. as it stands communists aren't in the news or in danger of winning council seats anytime soon. the only reason we're talking about them is you continually use communists as a means to defend the bnp which is wrong.

anyway i never said communism was great, just that it's not interchangeable with fascism. while they may appear on the surface to be similar they ARE different ideoligies.

also what about cuba and their nationalized healthcare system? not only does cuba have one of the best in the world they play a vital role in medical aid in the central and south american region.

[TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH]

I knew this thread would end up with people talking about how the B.N.P. aren't that bad actually. God bless Aberdeen Music for having right wing nutters signed up.

[Guest Hon Jonda]

There are 4 remaining communist countries

Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and China

[Sue Denim..]

God bless Aberdeen Music for having right wing nutters signed up.

Amen. You've gotta love us!

[Scootray]

I knew this thread would end up with people talking about how the B.N.P. aren't that bad actually. God bless Aberdeen Music for having right wing nutters signed up.

I think it's more a case of they're allowed their opinions just like anyone else, but only idiots believe in the BNP.

[Preid]

That's probably the most idiotic thing I've ever read.

There are two types of people that vote BNP; racists and ignoramuses. Which one are you

Green party it is... touchy subject this BNPness.

[TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH]

Amen. You've gotta love us!

It's almost guarenteed that when a thread reaches more than 3 pages long, it's gonna involve fascists in some form. Great stuff!

[HairyScaryMark]

Cloud: I think people are disappointed at the lack of condemnation you express towards to BNP. It may be their right to stand for election and express their views. It doesn't however mean that you should give them any sense of credibility talking about a 'right of conservative party' as if they are just a slightly more radical version of UKIP.

Making a comparison between the BNP SSP and Greens is completely foolish. The SSP or Greens are not extreme parties, they are not affiliated with skin head thugs who burn down curry houses and start football riots. They are not racist, as far as I know.

Ian Paisley? maybe.... I guess he does encourage ethnic cleansing and such. Probably still not quite as extreme and nasty as the BNP but he is a lot more scary as he has more power and influence.

The threat of the BNP is completely over-stated. They might win a few council seats, which is entirely unacceptable to the most of us but it is extremely unlikely they will ever become a major force in British politics. Remember that other right wing party from the last council elections, UKIP. They soon disappeared and nobody can remember the names of more than two of them now.

I think the tabloid press play into people's prejudices and fears. It only requires a few articles about there supposedly being too many asylum seekers. We soon then get legions of people saying things starting "I'm not racist but..." Of course, it is the responsibility of the individual not to be so reactionary but the tabloid press certainly make the climate worse.

[Sam_b]

There are 4 remaining communist countries

Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and China

That's rubbish. Cuba is the closest and its state-capitalist at best.

[Guest Hon Jonda]

That's rubbish. Cuba is the closest and its state-capitalist at best.

Its not rubbish at all, its true, look it up

[Cloud]

Cloud: I think people are disappointed at the lack of condemnation you express towards to BNP. It may be their right to stand for election and express their views. It doesn't however mean that you should give them any sense of credibility talking about a 'right of conservative party' as if they are just a slightly more radical version of UKIP.

Why shouldn't they be given credibility? They have arguably made the most of their resources by targetting councils that they know they can win seats in - and let's not forget that they made significant inroads at the European Parliament elections in 2004. I'm not sure about how they did as a whole in the 2005 UK elections' date=' though. Ultimately, they've played it very cleverly. They could be arguably said to be the 5th UK party along with Respect, after all.

If you notice, I haven't discussed the BNP's policies. I haven't read their manifesto, nor do I pay much attention to their tactics. I'm not in a position to condemn them - so I'd rather stick to discussing their democractic rights and the possibility of them becoming a credible right wing alternative.

Making a comparison between the BNP SSP and Greens is completely foolish. The SSP or Greens are not extreme parties, they are not affiliated with skin head thugs who burn down curry houses and start football riots. They are not racist, as far as I know.

Why is it completely foolish? The SSP and the Greens were both minority parties who have skillfully managed to increase their stature and reputation to a point where (combined) they represent 10% of the seats in Holyrood. The BNP might very well adapt and achieve some sort of success - after all, they are appealing to ordinary people, just as the SSP and Greens have both done.

Ian Paisley? maybe.... I guess he does encourage ethnic cleansing and such. Probably still not quite as extreme and nasty as the BNP but he is a lot more scary as he has more power and influence.

Ian Paisley is quite probably worse than the BNP. The fact that he's now in a position where he could be a potential First Minister of Northern Ireland (especially with Hain attempting to push through an assembly that no-one appears to want) is frightening - but just shows that extremists will be popular. Again, I'm not too sure what exactly the BNP has done - but I'd be inclined to believe that Paisley has done a lot worse than they have - except it's limited to Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland.

The threat of the BNP is completely over-stated. They might win a few council seats, which is entirely unacceptable to the most of us but it is extremely unlikely they will ever become a major force in British politics. Remember that other right wing party from the last council elections, UKIP. They soon disappeared and nobody can remember the names of more than two of them now.

Completely and utterly agreed. It could be argued that UKIP imploded due to their refusal to let Kilroy take over the party - which, given that he was their star asset, was quite probably a bad move in hindsight. His own party did badly too - but then again, they were starting from nothing as opposed to something with UKIP.

To be fair, it's almost impossible for any party to become a real force in the UK Parliament. The FPTP system pretty much stands against them - so although the SNP and Plaid Cymru both gain a fair bit of votes, their representation is massively out of proportion to the vote. The same will stop the BNP from ever becoming a real force - although if the prospect of a future Lab-Lib coalition arises (which it might after the next election), then I wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems insist on a change to a form of PR in order for Labour to keep their grip on power.

Out of interest, why is it unacceptable for the BNP to win council seats? Last time I checked, we lived in a democracy - and if they win those seats fairly (or not so fairly..dirty tricks are nothing new in politics), how can anyone really complain? After all, people would've had to have voted for them.

I think the tabloid press play into people's prejudices and fears. It only requires a few articles about there supposedly being too many asylum seekers. We soon then get legions of people saying things starting "I'm not racist but..." Of course, it is the responsibility of the individual not to be so reactionary but the tabloid press certainly make the climate worse.

The broadsheets are just as bad when it comes to it - they just dress it up in more formal language.

Thing is, it all goes back to democracy and human rights - the tabloid message appeals to the majority, therefore, their message is the most dominant. It might suck, but the alternative is a dictatorship.