Jump to content

Holocaust Denial, the BNP and freedom of speech


assassin_696

Recommended Posts

It shows how scared some fascists are if they want to stop Nick talking because they're so scared his views are going to make sense to people, i think monday was a victory for the BNP and a victory for free speech. People say wherever the BNP goes violence goes? Indeed, by the far left causing problems.

 

Really?

 

 

 

Because, from what I heard, there was only one person that got into trouble with the police that night, and I seem to recall it was a member of the BNP trying to provoke trouble from those "anti fascists" on the way to the pub after the debate.

 

 

 

 

 

You know what's another beauty of democracy? Everyone is equal. Yes, that includes ethnic minorities and migrant workers. Maybe you should have a look at your own party's stance towards equality before lecturing us on democracy, m'kay?

 

 

 

Chortle, i'm not sure where you get the idea that the poor left were being pushed about by the big evil BNP. What i find even more hilarious is that this debate had nothing to do with the BNP's policies, but was made that way by the media and far left idiocy. The antics of the protestors were incredibly "i'm throwing the toys out of my pram because i don't agree with Nick Griffin", and i think a lot of people saw it that way.

 

 

 

The thing you are misinterpreting is that the BNP doesn't blame all the immigrants, its the government allowing so many into Britain. If people agree that mass immigration threatens Britain in different ways then the BNP has a stand to make, if other parties refuse to have a proper stand on immigration that will protect me then i see the BNP as an alternative. Protecting indigenous British people is a legitimate policy and its something i'm sure someone who promotes mass immigration and the PC propaganda against white British people will hate. I'm sure they'll sleep soundly at night knowing that they've stood up for the poor immigrants who love Britain and its values so much.

 

 

 

Heres a little taster off the Timesonline site in response to this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 951490.ece

 

 

 

how typical of the political left who supposedly stand for democracy and free speech and as they would like to put it 'i might not like what you say but i will defend your right to say it.' what we saw last night from the militant left is typical of thier behaviour. violence, lack of respect, total disorder. so who is the real problem here. a perfectly LEGAL political party or a bunch of protesters who whilst in uni see it as a social event rather than a demo of any real meaning to them. good luck and prosperity to the bnp in the coming years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, Nick Griffin was invited to talk about free speech, and the irony is that the apparant "anti fascists" protesting were trying to stop Nick's free speech. I think the BNP came off very well from this with the idiocy of the far left (+ Oxford toffs)

 

 

 

Oh deary deary me, seems we aren't just prejudiced against races now are we - social classes as well? FYI Oxford is nothing like the stereotype.

 

 

 

. I haven't heard the debate (i believe its on youtube or i could get it somewhere) but i expect many thought Nick would be destroyed in the debate and the evil BNP shown to be what the mass media have decided they are. Unfortunately for them i hear Nick came across very well and put his legitimate views across. (clapping at the end i hear?).

 

 

 

You heard wrong. Trust me on this.

 

 

 

Free speech should be allowed to anyone

 

 

 

I wonder what the BNP's view on the right to free speech of say an Islamic fundamentalist would be? I'll let you answer that one

 

 

 

I'd also like to make the distinction between the BNP and holocaust deniers, the BNP does not deny the holocaust, Nick used to in a sense but as people progress they change their beliefs. Irving, contrary to popular belief does not deny the holocaust happened, he says that there isn't solid proof that it happened in the severity (6 million dead) as is publicised. I don't agree with Irving and believe that the numbers are irrelivant, wanting genocide against the jews was utterly despicable and the Nazi's should be shown as they were.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, that's a pretty staunch belief to suddenly change from (and I quote)

 

 

 

"I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria"

 

 

 

to, "oh sorry, I was wrong, oops!". I want a bit more proof then that before I believe this particularly shady leopard has changed his spots.

 

 

 

It shows how scared some fascists are if they want to stop Nick talking because they're so scared his views are going to make sense to people, i think monday was a victory for the BNP and a victory for free speech. People say wherever the BNP goes violence goes? Indeed, by the far left causing problems.

 

 

 

The far left caused problems? Proof? Evidence? Any basis whatsoever? Well I live in this city, I watch my local news everyday, I read the local and university papers - hell I was at the protest and there was no left wing violence whatsoever.

 

 

 

Finally, I'd like to show you exactly where, legally the right to freedom of speech comes from - the ECHR - Article 10 if you want the exact reference. Now, guess what else we have in that document, I'll tell you - Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination. Now you can waffle for as long as you like about how the BNP isn't racist because is doesn't "hate" it just "recognises differences" - well I've got news, discrimination doesn't mean hate - it means to believe in fundamental differences in people because of their origin/religion/gender/orientation - a clear breach no?

 

 

 

The BNP crying about unqualified free speech when their main policies go against the same document that it stems from is obvious hypocrisy. I don't think I need to say anymore.

 

 

 

P.S. before you accuse me of being liberal, left wing, PC or otherwise then let me assure you there are plenty of people on this board that will testify otherwise (especially GingerWarrior - the number of socialist/non socialist arguments woo :lol: ). Let it be known that it is not only the political left that disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as I point of interest whats the BNP view on the Irish? I mean eventhough they're white they're not British (trust me don't call an Irishman British). Just wondering because my Gran is Irish so I'm just curious to see if I'm one of those who could be "offered" repatriation if they somehow got in power.

wild_bunch.gif

He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bubsa, I'd like it if you'd stop flaming me. Of course people can lose their free speech if they use slander or hurt people or something like that. Their opinion, however, should be able to be expressed. What's wrong with that? Who's job is it to tell people right from wrong?

 

 

 

Yomom: Are you saying now that people can't be trusted to vote? Sure, voting has gone down, but that's a separate problem. Those that vote aren't just going to mindlessly pick a random candidate to vote for (there is a chance that a select few will). That's why the age for voters is 18. Besides that, people nowadays aren't that mindlessly ignorant to the views because patriotism has gone down significantly, also considering the fact that those who just breeze by school probably either won't vote later on in life or will learn some kind of politics. That doesn't mean that this generation will start to care about politics. It just means that they can pretty much be able to detect a bad ruler when they see one. Assuming that all Americans aren't secure from their minds is definitely implying that a dictatorship is in order. And a dictator (or extreme demagogue) in today's modern American democracy? I don't think that'll be very common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the person who mentioned, hypocrasy, propaganda and media spin can take a bow, given the last few posts :lol:

 

 

 

Bubsa, I'd like it if you'd stop flaming me. Of course people can lose their free speech if they use slander or hurt people or something like that. Their opinion, however, should be able to be expressed. What's wrong with that? Who's job is it to tell people right from wrong?

 

 

 

What, me being critical of your point is flaming now? Aw diddums, didn't know you cared so much. Over compensating, much?

 

 

 

So, you think that people can lose their freedom of speech through slander, yet you would happily allow for them to still be expressed, regardless of the fatal consequences that ensue.

 

 

 

Do me a favour: Don't ever enter politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yomom: Are you saying now that people can't be trusted to vote? Sure, voting has gone down, but that's a separate problem. Those that vote aren't just going to mindlessly pick a random candidate to vote for (there is a chance that a select few will). That's why the age for voters is 18. Besides that, people nowadays aren't that mindlessly ignorant to the views because patriotism has gone down significantly, also considering the fact that those who just breeze by school probably either won't vote later on in life or will learn some kind of politics. That doesn't mean that this generation will start to care about politics. It just means that they can pretty much be able to detect a bad ruler when they see one. Assuming that all Americans aren't secure from their minds is definitely implying that a dictatorship is in order. And a dictator (or extreme demagogue) in today's modern American democracy? I don't think that'll be very common.

 

 

 

Woah there, I never said people can't be trusted to vote? Actually I would like to know where you got that from? How is "Voting has gone down" is a seperate problem? It shows less people actually care about their government and take it for granted. What if a leader appealed to base human nature through their speeches, and some actually listened? Sure, there haven't been very good speechmaking politicians recently, but words can instill emotion and change someone's mind, through a simple speech.

 

 

 

detect a bad ruler when they see one

 

 

 

How do you suppose they detect a bad ruler who is charismatic and influential? Leaders can put on a facade, become a respected and loved person although their motives prove otherwise. 'Detecting a bad ruler' can be easy when their policies are bad and they don't have much control or influence over their people, but what if the person is truly captivating?

 

 

 

Assuming that all Americans aren't secure from their minds is definitely implying that a dictatorship is in order.

 

 

 

Nobody is secure from their mind, it can always be influenced unless you consciously defend it. Take teachers for example, they can alter your perceptions about things easily. If a person does not know where they stand, another will and can more easily tell them.

 

 

 

And a dictator (or extreme demagogue) in today's modern American democracy? I don't think that'll be very common.

 

 

 

I'm not saying it is, or will be, especially in this day and age. All I'm saying that it is not impossible.

 

 

 

But, back to the main point of this topic, people attempting to directly remove others rights while in power or vying for power should be silenced. Suppose they gain power? Giving them a platform for speech increases their chances of coming to power. What if other members of this party share the same views, vocalized them, and were voted into power on the basis of their other opinions for government? Then you have people in government and in power who can attempt to remove others rights. That is the danger in all this. Giving someone a voice can lead them into power, and the whole sidetracked argument about the susceptibility of humans was to try to attempt to show you how these people can and will remove rights.

 

 

 

In time, maybe even a few years, you will realize the obvious truth that people attempting to remove other's rights should not be allowed their own rights.

 

 

 

For instance, take it in a physical sense. A murderer removes one's rights to life. Therefore, a murderer is jailed and looses his right to freedom. A scam artist removes one's rights to property, and is therefore jailed and looses his right of property and freedom. Is that not logical? What if the person attempted murder or attempted scam? Should we let them off on the premise that they have not actually removed rights, and only attempted to remove them, and therefore should be set free? I know its a stretched example, but I don't think you fully comprehend the power of speech yet.

happiehour.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you suppose they detect a bad ruler who is charismatic and influential? Leaders can put on a facade, become a respected and loved person although their motives prove otherwise. 'Detecting a bad ruler' can be easy when their policies are bad and they don't have much control or influence over their people, but what if the person is truly captivating?

 

You think that the small minority of bad thinkers that might be persuaded will decide the fate of the entire country? Besides the fact that those who do detect bad rulers will probably speak out and try to do something about it, I don't think that would be realistic, especially in this modern world. Sure, it's happened in the past, but we learn from the past, right? Anything is possible, but...

 

 

 

Silencing views like this just puts the modern democratic world we live in today down a slippery slope that will lead to its fail. Free speech is god-given. You just can't take it away.

 

 

 

Bubsa, I thought you were being overcritical. But that's beside the matter now. Yes, they should be able to speak. Read the paragraph above this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bubsa, I thought you were being overcritical. But that's beside the matter now. Yes, they should be able to speak. Read the paragraph above this one.

 

Usually, in arguement, you add to your side, to progress it. You've just spewed the same crap every time without any deviation. Frankly, you bore me now. Away, with ye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think that the small minority of bad thinkers that might be persuaded will decide the fate of the entire country? Besides the fact that those who do detect bad rulers will probably speak out and try to do something about it, I don't think that would be realistic, especially in this modern world. Sure, it's happened in the past, but we learn from the past, right? Anything is possible, but...

 

 

 

Silencing views like this just puts the modern democratic world we live in today down a slippery slope that will lead to its fail. Free speech is god-given. You just can't take it away.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I should give up hope because your either not reading correctly or failing to understand, or continue arguing.

 

 

 

First of all, its not about good thinkers and bad thinkers. But while I'm at it, I think I'll go ahead and address that statement anyway. What proof do you have that suggests there is a small minority of bad thinkers? I don't know how much of the world you've actually seen [not literally] or how much history you've actually studied, but I'm pretty sure that the 'bad thinkers' clan has a bit more then a minority of members...

 

 

 

Free speech is, metaphorically, 'God-given' (as in a natural right). You said it yourself "you can't just take it away". Exactly, you can't just take it away, but if you have a reason to you can. Do you object to jail because a murderer has a right to freedom? I'll wait to see if you catch on or not, i suppose, by your answer of the last question.

happiehour.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.

 

 

 

The power of speech, as you say, is powerful enough to persuade a nation to go under the rule of a bad ruler. I say that's pretty unlikely in this modern world, but even though it's possible, it's a risk we need to take. You can't take away people's right to free speech because they try to take away people's rights. It's not right. It's not right that the idiots who say those things say them, but it's just not right to take away that right. Even if they're racist. Instead, have a good defense; don't just ban them because you don't like them. Of course, yomom, people can be charismatic. They can persuade, and even though I don't think that persuasion is strong enough to turn an entire nation under their rule, I could be wrong. You might be right that a ruler could do that, but it's probably not going to happen (we're in a modern society for god's sake), and if it does, something will be done about it. We need to take that risk, I say.

 

 

 

Is that sufficient enough, Bubsa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...All I can say is: I hope in a year or two you look back on what you have just written and ask yourself, "What the hell?"

 

 

 

It's so full of contradictions and innaccuracies, I just don't know where to begin, without having to repeat myself, so I'm not going to bother.

 

 

 

Seriously, don't address me on the issue again, you make my head hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Please, bother. There isn't much to repeat, anyway. You barely said a damn thing.

 

 

 

What is so god damn bad about saying that people have a right to whatever they [bleep]ing want to say that you have to get all pissy about it? I'm no expert at this crap. I posted my opinion and backed it up as well as I could, if that's not sufficient for you then go to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this statement: People have a right to their opinion. No matter how completely racist or insensitive it is. Live with it, and let this crap die out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Please, bother. There isn't much to repeat, anyway.

 

 

 

Live with it, and let this crap die out.

 

 

 

And thus, my point is complete :lol: You're a walking contradiction, frankly, you're not worth the time or effort.

 

 

 

I attempted to leave the discussion, and I get barraged with this?

 

 

 

What is so god damn bad about saying that people have a right to whatever they [bleep] want to say that you have to get all pissy about it? I'm no expert at this crap. I posted my opinion and backed it up as well as I could, if that's not sufficient for you then go to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this statement: People have a right to their opinion. No matter how completely racist or insensitive it is.

 

 

 

Calm down, diddums, no need to get personal. You'll work yourself up into a state.

 

 

 

Believe me when I say, I've been banned for saying less than that :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I meant that people should live with the few idiots who post racist, insensitive crap like this and let those few idiots die out.

 

 

 

So please, bother to say where I've gone wrong. You haven't told me anything useful so far.

 

 

 

So, what was wrong with my statement? Please tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yomom, when I say that most of America won't get conned into charismatic leaders, I mean it. America, I think, is very skeptical nowadays on leaders and can detect them fairly well.

 

 

 

Remember Hitler? He emerged from a time where everyone was in a bad state. Germany suffered a humiliating loss at World War 1, there were debts to be paid, and confidence was low. Then Hitler comes in and motivates everyone by scapegoating all of the Jews (and everyone else he hated). Hitler gave everyone hope in that bad time, and everyone just obeyed. They had no other choice.

 

 

 

People will generally only be persuaded by a ruler like that in times of crisis. And even then, you still have to depend on everyone to see through their disguise. You have to trust them and let everyone be in control of their own thoughts, because they'll come around. Banning people like the BNP party from speaking won't do any good. If you put limits on what's acceptable and what's not, you're no better than those who are trying to speak the crap, and not only will people lose confidence, but the actual people trying to speak their crappy views will just get more popular in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free speech is, metaphorically, 'God-given' (as in a natural right). You said it yourself "you can't just take it away". Exactly, you can't just take it away, but if you have a reason to you can. Do you object to jail because a murderer has a right to freedom? I'll wait to see if you catch on or not, i suppose, by your answer of the last question.
The murderer committs and is charged with a crime. AFAIK no court has as of yet seen fit to charge the debaters in this specific instance with any crime, which means they havn't comitted one.

 

 

 

Until they've been found guilty of something that is actually illegal, they have the same rights as anyone else and should be treated as such, no matter what their opinions might lead to.

 

 

 

 

 

And silencing them by refusing to invite them to debates doesn't work. Arguments that are allowed to go unchalleged are by far too easy to percieve as arguments that cannot be challenged, which is a lot worse than any "martyrdom" from being under fire constantly. And as other people have said, more rope to hang themselves with.

-This message was deviously brought to you by: mischief1at.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free speech is, metaphorically, 'God-given' (as in a natural right). You said it yourself "you can't just take it away". Exactly, you can't just take it away, but if you have a reason to you can. Do you object to jail because a murderer has a right to freedom? I'll wait to see if you catch on or not, i suppose, by your answer of the last question.
The murderer committs and is charged with a crime. AFAIK no court has as of yet seen fit to charge the debaters in this specific instance with any crime, which means they havn't comitted one.

 

 

 

Until they've been found guilty of something that is actually illegal, they have the same rights as anyone else and should be treated as such, no matter what their opinions might lead to.

 

 

 

 

 

And silencing them by refusing to invite them to debates doesn't work. Arguments that are allowed to go unchalleged are by far too easy to percieve as arguments that cannot be challenged, which is a lot worse than any "martyrdom" from being under fire constantly. And as other people have said, more rope to hang themselves with.

 

 

 

I tend to agree with this and I see some positives to something such as law against incitement of ethnic or racial hatred, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the BNP's view on the right to free speech of say an Islamic fundamentalist would be? I'll let you answer that one

 

 

 

I don't agree with them, and they actually do incite racial hatred, the BNP doesn't. The BNP doesn't go to muslims countries and try to change their society in a negative way so i don't think they should do the same to us.

 

 

 

'm sorry, that's a pretty staunch belief to suddenly change from (and I quote)

 

 

 

"I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria"

 

 

 

to, "oh sorry, I was wrong, oops!". I want a bit more proof then that before I believe this particularly shady leopard has changed his spots.

 

 

 

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise that peoples opinions change, there is no genuine point to bring up the Holocaust as part of a modern political party, it has no basis on the BNP and as i have said should be left to historians. Don't bring up an old quotation where Nick said on Monday that the BNP does think the Holocaust happened. Also Nick said in the past that he believes there isn't concrete enough proof that the Holocaust happened in the severity thats publisised, not that he denies that the Nazi's killed some jews. I think the Holocaust happened and the current stance by Nick and the BNP is that they don't refute it.

 

 

 

Finally, I'd like to show you exactly where, legally the right to freedom of speech comes from - the ECHR - Article 10 if you want the exact reference. Now, guess what else we have in that document, I'll tell you - Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination. Now you can waffle for as long as you like about how the BNP isn't racist because is doesn't "hate" it just "recognises differences" - well I've got news, discrimination doesn't mean hate - it means to believe in fundamental differences in people because of their origin/religion/gender/orientation - a clear breach no?

 

 

 

Nick was trialed for the "incitement of racial hatred", a law that doesn't apply to the modern BNP's beliefs, and came off innocent in 2006 . . http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm And i can assure you that if there was even a hint that he was infact inciting racial hatred he would have gone down for it. Take Nick to court if you really think hes inciting racial hatred, because it would be profitable for the BNP's cause to prove wrong again.

 

 

 

The BNP crying about unqualified free speech when their main policies go against the same document that it stems from is obvious hypocrisy. I don't think I need to say anymore.

 

 

 

Why don't people like you, instead of trying to take away legitimate political parties like the BNP's speech challenge them and win if you're in the right. The BNP are crying about this? nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds.

 

 

 

P.S. before you accuse me of being liberal, left wing, PC or otherwise then let me assure you there are plenty of people on this board that will testify otherwise (especially GingerWarrior - the number of socialist/non socialist arguments woo :lol: ). Let it be known that it is not only the political left that disagree.

 

 

 

I don't believe for a second that only the left are against the BNP.

 

 

 

If the BNP stayed in the racist past i wouldn't have joined, nor would i support their right to promote racism, but they are no longer racist and it seems the likes of the protestors are angry because Nick's views will make sense to a growing amount of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with them, and they actually do incite racial hatred, the BNP doesn't. The BNP doesn't go to muslims countries and try to change their society in a negative way so i don't think they should do the same to us.

 

Surely, you've contradicted yourself there. You advocate your own 'free speech', saying everyone has a right to it, then you say that? That aside from the fact the BNP do arguably incite racial hatred.

 

 

 

Why don't people like you, instead of trying to take away legitimate political parties like the BNP's speech challenge them and win if you're in the right. The BNP are crying about this? nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds.

 

You're just not catching on to this are you? You have no right to free speech if that speech is racist. We can go in loops all day and we can spell out the very definition of racism if you carry on misunderstanding it. Also, by that logic, why don't you allow Islamic Fundamentalists to speak out, if you're so confident you can win because you're right? You seem to accuse us of denying rights to to you, then you do the very same thing to someone else.

 

 

 

If the BNP stayed in the racist past i wouldn't have joined, nor would i support their right to promote racism, but they are no longer racist and it seems the likes of the protestors are angry because Nick's views will make sense to a growing amount of people.

 

No.

 

 

 

Nick Griffin says you're not racist. The two are completely different. I look at your policies, they are clearly aimed and justified by creating a clear discrimination between the White British race, and all other races present in this country. Hateful or otherwise, that is still racism.

 

 

 

nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds.

 

Considering most of the news on the BNP website comes from the far reaches of the media, I'd have to question which of us is in actual fact "brainwashed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Finally, I'd like to show you exactly where, legally the right to freedom of speech comes from - the ECHR - Article 10 if you want the exact reference. Now, guess what else we have in that document, I'll tell you - Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination. Now you can waffle for as long as you like about how the BNP isn't racist because is doesn't "hate" it just "recognises differences" - well I've got news, discrimination doesn't mean hate - it means to believe in fundamental differences in people because of their origin/religion/gender/orientation - a clear breach no?

 

 

 

Nick was trialed for the "incitement of racial hatred", a law that doesn't apply to the modern BNP's beliefs, and came off innocent in 2006 . . http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm And i can assure you that if there was even a hint that he was infact inciting racial hatred he would have gone down for it. Take Nick to court if you really think hes inciting racial hatred, because it would be profitable for the BNP's cause to prove wrong again.

 

 

 

I warn you, don't argue law with - I just spent 8 weeks being tutored by some of the finest constitutional lawyers in the world - the difference in scope between a breach of UK criminal statute and the constitutional theories of rule of law and fundamental human rights is massive. This is not about being taken to court or being charged, this is about legalistic and socio-political theory, please learn the difference.

 

 

 

The BNP crying about unqualified free speech when their main policies go against the same document that it stems from is obvious hypocrisy. I don't think I need to say anymore.

 

 

 

Why don't people like you, instead of trying to take away legitimate political parties like the BNP's speech challenge them and win if you're in the right. The BNP are crying about this? nah, its those who throw their toys out of the pram when people like Nick don't see things in the brainwashed PC way, that the mass media inprint on peoples minds.

 

 

 

I don't need to challenge them and win, the major political parties are doing that just fine at the moment - the simple fact the BNP was, is and will always be a minority party voted for by the brainwashed, uneducated and easily swayed is a testament to our system and population. Also, I do intend a career in either law or politics - I'm sure i'll come across them either way.

 

 

 

Everything else Ginger Warrior dealt with just fine for now - I may have put some things slightly differently, but I won't for the sake of clarity (always getting there first Ginger, honestly :lol: ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have misinterpreted what I'm saying with that second paragraph. I don't believe in censorship against anyone who doesn't agree with me. I believe that a diversity of opinion is a healthy thing because, as you rightly point out, it allows people to think more carefully about their own judgements. David Cameron may annoy the heck out of me, but he certainly has a right to air his views on political issues; and, much as I hate to say it, the fact he opposes the government forces the government into actions it wouldn't otherwise do.

 

 

 

The difference between David Cameron and Nick Griffin is that David Cameron does not openly claim in his manifesto that he'd deny the very rights he uses to other people if he were to get into power. Aside from the blatent hypocrisy of the BNP's claim to "free speech", the messages the BNP preach are actually dangerous and cause racial tensions and unrest, which itself leads to crime and further instability.

 

 

 

As said, if they do not wish to show the tolerant behaviour towards ethnic minorities that they except us to give to them as an extreme-right wing organisation, then I see no reason to give them that tolerance. I suppose in that light, you could call it retribution, only I'm not trying to scapegoat minorities which can't defend themselves for my own problems.

 

 

 

Sorry, I hate to respond to a post as considered and reasonable as yours with a YouTube video but i'm so busy at the moment I think this is better than nothing.

 

 

 

This speech/debate puts forward what I feel to be the best defence for the freedom of speech for all. It's split into two videos and they shouldn't take much more than 10 minutes to watch, and they really are worth it. Hitchens covers all the points I would and many more in a much more impressive and eloquent way than I ever could.

 

 

 

"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They gave them the platform so they could no longer play the victim, it was never about trying to elevate any extreme right wing parties. It was giving them a voice so their voice could be shown to be what it was, not a victim but a bully. In the case of the BNP leader, that is.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.