Ha ha ha, you are the master at all those above Dolph. There is little point in arguing with such a master spin merchant as you. You are as slippery as Medleson. If being pendantic is your style of argument (fits in nicely with the sarcasm) then I shall remember to be completely explicit with you in the future. Also, I have never overplayed the BNP's value, or presence or influence in the UK. It appears you are now resorting to straw men arguments.
There are no strawmen proposed in my arguments, there may be analysis you disagree with, but that's not the same thing.
Allow me to remind you of the comments I have said. My whole point is that the BNP are a legal party that have been legitimately voted into power in those areas that voted for them. The reason they have got into power in that are is that was the part that was the BEST FIT for the local concerns of the populus.
Technically they weren't the best fit, they were elected under PR, in fourth place at best. This is one of the reasons that although I support PR, I don't advocate the party list system, preferring mixed member voting as a better implementation.
I do not support the BNP, but as it has been said before.
"I do not agree with your opinions, but I shall die fighting so you can have them".
Quite, where have I tried to surpress the BNP's speech? I haven't, I've tried to expose them for what they are and fill in the gaps surrounding their policies and motivation for those that are unsure, because the BNP aren't being honest and putting their views across in full, it falls on others to do that.
As you can see, its been a pretty mixed bag from me. Seems like you have got the bit between your teeth guys, and assume I am some skinhead BNP supporter. Oh dear. And you say assumptions are fair. Pfft.
You've made plenty of assumptions yourself, including that I support the UAF and want to silence the BNP...
You cannot legistlate against racism. Unless we enter the realms of thought police. Such is the nature of humans that their will always be racism. And racism is not exclusively a white man only phenomena. Blacks, Jewss, Hispanics, Asians are just as racist as white people.
I've never advocated legislating against racism, I've advocated (as part of the written constitution I would like to see) that it is not possible to legislate based on opinion or arbitary factors. This would, by it's very nature, make it impossible to pass discriminatory legislation based on race without a solid factual backing that it's appropriate. I don't care what people believe, I care what they pass into law and how it affects people.
Ok, I concede I made a mistake with regards to legality of racism. Nobody is perfect. It is not flawed logic, it is just being wrong. And being wrong isn't such a big thing. It takes a man to admit they are wrong, which is why the internet is full of flame wars and alpha keyboard warriors - full of children unable to stand up and admit they are not perfect and their points were built on assumptions or just plain wrong.
Indeed, will you now apologise for attacking me for pointing out your error earlier?
I'll happily apologise for any implication I made that you were a BNP supporter.
Funnily enough, being wrong on this point is quite interesting. If being racist isn't illegal at all, doesn't this actually stengthen the hand of BNP against those who try to silence it? In fact, it makes organisations such as Searchlight even more disgusting than the BNP. No organisation should try and silence the views of another, especially when that organisation is perfectly legal in every way and achieved power in their area via the proper democratic procedure.
The very same freedom of speech that allows the BNP to promote their views allows organisations such as searchlight to promote theirs just the same. The BNP want to deny some people a voice too, so there is no 'better' organisation here, only the targets are different.
As I've said, I don't support searchlight et al when they try to prevent the BNP from speaking, I believe it's counter productive, but just as the BNP are not restricted from speaking by the state (which is how freedom of speech applies), neither are UAF or Searchlight.
