The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

Delvis said:
You'd be surprised how many people on here actually voted for BNP :p
Click to expand...

LOL yeh a few which isnt enough for them to get into power thank god for that as they would completely and utterly destroy whats left of this country with their KKK type policy of getting rid of the 'darkies'.
 
RDM said:
Right to political freedom? At the moment we are basically saying that they do not have the right to have their views represented.
Click to expand...

No, we're saying they don't have the right to have a membership policy that requires a commitment to racial discrimination, that's not quite the same thing. The party hasn't been told it can't have a commitment to racial discrimination (which I would have more objections to as that would be suppressing political views), only that it cannot use it as a membership criteria.
 
Delvis said:
You'd be surprised how many people on here actually voted for BNP :p
Click to expand...
He didn't say they hadn't just that there were no indigenous britons, was demonstrated rather succinctly by Richard Herring when I saw him last week.

Got everyone who was born in britain to put their hands up, about 90% did, then got people with either parent not british to put theirs down, then with any of their 4 grandparents, already it was down to about 20%, by great grandparents there were only a couple, myself being one. But even then I don't consider myself indigenously British, I know that maybe 10 generations back on my dads side emmigrated from Ireland to Scotland
 
Dolph said:
No, we're saying they don't have the right to have a membership policy that requires a commitment to racial discrimination, that's not quite the same thing. The party hasn't been told it can't have a commitment to racial discrimination (which I would have more objections to as that would be suppressing political views), only that it cannot use it as a membership criteria.
Click to expand...

They pretty much are though. Their commitment to indeginous britons was deemed as indirectly discriminatory.
 
RDM said:
They pretty much are though. Their commitment to indeginous britons was deemed as indirectly discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Their requirement to demand commitment towards indigenous Britons from non-indigenous Britons was the problem. It is a small distinction, but an important one, especially as (compared to a group such as the BPA) they are pushing for discrimination rather than for equality.

Of course, you could argue that as a result they can't continue to admit membership until their drop their obsession with racial discrimination, but that is not what really matters. They could allow people to join without the commitment to racial discrimination, but they don't want to, because allowing that membership would probably result in a flood of people who will then vote to change the party's policy anyway.
 
Last edited:
Which is pretty much the problem. They are not being allowed to have a political party that represents their views. I think this is wrong and the greater of two evils. Precident has been set that organisations can discriminate after all.
 
RDM said:
Which is pretty much the problem. They are not being allowed to have a political party that represents their views. I think this is wrong and the greater of two evils. Precident has been set that organisations can discriminate after all.
Click to expand...

Well, it is worth noting that most political parties do not have such clauses regarding membership and core policies within their membership rules...

I can't see any reason to compare the BNP with other organisations with exemptions, because there is no protected right being breached by requiring them to not discriminate in membership. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of association are not impacted because no-one is preventing their speech, their expression or limiting who they can associate with... Likewise the right to political freedom is not being impacted because there is nothing to stop the individuals having that freedom to believe whatever the hell they like. The only restrictions are around whether they can discriminate against others based on race, and the answer to that is no.
 
RDM said:
So they end up with a freedom they cannot exercise. So they may as well not have that freedom in the first place.
Click to expand...

They can exercise it right up until the point where they start using it to impact the rights of others...
 
Dolph said:
They can exercise it right up until the point where they start using it to impact the rights of others...
Click to expand...

Again, they end up with a right they cannot exercise in any meaningful way. So it may as well not exist. I would say that the impact on the rights of others is the lesser of two evils in this case.
 
RDM said:
Again, they end up with a right they cannot exercise in any meaningful way. So it may as well not exist. I would say that the impact on the rights of others is the lesser of two evils in this case.
Click to expand...

Why? The issue remains that the BNP requires it's members to racially discriminate. I note that they don't require adherence to other aspects of the party's policies and beliefs (such as EU withdrawl or socialist economic policies) in the same way.

The BNP could easily drop this clause and treat the situation the same as their other policies and be in line with the law.

They are not protected by freedom of association here, they are actively preventing it. I can't see how their right to discriminate should be given more weight than the rights of others to be free from discrimination when there is no other protected rights issues for the BNP involved.
 
Because the racial discrimination is their core "value". It would leave them open to the likes of uaf flooding membership and changing the policies. Yes their membership policy is discrimatory but it needs to be to preserve their ideals.
 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2892095/BNP-bid-to-lure-lad-in-school.html

I know its the sun, but look at the parties response to not being able to radicalize a young boy..

They are truly pathetic of an almost immeasurable scale - As are party members and supporters.

Tom Hunter, 13, was targeted by the right-wing extremists after he stood for the UK Youth Parliament.

He was shocked when he opened a letter left for him at the school office and found it contained BNP leaflets. Tom said: "I was appalled. They are fascist and racist."
Click to expand...

The BNP's official response:

A BNP spokesman said Tom's parents were "narrow-minded" for not liking the party, adding: "If he's too young to be sent information, he's too young to take part in a Youth Parliament."
Click to expand...

LOL! I mean come on! :D Boy points you out for what you are, then attack the boy's intellegence and parents?!

Just the way to conduct yourself isn't it! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom