BNP ballerina

starscream · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:11

VIRII said:
A guardian investigation hehehehehehe. No the Guardian aren't trying to dig dirt on the BNP. The guardian did not name her in their paper as a member of the BNP in an attempt to stir up problems either huh....

Well if your definition of demonising is very different to mine if it means being named as a member of a political party that she is actually a member of. No judgement was passed

VIRII said:
Still working on your condemnation of the hammer blows to the head of a 15 year old are you?

Just posted in that one

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:16

starscream said:
Well if your definition of demonising is very different to mine if it means being named as a member of a political party that she is actually a member of. No judgement was passed

Just posted in that one

LOL. So naming someone following "an investigation" is not demonising? Ahh you can't demonise a BNP member can you. But poor old Abu Hamza was demonised by the press and so were the suicide bombers on the tube. Infact muslims in general are demonised by the press for reporting the things that they do.....

If it was not demonising this woman then what purpose was there in naming her as a member of a political party and telling people who she worked for and where she was working?

i know nothing · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:23

VIRII said:
LOL Is THIS the article you refer to? The 50 placard wavers shouting at her and the ANAL members of the audience disrupting the performance?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12012007/325/ballerina-dances-political-storm.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1989461,00.html

VIRII said:
I don't read the BNP website. Hence it is hardly capitalising on the event is it.
Similarly the article answers your BNP supporters numbers question. It mentions 1 person from the BNP there. He was called a "facist" and a "racist dog". That is abuse

YOU don't read the BNP website so THEY are not capitalising on it! Dear God man..!!!

This whole debate is a joke. Two political parties use a ballet dancer to their own ends. Ballet dancer confirms her belief in one of them. The opposing party decides to wage a (really rather toothless) campaign against her. The other party that represents her tries feebly to make political capital out of her support.

If she lost her job as a result of it you might have an arguement, but she hasn't lost her job. I can't see what there is to get het up about.

i know nothing · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:25

VIRII said:
If it was not demonising this woman then what purpose was there in naming her as a member of a political party and telling people who she worked for and where she was working?

For her to be demonised you would have to accept that the BNP are "bad" would you not?

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:27

i know nothing said:
If she lost her job as a result of ... of fascism...controlling peoples freedoms...

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:28

i know nothing said:
For her to be demonised you would have to accept that the BNP are "bad" would you not?

Don't the Guardian and the people harrassing her feel that the BNP are bad?
Or for muslims to claim that they are demonised in the papers does that mean that Muslims actually are bad?

But if it helps "to demonise" means to try and paint someone in a bad light.

i know nothing · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:38

VIRII said:
What there is to get het up about is a bunch of people harrassing an individual.
The guardian ran "an investigation" into the BNP. Picked out and "named and shamed" this woman for her beliefs stirring up a group of muppets to go and harrass her.
Said bunch of muppets and hypocrites claim that "there is no place for facism in art" and exercise bullyboy tactics to make their "anti fascist" point. That point being that only ideologies that they approve of should be allowed.... isn't that one of the essences of fascism...controlling peoples freedoms...

I really think you're making too much of it and I say that quite genuinely.

It's two "muppet" political parties/organisations having a go, she (in my opinion) was pretty stupid in talking to the Daily Mail, as far as I can make out, that is when it all kicked off (i.e. when she essentially confirmed it). The protest was pretty pathetic, it didn't even affect her performance by all accounts.

Earlier in the thread you were asking why they weren't arrested for breaching the peace etc etc and I can't honestly see what was so abhorrent about their protest. Personally I find their protest quite laughable and I also find it reassuring that these muppets could only muster 40-50 people.

cleanbluesky · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:43

starscream said:
Even if racist views are a product of social conditioning, I do not think that gives them legitimacy. You could apply that exact argument argument to people who have grown up believing that women are there merely to serve their husbands. In fact, I am sure you have argued that religion is a product of social conditioning, but that doesn't make certain religious viewpoints legitimate.

Maybe. That's not what I said. I said that their views might be racist, yet still as valid as any other opinion.

Maybe someone of mixed race here will be able to comment if they think they would be better off were their parents of the same race. I think I'd find that pretty patronising and offensive if I were of mixed race.

Then perhaps they can send that nugget of thought to NG, I didn't say anything about mixed-race individuals...

Well I don't think publically the BNP would admit to such a policy, but I'm pretty sure people like that would like to see some form on enforced policy.

Well if you're sure, that's good enough for me!

Or maybe not. Maybe that's just you building up your personal bogeyman with an attribute you have no evidence for.

i know nothing · 14 Jan 2007 at 00:48

VIRII said:
Don't the Guardian and the people harrassing her feel that the BNP are bad? But if it helps "to demonise" means to try and paint someone in a bad light.

Well why worry about it? If so many of the population share her views as some posters on this forum would have us believe, then who would pay any attention to them anyway? I can't say that I believe the Guardian article does demonise her, I would argue that you could interpret their article as suggesting "here is another example of a public figure that has been duped by the BNP".

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:12

i know nothing said:
It's two "muppet" political parties/organisations having a go, she (in my opinion) was pretty stupid in talking to the Daily Mail, as far as I can make out, that is when it all kicked off (i.e. when she essentially confirmed it). The protest was pretty pathetic, it didn't even affect her performance by all accounts.

From my understanding the Guardian "investigated" the BNP and chose her as the victim publishing her name and job and trying to stir up a frenzy that someone who is employed via an Arts council grant dare be in the BNP and think for herself.....
My wife works within the arts and runs a venue. I don't think I would like a bunch of ANAL getting shirty outside her venue. They have a history of getting physical.

i know nothing said:
Earlier in the thread you were asking why they weren't arrested for breaching the peace etc etc and I can't honestly see what was so abhorrent about their protest. Personally I find their protest quite laughable and I also find it reassuring that these muppets could only muster 40-50 people.

I don't like to see "gangs" picking on people, I don't like the rank hypocrisy of their protest.

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:13

i know nothing said:
Well why worry about it? If so many of the population share her views as some posters on this forum would have us believe, then who would pay any attention to them anyway? I can't say that I believe the Guardian article does demonise her, I would argue that you could interpret their article as suggesting "here is another example of a public figure that has been duped by the BNP".

She is not a public figure.

Raz · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:14

VIRII said:
Oh by the way why do I see so few Blacks married to Pakistanis? In fact why do I never see any but a Pakistani married to a Pakistani?

That has nothing to do with Islam but has everything to do with culture. Ironic since you demand people stick to their culture...

Morba · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:20

VIRII said:
People like you clearly do so yes.
A muslim is a follower of Islam. Islam is written down in the Koran. Or do you have a special version just for british muslims?

I wonder if they have different versions of muslim, like the many different faiths around christianity.

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:21

Raz said:
That has nothing to do with Islam but has everything to do with culture. Ironic since you demand people stick to their culture...

Racist culture is it?
How do I *demand* that people stick to their culture? Are you confusing that with saying that if people come here they should adopt the dominant culture and learn to fit in? Not the same at all is it lol.

And before I forget why did you say "that has nothing to do with Islam"? I did not mention Islam....... I mentioned blacks and pakistanis......

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:22

Morba said:
I wonder if they have different versions of muslim, like the many different faiths around christianity.

Apparently not. Infact that is one of the common criticisms of christianity from muslims. That Christianity has allowed itself to deviate from the strict word of God and that the bible has been allowed to be changed and translated and modified.

Raz · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:24

VIRII said:
Racist culture is it?

probably. Unlike you I have no issues highlighting flaws in 'my' culture.

Morba · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:24

VIRII said:
Apparently not. Infact that is one of the common criticisms of christianity from muslims. That Christianity has allowed itself to deviate from the strict word of God and that the bible has been allowed to be changed and translated and modified.

which was done to suit those that believed certain parts of the 'word of god' and wanted to ignore the rest (at a guess, my religious knowledge is very poor!). Pretty much what void is doing, but still being classed as a full believer of the full word of his god.

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:25

Raz said:
probably. Unlike you I have no issues highlighting flaws in 'my' culture.

LOL. I frequently decry current culture and the policies that have dragged it down. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else, or maybe you're just confused.

VIRII · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:27

Morba said:
which was done to suit those that believed certain parts of the 'word of god' and wanted to ignore the rest (at a guess, my religious knowledge is very poor!). Pretty much what void is doing, but still being classed as a full believer of the full word of his god.

All religions have imho been created and modified to suit the agenda of the rulers of the time.
However Islam is founded on the belief that the Koran is the written and unchanged, unquestionable word of God. It can't be challenged, it can't be changed, it is the word of God. To be a muslim you must read it, understand it and follow it. If you do not then you are not a muslim.

Morba · 14 Jan 2007 at 01:44

VIRII said:
All religions have imho been created and modified to suit the agenda of the rulers of the time.
However Islam is founded on the belief that the Koran is the written and unchanged, unquestionable word of God. It can't be challenged, it can't be changed, it is the word of God. To be a muslim you must read it, understand it and follow it. If you do not then you are not a muslim.

would there be some sort of punishment or 'realignment' to people who do not fully follow the word of god, but express their belief as muslim?