Does anyone vote BNP if so why

phykell · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:14

Originally posted by Matthew-1985 Why should people tell you anything? You the voting police or something?

It's simple, look at the thread title.

My point is, and I can't believe I'm having to explain this, that people are prepared to support the BNP as a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived problems with asylum seekers. This is despite how obvious it is that the BNP are using the current situation as a springboard to concel their true nature and paint themselves as "representing" the "British people" (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

Originally posted by Matthew-1985 HaHaHa!!! OMG!!! Just look at all the above.

I have, I've read it thoroughly. People are not being jumped on, they are simply being asked (politely) to explain. You may be reading it differently of course. I just want to know what people really think. So far there's only a few people that have actually been honest about this. For example, dirtydog and memphisto have stated that they aren't racist yet they are willing to offer support to the BNP. I disagree with them but respect their opinion and at least I have a position to argue from with them. If however, others say they *are* racist and will support the BNP, then I have to take a completely different approach. As a direct answer to what you said however, You will never see me insulting anyone directly on this message board, and that even includes fox-hunters and racists! However, as long as I am a guest here, I will feel free to argue against any point of view that I believe is wrong.

memphisto · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:14

Originally posted by gurdas
But BNP's agenda is slightly, infact a lot more dangerous than other parties.

I would like to know who is racist here also, like phykell has put, this is supposed to be one of the more anti PC forums.

how do you know ?

The current labour governmnet are wanting to take us to war with iraq is that not more dangerous ? especially in the current climate where just as many "friendly" countries are against it than for.

The fact that we might see the restart of the cold war if Russia cant be convinced ?

Is that not dangerous ?

Marcus · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:14

Originally posted by riotstar
Because from what I've seen of people with racist views, they can't air them without causing offence or inciting hatred. Note that this is a mass generalisation, but one that's true most of the time.

But causing offence is, so far as I'm aware, not illegal. At least, not yet. There are currently Draft proposals around which will, under specified circumstances make it illegal to do something which has the effect of making the environment offensive for someone (on the grounds of race, nationality etc). It is part of the proposed Harrassment changes to the 1976 Act in order to implement Article 13 of the EC Race Directive. So far as I know, it is scheduled to become law this year, but has not yet done so.

But even then, it should be noted that the effects of the RRA apply in respect of having a detrimental detrimental effect on people and in respect to specific areas, like disadvantaging them in jobs, education, housing, provision of goods and services, etc - it is not a catch-all Act.

When we had this argument before in SC, there were two areas that never did quite get resolved. The first was "what is racism"? A common definition is differentiation on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic background, nationality or citizenship. But "differentiation" holds no negative connotations.

It is difficult for anyone to say they can't differentiate between someone of caucasian, negroid or oriental origin. So for any meaningful debate, 'racism' has to mean more than being able to tell the difference. For that reason, racial prejudice is not illegal. Racial discrimination is - or at least, is depending on the circumstances. In other words, the law is about what people do, and the detrimental effect that has on others, not what they think.

ironman · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:21

Originally posted by memphisto
how do you know ?

The current labour governmnet are wanting to take us to war with iraq is that not more dangerous ? especially in the current climate where just as many "friendly" countries are against it than for.

The fact that we might see the restart of the cold war if Russia cant be convinced ?

Is that not dangerous ?

Dangerous yes, but more dangerous than removing everyone who isn't white from this country is, imho much more dangerous. Show me where on their policies do they support the non white British people, because whether you like it or not, they are as British as native British people yet the BNP wouldn't think twice about getting rid of them (us).

memphisto · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:25

Originally posted by gurdas
Dangerous yes, but more dangerous than removing everyone who isn't white from this country is, imho much more dangerous. Show me where on their policies do they support the non white British people, because whether you like it or not, they are as British as native British people yet the BNP wouldn't think twice about getting rid of them (us).

having read there poilices twice I didnt see anything about removing everyone who isnt white ? they do say they would deport illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers and begin to treat britains the same as everyone else as opposed to the current britains are second class citizens climate but they dont mention removing non whites at all.

Kanes · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:26

excuse me for making an analogy of this thread

<right> i would vote for the BNP
<left> you do realise they're racist!
<right> their manifesto has no evidence of this
<left> but *insert mention of some member belonging to a far right organisation*
<right> but i agree with their policies
<left> racist!
<right> whatever

it seems the only argument for voting for the BNP is that some members have expressed views deemed racist. Well i'm sure a few tories have expressed racist views in the past. Labour express views i don't agree with, so i won't be voting for them. The BNP express most opinions i agree with, and their we have how to pick who to vote for

Sadly it's unlikely a party will express your views 100% because of the vast number of issues debated, so you pick the one which expresses yours most, which in my case (and others) is the BNP

Kanes · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:27

Originally posted by memphisto
having read there poilices twice I didnt see anything about removing everyone who isnt white ? they do say they would deport illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers and begin to treat britains the same as everyone else as opposed to the current britains are second class citizens climate but they dont mention removing non whites at all.

because it doesn't say anything like that in the manifesto, the people read into it. Just to add some spice to this topic, the people who usually read furthest into this and are the strongest opposers are usually from a minority group

phykell · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:30

Originally posted by memphisto I do not know the true fundamental nature of the labour government or the tories or the lib dems either then but I still have a vote.

The parties you mention have a long history. It takes only a simple search on Google to discover their roots. Come on, you know this and I believe you understand the point I'm trying to make.

Originally posted by memphisto I have delved deeper and I know where you are coming from however. My point is that based on there policies they are no worse and no more rascist than any other party.

*Yes* and my point is that their policies are a cynical ploy to appeal to those people who are willing to take them at face value. I'm sorry, but you are really confusing me. On one hard you say you have delved deeper and that you know where *I'm* coming from referring to the fact that I have pointed out that the BNP's policies are just a smokescreen, but then you say that their policies are no worse at face value! So, are you saying you are willing to vote for a party that is clearly racist right down to its rotten core, based on policies which you readily agree with me, are just a cynical ploy to disguise your chosen party's true nature?

Originally posted by memphisto If taken on face value they would appeal to great deal of the british public as they say what a lot of people want to hear. But again most of the british public will go on the policies set out in the pre election build up and the manifestos etc that are handed out and are online. In which case you cannot deem the party rascist.

That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I can deem the party racist and I can prove it. Can you prove otherwise? Anyway, by the weird logic you demonstrate above, I could deem them racist just because the other parties will be including with their pre-election build-up, statements and proof that the BNP are indeed racist.

Originally posted by memphisto However like you say there are other things that need to be considered. These things I will consider before ever making a vote for them or for any other political party but I am not going to wipe them off my list until then.

Fair enough, that's all anyone should ask of a voter. TBH, a voter with a considered opinion these days, is a rare thing indeed.

Originally posted by memphisto A final point though is that a number of people on here have argued with myself and in threads i have read etc about the rehabilitation of criminals and the fact that they can once rehabilitated lead a good life and have a positive effect on society. But you are unwilling to give these criminals a chance simply because there political views are linked with that of the BNP.

I take your point but you're not being fair. First of all, I only listed them as criminals as some of the evidence against them being the right party to vote for. Second, I believe there are certain roles and responsibilities for which certain criminals should not be allowed to take on, depending on their crime. For example, I would not choose as a bank employee, someone who'd been convicted of fraud. Likewise, as a non-racist, I wouldn't vote for a party whose leader had been convicted of incitement of racial hatred.

wassap · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:32

I absolutely detest the Bnp, but if u wanna vote them do so, free will n all that.

Once u do that, then u cannot criticise people for supporting, etta,ira,al quaida,hamas et al.

I say this because u say the bnp does what the people want, they may do bad things but thats ok,overall they are ok, people who support the above groups will say the same about their party.

How can can the Bnp be a pro british party, when the chairman him self denies the holocaust ever occured, by that statement alone he is desecrating the memories of the fine men and women who died fighting the 2 world wars........

ironman · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:38

It all adds up,

They want Britain to stay BRITISH, what the hell does that mean?
The main leaders are racists and are known for having hatred towards non whites, they have also been caught on tape taking the **** out of blacks at one of their *meets*.
There are no non whites in their party.

Now are you trying to tell me that they will let in an asian/black doctor immigrating from another country?

because it doesn't say anything like that in the manifesto, the people read into it. Just to add some spice to this topic, the people who usually read furthest into this and are the strongest opposers are usually from a minority group

Those are the people that understand what the BNP are about.

Another general question why do you think only white people vote for the BNP?

silverpaw · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:41

They're proven racists, the Burnley council meeting I refered to earlier in the thread as good as proves it.

memphisto · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:45

Originally posted by phykell
The parties you mention have a long history. It takes only a simple search on Google to discover their roots. Come on, you know this and I believe you understand the point I'm trying to make.

yes I do mate but the point I was trying to make before is that I do not think the party is anywhere near as bad now as it was portrayed etc in the past

*Yes* and my point is that their policies are a cynical ploy to appeal to those people who are willing to take them at face value. I'm sorry, but you are really confusing me. On one hard you say you have delved deeper and that you know where *I'm* coming from referring to the fact that I have pointed out that the BNP's policies are just a smokescreen, but then you say that their policies are no worse at face value! So, are you saying you are willing to vote for a party that is clearly racist right down to its rotten core, based on policies which you readily agree with me, are just a cynical ploy to disguise your chosen party's true nature?

I know where your coming from in terms of there past performances and policies as well as the current members past histories. My point is that at face value they are no worse than anyone else. If you dig deeper then yes you will find the things that you have said and as I put these must be considered. However I do not think any of the other parties are as white as sheets either. They themselves have there own agendas which probably are not as well known or broadcast but quite easily be as damaging to britain as a society. Obvioulsy this is not in terms of race but in terms such as tax, war policies, the forging of links further linking us to europe, the none policy on dealing with korea and mugabe my point is that each party have there own agendas and will do many things with which we disagree but overall we can only vote for the one that appeals the most.

That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I can deem the party racist and I can prove it. Can you prove otherwise? Anyway, by the weird logic you demonstrate above, I could deem them racist just because the other parties will be including with their pre-election build-up, statements and proof that the BNP are indeed racist.

ok then I say labour are rascist. the reason for this is in there time in power they have implemented things such as having to have a quota of people from ethnic minorites working in say the civil sevice. This is not based on who is best for the job but simply in having to fulfil this quota. This in my view is a racist policy as it is rascist against those who are no from ethnic minorities. Am I wrong ? If not then how can you call the BNP rascist and not tarnish labour with the same brush ? Yes you may consider the BNP to be more openly rascist but that does not mean the other parties are not.

Fair enough, that's all anyone should ask of a voter. TBH, a voter with a considered opinion these days, is a rare thing indeed.

I agree

memphisto · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:47

Originally posted by silverpaw
They're proven racists, the Burnley council meeting I refered to earlier in the thread as good as proves it.

no it didnt it didnt prove a damn thing.

the only thing that proved was that the labour government tried to back the BNP into a corner for nothing more than them to be able to slate them the next day in the press.

That to me was a dirty ticks campaign against the BNP and they did right to avoid it.

nastyhead · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:50

Just because you vote BNP doesn't make you racist, naive or stupid. The BNP are an alternative to all democratic parties that take a soft approach to the issues the BNP care about. I think that Labour and Conservative are afraid to take a tough stance on immigrants because they are scared of being called racists.

Immigrants are supposed to go to the nearest country of refuge and Unless France is ruled by a facist dictator it will never be Britain.

silverpaw · 9 Mar 2003 at 15:53

Originally posted by nastyhead
Immigrants are supposed to go to the nearest country of refuge and Unless France is ruled by a facist dictator it will never be Britain.

No. EU countries are all supposed to take a certain quota of asylum seekers.

At The Gates · 9 Mar 2003 at 16:01

What part dont people understand?

Their leader has been convited of inciting racial hatred, denies the holocaust ever happened and that the Jews were lying all along to create sympathy for their non christian cause.

Several of their other advisory council have been convicted of inciting racial hatred.

Several of their advisory council have been convicted of terrorism (petrol bombing), violent conduct, drug offences, explosives offences, racially motivated assaults against Jews, and several have been banned from travelling to foreign international football matches under the anti hooliganism laws.

Several of their advisory council have links with Combat 18 and French, German and American Nazi and far right racist groups. These links are recent (2002). These links go so far as to them actually attending recent far right rallys, and giving speeches there.

Now this is the advisory council. The leaders of the party, not random members or people who voted for them. You can vote for who you want, but claiming that the BNP are not an inherently racist party at their core is totally and utterly false. They have NOT changed. Yes their PR has, that much is obvious, and they've got rid of their blatantly obvious racist slander, but the core foundation of their ethos remains the same and always will.

Also, their policies are ludicrously unworkable pie in the sky ideas and are nothing more than a thinly veiled facade designed to cover up their foul underbelly.

Vote for who you like, but voting for the BNP is voting for a racist leadership.

And i'll leave you with, "I knew it was dem immigrants. Even when it was the bears i knew it was the immigrants".

ironman · 9 Mar 2003 at 16:01

Originally posted by nastyhead

Immigrants are supposed to go to the nearest country of refuge and Unless France is ruled by a facist dictator it will never be Britain.

Correction, I think you mean asylum seekers. Immigrants dont seek refuge.

dirtydog · 9 Mar 2003 at 16:13

Originally posted by wohoo
I absolutely detest the Bnp, but if u wanna vote them do so, free will n all that.

Once u do that, then u cannot criticise people for supporting, etta,ira,al quaida,hamas et al.

How can you possibly compare the BNP - who at worst are racists with racist policies - with those groups who blow people up and seek to overthrow elected democratic governments :rolleyes:

The BNP are not terrorists!

dirtydog · 9 Mar 2003 at 16:16

Originally posted by memphisto
no it didnt it didnt prove a damn thing.

the only thing that proved was that the labour government tried to back the BNP into a corner for nothing more than them to be able to slate them the next day in the press.

That to me was a dirty ticks campaign against the BNP and they did right to avoid it.

I agree. The CRE or some other such group did a very similar thing in a general election recently - they asked all candidates to sign an anti-racist motion. And of course anyone who didn't sign was accused of racism :rolleyes:

Two words.. witch hunt.

JAzz · 9 Mar 2003 at 16:17

"the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question"

This paragraph concerns me deeply, it is voluntary but why on earth would they start a scheme like that, dont u think if a person wanted to leave they could easily just walk out but obviously they dont and i can see the BNP forcing people out.

memphisto they are proven racists, the leader was with the nf for most of his life how much more proof do u want? Like said earlier a year ago Panorama showed the BNP chairman addressing a KKK rally in Texas, they care about white people and all others can drop dead and they wouldnt give a ****. Im starting to think this is the view of others here as well and the only reason i can think of is jealously

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/the_leader/default.stm Read about him here

Also u said earlier removing illegal immigrants will help save money, can u explain to me how getting rid of illegal immigrants will do this? Illegal immigrants get on with their lives and dont bother anyone

I think most of their policies sound great tbh, but i also know they will never ever get near to achieving them and they are blatently racist

dirtydog they also support groups which take part in terrorizing non-white people e.g. nf, so what makes them different to the al qaeda(sp?) who are terrorizing white people

Does anyone vote BNP if so why

Closed