Illegal to discriminate in politics?

[Ellie]

The BNP (British National Party) are a prevalent party in the United Kingdom.

Their main goals are: white-only power; abolishment of homosexuality, immigration, and racial equality; "British jobs for British people", etc.

Now, they are a political party. This means that while their ideals may be illegal to practise, the notion of attempting to change laws to make these legal is not illegal, if that makes sense.

In other words, it is legal to make their party white membership only, and to preach nationalistic and fascist ideology making them major parts of their manifesto.

To make it worse parliament is currently in turmoil over a huge cash benefits scandal. Nobody trusts any of the three main parties (meaning the BNP have a good running here).

They just set up the YBNP (Youth BNP), a sort of scouts type organisation that teaches children shooting, preaches racist/homophobic views, and is pretty much a neo-Hitler-Youth.

My question is: should this be legal?

If we live in a democratic society, then surely we should not be discriminated against.

At the same time, if we are a democratic society, then this party should be allowed to stand for parliament and be allowed to get into power (hi holocaust 2.0).

Can the rights of a few be wavered to save the rights of the many? Or should a democratic country have the right to do as Germany did in the 1930's - that is, the right to sacrifice their democracy?

 

[Jason]

Well to be honest with you, I think what the BNP are trying to do is just plain wrong, I mean, I can understand the "British jobs for British people", as alot of foreigners have been coming over here and working for cheaper, which is a godsend for the companies in the UK, cheap work, great. However, think of the impact on those who have lost their jobs, and for those of us searching for jobs, it's too hard to find one, as there will always be some foreigner who will take the job for less pay. So thats completely understandable in my eyes.

However, the whole "White only" idea that they're preaching, saying that they're going to get rid of anyone who isn't white, keep everything british etcetera, well that's just retarded, I mean, how many items and products we have in the UK, are actually made in the UK ? Hardly any, we get most of our resources from overseas, from the trade routes within europe etc. And the BNP are going to cut off these links, so everything will be made in the UK, yeah, sure that could work out great for the jobless people, but where are we going to get the resources to create these products etc, where will we get oil for our cars, everything we have (Almost), comes from abroad, so that's going to be the most retarded move they could make, and if they ever (I doubt it) achieve power over the country, they'll see just how much of a shit hole they've made it.

And as you've said, we live in a democracy, and these people have got it into their heads, that they can stand up, say "Fuck democracy", and think they can discriminate anyone that isn't white-british, and deport them. If I could say two words to them, they'd be "Good luck", cause we all know they'll never reach that height of power. Democracy or no democracy, no way in a million years will the UK let them govern us, 'cause if they do, alot of bad things will happen, and the UK will plummet.

PS. Sorry if I'm sounding a little racist or anything saying foreigners, can't think of what to call them since they're from more than one place (Although they're all eastern europe/middle eastern countries)

 

[Ulqiorra]

Well, I don't really like what they're trying to do either.

White-only power? Bah, if you think that'll happen you're dead wrong.

Abolishment of homosexuality? I don't care as much, as I'm not a fan of homosexuality either. Sorry.

Abolishment of Racial Equality? Why would anyone want that? That'd only cause problems(Civil Wars, maybe?).

British Jobs for British people? Meh, I think they've got the right to try and institute that. I mean, as jBrist said, there's always going to be some foreigner who'll work for less, but that causes problems for people can't work for less.

 

[Ellie]

Saying that a foreigner will work for less is completely irrelevant, because if you needed the job that badly then you would accept less too. Their race has nothing to do with how much money they would accept. Minimum wage is minimum wage, and if you didn't want to go down to how much this person who has "stolen your job" is offering then you should be looking at a different job anyway.

Abolishment of homosexuality? I don't care as much, as I'm not a fan of homosexuality either. Sorry.

WHAT

I appreciate everyone has opinions but are you seriously saying you'd support (or at least not care) thousands of people being prosecuted for their sexual preferences?

 

[Ulqiorra]

I said I was sorry... And I don't want anyone prosecuted, it's not like they're doing anything to society(even if they're going against nature), I just don't see why they can't follow nature's path. If human's were meant to be homosexual, then everyone would have been born with both organs. And my last rant: Anal Sex = Owww! :down:

But anyway, that's enough on that subject. Just disregard that part of my last post. Truthfully I don't want them prosecuted, persecuted or any other -secuted, just for the sexuality. I don't really care about you being gay, just don't try to get me into it.

 

[Ellie]

Well I mentioned it because it is part of their policies. By abolishing homosexual laws what I meant was abolishing the changes that have been made in the past to allow everyone to have the same freedoms.

They want to turn around the abolished anti-homosexual laws, which would make it illegal to be a homosexual. And with how the BNP treat muslims (they shit in super-soakers and squirt it through letterboxes, it was filmed in a Channel 4 documentary and nothing happened about it), they'd do the same to homosexuals. And even if you think it's wrong personally, like you said, still don't want them prosecuted.

Should we have the right to aim to set laws like this?

I mean, should a political party have the right to have things like this in their manifesto and teach it to their members and the YBNP (Youth BNP)?

If it's a truly free country then yes. Unfortunately.

Democracy or no democracy, no way in a million years will the UK let them govern us, 'cause if they do, alot of bad things will happen, and the UK will plummet.

We would and are.

Stoke on Trent already has BNP councillers, as well as other places.

BNP recieved 0.7% of the vote last year, set to rise. (0.7% doesn't sound a lot, but that's 7/1000, when there's 20,000,000? voters in a country that means ~140,000 people agree with them.

 

[Ulqiorra]

Yeah, 140,000 is still a lot of people.

And also, the whole world is going downhill fast. I don't think the UK is going to fall any slower because they didn't let the BNP govern them.

BUT, it will fall much faster if they get their way. I promise you that.

And also, is the UK's democracy different from america's "democracy"? You know, the one that barely exists?

 

[Incognitus]

The most tragic thing about BNP supporters are that many of them are genuinely nice people who think the BNP stands for something it doesn't.

I remember when their membership list came out, and the tabloids were doing a breakdown of their more interesting members and interviewing them, many came forward willingly - most having since left the BNP - saying that they believed the BNP was a patriotic christian party and having since discover... you know... their leadership are Neo-Nazis.

A lot of what they say is complete nonsense anyway - they can barely run their party, let alone the country.

If they do decide to send back all the Asians (who are, apparently, the biggest threat) this whole place would fall apart anyway just because nobody else knows how to run this nation!




Vote BNP! Because that 8% poses a strong racial threat to the rest of us! :barf:

 

[Ellie]

The fact that releasing a membership list would be so bad pretty much sums up why the party should not exist in the first place.

I mean, aren't there rules for how/why political parties can be formed?

We don't have a constitution like the US I don't think (though even that is "amended" :| and would only be suitable if it was perfect to begin with).

 

[Ulqiorra]

Well, I asked because there isn't a real democracy in the US. Not even for electing a president. Sure there's voting day, but the president is really picked by the electoral college. That's how it is.

 

[Ellie]

On a similar line to this, I have another question:

- Should anybody be able to run for parliament?

Is experience needed? Is proven ability/talent needed? Or should, as should be the case in a "democracy", should anybody be able to run for parliament?

At the moment you pretty much need to be the leader of one of the major parties to become Prime Minister (I'm sure it's the same in the US).

But let's say Avery G. Joe wanted to become Prime Minister. He's a chippie owner, cooks fish in his free time. He has no experience but thinks he can change the country~, should he be able to register, get his name on ballot cards, and become Prime Minister (or President)?

 

[Incognitus]

Is experience needed? Is proven ability/talent needed? Or should, as should be the case in a "democracy", should anybody be able to run for parliament?

If we introduce measures meaning that our MPs need to show they have experience or talent, then we'd lose the half of the House of Commons that wasn't booted out for fiddling their expenses.

 

[Vadon]

Though I'm an American, I'll insert my two cents on this topic.

On the question of whether or not the BNP should be allowed to exist: Yes. Do I disagree with everything they say? Yes.

They're trying to institutionalize their fringe ideals, but I don't see a real problem with their attempts. It's a freedom of expression. So long as they don't break the laws they're trying to change, I think it's fine for them to voice their opinion or try to change the laws. Democracy only works when conflicting ideas are put to the test. Now, as you pointed out, the BNP received .7% of the vote. Even though labor and the torries are rather unpopular right now, I would be hardpressed to believe that the BNP have more than a snowflake's chance in hell of winning the upcoming election. I even doubt they would get enough seats via proportional representation to make a difference.

But look on the bright side, it could be worse. Here in the States, a fringe right-wing sect of the Republican party has placed a vice grip on the leadership of the party. It's what has created so much infighting in the party (the Powell v Cheney/Limbaugh). But you list what terrifies you about the BNP--'Abolishment of Homosexuality,' British jobs in British hands, an end to racial equality, etc.-- The current Republican party is lead by folks with similar socially regressive views.

And before I get to the second question you've posed, I'm going to play a little bit of Devil's advocate on the BNP's views. Take note I still think they're morally deplorable, but I think they deserve a defense. The abolishment of homosexuality, I believe is intended as an abolishment of the recognition of homosexuality. They don't want to institutionalize homosexuality by giving homosexuals same-sex benefits. I think there's a difference between that and persecution. British jobs in British hands seems to make sense. And the end to Racial Equality-- I believe what they're saying is that we shouldn't have legislation requiring it. Here in the States we use Affirmative Action to try to close the income, education, and diversity gaps within our system. I bet that ending racial equality is something similar. You shouldn't promote racial equality by playing favoritism with minorities. Edit: Nope, just checked. They're racist bastards. Plain and simple.

Now onto your second question: Should inexperienced folks be allowed to run for parliament and/or the PM?

Sure. The test of qualification is left in the hands of the people. If you have an experienced, policy-wonk with heaps of integrity running against a shallow, inexperienced, person people will more likely vote for the experienced member. I have some faith in a liberal democracy, so I suppose I'm a bit of an idealist. As for the question of the PM and if Avery G. Joe can run. Absolutely. The way you become PM is by becoming the party leader and then your party wins a controlling plurality of seats in the House of Commons. To become the party leader, you need to demonstrate your experience, qualification, and vision to the rest of the party. The party then elects you as their leader and you will be the PM if your party wins. My point is that an average Joe or back-bencher should be allowed to run, but they shouldn't be surprised when they're demolished as an inexperienced, opportunistic hack.

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[Ulqiorra]

I don't know anything about life? Heh...

Is experience needed? Is proven ability/talent needed? Or should, as should be the case in a "democracy", should anybody be able to run for parliament?

The BNP(any every other politician)has experience. But what kind of experience? In running a country? Or in running a country?

My point:

Political Power is about keeping those under them in the dark, making sure they don't see what goes on behind the scenes, so they have all the power. So they can control your every move. So they can get you to give up your wealth and allegiance easily. That's what true power is.

 

[nikki]

You cant force people to not hate. Making hate groups illegal is just as fascist, isnt it? How would you enforce the non-hate laws? Burn books? Cart people away to re-education facilities?

 

[Rappu]

I think that you can criminalize hate speech/crimes and discrimination of groups who don't negatively effect the society or harm themselves. I.e. it'd be OK to ban BNP due to nazist ideologies, but banning it wouldn't make banning or discriminating against non-threatening, non-harming stuff like homosexuality/gay rights or non-white rights or people. The former actively tries to make the society a worse place, goes against human rights and is for discrimination, while the latter don't harm anybody. Of course, someone might be bothered about gays or blacks or whatever, but that's really their own, personal problem. Sexual orientation or skin colour doesn't adversely affect the society nor people; the worst that can happen from having married gay couple next door is that if your house has thin walls and the gay neighbours are a happy couple, you might need some earplugs at night.

You cant force people to not hate. Making hate groups illegal is just as fascist, isnt it? How would you enforce the non-hate laws? Burn books? Cart people away to re-education facilities?

Nope, but you can ban hate/agitation speeches and material (basically, make "incitement to hatred" a crime and actually prosecute such cases), ban government-level/official discrimination (i.e. gays and interracial couples get to marry and an employer can't choose their employees based on skin colour), recognize hate crimes as hate crimes, ban official hate groups (basically banning groups like KKK and neo-nazis - groups that exist to commit hate crimes) and whatnot.
Before someone's going to say anything about the freedom of speech... It isn't a card to entitle people to say whatever they want whenever they want sans repercussions. Its purpose is allowing people to criticize the government, presidents, monarchs et cetera. And this is how freedom of speech isn't really conflicted by banning incitement to hatred in speeches and papers.

 

[CrapFactory]

The idea here is that if you outlaw hate speech you risk going too far. And there's always the choice to ignore those haters anyways. It's not like the KKK will get power in America and America has absolutely no anti-hatespeech laws (unlike Canada and many other 1st world countries).

IMO we should just let them say what they want to say. I mean they're jerks and I would never support them. But I think in the end it's safer to not limit speech at all except threats and flat out lies which aren't debatable even religiously or anything.

 

[Ellie]

And there's always the choice to ignore those haters anyways. It's not like the KKK will get power in America and America has absolutely no anti-hatespeech laws (unlike Canada and many other 1st world countries).

BNP just won their first two seats in European Parliament. :| So these people are getting power and we are actually supporting them.

 

[CrapFactory]

And there's always the choice to ignore those haters anyways. It's not like the KKK will get power in America and America has absolutely no anti-hatespeech laws (unlike Canada and many other 1st world countries).

BNP just won their first two seats in European Parliament. :| So these people are getting power and we are actually supporting them.

That represents a failure somewhere down the line. I do not think outlawing it would be the right thing to do. I might be wrong. In America saying something like "whites only" would guarantee you don't get elected. The only discrimination allowed here these days is against gays apparently and that's going away slowly. :haha: