Support NeoGAF

[Salazar]

Peoples first mistake will be to simply laugh off parties such as this. Clearly there are people who vote for them and clearly this is on the increase. I believe any political party has a right to freedom of speech whoever they are and in the same vein, we have a right not to listen and not to vote for them. The government needs to concentrate on where it is going wrong and correcting it as opposed to smearing other parties.
Lets face it, if other parties were doing a great job then who would need to vote for extremist groups?

Nar. The speech of a political party differs categorically from the speech of an individual, and you cannot sensibly extend the same principle to excuse it from criticism or limitation. Speech in these terms is performative. Communication is action. The BNP incites people to illegal and repulsive action. I loathe what they say and would not lift my little finger to defend their right to say it.

A

need

to vote for extremist groups issues from an alarmist false dichotomy and is piffle.

 

[donkeyspank]

Nar. The speech of a political party differs categorically from the speech of an individual, and you cannot sensibly extend the same principle to excuse it from criticism or limitation. Speech in these terms is performative. Communication is action. The BNP incites people to illegal and repulsive action. I loathe what they say and would not lift my little finger to defend their right to say it.

A to vote for extremist groups issues from an alarmist false dichotomy and is piffle.

I am not going to disagree with you on what the BNP stand for but surely You loathing what they say wont stop people voting for them will it, you can throw in as many large words as you like, it solves nothing.

Surely the speech from a political party is representing the view of the people who voted for them?

Look at them now compared with say, 5 years ago and then say piffle. They are on the rise and ignoring it wont make it go away. Surely history teaches us this.

 

[Raydeen]

Unite Against Facism

http://www.uaf.org.uk/

I'd have more respect for groups like that if we saw them protesting against Islamic hatemongers when they wave their placquards around demanding that British people are beheaded and our freedoms destroyed.

 

[Salazar]

I am not going to disagree with you on what the BNP stand for but surely You loathing what they say wont stop people voting for them will it, you can throw in as many large words as you like, it solves nothing.

Surely the speech from a political party is representing the view of the people who voted for them?

Look at them now compared with say, 5 years ago and then say piffle. They are on the rise and ignoring it wont make it go away. Surely history teaches us this.

I did not suggest that my hatred of what the BNP stands for would prevent people from voting for them, whether expressed in large words or small.

The BNP's speeches and policies do not merely represent the views of the people who voted for them. They influence them and intensify them to an astounding and sinister extent: that is the nature of activist, demagogic politics of this stripe. The fact that the BNP attracts a following among the populace does not vindicate its positions: it just makes them more fucking scary and deserving of condemnation and all practicable and defensible control.

The fact that the BNP is 'on the rise' does not make their ideals something other than 'piffle'. It makes them powerful piffle, and ratchets up the degree to which it is incumbent on all rational folks to scream 'piffle' at the tops of their voices.

 

[donkeyspank]

I did not suggest that my hatred of what the BNP stands for would prevent people from voting for them, whether expressed in large words or small.

The BNP's speeches and policies do not merely represent the views of the people who voted for them. They influence them and intensify them to an astounding and sinister extent: that is the nature of activist, demagogic politics of this stripe. The fact that the BNP attracts a following among the populace does not vindicate its positions: it just makes them more fucking scary and deserving of condemnation and all practicable and defensible control.

The fact that the BNP is 'on the rise' does not make their ideals something other than 'piffle'. It makes them powerful piffle, and ratchets up the degree to which it is incumbent on all rational folks to scream 'piffle' at the tops of their voices.

So what do you suggest then?

Banning? Because that just goes against what our society is all about. If not banning then what? Condemnation is fine but it doesnt appear to be changing much. It is a serious question, what do you think should be done?

I suggested that mainstream parties start listening to voters and acting upon that instead of ignoring us and doing what they please. Doesnt that make sense? Isnt that the way to erradicate the BNP?

 

[SmokyDave]

I did not suggest that my hatred of what the BNP stands for would prevent people from voting for them, whether expressed in large words or small.

The BNP's speeches and policies do not merely represent the views of the people who voted for them. They influence them and intensify them to an astounding and sinister extent: that is the nature of activist, demagogic politics of this stripe. The fact that the BNP attracts a following among the populace does not vindicate its positions: it just makes them more fucking scary and deserving of condemnation and all practicable and defensible control.

The fact that the BNP is 'on the rise' does not make their ideals something other than 'piffle'. It makes them powerful piffle, and ratchets up the degree to which it is incumbent on all rational folks to scream 'piffle' at the tops of their voices.

You're correct on an awful lot of that but I think there is a question of 'Chicken & Egg' to a certain extent. The BNP couldn't / wouldn't exist to propogate these views if these views weren't already widely held out there (relatively speaking). It isn't like the BNP introduced these ideas / ideologies, they simply capitalise on them. If the BNP are crushed, the phoenix that will rise from their ashes will make them look like moderates. Just as the BNP are possibly more dangerous than the National Front since they wrap their hatred in a layer of spin that NF never bothered with.

So what do you suggest then?

Banning? Because that just goes against what our society is all about. If not banning then what? Condemnation is fine but it doesnt appear to be changing much. It is a serious question, what do you think should be done?

I suggested that mainstream parties start listening to voters and acting upon that instead of ignoring us and doing what they please. Doesnt that make sense? Isnt that the way to erradicate the BNP?

Exactly. There is a middle ground here and the onus is on mainstream parties to realise what makes reasonable people vote for the BNP and win those voters back over. Simply standing absolutely opposite to the BNP on all their issues proves they are the correct party for their supporters.

 

[Salazar]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/oct/22/bnp-question-time-live-buildup

Guardian liveblogging the BNP leader's rather imminent appearance on Question Time.

 

[-viper-]

I think GAF should ban any poster in league with the BNP, just like how police officers and doctors are struck off if they are too part of the BNP.

 

[Nikashi]

I think GAF should ban any poster in league with the BNP, just like how police officers and doctors are struck off if they are too part of the BNP.

I think anyone with such extreme views would be weeded out normally tbh.

edit: Or just kept around as the resident whipping boy for their point of view

 

[NekoFever]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/oct/22/bnp-question-time-live-buildup

Guardian liveblogging the BNP leader's rather imminent appearance on Question Time.

I was reading this story just now:

And then it all floods out: "Yeah because every second house is an African, I'm not racist, I've got loads of coloured friends but when every second house is African, they're moving in, got two cars, bought houses, what can you say? We got nothing."

:lol

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Republicans are nowhere near the BNP. Try again, retards.

The anti-immigrant rhetoric is very similar, though. But otherwise, I'd agree with you.

No it isn't. Not even close.

The American equivalent is the Constitution Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)

 

[Salazar]

This is made for Hitchens. He is the finest debating mind and most forceful rhetorician around. He should be there to demolish Griffin like he did Galloway.

 

[Wes]

Do we know who the rest of the people on the panel are?

 

[Salazar]

Do we know who the rest of the people on the panel are?

Jack Straw is Labour Cabinet member, Chris Huhne is a Lib Dem, Bonnie Greer is a playwright, and Baroness Warsi is Conservative spokeswoman for community something-or-other.

I think.

 

[SmokyDave]

I think GAF should ban any poster in league with the BNP, just like how police officers and doctors are struck off if they are too part of the BNP.

Hell yeah! Democracy is for fools, My politics or no politics!

 

[joey_z]

Mr Livingstone told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Unlike any other party, when Nick Griffin speaks, or when they get elected in an area, what we see is an increase in racial attacks.

"He comes on, says his bit, does his bit, but for the angry racist it's the trigger that turns into an attack. And we first saw this when Enoch Powell made his 'rivers of blood' speech, there was a huge surge of attacks on black conductors on our buses."

I'm all for news broadcasting impartiality but if this is true then I think the costs of staying impartial outweigh any ethical obligation the BBC has to its viewers.

It's an unfortunate situation. Yet, I don't think the problem can be solved by muting Nick Griffin. Racism is rooted much deeper than one man lambasting against minorities on television and little is being done to tackle it.

 

[StoOgE]

Wait.. so these people are anti-ginger?

Fuck them.

 

[iapetus]

Hell yeah! Democracy is for fools, My politics or no politics!

GAF isn't a democracy, and loudly espousing some BNP policies is likely to get you banned. Not for supporting the BNP, just for being an asshat who didn't read the ToS.

 

[Prine]

So you guys defending them, are implying people are inherently racist, and to suppress those racist ideas the government needs to listen? Thats a pessimistic view on the white working class.

BNP stand to restrict and oppress, just read their mandate, bringing up poorly cited scientific references of keeping things "white". But i think the BBC made the right decision, they should not make martyr out of them.

 

[Enosh]

GAF isn't a democracy, and loudly espousing some BNP policies is likely to get you banned. Not for supporting the BNP, just for being an asshat who didn't read the ToS.

that's difrent

what the other guy is saiyng is to ban them just beacose they are in the BNP, regardless of their comments on this forum

 

[KHarvey16]

So you guys defending them, are implying people are inherently racist, and to suppress those racist ideas the government needs to listen? Thats a pessimistic view on the white working class.

BNP stand to restrict and oppress, just read their mandate, bringing up poorly cited scientific references of keeping things "white". But i think the BBC made the right decision, they should not make martyr out of them.

I don't think anyone has defended their views, just their right to hold and express them.

 

[Salazar]

Hell yeah! Democracy is for fools, My politics or no politics!

I prefer that people express a defensible wish for the BNP to be shut down and shut out than that people parrot Voltaire (as so many are doing) in order to feel good about themselves and robustly principled. The number of people asserting that they would die to defend Nick Griffin's right to carry on like he does offends, appalls, and frightens me. It is the most windy rhetorical embarrassment going around. We are not in revolutionary France, and to so blithely mouth a maxim that meant something—meant literally what it spells out—then is a self-humiliation.

Stan Fish is wrong some of the time, but he is percussively right on this one. His objections are mine.

I don't believe in such things as principles, if by that word you mean abstract rules which will apply to any number of fact situations while not being attached to any of them. Whenever such a "principle" is formulated it seems to me to have only two possible shapes: either it's perfectly empty because it is formulated at so high a level of generality -- "be ye perfect" -- that nothing or everything follows from it; or it is full of an agenda that has not yet announced itself and so is not a principle -- in the claimed sense -- at all. Nevertheless, the rhetorical weight of so called principles is considerable. If you can get the right "principles" on your side, if you can announce your own program and wrap it literally in the flag of the right high- sounding phrases, you can have a great advantage over your opponents. That is why, even though I am always arguing against the coherence of most First Amendment arguments and doctrines, I never urge people to stop using First Amendment formulas -- because they have so much resonance. Freedom of speech, individual rights, the establishment of autonomy, the freedom from governmental restraint -- these are magic phrases. The trick is to take those magic phrases and fill them in with the content that will then generate the outcome that you desire.

 

[SmokyDave]

GAF isn't a democracy, and loudly espousing some BNP policies is likely to get you banned. Not for supporting the BNP, just for being an asshat who didn't read the ToS.

I understand that, I object to the principal that these people should be weeded out and alienated. If they hold and disseminate odious views then the existing moderation framework would get rid of them. If they aren't visible then the assumption that every BNP voter is a foaming at the mouth racist might need challenging.

It worries me that the rise in support for the BNP, in tandem with the rise in people shouting their supporters down as brainless racists is causing an ever larger polarisation in the UK. If we can't openly discuss these issues (whether founded or unfounded) then they will bubble below the surface and eventually blow up.

I guess I can be counted as a BNP defender (not voter, or member) because I think they perform a necessary role. They can be engaged, challenged and defeated at the moment in the correct arena rather than wandering the estates of the UK taking out their frustrations 'street-style'.

Edit: 2 Clarifications.

1, I was objecting to banning BNP members, not members espousing BNP views.
2, I see the BNP as a bomb that needs safely defusing, not burying.

 

[dinazimmerman]

Rights....? Bwahahah *wipes tear away*

George Carlin said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8#t=04m24s

We have no rights, just temporary privileges.

I think Bentham said it best: "“Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.”

 

[KHarvey16]

I prefer that people express a defensible wish for the BNP to be shut down and shut out than that people parrot Voltaire (as so many are doing) in order to feel good about themselves and robustly principled. The number of people asserting that they would die to defend Nick Griffin's right to carry on like he does offends, appalls, and frightens me. It is the most windy rhetorical embarrassment going around. We are not in revolutionary France, and to so blithely mouth a maxim that meant something—meant literally what it spells out—then is a self-humiliation.

Stan Fish is wrong some of the time, but he is percussively right on this one. His objections are mine.

Voltaire didn't say it, but regardless, many people do truly hold that opinion. Your attempt to marginalize it as some kind of ill-motivated foolishness because you disagree is ridiculous.

 

[Salazar]

Your attempt to marginalize it as some kind of ill-motivated foolishness because you disagree is ridiculous.

I'm not marginalising it as ill-motivated foolishness, so much as I'm objecting to the fact that, as a decontextualised (indeed, actively anti-contextual), naked principle, it is susceptible to any motivation. That's fucked up.

And the vast, rippling majority of people supposedly holding said principle would not die to defend free speech, and state the banality in full and comfortable knowledge that the odds of them being called upon to die for free speech are fucking astronomical.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm not marginalising it as ill-motivated foolishness, so much as I'm objecting to the fact that, as a decontextualised (indeed, actively anti-contextual), naked principle, it is susceptible to any motivation. That's fucked up.

You just accused those with that viewpoint of holding it simply to feel good about themselves. I think freedom of speech is massively important whether I agree or disagree with what's being said, even if there isn't currently a revolution. I don't think the sentiment requires context.

Any idea can have any motivation behind it.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Voltaire didn't say it, but regardless, many people do truly hold that opinion. Your attempt to marginalize it as some kind of ill-motivated foolishness because you disagree is ridiculous.

If someone tried to censor BNP you think people would literally get into a shootout with police over it? Err, okay.

It seems so strange that none of these people have died to stop the massive erosion of privacy and chilling effects on speech over the last decade. Free speech zones for protests? Elderly Labour party members being thrown out over Iraq? The Government monitoring protest groups and overtly lying to the public to mount a case for war?

... and you think the people who wouldn't break a sweat for all these abuses would take a bullet for the BNP?

 

[KHarvey16]

If someone tried to censor BNP you think people would literally get into a shootout with police over it? Err, okay.

That isn't what the quote means. "Defend to the death" doesn't mean you pick up a weapon at the first sign something needs to be defended. It just means they'd die if it came to that.

 

[polyh3dron]

What about the harassment that Scientology followers get online and offline? At least their beliefs don't preach race hatred.

The problem with China is that there are too many chinks there.

The South African native is probably the one impossible person to train in the entire world - he is probably impossible by any human standard.

(quote from a letter to Dr H. F. Verwoerd, the "architect of apartheid") Having viewed slum clearance projects in most major cities of the world may I state that you have conceived and created in the Johannesburg townships what is probably the most impressive and adequate resettlement activity in existence.

Yeah, good thing they don't preach race hatred.

 

[SmokyDave]

If someone tried to censor BNP you think people would literally get into a shootout with police over it? Err, okay.

It seems so strange that none of these people have died to stop the massive erosion of privacy and chilling effects on speech over the last decade. Free speech zones for protests? Elderly Labour party members being thrown out over Iraq? The Government monitoring protest groups and overtly lying to the public to mount a case for war?

... and you think the people who wouldn't break a sweat for all these abuses would take a bullet for the BNP?

What makes you think people can't/don't get angry at all of the above and wish to defend the BNP? No-one has died because that isn't how the world works anymore. How would you die to protest the above? You'd be jailed for protesting most of them too vehemently but not shot.

Also, I gave my reasons for defending the BNP above and they had nothing to do with freedom of speech.

 

[donkeyspank]

I understand that, I object to the principal that these people should be weeded out and alienated. If they hold and disseminate odious views then the existing moderation framework would get rid of them. If they aren't visible then the assumption that every BNP voter is a foaming at the mouth racist might need challenging.

It worries me that the rise in support for the BNP, in tandem with the rise in people shouting their supporters down as brainless racists is causing an ever larger polarisation in the UK. If we can't openly discuss these issues (whether founded or unfounded) then they will bubble below the surface and eventually blow up.

I guess I can be counted as a BNP defender (not voter, or member) because I think they perform a necessary role. They can be engaged, challenged and defeated at the moment in the correct arena rather than wandering the estates of the UK taking out their frustrations 'street-style'.

Edit: 2 Clarifications.

1, I was objecting to banning BNP members, not members espousing BNP views.
2, I see the BNP as a bomb that needs safely defusing, not burying.

This man speaks sense.

 

[Chinner]

My feelings on the BNP for anybody who (doesn't) care:

The BNP are sneaky fucks and are incredibly shameful, but to persecute them is to deny democracy. It reminds me of when Griffin got pelted by the anti-fascists and one of them appeared on Channel 4 news, it went something like this:
"Why are you against the BNP?"
"Because they'll undermine democracy and freedom of speech"
"Isn't that what you're doing?"
"* Temporarily silence*"

Another issue I see is that that a lot of people appear to be stuck in a chicken and the egg dilemma when it comes to racism and the BNP. Do you really think our society wouldn't be racist if the BNP never existed? Of course it would be. Fact of the matter is that there is still a large amount of racism in this country. Admittedly the numbers would shrink once you separate hard racism from soft racism, but it's still there. Groups like this are always going to exist, and even you manage to disband them they'll raise from the ashes, such as the BNP coming together once the National Front died.

I'm not sure what the best way to tackle them is. The status quo is currently (attempt) to ignore them, and whenever they come into popular media just to lazily unite and call them racists. And y'know, it works to a degree, but the BNP are becoming pretty good at responding to it. A more educated and liberal thing to do is just scrutinize their policies like we do with every mainstream party and show everyone how full of shit they are; I'd love to hear their opinions on how to tackle climate change. Shamefully, this probably won't work because this assumes people are rational enough to look at the facts and respond appropriately, but it doesn't work like that and people vote based on personality and who they "trust".

Alternatively, the mainstream parties could actually start listening to people and start doing what they want. Don't know if this would work, it hasn't been tried yet.

tldr: i have several coloured friends....

 

[SmokyDave]

My feelings on the BNP for anybody who (doesn't) care:

That is almost exactly how I feel. Especially the 'Chicken & Egg' part, I even used that analogy on this same subject yesterday. Eerie.

I'm arriving at the conclusion I'm a bi-polar duck.

 

[donkeyspank]

Can i ask a serious and genuine question here? Only partly connected to the BNP because of their policy on immigration is so much in the media.

What i would like to know is, how is it racist to want to manage our immigration better? Of course i dont mean stop it forever, but what is wrong with stopping it temporarily whilst we sort out the mess we have got? (And yes, there is a mess).

How does making that statement make one racist? It seems that as soon as anyone mentions anything of this sort then you are jumped upon.

 

[Chinner]

That is almost exactly how I feel. Especially the 'Chicken & Egg' part, I even used that analogy on this same subject yesterday. Eerie.

I'm arriving at the conclusion I'm a bi-polar duck.

oh wow, just looked at the top of the page and i have actually basically just echoed everything you said. eerie indeed.

edit: question time is gonna own tonight, especially considering they've got some BNP members in the audience!!

 

[SmokyDave]

oh wow, just looked at the top of the page and i have actually basically just echoed everything you said. eerie indeed.

edit: question time is gonna own tonight, especially considering they've got some BNP members in the audience!!

Yeah, I just noticed it was this topic too! Even the 'rising from the ashes bit'. Check my avatar, is that your face?

Me and a few friends are actually having a question time party tonight. Pass the joints round and laugh at the left & right tearing each other new arseholes. You never know though, something useful and productive may come out of all of this.

 

[liquid_gears]

Can i ask a serious and genuine question here? Only partly connected to the BNP because of their policy on immigration is so much in the media.

What i would like to know is, how is it racist to want to manage our immigration better? Of course i dont mean stop it forever, but what is wrong with stopping it temporarily whilst we sort out the mess we have got? (And yes, there is a mess).

How does making that statement make one racist? It seems that as soon as anyone mentions anything of this sort then you are jumped upon.

Obviously the BNP is inherently racist, very few would try to deny that, but there is nothing wrong with your suggestion. The problem is that people are so blinded by the racist elements of the BNP that they just choose to ignore and disregard anything that the party says, even when they highlight valid concerns of the populace. You want to limit/stop immigration? Well then, you must be a BNP supporting racist...

If Griffin can't even enter the studio, then this will be a sad day for democracy in this country. There are hundreds, possibly even thousands of violent, student shitheads outside the BBC studio at the moment.

Politics in this country has been stale since New Labour was elected, but I can't remember the last time that I felt this stongly about politics in this country.

The BNP serve as a necessary counterbalance to politics in this country. They have elected MEPs, do not try to ignore them/dismantle them with violence, it will not work.

 

[Chinner]

Me and a few friends are actually having a question time party tonight. Pass the joints round and laugh at the left & right tearing each other new arseholes. You never know though, something useful and productive may come out of all of this.

hopefully something entertaining will happen, but grffin's MO will be to avoid any talk a bout immigration/dem darkies. i want to watch it live, but alas i am a student without a tv license or aerial so i'll just have to make do with bbc iplayer.

 

[Parl]

hopefully something entertaining will happen, but grffin's MO will be to avoid any talk a bout immigration/dem darkies. i want to watch it live, but alas i am a student without a tv license or aerial so i'll just have to make do with bbc iplayer.

You can watch live on iPlayer. Not sure if that breaks TV licencing rules though, or if you'd follow them.

 

[Chinner]

You can watch live on iPlayer. Not sure if that breaks TV licencing rules though, or if you'd follow them.

*strokes chin*

edit: don't think you can

 

[Parl]

*strokes chin*

edit: don't think you can

Don't think you can what? What live or watch live without breaking TV licencing rules?

 

[Salazar]

You just accused those with that viewpoint of holding it simply to feel good about themselves. I think freedom of speech is massively important whether I agree or disagree with what's being said, even if there isn't currently a revolution. I don't think the sentiment requires context.

Any idea can have any motivation behind it.

For me to feel morally and intellectually secure about advocating something, yes, it fucking well does require context. The way in which it becomes more and more philosophically windswept and trendy to support freedom of speech the more abstracted and generalised the principle becomes makes me bridle with suspicion and repulsion. I can in cases support the application of the principle, the enactment of it, but putting your shoulder behind an idea that 'can have any motivation behind it' is writing a moral blank cheque and handing it out to miserable psychopathic fuckers like the BNP.

 

[KHarvey16]

For me to feel morally and intellectually secure about advocating something, yes, it fucking well does require context. The way in which it becomes more and more philosophically windswept and trendy to support freedom of speech the more abstracted and generalised the principle becomes makes me bridle with suspicion and repulsion. I can in cases support the application of the principle, the enactment of it, but putting your shoulder behind an idea that 'can have any motivation behind it' is writing a moral blank cheque and handing it out to miserable psychopathic fuckers like the BNP.

You're engaging is some pretty ridiculous mental gymnastics to justify the limitation of free speech because, ultimately, you don't like what they have to say.

 

[NekoFever]

*strokes chin*

edit: don't think you can

You certainly used to be able to watch it as it was broadcast here. I haven't looked in a long time but I assume it's the same.

 

[Salazar]

You're engaging is some pretty ridiculous mental gymnastics to justify the limitation of free speech because, ultimately, you don't like what they have to say.

No, I don't think I am. I'm just objecting to the fetishisation of principle, and insisting on the preferability of remaining open to decide between cases. That is, insisting on the importance of context - that does not amount to mental gymnastics and it is some distance from being ridiculous. To hold an absolute principle is to adopt an uncritical attitude, and that leaves one more open to moral disaster than if one were to remain pragmatically unprincipled.

It's an objection that goes beyond not liking what the BNP has to say, just as what the BNP says goes beyond ostensibly harmless expression.