So why did someone expressing their freedom of speech become unpopular?

[BonsaiK]

People who have a platform of intolerance for others don't deserve tolerance themselves. Saying "I demand tolerance for my intolerance" is a fundamentally incoherent statement. This is why the BNP will never be taken seriously by anybody in politics, ever.

The Holocaust was real, even if all the mountains of evidence didn't exist, I've seen people with the camp tatts under the arms applied by SS, my grandfather was a soldier for the Reich and also observed camp activity, and my family grew up in Berlin and saw the human convoys at train stations etc. Some people like to deny it though because they live in a fantasy kingdom where Santa comes down the chimney and the tooth fairy leaves money under their pillow. Holocaust deniers use logically inconsistent arguments to "disprove" the Holocaust because they want Nazism to have a good public reputation... obviously though they probably like the IDEA of the Holocaust happening, they feel that as a PR exercise it would be better for them if the Holocaust didn't actually happen.

 

[Wadders]

I wouldn't say it makes us as bad, but I still wouldn't advocate shutting him up. He should have the right to say whatever he wishes within the auspices of the law. And legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus, as our ancestors might say. When he goes too far (as he did in his holocaust denial) he should really have to answer for it.

Yeah, I agree, that seems fair enough really.

Of course, we still shouldn't, if only for the practical reason of not stepping on that slippery slope of censorship.

Exactly, we can berate and slag them off them all we wish, but we ought to try and abide by our principles, and not just shut them down cos we dont like what they're saying. As cuddly tomato said: "He should have the right to say whatever he wishes within the auspices of the law"

 

[Spitfire]

They only want to mix and associate with white "native" English people, and for what reason would this be? I can think of no area or circumstance in which white English people are different from black or Asian people (who may or may not be English) other than in their skin colour.

If we're talking about native African or native Asian people, then what about culture? That is a huge difference, which could serve as the defining factor in this case, and there's nothing racist about ethnocentrism per se.
I'm not saying this is the case or not, as I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but it's something to keep in mind.

 

[beddo]

I was recently watching the Question Time (in England) in which Nick Griffen (leader of the British nationalist Party) controversially starred.

The live audience seemed as if given the insentive they would quite happily string him up, many names were called and generally very few questions not along the lines of "NICK GRIFFEN YOUR A DICK LULZ!" were actually asked.

EDIT: People rioted outside the BBC recording studio... they rioted to STOP someone expressing themselves.

Everybody else upon the panel got off scott-free as nobody wanted to ask them any questions at all. Jack straw (Justice minister) said absolutely nothing about the failure in the Government's new immigration sceme - which lost 80,000 immigrants in the system.

So... heres my question. If the BNP stood for anything else they would not get lynched like they were, so why did freedom of speech become unpopular? (even in this case of 'racism')

There is a movement against free-speech, it comes from the idealised notion that people have some right not to be offended.

However, he is not unpopular because he is exercising his freedom of speech, he is unpopular for what he expresses. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of unquestioning acceptance.

 

[Pillypill]

It's because Nick Griffin is a member of a fascist, racist party (he admits it, thats what the BNP is), and is also a fascist and a racist. So him, or any BNP member, appearing on TV to discuss policy is very close to... erm, whats it called, that whole teaching hate law thing. freedom of speech means you can say and think what you want, it doesn't give you the right to have them aired, on national television.

 

[riskroWe]

I'd vote for them, purely because I like to vote for the crazy parties. Views like this need to be heard, regardless of how ridiculous and stupid they are, because everybody keeps forgetting they exist.

 

[Kuhly]

This reminds me of One nation that was a party in Australia up till a few years ago. They went strong until they tried to go big time and crumbled under the type of media scrutiny that was normal for the major parties got all time. So i guess the BNP will just crumble once they try and take on the major parties and get asked what there policy's are. Cause I've found in my time a lot of these party's are the one issue party's. Which is usually "BLAME THE IMMIGRANTS FOR EVERYTHING" policy.

 

[jimborious]

I'd vote for them, purely because I like to vote for the crazy parties. Views like this need to be heard, regardless of how ridiculous and stupid they are, because everybody keeps forgetting they exist.

That is a retarded statment, would you vote for the KKK if one of them ran for the white house, or maybe if we could resurect Hitler you'd like to vote him in as our PM.

This is the beauty of free speach you can say what ever stupid thing pops into your head, and i can call you a twat for saying it. Isn't freedom tasty?

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

'People don't want to hear your opinion, they want to hear their own opinion in a different voice.'

Now that the original topic is answered, let's jump on the BNP once more.

Comparing the BNP to the Nazis is one of the very few justified xamples of Godwin's law. A newspaper article I read a while ago (during the European election) had a journalist infiltrate a BNP party and witnessed them burning books, and then putting effigies of different races into the fire as well. The effigies had signs on them saying things like 'go home blacks/we don't want your kind here/Britain for white people.'

I'm not an expert on political parties, but that doesn't seem right.

The problem is always that you can't just look at their agenda or their manifesto or constitution, you have to look at what they say and do outside of that, because that's the people they really are. Nick Griffin may have a pretty political website which lays out their aims in well-worded platitudes, but the sentiment behind it is racial hatred. He is a despicable man, who has gathered other despicable men around himself, and seeks to influence other people in order to further his own goals.

There's a difference between nationalism and xenophobia, patriotism and racism, and a difference between sound political debate and a hate monger spewing crap. We lock up terrorists who spread messages of hate, we have laws to prevent it. Nick Griffin may have stopped being so up front about it, but the sentiment is still there.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Edmonds continued to hold influential positions within the newly-formed British National Party, rising to deputy leader and effective caretaker leader for a spell in 1986 whilst Tyndall was serving a prison sentence for incitement to racial hatred. He also took a role in funding the party, notably in 1989 when he provided some of the money for the purchase of a new party headquarters in Welling [2]. Edmonds leading role in the party was further strengthened by his success in the 1992 election when his 3.6% share of the vote in Bethnal Green and Stepney represented the party's best showing of that election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Edmonds

I'd go through this point by point, but I think by sheer number of references(along with the statement made by Edmonds that they were, in fact, racist) that you've won. Allow me to make some closing statements, however as I don't agree with some of the conclusions you come to.

Honestly, this stuff that you're pointing me to now, seems like they're the new Nationalist Socialist Party of 1930s Germany in many regards.

Second thing said they're very pro multiculturalism. So what's the problem?

Um, did you read it?

"The migrations of the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples have been, over the past few thousands years, instrumental in defining the character of our family of nations,"

How is that multiculturalism? Maybe in like, 1067 that would be multicultralism...

So their multiculturalism doesn't go far enough? Big deal. Their stated goals are to preserve their heritage. It seems somewhat unreasonable to preserve a given heritage by trying to mix it with vastly differing heritages.

I now more fully remember my arguments(I enjoy playing devil's advocate, sue me)

Well, it's more that you're playing uninformed troublemaker--devil's advocate refers to someone who makes a counter-argument based on the common facts. What you're doing is more of just assuming a set of facts that are not true.

First of all, I don't believe everything I read on the internet. I didn't know skepticism was such a bad thing. Also, I never said your facts were untrue and the only time I came close was that I didn't know who Edmonds was.

Second, at no point in the past three conversations I've had on the subject has anyone actually pointed to actual news articles or statements made by actual leaders of the party that they are, in fact, racist. My arguing was exactly what I believed to be the common facts.

from previous arguments about the BNP. The BNP wants to preserve the British heritage and culture. They like their culture. They like their heritage. They see it as being destroyed by certain forms of immigration and they don't want it to be taken from them. So, because a group of people want to hold onto their heritage they're suddenly out to destroy all other cultures and peoples? Do you have to hate another culture to want to preserve yours? Are you a racist for wanting to preserve your heritage?

Leaving that aside for now, isn't this part of their platform:

SECTION 1: POLITICAL OBJECTIVES

1) The British National Party shall be a political party which shall be referred to throughout the rest of this Constitution as ?the party?.

2) The political objectives of the party are set out in the following Statement of Principles?.-

(a) The British National Party is a party of British Nationalism, committed to the principle of national sovereignty in all British affairs. It is pledged to the restoration of the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It believes that the indigenous peoples of the entire British Isles, and their descendants overseas, form a single brotherhood of peoples, and is pledged therefore to adapt or create political, cultural, economic and military institutions with the aim of fostering the closest possible partnership between these peoples.
(b) The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.

How is that not racist?

How is it racist? They're not stating the supremacy of a specific race. They're not stating that one race is better or worse than another. They're stating that they want their racial heritage to live on and they want to go through legal channels wherewith they can accomplish that goal.

They want their racial heritage to live on. How is that racist?

 

[Wadders]

They only want to mix and associate with white "native" English people, and for what reason would this be? I can think of no area or circumstance in which white English people are different from black or Asian people (who may or may not be English) other than in their skin colour.

If we're talking about native African or native Asian people, then what about culture? That is a huge difference, which could serve as the defining factor in this case, and there's nothing racist about ethnocentrism per se.
I'm not saying this is the case or not, as I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but it's something to keep in mind.

Sure there probably will be cultural differences, but again, they are not so vast that they should cause someone to be excluded from joining a political party

 

[SonicWaffle]

People who have a platform of intolerance for others don't deserve tolerance themselves. Saying "I demand tolerance for my intolerance" is a fundamentally incoherent statement. This is why the BNP will never be taken seriously by anybody in politics, ever.

The BNP don't need to be taken seriously by anybody in politics. They only need to be taken seriously by the ordinary people who will be doing the voting, and it seems like every time we have an election or a poll they gain a little bit more of the vote. Humans are notoriously stupid creatures sometimes. A lot of people agree with them, whether through outright racism or a growing worry at the loss of their national identity.

I think the Question Time issue was a huge mistake by the BBC. As a government the BNP would be disastrous; they have no long term plans or ideas beyond "Darkies go home!". If the show had been an ordinary, discussion based episode then this would have become apparent, and would have done the BNP no favours.

Instead, the show was used as a platform to attack Griffin, his views, and his party. They didn't have even a semblance of impartiality, and just abused him the entire time. I grant that he deserves it, but to those who have been sitting on the fence because his views seem a little too extreme he now looks like a sympathetic figure, beset by people who are victimising him. I'm willing to bet they gained some votes from that fiasco, when merely giving his views equal weight would have allowed him to shoot himself in the foot.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

--space--

Bullseye my good man.

How is it racist? They're not stating the supremacy of a specific race. They're not stating that one race is better or worse than another. They're stating that they want their racial heritage to live on and they want to go through legal channels wherewith they can accomplish that goal.

They want their racial heritage to live on. How is that racist?

They are seeking to limit the rights and services of people who have a different skin tone to them. That is their entire agenda.

 

[BonsaiK]

People who have a platform of intolerance for others don't deserve tolerance themselves. Saying "I demand tolerance for my intolerance" is a fundamentally incoherent statement. This is why the BNP will never be taken seriously by anybody in politics, ever.

The BNP don't need to be taken seriously by anybody in politics. They only need to be taken seriously by the ordinary people who will be doing the voting, and it seems like every time we have an election or a poll they gain a little bit more of the vote. Humans are notoriously stupid creatures sometimes. A lot of people agree with them, whether through outright racism or a growing worry at the loss of their national identity.

I think the Question Time issue was a huge mistake by the BBC. As a government the BNP would be disastrous; they have no long term plans or ideas beyond "Darkies go home!". If the show had been an ordinary, discussion based episode then this would have become apparent, and would have done the BNP no favours.

Instead, the show was used as a platform to attack Griffin, his views, and his party. They didn't have even a semblance of impartiality, and just abused him the entire time. I grant that he deserves it, but to those who have been sitting on the fence because his views seem a little too extreme he now looks like a sympathetic figure, beset by people who are victimising him. I'm willing to bet they gained some votes from that fiasco, when merely giving his views equal weight would have allowed him to shoot himself in the foot.

I didn't see the episode so I can't comment specifically on that, but assuming it played out as you say it did, I agree in principle with what you are saying.

 

[Aerodyamic]

I see your definition of the BNP with the definition of racism.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Not allowing another group based upon race does not mean that group is inherently racist. It means they're segregated.

I see your raise, and call semantics.

The Jews won't leave anyone into their religion, those that make them racist?

No, the Orthodox Jews won't allow anyone that wasn't born a Jew to convert to THEIR branch of Judaism. If you wanted to become anything but a Hasidic Jew, you'd be permitted, if you could pass the muster.

2) The political objectives of the party are set out in the following Statement of Principles?.-
(b) The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.[/I]

Back to you again: Have you ever done any research on early Celtic and Norman history, as it pertains to the settlement of the British Isles? The Celts were exactly 'milk-skinned and straw-haired', and the Normans were proto-French. I think that about buggers the BNP claims of 'Indigeneous British Peoples', just like the fact that my family have been in Canada for nearly 500 years doesn't actually make me a First Nations Member; a native american, if you would.

Back to the cellar with you.

 

[riskroWe]

I'd vote for them, purely because I like to vote for the crazy parties. Views like this need to be heard, regardless of how ridiculous and stupid they are, because everybody keeps forgetting they exist.

That is a retarded statment, would you vote for the KKK if one of them ran for the white house, or maybe if we could resurect Hitler you'd like to vote him in as our PM.

This is the beauty of free speach you can say what ever stupid thing pops into your head, and i can call you a twat for saying it. Isn't freedom tasty?

It is. And yes. Yes I would.
Because I know they're not going to win. The fact that you present these examples to be ridiculed is proof enough of that.