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

[Grand_Pamplemousse]

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')

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

A lot of people are, in their own insane way, for "free speech" but against "hate speech" without understanding that if unpopular speech is restricted you have no free speech.

That aside, I have very serious doubts as to if the BNP really is "racist." I've been called a racist before based upon the illegal immigration issue here in America and I have to say that the word is thrown around far too much. It means almost nothing and only serves to de-legitimize actual instances of racism that should be shown the light of day.

 

[742]

because nobody has anything interesting or new to say but we all love to hear ourselves talk, and long ago someone discovered that being an ass cutting down your opponent and making it a "side" was a far better way to win any argument in the public arena than being right or having anything interesting to say yourself. since then things have only gone downhill. people in general forgot how to formulate intelligent ideas and when someone else does we usually have no clue how to respond other than a crack about their mothers.

 

[ottenni]

Because of two things.

1. People will always find a way to find excuses to exclude the things that they are against from any sort of benefit. Simply put people may be all for democracy, but like hell they will ever accept a communist government being democratically elected.

2. People have horrible double standards. In this case they will choose to omit anything that they disagree with from their beliefs of freedom of speech, but of course they can say and do whatever they want.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah, but didn't Nick Griffin also deny that the Holocaust ever happend?

There's freedom of speech and there's just plain ignorance.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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')

Freedom of speech works two ways. He is free to go on Question time, everyone else is free to ask for him not to, call him out on everything he says and all the rest.

That's the nature of free speech, end of.

 

[Woodsey]

I can't help but notice you don't know how to use quotes. After all, you've put racism in quotes as if Griffin wasn't racist?

You know, Nick Griffin; supporter of the KKK, Nazi sympathiser, Holocaust denier and general racist c*nt?

OT: Besides, why does a racist dip shit deserve freedom of speech? I realise the irony in that question, but still.

 

[DoW Lowen]

Free Speech is fine. But anyone who ever uses that as an excuse to say ANYTHING than you are not just exercising your right to free speech, but exercising your right to be an asshole.

The thing about Free Speech is that people generally think that other people would agree, this is called the false consensus effect. If you're going to use free speech be prepared for people to disagree with you.

You can say whatever you want, just don't expect people to like it. And if people don't like it they probably don;t want you to say it. People have just as much right to tell people to shut up as people have the right to speak.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

Personally I say if you would restrict the rights of others you deserve no rights yourself. Nick Griffin is a racist, fascist and a complete twit. If he were get to power you'd see ethnic cleansing camps appearing all over Britain, so I think we're justified in telling him to go to hell and take his party with him.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

That aside, I have very serious doubts as to if the BNP really is "racist."

You do?

"BNP Constitution 9th Edition". British National Party. http://bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf. Retrieved 9 June 2009. "The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined ?racial group? this being ?Indigenous Caucasian? and defined ?ethnic groups? emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALLER 1062, HL."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#cite_note-whiteonly-12

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.

 

[fix-the-spade]

That aside, I have very serious doubts as to if the BNP really is "racist."

A party that only allows white members and calls for all non-white people to be expelled from the UK?

It's in their manifesto, anyone who isn't 'ethnically British', as in white and able to trace their ancestry as purely British for X generations, is not a full citizen. They don't get equal employment, health care, benefits, tax and and bunch of other stuff. A large number of people lose their right to live and work in the UK, even though they were born here.

You could be born in Brixton, your dad could be from Brixton, so could your mum, but if you ain't white you're shit out of luck. At least read up on them a little before saying something like that.

 

[Wadders]

That aside, I have very serious doubts as to if the BNP really is "racist."

You do?

"BNP Constitution 9th Edition". British National Party. http://bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf. Retrieved 9 June 2009. "The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined ?racial group? this being ?Indigenous Caucasian? and defined ?ethnic groups? emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALLER 1062, HL."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#cite_note-whiteonly-12

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.

And why do they want to be segregated? Because they are racist.

But yeah, the BNP oughtn't to be stopped from doing things like this if they want to (even though it was a blatant effort to make them look stupid on nationwide tv) and similarly, people should be able to protest against them and ask for them to stop. That's how free speech works. They're assholes, but they have as much right to being an asshole as everyone else.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

That aside, I have very serious doubts as to if the BNP really is "racist."

A party that only allows white members and calls for all non-white people to be expelled from the UK?

It's in their manifesto, anyone who isn't 'ethnically British', as in white and able to trace their ancestry as purely British for X generations, is not a full citizen. They don't get equal employment, health care, benefits, tax and and bunch of other stuff. A large number of people lose their right to live and work in the UK, even though they were born here.

You could be born in Brixton, your dad could be from Brixton, so could your mum, but if you ain't white you're shit out of luck. At least read up on them a little before saying something like that.

I have read up on them and I've found that most things said about them are flat out untruths. This doesn't mean I support them, it means I feel they've been largely mischaracterized.

Also, they're nationalists, what do you expect? They want their nation for them, not for immigrants. Unrealistic? Sure. Divisive? Of course. Unreasonable? A bit, but not inherently racist.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

And why do they want to be segregated? Because they are racist.

But yeah, the BNP oughtn't to be stopped from doing things like this if they want to (even though it was a blatant effort to make them look stupid on nationwide tv) and similarly, people should be able to protest against them and ask for them to stop. That's how free speech works. They're assholes, but they have as much right to being an asshole as everyone else.

So if a person wants an all male or all female club they're sexist? Or maybe it's because they only want a specific group to be there. It doesn't mean they're against any other group it means they want to associate with a specific group.