who are you voting in the euro elections?

[Arriba]

true,but not only racists.

[donkey]

Getting back to the BNP the answer is definitely NOT to ban them. By all means jail them if they break the law, but a ban would only give them a stange form of Kudos, as with the Muslim extremists.  After all this country went to war with Hitler partly to defend the right of free speech.

And also to defeat fascism.  I do not wish the deaths of all those who fought fascism to be in vain.  Having said that the BNP vote actually fell (may have been mentioned elsewhere)...

[pauld]

The think is that they just did not agree that the BNP was a racist party, rather that they where just taking a sensible approach to immigration to protect the interests of British citizens.

You may like to point out:

1) The BNP's stated aims and objectives, their core political principles, are explicitly racist.
2) Their constitution, which bars non-whites (and even some whites e.g Poles, Slavs etc) from membership, is explicitly racist
3) Their manifesto at the last general election promised "voluntary" repatriation for non-whites (although how "voluntary" that would be in practice is entirely another matter) and for those non-whites who chose to remain, they would no longer be defined as British and so would be stripped of their citizenship. Griffin is still claiming non-whites cannot be called British.
4) Their leaders both at national and regional level are racists -
Griffin has a criminal conviction for inciting race hatred from his time editing "The Rune" a viciously anti-Jewish Nazi magazine;
Brons (their other MEP) started out in a group called "The National Socialist Movement" before moving onto become leader of the NF at its most virulently racist period;
their "ideological officer", Arthur Kemp, is a South African admirer of the AWB (the neo-Nazi Afrikaner terrorist organisation), reportedly linked to apartheid-era SA intelligence and the assassination of ANC activist Chris Hani
The guy who hosts their website and founded and ran the Hereford branch of the BNP, Lambertus Nieuwhof, is another South African who was convicted in South Africa for an AWB terrorist attack in which he and others tried to blow up a church school full of (black) kids. Only their incompetence prevented a massacre as the 25kg bomb failed to go off. Seems it's not all foreign criminals the BNP have a problem with - just non-white ones

I could go on (and frequently have done)

In short, the BNP was founded by and is still run by vicious, violent racists, many of them with criminal convictions for racist violence, hooliganism, terrorism, drugs offences etc.

So I'd ask your friends, if this motley crew don't sound like racists, who the fuck actually do they think would qualify as racists? It's like saying Hitler just took a bit of a strong line on that whole Jewish thing

[jonny72]

2) Their constitution, which bars non-whites (and even some whites e.g Poles, Slavs etc) from membership, is explicitly racist

What about all the other organisations throughout the UK which are specifically targeted at groups based on ethnicity, skin colour or nationality? Whilst some may not preclude others from joining, they all specifically promote that group over and above others. So surely that must mean they are all racist as well?

[pauld]

What about all the other organisations throughout the UK which are specifically targeted at groups based on ethnicity, skin colour or nationality? Whilst some may not preclude others from joining, they all specifically promote that group over and above others. So surely that must mean they are all racist as well?

No. There's a world of difference between special interest groups, formed to promote the interests of a particular section of society and specifically excluding people from joining on the basis of their race/ethnicity. Combine it with the frequent "non-whites are not British" comments from Griffin, Brons etc even over the past few days, the manifesto pledge to strip non-whites of citizenship and you don't have to be a genius to see that a BNP-led Britain may just be a teensy weensy bit racist

[Ardiles]

What about all the other organisations throughout the UK which are specifically targeted at groups based on ethnicity, skin colour or nationality? Whilst some may not preclude others from joining, they all specifically promote that group over and above others. So surely that must mean they are all racist as well?

Or what about the Girl Guides?  This virulently anti-bloke organisation would exclude me from joining because

(a) I'm in my 30s (ageist); and
(b) I'm male.

It's a disgrace.  They should be shut down immediately.

You can pick holes in any argument by taking it to its logical (and often completely impractical) conclusion.  But apply a little common sense, and it's clear that comparing the BNP to your local West Indian Community Association is a bit daft.  However, you could construct an argument to prove that both were 'racist' if, for what ever reason, you really wanted to.

[Rich Pullen]

The North East remained a Labour stronghold but suffered a dip in votes.

I voted for the Jury Team who received the least amount of votes in the region, 2904.

The BNP got a worrying 52700 votes.

Someone told me "pfft, the people are getting to worked up, the BNP only got 2 seats" - isn't this the problem? The fact that they got two seats?

I'm the first to admit that I'm not the greatest political mind, but why has the Lib Dems apparently suffered? They appear sound and were on the up but people seem to have jumped onto Cons or UKIP.

[BANGKOK RED]

What about all the other organisations throughout the UK which are specifically targeted at groups based on ethnicity, skin colour or nationality? Whilst some may not preclude others from joining, they all specifically promote that group over and above others. So surely that must mean they are all racist as well?

What about them?

Are we now supposed to have a discussion about how racist those groups are whilst forgetting the conversation about how racist the BNP are. It's a typical tactic from such a fascist organisation to direct attention from themselves to the failings of others, and in this instance these other groups just happen to be the very kind of group that the BNP would like to see eliminated, how convenient.

And of course, if those groups are racist and it's OK then it must be OK for the BNP top be racist. Is that how it works?

[pauld]

I'm the first to admit that I'm not the greatest political mind, but why has the Lib Dems apparently suffered? They appear sound and were on the up but people seem to have jumped onto Cons or UKIP.

All 3 established parties lost votes, including the Tories (their share of the vote went up but they didn't make massive gains in terms of number of votes) - not a great night for any of them. Some of that vote turned to UKIP, minor parties etc but mostly people just didn't turn out at all, a reflection of the disgust many people feel with all politicians right now

[Rich Pullen]

Cheers Paul.

[pauld]

Cheers Paul.

(I wouldn't rely on that btw, but that's how I understand it anyway). And I just realised I didn't really answer your question re Lib Dems - as I understand it, their vote held up OK (or at least fell roughly in line with everyone else's) as did their share of the vote, but they lost out on some seats because the Tories and UKIP increased their share of the vote while the Lib Dems stood still in those seats. So they didn't do badly per se, just other swings hit them (and probably some roundabouts too)

[jonny72]

No. There's a world of difference between special interest groups, formed to promote the interests of a particular section of society and specifically excluding people from joining on the basis of their race/ethnicity.

I'm talking specifically about their membership policy, nothing else, just the whites only rule.

If its ok to form a group to promote the interests of a particular section of society, what exactly are the BNP doing wrong? Why is it ok to exclude white's but not to exclude non-white's?

It might seem like a stupid argument to you, but to a lot of people it isn't - especially the people that voted for the BNP. Just saying the argument doesn't have any basis isn't going to cut it with those people. Change the law to say that no organisation can limit membership based on ethnicity, enforce it and the problem is solved.

One down, then you move on to their next argument, whatever that is. This is the only way to tackle the BNP and wipe their vote out. Saying their arguments are stupid and that they're racist is just counter productive.

[BANGKOK RED]

I'm talking specifically about their membership policy, nothing else, just the whites only rule.

If its ok to form a group to promote the interests of a particular section of society, what exactly are the BNP doing wrong? Why is it ok to exclude white's but not to exclude non-white's?

It might seem like a stupid argument to you, but to a lot of people it isn't - especially the people that voted for the BNP. Just saying the argument doesn't have any basis isn't going to cut it with those people. Change the law to say that no organisation can limit membership based on ethnicity, enforce it and the problem is solved.

One down, then you move on to their next argument, whatever that is. This is the only way to tackle the BNP and wipe their vote out. Saying their arguments are stupid and that they're racist is just counter productive.

The BNP themselves don't even attempt to say that their membership policy is OK. Instead they just skip it by drawing attention to other groups that have a similar policy.

Just because others do it doesn't make it OK does it?

[jonny72]

There is also another very simple way to reduce the % of the votes that go to the BNP - get more people to vote.

Someone who votes for the BNP is more likely to walk down to the polling station and vote than someone who votes for one of the main parties. This is a fact and the switch from postal to polling station was the direct cause of the BNP getting one of their MEP seats, if not both of them.

We need to get more people voting anyway, I'd go as far as changing the law to say you have to vote (or some kind of reward for voting, such as £10 off your council tax - just bump up council tax to cover it, so its more a case of not voting costing you £10). At minimum we should have postal and internet voting.

[pauld]

I'm talking specifically about their membership policy, nothing else, just the whites only rule.

If its ok to form a group to promote the interests of a particular section of society, what exactly are the BNP doing wrong? Why is it ok to exclude white's but not to exclude non-white's?

You've missed the point - the special interest groups I assume you were referring to such as, say, the Black Police Offciers Association which is Griffin's favourite and where I presume you picked this facile argument up from do NOT exclude whites. They are a special interest group to promote the interests of Black Police Officers but they do not exclude white officers from joining.

Really, though, you're dancing around with chop logic here - as others have pointed out it's immaterial whether groups like the BPOA (and I'm not defending them by the way) are racist or not. The argument is whether the BNP are racist. Which they are. Or are you seriously trying to argue that the BNP aren't racist?