The BNP - Good or Bad? [Archive]

Mint

08-11-2009, 12:08 AM

I'm sure we will be getting loads of mixed opinions here but before you post, please take the extra time to read these facts that I have copied.

Given current demographic trends, we, the indigenous British people, will become an ethnic minority in our own country well within sixty years and most likely sooner.

All the signs are there:

- At least 84 percent and likely more of all current UK citizenship applications are from the Third World;

- Fourteen percent of all primary school children do not have English as a mother tongue;

- At least 316 primary schools in England have a large majority of children whose first language is not English;

- Non-indigenous births will soon account for more than half of all the babies born in Britain;

- Over the next twenty five years, immigration will account for forty percent of all new households set up in this country;

- Some 3.7 million legal migrants have entered this country since 1997 and 2.5 million are from outside the European Union; and

- At least twenty percent of the currently resident population were either born overseas or are descendants of foreign-born parents.

The vast majority of these foreign-born residents are of Third World extraction. According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics, at least eleven percent of all people living in Britain today were born overseas. This figure does not include their second or third generation children.

All these facts point inexorably to the overwhelming and extinguishing of Britain and British identity under a tsunami of immigration. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.

We will abolish the positive discrimination schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of asylum seekers, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.

The BNPs policy is to:

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

We want Britain to remain or return to the way it has traditionally been. We accept that Britain always will have ethnic minorities and have no problem with this as long as they remain minorities and do not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles.

India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it so why should Britain?

Each nation has the right to maintain its own identity. The right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani and the right of Saudi Arabia to remain Saudi does not mean that any of these nations hate anybody else.

This is all the British National Party seeks for Britain the right to be British.

Also, this link shows poll proof that more people agree with the BNP's policies when BNP is not mentioned, when the BNP is mentioned with the policies less people agree.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/196

Thanks for reading all of this, I hope it has influenced the post you are about's to make. :)

kk.

08-11-2009, 12:21 AM

Ok I'm gonna start of by saying I didn't read all of it.. Well actually, I read the first statement that in 60 years we'll be a minority. Well, a minority isn't White people, it's being British. Well, the immigrants that come into the UK, will hve kids, and then there kids are brought up in Britain and are therefor british, so no. In 60 years, I doub it will have really changed.

Sorry I didn't read it all though. The comment about deporting ALL 2 million immigrants will probably cost more so than keeping them in the country!!

Black_Apalachi

08-11-2009, 02:25 AM

I'm sure we will be getting loads of mixed opinions here but before you post, please take the extra time to read these facts that I have copied.

Thanks for reading all of this, I hope it has influenced the post you are about's to make. :)

From where please?

Misawa

08-11-2009, 03:33 AM

I agree with some of what the BNP have to offer, yet they are still very much an extremist party, and their more recent policy changes are dishonest and untrue to their core beliefs, built on lies.

Hitman

08-11-2009, 10:57 AM

I agree with some of what the BNP have to offer, yet they are still very much an extremist party, and their more recent policy changes are dishonest and untrue to their core beliefs, built on lies.
I am in agreement with Misawa. Some of their views I agree with, but some are a bit extreme.

Japan

08-11-2009, 11:07 AM

-:Undertaker:-

08-11-2009, 11:14 AM

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;Agreed.

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;Agreed.

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;Agreed.

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;Not agreed.

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;Not agreed.

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.Agreed.

I support UKIPs' stance more, which is freeze immigration totally for a 5-year period, then when we sort out the current mess that we have, introduce a system which only allows people in if we want them, and if we need them. It is just really common sense that every other country has and does.

differences make us special. Who said? - I thought colour etc didn't matter yet now it appears to make us special.

Ardemax

09-11-2009, 06:45 AM

bad.

there's no doubt they're racist and they discriminate people so yeah, that's bad so they're bad.

Hushie

12-11-2009, 03:28 PM

Bad, the way they are gaining popularity is the exact same way the Nazi's did. Blaming all our problems on one group of people.

Also, posting biased, and probably false, statistics from their website to sway people's opinions in a debate just isn't right..

Jay.

12-11-2009, 03:41 PM

I support the BNP, not because they're racist, they're simply being smart.

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;

If we tell someone they can't come in, then they come in, if we keep them in, Britain would be walked all over.

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

I agree. If someone breaks OUR rules, they don't have the right to stay in OUR country. Simple.

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;

Yes. UK have been too soft on these people, so they should be reviewed again and sent home if they shouldn't be here.

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;

Depends on the money. It'll be nice for a grant to compensate them, but not too much, we don't need lots of government spending now.

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;

Agreed, all other countries do it, why can't we?

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

Yeah. They passed through countries they could've stayed in.

We want Britain to remain or return to the way it has traditionally been. We accept that Britain always will have ethnic minorities and have no problem with this as long as they remain minorities and do not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles.

Exactly. They just want Britain to be British!

India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it so why should Britain?

Exactly my argument.

Each nation has the right to maintain its own identity. The right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani and the right of Saudi Arabia to remain Saudi does not mean that any of these nations hate anybody else.

YES. Britain is British and shouldn't be swarmed with others just because they like it better.

This is all the British National Party seeks for Britain the right to be British.

Black_Apalachi

12-11-2009, 03:49 PM

But still, if you think of the people that have moved here and aren't causing any trouble or inconvenience, then when I imagine if I was being booted out of the country away from my family and friends... it's just sickening. Other than that, I think I agree with most things.

Ajthedragon

12-11-2009, 10:10 PM

I think some of their policies are ok, but others are just mad.

Cypher-

13-11-2009, 08:31 AM

Extremist party with a leader who doesnt have the intelligence to outwit Jack Straw doesnt display lots of confidence, as for the first line of your post British people doesnt mean white people. Im sure there are alot of black people and whatever else ethnicity who are more british than me and you.

The day that the BNP grabs power in the UK is the day I stop loving our Queen and country and it seems a long way off.

Jay.

13-11-2009, 11:23 AM

They just want us to be what we were in the olden days. Why should we let people in our country, use our NHS we fund, and give them benefits when we're in a financial struggle ourself.

It's a little like having a baby, think of this. Someone has a baby, starts bringing it up, then goes out of work. Unemployed. They have another baby, still unemployed, struggling with money. Then ANOTHER child, barely coping. We're taking on too much we can handle.

Kick them out, rebuild our economical background, get out of the recession, then maybe less-restrict the borders again.

Swearwolf

13-11-2009, 11:59 AM

im more in support of them but still think they need to sort their ideas out

-:Undertaker:-

13-11-2009, 02:17 PM

Eoin

13-11-2009, 02:21 PM

racist bigots, hope they crumble.

Ardemax

13-11-2009, 04:09 PM

The sad thing is that he did outwit Jack Straw (the MP who incidently fiddled his expenses).

nothing against you, but you're very quick to bring up a defense for the BNP

Cypher-

13-11-2009, 06:14 PM

The sad thing is that he did outwit Jack Straw (the MP who incidently fiddled his expenses).

Please show me in the numerous videos of the recording where he outwitted Jack Straw? Griffin's answer to every question thrown at him was "umm" followed by an answer of that which a 5 year old could have came up with quicker.

If you reference the incident where Griffin talked about Straw's dad being in prison, this is not outwitting Straw it is simply having a dig at his personal life, something which the BNP are very good at.

EDIT

racist bigots, hope they crumble.

Is racism worse than sectarianism? *REMOVED* :S

Edited by Jamesy (Forum Moderator): Please do not be rude to other forum members.

-:Undertaker:-

13-11-2009, 06:58 PM

nothing against you, but you're very quick to bring up a defense for the BNP

Yes I am aren't I, maybe because I support democracy and it seems to me that when I post how Labour etc are equally as bad and as 'racist' it appears to go ignored/hits a nerve.

Please show me in the numerous videos of the recording where he outwitted Jack Straw? Griffin's answer to every question thrown at him was "umm" followed by an answer of that which a 5 year old could have came up with quicker.

If you reference the incident where Griffin talked about Straw's dad being in prison, this is not outwitting Straw it is simply having a dig at his personal life, something which the BNP are very good at.

Griffin was overcut in many of his replies on that sad excuse for a panel, on the points he did manage to get in (just like when Jack Straw accused Griffin of supporting Nazi causes Griffin replied with the fact that his Dad served in WW2, while Straws Dad was sitting in a jail for refusing to fight).

On the points that Griffin did get in he was mostly right, like when there was 'outrage' at when he said that people find homosexuality creepy - well yes, i'm gay and I know that most people find homosexuality creepy, its a fact of life.

Teabags

13-11-2009, 07:23 PM

I do think that the BNP has some good policies. Preffering the BDL though. Nick Griffin is a total moron and he is the only prevention to why the BNP has not gained power.

Nick Griffin - The Nazi party went a little too far :l

Because ofcourse that'll gain you votes.

Alkaz

13-11-2009, 07:36 PM

I think the under lying main points to the party are good. People have just turned it into something it really isnt.

Eoin

13-11-2009, 07:42 PM

Is racism worse than sectarianism? *REMOVED* :S

you could do, but in my eyes sectarianism is just as bad as racism. dont see me giving your religion pelters, *REMOVED*

Edited by Jamesy (Forum Moderator): Please do not be rude to forum members.

Ardemax

13-11-2009, 08:47 PM

but you never seem quick to rush up at any other party when they come under threat from a hxf member...

Wig44.

13-11-2009, 10:58 PM

The BNP:

Policies: good.
Party members' core values: Bad.

-:Undertaker:-

14-11-2009, 02:15 PM

but you never seem quick to rush up at any other party when they come under threat from a hxf member...

No I don't do I, mainly because other parties don't come under the type of debate that the BNP comes under and the fact that it angers me when parties such as Labour and people like you throw the word racist around to label anyone.

I was called racist yesterday in Habbox Help Desk for saying that British North America was a good thing, so it shows that the word is merely worthless now and has no real meaning and is usually thrown about by the left as an attempt to discredit people who want simple things; such as immigration controls.

Cypher-

14-11-2009, 03:37 PM

you could do, but in my eyes sectarianism is just as bad as racism. dont see me giving your religion pelters, *REMOVED*

Edited by Jamesy (Forum Moderator): Please do not be rude to forum members.

If thats the case remove your alt as it is offensive to protestant's :) Dirty rebels always going on about it, they might as well all be BNP members.

Bun

14-11-2009, 04:57 PM

good or bad? it isn't even a bloody debate. if you have any political knowledge, any common sense and actually read their policies you'll know they are nothing but bad.

Ardemax

14-11-2009, 05:14 PM

No I don't do I, mainly because other parties don't come under the type of debate that the BNP comes under and the fact that it angers me when parties such as Labour and people like you throw the word racist around to label anyone.

I was called racist yesterday in Habbox Help Desk for saying that British North America was a good thing, so it shows that the word is merely worthless now and has no real meaning and is usually thrown about by the left as an attempt to discredit people who want simple things; such as immigration controls.

that really is a fail comparison

im sorry but im not throwing the word racist at anyone, im labeling one group of people, supports and members of the BNP.

right ill put this to you; you were fighting in WW2, got sent to a death camp and you saw your friends being gassed and you just managed to survive. then 70 years later a man says it never happened and was completely un-true.

well?

Mint

19-11-2009, 05:18 PM

Did you hear about that 13 year old boy who stood up to him when nick griffin decided to visit the Menin gate in Belgium?
Anyway, surely if someone feels British and live and abide by the UK laws and customs then doesn't that make them British? We shouldn't base things around colour and differences make us special.
Polish people are white and we want them out, just like we would want any other immigrants out regardless of their colour. :S

good or bad? it isn't even a bloody debate. if you have any political knowledge, any common sense and actually read their policies you'll know they are nothing but bad.

It's funny because the people that vote BNP aren't usually the political know-it-all type, they are the people that want to keep britain british and like their policies so they vote, simples.

-:Undertaker:-

19-11-2009, 06:04 PM

that really is a fail comparison

im sorry but im not throwing the word racist at anyone, im labeling one group of people, supports and members of the BNP.

right ill put this to you; you were fighting in WW2, got sent to a death camp and you saw your friends being gassed and you just managed to survive. then 70 years later a man says it never happened and was completely un-true.

well?

Freedom of speech, i'd think "that's what I fought to defend."

Ardemax

20-11-2009, 06:41 AM

Freedom of speech, i'd think "that's what I fought to defend."

oh my god.

just shocked face here. how the hell can you stick up for the racist guy in the corner?

he denied that nazi germany killed millions of jews via gas chambers, and you're sticking up for him? :S:S

are you honestly saying the holocaust never happened?

-:Undertaker:-

20-11-2009, 07:39 PM

oh my god.

just shocked face here. how the hell can you stick up for the racist guy in the corner?

he denied that nazi germany killed millions of jews via gas chambers, and you're sticking up for him? :S:S

are you honestly saying the holocaust never happened?

Here is the vital difference between common sense and your posts; I never said the holocaust did not occur, I merely said that he has a right (as a result of hundreds of years of wars) to freedom of speech.

Do you not understand the concept of freedom of speech?

HotelUser

20-11-2009, 11:03 PM

Mint

21-11-2009, 01:18 AM

Black_Apalachi

21-11-2009, 01:48 AM

... Obviously freedom of speech is allowed, but a party of racist morons should not be allowed. If you're trying to justify that they are allowed to be racist due to freedom of speech that's stupid. You wouldn't go around telling people you're going to break into their house and murder them, then turn around and say you're legally allowed to make this death threat because of freedom of speech:S ...

I'm pretty sure 'freedom of speech' refers more to expressing your personal beliefs rather than being allowed to say what you want to who you like in terms of abuse.

Or

Even if freedom of speech allows what you said, it is cancelled out by laws regarding abuse and threats on others.

HotelUser

21-11-2009, 03:07 AM

I'm pretty sure 'freedom of speech' refers more to expressing your personal beliefs rather than being allowed to say what you want to who you like in terms of abuse.

Or

Even if freedom of speech allows what you said, it is cancelled out by laws regarding abuse and threats on others.

When the BNP followers express their racist beliefs it's abusive to millions of people.

Black_Apalachi

21-11-2009, 03:15 AM

When the BNP followers express their racist beliefs it's abusive to millions of people.

Granted, but if someone wants to believe a historical event didn't happen, that comes under freedom of speech. Otherwise you may as well say it should be illegal to deny that the birth of Jesus Christ ever happened.

Please don't ignorantly mistake this post to mean I do not believe the holocaust happened. I agree that you have to be pretty mindless to deny such a thing but that's not the point is it :).

HotelUser

21-11-2009, 03:24 AM

Granted, but if someone wants to believe a historical event didn't happen, that comes under freedom of speech. Otherwise you may as well say it should be illegal to deny that the birth of Jesus Christ ever happened.

Please don't ignorantly mistake this post to mean I do not believe the holocaust happened. I agree that you have to be pretty mindless to deny such a thing but that's not the point is it :).

I totally understand where you're coming from, however the belief of the birth of Jesus Christ isn't something that's negatively offending millions of people:P

Black_Apalachi

21-11-2009, 03:38 AM

I totally understand where you're coming from, however the belief of the birth of Jesus Christ isn't something that's negatively offending millions of people:P

I know it's not at the same level, but couldn't Christians say it was an insult?

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 11:23 AM

Here is the vital difference between common sense and your posts; I never said the holocaust did not occur, I merely said that he has a right (as a result of hundreds of years of wars) to freedom of speech.

Do you not understand the concept of freedom of speech?

of course i understand the concept, but you've ignored my posts on how he denied the holocaust

what's your opinion on that then??

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 02:29 PM

Anybody who sides with a party which has anti-Semitism views and is in holocaust denial, is not a stable person, lacks any sensible knowledge about politics, and probably isn't the brightest lightbulb in the tool shed:P

Obviously freedom of speech is allowed, but a party of racist morons should not be allowed. If you're trying to justify that they are allowed to be racist due to freedom of speech that's stupid. You wouldn't go around telling people you're going to break into their house and murder them, then turn around and say you're legally allowed to make this death threat because of freedom of speech:S
Wrong.

Threatening someone and freedom of speech are totally different things, the British National Party have not threatened anyone. As shown by your first line which says anyone who sides with the BNP is in your words 'unstable' - shows yet again that if anybody dares disagree with the left they are automatically rascist, crazy, homophobic, xenphobic or evil.

When the BNP followers express their racist beliefs it's abusive to millions of people.

That is freedom of speech, they have not threatened anybody so they are entitled to say what policies they would lay down if they gained office. I find some of Labours' policies disgusting and unjust, but I accept their right to speak openly about them, just like I accept the right of the BNP too.

of course i understand the concept, but you've ignored my posts on how he denied the holocaust

what's your opinion on that then??

I have not ignored your posts on holocaust denial, you may be attempting to trip me over with the same questioning I trip you over with, but I have answered it clearly before; I don't agree with him but I agree with his right to an opinion on it.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 02:32 PM

I don't agree with him but I agree with his right to an opinion on it.

how dare he have an opinion to deny such an event? ... :S

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 02:34 PM

how dare he have an opinion to deny such an event? ... :S

You have just basically said to me 'how dare he have an opinion different to mine' - that is the line Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Amin, Mugabe, Lenin all hold/held central to their hearts, at the cost of democracy and hundreds of millions of lives.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 02:44 PM

You have just basically said to me 'how dare he have an opinion different to mine' - that is the line Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Amin, Mugabe, Lenin all hold/held central to their hearts, at the cost of democracy and hundreds of millions of lives.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe i said that.

You then compare me to Hitler which is ironic isn't it? At the cost of millions of people's lives too?

Hmm lemme make an equation...

Hitler + Killing millions of innocent people = oh wait.. that didn't happen now did it...

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 02:50 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't believe i said that.

You then compare me to Hitler which is ironic isn't it? At the cost of millions of people's lives too?

Hmm lemme make an equation...

Hitler + Killing millions of innocent people = oh wait.. that didn't happen now did it...

You just said how dare someone have an opinion to deny such an event the way I understood it, so in that case you have just said how dare somebody have an opinion that if different to that of your own.

On the case of Hitler, yes if somebody questions peoples rights to have an opinion that is different to their own, then that is the same view that Adolf Hilter took and is a totally wrong view to take. History is not black and white, its like when I compare the European Union to the Soviet Union - well obviously the EU hasn't killed millions of people, however their command structures and their methods of working and aims are exactly the same.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 03:12 PM

You just said how dare someone have an opinion to deny such an event the way I understood it, so in that case you have just said how dare somebody have an opinion that if different to that of your own.

On the case of Hitler, yes if somebody questions peoples rights to have an opinion that is different to their own, then that is the same view that Adolf Hilter took and is a totally wrong view to take. History is not black and white, its like when I compare the European Union to the Soviet Union - well obviously the EU hasn't killed millions of people, however their command structures and their methods of working and aims are exactly the same.

Their "command structures" and methods are exactly the same as the Soviet Union's? ok that's a new one aswell lol

Well I didn't say how dare somebody have an opinion that is different to mine.

I think you're making things up.

HotelUser

21-11-2009, 03:14 PM

Threatening someone and freedom of speech are totally different things, the British National Party have not threatened anyone. As shown by your first line which says anyone who sides with the BNP is in your words 'unstable' - shows yet again that if anybody dares disagree with the left they are automatically rascist, crazy, homophobic, xenphobic or evil.
I'm assuming you meant to say threatening someone and being racist are two separate things, as that was the initial comparison. And they are different things, but they're both derogatory and illegal things.

If someone does side with the BNP then they're agreeing with the parties views, therefore agreeing to accept racist views, which in turn makes that person racist.

That is freedom of speech, they have not threatened anybody so they are entitled to say what policies they would lay down if they gained office. I find some of Labours' policies disgusting and unjust, but I accept their right to speak openly about them, just like I accept the right of the BNP too.
You can't flaunt freedom of speech around everywhere, because the real freedom of speech doesn't exist in the sense that you're talking about. There are already restrictions on freedom of speech, such as I pointed out with my death threat example. Freedom of speech already doesn't exist, so the racist party (and when I say the racist party I clearly mean the BNP), should not be allowed to express their racist and offensive views.

I have not ignored your posts on holocaust denial, you may be attempting to trip me over with the same questioning I trip you over with, but I have answered it clearly before; I don't agree with him but I agree with his right to an opinion on it.

Nobody has tripped anyone over, unless you're care to elaborate on that.

I understand that you're trying to tell me that these lunatics have the right to express their political views, however much absurd those views may be, but I'm just not seeing it;)

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 03:43 PM

Their "command structures" and methods are exactly the same as the Soviet Union's? ok that's a new one aswell lol

Well I didn't say how dare somebody have an opinion that is different to mine.

I think you're making things up.

Yes, because if you look into the European Union and the Soviet Union you would find that both are unelected, with a parliament with no powers and both were forced on the people of Europe by eliteists.

No you did imply that with your sentence, ok to make it clear then; do you think somebody should be able to deny the holocaust?

I'm assuming you meant to say threatening someone and being racist are two separate things, as that was the initial comparison. And they are different things, but they're both derogatory and illegal things.

If someone does side with the BNP then they're agreeing with the parties views, therefore agreeing to accept racist views, which in turn makes that person racist.I support some elements of the British National Partys policies, does that make me racist?

You can't flaunt freedom of speech around everywhere, because the real freedom of speech doesn't exist in the sense that you're talking about. There are already restrictions on freedom of speech, such as I pointed out with my death threat example. Freedom of speech already doesn't exist, so the racist party (and when I say the racist party I clearly mean the BNP), should not be allowed to express their racist and offensive views.You can, the British National Party is a legal party and has a racial immigration policy, just like that of the Labour Party. Therefore the British National Party has every right to protest and talk about their views without persecution from the octopus state thats gone a little loony left and seems to think that anybody that disagrees with it it either rascist, homophobic, crazy, evil or xenohphobic. I was called xenophobic on here once for saying the United Kingdom should leave the European Union - thats how the left operates, slander and submission.

Nobody has tripped anyone over, unless you're care to elaborate on that.

I understand that you're trying to tell me that these lunatics have the right to express their political views, however much absurd those views may be, but I'm just not seeing it;)..then you hold the same views to your heart that Hitler held to his, that something you don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to exist. It really make me wonder why we fought a world war when so many people today don't give a damn/have no grasp of the meaning of freedom of speech.

I don't agree with socialist parties, however I would never restrict/ban their right to freedom of speech. I guess this (again) shows politics in its true colour, the left cannot accept an opinion that differs to theirs.

Black_Apalachi

21-11-2009, 03:46 PM

Ardemax, DAN ISN'T SAYING THE HOLOCAUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. :eusa_wall

HOWEVER THAT ***** AT THE BNP IS ALLOWED TO BELIEVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IF HE WANTS.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 03:58 PM

Yes, because if you look into the European Union and the Soviet Union you would find that both are unelected, with a parliament with no powers and both were forced on the people of Europe by eliteists.

No you did imply that with your sentence, ok to make it clear then; do you think somebody should be able to deny the holocaust?

No, I don't think anyone should deny the holocast. There's so much proof it happened, the stories told from veterans, the actual written proof etc.

Ardemax, DAN ISN'T SAYING THE HOLOCAUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. :eusa_wall

HOWEVER THAT ***** AT THE BNP IS ALLOWED TO BELIEVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IF HE WANTS.

I didn't say he denied the holocaust? Don't go on a hissy!!!!

btw I don't understand your second sentence with the asterix's

Black_Apalachi

21-11-2009, 04:07 PM

Well why do you keep asking the same questions then? He's said about 7 times that freedom of speech means one is allowed to deny it.

The second part was about Nick Griffin.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 04:11 PM

Surely if you deny it, your status towards countries like France, Germany, Poland etc. would be seen as racist? Or maybe discrimination?

I'm not saying you deny it, but people like Nick Griffin who denied it.

Black_Apalachi

21-11-2009, 04:14 PM

Well that's why you have to decide whether you accept freedom of speech or not. I don't know whether those countries accept it the same way we do in the UK, but they can't claim to accept it and then complain as soon as you say something they disagree with, for reasons stated by Dan above.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 04:52 PM

let's be honest, the holocaust doesn't occur often...

so surely some countries have the right to control whether the denial of it should be allowed or not.

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 05:27 PM

No, I don't think anyone should deny the holocast. There's so much proof it happened, the stories told from veterans, the actual written proof etc.

I didn't say he denied the holocaust? Don't go on a hissy!!!!

btw I don't understand your second sentence with the asterix's

I am not asking whether it occured or not, I believe it happened aswell as you obviously do. I am asking whether or not you think people should be allowed to say (freedom of speech) whether or not they believe it happened or not.

let's be honest, the holocaust doesn't occur often...

so surely some countries have the right to control whether the denial of it should be allowed or not.

That's called a dictatorship hunny.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 05:33 PM

I am not asking whether it occured or not, I believe it happened aswell as you obviously do. I am asking whether or not you think people should be allowed to say (freedom of speech) whether or not they believe it happened or not.

as in to actually say it infront of other people because they don't think it happened?
ill refer back to my other post, the holocaust doesn't occur often and just the absolute shock and horrific events that happened in it that were so dreadful lead me to believe that they shouldn't be forgotten and certainly not denied.

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 05:59 PM

as in to actually say it infront of other people because they don't think it happened?
ill refer back to my other post, the holocaust doesn't occur often and just the absolute shock and horrific events that happened in it that were so dreadful lead me to believe that they shouldn't be forgotten and certainly not denied.

..then that quite simply means that you do not value freedom of speech just as Hitler didn't and that an opinion that is different to yours, in your opinion, should be banned/not permitted.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 06:55 PM

..then that quite simply means that you do not value freedom of speech just as Hitler didn't and that an opinion that is different to yours, in your opinion, should be banned/not permitted.

you've said the same thing you did in the last post and if you read properly you will know im not the same as Adolf Hitler and feel quite offended that you compared me to Hitler

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 07:31 PM

you've said the same thing you did in the last post and if you read properly you will know im not the same as Adolf Hitler and feel quite offended that you compared me to Hitler

You do not value democracy, you have admitted yourself that an opinion that is different to yours, one which you do not agree with, should be banned. That is wrong.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 08:24 PM

You do not value democracy, you have admitted yourself that an opinion that is different to yours, one which you do not agree with, should be banned. That is wrong.

no i have not.

give me a direct quote saying where i say if there's an opinion different to mine, so it must be banned...

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 08:59 PM

no i have not.

give me a direct quote saying where i say if there's an opinion different to mine, so it must be banned...

You said that Nick Griffin should not be allowed to deny the holocaust, despite this being his opinion. His opinion is different to yours and you have called for it to be banned, thus calling for an opinion that disagrees with your own to be banned.

Ardemax

21-11-2009, 09:14 PM

You said that Nick Griffin should not be allowed to deny the holocaust, despite this being his opinion. His opinion is different to yours and you have called for it to be banned, thus calling for an opinion that disagrees with your own to be banned.

quote plz

-:Undertaker:-

21-11-2009, 09:18 PM

You have not directly said that, so are you now telling me that Nick Griffin should be allowed to deny the holocaust? - which is it?

Black_Apalachi

21-11-2009, 11:56 PM

you've said the same thing you did in the last post and if you read properly you will know im not the same as Adolf Hitler and feel quite offended that you compared me to Hitler

Oh my days that's exactly what you are doing! You keep saying the state should decide what the people are allowed to believe.

You do not value democracy, you have admitted yourself that an opinion that is different to yours, one which you do not agree with, should be banned. That is wrong.

^^^ This is exactly what you are saying Ardemax. ^^^

Right, forget the topic (the Holocaust). Just think about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means you are allowed to believe anything you want and not be scared to speak out about your beliefs.

However, if you want freedom of speech, you have to accept that others may say things you do not like or agree with. But for freedom of speech to work, you must also accept the other person's beliefs.

You can't have your cake and eat it by claiming freedom of speech BUT telling people what they can or can not believe! Just because it happens to be a touchy subject, it changes nothing.

MrPinkPanther

22-11-2009, 09:55 AM

Ardemax

22-11-2009, 11:41 AM

Oh my days that's exactly what you are doing! You keep saying the state should decide what the people are allowed to believe.

^^^ This is exactly what you are saying Ardemax. ^^^

Right, forget the topic (the Holocaust). Just think about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means you are allowed to believe anything you want and not be scared to speak out about your beliefs.

However, if you want freedom of speech, you have to accept that others may say things you do not like or agree with. But for freedom of speech to work, you must also accept the other person's beliefs.

You can't have your cake and eat it by claiming freedom of speech BUT telling people what they can or can not believe! Just because it happens to be a touchy subject, it changes nothing.

So I can insult you as much as I want, then when you complain I can say it was freedom of speech and your complaint would be ignored. Is that how freedom of speech works then?

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 12:47 PM

The "Freedom of speech" argument is poor. Of course there are limits on what we can say. Ok the BNP talk about Islam being a religion of war, yes? Well surely Muslims should have the right to insight racial hatred against the British and Americans then? Its a two way street. We have "Freedom of speech" but this freedom is constrained by common decency which is why Racism and Homophobia is against the law and why the BNP should be too.

Also saying "Other countries do it, why shouldn't we" is a poor argument. In the 1940's most of Europe was under Nazi control. "They are facists, why shouldn't we be". It makes no sense! Britain is an independent country for a reason and the vast majority of people in Britain are liberal and have no real problem with migrants.I find aspects of socialism sickening and believe its led to hundreds of millions of deaths throughout history, should Labour, The Socialist Party and others be banned then if the BNP is to be banned? - afterall its come out that Labour infact had a immigration policy that was based on race, just like the BNP - yet I don't see you calling for them to be banned?

So I can insult you as much as I want, then when you complain I can say it was freedom of speech and your complaint would be ignored. Is that how freedom of speech works then?

Denying the holocaust isn't directly insulting anybody, people will get insulted but thats life, just like they wold get insulted by my view that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and wasted soliders lives for nothing.

..so yes, finally you are understanding the meaning of freedom of speech and that is doesn't work one way, it has to work both ways.

Bun

22-11-2009, 01:33 PM

About the bit I bolded, you are certainly right about that. Us English look at their policies, like them and vote. You'd have to be foreign mad not to! :P
please don't group me, a very patriotic Englishman, in with those facist morons. there's a difference between being proud in your country (let's face it not many english people are) and being racist.

MrPinkPanther

22-11-2009, 01:36 PM

I find aspects of socialism sickening and believe its led to hundreds of millions of deaths throughout history, should Labour, The Socialist Party and others be banned then if the BNP is to be banned? - afterall its come out that Labour infact had a immigration policy that was based on race, just like the BNP - yet I don't see you calling for them to be banned?

Ok firstly Labour are NOT socialist anymore. Secondly it was mainly the conservatives that had an immigration policy based on race with politicians like Enoch Powell. Even if Labour did have one then why should they be banned, they don't now, if they still had it then I believe they should. I'd also like to point out that I am not a Labour supporter, I vote for the Liberal Democrats.

Denying the holocaust isn't directly insulting anybody, people will get insulted but thats life, just like they wold get insulted by my view that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and wasted soliders lives for nothing.
What about insulting the lives of 6 Million dead people who were unquestionably killed by the Nazis? Or how about their families who still exist today? How would you feel if all of your family and friends were ruthlessly massacred systematically in a "Death factory" and then a large group of people denied that they had died? You are frankly ignorant about the effects of events like this.

Ardemax

22-11-2009, 02:25 PM

Denying the holocaust isn't directly insulting anybody, people will get insulted but thats life, just like they wold get insulted by my view that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and wasted soliders lives for nothing.

..so yes, finally you are understanding the meaning of freedom of speech and that is doesn't work one way, it has to work both ways.

I'm agreeing with Flyduo here.

Although denying the holocaust doesn't seem like you're insulting anyone, you're actually insulting millions.

Think about it, you're family has been killed then some guy comes along and says it's nothing but lies.
Would you feel happy? No of course you wouldn't. You'd feel insulted because someone who obviously have no knowledge of WW2 has just said it.

This is where freedom of speech must be controlled.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 02:40 PM

Ok firstly Labour are NOT socialist anymore. Secondly it was mainly the conservatives that had an immigration policy based on race with politicians like Enoch Powell. Even if Labour did have one then why should they be banned, they don't now, if they still had it then I believe they should. I'd also like to point out that I am not a Labour supporter, I vote for the Liberal Democrats.

What about insulting the lives of 6 Million dead people who were unquestionably killed by the Nazis? Or how about their families who still exist today? How would you feel if all of your family and friends were ruthlessly massacred systematically in a "Death factory" and then a large group of people denied that they had died? You are frankly ignorant about the effects of events like this.

Enoch Powell was right, he warned of the conflicts and problems to come with immigration and he will be proved right in time, its already happened in France and it'll happen here. Multi-culturalism does not work if its not truly multi-cultural, allowing a whole area to become a sub-province of Poland is not multi-cultural. The immigration of post-war to around the 1980s was multi-cultural and it worked, however the immigration now is not working.

On the holocaust, i'd feel what anybody with any knowledge or value of democracy would feel, the holocaust happened but some people don't agree with that, just like I don't agree that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Those people in the death camps died because their freedom of speech/religion was taken away from them, let us please please not make the same mistake.

I'm agreeing with Flyduo here.

Although denying the holocaust doesn't seem like you're insulting anyone, you're actually insulting millions.

Think about it, you're family has been killed then some guy comes along and says it's nothing but lies.
Would you feel happy? No of course you wouldn't. You'd feel insulted because someone who obviously have no knowledge of WW2 has just said it.

This is where freedom of speech must be controlled.

Oh my god, well it isn't freedom of speech if its restricted! - the Holocaust is a historical event, just like the Cultural Revolution, the Khamer Rogue, 9/11, Boer Wars, World War I, World War II, Japanese invasion of Manchuria - ALL historical events, people have different opinions on them and should be allowed to state them - that is WHY we fought Adolf Hitler.

I wouldn't feel insulted, i'd feel they are wrong in their opinion but i'd accept it, because my family died because of freedom of speech/religion/seuxality being taken away from them. I'd feel proud and I do to a degree that we live or did live in a country which was different from Europe, a country in which you could voice your opinion without being slapped down by the state.

Ardemax

22-11-2009, 03:01 PM

Oh my god, well it isn't freedom of speech if its restricted! - the Holocaust is a historical event, just like the Cultural Revolution, the Khamer Rogue, 9/11, Boer Wars, World War I, World War II, Japanese invasion of Manchuria - ALL historical events, people have different opinions on them and should be allowed to state them - that is WHY we fought Adolf Hitler.

I wouldn't feel insulted, i'd feel they are wrong in their opinion but i'd accept it, because my family died because of freedom of speech/religion/seuxality being taken away from them. I'd feel proud and I do to a degree that we live or did live in a country which was different from Europe, a country in which you could voice your opinion without being slapped down by the state.

You'd feel proud?

You'd actually feel proud that your families death was being called a lie, but you'd be proud because freedom of speech is so amazing?

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 04:05 PM

You'd feel proud?

You'd actually feel proud that your families death was being called a lie, but you'd be proud because freedom of speech is so amazing?

Yes, because i'd live in a land in which they did not and died a horrible death for expressing their religion/freedom of speech, as I said before - I may not agree with the idea that the holocaust didn't happen but I agree with the idea of democracy and his right to state his opinion.

Ardemax

22-11-2009, 05:01 PM

Yes, because i'd live in a land in which they did not and died a horrible death for expressing their religion/freedom of speech, as I said before - I may not agree with the idea that the holocaust didn't happen but I agree with the idea of democracy and his right to state his opinion.

But if you're saying that, then you haven't answered how you would feel?

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 07:37 PM

Ardemax

22-11-2009, 08:40 PM

It would depend on the person, personally i'd say to them it did happen and i'd want to correct them - but as I said, I respect their right to say what their take on this historical event is as that was the whole point in world war II, to defend democracy and stop more of these camps opening across Eurasia.

Yes, they can decide what they take on the historical event, but I feel that they should at least admit that it did actually happen.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 08:47 PM

No, because that is their belief that it didn't happen.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 09:51 PM

I agree. If someone breaks OUR rules, they don't have the right to stay in OUR country. Simple.

Yeah. They passed through countries they could've stayed in.

So what you're actually saying in the top bit is that anyone who breaks the rules of Great Britain should be deported? I don't think so.

And at the bottom one, I hardly think that if you came from a war torn country and your life was in peril that you'd want to only be able to choose from a neighbouring nation to grant you sanctuary. I honestly think people need to at least attempt to put themselves in these peoples shoes before they say something so ignorant.

They just want us to be what we were in the olden days. Why should we let people in our country, use our NHS we fund, and give them benefits when we're in a financial struggle ourself.

It's a little like having a baby, think of this. Someone has a baby, starts bringing it up, then goes out of work. Unemployed. They have another baby, still unemployed, struggling with money. Then ANOTHER child, barely coping. We're taking on too much we can handle.

Kick them out, rebuild our economical background, get out of the recession, then maybe less-restrict the borders again.

Again, at the bold bit. That happens alot with 'british' people, infact in my experience this is alot more true with the white british population than any other. Immigrants often take jobs which nobody here actually wants and they take alot less money for it. Maybe we should look at our own 'british' population before we start to attack people who have emigrated here.

Granted, but if someone wants to believe a historical event didn't happen, that comes under freedom of speech. Otherwise you may as well say it should be illegal to deny that the birth of Jesus Christ ever happened.

The two things aren't comparable. There is no scientific nor pictoral evidence whatsoever that the birth of Jesus occured. There are eye witness accounts of the holocaust, soldiers of the Nazi party have even admitted to it. So to deny that it happened is ignorance at best. Freedom of speech is not there for people to hide behind when they want to have controversial opinions which can hurt others feelings. It is designed to allow someone to disagree with an opinion, not an actual historical fact.

Threatening someone and freedom of speech are totally different things, the British National Party have not threatened anyone. As shown by your first line which says anyone who sides with the BNP is in your words 'unstable' - shows yet again that if anybody dares disagree with the left they are automatically rascist, crazy, homophobic, xenphobic or evil.

I'm sorry but you wouldn't find it threatening to you and your life here in Britain if the BNP had a plan to 'voluntarily' repatriate you to wherever you descended? Even if you were infact born here, yet you happened to have foreign born parents? And even if they let you stay, if they wanted to 'voluntarily' move your parents out of the country? I don't think so.

That's called a dictatorship hunny.

Please don't be dense. Lack of freedom of speech is only one part of a dictatorship and its not the key one. A dictatorship controls every aspect of a persons life, not just what they say.

..then that quite simply means that you do not value freedom of speech just as Hitler didn't and that an opinion that is different to yours, in your opinion, should be banned/not permitted.

It doesn't. Hitlers opinions were based purely on that, he spread hatred through what he said. Nowhere did he say that an opinion different to his was wrong, he merely said it was wrong to deny that millions of people lost their lives unjustly and cruelly.

Denying the holocaust isn't directly insulting anybody, people will get insulted but thats life, just like they wold get insulted by my view that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and wasted soliders lives for nothing.

Yes it is, it's denying the fact that people's relatives (grandparents, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters etc) died in camps after being forced to work. It's insulting to their memory to deny this. In Germany today it is actually an offence punishable by a prison term to deny that the holocaust happened. I personally think that this is a bit extreme but thats how bad the German people feel about this event in their history. Do you not think that they'd deny this if they could? It doesn't exactly put them in a great light historically that they elected the person who incited such hatred.

And finally, my opinion. The BNP spread hatred and I think it's correct to liken them to the Nazi Party. They are blaming Britains current woes on one part of our society, when infact its probably got very little to do with it. They attract voters who have no actual knowledge of politics and who live in deprived areas of Britain which have been neglected so to me their similarities to the Nazi party are startling and frankly its frightening that they have been allowed the freedom to speak about such issues openly.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 10:01 PM

Tash.

22-11-2009, 10:12 PM

It may be considered an insult by those people, but why do you not understand that that is freedom of speech?

If somebody bans a historical opinion because they do not agree with it, that is dictorial, its not democratic and its not what we fought Adolf Hitler for.

..with replies like these, it really make me wonder why we even bothered.

Because it may well be someones opinion, and you may consider it ok that he denies the murder of millions of people, but with the rest of us it does not sit right. He and the other waste of spaces who think that its ok to deny the holocaust hide behind the fact that its their *right* to say these things, it does not make it so. You can't have an opinion on something that is a proven fact. Infact wait you can, but it's simply wrong. There are many things you are not allowed to say in this country, there are restrictions on it for the wellbeing of those that it can hurt. You aren't allowed to say racist things to someone, you aren't allowed to say homophobic things, you aren't allowed to say threats to someone. These restrictions exist in Britain which is a democratic society.

Oh and you haven't even addressed the other things I have commented on, would you care to do so?

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 10:20 PM

Tash.

22-11-2009, 10:24 PM

Man your english is better than I thought.

And how people say BNP aren't racist surprises me. You cannot be a member (I think you cant) if you aren't white.
How is that not racist?

I'll say it before someone who are defending the BNP does.. soon you will be able to. This is not due to the BNP members wanting this to be allowed, but because they are being forced to by the EU. The BNP will remain a racist party even when non-white people are allowed to join.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 10:28 PM

I'll say it before someone who are defending the BNP does.. soon you will be able to. This is not due to the BNP members wanting this to be allowed, but because they are being forced to by the EU. The BNP will remain a racist party even when non-white people are allowed to join.

The fact that they will be allowed to join soon means nothing. The fact that non-white people were denied membership in the first place clearly shows they were and are and will always be racist.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 10:29 PM

The fact that they will be allowed to join soon means nothing. The fact that non-white people were denied membership in the first place clearly shows they were and are and will always be racist.

Yeah exactly. I, like you, fail to see how you can argue that the BNP are anything but racist.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 10:40 PM

Because it may well be someones opinion, and you may consider it ok that he denies the murder of millions of people, but with the rest of us it does not sit right. He and the other waste of spaces who think that its ok to deny the holocaust hide behind the fact that its their *right* to say these things, it does not make it so. You can't have an opinion on something that is a proven fact. Infact wait you can, but it's simply wrong. There are many things you are not allowed to say in this country, there are restrictions on it for the wellbeing of those that it can hurt. You aren't allowed to say racist things to someone, you aren't allowed to say homophobic things, you aren't allowed to say threats to someone. These restrictions exist in Britain which is a democratic society.

Oh and you haven't even addressed the other things I have commented on, would you care to do so?

No it does sit right, it has never sat right with the left because freedom of thought has never sat right with the left, just like with the European Union - it cannot stand the word no or the people having a say. You need to accept that some people have different (and sometimes crazy) opinions compared to yours and mine, however that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to speak them or think them.

People say global warming is a fact, so would I be locked up for my belief that global warming is a big con just because you/the ruling elite don't agree with me?

On the case of the BNP, while I don't think anything should be based on colour, we do we allowed organisations such as the Black Police Officers Association to exist? - you can't have it both ways, and people are now realising how one-sided this whole situation is.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 10:53 PM

No it does sit right, it has never sat right with the left because freedom of thought has never sat right with the left, just like with the European Union - it cannot stand the word no or the people having a say. You need to accept that some people have different (and sometimes crazy) opinions compared to yours and mine, however that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to speak them or think them.

People say global warming is a fact, so would I be locked up for my belief that global warming is a big con just because you/the ruling elite don't agree with me?

On the case of the BNP, while I don't think anything should be based on colour, we do we allowed organisations such as the Black Police Officers Association to exist? - you can't have it both ways, and people are now realising how one-sided this whole situation is.

I just cannot see how you're still fighting for people to be allowed extreme or in your words 'sometimes crazy' thoughts and be allowed to voice them. You can correct me if i'm wrong, but this means you think that muslim extremists should be allowed to spread their form of hatred? If thats your opinion then i'd count yourself among the crazies because thats not an opinion, its dangerous.

No you wouldn't but I don't see how the belief that global warming doesn't exist and the belief that the holocaust didn't happen are comparable? If you don't believe in global warming then fair enough, you're not hurting anyones feelings here, you aren't denying the facts of how millions of people died. If you deny the holocaust then you are.

And i'm sure that if I did research into your example here, the Black Police Officers Association, I would find that they do not spread hatred of white policemen, nor do they think that they should not be allowed in the police force. Infact having just done a brief look on google, I have found that they are an organisation that provides support to the black members of the police force and aims to promote racial harmony. If you're seriously telling me that the BNP are an organisation that promotes racial harmony then I don't think I need to debate with you anymore.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 10:58 PM

I just cannot see how you're still fighting for people to be allowed extreme or in your words 'sometimes crazy' thoughts and be allowed to voice them. You can correct me if i'm wrong, but this means you think that muslim extremists should be allowed to spread their form of hatred? If thats your opinion then i'd count yourself among the crazies because thats not an opinion, its dangerous.That is otherwise known as democracy, and yes the muslin extremists can say 9/11 was a conspiracy if they wish, as long as they are not spreading hatred. Denying the holocaust is not hatred.

No you wouldn't but I don't see how the belief that global warming doesn't exist and the belief that the holocaust didn't happen are comparable? If you don't believe in global warming then fair enough, you're not hurting anyones feelings here, you aren't denying the facts of how millions of people died. If you deny the holocaust then you are...so what, are you asking us to live in a world in which we can't say what we feel because it could hurt peoples feelings? - bring out the cotton wool..

And i'm sure that if I did research into your example here, the Black Police Officers Association, I would find that they do not spread hatred of white policemen, nor do they think that they should not be allowed in the police force. Infact having just done a brief look on google, I have found that they are an organisation that provides support to the black members of the police force and aims to promote racial harmony. If you're seriously telling me that the BNP are an organisation that promotes racial harmony then I don't think I need to debate with you anymore.I am not debating that, I am saying that if the BNP isn't allowed to be an organisation for white people then neither should the Black Police Officers Association be allowed to be an organisation for black people. I would prefer no racial groups at all, but while the state does it then the BNP have every right to also do it.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 10:59 PM

Yeah exactly. I, like you, fail to see how you can argue that the BNP are anything but racist.

India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it so why should Britain?

What people do not understand (and I speak from personal experience here), non-british people are not taking over the society in Britain. There is still a majority white people here and always will be.

http://i46.tinypic.com/nh0x7o.jpg

Another thing is, most non-british treat white people with respect. I have lived in India for 10 years and have been several times since I moved out, and every time I went to tourist attractions, a majority of the white people (no idea if they were British or not), treated people with such disrespect its unbelievable.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:03 PM

What people do not understand (and I speak from personal experience here), non-british people are not taking over the society in Britain. There is still a majority white people here and always will be.

http://i46.tinypic.com/nh0x7o.jpg

Another thing is, most non-british treat white people with respect. I have lived in India for 10 years and have been several times since I moved out, and every time I went to tourist attractions, a majority of the white people (no idea if they were British or not), treated people with such disrespect its unbelievable.

..people don't have a problem with black/brown/yellow or whatever colour or nationality people are from, we do however have a problem with the uncontrolled immigration that our government is allowing in which to put it frank, scum (criminals, benefit cheats), are moving to this country.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:05 PM

I do dislike people who come here from other countries, raise 10 children just to get benefits, work and pretend they aren't and so do most Asians here.
But that is not what this debate is about.

MrPinkPanther

22-11-2009, 11:07 PM

it isn't freedom of speech if its restricted!
It is in a modern society. There are always going to be restrictions of freedom of speech. There are in every country in the world. Essentially you are saying people should have the right to be racist and homophobic aren't you?

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:08 PM

It is in a modern society. There are always going to be restrictions of freedom of speech. There are in every country in the world. Essentially you are saying people should have the right to be racist and homophobic aren't you?

There is a big difference between denial of a historical event and homophobia/racism.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 11:09 PM

That is otherwise known as democracy, and yes the muslin extremists can say 9/11 was a conspiracy if they wish, as long as they are not spreading hatred. Denying the holocaust is not hatred.

..so what, are you asking us to live in a world in which we can't say what we feel because it could hurt peoples feelings? - bring out the cotton wool..

I am not debating that, I am saying that if the BNP isn't allowed to be an organisation for white people then neither should the Black Police Officers Association be allowed to be an organisation for black people. I would prefer no racial groups at all, but while the state does it then the BNP have every right to also do it.

I myself am an advocate for freedom of speech, I wanted Nick Griffin to be allowed to clarify himself on Question time. However, as I have said before, the law has put restrictions on freedom of speech and I think that denying the holocaust is just one of these things that should not be accepted as being allowed. I wasn't actually referring to the 9/11 conspiracies, I was referring to the muslim extremists who keep finding ways through 'freedom of speech' to say that the western world is evil and that it should be wiped off the earth or be put under sharia law. That is their opinion and in your world of freedom of speech on anything and everything, they'd be allowed to spout this nonsense.

No i'm not saying that, i'm merely saying that you cannot deny a fact. You'd have to be a pretty heartless person to think that its ok for someone to deny millions of people died in gas chambers just because its their opinion. I'm not saying wrap everyone in cotton wool, I for one do not care what Nick Griffins opinion is on anything, he's a vile excuse for a human being, but my morals tell me that we shouldn't sit back and allow him to deny such a heinous crime existed.

The BNP aren't just an organisation for white people though. They are aiming to enhance the lives of white people at the detriment of people they deem to not be worthy. The Black Police Officers Association promotes harmony, the BNP clearly do not, they promote hatred there is a stark difference.

Edit-

What people do not understand (and I speak from personal experience here), non-british people are not taking over the society in Britain. There is still a majority white people here and always will be.

http://i46.tinypic.com/nh0x7o.jpg

Another thing is, most non-british treat white people with respect. I have lived in India for 10 years and have been several times since I moved out, and every time I went to tourist attractions, a majority of the white people (no idea if they were British or not), treated people with such disrespect its unbelievable.

Exactly, the BNP set out to scare monger people into believing that they are going to be wiped out or something. It's just not true.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:12 PM

I myself am an advocate for freedom of speech, I wanted Nick Griffin to be allowed to clarify himself on Question time. However, as I have said before, the law has put restrictions on freedom of speech and I think that denying the holocaust is just one of these things that should not be accepted as being allowed. I wasn't actually referring to the 9/11 conspiracies, I was referring to the muslim extremists who keep finding ways through 'freedom of speech' to say that the western world is evil and that it should be wiped off the earth or be put under sharia law. That is their opinion and in your world of freedom of speech on anything and everything, they'd be allowed to spout this nonsense.

No i'm not saying that, i'm merely saying that you cannot deny a fact. You'd have to be a pretty heartless person to think that its ok for someone to deny millions of people died in gas chambers just because its their opinion. I'm not saying wrap everyone in cotton wool, I for one do not care what Nick Griffins opinion is on anything, he's a vile excuse for a human being, but my morals tell me that we shouldn't sit back and allow him to deny such a heinous crime existed.

The BNP aren't just an organisation for white people though. They are aiming to enhance the lives of white people at the detriment of people they deem to not be worthy. The Black Police Officers Association promotes harmony, the BNP clearly do not, they promote hatred there is a stark difference.

You can deny a fact when you don't believe its a fact.

Do not say you support freedom of speech when you are calling for somebodys opinion on a historical event to be made illegal, because thats would be like me saying my username is blue.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:15 PM

If freedom of speech is allowed without limits, then I should be able to go around supporting terrorists without being arrested. I should be allowed to go around saying how great I think the bombings in London were without being arrested or anything.

No. No one would tolerate it and they shouldn't.

(knowing what people on here are like, no I do not believe in anything I said in my first paragraph).

Tash.

22-11-2009, 11:16 PM

..people don't have a problem with black/brown/yellow or whatever colour or nationality people are from, we do however have a problem with the uncontrolled immigration that our government is allowing in which to put it frank, scum (criminals, benefit cheats), are moving to this country.

What are you talking about? The majority of people who cheat the benefit system are actually impoverished lower class brits who are not immigrants. You see it all the time.. how can you argue that just because someone is coming into the country right now they must be here to commit a crime or to scam the benefit system?

You can deny a fact when you don't believe its a fact.

Do not say you support freedom of speech when you are calling for somebodys opinion on a historical event to be made illegal, because thats would be like me saying my username is blue.

I can say that, I do advocate freedom of speech, do not tell me what I do, you don't know me. Again you are making a comparison between two things that are not related. Saying your username is blue will not deny the deaths of millions of people now will it? Please use your brain when trying to do a comparison.

If freedom of speech is allowed without limits, then I should be able to go around supporting terrorists without being arrested. I should be allowed to go around saying how great I think the bombings in London were without being arrested or anything.

No. No one would tolerate it and they shouldn't.

(knowing what people on here are like, no I do not believe in anything I said in my first paragraph).

This is exactly what i was trying to point out, there are restrictions on freedom of speech in our democracy and they are there to protect public safety.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:18 PM

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:20 PM

What are you talking about? The majority of people who cheat the benefit system are actually impoverished lower class brits who are not immigrants. You see it all the time.. how can you argue that just because someone is coming into the country right now they must be here to commit a crime or to scam the benefit system?I did not say that, I said that those who do - they are the people we have a problem with, the people who we do not want.

I can say that, I do advocate freedom of speech, do not tell me what I do, you don't know me. Again you are making a comparison between to things that are not related. Saying your username is blue will not deny the deaths of millions of people now will it? Please use your brain when trying to do a comparison.I do know you, you are prepared to make somebodies opinion on a historical event illegal, therefore you do not value free speech, or should I say, you do, as long as it falls into line with your opinion.

This is exactly what i was trying to point out, there are restrictions on freedom of speech in our democracy and they are there to protect public safety.Denial of a historical event and homophobia/racism are two totally different things.

Also I just love how people think non-british are just here to steal benefits. They obviously don't create any jobs. Nope. :rolleyes:

Where and when have I ever said i'm against immigration?

MrPinkPanther

22-11-2009, 11:20 PM

There is a big difference between denial of a historical event and homophobia/racism.
No there isn't, not in terms of freedom of speech. You say freedom of speech isnt freedom unless its limitless when it never should be limitless because of homophobia and racism. Denying the holocaust is just as bad as racism or homophobia, like them it directly offends people (The relatives of the murdered) and disrespects the dead. Why should 6 million murdered people be allowed to be denied when its proven in absolute fact? Global warming isn't proven in fact, neither is the big bang, feel free to deny those all you want, it isn't ruining anyones lives so thats fine.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:22 PM

No there isn't, not in terms of freedom of speech. You say freedom of speech isnt freedom unless its limitless when it never should be limitless because of homophobia and racism. Denying the holocaust is just as bad as racism or homophobia, like them it directly offends people (The relatives of the murdered) and disrespects the dead. Why should 6 million murdered people be allowed to be denied when its proven in absolute fact? Global warming isn't proven in fact, neither is the big bang, feel free to deny those all you want, it isn't ruining anyones lives so thats fine.

..because freedom of speech allows people to dispute the facts, thats a democracy.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:23 PM

I did not say that, I said that those who do - they are the people we have a problem with, the people who we do not want.

I do know you, you are prepared to make somebodies opinion on a historical event illegal, therefore you do not value free speech, or should I say, you do, as long as it falls into line with your opinion.

Denial of a historical event and homophobia/racism are two totally different things.

Where and when have I ever said i'm against immigration?

I like how you ignore all my arguments against you. Is it because you know I am right and are unable to argue against it?

One more example, I am sure you wouldn't mind as you are in full support of freedom of speech being limitless. If I go around, rally up 1000 people, go to your street and go I HATE WHITE PEOPLE. I HATE UNDERTAKER (whatever your real name is). I HATE HIS FAMILY. I HATE WHITE PEOPLE.
I am sure you won't mind :) or call the police. Why should you? Its freedom of speech. I can say what I want :).

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:25 PM

I like how you ignore all my arguments against you. Is it because you know I am right and are unable to argue against it?

One more example, I am sure you wouldn't mind as you are in full support of freedom of speech being limitless. If I go around, rally up 1000 people, go to your street and go I HATE WHITE PEOPLE. I HATE UNDERTAKER (whatever your real name is). I HATE HIS FAMILY. I HATE WHITE PEOPLE.
I am sure you won't mind :) or call the police. Why should you? Its freedom of speech. I can say what I want :).

Nick Griffin has not said he hates the holocaust victims, as I said before, there is a difference between hatred and denial of a historical event.

It is you who cannot seem to answer this simple fact - I have not ignored any of your argument, I have picked out the points and gone on and on about how an opinion on a historical event is totally different from homophobia/racism, yet you continue to ignore this and say how I apparently said all non-British people are layabouts when I never.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 11:25 PM

I did not say that, I said that those who do - they are the people we have a problem with, the people who we do not want.

I do know you, you are prepared to make somebodies opinion on a historical event illegal, therefore you do not value free speech, or should I say, you do, as long as it falls into line with your opinion.

Denial of a historical event and homophobia/racism are two totally different things.

Where and when have I ever said i'm against immigration?

But do you not realise that because you don't know the statistics, the number of people who enter this country legally and go on to scam the benefits system or commit crimes, may well be a small minority of people? As I myself do not know the statistics I can't comment but it just seems ignorant to presume that immigrants are the problem.

You don't know me at all. I haven't said anywhere I want it to be illegal, I actually said I think its morally wrong for him to be allowed to deny it. You'd be hard pushed to find many people who think that it's ok for him to have this opinion. Its freedom of speech being exploited, it wasn't designed for this.

And no, they are not. Both hurt peoples feelings, both are being used to discriminate.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:26 PM

Nick Griffin has not said he hates the holocaust victims, as I said before, there is a difference between hatred and denial of a historical event.

It is you who cannot seem to answer this simple fact.

No, I am clearly showing why Freedom of Speech should never be limitless. It is you who fails to see this. Answer me, would you care if I did what I said in my above post? If the answer is yes (which it undoubtedly will be), then your whole argument is flawed.

MrPinkPanther

22-11-2009, 11:27 PM

..because freedom of speech allows people to dispute the facts, thats a democracy.

So should I be allowed to dispute that "Homosexuals are inferior to Heterosexuals in ever way?" or "Black people are stupid?". No. Because its proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they aren't. But hey, you know what, we should because thats a democracy.

In a democracy people should vote on what should be allowed or not allowed. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the British population would be for banning holocaust denial. However no sensible party would ban that from fear of criticism from the right that they were "breaking freedom of speech" which would severely damage the parties reputation.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:30 PM

But do you not realise that because you don't know the statistics, the number of people who enter this country legally and go on to scam the benefits system or commit crimes, may well be a small minority of people? As I myself do not know the statistics I can't comment but it just seems ignorant to presume that immigrants are the problem.

You don't know me at all. I haven't said anywhere I want it to be illegal, I actually said I think its morally wrong for him to be allowed to deny it. You'd be hard pushed to find many people who think that it's ok for him to have this opinion. Its freedom of speech being exploited, it wasn't designed for this.

And no, they are not. Both hurt peoples feelings, both are being used to discriminate.

We do not know the statistics because this government has not got any because it has no control over these borders. That is how bad the situation has got under this Labour government.

Ok then, which is it; should historial event denial be illegal?

No, I am clearly showing why Freedom of Speech should never be limitless. It is you who fails to see this. Answer me, would you care if I did what I said in my above post? If the answer is yes (which it undoubtedly will be), then your whole argument is flawed.

No I would frankly not care, I do not know you and you do not know me. This is a Habbo forum with teenagers on, and if you are going to get upset on a Habbo forum then you really are going to struggle in life aren't you.

Now, reply to what I said on the difference between denial of a historical event and homophobia/racism.

So should I be allowed to dispute that "Homosexuals are inferior to Heterosexuals in ever way?" or "Black people are stupid?". No. Because its proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they aren't. But hey, you know what, we should because thats a democracy.

In a democracy people should vote on what should be allowed or not allowed. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the British population would be for banning holocaust denial. However no sensible party would ban that from fear of criticism from the right that they were "breaking freedom of speech" which would severely damage the parties reputation.

That is outright hatred, denial of the holocaust is nothing like the examples you have given.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:33 PM

Heyyyy! The Earth is square. Gordon Brown isnt really the prime minister of this country, I am. I am going to go to undertaker and deny any bad things which have happened in his life. If there is a funeral of his family member, I am going to go and laugh and laugh some more and deny every good thing that the person did.

---

Ok the example above is extreme (and obviously I would never do such a thing), but it is exactly what Nick Griffin is doing by denying the holocaust.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:34 PM

Tash.

22-11-2009, 11:34 PM

We do not know the statistics because this government has not got any because it has no control over these borders. That is how bad the situation has got under this Labour government.

Ok then, which is it; should historial event denial be illegal?

No I would frankly not care, I do not know you and you do not know me. This is a Habbo forum with teenagers on, and if you are going to get upset on a Habbo forum then you really are going to struggle in life aren't you.

Now, reply to what I said on the difference between denial of a historical event and homophobia/racism.

I'm pretty confident those statistics do exist, the situation is not as bad as you think and the government have not created it all. Immigration within the EU is not controlled by them, they have no say in it.

No, I don't think it should be illegal. I think it's morally unnacceptable. As I said before, Nick Griffin is inconsequential to me, his opinions mean zilch to me.

And seen as though you seem to think you can cast aspertions on my character, I shall on yours. If you're seriously saying you wouldn't care if someone targeted you and your family like that you're a liar.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:36 PM

No I would frankly not care, I do not know you and you do not know me. This is a Habbo forum with teenagers on, and if you are going to get upset on a Habbo forum then you really are going to struggle in life aren't you.

Where does the question of me getting upset come from? And frankly, I am not a teenager and neither are some others who have replied, please do not make a statement without knowing the facts.
And you say you wont care, but I am sure you will and so will your family. Anyone, who has 1000 people outside their house shouting hatred comments will care. Anyone who says they wont are liars and that's the fact.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:36 PM

I'm pretty confident those statistics do exist, the situation is not as bad as you think and the government have not created it all. Immigration within the EU is not controlled by them, they have no say in it.

That is why I support leaving the European Union.

No, I don't think it should be illegal. I think it's morally unnacceptable. As I said before, Nick Griffin is inconsequential to me, his opinions mean zilch to me.

..then we agree, so whats the problem?

And seen as though you seem to think you can cast aspertions on my character, I shall on yours. If you're seriously saying you wouldn't care if someone targeted you and your family like that you're a liar.

The example of somebody saying stuff to me on a forum was given, I would not care if it was on this forum. So no, i'm not a liar. You however have a knack for twisting my words into something they are not.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:39 PM

Denial of a historical event is nothing like the examples you have given.

Reply to what I asked you to reply to.

I have replied, but again you fail to see it.
I will say this again in the hope you do not ignore it yet again, your argument is that freedom of speech should be limitless. I have showed you clearly why it shouldn't be.
The denial of historical event debate is continuing as you believe the freedom of speech should be limitless. I disagree.

And actually denial of a historical event such as the holocaust is very much like the extreme example I gave and I explained in that post very clearly why it is.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 11:39 PM

That is why I support leaving the European Union.

..then we agree, so whats the problem?

The example of somebody saying stuff to me on a forum was given, I would not care if it was on this forum. So no, i'm not a liar. You however have a knack for twisting my words into something they are not.

I'm not getting into a debate with you over the EU but lets just say our opinions on that point differ too.

And no we do not agree, I would never argue that he should be ok to say those things. You seem to be arguing otherwise.

And no he didn't mean on the forum, he was saying in real life if someone came into your street spouting lies and hatred about you and your loved ones would you care? Everybody would, it's in human nature to defend what they love. I haven't twisted anything you've said actually, you did that all by yourself.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:41 PM

Where does the question of me getting upset come from? And frankly, I am not a teenager and neither are some others who have replied, please do not make a statement without knowing the facts.
And you say you wont care, but I am sure you will and so will your family. Anyone, who has 1000 people outside their house shouting hatred comments will care. Anyone who says they wont are liars and that's the fact.

This forum is aimed at teenagers, thats why the generalisation that this forum is for teenagers is just basic common sense.

Nick Griffin is not shouting outside the relatives of holocaust victims houses hatred.

I have replied, but again you fail to see it.
I will say this again in the hope you do not ignore it yet again, your argument is that freedom of speech should be limitless. I have showed you clearly why it shouldn't be.
The denial of historical event debate is continuing as you believe the freedom of speech should be limitless. I disagree.

And actually denial of a historical event such as the holocaust is very much like the extreme example I gave and I explained in that post very clearly why it is.

I have not said it should be limitless, I am merely saying that denial of the holocaust should be allowed as that is not hatred whereas racism and homophobia are.

And no we do not agree, I would never argue that he should be ok to say those things. You seem to be arguing otherwise.

..so wait, are you now saying they should be illegal? :S

And no he didn't mean on the forum, he was saying in real life if someone came into your street spouting lies and hatred about you and your loved ones would you care? Everybody would, it's in human nature to defend what they love. I haven't twisted anything you've said actually, you did that all by yourself.

In real life I would care yes, however Nick Griffin is not on the streets shouting at the relatives of holocaust victims is he.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:42 PM

IAnd no he didn't mean on the forum, he was saying in real life if someone came into your street spouting lies and hatred about you and your loved ones would you care? Everybody would, it's in human nature to defend what they love. I haven't twisted anything you've said actually, you did that all by yourself.

I thought I clearly wrote on his street. There are no "streets" on a forum so it is common sense to assume I meant in real life. How he failed to see it is beyond me. Like I said, he ignores half of what I say as he knows I am right and he is unable to prove me wrong.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 11:43 PM

This forum is aimed at teenagers, thats why the generalisation that this forum is for teenagers is just basic common sense.

Nick Griffin is not shouting outside the relatives of holocaust victims houses hatred.

I have not said it should be limitless, I am merely saying that denial of the holocaust should be allowed as that is not hatred whereas racism and homophobia are.

..so wait, are you now saying they should be illegal?

Maybe not deliberately no, but he was actually in court a few weeks ago trying to get an asian man convicted of racial hatred against him. This is despite the fact Nick Griffin was at the time stood doing a demonstration in Bradford for the BNP. To me if you're going to do that you're asking for anything you get.

No, i'm going to say this once more, because saying it anymore would be waste of my time because it doesn't appear to be getting through. I believe it is morally unacceptable for him to say these things. I would never argue that he should say these things and I would never encourage anyone to say such things. I don't want it to be outlawed, and I don't want it to result in a prison sentence or any other punishment apart from a public rebute.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:44 PM

Maybe not deliberately no, but he was actually in court a few weeks ago trying to get an asian man convicted of racial hatred against him. This is despite the fact Nick Griffin was at the time stood doing a demonstration in Bradford for the BNP. To me if you're going to do that you're asking for anything you get.

Nick Griffin was not being racist/homophobic at that demonstration as no charges were brought against him, so i'll ask again; is Nick Griffin standing outside peoples' houses shouting the holocaust didn't happen?

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:45 PM

This forum is aimed at teenagers, thats why the generalisation that this forum is for teenagers is just basic common sense.

Nick Griffin is not shouting outside the relatives of holocaust victims houses hatred.

Its aimed at teenagers, but many members who join in 2004-2005 aren't now. There are more females in this country than males, I am going to assume you are a female and so is everyone I see on the street.

And he is not shouting directly outside their houses, but he says it on the TV and that is being shown on most TV's in this country, so indirectly he is.

MrPinkPanther

22-11-2009, 11:45 PM

That is outright hatred, denial of the holocaust is nothing like the examples you have given.
Even though its not direct and as obvious hatred as racism or homophobia its still going to effect people in the same way is it not? Many older people talk of how they saw their families murdered by the Nazis and their skulls crushed, what gives ANYONE the right to bring this back up and torment them with it saying it never happened.

You know after camps were liberated they took people from the local villages down to view the bodies. It is impossible to say it never happened when there are hundreds of thousands of people who have seen the atrocities first hand and even some who committed it.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:47 PM

Its aimed at teenagers, but many members who join in 2004-2005 aren't now. There are more females in the country than males, I am going to assume you are a female and so is everyone I see on the street.

And he is not shouting directly outside their houses, but what he says is on TV and that is being shown on most TV's in this country, so he indirectly is.

Oh my god are you actually serious with that first line?

He is not saying it outside peoples houses though, and if you see something on television that upsets you (abortion programs, Nick Griffin, surgery programs) then you pick up the remote, and turn the television off.

Even though its not direct and as obvious hatred as racism or homophobia its still going to effect people in the same way is it not? Many older people talk of how they saw their families murdered by the Nazis and their skulls crushed, what gives ANYONE the right to bring this back up and torment them with it saying it never happened.

You know after camps were liberated they took people from the local villages down to view the bodies. It is impossible to say it never happened when there are hundreds of thousands of people who have seen the atrocities first hand and even some who committed it.I didn't say it never happened, as I agree with you, the holocaust did happen.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 11:47 PM

Nick Griffin was not being racist/homophobic at that demonstration as no charges were brought against him, so i'll ask again; is Nick Griffin standing outside peoples' houses shouting the holocaust didn't happen?

And i'll answer again, despite you just quoting my answer :S No, not deliberately. But the fact that he seems to think its ok to state that millions did not die at the hands of the Nazis publicly, he might aswell be shouting at these people because the result is the same.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:49 PM

And i'll answer again, despite you just quoting my answer :S No, not deliberately. But the fact that he seems to think its ok to state that millions did not die at the hands of the Nazis publicly, he might aswell be shouting at these people because the result is the same.

That is his historical opinion, I don't agree with him and neither do you or most other people. It is not my right or your right to take away his right to an opinion on that subject, as long as he is not preaching hatred towards jewish people.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:49 PM

Oh my god are you actually serious with that first line?

He is not saying it outside peoples houses though, and if you see something on television that upsets you (abortion programs, Nick Griffin, surgery programs) then you pick up the remote, and turn the television off.

Maybe my examples are extreme, but its exactly what you are doing when you make the statements you have been doing.

Again, when Tash and I explained that I meant 1000 people outside you house IN REAL LIFE, you refused to answer it.

And thats fine, they should turn the TV off. I am going to get all the news channels outside my house tomorrow, say everything bad about you, your family, and you should just ignore it and turn your TV off.

MrPinkPanther

22-11-2009, 11:51 PM

I didn't say it never happened, as I agree with you, the holocaust did happen.
But why should people be allowed to continually ruin the lives of holocaust survivors and their families? They are permanently scarred for life. They don't need reminding of that or people saying it never happened.

I'm sorry SauravG but you really aren't helping matters because there are so many flaws in many of your arguments. I agree with Undertaker is some of his responses.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:51 PM

Maybe my examples are extreme, but its exactly what you are doing when you make the statements you have been doing.

Again, when Tash and I explained that I meant 1000 people outside you house IN REAL LIFE, you refused to answer it.

And thats fine, they should turn the TV off. I am going to get all the news channels outside my house tomorrow, say everything bad about you, your family, and you should just ignore it and turn your TV off.

No I would not like people in real life shouting abuse. I have already answered that. On your last sentence, when has Nick Griffin ever done that? :S

But why should people be allowed to continually ruin the lives of holocaust survivors and their families? They are permanently scarred for life. They don't need reminding of that or people saying it never happened.

I'm sorry SauravG but you really aren't helping matters because there are so many flaws in many of your arguments. I agree with Undertaker is some of his responses.

Why should socialist parties be allowed to operate when socialism killed hundreds of millions of people on China, Russia, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Cambodia? - democracy.

I loathe socialism, however I would never ban people from being socialist or having socialist ideas/thoughts.

Tash.

22-11-2009, 11:52 PM

That is his historical opinion, I don't agree with him and neither do you or most other people. It is not my right or your right to take away his right to an opinion on that subject, as long as he is not preaching hatred towards jewish people.

He is though, in my opinion it is a form of hatred towards the jewish people to deny that millions of their fellow people died in concentration camps. It's disrespecting their memories and hurting their living descendants.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:53 PM

Also you are in full support of the freedom of speech, but you say hatred should not be allowed? But thats just contradicting your argument :S
If freedom of speech should be allowed without limits, so should hatred. Me saying "I hate undertaker" is my opinion and I should be allowed to say what I want :) But you say hatred should not be allowed, so by that you are saying freedom of speech should have limits :)

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:54 PM

He is though, in my opinion it is a form of hatred towards the jewish people to deny that millions of their fellow people died in concentration camps. It's disrespecting their memories and hurting their living descendants.

That is not hatred, he is merely saying that he does not believe that such a mass murder could of been carried out by the Third Reich. I disagree with him, you disagree with him and a lot of other people disagree with him.

What I don't disagree with is his democratic right for an opinion on an historical event.

Also you are in full support of the freedom of speech, but you say hatred should not be allowed? But thats just contradicting your argument :S
If freedom of speech should be allowed without limits, so should hatred. Me saying "I hate undertaker" is my opinion and I should be allowed to say what I want :) But you say hatred should not be allowed, so by that you are saying freedom of speech should have limits :)I'm in full support of freedom of speech as long as it does not preach hatred, denying the holocaust is not hatred.

Seatherny

22-11-2009, 11:57 PM

I'm in full support of freedom of speech as long as it does not preach hatred, denying the holocaust is not hatred.

But your argument is that freedom of speech should not have limits, but you say hatred should not be allowed again and again, but you are just contradicting yourself.
If freedom of speech should have no limits, a person should be allowed to say whatever they want, even if its hatred.

-:Undertaker:-

22-11-2009, 11:58 PM

But your argument is that freedom of speech should not have limits, but you say hatred should not be allowed again and again, but you are just contradicting yourself.
If freedom of speech should have no limits, a person should be allowed to say whatever they want, even if its hatred.

I have not said that freedom of speech should not have any limits. I am saying that making holocaust denial illegal is one step too far.

MrPinkPanther

23-11-2009, 12:01 AM

it isn't freedom of speech if its restricted!

I have not said that freedom of speech should not have any limits. I am saying that making holocaust denial illegal is one step too far.

Less than an hour apart.

Seatherny

23-11-2009, 12:02 AM

I have not said that freedom of speech should not have any limits. I am saying that making holocaust denial illegal is one step too far.

Denying the holocaust is indirectly spreading hatred.
It is denying the terrible things that happened. I am going to presume you haven't lost a family member who you knew and loved in the holocaust. If you did, you would be against what Nick Griffin says.
Holocaust involved torture. If for example, a member of your family was tortured, then killed and you had video evidence of it all, and someone said that never happened, how would you feel?
I am having to use extreme examples to try and get you to see why your argument is flawed in everyway.

Less than an hour apart.

Thank you, I was sure he has said it. He is just contradicting himself. Some people hate being proved wrong.

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 12:02 AM

Less than an hour apart.

The law takes place over freedom of speech if its protecting somebody, there is nobody to protest from holocaust denial. Holocaust denial does not target any specific people, it only challenges the widely accepted historical view, one which I accept.

Denying the holocaust is indirectly spreading hatred.
It is denying the terrible things that happened. I am going to presume you haven't lost a family member who you knew and loved in the holocaust. If you did, you would be against what Nick Griffin says.
Holocaust involved torture. If for example, a member of your family was tortured, then killed and you had video evidence of it all, and someone said that never happened, how would you feel?
I am having to use extreme examples to try and get you to see why your argument is flawed in everyway. Who is is indirectly spreading hatred against?

I am against what Nick Griffin says on the holocaust as it stands, the holocaust happened and I accept that, why can you not understand that?

MrPinkPanther

23-11-2009, 12:04 AM

I am having to use extreme examples to try and get you to see why your argument is flawed in everyway.

I'm not being funny or anything but some of your posts have been full of flaws themselves and I personally agree with Undertaker on some of them. You occasionally seem a bit naive.

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 12:05 AM

Thank you, I was sure he has said it. He is just contradicting himself. Some people hate being proved wrong.

I don't mind being proved wrong as long as I am actually proved wrong and its not just somebody like you saying they have proved me wrong when you clearly haven't done anything of the sort - yes my first post was a bit of a pun but yes when directly put against what I said later, it did prove my later quote wrong.

Seatherny

23-11-2009, 12:07 AM

I'm not being funny or anything but some of your posts have been full of flaws themselves and I personally agree with Undertaker on some of them. You occasionally seem a bit naive.

Please explain which bit (but I agree my gender example was flawed).
What Nick Griffin says is similar to my example.
He is denying it all, and I am saying if something happened to him and I denied it, he wouldn't be supporting what he is right now.

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 12:14 AM

Please explain which bit (but I agree my gender example was flawed).
What Nick Griffin says is similar to my example.
He is denying it all, and I am saying if something happened to him and I denied it, he wouldn't be supporting what he is right now.

I would, because i'd know my relatives died because their freedom of speech/religion was taken away from them.

Seatherny

23-11-2009, 12:17 AM

I would, because i'd know my relatives died because their freedom of speech/religion was taken away from them.

Let me ask you two question to clear up somethings as I am not too sure now if what I think you think is what you actually think.

Do you believe the Freedom of Speech should not be limited?
Do you agree with Nick Griffin denything the holocaust?

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 12:21 AM

Let me ask you two question to clear up somethings as I am not too sure now if what I think you think is what you actually think.

Ok.

Do you believe the Freedom of Speech should not be limited?

I believe it should only be limited when it involves hatred.

Do you agree with Nick Griffin denything the holocaust?

I do not agree with his opinion on the holocaust, however I agree with his democratic right to do so.

Seatherny

23-11-2009, 12:23 AM

I believe it should only be limited when it involves hatred.

But do you not agree, by denying the Holocaust, he is indirectly causing hatred? Do you not agree, his views have caused so many people mental pain? It is very easy to say that they should ignore him, but the fact is, its extremely hard.

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 12:24 AM

But do you not agree, by denying the Holocaust, he is indirectly causing hatred? Do you not agree, his views have caused so many people mental pain? It is very easy to say that they should ignore him, but the fact is, its extremely hard.

No, because hes not doing it to incite hatred, hes doing it because he genuinely believes the holocaust did not happen.

Seatherny

23-11-2009, 12:28 AM

No, because hes not doing it to incite hatred, hes doing it because he genuinely believes the holocaust did not happen.

I think everything he does is to try and get a reaction out of people. If not, then he is (well he is anyway) a complete moron.
You cannot send everyone who breaks the law out of this country. There would hardly be anyone left as everyone has broken a law.

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 12:29 AM

I think everything he does is to try and get a reaction out of people. If not, then he is (well he is anyway) a complete moron.

He's getting the reaction out of you then, you are suggesting that an opinion that differs to yours should be banned - if thats Griffins plan then you yourself have fallen for it.

Black_Apalachi

23-11-2009, 12:30 AM

Seatherny

23-11-2009, 12:34 AM

He's getting the reaction out of you then, you are suggesting that an opinion that differs to yours should be banned - if thats Griffins plan then you yourself have fallen for it.

I have never said an opinion which differs to mine should be banned. I believe that he is nothing but an idiot if he denies the holocaust.

How can BNP claim to be not racist when non-whites aren't allowed to be a member? Yes they will be allowed soon but it isn't what they wanted. The fact that non-whites were denied membership in the first place shows that they are racist.

Black_Apalachi

23-11-2009, 04:17 AM

Ardemax

23-11-2009, 06:33 AM

agreeing with sergio (on the point that the thread has had about 5 billion more posts since i last came)

but im agreeing with flyduo, sauravg and tash.

denying the holocaust is offending people directly, although it may seem it's not.

like saurav said, if he came and laughed at one of your family's funeral, would you honestly take it as it was and ignore it?

but imagine if people kept laughing, and laughing etc.

Tash.

23-11-2009, 11:47 AM

Bloody 'ell this thread has grown a fair bit since I last came to it!

@the argument of 'freedom of speech means I can come to your street with a gang and shout abuse at you':

Although a basic right, freedom of speech is something you should value and be proud to posses, rather than abusing it in such a way. It is designed to allow minorities to speak out without fear of punishment. However if you're going to go one step further and take advantage of this freedom by using it to abuse others, there are laws in place to prevent this because there is a big difference between 'I do not believe said event happened' and 'YOU ARE A ******* ***** AND I HATE YOU'.

I agree that dismissing a historical fact is rather ignorant, but once again I will say, that is not the point.

That to me is the definition of freedom of speech and yet you go on to say that it should be ok for Griffin to say these things. He is exploiting the use of freedom of speech. I don't personally believe that Nick Griffin is stupid enough to think that the holocaust didnt happen. He's a Hitler sympathiser, he agrees with much of what Hitler said and believed in so of course he's going to deny that such a thing was possible.

The example being used here about shouting hatred to someone on the street does compare with this. I personally did not have any relatives who died in the holocaust but to me its insensitive to suggest that it didn't happen. Freedom of speech is restricted by law, as you say, to prevent the abuse of minorities. This to me is the abuse of the memories of those people who died.

agreeing with sergio (on the point that the thread has had about 5 billion more posts since i last came)

but im agreeing with flyduo, sauravg and tash.

denying the holocaust is offending people directly, although it may seem it's not.

like saurav said, if he came and laughed at one of your family's funeral, would you honestly take it as it was and ignore it?

but imagine if people kept laughing, and laughing etc.

This is exactly the point again, the reason homophobia and racism is outlawed is to prevent it being used as a weapon against someone physically, verbally or mentally. Holocaust denial is abusing someones mental memories of those who died in those concentration camps. It's disrespect on the highest level.

Pyroka

23-11-2009, 12:32 PM

Just to contribute to this, you may find this interesting. The Student Union president at the university where I go to, well he posted all the addresses and names of constituents of the BNP in Stafford and Stoke areas, which included children (if I heard correctly). Theres a meeting at 5PM in Stoke about it, but you need to be a student to go to the debate. Apparently the BNP has threatened legal action against the union because of this and this is why theres a meeting later on.

You can listen to it at www.omgstaffs.com (http://www.omgstaffs.com) and it should be under radio, just click on the radio pic probably. But yeah, thatll be at 5PM and it should be interesting. I really wanted to go but I've got work to do for the Uni :( Should be interesting though, BNP members wont be there but there will be plenty of stuff against the guy who did it.

Ardemax

23-11-2009, 04:08 PM

It is indeed disrespectful and if the BNP party leader denies it, then what are the party going to think?

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 06:27 PM

I have never said an opinion which differs to mine should be banned. I believe that he is nothing but an idiot if he denies the holocaust.

How can BNP claim to be not racist when non-whites aren't allowed to be a member? Yes they will be allowed soon but it isn't what they wanted. The fact that non-whites were denied membership in the first place shows that they are racist.

If you believe that denying the holocaust should be illegal then you support banning an opinion which is different to yours, that is not democratic. If you don't believe it should be made illegal, what exactly are you trying to get across?

On the last point, i'm not arguing over whether they are racist or not, that is another can of worms.

agreeing with sergio (on the point that the thread has had about 5 billion more posts since i last came)

but im agreeing with flyduo, sauravg and tash.

denying the holocaust is offending people directly, although it may seem it's not.

like saurav said, if he came and laughed at one of your family's funeral, would you honestly take it as it was and ignore it?

but imagine if people kept laughing, and laughing etc.

Denying the holocaust isn't standing outside somebodies funeral and laughing.

Geraint

23-11-2009, 06:29 PM

Good. Britain will improve alot and I shall be voting when I can. :D

Ardemax

23-11-2009, 06:35 PM

Denying the holocaust isn't standing outside somebodies funeral and laughing.

No, you're right...

It's turning to millions of people and saying that you have no knowledge of the war and that your families and relatives funerals are a joke and they didn't die doing anything heroic or brave, they didn't suffer anything. Just move on with your lives and forget about it.

Do you know how many people that would upset?

We fought facists, I don't think people want to forget about it.
Isn't that the point you've being trying to make all along?

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 06:48 PM

No, you're right...

It's turning to millions of people and saying that you have no knowledge of the war and that your families and relatives funerals are a joke and they didn't die doing anything heroic or brave, they didn't suffer anything. Just move on with your lives and forget about it.

Do you know how many people that would upset?

We fought facists, I don't think people want to forget about it.
Isn't that the point you've being trying to make all along?

Thats an opinion, its his opinion which he has a right to express. We did fight facists, yet people such as yourself seem determined to impose it back on us with restriction of freedom of speech.

Tash.

23-11-2009, 06:52 PM

No, you're right...

It's turning to millions of people and saying that you have no knowledge of the war and that your families and relatives funerals are a joke and they didn't die doing anything heroic or brave, they didn't suffer anything. Just move on with your lives and forget about it.

Do you know how many people that would upset?

We fought facists, I don't think people want to forget about it.
Isn't that the point you've being trying to make all along?

Could not have said it better myself. Its actually the equivalent in my mind of him standing on the graves and memorials of all those who died and laughing in the face of what they died for.

Ardemax

23-11-2009, 06:56 PM

Thats an opinion, its his opinion which he has a right to express. We did fight facists, yet people such as yourself seem determined to impose it back on us with restriction of freedom of speech.

That's not an opinion, it's fact.

If you deny the holocaust, you're insulting millions of people. There's no 2 ways about it.

I'm hardly facist standing up for people who can get picked on day to day by other people who say it's all a myth, they then target the families, insulting them and bringing them to tears.

I don't think you answered my question where I put to you what would you honestly feel like if someone denied your families deaths.

Black_Apalachi

23-11-2009, 07:02 PM

... like saurav said, if he came and laughed at one of your family's funeral, would you honestly take it as it was and ignore it?

but imagine if people kept laughing, and laughing etc.

Why, who laughed at whose funeral??? :S

Could not have said it better myself. Its actually the equivalent in my mind of him standing on the graves and memorials of all those who died and laughing in the face of what they died for.

No it's not... :S

That to me is the definition of freedom of speech and yet you go on to say that it should be ok for Griffin to say these things. He is exploiting the use of freedom of speech. I don't personally believe that Nick Griffin is stupid enough to think that the holocaust didnt happen. He's a Hitler sympathiser, he agrees with much of what Hitler said and believed in so of course he's going to deny that such a thing was possible.

The example being used here about shouting hatred to someone on the street does compare with this. I personally did not have any relatives who died in the holocaust but to me its insensitive to suggest that it didn't happen. Freedom of speech is restricted by law, as you say, to prevent the abuse of minorities. This to me is the abuse of the memories of those people who died.

This is exactly the point again, the reason homophobia and racism is outlawed is to prevent it being used as a weapon against someone physically, verbally or mentally. Holocaust denial is abusing someones mental memories of those who died in those concentration camps. It's disrespect on the highest level.

Whether he means what he says is a completely different issue. The point is freedom of speech allows him to BELIEVE the holocaust didn't occur and thus share this belief. Obviously if he doesn't really mean it, then it's not an actual belief :rolleyes:.

Not believing something is not even similar to shouting anything at anybody! :S He's not targeting an individual person like you would be if you were shouting at someone in the street. Also, just because he doesn't believe it, doesn't mean he hates those who do believe it.

I really don't get why you're trying to fade the subject of beliefs into a big huge hate issue? :S:S:S

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 07:08 PM

That's not an opinion, it's fact.

If you deny the holocaust, you're insulting millions of people. There's no 2 ways about it.

I'm hardly facist standing up for people who can get picked on day to day by other people who say it's all a myth, they then target the families, insulting them and bringing them to tears.

I don't think you answered my question where I put to you what would you honestly feel like if someone denied your families deaths.

I didn't say it wasn't a fact, I said some people think its not a fact and in a democracy it is their right to state their opinion.

I wouldn't feel anything because I would know they are dead. :S

Tash.

23-11-2009, 07:17 PM

Why, who laughed at whose funeral??? :S

No it's not... :S

Whether he means what he says is a completely different issue. The point is freedom of speech allows him to BELIEVE the holocaust didn't occur and thus share this belief. Obviously if he doesn't really mean it, then it's not an actual belief :rolleyes:.

Not believing something is not even similar to shouting anything at anybody! :S He's not targeting an individual person like you would be if you were shouting at someone in the street. Also, just because he doesn't believe it, doesn't mean he hates those who do believe it.

I really don't get why you're trying to fade the subject of beliefs into a big huge hate issue? :S:S:S

I said in my mind thats what the equivalent is, I didn't say it was the actual equivalent.

When I was writing the part about whether I think he believes what he was saying, what I was trying to put across is he is using his freedom of speech to make a controversial opinion and also with the intention of defending the actions of the Nazi's. What you're not getting is my point that he is exploiting the right to freedom of speech.. thats all i've said. I don't think he hates those who think that the Holocaust did exist, infact i'd rather he did. Instead he continues to disrespect the memories of those who died. That's a whole lot worse.

I'm not actually trying to fade the subject of beliefs into a hate issue, he doesn't just believe in something he feels the need to spread this hatred into the public domain, thats what I don't like. Nick Griffin takes advantage of those who have no real opinion for themselves and therefore take upon the most extreme in their time of need. That's how the Nazi's got into power and it seems as though the lesson hasn't yet been learnt because his mission is to do the same thing all over again and he's being allowed to.

I didn't say it wasn't a fact, I said some people think its not a fact and in a democracy it is their right to state their opinion.

I wouldn't feel anything because I would know they are dead. :S

I'm pretty sure you know he means if someone was denying they died in a concentration camps purely on the basis that they were either disabled, black, jewish, travellers or gay.

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 07:19 PM

I said in my mind thats what the equivalent is, I didn't say it was the actual equivalent.

When I was writing the part about whether I think he believes what he was saying, what I was trying to put across is he is using his freedom of speech to make a controversial opinion and also with the intention of defending the actions of the Nazi's. What you're not getting is my point that he is exploiting the right to freedom of speech.. thats all i've said.

I'm not actually trying to fade the subject of beliefs into a hate issue, he doesn't just believe in something he feels the need to spread this hatred into the public domain, thats what I don't like. Nick Griffin takes advantage of those who have no real opinion for themselves and therefore take upon the most extreme in their time of need. That's how the Nazi's got into power and it seems as though the lesson hasn't yet been learnt because his mission is to do the same thing all over again and he's being allowed to.

If you continue to try and silence the British National Party in undemocratic ways then you will give them more support, and personally i'd wish them good luck because its not them who are trying to ban free speech, so who are the real Nazis it makes you wonder.

Tash.

23-11-2009, 07:27 PM

If you continue to try and silence the British National Party in undemocratic ways then you will give them more support, and personally i'd wish them good luck because its not them who are trying to ban free speech, so who are the real Nazis it makes you wonder.

Wait, so now your saying the worst feature of the Nazi's was the fact that they banned freedom of speech?I don't think so. Plus, we're talking about one issue here. We aren't talking about the end of freedom of speech entirely.

-:Undertaker:-

23-11-2009, 07:31 PM

Wait, so now your saying the worst feature of the Nazi's was the fact that they banned freedom of speech?I don't think so. Plus, we're talking about one issue here. We aren't talking about the end of freedom of speech entirely.

Where did I say that?

Tash.

23-11-2009, 07:37 PM

If you continue to try and silence the British National Party in undemocratic ways then you will give them more support, and personally i'd wish them good luck because its not them who are trying to ban free speech, so who are the real Nazis it makes you wonder.

Where did I say that?

To me the bit in bold really suggests that you are comparing my stance to that imposed by the Nazi's in Germany in the 1930s. Infact my stance is nothing at all like that.

Ardemax

23-11-2009, 08:04 PM

Why, who laughed at whose funeral??? :S

If you read the previous posts you'd understanding we're comparing.

I didn't say it wasn't a fact, I said some people think its not a fact and in a democracy it is their right to state their opinion.

I wouldn't feel anything because I would know they are dead. :S

You've completely missed the point. I think Tash has explained.

-:Undertaker:-

24-11-2009, 03:25 PM

To me the bit in bold really suggests that you are comparing my stance to that imposed by the Nazi's in Germany in the 1930s. Infact my stance is nothing at all like that.

Of course its similar to that of the Nazis on the point of free speech, if you wish to make free speech over historical events illegal then you have no respect for freedom of speech or democracy.

If you read the previous posts you'd understanding we're comparing.

You've completely missed the point. I think Tash has explained.

How about you explain it then, Tash is not making any sense what so ever - I ask whether denial of the holocaust should be banned or not and Tash says no, yet then continues arguing against me for being against denial of the holocaust being made illegal.

Instead of waiting for Tash, Alexxx and whoever else, you explain your own point for once.

Black_Apalachi

24-11-2009, 03:50 PM

If you read the previous posts you'd understanding we're comparing.
...

Don't worry, I read every page. However that's a completely irrational comparison. Saying 'the Holocaust didn't happen' 60 years afterwards is not at all similar to going to somebody's funeral and laughing.

I've lost interest in this debate because it's became too repetitive.

Ardemax

24-11-2009, 04:02 PM

-:Undertaker:-

24-11-2009, 04:11 PM

I think I've explained it.

Maybe you should check over the last 5 pages or so and read what I've said.
Then we can debate on that, instead of asking me to repeat myself several times.

Your comparison makes no sense though, so I cannot say anything more because the example you are giving/others are giving of a funeral does not make sense at all and is nothing like denial of the holocaust.

Seatherny

24-11-2009, 05:09 PM

Your comparison makes no sense though, so I cannot say anything more because the example you are giving/others are giving of a funeral does not make sense at all and is nothing like denial of the holocaust.

Yes it is and it has been explained several times in this thread (especially in the last two days), so please re-read it.

Ardemax

24-11-2009, 05:10 PM

-:Undertaker:-

24-11-2009, 08:07 PM

Yes it is and it has been explained several times in this thread (especially in the last two days), so please re-read it.

They are nothing alike;

Murder of millions of people by gas/hard labor.

A funeral with somebody laughing.

I can see no relation at all.

And what is the Holocaust again?

A historical event in which Hitler attempted to 'cleanse' the Third Reich. It is not however a funeral with somebody laughing, so don't try and say that as you predictably are going to.

Dan2nd

24-11-2009, 08:34 PM

I think a better comparison would be if in 60 years time someone denied 9/11 happened

Holocaust= Murder of millions of people by gas/hard labor.
9/11 = thousand of people murdered in a terrorist attack

no quite the same but meh

-:Undertaker:-

24-11-2009, 08:36 PM

Dan2nd

24-11-2009, 08:51 PM

..within their rights to think that if they wish to.

Yeah it certainly is as there are many people who already think it was all a setup thing by the white house (loose change or whatever the movie is called) but lets not open the whole 9/11 conspricy thing up it could like this debate go on for hours :P

I think we should be encouraged to speak our minds instead of making people constantly fear that they are going to say the wrong thing (and that applys to all races, sexualities or genders). If anything I think the whole politically correct angle our current Government seems to like if anything causes more of a divide between communities.

I don't think all that the BNP stands for is bad some of it I agree with.. In the next election I'll be voting UKIP :)

Ardemax

24-11-2009, 08:55 PM

A historical event in which Hitler attempted to 'cleanse' the Third Reich. It is not however a funeral with somebody laughing, so don't try and say that as you predictably are going to.

Well it is? lol.

Somebody laughing at your families funeral - there for mocking the dead, is the same as going up to someone and saying that their family members did not do anything heroic, brave and fought for whats right. Instead it was all a myth, a complete fake and they should forget about it. That's mocking someone too.

-:Undertaker:-

24-11-2009, 09:12 PM

Yeah it certainly is as there are many people who already think it was all a setup thing by the white house (loose change or whatever the movie is called) but lets not open the whole 9/11 conspricy thing up it could like this debate go on for hours :P

I think we should be encouraged to speak our minds instead of making people constantly fear that they are going to say the wrong thing (and that applys to all races, sexualities or genders). If anything I think the whole politically correct angle our current Government seems to like if anything causes more of a divide between communities.

I don't think all that the BNP stands for is bad some of it I agree with.. In the next election I'll be voting UKIP :)

..got it spot on, the sad thing is that with so much scare-monngering/nanny state this government has created a bunch of left wing nut cases who want to interfere in everybodys lives, in their jobs, in their houses, their wheelie bins, their freedom of speech - everything. This government is the worst government we have ever had in our history (worse than the Callagahan government in the 1970s) - it only serves itself.

Good on you. :)
+rep (if I can)

Well it is? lol.

Somebody laughing at your families funeral - there for mocking the dead, is the same as going up to someone and saying that their family members did not do anything heroic, brave and fought for whats right. Instead it was all a myth, a complete fake and they should forget about it. That's mocking someone too.

Laughing at a funeral is different to somebody questioning the existance of the gas chambers/the numbers killed in a historical event.

Tash.

24-11-2009, 10:18 PM

Of course its similar to that of the Nazis on the point of free speech, if you wish to make free speech over historical events illegal then you have no respect for freedom of speech or democracy.

How about you explain it then, Tash is not making any sense what so ever - I ask whether denial of the holocaust should be banned or not and Tash says no, yet then continues arguing against me for being against denial of the holocaust being made illegal.

Instead of waiting for Tash, Alexxx and whoever else, you explain your own point for once.

Right, lets just get a few things straight here because you clearly haven't read or understood what i've been saying. I've tried several times and you're still not getting it. I am not trying to get the law changed on discussing all historical events, nor am I trying to make free speech outlawed with reference to them. I am talking about 1 specific event in history, one in which millions died at the hands of a mad man. There is scientific and first hand evidence of this and of the amounts that have died, not to mention the mass graves that have been discovered. To me denying that does not only make you stupid and ignorant it also makes you highly insensitive. If it was only ignorance to the evidence that drove Nick Griffins denial then maybe I wouldn't have such an issue with it, but he is an intelligent man. I'd bet money on the fact that if you asked him he would not be able to tell you why he doesn't think the holocaust happened and to me thats inexcusable. His opinion is driven only by his love for the Nazi's.

I haven't argued against you at all, you're just not listening. I think, and this is the last time I am going to say this, that denying the holocaust should be morally wrong. I don't think he should be punished for denying it, I don't think he should not say it, I just think that people need to be made aware of how wrong he actually is. There are some very very impressionable people out there, especially in the current climate economically and politically, and they are susceptible to be sucked in by his lies. I seriously think he should be publically denounced for having the opinion, specifically in the media through proving him wrong with evidence. Maybe that way he'll give up on this pathetic crusade.

And please can you think before you try and say that I make no sense, because at the moment the only one who is having trouble understanding me is you. Ardemax managed to, SauravG managed to so why can't you?

..within their rights to think that if they wish to.

So you're ok with people being not only stupid but dilusional? I don't understand you at all. Yes they're within their rights to think it, but it would make them again disrespectful to those people who lost their lives. I'm not sure I would want to live in a world full of people who didn't believe what was infront of their eyes, on film, for all to see.

Laughing at a funeral is different to somebody questioning the existance of the gas chambers/the numbers killed in a historical event.

Technically it is yes, but the effect that it has on the families of those people are the same. The amount of disrespect for the dead is again, the same. That's the point we and many others have been trying to get across.

Black_Apalachi

24-11-2009, 10:33 PM

Well it is? lol.

Somebody laughing at your families funeral - there for mocking the dead, is the same as going up to someone and saying that their family members did not do anything heroic, brave and fought for whats right. Instead it was all a myth, a complete fake and they should forget about it. That's mocking someone too.

Who went up to someone's family members and said they did not do anything heroic, brave and fought for what's right? :S

Hang on a second... I thought you were talking about the holocaust??? Now it seems (even more) that you're just twisting even your own words to try and scrape together a valid argument.

The fact is, freedom of speech gives someone the right to choose not to believe that something we believe as a historical event, did not happen. It has nothing to do with approaching and abusing anybody or anything. Honestly mate, just give up.

-:Undertaker:-

24-11-2009, 11:44 PM

Right, lets just get a few things straight here because you clearly haven't read or understood what i've been saying. I've tried several times and you're still not getting it. I am not trying to get the law changed on discussing all historical events, nor am I trying to make free speech outlawed with reference to them. I am talking about 1 specific event in history, one in which millions died at the hands of a mad man. There is scientific and first hand evidence of this and of the amounts that have died, not to mention the mass graves that have been discovered. To me denying that does not only make you stupid and ignorant it also makes you highly insensitive. If it was only ignorance to the evidence that drove Nick Griffins denial then maybe I wouldn't have such an issue with it, but he is an intelligent man. I'd bet money on the fact that if you asked him he would not be able to tell you why he doesn't think the holocaust happened and to me thats inexcusable. His opinion is driven only by his love for the Nazi's.

I haven't argued against you at all, you're just not listening. I think, and this is the last time I am going to say this, that denying the holocaust should be morally wrong. I don't think he should be punished for denying it, I don't think he should not say it, I just think that people need to be made aware of how wrong he actually is. There are some very very impressionable people out there, especially in the current climate economically and politically, and they are susceptible to be sucked in by his lies. I seriously think he should be publically denounced for having the opinion, specifically in the media through proving him wrong with evidence. Maybe that way he'll give up on this pathetic crusade.It may be morally wrong in your opinion but its somebody elses opinion and they should be allowed to air it. If people believe in the holocaust then they do, if people don't believe in the holocaust then they dont - simple as that. On the media, the media is not paid by the ruling elite to target one man (well then again there is the BBC/Guardian). I'm afraid people know the truth and we don't need the nanny state to tell us otherwise.

And please can you think before you try and say that I make no sense, because at the moment the only one who is having trouble understanding me is you. Ardemax managed to, SauravG managed to so why can't you?Actually I entered this discussion saying that to make it illegal to deny the holocaust would be against freedom of speech, since then i've had you, SauravG and Ardemax (no suprise there) try to prove something against me, when infact it appears that all along we've agreed on the same thing.

So you're ok with people being not only stupid but dilusional? I don't understand you at all. Yes they're within their rights to think it, but it would make them again disrespectful to those people who lost their lives. I'm not sure I would want to live in a world full of people who didn't believe what was infront of their eyes, on film, for all to see.That, again, is your opinion. I think Labour is stupid, dilusional and I think the European Union is an insult to all those who died in world war II, however instead of saying point blankly 'they/he is wrong' - I debate it and prove my point. Instead of insisting on a witch hunt against Nick Griffin, why don't you and everyone else actually prove him wrong for once.

..but the sad truth is that Nick Griffin has more of a moral backbone than the ruling Lib/Lab/Con elite, thats why they are all so terribly afraid to debate with him.

Technically it is yes, but the effect that it has on the families of those people are the same. The amount of disrespect for the dead is again, the same. That's the point we and many others have been trying to get across.No it isn't the same, stop pretending its anywhere near the same.

Seatherny

24-11-2009, 11:44 PM

Who went up to someone's family members and said they did not do anything heroic, brave and fought for what's right? :S

Hang on a second... I thought you were talking about the holocaust??? Now it seems (even more) that you're just twisting even your own words to try and scrape together a valid argument.

The fact is, freedom of speech gives someone the right to choose not to believe that something we believe as a historical event, did not happen. It has nothing to do with approaching and abusing anybody or anything. Honestly mate, just give up.

Anyone who denies the holocaust is doing it. Its like me going "hey 9/11 never happened". "hey London tube didn't really get bombed. it never happened".
Now suppose you lost someone in the London bombings, you wont mind if someone kept denying the terrorist attacks which killed your family?

-:Undertaker:-

24-11-2009, 11:46 PM

Seatherny

25-11-2009, 12:09 AM

No we wouldn't really care, because in life we don't agree with a lot of things but we get by with it. Its called reality.

You say its called reality but what you say is NOT how you will react in that situation.
If you lose someone you loved alot to a terrorist attack e.g. London bombings, or the holocaust and someone constantly denied it on nation TV, you WOULD care. EVERYONE would. You wont just go "I don't really care if people deny what happened to him/her".
Now that's called reality.

-:Undertaker:-

25-11-2009, 12:17 AM

You say its called reality but what you say is NOT how you will react in that situation.
If you lose someone you loved alot to a terrorist attack e.g. London bombings, or the holocaust and someone constantly denied it on nation TV, you WOULD care. EVERYONE would. You wont just go "I don't really care if people deny what happened to him/her".
Now that's called reality.

That is reality, because while i'd strongly disagree with them/think they were a muppet for their views - I realise I live in a democracy.

Seatherny

25-11-2009, 12:49 AM

That is reality, because while i'd strongly disagree with them/think they were a muppet for their views - I realise I live in a democracy.

But you said you wouldn't care.
There is a difference between not caring what someone says and disagreeing with them.

You may say you won't care, but believe me, if it did, you won't be happy at all. Say someone bombs Liverpool tomorrow, kills millions of people and I say "meh it never happened." etc, you are saying you wont care? Sure. :)

Black_Apalachi

25-11-2009, 06:31 AM

Anyone who denies the holocaust is doing it. Its like me going "hey 9/11 never happened". "hey London tube didn't really get bombed. it never happened".
Now suppose you lost someone in the London bombings, you wont mind if someone kept denying the terrorist attacks which killed your family?

That's not what he was saying though. He was saying it was the same as going to a funeral and laughing. Even though your examples are slightly more relevant, it could still be argued that the holocaust wasn't broadcast all over the world on TV as it happened.

Anyway to answer your question, obviously I would mind if someone treated my family like that if I were in that situation. HOWEVER I would accept their point of view because I would realise I only gain the right to freedom of speech if I allow others to express it themselves. Even though I'd feel anger and pity towards them, the point is (as I've been saying for about 15 pages) is that they have the right to believe that if they want.

Ardemax

25-11-2009, 06:42 AM

Laughing at a funeral is different to somebody questioning the existance of the gas chambers/the numbers killed in a historical event.

It's the same disrespect tbh. If someone denies the holocaust then they're going against whoever died in it.

Who went up to someone's family members and said they did not do anything heroic, brave and fought for what's right? :S

Hang on a second... I thought you were talking about the holocaust??? Now it seems (even more) that you're just twisting even your own words to try and scrape together a valid argument.

The fact is, freedom of speech gives someone the right to choose not to believe that something we believe as a historical event, did not happen. It has nothing to do with approaching and abusing anybody or anything. Honestly mate, just give up.

It's funny how in one post you target me, don't let me reply, then tell me to give up.
Some "democracy" this is.
Jews and anyone against the state in World War 2, were mass murdered. They had to die because someone wanted world domination. They died for us. They didn't die because they wanted to, I think that's obvious.

It may be morally wrong in your opinion but its somebody elses opinion and they should be allowed to air it. If people believe in the holocaust then they do, if people don't believe in the holocaust then they dont - simple as that. On the media, the media is not paid by the ruling elite to target one man (well then again there is the BBC/Guardian). I'm afraid people know the truth and we don't need the nanny state to tell us otherwise.

Actually I entered this discussion saying that to make it illegal to deny the holocaust would be against freedom of speech, since then i've had you, SauravG and Ardemax (no suprise there) try to prove something against me, when infact it appears that all along we've agreed on the same thing.

That, again, is your opinion. I think Labour is stupid, dilusional and I think the European Union is an insult to all those who died in world war II, however instead of saying point blankly 'they/he is wrong' - I debate it and prove my point. Instead of insisting on a witch hunt against Nick Griffin, why don't you and everyone else actually prove him wrong for once.

..but the sad truth is that Nick Griffin has more of a moral backbone than the ruling Lib/Lab/Con elite, thats why they are all so terribly afraid to debate with him.

No it isn't the same, stop pretending its anywhere near the same.

So the European Union is an insult, but deniers of the holocaust are perfectly fine?

Answer me honestly, if your close relatives were killed in gas chambers, you wouldn't be upset? (You said you wouldn't care?) So if someone went up to you and said they didn't die there, it's all a joke, they lied to us all and it's a complete fake, then decided to mock you because you still believed it happened. Are you honestly not going to care?

Black_Apalachi

25-11-2009, 07:55 AM

... It's funny how in one post you target me, don't let me reply, then tell me to give up.
Some "democracy" this is.
Jews and anyone against the state in World War 2, were mass murdered. They had to die because someone wanted world domination. They died for us. They didn't die because they wanted to, I think that's obvious. ...

What? :S
1. How did I target you?
2. I can't stop you replying.
3. I said give up because you keep repeating the same rubbish and won't accept an explanation for the argument against it.
4. Once again I will state that I do not dispute the occurrence of the holocaust.

Ardemax

25-11-2009, 04:15 PM

What? :S
1. How did I target you?
2. I can't stop you replying.
3. I said give up because you keep repeating the same rubbish and won't accept an explanation for the argument against it.
4. Once again I will state that I do not dispute the occurrence of the holocaust.

Well it sounded by you saying "Give up." and that I should drop my arguement I thought that was targetted at me, my bad.

I'm sorry, but repeating the same rubbish?

Isn't anyone guilty of that aswell? oh yeah..

-:Undertaker:-

25-11-2009, 04:44 PM

But you said you wouldn't care.
There is a difference between not caring what someone says and disagreeing with them.

You may say you won't care, but believe me, if it did, you won't be happy at all. Say someone bombs Liverpool tomorrow, kills millions of people and I say "meh it never happened." etc, you are saying you wont care? Sure. :)

How can I make this anymore clearer?

I would not like it but I would accept that I live in a democracy and people have a right to freedom of speech.

It's the same disrespect tbh. If someone denies the holocaust then they're going against whoever died in it.Wrong, laughing at a funeral is not the same as believing the holocaust was exaggerated.

It's funny how in one post you target me, don't let me reply, then tell me to give up.

Some "democracy" this is.
Jews and anyone against the state in World War 2, were mass murdered. They had to die because someone wanted world domination. They died for us. They didn't die because they wanted to, I think that's obviousDo not imply that others on this forum are undemocratic, you support the European Union and want holocaust denial to be made illegal, so you are not in a very strong position when it comes to democracy.

So the European Union is an insult, but deniers of the holocaust are perfectly fine?The European Union is an insult to democracy, yes. What is your point?

Answer me honestly, if your close relatives were killed in gas chambers, you wouldn't be upset? (You said you wouldn't care?) So if someone went up to you and said they didn't die there, it's all a joke, they lied to us all and it's a complete fake, then decided to mock you because you still believed it happened. Are you honestly not going to care?I shall say it again;I would care, but as I live in a democracy I would also accept that people have different views to mine.

Ardemax

25-11-2009, 05:46 PM

How can I make this anymore clearer?

I would not like it but I would accept that I live in a democracy and people have a right to freedom of speech.

Wrong, laughing at a funeral is not the same as believing the holocaust was exaggerated.

Do not imply that others on this forum are undemocratic, you support the European Union and want holocaust denial to be made illegal, so you are not in a very strong position when it comes to democracy.

The European Union is an insult to democracy, yes. What is your point?
I shall say it again;I would care, but as I live in a democracy I would also accept that people have different views to mine.

No you wouldn't accept people have different views about your family members' death. As far as anyone would care, someone saying it was all bogus and a fake, would you honestly go: "Thanks for your valid opinion, I'll value it and I'll say thankyou to democracy for letting this ******** give me nothing but nonsense." ... ok maybe not that harsh.

What is my point? Read the next bit of my question.

I was being ironic with the democratic thing, as you and mr. sergio have been saying how undemocratic I was, and then for him to tell me to give up this debate...
In this next bit, I'm hoping you can prove me wrong.

Your idea of freedom of speech is: everyone is allowed their opinion on something... sounds good.

Ok, so can I go up to you, insult you, insult your friends, tell them what I think of them in a nasty way and then when they complain I'll say it was freedom of speech and the case is dropped.

Mhmm?

Seatherny

25-11-2009, 08:36 PM

So the person Nick Griffin took to court for apprarently racially abusing him should be found not guilty as its FREEDOM OF SPEECH. :)

Ardemax

25-11-2009, 08:44 PM

So the person Nick Griffin took to court for apprarently racially abusing him should be found not guilty as its FREEDOM OF SPEECH. :)

Yes, exactly.

Freedom of speech can be used in any arguement!

-:Undertaker:-

25-11-2009, 08:46 PM

No you wouldn't accept people have different views about your family members' death. As far as anyone would care, someone saying it was all bogus and a fake, would you honestly go: "Thanks for your valid opinion, I'll value it and I'll say thankyou to democracy for letting this ******** give me nothing but nonsense." ... ok maybe not that harsh.I don't like everything people say, but I accept their right to say it. Do not tell me what I would and would not accept, maybe you would prefer everyone to be wrapped in EU/Govt cotton wool but I don't and neither do the rest of this country.

What is my point? Read the next bit of my question.

I was being ironic with the democratic thing, as you and mr. sergio have been saying how undemocratic I was, and then for him to tell me to give up this debate...
In this next bit, I'm hoping you can prove me wrong.You are undemocratic.

Your idea of freedom of speech is: everyone is allowed their opinion on something... sounds good.

Ok, so can I go up to you, insult you, insult your friends, tell them what I think of them in a nasty way and then when they complain I'll say it was freedom of speech and the case is dropped.

Mhmm?I never said everyone would be allowed to say what they felt, I have said clearly before that there is a line between racism/homophobia and so on which should not be crossed. As I state again further down in this post; homophobia and racism are not the same as denial of a historical event.

So the person Nick Griffin took to court for apprarently racially abusing him should be found not guilty as its FREEDOM OF SPEECH. :)

We are going around in circles yet again because I think you can see our point but are determined to keep repeating the same old lines which we have already debuckled. I have said before and i'll bold it for you this time, homophobia and racism are not the same as denial of a historical event.

Ardemax

25-11-2009, 08:55 PM

I don't like everything people say, but I accept their right to say it. Do not tell me what I would and would not accept, maybe you would prefer everyone to be wrapped in EU/Govt cotton wool but I don't and neither do the rest of this country.

You are undemocratic.

I never said everyone would be allowed to say what they felt, I have said clearly before that there is a line between racism/homophobia and so on which should not be crossed. As I state again further down in this post; homophobia and racism are not the same as denial of a historical event.

We are going around in circles yet again because I think you can see our point but are determined to keep repeating the same old lines which we have already debuckled. I have said before and i'll bold it for you this time, homophobia and racism are not the same as denial of a historical event.

Actually denial of MLK and what he did could be seen as racist.

I'm so undemocratic it hurts.

So the only time when freedom of speech is stopped as soon as racism comes into play?

But I've only insulted someone? They're not gay, nor a different skin colour to me. That's still freedom of speech?

Shockwave.2CC

25-11-2009, 09:49 PM

Good for some of it end of

-:Undertaker:-

25-11-2009, 10:11 PM

Actually denial of MLK and what he did could be seen as racist.

I'm so undemocratic it hurts.

So the only time when freedom of speech is stopped as soon as racism comes into play?

But I've only insulted someone? They're not gay, nor a different skin colour to me. That's still freedom of speech?

How is denial of Martin Luther King racist? - I view Nelson Mandela as a terrorist as the ANC was a terrorist organisation using the most horrific methods of torture/killing in the Union of South Africa - am I racist?

..and yes, denial of the holocaust is not targeting somebody in a hateful manner, it is merely questioning whether or not it was a conspiracy by the Allied Powers.

Black_Apalachi

26-11-2009, 04:43 AM

So the person Nick Griffin took to court for apprarently racially abusing him should be found not guilty as its FREEDOM OF SPEECH. :)

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NOOOOOO!!!! :eusa_wall:eusa_wall:eusa_wall

... We are going around in circles yet again because I think you can see our point but are determined to keep repeating the same old lines which we have already debuckled. I have said before and i'll bold it for you this time, homophobia and racism are not the same as denial of a historical event.

Exactly what Dan said. You just keep repeating the same nonsense page after page and won't accept the definitive answer. There's no point trying to reason with you, enjoy your pointless post counts.

Ardemax

26-11-2009, 06:33 AM

How is denial of Martin Luther King racist? - I view Nelson Mandela as a terrorist as the ANC was a terrorist organisation using the most horrific methods of torture/killing in the Union of South Africa - am I racist?

..and yes, denial of the holocaust is not targeting somebody in a hateful manner, it is merely questioning whether or not it was a conspiracy by the Allied Powers.

I still can't believe someone would deny all that evidence and proof. meh.
ok lemme quote from my other post

"So the only time when freedom of speech is stopped as soon as racism comes into play?

But I've only insulted someone? They're not gay, nor a different skin colour to me. That's still freedom of speech?"

....

Seatherny

26-11-2009, 02:21 PM

Black_Apalachi

26-11-2009, 05:00 PM

Seatherny

26-11-2009, 05:21 PM

He's not doing that at all :S. Every time you post he replies with the fact if you want a democracy, you have to accept other people's opinions. He's said it like about a dozen times. Literally. You haven't proven anyone wrong anywhere and you never will by trying to persevere with saying denying the holocaust is equal to going to a funeral and laughing.

We have explained very clearly why it is.

Let me use a more recent example:

You love your mum alot and cannot live without her. She gets bombed.
A man comes on tv and goes BOMB NEVER HAPPENED. ITS ALL A LIE.

You are saying thats not the same as laughing at a funeral?? It is :S Its destroying memories on your mum and making the way she died look better than it was. He is denying you of memories of her.
To me, that is the same as going to her funeral and going SHE NEVER GOT BOMBED :D SHE NEVER GOT BOMBED :D

1 word: empathy

Black_Apalachi

26-11-2009, 05:57 PM

Exactly. Denying the holocaust causes hatred and causes sadness etc for the victims families. Thats our point. If the other two don't get it then "/ and they say we are enjoying pointless post counts "/.
To me, undertaker says something, we prove him wrong, and then he says thats not what he meant. He is just full of excuses and hence I am losing interest in this debate as he is one of those people who never accept they are wrong.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED
gets proved wrong
WAIT THATS NOT WHAT I MEANT, I MEANT IT SHOULD BE LIMITED FOR PURPOSES OF HATRED ETC
gets proved wrong about BNP again
WAIT IT SHOULD ONLY BE FOR RACIAL ABUSE
gets proved wrong

whats next undertaker?

All I can say to that is it's slightly more understandable for someone to disbelieve something that happened 60 years ago as opposed to something that happened very recently. I mean if a bomb goes off tonight, and I get up tomorrow morning and shout in the street that it didn't happen, I'm clearly just being a ****. However as I said a long time ago in this very thread, I'm assuming when someone denies the holocaust, they are doing it because they genuinely believe it did not happen, rather than simply to cause people grief.

If you really think about it, you only believe it happened because of what we're told and what our history books say. Countries have been known to rewrite their schools' textbooks to brainwash their children into believing what they wanted them to believe about their own country. I am lucky enough to have attended a talk by a holocaust survivor which was extremely moving so I obviously have no doubt it occurred.

But wait, I've gone completely off topic! The point is I accept other people's views if they genuinely believe an event did not happen. If they're just saying it to cause hate, then I don't think that's what freedom of speech is really about.

Ardemax

26-11-2009, 07:01 PM

All I can say to that is it's slightly more understandable for someone to disbelieve something that happened 60 years ago as opposed to something that happened very recently. I mean if a bomb goes off tonight, and I get up tomorrow morning and shout in the street that it didn't happen, I'm clearly just being a ****. However as I said a long time ago in this very thread, I'm assuming when someone denies the holocaust, they are doing it because they genuinely believe it did not happen, rather than simply to cause people grief.

If you really think about it, you only believe it happened because of what we're told and what our history books say. Countries have been known to rewrite their schools' textbooks to brainwash their children into believing what they wanted them to believe about their own country. I am lucky enough to have attended a talk by a holocaust survivor which was extremely moving so I obviously have no doubt it occurred.

But wait, I've gone completely off topic! The point is I accept other people's views if they genuinely believe an event did not happen. If they're just saying it to cause hate, then I don't think that's what freedom of speech is really about.

I'm sorry but there is more than one way to learn about the holocaust.

There's so much evidence and proof it happened, it's like, it happened. It's like denying World War 2.

A long shot, but the same circumstances.

-:Undertaker:-

26-11-2009, 07:51 PM

I still can't believe someone would deny all that evidence and proof. meh.
ok lemme quote from my other post

"So the only time when freedom of speech is stopped as soon as racism comes into play?

But I've only insulted someone? They're not gay, nor a different skin colour to me. That's still freedom of speech?"

....

Denying the holocaust is not directly insulting somebody, so the exact same point still stands; denial of a historical event is not the same as racism/homophobia.

Exactly. Denying the holocaust causes hatred and causes sadness etc for the victims families. Thats our point. If the other two don't get it then "/ and they say we are enjoying pointless post counts "/.
To me, undertaker says something, we prove him wrong, and then he says thats not what he meant. He is just full of excuses and hence I am losing interest in this debate as he is one of those people who never accept they are wrong.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED
gets proved wrong
WAIT THATS NOT WHAT I MEANT, I MEANT IT SHOULD BE LIMITED FOR PURPOSES OF HATRED ETC
gets proved wrong about BNP again
WAIT IT SHOULD ONLY BE FOR RACIAL ABUSE
gets proved wrong

whats next undertaker?

Nothing is next darling, I will keep repeating what I have said throughout this thread so maybe it'll sink in for you; denial of a historical event is not the same as homophobia/racism.

You haven't proved anything wrong, when I said 'that isn't democracy then!' that was a pun, and thats been explained. Of course outright racism and homophobia shouldn't be allowed, that would be a anachism which I strongly disagree with, not to mention that it wouldn't work either.

Seatherny

26-11-2009, 11:48 PM

First you said FoS should not be limited. Then you said FoS should be limited to avoid hatred. Then you said FoS should be limited to avoid homophobia/racism.

Make your mind up.

-:Undertaker:-

26-11-2009, 11:49 PM

First you said FoS should not be limited. Then you said FoS should be limited to avoid hatred. Then you said FoS should be limited to avoid homophobia/racism.

Make your mind up.

Are homophobia and racism not hatred now?

It is you who needs to make their mind up.

Seatherny

27-11-2009, 12:27 AM

And destroying or whatever someones memories when theres proof of an event not causing hatred?

-:Undertaker:-

27-11-2009, 12:45 AM

And destroying or whatever someones memories when theres proof of an event not causing hatred?

Denying the holocaust is not hatred therefore it is not comparable to hatred.

Ardemax

27-11-2009, 06:27 AM

Denying the holocaust is not directly insulting somebody, so the exact same point still stands; denial of a historical event is not the same as racism/homophobia.

you didn't answer my question

have a look at that post please then tell me

-:Undertaker:-

28-11-2009, 02:13 AM

you didn't answer my question

have a look at that post please then tell me

I have answered what was your 'question' and I have stated that homophobia and racism are not the same as denial of a historical event, the top two deliberatley go out to target two groups with direct hatred, whereas denial of a historical event is what it is, denial of a historical event.

Ardemax

28-11-2009, 09:43 AM

I have answered what was your 'question' and I have stated that homophobia and racism are not the same as denial of a historical event, the top two deliberatley go out to target two groups with direct hatred, whereas denial of a historical event is what it is, denial of a historical event.

It's not going against gays, and I don't think it's going against a different skin colour. Yet it could be deemed offence.

Black_Apalachi

02-12-2009, 12:32 PM

btw does the BNP want to get rid of the Irish?

MrPinkPanther

07-12-2009, 11:14 AM

For those claiming the BNP are not racist and should not be banned I would direct you towards the following links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN8MZv6Nyqc&feature=related

-:Undertaker:-

07-12-2009, 03:16 PM

It's not going against gays, and I don't think it's going against a different skin colour. Yet it could be deemed offence.

It 'could be' deemed offence, i'm pretty sure if somebody gets that worked up over what Nick Griffins opinions are over the holocaust they have some serious issues and need to find something else to do with their time instead of taking offence at opinions that differ to their own. On your point, stop worrying what people might think or whether they will take offence, if they do they do, thats life.

If you have different opinions in a free world then people will take offence, human nature.

For those claiming the BNP are not racist and should not be banned I would direct you towards the following links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN8MZv6Nyqc&feature=related

They should not be banned as banning them would make you the facist.

Ardemax

07-12-2009, 04:52 PM

-:Undertaker:-

07-12-2009, 08:15 PM

Tash.

07-12-2009, 10:12 PM

No, I am saying the left (such as yourself) need to stop stamping on freedom of speech in the name of people possibly being offended at something, stop wrapping us all in cotton wool. On the second point, if they did not commit violence/crime then yes that I would deem that facist, as you are doing the exact thing them two evil crackpots did when they got into power.

Apologies for butting into this conversation but, I don't think anyone is suggesting we wrap people up in cotton wool. We're talking about a group of people who's opinions hurt whole races of people. And no, this is not exactly the same as Hitler and Mussolini at all. Hitler and Mussolini did things much much worse than stop freedom of speech, and i'm sorry but nobody remembers them for their tyranny in stopping the free press and you know it. Not everything in life is as simple as 'free speech' for everything thats not violent or would hurt your feelings. Sometimes you have to think of others and i'm sorry but the BNP should not be spouting some of the crap they get away with.

-:Undertaker:-

07-12-2009, 10:23 PM

Apologies for butting into this conversation but, I don't think anyone is suggesting we wrap people up in cotton wool. We're talking about a group of people who's opinions hurt whole races of people. And no, this is not exactly the same as Hitler and Mussolini at all. Hitler and Mussolini did things much much worse than stop freedom of speech, and i'm sorry but nobody remembers them for their tyranny in stopping the free press and you know it. Not everything in life is as simple as 'free speech' for everything thats not violent or would hurt your feelings. Sometimes you have to think of others and i'm sorry but the BNP should not be spouting some of the crap they get away with.

The jewish religion is not a race last time I checked. On the issue of Hitler and Mussolini, of course they did much worse things which begs the question of why they have been compared to the BNP in the first place. But I don't mind comparisons because thats how you learn from history, so did Hitler and Mussolini ban free speech? - yes. Are people in this thread proposing to ban free speech? - yes.

On your last point shows the hypocrisy of your argument, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

Seatherny

08-12-2009, 12:15 AM

The jewish religion is not a race last time I checked.

Oh my god! Stop picking at small things. You know bloody well what she means! :eusa_wall :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ardemax

08-12-2009, 06:28 AM

Tash.

08-12-2009, 04:41 PM

The jewish religion is not a race last time I checked. On the issue of Hitler and Mussolini, of course they did much worse things which begs the question of why they have been compared to the BNP in the first place. But I don't mind comparisons because thats how you learn from history, so did Hitler and Mussolini ban free speech? - yes. Are people in this thread proposing to ban free speech? - yes.

On your last point shows the hypocrisy of your argument, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't see where I referred to the jews at all. I said the BNP's opinions discriminate against whole races of people, and they do. Nick Griffin is a racist, he does not like blacks in this country, nor does he like asian people. So I am really not sure why you mentioned the jews when you quoted me. You are the one who keeps comparing the BNP to Hitler and Mussolini when we're talking about freedom of speech also so you should maybe ask yourself why you keep comparing them.

I am not the only one who disagrees with their opinions, this is not a personal vendetta against them its recognition of what the BNP are and stand for which is hatred and racism. I have not proposed to ban everything I don't agree with, there are many things I don't like but this is very different. Racism is not allowed person to person by law, nor is it allowed to be homophobic and yet the BNP manage to bypass these laws by hiding behind the freedom of speech facade. People like you are the ones who argue they should get away with it and it's pathetic. Freedom of speech is there so that people can speak out against oppression. You keep talking about 'the left' (which by the way you keep grouping me with, and thats laughable because you don't know my politics) trying to wrap people in cotton wool, but the 'right' which is what I presume you are proposes we let people spout racism. I know who i'd rather side with.

Dan2nd

08-12-2009, 05:48 PM

Tash.

08-12-2009, 06:22 PM

Surely if they are banned from making their views known future voters won't know their true agenda and will vote BNP for watered down policies they are aloud to talk about?

I am proud to live in a Britain where all people from different walks of life are welcome.. but I'd also be proud to live in a Britain where we can voice our opinions without being gagged or demonised..

I understand what you're saying but alot of the people who voted for the BNP in the European elections voted them because of their radical policies. That's the problem with letting them say whatever they want, especially in the current climate politically and economically, it's dangerous.

MrPinkPanther

08-12-2009, 06:52 PM

It 'could be' deemed offence, i'm pretty sure if somebody gets that worked up over what Nick Griffins opinions are over the holocaust they have some serious issues and need to find something else to do with their time instead of taking offence at opinions that differ to their own. On your point, stop worrying what people might think or whether they will take offence, if they do they do, thats life.

If you have different opinions in a free world then people will take offence, human nature.
My best friend is Homosexual and I can tell you he would be HIGHLY offended if you were to deny thousands of what he considers to be his own people died in Death camps such as Treblinka or Concentration camps like Auschwitz.

So by your theory should I be able to preach radical Islam? Should I be allowed to inspire racial hatred against the British people? Its my free speech.

They should not be banned as banning them would make you the facist.

NoOn the second point, if they did not commit violence/crime then yes that I would deem that facist, as you are doing the exact thing them two evil crackpots did when they got into power.
Ok you're an idiot. Do you know what Facism is? It's not oppressing freedom of speech. It's following an authoritarian and nationalistic political ideology. The complete opposite of what we are arguing. If anything call us Communists.

The jewish religion is not a race last time I checked.
I'm not sure why you said that, it came out of nowhere but "Jews" can either be a race or a religion.

Ardemax

08-12-2009, 07:58 PM

Surely if they are banned from making their views known future voters won't know their true agenda and will vote BNP for watered down policies they are aloud to talk about?

I am proud to live in a Britain where all people from different walks of life are welcome.. but I'd also be proud to live in a Britain where we can voice our opinions without being gagged or demonised..

How ironick your signature is compared to our debate about the denial of the holocaust.

So I'll put it to you, is it wrong to deny the holocaust?

Dan2nd

08-12-2009, 10:04 PM

How ironick your signature is compared to our debate about the denial of the holocaust.

So I'll put it to you, is it wrong to deny the holocaust?

While I totally disagree with what Nick Griffin has said I still think anyone British or not should have the right to express their opinion

I'm talking for all races all genders all sexualities here when I say we should be aloud to express our views even if they are controversial.

and as far as I'm aware Help For Heroes has nothing to do with the Holocaust so I'm not sure how that makes anything ironic unless I've misunderstood what you have said?

-:Undertaker:-

08-12-2009, 11:11 PM

Oh my god! Stop picking at small things. You know bloody well what she means! :eusa_wall :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Then it isn't racism. I can see people here are trying to turn it into a racism argument, when its about the holocaust and denial of historical events, not racism.

Just oh my God. The bold parts goes for EVERYONE including you. I think it's the most obvioust thing like... ever.

Why have Hitler and Mussolini been compared to the BNP? I don't think I've compared them both to the BNP?

Yes they do, I don't agree that the holocaust was made up by the allies either, and neither do the vast majority of people in this country. I don't think you quite understand what i'm getting at, it may not be the same as our opinion but its somebody elses opinion so therefore our opinion of it shouldn't and doesn't make it wrong for them to let their opinion be known.

I don't see where I referred to the jews at all. I said the BNP's opinions discriminate against whole races of people, and they do. Nick Griffin is a racist, he does not like blacks in this country, nor does he like asian people. So I am really not sure why you mentioned the jews when you quoted me. You are the one who keeps comparing the BNP to Hitler and Mussolini when we're talking about freedom of speech also so you should maybe ask yourself why you keep comparing them.

I am not the only one who disagrees with their opinions, this is not a personal vendetta against them its recognition of what the BNP are and stand for which is hatred and racism. I have not proposed to ban everything I don't agree with, there are many things I don't like but this is very different. Racism is not allowed person to person by law, nor is it allowed to be homophobic and yet the BNP manage to bypass these laws by hiding behind the freedom of speech facade. People like you are the ones who argue they should get away with it and it's pathetic. Freedom of speech is there so that people can speak out against oppression. You keep talking about 'the left' (which by the way you keep grouping me with, and thats laughable because you don't know my politics) trying to wrap people in cotton wool, but the 'right' which is what I presume you are proposes we let people spout racism. I know who i'd rather side with.

I'm not comparing the BNP to Hitler and Mussolini, i'm comparing everyone here who wants to ban them for holocaust denial the facists, because thats part of what facism is, banning free speech. On the right/left argument, you have just proved to me how the left groups all the right (Conservatives, UKIP etc) with racism, homophobia, xenophobia to try and tarnish the right.

The right merely sticks up for freedom of speech and freedom, thats why we allow socialist parties like Labour, Liberal Democrats and other parties to exist and operate in this country, whereas in socialist countries all Conservative aka right wing parties are banned.

Surely if they are banned from making their views known future voters won't know their true agenda and will vote BNP for watered down policies they are aloud to talk about?

I am proud to live in a Britain where all people from different walks of life are welcome.. but I'd also be proud to live in a Britain where we can voice our opinions without being gagged or demonised..

Could not agree more, thats why we fought two world wars against draconian and evil European powers for freedom and democracy.

I understand what you're saying but alot of the people who voted for the BNP in the European elections voted them because of their radical policies. That's the problem with letting them say whatever they want, especially in the current climate politically and economically, it's dangerous.

THAT-IS-DEMOCRACY-IN-ACTION.

My best friend is Homosexual and I can tell you he would be HIGHLY offended if you were to deny thousands of what he considers to be his own people died in Death camps such as Treblinka or Concentration camps like Auschwitz.

I'm gay and I don't consider gay people my own people, i'm sick to death of militantism among the left which groups everyone together and creates division. To be quite frank, your friend needs to stop putting himself and his own opinions over democracy.

So by your theory should I be able to preach radical Islam? Should I be allowed to inspire racial hatred against the British people? Its my free speech.

My policy would be that as long as you are not intructing people to go and hurt others, then yes you would be allowed to preach it. However we are not talking about the BNP in general and hate, we are talking about denial of the holocaust.

Ok you're an idiot. Do you know what Facism is? It's not oppressing freedom of speech. It's following an authoritarian and nationalistic political ideology. The complete opposite of what we are arguing. If anything call us Communists.

You have just contradicted yourself before your very eyes, authoritian is supressing freedom of speech, thats what authoritian is, you know.. like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin and all the other nutters?

I'm not sure why you said that, it came out of nowhere but "Jews" can either be a race or a religion.

The jewish religion and it followers are not a race, therefore bringing racism into an argument about denial of the holocaust is diverting the subject.

Seatherny

08-12-2009, 11:17 PM

Racisim or discriminating against a religion, not much of a difference if you think about it.

-:Undertaker:-

08-12-2009, 11:20 PM

Denial of the holocaust isn't discriminating against a religion. It is questioning whether or not the holocaust occured and whether or not it was part of Allied propaganda - history is there to be questioned.

Ardemax

09-12-2009, 06:29 AM

So it's alright for an opinion to offend someone?

So can I deny World War 2?

Can I deny that there was no such period as the "Victorians"?

It's just so obvious they didn't happen.

Black_Apalachi

09-12-2009, 01:30 PM

So it's alright for an opinion to offend someone?

So can I deny World War 2?

Can I deny that there was no such period as the "Victorians"?

It's just so obvious they didn't happen.

Yes. You finally grasped it after about 20 pages of thread.

Ardemax

09-12-2009, 04:17 PM

Yes. You finally grasped it after about 20 pages of thread.

Right. What you've just said to me is that im allowed to deny any historic event and broadcast it to the world.

Is this correct?

Black_Apalachi

09-12-2009, 04:31 PM

Right. What you've just said to me is that im allowed to deny any historic event and broadcast it to the world.

Is this correct?

YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

MrPinkPanther

09-12-2009, 05:41 PM

You have just contradicted yourself before your very eyes, authoritian is supressing freedom of speech, thats what authoritian is, you know.. like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin and all the other nutters?

No I haven't because "Authoritarian" is not suppression of freedom of speech, in an authoritarian regime there can be suppression of speech but that is not what it means.

"Authoritarianism is a political system controlled by nonelected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom"

The jewish religion and it followers are not a race, therefore bringing racism into an argument about denial of the holocaust is diverting the subject.
You are wrong. The Jews are a race and the Nazis treated them as a racial group which is why even if they weren't Jewish by faith they were still ruthlessly murdered because they were Jewish by race. They also believed that Jews could be identified by certain physical characteristics such as a large nose. So no, racism is NOT the wrong term to use.

Tash.

09-12-2009, 07:24 PM

I'm not comparing the BNP to Hitler and Mussolini, i'm comparing everyone here who wants to ban them for holocaust denial the facists, because thats part of what facism is, banning free speech. On the right/left argument, you have just proved to me how the left groups all the right (Conservatives, UKIP etc) with racism, homophobia, xenophobia to try and tarnish the right.

Ok so you're comparing me and my views to Hitler and Mussolini now? That's much better. As I have said several times, the banning of free speech is only one tiny miniscule thing that Hitler and Mussolini did. It is by no stretch of the imagination the worst thing, and it did not lead to them committing any of the atrocities they did.

The right merely sticks up for freedom of speech and freedom, thats why we allow socialist parties like Labour, Liberal Democrats and other parties to exist and operate in this country, whereas in socialist countries all Conservative aka right wing parties are banned.

The left do not try to make the right look racist, homophobic or xenophobic, i'm sorry but the groups on the far right do that all by themselves. I have no firm political standing, and yet I still think that parties such as the BNP and UKIP have what you might say are racist policies. That is my opinion on them anyway.

THAT-IS-DEMOCRACY-IN-ACTION.

There honestly was no need for you to type that part in capitals and bold either.. it's quite condescending actually. I'm aware that was democracy in action, but the point is they voted because of his racist policies. Nobody who is not racist themselves will argue that is right surely?

My policy would be that as long as you are not intructing people to go and hurt others, then yes you would be allowed to preach it. However we are not talking about the BNP in general and hate, we are talking about denial of the holocaust.

Again, that is dangerous. You're actually saying that you would allow radical muslims to preach either in person or via video link here in Britain and say that the western world is wrong and should be eradicated. This is all aslong as he does not expressly instruct them to go out and kill people? No way.

The jewish religion and it followers are not a race, therefore bringing racism into an argument about denial of the holocaust is diverting the subject.

As flyduo above has told you, Hitler himself considered the Jews to be a race. He said they had physical traits such as the nose, and personality traits such as being greedy and miserly which made them jewish. Plus this whole argument was supposed to include all aspects of the BNP so bringing racism into this is perfectly understandable seen as they are effectively a racist party.

MrPinkPanther

09-12-2009, 07:34 PM

I'd also like to point out that its not only that Hitler considered them to be a race, they are a race. They are descended from Jacob and originate from the Israelites I believe (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Ardemax

10-12-2009, 06:25 AM

YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

But if it's homophobic or racist, I can't say it?

Black_Apalachi

10-12-2009, 04:58 PM

But if it's homophobic or racist, I can't say it?

How can '??? didn't happen' ever mean 'I hate gays' or 'I hate blacks'? :S

Ardemax

10-12-2009, 07:40 PM

How can '??? didn't happen' ever mean 'I hate gays' or 'I hate blacks'? :S

For this we must call on history, Black History and Gay Rights, as you may put it.

But if you're so keen on freedom of speech, how come your friend even said if it's homophobic or racist, you can't say it?

Black_Apalachi

10-12-2009, 11:31 PM

For this we must call on history, Black History and Gay Rights, as you may put it.

But if you're so keen on freedom of speech, how come your friend even said if it's homophobic or racist, you can't say it?

Like we've been saying all along, the law still exists so you can't be hateful or abusive.

Ardemax

11-12-2009, 06:38 AM

Like we've been saying all along, the law still exists so you can't be hateful or abusive.

Exactly... hateful!

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2009, 08:36 AM

Ignoring all thats been said which i'll reply to later, I want Tash to answer me this and only this.

The left do not try to make the right look racist, homophobic or xenophobic, i'm sorry but the groups on the far right do that all by themselves. I have no firm political standing, and yet I still think that parties such as the BNP and UKIP have what you might say are racist policies. That is my opinion on them anyway.

HOW are UKIP racist?

Black_Apalachi

11-12-2009, 01:34 PM

Exactly... hateful!

Yeah.......... and 'The holocaust did not happen' is not hateful. Glad we finally cleared this up then. *wipes hands*

Tash.

11-12-2009, 03:18 PM

Ignoring all thats been said which i'll reply to later, I want Tash to answer me this and only this.

HOW are UKIP racist?

Happily, although again please quit with the condescending bold and bigger letters, I am not blind thank you very much.

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf

I had a nice long read of this document, it's very very interesting :)

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2009, 03:26 PM

Happily, although again please quit with the condescending bold and bigger letters, I am not blind thank you very much.

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf

I had a nice long read of this document, it's very very interesting :)

The document does not appear to load for me, but that's a former socialist Labour MEP spewing on about how UKIP are apparently racist, so what about you? - please identify on the UKIP website the policies that UKIP has which you consider racist.

Incidently Mr Corbett appears to want a socialist European superstate (presumabley without a referendum) and also appears to be one of the MEPs' who wanted more of our sovereignty handed over to the European Union, sovereignty which our grandparents generation fought Nazism for.

I hope you don't mind it if I don't take Mr Corbett's writings seriously, although when the link works i'll be eager to read what he has to say on UKIP.

Seatherny

11-12-2009, 03:32 PM

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2009, 03:35 PM

I re uploaded it for you
http://saurav.co.uk/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf
It backups all its points with sources.

The link is still not working.

I shall ask again, what policies can you find (and not a socialist Labour MEP) that point towards UKIP being anywhere near racist or homophobic, despite the fact one of its leading MEPs is a lesbian.

Seatherny

11-12-2009, 03:37 PM

Weird how the link doesnt work for you but does for everyone else >.<

I think if you read that pdf ONCE you decide to read it, it will answer your questions.

You can DOWNLOAD it here: http://rapidshare.com/files/319439905/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf.html

Tash.

11-12-2009, 03:39 PM

The document does not appear to load for me, but that's a former socialist Labour MEP spewing on about how UKIP are apparently racist, so what about you? - please identify on the UKIP website the policies that UKIP has which you consider racist.

Incidently Mr Corbett appears to want a socialist European superstate (presumabley without a referendum) and also appears to be one of the MEPs' who wanted more of our sovereignty handed over to the European Union, sovereignty which our grandparents generation fought Nazism for.

I hope you don't mind it if I don't take Mr Corbett's writings seriously, although when the link works i'll be eager to read what he has to say on UKIP.

As you've just said, the document doesn't load for you so how do you know it's a "former socialist Labour MEP spewing on about how UKIP are apparently racist"? It's actually addressing key points about UKIP and gives evidence to back up what he says.

I've just now visited the UKIP website and I found what I expected. No party in their right mind is going to have illegal racist policies written on their website for all to see, so that was a pointless exercise now wasn't it? I've even been onto the BNP website just now, and something struck me.

We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.

We call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants.

Now can you tell me which came from the UKIP website, and which came from the BNP? I bet you can't because they are exactly the same.