BNP 'turning into Ukip' [Archive]

Technologic

10-12-2010, 04:43 PM

The British National party (BNP) has become more "dangerous" by toning down its racist rhetoric, experts have warned.
Research analysing the party's manifestos published in the Political Quarterly journal shows that the BNP's emphasis since Nick Griffin became leader in 1999 has focused on protecting Britain's values and institutions, rather than a nationalism based on race.
It suggests that Ukip's language has been mirrored by the BNP, especially on Europe, and that its anti-immigration stance has shifted from racial tensions towards broader social and economic problems.
"We are definitely not saying that the BNP is no longer an extreme right racist party," Daphne Halikiopoulou from the LSE's department of government commented.
"Indeed its use of more inclusive rhetoric makes it more dangerous because it makes it more difficult to identify it as such."
The civic narrative developed by the BNP has led to mixed results for the party. It has won two seats in the European parliament but, following intense media coverage, lost all its councillors in Barking and Dagenham in May 2010.
Another researcher, Sofia Vasilopoulou, said Mr Griffin's reforms had had a noticeable impact on the far-right party's arguments, however.
"The BNP's post 1999 manifestos are characterised by a rhetoric shift," she explained.
"Although race still figures, it is less prominent and no longer forms the premise of its nationalist agenda. Instead, the BNP has increasingly talked about its agenda using elements of British national identity which unite rather than divide, such as 'democracy', 'freedom', and 'liberty' - all values that the party has previously rejected as 'liberal sickness'

Source: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/bnp-turning-into-ukip--$21386199.htm

Thoughts on this?

Nemo

10-12-2010, 04:47 PM

well UKIP are doing terrible in the grand scheme of things anyway so we're good for now.

-:Undertaker:-

10-12-2010, 04:50 PM

I think its expected, to appeal to a more mainstream audience the BNP will attempt to use more toned down language and will attempt to appear more liberal - but we all know they are still a thuggish party who view race as the be all and end all. The problem (and reason why BNP recieves so many votes) is that especially in areas where mass immigration has completely changed the local area, people are just so angry that they will turn to the extremes.

Rivers of blood - it could very well happen one day, lets get it under control before it does.

well UKIP are doing terrible in the grand scheme of things anyway so we're good for now.

The party recieved more donations than the Liberal Democrats did in Q3 of 2010 and is now only 4% behind the Liberal Democrats, pretty well i'd say. I do realise though that this thread has been posted as an attempt to slur UKIP, but I fail to see how this slurs UKIP - more so it just exposes something we already know which is that the BNP under Nick Griffin has attempted to appear moderate to look acceptable.

FlyingJesus

10-12-2010, 04:52 PM

Oh no how dare they be less racist

Catzsy

10-12-2010, 04:56 PM

Oh no how dare they be less racist

I think that is about as much credence as we should give this thread.

Jordy

10-12-2010, 05:03 PM

The party recieved more donations than the Liberal Democrats did in Q3 of 2010 and is now only 4% behind the Liberal Democrats, pretty well i'd say. I do realise though that this thread has been posted as an attempt to slur UKIP, but I fail to see how this slurs UKIP - more so it just exposes something we already know which is that the BNP under Nick Griffin has attempted to appear moderate to look acceptable.Yeah but a dolphin beat Nigel Farage in the General Election... In the grand scheme things they're far off winning a seat in the house of commons and having much impact on a national level still.

I'm not sure whether it's more or less worrying if the BNP are more moderate. Of course it seems a good thing but it means they're edging close to power which is definitely a bad thing.

-:Undertaker:-

10-12-2010, 05:05 PM

Yeah but a dolphin beat Nigel Farage in the General Election...

I suppose you could say the same for Dave Cameron who failed to win the hopeless Gordon Brown after 13 years of disasterous government.

On the other hand, UKIP did prevent the Tories picking some seats up (estimated at 20) - which is well worth it.

FlyingJesus

10-12-2010, 05:07 PM

Obviously well worth it as so many people love this coalition

beth

10-12-2010, 05:23 PM

Obviously well worth it as so many people love this coalition

it is too popular 2k10.

Chippiewill

11-12-2010, 02:08 AM

To be honest, we have no proper evidence that UKIP is any less racist than BNP.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 02:09 AM

To be honest, we have no proper evidence that UKIP is any less racist than BNP.

Ahh so everybody is a racist without evidence, interesting take on the world there (a bizzare one at that).

Anyway, name some racist policies.

Chippiewill

11-12-2010, 02:13 AM

Ahh so everybody is a racist without evidence, interesting take on the world there (a bizzare one at that).

Anyway, name some racist policies.

Name some racist policies of BNP, UKIP could just have just as easily changed their policies to look non-racist.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 02:17 AM

Name some racist policies of BNP

The fact that the BNP wish to see an immigration system based on race (hence why they subscribe to racial identity rather than national identity).

UKIP could just have just as easily changed their policies to look non-racist.

Yes, thats right you can't find any can you (or any records of past 'racist' policies) - thats why your now talking complete nonsense.

Chippiewill

11-12-2010, 02:20 AM

Yes, thats right you can't find any can you (or any records of past 'racist' policies) - thats why your now talking complete nonsense.

No, I'm merely asking how you think that you can trust a political party which hasn't been in parliament yet, whilst you also call another party 'Thuggish' and 'racist' when it is very similar in many ways.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 02:24 AM

No, I'm merely asking how you think that you can trust a political party which hasn't been in parliament yet, whilst you also call another party 'Thuggish' and 'racist' when it is very similar in many ways.

Because the BNP has thugs in the party (by a much larger margin than any other party) and also has racist policies, and as for racists in parliament - isn't it the Labour Party and the Conservative Party who keep introducing something called 'positive discrimination' which is a nice name for legalised racism? So as I knew from the start, you can't find any policies from UKIP that are racist, and by using your ridiculous logic i'd never let anybody into my house out of fear of them being racist/rapists/murderers/sexual offenders.

Chippiewill

11-12-2010, 02:27 AM

Because the BNP has thugs in the party (by a much larger margin than any other party) and also has racist policies, and as for racists in parliament - isn't it the Labour Party and the Conservative Party who keep introducing something called 'positive discrimination' which is a nice name for legalised racism? So as I knew from the start, you can't find any policies from UKIP that are racist, and by using your ridiculous logic i'd never let anybody into my house out of fear of them being racist/rapists/murderers/sexual offenders.

I believe in knowing that you can trust a political party before I actually trust them to run my country personally.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 02:31 AM

I believe in knowing that you can trust a political party before I actually trust them to run my country personally.

How do you think Labour ever got into power in the first place? under your logic we would never have voted Labour in all those years ago because they hadn't served before. Come now, lets be serious on this - and as for trusting political parties, if trust is such a big issue for you then I do hope you don't support the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats who I wouldn't trust with my dinnermoney let alone with running the country.

And if you need any examples (which any alert person shouldnt) on why you shouldn't trust the Lib/Lab/Con then type in terms like 'tuition fees' or 'EU referendum' (that's just two fairly recent examples off the top of my head).

Chippiewill

11-12-2010, 02:36 AM

How do you think Labour ever got into power in the first place? under your logic we would never have voted Labour in all those years ago because they hadn't served before. Come now, lets be serious on this - and as for trusting political parties, if trust is such a big issue for you then I do hope you don't support the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats who I wouldn't trust with my dinnermoney let alone with running the country.

And if you need examples on why you shouldn't trust the Lib/Lab/Con then type in terms like 'tuition fees' or 'EU referendum' (that's just two off the top of my head).

What many people don't realise in their ignorance is that governments 99% of the time actually make the best decisions, they are very big decisions and they generally run like clockwork and unnoticed. You stick an amateur in government and what would happen is say, for example, is that UKIP would pull out of the EU and forget to do something like sort out trading with other countries. Or perhaps because they're one track minded they would neglect every other problem because they only wanted to be in power to pull out of the EU / deport people they don't like. Things like tuition fees whilst sounding very important are actually very minor in perspective.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 02:43 AM

What many people don't realise in their ignorance is that governments 99% of the time actually make the best decisions, they are very big decisions and they generally run like clockwork and unnoticed. You stick an amateur in government and what would happen is say, for example, is that UKIP would pull out of the EU and forget to do something like sort out trading with other countries. Or perhaps because they're one track minded they would neglect every other problem because they only wanted to be in power to pull out of the EU / deport people they don't like. Things like tuition fees whilst sounding very important are actually very minor in perspective.

Yes thats totally right! on gaining power, UKIP and its economists working for it (along with Whitehall government departments) would all suddenly forget about the trading arrangements which supply us all with the food we have on our tables.

deport people they don't like

Oh yes thats right! Nigel Farage would suddenly grow a toothbrush moustache on gaining office and deport all the jews/blacks and gays. Although seriously, what actually scares me about your views is that you actuallly believe in government being right all of the time and that you believe in guilty until proven innocent. I'll list some reasons tommorow on why you can't trust government with the Lib/Lab/Con in particular.

Chippiewill

11-12-2010, 02:47 AM

Yes thats totally right! on gaining power, UKIP and its economists working for it (along with Whitehall government departments) would all suddenly forget about the trading arrangements which supply us all with the food we have on our tables.
You obviously don't get that I used it as a fictional example.

Oh yes thats right! Nigel 'Hitler' Farage would suddenly grow a toothbrush moustache on gaining office and deport all the jews/blacks and gays.
Correction: Nigel 'Griffin' Farage.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 03:02 AM

What many people don't realise in their ignorance is that governments 99% of the time actually make the best decisions, they are very big decisions and they generally run like clockwork and unnoticed.

So lets see then; is that a banking crisis, an invasion based on the false pretext of that country having WMD, more powers to unelected politicians in the European Union, large government databases which data is continously lost/goes missing in, ancient civil liberties destroyed in a matter of a few years, military cutbacks which left the Falklands undefended, the building of the white elephant that is the Dome, a large government debt which runs into the trillions, a Prime Minister who sold UK gold stocks on the markets for dirt cheap prices.. the list goes on and on.

You stick an amateur in government and what would happen is say, for example, is that UKIP would pull out of the EU and forget to do something like sort out trading with other countries.

No they wouldn't forget that so don't be so ridiculous, they could make **** ups in almost anything (just like the present lot) but seeing as many in UKIP are from the private sector thats far more unlikely to happen than under the likes of Ed Miliband who has never left the world of politics and who has worked for the state for the period of his short life.

Or perhaps because they're one track minded they would neglect every other problem because they only wanted to be in power to pull out of the EU / deport people they don't like.

I think you'll find UKIP had one of the most comprehensive policy manifestos in the election, more so than the main parties themselves who only offered vague election promises under each page of their manifestos. As for the deporting part, whats to stop David Cameron deporting people he doesn't like tommorow (Julian Assange for one?).

Things like tuition fees whilst sounding very important are actually very minor in perspective.

Let's see, things they've [the Lib/Lab/Con] have lied about off the top of my head; WMD/European Union/various election pledges/referendum promises/tuition fees.. and on and on and on.

So don't sit here and tell me (hopefully not with a straight face) that somehow these lot are trustworthy.

Correction: Nigel 'Griffin' Farage.

You have as much evidence for that as I have of saying David 'Griffin' Cameron, absolute and utter nonsense.

Chippiewill

11-12-2010, 03:42 AM

So lets see then; is that a banking crisis, an invasion based on the false pretext of that country having WMD, more powers to unelected politicians in the European Union, large government databases which data is continously lost/goes missing in, ancient civil liberties destroyed in a matter of a few years, military cutbacks which left the Falklands undefended, the building of the white elephant that is the Dome, a large government debt which runs into the trillions, a Prime Minister who sold UK gold stocks on the markets for dirt cheap prices.. the list goes on and on.

Of course I cannot list the scale of the things that I am thinking of, because they haven't happened yet. You cannot trust an amateur government to run the economy properly.

No they wouldn't forget that so don't be so ridiculous, they could make **** ups in almost anything (just like the present lot) but seeing as many in UKIP are from the private sector thats far more unlikely to happen than under the likes of Ed Miliband who has never left the world of politics and who has worked for the state for the period of his short life.

Did you feel like replying to the same thing twice whilst still ignoring my interim post?

I think you'll find UKIP had one of the most comprehensive policy manifestos in the election, more so than the main parties themselves who only offered vague election promises under each page of their manifestos. As for the deporting part, whats to stop David Cameron deporting people he doesn't like tommorow (Julian Assange for one?).

It's obvious that UKIP really has one agenda and that is to pull out of the EU, having succeeded that all the other main parties would manage everything else to a better standard.

Let's see, things they've [the Lib/Lab/Con] have lied about off the top of my head; WMD/European Union/various election pledges/referendum promises/tuition fees.. and on and on and on.

So don't sit here and tell me (hopefully not with a straight face) that somehow these lot are trustworthy.

Politicians all lie, I'd rather have those which I can trust to actually run the country rather than just pull out of the EU and that's it.

You have as much evidence for that as I have of saying David 'Griffin' Cameron, absolute and utter nonsense.
Actually I meant that in jest.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 01:24 PM

Of course I cannot list the scale of the things that I am thinking of, because they haven't happened yet. You cannot trust an amateur government to run the economy properly.

So what about the mostly new MP-filled parliament we have now? most of those people have never been in government before.

Did you feel like replying to the same thing twice whilst still ignoring my interim post?

I replied to your first post as the second one had nothing to reply to (and if you think there's something you'd like a response to then point it out and I will gladly respond) and I did promise i'd give a more full reply to the first post, which i've done and which you've largely dismissed.

It's obvious that UKIP really has one agenda and that is to pull out of the EU, having succeeded that all the other main parties would manage everything else to a better standard.

I just told you that UKIP had a more comprehensive manifesto than either the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats - so you've no basis what so ever to say things are being run to a better standard, especially when i've just given numerous examples of failure.

Politicians all lie, I'd rather have those which I can trust to actually run the country rather than just pull out of the EU and that's it.

No, again they have a comprehensive manifesto far bigger than the main parties - you can't actually run the country while being in the EU, somebody does it for you.

Inseriousity.

11-12-2010, 03:37 PM

If you're trying to appeal to voters, you're going to have to tone things down and try and match them to the country's ideals and values. All extremely pointless because Nick Griffin is useless and won't get the party anywhere so I'm personally hoping they hang onto him.

MrPinkPanther

11-12-2010, 05:34 PM

To be fair 'Chippiewill' you sound ridiculous.

Conservative,

11-12-2010, 05:39 PM

Can I just point these two things out...

UKIP:

Freeze immigration for permanent settlement for five years
Aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 a year, using a points-based system
Triple the number of illegal immigrants deported
"no home no visa" work permits for immigrants
Force all public employees to carry out their duties with their faces uncovered
Require people to have uncovered faces in all public buildings and "certain private buildings"
End the "active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism" by local and national government.

BNP:

Immediate halt to all immigration
Immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants
Offer legal immigrants and their descendants financial incentives to return voluntarily to their countries of origin
End "positive discrimination" schemes that benefit ethnic minorities in the workplace
Review all grants of residence or citizenship made since 1997
Bar "foreigners who have not paid into the system" from access to benefits, social housing, state education and pensions
Reject all asylum applicants who passed through "safe" countries on their way to Britain
Repeal Race Relations Act and other equality legislation
Increase funding to the UK Border Agency
Ban the burka, "non-stunned ritual slaughter" of animals and the building of further mosques.

Don't sound all that different to me.

MrPinkPanther

11-12-2010, 05:42 PM

Can I just quote the London chairman of UKIP here:

You Left-wing scum are all the same, wanting to hand our birthright to Romanian gypsies who beat their wives and children into begging and stealing money they can gamble with, Muslim nutters who want to kill us and put us all under medieval Sharia law, the same Africans who sold their Afro-Caribbean brothers into a slavery that Britain was the first to abolish.

Hmmm.

alexxxxx

11-12-2010, 05:44 PM

End the "active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism" by local and national government.

it's these sort of vague and odd phrases in UKIP propaganda that makes it sound like the posh bnp.

Conservative,

11-12-2010, 05:46 PM

Can I just quote the London chairman of UKIP here:

Hmmm.

Wow...I'm right of centre but that is a bit OTT.

it's these sort of vague and odd phrases in UKIP propaganda that makes it sound like the posh bnp.
That was my point.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 05:55 PM

Watch for some common sense on the immigration issue;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOAgt6heZM

Can I just point these two things out...

UKIP:

Freeze immigration for permanent settlement for five years
-Which is good idea considering we have just under 1 million illegal immigrants here with no controls at all.

Aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 a year, using a points-based system
-Totally sensible, Tories introduced a cap on non-EU immigration only last month (don't you support the Tories?).

Triple the number of illegal immigrants deported
-Can't see what problem you'd have with that.

"no home no visa" work permits for immigrants
-Indeed, closes loopholes where people can bring family over.

Force all public employees to carry out their duties with their faces uncovered
-Yeah, I couldn't wear a hood if I worked in council offices - why should burkas be any different?

Require people to have uncovered faces in all public buildings and "certain private buildings"
-Totally agree, private buildings would be down to those businesses as they are not state owned.

End the "active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism" by local and national government.
-In agreement, 'multiculturalism' only serves to divide peope.

BNP:

Immediate halt to all immigration
-Agreed.

Immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants
-Agreed.

Offer legal immigrants and their descendants financial incentives to return voluntarily to their countries of origin
-Do not agree, clearly racist.

End "positive discrimination" schemes that benefit ethnic minorities in the workplace
-Agreed, hire people based on merit not race.

Review all grants of residence or citizenship made since 1997
-Not agreed.

Bar "foreigners who have not paid into the system" from access to benefits, social housing, state education and pensions
-Not agreed, would introduce a system though for *everyone* where you have to pay in for a period of 10 years.

Reject all asylum applicants who passed through "safe" countries on their way to Britain
-Agreed.

Repeal Race Relations Act and other equality legislation
-Agreed, racism is illegal under real old English law.

Increase funding to the UK Border Agency
-Agreed.

Ban the burka, "non-stunned ritual slaughter" of animals and the building of further mosques.
-Not agreed, state should not be involved.

So there, i've written under your examples and now you should be able to see very clear differences.

Don't sound all that different to me.

I think you'll find big differences, firstly that the immigration policy of UKIP has nothing to do with race/where you come from and that UKIP support a visa system (which is what the rest of the world have) rather than an open door which has led to just under one milllion illegal immigrants entering the United Kingdom. The BNP on the other hand want to send people back to their 'native' countries based on their race, UKIP doesnt - maybe another reason why UKIP has numerous asian/black councillors but just becase we don't make an issue of race doesn't mean we are nasty racists.

The bukra issue is worded wrongly, the burka they said would be down to the people who own a shop, so for example it would get rid of the 'discrimination' fear that many companies have. I heard the other week that somebody who went to my school and who got a job in Primark was told "don't serve anybody with a hood or their face covered" - anyway a woman who couldn't speak English and who was wearing a burka turns up and he refuses to serve her - he then gets fired for it.

That is what the UKIP policy would remove.

Can I just quote the London chairman of UKIP here:

Hmmm.

To which the party disiplined him for, just as the Labour Party/Tory Party and so forth have people like that in.

it's these sort of vague and odd phrases in UKIP propaganda that makes it sound like the posh bnp.

The difference being that the BNP decides on race and UKIP doesn't, yeah? pretty simple really isn't it. I know the cosy left concensus both on here and in the political mainstream label everybody who is against mass uncontrolled immigration as a racist - but most people see that as a common sense option.

Just because the BNP say some things similar to UKIP (and what most people say in the average pub) doesn't mean its automatically wrong.

Conservative,

11-12-2010, 06:31 PM

Nemo

11-12-2010, 06:32 PM

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 06:38 PM

End the "active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism" by local and national government.
-In agreement, 'multiculturalism' only serves to divide peope.

Force all public employees to carry out their duties with their faces uncovered
-Yeah, I couldn't wear a hood if I worked in council offices - why should burkas be any different?

Require people to have uncovered faces in all public buildings and "certain private buildings"
-Totally agree, private buildings would be down to those businesses as they are not state owned.

Ban the burka, "non-stunned ritual slaughter" of animals and the building of further mosques.
-Not agreed, state should not be involved.

Pretty much the same thing?

Bar foreigners who have not paid into the system" from access to benefits, social housing, state education and pensions
-Not agreed, would introduce a system though for *everyone* where you have to pay in for a period of 10 years.

"no home no visa" work permits for immigrants
-Indeed, closes loopholes where people can bring family over.

Same thing?

Well some things are the same, like the agreement that we shouldn't have illegal immigrants here who can access the welfare system and actually if you look at the video I posted, the three main parties often also say things along these lines just they don't commit themselves to a policy such as "we will stop illegal immigrants accessing the welfare system" but they will usually say things like "of course we need a managed immigration system which isn't open to abuse" - well that is simply beating around the bush.

Do you have a problem yourself with any of the UKIP policies in immigration? if not, then I cannot see what the problem is especially considering in the video I posted Nigel Farage absolutely trounced the other three parties on the subject of immigration. The difference between UKIP and the BNP is race, and the fact that the BNP believes in basically nobody from outside this country coming in to this country to work. UKIP wants control over immigration and an immigratiom system based on merit - it doesn't matter whether your black, green, white or purple but there should be some control over immigration rather than none.

The burka issue, I told you the differences. The UKIP policy is simple, it would be down to the owner of a shop. However if you work for the council for example or as a teacher, you would not be allowed to wear the burka just as you wouldn't be allowed to wear a hood or a balaclava while working.

Again I ask, do you disagree? if not, then whats the problem.

Conservative,

11-12-2010, 06:41 PM

Well some things are the same, like the agreement that we shouldn't have illegal immigrants here who can access the welfare system and actually if you look at the video I posted, the three main parties often also say things along these lines just they don't commit themselves to a policy such as "we will stop illegal immigrants accessing the welfare system" but they will usually say things like "of course we need a managed immigration system which isn't open to abuse" - well that is simply beating around the bush.

Do you have a problem yourself with any of the UKIP policies in immigration? if not, then I cannot see what the problem is especially considering in the video I posted Nigel Farage absolutely trounced the other three parties on the subject of immigration. The difference between UKIP and the BNP is race, and the fact that the BNP believes in basically nobody from outside this country coming in to this country to work - UKIP wants that, but we want control over immigration.

The burka issue, I told you the differences. The UKIP policy is simple, it would be down to the owner of a shop. However if you work for the council for example or as a teacher, you would not be allowed to wear the burka just as you wouldn't be allowed to wear a hood or a balaclava while working.

Again I ask, do you disagree? if not, then whats the problem.

I did not say there was a problem and I did not say they are the same, I said they are similar ;) I agree with most of your points but it's a free country, anyone can wear what they want to work, saying they can't is taking away their right to self expression.

-:Undertaker:-

11-12-2010, 06:47 PM

I did not say there was a problem and I did not say they are the same, I said they are similar ;) I agree with most of your points but it's a free country, anyone can wear what they want to work, saying they can't is taking away their right to self expression.

I agree but I think rules should be applied equally.

Swastika

11-12-2010, 08:07 PM

I did not say there was a problem and I did not say they are the same, I said they are similar ;) I agree with most of your points but it's a free country, anyone can wear what they want to work, saying they can't is taking away their right to self expression.
Well that's completely false.
I can't wear a balaclava to work yet a Muslim can wear a burqa? That to me, does not sound like a free country.

Catzsy

12-12-2010, 05:55 PM

Well that's completely false.
I can't wear a balaclava to work yet a Muslim can wear a burqa? That to me, does not sound like a free country.

You are banned from wearing a balaclava?

Nemo

12-12-2010, 05:57 PM

Well that's completely false.
I can't wear a balaclava to work yet a Muslim can wear a burqa? That to me, does not sound like a free country.
itsnot about being a free country, its about having respect. Balaclava's are often seen as threatening, whilst to most educated people, burqas aren't. People are allowed to wear them because of their religion, there is no need for people to wear balaclavas.

Swastika

12-12-2010, 06:14 PM

You are banned from wearing a balaclava?
Yes, in a work place - whereas Burqas are not.

itsnot about being a free country, its about having respect. Balaclava's are often seen as threatening, whilst to most educated people, burqas aren't. People are allowed to wear them because of their religion, there is no need for people to wear balaclavas.
My post was a retaliation to somebody else's posts, they said it was a free country - which it's not.
Burqas aren't threatening to me but i don't think people should be getting fired from work for refusing to serve people wearing them.
There are genuine reasons why somebody would wear a balaclava, as there are genuine reasons why somebody would wear a Burqa, you can't just say muslims have right to wear Burqas but i don't have a right to wear my balaclava.

Nemo

12-12-2010, 06:17 PM

Yes, in a work place - whereas Burqas are not.

My post was a retaliation to somebody else's posts, they said it was a free country - which it's not.
Burqas aren't threatening to me but i don't think people should be getting fired from work for refusing to serve people wearing them.
There are genuine reasons why somebody would wear a balaclava, as there are genuine reasons why somebody would wear a Burqa, you can't just say muslims have right to wear Burqas but i don't have a right to wear my balaclava.
Religion is a valid reason in today's society (hopefully not in the future, but thats another topic :p) to wear a certain item where others would not be able to. What valid reasons are there that someone would NEED to wear a balaclava to work?

Catzsy

12-12-2010, 06:31 PM

Yes, in a work place - whereas Burqas are not.

My post was a retaliation to somebody else's posts, they said it was a free country - which it's not.
Burqas aren't threatening to me but i don't think people should be getting fired from work for refusing to serve people wearing them.
There are genuine reasons why somebody would wear a balaclava, as there are genuine reasons why somebody would wear a Burqa, you can't just say muslims have right to wear Burqas but i don't have a right to wear my balaclava.

I think you will find that in some public buildings motorbike helmets, hoodys (with hoods up) and
balaclavas are banned which is for quite valid reasons as much more criminal activity happens with people wearing this mode of dress. They would also have every right to ask someone wearing a burqua to lift their veil for justified security reasons

Swastika

12-12-2010, 06:39 PM

Religion is a valid reason in today's society (hopefully not in the future, but thats another topic :p) to wear a certain item where others would not be able to. What valid reasons are there that someone would NEED to wear a balaclava to work?

I think you will find that in some public buildings motorbike helmets, hoodys (with hoods up) and
balaclavas are banned which is for quite valid reasons as much more criminal activity happens with people wearing this mode of dress. They would also have every right to ask someone wearing a burqua to lift their veil for justified security reasons

You are both beating around the bush.
Do you think its justifiable or fair that i can't wear my balaclava/hooded sweatshirt or any other face covering garment while a muslim can wear her Burqa?
Yes or no?

Nemo

12-12-2010, 06:40 PM

Catzsy

12-12-2010, 06:43 PM

You are both beating around the bush.
Do you think its justifiable or fair that i can't wear my balaclava/hooded sweatshirt or any other face covering garment while a muslim can wear her Burqa?
Yes or no?

Nothing is black and white - you are not banned from wearing your balaclava except for work. Almost all companies have dress codes. You do not wear it for religious reasons and this is no different to Sikhs wearing turbans for their religion.

Swastika

12-12-2010, 06:45 PM

Yes. You dont need to wear it, they do.

Nothing is black and white - you are not banned from wearing your balaclava except for work. Almost all companies have dress codes. You do not wear it for religious reasons and this is no different to Sikhs wearing turbans for their religion.
Okay, here is where i prove you both wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7560059/Christian-nurse-who-refused-to-remove-crucifix-loses-tribunal.html

Answer me that?

Nemo

12-12-2010, 06:47 PM

Okay, here is where i prove you both wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7560059/Christian-nurse-who-refused-to-remove-crucifix-loses-tribunal.html

Answer me that?Where are you proving us wrong? That article is what im saying, in that they should be allowed to wear religious items, no where did i say that christians shouldn't be allowed. Whoever made that decision saying that she shouldnt be allowed were wrong, not us.

Catzsy

12-12-2010, 06:51 PM

It had nothing to do with her faith - it was a health and safety issue. People working in hospitals are subject to this. No nurse can wear exposed jewellry whatever faith they are.

Swastika

12-12-2010, 06:52 PM

Where are you proving us wrong? That article is what im saying, in that they should be allowed to wear religious items, no where did i say that christians shouldn't be allowed. Whoever made that decision saying that she shouldnt be allowed were wrong, not us.
Why should it be religious items only?
The fact is the Burqa still covers up the face, exactly the same way a balaclava does.
Religion doesn't have much to do with the fact that you can't see somebodies face, i don't see how thats fair.
And im proving you wrong because your quite clearly defending the muslim faith as we carry on getting treat like second class citizens being told what to wear, when other religious and so called minorities are not.

---------- Post added 12-12-2010 at 06:54 PM ----------

It had nothing to do with her faith - it was a health and safety issue. People working in hospitals are subject to this. No nurse can wear exposed jewellry whatever faith they are.
Once again, your beating around the bush.
The article clearly stated she wore the necklace for many years without being troubled, the workplace was being discriminative.

Catzsy

12-12-2010, 06:58 PM

Why should it be religious items only?
The fact is the Burqa still covers up the face, exactly the same way a balaclava does.
Religion doesn't have much to do with the fact that you can't see somebodies face, i don't see how thats fair.
And im proving you wrong because your quite clearly defending the muslim faith as we carry on getting treat like second class citizens being told what to wear, when other religious and so called minorities are not.

---------- Post added 12-12-2010 at 06:54 PM ----------

Once again, your beating around the bush.
The article clearly stated she wore the necklace for many years without being troubled, the workplace was being discriminative.

No it is a regulation in every hospital in the land. Also please don't say 'we' when saying that people are treated like second class citizens because it it your post and your opinion which you are entitled to but you are not entitled to conclude what other people think either. :P

Nemo

12-12-2010, 06:59 PM

Why should it be religious items only?
The fact is the Burqa still covers up the face, exactly the same way a balaclava does.
Religion doesn't have much to do with the fact that you can't see somebodies face, i don't see how thats fair.
And im proving you wrong because your quite clearly defending the muslim faith as we carry on getting treat like second class citizens being told what to wear, when other religious and so called minorities are not.
Because people have to respect people's religious faith thats why, its a given. Balaclavas aren't needed.
The reason for wearing a burqa does have something to do with covering up one's face, thats the point of it.
Again, you're very wrong. I have no reason to defend the muslim faith, im neither muslim nor am i religious in the slightest (infact i think we'd be better if religion was gone altogether). I'm merely defending religion as a whole because even though i dont like religion, i still respect it. All of them.

Wig44.

12-12-2010, 06:59 PM

Yes. You dont need to wear it, they do.

Muslims don't need to wear a burka. It isn't necessary, just used by men to opress women.

Nemo

12-12-2010, 07:01 PM

Muslims don't need to wear a burka. It isn't necessary, just used by men to opress women.
Whatever their reason, its a part of their faith and they feel the need to wear it.

Swastika

12-12-2010, 07:02 PM

Because people have to respect people's religious faith thats why, its a given. Balaclavas aren't needed.
The reason for wearing a burqa does have something to do with covering up one's face, thats the point of it.
Again, you're very wrong. I have no reason to defend the muslim faith, im neither muslim nor am i religious in the slightest (infact i think we'd be better if religion was gone altogether). I'm merely defending religion as a whole because even though i dont like religion, i still respect it. All of them.
Exactly, it's point is to cover up the face - so is the balaclavas, so why can't i wear it?
Forget religion, what if a certain religion wanted to wear a balaclava for religious matters?

Nemo

12-12-2010, 07:04 PM

Exactly, it's point is to cover up the face - so is the balaclavas, so why can't i wear it?
Forget religion, what if a certain religion wanted to wear a balaclava for religious matters?
You're really not reading what im putting. Yes the point is to do that, but its a part of their fath therefore its fine. If a policeman wanted to say check if there was a criminal underneath, then yeah fair does, go for it.

Thats pretty much what a burqa is, so yes, if its a part of their religion and faith then go for it.

I dont feel like im getting anywhere so unless you come up with a new arguement, reread what ive been posting til you understand.

Swastika

12-12-2010, 07:19 PM

You're really not reading what im putting. Yes the point is to do that, but its a part of their fath therefore its fine. If a policeman wanted to say check if there was a criminal underneath, then yeah fair does, go for it.

Thats pretty much what a burqa is, so yes, if its a part of their religion and faith then go for it.

I dont feel like im getting anywhere so unless you come up with a new arguement, reread what ive been posting til you understand.
I do understand but your just talking rubbish to be honest.
Why even bother posting if your just gonna sit there and say "well yeah wear a burqa but lift it up if a police man wants you to".
Yeah because that's going to happen.

Wig44.

12-12-2010, 07:20 PM

Whatever their reason, its a part of their faith and they feel the need to wear it.

It's not a part of their faith, you'll find a lot of women who wear the burka are forced to be opressive parents/husbands and there isn't a religious reason to wear it. This is why it shouldn't be allowed in public places. Behind closed doors it isn't for the state to decide.

Catzsy

12-12-2010, 07:21 PM

Exactly, it's point is to cover up the face - so is the balaclavas, so why can't i wear it?
Forget religion, what if a certain religion wanted to wear a balaclava for religious matters?

But it isn't so that is just a spurious argument. How many muslim women wearing burquas committed a criminal act in the last year? Banning of motorbike helmets, hoodys (with hoods up)
and balaclavas are frequently used to avoid identification whilst committing a crime. The banning of them has nothing to do with the fact a muslim woman wears a burqua or religion at all - it is to stop crime and It is common sense. Also to Wig44 this was the argument for banning it in France but actually lots of women do it voluntarily and it has nothing to with being oppressed more of an expression of their religious faith.

Swastika

12-12-2010, 07:24 PM

Catzsy

12-12-2010, 07:26 PM

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=man+wearing+burqa&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5640bd756f22a93a

Click the link and look how many robberies and crimes come up...

Again how many women in the UK last year?

Check this for crime with balaclavas in the UK
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=man+wearing+balaclava&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=42df9320e81e9757

Swastika

12-12-2010, 07:31 PM

Again how many women in the UK last year?

Check this for crime with balaclavas in the UK
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=man+wearing+balaclava&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=42df9320e81e9757
You've proven my point.
They're the same, so i ask why should Burqas be allowed and balaclavas not?
Being in the UK has no relevance.

Catzsy

12-12-2010, 07:35 PM

You've proven my point.
They're the same, so i ask why should Burqas be allowed and balaclavas not?
Being in the UK has no relevance.

Of course it has - the reason there are bans on balaclavas in some place in britain is because of the crime associated with them. It is a social problem here. There is no problem with crime because of women wearing burquas. The google link you posted was for all over the world with 'men' wearing them and none for uk. How on earth have I proved your point?

Swastika

12-12-2010, 07:43 PM

Of course it has - the reason there are bans on balaclavas in some place in britain is because of the crime associated with them. It is a social problem here. There is no problem with crime because of women wearing burquas. The google link you posted was for all over the world with 'men' wearing them and none for uk. How on earth have I proved your point?
Your link contained reports from all over the world not just the UK, so the UK has no relevance.
You proved me right by posting that because it has just as many crimes reports as the Burqa did, hence why Burqas shouldn't be accepted if balaclavas aren't.

-:Undertaker:-

12-12-2010, 08:14 PM

But it isn't so that is just a spurious argument. How many muslim women wearing burquas committed a criminal act in the last year? Banning of motorbike helmets, hoodys (with hoods up)
and balaclavas are frequently used to avoid identification whilst committing a crime. The banning of them has nothing to do with the fact a muslim woman wears a burqua or religion at all - it is to stop crime and It is common sense. Also to Wig44 this was the argument for banning it in France but actually lots of women do it voluntarily and it has nothing to with being oppressed more of an expression of their religious faith.

You're really not reading what im putting. Yes the point is to do that, but its a part of their fath therefore its fine. If a policeman wanted to say check if there was a criminal underneath, then yeah fair does, go for it.

Thats pretty much what a burqa is, so yes, if its a part of their religion and faith then go for it.

I dont feel like im getting anywhere so unless you come up with a new arguement, reread what ive been posting til you understand.

The burka is not part of the islamic faith, it is on the other hand a sign of cultural oppression in which men used to order their women to dress up and keep covered as they were the property of the men - very backward and yes, it has evolved (in some cases) as merely a cultural symbol.

However if we are going to have rules then they must be applied fairly across the board.

MrPinkPanther

12-12-2010, 08:56 PM

Okay, here is where i prove you both wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7560059/Christian-nurse-who-refused-to-remove-crucifix-loses-tribunal.html

Answer me that?
Totally agree. It's unfair that Christian nurses can't wear crosses and Muslim nurses can wear Burqas...oh wait...no...no they can't. Before you try to make a "point" at least do some basic research.

The burka is not part of the islamic faith, it is on the other hand a sign of cultural oppression in which men used to order their women to dress up and keep covered as they were the property of the men - very backward and yes, it has evolved (in some cases) as merely a cultural symbol.

However if we are going to have rules then they must be applied fairly across the board.
The Burqa is a part of the Islamic faith, it all depends on the specific persons interpretation of the Qur'an. Some interpret the Qur'an teachings as only covering the hair while others interpret it as covering the whole bodies. It's much like how in Christianity you have people with different kind's of beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.

Swastika

12-12-2010, 08:56 PM

However if we are going to have rules then they must be applied fairly across the board.
This, Undertaker - do you agree that if balaclavas are banned from workplaces, then the Burqa must also?

-:Undertaker:-

12-12-2010, 09:09 PM

The Burqa is a part of the Islamic faith, it all depends on the specific persons interpretation of the Qur'an. Some interpret the Qur'an teachings as only covering the hair while others interpret it as covering the whole bodies. It's much like how in Christianity you have people with different kind's of beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.

Indeed it does, but the burka is not a needed part of the islamic faith - it derides from the culture of islam and not the religion itself, I suppose a similarity would be the wooden cross many people have on their walls (especially in Italy both in public buildings and schools for example) - however the burka is far more of a potential issue for an employer/public issue than a chain cross around the neck of somebody.

The claim that the burka should be allowed under all circumstances under religious grounds is utter nonsense.

This, Undertaker - do you agree that if balaclavas are banned from workplaces, then the Burqa must also?

I do agree, however in the private sector I would say it is down to the employeer (however at the moment helmets and balaclavas may be banned by private employeers such as the Primark example I gave, but not the burka - I do not agree with that as it would not be allowed the other way around under the law; as in the burka being banned but not balaclavas).

The ideal system should be that there are no laws/rules on these sorts of religious issues thus private employees can decide what they have as their uniform policy without the state telling them what to do - and the state (so schools, councils etc) should have a blanket rule which would mean if I can't wear a balaclava while working in a classroom, a burka would not be allowed either.