The BNP - Good or Bad?

[Ardemax]

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:-]

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

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]

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:-]

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]

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:-]

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]

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]

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:-]

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]

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.