BNP membership list forced closure

[MrPinkPanther]

For once I agree with you Undertaker. It shouldn't be about who is the in the smallest minority but who is best at the job.

[Catzsy]

Politics has always been more of a male career, that doesnt mean that women shouldnt be allowed in or discriminated against just because they are women but its a fact that men with louder voices are more politically minded just as they are more minded on football.

Right ok lets get this straight; the definition of sexism is the belief that one sex is inferior to another.

The reason why many women may not be in parliament is because politics isnt much of a womens thing and thats a fact. Just like nursing or flight attending is not much of a mens thing.

Politics has always been more of a male career that doesnt mean that women shouldnt be allowed in or discriminated against just because they are women but its a fact that men with louder voices are more politically minded

flight attendants and nursing, they are still a mainly female dominated profession and there is nothing wrong with that. Politics on the other hand remains a male dominated profession just like building does.

The reason why many women may not be in parliament is because politics isnt much of a womens thing and thats a fact. Just like nursing or flight attending is not much of a mens thing.

These are your quotes and what you state is the definition of hostile sexism - there is more than one definition of sexism. Your quotes amount to indirect sexism which probably 90% of Sexual Discriminination cases are based on. You confine men and woman to stereotypical roles of the past that in reality do not reflect the ability of either men or women in the modern world - just because there are more female nurses/flight attendants it does not mean that males are not just as capable as them at doing the job. How on earth do you support the fact that because men have louder voices they are more politically minded. You also say Politics is not a woman's thing - how it is not a woman's thing? This is nonsense. This is indirect sexism and very patronising to both sexes and in fact you may not have realised that it even was. I suggest you do some research into indirect sexism as opposed to using a wicki definition.

by JRH2002
The BNP list is open.

I must say you cant want anti racism and anti sexism and then support lists that back women and minorities of course we want it fair for everybody but on merit and not on stupid lists because doing this is what is turning people towards the BNP. Yes there was lots of racism years ago but we are over that now in most cases but this stupid attitude by giving things to ppl because of race and sex is pushing the country back years.

The BNP is not open as it has been closed a judge as it was deemed to be based on racist criteria for selection.
I also think you also ought to read the thread as nowhere does it say I support short lists for black women and minorities.

In conclusion it was Parliament, made up of a majority of men, who passed all women short lists and made it an exception to The Sexual Discrimination Act until 2030 and not me but from some of the views expressed above I can certainly see why.

[-:Undertaker:-]

For once I agree with you Undertaker. It shouldn't be about who is the in the smallest minority but who is best at the job.

Thank you, its common sense. Fairness is who is the best for the job, whether your black, white, asian, disabled, gay, straight or any other factors and i'm glad you, like the majority can see that.

These are your quotes and what you state is the definition of hostile sexism - there is more than one definition of sexism. Your quotes amount to indirect sexism which probably 90% of Sexual Discriminination cases are based on. You confine men and woman to stereotypical roles of the past that in reality do not reflect the ability of either men or women in the modern world - just because there are more female nurses/flight attendants it does not mean that males are not just as capable as them at doing the job. How on earth do you support the fact that because men have louder voices they are more politically minded. You also say Politics is not a woman's thing - how it is not a woman's thing? This is nonsense. This is indirect sexism and very patronising to both sexes and in fact you may not have realised that it even was. I suggest you do some research into indirect sexism as opposed to using a wicki definition.

So what is the other definition of sexism? - you say there is another definition yet cannot seem to come up with one and just say i'm using indirext sexism. Wrong Rosie;- I never said men are more politically minded because of their voices, I said their voices play a part because they can usually speak better and it does play a part;- because the effect of Hitlers voice helped him gain power so its proven before you try and knock that one back

The sterotypes still exist and always will exist and the fact is that most sterotypes dont appear out of nowhere. That is not sexism, that is reality. Men are usually better at building because they are physically stronger whereas women are better at hairdressing because they are more interested in that and have the hands to be able to do that, whereas most men would struggle. It is how we are made. That doesnt mean you cannot have a man better at hairdressing than a woman and a woman better at men at politics. The fact is that leave it upto the electorate to decide who they want for the job rather than using racism and sexism to get your way and what you call a 'fairer parliament'. The only fair parliament is one which is elected on a fair playing field and who is elected to the best of their ability.

You are patronising to women and ethnic candidates;- you think they need legislation to be able to succeed? - with me quite frankly when people say gay people need more rights I just get wound up. You get the job based on what you can do, not who you are and anyone who disagrees needs to qute frankly get over themselves and get into the real world. Are you one of these people who sues a company for not hiring you because you think it was because you are a woman? - we have a word for that, its called totally and utterly paranoid.

You still have not told me where I have suggested that women are inferior to men (sexism).

The BNP is not open as it has been closed a judge as it was deemed to be based on racist criteria for selection. I also think you also ought to read the thread as nowhere does it say I support short lists for black women and minorities. In conclusion it was Parliament, made up of a majority of men, who passed all women short lists and made it an exception to The Sexual Discrimination Act until 2030 and not me but from some of the views expressed above I can certainly see why.

..despite the fact you have been saying you are basically in support of candidate shortlists for women, gays and blacks/asians and thus when I suggested the fact that because i'm a white male I wouldn't be able to stand as a Tory/Labour candidate in my area you replied with; - (basically telling me to stand somewhere else if I am not allowed to stand in my area because of the colour of my skin/my gender)

"If a male is denied selection from your local constituency because of an all women shortlist then he is not much of a man to 'throw his toys out of the pram' and shout 'discrimination' and quite frankly I am sure that any man wishing to stand for election would understand the reason for it and not have such superficial, narrow minded views. There are plenty of constituencys in the UK to stand for election and there is always the opportunity if they feel they are the 'best man for the job' to enter as an independent."

So one moment you are in favour of all women/ethnic shortlists and the next you are not. Which is it?

[jrh2002]

The BNP is not open as it has been closed a judge as it was deemed to be based on racist criteria for selection.
I also think you also ought to read the thread as nowhere does it say I support short lists for black women and minorities.

In conclusion it was Parliament, made up of a majority of men, who passed all women short lists and made it an exception to The Sexual Discrimination Act until 2030 and not me but from some of the views expressed above I can certainly see why.

After the judge made his decision the BNP removed the 2 hour home interview so that they were able to instantly open up their membership again (So it said on the news) Their membership list was CLOSED and unable to join but a few days later its clearly open https://secure.bnp.org.uk/join/join.html want to join? I am sure the BNP will still fight the judges decision but made a few alterations until an appeal has been heard.

You were saying that you agreed with positive discrimination so I gave a few examples :s Discrimination is discrimination - Positive discrimination is only positive for the people its for but its just discrimination to those of us not included. Any form of discrimination is NEGATIVE so the left wing morons who put the word POSITIVE in front and thinks makes it OK need to think again. ANY discrimination breeds discontent and anger so if people get a job etc on MERIT then EVERYBODY is happy apart from the people who need this so called positive discrimination to get a step up because quite clearly they are not talented enough to take on better people for the job.

BTW I have only given my opinion here and not quoted/highlighted anybodies posts as I am not wanting to be involved in a threesome over this

[Catzsy]

Thank you, its common sense. Fairness is who is the best for the job, whether your black, white, asian, disabled, gay, straight or any other factors and i'm glad you, like the majority can see that.



So what is the other definition of sexism? - you say there is another definition yet cannot seem to come up with one and just say i'm using indirext sexism. Wrong Rosie;- I never said men are more politically minded because of their voices, I said their voices play a part because they can usually speak better and it does play a part;- because the effect of Hitlers voice helped him gain power so its proven before you try and knock that one back

The sterotypes still exist and always will exist and the fact is that most sterotypes dont appear out of nowhere. That is not sexism, that is reality. Men are usually better at building because they are physically stronger whereas women are better at hairdressing because they are more interested in that and have the hands to be able to do that, whereas most men would struggle. It is how we are made. That doesnt mean you cannot have a man better at hairdressing than a woman and a woman better at men at politics. The fact is that leave it upto the electorate to decide who they want for the job rather than using racism and sexism to get your way and what you call a 'fairer parliament'. The only fair parliament is one which is elected on a fair playing field and who is elected to the best of their ability.

You are patronising to women and ethnic candidates;- you think they need legislation to be able to succeed? - with me quite frankly when people say gay people need more rights I just get wound up. You get the job based on what you can do, not who you are and anyone who disagrees needs to qute frankly get over themselves and get into the real world. Are you one of these people who sues a company for not hiring you because you think it was because you are a woman? - we have a word for that, its called totally and utterly paranoid.

You still have not told me where I have suggested that women are inferior to men (sexism).

There are many definitions of sexism - Hostile sexism where somebody believes that women are inferior to men or the other way around and I have already stated this and that doesn't apply to you. I HAVE NOT SAID ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD THAT YOU HAVE SAID WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO MEN! Indirect Sexism which I do believe you suffer from for the reasons given in my last post. Other forms of sexism include benevolent sexism, idealizes traditional women. This second form of sexism "protects" and gives limited privilege to women in traditional roles. Of course stereotypes exist but that is not reality. Educators have been trying to stamp out this form of prejudice for decades. You are just repeating yourself over and over again. I have already answered most of this in my last post. If the legislation wasn't needed in respect of all woman shortlists then the exception to the sexual discrimination act would not have been passed. There is leglislation in respect of this so nothing more needs to be said. If you don't agree with it go and lobby your local MP to get a change in the law.

..despite the fact you have been saying you are basically in support of candidate shortlists for women, gays and blacks/asians and thus when I suggested the fact that because i'm a white male I wouldn't be able to stand as a Tory/Labour candidate in my area you replied with; - (basically telling me to stand somewhere else if I am not allowed to stand in my area because of the colour of my skin/my gender)

"If a male is denied selection from your local constituency because of an all women shortlist then he is not much of a man to 'throw his toys out of the pram' and shout 'discrimination' and quite frankly I am sure that any man wishing to stand for election would understand the reason for it and not have such superficial, narrow minded views. There are plenty of constituencys in the UK to stand for election and there is always the opportunity if they feel they are the 'best man for the job' to enter as an independent."

So one moment you are in favour of all women/ethnic shortlists and the next you are not. Which is it?

Where have I said in this thread that I support shortlists for ethnic or other minorities such as gay people? Please quote me and stop putting words into my mouth. I have quoted you as you said it. That men are more suited to politics because they have louder voices - that is what you said and have even quoted Hitler as an example and the mind absolutely boggles at this. Again you are repeating yourself, over and over again. You can believe what you want and argue to the cows come home but supporting the exception of the Sexual Discrimination Act to allow woman shortlists is lawful and not sexist. That is a fact whether you like it or not. My reasons for supporting the all woman shortlists have been given more than once in this thread. If you think it is sexist you are entitled to you opinion but I am sure prospective MPs will have a more enlightened view than you and feel that it is also important to increase the number of women in parilaiment. If you do reply I would be greatful if you did not repeat comments you have already made at least once if not twice / three times in this thread.

@Jrh. Can you find a link to say that the judge has actually lifted the injunction on there list being re-opened because I can't. Be interesting to catch up on this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There are many definitions of sexism - Hostile sexism where somebody believes that women are inferior to men or the other way around and I have already stated this and that doesn't apply to you. I HAVE NOT SAID ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD THAT YOU HAVE SAID WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO MEN! Indirect Sexism which I do believe you suffer from for the reasons given in my last post. Other forms of sexism include benevolent sexism, idealizes traditional women. This second form of sexism "protects" and gives limited privilege to women in traditional roles. Of course stereotypes exist but that is not reality. Educators have been trying to stamp out this form of prejudice for decades. You are just repeating yourself over and over again. I have already answered most of this in my last post. If the legislation wasn't needed in respect of all woman shortlists then the exception to the sexual discrimination act would not have been passed. There is leglislation in respect of this so nothing more needs to be said. If you don't agree with it go and lobby your local MP to get a change in the law.

No, you have not told me how I am being sexist. If you are calling me sexist then I want to know why. Educators have been trying to stamp out this prejudice? - its NOT prejudice! - its simple fact that most builders are men, most hairdressers are women and so forth. Its not me being nasty, I am stating a simple fact that you can find with your own two eyes, all you have to do is go and look at a building site for gods sake.

You say I should go lobby my local MP;- so do you not agree now with candidate shortlists being based on gender or minority then?

Where have I said in this thread that I support shortlists for ethnic or other minorities such as gay people? Please quote me and stop putting words into my mouth. I have quoted you as you said it. That men are more suited to politics because they have louder voices - that is what you said and have even quoted Hitler as an example and the mind absolutely boggles at this. Again you are repeating yourself, over and over again. You can believe what you want and argue to the cows come home but supporting the exception of the Sexual Discrimination Act to allow woman shortlists is lawful and not sexist. That is a fact whether you like it or not. My reasons for supporting the all woman shortlists have been given more than once in this thread. If you think it is sexist you are entitled to you opinion but I am sure prospective MPs will have a more enlightened view than you and feel that it is also important to increase the number of women in parilaiment. If you do reply I would be greatful if you did not repeat comments you have already made at least once if not twice / three times in this thread.

You have been arguing with me for the past few pages about candidate shortlists, I have been saying they are discrimiatory and not needed whereas you have been telling me they are neede for what you call a 'fairer parliament' - what is your actual view? - oh wait you have now said that you do support women shortlists so in essence you do support sexism. On the Hitler point, you seem to think i'm being sexist by saying that a males deeper and stronger voice helps them be elected as an MP - Hitler was living proof that having a strong voice helps a man in politics, just as Thatchers voice also helped her along with her calm manner and Farages wit helps him.

So I shall ask again; because I am a male, why should I be barred from standing as my local Labour MP?

[jrh2002]

Here it is on the BNP site (Be careful or else you could all be converted ) The press dont like reporting stuff like this incase all the people who sympathise a little may rush off and join.

Link: http://bnp.org.uk/2010/03/1000-new-m...ip-ban-lifted/

[Catzsy]

No, you have not told me how I am being sexist. If you are calling me sexist then I want to know why. Educators have been trying to stamp out this prejudice? - its NOT prejudice! - its simpyl fact that most builders are men, most hairdressers are women and so forth. Its not me being nasty, I am stating a simple fact that you can find with your own two eyes, all you have to do is go and look at a building site for gods sake.

Oh dear god! If you can't see what you have been saying in this thread is not negative stereotyping and prejudice which is indirect sexism then I am unable to argue against it. Please do some research and then come back and say why it isn't with some evidence apart from saying it is a 'fact' and 'reality. You are impossible to argue against because your mind is made up and you won't even try to read further information which might broaden your mind. If there was an all woman shortlist in your constituency there would be nothing I could do about it. That really is a silly question and I definitely think you should be barred from standing as an MP because I am pretty certain that there would be more qualified people
whether they be men or women and you don't support any of the main parties.

@Jrh - that's interesting because it doesn't seem to have been covered in the press. Be interesting to see what happens next.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh dear god! If you can't see what you have been saying in this thread is not negative stereotyping and prejudice which is indirect sexism then I am unable to argue against it. Please do some research and then come back and say why it isn't with some evidence apart from saying it is a 'fact' and 'reality. You are impossible to argue against because your mind is made up and you won't even try to read further information which might broaden your mind. If there was an all woman shortlist in your constituency there would be nothing I could do about it. That really is a silly question and I definitely think you should be barred from standing as an MP because I am pretty certain that there would be more qualified people whether they be men or women and you don't support any of the main parties.

Let me ask you some simple fact-of-life questions that will determine whether or not you are living on the same planet as the rest of us;

• Are the majority of builders male?
• Are the majority of hairdressers female?
• Are the majority of nurses female?
• Are the majority of beautificians female?
• Are the majority of mechanices male?
• Are the majority of plumbers male?
• Are the majority of primary school teachers female?
• Are the majority of nursery workers female?
• Are the majority of electricians male?

If you answered no to any of the above then you indeed on another planet to the rest of us because the fact is that the answer to everyone of them questions is yes. You are right when you say you cant argue with it because its just a fact of life, the truth in simple terms. I cannot really back something up such as that because its one of them things which is just really plain old common sense, all you have to do is look on a building site next time you pass one and you will get your answer.

As for me not supporting any of the main parties that I have interpreted as one of your reasons for me not to be able to stand as an MP, why does that mean I should be barred as standing as an MP(?). Oh sorry, my apologies;- I didnt realise that your idea (and the main parties idea) of democracy is one of which I either are fully in support of you and the Lib/Lab/Con three and if i'm not I must just be a nasty facist, racist, homophobic and sexist pig who doesnt even deserve to be heard - an interesting take on democracy you have, not doubt in the pages of dark history you will find many who also have also had that outlook.

In reply to this;

If there was an all woman shortlist in your constituency there would be nothing I could do about it. That really is a silly question and I definitely think you should be barred from standing as an MP because I am pretty certain that there would be more qualified people whether they be men or women and you don't support any of the main parties.

I am not asking whether or not you could do anything about it, I am asking you why you think I should, as a male, be barred from standing as my local Labour MP because of my gender which I was born with and is something I cannot change. Just please for once tell me why because of my gender I should not be able to stand in a democratic internal party election?

So pressing onwards; would it be right for the BNP to ban women from joining the party? - no of course not, so why are are the Lib/Lab/Con three any different to the basic ideal of democracy and fairness?

[Catzsy]

Let me ask you some simple fact-of-life questions that will determine whether or not you are living on the same planet as the rest of us;

• Are the majority of builders male?
• Are the majority of hairdressers female?
• Are the majority of nurses female?
• Are the majority of beautificians female?
• Are the majority of mechanices male?
• Are the majority of plumbers male?
• Are the majority of primary school teachers female?
• Are the majority of nursery workers female?
• Are the majority of electricians male?

If you answered no to any of the above then you indeed on another planet to the rest of us because the fact is that the answer to everyone of them questions is yes. You are right when you say you cant argue with it because its just a fact of life, the truth in simple terms. I cannot really back something up such as that because its one of them things which is just really plain old common sense, all you have to do is look on a building site next time you pass one and you will get your answer.

As for me not supporting any of the main parties that I have interpreted as one of your reasons for me not to be able to stand as an MP, why does that mean I should be barred as standing as an MP(?). Oh sorry, my apologies;- I didnt realise that your idea (and the main parties idea) of democracy is one of which I either are fully in support of you and the Lib/Lab/Con three and if i'm not I must just be a nasty facist, racist, homophobic and sexist pig who doesnt even deserve to be heard - an interesting take on democracy you have, not doubt in the pages of dark history you will find many who also have also had that outlook.

In reply to this;

I am not asking whether or not you could do anything about it, I am asking you why you think I should, as a male, be barred from standing as my local Labour MP because of my gender which I was born with and is something I cannot change. Just please for once tell me why because of my gender I should not be able to stand in a democratic internal party election?

So pressing onwards; would it be right for the BNP to ban women from joining the party? - no of course not, so why are are the Lib/Lab/Con three any different to the basic ideal of democracy and fairness?

But all that has nothing to do with indirect sexism at all. As I said go do some research and come back with some evidence. You just fly with theories plucked from the air.