• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill will ban 'white only' BNP.

earthworm said:
We live in a democracy, do we not ??
If at least 75% vote for a prohibition of any hate/racist/criminal group in politics....then, so be it..
The Blacks, IMO, are NOT racist...in a sense...as a minority should be allowed "extra space"....
Click to expand...

Then according to your logic, if 75% vote for slavery, then so be it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Actually, it is.



And in a free society, those women would still be outside, because the freedom of association has no meaning unless it includes the freedom from association, too.



Those rights do not exist. The job belongs to the employer, who, in a free society, chooses whoever he wants to fill the jobs, using whatever criteria he wants to.

The employee has no right to a job, since a job is nothing more than a task someone is willing to pay someone else to perform rather than doing it himself.



Why? Free societies do not chain their citizens.

Any of them, until an actual crime is committed. Real crimes are crimes the involve violence, theft, fraud, and the like. Not hiring someone isn't a crime by any sensible use of the word.
Click to expand...

Clearly your laws and ways of doing things are different to ours.

Discrimination chains people. I am sorry you do not see that.
 
alexa said:
Clearly your laws and ways of doing things are different to ours.

Discrimination chains people. I am sorry you do not see that.
Click to expand...

Thought control and overreaching government against the rights and liberties of the people chains people. Allowing dumb people to be dumb does not.
 
Apocalypse said:
Actually yes, it does.
Click to expand...

No, actually democracy is obligated to allow the people to form the parties of their choice.

You could look the word up, you know.


Apocalypse said:
Freedom is a relative term, of course there is a middle ground.
Click to expand...

No, if people can't form the political alliances they choose, they don't have political freedom and their nation isn't a democracy.

Apocalypse said:
You have the freedom of movement, but you can't move through/into restricted areas.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's hard for me to walk through walls, too, no matter how much freedom I have.

The rights of the individual to own property supersed the right of another individual to wander at will.

What's that got to do with the freedom to associate with others?

Oh, that's right, nothing.

Apocalypse said:
It has nothing to do with majority and minority.
Click to expand...

Yes, real democracies rapidly make slaves of the minorities.

Fortunately, I don't live in a democracy and don't respect them. However, we're discussing a limited democracy in which the freedoms of the minority are protected by law from oppression by the majority.

Apocalypse said:
Democracy can in fact prevent parties with extreme ideas that oppose democracy in a clear and obvious way from partaking in the elections.
Click to expand...

No.

Democracies can have a higher law, like the US Constitution, the limits the ability of the majority to impose laws limiting the freedoms of the minorities, once those parties are in power, but there's no democratic basis for telling people who they can and cannot allow in their voluntary associations known as political parties.

And it makes no difference if those people get elected, if the constitution prohibits them from making law that oppress the minorities.

Put it another way, you can't eliminate oppression and intolerance by practicing oppression to demonstrate your intolerance of someone else.

Apocalypse said:
Do you honestly believe that if Hitler came back to life and re-organized his National-Socialist party in Germany, and assuming it wins the elections, the state of Germany would just accept it with an open arms?Really?
Click to expand...

Really? Did I say that somewhere? Funny, I don't recall saying that.
 
alexa said:
Clearly your laws and ways of doing things are different to ours.

Discrimination chains people. I am sorry you do not see that.
Click to expand...

So you're opposed to freedom.

Good for you.

I'm a libertarian, I'm fully in support of all freedoms.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, actually democracy is obligated to allow the people to form the parties of their choice.

You could look the word up, you know.
Click to expand...
Democracy is also obligated to protect the rights of its population, rights that would be abolished by parties such as the BNP.

You could look the word up, you know.
No, if people can't form the political alliances they choose, they don't have political freedom and their nation isn't a democracy.
Click to expand...
Even in democracy people have limited freedoms.
Yeah, it's hard for me to walk through walls, too, no matter how much freedom I have.
Click to expand...
Your analogy lacks sense.
The rights of the individual to own property supersed the right of another individual to wander at will.
Click to expand...
You're comparing between individual rights here, and you're right at what you're saying, but what will you say when the state declares an area a closed military zone?
What's that got to do with the freedom to associate with others?

Oh, that's right, nothing.
Click to expand...
I merely gave an example for why freedom is a relative term, I'm sorry that you were not able to realize it.
Yes, real democracies rapidly make slaves of the minorities.
Click to expand...
Again, what does it has to do with the minorities/majorities?
Fortunately, I don't live in a democracy and don't respect them.
Click to expand...
So there's no democracy in L.A, eh?
No.

Democracies can have a higher law, like the US Constitution, the limits the ability of the majority to impose laws limiting the freedoms of the minorities, once those parties are in power, but there's no democratic basis for telling people who they can and cannot allow in their voluntary associations known as political parties.

And it makes no difference if those people get elected, if the constitution prohibits them from making law that oppress the minorities.
Click to expand...
That is true for the U.S and some other democracies, but there are many democracies that do not impose such "higher law".
Really? Did I say that somewhere? Funny, I don't recall saying that.
Click to expand...
Seems like you lack the common human ability to assume and conclude from texts.
But if you find that to be entertaining don't let it stop you.
 
Apocalypse said:
Democracy is also obligated to protect the rights of its population, rights that would be abolished by parties such as the BNP.
Click to expand...

People don't have a right to join a club when they don't meet the entrance requirements.

Apocalypse said:
You could look the word up, you know.
Click to expand...

What good would that do you, since you're the one lacking comprehension?

Apocalypse said:
Even in democracy people have limited freedoms.
Click to expand...

Only where the excercise of those freedoms harms others.

Not hiring someone in that category, and guess what? Companies "don't hire" people all the time.

They excercise discrimination in who they do hire.

Discrimination is anothe word you can search for, it's right after "democracy", and before "fascist".


Apocalypse said:
Your analogy lacks sense.

You're comparing between individual rights here, and you're right at what you're saying, but what will you say when the state declares an area a closed military zone?
Click to expand...

The state owns that property, does it not?

Did I not say the owner of property gets to make the decisions on who has access to it?

So what's your problem?

Apocalypse said:
That is true for the U.S and some other democracies, but there are many democracies that do not impose such "higher law".
Click to expand...

I never liked Somalia much.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you're opposed to freedom.

Good for you.

I'm a libertarian, I'm fully in support of all freedoms.
Click to expand...
:2rofll:

Hark at you. Sorry to give you the bad news. There is no way to support all freedoms.

If you support the freedom of the murderer, you fail to support the freedom of the victim.

All of us living in modern societies have to follow laws. That I am sorry is reality.

If you take it just on discrimination.

You either support the right of the racist to refuse the right of earning a living or having a roof over their head or you support the right of everyone to have equal rights based on their needs and abilities. The same can be said for any kind of discrimination based on the persons gender, sexual preference or religion.

Anti discrimination laws came in so that everyone living in our society can have an equal freedom to go after what they want. When discrimination is no longer a problem it will not matter whether we have or do not have these laws.

You are simply asking for the right to be discriminatory against others and you are calling that freedom not recognising it interferes with anothers freedom.

However I believe the whole point of your posts to me was a bit of flame baiting.
 
Most forms of anti-discrimination laws (especially in the form of "hate crime" laws), are nothing more than various forms of thought control. Something I don't feel is proper domain of the government. You may be comfortable with the government telling people how to feel and think, but I don't. The crap spewed about people making a living and such is BS. That's not what's being talking about, and we're ok with certain amounts of that so long as it's based in the correct direction (affirmative action being a prime example of this). What's at heart is a private organizations freedom of speech, assembly, and association as related to political voice and dissidence. These are amongst the most sacred and valuable of all our rights and it is this that you wish to infringe upon. Making some heartfelt emotional plea for people to try to influence them; win them over. Discrimination is bad, blah blah blah. No duh, we figured that one out. But at the point in which you will seek the destruction of the ability of a group to exercise their rights then we're gonna have a problem, especially when political voice is concerned. You can't make people not hate, and you certainly can't tell people who they can and cannot associate with. But that's what you want to do in the end, and it's dangerous to allow government this sort of mobility against the rights and liberties of its People.

You are also wrong in saying "Democracy is also obligated to protect the rights of its population". Democracy in and of itself is mob rule, it has no obligation other than to do what the majority of the people said to do. If it said no hate crimes, there can be no hate crimes. If it said slavery, then there is slavery. There's nothing innate to a democracy which chains it to the rights and liberty of the People. That's a Republic, a system built upon law and restriction of government action against the rights and liberties of the People. That restriction is also what allows Republics to be able to tolerate even racist political groups. First off, not much chance they will get elected. Second of, even in they are elected; they are prevented from certain acts and powers have been sufficiently divided. The Republic looks out for the rights and liberties of the individual and in fact uses these as the basis of all law. Democracy itself does not necessarily contain these features.
 
alexa said:
:2rofll:

Hark at you. Sorry to give you the bad news. There is no way to support all freedoms.
Click to expand...

Sorry to give you the good news, but no one has the freedom to commit murder, not even pregnant broads that say "oops".

alexa said:
You either support the right of the racist to refuse the right of earning a living or having a roof over their head or you support the right of everyone to have equal rights based on their needs and abilities.
Click to expand...

1) Everyone has the equal right to be as racist as they damn well please.

2) Everyone has the equal right to associate with whomever wishes to associate with them.

3) No one has the right to force their association on others.

4) Everyone has the equal right to seek employment that provides the quality of life they desire.

5) Therefore, no one has the right to force themselves upon an employer who doesn't want them.

This is called "freedom". No one is being forced to accomodate the wishes of others.

alexa said:
The same can be said for any kind of discrimination based on the persons gender, sexual preference or religion.
Click to expand...

You mean what I just said can be so applied. I agree.

alexa said:
Anti discrimination laws came in so that everyone living in our society can have an equal freedom to go after what they want.
Click to expand...

They already had the freedom. The laws you are referring to deny people freedom.

alexa said:
When discrimination is no longer a problem it will not matter whether we have or do not have these laws.
Click to expand...

Don't know about jolly old England, but racism is no longer an issue in the United States.

Time to ditch the quota laws.

alexa said:
You are simply asking for the right to be discriminatory against others
Click to expand...

No, I'm stating the people should not be denied their freedom to live their lives as they please.

alexa said:
and you are calling that freedom not recognising it interferes with anothers freedom.
Click to expand...

Nope, it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others in any way, since the freedom to impose upon others has never been a legitimate freedom. In more honest societies, that "freedom" is called the "master-slave relationship".

alexa said:
However I believe the whole point of your posts to me was a bit of flame baiting.
Click to expand...

No, just pointing out that you don't understand what true individual freedom is, which explains your eagerness to impose your limits on it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What good would that do you, since you're the one lacking comprehension.
Click to expand...
Your lack of comprehension has made you believe I am lacking comprehension.
Fight it.
Only where the excercise of those freedoms harms others.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point.
So if we are limiting the freedoms of people whose freedoms harm others, the same should be done with parties that harm others' freedoms.
Discrimination is anothe word you can search for, it's right after "democracy", and before "fascist".
Click to expand...
Obviously you've never opened a dictionary before, as there are quite a lot of words between democracy and discrimination.
The state owns that property, does it not?

Did I not say the owner of property gets to make the decisions on who has access to it?

So what's your problem?
Click to expand...
I don't believe citizen and human rights relate to states as well.
You can't do a comparison between the two.
The state will limit the freedom of movement if it desires to do so, and will remain a democracy.
 
Stupid move which any political neophyte will be able to use to their advantage.

Yeah shut me up because I'm a white in the United Kingdom! That's right don't let me speak because why you fear what I say! Oh sure let the immigrant decide the lives of the natives but don't let the natives decide their own lives!

etc etc.........Tailor made

Only good thing is least IMO the UK is the least likely European State with a far right in some form of power to see that far right become THE power. But then who knows..
 
Ikari said:
Aren't you being discriminatory on grounds of political belief?
Click to expand...

No. We are talking about a piece of paper that states certain extraordinary conditions to become a member. Remove those conditions and there is no problem. They are still allowed to believe whatever they want, and accept or deny whoever they want. If a black guy is stupid enough to ask for a membership then it is in their right to deny it.

We do not allow in Europe that ads for work state that you want a certain type of person based on sex, religion or what not. It is illegal for example to advertise for a female nurse. That you will only accept a female nurse is up to you but in advertising for the job you are not allowed to discriminate. This also goes for race and religion and other factors. But when it comes to who gets an interview and who gets the job, then it is 100% up to you and you can be as much racist, anti-semitic and xenophobic as you want in finding your new employee.

I don't think anyone should be forced to curtail their political beliefs just because some think it un-PC or whatever.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing them to curtail their political beliefs. Everyone knows the BNP is a racist neo nazi organisation and would remain so if it did not have that sentence in its constitution.

And I wish people on the right would stop using the PC slur at every turn something suddenly does not agree with them.. it is getting old. It has nothing to do with political correctness but about human decency. We fought the nazi's, abandoned slavery and freed women and suddenly it is "PC" to have rules that cements those positions in our laws and society? give me a break.
 
Interesting outcry in support of a party that has no interest in supporting all of England's people. Just the white ones. I mean support in the sense that so many here seem to be okay with them holding a place in government. I for one don't mind them being banned. Personally any party that claims to stand only for any particular race group is against the very foundation of democracy and whether or not you let them run you're in a contradiction. I mean we can talk about the New Black Panther Party all we want. But what are they other then a bunch of ignant niggas running around screaming on Sean Hannity's show? In America we're safe because for the most part no member KKK and NBPP has anywhere near close to a chance in hell of being elected to even an alderman position. But in Europe and Asia? How many times have anti-democratic parties been elected in Europe and Asia? FFS we're seeing it in Venezuela. I use to believe that it was anti-democratic to ban anti-democratic parties. But now? It's not that big of a deal really. And the world seems to agree with me :

Israel :

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections - Haaretz - Israel News

Arab faction delegates in the CEC walked out of the hall before the vote, shouting, "this is a fascist, racist state." As they walked out, CEC deputy chairman MK David Tal (Kadima) and the Arab delegates pushed each other and a Knesset guard had to intervene and separate them.

The CEC voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motions, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Click to expand...

Turkey :

Political parties in Turkey - All About Turkey

FAZILET (The Virtue Party): In April 1997 the coalition government led by Mr. Erbakan fell apart under pressure of the military and the party was banned in January 1998 by the Constitutional Court.
Click to expand...

Spain :

ETA's banned political party to lend support to Chavez & Castro | www.vcrisis.com

A few Spanish media outlets report today that Batasuna, the banned political party of the Basque terrorist group ETA, is to lend support and pay homage to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and his oil rich sidekick Hugo Chavez in the coming summit of heads of state and governments of Latin America to take place in the city of Salamanca October 14/15.
Click to expand...

Thailand :

A Political Party Banned in Thailand - TIME

Thailand's Constitutional Tribunal on Wednesday announced the landmark dissolution of the country's former ruling party, further unsettling a nation that has suffered more than a year of political chaos that culminated in last September's military coup.
Click to expand...

Haiti :

Haiti's biggest party banned from Senate race | Reuters

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Feb 17 (Reuters)- Haitian authorities say they have barred the country's most popular political party from Senate elections, a move some fear could spark unrest.

Haitian electoral officials said The Lavalas Family Party failed to submit papers from former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide authorizing the party's list of Senate candidates. Aristide is living in exile in South Africa.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
1) Everyone has the equal right to be as racist as they damn well please.
Click to expand...

I can think of much more important rights to fight for.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
but racism is no longer an issue in the United States.
Click to expand...

It clearly is an issue. It's number one on your list of rights.

As for it being resolved in the US. I very much doubt that.

Report details black-white wealth inequality

.....

Marc H. Morial, Urban League president, said the black middle class’ tenuous hold on prosperity reflects racial discrimination in housing and other wealth-building arenas — both historically and now — and suggests that today’s civil rights battles are largely economic.

“Since the 1960s, one of the success stories is the growth of the African-American middle class — those who are college-educated, participating throughout the American economy and growing in stature and influence,” Morial said. “But what we face is that these successes of 40 years are being eroded. The danger is the great backslide that can occur.”
Click to expand...

Report details black wealth inequality - Race & ethnicity- msnbc.com

I am imagining your stance comes from this US worry
Racism is a very touchy subject for some, as issues concerning free speech and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights come into play. Some people argue that it is just words. Others point out that these words can lead to some very dire and serious consequences (World War II being an example).
Click to expand...

Racism ? Global Issues

"UN Report points to "stark racial disparities" in U.S. institutions, including its criminal justice system"

Racism in America

Institutional racism in the US health system

Institutional Racism in the US Health Care System

It could go on and on. I can only imagine what you mean is that you accept racism and are not bothered about it. In that way it is no longer an issue to you.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Nope, it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others in any way, since the freedom to impose upon others has never been a legitimate freedom. In more honest societies, that "freedom" is called the "master-slave relationship".
Click to expand...
:shock:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, just pointing out that you don't understand what true individual freedom is, which explains your eagerness to impose your limits on it.
Click to expand...

I have generally found people when speaking about freedom to talk about the difference between freedom to and freedom over. Discrimination laws belong to freedom to.
 
alexa said:
I can think of much more important rights to fight for.
Click to expand...

The right to think what you want and say what you want is actually very important. Mankind has not fought for centuries so that only the speech that we like can be free; they have fought for all speech to be free.
 
PeteEU said:
We do not allow in Europe that ads for work state that you want a certain type of person based on sex, religion or what not. It is illegal for example to advertise for a female nurse. That you will only accept a female nurse is up to you but in advertising for the job you are not allowed to discriminate.
Click to expand...

Well, what you're saying then is that Europeans don't care about substance, it's the symbolism that's important.


PeteEU said:
And I wish people on the right would stop using the PC slur at every turn something suddenly does not agree with them.. it is getting old. It has nothing to do with political correctness but about human decency.
Click to expand...

Ummmm....you yourself just stated that Europeans don't care if discrimination is happening, so long is it's not shouted from the roof tops. That's the essence of political correctness, controlling the expression of ideas.

PeteEU said:
We fought the nazi's, abandoned slavery and freed women and suddenly it is "PC" to have rules that cements those positions in our laws and society? give me a break.
Click to expand...

It certainly denies people freedom to forbid them from being honest and up front about what they want and will do.

And to get on a related subject, how is freedom enhanced by passing laws banning certain types of speech, with criminal penalties for violating those bans, such as the silly bans on Holocaust denial?
 
phattonez said:
The right to think what you want and say what you want is actually very important. Mankind has not fought for centuries so that only the speech that we like can be free; they have fought for all speech to be free.
Click to expand...

I do appreciate that but the right to express your hatred which is there for no other reason than the person's race, something they have no control over is putting a very high value on the right to hurt and humiliate and abuse.

It does not take into consideration at all the feelings of the person experiencing this. It does not value that person only the right of the one who wishes to abuse.

I suspect this is a 'freedom over' freedom in that the racist person will no doubt feel superior to the person s/he is being racist too.

Just saying something racist here is not against the law but at the moment there is strong social disapproval of people being racist. It would appear from what I hear that is not the same in the US.

The real issue though which this was based on was on discriminating against people based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation - in for instance work.
 
Last edited:
alexa said:
I can think of much more important rights to fight for.
Click to expand...

Probably you can't.

The freedom to think and the freedom to express those thoughts and the freedom to associate with whom you like and to not be forced to associate with those you don't are some of the most basic, most essential freedoms in the whole of human existance.


alexa said:
It clearly is an issue. It's number one on your list of rights.
Click to expand...

The United States has eliminated racism as a matter of concern for public policy.

The US has...

...elected an African foreign national mulatto to the Presidency,
...had black Secretaries of State,
...black Senators,
...black Congressthings,
...black Supreme Court Justices, even though the Democrats fought the last one bitterly,
...black Attorney General, a tax cheat, even. But he is a personal racist and won't prosecute black thugs blocking access to whiteys trying to vote...
...black CEO's,
...black lawyers,
...black cats,

and we even have the occasional black dog or two, too.

Nope, clearly racism isn't a problem in the US, and who gives a flying **** what the UN has to say about the matter?

How many nations in the UN have selected leaders who are of a different nationality and race than the dominant majority of that nation? Certainly not a single white saltine cracker cracker nation in Europe can make that claim, so who are they to speak to us on matters of race? Should we heed the Japanese? How about the Rwandans, hmmmm?
 
The mere fact that we must enumerate the ways that black people have succeeded in this country is proof that some aspect of racism remains. Yes, we have come a long way, but no we are not done.
 
wbreese91 said:
The mere fact that we must enumerate the ways that black people have succeeded in this country is proof that some aspect of racism remains. Yes, we have come a long way, but no we are not done.
Click to expand...

No, it means that people think that a lack of racism will create equality. They don't realize that it takes more than equal opportunity to create equality. In a free system, you need equal production.
 
phattonez said:
No, it means that people think that a lack of racism will create equality. They don't realize that it takes more than equal opportunity to create equality. In a free system, you need equal production.
Click to expand...

Equal production is Communism. What we should be striving for is equal opportuinity in that everyone has the same chance to succeed. Not everyone produces equally, even among white people. You cannot have everyone having the exact same salary, grades, or life, but you can ensure that everyone has the same chance to succeed. That is equality, and racism stands in the way of that.
 
PeteEU said:
No. We are talking about a piece of paper that states certain extraordinary conditions to become a member. Remove those conditions and there is no problem. They are still allowed to believe whatever they want, and accept or deny whoever they want. If a black guy is stupid enough to ask for a membership then it is in their right to deny it.

We do not allow in Europe that ads for work state that you want a certain type of person based on sex, religion or what not. It is illegal for example to advertise for a female nurse. That you will only accept a female nurse is up to you but in advertising for the job you are not allowed to discriminate. This also goes for race and religion and other factors. But when it comes to who gets an interview and who gets the job, then it is 100% up to you and you can be as much racist, anti-semitic and xenophobic as you want in finding your new employee.
Click to expand...

That's fine for private business, but political discourse must remain totally free. Association, assembly, speech. If a group wishes not to associate with someone else, then they shouldn't be forced to associate with said person; or vice versa.

PeteEU said:
No one is forcing them to curtail their political beliefs. Everyone knows the BNP is a racist neo nazi organisation and would remain so if it did not have that sentence in its constitution.

And I wish people on the right would stop using the PC slur at every turn something suddenly does not agree with them.. it is getting old. It has nothing to do with political correctness but about human decency. We fought the nazi's, abandoned slavery and freed women and suddenly it is "PC" to have rules that cements those positions in our laws and society? give me a break.
Click to expand...

Well when it's PC BS, then it's PC BS and that's all there is to it. There's no other reason to infringe upon assembly and association except PC BS. This is 100% PC BS. It's not about human decency, it's about infringing upon the innate and inalienable rights of a group of people because you don't like the way they choose to associate. That's it. You can whine and cry all you want, but reality is as it is. This is PC BS spurred by people who think we all need to be "progressive" or whatever word they use to me "agree with me 100%" and to crap on people who exercise their rights in a way they don't like. I know the ilk, got a city full of them; it's called Boulder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom