BNP...

2

Comments

  • PO, you might have been just quoting something, but at the same time you said you thought it was reasonable.  That's what worries me.

    I don't care if you're from South Africa or Mongolia - "kick out the foreigners" is a nasty position to take.

  • No the policy makers I guess. I'm definitely ignorant in these matters as I don't invest too much time in this area. Just seems that Australia has stricter rules on immigration but this is respected rather than frowned upon.

    Just thinking aloud really.image

  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭

    I rather think that PO made that comment tongue-in-cheek, CM.  That's how I took it, anyway, based on the fact that she was (until fairly recently) a foreigner living here.

    btw, what is your avatar?  I see it's a moose, but what's it painted on?

  • If it was tongue in cheek then I'm sorry for getting on the case, but it's an inflammatory subject and it's difficult to put a tone of voice into words on paper (or a screen).  One person's 'tongue-in-cheek' is another person's verbal attack.

    The moose is printed on a t-shirt - the first I ever raced in.

  • Sorry to disagree Wilks but WW2 was absolutely about Fascism

    The Nazi concept of Volkisch movement and creating a 'Greater Germany' were some of the keystones of Nazi ideology - they wouldn't have invaded other countries without this to justify their expansion.  GB BTW or at least the English were looked on as Germanic people... and would have been invited to become allies.

    Churchill, who was a staunch anti-communist said upon Hitler's invasion of Communist USSR  "If Hitler invaded hell, I'd offer support to the Devil"

    Now most people didn't join up to fight Fascism - but if you look at the rhetoric of the time it is laced with anti-Nazi; anti Fascist frames of reference.

  • Coops10 wrote (see)

    I see the BNP leader Nick Griffin wasn't too happy after pelted with eggs just the other day.

    He said "The bastards could have seperated the whites first........"

    another one to add to my collection of 'Coops Classics' - keep em coming
  • Chocolate Moose - it's only inflammatory if you look for something to get uptight about. I can guarantee that if anyone else thought I was being serious, they would have jumped on my case.

    Bite your tongue before you accuse me of something without knowing a thing about me
  • Hey, don't sweat it PO!  I'm not accusing you of anything.

    An inflammatory subject simply is an inflammatory subject - there's no condition on it.  If you're going to say something that sounds even slightly sympathetic towards extremism, then you''ve got to be ready for some robust answers whether you were being serious or not.  That's a fact of life, as well of this forum.

  • Well it depends upon what one defines as fascism.

    I have to dredge back many decades to my history studies so I am a bit shaky on the detail now but the concept of Lebensraum (= living space) was a well established tenent of German foreign policy long before WW1 (and WW! was initiated by the Germans as a part of that thought process). The expansion to the east of the German state was seen as the "natural" target area.
    Insofar as Hitler adopted those ideas and expressed them in his book,  Mien Kampf they became part of nazi political objectives

    The difficulty is that the terms fascism and nazism have become interchangeable - normally as a term of abuse (very properly) but without a standard definition of what they, and particularly fascism ,stands for it becomes very difficult to actually pin anyone down  as to whether or not they are "fascist"

    For example simply to express an opinion about tighter immigration control to one of the most densely populated land masses in Europe does not necessarily make one "fascist"

    Equally support of the expansion of government surveillance systems to provide say ID cards, more CCTV, intercepts of email etc does not necessarily make one "fascist"

    - though both conditions could be labelled fascist in the broadest sense - and I am for one of the above and against the other .

    So as a Friday afternoon quiz.........................

    define fascism!!!

  • I partly agree with Dustin on this one(blimey!!). Immigration needs to be dealt with by the major parties.Then, hopefully, the BNP will lose significance. I have actually heard school kids shouting BNP in the streets at asian kids. That disturbs me and I am fearful of their influence.  Aged about 14 me and my mate met this bloke who was going on about the National Front, trying to encourage us to shout it  and other slogans. Same old crap -blaming immigrants for lack of jobs and stuff.   Worse still I hear a lot of  crap from ordinary working class people about "robbing jobs" and "send em home"   . I suspect the many of the middle classes think the same but feel it is impolite to say it.  The major parties not tackling the issue will give the BNP a louder voice and bigger influence. 

  • *trots off to Wiki*

    Chocolate Moose - I have been on this forum long enough to know what is accepted and what isn't. When you know that, you can try telling me about "the forum acceptance rules"

    Sheesh
  • Incidently I can recall my long deceased father telling me how they greeted the appearance of Moseley supporters in the West end of Newcastle pre WW2 trying to create problems for the local Jewish residents - and it wasn't with eggs!!!!!!!!!
  • "define fascism" TS - we will be here all weekimage
  • The thing is though, Hoose - is that typically (and most unfortunately) people who need the work will do a good job and will be happy with what they are paid. As you say, there is that anger towards immigrants for taking jobs, but really, are those people making these accusations refusing to DO those jobs because they are either too good or it's not highly paid? Therefore the dole is the next answer. And of course, slagging off those foreigners who ARE prepared to work for a lot less.

    We have a similar situation out here - loads of Zimbabwean's are pouring into SA and taking over menial jobs. There is such anger and hatred among the people who would typically get those jobs. The rest of the country cowers under the weight of the anger and hate, while those illegal immigrants only really want to survive. They serve tables and work in pubs and construction. Yeh - they aren't paying tax but really, what kind of tax can you GET off someone in minimum wage?

    The ironic thing is that the only thing that I would find slightly offensive is the government's inability to allow the country to run as it always had. People coming into your country should really have to blend in to your culture, and live by your rules. The government creates racism by shoving PC down peoples throats as much as if they had to implement laws allowing racism.
  • I don't believe I mentioned any rules of any kind  - but look, I'm not trying to start an argument - honest, I'm a nice guy!

    I'm sorry if I got on your case...

  • "Define Fascism"

    f*ck off!image

    I get £50 an hour for that at work... use Wikipeadia like my students do...

    National Socialism is/was a distinct form of Fascism that came about in Germany as an amalgamation of different philosophical, 'scientific' and political theories from 1890 to 1936 and beyond...

  • PO - I am sorta with you. I was trying to avoid pointing out that - immigrant workers coming here to work for less than native workers are prepared to is a symptom of the growth of world capitalism. To me, that is the real problem . Naturally bosses will seek the cheapest labour . Thing is Capitalism needs a scape goat to blame for its problems -either indigenous workers or immigrants -anything but the system.
  • Chocolate Moose - image No worries

    Hoose - definitely. Especially if the people who should be blamed are people on the street who are moaning about these immigrants and are blaming the immigrants. Instead of looking long and hard at the system that they voted into power.

    I agree that if there are people who are prepared to work for nothing, then the bosses are anything but worried about paying them nothing. It's not right, but then we have to change the entire world.

    Contrary to the good old saying, the grass IS greener on the side. Especially when you have nothing and the only place you can go is up.
  • ...only £50/hour - see point proven about cheap labour undermining the earnings potential of the indigenous populationimage.

    Well as fascism has an Italian root not a German one I had better look and see what good ol' Benito M. had to say about it.

    But without agreement on what it stands for it's a bit difficult for anyone to argue that anyone else's views are/are not  fascist.

  • Definitely

    That's why I don't give anything a name and just point at people and laugh

    image
  • ..........if students use Wikipeadia for this then they are in trouble

     definitions of fascism

    On balance I think I prefer George Orwell's which is about where it has got to in popular use...............

  • imageTS... £50 is my nominal rate...

    You might start with Fascio; Fascis or Fasces...  and Angelo Oliviero Olivetti

  • Body Fascists are very real...
  • Olivetti makes olive oil doesnt he? or is it scooters?
  • I thought they'd recruited Michael Barrymore as their new spokesman ....

     All'wight?

    image

  • Australia is not a signed to the 1952 Human Rights convention, so they are able to basically refuse people entry to the country  in any manner they like, and deport criminals, immigrants, etc, pretty much without problem. They also do not have the same freedom of movement that we have within the EU.

     Having worked in Immigration, it would be much easier if we were also not a signatory to the convention, but instead had our own constitution drawn up. At it heart, the human rights act is a beautiful document designed to protect the fundamental rights of individuals. However, in current practise, it is abused to a massive extent to unfairly entitle people to luxuries etched up as rights.

     For example, the human rights convention was not drawn up to protect war criminals, and it states it should not be used in order to do so. HOWEVER, Because of article 2 and 3 (right to life) if the worse, most vile war criminal were to claim asylum (say Robert Mugabe for instance), he would not get asylum, but if he was at any risk in his own country (having been responsible for the rape and murder or a large part of the population), he would still get to stay in the UK. We simply wouldn't be able to deport him under human rights grounds.

     Likewise, individuals who prove to be incredibly vile, and completely unconducive to the public good cannot be deported if they can prove (and the level of proof is bare minimum) that they would be at any risk at all in their home country. But we cant detain them either. So they can pretty much do what they like.

    The Government once tried to argue that a persons right to life should be considered in proportion to the risk they placed upon the right to life of the population as a whole. The argument was rejected outright.

    I just can't understand that. 

     I think stuff like that is what makes people support the BNP. Its like a rebel vote to the mainstream parties "Stuff like this worries us, so do something about it".

    It's not something I would personally do myself though 

  • I just have to say does no one else find it a bit ironic that after being egged at the press conference Nick Griffin was forced to go home??
  • Nom, voting BNP because you disgree with some of the 1952 Human rights convention is like sticking your head in a blender because you're having a bad hair day.
Sign In or Register to comment.