Should we deny racists publicity?

Originally Posted by NitroNutterr

and as for the cant comment for the muslims being a united front the whole country bore witness to that being confirmed on the news night of 9/11 by a spokesman for the brittish muslim movement

Any chance of seeing the source for this, seeing being believing and all that.

EDIT: Get your facts straight. This statement issued by the Muslim Council of Great Britain, September 11 2001.

MCB expresses total condemnation of terrorist attacks

British Muslims, along with everyone else, are watching events in America with shock and horror. Whoever is responsible for these dreadful, wanton attacks, we condemn them utterly. These are senseless and evil acts that appal all people of conscience. The MCB stands shoulder to shoulder with remarks made by our Prime Minister Tony Blair. Our thoughts and prayers are with all the innocent victims, their families and communities. We convey our deepest sympathies to President Bush and the people of America. No cause can justify this carnage. We hope those responsible will swiftly be brought to justice for their unconscionable deeds.

As the British Muslims come to the full realisation of these most awful events, which they condemn wholeheartedly, they too are beginning to feel a huge sense of fear. Terror makes victims of us all, it is beyond reason. Terror on this scale must not be compounded by knee-jerk reactions that would make victims of other innocent peoples of the world. This would only add to the devastation caused.


For further information please contact the MCB:

The Muslim Council of Britain

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Remember the "freedom" bit in "freedom of Speech" because when you start to deny that freedom to a certain section of society and it becomes acceptable, then it can be applied to anyone - even you.

and it's because certain political parties were allowed free reign that countless millions were murdered.

you mean like the sufragettes??? they were anti-establishment at the time and would have denied them?

No, I don't mean sufragettes and I'm not on about anti-establishment. I'm on about proven mass murderers.

Would you deny Sein fein their right to be heard - The BNP haven't (AFAIK) killed anyone. Yet people welcome the Irish terrorists up to plate, our prime minister shakes hands with them.

I don't like that either. But I recognise the need for dialogue towards a peaceful resolution.

So are you now asking for the British Communist party to be banned.???

Are you putting words into my mouth? Who mentioned British communists?

and for you to advocate taking away our freedoms is to forget the millions that died to protect those freedoms

What about 120 million who died at the hands of communists and nazis because no-one did anything to nip those ideologies in the bud.


I know that it is probably not practical to suppress certain ideologies but we do need to be aware of the consequences of freely allowing all to have a voice no matter what they want to say.

edit--afaik the nazi party is illegal in Germany......any complaints about that? Anyone here going to stand up and defend their rights?

[Mal]

So are you saying that we should adopt some of their policies then? Banning the opposition?

Where would it end? How would you control it, stop it from being used, through false propaganda, to ban parties with which the government just don't agree with?

Okay, the BNP aren't exactly a major threat (in a political sense) to be the opposition.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

and it's because certain political parties were allowed free reign that countless millions were murdered.

You can't blame political freedom for this. You can't be selective in who ""you"" think has acceptable political ideals.

No, I don't mean sufragettes and I'm not on about anti-establishment. I'm on about proven mass murderers.

As I said before, have the BNP killed anyone?

I don't like that either. But I recognise the need for dialogue towards a peaceful resolution.

Exactly, through a proper diplomatic process. A process for ""all""

Are you putting words into my mouth? Who mentioned British communists?

You mentioned communists, you inferred that they should be treated like the BNP and that you would not give them a political voice.

Therefore, all communists. Therefore, the British communist party would be included in that.

What about 120 million who died at the hands of communists and nazis because no-one did anything to nip those ideologies in the bud.

Both these regimes were welcomed by the people at the time, they grew into something other but it could not be nipped in the bud becuase the Russians and Germans supported both the Nazi and Communist parties when they came to power.

I know that it is probably not practical to suppress certain ideologies

agreed

but we do need to be aware of the consequences of freely allowing all to have a voice no matter what they want to say.

The price of freedom

edit--afaik the nazi party is illegal in Germany......any complaints about that? Anyone here going to stand up and defend their rights?

It may be, I don't know. They have their reasons

However, I would defend their right to exist.

Freedom of speech is restricted by a variety of laws deemed, I guess, consensual as they have been passed by an elected body (in Germany membership of a Nazi party and display of the swastika has been declared illegal by an elected parliament - not making my point very well here, but what the heck!!).

So, for example, the BNP can use freedom of speech to promote their arguments regarding immigration as long as they do not break laws relating to incitement of racial (and soon to be religious) hatred or racial discrimination. They tread a fine line and, as may be the case in Yorkshire, have transgressed it. But only if they break the law shoukd they be banned. Trying to prevent such, albeit offensive, voices being heard only aids their cause. Censorship can also end up embarassing a government such as when Thatcher's administration barred the voices of Sinn Feing members from the airwaves leading to the ludicrous situation where broadcasters used actors to voice over footage.

You have to fight ideas with ideas. I have found some of the posts on this forum truly offensive but still do not think they should be censored because that does not challenge but ignores the ideology that underpins them. Ignoring unpalatable views will not make hem go away. It's better to say 'I believe you're wrong' and provide a reasoned, intellectual and informed argument. The only flaw in my position - and it is a considerable one - is that much of the mass media pursues a right wing agenda, and right wing interests have much easier access to the media and, therefore, genuine debate is often stifled, not just within the media but in wider society.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Mal

So are you saying that we should adopt some of their policies then? Banning the opposition?

Where would it end? How would you control it, stop it from being used, through false propaganda, to ban parties with which the government just don't agree with?

I'd be the first to admit that I don't have the answers. I'm just pointing out the dangers of allowing all to freely express their views no matter what those views are.
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

Freedom of speech is restricted by a variety of laws deemed, I guess, consensual as they have been passed by an elected body (in Germany membership of a Nazi party and display of the swastika has been declared illegal by an elected parliament .

and how does that make you feel?

Originally Posted by Mal

Okay, the BNP aren't exactly a major threat (in a political sense) to be the opposition.

That's cos Labour's moving to the right of them!

The danger with the BNP is that they tap into a vicious undercurrent of racial hatred prevalent in our society and the mainstream parties, instead of challenging those ideas, formulate new policies on the back of a Daily Mail leader. The unseemly current harder-than-thou stances taken by the Tories and Labour on immigration demonstrate that point (this has also happened due to Labour's ongoing 'triangulation' strategy whereby they outwit the Tories by being more Tory than them!!).

Is that off topic?!!
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

and how does that make you feel?

As I said freedom of speech is frequently curbed by laws passed by elected parliament and can therefore be construed as being the will of the people. It's a balancing act. If the people deem such views as being so unacceptable to their society that they should not be allowed to be heard, on which side of the freedom/democracy debate do you fall? It is not an easy one to square.

Fundamentally though, as I've said, ignoring an ideological standpoint does not make it go away.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

That's cos Labour's moving to the right of them!

The danger with the BNP is that they tap into a vicious undercurrent of racial hatred prevalent in our society and the mainstream parties, instead of challenging those ideas, formulate new policies on the back of a Daily Mail leader.

No, people who are part of the "vicious undercurrent of racial hatred prevalent in our society" would already support the BNP regardless. What the BNP are trying to tap into is the lucrative market of people who aren't racist, but have become disillusioned with the government's approach to racial politics, political correctness and being shunted (they percieve) into 2nd place under non-citizens.

Originally Posted by punky

No, people who are part of the "vicious undercurrent of racial hatred prevalent in our society" would already support the BNP regardless. What the BNP are trying to tap into is the lucrative market of people who aren't racist, but have become disillusioned with the government's approach to racial politics, political correctness and being shunted (they percieve) into 2nd place under non-citizens.

I disagree. The BNP is fundamentally a racist party. I live in a multi-ethnic working class area and hear racist views on an almost daily basis. It is this that the BNP nurtures and exploits, aided, no doubt, by the nasty politics of the right wing press (which cultivates that idea of PC politics, second place shunting etc).

Originally Posted by Punky

No, people who are part of the "vicious undercurrent of racial hatred prevalent in our society" would already support the BNP regardless. What the BNP are trying to tap into is the lucrative market of people who aren't racist, but have become disillusioned with the government's approach to racial politics, political correctness and being shunted (they percieve) into 2nd place under non-citizens.

Originally Posted by andyl

I disagree. The BNP is fundamentally a racist party. I live in a multi-ethnic working class area and hear racist views on an almost daily basis. It is this that the BNP nurtures and exploits, aided, no doubt, by the nasty politics of the right wing press (which cultivates that idea of PC politics, second place shunting etc).

I'd have to agree with Punky, the perceived rise in popularity of the BNP is direct result of the policies of this government and perceived disenfranchisement of the people.

Perfect example is the recent news that funding for guided walks in the countrys national parks was being withdrawn becuase not enough ethnic or disabled were using them.

The only people using the service were a minority of "white middle aged, middle class" people. Its things like this that really **** people off.

Couldyou see this service being removed if it used solely by ethnic minorities? No I think not - it would probably get double the funding.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by andyl

As I said freedom of speech is frequently curbed by laws passed by elected parliament and can therefore be construed as being the will of the people. It's a balancing act. If the people deem such views as being so unacceptable to their society that they should not be allowed to be heard, on which side of the freedom/democracy debate do you fall? It is not an easy one to square.

Fundamentally though, as I've said, ignoring an ideological standpoint does not make it go away.

Yep, it's a tricky one because (as history has shown) allowing some ideological standpoints results in mass slaughter.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'd have to agree with Punky, the perceived rise in popularity of the BNP is direct result of the policies of this government and perceived disenfranchisement of the people.

Perfect example is the recent news that funding for guided walks in the countrys national parks was being withdrawn becuase not enough ethnic or disabled were using them.

The only people using the service were a minority of "white middle aged, middle class" people. Its things like this that really **** people off.

Couldyou see this service being removed if it used solely by ethnic minorities? No I think not - it would probably get double the funding.

Ho hum. Not noticed any furore about the strategy being to attract urban youth and the disabled, not just ethnic minorities, to the Lake District. Now why might that be I wonder?!!

[Seti]

The BNP worries me greatly becasue of its conflicting viewpoints on racial equality and its connection with the National Front(NF). As for saying the BNP never killed anyone then you are wrong I'm afraid. Most of the inmates in prison convicted of a racial crime are either members of the BNP or the NF. Worryingly, many of the members of BNP and NF have mental illnesses.


I am not saying deny them all publicity but I do think it should be moderated as many vunerable individuals and some who are mentally ill and not so vunerable tend to glean their ideas from parties such as these. I refer you all to the case of Zahid Mubarek murdered in a Young offenders institution by a known racist psychopath who was also believed to be a member of the NF and BNP.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3198264.stm

Sian

Originally Posted by Damien

I read that the BNP is been denied newspaper coverage and that the national union of journalists are not allowing BNP member to join its union. Newspapers are also actively being asked to avoid reporting on any BNP activities and to refuse BNP letters and opinion.

Recently there is evidence of this. The complete lack of coverage the BNP leader got when he got arrested showed that the media is avoiding giving them any more free publicity. A recent invitation to the BNP leader for a debate was withdrawn from the university that invited him.

I have seen these comments on the BNP website itself (its amazing the lies and racist views these people have but also the amount of fear and hate these people have) Obviously the fact it is on their website means you have to take it with a pinch of salt. But I have also seen this in the more mainstream media as well.

So in the run up to an election do you believe it is right to repress these views just because they are wrong? Should we try are give these people as little publicity as possible to avoid them getting any more votes. Or should we allow them to speak and hope that by given them a platform we can then expose their lies and they will be defeated by a free exchange of ideas instead of being defeated though denying them publicity?

I personally am not sure where I stand. I would like the BNP to be defeated in debates and to be exposed as the racist party there are to its members. Hopefully doing enough damage to finish them off for good. I think that by repressing them it makes them more determined and convinces their members that they are right. If you don’t give them publicity, we can’t prove them wrong.

On the other hand, how can we be sure that they will be defeated though ideas? Chances are they will get more votes if we give them the more publicity and its members wont believe us anyway or already know what the BNP is but still support them. Would Hitler ever have gotten to power if he didn’t have publicity? Properly not.

So what do you think? Deny them publicity, or challenge their views?

I find the BNP and racists like them repugnant and obnoxious, but it is difficult to ban publicity as such: unless that publicity clearly breaks the law, likewise any of its supporters who are known to have broken the law ought to be punished. It is difficult banning: would itself generate their own conspiracy theories. The media on the other hand need not report on their activities so generously, far better to show the incompetance of their representatives on councils.

As for saying the BNP never killed anyone then you are wrong I'm afraid. Most of the inmates in prison convicted of a racial crime are either members of the BNP or the NF. Worryingly, many of the members of BNP and NF have mental illnesses.

I don't believe the BNP has taken responsibility for killing anyone.

Peter Sutcliffe may have been a Labour voter.

Animal rights protestors, some of them extremely violent are far left supporters but probably vote for the Green party - should we ban them?