Babes of the BNP

[blue_tetris]

The process of making a law is declaring something illegal. Everything is legal by default, until a law is made about it. That puts Burden of Proof on you if you want to regulate firearms, which in turn means that I don't have to put forward a case for legalization of firearms if you've only given me "you shouldn't expect to use it," "most people don't do it," "you can get by fine without it," and "there are ways of compensating for not having one where one would be useful," none of which are valid reasons to make something illegal.

That might be true if I were actually arguing for the regulation of firearms, which I am not. I am instead criticising the argument that gun control laws should be loosened in case we have a violent revolt and/or that the present laws are evil government oppression. By the same token, if someone said "Guns should be legal because kittens are cute and fuzzy!", and I responded that they were deranged and that the fuzziness of kittens had nothing to do with gun control, I would not be required to prove the case for gun control.

And I'd have to agree. Gun rights have nothing to do with mounting a proper opposition force against the government.

But Suki's argument has changed.



Prepare for the chameleonic time-traveling hydra that is our awful Debate forum! To win, find three new arguments each time one has been chopped off, and presume those heads had been plaguing Heracles all along. But watch out for Merlock in the Video Zone.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8146585.stm

[SkyPanda]

"Mr Griffin, who is due to take up his seat as an MEP for the North West"
This man should not be allowed to sit anywhere! Why are his legs not aching, Europe? Shame on you!

[a happy song]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8146585.stm

The fuck is wrong with the guy?

The party's policies and aims (those on show to the public, at least) would be acceptable to many voters if this douche knew how to keep his idiot mouth shut. He tends to make a string of decent points then completely destroys any impact he might have made by slipping in some thinly veiled racism. It's like he's barely controlling a case of Tourette's or something, like all he's bursting to shout "Niggers!" after every sentence.

If this is the guy they chose to lead their party, he must be one of the more articulate and effective public speakers. That says something massive...

[SlappyMcGee]

I don't know. The video in this article didn't upset me, and I hardly think he's fascist or even particularly racist. It sounds like he loves his country, and is trying to hold on to his culture. I don't agree with his ideas or means, but I also am not in the least bit outraged.

[a happy song]

"The only measure which is going to stop illegal immigration and stop large numbers of sub-Saharan Africans dying on the way to get over here is to get very tough with those coming over.

"Frankly, they need to sink several of those boats. Anyone coming up with measures like that we'll support."

"What needs to be done as an example is to sink a couple of boats near the shores of Libya - throw them lifebelts so they can paddle back, so they understand they will never get to Europe.

It's just the way he puts things. "Sink ships" carries many negative connotations no matter how it's justified, spun, or mixed in with an intelligent point. the guy should know better as the leader of an already massively controveersial party.

and I hardly think he's fascist or even particularly racist. It sounds like he loves his country.

You saw this one, right?

[SlappyMcGee]

"The only measure which is going to stop illegal immigration and stop large numbers of sub-Saharan Africans dying on the way to get over here is to get very tough with those coming over.

"Frankly, they need to sink several of those boats. Anyone coming up with measures like that we'll support."

"What needs to be done as an example is to sink a couple of boats near the shores of Libya - throw them lifebelts so they can paddle back, so they understand they will never get to Europe.

It's just the way he puts things. "Sink ships" carries many negative connotations no matter how it's justified, spun, or mixed in with an intelligent point. the guy should know better as the leader of an already massively controveersial party.

and I hardly think he's fascist or even particularly racist. It sounds like he loves his country.

You saw this one, right?

Oh, the dude is, or at one point, was definitely a racist. I just don't think that the last link exemplified that. I think it might not have shown his true intentions, but the intentions shown were not that horrible.

[a happy song]

Oh, the dude is, or at one point, was definitely a racist. I just don't think that the last link exemplified that. I think it might not have shown his true intentions, but the intentions shown were not that horrible.

Like I said, it's his choice of words that trips him up. You must agree that the connotations of sinking ships is hardly a positive vibe to put out, especially when potential underlying racism is a concern?

[SlappyMcGee]

Oh, the dude is, or at one point, was definitely a racist. I just don't think that the last link exemplified that. I think it might not have shown his true intentions, but the intentions shown were not that horrible.

Like I said, it's his choice of words that trips him up. You must agree that the connotations of sinking ships is hardly a positive vibe to put out, especially when potential underlying racism is a concern?

I think that politically it is a bad thing to say. How horrible it is to defend your land from what are essentially invaders is harder to say. These people came here illegally, they're going to live out the rest of their lives, illegally, and while they definitely won't contribute to England, they might take advantage of more lenient social resources, like daycare. Sure, saying you're going to sink people's ships sounds awful. But illegal immigration is a tricky issue, and I know that I would be refreshed to hear somebody go on the offensive about it rather than what Canadian politicians do (which is to say, ignore the issue. The only party leader in Canada I've ever even heard address the issue was Jack Layton. NDP ftw.)

[a happy song]

As I said, the policies are probably sound to many people, it's just these little slips of the tongue that allude to a racist subtext that are the issue.

It's not like it's a one off, or even a rare occurrence. It happens every time he opens his mouth in public.

[Tanner]

The only party leader in Canada I've ever even heard address the issue was Jack Layton. NDP ftw.

Jack Layton is awesome. The NDP less so.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I posted that link primarily because it struck me how much condescension, intentional or otherwise, Griffin kept showing.

Mr Griffin told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that the BNP would put more money into voluntary repatriation programmes for members of ethnic minorities "who want to go back to their lands of ethnic origin".

He added that Britain was overcrowded and "terribly unstable" as a result of its "multicultural experiment".

Mr Griffin said: "What needs to be done as an example is to sink a couple of boats near the shores of Libya - throw them lifebelts so they can paddle back, so they understand they will never get to Europe. Because the alternative is accepting that Britain eventually is going to end up like Africa."

He only seems to take his foot out of his mouth to put the other in.

On the other hand, I read that article from my cell phone and therefore didn't watch the video. He surprised me with how reasonable he actually appeared despite his ridiculously racist history.
I'm starting to think that the BBC is a little biased.

[a happy song]

I'm starting to think that the BBC is a little biased.

Of course it is, in regards to the BNP anyway. But can you blame them? The guy appears reasonable, even with the slip ups, until you realise the slip ups happen EVERY time he opens his mouth in EVERY interview and the racist subtext is something that's quite alarming.

[SlappyMcGee]

Of course it is, in regards to the BNP anyway. But can you blame them?

Well, yes. Republicans say and do stupid things -constantly-, but I don't watch MSNBC because I like to hear both sides. The BNP website makes them seem quite reasonable; the BBC make them seem like awful racists. If we know that both sides have a bias, who is to be our neutral source for information?

[otters~1]

...who is to be our neutral source for information?

Wikipedia!

[a happy song]

Of course it is, in regards to the BNP anyway. But can you blame them?

Well, yes. Republicans say and do stupid things -constantly-, but I don't watch MSNBC because I like to hear both sides. The BNP website makes them seem quite reasonable; the BBC make them seem like awful racists. If we know that both sides have a bias, who is to be our neutral source for information?

They're only biased in that they like to report Griffin's slip ups, but it's not really bias as every time the guy is on camera he slips up. Take a look at any interview or footage with him. The barely concealed racism is there on camera, it's not edited, it's not out of context.

There is no other side. This is the reason the party is considered so ridiculous in the UK, and why almost every single supporter you come across is an obvious and aggressive racist.