BNP would offer non-white Britons £50,000 to leave UK, says Nick Griffin

[Kantor]

Khuutra said:

Kantor said:

If segregation had never happened, desegregation would never have happened, and there would have been no hatred in the first place. Yes, there was hatred to begin with. But segregation continued the hatred. It bred hatred in the children who would then grow up and become furious when segregation ended.

It's like a heroin addiction. If you never take it, you're fine. If you take it, but don't stop, you die. If you take it, then stop, then things won't be fantastic, worse than if you'd never started, but they'll be better than if you kept taking it.

So I stand by my opinion that segregation is racist, because it does cause harm.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the BNP policy doesn't cause harm, breed hatred or propagate hatred. So, it's not racist.

You can't follow up "there would have been no hatred in the first place" with "yes there was hatred to begin with".

Segregation did not continue the hatred - it put a muzzle on it. It was ab ad thing, but not because of the activity it caused toward hatred. It was because of the expectations that it created in terms of sovereignty and the rights of the people involved.

The bigger issue here is that you're predicating "racism" on causing harm. That's not what racism is.

rac·ism

  <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R00/R0009800" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="racist pronunciation" /></a> /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

See point 2.

A law can be racist without causing harm if it's founded on racist doctrine or a racist way of looking at the world. You have admitted that the doctrine is based on a racist viewpoint, ergo it is racist regardless of whether or not it causes harm. The idea is predicated ont he idea that ethnic Britons are the ones who should be living in Britain (and that others should go back to the lands of their ancestors), and it propagates the idea that ethnic Britons are the only "true" citizens of Britain.

It is racist. It is racist. It is racist.

EDIT: The formatting problem has ruined my post, I apologize.

Very well, you win.

By that definition of racism, which is the commonly accepted definition. I wouldn't agree, but that's an issue of morality.