By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Kantor on 01 May 2010
Khuutra said:
Kantor said:
Khuutra said:
Kantor said:
So,

a) He's not forcing anybody to leave, he's PAYING them to leave

b) He didn't actually say the words "white British" because that would be racist and illegal. He said non-indigenous British.

Honestly, I think people hate the BNP just for the sake of having somebody to hate. Yes, they have no idea how to run the country, they'll never win, they can't finance this, and they're CLEARLY racist, but it's not like they're going to "hang all of the black people" (as a friend of mine once told me).

But you do not contend that the policy isn't racist, I should hope.

The party is racist; that, nobody can doubt. I fail to see, however, how that policy could be constituted as racist. If anything, it's racist against white people. If they want to leave the country, they don't get anything.

It's fuelled by racism, but it's not racist itself. There's a difference.

If you see it as racist against white people, that is still racist.

And no, there really is not a difference. It's a clear message that this policy is in place to get non-ethnic-Britons to leave the country, in order to futher solidify th nationalist state of Britain. It's pretty racist!

It would be pretty odd to claim that the BNP is racist against white people. The policy is, though.

And the policy doesn't harm people of other races or ethnicities, so it can't be racist!

Really, the worst part of the policy is that it's so far from racist that people would take advantage of it and cost the government a huge amount of money and quite a bit of the workforce.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Khuutra on 01 May 2010
Kantor said:
Khuutra said:

If you see it as racist against white people, that is still racist.

And no, there really is not a difference. It's a clear message that this policy is in place to get non-ethnic-Britons to leave the country, in order to futher solidify th nationalist state of Britain. It's pretty racist!

It would be pretty odd to claim that the BNP is racist against white people. The policy is, though.

And the policy doesn't harm people of other races or ethnicities, so it can't be racist!

Really, the worst part of the policy is that it's so far from racist that people would take advantage of it and cost the government a huge amount of money and quite a bit of the workforce.

Do you claim that a sentiment or policy must be actively harmful to be racist? How do you define "harm" in this case?



darthdevidem01 on 01 May 2010

wow how racist!!

LOL and we'r ina recession. Luckily that man won't get within 5 light years of winning the election!

If he does...

I WANT THE ROYAL FAMILY TO RULE THE COUNTRY AGAIN!



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Kantor on 01 May 2010
Khuutra said:
Kantor said:
Khuutra said:

If you see it as racist against white people, that is still racist.

And no, there really is not a difference. It's a clear message that this policy is in place to get non-ethnic-Britons to leave the country, in order to futher solidify th nationalist state of Britain. It's pretty racist!

It would be pretty odd to claim that the BNP is racist against white people. The policy is, though.

And the policy doesn't harm people of other races or ethnicities, so it can't be racist!

Really, the worst part of the policy is that it's so far from racist that people would take advantage of it and cost the government a huge amount of money and quite a bit of the workforce.

Do you claim that a sentiment or policy must be actively harmful to be racist? How do you define "harm" in this case?

Simple. If any ethnic minority thinks "My life is worse because of this policy, and the lives of other races aren't", then it's a racist policy.

This is a policy fuelled by racism: the BNP's racism makes them want non-indigenous Brits to leave, but the way in which they are doing it does not harm specific ethnic minorities or, indeed, ethnic minorities as a whole, so it's not a racist policy.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Khuutra on 01 May 2010
Kantor said:
Khuutra said:

Do you claim that a sentiment or policy must be actively harmful to be racist? How do you define "harm" in this case?

Simple. If any ethnic minority thinks "My life is worse because of this policy, and the lives of other races aren't", then it's a racist policy.

This is a policy fuelled by racism: the BNP's racism makes them want non-indigenous Brits to leave, but the way in which they are doing it does not harm specific ethnic minorities or, indeed, ethnic minorities as a whole, so it's not a racist policy.

So you hold that a policy which does not impact the quality of living for a given ethnicity cannot be racist, by definition?

(if you think you are walking into a trap, it is because you are)



Around the Network
FootballFan on 01 May 2010
darthdevidem01 said:
wow how racist!!

LOL and we'r ina recession. Luckily that man won't get within 5 light years of winning the election!

If he does...

I WANT THE ROYAL FAMILY TO RULE THE COUNTRY AGAIN!


We are in a recession and yet we are paying billions of pounds on a pointless war against Islam....nothing will ever suprise me anymore....



Kamal on 01 May 2010
FootballFan said:
darthdevidem01 said:
wow how racist!!

LOL and we'r ina recession. Luckily that man won't get within 5 light years of winning the election!

If he does...

I WANT THE ROYAL FAMILY TO RULE THE COUNTRY AGAIN!


We are in a recession and yet we are paying billions of pounds on a pointless war against Islam....nothing will ever suprise me anymore....

A battle they can never win!



"Life is but a gentle death. Fate is but a sickness that results in extinction and in the midst of all the uncertainty, lies resolve."

darthdevidem01 on 01 May 2010
FootballFan said:
darthdevidem01 said:
wow how racist!!

LOL and we'r ina recession. Luckily that man won't get within 5 light years of winning the election!

If he does...

I WANT THE ROYAL FAMILY TO RULE THE COUNTRY AGAIN!


We are in a recession and yet we are paying billions of pounds on a pointless war against Islam....nothing will ever suprise me anymore....

The war against "terrorism" is a war I actually supported at first because the motive back in what 2001 or 2002 (Afghanistan) was to get rid of the terrorists which imo was a good move and I really wanted it to be successful....then a  few year later it became this "war against islam" & it became a moneyhole (Iraq).

Its ridiculous really and just has to stop now.

And worse than racism the policy this thread is discussing is FAR WORSE for our economy.....this country can't afford to spend money like that!



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

highwaystar101 on 01 May 2010
Kantor said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kantor said:
So,

a) He's not forcing anybody to leave, he's PAYING them to leave

b) He didn't actually say the words "white British" because that would be racist and illegal. He said non-indigenous British.

Honestly, I think people hate the BNP just for the sake of having somebody to hate. Yes, they have no idea how to run the country, they'll never win, they can't finance this, and they're CLEARLY racist, but it's not like they're going to "hang all of the black people" (as a friend of mine once told me).

a) It's not any better to offer to pay British people who are descended from immigrants to leave than to outright kick them out. It's still clearly motivated towards trying to produce a white nation. I will fight the notion that someone should be picked out and asked to leave because of their race to the death, it's just plain wrong in so many ways.

b) He said "non-white", not "white British". He did use the the words "non-white" in effect, even though he didn't directly say them. The conversation he had with the woman about the statistics he used shows that he meant white British. the conversation about paying these people to leave was a further development from this. I explained it further in an earlier post.

...

As for your last point, I don't like to invoke Godwin's law, but people thought Hitler wouldn't try and kill all the Jews.

I hate them for good reason, as do many people, even reading their policies makes me angry at them. It's stunts like this they try to pull that makes people hate them.

a) As I said in a previous post, it's fuelled by racism, and it's the racism that angers me. This policy, however, isn't racist.

b) Didn't he say that colour was irrelevant back on Question Time? They'd be back in court if they mentioned skin colour- are you sure he said that?

And the Hitler point would be a good one, except that Britain isn't crushed by a peace treaty, the UN isn't the League of Nations, the recession wasn't the Great Depression, and we don't use proportional representation.

a) I think that it is seriously racist, the policy is based on wanting to make non white Britons leave Britain. I don't see how it isn't racist quite frankly.

b) So you acknowledge that BNP are racist, but then believe Nick Griffin when he says colour was irrelevant? Sorry, I don't follow that logic. The only reason he doesn't mention colour as a motivator is so that he can stay on the right side of the law. If he didn't care about colour then why would he have been a member of the National Front and wear a t-Shirt saying "White power"?

And as for the Hitler analogy, in the same way Hitler liked to represent the Jewish people as the source of problems, Nick Griffin represents immigrants and, well, non-white people as the source of problems.



Kantor on 01 May 2010
highwaystar101 said:
Kantor said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kantor said:
So,

a) He's not forcing anybody to leave, he's PAYING them to leave

b) He didn't actually say the words "white British" because that would be racist and illegal. He said non-indigenous British.

Honestly, I think people hate the BNP just for the sake of having somebody to hate. Yes, they have no idea how to run the country, they'll never win, they can't finance this, and they're CLEARLY racist, but it's not like they're going to "hang all of the black people" (as a friend of mine once told me).

a) It's not any better to offer to pay British people who are descended from immigrants to leave than to outright kick them out. It's still clearly motivated towards trying to produce a white nation. I will fight the notion that someone should be picked out and asked to leave because of their race to the death, it's just plain wrong in so many ways.

b) He said "non-white", not "white British". He did use the the words "non-white" in effect, even though he didn't directly say them. The conversation he had with the woman about the statistics he used shows that he meant white British. the conversation about paying these people to leave was a further development from this. I explained it further in an earlier post.

...

As for your last point, I don't like to invoke Godwin's law, but people thought Hitler wouldn't try and kill all the Jews.

I hate them for good reason, as do many people, even reading their policies makes me angry at them. It's stunts like this they try to pull that makes people hate them.

a) As I said in a previous post, it's fuelled by racism, and it's the racism that angers me. This policy, however, isn't racist.

b) Didn't he say that colour was irrelevant back on Question Time? They'd be back in court if they mentioned skin colour- are you sure he said that?

And the Hitler point would be a good one, except that Britain isn't crushed by a peace treaty, the UN isn't the League of Nations, the recession wasn't the Great Depression, and we don't use proportional representation.

a) I think that it is seriously racist, the policy is based on wanting to make non white Britons leave Britain. I don't see how it isn't racist quite frankly.

b) So you acknowledge that BNP are racist, but then believe Nick Griffin when he says colour was irrelevant? Sorry, I don't follow that logic. The only reason he doesn't mention colour as a motivator  isso that he can stay on the right side of the law. If he didn't care about colour then why would he have been a member of the National Front and wear a t-Shirt saying "White power"?

And as for the Hitler analogy, in the same way Hitler liker to represent the Jewish people as the source of problems, Nick Griffin represents immigrants and, well, non-white people as the source of problems.

a) See my reply to Khuutra's post. Fueled by racism, not racist.

b) Yes, and David Cameron was a stoner when he was young. You can't judge people based on their actions as 20 year olds.

I don't like this. You're making me sound like I like Nick Griffin and the BNP. I don't. I despise them. I just don't despise them as much as you.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective