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

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

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"?

<snip>

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.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to make it seem like you like them. I'm just taking you up on your points.

a) I agree that it is fuelled by racism, but I still think that it is just a plain racist policy. If you don't agree then we can agree to disagree I guess, it is a bit subjective I guess.

b) And just because you can't judge someone by what they were like when they were younger doesn't mean that they automatically change. In many cases they don't change. To be honest, when he (consistently) comes out with policies that are racist (or fuelled by racism as you see this policy) and he was a prominent racist in the past indicates to me that he hasn't changed at all.



Around the Network
Seece on 01 May 2010

It IS racist, ignoring the fact it's a racist party completely. It's still a racist thing. I bet if you asked them most would probably admit if it wasn't for getting a bollocking.

I don't know much about politics, I don't claim to either. Some people should follow suit and stop acting as if they know ANYTHING about politics and getting into debates with people that do, just end up looking foolish when they don't know how to respond correctly



 

highwaystar101 on 01 May 2010
Seece said:
It IS racist, ignoring the fact it's a racist party completely. It's still a racist thing. I bet if you asked them most would probably admit if it wasn't for getting a bollocking.

I don't know much about politics, I don't claim to either. Some people should follow suit and stop acting as if they know ANYTHING about politics and getting into debates with people that do, just end up looking foolish when they don't know how to respond correctly

Haha, that's me when Kasz, SamuelRSmith or Mafoo (the three that seem to understand politics) take me on.

I don't know anything about politics, my political views are erratic to say the least. But sometimes people like me that don't know anything about politics have to get involved because politics affects everyone.



Khuutra on 01 May 2010

You ain't replied to me, Kantor!



psrock on 01 May 2010

This is beyond racist, it's insulting.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Around the Network
Kantor on 01 May 2010
Khuutra said:
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)

I'm not sure where this is going, but go ahead. Direct me to a racist policy which doesn't fit my definition.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

darthdevidem01 on 01 May 2010

Khuutra & Highwaystar I declare you victor!



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Khuutra on 01 May 2010
Kantor said:
Khuutra said:

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)

I'm not sure where this is going, but go ahead. Direct me to a racist policy which doesn't fit my definition.

I know you're not from the US, but are you familiar with Jim Crow laws?



darthdevidem01 on 01 May 2010

@Khuutra

Is he from the Klu Klux Clan?



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Khuutra on 01 May 2010
darthdevidem01 said:
@Khuutra

Is he from the Klu Klux Clan?

No, though the KKK liked the Jim Crow laws. They were the racial segregation laws in the United States that mandated "separate but equal" treatment for the races for about a hundred years.