I'm not saying I wouldn't dislike someone who turned out to be on that list.
I'm just saying that it's not grounds for dismissal.
This isn't a new idea - the debate as to whether one's opinions and thoughts can be illegal or immoral, and the debate on what kinds of immorality should be punished is a very old one.
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
Oh, I know!
Them having to adapt their behaviour to what is morally accepted in the UK or for them to move to a country where they are okay with people being racist and anti-gay.
No.
They would go on benefit. And find justification for their twisted beliefs, since they are actually treated worse than immigrants (as opposed to now, when they merely imagine that to be the case). And perhaps turn to violence.
You can't beat the evil out of humanity. That kind of logic is why Thatcher wouldn't deal with the IRA. Major and Blair did, and Northern Ireland is an infinitely better place because of their willingness to enfranchise evil people.
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
Do you understand why we allow bad people to vote and participate in civil society?
I advocate for prisoner voting, personally. So yes, I do. What I'm saying is that society should absolutely be allowed to judge people based on these kinds of beliefs.
Striving to achieve a moral clarity in society is just as disgusting as trying to achieve racial clarity.
Screaming "o noes thoughtcrime!" is most certainly fearmongering.
Yes, the person making the argument against stripping a minority group of their right to work is the one engaging in fear-tactics
Can you show me where I said that? I've advocated no state actions, just the freedom of individuals. Yes, somebody should be able to fire their employee simply because they're racist. That's what I'm saying. That's what I mean by disenfrachisement, though "systematic" wasn't a good word to use.
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
Awesome, I'm not hiring atheists or socialists or communists or goths or vegetarians or PETA members or green freaks or people who don't like Rancid or people who do like Good Charolette or or or
I'm not saying I wouldn't dislike someone who turned out to be on that list.
I'm just saying that it's not grounds for dismissal.
This isn't a new idea - the debate as to whether one's opinions and thoughts can be illegal or immoral, and the debate on what kinds of immorality should be punished is a very old one.
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
Oh, I know!
Them having to adapt their behaviour to what is morally accepted in the UK or for them to move to a country where they are okay with people being racist and anti-gay.
No.
They would go on benefit. And find justification for their twisted beliefs, since they are actually treated worse than immigrants (as opposed to now, when they merely imagine that to be the case). And perhaps turn to violence.
You can't beat the evil out of humanity. That kind of logic is why Thatcher wouldn't deal with the IRA. Major and Blair did, and Northern Ireland is an infinitely better place because of their willingness to enfranchise evil people.
Ugh, yes, that is always a possibility. Can't fire anyone without risking them blowing up your car.
They are already finding justification for their beliefs and they are already turning to violence. I'm having a hard time imagining how much worse these people might behave if they lose their job.
I'm not saying I wouldn't dislike someone who turned out to be on that list.
I'm just saying that it's not grounds for dismissal.
This isn't a new idea - the debate as to whether one's opinions and thoughts can be illegal or immoral, and the debate on what kinds of immorality should be punished is a very old one.
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
Oh, I know!
Them having to adapt their behaviour to what is morally accepted in the UK or for them to move to a country where they are okay with people being racist and anti-gay.
No.
They would go on benefit. And find justification for their twisted beliefs, since they are actually treated worse than immigrants (as opposed to now, when they merely imagine that to be the case). And perhaps turn to violence.
You can't beat the evil out of humanity. That kind of logic is why Thatcher wouldn't deal with the IRA. Major and Blair did, and Northern Ireland is an infinitely better place because of their willingness to enfranchise evil people.
Ugh, yes, that is always a possibility. Can't fire anyone without risking them blowing up your car.
They are already finding justification for their beliefs and they are already turning to violence. I'm having a hard time imagining how much worse these people might behave if they lose their job.
This is a tiny group.
Answer me honestly, have you been personally affected? Or are you just reacting?
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
Awesome, I'm not hiring atheists or socialists or communists or goths or vegetarians or PETA members or green freaks or people who don't like Rancid or people who do like Good Charolette or or or
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
Awesome, I'm not hiring atheists or socialists or communists or goths or vegetarians or PETA members or green freaks or people who don't like Rancid or people who do like Good Charolette or or or
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
Do you understand why we allow bad people to vote and participate in civil society?
I advocate for prisoner voting, personally. So yes, I do. What I'm saying is that society should absolutely be allowed to judge people based on these kinds of beliefs.
Striving to achieve a moral clarity in society is just as disgusting as trying to achieve racial clarity.
You are suppressing dissent.
Acknowledge that.
I'm not going to acknowledge something I'm not doing. All I'm saying is that society should be allowed to judge destructive radicals appropriately. This is not about dissent, this is about destructive beliefs. "Britain should be all-white" is a destructive belief, and the majority of the people on this list, from the sound of it, espouse that belief enough to join a party that advocates active movements towards those goals.
Yes, KKK members should be judged by society as bad people. Fred Phelps should be judged by society as a bad person. Card-carrying BNP members (forgetting the list's efficacy for a moment) should be judged as bad people. All of these groups can be disenfranchised by a society, and I'm proof-positive that Britain would like to disenfranchise them, for the most part.
I'm not saying I wouldn't dislike someone who turned out to be on that list.
I'm just saying that it's not grounds for dismissal.
This isn't a new idea - the debate as to whether one's opinions and thoughts can be illegal or immoral, and the debate on what kinds of immorality should be punished is a very old one.
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
Oh, I know!
Them having to adapt their behaviour to what is morally accepted in the UK or for them to move to a country where they are okay with people being racist and anti-gay.
No.
They would go on benefit. And find justification for their twisted beliefs, since they are actually treated worse than immigrants (as opposed to now, when they merely imagine that to be the case). And perhaps turn to violence.
You can't beat the evil out of humanity. That kind of logic is why Thatcher wouldn't deal with the IRA. Major and Blair did, and Northern Ireland is an infinitely better place because of their willingness to enfranchise evil people.
Ugh, yes, that is always a possibility. Can't fire anyone without risking them blowing up your car.
They are already finding justification for their beliefs and they are already turning to violence. I'm having a hard time imagining how much worse these people might behave if they lose their job.
This is a tiny group.
Answer me honestly, have you been personally affected? Or are you just reacting?
I'm white and full of guilt.
What I'm saying is that I have no problem with employers firing employees who are part of a dangerous extremist organisation. I have already explained why I think this is sound business.
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.
Awesome, I'm not hiring atheists or socialists or communists or goths or vegetarians or PETA members or green freaks or people who don't like Rancid or people who do like Good Charolette or or or
How are these people a threat to civil society?
If I really have to explain why people who like Good Charolette are a threat to civil society this is going to be a highly unproductive conversation.
Hippie, aren't you an atheist? You're aware many people consider that a "destructive belief", right? Same with gay people?
You know what the difference is? Trying to get rid of all the mud races and the fudge packers is necessarily destructive and hateful, and that's a fucking fact. I don't care what a person believes, they're 100% incorrect if they believe that the qualifier "atheist" is destructive on the measure that these BNP people are.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I am a registered democrat because socially I more or less subscribe to liberal philosophy.
When it comes to Gun-rights--I am hard-right pro second-amendment.
If I wanted to work at Browning or Springfield or at a gun-shop even--and my registered Democrat status was discovered--would the overriding philosophy of the party line automatically discount any deviance from orthodoxy on my part? Would it be grounds for dismissal?
People aren't robots--even racist people.
That is a really poor analogy for the simple reason the American political parties both nearly identical and neither party wants to outlaw guns.
Now if there somehow was a club you are member of that has made it their goal to destruct all fire arms in the US and you'd apply for a job at a gun factory then yes it isn't that weird that the company would not hire you if they found out. Or fire you if/once they find out.
The thing with the BNP is is that they hate people everyone will deal with during their work day. Unless you work at an all-white, all-straight company that has no contacts what so ever with people not part of the company.
Okay but my point here is that we shouldn't judge people's personal beliefs based on the orthodox line of their party. Yes, even the radical groups.
To go on with your analogy*: you are saying there are people part of this anti-gun club that do not agree with the club's viewpoint of guns. Then why did they join? For the lulz or something?
*I loves me some analogies :winky:
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
I'm not saying I wouldn't dislike someone who turned out to be on that list.
I'm just saying that it's not grounds for dismissal.
This isn't a new idea - the debate as to whether one's opinions and thoughts can be illegal or immoral, and the debate on what kinds of immorality should be punished is a very old one.
So let's start with a simple question - what do you think would be the consequences of BNP members no longer being able to work for a living?
Oh, I know!
Them having to adapt their behaviour to what is morally accepted in the UK or for them to move to a country where they are okay with people being racist and anti-gay.
No.
They would go on benefit. And find justification for their twisted beliefs, since they are actually treated worse than immigrants (as opposed to now, when they merely imagine that to be the case). And perhaps turn to violence.
You can't beat the evil out of humanity. That kind of logic is why Thatcher wouldn't deal with the IRA. Major and Blair did, and Northern Ireland is an infinitely better place because of their willingness to enfranchise evil people.
Ugh, yes, that is always a possibility. Can't fire anyone without risking them blowing up your car.
They are already finding justification for their beliefs and they are already turning to violence. I'm having a hard time imagining how much worse these people might behave if they lose their job.
No, they are turning to politics.
The chance of a black person being the victim of racially motivated violence is significantly lower now than in say the 1950s.
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
So now would be the right time to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
So now would be the right time to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
There is no litmus test in democratic societies for the viability of political views.
If you can think it and aren't going to kill anyone over it--you don't have to prove anything.
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
So now would be the right time to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
I'm sorry Aldo, but this is obvious stuff. They want to reduce immigration. So do most right-wing political parties.
You seem to be under the impression that the BNP are actually the SS or something.
If allow this--you will INFLATE the membership numbers of this party.
This is the same logic that skyrocketed Al-Qaeda recruitments.
Allow what?
Legal precedent in the UK says that it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being a racist if it necessarily means there is a conflict between the beliefs of the company and the beliefs of the employee, or if the company reasonably believes that the potential for racially motivated violence presents a danger to their customers or other employees.
Racist beliefs aren't classed as protected political, philosophical or religious beliefs. So it's already "allowed" to fire someone for being a racist. Really the question is if you can conclude that someone is a racist solely on the evidence that they're a member of the BNP.
If you allow this--you will INFLATE the membership numbers of this party.
This is the same logic that skyrocketed Al-Qaeda recruitments.
Allow what?
Legal precedent in the UK says that it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being a racist if it necessarily means there is a conflict between the beliefs of the company and the beliefs of the employee, or if the company reasonably believes that the potential for racially motivated violence presents a danger to their customers or other employees.
Racist beliefs aren't classed as protected political, philosophical or religious beliefs. So it's already "allowed" to fire someone for being a racist. Really the question is if you can conclude that someone is a racist solely on the evidence that they're a member of the BNP.
We are talking about firing people currently employed just because their name showed up on a BNP membership list.
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
So now would be the right time to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
I'm sorry Aldo, but this is obvious stuff. They want to reduce immigration. So do most right-wing political parties.
You seem to be under the impression that the BNP are actually the SS or something.
No, I assume they are a more extreme version Geert Wilders.
So why would someone go for a party that has more extreme views than the other right-wing parties if all they want is less immigration?
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
So now would be the right time to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
I'm sorry Aldo, but this is obvious stuff. They want to reduce immigration. So do most right-wing political parties.
You seem to be under the impression that the BNP are actually the SS or something.
No, I assume they are a more extreme version Geert Wilders.
So why would someone go for a party that has more extreme views than the other right-wing parties if all they want is less immigration?
WH, you keep using the word disenfranchise. What do you mean by it?
Socially disenfranchise. The most effective way to shut off racists and other bigots and hatemongers is to force them into some dark corner of society. "This belief is not acceptable. Either keep it to yourself, cede to modern society, or get out of our way."
Society already has laws which punish violence against others, so if they're violent they get arrested.
What further censure do you think is acceptable, and why?
I'm not talking about codified laws against these people. Nowhere have I suggested that. All I've ever advocated was allowing individuals the right to choose whether or not to accept these people in a modern, progressive society. I know that, by-and-large, Britain will choose not to, and the best way to get rid of these people, or prevent them from gaining any momentum, is by social pressure.
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
So now would be the right time to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
I'm sorry Aldo, but this is obvious stuff. They want to reduce immigration. So do most right-wing political parties.
You seem to be under the impression that the BNP are actually the SS or something.
No, I assume they are a more extreme version Geert Wilders.
So why would someone go for a party that has more extreme views than the other right-wing parties if all they want is less immigration?
They don't. They're horrible racists.
You asked for less extreme views that they hold.
No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
Hippie, aren't you an atheist? You're aware many people consider that a "destructive belief", right? Same with gay people?
You know what the difference is? Trying to get rid of all the mud races and the fudge packers is necessarily destructive and hateful, and that's a fucking fact. I don't care what a person believes, they're 100% incorrect if they believe that the qualifier "atheist" is destructive on the measure that these BNP people are.
It doesn't fucking matter if they're right. They believe that. If they're your boss and they fire you for being atheist on the grounds that your beliefs are destructive and contrary to the beliefs of their company, its on YOUR head to prove them wrong.
Exactly what does the BNP do that makes them a threat?
Their stated intention is to turn the UK into an all-white society, forcibly relocating anybody they consider to be an "immigrant" (i.e. non-whites, regardless of how long they or their ancestors have been in the country).
Most British people associate them with violent rallies that almost invariably turned into riots due to their willingness to attack the inevitable counter-protests. Their party leader has advocated violence in the past, and members have been associated with racially-motivated violence. Two people associated with them have been arrested for possession of explosives.
In addition to that, they've long been a target of investigative journalists, because of their habit of keeping their meetings and communications semi-clandestine, and the subsequently discovered differences between their moderated public statements and the views of the party leadership exposed when they think no-one's listening.
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
So now would be the right time to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
I'm sorry Aldo, but this is obvious stuff. They want to reduce immigration. So do most right-wing political parties.
You seem to be under the impression that the BNP are actually the SS or something.
No, I assume they are a more extreme version Geert Wilders.
So why would someone go for a party that has more extreme views than the other right-wing parties if all they want is less immigration?
They don't. They're horrible racists.
You asked for less extreme views that they hold.
No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
Ah. You'd like me to say what normal views the party has that aren't held by less extremist parties?
So you'd like me to say what normal views the party has that aren't held by normal parties?
That's logically impossible, which I noticed before, so I assumed you meant something logically possible.
If allow this--you will INFLATE the membership numbers of this party.
This is the same logic that skyrocketed Al-Qaeda recruitments.
Allow what?
Legal precedent in the UK says that it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being a racist if it necessarily means there is a conflict between the beliefs of the company and the beliefs of the employee, or if the company reasonably believes that the potential for racially motivated violence presents a danger to their customers or other employees.
Racist beliefs aren't classed as protected political, philosophical or religious beliefs. So it's already "allowed" to fire someone for being a racist. Really the question is if you can conclude that someone is a racist solely on the evidence that they're a member of the BNP.
It seems like you can. They are all for the repealing of anti-discrimination laws. I don't think this will effect average people so much though. I doubt that as an employer I would fire someone I had always considered a good worker, simply because his name appeared on this list. This of course wouldn't be true for people in high profile positions, or orginizations that forbid hiring BNP members.
Pirate Viper on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
WH, you keep using the word disenfranchise. What do you mean by it?
Socially disenfranchise. The most effective way to shut off racists and other bigots and hatemongers is to force them into some dark corner of society. "This belief is not acceptable. Either keep it to yourself, cede to modern society, or get out of our way."
The individual members are keeping it to themselves. The list was published, most likely without their permission.
Or do you believe that every single member is waving signs at their place of employment saying "kick out the queers?"
Hippie, aren't you an atheist? You're aware many people consider that a "destructive belief", right? Same with gay people?
You know what the difference is? Trying to get rid of all the mud races and the fudge packers is necessarily destructive and hateful, and that's a fucking fact. I don't care what a person believes, they're 100% incorrect if they believe that the qualifier "atheist" is destructive on the measure that these BNP people are.
It doesn't fucking matter if they're right. They believe that. If they're your boss and they fire you for being atheist on the grounds that your beliefs are destructive and contrary to the beliefs of their company, its on YOUR head to prove them wrong.
And I'll put it in front of a judge.
Also, I'm probably not going to be working at a bible factory in the first place. With these people, however, literally any business aside from self-employment would be a conflict of interests. There is a difference and you're failing to grasp it in a most astonishing way.
Posts
No.
They would go on benefit. And find justification for their twisted beliefs, since they are actually treated worse than immigrants (as opposed to now, when they merely imagine that to be the case). And perhaps turn to violence.
You can't beat the evil out of humanity. That kind of logic is why Thatcher wouldn't deal with the IRA. Major and Blair did, and Northern Ireland is an infinitely better place because of their willingness to enfranchise evil people.
Striving to achieve a moral clarity in society is just as disgusting as trying to achieve racial clarity.
You are suppressing dissent.
Acknowledge that.
Can you show me where I said that? I've advocated no state actions, just the freedom of individuals. Yes, somebody should be able to fire their employee simply because they're racist. That's what I'm saying. That's what I mean by disenfrachisement, though "systematic" wasn't a good word to use.
This is the same logic that skyrocketed Al-Qaeda recruitments.
Awesome, I'm not hiring atheists or socialists or communists or goths or vegetarians or PETA members or green freaks or people who don't like Rancid or people who do like Good Charolette or or or
Ugh, yes, that is always a possibility. Can't fire anyone without risking them blowing up your car.
They are already finding justification for their beliefs and they are already turning to violence. I'm having a hard time imagining how much worse these people might behave if they lose their job.
This is a tiny group.
Answer me honestly, have you been personally affected? Or are you just reacting?
or black people or gays or minorities or women
I'm not going to acknowledge something I'm not doing. All I'm saying is that society should be allowed to judge destructive radicals appropriately. This is not about dissent, this is about destructive beliefs. "Britain should be all-white" is a destructive belief, and the majority of the people on this list, from the sound of it, espouse that belief enough to join a party that advocates active movements towards those goals.
Yes, KKK members should be judged by society as bad people. Fred Phelps should be judged by society as a bad person. Card-carrying BNP members (forgetting the list's efficacy for a moment) should be judged as bad people. All of these groups can be disenfranchised by a society, and I'm proof-positive that Britain would like to disenfranchise them, for the most part.
What I'm saying is that I have no problem with employers firing employees who are part of a dangerous extremist organisation. I have already explained why I think this is sound business.
If I really have to explain why people who like Good Charolette are a threat to civil society this is going to be a highly unproductive conversation.
So what you are saying is that BNP members are just as completely harmless as atheists and gays?
You know what the difference is? Trying to get rid of all the mud races and the fudge packers is necessarily destructive and hateful, and that's a fucking fact. I don't care what a person believes, they're 100% incorrect if they believe that the qualifier "atheist" is destructive on the measure that these BNP people are.
No, perhaps he's joined a party that is 100% anti-gun, because that party is also 100% pro-socialized medicine or some such.
No, they are turning to politics.
The chance of a black person being the victim of racially motivated violence is significantly lower now than in say the 1950s.
I think you are missing the point here.
These are some loudmouths who will never see a majority and constitute a tiny fraction of your political mindshare.
So yeah--I guess they are just as harmless as atheists and gays. (Who have a better shot at one-day constituting a majority party)
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Also, you seem to feel that all negative actions towards racists are equal. Are there any limits? Can we kill them?
You want to fire them - can we evict them too?
I'm sure most people in the BNP are bad people.
Society already has laws which punish violence against others, so if they're violent they get arrested.
What further censure do you think is acceptable, and why?
There is no litmus test in democratic societies for the viability of political views.
If you can think it and aren't going to kill anyone over it--you don't have to prove anything.
I'm sorry Aldo, but this is obvious stuff. They want to reduce immigration. So do most right-wing political parties.
You seem to be under the impression that the BNP are actually the SS or something.
Allow what?
Legal precedent in the UK says that it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being a racist if it necessarily means there is a conflict between the beliefs of the company and the beliefs of the employee, or if the company reasonably believes that the potential for racially motivated violence presents a danger to their customers or other employees.
Racist beliefs aren't classed as protected political, philosophical or religious beliefs. So it's already "allowed" to fire someone for being a racist. Really the question is if you can conclude that someone is a racist solely on the evidence that they're a member of the BNP.
We are talking about firing people currently employed just because their name showed up on a BNP membership list.
No, I assume they are a more extreme version Geert Wilders.
So why would someone go for a party that has more extreme views than the other right-wing parties if all they want is less immigration?
Something is immoral or not regardless of whether the government supports it or not.
Or was racism a morally acceptable act in apartheid-era South Africa?
They don't. They're horrible racists.
You asked for less extreme views that they hold.
Socially disenfranchise. The most effective way to shut off racists and other bigots and hatemongers is to force them into some dark corner of society. "This belief is not acceptable. Either keep it to yourself, cede to modern society, or get out of our way."
What? Yeah, you're not reading my posts.
I'm not talking about codified laws against these people. Nowhere have I suggested that. All I've ever advocated was allowing individuals the right to choose whether or not to accept these people in a modern, progressive society. I know that, by-and-large, Britain will choose not to, and the best way to get rid of these people, or prevent them from gaining any momentum, is by social pressure.
No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to show me what perfectly normal views the BNP holds on other subjects that are not already represented by less extremist parties.
It doesn't fucking matter if they're right. They believe that. If they're your boss and they fire you for being atheist on the grounds that your beliefs are destructive and contrary to the beliefs of their company, its on YOUR head to prove them wrong.
I am done though.
Their stated intention is to turn the UK into an all-white society, forcibly relocating anybody they consider to be an "immigrant" (i.e. non-whites, regardless of how long they or their ancestors have been in the country).
Most British people associate them with violent rallies that almost invariably turned into riots due to their willingness to attack the inevitable counter-protests. Their party leader has advocated violence in the past, and members have been associated with racially-motivated violence. Two people associated with them have been arrested for possession of explosives.
In addition to that, they've long been a target of investigative journalists, because of their habit of keeping their meetings and communications semi-clandestine, and the subsequently discovered differences between their moderated public statements and the views of the party leadership exposed when they think no-one's listening.
Really, they're not nice people.
Ah. You'd like me to say what normal views the party has that aren't held by less extremist parties?
So you'd like me to say what normal views the party has that aren't held by normal parties?
That's logically impossible, which I noticed before, so I assumed you meant something logically possible.
Racism was held to be morally acceptable by some of them.
That wasn't my question.
It seems like you can. They are all for the repealing of anti-discrimination laws. I don't think this will effect average people so much though. I doubt that as an employer I would fire someone I had always considered a good worker, simply because his name appeared on this list. This of course wouldn't be true for people in high profile positions, or orginizations that forbid hiring BNP members.
The individual members are keeping it to themselves. The list was published, most likely without their permission.
Or do you believe that every single member is waving signs at their place of employment saying "kick out the queers?"
And I'll put it in front of a judge.
Also, I'm probably not going to be working at a bible factory in the first place. With these people, however, literally any business aside from self-employment would be a conflict of interests. There is a difference and you're failing to grasp it in a most astonishing way.
I'm fine with systematically disenfranchising a whole group of people that are a threat to civil society.[/QUOTE]
You always do this, WH - say something extreme, then get shown why it's too extreme, and then pretend you didn't mean it really.
Systematically disenfranchising means what now?
Not laws?
Not actually disenfranchising?