If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I just wanted an argument.
Are you saying that people are so gullible that they will believe anything ?
Half of the US population still believes Saddam was behind 9/11. Enough said.
That being the case, why are you not so vocal (and dare I say intolerant) about the concept of democracy. i.e.those same gullible people forcing their opinions on others ?
Maybe you need a reminder! I told you about my Father being arrested for speaking Gaelic to which you replied:
Gaelic is a LANGUAGE. I would have thought that you meant the other parts of my statement if it was not for the first 2 sentences.
Yeah, they are called the EU Human Rights Acts which do not fucking work.
I don't have to. I've lived through discrimination on the grounds of race and beliefs. I asked you HAVE YOU?
You replied by telling me to put myself in anothers skin. You could make a good politician. You seem to have the gift of dodging questions.
Of course I believe it's wrong but it shouldn't be put into law to make sure this doesn't happen. The community itself should sort it out.
I got taught crime was only a working class phenomena by my Conservative high school maths teacher.
I got taught that drug use was O.K by my Liberal Hippy english teacher.
Course it fucking goes on you moron! You just don't hear it because you're not looking for it.
When you look for it it's always there.
Does a BNP member sexually abuse children or get Sexually aroused by looking at children? No
So there's a bad analogy from you. Comprende?
And something you mentioned in another post that I'd like to correct you on. The BNP is an established Political Party and is on the political spectrum. And there is a huge fucking difference between Nationalism and Fascism by definition.
Look them up in a concise dictionary or wikipedia and you will know that I'm right.
And from now on do fucking research on what you're going to talk about before giving false information on what they are.
That law is wrong of course, and likely to be very old. But many other laws have helped steer a country in the right direction.
What makes you say that?
Yes many things 'should' happen. But they don't. And whichever way you look at it, a country that allows racist and bigots to ban people from their premises is far less tolerant than one that does not allow such things.
The only people who might find it tolerant are the racists and bigots.
Really?
If you think that's really comparable to children being brainwashed with racist propaganda you've got your priorities wrong. And fucking ease up on the 'moron' bit, kid.
No not really. Nobody has suggested BNP members are aroused by children. That's paedophiles you're thinking of.
The analogy, which has flown over your head, is that in the same way we don't allow paedophiles to be school teachers we shouldn't allow BNP members either. Because contact with either could be very damaging to a child.
It's not really such a bizarre concept that certain people should not be posted to certain positions is it?
BNP= racist, neo-nazi, fascist scum.
Fact.
Do you have but the faintest trace of a clue what you're saying?
Dear dear...
And the right to freedom of expression isn't a fundamental principle? Fucking hell, why not go the whole totalitarian hog...
Let's get this straight. Only one of us advocates the state banning a single viewpoint whilst allowing others. It isn't me. I never have supported apartheid because it discriminates, is state sanctioned discrimination, upheld by force.
I advocate that all viewpoints are valid and that people should be free to express their conscience providing that violence is not part of that. You advocate that the state uses the force of law to ban people.
Which is closer to apartheid, the one which allows all views or the one which discriminates?
No we don't, we make it tolerant. Check the definition again. What we have now is a country which doesn't tolerate a certain perspective. Thus by definition - intolerant.
How the fuck isn't that political?
A man who has committed no crime. Gosh why would I do that?
Of course it's a fucking viewpoint. A political standpoint. Just not yours.
So the only person who can teach about facism is an anti-facist. Yeah, that should give a balanced viewpoint. Hell on that basis you would make a great RE teacher
Yes.
I object most strongly to the concept that any political viewpoint should mean that someone is unemployable. You should be ashamed of even suggesting it. For someone so tolerant you show distrurbing undemocratic traits.
No, I am suggesting that your view is just as odious if you are the person who wants to brainwash children by refusing to allow opposing viewpoints to be taught by people with opposing viewpoints.
I believe that the EU Human Rights Acts do not work because they don't protect honest citizens such as you and I but they protect criminals (Paedophiles, Rapists, Murderers etc.) from getting the punishment they deserve as it's against their human rights. What happened to the rights of their victims? Live an honest life and the government gives you fuck all. Commit a serious crime and you get a plasma screen TV, Private swimming lessons etc.
To say that the Human Rights Acts works is either a sign of Naivity or Informed Ignorance.
Should happen and can happen, as long as we can bring back a sense of community that we have lost. And yet again you have dodged my question.
Teaching that so called harmless Conservative opinion breeds hate in kids, but of a social class.
And teaching that drug use is O.K creates the next generation of Dealers and Addicts.
In truth, I wouldn't want anyone teaching their views to my kids. I'd want them to form their own ideas about groups. I found through my own experience that letting children observe and choose their beliefs, as well as being given facts (I'm not talking about opinions here either whether or not they are based on facts), they normally make the right choice.
Teach them about what a fascist system does. How it routes out people of a certain ethnicity and kills them or gets rid of them from a country. How it murdered countless millions in a war started by them and their mission to pretty much cleanse the world.
And the moron bit was an angry reaction. Sorry.
And I didn't mean that, that way and you know it. I was showing you the flaw in your analogy.
The BNP member at worst can plant ideas in a childs head, as anyone can, but does not physically harm them. As primary school teachers they would be dangerous but at high school level there is much less danger as the kids start to have enough sense to discount it as racist bullshit.
The appropriate legislation in schools is in place so that they can't discriminate. Discrimination = Sacking or Disciplinary. Neither of which are good publicity for their party. That would be enough to keep most in check. Those that don't can be sacked for discrimination but you can't just carpet ban because of someone's political views. It's like you said before, to hold such views is allowed (although wrong) but it's only when they act on these they are a problem.
A paedophile causes mental and physical harm to a child. This is a whole other kettle of fish to the BNP teacher. Paedophiles are the sick and twisted fiends we need to ween out of this society.
BNP= Racist and Nationalist, Not National Socialist (Nazi).
They broke off from the National Front= Neo-Nazi, Fascist scum in the late 70's as they did not want to be associated with the Mein Kamph reading NF.
Also because they wanted to take power away from Kombat 18= Violent Neo-Nazi Scum whereas the NF did not.
Is that knowledgable enough for you?
Know your political history before you make claims about people not knowing what they are talking about! I know exactly what I am talking about. I believe it's you who doesn't have a clue.
Assuming you're from the UK I'm going to call you on this one, because I'm afraid I don't believe you. I've never heard (in recent times) of any language being banned in the UK. So evidence please...
ETA - there was a law banning public signs from being in anything but English which was repealed in the 90s - perhaps this is what you mean
You definitely read too many tabloids. You're certainly parroting their rants almost word by word. Shame it's mostly overblown distorted garbage- even if the odd prisoner gets a flat screen in his cell.
Why? It has worked in Europe for many years and it now works for Britain as well.
Remember, for every front page ranting in the right wing tabloids there are many more cases of the Human Rights Act helping others, and indeed giving a basic level of protection that should be paramount to any civilised society.
That is not the norm, I'm sure you'll agree.
The point is that while it is possible there is always going to be a bad teacher somwhere, we know that most people are decent by defintion and there is no reason to distrust them, whether they happen to be conservative or 'hippies'.
BNP members however advocate something that is nothing short of an abomination and well outisde the normal political spectrum. They are a unique case amongst themselves. They peddle poison, and poison must not be allowed to enter the mind of children.
Sure, and I agree with teaching them that. But do you really think a BNP member would put it like that, without putting up spin?
Yeah, I have less of a problem with that. I still wouldn't want a BNP member teaching anybody younger than 16.
But we have always taken extra measures to protect children. We need to exercise extra care around them. That's why we should take extra precautions.
I'm surprised you haven't gone one further and said they're actually a left wing party because they support 'workers rights' or something.
Instead of reading from their carefully worded manifesto you need to look at the bigger picture. They're a bunch of lunatic fascist racists from their corporal punishment and death penalty proposals to their wishing to kick out every non-white out of Britain. And more.
They're not stupid enough put it in print of course. They want to remain legal and Glass Eye has been caught saying they need to present themselves in a different light to the public. But don't be under any illusions of what they are or aren't. Whether they qualify as fascists (they do) is a moot point: they're still a bunch of shit-stirring racists of the worst kind.
Incidentally Combat 18 (I'm sure you know what 18 stands for) was set up by the BNP. It was only after a string of horrific attacks by the group and suspicions that C18 had been infiltrated by the security forces that the BNP ditched them. Not that they are too concerned about violence themselves. As reported by Private Eye they have even had trouble finding suitable candidates to field as most of them have criminal records for various serious offences including GBH, armed robbery and others.
The British did attempt to stamp it out in Ireland. Not sure if it was actually illegal though.
Actually some people reckon it was set up by the British state as a honey trap.
But Apartheid wasn't about views was it? It was about actions.
Apartheid is the closest we've had in recent times the hypothetical country discussed earlier. A place were actually people of a certain race are banned from being on certain areas, beaches or premises.
Now imagine for a minute that blacks in Apartheid South Africa were given the power to ban whites from their ghettoes and bars (not too far fetched as they were no go areas for whites anyway).
Does that seem a tolerant country to you?
Perhaps it's impossible to have a country that is 100% tolerant.
But a country that allows repulsive racist rules to exist that deny people of certain race, gender or sexual orientation service or entry into premises is a lot more intolerant than a country that ensures everybody receives fair treatment.
Think about it.
Is extremism. It's outside society.
It's all about common sense and trying to protect the vulnerable. If you hear a certain breed of dog has a very high incidence of attacking children unexpectedly, would you be happy buying a dog from that breed instead of the hundreds of other more reliable and safer breeds just because the dog in question is not known to have gone apeshit?
So presumably you have no problem with a teacher grooming children and telling them sex with adults is okay... It's only a viewpoint and so long as he doesn't do anything himself is alright innit?
Or do you agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere?
No, many people from many backgrounds could teach them about fascism, Tories and UKIP included. But a fascist not only is hopelessly biased but is also an extremist. Extremists by definition tend to be a tad divorced with the concepts of fairness and balance.
I haven't said they are unemployable. I said they're not suitable to teach children. School teacher is not exactly the only position in the universe.
Who said I want to brainwash children? I want to protect them.
Please tell me you would agree to a paedophile being allowed to teach children sex between children and adults is perfectly alright. Would you really?
Hence why it is even more outrageous for you to say that we should trust our Govt to act in judgement of what is morally right when they will happily deny what you consider to be fundamental.
No it isn't
The important difference being banned by the state.
You advocate banning by the state. I don't.
A state that has laws which deny people of certain races access etc isn't tolerant. A state where the citizens can choose to allow people onto their property or not is a tolerant one.
It obviously isn;t outside of society, it is part of it. Extreme is still part of the spectrum. You may not agree wit the views but it is still a valid political opinion.
Of for fucks sake. We aren't talking about grooming here we're talking about political viewpoints.
You want political censorship/discrimination Aladdin and that is not acceptable.
Yes, the moment violence occurs, as I have previously stated.
So would you be happy for a facist to teach about democracy or are you suggesting that all facists cannot be honest, fair and balance in political teaching?
Discrimination on political grounds is still discrimination. You are putting a bar on a job not because the person doesn;t have the qualifications but because you don;t agree with thie rpolitics.
Yet you call your ideal tolerant. It isn;t and this is just one example why it cannot be so called.
You advocate banning by the state.
Now, if a private school chooses not to employ someone with thos epolitical views, I would agree...
By only giving them your perspective. That is brainwashing dude.
Racism = bad. Four legs = good.
Why are you so scared of their message? As I asked before (when we talked about children, but as we're onto adult too now I shall ask again...), do you think that your argument is so weak that it cannot stand up to debate with the BNP.
If you do then you have to ask if your argument is right, if you don't then why resort to anything other than putting forward your own argument...?
The put forwadr distorted facts, you put uot the real one. They stand on a soap boax, you stand opposite etc It's part of how democracy is supposed to work.
Coming from Spain I would expect that you, more than most of us, would understand why political dissent is healthy and it's partly why I am so surprised that you hold similar approach to that of Franco albeit from the opposite side of a political spectrum.
Except it isn't. We have anti-discrimination legislation.
Except that it doesn't. That's assault.
er.. I'm not.
No it isn't. Employing a bouncer or security guard to physically remove someone from your place of business isn't illegal. Nor is calling the police to ask them to remove someone who you have asked to leave. And if you are consistant with your argument so far, if the business owner considered being black, or gay, or Catholic to be adequate reason for the person's removal, it would be entirely appropriate for the person to be removed on such grounds, and you would actively support the police doing such a job if the business owner requested it.
Yes you are. You are claiming that the law is taking away the owners rights to decide who they want to let into their business. Yet you are ignoring the fact that it is the law that would give them this power in the first place. So in the tolerant society that you envisage, it would be the law that would give him the right to discriminate against people, rather than remove it.
One case out of probably many more. This was just last year.
Why do you think that it was a condition of the good Friday Agreement to provide official accomodation for Irish in Northern Ireland?
This came from another site about this same case.
It was made illegal during the first English invasions of Ireland 100's of years ago. This was repealed again 100 years later but was reinstalled again during the fight for independence from the UK as Irish Gaelic was associated with the Republican movement. This was repealed in Eire but was still illegal throughout the UK until just before the Good Friday Agreement was signed.
It seems that the PSNI has found a way round that though.
Unrelated to this but needs to be said K18 was the Militia wing of the Original National Front, which won 5 seats in the 1977 general elections. In 1978 the NF became split on the decision to disband K18 and become a proper political party. The group that wanted to get rid of them separated from the group and became what is now the BNP. K18 was fully absorbed into the NF bolstering its ranks. They also tried to gain support from the Skinheads, another Far Right Group.
A far right party is still a political party non the less, just like a far left party. If it was outside society we wouldn't be speaking about it. Anything outside society is an underground movement. This is a public movement which means it is within society.
And I do see through the smokescreen of the BNP Aladdin.Trying to class them as fascist is something they are not. Fascism is what's called an Ultra-Nationalism and its main aim is to form a mobilised nation, meaning everything under state control (a police state).
The BNP are nationalist. Nationalists seek to defend their country from a perceived threat. They don't seek to bring everything under state control.
They perceive Islam to be a threat as some refuse to integrate into society and seek to change this country into a muslim state. This means installing sharia law, and killing those that won't convert to Islam.
They perceive illegal immigration to be a threat as it starts to cause overcrowding and drains money from the system on trying to install ways to keep them out.
Only a very small minority of BNP members would want to kick out Indians, Africans etc. as they have integrated into our society and contribute to it. Stats show that the highest achieving students in schools are Indian students.
In my opinion it's only a minority of muslims that don't contribute to this society, but the same can be said for a minority of whites, africans etc.
It's my belief that society as a whole outcasts certain people for a whole range of things and that would not change with a law. They just find new ways around that law. The change has to come from within society itself and must start with the end of all this "We're right and your wrong" bullshit in terms of religion. We get rid of that and quite a few problems will go away. Then society can deal with the rest and leave the government out of this.
Which isn't what we are talking about.
Good point, and noted. Although don't they have to be licenced?
Indeed because then it becomes an issue of trespass.
No, I am saying that there should absence of a law. Discrimination shouldn;t be outlawed, but neither should there be a law defending it, that wouldn't be necessary.
ETA: And I'm not arguing against the concept of private ownership, but I am arguing that if the owner of a building wishes to open it up to the rest of society, then he should be required to conform to the rest of society's view on what is and is not acceptable (as voted for in a democratic system). No-one is forcing anything on him. If he doesn't wish to engage with society and reap the rewards, then he can keep his building private, safe in the knowledge that no-one will force him to allow anyone in that he doesn't want. That is my opinion, anyway.
Private property for private use, sure. Services, hotels, pubs, attractions, beaches, museums and any other such place, no it's not tolerant at all. It's the pinacle of intolerance, ignorance, bigotry and hatred.
It's poison which should be kept out of the minds of children. They'll have time to embrace such beliefs, if they so desire, when they grow up and can make an informed choice.
No. We're talking about exposing children to different viewpoints. Something you have said repeteadly is okay so long as the teacher in question hasn't commited a crime, since children apparently need to know about all points of view and it doesn't matter if the person delivering them is an extremist advocate of an extremist point view.
The principle is the same and you know it. Either we allow all extremists to peddle whichever filth they see fit to children or we accept that precautions have to be taken somewhere along the line.
As I said before so long as the BNP doesn't incite racial hatred and social unrest they are welcome to exist in my book. No political censorship there.
No, it's quite possible a few fascists are able to keep their beliefs to themselves and teach the children fairly, and even treat them fairly even though some of them will belong to some of those inferior races that must be kicked out of the country. But many more will not. There is a clear conflict of interests, certainly when it comes to the presence of non-white children in the classroom.
That'd because their particular political views tell them some children are inferior, unworthy and should not be in this country.
I honestly don't see the difference.
Would you be more comfortable if such laws were passed after a national referendum? This evil 'State' you speak of is not some unnacountable Soviet committee you know... it's a democratically elected, removable government of representatives. Of course, if people disagree with such laws being passed, all they need to do is vote for the party that will remove them if it gets into power. Such as the BNP I should imagine.
So what is the problem, or difference from individuals imposing the bans for that matter?
And to be perfectly honest, the masses are asses. Or certainly can be manipulated easily. If you allow shit-stirring racial lies to be uttered many will tend to remember those rather than a well constructed answer debunking it. That's human nature for you. Sensationalist short claims stick to the mind far easier than reason. Remember how many in Germany came to believe the Jews were responsible for all of Germany's ills. If only the National Socialist Party had not been allowed to peddle such filth...
Firstly, you have to assume the case is reported as true, experience with Republicanism suggests that this may not be the case. After all its not unlikely that many Republicans want to paint in people's eyes that the police in Northern Ireland are fundamentally corrupt.
Even if it is 100% true it doesn't show that Irish is illegal, more that some police officers misuse their powers.
It is not unknown for any police officer in any country who is questioning someone who cannot understand the language to detain them until someone can be found who can speak the language.
The GFA gave official recognition for the Irish language (ie it good be used in official documents, on public signs etc). This does not mean it was illegal before. Same as Welsh wasn't illegal before the Welsh Language Act gave them equal status.
In fact the motto of the Royal Irish Regiment is 'Faugh A Ballagh', which is Irish rather than the Latin of most regimental mottos
According to the Law,it is the "state"(/Her Majesty) that allows a person to claim ownership(/equitable title) of a "private" residence.
To be consistent with the "simply bollocks" conclusion, wouldn`t you have to advocate "the state" enforcing the same legislation over all property ?
Alternatively:
I`m free from persecution/prosecution to live MY life in accordance with my own discriminations.
I don`t think any law gives you the power to do things (excepting in a legal sense).
It can stop you by someone ultimately using physical means/violence to restrain you presumably because they consider themselves to be "law abiding".
How many times have you discriminated against someone in the last 24 hours ?
When you have considered ALL those occasions, imagine how you would feel if "the Law" forbade that action of discrimination, and compelled you to enter into relationships (of WHATEVER nature it happened to be) with EVERYONE you had CHOSEN not to.
The only way to keep the building "private" by those standards would mean NO-ONE but the owner was allowed in.
e.g. if he let say, his wife in (and she wasn`t in any way a legal owner) then he would be discriminating against approxiamately 6 billion others.