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.
Options
BNP duo acquitted of race hatred charges
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm
Hooray! Long live unlimited and unchecked freedom of speech!
:rolleyes:
Hooray! Long live unlimited and unchecked freedom of speech!
:rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
:thumb:
However,it doesn`t (live), does it ?
There`s always someone who wants to cut out the tongues of those who don`t keep to the script.
They would have been locked up if they were Muslim Extremists. But its ok they're white so its fine! :yeees:
Damn right.
Although I mean it, whereas yours is clearly sarcasm.
Surely you must think there is a limit of what people can say without fear of prosecution. If someone said 'all Muslims are rapists and murderers and an inferior race who should be kicked out of the country', would you actually have a problem if whoever said it was convicted by court of law for such comments?
Not as big a problem as the person who said it would have.
Only joshing with you.
Didn't actually say that though.
I welcome the verdict, as bakward as their comments have been they never actualy incited racial hatred, the speech was also made in private.
If he had said "Islam is a wicked vicious faith and Britain is a multicultural hellhole so go out now and attack any Muslims you see" then it would be a different story.
Yerascrote, I know Griffin didn't say anything so offensive. I'm just trying to find out whether people believe there should be absolute freedom to say anything you want, no matter how offensive, or if there should be a point where a line should be drawn on the sand.
I guess where I would disagree with most of you guys is where the line should be drawn.
As I said, I know I'm in the minority and probably have it wrong, but I just can't help it when it comes to such people and such comments.
The myth of a mystical elite to rule over the proles - after all the people are sheeple.
True.
Abu Hamza for instance. FFS, fucking Facists are allowed off scott free, anone on the left gets crap, an religious extremist gets crap...
Hmm, makes you wonder what the real ideology of our so-called democracy is.
Bollocks. How many muslim extremists have been jailed for criticising another religion?
Not everyone of course, or even a majority, but a sizeable minority. And that can lead to serious trouble and unrest.
I'm slightly puzzled as to how this falls within the remit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the slimy twat isn't PM yet...and I can't remember him swapping jobs with John Reid. And I'm somewhat disturbed at the prospect of the law being changed and bended to allow the conviction of Griffin and Collett...
But the scaremongering by the left wing press has painted the BNP as a bigger threat than they are and persuaded the police and CPS into a stupid prosecution which stood no chance of success
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6137986.stm
So which is the biggest creator of the BNP the Sun or the Guardian?
The BNP get their support from disillusioned Labour voters, the few areas where they have performed strongly have been traditional Labour strongholds. Of course the BNP remain a fringe party with very little widespread support and in comparison to many of their European counterparts the BNP are a very minor political force. I wouldn't credit the 'rise' of the BNP to the media, it's more to do with some traditional Labour supporters feeling failed by the Labour Party. And in all fairness the Labour Party has failed its traditional supporters in addition to the rest of us.
Labour MP Frank Field has said before what should worry us is when the BNP get a leader with some talent; I think he's got a point. The BNP do not have the right answers to the problems facing Britain - but they're raising issues a lot of people want raised, and the liberal establishment response of stifling any debate with cries of racism doesn't work as well as it used to.
Abu Hamza? He got the same result, did he? Not that I am auggesting Abu Hamza should have been let free, but this reeks of double standards.
:yeees:
How loong did it take before action was taken against Abu Hamza in spite of his rhetoric?
Griffin has never made a call to his followers to go out and spill the blood of Muslims ... so your is a rather poor example.
As a matter of interest, where IS your personal line line drawn in the sand?
Some Abu Hamza quotes. Some equally backward comments can I am sure be attributed to Griffin. However, imo inciting terrorism - which is what Hamza repeatedly did is more serious than simple-minded intolerance.
If you're going to jail the BNP basically for being racist twats are we also going to jail thousands of Muslims for being anti-Semitic homophobes? In a free and democratic country free speech should be unrestricted, the only restriction I think I can justify is incitement of murder. And whilst racist BNP thugs and backward Islamists are undesirable unless they incite murder/terrorism there's not a lot that can be realistically done.
Meanwhile isn't it somewhat odd that all these people protesting against the BNP outside the court were absent when Hamza was preaching and at his trial? Do they only care about racist white people?
Until the day it becomes true, anyone who suggests certain race are all rapists, criminals, terrorists, inferior, etc (delete as appropriate) should be punished by law like the subhuman piece of shit they are.
I`d view you as crazy as the person who made that suggestion.
Not that I`d care (aside from keeping as far away from you both as possible), but maybe psychotherapy could help.
I couldn`t, however, envisage a day when I`d want to inflict violence/"punishment" on either of you. Either by myself, or through a 3rd party ("by law").
That would equate to absolutely thousands of people.
But it can be done- and it should be done. Think of the hundreds of thousands (if not more) people who had very public racist attitudes towards blacks in some Southern states in America only 50 years ago. Whereas racists might still be about the shit-stirring public racism has been massively cut down.
I think that the fact the Government is attempting to silence anybody with radical beliefs is frightening. Think about it, the BNP are considered pretty radical now and once they're silenced, who next? Somebody slightly less radical?
This whole "you say what I want you to say and I can twist what you say if I want to and get you locked up" attitude by the government is unfair. Why can't Griffin stir shit and then newspapers like The Sun can? Maybe because the Sun support Labour and Murdoch and Blair are buddy buddy?
I don't like the BNP, of course... But think how Griffin would be ripped apart by Paxman on TV... Will The Sun support them? Probably not... As I've already said, the country's best selling paper bums New Labour. There's a difference between shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre and being against immigration (and homosexuals in the BNP's case).