[Flipside]

Thing is, if these people consider their standpoint to be legitimate, why do they all wear baloclavas? I mean, can you see the campaign bus for Combat 18 now.... Vote for this Ski-Mask!

[Gank]

Originally posted by vyper
Gank - the wording is good, but the intent is no different form what I have implied.

but the article clearly states that far right political movements like le pens wont be affected, it just applies to the likes of pseudo-paramilitary organisations.

[vyper]

Maybe they're just fugly, you never know


Edit: I think we're time warping again.

[Gank]

Uh huh

[Flipside]

I've said it before, we never had this before Goober had that Flux Capacitor in his Avatar....

[Kie99]

Originally posted by vyper
Because if you don't challenge it in open debate you legitimise it anyway - by making it look too dangerous to be taken on in public.

I always make harsh posts on my first reaction to something I really disagree with, so I apologize.  Here is my more measured response.
But my point is I that you can't allow parties with openly racist opinions to stand for any sort of power.
If the Nazis started preaching "DEATH TO THE JEWS" again they would be (Quite Rightly) beaten down and supressed.  But by your logic (and I'm not saying this is your opinion) they should be allowed to say that due to the human right of free speech.

I'm gonna get in trouble from Goober.  I used "but" to begin a paragraph!

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem is, IMO, that you have to let these people have their say - and then illustrate exactly why they are wrong in response; because if you ignore a problem, it won't go away.  And I think excluding them is ignoring the problem, and it's a problem we have to be more aware of and confront at every occasion,

I'm all for confronting them. The problem is that I don't think that was what this debate is about. Was there really likely to be anyone in the audience who was likely to agree with the BNP arguments?
  Or was this just going to be a case of students and other debators patting themselves on the back at managing to linguistically tie this prick up and watch him squirm as he struggled to defend his views to an audience brighter than the knuckle-dragging half heads he normally deals with?

Cause unless there were going to be people in the audience who would be swayed by the arguments i really don't think it was a good idea.

The BNP actually enjoys more support now than it did 20 years ago. Why? Cause they've stopped dressing in Doc Martins and tried to make themselves look like respectable politicians. But they're not. And I find it worrying when people try to treat them as such. No matter how good a job you do of saying that they are wrong in a political debate you'll probably find that you've only won more converts amongst those idiots for whom stopping asylum seekers entering the country completely sounds like a good idea.

And if you really think that you can convince people of the wrongness of the BNP's ideas simply by debate then you really need to ask yourself how come no one has managed to convince the Dail Mail to stop printing similar kinds of rubbish?

[vyper]

[q]they should be allowed to say that due to the human right of free speech. [/q]

Yes they should because it's their right to say whatever they want if they believe in it. If you think our responsibility to stop these people lies in banning them from even campaigning you don't understand democracy: Our task is to provide a strong counter-argument against them, a strong political opposition to them that people will support instead of them.

There is no "quick fix" like banning them - all that does is show how afraid we are of them.

I refuse to be scared into sacrificing my principles.

[vyper]

Originally posted by karajorma




And if you really think that you can convince people of the wrongness of the BNP's ideas simply by debate then you really need to ask yourself how come no one has managed to convince the Dail Mail to stop printing similar kinds of rubbish?

Because it suits people with power for the population to be caught in a permanent struggle between just men and idiotic or deliberately evil  men.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


I'm all for confronting them. The problem is that I don't think that was what this debate is about. Was there really likely to be anyone in the audience who was likely to agree with the BNP arguments?
  Or was this just going to be a case of students and other debators patting themselves on the back at managing to linguistically tie this prick up and watch him squirm as he struggled to defend his views to an audience brighter than the knuckle-dragging half heads he normally deals with?

Cause unless there were going to be people in the audience who would be swayed by the arguments i really don't think it was a good idea.

The BNP actually enjoys more support now than it did 20 years ago. Why? Cause they've stopped dressing in Doc Martins and tried to make themselves look like respectable politicians. But they're not. And I find it worrying when people try to treat them as such. No matter how good a job you do of saying that they are wrong in a political debate you'll probably find that you've only won more converts amongst those idiots for whom stopping asylum seekers entering the country completely sounds like a good idea.

And if you really think that you can convince people of the wrongness of the BNP's ideas simply by debate then you really need to ask yourself how come no one has managed to convince the Dail Mail to stop printing similar kinds of rubbish?

I think that the more of the BNPs arguements you can conclusively discredit, the more you work towards destroying their faced of respectibility.....

Oh, and the problem with the Daily MAil (and others) is that it's not interested in factual accuracy or fairness, only playing to stereotypes and prejudices for extra sales.... I don't think there's really any way to tackle  that sort of willfull ignorcance, but we can tackle those like the BNP, who try and claim they are in some way different (i.e. not racist ****wits).

 We need to show that an intelligent debate between any educated sane person and the BNP is not a level playing field, and in turn expose them for the people they are.

Plus, it;d be fully to have seen him absolutely destroyed......

(NB: there's an arguement that by suppressing such views, you can find yourself unable to identify the scale and nature of the problem, and thus how to tackle it)

[Flipside]

The thing is that if we have to use compulsion and the force of law to make them act the way we want them to, how does their idealogy and method of control differ from our own?

In a way, I feel we must allow them to exist and state their views, however grotesque or deliberately misinterpreted, simply to prove we are better than them.

[Kie99]

Originally posted by vyper
[q]they should be allowed to say that due to the human right of free speech. [/q]

Yes they should because it's their right to say whatever they want if they believe in it. If you think our responsibility to stop these people lies in banning them from even campaigning you don't understand democracy: Our task is to provide a strong counter-argument against them, a strong political opposition to them that people will support instead of them.

There is no "quick fix" like banning them - all that does is show how afraid we are of them.

I refuse to be scared into sacrificing my principles.

We already have a strong argument against them it lasted from 1939-1945!  A strong political opposition?  Almost every political party in England is ahead of them in the polls and at elections.  The so-called quick fix is to stop the incitement of racial hatred by bigots and racists.

[vyper]

I give up...

Edit: Actually no I don't. Listen here and listen good - the minute you ban them or censor them you become no better than them.

When you understand that principle then come back and talk to me.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I think that the more of the BNPs arguements you can conclusively discredit, the more you work towards destroying their faced of respectibility.....

I agree with that. I just don't find it likely to happen. People leap onto the first snake oil merchant who happens by with a quick fix for their problems and then will fight you if you try to keep them from throwing their money at him.

Maybe I'm cynical but I don't happen to believe that the people who would vote for the BNP would be pursuaded by an orderly political debate.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, and the problem with the Daily MAil (and others) is that it's not interested in factual accuracy or fairness, only playing to stereotypes and prejudices for extra sales.... I don't think there's really any way to tackle  that sort of willfull ignorcance, but we can tackle those like the BNP, who try and claim they are in some way different (i.e. not racist ****wits).  

Yes we can. But not by giving them more time for them to claim that they aren't racist. Remember the theory of the big lie. The BNP are managing to pursuade people that they aren't racist by repeating that they aren't over and over again. The last thing we should be doing is to invite them into political debates so they can repeat their lies to a wider audience.

Originally posted by aldo_14
We need to show that an intelligent debate between any educated sane person and the BNP is not a level playing field, and in turn expose them for the people they are.

Sadly that only works for the intelligent people listening. The average BNP voter doesn't hear his candidate being destroyed. He only hears that only one person on the stage offered a solution to problem he believes exists while the others suggested band aids to the problem.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Plus, it;d be fully to have seen him absolutely destroyed......

I found it funny to see Bush similarly stuck for an answer on numerous occassions. Didn't stop 55m people voting for him did it?

Originally posted by aldo_14
(NB: there's an arguement that by suppressing such views, you can find yourself unable to identify the scale and nature of the problem, and thus how to tackle it)

I'm not talking about suppressing their views. I'm simply saying that the mass media and public arenas like the this dicussion have no business legitimising their case by making it appear as if they are just yet another mainstream party.
 The BNP only became a threat when we allowed them to pretend like they were a valid political party. In the 80s they were just racist skinhead thugs who were completely marginalised and unable to make any serious showing in the polls. We need to remind people that inside the suits they are still the same thugs as before. By saying "Come into my university. We'll sit down and have a chat" you simply don't show the required level of revulsion needed to convince people that they are scum rather than simply a political party you don't agree with.

Originally posted by kietotheworld
We already have a strong argument against them it lasted from 1939-1945!  A strong political opposition?  Almost every political party in England is ahead of them in the polls and at elections.  The so-called quick fix is to stop the incitement of racial hatred by bigots and racists.

 That wouldn't work. In fact it legitimises their complaints by turning them into martyrs. "Look! The state is clamping down on me just because I talked out against allowing asylum seekers into the country. They don't want to stop them coming here and takng your jobs!"

You stop people like the BNP by marginalising them. You make them appear to be a bunch of w**kers that no one in their right mind would ever consider associating with (which isn't hard cause quite frankly, that's what they are). Mentioning WWII is a good point. Push the fact that they have links to Hitler. Make fun of the fact that the so called British National Party would have probably defected to Germany to fight against this country 60 years ago.

What you don't do is give them cause to make it look like they are anything apart from a bunch of pure out and out w**kers. That means not making them martyrs by cracking down on them nor making them seem respectable by treating them like a political movement.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


I agree with that. I just don't find it likely to happen. People leap onto the first snake oil merchant who happens by with a quick fix for their problems and then will fight you if you try to keep them from throwing their money at him.

Maybe I'm cynical but I don't happen to believe that the people who would vote for the BNP would be pursuaded by an orderly political debate.

Maybe, but they're already 'lost' anyways - the BNP is trying to push itself as a more moderate party, and there are people who may be swayed by that..... I think we need to keep emphasising how reprehensible the BNP is; they're going to spout out their ****e anyways, might as well make sure they do it somewhere where they can be exposed as the scum they are..

Yes we can. But not by giving them more time for them to claim that they aren't racist. Remember the theory of the big lie. The BNP are managing to pursuade people that they aren't racist by repeating that they aren't over and over again. The last thing we should be doing is to invite them into political debates so they can repeat their lies to a wider audience.

The point is to show they are racist by answering directly.

Sadly that only works for the intelligent people listening. The average BNP voter doesn't hear his candidate being destroyed. He only hears that only one person on the stage offered a solution to problem he believes exists while the others suggested band aids to the problem.

Then at the very least you're stopping new voters from considering them.

I found it funny to see Bush similarly stuck for an answer on numerous occassions. Didn't stop 55m people voting for him did it?

**** happens.....

I'm not talking about suppressing their views. I'm simply saying that the mass media and public arenas like the this dicussion have no business legitimising their case by making it appear as if they are just yet another mainstream party.
 The BNP only became a threat when we allowed them to pretend like they were a valid political party. In the 80s they were just racist skinhead thugs who were completely marginalised and unable to make any serious showing in the polls. We need to remind people that inside the suits they are still the same thugs as before. By saying "Come into my university. We'll sit down and have a chat" you simply don't show the required level of revulsion needed to convince people that they are scum rather than simply a political party you don't agree with.

I think this is a case of showing why they are wrong, rather than telling them they are; the BNP is trying to posture itself as a legitimate political party anyways - so why not take advantage of it to destroy their credibility?  The more the BNP put their views up for debate, the more they can be disproven.

EDIT; bloody hell, these multi-position quotes are tough, aren't they?

My point is - you can't ban the BNP at the moment; they've been careful not to leave themselves open to prosecution under inciting racial hatred (I know that's what they do, but they obfuscate it to make a prosecution look political.... ), so it's be treading dodgy ethical / free speech ground to do so.

If you ignore them. they you risk giving them credentials of being 'the one true alternative to The System' (or some ****e like that); if you leave their views unchallenged, whilst they are presenting them as moderate and rational, then you risk losing the opportunity to make it clear what they really are.

[Kie99]

Originally posted by vyper
Listen here and listen good - the minute you ban them or censor them you become no better than them.

THis is the part where the debate between us ends.  Neither of us will budge on out specific principles so there is no point in continuing our discussion.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Maybe, but they're already 'lost' anyways - the BNP is trying to push itself as a more moderate party, and there are people who may be swayed by that..... I think we need to keep emphasising how reprehensible the BNP is; they're going to spout out their ****e anyways, might as well make sure they do it somewhere where they can be exposed as the scum they are..

But do we need them to spout their ****e in order to refute it? All that is needed is to repeatedly mention them in a derogatory fashion throughout the debate. Would you need a real nazi present in a debate on why the holocaust was a bad thing?
 You and I both agree that they are trying to push themselves as a moderate party. I can't help but see things like this as helping that cause.

I'm sorry Aldo but I don't think you can destroy their argument in a single sitting in such a way as to not let them win more votes. The only defence to the big lie to make sure that the source isn't taken as credible. Regardless of what arguments you make that they guy is wrong you'll only manage to convince the undecided that the BNP is a political party with different views from the big 3 because no matter how much you push the guy you won't get him to come out with a statement that destroys his credibilty enough to do that. You can push and push but he won't say that the reason for his plans are to keep ni**ers and p**is out of the country.
 Without that it mearly looks like he's making bad political decisions. You and I can read the undertone but the people who may actually believe that the BNP is a moderate party certainly won't hear it.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Then at the very least you're stopping new voters from considering them.

But are you? I really don't think you are. They'll just see them as a political party with different views. That's the wrong strategy in my view. They aren't a political party. They're a hate group. They need to be treated as such.

When I have a go at Bush I get ignored by his supporters because they see me as a liberal out to destroy America with my poorly thought out views. Do you really think that people coming around to the moderate view the BNP are pushing will really see you any differently no matter how many times you claim that their leader couldn't answer questions on imigration with anything other than rhetoric?

Originally posted by aldo_14
I think this is a case of showing why they are wrong, rather than telling them they are; the BNP is trying to posture itself as a legitimate political party anyways - so why not take advantage of it to destroy their credibility? The more the BNP put their views up for debate, the more they can be disproven.  

I don't think so. When you're dealing with people who could vote for a "moderate" BNP you're dealing with sheep. These people don't want to hear the issuse discussed. They want to be told how to vote. Thinking is too much work. They just want to know that their problems are being dealt with.
 These people aren't going to hear the economic reasons why stopping immigration is a bad idea. They aren't going to hear why multiculturism is a good idea. All they're going to hear is two parties disagreeing about how to stop asylum seekers moving in and taking all the social security money. And they're going to remember that only one party had a definate answer.

Originally posted by aldo_14
If you ignore them. they you risk giving them credentials of being 'the one true alternative to The System' (or some ****e like that); if you leave their views unchallenged, whilst they are presenting them as moderate and rational, then you risk losing the opportunity to make it clear what they really are.

So what you do is marginalise them. I'm not saying that you ignore them. I'm saying you push them back to the situation there was in the 80s when no one considered voting for the BNP even as a protest vote. You push them back down until the Monster Raving Loony Party seems like a more sensible option. You push the fact that they love Hitler and no doubt give each other Nazi salutes as greetings.
 You make them objects of ridicule like they were in the 80s. You make the very idea of voting for them seem like pissing on the grave of your grandfather who fought in the war against people who loved Hitler. Then see if they can position themselves for any kind of moderate role in politics.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


But do we need them to spout their ****e in order to refute it? All that is needed is to repeatedly mention them in a derogatory fashion throughout the debate. Would you need a real nazi present in a debate on why the holocaust was a bad thing?
 You and I both agree that they are trying to push themselves as a moderate party. I can't help but see things like this as helping that cause.

I'm sorry Aldo but I don't think you can destroy their argument in a single sitting in such a way as to not let them win more votes. The only defence to the big lie to make sure that the source isn't taken as credible. Regardless of what arguments you make that they guy is wrong you'll only manage to convince the undecided that the BNP is a political party with different views from the big 3 because no matter how much you push the guy you won't get him to come out with a statement that destroys his credibilty enough to do that. You can push and push but he won't say that the reason for his plans are to keep ni**ers and p**is out of the country.
 Without that it mearly looks like he's making bad political decisions. You and I can read the undertone but the people who may actually believe that the BNP is a moderate party certainly won't hear it.

Actually, I view this as a way to destroy their credibility.


But are you? I really don't think you are. They'll just see them as a political party with different views. That's the wrong strategy in my view. They aren't a political party. They're a hate group. They need to be treated as such.

I think this is a way to show them as such; expose their policies for what they are - racist rantings.  At some point, you need to make it clear how much of a lie their 'morate' posturing is - how better to do so than in a forum where their every comeback can be responded to and dismissed?

When I have a go at Bush I get ignored by his supporters because they see me as a liberal out to destroy America with my poorly thought out views. Do you really think that people coming around to the moderate view the BNP are pushing will really see you any differently no matter how many times you claim that their leader couldn't answer questions on imigration with anything other than rhetoric?

Part of the reason is to stop them coming round to that moderate view; you need to show how wrong the rhetoric is.

 If you put out PR, or whatever, statements against the BNP (as political parties do), thn they can just dismiss it as electioneering against a 'threat' - but if they come to a debate, then they can't just try and deflect the criticism.

I don't think so. When you're dealing with people who could vote for a "moderate" BNP you're dealing with sheep. These people don't want to hear the issuse discussed. They want to be told how to vote. Thinking is too much work. They just want to know that their problems are being dealt with.
 These people aren't going to hear the economic reasons why stopping immigration is a bad idea. They aren't going to hear why multiculturism is a good idea. All they're going to hear is two parties disagreeing about how to stop asylum seekers moving in and taking all the social security money. And they're going to remember that only one party had a definate answer.

I thought the whole point of the (St Andrews) debate was whether multiculturalism was good or bad?


So what you do is marginalise them. I'm not saying that you ignore them. I'm saying you push them back to the situation there was in the 80s when no one considered voting for the BNP even as a protest vote. You push them back down until the Monster Raving Loony Party seems like a more sensible option. You push the fact that they love Hitler and no doubt give each other Nazi salutes as greetings.
You make them objects of ridicule like they were in the 80s. You make the very idea of voting for them seem like pissing on the grave of your grandfather who fought in the war against people who loved Hitler. Then see if they can position themselves for any kind of moderate role in politics.

I'm not sure this would be all that different to ridiculing them; the problem is that the BNP have gained support (it seems), and that it may not be as easy or possible to turn them into the party they were in the 1980s.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Actually, I view this as a way to destroy their credibility.

I don't. I simply don't have the same kind of confidence in the average man on the street that you do. The average man on the street is a dickhead when it comes to politics. Sure he understands a few concepts and can talk about a few issues but if something sounds good more often than not they'll be swept up by it. Remember that although they might not be meaning to do it the BNP has powerful support in the form of the Daily Mail. Almost every day that rag prints something that grants the BNP extra support by making it clear that the government is failing to do anything about the "scourge of illegal immigrants". Against that sort of background how do you destroy their credibility? They seem to be the only ones with solutions to the problems the Daily Mail is talking about.

When Michael Howard suggested Illegally setting a quota on the number of asylum seekers coming into the country did anyone rise up to call that racist? Probably. Will the average man on the street remember that come voting day? Probably not.

It's the same sort of thing here. The average voter. The moderates that the BNP are trying to reach won't remember that the BNP are a bunch of racist thugs no matter how good your arguments are because their members will be careful to avoid flat out racism in the discussion. They'll make it look like an economic argument. Or a way to prevent benifit fraud.

Sure the university audience will largely see through their arguments but the average guy on the street has a harder time doing that. All he'll see is a debate between two parties on economic and immigration policies, and the average man on the street is used to tuning those out completely.

Originally posted by aldo_14
I think this is a way to show them as such; expose their policies for what they are - racist rantings. At some point, you need to make it clear how much of a lie their 'morate' posturing is - how better to do so than in a forum where their every comeback can be responded to and dismissed?

There is a danger in public debates in thinking you can respond sufficiently to every point the other side makes. You can't. What's worse is that the BNP will be giving simple answers to their questions where as you'll be giving long complicated ones that the average guy on the street will have trouble understanding and is used to tuning out.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Part of the reason is to stop them coming round to that moderate view; you need to show how wrong the rhetoric is.

No. You need to make sure that the rhetoric is immediately viewed as idiotic before they can even say it. That prevents it sinking in and then having to be dug out by the proof it is wrong.

Originally posted by aldo_14
If you put out PR, or whatever, statements against the BNP (as political parties do), thn they can just dismiss it as electioneering against a 'threat' - but if they come to a debate, then they can't just try and deflect the criticism.

This isn't about what the political parties do. This is about all of us preventing the BNP even being seen as a legitimiate political party. If they can't get heard on stage they can't deflect the criticism that they're a bunch of w**kers either.

Originally posted by aldo_14
I thought the whole point of the (St Andrews) debate was whether multiculturalism was good or bad?

Yeah. But the St. Andrews debate would largely be an exercise in preaching to the choir as I said before. The average man on the street could't care less about multiculturalism. He will however notice however that the BNP candidate was allowed onto the university grounds rather than being kicked out like he would have been 20 years ago.

Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm not sure this would be all that different to ridiculing them; the problem is that the BNP have gained support (it seems), and that it may not be as easy or possible to turn them into the party they were in the 1980s.

Ridicule is a powerful force in society. The reason why the BNP gained support is precisely because people were allowed to take them seriously. We didn't do enough to remind people that the guy in the suit who was running for election was a close relative of the skinheaded thug who beats up little old ladies and steals their pension money. It still isn't too late to do that. You won't stop these people with reasoned debate. You need to convince the average man on the street that they are scum and that he shouldn't even consider listening to their views because he can already predict the racism that will be present in them.

[Grey Wolf]

In a sort of vaguely related note, a college near me had a similar situation recently. Hamilton College invited one Ward Churchill, a Native American/Amerindian/Indian (take your pick of words) activist and a professor at the University of Colorado, to participate in a debate on the limits of free speech. Turns out the guy had written an article comparing the people in the WTC to Nazis on September 12, 2001.