Flintoff's bizzare anti immigration rant

[Jono]

Reckon this one's in with a shot.

1967 referendum.

Most definitely:

YouTube - Motlop Kicks one of the great goals of the year at Subiaco

... among other reasons of course

 

[Burgey]

Reckon this one's in with a shot.

1967 referendum.

Of course, though that at least had bi-partisan support at the time, thank goodness.

The Communist Party Bill was put up by an incumbent govt at a time when there was mass hysteria against Communists.

 

[Uppercut]

What are some of the anti-EU points? Coming from an outsiders PoV, I see it as a real positive. Perhaps I am looking at this from a very narrow viewpoint (e.g, the European Union Space agency, and their other achievements in science when pooling their collective resources). Plus, considering the history of the continent, a more unified Europe does sound quite good in theory. But my knowledge of its problem isn't extensive, besides the whole Turkey issue (which IMO should not happen).

I'm pro-Europe anyway, as much as anyone in England seems to be, but points against it- it's not as democratic as it could be, people don't like their laws being made by someone in another country (a bit superficial- rarely do people ever object to any of the laws themselves, but it offends their principles nonetheless and fair enough). There's the Turkey thing of course, some points about a lot of Eastern European people coming over here (the economic points are more or less pure bull, but there's social objections that have some validity- it's not desirable to have a large section of your community who can't speak English).

In its favour, an argument that's rarely heard but IMO the most convincing, is that Europe means choice. Massive, massive amounts of choice. A bad old joke used to say that in heaven the French made the food, the English made the jokes and the Germans made the cars, while in hell the French made the cars, the English made the food and the Germans made the jokes. Well in the EU, everyone can drive German cars, eat French food and tell English jokes. And if you don't like it, you have the freedom to go and live in any one of twenty or thirty other countries- no strings attached. In addition there's massive political security, the chance to be a lot more economically competitive, the fantastic trade opportunities allowed by a stable universal currency (which we refused to join, being stupid dickheads) and a conglomerate of countries that can essentially bail you out if you're ever having serious money problems. But mainly the freedom and choice.

The EU isn't perfect for sure, but having an EU>>>>>>>>>having no EU for me. I don't think the population here appreciates how much **** pulling out would land us in.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I'm pro-Europe anyway, as much as anyone in England seems to be, but points against it- it's not as democratic as it could be, people don't like their laws being made by someone in another country (a bit superficial- rarely do people ever object to any of the laws themselves, but it offends their principles nonetheless and fair enough). There's the Turkey thing of course, some points about a lot of Eastern European people coming over here (the economic points are more or less pure bull, but there's social objections that have some validity- it's not desirable to have a large section of your community who can't speak English).

In its favour, an argument that's rarely heard but IMO the most convincing, is that Europe means choice. Massive, massive amounts of choice. A bad old joke used to say that in heaven the French made the food, the English made the jokes and the Germans made the cars, while in hell the French made the cars, the English made the food and the Germans made the jokes. Well in the EU, everyone can drive German cars, eat French food and tell English jokes. And if you don't like it, you have the freedom to go and live in any one of twenty or thirty other countries- no strings attached. In addition there's massive political security, the chance to be a lot more economically competitive, the fantastic trade opportunities allowed by a stable universal currency (which we refused to join, being stupid dickheads) and a conglomerate of countries that can essentially bail you out if you're ever having serious money problems. But mainly the freedom and choice.

The EU isn't perfect for sure, but having an EU>>>>>>>>>having no EU for me. I don't think the population here appreciates how much **** pulling out would land us in.

This sums up my approach to things pretty adequately, too. Most people who want Britain to secede from the EU are saying so out of fear and paranoia - rationally speaking, the majority of the advantages seem to lie in remaining a member.

 

[kingkallis]

Despite being an Indian, I dont think Freddie said anything wrong!

 

[BoyBrumby]

Then who gets the right to say who is or isn't allowed to share their views?

You? Me?

If it went to a democratic vote in the HoP to whether the BNP should or should not be allowed to continue as a party and the result was that they weren't aloowed then that's democracy.

Though that'd be dangerous since the outcome would be mass rioting which is far more detrimental than allowing some idiots to talk crap of which hardly anyone pays attention to anyway.

If your concience can handle loss of life due to outlawing the legal way of expression, whether or not you agree with what is being siad, then you have a big problem. I personaly would hate the BNP to be outlawed and people be severly injured or killed as a direct result. Make no mistake, that's what would happen if they were outlawed.

The law, as I alluded too. Someone might "believe" something slanderous or libellous about an individual or group; if they share their belief they might expect to be sued for it.

If a group seeks to erode democracy whilst hiding behind its apparatus there's a case to be made they should forfeit the protection of it.

I think your last two paragraphs are a wee bit hysterical, tbh. & the implied threat of violence must be the worst reason to legalise anything, surely?

First, I wouldn't concede that an extreme party would necessarily be a minority party. Without meaning to Godwin the discussion, look at the Nazi party. Regardless, even if they are a minority party, which most of them are, most parties find themselves needing to temper their extremist views to go mainstream (though obviously not always).

The question is though, that the supporters will still feel the same way regardless of whether you ban the party, so why not bring them into the fold and allow them to work within the system rather than resorting to illegal radical means (as many skinhead/nazi parties do become).

Not sure what happened in the 1930s is of direct relevance to today, tbh. Fascism was rather more credible as an ideology back then. Subsequent events rather discredited it. As LP Hartley would have it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".

& surely if a party's views become more popular amongst mainstream folk those views cease to be extreme? A lot of what we take for granted now would've seemed radical in the 1930s and vice versa, I'm sure.

Finally, is there any hard evidence to suggest that including extremist political parties in the democratic process has any affect on their other less democratic activities? The BNP are fully franchised over here, but have a very prominent skin-headed, sieg-heiling faction too. A lot of the leading lights (Nick Griffin included) have been convicted of various crimes of hate or incitement.

 

[Goughy]

I think your last two paragraphs are a wee bit hysterical, tbh. & the implied threat of violence must be the worst reason to legalise anything, surely?
.

Yeah, I may not agree politically with you all the time but I completely agree that the fear of violence isnt a good reason to make something legal.

Subsequent events rather discredited it. As LP Hartley would have it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".

Great quote but didnt you use it a week or two ago

 

[rivera213]

The law, as I alluded too. Someone might "believe" something slanderous or libellous about an individual or group; if they share their belief they might expect to be sued for it.

If a group seeks to erode democracy whilst hiding behind its apparatus there's a case to be made they should forfeit the protection of it.

I think your last two paragraphs are a wee bit hysterical, tbh. & the implied threat of violence must be the worst reason to legalise anything, surely?

No, I meant who would get to decide which parties are allowed to exist and which aren't.

The BNP exists because the law allows them to. If you change the law so the BNP weren't allowed to operate, what limit would you set for other parties. Obviously parties which blatently support crime (which the BNP don't do in such a blatent way) then sure. But how about fringe parties such as the UKIP who have anti-EU undertones. Should they be allowed to exist?

The last 2 paragraphs are just my opinion based on what would happen based on what I've seen and I think it's one shared by the major parties which is why they allow the BNP to exist. They could easily pass a vote to ban the BNP but there are reasons for not doing so. The biggest reason being that violence would erupt if the BNP were banned.

Trust me, if you saw the majority of their supporters in London, you'd agree.

 

[Uppercut]

Terrible idea to drive these groups underground I'd say. It's harder to control them when you force them to operate in secret.

 

[brackenNY]

He didn't say anything wrong. And I'm mixed race.

It's like in the states where we see tons of people who only speak Spanish. It's rude they would have the arrogance to come to my country and not give a crap to learn my language so they can converse with me. It's a middle finger to natives.

 

[Redbacks]

Suprised nobody has yet mentioned 'the Treaty of Versailles' as a key difference between now and 1930's.

 

[Burgey]

Suprised nobody has yet mentioned 'the Treaty of Versailles' as a key difference between now and 1930's.

It goes back way further than that....

 

[Top_Cat]

Terrible idea to drive these groups underground I'd say. It's harder to control them when you force them to operate in secret.

I dispute that a little. It's swings and roundabouts, really; if you keep undesirables public, you risk increased membership/publicity. If you shun them, sure they'll go underground but you eliminate a really strong driver for increased membership; getting to hang out with the popular kids.

The archetypical example is the KKK; when they were legitimised by having politicians amongst their numbers, they were huge and got more huge. When shunned, their membership numbers went through the floor and publicly are a bit of a joke these days. From a Policing perspective, keeping track of a massively public organisation requires similarly massive resources. They'll, of course, complain about your harrassment of them too and be public enough to make some of the complaints stick. If they're having to do secret meetings, thankfully, many of these types of groups aren't that smart about concealing it, they brag, etc. Fewer numbers, even in trying to be secret, are easier to monitor. Crooks of that nature tend to stick out, their movements often drawing attention to them. A lot of groups tend to die on the vine when this happens, only the extremists of the extremists remaining.

Myself, I'm all for keeping it all public, pointing and laughing at them and yes, ultimately, I agree public = better. But the argument to shun them is pretty compelling too and I don't think it's a given that shunning a group or groups will mean you lose track of them entirely. It pre-supposes that they'll be able to operate the same way in secret as they would if public which, in my view, ain't the case. There are ways and means to monitor extremists elemnts of society without them even knowing (and, no, blanket CCTV isn't the only way, thank you HomeOffice).

 

[Neil Pickup]

In its favour, an argument that's rarely heard but IMO the most convincing, is that Europe means choice. Massive, massive amounts of choice. A bad old joke used to say that in heaven the French made the food, the English made the jokes and the Germans made the cars, while in hell the French made the cars, the English made the food and the Germans made the jokes. Well in the EU, everyone can drive German cars, eat French food and tell English jokes. And if you don't like it, you have the freedom to go and live in any one of twenty or thirty other countries- no strings attached. In addition there's massive political security, the chance to be a lot more economically competitive, the fantastic trade opportunities allowed by a stable universal currency (which we refused to join, being stupid dickheads) and a conglomerate of countries that can essentially bail you out if you're ever having serious money problems. But mainly the freedom and choice.

The EU isn't perfect for sure, but having an EU>>>>>>>>>having no EU for me. I don't think the population here appreciates how much **** pulling out would land us in.

That argument, whilst a convincing one, only refers to freedom of trade. I don't think you will find any opponents to unrestricted trade (it's not hurting Switzerland or Norway to be in the single market but outside the political bloc).

What is the argument for the rest of the EU, however? As time passes, I grow more and more uncertain as to its aims and ideals. Who in the UK presently stands to benefit from the incessant expansion of the Union? It doesn't feel like it benefits me. I cannot imagine us ever being in an economically appropriate position to adopt the Euro, which appears to be one of the centrepoints of a United Europe: our country works very differently to the continent. Why consign ourselves to the economic/political/social repercussions of the Union?

 

[Richard]

I don't think you should ever outlaw the BNP. It would be a dangerous precedent.

Very dangerous precedent, would be an absurd abuse toward democracy.

No indeed - banning them is the one thing that might turn them into something more than they are

It would also, of course, be tantamount to endorsing their methods

Wasn't suggesting the party be "banned" (whatever precisely that would amount to anyway), merely that the "all speech should be free" mantra one is utter nonsense and many people use it to hide behind when their literal meaning is "I want to talk a load of offensive crap and don't want someone to stop me".

 

[fredfertang]

Wasn't suggesting the party be "banned" (whatever precisely that would amount to anyway), merely that the "all speech should be free" mantra one is utter nonsense and many people use it to hide behind when their literal meaning is "I want to talk a load of offensive crap and don't want someone to stop me".

............. freedom of speech should not be, need not be and indeed is not an absolute right even in the UK - there are, I believe at least 50 "Proscribed Organisations", and if the BNP were to cross the line they would join them

 

[GIMH]

What would they have to do to cross the line?

 

[fredfertang]

What would they have to do to cross the line?

errrrrrrr .... I can't claim to know and CBA to look it up - I presume there is a bit more to it than simply advocating/inciting (in this context I would hope that is a distinction without a difference) criminal conduct, but not a lot more

 

[Uppercut]

He didn't say anything wrong. And I'm mixed race.

It's like in the states where we see tons of people who only speak Spanish. It's rude they would have the arrogance to come to my country and not give a crap to learn my language so they can converse with me. It's a middle finger to natives.

So can you teach me to speak Cherokee so I can stop being so rude and arrogant?

 

[Uppercut]

That argument, whilst a convincing one, only refers to freedom of trade. I don't think you will find any opponents to unrestricted trade (it's not hurting Switzerland or Norway to be in the single market but outside the political bloc).

What is the argument for the rest of the EU, however? As time passes, I grow more and more uncertain as to its aims and ideals. Who in the UK presently stands to benefit from the incessant expansion of the Union? It doesn't feel like it benefits me. I cannot imagine us ever being in an economically appropriate position to adopt the Euro, which appears to be one of the centrepoints of a United Europe: our country works very differently to the continent. Why consign ourselves to the economic/political/social repercussions of the Union?

I don't generally agree with continued expansion of Europe- in particular I certainly don't want Turkey to become a member. Care to expand a little on the bolded part? I'd be interested in some of the details of this.