UKIP opposes petition by EU MEPs to deny funds to the AENM

Post Reply New Topic

What, you mean UKIP want to kick all non-white people out of the country? Er... no.

We tell people to step aside from their duties if they repeatedly misrepresent party policy when speaking officially.

The official party spokesman on LGBT issues is gay and in a long-term relationship, and he can't see any real advantage to the 'gay marriage' proposal. It's a lot of hot air for very little real benefit. Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to get married in law - call it 'civil partnerships' for all and let the churches marry who they want.



Would that be true?



I can't imagine that that's massively more than most white people, to be honest with you.



And they're right.



They're all pretty vile characters, to be honest with you.

I suspect far more people in many white working-class Labour constituencies would prefer to meet Tommy Robinson (the ignorant crook) than, say, people in the Tory shires.

You'd probably find similar - if not worse - figures in left-wing parties for equivalent figures on the extreme left as opposed to, David Cameron.



I can't seriously imagine that it's that high amongst the membership. Some do, some don't - I don't support the death penalty and neither does the leader or many other people within the party. I don't think the state should be in the business of taking life.



But Communist parties should still be allowed to take funding?

I'm sorry, but in a democracy, you either fund all political parties or none. I'd rather it was none. A political party should stand or fall on its own merits and the money it brings in.

I agree. Let's stop funding Palestinian charities that cheerleader for racist terrorists.



That question is quite leading, if it's phrased in that way.

There's a difference between saying you're not keen on a film like The Bunny Game (which is, from what I can gather, just torture all the way through and the torture in it's all real*) to be passed uncut and advocating going back to the BBFC circa 1985 or even more restrictive than that.

* The BBFC press release on its banning:



What kind of censorship where the people thinking of? I don't support censorship in most cases. I still don't think the BBFC is liberal enough, for instance - and I'd rather they were gotten rid of.

There are lots of people in UKIP who, aside from the main issue of leaving the EU, I don't agree with very much on. Then there are those that I do agree more with.

As for 80% or whatever of UKIP members believing that Islam is a danger to Western civilisation - that's only about 10% more as the number of British and French people polled that think that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation/incompatible with national life. It's not a massive shock and I agree with them. That's not to say that Muslims in general are a threat, but Islam is, certainly.

Last edited by Tequila on 03 Feb 2013, 11:38 am, edited 4 times in total.

Democracy isn't a perfect system. That's the problem. With enough funding, tatics and the apropriate situation any party can rise to power. An example is that Hitler was elected. There is some value in representative democracy in that (in theory) people with more expertise rule the country. I'm not saying that the government should decide those who are a suitable party to participate in elections. That would be a highway to dictatorship. What I'm saying is that the constitution can decide that. And the constitution can decide that only if there is a consensus among MPs of both the government's party and the oposition. And, aditionaly, the constitution can only be changed in a limited period of time which hapens only 4 years or so (I'm not completely sure how it works, but it's along these lines). You have the luxury of living in a country with no crisis comparable to the one in Portugal and with a very long democratic tradition. You don't envision radicalism in the UK in the near future. Here in Portugal there was a contest to see how the portuguese people would vote who was the best portuguese person of all time. In the UK Churchil won. In Portugal it was Salazar (which, as you probably know, is the previous fascist dictator). So I'm glad that our constitution corrects (democraticaly) some of the holes in democracy. Otherwise we could be living a dictatorship again. (That has been farther from being true, but that's another story).

Because that's the only way to be racist

"We might be homophobic, but we're not racist!" is not a great selling point.

Oh, and...

No. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28732/

It is. Page 19: http://www.channel4.com/media/c4-news/i ... 287%29.pdf

30.7% of the population "bothered a lot", 24.2% "bothered a little".


No they aren't.


Well for a start, we don't have an "extreme left" in this country that is remotely as prominent as the EDL or the BNP. The most economically left wing parties like the CPB are so periphery that even a left-leaning person with an interest in politics such as myself can't name a single Communist politician in this country. The SWP, likewise. I suppose that leaves RESPECT, who are backed by the SWP, and therefore Galloway and Yaqoob, etc., and maybe Lucas (who incidentally was also highly approved of by the UKIP and BNP supporters, at least relative to the mainstream parties)/ Yaqoob isn't extreme at all, and though Galloway has backed some dodgy Middle Eastern politicians in the past, he's no worse than the majority of politicians who happily supported Mubarak and even Gaddaffi. As said above, the BNP are a left wing party (being racist doesn't make you right wing) but I would be very surprised if Lib Dem voters approve of Griffin more than Cameron.

I'm not sure how you can call Clegg and Miliband "pretty vile characters" in the same breath as Tommy Robinson.

Same link as before, a few pages earlier.


But Communist parties should still be allowed to take funding?

I'm sorry, but in a democracy, you either fund all political parties or none. I'd rather it was none. A political party should stand or fall on its own merits and the money it brings in.
[/quote]
It depends on the Communist party. If it is a racist communist party, then don't fund it; if it is planning genocide, then don't fund it. If it is a perfectly reasonable party that wishes to distribute wealth equally, then fine. See also: Labour vs the BNP, or a racist libertarian party versus a non-racist libertarian party.

This survey: http://www.academia.edu/245067/Strategi ... _Elections

cites 64% of UKIP supporters in the 2009 European Parliament elections, compared to 44% of all correspondents. 20% more Islamophobic than the country as a whole is significant. This shows that your party is more likely to consist of "fruitcakes and loonies", as Mr Cameron put it.

It's not homophobic to oppose something that even a lot of gay people aren't particularly interested in and that wouldn't give them many more practical rights than they already have. This gay marriage thing seems to be a mania of the metropolitans rather than something that will really help gay people in day-to-day life. Gay folk pretty much have all their civil rights, and discrimination against them is illegal (I disagree with companies being made to serve people they find abhorrent, but not on anti-gay grounds).

The BNP would ban homosexuality from the country if they were elected.
UKIP believe in maintaining the present law, whereby gay/lesbian sexual activity is fully legal and accepted and where full civil partnerships are available for those that want to make a commitment.

I don't like what David Cameron did when he banned churches from performing gay marriages and I think this will lead to in-fighting within the church, as you will have some churches that are gay-friendly and those that are not.

Homophobia would be like suggesting - as that idiot Winston McKenzie did - that gay adoption is a form of child abuse. He should have been kicked out of the party for that, not merely disciplined, and I'm irritated that he wasn't.



I don't think they are the main cause of crime, but I think they make up for a decent minority of offences.



I can't imagine that that's massively more than most white people, to be honest with you.
[/quote]
It is. Page 19: http://www.channel4.com/media/c4-news/i ... 287%29.pdf

30.7% of the population "bothered a lot", 24.2% "bothered a little".

Oh, that's where you got it from? That hatchet job?

If 55% of people in that survey (which includes Muslims too, I suspect) of the general population are hostile to mosques being built in their community, why would it come as any real surprise to you that that figure would be higher in a conservative party? And, what, 83.5% of those people in UKIP are bothered? I wonder what would be the result if you asked Conservative Party voters? I bet it would be similar to the UKIP figure. Frankly, considering the nature of mosques in Islam (they're a symbol of conquest) I'm surprised that it's not higher.

A majority of the people in the non-UKIP or BNP survey were bothered and this will people of all different faiths and backgrounds. Keep that in mind.

Also, they're just asking voters here, not the actual members.



Have you ever read Islamic scripture? It's all about subjugating and killing unbelievers.

Frankly, any religion that demands the murder of apostates in its text (and that's without the primitive view of gays and women, and the separatist language used about non-Muslims) should be viewed with extreme suspicion in any civilised society.

I've met many reasonable and decent people who call themselves Muslims. It's a pity there isn't a civilised Islam but the texts speak for themselves.



The BNP are a prominent bogeyman, nothing more. Something to scare the lefties with.

The BNP have two - no, actually, they lost one of them - so one MEP, mainly elected on a protest vote (I doubt a lot of BNP voters seriously want to kick all whites out the country) and I strongly suspect they will lose him next time round, and UKIP considered themselves very unlucky not to get his seat in back in 2009. The left seem to have this mad obsession with the BNP that I can't understand. The party is a joke and is haemorrhaging members like no-one's business. Griffin is a focus of national ridicule whenever he's on TV. His party is going nowhere. If you want to look at the rise of the far-right in Europe, Jobbik or Golden Dawn are much more real targets, only left-wingers don't want to go and demonstrate against those types because they'll probably end up dead.

As for the EDL, they're certainly no angels (and they have some very unpleasant members, and it's been obvious for a long time that a group like the EDL, due to its very nature, would have serious problems in being infiltrated by these types) but most of the time they protest relatively peacefully. It's usually the UAF that brings the violence and acts like fascist anti-fascists. Frankly, I think the EDL are harmless compared to some of the frightening extremist movements taking root in Europe and in the Soviet Union, not to mention the far-right movements in the Arab world.



I can name two. Bob Crow (although he's a trade union leader, he's that senior that you could call perhaps refer to him as a politician in some respects - he comes across as quite thuggish to me) and Arthur Scargill, but he's a very old fella now.

Communism has died a death in the UK in the electoral sense. There are lots of disillusioned people on the extreme left hanging about, but they have no proper communist or socialist voice. The left seems to be tiresome, constantly-infighting bunch of microgroups, and the recent scandal with the SWP has been absolutely shocking as an observer.



You mean the Green Party? There's a fairly left-wing voice I suppose. I wouldn't vote for them, but they face the opposite problem to UKIP in that they can only get elected in very small, specialist parts of the country. UKIP is a lot more popular in the number of votes but its support is spread more thinly.



Oh? She once described the 7 July 2005 London bombings as "reprisal attacks". That's pretty dodgy. I find her very irritating, but she's not quite as bad as some of the others.



You can say that again. He's been up the arse of nearly every Middle Eastern dictator you can find at one point or another.



Did this come from the Huffington Post? The same Huffington Post that has a political editor that is on video saying that all non-Muslims live like animals?

Yes, and I'm sure you'll vote for that nice Mr. Cameron at election time.

You're moving the goalposts by quoting a survey that's more sympathetic to your point of view. If 85% of UKIP members claim that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation, is that really an awful lot more than the 77% of Britons that say the same thing? Or the 74% of French? I'd say that UKIP supporters were pretty much in tune with most of the rest of the country. Really, I'm surprised it's not more than 85%.

I think the problem we're having is that 1) your views aren't based in reality, and 2) you seem to have trouble forming logical arguments.

For a start, when I point out that UKIP members/voters are more likely to support the death penalty than the rest of the population, you seem to think I am suggesting you support the death penalty. That doesn't logically follow.

Then you defend UKIP by saying "it's a conservative party- of course it holds intolerant views!" That's no defence at all.

The BNP is a fading force (as if it was ever a force) but that doesn't stop it being prominent. Nick Griffin is more famous than George Galloway or Caroline Lucas.

I then quote a survey that is less sympathetic to the point I want to make because the data is more useful (it allows comparison of various political parties rather than just the BNP and UKIP), and you accuse me of cherry-picking data to suit my argument? You even quote more extreme figures for Islamophobia within UKIP than I do!

That study doesn't "come from" the Huffington Post. It was used in an article by them, but that doesn't mean it "comes from" them any more than an Oxford University report into the effects of MDMA "comes from" the Daily Mail if they report on it.

I probably won't vote for the Conservatives. If we'd have implemented AV (the fact that we didn't is probably my biggest grievance with Cameron), then I would be voting 1) Lib Dem, 2) Labour. Discounting independents, I would then vote 3) Conservative, 4) Green, 5) MRLP, 6) UKIP, assuming the same parties ran in my constituency as in 2010.

I was suggesting you were trying the "guilt by association" fallacy.



No - what I was suggesting is that UKIP views aren't significantly more 'intolerant' than the rest of the population. You'd probably find similarly 'intolerant' views in the Conservative Party. I can't change people's minds on that. These are the views of conservative-minded people. If you think that a violent, blood-soaked 7th century ideology with supremacist delusions isn't a threat to Western civilisation, I'm sure there's a party just for you out there.

Instead of calling UKIP supporters' worries about political Islam - which, from the evidence we see every day, seems manifestly justified - bigoted and Islamophobic, can you put a reasoned case together for fruther inviting Islam into our society? I can't think of a good reason, and neither can most of the Muslim Community™ organisations themselves give me a good reason that I could accept.

UKIP generally does the best it can to keep genuine nasties out of the party, but you can't stop people with views that you might well not be keen on if you knew about them from voting for you. UKIP can stop BNP members joining UKIP, but it can't stop them voting for them at election time.

What you should be looking at, is what the official party policy is. It's no good asking voters what they think, as I'm sure there are an awful lot of Tory voters who have views on race that would make the BNP look moderate (I know, I've met those people). Same with Labour, especially historically. (Eddie Booth-type Love thy Neighbour characters would probably have gone to the BNP in time.)

My point is that the views of the party are often at variance with the views of their electorate - i.e. more moderate, less anti-EU, more pro-immigration, more authoritarian, and so on.



Griffin is only more prominent because the media constantly talks about him and making him to be a big bogeyman. He's not a threat and should generally be ignored. He's an attention-seeker that they can rely on to bring about shock and outrage but he's not an intelligent or incisive politician.

Frankly, the biggest problem that the BNP have is Griffin. He's a laughing stock that seems to treat the party like a personality cult that even die-hard racists can't take seriously.

If there were ever a seriously charismatic Marine Le Pen type leader that took hold (probably not of the BNP, but of a new party), I think things may well be different, particularly in those neglected white housing estates.



Only because he's on the telly all the time.

And who could forget Gorgeous as the cat?



Only, I don't believe that they are Islamophobic. I believe they are spot on.

I wouldn't want a mosque here, as for one thing, there simply isn't a Muslim population locally that could sustain it. To add to that, the planning permission for local mosques seems to be getting bigger and bigger without the requisite justification or taking into account how it might inconvenience others. Some of the most extreme and triumphalistic mosque plans are finally being turned down, as it's plain as day that it would be a massive nuisance and inconvenience to residents and that there wouldn't be nearly enough worshippers actually using the building.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure we really that many more mosques in this country in most instances (in Blackburn, for instances, every other street seems to have a mosque or a masjid on it - I remember reading a cultural Muslim on a newspaper website who said that he found it too much and that there were enough, and that was some years ago now). I think it's approaching 2,000 now or something (it was estimated at 1,500 about six years ago)?

For an extreme example of what I'm on about, look at the (thankfully foiled) plan to build a humongous megamosque in East London. This was extremely controversial, not least amongst Muslims themselves. A lot of Muslims themselves did and do not want this proposal to go ahead, for many different reasons as you'd expect: that it looks like it smacks of triumphalism (you don't say); that smaller, more attractive mosques would be a better way to go about praying; worries about some of the people responsible for the whole project, and so on.

Don't you just love how those who accuse the Nationalists of being fascists and Nazis are the same ones who would deny funding to the Nationalists?

Why is it okay:
when the left wing parties decide something and then prevent any discussion by using the race card and other methods to silence opposition?
when left wing force censorship on the press to prevent the opposition getting any media coverage other than the left wing negative viewpoints?
when leaders of left wing parties create and fund a group such as the ironically named UAF to hound and cause trouble for the opposition in order to silence them.

Dictionary definitions.
Totalitarian:
1. Of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. Exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

Fascism:
A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

NOW CONSIDER WHO THE REAL FASCIST IS.