I was just having a...

Currently reading:
I was just having a...

Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
22,169
Points
3,110
Location
Nottm
debate with some people on another forum about the rights and wrongs of Manchester's SU banning the BNP from having a society.

One of the things brought up was Article 19 of the UN decleration of human rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

They used this to counter my argument, I don't want to argue further, too much work, however, how can that exist and people follow it if one of our laws states you're not allowed to incite racial hatred? No wonder lawyers love being lawyers lol. One thing says this which means another is wrong, but that can't be wrong but that implies something else should be right, which shouldn't be right but wrong......ahhhhh i feel like a dog chasing a tail lol.
 
As with most things, it's not black and white. Rules are almost always general guidelines, even though they should be adhered to almost all of the time, there will always be an exceptional case.

It's the same as the government saying they are trying to ensure sexual equality in all things, yet the retirement age is different for men and women. There are many things existing in law that are sexist, but how far do you take it.

I would say having a best actor and best actress at the oscars is sexist. If you had best black actor and best white actor, that would probably be considered racist, so where's the difference.

There will always be conflicting rules in any society, because the rules are for general use and at times they will overlap. Yes, it's a headache for lawyers, but that's what lawyers are for, amongst other things.
 
Paul, sorry my last post didn't really cover your initial debate.

As far as the existence of a BNP society is concerned. Provided they spread their ideas and views through media of various sorts, you could argue that they are not inciting racial hatred. It is up to the people who view that material to make their own judgements about what they see and hear. That said, who determines at what point it becomes inciting racial hatred. What criteria would it have to fulfill and what action would the BNP have to take to fulfill that criteria.
 
To try and tackle your initial point, most people would say that it's OK to have an opinion or right and to publicise it so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. As to where that infringement might begin is, as Neofolis says, open to interpretation. Difficult to articulate exactly but how much encouragement does another person need for example to be racist? While one person might need direct instructions to act, another might only need a vague idea. So do we count 'inciting racial hatred' as giving that vague idea or giving direct instructions, or who chooses where in between it lies?
 
I would say in this case you would have to judge the actions by the reactions. If they actively encouraged racial hatred and did everything they could to incite it, but no one took any notice, they would probably be in less trouble than if they just mentioned a few of their ideas on a flier and everyone acted upon them.

In such a scenario, I would suggest that we are all responsible for our own actions and the people who reacted to the fliers should be to blame, but with evidence of the fliers to support their actions, no doubt anyone involved with the creation or distribution of the fliers would be held in part responsible.
 
Some of the BNPs policies are actually quite good: i.e. hard line on crime and drugs, evicting drug dealers/addicts from council houses, getting rid of illegal immigrants and benefit spongers, etc. But they are blatantly racist and thus will never be taken seriously as a political party. It's a bit of a shame, as I've had enough of soft wooly-headed lefties running the country. The sort of people who think that sending joyriders on go-karting tirps will stop them nicking cars! :bang: how about chop their thieving fingers off, it works in Saudi...;)
 
That's true, spot on. The consequences of someone's actions should always be considered when assessing a situation. I know some people are 'mentally challenged' (is that what we're meant to call them these days?) etc. so should the vulnerable in society also be held responsible, or should they be protected by laws such as limiting free speech?
 
There are already laws governing people with mental difficulties. The laws say that they will be sectioned, if they are considered a danger to themselves or the public. Based on that, if they have not been sectioned, you would then have to investigate whether they were in sufficient control of their own faculties or whether the state was at fault for deeming them to be a "safe" citizen.
 
JonnyBoy said:
Some of the BNPs policies are actually quite good: i.e. hard line on crime and drugs, evicting drug dealers/addicts from council houses, getting rid of illegal immigrants and benefit spongers, etc.

OK, here goes, I'll await the stick I get for this.

Hard line on crime.

From what little I know about the BNP, I would assume that to mean more severe punishment. I firmly believe that incarceration has nothing to do with rehabilitation. Other than the few criminals that are geneticly predisposed to become what they are the rest are normal people who at some point have gone the wrong way. We are all products of our genetics and our environment, genetic screening can lead to many other much worse problems, so I won't cover that in this post. As for the others. We have been incarcerating criminals for thousands of years and it has not changed most of them for thousands of years, so why continue to do so, the main reason is budget. The second reason is that psychology is a relatively new science and despite the fame and popularity of many psychiatrists, is still predominantly theoretical. Most psychological problems are handled with drugs, which is not a cure, it is usually done to relieve symptoms. In the case of criminals, the psychology is quite different. How do you change a persons moral and ethical values and in some cases how do you make someone mentally stronger, braver if you like. I would say the best approach is through education of the benefits of conforming with society and through social development. They need to appreciate other people, they need to appreciate the effect their actions have on their victims. It is very difficult to change someone, that said, one sentence can change someone for the rest of their life. It would be improtant to find out what motivates the criminals to act the way they do and for them to understand why it is wrong, why it is unacceptable and how they would benefit from leading a law abiding life. This would be a very expensive and time consuming process, but I believe it is a process that should be used on test subjects, so that we can learn and get better and more efficient at dealing with them. As we get better at it, more people could go through the process. Depending on the nature of the crimes and the nature of the individual it would take varying lengths of time to rahabilitate them and some never could be, but as the process improves it could become cheaper than the cost of life incarceration.

Hard line on drugs.

I believe all drugs should be legal for many reason. Mainly I don't think the government should be able to decide what someone can or can't do to themselves. I don't think drug users should be allowed to use drugs in public or to be in a public place under the influence of drugs, but I think that if they want to use drugs in the privacy of their own home or the home of a friend/associate, they should be allowed to. If all drugs were legal, it would provide a large resource of revenue for the government who would most likely tax them highly. It would provide money for industry and jobs for people making, processing and distributing the drugs, though licenced outlets, of course, chemists would seem appropriate. It would save money fighting the crime that is caused by the illegality of drugs. It would mean that people buying drugs could be sure they were getting what they paid for and not something that could be considerably more harmful to them. It would mean that people could buy the drugs from a reputable establishment, rather than a criminal element. It would mean people could make their own choice about whether or not to try drugs, rather then being influenced by a pusher. Yes there would still be pier pressure, but that already exists. Personally I would rather my kids didn't get into drugs when they are older, but if they did choose to, I would rather they bought a clean product from a respected establishment and weren't forced to go somewhere, possibly dangerous, to take the drugs.

Evicting drug dealers/addicts from council houses.

If what I said above were the case, drug dealers wouldn't exist. Yes, there would still be a black market element selling cheaper than the licenced outlets, but that is the case for most products and is a minority. As far as the addicts are concerned. I genuinely believe that less people would do hard drugs, if they were legal. To many, especially the rebellious teens, the illegality is half of the attraction. Council housing is intended to provide for those who for some reason are unable to provide for themselves. I don't believe anything should be given freely and if people are given a council house, they should have to do community work to pay for it. I realise they do have to pay for it to some extent, but those receiving their rent from the social, the community work should be in lieu of that payment. No work, no payment, eviction.

Illegal Immigrants.

What I believe would be almost impossible in modern society, but I don't believe anyone has the right to own land. It just isn't ours to own. As such I don't believe in borders, people should be able to go where they want when they want. The problem with this country has been that it has a benefit system that makes it appealing to immigrants, because there is a good chance that they will have a better lifestyle here, without a job, than they would in their homeland. It is that that needs to stop, that would remove much of the appeal to immigrants.

Benefit spongers.

OK, I don't want people spending the money I have worked for, when they do nothing to earn it. There are many jobs in this country not being done. Anyone claiming benefit in this country should have to earn that benefit doing needed work. It could be charity work. It could be cleaning the streets. It could be any form of unskilled labouring. If they are incapacitated in some way, it could involve computer work, or putting letters in envelopes. There are plenty of boring, mundane tasks that most people do not want to do that could be done. This would also provide more incentive for them to find work that is less menial, whilst also allowing them to preserve some sense of self worth. They could even be taught a range of skills at the same time. How often does the government talk about shortage of skilled people in certain sectors. It could easily be eliminated. I know they have tried things like the YOP and YTS, but they were not inforced and were geared only to young people. Benefit should not be freely given, it should be earned.

Well that should do for now, hopefully some people will agree with some of my thoughts, but what the hell.
 
Back
Top