Welcome.....

[sasguru]

Every fascist party that has come to power has ended up being a dictatorship where the people have no choice about removing them.
That is, the democratic process is used, then abandoned.
Therefore ironically, you have to be fascist against fascists.
The world is not as simple as simpletons think.

HTH

[Mich the Tester]

That is where the BNP falls apart. There are many Brits who come from foreign stock and they are as commited to Britain as the rest of us. The problem is that there are nth generation Brits who still believe they are of another nation. It is thay that people are really concerned about, but they end up labelling all of them as one.

Sorry, but we live in a democracy and the people have the right to vote for who ever they wish. The world would be a better place without any number of leaders.

Simple fact is that the denial of political freedom is fascist. The use of force to silence ones political opponenets is fascist. The spreading of lies and propaganda about ones political opponents is fascist.

The only legitimate way of opposing parties like the BNP is to offer a political alternative. While they continue to use this legitimate mechanism we have to support their right to do so no matter how distasteful we find them.

If we’re going to have parties campaigning for people’s vote to throw out the immigrants, wouldn’t it be fair to give all immigrants the vote so that they can use the same democratic means to oppose their would-be oppressors or ejectors?

After all, at the moment I can vote in EU elections to throw out the non-EU citizens, but they can't vote to stop that happening. Likewise, Dutch voters van vote to throw me out of NL, but I can't vote to be allowed to stay. Surely a real democracy is a democracy for all, regardless of the choice of 'national allegiance'. I have no real 'national allegiance'; I've never really thought of the world in terms of countries and tribes, but in terms of individual human beings. I have a British passport because my parents are British and I've always had a British passport; the benefits of changing nationality don't really weigh up against the procedural difficulties and costs, but I don't have a great emotional connection to 'Britishness' any more than I do to 'Dutchness'. I am to some extent British, to some extent Dutch, to some extent German and to some extent Swiss. However, I'm better informed about Dutch politics than many Dutch voters and make a healthy contribution to the country's wealth and wellbeing. Should the legal nationality that was determined by my birth determine my democratic rights for all my life?

[AlfredJPruffock]

Every fascist party that has come to power has ended up being a dictatorship where the people have no choice about removing them.
That is, the democratic process is used, then abandoned.
Therefore ironically, you have to be fascist against fascists.
The world is not as simple as simpletons think.

HTH

Aye SG

In other words - do not Tolerate Intolerant Political Partys.

[sunnysan]

Ok

Aye SG

In other words - do not Tolerate Intolerant Political Partys.

So where do you draw the line?

So what you are saying is that any party whose policies are deemed intolerant, should be exempted from democratic process?

Who decides or tells us what political parties we are allowed have or whose messages we are allowed to hear?

I agree with you that most cases in history of a facist government taking power have been through the use, or exploitation of the mechanics of this country.

However, all parties manipulate the democratic process to achieve their own ends, not just facists.

Anyway, realpolitik aside, this country is way to ethnically diverse to have a white facist government, and realistically the BNP have very little chance of ever becoming a force to be reckoned with in mainstream politics.

The positive effect of them being voted for will hopefully be a galvinisation of electorate and motivation to political parties accross the spectrum to at least try and address the issues that the BNP is exploiting.

[ratewhore]

An article in yesterdays Grauniad talked about how the BNP, now they are a public body, have to promote equal opportunities, or face legal action.

It was written by a former chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, which I found rather ironic!!

[expat]

If we’re going to have parties campaigning for people’s vote to throw out the immigrants, wouldn’t it be fair to give all immigrants the vote so that they can use the same democratic means to oppose their would-be oppressors or ejectors?

After all, at the moment I can vote in EU elections to throw out the non-EU citizens, but they can't vote to stop that happening. Likewise, Dutch voters van vote to throw me out of NL, but I can't vote to be allowed to stay. Surely a real democracy is a democracy for all, regardless of the choice of 'national allegiance'. I have no real 'national allegiance'; I've never really thought of the world in terms of countries and tribes, but in terms of individual human beings. I have a British passport because my parents are British and I've always had a British passport; the benefits of changing nationality don't really weigh up against the procedural difficulties and costs, but I don't have a great emotional connection to 'Britishness' any more than I do to 'Dutchness'. I am to some extent British, to some extent Dutch, to some extent German and to some extent Swiss. However, I'm better informed about Dutch politics than many Dutch voters and make a healthy contribution to the country's wealth and wellbeing. Should the legal nationality that was determined by my birth determine my democratic rights for all my life?

Quite reasonably, the nationality that you have is what determines how you can vote in national elections. If you can't be bothered to become Dutch, why should you vote in Dutch national elections?

I know that the question can be complex: IMHO the whole thing rests on the unitary idea of a Sovereign Nation State, and that 3-way unity is strained by some special cases:

• people like you (and me) who have multiple connections or have acquired some new connections, or effectively forsaken old ones
• nations that are not states (Basque, Scotland?)
• states that are not sovereign (Palestine?)
• nations that are not sovereign (Roma?)

but I am not sure that it is strained to breaking point.

For example, it may be fixed by elected representatives taking the view that they are representatives of everybody including those without a vote as well as those who voted against them. I knew an Englishman in the US who was helped by "his" congressman, who declared exactly that (missing an epic opportunity to say, "I'd like to help you, son"). Similarly, the US courts allow foreigners to carry guns on the same basis as citizens, on grounds of fairness, and despite the clear national purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

A country may have a constitutional protection of human rights including those who may not vote; or a larger group may protect interests by having its own human rights legislation, or by representing people who are part of that larger grouping although not part of the Nation of the State where they reside: the EU does this.

Conversely, devolving power to smaller units can work: everyone should be able to vote in the local elections for the area where they reside, because Nationality is not normally a factor there. Multiplication of levels of government can be good for this.

For example, English people living in Scotland were able to vote in the referendum on Scottish Government, sidestepping the question of whether it was about nationhood or about local government. Nobody complained (possibly because polls showed that the English incomers were enthusiastic volunteers and were pretty solid in favour).

There are problems in acting as if every country were a unitary Sovereign Nation State, with a single people ("demos" in "democracy"), but the problems are not unique to this, and are soluble by many of the same considerations: e.g. your representative acts for non-citizen, in the same way as he acts for those who voted against him; EU legislation protects non-citizens of a given State, as it protects citizens of that State against the State.

[jimjamuk]

Point still is - they were voted in by a proportion of the population and given we all support freedom of speech even if they do spout a load of tulip - the bloke has a right to attend parliment as he represents those people who voted for him.

You never know - given the oppotunity to voice his opinions to the mainstream we might actually hear for ourselves what a load of tulip it is and he'll be out next time round

you carnt pick and choose democracy when it suits

jimjamuk (would never vote BNP)

[Mich the Tester]

Quite reasonably, the nationality that you have is what determines how you can vote in national elections. If you can't be bothered to become Dutch, why should you vote in Dutch national elections?

I know that the question can be complex: IMHO the whole thing rests on the unitary idea of a Sovereign Nation State, and that 3-way unity is strained by some special cases:

• people like you (and me) who have multiple connections or have acquired some new connections, or effectively forsaken old ones
• nations that don't match the state (Scotland?)
• states that are not sovereign (Palestine?)
• nations that are not states (Basque?)
• nations that are not sovereign (Roma?)

but I am not sure that it is strained to breaking point.

For example, it may be fixed by elected representatives taking the view that they are representatives of everybody including those without a vote as well as those who voted against them. I knew an Englishman in the US who was helped by "his" congressman, who declared exactly that (missing an epic opportunity to say, "I'd like to help you, son"). Similarly, the US courts allow foreigners to carry guns on the same basis as citizens, on grounds of fairness, and despite the clear national purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

A country may have a constitutional protection of human rights including those who may not vote; or a larger group may protect interests by having its own human rights legislation, or by representing people who are part of that larger grouping although not part of the Nation of the State where they reside: the EU does this.

Conversely, devolving power to smaller units can work: everyone should be able to vote in the local elections for the area where they reside, because Nationality is not normally a factor there. Multiplication of levels of government can be good for this.

For example, English people living in Scotland were able to vote in the referendum on Scottish Government, sidestepping the question of whether it was about nationhood or about local government. Nobody complained (possibly because polls showed that the English incomers were enthusiastic volunteers and were pretty solid in favour).

There are problems in acting as if every country were a unitary Sovereign Nation State, with a single people ("demos" in "democracy"), but the problems are not unique to this, and are soluble by many of the same considerations: e.g. your representative acts for non-citizen, in the same way as he acts for those who voted against him; EU legislation protects non-citizens of a given State, as it protects citizens of that State against the State.

This boils down to what one believes is the purpose of government. I do not believe that the purpose of government is to maintain loyalty to a 'nation state; I believe it is to defend the freedom of the individual and to provide those basic services that cannot better be provided by private initiative. The government is, for me, a utility. I pay them my taxes, they provide schools, roads, defense, a legal system and someone to empty the bins. I don't need all the paraphernalia of nationalism for that. I don't see why I should be forced to go through long procedures to ask the government for permission to give them my 'loyalty' or carry a particular brand of passport. I simply ask for the right to vote against the idea that some kind of 'national loyalty' should qualify me to influence the political process with my vote. I also want the right to vote against those who would deny me my freedom to migrate and lead my life as I choose. I could take Dutch nationality if I chose, but I don't see why I should. I may not live in Holland all my life. I may choose to live in the UK if my parents need care. I might choose to live in Germany or Turkey if my business can do better by going there. Why should I care about 'countries'?

Anyway, wouldn't the 'unity' of the sovereign nation state be strengthened by allowing the vote to all residents? Wouldn't that give people more of a feeling of belonging, such that in good time they would go through the formalities of taking up citizenship?

[Drewster]

Point still is - they were voted in by a proportion of the population and given we all support freedom of speech even if they do spout a load of tulip - the bloke has a right to attend parliment as he represents those people who voted for him.

Didn't he "win" a European Election..... doesn't that give him the right to 'cof to Brussels or Strasbourg or something......

[lilelvis2000]

Point still is - they were voted in by a proportion of the population and given we all support freedom of speech even if they do spout a load of tulip - the bloke has a right to attend parliment as he represents those people who voted for him.

You never know - given the oppotunity to voice his opinions to the mainstream we might actually hear for ourselves what a load of tulip it is and he'll be out next time round

you carnt pick and choose democracy when it suits

jimjamuk (would never vote BNP)

He has the right to attend the European Parliament. not the British Parliament as his party has (so far) won no seats in the UK British Parliament.

Once people see how totally useless he and this Brons chap are..will they vote for him again? This Brons chaps has a very checkered history as well doesn't he. NG is already claiming a conspiracy against him..the man is a cartoon.

Didn't they say the same about a certain Austrian come German in the 1920's?