egafd.com

So I can move back to Northern Germany/Southern Denmark due to Anglo-Saxon roots?

That would mean all the Irish could move back here due to England/Wales being the first lands they dwelt on upon crossing the channel......which would mean all Irish Americans too....

Democracy is mostly freedom, not complete freedom. There are lines you can't cross. I personally think that if the BNP as an organisation, or any individual members, cross a line then they should be put before a Court. But I agree that simply being an organisation people call 'fascist' and people having difficulty sighting anything now that BNP does that is fascist - all they can do is refer to things the BNP used to say and saying that the BNP still holds those views (which they probably still do, hence why I could not vote for them), but having no evidence that the BNP is like that STILL, then it would be very hard to ban the BNP just on the strength of 'they are probably this or that'.

If the family moved recently, like during the last few generations, then yes. If it was 1,500 years ago then that would be differnt.

Davey,
"looking a bit deeper into it though it only strengthens the BNP,s hand as now it can genuinly claim to be non racist"

The above statement is obviously nonsense.

Max, shame on you, that you can't see through this stuff. What on earth is a matter with you?

You have already posted "I've said before that I would never vote for them because of their Holocuast denial and their 'lets kick out the blacks' policies of the 1980s and 1990s. They say they've moved on from those views now, I'm not so sure, therefore I would not vote for them."

And then you say you agree with Davey's statement at the top of my post. Get a grip!

For many, many years, the BNP has had the following paragraph in its constitution.
"The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white make up of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."

Davey, I notice from a perusal of your previous posts, what typically happens is : 1. You post. 2. I crush you. 3. You dont reply but come back days/weeks later with the same old garbage. I notice that you had your bottom smacked on the Promotions forum recently by having your disgusting, racist post about inter-racial sex deleted.

Perhaps instead of following the usual pattern and running off , you can explain to the forumites how the above paragraph from the BNP constitution is NOT racist in its intent?

D

"All the BNP leadership will have to do is say 'we have a Sikh member who agrees with us and supports our policies' (or black, Japanese, or whatever) then the critics will have little to say back."

This is clearly bullshit. Are you seriously stating that it is not possible for a Sikh, Hindu or whatever to be racist? Of course critics will be able to come back and criticse the BNP for being racist if their policies are racist, irrespective of whether they have black, brown or whatever members.

D

David, I said earlier how I could never vote for the BNP because of their past (and probably present) views on things and that position is consistent with saying that davey's last comment is something I support.

Firstly, I believe the UAF are a bunch of twats. They are more militant and violent than the BNP are yet for some reason few criticise them. When the Labour Party lose this year, these Unite Against Fascism dickheads will disappear too. These loony-left groups only rise when the Left are in power. They will vanish this year.

Secondly, I have always said it is wrong that there can be ethnic specific groups that white people are turned away from and that be ok (black social groups in Notting Hill, Asian Elders groups in Southall and countless others), yet the other way around (the BNP) and the organisation is taken to Court because it is apparently 'racist' for having that membership policy. I would like to see no bodies being ethnic specific, and this includes the Black Police Officers Association and The Voice newspaper. Either get rid of them all or get rid of none of them - but it is wrong to allow it for ethnic minority's and not for the other racial group.

Thirdly, I believe this new thing the government has done WILL backfire. Once the BNP has a few ethnic minority members then all the vilification thrown at the BNP by the Eastablishment will come to an end as there will be so much less to criticise them for. The call of 'racists' wont be able to be made any more, and a so on.

"David, I said earlier how I could never vote for the BNP because of their past (and probably present) views on things and that position is consistent with saying that davey's last comment is something I support.

No it isn't consistent. That's the point. Davey said "it only strengthens the BNP,s hand as now it can genuinly claim to be non racist "

I repeat Davey's view is nonsense and for you to agree with it, is stupidity on your part. Racism is not just about a white person hating a coloured person, purely because of their colour. It is about anyone discriminating against individuals purely on the basis of race, colour, descent or ethnic origin. So Sikhs can be racist in their dealings with Muslims and vice versa etc etc. So to have a Sikh or Hindu in the BNP does not make the BNP able to claim they are "genuinely, non-racist". It just means they have added another bunch of racists to their membership given that the Muslims have now replaced the Jews in the BNP line of fire.

This is the UN definition of racial discrimination
"the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".

Notice the term "white" does not appear in the definition.

Get it now?

D

Why would it be different? Either you're descended from a certain region or you're not. You seem to be making up your own rules.

I'm aware that racism means any race treating any other race in a negative way, but in practice is only ever really refers to white people doing it to others. Rather like how sexism could mean women being sexist to men, but no one ever cares about that.

Many Irish Americans, or Greek Australians, are anything from 2nd to about 7th or 8th generation. They would probably be aware of the names of the members of their family who migrated and there would be stories that were passed down from those forebares to the present generation. Someone whose family arrived 1,500 years ago is so far removed from those forebares (ancestors is probably a better term) who settled that they would feel less of a personal, close, association to them and to the place they moved from. People sit in Irish bars in Boston talking about Belfast, I don't sit in a pub in London talking about Saxony.