Talk:British National Party/Archive 3

message: I had changed the party to a socialist/ far-left wing radical party but it has been reverted. It is NOT a right wing part, it is a racist left wing party. Like the NAZIs in germany, they are the national socialists. As you may be aware, socialists and those on the far right have much in common but the BNP is definately a left wing radical party
86.17.121.156 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're just ignoring the endlessly repeated clarifications herein. 'Far-right', in English usage does not necessarily imply economic liberalism. As for the canard that the far left and far right are all the same, no, they're not. Dogville 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made that comparison once. Please read the Wiki entry on far right. Dogville 15:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Round and round we go

message: I'm having a bit of trouble validating a couple of the BNP's supposed policies; the one which talks about the withdrawl of rights from conscientious objectors, and the one about the mandatory automatic rifle in the home of everyone having completed national service. Can anyone else find information validating those two claims? Chue03 13:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're on the website, in sections of the manifesto. I added refs to the article. Dogville 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policies section

message: I havn't watched them yet myself, but apparently this interview on News 24 contains a few choice BNP quotes:
* (9.9MB RealPlayer file, stream or right-click to download and save)
* 
*
Like I say, I havn't watched it yet, but it might prove a useful source. Robdurbar 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the BBC anchor did a good job of making the BNP look foolish, there wasn't anything notable revealed in the interview, in my opinion.  The BNP rep said that Britian is a one-party state, controlled by the "Lib-Lab-Con" which has been collaborating to keep the BNP out of power.  He also said that the Church of England and the UK's major political parties are Marxist.  Amusing comments, yes, but not relevant to the article.  Any other comments he made, for instance his belief that "Britian should be as it has always been" (in terms of racial make-up), can be drawn from the BNP's website.  In fact, the website is much more incriminating than this interview.  -- WGee 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News 24 Interview

message: The article frequently uses the term UK, but I feel that the term Great Britain would be more appropriate. For instance, can the BNP be said to be a "UK wide" party if it has never contested seats in Northern Ireland? The United Kingdom without Northern Ireland is explicitly not the UK, as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. I didn't want to go through the article changing "UK" to "Great Britain" without getting some feedback. Thoughts anyone? Does anyone out there really care apart from me? MartinRobinson 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar point was made in the Labour Party (UK) talk page.  In response, somebody noted that, since the party wishes to govern all of the United Kingdom, it should be referred to as a UK-wide party.  Read this:  -- WGee 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.bnp.org.uk/reg_article.php?catID=12 - They organise in Ulster as this link proves Greener 11:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They do not however appear to be on the Northern Ireland register of political parties (so even if they organise there, you won't find BNP on any ballot paper).  Paulleake 01:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "UK" 

message: In the section entitled "BNP claims of Anti-White Racism", someone has deleted the strong wording in which the parents of the murdered teenager strongly condemned the BNP.  Also, they have cleverly deleted the links to 40 NUJ articles about the case, which opposed the racist assumptions about the BNP surrounding the case.  
Over the past two weeks, many links to anti-BNP/anti-racist articles have mysteriously disappeared.  Call in Mulder and Skully....  
Mark Collett and the rest of the BNP's internet-savvy "media team" have been busy cleansing the article of its incriminating content, with the elections approaching, and many voters, including first time voters, who don't understand politics, logging into the site.  
One other relevant piece of information about Mark Collett, which vanished some time ago, relating importantly to both racism and homophobia (as the BNP deny they are homophobic), along with its link, was when young Mr Collett expressed sick delight of the people who have died of AIDS.  "Blacks, drug users and gays get Aids - so really, I've got no problem with it. I would call it a friendly disease."   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.243.43 (talk • contribs) 
:I haven't noticed the edits myself, but I would encourage you to re-insert the information, provided it is sourced and written from a NPOV.  Also, I noticed that you have made some clearly anti-BNP edits.  While I don't support the BNP myself, I must remind you that all editors are required to abide by this policy: WP:NPOV. -- WGee 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kriss Donald

message: All references to the BNP's homophobia have been deleted, including Nick Griffin's reaction to the Admiral Duncan Pub Bombing, and Mark Collett's love of AIDS for the death of gay as well as black people.  Green MP Peter Tatchell's website is a good reference point for studies about the BNP and homophobia, and must be referenced, if the truth about the BNP's homophobia is to be recorded.  
http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/stopbnp.htm
Unless there is close scrutiny about the website, before long, there won't be anything incriminating left against the BNP, and all the anti-racist and anti-homophobic links will be trimmed down, and one-by-one, deleted, leaving the piece as pure BNP propaganda.  Surely Wiki is not a vehicle for the political party PR machine.
:Indeed.  That is why I proposed that this article be semi-protected, although the request was turned down.  Of course, semi-protection would prevent anon IPs like you from editing the article (until you sign up for a user account and wait 4 days), but that is surely a small sacrifice to ensure a NPOV this article. -- WGee 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least he has a profile. How about assuming good faith? Bhumiya (said/done) 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BNP And Homophobia

message: I'm glad that some protection has been applied to this article. It's very difficult to make an objective study of the BNP and to find out what it's all about with the heavy amount of bias in the media against it and logical fallacies deployed in tirades about the BNP.
It's important that if people are going to challenge the BNP that they do so in as fair and objective a way as possible, lest they damage and delegitimise their own position and comments. We've seen what censorship has done to the BNP - it's resulted in a growth of support.
There's a sense that all those who oppose the BNP feel they "own" terms such as: "bigot, fascist, prejudiced, reactionary, etc...". When one looks in a dictionary for definitions of these words, one finds it just as easy to apply them to the opponents of the BNP; hence they lend legitimacy to the BNP's cause as a freedom-fighting movement fighting against pseudo-liberal oppression.
Flabby, unsophisticated and arguably libellous remarks such as "the BNP are Nazis" by reactionary groups like the ANL hoodwink people away from debating the real problems that the BNP are a symptom of. We don't get to hear serious debates about: how enforced multiculturalism is essentially a form of neo-colonialism to serve corporate interests; or about white flight and the cult of individualism; muslim-immigrant rejection of western values; the culture of "iz it coz I is black-ism" and failure among black males; and the massive people-trafficking industry that all contribute to a gulf between the values and interests of the white-working classes and the middle-classes in Britain and the rise of the BNP.
With this in mind, I think it's unhelpful to apply such arguably meaningless and subjective terms such as "extremist" and "far right", because they allow details and complexities to be swept under the carpet, and instead of actually engaging with human beings about their concerns, opponents are able to dehumanise them as mindless thugs, when on inspection one can find highly-educated people amongst the BNP. We don't label all Tories as perjurers because of the recent high-profile convictions, and we should apply the same principle to the BNP.
There is always a danger of becoming the enemy you seek to destroy.
Disagree, if your local political party held conventions where members had swastikas on there hands, t-shirts with "88" [heil hitler] on them and other members doing nazi salutes and shouting anti paki slogans, im sure you would call them racist - which the BNP is - we need to document fact - not make a racist party feel comfortable in our society.
Aside from that, the links to specific policies mentioned in the article were not specific enough, and I couldn't find them. This is a bit lazy, and should be seen to.
:Yeah, I think the whole links and referencing bit needs a little attention (See my comments below) so hopefully this should all be sorted within a few days. Robdurbar 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise for the handling of a tricky article... 

message: I see that line about similar lists of convictions for other parties is back. I didn't remove it myself but I was glad it had gone. If we must include this can we at least be clear that the linked list is not "similar" in that the BNP's leader and his just-departed deputy have serious criminal convictions, whereas the same is not true of Blair and Prescott, or Cameron, or indeed any leaders of mainstream parties? (Someone mentioned Archer but his deputy chairmanship of the Tories preceded his conviction for perjury; he has had no role after it.) Dogville 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparable lists perhaps? Or maybe we could simply alter it to 'the BNP claims that similar lists could be made for other parties; in general, however, the offenders listed are much less senior in other parties than in the BNP'? --Robdurbar 19:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that sounds good to me. (The second suggestion rather than using "comparable".)  Dogville 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I’m happy with “comparable” myself.Paul 19:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Very interesting! Very interesting indeed. 90mins? You are a true Wikipedian. I’m almost tempted to e-mail the BNP and ask them to explain their list. Paul 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And let us know if you have any joy from them. Dogville 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Similar lists'

message: I removed two sentences that have been sitting there marked  for a long time.
:The party argues that it does not and cannot completely vet every single member and that it's impossible to know the proportion of members with a criminal conviction in any party. BNP supporters also argue that members of the BNP are scrutinised to a much greater extent than members of other political parties and, as such, are more likely to have their offences discovered and publicised than other politicians.
The first is irrelevant anyway, as the criminal records of these people are obviously known; they've been reported on Panorama. Dogville 21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, and it was discussing some stuff from over 20 years ago. However, I've reverted your other changes; I think those criticisms were relevant and we may as well mention what crimes were comitted, rather than the act people are convicted under; its clearer to the average reader. --Robdurbar 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be able to compromise on this. I must insist that the reference to Lecomber almost killing the Jewish teacher is removed as this is an obvious factual inaccuracy. An assault that leads to a person almost being killed will lead to a charge of attempted murder, which was not so in Lecomber's case. I see no reason at all why Nick Griffin's response to these allegations should not be included. Suitsyou 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have again removed the claim that "BNP publications have glorified racist violence" because 1) there is no evidence in the source cited that it does and 2) there is no evidence that BNP supporters were involved in the alleged incident. If you insist on reverting this part of the article please justify this and respond to those 2 points. Suitsyou 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with both of these points. Stating a victim had his “kidney surgically removed” is merely stating a medical fact, which could be interpretted as the publication merely stressing the seriousness of the injury. You would need to see the context to assess whether there was any glorification of racist violence. Remember this publication (which no longer even exists) was a tabloid and the quote seems no different from the typical sensationalist reporting of crime you see in all tabloids. You could go through The Sun and find similar quotes, but would it be fair to say that The Sun "glorifies violence"? I don't think so. As to the second point, the paragraph was stating as a matter of fact that the crime was committed by BNP supporters, but there is no evidence that the crime was in fact committed by BNP supporters. For that matter there is not even any evidence that was a crime a of racist violence. Has it been reported as such in any mainstream newspapers?Suitsyou 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going round in circles on this. Of course it's not a medical fact, as of course the victim's kidney was not surgically removed; and no, you will not find The Sun describing street violence in those terms. Dogville 14:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could well be a medical fact. The article could have stated "the victim was rushed to hospital where one of his kidneys was surgically removed". We simply don't know without knowing the context. Also Searchlight has a record of misquotation and getting its facts wrong (see the writings of Alexander Baron and Larry O'Hara and the libel case brought by Tory MP Neil Hamilton) so we simply can't rely on that source alone to back up the assertions in the paragraph I deleted. Suitsyou 18:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the main issue with bias was that the paragraph appeared to be making a statement of fact. How many people reading this article actually follow the links to the sources cited? Not many because it would take hours. As the source is biased (and also notoriously unreliable) we shouldn't be uncritically adopting it to make statements of fact. If you wanted to say something like "anti-BNP publication Searchlight has stated ..." that would be perfectly acceptable, but I don't think it would add much to the article. Suitsyou 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some more edits

message: These two really need to be cleaned up whilst the page is protected; I'm rather busy at the mo but will have time to do so at the weekend; but if anyone else wants to take this opportiunity to do so it would help the article a lot.
In paticular, links need to be checked to see that they a. say what it is claimed they say and are b. trustworthy. The referencing really ought to be converted into some sort of referencing style, rahter than just in-line links too.  Robdurbar 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely.  The referencing should be done according to the Cite.php system, which is the preferred citation style for Wikipedia articles. -- WGee 02:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing and External Links

message: I’ve moved a couple of paragraphs from “Opposition to the BNP” to a section of their own.  Partly to make the former section flow better, and partly because the content of the paragraphs in question was on a slightly different topic. I have titled the new section “BNP claims of oppression of free speech”.  The problem is that while I think that such a section is justified, I don’t like the way the current one reads. It sounds a little bit pro-BNP. Any ideas for making it sound more neutral? Perhaps what opponents say? This could then link in (or maybe be followed by) the section on opposition.Paul 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section: BNP claims of oppression of free speech 

message: The heading "BNP front organisations" was changed to "affiliated". This is incorrect; an affiliate is an officially linked organisation and orgs such as Civil Liberty explicitly deny "official" links to the BNP. I have edited to "front groups and affiliate orgs" to cover both kinds. Dogville 15:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Front groups/affiliates

message: Should the following section be included? 
“Public concern over football hooliganism frequently linked in with criticism of far right political activity. In March 1985 the Labour MP for Bristol South, Michael Cocks, claimed that there was a direct relationship between football hooligans and votes for BNP candidates in the areas the football clubs were from [13]. One Liverpool FC fan claimed that he saw BNP literature distributed before the Heysel Stadium disaster, where crowd disturbances led to the deaths of 39 Juventus fans [14].”
I’m against for the following reasons:
1)	This article is already large and if we don’t think carefully about including new material it will quickly ballon;
2)	Although the sources are referenced, the source itself is of insufficient authority – in each case it is one man’s opinion;
3)	It is not sufficiently relevant to the subject matter to warrant its inclusion when consideration is given to point 1
What do others think? Paul 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article could do with a brief mention of BNP connections with football hooliganism and I don't suggest the current paragraph is the best that can be done. I'm also wary about looking for sources among anti-fascist journals and books, as they have obvious axes to grind. Interestingly Richard Thurlow's book "Fascism in Britain" ascribes links between political parties and organised football hooliganism to the consequences of not achieving influence through electoral means (p. 270 in my edition). From memory, Paul Mercer's mid-90s "Directory of British Political Organizations" has some interesting detail although I have not got a copy. David | Talk 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. A section on football hooliganism is probably not totally out of place, but perhaps it should go under the section on violence. It would add more weight to that section, and make it sound more objective as it would back up what is already being said there. However I’m still unconvinced by the current sources. Paul 17:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression (FWIW) is that the BNP had links to various 'firms' in the 1980s (or at least, some of its members happened also to be organisers of the firms), but that long before the early 1990s they had either left or the firms had closed. However finding sources is inevitably very difficult. David | Talk 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraph: Football hooligans 

message: This article has numerous spelling errors  and needs updating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ukbn2 (Ukbn2 • contribs) .
:Well a couple of users have checked the spelling, though bear in mind this is in British English, not US English - so spellings such as 'judgement' and 'councillors' are correct. Where do you feel it needs updating? If you're referring to the current local elections campaign, then I think its prudent to leave most mention of this until after the results; that stops this page containing too much speculation. Robdurbar 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob: paedophile is British English too. Dogville 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have mentioned something earlier, but good job on the intro.  It now has a much more neutral tone. -- WGee 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up 

message: Would not the same brilliant logic that links BNP to nazis, link the Labour party to AlQueda. Labour leaders meet with islamo-fascist clericks, they get their voter support from muslim extremists and they pass all kinds of laws as not to offend the islamic minority in UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.247.1.125 (Talk • contribs) .
:they get their voter support from muslim extremists, so about 35.3% of the British population must be muslim extremists by your brilliant logic. You are also conveniently forgetting that the muslim vote (if any such thing exists) is rather anti-Labour at the moment due to the participation of British forces in the liberation of Iraq from another facist dictator, hence George Galloway's defeat of Oona King in Bethnal Green and Bow. You are also ignoring the Al-Quaeda bombings of 7th of July 2005 by the very extremist muslims you claim support Labour, but these bombings were claimed to be because the UK government had committed atrocities against Muslims . Your comment is spurious to say the least. The BNP are a Nazi Party, they espouse similar racist policies (for example the Nuremberg Laws to denaturalise certain racial groups) and have similar socialist protectionist economic policies (remember that it National Socialism)  Please sign your posts. Alun 03:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here are the Labour party's link to Islamic extremiststs 1, link to Islamic extremiststs 2. There is more if you search the Internet. For instance, why would Labour government ban St. George's crosses not offend those who call to "Slay those who offend islam", while it spares no money on persecuting those who call islam what it is - a "wicked and vicious faith". Anybody who has eyes and ears, understands that Blair's party is keeping the immigration door wide open not to offend muslims on whose support they count in the razor sharp margin elections. If it were not for muslims, Labour would be out of power. 1.2 million Muslims are eligible to vote, and 75 percent of those who turned out lent their support to Mr. Blair's landslide victory in 2001.. The funny thing about liberal intelligentsia is that one can have an opinion as long as it is the same as theirs, and if one says something they don't agree with, they smear them as racists, stupid, illiterate, ignorant, and nazi. Let not the truth get in the way of anything. Liberals think they are entitled to power and when they lose it, they claim it was stolen from them. I suggest you add a section in Labour Party's article describing links to Islamo-Fascists which are clear, obvious and undeniable. --RiseOfBNP 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost encouraged by this. Asking questions is the first step to freeing your mind. Anyway, in order, no, no, no and no. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is not an 'extremist', let alone an 'Islamo-Fascist'; Blair made a huge deal about the cartoon protests and prosecutions are now being made; Labour's support among Muslims has plummeted because of the Iraq war so they're hardly making policy solely to win Muslim support. Complicity in Guantanamo ditto. Of course Labour does care about the Muslim vote as it does its other areas of traditional support; that's democracy. I'm no supporter of the Labour party, by the way; their civil liberties record is appalling. As for Griffin and Islam, you must be aware that the National Front, under Griffin's leadership, forged bonds with the Nation of Islam and sold copies of their newspaper, and received support from and visited Gaddafi's "Islamic socialist" regime in Libya before the TV exposé of their terrorist activities made him too embarrassed by them ... he's attacking Islam because he an opportunist and anti-Muslim racism is the most widespread form in the UK at the moment. Dogville 07:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dogville said: I'm almost encouraged by this. Asking questions is the first step to freeing your mind. - Don't be so condescending and arrogant. I am not asking any questions and don't need to free my mind. I have freed my mind when I stopped watching BBC and CNN. But you may learn a thing or two, just rent a flat in one of the more multicultural parts of the country, and send your children to a diverse school. They will become racially aware suddenly and rapidly. RiseOfBNP 09:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The first comment in this section is nothing more than BNP apologia and should be disregarded as such.  Such non-sensible, baseless rhetoric is counterproductive and only serves to annoy editors who are actually concerned with the quality of the article.  Any person who has read the article will realize that the BNP's links to Nazism are not derived from logic, but from reputable sources, as per Wikipedia's No Orginial Research policy. -- WGee 20:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would I be right in saying that official BNP policy is that all those who are not ethnically of these parts would still be British citizens and be entitled to all that British Citizenship offers. The un-PC bit is that the BNP wouldn't grant all British citizens, ethnically "British", I think the ethnicities would actually be English, Welsh etc. This is different to what I believe the Nazi's did, which was to take German Citizenship from those who were ethnically Jewish. --80.235.139.99 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They'd still have British citizenship while "guests" though? --80.235.139.99 11:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Neo-Nazis 

message: Just wondering, whats the stormfront.org link there for?
:Where is it? --Robdurbar 16:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: The ref tags must come after the full stop or comma: The basic concept of the <ref> tag is that it inserts the text enclosed by the ref tags as a footnote in a designated section, which you indicate with the placeholder tag . Note that the ref tag comes after a period (full stop) or comma. Do not place the period after the tag. (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#How_to_use)
If anyone has the time, please fix this.
--WGee 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, somebody went and changed the infobox; I'm going to restore it. -- WGee 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Footnotes 

message: Is this really notable? A google search of Leigh Jones and British National Party brings up no results on this topic. I sniff original research and non-notability here, but I wondered what others thought before removing it? --Robdurbar 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say remove it, since it adds nothing to the article and may be original research, like you said. -- WGee 23:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see this yesterday before I removed it anyway. I don't think it's notable. Many people campaign against the BNP, and it seems utterly random to make a para out of one non-notable comedian taking the piss out of them. The para was also very NPOV, referring to said comic's "unflinching attacks". Dogville 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leigh Jones

message: What's interesting is the use of the term "Indigenous Caucasians", with respect to the British Isles, is almost impossible to define. There are Anglo Saxons, there are French, there are Norse, there are Celts...at which point do they become "Indigenous"?
Furthermore, the Asian population - whilst constituting only 1% of Britain's population - actually contributes to 10% of its economy. Removing these ethnic minorities would set Britain back many, many years on the world stage and it would no longer be a primary competing power.
They say they want to remove immigrants, etc... But there are tens of thousands of open positions for labour work! We need immigrants to keep the bottom foundation of our economic structure afloat...else we will be ridden into the ground.
So with facts like these in mind, it begs the question: "what is the ultimate goal of the BNP and why are they really doing it?"
The fact that they are apparently willing to sacrifice the stability of the country's economy in exchange for creating a country whose sole populous is that of people who have to go out and get tanned instead of being born with a natural one, and to eliminate cultures that are far older and arguably richer than those of the British Isles (that have actually contributed to modern architecture, mathematics, economy, science, etc in an indispensible way), and to reap the rewards of years of Imperialism over those very same countries that have been sucked dry by British invaders and whose deprived populations would not even have thought about coming to Britain if they'd only been left alone in the first place...all leads me to believe that a innate and illogical hatred of non-whites is what fuels the BNP.  The racist discrimination of the earilest non-Caucasian settlers by whites is what actually bred an internal fear into their expanding communities, therefore they preferred to keep themselves to themselves...which whites then like to interpret as the ethnic populations' "unwillingness to integrate".
Nevertheless, as time goes on and as the youths of various communities gradually begin to interact and hopefully break down such anti-humanistic divides, there may come a time when the world can be considered a haven for all human beings and not have it be divided off into ethnically-defined zones.
Hey, if White Britons can be forgiven for raping and ravaging countries and cultures that didn't belong to them, I'm sure that they can at least tolerate the populations of those same countries who have been forced into moving thousands of miles from their homes just to live with the dignity that was stolen from them.
Oh, and on using Islamic extremism as a tool?  BNP people must totally love this.  It's like thier own personal McGuffin to justify everything they do and say.
The fact of the matter is that Islamic extremists are the same as the BNP - they're the opposite sides of the same coin: intolerant, violent, inhumane, blind...
Someone should give 'em a deserted island and give 'em weapons so that they can make themselves happy an wipe themselves out and let the rest of us live in peace.  Ooh...I feel like watching Battle Royale now!
--Max314 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can't stop people posting them. But it is time for an archinving anyway... --Robdurbar 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Absurd Lack of Logic in BNP Ideology