NOTE TO ADMIN - Apologies for the multiple posts. I had a few people who I was trying to reply for, so I did a different post for each reply. In future I shall do one big post. Bertie - Thank you for the reply. It was quite long, so I have taken the time to read it and reply in full.
Firstly, you speak of my "background". I assume by that you mean the influence of my parents, and how I have been brought up to think. Of course, I am aware that people from different backgrounds often have different beliefs, and I have attempted to analyse how I have been affected by this.
My Mum grew up in quite a poor background, under a Conservative Government. Being disabled, she needed extra care, but the Conservative Government did not supply this, as cutting the tax rate meant that they also had to cut government spending. This means that my mum now has a dislike of the Conservative Party, and supports increased child benefits for the parents of disabled children. Due to being bullied at school over her disabilities, she also feels strongly that everyone should be given equal opportunities, and nobody should be discriminated against based on physical ability. I also share these views.
My Dad also grew up in quite a poor background, in Harehills. At that time, that area was not rich, but the majority of people were English, and crime was lower than it is now. Whilst he was growing up, Harehills saw a large influx of immigration, and it now has a large number of Asian and Afro-Caribbean people living there. Housing standards have fallen, crime has increased, school performance levels have dropped to some of the worst in the country, and the majority religion has changed from Christianity to Islam. It was because of these factors that my family moved away from the area in 1995, when I was two years old. My Parents wanted me to go to a good school, in a good area, be safe on the streets, and have a better quality of life. My mum also wanted to be able to continue with her religious beliefs, as her local church had been knocked down to be replaced by a mosque. (
MORE INFO) More recently in 2001, Harehills had major riots due to racial tension in the area between the native English, and the Immigrant community.
Because of this change in my Dad’s home town, and seeing the effects of large scale immigration first hand, my Dad supports less migration to this country, and less concentration of immigrants in specific areas, for example Bradford. He also supports tougher sentences for crime, in order to stop communities becoming like Harehills, and he thinks that the police should have more powers. Again, I share these views.
So, it is true that the opinions of parents often influence the opinions of their children, but even looking from an unbiased viewpoint, I can certainly sympathise with both my parents, and understand why they feel strongly about those issues. Some people may argue that giving more benefits to the parents of disabled children unfairly penalises the rich, as it is their taxes which pay for the benefits the most. Therefore, somebody from a rich background may sympathise with their parents, who will have lost money through higher taxes. Some people may argue that lowering immigration levels is bad for the economy, and is racist. Somebody from an area which has not been negatively affected by immigration would be more likely to have that view, as they have been exposed to the more positive sides of immigration.
Basically, people base their views around their own experiences, and the experiences of their close friends and family. For example, Bertie’s ancestors are from Poland, and they migrated into this country. Therefore, Bertie will be more likely to support mass immigration, as he and his family have benefited because of it. My ancestors are from England, and my parents have seen firsthand the negative effects of mass immigration. Therefore, I will be more likely to be against mass immigration, as my family have suffered because of it.
I can see that, and I accept that me and Bertie have different opinions on the matter, as we have both seen different aspects of it. The point of politics is to debate, and to decide whether the benefits are enough to outweigh the negative aspects.
Secondly, you speak of me being influenced not only by my background, but by my “exposure to certain right wing media”
I assume by that you mean the Sun Newspaper. It is true that I read that paper, but it is not my only source of information, and I do not believe everything I read. Newspapers should be read for entertainment and pleasure, which is why I do not read broadsheets, as they tend to be much too serious. If I just want serious news, I would go on news websites. I read the Sun mainly for the sport sections (which are very good), and the funny side of politics, like “two shags” John Prescott. I do not think that my political views stem from reading the Sun, as I disagree with quite a lot of their ideas. The Sun is a big supporter of Thatcher, whereas I think she was a terrible PM, and they do tend to be too pro-conservative. However, they are right in some areas, like how our civil liberties are getting less thanks to the authoritarian policies of the government.
You also say that I believe everything said by “my heroes”, who you say to be “The heads of FEP and Nigel Farage”. This is incorrect, as I disagree with them in some areas. I would list my main political role-models as Nigel Farage, Godfrey Bloom and Daniel Hannan. I also have great respect for my fellow NEC members in the FEP, although we also differ in opinion on some issues.
I disagree with Farage, Bloom and Hannan on the Issue of English Independence, which all three oppose.
I disagree with Farage and Bloom on the smoking ban.
I disagree with Hannan on the economy.
I disagree with Bloom on women’s rights.
Next, you say that my views have not changed in the past few years. That is also incorrect. Around a year ago, I supported stopping Immigration altogether. However, through debating with people on multiple forums, I realised the disastrous effects that would have on the economy, and that some immigration is essential, even if only to fill skilled job gaps, and to balance out the emigration deficit. I have also become much more libertarian.
Regarding the Organisations which I believe to be racist, yes they do claim to “promote equality”. They do this by choosing an ethnic group which they think is being discriminated against, and then trying to stop the discrimination.
For example: The Metropolitan Black Police Association believes that Black people are discriminated against, so try to stop it. Their website states “Membership to the Association is available to all black staff employed by the Metropolitan Police Service” They say that black means “all people of African, African Caribbean or Asian origin”.
For example: The British National Party believes that White people are discriminated against, so try to stop it. Their Website states “Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2”. Sub-Section 2 lists the ethnic groups which can join the BNP.
Fact: Both these organisations want a better deal for the ethnic groups they support.
Fact: Both these organisations have a membership policy based on race.
Why should they be treated differently?
You also say that a society which promotes racial equality cannot be racist.
Personally, I think that every organisation that prevents people from joining due to their ethnicity is racist, as they are giving more rights to certain ethnic groups, and therefore discriminating against the ethnic groups which are not allowed. I think that regardless of their intention, or their beliefs, they are a racist organisation because of the aforementioned discrimination.
I think that no society should be allowed to prevent membership based on ethnicity. However, I do not think that allowing all ethnic groups into an organisation necessarily makes that organisation non-racist. For example, if the BNP membership laws are changed to allow other ethnic groups, I am sure that Bertie will still think that they are a racist party. Similarly, I still think that the National Black Police Association is racist, even though they allow membership for other ethnic groups. I think this because they still state their aim as being to “improve the working environment of Black staff”, not “improve the working environment of all staff, regardless of colour”. I think that an organisation which stated their aim as being to “improve the working environment of White staff” would be called racist, so I see no reason to treat Black people differently to White people.
The Important point is this – Just because I think that these organisations are racist, doesn’t mean that I think they should be banned (providing they allow membership to all ethnic groups).
I think that free speech is essential, and I believe that courtesy should extend to people with ANY belief, including racism. I think that if we begin to oppress people’s free speech, then we can never have a true democracy, because the state is not allowing certain opinions to be heard.
You say that my example of Black and White history weeks was “ridiculous”, because Black History month was set up to recognise that Black people had a history, but white History month was set up as a racist publicity stunt. Looking closer into the White History Month, this does not seem to be the case. This is from their website:
“British Pride, (The organisation behind White History Month), thinks it is a noble and worthwhile thing having a Black History Month. A specific month where all Black people can celebrate their identity and explore their heritage and show their pride. We would like to see all races and nationalities doing the same thing. It is only with pride and knowledge of who we are and where we came from, that we will all learn to live together in this world.
This is why British Pride is giving its support to official White History Month. During this month all White people around the world can celebrate their history and heritage with pride. This is our month where we can look to the past and explore who we are and where we come from. It is a month where we can be proud to be White and express it openly. Black History Month was an outstanding success, and we hope that all people will join together once again to celebrate White History Month and make it a success.”To me, the two events seem very similar, and should therefore be treated as such. Calling one racist and one not seems to me hypocritical.
With regard to your point about Nick Griffin and the Holocaust, I would like to make it clear that I personally believe that the Holocaust happened, before anyone accuses me otherwise.
You say that because it is anti-social and insulting to suggest that the holocaust did not happen, people should not be allowed to express that view, and should be punished if they do. I accept that, and your opinion is shared by the European Union, which is why Griffin was not allowed to express his views on the Politics Show. Personally, I believe in free speech for all, but I accept that many people support censorship in order to prevent people being indirectly insulted.
With regard to teaching, I have no problem with the fact that most teachers are left wing. I simply think that it is an interesting observation, and your idea of middle-class left-wing leanings is an interesting proposal. However, you say that because they are all highly educated and have a good world understanding, they are left wing, which I disagree with. To give an on-topic example, Nick Griffin was educated at Cambridge, and is a very intelligent man, albeit one I disagree with on many areas.
The main question i would like to ask you on this topic is this:
Do you think that a teacher with no history of influencing pupils’ political views, or discriminating against any pupil or fellow staff member based on ethnicity, and who has done nothing which breaches the terms of his/her contract with the school, should lose their job purely based on their membership of the BNP? 
Log in 
Home 
