Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Since Diane Abbott did not in any way incite racial hatred, your post is libellous. You’re an absolute f-ing moron. It’s one thing talking crap and lying about other board members but you’d have to be pretty stupid to spread lies about an MP over the internet.
Besides, Peter Hitchen’s works for the Daily Mail which isn’t exactly the friendliest newspaper when it comes to ethnic minorities so she didn’t say anything that everybody else didn’t already think. She was having a dig at him over his paper’s xenophobic stance.
So this “political prisoner” of the BNP was in a pub, saw a tanned gentleman and then asked him where he was from. When the Kurdish man replied that he was from Iraq, the “political prisoner” racially abused and assaulted him. Somehow, I don’t think Amnesty International will be highlighting his case anytime soon.
Maybe it’s BNP policy to get a bit drunk, a bit mouthy and then attack anyone who looks foreign. Maybe that’s why they call him a political prisoner. I guess the BNP is admitting that their party is for drunken, racist, thugs.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
As for the when in Rome idea, this is a protestant country so should we stop Catholics carrying out their religious beliefs? Should we ban druids from dressing up in robes and gathering at Stonehenge? It’s bad enough that this country has had centuries of sectarian hatred between Protestants and Catholics so do we really need to start persecuting muslims now? Anyway, when have the British ever complied with this “when in Rome” idea? The British empire was all about forcing people to adopt British customs and British religious beliefs rather than integrating. Even now when people go off to mainland Spain or the Balearics or Aegean they don’t behave as the locals do.
The way I see it, these women wear the full veil as an expression of their religious belief and nobody should tell them that they are not allowed to do it unless out of absolute necessity. After all, what harm does it do to anybody. I don’t like the way Goths and rockers dress but they’ve got the right to wear whatever they want.
No law is being broken by a person wearing a full veil when travelling on a bus, all that matters is the validity of the ticket. So the woman probably has the right to refuse to remove her veil. Unless there is a clear policy with the sale of the travelcard that a person has to remove anything obscuring their face when asked by a driver then, from a legal standpoint, the driver can’t force anybody to do so. By buying a ticket the bus company is agreeing to provide a specific service to the passenger for the price of that ticket. If the driver then charges the passenger for a journey already paid for, the bus company has breached the agreement. Well that’s my interpretation of it. I’m not a ticket inspector so don’t quote me.
So that’s your rebuttal is it?…lol I’m sure the Oxford union are dying for you to make an appearance. You’re hopeless!
It’s an issue of religious freedom. This country has had a long history of religious intolerance, so the last thing we need is the state telling people what aspects of their religion they should be able to carry out.
As for the bus-pass issue I don’t think it’s important unless you’re getting loads of people wearing full veils. If you only get one person like that then you might as well not trouble yourself over it. I would just let them on rather than being pedantic. The only time when you should insist about seeing their face should be when you’re checking their passport or something important like that.
Jack Straw’s just being an arse as usual. There’s absolutely no reason why you need to see a constituent’s whole face in order to be able to communicate with them. Imagine if someone had just had surgery, would he say to them, “Excuse me! Could you take off your bandages please? I can’t see your face.” And what does he do with the letters he receives? Does he say, “Sorry! I can’t possibly do anything until I see you face to face”
It’s staggering that a former foreign secretary could say something so idiotic. When he went to Iran did he tell the women to take off their veils before he spoke to them? I think not, so what’s the problem in his constituency? His opinion wasn’t something you associate with Labour and you have to wonder how Labour voters will react to his intolerance.
And if the BNP ever took power there would be only be show trials or summary executions.
If I remember correctly, the French team of the 1980s wasn’t too bad either and there was ethnic diversity in the squads then too.
Emma, you say that people of different origins can’t live together so why do you refer to St George? Isn’t Christianity all about loving your neighbour. Your heathen opinions are completely ungodly. If St George were to be alive today imagine how he’d be treated by some of the people who wave his flag. Even the middle-eastern Jesus would be persecuted by those who talk about defending Britain’s Christian identity. Seeing as Jesus didn’t speak English I guess he wouldn’t be welcome here.
Let’s examine your theory that the key to a successful society is to have an ethnically homogenous population. Was ancient Egypt racially pure throughout its history? No. Was ancient Roman society racially pure? No. Were the Carthaginian armies that almost destroyed the Roman empire racially pure? No. The same applies to the USA and USSR.
So Egypt, Rome, Carthage, USA and USSR were all major world powers and all successful and yet none of them were ethnically pure. So what need is there for any country to adopt a policy of racial purity? What good did it do Germany? It brought about the country’s destruction in the 1940s and the loss of land to other countries.Policies of segregation or racial supremacism have no place in the 21st century. They are backward ideologies for mental midgets and bigots. Only an idiot would support them, so I guess that’s why you’re here Emma.
A card-carrying member of the BNP involved in racially-motivated thuggery? What a far-fetched idea! I’m sure he was nowhere near the victim at the time of the crime, he was probably on his way to evensong with a basket of homemade cookies and lemonade.
That’s interesting, you’re now saying that you would welcome asylum seekers if Britain went through a boom period. It’s also interesting that you as someone who supports the far-right are now pressing for more state benefits to be given to the less fortunate. What could be more socialist and more Labour-like than the Welfare State? Yet, here you are saying that the state should look after the homeless and the elderly.
Somehow, I don’t think that your average WWII veteran would look to the BNP as their saviour. They risked their lives to keep your sh1tty ideology out of this country. The last thing they want is to be governed by a bunch of Hitler-worshipping miscreants.
If you’re so concerned about how public money is being spent then maybe you should speak to your BNP friends and tell them to stop going to prison. Then the taxpayer wouldn’t have to pay for their upkeep.
Anyway, the UK is signed up to an international treaty regarding refugees and if we pulled out of it then everyone would. That would mean people caught up in a conflict or disaster would be doomed. So imagine if Brits on holiday abroad got caught up in a conflict. If there were no flights out of that country then those people would probably be unable to cross into a neighbouring country to escape (they probably wouldn’t have the right paperwork to enter that country). Any evacuation of those people would depend on the warring parties granting permission (as we saw in Lebanon). So the long and short of it would be that those people would be stuck in a war-zone. Are you happy to see British people die Emma?
