---

by MonSTeR
Tony Blair makes use of his degree to further the gains of his politcal party, it lends him credibility. I'm sure most political leaders in this country do. Iain Duncan Smith use his military career as a point to demonstrate his character. Should Tony Blair or Iain Duncan Smith have their degrees taken off them because they've acted on thier beliefs by pledging their allegances to the Labour and Conservative Parties and everything they stand for, and are involved in?

---

When Tony Blair and Ian Duncen Smith's parites start spreading lies with the deliberate intention of inciting racial violence, and allow speeches to this end at their confences, then I'll ask for the same to be applied. If the BNP went about their objectives without indulging in their methods, I'd still despise them, but I wouldn't call for them to be penalized.

This has nothing to do with political belief, and everything to do with the BNP's methods. Say I'm wrong, sure, but at least argue against what I'm actually advocating!

---

by Byron
This has nothing to do with political belief, and everything to do with the BNP's methods. Say I'm wrong, sure, but at least argue against what I'm actually advocating!

---

Well maybe in that case this topic should have been posted up when Mr.Wentworth himself had been convicted of a race-related crime? I know where you're coming from but I feel you really are clutching at straws here, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

---

by MonSTeR
(quotes)

I have to ask then, but what are your opinions on Sinn Fein and their ties to the IRA be they confirmed or alleged? Should this politcal party also be banned?

---

You don't get anywhere by banning political parties unless you absolutely have to, especially not when the banning would turn Northern Ireland into something that would make Iraq look like a backgarden fireworks display. Also, Sinn Fein are tangibly different from the BNP in that they are sperated, however tenuously, from the IRA: they're not a fascist party dedicated to violence and all of who's members have signed up to the objecitve of racially celnsing the country.

What I would argue for would be their suspension from all forms of democratic government until it could be proved that all the IRA involvement had been severed.

---

by MonSTeR
Well maybe in that case this topic should have been posted up when Mr.Wentworth himself had been convicted of a race-related crime? I know where you're coming from but I feel you really are clutching at straws here, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

---

Not really, no.

The BNP derives from the National Front, which derived from, among other places, Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. They have a record of inciting and perpetrating racist violence as long as the arms of every T21 member joined together. They want to ethnically clense the UK, and there are innumerous examples of them spreading disimformation and outright lies to stoke up racist feelings and violence -- they were very active in Oldham at the time of the riots, to give just one example.

The individual isn't just a BNP member, he's the leader of their youth wing: by extension a dedicated Nazi who's involved in all the crap the BNP are upto his eyeballs.

---

by Byron


The individual isn't just a BNP member, he's the leader of their youth wing: by extension a dedicated Nazi who's involved in all the crap the BNP are upto his eyeballs.

---

Ahhhhhh... So he's the leader of the youth wing of a politcal party, what a crime.

When/if they actually get him on a criminal charge fine, that's the time to chuck his sorry behind out of university and into prison. Till then, I think there are more appropriate ways of dealing with folks like him. The truth is probably the best weapon in a fight against a party that spreads lies and disinformation. Descrimination against others who would descriminate only fuels their argument and lessens yours.

---

by Byron
(quotes)
When they stop allowing speeches inciting violence against ethnic minorities at their conferences, publishing outright lies with the intention in inciting violence and hatred, and having numerous members notching up convictions for violent racist attacks, then I'll start talking about the Nazis' rights.

They cannot and should not be banned until it can be proved beyond all doubt they're orchestrating violence, but until then, it still remains that the only good Nazi is one who's six feet under.

---

So only groups YOU like and approve of are allowed to exist ? have you forgotten we live in a democracy ? YOU seem to be the violent one wishing someone with different views to be dead and six feet under.


(Edited by azrael 20/11/2002 22:15)

---

by azrael
(quotes)
So only groups YOU like and approve of are allowed to exist ? have you forgotten we live in a democracy ? YOU seem to be the violent one wishing someone with different views to be dead and six feet under.

---

For the umpteenth bloody time, no I don't think they should be punished for what they believe. Groups that orchestrate and incite violence, whatever their ideology, should not be tolerated. I've stated this explicitly above, several times, that it's not the BNP's beliefs I have issue with here (though I definitely have issue with their vile beliefs in general, as should any sane person), it's their methods.

I don't literally want someone to go out and kill them, but I won't shed any tears if some misfortune does befall a Nazi – they’re more than happy to inflict it on others with no justification except they were born different. "The only good Nazi is a dead one" is an old anti-Fascist slogan: it refers as much to their dangerous and bankrupt ideology as to anything.

I trust you to condemn the BNP and everything they stand for without reservation?

---

I trust you to condemn the BNP and everything they stand for without reservation?

---

yes I like the BNP as much as I like Islamic fundamentalists and I like them as much as I like stepping in dog plops

---

by Byron
(quotes)
I trust you to condemn the BNP and everything they stand for without reservation?

---

Im not sure why you even have to ask the question? If he did support the BNP how would it alter the argument? What if he didnt support the BNP but was an Islamic Fundamentalist?

Why would it matter. I understand your argument Byron, and it may well be law, but I still don't think it holds water..at least not very well.

With ideology's there are absolutes. Free speech is an ideology, and its real world implementation may be that it has small print, because governments choose to limit free speech as they see fit. As an ideology though, if there are conditions attached, then it AINT free speech.

I understand that you're saying that you dont support ANY group (BNP or not) who incite violence. If there are laws as you say there are to stop incitement of racial violence then surely the problem is solved? If this individual is doing as you say and it can be proved then he will be arrested for it and the university can kick him out. So long as he remains, a law abiding citizen I dont see how the university has any grounds to exclude him.

(Edited by Funky Monkey 21/11/2002 12:49)

the BNP are not Nazis! That term is thrown around all too often to describe rascist, like the word 'evil'. The Nazis had many fundemental differences, which Hitler outlined in his fourteen (was it 14 or 13, can't rememeber sorry) points, soon after taking over the party, later renamed the Nazis.

You say you want them dead, you say they are scum and have no right to their views, then get stroppy when people say "you want them punished for their beliefs". Come on.

It isn't a crime to prefer whites to blacks. It isn't. It's prejudice, it's narrow minded, but no-one has any right to punish you for it.

And stop say the only good Nazi is a dead one, because it destroys your arguement, AGAIN.

---

by KieranFrost
the BNP are not Nazis! That term is thrown around all too often to describe rascist, like the word 'evil'. The Nazis had many fundemental differences, which Hitler outlined in his fourteen (was it 14 or 13, can't rememeber sorry) points, soon after taking over the party, later renamed the Nazis.

You say you want them dead, you say they are scum and have no right to their views, then get stroppy when people say "you want them punished for their beliefs". Come on.

It isn't a crime to prefer whites to blacks. It isn't. It's prejudice, it's narrow minded, but no-one has any right to punish you for it.

And stop say the only good Nazi is a dead one, because it destroys your arguement, AGAIN.

---

Pop along to a BNP rally: you'll see more Nazi T-Shirts, SS runes and celebrations of the Fuehrer than you could shake a stick at.

Listen to one of their speeches, all about “Zog”, “Wiggers”, the “Evil Jew”, driving “the blacks into the sea”. Mein Kampf is to be found on sale at any good BNP conference.

They don’t explicitly state their Nazism, because they’d never get elected (and very probably banned). But they are Nazis, and I’ll call them such.

And yet another who's putting words into my mouth, because I've never said they're "no right to the views". I've said they've no right to incite violence and race hatred, which they do wherever they go.

(Edited by Byron 21/11/2002 18:28)

---

by Funky Monkey
Im not sure why you even have to ask the question? If he did support the BNP how would it alter the argument? What if he didnt support the BNP but was an Islamic Fundamentalist?

---

If, hypothetically, he was a Nazi (which he obviously isn’t), it’d alter his argument considerably, because his thinking would come from the starting point of Nazism.

---

Why would it matter. I understand your argument Byron, and it may well be law, but I still don't think it holds water..at least not very well.

---

Actually it’s mostly John Stuart Mill’s argument, I’m just doing my best to relay it.

---

With ideology's there are absolutes. Free speech is an ideology, and its real world implementation may be that it has small print, because governments choose to limit free speech as they see fit. As an ideology though, if there are conditions attached, then it AINT free speech.

---

Every ideology you care to name has conditions attached, and remains that ideology provided it remains true to the spirit of that ideology. Liberals believe in free markets, but few would believe in completely unregulated free markets, because it would do more harm than good. Does that mean they’re not Liberals? No.

By the same token, none of the fundamental freedoms can in reality be applied without any restrictions. Freedom of association for example: you could argue gatecrashing a conference and yelling abuse at the speaker would be freedom of association and speech, which technically it would be. But if it was a allowed to go on unimpeded, it would derail the whole thing, and thus impede the conferences’ freedom of speech and association. Or death threats – they’re only speech after all, should someone not be prosecuted if they bombard an ex’s phone with 100 messages a day, even though that wrecks their freedom to live a normal life? You have to make trade-offs.

That’s what incitement is: it’s a trade-off, between someone’s right to free speech, and other people’s right to freedom from violence. If incitement can demonstratably be shown to be causing violence, then if you don’t stop it, you may be protecting freedom of speech completely, but you’re compromising other freedoms in doing so.

---

[b]I understand that you're saying that you dont support ANY group (BNP or not) who incite violence. If there are laws as you say there are to stop incitement of racial violence then surely the problem is solved? If this individual is doing as you say and it can be proved then he will be arrested for it and the university can kick him out. So long as he remains, a law abiding citizen I dont see how the university has any grounds to exclude him.[b]

---

Many student unions have constitutions protecting their members from racist, sexism and homophobia. Should they be prevented from enforcing these? – inciting homophobia, for example, isn’t currently a criminal offence. If you give the BNP unlimited freedom to canvass in the union whenever they chose, you impinge on the freedom of other students to attend because they feel intimidated.

By a similar token, should the University, as a private institution, be forced to put its degree towards a specific organisation with a proven record of violence and inciting violence? If Tony Wentworth was just a racist nutter who wasn’t bothering people on campus, he should be left alone. When he’s using the University’s name to attack others, it must be allowed to choose whether it wants its name used towards those ends. This isn’t arguing for the criminal system to intervene, it’s asking for it not to intervene.

---

by Byron
(quotes)
If, hypothetically, he was a Nazi (which he obviously isn’t), it’d alter his argument considerably, because his thinking would come from the starting point of Nazism.

---

So are you saying that if he, or I, were members of the BNP that would make our argument inherently wrong? If I were a supporter of the BNP in this debate, surely that would just be my opinion, it doesn't change the nature or validity of either side of the debate.

---

Liberals believe in free markets, but few would believe in completely unregulated free markets, because it would do more harm than good. Does that mean they’re not Liberals? No.

---

Thats amusing - how can you believe in free markets if you dont actually let them really be free? You either believe in free markets, regulated markets (however little they are regulated), or no markets at all!

---

you could argue gatecrashing a conference and yelling abuse at the speaker would be freedom of association and speech, which technically it would be.

---

Not really, if you're an unwelcome, uninvited guest I can kick you out. Free speech is about the right to be able to say what you want without fear of reprisals from the law, it doesnt define where is appropriate to say it. If I scream verbal abuse at my employer they will probably sack me.

---

Or death threats – they’re only speech after all, should someone not be prosecuted if they bombard an ex’s phone with 100 messages a day, even though that wrecks their freedom to live a normal life? You have to make trade-offs.

---

You can argue that somebodies phone is their property and that abusive calls to someones phone is abuse of their property.

---

If incitement can demonstratably be shown to be causing violence, then if you don’t stop it, you may be protecting freedom of speech completely, but you’re compromising other freedoms in doing so.

---

I understand this perfectly, I reckon its been thrashed out pretty well now. I dont see we can move any further on that one. This is something you agree with - that a line must be drawn on free speech, and something that I disagree with. We both have our reasons for either side of the argument. So I'll agree to disagree with you on that one.

Where I do seem room for challenge is that as far as I can tell, you're calling for the removal of a student who hasnt actually done anything wrong yet. You're argument is based on what he might do, or what his party represents. Aren't you proclaiming him guilty without trial?? Because thats the sort of thing extreme right wing chaps are all for.

I think what me, JayJay and others are saying is that if you agree that people studying universities have a right to their own political opinions, then as long as they're not breaking the law, you can't pick and choose which of those political opinions are 'acceptable'.

---

Many student unions have constitutions protecting their members from racist, sexism and homophobia. Should they be prevented from enforcing these?

---

Potentially yes - who am I to say that Homosexuality isn't a disease? Isn't that after all, just my opinion? Other's might have the opinion it is a disease. Shouldn't they be free to express that opinion, or should they be silenced?

---

impinge on the freedom of other students to attend because they feel intimidated.

---

Intimidation is whole 'nother ball game. There is a difference between expressing your views and intimidation. Intimidation should be dealt with appropriately by a university.

---

By a similar token, should the University, as a private institution, be forced to put its degree towards a specific organisation with a proven record of violence and inciting violence?

---

I may be wrong on this, but I dont think Universities are entirely private organisations. They are putting their degree towards an individual. An individual who happens to hold certain beliefs now. Whose to say how this individuals beliefs and political persuasions will change over his life, or over the course of his education?

---

This isn’t arguing for the criminal system to intervene, it’s asking for it not to intervene.

---

Ooops, we're back to guilty without trial aren't we? If he's doing nothing criminal, why should he be removed?


(Edited by Funky Monkey 22/11/2002 13:49)

(Edited by Funky Monkey 22/11/2002 13:51)

---

by Funky Monkey
Thats amusing - how can you believe in free markets if you dont actually let them really be free? You either believe in free markets, regulated markets (however little they are regulated), or no markets at all!

---

Because free markets, without any regulation, don't stay free for very long. For example, monopolies happen, which distorts the behaviour of the market. I'm not sure there are actually many people who believe in totally free markets, and there certainly aren't any governments.

---

You can argue that somebodies phone is their property and that abusive calls to someones phone is abuse of their property.

---

You could argue that, but I'm not sure it would make much sense, otherwise anybody who makes unrequested or unwanted calls could be accused of the same thing. I'm sure we'd all like to have some legal means of preventing being called by double-glazing salesmen, but it's not gonna happen.

---

Potentially yes - who am I to say that Homosexuality isn't a disease? Isn't that after all, just my opinion? Other's might have the opinion it is a disease. Shouldn't they be free to express that opinion, or should they be silenced?

---

Claiming that it is a disease when there is, so far as I know, zero evidence that this is the case, could certainly be seen to be offensive and homophobic.

---

Intimidation is whole 'nother ball game. There is a difference between expressing your views and intimidation. Intimidation should be dealt with appropriately by a university.

---

And you don't think it's remotely possible that anyone might be intimidated by the very presence of someone who publicly states their belief that that person has no right to be in this country, that they should be forcibly removed?
I should probably make it clear that I don't know if that is his belief, and to be honest I'm not terribly inclined to research the matter, but that is what Byron is alleging.

---

by Byron
Pop along to a BNP rally: you'll see more Nazi T-Shirts, SS runes and celebrations of the Fuehrer than you could shake a stick at.

---

And you've been to how many to conferm this 'stereo-typing' of the rallies?

---

by Byron
They donÂ’t explicitly state their Nazism

---

Did you read what I posted? The Nazi's had different agendas, different plans, different ways of getting their way. The only real link between the two is rascism. Being a rascist doesn't make you a Nazi.

---

by Byron
I've never said they're "no right to the views".

---

So the BNP does have a right to their views? Therefore it IS wrong to ban someone purly based on what they believe? Wasn't this the whole bases of your arguement, that the University had every right to ban him based on his views.

1)The BNP are not Nazis
2)Not all member want to attack and murder black/asains/ect...
3)People have a right to think what they want, and should not, EVER be punished for that.

---

by KieranFrost
And you've been to how many to conferm this 'stereo-typing' of the rallies?

---

I've not been to any of their tawdry little conferences, but I've seen an abundence of filmed evidence of the trash they have on sale, and what they say there.

I've seen the scum rallying in the street several times, and every time, you get SS symbols, swastica T-shirts and jewlery, "88" (Heil Hilter), and you get to listen to them ranting about "Zionist Plots", "Wiggas", "Aryanhood", "depravity of the homosexual" etc.

If they're not Nazis, pray tell why they wear Nazi regalia, read Adolf Hitler's ramblings, and use Nazi language.

They're Nazis, and you're just displaying your ignorance by claiming they're not.
Did you read what I posted? The Nazi's had different agendas, different plans, different ways of getting their way. The only real link between the two is rascism. Being a rascist doesn't make you a Nazi.[/quote]
But the above does.

---

So the BNP does have a right to their views? Therefore it IS wrong to ban someone purly based on what they believe? Wasn't this the whole bases of your arguement, that the University had every right to ban him based on his views.

---

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now, I'm only going to spell it out one more time for you. He shouldn't be removed for his views, he should be removed for his party's support for, perpetration of and incitement of violence.

---

1)The BNP are not Nazis
2)Not all member want to attack and murder black/asains/ect...
3)People have a right to think what they want, and should not, EVER be punished for that.

---

1) Yes they are.
2) No, the more tolerant members just want them chucked out the country.
3) When they start telling outright lies and orchestrating harm agianst others, yes they should.

---

by Byron
I've not been to any of their tawdry little conferences

---

You haven't???? Well, I didn't see that one coming

---

by Byron
If they're not Nazis, pray tell why they wear Nazi regalia, read Adolf Hitler's ramblings, and use Nazi language.

---

Firstly, I trust by 'Nazi language' you don't mean German, I hope you don't anyway. They aren't Nazis, they may wear it, read it, breath it, but they CAN'T be Nazis. Nazi wannabie, maybe, but not Nazis. The Nazis main enemies were the Communists, not the Jews. Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain, he idolised the country, commenting often how it was the pinnicle of society. Yes the Jews suffered terribly, but the Nazis and Hitler, above all else, wanted to eliminate Communism.

Who's ignorant now?

---

by Byron
he should be removed for his party's support for, perpetration of and incitement of violence.

---

You mean even if he is an unstanding citizen, who helps his elderly neighbour with her garden, helps at a shelter with his spare time, he should be denied everything because THE PARTY HE SUPPORTS behaves badly.

---

by Byron
When they start telling outright lies and orchestrating harm agianst others, yes they should.

---

There is SUCH a difference between thinking and acting, supporting and taking part in. They have NO PROOF he's done anything illegal. If he beat up a white person he'd still get thrown in jail, BNP or not. You can't lable a group of people so lightly. I may not be in favour of Labour, I may think they are often wrong, but I don't past judgement on everyone who supports them. If I did, I'd become just as small minded and arrogant as the BNP.

I see no difference between their prejudice AND YOURS!!!!!

---

by KieranFrost
Firstly, I trust by 'Nazi language' you don't mean German, I hope you don't anyway.

---

No, I don't, and you know it: don't try and paint me with a xeanophobia brush, it ain't gonna wash.

---

They aren't Nazis, they may wear it, read it, breath it, but they CAN'T be Nazis. Nazi wannabie, maybe, but not Nazis.

---

Semantics. Aspiring Nazis, wannabe Nazis, potential Nazis, neo-Nazis ... why not just cut the foreplay and call them what they are: Nazis.

---

The Nazis main enemies were the Communists, not the Jews.

Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain, he idolised the country, commenting often how it was the pinnicle of society. Yes the Jews suffered terribly, but the Nazis and Hitler, above all else, wanted to eliminate Communism.

Who's ignorant now?

---

Hitler saw communism as a cancer, and he never trusted it for a second. He also wrote long treastieses about the Jewish menace being at the heart of Germany's problems, wanted to extermiate the Jews, and had a pretty good crack at it.

To try and play predicence with the Nazi's victims in this way to score points is obscene. That's damned low.

---

You mean even if he is an unstanding citizen, who helps his elderly neighbour with her garden, helps at a shelter with his spare time, he should be denied everything because THE PARTY HE SUPPORTS behaves badly.

---

He doesn't just support it, he's their youth leader. He's high in the party heirarchy, and actively spreads their filth among the young, so is very responsible for what they get upto.

---

There is SUCH a difference between thinking and acting, supporting and taking part in. They have NO PROOF he's done anything illegal.

---

No I don't, that's why the law cannot interfere, nor should it.

---

If he beat up a white person he'd still get thrown in jail, BNP or not. You can't lable a group of people so lightly. I may not be in favour of Labour, I may think they are often wrong, but I don't past judgement on everyone who supports them. If I did, I'd become just as small minded and arrogant as the BNP.

---

But Labour don't want to ethnically clense the country and they don't idolize a man who slaughtered millions. They'd like to see my in a concentration camp. So yes, their ideas and actions are so irredemably vile I'll pass any judgement on them I want, thanks very much. Your high-handed sermonizing doesn't work very well when faced with the ugly reality.

Again, this doesn't mean I want them persecuted for their beliefs (even though I'd be on the list of the people they'd be happy to persecute), but by the same token, I think they've done enough that University should be free to decide whether it wants to be associated with them.

---

I see no difference between their prejudice AND YOURS!!!!!

---

I hate them because of what they believe. They hate people because of what they are.

There's a difference for you.

(Edited by Byron 22/11/2002 20:37)

---

by KieranFrost
Firstly, I trust by 'Nazi language' you don't mean German, I hope you don't anyway. They aren't Nazis, they may wear it, read it, breath it, but they CAN'T be Nazis. Nazi wannabie, maybe, but not Nazis.

---

I actually agree with you on that point.

---

The Nazis main enemies were the Communists, not the Jews.

---

'Enemies' in what sense?

---

Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain, he idolised the country, commenting often how it was the pinnicle of society.

---

Well, that was terribly decent of him.

---

Yes the Jews suffered terribly, but the Nazis and Hitler, above all else, wanted to eliminate Communism.

---

What are you going on about? Firstly, this has nothing to do with the topic, and secondly, Hitler invaded (or attempted to) most of Europe, the majority of which wasn't Communist. One might think, if that really was his main goal, he would have gone straight for the USSR.

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
Because free markets, without any regulation, don't stay free for very long. For example, monopolies happen, which distorts the behaviour of the market. I'm not sure there are actually many people who believe in totally free markets, and there certainly aren't any governments.

---

Firstly, understand that I dont believe in totally free markets, I am all for them being regulated. However, to say they dont stay free for long makes no sense to me. A truly free market is one with no regulation. If monopolies form the market is still free as it ever was - it's survival of the fittest. No one said it had to be fair! That reason though is why most people do believe in regulation of trade. When it comes to our dealings around the world, I think we need more regulation, as currently the poor countries are getting screwed by the rich ones.

---

(quotes)
You could argue that, but I'm not sure it would make much sense, otherwise anybody who makes unrequested or unwanted calls could be accused of the same thing. I'm sure we'd all like to have some legal means of preventing being called by double-glazing salesmen, but it's not gonna happen.

---

If people call once thats fine. It persistent unwanted callers call you can do something about it, and it has nothing to do with free speech, its to do with the abuse of your 'property'.

---

(quotes)
Claiming that it is a disease when there is, so far as I know, zero evidence that this is the case, could certainly be seen to be offensive and homophobic.

---

Certainly this is a belief held by some nutters though, however delusional you or I may find them, they are entitled to their opinion.

---

(quotes)
And you don't think it's remotely possible that anyone might be intimidated by the very presence of someone who publicly states their belief that that person has no right to be in this country, that they should be forcibly removed?
I should probably make it clear that I don't know if that is his belief, and to be honest I'm not terribly inclined to research the matter, but that is what Byron is alleging.

---

Unfortunately there are lots of people who hold views which others might find intimidating. I don't think you can start excluding those people from universities because you may find someones beliefs intimidating. If they truly are ramming their opinions down your throat in a way that clearly is intended to intimidate, then by all means you've got a case to get this guy thrown out.