recently the BNP's (British Nationalist Party) members list has been published. Now i would like to make this clear before we go any further i hate the BNP and everything they stand for but since the list has been published people have been ridiculed for their membership and several people have lost their jobs because it was found they were members of the BNP. Now i thought that britian was supposed to be a democracy? These people were just expressing their views which they are intitled to do but it seems that they are being persecuted for doing so! Limited freedom is not freedom at all! This goes to show how censored society has become. People should be allowed to express their views and feelings without being persecuted. Anywayz thats my 2 cents
It's police offers and prisoner officers that cannot be in the BNP, due to the BNP's views on certain subjects.
yh, i understand certain careers more than others but its gone as far as a radio DJ which i thought was ridiculous
They are trying to do similar things in the USA with anyone who is in the mafia.... err I mean union. I am confused by what is being pulled, but basically they want the votes to be made public. If you vote something other than the mafia boss ... um union wants, I would expect to see some accidents. Oregon just switched to a senator that is for the votes being made public- isn't that sweet and progressive?? I guess I should ask - is the BNP anything like the KKK or black panthers? are they some sort of extremist hate group? Or do you just not agree with the politics? Why can't an officer be BNP? Are they for lawlessness?
Partial information, here. They have lost their jobs because it was found they were members of the BNP and they knew before taking their jobs and/or joining the BNP that BNP membership was deemed by their employers to be incompatible with holding that job. Big difference, I think you'll agree? Wrong. They were not "just" expressing their views. (In fact they were not really "expressing" their views at all, they were keeping quiet about them.) What they were doing, however, was breaching the terms of their employment. Does it make more sense now? My 2 cents is that your 2 cents is mistaken because your opinion was formed on the basis of factually incorrect information.
Exactly - if the employer doesnt want them to join the BNP, they should be dealt with. lol, those emails are great
Yeah, its pretty extreme and racially motivated: "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." The organization evolved out of the British National Front, which itself was an off-shoot of the British fascist party. It started off with a huge bias against Jewish people, but they've kind of rebranded to be anti-Islamic since around 2000-2001.
Exactly so. They say in election campaigning that they're not, of course. But they also "have the courage of their past convictions" as the saying goes.
I didn't really read any of the thread beside the title, but I am here just to tell you that democracy is not freedom.
BUT, they were simply members of a perfectly legal UK Political Party, one that fields candidates for elections and has won significant local victories, placing party members in, albeit limited, corridors of power, so why should these people lose their jobs for supporting a legitimate political party? If they BNP was an outlawed, illegal, party, then I would say they deserved it but it's not, so why are people being sacked for their political views?
Because it was contrary to their contracts of employment to be members. People are not being sacked for their political views. If that were the case, the employers would have no defence at all at an employment tribunal against claims for unfair dismissal. I'll say it one more time: they were sacked for breaching their contracts of employment. Clear now?
As much as I hate - hate groups, just as McFox puts it below, if they are a legal political party and in a democracy why should they be smeared. We have groups here, and I know on somewhat personal level that are racist and hate jews, yet they are a minority and won't be able to make changes that they would want. It's lame to have these political groups, yet we afford them in a democracy.
You may say that the fact that BNP membership is expressly prohibited in the employment contracts of those in public service, teachers, and so on is tantamount to a form of "persecution", if you wanted; and on that point you would have a debatable proposition (not one I happen to agree with, myself, but admittedly a debatable one). This is, however, a huge contrast to your original statement, which was just plain factually wrong, however you look at it.
We do; this is the thing. It's easy to call them "a perfectly legitimate political party", as if it's simply black and white (to coin a phrase!) but the reality belies that attitude, if you look at the number of the times their party officials have been prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, crimes of violence, and so on. As you say, we afford them in a democracy. Just about. But to go on from there and protect them from breaching the terms of their employment, and bewailing the "absence of democracy" when that rightly isn't tolerated, is ludicrous nonsense and offensive ludicrous nonsense at that.
great post, short and with the answer. Sometimes, politicians use the word "democracy" to get the l-o-v-e from an average Joe.