Bollitics: Local & Euro Elections 2009

[bickster]

With respect Jon, you haven't half been believing some utter bollocks, how can an act designed to promote equality be racist, positive discrimination whether you agree with it or not is not racism (unless you believe the BNP that is). It is almost impossible for the majority population in any economic unit to suffer racism on the scale you seem to think its happening, the act is about redressing the balance and righting wrongs. Sorry Jon but that line about positive discrimination is right out of the BNP handbook.

And on your final point, no its not strange because one is a MUCH bigger problem than the other, unless of course you believe the BNP's line

[TheDon]

positive discrimination whether you agree with it or not is not racism

Yes, it is.

Please tell me how treating applicants differently based on their race is not the dictionary definition of racism (not that I'm actually convinced this happens to any extent in this country)

The point is though, you don't "right wrongs" by actively employing more people from ethnic minorities, you right them by ensuring everyone is treated equally, it's shouldn't be an overnight statistics balancing act so you can go "LOOK, our organisation has proportional representation of all ethnic groups!" it's something that should be done in future by not discriminating, and sure, that means for a while you'll still have a majority white work force, but you cannot just use positive discrimination to right that because that then causes more problems with resentment within the majority population that people like the BNP thrive on.

It's like every job I've applied to in the past 12 months has had a line saying that disabled applicants are GUARANTEED an interview. That is wrong as well. Why aren't I guaranteed one when I can do the job? I'm discriminated against because I'm not disabled, as everyone knows getting an interview is more than 50% of the battle.

[Awol]

Gareth, (if I can call you Gareth ), by definition an Equalities Act that gives a legal basis to discrimination against any single group by gender or race is a contradiction in terms. That is not parroting the BNP, it is just common sense. If a politician told me it was Monday I'd assume it was Tuesday until I could prove otherwise so I'm afraid I've reached the above conclusion all by myself. At no point did I suggest that there was parity in the level of discrimination experienced by whites and non whites and I'd love to see an end to discrimination of all hues. What I object to is a sense that the postion must now be over corrected to compensate for historical failings. That isn't equality, it's defered guilt visited upon the current generation.

[knowles]

racism exists in all areas of society....look at how many people go out with someone of the same skin colour...at uni we have loads of asians and they never go out with any white people...the same as i never see white guys going out with black girls...These are the thing people ignore and when religion, race and politics is involved it will ALways create tensions within society...if we see a reason to fight with each other we like to....its part of our animal nature from our time as monkeys....We are now all just Monekeys in suits and ties...nothing changes

[mjmooney]

racism exists in all areas of society....look at how many people go out with someone of the same skin colour...at uni we have loads of asians and they never go out with any white people...the same as i never see white guys going out with black girls...These are the thing people ignore and when religion, race and politics is involved it will ALways create tensions within society...if we see a reason to fight with each other we like to....its part of our animal nature from our time as monkeys....We are now all just Monekeys in suits and ties...nothing changes

Sorry, but this is twaddle.

Where do you think all these mixed race people come from? Half the Villa team? The President of the USA?

[tonyh29]

Where are you going to get your gold from?

I'm gonna buy it at rock bottom prices off Gordon :nod:

how can an act designed to promote equality be racist

We shouldn't need equality laws , I've spent the last 15 years having to interview people for positions , I always pick them based on their ability and I (maybe niavely ?) believe any other employee would do the same ...

it's probably more a perception thing .. when you hear of awards such as" Black Pupils Achievement Programme" being introduced into schools doesn't it by it's very nature provoke conflict ? ... if there is a black pupils award shouldn't there by definition be a white pupils award .... It's conception was probably well intentioned but shouldn't it just be a " Pupils Achievement Programme " and not have any boundaries on who is entitled to it ....

The more they create equality laws , the more people misunderstand them , , the more outraged readers people seem to get , the more fuel it gives to parties like the BNP. On the BBC election show Griffen argued that they stayed an all white party as it gave them protection under Race laws .. so lets tweak these laws and then we can once and for all expose parties like the BNP for what they are as they can't hide behind the law

[knowles]

racism exists in all areas of society....look at how many people go out with someone of the same skin colour...at uni we have loads of asians and they never go out with any white people...the same as i never see white guys going out with black girls...These are the thing people ignore and when religion, race and politics is involved it will ALways create tensions within society...if we see a reason to fight with each other we like to....its part of our animal nature from our time as monkeys....We are now all just Monekeys in suits and ties...nothing changes

Sorry, but this is twaddle.

Where do you think all these mixed race people come from? Half the Villa team? The President of the USA?

Take a walk on the street i bet you see more black and black couples and white and white couples and asian asian couples....its not in every case and we have exceptions but i would say out of the people i see on the street and i know.....4-5 per cent are mixed race and 95 socialise and reproduce with the same...

sports stars going out with wags and models, posh people marrying posh people....its all to do with mental state...Either way it i dont think it matters I doubt the human race will survive another 300 years on this planet anyway im more intrested in what will happen when we are gone for kind of creatures will rule the earth :shock:

Either way if villa win a trophy i will be amused

[blandy]

positive discrimination whether you agree with it or not is not racism

Yes, it is.

Please tell me how treating applicants differently based on their race is not the dictionary definition of racism (not that I'm actually convinced this happens to any extent in this country)

The point is though, you don't "right wrongs" by actively employing more people from ethnic minorities, you right them by ensuring everyone is treated equally..

I open myself to correction but the equal opportunities act or whatever it's called is not racist as AWOL is claiming.

I understood it makes it illegal to discriminate against various groups and on various grounds including race. So in the work interview type situation, I understood it also allows, where all other things are equal, for a decision to be made to improve a company's spread of workforce - to give people who more frequently suffer to have a chance.

There's a difference between pushing someone over (BNP) and helping someone up (most of the rest of society).

In a more practical sense, I would say that the more realistic situation is that companies (with weak managers) will tend not to sack badly performing workers from minorities, where they would do so for the majority - not based on race, but based on fear of a minority person using the law to bring trouble upon them.

it's a problem of weak management, not law, but it definitely happens.

This government in particular has a history of making bad laws by acting too hastily, being too populist and not allowing enough time for scrutiny of draft laws, but the charge that they are racist, or the equalities act is racist is complete bollocks.

*this doesn't mean that some people won't misinterpret the law and act in a way which could arguably be seen as racist as the DOn's comment says, but it isn't the law that's at fault, there.

[tonyh29]

The President of the USA?

knowing the Irish ,they will try and claim him :nod:

[kidlewis]

^Where are you going to get your gold from? :?

are you suggesting I vote BNP snowy?

[Clarry]

it's probably more a perception thing .. when you hear of awards such as" Black Pupils Achievement Programme" being introduced into schools doesn't it by it's very nature provoke conflict ? ... if there is a black pupils award shouldn't there by definition be a white pupils award ....

Good point.

When my place first did Black Achievement awards it was in response to a research project and a thank you to the pupils and parents involved. It was such a success that it is now for all pupils. Which creates another problem. We then get accused of elitism! I see no problem in awarding high achievers - they are very often neglected.

It does get tiring sometimes. We did a Black African Pupils research project and were accused by the more vocal in the Black Caribbean community of failing their children, even though we had done a research project for them two years previous (with a Portuguese and Somali project in the intervening years).

It is now the turn of our White British pupils project. God knows what we'll be accused of.

[Awol]

Any form of positive discrimination for one group of individuals will inevitably result in negative discrimination against others. Ergo, if the basis of that discrimination is skin colour then the decision is inherently racist. To package that up as an 'Equality Bill' says to me that some in government still have a sense of humour, if nothing else.

That is not complete bollocks imo, it's blindingly fecking obvious.

[Clarry]

2) Immigration. The BNP propose financial assistance for immigrants who wish to return to their homeland and deportation of illegal immigrants, according to their manifesto.

Labour already have a very similar policy in existence now and has done for a number of years. Home Office - Voluntary Assisted Return scheme Shame it took an FOI request to get them to admit it.

A) The BNP are racist at their core. It doesn't really matter what is or isn't in their manifesto.

I remember this coming in and the uproar in the usual parts of the press about asylum seekers and immigrants getting even more money from tax-payers. Not one voice said it was racist. I can't really see it as racist as long as it is a choice. Look at the list, there are peoples from all over. And I do notice there seems to be a lot returning to countries post-conflict (although the countries are still screwed up).

C) Your FOI comment insinuates that this was being hidden. FOI requests are commonplace for data. It just ensures it is received quicker.

I do find it amusing that you are trying to equate Labour with being a racist party though.

[Awol]

2) Immigration. The BNP propose financial assistance for immigrants who wish to return to their homeland and deportation of illegal immigrants, according to their manifesto.

Labour already have a very similar policy in existence now and has done for a number of years. Home Office - Voluntary Assisted Return scheme Shame it took an FOI request to get them to admit it.

A) The BNP are racist at their core. It doesn't really matter what is or isn't in their manifesto.

I remember this coming in and the uproar in the usual parts of the press about asylum seekers and immigrants getting even more money from tax-payers. Not one voice said it was racist. I can't really see it as racist as long as it is a choice. Look at the list, there are peoples from all over. And I do notice there seems to be a lot returning to countries post-conflict (although the countries are still screwed up).

C) Your FOI comment insinuates that this was being hidden. FOI requests are commonplace for data. It just ensures it is received quicker.

I do find it amusing that you are trying to equate Labour with being a racist party though.

What I'm trying to do Clarry is look past the rhetoric. I'm not for a second suggesting the parties have broadly the same agenda, I'm trying to look at the policies of both, where they are similar, where they differ and why (lost in the mists now but the original point) the label of far right was an inaccurate one when applied to the BNP. UKIP? Yes, far right by this countries standards. BNP? Not a bit of it.

If the BNP's actual immigration policy (for which they are slaughtered) is not that far removed - or at least similar in signifcant elements - from Labour's, then it is worthy of comment in the context of the left - right discussion that's going on.

All i'm trying to do is approach the subject from a different view point because a zillion posts saying "the BNP are racist bastards" is all great but doesn't really encourage discussion.

[bickster]

What I'm trying to do Clarry is look past the rhetoric.

Personally I think you're failing in that aim

[Clarry]

[What I'm trying to do Clarry is look past the rhetoric.

If the BNP's actual immigration policy (for which they are slaughtered) is not that far removed - or at least similar in signifcant elements - from Labour's, then it is worthy of comment in the context of the left - right discussion that's going on.

All i'm trying to do is approach the subject from a different view point because a zillion posts saying "the BNP are racist bastards" is all great but doesn't really encourage discussion.

The context of left - right is important as you say, and interesting. Is being left or right a total package, or is it originally a party's economic stance?

It is a very grey area.

But here is some Griffin, especially interesting is the "salable words":

"Without the White race nothing matters [other right-wing parties] believe that the answer to the race question is integration and a futile attempt to create "Black Britons", while we affirm that NON-WHITES HAVE NO PLACE HERE AT ALL AND WILL NOT REST UNTIL EVERY LAST ONE HAS LEFT OUR LAND." - Nick Griffin

"There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. And the British National Party isn't about selling out it's ideas, which are your ideas, but we are determined now to sell them. And that means basically to use these salable words.

As I say, 'freedom', 'security', 'identity', 'democracy', nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas: they are salable. Perhaps one day, once by being rather more subtle, we got ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their minds and say, 'Yes, every last one must go'. Perhaps they will one day, but if you offer that as your soul mate to start with, you're going to get absolutely nowhere. So, INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT RACIAL PURITY WE TALK ABOUT IDENTITY." - Nick Griffin addressing the Ku Klux Klan

"Voluntary repatriation. Isn't that EASIER TO SELL than compulsory repatriation for all?" - Nick Griffin

[blandy]

Any form of positive discrimination for one group of individuals will inevitably result in negative discrimination against others. Ergo, if the basis of that discrimination is skin colour then the decision is inherently racist. To package that up as an 'Equality Bill' says to me that some in government still have a sense of humour, if nothing else.

That is not complete bollocks imo, it's blindingly fecking obvious.

I completely disagree. It is not "inevitable" that someone else gets "negative" discrim against them.

Leaving aside colour or any other minority aspect, the simplest example I can think of is say you have 2 people. 1 lives in a puddle and one lives in shed - if you positively discriminate to give the person in the puddle shelter, that does not mean that the person in the shed is being treated unequally, just that the person(s) with the greatest need are dealt with first.

Bringing it back to reality, if you help people who are more disadvantaged, whether by disability, circumstance or racial issues, then you are putting a higher need before a lower need.

And people from some sections of society are still badly treated, so to help that section be not so badly treated is a good thing.

Yes I know all that's a massive simplification, and there are counter arguments that can be made, but the experience in real life is that things like sexism and racism and disability-ism are less prevalent in society than they were partly as a result of equality laws. Over time it works, despite it's imperfections and the cases it throws up where some people do lose out through apparent favouritism of the kind it's supposed to eliminate, in reverse. The overall effect is for the good.

That's why, for me, the BNP argument and the one made along the same lines by non-BNP people is wrong. They pick the exceptions and show it is imperfect (no shit!) but ignore the overall beneficial effect, and the majority of instances where it genuinely works.

[VOTN]

What the heck is "Bollitics"? It's obviously "politics" but is there some weird reason for calling it "bollitics" in the same way as Indian films are said to be made in Bollywood?

[TheDon]

What the heck is "Bollitics"? It's obviously "politics" but is there some weird reason for calling it "bollitics" in the same way as Indian films are said to be made in Bollywood?

I think it's pretty obvious, near enough everything politicians say in this country is a load of bollocks.

[VOTN]

It' not just in the UK, believe me, I don't live in the UK any more.