BNP membership list has been put online.

[belboid]

teuchter seems to be mistaking misanthropy for racism here...

by his logic, apartheid South Africa wasn't a racist society!

 

[Brainaddict]

It's interesting to see how overwhelmingly male the membership is. It looks like hatred thrives well on testosterone and on egos that want to be the biggest thing in the room

 

[Silver_Fox]

Now i need to rest oh what a packed 48 hours has that been..

Thanks for that but that's the heat map I was talking about. There was one that pin pointed where everyone was on streets.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

No, I was not referring to you. Wind your neck in.

Good

*neck winding in*

 

[_float_]

I happen to believe that one can support many or most of the BNP's policies without being racist. Selfish, shortsighted or ignorant perhaps, but you do not need to be racist to be of the opinion that your community/country would be better without people from other places being mixed into it.

yes, you do need to be racist to believe that, it's pretty much the definition of racism

Opposition to immigration is not the definition of racism.

Someone could be against movement of people into an area for other reasons and they could oppose any incomers reguardless of ethnicity/skin-colour etc.

Other people could be pro-immigration (eg for economic reasons) yet still racist - they might only welcome certain types of incomers.

The two issues are connected but they are not identical.

 

[kyser_soze]

It's interesting to see how overwhelmingly male the membership is. It looks like hatred thrives well on testosterone and on egos that want to be the biggest thing in the room

It's actually quite surprising as well, given that women are more likley to vote for a conservative/rw option than men...altho i suspect the bully boy/fake hard men image appeals to the social inadequates that join the BNP...

 

[_angel_]

It's interesting to see how overwhelmingly male the membership is. It looks like hatred thrives well on testosterone and on egos that want to be the biggest thing in the room

Hah! I noticed that... so are men more racist than women then??

Or, as I suspect, are ALL parties membership overwhelmingly male?

 

[belboid]

Opposition to immigration is not the definition of racism.

Someone could be against movement of people into an area for other reasons and they could oppose any incomers reguardless of ethnicity/skin-colour etc.

Other people could be pro-immigration (eg for economic reasons) yet still racist - they might only welcome certain types of incomers.

The two issues are connected but they are not identical.

teutonic wasn't (seemingly) talking about immigration tho - and nor was i. he was talking about 'cultures' and areas, so defence of him is misguided

 

[_angel_]

It's actually quite surprising as well, given that women are more likley to vote for a conservative/rw option than men...altho i suspect the bully boy/fake hard men image appeals to the social inadequates that join the BNP...

You keep saying this but I read something (in America) that basically said women were more likely to be left leaning voters...

 

[Crispy]

The two issues are connected but they are not identical.

Yup

 

[free spirit]

It's
on
wikileaks

is the wikileaks site working?

can't seem to access it

 

[Kanda]

is the wikileaks site working?

can't seem to access it

Too much traffic. From front page: Wikileaks is overloaded by readers

 

[subversplat]

You keep saying this but I read something (in America) that basically said women were more likely to be left leaning voters...

True but is that because left politics include more pro-women policies and eschew the "Old Boys" style networks?

 

[kyser_soze]

You keep saying this but I read something (in America) that basically said women were more likely to be left leaning voters...

The tories have more female voters than male in the UK. Long term voter behaviour studies have shown this time and time again - Thatch, for example, won because she secured such a huge percentage of women's votes; again, Blair succeeded in the same way.

I've never studied the psephology of the US so can't comment on US voting patterns; I would guesstimate that ethnicity is a greater guide to voter behaviour in the US than gender tho...

 

[noodles]

Secondly the breakdown displays the broad social make-up of the membership. Something the BNP have themselves been keen to emphasise, but many doubted.

Does it really? Search for 'Patel' or 'Singh' and see how many hits you get.

 

[Crispy]

Does it really? Search for 'Patel' or 'Singh' and see how many hits you get.

That's not 'social breakup' that's 'national ancestry'

 

[belboid]

it IS a fairly significant of social make up tho isnt it? albeit not one that will matter a jot to the BNP

 

[noodles]

That's not 'social breakup' that's 'national ancestry'

Surely ethnicity is one of the many parameters involved in determining 'social makeup'?

 

[butchersapron]

Call it class makeup then.

 

[noodles]

Call it class makeup then.

I really don't think the list tells us anything about that that we didn't already know. Quite a few with backgrounds in the military/police. Lots of members in 'white working class' areas and quite a few in more middle-class areas. Is anyone really surprised that there's a few teachers and lawyers on the list?

 

[butchersapron]

I really don't think the list tells us anything about that that we didn't already know. Quite a few with backgrounds in the military/police. Lots of members in 'white working class' areas and quite a few in more middle-class areas. Is anyone really surprised that there's a few teachers and lawyers on the list?

The people who have argued that their appeal is limited to the lumpen should be.

 

[teuchter]

I'd argue that they are racist in that they define people as "native British" (versus 'non-native British') ... they are a bit vague about this, but it seems that anyone who has immigrated to the UK, but also people born here but who have non-British ancestry or 'ethnicity' is deemed not to be 'native British'.

Otherwise how would they arrive at the following claim:They seem to be implying:

1. immigrant = non-native
2. non-white = non-native
3. anyone with any non-british 'ethnicity' = non-native

(although they don't set out clearly how these rules function exactly - for example someone born outside the UK to 'white british parents' who then returns to the UK is an 'immigrant' - how would they then qualify as 'native'? It is possible to think up lots of examples, and in then end it seems to come down to 'race'...)

They don't use the term 'white British' but given the first quote, this seems to be implied.

Yes, all this is true. They seem to have a bizzare and totally impractical idea that Britain would be better if the population were all of the same "race". I presume they believe the same for other nations where the predominant race is not "white". And the distinction between race, culture, ethnicity and "nativeness" is very confused. Now, for me, "racism" means that you think one race is in some way superior to another. Not that several races can't exist peacefully side by side. So by my definition of racism, it would be possible to hold the views they express without actually being "racist".

In any case the point I was making, the relevant point, is that someone signing up to be a member would not necessarily have to be racist to find sympathy with some of what they propose.

For the record I consider the BNP to be, for want of a better word, bonkers, and under the surface almost certainly based on racist and supremacist notions, and I would much rather that they did not exist. But we are discussing whether people who have signed up to be members deserve to be harassed, physically or otherwise, and I am trying to say that there are all sorts of reasons that someone might sign up to them and this does not necessarily mean they share some of the more dangerous and unpleasant ideals that the parties leadership most probably do have.

And this is one of the reasons that I don't think the list should have been made public.

 

[_float_]

Nah, if there was complete and unfettered access to this kind of information on everybody it would loose currency instantly

No it wouldn't. It would open the doors to massive amounts of discrimination and invasion of privacy. Journalists are a small feature of people's day-to-day lives. Nasty bosses, prospective employers, nosey next-door neighbours and a hundred-and-one other pissed-off people wih an axe to grind could use all sorts of information to discriminate against people or otherwise attack/harrass/stalk them. And if it was done anonymously you wouldn't be able to 'get back' at people either.

 

[teuchter]

teuchter seems to be mistaking misanthropy for racism here...

No.

 

[kyser_soze]

No it wouldn't. It would open the doors to massive amounts of discrimination and invasion of privacy. Journalists are a small feature of people's day-to-day lives. Nasty bosses, prospective employers, nosey next-door neighbours and a hundred-and-one other pissed-off people wih an axe to grind could use all sorts of information to discriminate against people or otherwise attack/harrass/stalk them. And if it was done anonymously you wouldn't be able to 'get back' at people either.

Why would such information be anonymous? Complete and open disclosure would negate any chance of discrimination because the decision making process would be completely open, the people making the decisions would have similar information available.

There is a part of me that does think that the only information that should be private is the contents of our heads...

 

[_float_]

According to Nick Griffin on a BBC TV interview it contains just seven more ‘members’ then the original copy.

I'd guess he wants to make out that the BNP actually has a larger membership than it really does and I doubt he wants to admit knowingly keeping people on record if they weren't meant to be there, as this is probably against the law.

 

[teuchter]

by his logic, apartheid South Africa wasn't a racist society!

Yes it was, because it was based on the idea that one race was superior to the other.

The BNP, as far as I am aware, do not propose that non-"Britons" should be made to sit in a different part of the bus.

By BNP logic, white people should not have colonised Africa in the first place, I would presume.

 

[TomPaine]

There is a part of me that does think that the only information that should be private is the contents of our heads...

That sounds a bit creepy to me, would you like to read about your parents fav sexual position in the local rag?

Anyway even if in this country you could somehow reach this utopia you speak of, it would not stop people here being subjected to discrimination when travelling abroad, if soembody could go read their life story online and the click of google.

I think data should only be avliable when it is a.) in the public interest b.) disclosed by the person it is relevant to.

TomPaine

 

[quimcunx]

Yes, all this is true. They seem to have a bizzare and totally impractical idea that Britain would be better if the population were all of the same "race". I presume they believe the same for other nations where the predominant race is not "white". And the distinction between race, culture, ethnicity and "nativeness" is very confused. Now, for me, "racism" means that you think one race is in some way superior to another. Not that several races can exist peacefully side by side. So by my definition of racism, it would be possible to hold the views they express without actually being "racist".

Well, um, no. I was checking out their website a year or two back, on business that needn't concern you here, and noticed a page for Britons whose homes were in Zambia/SA/Africa in general ( I don't remember) and how they needed support in these lands where they live and their grandfathers had made their homes.

I can't link to it now as their website is somewhat reduced on account of the ''high volume of traffic''...

 

[exleper]

Yes, all this is true. They seem to have a bizzare and totally impractical idea that Britain would be better if the population were all of the same "race". I presume they believe the same for other nations where the predominant race is not "white". And the distinction between race, culture, ethnicity and "nativeness" is very confused. Now, for me, "racism" means that you think one race is in some way superior to another. Not that several races can exist peacefully side by side. So by my definition of racism, it would be possible to hold the views they express without actually being "racist".

In any case the point I was making, the relevant point, is that someone signing up to be a member would not necessarily have to be racist to find sympathy with some of what they propose.

For the record I consider the BNP to be, for want of a better word, bonkers, and under the surface almost certainly based on racist and supremacist notions, and I would much rather that they did not exist. But we are discussing whether people who have signed up to be members deserve to be harassed, physically or otherwise, and I am trying to say that there are all sorts of reasons that someone might sign up to them and this does not necessarily mean they share some of the more dangerous and unpleasant ideals that the parties leadership most probably do have.

And this is one of the reasons that I don't think the list should have been made public.

I agree with you, I don't think the list should have been made public. I think privacy and freedom is important, and it should apply to everyone.

But the list is public now, and I still don't think that members of this organisation warrant the kind of sympathy you suggest. They all knew what they were signing up to, the euphemisms they use in their policy material are pretty wafer thin.

A better word than bonkers? How about bigoted, hateful, fearmongering, divisive, separatist, etc etc. These are not people who should be defended.

And I don't think they should be harassed, physically or otherwise. I really hope they aren't. But I won't shed a tear if a racist policeman loses his job.