It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is UKIP a Racist Party or the Party of the People?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
is about a freedom to express yourself


Does that mean racist groups can speak their poison in public?
thats the problem with anarchy...freedom without restrictions


[edit on 5-10-2004 by infinite]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by shorty
is about a freedom to express yourself


Does that mean racist groups can speak their poison in public?
thats the problem with anarchy...freedom without restrictions


[edit on 5-10-2004 by infinite]


Like i said controlled anarchy they could say there belifs but not say things racist i mean you could say you dont like black people but you couldn't offend them. I am not racist.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
Like i said controlled anarchy they could say there belifs but not say things racist i mean you could say you dont like black people but you couldn't offend them. I am not racist.


That's not anarchy, that freedom of speech which we have now. Freedom of speech is one the basic principles behind Democracy. Anarchism just isn't a practical political idealogy. It sounds good on the surface but once you get into what it means then you see that it's chaos, panic and hell on earth.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   


Like i said controlled anarchy they could say there belifs but not say things racist i mean you could say you dont like black people but you couldn't offend them. I am not racist.


This is why anarchy cannot be successful, you still have restrictions even though a government body is removed. If you was to say "i dont like black people" in public, expect a backlash and without a government or law no one is pretected.



That's not anarchy, that freedom of speech which we have now. Freedom of speech is one the basic principles behind Democracy. Anarchism just isn't a practical political idealogy. It sounds good on the surface but once you get into what it means then you see that it's chaos, panic and hell on earth.


UK Wizard, Exactly.
Perfect example of a state without governemt or control is Iraq after Saddam was removed. Chaos fell apon the land because there was no control or law to keep people in line.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by infinite]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by shorty
Like i said controlled anarchy they could say there belifs but not say things racist i mean you could say you dont like black people but you couldn't offend them. I am not racist.


That's not anarchy, that freedom of speech which we have now. Freedom of speech is one the basic principles behind Democracy. Anarchism just isn't a practical political idealogy. It sounds good on the surface but once you get into what it means then you see that it's chaos, panic and hell on earth.


Controlled anarchy would be alittle more than freedom of speech and we dont truly have freedom of speech.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
Controlled anarchy would be alittle more than freedom of speech and we dont truly have freedom of speech.


As soon as you start to control anarchy then it becomes a democracy. You cant control anarchy cause that is against the ideology of anarchy and its fundamental belief.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Controlled anarchy would be diffrent it would be less strict than a democracy. Maybe England could be split into to half so to speak a democracy and the state of controlled anarchy controled by a domocracy at roots and all totally under control of the domocracy. Does that make any sense.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
Controlled anarchy would be diffrent it would be less strict than a democracy. Maybe England could be split into to half so to speak a democracy and the state of controlled anarchy controled by a domocracy at roots and all totally under control of the domocracy. Does that make any sense.


no it doesnt,
what im trying to explain is that anarchy is about not being controlled so trying to control it is going against the main ideology of anarchy.

Understand now?



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I understand what your saying. I am disagreeing it can be controlled. No it would not be a full state of anarchy because law would pin you down to a degree but it would be less strict than current law.

And im talking about CA not a complete state of anarchy.

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by shorty]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
I understand what your saying. I am disagreeing it can be controlled. No it would not be a full state of anarchy because law would pin you down to a degree but it would be less strict than current law.

And im talking about CA not a complete state of anarchy.

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by shorty]


This is where you have gone wrong, to control anarchy you need laws and laws is a form of control, control is what anarchy is trying to prevent. If you introduce afew laws with a freedom to express ones self then thats a democracy



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
I understand what your saying. I am disagreeing it can be controlled. No it would not be a full state of anarchy because law would pin you down to a degree but it would be less strict than current law.

And im talking about CA not a complete state of anarchy.


From that statement you want less stricter laws not anarchy, you have to undertand that anarchy can't work it's best kept to the definitions libary. The very idea behind Anarchy is that it lacks control, so if you apply control it is no longer anarchy.

edit: it's funny that this thread is about UKIP and it's turned into a thread on anarchy....


[edit on 5-10-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
cause we have gone off subject and this is an interesting debate, i have decided to create a new thread



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I totally get what your both saying. I do belive in the right to express yourself do we agree thats part of what anarchy is. We also agree that anarchy is about a lack of control which i agree with. So my defintion of CA or CE controlled anarchy would be a freedom to express feeling and belif with control and laws IMHO = controlled anarchy. Its controlled expression

I only just came up with the term controlled anarchy and controlled expression and im already abbreviating them.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
So my defintion of CA or CE controlled anarchy would be a freedom to express feeling and belif with control and laws IMHO = controlled anarchy. Its controlled expression


Controlled anarchy has another meaning...
Democracy, so you are basicly reinventing something that already exists.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
UKIP has many members with links to the BNP. You might want to check this out:

www.corbett-euro.demon.co.uk...

Many members of the BNP have become UKIP members, and members of UKIP have left and joined the BNP.

Also the current chairman of UKIP's branch in South Thanet, Martyn Heale, was previously a branch organiser and council candidate for the National Front.
(As reported in Private Eye)

UKIP is unfortunately attracting the extreme right as they see it as a respectable face to hide behind, and a viable vehicle for their twisted beliefs.


Also, they're not too good with Women.....



Sky News

"No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age," said Godfrey Bloom, a UK Independence Party MEP.
Mr Bloom, an investment fund manager from York, was speaking on his first day in Strasbourg - after being given a place on the Women's Rights Committee.

He said he wanted to deal with women's issues because "I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough".

Later, Mr Bloom went on television to expand on his views on women's rights, saying: "The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment.

He added: "That isn't politically incorrect, is it? But it's a fact of life. I know, because I am a businessman."



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
UKIP has many members with links to the BNP. You might want to check this out:

www.corbett-euro.demon.co.uk...

Many members of the BNP have become UKIP members, and members of UKIP have left and joined the BNP.

Also the current chairman of UKIP's branch in South Thanet, Martyn Heale, was previously a branch organiser and council candidate for the National Front.
(As reported in Private Eye)

UKIP is unfortunately attracting the extreme right as they see it as a respectable face to hide behind, and a viable vehicle for their twisted beliefs.


Also, they're not too good with Women.....


There may be extremeists in the Party but the UKIP policy reflects the ideals of the centre-right majority. There are ex-communists in the Labour Party but nobody complains about them do they.

As for the child bearing women bit, thats common sense, because you would be employing a women who would soon take months off work to care for the child thus forcing you to train another person to cover their job.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I see what your saying, but UKIP party is based on equal opportunities and is against racism. Most parties probably have members who had far right pasts or extreme left in some cases.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Make of it want you want, just giving the Info.


I don't have much interest in UKIP myself; I think their infighting will bring them down. But, the question was 'are UKIP racist' and to me, the BNP and the National Front are indeed racist and with UKIP having so many connections to these types of organisations it isn't hard to see why people would regard UKIP in the same light. Their policies are no doubt not racist, but many of their membership are. That their policies are not racist is one of the main attractions to the extremists. They know it's all about image and PR these days.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Now I'm really confused...

support UKIP who are totally for withdrawing from the EU

or

support conservatives who are heading in that direction and have the power to do so

...........................

My point of view on UKIP has swung .... Kilroy-Silk has shot UKIP in both feet, UKIP gone mad

the reason for this is because UKIP are now going to field candidates in Conservative Euro-Skeptic seats.... thus resulting in pro-EU candidates getting in from other Parties


I thought UKIP was a new party, a party that could change Britain.... but their no better than the others


I'm suprised at the Conservatives new ideas, some of which they've plainly nicked off UKIP, but some of which are interesting and look very practical


i've returned to sitting on the political fence, somewhere imbetween UKIP and the Conservatives

the news that UKIP have ex-NF members casts a rather deep dark shadow, yes the majority of the party is moderate centre-right but I'm greatly worried as why UKIP havn't removed these neo-nazis

this is so confused.... maybe i've put forward too much support for UKIP without researching their members enough

politics is so confusing


[edit on 6-10-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Are there any partys out there that are totally out for the people? Wouldn't you be tempted to help yourself with your power?

Why are partys called partys the only times you see them they dont look very happy at all. Mostly they just moan




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join