BNP fail to infiltrate St George's Day parade

This is a very contentious issue here and I`m sure will raise many discussions. Surely freedom of speech means exactly that. Democracy to me means that I may not agree with what someone has to say but I will defend thier right to say so. From my understanding,by banning things,be they orginisations(left,right or centre.) What people want to say(the SOCPA zone in London.) How people dress(hoodies) I`m sure you get the idea. By banning and violently opposing are people not becoming the mindless dictators that they are opposing.Don`t get me wrong,I`m no supporter or apologist for the BNP or any other far right orginisation. In my opinion that through dialogue where people can understand different viewpoints and perspectives and start to respect each other.By marginalising and segregating a two tier society or rather a dictact is being created?

The freedom of speech issue is one which has caused much contrversy. Yes everyone should be allowed to say and do what they want.... as long as it does not bother anyone else. Wherever the BNP set up, racial violence follows, wherever they make a speech, or get elected, curry houses get burned. Should paedophiles be allowed to openley preach that it is OK to abuse children? Of course not, as these words could lead to harm againt an innocent victim. The same is true of the BNP. Their words are designed to create racial hatred, and as a inevitable consequence, racist violence. Is it so bad to try and silence someone in the knowledge that silencing them will directley stop an innocent person getting harmed?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T PREACH HATRED AND VIOLENCE!

BASH THE FASH!

A very good point Sab makes. No,I agree that where it may lead to violence or abuse it must certainly be up to the individual making that gesture to censor themselves. The point I`m trying to raise is that we all are creating a danger of curtailing peoples thoughts through intimidation and violence rather than through debate and rationale.Had this occoured in the north or Ireland some 30 years and more ago maybe a load of innocent lives would not have been lost. In my viewpoint it is better to debate through reason and logic than through violence. We will surely see this point in action next tuesday when the states` thugs decide that people will not be permitted to party in the city. They will provoke violence in order for them to "crack down" on what they and the mainstream media will as usual daub the @anarchist menace.I just felt that the piece written wasn`t exactly unbiased or independent.I read it and thought it seemed to be tabloid journalisim with a fear factor slant. I have found that the majority of right wingers are people themselves marginalised from society with no direct social contact or understanding of the people/groups they feel threatened by. Do you not think that by intergration we will all understand ech other better? Just a point but how come it is mainly whites that are activists in the libertarian activist movement. Racisim has many sides to it`s ugly head,black as well as white racisim. I prepare for the onslaught from leftie fascists! Remember,no matter what,violence breeds violence,weather it be in the form of attack or defence.

"In my viewpoint it is better to debate through reason and logic than through violence." - M@rk

better sure, but not always possible or preferable. i mean, you can't tell me that the warsaw ghetto uprising was the same as auschwitz (or the bombing of dresden or hiroshima), because both involved an armed group imposing their will on another. or for that matter that a would-be rape victim kneeing a rapist in the bollocks is the same as rape. thus it's impossible to coherently take an absolutist approach to political (non/)violence, however reassuring it may be.

(btw Gandhi tried to maintain such an absolutism, which lead him to suggest that europe's jews should have committed mass suicide to avoid the violence of the holocaust ffs)

the bnp are known nazi worshipping party,they try to hide this, but its a fact. The police are ordered to use violence against even peaceful protests in some cases Ive seen innocent people heads pouring blood for the sake of free speech for nazis. This is political correctness gone bloody loony, my grandad was in german resistance he survived, just but he had to flee & fight.

The BNP get funds way beyond those of antifascist activsists, they are scum, this is still a world with a lot of racism, which is used to British & many other countries corporate imperial power.
Sod your pc bullshit mate, if the BNP are allowed to grow with their lies you wouldnt be able to say anything, they would murder you & your kids.
They must be either dumb,v.bitter or mad, if not why dont they see the real with climate change & the threat from singularity,artificial intelligence are real threats to life on earth. Its up to sane people to educate each other & extremists everywhere, they can try & peddle their lies, if not police wont stop them, we have to by organising with mutual aid.

The most solid block on Nazis is as usual working peoples trade unions, they support the grass roots networks, even though some unions defenitely have been manipulated by New labour, they support antifascism most. We need to be organised in every way, the fascists in 1930's Germany were better funded from what I hear,personally I joined the Industrial Workers of the World & do whatever I can.
The police should not be forced to defend these scumbags & its every decent human beings duty to confront murderers wether Yardie,Bushi,Trotsky or Nazi & support what real law is about,
in fact its innate to our survival,

Your post was so excellent I have to point out it's two flaws.

"Sod your pc bullshit mate"

Nah, PC is good, attacking PC plays into the hands of the nazis.

"The most solid block on Nazis is as usual working peoples trade unions, they support the grass roots networks, even though some unions defenitely have been manipulated by New labour, they support antifascism most."

You recommend the IWW. I have to point out the IWW are not part of the TUC. Real unions are obviously necessary. There are many such unions in the UK that should be supported. But those unions who donate funds to a NuLab/Neo-con empire, every TUC leader should stand trial in my opinion. They are just helping the rich get richer. I always like to end on a song where I can so:

Are you poor, forlorn and hungry?
Are there lots of things you lack ?
Is your life made up of misery?
Then dump the bosses off your back.
Are your clothes all patched and tattered ?
Are you living in a shack ?
Would you have your troubles scattered ?
Then dump the bosses off your back.

Are you almost split asunder?
Loaded like a long-eared jack ?
Boob - why don't you buck like thunder,
And dump the bosses off your back ?
All the agonies you suffer
You can end with one good whack
Stiffen up, you orn'ry duffer
And dump the bosses off your back.

(IWW Songbook 9th Edition, 1916)

i couldnt giv a flying fuck about georges day ..or mildreds day come to that!! but praise were praise is due..well done manchester for catching out the scummy thick state backed bnp enemies of us all....u dun well peeps...as for the 80 scum u mentioned..its good u drew them out for all to see..just a pity were not yet able to deal with them and their police allies appropiatly yet..but the day is fast approaching brothers and sisters when we will..for we by then together will have no choice,,..we are going to win in the end sisters and brothers ..never forget that..and again..well done you all..in memory of blair peach and steven lawrence....la luta continua

No offense but anyone who talks about "killing nazis" is walking up the same path as the fash themselves.

They need to be let known that the racist, fascist opinions they spout are outdated and wrong, but individual acts of violence will only breed more violence.

If you go out today and beat up a fascist, its only more likely to make them WANT to try HARDER!

The anti-fascist movements need to recognise this and move beyond.

When communities unite against them and they dont get a single vote and no-one shows at their meetings they will go away, and not before.

The only thing beating up a BNP nazi achieves is another person logging into Redwatch and wondering what they can do to get revenge.

This article is laughably (yes, audibly laughable) biased against the BNP. For an 'independant' news resource you sound like the same feeble institutionalised liberal propaganda on the TV. Read this you numbnuts.

Bret: Greetings, Socrates. I am told you believe that democracy is bad, and aristocracy is good.

Socrates: So you believe democracy is the best good - can you tell me why?

Bret: The individual is the most important good, and democracy allows the individual to express themselves and have the most power against societies that can cause them harm, through representation. It is freedom for the individual, and that is the highest goal of an advanced society.

Socrates: That sounds well enough. But tell me - if an individual were to develop a virus that would eliminate all of humanity, would you stop him?

Bret: Certainly. He would be impeding the rights of individuals, and would have to be stopped.

Socrates: Even though he has the right to freedom, and to express himself?

Bret: His expression of self would prevent others from having the same freedom, so in the name of the collective, we would deny it to him.

Socrates: So if the individual is doing something destructive to the whole, it must be prevented?

Bret: Obviously, if it restricts the freedom of the whole.

Socrates: What if the individual was using his freedom to create a political state which would restrict the freedom of the whole?

Bret: He would have to be restricted.

Socrates: So if one individual were using his freedom to restrict the freedom of the whole, he would be restricted. What if more than one individual were doing so?

Bret: They would also, have to be restricted.

Socrates: What if these individuals did not know their vote would restrict the freedom of the whole?

Bret: They would still have to be restricted.

Socrates: What if these individuals constituted a majority?

Bret: If the democracy were to keep existing, they would have to be restricted.

Socrates: But then there must be someone to restrict them?

Bret: Yes, a wise leader.

Socrates: So how is this different from a king?

Bret: Well, the people have freedom.

Socrates: But only to choose what is already chosen, namely democracy?

Bret: Anything else restricts the freedom of others.

Socrates: And to keep them from this fate they need - a king?

Bret: No, an elected leader.

Socrates: But if they do not know when their decisions will restrict the freedom of the whole, how can they pick the right elected officials?

Bret: If they do not, they will lose their freedoms.

Socrates: But with a king, they always have freedoms?

Bret: Except to choose a leader!

Socrates: But we've already established that they cannot know if they are choosing a leader who will restrict freedom of the whole, or not, and that if they choose the wrong options, they must be restricted. Therefore, do they really have the freedom to choose a leader?

Bret: Well, it's freedom within limits.

Socrates: It seems to me a king offers the same limited freedom, and removes the chance of the people making choices they do not understand. Supposing that people today are voting for something that would restrict the freedoms of the whole in, say, 500 years, and once it is voted for, nothing can change that course?

Bret: Of course that would have to be changed. Through education, or something of that nature.

Socrates: What if education didn't work - if it was something so complex the average person could not understand it?

Bret: Then their vote would be restricted.

Socrates: So if someone is voting for something that in the far future would necessarily limit freedoms for the whole, their vote would be restricted?

Bret: Yes.

Socrates: Yet democracy, in order to preserve itself from bad votes, must limit freedom of the whole. Do you agree?

Bret: Of course.

Socrates: And votes which restrict freedom of the whole must be limited?

Bret: Yes.

Socrates: Does that include... voting for democracy?

(Democracy is a paradox: people voting on things they do not understand, in order to achieve paradoxical goals such as the freedom to have unfreedom. It does not function, except as an appeasement to the masses, who believing they are "free" will ignore the behind-the-scenes machinations of commerce.)

From anus.com

Indymedia's story is complete rubbish. I saw the float in question and there were no BNP markings on it. Also, there was no "riot". Why do you make this stuff up?

"Indymedia's story is complete rubbish. I saw the float in question and there were no BNP markings on it."

That's what the article says. And it isn't an IM story, it is a Black Flag Tower article. Don't worry, reading and comprehending will become easier if you practice it more.

"This article is laughably (yes, audibly laughable) biased against the BNP."

Great to see you have heard of Socrates, and that you aren't biased against Greeks or Europeans. He liked to fuck young boys so I suppose you have something in common. So you don't like democracy and support the idea of a philospher-king do you ? That's rather disloyal to dear old Elizabeth, gawd bless her soul, isn't it ? Or do you think she is the smartest person in Britain ? You know what, I think your post is audibly laughably biased against the BNP, and treasonous to the Queen to boot. You should have yourself shipped to the gas-chambers immediately.

No one said the float had BNP markings on it -that's the whole point. It was a float entered by the BNP under a different name that they claimed had nothing to do with them - but was entered by a group called 'British Heritage'. On the BNP website they ask for dontations to be made out to 'British Heritage'.

Yes there WAS a 'riot' if you want to call it that or you prefer to say 'disturbance' outside Sinclairs Oyster Bar later that day which involved a number of the same group of people who had their float impounded - 'British Heritage'.

A couple of people fighting outside an oyster bar (those fash do love their oysters, when they arent eating sushi ofc) equates to a riot? A BNP supported float impounded even though it wasnt their float?

This is the most laughable attempt at 'news' since that mad iraqi foreign minister told everyone how the americans were nowhere near baghdad and were being chased out of the country.

Honestly i have tears in my eye's its that funny. Perhaps you red's should stop trying to destroy democracy and do what NORMAL people do when they hear something they dont like, ignore it. Dont like what they are saying then offer debate or ignore it. Making up lies and going about saying that anyone who isnt being nice to all races of the world under the rainbow of mankind should be locked up is more looney than anything the bnp would do if in power.

I think its you who is the real threat to democracy.