View Full Version : Peaceful protests. Do they even exist?
Trouble has broken out as thousands of people marched through Copenhagen demanding action from leaders at UN climate talks there.
Most of the march in the Danish capital passed off peacefully, but one group smashed windows and was arrested.
Hundreds of others were detained in a preventative action by police.
Security has been tight along the four-mile (6km) route, with extra police on the streets and security fences put up around some buildings.
Marches were also held in Australia, Hong Kong, Jakarta and the Philippines.
Danish police said they had rounded up more than 300 people in a preventive action against a section of the demonstration, AP news agency reported.
Television pictures showed scores of people on the ground with their hands tied and surrounded by riot police.
More than 50 other protesters were arrested in Copenhagen following a smaller demonstration on Friday.
Organisers said up to 100,000 protesters from around the world had joined Saturday's march across the city to the conference centre where negotiators and ministers are meeting.
Danish police estimated that up to 30,000 people had taken part.
The BBC's Matt McGrath, in Copenhagen, said the crowd was colourful, with some protesters dressed as polar bears and others draped in blue and green to show their support for the planet.
Activists are arguing for an ambitious, legally binding agreement on emissions cuts to be signed by world leaders at the summit's conclusion at the end of next week.
"This is the right time to shout out and let leaders know this is serious business for us all. Lets hope they listen," Lin Che, a 28-year-old student from Taiwan, told Reuters news agency.
A number of famous figures said they would join the protest, among them Bollywood actor Rahul Bose, model and photographer Helena Christensen and former UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson.
Helena Christensen told the marchers: "It's incredibly difficult to reach agreement in families, so to reach it between nations obviously will be a long and difficult process. But that's what they are there for and that's what we expect from them."
'Safe climate'
In Australia, where events were held as part of the country's fifth Walk Against Warming, the largest protest was held in Melbourne.
The march closed with protesters spelling out the message "Safe Climate - Do It!" on the ground.
Organisers said aerial photographs had been taken and would be sent to delegates at the talks in Copenhagen.
In Adelaide, activist James Dannenberg told state radio: "We want [world leaders] to bring home a treaty, we want them to stand by the Pacific and our neighbours there.
"And we want them to deliver and ensure a safe climate future for us all."
Thousands of demonstrators also gathered in front of Australia's parliament house in the capital, Canberra.
On Friday, European Union leaders agreed a three-year deal to pay 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn; $10.6bn) to help poorer nations cope with climate change.
But leaders of developing countries and some aid agencies described the sum offered by the EU as inadequate.
Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, officials released a draft text of a possible final deal in which rich countries are asked to raise their pledges on greenhouse gas emissions cuts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8409331.stm
Sure doesn't look like it.
Firstly, I don't even know why there's even a protest. The EU's already thrown away billions of euros to poorer countries (as usual) to tackle this climate change myth and yet people are still protesting? The only way there wouldn't be a protest is if every western nation the globe agreed to put 99.9% of their budget towards green issues.
Still, the good thing about a democracy is the freedom to protest. However, people do not have the right to cause violence.
I hope the far-left don't turn this into another G20.
lara c. fan
12-12-09, 18:13
Goverment is goverment, people are people. :rolleyes:
My goodness.
I never understood how any good can come from a protest. There always ends up being so much violence. What is that going to solve? You said it best: "people do not have the right to cause violence".
My goodness.
I never understood how any good can come from a protest. There always ends up being so much violence. What is that going to solve? You said it best: "people do not have the right to cause violence".I don't see anything wrong with peaceful protests, but I do find it a bit odd that they're protesting at a summit they're in favor of.
Goverment is goverment, people are people. :rolleyes:???
The bigger and less well managed a protest is, the more likely it will end in chaos - no matter how noble the cause. To be fair though, considering the size of this protest, its gone quite peacefully indicating its been fairly well managed.
I don't see anything wrong with peaceful protests, but I do find it a bit odd that they're protesting at a summit they're in favor of.
"Peaceful protest" is an oxymoron to me. :p I'm fine with those, too, but I never hear of them. It seems that more often than not, people get way out of control and start acting like vicious animals.
"Peaceful protest" is an oxymoron to me. :p I'm fine with those, too, but I never hear of them. It seems that more often than not, people get way out of control and start acting like vicious animals.I agree.
I hate to put the blame on people here, but more often than not it's young socialists/communists/anarchists. This isn't always the case though.
lara c. fan
12-12-09, 18:37
???
Goverment are stupid, the people cause violence at protests.
Mystery-King
12-12-09, 18:38
Answer to the title of this thread...
No. Thats an oxymoron. :(
Goverment are stupid, the people cause violence at protests.Yeah, governments are stupid, but what's the government got to do with these protests?
lara c. fan
12-12-09, 18:48
Yeah, governments are stupid, but what's the government got to do with these protests?
Making the conference :p
IDK...
More violent protests at the Copenhagen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8415307.stm
Copenhagen joins cities like St Paul and London in the long list of cities terrorized by violent far-left organizations
Sometimes you read a thread title and you just know this is going to be fun. This is a great example of that. :D
Yes, peaceful protests exist. They are far more frequent than violent ones, actually. The problem, of course, is that they're nowhere near as newsworthy. "Thousands of people walked peacefully through the city. Traffic was held up a little." is nowhere near as interesting a story as "OMG! They nuked Copenhagen's Mermaid!" In fact, peaceful protest can actually be significantly more successful. My favorite example are the protests in the GDR that led to reunification in the end, but you can take a lot of other examples as well.
Of course, most protests are simply rather small. 2500 people protesting in Aachen for better conditions at universities is something that no news agency in Great Britain will report, but it happened and it was thoroughly peaceful and, if I may say so, boring.
Another thing to point out, of course, is that it's generally wrong to blame all the protesters for single events. If a protests march gets large enough, then keeping the trouble-makers out is not easy. That does not mean that all, most or even just a significant percentage of the protesters support such actions. If you judge the entire protest by the actions of a violent minority, then you'd have to outlaw all protests beyond a certain size, and I don't think that's helpful for democracy.
Of course, there are protests that are clearly mainly violent. I'm against those as much as anybody. I just don't think those are the majority, no matter what the free press says.
Sometimes you read a thread title and you just know this is going to be fun. This is a great example of that. :DEh?
Eh?
The idea that protests (and by extension much of the opposition organized outside parliaments) are never or at least not usually peaceful seems very controversial. In particular, I'd expect the people who go on or support peaceful protests to protest loudly (but peacefully) against this statement. Of course, so far they really haven't, which I find odd… Do we just not have a lot of them on TRF?
Sometimes you read a thread title and you just know this is going to be fun. This is a great example of that. :D
Yes, peaceful protests exist. They are far more frequent than violent ones, actually. The problem, of course, is that they're nowhere near as newsworthy. "Thousands of people walked peacefully through the city. Traffic was held up a little." is nowhere near as interesting a story as "OMG! They nuked Copenhagen's Mermaid!" In fact, peaceful protest can actually be significantly more successful. My favorite example are the protests in the GDR that led to reunification in the end, but you can take a lot of other examples as well.
Of course, most protests are simply rather small. 2500 people protesting in Aachen for better conditions at universities is something that no news agency in Great Britain will report, but it happened and it was thoroughly peaceful and, if I may say so, boring.
Another thing to point out, of course, is that it's generally wrong to blame all the protesters for single events. If a protests march gets large enough, then keeping the trouble-makers out is not easy. That does not mean that all, most or even just a significant percentage of the protesters support such actions. If you judge the entire protest by the actions of a violent minority, then you'd have to outlaw all protests beyond a certain size, and I don't think that's helpful for democracy.
Of course, there are protests that are clearly mainly violent. I'm against those as much as anybody. I just don't think those are the majority, no matter what the free press says.
This.
No one wants to read about a lovely peaceful demo. Well actually...they might do but that is not how the media sees it.
I wasn't saying that there are more violent protests than peaceful ones, but it does seem like most of the big demonstrations always have some sort of violence in them.
Hmm but that can be manipulated or rather effectively hijacked by those who want the medias attention. It only takes a small amount of agitators to start off aggro for things to spiral quickly out of control.
Hmm but that can be manipulated or rather effectively hijacked by those who want the medias attention. It only takes a small amount of agitators to start off aggro for things to spiral quickly out of control.
Agreed, because there is a higher volume of many different political groups in any large demonstration. One troublemaker in a protest of five hundred people may not think it's worth his while being violent. Two hundred troublemakers in a protest of 200,000 people, and the outcome may well be different. Violent demonstrations are not proof of the violent nature of people on the far-left of the political spectrum.
Violent demonstrations are not proof of the violent nature of people on the far-left of the political spectrum.Wait, when did I say this? I never said anything of the sort. However, in most cases of violent demonstration it is the far-left who are responsible.
Wait, when did I say this? I never said anything of the sort. However, in most cases of violent demonstration it is the far-left who are responsible.
Did I say you did?
Did I say you did?Nope, but it was certainly implied.
^ Well, I apologise for the implication, but I can see statements which conflict with each other slightly.
Still, the good thing about a democracy is the freedom to protest. However, people do not have the right to cause violence.
I hope the far-left don't turn this into another G20.
I hate to put the blame on people here, but more often than not it's young socialists/communists/anarchists. This isn't always the case though.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the statement that the people who cause the violence that we have seen at the G20 and other protests are anarchists or other extremist leftists, but the bolded part of the first quote seems to suggest that the whole of the far-left as an umbrella term for socialists, communists, anarchists and others are more likely to cause violence than protest peacefully.
the bolded part of the first quote seems to suggest that the whole of the far-left as an umbrella term for socialists, communists, anarchists and others are more likely to cause violence than protest peacefully.Well, this does seem to be the case. I know people who hold these views are no more likely to cause violence than people from any other part of the political spectrum, but more often than not it is the far-left who are responsible for violent protests.
There seems to be a fair old degree of right wing protest against Obama re the health care issue. Don't know about demonstrations though.
Maybe the far left are agitating more on global issues so we are more aware of them.
TRhalloween
16-12-09, 17:38
Yeah, they do.
Yeah, they do.Whose post and what part of it are you referring to?
There seems to be a fair old degree of right wing protest against Obama re the health care issue. Don't know about demonstrations though.I haven't seen any violence though.
TRhalloween
16-12-09, 17:57
Whose post and what part of it are you referring to?
I haven't seen any violence though.
The title.
Extreme anything right or left has a tendency to not consider a pacifist approach. Get together large numbers of people with radical beliefs, give them a cause or target to vent their frustration upon and voila, we have a violent protest.
Now, consider this, if a small group of moderate left or right wing orientated people got together with a pacifist approach, would the protest be peaceful? most likely. Ergo, peaceful protests do exist and protesting is necessary for certain worthy causes.
Catapharact
16-12-09, 19:59
Well, this does seem to be the case. I know people who hold these views are no more likely to cause violence than people from any other part of the political spectrum, but more often than not it is the far-left who are responsible for violent protests.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6177122/Police-pelted-with-bricks-and-bottles-as-London-mosque-protests-turn-violent.html
I await your retraction.
^I think what makes this one especially volatile is that there are people thrown together there with polarised viewpoints. I don't think the nature of protesting relies on which political beliefs you have i.e. leftists being more violent than rightists. I think protesting - in how it arises, the way it is carried out and the reasons behind action taken during a protest are better explained using sociology.
Catapharact
16-12-09, 20:19
^I think what makes this one especially volatile is that there are people thrown together there with polarised viewpoints. I don't think the nature of protesting relies on which political beliefs you have i.e. leftists being more violent than rightists. I think protesting - in how it arises, the way it is carried out and the reasons behind action taken during a protest are better explained using sociology.
On the nose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6177122/Police-pelted-with-bricks-and-bottles-as-London-mosque-protests-turn-violent.html
I await your retraction.From what I could gather from the article it was the counter protesters (the pro-Muslims) who were being violent. I'm not condoning the anti-Muslim protests in any way by the way.
I don't really see the point of you posting that though. So they're anti-Muslim. How does that make them far-right? You'll find over here that one of the main anti-Muslim groups, the BNP, are actually from the far-left.
From what I could gather from the article it was the counter protesters (the pro-Muslims) who were being violent. I'm not condoning the anti-Muslim protests in any way by the way.
I don't really see the point of you posting that though. So they're anti-Muslim. How does that make them far-right? You'll find over here that one of the main anti-Muslim groups, the BNP, are actually from the far-left.
You remember that some time ago I said that you like to redefine terms if reality does not match your point of view, and that I find this annoying? This is one of these cases. BNP and protesting against muslims are far-right things, and you're the only person I know who says otherwise. I'd analyse this in more detail, but I'm actually more interested in why you call the BNP far-left.
You remember that some time ago I said that you like to redefine terms if reality does not match your point of view, and that I find this annoying? This is one of these cases. BNP and protesting against muslims are far-right things, and you're the only person I know who says otherwise. I'd analyse this in more detail, but I'm actually more interested in why you call the BNP far-left.Yes, I do remember, except that's not what I'm doing.
How does protesting against Muslims make someone far-right? On it's own, hating Muslims while disgusting, does not neccessarily make somebody far-right. It's like saying all people who hate the rich must be far-left.
I've already explained. Most of their policies are collectivist socialist drivel. If you take a look on their website you wont find any thing like "deregulate the markets!" or "privatize the NHS!". Instead it's all nationalize this and regulate that. The BNP are more to the left than Labour.
Also, this isn't where I got the idea that the BNP are left-wing from, but it shows that I'm not the only one who thinks this.
http://www.conservativefuture.com/2009/02/01/fight-left-wing-bnp/
The BNP are almost always mislabeled in the media as being right-wing or far-right. Tell me, what exactly is so right wing about being racist and authoritarian?
Catapharact
16-12-09, 21:40
From what I could gather from the article it was the counter protesters (the pro-Muslims) who were being violent. I'm not condoning the anti-Muslim protests in any way by the way.
I don't really see the point of you posting that though. So they're anti-Muslim. How does that make them far-right? You'll find over here that one of the main anti-Muslim groups, the BNP, are actually from the far-left.
Being taken off the mosque grounds because they happen to be creating nusience for people who were attending prayer services is violent? Wow Tony... You really have a coherent way of interperting things.
BTW: They aren't BNP; They are part of the English Defence League who identify themselves as a Right Wing group affliliated with extreme conservisitim.
Being taken off the mosque grounds because they happen to be creating nusience for people who were attending prayer services is violent? Wow Tony... You really have a coherent way of interperting things.
BTW: They aren't BNP; They are part of the English Defence League who identify themselves as a Right Wing group affliliated with extreme conservisitim.What are you talking about?
I know they're not, I never said they were. The English Defence League are just a single issue group. They're just racists. Nothing more.
Catapharact
16-12-09, 22:04
What are you talking about?
I know they're not, I never said they were. The English Defence League are just a single issue group. They're just racists. Nothing more.
Tony if you are willing to use the term Islamic extremism since the perps. who use this form of extremism adhere and identify themselves as practioners of Islamic values then you shouldn't be applying the double standard and refusing to call this group for what they are.
They Identify themselves as a Right Wing group and they say they are upholding right wing views. Hence they are a right wing extremists. Hence your argument on violent protests being a prodominant left wing thing is null. I can always bring up other protests conducted and organized by extreme right wing groups including tea parties in the U.S. who stormed city hall during sessions.
Yes, I do remember, except that's not what I'm doing.
Come on, you're the guy who insists that Great Britain isn't a part of Europe. I'll reorder some of the stuff below so my answer makes more sense, I hope you don't mind.
The BNP are almost always mislabeled in the media as being right-wing or far-right. Tell me, what exactly is so right wing about being racist and authoritarian?
What is so…? It's more or less the definition taken to the extreme. Nationalism, exceptionalism, focus on "traditional values" to the point where you exclude newcomers and, as the word "conservative" actually directly implies, a certain resentment of the unknown. Take all that to the extreme, you got the BNP. Racist parties have been labelled far right, have labelled themselves as right, and have formed coalitions with parties on the right of the political spectrum since basically forever.
How does protesting against Muslims make someone far-right? On it's own, hating Muslims while disgusting, does not neccessarily make somebody far-right. It's like saying all people who hate the rich must be far-left.
I've already explained. Most of their policies are collectivist socialist drivel. If you take a look on their website you wont find any thing like "deregulate the markets!" or "privatize the NHS!". Instead it's all nationalize this and regulate that.
But a party's political orientation is not defined by it's positions on economy, at least not when it's left wing vs. right wing. In fact, positions like "deregulate the markets" aren't conservative and hence right-wing at all. They're free-market liberal ideas, with a root quite in the (admittedly crowded) area of the spectrum.
The BNP are more to the left than Labour.
So what are their positions on what you apparently consider to be leftist ideas such as european cooperation, greater immigration, multi-culturalism?
Also, this isn't where I got the idea that the BNP are left-wing from, but it shows that I'm not the only one who thinks this.
http://www.conservativefuture.com/2009/02/01/fight-left-wing-bnp/
Okay, so there are more conservatives trying to change the label of the BNP because they don't want to be associated with that in any way. I guess it's better than forming a coalition government, but the fact that you have more people who think something does not mean that it's correct. If I were in a bad mood I'd point to religion, but as I'm not, I'll just point to the Eragon books.
On a more abstract level, it is right that at the extremes, left and right do meet. Far-left parties support protectionism, far-right parties support socialist ideas. The ones do it to support their workers, the others do it to support their nation. There are documented cases of members of the german communist party and of the NSDAP giving speeches at the same events during the 1920s.
It's also true that classifying parties according to the system invented during the french revolution is going to come up with flaws. Where do the green parties fit in? Where the ever-growing pirate parties? On what issues do you classify them? Economics or big vs. small government weren't considered factors when the left-right system was invented, and privatization is an idea that didn't even leave a strong impact before the 20th century.
So it's based on the core issues, and for the BNP those are "Britain is special and we can't let others in", and that is an extreme and perverted version of what you yourself are saying at times. You can, of course, refuse to accept that. Good luck with that strategy. I do have to point out, though, that people in general can make a very clear distinction between normal conservatives and far-right nutjobs.
Ward Dragon
16-12-09, 22:15
It's also true that classifying parties according to the system invented during the french revolution is going to come up with flaws. Where do the green parties fit in? Where the ever-growing pirate parties? On what issues do you classify them? Economics or big vs. small government weren't considered factors when the left-right system was invented, and privatization is an idea that didn't even leave a strong impact before the 20th century.
In the US at least, it's usually classified that big government and socialism = left wing, small government and capitalism = right wing. The green parties want more government agencies and regulations to enforce their ideals, so they're classed in the left wing section. Not sure about the pirate parties since I don't know of any in the US, but if they want to eliminate governmental regulations then I guess they'd be right wing.
On the nose.
Thanks, its good to know someone else thinks I'm talking some sense. :)
In the US at least, it's usually classified that big government and socialism = left wing, small government and capitalism = right wing. The green parties want more government agencies and regulations to enforce their ideals, so they're classed in the left wing section. Not sure about the pirate parties since I don't know of any in the US, but if they want to eliminate governmental regulations then I guess they'd be right wing.
True, but I think that this is at least originally an american oddity, coming from the balance of power between the individual states vs. the federal state. Even federally organized countries in Europe hardly ever have such a spectrum. The classic divide here comes from left wing representing the interests of the general masses (peasants, later workers) vs. the interests of the elites (land owners, factory owners, aristocrats). Obviously I am no expert on how this is implemented in the UK, but the big-vs.-small government divide is far less pronounced here.
But then, I figure many of the basic issues are not all that different either. Take immigration: As far as I know, the republicans have a much tougher stance there than the democrats. Labor relations, taxing the rich: The fault lines lie similar to the way they do here.
Tony if you are willing to use the term Islamic extremism since the perps. who use this form of extremism adhere and identify themselves as practioners of Islamic values then you shouldn't be applying the double standard and refusing to call this group for what they are.
They Identify themselves as a Right Wing group and they say they are upholding right wing views. Hence they are a right wing extremists. Hence your argument on violent protests being a prodominant left wing thing is null. I can always bring up other protests conducted and organized by extreme right wing groups including tea parties in the U.S. who stormed city hall during sessions.What, extremists? The English Defence League is most certainly a racist and extremist organization.
HOWEVER, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the EDL are actually right-wing. Just because they call themselves right-wing doesn't mean they actually are. North Korea call themselves a republic, when we all know they certainly are not.
Oh, and I'm not denying that there are right-wing groups which have engaged in violent protest. However, more often than not it is the far-left.
What is so…? It's more or less the definition taken to the extreme. Nationalism, exceptionalism, focus on "traditional values" to the point where you exclude newcomers and, as the word "conservative" actually directly implies, a certain resentment of the unknown. Take all that to the extreme, you got the BNP. Racist parties have been labelled far right, have labelled themselves as right, and have formed coalitions with parties on the right of the political spectrum since basically forever.Racism has nothing to do with political beliefs. This is why the EDL are not right-wing in any way.
But a party's political orientation is not defined by it's positions on economy, at least not when it's left wing vs. right wing. In fact, positions like "deregulate the markets" aren't conservative and hence right-wing at all. They're free-market liberal ideas, with a root quite in the (admittedly crowded) area of the spectrum.You know what I meant. Less stricter regulation of the markets is something which right-wing parties like the Republican party or the Conservative party would advocate.
So what are their positions on what you apparently consider to be leftist ideas such as european cooperation, greater immigration, multi-culturalism?Haha, good one.
It's also true that classifying parties according to the system invented during the french revolution is going to come up with flaws. Where do the green parties fit in? Where the ever-growing pirate parties? On what issues do you classify them? Economics or big vs. small government weren't considered factors when the left-right system was invented, and privatization is an idea that didn't even leave a strong impact before the 20th century.Green parties? I'd say they fit onto the libertarian side of the left wing. Pirate parties? I really don't know enough about them to comment on that one.
So it's based on the core issues, and for the BNP those are "Britain is special and we can't let others in", and that is an extreme and perverted version of what you yourself are saying at times. You can, of course, refuse to accept that. Good luck with that strategy. I do have to point out, though, that people in general can make a very clear distinction between normal conservatives and far-right nutjobs.But the BNP also advocate strong socialist economic policies. In all fairness really, they're just an extremist party. Not far-left, and not far-right.
Ward Dragon
16-12-09, 23:16
True, but I think that this is at least originally an american oddity, coming from the balance of power between the individual states vs. the federal state. Even federally organized countries in Europe hardly ever have such a spectrum. The classic divide here comes from left wing representing the interests of the general masses (peasants, later workers) vs. the interests of the elites (land owners, factory owners, aristocrats). Obviously I am no expert on how this is implemented in the UK, but the big-vs.-small government divide is far less pronounced here.
But then, I figure many of the basic issues are not all that different either. Take immigration: As far as I know, the republicans have a much tougher stance there than the democrats. Labor relations, taxing the rich: The fault lines lie similar to the way they do here.
I think the left-wing/right-wing thing means completely different things to different people. I try to stick with liberal/conservative labels instead, but even that means different things in different countries. And as far as Democrat/Republican goes, that's not a neat divide either. The Republicans are in favor of smaller government when it comes to economic issues, but they want stricter laws about social issues. Democrats on the other hand want very little regulation on social issues, but a lot of regulation on economic issues. The Libertarians are at least consistent and want very little government interference in social or economic issues. Which brings me about to this point:
Green parties? I'd say they fit onto the libertarian side of the left wing.
Say what? :p Green parties want tons of regulations which restrict individual liberties, such as what products you're allowed to buy and how much CO2 you're allowed to produce. That's the exact opposite of Libertarian. In many respects, the Libertarian party is more conservative than the Republican party.
Catapharact
16-12-09, 23:16
What, extremists? The English Defence League is most certainly a racist and extremist organization.
HOWEVER, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the EDL are actually right-wing. Just because they call themselves right-wing doesn't mean they actually are. North Korea call themselves a republic, when we all know they certainly are not.
They call themselves a "Single Issue" right wing party. Not only that, there have been allegations that the party has huge supportes from MPs that identify themselves as Neo-Cons. They are racists, they are extremists and they have extreme right wing ideology. Hence here is an example of extreme right wingers going loony. BTW: They make no affiliation with the BNP. Nope... they are "independent" Right wing extremist loony toons.
Say what? :p Green parties want tons of regulations which restrict individual liberties, such as what products you're allowed to buy and how much CO2 you're allowed to produce. That's the exact opposite of Libertarian. In many respects, the Libertarian party is more conservative than the Republican party.Hmm, good point. :p
They call themselves a "Single Issue" right wing party. Not only that, there have been allegations that the party has huge supportes from MPs that identify themselves as Neo-Cons. They are racists, they are extremists and they have extreme right wing ideology. Hence here is an example of extreme right wingers going loony. BTW: They make no affiliation with the BNP. Nope... they are "independent" Right wing extremist loony toons.I have still yet to see any proof that they are right wing.
Catapharact
16-12-09, 23:31
I have still yet to see any proof that they are right wing.
Just look at where they originated from:
The EDL was formaly United Peoples of Luton which had a lot of right wing affliated members. They were Right Wing political MPs which started on the right foot by not identifying themselves with any given political group and then ended up showing their true colours by organizing the EDL.
I think the left-wing/right-wing thing means completely different things to different people. I try to stick with liberal/conservative labels instead, but even that means different things in different countries. And as far as Democrat/Republican goes, that's not a neat divide either. The Republicans are in favor of smaller government when it comes to economic issues, but they want stricter laws about social issues. Democrats on the other hand want very little regulation on social issues, but a lot of regulation on economic issues. The Libertarians are at least consistent and want very little government interference in social or economic issues. Which brings me about to this point:
You're right, it's not easy. :D
Say what? :p Green parties want tons of regulations which restrict individual liberties, such as what products you're allowed to buy and how much CO2 you're allowed to produce. That's the exact opposite of Libertarian. In many respects, the Libertarian party is more conservative than the Republican party.
What, extremists? The English Defence League is most certainly a racist and extremist organization.
HOWEVER, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the EDL are actually right-wing. Just because they call themselves right-wing doesn't mean they actually are. North Korea call themselves a republic, when we all know they certainly are not.
You gotta ask yourself why they call themselves right-wing, though. Dictatorships since at the latest 1945 call themselves republic or democratic because in the end we all agree that this at least sounds good, because we like democracy. The EDL calls themselves right-wing to appeal to extreme right-wing voters, I'd say.
Oh, and I'm not denying that there are right-wing groups which have engaged in violent protest. However, more often than not it is the far-left.
Well yes, of course, if you keep redefining left and right.
Racism has nothing to do with political beliefs. This is why the EDL are not right-wing in any way.
Since when does racism have nothing to do with political beliefs? I think I've made my point rather clear before already: Racism can be thought of as an extreme version of plain conservative ideas such as being stricter on immigrants and keeping the borders closed, just as communism is an extreme version of the left-wing notion of fairness that focuses on similar end results rather than starting points.
You know what I meant. Less stricter regulation of the markets is something which right-wing parties like the Republican party or the Conservative party would advocate.
Today, yes. Historically not, though, and when it comes to left-right-wing debates, this is really not an issue.
Haha, good one.
The cheap shots aren't taking themselves. Someone's gotta go out and do it. You do realize that laughing about it does not disprove it, though?
HGreen parties? I'd say they fit onto the libertarian side of the left wing. Pirate parties? I really don't know enough about them to comment on that one.
My point was that it's not immediately obvious how to position them.
HBut the BNP also advocate strong socialist economic policies. In all fairness really, they're just an extremist party. Not far-left, and not far-right.
I'm not too familiar with the BNP in particular, but we do have similar parties in Germany, and they themselves label themselves as right-wing, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which observes them, labels them as right-wing extremists in their reports, politicians from all over the spectrum label them as right-wing extremists, politicial scientists label them as right-wing extremists…
Why are you so opposed to calling them right-wing? Because of their economic agenda? I think we can all agree that practically, the economic agenda of the BNP doesn't matter one bit. The only ones voting for it are racist idiots anyway*. It is my personal interpretation, and correct me (and prove me wrong) if I'm wrong, that a large part of it is that you as a conservative do not want to be associated with the policies of the BNP. But you have to accept that every politicial direction has it's extremists which are intensely hated by the normal people. It's a surprisingly little-known secrets, but just about all american democrats, british labour members, german social democrats and so on are strictly opposed to communism. That normal muslims are strictly opposed to islamic terrorism is a similar case. The BNP is the extremist end of the conservative spectrum, in the classic sense of conservatism, with it's strict focus on social values and opposition to things like immigration. That does not make you a racist any more than I am a communist for liking government-run health care.
Of course, you can try to deny all that. But just as with the other issue, don't expect me to respect you for that.
*) to anyone who voted for the BNP reading this: Yes, I mean you.
Dennis's Mom
17-12-09, 13:20
I don't know if this is a good "litmus test" or not for defining "right wing". Try it out and LMK what you think:
"Is the group advocating for a status quo?"
Even so called "left" or "liberal" ideas can become "right-wing" if they have become entrenched as the status quo. Almost by default those arguing for "change" are considered "left" or "liberal."
As I'm typing this, I think I've almost talked myself out of this idea, but I'll post anyway for your ideas about it.
There is such thing as a peaceful protest.
Ward Dragon
17-12-09, 14:43
I don't know if this is a good "litmus test" or not for defining "right wing". Try it out and LMK what you think:
"Is the group advocating for a status quo?"
Even so called "left" or "liberal" ideas can become "right-wing" if they have become entrenched as the status quo. Almost by default those arguing for "change" are considered "left" or "liberal."
As I'm typing this, I think I've almost talked myself out of this idea, but I'll post anyway for your ideas about it.
This is how I usually define it :) The only problem is that different countries have different status quos, so "conservative" here is not the same thing as "conservative" somewhere else since they are trying to preserve different policies.
I don't know if this is a good "litmus test" or not for defining "right wing". Try it out and LMK what you think:
"Is the group advocating for a status quo?"
Even so called "left" or "liberal" ideas can become "right-wing" if they have become entrenched as the status quo. Almost by default those arguing for "change" are considered "left" or "liberal."
As I'm typing this, I think I've almost talked myself out of this idea, but I'll post anyway for your ideas about it.Oh God, don't go into that. It's so confusing. Going by this rule the Conservative party here are in fact liberal.
Since when does racism have nothing to do with political beliefs? I think I've made my point rather clear before already: Racism can be thought of as an extreme version of plain conservative ideas such as being stricter on immigrants and keeping the borders closed, just as communism is an extreme version of the left-wing notion of fairness that focuses on similar end results rather than starting points.But racism doesn't even fit onto the political spectrum anywhere.
I'm not too familiar with the BNP in particular, but we do have similar parties in Germany, and they themselves label themselves as right-wing, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which observes them, labels them as right-wing extremists in their reports, politicians from all over the spectrum label them as right-wing extremists, politicial scientists label them as right-wing extremists…That may be the case for this party in Germany, I don't know. I can't say as I don't know enough about them.
Why are you so opposed to calling them right-wing? Because of their economic agenda? I think we can all agree that practically, the economic agenda of the BNP doesn't matter one bit. The only ones voting for it are racist idiots anyway*. It is my personal interpretation, and correct me (and prove me wrong) if I'm wrong, that a large part of it is that you as a conservative do not want to be associated with the policies of the BNP. But you have to accept that every politicial direction has it's extremists which are intensely hated by the normal people. It's a surprisingly little-known secrets, but just about all american democrats, british labour members, german social democrats and so on are strictly opposed to communism. That normal muslims are strictly opposed to islamic terrorism is a similar case. The BNP is the extremist end of the conservative spectrum, in the classic sense of conservatism, with it's strict focus on social values and opposition to things like immigration. That does not make you a racist any more than I am a communist for liking government-run health care.I accept that the there are far-right parties out there. However, the BNP are not one of them. Some of their policies may be extremes of traditional conservative values but some of their policies are also extremes of the left. As I said, they're just extremists. Perhaps calling them far-left is a little unfair when really they're just extreme.
Of course, you can try to deny all that. But just as with the other issue, don't expect me to respect you for that.You have an annoying tendency to state things as if they are facts, when they are clearly mere opinions.
I accept that the there are far-right parties out there. However, the BNP are not one of them. Some of their policies may be extremes of traditional conservative values but some of their policies are also extremes of the left. As I said, they're just extremists. Perhaps calling them far-left is a little unfair when really they're just extreme.
You have an annoying tendency to state things as if they are facts, when they are clearly mere opinions.
I know, and I'm sorry, my post was significantly more harsh than it should have been. I still stand by my statement, though: Most people, from all over the spectrum, agree that the BNP is right-wing. Your rejection of that is based on economics, but right-wing is not necessarily (or even commonly) defined by economic politics, and the BNP in particular is not dominated by it's economic politics at all.
and the BNP in particular is not dominated by it's economic politics at all.I dunno. You'll find that a lot of their members as well as being racists are die hard socialists. They're always complaining about the privatizations of the 80s and many of them heap a lot of praise onto Labour governments of 40 or 50 years, back when Labour were borderline communist.
This still doesn't stop them from calling everybody that opposes them leftists though.
Also, the BNP are perhaps the most anti-Afghanistan war party in the country. I know there are people from across the political spectrum who oppose the war but opposition to it is primarily found on the left, while support for it is normally found on the right.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.