National Front leads the polls in France

Remove this Banner Ad

Who gets to determine if a party is a hate party?

If you read certain things written by Labor or Greens voters you could say they represent haters of conservative people.

True. They stop short of banning conservative thought though, don't they?

Hate to post at length but the OCB bearded Slovenian is on the money about this point

Today's racism is precisely this racism of cultural difference. It no longer says: 'I am more than you.' It says: 'I want my culture, you can have yours...'

See, to me that isn't really racism UNLESS it forbids the mixing of cultures altogether for reasons of 'cultural purity' or the like. There's nothing wrong with maintaining your cultural roots. There must be respect to other cultures and other peoples however.

I mix with people every day who not only consider me inferior to them, but so much so that I not only will, but deserve to, spend eternity suffering because of my inferiority. Not just a few years, eternity.

It is the actions of these nutters that I would concern myself with (rather than the beliefs) since these are things that actually affect people.

This little side discussion began when GS said he didn't want bigots to be allowed to hold office anywhere in the world. I took him to mean by this that people with bigoted views should not be allowed to hold office. This strikes me as thought police type stuff.

I feel I've started this side-discussion arse-backwards a bit. I'm anti-censorship in a LOT of ways. There's even a thread here on SRP where I'm arguing FOR Dutch bigot Geert Wilders to be allowed to air his (to my mind) nonsense views on the evil of Islam.

Like yourself, actions concern me more than beliefs. But actions are FUELLED by beliefs, are they not? The trouble is defining the 'line' where beliefs become dangerous. Ten people shouting about the evils of immigration might seem fair enough. But if those ten people are stockpiling weapons in readiness for a massacre of immigrants then that obviously needs to be stopped.

Belief becomes action in some cases.

When others are hurt, that's crossing the line. When others are oppressed, that's crossing the line. I do realise it seems a paradox to be intolerant of intolerance in the name of tolerance but I believe there is right and there is wrong.

Evo makes a valuable point though. The very nature of 'intolerance' is in large parts subjective. There would have been many who would have claimed Abbot is intolerant at the last election, as there would have been for Rudd, or Howard, or Hanson, or Christine Milne, etc. How do we clearly define lines of intolerance, sicko? If you believe that bigotry has no place in public office, even if democratically elected, things start to get...messy. What about people who are against gay marriage for religious reasons? What about people anti-immigration? To take it further, what about the far left who would clamp down on free speech if it to were offend sensibilities? What about socialists? Or what about family first? People who look through history and society from a Marxist perspective will arrive at different conclusions of 'intolerance' to one that may look through it through a prism of traditionalism, or post-modernism, or this or that.

Don't get me wrong, I've always found the whole 'but he was democratically elected' argument (ironically used by many leftists to justify Latin American cronies as well as the right) to be pretty bloody weak. But there's a difference between saying 'democratically elected or not, they're still morally/ethically wrong', and 'this particular group should absolutely, definitely not have any right to attain or strive for public office'.

Good points, placebo. The idea of 'thought police' makes my blood run cold, and I don't like the idea that I myself seem to be advocating the concept - even if it seems benign to me.

I've travelled the world and I love contact with other cultures. To hate others, or even to discriminate against others due to superficial differences such as skin colour is to me so abhorrent I want to see this kind of thought and action eradicated wherever it stands. It's a scourge, a true scourge, on the face of this earth.

Reading The Dice Man's insights into life in France I realise there are massive social problems that arrive with the arrival of a different culture. The law seems to go easier on them than for the ordinary Parisian. Assimilation is a difficult thing for the new arrivals and the temptation to only associate with those of a similar background and establish enclaves of your own kind is extremely problematic for the host culture. Employment is an issue. You arrive and you can't find a job and you go on social security that's raised by taxes on the hard work of others.

Resentment grows.

It's all understandable as a cause-and-effect chain of events, and the trick is how to deal with it. You could tackle it through both cultures approaching each other with a view to educating each about the other and strengthen cross-cultural ties. Or you could blame them for every new ill the nation faces and wait for anger to rise and any policies favouring discrimination and cultural separatism to be justified by events.

A change of thought and approach may just help ease racial/cultural differences. Of course everyone needs to buy into the concept and that means either convincing or dismissing the 'Nah, they won't be reasoned with under any circumstance. We have nothing to discuss' crowd.
 
True. They stop short of banning conservative thought though, don't they?



See, to me that isn't really racism UNLESS it forbids the mixing of cultures altogether for reasons of 'cultural purity' or the like. There's nothing wrong with maintaining your cultural roots. There must be respect to other cultures and other peoples however.



I feel I've started this side-discussion arse-backwards a bit. I'm anti-censorship in a LOT of ways. There's even a thread here on SRP where I'm arguing FOR Dutch bigot Geert Wilders to be allowed to air his (to my mind) nonsense views on the evil of Islam.

Like yourself, actions concern me more than beliefs. But actions are FUELLED by beliefs, are they not? The trouble is defining the 'line' where beliefs become dangerous. Ten people shouting about the evils of immigration might seem fair enough. But if those ten people are stockpiling weapons in readiness for a massacre of immigrants then that obviously needs to be stopped.

Belief becomes action in some cases.

When others are hurt, that's crossing the line. When others are oppressed, that's crossing the line. I do realise it seems a paradox to be intolerant of intolerance in the name of tolerance but I believe there is right and there is wrong.



Good points, placebo. The idea of 'thought police' makes my blood run cold, and I don't like the idea that I myself seem to be advocating the concept - even if it seems benign to me.

I've travelled the world and I love contact with other cultures. To hate others, or even to discriminate against others due to superficial differences such as skin colour is to me so abhorrent I want to see this kind of thought and action eradicated wherever it stands. It's a scourge, a true scourge, on the face of this earth.

Reading The Dice Man's insights into life in France I realise there are massive social problems that arrive with the arrival of a different culture. The law seems to go easier on them than for the ordinary Parisian. Assimilation is a difficult thing for the new arrivals and the temptation to only associate with those of a similar background and establish enclaves of your own kind is extremely problematic for the host culture. Employment is an issue. You arrive and you can't find a job and you go on social security that's raised by taxes on the hard work of others.

Resentment grows.

It's all understandable as a cause-and-effect chain of events, and the trick is how to deal with it. You could tackle it through both cultures approaching each other with a view to educating each about the other and strengthen cross-cultural ties. Or you could blame them for every new ill the nation faces and wait for anger to rise and any policies favouring discrimination and cultural separatism to be justified by events.

A change of thought and approach may just help ease racial/cultural differences. Of course everyone needs to buy into the concept and that means either convincing or dismissing the 'Nah, they won't be reasoned with under any circumstance. We have nothing to discuss' crowd.


The bold is true to a point, it seems more difficult for the police to arrest and punish non-French purely because they don't feel all that safe. There is a street strip near where my gGFs parents live and it is very heavily Arabic populated. I observed three police do what looked to be a routine license check on a man. One police spoke to the man, another police stood off 30 meters with his back to the wall observing, while the 3rd police stayed on the other side of the car with the radio close to his mouth. My gf pointed out a security camera on the opposite corner that faced this corner, and we watched it move towards the police. That cameranwasmput there after police had been attacked there before. There are certain parts of that city, Nimes, that police just won't go into unless its absolutely nescisary. Like someone being shot.

Conversely, my lawyer told me if I stayed out of trouble and not commit any crimes the police would never look sideways at me, but he has African and Arabic clients who get asked daily on the streets of Nice to provide proof of ID.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That is a rather extreme example though, isn't it. Are there really that many people around that espouse that view? I don't follow French politics much but I very doubt if the National Front's political position is anything within cooee of that. On reading their profile on wiki they sound pretty similar to our National Party: pro protectionism, tough on crime and immigration.

Meh. I don't think we have to worry about the Gauls becoming the Fourth Reich just yet.

It is extreme - more of an example of when tolerance of intolerance should have limits, as opposed to anything to do with the French NFs political position, which I am also not familiar with.
 
When it becomes action, as followed in my example. Detrimental action against others, is what I mean to say. Therein lies the rub - some ideas ARE dangerous, but the danger is dependent on action.
Sounds like a roundabout way of conceding that beliefs in and of themselves are not dangerous.

Which seems to me to be an obvious truth.
 
Yes, SB. Yes it is. Although I make the analogy that ideas are like seeds and that action for good or for ill can only come about through the germination and cultivation of these seeds I can admit that banning belief alone would be a step backwards in a society where critical thought is welcomed and encouraged.

What always worries me is that oppressive, bigoted measures can still be put in play through democratic means. Rotten circumstance sows the seed. Extremists grow the seed. Sooner or later we might all have to eat the damn seed, even if it proves poisonous. An ill-informed or blasé electorate can be easily led into voting for tyranny, especially if certain other circumstances arose such as an economic collapse.
 
. Notions of societal inclusion hurts those intolerant of the concept, I admit this, but the alternative - that we tolerate divisions and hatreds and discriminations - seems to me a f*cking awful choice.

Tolerating divisions aka multiculturalism.

The idea of 'thought police' makes my blood run cold, and I don't like the idea that I myself seem to be advocating the concept - even if it seems benign to me.

I went to the soccer this week in London, massive signs everywhere about anti social behaviour - included in the list was transphobic chanting.

Not sure your average Pom soccer fan would have a clue as to what the thought police were even on about.

An ill-informed or blasé electorate can be easily led into voting for tyranny, especially if certain other circumstances arose such as an economic collapse.

Ill informed might be a stretch. People vote for people like Le Pen and others across Europe because the major parties (often in comfortable coalitions due to PR voting) refuse to do anything about mass immigration.

There is no easy solution to France's problem.
 
How/why would the intolerant gain power in a democratic society?

Geelong Sicko said that 'racists and bigots dont deserve to hold any kind of public office anywhere on the planet', which is how I came to be posting in this thread. This is a flat-out rejection of democracy. I don't necessarily oppose GS's position, I was merely hoping to confirm that he realises the corollary of his position.

demagogy is a pretty consistent refrain in democratic electoral campaigns.
 
About time the French are standing up to the destruction of their culture and nation. I'm pretty sure it's not 'racist' or 'bigotry' or 'ignorance' or any other invented leftist hate term to want to protect and defend your borders/language/culture/traditions/heritage, to want lower crime and immigration levels, etc...
The English could take a bit of influence from Le Pen and Eastern Europe know what's right.

1382012363393.jpg
 
I'm in France right now. No sign of any groundswell of love for them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Speak to a few people and ask what they think of Francois Hollande


Every government has mid term blues.

The NF is a good media story, but they'll never get elected. Not while Paris exists.
 
Every government has mid term blues.

The NF is a good media story, but they'll never get elected. Not while Paris exists.

Hollande is a dunce, and from my experience the french people in France cannot stand him.

Ile-de-France may be an influential department, but it is only one department. France is hurting and the French can be nasty sons of bitches so I wouldnt like to be betting on anyone in the future.
 
Medusala, this thread seems to me a testament to the confusion of your politics and many like you on the Right.

You go into bat for an anti-immgration, anti-intellectual, populist, racist, nationalist, euro sceptic Party, because it represents your social conservatism. OK, fine, whatever floats your little boat. Yet you gloss over the economic protectionism of the same Party, despite it being a mile from your fetish for the increasingly wobbly world of free-market, laissez faire capitalism.

I am afraid you can't have it both ways.

That said, your clear admiration for Christopher Pyne suggest you are OK with having it both ways in other contexts, so good for you.
 
Medusala, this thread seems to me a testament to the confusion of your politics and many like you on the Right.

You go into bat for an anti-immgration, anti-intellectual, populist, racist, nationalist, euro sceptic Party, because it represents your social conservatism. OK, fine, whatever floats your little boat. Yet you gloss over the economic protectionism of the same Party, despite it being a mile from your fetish for the increasingly wobbly world of free-market, laissez faire capitalism.

I am afraid you can't have it both ways.
.

You are utterly wrong. At least you are consistent. There is nothing at all racist in only wanting skilled migration. Absurd to suggest otherwise. UKIP are for more pro market than the conservatives. It is clear you have no idea of the party's policies.

UKIP is the natural home for those who believe in Thatcherism. Cameron is a damp squid.
 
You are utterly wrong. At least you are consistent. There is nothing at all racist in only wanting skilled migration. Absurd to suggest otherwise. UKIP are for more pro market than the conservatives. It is clear you have no idea of the party's policies.

UKIP is the natural home for those who believe in Thatcherism. Cameron is a damp squid.
You're on the side of the National Front though, right?
 

You are utterly wrong. At least you are consistent. There is nothing at all racist in only wanting skilled migration. Absurd to suggest otherwise. UKIP are for more pro market than the conservatives. It is clear you have no idea of the party's policies.

UKIP is the natural home for those who believe in Thatcherism. Cameron is a damp squid.


What are you talking about?

The thread you started is about Front National, who are a French protectionist party. If you view
reducing trade between states as Thatcherism, then good luck to you. National Front is also well known for its nationalism, its populist trade on racial issues, and its holocaust denial. It is very well known for its racism.

As for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), what does that have to do with the French National Front Party?

Why are you defending my criticism of your support of Front National with a discussion of another Party from a different nation? I'm honestly confused?! Have I missed something here?

Vous êtes stupide et faux. Mais vous êtes cohérent.
 
As for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), what does that have to do with the French National Front Party?

Avatar is of UKIP chap so I thought you were referring to that. Apologies for incorrectly inferring that. All French parties are muppets.

Mais vous êtes coherent.[/

Exactement. Merci beacoup mon ami.
 
About time the French are standing up to the destruction of their culture and nation. I'm pretty sure it's not 'racist' or 'bigotry' or 'ignorance' or any other invented leftist hate term to want to protect and defend your borders/language/culture/traditions/heritage, to want lower crime and immigration levels, etc...

The English could take a bit of influence from Le Pen and Eastern Europe know what's right.

Andrew that is an odd nom de plume to use to post on Big Footy - good to see that the Federal Court thought police have not silenced you on any platform
 
Andrew that is an odd nom de plume to use to post on Big Footy - good to see that the Federal Court thought police have not silenced you on any platform
Cute rebuttal. Simply adorable! :) And no, I'm not your bestie Andrew. :p

Ohh, the tolerant democracy that is Australia! I wouldn't want the 'thought police' on my back no matter how much truth I spill. The idea is to instill fear into their opponents, isn't it? Glad to see Soviet tactics haven't been truly abandoned by the West after all...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top