Why are the UKIP considered racist?

MakeEmLaugh

According to Section 3.2 of their policy document Restoring Britishness: A policy document for an independent Britain, the UKIP “promotes uniculturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours”.

Why, then, are foster children taken off parents on the grounds that the UKIP is 'racist'? Why has the British Prime Minster deemed the UKIP as being comprised of "closet racists"?

I do not see anything wrong with the notion of 'uniculturalism'.

Manach

Just from looking at the weekend's media headlines, it looks to be an overreaction from an over-zealous council department. The foster-parents in question seem to been acting in a manner in the best interests of the children and so the decision to remove them was in error.

mathepac

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

... UKIP “promotes uniculturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours”. ...

There's you answer right there; the British way or out you go; very Victorian although Victoria was German.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well they are a british party, in britain....

MakeEmLaugh

mathepac wrote: »

There's you answer right there; the British way or out you go; very Victorian although Victoria was German.

What's wrong with promoting 'the British way' in Britain? Would you take political parties in Ireland espousing 'the Irish way' as inherently racist? Or political parties in America promoting 'the American way' as inherently racist?

mathepac

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

... I do not see anything wrong with the notion of 'uniculturalism'.

Neither did the Nazis nor do the current crop of neo-Nazis.

You are of course aware of what triggered the attack on the Spurs supporters in a bar in Italy.

CuriousG

The day when someone has kids taken away from them based on their support for a legal and not in any way extreme political party is the day 'democracy' is gone down the drain. Sickening.

mathepac

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What's wrong with promoting 'the British way' in Britain? Would you take political parties in Ireland espousing 'the Irish way' as inherently racist? Or political parties in America promoting 'the American way' as inherently racist?

Don't try to move from specifics to generalities. The question was about a specific UK party that is known to have supporter from groups to the extreme right.

Death and Taxes

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

According to Section 3.2 of their policy document Restoring Britishness: A policy document for an independent Britain, the UKIP “promotes uniculturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours”.

Why, then, are foster children taken off parents on the grounds that the UKIP is 'racist'? Why has the British Prime Minster deemed the UKIP as being comprised of "closet racists"?

I do not see anything wrong with the notion of 'uniculturalism'.

Because Uniculturism, a single British culture , is racist in that it seeks a sense of proprietary superiority over all other cultural choices!
essentially it demands subservience to UKIPS view of British culture which is white and christian.

greendom

They're pretty much of a joke party tbh - a step above Monster Raving Looney Party - as can be seen by it's leader's regular appearances on Question Time for his comedic value. People who do vote for them are disgruntled tories voicing concern with what they see as too much left leaning from their traditional party. They'd be back to the Conservatives like a shot if there was any danger of UKIP becoming a serious political power in the UK.

mathepac

CuriousG wrote: »

The day when someone has kids taken away from them based on their support for a legal and not in any way extreme political party is the day 'democracy' is gone down the drain. Sickening.

You seem to be referring to some news item of which I have no knowledge.

CuriousG

Does it really matter what kind of party they are, though? The point is, it is up to THE INDIVIDUAL who they support. Why should they be punished, just because someone else doesn't agree?

I'm pretty sure if they were Labour supporters, and this happened, everyone would be singing a different tune.

It's sickening how many people have double standards about these things.

People can think what they want and support WHO they want, it's no ones business but their own.

greendom

CuriousG wrote: »

Does it really matter what kind of party they are, though? The point is, it is up to THE INDIVIDUAL who they support. Why should they be punished, just because someone else doesn't agree?

I'm pretty sure if they were Labour supporters, and this happened, everyone would be singing a different tune.

It's sickening how many people have double standards about these things.

People can think what they want and support WHO they want, it's no ones business but their own.

Agreed supporting UKIP doesn't make you inherently racist. If I was placing children with such a family though, I might think their application might need more rigorous investigation.

jmayo

mathepac wrote: »

There's you answer right there; the British way or out you go; very Victorian although Victoria was German.

Ehh I think you will find she was British as she was born and raised in Britain.

Granted her great grandfather (george II) was German born, her mother and her husband were German, but she was British.

mathepac

CuriousG wrote: »

Well, OP mentioned the news item in question, so you must obviously have some knowledge...

I just caught the Channel 5 news headlines, and now understand the allusions; I had no knowledge of the situation up to then, I assumed it was one of the traditional boards.ie thread-starters. headlines from NOTW, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Star, etc. and I was more concerned about the broader issue of uniculturalism, UKIP and their ilk.

CuriousG wrote: »

... unless you're living under a rock....

Are you?

I knew I recognised you from some where.

If you want to have a discussion I'm OK with that. If all you want to do is hurl insults then do it elsewhere.

mathepac

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh I think you will find she was British as she was born and raised in Britain.

Granted her great grandfather (george II) was German born, her mother and her husband were German, but she was British.

So British in fact the the German Royals ruling Britain at the commencement of WW I changed their family name to the makey-uppy "Windsor" in case the populace identified them with "the enemy".

jmayo

mathepac wrote: »

So British in fact the the German Royals ruling Britain at the commencement of WW I changed their family name to the makey-uppy "Windsor" in case the populace identified them with "the enemy".

Yes they changed their name from a German one and they had, even upto WWII, links with German aristocrats.
That still doesn't make them "German Royals".

But if you are trying to say that they were Germans, even though they were born and reared in the country then I hate to see how you describe the kids of the newly arrived immigrants to this country.

Using your reasoning ...
Ed and David Miliband are not English/British, but Polish.
Zlatan Ibrahimović is not Swedish, but either Croatian or Bosnian.
Leo Varadkar is an Indian.
And best of all Barack Obama is not American, but Kenyan Muslim.

Why oh why do I think you have something in common with UKIP and American Republican party.

Death and Taxes

mathepac wrote: »

So British in fact the the German Royals ruling Britain at the commencement of WW I changed their family name to the makey-uppy "Windsor" in case the populace identified them with "the enemy".

It was not done at the commencement of WW1, it was actually nearer to the end of the war.

mathepac

jmayo wrote: »

... Why oh why do I think you have something in common with UKIP and American Republican party.

What utter rubbish. Yet again you have fallen into the trap of trying to argue, very badly, from specific cases to generalities. Arguments like yours are referred to, rightly IMHO, as waffle. And I have already warned one poster about personalising the discussion. If you cannot have a discussion without resorting to personal insults or personal commentary, you have no place here; try the school play-ground instead.

SeanW

mathepac wrote: »

supporter from groups to the extreme right.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

racist ... UKIPS view of British culture which is white and christian.

greendom wrote: »

joke party

Ladies and Gentleman, UKIPs candidate for an upcoming election in Croydon North: Winston McKenzie:


Clearly UKIP are all Monster Raving Looney racists grinding their jackboots into the faces of the innocent and the weak.

Again, could one of you multiculturalists remind me how a party that enthusiastically fields black candidates is racist? Remember of course that RACISM properly defined means prejudice against people because of their RACE! Which is clearly not the case here.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

As a reminder:

1) Insulting other posters (or groups of posters) is not acceptable.
2) Do not post photos or graphics that don't do anything to move discussion forward - this is not 'You Laugh You Lose'.
3) If you have a problem with someone else's posts, report them to a moderator rather than engaging with them or finger wagging on thread - this is a sure route to veering off-topic, and you will only get yourself infracted.

greendom

SeanW wrote: »

Ladies and Gentleman, UKIPs candidate for an upcoming election in Croydon North: Winston McKenzie:


Clearly UKIP are all Monster Raving Looney racists grinding their jackboots into the faces of the innocent and the weak.

Again, could one of you multi-culti pinheads remind me how a party that enthusiastically fields black candidates is racist? Remember of course that RACISM properly defined means prejudice against people because of their RACE! Which is clearly not the case here.

like any party they are made of plenty of factions, some more and some less extreme. it doesn't change the point that UKIP is not a serious party and is very thin on policy and will never be a major force in British politics.

gallag

If wanting Britain to stay British, if accepting all other cultures (in reasonable amounts) with open arms but expecting them to conform to British laws and not try t to change society around them I.e being offended by a nativity scene, if protecting the right to practice any religion you want but expecting you to respect that you are in a Christian country is racist then colour me a racist.

SeanW

greendom wrote: »

like any party they are made of plenty of factions, some more and some less extreme. it doesn't change the point that UKIP is not a serious party and is very thin on policy and will never be a major force in British politics.

Perhaps from your view, they're "not serious" but UKIP in this thread are accused of being racist and extreme right.

I would like the people who made those claims to explain their comments in light of the fact that a black Jamacian is standing for them, backed enthusiastically by the leadership, in an upcoming election?

Madam

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps from your view, they're "not serious" but UKIP in this thread are accused of being racist and extreme right.

I would like the people who made those claims to explain their comments in light of the fact that a black Jamacian is standing for them, backed enthusiastically by the leadership, in an upcoming election?

The equivalant of a gay beard?

Besides he's not exactly the brightest of people!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_McKenzie

greendom

interesting article here about the growth of UKIP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/26/ukip-party-coming-in-from-cold?CMP=twt_gu

The bottom line for me is that a successful UKIP will harm the Conservatives and as a result benefit the Labour party. Once your average UKIP voter realises that voting for them is keeping Labour in power, they'll be straight back to Cameron and Co. UKIP could have the effect of making Tory policy more right wing to make the transition back easier.

bmaxi

I don't think the political establishment in the UK consider UKIP to be such a joke, so much so that Cameron is seeking a pact with them at the next GE.
I also don"t see much difference between their aspirations and Dev's " dancing at the crossroads"

c_man

Madam wrote: »

The equivalant of a gay beard?

Nice, now no matter what they say or do, you can still label them racist without the slightest facts to back it up.

seamus

From listening to a representative on the radio, they often get confused with the BNP probably because so many policies overlap. So that's why some would say they're racist. But their primary ethos seems to be about nationalism and anti-immigration. So people who are already in the UK are OK, but no more, apparently. They're xenophobes.

At the highest level, nationalism/xenophobia is in inherently racist because it presumes that one's nation is superior and worthy of protection from outside elements, but that's a philosophical POV rather than an accepted political one.

Lemming

seamus wrote: »

From listening to a representative on the radio, they often get confused with the BNP probably because so many policies overlap. So that's why some would say they're racist.

There is also a fair degree of overlap & bed-hopping between a circle of fringe parties incuding the BNP, ED (ho ho), and UKIP. Which is partly why all their policy mantra reads similar. The circle that these various fringe parties move in is somewhat "small" all things considered.

On top of that, the UKIP was a split from the Tories because the Tories weren't right-wing enough on a single issue. The UKIP has only grown out of being a one-issue pony in recent years to try and survive & grow its base. In short, its "credibility" (or what passes for its credibility at any rate) is the result of political expedience, not belief in what they are doing, other than on their message of that one-issue pony.

Seriously, I should scan in some of the vote-for-us literature my letterbox has been getting spammed with in the run-up to the Rotherham council elections on thursday. Some of it is quite ... "ooo errr" in its presentation and very much plays on innuendo imo.

MakeEmLaugh

mathepac wrote: »

Neither did the Nazis nor do the current crop of neo-Nazis.

You are of course aware of what triggered the attack on the Spurs supporters in a bar in Italy.

Have you heard of Godwin's Law, by any chance? It states that "as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfeited the argument."

Here we are, 6 comments into the thread, and already you mention the Nazis, as well as another story about football supporters, both of which have nothing to do with the original post.

Well done.

RandomName2

mathepac wrote: »

Neither did the Nazis nor do the current crop of neo-Nazis.

It also happens to be the specific objective of the socialist party.

And I think you mean fascist rather than Nazi. It would be like you were saying the CPC when you actually mean Communist.

And yet, at the root, what's wrong with fascist politics? Leave aside fascistic yobs and skinheads; at a political level the main danger posed by fascism is its opposition to democracy, not its xenophobism. That is kind of a duhr moment - parties should not be above the law or the constitution - if they aren't then life is fine. If ANY party is able to have power above the law or constitution then you are in trouble; regardless of whether the party is the socialists, fascists, Muslim Brotherhood, or even liberal!

Notably this uniculturalism objective is shared by the socialists. Are the socialists racist?... no... cuz they're left-wing durp-a-durp.

And even then, when you get past all this wishy-washy Goodwin's Law nonsense, you are left with a party (UKIP) that is anti-EU that you are vaguely trying to paint as racist due to political boilerplate.

Must try harder, man.

hytrogen

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What's wrong with promoting 'the British way' in Britain? Would you take political parties in Ireland espousing 'the Irish way' as inherently racist? Or political parties in America promoting 'the American way' as inherently racist?

What like Sinn Féin? Absolutely nothing, conserving your culture is the essence of nationalism. It only comes down to what side of the economic spectrum you stand for and maintaining the respect & integration of others culture.
I work in the most diverse business there is so the key is to keep your nationality while accepting others respectfully, but llike any political party you have hard line hecklers, like sf, banging the drums of communism / fascism & that's when you get into dangerous waters.
Back to OP, it was silly, an over reacting extremely PC idiot councillor that authorised the separation fearing a warping of the child's perception on reality apparently. if everything & everyone's opinions & political views were to be respected as equal then this wouldn't have happened.

dsmythy

seamus wrote: »

From listening to a representative on the radio, they often get confused with the BNP probably because so many policies overlap. So that's why some would say they're racist. But their primary ethos seems to be about nationalism and anti-immigration. So people who are already in the UK are OK, but no more, apparently. They're xenophobes.

At the highest level, nationalism/xenophobia is in inherently racist because it presumes that one's nation is superior and worthy of protection from outside elements, but that's a philosophical POV rather than an accepted political one.

No more low skilled immigration, they are quite open to immigration of a higher skillset regardless of colour. Presumably this would be combined with a kick up the arse to the current crop of 'cleaning is beneath me' Briton to actually take up such jobs. I just don't see the racist aspect at all people are trying to get at.

Rascasse

The main reason they are considered racist is that the Tories and Labour keep using smears and innuendo to suggest it. Tories hate them as they split the vote and Labour hate them as the are right of centre, thus a bunch modern day Oswald Mosley's.

They aren't racist, they aren't even anti-EU, they are essentially the Tory party but with the balls to address the areas where the Torys have gone a bit soft. The only policy that I would find distasteful is the no to gay marriage, although it has its reasons for opposing it.

Finally, suggesting they are xenophobes is also wide of the mark. Farage's first wife was Irish and his second German! Hardly the actions of someone that dislikes foreigners.

Lemming

Rascasse wrote: »

they aren't even anti-EU

ORLY?

I'm sorry, but pull the other one. Many of their stated aims (note: not referring to the above link specifically) would require the UK, when looking at their policies as a whole, to remove itself from the EU in order to enact. And that's before I mention the bottom of the above reference link stating the the UKIP want the UK to leave the EU. Of course; by "UK" I really mean "England" because they aren't sincere in flying the flag of inclusion for either Scotland or Wales - quite the opposite.

That's ignoring the wilful mistruth they (and others) pedal about UK borders and the like.

Finally, suggesting they are xenophobes is also wide of the mark. Farage's first wife was Irish and his second German! Hardly the actions of someone that dislikes foreigners.

Oh, that's ok. I'll just ignore all of their policies xenophobic sh*te about foreign nationals residing in the UK. That would be "Legal foreign nationals", before anyone chimes in about illegal immigrants.

mathepac

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

...
Here we are, 6 comments into the thread, and already you mention the Nazis, as well as another story about football supporters, both of which have nothing to do with the original post. ...

Ah well let me see now. Uniculturalism / xenophobia / racism is a feature of Naziism, fascism (as someone helpfully pointed out) and extreme socialism (as someone else helpfully pointed out) UKIP according to the OP embrace and espouse uniculturtalism, ergo UKIP are xenophobic / racist.

Tottenham Hotspur, a famous North London Association Football club have traditionally been associated with the Jewish communities living in that part of London, so if they were set upon by neo-Nazis / fascists in their trip to Italy, possible motivators for the disgraceful assaults are xenophobia because they were foreign or racism because they were Jewish or maybe even both; in either case it brings us right back to UKIP's uniculturalism; if you are not one with us you are not one of us.

I apologise if my brief posts posed such enormous intellectual challenges, but I can't always pitch accurately for a mixed audience.

Rascasse

Lemming wrote: »

I'm sorry, but pull the other one. Most of their stated aims would require the UK, when looking at their policies as a whole, to remove itself from the EU in order to enact. And by UK I really mean "England" because they aren't flying the flag inclusion of either Scotland or Wales - quite the opposite.

That's ignoring the wilful mistruth they (and others) pedal about UK borders and the like.

They wouldn't 'require' the UK to remove itself from the EU (they can't). They would bring forward a referendum for the British people to decide if they wished to remain within the EU. That still doesn't make them anti-EU as it would be vital to maintain good relations and free trade with the EU, they just would rather not get involved in everything else (EU law & courts, free movement of people, CAP, etc)

What are these 'wilful mistruth' about the UK borders? Also you mentioned about their dodgy literature can you provide pictures? It's very hard to judge without examples.

Lemming wrote: »

Oh, that's ok. I'll just ignore all of their policies xenophobic sh*te about foreign nationals residing in the UK. That would be "Legal foreign nationals", before anyone chimes in about illegal immigrants.

What xenophobic shíte? They want to redo the immigration system to one that is similar to Australia or Canada. Nothing wrong with that. They want permanent residents to liable to deportation if they commit serious crimes, nothing wrong with that (although the ECHR prevents it currently).

Again, do you have any examples? Or are we just to take your word that they are all xenophobes?

RandomName2

mathepac wrote: »

Ah well let me see now. Uniculturalism / xenophobia / racism is a feature of Naziism, fascism (as someone helpfully pointed out) and extreme socialism (as someone else helpfully pointed out) UKIP according to the OP embrace and espouse uniculturtalism, ergo UKIP are xenophobic / racist.

Tottenham Hotspur, a famous North London Association Football club have traditionally been associated with the Jewish communities living in that part of London, so if they were set upon by neo-Nazis / fascists in their trip to Italy, possible motivators for the disgraceful assaults are xenophobia because they were foreign or racism because they were Jewish or maybe even both; in either case it brings us right back to UKIP's uniculturalism; if you are not one with us you are not one of us.

I apologise if my brief posts posed such enormous intellectual challenges, but I can't always pitch accurately for a mixed audience.

Football.

My case rests.

This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

I'm sorry, I'm all for analogies and drawing general theories from specific examples, but you are going to have to put more work in than football hooliganism; therefore UKIP is racist. Seriously.

And uniculture (which is kind-of a made up word in the first place) is not interchangeable with the word xenophobia. Bigot/atheist.

Sure, espousing a single culture is part of fascism, as is xenophobia. Also is the independence of industry, promotion of sport, weakening of episcopal authority, development of military strength, cultural nationalism. Wait, wait. Sport? Cultural Nationalism? By God, the GAA is twice as fascist as UKIP!

Rascasse wrote: »

That still doesn't make them anti-EU

Ah, they hardly love the EU regardless; but technically you're right. Most of the time people just shorten "they are anti-being-part-of-the-EU" to just "anti-EU", as I did above, but you do make a point.

SeanW

Madam wrote: »

The equivalant of a gay beard?

Besides he's not exactly the brightest of people!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_McKenzie

I'm not familiar with the term "gay beard" could u explain?

Why, also do you say he's "not the brightest of people?" If I were as quick the Left on this board to accuse those who disagree with me of being "racist," I could well imagine why you say that. But I wouldn't speculate.

For my part, I see nothing wrong with him whatsoever.

Lemming wrote: »

Oh, that's ok. I'll just ignore all of their policies xenophobic sh*te about foreign nationals residing in the UK. That would be "Legal foreign nationals", before anyone chimes in about illegal immigrants.

Leader married first to an Irish woman then to a German. His party also proudly and enthusiastically fielding a black candidate in an upcoming UK election.

All that clearly points to them hating foreigners. All they're missing is the Nazi salute and a white sheet. :rolleyes::D

greendom

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the term "gay beard" could u explain?

If I were as quick to slander people who disagree with me as "racists" and "Nazis" as the left on here are, I could say that the reason you claim Winston McKenzie is "not exactly the brightest of people" is because, to you, he doesn't look very bright ...

Leader married first to an Irish woman then to a German. His party also proudly and enthusiastically fielding a black candidate in an upcoming UK election.

All that clearly points to them hating foreigners. All they're missing is the Nazi salute and a white sheet. :rolleyes::D

What about the fact that they want to re-patriate so many and stop any more from entering apart from on restricted work visas. Hardly points to an endearing love for them does it ?

walshb

greendom wrote: »

What about the fact that they want to re-patriate so many and stop any more from entering apart from on restricted work visas. Hardly points to an endearing love for them does it ?

Wanting immigrant quotas or wanting stricter access controls to one's country doesn't mean one is a racist. If they banned a particular ethnic group I could see it clearly as racism.

SeanW

walshb wrote: »

Wanting immigrant quotas or wanting stricter access controls to one's country doesn't mean one is a racist.

It does in the mind of a PC lefty.

Rascasse

greendom wrote: »

What about the fact that they want to re-patriate so many and stop any more from entering apart from on restricted work visas. Hardly points to an endearing love for them does it ?

The only people they want to repatriate are illegals and criminals. And as only letting people in on restricted work permits, well the UK doesn't owe the world a living. If you have a skill that the UK wants you'll get a visa. Just like Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand etc etc.

jjpep

Whatever about being racist or not the uni culture thing is enough for me not to be interested in them. I like multiculturalism. I like food from all around the world and being able to eat it here. I like it when people have a totally different point of view about things to me. On a really basic stupid level I like people who look different to me. It's interesting. Ireland culturally used to be fairly dull. I mean Irish culture is great and all but it's nice to have other cultures literally on my doorstep.

So I wouldn't call the ukip racist. They may be or may not be. But mono culture just seems dull.

mollymosfet

There seems to be a sort of extreme intellectual dishonesty amongst those who rally against multiculturalism; presenting the case that because a party's manifesto is not inherently racist, there can be no problem with racism within the party itself, or the practical applications of that party.

The problem is that "Multiculturalism" is not easy to define and total cultural homogeny is an undesirable state(unless you're an actual fascist). Most of the "golden eras" of culture in Europe were not in periods of isolation. Because of multiculturalism, we have rock music, techno, etc. things that exist because of not just different races, but different cultures interacting. People look at crime statistics and the like and see a false dichotomy between this and something approaching nationalism.

The issue is that you can't completely separate one's race from one's culture in this regard, certainly not for minorities. Rallying against other cultures as somehow destructive is, in of itself, somewhat racist since it implies that "their" culture needs to be discarded and "our" culture is so much better. The idea of preserving culture; keeping Britain British, what does that even mean? Is all of it even worth preserving? It's taken as gospel but is never really elaborated on. And a lot of the time, it does end up falling back on racism, despite claims to the contrary. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats are in trouble over this, trying to push the idea that they're not racist, yet more evidence keeps coming out that key members are, and abusively so. We're all too used to seeing how these things go.

Certainly art, architecture and history are worth preserving and every country should "feel" different to another. But that doesn't require cultural homogeny which again, is actually socially destructive. A lot of other prejudices are fueled by this, since making people put up with difference is actually a good thing. Without multiculturalism, I doubt LGBT rights would come as far as they have - though I'm sure a lot in these parties would be glad of that.

The rallying against "Multiculturalism" and these nonsensical declarations of "MULTICULTURALISM HAS FAILED"(and even moreso POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD) from people who don't even fully understand what they mean by that need to stop. Identify the particular issues caused by the interaction or clashing or cultures - and resolve those. Because more often than not you'll find it's those opposing multiculturalism who are fuelling them by helping propagate a negative stereotype or making minorities feel like second class citizens. Having a token black guy in the party does not help this as you'll always find one idiot who'll go along with that. You can even find gay people who think gay marriage is wrong. They're idiots, or doormats, and don't disprove a general rule. Or as someone said, there will always be differing extremes, it doesn't make the party as a whole a viable entity.

When any party pushes for "X for Xish" it's a red flag for racism or fascism because implying one way of doing things for everyone is inherently exclusionary. It is possible to preserve culture without eradicating others - do you really think Ireland is any better, for example, for it's lack of subculture compared to the UK or Europe? If people who did things a bit differently or dressed a bit strange were to suddenly disappear, would the world be a better place? For me, it'd be a nightmare.

I would argue right wing views in general, at least the ones we have to put up with now, are inherently racist, homophobic, sexist - whatever, because how they ignore or even further the concept of Privilege, and a wealthy, idealised elite. Celebrating normalcy means celebrating one type of individual over all else for no real rational reason, and demeaning those who are different, who generally have enough **** to put up with in the first place. Policies based on ignorance of the fact that many people have a leg up because of how/where they were born, and some have to overcome far greater odds, will always be unfriendly towards those who find themselves the underdog in society. This is why Right Wing "Libertarianism", which is really Objectivism, is a great lie.

We all have to live on the same planet, regardless, so it's about time we started resolving these issues like mature adults. Right wing policies can only work on a truly even playing field, which we do not have.

greendom

Rascasse wrote: »

The only people they want to repatriate are illegals and criminals. And as only letting people in on restricted work permits, well the UK doesn't owe the world a living. If you have a skill that the UK wants you'll get a visa. Just like Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand etc etc.

What makes them illegal ? Being from a different country ?

Memnoch

mollymosfet wrote: »

Having a token black guy in the party does not help this as you'll always find one idiot who'll go along with that. You can even find gay people who think gay marriage is wrong. They're idiots, or doormats, and don't disprove a general rule. Or as someone said, there will always be differing extremes, it doesn't make the party as a whole a viable entity.

Your post was excellent and i agree with pretty much everything you said, barring the above.

These people who you refer to, i.e. Black people in racist parties, or gay people in parties with homophobic agendas. They are neither stupid nor doormats. They are self-serving cynics of the highest order. In the olden days they were the kind of people who became collaboraters for the occupying force because they are more interested in advancing their personal wealth and status at the expense of the greater good, even if its one they might belong to or identify with.

What does it matter if their party is racist? They personally are still benefiting aren't they? The racism isn't getting in the way of their life. Ironically this kind of ethos usually fits right in, in these kinds of parties. There are examples of people like this everywhere.

Baroness Abasi for example. I've watched her on question time and she is a horrible despicable, dishonest woman. Michael Steele, former chairman of the republican party in the US is another. I don't know about the 'token black guy' in UKIP but I wouldn't be surprised if he was the same.

Other than that, you're spot on.

As to the main topic. UKIP are a racist party and I do think that membership of such a party makes you a racist and I also do think that its not a good idea for people who are part of a racist party to be fostering children of different ethnicities. Just like I wouldn't want a homophobe looking after a gay boy or girl.

greendom

walshb wrote: »

Wanting immigrant quotas or wanting stricter access controls to one's country doesn't mean one is a racist. If they banned a particular ethnic group I could see it clearly as racism.

i don't think any of their policies are racist per se. They would clearly appeal to racists however.

SeanW

greendom wrote: »

What makes them illegal ? Being from a different country ?

So you think Western countries should have total open-door immigration policies? No controls whatsoever?

As to the main topic. UKIP are a racist party

Racism, means that you have prejudice or hatred based on RACE i.e. physical ethnicity.

Do you have the slightest evidence that UKIP hates coloured people?

mollymosfet

SeanW wrote: »

So you think Western countries should have total open-door immigration policies? No controls whatsoever?

False dichotomy. Though it does also raise the point of why some people "deserve" a better home than others.

Racism, means that you have prejudice or hatred based on RACE i.e. physical ethnicity.

Do you have the slightest evidence that UKIP hates coloured people?

Racism is an institutionalised thing. It's not simply coming out and saying "I don't trust Black people". That's not what the lived reality of racism is for most people(Though it's certainly a big part of it). UKIP run Britain would be more racist since their policies do enable racist ideologies whether they intend to or not, moreover. Their right wing libertarian stances, too, would greatly favour white, upper class males more than anyone else. As for whether the members themselves are actively racist, I'm not sure. But their policies are not very good and more often than not those espousing these policies do turn out to be somewhat racist.