Übergeek 바둑이: I havent seen anyone respond to the "we 3 are in love, or we 4 are in love" scenario yet?

Why not polygamy then too? Or like Bwild said too, why cant my sister and i be given the same rights as married couples get now? Shouldnt my sister and I be able to cohabitate and adopt children and have each other inherit property etc???



...and your only complaint against sexual attraction to children is that the child cannot consent to the sex???


oh yeah, and homosexuals are already free to marry, just like heterosexuals are, we already share the same rights.... as a heterosexual, I dont have a right to marry another man....


and I agree with AD, calling someone against gay marriage as "homophobic" is a slander and not always accurate

(V): spirit???....really???

I have an aquaintance who married, had twins and after about 15 years the marriage broke down and he eventually turned to another man. Spirit? I think not. He explains it as "trying both sides" he is still with the man after 14 years and just loves females. He says he would never go back to a woman, so what would you "categorize" him as.
By the way...are you speaking from experience, and if not where do you get your presumptions from?

Artful Dodger:

> Homosexual couples cannot, and never will be able to do what hetrosexual couples can do: create children.

Science has changed that.  I read sometime ago about artificial sperm.  a scientist took the DNA out of an animal's sperm and introduced the DNA of a female into it.  Then he used that sperm to ferlize the egg of a different female.  Not only that, but scientists have taken egg cells and removed all DNA from them, then introduced another sample of DNA and made the egg become a fertilized embrio.  Science is changing reproductive limitations, whether we like it or not.  There are serious ethical questions about these reproductive technologies, but they are there and in the future anybody will be able to have children, regardless of sexual orientation.  What happens then?  It is a difficult question.

Perhaps we could see the problem from another side.  If instead of sexual orientation, we used race or religion as a determinant for marriage, would we feel the same?  "Christians will have marriage, but Jews will have a civil union."  "Caucasians will have marriage, but African Blacks will have a civil union."  If we were to do this, would we be discriminating against a minority?  Obviously.  By the same token, the current law discrimates against homosexuals.  The only reason why the law remains is because the majority of the population supports the traditional definition of marriage.  In essence, it is a law that represents the will of the majority, and discriminates against the minority.  One of the tenets of modern democracy is respect for minority rights.

Artful Dodger: Maybe not, but they can love children. And the marriage is about love, not legality. Legality is a way of keeping your neighbour away. She/He has a ring, she/he is committed. Taxes, census..

Btw.. there are some men and women who cannot create babies. Is marriage allowed for them? What about a person born both male and female... what then.

And that gay folk are discriminated against in the form of legal red tape, that is wrong.

The governments have adopted inaccurate old religious interpretation, just like the one about 'witches' .. Because mistakes have been made, should folk be punished?

Czuch: We are!! I thought, it was the animal side of us that was given to the point of reproduction and that the 'God' in us was capable of controlling that instinct.

As far as I've read abusers are made. Someone being gay is how their spirit is.

Artful Dodger: Homosexual couples cannot, and never will be able to do what hetrosexual couples can do: create children. Society has the right to define and recognize a marriage ONLY between a man and a women.

I would expect you'd say “society has the right to define and recognize a marriage only between a man and a woman where neither of them suffers from infertility.” Because infertile couples cannot, and never will be able to do what fertile couples can do: create children.

Czuch:

>  there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children,
can anyone explain to me
>  how that is really any different than being
hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

Isn't age of consent a factor?  Adult homosexuals are old enough to make a decision about what they want in their lives.  Children do not have the knowledge or experience to make that decision.

I think that ultimately it comes to whether people are free to do what they want or not.  If a homosexual couple wants to marry, it is their choice as free individuals.

Homophobic people are insecure.  They think that if homosexuals marry, it somehow diminishes heterosexual marriage.  "There is no way my heterosexual marriage is in the same league as the marriage among homosexuals."  It is all fear and insecurity.  Homophobic people hide that fear behind the veil of morality.  It can be Christian morality, or morality imposed by the state.  It is much easier to say that "marriage should be as defined in the Bible" rather than "I fear homosexuals and I fear that we are becoming like them."  Those that protest the hardest against homosexuality are often those that fear it the most, and in some cases they are homosexuals who hide their true nature out of fear and shame.

>  I am not sure why the government is in the marriage business in the first place?

It has to do with money and property mostly.  For example, in the US there are 1138 statutes in the law concerning marriage rights and responsibilities and the vast majority of them have to do with property, division of assets, survivor benefits, etc.  Governments around the world have passed marriage legislation to clarify how all that money and property should be distributed, divided, managed or inherited.  This is true also of legal codes outside of modern governments.  Much of the Bible's and the Koran's law on marriage is related to property.

Czuch: One more random thought..... there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children, can anyone explain to me how that is really any different than being hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

exactly....what if I wanted to marry my hamster, or my son or daughter, maybe even my mother or father??
where does it stop?

Ferris Bueller: First of all, you dont have to be "anti gay" to be against gay marriage.

Talk about a slippery slope... what if next I said i wanted to marry two other people, the 3 of us are in love, we are a happy family, we just want the same rights and privileges that everyone else has?

I am not sure why the government is in the marriage business in the first place? Why not just "civil unions" for ecveryone, both straight and gay, give us the right to choose whomever we want to for benefits and other rights we give to married couples right now?

Another random thought.... what if everyone were gay???? Would that be a good thing?


oh yeah....the courts already have interviened on behalf of gay marriage, California is one state, and even in such a liberal state as California, the people voted to reject the courts!

One more random thought..... there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children, can anyone explain to me how that is really any different than being hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

Czuch: It's early days for gay marriage rights in the USA and to various degrees the whole world.

Over here we regarding marijuana and drug policy overall there has been a big stir. The advisers to the government for the first time in 30 years have been ignored in preference to politics. The repercussions of that have caused the resignations of advisers and the rest of the council to organise a meeting with the government to seriously question why.

All because Professor Nutt said he thought on scientific grounds the government was wrong.

Ferris Bueller: You already have gone down the slippery slope in certain respects. Bush and his use of "free speech zones" where those protesting against his policies were herded away from the routes Bush took so the press wouldn't see them.

People were arrested for not wanting to go, and a number prosecuted for protesting legally and non-violently.

I think you need your laws clarified to stop this sought of abuse.

highlights here in Maine... we voted down the new gay marriage law, and voted to allow non profits with the proper licenses to grow and distribute medical marijuana products,,,,,,

Seems the will of the people and the will of the courts and legislatures are at odds all over the country..... seems that every time the people get a vote, we vote against gay marriage (over 30 votes so far in various states)

Übergeek 바둑이: For that reason, the KKK & Neo-Nazis are allowed to march on our streets w/ the proper permits

<v> That the KKK, etc can march without permits (or any group that needs to) is crazy.

eh???

(V):

For those of you who don't know, here is some info:

Dead Peasant's Insurance

Like much of the insurance business, it is mostly a scam (no offense to those of you who work in that industry.)  It looks like either a way to get tax breaks, or a way for companies to get richer.  The assumption is that a key employee is expensive to replace.  Then companies can declare the cost of the insurance against income taxes.  If the employee dies the company gets the money, not the family.  It sounds like free money for a company.  If the employee is alive the company gets the tax break, if the employee dies the company gets the insurance money.  It is a win/win for the company.  A good scam!

Übergeek 바둑이: What gets me about capitalism (at the moment) is something nicknamed "dead peasants insurance". A policy of insurance used to protect a company from the loss of 'executives' now used by companies to make a profit on the death of a worker. My main gripe is any family, etc see nothing of this insurance money and yet the family can be left penniless.

Ferris Bueller: Having an opinion is everyone's right. But the law is is that to incite hatred or violence is illegal. The BNP can do rallies as much as the Green party. Animal rights folks can protest about experimentation. But as soon as it gets nasty.. People have the right to carry out their lawful business.

That the KKK, etc can march without permits (or any group that needs to) is crazy. If trouble starts at least there will be police to protect both sides from hotheads. They can shout at each other.. some name calling is expected and depending overlooked. But out and right crap. It ain't right.

Übergeek 바둑이:Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.
what about "freedom of free thinking"?
your case regarding the teacher just once again proves government is trying to control our minds, our freedoms, and our rights of life. what happened to that teacher was not justice...it was a political coup,imo.

Ferris Bueller:

>  There is something to be said for discouraging hate speech & symbols, but where do u draw those lines?

I think that while extremist racists have their freedoms of scpeech protected by the Constitution, there are limits imposed on what they can do.

Here in Canada we had a famous case in 1984.  James Keegstra was the town mayor and a school teacher in Eckville, Alberta.  He taught his social studies students that the holocaust was a fraud and that Jews were greedy, power-hungry, destructive, treacherous, etc.  Keegstra was saying that Jews inveted the Holocaust to gain sympathy.

He was charged with hate crimes for willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group.  He tried to have the charge quashed because he said that the charge infringed upon his right to freedom of speech.  The Supreme Court denied his claim and he was fined $5000 (a joke) and given a 1 year suspended sentence which he served doing community work.

The case was a landmark case and later other Aryan Nations and KKK members in Canada found themselves in trouble with the law.

Where do we draw the line?  I think the line is clear.  Anything that promotes hatred or racism is against the spirit of the Constitution.  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

Bernice:

>  There is a lot of hard feelings between these races...so you have black hating black.

We also have to remember Rwanda and the Hutus killing over 1 million Tutsis.  Ethnic genocide is still going on in Congo where the same racial hatred that we saw in Rwanda is still tearing apart Sub-saharan Africa.

Artful Dodger:

>  The British left the slave trade kicking and screaming.

Is there a country that didn't?  I think all countries that had slaves were very reluctant to give up the slave trade.  In the end slavery was a very inefficient economic system.  Capitalism superseded slavery because slavery is not very profitable.  People might think that free labour is profitable but in the long run it fails because if people have no salaries, can they buy anything?  Karl Marx (I hate quoting the guy) pointed out in Capital that capitalism required as a prerequisite a freely mobile labour force.  The British parliament passed the Slavery Trade Act of 1807 to stop the trading of slaves by British merchant ships, and then they passed the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 to completely abolish slavery in the British Empire.

Another interesting thing was slavery in France.  They abolished slavery in 1894, then reinstated slavery in 1804.  They finally abolished slavery in 1848.  They had to do it twice!

Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1962, kind of late for one of our favorite alies.

Then some countries never abolished slavery and still have slaves.  In Congo the Pigmy people are kept as slaves in the homes of the wealthy.  The Congolese call it a "time-honoured tradition".  Some countries like Sudan still have a thriving slave trade.  There is also sexual slavery in many countries.  It is estimated that today as many as 29 million people are slaves.

I think we should impose capital punishment on slave traders, and make it a crime against humanity.  But then, we should do the same with illegal weapons traficking too.

(V):   Sounds a lot like what we have in the states.  There does seems to be one glaring exception, however.  We tend to value freedom of speech over quelling racial tensions.  For that reason, the KKK & Neo-Nazis are allowed to march on our streets w/ the proper permits.  I'm not sure either side of the pond is headed in the right direction.  There is something to be said for discouraging hate speech & symbols, but where do u draw those lines?

Artful Dodger: That poll is 7 years old!!

Things have changed to what is happening in the UK since then

The main problem is the stirring of extemists on both sides of the Muslim - Patriotic British groups.

But it's not everywhere!!

Artful Dodger: Sorry, but last week wasn't the GOP at it's lowest in the polls for ten years?

Ferris Bueller: No, the UK is not perfect, there are idiots in all races that think they are superior to other colours or religions.

post code turfs, and groups being groups trying to act 'gangster rapper'

And yes.. we had the slave trade. But that was then, a stage thankfully passed. We got some people of all races creating strife.. As in one interview a politician decreed he would not be happy if he had a child that married to a Muslim through love.. and their would be some on the Muslim side who'd feel the same, etc.

... But a minority as a rule. The use though of race as a means to stir anger and violence is forbidden. As some have found in court. The 'PC' crowd can go to far.. we ain't out the water yet.

There is a lot of racism in Australia...and it is on both sides...black and white....the aboriginals are a VERY different race to other dark skinned people.

In NZ, the Maoris are treated as they should be...extremely well...they are educated and well spoken (when they want to be). The Islanders are treated with a bit of reserve...Fijians, Samoans, rarotongans are looked down upon by the Maoris. There is a lot of hard feelings between these races...so you have black hating black. a different racial tension and can be quite frightening at times.

Artful Dodger:   One of the few times we seem to agree w/ one another.  LOL

Ferris Bueller:

And what's more about *cough* Mr 'nice stand up guy' Nick Griffin.. when present and former army chiefs criticised him for using pictures of the armed forces on the BNP website, he then whined that they were Nazi's so and so's.

He's as patriotic as a wet paper bag!!.

Snoopy: Aye, she was a great champion for the cause. and yes.. cost should never have come into it. We live near a main army base and many Gurkha families live in the surrounding areas, I see Gurkha's often guarding the base entrances as well as working in civilian positions in the area.

(V): And after WWII the Empire became the Commonwealth. Gurkha's still join the British army and fight side by side with British born soldiers, and more recently won the right to remain in the UK after retirement thanks to a campaign by UK citizens which forced the government to give in despite the cost

it was Joanna Lumley that made that happen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/gurkhas-joanna-lumley-phil-woolas

and cost shouldn't come into it
many Gurkha's have laid down there lives to fight for our country so the least we can do is let them live here if they so wish without thinking about money

Ferris Bueller: I'll give you an example. During WWII as you know many GI's came over to the UK. A training film had to be made to explain to those who came over to our country (staring Rocky's trainer from the original Rocky films) that there was no segregation in the UK. I think the UK attitude towards skin colour was different due to our Empire days, where many UK citizens lived, worked or fought in countries of the British Empire. And after WWII the Empire became the Commonwealth. Gurkha's still join the British army and fight side by side with British born soldiers, and more recently won the right to remain in the UK after retirement thanks to a campaign by UK citizens which forced the government to give in despite the cost... They earned the right.

Before WWII we had the British Union of Fascists led by Oswald Mosley, but at it's peak it had only had 50,000 members and soon lost ground. The Daily Mail supported them at one stage, yet after an anti-fascist protester lost an eye during a confrontation that support was dropped. In 1936 an act was passed banning political uniforms and required police permission for political marches.

Extreme groups that incite violence or hate are illegal by law. The likes of the KKK would never have been allowed or supported in the UK. We just find such groups utterly distasteful. Yes we have small groups of racists on both sides of the colour coin, but in public they know to keep their mouths shut (generally except the stupid ones) or face fines or prison. Our old divides use to based on class (upper, middle and lower) not race.

As a country.. we've never had the room to have separate places to non-white people, so our communities have always (except for a few areas) been mixed. People just get on in general except for a few hot heads.

The likes of Nick Griffin and his whining about lack of Britishness is just pure rubbish. Every year the proms (amongst other UK folk stuff) celebrate Britain and people around the country watch, join in and sing along with it. English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish flags you see being flown freely. He's just a little idiot blaming other ethnicities for his insecurity and lack of self worth.

For those who don't know, Bill AB 1176 is a bill that was passed unanimously in the State of California Legislative Assembly and Senate.  This bill would
have granted the Port of San Francisco expanded financing to
redevelop a former shipyard into a new neighbourhood known as Pier 70.

This bill was sponsored by Tom Ammiano, a Democrat assemblyman.  Earlier in the year Ammiano had heckled Arnorld Schwarzenegger at an event in San Francisco.  Then on Oct. 12 Schwarzenneger vetoed the bill and sent the letter that Pedro posted below.  When Ammiano's camp complained about the word spelled by the letters that Pedro highlighted in red, Schwarzennegers spokesman said "My goodness!  What a coincidence!" 

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1176 without my signature.

For some time now I have lamented the fact that major issues are overlooked while many
unnecessary bills come to me for consideration. Water reform, prison reform, and health
care are major issues my Administration has brought to the table, but the Legislature just
kicks the can down the alley.

Yet another legislative year has come and gone without the major reforms Californians
overwhelmingly deserve. In light of this, and after careful consideration, I believe it is
unnecessary to sign this measure at this time.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

Ferris Bueller:

I was trying to get Sen. Thurmond's psychology.  On the one hand he was openly against the Civil Rights Act, and on the other he had a daughter with an African American woman.  It is a deep contradiction in the man because he cared for his daughter (if we believe what his family has said).  Thurmond had the distinction of being the only senator to serve in the Senate at the age of 100.  He saw the entire 20th century unfold.

I see him (and the likes of Sen. Robert Byrd) as a transition in American politics from the racist politics of seggregation to our modern era.  Those men spanned two eras in politics from before to after the civil rights movements.  After this "old guard" in the senate leaves office then we will see some changes in the way laws and government are conducted.  These "old warriors" have a lot of political clout and are very influential.  Something interesting will be who replaces them and what changes in government take place.

I was just sayin what joe was doing

Übergeek 바둑이: what ever dude, that's not my debate, as a Brazilian friend said to me.."i was on the outside looking in,, trying to take care of my family'... and i would do as i had to also.. He was a street urchin who fought a hard deal.. he worked for Textron Lycoming.. I met him at Fidae '92

GTCharlie:

I found an interesting document on illegal immigration in the US:

The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments

It was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

According to the document, there are between 11.5 and 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  Of those approximately 6 to 7 million entered legally and then overstayed their visitor or work visas.  90% of illegal immigrants live in six states:  California, Florida, Texas, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.  Recently there is a trend for the illegal immigrant population to spread into other states.  In most states illegal immigrants make up a very small fraction of the population except in California where they make up 8% of the total population.  Approximately 1.8 million illegal immigrants are children under the age of 18.

There are 7.2 million illegal immigrants employed in the agricultural, construction and service industries.  Illegal immigrants have a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the population.  In 2007 illegal immigrant men experienced a 4.6% unemployment rate as opposed to 6.5% of the rest of the population.  Among women unemployment for illegals was 5.2% as opposed to 8.2% for women in the rest of the population.

The IRS estimates that approximately 6 million illegal immigrants file income tax returns each year.  Other researchers estimate that between 50 and 75% of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes.  The Social Security Admonistration (SSA) estimates that about half of all ilegal immigrants pay social security taxes.

"Researchers from the Urban Institute, the Migration Policy Institute, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the Center for Immigration Studies have assumed a 55 percent compliance rate for income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes."

"the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego conducted a survey of unauthorized immigrants and found that, in 2006, 75 percent had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax
returns, or both."

This was an eye opener for me.  I used to think that most illegals payed little or no taxes.

In 1982 the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal for any state to esclude children from receiving an education based on the childern's immigration status.  As a result most of the children of illegal immigrants receive an education.  In 2006 there were approximately 53 million schoolchildren in the US.  Approximately 4% of those children are illegal immigrants.  This has increased the budgetary stress on the educational system.

Illegal immigrants are less likely to have health insurance and they are more likely to rely on emergency room and public clinic services.  Since federal laws require some health services to be provided regardless of ability to pay or immigration status, many illegal immigrants receive healthcare services without being able to compensate for them.  (This is no surprise and a big part of the current healthcare debate is due to this.)

"According to a report commissioned by the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition, in 2000, county governments that share a border with Mexico incurred almost $190 million in costs for providing uncompensated care to unauthorized immigrants; that figure represented about one-quarter of all uncompensated health costs incurred by those governments in that year."

That means that about 25% of uncompensated healthcare is due to illegal immigrants.  (I thought it would be a higher percentage.  Nevertheless, 25% is a lot.)

Some studies estimate that immigrants cost more than they contribute to the tax system; for example:

"Recent estimates indicate that annual costs for unauthorized immigrants in Colorado were between $217 million and $225 million for education, Medicaid, and corrections.42 By comparison, taxes collected from unauthorized immigrants at both the state and local levels amounted to an estimated $159 million to $194 million annually."

"Another report—prepared by the state comptroller of Texas—estimated that, in 2006, the state collected $424 million more in revenue from unauthorized immigrants than it spent to provide education, health care, and law enforcement activities for that population. However, the state estimated that local governments incurred $1.4 billion in uncompensated costs for health care and law enforcement."

Overall, it seems to me that healthcare and education of illegal immigrants cost a lot, more than is offset by the taxes paid by illegal immigrants.  If only 50% of illegal immigrants are paying taxes, then the solution is to liberalize policy so that those people pay their fair share along with everybody else.  a good question is, would it be politcally possible to do so?  I think that the American public would not accept the legalization of 12 million immigrants so easily.

Joe Wilson actually called him a liar about the fact that no illegal immigrants would get free health care, but one wonders if the status of legal vs illegal will be changed. If a huge lot of illegals get declared "legal", then the president can't be a liar

Ferris Bueller:

This episode in Senator Thurmond's life is interesting to me.  I can imagine that he was conflicted about it through most of his life.

From what I read (the Internet is not always reliable) Storm Thurmond had an illegitimate daughter with Carrie Butler in 1925.  At the time Carrie Butler (an African-American woman) was working as a maid in the Thurmond family home.  Storm Thurmond was 22 and Carrie Butler was 16.  Their daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, was supported by Thurmond through much of her life.  Thurmond paid for her college education and in 1946 she graduated in business from South Carolina State University.  Later she went on to get a master's degree in education and became a teacher in Califormia in the 1960's.

Thurmond fiercely campaigned for seggragation and against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  When his daughter approached him about it, he apparently brushed off her complaints.  I think he must have been conflicted about it for much of his life.  If one believes Senator Thurmond's family claims, he loved his daughter and cared for and supported her.  She was born when he was very young, before he became a politician.

I would not be surprised if his support of seggregation came as a result of his own sense of shame over having had a relationship with an African American woman, and wanting to maintain some sense of the master-slave mentality.  Before slavery was abolished it was not uncommon for owners of slaves to father children with their African female slaves.  In the culture of slavery such relationships were considered unacceptable, but they happened nevertheless.

Thurmond did moderate his views later in life.  I think that once the Civil Rights Act was passed, he did not need to maintain the same dogged fight for seggregation, or some pretense of it.

After Senator Thurmond died in 2003 his daughter publicly revealed her parentage.  His daughter claimed that she did not reveal it during his lifetime because it was not of any advantage to her or to her father and that she had kept silent out of love and respect for her father.  At first those who supported Thurmond spoke out against her.  Joe Wilson was one of them.  He said that he doubted that she was telling the truth and that she was trying to diminish Senator Thrumond's legacy.  After Thrumond's family acknowledged the truth, Wilson was forced to publicly apologize.

To me, if there is a reason why racism and seggregation are bad, it is a story like this.  The fact that a father and a daughter had to spend their entire lives away from each other, merely exchanging money.  All because of skin color.  It is one of the destructive things that racism does.  It divides human beings and turns them into something they should never be.

I don't know if Joe Wilson is a racist, but when it comes to other people family life, it is better to be silent.  If wilson made a mistake here, it was to pass judgement blindly.  I wonder if his objection would have been the same if Thurmond's daughter had been Caucasian.

(V):   What do u consider the differences between American standards of racism & British ones?

Übergeek 바둑이:   There's some more on my "South Carolina brother" Joe Wilson.  When Strom's black maid went public about the child, he called her a "liar" also despite the fact that the Thurmond family acknowledged it.  He then went off on a diatribe about how unpatriotic she was.

Ferris Bueller: I cant answer for others...but let me share an experience I managed to live thru.
try being in 5th grade in a 98% black school the day ML king was assasinated.
as you can see from my picture...I'm not black.
2 monthes of living hell.
I had friends who would tip me off as to where the high school kids where waiting to beat up the white kids, and I would take my younger brothers out of their classes early to try and sneak out another exit, and run like hell 7 blocks to our home. sometimes we made it...most of the time we didnt.

every time I hear a black person yell "racist" , I think about those days.
its my opinion that only a racist would call another racist. the fact that that mentality is on their mind is proof it takes one to know one.

The BNP has it's roots in the National front. It has a policy of excluding people from joining it's party who are not white. And recently has been taken to court over this policy or face legal action by the courts. A number of active or past active BNP members have been prosecuted over conspiracy or actual bombings of non white people.

99%+ of the UK population by UK standards consider Nick Griffin and the BNP to be a racist organisation.

Not by American standards, but by UK standards.

Nick Griffin slanders our army chiefs and anyone else that dares to criticise him or his party because he is a weak minded individual who cannot take criticism.