Nigel Farage and Racism Watch

HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Given the comments by UKIP's leader, Nigel Farage, I think it's the perfect time to ask this question. He proposed to abolish most legislation regarding discrimination and prejudice, as enforced by the law. These are laws that enforce quotas on employers which go against a man's freedom to associate with whom he pleases.

Racism has been a dirty word since it's inception. A propaganda word formed to guilt the West into accepting multiculturalism and mass immigration. A word used to propel neo-liberalism without dissent. Any dissent would incur the wrath of the Political Correct-brigade and have you carted off to the gulag. These people who go along with the ideas of equality, immigration and anti-racism have a disdain for authority and traditions. Well, the true believers are Marxist/Trotskyite. The rest of the crowd are simply useful idiots who seem to have had this propaganda bashed into their skulls for so long that it's affecting their better judgement.

This all stems to the dissolution of the family. It's under attack, and racism is partly to blame. If racism was so bad, why do we treat our family members and friends differently to strangers we've never met before? If we were building a business, would we not wish to see our friends and family succeed with us rather than a stranger we've never met?

This isn't xenophobia. Some employers may simply wish for the best of the best, like Chelsea FC or Manchester City, but others should be able to choose without being attacked with a pejorative like "racist".

So, given this, is Nigel Farage a bad man for wanting to deregulate business and giving employers more power over their private businesses and who they can employ and associate with, or is he just a bad man?
1
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Quality.

Not equality.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Given the comments by UKIP's leader, Nigel Farage, I think it's the perfect time to ask this question. He proposed to abolish most legislation regarding discrimination and prejudice, as enforced by the law. These are laws that enforce quotas on employers which go against a man's freedom to associate with whom he pleases.

Racism has been a dirty word since it's inception. A propaganda word formed to guilt the West into accepting multiculturalism and mass immigration. A word used to propel neo-liberalism without dissent. Any dissent would incur the wrath of the Political Correct-brigade and have you carted off to the gulag. These people who go along with the ideas of equality, immigration and anti-racism have a disdain for authority and traditions. Well, the true believers are Marxist/Trotskyite. The rest of the crowd are simply useful idiots who seem to have had this propaganda bashed into their skulls for so long that it's affecting their better judgement.

This all stems to the dissolution of the family. It's under attack, and racism is partly to blame. If racism was so bad, why do we treat our family members and friends differently to strangers we've never met before? If we were building a business, would we not wish to see our friends and family succeed with us rather than a stranger we've never met?

This isn't xenophobia. Some employers may simply wish for the best of the best, like Chelsea FC or Manchester City, but others should be able to choose without being attacked with a pejorative like "racist".

So, given this, is Nigel Farage a bad man for wanting to deregulate business and giving employers more power over their private businesses and who they can employ and associate with, or is he just a bad man?
Nigel Farage is under fire for saying that these laws aren't needed. As if Racsim is a thing of the past. The laws don't affect businesses to the extent that Mr. Farage claims, the employer always has the final say. I don't know whether he's racist or not, but I'm with Shadiq Khan on this one, Nigel's claims are ludicrous.
1
reply
earthworm
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Farage is playing s blinder, he does this all the time. He says something borderline racist or far right and then back tracks to a more moderate position. People then only remember the bits they want to here/agree with and support him. I hate the guy but he's a hell of an operator.
3
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
racist comment

apologise

backtrack

win vote of racist gullible fool

job done
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Nigel Farage is under fire for saying that these laws aren't needed. As if Racsim is a thing of the past.
They're probably not; I doubt any major companies care about the race of their applicants, and it's well known that a lot of companies don't even advertise some positions in the UK any more. It's absurd to look at companies that are outsourcing everything they can to India and China and think that their main interest to keep the black man down.

On the other hand the OP thinks they enforce quotas which they don't. It's actually almost impossible to make a case against someone on the basis of these laws.

Laws against racial discrimination in employment probably have little or no effect on society, positive or negative. The reason they exist is to allow their supporters to send a social signal that they disapprove of racism. That's why Farage backtracked.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by earthworm)
Farage is playing s blinder, he does this all the time. He says something borderline racist or far right and then back tracks to a more moderate position. People then only remember the bits they want to here/agree with and support him. I hate the guy but he's a hell of an operator.
I actually don't like his back-peddling; it makes him seem like a weak leader and clearly just a corruptible and fallible as the rest of the establishment he tries to draw a distinction from.
0
reply
earthworm
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by HigherMinion)
I actually don't like his back-peddling; it makes him seem like a weak leader and clearly just a corruptible and fallible as the rest of the establishment he tries to draw a distinction from.
don't like it either but it works and I appreciate its effectiveness.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
Anyone who has justly acquired property should be free to discrimination against whomever he wishes.

It is not the business of state to force people how to think.
Business who do discriminate due to race will suffer due to bad reputation as well lose consumers.

People in their personal inactions discriminate all the time.
Black males are more likely to marry black women even though there are signifantly more white women.

Should we force people into interracial marriages in the name of diversity?
What about the fact that so many people only date certain genders?

How dare they discriminate on this basis!
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Anyone who has justly acquired property should be free to discrimination against whomever he wishes.

It is not the business of state to force people how to think.
Business who do discriminate due to race will suffer due to bad reputation as well lose consumers.

People in their personal inactions discriminate all the time.
Black males are more likely to marry black women even though there are signifantly more white women.

Should we force people into interracial marriages in the name of diversity?
What about the fact that so many people only date certain genders?

(Original post by James Milibanter)
Nigel Farage is under fire for saying that these laws aren't needed. As if Racsim is a thing of the past. The laws don't affect businesses to the extent that Mr. Farage claims, the employer always has the final say. I don't know whether he's racist or not, but I'm with Shadiq Khan on this one, Nigel's claims are ludicrous.
Racism is nasty but it does not warrant agression.
They have horrible opinions and thoughts but they do not deserve to be imprisoned or physically hurt because of it.

There can be no such things as thoughtcrimes in a free society.

How dare they discriminate on this basis!
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Falcatas)
Anyone who has justly acquired property should be free to discrimination against whomever he wishes.

It is not the business of state to force people how to think.
Business who do discriminate due to race will suffer due to bad reputation as well lose consumers.

People in their personal inactions discriminate all the time.
Black males are more likely to marry black women even though there are signifantly more white women.

Should we force people into interracial marriages in the name of diversity?
What about the fact that so many people only date certain genders?



Racism is nasty but it does not warrant agression.
They have horrible opinions and thoughts but they do not deserve to be imprisoned or physically hurt because of it.

There can be no such things as thoughtcrimes in a free society.

How dare they discriminate on this basis!
I agree that the state should have very little influence on peoples everyday lives and I particularly like the legislation Farage was speaking of disposing just because it had very little effect on business, two people applying for a job one black and one white, the employer will always have the final say in whom (s)he hires. My problem is Farage saying that racism is not a problem, when it actually is, now incredibly so with our unprecedented levels of immigration.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Observatory)
They're probably not
Tell that to the 3,000+ people who went to tribunal citing racial discrimination in the period 2013-14.

(Original post by HigherMinion)
These are laws that enforce quotas on employers which go against a man's freedom to associate with whom he pleases.
Can you show me the law which sets out what these quotas are?
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by InnerTemple)
Tell that to the 3,000+ people who went to tribunal citing racial discrimination in the period 2013-14.



Can you show me the law which sets out what these quotas are?
There are no quotas, they don't exist.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by James Milibanter)
There are no quotas, they don't exist.
I suspected as much.

UKIPers desperately trying to justify Farage's stupid remarks.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by James Milibanter)
I agree that the state should have very little influence on peoples everyday lives and I particularly like the legislation Farage was speaking of disposing just because it had very little effect on business, two people applying for a job one black and one white, the employer will always have the final say in whom (s)he hires. My problem is Farage saying that racism is not a problem, when it actually is, now incredibly so with our unprecedented levels of immigration.
Well to be fair it isn't to do with race but nationality and culture.

Farage has said nothing I deem to be racist. Xenophobic perhaps but not racist.
Racism is not justifiable in anyway, in my opinion.

Xenophobia, however I do think can be justifed. It is a fact of life that different cultures exist. These cultures can often have ideas that a contrary to the native population.
It is certainly true that some cultures and its ideas are less problematic than others.
For example more people are against immigration from Islamic countries than from countries like Germany.

However. one must be careful to completely write off whole swathes of people.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Falcatas)
Well to be fair it isn't to do with race but nationality and culture.

Farage has said nothing I deem to be racist. Xenophobic perhaps but not racist.
Racism is not justifiable in anyway, in my opinion.

Xenophobia, however I do think can be justifed. It is a fact of life that different cultures exist. These cultures can often have ideas that a contrary to the native population.
It is certainly true that some cultures and its ideas are less problematic than others.
For example more people are against immigration from Islamic countries than from countries like Germany.

However. one must be careful to completely write off whole swathes of people.
Well, when Farage said that he wouldn't want to live on the same street as a romanian because they all are part of organised crime networks I think that crossed a line. He obviously backtracked, as he did after saying we should switch to an american style Healthcare system and as he did with these comments.
I find it rather hypocritical to be xenophobic (which is a fear of immigration as a whole) because Britain is an Ireland of immigrants, saxons, nordics, romans, etc. and even in the early 20th century there was loads of immigration, from Ireland, Africa, the west indies and west asia.
I most certainly do not think that giving employers the ability to go back to the days of "No Blacks, No Irish, No dogs" is an appropriate thing to do.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Well, when Farage said that he wouldn't want to live on the same street as a romanian because they all are part of organised crime networks I think that crossed a line. He obviously backtracked, as he did after saying we should switch to an american style Healthcare system and as he did with these comments.
I find it rather hypocritical to be xenophobic (which is a fear of immigration as a whole) because Britain is an Ireland of immigrants, saxons, nordics, romans, etc. and even in the early 20th century there was loads of immigration, from Ireland, Africa, the west indies and west asia.
I most certainly do not think that giving employers the ability to go back to the days of "No Blacks, No Irish, No dogs" is an appropriate thing to do.
Farage never said all Romanians are all part of criminals gangs. He just defended people being cautious as they are more likely to be criminals, which was supported by statistics that showed Romanians seems to be arrested dispropionately for their population percentage.

Xenophobia is dependant on the types of cultures. There is less cultural conflict with other western democracies then compared to the Post Soviet bloc states and 3rd world and Islamic countries.

It is also wrong to say that Britain is a nation of immigrants. Britain was fairly homogenous in culture and could have be considered an ethnically 'white' country ( I don't think this is that important though).
We did allow immigrants to many groups such as Jews and the Hugenots but the numbers were far less relative to the numbers currently levels of immigrations is at.

As well issues from strain of public services, introducing hundreds of thousands of people from different cultures can lead to conflict if not properly managed.


As for the '"No Blacks, No Irish, No dogs" signs, do you really think businesses who displayed these signs would last long even without legislation?
They'd be out of business in a week and shunned by the local community.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Falcatas)
Farage never said all Romanians are all part of criminals gangs. He just defended people being cautious as they are more likely to be criminals, which was supported by statistics that showed Romanians seems to be arrested disproportionately for their population percentage.

Xenophobia is dependant on the types of cultures. There is less cultural conflict with other western democracies then compared to the Post Soviet bloc states and 3rd world and Islamic countries.

It is also wrong to say that Britain is a nation of immigrants. Britain was fairly homogenous in culture and could have be considered an ethnically 'white' country ( I don't think this is that important though).
We did allow immigrants to many groups such as Jews and the Huguenots but the numbers were far less relative to the numbers currently levels of immigration is at.

As well issues from strain of public services, introducing hundreds of thousands of people from different cultures can lead to conflict if not properly managed.


As for the '"No Blacks, No Irish, No dogs" signs, do you really think businesses who displayed these signs would last long even without legislation?
They'd be out of business in a week and shunned by the local community.
He still generalised, by saying that he wouldn't have a Romanian living on his street because there's a risk that the Romanian would be a criminal he made an openly discriminatory remark, openly xenophobic and quite possibly racist against Roma people.
Yes, and that's why it's so easy for people to get Xenophobia and Racism confused, but I can guarantee if these laws are abandoned people's liberty will be lost. I don't believe in complete equality, but I do believe in some equality of opportunity. Making it harder for some ethnic minorities to work and get money puts them in an even worse position, you can't give someone the freedom to hate and take the freedom to work from someone else.
Imagine the strain on public services if we didn't have immigration? That argument doesn't exactly play into your hands.
It all depends on where the business is that has those signs, in an urban place obviously it would cause an upset, but for example on the east anglia coast, it may well be a different story. All will cause further separation between the city and the countryside
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by InnerTemple)
I suspected as much.

UKIPers desperately trying to justify Farage's stupid remarks.
>implying being fined and/or incarcerated due to thought-crimes is acceptable.

And listen to this piece of legislation:

Subsections (4) and (5) define victimisation. This occurs where person A treats person B less favourably than others because person B: has brought, or intends to bring, proceedings under these religious discrimination provisions

Subsection (3) defines indirect discrimination. This occurs where person A applies to person B a provision, criterion or practice, which he applies equally to other people, but which puts people of person B’s religion or belief at a disadvantage compared with some or all other people.

Subsections (1) & (2) define direct discrimination. This occurs where, on grounds of religion or belief, person A treats person B less favourably than he would treat others. For the purposes of the comparison which has to be made to determine whether one person has been treated less favourably than another, the relevant circumstances in each case must not be materially different

This is about freedom of association. Thought crimes also not a good thing if we're to consider ourselves a progressive and free country. The "progressive" part often destroys any kind of liberty we once had.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by James Milibanter)
He still generalised, by saying that he wouldn't have a Romanian living on his street because there's a risk that the Romanian would be a criminal he made an openly discriminatory remark, openly xenophobic and quite possibly racist against Roma people.
Yes, and that's why it's so easy for people to get Xenophobia and Racism confused, but I can guarantee if these laws are abandoned people's liberty will be lost. I don't believe in complete equality, but I do believe in some equality of opportunity. Making it harder for some ethnic minorities to work and get money puts them in an even worse position, you can't give someone the freedom to hate and take the freedom to work from someone else.
Imagine the strain on public services if we didn't have immigration? That argument doesn't exactly play into your hands.
It all depends on where the business is that has those signs, in an urban place obviously it would cause an upset, but for example on the east anglia coast, it may well be a different story. All will cause further separation between the city and the countryside
Well people's liberty is also lost by preventing them to asscioate whomever they wish to.

Immigrants use public services too so it only works if immigrants don't use publics services more than they provide more.
They are plenty of British people who are unemployed who could have done those jobs.
These are only short term effects though. I think most opposition to immigration is either due to competition in the job markets ie the traditional working class are struggling to compete with immigrants in the lower end jobs.
As well the long term effect of cultural cohesion.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (183)
22.62%
Before I was 12 (280)
34.61%
13 (132)
16.32%
14 (98)
12.11%
15 (53)
6.55%
16 (29)
3.58%
17 (9)
1.11%
18 (8)
0.99%
Between the ages of 19 - 25 (12)
1.48%
Over 25 (5)
0.62%

Watched Threads

View All