Ever since democracy was instated in the Western world there have been political parties, such as the Nazis and the BNP, that pose a threat to civilisation as a whole through their racist and fascist views. Should the government be able to ban these parties (attacking free-speech, creating a controlled society), or let them exist (possibly creating a racist society)? It seems to me that both options could pose as a danger to democracy. Additionally, is it possibly for a society to be neither racist nor controlled?
2007-08-14 08:34:14 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No. Once you allow that, you begin the process of tyranny. After all, what may seem "dangerous" to one person may seem very reasonable to the next. Who gets to decide? Is it the party in power that gets to decide? They could easily abuse this power to suppress all dissenting voices. That is why groups with unpopular opinions must be allowed to have their say. We have the choice not to listen. We have the choice not to support them.
2007-08-14 08:40:13 · answer #1 · answered by S C 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. It is people like you that the Government has brainwashed the whole meaning of racist.
If you look in past dictionaries, it use to mean that a racist felt superior than another race. Todays meaning is if you are white and mention another race, you're racist.
I'm for culture. I'm for Indian, French, English, American, Spanish etc.... culture. I believe that is you wish to experience these culture's, it's called taking a holiday.
I'm for adequate public services such as education and NHS. I believe that the indigenous people of a country should apply their resources to their people.
I'M AGAINST someone throwing a stone, shouting abuse or whatever to someone else, even if they're white, black, pink, orange, brown etc...
I'm not racist. I don't want people killed. I don't want people's freedom of voting removed.
I believe in free speech. I believe in English people having English jobs and manufacturing English items and providing English treatment and services.
I believe immigration causes social problems, tensions and cultural differencies. I believe it costs those countries that accept immigration money and resources in dealing with the problems incurred from different cultures.
Lastly, I believe you should have the right to vote for a party that wants to continue the slippery slope of immigration and problems, and I should have the right to vote for a party that wishes to remove these problems.
This would then be called a democracy.
2007-08-14 10:24:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. The only parties which should be banned are those pledged to the overthrow of the government. The views of all others are within their free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I recognize that Great Britain doesn't have a written Constitution. In that case one must consider the sage words of Winston Spencer Churchill: Just because someone has the right to say something doesn't put me under any obligation to listen.
2007-08-14 08:42:10 · answer #3 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you asking whether we should ban free assembly for those groups that would ban free speech? That doesn't sound right?
Besides, if our criteria was to ban groups that "...pose a threat to civilisation as a whole" then we would have to ban the ACLU, the NRA, the Democratic Party, and the Boy Scouts of America (not to mention the Union of Auto Workers and the American Dental Association).
2007-08-14 08:41:21 · answer #4 · answered by trigam41 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. As abhorrent as many of these parties are, (eg, BNP, NF etc) once you start going down the road of banning political parties you start to lose out on being a democracy. You have to allow freedom of speech, even if some of it is dangerous, and trust the public to discern which are ok and which are not. Otherwise you are one step away from totalitarianism.
2007-08-14 10:10:30 · answer #5 · answered by Jude 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As much as I hate those parties and organizations... if we were to ban them, then we've taken that first step on the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
"Danger to society" is too subjective.
What if Bush convinces the largely protestant government that Catholics are a "danger to society"? Do we ban Catholicism? How about Mormons? How about the NAACP?
See? Subjective. And a dangerous step.
2007-08-14 08:41:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
thats ridiculous. every party has a right in democracy, thats the whole point! if you start to block out partys as they do not fit your view, then you are turning in to a dictatorship. free speech goes out the window and we end up living like 1984.
a society is controlled as there always needs to be people in power, and overall one key person to make decisions. hence why communism fails. racism is only determined by how people judge and view others, and peoples perspectives. therefore it could be wiped out.
2007-08-14 08:40:38 · answer #7 · answered by Mickster 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, i do no longer think of the Queen has the means to restrict political events, even in England. i'll inform our intelligence amenities and attempt and get you banned from ever placing foot in this united states of america nonetheless. Have a extreme high quality day.
2016-10-02 07:57:52 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democratic societies have to allow complete freedom of speech, otherwise they become like the (racist, sexist, facist, etc) parties. The more people know about these groups, the less likely they are to gain a foothold. I doubt if Hitler would have gained the popularity he did if the German people knew about all his beliefs before he got started.
2007-08-14 08:40:50 · answer #9 · answered by nyninchdick 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What if the Democrats were in control of the white house, the Senate, and the Congress? And they passed a law that said Republicans are a dangerous political group? Would that be fair?
Your question is anti democratic.
2007-08-14 08:40:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋