All that matters is the history of the group in question....I'm not aware of groups interested in violence because I've never sought them. Tell me where is the evidence for you to say it's 'questionable' that a particular group isn't against using violence? When it states it is and has no history of it.

Your opinion that you don't think groups against the great replacement should be allowed to compete for votes is noted.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Feb 2022 10.39pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Well, as you like to characterise the opinions of others to your own perceptions of them....for example 'violence' I should think you'd approve of me inventing opinions for you....it seems to be something you like.

Again, I can only say that I note your position that you wish this group to receive no democratic representation. Personally I think your position is short sighted and regrettable but that's just my view.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Who exactly is saying you approve of violence? I've certainly not ever said you do.

I purposefully didn't reply to that part of the message to begin with because it just ends up publicising these groups. Said in a general sense, noteworthy white identity and indeed muslim groups have been prescribed due to threat of violence and murder. Often when this happens some members gravitate towards other groups.

As stated identity groups inevitably state that they are non violent. Many are, some aren't, some ultimately likely don't even know what they are themselves. If indeed they are non violent then fair play. If they are and multiple members end up locked up for racial or religious violence than that will become clear too. It's a problem that solves itself.

A better argument than rose tinted glasses would be to argue that marginalised groups inevitable attract more of a 'mixed bag' than mainstream parties. This is a distraction from the main point anyway. I was simply stating why I have very significant reservations about 'black' or 'white' political parties and why I'm not so emotionally addled that I decree the national value or worth of a child as soon as it emerges from the womb.

You seem to have been in some kind of perpetual grump mode in the face of sensible replies today. Try cheering up.

Edited by BlueJay (07 Feb 2022 11.47pm)

Any potential party with this as part of its purpose is going to run into trouble. Not with the Electoral Commission itself but with the obligations placed upon it. This is how the "Great Replacement Theory" is described by "The Counter Extremism Project":-

[Link]

This is the page from the Electoral Commission's site dealing with how applications are made and assessed:-

[Link]

This extract is pertinent:-

"Registration is not automatic. The Commission assesses whether the party’s application and identity marks meet the criteria set out in electoral law, as well as legal obligations under equality laws"

So, like everything else, a new political party must be lawful, which the attitudes espoused by The Great Replacement Theory do not appear to be.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Mr Steeleye, your silence is deafening. So it was either Conservatives not playing the race card or Labour doing the same thing, you can't have it both ways.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

I'll highlight some double standards here.

As stated, the Communist party literally has its headquarters in London, it's apparently been visited by Labour dignities for decades. Now the communists have been linked to the murder of hundreds of millions of people. Would I deny the right of the communist party to compete for votes in the UK...No....Would I say that because violence can be connected to communist theories that it shouldn't be allowed....No.

I remember a terrorist of a few years back attended a rally where Diane Abbott was speaking. Did this mean that Diane Abbott was in some way in support of his actions? When I hear these arguments made I just realise how rationally inept the debate can get.

When the major Islamic group in Britain say that they aren't in support of violence you don't get pages from these same organisations saying that we should doubt it.

As for the great replacement I don't think anyone with common sense can deny the proof of their own eyes despite how disingenuous denialists can be. Also, statements on when whites in the UK will become a minority in their own homeland is on official record.....it's not a claim, the only aspect to debate is on when that happens, not if......the idea that you can't be against that and allow people to peacefully represent opposition to it is nothing short of tyranny.

Now I'll tackle this idea that 'equality laws' should play a part in whether political parties are allowed to exist or not. Most groups in this area are against so called 'equality laws' as they are against the concept of 'protected characteristics'. I could go on and write why that is but it would hugely expand this already long post. What I will say is that originally the conservative party stood against all of these concepts and for good reasons.

The main point I will make here is that back when social conservatism was the main ruling idealogy of the land, with both right and left having their own versions of it...Those on the 'fringe' were 'equality groups' and the alphabet ideologies that you see celebrated and taught today.

All of these groups were allowed to freely campaign. They received protection from the institutions not persecutions. There was no law that stopped political representation.....and if there had been it would have been roundly condemned by the people advocating for the dissident right to be denied a voice today.

It's kind of a sick joke but social conservatism proved itself far more tolerant and interested in liberty than modern liberalism has ever done....I won't say that of classic liberalism but the neo liberalism of today is increasingly authoritarian, denialist and the creator of the very troubles it condemns.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Feb 2022 9.48am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)