Should Tory MEPs sit with the "homophobic" Law & Justice party?

To qualify as a recognised group within the European Parliament 19 MEPs from five different nations must be brought together (see today's Independent).  Nicholas Watt, reporting for The Guardian suggests that David Cameron's search for sufficient new partners for Tory MEPs - once he delivers on his pledge to take them out of the EPP - has taken him into negotiations with the "homophobic" Law & Justice party of Poland:

"Lech Kaczynski [pictured], Poland's president, who is a key figure in the controversial party, banned gay rights marches when he was mayor of Warsaw. He is also known as a staunch supporter of the death penalty."

Mr Watt used a October 2005 report to suggest that the EU bureaucracy was unhappy with Mr Kaczynski's views:

"Poland could lose its EU voting rights if its newly elected president continues to oppose gay rights and seeks to introduce the death penalty, the European Commission warned yesterday.  In a shot across the bows of arch-conservative Lech Kaczynski, the commission declared that all member states must abide by EU rules which protect minorities and block the death penalty."

The Financial Times notes that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, France's UMP leader, have threatened to end high-level contact with Britain's Conservatives if David Cameron pulls out of their EPP group.  Mr Hague told the FT that good working relations with other EU leaders matter greatly but "We won't change our position because of people threatening us in any way."  The FT concludes its piece by noting that "some Tories expect that Mr Hague will seek to remove the issue from the political agenda by allowing negotiations with potential new partners to drag on inconclusively."

Some other policies of the Law & Justice party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość or PiS) are recorded on Wikipedia:

• "Economically, the party has rather leftist views. It supports a state-guaranteed minimum social safety-net, and intervention of the state into economic issues (within market economy bounds)."
• "PiS supports free education in elementary and secondary schools and free health care."
• "PiS also supported Poland's military presence in Iraq in recent years. Following the election, it declared that Polish soldiers will remain in Iraq for another 12 months"
• "The party opposes e.g.: legalization of euthanasia, abortion, registration of homosexual marriages. It postulates a return of capital punishment, which according to opinion polls is supported by 77% of Poles.  PiS oppose the legalization of so-called soft drugs."

The Independent notes that Mr Cameron has already ruled out grouping with the French Front National or Alessandra Mussolini, granddaughter of the Italian wartime dictator.  He has not ruled out co-operating with the Law & Justice party, however.  It would be good to know if you think he should...

5 FEBRUARY: VOTING IN THIS POLL HAS NOW CLOSED

322 votes were received...

• 53% said "Yes, it is is vital that Tories leave the federalist EPP and the L&J party's social views are not relevant."
• 36% said "No, the Conservative Party should not be aligned with a group with 'homophobic' views. We should wait until better partners are found."
• 9% said "No, Conservative MEPs should not leave the EPP at all."

Comments

[Gareth]

"Obviously the needless deaths of hundreds of people isn't serious enough for you Gareth"

Justify that comment Chris or withdraw it.

[William Norton]

Oh look, there's a war going on in Africa.

[Mike Christie]

"In fact, I raised my disappointment that people hadn't intervened to criticise the minority who indulged in homophobic or semi-homophobic comments."

I would be interested as to which comments in this thread you feel to be homophobic.

[William Norton]

I see there's the possibility of world-wide pandemic asian flu breaking out.

[William Norton]

Now, these Iranians, do you suppose they want nuclear power for peaceful purposes, or are they plotting to exterminate Israel and hold the world to ransom?

[William Norton]

That chap who won the elections recently in Bolivia, could that possibly presage widespread social revolution across Latin America?

[William Norton]

Global warming: I wonder if that might have any implications for society, the economy, the environment, human civilisation....

[Chris Palmer]

"Justify that comment Chris or withdraw it." - Gareth

Read up the page and you'll see it's plainly obvious. And, no, I don't withdraw it.

[William Norton]

Now, here's one that's always puzzled me: the rigid division between people who put the milk in their cup before the tea, and those who pour in the tea before the milk. Why would that be, do you think?

[Mike Christie]

Yes William, we get the point... However, can I politely suggest that if a thread doesn't interest you, or you feel there is something more important to be doing, then feel free to do it. This thread is about whether or not a political party with which we may ally is homophobic, which has spread into a wider debate on homophobia, tolerance and related subjects. If it was a thread on Darfur, Asian flu or Iran that had descended into bickering about gay rights then you might have a point.

Just because you feel a subject isn't worthy of your attention does not prevent others discussing it.

[Gareth]

Ah, you mean that persuaive evidence that Richard presented, i.e. a mate of his once met one of the 'victims' (at a seance??).

Case proved.

[Gareth]

That's actually a very interesting question William. The answer, apparently, is that milk before tea dates from the days of inferior china, when adding hot tea straight to the cup could cause it to crack. Hence, add milk first and stop your cheap china from cracking or, if you had the good stuff, add milk later.

[Chris Palmer]

""Amnesty International is a liberal-leftist organisation that opposes the death penalty and believes that all countries in the world should be expected to abide by western standards.

They also campaigned for the release of some IRA prisoners who then murdered innocent people. Way to go Amnesty!"

is the sort of statement that will encourage serious people to take you seriously?" - Gareth

Actually, this is what I was refering to. What you're babbling on about with "i.e a mate of his (Richard) once met one of the victims" I don't know. If you want to keep deluding yourself, then fine.

[Gareth]

Oh dear Chris, this is becoming painful.

Please explain what you meant by:

"Obviously the needless deaths of hundreds of people isn't serious enough for you Gareth. Richard made a very good point"

Which needless deaths and which point of Richard's???

I assumed it was his closely argued point that Amensty had secured the release of IRA prisoners who went on to murder again.

[Chris Palmer]

Gareth, you don't have the Conservative party's interests a heart. You are what some might refer to as a "troll." I am not prepared to argue with you.

[Gareth]

Chris, I've been an active member of this party since probably before you were born.

A word of advice though, best not to suggest that people condone murder, it tends to make them a little bit annoyed. You may even be asked to justify it.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"A word of advice though, best not to suggest that people condone murder, it tends to make them a little bit annoyed. You may even be asked to justify it."

What about unsubstantiated references to homophobic comments on this thread Gareth?

[Chris Palmer]

"You may even be asked to justify it" - Gareth

I would be highly entertained to see you try.

[Gareth]

I have asked you to justify it. You refused.

[Sean Fear]

I don't think Amnesty ever did campaign for the release of IRA prisoners.

Up till the mid nineties, they did focus exclusively on alleged abuses by the security forces in Northern Ireland - which did make their reports on the Province somewhat unbalanced.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Chris - you seek to label those of use who you disagree with as "trolls". Perhaps you could tell us your age, marital status, employment, what Association you belong to, what position you hold, when you last delivered a leaflet or knocked on a door, how much you contribute to the party and when you last wrote a reader's letter or a press release to your local newspaper. I assume, naturally, that you ARE a paid-up member of the Party? But you yourself could be a troll!

[Mike Christie]

Justin, whilst I wouldn't refer to you as a troll, you don't come across that way to me. The fact that you and Gareth have made gross generalisations and unpleasant allegations and refused repeated requests to clarify or withdraw remarks does lead me to question whether rational debate with you is worth the effort. Maybe if you and Gareth took the time to answer people who have challenged your more outrageous statements you might not be accused of trolling.

[William Norton]

Mike Christie: Just because you feel a subject isn't worthy of your attention does not prevent others discussing it.

Your point taken and of course conceded.

Actually, I wasn't trying to belittle the subject of this thread, merely suggesting perhaps it ought to be seen in perspective.

I can see the importance of the question - but does it really justify the tone of some of the remarks made here? I point no fingers.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

It'll be interesting to see CP's answers...

[Mike Christie]

"It'll be interesting to see CP's answers..."

and just as interesting to see yours...

[johnC]

I don't know the specific details relating to the IRA but the criticism of Amnesty International having a left-liberal bias is surely valid.

I've just looked at the Current Campaigns section of the AI website and the list is as follows:

1. Global arms trade
2. Murder of women in Mexico and Guatemala
3. Campaign for extradition of former President Fujimori of Peru
4. Detention of asylum seekers in the UK
5. Guantanamo Bay
6. Violence against women in conflict situations.

A rather selective list surely ? Nothing from Asia, Africa or Europe outside the UK.

The main, if not exclusive, targets seem to be the US and UK governments, big business and Latin American 'rightwing' regimes.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Mike, if you don't regard me as a troll, why should I? However, I am more tha happy to do so.

[Mike Christie]

"The main, if not exclusive, targets seem to be the US and UK governments, big business and Latin American 'rightwing' regimes."

Hurrah China has left Tibet and stopped all human rights abuse, Islamic regimes are insituting full equal rights for men and women of all religions and the 4th biggest threat to global human rights is the treatment of UK asylum seekers. Hmm...

[Mike Christie]

"Mike, if you don't regard me as a troll, why should I? However, I am more tha happy to do so."

I have posted repeatedly in this thread that I found your analogies to the nazis offensive and asked you to clarify or retract them. You haven't responded to that. I would have thought common courtesy would be all the motivation required.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I do find some people attitudes similar to that of the nazis, so I am not going to apologise.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

people's

[Mike Christie]

Standing by your comments is one thing, but a refusal to clarify such a sweeping generalisation as this:

Justin, there's a huge difference between being socially conservative and being a Nazi.
Posted by: James Hellyer | February 01, 2006 at 12:42
Not much of a difference in MHO.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 01, 2006 at 12:44

I find that remark totally out of order and highly offensive. You may take issue with some of the posts on here, you may take issue with some of the things I have said. I do not have a problem with that, but have the courage of your convictions and explain exactly what you feel likens social conservatives (people who generally speaking support things like stable families, strong communities and respect for other people) to nazis (people who generally speaking support things like murdering anyone who doesn't fit their ideal).

[John Hustings]

And this guy's a constituency chairman?

Oh dear.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Firstly, homosexuality was illegal, then there was an unequal age of consent (16 for heterosexuals, 21 for homosexuals) and then came Section 28. Many people couldn’t receive help and support and took their own lives. ‘Social conservatives’ foisted these oupon us. Self-appointed social conservatives have no monopoly on strong families and communities and respect for older people!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

And a very successful one! What do you do?

[John Hustings]

"And a very successful one! What do you do?"

It doesn't matter what I do. I am highly concerned that someone who freely compares social conservatives with Nazis is given a role of such responsibility.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

You could, providing that you have a connection, join my constituency association and challenge me at the next AGM if you strongly feel that I should not be the Chairman. I have been open about what I am and who I am from day one. I don't know anything about the majority of people on this site. You're all a mystery to me - perhaps you’re all trolls?

[Sean Fear]

Comparing any modern politician in a democracy to a Nazi is pretty ludicrous IMO.

[Sean Fear]

Comparing any mainstream politician, or mainstream political viewpoint, in a democracy, with Nazism is pretty ludicrous.

[Gareth]

Mike,

Other than DVA's recent post re:homophobic comments, which I've not yet had chance to reply to, which specific points have I been asked to answer and failed to do so?

[Gareth]

John C,

I have no difficulty at all with people taking issue with Amnesty International. I do however strongly take issue with someone who accuses me of condoning the murder of hundreds and refuses to justify it or even explain it.

[Mike Christie]

"Firstly, homosexuality was illegal Ah, here was I thinking we were debating the present, not life back when my parents were young.

then there was an unequal age of consent (16 for heterosexuals, 21 for homosexuals Of course! That's right up there with the holocaust when it comes to crimes against humanity.

‘Social conservatives’ foisted these oupon us Actually it was a democratically elected government. That's how we do things in the UK.

Self-appointed social conservatives have no monopoly on strong families and communities and respect for older people and homophobes don't have a monopoly on intolerance either.

Given that no-one in this thread has advocated a return to criminalizing homosexuality, even mentioned age of consent or championed section 28, I maintain that your comments were totally uncalled for.

[John Hustings]

Would you liken Ann Widdecombe, Iain Duncan Smith or indeed, the editor of this website to a Nazi, Justin?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Is that all you can come up with?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Self-appointed social conservatives have no monopoly on strong families and communities and respect for older people!"

Absolutely. Chairman Justin's track record on respect for older people is impeccable and anybody that wants to suggest otherwise better have a white-hot legal team!

[Mike Christie]

"Mike,

Other than DVA's recent post re:homophobic comments, which I've not yet had chance to reply to, which specific points have I been asked to answer and failed to do so?"

I had earlier asked you to quantify your remark about homophobic comments, however, if you were unable to reply at the time, that's fair enough. However, I await your answer with bated breath :-)

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

All three said some pretty dreadful things in the past on this subject. Tim always opposed my colleague David Allen from TORCHE up until only a few years ago (most of the views advocated by TORCHE have now been introduced by the government and the 'struggle' is almost at an end from our PoV). In the case of Ann Widdecombe, she voted for Section 28 and, as far as I am aware, still believes in the policy.

[John Hustings]

You say there "isn't much difference" between Nazism and social conservativism. The Editor of this website describes himself as a social conservative, does that mean "there isn't much difference" between him and a Nazi?

[John Hustings]

"In the case of Ann Widdecombe, she voted for Section 28 and, as far as I am aware, still believes in the policy."

So you draw equivalence between support for section 28 and support for the holocaust?

[Sean Fear]

I doubt if Ernst Rohm and his colleagues in the SA would have favoured Section 28.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

At the age of 14 (11 yrs ago), I spoke out against bed-blocking - a problem that existed then but has since got worse thanks to this Labour government's regulations (forcing thousands of care homes to close resulting in thousands of elderly people living in NHS hospitals). D-VA, do you have anything useful to contribute to this site regarding bed-blocking and how the next Conservative government can get off the backs of care homes industry?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

It's certainly the case that SOME people who see themselves as social conservatives do have sympathy with the nazis social agenda.

Hitler didn't just Jews but Gays, too!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Hitler didn't just gas Jews but Gays, too!

[Mike Christie]

Justin, please quote anyone at all on this site who has advocated anything even vaguely similar to the treatment Hitler bestowed on anyone not fitting his ideal? Either that or just accept with good grace that you've got a little carried away on a subject close to your heart and apologise for the ridiculous slur.

[Comment]

Hitler didn't just gas Jews but Gays, too!

Proof in that respect that Hilter wasn't discriminative.

[John Hustings]

I see you are conveniently ignoring the questions, Justin.

I find it somewhat ironic that someone who gets so uppity at the merest *hint* of a suggestion which he judges to be offensive to homosexuals can blithely throw around offensive remarks about others.

[malcolm]

From what I've read Ernst would have been very much in favour of Section 28 although I can't vouch for his colleagues!

[Gareth]

DVA,

To answer your question, it seems to me that this post is pretty objectionable:

""The gay and lesbian demonstration was said to be "sexually obscene" and a "danger to the public morality".

probably quite right too."

This one is somewhat ambiguous but, in my view, is also pretty unplesant.

"Finally, comparing "homophobia" to racism is also absurd. One is visual while one is behavioural. Disapproving of someone's behaviour is a lot different to disapproving of someone's skin colour."

This post, since it was posted at atime when it was clear the politicians in question had referred to gay people as 'perverts' and 'obscene' etc etc, is dismissive and exculpatory to say the least

"Thirdly, Poland is a more socially conservative country than Britain so it is not surprisingly that L&J have a more socially conservative attitude to homosexuality. We can't expect every country in the world to abide by our own liberal values."

In addition to this, there have also been these gems bandied about:

"The independence of our country is pretty fundamental to some of us, Gareth - although obviously not to you."

"Obviously the needless deaths of hundreds of people isn't serious enough for you Gareth."

"Gareth, you don't have the Conservative party's interests a heart."

Having re-read the whole thread, I still find it surprising that people were so reluctant to concede that there might be anything unpleasant about PiS, even in the face of evidence. Some still don't and resorted to the pretty last-resort debating tactic of rubbishing the source, in this case, Amnesty International (amongst others). I honestly would have thought that when one of our potential new allies was accused of something as a serious as homophobia, there might at least be some intellectual curiosity as to whether or not it's true. That's how I felt, never even having heard of the wretched PiS until y-day.

Anyway, I suspect we've more than talked this topic to death. I hope Hague's team see the Amnesty document which, in my honest opinion, is pretty damning about the PiS and which, in itself, should cause us to have serious second thoughts about the political embarrassment of being aligned with them.

[John Hustings]

"It's certainly the case that SOME people who see themselves as social conservatives do have sympathy with the nazis social agenda."

Whether SOME do or not I cannot judge, since I cannot read the minds of other people. What I *do* know if that if I made a comment regarding "some" gay people's behaviour and judged that as representative of the entire community, I've no doubt that you would quickly leap on my comment as "offensive" and "homophobic".

You're a hypocrite, IMHO.

[Sean Fear]

Interestingly, Rohm was a member of the campaign to legalise male homosexuality in Germany (it was actually legalised in 1931). He never made any secret of his sexuality. Hitler himself had no objection to homosexuality, but used it as one of his pretexts for executing leading members of the SA in 1934.

[William Norton]

Reality check: the BNP leader's just been cleared of some rate hate charges (not sure if all). That is the sort of person with whom we don't want links. That's the person against whom criticisms should be directed.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"D-VA, do you have anything useful to contribute to this site regarding bed-blocking and how the next Conservative government can get off the backs of care homes industry?"

A nasty piece of work like me is far too busy making personal, spiteful comments which are often loopy and incorrect to care about such issues Justin.

Well that's the impression some people would like to create with their expletive-ridden slurs anyway.

In the interest of avoiding discolouring this site any more with our personal differences, I'm prepared to offer you an olive branch and draw a line under the matter here - if you wish to take issue with or otherwise discuss anything I've said, please email me at [email protected].

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Anyway, I suspect we've more than talked this topic to death. I hope Hague's team see the Amnesty document which, in my honest opinion, is pretty damning about the PiS and which, in itself, should cause us to have serious second thoughts about the political embarrassment of being aligned with them."

Gareth, who would you have us align ourselves with in the European Parliament then? We are already aligned with partners that, to differing degrees, have views that we would consider objectionable. You're allowing your ardent Europhilia to distort your perspective on this far too much.

[Gareth]

DVA,

LOL at 'ardent europhilia'.

I'd leave it to MEP's to decide who they want to sit with. If I were an MEP I suspect I'd want us to to remain unaligned to any of them.

[Mike Christie]

"The gay and lesbian demonstration was said to be "sexually obscene" and a "danger to the public morality".

probably quite right too.""

Can you say it wasn't obscene? Do you know what form it was to take. As I posted, I have been to a number of gay pride events, some through choice, some through co-incidence. The first one I went to was a straight forward (no pun intended) parade of lesbian and gay groups that ended up in Trafalgar Square, lots of banners, lots of speeches about being proud to be gay. All fine, great, no problem at all with that.

The last one I happened upon was in Manchester, main streets were closed, there was a 'carnival' type procession. The displays on some and by no means all of the floats crossed the lines of decency in my mind. As I said before I would have been just as disquieted had the displays been of hetero erotica. It wasn't about the display, it was about the fact that it was down one of Manchester's busiest streets in the middle of a summer's afternoon. The local S&M club wouldn't have been allowed to do it, I doubt the lapdance clubs in the area would be allowed to have a flatbed truck advertising themselves with semi-naked women writhing all over it, and I'd be just as uneasy if it was.

If the event in Poland was more like the latter than the former, is a ban really so dreadful and homophobic?

[malcolm]

On another subject.Is anyone going to the CWF debate at Kettners tonight?

[Richard]

Mike Christie makes a good point and I will be interested to see a retort.

Social Conservatism and Nazism - the majority of the generation that fought against the Nazis were socially conservative by today's standards. I hardly think British war veterens are little better than Nazis.

L&J - I would criticise their comments if they were made by David Cameron but I refuse to apply English liberal values to Poland. I also believe securing British independence is more important than securing more gay rights in Poland. That said I do see how allying with a party perceived as homophobic could be misinterpreted by the media i.e that we condone it.

Regarding Amnesty, I don't doubt the evidence they provide regarding L&J. I stick by my claim that that they campaigned for the release of interned suspects in the 1970s, many of whom were not innocent. While there is a case to be made that internment was wrong on principle, Northern Ireland was practically on the verge of civil war and Amnesty ought to have realised that during wartime infringement of civil liberties are sometimes necessary.

[Mike Christie]

"I have been open about what I am and who I am from day one.

Out of interest, does this openness run to telling your constituency members that you believe social conservatism is morally equivalent to nazism, and that respected party members like IDS and Anne Widdecombe are little better than Hitler? I'm sure some of your members would be more than a little offended by you placing Section 28 and the difference in the age of consent alongside the holocaust as equivalent crimes against humanity.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

It would appear that Justin has managed to lose the argument here by making a flippant remark with a gross lack of perspective. This is a shame, because there is a genuine debate on this thread, lurking under a lot of silliness from several posters.

I think Mike makes a good point about the nature of some parades, and I think in some cases - we've seen a very good example today on a different subject - some people are very quick to take offence, without actually thinking about whether the actions in question are worth taking offence over.

That said, the underlying issue here is about equality. There is little difference between homophobia and racism - both are prejudices based on characteristics that we can do nothing about. Homosexuality is not an action or a lifestyle. It shouldn't matter who we fall in love with, or find attractive, or sleep with.

[Richard]

Do those who oppose relations with L&J also oppose Conservative cooperation with the American Republican Party who are not known for being friends of gay rights?

"There is little difference between homophobia and racism - both are prejudices based on characteristics that we can do nothing about."

Then why is it still socially acceptable to dissaprove of homosexuality but not to hold racist views?

[Gareth]

"Then why is it still socially acceptable to dissaprove of homosexuality but not to hold racist views?"

It's not. Why do you think it is?

[Gareth]

"If the event in Poland was more like the latter than the former, is a ban really so dreadful and homophobic?"

Mike, we just don't know what the event in Poland was intended to be like. What we do know is that for 2 years running it was banned, the Mayor refused to meet the organisers to discuss his concerns because they were 'perverts' and he organised a counter-march for 'Normality' which resulted in an outbreak of queer bashing.

Why, Mike, are you so keen to find excuses for this man?

[Mike Christie]

I'm not excusing or defending per se. If the facts are as you outline them then it displays a level of ignorance which is unfortunate. However, we need to put that into context of Polish society and history before we comment on morality.

Poland's history means that they haven't been exposed to western social liberalism for as long as the UK.

Should we spurn their politicians simply because they have yet to move on from some attitudes that were prevalent in the UK not so long ago?

Do we denounce them and play into the hands of the Guardian, or do we agree to work with them on the wide range of issues we agree with them and maybe try and be a good influence on them where we disagree?

Should we be consistent about this and spurn any Catholic influenced party? What about Muslim groups? Should we refuse to work with them because Islam holds homosexuality to be immoral? Of course not, we work with them on areas of common interest and challenge them on areas on contention.

My post about the nature of the parade was just to point out that the issue isn't quite as black and white as some would seem to think.

[Mike Christie]

"t's not. Why do you think it is?"

Gareth, whether any of us agree or not it is a fact, however regrettable, that to disapprove of homosexuality is not a taboo subject in the same way as racial prejudice.

I don't think anyone here is saying that they think it should be acceptable, but you are fooling yourself if you pretend that society views disapproval of homosexuality on the same level as racism. Can you imagine the Church of England having a debate about whether black men should be bishops?

Homosexuality is viewed as a sin by the Catholic church, Islam sees it as immoral. These are facts, no matter how much you or I disagree, and there is still a sizeable section of society who whilst they would never dream of insulting or harming a gay person, still see homosexuality as something immoral. However, as long as they practice 'hate the sin, love the sinner', doesn't tolerance run both ways? Or do you suggest outlawing the Catholic church?

[Ted]

Getting away from the Homophobia arguement - an alternative approach to Chancellor Merkel & to Sarkozy could be to say that we agreed to remain in the EPP-ED if they in turn would agree to set the groups objectives only on those things on which the parties all agreed - perhaps having an alliance with two sub groups which sign up to federalism in one and looser organisation on the other.

I know that DC said that we should break the agreement with the EPP under which the alliance with the ED was created but if we could remove the main barrier towards continuing the coalition, which is that as junior members our views are not represented sufficiently and financed approriately we coud make progress.

So we create say the Progressive Alliance Party (Pap?) with two wings, one for the conservative free trade non-federalists (ED) & one for the conservative federalists (EPP). This alliance would not include in its objectives those features both wings didn't agree on.

[Richard]

"It's not. Why do you think it is?"

Opinion polls in recent years showing majorities opposed to the repeal of Section 28 and lowering the age of consent. The fact that right-wing commentators like Peter Hitchins and Simon Heffer will openly admit to disapproving of homosexuality but will condemn racism. The fact that ever since school, none of my friends would ever dare make a racist joke or comment but many would quite willingly admit they didn't see homosexuality as normal.

I can only presume you move within very liberal circles.

[Rob Largan]

"I can only presume you move within very liberal circles."

I guess I must move in the most liberal circles in the entire country. Both homophobia and racism are just as bad as each other and anyone who holds such views should be mocked, at every given opportunity.

[Richard]

"I guess I must move in the most liberal circles in the entire country. Both homophobia and racism are just as bad as each other and anyone who holds such views should be mocked, at every given opportunity."

How very tolerant and liberal of you. Ever occurred to you to debate with them?

[malcolm]

Good to see that less than 1 in 10 think our MEPs should stay within the EPP.Fairly decisive I think.Are you reading this Mr Mcmillan-Scott?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Ever occurred to you to debate with them?

Do you debate with racists about whether they are right or not?

Thought not.

[Richard]

"Do you debate with racists about whether they are right or not?

Thought not."

As a matter of fact you are wrong. I don't happen to know any racists but if I did I would engage in debate with them because that is a far more effective way of defeating their arguments. Simply mocking them gives the impression that you can't win an argument. It is a typical tactic adopted by the politically correct Left - oppose mass immigration and they denounce you as a racist. Great argument!

[Geoff]

We should debate, Iain. For example, I regard (Sir) Ian Blair as an odious racist because of his continuous colour-biased and ethnically slanted policies and statements.

He is a dangerous man because of the power he has been given, and should be accountable for the nonsense he talks. We need to challenge his bigotry and prejudice in public through rational debate and argument. In my opinion, I don't believe that he is fit to hold the office he does, and should be sacked.

Debate like this is healthy, and keeps the thought-police at bay.

[Rob Largan]

"Ever occurred to you to debate with them?"

"Simply mocking them gives the impression that you can't win an argument."

I prefer not to dignify their views with argument. Frankly by making fun at them, showing how hillariously ridiculous their views are, in my honest opinion we should joke about such idiots, because thats what they are, idiots. They do not deserve recognition by serious argument, I consider their views worse than even socialism and therefore laughable.

[Richard]

http://www.mori.com/polls/2000/sh000121.shtml

Some interesting statistics. As can be seen the majority of Scottish people are (rightfully) tolerant of homosexuals. But as is shown by the attitude to repealing Section 28 (60%) people may not necessarily approve of it.

33% believe that it is a perversion. That may only be a minority but it is a sizeable minority that is probably much larger than the proportion of people who can be considered "racist". Laughing at and mocking the views of a third of the electorate is not the way to gain public sympathy. The answer is to find out why they believe that and engage in debate.

[Richard]

"I prefer not to dignify their views with argument. Frankly by making fun at them, showing how hillariously ridiculous their views are, in my honest opinion we should joke about such idiots, because thats what they are, idiots. They do not deserve recognition by serious argument, I consider their views worse than even socialism and therefore laughable."

But what happens when people ask why their views are so absurd? With the recent rise of the BNP it is imperative that we begin to take the threat seriously. People are increasingly likely to be unimpressed if the BNP attempt to put forward serious-sounding arguments only to be met with a "hahahahaha". It just makes us look arrogant and immature.

From a personal perspective, I just don't like people who wiggle out of debate. I also think it is a greater moral victory to beat racists in sensible argument than just laugh at them (even if they deserve it).

[Rob Largan]

Immature our response may be, but if they ask us in all seriousness, why their views are so riciculous, we can simply respond, you are discriminating against individuals on grounds of their race or sexuality, both things, individuals have no control over. We can simply respond, you are thinking without logic or reason. I am a strong beiliever in free speech, but if these idiots try to argue their case, their arguments will be taken apart as quickly as that of communism. Anyway, off to see We Are Scientists, something really worth listening to! ;)

[Biodun]

But what happens when people ask why their views are so absurd? With the recent rise of the BNP it is imperative that we begin to take the threat seriously.

Exactly Richard.
I think most people who join parties like the BNP are just scared and uninformed. Only a tiny percentage are really odious or hateful and often they are the better educated ones.

Many of them have never had opportunities to escape circumstances that feed their sort of ignorance. Some haven't even left the country and have no idea what the rest of the world is like.

It would make a lot more sense if people sat them down and rationally explained instead of trying to make them feel stupid.

[Yet another Anon]

It is long past time that the UK withdrew from the EU, as for who you sit with, why sit with anybody - why not sit as an Independent grouping as some others do including the DUP.

As for Capital Punishment surely the aim within the EU should be to get rules preventing EU members from applying Execution or Torture overturned, as well as scrapping all Industrial and Agricultural subsidies EU wide.

Another problem with the EU is that many in Roman Catholic countries seem to see it as Christendom restored, the Reformation after all was about shaking off the shackles of Popery not so it could be reintroduced later through the back door.

[Yet another Anon]

>>>>>These are facts, no matter how much you or I disagree, and there is still a sizeable section of society who whilst they would never dream of insulting or harming a gay person, still see homosexuality as something immoral.<<<<<<
The Old Testament prescibes death for homosexual acts in a number of places, there are also many parts of the New Testament that are opposed to it - the "Gay" Christian groups (mostly it would appear Episcopalian) are living in a fantasy if they imagine that buggery and Christianity are compatible unless they actually go to the extent of ignoring parts of the bible that disagree with their position, homosexuality is certainly deviant behaviour - the anus is not designed to have things inserted into it.