Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Darkman

Ukip's Posters Labelled As Racist. But I Don't See How They Are?

Recommended Posts

Ukip was plunged into a race storm yesterday after unveiling a series of posters campaigning against EU immigration.

The party has paid for billboards across the country to be emblazoned with messages such as: ‘26million people in Europe are looking for work. And whose jobs are they after?’

Another has a picture of a construction worker begging on the street, with the slogan: ‘EU policy at work. British workers are hit hard by unlimited cheap labour.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609583/New-Ukip-posters-focus-immigration-branded-racist-political-opponents.html

So how are these posters racist in any shape or form? No race or even religion is mentioned. The issue highlighted is a very real problem for resident Brits i.e. foreign labour accepting far lower wages and driving salaries down.

article-2609583-1D3CA6ED00000578-309_636

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not, it's just another tool to use to dismantle the UKIP challenge to the status quo.

For the record, I think UKIP have withered under the spotlight, and I wouldn't dream of voting for them, but the old guard are pulling out the plugs to bring the populace back into line. So much so, that is becoming more obvious to Joe Public what's going on. I guess the coming of the information age will do that.... Are they trying to stop the inevitable?

Edited by AThirdWay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily Mail. Need I say more?

Huff post

Labour MP Mike Gapes said the posters were "racist" and appealed to "all decent British Commonwealth and EU citizens". And writing in the New Statesman today he said "this Ukip campaign is a racist, xenophobic campaign designed to win votes by whipping up animosity against foreigners living and working and contributing to this country".

"The policies of the nationalist right, whether of Ukip here or Le Pen or Wilders, are a threat to the future harmony of our country and also to the future harmony and prosperity of the EU. That is why all British, Commonwealth or European citizens living in this country should make sure they are registered to vote, and vote to defeat the Ukip extremists on 22 May."

Tory peer Lord Debden also said the poster campaign showed "Ukip stands for the worst in human beings: our prejudice, selfishness, and fear".

And Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, called today for an end to "alarmist" rhetoric on immigration. He did not refer to any party in comments to the Daily Telegraph, but appealed to all sides to celebrate the contribution of immigrants rather than "anger and dismay".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/22/ukip-nigel-farage-poster-racist_n_5189691.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

And Gapes in the NS

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/why-i-say-ukip-posters-are-racist

Edited by Darkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU has a higher proportion of white people than the UK so no, seeking to limit immigration from the EU is not racist or if it is, then it discriminates against white people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the biggest worries about immigration co-incided with a mass movement of, er, other white people into the UK.

I dont know what it is, but its probably not racism. Maybe legitimate concerns over wage supression, congestion, housing shortages, land losses and so on.

You have to realise though, to the left, racism is just a slur. far left nuts Respect were calling warmongerer labour nuts racist in the rotherham by-election...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/22/labour-police-leaflet-racists-claim

Its great. Slander is a legal redress for financial loss caused by lies, and yet accusations of 'racism' can cause more financial loss than almost any other slander, and yet you cant actually claim to be slandered as a racist because there is actually no provable basis for racism. Its something that legally, doesnt have to actually be proven to exist...

That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/285537.stm

My own view is we should either not actually worry about racism when its mere insults, or else we should treat it as serious a crime when its wrongly claimed. People who cry racism should be punished just as people who cry rape. The impact on the falsely accused can be just as damaging.

See how many people use the word 'racist' then. Im guessing it wont be much above zero.

To me, there's little thats more 'racist' than how our current immigration policy means a drunk petty criminal pole from one mile west of the polish/belarus border has unfettered access to the UK. A skilled, ready to work belarussian a mile east of him finds it much harder to get in. What could be more 'racist' than that current EU state of affairs? Only one border should count, the british one. All foreigners should be treated equally by immigration. No special treatment for EU members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see, apart from not being racist they are not even mentioning immigration.

After all cheap foreign workers can take all of our manufacturing jobs and many service jobs without actually travelling here.

Why does no-one ask why the cost of living (and therefore by necessity wages) in the UK are so much higher than in other countries? How does a worker's labour magically become worth 10* times more simply by relocating from Beijing to Birmingham

*number made up without research or evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not who but how many.......our birth rate has fallen, and we have to keep growth growing we have actively imported the extra bodies......some benefit from this more than others, the ones who benefit the least are those who are in competition for well paid work, space and resources....the ones that benefit the most are the ones that make use and profit from the cheaper skills, upbringing and education all paid for by another country, the corporates that can sell more stuff to more people, the governments that can collect more taxes and votes...and the people who can improve their lifestyle in a better place, a place that is better with more opportunities than the place that they have left. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean Gordon was racist when he said "British jobs for British workers" or whatever it was that he said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not who but how many.......our birth rate has fallen, and we have to keep growth growing we have actively imported the extra bodies.

No we don't, and a position based on continual population growth is too crazy to take seriously. Falling birth rates are good, quality of life would be much better with fewer people in the country, and a natural falling birth rate achieves that without any unpleasant and unethical means. The problem is that we've got a society and an economy that's too divorced from reality to handle it (i.e. we've got the means of actually doing all the work needed to support the population comfortably).

There are probably quite a few UKIP supporters who are racist but UKIP's official position doesn't seem to be. It's pro British, not anti anyone else. The worst UKIP could be accused of here is scaremongering and exaggeration, but what party doesn't do that?

I do get very, very tired of the race card being used to try to shout down genuine concerns about immigration, since an increasing population in Britain is completely undesirable and immigration is the main driver for the increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean Gordon was racist when he said "British jobs for British workers" or whatever it was that he said?

rule number 1 of calling out 'racism'...

It doesnt matter what is said, its who is saying it. :lol:

Most anti-racists are racists themselves. Proudly so. 'Anti' racist Yasmin A-B for example...

In a discussion about an employment issue relating to white men, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said: "Take his advice. Don't apply. It would be great if you lot just went away; white, middle class men. We'd just walk in wouldn't we." When challenged by the host for the day, Richard Bacon, "Is that not a racist comment?" she replied: "Of course"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasmin_Alibhai-Brown#Criticisms

Comments like hers certainly lends credence to the troll-bots on youtube who comment 'anti-racist is codeword for anti-white'

She was on that 'who is nigel' thing recently calling for him to be banned from the airwaves. I guess the irony is lost on her...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we don't, and a position based on continual population growth is too crazy to take seriously. Falling birth rates are good, quality of life would be much better with fewer people in the country, and a natural falling birth rate achieves that without any unpleasant and unethical means. The problem is that we've got a society and an economy that's too divorced from reality to handle it (i.e. we've got the means of actually doing all the work needed to support the population comfortably).

There are probably quite a few UKIP supporters who are racist but UKIP's official position doesn't seem to be. It's pro British, not anti anyone else. The worst UKIP could be accused of here is scaremongering and exaggeration, but what party doesn't do that?

I do get very, very tired of the race card being used to try to shout down genuine concerns about immigration, since an increasing population in Britain is completely undesirable and immigration is the main driver for the increase.

Indeed, I dont get how any one can say we have a labour shortage when we have nigh on 10 million economically inactive of working age. Thats nearly as many as there are pensioners!

add to that future mechanization...

Fine if every immigrant coming here was a doctor or engineer. But most seem to be doing unskilled/non-skilled jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UKIP are striking a real chord with a large chunk of the population, no amount of calling them racist is going to prevent people voting for them, there would have to be a sensible response to their ideas about mass cheap labour, but there isn`t, so people are going to keep voting for them IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a terribly difficult subject because I like people as much as the next man.

The alternative question to ask of the above is do you suggest then that all migration controls should be dismantled, and if not, why not.

The only answer I would respect is to say everyone is individual and that travel is every free man's right. However, I also recognise that in such a world, the welfare state in all its forms would have to be completely dismantled including the NHS, unemployment and housing benefits etc.

The choices become more nuanced and difficult the more you look at the arguments.

If we are to look at the EU alone, I would say a structure that has national level welfare but international travel is a fundamental flaw. If such monies came out of EU as opposed to State budgets, it becomes more logical.

The problems with the rest of the world come down to sheer numbers and disparities in wealth.

Thats the crux of the matter, isnt it

All parties have some degree of immigration/border control. Does that mean Labour are relatively more racist than libdems, libdems relevately more racist than greens, and so forth?

Racist used to mean race actually has to be mentioned. Quotas imposed specific to a race. That hasnt happened in half a century in most of the west. If anything 'diversity lottery's' like in the US mean policies aimed at marginalizing whites have done the reverse.

Your views seem very similar to Friedmans 'you can have open borders or a welfare state, choose one'

I guess maybe if we re-defined all public services as a 'birthright' rather than a residency right to remove moral hazard, it might work, but the pro-immigrant lobby is to strong for that to stand for long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how are these posters racist in any shape or form? No race or even religion is mentioned. The issue highlighted is a very real problem for resident Brits i.e. foreign labour accepting far lower wages and driving salaries down.

Doesn't look racist to me. But we have a history of calling it racist when it came from the National Front or the BNP.

My first thought was, false flag. Given that there is a lot of racism in the party (including some of the people it puts for interview on programmes like Radio 4's flagship "Today"), how better to counter that than to create a poster like this and kick up a fuss. Then anytime someone calls you racist you deflect criticism by pointing to this nonsense?

And of course they can rely on elements of the loony left to oblige by shouting "racist". And if they're lucky they might even get a panicked tory to take the bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many brits are living in overpriced and/or sub-standard accommodation? EU had better close off those borders before we all take their housing :ph34r:

Glad we had the EU when I was priced out in the 1980s. It made emigration so much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing racist about these posters at all. And plenty of people in the UK agree (probably the silent majority). I'm hoping for a massive UKIP vote in the euro and general elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't look racist to me. But we have a history of calling it racist when it came from the National Front or the BNP.

The problem is that it happens to coincide with a view that the genuinely racist have. Don't want immigration because you don't want weird, dirty foreigners and don't want immigration because you don't want more people in the country are two very different attitudes, one racist, one not, with the same conclusion. An unfortunate coincidence that the ignorant (deliberately or not) use to attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing racist about these posters at all. And plenty of people in the UK agree (probably the silent majority). I'm hoping for a massive UKIP vote in the euro and general elections.

Do they stack up better on anything else or just on this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many brits are living in overpriced and/or sub-standard accommodation? EU had better close off those borders before we all take their housing :ph34r:

Glad we had the EU when I was priced out in the 1980s. It made emigration so much easier.

No we didnt, we had the EEC. Its only when the John Major birthed the EU and a bunch of ex-KGB nuts started demanding control over our laws that UKIP and euroskeptics decided things had gone from a net positive under the EEC to a disaster waiting to happen under the EU. Farage himself was a tory until then. Take us back to our relationship with Europe in the 1980s and UKIP would disappear overnight.

Even the naming is nefarious.

Community suggests a loose knit agglomeration of households in close proximity, voluntarily co-operating on certain things.

Union suggests all assimilating straightjacket from which we can never be free from, destroying the diversity of nations in its path, forcing everyone into some dull one size fits all totalitarian superstate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UKIP are striking a real chord with a large chunk of the population, no amount of calling them racist is going to prevent people voting for them, there would have to be a sensible response to their ideas about mass cheap labour, but there isn`t, so people are going to keep voting for them IMO.

Next they'll be calling them paediatricians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they stack up better on anything else or just on this issue?

This is something that is worth discussing.

I think most Scots want their country back, but a left winger like Salmond naturally marginalizes a significant part of scotland who, while they might want freedom from the UK, dont want Salmonds brand of socialism.

Similarly Farage, in putting UKIP firmly to the right of mainstream parties, is at risk of doing the same.

I guess Farage is taking a calculated risk that he'll pick up more ex-tories fed up with Camorons stance on a lot of things than he'll lose by courting more liberally minded types who nonetheless hate the EU for what it has become.

Id be happy if farage said we want all votes from far left to far right. We'll be a caretaker govt for 6 months while we free the country from the EU, and then hold another election and disappear quietly.

That may have been what was originally planned. But then you get the anti-british traitors at the BBC saying 'UKIP is a single issue party' as if thats a bad thing.

Its one hell of a single issue. Our sovereignty, our heritage, our freedom, our identity. How dare the BBC belittle the voter in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can Farage and myself be racists!? After all he`s married to a Kraut and I`m married to a slant.....can`t get much less racist than us!

Btw.....voting UKIP is the only option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it boils down to more people equals more shopping, so is growth!

Surely more people means more work providing their needs!

Anyway, it lucky it's the Polish, and not the French, and if that's not racist, I don't know what is! :huh:

That was a "tongue in cheek" comment BTW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   220 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.