No room for the BNP racists
The party’s local election disaster is a credit to student activism
Despite fielding a total of nine candidates for election to York City Council, far-right party the BNP managed to gain only 3582 votes and failed to win a single seat. To put this result in context, the anti-BNP organisation Unite Against Fascism has reported that the BNP fielded a record 750 candidates in the recent council elections with Yorkshire and the Humber being a major target area. After large increases for the party in both votes and council seats won in the past couple of years, the most recent elections have yielded the BNP only one extra council seat.
The failure to gain popular support in our local area is highly encouraging given efforts by the BNP and associated fascist website Redwatch to make their presence known. Attempts by members of both these organisations to intimidate York University staff and students have been reported recently by Nouse. It’s therefore good to see these bullying tactics are gaining all the success they deserve.
The BNP’s spectacular failure to perform at the ballot box shows that vigilance pays off. We should be proud that students at our University are willing to make it be known that we are not impressed by underhand tactics and thinly veiled threats, nor will we stand by as racists and extremists try to spread their pernicious political views by masquerading as a voice from the mainstream.
A national press officer for the BNP has compared YUSU to the Marxist Communists of the Soviet Union “who stifled debate and free speech”. This rather bizarre characterisation comes from an organisation which is still free to speak, free to contest elections, but has failed to win the debate and persuade people that it is right. That they are railing against student organisations shows that we, as students, must be doing something right in combating their rhetoric. The same press officer also expressed frustration that students are too ready to accept the idea that diversity is a wonderful thing. Enough said.
With overall turnout at only 41.8% and even lower at 37.2% in the overwhelmingly student-based electorate of Heslington ward, there is a clear lack of interest in local politics among students, and very little desire to turn out in support of the major political parties. Such a high level of apathy is definitely a worrying trend that needs to be addressed, but it is good to see that, in York at least, this is not translating into a protest vote for parties like the BNP.
Student politics currently has a problem in working out it ought to fight for, but at the very least the politics of intolerance is something we can all agree that we must fight against. There was no room on York Council for the BNP this time around. Let’s make sure it stays that way in the future.
Lancaster UAF
Very good article. We’ll mirror this on our blog, along with a link of course, unless there are objections.
rinky stingpiece
The only reason there was no protest vote for the BNP in Heslington, was because there was no candidate, you turkey!
What do you mean by racist anyway?
I mean I watched the Apprentice last week , and all the other contestents were mocking that Yorkshire car salesman by mimicking his accent and pretending to be thick.
I found that offensive; I mean if they did that same thing with a mock-Irish accent (never mind a mock-Nigerian, mock-Indian; or mock-Hong-Kong accent) I imagine it would have been deemed racist by those up in olympus.
So is “accentism” or regional stereotyping racist too?
Surely then, people like Rory Bremner ought to be locked up?
ady
Actually, Ian Dawson the BNP candidate, standing in Acomb, polled rather well for a first time. The results for Acomb were as follows:
Labour 1302 (average of 2 candidates)
BNP 520
Cons 478 ” ” ” ”
LibDems 424 ” ” ” ”
Green 297
The BNP results elsewhere around the country, demonstate, a slow but sure increase in the BNP vote. The BNP are certainly not a flash in the pan, and nearly always beat the UKIP and Greens when they are standing in the same election. This is despite the favourable publicity these latter two parties obtain from the media and the amount that they spend on election. The BNP had a lot of good/close seconds and a BNP vote of 25-30% is nothing unusual these days.
With regard to the Marxists in the York Uni Students Union spouting their usual anti -BNP rhetoric. The Students Union, fortunately, do not have the support of the majority of the student community who really couldn’t care less about the BNP, and many of whom will actually support their policies, and vote for them. It has always been the same; the vocal few extreme left wingers (or should that be whingers) that think they have the right to supress the opinions of other people. Modern day fascists in reality!
Nick Griffin, BNP Chairman, is going to Bath Uni for a debate. How about extending a similar invitation to Mr Griffin at York Uni. The Marxist left will then be exposed for what they really are. How about it the York Uni Marxist left? Are you up for it? I doubt that you are.
Just Cause
Yes 3500+ votes after Steve Galloway’s prediction that the BNP would get only 100 votes across the city is a disaster. Apparently sources who went to the UAF meeting say that UAF’s view was ‘if the the BNP get over 1000 votes they will count it as a victory’. 3500+ for the first time of standing, with all the establishment against them? Well done the BNP I say.
No doubt you commies were busy putting out anti-democratic third party meddling leaflets.
Nick Griffin for PM!
Nick Griffin has killed 0 muslims. Tony Blair 300,000. Who is the real criminal?
Robin
To be fair to Nick, Tony’s had more opportunity. I’m sure if Griffin had been PM for the past ten years, he would have easily exceeded Blair’s total.
ady
Quite the contrary Robin. The BNP went on record as saying that they would not go to war in Iraq. a. Because it was on flimsy pretext ie. Iraq was a ‘45 minute weapons of mass destruction threat’ to the UK; backed up with an undergraduate thesis ‘cherry picked’ from the internet b. Going to war in Iraq would not serve any direct interest to the UK.
Anthony Blair was lying. Anthony Blair is the murderer of Muslims and responsible for the deaths of British service men and women; not Nick Griffin.
Neil Barnes
I think the BNP is only populated by people with a chip on their shoulder, and they need someone to blame - immigrants are an easy target for their frustrations. Hitler was much the same, the Jews were an easy target for the frustrations he felt about Germany losing the first world war.
Everyone needs someone else to blame - No-one ever blames themselves - the cause of most problems in the world.
rinky stingpiece
‘Neil Barnes
May 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I think the BNP is only populated by people with a chip on their shoulder, and they need someone to blame - immigrants are an easy target for their frustrations. Hitler was much the same, the Jews were an easy target for the frustrations he felt about Germany losing the first world war.
Everyone needs someone else to blame - No-one ever blames themselves - the cause of most problems in the world.’
…more to the point, you’re comments are delegitimised by the fact that your comment is a fallacy constructed of logical fallacies:
the first one is cracking… “the BNP is only populated by people with a chip on their shoulder”, this is a fallacy of “concealed quantification”, and means that only people who have a chip on their shoulder belong to the BNP (some chippy people are going to be surprised to see their membership cards dropping through the letterbox in the morning!);
(…and what about all those members of the BNP who aren’t x, but y?).
“chip on the shoulder” is
ad hominem attack using “loaded language”, anyway.
whilst “everyone needs someone to blame” is a dicto simpliciter (a sweeping generalisation).
You also use an abusive analogy form of ad hominem with the
“Hitler was much the same” bit.
(instead of insulting the subject, you draw an analogy calculated to bring scorn and disrepute by comparing it with something that elicits an unfavourable response from the audience.) contributing to an argumentum ad odium (appeal to hatred); and even if it were true, it’d be a “genetic fallacy”!
Not to mention “conclusion that denies premisses”: if “Hitler’s was much the same” then Hitler’s frustration with WWI was not the cause of him blaming the Jews (even if it was a contributing factor), you are saying it’s because he had a chip on his shoulder - that’s what your argument means (even if you meant summat different).
it adds up to an insidious and implicit argumentum ad metum (appeal to fear).
how many logical fallacies is that then?
Well at least 7, and possibly a couple more if i spent more time analysing it.
It all adds up to the same thing…
Bollox.
rinky stingpiece
I found it: logical fallacy number 8:
your “hitler” comment is a “question-begging analogy” meaning: x is similar to y (where the similarity depends for its strength upon some assumption which begs the question).
x is P.
Therefore, y is P.
though as a generalised rule of thumb, reposts that invoke the Nazis tend to be fallacious.
The BNP may have many idiots as members; and many idiots who post on here defending them; but from what I’ve encountered amongst the enemies of the BNP, is that they are simply a slightly more advanced form of idiot: the moron; not even up to the level of imbecile - you wouldn’t think so judging by their posh accents(!).
Now to gun down the piss poor article like the man with no name:
“A national press officer for the BNP has compared YUSU to the Marxist Communists of the Soviet Union “who stifled debate and free speech”. This rather bizarre characterisation comes from an organisation which is still free to speak, free to contest elections, but has failed to win the debate and persuade people that it is right.”
(that’s them told)
1. “loaded words” or “poisoning the well”? with “bizarre” - clearly no reader is going to associate themselves with making biZarre comments; they’ll quietly grunt and tug their forelocks and accept defeat to such an intellectual titan.
“free to speak” - as in the “no platform” policy?
“free to contest elections” with the BBC constantly describing them in non-neutral terms and commissioning programmes to expose “racism” within them? How disingenuous.
North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic; hence the regularity with which its citizens exercise their demoncratic rights.
Clearly, when:
a. the overwhelming majority of students are middle class
[http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/tuitionfees/story/0,,901332,00.html]
To the extent that non-middle-class opinion is ostracised and censored.
The language of this censorship is characterised by effectively describing the BNP as evil and banning it; combined with the legislation and blanket media bias, people fear mainly economic/career sanction by expressing any dissent; moreover, due the restrictive control of the discourse by the pseudoliberal elite, many feel that there is no point in voting. This alienated class are largely responsible for the low turnout, that just gest lower.
The pseudoliberal elite assumes that people have an adequate choice of 3 main parties plus the greens, or regional party; the reality is that this is a false choice, and people simply dont vote.
Blair was elected effectively by only 26% or the population; with 41% not voting for the false choice.
37% voted in the recent local elections in Heslington; or rather, 63% found nothing worth voting for.
People will not vote for “evil” as the BNP is characatured by the media, and it is the clumsiness of the BNP in not capitalising on the resentment by using the same fallacious language as the pseudoliberals to attract more support; not the falsness of their general argument.
b. the establishment is filled with clerics trained in the cult of pseudoliberalism at university, infesting the media; the public services; changing laws; dominating discourse; and oppressing blasphemers with legal, career, social, and economic sanction. How can they ever “win the debate” when the media is controlled by the enemy?!
Fortunately, there is some recourse.
The Achilles heel of the enemy is the dependence on science. (god how they censor the statistics and terms of reference of social science).
Science and the research into evolutionary psychology offers tangible evidence of the wrongness of the pseudoliberals.
Logic in Philosophy, empowers the oppressed to expose the great lies of the pseudoliberals.
“That they are railing against student organisations shows that we, as students, must be doing something right in combating their rhetoric.
This is “false cause”: the fact that they are railing against far left pseudoliberal middleclass student organisations has nowt to do with whether these organisations are doing anything right or not!
..and “rhetoric” is loaded languAGE.
The same press officer also expressed frustration that students are too ready to accept the idea that diversity is a wonderful thing. Enough said.”
this is a clear “begging of the question” and a non sequitur
(”diversity is a good thing,” therefore readiness to accept it is proof that it’s a good thing…)
readiness to accept diversity is not proof that diversity is a good thing.
I might be ready to accept a mountain of cream buns, but the resulting obesity is unlikely to lead to health benefits.
The term “diversity” itself is a repulsive Blairism.
Implicitly described as a virtue with no grounds to support that view.
“Good” and “Bad” simply refer to whether a thing is approved of or disapproved of by a group.
All human and living organism groups share common genetic morality - i.e. that instinct is good, because to not follow instinct is to malfunction.
Malfunctions may be tolerated because of the potential for useful outcomes to the group; but that acceptance does not equate to acceptance of the malfunction.
Ergo, diversity is accepted because of other benefits that may occur from protecting it; but that does not equate to acceptance of the malfunctioning elements that come with the group known as “diversity”.
The fallacy of the left is that diversity is an aspiration for it’s own sake, and intra-group status has been conferred related to the degree of diversity an individual posesses; regardless of the self-evident fact that to be diverse is to have malfunctioned; this contravenes genetic moral code; and is thus a religion of maladaptivity.
Those who reject this cult are classed as inferiors, when they are simply non-malfunctioning; and as per design, are defending and pursuing the objectives of genetic morality.
The conclusion:
The BNP is crap; but it’s fundamentally right.
Neil Barnes
I could enjoy my new idiotic level of ‘moron’ as it means no one will ever hold me responsible for anything too difficult, but please don’t suggest I have a posh accent - I might never be able to visit my parents on the council estate again…
My stand against the BNP is purely driven by the fact that the idea of ‘Britishness’ has been subverted by the BNP into a hazy idea that there has always been a particular way of being ‘British’.
The reality is that there is no single idea of ‘Britishness’. Look at our history closely and you will see a constantly evolving culture that has absorbed elements of other cultures as we blazed a trail of genocide and exploitation across the planet. Go back far enough, and we are all immigrants - in particular the Celts’ immigration policy failed spectacularly!
To suggest that we need to return the country back to a certain level of ‘Britishness’ suggests stopping the evolution of our society, and regressing society back to something that has never really existed.
But if it does have to exist, then our ‘Britishness’ can surely only be the fact that we enjoy evolving our culture. Even our English language is a language of absorption and evolution. A harsh immigrant policy and a stonger push for ‘British’ events (eg St George’s Day) is surely cheating us of our ‘true’ history?
p.s. St George is a Medieval chivalrc invention anyway, do the BNP even know that it’s suggested he was probably originally from a Muslim country?
John Shepherd
The most questionable bit of the article, for me, is this: “The same press officer also expressed frustration that students are too ready to accept the idea that diversity is a wonderful thing. Enough said.”
That’s not a very good argument, is it? “Enough said”? Is diversity necessarily a wonderful thing - and, as you clearly believe it is, aren’t you obliged to defend it argumentatively in the face of BNP criticism? Your throwaway response of “Enough said” is perhaps evidence that students are indeed too ready to accept this idea without thinking.
I’m not arguing against diversity as such (although perhaps we could consider the ethnic tensions that it has led to so many times in so many different countries, from France to Sri Lanka); I am criticising the lack of argument here that inadvertently supports the BNP press officer’s view.
… “Anthony Blair”?