Anti-BNP campaign provokes battle over legality of YUSU’s political agenda

An anti-BNP campaign on campus, Hope not Hate, has created a dispute between the campaign and YUSU over the legality of both its and the Union’s political agenda.

David Levene, event organiser for Hope not Hate, which calls on students to unite against the BNP in the upcoming European elections, lobbied YUSU to support his group last week.

YUSU contend that this would have been in contravention of legislation preventing the Union from joining political campaigns.

Levene, whose anti-BNP rally was held on Sunday, stated that he thought some YUSU officers weren’t doing enough to advertise such events and to raise awareness of anti-fascism within their legal powers.

“There is a real risk the BNP will gain a seat in Yorkshire, meaning a massive financial boost – allowing them to expand like never before,” said Levene.

The BNP have said that they “definitely support” YUSU’s decision not to endorse the campaign.

YUSU President Tom Scott has stated that the Union is “not allowed to campaign for or against any political party. There was a concern that we could act illegally by having the organisation, rather than ourselves as individuals, campaign.”

Sarah Fennell, former YUSU LGBT Officer, and anti-BNP campaigner, disagreed with YUSU’s decision, saying: “It’s definitely a student issue. I can understand that YUSU didn’t want to be seen advocating any political party, but we’re not advocating any political party, were uniting against a political party.”

Simon Darby, BNP Deputy Leader, has strongly supported YUSU’s stance towards Hope not Hate, saying that he doesn’t think they should be advertising “vehicles to boost the Labour Party.”

Darby added that he believed students to be “perfectly capable of making their own decisions.”

To complicate the issue, the campaign guidelines of the National Union of Students (NUS), of which YUSU is a member, state that it is within the Unions legal rights to advocate a vote against fascist parties: “Students’ Unions, under charity law, are allowed to encourage their students to make their vote an anti-racist vote.”

The organisation urges unions to implore students “not to cast a fascist or racist vote at the ballot box. This is permissible as long as there is no direct mention of a political party.”

YUSU Societies and Communications Officer Rory Shanks stated: “We are in real danger of breaking the law, which is definitely the case with this version of the Hope not Hate campaign as it clearly references political parties. I also think that our resources should be directed at students as students when appropriately mandated, and not to fuel anyone’s wider party political agendas”. At last Wednesday’s Union Council meeting, YUSU confirmed that they were unable to support or condemn any political party, but instead would encourage students to use their vote.

During the meeting, Democracy and Services Officer-elect Lewis Bretts argued that any anti-BNP movements would be partisan campaigns and shouldn’t be advertised or seen to be advocated by YUSU.

An unnamed YUSU Officer has also said that they believed some people would think highlighting the threat of the BNP could be damaging to the democratic process.

One anonymous student present at the rally said that she thought it was “pathetic on YUSU’s part” for failing to advocate anti-fascism, while another described YUSU as “spineless” for not taking a stance against the BNP.

Fennell added that she found the decision not to endorse the campaign “disappointing, because obviously we have a massive proportion of international students… and then, of course, the BNP are incredibly against women and LBGT students.”

Fennell was keen to stress the importance of preventing the BNP from using any electoral success, and the cross-continental danger it poses: “The scary thing is that they only need to have a few candidates get through, and then they get millions of pounds in funding and then they expand, uniting with other fascist parties in Europe… it’s very dangerous what they can do around Europe.”

The European Elections will be taking place on June 4, and are expected to be the biggest trans-national elections in history.

101 comments

  1. Is YUSU doing anything to help make students register to vote?

    Reply Report

  2. YUSU have made the right decision – they should not be supporting political parties either way, no matter how bad the BNP are, where does the line get drawn?

    Students are smart enough to cast judgement on the BNP regardless of whether or not YUSU condemn them or not, I fail to see what difference YUSU support of the campaign would make, it’d just be another empty gesture, like condemning the Israel-Palestine war.

    Reply Report

  3. Good on YUSU. Are they finally realising that they have no mandate as a political organisation? If so, superb.

    Reply Report

  4. Well I’ll be joining York University after Summer, and I’ll be voting BNP in the coming election. There’s a lot of misconceptions about the Party which isn’t helped by the media attacking them any chance they get.

    YUSU made the correct choice.

    Reply Report

  5. says Dan.

    I’ve been in constant talks with the Council about how to engage off-campus students, Will – anyone living on-campus should already be registered as the university does it :)

    You can be registered to vote in multiple locations but you can only vote in one (before anyone asks)

    Reply Report

  6. Absolutely agree with YUSU’s decision here. If it were a campaign against fascism within the University of York, then that’s another matter.

    Reply Report

  7. 12 May ’09 at 4:08 pm

    Sarah Fennell

    There are 7 days left to register to vote, but the forms need to be back by the 19th May. Every vote counts (as we learned at the YUSU elections!) so please use yours.

    REGISTERING TO VOTE IS EASY:
    Go to the website:
    http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/
    Then you can either print off a blank form to register, fill it in and sign it.
    Or you can fill your details in online, print it and sign it.

    POSTAL VOTING:
    If you think you might not be able to get to the polling station on June 4th, remember you also need to apply for a postal vote to be sent to you. You do this by printing off the separate Postal Vote Request Form. After you’ve registered to vote, you should see a link on the page, asking if you want to request a postal vote as well. Click it, follow the instructions, print the form and send it back to the Electoral Commission alng with your registration form. Easy.

    STUDYING ABROAD:
    If you’re an EU citizen, you can still vote in European Elections even if you’re not currently living in your country of origin (because you’re currently an international student, for example).
    For example, it won’t matter if you’re a UK National studying in France, or a French National studying in the UK, you should still be able to find out the information you need ont the Electoral Commission website.
    http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/

    Reply Report

  8. If only I had your confidence Jason….

    If you live on campus CHECK YOU ARE REGISTERED. In my first year, I was told that all on campus residents would be registered yet when it came to election day I (and many other students) found out that the Uni hadn’t registered me.

    The official uni line then and since is that the responsibility lies with students, not the uni, to check that they are registered.

    Reply Report

  9. The legal issue is to do with money. YUSU can not spend money or allocate resources to promoting Hope Not Hate as it specifically targets a political party, the BNP (and, arguably a non-student issue).

    However, there is nothing wrong with YUSU supporting the campaign in other ways. The law is being slightly misused by YUSU in this instance, as it seems they are claiming that the law prevents them from ‘joining political campaigns’.

    The law prevents SUs from affiliating (in the formal sense of paying a subscription) to campaigns such as Hope not Hate, but nowhere does it say it can not support its very noble cause of raising awareness about the real threat of racism being victorious in the Euro elections.

    Just as YUSU is allowed to allocate funds to Labour & Tory societies, because they provide a forum for improving the ‘broader’ education of its members, money could be allocated to a ratified Hope Not Hate society, disproving most of the legal assertions being made by YUSU in this article.

    Reply Report

  10. Will – after some intense arguments and wrangling, YUSU eventually agreed to lobby the uni to improve its efforts to register on-campus residents to vote, and to advertise aboutmyvote.co.uk (where students can register to vote

    Chris – what was being asked was for YUSU to merely advertise campaigning, not to endorse it, and certainly not to actively campaign against the BNP. This is the fundamental point the article misses: it’s not about YUSU fighting the BNP, merely about YUSU publicising the activities of students as they would do any other (which is certainly perfectly legal, and in line with YUSUs constitution).

    Re. how smart students are, this is completely beside the point: turnout in the 2004 Euros in Yorkshire was a pathetic 42% and was even less for students. It’s not about intelligence, it’s about awareness. What difference would it make? Do some research about the BNP threat: the key to their success is going to be low turnout. If half of our 13,000 students were made aware of these elections and, crucially, how important they are, then that could mean the difference between having Nazis claiming to represent you or not

    Tom: I very much doubt fascism will stop at the borders of campus if the BNP are elected in Yorkshire. People seem to think this is a game of petty party politics. It’s not – people, students, get hurt with the BNP. THAT is where the line gets drawn, THAT is why the BNP aren’t just another political party. It’s a real shame YUSU don’t understand that

    Reply Report

  11. When the BNP says that it “definitely supports YUSU’s decision” you know that something has gone very wrong with this Union.

    Opposing fascist thugs is undeniably a student issue and I fail to see how on earth the Student Union could ever deny that.

    There are thousands of international students on campus, not to mention several other groups (LGBT, Muslims, Jews, ethnic minorities etc.) that have been targeted by those neo-Nazis.

    And when I say ‘targeted’ I do not mean just being grossly offended, I mean actually TARGETED.

    http://www.nouse.co.uk/2007/05/08/protesting-york-students-targeted-online/

    (Btw correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there was a UGM giving ‘no platform to the BNP’ anyway – so much for having to stay neutral.)

    Standing up against the ideological descendants of the third reich would have shown whether the Union is prepared to stand up for its own members. It is clearly not. It is apparently too busy wondering whether we should make all toilets gender neutral, or other such ‘important student issues’.

    Reply Report

  12. “Opposing fascist thugs is undeniably a student issue”

    Or should we be battling to prevent a student union’s fascistic oppression of the political opposition..?

    Reply Report

  13. If you think that fascism qualifies as legitimate ‘political opposition’ then do as you wish. For my part, I think there is quite enough evidence to suggest that those people are in fact dangerous and violent criminals.

    Reply Report

  14. 12 May ’09 at 6:09 pm

    Thomas Corker

    I was one of the students at the rally on Sunday – incidentally, there will people from Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems, Greens, Socialists and of no political background whatsoever which was really good.

    I have to say YUSU’s legal argument is ridiculous. Under what they’re saying, anything vaguely political isn’t allowed: LGBT issues are ‘political’ and using YUSU’s email servers are technically ‘resources,’ so LGBT committee sending a message about one of their campaigns is illegal apparently!

    But at the end of the day, YUSU are hiding behind the law to avoid stepping up. On Sunday we tried to leaflet central hall to catch those attending the roses ceremony. Without any explanation, one of the YUSU sabs told Levene that we had to leave, and threatened to call security! He was rude and aggressive for no reason (certainly not a legal one) and revealed YUSU’s true attitude to all of this.

    Reply Report

  15. To Joe Riches:

    Talk about not understanding my point. I never said if the BNP got elected it would stop at the borders of campus. My point is that I believe YUSU should focus their efforts (which are a scarce resource) on the issues that they represent us best on: student specific ones. If you want to get involved in national issues, then that’s an entirely different matter.

    For example, I have been a Labour party member for 10 years now – simply because I like getting involved in national issues like this.

    Nothing puts students off of their Students’ Union like getting party politics involved in it. Believe me, I did my undergraduate degree at a University with a massively partisan Union. I believe motions that are targeted at a specific political party (and similarly this applies to the Israel/Palestine stuff a while back) do this, and hence why I support YUSU’s decision.

    Reply Report

  16. Tom, I guess the point is the division between national and students is not a clear one: fascists having power will affect students as students.

    We weren’t asking YUSU to use resources in any real sense, we were asking for a 2cm squared box on the YUSU website. Would that have bankrupted YUSU, or stopped them campaigning on something else? No, it wouldn’t. I guess it depends on whether you think fighting violent racist thugs is worthwhile.

    And the BNP is not a normal political party! They are violent, they are antidemocratic, and they undermine everything YUSU stands for.

    Reply Report

  17. Sorry, national and student issues.

    Reply Report

  18. 12 May ’09 at 11:45 pm

    Simon Whitten

    I don’t think it’s reasonable to dismiss the anti-BNP campaign as “party politics” as though this were the equivalent of YUSU endorsing the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. The simple fact of the matter is that the BNP, regardless of any registration as a political party, are an inherently racist and LGBT-phobic (and I’m pretty sure sexist, although I’m not reading through mountains of BNP propaganda to confirm it) organisation. The Union is mandated to campaign against these things and it is in the immediate welfare interest of the LGBT, Jewish, Muslim, ethnic minority and international students that racist thugs active within the City of York are confronted head on.

    I also find it interesting that some individuals here who previously objected to the Gaza motion arguing it could intimidate the Jewish student community now feel compelled to oppose even passive advertisement of a campaign which is aimed simply at the defence of that community and others who are targeted by these thugs in suits.

    Reply Report

  19. “Well I’ll be joining York University after Summer, and I’ll be voting BNP in the coming election. There’s a lot of misconceptions about the Party which isn’t helped by the media attacking them any chance they get.”

    There are NOT a lot of misconceptions and I would recommend doing a lot of research before even considering voting for the BNP.

    http://bnp.org.uk/category/european-elections/candidates-european-elections-5/yorkshire-humberside-candidates/

    Andrew Brons. Our #1 listed BNP MEP possibility. Kindly old man? He was a member of the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party deliberately founded on Hitler’s birthday) until 1964, was a member of the first British National Party.. “He went on to join the openly nazi Greater Britain Movement before becoming leader of the skinhead thugs of the National Front. The NF were notorious for extreme racism and violent behaviour” etc. He was a close friend of John Tyndall, who founded the BNP and said “Mein Kampf is my bible”.

    “Yorkshire elections officer Chris Beverley has extensive links with the German neo-Nazi party, the National Democratic Party. In February 2007 Beverley attended a gathering of the European National Front…Beverley tried to conceal the fact his attendance of the ENF conference but was accidentally named on a Nazi website as one of the speakers.”

    Worse is Nick Griffin, the LEADER of the BNP. If you have never heard of him or don’t know anything about him, you’ll probably find the next few quotes shocking:

    “I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lamp shades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat… I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie and latter witch-hysteria.” 1997

    “Without the White race nothing matters [other right-wing parties] believe that the answer to the race question is integration and a futile attempt to create “Black Britons”, while we affirm that non-Whites have no place here at all and will not rest until every last one has left our land.”

    “Yes, Adolf went a bit too far. His legacy is the biggest problem that the British nationalist movement has to deal with. It just creates a bad image.”

    “When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate.”

    “It’s well known that the chimneys from the gas chambers at Auschwitz are fake, built after the war ended.” [Erm, no it isn’t…]

    “The TV footage of dozens of ‘gay’ demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world’s journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive.”

    “You give me twenty minutes or an hour, a special programme to dissect the Koran, and I will show you that we have a monster in our midst…If I’m prosecuted under the Race Act or under a new Incitement to Religious Hatred, for telling the truth about a religion which is in this country and is going to utterly transform our society and destroy our culture as we know it, then if I’m prosecuted for that and it becomes a platform, then I’ll be delighted yes.””

    “I’m [in politics] because I want to help stop the immigration which is destroying this and every other white nation in the world.”

    On the fact that world oil is running out: “It’s all a Zionist scam.”

    “Believe us, Islam is the biggest threat Britain has ever faced.”

    The Director of Publicity for the BNP, Mark Collett, said the following things:

    Regarding Prince Charles: “He’s a fucking traitor… The Royals have betrayed their people. When we’re in power they’ll be wiped out and we’ll get some Germans to rule properly.”

    On whether black people could be British: “Just because a dog is brought up in a stable doesn’t make him a horse.”

    On AIDS: “A friendly disease because blacks, drug users and gays have it.”

    On Hitler: “Hitler will live forever; and maybe I will.”

    YES IT IS BECAUSE OF THE BAD PRESS THAT THEY GET THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE RACIST WELL DONE LOLL\Z!11!

    No but seriously they are still connected with neo-Nazi terrorists [http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-terrorist-links.php], have racist leaders, have racist candidates in Yorkshire, have a racist manifes– Didn’t I mention the manifesto? Oh, well here are some snippets:

    “On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years… We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens…We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.” [Native British people? All asylum seekers?]

    “We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment…and the restoration of capital punishment”

    “We will free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket”

    “We will also seek to instill in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.”

    “We are pledged to ensure the restoration of Britain’s once great fishing industry with the reimposition of the former exclusion zones around our coast.”

    “FOREIGN AID – time to spend our money on our own people! We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. We will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, whereby those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning.”

    “We wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles.”

    “We will also restore national service for our young”

    I could go on forever. The BNP have terrorist ties, are run by racists and criminals, have policies that depend heavily on refusing to help other countries, expelling people that are non-white, give police free-reign, destroy the North Sea’s environment, re-introduce the barbaric corporal and capital punishments… Their leader denied the holocaust and hasn’t commented on it since; they insult gays, blacks, foreigners, women (all in their words) etc. and of course their London Mayoral Candidate said; “I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime…Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.”

    Yeah. Good luck with convincing me that there’s a lot of propaganda going around about the BNP and that the media are overreacting. I’m ambivalent over whether YUSU campaigns against the BNP or not but the fact that there are people out there who for some stupid reason think that the BNP aren’t racist shows that there is a need for some people to highlight these facts. It’s shocking, really.

    Reply Report

  20. 13 May ’09 at 12:55 am

    Anon Yorkshireman

    As a student at York, and being a Yorkshireman, I feel offended that somebody can so blatantly insinuate that Yorkshire will vote BNP. How dare you insult and condemn me, my family, friends and fellow Yorkshire folk to voting for this party. How can David Levene, event organiser for Hope not Hate, so blatantly say this?!

    What make you feel so certain that the rest of Yorkshire will vote BNP and that the students vote will tip the scale of an otherwise obviously fascist Yorkshire vote? I am deeply offended by your grossly misguided representation of people in Yorkshire.

    “There is a real risk the BNP will gain a seat in Yorkshire, meaning a massive financial boost – allowing them to expand like never before,” said Levene.

    What evidence do you have for this definite occurrence happening, how many BNP MP’s does Yorkshire have, how many town and city councillors are BNP?
    http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/clnonmetro.cfm
    http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/clmetro.cfm
    http://democracy.york.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.asp
    If you look at these official lists of current MP’s and local councillors there are no BNP MP’s in Yorkshire and no BNP councillors in York city either!

    Where has your “real risk” come from, I would like to know.

    Reply Report

  21. The BNP is undoubtedly racist, and in my opinion, it should be disbanded. However, given that it is officially recognised as a party, YUSU has no right to support or even promote the campaign against it in any way.
    Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If enough students do not believe in global warming, should YUSU embrace a campaign against the Green party? If students (like myself) are appalled by Labour’s MP expenses scandals, should YUSU support campaigns against Labour?
    YUSU must always remain neutral. It is as simple as that.
    A.

    Reply Report

  22. “The law is being slightly misused by YUSU in this instance, as it seems they are claiming that the law prevents them from ‘joining political campaigns’.”

    Again, neither of us are lawyers (I assume) but I would argue that the law was specifically designed to prevent SU’s trying to encourage members to vote (or not vote) for a specific party. Pretty clearly, saying “Vote for the Tories”, is essentially (and legally) the same as saying “Don’t Vote for the BNP”.

    You can try and fudge the issue as much as you like but ‘Hope not Hate’ at York is doing the latter. Sarah Fennell says so in the article, the banner in the photo mentions the BNP, and the rally in question, and its facebook group were titled ‘Stop the BNP’.

    A campaign against fascism, sexism etc etc, is absolutely fine, and brilliant. YUSU does it already, and should do more of it. Campaigning against a specific political party isn’t. It contravenes the NUS guidelines, and the Law. Whether or not that’s a good thing is up to you; but sadly it’s legal reality. There is a legal distinction between students as students, and students as members of society at large (See AG vs Ross 1985) and I don’t think opening YUSU up to the (fairly significant imho) possibility of legal action would have been very sensible.

    Reply Report

  23. 13 May ’09 at 11:08 am

    Thomas Corker

    The nature of the electoral system used in the European Parliament means that parties that would otherwise never win under the Westminster system stand a chance of electoral success. The BNP vote shot up over 100,000 votes in Yorkshire and Humber between 2004 and 1999. 2004 was also a particularly good year for UKIP and there are predictions that their vote may well collapse, leaving a vacuum, causing many former UKIP votes may flock to the BNP. And while the BNP doesn’t have any councillors in York itself, it does have them in other areas of Yorkshire. It’s by no means a foregone conclusion, but surely if you don’t want the BNP to be elected you can see that even if there wasn’t a risk, encouraging an anti-BNP vote is something to be supported anyway. Hope Not Hate explicitly does not endorse a specific party over the BNP; it merely encourages people to vote for a party other than them.

    No one is attempting to paint Yorkshire people as racist or as fans of the BNP. I’m originally from the North West, an area that is just as likely (if not more so) to elect a BNP MEP, and I don’t feel offended by people drawing attention to this fact. I don’t feel as if my family and friends are being portrayed as racists because I know that the overwhelming majority of people in Yorkshire and the North West aren’t, but unfortunately there is a significant minority that may vote BNP and I think, for reasons already discussed on this article, they need to be stopped in their attempts for electoral success. I’d rather campaigns like this take place and the BNP are stopped in their tracks than nothing occurred at all. I don’t feel offended by it, because I – and I think everyone knows – that it’s only a small minority (many of whom may well be misinformed about the BNP) who will vote for them.

    Reply Report

  24. Joe,

    “No, it wouldn’t. I guess it depends on whether you think fighting violent racist thugs is worthwhile.”

    What an utter (and quite ridiculous) oversimplification of the matter being discussed. It is quite possible to think fighting violent racist thugs is worthwhile, whilst backing YUSU’s decision at the same time. Indeed that is my position.

    As Simon says, YUSU are mandated to campaign against fascism etc. All very true. But what I am saying is that I believe (as many others do), that they only truly mandated to fight such as issues when they are specific to the University of York students. If the Vice-Chancellor suddenly implemented a policy that threatened the welfare of LBGT, Jewish or other students, I’d be a the front of a motion to get YUSU to campaign against it.

    Since the BNP issue is one fought at a national level, it becomes the responsibility of national organisations to take it on.

    Finally, regarding the resource implication argument – at what point do you stop then? Is a web advert allowed? What about a leaflet? Can an officer spend an entire paid day working on it?

    Reply Report

  25. RE: Anon Yorkshireman

    The ‘real risk’ comes from the voting system used to elect the MEPs in the UK. Where as elections for Westminster and local councils use a winner takes all system which requires votes to be geographically concentrated for smaller parties, like the BNP, to gain a seat. Only the candidate/party with the most votes wins. Elections to the European parliament are designed to reflect the wishes of all voters in determining who wins how many seats. Also, UKIP didn’t (to my knowledge) have any MPs or Cllrs. before the last Euro Elections, and they did pretty well…

    http://tinyurl.com/crlmtg is a pretty good description of the voting system. The way that the votes of the major parties are devalued after they gain seats means that in Y&H the final seat is likely to be allocated to either the BNP or UKIP, with roughly 9% being the number of votes needed to gain a seat.

    So Yorkshire doesn’t need to ‘vote BNP’ in the traditional sense for them to gain a seat in the European Parliament and gain the public funds that such an office brings. No one is saying that Yorkshire men and women are racist as one of Hope Not Hate’s key points is that the BNP play on genuine fears and attempt to hide their racist ideology. Hope Not Hate are trying to make sure that people are aware of the BNPs true policies of hatred and bigotry.

    The reason that the ‘student vote may tip the scale’ is that for the BNP to get the proportion of votes needed, turnout needs to be low. The majority of students at York Uni are eligible to vote in Y&H yet turnout is traditionally low amongst students at their resident university.

    Another problem is that the recent scandals over MPs expenses has lead to an increase in support for smaller parties (read the opinion poll in yesterday’s Times) and in particular, the BNP.

    Reply Report

  26. “What evidence do you have for this definite occurrence happening, how many BNP MP’s does Yorkshire have, how many town and city councillors are BNP?”

    Dear Yorkshireman, I feel attacked more than Yorkshire should be! MPs have to gain the most votes to get elected – i.e. Labour 24%, Tory 20%, BNP 25%, Lib Dems 18%, Greens 13% would elect BNP. In European Elections however, all five of those parties would get candidates elected. Only about 10% of the vote is needed to gain a seat – and based on the last election, the BNP are about 7-8%… The difference between council and national elections is also obviously prevalent. The BNP is anti-Europe so anyone who dislikes the EU is likely to vote for the BNP or UKIP in this election. The difference is that UKIP is anti-EU but the BNP is racist.

    I HOPE that we’re completely wrong and that Yorkshire will defeat the BNP. We’re NOT saying that the BNP will win but that they will come 4th or 5th and *still get a seat*. They are extremely likely to win a seat in the North West and I hope they don’t get one in our area.

    In other news, I’ve worked out the major issue with the Council and can get the Elections ball rolling properly now! So watch York Extra, YUSU News etc. if I can get it all sorted this afternoon… make sure you’re registered to vote and make sure you vote on the 4th June!

    Reply Report

  27. Ari, on a different tone I’m pretty sure you’re not actually ‘appalled by the MP’s expenses scandal’. You know that in our nation this would not even qualify as a scandal, let alone be given such media attention :/

    Reply Report

  28. Jason Rose, I have already “done a lot of research”. Can we honestly say the same of the UAF and the “anti-fascists” who buy into Guardian/Daily Mirror/News of the World propaganda about the Party? For instance, just a couple of days ago, the News of the World printed this:

    [url]http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/298583/BNP-target-kids-in-weekend-training-sessions.html[/url]

    Now have a read of that article. Let’s look at some of the language used in it:

    “BRIT-LER Youth.”

    “Lure kids as young as 13 to weekend camps where they will be taught SHOOTING, self-defence and nationalist ideology.”

    “They are invited to the BNP’s annual youth camp and two training camps where they have to keep records of their improvement in shooting, self defence, flag drills and ideology. ”

    Now, be honest- does that sound like a proper critique of BNP policies, or propaganda? The stuff about “shooting” is clearly a case of trying to subtly say “The BNP is creating a private army, nudge nudge, wink wink”.

    However the facts of the matter are that the Conservatives, Labour, and Lib dems all have their own youth groups. Yet when the BNP has one it’s somehow “sinister”. What’s wrong with taking kids camping and teaching them how to shoot anyway? The Scouts do it all the time. I tell you now it’s far better than them just sat at home watching television.

    These kinds of stories are all over newspapers, day in, day out. It’s garbage and mindless smearing of the BNP, no two ways about it.

    As for all your quotes, they suffer from a fatal problem: They were all said 10 years or more ago (with the exception of Mark Collett and he’s not in a senior leadership position nor on any list to become an MEP). Some of the quotes are taken out of context, and others are just plain common sense. For instance, take this one:

    “Yes, Adolf went a bit too far. His legacy is the biggest problem that the British nationalist movement has to deal with. It just creates a bad image.”

    Is it not true, that the legacy of Hitler has held back the BNP, as the newspapers smear anyone who voices concerns over demographic change a “nazi”? It is not true that Hitler lovers give the BNP a bad image?

    Let’s take these two:

    “When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate.”

    “It’s well known that the chimneys from the gas chambers at Auschwitz are fake, built after the war ended.” [Erm, no it isn’t…]

    Ultimately what Griffin was saying in the first quote, is that many people have come to power by force, not by winning debates an elections. Is he not correct in this assertion? Having the best argument in the world doesn’t mean much if the other guy has a gun, does it?

    As for the Auschwitz chimneys, they were actually rebuilt after the war as the camp was falling to bits and was in a state of disrepair. The German government even gave money to Poland for the renovation work. Of course, that doesn’t mean the camp was a “fake”- but those chimneys were most certainly built after the war as the original ones were crumbling down.

    Next couple of quotes:

    “I’m [in politics] because I want to help stop the immigration which is destroying this and every other white nation in the world.”

    “Believe us, Islam is the biggest threat Britain has ever faced.”

    Sounds like common sense to me.

    I’m not goint to address the Mark Collett points as he is not in a senior leadership position. Anyone can join any political party, start running their mouth, and get quoted in the press. Bear in mind though that Collett was quite young when he made those statements (5 years or so ago now).

    The manifesto- yes, I have read it, but no, I don’t see anything in it that’s particuarly outrageous. National Service is conducted in quite a few countries in the world. Securing good relations with Ireland is surely a positive step forward? Keeping the White Britons as the dominant majority is most certainly a good policy, and anyone who disagrees should go and live in Peckham, Moss Side, or some areas of the East End London to see what “diversity” has done for Britain.

    Getting rid of political correctness, rebuilding our manufacturing industry, and stop funding African dictators- what’s not to like?

    Reply Report

  29. ” “I’m [in politics] because I want to help stop the immigration which is destroying this and every other white nation in the world.”

    “Believe us, Islam is the biggest threat Britain has ever faced.”

    Sounds like common sense to me. ”

    That’s the problem.
    A.

    Reply Report

  30. 13 May ’09 at 8:52 pm

    Richard O'Neill

    Although this is probably not the best place for a big discussion, I would agree that YUSU has to be independent and impartial. Look at our friend James here, as a potential BNP voter, the last thing I would want even if I despise his politics would be for him to feel alienated by the union because it’s anti-BNP.

    An anti-BNP campaign run unconnected with the union is fine though, as the union can still be inviting to all students regardless of political affilitions or whatever. Ultimately there has to be that seperation in order that students aren’t excluded from the union that is their right to have.

    The union will be here with the ebbs and flows of the global political environment as it changes and as such shouldn’t take sides. Just because people *really really* hate the BNP doesn’t change that.

    Reply Report

  31. 13 May ’09 at 10:17 pm

    Simon Whitten

    “It contravenes the NUS guidelines”

    The NUS has condemned the BNP repeatly and supports campaigns directed against them. As for the legal issues I’m sure if this could be interpreted as illegal action would have been taken against the NUS by now.

    Reply Report

  32. 13 May ’09 at 11:15 pm

    International/LGBT/Jew/Muslim student

    Richard you said: “the last thing I would would be for [James] to feel alienated by the union because it’s anti-BNP.”

    Well the last thing I would want would be for a dedicated racist to come to this university.

    Reply Report

  33. Simon, has it ever occurred to you that YUSU may be on a different legal standing to the NUS?

    Reply Report

  34. 14 May ’09 at 12:18 am

    Simon Whitten

    The NUS actively encourages its member Unions to affiliate to the UAF and a number of SU’s have already done so. YUSU is an anomaly in not campaigning against the BNP.

    Reply Report

  35. 14 May ’09 at 1:26 am

    Michael R.T.R. Child

    Just as with the Israel/Palestine debate where there are students affected by both sides of the argument: there may well be members of YUSU who support the BNP and the union has just as much responsibility to represent them as any other student regardless of how objectionable their beliefs may be. A campaign against a party may be seen as encouragement from the union to discriminate against student supporters of the BNP which then contravenes the union’s duties as a welfare provider.

    There’s a lot more I could say but most of it has already been said by others and this point had not been made.

    Essentially: to condemn racism/fascism is OK, to condemn a party is not.

    Also, as “Robocop” almost points out, the NUS is not a registered charity and as such is not subject to the same restrictions that its affiliated unions are regarding political campaigns.

    Reply Report

  36. “It is not true that Hitler lovers give the BNP a bad image?”

    Yes it is. However, Hitler lovers include their PARTY LEADER, their CANDIDATES, their PRESS AND PUBLICITY SPOKESMAN and I could go on naming people. That’s the issue.

    Now, I have no gripes with you if you are aware that they’re a Nazi party and still support them. That’s up to you. What I’m more concerned with is people who say “Ha, the News of the World are going on about them using guns. Obviously it’s all OTT so I’ll vote BNP” – but it isn’t. The fact that the crappest newspaper on the planet (and it really is worse than even the Daily Sport for quality of news stories – worse even than FOX and that’s saying something) is going on about the BNP makes people LIKE them. And that’s the issue.

    What’s important is making sure people understand that the BNP party have supporters of Hitler, terrorist members, Holocaust-deniers, homophobes, chauvinists and convicted racists RUNNING THE PARTY. If you then choose to vote for them, it’s up to you.

    But a word of caution: if you come to York, you will find that people here are very intolerant of racism, homophobia or sexism. If you are intending to come here and tell us that Islam is the biggest threat that the country has ever seen then you will find yourself in very hot water and I would suggest that another university would be good for you. Nottingham has racists and is a top 20 establishment if you want any recommendations. ((Note: Nottingham isn’t racist. But it has racists.))

    As for the other point. The NUS are running a terrible campaign. When Tom Scott told me what their plans were and what their posters said, etc., I knew that I for one definitely *didn’t* want to affiliate with their campaign. I have met with the local UAF and they seem pleasant – I would encourage those that wish to get involved to do so – but the Union’s priority should be in getting people out to vote.

    On the legalities front: it’s not illegal to condemn the BNP, tell people that there’s a chance of them winning and urge people to vote against them. It IS illegal to spend union funds on Hope Not Hate leaflets. It’s not illegal to tell people when the HNH rally is but it IS illegal to run it. Etc. Students can do anything they like within law so why not chat with all the people you know in the next few weeks and explain the situation?

    Reply Report

  37. Simon, Michael RTR Child is completely correct.

    Students’ Unions are okay to condemn the idea of ‘fascism’, whereas because Hope not Hate references a specific registered party, YUSU cannot support it. This is exactly what YUSU officers refer to in the article, but interestingly, Levene and members of Hope not Hate don’t seem to [want to] understand.

    NUS Guidance: “…this is permissible as long as there is no direct mention of a political party…”
    Sarah Fennell: “…were uniting against a political party…”

    Reply Report

  38. 14 May ’09 at 11:58 am

    Missing the point...

    I am surprised it hasn’t been mentioned but YUSU has active policy condemning the BNP…

    Also, most people referencing the law on this issue seem to be reading it as black and white when actually there are numerous grey areas with regards to what support YUSU can give HnH and ‘non-student’ organisations. Giving them money as part of a subscription is a big no no BUT YUSU can spend money on purchasing a reasonable amount of their resources for educational purposes.

    Also, YUSU could give grant money to an affiliated Hope Not Hate society, just in the same way that it can give grant money to a society for Tory, Labour, pro-palestine, people and planet, etc.

    People are confusing the legal and political sides of this argument and playing on general ignorance towards the law to use it as a tool for making an essentially political decision. YUSU would not have been violating the law by allowing HnH to leaflet the Roses closing ceremony. The decision was political and political decisons should be made at a UGM.
    I have read union publications out of York with page spreads on HnH and I don’t see the police knocking on their door.

    If York students vote and say they want nothing to do with HnH or other anti-racist groups, that’s fine. What isn’t fine is people/YUSU misusing (or perhaps being misinformed about) the law to block this debate from happening in the first place.

    SUs have a responsibility to ensure that the issues which impact on their membership are looked after at both an institutional and national level. In the same way that an SU could say ‘dont support parties which want to charge you more for your education’, they should be able to say ‘dont support parties that have racist and homophobic policies’.

    Reply Report

  39. “Also, most people referencing the law on this issue seem to be reading it as black and white when actually there are numerous grey areas with regards to what support YUSU can give HnH and ‘non-student’ organisations.”

    “YUSU would not have been violating the law by allowing HnH to leaflet the Roses closing ceremony. The decision was political and political decisons should be made at a UGM.””

    Clearly, those two statements are incongruent. Its a complex and unclear area, and an area where the wrong decision could put YUSU at a very real risk of legal action, and the financial implications of such legal action. Certainly there may be political elements, but where the line is drawn is not a political decision, it’s a legal one.

    Where there is legal risk, that liability is personally borne by the Trustees, it is totally ridiculous to suggest that a decision on such a complex, high profile legal issue, which presents such a risk should be made by a popular vote. The trustee board needs to take professional advice, and then make a decision based on that. The fact you think it’s ‘political’ and a matter of ‘doing what’s right’ rather than recognizing the actual risk demonstrates why it can’t go to a UGM.

    Reply Report

  40. 14 May ’09 at 2:21 pm

    Missing the point...

    No, I am saying there isn’t a legal risk in certain situations where it is being claimed that there is. e.g. handing out leaflets at Roses.

    The decision, in my opinion, not to allow leaflets to be handed out was a political one – YUSU felt that it wasn’t right to be allowing HnH to publicise it self at a union event. That was not a decision based on there being a legal risk. It was also not a decision made by the trustee board or backed up by professional advice.

    Please tell me where I advocated for a UGM to decide on legality? Nowhere. My reference to UGMs was that the debates outside of the law (should YUSU allow anti-BNP societies, should HnH be allowed to flyer people at events, etc – where there is no legal risk to YUSU) should be made democratically.

    As for the ‘very real risk of legal action’, care to tell me when the last time an SU was taken to court for making an ultra vires payment? Stop trying to create this impression that the BNP (or anybody) has lawyers waiting around the corner to take any SU that dare speak out against it to court. That is rubbish. Nothing that HnH have tried to do so far with YUSU has represented a legal risk. Those that state otherwise are either deliberately misleading students or mistaken.

    Reply Report

  41. Jason Rose:

    “Yes it is. However, Hitler lovers include their PARTY LEADER, their CANDIDATES, their PRESS AND PUBLICITY SPOKESMAN and I could go on naming people. That’s the issue.”

    I’d give 10-1 odds you can’t name a single BNP member that has openly supported Hitler in the past few years except Mark Collett, and all he’s done is stand in a few wards for election and lead the Youth BNP for a bit. He’s not a huge figure in the party but gets quoted all the time. Griffin, Darby, Barnbrook, Wingfield—> These are the main leadership.

    Of course, I can’t speak for every leader of every branch as I don’t know them all. On a national level there’s no Hitler supporters in the Party.

    The media can say what they like, but that’s a poor substitute for actually been in the Party and seeing for myself that they’re not like that.

    Furthermore, for 10 years now (since Griffin took over in 1999), the media has been following the BNP around, picking up on any non-media approved comments they say. I bet if someone followed you around for 10 years they’d eventually find you said something offensive to someone, somewhere. Now factor in they have 10000 members, and you’re bound to get a few oddballs quoted in the media saying stuff they shouldn’t.

    You say the News of the World doesn’t exagerrate- did you read the article? They were quite clearly saying the BNP were building a private army and “indoctrinating” (ha ha) 8 year olds.

    Newsflash: 8 year olds don’t go on camping trips without their parents consent. All this crap about how “your children could be next” is pure fantasy.

    Ultimately though, even if everything the media says about them was true (and I’m a member of the Party, so I know it isn’t), and Griffin really was just waiting for another opportunity to put on an SS uniform, democracy would end etc etc, I’d still vote for them over letting this country become an Arab majority state.

    Reply Report

  42. “I am surprised it hasn’t been mentioned but YUSU has active policy condemning the BNP”

    I’ve already mentioned that in fact, though I am not sure if that particular UGM is still active.

    “even if Griffin really was just waiting for another opportunity to put on an SS uniform, democracy would end etc etc, I’d still vote for them over letting this country become an Arab majority state.”

    James, it is clear that you are a dedicated nationalist who, in your own words, would choose Nazi rule over the ‘threat’ of cultural diversity. Your personal values are completely different to ours and as such we can have no serious discussion with you.

    Let me just tell you that if you do decide to come here then you should keep in mind that racist remarks are not tolerated in a university as multicultural as York. Feel free to be as much of a bigot as you wish, but you will simply not be allowed to insult students on the basis of their nationality, race, religious or sexual identities. Rather ironically, there’s a zero-tolerance policy on that and I can guarantee you that it will be applied to the last word.

    Reply Report

  43. James, what?

    “except Mark Collett, and all he’s done is stand in a few wards for election and lead the Youth BNP for a bit.”

    He’s the ****ING DIRECTOR OF PUBLICITY. What the hell do you think it is, a minor job in the back end of cornwall? How the hell is he irrelevant, because you know that you can’t defend him?

    Even still, Nick Griffin has said racist, extremist and historically inaccurate things. Saying “well, he’s obviously not racist because Islam really WILL tear this country apart” is not an argument – it simply proves that you, yourself, are racist (or religiousist: we’ve been through this argument before and it’s irrelevant – the signs are still hating a particular section of society without any real merit).

    “On a national level there’s no Hitler supporters in the Party.”

    Yes. The Director of Publicity is a national level job.

    And anyway, I bet I could dredge up stuff if it was necessary but it isn’t – the point isn’t that some of them support Hitler or that some of them have terrorist ties but that the party as a whole is so fundamentally corrupt, intolerant and fascist that each individual example is lost within the ocean of extremism.

    Reply Report

  44. Anyway, I’m backing out of this thread now. Someone feel free to keep quoting Nick Griffin et al until James stops trying to explain to us that racism is acceptable for a political party..!

    Reply Report

  45. Jason Rose:

    “He’s the ****ING DIRECTOR OF PUBLICITY. What the hell do you think it is, a minor job in the back end of cornwall? How the hell is he irrelevant, because you know that you can’t defend him?”

    He’s said some pretty stupid things that would have best been said off camera or even better, not said at all. He’s not “irrelevant”, but he sure isn’t part of the core leadership, and given the top-down way the BNP decides on issues, with Griffin having the final say in all policy matters, he really doesn’t have any power at all. Someone like Wingfield, who is the editor of the BNP newspaper holds far more power as he can effectively communicate party messages to supporters every month.

    Even so, it’s hardly any worse than what the Lib/Lab/Con front benchers get up to, or the antics of some anti-BNP associations. For example Gerry Gable, the editor of Searchlight magazine, is a convicted burglar. The Hope not Hate campaign is basically run by Searchlight, and only a couple of months back, they attacked a BNP member with a claw hammer.

    Can you imagine the outrage if a BNP member attacked a Hope not Hate campaigner with a claw hammer?

    As for a nice long list of crime committed by the Lib/Lab/Con/UKIP MEP’s, MP’s, and councilors, check this website out:

    http://liarsbuggersandthieves.blogspot.com/

    Every single story on there has a link to a “mainstream” newspaper or broadcast confirming the allegations. None of this is ever brought up when the other parties are out campgining, yet the media have some fascination about dredging up quotes (yep, just words, not actions) by BNP members from 10 years ago or more.

    “Even still, Nick Griffin has said racist, extremist and historically inaccurate things. Saying “well, he’s obviously not racist because Islam really WILL tear this country apart” is not an argument – it simply proves that you, yourself, are racist (or religiousist: we’ve been through this argument before and it’s irrelevant – the signs are still hating a particular section of society without any real merit).”

    Real merit? I suspect you’ve never lived in a majority Arab area like I have! Nick Griffin is a realist. The Arab population is reproducing at a rate of 10x that of the white British population. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where this is heading, and I for one to not wish to live in a majority Arab state. Ideally, yes, they would all be deported, as they should never have being allowed here to begin with. This is happening all over Europe, and if the Arabs are allowed to succeed, then the world will fall into a new dark age. Invite too many third worlders here, and your country becomes part of the third world.

    “And anyway, I bet I could dredge up stuff if it was necessary but it isn’t – the point isn’t that some of them support Hitler or that some of them have terrorist ties but that the party as a whole is so fundamentally corrupt, intolerant and fascist that each individual example is lost within the ocean of extremism.”

    Ocean of extremism? You’ve named one person (Collett) who’s said anything extremist in the past 10 years. Hardly qualifies as an ocean.

    Not to say there isn’t an ocean of extremism mind you, but it isn’t in the BNP. It’s in the One Party (Lib/Lab/Con) who are multikult anti-white fanatics.

    Reply Report

  46. “He’s said some pretty stupid things that would have best been said off camera or even better, not said at all.”

    So being a Nazi is in fact acceptable as long as it can’t be broadcast on national television. Thank you for that insightful remark James.

    “The Arab population is reproducing at a rate of 10x that of the white British population. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where this is heading, and I for one to not wish to live in a majority Arab state. Ideally, yes, they would all be deported, as they should never have being allowed here to begin with. This is happening all over Europe, and if the Arabs are allowed to succeed, then the world will fall into a new dark age.”

    “You’ve named one person (Collett) who’s said anything extremist in the past 10 years. Hardly qualifies as an ocean.”

    Aren’t you kinda undermining your own point?

    Reply Report

  47. Save this argument for the campaign trail, Gents. This article isn’t about whether the BNP are any good or not, or whether we should vote for them or not.

    Its about whether an apolitical union can endorse a campaign for or against a party. And I think it’s clear that the union shouldn’t get involved in this campaign for three main reasons.

    Firstly this isn’t a student specific issue, it’s a nationwide issue. Anti-BNP campaigns won’t have much effect on campus because I suspect very few students are likely to vote BNP in the first place. The areas where the BNP will win votes are in communities comprised of mainly C2 and below “class”, often with a high number of rented or housing association properties, high unemployment, high crime rates, poor services and a sense of aggrevation that their areas have been forgotten. There are places in York which possess some of these qualities, and most of them are a good few miles away from the university. Focusing on campus (and involving the SU) misses the target audience of this kind of campaign.

    Secondly the BNP would take a lot away from it. I guarantee a BNP statement would be issued as soon as YUSU support this campaign; something along the lines of “out of touch leftist bourgeois rich-kids attack the party who stand up for working people” or “Nazi union hates freedom of speech – don’t let them tell you how to vote”. Union backing really would play into the hands of the ‘anti-politics’ BNP. Seems a bit condescending too.

    Thirdly, it sets an ugly precedent. How many bad things can we ‘unite against’ with union backing? If ‘unite against fascism’ against the BNP gets union support, I’d fully expect an anti-labour campaign called ‘unite against debt’ to get student union support. How about Rock against Recession? Unite against airport expansion? Love music hate dodgy expenses claims?

    How does the union come up with a hierarchy of ‘badness’ to decide which bad things we should unite against? It’d be horribly inconsistent for YUSU to campaign against the BNP but refuse to campaign against labour or the tories if somebody suggested it.

    Best of luck to all parties and campaigners trying to keep the BNP idiots as far away from power as possible (not that they do anything when they’re in office – http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-councillors.php). Just make sure your efforts aren’t wasted. Target town, not campus, don’t be condescending and accept that people will have different views, and are entitled to hold them.

    Reply Report

  48. I repeat to you again what’s already been said: there is no place for your rascist and bigotted views at this University. It’s a shame that you’re obviously intelligent enough to get into this University, yet unable to discern rascist propaganda. It’s people like you who should be deported. What this country has to worry about is not Islam, but your (and the BNP’s) deeply hateful views.

    Reply Report

  49. The Union does, as has already been mentioned, have a motion passed which commits the union to condemning the policies of the BNP. I can definitely confirm this is still active policy.

    What law are we in danger of breaking? There is no legal issue preventing such a statement, and no legal reason preventing the political leafleting of a sporting event (despite people’s hysteria about politics getting in the way of sport, this isn’t a legal issue – if I want to hand out flyers for anything after a football match I can). Unions ARE political organisations, there is no getting away from it.

    There is, however, a constitutional rule that the UGM is a consultation of the sovreign body, and as such ranks any decision taken in Council (or whatever you crazy kids are calling it these days). Council should not have taken a vote on it – it is not their place. Elected student representatives are there to act on policies that have been voted for, not decide which bits it wants to follow.

    All UGM motions go through rules committee before going to the vote, if there were a serious, genuine legal issue it would have been picked up on then. This motion in particular underwent quite a bit of scrutiny.

    Regardless of what a few people cloistered in a room drunk on their own sense of self-importance say, the Union does and already has publicly condemned the BNP. The Union officers should either comply with active policy, or, if they find themselves unable to do so, resign.

    Reply Report

  50. 15 May ’09 at 10:44 am

    The Ironyator

    “Your personal values are completely different to ours and as such we can have no serious discussion with you.”

    “I repeat to you again what’s already been said: there is no place for your rascist and bigotted views at this University. It’s people like you who should be deported.”

    Do you really not see the irony of campaigning for tolerance of differing values by attacking people for their beliefs?

    Reply Report

  51. Ironyator:

    It is not untrue that rascist and offensive behaviour/attitude are not tolerated at this University. Regardless of how YUSU decided to act on this issue, the students are clearly united against the rascist/homophobic/sexist views held by fascist organisations such as the BNP, and in doing so condemn the beliefs of its supporters. Moreover, the University obviously does not support those who discriminate against others on the basis of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender, which is why the University has an Equality and Diversity Policy.

    As far as ‘attacking people for their beliefs’ is concerned (which, by the way, is as emotive and extreme an expression as the ones you’re trying to so cleverly condemn), I don’t think that telling someone that their rascism and bigotry will not be accepted at a University that condemns rascism and bigotry is really anything to gawp at.

    While the quote seems extreme out of context, the ‘if anyone should be deported it’s you’ line was more a response to James’ claim that ‘Ideally, yes, they [Arabs] would all be deported’. Not to suggest that he should be literally removed from the country for his beliefs, but to use his own extreme language to express that hateful attitudes, such as his, pose a greater threat to British culture than Islam, Arabs, or any other minorities that the BNP try to scapegoat.

    Reply Report

  52. All a waste of time. Campaign for what you stand for, don’t campaign for what you don’t stand for. Get it!

    Reply Report

  53. Cider, I stand for tolerance, which is thankfully at odds with racism and sexism. I would be perfectly willing to tolerate those too, as with any kind of difference, but the thing is that it doesn’t really work the other way.

    I also expect my student union to respect my vote. If there is active policy then officers are OBLIGED to follow it, or simply resign. I will make sure a no-confidence motion is put forward if the student union continues ignoring the opinion of the students it is supposed to represent.

    Reply Report

  54. @xx

    Eh?

    Which officers and which active policy are they not following?

    Reply Report

  55. Presumably they’re referring to http://www.yusu.org/union/motion/159/. Which is incredibly vaguely worded.

    If taken by word, YUSU would have to condemn the Greenpeace anti-whaling campaign and the RSPCA’s campaign against docking of dog tails (both of which the BNP have policy supporting – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670574.stm) and the British organic farming industry (http://bnp.org.uk/policies/agriculture/), which I’m fairly sure was not the intention.

    I’m slightly concerned I’m going to get jumped on for not slamming the BNP in my comment – I do think they’re a reprehensible party whose policies on immigration, “Britishness”, etc, are moronic, but I’m also concerned with not very well thought out UGM motions getting passed.

    Reply Report

  56. “If taken by word, YUSU would have to condemn the Greenpeace anti-whaling campaign and the RSPCA’s campaign against docking of dog tails (both of which the BNP have policy supporting – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670574.stm) and the British organic farming industry (http://bnp.org.uk/policies/agriculture/), which I’m fairly sure was not the intention.”

    LOL, the Irony being that presumably that choice of wording was specifically designed to stop short of condemning ‘The BNP’ as a group or party!

    Totally agree on the second point.

    Reply Report

  57. 16 May ’09 at 3:10 pm

    Missing the point...

    From the motion:

    Union Believes

    (iii) That the BNP’s views on the LGBT community are discriminatory.
    (iv) That the BNP’s views on faith and race are discriminatory.
    (v) That the BNP is a fascist organisation that discriminates on terms of race, sexuality and faith.
    (vi) That the BNP’s policies contravene the equal opportunities policy of the University of York Students’ Union.

    Sounds like YUSU should be doing something about these guys as the students decided that the BNP’s actions contravene the aims and objectives of the union.

    Reply Report

  58. James, I’m incredibly concerned of the fact that you are planning on coming to this University. Racism will not be tolerated here and I am certain that you will find it out extremely quickly. Nonetheless;

    “given the top-down way the BNP decides on issues, with Griffin having the final say in all policy matters”

    So the ENTIRE POLICY has been controlled by a holocaust-denier? By a convicted racist? By someone who has actively been banned by a number of local Councils? That’s COMPLETELY REASSURING. Thanks for letting me know.

    Reply Report

  59. There seems to be some confusion here: a “policy” is a plan of action adopted by a group or individual to do something specific. The fact that the BNP supports something does not make it BNP policy.

    The Statement of Belief passed by YUSU last year – at a time when there was talk of a BNP lecture on campus- makes it our policy to condemn BNP policies, NOT the BNP itself.

    This means that YUSU condemns – and could probably campaign against – BNP policies such as repatriation but cannot “Fight the BNP” or suchlike.

    Reply Report

  60. George:

    “So being a Nazi is in fact acceptable as long as it can’t be broadcast on national television. Thank you for that insightful remark James.”

    Collett’s personal opinions on WW2 and Hitler are entirely his own, and do not reflect the BNP or any BNP policies. Beyond that, anyone who supports the BNP should be allowed in- political parties always cover a broad spectrum of people. On the “hardline” side of the BNP you have the likes of Collett and Edmonds. On the “moderate” side you’ll have the likes of Barnbrook and Darby. The thing Collett should have considered is that expressing support for Hitler is not going to be a vote winner except among other Hitler admirers, and let’s face it, they probably vote BNP anyway.

    “Aren’t you kinda undermining your own point?”

    Well, no ones given any name other than Mark Collett who’s said anything “extremist” in the past 10 years, although I suspect what you would qualify as “extremist” is different from what I would. I would consider preserving the White majority of the UK to be common sense- maybe you don’t?

    Disbelief:

    “I repeat to you again what’s already been said: there is no place for your rascist and bigotted views at this University. It’s a shame that you’re obviously intelligent enough to get into this University, yet unable to discern rascist propaganda. It’s people like you who should be deported. What this country has to worry about is not Islam, but your (and the BNP’s) deeply hateful views.”

    Maybe it is you who has been unable to discern propaganda when it is in your face? Such as, for instance, the propaganda put out by the BBC and the newspapers about how “diversity” is great, and “multiculturalism” is to be praised?

    I’ll tell you now, what the BNP say about Muslims, is not even half as “hateful” as what the Koran says about non-Muslims. If I were to go out on the street and speak about Muslims the way their book speaks about me, I’d probably be locked up (hell, I even surf the internet behind a proxy nowadays, as you never know when the Labour Party thought police are going to be watching).

    Maybe you can ignore the demographic explosion of the Arab population, and pretend that it is no threat to this island, but I for one cannot, and will not. Perhaps you can happily ignore the fact Blacks commit far more crime as a percentage of their population than Whites, but I will not. Perhaps you think mass immigration has helped out economy, but I do not, and will never believe, that “progress” is only measured in GDP.

    As for “no place for racism and fascism”- everywhere the BNP stands for election, that same line is pedelled. However in the last 41 by-elections, the BNP vote has averaged 17%. Now you may say “see, that proves 83% of people reject your message”. However what you then wouldn’t be considering is the fact the BNP is run on grassroots donations and has very little money to run big campaigns as a consequence, and is often not able to reply to smear stories in newspapers and the press because of the lack of said money to run big campaigns to get the truth out. 17% is a massive total considering the circumstances. Obviously the Euro Elections are being contested in order to provide us with the money we need- maybe we will get it, maybe we won’t.

    Jason Rose:

    “So the ENTIRE POLICY has been controlled by a holocaust-denier? By a convicted racist? By someone who has actively been banned by a number of local Councils? That’s COMPLETELY REASSURING. Thanks for letting me know.”

    Well it is now, although the meat-and-potatoes of the manifesto was written before Griffin took over. Griffin has only actually exerted his “control” to change one BNP policy- instead of “compulsory” repatriation, it’s now “firm but voluntary”. There’s also been a couple of expansions of the manifesto such as the Fisheries and Agricultural policy, but nothing that anyone could find “offensive”, unless you’re a die-hard supporter of building lots of houses in the countryside.

    Griffin is an ex-holocaust denier. On the Politics Show on BBC1 a few days ago he admitted “millions” of Jews were killed. Regardless, even if he is still a holocaust denier, but just keeps such opinions to himself now, it wouldn’t affect his ability to be an MEP, MP, govern the BNP, or even be Prime Minister, as no policy whatsoever is based on the holocaust these days, apart from Foreign Aid policy which Griffin plans to withdraw universally anyway, not just from Israel.

    As for being a “convicted” racist, I do not consider what Griffin did to be a crime, even though the government of Britain considers it so. All “hate-speech” laws are a violation of human rights in my eyes. Griffin was not “convicted” of anything, except having a different opinion to the ruling elite. But yes, he’s a racist, I’m a racist, most members of the BNP would be racists in your eyes, but what you would define as racism I (and the BNP) would define as “common sense”. How one can look at the world of today and not notice differences in race, I find quite frankly bizzare.

    Reply Report

  61. James:

    “The thing Collett should have considered is that expressing support for Hitler is not going to be a vote winner except among other Hitler admirers, and let’s face it, they probably vote BNP anyway.”

    So the problem here is purely tactical in your opinion. Right.

    “I would consider preserving the White majority of the UK to be common sense – maybe you don’t?”

    No I do not.

    In fact, I think that discriminating on the basis of a person’s race and skin colour is the exclusive province of sad and pathetic creatures who have achieved nothing in their lives that is worth to be proud of and so resort to diminishing those around them, on the grounds of them being inherently ‘inferior’, in order for them to feel slightly better about their miserable existence.

    Did I get my point across?

    If not, perhaps you should read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/18/charlie-brooker-bnp-racism

    Reply Report

  62. People are constructing an arbitrary distinction between local, student body issues and ‘national politics’.

    It’d be like a trade union suggesting it should only engage with improving the immediate conditions and wages of its members in one factory, without consideration for campaigning to change laws or vote in parties who would provide a more favorable atmosphere for their work. The wider situation feeds in to the particular; the two cannot be so cleanly divided or extricated from one another.

    So there is no such thing as ‘apolitical activity’ for groups like unions; the decision to sit on one’s hands in a situation is a wholly political decision, an abdication from the union’s duty to its members.

    The fact is if BNP representatives were elected for areas in which York students, including international students, dwell then those students would find themselves living in a more hostile atmosphere, with potentially dangerous consequences. It would make living in York more difficult for many students, and put many more off applying, and that is directly a student issue.

    The NUS has a very long and proud history of anti-fascism, and indeed encourages other unions to engage in such activity – and many in exactly the same position as YUSU do so just fine.

    The Ultra Vires thing has been used by conservative unions to avoid engaging in action for decades, and its always been bogus; this has been exacerbated in recent years by the reorganization (sorry, “modernization”) of unions by management consultants to be less like representative bodies and more like mini-quangos with their arcane ‘governance’ structures and bureaucratic mechanisms, considering ‘risk’ like insurance brokers rather than engaging in political representation of the will of the student voting body.

    This trend has been driven by an alliance between conservative students, who have always objected to all student campaigning, with the wave of Blairite careerism that swept student politics from the 90s onward: suited up mini-Blairs aspiring to get on the conveyor belt from university to Westminister, triangulating to ‘Third Ways’ and a/post-political ‘pragmatic responsibility’.

    This phenomenon particularly afflicts Labour students, but is now also reproduced in so-called apolitical ‘Independents’, who in practice are triangulating Blairites par excellence – “for the know not what they do…”

    Needless to say this is further exacerbated by the incompetence of YUSU itself, whose personnel – including a lamentable President elected on the basis of a contentless anti-politics as a Pirate, yet without even the guts to stick with his persona since it wouldn’t be ‘responsible’ (!) – are just such ‘post-political’ people, playing mock civil servant, afraid to actual engage in political work to improve the lives of the student body in case they look too bolshy to their future employers.

    Reply Report

  63. Just had a quick gander at the official BNP website, and amongst the unworkable policies on repatriation, capital punishment, national service and gun ownership I found this rather interesting statement:

    “Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people.
    We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.”

    I wonder if a body like the SU would be allowed to use the word ‘fascist’ to describe the party when they have issued a statement claiming they are democrats? Would the union not be in hot water if a BNP lawyer decides we have defamed them by using the word ‘fascist’?

    Obviously their idea of rights is probably going to be very different from the norm, and i’m sure they would only apply to a slender minority of pure-blood englishmen. But with a statement like that as official policy, I wonder whether they could take issue with the union for using ‘fascist’ as a description.

    Reply Report

  64. “Well, no ones given any name other than Mark Collett who’s said anything “extremist” in the past 10 years, although I suspect what you would qualify as “extremist” is different from what I would”

    I think that saying the 6 million Jews that died in WWII weren’t really dead and that the whole thing was actually a Jewish conspiracy could qualify as “extremist”, as would “involuntary repatriation”… though 4th generation Pakistani citizens whos grandparents were born in Bristol are hardly likely to find repatriation to be defined as anything but moving them about the UK.

    And I do find your admittance of being “racist” and saying it’s “common sense” to be very concerning. Not least because racism is illegal in the UK.

    “I wonder whether they could take issue with the union for using ‘fascist’ as a description.” I don’t know if the Union have used the term. The fact that they claim to be supportive of grass-roots democracy is interesting though, because it is indeed counter to the standard fascist position. Fascism by nature should realistically support hierarchies as well as the other authoritarian and ideological norms. Even still, their focus is on the “cleaning up” of the “British race” and that is most definitely a fascist policy. Granted that the phrase “fascist” isn’t fully explanatory but there isn’t any other mainstream political ideology that realistically covers it. The closest besides fascism would be neoliberalism, to be honest.

    Reply Report

  65. I’d hardly say neoliberalism is the closest thing to the BNP except for fascism.

    Traditional neoliberalism (or economic liberalism, as opposed to social liberalism) encourages the free movement of goods, capital and labour – meaning skilled immigrants are perceived as an economic benefit, not a hindrance and should be encouraged. Similarly neoliberals advocate free trade agreements, including the EU.

    Similarly neoliberalism does not promote a big state. The BNP’s policies on race, security, ‘britishness’, fiscal policy and the EU all suggest a much larger centralised authoritarian state. Neoliberals argue for rolling back the state.

    The BNP seem to be at the core authoritarian socialists, with a strong state and control over the economy and labour markets and excessive invasion into private activity (known muslims would not be allowed to fly into britain – how do they know who a muslim is without spying?). Many of their policies are socialist in nature as long as the recipient of welfare is a white person with pure english heritage. (I doubt many socialists will agree that you can pick and choose who is supported though!)
    It is the social extreme conservatism that gives them the ‘far right’ label, not their economic policies. I’d say racial socialist or authoritarian racial socialist is probably the best description. (or of course national ‘nazi’ socialist).

    ‘Neo’ or traditional, there’s absolutely nothing liberal about the BNP.

    And to the idiot who tried to equate racism with common sense – it’s clearly not that common. Just ask the 99% of the population who don’t vote BNP.

    Reply Report

  66. jason rose. are you not a YUSU elected official, is it not your duty to help and support all students without bias, from the way you have been speaking to james i would say your not acting without bias. You clearly have a problem with his political beliefs, and this is an issue, your seem intent on putting him of from coming to this uni.

    Would you for example do this to a foreign student who holds different politcial beliefs to you say a pro-Hamas student who is anti-jew? James is entitled to his political opinion and it is YUSU’s duty to support him without bias. The contempt he is seeing in this forum is disgusting, and i for one feel the need to apologies for you the whole student body does not share jason rose’s opinions and you are more than welcome to come to york.

    I now few that i may be type casted as a racist BNP lover, but im not, i have no interset in politics just in equality and fairness. and from what im seeing james is being persecuted, due to his beliefs. This in my opinion is a form of political racism, the thing you say your trying to stop the bnp doing!!!

    Reply Report

  67. “The BNP seem to be at the core authoritarian socialists, with a strong state and control over the economy and labour markets and excessive invasion into private activity”

    Unlike what you seem to think, Marx actually advocated the devolvement of the state and the decentralisation of power.

    In truth, the BNP are neither ‘neoliberal’ nor ‘socialists’ (anyone said ‘equality’?), they are in fact radical statist reactionists.

    Reply Report

  68. Anon:

    No it is not YUSU’s duty to ‘support’ a dedicated racist.

    The fact that he may have the right to hold his beliefs (which in my opinion he does) does not somehow mean that we should be agreeing with him, or that we should not be challenging those views. Especially given that those views deliberately spread spread hatred against a very large part of the student body.

    Spreading racial hatred is in fact a criminal offense (according to the Criminal Justice and Public Order act of 1994), and it is directly against YUSU’s values, principles and objectives – that is, to protect the welfare of its members.

    In other words, implying that YUSU should stand up for a student racist is the logical equivalent of saying that it should stand up for a student rapist.

    Reply Report

  69. anon: Jason Rose is the YUSU Campaigns Officer and I think he was mandated to encourage students to register to vote. It is a shame others on campus haven’t been as active to encourage students to vote in forthcoming elections, regardless of political belief.

    Increases in the number of students voting in national elections would result in ‘student issues’ gaining more weight in politics. Key issues such as tuition fees would no longer be pushed back to being a post-election debate.

    Reply Report

  70. He’s not a student, he’s a member of the public. YUSU has no duty to him.

    Reply Report

  71. “jason rose. are you not a YUSU elected official, is it not your duty to help and support all students without bias, from the way you have been speaking to james i would say your not acting without bias. You clearly have a problem with his political beliefs, and this is an issue, your seem intent on putting him of from coming to this uni.”

    A) He is not a student, so I would guess that the tone of that point is dulled slightly – I’m not intent on putting him off from coming to this university but rather intent on putting him off from being racist. People DIE from racism and I think that it’s quite an important point.

    B) I have no duty to support all students without bias in their political beliefs – I have a duty to support and help protect students from harm and to help them gain access to all rights: in this case I would suggest that the important point is making sure that people have the right to walk about their business without being discriminated against for something outside of their control… a person’s beliefs can be condemned (though they should not *suffer* as a result) but a person’s race should never be condemned.

    C) You say I clearly have a problem with his political beliefs and that this is an issue: I would point out that, because of law, I had to declare on my nomination form for Campaigns Officer that I am a member of the Labour Party. The fact that I oppose many Labour actions, etc., is irrelevant – the point was that people could have chosen to decide I was too partisan and they did not.

    If any individuals at this university have a problem with the way I act, I would encourage them to talk personally (and confidentially) with Charlie Leyland (Welfare), Rory Shanks (Communications), Matt Burton (Services) or Tom Scott (President) and if it’s a major concern, the press will always take stories (where it can be verified that it’s not libel).

    And, also, I am always happy to try and address concerns that people have: what I try to do in my life is help others as far as possible – it is for this reason that I oppose the BNP, oppose racism and oppose sexism, homophobia etc. It is this reason that I ran for Campaigns Officer, am stewarding until the early hours on Saturday night and am up early on Sunday morning to prepare for York Carnival etc. (which may give me little sleep) – and, most importantly, it is this which, I believe, makes me good at what I do. If I ever get to the stage in my life where I am not willing to take constructive criticism then there are greater concerns than isolating a potential student.

    I would also like to state, definitively, that I am not commenting on behalf of the Union or even in my capacity as Campaigns Officer – I am commenting as someone who spent all day Saturday and all day Sunday sat in a room on campus without the internet despite having assignments due in this week and a yearbook to write because I care about people, their rights and the upcoming elections – and due to a combination of misfortunes I was not able to implement the four weeks of postering and preparation that I had intended so took it on myself to sit in a closed bar for an entire weekend. Hence my validity to comment, especially as someone who knows a lot about the BNP, a lot about YUSU and was present in the Union Council meeting. If you don’t like the person that I am, I am sorry – the majority voted for me. If you have think that I, as myself, am a danger to anyone then I would urge you to talk to myself or YUSU about it. Cheers.

    “This in my opinion is a form of political racism, the thing you say your trying to stop the bnp doing”

    No. I’m saying that *forcefully evicting 6th generation immigrants from our country regardless of the situation that they are being thrown to, their likelihood of dying or of being tortured etc. and believing that people of another race are inferior* is something to condemn – and I would not say that suggesting racism is wrong is equivalent to saying that black people are inferior… and I really, honestly, can’t see how anyone would comment the same – especially under the guise of anon and with what are probably deliberate typos. I’m happy to talk out any issues; doing so from behind a mask makes it more difficult for me to communicate with you. And please don’t attack me personally, even if what you believe I am doing is wrong – I’m not saying you did; actually, your comment was one of the most polite criticisms I’ve received on the internet; but it’s just a general point :)

    Reply Report

  72. George:

    “So the problem here is purely tactical in your opinion. Right.”

    Of course. Mark Collett can hold whatever views he likes providing he doesn’t bring the BNP into disrepute, which is what happened here. At the end of the day though, there’s no need to start disguising policies or the vision the BNP has for Britain. Unlike “modern” politicians, we say what we want in very clear, easy to understand language. Do I agree that Churchill was a “cunt” who “led us into a war with other Whites standing up for their race”? Not really- the war was a disaster for White people worldwide of which Churchill had a part to play in its continuation, but no more so than any other leader at the time, including the leaders of the Axis. And of course, hindsight is 20/20- I’m sure Churchill never once imagined that this nation would be invaded by non-White races in the future. Much as leftist cranks like to say otherwise, non-white immigration was not even an issue in Europe at the time, as there were sensible leaders in charge who did not allow it. We did not fight a war to allow millions of third-worlders to reside in these lands. We didn’t fight a war against racism. We fought a war because it was felt it was neccesary for Britain’s safety.

    “No I do not.

    In fact, I think that discriminating on the basis of a person’s race and skin colour is the exclusive province of sad and pathetic creatures who have achieved nothing in their lives that is worth to be proud of and so resort to diminishing those around them, on the grounds of them being inherently ‘inferior’, in order for them to feel slightly better about their miserable existence.”

    You got that from the television, yep? Because I could swear I’ve read/heard/seen that exact same argument a few hundred times while posting on the internet or campaigning with the BNP.

    I could easily counter your argument by pointing out many great men who were racists- an example of such would be Henry Ford. However never do anti-racists ever try and defend their position that racists have an innate sense of inferiority. Given that “he who asserts must prove”, the onus is on the anti-racists to prove such a statement. They never do, as the whole thing is just fed to them via the media and doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

    A.Poliitcian:

    “Obviously their idea of rights is probably going to be very different from the norm, and i’m sure they would only apply to a slender minority of pure-blood englishmen.”

    I know this wasn’t exactly the point you were driving at, but the fact is that most British are indeed of pure blood (80% r1b haplogroup), and obviously these rights would apply to the (for now) overwhelmingly white majority of the UK.

    “It is the social extreme conservatism that gives them the ‘far right’ label, not their economic policies. I’d say racial socialist or authoritarian racial socialist is probably the best description. (or of course national ‘nazi’ socialist).

    ‘Neo’ or traditional, there’s absolutely nothing liberal about the BNP.

    And to the idiot who tried to equate racism with common sense – it’s clearly not that common. Just ask the 99% of the population who don’t vote BNP.”

    Agreed with the first point. I’d describe myself as a racial socialist (but not a national socialist as that brings up parallels with Hitler, who was not really a socialist at all. ).

    The BNP are not liberals in the sense that they will “tolerate” (how I hate that word) anything in the name of “human rights”, but they are in other respects, such as believing in individual communities to decide how their tax money is allocated, and introducing direct-democracy ala Switzerland, as well as restoring freedom of speech to this country and getting rid of the mass of state surveilance the Labour Party has imposed upon Britain. The “modern liberal” is generally anything but- believes in tolerance except when someone disagrees with him or her, which of course is not truly liberal at all.

    Racism is indeed common sense. Just ask the people of South Africa how their country turned out when handed over to the blacks. 40% have already emigrated from that country since the end of Aparthied. More murders are carried out in Pretoria every day than in Baghdad (a war zone!). The blacks kill the white farmers then complain they have nothing to eat.

    And it’s not like you can say it’s because of poverty either. The fact remains that the blacks took over the same South Africa, with the same natural resources and land that the whites ruled, and they messed it up. Big time. Their country has masses of diamond mines, yet they fail to create a first world country.

    This situation has been replicated across the whole of black Africa- go a little further north and we run into Zimbarbwe, where Mugabe is putting the South African “government” to shame when it comes to mass killings. What was once known as the breadbasket of Africa now is a net importer of food!

    There is simple no explanation for this other than racial differences. South Africa has shown us it’s not about class or poverty, but about race. Africa may have been occupied by foreign powers, but even Ethiopia who was only occupied for a mere 5 years is staring down the barrel of starvation. Poland was occupied by Germany for 5 years in WW2, and the Germans committed far worse acts upon the Poles than the European did to the Africans, yet lo and behold, Poland still has a far higher living standard than any African country. This is because Poles are white and can thus make the best out of bad situations, and strike to improve their lives, unlike the black African, who will bite the hand that feeds him then cry for more aid from the west.

    It is clear to see where Mark Collett was coming from when he said AIDS is a friendly disease. When I look at the atrocities pepetuated against white people in non-white majority nations, it is hard not to feel a sense of hatred, and believe that Africa is only now getting its just desserts.

    I think you know the BNP’s support base is quite a bit higher than 1% of this country. We got 4.9% at the last European Election, which provides a far greater test of how the public really think that the undemocratic first past the post system in the General Election.

    George:

    “No it is not YUSU’s duty to ’support’ a dedicated racist.

    The fact that he may have the right to hold his beliefs (which in my opinion he does) does not somehow mean that we should be agreeing with him, or that we should not be challenging those views. Especially given that those views deliberately spread spread hatred against a very large part of the student body.

    Spreading racial hatred is in fact a criminal offense (according to the Criminal Justice and Public Order act of 1994), and it is directly against YUSU’s values, principles and objectives – that is, to protect the welfare of its members.

    In other words, implying that YUSU should stand up for a student racist is the logical equivalent of saying that it should stand up for a student rapist.”

    First off- “very large” part of the student body. Having been to York a few times, and visited the university once, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a less racially diverse place, with the possible exception of some areas to the South West of Britain. You’re kidding yourself if you actually think it’s “very large”- go down to Bradford and discover for yourself what a very large amount of foreigners looks like.

    As for your rant about laws- an unjust law is not a law. All race hate laws ever passed are null and void, falling foul of the universal and God-given right to freedom of speech, which cannot be taken away by any legitimate government. The fact that the police force is basically the military wing of whichever political party is in power and thus some things have to be said anonymously, or toned down when in public, does not mean any of the speech crime laws are legitimate in any way, shape or form. To use an event that anti-racists love to keep dragging up- it’s the equivilant of saying thr holocaust was legimitate and perfectly acceptable, as the government of Germany had given it the green light to go ahead.

    Jason Rose:

    “No. I’m saying that *forcefully evicting 6th generation immigrants from our country regardless of the situation that they are being thrown to, their likelihood of dying or of being tortured etc. and believing that people of another race are inferior* is something to condemn – and I would not say that suggesting racism is wrong is equivalent to saying that black people are inferior… ”

    The fact is that all immigration from 1948 onwards was done without the consent of the british people, so all immigrants and their descendants must be removed immediately. Nowhere in any Labour or Conservative manifesto did they say they were going to import a bunch of third-worlders over here, and when they did, it was made clear that the vast majority of people wanted it to stop- indeed, despite a massive brainwashing campaign to persuade people to think “multiculturalism” (aka racial genocide) is something to be celebrated, according to the Telegraph a day ago, 70% of Britons (and given that the non-white percentage of the population is about 15%, we can conclude it’s actually 85% of Britons) want a drastic cut in the levels of immigration.

    As to whether blacks are inferior or not, I will admit my judgement is clouded by my own bias on this issue, so much so that it’s difficult to think about the situation in a balanced way. The simple fact is that I’ve done much research into modern South Africa on my own initiative, and have read accounts from white people who lived (and in some cases, still do live) there- how they must put up with Black Economic Enpowerment (basically affirmative action, despite whites being in the minority there!), have their farms burnt down, their protperty stolen, and in many cases with regard to young females, to be raped because the backward Negroes believe it will cure them of AIDS (an alternative to Jacob Zuma’s suggestion that having a shower after sexual intercourse was a sure way to prevent the spread of AIDS) and have therefore gone on in some cases to contract the virus themselves. I have also met a South African currently living here in the UK, whos brother was killed by blacks in a farm raid.

    About all I could honestly said is that one could think different beings are superior in different ways. Afterall, I can crush a spider with the tips of my fingers- but I cannot spin webs. Which skill is most important depends on your perspective. I do not deny that I view the greater intelligent of the white people as more important than the increased strength of blacks. How can one not consider them inferior, in light of all that has transpired in Africa over the past 100 years or so, as well as them accounting for a disproportionate level of crime here in the UK and in the USA.

    Reply Report

  73. 22 May ’09 at 11:50 am

    Lowering standards

    Wow, if this James bloke can get in to York, perhaps all this talk of lowering academic standards due to Hes East are true?

    Reply Report

  74. James, you’re obviously, as had been said before, quite dedicated to racism and I don’t expect to be able to change your mind through argument on this forum as your attitudes are clearly quite deeply ingrained. Instead I would suggest, even implore, that you learn the fallacies and moral failings of racism through your own experience. Go out and actually spend some time interacting with people of other races, experience the multicultural society that seems to terrify you. What you will find is that the racial differences that you allege simply do not exist. Anyone who spends meaningful time doing this with an open mind, rather than blindfolded fear an hatred will find that there is as much variety in people of other races as there is in whites. They are not, as you suggest, less intelligent or inherently criminal. Just as with white people some are intelligent, kind, law-abiding etc. and some are not. Although, given your attitudes, I can’t understand why you want to go to any university where you will have to interact with people who you think are inferior to you and I agree with others that your attitudes will not be welcome here, I sincerely hope that you will, either in university or elsewhere, gain the experience I have mentioned and realise the errors in your racist ideas.

    I will just say one thing about South Africa though as I, unlike you, have not just read accounts but actually been there. It is overwhelmingly a better, more equal and less oppressive society than during apartheid, an opinion I heard from white people (both English and Afrikaner) living there as well as black people. You may well have heard stories about the various crimes you mention in your paragraph, this a tiny minority of cases, just as there are cases of white people commiting similar atrocities in SA and other countries. Do you therefore hate white people for this? If you are at all objective you must do. If I hated every racial group I had heard unpleasant stories about, I would hate every human being in the world. As for the wider situation in South Africa it is completely disingenuous of you to just talk about “post-apartheid” and ignore all distinctions between Mandela and Mbeki/Zuma. Though I would still argue that South Africa was and is far, far better off even under Mbeki and now Zuma (who were actually elected in full democratic elections) than under apartheid. The overall (and individual in the vast majority of cases) level of suffering is unquestionably lower and the majority of the country’s citizens aren’t repressed and robbed of their rights and freedoms any more. Only pre-conceived racist attitudes could blind you to this.

    Reply Report

  75. James: “You got that from the television, yep? Because I could swear I’ve read/heard/seen that exact same argument a few hundred times while posting on the internet or campaigning with the BNP.”

    I’ve watched british TV twice in my life, so the answer is probably no. And you’ve heard that a hundred times simply because it is a rather obvious logical conclusion.

    “First off- “very large” part of the student body. Having been to York a few times, and visited the university once, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a less racially diverse place, with the possible exception of some areas to the South West of Britain. You’re kidding yourself if you actually think it’s “very large”- go down to Bradford and discover for yourself what a very large amount of foreigners looks like.”

    James, I am the welfare officer of the International Students’ Association and I think I know my numbers better than you do.

    19% of the student population at York comes from nations outside of the UK. We also have one of the most vibrant LGBT communities and the same applies to our Islamic and Jewish societies.

    You will simply not be allowed to spew your hatred against any (group of) students here, so if you chose York because you think it is ‘whiter’ then perhaps it’s best for everyone that you reconsider your decision.

    “As for your rant about laws- an unjust law is not a law. All race hate laws ever passed are null and void”

    Dura lex, sed lex. A ‘harsh’ law is still a law.

    In other words, I do not care if you approve of race hate laws or not, but I can guarantee you that you will abide by them either you wish to or not.

    “To use an event that anti-racists love to keep dragging up- it’s the equivilant of saying thr holocaust was legimitate and perfectly acceptable”

    Well you are saying that too, aren’t you?

    And it’s spelled ‘equivalent’ not ‘equivilant’. Learn to spell your own language you bloody twat before you ever judge ‘foreigners’.

    Reply Report

  76. Hi James,

    Thanks for reading my post and for your response. I think it’s clear we’re coming from two very ideological viewpoints, and whereas you’re definately not going to convince me to vote BNP, I doubt i’d be able to convince you to vote Lib Dem or Liberal party or libertarian party either.

    In defense of Liberalism though, I’m not sure you understand the term. Liberalism is about less government interference, less unnecessary barriers to living the life you want to live, no oppressive laws and the ability for every citizen to excel should they choose to. Ie: giving everyone a minimum living standard from which they can be empowered to make their own decisions and live their own unique, individual life.

    I think you make the mistake of trying to give people different amounts of liberty. This is wrong. Liberty is absolute. No causasian liberty, or black liberty, or french liberty or eastern european liberty. EVERY person deserves to live the life they want to live. Not to be forcibly removed because they happen to have the ‘wrong ancestry’. Not to be denied opportunities because of a history they weren’t part of.

    I don’t think many politicians value liberty enough. Labour have no problem in forcing us to carry ID cards, be locked up for 28 days without charge, threatening us with arrest for wearing a stop the war shirt outside parliament, for reading out the names of the war dead at the cenotaph. They allow councils to spy on residents under RIPA powers, plans for secret courts and exempting the commons from FOI inquiries do even more to damage civil liberties. Please do not make the mistake of calling labour a liberal party.

    But to kick labour out and get the BNP in would be jumping out of the pan into the flames. I could not think of a bigger catastrophe for individual liberties than the BNP getting an influence in Parliament.

    I’m not expecting you to turn into John Stuart Mill by reading this post, but I urge you to reassess your views on liberty. If you honestly believe that YOUR freedom is important, please try and relate it to the freedom of others.

    It sounds rather corny now, but liberty doesn’t have a colour or a race. Either you support it or you don’t. The only freedom the BNP seem to talk about is freedom of speech, because they’ve seen what it’s like to have it curtailed. So turn to freedom of movement or association, and put yourself in the shoes of a 3rd generation londoner who knows no other country and has a passport, yet finds his freedom of movement restricted because of the BNPs short sighted idiocy.

    You can’t claim to have your rights violated when you’re quite happy to violate the rights of others.

    You call this common sense. I think quite the opposite. And with a background in politics, I’ve never known a political researcher, broadcaster, student, politics teacher, lecturer or MP ever speak about anything you claim is common sense. Yes, 4% of euro votes went BNP. But the turnout wasn’t 100% – taking this into consideration, fewer than 1% of the country vote BNP. Clearly not ‘common’ sense.

    A. Politician

    Reply Report

  77. YUSU being congratlulated by Hitler’s heirs?

    FFS! The scores of thousands of young Britons who sacrificed their lives in the 1940s to eradicate Fascism must be spinning in their graves to hear representatives of the British Nazi Party gloating over this victory.

    What next, a York Uni NaziSoc?

    I for one am not so timid as YUSU – any Nazi who comes knocking at my door touting for votes is going to get his teeth knocked out. The BNP is a violent party and the best way to fight fire is with fire.

    Reply Report

  78. “Racism is indeed common sense. Just ask the people of South Africa how their country turned out when handed over to the blacks…Poles are white and can thus make the best out of bad situations, and strike to improve their lives, unlike the black African, who will bite the hand that feeds him then cry for more aid from the west.”

    Ok, so we’ve established that you are racist. Thanks for that starting point. Interesting that the only BNP supporter I have ever talked to admits openly that he’s racist.

    “It is clear to see where Mark Collett was coming from when he said AIDS is a friendly disease. When I look at the atrocities pepetuated against white people in non-white majority nations, it is hard not to feel a sense of hatred, and believe that Africa is only now getting its just desserts.”

    Because Africa didn’t suffer when they were living in peace and we went over there, shot a lot of them, put them in what I like to refer to as ‘death boats’ and enslaved a majority of their population? In fact, come to think of it, wasn’t that how African immigration into the UK started? We FORCED them to come here?

    “All race hate laws ever passed are null and void, falling foul of the universal and God-given right to freedom of speech, which cannot be taken away by any legitimate government.”

    Firstly, that’s not how the law works. Secondly, what religion are you? I know of no religions that count non-whites as being inferior, especially considering that the three monotheistic religions originated in the middle-East.

    “Telegraph a day ago, 70% of Britons want a drastic cut in the levels of immigration.”

    I see. So because 2 in 3 people want immigration to be cut it means that they think foreigners are inferior and every black person should be sent “back” to Africa?

    “I do not deny that I view the greater intelligent of the white people as more important than the increased strength of blacks. How can one not consider them inferior, in light of all that has transpired in Africa over the past 100 years or so, as well as them accounting for a disproportionate level of crime here in the UK and in the USA.”

    Ok. Firstly, if we’re going purely on your extremely outdated view that genetics is responsible for intelligence and that intelligence makes for superiority or inferiority, the USA’s average IQ of 96 is lower than most of Europe and the middle east, so they are therefore inferior. Likewise, Japan’s average IQ of 108 makes them by far the most superior nation on the planet and China isn’t far behind them. Therefore “asian” is the best race. Quod erat demonstrandum.

    Also, let’s look at history. It’s not going to be very detailed – a warning in advance. Ancient Greece: raping enemies wasn’t uncommon, conquest and killings were considered good but philosophising and intelligence were likewise considered good. Ancient Rome: a lot of killing of ‘barbarians’, pillaging etc. Vikings: pillaging is the word that comes to mind, though the raping and theft was quite high. Saxons: lots of killing, I recall. Switch to middle east – “muslims” kill lots of people in Jerusalem. Europeans go there and kill lots of muslims, raping and murdering, pillaging and setting fire to people along the way. Muslims get revenge similarly. And Europe responds. Britain, France, Spain and Portugal grow in size. We invade and slaughter the American continent. We invade and slaughter Africa. We invade and annihilate the Aztecs and Incans. We force them to work for us for free.

    Cue 20th century: whites are responsible for WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf Wars, etc. The USA, then Russia, develop weapons to kill millions of people in one go. Torture is performed by many western countries. Because of the poverty in black areas across the USA, there is a high rate of crime. Because of racial tensions in the UK, there is a higher level of crime in higher BME areas.

    HEY WHAT’S THAT? My goodness it’s a foreigner who has migrated since WWII! And he’s somehow managed to win the popularity of the majority of the US population and become President! And he’s SHUTTING DOWN THE TORTURE. Who’s that? Why, it’s Gandhi! And even though he’s asian, he still wants peace. Isn’t that quaint! Oh and Martin Luther King just spoke to the people, apparently suggesting that black people should be allowed to walk about like normal people, free to sit where they want on buses. He obviously doesn’t understand his place in society. And that Archbishop Desmond Tutu – what a fool! He doesn’t have a clue does he? Oh good old Sir Trevor McDonald… unintelligent yobbo.

    I think what you’re forgetting is:
    A) Japan is, on average, more intelligent than us. Is it because of their society’s structure or their race, I wonder?
    B) Wayne Rooney looks more like an ape than Barack Obama. Go figure.
    C) Racism is illegal, even if you don’t like the law.

    Thank you for reading my message. Sponsored by Nestlé – “for all your African-killing goodness”. }:-)>

    Reply Report

  79. Fundamentally this guy James does not believe that ‘non-whites’ and ‘whites’ are born equal – and therefore, no, he will not accept that all people deserve the same amount of liberties.

    Lets not beat around the bush, he is a white supremacist.

    He’s clearly very bitter about the area he has grown up in – who knows what his life has involved. Many white supremacists have very sad stories – possibly physical abuse, fear and intimidation, or bullying from being ‘white minority’. Maybe there are socio-economic factors such as friends or family members ‘losing jobs to non whites’ and therefore some perceived ‘blameworthiness’ of all non whites. Alternatively, he’s been misinformed. Clearly he is not some happy guy who thinks racism is a great academic concept. He is a guy with some backstory (he’s hinted that he detests his minority-dominated surroundings, who knows though – I don’t claim to know him) and that has lent him to sympathising with such a concept. I don’t believe people are naturally inclined to extreme, socially atypical ideas without prompting. Such a belief system must either be forced/trained into them or be reactionary to events/circumstances.

    That fact is neither excuse nor justification, but it highlights the importance of *experience*. Attacking his beliefs will only fuel the fire of his having them. People strengthen themselves when under attack and reinforce the area that is being targetted. Attacking him will only push him closer to his ideas, basically.

    There is no credible scientific proof that any skin colour offers any advantage or disadvantage to the people with them in terms of intelligence and ability. The most you could stretch to is that it affects how much a person tans under the sun. Two people given equal education, health, lifestyle opportunities etc will succeed or fail based on their natural, inherant strengths or weaknesses. None of these strengths or weaknesses are by virtue of their skin colour.

    James fundamentally disagrees with this; consider the pity-worthy ignorance behind ideas such as the ‘greater intelligent of the white people’, ‘the increased strength of blacks’, and ‘Poles are white and can thus…’ show.

    One can only hope that in the same vein as the fictional characters in ‘American History X’ and ‘Crash’, *life experience* will put him in the path of non-whites who not only exceed his abilities, but actually help him out in some way.

    His arguments can not be met with ‘fact’ – he has his own version of ‘fact’. And he is right in that some facts change over time – certain facts about the nature of humanity do not. The need for ‘proof’ is one of those things. The irrelevance of skin colour in terms of ability is another. The earth is flat was a deeply held fact, and, say we all held to it now and James troddled along forcefully exclaiming that it was round – he would have been treated in a similar manner as he has been here. Had he taken us on a journey around the world, however….

    Basically,his views can only change through positive, educating experience. Through ‘proof’ via interaction with ‘non whites’. As I said, the more targetted he feels, the more he will cling to a racist identity. Its not the kind of thing you can yell/beat out.

    In the world as it is now, you can’t really survive long trying to racially isolate yourself. He will have to live with, work with, be taught by and interview for, ‘non whites’. Somewhere along that journey, understanding will force its way through – but only if the ‘non whites’ he encounters show him the respect he will not show them.

    When a tutor from Mexico is the one to help him finally ‘get’ a topic in his make-or-break module, or an Arab doctor treats/saves his wife/son/friend/brother/sisters’ life, or an African interviewer gives him his first job … eventually, he will question the idea that there is an inherant inferiority in non-whites, or something to fear.

    Reply Report

  80. Incidentally, I wonder how James would feel about the following classic example:

    Two boys grow up next to each other, in the same neighbourhood. Their families are pretty standard, average, families. They both have a comfortable and happy, good upbringing. It is a good neighbourhood, they both get a good education, excel and get good grades. They both apply to study medicine at university – the applications are done purely on grades, no information about race or gender etc. They both get a place at the same university. They both follow the same schedule while living together – study the same amount, go out the same amount, drink the same amount etc. They both sit their final exams. You wouldn’t expect they would get exactly the same- because people have different natural capacities despite the same good upbringing/education.
    One boy gets 98%. One boy gets 92%. To be a doctor, you need to get, say, over 85%, so they both qualify in the top end. Once working in the same hospital, they continue to work the same schedule – pull the same hours, make the same efforts, etc. They end up being the top two doctors not only in the hospital, but in the region. By virtue of his natural intelligence and abilities, the 98% test scorer is a really really great doctor. His success rate in operations/treatment is 98%. He is the best doctor.
    His friend is a great doctor too – slightly less able by virtue of his natural talents. His success rate is 92%. He is the second best doctor.

    You have a loved one in need of crucial emergency treatment. You can pick the doctor – who do you pick? 98% guy or 92% guy?

    You guessed the next bit – say 98% guy was black and 92% guy was white. Who do you pick?
    Would you still deport the black doctor if you hadnt had a choice, and he’d been the doctor for your loved one, and had saved them?

    Do you even think such a situation is possible – i.e. a non-white person having a higher natural intelligence than a white person?

    I’m genuinely interested in what you think and how you rationalise this situation to ally with your beliefs.

    Reply Report

  81. Interesting view-point from Maz. But could you not argue that ‘James’ is more likely to recognise how little support there is for his views if we all – regardless of race, heritage, nationality, religion, creed, what have you – absolutely rebut his view-point, thus (hopefully) making him realise that actually most people are not eaten up by irrational terror of the human race?

    One shouldn’t encourage a person in his delusions. If we softly-softly around him and respect his views, he will assume that we don’t seriously disagree with him; a lack of vocal condemnation of the BNP in all walks of life only feeds misinformation and incomprehension. He is free to think what he likes, yes, so long as he doesn’t incite or carry out acts of hatred. But we are free to say what we think of his views – so long as we remain the better of the two, and keep it political, not personal.

    Reply Report

  82. Jason, please stop, you’re almost making me side with the racist. Everything you say is awful.

    “Because Africa didn’t suffer when they were living in peace and we went over there, shot a lot of them, put them in what I like to refer to as ‘death boats’ and enslaved a majority of their population? In fact, come to think of it, wasn’t that how African immigration into the UK started? We FORCED them to come here?”

    What on EARTH are you talking about? Your idea seems to be that Africa was 1) a utopia of ‘noble savages’ living in prelapsarian peace and harmony and 2) that they Africans never left the continent till white people went over and got them, is itself FUNDAMENTALLY RACIST. Your potted history is completely white-centric and seems to assume that there were no non-white people anywhere, doing anything, until the Crusades. And why your roll-call of great non-white people goes ‘Obama [some sort of black messiah as you describe him], Gandhi, MLK, Tutu… Trevor MacDonald’ is beyond me – just bizarre. And what is the Nestle dig for – what does that prove? It seems to fit in with your warped view of history and the world in which white people have been the bringers of evil and sin to peaceful and innocent non-whites (who apparently have higher IQs too!) – which again is an utterly racist reduction of black history. Can you see that? I’m sure you don’t really hold these views but please, just read over what you write before you post. And, although I can’t claim to have read every word of this thread, I’m pretty sure no one has mentioned anything about “apes”, so why do say something as cringeworthy as “Wayne Rooney looks more like an ape than Barack Obama. Go figure.”? (As much as anything else, how can you use the phrase ‘go figure’ to sum up one of the most abominable and damaging racial sterotypes in history?). I want to be clear that I have no sympathy for the BNP member commenting on this thread – I don’t know, I’m just a little embarrassed that these comments have been made by someone on ‘my side’.

    P.S. “what I like to refer to as ‘death boats'”?!

    Reply Report

  83. sorry one or two wording errors, wrote it quickly

    Reply Report

  84. Anon –

    I’m sure he is very aware that his views have very little support. People don’t necessarily run to what is socially acceptable just because its socially acceptable. Some people even enjoy being ‘alternative’. In any case, just because a view has little support, doesnt mean people who hold it will be convinced against it if that view tallies with their personal deductions/experience/etc.
    Social acceptance is not a carrot on a stick – even if ‘most people are not eaten up by irrational terror of the human race’ – thats not necessarily a reason to consider it wrong. He can easily say – most people thought the world was flat. You, Anon, in those times may well have told the proponents of the claim that the earth is round ‘to recognise how little support there is for [their] views’.

    Its not about making him realise his view is unpopular, its about making him realise its unfounded.

    To that end, Yes, I agree we shouldn’t encourage his ‘delusions’. We absolutely must express – ‘Look, I disagree with you.’ and engage in discussion. But I do not think the correct approach is to be dimissive or persecute him. We must ‘rebut his viewpoint’ with – incredibly difficult to maintain, I grant you – a degree of respect.

    People attacked are on guard, they put up barriers. Their minds close further.

    We are obviously assuming he causes no punishable harms – e.g. bullying, discrimination, verbal abuse, etc
    His proclamations obviously cause offence and upset, but to tackle the racism one almost needs to become immune to the vocalisation of it to a certain a certain degree. Consider the example of helping a loved one who is a drug addict. The stage of them begging, pleading, screeching, threatening, etc for drugs is very upsetting (comparable to extreme offense). In order to help them, you have to be numb to their upsetting behaviour. Obviously to a degree – if they hit you for example, thats not ok.

    Obviously it is a debateable line as to what is tolerable when aiming to the end of allowing a racist to have a chance at learning from experience. And obviously everyone responds to different things and some to nothing. Its not a guaranteed approach.

    In my experience of working with narrow-minded people, and from observations of such dealings of others, I feel strongly that harsh flooding of insults do not work. As I said, the idea of treating them firmly but respectfully does not always work – but I believe it to be a more successful approach.

    If I, a non white person is anything that could be interpreted as ‘rude’ – thats enhancing his point. If I, a non-white person, is unquestionably respectful, helpful to him – it will chip, in whatever a small amont, at his ‘delusions’.

    Lead by example, and all that jazz.

    Eric C, I’m a little embarrassed for you that you tried to make a snide point here if it was in response to my post:
    ‘non-whites (who apparently have higher IQs too!)’

    My post addressed this:
    1) ‘James’ thinks white people are naturally more intelligent than non white people.
    2) Thus a situation where a non white person is provably more intelligent than a white person (all else being equal)- presents a problem to him.
    3) There is no need to infer I am suggesting all non-whites are more intelligent than whites. That would be very stupid of me as I’d be doing the same as ‘James’ on the other side of the point. I am merely trying to ascertain how he approaches the possibility of a non-white person being more intelligent than a white person all else being equal – considering he holds to point (1).

    Reply Report

  85. Maz – I was referring to Jason Rose’s reference to IQs. Sorry to be unclear.

    Reply Report

  86. Eric – Sorry, I thought you were referring to mine. Ignore my extended explanation!

    Reply Report

  87. Maz-

    My point was not that people with minority viewpoints should be forced to share in the majority opinion through peer pressure. Rather, I was referring to James’ breezy self-assurance that his tendentious views are ‘common sense’ shared by the majority of the UK population. Such an attitude should be challenged forcefully – not to make him buckle under, but to make him realise that such views are not those of the mainstream – and I believe that a point is made more convincing when the person making it appears to whole-heartedly endorse it – rather than hedge it around with disclaimers which dilute the point.

    Yes, we need to make him realise that his views are unfounded, for his own sake. But for the sake of everyone’s future, everyone who rejects the BNP needs to do it wholeheartedly – so that anyone voting BNP is aware of exactly what they are voting for.

    And Maz, you should not be measuring yourself by his standards. If your argument is based solely upon your own viewpoint, then that’s one thing. But saying: “If I, a non white person is anything that could be interpreted as ‘rude’ – thats enhancing his point. If I, a non-white person, is unquestionably respectful, helpful to him – it will chip, in whatever a small amont, at his ‘delusions’”; if that is playing a part in your argument, you are already giving him power over you by limiting your own freedom of speech and action according to a skewed perception applied by him. I’m part Jewish, my father’s great-grandparents were immigrants to this country, and I shall be as respectful or as dismissive of his views as I please, based on my opinion of them; I will not do them the undeserved dignity of giving them some credence – which I would be doing if I tried to act against a model laid down by those views alone, if I allowed his views to shape my behaviour. I advise you to do the same.

    Reply Report

  88. “I’m sure you don’t really hold these views but please, just read over what you write before you post.”

    Yes, indeed. Just to clarify a couple of points: I did indeed stereotype history as a massive amount of war and killing between everyone, in which native Americans and Africans had done nothing wrong. It was a point that it is easy to do so; just pointing out that his stereotyping of Africa as the harbringer of doom to the west was pointless.

    And the ape comment was really badly explained on my part – apologies. It was a backtrack to when there were racist chants at football matches and “ooh ooh ooh” chants – which I found ironic since Rooney looks like an ape :P It wasn’t intentionally being racist and any trace of racism in my post was put there intentionally to be sarcastic and partly ironic in response to his comment.

    It just seems odd that he suggests Africans have caused us so much trouble when we created the slave trade, colonialised the continent and then damaged it by the way we pulled out; I could cite Sri Lanka as a similar and more topical reference.

    Reply Report

  89. The BNP have announced they are now educating children… This is basically Hitler’s youth… This is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen… If BNP ever get into power… I’m moving country…

    That is a promise…

    Reply Report

  90. Anon – “Such an attitude should be challenged forcefully – not to make him buckle under, but to make him realise that such views are not those of the mainstream”

    As I said, this idea of it not being mainstream is not the root of his issues – if you remove his delusions that the majority of people agree, you do not remove the delusion that it is a founded, ‘common sense’ opinion. THAT is the issue. He could just turn around and say – the majority are wrong then, they dont have common sense. A lot of white supremacists a little more aware of the world DO make that argument.

    I never said we ‘hedge it around with disclaimers’ – I said we can simultaneously make our viewpoint very clear AND treat him like a human being. If you think treating him with enough respect to have a conversation ‘dilutes the point’ then that is fine for you, but I disagree. I think actually engaging with him in a calm and yes, respectful (obviously to a line as I’ve expressed) way, is the only way to alter his views.

    Consider the same argument used on a broader level – against Barack Obama trying to negotiate/speak to Iran/Cuba etc. People say that dilutes the US message against x y or z, and undermines what the US stands for. However, consider the opposite approach as seen in George Bush’s response to Sept 11th – a stubborn inability to actually connect with the root causes of a situation and a bullish aggressive attitude that only fueled the fires of those posing a threat. Al Qaeda used to be small, weakly organised, and close to dismantling. It has, as a result of Bush’s approach, grown by thousands and become stronger and more organised. Many Iraqis and Afghanis have *joined* Al Qaeda after being bombed out of house and home.

    Step aside from political opinion of the war and look at the facts of Al Qaeda membership. Now, obviously, we are yet to see how Obama’s approach works. It may not, but I think there is a much stronger chance it will than if he took the same line of ‘condemn, attack, attack, attack’. You can ‘condemn, discuss, disprove, convince’ – I do truly believe that.

    You can reject the BNP wholeheartedly, and still engage with a BNP supporter. Actually engaging is the only way to ensure ‘anyone voting BNP is aware of exactly what they are voting for’. People do not get engaged when they feel under attack.

    An aside is the idea that experience is the only way he will change. It seems likely a lot of his opinions may stem from experience of non-whites in his surroundings. Thats obviously, to a rational person, not a good reason to assume all non-whites are condemnable. But if thats the framework this guys is working within, then it will make a difference for him to receive respectful and helpful treatment from a non white person such as myself. It will give him a physical opposite experience to his physical past experience.

    Thats not giving him power of me, its giving me power over him – eventually. I’m not saying one good act by me and he’ll fall over. I’m saying a consistent, unabating, positive experience from a non-white person *will* undermine his convictions.

    Obviously this involves giving him ‘undeserved dignity’ but it will NOT give his views ‘credence’ – quite the opposite.

    I’m not allowing his views to shape my behaviour – my behaviour is what it is. It is in my behaviour to treat racists in this manner (now, after years of having different reactions, and establishing this is the best).
    I’m acknowledging that my behaviour could shape his views.

    Reply Report

  91. 24 May ’09 at 8:02 pm

    Simon Whitten

    “If BNP ever get into power… I’m moving country…

    That is a promise…”

    Noooo, join the resistance.

    Reply Report

  92. You’re right of course, Simon – but wouldn’t it be superbly ironic if so many white people emigated in protest that the BNP needed our black citizens to keep the country running?!!

    Reply Report

  93. That would indeed be ironic! I’m game – let’s all move to the Falklands.

    Reply Report

  94. Wow, quite a few long comments here. I’ll answer what I see to be the main points in each argument.

    Lowering standards:

    “Wow, if this James bloke can get in to York, perhaps all this talk of lowering academic standards due to Hes East are true?”

    Because of course your television told you that racists are stupid. Amazing how anti-racists can condemn stereotyping on one hand, yet support it when it comes to dealing with “their” enemies. Except when racists stereotype things, the basis of that stereotype is actually true, whereas when anti-racists do it, they do not have any evidence to back up their statements at all.

    David:

    “Instead I would suggest, even implore, that you learn the fallacies and moral failings of racism through your own experience. Go out and actually spend some time interacting with people of other races, experience the multicultural society that seems to terrify you.”

    Funny, I’d suggest you do exactly the same thing to be cured of your love of multiracialism. You can start with Somalia. Or if you want something a bit closer to home, inner city London.

    “I sincerely hope that you will, either in university or elsewhere, gain the experience I have mentioned and realise the errors in your racist ideas.”

    So speaks a man whos only experience with “people” of other races is the Asian family that lives on his street, or the couple of black kids in his college. Try living in an areas with greater than 20% non-whites and YOU will soon realise the error of your ways. It’s no coincidence that areas of BNP support are greatest in white areas that can see non-white areas only a few miles away, i.e. Stoke, Burnley, Oldham (before Collett messed up), Bradford and Barking.

    “It is overwhelmingly a better, more equal and less oppressive society than during apartheid, an opinion I heard from white people (both English and Afrikaner) living there as well as black people.”

    Talk is cheap, and given that there’s no way for you to verify what your saying, I’d prefer to go by cold hard facts. There are more murders in Pretoria than Baghdad. AIDS is rampant now, whereas it was kept in check under the White government. 40% of White people have left the country. The statistics speak for themselves. “Better” is subjective. “More equal”- maybe, but that’s sure as hell only benefitting Negroes because of affirmative action, promoting them into jobs they are not capable of doing. All that’s happened is the Whites have being dragged down to the Negroes level by legislation, rather than the Negroes rising up to the level of Whites. “Less oppressive”? Not if you’re White.

    “You may well have heard stories about the various crimes you mention in your paragraph, this a tiny minority of cases, just as there are cases of white people commiting similar atrocities in SA and other countries. Do you therefore hate white people for this? If you are at all objective you must do.”

    Like other anti-racists, you don’t understand (or choose to ignore) the issue of “per capita”. The level of violence committed against Whites is by far disproportionate to that committed against Blacks. If 80% of Blacks are criminals, and 10% of Whites are criminals, the idiot anti-racist would say both races are equal because there’s criminals in both races. The logical racist, on the other hand, would say the Black criminality rate is disproportionate to the White criminality rate, and so the races must be seperated to keep White people safe. (note: these are numbers used to illustrate a point, not to be taken literally)

    A “tiny minority” of cases eh? Where did all the food vanish too then, if this is only happening to a “tiny minority” of farmers?

    “The overall (and individual in the vast majority of cases) level of suffering is unquestionably lower and the majority of the country’s citizens aren’t repressed and robbed of their rights and freedoms any more.”

    Well done Captain Obvious. Given the majority of the “citizens” were Negroes, it’s pretty obvious the “majority” benefitted from being able to rob Whitey. But here’s where we reach an impasse- I’m only concerned about White people and their suffering is greater.

    George:

    “I’ve watched british TV twice in my life, so the answer is probably no. And you’ve heard that a hundred times simply because it is a rather obvious logical conclusion.”

    So were Henry Ford, Knut Hamsun, Teddy Roosevelt and Queen Elitzabeth all racists because they were compensating for a sense of inferiority? Get a grip.

    “19% of the student population at York comes from nations outside of the UK.”

    And I’d wager good money that the vast majority of those come from within the EU. The BNP does not take issue to this. Our constitution reads “committed to stem and reverse the tide of NON-WHITE immigration”. The only reason issue has being taken with Eastern Europeans lately is on economic grounds, not racial grounds. Anyone who is White is welcome in the BNP whether indigenous to this country or not. Once it is understood that Europeans are basically all the same race (Caucasian) you no longer view such people as foreigners.

    “Dura lex, sed lex. A ‘harsh’ law is still a law.

    In other words, I do not care if you approve of race hate laws or not, but I can guarantee you that you will abide by them either you wish to or not.”

    I’ll do nothing of the sort. I’ve being violating this totaltarian “law” for the past few years. All one needs is a proxy and things are good to go. Of course, some aspects have to be toned down while in public, but with the growth of the internet you can reach far more people online than you can offline anyway, and for almost no cost whatsoever. The “moderate” image needs to be put out offline for the benefit of the public anyway.

    “And it’s spelled ‘equivalent’ not ‘equivilant’. Learn to spell your own language you bloody twat before you ever judge ‘foreigners’.”

    Alright then genius, let’s pick at your writing:

    “but I can guarantee you that you will abide by them either you wish to or not”

    This should have read “whether you wish to or not”. I’m sure if I went back over your others I could pick out typo’s somewhere as well, but unlike you, I’m not that pathetic, and my argument doesn’t stem from correcting grammar (which says more about the idiot correcting grammar/spelling more than it says about the guy who spelt something incorrectly).

    A. Politician:

    “I think you make the mistake of trying to give people different amounts of liberty. This is wrong. Liberty is absolute. No causasian liberty, or black liberty, or french liberty or eastern european liberty. EVERY person deserves to live the life they want to live. Not to be forcibly removed because they happen to have the ‘wrong ancestry’. Not to be denied opportunities because of a history they weren’t part of.”

    Your first paragraph (about less government interference, giving everyone a minimum standard of living etc) I’d agree with, but one does not have to buy “liberty” as a whole package. It is quite possible to champion freedom of speech while opposing freedom of movement (which incidentally contradicts with a right to freedom of association- if someone desires to “associate” with Whites only, this is dependant on stopping non-Whites from moving to their area, hence you can only have one “freedom” and it comes at the expense of the other).

    In the BNP’s case, we support freedom of speech, but are against freedom of movement. If some immigrant feels this is a violation of their “liberty” when they are sent on the next plane back home, well that’s just too bad- as we have both already agreed, the BNP is not a liberal party.

    “You can’t claim to have your rights violated when you’re quite happy to violate the rights of others. ”

    You can, if you don’t believe those “rights” should exist to begin with. If you believe (as the BNP does) that free speech is a right, but that freedom of movement if not a right, you can champion one right over another without being hypocritical at all. The Labour Party do it all the time (oppose freedom of speech, but support freedom of movement).

    “Yes, 4% of euro votes went BNP. But the turnout wasn’t 100% – taking this into consideration, fewer than 1% of the country vote BNP. Clearly not ‘common’ sense.”

    It was 4.9% and even considering that the turnout wasn’t 100%, it would still have being over 1% (BNP got over 800,000 votes last European election IIRC- to be less than 1% the British population would have to be great than 80 million). Not to mention you’d be assuming that none of those who didn’t bother showing up would have voted BNP, which would clearly not be the case. Using this kind of logic, we can conclude the Labour Party only got 15% of the British vote in the last General Election, and the Conservatives only got about the same amount. Ergo, only 15% of the British population agree with the conservatives. Clearly flawed- to be classed as “common sense” in your book, the BNP would have to recieve 25 million votes or so. No political party has ever managed close to that in any General Election.

    Also remember vote share doesn’t indicate agreement with policies. If you were to set up a new political party tommorow, advocating a clampdown on MP’s expenses, massive restriction on immigration, and granting the public a referendum on the European Union, these policies would have the support of the majority of the British people (85% agreeing in the Times poll that MP’s expenses should be lowered and 70% saying immigration should be clamped down on).

    However, when the public went to the polls, you wouldn’t get anything like 70% of the vote. Why not? You lack an established “brand name” like the Labour and Conservative parties. You lack the media power to get your message across. You’d still have the idiots who say “well my dad voted Labour, so I’ll vote Labour”.

    You’d be lucky to get 0.5% of the vote in a General Election because of these reasons, but that doesn’t mean only 0.5% of people support your ideas. Likewise with the BNP- we are subjected to constant media attacks, which while being beneficial for getting the Party name out to people, will generally restrict your level of support after the 10% or so of the population who hold openly racist views about White superiority and who don’t give a damn about what people think have got on board the BNP train. You miss out on the 70% of people who want to stop immigration and kick out bogus asylum seekers, because of media demonisation.

    Reply Report

  95. Lucifer:

    “I for one am not so timid as YUSU – any Nazi who comes knocking at my door touting for votes is going to get his teeth knocked out. The BNP is a violent party and the best way to fight fire is with fire.”

    So says the internet warrior who would, in reality, sit in his room when the BNP knocked on the door and pretend he wasn’t in. Maybe shout a few insults at them through the letterbox. Ah, bless.

    Jason Rose:

    “Because Africa didn’t suffer when they were living in peace and we went over there, shot a lot of them, put them in what I like to refer to as ‘death boats’ and enslaved a majority of their population? In fact, come to think of it, wasn’t that how African immigration into the UK started? We FORCED them to come here?”

    Living in peace? Put down the Communist Manifesto. They were still fighting tribal wars when we started to colonise them. Quite frankly I don’t know why we even bothered. You can take the Negro out of Africa but….

    A majority of their population 1) Was not enslaved and 2) This wasn’t some invasion where White soldiers went into African villages, kidnapped a bunch of them, loaded them onto ships and then sailed to America. The majority were actually SOLD into slavery by OTHER BLACKS. If anything, the White Americans should be demanding reparations from the Negroes, since their ancestors paid for services which were not given after the Civil War.

    As for the UK, they only started coming here post-WW2. They was no “forcing” of any sort- there was, however, betrayal of the British people by the government who never in their manifesto announced their intention to open up the floodgates to a bunch of third-worlders.

    “I see. So because 2 in 3 people want immigration to be cut it means that they think foreigners are inferior and every black person should be sent “back” to Africa?”

    It shows there wouldn’t have been any here to begin with if the people had their way in 1948. So, yes, it does. It’s actually 85/100 people, since no immigrant is going to vote for reduced immigration, and in Britain, only the voices of White people matter.

    “Ok. Firstly, if we’re going purely on your extremely outdated view that genetics is responsible for intelligence and that intelligence makes for superiority or inferiority, the USA’s average IQ of 96 is lower than most of Europe and the middle east, so they are therefore inferior. Likewise, Japan’s average IQ of 108 makes them by far the most superior nation on the planet and China isn’t far behind them. Therefore “asian” is the best race. Quod erat demonstrandum.”

    It only became “outdated” when the communists took over Britain. Wonder why that was? The USA has an average IQ of 96 because they are only 60% White. The 40% non-whites drag them down.

    It is true that Japan has a higher average IQ than the European nations (but a lower range, meaning they have less extremely high IQ people, but also less extremely low IQ people). But then again I’ve never claimed they didn’t, did I? Still don’t want them in this country though, as the BNP is opposed to non-white immigration for racial preservation reasons, not economic reasons.

    As for your alleged “history”- none of those invasions resulted in the racial replacement of White people, did it? The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is not thinking racially and holding the destruction of inferior nations like those of the Aztecs.

    “Because of the poverty in black areas across the USA, there is a high rate of crime. Because of racial tensions in the UK, there is a higher level of crime in higher BME areas.”

    No, because of the presence of Negroes in the USA and UK, there is a higher level of crime. Funny how this “poverty” always seems to follow Blacks around. Whereever Blacks move, there is poverty. Anti-racists say that Blacks commit crime because of poverty, but what they forget is that if they weren’t Black they wouldn’t be in poverty to begin with, as Blacks lack the intelligence (in the main) to get out of poverty situations.

    “HEY WHAT’S THAT? My goodness it’s a foreigner who has migrated since WWII! And he’s somehow managed to win the popularity of the majority of the US population and become President! And he’s SHUTTING DOWN THE TORTURE. Who’s that? Why, it’s Gandhi! And even though he’s asian, he still wants peace. Isn’t that quaint! Oh and Martin Luther King just spoke to the people, apparently suggesting that black people should be allowed to walk about like normal people, free to sit where they want on buses. He obviously doesn’t understand his place in society. And that Archbishop Desmond Tutu – what a fool! He doesn’t have a clue does he? Oh good old Sir Trevor McDonald… unintelligent yobbo.”

    1) Obama didn’t win the majority of the US White population, which is all that actually counts if one believes there should only be White people in the USA to begin with.

    2) Ghandi didn’t like Blacks either- “A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir”. (Source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-3-2005_pg4_24)

    3) Martin Looter King did not understand his place in society. He plagurised his degree and started the ball rolling to the destruction of America.

    And again…per capita. Say it again just so you get it. For every intelligent non-whites, I’ll show you 100 non-white criminals. And where would the “intelligent” ones be without the help of White societies in uplifting them? Still sat in Africa throwing spears, that’s where.

    “C) Racism is illegal, even if you don’t like the law.”

    It is not a law as the present government is not legitimate, having betrayed its people. Furthermore, if what you said was actually true, either 1) The BNP would have being banned or 2) The BNP would sue all the newspapers that talk about the “racist” BNP for libel, and habing being unable to prove their assertions, they would be paying out loads of money. If they could prove their assertions, then revert to point 1.

    If a law was passed stating that you had to eat cyanide capsules until you died, would you still follow it like a lamb to the slaughter? A law is a law, afterall.

    Time to sleep now, I might post more when I wake up, though there’s still plenty to get through and I do have other things to do later on.

    Reply Report

  96. * The USA has an average IQ of 96 because they are only 60% White. The 40% non-whites drag them down.

    Fact check time, the USA is actually 75% white!

    * It is not a law as the present government is not legitimate

    Oh come on. Say what you will about about politics in this country, parties *are* democratically voted in.

    I don’t get why you’re so concerned about the UK becoming an “arab majority” country. For that to happen, about 50 million arabs would have to emigrate here. That’s an entire factor more than have emigrated here ever.

    Reply Report

  97. I could argue this point to death but you seem to be missing the point a little. It can easily be argued that racists are less intelligent as any sentient human can see that there is negligable difference between humans overall… and your reasoning is completely flawed. The US IQ isn’t lower because of its higher quantity of non-whites – George W Bush has a sub-100 IQ, according to MENSA studies, so I’d look around a little more.

    Secondly: “Go out and actually spend some time interacting with people of other races, experience the multicultural society that seems to terrify you.” Funny, I’d suggest you do exactly the same thing to be cured of your love of multiracialism.”

    I’ve been to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Vatican, Monaco, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, the USA (California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Philadelphia, Maryland, New York, DC, New Jersey, maybe others), Mexico, South Africa (Johannesburg, Kruger, Durban, Cape Town), Swaziland, Sri Lanka (both Sinhalese and Tamil), United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Hong Kong, Macau, China (the three were separate when I went), Brazil and probably some other countries. I have lived in England for 20 years and I don’t know many people who have been to many other places. Considering that you named South Africa, etc., I would wonder what your point is (and I would doubt you have been there).

    And, I wonder, how much multiculturalism have you been exposed to? When I was in South Africa, Tony Blair visited Cape Town and a journalist was shot. When I was in Cairo, a group of (I think?) Greeks were shot because they looked Israeli. I walked around Philadelphia at 2am – and what astounded me was not the high amount of black crime but the overly high amount of armed policemen. I visited Rio de Janeiro and, oddly, we were warned of high crime in the poorer areas, not the “more black” areas (though Bush once said ‘wow, you have blacks here too, huh?’ to the Brazillian president) – and in Beijing there was no problem with crime in the entire city except for when we went to find a McDonalds in a rough area and gangs of young children virtually attacked us for our money. Why? Because Chinese children are stupid? No. Because they’re poor and need money.

    I’m not saying any of this to big myself up or anything but rather to point out that people who HAVE been exposed to multiculturalism may often find things odd, or different, or maybe even at times backward (as Americans might find the British parliament outdated or us find their apparent “right to semiautomatic rifles” a little odd) but we do not see other nations or cultures as inferior to our own – and even if the Japanese kamikaze, we don’t see it as meaning they’re less intelligent. We have science to do that sort of thing objectively and, well, guess what? Whites are pretty average.

    Reply Report

  98. Apologies for not replying earlier, but I’ve had exams on. They’re mostly done now however so…

    Chris Northwood:

    The USA is only 60% white because the USA Census has started classifying light skinned Hispanics (Mexicans) as White, when they aren’t.

    50 million Arabs wouldn’t have to “emigrate” to Britain. 50 million Arabs would have to be born to Arabs already present in the UK. When one considering that 25% of births are non-white already, however only 15% of the overall population is non-white, we can see what the demographic changes have in store.

    The government may have being democratically elected, but their policies certainly were not. No where in ANY manifesto did the Tories or Labour state they were going to import a load of non-white immigrants. That was done without the consent of the British people. Thatcher never said she’d destroy manufacturing either- those policies came in AFTER she was elected. Same with this illigitimate law called the “Race Relations Act”. It’s null and void, enforced only by the military wing of the ruling elite, otherwise known as the Police force.

    Jason Rose, everything in your post was anacdotal. Yeah George Bush is a twit, but it’s about the proportion os twits relative to the white population in the USA compared with the non-white population I’m talking about.

    Funny how you then start talking about journalists being shot and heavily armed police in black areas. Congratulations for proving my point. There’s a reason heavily armed police are needed. Sure the Brazilians aren’t going to say than blacks are the problem, but that’s because they’re a racially impure nation themselves.

    It’s really amusing how poverty seems to follow blacks around wherever they go, isn’t it? They don’t act inferior to whites because they’re poor, they’re poor because they’re inferior. Their state of poverty is directly related to their race’s inability to get by without others helping- the whole of sub-saharan Africa depends on welfare handouts from white nations- rather like blacks in the USA depend on welfare handout paid for by white taxpayers!

    Reply Report

  99. > rather like blacks in the USA depend on welfare handout paid for by white taxpayers!

    I guess the white taxpayers *are* paying Barack Obama’s salary.

    Reply Report

Leave a comment



Please note our disclaimer relating to comments submitted. Please do not post pretending to be another person. Nouse is not responsible for user-submitted content.