Another PR victory for the BNP
BNP party leader Nick Griffin has used the protests to his advantage
Yesterday saw the interruption of a BNP election victory speech outside Westminster by a violent protest. Party leader Nick Griffin was forced to abandon his speech as protesters shouting “off our streets Nazi Scum” jostled and punched at BNP members including Mr Griffin’s fellow MEP Andrew Brons. The protesters threw eggs (one of which hit Mr Griffin in the back of the head) and bottles, and used their placards to hit members of the party. Bodyguards rushed Mr Griffin and Mr Brons into their cars, exchanging blows with protesters in the process.
Such acts of violent protest can do nothing to further the democratic cause that these people claim to be campaigning for. Regardless of whether the BNP are right to hold their views, two members of their party have now been democratically elected as Members of the European Parliament. We can no longer claim that they are an eccentric minority with views which are not represented by a significant, although still very small, percentage of the public. The only way to prove them wrong is to hear their views and to challenge them in the same way that we would challenge any other party. As Mr Griffin himself pointed out, such violence stifles debate, denying the public answers to the “awkward questions” that people are asking about their policies.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this attack, the actions of the protesters can only have been counterproductive. They have put the BNP back in the headlines and given Nick Griffin airtime to discuss an issue on which he is very much in the right. The discussion that will follow these protests will only make the BNP seem more credible in the public eye and allow them to portray themselves as the political underdogs. This position wins them sympathy and boosts their profile without any emphasis on BNP policy and its dangerous flaws; protesters have played straight into the party’s hands.
Opponents of the BNP should maintain the credibility of their arguments by tackling them on points of disagreement. Democracy allows space for argument and the party’s policies, for all their confident radicalism, are not immune to the normal democratic processes of argument; resorting to violence achieves nothing that political debate could not, it simply tarnishes the anti-BNP cause.
The BNP now represent too many people to be passed off as unworthy of discussion. We need to allow them to be challenged on the issues on which they are wrong rather than presenting them more opportunities to be in the right. As paradoxical as it may seem, discriminating against them in the way these protesters have done actually strengthens their position. Protesters turning to violence in order to defend democracy misunderstand and also under-estimate, exactly what democracy really means.
Loading ...
“We can no longer claim that they are an eccentric minority ”
“The BNP now represent too many people to be passed off as unworthy of discussion.”
They actually got less than votes than in the last elections, so this argument doesn’t really stand.
In fact: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/europe-bnp-nick-griffin
Anon, you say “They actually got less than votes than in the last elections, so this argument doesn’t really stand.”
This is simply untrue.
The number of BNP votes nationwide was 808,200 in 2004 which rose to 943,598 in 2009. Your article only refers to regional losses in Yorkshire and Humber and the West Midlands. Despite overall turnout falling the BNP received more votes than in 2004.
Peter I agree with most of your piece, and with the guardian link anon provides which makes some similar points. The only part I disagree with is the suggestion that their views are represented by a significant percentage of the public. For me the issue is not whether they increased their vote share or not, but how they did it. I do not believe that if the real views of the BNP and their leadership were more widely known that they would have anything approaching the vote share they gained in some region.
For example: the BBC and other media outlets frequently referred to the BNP only as an “anti-immigration” party. This is far too vague and generic. UKIP, the Tories and various other parties could be described as anti-immigration, yet do not share most of the apalling views of the BNP. As I am certainly not “anti-immigration”, the fact that a party based themselves around this would give me good reason not to vote for them. But I am also sure that there are a lot of people who are to a greater or lesser degree hostile to immigration who would nevertheless be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that immigration policy should be based on skin colour and ethnicity and would not vote for a party that advocated this. The BNP advocate exactly this, stating that it is “wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration”
In many ways, this is just the point I think you were making, the facts are on the sides of those who are opposed to the BNP and we are giving them an easy ride if we are reluctant to challenge them through debate. Just take the two elected MEPs for example:
Nick Griffin, the leader and one of the MEPs elected has stated that the BNP “does not accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will”. He has denied that the holocaust took place (although recently he has concentrated on anti-Islam rather than anti-Semitic rhetoric for what he acknowledges are tactical reasons) and desribed homosexuals as “repulsive creatures”
Andrew Brons was formerly a member of the National Socialist Movement and, following that, the National Front, during which time he was convicted for abuse and breaching the peace after leading a group shouting “white power” and “death to Jews” in Leeds city centre.
I do not think these two individuals truly represent any large number of the British people and I think the way forward for those opposed to them is to make their presence felt at BNP conferences and rallies, not by throwing eggs but by bringing up points such as these (and there are many more) and making sure the general public becomes aware of them.
I’d just like to make it clear that those anti-BNP protesters do not represent everyone who got involved in the campaign against the BNP. I think it is very important to campaign against them and expose what they really stand for. I don’t think pelting them with eggs is a particularly effective way of going about that. It runs the risk of discrediting anti-fascism campaigners who don’t resort to such tactics.
I also look forward to the writer of this article getting involved in future BNP campaigning, whether as part of an existing campaigning group or in a personal capacity. :p
“The number of BNP votes nationwide was 808,200 in 2004 which rose to 943,598 in 2009. Your article only refers to regional losses in Yorkshire and Humber and the West Midlands. Despite overall turnout falling the BNP received more votes than in 2004.”
North West 2009: 132,194
North West 2004: 134,959
Yorkshire etc 2009: 120,139
Yorkshire etc 2004: 126,538
In the two areas that they won seats, they lost votes. These were the two areas that they focussed efforts – the two areas that they were hoping to win seats in. What it shows is that they didn’t win seats because of an increase; the PR is only regional and in the two regions where they won it was because of a drop in the overall number of votes.
And that’s what counts; sorry, Peter, but they didn’t win because of an increase in popularity, even if they have had an increase of 16% nationwide.
Resorting to violence?
Throwing eggs and vegetables has been a legitamit form of protest for thousands of years. I am deeply sceptical that an egg or two can really be classed as violence, especially when working in politics, one must expect that the public will get angry with you, fascists or not, and with so little recourse for the public to get it’s views heard it’s understandable that people get frustrated and engage in this kind of activity.
You may not condone it, but calling it ‘violence’ is just ‘nannying’ and silly!
Nowhere in the article do I claim that the BNP won the seats in Yorkshire and the North West because of an increase in the number of votes. When I made the comment about the number of votes increasing I was responding to anon’s point about the BNP receiving fewer votes than in the last election as this could easily have been interpreted as an overall loss. Anon quoted my phrase “We can no longer claim that they are an eccentric minority.” I stand by this, as how much of a ‘minority’ a party is depends on their share of the popular vote by definition.
The point I am making is that the BNP have still been democratically elected, regardless of how that happened, and thus the public have a right to hear what their views are without having the process disrupted by violence. Do you disagree with me when I say that the public have a right to hear the views of the democratically elected MEPs of their country? If the BNP are challenged through discussion rather than through violence then we can point out any flaws in their policies to the public.
This is taking the assumption that all of the public actually cares about us pointing out flaws in their policies. And I am not particularly sure that the assumption of perfect rationality is valid in the case of racism and bigotry.
Let me point out that I do not support the egg-pelting. However, I still think that the argument that the ‘BNP now has MEPs and so it is suddenly worthy of our respect’ doesn’t really stand.
Anon – not ‘worthy of respect’, but worthy of recognition surely? They must be recognised as a more potent threat than previously, now that they have MEPS, which will bring power/money/publicity etc…
David:
“But I am also sure that there are a lot of people who are to a greater or lesser degree hostile to immigration who would nevertheless be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that immigration policy should be based on skin colour and ethnicity and would not vote for a party that advocated this.”
Are you seriously suggesting the public did not know BNP immigration policy was based on ethnicity? It’s probably the most oft-repeated policy of the BNP. You’ve got your head in the sand with regard to how many people would support an immigration policy based on race.
“Andrew Brons was formerly a member of the National Socialist Movement and, following that, the National Front, during which time he was convicted for abuse and breaching the peace after leading a group shouting “white power” and “death to Jews” in Leeds city centre.”
He was what, 17 then? People move on.
Sophie Shaw:
“Throwing eggs and vegetables has been a legitamit form of protest for thousands of years. I am deeply sceptical that an egg or two can really be classed as violence, especially when working in politics, one must expect that the public will get angry with you, fascists or not, and with so little recourse for the public to get it’s views heard it’s understandable that people get frustrated and engage in this kind of activity.”
Depends. I can imagine an egg if thrown hard enough could cause some serious hurt (expecially if you were hit in the head with one). It’s a fairly hard object.
The public had their opportunity to get their views heard a few days ago on June 4th.
Comment edited by a moderator.
James:
First up, I’m assuming you’re the same James who supports the BNP and isn’t a student at our University. Odd that you’re still here.
Secondly, the National Front was founded when he was 20, so I doubt it was when he was 17. When he was 17, he joined the NATIONAL SOCIALIST Movement, if that’s what you’re referring to. This organisation, founded on Hitler’s birthday, was a Neo-Nazi cult that set fire to synagogues. Granted that some people make mistakes when they’re 17 but leaving a Neo-Nazi cult to spend the following 40 years in fascist political parties doesn’t really qualify.
The “death to Jews” thing was actually in 1983, when he was 36. So, again, you’re missing the point a little. He told a Malaysian police officer “inferior beings like you…” and was fined £50.
Most people who voted for the BNP, UKIP etc. were voting against the EU and not *for* those parties. Let’s see the results in the general election: we’ll see the national BNP vote decrease.
And James; you’re, what, 17 yourself? Maybe *you* should be the one who moves on from this fascism and later regret your words…
i completly agree with everything in the article, it was mindless violence whic\th served no point other than to give the BNP a stage to launch further campaigns and spread what can only be described as hate to more people. people need to realised that the only way to beat the BNP is via democracy sad as it is these men have been elected by the majority to represent us. Attacking them serves no good and only serves to lower yourself to the same level as these racists. we must all rise up aginst these racists to stop there hate spreading but we must do so within the confines of the law and without damaging our integrity… if not are we not the same as the BNP?
James:
Jason has already responded to your points on Andrew Brons but I’ll just add that I would not vote for someone who had, in their adult life, committed such an offence and belonged to the groups that Brons has. I think a lot of people would feel the same way but even if I’m wrong, don’t you think it’s in the public interest for them to know and be able to decide for themselves. People are not absolved of their past actions by the mere passage of time and it’s pretty obvious that Brons hasn’t moved on and become an opponent of racism. When you’re openly racist yourself I wonder why you even bother to pretend that the racist actions of BNP members are at all disparate with the party.
As for whether people knew about BNP immigration policy being based on ethnicity, the BBC frequently neglected to mention this both on television and on their website and referred to them only as “anti-immigration”, which as I’ve said before is too generic. It seemed that the BBC were so concerned to come across as neutral that they failed to mention basic facts. Faults committed by other media sources included referring to the BNP only as “far-right”, “extremist” and “anti-EU” rather than taking the time to explain why their policies are racist. If the BNP are as confident as you that people would back an immigration policy based on ethnicity, why doesn’t it appear more obviously on their own website? Why doesn’t the homepage of their website declare “we want to get rid of non-whites” in huge bold letters. Did Griffin and others include this on their leaflets? I haven’t actually seen leaflets given out on behalf of Griffin but having seen BNP leaflets before they tend to use ambiguous or meaningless phrases like “we support British values, we support the average British person, we oppose the PC-culture” rather than “We want black people out of the country, we oppose mixed-race relationships, we hate Islam and we think homosexuality should be ‘returned to the closet’” The truth of course is that the overwhelming majority of people would think these BNP policies are despicable and disgusting and that the BNP has only survived into this century by toning down its racist and bigoted image in public.
David:
“People are not absolved of their past actions by the mere passage of time and it’s pretty obvious that Brons hasn’t moved on and become an opponent of racism. When you’re openly racist yourself I wonder why you even bother to pretend that the racist actions of BNP members are at all disparate with the party.”
>Not “absolved” perhaps, but people can and do change their views over time. A good example is all those former Labour supporters who now vote BNP. Then again, maybe Peter Hain is still a communist?
No one in the BNP is an opponent of racism as you’d define it. That’s why we’re in the BNP. Not that many would support National Socialist groups though (in addition, current National Socialist groups mostly hate the BNP, they say we have sold out to Zionists).
“As for whether people knew about BNP immigration policy being based on ethnicity, the BBC frequently neglected to mention this both on television and on their website and referred to them only as “anti-immigration”, which as I’ve said before is too generic.”
>That’s complete rubbish and you damn well know it. Whenever any media talks about the BNP, they invariably mention the racial policies.
“If the BNP are as confident as you that people would back an immigration policy based on ethnicity, why doesn’t it appear more obviously on their own website? Why doesn’t the homepage of their website declare “we want to get rid of non-whites” in huge bold letters.”
>Your point doesn’t support your argument. Why doesn’t the Labour Party over their website have in big letters “we love multiracialism and support more immigration coming to Britain”?
In addition the information is there for anyone that wants to find it. The clause about returning Britain to its 1948 racial makeup is in the BNP’s constitution, which is freely avaliable online. Our 2005 General Election manifesto is even on the BBC website, which states that we don’t wish to see indigenous Britons become a minority in their own country. It was widely reported when Nick Griffin said that blacks and asians could never be British. You’ve clearly found the information, and you’re not even a member or supporter of the BNP, so obviously it’s not like we keep such election pledges locked up in a cupboard somewhere.
The BNP sometimes prints articles on its website relating to race and identity. Currently on the front page is an article showing how the BNP opposes the islamisation of Britain. Arthur Kemp has spoken of demographics, and his book is for sale on the website. I’d say the policy is pretty damn clear.
“they tend to use ambiguous or meaningless phrases like “we support British values, we support the average British person, we oppose the PC-culture”
>Yes well we do. Not every leaflet has our racial policy in. Then again, no other Party in the UK simply speaks of one issue in their leaflets, time and time again.
People already know the BNP’s immigration policy, so quite often the leaflets speak about other policies that people aren’t aware of.
“We want black people out of the country, we oppose mixed-race relationships, we hate Islam and we think homosexuality should be ‘returned to the closet’”
>This is common knowledge already. Why talk about something the voters already know? Someone who supporters the above things is likely a BNP voter already, so all you’d be doing is preaching to the choir.
UAF can’t talk with BNP
Number 2 BNP vs UAF secretary on radio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwfqBdA21SA
On common sense BNP always win because it says good sense things. Then BNP adversaries can only to use violence to stop more votes on BNP. Because BNP is right, if BNP speaks it takes more and more votes.
““We want black people out of the country, we oppose mixed-race relationships, we hate Islam and we think homosexuality should be ‘returned to the closet’”
This is common knowledge already. Why talk about something the voters already know? Someone who supporters the above things is likely a BNP voter already, so all you’d be doing is preaching to the choir.”
Not common knowledge to the majority of people who voted for you in the election. “We want black people out of the country” is the kind of thing that stops people voting for you because millions died in WWII opposing that kind of policy from forcing its way across Europe. Why would we want to turn back the clock to the most disgusting and evil period of human history?
Marco, your post was shit. Try to speak English and argue with words that aren’t “good sense things”.
There hasn’t been any violence. There will be, if the BNP gains seats in the General Election. That’s not a threat – I won’t get involved – but people have died to fight fascists before and people will die to fight fascists again. If Nick Griffin looks like he might become PM, he will be assassinated by *somebody*. I’m not saying it’s right but saying that “BNP adversaries can only use violence” is complete bullshit.
“>That’s complete rubbish and you damn well know it. Whenever any media talks about the BNP, they invariably mention the racial policies.”
I can’t know what every media source said and neither can you but I am quite certain that I have come across news pages and shows where the BNP have been accused of nothing more egregious than being anti-EU and anti-immigration. As well as the BBC, this very site, which is hardly sympathetic to the BNP, in its section on the BNP really accuses them only of being fiercely anti-immigration and having a range of anti-EU policies, you can see this for yourself in the EU elections section before telling me it’s complete rubbish. Presumably this has been because these policies are so obviously true that nobody could seek to make accusations of media bias when they are stated as BNP policies. The racist policies on the other hand are not always admitted to. Nick Griffin has himself occasionally claimed that the BNP are not racist, contrary to your own claims. Just as they play down the anti-Semitic side when it is unpopular, so they are prepared to react in mock outrage when accused of racism when it is not in their interests to admit to it.
“Why doesn’t the Labour Party over their website have in big letters “we love multiracialism and support more immigration coming to Britain”?”
Well principally because they don’t. At least they don’t support more immigration. You can’t possibly have failed to miss that we now have a points system for immigration, the row over Gurkhas’ rights that occurred because the Labour government was opposed to a the immigration of a group of people that the vast majority of the population supported and that the Labour government insisted on withholding the same immigration rights to Bulgaria and when they joined the EU precisely because they wanted there to be less immigration (policies which, incidentally, I do not support). BNP supporters like yourself just seem to find the distinctions between “let’s kick all black people out” and “let’s tell everyone in the world to move here, and not just here but to your street, where people from other ethnicities might start doing such terrible things as crossing your path or talking to you” too subtle for their understanding. As for loving multiracialism, it probably isn’t true to say they ‘love’ it anymore than anyone ‘loves’ the fact that people with different hair colours, heights, sexualities and musical tastes can live together in one society. People generally just recognise that there is nothing wrong with this and don’t even think about it enough to love it, except when studying history or anthropology and societies so primitive as to discriminate on the grounds of race or other criteria irrelevant to human character, interests and well-being. No party needs to announce that they believe in multi-racialism any more than they need to announce that they believe in gravity. It is merely what is quite rightly expected and assumed. Those who believe the converse, in primitive and irrational racial discrimination, do on the other hand have a duty to announce this as it is outside of the expectations one would have of a political party in a civilised nation.
“You’ve clearly found the information, and you’re not even a member or supporter of the BNP, so obviously it’s not like we keep such election pledges locked up in a cupboard somewhere.” No, but then I had a reason to try and find out more and the resources to do it. Someone who rarely or never uses the internet is not going to see the BNP constitution, wherever it is online and those that do have time and access are not going to go out of their way to find out more if they have already got the impression from the media that the BNP are flavour of the month for protest votes and anyone who thinks it’s rebellious or cool to vote for an anti-establishment or controversial party. Anyone who takes their leaflets at face value will just notice all the guff about St George’s day and ideas about ‘Britishness’ and think the BNP are pretty harmless. Nick Griffin and others have claimed the BNP are lied about and demonised so people who haven’t seen the overtly racist parts of the BNP constitution for themselves may well assume that this is a media exaggeration, particularly if they have bought into the idea, consistently with lies that the BNP propagate themselves, that the BNP are only criticised because they are anti-establishment and not because of their policies.
“Currently on the front page is an article showing how the BNP opposes the islamisation of Britain.”
Well this is just it, the BNP operate by deceit and aim to give the impression “we oppose Islam because it’s taking over this country” rather than “we oppose Islam even though it clearly isn’t taking over this country and we’d oppose it even if only 0.1% of the population was Muslim or even if there was only one British Muslim and s/he was very quiet and never came into contact with any of us. Because we’re basically just a bunch of vindictive bastards.” In any case, this is really a separate issue. One is about people’s freedom to live in a country without being deported or discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, one is about people’s freedom to choose and practice their own religion. It’s no less immoral or stupid to oppose either one of these basic freedoms but they’re nevertheless not the same issue.
“>Someone who supporters the above things is likely a BNP voter already, so all you’d be doing is preaching to the choir.”
If someone who supports the above things (racism, homophobia and Islamophobia) is likely a BNP voter already then you’ve already exhausted your core support base of genuine bigots, in which case you’re essentially conceding my point there; by concentrating on other policies in their leaflets the BNP is trying to lure in new voters who would not vote for them on the basis of their racist and discriminatory policies, which are therefore being kept out of the foreground.
“No one in the BNP is an opponent of racism as you’d define it.”
Or as a dictionary would. And this is precisely why nobody with a shred of decency who knew that your racist and ridiculous views were typical of the BNP would ever consider voting for them. Because the overwhelming majority of people are not racist. You can see this for yourself every time you use public transport, go to a school, hospital or other public building or spend any amount of time in the multiracial society that you are scared to engage in. Notice how black and white people do not recoil in horror at the sight of one another and choose to make conversation and interact rather than hide in corners and effect barriers. Most people simply do not give a shit about skin colour and it is only your immaturity and blind adherence to a backwards creed that blinds you to this.
*Bulgaria and Romania
Oh so the BNP are thugs? Racist? homophobics? Where does it say that in teh manifesto?
what a load of crap, you are all either ignorant stupid or racist yourself.. Not allowing freedom of speech for the 1,000,000 Brits that did vote, the Brits that dont want mass Multiculturism or Islamic wars.
Nearly 1,000,000 voted in local elections for the BNP,
minus those who feel they wanted to but were too scared to!
Minus those who want to and couldnt make it, Minus those whose votes were binned at counting, yes it was recorded and is being looked into..
Also, if 1,000,000 Brits wish to have the voice of someone heard then it should be heard regardless of what you or Brown or Cameron thinks..
Its British Law a Democracy! You feel your higher than this law??
Abusing people physically outside Parliament where there is a 1 mile radius ban on protesting is also illegal, so anyone there was breaking the law.
Stop just quoting crap from decades ago, things change people change.. Ken livingston was suspended a few years ago for racial abusing a jewish reporter and his X Mayor is the Chairman of UAF!!!!!!
As for this UAF member Twat, kicking out at Middle aged women is disgusting, his name has been reported to the police,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00571/griffin_car_571056a.jpg
@ David, your talking crap! have millions of Muslims here already and growing 3 times quicker thatn the Brit lt alone tehones still flooding our Airports and ports and hiding in teh back of lorries..
As for racism, you need to get out more..
I suppose, none of the Ethnic minorities that mugged stabbed and robbed me on any of the dozen occasions was a BNP member!
Look at the stats!
28 stabbings in london last year, at a rate of 12% ethnic minorities in GB that accounts for what 4 of the 28 stabbings? NO in 28 of the 28 stabbings, the assailances were black.
So is that just a coincidence? made up? or do these black youths just target white youths?
Oh thats not racist is it..
though all we seem to hear about is the black kid in Edmonton get stabbed racially.
everyone has a touch of racism, its in our genes to be amongst people of your own. Pretending and trying to convince everyone else of otherwise proves your quite sad and either envy another race or are Jealous!
I respect teh Indiginous people of GB for what they have built.
Now people are knocking it down they cant say anything and have groups like the Fascist UAF abusing them to carry on Destroying it..
Oh by the way, im ½ Indian…
“I suppose, none of the Ethnic minorities that mugged stabbed and robbed me on any of the dozen occasions was a BNP member!”
“Oh by the way, im ½ Indian…”
Jay, thank you for your comment. I hope you feel absolutely comfortable with supporting a party that thinks that half of you will never belong in this nation, and that one of your parents should be ‘voluntarily repatriated’.
In related news, nominations for the 2009 Darwin Awards are still open.
While I don’t have time to reply in full right now, may I just say that the “James” poster who started his post with this is not me:
“Oh so the BNP are thugs? Racist? homophobics? Where does it say that in teh manifesto?
what a load of crap, you are all either ignorant stupid or racist yourself.. Not allowing freedom of speech for the 1,000,000 Brits that did vote, the Brits that dont want mass Multiculturism or Islamic wars.”
While agreeing with the content of the post, I thought I’d make that clear.
“Oh so the BNP are thugs? Racist? homophobics? Where does it say that in teh manifesto? what a load of crap, you are all either ignorant stupid or racist yourself”
Erm, what the hell?
And also the guy in the photo was kicking the car door, not the woman. It was shown in videos on various news channels.
But seriously, this is an insane conversation. On the one extreme there are people willing to die or kill to stop fascism happening again in the UK and on the other extreme there are people who supported the holocaust or pretend it never happened. Most people are in the middle but no doubt the numbers at the extremes will grow and it could be a really bad idea to continue this debate when some absolutely insane comments have been made so far..!
James
“Oh so the BNP are thugs? Racist? homophobics? Where does it say that in teh manifesto?” Do you mean to say that the BNP don’t refer to themselves as thugs in their own manifesto? I’m stunned. The racism and homophobia are explicit in their ideology, as the other James and leading BNP members accept. Look up the constitution or the opinions of the BNP leadership for yourself if you like. You could start with their views on mixed-race relationships, Griffin stated at least as recently as 2008 that he and the BNP oppose mixed-race relationships so don’t go thinking that such an appalling view relates only to the party’s stance decades ago. The quote about homosexuality being “returned to the closet” is from 2006, in the same year spokesman Phil Edwards stated that homosexuality is unnatural and leads to moral turpitude and disease. Sounds pretty homophobic to me. But please, look into this yourself if you don’t believe me; I hope that you’ll realise that the BNP are quite definitely racist and homophobic and stop supporting them but I’d prefer that you arrive at this conclusion independently through your own research. Incidentally, if the BNP haven’t put this in their manifesto then it suggests that they would rather some of their policies were kept beneath the surface. Perhaps the other James should consider this.
“Not allowing freedom of speech for the 1,000,000 Brits that did vote”
I’m not sure who you’re addressing but this whole article is about how the BNP and their supporters should be given freedom to speak and defeated through dialogue, an argument I and others commenting have expressed agreement with.
“If 1,000,000 Brits wish to have the voice of someone heard then it should be heard regardless of what you or Brown or Cameron thinks..”
Far, far more than 1,000,000 Brits wish for Islam, non-whites, homosexuality and interracial relationships to continue to be fully legal and accepted in British society. Regardless of what the BNP thinks.
Jay:
Your first couple of sentences are largely unintelligible so I’m afraid I probably won’t be able to offer a full response. I did understand that you are say there are millions of muslims in this country. Indeed there are, and many millions of Christians, atheists and members of other faiths. Why is thought to be a problem, or even comment-worthy?
“28 stabbings in london last year, at a rate of 12% ethnic minorities in GB that accounts for what 4 of the 28 stabbings? NO in 28 of the 28 stabbings, the assailances were black.”
Could you give a reference for this claim? Quite apart from the race issue, I’d be surprised to learn that there were only 28 stabbings in London. Particularly if, as you say, you have personally been stabbed a dozen times. I don’t believe at all that every stabbing in London was committed by a black person against a white person and neither, I think, do you. More importantly though, I do believe that racist crime is terrible whatever the ethnicity of the perpetrators. Hence I support further racial integration and wouldn’t support a party with leaders who have convictions for racist crime and would seek to introduce racist policies that, quite rightly, would also be illegal under current British law.
“Its in our genes to be amongst people of your own.”
I do not believe this. In any case, most people are capable of moving beyond what is in their genes. It is in our genes to eat when we are hungry, yet people choose to diet. It is in our genes to procreate, yet some are celibate. Nationalism or racism is already a departure from shallow egotism or family tribalism to encompass a wider group, some depart differently to define tribal boundaries in other ways that ignore race (e.g. football team supporters, colleagues in an organisation, political groups), some depart further to include the whole world. Everyone shares at least some similarities and narrow and inflexible groupings of race are illogical and arbitrary. Personally, insofar as I consider anyone to be “people of my own”, this group includes people of other races.
“Pretending and trying to convince everyone else of otherwise proves your quite sad and either envy another race or are Jealous!”
It would be far more natural to attribute jealousy to those spend their time making disparaging remarks about other races than those who believe different races are equal. Perhaps you do not know the meaning of the word “jealousy”, which would make sense since you seem to think it has a different meaning to “envy”.
“Oh by the way, im ½ Indian”
You really should look into the BNP’s views on interracial relationships and might want to reconsider your support for them. Unless you think your own parents and the relationship that led to your birth are unnatural and immoral.
Having watched the BNP’s promotional video it worries me deeply not only the fear inducing nature of the video (music, images, language) but the also having read the ideology of the BNP that their sole aim as a political party is to undo what they say our ancestors faught for 60 years ago! I like to pride myself in the knowledge that the UK is a diverse and multicultural place and has grown as a result of our inclusivity within the EU and our acceptance of any person within our society. For every example that the BNP can give of “non-whites” contributing in a negative way to our society I can think of just as many “whites” that have similar negative effects.
In the past I have never had any sort of emotional response to politics, however having read up on the BNP’s policys I’m a little bit disgusted that people are actively voting for a party such as this. I understand that they have been voted in via a democratic process but we need to make a stand and educate people that these types of polices will lead to a society which is segregated from europe and a country living in fear. The quote “the strength of our common endeavour will achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential” is enough to show why the BNP are everything I dispise in a political party!!!!
The 28 stabbings in London is either a made-up figure, a carefully selected sample skewed towards the desired outcome, or a misprint. Perhaps you mean teenager-on-teenager deaths caused by knives, not stabbings in total?
Might seem pedantic, but if you’re going to make accusations as strong as the ones you have made, they’ll have to be backed up with solid evidence.
I understand the point – that black teenagers are statistically more likely to carry a knife, and we must be allowed to have an open debate about why this is and try to stop it happening, through education, through the law and through intervention if necessary. Neither can we afford to only concentrate on certain black areas – violence isn’t concentrated to one racial group, which is where the BNP’s argument falls apart. If it’s only black people committing the crime, what explains the recent violence in Belfast?
Of course poverty, low aspirations, absent dads, availability of knives/guns/drugs in certain areas are going to contribute to the crime rate, but we mustn’t be afraid to talk about cultural issues as well just because the BNP have hijacked them.
And is that clause IV, Johno?
I wish anti-facists would give the BNP a chance to speak, enough people have voted for them, that’s how democracy works!!! I think too many people associate Hitler to the BNP…I’m not entirely sure why as their manifesto does not seem to have the holocaust down on their to do list. Any politics student or person interested in politics would know that a recent swiss party won the election despite putting up racist ads. Do we start comparing them to Hitler as well? They maintained that if foreigners commit a crime they should be deported immediately…if you think about it, it’s pretty smart. It solves the problem of overflowing prisons, and it means Britons for Britain….I say give them a chance, if they trip, they will fall under the public’s eyes, then we can all be better judges of what to make of them.
“They maintained that if foreigners commit a crime they should be deported immediately…if you think about it, it’s pretty smart.”
No, if you think about for even a second, it’s pretty dumb. Because it’s completely vacuous. If you are using the word “foreigners” with any accuracy you must mean visitors and illegal immigrants, who would be extradited or deported anyway under the laws we already have. Those who wouldn’t be deported are those who have a legal right to be here, presumably this Swiss party meant to inaccurately suggest that everyone of foreign descent is a foreigner and that anyone of foreign descent should be deported if they committed crimes. Quite rightly, this would be regarded as morally outrageous in this country, at least by any reasonable-minded person; what kind of xenophobic imbecile would worry about the parentage or previous nationality of a criminal rather than the nature of the crime they committed. I don’t know about you but I’m more concerned about the prevention of crime and the securing of adequate sentences for those criminals who commit the most apalling crimes (like Ian Huntley or the killers of Baby P, all incidentally white ‘homegrown’ Britons) than the ‘foreignness’ of any criminal. It’s simply irrelevant and preoccupation with such nationalist nonsense (like your laughable “Britons for Britain” comment) distracts from more important questions.