Yes, I heard not only Brownpants, but Peter Hain, interviewed on this subject over the weekend.

I almost fell of my chair - we lost the case, so we need to change the law to win the case. Setting aside the implications of that for a free society (and they are big implications), lets look at what they're actually saying. It should be illegal for anyone to voice any criticism of any belief system, because criticism might cause offence.

Of course, the Tango Man would perhaps have argued differently in the 70s and 80s, when such legislation could easily have been used to prevent criticism of apartheid, which, although a political system, was also the ruling philosophy of the national party in south africa.

But of course, thats not what he means. What he means is, no-one should hold or express opinions critical of islam, because that might cause offence, and offence might cause...boom!

Every time when I think things might be getting better (the Straw/Blair/Veils interventions seemed to be very well coordinated, and it seemed as thought they were trying to encourage debate into a certain direction), something like this happens, and its right back down into the dump...

Posted by: thomas ato at November 14, 2006 8:16 AM

Can't wait for the Brits to storm the mosques while universally enforcing these "religious hatred" laws.

And what's all this then about Rowan Atkinson? Whose side was he on?

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at November 14, 2006 8:25 AM

Why are we suprised at this move from IngSoc (Labour). They are determined to keep their selves in power, and I'm sure that if they need to, they'll use Sharia to do it (while they sip champagne in their ministry appartments). It's not Sharia they ate worried about. I can't believe that they are misunderstanding teh implications. It is losing power that they are most concerned about.

Because most of the BNP converts are coming from Labour supporters. So, on two counts we have this totalitarian movement of the banning of political opposition.

And if IngSoc come out of office, then the false world of targets and PC and multiculturalism that they have created will shatter. Remember, Britain is a naturally conservative country, and Blair said that he wanted to destroy conservatism.

Re the changing of the law to suit a particular case: imagine the people in power didn't like me, but there was nothing that they could prosecute me for. However, they do know that I like, I don't know, riding my bike in the local park, for example. So, in order to give themselves a better chance of arresting me, they make a law that says that you cannot ride your bike in the local park.

IngSoc just doesn't want to understand about civil liberties. They are sinister, and we must get them out!

Posted by: FREE LEE at November 14, 2006 8:29 AM

I think Rowan Atkinson was against the Religous Hatred laws. Someone let us know please if I was mistaken.

Posted by: FREE LEE at November 14, 2006 8:30 AM

Remember Brown-nose is well in with the Islamic moneymen...he is making it as easy as possible to implement Sharia banking in the UK. Don't count on him in the future.

My prediction is he will never get to be a prime minister that the people have given a mandate to.

Posted by: Turbinehead at November 14, 2006 8:59 AM

Yes, Rowan Atkinson, along with some other comedians, spoke out against the Religious Hate laws when it first hit the news. I've not heard anything from them this time around, probably because they don't want to appear as if they approve of the BNP. I don't approve of the BNP, but I will speak out against those who want to change the law simply because a group is recruiting from Labour supporters.

Posted by: clipper at November 14, 2006 9:08 AM

I have argued this before many times on this site that the Nationalist parties must be given a platform in the political debate regarding the spread of Islamism. To not do so is to leave the debate to the PC crippled multicultural parties to continue their current as Robert put it "wholesale abdication of responsibility".

I applaud the sensible decision of the jury in this case and hope that the BNP can capitalize on the growing awareness of Islamism and Jihad to force the other mainstream parties to start to take action.

Protest voting for the BNP is probably Britains only chance for survival.

Posted by: km at November 14, 2006 9:09 AM

Rowen Atkinson was definitely against the Bill. It could mean if this crap is passed in parliament which by the way is free from any restraint by libel or slander laws that the only place where the Aboriginal Brit will be able to speak his mind will be contained in a few square yards of the House of Commons, and my children and grandchildren will not have the pleasure of seeing Shakespeare's Othello performed. The only good think I can see coming out of this affair, if one can call it a good thing is that the Aboriginals will vote en mass for the British National Party, and we are on our way to a Fascist Britain with a Civil War thrown in for good measure. The British Government at the moment is suffering from an political senility.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at November 14, 2006 9:20 AM

Can't wait for the Brits to storm the mosques while universally enforcing these "religious hatred" laws.

And what's all this then about Rowan Atkinson? Whose side was he on?

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at November 14, 2006 08:25 AM

Recalling both an early stand-up act Rowan did as the Devil welcoming new arrivals into the Gates of Hell, and remarks made more recently when "anti-hate" legislation was being bruted about, Atkinson is on the side of being able to make fun of/speak critically of, whomever one wishes, Christian, Muslim, etc., and not the politically correct or otherwise dhimmified.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 14, 2006 9:31 AM

Islam is really something-neither fish nor fowl. It has no concept of nationhood or race (either you're a Muslim or you're not-NOTHING else matters) yet it acts like a master race with its claim that the whole world inherently belongs to Islam and that all beliefs other than it are inferior. It's no wonder many Westerners see Muslims as a race of people-the worst of them are just like the Nazis with their master race notions. Too bad the PC crowd is working so hard to protect today's Nazis rather than its potential victims in the West.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 14, 2006 10:19 AM

Why is it not incumbent upon Muslims in Britain to demonstrate unequivocally that they accept British laws and British society as it is currently constituted, and have no desire to implement Sharia in Britain at any time in the future?

This is just a wild stab in the dark (pun intended) but maybe it has something to do with Muslims even moderate ones being Islamic supremacists whose only goal is to see us groveling in dhimmitude or converting to their sick faith.

Posted by: km at November 14, 2006 10:21 AM

"Why is it not incumbent upon Muslims in Britain to demonstrate unequivocally that they accept British laws and British society as it is currently constituted, and have no desire to implement Sharia in Britain at any time in the future?"

Good point Robert. But you can also substitute in Blair, Labour, etc.

"Chancellor Gordon Brown and Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer have already said the law may need to be looked at again."

Similar questions should be asked in the Netherlands, and even the Baker Hamilton commission might do well to think about it.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at November 14, 2006 10:29 AM

Also, to paraphrase, first they came for BNP, ...

Posted by: Old Atlantic at November 14, 2006 10:30 AM

These days, the tag 'racism' - particularly the way it's used - has stopped meaning anything to me. Apparently, it's okay for the Malay to discriminate against Tamils and Chinese, Sudanese Arabs to do so against Blacks, Robert Mugabe to do the same against Zimbabwe Whites. But let a White leader anywhere simply suggest that non-Whites leave (not become second or third rate citizens or pay taxes to Whites) and all hell breaks loose.

I agree - Griffin should include Abu Abdullah in his condemnations. Also, while the UKIP doesn't specifically target Muslims, their proposed 'Britishness' test could easily filter out at least the openly threcherous Muslims and target them for deportation. However, I do prefer the BNP expelling all Muslims.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 14, 2006 10:35 AM

This is slightly OT, but I think it is worth a separate posting. The following is a link to an article in the Telegraph in which an Anglican archbishop essentially accuses the BBC of cowardice in its coverage of Islam:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/nmuslim14.xml

Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard at November 14, 2006 11:07 AM

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM - IN 1899!

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

I'm a Yank and a "Member of the tribe".
I consider Sir Winston Churchill the greatest Prime Minister England ever had and one of the greatest leaders any country ever had.

But I would love to know if he would be tried for racial hatred if he were to say the very same thing now, that he said in 1899!

Posted by: one of the chosen people at November 14, 2006 11:24 AM

http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/13031/let-the-people-of-england-speak.thtml

The Spectator,
1 January 2005
by Rod Liddle
In the middle of December last year, five police officers turned up at the Welsh home of Nick Griffin, leader of the British National party, and arrested him on suspicion of inciting racial hatred.
Griffin was driven to Halifax police station and forced to watch three hours' worth of his own speeches, which the police had surreptitiously recorded. He was then released without charge, bailed and told to reappear on 2 March this year – precisely at the time campaigning is expected to begin for the next general election. Mr Griffin is standing against David Blunkett, in Sheffield Brightside.
A bunch of other BNP members were arrested at the same time as Mr Griffin. The West Yorkshire police investigation was provoked by a BBC 'undercover' programme which revealed the startling fact that some members of the BNP – although not Griffin – clearly harboured racist views. It also showed Griffin talking in a pub and suggesting that Islam was a 'wicked' religion.
This programme was shown in July last year and, in a statement following the arrests, West Yorkshire police proudly announced that it had deployed a team of officers on the case 'five days a week, ten hours a day' ever since. Now at this point in the article, a really good journalist would tell you how big that team of policemen was. And how much the investigation had cost the taxpayer. And also cross-referenced it with how many burglaries, muggings, etc., had been carried out in the West Yorkshire area from July to 12 December. Especially unsolved ones. But I haven't been able to find that stuff out: the police won't tell me. But let's just remember: a team of police officers, five days a week, ten hours per day.
I got interested in this case after writing an article for the Sunday Times about Blunkett's proposed law prohibiting people from inciting religious hatred. This is part of the new Serious and Organised Crime and Police Bill, unveiled in the Queen's Speech. According to Blunkett, it is intended to protect 'individuals' rather than 'ideology' – but this is a meaningless and disingenuous statement. It's actually to stop you dissing Islam, full stop. I tried to find out from the Home Office what would constitute an offence under the new Act and nobody could tell me: they haven't got a clue. I asked loads of times. And then, on 8 December, a Home Office press officer said to me the following:
'It's all about context. If you wrote something in your column about Islam, the Crown Prosecution Service might not be interested, but if the same thing was said by Nick Griffin in a pub in Bradford, they might well be.'
Now, leave aside for a moment the repulsive implications of such person-specific legislation and therefore the wholly subjective nature of this new 'offence'. Forget for a moment that it will be left to the police (or the Home Secretary) to decide whether or not someone dissing Islam is doing it for naughty reasons or for nice reasons and what the hell difference that makes. What interested me once my article had been printed were the apparently clairvoyant powers of the Home Office press officer. Because, of course, four days after that conversation with the press officer, Nick Griffin was arrested for having said something in a pub about Islam.
It must he clairvoyance, because when I rang the Home Office back it insisted it had no involvement whatsoever in the Nick Griffin case. It didn't even know that the arrests were pending, proposed or imminent, a different press officer pronounced. Its officials had not even talked to the West Yorkshire police about the case, I was told. Twice.
'Stretching it a bit to be just coincidence, isn't it?' I asked.
'We had no contact at all,' the press officer repeated.
That's not quite what West Yorkshire police say officially, however. In a written statement to me (their press officers are incapable of speech, I think) they said the following: 'West Yorkshire police has worked closely with the Crown Prosecution Service throughout this inquiry. The Home Office has had no part in the direction and control of this inquiry, which is the responsibility of the chief constable. However, both Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies and Home Office officials have been kept apprised of the progress of the inquiry.'
This is, to my mind, a direct contradiction of what the Home Office told me. What do you think?
Unofficially, the West Yorkshire police were more forthcoming. Two officers visited a local BNP member, Paul Cromie, as part of the same operation which 'netted' Nick Griffin. Here's what one of the police officers, from West Yorkshire's Manningham nick, told Mr Cromie at the close of his interview: 'At the end of the day this whole thing should be ... well, it is very political. It's not coming from senior police. It's coming from much higher than that.'
Earlier in their conversation the same officer asserted that the investigation wasn't expected to 'come to much'.
We know this because Mr Cromie made a surreptitious recording of his interview and I've got a copy of the tape. I suppose he might have paid some actors to play the parts of policemen, but I don't think so.
Anyway, West Yorkshire police said they wouldn't comment on the comments allegedly made by one of their officers, which was no great surprise, frankly, as they wouldn't even tell me what the regional crime figures were.
Curious to find out a little more about the mechanics behind the arrest of Mr Griffin, I spoke to the magistrate who signed the warrant for his arrest. That's Mrs Valerie Parnham, who lives near Bradford.
A man answered the telephone. I told him I was a journalist and wanted to speak to Mrs Parnham. He shouted down the hallway: 'Valerie? VALERIE? I told you this would happen!'
Then a timorous Mrs Parnham came on the telephone. 'I can't say anything about this. I could get into trouble.'
Well, I just wanted to know if you were happy to sign the arrest warrant, I said, as plaintively as possible.
'(Long pause) I can't say anything about this. I'm sorry.'
It's all a bit of a mystery, isn't it? Although why, heaven alone knows. West Yorkshire police seem simultaneously proud of the operation and terribly reticent. The Home Office is, yet again, dissembling.
Meanwhile, the BNP leader Nick Griffin thinks it highly unlikely that he will be charged with anything at all and believes the whole thing is merely an attempt on the part of the Home Office – he is very clear about that – to 'break' the BNP. It wouldn't surprise me overmuch if he were right about that. But I suspect it's more a case that the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, wished to placate New Labour's enormous Muslim constituency which has been querulous of late, partly over the war against Iraq, partly over the arrests of suspected Muslim terrorists here in the UK. What better way to do a bit of placating than round up the ghastly racists of the BNP? And how fortuitous that the next time the BNP members appear in court it will be on 2 March, just as the general election campaign is expected to get under way.
But a number of questions remain in the mind. For example, who is telling the truth, the West Yorkshire police or the Home Office? And how does the Home Office explain away that statement to me from its press officer which predated Nick Griffin's arrest?
More seriously, we might start to worry ourselves about the laws against inciting racial hatred and the new one intended to combat what has been called religious hatred. Griffin was arrested on suspicion of contravening the former of these. As his comments were confined exclusively to Muslims (and even then in comparatively moderate tones) and the new law about inciting religious hatred was intended to give Muslims hitherto absent protection, why do we need a new law? What's the point of it? If people can be arrested for dissing Islam, then the new law is surely entirely superfluous.
And then there's this. Griffin was forced to watch all his speeches with the coppers in attendance – but no single specific phrase was identified by the police as having contravened the laws against inciting racial hatred. Instead, the policemen explained to him that it was the totality of what he had said: in other words, we can't quite put our finger on it, but we think you might have broken the law. But as I say, there's nothing we can actually point to. Isn't that approach a bit dangerous? And are we happy with the way in which legislation is invoked to punish people to whom we may be politically opposed?
For the man in the street, the taxpayer, the voter mulling over the question of law and order, there's this question: West Yorkshire police spent an awful lot of money and an awful lot of man hours investigating a man who will almost certainly not face a criminal charge nine months later, no matter how liberally the charge of inciting racial hatred is interpreted. Is this a responsible use of police time and effort?
And despite the denials, don't you suspect that this was precisely a politically motivated and, indeed, directed operation which will, in the end, do nothing to improve race relations and only ensured that a few more burglars and other such recidivists, who are a genuine menace to the public, were able to go about their business unhindered because of the priorities of this government? Would West Yorkshire police have spent so much time and effort on the case had it not been for political involvement from – as that errant officer put it – 'higher than that'?
And there is the broader, more general philosophical point: as an indirect result of the War on Terror, our freedom to say what we believe is being swiftly eroded. It's not just the Muslims who want people silenced or banged up: the Sikhs have been getting in on the act too, forcing a play which was critical of their religion to close. On the day it closed the Sikhs got support from a particularly fatuous spokesman for the Archbishop of Birmingham. He said that people should be free to criticise religion if they did so 'responsibly'. What a pompous ass. Surely it would be better if God, rather than the West Yorkshire police or the Sikhs or Muslim community leaders, decided what constituted responsible criticism – and delivered His terrible judgment in that black nanosecond after we have drawn our terminal breath. Otherwise the law courts are going to be full for a while to come.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 14, 2006 11:26 AM

As suggested in the article above, this case against the BNP had a large aspect of political motivation. The Police in Britain are politicised and act under political orders. The Governemnt are scared of the growing support for the BNP and hence persecute them. The instances of political persecution of the BNP are numerous. The politicians are directing the police to persecute political opposition.

The other main aspect of this case is the Government silencing any criticism of Islam. Our Government announced immediately after the 'not guilty' jury verdict that they will move to change the law so that criticism of Islam will bring convictions in the future. 'We didn't get the verdict we wanted, we must silence them in the future, so we will change the law accordingly' kind of sums it up- Hitler/Stalin style. This is outrageous. This is to silence criticism and debate about Islam. This aspect also has a political side to it.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 14, 2006 11:35 AM

I sincerely hope that as soon as this new law passes, someone will have the balls to stand up and put the Koran on trial for "inciting religious hatred."

Perhaps all of Sura 9 could be removed, or the line that says, "do not take Christians and Jews for friends," or that Jews are "brothers of Monkeys" and so on and so on.

Will it become a crime in Britain if you mention the prophet Mohammad without saying "peace be upon him!" or some bullshit?

I hope someone starts a cult and says horrible shit about people, and then claims to be a religious figure to justify it legally.

Come on you limy Brits! its time to stand up and test the limits of your PC overlords!

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at November 14, 2006 11:36 AM

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, the Lord Chancellor, last night supported Mr Brown’s calls for reform of religious hatred laws. “We should look at them in the light of what has happened because what is being said to young Muslim people of this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not.”

So what's wrong with being anti-Islam? It should be crystal clear to this idiot that Islam is anti-British by trying to foist even more PC and sharia on it. Britain (rightly) was proudly anti-Hitler in WW2 so why can't it be proudly anti-Islam in what many consider WW3?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 14, 2006 11:41 AM

Winston, where are you buddy? We need you now more than ever! May you rest in peace that you've never had to see what has become of us.

Posted by: americaningermany at November 14, 2006 11:46 AM

Winston is indeed sorely needed. As is Bismarck.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 14, 2006 12:02 PM

Brown is an elitest... his understanding of the law is to change it until it confirms to his belief.
And what is his belief? To sell off his forefathers and foremothers society for a few more islamic votes. He thinks of his perks and his next election, cares little of his grandaughter hiding behind a vail in 30 years.

He is a thoughtless trader.

A fan of BNP Nick Griffin or not, he puts it out there on the line at great personal risk, watch his video's...

Leaders emerge at times of great societal risk, the current climate could be the top of the risk ever in Britain.

If Griffin can manage to shed some of his past baggage and become more mainstream in other areas, do not be surprised if he and Churchill are seen as great British leaders, both rallying to save Britain at times of peril, a hundred years on.

Posted by: winston at November 14, 2006 12:04 PM

Melanie Phillips has written very cogently about Brown's call to change the laws:

[...]

In fact, the BNP is not respectable, but remains a deeply racist party with abhorrent views, and no decent person should have anything to do with it. But it is making headway because voters feel betrayed and abandoned by the entire mainstream political class.

John Cruddas, the Labour MP for Dagenham in Essex, where the BNP won 11 council seats in last May’s local elections, has warned that it is ‘beginning to establish itself as a rival to Labour in many of our traditional heartlands’, drawing support not from hardcore racists but voters who have simply lost faith in mainstream politics.

This is undoubtedly true. But Mr Cruddas was surely wrong to say that the debate over the veil, talking tough on immigration or the language used in the ‘war on terror’ made the situation worse. The problem is rather that there is generally either silence or a carefully sanitised and unreal discussion about such issues.

What makes people vulnerable to the BNP is the enormous gulf between ministerial rhetoric and action. It is staggering, for example, that in deprived Newham, the Government is allowing the largest mosque in Europe to be built on the site of the Olympic village — a piece of Islamist triumphalism to be funded by the Tablighi Jamaat, a group described by intelligence sources as an ‘ante-chamber’ to al Qaeda.

According to John Reid, racial hatred can be defeated only by ‘rational argument, political opposition and the engagement of the whole community in opposition to such extremism’. Very true. But that has to apply across the board, to militant Islamists no less than to the BNP.

Now Dr Reid is proposing a new initiative to counter Islamist propaganda. About time. But his ‘core script of British values’ sounds like more of the usual feebleness. What’s needed is not yet another statement of Britishness to which people can easily pay meaningless lip service, but an uncompromising approach towards those who are hostile to this country.

Ministers should take a leaf from Australia, whose Prime Minister John Howard regularly declares that people who are hostile to Australian values have no place in Australia and should depart. Can you imagine Tony Blair or Gordon Brown saying such a thing — and following it up with action? Therein lies the problem.

The BNP is exploiting a deep weakness in our culture. Only if British society and its values are defended with the utmost vigour and their attackers given no quarter will the poisonous boil of the BNP finally be lanced, and bigotry of every kind shown the door.

Read it all: http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=464

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 14, 2006 12:29 PM

thomas ato said

It should be illegal for anyone to voice any criticism of any belief system, because criticism might cause offence.

With all due respect, I don't think this is about any belief system, because Christianity and Christians are excoriated every day, and no-one says a word. Wasn't it Mayor Ken Livingstone Himself who had to (temporarily!!) step down due to blatantly anti-Semitic statements?

No, the talk about changing the laws to protect any belief system only came up when someone criticised one particular belief system, one that must not be criticised, one that must not be named. One particularly peaceful religion that everyone fears offending due to their omnipresent threats of violent repercussions.

Posted by: special_guest at November 14, 2006 12:31 PM

Every year, fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control.

Tell it to the Qu’ran.

Posted by: limes at November 14, 2006 12:37 PM

We are Winston Churchill in 1935.

Posted by: jsla at November 14, 2006 12:55 PM

(Take heart.)

Posted by: jsla at November 14, 2006 12:56 PM

If Winston Churchill were alive and active now in the UK, he would be arrested for "racism".

Posted by: remote_control at November 14, 2006 1:41 PM

Thank Yog that here in the United States we do not conclude from premise "This will offend some people" that "We need a law against this." In a free country, people offend each other on occasion. The offended get to offend back, and as long as none of this involves physical assault, it's OK.

Happy and a little suprised that Atkinson is on the right side here. Most entertainers this side of the pond have an amazing instinct for picking the wrong side and then congratulating themselves for their courage in doing so. Not to mention implying that any resultant fall in income is evidence of incipient fascism (see Dixie Chicks).

Posted by: Karl Pov at November 14, 2006 1:50 PM

"It is dangerous to be right when the Government is wrong"

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 14, 2006 2:01 PM

Mr bean speaks out

Rowan Atkinson's letter to The Times of London
Published Wednesday, October 17, 2001

RELIGION AS A FIT SUBJECT FOR COMEDY
From Mr. Rowan Atkinson
Sir, I hope that I am not the only person in the creative arts who feels great disquiet about the proposals outlined by the Home Secretary in the Commons today, to introduce legislation to outlaw what has been described as 'incitement to religious hatred' (reports, October 16). Having spent a substantial part of my career parodying religious figures from my own Christian background, I am aghast at the notion that it could, in effect, be made illegal to imply ridicule of a religion or to lampoon religious figures.

Supporters of the proposed legislation would presumably say that neither I, nor any of my colleagues in the comedy world, are its intended targets, but laws governing highly subjective or moral issues tend to drag a very fine net, and some of the most basic freedoms of speech and expression can get caught up in it.

I have always believed that there should be no subject about which one cannot make jokes, religion included. Clearly, one is always constricted by contemporary mores and trends because, after all, what one seeks above all is an appreciative audience. However, would a film like 'Monty Python's Life of Brian,' criticized at the time of its release for being anti-Christian, be judged under the proposed law? Or that excellent joke in 'Not the Nine O'Clock news' all those years ago, showing worshippers in a mosque simultaneously bowing to the ground with the voiceover: 'And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini's contact lens'? Not respectful, but comedy takes no prisoners. However, in period and in context it was extremely funny and I believe that it is the reaction of the audience that should decide the appropriateness of a joke, not the law of the land.

For telling a good and incisive religious joke, you should be praised. For telling a bad one, you should be ridiculed and reviled. The idea that you could be prosecuted for the telling of either is quite fantastic.

Yours faithfully,
ROWAN ATKINSON
October 15

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 2:07 PM

DONT PANIC and start worrying about it all yet

It would first have to pass through parliament and thats not looking to great considering the restrictive history of New Labour's wondrous laws

Secondly it would also have to pass through the Lords

again seriously do you think it will?

and just for a minute believe some sort of harsher law can be created and endorsed through the two houses, some body would then have to enforce it against the likes of the BNP who have twice now beaten completely the BBC and its left wing political masters

i cant imagine the free publicity the BNP have got from these last two attempts has damaged them in any way, considering the words 'ISLAM IS A WICKED ETC' has been happily sprawled across every major news source it just about appeals to every currently unrepresented NON ISLAMIC in Britain

it may yet come down to NEW LABOUR losing most of its weaker seats to the likes of the BNP, with the Conservative's picking up the very much weakened NEW LABOUR seats else where

how ironic would it then be for New Labour to fall flat on its own a*se and out of government with the BNP having a say via democracy about what happens to New Labour and their Islamic buddies

watch this space, because its about to get very interesting, not in the least because the backlash against Islamification is just being born in Britain

Posted by: Taranus at November 14, 2006 2:14 PM

Like it or not, this whole mess will turn out to be a confrontation of races in the end.

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at November 14, 2006 2:15 PM

"Also, to paraphrase, first they came for BNP, ..."

Posted by: Old Atlantic

Yes, then they came for Robert Spencer, then they came for JW posters, then they came for JW readers....

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 14, 2006 2:29 PM

HFH - the sudden turnaround - for that is what it is - in the Anglican church regarding Islam is indeed significant.

At the risk of assuming pride, I believe we may be starting to see the fruits of our efforts. Well done to everyone who wrote to C of E officials after their seditious kowtowing to terror.

It was only a few months ago Dr Sentamu was "camping" in a tent inside York Minster in a bizzare show of solidarity with the terrorists.

One might also observe a dawning realisation amongst many Guardianistas regarding their hitherto misplace loyalties. I don't yet hold much hope for al beeb however...

As for Hain, he's long been a wilfully ignorant mouthpiece of the terrorists. All the more inexcusable given his post as N. Ireland Secretary, but what do we expect from this government. He and Brownose are a sickening pair of fools with about as much competence for public office as "Sir" Ian Blair...

Posted by: Domestos at November 14, 2006 2:56 PM

If Winston Churchill were alive and active now in the UK, he would be arrested for "racism".

"It is dangerous to be right when the Government is wrong"

Both right, but the harsh truth is: in the end it doesn't matter.

JWers are right. We know we're right.

And now we're required the conviction of our hearts and the perspective of our own fabled history. The West has suffered other assaults from other monsters, both internal and external in the past. This is part of our heritage, our legacy, our birthright: We are the descendants of freedom's warriors, and we must not squander their sacrifices, nor the legacy we OWE our descendants.

So this is the test of our times... will we give in to the black dog (as Churchill called it) of hopelessness and despair? I don't think so.

Posted by: jsla at November 14, 2006 3:01 PM

I am against the BNP party its a racist party no doubt, to me its no better then a nazi party but I do beleive nick griffin was right about isalm and he did not make a racist comment by saying islam is a wicked faith because islam is not a race.

The problem is the BNP party is a racist party its also anti semetic nick griifin in the past has also denied the holocaust he was editor for a magazine called the Rune which was anti semetic in a issue of the rune he called the holocaust the holohoax and denied the holocaust ever happened.

Posted by: Greek Gurl at November 14, 2006 3:23 PM

Hrmmm. I don't like the BNP, as they are a fascist party. However, I also hate Islam, which is akin to Nazism. By voting for the Labour party, it is similar to voting for Nazism, because it loves the Muslims, aka, Nazis. Therefore, vote Conservative. It's more of a middle-ground choice.

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at November 14, 2006 3:53 PM

I'm usually pessimistic about these things but I feel the atmosphere has recently changed considerably about free speech in the UK - especially with regard to Islam. I think Gordon Brown and Lord Falconer have completely misjudged this one if they think it's going to make them more popular.

This is somewhat OT, but did anyone see the 'Have your say' on the BBC website this morning that was asking if people were in favour of Kofi Annan's and Desmond Tutu's new plan for some sort of reconciliation between the West and the islamic world? I only had a quick look and I can't remember the details but I was impressed both by the number of respondents who said they weren't interested in more accommodation with the muslims because things had gone too far already and 'reconciliation' always meant non-muslims giving ground to muslims. Not only this but these were the responses that got by far the most recommendations from readers.

Strangely enough (and very suspiciously) I can't find any trace of this HYS - did anyone else see it? Do you know where it is?

Posted by: Malta_1565 at November 14, 2006 3:57 PM

Posted by: EnglishBlondie

Yes, then they came for Robert Spencer, then they came for JW posters, then they came for JW readers....

Exactly the same thought passed through my mind also ....

I am a bit surprised this was not taken up earlier here

so here is some interesting reading

Srdja Trifkovic interviews Nasty Nick

Monday, June 12, 2006

Nick Griffin’s Long March

The British National Party did very well at local elections in England on May 4 and now holds 54 council seats across the country. In some areas—notably in East London—it has replaced Labour as the dominant political force among the ethnically-British working- and lower-middle class.

According to the Spectator (April 15), Labour voters are switching to the BNP in such large numbers because they believe that only the BNP articulates what they are thinking: “Today’s BNP possesses the local campaigning skills and ability to make a personal connection with the voter that mainstream parties have forgotten.” Margaret Hodge, the Labour Employment Minister, told the press that 8 out of 10 white voters in her east London constituency of Barking admitted being tempted to vote for the BNP.

Is Britain on the verge of a major realignment, and can the bipartisan mould of establishmentarian politics be broken? Is the BNP becoming a respectable and electable party? This was the first question we put to Nick Griffin, the BNP Chairman, who gave us an exclusive interview during his recent visit to the United States:

MORE

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/Old%20Europe/Nick_Griffin_s_Long.html?seemore=y

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 4:15 PM

A lot of posters are saying the BNP is a racist party and expressing their disapproval of the BNP. I think it’s more the case that Nick Griffin is racist but the BNP, in general, is not. On most points the BNP simply represents the thoughts of the majority of the British population and is staffed by honest, hard working people who donate their time and money to save the country they love (the exact opposite of New Labour which is staffed by dishonest, lazy people who are there for their massive pay packages).

Unfortunately a combination of Griffin’s outspoken nature and the BBCs propaganda against the party has given people an inaccurate picture of the party and what it stands for. Before accepting the BBCs propaganda as fact I would recommend you read their manifesto and read the articles on their site for a few weeks and form your own opinion.

While Griffin has done much to modernise the party I think the party needs a new leader to gain mainstream respectability. Some of what Griffin writes in his blog is entirely unacceptable and it reads very differently to other parts of the BNP site. Sadly I don’t think he’d step down without a fight and even if he did it would be very hard to find a respectable person with the guts to lead the most persecuted organisation in the UK.

Despite my reservations about the party I still intend to vote for them because:

1) They are the only party who promise to address the rapid Islamification of the UK (the others actively promote it);

2) They want to bring an end to this PC nonsense that brands any talk about immigration or racial tensions as “racist” and which stifles free speech and open debate in general (the others want to introduce new laws to further reduce debate and examination of issues);

3) They are the only party who promise to address the rapidly rising crime and the decline of society through though tough and fair punishments (the others just want to treat criminals as victims a ignore the real victims of crime);

4) They want to get us out the EU which costs the UK £100,000 a second and that allows mass immigration of people from Eastern Europe who, among other exploits, leave their children at home and then claim £3,500 a year child benefits, job seekers allowance and use the NHS without ever contributing anything into the system. I genuinely like and respect Eastern Europeans but I don’t think it’s in the interest of an densely populated country like the UK to be handing out free money to immigrants as it will eventually cause a population explosion and an economic collapse.

That all said, if somebody can direct me to another, more respectable, major party that is seeking to bring a halt to the rapid decline of the UK I’ll happily vote for them. Until then I will definitely back the lesser of two evils as I now see the BNP as the only way to save this country.

Sorry, that was rather off topic but when a site seeking stop Islamic extremists and the Jihad against the west puts forward negative opinions about the only UK party actively working towards the same goal I feel compelled to stop my lurking and post in their defence.

Posted by: Oliver at November 14, 2006 4:24 PM

Voltaire said about Newton when he died that they buried him among Kings. The same could be said about Sir Winston Churchill if he had wanted that. We the British would have buried him him under the speakers chair in the house of Commons, St Pauls Cathedral Westmister Abbey anywhere he wished and built a mausoleum to rival the Taj mahal, but we didn't. We respected his wishes. After his impressive state funeral, and I a can assure you it was impressive. His body was taken by train to Oxfordshire and buried at a private ceremony Bladon Churchyard not far from the entrance to the church. There he lies in a simple grave among the English he loved, the common man. Most American know that his mother was American and that he was half American, but do you also know that he was also part Iroquois Indian as well. Churchill in many way was everyman in the broadest sense of the meaning.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at November 14, 2006 4:31 PM

I am against the BNP party its a racist party no doubt, to me its no better then a nazi party but I do beleive nick griffin was right about isalm and he did not make a racist comment by saying islam is a wicked faith because islam is not a race.

The problem is the BNP party is a racist party its also anti semetic nick griifin in the past has also denied the holocaust he was editor for a magazine called the Rune which was anti semetic in a issue of the rune he called the holocaust the holohoax and denied the holocaust ever happened.

Posted by: Greek Gurl

Griffin told Ha'aretz yesterday: "I was clearly encouraged by Le Pen's success in France." There is no formal connection between the two parties, he says, but he hopes to establish closer ties with Le Pen's party if and when the BNP is elected to the European Parliament. He believes that the same issues which won Le Pen support in France will similarly attract British voters to his party.

"We certainly would seek the removal of all people who had come here as asylum seekers, because as far as we are concerned under United Nations law... people are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. And we are not next to Afghanistan, Algeria and so on. So none of those people have the slightest right to be in this country, and we would seek to remove them immediately, with much tougher enforcement and legislation".

"We believe that the only people who have a right to live in Britain who aren't already here are people of clear British descent, who had been abroad for some generations, for instance white Rhodesians, or Zimbabweans as it is now called, they have got a right of return here. Other than that [we would accept] people of European stock, individuals who marry people living in Britain. They should be able to be naturalized and become citizens as a matter of routine. Nobody else should."

Griffin warns of the danger of Britain becoming an "Islamistan, because here we are so soft on Islamic terrorism and illegal immigrants." Obviously, immigration is the sexy issue," says Griffin, "but it is much more than that." In reference to the clashes last summer between young Asians and whites in northern England, The British National Party leader declares: "The society is on the verge of collapse, and all those who say that cultural coexistence is possible are simply wrong. We have problems with multinationalism, which is enforced upon us by a system."

Griffin, who was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in April 1998, has called the Holocaust "the hoax of the 20th century" and coauthored a pamphlet alleging that a Jewish conspiracy controls the media, where it provides an "endless diet of pro-multiracial, pro-homosexual, anti-British trash."

But Griffin insists that he did not allege that there's a Jewish conspiracy. "That's absolutely out of the question. What the pamphlet says, and what everybody recognizes, is that especially in America, the Zionist lobby is massively powerful and influential....But also in Britain, if you look at the funding and influence in the Labour Party - again, there's a disproportionate number of Jews involved in that. But that is not to say that either a Jewish conspiracy or that Jews are involved or to blame."

Griffin says the illustration on the cover of the New Statesman showing a Jewish star piercing the Union Jack "a vulgar piece of artwork... I can imagine that to Jews it was thoroughly shocking, and I wouldn't have used it, not least because if we had used it we would be in court for incitement for racial hatred".

But what about the issue of the Holocaust as "the hoax of the 20th century?"

"Fundamentally, I would say that it is something from the 20th century... I am exasperated by the way it was used as a moral club to beat anyone in the Western world who wanted to preserve the Western world. It is an absurd position to use that... I think it is also becoming or should be becoming clear to Jews around the world that basing a large part of one's claim to anything, and basing one's politics in relations to the rest of the world on death camps, is fine until you have a Jenin. And then the moral high ground is no longer there. And I think it is time to put the whole thing behind us."

Griffin argues that the active role the Jews played in such movements as "egalitarianism, feminism, [and] Marxism, of course" served the "perceived Jewish self-interest in breaking up a Western society, making it less homogenous, on the basis that a less homogenous society is less likely to identify the Jews as different... So therefore I understand, and I have changed my position over the years in the sense that I can see from the Jewish perspective, how Jews felt having been persecuted, and why they have a sense of insecurity and fear.

"Now, I think that we are at a point where if white nationalists can understand and forgive that, and if similarly Jews can be less - I should be blunt - paranoid about any manifestation of white nationalism ... it doesn't mean that we want to exterminate you, any more then you want to exterminate us.

"The problem is the pure hypocrisy we get from significant number of Jews who when they are talking about Jewish things, say `yes, we want to preserve ourselves'. Now, I got a suspended sentence for incitement to racial hatred, for saying effectively precisely the same thing about my people, and that's the problem; it appears to be an hypocrisy where it is fine by the Jews, that's good when they want it, but when gentiles want it, that means that they want to exterminate people and establish a fourth Reich. It is simply not like that. We want the same.

"If both sides can give a little bit, then I think that particularly after the September 11 events, I believe that Jews have no choice: they either back the West and accept our right to preserve ourselves as the overall majority or the Jews will vanish, because the alternative is only West or Islam... And it the West goes down, so do the Jews.

Do you believe that there was a massacre in Jenin?

"It isn't something I studied myself and whether there was a massacre or wasn't - it is irrelevant. Either way it doesn't matter, being that the entire Arab and Muslim world believe there was. There is no question that the Israeli Defense Force is capable of massacres, there's no question of that at all; it has been done in the past, in order to terrify other Palestinians into leaving in large numbers; and it is part of a similar strategy now.

"Sooner or later there has to be a two-state solution, otherwise the bloodshed will get worse and worse. And the Palestinian state has to be a viable state, and not some piece of land based on miserable little refugee camps."

At the same time, Griffin says he understands Israelis who believe that the Palestinian leadership rejected peace initiatives at Camp David and Taba because the true aim of the Palestinians is the destruction of Israel. "I can quite believe that view, because the same mentality from these people, or people related to them we have in Britain as well, and we see that. Maybe they just won't compromise."

http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/griffin_israelmedia.htm

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 4:43 PM

I have read numerous comments on forums , online
newspapers and even on the Biased Broadcasting
Corporation about this matter.
They nearly all( 99%) agree with the verdict.
The publics perception of Islam is the same as the BNP`s.
Gordon Brown can try and change laws until he is
blue in the face but he cannot re-write the Koran and 1400 years of history.
He may be Prime Minister when Bliar quits , this
is the only way he will get the post and fortunately will not be in the job for long.
He must be the most despised man in Britain and
has NO chance of being elected back in.

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at November 14, 2006 4:46 PM

The ruling elite has already cast their lot with Islam. This could be a fatal miscalculation on their part. While I must admit there would be certain grim poetic justice in seeing Tony Blair's severed head held aloft by a screaming jihadi - I expect that Blair has already made careful plans to either escape just before the Imams sieze total control or serve as a "court Jew" in the new Caliphate. Still, the Muslims just don't seem to have much impulse control. They might not be able to resist. That's why I say that for the UK, Griffin and the BNP are really the last breath of hope.

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 4:49 PM

Well this is what happens when you let Jocks take control of your country without even voting for them

Lord Falconer an unelected Scot in charge of England's constitutional affairs

Gordon Brown voted for in Scotland, but cannot vote on Scottish matters, but can on English matters.

Likewise John Reid Home Secretary for England, not Scotland, but voted into power by Scots.

There is not much to choose between the oppression by Scots and that by muslims.

The Race and Religious hatred law will not apply in Scotland.

Posted by: Al.R.O'Ackbar at November 14, 2006 5:28 PM

I like most of what BNP says, but I would like to say to their leader that if britain is controlled by zionists, it wouldnt have the problems it has with muslims. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: StillFedUp at November 14, 2006 5:45 PM

Off topic:

Toys for Tots rejects Jesus doll

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 14, 2006 5:52 PM

From Oliver's post above:

"On most points the BNP simply represents the thoughts of the majority of the British population and is staffed by honest, hard working people who donate their time and money to save the country they love..."

Well, Oliver, according to the usually insightful Melanie Philips, you are a hardcore racist, not respectable, and your views are abhorrent.

Additionally, you are "vulnerable" and obviously cannot think for yourself. (Melanie, thankfully, remains her usual invulnerable self - BBC and Times propaganda notwithstanding.)

Oliver, please go and see your nearest Muslim NHS doctor to get that "poisonous boil" lanced.

Oh, and if I was eligible to vote in UK elections, I'd be at the polling booth right alongside you, boils, warts and all.

Posted by: Xerxes at November 14, 2006 6:02 PM

Holger Dansker-

"After his impressive state funeral, and I a can assure you it was impressive."

My Father was among the 2nd Battalion Grenadier guards, at Churchill's funeral. Everything he has ever told me about it seconds what you have said. He says it was a matter of great honour that they paid him the final respects due a man of his worth.

He also says it's a damn shame that people these days couldn't hope to be one hundredth the man that Churchill was. I'm inclined to agree, albeit sadly.

Posted by: Wishbone at November 14, 2006 6:48 PM

Holger Dansker -- I like the idea of the living memory of the Great Man serving as the best temple or tribute to him. As time marches on and the dust and turmoil of this century settles, Churchill will emerge as one of the greatest, or even perhapsthe greatest man of the 20th Century.

The modern fashion is to deconstruct history and historic figures through a cynical and toxic lens -- how many books and articles have we seen in the last decade attempting to smear the Great Man with mud? Sure, he may have periodically uttered silly or foolish things -- but even some of those may prove in time to have been wise in their way. His comments about the secular godhead Ghandi come to mind, for example. In the broad sweep of time it may become clear that allowing Muslims to partition India, and then resume their age old Jihad against her was a grave mistake. That's just one way to see that Ghandi's impetus, seemingly a fine manifestation of liberalism and tolerance, is utterly fatal when directed at our universal Islamic foe.

Posted by: jsla at November 14, 2006 6:52 PM

I think a crime of deliberately whitewashing a religion with the aim of creating a false trust in it, ought to be introduced especially for the BBC.

John Reid, by the way, is opposed to re-introducing a religious hatred law.

Posted by: wallyUK at November 14, 2006 7:05 PM

I know that I may be a minority on this site, and that Robert would rebuke me because of what I am about to say, but if I lived in Britain, given no choice, I would support the BNP.

Hard times are ahead! Europe may be engulfed by an Islamic Intifada in the coming year or so horrific WMD attack.

We may be struggling for our survival. The BNP may be the only way for the British to fight back.

Posted by: El Cid at November 14, 2006 7:21 PM

"Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, the Lord Chancellor, last night supported Mr Brown’s calls for reform of religious hatred laws. “We should look at them in the light of what has happened because what is being said to young Muslim people of this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not.”

Why is it not incumbent upon Muslims in Britain to demonstrate unequivocally that they accept British laws and British society as it is currently constituted, and have no desire to implement Sharia in Britain at any time in the future? "

Precisely. We, as a country, are anti-islam. I have just returned to London after a trip to the Orkney Isles. En route I met and talked to seventy-three people whom I have never met before. They were all native British, some white and some non-white, but none were moslem. Very carefully, at each meeting, I gently brought up the subject of mohammedanism. What follows is a breakdown (no names, no pack-drill) of what I recorded in my diary each evening:

*72 people said that islam was a danger to the security of the UK
*1 person said that he didn't know enough to comment.

*68 people said that they thought that islam was a violent religion and a danger to the democracy of the UK
*1 person said that he didn't know enough to comment
*4 people said that islam was just a young religion that would grow up.

*55 people identified as Christian and all of them said that islam was the biggest single threat to our way of life that they could imagine
*1 person said that he didn't know enough to comment
*17 people identified as other faith, or no faith, and of them 16 said that islam was a major threat to their way of life and 1 said that he had first hand experience of moslem persecution and thought that islam was the gravest threat he had ever seen.

However, when I asked the questions about what we should do the figures became not nearly as uniform.

*23 people believed that all practitioners of islam should be summarily expelled from the UK
*1 person said that he didn't know enough to comment
*18 people said that islam should be legally regulated in the UK with 11 of them believing that central government should appoint all islamic clerics
*19 people believed that the practice of islam should be illegal in the UK and that all moslems should be stripped of citizenship and expelled
*12 people didn't know what we should do about islam but believed that something should be done.

I also asked my chance met acquaintances how much they trusted the government to (a) protect the UK from moslem terrorists, and (b) to preserve freedom and democracy in the UK. I didn't ask, I hope you will understand, my questions in such bald terms on every occassion. A little subtlety was sometimes, but not always, required as almost all of these encounters were social and related to my profession.

For question (a)
*14 people believed that government could protect us
*26 people thought that the government could protect us but weren't doing enough
*32 believed that the government was incompetent in this area of whom 26 believed the government was also unwilling to take necessary steps
*1 person said that he didn't know enough to comment.

For question (b)
*65 people believed that the present government had no understanding of freeedom and democracy and couldn't be trusted to keep it intact or to defend it - 40 of these people also implicated the UK Civil Service in this
*4 people said that they didn't know enough to comment
*4 people trusted the government on this score.

I have recorded lots more in my diary but I think that this should give you enough to comment on. My personal feeling after having, quite deliberately and with some forethought, conducted this ad hoc experiment (if one can have an ad hoc experiment with deliberate forethought) is that the government of the UK and the upper echelons of the UK Civil Service are completely out of touch with the opinions and knowledge of the native British peoples - dangerously so.

Make what you will of the figures but please remember that this was in no sense a scientific or carefully controlled survey. The people I spoke to were, indeed, randomly selected, but there is no way that I would or could maintain that they were a random cross-section of British society. Bear in mind that no particular methodology was employed and that all the figures have been filtered through my memory and the scrawl in my diary.

However, they are interesting figures, aren't they...?

I will be repeating this experiment in four weeks time when I have to travel all over the UK on a survey mission for two weeks. Hopefully, I'll be able to talk to as many as two-hundred, perhaps more, people. If Robert allows I will report what I find here on this site.

Given these figures, I do not think that Mr. Griffin and the BNP, whom I do not support (I'm gay - it would be rather like a turkey voting for Thanksgiving or Christmas) needs to worry too much about anything other than apathy - and that we should all worry about in this context!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 14, 2006 7:48 PM

El Cid -- while I don't agree with you about this being their only option, I think the disease of reactionary Political Correctness is so endemic that our friends in Britain may be incapable for now of having the proper discussions about their Muslim peril and its solutions.

Many times I have encountered their fervent revulsion at the prospect of BNP gains, or the suggestion that the BNP may have something GOOD to say on the topic. This revulsion is something they don't seem to be able to muster, however, with regards to the far more menacing, far more dangerous, far more present threat from the Muslims among them.

Until they can rouse the same strong and utter seeming revulsion at the gains Islam IS making to undermine them and crush them into oblivion, perhaps some slippage towards the direction of the BNP wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen...

What a world. It has become mad.

Posted by: jsla at November 14, 2006 7:50 PM

Leading member of Muslim extremist group working at the Home Office

A leading member of an extremist Islamic group is working as a senior official at the Home Office, it emerged.

Abid Javaid is a 'senior executive officer' in the IT department at the scandal-hit Immigration and Nationality Directorate which processes tens of thousands of asylum and visa applications every year.

But he is also an activist in the fundamentalist Islamic group Hizb-ut Tahrir which believes in a worldwide Islamic state under Shariah law.

Posted by: DP111 at November 14, 2006 8:11 PM

Dominic

That is encouraging evidence.I too have found that most people, even liberal ones, are coming around to the view that there is no solution except the expulsion of Muslims.

I would though, prefer a humane and orderly repatriation with financial assistance.

Posted by: DP111 at November 14, 2006 8:15 PM

Charles' hopes of multi-faith coronation dashed by Church

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 14, 2006 8:23 PM

DP111/

I'm not sure, given the amateur nature of my survey, that I would call it good evidence but you called it merely evidence and that I can agree with.

Such figures are undoubtedly encouraging but they may not be reflected at the ballot box - the British peoples are far more concerned about other issues (perhaps rightly so) at the moment.

What will be interesting is if these figures are reflected in my planned far larger survey and if I can continue to survey people and detect changes as the months go by. The only validity that such an amateur survey as mine has is if I keep doing it to exactly the same standard and record the differences that may occur. I'm planning to write the whole thing up and send it to Robert with the promise that I'll do more. If he's interested he will publish, if not I'll use the figures here, as and when it is appropriate to do so of course.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 14, 2006 8:25 PM

ummahnewslinks/

Now that is good news, at last, from the C of E.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 14, 2006 8:28 PM

I think that's a typo, Ummahnewslinks... I think Chaz is hoping for a "Mufti-faith" coronation...

Posted by: jsla at November 14, 2006 8:37 PM

This is a very informative video by Mr Singh, a Sikh, who works with the BNP and gives all Britains (all non Muslims actually) a serious warning on this interview:
http://66.90.73.194/london/singhinterview.wmv

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 14, 2006 9:24 PM

That all said, if somebody can direct me to another, more respectable, major party that is seeking to bring a halt to the rapid decline of the UK I’ll happily vote for them. Until then I will definitely back the lesser of two evils as I now see the BNP as the only way to save this country.

-from Oliver's post

Oliver, I live across the pond and I can't agree with you more. I go to the BNP site daily and I see no evidence of this "racist, nazi, anti-semetic ideology" that many posters keep conveying. I guess i must have grown into a bigot because I see a very logical, clear argument to the BNP's stance and do not have the Muslim noose of tyranny hanging around my neck like my British kinsmen do. There must be a drastic change now! It's blatenly clear that the BBC and the decadent Labour cronies see that the BNP is a serious threat. Why would they continue trying to get them with phony, undercover journalism and changing the laws of the land in order to do so? I would not waste my vote on political parties who have made the problem and continue to foster the problem aid the problem make laws to protect the problem...it's like engaging in slow suicide?

Posted by: Briars at November 14, 2006 11:38 PM

jsla, I hope other options develop. I admire Melanie Phillips, she is brilliant, she should seek public office on an anti-Islamic ticket.

But, any solution must a address the Demographic decline, globalisation and destruction of local economies, moral and family disintegration and politically correct corrosion of Western Culture.

We must rediscover the greatness of the European miracle and all that it has contributed to the world.

I was born in Spain and my ancestors saved Europe at Lepanto from an Islamic invasion, but all my life have I felt that the British have contributed so much to what it is to be a Westerner and to the development of democracy and modern a Europe.

We must wake up to the coming war in Europe. We are living through the stealth phase of the war, composed of a daily loss of Christian rights and slow encroachment of sharia onto our culture.

Wake up! Wake up! good citizens of the world be ready to fight this dark and creeping menace that is Jihadist Islam.

Posted by: El Cid at November 15, 2006 12:01 AM

I'm with you ! BNP isn't the right way. It gives right wing parties a bad name. Their connections to revisionism, anti-semitism and holocaust denial are all unforgivable. But I do agree that it is a good thing he was cleared off the charges. We don't call for violence against Muslims, nor do we want their religion to be prohibited, but we have the right to criticize it freely. No one has the right to tell me whether I should respect or disrespect certain religion.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
This applies both ways.

What happened to that ? All I am obliged to is leting people practice their religion freely. And they are obliged to leave me alone when I have MY opinion about that religion.

And I like that "Quran as a hate inciting material" ! The quran is filled with passages that would make most extremists look like AI activists.

Posted by: deusvult at November 15, 2006 2:29 AM

EnglishBlondie, that's a fascinating link, especially in light of my earlier post regarding Churchill's views on Ghandi and partition. While this wasn't the focus of Churchill's somewhat bigoted comments about him, his complete lack of respect for the man and his ideas, and his desire not to see India butchered seem wise in retrospect. I had never really extrapolated the triumphal impulse this grave mistake gave the Muslims of Pakistan - something which helped them to not only turn around and begin trying to consume Kashmir, but also may have ultimately helped convince them to develop the first "Muslim Bomb".

Empower Musilms anywhere, and you're likely to regret it. Enable Islam anywhere, and you're likely to see conflagration follow soon after...

Posted by: jsla at November 15, 2006 3:18 AM

From Waterdragon52's link to Melanie Phillips

The truly galling thing is that the BNP is indeed a rabidly racist and anti-semitic party,

Dont get me wrong I like Melanie Phillips her book Londonistan is a great read but she does have a tendancy to see things through the prism of oppressed Jewry and is therefore quick to brandish the anti-semitsm club when ever she gets the chance.

This is from the BNP website regarding their policy towards the middle east and inparticular Israel.

The BNP would very much prefer, as a party, that the UK had nothing to do with the Middle East at all. It is a violent and often downright incomprehensible place, animated by ancient hatreds and corrupted by modern greed. It is neither Britain's business, nor our responsibility, to solve its problems. We are not a superpower, and are ill-equipped to play superpower games -- even with the USA politely pretending that we somehow partake of their military might. We have more experience, of the ultimate uselessness of imperialism, than any nation on earth, so we should know better.

That being said, the hard fact is that we cannot avoid being involved in the Middle East, to some extent, simply because the world is round and we are stuck on it. What is inexcusable, is the policy of the Blair government of dragging us in deeper, than we are forced to be by inescapable circumstances. This is why it is such a disaster, that they have not only invaded Iraq, but also involved Britain in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Worse, they are taking the Palestinian side!

We would rather not take either side in this conflict. Palestine ceased to be Britain's business, or responsibility, in 1948, when we ceased ruling it, and it is not the job of Her Majesty's government to adjudicate border disputes between former possessions. "Palestine" is an imaginary country; the issue here is that Israel conquered the West Bank from Jordan in 1967, and the Arabs invented "Palestine" in order to tap into "Palestinian" nationalism as a source of rage to win it back -- something the PLO has admitted. Given that ALL the borders of the Middle East were drawn with the sword, we simply cannot get excited about Israel having done what all her adversaries have done, starting with the Arab conquest of Palestine in 638 AD. In any case, what Arabs and Israelis fight over is their business, not ours.

National interest

For reasons of the British national interest, the BNP is moderately and prudently more sympathetic to the Israeli side, simply because a) Israelis are not trying to conquer the world and subject it to their religion, b) their adversaries very much are, and c) Israel is a part of Western, if not European, Civilisation, and the Arab world is not. However we decline to be seduced by the Jewish mystique than inflates this small nation, population less than Greater London, into either the manipulator of all the evil in the world (the anti-Semitic view), a landing strip for Jesus (the evangelical view), or the master key to the global balance of power (the neocon view). It should be treated like any other normal country.

The BNP embraces five principles concerning the Middle East:

1. Insofar as we can avoid being entangled in the Middle East at all, we should.

2. Insofar as we can remain neutral in the various conflicts (not only Israeli-Arab, but Arab-Arab, Arab-Persian, Sunni-Shi'ite, Islamist-Ba'athist, and a dozen other rivalries), we should.

3. Insofar as we are forced to take sides, we should do so in a manner that does not draw us deeper into the conflict than we already are.

4. Insofar as we are forced to take sides, we should side with whomever is least hostile to Britain and closest to ourselves in civilisational character.

5. The principal threat to Britain, emanating from the Middle East today, is the ideological and demographic expansionism of Islam.

Another post by shiva above also outlined pretty well the BNP views stance to Israel. I think it is pretty clear that those that espouse the antisemetic racist premise in regards to the BNP have lost the argument.

The BNP provides a valuable channel for getting the anti-jihad message out and the effects are already noticable within the political arena of British politics, more power to them I say.

From a BNP fan working in Israel.

Posted by: km at November 15, 2006 4:00 AM

Nice quote EnglishBlondie: "It is dangerous to be right when the Government is wrong".

I believe that for one to be truly free, one must have the right to offend.

Voltaire stated: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

You never hear of denying speech you agree with. Free speech and "hate speech" laws mix like oil and water. Free speech laws are in place to protect that which is deemed by some as objectionable.

It is sad that BNP is losing its right to freely speak and speak the truth. Many Brits and Europeans are losing their Freedom of Speech rights under the "virtuous tyranny" of vilification laws, i.e. hate speech laws.

Islam is evil. It is a religious & political tyranny. Damn the Quran. Damn the false prophet Muhammad. Damn the "Allah of the Quran" and Damn the Islamic apologists, leftists, socialists, and Dhimmi politicians who are attempting to take away my inalienable right to Free Speech. But I have a message for those Islamic apologists, leftists, socialists, and Dhimmi politicians, my right to Free Speech did NOT come from you, but from God my Creator. You can't take it away and no matter how much you persecute me for exercising my free speech rights said rights are not yours to take.

What part of "inalienable" do you not understand?

A right which is incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

Posted by: Levi at November 15, 2006 5:04 AM

The typical Brit is not racist and would not knowingly support a racist group. Either the BNP know that and are being clever, or else they are genuinely moving away from their racist forebears, because they have just come out in support of the (black African) Archbishop of York.

If the BNP convince the (very fair minded) Brits that they have reformed, they will get as many of their people elected as they can run, and the major parties are going to get the shock of their lives - not before time. Although the major parties will then pretend to abhore and and pour scorn on the BNP and its policies, we will see these same policies being quietly adopted in the back rooms of New Labor and the Conservatives. At least, that is what I am hoping.

Posted by: Brett_McS at November 15, 2006 5:38 AM

Long live the Alliance and Fellowship of Dirty Kuffurs!!!

We all have a duty to fight and slay the Islamic Dragon.

Whether we be Jew,Sikh,Hindu,Black Christian,White European.The BNP are our most vocal Vanguards in the fight ahead.
Yes, it is true they had a Nazi anti-Semitic past but the World is chaging rapidly before our very eyes.Soon it will be too Late.

I hope that the new Britain will tolerate the ethnics who fought hard for truth and above all FREEDOM.

Posted by: raz at November 15, 2006 6:28 AM

JSLA--I still would not vote for the BNP if I were British. They hate all swarthies, including Jews and Christian subcontinentals--too say nothing of blacks, Chinese, etc.

As for asylum seekers, if a Sa'udi Christian can get a plane ticket rather than walk across Iraq, Turkey, Yemen, etc., why shouldn't he fly to the UK or USA and ask asylum? As for Abdurrahman, had he walked out of Afghanistan when they went after him for apostasy, where would he have landed? Iran? Pakistan?

Posted by: Kepha at November 15, 2006 7:24 AM

They hate all swarthies, including Jews and Christian subcontinentals--too say nothing of blacks, Chinese, etc.

Posted by Kepha

Why then do the BNP have Jewish councillors, his name I think is Pat Richardson and BNP candidates in the last council elections who are Armenian christian?

Posted by: km at November 15, 2006 7:48 AM

"They hate all swarthies, including Jews and Christian subcontinentals--too say nothing of blacks, Chinese, etc."
Posted by Kepha

I feel you are making claims without investigating the matter in any detail. It is amazing how many people make their voting decisions without visiting the website of any political parties to read their material to see what they stand for. They simply repeated what they have been told by the media.

Griffin is a fool for his holocaust denial comment and for that reason alone he needs to be replaced as leader. However, it was his own personal view from many years ago and not the view of the party membership as a whole. Yet in every single article about the BNP this comment gets trudged up time and time again to smear their name and write them off as “a bunch of racist thugs.” I’ve admitted that the party is far from perfect but it is the only party that applies the principles of reason and common sense to most issues. It is also the only party that represents the general public’s opinions on many issues. It is therefore the only party I will be voting for.

"As for asylum seekers, if a Sa'udi Christian can get a plane ticket rather than walk across Iraq, Turkey, Yemen, etc., why shouldn't he fly to the UK or USA and ask asylum?"
Posted by Kepha

One third of the population of London was not born in the UK, which shows the clear preference of asylum seekers in choosing their destination country. The world knows that the UK is a soft touch on this issue and that anyone arriving in the UK will be given free accommodation, free health care, a free weekly living allowance and often a free car. Further they will be given free legal aid to repeatedly protest any rejected asylum claim allowing them to can stay in the country for many years. It is not the responsibility of the UK tax payer to house the world’s asylum seekers and this should be spread equally among all nations. The UK population is swelling massively and the mainstream political parties are doing nothing to stop it and discussion of the issue is brushed off as “racist.” The British population is quickly being replaced, with 1,000 native Britains leaving the country each day and 1,500 immigrants coming in. The scale of the problem is shown by the statistic that as of January 2005 the most popular name for a baby boy in the UK is Mohammed.

By avoiding discussion of these issues we have imported armies of anti-British extremist Muslim preachers who give daily sermons about the overthrow of Europe and death of the infidels while claiming thousands of pounds a month in benefits for their extended families. We also have over sixty Muslim extremist organisations plotting terrorist actions against the UK and USA. It is only a matter of before one of these groups slips under the surveillance net and executes their plan. I personally do not want to wait until a nuclear bomb is detonated in London before I back a party seeking to address some of these issues.

Posted by: Oliver at November 15, 2006 9:14 AM

Km and Oliver:
Well said. To harness the BNP with the racist standards of its origins is like me saying that George Bush represents the same standards as the founder of his republican party, Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by: Briars at November 15, 2006 10:47 AM

The BNP are a legal & democratic political party registered in the UK.

To be registered as a political party in the UK you must comply with all English Law & European Law concerning Referendums & Elections & party funding.

The BNP will take seats at the next General Election in the UK.

Posted by: albion at November 15, 2006 11:15 AM

I too find nothing objectionable, and much to praise, about the BNP from the information provided by km and shiva above. The issue of the perniciousness of the BNP has been raised before at jihadwatch, but the condemners of the BNP never seem to be able to provide actual evidence, only personal conviction based on memories of things they've seen in a pub or on a street corner, or infirm websites filled with opinions & polemics.

Posted by: remote_control at November 15, 2006 11:54 AM

JSLA--I still would not vote for the BNP if I were British. They hate all swarthies, including Jews and Christian subcontinentals--too say nothing of blacks, Chinese, etc. Posted by: Kepha

Kepha

How's that worse than your dim view of non-Christian subcontinentals? I'd take the BNP's racism over your fanaticism any day.

Watching that Sikh interview posted by English Blondie on BNP TV, it looks like the BNP is at least doing its homework in educating itself and Brits about the true nature of Islam - which is more than can be said about the Tories or Labor. km also pointed out how the BNP is advocating Hugh's policy re: the Mid East, with the exception of the Israel-Arab conflict (but note that Britain ending any role in the Mid East would be an improvement over the Foreign Office's pro-Islamic position).

Shiva is right too. If Nick Griffin is the only one with the balls to call Islam what it is, and end up with Labour contemplating turning Britain into a Fascist dictatorship in reaction, more power to him.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 15, 2006 12:41 PM

At the end of Shiva's post, Griffin betrays his complete ignorance of both Israel's plight and Islam's aims and intentions when he says that he does not believe Islam wants to exterminate the Jews.

Extermination of the Jews is as central to Islamic eschatology as extermination of Hindus, Christians, atheists and everyone else. It's right there in black and white.

As yet, then, the BNP do not understand Islam, they do not appreciate the scale of the threat they claim to have the measure of, and their so-called rehabilitated views on Israeli sovereignty are ambivalent and effectively worthless.

Griffin is saying that a perfectly understandable over-honed sense of self preservation is the reason Jews are the cause of all the worlds problems, East and West.

Further, his commitment to a two-state solution is either entirely ignorant of - or more likely exploitative of - the precise purpose of palestinianism as a political movement... the destruction of Israel.

Israelis want to live in peace with equality for all. Moslems do not. That is the problem, and Griffin's disingenuity, mis-statement of facts and clearly stated long term aims and objectives are every bit as nefarious as Islam's.

There is only one viable right wing party in Britain. I have no love for the Tories, but they are truly the lesser of all evils.

Posted by: Domestos at November 15, 2006 2:00 PM

Malta_1565

The Have Your Say is still there.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4702&edition=2&ttl=20061115194013&#paginator

That was a great video with the sikh talking to the BNP.

Posted by: Borg at November 15, 2006 2:44 PM

Posted by: Domestos

At the end of Shiva's post, Griffin betrays his complete ignorance of both Israel's plight and Islam's aims and intentions when he says that he does not believe Islam wants to exterminate the Jews.

I beg your pardon,I think you should re-read the end of my post again.

Maybe If you had time to have followed his blog of the first trail you would find that his knowledge of Islam is quite extensive.

http://freespeechontrial.blogspot.com/

At the same time, Griffin says he understands Israelis who believe that the Palestinian leadership rejected peace initiatives at Camp David and Taba because the true aim of the Palestinians is the destruction of Israel. "I can quite believe that view, because the same mentality from these people, or people related to them we have in Britain as well, and we see that.

NICK GRIFFEN 1 - ISLAM/KORAN O

Posted by: shiva at November 15, 2006 3:45 PM

From a post, above:

The BNP are our most vocal Vanguards in the fight ahead.

As long as you're not gay that is. If you're gay then the BNP have you in their sights. As far as they are concerned being gay is as bad as being a jihadist.

So I, and most other sensible gay people in the UK, will not vote for our own extermination at the hands of 'mein Fuhrer' Griffin in the concentration camps which they propose for us if they gain power.

Tell me, people, just how different is the supreme leader Griffin's position on gay people from the islamic position? Just how different is his position on women's rights? Just how different is his position on children's rights? Just how different is his position on the absolute primacy of democracy, on freedom of conscience, on free speech on..., on..., on...; I could go on and on and on. The BNP is not the answer and the British people know it!

The answer, as far as all here are concerned, is to keep on hammering away at the mainstream political parties until they finally get the message. Nick Griffin and the BNP may speak (do speak) the truth on certain subjects but they, as far as the elctorate of the UK are concerned, do not speak the truth on the vast majority of things that they pronounce upon.

The BNP are never going to be elected to a position of power in Britain in the foreseeable future. Live with that and be thankful for it!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 15, 2006 8:29 PM

Posted above by necessitasnonhabetlegem:
"So I, and most other sensible gay people in the UK, will not vote for our own extermination at the hands of 'mein Fuhrer' Griffin in the concentration camps which they propose for us if they gain power."

I have never heard any such proposal from the BNP, do you have a reference?

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 15, 2006 9:03 PM

Posted by necessitasnonhabetlegem:
"Tell me, people, just how different is the supreme leader Griffin's position on gay people from the islamic position? Just how different is his position on women's rights? Just how different is his position on children's rights? Just how different is his position on the absolute primacy of democracy, on freedom of conscience, on free speech on..., on..., on...; I could go on and on and on."

I think that the answer is 'very different'!
Are you drunk?

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 15, 2006 9:06 PM

EnglishBlondie/

Try, for the first reference, the total load of unmitigated crap and misrepresentation at:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/lgbt_month.htm

But then, I don't suppose that you would see it my way, would you? Because for you, and all the other extreme right commentators, gay people are expendable - a tiny minority that doesn't count and is irrelevant and, as far as you and yours are concerned, are repulsive.

Mr. Griffin has held staunchly homophobic views throughout his time at the BNP. Following the bombing of a gay pub in Soho, in which three people died, Griffin wrote, "The TV footage of dozens of 'gay' demonstrators flaunting their perversion in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive".

"...these creatures...". Excuse me, I happen to be a human being who, quite co-incidentally, happens to be gay. Well gee, thanks Mr. Griffin - for nothing.

Have a look at:

http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/index.php?location=campainging&link=NickGriffin.htm

and then tell me that you could vote for them - oh, of course, you probably could.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 15, 2006 10:53 PM

EnglishBlondie/

Of course, you claim to be a columnist for, or a contritutor to, a national, broadsheet Sunday newspaper in the UK - but you choose to post under an alias and support the fascists under the same alias. Why? Are you ashamed, or wouldn't your Murdoch paper support your viewpoints and your deliberate panning of the aspirations of gay people.

You're just another duplicitous journo, aren't you? Attack anyone who can't threaten you. Islam, gays, single mothers, disabled, disadvantaged, poor, royals. You have a journo's morals and journo's standards. For you it's all done for profit, isn't it? It's all one big game, isn't it, just to get you one or two more column inches and a photograph and a bye-line?

So, for you and yours the BNP is somehow flavour of the month and hang the consequences. I wouldn't expect anything more from the likes of you.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 15, 2006 11:07 PM

EnglishBlondie/

"Are you drunk?"

Thanks for the typical English jounalist's slur - for demonstrating exactly how the modern English press-person such as you operates (at the lowest level that you and yours can manage to reach). 'When all else fails then malign the person' is what most people like you in the UK press have been taught - and you're no exception, are you?

Disgusting, cheap and deliberate, pre-meditated, character assassination. Never mind the argument, just destroy the people who don't agree is the way that you operate, isn't it?

"Are you drunk?" Well, reading you I fervently wished that I was - it's the only condition that might have made your defence of fascism palateable and acceptable to me.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 15, 2006 11:26 PM

Dominic:

Calm down. Have more faith in yourself than believing that you will be hung by a victorious British National Party because you are gay especially when you espouse a deep love for your counrty and its people and the ideals that they fought and died for. Especially when you display such intelligence and are so outspoken in your desire for the freedom of man and the opposition to the tyranny that Islam represents. The characters from "Searchlight" fear the BNP for the same reasons the BBC and Labour demagods fear them becaue it brings and end to the Liberal pipedream of a multi cultural society. Have you talked with any members of the BNP and expressed your concerns? I would be interested to hear their response.
As far as waiting for traditional parties to set things right....I sadly disagree with you and I don't think your country has the time to wait.

Posted by: Briars at November 16, 2006 12:31 AM

Dominic wrote: "As far as [the BNP] are concerned being gay is as bad as being a jihadist."

Dominic, after being asked for evidence, then produced two links:

The first was merely a webpage that decried propaganda aimed at children about how historical icons are homosexual. The criticisms of that propaganda on that webpage do not in any way I can tell equate gays with jihadists. There are many gradations of being objectionable. The concern not to lavish children with gay pride propaganda paid for with tax dollars seems a legitimate concern for certain minorities in any Western society.

The second link, an obviously polemic webpage with precious little evidence, has the following:

Following the bombing of a gay pub in Soho, in which three people died, Griffin wrote, "The TV footage of dozens of 'gay' demonstrators flaunting their perversion in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive".

This could well be journalistic sleight-of-hand: what does "following" mean? How can they prove that Nick immediately, and contextually, made that comment with direct regard to the bombing of that gay pub? Had Nick written the piece a week later, it would have been "following" the tragedy; and perhaps tangentially related to its exploitation by propagandists. Unfortunately, that webpage does not provide any answers to such unremarkably necessary questions.

This quality of "evidence" by which to repudiate the BNP is the reason why intelligent people aren't buying their calumniators.

Posted by: remote_control at November 16, 2006 1:04 AM

Dominic, I was actually referring to your very poor argument, not your character at all.
For example, you seem to believe that there is no difference between islamic/sharia law and the BNP manifesto. This is totally incorrect. My 'joke' was that only a drunk person would say that. You also made an unsubstantiated claim that the BNP had called for "extermination at the hands of 'mein Fuhrer' Griffin in the concentration camps which they propose for us if they gain power" I requested a reference for this claim, a claim that I find very hard to believe.

You ask how the BNP differs from sharia on women's rights? Well in brief, the BNP are not proposing the subjugation of women - and islam does. As a woman I would not have rights taken away from me under the BNP, but I would under sharia. I am sure that you are aware of the specifics of this (e.g. in relation to rape etc.) and I don't have to type them all out. As a woman I would not have my life harmed in any way by the BNP. I would have my life harmed under sharia. My freedoms are not under threat from the BNP, they are from islam. This is a very big difference. In fact, if the BNP were in power I may actually be a lot safer as a woman than I am under the current government. This is true in many ways. For example, the rape gangs that are operating in my area would probably be dealt with, instead of being allowed to operate by a politically correct and politicised police force who do not want to upset Muslims. I do notice that the BNP do not seem scared of upsetting the Muslims, this is in contrast to the current government.

You also ask how the BNP differs regarding homosexuality. Again, very briefly - under sharia you would be killed. Under the BNP (as I understand it) you could carry on being gay (and alive!) but would not be awarded any special privileges. A very big difference here.

You also ask about the differences in the treatment of children under the BNP and under sharia. Well under sharia paedophilia is legal. This is horrific. Mohammed had sex with Aisha when she was 9. Under the BNP paedophilia would be very harshly punished. Again, this is a very big difference.

Regarding your claim that the BNP have called for, in your words 'extermination camps' I have read the link you provided:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/lgbt_month.htm
and I cannot find any reference to 'extermination camps'. It seems to me to be an article objecting to the promotion of gay sex in schools and to the funding for pro gay programmes? Or do I have the wrong connection?

You posted: "Because for you, and all the other extreme right commentators, gay people are expendable - a tiny minority that doesn't count and is irrelevant and, as far as you and yours are concerned, are repulsive."
I think if you read my post again it doesn't actually say that.

You posted: "You're just another duplicitous journo, aren't you? Attack anyone who can't threaten you. Islam, gays, single mothers, disabled, disadvantaged, poor, royals."
I have never attacked any of the above, other than islam and islam is a threat.

God save the Queen.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 1:04 AM

Dominic posted: "Of course, you claim to be a columnist for, or a contritutor to, a national, broadsheet Sunday newspaper in the UK"
When was that claim ever made?

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 1:31 AM

'This quality of "evidence" by which to repudiate the BNP is the reason why intelligent people aren't buying their calumniators.'
Posted by: remote_control

Yes.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 1:33 AM

"God save the Queen."
(Posted by: EnglishBlondie)

Yes. But 'God save the queens'. Somehow I doubt that I will ever hear you, or yours, say that.

"Let's not mention what sharia law prescribes for gays" posted by you on July 18, 2006 at 10:42 pm. Why not?

Stop trying to dupe the people here, for Heaven's sake. You, and yours, couldn't give a monkey's toss about about gay people and you know it. You'll argue for us when it suits you and against us when it suits you.

The British National Party came out in support of anti-gay protester Stephen Green, who was arrested at the Cardiff Mardi Gras for handing out leaflets condemning same sex relationships.

On their website the BNP questioned the grounds for Mr Green's arrest, and noted how the BNP and Christian Voice share the same aims.

So, are you trying to tell me that the BNP is not against gay people. Go on. Tell me that. I'll believe you when hell freezes over!

"Why is it not incumbent upon Muslims in Britain to demonstrate unequivocally that they accept British laws and British society as it is currently constituted..." From the Headpost, at the beginning of this thread, posted by Robert. Would you like to, can you, give me that assurance - that you accept British laws and British society as they are currently constituted? Can you accept that which you tell moslems to accept? That you accept the rights of gay people as they are currently defined in British law and that you will not seek to change them. Somehow, I think that you, and many of your erstwhile supporters, couldn't go that far. Once a fascist ... !

Say 'yes' and I'll believe you and apologise for any offence I may have given. Say 'no' and you prove my case. (Actually, I apologise for any offence that I may have given in the course of this debate but not for any factual statements that I may have made that caused offence by virtue of being the truth.)

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 16, 2006 2:43 AM

Briars/

"As far as waiting for traditional parties to set things right....I sadly disagree with you and I don't think your country has the time to wait."

Sadly, I disagree with myself, here. However, decending into the fascistic nonsense advocated by the poster 'EnglishBlondie' (above) is not an option for any child of the enlightment such as I, and obviously you, am and are. We simply have to find another way to combat the jihad being waged against us.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 16, 2006 3:03 AM

Name-calling, lies, tantrums, misrepresentations and false accusations do not form a proper part of rational debate.
To engage in such irrational behaviour and then quote the Enlightenment is quite ironic.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 3:23 AM

This quality of "evidence" by which to repudiate the BNP is the reason why intelligent people aren't buying their calumniators.

Posted by: remote_control at November 16, 2006 01:04 AM

Dominic I am afraid that I have to agree with remote_control and englishblondie come to that, please provide a reference to where the BNP have stated that gay people will be rounded up and put into camps.

Unless you can your emotional outbursts are of little substance and little use. The BNP are on record as saying that what adults get upto in their own homes is their own choice and has nothing to do with politics. What they will do is stop the active promotion of the gay lifestyle in schools and the public forum using tax payers money. This is a common theme in political debate across the western world. What is wrong with that, would you try and restrict speech so that anyone with a contrary opinion to yourself is forced to keep their mouth shut.

This site is called Jihad watch for a reason, it is not BNP watch or homophobe watch so unless you have really strong evidence to support your claims can you please keep the paranoia in check. Recognize that the BNP has done more to raise the issue of Islamism in the UK than any other political organization. It is for this reason and this reason alone that their efforts should be analyzed by a site like JW and appraised in its ability to counter jihad ideology.

You said:

[Tell me]That you accept the rights of gay people as they are currently defined in British law and that you will not seek to change them. Somehow, I think that you, and many of your erstwhile supporters, couldn't go that far. Once a fascist ... !

Well I as a BNP supporter do support your rights to equal representation under the rule of law and would reject any legislation which may erode those rights, can I have an appology from you for labeling me a fascist?

By the way how is the hearing going between yourself and your former employer? I hope they are seeing sense and justice is being served.

Posted by: km at November 16, 2006 3:23 AM

"...you could carry on being gay (and alive!) but would not be awarded any special privileges..."

Yep. Typical fascist English journo. Equality under the law equals 'special privileges'. A subtle put down and a deliberate perversion of what we ask for. What the poster called 'EnglishBlondie' means to say is that me and mine have frightened the horses quite enough, thank-you, now get back into the closet and don't scare us any more and give up on any idea of having equal treatment under the law.

'EnglishBlondie' and her ilk will always say that equality is 'special privileges'. It's a way, in her mind, of keeping us under control whilst being seen to be 'oh so liberal' and 'gay-friendly'. It's a way of masking her innate hatred of gays and what they ask for - legal equality, that is.

Friends like her we can do without - only we can't, you see, because revolting though she is she is quite right on one point: we're better off with her and her fascistic cohort in power than we ever would be under the deranged sharia law of islam. And that's how she gets us to shut up and agree with her.

Clever, isn't it. But nasty, just like her.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 16, 2006 3:29 AM

km/

Indeed, if you support the current legal position then in this respect you are obviously not a fascist and I apologise to you.

The current legal position is that I have been advised by my counsel to accept the offered financial settlement. I'm thinking through the implications of that for others as well as for me as I have been informed that there are thirty-seven other tribunal hearings lined up behind mine on roughly the same legalities. Thank-you for asking.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 16, 2006 3:39 AM

Dominic, Pyrotechnics is not a substitute for evidence and arguments. So far, I've not seen anyone critique the BNP without these kinds of emotional and rhetorical pyrotechnics absent sufficient evidence and arguments. While it is true that we often see emotional and rhetorical pyrotechnics among commenters here directed against Islam and related issues, we also see here, interspersed among the fire, smoke & mirrors, plenty of solid substance, evidence and sound arguments. Take a cue from Robert, Dominic, and offer us some unemotional substance (not dubious and tawdry polemical websites) in addition to the other stuff.

Posted by: remote_control at November 16, 2006 3:44 AM

Shiva

Reading the link that you provided, I was struck by the following exchange between Griffin and Ha'aretz:

"Fundamentally, I would say that it is something from the 20th century... I am exasperated by the way it was used as a moral club to beat anyone in the Western world who wanted to preserve the Western world. It is an absurd position to use that... I think it is also becoming or should be becoming clear to Jews around the world that basing a large part of one's claim to anything, and basing one's politics in relations to the rest of the world on death camps, is fine until you have a Jenin. And then the moral high ground is no longer there. And I think it is time to put the whole thing behind us."

In other words, in Griffin's view, either something like the holocaust is as imaginary as the trumped up Jenin 'massacre', or that the 'moral high ground' produced by a genuine holocaust can be easily negated by a fake one like Jenin.

Now, I have seen good cases made, in the Jerusalem Post, among others, that one of the worst alia moves that Jews make is random references to the holocaust, thereby making it look as though they are out to milk that for all it's worth.

Some more gems from St Nick:

"It isn't something I studied myself and whether there was a massacre or wasn't - it is irrelevant. Either way it doesn't matter, being that the entire Arab and Muslim world believe there was. There is no question that the Israeli Defense Force is capable of massacres, there's no question of that at all; it has been done in the past, in order to terrify other Palestinians into leaving in large numbers; and it is part of a similar strategy now.

"Sooner or later there has to be a two-state solution, otherwise the bloodshed will get worse and worse. And the Palestinian state has to be a viable state, and not some piece of land based on miserable little refugee camps."

For someone who knows his Quran, and the fact that the roots of Islamic Judeophobia are to be found in Quran 2:65, 7:166, where does he come up with this idea? And how much of the land is viable, in his opinion? Nazareth? Netanya? Negev?

Not to mention his abysmal ignorance of Israeli history.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 16, 2006 4:12 AM

I meant to write:

Now, I have seen good cases made, in the Jerusalem Post, among others, that one of the worst alia moves that Jews make is random references to the holocaust, thereby making it look as though they are out to milk that for all it's worth. But to claim that holocaust claims run the risk of getting discredited simply because Mohammedan propagandists can fake a Jenin, or a Mohammed al Dura, is beyond belief.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 16, 2006 4:18 AM

Theodore Dalrymple: "Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 11:41 AM

Here is a good link discussing 'fascism':
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005810.php

“Clearly Islamic system of government is fascistic.
• It is marked by centralization of authority under a supreme leader vested with divine clout.
• It has stringent socioeconomic control over all aspects of all its subjects irrespective of their faith.
• It suppresses its opposition through terror and censorship.
• It has a policy of belligerence towards non-believers.
• It practices religious apartheid.
• It disdains reason.
• It is imperialistic.
• It is oppressive.
• It is dictatorial and
• It is controlling.
Islam, like fascism, appeals to people with low self esteem and low intelligence. Both these ideologies are irrational. They disdain reason, and hail devotion and submission to a higher authority. Like fascists, Muslims are triumphalists. They seek power, domination and control. They pride themselves in their strength of number, in their mindless heroism, in their disdain for life and in their willingness to kill and die for their cause.
Islam is political and political Islam is fascism.”

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 12:15 PM

Oliver wrote: "Sadly I don’t think he’d step down without a fight and even if he did it would be very hard to find a respectable person with the guts to lead the most persecuted organisation in the UK."

Hitler didn't found the Nazi party either, but he became it's leader and made it a great succes... feels like deja-vu to me.

Posted by: seville844 at November 16, 2006 2:06 PM

Fallaci (R.I.P.) wrote:
"The denigrations and the abuses I receive from today’s McCarthyism, today’s Witch-Hunt, today’s inquisition. My trophies, the trials that in Europe I undergo for crime of opinion. A crime now disguised as ‘vilification of Islam, racism, xenophobia, instigation to hate’ etc…should the penal code prosecute me for hate? Hate is a sentiment. An emotion, a reaction, a feeling…it can be judged, yes. It can be adversed, condemned, but only on a moral basis...not on a legal basis…I also have and must have the right to hate whom I want. Yes, I do hate the Osama Bin Ladens...I do hate them as much as I hated Mussolini and Hitler and Stalin and company. I do hate them as I always hated any murder of freedom. It is my sacrosanct right, my duty. And if I am wrong, tell me why those who hate me even more than I hate them are not prosecuted with the same indictment. Tell me why this instigation-to-hate never touches the professional haters. I mean the new McCarthyists who persecute me with their strategy of civil death and the Muslims who on the concept of hate have built their ideology, their philosophy."

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 2:18 PM

"The modern tyranny is not a tyranny predominately against the body. It is a tyranny against the mind. A tyranny against man. A tyranny against truth. A tyranny against freedom. A tyranny against reason. The beatings are not with sticks. The beatings are with words. Ask for a defintion? Ask for an innuendo to be proven? Ask for consistency? Ask for truth? You will find none of these. Such tyranny cannot defend itself by reason, by truth, by rationality. This tyranny acts against rationality, against truth, against the freedom of man, and hence is a tyranny against man himself."

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 2:24 PM

Infidel Pride, those quotes indicate that Nick Griffin's learning curve about the problem of Islam -- at least in its Israeli dimension -- is not up to snuff; but then, what politician anywhere shows a learning curve about the problem of Islam as up to snuff as Robert Spencer's?

It's a matter of degree, and Nick Griffin's learning curve seems miles ahead of any other British politician.

Posted by: remote_control at November 16, 2006 3:31 PM

Dominic, you have accused me of many things above, one such false accusation was that I have claimed to be a journalist. I asked you above where this claim has ben made. May I now repeat this question: where/when have I ever claimed to be a journalist?
Here is the original question:

'Dominic posted: "Of course, you claim to be a columnist for, or a contritutor to, a national, broadsheet Sunday newspaper in the UK"
When was that claim ever made?'

I know that you cannot cite where or when because you have made this up. You are a liar and lack credibility.

All you smears, name calling, inconsistencies and lies undermines any credibiity you might have had.

May I repeat, in rational debate there is no proper place for lies.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 5:16 PM

Drunk?

What's wrong with being drunk?
I'm always drunk when I post here
as most of you can probably tell!

Any way raise a glass and toast
to Mo and the Umma

while there's still time!

Allah-u-akbah

it's the new

Siegue Heil

Posted by: hierophant at November 16, 2006 5:33 PM

Nothing wrong with being drunk mate! Myself and a few friends are having a few drinks together right now. We just checked in on this thread to see in Dominic/necessitasnonhabetlegem had written any more lies about me of called me a 'facsist' again.

You know, let us tell you Dominic whatever you are called, you are dealing with a new breed of women now. We had to grow up under the oppression of this nonsense of name calling and political correctness. We had to grow up in the inner cities living under this regime. And we had to live with the consequences. We actually know what harm it does to a people. We know what it means for friends to be gang raped and the police inaction that enables such crimes. We know the anger of listening to the deafening silence from the media. We had to attend those inner city schools where the teachers were so scared of being called names ('racist', 'fascist', etc.) that they were paralysed. And we know what that meant for the children there - us. I won't go on, but this is terribly terribly wrong.
And let me tell you Dominic, we do not care about name calling. You want to close me down by calling me a 'fascist'? Why not go into full hissy mode and call me a 'Nazi', a 'racist' and all the rest you can think of? You accuse me of attacking the poor? The disadvantaged? Where do you think we are writing from? Chelsea?
And let me tell you Dominic and all the others who think that shouting 'fascist' of 'racist' is a form of reason - it is not. Let me tell you about the new women about now. We actually know that there are a lot worse things than being called names.
And before anyone thinks we are 'radical feminists', no we are not. We are going to say what is right and what is wrong, and the Dominics of this world can call all the names they want. And Dominic, you are a proven liar, you have no credibility, and name calling will not compensate for that.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 9:51 PM

Dominic, how can you claim BOTH:
1. that there would be no difference for gays under a BNP government and a sharia government, which is what you seem to be claiming in this statement:
"Tell me, people, just how different is the supreme leader Griffin's position on gay people from the islamic position?"

AND

2.that there would be a difference between the two systems in relation to the life of gays, which is what you seem to be claiming here (plus a few other things thrown in, remember name calling is not rational, and you got to stop the lies and misrepresentations! tut tut):
"she is quite right on one point: we're better off with her and her fascistic cohort in power than we ever would be under the deranged sharia law of islam" ????

You can't make both claims, that is just inconsistent. Inconsistency violates the principles of reason Dominic.

Just to clarify, sharia demands the death of homosexuals. This is illustrated in the recent article that provides an illustration of this from England last month:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013755.php

“The leading imam in Manchester, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported.”

In contrast to this position, the BNP (as quoted above) take the position that the right to practice homosexuality is a freeedom that should not be violated. This is summarised in a post above:
"The BNP are on record as saying that what adults get upto in their own homes is their own choice and has nothing to do with politics. What they will do is stop the active promotion of the gay lifestyle in schools and the public forum using tax payers money. This is a common theme in political debate across the western world. What is wrong with that, would you try and restrict speech so that anyone with a contrary opinion to yourself is forced to keep their mouth shut."

These two postions are very different, as you admit at one point. Dominic, please be consistenet and please stop telling lies, especially about me. And please remember, the days when you could silence people by shouting names ('racist', 'fascist', Nazi', 'homophobe') are over for many people now, things have gone way past that nonsense. We are all in a very serious situation right now.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 16, 2006 11:48 PM

Dominic, why do you call the BNP 'fascist'?
I fail to see how under any normal ddefinition of the term 'fascism' that they qualify. For example, if you take Umberto Eco's 14 features of what he calls 'eternel fascism' as defining the essecne of fascism, then this does not fit the BNP. Instead, it fits Islam (as pointed out by Warraq).
Why do you call the BNP 'fascist'? Did you hear it on the BBC? Did the BBC have someone on who referred to the BNP as 'the fascist BNP'? Do you not suspect that they may have a reason for doing that? Like the reason they tried to imprison the leader of the BNP in this trail we are discussing on this thread. The BBC played a part in all of this - it was a BBC journalist who secretly filmed the BNP remember. No prizes for guessing why. You must be careful what you believe on the BBC, or any mainstream media.

Dominic, why do you call the BNP 'fascist'????

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 2:19 AM

One reason the state persecutes the BNP is because the BNP publicise the rapes that are happening, rapes perpetrated by Muslims. You won't hear about these rapes in the mainstream media, and you will not see many of them in the statisics. The media don't want people to know the truth. The police are politicised and these crimes are not crimes they want to solve. Of course, all these matters are related. Anyone who thinks that the rape epodemic Fjordman writes about here:
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html
is confined to other European countries ? No, it is not.
The BNP have dared to speak about this and good for them. The Government want to shut up the BNP about this and everything else.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 10:18 AM

Domionic, you are a proven liar.
You say above that I have claimed to be a journo, no I have never claimed that. You lied.
You also claimed above that this BNP website:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/lgbt_month.htm
proposes death concentration camps. No, it does not. You are a liar.

In light of you being a liar, I sincerely hope that Mr Spencer does not use your little surveys. You may have done them, but I would not believe that you have just cause you say so. You are a proven liar. If Mr Spencer does use them and they turn out to be more of your lies, then that would take credibility from this site. And, even if you have really done them, which is not impossible, I don't think they are intelligently done enough to be publicised.For example, at one point above you state:

"However, when I asked the questions about what we should do the figures became not nearly as uniform.

*23 people believed that all practitioners of islam should be summarily expelled from the UK
*1 person said that he didn't know enough to comment
*18 people said that islam should be legally regulated in the UK with 11 of them believing that central government should appoint all islamic clerics
*19 people believed that the practice of islam should be illegal in the UK and that all moslems should be stripped of citizenship and expelled
*12 people didn't know what we should do about islam but believed that something should be done."

In my opinion, the second and fourth categories are not sufficiently differnet for a survey of the public to be evidence of 'lack of uniformity'. I know you are a liar, so this may all be something you have made up anyway, but even if it is true, I don't think you are smart enough to design and interpret a survey. You also need to look up the term 'ad hoc' in a dictionary. Look up 'fascist' while you're there.
And please, stop telling lies.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 11:13 AM

EnglishBlondie

Greetings,
No point arguing over facts:

If the BNP were a demonstrably racist / fascist / anti Gay organisation they would not be allowed to form a political party in the UK by law.

The UK Electoral Commission website confirms their status as Legal.

If they were any of those things I certainly would not be inclined to vote for them - & I am now suitably vexed at our current UK morass to do so.

To constantly be defensive against such claims is futile - folks who engage in the Al BBCeera propaganda against the BNP know the facts as well as we do.

Their claims are desperate - they know that progressive Nationalsim is on the electoral radar now & there is no longer any public stigma in declaring your support for a patriotic party.

Best regards
Albion

Posted by: albion at November 17, 2006 11:35 AM

Greetings Albion.

I made a mistake in the post above, I should have said that the FIRST and fourth categories in that list are not sufficiently different, not the second and fourth!

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 11:50 AM

I can't count to two! I have had a drink. Not with Dominic.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 12:57 PM

Albion, we have just reread your post. You are right, it is futile to defend against these false allegations in a way. It may seem strange that we bother. I'll tell you why we are bothering. By the way, my friends and I are also enjoying this debate (in between work and drinks and nights out and child care, oh, and one of my friends is a single mother so she is wondering why Dominic would think that I attack single mothers since I have never attacked her), but that is not the main reason why we are doing it.

The main reason we bother posting on here and exposing the lies of people like Dominic is because a lot of people read this site.
We have these type of debates frequently, face-to-face with people in our city. We are aware of the censorship and deceit of the mainstream media, we watch the BBC and the rest. We bother posting on here so that all the readers can see the bogus arguments of people like Dominic for what they are. We want to publicise and expose the lies and the lack of rationality. The debate above with Dominic is an illustration. It is for people to see. Dominic in himself is irrelevant. He is just provides an example of an argument that is invalid. He is a liar, just like the BBC. Just like many people. Briefly, we bother to post mainly because we want to educate others. We want to expose the lies and deceit and irrationality. We want to illustrate the untenablility of certain positions. And, in so doing, at the risk of sounding really corny, we want to free people and move towards justice. One of the quotes I gave above speaks of 'tyranny', and (I know it sounds corny) but we are opposing tyranny. By posting this is our main objective.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 1:55 PM

When we say 'educate', we don't mean that in any patronising manner by the way. Although education and intelligence are not perfectly correlated (some very stupid people are highly educated, and some very intelligent people have little education), there are many educated and/or intelligent people who just don't get it. Many of these people are good people too. The problem is the propaganda, misrepresentaion and lies from the media. A good and intelligent person may very well think that the BNP are proposing death camps, such suggestions are frequently implied on the BBC and stated clearly by people like Dominic. Doesn't mean it's true. Good and intelligent (with or without education) people may well believe that there are no rapes comitted by Muslims in England, surely they would have heard? It would be an understandable position to take. However, it is wrong.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 2:33 PM

can't believe this thread is still going
very entertaining!

Yes I'm drunk again!

Poor Dominic-means well but a bit out of his depth or maybe an MI5 stooge spreading disinformation!
(the Chateau Latif makes me a bit paranoid)

EnglishBlondie/Albion I like your sentiments. Like both of you I'm sick and tired of seeing what is happening to this country (I work in local government and see it day in day out)

I do think the BNP needs to show its gentle side though, and try and reassure people like Dominic. Most of the gay men I know are fairly right wing/reactionary and don't have this persecution complex that Dominic displays.

Maybe Nick Griffin should do a David Cam-a-moron and have a "hug a queer" week

Don't get me wrong I am not a homophobe, quite the opposite, and I think there are a lot of artistic intelligent creative gay men who have been allowed to flourish and express themselves throughout western democracies. Can't really say the same for Islamic societies can we?

Be gentle with him - we are all on the same side!

Hic!

Posted by: hierophant at November 17, 2006 3:11 PM

Hello Hierophant!
We do hope you are enjoying your Chateau Latif ! We are all on Carlsberg here, have been ever since the Danish cartoons saga. With all this Carlsberg plus the Danish pastries and bacon, we may not make it to Christmas - liver and artey damage. We still force the odd vodka down, vodka is always good.
Yeh, the thread's still going! It is a very entertaining thread! my friends and I may have become a bit obsessed with this thread now, may need to leave it alone ('go on, check the thread').
One of my mates works in local governement, I know what you are saying. It is all quite shocking and shameful.Immoral actually.
And, you may be right, maybe I should be gentle on Dominic, he probably (who knows)is on the same side - although I'm not usually the type of woman to take prisoners. OK, in the spirit of being kind to Dominic I will declare that I am not homophobic either. I didn't even want to say that before since some of Dominic's posts read a bit like he was trying to bully people to make statements -I mean those posts above where he's almost demanding that people say they support equal rights, and then he'll apologise, if not he'll call thema fascist. Sinister implications. That kind of carrot and stick tactics reminds me of sinister things from the Stalin regime. I also didn't like his self importance that it would be so relevant that he'd apologise, he sounds like his mum spolit him a bit.It is not a question of whether I believe something or not, it is that I resent someone trying to force me to say something, even if it is true. Brings out a defiance in me. It also says a lot about them.
Anyway, enjoy your drink.
I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to hug Dominic

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 4:16 PM

hi EnglishBlondie
love the banter!

having traditionally come from the left (when younger) and now contemplating full on support for the right (not talking about the conservatives) Just a bit confused about the bnp. They used to be totally anti-zionist which has changed recently but they still remain anti-American which is a shame. I know America has a lot to answer for, but I think we need to stay close.
Any way you sound to me like you should be standing for election!!!!

Hic Hic Hic

any way I'm on a cheeky little number from Chile (Maipo Valley) and it's very nice!

Posted by: hierophant at November 17, 2006 5:56 PM

Hi Hierophant! I can hardly stand on my feet right now, never mind stand for election - way too much lovely Carlsberg! Probably means there will be more mistakes in this post than usual!
Anyway, not to worry. I think you made a very important point before - about people infiltraing the boards. I have often wondered about that. You're pretty clued up to realise that the security forces may not always be working in the best interests of the people too.
One thing I wonder about infiltration is , say this board here - everyone on here knows the truth about islam. But did you notice on the thread here (above), that all these people who are clued up about islam, but the minute the BNP are mentioned many of them start repeating lies ('death camps for gays', etc.), Hitler implications and suggesting we all vote Conservative. It does strike me as very strange.I mean, the BNP are the only political party in Britain who have told the truth about islam and the implications of this truth (e.g. the rapes). And, just what does anyone think that Cam-a-moron (took that from you!) will do about any of this? 'Hug a terrorist'? The BNP are the only party who have proposed anything that attempts to address these problems. It just seems strange to me that there was so much propaganda, lies and ignorance on this board. I do suspect that there will be infiltrators. Don't have a clue who. I'd like to blame Dominic but that wouuld just be mean. He did lie though. A lot of people just don't know any better. I mean, maybe Dominic really does believe that there are proposals for death camps for gays (there are not by the way Dominic). But then again, would anyone so stupid read these boards and post? It is difficult to know what is going on really. I do know that the Government will stop at nothing to halt the rise of the BNP, posting on here would be a very easy thing to do.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 6:16 PM

Going to bed now

Don't let the bastards get get you down!

see you again on another thread no doubt

Vivre la revolution!

Love an best wishes

P

Posted by: hierophant at November 17, 2006 9:19 PM

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 17, 2006 9:42 PM

Abysmally disappointing response from Dominic.

Posted by: remote_control at November 17, 2006 10:50 PM

remote_control/

Very well. I'm sorry to disappoint.

According to its constitution, the BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples", and is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948". To achieve this aim, the BNP advocates the use of "firm but voluntary incentives" to remove ethnic minorities from the UK. Membership of the party is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians."

Now tell me, remote_control, why should I not object to that and label such viewpoints as 'fascist'. Especially since the wording is directly drawn from the fascisti documents?

Being British is not about skin colour: it is about what one believes in one's heart about freedom.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 17, 2006 11:01 PM

remote_control/

The BNP on being gay:

"homosexuality... lead[s] to moral turpitude and disease..."

"...homosexuality ... return it to the closet where it belongs...

Both quotes from BNP Press Officer Phil Edwards.

And I shouldn't be worried about this attitude, exactly how?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 17, 2006 11:22 PM

remote_control/

And would you care to tell me exactly how such racist - almost KKK look-alike - constitutional enshrinements, and the 'queer' hating remarks, of this political party should not be categorised as fascist?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 17, 2006 11:36 PM

As we all know, the term 'fascism' is used to shut up people. George Orwell, British writer and author of 1984 and Animal Farm famously remarked:
"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

However, Umberto Eco provides a defintion and discusses how this applies to islam:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3766&sec_id=3766

If we take it as a meaningless term of abuse (Orwell's) then there is no point using it. If we take it as Umberto Eco's defintion then it does not apply to the BNP.

Dominic, why have you not answered any of the questions I have asked above?

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 17, 2006 11:51 PM

remote_control/

And, since the gloves are now so obviously off, let me remind you of another point about the current leader of the BNP: whilst Mr. Griffin was still a leading figure in the National Front (a precursor organisation of the BNP), he was also a close associate of Roberto Fiore, an Italian who, having fled to London, was convicted in absentia, by an (very brave) Italian court, of belonging to the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, a terror group which was alleged to have carried out the Bologna massacre, killing 85 people and injuring 200 others in the railway station of that town. (from the Mail on Sunday, 1 July 1985).

Once again, exactly why should I not characterise these people as 'fascist'?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 17, 2006 11:55 PM

Dominic darling, you cannot characterise them as fascist because the defintion simply does not fit. It is like asking why can't you categorise them as elephants, well you can't because they do not fit the defintion of elephants. Neither can you categorise them as books or teapots.
This is all established Dominic. One of the far left websites had to remove the description fascist recently because it was not true.
If you read Umberto Eco's defintion then you can surely see that.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 18, 2006 12:41 AM

Dominic, given the spotty record of your citations thus far, I cannot take at face value your uncited quotes marshalled to buttress your points. I would, nevertheless, take a look at any links you can provide to validate the quotes you peppered your responses with.

Anyway, your manner of vilifying the BNP is typical of what I've seen here at this forum from others as well; it's simply unsatisfactory and unpersuasive.

Posted by: remote_control at November 18, 2006 12:58 AM

remote_control really he is not worth debating with, he is proven liar and not very intelligent. It is all above, the BNP clearly stated that homosexuality is a freedom to be protected. Even if the quote about 'getting back in the closet' is true, and it could be, we could never know exactly what was meant by that. If it referred to the anger at favouritism, special treatment, funding, and what many perceive as the flaunting of homosexuality and the teaching of it in schools etc., then quite honestly that is the majority view. And no Dominic, before you go crazy - that does not mean they hate you or fear you or want to kill you. That is the opinion of the majority and they have rights too. I know the BBC paint a picture that is not representative of the majority views. The BBC is dominated by homosexuals, they have admitted as much recently. And, lots of people resent that picture. I actually think that the media may be causing more resentment rather than less, but that remains to be proven. 'Getting back in the closet' in that sense would represent the views of the majority, and they should have the freedom to be able to express those views. And Dominic, can I stress that that does not mean people all hate you or want to exterminate you. That is what islam says, not what the BNP or the majority in Britain say.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 18, 2006 1:30 AM

remote_control
Be careful what you write too. Dominic may be trying to trap you into writing something about race. I am not saying for one minute that you would say anything bad, but it doesn't have to be bad. You can say something true and rational, but they could arrest you anyway. That may be why he has mentioned race above. He knows that even if he lies we can not say anything .
Look, this man got arrested for revving his car 'in a racist manner':
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013263.php
We can still debate religion - although let's not forget this is a thread about the BNP being prosecuted under race laws for criticising islam.
Dominic knows all this, that may be why he has mentioned race above. It is very unfair, but you just have to ignore anything like that. He knows he can say whatever he wants and it has to go unchallenged. It is very wrong, but we have to leave any such lies unchallenged and any such ideas undebated.
We can debate religion but only just.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 18, 2006 1:39 AM

"And I shouldn't be worried about this attitude, exactly how?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem"

Dominic, you are entitled to be worried or not about whatever you want or not. That is freedom. And I'm guessing that in the May elections you will not be putting your cross next to the BNP candidate. Again, that is your choice and your right. You are entitled to vote for who ever is on your ballot paper. What I believe that you are not entitled to do is to tell lies about a political party on a public forum. You lied above, you stated that the BNP were proposing extermination death camps for gays. That is not true. You also lied about me. You also showed that you cannot debate properly.
Dominic, if you don't like the BNP don't vote for them. But Dominic, do not tell lies about them either.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 18, 2006 2:37 AM

afternoon all

crikey you still here!

My head hurts(too much spanish plonk last night)never drinking again!

Come off it Dominic everyone knows that all fascists are gay, just look at the uniforms. Remember Ernst Roehm and the SA? they were all at it hammer and tongues! Yes grown men kissing and cuddling I kid you not!

Cut the "I'm so persecuted" nonsense you drama queen!

It's the Ramadamadindong throat-slitters you want to be worried about not the bnp!

Posted by: hierophant at November 18, 2006 8:40 AM

Dominic, are you mixing the BNP up with the National Front? Even the National Front has not proposed extermination camps, but they have proposed to make homosexuality illegal:
"The National Front does not regard homosexual or lesbian relationships as valid alternatives to normal heterosexual marriage. The NF would repeal the laws permitting homosexuality and its promotion."
That is a different matter from merely saying that homosexuality should not be promoted, although they do say that as well they actaully state that it is to be illegal. The BNP have no such policy, and to say that they do is untrue.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 18, 2006 12:07 PM

To spell it out to a child I would say:
Here are 4 possible policy options. This is not an exhaustive list.
1. Kill gays (by stoning, extermination camps or otherwise)
2. Make homosexuality illegal, but not kill gays.
3. Leave homsexuality legal, but reject promotion of homosexuality.
4. Promote homosexuality, including in schools.

It is perfectly possible to support option 3 and to reject all the other options. As I understand it, that is the BNP position. Of course, within option 3 there will be a variety of views. Some may hate homosexuality, but believe it should be a freedom to be protected. Others will not hate homosexuality but believe that it should not be promoted (for religious or other reasons). There are many other views that would all fall into category 3 policy. Just cause someone supports policy 3 does not necessarily mean that they support any other option.
The Nazis and the Islamic mullahs would support option 1. They would also support options 2 and 3 and reject 4. As I understand it, the National Front would support option 2 and reject the other 3 options.
It is intellectually dishonest to state that anyone who supports policy option 3 also supports options 1 and 2. Although some people (e.g. islamic mullahs) would support all 3 options (1, 2, and 3) not everyone who supports option 3 also supports options 1 and 2.
It is incorrect to state that all people supporting policy option 3 also support options 1 and 2. It is also wrong to call anyone who supports option 3 a 'fascist'.
Anyone is entitled to object to any of the policy options and make their voting decision accordingly.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 18, 2006 1:25 PM

I meant to say the islamic mullahs and Nazis would support option 1 and reject all the other options!

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 18, 2006 1:28 PM

I do apologise for messing uo my post! Blame the Carlsberg! I'm on my way out now, but just to clarify - what I was trying to explain is this:
A (non exhuastive) list of 4 possible policy options:
1. Kill gays (by stoning, extermination camps or otherwise)
2. Make homosexuality illegal, but not kill gays.
3. Leave homsexuality legal, but reject promotion of homosexuality.
4. Promote homosexuality, including in schools.

Just becuase someone agrees with policy proposal 3 does not mean that they agree with 1 and 2. Islamic mullahs and Nazis would agree with 1 and reject all others. National Front agree with 2 and reject all others. BNP agree with 3 and reject all others. It is dishonest to say that anyone who rejects 4 also agrees with 1. That is simply not true. Everyone is entitled to thier own opinion on this policy decision. But, it is irrational and dishonest to state that everyone who supports policy 3 also supports policy 1. Also, policy 3 will attract a variety of people, many of who will disagree with each other about why they support policy 3, yet they will all support policy 3.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 18, 2006 1:42 PM

For info Dominic

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html

all gays are closet fascists.....it's scientifically proven.......I think

Posted by: hierophant at November 18, 2006 2:26 PM

Dominic:

You're way off base here. Your accusations of the BNP being as bad as jihadists towards gays smacks of Rosie O'Donnelism, albeit a bit more cleverly said. You have not proven your assertions. I read the BNP's remarks and positions on gays and all I can see is that they don't want it promoted in schools. That's what the Christian Right in America wants too, and Rosie perceives them to be as bad as or more dangerous than Islam.

Like English Blondie said, it's POSSIBLE to not want a gay agenda in our schools and legislation, AND to tolerate their existence and lifestyle so long as it's not being pushed down our throats. That's all we want.

Posted by: atheling at November 19, 2006 2:25 AM

'Tolerance', atheling, that's the word I was looking for! And has anyone else noticed that the people who shout for tolerance are often so intolerant, so demanding of their 'rights' they want to trample on everyone elses? The irony.
More irony, Dominic used the word 'freedom', hilarious! Dominic, what about other people's freedoms? Do they all have to only respect yours? Under the 'bullying intolerant' defintion of 'fascsim, dare I say it that does sound a little fascist?
And another thing, Dominic, you must be getting desperate, you used a 'guilt by association' argument above, and on top of that the association is from over 20 years ago. Again, bad argument darling.
Your position is not defensible, better you give up and stop showing how indefensible it is. However, this has been lots of fun, and a great illustration of a not very intelligent debater trying to defend the indefensible. You must have used all the usual tricks by now Dominic, I mean we have got right down to guilt by association? Do you want to return to calling me a fascist? I do miss that now.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 19, 2006 4:56 PM

Dominic, we are tired of this thread now, it was fun, we will let you have the last word (try not to tell any more lies). If you are big enough you could withdraw the lies you told above, even the lies about me. I am not a journo and have never claimed to be a journo. That was a lie. Ironically you did that character assasination while accusing me of a character assasination, but I have noticed you have little sense of irony. You can chose who you vote for, as can everyone else. You must balance the manifesto of each party. For some people there will be a deal breaker or deal maker factor. If the fact that the BNP chose option 3 above and reject 4 is a deal breaker for you, then that is your choice, it is a democracy after all. However, you should say that that is the case and not lie - i.e. do not pretend that because the BNP reject option 4 that they support option 1.
Goodbye hierophant, remote_control, atheling and everybody else.
God bless.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 20, 2006 11:25 AM