Media workers against fascism


by Sunny
28th April, 2006 at 6:51 pm    

I just got this by email:

We are concerned that coverage of the British National Party’s (BNP) support in some sections of the media is exaggerated and disproportionate to the level of votes the BNP is actually receiving. The BNP is not a normal political party: it is a fascist organisation. The media should expose and challenge the BNP. Fascism stands for the annihilation of trade unions, black, Asian, other minority ethnic, Muslim, Jewish, lesbian and gay communities, disabled people and all democrats. When the Nazis took power, they shut down the freedom of the press and broadcasting channels.

Coverage inflating the BNP’s support makes the BNP appear to be a legitimate political party and simply assists the BNP in the run up to the local elections. We urge sections of the media to act responsibly when covering this issue and not to exaggerate the BNP’s support.

No no no no no! I want the BNP everywhere, and I’ll tell you why.

1) Gives the impression there is very little open racism
It is mighty frustrating to see that while Muslim fanatics such as Sheikh Omar Bakri, Anjem Choudhary and Pizza HuT are constantly given media attention, giving the public an impression that there is huge problem with Muslim extremism, white fascists are banished from the airwaves giving the impression that they don’t pose a threat to anyone.

If we are to convince people that white fascists also roam the country then we have to let them expose themselves.

2) Makes them a protest vote
It makes them more attractive to the racists who do not want to engage with the big three, and gives the impression there is a big media conspiracy against the BNP – adding to their attractiveness.

3) Assumes Britons are closet racists
Are most Britons going to join the BNP if they were given more coverage? I doubt it. Everyone knows they exist and can see through the fascism however the BNP dress it up. Have more faith in your fellow citizens.

4) Makes us intellectually lazy
It remains the duty of the national media and blogs to expose the BNP’s racism. By silencing the racists we throw away the opportunity to openly challenge them and discredit their ideas. Do not be afraid to confront and challenge them.

5) Reduces voter apathy
Don’t want to let the BNP in through a low turn-out? Then go and vote dammit! Get engaged in local and national politics.

6) Against freedom of speech
FoS is your best friend. Racists should be ridiculed, exposed and heaped abuse on – but they cannot and will not be outlawed. In a democracy we should become used to hearing things we do not like. Do not embrace censorship otherwise it will one day be used against you.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Race politics,The BNP






30 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Don — on 28th April, 2006 at 7:03 pm  

    Minor point, I was talking to a few colleagues today about the up-coming local elections. A couple of heavily disillusioned Labour supporters said the only reason they would be going to the polls was the fear that a low turn-out would let the BNP slip in.

  2. raz — on 28th April, 2006 at 7:12 pm  

    Watch this video of the BNP ‘scientist’ making a fool of himself:

    http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-bnp_p11276,00.html

  3. Rohin — on 28th April, 2006 at 7:17 pm  

    More BNP-related films – next week, May 4th, the re-enactment of the Bradford riots. See Sunny’s AiM for more.

  4. Sunny — on 28th April, 2006 at 7:29 pm  

    Right. I’ve made that into a list of points on why I want the BNP everywhere, to be referenced later.

    If you can think of anything more, post it.

  5. Amir — on 28th April, 2006 at 7:55 pm  

    Another reason to want ‘more’ BNP:

    Simple:
    We can invent a new anthem patented on AC/DC’s song ‘T.N.T.’
    [cough, cough]… ‘BNP… they’re Dynamite… BNP… and they’ll win the fight… BNP… so powerful! BNP…. watch them explooooode! Oi! Oi! BNP! Oi! Oi! BNP!’

    Nick Griffin could do a little moshin’ to it as well – ya know, like Sham 69.

  6. Amir — on 28th April, 2006 at 8:10 pm  

    No seriously: I was reading their manifesto a few weeks ago, and apart from that bizarre obsession with lice-checks in primary schools (??), they also advocated a system whereby little kids are segregated according to their competency in the English language. The idea was so cruel, so twisted, so nasty, bitter, etc., I actually burst out laughing.

    I couldn’t help thinking: Well Liverpool’s fucked, isn’t it?

    Accchhhhrington Stanley!

  7. Laban Tall — on 28th April, 2006 at 8:10 pm  

    You’re quite right. I think there must be an instruction going round all newsrooms.

    “Ask him about IQ and stand back ..”

    The Today Programme the other day and now Sky – off he goes, on a subject few know about and less care, sounding like he’s only been let out for the day.

    Suerly Sunny you must know a few hip marketing or PR types who can put him right ?

    (and thanks for the point about assuming all Brits are closet racists. The yougov poll the other day showed a large majority disagreeing with the statement that being a Brit is a function of skin colour)

  8. Amir — on 28th April, 2006 at 8:13 pm  

    To forestall any misunderstanding: I love Scousers and I love Liverpool. Awesome city. Love it.

  9. Amir — on 28th April, 2006 at 9:00 pm  

    Sunny,
    Here’s another good reason for wanting the BNP to succeed – or, at least, to succeed temporarily.

    It will open up the ‘multicultural’ versus ‘anti-multicultural’ debate, which is vigorously deliberated on the Continent – but not over here

    I consider myself in the latter group, because:
    a. Multiculturalism disadvantages ethnic minorities (ghettoization)
    b. It’s bad for social justice
    c. Multiculturalism breeds a faux pas tolerance of illiberal minorities
    d. ‘Identity claims’ do not pass the compossibility test (i.e. when two rights of the same type conflict).
    e. ‘Identity claims’ don’t appeal to public reasons (they’re analogous to saying: I want x.)

    Only by re-inventing the concept of ‘citizenship’ will we be able to cut down these psychological barriers and embrace diversity and pluralism.
    Amir

  10. Ismaeel — on 28th April, 2006 at 9:22 pm  

    Reinventing a concept of citizenship will require a minimum benchmark of civility, consider signing up to the Proclamation of Global Civility.

    As for a BNP anthem, they used to chant “Jesus was a wog” but apparantly they have disavowed that in favour of forming the Christian Council of Britain

  11. Amir — on 28th April, 2006 at 9:37 pm  

    Ismaeel,

    Reinventing a concept of citizenship will require a minimum benchmark of civility, consider signing up to the Proclamation of Global Civility.

    Nonsense: The so-called ‘Proclamation of Global Civility’ is a ridiculous proposition intended to curtail freedom of speech and expression. It’s a silly, self-indulgent ploy by conservative Moslems who – given half a sniff – would hang the editors’ of the Jyllands-Posten. My advice: stop sulking.

  12. Crusader — on 28th April, 2006 at 11:35 pm  

    You are all ungrateful Asians milking our country. This is the beginning of the end for parasites like you.The British people have awakened to your traitorous views and soon you will all be deported

  13. Amir — on 28th April, 2006 at 11:56 pm  

    Crusader,
    By ‘parasites’, I take it you refer – also – to your German, Dutch Norwegian, and French ancestry – not to mention the Irish, Celts, and Bretons? Get a geneticist to defragment your DNA, and I’m positive he’ll tell you exactly the same thing.

    As for ‘milking’ the country, I can assure you that my contribution in taxes far exceeds yours. Money, incidentally, which get redistributed to eggheads such yourself.

    Or is it you (Ismaeel) in disguise? Trying to push the readers of Pickled Politics to the motherly bosom of the MAC?

    Amir

  14. leon — on 29th April, 2006 at 12:30 am  

    Reinventing a concept of citizenship will require a minimum benchmark of civility, consider signing up to the Proclamation of Global Civility.

    What it would actually require would be a written constitution….

  15. Robert — on 29th April, 2006 at 1:21 am  

    Minor point, but shouldn’t 5 read “increases voter apathy” or am I reading it wrong.

    My favourite is the “intellectually lazy” argument. We should ridicule these people in public

  16. Robert — on 29th April, 2006 at 1:26 am  

    It will open up the ‘multicultural’ versus ‘anti-multicultural’ debate, which is vigorously deliberated on the Continent – but not over here

    Amir,

    Your comments on multiculturalism I think highlight an analogous problem to the BNP problem – that of ideas being hijacked by one group – indeed, concepts defined by one group – in such a way that the terms are rendered meaningless for those of us who want to use them for something positive.

    The “multiculturalism” you describe is in fact examples of people abusing and misusing the systems we have in place… nothing to do with the concept of “multiculturalism” itself.

  17. Jay Singh — on 29th April, 2006 at 11:15 am  

    Bring on the BNP – their arguments will not stand to light and we should relish the chance to demolish them in public. But there’s no need to give them more than their status as a fruitcake extremist organisation deserve – I mean give them as much time as you give the Greens. There is a danger of us becoming fixated on them.

  18. Ismaeel — on 29th April, 2006 at 11:48 am  

    Amir said “smaeel,

    Reinventing a concept of citizenship will require a minimum benchmark of civility, consider signing up to the Proclamation of Global Civility.

    Nonsense: The so-called ‘Proclamation of Global Civility’ is a ridiculous proposition intended to curtail freedom of speech and expression. It’s a silly, self-indulgent ploy by conservative Moslems who – given half a sniff – would hang the editors’ of the Jyllands-Posten. My advice: stop sulking.”

    Really Amir, please back up those statements with some sort of analysis of the actual proclamation and how it would curtail freedom of expression. I love the way you and so many others on this forum throw all these accusations and insults around but don’t actually engage with the issues at hand in a rational and critical manner. Which really supports the need for the Proclamation in the first place.

  19. Ismaeel — on 29th April, 2006 at 11:49 am  

    Do i disguise myself as somebody calling themselves Crusader and talk nonsense in some sort of conspiracy to radicalise young Muslims. hmmmm I think this one needs to be added to the conspiracy theories in the Egyptian bombing thread

  20. Jay Singh — on 29th April, 2006 at 12:01 pm  

    One man in his bedroom on a campaign for global civility – he will not be stopped until people are globally civil. In the meantime, he has lost his slippers, and the washing needs putting out.

  21. Ismaeel — on 29th April, 2006 at 12:11 pm  

    Actually the washing is in the drier and i’m in the office, but good guesses none the less

  22. Jay Singh — on 29th April, 2006 at 12:30 pm  

    One man in his bedroom (which he calls his office ;-) with the slippers on, the washing is in the drier and the light bulb in the toilet just went out. Does he know how to take a pee in the darkness? Global civility and the sulking on internet message boards will have to wait.

  23. El Cid — on 29th April, 2006 at 1:20 pm  

    Written constitutions are well overrated.
    I think Blighty has done prety well without one since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, don’t you?
    The idea of giving more power to lawyers fills me with dread.

  24. leon — on 29th April, 2006 at 2:31 pm  

    I think Blighty has done prety well without one since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, don’t you?

    Yeah sure, SUS laws, anti terror laws etc. We done great!

  25. El Cid — on 29th April, 2006 at 3:00 pm  

    Yep, when you look at the bigger picture, we have done great. That’s correct.

  26. Roger — on 29th April, 2006 at 4:58 pm  

    We haven’t done quite as badly overall as many other countries.

  27. Amir — on 29th April, 2006 at 10:23 pm  

    Robert,
    Having read your comments (i.e. you suggest that my view of multiculturalism is a gross caricature, sullied by a hardcore minority), I am reminded of a similar passage in Amartya Sen’s Identity and Violence. On page 157, Sen contends:

    The vocal defence of multiculturalism we frequently here these days is very often nothing more than a plea for plural monoculturalism.

    Unfortunately, Sen makes a crucial error of judgement: Multiculturalism is, by its very essence, a theory of plural monoculturalism! At any rate, it is helpful to make a distinction between two ways of using the term: descriptive & normative:

    1. To say a society is multicultural in a descriptive sense simply means it is comprised of a variety of different religious, cultural, ethnic, or linguistic groups. (ya know: curries, synagogues, saris, Urdu, turbans, bangra, Indo/Pak rivalry on Pickled Politics, crappy Bollywood movies, etc.) It’s just a euphemism for cultural diversity.

    2. To talk of multiculturalism in a normative sense, however, is to propose how we ought to respond to the empirical realities of cultural diversity. Members of the ‘pro-multicultural’ camp – from Seyla Benhabib to Will Kymlicka to Charles Taylor to Bhikhu Parekh – usually want the state to grant special rights, privileges, exemptions, funding, recognition, or status to minority groups and immigrants. In all cases (bar Taylor’s), the hombre is against proactive assimilation and in favour of luck neutralization: many liberal philosophers contend that ‘fairness’ requires the state to compensate for minorities’ unequal access to culture (i.e. tax payers’ money should be spent on, say, an Islamic initiative in Bradford or re-furnishing a synagogue in North London).

    Regrettably, Sen conflates 1. with 2.. Thus – notwithstanding my own intellectual flaws – there is nothing at all disingenuous about my previous comments. To be sure, I am very much rooted in the ‘anti-multicultural’ camp, which includes Professors Brian Barry, Jeremy Waldron, David Miller, and Michael Sandel. To a lesser extent, it also spills over into the philosophy of Edmund Burke, the patriotic essays of George Orwell, and a rational defence of tradition by Karl Popper. In a nutshell: we believe in the primacy of national identity, the importance of civic participation, and consistency in the rule of law – what do you believe in?
    Amir

  28. David T — on 1st May, 2006 at 6:13 pm  

    Are you doing the BCL at Oxford?

  29. Niemands kind — on 1st May, 2006 at 11:41 pm  

    Surely, ghettoism started (before the riots) due to a lack of multicultrualism on both parts?

  30. Niemands kind — on 1st May, 2006 at 11:58 pm  

    Another thing, everyone needs to stop shying away from issues that they find out to be the in the BNP’s policy. Especially when they appear to be commonly held views.

    “A majority of people back the British National Party’s policies, according to a new poll. But the YouGov survey found that many people disown the policies once they are associated with the BNP.

    “A majority of people back the British National Party’s policies, according to a new poll. But the YouGov survey found that many people disown the policies once they are associated with the BNP. ”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5778609,00.html

    The tories seem to be banking on possble BNP voters:
    A Tory spokesman said the party had trebled its membership in Tower Hamlets since its victory and it was capitalising on disenchantment with what he said was seen as a remote and profligate Labour administration.

    In Millwall, it had managed to convince former Labour voters, who were turning to the BNP, to vote Tory, he said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4942872.stm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.