» I have the slides, publishing this week! RT @nextleft: RT @BevaniteEllie Still wish the George Osborne idea would have won at #fab10 2 hrs ago

» Yup! RT @westminstervole: Yo @pickledpolitics Have you seen this Cameron attack ad? Spot on eh? http://twitpic.com/yufua/full 3 hrs ago

» Yup, read & weep RT @niltiac: I love the final paragraph in this comment piece on the #Cadbury takeover. So true! http://is.gd/6CrdY 3 hrs ago

» Has anyone got experience interning at parliament? @rowenna_Davis is writing an article - wants to hear from you. 3 hrs ago

» Good article by Larry Elliot on Cadbury's debacle: http://bit.ly/6QhfMn /Mandelson's influence on industry: zilch 4 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • Highlighting HBV
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Why would they want to join anyway?


    by Rumbold on 15th October, 2009 at 11:22 AM    

    Nick Griffin is to ask the BNP to change its constitution so that non-whites can join the party. This is in order to nullify a challenge from the Equality and Human Rights Commission about its whites-only membership rules.

    The whole exercise seems rather pointless. Are there legions of ethnic minorities waiting to join the ranks of the BNP? People who miss the good old days of being called a ‘Paki’ and who aren’t talented enough to get on Strictly Come Dancing? Perhaps every adult member of an ethnic minority should sign up as a BNP member (which would make them a majority of BNP members), and then vote in a non-white person as head of the BNP.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: The BNP






    94 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Carl — on 15th October, 2009 at 11:25 AM  

      Prediction: The extreme right-wing forum Stormfront will have legions of “real nationalists” saying how pink, liberal and mad keen on PCness Griffin is being. It’s awfully suspicious the timing of this isn’t it.

    2. fugstar — on 15th October, 2009 at 11:32 AM  

      http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1357214

      might take the wind out of his sails a bit.

    3. billaricaydickey — on 15th October, 2009 at 11:48 AM  

      [deleted]

    4. Andy Gilmour — on 15th October, 2009 at 12:37 PM  

      Rumbold,

      I remember a (grandparents from Pakistan) guy from my school who was an ardent, badge-wearing national front supporter because (beyond typical teenage ‘webel!’ nonsense), he *hated* “blacks”.

      Now, I know, that was just a kid, but human stupidity has, alas, not demonstrably decreased in the interim.

    5. Reza — on 15th October, 2009 at 1:18 PM  

      Fugstar

      Thanks for the link in #2.

      From the link:-

      “…recent migration is perceived as having changed communities and created competition for jobs and resources like social housing;… ”

      “At the heart of this new drive is a willingness to encourage local people to speak out about their concerns, even if this raises difficult and uncomfortable issues.”

      “But none of this will work unless on the doorstep, in pubs and community centres local people know and see that someone is speaking up for them and fighting their corner.”

      “…if the way we spend those resources causes resentment and the way we implement those policies actually undermines community cohesion, whether through accident or neglect, then that may do more harm than good.”

      Interesting. It’s wonderful how simply allowing free debate and expression of ideas can encourage the political mainstream to sit up and take notice. Of course, the intolerant, far-left fascists commenting here will simply say that the mainstream are “adopting the language of the BNP”. They’re not. They’ve simply been frightened into listening to the wishes of the majority. That’s a good thing. There’s nothing wrong with responding to ‘populism’. But fascists will never understand that.

      The left have had it their own way for too long. They lost the debate on immigration and multiculturalism long ago. And they can no longer suppress descent through censorship or intimidation.

      I’m enjoying watching their demise. Long overdue.

    6. Morrigan — on 15th October, 2009 at 1:20 PM  

      If they are seen to make progress against Muslims, they will attract some Sikh and Hindu members I think.

    7. fugstar — on 15th October, 2009 at 1:33 PM  

      john denham has greater kudos to say things than Blears, who was a blathering fool.

      the language of the release feels different, less dripping with quiliumy evil and what not.

      so you are a wing watcher then?

    8. Shatterface — on 15th October, 2009 at 1:39 PM  

      ‘The whole exercise seems rather pointless. Are there legions of ethnic minorities waiting to join the ranks of the BNP?’

      A point some of us made months ago when this farce started.

      We also pointed out that it will result in temporary alliances being formed by bigots from different ethnic backgrounds and that a few token black members will undermine attacks on the BNP for being white supremacists.

    9. persephone — on 15th October, 2009 at 2:13 PM  

      This is a comment made by a friend of the BNP re: Rajinder Singhs support & the change to the constitution:

      ” And let’s wave a tearful goodbye to British Identity as we fall over ourselves to admit a rainbow of “British Citizens”. What happened to “friends not family” and “they’re not British they are ethnically British”?

      This move may indeed be necessary for the party to progress but let’s not get giddy and regard it as an astute move. It was forced upon the BNP and the party had to pay because it got its arse spanked by Harman and the EHRC. Ok we have to admit other races in if they want to join but please, don’t dilute my identity by referring to these people as British because that they will NEVER EVER BE.If they are then it begs the question: WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE BNP? Perhaps they could change it to “The BRP - British Rainbow Party”. Ethnics can support us by all means and I welcome it but not at the price of diliuting the most important charactersitic Britons share: Our British Identity. I for one am damn proud of it. Friends yes, family - NEVER. ”

      Take note Reza. They want your support but they do not want your genes mixing with theirs.

    10. sarah — on 15th October, 2009 at 2:17 PM  

      Hilarious post Rumbold, thanks for making me smile.

    11. fugstar — on 15th October, 2009 at 2:17 PM  

      even if he imitates them in though pattern, taste and morality? and tries really hard.

    12. persephone — on 15th October, 2009 at 2:24 PM  

      @ 11 no way - NEVER. Once a Rainbow always a Rainbow

    13. Reza — on 15th October, 2009 at 2:38 PM  

      persephone: “Take note Reza. They want your support but they do not want your genes mixing with theirs.”

      But I don’t support them matey, as you already know. I do agree however, with severely restricting further immigration and deporting illegal immigrants as a matter of urgency. As do the majority of British people. If it’ll clear up your confusion, I’ll probably be voting UKIP or Conservative.

      But the BNP is doing the British people a real service. Despite all the machinations of the left over the years, they’ve finally forced the British majority’s* dissatisfaction with immigration policy and multiculturalism into the political mainstream.

      And you lefties are sh*tting yourselves.

      * Just ask, if you want me to post those links as proof again.

    14. persephone — on 15th October, 2009 at 3:07 PM  

      Reza

      You do like labels. To believe in equality and basic humanity does not make a person a leftie. Don’t politicise racism to give it legitimacy.

      And just because some Africans sold slaves, it didn’t make them right.

      “if you want me to post those links as proof”

      Why? You seem to ignore others proof …

      And as to being scared (which is what all the right wing supporters are saying too about this). Its Griffin who announced the proposal to change the constitution before QT …. someone has described his actions as: 2scared 2bRacist

    15. Reza — on 15th October, 2009 at 3:17 PM  

      persephone, whatever. You look beaten.

      Back to the point of this debate, the BNP will now have to change their whites-only membership rules.

      Surely that’s a good thing.

      And hopefully we can look forward to the demise of the various ‘black only’ organisations, such as the Metropolitan Black Police Association, that bar membership according to perceptions of race.

    16. dave bones — on 15th October, 2009 at 3:21 PM  

      Perhaps every adult member of an ethnic minority should sign up as a BNP member (which would make them a majority of BNP members), and then vote in a non-white person as head of the BNP.

      I said this before but wasn’t that the plan all along? Everyone who isn’t a Policeman or a school teacher anyway..
      Its about time we had a British NATIONAL party we can be proud of, I mean these politicians have been getting away with murder :-)

    17. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 15th October, 2009 at 4:10 PM  

      “…recent migration is perceived as having changed communities and created competition for jobs and resources like social housing;… ”

      Oh well, as long as it’s ‘perceived’ that’s alright then, who gives a fuck about reality when you can sit around spouting whatever fact free bullshit enters your vacuous little head.

      “…‘black only’ organisations, such as the Metropolitan Black Police Association, that bar membership according to perceptions of race.”

      Whites can join the black police association, but as long as you perceive the opposite to reality you almost certainly have a ‘legitimate concern’.

    18. Reza — on 15th October, 2009 at 4:29 PM  

      Those weren’t my words Disgusting, they’re the words of Communities Secretary John Denham. Do ensure you have the full picture in future before jumping to conclusions.

      “Perceived” is Denham’s weasel word to appease the leftist orthodoxy who would surely be choking on their organic Fairtrade Chardonnay at the truism that recent migration has (gasp!) really changed communities.

      And no, white people cannot join the BPA as full members, only ‘associate’ members. So no different to the BNP in that respect.

    19. counterstrike — on 15th October, 2009 at 4:48 PM  

      The aims and objectives of the Metropolitan black police association: “The Metropolitan Black Police Association (MetBPA) endeavours to improve the working environment of black personnel within the Metropolitan Police Service”

      A white officer could join but the above statement makes it rather pointless.

    20. Reza — on 15th October, 2009 at 5:01 PM  

      Interesting. The aims and objectives of the BNP: “The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands…”

      So in principle, they’re no more discriminatory than the MBPA.

    21. Rozahana — on 15th October, 2009 at 5:39 PM  

      Billaricaydickey I always assumed that you were a member of the BNP. You certainly sound like one with all your rants about the Bangladeshis of Tower Hamlets.
      And what’s Simon Woolley’s skin colour got to do with anything. Is he not dark enough for you to class him as a ‘real’ black. Are you the race police?

    22. douglas clark — on 15th October, 2009 at 6:09 PM  

      Reza @ 20,

      You quote the BNP thusly:

      The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands…

      I’d have thought even you could see how weaselly that is. It is superficially unremarkable. It is in fact nothing of the sort.

      Och! Jai has dealt with all of that already.

      Can you guess which part of the future of the indigenous people (i.e. me) of these islands I would most like to see? It is for the BNP to implode up their last refuge.

    23. Ravi Naik — on 15th October, 2009 at 6:18 PM  

      So in principle, they’re no more discriminatory than the MBPA.

      They are far more discriminatory, because they run as a political party representing British Nationals AND they claim they represent only indigineous people. If you intersect both sets, you come up that British Nationals can only be whites. The MBPA merely represents the interests of a minority for a specific line of work, and they fight for equality. And they would accept mixed individuals. The BNP would not accept an individual who has an indigineous white mother and a black father - and they are for exclusion, not equality.

    24. DavidMWW — on 15th October, 2009 at 6:26 PM  

      Good idea, Rumbold. Join them, intermarry with them. It’s the best way to get the BNP to integrate with British society. :)

    25. Reza — on 15th October, 2009 at 6:30 PM  

      Douglas: I took the quote from the first line of the BNP’s Mission Statement. I’m not arguing that it’s either reasonable or fair.

      I’m just saying that in essence, it’s not disimmilar to the MBPA.

      Ravi, you’re splitting hairs. I’d respect your opinion more if you’d simply agree that, of course the BNP are clearly unacceptably discriminatory, but yes, organisations such as the MBPA are also discriminatory. Neither organisation has much moral integrity in my eyes.

    26. Leon — on 15th October, 2009 at 6:36 PM  

      I’m going to join, hell if the EDL can have a mixed guy running tings then why not the BNP?!! :p

    27. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 15th October, 2009 at 6:41 PM  

      Ah, perception defeats reality again eh reza ?

      I know where the quote came from, I read the article, I’ve read dozens like them from NL types from Blair downwards over the past ten years largely concerning ‘immigration’ and crime and they all say the same thing - fuck reality, narrative wins every time, the same sentiment you persistently endorse, which is why you were so enamoured with Denham’s line. Why you insist on pretending it’s some big about turn is a mystery, however.

      I agree that NL have never shown any concern on the effects of globalisation on communities.

      “The NBPA is open to all in policing on application, there is no bar to membership based on colour.”

      Yes, white people can join the BPA, it’s not ‘white only’ as you falsely claimed, but as long as you can perform whatever mental gymnastics necessary to maintain perception, that is surely all that is important.

      (counterstirke - I agree, some non black people might wish to help with their aims of “mprove the working environment of Black staff” as they’re free to do, but in such a specific setting it’s hard to see the point.)

    28. douglas clark — on 15th October, 2009 at 7:00 PM  

      Reza,

      I know you took it from the BNP web site. That is why I said:

      You quote the BNP thusly

      I know, (err, no I don’t), I hope, you think it’s a crock of shit.

      Ravi has this bang to rights. They claim to speak for me. Do you have the faintest idea how fucking annoying that is?

      The end of the last sentence of my last post said:

      last refuge

      The fuller version is Samuel Johnsons famous:

      Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

      You are in serious danger of becoming allied with scoundrels.

    29. Refresh — on 15th October, 2009 at 7:04 PM  

      Leon, you may be close on that one.

      If they do ammend their constitution, then I expect a public merger between EDL & BNP. Someone’s got it all mapped out, methinks.

    30. edsa — on 15th October, 2009 at 7:44 PM  

      Quoting Reza #20, “The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands…“. In a way, is that goal so heretical? Poor Britain has been culturally distorted beyond recognition and the BNP is trying desperately to restore some authenticity to the great island race.

      Many of PicPol members are surely South Asian. So consider the antics of the caste-ridden and bigoted Hindu babus want: their feudal outfits like the Shiv Sena and the Hindutva brigade want all Indians conform to Hindu values (Muslims hating, cow-worship and all).
      So how dare any obscurantist Hindus on PicPol complain about the concerns of the
      BNP. In any case, they are upgrading their membership requirements

    31. douglas clark — on 15th October, 2009 at 8:00 PM  

      Wow!

      Edsa posts the same shit three times.

      Poor Britain has been culturally distorted beyond recognition and the BNP is trying desperately to restore some authenticity to the great island race.

      You may see it that way, Edsa. I think otherwise. What is this authenticity of which you speak. And what exactly gives you the ‘right’ to speak on my behalf?

      For fucks sake:

      the great island race.

      if there is a great island race it certainly tries it’s very best to ignore morons that say things like, err, this:

      the great island race.

      For we usually think of people who would express an opinion like that as dickheads.

      Your views on India are noted. Perhaps their attempts to go beyond cultural and social discrimination and aim for a ‘One India’ concept has passed you by.

      As most things seem to have….

    32. edsa — on 15th October, 2009 at 8:24 PM  

      Sorry about the triple posting.
      Pity that Douglas got so worked up. But why the abusive terms like f*** or dickhead? Does their use strenghten the argument?
      Englanders like the Daily Mail lot are fond of the “island race” argument. So are they to be dismissed out of hand or should they be heard?

      As for India, I don’t think Douglas is well informed. Social conditions have become nightmarish for minorities like the Muslims (150 million!), the Christians, the lower castes and tribals. While Britain is renowned for rational debate and discussion, this approach is alien to the Indian (Hindu) mind. They prefer to rant and rave, shout mantras and slogans, go through religious ritual and generally create chaos and mayhem. That’s the Indian way.
      My point is that British Indians (Hindus) have no right to criticise the BNP here until they have done likewise with similar or worse groups in India.
      A footnote: the Indian army and airforce is scheduled to launch a massive assault (75,000 to 100,000 men)next month on the poor and their Maoist supporters who want to preserve their own resources and culture. Cna you imagine the British government launching an attack againt the minorities here?

    33. marie-odile — on 15th October, 2009 at 9:00 PM  

      what? wait? I thought esda was taking the mick. the “great island race,” seriously? Can you hear what that sounds like?
      also, the first time I’ve heard of Britain being referred to as “Poor” Britain. Because, you know, Britain has been the poor underdog throughout history…

    34. douglas clark — on 15th October, 2009 at 9:03 PM  

      No problem edsa,

      You triple post as much as you like.

      And leave me to justify fuck and dickhead.

      Does their use strenghten the argument?

      Perhaps I think it does.

      What do you have to say in defence of offensive language such as:

      So how dare any obscurantist Hindus on PicPol complain about the concerns of the BNP. In any case, they are upgrading their membership re

      Well what exactly? That would seem to me to be a bit incomplete? Or perhaps partially offensive? I am not a candidate for the BNP injection. I consider them evil, fucked up lunatics. So there you go.

      Why are Hindus obscurantist anyway?

      You are talking shit.

    35. Leon — on 15th October, 2009 at 10:15 PM  

      Edsa is either a master satirist or a fucking idiot…

    36. Don — on 15th October, 2009 at 10:18 PM  

      edsa,

      Take your hate and stuff it.

    37. Reza — on 15th October, 2009 at 10:41 PM  

      Douglas

      I’m not “allied” with anyone, especially the BNP. But no doubt you’re so used to squealing “racist!” at anyone that doesn’t share your narrow and minority world-view that you find the habit hard to break. Don’t beat yourself up about it Doug. The habits of your student days are clearly hard to break.

      However Duggie, I appreciate that throughout Europe, people like you realize that you’re in the twilight of your influence. It once didn’t matter to you that you’d lost the argument with the British majority years ago. You could still control the political arena with bully-boy tactics, and the ‘no-platform’ censorship and the “raacisst!” chanting learned in your student union days. Oh yes, I remember people like you.

      But Dougal, can’t you see you’ve lost. The British people can see that the emperor has no clothes. Or teeth. Or even rationality. Never had.

      And the words you’ve abused for so long. Your weapons. “Racist!” “Fascist!” “Nazi!”

      Just words old bean. You’ve taken all meaning out of them.

      I’ll leave you with a link to a brilliant post by Morrigan. He/she really gets it.

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6211#comment-181632

      But I’ll stretch the see-saw analogy so as not to leave you out.

      You Duggs, and your clever leftie Chums have been sitting on the far left of the see-saw for a terribly long time. And whenever the people in the middle tried to balance it by shuffling a teeny bit to the right you stopped them. You shouted “racist” and other rude words at them. And in the end some of those people got so fed up with you that they went to the very far right of the see-saw, so far that they can’t hear your hectoring anymore.

      And I don’t blame them.

      Give it up. You’ve lost. Democracy always finds a way.

    38. Don — on 15th October, 2009 at 11:30 PM  

      The see-saw analogy is more bumper-sticker than brilliant and I think you stretch it way too far.

      In my opinion, this guy is a troll. That’s just my opinion.

    39. douglas clark — on 15th October, 2009 at 11:42 PM  

      Reza,

      Quite a post you did at 37.

      It is hard to know where to start. I am not exactly sure whether you are entitled to descibe me as a ‘lefty’. Perhaps you are. I am an SNP member. So what do you make of that?

      Can I make this as clear as I can?

      I would not only vote for Sunny Hundal or Sonia Afroz, I would work on their behalf. I consider them both to be my friends. And neither would disgrace me. For they are both democrats, in the English sense. They are both far better than you are, and have nothing to do with your see-saw. There are, simply, good people that should represent us, whoever we are. It seems odd to me that skin colour, rather than mutual political conviction should be the issue.

      I have suggested to both of them that they should stand.

      Silence, so far.

    40. persephone — on 15th October, 2009 at 11:56 PM  

      Reza

      “Surely that’s a good thing.“

      Why, are you going to join then? Though it may be an offshoot called the British Rainbow Party. I believe even Rajinder Singh is awaiting his honorary membership.

      “ for decades, the majority of British people have opposed mass immigration” & “oppressed … majorities”

      So why didn’t they vote NF in their ‘masses’ decades ago? Lets blame those damn lefties & multi-culturalists (what matter if they were not around then) for blockading the election booths … think I just had a Reza moment there…

      “So no different to the BNP in that respect.”

      Apart from the small matter of their real motives (eg Nicks plans to drop unwilling people over Africa) which would be too inconvenient a truth to mention. Reza I do like it when you make these sweeping assertions & correlations, it really shows insight and vision. You must have been superlative at that do-to-dot game as a child.

    41. persephone — on 16th October, 2009 at 12:08 AM  

      Reza

      Where is that post you promised to submit to PP?

      Y’know the one with the coherent underpinning and weighty rationale to bolster the rabid hatred of immigrants, lefties, multi-culturalists and Islam. (do forgive me if I have missed out any of your hated pet groupings)

      If you don’t I’ll only think you are beaten.

    42. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 12:24 AM  

      “So why didn’t they vote NF in their ‘masses’ decades ago?”

      Oh Persephone, HOW many times do I have to show you:

      “The public like some BNP policies, but not the BNP”

      http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/196

      Mass immigration is, was and has always been unpopular with the British majority. But you and your leftie chums have always wilfully disregarded that.

      After all, what’s the point of being a leftie if you don’t know what’s best for people?

      For years, you’ve prided yourselves on doing all the thinking for them, so the poor little things wouldn’t have to.

      But the British people are, overwhelmingly, a decent lot. You see, they’re not naturally racist. They’re a tolerant and kind bunch that won’t goose-step through our ‘enriched’ estates beating up dark people just because Mr Griffin goes on the telly.

      So all you clever people on the left really don’t need to worry yourselves about shielding their impressionable little minds from the BNP. They get it.

      They’re listening to, and sometimes voting for, the BNP because of people like you, sitting at the far end of the see-saw, tipping the balance and shouting rude names at anyone who disagrees with you.

    43. Ravi Naik — on 16th October, 2009 at 12:41 AM  

      You shouted “racist” and other rude words at them. And in the end some of those people got so fed up with you that they went to the very far right of the see-saw, so far that they can’t hear your hectoring anymore. And I don’t blame them. Give it up. You’ve lost. Democracy always finds a way.

      You seem to have more respect for the BNP than with the people and the ideology that fought hard against racism and made it an ugly word, and allowed your parents to immigrate to this country and you having mixed kids.

      Our society doesn’t revolve around the BNP, and we do not have to compromise our principles to appease potential BNP voters. Enough with the histrionics.

    44. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 12:59 AM  

      Ravi

      Freedom of speech is THE bedrock of a democracy. My histrionics are the result of a my anger at the left who have stifled freedom of speech and therefore debate for decades. I’ve seen intelligent, perfectly reasonable, non-racist debates disrupted by far left goons. They have corrupted the political space for long enough.

      So yes, stand up for your principles. Oppose the BNP and any other group you want. But do it with rational debate. Win the argument.

      And if you lose it, respect the will of the overwhelming majority. If they want immigration to be severely curtailed or if they oppose multiculturalism, it doesn’t mean that they dislike you or me. It doesn’t mean a return to Nazi Germany.

      The country belongs to the people in it. Habitually denying the will of the majority and even preventing them from expressing their opinions is fascism.

      And I seem to be one of the few people on this discussion board that understands the true meaning of that word.

    45. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:05 AM  

      douglas

      “It seems odd to me that skin colour, rather than mutual political conviction should be the issue.”

      And it seems odd to me that the people consistently obsessed with the importance of “skin colour” are you and your ‘democrat’ friends.

    46. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 7:39 AM  

      Reza,

      ‘Tis you that seems to make a big deal of it. All I am saying is that I think of them as friends, not enemies. Can you get your head around that? I do not doubt that I disrespect lots of folk, but I tend to be a bit ‘equal opportunities’ about it. If I were, as you say, obsessed with skin colour, I’d be agreeing with you wouldn’t I?

      We have been graced with the presence of the brain dead Lee John Barnes recently. Read what I had to say on that thread before you accuse me of anything, anything at all.

      Why is ‘democrat’ in inverted commas?

      I am, quite obviously, a democrat. Whereas you, sir, appear to have left that concept far behind.

    47. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 7:59 AM  

      Just for clarity, there have been several mad and bad Islamists that have commented here recently too. I have absolutely no time for them either, and have said as much.

      And neither do I have much respect for our Zionist friends that think that a clerical error constitutes a secret agenda.

      There is, it seems to me, to be a rising tide of the crazies, and I will have no truck with any of it. I will continue to say that and find chums wherever they are to be found……..

      So.

      Good people? Bad people?

      Fuck all to do with the colour of your skin.

    48. platinum786 — on 16th October, 2009 at 8:42 AM  

      I love the irony of a migrant banging on about how immigration has changed society and how that’s a bad thing.

    49. Metalboy — on 16th October, 2009 at 8:45 AM  

      Can we invite some of the young Afghans in the Calais ‘jungle’ to join this debate?

    50. josh — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:13 AM  

      rainbow nation - MORE OF A MUDBOW!
      haven’t noticed any red, blue, yellow or purple people about.
      Go get em Nick!

    51. josh — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:15 AM  

      i do not like enthic Multiculturalism (dawali, ramadam etc )that is why i voted BNP and will continue to do so

    52. persephone — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:17 AM  

      Reza

      “The public like some BNP policies, but not the BNP”

      As I have said before the BNP themselves have not worked out their policies or choose not to reveal more about them. Read the PP posts here with the 85 questions to the BNP asking for the detail on their policies. Just ask & I will provide the links again

      I wonder how many in that poll you keep using would reply yes to the aspect of BNP policy that leads to the response by Griffin of: “I don’t care, drop them all over Africa”? when asked about the status of British citizens (minors and adults) who are the children of one white/Caucasian parent and one non-white parent. If you support BNP policies I expect you to put yourself & your family on the first plane they organise for the drop off to Iran.

      I am hoping Griffin will talk about BNP policies in detail on QT, but not the vague terms of immigration that are bandied about here by you & the BNP but the true intent and implementation of the policies.

      NB:
      You have ignored the other aspects I raised.
      You still have not written a coherent, rational post either.

    53. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:18 AM  

      douglas

      I regret that you bore the brunt of my ire yesterday. And I’m impressed that you responded with calm dignity rather than loud hostility. I usually try very hard to keep personal attacks out of debate. I recognise that they simply diminish the debater.

      It was just unfortunate that your post mentioned my being “allied” with the BNP. It was simply one too many.

      I may seem to defend the BNP at times. Certainly, I’m frustrated that they are the only party willing to discuss reducing immigration. But on a fundamental level, it’s about freedom of speech. I may not like what they have to say, but I will fight for their right to say it. Someone has to.

      Because I believe that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Absolute. And essential. I believe that anyone should be allowed to say anything whatsoever as long as they do not openly incite people to harm others. I believe that our police and institutions must protect freedom of speech.

      The left have stifled freedom of speech for decades. That may seem like a good thing, if you think that only gas-chamber supporting Nazis have been prevented from speaking. But “no platform” polices and the violent intimidation we see from the UAF is the thin end of the wedge.

      At University, I witnessed a pro-Israeli, pro-Zionist student organisation be banned under the “no platform” rule. Some people may not like Zionism. But ban it?

      More recently, I saw a meeting held at a University to oppose giving an amnesty to all ILLEGAL immigrants violently disrupted by far-left goons. Criticising Islam is being prevented violently and through our institutions. Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament was prevented from even entering this country after being invited to attend a meeting at the House of Lords. (Fortunately he appealed, won and is in London today).

      Imagine, if Voltaire had been prevented from criticising and ridiculing the Catholic Church to this extent? I believe that his ridicule and criticism actually helped the Church evolve.

      Our public spaces, our local and national government, our schools, our universities have become oppressive places where people are either too frightened, too intimidated or just simply prevented from discussing or opposing the accepted wisdom on multiculturalism and mass immigration.

      And that is fascism, pure and simple.

    54. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:29 AM  

      “Why is ‘democrat’ in inverted commas?”

      If it’s not clear from the post above, true democracy means allowing the free exchange of thoughts and ideas. Giving everyone a say and the right to vote for what they believe in.

      That requires absolute freedom of speech. Even if the ideas might be unpleasant to some people (but as long as they don’t openly incite people to harm others).

      A true democrat would never support a “no platform” policy.

    55. Edsa — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:34 AM  

      Douglas overlooked my reminder in post #30 that the BNP has been forced to revise its constitution to extend membership of all races and cultures. Hurrah to that.
      Sadly Leon #35 has succumbed to abuse - but using the label “f*** idiot” is hardly illuminating. Please elaborate in coherent prose.
      Can we take a bit of a detour and discuss state terror in India? It is appropriate because of the massive state assault on the poor tribals planned for next month.

    56. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:56 AM  

      Reza @ 53,

      Well, there would be nothing for me to object to there, would there?

      You are not going to get a contrary arguement out of me about freedom of speech. I used to hang around American web sites, and I understand the issue. It all does come down to whether or not other people agree with you or not. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don’t. It is free expression. It is actually very good, in the sense that, if you are open to self criticism, you can learn a lot. I did. My ideas are not exclusively right. But they are thought out. Largely because of people that disagreed with me. Your, apparent, enemies, can be your friends.

      Let me make this clear, I cared, quite a lot, whether someone who lived in upstate Louisiana had been effected by a certain hurricane or not. He and I had fought right and wrong for ages. You make the link, you have a friend for life.

      It is the personal that matters, which is why I find this sort of generalisation quite offensive. There are people, individuals, here that I have enormous respect for. There are others that ought to be thrown onto the compost heap.

      Such is life.

      And that ain’t fascism.

      I do not recognise the society you describe. I think, I experience, something different. How come?

    57. Ravi Naik — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:59 AM  

      I may seem to defend the BNP at times. Certainly, I’m frustrated that they are the only party willing to discuss reducing immigration.

      UKIP? Tories? New Labour? They all have more controlled immigration as their policies. The BNP wants to stop immigration all together from “darkie” countries. You have hinted you support the same.

      But on a fundamental level, it’s about freedom of speech. I may not like what they have to say, but I will fight for their right to say it. Someone has to. Because I believe that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Absolute.

      You believe in freedom of speech as an objective, I see freedom of speech as the means to a more constructive and developed society where the best ideas are put forward. This means that I do not believe that we should promote ideas equally for the sake of “freedom of speech”, when the source has been shown to act in bad faith, has been demonstrably dishonest, and has an ideology that promotes hate against a group of people.

    58. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 10:12 AM  

      Edsa,

      Quoting 30?

      and the BNP is trying desperately to restore some authenticity to the great island race.

      It was that, err, pish, that I disagreed with. I think that I have made the comment elsewhere:

      Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

      Samuel Johnson, I think.

      ‘Authentic’? What the heck is that? We are all plastic now, what with our mobile phones and our internet connections and modern stuff like Wikipedia and wikileaks.

      Try surfing babe…

    59. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 10:24 AM  

      Ravi,

      Whilst I’d agree with you in a narrow context, I do not agree with you in the wider one.

      Whilst we are now, apparently, open to debate with the BNP, it seems reasonable to me that through speech, or writing here even, that they and their bed partners can be challenged, and marginalised.

      We should certainly attribute ‘bad faith’ where we see it.

      Just saying…

    60. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 10:31 AM  

      Ravi

      “This means that I do not believe that we should promote ideas equally for the sake of “freedom of speech”, when the source has been shown to act in bad faith, has been demonstrably dishonest, and has an ideology that promotes hate against a group of people.”

      Who do you mean by “we”? Who has the right, or the authority to decide what views are and are not acceptable? And what do you mean by “equally”?

      For decades, we have had Islamist organisations in all our Universities that support the idea of an eventual world Caliphate. (Read Desperately Seeking Paradise by Ziauddin Sardar.)

      We only noticed Islamism since 9/11. But it’s always been here.

      Should we ban them? And Zionist organisations? What about man made global warming deniers? White supremacists? Black racists of The Nation of Islam? How about the SWP? Or the Communist Party of Great Britain?

      Who do we ban? Who chooses?

      You see, it becomes unworkable. That’s why freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

      There’s no “we”. Allow people the freedom to promote their own ideas. And if their ideas have support, then allow them the appropriate access to the media in proportion to that support. And allow them in our universities and public space.

      The media, particularly the state media, has a duty to challenge all ideas. To expose dishonesty. It has no right however, to take a political stance.

      And censorship of ideas IS fascism. And the more popular those ideas, the more fascistic that censorship.

    61. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 10:58 AM  

      Reza,

      As a child, I paid money into the notion that aid to fellow Christians in Africa was a good thing.

      I think I can deconstuct that arguement now.

      I agree with your idea that freedom of speech, absent violent intent, is indeed sacrosanct. That is one of the few things I have learned. It is a hard lesson, especially for ‘no platform’ folk. We are either right in what we say, or we live in a weird world, where Mr Orwell’s book was not a satire. Speech ought to mean what it says it says.

      I am considerably less exercised by the notion of - what’s the word - Britishness perhaps, is likely to be exclusive rather than inclusive.

      It seems to me that most British folk would be quite happy to have a non-British neighbour.

      The BNP is a busted flush.

      And, contrary to what Sunny says, I think Bonnie Greer will do a great job on next weeks’ Question Time. For she used to appear on Newsnight and she came across as a genuine human being. And that is as much as you can hope for of anyone.

    62. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 11:13 AM  

      douglas

      “I agree with your idea that freedom of speech, absent violent intent, is indeed sacrosanct.”

      Of course it is.

      “I am considerably less exercised by the notion of – what’s the word – Britishness perhaps, is likely to be exclusive rather than inclusive.”

      And you are free to express those views. Just as people who do believe that a British, or English identity exists must have the right to promote and defend that notion, without violence or intimidation from the UAF and Muslim groups.

      Out of interest, do you believe in the notion of ‘Scottishness’?

    63. Amrit — on 16th October, 2009 at 11:21 AM  

      The left have had it their own way for too long. They lost the debate on immigration and multiculturalism long ago. And they can no longer suppress descent through censorship or intimidation.

      LMAO. Freudian slip of the week!

    64. Amrit — on 16th October, 2009 at 11:30 AM  

      [They’re listening to, and sometimes voting for, the BNP] because of people like you, sitting at the far end of the see-saw, tipping the balance and shouting rude names at anyone who disagrees with you.

      Pot, kettle, black Mr. ‘White-Hating Ethnic Lefty Fascist Multiculturalists’.

      I do find your posts hilarious, but really, if you find the views of Picklers so abhorrent, your delicate constitution may find itself a happier home on the Daily Mail messageboards.

      Ravi - don’t fall for that nonsense about freedom of speech!

    65. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 11:42 AM  

      Reza,

      Out of interest, do you believe in the notion of ‘Scottishness’?

      Heh! Good question.

      I do think we see things a bit differently from the English perhaps.

      I am no more happy with a generic idea of what Scottish actually is than I am with what English actually is.

      Though I can see differences.

      Off the top of my head the idea of an inclusive, rather than exclusive identity perhaps. (I have commented on this before, but it seems to me that we don’t have a difficulty about an SNP Asian politician, and they don’t seem to have an issue with us, either. They don’t appear to play the Respect card.)

      The patently obvious fact that people are holding hands and looking into each others eyes without, as far as I can tell, being hounded for it. Who knows what naughtiness that might lead to?

      That, as far as I can tell, Muslims up here are free to proselytize, but don’t take offence if they fail to persuade you.

      That, AFAIK, the BNP has not managed to get anywhere near an election success whatsoever, North of the border. In fact, their attempts at meetings tend to bring out massive counter demonstrations. Their attempt to politicise the death of Chris Donald came to nothing.

      For fucks sake, we are not perfect, we have a lot of issues, and indeed racists, but trying to attribute your views to us is just ridiculous!

    66. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 12:14 PM  

      douglas

      You appeared to duck the question.

      Is there such a thing a Scottish identity?

      Is there such a thing as Scottish values?

      How do they differ from, say, Iranian values?

      Is there such a thing as a Scottish national character?

      Is there such a thing as Scottish heriatage?

      And what do you mean by “inclusive, rather than exclusive identity”?

      What does someone need to do, or believe, to be considered Scottish?

    67. Rumbold — on 16th October, 2009 at 12:20 PM  

      It is an interesting question why there isn’t the equivalent of the BNP in Scotland. Are Scottish people more tolerant than English ones? No, not really (I have never noticed an appreciable difference). Perhaps it has something to do with anti-English bigotry, which provides a focus for hatred, thus deflecting anger away from minorities. I’m not sure.

    68. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 12:39 PM  

      I don’t think I did duck the question. I refer you to my post at 65.

      However:

      Is there such a thing a Scottish identity?

      Maybe. It has tended to be addressed as anti-English, but it seems to have matured a bit. Generally speaking, we appear to be more open to Europe and stuff like that than our English counterparts.

      Is there such a thing as Scottish values?

      You mean exclusively? Probably not.

      How do they differ from, say, Iranian values?

      In this I differ from the SNPs’ line. I am with Iranians in believing that the peaceful use of nuclear power is probably necessary. Y’know, for our continued survival.

      Is there such a thing as a Scottish national character?

      Maybe. We are taught stuff as children that says things like:

      Then let us pray that come it may,
      (As come it will for a’ that,)
      That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,
      Shall bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
      For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
      It’s comin yet for a’ that
      That man to man, the world o’er,
      Shall brithers be for a’ that.

      Which might be a tad trite, but you are what you learn.

      Is there such a thing as Scottish heriatage?

      Did you mean history? Certainly is, although after the Union of the Parliaments, you wouldn’t think so. We were and are somewhat subsumed.

      And what do you mean by “inclusive, rather than exclusive identity”?

      I’d have thought that that was obvious. If you say you are, you are Scottish. There is no pre-existing criteria. Apart from the racist fringe, that is pretty well how most folk see it, I think.

      What does someone need to do, or believe, to be considered Scottish?

      Eh! Nothing at all.

      I am deeply uncomfortable with attempting to argue this case. I see Scottish society warts and all, every day. It is by no means perfect nor particularily good. It is, perhaps, a little different.

      That is all.

    69. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:01 PM  

      Rumbold @ 67,

      It has been a question mark for me too. I do not pretend to understand it, I only know it is so. It is a difference, even though neither of us understands quite why.

      Possible explanations:

      Asians up here are clearly a minority, and our minority. They integrate quite well. We tend to like that. We even vote for them.

      The Catholic -v- Protestant arguement still holds some sway, especially in the West of Scotland, so that debate tends to silence all others.

      We are a bit short on numbers, compared to the UK in general. There is plenty of space for immigrants.

      We have a tendancy to stick up for the underdog. It’s what supporting a crap national football team does for you.

      Dunno.

      The bottom line is that the BNP have rubbish electorial results up here.

    70. Ravi Naik — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:03 PM  

      Whilst I’d agree with you in a narrow context, I do not agree with you in the wider one.

      Mind you, I am saying the BNP should not be considered martyrs of “freedom of speech”, because they have time after time shown they are acting in bad faith: talking about immigration and multiculturism as codewords against multiracial Britain. This debate of whether we should enact racial laws is over, but the BNP still seems keen on playing with their indigenous terminology. The BNP also wants to play our game and present itself as a respectful political party, then I say let’s make them accountable for everything they’ve done, and everything they’ve said and advocated no so long ago. More than ideology, I don’t want to know what they stand for, I want to know what they want to do about the things they think are wrong in this country. They don’t like miscegenation? What do they want to do about it? Does anyone know? Nick Griffin has a lot of explaining to do, and QT will be a good opportunity to unmask this charlatan.

    71. damon — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:08 PM  

      I don’t think the mentality you see here is so different to that of the BNP.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9-oc2cJ138

      If this was taking place in Leicester or East London I think hat a lot of people would be rather alarmed.

    72. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:15 PM  

      douglas

      “I am deeply uncomfortable with attempting to argue this case.”

      That “uncomfortable” feeling is called a ‘disconnect’.

      It means that you are having difficulty justifying what you believe or want to believe because deep down, you suspect it doesn’t make sense.

      I’m not being patronising. I’ve suffered ‘disconnects’ myself.

      Clearly the idea that there is no cultural difference between an Iranian and a Scot is hard for you to argue. But you want to believe that just the same.

      And the idea that absolutely anyone could call themselves a Scot doesn’t quite add up in your mind, but considering an alternative viewpoint may cause you to challenging some of your fundamental beliefs.

      Hence the discomfort. Hence the ‘disconnect’.

    73. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:17 PM  

      Ravi @ 70,

      I don’t disagree with you really. But can we try to tease out what you are saying here:

      I want to know what they want to do about the things they think are wrong in this country. They don’t like miscegenation? What do they want to do about it? Does anyone know?

      We were, err, privileged, to read the words of Lee Barnes here a little while ago. It was an opportunity to challenge the BNP on things like miscegenation and what they intended to do about it.

      Frankly, from that perspective, it was a missed chance.

    74. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:30 PM  

      Reza,

      My deep discomfort comes from a fundamental belief that we are all much of a muchness.

      And the idea that absolutely anyone could call themselves a Scot doesn’t quite add up in your mind, but considering an alternative viewpoint may cause you to challenging some of your fundamental beliefs.

      Well, no. They’d have to have some sort of marker that justified their position, obviously. Y’know, like attending Uni here or something. Or being an asylum seeker that was stuck in Knightswood for years.

      Those, we’d accept, I think.

      My fundamental disconnect as you put it, is that I don’t actually see myself as Scottish, I see myself as a citizen of this planet. Defending one little corner of it seems a bit sterile to me, although you did rather set me up for it!

      So, in the spirit of international solidarity, we are what you should all aspire to be!

    75. sonia — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:33 PM  

      WHat a lot of silliness on this thread. Poor reza and those who support restricting “future immigration” are only going to do in those who rely on the benefits system. Heh

    76. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:42 PM  

      damon,

      You might be interested to know that the number of Orange Walks is a subject of political discussion in Glasgow. You feed into my second point at 69 above. It is not a perfect society.

    77. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:44 PM  

      douglas

      “I see myself as a citizen of this planet.”

      And that’s lovely. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like you to answer one final question on this.

      If I, or say one of my white English mates decided to move to Scotland tomorrow, could I reasonably call myself Scottish on Monday? Or would I have to wait until Tuesday?

      And what do you think that most of your fellow countrymen would make of that? Would they accept me as a Scot?

      And how about this. My mate, happy with his new Scottish identity, nevertheless decides that he is so proud of his English heritage that he chooses to celebrate it by wearing an England football shirt, every day. Should he have legal protection to wear it to work?

      And football. Naturally, he’ll continue to support the English football team. But he’s Scottish right?

      Of course he is.

    78. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 1:50 PM  

      Sonia

      If there were a point in your comment, would you mind making it in a way that can be understood by a simple soul such as myself? I haven’t the foggiest what you’re on about…

    79. damon — on 16th October, 2009 at 2:05 PM  

      I know Douglas. I just put that in, least that anyone thought that Scotland didn’t have as many bigots and racists as England.
      Maybe Scots have been less concerned by immigration because there was less of it. It would have been interesting to see how Scotland would have treated a Caribbean community if Caribbeans had gone there in large numbers.

      I remember one of the last England V Scotland matches at Wembley, when there was a tube strike that weekend and all the Scotland fans had to walk to Wembley from central London. I was with a bunch of pals who were Scotland (and Rangers) fans, and as we walked through Harlsden (with it’s large black population) the Scotland fans were staring at the black people who were standing there watching the Scotland fans go by. There was a mood of ”fucking hell, look at all these black people” coming from the Scotland fans. The black lads sensed this and were staring back in a sullen kind of manner. There was a bit of tension in the air.
      It was more than 20 years ago, but I still remember it.

    80. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 2:14 PM  

      Reza,

      There is a huge influx of English people here already. Many of whom vote SNP.

      My wry comment on your scenario would be that he’d be unlikely to still be breathing by the Tuesday, however no-one is that daft. I doubt he’d be, err, well liked exactly.

      You’ll be making archetypes out of us all next.

      You forget. We are the pole against which the rest of the world ought to be measured. Especially the English and come to that Iranians ;-)

      Pretentious? Moi?

    81. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 2:29 PM  

      damon,

      I am, hopefully, not taking this discussion too seriously. I went once upon a time to a Scotland -v- England Under 21 International in Aberdeen. So called Scotland supporters grunted when a black English player was on the ball. I was pretty disgusted with my compatriots.

      Joking apart, we have faults, big ones, but they are different faults. That is all I am saying really. Apart from winding up Reza who I fail to seem to agree with about anything much.

      At all.

    82. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 2:37 PM  

      “There is a huge influx of English people here already. Many of whom vote SNP.”

      I know, but do they call themselves Scottish? Do Scots consider them as Scottish? Or does that take some time and perhaps effort on the part of those Englishmen?

      “My wry comment on your scenario would be that he’d be unlikely to still be breathing by the Tuesday, however no-one is that daft. I doubt he’d be, err, well liked exactly.”

      This is however the crux of the point I’m making. However broadly you wish to define Scottish values, however ‘inclusive’ you want to paint them, there comes a point when it’s appropriate to say, “that’s not Scottish”.

      Now try to understand, as I do, how some people in England (and I’m sure also Scotland) might feel exasperated by someone, who does not identify with them in language, clothing or values, calls themselves ‘British’.

      Are they always just small-minded, intolerant racists?

    83. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 2:55 PM  

      Reza,

      It is a question of perspective, is it not?

      I was quite surprised how assimilated some English folk are in the Highlands. Their attitudes and beliefs have ‘gone native’ for want of a better expression. I have no idea how long it took.

      Contrary to your position, I’d expect, no predict, that most Asians a hundred years from now will be indistinguishable from whatever mainstream thought is by then.

      It is my opinion, always has been, that sex beats politics beats religion.

      So, despite the vagaries of religious prejudices, I expect a breakdown in boundaries and barriers. This might not be a popular opinion but the evidence seems to stack up in it’s favour.

      It was not that long ago that a Catholic / Protestant wedding was the talk of the steamie around here. Now, no-one cares, and they probably get married in a Registry Office anyway.

    84. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 3:03 PM  

      douglas

      So you’re an assimilationist.

      That, at least, has some intellectual integrity. However, I doubt that in 100 years, or even 1000 years, Muslims will be marrying Protestants in any great numbers. But that is another debate.

      But multiculturalism has no intellectual integrity. And it prevents assimilation. Can you see that yet?

    85. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2009 at 3:22 PM  

      Reza,

      Cheers.

      I never knew I was an assimilationist up until now. I was just calling it the way I see it around me. To be honest I doubt that Protestants or Muslims, in the UK at least, will exist in a hundred years or less. So the prospect of them marrying each other is a bit moot.

      IMO you’ll be lucky to have people describe themselves as ‘cultural’ Protestants or Muslims forty years from now.

      The apostasy barrier will be smashed, I’d have thought. Which, it seems to me, is the biggest issue around at the moment.

    86. Ravi Naik — on 16th October, 2009 at 4:32 PM  

      Now try to understand, as I do, how some people in England (and I’m sure also Scotland) might feel exasperated by someone, who does not identify with them in language, clothing or values, calls themselves ‘British’. Are they always just small-minded, intolerant racists?

      So, you are not just happy to castigate immigrants for not assimilating, but you also don’t like when they call themselves British, which is a sign that they feel a part of this country. Yes, immigrants and their descendants speak other languages, or sometimes wear different clothes. Chill out, so do the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish.

      I do think you are so terrified of the BNP and white racists, that you try your hardest to be a good little Iranian-born Englishman. As if for these people it matters one bit. Grow yourself a backbone, Reza.

      It seems that unlike in England, Asians in Scotland identify themselves as Scottish. Asians in England identify themselves as British.

    87. Rumbold — on 16th October, 2009 at 9:11 PM  

      Douglas:

      I think you are right, in that the Catholic-Protestant split is still more raw. Space also plays a part.

      I wonder if the nature of Scottish nationalism plays a part too. Scottish nationalism is, to a certain extent, defined by its relationship to England. Thus Asians can be Scottish nationalists simply by adopting those views. English nationalism lacks the same cohesian (the French don’t really cut it as enemies anymore).

    88. damon — on 16th October, 2009 at 10:16 PM  

      Douglas Clark, just to add though, that on the way to that England v Scotland match in the early 80s, there was a parity of incomprehension. Many of the Scots walking through Harlesden had never seen black people in numbers like that, and tens of thousands of Scotland supporters walking up the road past their houses and shops, drew local people out to watch the passing scene.
      It wasn’t a racist (as such) reaction from the fans that I saw, but these people hadn’t seen people like each other in the flesh before. The Scotland fans were a sight to behold I’d say.

      Reza, I can’t really be agreeing with the way you put your arguments, but think that I understand what you’re saying (not that I like it myself).
      I wish the left could argue their case better than with the ‘bruiser’ style that is most common.

      Douglas is right when he looks at the wider world picture, but its also true that cultures can be quite different.
      I’m up in the Edgeware Road area every other day (like today at the hotels at Marble Arch).
      The Gulf Arab culture of the people staying at the Cumberland Hotel and the Thistle Hotel is so obviously different to a working class British culture (of what ever race).
      The Arab guys sitting at the cafes along Edgware road, chatting, smoking and drinking coffee (and who then go down to Regent’s Park mosque to pray on a friday) are here on tourist visas perhaps. But I get the idea that their thought processes are those of a different culture to (a so called) white van man delivery driver.
      It’s a bit chalk and cheese.
      All ‘their’ women are covered in hijabs and scarfs, so I wonder what they think of women who dress more casually.

      I’m going to spend a week in Dubai in november. Will it be wrong of me if I don’t care for the local culture? (I have a feeling I wont, as its a semi slave society there … like that which goes on behnid the scenes at those London hotels). I will ask some workers at the hotels in Dubai and some foriegn construction workers and taxi drivers what things are actually like to live there.

      When I come back to London and see that this is the same culture that exists along Edgware road, can I criticise it? I see it already almost daily and don’t care for it.

    89. Reza — on 16th October, 2009 at 11:03 PM  

      damon:

      “I’m up in the Edgeware Road area every other day…

      …All ‘their’ women are covered in hijabs and scarfs, so I wonder what they think of women who dress more casually….”

      I’ll tell you.

      I was taken to one of the hookah cafes on the Edgware road, late at night, a few years ago. I went with my partner, another couple and a couple of girfriends. We’d been ‘out on the town’ and the girls were all wearing short skirts. We stood outside for a few minutes as I wasn’t comfortable going in, having some idea of that type of culture.

      The guy who’s idea it was to go said he’d been before and everything would be okay.

      So we walked in and tried to find a place to sit down. It was like some Arabian ‘Slaughtered Lamb’, with leering men and disapproving women staring at the girls incessantly and blatently speaking about them behind their hands.

      It was very uncomfortable for the girls and we left before smoking a hookah.

      I’m usually very sensitive and respectful of culture. And visiting eastern Turkey, my partner had no problem wearing long trousers and a even a hejab on occasion.

      But this was England for f*cks sake!

      Only it wasn’t. It was a foreign country.

    90. Ravi Naik — on 17th October, 2009 at 12:10 AM  

      But this was England for f*cks sake! Only it wasn’t. It was a foreign country.

      Yes, because before Arabs and “darkies” came to this country, there was no “dress code” in any English establishment…

      I have been in Edware Road a few times with friends - including women - to smoke shisha. It is pretty unremarkable in the sense that I never felt that anyone was looking at us.

    91. damon — on 17th October, 2009 at 8:28 AM  

      Reza, I have to agree with Ravi Naik there. Maybe the people you were with just hadn’t the right type of clothes for the setting, but I can see how your party felt like they didn’t fit in. It might be the same if a group like yours, though this time with the women all wrapped up in hijabs, were in a pub.

      Edgware road could be described as unremarkable, and at the shisha smoking tables you do see women sitting there too having a smoke, so it’s liberal enough to that extent (though I’m sure seeing women smoking like that is disapproved of by quite a lot of Arab men).
      But then it wasn’t so long ago when women weren’t welcome in the public bar of a pub, and some men still don’t like to see women drinking pints.

      So it’s unremarkable in one sense, but the culture there is much like that of some Arab countries, and so it depends if you think that too is unremarkable.
      Having been a tourist in several of them, I find that being an obvious (white) forigener in places like Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan is a really remarkable experience. And I’m a man. What women travelling about independely in those countries experience might be even more remarkable.
      I have heard young women backpackpackers tell some tales about things that had happend to them while travelling about in Arab countries (and Turkey).
      I remember that Xena Warrior Princess was popular amongst a lot of the young Arab men who predominate in those countries, and women travelling alone, (or a couple of women travelling together) could be in for all kinds of bizarre encounters with local guys.
      I have found that many of the young men in the poorer Arab countries are both attracted to the European lifestyle and repelled by it in equal measure.
      And this leads to those strange (and sometimes unpleasant) conversations that I found myself getting into nearly every day. People stop you in the street and want to talk, and sometimes its a friendly chat, and sometimes you get the feeling of disrespect and resentment. And this is with kids half your age who wouldn’t dare to be cheeky to an older man of their own culture.

    92. persephone — on 17th October, 2009 at 2:44 PM  

      “with leering men”

      Tell me about it.

      Every time you walk past a building site in the UK, apart from leers you get wolf whistles & corny chat up lines. I suppose because they are indigenous and in their own country it makes it right. Edgeware Road is obviously considered a different matter.

    93. damon — on 17th October, 2009 at 11:56 PM  

      Persephone, you are putting down a very challenging point of view.
      ”Every time you walk past a building site in the UK…”
      I’d want to hear some women back that up before I accept it. But I worked on a building site once where my co workers did exactly that. I kept telling them to leave it out, but they kept doing it. (It was 15 years ago).

      These days (in London) you can’t really talk about indigenous workers on building sites, as they’re just as likely to be from outside the UK.

      Edgware road is a different culture. Unless you think that the wealthy Arabic Gulf culture is not so different to the ones you find in places like Lewisham, Kilburn and (west) Croydon.
      I’m not putting it down, I’m just saying that the culture of Kuwait and the UAE is quite prevalent along Edgeware road.

    94. persephone — on 18th October, 2009 at 1:03 AM  

      Damon

      I’m not sure why my personal experiences is putting down a challenging point of view. It is what it is.

      “Edgware road is a different culture”

      The point I’m making is that its the same attitude but a different skin colour. I am glad though that people like you are stemming this behaviour - in my gap year, in a white male dominated company, I had to daily go into a transport managers office who always had a nude girly calendar on display & where the drivers always had to make a comment if you walked across the concourse & egged each other on.

      Just a few years ago at work at a black tie Xmas dinner a junior director bought his new girlfriend – she wore a very low cut, short dress. The majority of the others (home counties, white upper middle class, women dressed in floor length evening wear) did give them some looks & yes it was the women who made catty comments about the girl friend, especially in the powder room. The director & his girl friend were white but not middle class and I saw this more as a sign of classism than anything else and maybe some jealousy on the womens part.

      Is it not that if you are confronted with something not of the norm to your milieu that this reaction happens? Is it not a human reaction rather than just pinpointing one culture



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.