Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

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

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Spectator mag’s confusion on challenging the BNP


    by Sunny
    16th November, 2009 at 8:47 am    

    David Blackburn writes for the Spectator’s CoffeeHouse blog that the BNP is, No longer a racist party, but a party of racists, in response to the news that BNP membership looks to vote overwhelmingly in favour of allowing non-whites to join the party.
    David is highly confused. This is because he says:

    The Spectator has maintained that the party’s domestic policies are inspired by racial supremacist ideology and that its economic policies are like Dagenham – that is, three stops beyond Barking.

    Yes, I’ll agree with that. The party’s domestic policies are indeed inspired by a racial supremacist ideology. Which is why people should avoid following those policies right? Except, he does on to say centrist parties “must engage with (and I mean engage with, not shout down)” BNP policies. What a muddle. ‘Engage’ is a mealy-mouthed word that usually means ‘follow’.

    Earlier this year Tim Montgomerie at ConHome said:

    but I do think part of any anti-BNP strategy means addressing popular concerns about immigration, access to housing and championing people’s patriotic instincts… while ALWAYS attacking their racism.

    I don’t know how people can take this man so seriously. If a party’s policies are driven by racism then it’s pretty idiotic to say we should slam their policies but take their “concerns” seriously anyway, as if that isn’t what the BNP want. They’ll just turn around later and say, quite rightly, that the other parties are hypocritical for slamming them while doing what they advocate anyway.

    This goes to the heart of right-wing stupidity and hypocrisy over immigration and the BNP. Last week this govt announced some even more tightening up of immigration from non-EU countries. The Tories inevitably attacked them for not going far enough. But immigration from non-EU countries make up a small fraction of our immigration - most of it comes from the EU. Any problems that people face in housing, public services, increased labour competition and changing areas people face will be from other European countries not India, Pakistan etc.

    And so the Labour Party has essentially moved to the Conservative Party position, which is the same as the BNP Party position, that they want to restrict non-whites coming into the UK as much as possible. That small proportion must be vastly more threatening than the Eastern Europeans because even the Tories are not planning to stop EU-immigration.

    The day after the BNP-QT debate a radio presenter on 5 Live asked a Tory MP if he would stop companies from hiring American bankers or Indian software consultants if firms here needed to employ them. Of course not, he replied. And what about if a football club wanted to employ a football player from Brazil? No? The Tories are not against that you see, but they are against cleaners from Nigeria because apparently they’re destroying our culture.

    A sensible discussion on immigration would involve pointing out that EU immigration is responsible for the biggest shifts in our population, and that stopping the darkies from coming here wouldn’t have any impact. They should then respond by strengthening rights for workers in the lowest paid jobs so they’re not easily fired and replaced by cheaper Eastern EU workers.

    It would also involve saying that globalisation inevitably means increased population mobility, and that if people felt threatened that a sense of community was breaking down: then efforts could be made to develop a more positive sense of national identity that accepts Britain as more racially and culturally diverse than the vision the Daily Mail has.

    But no. Instead we get two parties saying they hate the BNP while carrying out policies advocated by the BNP, cheered on by a bunch of people who want them to do exactly that.

    No surprise then to find that most of the commenters on that Spectator thread are quite annoyed that the BNP is being criticised. After all, why the hypocrisy Speccie writers? You lot helped lay the bed for the BNP. Now you have to lie with their supporters.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs,Race politics,The BNP






    20 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      Blog post:: Spectator mag's confusion on challenging the BNP http://bit.ly/Pt38s


    2. Ballindean

      Blog post:: Spectator mag's confusion on challenging the BNP http://bit.ly/Pt38s (via @pickledpolitics)


    3. Ashley Chisholm

      @pickledpolitics http://l.pr/a47c4/ if the BNP campaigned on climate change would Hundal tell the rest of us to stop doing so?




    1. jameswilliams1 — on 16th November, 2009 at 12:21 am  

      Oh dear - we are still yapping on about “racism”! Why don't you thickos realise that racial preference is natural in people of all races but only vilified when it's white Brits who exhibit this preference? Race matters, it is in our genes, it accounts for at least half of our outcomes, the way we are, and the way our society has developed. We just do not want vast inflows of darkies, creating areas in our country which no longer resemble Britain but are now like parts of darkest Bong Bongo Land. Go away darkies.

    2. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:10 am  

      Mrs A says:

      You know Abdul. My great uncle Mustapha served in the Waffen SS would you believe ?

      Yes he was part of the Muslim contribution to Greater Germany at that time.

      So I can see problem with these BNP pussy cats.

      With our Daily Mail concession we should get a lot of new customers.

      She is a sly one Mrs A.

      Peace be upon me.

    3. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:19 am  

      Sorry Mrs A said she can see NO problem with BNP pussycat.

      We get a stray one round here Mrs A is thinking of adopting.

      Abdul

    4. Ravi Naik — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:21 am  

      And so the Labour Party has essentially moved to the Conservative Party position, which is the same as the BNP Party position, that they want to restrict non-whites coming into the UK as much as possible. That small proportion must be vastly more threatening than the Eastern Europeans because even the Tories are not planning to stop EU-immigration.

      Well, the reason they are not suggesting to restrict EU immigration is because Britain is part of the EU, and free circulation of its citizens is one of its most important tenets.

      I am not entirely sure that EU immigrants are more of a problem. Because they stem from developed countries and they can move freely across Europe, they will leave if they can't find jobs. A good number of Polish workers have already left. There seems to be a consensus that immigration is out of control - that I am afraid needs to be addressed by all three parties, and I rather they steal the BNP's narrative than have the BNP get one additional vote. This is not about racism, but economy and jobs. It would be a pity if “racialised” the immigration debate because of the BNP.

    5. Leon — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:49 am  

      Let's not “racialise” the immigration debate because of the BNP.

      What a strange thing to say, the immigration 'debate' has been racilised long before the BNP even existed.

    6. Ravi Naik — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:04 am  

      What a strange thing to say, the immigration 'debate' has been racilised long before the BNP even existed.

      I am talking about the present, and right now the BNP is the only party that has a stake in racialising the debate on immigration. I certainly think that you can have a debate on immigration and economy without turning it into a discussion about race.

    7. Dalbir — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:47 am  

      I am talking about the present, and right now the BNP is the only party that has a stake in racialising the debate on immigration. I certainly think that you can have a debate on immigration and economy without turning it into a discussion about race.

      Don't you think things have gone too far for that now?

      On a related note, I hear Nick Griffin will be standing for election in Barking and Dagenham. I wonder if this will drag East London towards its former self.

      People also need to understand that for the BNP, even third/fourth generation nonwhites here are immigrants/foreigners. What they essentially want is preference for white people in employment. They feel they have a birthright to this.

    8. Ravi Naik — on 16th November, 2009 at 11:03 am  

      People also need to understand that for the BNP, even third/fourth generation nonwhites here are immigrants/foreigners. What they essentially want is preference for white people in employment. They feel they have a birthright to this.

      Dalbir, let me be blunt: fuck what the BNP thinks. What I want is our mainstream parties to articulate what immigration has brought us: the good and the bad, and to provide numbers to backup those facts. And it is ok to acknowledge that not everyone got a good deal out of it specially in this time of recession. Is that so hard?

    9. Dan Dare — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:06 pm  

      Sez Sunny:

      But immigration from non-EU countries make up a small fraction of our immigration – most of it comes from the EU.

      Just another one of those hoary old immigration myths I’m afraid, Sunny old son.

      According to the ONS, which itself cites the annual Labour Force Survey, as of December 2008 just over a third of the 5.9 million foreign-born population in the UK originates from the EU.

      Check it out for yourself.

      http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_po…

    10. collinbrown — on 17th November, 2009 at 3:55 am  

      Is preference racism?

    11. damon — on 17th November, 2009 at 1:26 pm  

      But immigration from non-EU countries make up a small fraction of our immigration – most of it comes from the EU.

      I too don't think that statment is correct.
      Maybe it's just something I heard from Migration Watch, but I have heard Sir Andrew Green saying that EU immigration (or temporary migration) wasn't so much of an issue, as given time it would probably tail off (like it did with Irish, Portuguese, Greek etc as their countries became richer).

    12. robcox — on 29th November, 2009 at 11:23 am  

      immigrant baby boom cost us the tax payer over one billion pounds i can go on and on what about my children and grandchildren police spend 70;000 a day on translation this multiracial society is a fantasy gordon brown and his band of crooks hate the british you should proud of the B N P

    13. james — on 29th March, 2010 at 7:54 am  

      I am a BNP ,member,what ever you say either for or against,1 This is the future, islam will start a 3 world war,2 China will attack America, because of oil,3this war will be because of population growth,in 3 world, Lack of water food, desire to dump their millions on us.4Their will be civil war in the UK,EUROPE,4 it will involve the use of viris, and atomic weapons, used against europe uk ,america, attack will be commenced in southern europe, soft underbelly.5 About 4 billion will die ,with in a Year,All you have to do is look at the numbers to see the reality of the future,MATHS GAME THEORY.According to the logic of numbers ,projections,of population growth, food avaliblity,it will about 2025—-2090 when it will be,WELLCOME TO THE HORROR OF THE 21 CENTURY.WHAT WE ARE SEEING AT THE MOMENT IN REGARD TO ISLAM, 9/11 ect IS A PRELUDE, TO THE MAIN EVENT.

    14. douglas clark — on 29th March, 2010 at 9:22 am  

      james @ 3,

      Do you really think that we are all going down the sink? I’d have thought that you are being a wee bit apocolyptic when you say:

      WELLCOME TO THE HORROR OF THE 21 CENTURY.WHAT WE ARE SEEING AT THE MOMENT IN REGARD TO ISLAM, 9/11 ect IS A PRELUDE, TO THE MAIN EVENT.

      Perhaps not.

      I doubt there is a “Main Event” in the sense you mean it.

      If you care to worry about the future, I’d suggest you start to worry about climate change denialists, who are the real enemy….

      Of course you can cry and scream, ” I am BNP, I am BNP, I am”. But that will mean nothing, really….

    15. douglas clark — on 29th March, 2010 at 9:37 am  

      Contrary to Oliver - the mad - Kamm, I do not think that dropping bombs, nuclear or otherwise, on civillian populations is a reasonable proposition as a way to end wars.

      James, I’d be interested in your nuance on that?

      It seems to me that the BNP would want to drop bombs on the UK for standing up to Hitler?

      What do you think?

    16. douglas clark — on 29th March, 2010 at 9:57 am  

      I’d have said this, except I am not as good an author as Jai:

      There are far-Right groups such as the BNP, EDL and SIOE in Britain, their fringe Hindutva counterparts the Shiv Sena, RSS and Bajrang Dal in India, and Islamist extremists such as Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain, the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Al-Qaeda globally; all of whom promote hatred, bigotry and persecution, in many cases taking their fanaticism to the extent of not only viewing their targets as literally subhuman but actually dehumanising them completely.

      Conversely, there are also people who refuse to limit their perceptions by such divisive attitudes, for whom the words “we” and “us” mean the whole of mankind, who have the strength and mental clarity to be able to perceive our common humanity beyond artificial notions of “race” or religion, who understand that such differences are superficial, whose empathy and decency towards others is not limited or defined by such notions, and whose priority is to unite people, not tear them apart.

      Ultimately, this is the only division in mankind that truly matters.

      What say you?

      I quite respect Jai, do you?

    17. douglas clark — on 29th March, 2010 at 10:09 am  

      Oh, bugger it:

      there are also people who refuse to limit their perceptions by such divisive attitudes, for whom the words “we” and “us” mean the whole of mankind, who have the strength and mental clarity to be able to perceive our common humanity beyond artificial notions of “race” or religion, who understand that such differences are superficial, whose empathy and decency towards others is not limited or defined by such notions, and whose priority is to unite people, not tear them apart.

      Ultimately, this is the only division in mankind that truly matters.

      I am against anyone that doesn’t agree with that.

      So, sue me….

    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.