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

  • Simone Clarke and the BNP (pt 2)


    by Sunny
    14th January, 2007 at 3:40 pm    

    protestHello Picklers I’m back - happy new year. Anyway, enough niceties let’s get down to business. A mis-guided group of people held a protest on Friday against the ballerina Simone Clarke and her continued employment by the English National Ballet. Rohin covered this controversy previously here. The Guardian newspaper, clearly overjoyed that its story sparked the protest, covered it, but I feel their unashamed glee is misplaced.

    For a start, as the journalism teacher Andrew Grant-Adamson points out, there is no evidence* that Clarke was “using her position as a platform for the far-right party”.

    Secondly, as I’ve said before, I’m opposed to people getting persecuted for being members of organisations that are universally disliked but not illegal, and if it cannot be proven they have discriminated against people on the basis of sex/race etc (and supported by public funding). Apart from the fact that such a policy would be stupid, it is also more likely to affect minority groups. Unfortunately the current crop of “race campaigners” don’t seem to understand this simple point, so busy are they generating outraged statements.

    The same people, including Lee Jasper, wanted to let in Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan. They would probably also protest if Hizb ut-Tahrir members got randomly fired just for being members. So no, I’m not supporting this deluded and short-sighted protest and Jasper should stop being such a hypocrite.

    I did earlier support the Guardian firing HuT’s Dilpazier Aslam because he was clearly trying to influence others with his views without declaring his membership and because they were incompatible with the Guardian’s own liberal leanings.

    Update: No surprise to find the dimwits at IW trying to fling mud at me so I should point out that (*) refers to Simone Clarke’s stance on the BNP before the Guardian outed her, and that I do support free speech even for HuT members. Maybe Martin Sullivan could pay more attention to people’s writings as a new years resolution.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Race politics,The BNP






    76 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. El Cid — on 14th January, 2007 at 4:02 pm  

      There’s also the pragmatic political angle.
      The anti-racist protestors are making themselves look like bullies. Hell, even I’m beginning to feel sorry for Ms Clarke. If they are not careful, the BNP could win more votes (hwr, not mine).

    2. Caroline — on 14th January, 2007 at 4:10 pm  

      You are so right El Cid and Sunny.
      People are maybe thinking if the BNP is good enough for a top London Ballerina it’s worth taking a look at.

    3. sabinaahmed — on 14th January, 2007 at 4:38 pm  

      Welcome back Sunny

      I dont think the ballerina has such mass appeal that people will want to emulate her political persuation. The broadsheet i read had the close up of a lady in hijab and few men who had beards and looked non-europeans. What will make the case for the BNP is this protest. It is misguided and attacks a persons right to choose. It is sad that this story has been blown out of all proportion. Ms Clarke has as much right to join the BNP as some of these protestors have to join any organisation of their choice.
      Heckling the performnce is quite silly and doesnt get them any credibility.

    4. Anas — on 14th January, 2007 at 4:55 pm  

      Welcome back Sunny,

      There’s two separate issues here. Firstly, there’s the issue of whether she should have been outed as a member of a far-right racist party by the Guardian in the first place; I’m less confident than I was previously that this was a wise thing to do.

      Secondly, given that we now know what we know, and given that Clarke hasn’t renounced her membership, what should happen? Personally, I think firing her is absolutely the wrong thing to do for a number of moral reasons and because it will be completely counterproductive. But on the other hand I don’t think the issue of her membership — given that it’s now public knowledge — should go unchallenged in the arena of public opinion.

      Instead, it would be helpful if the publicity around Clarke’s membership was used by commentators as an opportunity to challenge the BNP’s ideas and core beliefs publically and openly, to expose them for the hateful demagoguery they are. See, I don’t think enough of that kind of thing goes on amidst all the loud howling around the intransigence of the Islamic community, and the problems Muslims pose to integration — especially given that the BNP are a far greater threat to integration than HuT.

      There is an interesting concept in Mass Communications theory that I read about recently called the Spiral of Silence. It’s been applied to many situations, but the central idea is that the less people speak out about some idea or set of beliefs, say in the media, the more that the idea becomes acceptable in general public discourse, i.e., the public takes the silence to mean that these ideas are difficult to answer. The BNP are already gaining in popularity through the spread of lies and through constantly agitating against immigrants and ethnic minorities — in large part because they are going unchallenged in many parts of the country — and the more popular they become the more discrimination and racism becomes acceptable. But because some of their ideas are becoming more mainstream (and common currency in the gutter media), the less they are challenged publicly, especially in the media.

      Like it or not Sunny, Clarke’s prominent public position, a position through which she could potentially influence many young and impressionable people with her lifestyle decisions — without consciously wanting to, but then if you’re in a public position you have to be careful about the choices you make — means that her membership is very problematic, almost one could say, incompatible with her position. On the other hand, the Guardian never claimed to fire DA for “clearly” trying to influence people to the ways of HuT, but because membership of an organisation which they saw as anti-semitic was in conflict with DA’s position at the Guardian. So, the two issues aren’t as unrelated as you would like everyone to think.

    5. Anas — on 14th January, 2007 at 4:56 pm  

      “to expose them for the hateful demagogues they are” I meant. I’m off to make an omlette

    6. Don — on 14th January, 2007 at 5:59 pm  

      ‘the Spiral of Silence’. Yes, interesting idea. Dawkins and Gould, towards the end of Gould’s life, reconciled their differences with a joint statement which included a determination not to debate directly with creationists as that would imply there was a debate to be had, that the positions were in some way comparable. The problem is, as you say, that ‘the public takes the silence to mean that these ideas are difficult to answer.’ (Not that either were exactly silent in their contempt for creationists.)

      Similarly, some politicians may be reluctant to engage with the BNP as that might well involve sharing a platform and, in some sense, legitimising the issue and giving Griffin et al the dignity of being taken seriously. Unfortunately, lofty contempt can be mistaken for plain old silence. Others will make formal statements of opposition but avoid making it an issue because, hell, racists have votes too. Why start an argument which, even if you win, could be a Pyrrhic victory?

      You may be right that their ideas are becoming more mainstream in the gutter press. I hope not, I suspect it may be they are tailoring their pronouncements to fit in with what the gutter press has shown to be ‘acceptable’. They know that their true colours would see them torpedoed. Just over thirty years ago a Tory nonentity could win a safe Labour seat with the slogan “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.” Today, even the most openly racist party in the country knows that would be suicide (and of course, actionable).

      My views on Clarke remain what they were on the original post.

    7. londonviews — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:03 pm  

      I think the whole saga is much ado about nothing.I dont see any news in a dancer being a member of this party or the other.So `outing` is out of the question.

      The piece i read was an interview in which Simone Clarke detailed how and why she got invloved with the BNP.Like any other individual she reserves the right to be a member of any group of any persuasion as long as the said group is legal.

      What i find intriguing though according to her is the fact that she is dating an Asian man.Given the views of the BNP on mixed-race relationships and multi-culturalism i wonder how she reconciles being a member of the party and dating someone most probably considered persona non grata by it.

    8. Anas — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:05 pm  

      What i find intriguing though according to her is the fact that she is dating an Asian man.Given the views of the BNP on mixed-race relationships and multi-culturalism i wonder how she reconciles being a member of the party and dating someone most probably considered persona non grata by it.

      I think we answered this on a previous thread. She’s just very, very stupid.

    9. Anon+1 — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:39 pm  

      I really dont see why wanting a countries traditions preserved and a future where native English people are still the majority is considered being racist.
      People can have whatever opinions they wish and should be free from persecution, provided they remain lawful.

    10. Rohin — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:42 pm  

      Funny how trolls (#2, #9) always suffer from poor grammar. Seriously, always.

    11. Chairwoman — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:48 pm  

      Rohin - How is #2 a troll? I thought she was supporting the view that people could be influenced by Ms Clarke’s affiliation. I also assumed that she was not a colloquial English speaker.

    12. Anon+1 — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:49 pm  

      Is this a fucking grammar lesson? or a discussion board?
      Tell you what, lets go over every single post on this board and whoever missed out any capital letters or commas have their posts deleted.

    13. Don — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:54 pm  

      They’re just the decoys. Those with perfect grammar and an engaging style burrow deep. They throw you these mules as a distraction, basic tradecraft. Hell, Anon+1 even link straight to BNP. Not exactly a troll, more cannon fodder.

    14. Anon+1 — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:56 pm  

      What an utter idiot you are…

    15. Kismet Hardy — on 14th January, 2007 at 6:59 pm  

      On the point of grammar, I’ve always chuckled smugly at grafittis that screamed Pecky’s Out and fascist swastikas drawn backward because racists, you see, are by and large thick. I think it’s more than fair enough to tell someone who’s telling you you’re not English enough that they can’t speak English properly

    16. Don — on 14th January, 2007 at 7:09 pm  

      But not the distinction between colons and semi-colons. That’s below the belt.

    17. Rohin — on 14th January, 2007 at 7:25 pm  

      Is this a fucking grammar lesson? or a discussion board? [Lower case 'o']
      Tell you what, lets [missing apostrophe] go over every single post on this board and whoever missed [consider revising] out any capital letters or commas [missing verb] have their posts deleted.

      I think it’s more than fair enough to tell someone who’s telling you you’re not English enough that they can’t speak English properly.

      Precisely.

    18. ZinZin — on 14th January, 2007 at 7:28 pm  

      Anas post 4

      As a Chomsky fan you should know that to engage with an argument is to legitimise it. For example would you debate with a holocaust denier? Dawkins does not engage with creationists and that is in my view the correct position.

      As for who is the greater danger to racial integration well neither group is helpful.

    19. Anon+1 — on 14th January, 2007 at 7:30 pm  

      lol, im actually glad all you can do as a counter arguement is point out grammar. Some opposition you will turn out to be!

    20. Caroline — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:25 pm  

      Is it cos i is white?
      Now i know Sunny is ugly (seen his photo) but are the rest of you?
      You are maybe dreaming of my silky white skin but you asian people are just too ugly…yuk!

    21. Rohin — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:25 pm  

      *im
      *arguement

    22. peter — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:31 pm  

      There was a good piece by David Sexton of the E. Standard on the protest, in which he arrived at the inescapable conclusion that the Unite demo was clearly more fascistic than Clarke. Which when you look at the ingredients - call for the the sacking of individual for ‘thought crime’, trumped-up dishonest charge that person was seeking to use her position to promote BNP, use of political protest to censor others enjoyment of the arts, and nasty underlying smell that art should only serve Socialist propaganda - seems reasonable. If they carry on, this groupuscle will turn Simone Clarke into the Josef K of the Diversity Stalinists.

    23. Chairwoman — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:52 pm  

      Sorry Rohin I was obviously mistaken, just an illiterate troll!

    24. Kismet Hardy — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:53 pm  

      I love it when you make a claim (Post 15: ‘Racists are thick’) and it’s instantly substantiated (Post 20).

      One of those joys of life moments…

    25. Katy — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:54 pm  

      I think that the Guardian was right to out her as a member. I mean, I’m not joining any political party that’s endorsed by a fucking ballerina.

    26. Kismet Hardy — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:54 pm  

      Oh and in response to your query on post 11 chairy regarding Rohin’s remark on post 2, post 20 is there to prove yet again that Rohin is right about everything the git

    27. Katy — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:55 pm  

      Hello Sunny :-D

    28. Kismet Hardy — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:58 pm  

      Ignore me, why don’t you? Just because I’m always out and didn’t turn up to our wedding

      Women

    29. Don — on 14th January, 2007 at 8:59 pm  

      Chairwoman,

      #20 answer the question?

      Stupid bloody demo, though.

    30. Don — on 14th January, 2007 at 9:00 pm  

      Late again.

    31. Katy — on 14th January, 2007 at 9:03 pm  

      Sorry, Kismet baby. Hello :-D

    32. Kismet Hardy — on 14th January, 2007 at 9:12 pm  

      That’s better. Now I can jack myself off to sleep in peace :-)

    33. The Ill Man — on 14th January, 2007 at 9:29 pm  

      “I really dont see why wanting a countries traditions preserved and a future where native English people are still the majority is considered being racist.
      People can have whatever opinions they wish and should be free from persecution, provided they remain lawful.”

      This is a mongrel nation. Has been for some time now. Quite like it that way, I have to say. What traditions are you muntering on about? The notion that a modern secular nation can exist in isolation from the world around it is absurd. I do think the fuss over this woman has been an enormous mistake though. Complete own goal. As someone said, nobody bothers to engage the likes of the BNP in anything more sophisticated than name calling and the rhetoric of outrage.

    34. William — on 14th January, 2007 at 9:31 pm  

      Got no problem if they just want to challenge her views which can be done publically or in writing to her etc. However they want her to have the sack and yes it’s a contradiction especially if some of the same group want to let Louis Farrakhan into the country considering some of the things he says about jews, Asians, whites.

    35. William — on 14th January, 2007 at 10:00 pm  

      Anon +1

      “I really dont see why wanting a countries traditions preserved and a future where native English people are still the majority is considered being racist.
      People can have whatever opinions they wish and should be free from persecution, provided they remain lawful.”

      Unfortunately “we only want to preserve our culture” is an argument used often where there underneath there is an extension to opposing and removing people regarded as others. There may be some people out there who mean it in the sense of “only preserve” who can trust when it is used given that many mean other stuff.

      I will cite specific examples. I once met a guy who said exactly what you said. He then went on to say

      All immigrants should be sent home

      The holocaust did not happen

      Catholics are not Christians and…..

      did I know that you can cross breed a gorilla with black person and they have done this in Switzerland but it cannot be done with a white person??????????????????

      This person did not see the word nigger as racist.

      The same claim of “just preserving culture” is used by BNP members and some have been exposed as saying stuff like they would like to machine gun Pakis etc. Tell us in all good reason why anybody should trust those comments given the potential duplicity from some that use it.

    36. Anon+1 — on 14th January, 2007 at 10:29 pm  

      All recent EU immigrants should be sent home, they provide next to nothing in terms of GDP, keep wages lower for unskilled work and take people jobs.
      The holocaust blatantly happened. Besides, what the hell has the holocaust got to do with anything?
      I see nigger as a racist remark but I wonder… I see black people throwing it around now here there and everywhere, perhaps it has become acceptable again!
      I’ll admit all my experiences with pakistanis hasnt exactly put them #1 on my fave culture list, but as for machine gunning them… thats just insanity.

      Did I mention existing in isolation? No. I just talk about preservation of tradition and a future where we are not a minority.

    37. Clairwil — on 14th January, 2007 at 11:00 pm  

      ‘I really dont see why wanting a countries traditions preserved and a future where native English people are still the majority is considered being racist.
      People can have whatever opinions they wish and should be free from persecution, provided they remain lawful’

      Well not being native English but a mixture of Scots, Irish,English and unspecified Scandinavian I can only wonder where I’ll be sent for my failure to preserve my country’s traditions in the event of a BNP victory. Worse still I have half-Indian relatives who speak with Glasgow accents and are as far as I can make out Scottish. Where should they be sent?

      The last few year have seen a very visible influx of immigrants into Glasgow and my culture has not been adversely affected at all. If anything talking to homesick asylum seekers has made me value my country more. It’s hard to sneer at the naffer aspects of ones national identity in front of someone whose dearest wish is to go home in peace but can’t. There is a lot that I have always taken for granted about Scotland but immigrants have taught me to see it in new ways. Good God I even know people that love the Scottish weather! I know Turks and Africans that love and struggle with Robert Burns’ poetry, more than I can say for many of the natives.

      Answering questions about my country asked by recent arrivals and hearing about their homes has revitalised my interest in Scotland, it’s history, it’s culture and future. I can only conclude that it’s lack of confidence in one’s national identity that leads to feeling threatened by other cultures.

      Wandering back towards the point of this thread. The protests were absurd. Art has nothing to do with morality. It looks like bullying to me. Weren’t there a lot of high profile people named as BNP members. I seem to recall one man was a good friend of the Prince of Wales. It’s interesting that it’s a woman that attracts the protests.

    38. William — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:14 am  

      Clarwill

      “Well not being native English but a mixture of Scots, Irish,English and unspecified Scandinavian ”

      Is this common to the Clydebank. I have the same mix being born in Dumbarton. Exept some Welsh from moms side.

    39. The Ill Man — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:18 am  

      If sending Poles home is what yr after then a mass BNP vote will get you that. It might get you a little bit more into the bargain, but let’s not think about it too much, eh?

    40. Clairwil — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:25 am  

      William,
      I suspect it is a fairly common mix. My ancestors came to Glasgow from the Highlands and Eire to steal jobs from the prods(tee hee). Sadly I don’t have any Welsh blood to the best of my knowledge. Though you never know.

    41. Anon+1 — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:30 am  

      Funny, all asylum seekers and immigrants have ever talked to me about were the directions to the dole office and if ive got any change id like to put towards their train ticket. Ones that didnt directly talk to me did however ‘enrich’ me by stealing some clothes from my washing line and coming to doors in my area asking for food and old household items.
      This isnt me being steriotypical, this is all ive ever genuinely been asked by recent immigrants + asylum seekers.
      To say im against anyone who isnt fully English would simply not be true. I know many people, some quite close to the family in fact who come from, or whos roots have decended from foreign lands. People cant be judged on skin colour alone.
      The odd family of immigrants here and there is fine, its just I dont want 1000′s of immigrants flocking here everytime yet another country joins the EU, and I also dont want to see towns like parts of Birmingham, Leicester and London where white people are a minority and if you are the wrong colour when passing under cirtain subways at night then god help you.

      Besides, why does everyone instantly look to the BNPs policies on race relations and immigration?
      They have some great policies on other things too!

    42. douglas clark — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:45 am  

      Strange debate this.

      Between those that are confident enough in their culture to welcome asylum seekers, economic immigrants and anyone else who wants to put up with the rain and the wind and the occassional hailstorm. Or bloody Burns.

      Better that than the poor sods that think they’re special, ’cause their sperm was dropped in this scéptered isle, and mommy and daddy were white, and probably both English.

      “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, in this green and pleasant land.”

      What shite.

      Whose secure? Who isn’t?

    43. douglas clark — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:49 am  

      Incidentally, I stand by my previous post on the other thread. If weak ballerinas want to join political parties, then that is good. Exposing ordinary members of political parties, as opposed to benefactors, is an insult to democracy. You should be allowed to join whatever party you want, as long as it doesn’t advocate violence. And your name should not be in the public presses. (Presses: how they did journalism before that Bill gates guy)

    44. Nick — on 15th January, 2007 at 9:27 am  

      I’ve always thought the trouble with the BNP is that they’re racists… heh heh. What I mean is that there is a debate to be had about immigration, integration, class, what kind of country we live in, etc but as soon as you start it, you’re labelled a racist because the BNP own that agenda. And for all their shiny suits beneath the surface they are racists and therefore stoopid. Hence their attraction to dancers, not the brightest sparks.

      Meanwhile the white, middle class elite that runs the show despises the white working class but loves a bit of exoticism from the grateful foreign poor. You know, great restaurants, doctors, cleaners, and not half as stroppy as the Eastenders who lived through the Blitz, etc, and whose communities were attacked from both ends shortly afterwards - from the social and housing policy of the left and Thatcher, who at least didn’t hate them. Frankly it’s not about race it’s always about class.

    45. Chairwoman — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:10 am  

      Nick - Even more basic than class, it’s always about money!

    46. soru — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:48 am  

      No, class is more basic than money, it defines what you think about money, what you would do to get it, what you would do with if you had it. Money is an imaginary thing, so it’s a big misconception to think that different people imagine it in the same way.

      Really, there should be bureau de change set up on high streets where you can change a wage packet to and from pink pounds, investment capital, retirement income, and so on. The way they are all tied together artificially in a single number is probably some big economic inefficiency, like old fashioned fixed exchange rates.

      Take the middle-class view of money, look at GDP and taxation and market flexibility, you can see that immigration is a net financial gain. That doesn’t mean things look the same from the point of view of someone earning X pounds a week spending Y hours at a factory. Especially when, as a result of unionisation, X/Y is above the market clearing rate.

    47. Kismet Hardy — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:56 am  

      So when girls say I’m a classy guy, do they mean I’m a class warror or a class victim?

      A hypothetical question seeing as girls don’t really call me a classy guy

    48. Chairwoman — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:11 pm  

      Soru - You’re being ingenuous. Money gets you an ‘in’. People may sneer at the Noveau Riche, but they still get tables at the Ivy, tickets to the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, and are invited to the ‘right places’, and after a while, they usually ‘learn’ how to drop the ‘noveau’. I don’t think we were talking about the same money.

    49. Refresh — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:27 pm  

      Its always about money and power.

      Individually your money is a measure of your economic muscle. Collectively your money translates into social power.

      Put the two together on a large enough scale you get an elite - an elite incorporates others with the necessary skills across social, economic and political lines on the basis of reward. Some with money, some with status and some with both.

      And if the elite is there long enough then they metamorphosise into the establishment.

      The rest of us continue to talk up the principles of one-person one-vote, our rights and all those other fluffy things.

      The elite continues to rob the world blind.

    50. Chairwoman — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:36 pm  

      Refresh - spot on

    51. Parma Violets — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:36 pm  

      With regards to some of Anon+1′s points:

      What a strange definition of freedom you have. So under the BNP people will be perfectly free until someone decides they’re not the right race or culture, at which point they can be shipped off somewhere else as soon as possible? Doesn’t sound terribly free to me. It’s completely cockeyed to say that your ‘right’ to walk down the streets without seeing a darkie trumps someone else’s right to live in relative security and peace.

      “I also dont want to see towns like parts of Birmingham, Leicester and London where white people are a minority and if you are the wrong colour when passing under cirtain subways at night then god help you.”

      Maybe - just maybe - if you were this concerned about the far more common occurence of blacks and Asians being beaten up by racist thugs, people would take you seriously when you say you’re not a racist.

      “Besides, why does everyone instantly look to the BNPs policies on race relations and immigration? They have some great policies on other things too!”

      Yes, and why does everyone always concentrate on the Natural Law Party’s positions on yogic flying? Their social inclusion charter is pretty nifty too!

      As for what Holocaust denial has to do with it - why not ask Nick Griffin? He’s the one denying the Holocaust, after all.

    52. Kismet Hardy — on 15th January, 2007 at 12:37 pm  

      “Its always about money and power.”

      Not in Predator 2, where the voodoo druglord tells us: ‘This is not aboot mooney, this is aboot poower’ though maybe that’s irrelevant

      (although I don’t think it is. See the proagonist in the movie was black, the bad guys were black, and the alien had dreadlocks, so you see, no tokenism)

    53. bananabrain — on 15th January, 2007 at 1:18 pm  

      so who are the “indigenous” british, then? the cornish? the welsh? (actually i think they’re from spain originally, which certainly explains catherine zeta jones) not the bloody anglo-saxons, for sure. even the name ought to be a bit of a giveaway. isn’t saxony in germany? and don’t get me started on the vikings.

      spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam lovely spaaam, wonderful spaaam!

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    54. Anon+1 — on 15th January, 2007 at 1:41 pm  

      It isnt a more common occurance is it?
      Statistics show that whites are more often victims of race crime and heres a quote from a BBC news page.

      “Most of the offenders (57%) in the racially motivated crimes identified in the British Crime Survey are not white. White victims said 82% of offenders were not white.”

      The only reason you have that deluded view is that racist crimes on whites are not as heavily reported in the media as race crimes on whites. Take for example the story of some whites that threw a slab through an Asians window, accidentally causing a shard of glass to cut one. That was front page material! Now compare this to the white kid beaten by 8 Asian cowards with a hammer, this got a small cutting a few pages in and wasnt even initally reported as a racist attack!

      I live in these ‘enriched’ areas and know what I see. Now please stop trying to preach this dribble Parma before you hurt yourself.

    55. Sid Love — on 15th January, 2007 at 2:04 pm  

      Take for example the story of some whites that threw a slab through an Asians window, accidentally causing a shard of glass to cut one.

      There’s a cause and effect problem in this sentence. If the throwing of the slab was intentional how can the cutting of the shard be accidental?

    56. Kismet Hardy — on 15th January, 2007 at 2:18 pm  

      Take the example of a gang of council estate pranksters that innocently mailed an envelope of dog exrement in through their Asian neighbour’s letterbox. It was purely accidental that the recipient ended up getting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

      Pillock

    57. Sid Love — on 15th January, 2007 at 2:43 pm  

      The accidental pillock.

    58. Anon+1 — on 15th January, 2007 at 2:48 pm  

      I think you have missed the point, or are just being deliberately blind to it. Even if the whole plot was to throw the correct sized slab at exactly 23mph at an exact point on the window to allow the glass fractures to hit people in the room. (Not taking in to account the fact that people inside the room were not even visable to the offenders) It still isnt as serious a crime as the hammer attack.

    59. soru — on 15th January, 2007 at 2:55 pm  

      ‘ People may sneer at the Noveau Riche’

      Yes, you can move from any class to the ‘rich’ class with only minimal hassle. What’s much more difficult, close to impossible, is to become middle class. About the only way to do it after the age of 20 is to write a book, or become an actor. Sure, in theory you could, at age 30, go to night school and train up to become a doctor. Some people do, maybe as many as there are lottery winners. But I doubt any of the BNP types on this thread see that as a possible future for themselves.

      You can buy an honourary degree, but you can’t pay people enough to stop laughing at you if you do.

      It’s probably easier to become ‘black’ - just grow a bushy beard, wear the right clothes, change your name to something arabic, and people will identify and treat you that way even if you are paler than Kate Blanchett.

      The reason that is relevant is that anything that someone can believe as a possible future for themselves is part of their identity, and anything that isn’t, isn’t. And if the benifits of immigration flow mainly or mostly to those people someone doesn’t identify with, they will likely totally discount them. Which can easily lead to them seeing immigration as a net negative.

    60. bananabrain — on 15th January, 2007 at 2:58 pm  

      far be it from me to mention that usually, in cases of attacks on jews, the victim is described as “white”, because most jews in this country are of european extraction. considering we are talking about quite a small number, i’d say this is probably enough to screw up the figures. besides, this is all meaningless unless we consider what colour the attacker was. presumably it’s still potentially a “racial” crime if the victim is black and the attackers “asian”, or indeed vice-versa.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    61. Parma Violets — on 15th January, 2007 at 3:27 pm  

      Heh, it’s good to hear you’ve fallen back on the personal insults card already, Anon. And as for “I know what I see” - I live in a multicultural area too, and the only BNP voters I’ve ever met are the sad acts drinking themselves into a coma in the middle of the afternoon and belching idiot soundbites about wanting a race war. But they’re not racist, honest.

      So there you go, I know what I see too. You didn’t think I was just going to sit back and accept that something’s true just because you say it is, do you?

      Fancy speculating on why Nick Griffin’s a Holocaust denier?

    62. Kismet Hardy — on 15th January, 2007 at 3:34 pm  

      Ooh let’s compare a slab of concrete through the window with a violent hammer attack

      Let’s compare a baseball bat to the head with shoplifting from your asian grocers

      Let’s compare monkeys on a typewriter to the collected works of Chesney Hawkes

      Prat

    63. Anon+1 — on 15th January, 2007 at 4:15 pm  

      If anyones the prat here its you. I was comparing newspaper coverage of degrees in crime, not if some are more justified than others.

      Parma how was I personally insulting? I dont know you and from the garbage you talk I dont want to know you either. The point I made about more racist crime being commited by non whites seems to have been totally ignored, tbh I expected as much.
      I dont know Nick Griffin personally either so I cant comment.

    64. Sid Love — on 15th January, 2007 at 4:28 pm  

      The accidental moron. Again.

    65. Kismet Hardy — on 15th January, 2007 at 4:31 pm  

      Was the slab of concrete story front page news on the same day as the hammer attack?

      No.

      So shut up

    66. Sahib — on 15th January, 2007 at 5:11 pm  

      Anon - it would be interesting if you could provide more background on your claim that more racist incidents are against white people

      I remember when these figures came out that it was down to the fact the vast majority of people in the UK are actually white (believe it or not) and as a result they make up much more of the statistics. This doesn’t hide the fact ethnic minorities are statistically more likely to be a victim of a race attack than white people.

      To give you some numbers - imagine that the white population was 10 million and that the ethnic minority population was 1 person. Now imagine that 0.5% of the white population was the victim of a race attack and the one Indian minority person was also a victim of a race attack. In this scenario, attacks on white people occur 5,000 times as much as attacks on Asians even though only 0.5% of white people v 100% of Asians suffered a race attack.

      So i think it would be highly disingenous to claim that white people were more likely to suffer a race attack. Having said that I am sure that the BNP (my apologies if you are not a fully paid up member) will spin it whichever way suits their ideology the best.

    67. Old Pickler — on 15th January, 2007 at 7:19 pm  

      Her views are irrelevant to her dancing, unless she suddenly starts doing the goose-step in the middle of Swan Lake.

      Usually actors and other arty types have dozy lefty views. Think of Pinter, a fan of Stalin. She has very dozy right-wing views. In fact, though she probably makes a very good sugar plum fairy, she must be really thick to think the BNP are the people to go for, as they would deport her boyfriend soon as look at him.

      By the way, the distinction between colons and semi-colons is not something to be half-arsed about.

    68. Leon — on 15th January, 2007 at 7:21 pm  

      Pinter is a fan of Stalin? You got a link for that claim?

    69. Anas — on 15th January, 2007 at 7:34 pm  

      ZinZin #18

      The validity of the legitimation argument arguably depends on the context in which it is being made. The way I see it is that if you’re in a context in which the abhorent view/stance in question doesn’t just belong to a tiny fringe element, but is gaining wider popularity, then your silence might (in however small a way) be adding to that popularity. Thankfully in contemporary Britain, nazi holocaust denial is limited to a small group of retards, whackos, and inveterate racists, so silence is probably the best bet; but with other genocides, some which society may be loathe to recognise, it is necessary, indeed it is a duty, to defend your position against those actively in denial.

    70. ZinZin — on 15th January, 2007 at 8:01 pm  

      Sorry I do not agree. To engage in an argument with an individual who holds an abhorrent view in which there is no evidence to back up their arguments is self-defeating.

      As for the context argument the Protocols of the elders of zion, which were highly influential amongst all fascists in the 1930s were challenged in the Berne trial and exposed as a forgery. Did it make a difference? Yes it convinced some of their authenticity as the action was in their view undertaken by a cabal of Jews fearing that their fiendish plans were being exposed.

    71. douglas clark — on 15th January, 2007 at 8:44 pm  

      Sunny, could you update me on your update? My understanding was that that she had made no public utterances re the BNP, prior to being ‘outed’. If that is wrong, then clearly all bets are off. Clarification please.

    72. Sunny — on 15th January, 2007 at 9:05 pm  

      Sorry Douglas let me clarify that. IW is pompously pointing at the Daily Mail interview as an example to show that Simone Clarke was using her BNP membership to spread her views. But my point, as does everyone else’s, refers to her political views before the Guardian outing. The people at Islamophobia Watch have a habit of deliberately misreading people to pursue their agenda.

    73. Trofim — on 15th January, 2007 at 11:19 pm  

      “Secondly, as I’ve said before, I’m opposed to people getting persecuted for being members of organisations that are universally disliked but not illegal”.

      Universally disliked? The BNP? Blimey! The writer of this sentence really ought to spend a bit more time in England instead of Planet London.

    74. Parma Violets — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:57 am  

      Funny, I thought it was “Planet London” that was giving the BNP seats in local governments.

    75. Trofim — on 16th January, 2007 at 9:27 am  

      Funny, I thought it was “Planet London” that was giving the BNP seats in local governments.

      Perhaps it is. It’s just that London is so remote and irrelevant to people who live in England proper.

    76. Sahil — on 16th January, 2007 at 9:33 am  

      Would Endland proper be the westlands, norwich, sussex, yorkshire, liverpool, Manchester ….

    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.