A potential BNP applicant has a screening interview with a BNP spokesman over some ironically non-indigenous tea and samosas.

Applicant: “So, how long have you guys been here ?”

BNP spokesman: “‘Guys’ is a foreign American term representing an alien culture and we’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t pollute Britain’s traditional culture and values by using such genocidal words. But to answer your question, we’ve been here since the end of the last Ice Age.”

Applicant: “When was that ?”

BNP: “17,000 years ago.”

Applicant: “The Ice Age actually ended 12-13,000 years ago.”

BNP: “That’s what I said.”

Applicant: “No you didn’t.”

BNP: “Yes I did. You’re quoting me out of context.”

Applicant: “I’ve recorded it on my iPhone. Listen, I’ll play it back to you.”

BNP: “I misspoke. We’ve actually been here for 65 million years, since the end of the Cretaceous Era.”

Applicant: “What ?”

BNP: “Yes. We’re Britain’s indigenous aboriginal population.”

Applicant: “What about the original inhabitants ?”

BNP: “Which inhabitants ?”

Applicant: “The dinosaurs.”

BNP: “Ah. Well, we ‘voluntarily repatriated’ them.”

Applicant: “How ?”

BNP: “That’s not important. Britain was swamped with unassimilable aliens, they were undermining our genetic integrity and cultural homogeneity, we repatriated them, it was voluntary, and that was that.”

Applicant: “All of them ?”

BNP: “Yes.”

Applicant: “How did you convince them to accept ‘voluntary repatriation’ ?”

BNP: “We gave them a firm incentive.”

Applicant: “What kind of firm incentive ?”

BNP: “We said ‘Get out or we’ll kill you’.”

Applicant: “Seriously ?”

BNP: “No. We asked Jesus to intervene.”

Applicant: “Er…..Christianity didn’t exist 65 million years ago.”

BNP: “Yes it did. It’s one of Britain’s indigenous religions.”

Applicant: “No it’s not. Tell me how you got rid of the dinosaurs.”

BNP: “LOOK, WE PRAYED TO OUR ANGLO-SAXON-CELTIC-NORSE-FOLKIST GODS AND THEY SENT AN ASTEROID TO WIPE OUT THE DIRTY NON-WHITE FOREIGNERS, ALRIGHT ?!”

Applicant: “That’s not on the BNP’s website.”

BNP: “Most of our real views aren’t.”

[Reprinted by Rumbold]

[The BNP] said members had to sign up to maintaining the “integrity of the indigenous British” and be interviewed for up to two hours by BNP officials.

So to join the BNP you have to agree to have two party members (perhaps Lee John Barnes and a mystery guest) come round and grill you. I can imagine it now:

White bigot 1: “Are you a racist?”

Non-white bigot: “Yes I’m a racist.”

White bigot 2: “Are you sure you are a racist?”

Non-white bigot: “Bugger off whitey.”

White bigot 2 (turns to white bigot 1) “Does that mean we can let him join?”

…

And so on.

The DCSF press release * about the report outlines six recommendations made by Smith including monitoring by Ofsted and annual Government review states:

The current safeguards in place to protect children and young people in maintained schools from discrimination or political indoctrination include:

- a requirement for schools to have equal opportunities policies
- a duty to promote racial equality
- a statutory duty to promote community cohesion
- a duty on governing bodies, head teachers and local authorities to forbid the teaching of partisan political activities
- disciplinary powers of the GTCE

  Maurice Smith adds:

Although police and prison officers are banned, to ban more than half a million teachers – or six million public servants – from joining a legitimate organisation would take this to a different scale of magnitude. Additionally, there is no consensus on this matter, and no agreement on where to ‘draw the line’. [my emphasis]

The BBC reports:

The teachers’ union the NASUWT, which has campaigned to have BNP members banned from schools, said it was disappointed by the review’s findings.

General secretary Chris Keates said: “Maurice Smith has squandered a golden opportunity to advance the cause of ensuring good race relations in schools.
“The report is woefully inadequate and littered with contradictions.”
She said too much attention was paid to the number of incidents in schools, saying “one incident is one too many”.

So in effect, teachers racist enough to join the BNP or NF will be monitored by ‘equal opportunities policies’ and Ofsted visits carried out every four years!  Seriously!  Obviously it doesn’t mean a teacher isn’t a racist bigot if they don’t belong to the BNP or NF but membership of either of these groups absolutely proves they are.  I’d like to hear Balls’ rationale as to how such bigotry would not affect teaching and would promote community cohesion.

There is obviously no connection between the fact that there is an election almost upon us with New Labour desperate to woo disaffected voters who might choose to vote BNP is there?  That would be seriously disgusting, and it’s not like they have form for this type of thing, certainly not in Lewisham, or Barking. (Please see Hope not Hate for alternate ways of fighting the BNP).

The Smith review does not cover recruitment within schools at all.  Perhaps the new Equality Bill will really be a miracle after all and it’s enactment will mean liberal sprinklings of magic dust over all the problems that have been found with current Race Relations legislation.

*The DCSF press release contains a link to the full Smith Review report, but the DCSF have not made it available at the time of writing.

Update – The Maurice Smith Review is now available online here.

The BNP’s regressive racist ideology is already well-known; however, they also claim an explicitly religious justification for their beliefs and actions. In fact, during a European Parliament debate in January 2010 about the Haiti earthquake, Nick Griffin himself actually started quoting from the Bible in order to justify his argument that absolutely no humanitarian aid should be given to the victims of the disaster because it had occurred in “somebody else’s backyard”.

Irrespective of their claims to speak for “Christian Britain”, the BNP has been heavily condemned and explicitly rejected by both the Church of England and the Methodist Church. The BNP’s racism and divisive tactics have also recently been jointly condemned by Christian, Sikh, Muslim and Jewish faith leaders in Stoke-on-Trent, one of the BNP’s major target areas, and the individuals concerned have signed a formal pledge of unity.

The “Christian Council of Britain”

Nevertheless, a few years ago, a front organisation for the BNP called the “Christian Council of Britain” (CCB) was formed, headed by “Reverend” Robert West. In reality, West is not actually registered as a reverend with any of the Christian denominations in the country.

Robert West appeared alongside BNP MEP Andrew Brons on the BBC’s ‘The Big Questions’ in June 2009, where both individuals were confronted by Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia. As regular readers of Pickled Politics may recall, this was also the episode when Jonathan Bartley challenged Brons to answer one of the “85 Questions for the BNP”.

There is, however, much more. During a radio interview, Robert West made the following statements:

”The Christian Council of Britain is a group set up to represent Christian values and the Christian Heritage of the country…..A big problem with the institutional churches is that they seem to have lost their way…..They have almost become extinct in their faithfulness to holy scripture…..There is a link in that the BNP has encouraged and facilitated the formation of the Christian Council of Britain. They are working as facilitators. They are supporting what we do.

The CCB believes in the biblical teaching of nations. We should live in nations as nations…..If we are to exist as nations then we are to have our own national homelands. In our own national homelands in which our own identity has priority. The BNP doesn’t want the British people to be homeless. Each race should have its own space.”

When asked whether he would support the view of the BNP that people should be repatriated he said; “Yes. Provided it was by consent. Not by force.”

He said that he believed that the BNP’s repatriation policy was “in line with the scriptural doctrine that races are divided into nations and homelands.”

“The mixing of races challenges the glory of God”.

So it’s not just the BNP’s attitudes to “race” which are extremely backward; they actually want to drag liberal modern British Christianity kicking and screaming back to the 19th century too.

Incidentally, there is also a major precedent for the affiliation of a fundamentalist Christian group with a racist and anti-Semitic political party in Europe from the first half of the 20th century.

Religious Impact of a BNP government

This matter clearly has numerous ramifications for the United Kingdom in relation to the specific religious policies a BNP government would implement, some of which were covered in the following still-unanswered questions for the BNP proposed by eGov Monitor and Pickled Politics last summer :

74. During an interview on Sky News with Adam Boulton in June 2009 shortly after the relevant elections, Nick Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, upon the election of a BNP government, will it be legal to build new non-Christian places of worship?

75. Will it be legal to maintain existing non-Christian places of worship or will they be a) allowed to fall into disrepair or b) destroyed?

76. What will be the official BNP policy towards non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens who have adopted other religions (eg. Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or any others) or are the children of such individuals?

77. Will the individuals described in point 76 be “encouraged” to re-convert to Christianity or will they be subject to either voluntary or compulsory repatriation?

78. If the answer to the first question in 77 is “Yes”, exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “encourage” non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens to re-convert to Christianity?

79. What will be the official BNP policy towards Christian, agnostic or atheist white/Caucasian British citizens who wish to convert to a non-Christian religion – will this be explicitly prohibited or “discouraged”?

80. Exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “discourage” conversion to non-Christian religions amongst the individuals described in point 79?

81. Under a BNP government, exactly what will be the punishment for apostasy amongst Christian white/Caucasian British citizens?

82. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by Queen Elizabeth II or (upon her death) her successor in her/his formal capacity of Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith?

83. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by any members of the clergy comprising the Church of England?

”What would Jesus do ?”

This is not merely a rhetorical question. The BNP actually used this query on their election posters in the run-up to the European Elections last year, accompanied by a picture of Jesus Christ and an extract from a verse in the Bible (specifically John’s Gospel, John 15:20) where Jesus said “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you”. In fact, the BNP even attempted to imply that they directly identify with Jesus himself, as the poster also stated “Press – persecution” and “BNP – Persecuted for saying what you think”.

(The poster concerned is displayed at the top of this article).

In March 2009, Nick Griffin also sent an email to BNP supporters containing the following statements:

”The British National Party is the only political party which genuinely supports Britain’s Christian heritage…..Surely if God calls a man to his service, no church has the right to contradict HIS holy will ! For many years, the churches in this country scrupulously avoided being politically biased. Nowadays however we see a small number of clerics and bishops openly preaching hatred towards the BNP.

Church leaders actively shun the word of God on issues like sodomy, abortion and social justice.

With this in mind I invite you to preview our European election billboard…..aimed at attracting even more Christian voters.

Jesus was viewed as a revolutionary figure, hated and hounded to death, not by ‘evil men’ but by the corrupt hypocrites who ran the church. Has nothing changed in two thousand years?”

That’s right. The BNP…..

• a political party which still refuses to explain exactly how a BNP government would reduce Britain’s non-white population from 10% to 1% (confirmed as one of the BNP’s continuing aims by Nick Griffin directly on the BBC’s ‘Question Time’ in October 2009, despite the fact that Nick Griffin also confirmed during the latter half of 2009 that the BNP is now formally abandoning its proposed “voluntary repatriation” policy),

• a political party whose senior leadership has formally confirmed in writing that a BNP government would implement full-scale racial apartheid in Britain,

• a political party which intends to strip Britain of all laws currently protecting non-white citizens from racially-motivated persecution, discrimination, harassment and malicious propaganda,

• a political party whose current chairman Nick Griffin has been caught on video giving a speech to BNP supporters where he openly stated that he is deliberately scapegoating & persecuting Muslims (and simultaneously publicly hiding his anti-Semitism) as a vehicle to achieve power,

• a political party whose current chairman Nick Griffin advocated the military use of EU navies to attack and sink boats carrying African immigrants to Europe,

• a political party whose current chairman Nick Griffin recently advocated that EU governments should not provide any humanitarian aid whatsoever to the victims of the Haiti earthquake,

…..is hypocritically claiming to be following the teachings of Jesus, despite the fact that he was actually one of the most humane, compassionate and pacifist religious figures in history.

I will leave the final word to Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia. The extract below says it all :

I found myself up against the BNP’s vice-chair yesterday in a radio interview, in which he tried to claim that the BNP was a Christian Party. So I asked him if his party stood by the passage they were quoting from and followed Jesus’s teachings about loving those they ‘might find a bit difficult’ such as Muslims.

“No” came the rather embarrassed reply.

The meeting saw a journalist manhandled out of the meeting (despite being invited), which Nick Griffin hailed as an example that the BNP hadn’t gone soft (perhaps in response to renewed pressure from the National Front and disgruntled BNP members).

Mr. Singh confesses to only put the turban on for the media, not because he feels it has any importance:

It feels strange to hear these words from a man in a turban, but Singh ­admits he’s only wearing it for my ­benefit. He’s not a religious man and is clean shaven, but he wore a turban the first time he ever had “media exposure” – on BNPTV, the party’s online ­channel – and has decided to do so whenever speaking to the media because “the message carries more weight” coming from a turban-wearing Sikh.

The there is this bit:

He’s been to several party meetings and says he never feels awkward in their company. “They treat me normally,” he insists. “I feel at home.” I ask if he thinks many BNP members can tell the difference between Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims. “They might think of me as a Paki,” he replies. “I’ve had people shout ‘Paki Go Home!’ when I walk down the street. But that speaks much about the ‘Paki’ reputation – it’s a negative reaction to Pakistan.”

In other words, “my mates are racist towards me but its my own fault for being brown.”

Lancaster Unity reports:

EDL say they support British laws and that they’re not racist or connected to the BNP, but after the EDL demo in Stoke on 23 Jan 2010, EDL supporters “dispersed” into side-streets to break windows and attack cars owned by Stoke residents. EDL co-founder and convicted knife criminal Jeff Marsh filmed the police ID-ing him by name (0:02 “Jeff Marsh, turn round and go back”) and then filmed EDL supporters chanting “BNP, BNP, BNP” (0:26).

Police then chased the EDL into a nearby park where EDL accused police officers of being “Paki loving bastards” (0:35), “Fucking cunts”, and one officer of being a “wanker” and “Fucking paki lover”

Funny that – they claim only to be against Muslim extremists, like a lot of other internet warriors. Not the same as what comes out of their mouths though.

12 firearms and 54 improvised explosive devices, which included nail bombs and a booby-trapped cigarette packet, at the home Gavan shared with his mother.

The BNP called his sentence “correct”, although refused to clarify his membership status. Given that senior figures in the BNP have recently praised violence and not been reprimanded, it is unclear how genuine their statements are.

The BNP is likely to contest over 200 parliamentary seats in the General Election and up to 1,000 council seats. The main threat is in Barking & Dagenham, where they could take overall control of the council, and Stoke-on-Trent, where they could become the largest single party – and we fear that Nick Griffin could win the parliamentary seat in Barking.

The HOPE not hate campaign has identified 102 council wards in 31 local authority areas that are at risk from the BNP. Just over half of these risk wards are in just 10 local authority areas. The concentration is even starker when one counts the most at risk wards. All but three of the 25 most at risk wards fall in 10 local authority areas, as do 38 of the 50 most at risk wards.

The high risk local authorities, where the BNP pose a threat in multiple wards, are Barking & Dagenham, Stoke-on-Trent, Thurrock , Nuneaton, Sandwell, Amber Valley, Burnley, Barnsley, Rotherham and Leeds. But there are other areas, such as Wigan, Tameside and Bexley, where the BNP will be pushing strongly for the first time.

However, amidst the BNP threat we have an opportunity to roll them back. Over half of BNP councillors are up for re-election this May. That means that if we can run an effective campaign we can actually remove a large swathe of BNP representation in local government. It is going to be a hard fight but it is one that we can win.

Barking & Dagenham will be our national priority. We simply cannot allow the election of a BNP MP or for them to take control of the council. While we are massively increasing capacity in the local area we will be giving our supporters ways they can help.

To defeat the BNP we have devised our largest and most sophisticated campaign plan to date. It includes:

• Building local networks of activists. Since the European elections we have been investing in Local Organisers who are becoming the backbone of much of our campaign. We recognise the vital important of building local capacity in our key areas, without which we cannot achieve our goals, so over the next few weeks we will be launching several local initiatives to achieve this.

• Telephone canvassing. In February we will telephone canvass as many of our top 50 key wards as possible, with our aim to make at least 50,000 calls. This will be done online, so enabling our supporters across the country to help in these elections, with HOPE not hate telephone parties bringing people together to phone collectively. The Voter ID operation will seek to identify voters who dislike the BNP. We will then build up a relationship with these voters through a series of mailings and leaflets during the spring, which will hopefully increase the likelihood of them voting in May.

• Mobilising women voters. Research has repeatedly emphasised that women are less likely to vote BNP than men. We intend to produce a leaflet aimed specifically at women voters.

• Localised material. We will be producing localised material for all of our key areas, with up to 20 different editions of a HOPE not Hate/Daily Mirror tabloid with articles customised for that local authority area.

• Daily Mirror. The HOPE not hate campaign will again be working closely with the Daily Mirror and for the third year running we will organise a HOPE bus tour. There will also be an 8-page supplement inside the Daily Mirror.

This is a good strategy. Sign up to Hope Not Hate if you dislike the BNP.

The base polling figures for the minor parties run UKIP 4%, Greens 3% and BNP 2%. Of course, when you get down to figures like this there is a significant margin of error. The number of people responding is low, and the risk of sampling error is high, but the basic message is simple. None of these parties have any sort of widespread, national support in the context of a general election.

He then breaks down the polling numbers to point out that not only does support for the BNP remain very low, it is lowest among older people who are more likely to vote. The whole post is worth reading. He summarises:

None of this polling means that we can relax, or that we can ignore the danger of BNP progress at the general election. But what it does mean is that despite the election of two MEPs, despite Question Time, despite all the boasting, despite the lies and distortions in the popular press playing to the BNP agenda; despite all this the BNP have failed to make any significant progress in winning the hearts, minds and – especially – votes of the vast majority of the British people.

Exactly. While we continue to cover BNP related news on this blog, I’m always wary of falling for the media narrative that the BNP is some massive organisation on the brink of massive electoral victory. The media like that for two reasons: first because it’s exciting, and second because it then allows them to claim that to beat the BNP, people’s views on immigration (meaning their own views on immigration) must be heard. In other words most of the media use the BNP to push their own bigoted views on immigrants.

I think a few more things need to be stated for the record in relation to Rajinder Singh [the Sikh who is supporting the BNP]. While his reaction is understandable from a “flawed human nature” perspective, considering the apparent loss of his father during Partition, it isn’t justifiable, either from a general moral perspective or indeed from a specifically Sikh perspective. Let me give an example of another Sikh who suffered immense personal tragedy at the hands of Muslims, in some cases explicitly claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.

Guru Gobind Singh, the last human spiritual leader of the Sikhs 300 years ago, lost his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, when he was only 9 years old. The Mughal administration at the time was attempting to force the Kashmiri Brahmin population to covert to Islam; the latter were on good terms with the Sikhs and therefore asked Guru Tegh Bahadur to help them. The Guru travelled to the Mughal capital of Delhi with a couple of companions in order to intervene on the Kashmiri Brahmins behalf. They were subsequently arrested by members of the Mughal administration; after some discussions with Emperor Aurangzeb, the latter ordered that the Guru should be forcibly converted to Islam. He was kept in a cage, tortured, and since he refused to convert, subsequently executed; he was beheaded in full view of the public in the Chandni Chowk area of what is now called Old Delhi. Due to threats of retribution from soldiers present, ordinary Sikhs who witnessed this couldn’t even openly reclaim the body; later on, a Sikh managed to recover the decapitated body and burned down his own house as a cover to cremate it, and another Sikh rescued the head and took it to Anandpur Sahib in Punjab, where it was formally cremated by the young Guru Gobind Singh (at the time called “Gobind Rai”).

Years later, when the conflicts with the Mughal administration had escalated into all-out warfare, Guru Gobind Singh’s two older teenage sons died on the battlefield. His two younger sons, both less than 10 years old, were captured (along with Guru Gobind Singh’s mother) by Mughal officials in Sirhind, Punjab. The Governor of Sirhind tried to force the two boys to convert to Islam and, when he failed, subsequently had them executed, despite the forceful protests of one of the Muslim noblemen present who desperately tried to intervene on their behalf. Guru Gobind Singh’s mother died of shock soon afterwards. There was also a time when Guru Gobind Singh himself found himself completely cut off from his family and his remaining followers, hunted by the Mughal army, during what was one of the darkest periods of his life.

And yet… Guru Gobind Singh never used any of this as an excuse to attack, demonise, caricature and stereotype Islam as a whole or Muslims en masse. He did not scream vengeance against the entire Muslim population of the Mughal Empire. He did not launch attacks against mosques or Sufi shrines. He did not ban Muslims from entering gurdwaras (Sikh temples). He did not initiate any kind of “voluntary repatriation with a firm incentive” of Muslims from territories governed or dominated by Sikhs. He did not order his followers to dig up and remove the foundation stone of what is now called the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which one of his predecessors had invited a Muslim saint called Mian Mir to lay (Mian Mir was the spiritual instructor of the liberal and cultured Prince Dara Shukoh, son of Emperor Shah Jahan of “Taj Mahal” fame, the latter’s chosen heir, and ultimately murdered by his brother Aurangzeb during the war of sucession). Guru Gobind Singh did not remove the verses originally written by Muslim saints such as Baba Farid which had been incorporated into the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of Sikhism and whose final version the Guru was responsible for compiling and editing; he did not remove any of the Islamic names for God which the scriptures contain; he did not add any material attacking ordinary Muslims en masse or denigrating Islam as a whole. He did not support or condone anyone else who was bigotted against Muslims either. He certainly did not promote hatred, prejudice, or the notion of “collective guilt”.

In fact, Guru Gobind Singh actively promoted the notion of desiring the wellbeing and happiness of the entire human race without any kind of distinction or bias regarding people’s individual religious affiliations (or ethnic background, for that matter). He explicitly promoted the teaching that people should “view the whole of humanity as one race”. He was actively assisted by ordinary Muslims trying to save his life when he was completely isolated and being hunted by the Mughal army. He had Muslim officers in his own Khalsa army, including Mughal generals who had defected to his cause in the middle of battles. He explicitly ordered the soldiers in his army not to molest any Muslim women they came across after battles. His entire military and political strategy refrained from attacks on civilians. On the battlefield, he would even use arrows which were mounted with a small amount of gold in order to provide financial assistance to the families of those he killed or, alternatively, to enable the wounded soldier to buy medical assistance if he survived Guru Gobind Singh’s attack.

And after a series of atrocities suffered by the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh wrote a lengthy and extremely forceful letter to Aurangzeb condemning him for his hypocrisy and bigotry, but which simultaneously included a list of what the Guru regarded as the emperor’s genuine positive qualities (albeit with the damning caveat “….but true spiritual righteousness is very far from you”), and the promise that the Guru would be happy to meet the Emperor, reconcile with him and “speak some kind words” to him if he would sincerely reconsider his attitude and actions; as confirmed by the authenticated historical records of Aurangzeb’s memoirs and letters to his sons, the Emperor did subsequently experience something of an epiphany and immediately ceased all hostilities with the Sikhs (along with Hindus and other groups he’d been persecuting). Aurangzeb and Guru Gobind Singh were even in the process of formally arranging to meet each other but the aged emperor died before that could occur. And during the subsequent war of succession, Guru Gobind Singh subsequently gave military support to Bahadur Shah I, one of Aurangzeb’s sons and ultimately the next Emperor.

The BNP’s cynical exploitation of Rajinder Singh is unfortunate but not unexpected. However, along with his fellow BNP supporter “Ammo Singh”, he is completely the wrong person to refer to if one wishes to find an example of the true teachings of Sikhism and the correct attitude Sikhs are supposed to have in this matter. If anyone is looking for the latter, they should go right to the source, because Guru Gobind Singh himself suffered far greater personal tragedy throughout his own life than Rajinder Singh did, and by his own example and teachings Guru Gobind Singh obviously embodied a very, very different message to the opportunistic, hate-filled, divisive, sectarian propaganda & agenda the BNP are now trying to promote.

Lee John Barnes (legal director of the BNP): Fuck off Graham you PAEDO.

Lee John Barnes: Fuck off Edmund [Standing] you Zionist rent boy.

Graham: You just can’t get the Aryan supermen these days can you?

Lee John Barnes: Funny that – your mother never said that when I was slipping her a length last night.

Graham: Hmm she’s been dead a year.

Wonderful.

54 nail and ball-bearing bombs between May 1999 and May this year. He also manufactured shotguns, pen guns and pistols at his home in Batley, West Yorkshire. Gavan was also found in possession of ammunition, a manual on boobytraps, an improvised munitions handbook and a copy of the Anarchists’ Cookbook.

As Hope not Hate point out, the BNP are likely to deny that Terence Gavan was ever a member. However, Hope not Hate has established that not only was he a member, but that he held gold membership (which amusingly gives one no more rights than ordinary BNP membership, but costs twice as much and in return you get a nifty gold BNP badge- which is probably made in China).

(Via Harry’s Place)

Now Nick Griffin has got himself in trouble again after a far-right meeting in Spain was attacked by another far-right group, the Patriotic Socialist Movement, who were angry after not being allowed to enter the building:

A rally attended by Nick Griffin MEP got ugly as Spanish police detained 28 members of a neo-fascist party who tried to disrupt an event held by a rival extremist group attended by British National Party leader at a Madrid hotel.

Those arrested were all members of Spain’s ultra-nationalist Patriotic Socialist Movement and they were arrested after they attacked doormen at the hotel who were trying to prevent them from entering. Four people were lightly injured in the scuffle but did not require medical care, a police spokesman said.

An elderly Sikh who describes Islam as a “beast” and once provided a character reference for Nick Griffin during his racial hatred trial is set to become the British National Party’s first non-white member.

Rajinder Singh, an anti-Islam activist in his late seventies who blames Muslims for the death of his father during the Partition of India in 1947, has been sympathetic towards Britain’s far-right party for much of the past decade even though he currently remains barred from becoming a member because of the colour of his skin.
…
Mr Singh and another Sikh from Slough who goes by the pseudonym Ammo Singh have previously co-operated with the BNP and have been used by the party’s leadership to try to woo Asian supporters, particularly Hindus and Sikhs living in areas where tensions with Muslims run high. The party has had little success, however, with all mainstream Sikh and Hindu groups widely condemning the BNP.

I thought the old man had said he previously appeared on the BNP political broadcast because he was tricked? Doesnt seem like that here. This isn’t that big a story because we knew such bigots existed among Sikhs/Hindus (as they do with Muslims). But it is an interesting development…
[hat-tip: several readers sent in the link]

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.

One commonly repeated myth is that BNP voters are ex-Labour voters. This leads to several assertions that fit the writer’s prejudices but have little basis in fact or evidence. Such as:

- Therefore this shows Labour has abandoned working-class whites over their undying love for the fascist threat of ‘multiculti-nazism’.

- This shows the BNP is left-wing conspiracy because Hitler liked the term ‘National Socialism’ etc etc.

Actual evidence
In this article on Political Betting, the writer goes through polling and demographic evidence to ask ‘Where BNP votes were coming from’.

He concludes:

Far from BNP voters being similar to Labour voters and drawn from the same demographic sectors, the data shows that BNP voters are much more likely to be C2DE than any of the three main parties.

What’s the profile then of BNP voters from this brief analysis? We get a picture of a man or woman, most likely C2DE, who didn’t vote at the 2005 election (though if they did vote they were most likely to have supported Labour). It appears therefore that rather than the BNP tapping into disaffected Labour votes, they have actually managed to mobilise a previously non-participating part of the electorate and persuaded them to go out and cast ballots.

In other words they are disaffected voters who have not shown a preference for any party for several elections.

The small percentage of people who do vote BNP are broadly from poorer backgrounds. Historically, this demographic has always had lower voting percentages and so it isn’t very surprising they’re politically apathetic.

Those are target voters for the Labour party, but not excluded from the Conservatives given that Cameron declared his party would be the party to help the poor. But the idea these people now voting BNP were abandoned by Labour is not borne out by voting records. It could still true to say that Labour has abandoned many working class voters who traditionally voted Labour – but that largely does not apply for BNP supporters.

I thought: these writers can’t be this stupid surely? One guy thinks the Tony Blair administration didn’t really care that much for right-wing hysteria about multiculturalism and it is being played up as a massive plot. But no, people really are that willing to swallow such tripe. Now the guy at centre of the story has written this:

As a ministerial speechwriter in a former career, in 2000 I penned a key speech for the then immigration minister Barbara Roche, which mooted changes to make it easier for skilled workers to come to the UK.
…
Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when – hard as it is to imagine now – the booming economy was running up against skills shortages.

But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it – boosting diversity and undermining the Right’s opposition to multiculturalism. I was not comfortable with that. But it wasn’t the main point at issue.

Somehow this has become distorted by excitable Right-wing newspaper columnists into being a “plot” to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot. … What’s more, both were robust on immigration when they needed to be: Straw had driven through a tough Immigration and Asylum Act in 1999 and Roche had braved particularly cruel flak from the Left over asylum seekers.
…
Perhaps the lesson of this row is just how hard it still is to have any sensible debate about immigration. The Right see plots everywhere and will hyperventilate at the drop of a chapati: to judge by some of the rubbish published in the past few days, it’s frankly not hard to see why ministers were nervous.

To read something sensible by a right-winger on immigration, which is highly rare, this blog post by Alex Massie on Sunday does a good job (via Hopi Sen).

99% of commentary otherwise written by right-wingers is absolute drivel. As Anton Vowl showed this weekend – there is a lot of condemnation of the BNP on the right while simultaneously pushing their agenda. Meanwhile, they love pretending that if no one listens to them then BNP support will go through the roof, without any evidence.

When Mr Toube, one of Britain’s most prominent Jews, told Mr Barnes, 43, not to get “too smug”, the BNP man replied: “That’s fine. Just remember though, ‘You will reap what you sow’. “The way you treat us now is how we shall treat you in the future. The example you set us is the example we will follow when we are in power…

“The many different pressure points are beginning to converge towards a ‘tipping point’, a moment of political equilibrium when revolutionary social and political change occurs.” He added: “Best you show us some respect, some day you will want us to respect you.”

This seemed quite mild to me compared to some of the things Lee John Barnes (LJB) says when commenting on Pickled Politics. LJB is unrepentent, apart from claiming that he didn’t mean the comment to be a specifically anti-Jewish threat, a claim then nullified by his subsequent words:

The way those in power treat us now, is the way we will treat them when we are in power.

Interesting though that the owner of Harrys Place is Jewish, as Harrys Place main writer Edmund Standing is also Jewish and Richard Desmond who owns the Daily Express who printed the article is Jewish and the article quotes the CST, which is the C18 of British Zionism and a Jewish Zionist para-military group that have issued death threats to me many times in the past.

My favourite death threat from the CST was the one where they said they would tie me to a chair and slowly strangle me.

I think that what we have here is the UK Zionist Network revealing itself, the UK wing of the Israeli Foreign Ministry using media terror and physical death threats to silence their opponents.