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

  • The BNP needs you!

    by Sunny
    1st November, 2006 at 5:44 pm    

    BNP supremo Nick Griffin arrived at court today, where once again he attempted to make himself into a free speech martyr.

    Griffin, a Cambridge University graduate, and Collett were charged in April 2005 after the BBC screened a secretly filmed documentary “The Secret Agent” in 2004. The programme showed the pair giving anti-Muslim speeches to activists.

    Much as I hate to say this, Nick Griffin shouldn’t be in jail or be arrested for mouthing off against Islam. It is a show trial - it’ll never get anywhere. The legislation is there to protect inciting hatred against people specifically not beliefs. But that is the least of Nick Griffin’s problems!

    The British National Party is facing a battle for survival after running out of cash following a dramatic fall in membership.

    End of year accounts for the far-right party show it recorded an annual loss of £94,711 - and it now has £52,000 of debts. The funding crisis is revealed in accountancy documents which also show membership has plunged by 25 per cent in 12 months.

                  Post to

    Filed in: The BNP

    98 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. HeyZooz — on 1st November, 2006 at 5:54 pm  

      This is the most pathetic spectacle and the biggest gift that could be given to the BNP. This case should never have gone ahead. Fredom of speech. And if he is convicted, you can be sure that membership of the BNP will rise because he will be seen as a martyr.

    2. genghis — on 1st November, 2006 at 6:24 pm  

      Yes i agree, anti-semitism should be legalised and islamophibia too…

      Fuck it lets allow rascism and xenophobia too!

    3. Clairwil — on 1st November, 2006 at 6:41 pm  

      A huge PR coup for the BNP either way. If they get off they’ll claim it as a victory against PC censorship and if convicted they’ll claim it as the liberal establishment trying to suppress ‘the truth’.

      Still good news about their finances. Let’s hope the twats end up bankrupt.

    4. Sunny — on 1st November, 2006 at 6:44 pm  

      Genghis you’re confusing yourself. The law does not legislate against speaking out or for certain beliefs. You can legally even argue for paedophilia and not get arrested. Though of course you’ll be regarded as a sick b*stard if you do. That is the price you pay.

      So there cannot be a law against Islamophobia as such. I’m also against a law denying the Holocaust and against laws that protect Sikhs and Jews (since they are termed a race).

      There is a law against discrimination on the basis of religion or race and there is a law against inciting violence against minority groups. But no law against rejecting or criticising beliefs. That is the way it should be.

    5. — on 1st November, 2006 at 6:59 pm  

      as long as the BNP bastards go bankrupt it won’t be wasted, the more chaos that there is amongst the extreme right the better

    6. Electro — on 1st November, 2006 at 7:25 pm  

      Nick Griffin shouldn’t be in jail or be arrested for mouthing off against Islam. .

      How right you are!

      Australian Imams do a much more convincing job….

    7. genghis — on 1st November, 2006 at 8:07 pm  


      Im not confused and neither is the law. Its one thing criticing a belief system, it quite another inciting a crowd to get rid of them ‘terrorists’

      spot the fucking difference!

    8. HeyZooz — on 1st November, 2006 at 8:16 pm  

      Laws are already in place against that kind of incitement genghis and prosecutions have been made. Saying that a group of people should be ‘got rid of’ is clearly an incitement to murder. Griffen walks the every razors edge of what is acceptable - he says that Islam is a religion that encourages terrorism and he said that British born Pakistani Muslims would carry out terrrorist acts against the UK. If he had said that because of this Muslims should be attacked he would have been breaking the law, but you cannot legislate against people holding a belief no matter how odious you may find it. For example a belief that all non Muslim women are sluts is an odious belief - but its not against the law to hold that belief, unless you say that because of that, non Muslim women should be raped. Then it becomes actionable.

    9. genghis — on 1st November, 2006 at 8:39 pm  

      ah right, i knew i was mistaken. He merely criticising them muslims no different from mel phillips. No difference between them? the agendas the same right?

      So this prosecution according to you lot must be simply malicious!


    10. HeyZooz — on 1st November, 2006 at 8:48 pm  

      Melanie Phillips believes there is a strain of Islamic thought that leads directly to violence and is innately hostile to British society. That is quite obviously true. She doesnt however state like Griffin does that the religion is inherently a religion of terrorism. Plus prosecuting Griffin on the grounds that he predicted Yorkshire born Muslims would carry out suicide bombings and thus incited hatred cannot stand in a court of law, because it is true.

      At the end of the day you can’t legislate against beliefs. Only direct incitement and discrimination.

    11. Guest — on 1st November, 2006 at 8:59 pm  

      Just browsed News Now and noted your article.Having read your blog have made a donation to the BNP.Wonder how many more people have done the same?

    12. genghis — on 1st November, 2006 at 9:00 pm  

      ah ok i have got it now.

      from wiki:
      BBC Documentary.

      The increased success led to increased scrutiny from the press. In The Secret Agent, a BBC documentary broadcast on July 15, 2004, filmmaker Jason Gwynne went undercover and joined the BNP for six months. His secret filming recorded party leader Nick Griffin calling Islam a “wicked, vicious faith”; party member Steve Barkham confessing to assaulting an Asian man in the 2001 Bradford Riot; party member Stewart Williams stating that he wanted to “blow up” Bradford’s mosques with a rocket launcher; and council candidate Dave Midgley confessing to pushing dog faeces through the letterbox of an Asian takeaway, a claim denied by the proprietor.

      In his speech, Griffin stated that “For saying that, I tell you, I will get seven years if I said that outside”, apparently referring to the maximum sentence for the criminal offence of incitement to racial hatred.

      The day after the documentary was broadcast, Barclays Bank froze, then suspended, the BNP’s bank accounts.[10]

      The BNP’s response to the programme was that it had featured “the loudest and most hot-headed BNP activists [who] were deliberately plied with drink and subject to suggestive provocation”. In the wake of the documentary the party expelled Barkham and Midgley (but not Williams). Griffin did not apologise for his own comments, stating that “it’s still not illegal to criticise Islam”. He and BNP member Mark Collett were subsequently prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred

    13. genghis — on 1st November, 2006 at 9:02 pm  

      Would i be anti-semitic, if i said the Jewish religion calls for its followers to kill gentiles and philistines? ie Judaism is intolerant and is steeped in racism?

    14. Sid — on 1st November, 2006 at 9:07 pm  

      I agree with your conclusion HeyZooz. Not sure about the reasoning you used to get there.

      You can’t legislate against beliefs and nor should you ever have to. Which is why Griffin is turning BNP politics from an agenda of race-hate to belief system hate. And in particular the Islamic belief system. You can’t direct hate at a race, but you can direct it at a belief system. The adherents follow.

      Its perfectly logical in theory and Griffin is potentially holding a winning ticket. But why are the BNP membership numbers dwindling even so?

    15. genghis — on 1st November, 2006 at 9:13 pm  

      taken from the bnp political objective 2004:

      The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.

      Next you lot be telling me they’re opening up kindergarden and i should send me kids there!

    16. JohnM233 — on 1st November, 2006 at 9:19 pm  

      Xenophobia is such a limiting word. Stephen Potter’s ‘One-Upmanship’, now a forgotten book, uses the phrase “the tendency to be faintly irritated by foreigners”, which is nearer the mark.

      Mind you, some of my best friends are not Scottish.

      This trial is rather odd. I thought he was acquitted the first time.

    17. Sunny — on 1st November, 2006 at 10:35 pm  

      I’m not sure what your point is Genghis. We know the BNP are racist and hate Muslims. And there is a thin line between publicly hating a group and implying that maybe someone should carry out violent acts against them.

      But by the same logic, calling Blair and Bush war criminals and murderers maybe be construed as inciting violence towards them. But you’re allowed to because the link is not quite made in law. Unless he goes around asking people to kill Muslims or non-whites it would be very difficult to catch him out.

      The same free speech laws that allows Blair and Bush to be branded as murderers allow Nick Griffin to get away.

    18. Not Saussure — on 1st November, 2006 at 10:58 pm  

      JohnM233 — he was acquitted in February on some of the charges, but the jury were unable to reach a decision on the rest.


      HeyZooz — you rather misunderstand the basis of the prosecution, I think; the accuracy or otherwise of a statement is nothing to do with attempting to incite hatred. You can legally call someone all sorts of things so long as it’s true, but you can’t go on to say that, because these things are true, we should go out and lynch him.

    19. Don — on 1st November, 2006 at 11:06 pm  

      ‘Next you lot be telling me they’re opening up kindergarden and i should send me kids there! ‘

      Are you reading the comments in a Bizzaro World version of this site?

    20. genghis — on 1st November, 2006 at 11:43 pm  


      Nick Griffin was at the meeting where his cronies were stating that they used violence as a means to stir up racial hatred and he was encouraging it. as per documentary.

      Thats the point.

      And as per your previous articles his grp have been found with, allegedly, chemicals, and bomb making equipment…

      doesnt it disturb you at all? I too defend his right to freedom of expression. But draw the line where his group incites actual action which the documentary clearly revealed.

      Its a bit like, when the PLO used to get accused of terrorism and the PLO turning around and saying not our responsibility they did as individuals!

    21. HeyZooz — on 2nd November, 2006 at 1:15 am  

      NotSaussure, yeah that is what I said. You cannot prosecute against odious beliefs, but you can prosecute for the enacting of those beliefs in a discriminatory way or one that incites violence.

      Sid, I think that tells you that the British people understand that the BNP is a racist organisation. The answer is not to enact legislation in order to negate the ideology of the BNP, it is to refute and argue against it, and subvert and strangle those Muslim extremists that do their black proaganda for them by plotting attacks.

    22. HeyZooz — on 2nd November, 2006 at 1:18 am  

      Uhhh…i meant strangle the Muslim extremists in a metaphorical sense, by destroying their ideology and plots, not strangle them literally, although I’m sure some people feel like strangling them with their big gobs sometimes.

    23. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 2nd November, 2006 at 4:45 am  


      Where do I sign up?

    24. Leon — on 2nd November, 2006 at 10:19 am  

      Just browsed News Now and noted your article.Having read your blog have made a donation to the BNP.Wonder how many more people have done the same?

      I don’t think all people are as stupid as you.

    25. sonia — on 2nd November, 2006 at 10:35 am  

      good point Sunny

    26. Roger — on 2nd November, 2006 at 1:05 pm  

      There’s the fact that Griffin was speaking priavately. It was the BBC that chose to make his words public. Can a man be accused of a public speech offense when someone else is the one who makes his words public?

    27. genghis — on 2nd November, 2006 at 1:17 pm  

      i see, so if some of them ‘muslims’ stir up racial hatred in private with a few cronies…

    28. genghis — on 2nd November, 2006 at 1:45 pm  

      And besides inciting racial hatred is illegal, whether privately or publicly!

    29. Roger — on 2nd November, 2006 at 1:52 pm  

      You mean religious hatred actually, Genghis, which is what every religion does merely by existing.
      Should a man be held to account for words privately spoken to people he believed share his prejudices in the way that words spoken in public would be? Why only incitement to racial hatred?

    30. Anon — on 2nd November, 2006 at 2:02 pm  

      BNP Finances are very healthy in comparason to Lab/Con who are all in much heavier debt. Being a little in the red after 2 major election campaigns is understandable, also remember that the BNP has no sugar daddys donating massive amounts to the party in exchange for cirtain questions + policies to be put forward.

      People need to wakeup and see how undemocratic this country really is. The present govt value businesses, the media and europe over ordinary citizens of this country while the BNP dont. The BNP is founded from the donations of ordinary people and its their opinions that matter so wakeup and make a donation to the BNP like 1000′s of others already have done.

    31. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 2:11 pm  

      The BNP is founded from the donations of ordinary people

      Ordinary racists

    32. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 2:51 pm  

      The present govt value businesses, the media and europe over ordinary citizens of this country while the BNP dont

      If they’re white, that is.

    33. genghis — on 2nd November, 2006 at 2:58 pm  


      No i mean Racial Hatred. Read their Objectives of 2004. to cleanse the country of non-whites. I think you need to take into account the background. The members of his party were advocating violence he was inciting it. Furthermore some members even admitted. Add to that the recent haul of chemicals and rockets launchers (i think)…Put into context…Inciting Racial Hatred.

    34. Leon — on 2nd November, 2006 at 3:24 pm  

      Anon, electing fascists wont make the country more democratic. Didn’t you learn history at school?

    35. Roger — on 2nd November, 2006 at 4:22 pm  

      Sorry: this is what I was referring to: “i see, so if some of them ‘muslims’ stir up racial hatred in private with a few cronies… ”
      when I said
      “You mean religious hatred actually, Genghis, which is what every religion does merely by existing.
      Should a man be held to account for words privately spoken to people he believed share his prejudices in the way that words spoken in public would be? Why only incitement to racial hatred? ”

      I still think we are obliged not to take what people say in private as seriously as their public statements. After all, there’s no need to incite BNP members to racial hatred.

    36. Anon — on 2nd November, 2006 at 5:26 pm  

      Anas I wouldnt say racists make up 100% of BNP supporters, thats just ludicracy. People who vote/donate BNP dont all hate people because of the colour of the skin, many vote that way because they are worried about change to the country and values that have founded it. Others might vote BNP as they see its the only way they can have a voice against the silencing effect of polical correctness. The area im from is swamped with youths in hoodies, sporting baseball caps and bandanas (sometimes both), mobile phones dangling from their necks pumping out the latest pro-black hit from an artist preaching lyrics more closley related to satinism than the band Slayer. They are responsible for so much anti social behavior and decline in the area in the form of intimidation, graffiti, firework abuse and violence to name a few. The BNP has policies that attempt to stamp on this by extreme views on punishment. Perhaps these are some of the reasons people might vote BNP, not because they are all racists?
      Funny how there was a poll, and it turned out that around 59% of people backed BNP policies when they didnt actually know they were from the BNP. So by ure logic, they are all racist too?

      Actually I didnt take history at school Leon, but does BNP policies include the abolition of free market economies and introduction of a Command one?
      Do BNP policies include an end to free speech?
      Do BNP policies state that one man should rule it all?


    37. genghis — on 2nd November, 2006 at 5:28 pm  

      Depends on the context and what was said and what the end results are. From what i saw, the members have acted in a violent way. no?

      And the person who should be held responsible for those actions, in addition to those that carry out such actions, should be whoever incites those actions.

    38. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 5:38 pm  

      What have you got against satin, Anon? No one’s forcing you to wear it.

    39. Leon — on 2nd November, 2006 at 5:43 pm  


    40. Anon — on 2nd November, 2006 at 5:48 pm  

      Thanks for that very constructive post, shaking my very arguement to its core… based on a typo

    41. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 5:54 pm  

      Anon, your previous post was a far better indictment of BNP supporters than any argument I could knock up.

    42. Vladimir — on 2nd November, 2006 at 5:55 pm  

      I’d Love to see a group of British Asians take over the BNP, perhaps this would be more possible, with the news that the current incumbents are having some financial trouble.

      However there be a much needed drastic change in the current values held by the BNP. I haven’t got many ideas on what the new manifesto would look like. But do believe that people from ethnic backgrounds can add a new dimension to the notion of nationalism, perhaps more measured and more meaningful.

      Though with it being the ‘British’ National party, there would be a greater recognition of true British values, and the recognition that Britain is largely a tolerant and progressive country.

    43. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 6:03 pm  

      Vladimir, everyone is from an ethnic background.

    44. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 6:06 pm  

      The BNP is constituted of about 60-80% self-proclaimed racists, the rest consists of people who begin sentences with “Now I’m not racist but…”

    45. Don — on 2nd November, 2006 at 7:05 pm  

      Vladimir has a point. The BNP have been sucking up to non-moslem asians (mainly Sikhs) for some time now. They have featured a couple of deluded fellow-travellers in their propaganda. Do they allow non-whites to join? Hell, with a membership of around 3,000 they could be taken over in a weekend.

      Except you’d be stuck with the overdraft.

    46. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 7:19 pm  

      Does anyone know whether this story is true, and if so then whatever happened to Steve Bilton? From

      The far-Right British National Party is fielding a record 221 candidates in this week’s council elections.

      For the first time, a Muslim candidate is standing, in Sunderland, where the party is fighting for all 25 seats.

      The candidate is Steve Bilton, 48, a supply teacher, who is standing as a prospective councillor in St Michael’s ward.

      He said he converted to Islam three years ago and joined the BNP a few months ago. He denied that the BNP was a racist party.

      “The BNP is a secular party,” a spokesman said.

      “We are a political party for white European people. If a white person is a Muslim, they can be in our party.”

      Speaking about his reasons for standing Steve Bilton said; “”My whole intention is to make a protest to the powers-that-be that they are disregarding working-class people.”

    47. soru — on 2nd November, 2006 at 8:38 pm  

      There are some cases of right wing nutters ‘converting’ to islam using something like the following logic:

      1. Islam is Evil

      2. Evil is Cool

      3. I want to be Cool

      Not really different from heavy metal types ‘worshipping’ Satan.

      He might be one of those. Or he might just like a fight - seems like a pretty good way of getting into them.

    48. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 8:57 pm  

      Yeah, but to convert to Islam and then join the BNP indicates self-delusional tendencies on a massive scale.

    49. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 9:04 pm  

      oops, forgot to close my bold tag

    50. Sid — on 2nd November, 2006 at 9:39 pm  

      Then there are the BNP supporters who are also Muslim Elvis impersonators.

      1. Islam is Elvis

      2. Elvis is cool

      3. I want to be Elvis

    51. Anas — on 2nd November, 2006 at 9:41 pm  

      “We are a political party for white European people. If a white person is a Muslim, they can be in our party.”

      There’s hope for Satinists yet.

    52. JohnM233 — on 2nd November, 2006 at 10:37 pm  

      Maybe being ‘racist’ is a bit like being ‘tribal’; maybe that’s the way the world works.

    53. Bert Preast — on 2nd November, 2006 at 11:06 pm  

      Is no one going to take Anon apart at #36?

      Does that put him close to the mark?

      Certainly part of what he says is true, that the BNP are pushing some of the right buttons for a lot of people these days. And it doesn’t necessarily follow that they’re racist thugs (the people with the buttons that is, not the BNP). The main parties will pick up on vote winning policies. UK politics becoming more extreme is unlikely to do any of us any good.

    54. Sunny — on 2nd November, 2006 at 11:45 pm  

      Bert - article on this tomorrow morning by me.

    55. Anon — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:03 am  

      Fashionable to hate the BNP isnt it.

    56. genghis — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:12 am  

      Fashionable to hate them muslims too!

    57. JohnM233 — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:25 am  

      Hey, genghis, if I object to “Muslim” propaganda am I being “racist”? Are all “Muslims” from the same “racial” stock? Or is “Muslimismism” an ideology? Neutral questions.

    58. JohnM233 — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:32 am  

      Correction: for ‘Muslismism’ read ‘Muslimism’

    59. Anas — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:40 am  

      Bert, are you going to make the same excuses for extremist Islamist groups too? They’re “pushing some of the right buttons for a lot of [Muslims] these days” too. No because most of those groups are morally & ideologically indefensible — regardless of the amount of support they command — and that’s even if they aren’t directly involved in terrorism. Same with the BNP. Anyone dumb enough to support the BNP and yet claim not to be racist deserves nothing but contempt.

    60. JohnM233 — on 3rd November, 2006 at 1:20 am  

      Words words words - Islamophobia - Paedophobia - Islamophilia - Paedophilia - Thought Crime -


    61. genghis — on 3rd November, 2006 at 9:56 am  

      if I object to “Muslim” propaganda am I being “racist”? Are all “Muslims” from the same “racial” stock? Or is “Muslimismism” an ideology? Neutral questions.

      1) No

      2) Strictly speaking no, Rascism in the context of this thread is that the BNP, when it suits them, want to ‘cleanse’ the British Society of Non-Whites (see the BNP Objectives 2004 and the documentary). They hightlight issues of them ‘brownies’ by extolling negative and islamophobic diatribe against muslims. When it suits them they allow members of Sikh community to state the case. Hence appearing to not be rascist?

      Addditionally, in contemporary Britian, Muslims are viewed as one ‘race’. Hence the result…rascism.

      3) Muslimism…no idea!

      Point is this, we should be able to discuss negative aspects and impact of islam in britian. There is no issue there. Problem here is that currently, there is a backdrop of muslims being persecuted and are repressed: Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine etc additionally, there is a drip drip affect of ascribing lunatic fringe actions to the whole of islam. Let me give you an example: When the IRA bombed britain, the media didnt ascribe those terrorist actions to ‘Catholic Extremists’ nor did politicians create terrorist acts since those would be seen as, ‘terrorists have won’, cept when it comes to the threat of the lunatic terrorists that happen to call themselves muslim, new Acts of Law are passed to fight terrorism and highlight all muslims in a negative way.

      Further the media uses phrases that are pretty much one sided and highlight all muslims as bad. eg when Zionists in the west bank kill palestinians the media will use phrases like:

      ‘Settlers shot at muslim extremists (or terrorists).’

      However if occupied palestinians kill settlers the headlines, invariably are:

      ‘Extremist Muslims kill Israelis’

      See the difference? Ascribing one side as ‘extremists’ and the other as reasonable peaceful people. These journalistic nuances are discussed in the medialens website.

      One of the major aspects i find sickening is that there is no discourse to discuss why terrorism in muslim countries arose. It seems as if the media and politicians want to condemn the actions of terrorists but yet, not discuss the underlying root causes?

    62. Sahil — on 3rd November, 2006 at 10:00 am  

      Genghis why do you keep equating all Jews as Zionists? Do you not think that just as bad as any stereotyping of Muslims??

    63. genghis — on 3rd November, 2006 at 11:01 am  

      I use the label ‘zionist’ specifically for zionists.

      I do not apply the word jews to ascribe actions of zionists.

      There is a difference between the two, I recognize that. Perhaps you want to read into whatever you want.

    64. Sahil — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:00 pm  

      I read this from your post above, and many others:

      “Further the media uses phrases that are pretty much one sided and highlight all muslims as bad. eg when Zionists in the west bank kill palestinians the media will use phrases like:”

      Which Zionists do you mean?? Are all member of the IDF Zionists? As far as I know all Israelis have to join the IDF for a while.

    65. genghis — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:35 pm  

      You need a dictionary.

      Look up the definition of Zionists!

    66. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:51 pm  

      Yeah, zionists smoke pot and listen to bob marley

    67. Bert Preast — on 3rd November, 2006 at 2:38 pm  

      Anas wrote: “Bert, are you going to make the same excuses for extremist Islamist groups too? They’re “pushing some of the right buttons for a lot of [Muslims] these days” too. No because most of those groups are morally & ideologically indefensible — regardless of the amount of support they command — and that’s even if they aren’t directly involved in terrorism. Same with the BNP. Anyone dumb enough to support the BNP and yet claim not to be racist deserves nothing but contempt”

      I am well aware that extremist muslim groups are pushing the right buttons for some muslims too. It doesn’t matter if these groups are morally and ideologically indefensible if they get enough support - if we let it get to that stage ugly things will happen as I’ve tried to tell you before.

      The BNP claim not to be racist and deserve contempt because they are obviously lying. However, not everyone who would vote BNP is necessarily a racist deserving contempt. Interesting that a progressive muslim is so quick with the contempt while progressive non muslims spend all their time trying to understand Hizb ut Tahrir etc. Mind, I think your method is probably going to prove more effective.

    68. sonia — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:08 pm  

      i think pert breast ( oops) bert preast has a good point in no. 67.

    69. genghis — on 3rd November, 2006 at 6:22 pm  

      while progressive non muslims spend all their time trying to understand Hizb ut Tahrir

      Really? I dont know of any? Most of what ive seen seems to suggest ‘progressive non muslims’ (who the fuck are they anyway?) want them banned and banished.

    70. Bert Preast — on 3rd November, 2006 at 6:55 pm  

      Progressive muslims are the ones wanting to live peacefully and productively within Britain without changing the wider society. Progressive non muslims are the ones wanting to change the wider society to make the muslims feel at home and welcome. There are huge swathes of the progressive non muslims who don’t want to see HuT banned or banished, while not extending the same privilege to the BNP. You’ll notice which lot were in court today. Again. You may also notice which lot get venues like the NEC, and which lot meet in the backroom of a pub. And which lot draw 200 and which lot draw 9000. You may now even begin to notice where the danger lies. Though I’m not that naive.

    71. JohnM233 — on 3rd November, 2006 at 8:37 pm  

      Thank you genghis. Trials today of an alleged British Extremist and an alleged Islamist Extremist will both air some of these issues. I can’t remember what happens when extremes meet, but the public comment could be thought-provoking.

    72. Sunny — on 3rd November, 2006 at 9:43 pm  

      want them banned and banished.

      Well I’m progressive and I ain’t Muslim. And I don’t want HuT banned, but constantly made fun of and exposed. But I do want Al-ghuraaba banned. David T on Harry’s Place also wrote an article saying Pizza HuT should not be banned.

    73. Anas — on 4th November, 2006 at 1:28 pm  

      The existence and (moderate) success of the BNP is one of the biggest obstacles to integration in this country. The more people who adhere to this immoral and completely deluded notion that getting rid of a large percentage of this country’s ‘ethnic’ population is not only an option but a desirable one, the more credence it gets among the white working class, the less chance there is of integration. The more entrenched white people become in their prejudices.

      That the face veil issue, which affects a tiny minority of a tiny minority, has garnered an obscene amount of attention — given that it supposedly symbolises a desire to remain separate from society — while the real danger to integration, from the BNP and from insitutionally racist institutions like the police, is relegated to the background is incredible. Maybe there are a few things that white people need to acknowledge and apologise for before they start to lecture Muslims on civics.

    74. Anas — on 4th November, 2006 at 1:37 pm  

      If you have any doubts about the danger these people pose to continuing integration in this country through their pronouncements alone — that is, given the level of support they’ve achieved and the influence they boast of — then check out this article:,,1939348,00.html

    75. Chairwoman — on 4th November, 2006 at 2:11 pm  

      Anas - I’ve just followed your link, and reprehensible as his speech was, I can see neither the grounds on which he was charged, nor the possibility of his being convicted.

      The small group of people he was addressing was already of the same mind as he, it was not as though it was a public meeting.

      Stopping him railing against us must ultimately rebound, as we could therefore lose the right to expose him.

    76. Anas — on 4th November, 2006 at 2:29 pm  

      CW, the point of posting the link was to prove how reprehensible his words were. They reveal the real motivation, scarcely hidden beneath the surface sheen, of these prominent and fairly moderate (if I can use that word in this context) BNP figures. These words have been made widely known to the public, and therefore no-one, no potential BNP supporter can claim ignorance as a defense. So, I’m not defending or attacking the legal case.

    77. JohnM233 — on 6th November, 2006 at 1:12 am  

      ghengis, that word ‘racism’ packs a punch these days, but ‘Muslims’ aren’t members of a racial group in the same way, say, Eskimos are - you’ve got brown, black, yellow and even white (convert) ‘Muslims’. Muslimism is a religious identity, maybe even an ideological one. It’s not a racial identity. Please stop misusing that ridiculous word. I read somewhere that the word ‘racism’ was invented to stifle debate. What do you think?

    78. bananabrain — on 6th November, 2006 at 11:20 am  

      a) islam isn’t a race, so being prejudiced against muslims isn’t racist. it’s islamophobia, or “religious prejudice”, which also covers jews, sikhs, christians, or secularists for that matter.

      b) there is no religious obligation on jews to kill “philistines”. there is a religious obligation to kill “amalekites” and the “seven nations of canaan”, like the jebusites and girgashites. however, if you knew anything about jewish law, you would know that a long time ago it was decided that these “nations” could no longer be reliably identified and hence the law concerned was unactionable. that has been the position of jewish law ever since. for more on this question, this piece ought to be quite useful.

      c) free speech for ideas must be absolute. that means muhammad cartoons, bnp publications, the jerry springer opera, “behzti” and, i’m afraid, holocaust denial, the same way that david icke must be allowed to say that the queen is a lizard from outer space.

      of course, actual incitement to violence, as opposed to “hate speech”, should be strongly penalised.

      d) personally, i’ve never seen headlines saying “extremist muslims kill israelis”. however, i’ve seen a lot of headlines saying “terrorists kill israelis”. but apparently that’s a bit much for some people, like the BBC for a start.



    79. Lliam — on 8th November, 2006 at 1:58 pm  

      WHAT The B.N.P STAND for seems logical to me, if looking after our own is racist, so be it:-

      IMMIGRATION - time to say ENOUGH!

      On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question. We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.

      EUROPE - back to British independence!

      We are opposed to the Single European Currency, and support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures. At the same time, we are for the best possible relationship with our European neighbours and believe that the nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial, though without being forced into a political and economic straitjacket - political unification. Accordingly, we stand for British withdrawal from the European Union. In place of the EU, we intend to aim towards greater national self-sufficiency, and to work to restore Britain’s family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us. Following our withdrawal from the EU, the BNP will use the £43 million per day net contribution Britain at present makes to the European Union to fund many far more useful projects at home.

      LAW AND ORDER - crack down on crime!

      The BNP will crack down on crime and restore public safety and confidence. We will free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket that is stopping them from doing their job properly. The liberal fixation with the ‘rights’ of criminals must be replaced by concern for the rights of victims, and the right of innocent people not to become victims. We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed.

      ECONOMY - British workers first!

      Globalisation, with its export of jobs to the Third World, is bringing ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities that depend on them. Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers. When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, at last getting our people back to work and ending the waste and injustice of having more than 4 million people in a hidden army of the unemployed concealed by Labour’s statistical fiddles. We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people. To that end we will restore our economy and land to British ownership. We also call for preference in the job market to be given to native Britons. We will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants. Finally we will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes.

      EDUCATION - discipline, standards, achievement!

      We are against the ‘trendy’ teaching methods that have made Britain one of the most poorly educated nations in Europe. We will end the practice of politically correct indoctrination in all its guises and we will restore discipline in the classroom, give authority back to teachers and put far greater emphasis on training young people in the industrial and technological skills necessary in the modern world. We will also seek to instill in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.

      AGRICULTURE - quality before quantity!

      We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector as vital to the country. Britain’s farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the nation’s need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain. We will ensure a major shift to healthier and more sustainable organic farming. We are pledged to ensure the restoration of Britain’s once great fishing industry with the reimposition of the former exclusion zones around our coast.

      HEALTH - first-class healthcare for all!

      We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens. We will revitalise the Health Service by boosting staff and bed numbers, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention - low pay. We will see to it that no money is given in foreign aid while our own hospitals are short of beds and the staff to run them. More emphasis must be placed on healthy living with greater understanding of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a healthier environment and improved diets.

      TRANSPORT - time to invest!

      Increased investment is needed in Britain’s public transport system to bring it up to the highest standards in the world. The fiasco of rail privatisation with different companies running services and track leading to higher fares and lower safety also needs to be resolved. Congestion of our towns and cities must be eased by the provision of greater incentives to use rail and bus transport instead of private cars. The first step is to end the crime and squalor that puts so many people off public transport. Motorists must not be made the scapegoats for government failure. Fuel tax should be cut, motorway speed limits raised, and hidden speed cameras should be banned. Far more must be done to encourage the development and use of cleaner fuels.

      ENVIRONMENT - a cleaner, greener future!

      Our ideal for Britain is that of a clean, beautiful country, free of pollution in all its forms. We will enforce standards to curb those practices, whether by business or the individual, which cause environmental damage. “The polluter pays to clean up the mess” must become a fact of life, not an electioneering slogan. In towns we would work to replace the brutalist modernism of 1960s-style-architecture with a blend of traditional local styles and materials and ensure that developments take place on a more human scale.

      FOREIGN AID - time to spend our money on our own people!

      We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. We will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, whereby those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain.

      PENSIONERS - pensioners before asylum seekers!

      The conditions in which many of Britain’s old people are forced to live are a national disgrace. We are pledged to ensure that all our old folk are able to live in comfortable homes, and will restore the earnings link with pensions. Elderly people who have paid a lifetime of taxes and reared families should not have to sell their homes to pay for care.

      NORTHERN IRELAND - an end to sectarianism!

      Britain has shamefully allowed the terrorists in N.I. to come close to winning when the IRA could have been destroyed years ago. Government weakness has led to hundreds of deaths and given those same terrorists a share in government. We would end all attempts to force the people of Northern Ireland to accept foreign interference in their affairs and deal with terrorism - from whatever side - once and for all. No one with links to a terrorist organisation that refuses to lay down its arms should be allowed to enter government. We would abolish state-supported segregation in education. In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles.

      DEFENCE - no more cuts!

      Successive cuts in defence spending have left Britain’s armed forces perilously weak. We will boost Britain’s armed forces to ensure that they are able to deal with any emergency, and defend our homeland and our independence. We will bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since recent political developments make both commitments obsolete. We will close all foreign military bases on British soil, and refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peace-keeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake - a position of armed neutrality. We will also restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.

      FOREIGN AFFAIRS - Britain’s interests first!

      Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interest and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics. We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. We will maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.

      DEMOCRACY - letting the people decide!

      The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a Politically Correct ‘élite’ which thinks it knows best. On immigration, on Capital Punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems conspire in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on such vital issues. The BNP exists to give the British people, that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, not just at national but at regional and local level. Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.

    80. Leon — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:01 pm  

      Don’t you know anything about British history?!?

    81. Jagdeep — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:02 pm  

      What is your position on stem cell research?

    82. Kismet Hardy — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:07 pm  

      All rather lovely Lilam, but how do you suggest going about changing the fact that the majority of your supporters are thick as pigshit?

    83. Chairwoman — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:23 pm  

      I never asked for the BNP manifesto!

    84. Kismet Hardy — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:25 pm  

      Fascists don’t generally wait to be asked babe…

    85. TottenhamLad — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:30 pm  

      Forget the BNP lets talk about some real racists such as the asian racists up in Scotland who have just been found guilty of the worst racist murder in the UK.

      BBC News 8th November 2006
      Three men guilty of Kriss murder

      Front page stuff at the BBC.

    86. Lliam — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:31 pm  

      If that’s true K.H, the only reason I can think of is because,
      Britain’s one of the most poorly educated nations in Europe.

    87. Jai — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:33 pm  

      I can’t wait until that programme “100% English ?” is shown on Channel 4 next week.

      Article in The Times about it here; it involves DNA testing of 8 people who considered themselves to be “100& Anglo-Saxon”. Amongst other things, it turns out that Carol Thatcher — Margaret Thatcher’s daughter — is genetically 1/4 Middle-Eastern. Also remember my comment on the White Mughals thread about how a young English guy genetically analysed on the same programme turns out to be 20% Asian.

    88. Kismet Hardy — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:36 pm  

      Surely that’s good news for the BNP? Intelligence and fascist ideology only work when the intelligent fascist is in power rather than led, no?

    89. Jai — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:36 pm  

      Typo, should say “100% Anglo-Saxon”.

    90. Leon — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:43 pm  

      Yeah I’m looking forward to that prog too Jai…

    91. Lliam — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:45 pm  

      I think that your’e the racist on this blog Kismet Hardy.

    92. Kismet Hardy — on 8th November, 2006 at 2:48 pm  

      Ah, and there I was thinking you were one of those intelligent fascists Lilam. Nah, I’m not a racist. My kids are quarter jewish blah blah. I just find people who spread hatred kinda odious is all

    93. Lliam — on 8th November, 2006 at 3:01 pm  

      If you don’t like people who spread hatred then maybe
      you should open your mind to what’s going on in the Capital where we have Muslim extremists preaching hatred and the Police can’t stop them. That’s freedom of speech. I’m a Catholic and I don’t hate anyone because I was bought up to respect people. All I want for my kids is, a fair crack of the whip and for their kids. I want a country that’s, clean, crime free, anti social behavour free and a place where people can walk out at night without fear of being mugged or their home burgled when they return home.

    94. Kismet Hardy — on 8th November, 2006 at 3:04 pm  

      No one wants to get mugged dude. You’re just suggesting muggers are black so I can’t agree with you. I guess hatred was the wrong word, it’s ignorance that’s buggering up the streets

      By the way, how come your link takes us to Supanet? Did you spell Superman wrong? Careful you don’t look up nietzsche  and get directed to a site about head lice… :-)

    95. Anas — on 8th November, 2006 at 3:33 pm  

      Lliam, how would you feel if one of your kids married someone from a different ethnic background/religion?

    96. Lliam — on 8th November, 2006 at 3:37 pm  

      Can’t argue with a CLOSED mind. Poor Kismet I do feel sorry for you. :(
      I don’t have my own website so, I use my IP’s site OK.

      Did you forget so soon? On 08/08/06: British Jews where warned of rise in hate crime.

      On a final note, never make assumptions about folk you know nothing about.

      My Sister married twice both Jamaican her first husband Roy died she remarried George who now looks after the kids because my Sister Died of Cancer in 2003, she had six kids and a set of twins whom we all adore. I also have a cousin who married a Jamaican and has two lovely girls.
      SO, don’t assume things you know nothing about.

    97. Anas — on 8th November, 2006 at 3:39 pm  

      Just testing how racist you were Lliam.

    98. Kismet Hardy — on 8th November, 2006 at 3:49 pm  

      Aw Lilam. don’t be so angry. Anger makes people to become single-minded about finding an enemy to blame for their woes and leads to seeking violent retribution

      Be a good brit and pop a nice happy ecstasy pill and chill baby

    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.