Brit Raffers: Tell me about the BNP

[WednesdayAddams]

And why this is news. I take it BNP stands for British National Party? Opinion appears to be split in the comments; either they're racist fascist asshats or a party of Brits looking out for the best interest of the British nationals. Either way (and I'm trending toward the former the more I read), does the Equality and Human Rights Committee foresee a huge influx in minority BNP membership? How much would it affect British politics were the BNP to simply disappear because they refuse to comply? How mainstream are they? And how many parties exist as viable on the British political landscape? What does this do for the upcoming elections, where it's said that the Conservative party is set to take control from Labour?

Help educate me.

[sancho panza]

Asshats unfortunatly asshats that some people take notice of this from Wikipedia concerning its current leader one Nick Griffin.



The BNP, its former leaders and present leader, Nick Griffin, have promoted anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in the past. In 1996, writing in his own publication, The Rune, Griffin stated that:
I am well aware that orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into soup and lampshades. I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria.

[WednesdayAddams]

Ah. So. Crackpots, then. This explains the face he was making in the pic on the front page. He looks like someone just ran down his dog.

[severe delays]

The BNP are a right-wing party who want a white Britain. From that statement you can easily agree with the statement 'racist fascist assholes'. The other viewpoint of 'looking out for the best interest of British nationals' is that they don't. We have plenty of people born here who are not white but they are British nationals nonetheless. Add to that their seeming hatred of any religion other than English Christianity and that's a lot of people they want to exclude.

WRT the case against them, this has been going on for a while and they've been arsing around avoiding the issue. As was said in court, the point is not that ethnic minorities most likely would not want to join. It's that they are not permitted to join. Think how it would work in your own country if a black person was refused permission to join one of your political parties? There'd be riots I'm sure!

Personally, I view them as a valuable tool - a cloister bell if you will. They occasionally get lots of support in an area and the ensuing hoohaa over racists being voted in serves to flag up to others that if they don't want these people in charge then they better get off their arses and vote or campaign differently themselves. I'd say they are very much *not* mainstream as I've only ever met one couple who admitted that they would consider voting BNP and they were blatantly racist. In general the BNP are not well-liked and there was considerable fuss recently about them being allowed to make a Party Political Broadcast on the BBC - lots of people felt they shouldn't be allowed to speak but they have a perfect legal right to do so and again, I feel it's better to have people aware of what they stand for. There was fuss also when they were interviewed on a youth-oriented radio station but from what I've heard their own responses to questions made them look idiots. (Incidentally, the questions apparently came mostly from the listeners so the accusations of trying to indoctrinate da yoof of Britain seem to fall a little flat).

[WednesdayAddams]

All of which makes total sense, but I do have to ask: What is accomplished by forcing the BNP to comply other than giving them legitimacy whereas before they had none? Would it not have been better to simply declare the group illegal and force disbandment?

[severe delays]

Originally Posted by MarissaW

All of which makes total sense, but I do have to ask: What is accomplished by forcing the BNP to comply other than giving them legitimacy whereas before they had none? Would it not have been better to simply declare the group illegal and force disbandment?

Absolutely not.

The BNP present themselves as victims of a multicultural society. By shutting them down we feed that image. Having a political party gives people an outlet for discontent. Take that away and you have people simmering with rage at perceived inequalities and eventually that's going to blow up as it has done before.

Shutting down dissent is not a good option. And even though I find their general policies abhorrent I do respect the right of their supporters to hold the opinions which led to the policies. It's not enough to have a large group say that they won't allow smaller groups to speak because they don't like what is being said. Not least because that never addresses the issues and at times those issues and thoughts may be perfectly valid and worthy of discussion. So I'd say by all means let this section of society have a political party and let them speak out via that. And everyone else can consider those issues and consider how the country might work if such persons were left in charge.

[Romola]

Hope you don't mind if I do a fairly quick reply to this one for now and a fuller one at the weekend when i have more time?

It does stand for British National Party. It was founded by former members of the National Front, who were more of an overt fascist party. The BNP have had something of a PR makeover and 'modernised'. Most of their public pronouncements are carefully selected to be defended as not racist. They argue against an 'open door' immigration policy (which we don't have) and against immigrants being given preferential treatment for benefits and housing (which they don't get). Their election literature carries statements disassociating themselves from racist violence and their leader has recently made several speeches about defending the rights of British citizens by birth, not just the white ones.

They have managed to get councillors elected in certain wards, by concentrating their campaigns on local issues of genuine concern to people. With a political atmosphere where there is massive distrust of politicians, where one party can complacently stay in power for years and years and pretty much treat the people with contempt, this has been a pretty sucessful tactic.

However: Once elected, BNP councillors have a poor record of actually addressing the local issues they campaigned on. One recently elected councillor who won his seat on a platform of cutting councillors allowances actually voted to increase them. They have concentrated their campaigning in my area to wards which are about 99% white british. Most of the people who voted for them aren't actually racist or fascist, but have few immigrant, black or asian friends so that side of things doesn't really interest them enough to make it a negative. The main motivation is to shake up complacent, greedy, corrupt local politicians who have no interest in actually addressing things like housing shortages, unemployment, low wages high crime rates and bureaucracy. The BNP adopts slogans like 'British jobs for British workers' to appeal to this demographic.

The BNP still states that it's policy is to stop all non-white immigration. If they are not racist and they simply think there are not enough jobs and houses to go around, why would it make a difference if immigrants were white or not? The day after they had two Eurupean MP's elected, (albeit with fewer votes than they had in the previous election), Nick Griffin spoke on one radio station about his intention to appeal to all Britons, whatever their heritage. Unfortnately, the same day, John Tyndall, a founder member of the BNP, was getting carried away and speculated on another radio station about how many generations of 'immigrants' should be 'repatriated'.

This last incident is telling. Despite their pronouncents on non racism and non violence, many BNP members have convictions for racist volence, some of them holding high positions in the party. It is notable that the number of racist incidents reported locally rises in direct correllation with BNP campaigning.

Despite everything above, the real danger of the BNP as far as I am concerned is not them having any real chance of being elected en masse. It is the response of mainstream politicians. Sadly, instead of addressing the issues the BNP feed on, like unemployment, corruption, housing etc, both Labour and the Conservatives respond by saying 'oh, look the BNP are getting votes - we are going to have to become more racist!' Thus our immigration and asylum system is becoming more and more draconian, with yearly 'reforms', mainly focussed on people seeking asylum, all because the BNP's point of view is taken up by the tabloid press, myths abound, and 'anti-immigrationism' is being mainstreamed.

Sorry for the absence of sources in this. I have them, but need time at the weekend to get everything cited.

[severe delays]

Oh, and I realise I mostly didn't answer your first question. The point of making them comply with the law is the same point as making anyone else comply with any other law*. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you get to skip it. If the BNP want a change in our laws so that organisations such as political parties can restrict membership based on sex, race, sexuality, disability, religion etc then they better get themselves elected and pass those laws. Until then they obey the current ones.

*It's also likely that some of the motivation behind it comes from personal distaste with the party and it's stated aims but there are larger things going on which I've chosen to focus on.

[WednesdayAddams]

I didn't ask what the point was; I asked what would be accomplished by doing so. If the accomplishment is the enforcement of the law, I'm good with that. The law also states (if I'm reading it correctly; please tell me if I'm not) that if they refuse to comply, they will be viewed as an illegal group and disbanded, their charter withdrawn.

I understand your point of not shutting down dissent; dissent is far more powerful when it is seen to be 'hushed up.'

Romola; thank you for your posts. No, I absolutely don't mind and I have been reading up some on the party since yesterday with growing fascination/horror/amazement. I was not aware that the KKK had found its way to Europe and I'm rather disgusted and disappointed that it has.

So, if I understand your points correctly, while the Tories and Labour do not want to be in any way associated with the members of the BNP, they respond to their voting base by adopting like policies? I suppose politicians are stupid everywhere.

[severe delays]

Well aim, point and accomplishment are all pretty much of a muchness, aren't they? I believe (though am not sure) that similar action was taken against the Labour party within the last few years - it's not purely about reining in this party because of distaste for their agenda.

If you want to do more reading then take a look at Oswald Mosley. He was a British peer who very much believed in what is now the BNP political viewpoint and had his own blackshirts in the UK before the first world war. The roots of the BNP can pretty much be traced back to Nazism* and other forms of Fascism and Nationalism at that time.

In more modern times, they act more cleverly and try to fool the public into thinking that they have aims which accord with mainstream thinking. There's been a marked effort at sanitising the party in the last few years and as Rom says, they have run for various elections with lots of promises about key local issues rather than focusing on their general exclusionary policies. Some people are fooled and vote while others vote for them as a snub to the mainstream parties. And of course some vote because they are tired of the mainstream parties and genuinely believe the tabloid ideas about immigration, travellers, homosexuality et al. This last group is being catered to more by the mainstream parties who introduce policies to appease them and regain votes. So in a roundabout way, the BNP gets a watered-down version of what it wanted.



* I claim the Godwin prize!

[WednesdayAddams]

severe delays; did you watch Question Time last night? Do you feel (as Burnley residents do) that he was hounded on immigration to the point that he wasn't allowed to discuss other issues facing Britain?

(I did read up on Mosley, which led me in turn to the Fabian Socialists...interesting reading. Thank you for the information)

[severe delays]

Yes I did. I'll pop back later either today or tomorrow to share my thoughts on it. In essence I appreciated that it was comedy gold but there was a very serious side to the programme also which I feel should not be dismissed.

[Angry Lurker]

It's worth noting that the programme was highly edited; this was most obvious when after about 2 minutes discussing the holocaust denial Dimbelby made a comment along the lines of "we've spent 20 minutes discussing this already"... so it's very hard to say what actually went on in that studio.

I thought Griffin made himself look like an utter cretin, yet this is not consensus opinion from what I have heard; instead some folk actually feel sympathy!

[Anacanapuna]

I do not speak for all Americans, but rather as an American: It is actually refreshing to watch a discussion about racism/xenophobia unfold among among people with a rich culture of civil discourse. This is absolutely fascinating on so many levels. I do hope Romola will make good on her (?) promise to post further over the weekend.

And, it's good to know that we Americans don't have a corner on the xenophobia market!

[Angry Lurker]

The BNP are racist but it's not clear to me that they are xenophobic

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

The BNP are racist but it's not clear to me that they are xenophobic

My understanding is that they're "White English Only"- so white people from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc. should still clear off back to their own countries as far as the the BNP are concerned, from what I have read of their policies.

I'm pretty sure that counts as Xenophobism...

[Angry Lurker]

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield

My understanding is that they're "White English Only"- so white people from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc. should still clear off back to their own countries as far as the the BNP are concerned, from what I have read of their policies.

I'm pretty sure that counts as Xenophobism...

Not in my view. They're happy for those folk to exist, just not in Britain. That's racism rather than xenophobia.

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

Not in my view. They're happy for those folk to exist, just not in Britain. That's racism rather than xenophobia.

The thing is, white people from (say) Canada are the same "race" as a white person from Bournemouth. So their problem isn't with the "race", it's their country of origin- which I'm pretty sure is "xenophobia" (fear or dislike of "foreigners") rather than "racism", although xenophobia also usually includes elements of racism, for obvious reasons.

[severe delays]

For those who don't know it, Question Time is a discussion programme where a number of invited panellists appear and discuss current issues and respond to audience questions. When they are invited to appear, all panelists see who the other guests are. I want to make that point very clear because a lot has been said about hi-jacking the programme or poor Nick Griffin being harangued by panellists who came prepared with notes. The reality is that he knew who was appearing with him and he had the same chance to prepare material that everyone else did. Instead he appeared to spend his time publishing personal attacks on his black and asian co-panelists.

There have also been comments regarding how poor he was at replying to questions and how he seemed very put upon. Griffin certainly hasn't had too much experience of being questioned by an audience who aren't supporters but he's not a child in the forest. The man is a Cambridge graduate and a Member of the European Parliament - hardly unused to speaking in public. I suspect he thought he'd get an easier ride and was basing this on his previous experience. Mostly he's spoken to approving audiences or the press where he can strike a pose, make an outlandish statement (or deny having said one) and then rant a bit about his politics. In the Question Time format nobody gets away with that sort of posturing.

As to the programme in general I found it hilarious. Absolute comedy gold. There are few sights more amusing than seeing a pompous jackass being hoist by his own petard. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask him to justify the words that came from his own mouth (which he often denied despite them being available on film) and his comments such as the one about only associating with nice KKK branches were thighslappingly funny. It also gave us all an opportunity to see how disingenious he is - when asked about his denial of the holocaust he replied that he'd never been convicted of holocaust denial. This is about as surprising as I'm sure you all will be to hear that I've never been convicted of jaywalking, miming or of wearing lederhosen - none of these are criminal acts in this country. He tried to avoid questions in a similar manner though I was pleased to see the audience, panellists and host did not always let him get away with it. I'll add that David Dimbleby is an experienced host and similarly, slapped down the other panellists when they tried to avoid honest answers. It wasn't a one-way street, just that Griffin wriggled more.

The programme has been called a circus for the way people reacted to Griffin's questions. I don't see that - he did make comments which are considered outrageous in British society and people naturally gasped and laughed at his audacity. I did sitting at home and I'm not the type to sit here and talk to the telly! There were a few very personal comments made to him such as when one audience member began by pretending his name was Dick but thems the breaks when you go on a programme with audience participation. If Griffin thought he could insult audience members with impugnity then he was very much mistaken - I'll add that he didn't insult directly but he did remark that Islam is a violent religion and that gay people kissing was 'creepy'. With those sorts of comments it's unsurprising that audience members responded by telling him the feeling is mutual.

There have been claims that the audience was rigged but I don't see that. The audience was mixed racially and this reflect the London population. If the audience had been from a city further north such as Norwich or Dundee he'd have faced mostly white people. Griffin knew where the programme was being made this week and chose to attend. And it's certainly not the case that there were none of his supporters in there - a couple of questions were asked by individuals who were clearly trying to express the BNP viewpoint. The audience was mostly an educated group but that's normal for Question Time audiences - it's a middle-class, educated sort of programme - and I felt their simple, direct questions were probably something Griffin had not experienced overmuch. His party tends to look for votes among the discontented of the working classes and very much focuses on their discontent with various issues rather than on discussing race and politics.

As to the focus on the BNP - if I'd been present I'd have been asking questions about their policies and actions too. Not only was the BNP (and their presence on Question Time) a hot topic last week but they are a hot topic generally in British politics. I actually think it's laughable to say that Griffin was targeted because direct questions are the nature of the show - I suspect that if he hadn't been present then Jack Straw (Labour party) would have been the one fending off the audience and panellists' questions.

And finally, (we're getting there!) I think it was a good idea to invite the BNP on. I abhor the tactics of the people who tried to break in and stop the programme because this sort of thing needs to be seen. It's all very well for people to vote for the BNP as a protest vote or because they want their local issues focused on but there needs to be an exposure of what the BNP actually are. So when Mary from Manchester sees exactly how Griffin behaves when there's no possibility to claim that he was misquoted and then looks out the window and sees that his party hasn't actually fixed the streetlights or got rid of the drugpushers as promised then I hope she wakes up a bit and thinks about who she is really voting for. I'm sure that he will have garnered some votes from people who were already considering it but I don't honestly believe that his appearane will have changed the basic principles, beliefs and morality of many people. As far as I'm concerned, you don't hunt cockroaches in the dark. You turn the light on and let everyone see what is being dealt with.

[Romola]

Sorry I didn't come back and post further on this. It would be difficult to say what the consensus was about Griffin's appearance on Question Time. Certainly, nobody would be able to claim it as a triumph for him. He was, frankly, out of his depth. However, the tabloid headlines yesterday were on the lines of 'BNP leader exposed as holocaust denier' 'Griffin is a disgrace' 'Racist party leader's outrageous comments'. Today, reflecting the continuing discussion and something of a PR recovery exercise by the BNP, they are closer to 'Bullying BBC allows BNP boss to present himself as a victim'. People are saying that in conversation too, but I don't really buy it. Some of our newspapers loath the BBC. If he hadn't at some point been invited, that would have been condemned as silencing a democratically elected politician. If he'd been given an easy ride or not questioned much about his past and present views on immigration, it would have been the politically correct BBC being afraid of controversial discussion.

Severe Delays gave an outline of the normal format of the programme which will be useful to those of you who wouldn't normally see it. Guests generally would be able to anticipate likely questions and prepare credible sounding answers. Griffin really isn't used to being questioned or confronted about his views and that came over very clearly as he often floundered badly. I was glad to see Jack Straw get a bit of a kicking from the rest of the panel and the audience at one point, as he is exactly the sort of mainstream politician I mentioned in my earlier post and, as Home Secretary, concentrated on trying to prove to the tabloid press that he was being 'tough' on asylum seekers, thus reinforcing the BNP viewpoint that asylum is out of control and needs clamping down on, and that the UK is taking 'more than our fair share.' During Straw's tenure, the UK was actually 10th in the EU, way behind France, the country English people usually say are dodging their responisibilities. Yet, he brought in changes that made it extremely difficult for people seeking asylum to get legal assistance with appeals while presiding over a system of refusals of such poor quality that they were criticised by Amnesty International.

But I digress; I really don't think Griffin was subjected to inappropriate questioning or bullied. The audience bood a little but he certainly wasn't shouted down. He was contradicted and confronted when he lied or misrepresented things he'd previously said, which he should surely have expected. Frankly, he and his party had lobbied and asked for the appearance and it was his chance to express their views, which he did. He was allowed to speak, but appeared to me to spend most of the second half of the programme in silence.

I hope they ask him back, I am all for free speech and if he thinks he has been unfairly treated, he should have a fair chance to put the record straight. But he shouldn't expect to be treated with kid gloves, that's not the way the programme is formatted.

[Mako]

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield

The thing is, white people from (say) Canada are the same "race" as a white person from Bournemouth. So their problem isn't with the "race", it's their country of origin- which I'm pretty sure is "xenophobia" (fear or dislike of "foreigners") rather than "racism", although xenophobia also usually includes elements of racism, for obvious reasons.

I have to say that this is incorrect as far as UK law is concerned. Racism is defined as prejudice based on a person's race, colour, ethnicity, religion or culture.

This means that even if someone is the same race as you but comes from a different country or worships a different deity, you must not discriminate against them. Discrimination includes but is not limited to employment opportunities, services, or "hate speech". Humour in the form of parody is excepted from this.

On the whole, I think that this is excellent. It protects the rights of minorities in the UK, while still allowing for open discussion about them. I just don't like the fact that it's called "racism" when it often has nothing to do with race. Why can't it just be called discrimination?

As for Nick Griffin, it's just possible that he is the most chemically pure sample of horseshit-breathing asshattery available in the universe.

[Romola]

The racist vs xenophobic thing is interesting when applied to BNP. Their makeover (and UK law) has stopped them from making overtly racist statements in public. They have responded by adopting the stance that they are only concerned that we are a tiny island, we're overcrowded, our resources can't stretch to accommodate new people. If this is provably wrong and they know it, it makes them simple xenophobes. If it's hard to prove, it could present them as simple concerned citizens. However, their constitution states that they are against non-white immigration. If the country's full, it's full, white people don't take up any less room, which puts them back in the racist camp again. Some prominent BNP members have argued that they can't be racist, as their wives/girlfriends are immigrants. The BNP try to embrace xenophobes and racists at the same time. They are happy to feed resentment against white migrant workers from new EU countries, but also make links with extreme white supremacist organisations from the same countries. At best, they are racists posing as xenophobes.

[WednesdayAddams]

Thanks to both severe delays and Romola for coming back and rounding out the thread. I have always been interested in British politics and after reading up on all this, I have to say: I now think we need another viable party. Possibly two or three. The far right wants nothing to do with fiscal conservatives and centrists are becoming 'blue dog' democrats. The lines are blurring.

In other news, Guardian journalist Dwain Lucktung was ejected from a pub that was holding a BNP meeting. He tried to join and was told he wasn't even welcome on the premises.

Did Griffin really say Churchill would have been a BNP member because he was an Islamaphobe?

[severe delays]

I don't know the specifics of what Griffin does or doesn't say but it wouldn't surprise me. He frequently seems to set his mouth running without first engaging his brain. For a man who wants to be a politician this is an unfortunate tendency.

Churchill himself is an interesting figure. He's one of those great figures who can pretty much be commandeered in the name of anything vaguely British - especially given that he actually crossed the House so anyone can claim him for anythign really.