Quote of the day, re the BNP

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Most amusing remark this evening in CoffeeHouse about the likely change in the BNP's constitution to allow non-white Britons in addition to those indigenous to these islands to join the Party:

"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. The membership’s decision, forced on them by a court order with which they must comply, changes nothing."

- "its economic policies are like Dagenham – that is, three stops beyond Barking." Marvellous! And pretty accurate too, of course - and they're still racist scum, whatever this cosmetic change might be intended to con people into believing.

UPDATE: (Sunday 15NOV09 22.45 BST) It seems somehow to be appropriate that BNP leader, Mr Nick Griffin MEP, is to stand as the PPC for his Party for the Barking constituency at the next Westminster election. One wonders if rumours of this development were not what prompted the CoffeeHouse article that stirred me into writing this article earlier today, else it is a remarkable coincidence - even more remarkable if it was that Griffin, having heard about the article, thought well 'why not give it a go?'.

Meteorite over south-Sulawesi early-October causes 50 kiloton blast

I've just come across this report on the NEO website, indicating that a small meteorite (estimated at about 10 metres diameter) exploded in the atmosphere over south-Sulawesi in Indonesia a couple of weeks ago, equivalent to about 50 kilotons of TNT. Local news reports from Indonesia in English are here and here. A local televised news report is here:



- although this happened in the early hours of 8th October it was reported on the NEO website only on Friday 23rd October - I suppose we must be grateful that on this occasion the object which collided with our atmosphere was relatively small. It is salutary to realise that still relatively-small objects only ten or so times larger than this recent object could cause at the very least regional devastation on Earth. Over the coming weekend I may well write about the recent appearance of Mr Nick Griffin, leader of the 'British National Party' (BNP) on BBC1 'Question Time' on Thursday evening, a topic which has hogged the limelight on the news (broadcast and print media) and the 'blogosphere' in the UK over the past several days, but I think it is useful to remember that there are other relevant news stories from other parts of the world which if they were only a little more serious would push the tawdry doings of a minority racist organisation in the UK into a well-deserved obscurity.

Is freedom of speech only for those people one happens to agree with?

Or is freedom of speech for everyone?

Like a lot of people I was shocked and angry, and more pertinently fearful, at the election of two British National Party candidates as MEPs during last week's European Parliament elections. I loathe and abhor everytthing about the BNP, but it is a legal political party. I've written here before (here in May 2007 and here in July 2004) denouncing the misguided prohibition on BNP members being employed in various types of employment such as the police.

Similarly, I think the actions of some opponents of the BNP in making it physically impossible for newly-elected BNP MEPs to hold a 'press conference' (aka 'publicity stunt') in London yesterday was completely misguided and quite possibly counter-productive; people receptive to the filth that the BNP promulgates are likely only to see such actions as 'proof' that they are as disriminated against as they claim. The same anti-democratic antics were apparently on display again today in Manchester from people opposed to allowing BNP MEPs to speak. Personally I believe in confronting odious views with debate and discussion - I have sufficient confidence in the strength and validity of my beliefs to be willing to argue against views I dislike, but some people obviouusly don't share this view. They think it satisfactory simply to prevent people speaking with whom they disagree. Whatever this is it is most certainly not 'democracy'.

If the government or anyone else in authority wants to make it impossible for members of odious organisations like the BNP to have a political platform then they should declare it an illegal organisation and have done with it! I do NOT advocate this as a 'solution', because it would not solve anything, merely drive 'underground' people who support BNP ideas. I don't like having to defend the right of odious people such as Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to speak in public, but defend it I must. Democracy and freedom of speech is not just for 'nice' people, it's for everyone or it has no value - and the police should have been on hand yesterday to defend the right of legally-elected politicians to speak. But the police were curiously-absent in this video report or an event taking place in Parliament Square, which must be in one of the most heavily-policed parts of London. Why? I would hate to think it is because the Metropolitan Police and/or the Labour Government had asked the police not to intervene because it was politically expedient (as Labour had suffered most at the European Parliament elections), but I'm afraid I am forced to consider it as a possibility. Would a violent demonstration like that yesterday have been permitted for a cause with which the Labour Government had no sympathy? That's a hard question, but I'm afraid it HAS to be asked! Specially when one recalls scenes of an elderly Labour Party member who heckled in a pretty restrained manner Jack Straw (then Home Secretary) at a Labour Party conference being forcibly removed from the hall, or the lady who wished merely to recite the names of British military personnel killed in Iraq since 2003 whilst standing near the Cenotaph in London being bundled away by the police and having her DNA samples taken as well as being found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act(!), or this sad incident during another Labour Conference.

What this seems to illustrate, no let me be less mealy-mouthed about it, what it DOES illustrate is that under this present Labour Government, policing and justice depends upon whether views held are 'approved' by Labour. Those who hold views that Labour disagrees with can expect harrassment, whether direct or indirect (by permitting hooligans to shout down views the Government happens not to like).

To summarise, I may loathe and despise everything that the BNP stands for, but whilst it remains a legal organisation their right to express their views within the law must be defended.

What the BNP is really still about ...

... if there were ever any doubt that the BNP is not still the bunch of racist, ignorant thugs that I have always believed them to be, then this at the West Brom Blog is the perfect antidote.

The police and the BNP

The Guardian is reporting that Greater Manchester Police is investigating claims that it has British National Party (BNP) members in its ranks. It seems that some police officers called to enforce the peace outside a Manchester pub where BNP supporters had gathered to celebrate St George's Day (23rd April) had spotted off-duty police officers at the event.

I will repeat a comment I have made in this blog several times in the past: whilst the BNP is an odious organisation promulgating odious policies and beliefs it is NOT an illegal organisation.

The Guardian points out that Greater Manchester Police was one of the police forces where racism amongst recruits was identified by an undercover reporter; I wrote about that in October 2003. It also refers to the three-year old policy of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) under which BNP members would be dismissed from police forces, it being felt that membership of this particular political organisation is incompatible with being a police officer. My reaction at the time, and now, is that whilst I understand fully the desire of ACPO to keep racism and bigotry out of its ranks, its job is to enforce laws passed by Parliament and signed into law by Her Majesty the Queen. I am not aware that any law has been passed by Parliament, or that any statutory regulation has been introduced by the Government, to make membership of the BNP illegal. Personally I would shed no tears if membership of that organisation were to be made illegal, but ACPO has no legislative powers and it should not act as if it does.

I expressed similar views when I read in September 2004 that the Home Office was contemplating introducing a ban on BNP membership amongst civil servants and when I read in May 2005 that Scottish police forces were to screen recruits for racism, in itself a laudable aim.

Whilst I loathe and fear the BNP (I am after all a gay man, not perhaps a favourite category for these people) I do not think it wise to abandon certain of our liberties so casually by allowing bodies such as the police, or indeed the Government, to act in ways which the law makes no provision for. Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, there was a very interesting programme on BBC Radio4 this evening called Turning Right (to be repeated on Sunday 13MAY07 at 5pm) about the rise of the 'Far Right' in Britain; you can listen to it again for the next week by clicking on the 'listen again' button. Amongst others interviewed was the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, who said that he no longer believes, as he admits he did ten years ago, that the Holocaust is a myth. When asked why he had changed his mind he said:

"Because of European law; if I say I believe that, I can be extradited to France."

When asked to clarify whether this means he has actually changed what he believes rather than just what he is willing to say, he responded:

"I believe that which the law says I must believe."

He predicted that by sometime like 2040 either a political party like the BNP, or perhaps the BNP itself, could be the Government of this country; a frightening prospect. Draw your own conclusions. For myself I believe that the BNP continues to be a dangerous and loathesome organisation. Perhaps there is a case for making it illegal. There are dangers in that course of action as banning it might merely drive members and like-minded people underground, but I think this is a better and safer option than allowing the police to take the law into their own hands.