14 November, 2006

Britain Today…

Posted by alex in Britain, immigration at 3:52 pm | Permanent Link

BRITAIN TODAY

[From Spectator, not online]

Not funny, but it struck home

Rod Liddle

Apparently almost a million British citizens have left the country since 2000, to live somewhere else. Last year, according to the Office for National Statistics, 380,000 people left Britain, of whom about 200,000 were British citizens. At the same time, though, 565,000 immigrants arrived in Britain, the overwhelming majority from the Indian subcontinent (largely Pakistan and Bangladesh).

These facts were reported as if they were entirely unrelated. Nobody dared to venture that there was perhaps a very direct and even causal relationship between the record numbers of British people leaving the country and the record numbers of non-British people coming in. This seems to me a bit of an oddity, because, colloquially, one hears emphatic verification of such a causal relationship almost every day. I know a couple of people who have recently left Britain and the reasons they gave were very simple: we’re being flooded with immigrants, it’s madness, it is not our country any more. Sometimes these views are preceded by the more polite, ‘We don’t like the way the country has changed’, and that they merely wish for a better life. There will then be a quick rundown of just how things have changed – too crowded, don’t want the kids brought up in schools where the majority language is Urdu, don’t want to be blown up on the Tube, etc. – a litany of complaints leading in one direction only. And then, after a while, when they think no one else is listening, it comes: too many immigrants who seem to get preferential treatment over the indigenous Brits. You know, I ain’t racist, but …

It may be that my friends are wholly untypical of the other Brits who have left, but I would guess that the reverse is true. They are working-class, hard-working, low-paid and disillusioned. They are not mad on the huge influx (80,000 last year) of immigrants from Eastern Europe and especially Poland. These incomers depress local wages, apart from anything else – talk to your local English sparkie or plumber about his views on the recent competition from Gdansk and Bratislava. But that isn’t their main source of discontent by a long way. Their real objection is to those arrivals – a city the size of Sunderland every year – from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Somalia. That is, people who are a different colour, and from formidably different cultures, who may speak no English at all and who may have no wish to integrate with the rest of us. That’s truly, unapologetically racist, I suppose. If they were opposed to immigration per se, one could argue that it was a laudably non-discriminatory state of mind. But, in fact, they are very discriminating indeed.

What surprised me, at first, was that nobody seemed prepared to report this very common and increasingly prevalent sentiment. After all, one could write about these Brits fleeing the country and state the likely reasons without necessarily concurring with them. Good riddance to these awful people, one might cheerfully conclude. But even for our most free-thinking and dependable think-tank, Civitas, this was a bridge too far; its spokesman, Robert Whelan, ventured that perhaps the parlous state of the health service was to blame for the exodus. You know, I suspect the majority of those who left have had next to no contact with the NHS: they are, in the main, pre-middle-aged and healthy. No, it seems patently clear to me that an important reason – perhaps one of several reasons but significant nonetheless – that so many Brits are getting the hell out is that they think there are too many non-European foreigners here, and underneath it rankles that these foreigners may abuse our hospitality and be treated rather better by the authorities than are the indigenous working-class whites.

The reluctance to voice this stuff is perhaps well-founded, however, when you consider the sad case of Ms Ellenor Bland. She is a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate and also a local councillor in her home town of Calne in Wiltshire. Or at least she was. She has just been suspended by her party for having apparently forwarded an email to friends which carried a ‘racist’ poem. I have had the very same poem forwarded to me before now, but I’ve never passed it on because I thought it insufficiently offensive and, in any case, dismally unfunny. However, it sums up almost precisely the state of mind of those who have left the country because they feel estranged by our immigration policy. Written in the supposed first person (and pidgin English) of a Pakistani immigrant, it lists the welfare benefits he will jubilantly claim, mocks our official indulgence and complicity and ends by suggesting that if British people don’t like it, they can clear off – to Pakistan, where there is ‘plenty of room’. It is satire of the most lumpen and stupid kind and – forgive this digression on aesthetics – doesn’t scan or rhyme properly, either. If Ms Bland found it funny (as her attached note to the email seems to suggest), then I suppose whoever takes over the A-list from Bernard Jenkin might strike her off for having a stunted sense of humour, or at least refuse to sit next to her at dinner. But this is not enough for the loathsome Edward Davey, ‘campaigns’ boss of the Liberal Democrats; he wants her stripped of her council post, kicked out of the Conservative party, strung up and publicly vilified. He points out that the poem has appeared on ‘white supremacist’ websites; well, I will do everything I can to ensure that Ed Davey’s fatuous perorations appear on ‘white supremacist’ websites in the near future, and then Ming can kick him out of the party, too. The truth is that the poem has appeared in just about every website chatroom you care to mention; despite its self-evident lack of wit or skill, it has somehow struck a chord.

Needless to say, Ms Bland has been forced into that humiliating spasm of recanting and lying which invariably occurs when a politician has said or done something with which the majority of the population quite possibly agrees but which is considered uncivilised and de trop by the likes of Ed Davey. Listen, it wasn’t me who forwarded it, she said. I hardly read it, she said. My husband uses my email account too, she said. And – yes, she really did say this – some of my best friends are Asian. People – immigrants – who ‘bring something’ to this country are, she averred, as her party card was being torn up in Central Office, ‘fantastic’. Oh dear.

However, as I say, the poem does encapsulate a certain mood and perhaps conviction which is present within – I reckon – a good half of the indigenous population. And yet its mere presence in Ms Bland’s outbox was enough to bring down the wrath of officialdom and effectively end her political career. And so, as a result, we may better understand why nobody was prepared, publicly, to link those two statistics I quoted at the start.

It almost goes without saying that Ms Bland should be left alone; it might even help her cause if she were to articulate precisely why she found that silly poem had such resonance. Clearly, for her – and millions of others – it did have resonance. The majority of her constituents would, I suspect, agree with her.

But we continue to persecute people when they articulate a popular, if awkward, view. It may well be that Ms Bland’s poem does not accurately represent the mindset of those immigrants arriving in this country from, say, Lahore or Mogadishu. Nor even the reality of what occurs when a Pakistani arrives at Croydon and tries to claim social security. But the public perception of the mindset and of what happens when the immigrant claims his welfare benefits persist. And it helps nobody – least of all the immigrant – to pretend that such views are held only by a tiny, extreme minority, and to punish people when they give voice to them.

BBC reopens Kelly case with new film

Daily telegraph

Hatred might be ugly, but no one has the right to ban it By Janet Daley

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 13/11/2006

Comment on this story Read comments

Gordon Brown says the Government must do everything it can to “root out” the preaching of religious and racial hatred: not just religious and racial discrimination, or even persecution, but hatred. To this end, he threatens to “look again” at the law, even though a measure that would have made incitement to such hatred an offence was defeated in the Commons this year – a point not lost on his colleague John Reid, who is sensibly holding back from a trigger-happy reaction.

Given that I am Jewish, and thus a member of the ethnic group that has probably suffered more from religious hatred than any other [lol], I can appreciate the Brown urgency. But no politician in a democracy has any business trying to ban (or even “root out”) hatred. In a free society, you may hate anything or anyone you want to – provided you do not act on it. Hatred is something that exists in your head, and – thus far at least – we do not prosecute people for thought crimes in Britain.

Having been caught out in an inept, ill-judged prosecution (provoked by an equally inept, overplayed BBC sting operation), which ended by providing the BNP with the public-relations coup of its dreams, the Government is desperate to save face. And to save votes: Labour has been losing a small but steady stream of council seats to the BNP in working-class areas, so there is more than moral sanctity involved in the desire to shut down this pestilential threat.

The question of the moment is not whether we have a right to feel certain unpleasant emotions, but whether we have the right to express them. Since the principle of freedom of expression is basic to our constitution, the only way that any form of speech may be criminalised is by its capacity to produce actual actions or events. (As the old axiom goes, freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.) So hatred cannot be a crime in itself, but incitement to hatred may be, because it could cause people to do things that are criminal. By helping to foment antagonism in others, you are stepping outside the privacy of your own thoughts, as it were, and moving into the realm of action, of influencing public events. But when does the expression of what could be principled disapproval – the kind of heated debate that religious doctrine and belief quite properly generate – become “incitement to hatred”?

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, was secretly filmed saying that Islam was “a wicked, vicious faith”. That is a stupid and bigoted generalisation. But what if he had condemned certain Islamic practices specifically? Suppose he had said: “The stoning of women for adultery is wicked and vicious.” A great many of us might be prepared to say that. Would it constitute incitement to religious hatred? Or suppose I stood up at a meeting of animal-rights activists and declared that halal butchery was unforgivably cruel? Would that be incitement? What if I condemned the Islamic principle that the punishment for apostasy is death? For that matter, suppose I attacked Roman Catholicism in strong terms for forbidding abortion – a subject on which many of us feel passionately.

Religion is profoundly different from race in this respect: belonging to a racial group does not involve subscribing to a set of doctrines that might be contentious, or even disruptive to the moral views of society at large. Disputes about the ethical consequences of religious belief may well become angry and vituperative; should we legislate against what could be legitimate moral outrage?

As an amendment to the Government Bill that was passed in February acknowledged, there is an important distinction between words that appear to foment hatred towards people (members of a religion) and attacking the religion itself; between the believers and the belief. To say that Islam, as a faith, is wicked and vicious might be uninformed and gratuitous, but it is within the realm of debate about the nature of religion. Most disturbingly, it is a view that has resonance for a great many voters who are not being helped to overcome their prejudices by politicians of all parties (and the BBC) who pretend that they either do not exist in any significant numbers, or, to the extent that they do, are beneath contempt. The BNP in its earlier incarnation as the National Front was effectively put out of business by the Thatcher government in the 1980s because most voters felt that their anxieties and concerns about mass immigration were being addressed by major political leaders.

John Cruddas, the Labour MP for Dagenham (where the BNP won 11 council seats in May), has said, rather bravely, that “the BNP thrives in areas where people feel forgotten by the mainstream parties”. This complements rather neatly Mr Brown’s stated view that “any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country (and therefore we must root it out)”. The Chancellor’s idea of the political mainstream seems to be that it is an enforceable dogma, that any form of speech that offends “mainstream opinion” should be made illegal. In effect, he is confirming the notion that Mr Griffin is exploiting to such effect – the sense many voters have that unless their opinions conform to what the main political parties regard as acceptable, they will simply be discounted.

This is a profoundly irresponsible bit of cowardice on the part of Britain’s political class. If it is left to the Nick Griffins among us to acknowledge what is clearly quite widespread concern about Islam, we will never be able to have the serious, substantial debate that we need about the role of Muslim practice in Britain. How is a liberal democracy to deal with an illiberal orthodoxy in its midst? How can a faith whose own laws often contravene those of its host society make its peace with the secular state? These are questions that need urgently to be addressed. They cannot be fudged by banning “religious hatred”, or by insisting that anyone who alludes to them (or who resents the problems that they raise for our society) is a bigot fit only to be fodder for the neo-fascist fringe.

What Mr Brown is really suggesting is that government should take steps to change public perceptions – not just to inform or advise voters, but to bring about what Marxists used to call “altered consciousness”. We must learn to see that what we believed to be a problem was not really a problem at all.

—
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk


  • 4 Responses to “Britain Today…”

    1. alex Says:
      14 November, 2006 at 4:52 pm

      Here on Griffin and Collett decision:

      Note: Included below are all the mainstream daily press’ reports
      of the BNP members Griffin and Collett’s acquittals. None take up the
      issue of free speech being non negotiable in a democracy. Editorials are
      notably sparse on the ground. The reporting of the trial generally has
      been pathetically small,

      Whatever you think about the BNP this sort of political trial is
      profoundly dangerous to everyone If those with power can do it to the
      BNP today they can do it to anyone tomorrow. It needs those in the
      media to create a racket about such attempts to intimidate and silence
      dissent, yet not only are they silent but in many cases they actively
      welcome stricter censorship, vide their acquiescent response to calls
      for new laws.

      I checked the comments left on the various papers’ websites. These
      were voluminous and overwhelmingly against the prosecution. RH

      Story from BBC NEWS:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6137722.stm

      Chancellor Gordon Brown has said race hate laws should be tightened
      after BNP leader Nick Griffin was cleared of charges in court.

      A jury at Leeds Crown Court decided earlier speeches made by Mr Griffin
      and another party activist, Mark Collett, had not broken the law.

      But Mr Brown said he thought laws may have to be looked at again.

      Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris said “parliament must resist the
      temptation” for more restrictions” on expression.

      Earlier, the chancellor said: “I think any preaching of religious or
      racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country.

      ‘Racist party’

      “And I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out from
      whatever quarter it comes.

      “And if that means we have got to look at the laws again I think we will
      have to do so.”

      But Dr Harris, who is on the influential Joint Select Committee on Human
      Rights, disagreed.

      “Although I am disappointed that these members of a racist party were
      not successfully prosecuted for race hate given their attacks on Asians
      and asylum seekers, Parliament must resist the temptation for more
      restrictions on freedom of expression,” he said.

      He added that extending restrictions “can be counter-productive by
      either creating extremist martyrs or being impossible to enforce”.

      Dr Harris argued that there were “enough laws to deal with speech which
      actually incites to violence or other criminal offences, or which uses
      threatening language”, adding that “there must be room in a free society
      to allow even offensive criticism of religions and their followers”.

      We don’t want genuine critical arguments about Islam to be
      stopped, but we also don’t want genuine racists to get off
      Asghar Bukhari
      MPAC

      Meanwhile, John Cruddas – one of the candidates for the Labour Deputy
      Leadership – told the BBC that the BNP had to be challenged.

      He said the party “will present themselves as something they’re not – as
      a new modern party that disowns their own past”.

      Mr Cruddas added: “My own practical experiences day to day lead me to
      conclude that they are still the same bunch of race-obsessed thugs and
      we need to deal with them.”

      Mr Griffin, from Powys, Wales, had denied two charges of using words or
      behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred in a speech in Keighley.

      Mr Collett, of Leicestershire, was cleared of four similar charges.

      The pair were charged in April 2005 after the BBC showed a secretly
      filmed documentary The Secret Agent in 2004.

      ‘Vicious faith’

      During the trial, the jury heard extracts from a speech Mr Griffin made
      in the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley, on 19 January 2004, in which he
      described Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” and said Muslims were
      turning Britain into a “multi-racial hell hole”.

      At the same event, Mr Collett addressed the audience by saying: “Let’s
      show these ethnics the door in 2004.”

      After the not guilty verdicts, Mr Griffin said: “What has just happened
      shows Tony Blair and the government toadies at the BBC that they can
      take our taxes but they cannot take our hearts, they cannot take our
      tongues and they cannot take our freedom.”

      In a statement, the BBC said its job was to bring matters of public
      interest to general attention.

      The verdict prompted a number of other observers to share their
      thoughts.

      ‘Logic and reason’

      Human rights lawyer Geoffrey Bindman said: “The difficulty, I suppose,
      is drawing a distinction between words which are threatening abusive and
      insulting, and then proving they are words which are likely to stir up
      racial hatred.”

      He added: “There’s a basic human right to say what one wants to say.
      Freedom of expression is itself protected.

      “The law can’t be altered without putting more limits on freedom of
      speech. I don’t think the government can very easily strengthen the law
      in this field.”

      Meanwhile, Asghar Bukhari, of the Muslim Public Accounts Committee
      (MPAC), said the law needs to be “more clearly defined using logic and
      reason to actually say what is incitement and what is an opinion”.

      He added: “We don’t want genuine critical arguments about Islam to be
      stopped, but we also don’t want genuine racists to get off.”

      Brown suggests race law overhaul Press Association
      Saturday November 11, 2006 9:18 AM Chancellor Gordon Brown said race
      laws may have to be changed after British National Party leader Nick
      Griffin was cleared by a jury of stirring up racial hatred.
      Mr Brown said most people would find some of Mr Griffin’s words
      offensive and pledged a legislative rethink if necessary to stamp out
      racial hatred.
      However a Home Office spokesman said Home Secretary John Reid would
      only “think carefully” about the need for changes to the legislation.
      Mr Brown said: “Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will
      offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we have got to do
      whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes,” he told
      the BBC.
      “If that means that we have to look at the laws again, I think we will
      have to do so. Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by
      some of the statements that they have heard made.”
      But a spokesman on behalf of Mr Reid said the Home Secretary believed
      defeating the “poisonous politics of race” could be done only by
      argument, politics and community engagement.
      The spokesman said: “Parliament has only recently discussed and
      decided on new laws in this area. But obviously we want to make sure
      that legislation is effective and even-handed.
      “The Home Secretary will therefore think carefully and take time to
      study and reflect on this judgment and its implications, including
      taking soundings from his ministerial colleagues.
      “However, he believes that the poisonous politics of race can only
      ultimately be defeated by rational argument, political opposition and
      the engagement of the whole community in opposition to such extremism
      wherever it arises.”
      New laws on racial and religious hatred were passed by Parliament
      earlier this year but were watered down following a backbench Labour
      rebellion.
      © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.

      ——————————-
      BNP leader cleared of race hate charges

      Staff and agencies
      Friday November 10, 2006
      Guardian Unlimited

      Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, was
      today found not guilty of race hate charges relating to a speech he made
      two years ago. Jurors at Leeds crown court cleared Mr Griffin of using
      words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred. He was charged
      after making a speech to BNP supporters at a pub in Keighley, West
      Yorkshire, in January 2004. In it, he described Islam as a “wicked,
      vicious faith” and said Muslims were turning Britain into a “multiracial
      hellhole”. The BNP’s head of publicity, Mark Collett, was cleared of
      similar charges. He had referred to asylum seekers as “cockroaches”,
      telling the Keighley gathering: “Let’s show these ethnics the door in
      2004”. Mr Griffin smiled and nodded as the verdict was announced. In
      the public gallery, his wife burst into tears. As he left the
      courtroom, dozens of his supporters outside waved union jack and St
      George flags, chanting “freedom” and “free speech”. Dozens more
      gathered to
      demonstrate against the far-right party, waving banners reading: “Stop
      fascist BNP”. In an interview with Sky News, Mr Griffin called them
      “silly, leftwing students”. The BNP leader told his supporters the
      verdict showed the “huge gulf between ordinary, real people and the
      multicultural fantasy world of our masters”. He praised the “ordinary,
      decent, common sense” jury for their verdict. Mr Collett said it was
      “BNP two, BBC nil”. He added: “The BBC … are a politically correct,
      politically-biased organisation who has wasted licence-payers’ money in
      a legal action against [us] for speaking nothing more than the truth.”
      Anti-racist campaigners called the verdict a “travesty of justice”, and
      said it revealed the level of Islamophobia in British society. The
      jury returned their verdict after five hours of deliberation, with the
      charges relating to speeches made at Keighley’s Reservoir Tavern in
      January 2004, which were filmed by an undercover BBC reporter. Mr
      Griffin was accused of using words or behaviour intended to stir up
      racial hatred, and faced two alternative counts of using words or
      behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred. He denied the charges. He
      told the jury his speech was not an attack on Asians in general, but on
      Muslims. Mr Collett said the speeches had only been intended to
      motivate BNP members to take part in “legal and democratic” campaigning.
      Detectives from West Yorkshire police launched an investigation into the
      two men after excerpts from their speeches were screened in the BBC
      documentary The Secret Policeman. Speaking after the verdict, a
      spokesman for the Islamic Human Rights Commission told Sky News: “I am
      very disappointed. I think this judgement is going to have very grave
      consequences indeed. “It gives a very wrong message to the whole of
      society, both to the victims of his words and to those who are
      supporters of his racist and Islamophobic views and the promotion of
      them.” Sabby
      Dhalu, of Unite Against Fascism, described the verdict as “a travesty
      of justice”. “We believe that the BNP does incite racial hatred,” she
      said. “In areas where the BNP targets around the country, racist attacks
      increase. For example, in Barking and Dagenham, where the BNP has 12
      councillors, racist attacks have increased by 30% since 2004.” She
      said Unite Against Fascism would continue to campaign against the
      far-right party “and alert the decent majority of people in Britain of
      the dangers of the fascist and racist BNP”.

      The Independent 11 11 2006

      Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, indicated last night that laws
      against inciting racial hatred might have to be strengthened after the
      British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin was unanimously cleared
      of the offence.
      Despite undercover evidence from a BBC documentary which showed Mr
      Griffin abusing and mocking Islam and the Koran, an all-white jury in
      Leeds yesterday cleared him and Mark Collett, his party’s head of
      publicity, of stirring up racial hatred. The acquittal, which came nine
      months after the men were cleared of similar charges, gave Mr Griffin
      the chance to parade before the television cameras just as his party
      launches an attempt to win its first foothold in the London Assembly.
      Indicating the possible change in the race laws, Lord Falconer said
      last night: “I think we should look at them in the light of what’s
      happened here, because what is being said to young Muslim people in this
      country is that we as a country are anti-Islam, and we have got to
      demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not.”
      The Home Office said John Reid, the Home Secretary, would “think
      carefully” and consult other ministers about the need for changes to
      existing laws.
      Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, said mainstream opinion in this country
      would be “offended” by some of the statements that had been made during
      the course of the week-long trial. “Of course, the courts make their
      judgments on these things,” he told BBC News 24. “But if there is
      something that needs to be done to look at the law then I think we will
      have to do that. Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend
      … and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from
      whatever quarter it comes. If that means that we have to look at the
      laws again, I think we will have to do so.”
      Many of those committed to opposing the far right believe that the
      Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) decision to prosecute the BNP was a
      high-risk strategy which threatened to hand Mr Griffin the publicity his
      party needs.
      The threat of the BNP will be underlined at a conference in Birmingham
      today attended by Labour activists and unions from more than 70
      constituencies. They will be told that the BNP plans to build on its
      success in Barking and Dagenham, where it is the second-biggest party on
      the council, to win one or two seats on the assembly in the 2008
      elections, as well as securing a healthy number of votes in elections
      for London mayor.
      Outside Leeds Crown Court, Mr Griffin opened a bottle of champagne
      before a crowd of 200 supporters. He said: “What has just happened shows
      Tony Blair and the Government and the BBC that they can take our taxes
      but they cannot take our hearts, they cannot take our tongues and they
      cannot take our freedom.”

      He and Mr Collett had argued before the jury that theirs were
      truly-held beliefs which they had a right to express, with the intention
      of stirring up political activity rather than hatred.
      In a statement, the BBC said its role was to bring matters of public
      interest to general attention, not to decide on prosecutions. The CPS,
      which needed the Attorney General’s approval to prosecute, said that the
      case demonstrated that incitement to racial hatred would be treated
      seriously. The risk of handing Mr Griffin publicity did not form part of
      its considerations in pursuing charges.
      The two trials have provided an insight into a party which Mr Griffin
      has tried to portray as mainstream. The first heard how he had described
      the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence as “notorious for taxing the
      younger kids for their dinner money”.
      But the jury was not told that one of Mr Griffin’s early problems as
      leader was Mr Collett’s appearance in a television documentary,
      apparently talking about his sympathies with Hitler and the Nazis. The
      Channel 4 programme Young, Nazi And Proud was shown in 2002 after a
      reporter followed him around Leeds for eight months.
      What Griffin said
      * Nick Griffin’s second trial centred on this speech, which he made in
      Keighley in 2004.
      “If they get a non-Muslim girl and they get her pregnant, then her
      community doesn’t want her, and the child generally grows up a Muslim
      and that’s the way this wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a
      handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago….”
      “Now those 18, 19, 20, 25-year-old Asian Muslims who are seducing and
      raping white girls in this town right now, they’re not particularly good
      Muslims, they drink and all the rest of it, but still part of what they
      are doing comes from what they are taught is acceptable…”
      “And it will get worse and worse because, as I say, it’s partly the
      police force won’t interfere. They are all brown nosing their way to the
      top for being politically incorrect, the Labour Government won’t
      interfere, the Labour council won’t interfere, the Muslim imams won’t
      interfere and the white British just turn away….”
      “What’s happening in Keighley…is going to be happening in all the
      rest of Yorkshire in 10 years’ time and what happens in Yorkshire in 10
      years’ time is going to be happening in Northumberland and in 15 or 20
      years’ time and in Cornwall as the last whites basically try and find
      their way to the sea.”

      The Times

      –> Britain
      The Times November 11, 2006
      Race-hate laws to
      be changed after BNP case failsBy Andrew Norfolk and Greg Hurst
      NEW laws to clamp down on racism are being prepared by
      the Government after the leader of the far-right British National Party
      was cleared of stirring up racial hatred by attacking Islam.
      NI_MPU(‘middle’); Gordon Brown swiftly pledged to bring
      in tougher powers to raise the chance of convictions in similar cases,
      calling the BNP’s statements offensive.
      His intervention came after an all-white jury decided that Nick
      Griffin, the BNP chairman, broke no law when he condemned Islam as “a
      wicked, vicious faith” at a secretly filmed meeting.
      Plans for an offence of incitement to religious hatred were thrown out
      in a rare Commons defeat for the Government in February after a campaign
      led by the comedian Rowan Atkinson.
      A watered down version was passed requiring that prosecutors prove
      intent and protecting freedom of expression but has yet to become law.
      It is expected to take force from February next year.
      Although his speech focused on the alleged evils of Islam and was
      supportive of Sikhs, Mr Griffin, 47, could only be charged — alongside
      Mark Collett, 26, the BNP’s publicity director — with inciting
      racial hatred. It was their second trial, after a jury failed to reach a
      verdict at the first.
      Mr Brown told BBC News 24: “I think any preaching of religious or
      racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think
      we have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter
      it comes. And if that means we have got to look at the laws again, we
      will have to do so.”
      Treasury sources indicated that John Reid, the Home Secretary, was
      thinking on similar lines.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, the Lord Chancellor, last night
      supported Mr Brown’s calls forreform of religious hatred laws. “We
      should look at them in the light of what has happened because what is
      being said to young Muslim people of this country is that we as a
      country are anti-Islam and we have got to demonstrate without
      compromising freedom that we are not.”
      Sources close to the case claimed that it was politically-motivated
      and doomed to fail. The decision to prosecute was announced a day after
      Labour called last year’s general election.
      The Times understands that West Yorkshire Police had concerns the
      trial represented a no-lose opportunity for the BNP. It was feared that
      Mr Griffin and Mr Collett would be portrayed as martyrs for free speech
      if they were convicted, while an acquittal would be greeted by the party
      as a huge publicity coup.

      Daily Mail

      News

      BNP leader found not guilty on race chargesLast updated at 15:13pm
      on 10th November 2006 Reader comments (26)

      BNP leader Nick Griffin was today cleared of race hate charges.

      The 47-year-old Cambridge graduate was found not guilty at Leeds Crown
      Court of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred
      during a speech he made in Keighley, West Yorks, in 2004. Speaking to
      a crowd of cheering supporters through a megaphone, Mr Griffin said: “We
      have shown Tony Blair and the BBC that they can take our taxes, but they
      cannot take our hearts, they cannot take our cause and they cannot take
      our freedom.” Griffin, of Llanerfyl, Powys, Wales, denied one count of
      using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred and an
      alternative count of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial
      hatred. The BNP’s head of publicity Mark Collett, 26, of Swithland
      Lane, Rothley, Leicestershire, was also cleared of similar charges. He
      denied two charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up
      racial hatred and two alternative counts of using words or behaviour
      likely to stir up racial hatred. These charges also relate to
      speeches he made in Keighley. They were both cleared a day after the
      jury retired to consider its verdicts. He said outside the court: “I
      would just like to say this. BNP two, BBC nil.” He accused the BBC of
      abusing their position saying they were “politically biased.” “I was
      hauled over the coals for describing Asian criminals as Asian and their
      white victims as white. That’s not a crime, that’s the truth of the
      matter,” he added. Earlier, Griffin smiled and nodded as the foreman
      of the jury of seven women and five men read out the not guilty plea.
      In the public gallery, which was packed with his supporters, his wife
      Jackie burst into tears, as did some of his daughters. There were
      cheers from BNP supporters in the courtroom although these were muted by
      the judge who insisted he wanted silence. He advised Griffin to leave
      the courtroom with Collett and the party leader left, urging his
      supporters
      to be quiet as he walked out. The jury took about five hours to come to
      its verdicts. As he left the courtroom, Griffin was mobbed by more party
      supporters waiting in the lobby.

      Daily Mirror

      11 November 2006
      UK mulls hate law reform as far-right leader cleared
      LONDON (Reuters) – Racial and religious hatred laws may need reform
      after a court cleared a far-right leader for the second time this year
      over a speech in which he called Islam a “wicked, vicious faith”,
      ministers said.
      Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, was found not
      guilty on Friday of inciting racial hatred during secretly filmed
      speeches in 2004.
      Two senior ministers said the comments had upset most Britons and
      British Muslims needed reassurance that the laws would protect them.

      “Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream
      opinion in this country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to
      root it out,” Chancellor Gordon Brown told the BBC.

      “If that means that we have to look at the laws again, I think we will
      have to do so.”

      Constitutional Affairs Secretary Charles Falconer said the country had
      to show it would not tolerate attacks on Islam.

      “If you say Islam is wicked and evil and there is no consequence from
      that whatsoever, what is being said to young Muslim people in this
      country is that we … are anti-Islam,” he told the BBC.

      Of the country’s 60 million people, some 1.6 million are Muslims.

      A taskforce set up after the July 2005 suicide bomb attacks in London
      concluded that extremists have found recruits among young Muslims
      “fuelled by anger, alienation and disaffection from mainstream British
      society.”

      Divisions have been exposed by a charged debate over whether Muslim
      women should wear a veil. Prime Minister Tony Blair called it a “mark of
      separation”.

      Some of the country’s Muslims accuse the police of unfairly targeting
      their community in their crackdown on terrorism.

      Griffin, 47, and BNP worker Mark Collett, 26, were cleared on Friday
      of using words or behaviour intended to incite racial hatred by a jury
      at Leeds Crown Court in northern England.

      They were cleared of similar charges at a trial in February.

      Griffin was charged after the BBC secretly filmed a speech he gave in
      2004 during which he told supporters Islam was a “wicked, vicious faith”
      that was turning the country into “a multi-racial hell-hole”.

      Griffin maintained throughout the trial that his comments were not
      racial and were designed to stir his audience to political activity.

      The BNP commands nothing like the influence of similar far-right
      parties across Europe but holds several seats on local councils.

      function newPrintableWindow(objectid,path) { popUpWindow =
      window.open(path+’?objectid=’+objectid+’&siteid=94762′, ‘Article’,
      ‘width=450,height=500,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no
      ,menubar=yes’); popUpWindow.focus(); } Print article Email to
      a friend

      The SUN

      Cleared … BNP’s Griffin yesterday
      Brown: I’ll root out race hate
      By MICHAEL LEA
      Political Correspondent
      November 11, 2006

      COMMENT ON THIS STORY

      GORDON Brown last night vowed to review race laws — after two BNP
      activists were cleared of stirring hatred.
      Ranting party leader Nick Griffin and media chief Mark Collett walked
      free for a second time following a retrial.
      Mr Brown pledged to “root out” race and faith hatred “from
      whatever quarter it comes” following the verdicts.
      The Chancellor said: “If that means that we have to look at the laws
      again — we will have to do so.”
      Referring to the evidence, he went on: “Mainstream opinion in this
      country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard
      made.

      Pledge … Gordon Brown
      “The courts make their judgments on these things.
      “But if there is something that needs to be done to look at the law
      then I think we will have to do that.”
      Cambridge graduate Griffin, 47, and Collett, 26, were charged after
      the BBC secretly filmed them ranting about “ethnics”.
      The BNP leader called Islam a “wicked, vicious faith” and said
      Muslims were turning Britain into a “hell hole”.
      At the same event at a pub in Keighley, West Yorks, Collett whipped up
      the audience with the cry: “Let’s show these ethnics the door in 2004.”
      The pair had been cleared in February of similar charges relating to
      the same outbursts screened on BBC documentary The Secret Agent.
      The all-white jury of seven men and five women yesterday took five
      hours to acquit them.
      Griffin of Llanerfyl, Powys, Wales, was found not
      guilty of two charges of inciting hatred and Collett, of Rothley, Leics,
      was cleared of four.
      The pair were cheered by 200 supporters as they emerged from Leeds
      Crown Court.
      But they were jeered and abused by anti-racist campaigners. Unite
      Against Fascism said the verdict was “a travesty of justice”.
      Sabby Dhalu, the organisation’s joint secretary, said: “We think
      that the BNP does indeed incite racial hatred.
      “In areas where the BNP target, racist attacks have been proven to
      increase.”
      CPS lawyer Helen Allen said: “This prosecution sends out a very
      strong signal that where we believe someone has tried to incite racial
      hatred we will treat it with the utmost seriousness and will not
      hesitate to prosecute robustly.”

      Daily Express
      Brown suggests race law
      overhaul 11/11/06

      Chancellor Gordon Brown said race laws may have to be changed after
      British National Party leader Nick Griffin was cleared by a jury of
      stirring up racial hatred. Mr Brown said most people would find some
      of Mr Griffin’s words offensive and pledged a legislative rethink if
      necessary to stamp out racial hatred. However a Home Office spokesman
      said Home Secretary John Reid would only “think carefully” about the
      need for changes to the legislation. Mr Brown said: “Any preaching of
      religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this
      country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out,
      from whatever quarter it comes,” he told the BBC. “If that means that
      we have to look at the laws again, I think we will have to do so.
      Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the
      statements that they have heard made.” But a spokesman on behalf of
      Mr Reid said the Home Secretary believed defeating the “poisonous
      politics of race” could be done only by argument, politics and community
      engagement. The spokesman said: “Parliament has only recently
      discussed and decided on new laws in this area. But obviously we want to
      make sure that legislation is effective and even-handed. “The Home
      Secretary will therefore think carefully and take time to study and
      reflect on this judgment and its implications, including taking
      soundings from his ministerial colleagues. “However, he believes that
      the poisonous politics of race can only ultimately be defeated by
      rational argument, political opposition and the engagement of the whole
      community in opposition to such extremism wherever it arises.” New
      laws on racial and religious hatred were passed by Parliament earlier
      this year but were watered down following a backbench Labour rebellion.

      Daily Express

      Labour MP warns of move
      towards BNP 11/11/06

      More and more disgruntled Labour voters are switching support to the
      far-right British National Party, deputy leadership hopeful Jon Cruddas
      is set to warn. Mr Cruddas, a former Downing Street aide, will suggest
      people in Labour heartlands have lost hope and turned to the BNP in
      protest at mainstream politics. And the debate over the wearing of
      veils, the language of the “war on terror” and “tough” talk on
      immigration had made things worse and “played into the hands of
      extremism” Mr Cruddas is the MP for Dagenham in east London, where the
      BNP won 11 council seats in May’s local elections, making it the main
      opposition group. Employment Minister Margaret Hodge, MP for
      neighbouring Barking, was accused of helping the far-right victory by
      publicly claiming eight in ten white families were “tempted” to vote
      BNP. However, at a conference organised by anti-fascist organisation
      Searchlight Mr Cruddas will on Saturday say that the party is
      “beginning to establish itself as a rival to Labour in many of our
      traditional heartlands”. He has dubbed the acquittal of BNP leader Nick
      Griffin on race-hate charges a “wake-up call” for mainstream politicians
      and backed calls for fresh laws. “We don’t need a jury to tell us
      whether the BNP are a bunch of racist thugs – experience in my own area
      shows their real background of hate and division,” he said after
      Friday’s verdict. “We need better laws in place, but we also need to
      rebuild local parties so that we can confront the BNP wherever they push
      their ugly politics. “The BNP thrive in areas where people feel
      forgotten by the mainstream parties. We have to mobilise ordinary decent
      people against the BNP, on the streets, in workplaces and in local
      communities.”

      Martin Wainwright
      Saturday November 11, 2006
      The Guardian

      Nick Griffin and Mark Collett celebrate with supporters. Photograph:
      John Giles/PA
      Race hatred laws may have to be revised following the acquittal of
      the British National party’s leader, Nick Griffin, for the second time
      on incitement charges, senior government figures said last night.
      Gordon Brown, the chancellor, and Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor,
      said the laws may have to be looked at, while a spokesman for John Reid,
      the home secretary, said he would be “taking soundings” from cabinet
      colleagues about changing the laws. “Mainstream opinion in this
      country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard
      made,” said Mr Brown. “If there is something that needs to be done to
      look at the law then I think we will have to do that,” he told BBC News
      24. Lord Falconer told the BBC that it was time to rethink the race hate
      laws. “What is being said to young Muslim people in this country is that
      we as a country are anti-Islam, and we have got to demonstrate without
      compromising freedom that we are not,” he said. The government was
      twice defeated in parliament over its attempts to introduce laws on
      incitement to religious and racial hatred before getting an amended
      version of the act on the statute books. Mr Griffin walked free from
      court yesterday to cheers and abuse as the wider storm broke over his
      acquittal. There were sobs of relief in the public gallery from the
      Cambridge University graduate’s wife, Jackie, and their three daughters,
      while his co-accused, Mark Collett, the BNP’s publicity chief, trembled
      as he denounced a “waste of a million pounds of … people’s money”.
      Both men were greeted by about 150 flag-waving supporters outside Leeds
      crown court but Mr Griffin’s speech was drowned by 50 protesters from
      the Anti-Nazi League and Leeds University, where Mr Collett studied.
      Outside the court, BNP security men surrounded Mr Griffin as he claimed
      the verdicts showed the “huge gulf between ordinary real people and the
      fantasy world, the multicultural fantasy world our masters live in”.
      An all-white jury of seven women and five men took three hours to clear
      Mr Griffin, 46, and Mr Collett, 26, of words and behaviour which were
      either intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. As in the previous
      trial in February, which ended with acquittals on five charges but
      deadlock on three, the case stemmed from speeches at private BNP
      meetings in West Yorkshire which were secretly filmed by the BBC.
      Although Mr Griffin was shown denouncing Islam as “a wicked, vicious
      faith” and Mr Collett repeatedly called asylum seekers “cockroaches”,
      their defence asserted they were not speaking in public but to
      like-minded partisans. The jury also returned to court halfway through
      their discussions for a second viewing of the speeches, which contained
      long passages of relatively uncontentious material. “The bits which
      have hit the headlines are in there, but there’s so much other stuff
      which gives a different context,” a BNP supporter said at the trial.
      “The jury’s seeing
      all that which people outside haven’t.” His optimism proved correct.
      Mr Griffin, from Llanerfyl, mid-Wales, was admonished by the trial
      judge, Norman Jones QC, for passages in a blog which “abused” the
      court’s decision to let him use a computer in the dock. Mr Griffin and
      Mr Collett, of Rothley, Leicestershire, said after the verdicts they
      would have welcomed going to jail “for speaking the truth”. After the
      first trial, Mr Griffin said the publicity had seen BNP membership and
      donations rise. The Crown Prosecution Service defended its decision to
      seek a retrial as “realistic and in the public interest”. After the
      verdict the BBC said it had a duty to investigate matters of public
      interest and the programme had caused “widespread concern”. Weyman
      Bennett, general secretary of Unite against Fascism and Racism, said:
      “It’s a tragedy that a fascist and racist organisation can hide behind
      free speech … But how do you prove intent without getting inside
      Griffin’s
      head?”

      BNP leader cleared of race hate charges

      http://cdn.digitalcity.com/aoluk_articles/02/04/20061110103109990001.4554
      9f02-00308-01f4f-400cb8e1

      BNP leaders: Mark Collett and Nick Griffin have been cleared of stirring
      up racial hatred

      – Search: Nick Griffin and Mark Collett

      BNP leader Nick Griffin has been cleared of race hate charges.

      The 47-year-old Cambridge graduate was found not guilty at Leeds Crown
      Court of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred
      during a speech he made in Keighley, West Yorkshire, in 2004 which was
      filmed by an undercover BBC reporter.

      Griffin, of Llanerfyl, Powys, Wales, denied one count of using words or
      behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred and an alternative count of
      using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.

      The BNP’s head of publicity Mark Collett, 26, of Rothley,
      Leicestershire, was also cleared of similar charges.

      He denied two charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up
      racial hatred and two alternative counts of using words or behaviour
      likely to stir up racial hatred. These charges also relate to speeches
      he made in Keighley.

      HAVE YOUR SAY

      •Chat about the latest stories
      •Join the debate on the message board

      They were both cleared a day after the jury retired to consider its
      verdicts.

      Griffin smiled and nodded as the foreman of the jury of seven women and
      five men read out the not guilty verdict.

      In the public gallery, which was packed with his supporters, his wife
      Jackie burst into tears, as did some of his daughters, while there were
      cheers from BNP supporters.

      The jury took about five hours to come to its verdicts.

      Griffin and Collett emerged from court holding their hands above their
      heads to the cheers of around 200 supporters who were gathered behind
      crash barriers and surrounded by dozens of police.

      As a small but loud group of anti-racist protesters shouted at him from
      20 yards away, the BNP leader thanked his supporters and criticised both
      the Government and the BBC for their roles in his prosecution.

      Mr Collett said: “The BBC have abused their position. They are a
      politically correct, politically biased organisation which has wasted
      taxpayers’ money to bring two people in a legal democratic peaceful
      political party to court over speaking nothing more than the truth.”

      Mr Griffin said the decision by “12 ordinary, decent commonsense men and
      women” to find the pair not guilty on all charges showed the “huge gulf
      between us, the ordinary people and our masters”, the Crown Prosecution
      Service, the BBC and the Attorney General.

      “They believed they could get a jury to convict over what we say in
      private meetings but the jury said no.”

      He accused the authorities of wasting almost a million pounds in an
      attempt to convict them for “telling the truth”.

      The Times November 08, 2006

      BNP leader attacks Koran in court’
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2442609,00.html

      By Andrew Norfolk
      Nick Griffin quotes passages to support his claim that Muslims are
      exhorted to conquer the world
      The leader of the British National Party sought yesterday to justify his
      view that Islam is a “wicked, vicious faith”.

      Nick Griffin, the BNP chairman, was giving evidence in a trial at which
      he is accused of attempting to stir up racial hatred in a speech that he
      made to party supporters.

      His speech, which was filmed by an undercover journalist, included the
      claim that Asians were raping white girls as part of a Muslim plot to
      conquer Britain. Mr Griffin, 47, told a jury at Leeds Crown Court that
      his condemnation had been directed not at Asians in general, but at
      Islam and the criminal activities of its followers.

      The court has been told that, although the law prohibits the incitement
      of racial hatred, the incitement of religious hatred is not a criminal
      offence.

      Questioned by Timothy King, QC, for the defence, Mr Griffin said that he
      had been trying to explain to his audience the distinction between
      different groups of Asians.

      The grooming, drugging and raping of more than 60 white schoolgirls by
      young Asian men in Keighley, West Yorkshire, the venue for his 2004
      speech, had not been the work of Sikhs or Hindus, he said. “I was trying
      to explain that the common denominator [of the rapists] is not their
      Asian ethnicity, it’s the fact that they are Muslims,” he said.

      Mr Griffin said that he had formed his views on Islam after studying the
      religion for several years. He said that, until the late 1990s, “the
      party, myself to a certain extent, could be described as racist”, but
      this was no longer the case. From 1999 onwards he had read books and
      articles about Islam, finally buying a copy of the Koran.

      Mr Griffin told the jury that the Koran “gives a very low status to
      women and an extremely low status to unbelievers”, which coloured Muslim
      attitudes towards white women.

      He said it was also “the theme of Muhammad’s teachings . . . that Islam
      is destined to, and must, conquer the entire world and that all good
      Muslims have a duty to help that to happen”.

      “This is not a racial thing, it’s not an Asian thing, it’s a cultural
      and religious thing,” he said. The message of his speech had been that
      “if people don’t get involved politically, then the problem is going to
      get worse”.

      Mr Griffin said that he had read newspaper articles which reported that
      “on present trends, the native white community will become a minority in
      this country some time between 2060 and 2100”.

      Until recently, the Establishment mantra had been that the enrichment
      brought to communities by multiculturalism was a “heaven on earth”. The
      truth, he said, was that Britain had become “a multiracial hell-hole”.

      Mr Griffin, who said that he had a Cambridge degree in history and law,
      was asked by Mr King to point out verses from the Koran that supported
      his stance on Islam and its aims.

      The BNP leader selected passages that, he said, were used by Islamists
      to justify terrorist attacks – “Make ready whatever you can to terrify
      the enemies of Allah” – and the barbaric treatment of nonbelievers. “The
      casual contempt, ranging to hatred, that’s displayed to non-Muslims by
      Muslims in this country is rooted in the loathing and contempt for
      unbelievers that is in their good book,” he said.

      The Koran, Mr Griffin said, also gave Muslims a reason to reject
      democracy, by telling them not to obey unbelievers, and to treat women
      as possessions: “Your women are tillage for you, so get to your tillage
      whenever you like.” The most important difference between Islam and
      Christianity, he said, was that it was possible to distinguish between
      fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Christians.

      The term Islamic fundamentalist was inappropriate because “Muslims have
      never moved away from a literal interpretation of the Koran”. He added:
      “The prosecution are trying to say that, when I criticise Islam, it’s
      just a cover for criticising Asians. Well, it’s not.”

      The case, a retrial, continues.

    2. Celtic Warrior Says:
      15 November, 2006 at 6:15 pm

      The good news is that the British people are awakening , but the bad news is that they are still too scared to voice their opinions and as yet have no prominent figure to FEARLESSLY proclaim the truth.

    3. bryan o'driscoll Says:
      16 November, 2006 at 1:40 pm

      All those concerned about the continuing erosion of white peoples’ freedoms all over the formerly white world should read Orwell’s ‘1984’ if you have not yet read it and read it again if you have. That is the type of future ahead for us if we don’t resist. In fact it will be worse. Not only will we be totally controlled we will also be living in a multiracial hell. Orwell did not foresee how the kikes would use the subhumans to destroy us and everything we value. The malignant hatred and malice of the kikes towards our race is limitless and they do intend to destroy us. Trying to save ourselves by using legal means will no longer work. Hitler would have no chance today, even if most Germans supported him. The legal system itself is a lethal threat to our survival. The next time Griffin or any other white person who claims to represent white survival is arraigned, the law will be in place and the politically correct verdict will be reached. It is difficult for ordinary, inoffensive white people to imagine that there is a malevolent force out there which hates them and all they cherish and which intends to destroy them, but they are going to have to accept the evidence of their eyes and react appropriately. If you think that you can escape to some isolated community you are dreaming. Hymie will root you out from wherever you hide. White people had better start thinking ‘white’ because no one else will. Clear your mind of illusions. We are at war and we are behind enemy lines.

    4. Celtic Warrior Says:
      16 November, 2006 at 5:23 pm

      Re Bryan O’Driscoll

      Yes, we are completely out flanked. I see no course of action other than leaderless resistance as in Hungary 1956 where 2 or 3 activists would come together for a firefight lasting a few minutes and then disappear into the crowd never to meet again. Of course with city centers scanned by CCTV cameras such tactics are not possible today! They mean to destroy us and our civilisation whatever course of action we take, so let’s focus on tactics that are favorable to us.

      But the kike’s program of gradualism and invasion by immigration has so far been so successful that only an economic collapse or political chaos will gain WN a window of opportunity.