91Èȱ¬

Griffin said that he thought the 91Èȱ¬ to be 'part of a thoroughly unpleasant ultra-leftist establishment'

So there's Griffin and a blogger here in on the conspiracy.

We watched the programme question time last night,I was dismayed at the way the programme went Mr Griffen was very ill at ease and the performance of mainly Mr Straw was almost like the idiot union officials we seem to see on our screens daily.Perhaps your audiance might have been more representative had it been further afield,it smacked of being hand picked!I have never been bothered by race issues but the way it rammed down our throats I am falling into that group,I am ex RAF in my younger days,design engineer(retired)can trace my familly tree to 1700 and was proud to be ENGLISH,the way the country has been dragged I would now prefer to be europeon not British,we need to control who is allowed into this once GREAT BRITAIN

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I listened to George Galloway speaking on radio yesterday about Griffin's impending appearance on QT.

He defended his right to be there - his party received over a million votes after all - but argued that the 91Èȱ¬ had lined up a panel of political light-weights to join Griffin on the panel. He claimed that the programme needed a political 'slugger' to take on this obnoxious character.

Roll on Jack Straw who began to wax eloquent about Griffin's previous comments about the holocaust, calling his party 'Nazi.'

Griffin immediately responded that during the second world war, his father fought the Nazis in the British Army while Jack Straw's father languished in a prison cell as a conscientious objector!!

You could have knocked me down with a white feather.

The point has been made that the reason this extremist gets votes is because the mainstream parties have let us down so badly. Last night, they couldnt even do a demolition job on this guy, that was left to the audience who were far better at exposing him.

Its amazing that there has been so much interest in this story when this week's edition of Panorama was utterly shocking, yet passed without a whimper. I suggest that posters on this thread watch it before they make comment on Griffin and the 91Èȱ¬'s decision to give him air time.

/iplayer/episode/b00nfr2h/Panorama_Undercover_Hate_on_the_Doorstep/

Firstly, we have allowed a lot worse people to air their views on television and who have become ministers than Nick Griffin. To my knoweledge he has neither murdered, stolen nor put this country in jeopardy.

Whilst he was uncomfortable with the barrage of abuse shouted from all corners of the auditorium do we not think that seeing as he was invited to speak on the week's events that maybe he should have been allowed to do so?

I am not supporting the BNP or many of their policies!

I, personally feel, that it would have been a far more insightful program if the audience did not behave like a bunch of chavs at a Jeremy Kyle show.

Are we all so knowledgable about Mr Griffin and his views that we don't have to listen, learn and make an informed decision for ourselves. Could be that we are guilty of condeming someone before we even know them? Has it ocurred to anyone that the very thing Mr Griffin is being accused of is the one thing that a lot of last night's guests and protestors are guilty of?

I thought the panel on Question Time behaved like playground bullies last night, sneering and thumb jerking at Nick Clegg. David Dimbleby was no better. All of them keep reiterating about freedom of speech, but all of them denied the BNP leader this courtesy, by shouting him down at every turn. He probably received more sympathy from the public last night than ever. What performance? He scarcely had a chance to speak for sneering Bonnie by his side.

Re my last comment. I meant Nick Griffin.

A 91Èȱ¬ lynch mob led by David Dimbleby.

Oh come on! We were obviously watching different shows. Although personally I think the audience was a bit too bawdy for serious debate, and that Bonnie Greer was perhaps a little too patronising, Nick Griffin was given every opportunity to speak. Luckily, most of his views were firmly and rationally trounced for the rubbish they are. There were a few areas where I think more forceful arguments could have been made against him. But he was certainly given every opportunity to speak and explain himself - Pretty much the whole show was about him.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It was fair for QT to mainly concentrate on Griffin and his views; he wants platforms to put them forward, so it is reasonable that people should be allowed to press him on his views.

Griffin’s claim that Churchill [if alive today] would join the BNP is ludicrous; there was the equivalent of the BNP back in the 1930s, Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists; Churchill never expressed the slightest interest in them.

Griffin quoting (very selectively) Churchill is clutching at straws. Churchill’s views were those of his generation formed in the first half of the last century; if Churchill were alive today he quite happily fit into the Conservative party and his views would be shaped by today’s society; a fascist and racist he was not.

Griffin’s views on the Holocaust are naive and risible; my father did fight in WW11 and had friends that helped liberate the Belsen concentration camp. Trying to pretend that the Nazis never had a deliberate policy of exterminating Jews is simply fantasy.


Griffin’s knowledge of history is pretty shaky: ‘Indigenous people that have been here for 17,000 years’. Britain was only re-occupied after the ice age ended 12,000 yrs ago [first known settlers were at Pakefield in Suffolk] and successive waves of Romans [Legions came from all over Europe] Saxons, Danes and Normans all both drove original Britons (aka Celts) out to the fringes and contributed massively to the gene pool. At the start of the 6th century (c 500 AD), a Gaelic tribe from the north of Ireland called the Scoti migrated and settled in what is now roughly modern day Argyll and drove the Picts from the area; most Scots are descended from these Scoti, or from Vikings. Migrants (Lombards, Flemish and Walloons, Huguenots; by the end of the 18th century there were around 10,000 Africans living in Britain.) have continued to add to the British gene pool since Norman times.

I thought Huhne and Warsi both calm impressive speakers; both could attract my vote at the next election. But Griffin came across as the freak-show side of politics.

Let me stick my neck out and confidently make a prediction...

Last night's Question Time will increase support for the BNP (and I say this as someone who does NOT support the BNP, and yet who does support the 91Èȱ¬'s decision to let Nick Griffin have his say - in the name of "freedom of speech").

The media are desperately trying to spin this as a defeat for Nick Griffin and his party, but I am not so sure...

As a matter of fact, for those who bothered to listen, Griffin raised some interesting points:

1. How do we define the term "indigenous"? Are the Maori in NZ the indigenous people of that country? What about native Americans in the USA? Didn't they all (supposedly) come from Africa as well? And yet would anyone accuse Maoris or native Americans of racism if they organised themselves to campaign for their "rights" (as they saw them) to be upheld in their multi-racial societies? This is a perfectly valid topic for debate and discussion. Why shy away from it?

2. The question of the influence of Islam. He made the point that he had not been party to the killing of thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, but their blood was on the heads of the government. Isn't that a valid point? And in fact he praised Islam for its opposition to usury, and linked that to the serious problem of the banking crisis.

3. Holocaust denial. Of course I find holocaust denial disturbing, but this raises the question of how we view historical evidence. How much freedom will our society allow to historians to consider the evidence of historical events? And if someone is questioning the orthodox view of a particular historical event, why should he not be allowed to present his evidence for consideration? I find it disturbing that anyone who dares to question some of the events of WW2 is immediately labelled a racist. Now it is true, from what I have read, that many holocaust deniers have a political agenda, but does it logically follow that that must always be the case?

4. The BNP's attitude towards Jewish people, and more specifically, Israel. Griffin made the point that the BNP was the only party which supported the Israeli position in the recent conflict with Gaza. I don't know how true this is, as I have not studied the issue to verify this claim. However, he is presenting evidence to support the view that the BNP has abandoned anti-semitism. Is that not therefore a valid topic for discussion?

5. Immigration. A black member of the audience raised the question of the government's record on immigration. Jack Straw failed spectacularly to answer that question. This should have led to a rational discussion, and it is clear to me that concerns about the high levels of immigration are the reason why so many people support the BNP. What an opportunity to have an adult and mature discussion about this important issue.

Griffin made the point that the UK is overcrowded. Sorry, but he is actually correct about this - relative to most other EU countries. I live in one of the most heavily populated regions of Europe (indeed of the world) - the south east of England. Why should a country with a high population density be required to bear far more pressure from immigration than other EU countries (for instance France has a population density less than half that of the UK - why should it not take its "fair share" of immigrants?). Why could this extremely serious issue not be discussed properly?

But no. All we have is inflammatory rhetoric and obfuscation. This was an opportunity lost, and although Griffin may have looked nervous at times, he will have come out of this with much credibility in the eyes of many people, who are living at the sharp end of the problems he claims to be trying to address.

So the lesson from last night's QT is that the media have to learn to stop jumping on bandwagons and start engaging with the issues.

I don't agree that Griffin was seen as a politician in trouble (I saw nothing of the sort), and the fact that the hand-picked audience didn't agree with him is not necessarily representative of the UK as a whole.

Let me remind people again that I do not support the BNP - I am simply trying to engage with this objectively and rationally, and I wish the media would try to do the same thing.

On the history, according to the BNPs website, all of those waves of immigrants are accepted as making up the British indigenous people. So it is not that they have an ignorant view of history. their view of history just seems contradictory because it is based on race, but they try to hide that fact.

They agree that Normans, vikings, angles, saxons, jutes, scots, picts and danes have all contributed to making up the British gene pool and culture. What they can't accept is that, in the 20th century, more and more coloured people are now adding to that.

So I don't think we can so easily challenge them on completely mistaken history. Their version of history actually takes account of those waves of migrants. They just don't like people of a different colour doing it.

We're a small tea shop in Brighton – so you might wonder why we’d be interested in the rise and rise of the odious BNP. Read about our recent experience of Nick Griffin and our take on his Question Time appearance:

Following LSV, I agree that this may be a short term defeat for the BNP, but it could be part of a long term victory.
It will no longer be shocking to have a BNP representative on a flagship politics show. The jeers and insults from the audience lose their sting over time. They become boring.
Griffin appears to be hanging on to his sanity by a thin thread. But Griffin isn't my concern. Who succeeds Griffin? If that person can position themselves as well educated, in touch with a section of disillusioned voters, and as someone who can keep white racists under control, then we've got a problem. It's all about appearances. Griffin's appearance is beyond redemption. That doesn't mean that a replacement can't be found.

QT tried to use the programme to reassure literate middle class voters that all is well. That Griffin doesn't present a threat, that only a few cranks have sympathy with him. That the audience was a good representative sample of English society. That rational debate and soundbites can stem irrational forces.
I'm not comforted. The whole affair is quite disturbing.

GV

In answer to LSV
1) How do we define the term "indigenous"?

This isn't very important. How a nation is built and forms an identity is important. How that identity can change is important.

2) Now it is true, from what I have read, that many holocaust deniers have a political agenda, but does it logically follow that that must always be the case?

Logically, no. But factually it might be the case. So if a well informed person is a holocaust denier there is a high prior probability that politics is driving the assertion.

3) And in fact he praised Islam for its opposition to usury, and linked that to the serious problem of the banking crisis...the BNP was the only party which supported the Israeli position in the recent conflict with Gaza...

Yes, but Goebbels admired Jesuit oragnisation and rhetoric. He still hated the Jesuits with a passion. If that's the extent of his evidence, I'm underwhelmed.
Muslims are against Free Market Capitalism. So are Nationalists. So are conservatives like Roger Scruton. They have points in common. That doesn't mean that they've sympathy for each other.

And saying that the Jews can do what they like in their own land to Muslim communities isn't a strike against anti-semitism. Griffin could simply believe that they shouldn't be over here. Even the Nazi's toyed with the idea of an alliance with the zionists. They didn't have a plan in 1933 to eliminate 6 million Jews. Their ideas simply made that possible.

GV

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Of course if various political organisations wedded to violence in Northern Ireland can rebrand successfully, and if the PLO can rebrand successfully then the BNP can rebrand successfully.

It seems that the genie is out of the bottle in England. It'll be interesting to see if they can squeeze it back in again.

GV

#16 - gveale -

Fair enough.

But your answers show that, while Nick Griffin may be wrong, these are issues that are perfectly acceptable topics of discussion. So for the media to portray Griffin as a complete buffoon is unfounded.

Concerning the concept of "indigenousness" (or "indigenity"), how about this...

Bonnie Greer questioned what kind of political party is based on an idea of indigenous people.

Answer:

Inkatha Freedom Party (South Africa)
Nationalist Vanua Tako Lavo Party (Fiji)
Maori Party (New Zealand)
First Peoples National Party of Canada (Canada)
Indigenous Social Alliance Movement (Columbia)
United Multiethnic Party of Amazonas (Venezuela)
Indigenous Pachakuti Movement (Bolivia)
Pachakutik Plurinational Unity Movement – New Country (Ecuador)

Concerning Canada, would those so-called anti-fascists protest against the land claims of the Innu people of eastern Quebec and Labrador, who argue that they have a right to large swathes of land (larger than the UK) on the basis that they (a very small community of little more than 2000 people) have been there for centuries as the "aboriginal" people?

Somehow I doubt it.

You say that how we define the term "indigenous" is not very important. I think it is extremely important how we define the term, and I doubt many Aborigines in Australia or Maoris in New Zealand would sympathise with your position. In fact, I wonder how many black Africans would agree with you.

Love him or loathe him, Griffin does have a point about indigenousness, when comparing the situation in the "British Isles" (un-PC term I know) with other parts of the world. If we are truly rational then we cannot have double standards when defining our terms.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Someone who says that someone like Griffin should not be allowed to speak his mind is more dangerous than anything Griffin could say himself.

So many people blogging on this issue and most have the same opinion. Frightening or enlightening?

The failure to have an ongoing national discussion that rationally examines and works to resolve racial conflict in Briatin and what immigration policy should be has led to a disenfranchised underclass that is in a real sense isolated from the mainstream. As a result there has been a backlash against it. The BNP is merely symptomatic of that. The rest of Europe is hardly in different straits, most if not all European nations have their own variant of the same problem one way or another. The US faced its similar problem three generations ago and has made considerable progress. This as Europeans chided America after it exposed its dirty laundry while all the time pretending to itself it had no such problem. So now we have the situation where America has made enormous strides while Europe remains right where it always was. Europe has no Martin Luthor Kings, no Ralph Abernathys, and therefore in the future will have no Barack Obamas. It will remain stuck in the same time warp it's been in for generations. Once this election is over it will go right back to where it was, pretending again everything is just fine. Until one day that ticking demographic time bomb President Obama mentioned early in his campaign explodes. Then it will be too late.

And now another subject Brits don't like mentioned on their blogs, the connection between homophobia and xenophobia, that it often stems from the same mental state, the same outlook on life.

#22

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

General George S. Patton, Jr.

Did any of you people who are arguing in favour of Nick Griffin's right to be heard bother to look at the Panorama programme, the link for which I gave in post # 4?

(I also find it highly ironic that Griffin compared the audience to "a lynch mob.")

For those who dont have the time or who cant be bothered to view the Panorama programme, it contains footage of an Asian couple being systematically verbally abused, harassed, threatened, mugged, terrorised and assaulted.

Nick Griffin and the BNP's response to dozens of complaints of racist behaviour in that area of England was, not to attempt to defuse the situation or bring an end to the racist attacks, but to go into the area and put up BNP posters!!

The QT audience should be commended for their restraint, not criticised for venting their anger. And those on here who bleat about Griffin's right to be heard should maybe balance their argument by looking at the rights of thousands of people who are attacked day in and day out for nothing more than the colour of their skin.

The constitution of the BNP still states that it is a white only party. This should have forfeited them any platform on the 91Èȱ¬. (I disagree with George Galloway here.)

Given the benefit of hindsight, would society have allowed the Nazi Party a platform had we known what they would have gone on to do? I dont think Jewish people would have.

By the same token, it seems pretty easy for us whites to stand up for blanket freedom of speech when it is not us who have to bear the ugly and very real consequences of exercising that freedom, on a daily basis.

Marcus

While you may have a point about Britain failing to address questions of racial conflict and immigration policies, you must also surely know that there has always been a direct connection between economic hardship and a rise in the popularity of racist movements.

When a recession bites and society looks to blame someone, where a racial minority exists, they are often targeted.

RJB - I would so like to agree with you but I cannot. The right to freedom of expression is so fundamental to liberty that we cannot dilute it without the greatest danger to society. I would defend even the right of an un-reconstituted Nazi to hold and explain his views.

That is my opinion on rights. I have also an opinion on duties.

It is the bounden duty of every citizen who values freedom to oppose actively and vociferously every manifestation of the cancerous wrong that is far-right politics. Those who heckled Griffin, those who tried to shout him down, those who exposed the opprobrium of his views were all fulfilling their civic responsibilities. Those who did nothing, who make no comment are fellow-travellers with evil.

I do not say this from an armchair: I have been attacked, punched, kicked, and escorted away by police for speaking up for right directly in the face of those who would oppose it.

Parrhasios

As sometimes happens with moral and ethical debates we come to a point where two basic rights and freedoms clash, in this case, Griffin's right to speak and be heard, versus the rights of thousands of people to go about their daily business without being subjected to racial abuse in all its forms.

I think there is a case in this instance to argue that the latter trumps the former.

No one is stopping Griffin saying what he wants to say in Hyde Park Corner or at BNP meetings, church halls or wherever. The 91Èȱ¬ giving him a platform, especially when his Party's constitution is actually illegal, is another matter altogether.

I think your man was right in a lot of what he said the other night, and felt a bit sorry for him being attacked by everyone under the sun. I also think we should focus on spiritual matters more in our country (UK) and in this wee province as spiritual terrorists are coming in like a flood! I read a write up recently about Steve Chalk - a professing christian who apparantly denies the gospel and who is coming here soon. It is linked below

www.soundofanalarm.blogspot.com

The following Telegraph article is worth a read (and a refreshing change from the usual analysis):



There's an interesting comment in there relating to a certain NI politician as well.

Serious food for thought, IMO.

midnightsammysoldier.

In the context of focusing "on spiritual matters more in our country (UK) and in this wee province as spiritual terrorists are coming in like a flood!" exactly which bit of, "your man was right in a lot of what he said", are you thinking about?

LSV

I didnt find the article a refreshing change at all. I thought it was extremely predictable and the usual fare for a Tory readership. (Check out the comments after the article about communist conspiracies!!)

He regards Griffins best point on QT as the one where he argued about Aborigines and Maoris being the same as white British i.e. indigenous.

There, the similarity ends.

It is not the white British who are racially abused and discriminated against in this country.

(And, incidentally, any Aborigine or Maori in this country would not be allowed to join the BNP!!)

#33 - romejellybean -

"It is not the white British who are racially abused and discriminated against in this country."

Really?

Here are some statistics, admittedly from a few years ago, but I can't believe the situation has changed much in the last five years:

The British Crime Survey reveals that in 2004, 87,000 people who described themselves as black or minority ethnic (BME) had been victims of what they believed was a racially motivated crime. They had suffered 49,000 violent attacks, with 4,000 being wounded.

At the same time a staggering 92,000 white people also said that racism was the cause of an attack or crime they had suffered. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of black and minority ethnic victims at 20,000.

Or perhaps these politically inconvenient figures can be "spun" away by saying that if a black person claims to be the victim of a racially motivated crime, we believe that he must be telling the truth, whereas a white victim must be lying?

I'll try and find some more up-to-date figures, but I think I have made my point.

RJB:

Agreed. The article is the predictable Tory rubbish (which New Labour partly swallows) that "I would never vote BNP but...". In short, it is the implication that they are getting support because the other parties are not more like them.

As for 'feeling a bit sorry for Griffin', we might well say that he asked for it. But the best way to defeat bigotry, intolerance, racism and homophobia is to expose their perpetrators by giving them enough rope but making sure ourselves that the knot is firmly tightened round their neck. This means subjecting them to relentless scrutiny and trying to ensure that their views are countered by the more humane ones.

91Èȱ¬ NI did a good job on the Nolan Show with Iris Robinson's anti-gay diatribe by probing her prejudice relentlessly and ensuring that counter views received equal time. This implies that QT should not be a one-off but that the pressure should be kept on Griffin by Humphries, Paxman, et al. Even perhaps Stephen Nolan!

One thing should be clear. Exposure requires repeated scrutiny, not just one appearance on a panel where four others snap endlessly at one man and turn him into a 'victim'. For 'victim' in reality he most certainly is not.

#35 - brianmcclinton -

"The article is the predictable Tory rubbish..."

So I take it that you don't believe in the need for a government to be morally consistent?

Your position doesn't sound very rational to me.

And since you wish to subject disagreeable views to "relentless scrutiny", how are you going to do that from a position of moral inconsistency?

LSV

The last time in my country that white people suffered in any way like the Aborigines or Maoris did, was during the Highland clearances.

The conclusion that whites in this country are more liable to be discriminated against than blacks or Asians is truly a revelation to me.

RJB #27

"you must also surely know that there has always been a direct connection between economic hardship and a rise in the popularity of racist movements."

In your part of the world I'd say that is probably true. But where I live, we are going through the hardest economic times since the great depression 70 years ago and whatever complaints there are about our new president, for the most part as far as I can tell, they have nothing to do with his race. We are moving past that I think. It may not have been completely left behind us yet but we're getting there. It's headed for the rear view mirror. We're also making progress in ending homophobia. Legal civil contracts equivalent to marriage whether they are called marriages or not are becoming increasingly widespread. All indications are that they will be legal in all states within the next ten to fifteen years. What is acceptable in much of Europe in regard to hate speak and racial discrimination is no longer acceptable here. Hate motivated killings that would go unpunished or even unreported in some parts of Europe can meet with the death penalty in America. It is one thing to ban hate-speak. It's another to allow free speech on one hand but to punish crimes committed based on hate. In considering punishment for a felony, in many states hate as a motivating factor is taken into consideration requiring incresased severity.

RE: 34, LSV.
It is a mystery to me why it should be racist or insulting to call a person black. I would not find it racist or insulting to be called white. I know it is a simple question, nevertheless, I would appreciate any answer. lizbette

#37 - RJB -

"The conclusion that whites in this country are more liable to be discriminated against than blacks or Asians is truly a revelation to me."

You seem to be changing the terms of the argument.

Your original statement was that whites were not being discriminated against: "It is not the white British who are racially abused and discriminated against in this country."

But now you argue against the idea that whites are MORE discriminated against than blacks or Asians.

Keep to the same track please. I was simply offering statistical evidence to dispute your original statement.

Whether the crime figures support the idea that whites are more discriminated against is a moot point (as this could just be a fluctuation typical of any statistical analysis). But that is not what I am arguing at all.

As for the question of the Maoris and Aborigines, you are setting up a straw man here. The discussion was about how we define the term "indigenous". If other countries recognise certain (dare I use the word) "races" as indigenous to that territory, then why could that same argument not be applied to the UK? It is a perfectly valid topic for discussion, and if it is "racist" to dare to discuss this, then those who champion the cause of the Maoris or Aborigines must also be regarded as "racist". We can't have it both ways!

The question of how the BNP would treat Maoris or Aborigines is the topic for another discussion, and I agree that there are reasons to believe that that party may not treat them well. I am no apologist for the BNP! All I am trying to do is understand as rationally and objectively as possible the issues raised during QT, and the definition of the word "indigenous" is at the heart of the discussion.

(PS - I am not quite sure what you mean by "my country"? The UK, Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, NI?? I am referring to the UK, of course, which was the context of the discussion on QT).

#39 - lizbette -

With all due respect, but I think you have misread my post. The complaints were not due to the fact that blacks were called black.

It says that a certain number of people "who described themselves as black" claimed to be victims of racially motivated crimes. The crimes were crimes of violence. The colour description was what they said about themselves in order to confirm their own racial identity.

I am fron Scotlamd, LSV. (You might have heard during the broadcast that England was used throughout the programme instead of Britain/UK.) And in Scotland, the last time a group of whites suffered what the Aborigines and Maoris suffered, it was the Highland clearances. (To my knowledge.

Yes, I am confusing racism with crime and the figures you present. So let me put it another way. Over the last, say, thirty years, white people have not suffered racist abuse the way black and asians have on sit coms, from so called comedians, in the work place, at the hands of police, at airport security, etc..

Looking back over our posts, it was you who changed track, from racial abuse to crime stats.

And the relevant fact here regarding Aborigenes and Maoris is not that they are indigenous, its that they are indigenous AND racially abused. Therefore to compare them with white british doesnt hold. Would you make a comparison with white australians and british blacks and asians?

The crux of the matter is not who is indigenous, it is who is being abused and who is doing the abusing. Griffin used the question of who is indigenous to simply shift attention from the real questions and apparently, it worked.