Tories choose not to discuss BNP

There are a number of stories in today's newspapers about the BNP.  The Mail on Sunday reports that MP for Dagenham Jon Cruddas - and Deputy Leadership candidate - believes that the language of the war on terror, Jack Straw's veils debate and tough talk over immigration has legitimised the beliefs of the BNP.  Speaking to Searchlight, Mr Cruddas said:

"We have to be honest in saying that the debate over the veil, talking tough on immigration and race or the language used in the 'war on terror' does not reassure people but actually makes the situation worse... "It creates fear, tension and suspicion. It divides communities and plays into the hands of extremism."

Mr Cruddas continues (quoted in The Sunday Telegraph) that the BNP is flourishing because the mainstream parties are neglecting issues of concern to Labour heartland communities:

"The BNP thrive in areas where people feel forgotten by the mainstream parties. There are signs that the fascist party is becoming a home for many disgruntled former Labour voters. There have been countless achievements during this government, but we also have to admit that not everyone has shared in our increasing prosperity.  Some communities have been badly affected by a decline in traditional industries, a shortage of affordable housing and changing migration patterns."

The BNP is back in the news after BNP leader Nick Griffin walked free after jurors - for a second time - had cleared him of race-hate charges (FT).   Tim Worstall has blogged against the Chancellor's reaction to the verdict and the suggestion that legislation might be needed to silence the BNP and the offence its beliefs cause to mainstream opinion.

I have found no Tory reaction to the BNP's latest publicity coup.  Perhaps the party calculates that the best thing is to ignore the BNP and produce policies - like those on immigration - that will address the concerns of those that vote for them.

Comments

[ToMTom]

Nick Griffin is becoming rather like John Wilkes - emblematic of our need to safeguard freedom of thought and conscience before the assault of The State and The State Broadcasting Corporation.

I have missed Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty saying: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I missed Shami Chakrabarti aghast that a private meeting could be spied upon and taped for broadcast by a State-funded agency like the BBC. I missed condemnation of CCTV cameras infiltrating even private discussions in an invitation-only meeting.

No doubt Brown will have the Nick Griffin Is Guilty Act ready with details to be filled in by secondary legislation.................will we have people dragged off to an MI5 Lubyanka and thence to forced labour camps ? Or hasn't Brown worked his way to the logical conclusion of his outbursts ?

[Jamie Oliver's Sausage]

I think there are plenty of good reasons to despise the BNP, but what Griffin said about Muslims and was prosecuted over was not one of them. I suspect the majority of British voters will agree with him.

The BNP is now taking up a less overtly racist position which doesn't differ much from what was once Tory Party consensus. That could spell trouble for the Tories in areas when "race" is a hot issue.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

It seems that it is left to the British National Party to articulate views that the majority of Britons are coming to with regard to the menace of Islam.

The cowardice displayed by the Tories, as well as the overtly authoritarian and totalitarian statism shown by Labour to crush any opposition to the liberal consensus, do legitimise what the BNP say. That is: 'no other party is willing to speak the truth as millions see it, and no other has the moral fibre or political will do do anything about it even if they did'.

Nick Griffin, it seems, is the only leader willing to speak the plain truth. For that reason the Big Brother state see it necessary to silence him at all costs.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

We may or may not agree with the alleged policies and statements said to be attributed the BNP, but it only flourishes because of the wimps in Parliament who have refused to listen to majority opinion on immigration and its wishes. It is to be hoped that it concentrates the minds of some of those languishing in the Westminster asylum (counting their expenses).
You can say the Griffin does not lack guts.
What he thinks, rightly or wrongly and at risk to himself, is a spade he calls a spade - unlike our supine media that could n't bring itself to publish pictures of cartoons.
Vote Tory?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

All of those on this blog who believe that should withdraw from Iraq, with our tails between our legs, should read the last paragraph of the article by d'Inacoma in the Telegraph - even he is waking up (which is more than you can say for Boris Johnson)

"The deadliest attack on the Republicans during the campaign was Bill Clinton's: "They can't run anything right." But recognising and punishing the incompetence of an administration does not in itself resolve a geopolitical crisis. Those who imagine that the Iraqi conflict was an entirely manufactured problem, the work of the flame-eyed maniacs Bush and Blair, are sorely deluded. Every day, there is ghastly evidence on our television screens that we have not yet worked out how to address the challenges of the post-9/11 world. But those who believe that the answer is a reversion to pre-9/11 strategies face a horrible awakening".

[Wat Tyler]

I don't know much about the BNP, but it's clear they're far more astute political operators than they used to be.

I heard Griffin's co-defendant yesterday arguing their case that Labour are going after them primarily because of the threat they pose to "safe" Labour seats. Given what we know about Labour's shameful electioneering behaviour (eg NHS heatmaps), it sounded highly believable.

As Frank Field said, if they got someone plausible to lead them, we'd be in serious trouble.

[Graham D'Amiral]

The BNP as the former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard once put it are "A bunch of criminal thugs dressed up as a political party".

Like the monsters who desecrated the war memorial in Worthing with Nazi emblems, they fail to understand Britain and the values of its people. As we remember today those who gave their lives to free the world from tyranny let us never lose our contempt for those extremists who rely on fear and insecurity to spread their disgusting message of hatred, seeking to turn neighbour against neighbour and community against community.

But Gordon Brown is wrong the way to tackle racism isn't through yet more legislation, all that would do is give the oxygen of publicity to these thoroughly wicked people. Instead let's make the case that extremist political ideas like those expressed by the BNP are anti british and all right minded people are appalled by them.

[Blue rinse]

Cruddas has every reason to be worried. He might be losing three BNP-minded wards to Barking under the boundary changes but he'll be gaining three from Havering where the pseudo-BNP "Third Way" and their allies are prominent. My contacts in Cruddasland tell me that in May voters were enquiring at polling stations about the name of their BNP candidate and when told there was not one in their ward storming away in disgust. This is the really scary thing: voting BNP is no longer a secret vice but something to be proud of as they know their neighbours won't condemn them as Fascists but applaud them for seeing the light. If he makes it to Deputy Leader, what a scalp that would be for the BNP.

[Daniel VA]

Denying these creatures the oxygen of publicity seems pretty sensible.

They've had more than their fair share of air time to promote their noxious views this week.

[Tory Loyalist]

If Tory voters begin to think that the BNP and not the Conservative Party speaks for them Cameron will have a lot to answer for.

It's not only the racists of the BNP who have detected the acrid whiff of "Tory Moderniser" cowardice. In today's Sunday Telegraph John Reid highlights the risible feebleness of Cameron's "hug a hoodie" approach.

Reid contrasts the "tough love" he claims to offer with Cameron's "just love". We know Reid's a phoney, but Cameron is giving him huge credibility.

Those of us who are used to the traditional freedom agenda of true Conservatism are suffering real frustration with the pitiful nonsense that is being pushed out in the name of our party.

In the past I have never favoured U-turns but Cameron has changed my view. Let's dump "Hug a Hoodie" and the rest of this nonsense here and now.

[Jamie Oliver's Sausage]

>>Denying these creatures the oxygen of publicity seems pretty sensible.<<

Ever heard of free speech Daniel?

Sounds like you're pitching to out-fascist the BNP.

[Denis Cooper]

"There are signs that the fascist party is becoming a home for many disgruntled former Labour voters." That doesn't make any sense to me, if they're FORMER Labour voters then clearly they no longer regard the fascist party as their home.

"... and changing migration patterns." Talk about mealy mouthed.

When will Cameron speak out in defence of the British people and their liberties?

[RodS]

Let's face it, there were thousands, if not millions of ordinary decent britons, who were cheering at their TV screens as Griffin was aquitted. In part this was to enjoy the BBC being humiliated and having to report the fact.

Why is such vitriol directed at the BNP ? Why do we not use such abuse for the Lib Dems ?

The BNP are filling a vacuum in political representation and people can vote for them or not. Why the fuss ?

[Mark Wadsworth]

The bit I liked best was a reporter asking Nick Griffin whether he was going to be more careful choosing his words in future.

Nick grinned and pointed out that he had ALWAYS been careful; that's why he was acquitted, despite the State's best efforts.

I am afraid that I did not see the original programme (but did get a letter in the Metro that week saying that he was bound to be prosecuted over it!), was anything he said really that controversial?

Was it any more inflammatory than what the head of MI5 said yesterday?

"Today, my officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1,600 identified individuals - and there will be many we don't know - who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas," she said.

"Today we see the use of home-made improvised explosive devices.

"Tomorrow's threat may - I suggest will - include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology."

Now that has got me really scared!

[Daniel VA]

"Ever heard of free speech Daniel?

Sounds like you're pitching to out-fascist the BNP."

I was actually referring to the lack of Conservative reaction to the BNP verdict that the Editor was writing about.

I don't have a problem with free speech, although that doesn't oblige me to feel that we should be drawing attention to the BNP.

Sorry to deny you your daily opportunity to spit bile at a fellow ConservativeHome contributor - you'll have to go and find another well of debate that you can poison I'm afraid.

[James Maskell]

"the BNP is flourishing because the mainstream parties are neglecting issues of concern to Labour heartland communities"

Does this not destroy the argument that the BNP are far right? Logically speaking, doesnt this mean that the BNP must be left-wing? Perhaps Im getting it wrong and its the freezing cold Margate air...

[Richard]

The clown who pressed for Griffin to be prosecuted at the expense of the taxpayer should be sacked. This has cost money from the public purse and benefitted the BNP who can now pose as martyrs.

I also agree with TomTom's point above about Shami Chakrabarti. "Liberty" only seems to be prepared to defend fashionable left-wing causes. Why were they not defending Abu Hamza (who, despite being anti-Western, was clearly far too extreme even for the Left) and David Irving? The only organisation to defend all three has been the uncompromisingly pro-freedom Libertarian Alliance who are about as anti-fascist as you can get.

[esbonio]

Has anyone in the parliamentary conservative party rejected Labour's call for a review (and the implied change) to our law's following the trial? If not why not?

I got the my third request from our local constituency party office to renew my membership will not do so until our flip flopping spineless leadership discovers some principle and guts.

On a lighter but in a way related note I was offered half price chocalate oranges at a retailer the other day. I am delighted to say Dave's pathetic message(s) are not still not resonating in my rural idyll.

[Thomas Johnson]

I am not a supporter of BNP, but must admit that I was highly delighted when it became known that Griffin's and Collett had been cleared of the charges brought against them.
To me this case always smacked of something like a seventeenth century purge, Titus Oates and government agents ready to spy and infiltrate into meetings in search of evidence (any evidence) to convict their enemies of wrong doing. Oh yes, Brown will no doubt (given the chance) introduce further legislation to give the government more clout to stifle freedom of speech. So beware dear friends, Big Brother is watching and listening, it might very well be your turn next.

[Denis Cooper]

Richard @ 14:42 - Abu Hamza was inciting murder. We can't permit people to abuse the right of free speech to incite crime, and in fact very sensibly under common law it has always been a crime to incite a crime. However "hatred" is not a crime, which is why "incitement of hatred" should not be a crime either.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_h.html#_Toc44653345

QUOTE

Incitement
The offence of incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. It is not a defence to a charge of incitement that the other person, for whatever reason, does not commit the offence, or commits a different offence to that incited. Incitement is usually a common law offence but there are some instances where statute has created the offence: e.g. S.19 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

UNQUOTE

[Denis Cooper]

Checking back on the Abu Hamza case: "He was jailed for seven years for the six charges of soliciting murder, 21 months for the three incitement to racial hatred charges, three years for possessing "threatening, abusive or insulting recordings" and three-and-a- half years for having a document useful to terrorists. The judge said all the sentences would run concurrently."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4690224.stm

Typically the race-obsessed media emphasised the "race hate" aspect, but his time in prison will be determined by the longest sentence, the seven years for soliciting murder. The maximum sentence for that under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is life, and if I had been the judge he would have got at least twenty years. But then I'm old-fashioned - I believe that if three men commit a brutal entirely unprovoked murder of some innocent youth, they should all hang.

I see that he is now appealing, on the grounds that the Act does not cover the case of foreigners being encouraged to murder other foreigners overseas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6102046.stm

I think he's wrong, as Section 4 states: "Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen's dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life."

[Jamie Oliver's Sausage]

>>Sorry to deny you your daily opportunity to spit bile at a fellow ConservativeHome contributor<<

Oh dear Dan. Did we get out of bed the wrong side this morning.

You would know all about spitting bile, friend, but I'm not aware I've every returned the compliment on CH to anybody - not even you.

[sjm]

The BBC has fostered the growth of the BNP. By consistently yelling 'racist' at any attempt to discuss immigration and multi-culturalism over the past decade, it has assisted in stifling rational debate.

The man on the Clapham omnibus has been given little option but to listen to the carefully-crafted utterances of Griffin etc, and respond accordingly.

This is not intended as an endorsement of this fascist Party, just an attempt to point the well-justified finger of blame at the left-wing chatterati, Guardianistas, etc.

[Yet Another Anon]

As Frank Field said, if they got someone plausible to lead them, we'd be in serious trouble.
The BNP have got a long way to go, they are greatly overhyped and still fail to get anywhere in elections other than Local Elections - they have no County Councillors, no MP's, no MEP's, no members of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. Even on the very low turnouts they still get less than 1% of the vote nationally, they are about the 6th national party after UKIP and the Green Party and unlike them show no signs of actually making breakthroughs at levels that they haven't won seats at yet.

Their leader seems to be pursuing a bizarre secret agenda only known to him and a few others around him and risks losing more diehard elements to the National Front as he appeals to elements of the main parties votes, the BNP is never going to win by attracting a proportion of the Labour vote alone which is mostly what they have been doing. Nick Griffin has hopped from one party and stance to another, he is totally inconsistemt and no one really knows what he stands for except that he isn't keen on immigrants.

[ToMtom]

On a lighter but in a way related note I was offered half price chocalate oranges at a retailer the other day

So was I......but I knew what she was really offering........and so I told her I had been advised against it by David Cameron

[Tory Loyalist]

For a really interesting and intelligent commentary on the "meaning" of the BNP and UKIP vote I recommend Richard North's blog

http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2006/11/uncharted-waters.html

Which in turn links to some very interesting comments on Ian Dale's blog, several by CH regulars.

[TimberWolf]

James Maskall (14.36) was confused about left wing and right wing. Forget about left, centre and right in a straight line, and instead bend it into an oval. Then you will find extreme left and extreme right are close together, and opposite Liberal; and Conservative and Labour opposing each other, with extreme left/right between them on one side,and Liberal between them on the other. Sorry I have limited computer skills and cannot provide a diagram, but hope you get the idea. This is why an extreme right wing party can do well in traditionally left wing areas.

[John Ashworth]

Don't think the BNP are only in Labour Lands. They are pushing hard here in Conservative North Yorkshire. We have a bye election here soon with only two candidates, Tory versus BNP. In the Conservative Party we are constantly told bring in the youngsters, but they are turning to BNP - why?, because only the BNP are debating their concerns. Our latest effort on Immingation/migration is once again pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate, sounds good, but can't be delivered, we are in the EU chaps, not yet noticed by those at the top.

[Klamm]

The media are much to blame for this undercurrent and suspicion by many white people that gives the BNP oxygen.

The case this week of that poor Scottish lad who was killed by racist Asian thugs, only got publicity when they were jailed. However, the cases where equally terrible crimes of race murders on black people by white thugs get splashed on the front pages from the off.

The media gives the impression that the murder of a black/asian person by a white person is racism but when the opposite happens it barely gets reported. Where were the Guardian/Independent front pages on the Scottish case. Nowhere, thereby givng the BNP legitimacy in the eyes of many.

[Richard]

"Richard @ 14:42 - Abu Hamza was inciting murder. We can't permit people to abuse the right of free speech to incite crime, and in fact very sensibly under common law it has always been a crime to incite a crime."

If someone commits a crime that is their choice and their choice alone. If someone is saying nasty things about people then we all have a choice as to whether or not we ignore them. As far as I'm concerned, Abu Hamza and his bunch can scream "behead those who oppose Islam" as much as they want. It is those who do the beheading who should be sorted out (preferably with the noose) as they chose on their own free will to carry out the beheading. Obviously if the "inciter" is in a position of political power e.g. Hitler then speech can cause murder. Or if the "inciter" is able to bring about murder by elaborately deceiving someone. Suffice to say screaming THE WEST HATES YOU! hardly counts as deception.

[Phil]

While I think the BNP are an unpleasant bunch (do I recall Norman Tebbit thinks they are in reality left-wing?), I agree with TomTom's (1131) concern that a private invitation-only meeting was spied upon and taped by the BBC. And that a prosecution resulted.

With Thomas Johnson (1546), I fear Labour will use the Nick Griffin case as an opportunity to introduce further attempts to restrict freedom of speech. The problem with this type of legislation is that while the intention is good in wanting to deal with racism etc, it can have unintended consequences to freedom of speech like those of the Religious Hatred Bill as originally drafted. Perhaps those of us who want to maintain, and win back where it has been lost already, freedom of speech and other freedoms, need to be on our guard!

I note Jamie Oliver's Sausage's comment (1153) that "there are plenty of good reasons to despise the BNP, but what Griffin said about Muslims and was prosecuted over was not one of them. I suspect the majority of British voters will agree with him." Now doubt the BBC et al will keep going on about "winning hearts and minds". But I heard Dominic Greive repeat this mantra on BBC R4 this evening. I hope he means winning the hearts and minds of the law-abiding majority (of all races) who are concerned about the terrorist threat and escalating crime - that there is a party who will put their concerns and interests first and defend us.

[John Irvine]

Although I personally have no time for the racism of the BNP I'm delighted with the way that Griffin has left the PC establishment with egg all over their faces.

Our association had a curry party last night and a number of the members were speaking very favourably about what the BNP had achieved. It was left to me to sound a not of caution.

I wonder if David Cameron would be prepared to face the possibility of jail for his principles? Personally I very much doubt it.

It;s good to see that these matters can be freely discussed here.

[David Banks]

Note the implication in Brown's reaction : the jury did not reach the right verdict so the Law must be changed. Thats a receipe for bad law.

[Martin Cole]

John Irvine @ 19:40:-

"I wonder if David Cameron would be prepared to face the possibility of jail for his principles? Personally I very much doubt it."

David Cameron's principles!! What exactly might they be? I have seen no evidence that such exist!

[Dave Turner]

Speaking as a yorkshireman now living down south I might add, I'm not surprised people are voting BNP lots.

We have a metropolitan spiv as leader of the conservatives who has no clue what life is like for people north of Watford.

We don't hug hoodies. We knock seven bells of shit out of them and it works.

We're also paying the price of open door immigration. You lot in leafy suburbs think cheap plumbers are worth the social cost for us. You're not the ones having uninsured polish van drivers crashing into your cars. Stop telling us its good for us you patronizing ****s. We live with it and we don't like it.

Why should we vote for someone who is not trustworthy enough to take a principled stand on immigration?

Why should we vote for someone who will not make a stand against the EU? The single most destructive thing to happen to our country since the luftwaffe.

Camoron is all image and no substance. While we northerners are politically naive and ill-educated slobs, we know a spiv when we see one.

The man has no clue about defence issues and the only party that has openly questioned European Defence integration and the fact that we are losing both wars as a result is the BNP. They're on the ball. You’re not.

The tories are not with the programme. They are chasing after a straw man voter.

While you london gimps are squitting in your knickers about global warming and other pie in the sky codshit, we are the ones on the ground paying for your stupidity.

We've had nine years of Blair. Why do we want a crap imitation?

And to think two years ago I was a member of this shite political organisation

[Sean Fear]

The elephant in the room is - as always - uncontrolled immigration from the third world, and the cultural changes that result from it.

John Cruddas, Ann Cryer, Margaret Hodge etc. are all half-right in the reasons they give for people voting BNP, but can't bring themselves to criticise current levels of immigration.

Most white British people don't consider it exciting, vibrant and diverse to find their children are attending schools where most children don't speak English, or finding that their local council no longer celebrates Christmas, but does celebrate Eid and Diwali.

And that is what is fuelling support for the BNP (and similar parties across Europe).

[Tory Loyalist]

Sear Fear is 100% right about this.

I have numerous ethnic minority friends, all of whom have adapted very well to life in Britain. Some of them are "more British than the (ethnic) British"

But they arent the people that the powers-that-be have in mind when they talk vacuous twaddle about "vibrant diversity" They are talking about the people who won't fit in and they expect us to make all the necessary adjustments.

It's this arrogance that is fuelling the ascendency of the BNP, but what I never supposed was that we would hear Conservative politicians telling us to lie down and like this multiculturalism which tramples all over our cherished traditions.

Cameron has proved me wrong.

[Sean Fear]

TL, the British political establishment is riding on the back of a tiger, and doesn't know how to get off it. Powerful vested interests depend on identity politics; at the same time, much of our political establishment has a genuine ideological commitment to identity politics.

What they hadn't counted on was that by encouraging identity politics, they would create white identity politics.

[Martin Wright]

The whole saga is a constitutional disgrace as well as a fiasco. I’ve followed the story quite closely since 2004. Here is a summary of the incidents and coincidents that make me deeply unhappy. The main sources are from Rod Liddle and some items from the Telegraph. I accept that this may seem a story but, taken all together, my instinct is that there is something very wrong here.

Early 2004 decision to do investigation into BNP, probably fostered by front organisations close to Labour. Summer 2004 TV broadcast. Shock horror, there are racists in the BNP. How much of the stuff about the members is genuine is impossible to say, as the BBC infiltrators were in effect agents provacateurs, egging yobs on with free beer. Only the recorded speeches feature in the subsequent trials.

Second half of 2004: West Yorkshire Police have dedicated team of at least 3 police officers working 10 hours a day for 6 months reviewing video evidence. December 2004: dawn raid on homes of Griffin and others. Computers and papers seized. A Telegraph editorial comments adversely on fact that a political leader should be treated this way and on the excessive police time used on the investigation so far. There is a tragic irony that while this police team was busy investigating this alleged “hate crime”, a real hate crime was being prepared undetected under their noses by the 7/7 bombers.

In early 2005, Liddle does some digging and establishes that there are hints from ordinary PCs that the raids and arrests were ordered “from the very top”. (Who was Home Secretary at the time?). He tracks down the magistrate who signed the search warrants. She is very sheepish about it. No doubt she should be, since, as I understand it, nothing found in the raids was used in the subsequent prosecutions. But no doubt the police have found it useful to have the BNP membership lists etc.

What information was put to the magistrate in order to justify the raids? Either the police misinformed her or she sanctioned raids without justification – either eventuality a very serious breach of the law.

April 2005, on the day after announcement of General Election, the Attorney General announces that Griffin will be prosecuted (Muslim votes any one?)
January 2006 first trial begins. By sheer coincidence it overlaps with that of Abu Hamza. (Must be even handed chaps). February 2006 Griffin acquitted on half charges, hung jury on other half. The Judge is believed to have suggested that the prospects of a conviction on remaining charges were limited but CPS refuse to give in. Retrial set for May 2006 (to coincide with May local elections?) though this is subsequently postponed to the autumn.

November 2006, second jury fails to follow the script and acquits unanimously. Gordon Brown and Lord Chancellor (head of the legal system) quite improperly imply that the jury got it wrong. The implication is that Griffin is ipso facto guilty and that laws must be framed to match that self evident truth.

The whole thing stinks as much as the David Kelly case. There are just too many coincidences to be plausible. There’s a smell about it. It seems to me that from start to finish this was a political process conducted under the guise of the law. The idea was to gain political advantage in two ways: to win back Muslim votes lost by the Iraq war; and to disrupt a party that was stealing white working class votes.
In the old days we would have had defenders of liberty who would be prepared to speak out in defence even of a political pariah like Griffin. But do we have any one either in the press (Liddle apart) or in the Conservative party to go onto the attack? I suspect not, because we’re afraid of guilt by association.

[SimonNewman]

"In the old days we would have had defenders of liberty who would be prepared to speak out in defence even of a political pariah like Griffin. But do we have any one either in the press (Liddle apart) or in the Conservative party to go onto the attack? I suspect not, because we’re afraid of guilt by association."

That the 'respectable' right is so weak in defending liberty is depressing, but what's truly horrifying is Labour's wholesale embrace of totalitarian fascism. Faulkner's statement that no one should be allowed to criticise Islam without punishment was wholly in tune with the Mohammed-cartoon protesters' demands and has handed the vilest Islamists a stunning victory.

[Graham D'Amiral]

There's a world of difference between having a sensible approach to a controlled and managed immigration policy and pandering to those far right lunatics who want a closed door immigration policy, and let's be honest it isn't white european immigrants these nazi sympathisers are thinking of.

We're a country and indeed a party with a proud history of standing up to fascism I see no reason to change our approach now.

[Martin Wright]

Sorry I don't quite see the relevance of the last comment. This thread is about the extent to which we defend free speech. One can be opposed to fascism, yet deplore the attempt to silence any one, even the far right. In my view the instincts of the Labour party in regard to free speech are quasi- Stalinist. Or is fascistic the most appropriate epithet?

[Graham D'Amiral]

There have been plenty of posts on here about more than just free speech, as it happens I have no problem with people I don't agree with being able to express a view, just so long as I reserve the right to criticise those who abuse the right to free speech in order to offend others.

[S.E.L]

People like to associate with others who are like themselves. This is true for people of all races and is nothing to be ashamed of. Some get understandably upset when they feel that the majority of people around them are no longer like them, especially when they've had no say in the matter. Labelling these people as racist is unhelpful; it's a superficial term with such a broad definition and negative connotation that its use in reasoned debate is almost nil.

These people are also grateful when a political leader recognises and acknowledges these feelings (which can be done without 'inciting' violence or hatred). Until the main political parties acknowledge this, the BNP will continue to get support. But the main parties can't acknowledge this because they will be called racists by the others. Ah, isn't democracy a funny thing? (Which is why we should have an unelected upper chamber...but that's off topic.)

[matt wright]

I think there is something deeper going on here that isn't really about immigration. A growing minority are becoming more than just disengaged from society. Anyone who goes canvassing will know what I mean. Its not apathy its a sort of antipathy akin to proud ignorance! Unfortunately the mainstream media feed this as they have to fill the papers everyday and negative, simplistic messages are easier. Even our quality papers are sometimes drifting into irresponsible reporting that paints all politicians as on-the-make, fiddling liars. We used to worry that people weren't voting but the BNP are trying to use voters and happily feeding their prejudices.

Matt

[Tory Activist]

“I think there are plenty of good reasons to despise the BNP, but what Griffin said about Muslims and was prosecuted over was not one of them. I suspect the majority of British voters will agree with him.
Jamie Oliver's Sausage”

“It seems that it is left to the British National Party to articulate views that the majority of Britons are coming to with regard to the menace of Islam.
Stephen Tolkinghorne”

Both Jamie Oliver’s Sausage and Stephen Tolkinghorne underestimate the intellect of the British public. To demonise 1.1 Billion Muslims worldwide and class to them as terrorists is twisted logic in the majority of British people’s minds.

The BNP only thrive in areas where there is depravation and a lack of Government will to tackle social issues. It is easy to peddle race politics to those who feel abandoned, neglected and without hope.

It is Ironic as I wear my red poppy to remember those who fought and died against fascism I am replying to the very same enemy we fought against in WW2.

“I have numerous ethnic minority friends, all of whom have adapted very well to life in Britain. Some of them are "more British than the (ethnic) British"
Tory Loyalist”

I always thought ethnic minorities could be classed as British e.g. British Asian, Black British but not as English, Scottish or Welsh.

“The elephant in the room is - as always - uncontrolled immigration from the third world, and the cultural changes that result from it.

their local council no longer celebrates Christmas, but does celebrate Eid and Diwali.

Sean Fear”

It seems Sean Fear has missed out the problem of local authorities not being able to deal with 600,000' new EU migrants and wants to somehow blame “ethnics” from the third world.

Sean Fear’s comment about councils celebrating Eid and Diwali but not Christmas exists in his twisted mind only. My local council puts up Christmas trees, lights and has a Christmas celebration in the town square as well as celebrating Diwali and Eid.

[A policy plunket of a new think tank]

I think from now on it is only fair the asylum dispersal system begins to locate asylum seekers in only the most leafy, rural middle class areas of England.

After all it is most unfair to put them in areas where the local whites are "racist chavs"
who have no cultural sensitivities and are least well well travelled to understand the needs of Afghanis,Iraqis, Somalis,etc.

And after all these "racist chavs" clearly dont want their areas changed beyond all recognition and the liberal middle classes are hugely in favour of mass immigration, so it seems more logical from know on to locate immigrants in Chipping Camden and Nether Wallop not Coventry and Newcastle.

And as the Liberals and New Tories and New Labourites are so in favour we dont expect any nimbyism, or complaints from them when their villages receive their newcomers. We only expect reports of enrichment and how much they are enjoying their new found diversity that until rececently they had to travel by 4x4 into cities to enjoy.

[TomTom]

My local council puts up Christmas trees, lights and has a Christmas celebration in the town square as well as celebrating Diwali and Eid.

Anyone who equates a pine tree with Christmas is living proof of how far secularism has gone

[TomTom]

West Yorkshire Police have dedicated team of at least 3 police officers working 10 hours a day for 6 months reviewing video evidence.

Many more than that methinks - and at a time when the 4th largest police force is under strength, absent from major crime areas, and supposed to be on anti-terrorist duties at Leeds/Bradford Airport.................would be nice if the Police were less political and more effective

[Tory Loyalist]

Sean Fear’s comment about councils celebrating Eid and Diwali but not Christmas exists in his twisted mind only. My local council puts up Christmas trees, lights and has a Christmas celebration in the town square as well as celebrating Diwali and Eid.

___________________________________________________

Check "Tory Activist's" phoney email address (anon@anon.co.uk)to gauge his credentials.

This far-left troll is neither a Tory nor an activist, and I doubt he wears a poppy either. If he did he would know better than to tarnish Remembrance Day with party politics.

For his information Sean Fear is a Tory Association Chairman and his comment about "Winterval" etc. is only too well documented.

There is an article about it on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph.