They’re not even close to getting a single seat in a ~650 seat parliament, are you sure they are as powerful as you think?

We need to move beyond the ‘beat them in the great debate’ attitude of some more liberal commentators on the issue: as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, democracy is not just a great debate.

The more I think about this, the more I think you’re correct – though for different reasons.

The BNP tap into a sense of resentment and emotion which has little to do with facts and reasoning. So in fact trying to beat them in a ‘debate’ is useless because they’ll simply lie and keep re-asserting them talking points. And their listeners will be convinced that you’re just some establishment figure trying to fuck over the poor people.

‘. . . anti-fascists shouldn’t be sharing a platform with UKIP, Tories or Right-Labour speakers: they can denounce fascism all they want, but their presentation of the issue is only different by degrees. . .’

That’s going to be a lonely platform, and of course the purification process will never stop until it’s just you and the voices in your head, Mr Semple.

‘The solution to fascist appeal is not the restriction of immigration’

We are all human and in theory I would be willing to have an open door to all – but in the real world immigration into countries with human rights and welfare systems (however flawed) from people oho live in countries with no welfare systems and very limited human rights has to be restricted. The lasting solution is to raise the levels of human rights and welfare systems throughout the world, but that seems a long way off. In Scotland, the SNP has mumbled occasionally about letting more immigrants in, but in practice the only people who will be let in are those who will contribute to the tax base.

I have no doubt that the EHRC doesn’t see it like this: they have a duty under the law etc etc, it’s not a choice, it’s built into their mandate etc etc.

I would find it odd if there wasn’t a test of public interest to pass before proceeding with prosecution (I haven’t looked). I think the first half of your article explains why such a prosecution might not pass the test of public interest – and I’m inclined to agree.

Besides, I seemed to recall the BNP had the odd, token ‘BME’.

“The BNP tap into a sense of resentment and emotion which has little to do with facts and reasoning.”

All ideologies appeal to emotion rather than reason. I don’t buy the argument that the BNP are so nasty that somehow the normal rules of democracy shouldn’t apply. It’s a very dangerous road to go down, and inevitably opens the door to an “opposition leader placed under house arrest” type scenario.

“So in fact trying to beat them in a ‘debate’ is useless because they’ll simply lie and keep re-asserting them talking points”

Which is exatly what talking to a leftie usually feels like !!

After me now

Women are the same as men. We are all equal. There are no innate differences between people. Wealth should be evenly distributed. Equality is good for everyone. Anyone who disagrees is a fascist….

@2. Sunny, I don’t think that’s a different reason. If it was JUST that, then the BNP would be no threat. Plenty of people believe the most irrational things and they don’t get organised into political movements or beat up Asian kids or burn Golly dolls. The key point is that the issue is one which cannot be solved on the basis of nation-state based capitalism by the government. The most often suggested solution – stricter immigration controls and the sort of rhetoric needed to whip up electoral support for such measures in the face of strong left opposition – simply exacerbate the original problem.

@3. Edwin, it’s not about ‘purity’. As for an open door policy, immigration is a much more complex issue than merely who is using the resources of whom. We can have an open door policy, but not while it’s being used as a means to drive down wages, ghettoize communities and undermine unity between workers.

The politics of exclusion and division is far more seductive than the politics of inclusion and unity. More to the point, I don’t believe that anyone with sympathies towards the propaganda of the British Nazi Party will ever be persuaded to embrace the rainbow coalition you describe.

The idea that BNP supporters are anything other than dyed-in-the-wool jackboot fascists is laughable. None can possibly have illusions as to their platform. And I don’t believe that the vast majority of the British electorate has any qualms about alienating neo-Nazis. Why must we pussy-foot around calling a spade, a spade. If you are a supporter of a fascist political party, you are a fascist. If you are a supporter of a racist party, you are a racist. BNP supporters are fascists and racists!

The idea that any political party should be accommodated to allow it to have explicitly racist policies, in wilful violation of the rule of law, is offensive. Laws, and the values of civil society they reflect, matter. I share your concerns about the use of State machinery against a political party, and the timing does indeed seem to be politically determined. But my concern is not that the law is being upheld, but that it has taken so very long for this to be initiated. How has it taken so long?!?

But if the BNP and their knuckled-dragging, cave-dwelling ilk resent mainstream opinion and the rule of law, let them resent it. Fascists and racists deserve no succour!

The short term possibility of the BNP being boosted by the “look we’re not racist” claim would surely be short lived indeed. Firstly it is a racist party, can we accept that the party would continue without issue internally when the middle eastern muslims start joining in protest?

Secondly the mid-term reaction to receiving protest members that can subvert their internal democracy is the most important.

I also don’t agree that the BNP and their supporters can’t be beaten with “debate”, though I hate the idea that what we do is “debate” with them rather than clarify their lies. People are not unreasonable, only irrational. The idea too that the parties like Labour (or any of them) have been trying to win a debate with the BNP rather than a pissing contest over restriction of the rights of people in this country is laughable.

Some people, usually the entrenched, racist and xenophobic layer of society, won’t be reasoned with any more than the ultra-lefties, communists and mega-capitalists…but with the right presentation of the facts in the right tone it can be surprising how many people hear the words they’ve been saying through fresh ears and realise how they’ve been blindly following a rhetoric without considering the truth.

“The idea that BNP supporters are anything other than dyed-in-the-wool jackboot fascists is laughable.”

The members, maybe. Supporters are just voters, and the reason they voted BNP is certainly more varied than simple allegiance to fascism.

“Supporters are just voters, and the reason they voted BNP is certainly more varied than simple allegiance to fascism.”

I’m yet to be convinced of that. The racist platform of the BNP is plain as the day, and anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or intellectually subnormal.

Neither am I convinced of the idea that BNP supporters just want to feel loved, and if we could just connect with their hopes and dreams, then the future will be all gum-drops and candy-floss.

I agree that we do need to build a workers coalition. But as a response to the advent of New Labour, not New Nazism.

So basically you are saying you can’t be anti-immigation without being a fascist or some kind of fascist enabler?

Fascinating take. I mean you are aware that all the recent research on socal capital demonstrates that more diverse communities have signifantly less trust and cohesion than homogenous ones? That is Robert Putnam’s conclusion of “Bowling Alone” fame.

For the record, I still lean towards being pro-immigration because I don’t think individual freedom of movement can be trumped by the rights of traditional communities to cohesion. But I can see how there is a respectable argument against immigration and not a racist one. But you can’t accept that. You can’t tolerate any dissent. This is what we mean by political correctness gone mad.

The EHRC should back off (or preferably be abolised) and the state should stick to prosecuting BNP members when they actually (as they frequently do) commit crimes of violence. Perhaps if we had some stiffer jail sentences for violent acts against the person in general, the BNPs activist base would be rather drained as it stands.

All ideologies appeal to emotion rather than reason. I don’t buy the argument that the BNP are so nasty that somehow the normal rules of democracy shouldn’t apply.

Who said the normal rules of democracy shouldn’t apply? His point, and my point, relates to whether right-thinking people should share a platform with them. It is entirely within the remit of democracy that a person can choose to sharing a platform with someone.

David:
Plenty of people believe the most irrational things and they don’t get organised into political movements or beat up Asian kids or burn Golly dolls. The key point is that the issue is one which cannot be solved on the basis of nation-state based capitalism by the government. The most often suggested solution – stricter immigration controls and the sort of rhetoric needed to whip up electoral support for such measures in the face of strong left opposition – simply exacerbate the original problem.

That’s unfortunately not entirely true. Margaret Thatcher pulled the rug out from the feet of the National Front movement by echoing some of their talking points.

And I suspect that once the Tories get into power and start echoing some BNP points, they will also see a drop in electoral support. Now that means the electoral numbers change but you’d be right in saying that the underlying problem (scarcity of resources) doesn’t go away. But tackling that is beyond the capabillity of our crop of politicians.

—
Lee: but with the right presentation of the facts in the right tone it can be surprising how many people hear the words they’ve been saying through fresh ears and realise how they’ve been blindly following a rhetoric without considering the truth.

I’m not sure I see much evidence of this actually happening. The right-wing press will keep publishing lies about the issue and that’s not going to change. So how exactly would this presentation of facts happen?

Its pretty simple for somebody who believes in freedom of association. The state should not be telling voluntary political organisations how they may select their members. People should not be forced to associate -politically or otherwise – with those they do not wish to, regardless of whether such decisions are made for good reasons or bad reasons. And political organisations are not obliged to manage themselves in a manner that is acceptable to society at large.

“but in the real world immigration into countries with human rights and welfare systems (however flawed) from people oho live in countries with no welfare systems and very limited human rights has to be restricted.”

Of course. this is because the established residents of the said human rights-welfare system countries have an unmitigated moral right to these things and likewise an unmitigated moral right to deny these things to others because of the wholly arbitrary and undeserved fact that they were born in one place rather than another.

This unmtigiated moral right is in no way mitigated by the historical context that rich countries may in fact be as rich as they are, and poor countries as poor as they are, because of sustained and concerted exploitation in centuries past by the former of the latter.

You are right. It is Just A Fact that immigration has to be stopped/reduced, and not merely a cynical and lazy response to public resentment fuelled by lies, historical blindness and a moral reasoning which posits arbitrary contingencies of birth as justifiably determinants of all that follows.

Thanks for this demonstration of why Common Sense is all we need when dealing with difficult socio-ethical politically charged questions.

@ Ed Gerstner

“I’m yet to be convinced of that. The racist platform of the BNP is plain as the day, and anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or intellectually subnormal.”

Could i suggest something known as “empirical evidence”?

namely, perhaps you could investigate whether the tens of thousands of people who voted BNP in the June Euro elections were all dyed-in-the-wool jackbooted fascists?

Because i think you will find that the remarkable thing is that 9% of the Barnsley electorate (for example) which voted BNP was not purely composed of out and out fascists.

Perhaps you should think twice before calling other people intellectually subnormal….

Just a suggestion.

Nick

The BNP is far more than just an anti-immigration party. And I certainly wouldn’t equate being anti-immigration with being a fascist.

There is a sensible and valid debate to be had about immigration policy. I just don’t think we need to consider the BNP when framing this or any other debate.

The vast majority of the British public are not sympathetic to the BNP, and I think this is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that despite the current economic and social turmoil, the absolute size of the BNP vote hasn’t significantly increased. I don’t believe their supporters are misunderstood. And I doubt that in any other circumstances, political or economic, would they be anything other than racists.

Paul

That’s probably fair. I admit there is probably a third section of BNP supporters who are simply ignorant, and these might be for turning. But anyone who has probed any further beyond the basic fact that that the BNP is not one of the three mainstream parties cannot be in any doubt over what they stand for. Surely?

“I’m not sure I see much evidence of this actually happening. The right-wing press will keep publishing lies about the issue and that’s not going to change. So how exactly would this presentation of facts happen?”

This is what I’m getting at, I think. The mass media need to take their place, as do the political parties, to actually TRY the “debate” side of things in the first place. To claim it’s not working when no-one is actually en masse debunking these myths and lies is jumping the gun.

“But anyone who has probed any further beyond the basic fact that that the BNP is not one of the three mainstream parties cannot be in any doubt over what they stand for. Surely?”

It’s an interesting question

1. You may want to question your implicit assumption that people voting BNP have probed any further into the basic facts aboout the BNP. My experience of people who live in Southport (where my parents are from and where I visited recently) who voted for Nick Griffin/BNP in the North West is that many of them don’t go a-probing.

2. Likewise, I’ve met lots of people who are just a little bit racist, frankly. They don’t like “pakis” and want immigrants to “go home”. But that sort of low-level bigotry is a long way from out and out fascism/nazism.

Now we all know that what lies behind the mask of BNP respectability is fascism/nazism as well as violently antisemitic and racist impulses. But part of the reason we know that is because we are interested in politics, have looked into the BNP, and know a bit about history and what happens when people like the BNP get into power.

My guess is that lots of the low-level racists I know who voted/I suspect voted BNP don’t know that the BNP are fascists/nazis at root and don’t appreciate what this means. Why? Because many ordinary people don’t know much about history or political party history, and don’t have the time or inclination to find out. They know that they don’t like “pakis” (or whoever), and assume the BNP is nothing more than an anti-establishment organisation voicing their low-level racist bigotry.

Thus, people who are not themselves out and out fascists, but rather just your garden-variety racist can end up supporting the BNP in large numbers.

A similar story can be told for people who it probably wouldn’t be fair to say are even low-level racists, but have imbibed a general paranoia about uncontrolled immigration: they see the BNP as simply an anti-immigration party that’s saying what a lot of editorials in the Sun/NotW/Daily Mail are often articulating, but which other political parties don’t. Again, such people may end up voting BNP without really knowing what it is they are voting for, and without themselves being fairly described as fascists.

Lee Griffin,

“This is what I’m getting at, I think. The mass media need to take their place, as do the political parties, to actually TRY the “debate” side of things in the first place. To claim it’s not working when no-one is actually en masse debunking these myths and lies is jumping the gun.”

Yes, spot on.

“It is the unity of the working class in the face of common exploitation”

Snigger. Good grief, does anyone at all still think that way (not spout the words, but actually think?) at all?

I thought we had pretty good empirical evidence between 1848 and the Manifesto and 1989 when the Wall came down that capitalist exploitation just kept making the world a better place?

On the other matter, Reuben is of course correct. Freedom of Association is a freedom as important as that of speech. I can (and quite rightly should not be able to) no more stop you joining an organisation mulling over cod Marxism and the elimination of the bourgeoisie (something which most times people have tried it means the swift death of most people like you and me) than you should have to stop people getting together with whoever they like to spout wibble about racial codswallop.

Yes, there’re idiots, racists and fascists. It is still a free country.

Bill Corr

I think the technical term for someone like you is “ignorant smug cunt”.

Goodbye.

Law or not, this could all too easily backfire from the point of view of those who wish to defeat the BNP and fascist sentiments they represent. At the very least, the BNP will point out that this is persecution of minorities like the “Celtic Scottish folk community” or the “Anglo-Saxon-Norse folk community”.

So much free publicity – in doing this they are allowed to get their message out ‘legitimately’ because how can you muffle them?

It’s like a conspiracy that the main parties WANT an ultra right-wing party in power; shut up about them and let them have their 6000 votes for christs sake!

Where exactly do I find the ““Anglo-Saxon-Norse folk community”?

It just puts me in mind of a bunch of vikings heading off to the Green Man Festival.

Paul@18

such people may end up voting BNP without really knowing what it is they are voting for, and without themselves being fairly described as fascists.

And yet when someone lucidly articulates why they vote BNP.

Paul@22

I think the technical term for someone like you is “ignorant smug cunt”.

Think this needs a bit of work, Paul.

Yeah, I wouldn’t have used ‘smug’.

FFS is no one on this thread familiar with Millgram ? It is frighteningly easy to manipualate almost anyone (yes even late sipping islington liberals) into behaving like monsters. History shows it and science shows it.

“I can (and quite rightly should not be able to) no more stop you joining an organisation mulling over cod Marxism and the elimination of the bourgeoisie (something which most times people have tried it means the swift death of most people like you and me) than you should have to stop people getting together with whoever they like to spout wibble about racial codswallop.”

Exactly, as if the far right are the only group who have ever killed anyone for no other reason than they didn’t like what they thought/said/where they came from. I sometimes wonder what the vitriol heaped on the BNP by some on the left is really about.

Paul Sagar (18) hits the nail on the head re: the distinction between the majority of those who vote for the BNP and fascists themselves; there’s a spectrum of racism ranging from a simple dislike of change to racial supremicism – and there are genuine fears about wages being undercut that are not racist in themselves.

As to the EHRC, there are legitimate questions about freedom of assembly here. Of course, racists and bigots of all kinds should be allowed to join if the membership are willing to accept them but this is really an attempt to legislate in favour of entryism.

I’d prefer not to muddy the waters and to keep the BNP isolated as obvious racists rather than force them into accepting a few ethnic minorities whom they can then parade around to ‘prove’ they aren’t racist.

‘FFS is no one on this thread familiar with Millgram ? It is frighteningly easy to manipualate almost anyone (yes even late sipping islington liberals) into behaving like monsters. History shows it and science shows it.’

I’m very familiar with Millgram but I’m not sure what you are getting at here.

@12. Sunny, might I put a different spin on that interpretation? Thatcher pulled the rug out from beneath the feet of the National Front – absolutely no denying that – but she didn’t solve the problems which gave birth to the National Front: she simply attempted to make the Conservative Party the vehicle by which people would address those grievances. You have to admit, many of her pronouncements on things like immigration were shockingly racist.

And the problem hasn’t gone away; nothing has been solved – meanwhile David Cameron positions his party towards the centre and the extreme Right benefit from it.

@ 30 What I’m getting at is that people who would generally consider themselves to be reasonale, humane and moral can alarmingly quickly become blind to the consequences of their actions, inhumane and immoral, under a certain combination of social pressures (perceived legitimate authority, and for some, peer reinforcement).
The most interesting thing about Milgram for me is that he showed that identification with “a cause” is neither necessary nor sufficient for coercion – all it takes is a man in a white coat (symbol of authority).
In simple terms – the fact that you consider yourself a “good” person does not make you immune from doing bad things (like voting for the BNP) under the right circumstances. It’s the “I was only following orders” defence writ large. It’s unlikey that a third of the population of pre war germany considered themselves as potential actors in a genocide is it not ? But that is what they became through manipulation.

Glad to see that just like every BNP thread, it get’s filled with racists.

Which makes me wonder, to the racists keep googling the BNP or just check back at LC every few days or so and wait for the next BNP themed offering to rant in?

DHG – please explain what I’ve said that leads you to conclude I’m a racist ? Or are you just a typical “he doesn’t agree with my agenda therefore he’s racist” old fashioned leftie ?

Bill Corr is right!

Britain needs several million more savage immigrants from lawless and disease-ridden Third World cesspits!

It is totally wrong that there are still several areas of Britain without muggers and/or dope dealers; what can the Home Office be thinking of?

Fill Cornwall with Somalis now!

Twat Munro:

Although I don’t particularly like you, not every comment is about you, this thread is full of plenty of racists.

Fair enough it was right under my comment thats all.

Yep, but unfortunatley there is no reply to function.

God bless the bigots.

Sunny H
The BNP tap into a sense of resentment and emotion which has little to do with facts and reasoning. So in fact trying to beat them in a ‘debate’ is useless because they’ll simply lie and keep re-asserting them talking points.
You mean like Labour/Tories and Libdims.

Ed Gerstner
The idea that BNP supporters are anything other than dyed-in-the-wool jackboot fascists is laughable.
What all 943,598 of them.

It’s always amused me that you think it’s perfectly OK to accept Sinn Fein MEPs and MPs. After all they have only murdered people, shot people in the knee caps and tried to kill a PM and members of the Royal Family but this Griffin, he has opinions I don’t like, so off with his head.
A bit like Henry Ford’s car advert of long ago:-
You can have any democracy you want as long as it’s the one we want.
Misquoted of course but true.
As for the violence, I have only seen that from the UAF in Birmingham and outside the BNP meeting recently. Tell me, who was it using violence against the police.
Lastly, if people who vote for them don’t know what they are doing, why is their web site the most popular political site on the web by a long way.
Just a thought.

Actually I am coming around to the idea that they might not all be fascists. Some could be simply dumb as a sack of hammers and others just pig ignorant. But it’s useful to remember there were some 150,000 plus supporters of Hitler in Britain, even as he was raining them with bombs.

Either way, I can’t say I’m that fond of the idea of talking to them, listening to them, or standing idly by as they flout the law of the land.

And to those who think it’s peachy keen to let anyone get away with active discrimination, I’d be interested to know where they think it should stop. If I own a house that I want to rent, shouldn’t I be allowed not to rent it to Muslims, or Jews, or Norse-Scots-Celt-folkish tenants? It’s MY house! It’s a FREE country!

What if I own a business?

Or an estate?

Gated ‘racially pure’ communities anyone?

I accept that practically it might be better just to leave the British Nazis to their own devices. One thing you can rely on from these type of groups is that they will eventually implode under the intrinsic paranoic and sociopathic tendencies of their rank and file.

But laws matter. And I’m not happy about there being one rule for civil members of society and another for nutters.

A quick look at Rayatcov’s site will reveal images that try and connect the EU with Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, as well as a smattering of John Bull figures and Union Jacks.

Speaks volumes.

I do agree Sunny, from long experience, that debating racists is pointless for the reasons you state, funny to see the Rat try and connect that with the major political parties in another attack of LOOK OVER THERE and the childish: “Well they do it” when in reality ‘they’ don’t.

Racism is, for all of the ideas around rational racism, irrational and hence undebatable. No mountain of facts will enable someone to shift from their bigotry because it is not based on facts in the first place.

And Ed has it right, the 900,000+ voters may not all be daft racists, they may just be thick, they’d have to be to swallow the unworkable policies, or at the very least not have much idea how a country works.

Also, where is this data for the BNP’s site being the most popular on teh Interwebs?

And have no never heard of people staring at a car crash before?