Wednesday, January 18, 2006

DK supports Nick Griffin

No, I didn't think that I would ever write those words either, and I shouldn't think that anyone but those who refuse to take my writings with the pinch of salt generally recommend thought that they would either, but there you have it.

For, via Martin, I notice that Nick Griffin is on trial for "race-hate" charges. Apparently, he said some nasty things about Asians.
The British National Party leader, Nick Griffin, told a public house audience that white society had turned into a multiracial hellhole as Asian Muslims aimed to conquer the country, a court heard yesterday.

Well, there are people in this country who would tend to agree with Mr Griffin. Particularly those in Bradford, for instance.
After making a series of claims about Muslim gangs grooming and raping children, Griffin said: "The bastards that are in that gang, they are in prison, so the public think it's all over. Well it's not. Because there's more of them. The police force and elected governors haven't done a damn thing about it.

"Their good book [the Koran] tells them that that's acceptable. If you doubt it, go and buy a copy and you will find verse after verse, and you can take any woman you want as long as it's not Muslim women."

Well, the first bit is a bit paranoid, but the last two sentences are true enough.
Mr Jameson said Griffin had said Asian community leaders would condemn the attacks to the press, but not to the attackers themselves. "It's part of their plan for conquering countries. It's how they do it," Griffin said.

Mr Griffin would not be the first to notice the hypocrisy of people like our own dear Iqbal, as well as other imans. Unfortunately, the Beeb don't seem to have done nearly as much undercover reporting in mosques as they have at BNP meetings. It would probably be a violation of our Muslim friends' rights or something.

However, whether or not what he said is correct or not, in this country he should have a right to say it. That is, after all, what the point of free speech is. That, you know, you can say what you like; speech is, erm, free.

Martin maintains that "if Mr. Griffin loses his case, the end of free speech in Britain is at hand." He is wrong. The very fact that this has come to trial shows, all too clearly, that free speech in Britain has already come to an end. Free speech in this country is dead, so you'd better watch what you say in the pub, my dears—even when pissed—or next thing you know, you'll find yourself up in court.

So, whatever Mr Griffin's views, this blog will support him in his case. Because, frankly, your humble Devil does not know who he finds more repulsive: the BNP or the Labour government. But, generally speaking, I'm leaning towards the government at the moment.

And I'm bolloxed if that shower of fucking fascist shitwits are going to control what I say, the cock-knocking, arse-munching bunch of cunts.

Robert Locke has started a new site dealing with this, The Truth Is No Defence, so go and sign the petition. Or does your love for free speech not include those with whom you disagree? How strong are your convictions?


Martin said...


For the avoidance of doubt, the post was written by Dennis - but I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Griffin is a poltroon, and he and his political philosophy, racial nationalism, is both a historical and scientific fraud.

But you're dead right. This is one of those 'defend to your death the right to say it' moments. Prosecuting the clod only makes a potential martyr of him, as well as assaulting all our rights.

john b said...

Hmm. I'd happily defend someone's right to say "I hate the blacks and they should all fuck off back home". But their right to tell an angry crowd "The Muslims' holy book tells them to rape your daughter" is more of a fire-theatre-ish question than a free speech one.

Martin said...


You're far more liberal than I am - I would insist on calling a person who said such a thing an ill-mannered sod with no concept of the racelessness of citizenship.

But with all due respect, Griffin's prosecution is based on the content of a speech he made at one particular point in time and space - not for whatever effect his speech might have made upon the yeomen of Keighley, many of whom were likely to be political sympathisers.

The purpose of the 'shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre' test, which if memory serves was first formulated by Oliver Wendell Holmes, is to assess whether particular types of speech should be legally protected.

For your analysis to be correct, Griffin would have had to have directly incited racially bigoted violence in precisely the terms you suggest - and the pensioners of Keighley would then have had to have run amok in a bloodlust of racial bigotry solely on the basis of Griffin's urging. From what one can divine from the reporting of the evidence so far, thee appears to be no indication that either he or they did anything of the sort.

john b said...

Surely the fact that they didn't *actually* run amok isn't the test - the test is whether the words could reasonably have been expected to have that effect (just as we punish dangerous or drunk drivers even when they fortuitiously don't kill anyone).

Re the "send the blacks home" chap - well of course, but if someone tried to use the law to stop him saying it then you and I would both, I hope, be out protesting against that decision...

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...