Thursday, January 26, 2006

The Griffin flies

As readers will know, I have found myself supporting, on free speech grounds, Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party. Via Martin, I see that the trial has moved onto Griffin's defence of himself.
[Griffin] said he genuinely believed that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith", but added that this was not a criticism of Muslim people.

As you'll know, there is very little I would disagree with there. There are many Muslims in this country who live their lives perfectly quietly, and who are not raving loonies who blow themselves up on Tube trains (however, quite obviously some are). However, Islam as a faith is easily used to justify these actions. It is also used to justify the appalling human rights abuses across the world, and the frankly mediaeval outlook of many of the cultures which any liberal needs must despise. I am referring, of course, to forced slavery in Pakistan, the "right to rape" mentality, the abuse of women and girls, the mutilations and general misery caused by its adherents. It could also be said that this version of Islam is adhered to by the majority of Muslims in the world.
Griffin described Britain as "a disaster" because of its attempts to become a "multi-cultural paradise".

Would anyone who watched the Burnley riots argue with that? Oh, yes, apart from those who have attempted that neither religion nor culture were to blame, only poverty. However, as we have seen, that poverty is often a result of religion or culture. Whether it is Muslim pupils refusing to use an addition sign, or husbands locking their children in the home in order to give them a "good Muslim education", the Religion of Pieces consistently manufactures its own poverty.

Regardless of any consistent proof that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith", no one should be prosecuted for saying that they believe that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith". What kind of country are we living in, for fuck's sake?
The court heard that he made a speech at Shelf Village Hall, Halifax, in which he said that an elderly Asian man had been the subject of a "wicked attack" in a London subway and that whoever carried out should be hanged.

Interestingly, it doesn't say who said this, but one assumes that this is still part of Master Griffin's defence. If this is true, was it recorded by the undercover Beeb guy? If so, why was this not brought up? Further, will the cameraman return to the witness stand to admit that this is true?
Griffin said the large crowd at the meeting had broken out into an "immediate, spontaneous and generous burst of applause" and after being shown the video in a police interview, he told the officers: "There's no hatred in this audience and there's no hate from me."

It would appear not (apart, of course, for hatred for the attackers; a sentiment with which I can agree, frankly). So we assume that this was on the video, and Master Griffin did, then, condemn the beating of an Asian. Is this trial going a bit weird or what? Are they about to prosecute him for inciting racial violence against whites beating up Asians? Won't the prosecution lawyers' heads pop at this stage?
Griffin said: "I admire people of all races but I would prefer my children, my people, to keep themselves to themselves. It causes problems."

He said his Sikh friends felt this too, adding: "They want their grandchildren to look like they do."

The trouble is with Griffin is that he is often rather plausible. I don't think that segregation works particularly well; in fact, "ghetto-isation" is often blamed by liberals for the racial tensions in this country. The trouble is that people of different cultures tend to segregate themselves to an extent. Naturally, the BNP's solution is to deport them, but that opinion is not what is on trial here (and is, after all, simply an opinion).
Griffin told the court he did not hate Muslims or Asians, claiming it was Islam which was responsible for problems sweeping country after country.

He is not alone here. That is not to say that all Muslims are evil fucks, disruptive to their host society but, as the riots in France, Holland, Denmark and Australia showed, the conditions that Islam imposes often creates divisions and that, in turn, breeds violence.

I would say that Griffin is probably going to win this one, although it's still a pretty close call. And if he does, that will be a victory for free speech in this country.
Griffin, of Llanerfyl, Powys, Wales, denies two charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred and two alternative charges of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.

The very fact that race is taken into account in criminal trials is a fucking farce anyway. What happened to the philosophy that the law is blind? Why is incitement to racial violence more severely punished than incitement to any violence? Why does a racial murder call down twice the sentence of a non-racially motivated murder? If a bunch of white guys kill a black guy and a white guy, are you telling me that the black victim's life is more valuable than the white man's? That is the sort of thing that feeds division, and feeds support for opinnions such as those espoused by the BNP.

Immigration policy in this country has been a complete and utter failure.

4 comments:

Robert said...

The problem with Griffin is his inconsistency. If he thinks Islam is so wicked, why doesn't he condemn the homophobic, misogynist monolith of Christianity too?

a) because he's trivially, and uninterestingly racist, or
b) because he doesn't believe Christianity is a homopobic, misogynist monolith.

But if the latter is true, then the same can surely be said for Isalm, no?

Also, I totally disagree with the idea that immigration policy has been a complete and uttter failure. What about the majority of immigrants who came over here and got on with their lives, mixing with the incumbent population.

Why see things in black and white? If Nick Griffin wishes to have free speech, he should at least try and grasp the subtleties of an issue... nay, the subtlties of life.

Bishop Hill said...

Because everyone recognises the Christian extremists as an irrelevance. They don't threaten anyone.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Except pro-choice doctors! Other than that, BH is essentially correct.

DK

Anonymous said...

I think we should wait until christian extremists blow up tube trains before judging them.

Nick Griffin has been a Cassandra.

The majority of things he has said, but were ignored, have come to be.

He is being tried for modern equivalent of heresy by the state-worshipers.

Moonbat still loony

It's always delightful to dip into George Moonbat's nutty articles ... We cannot rely on market forces and corporate goodwill to de...