Posts Tagged Nick Griffin

Hung, drawn and quartered.

Hung, drawn and quartered.

So, with the campaigning finally over and the results coming in across the country, we have a hung parliament. The Conservatives made some stunning gains in some areas and failed to meet expectations in others; the rise of the Liberal Democrats in the media was followed by a dramatic fall when it came to the reality of the final figures, and some of the worst Labour Party slimeballs – among them the odious Hazel Blears – still managed to retain their seats. Those that were cast aside included onetime Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Noddy’s best mate Charles Clarke and Dewsbury’s most famous “imam” and expenses fiddler, Shahid Malik. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Britain, 2010

Britain, 2010

Just a quick one this evening – I don’t really want to ruin my good mood brought out by Bayern more or less wrapping up the Bundesliga title… One down, two to go. So… Britain, 2010. A situation summed up in a nutshell by two stories, both of which leave me scratching my head in disbelief. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Integration: A German Success Story

Integration: A German Success Story

A burning topic over the last few weeks has been that of the idea of identity, and what it takes to be part of a wider community. The prominence of the likes of the BNP in the news has made the very idea of what it means to “belong” a hot topic, and opinions on the matter differ markedly even among those who might otherwise find common ground on the vast majority of other issues.

As a member of a fairly diverse but essentially occidentalist culture – us Burghers can now be found far and wide, from Germany to South Africa and from Canada to Australia – there was never any real issue us having to “fit in” – we just did. While I since have heard tales of woe from many, they are utterly alien to me: despite living in what could have been described as arguably one of the most “whiter than white” environments – a succession of armed forces bases – these problems just seemed to pass me by. The only negativity I seem to remember from my schooldays came as a result of my long-held admiration of the German wartime military, and my being dubbed “Firebomb Fritz” after a trip to the Imperial War Museum where a fellow pupil had been inspired by a wartime propaganda poster. I cannot remember much else, to be honest.

Firebomb Fritz: scary...

Firebomb Fritz: scary...

Given the life I experienced as a youngster on an RAF base in the otherwise dark and dangerous seventies and eighties I have always believed in the principle of assimilation and absoption – in short, a straightforward “when in Rome” approach – and have never agreed with the multi-cultural experiment, which is an exercise that contradicts all given rules of common sense and social cohesion. A nation is made by weaving new ideas with the old, in pursuit of a culture that is continues to develop and improve both socially and economically. It is about creating a society with fundamental values that we all should share, something that resides not merely in word and deed, but at the very core of our being.

The multi-kulti mantra parroted by the left has always run in the opposite direction to this; rather than promoting the idea that newcomers should try and bring the best of their own culture and meld it with that of the majority, they have continually advanced the cock-eyed idea that everything can sit alongside each other and merrily tick along. Meanwhile, the majority are made to respect the culture of the newcomer and accept it in its entirety, even if many aspects may be at odds with mainstream society or at times diametrically opposed to what many would consider basic rules of human conduct. The words “tolerance” and “acceptance” are thrown around like sweets at a childrens’ party, but little is said about the fact that these concepts cut both ways – and it shouldn’t be up to one party to bend over backwards while the other happily stamps all over them.

Of course, when you give somebody an inch they will almost always end up taking a mile; and so it has come to pass that we have seen the development of fractured, divided communities where society has become atomised. Instead of common ground there is division, and instead of social harmony there is mutual mistrust and – when things spill over – open and visceral hate. There is little or no concept of a common civic culture, as the social bedrock it requires is slowly being chipped away.

The left have argued that Britain has progressed on account of the number of so-called “minority” figures in positions of influence; this may in itself look like a good thing, but one even then has to wonder whether these people are there simply as window dressing, or are there to promote their own partisan interests. It does irk me when I see a parliamentarian described as “Britain’s first Muslim cabinet minister”, for example; what is this supposed to mean? Where does this MP’s loyalties actually lie? Are they there to represent all of the people in their constituency, or simply the Muslim community? It may sound like I am softly walking on the path laid out by the likes of Nick Griffin, but I would rather have a MP of a onetime Muslim background than a “Muslim MP”. OK, perhaps it is just a matter of semantics, but there’s always a lot more to it than that.

This all leads me to the story that inspired me to write this – the selection of the first German cabinet minister of Asian descent, Dr. Philipp Rösler.

A high-flyer within the Freie Demokratische Partei (Free Democratic Party, or FDP), Rösler is the ultimate posterboy for the success of integration: born in South Vietnam and adopted by a German family he lived as a German, grew up as one and is now a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s new cabinet. If Rösler had been British, his career would have been artificially fast-tracked; instead, he was able to quietly build what has so far been a stellar political career and get to where he is on merit. After serving in the Bundeswehr and then qualifying as a physician, he is now the minister for health in Europe’s largest democracy.

Dr. Philipp Rösler

Dr. Philipp Rösler

Unlike, say, many black or Muslim MPs in Britain, Philipp Rösler is not there on an ethnic minority ticket or because his constituency is conveniently located in a town or city populated by minorities. He does not represent South Vietnamese refugees, nor does he claim to represent the Asian community. He is a German-speaking Catholic, is married to a German, and represents Germans – as is his duty as a minister in the federal government.

Rösler is so well thought of in German political circles that he has been touted as a potential successor to current FDP leader Guido Westerwelle; were this to happen, he could one day end up as a future Vice-Chancellor.

That Germany, a country still seen as being way behind our own little island in terms of “equality legislation”, should produce the likes of Philipp Rösler has probably caused a great deal of confusion for the left; I am sure that many of them would scoff and describe him as a sell-out. Meanwhile, the sort of divisive candidate they support might win a shoo-in seat and get into Parliament, but would never get beyond that as they would not be seen as anything but a “minority candidate” who would be tasked with “minority issues”. Can you see the likes of Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik, for example, being a future Health Secretary? I can’t.

, , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Spot the contradiction…

Spot the contradiction...

Having spent the best part of a fortnight obsessing over the damp squib that was the Nick Griffin special edition of Question Time, it appears the fellows at the Guardian are now having to get back to the same old whine-fests…

Today comes the revelation that the police (boo! hiss!) have taken to photographing members of protest crowds, with frequently-snapped individuals making what have been called “spotter cards“. The Guardian journalists’ opinion is no doubt skewed by the fact that police documents have made use of the term “domestic extremists” – when of course all of those who attend such protests are peace-loving, law-abiding members of the community. Righty-o.

The truth is that when you take a cross-section of protestors – no matter who or what they may be happening to protest for or against – there will be a higher number of hardcore activists and potential troublemakers than if you took a similar sample of people who would prefer to stay at home instead. Protestors are out there because they want to be heard, and it should be a given that among their number would be some who want to be heard in any circumstance. This is basic common sense, and it in no way implies that all protestors are potential troublemakers.

Police insist they are just monitoring the minority who could damage property or commit aggravated trespass, causing significant disruption to lawful businesses. Activists respond by claiming this is an excuse that gives police the licence to carry out widespread surveillance of whole organisations that are a legitimate part of the democratic process.

The statement from the police sounds fair enough to me – if you are not a troublemaker, your face is hardly going to make one of these spotter cards anyway – there are only so many sheets of card that can be handed around at any one time, and it is highly unlikely that every police officer on duty would be carrying around an encyclopedia of mugshots with them.

Of course, this is something only worth moaning about if you happen to sympathise with the groups being spied on; the police are no doubt watching BNP marches up and down the country with perhaps even a greater level of scrutiny, and I’d wager that these same journalists would have no problem with that – in spite of the fact that the BNP is of course itself a “legitimate part of the democratic process”.

They also warn that the categorisation carries echoes of the cold war, when the security services monitored constitutional campaigns such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Anti-Apartheid Movement because alleged subversives or communists were said to be active within them, although they said the organisations themselves were not subversive.

Again, the same basic principle can be applied to the BNP and its membership; while quite clearly there are some dangerous individuals who need to be watched, the organisation itself has not been classified as subversive. It is a fact that both CND and the Anti-Apartheid movement were crawling with communists and various other pro-Soviet ne’er do wells, in much the same way as the BNP has among its membership a number of David Copeland wannabes. It is the duty of the state to keep an open eye out for extremists of every hue, and if certain freedoms are to be compromised then so be it.

Of course, people could choose not to have their photograph taken by the police by simply staying at home instead of causing traffic jams and generally wasting everybody’s time – but that would be silly, wouldn’t it?

, , , ,

No Comments

And so…

And so...

Erm, right.

For all the pre-event media furore and brouhaha, it was all really a damp squib. Old Nick came out looking like a bit of a tit, but then so did Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw whose attempts to wriggle out of answering a question on immigration was positively cringeworthy – as was his description of Griffin as “the Doctor Strangelove of British politics”. I wonder which hack provided him with that one.

Griffin was predictably served up with quotes from his suspect political CV, and little was asked about the policies of the BNP that are for some reason or another so popular at the moment with some sections of society – which was very convenient for Mr Straw who blubbed and spluttered through the whole show. You could tell he really didn’t want to be there.

Also inconspicuous by his presence was the ineffective Liberal Democrat leader Chris Huhne – to the point I really did wonder why he was actually there.

Of the other panellists, Conservative peer and shadow cabinet minister Sayeeda Warsi put up a fairly decent showing, with her most impressive moments coming not when she was berating the hapless Mr Griffin but turning the heat up on the rather uncomfortable Straw over Labour’s policy on immigration and asylum. Best by far though was American playwright and critic Bonnie Greer, who despite sitting next to Griffin retained her sense of humour and steered clear of what was as the show wore on an increasingly soft target. Her lightly veiled sarcasm and at times patronising tone even made the dour BNP chairman crack a smile.

“I’ve brought some books for you to read, Nick.” lol.

In all it was a wonderful picture of politics in this country – an evening full of soundbites, with Griffin being characteristically evasive and the mainstream politicians trying to out-trump each other in terms of how right-on they were in lambasting him. That non-politician Greer was the best of the panellists on what is ostensibly a current affairs and politics show was telling – in a sense, it sums up precisely why so many people in this country have turned towards the likes of the BNP for answers.

After all, they sure as hell aren’t getting any answers from anywhere else.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Questions, questions…

Questions, questions...

I guess some of you sad folks who read this little blog are waiting for some extensive feedback on last night’s edition of Question Time – dubbed the “Nick Griffin Special”… Sorry, not yet.

I had a little bit of work to do yesterday evening, and after our usual late dinner Caroline and I settled down to watch the final of Masterchef: The Professionals Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Where will this nonsense end?

Where will this nonsense end?

Like many other interested commentators I will be watching Question Time and the appearance of BNP chairman Nick Griffin on Thursday evening; maybe then a line can be drawn under this subject and we can all get back to the serious business of sorting out this country.

Since the announcement was made, Griffin has come under attack from all sides – the Government, the rabble of the hard left, the conservative right, and now the British Army. Griffin has – in his own peculiar style – attempted to deflect this criticism, but has only succeeded in digging a hole for himself and providing mischievous journalists with ample opportunities to twist a word here and there in search of a suitably lurid headline. It has become rather laughable.

The latest spat involving Griffin and the leadership of the Army is a case in point: for a long time, the BNP has claimed to be the only political party on the side of “our boys” out in Afghanistan and Iraq – fair enough I suppose, as the Government has continued to make a pig’s ear of proceedings and the opposition – bar a few of the old Tory stalwarts – have offered little in the way of any practical solutions.

In fairness, I don’t think anyone can doubt that the average rank-and-file member of the BNP wants to get the troops out of these dust-ridden hellholes and bring them back home; where things do hit the rails however is when Griffin and his publicity office put out statements claiming that this support is somehow being reciprocated by the armed services. Such a tactic was always going to be slapped down by the military leadership – and it was no surprise when Generals Sir Richard Dannatt and Sir Mike Jackson came out strongly against the BNP and their rather puerile attempt to co-opt the miltary.

It is pretty clear that Griffin was going to be slightly hacked off at this – but his reaction has been nothing short of bizarre. In his half-baked attempt to flip back the “Nazi” accusations and compare the British military leadership to the generals who were hanged at Nuremberg, he has made himself look like a prize idiot from whichever angle you look at it. The first angle is obvious – by comparing the British military leadership with the Nazis, he is never going to win any plus points he is trying to win over; the second angle is slightly more controversial in that it is worth pointing out that many of those in the German military that were tried at Nuremberg were simply following a chain of command, and that the charge of “waging aggressive warfare” – which Griffin is cynically using to his own advantage – was a little more than a case of victor’s justice. Which, of course, would make his position just as absurd.

It is probably true that if Generals Dannatt and Jackson were on the other side during the Second World War they would have probably gone to the gallows, much like poor old Generaloberst Alfred Jodl who – when the heat had died down – was posthumously and very quietly acquitted of all charges that had been made against him at Nuremberg.

Griffin’s response to the Army top brass perhaps reveals what he really thinks about the services – namely, that they are simply there to be used a propaganda tool and little else. The Generals are “war criminals” for having the temerity to distance themselves from his political party, but had they offered any kind of support it is likely that any “criminal” conduct would have been enthusiastically overlooked. One can imagine Griffin or one of his pals waiting to receive potential supporters as they arrive back from Iraq and Afghanistan – and then, when being told to fuck off, goes into a hissy fit and says that he diddunt want to be their fwend anyway. It’s infantile, schoolyard stuff: if the BNP really cared about the military it would not matter what the military thought of them – their support would be in every instance unconditional.

Of course, this story has allowed journalists to get away with all sorts of word manipulation – for example while Griffin did compare the British Army leadership with that of the Wehrmacht, he didn’t serve up the statement attributed to him in The TimesBNP: British generals should be hanged for war crimes.

If anyone should be hauled up in front of a court on war crimes charges, it should be the meddlers and political intriguers who ordered the Generals to sent the troops out in the first place: in short, we should be looking no further than former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his “fifteen minute WMD” minions.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Hain the pain

Hain the pain

Sometimes I wonder why some people just cannot shut up and crawl back into their little holes. Nope, on this occasion I am not talking about BNP leader Nick Griffin, but Welsh Secretary and serial meddler Peter Hain. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , ,

2 Comments

Unite Against Foolishness

Unite Against Foolishness

Yet again the British National Party make their way into the news when they should have been left to trot along, but those who have only served to make their case stronger seem intent on magnifying what is, in truth, a minor issue. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

No Comments

“A bad day for democracy?”

"A bad day for democracy?"

Many spokespersons from the mainstream parties have described the British National Party (BNP) winning two seats in the recent European election “a bad day for democracy”. I however am not so sure. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

No Comments