Retrial begins of BNP leaders accused of stirring racial hatred

Ray · 11-04-2006, 16:10 PM

Quote:

Retrial begins of BNP leaders accused of stirring racial hatred

· Pair caught on BBC film attacking Islam, court told
· Modern Britain 'described as multiracial hell'

Martin Wainwright
Saturday November 4, 2006
The Guardian

Two British National Party leaders stoked up racial hatred in an area of troubled community relations with speeches against Islam, ethnic minorities and asylum seekers, a court heard yesterday.

Islam was derided by the far-right party's chairman, Nick Griffin, as "a wicked, vicious faith" while one of his deputies, Mark Collett, called asylum seekers "cockroaches" and urged cheering supporters to "show ethnics the door in 2004". Both told closed party meetings they would face trouble from the media or the law if they denounced the Qur'an publicly or an alleged plan to destroy the white community. But they did not know that a BBC journalist, Jason Gwynne, who was posing as a BNP enthusiast, was covertly filming the speeches at a pub in Keighley, West Yorkshire.

Mr Griffin, 47, of Llanerfyl, Powys and Mr Collett, 25, of Rothley, Leicestershire deny charges of using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. Mr Griffin faces one count and Mr Collett four with the maximum penalty of seven years on conviction.

A small group of BNP supporters stood under flags and placards outside Leeds crown court but there were none of the scuffles that took place during a bigger demonstration and counter-protest when the jury was sworn in this week.

Rodney Jameson QC, prosecuting in a retrial after a previous jury failed to agree on the charges, quoted extracts from the speeches which were shown to the jury.

Mr Griffin urged activists at the Reservoir Tavern in January 2004 to work at the local and European elections to persuade local voters of "the evil these people have done to our country". Denouncing modern Britain as a "multi-racial hell," he made repeated allegations about paedophile drug rapes in Keighley and linked them to Islamic teachings.

He said: "This wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago and it's now sweeping country after country before it, all over the world. And if you read that book (the Qur'an), you'll find that that's what they want. 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."

The court also heard Mr Collett's speech, made to the same meeting, which Mr Jameson described as "little more than a crude racist rant".

The Leeds University graduate, who was heckled earlier in the week by local students outside the court, repeated Mr Griffin's clams about attacks in Keighley.

He was recorded by the BBC's hidden camera saying: "When these Asians go out looking for a victim, they don't go looking for Asian victims. They don't go mugging Asian grandmas, they don't go stabbing each other, they don't go trying to solicit sex off little Pritesh or little Sanjita.

"They go straight to the whites because they are trying to destroy us and they are the racists. If you want these people out and to stop asylum seekers coming in, then vote for the BNP."

In a second speech two months later at the Crossroads pub in Keighley, Mr Collett turned on asylum seekers. Again recorded by Mr Gwynne, for a BBC2 programme called Secret Agent, he said: "I honestly don't hate asylum seekers - these people are cockroaches and they're doing what cockroaches do because cockroaches can't help what they do, they just do it, like cats miaow and dogs bark. The people I hate are the white politicians who have sold us down the line."

Mr Jameson said there were occasions when the line between "robust and legitimate debate" and stirring up race hatred could be a fine one, but such cases were unlikely to come to court.

The language and behaviour used by Mr Griffin and Mr Collett went beyond robust comment and their intention to stir up hatred was clear.

Mr Griffin was acquitted on two similar counts and Mr Collett on four at the original trial in February before the jury deadlocked on the remaining charges.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/s...939348,00.html

Moslems would sure not love to be equated with coc-kroaches and other vermin and there is no doubt about that nor would like Islam to be declared a 'wicked religion' or that of 'cranky lunatics of 1300 years ago', obviously meaning the venerable prophet and his close folks. Rather unfortuante.

That apart, is there any law in Britain whereby private statements to likeminded peopl can be taken to court and that too when spoken in closed door discussions?

What is the legal locus standi of undercover filming by the media of private discussions?

gilgamesh · 11-04-2006, 22:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Moslems would sure not love to be equated with coc-kroaches and other vermin and there is no doubt about that nor would like Islam to be declared a 'wicked religion' or that of 'cranky lunatics of 1300 years ago', obviously meaning the venerable prophet and his close folks. Rather unfortuante.

That apart, is there any law in Britain whereby private statements to likeminded peopl can be taken to court and that too when spoken in closed door discussions?

What is the legal locus standi of undercover filming by the media of private discussions?

In Canada, denying holocaust is considered a crime. Some Jewish intellectuals are questioning both effectiveness(more determined hate-mongers, as a result of this law) and fairness(gagging free speech) of such law.

And there are others who feel, there is hate speech anyways without this law, so we might as well punish'em for it.

Ray · 11-05-2006, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

In Canada, denying holocaust is considered a crime. Some Jewish intellectuals are questioning both effectiveness(more determined hate-mongers, as a result of this law) and fairness(gagging free speech) of such law.

And there are others who feel, there is hate speech anyways without this law, so we might as well punish'em for it.

That is fine.

But the issue is that if someone says something with closed doors to a likeminded lot, how can that be taken as a breach?

That means there is no privacy of private bodies.

Now if this was said publicly, I would agree that there is some grounds.

Trooth · 11-20-2006, 12:12 PM

Closed doors have nothing to do with the principle of incitement to racial hatred. How do you define private? How do you define closed doors?

Would an indoor arena of 100,000 be a closed meeting?

Mind you i disagree with censoring these people and i don't see that really they had a case to answer here. I would prefer them to be out in the open. If the court case did anything it gave more publicity to their words and their words expose them for what they are more then muting their voices will do. Let them spew forth their hate.

PubFather · 11-20-2006, 13:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Moslems would sure not love to be equated with coc-kroaches and other vermin and there is no doubt about that nor would like Islam to be declared a 'wicked religion' or that of 'cranky lunatics of 1300 years ago', obviously meaning the venerable prophet and his close folks. Rather unfortuante.

That apart, is there any law in Britain whereby private statements to likeminded peopl can be taken to court and that too when spoken in closed door discussions?

What is the legal locus standi of undercover filming by the media of private discussions?

Theres a fine line between public and private - but it was a relatively public meeting hence the action was taken. While I have reservations about restricting anyones freedom of speech - if they were inciting racial violence then that fine line has been crossed..

Trooth · 11-21-2006, 09:25 AM

Problem here is that the BNP has members who spread hate and fear. However this is not the way to fight them as it is really a bad day for free speech if such meetings result in legislative action.

The problem with the case is that it was the best evidence available and people have got it in for the BNP. I don't have a problem with people having a grudge against the BNP - what is a bit disturbing is that the CPS seem to have and the government is now considering new laws.

This smacks to me of Thatcher's attempt to gag the IRA which had the side effect of giving the nightmare that is Gerry Adams legitimacy. State censorship and oppression "proves" they must be right since what they say must be dangerous to the establishment.

Same with Rumsfeld and the "don't broadcast jihad videos".

These people have unsustainable arguments, but they are only unsustainable when voiced and questioned. If smothered they gain authority.

PubFather · 11-21-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooth

Problem here is that the BNP has members who spread hate and fear. However this is not the way to fight them as it is really a bad day for free speech if such meetings result in legislative action.

The problem with the case is that it was the best evidence available and people have got it in for the BNP. I don't have a problem with people having a grudge against the BNP - what is a bit disturbing is that the CPS seem to have and the government is now considering new laws.

This smacks to me of Thatcher's attempt to gag the IRA which had the side effect of giving the nightmare that is Gerry Adams legitimacy. State censorship and oppression "proves" they must be right since what they say must be dangerous to the establishment.

Same with Rumsfeld and the "don't broadcast jihad videos".

These people have unsustainable arguments, but they are only unsustainable when voiced and questioned. If smothered they gain authority.

I do partially agree - and there does seem to be something a of witch hunt against the BNP (lovely, misrepresented fellows that they are).

However, from what I recall of the documentary in question, the views were pretty close to openly calling for violence. This negates someones "right" to free speech, when compared to the rights of the rest of society to be free from violence.

It is not directly (at the moment) comparable to the Gerry Adams debacle, with no actual restrictions placed on them as a matter of course.

Trooth · 11-22-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PubFather

I do partially agree - and there does seem to be something a of witch hunt against the BNP (lovely, misrepresented fellows that they are).

However, from what I recall of the documentary in question, the views were pretty close to openly calling for violence. This negates someones "right" to free speech, when compared to the rights of the rest of society to be free from violence.

It is not directly (at the moment) comparable to the Gerry Adams debacle, with no actual restrictions placed on them as a matter of course.

I have had a look at the footage and the excerpts from the trial readings that i can find and much as i hate to sully my browser i have looked at the comments on the BNP's website. Whilst i don't share their sentiments, i don't see that the BNP did incite violence or hatred. What they did was give their opinion, strong and clearly weighted to get the result they want, about Islam.

Sadly, can't stop them doing that.

It was interesting, however, that Griffin cherry picked phrases regarding Islam's views on women. BNP as you know thinks Islam bad, Christianity good.

Now, if the meeting was essentially not allowed to happen (since if the verdict had gone the other way then in principle we would find it difficult to have this debate) i couldn't slight BNP hypocrisy by pointing to the Bible's views that you can sell your daughter into slavery or offer her as sex toy to calm an angry mob. Exodus and Judges if you are interested.

Brown has said he wants tougher race hate laws. That means a curb on free speech. This is a more signficant line that we should not cross than what a bunch of marginal loonies bang on about in a boozer in Leeds.

Also, on the BNP website they refer expicitly to the fact that this trial will be "the impetus needed to propel the BNP into the political big league in the coming months". So if laws are enacted against them expect more publicity and so on. We need to learn from Thatcher's mistake.

PubFather · 11-22-2006, 17:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooth

I have had a look at the footage and the excerpts from the trial readings that i can find and much as i hate to sully my browser i have looked at the comments on the BNP's website. Whilst i don't share their sentiments, i don't see that the BNP did incite violence or hatred. What they did was give their opinion, strong and clearly weighted to get the result they want, about Islam.

Sadly, can't stop them doing that.

It was interesting, however, that Griffin cherry picked phrases regarding Islam's views on women. BNP as you know thinks Islam bad, Christianity good.

Now, if the meeting was essentially not allowed to happen (since if the verdict had gone the other way then in principle we would find it difficult to have this debate) i couldn't slight BNP hypocrisy by pointing to the Bible's views that you can sell your daughter into slavery or offer her as sex toy to calm an angry mob. Exodus and Judges if you are interested.

Brown has said he wants tougher race hate laws. That means a curb on free speech. This is a more signficant line that we should not cross than what a bunch of marginal loonies bang on about in a boozer in Leeds.

Also, on the BNP website they refer expicitly to the fact that this trial will be "the impetus needed to propel the BNP into the political big league in the coming months". So if laws are enacted against them expect more publicity and so on. We need to learn from Thatcher's mistake.

The devil is in the detail, as always. I may well be combining the private sentiments expressed in the original docu with those expressed publicly. Certainly, from the information released in the press, I would have to agree with the verdict. You are right to suggest that there is a danger in giving excessive publicity to these morons.

I think part of the reason for the "witch-hunt" is to deprive Muslim clerics of the argument that the race/religious hate laws apply only to them (such as in the case of Abu Hamsa).

The whole restriction of free speech - while in extreme cases justifiable - is a worry, and sympomatic of an overly litigious government. On the other hand, the human rights lawyers are becoming an exceeding well fed breed in the UK.

The crux will be how restrictive the religious/race hate laws are, and how rigourously/sensitively they are applied.

Trooth · 11-22-2006, 19:57 PM

It is certainly true that the majority will always take the brunt to be seen to be even handed with the minority.

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way a fan of the BNP. If i was grand high poobah of this planet there would be no BNP.

However the road the hell is paved with good intentions, and whilst i firmly believe any law would be intended to create harmony - if it exists it can be abused. In our own time and our own land we have seen the abuse of well meaning laws.

For example, we have an asymmetric terroist extradition law with the US that should be deleted because it is asymmetric and because it has been abused to extradite bankers in the Enron trial - doesn't matter whether they are innocent or guilty that extradition under that law was a travesty.

The classic example of the extreme to which this things can be taken is the way that the Nazis used existing law to gain the legislative foothold needed for their oppression. When existing laws were perverted it became easy for them to enact new blatantly oppressive laws, the precedent was set -after all.

brokensickle · 12-02-2006, 20:38 PM

The one thing that is inaccurate though, is that cockroachs are not killing people and using fear to convert people to Islam. It sounds like this man has a grip on the direness and seriousness of the situation at hand in his country thus proving his sanity. He should be able to shout it from the rooftops and in the public square. Interestingly the threats of death to Tony Blair, George Bush and western democracy were heard in an open air ralley in the UK and most of the media ignored it.
Are so many people in the west so suicidal or are they now in the grips of terror and fear that there is mass insanity?
Here, Here to Mr. Griffin

Ivan

dabong1 · 12-03-2006, 09:31 AM

Two British National Party leaders stoked up racial hatred in an area of troubled community relations with speeches against Hindu's, ethnic minorities and asylum seekers, a court heard yesterday.

Hinduism was derided by the far-right party's chairman, Nick Griffin, as "a wicked, vicious faith" while one of his deputies, Mark Collett, called asylum seekers "cockroaches" and urged cheering supporters to "show ethnics the door in 2004". Both told closed party meetings they would face trouble from the media or the law if they denounced the Rigveda publicly or an alleged plan to destroy the white community. But they did not know that a BBC journalist, Jason Gwynne, who was posing as a BNP enthusiast, was covertly filming the speeches at a pub in Keighley, West Yorkshire.

I picked the hindu religion as this is not covered by the race laws same as islam.The jews and sikhs are covered by the race laws as they are race based faiths rather then multi racial religion's.The christians are covered under blasphemy laws that they never use.

Trooth · 12-03-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabong1

Two British National Party leaders stoked up racial hatred in an area of troubled community relations with speeches against Hindu's, ethnic minorities and asylum seekers, a court heard yesterday.

Hinduism was derided by the far-right party's chairman, Nick Griffin, as "a wicked, vicious faith" while one of his deputies, Mark Collett, called asylum seekers "cockroaches" and urged cheering supporters to "show ethnics the door in 2004". Both told closed party meetings they would face trouble from the media or the law if they denounced the Rigveda publicly or an alleged plan to destroy the white community. But they did not know that a BBC journalist, Jason Gwynne, who was posing as a BNP enthusiast, was covertly filming the speeches at a pub in Keighley, West Yorkshire.

I picked the hindu religion as this is not covered by the race laws same as islam.The jews and sikhs are covered by the race laws as they are race based faiths rather then multi racial religion's.The christians are covered under blasphemy laws that they never use.

Eh? He didn't label Hindus any such thing though . I never thought i would defend a BNP member .........

pdf27 · 12-03-2006, 16:25 PM

Had the BNP doing door to door campaigning for a council by-election yesterday with a copy of the electoral register, so knew to ask for me by name (somewhat sinister). For some reason they had no interest in talking to my housemate - suspect the reason for this is that he has a vaguely Irish name so might be an immigrant.
Had them trying to had out propaganda in the town centre too. Was quite impressed with myself that I managed to tell them to sod off politely - that took quite an effort.

dabong1 · 12-03-2006, 20:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooth

Eh? He didn't label Hindus any such thing though . I never thought i would defend a BNP member .........

I was trying to give an example of how the BNP could have picked on the hindus or any other minority that is not covered by hate legislation.
The muslims are the modern day russian commie.

11-20-2006, 12:12 PM	#4 (permalink)
Trooth *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-03 Posts: 2,110 Country:	Closed doors have nothing to do with the principle of incitement to racial hatred. How do you define private? How do you define closed doors? Would an indoor arena of 100,000 be a closed meeting? Mind you i disagree with censoring these people and i don't see that really they had a case to answer here. I would prefer them to be out in the open. If the court case did anything it gave more publicity to their words and their words expose them for what they are more then muting their voices will do. Let them spew forth their hate. __________________ The world as it should be at surrealscoop.blogspot.com

12-02-2006, 20:38 PM	#11 (permalink)
brokensickle Banished Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 853	Sounds like an honest assessment of what Islam is Doing. The one thing that is inaccurate though, is that cockroachs are not killing people and using fear to convert people to Islam. It sounds like this man has a grip on the direness and seriousness of the situation at hand in his country thus proving his sanity. He should be able to shout it from the rooftops and in the public square. Interestingly the threats of death to Tony Blair, George Bush and western democracy were heard in an open air ralley in the UK and most of the media ignored it. Are so many people in the west so suicidal or are they now in the grips of terror and fear that there is mass insanity? Here, Here to Mr. Griffin Ivan

12-03-2006, 09:31 AM	#12 (permalink)
dabong1 Banished Regular Join Date: 12-01-06 Posts: 109 Country:	justice Two British National Party leaders stoked up racial hatred in an area of troubled community relations with speeches against Hindu's, ethnic minorities and asylum seekers, a court heard yesterday. Hinduism was derided by the far-right party's chairman, Nick Griffin, as "a wicked, vicious faith" while one of his deputies, Mark Collett, called asylum seekers "cockroaches" and urged cheering supporters to "show ethnics the door in 2004". Both told closed party meetings they would face trouble from the media or the law if they denounced the Rigveda publicly or an alleged plan to destroy the white community. But they did not know that a BBC journalist, Jason Gwynne, who was posing as a BNP enthusiast, was covertly filming the speeches at a pub in Keighley, West Yorkshire. I picked the hindu religion as this is not covered by the race laws same as islam.The jews and sikhs are covered by the race laws as they are race based faiths rather then multi racial religion's.The christians are covered under blasphemy laws that they never use.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 10:28 AM
Was Bosnia Worth It?	Shek	NATO & The Russian Resurgence	184	04-08-2006 16:15 PM

11-21-2006, 09:25 AM	#6 (permalink)
Trooth *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-03 Posts: 2,110 Country:	Problem here is that the BNP has members who spread hate and fear. However this is not the way to fight them as it is really a bad day for free speech if such meetings result in legislative action. The problem with the case is that it was the best evidence available and people have got it in for the BNP. I don't have a problem with people having a grudge against the BNP - what is a bit disturbing is that the CPS seem to have and the government is now considering new laws. This smacks to me of Thatcher's attempt to gag the IRA which had the side effect of giving the nightmare that is Gerry Adams legitimacy. State censorship and oppression "proves" they must be right since what they say must be dangerous to the establishment. Same with Rumsfeld and the "don't broadcast jihad videos". These people have unsustainable arguments, but they are only unsustainable when voiced and questioned. If smothered they gain authority.

11-22-2006, 19:57 PM	#10 (permalink)
Trooth *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-03 Posts: 2,110 Country:	It is certainly true that the majority will always take the brunt to be seen to be even handed with the minority. Don't get me wrong. I am in no way a fan of the BNP. If i was grand high poobah of this planet there would be no BNP. However the road the hell is paved with good intentions, and whilst i firmly believe any law would be intended to create harmony - if it exists it can be abused. In our own time and our own land we have seen the abuse of well meaning laws. For example, we have an asymmetric terroist extradition law with the US that should be deleted because it is asymmetric and because it has been abused to extradite bankers in the Enron trial - doesn't matter whether they are innocent or guilty that extradition under that law was a travesty. The classic example of the extreme to which this things can be taken is the way that the Nazis used existing law to gain the legislative foothold needed for their oppression. When existing laws were perverted it became easy for them to enact new blatantly oppressive laws, the precedent was set -after all.

12-03-2006, 16:25 PM	#14 (permalink)
pdf27 Contributor Join Date: 06-05-06 Location: UK Posts: 538 Country:	Had the BNP doing door to door campaigning for a council by-election yesterday with a copy of the electoral register, so knew to ask for me by name (somewhat sinister). For some reason they had no interest in talking to my housemate - suspect the reason for this is that he has a vaguely Irish name so might be an immigrant. Had them trying to had out propaganda in the town centre too. Was quite impressed with myself that I managed to tell them to sod off politely - that took quite an effort.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)