Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Friday, 24 September 2010

BNP, or KGB?

The following is a letter by Dr Andrew Emerson to the editor of the monthly journal of the British National Party, Martin Wingfield. Do not be too surprised if it is not published in the Voice of Freedom. To publish it would be more than the editor's job's worth, and could well result in his being immediately despatched as a slave labourer to the nearest salt mine - which I believe is in Cheshire.

Dear Sir

Mr Smeeton's e-mail letter (Freedom # 118) is, like the proverbial curate's egg, good in parts.

Mr Smeeton is right when he says that the Establishment oppresses the British National Party, and persecutes its members, doing its utmost to deny us our freedom of speech.

However, he is wrong when he states that this is "...clearly illegal". The treacherous Establishment, which includes the overwhelmingly foreign European commission, and 'parliament', makes most of our law, and the supine judiciary interprets it.

Mr Smeeton is confounding the two concepts of legality and justice. They are far from synonymous, legality denoting what society demands from the individual, while justice denotes what is right and fair, ethically or morally.

He is also wrong when he implies that Britain has no constitution, presumably because it has, unlike the United States, no WRITTEN constitution.

Actually, it was through the political sagacity of our English forefathers that we have no written constitution, though the law of the European Union is insidiously subverting this state of affairs, since an unwritten constitution permits the citizen to do anything that the law does not forbid, while a written constitution prohibits the citizen from doing anything it does not expressly allow.

Mr Smeeton is right to be concerned about the denial of freedom of speech to the British National Party but should he not also be concerned, should not every BNP member be concerned, about the BNP's own denial of freedom of speech to its own members?

During the party's recent nomination process for a leadership challenge the most flagrant and unfair breaches of the BNP's written constitution were perpetrated by the party leadership. Such breaches included: the barring of members from party meetings; the suspension of members without good cause; the issuing of biassed nomination forms; the invention of unfair rules of procedure, not sanctioned by the constitution, designed to favour the incumbent leader; the conniving condonation of vile 'attack blogs' that publicly assassinated the character of Eddy Butler and his key supporters; and the systematic removal of all references to any member who supported the challenge from the party's web site and "Voice of Freedom" newspaper.

Stalin also introduced a written constitution, for the Soviet Union in the 1930s. It looked very impressive on paper. The trouble was that, just like the BNP's written constitution today: in the hands of a despot it was not worth the paper it was printed on.

How can we seriously expect the British people to be concerned about the Establishment's victimization of the BNP, when the BNP hypocritically victimizes its own members by unfairly denying them their rights?

In any event it seems that some of the apparent unfairness of the 'mainstream media' was brought on the head of the BNP by its own so-called leadership, that leadership turning down several requests for a party spokesman to go on air in the run-up to the general election earlier this year. It seems that Messrs Griffin and Dowson had some cock-eyed theory of 'scarcity value' with which they wished to experiment. Or could there be a more sinister explanation for the apparent madness in the method of the top leadership of the BNP: such as deliberate sabotage of the BNP's electoral prospects?

Old hands will recollect Mr Griffin's announcement, at a press conference, just prior to the 2005 general election, about the desirability of discharged members of the armed forces (some of whom have, understandably, mental health problems) keeping an automatic rifle and live ammunition in their homes!

One wonders how many votes that intervention by Mr Griffin cost the BNP.

This year there was an announcement by Mr Griffin to the media, five weeks before the general election, that the BNP's publicity director (Mark Collett) was conspiring to murder both the party's leader (Mr Griffin) and its chief fundraiser (Jim Dowson); an allegation which the police investigated but which the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute, presumably because the likelihood of securing a conviction on any such charge was, in their expert assessment, less than fifty per cent.

Since Mr Griffin's spurious allegations were plastered all over the daily 'red tops', to the great detriment of the reputation of the BNP, one wonders how many votes, members, and council seats, this particular piece of Griffinism cost the party.

"Nick likes to shoot from the hip", his admirers may say. The trouble is that whenever he does so he shoots not himself but the party in the foot.

Surely I am not alone in detecting a disturbing pattern in Mr Griffin's behaviour as party leader - or should that be party BETRAYER?

Will the Voice of Freedom live up to its name and publish this letter?

Yours faithfully

A Emerson

Dr A Emerson

1 comment:

  1. Nick Griffin, we're waiting for you to answer the issues raised here and by other reformers. Your diversionary efforts don't deceive us. We've been patient but we wont keep waiting forever. If you think you can ignore us, then you will lose the support and donations of hundreds of activists and set the party back years. If you're a decent man, come clean and win our respect back.