The following article was recently published on the Lancaster Unity blog spot. It would appear, in the main, to be factually accurate if one makes due allowance for the hostile political perspective from which it was written. It is re-published here as part of a service to those members of the British National Party who wish to increase their understanding of the problems currently besetting our party, and the causes of those problems.
The article's re-publication here implies no support for the political orientation of its originator(s).
Where a BNP candidate receives leaflets, or other campaign material, for use in their election campaign, from the party, for which they are not expected to pay, this is what is known as a "notional donation". In such a case the matter of the payment of the printer of such leaflets, or other literature, does not arise as an issue for either the candidate or their election agent. Neither the candidate nor their election agent may be regarded as potentially guilty of an offence under electoral law in respect of the late or non-payment of the printer of literature which was received from the party as a notional donation. Only those who contract for goods or services, may be held responsible for ensuring payment in respect of them by the statutory dead-line.
Having made these points, however, the disrepute into which Mr Griffin and his creatures have brought the BNP through their reprehensible behaviour is, and ought to be, a matter of serious concern for each and every thinking member of our party.
There is no future for the BNP under Mr Griffin's continuing leadership. Consequently, new leadership for our party is a matter of the utmost importance and urgency.
I support Eddy Butler's call for every BNP member to refrain from running for election to public office, or serving as an election agent, until such time as Mr Griffin resigns as party leader.
March 29, 2011
Griffin’s agent made false election return
The British National Party’s election agent for Barking in last year’s general election could face prosecution for falsely stating a printing bill for election leaflets had been paid after he accepted a brazen lie from the party’s treasurer.
Richard Barnbrook, who at the time was the BNP’s London Assembly member, included bills from Newton Press in the return of election expenses that he submitted to the Barking returning officer on behalf of Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, and marked them as paid. Election law requires all a candidates’ expenses to be paid within 28 days.
Not only had the bill not been paid within 28 days, but Newton Press, a small printer in County Durham, is still waiting for its money. According to Eddy Butler, a former BNP officer who is campaigning for Griffin’s removal as leader, the BNP has refused to pay the firm around £15,000 that it owes for various printing services, including issues of the party’s paper Voice of Freedom.
Newton Press did not take the BNP’s no for an answer and established that around £6,000 of the bill was for newspapers delivered in Barking and that Barnbrook had accepted responsibility as Griffin’s agent. Making a false election expenses declaration can carry a prison sentence of up to one year or an unlimited fine or both unless the High Court accepts there was “reasonable cause” for the failure.
Barnbrook, who resigned the BNP whip last summer and now sits on the London Assembly as an independent, duly applied to the High Court. Yesterday Mr Justice Tugendhat rejected Barnbrook’s plea that the false return was not his fault because Dave Hannam, the party treasurer, had provided him with invoices falsely stamped “paid”. The agent is expected to be in real and genuine control of election expenditure, Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled, and Barnbrook should have made certain that the invoices had in fact been paid before signing off the return.
Mr Justice Tugendhat, who four years ago threw out a BNP candidate’s vexatious [sic] libel claim against Searchlight, has referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as election law requires, which means Barnbrook is likely to end up with a criminal conviction. According to Butler, Barnbrook, who “demeaned himself by touting himself around to various parties” in an attempt to get onto a London Assembly list that will secure his re-election in 2012, is now trying to return to the BNP.
The DPP could also proceed against Griffin as the candidate and agent are jointly responsible for the accuracy of the expenses return.
The BNP’s problems are unlikely to stop with Newton Press. The party has debts of over £500,000 including to several other printers money. Romac Press, the Belfast firm that printed the party’s main general election leaflets is owed £45,000, which means that election expenses returns in several constituencies were probably false.
After the European election in 2009, it emerged that most of the party’s election bills had been paid by Adlorries.com Ltd, a company owned by Jim Dowson, the party’s fundraising consultant who ended up controlling most of the BNP’s assets. Griffin’s party had to repay the “loan” over several months.
The BNP’s continuing inability to pay its debts and readiness to lie means that any candidate or election agent will be personally at risk if they use election leaflets supplied by the party. Butler has called on BNP members not to stand as a candidate or act as an agent while Griffin is chairman.
Hannam, who was widely derided in the BNP as incompetent, is no longer BNP treasurer, replaced after less than eight months in the job by the moronic Clive Jefferson on his rapid rise through the party. Lying seemed to come naturally to Hannam. Last summer he boasted that the BNP’s financial controls now ensured that “all legally required statement [sic] of accounts are submitted on time”. The next day it emerged that the party had failed to submit its 2009 accounts to the Electoral Commission by the deadline of 7 July, the third time it had been late.
In 2007, when Hannam was deputy treasurer, Ian Dawson wrote in his letter of resignation from his position as the party’s head of group support: “Hannam has messed things up from day one, before he got ‘bogged down’ in an audit, during it, and after it. If he worked in a bank he would not last a week. Not only is he incompetent, he also lies. Again, this can be proved time and time again, yet it seems that no matter how much some people lie, and however big the lies are, they get away with it. I can’t think of one thing that Dave does well – if there is something I have not seen it. That is not an exaggeration or an unnecessary insult, it is a fact.”
Griffin seems unconcerned about the latest blow to his party. In the week when nominations are due for the local elections in May and many party members are already refusing to stand in protest at his leadership, he is sunning himself on holiday in Cyprus. Rumour has it that Griffin, who may be held personally liable for the BNP’s debts, is looking for a bolthole in Northern Cyprus, which has no extradition treaty with the UK.
Hope not hate
Thursday 31 March 2011
Wednesday 30 March 2011
Why incur expenses which cannot be met by the due date?
Is the "Stasi state" picking on "Our Nick", again? Is Mr Griffin utterly incompetent? Or is Mr Griffin a secretly paid party wrecker for the very state he frequently implies is out to get him?
BNP Barking election expenses examined by High Court judge
Two unpaid stationery invoices from last year’s Barking election could mean British National Party chairman, Nick Griffin, has to explain himself before the High Court.
A top judge has ordered papers to be sent to the director of public prosecutions after hearing of an infraction of strict rules relating to election expenses, where Mr Griffin suffered a crushing defeat in the general election last May.
Mr Justice Tugendhat acted after hearing of a bitter falling out between Mr Griffin and former BNP stalwart and Greater London Authority (GLA) member, Richard Barnbrook, who acted as his boss’s election agent in Barking but has since been expelled from the BNP. However, he adjourned the case, saying that Mr Griffin, as the election candidate, may also have to come to court to seek relief against potential prosecution.
The case centres around two printing firm invoices - totalling almost £10,000 - for leaflet publishing before the poll. They were declared as having been paid in full on the election expenses return, but the court heard they have in fact still not been settled. That inaccuracy amounts to an offence under the Representation of the People Act - which contains Draconian penalties for breaches of election rules - and Mr Barnbrook is now asking the High Court to lift the threat of prosecution from over his head.
Under the rules, election expenses must be paid within 28 days of the poll result, and the judge added that the printing bills cannot now be paid without permission from the court.
Barking and Dagenham Post
BNP Barking election expenses examined by High Court judge
Two unpaid stationery invoices from last year’s Barking election could mean British National Party chairman, Nick Griffin, has to explain himself before the High Court.
A top judge has ordered papers to be sent to the director of public prosecutions after hearing of an infraction of strict rules relating to election expenses, where Mr Griffin suffered a crushing defeat in the general election last May.
Mr Justice Tugendhat acted after hearing of a bitter falling out between Mr Griffin and former BNP stalwart and Greater London Authority (GLA) member, Richard Barnbrook, who acted as his boss’s election agent in Barking but has since been expelled from the BNP. However, he adjourned the case, saying that Mr Griffin, as the election candidate, may also have to come to court to seek relief against potential prosecution.
The case centres around two printing firm invoices - totalling almost £10,000 - for leaflet publishing before the poll. They were declared as having been paid in full on the election expenses return, but the court heard they have in fact still not been settled. That inaccuracy amounts to an offence under the Representation of the People Act - which contains Draconian penalties for breaches of election rules - and Mr Barnbrook is now asking the High Court to lift the threat of prosecution from over his head.
Under the rules, election expenses must be paid within 28 days of the poll result, and the judge added that the printing bills cannot now be paid without permission from the court.
Barking and Dagenham Post
Tuesday 29 March 2011
Midsomer madness
Brian True-May has been reinstated in his job as producer of the popular crime mystery series Midsomer Murders, set in rural England.
However, it now appears that Mr True-May and his politically 'correct' bosses, will be parting company at the end of the current series of the programme, one of All3Media's most successful productions.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act (Orwell).
The Mail Online report now follows.
New evidence Midsomer Murders' boss WAS pushed: He said he wanted control for 'decades' just days before exit
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:37 AM on 28th March 2011
Was he pushed? Midsomer Murders' producer Brian True-May quit after an interview he gave to the Radio Times sparked a race row
Midsomer Murders' executive-producer Brian True-May said he planned to remain at the helm of the hit ITV show for 'years to come' just days before he was suspended, it has been reported.
Mr True-May quit the show after sparking a race row by saying he did not use black and Asian people in the series because ‘it wouldn’t be an English village with them’.
True-May, who is the creator of the crime drama, was reinstated on the show last week but will step down at the end of the series.
He had previously maintained he had quit 'out of choice', but the latest reports would suggest he had no intention of leaving and may have been forced to go.
An article in the Daily Express gives details of an unpublished interview in which he claims he would remain at the prime time drama for 'decades'.
However it is unclear whether this interview was given before he told the Radio Times that Midsomer Murders was the 'last bastion of Englishness' and relied on an ‘English genteel eccentricity’.
He also said that if he had more minority cast members ‘we might be in Slough’ and suggested it would not work if there was racial diversity in the village.
True-May has since apologised through production company All3Media, who said that he was sorry if his remarks gave 'unintended offence'.
Primetime: The controversy has not affected ratings with six million viewers tuning in to catch the first episode of the new series
He said his comments had been misinterpreted and he was being victimised and being made to feel like a criminal.
He said: 'According to the press reports I am going to be investigated as if I was a criminal. There’s not a lot to investigate.’
When asked to respond to claims from viewers that the reaction to his comments was ‘hysterical’ – he said: ‘You said it, not me. But I agree.’
However the controversy has clearly not affected the show's ratings with a staggering six million loyal viewers tuning in last week to catch the first episode in a new series of the popular televison drama.
The comments below have been moderated in advance.
Ever thought why BBC don't show repeats of 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum'? Yes you guessed it the PC brigade once again. This was one of the best comedy series ever produced and the reason for the lack of repeats, they caste an Indian as an Indian, the trouble was bearer Rangi Ram, played by Michael Bates was white. This is total childish nonsense. What about Yule Brynner in the King and I, Marlon Brando as a Mexican in Viva Zapata, Charles Bronson as a native American in Chato's Land. What is wrong with all these PC meddlers, don't they want us to have fun?
- Maldwyn, Carmarthen, 28/3/2011 14:49
Yet more pandering to the PC brigade
- Keith, leamington spa, 28/3/2011 14:46
ALL 3 MEDIA should grow [a backbone] instead of hiding under their desks at High Holborn in London.They should back the man who has made them their money and reputation for so many years.It's obvious they've had a knee-jerk reaction to critisism or they just don't understand their own output.Sad really.
- collette, london, 28/3/2011 14:07
There was a black person on the bridge in the new episode. Leave Brian alone........Midsomer is fictional and in fiction you can do what you want. There are very very few people of non-white-britishness living in small villages so in fact he is not showing anything untrue. Lots of non-white-British folk watch this programme and the majority have no problem with it. There are only a very small number of darker skinned people working in the town I live in but they live elsewhere. Even our little 24/7 corner shops are staffed by British people and the postman is Welsh. According to the 2001 census the population of my town was 33,837. Slightly larger than the average village and still no foreigners................
- Jas, Yorkshire, 28/3/2011 14:04
Well, there is a surprise, he was pushed! He should be reinstated and all this PC rubbish put on the back burner. I am utterly sick of it. IT'S A TV PROGRAMME! IT'S FICTION. IT'S ENTERTAINMENT! If you don't like it SWITCH OFF!!!!!!!!!!!
- Sue, Devon, uk, 28/3/2011 13:44
However, it now appears that Mr True-May and his politically 'correct' bosses, will be parting company at the end of the current series of the programme, one of All3Media's most successful productions.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act (Orwell).
The Mail Online report now follows.
New evidence Midsomer Murders' boss WAS pushed: He said he wanted control for 'decades' just days before exit
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:37 AM on 28th March 2011
Was he pushed? Midsomer Murders' producer Brian True-May quit after an interview he gave to the Radio Times sparked a race row
Midsomer Murders' executive-producer Brian True-May said he planned to remain at the helm of the hit ITV show for 'years to come' just days before he was suspended, it has been reported.
Mr True-May quit the show after sparking a race row by saying he did not use black and Asian people in the series because ‘it wouldn’t be an English village with them’.
True-May, who is the creator of the crime drama, was reinstated on the show last week but will step down at the end of the series.
He had previously maintained he had quit 'out of choice', but the latest reports would suggest he had no intention of leaving and may have been forced to go.
An article in the Daily Express gives details of an unpublished interview in which he claims he would remain at the prime time drama for 'decades'.
However it is unclear whether this interview was given before he told the Radio Times that Midsomer Murders was the 'last bastion of Englishness' and relied on an ‘English genteel eccentricity’.
He also said that if he had more minority cast members ‘we might be in Slough’ and suggested it would not work if there was racial diversity in the village.
True-May has since apologised through production company All3Media, who said that he was sorry if his remarks gave 'unintended offence'.
Primetime: The controversy has not affected ratings with six million viewers tuning in to catch the first episode of the new series
He said his comments had been misinterpreted and he was being victimised and being made to feel like a criminal.
He said: 'According to the press reports I am going to be investigated as if I was a criminal. There’s not a lot to investigate.’
When asked to respond to claims from viewers that the reaction to his comments was ‘hysterical’ – he said: ‘You said it, not me. But I agree.’
However the controversy has clearly not affected the show's ratings with a staggering six million loyal viewers tuning in last week to catch the first episode in a new series of the popular televison drama.
The comments below have been moderated in advance.
Ever thought why BBC don't show repeats of 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum'? Yes you guessed it the PC brigade once again. This was one of the best comedy series ever produced and the reason for the lack of repeats, they caste an Indian as an Indian, the trouble was bearer Rangi Ram, played by Michael Bates was white. This is total childish nonsense. What about Yule Brynner in the King and I, Marlon Brando as a Mexican in Viva Zapata, Charles Bronson as a native American in Chato's Land. What is wrong with all these PC meddlers, don't they want us to have fun?
- Maldwyn, Carmarthen, 28/3/2011 14:49
Yet more pandering to the PC brigade
- Keith, leamington spa, 28/3/2011 14:46
ALL 3 MEDIA should grow [a backbone] instead of hiding under their desks at High Holborn in London.They should back the man who has made them their money and reputation for so many years.It's obvious they've had a knee-jerk reaction to critisism or they just don't understand their own output.Sad really.
- collette, london, 28/3/2011 14:07
There was a black person on the bridge in the new episode. Leave Brian alone........Midsomer is fictional and in fiction you can do what you want. There are very very few people of non-white-britishness living in small villages so in fact he is not showing anything untrue. Lots of non-white-British folk watch this programme and the majority have no problem with it. There are only a very small number of darker skinned people working in the town I live in but they live elsewhere. Even our little 24/7 corner shops are staffed by British people and the postman is Welsh. According to the 2001 census the population of my town was 33,837. Slightly larger than the average village and still no foreigners................
- Jas, Yorkshire, 28/3/2011 14:04
Well, there is a surprise, he was pushed! He should be reinstated and all this PC rubbish put on the back burner. I am utterly sick of it. IT'S A TV PROGRAMME! IT'S FICTION. IT'S ENTERTAINMENT! If you don't like it SWITCH OFF!!!!!!!!!!!
- Sue, Devon, uk, 28/3/2011 13:44
Monday 28 March 2011
The Brain Slug Party
A note from the Legal Department: any similarity between any of the fictional political parties depicted in this photoplay and any actual political party in the real world is entirely coincidental.
How immigration has "enriched" Britain
Was the profoundly flawed criminal investigation into the suspicious disappearance of Charlene Downes deliberately sabotaged by the police 'service'? The evidence would suggest that it was.
Does this not indicate that the police are "institutionally racist" against the indigenous folk of these islands: against the English especially? Of course it does.
How long are the English going to allow themselves to be systematically persecuted by interlopers, and by traitors, in the land of their birth? That remains to be seen.
Police rapped for blunders in murder case of girl 'turned into kebab meat'
By Graham Smith for Mail Online
Last updated at 12:34 PM on 16th October 2009
Charlene Downes has been missing since 2003. Police have been criticised for a catalogue of failures which led to the collapse of her murder retrial.
Police investigating the disappearance of a teenage girl allegedly 'chopped up' for kebab meat have been criticised for a catalogue of failures which led to the collapse of a murder retrial.
An independent review found that police surveillance techniques were 'handled poorly and unprofessionally' and as a result nobody is now likely to be convicted of killing Charlene Downes, 14, who was last seen in 2003.
Her mother today said she felt 'badly let down' after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) recommended that seven officers should be disciplined over the matter.
Charlene was last seen on November 1, 2003 when she kissed her mother goodbye and went to see friends on Blackpool Promenade.
Two men appeared at Preston Crown Court in 2007 in connection with her alleged murder but the jury was discharged after it failed to reach verdicts.
The prosecution claimed the murder suspect was overheard talking about having sex with the teenager and that she had 'gone into kebabs'.
A retrial was scheduled to begin a year later but the Crown Prosecution eventually dropped the case because it had 'grave doubts' about the reliability of some of the evidence.
Iyad Albattikhi, 31, was formally cleared of Charlene's murder and Mohammed Raveshi, 51, was acquitted of helping to dispose of her body.
Charlene's mother, Karen Downes, of Blackpool, said she was 'devastated' at the findings of the police watchdog.
'We feel badly let down by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service,' she said.
'We're no further on, we're back to square one. There is no closure.
'I was devastated when I saw the report. It's very upsetting.'
Lancashire Police apologised to the Downes family but said it remained a live investigation and its officers were still committed to solving the case.
The investigating team were guilty of a strategic and tactical failure in the management of the audio and video material they obtained, the IPCC concluded.
Proper records were not kept, material was not fully transcribed and the overall integrity of the material was not ensured.
The use of untrained and inexperienced officers in the inquiry was also criticised as was the way a human intelligence source was handled.
The IPCC recommended that one officer should face a disciplinary hearing, one should receive a written warning and five others should receive words of advice.
Two other officers who retired prior to the investigation cannot be considered for disciplinary sanctions. It has been recommended that the current role of another officer who retired during the investigation, but was then re-employed in a civilian capacity, be considered.
Assistant Chief Constable for Lancashire Police, Andy Cooke, said he acknowledged the findings.
He said: 'It is clear that certain aspects of the case have not been well managed - specifically during the time prior to the trial - and for this we must certainly apologise to the Downes family.
'I want to reassure them and our local communities that we have learned the lessons from this and have moved on quickly in terms of the handling of such information.'
Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner for the North West, said: 'What is abundantly clear is that the covert surveillance aspect of Lancashire Constabulary's investigation into Charlene's disappearance was handled poorly and unprofessionally.
'The IPCC's managed investigation has identified a catalogue of errors which undermined the court case.'
Ms Malik added: 'Six years since the disappearance of Charlene, her parents are no nearer to knowing what happened to their daughter. I cannot imagine how distressing this must be for them.
'The failings in Lancashire Constabulary's investigation can only have compounded that distress. Lessons must be learned from this matter to ensure such failures cannot happen again.'
The inquiry was one of Lancashire's longest-running investigations involving a child missing from home before detectives switched the focus to a murder hunt.
More than 3,000 people were spoken to by police and almost 2,500 statements were taken.
No trace of Charlene has ever been found.
The prosecution in the 2007 trial alleged that Jordanian immigrant Mr Albattikhi, who owned Funny Boyz fast food shop in Blackpool, strangled the teenager after having sex with her.
The court heard Charlene was one of a number of young white girls who gravitated to the resort's fast food shops to have sex with older men.
Expelled from school, she spent her time hanging around the shops on the promenade.
Prosecutors claimed either Mr Albattikhi, known as Eddie, or his Iranian landlord and business partner, Mr Raveshi, was having underage sex with her and they would be in trouble if the police found out.
Both men denied even knowing her.
Police started a murder inquiry when David Cassidy, a former friend of Mr Albattikhi, said the accused's brother had told him the schoolgirl had been strangled and chopped up.
Detectives later bugged both Mr Raveshi's home and car with secret listening devices and claimed the defendants could be heard on the tapes discussing her murder, with references to eating her body and a burial place.
Det Sgt Jan Beasant spent two years and around 2,500 hours listening to the contents of the tapes but such was the poor sound quality that much of the content was hard to decipher at the trial with sound experts and police disagreeing over what was actually said.
John Bromley-Davenport QC, defending Mr Raveshi, claimed Det Sgt Beasant was totally unqualified for the task of listening to the tapes and already knew a huge amount about the case.
Ian Goldrein QC, representing Mr Albattikhi, accused Mr Cassidy of telling a pack of lies and that his evidence was unreliable because he had a lengthy criminal record for dishonesty.
The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for 49 hours before they conceded they could not reach a verdict on either defendant.
On his release Mr Raveshi, who like Mr Albattikhi spent two-and-a-half years on remand in jail, said the case against him was 'shameful' and indicated he would sue police.
Does this not indicate that the police are "institutionally racist" against the indigenous folk of these islands: against the English especially? Of course it does.
How long are the English going to allow themselves to be systematically persecuted by interlopers, and by traitors, in the land of their birth? That remains to be seen.
Police rapped for blunders in murder case of girl 'turned into kebab meat'
By Graham Smith for Mail Online
Last updated at 12:34 PM on 16th October 2009
Charlene Downes has been missing since 2003. Police have been criticised for a catalogue of failures which led to the collapse of her murder retrial.
Police investigating the disappearance of a teenage girl allegedly 'chopped up' for kebab meat have been criticised for a catalogue of failures which led to the collapse of a murder retrial.
An independent review found that police surveillance techniques were 'handled poorly and unprofessionally' and as a result nobody is now likely to be convicted of killing Charlene Downes, 14, who was last seen in 2003.
Her mother today said she felt 'badly let down' after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) recommended that seven officers should be disciplined over the matter.
Charlene was last seen on November 1, 2003 when she kissed her mother goodbye and went to see friends on Blackpool Promenade.
Two men appeared at Preston Crown Court in 2007 in connection with her alleged murder but the jury was discharged after it failed to reach verdicts.
The prosecution claimed the murder suspect was overheard talking about having sex with the teenager and that she had 'gone into kebabs'.
A retrial was scheduled to begin a year later but the Crown Prosecution eventually dropped the case because it had 'grave doubts' about the reliability of some of the evidence.
Iyad Albattikhi, 31, was formally cleared of Charlene's murder and Mohammed Raveshi, 51, was acquitted of helping to dispose of her body.
Charlene's mother, Karen Downes, of Blackpool, said she was 'devastated' at the findings of the police watchdog.
'We feel badly let down by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service,' she said.
'We're no further on, we're back to square one. There is no closure.
'I was devastated when I saw the report. It's very upsetting.'
Lancashire Police apologised to the Downes family but said it remained a live investigation and its officers were still committed to solving the case.
The investigating team were guilty of a strategic and tactical failure in the management of the audio and video material they obtained, the IPCC concluded.
Proper records were not kept, material was not fully transcribed and the overall integrity of the material was not ensured.
The use of untrained and inexperienced officers in the inquiry was also criticised as was the way a human intelligence source was handled.
The IPCC recommended that one officer should face a disciplinary hearing, one should receive a written warning and five others should receive words of advice.
Two other officers who retired prior to the investigation cannot be considered for disciplinary sanctions. It has been recommended that the current role of another officer who retired during the investigation, but was then re-employed in a civilian capacity, be considered.
Assistant Chief Constable for Lancashire Police, Andy Cooke, said he acknowledged the findings.
He said: 'It is clear that certain aspects of the case have not been well managed - specifically during the time prior to the trial - and for this we must certainly apologise to the Downes family.
'I want to reassure them and our local communities that we have learned the lessons from this and have moved on quickly in terms of the handling of such information.'
Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner for the North West, said: 'What is abundantly clear is that the covert surveillance aspect of Lancashire Constabulary's investigation into Charlene's disappearance was handled poorly and unprofessionally.
'The IPCC's managed investigation has identified a catalogue of errors which undermined the court case.'
Ms Malik added: 'Six years since the disappearance of Charlene, her parents are no nearer to knowing what happened to their daughter. I cannot imagine how distressing this must be for them.
'The failings in Lancashire Constabulary's investigation can only have compounded that distress. Lessons must be learned from this matter to ensure such failures cannot happen again.'
The inquiry was one of Lancashire's longest-running investigations involving a child missing from home before detectives switched the focus to a murder hunt.
More than 3,000 people were spoken to by police and almost 2,500 statements were taken.
No trace of Charlene has ever been found.
The prosecution in the 2007 trial alleged that Jordanian immigrant Mr Albattikhi, who owned Funny Boyz fast food shop in Blackpool, strangled the teenager after having sex with her.
The court heard Charlene was one of a number of young white girls who gravitated to the resort's fast food shops to have sex with older men.
Expelled from school, she spent her time hanging around the shops on the promenade.
Prosecutors claimed either Mr Albattikhi, known as Eddie, or his Iranian landlord and business partner, Mr Raveshi, was having underage sex with her and they would be in trouble if the police found out.
Both men denied even knowing her.
Police started a murder inquiry when David Cassidy, a former friend of Mr Albattikhi, said the accused's brother had told him the schoolgirl had been strangled and chopped up.
Detectives later bugged both Mr Raveshi's home and car with secret listening devices and claimed the defendants could be heard on the tapes discussing her murder, with references to eating her body and a burial place.
Det Sgt Jan Beasant spent two years and around 2,500 hours listening to the contents of the tapes but such was the poor sound quality that much of the content was hard to decipher at the trial with sound experts and police disagreeing over what was actually said.
John Bromley-Davenport QC, defending Mr Raveshi, claimed Det Sgt Beasant was totally unqualified for the task of listening to the tapes and already knew a huge amount about the case.
Ian Goldrein QC, representing Mr Albattikhi, accused Mr Cassidy of telling a pack of lies and that his evidence was unreliable because he had a lengthy criminal record for dishonesty.
The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for 49 hours before they conceded they could not reach a verdict on either defendant.
On his release Mr Raveshi, who like Mr Albattikhi spent two-and-a-half years on remand in jail, said the case against him was 'shameful' and indicated he would sue police.
The turning of the tide
Below is the speech given by Geert Wilders on Friday, 25 March 2011 at the Annual Lecture of the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome.
The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide
Speech by Geert Wilders, Rome, 25 March 2011
Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.
Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization — the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.
As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.
It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.
I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.
It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”
My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.
Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.
The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.
It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.
Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.
In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.
Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.
At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.
The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote — I quote — “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.
Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.
This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.
* The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said — I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.
* Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said — I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”
* Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that — I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”
* Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said — I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”
Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.
* In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said — I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.
* Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.
Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.
However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.
Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote — I quote — a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.
Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.
Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.
Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” — End of quote.
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.
Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned
In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to — I quote — “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.
Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”
Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures — it is plain common sense.
Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.
Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist [sic]. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.
My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.
Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” — End of quote.
Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” — End of quote.
In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.
Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.
Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.
This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.
The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.
Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.
Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.
I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.
Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.
Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of — I quote — “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.
And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.
Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.
Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.
Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.
The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.
It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.
While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”
For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.
The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.
Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.
While today — at last — our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.
There are a few things which we can do in this regard.
One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.
Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says — I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”
A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.
National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.
I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and — what an ironic coincidence — on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”
Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.
The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.
On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.
The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.
Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.
In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must — I quote — “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” — end of quote.
In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that — I quote — “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” — end of quote.
This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.
The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.
We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.
My friends,
Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally — better late than never — come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:
First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.
Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.
Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because it is our home, because it is the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.
Let me end with a final — and a positive — remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.
The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.
I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.
The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide
Speech by Geert Wilders, Rome, 25 March 2011
Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.
Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization — the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.
As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.
It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.
I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.
It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”
My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.
Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.
The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.
It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.
Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.
In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.
Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.
At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.
The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote — I quote — “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.
Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.
This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.
* The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said — I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.
* Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said — I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”
* Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that — I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”
* Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said — I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”
Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.
* In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said — I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.
* Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.
Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.
However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.
Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote — I quote — a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.
Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.
Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.
Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” — End of quote.
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.
Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned
In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to — I quote — “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.
Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”
Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures — it is plain common sense.
Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.
Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist [sic]. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.
My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.
Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” — End of quote.
Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” — End of quote.
In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.
Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.
Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.
This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.
The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.
Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.
Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.
I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.
Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.
Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of — I quote — “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.
And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.
Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.
Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.
Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.
The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.
It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.
While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”
For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.
The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.
Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.
While today — at last — our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.
There are a few things which we can do in this regard.
One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.
Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says — I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”
A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.
National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.
I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and — what an ironic coincidence — on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”
Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.
The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.
On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.
The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.
Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.
In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must — I quote — “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” — end of quote.
In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that — I quote — “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” — end of quote.
This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.
The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.
We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.
My friends,
Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally — better late than never — come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:
First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.
Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.
Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because it is our home, because it is the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.
Let me end with a final — and a positive — remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.
The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.
I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.
Thursday 24 March 2011
No medal for Brons
What is one to make of the cryptic Mr Brons' first openly avowed public statement on the state of the British National Party, after nine months of internecine conflict?
Things must be getting bad if Brons feels inclined to break his self-imposed rule of silence on something as critically important as the state of the BNP, tearing himself away from the fascinating minutiae of European 'parliament' legislation, in order to do so.
In fact, one is led to wonder whether matters have not now reached such a pass that the even more cryptic Mr Griffin has not put Mr Brons up to making this statement, as a ballon d'essai. Is the arch-manipulator, Griffin, using Brons as his sock puppet, dangling the delusive prospect of a genuine democratic reform of the BNP before the reformers in order to tempt some of them to break ranks and charge down the hill, as the English did at Senlac, only for the Norman cavalry to wheel around and pick them off in twos and threes?
It is noteworthy that Brons criticizes Pat Harrington, without actually mentioning him by name, by means of straight-faced irony, thus "He is rightly admired as a no-nonsense man who does not waste valuable time learning from his own mistakes". Unlike Mr Brons, presumably. Yet despite being aware of the rapid demise of the Political Soldiers under Griffin's and Harrington's factious leadership, and the impending demise of the BNP under that same factious leadership, he still believes that leaving Griffin in place as party leader is a feasible proposition, and a workable plan for the salvation of the party. Just remind me again, Mr Brons, who is it who "...does not waste valuable time learning from his own mistakes"?
Does the phrase "Too little, too late" mean anything to Mr Brons?
Napoleon also offered to negotiate with his enemies, in 1814, having previously spurned their reasonable and pacific offers, but only once it was clear to them that he had nothing left with which to negotiate.
I find Mr Brons' statement most encouraging. But not in the way that he would have intended. I am encouraged because I see it as a sign of the growing weakness of the Griffin camp, from whose dismal environs we now see almost daily defections.
Mr Griffin chooses to tear up the rule book (read party constitution) in order to play 'power politics', Machiavelli-style? Very well. Two can play at that game. If the constitution is only a worthless piece of paper in Mr Griffin's eyes, then if he lives by the sword, so may he expect to perish.
Mr Brons asserts that the reformers have no strategy to oust Mr Griffin. Why, has Eddy not taken you into his confidence? It is really most unlike him to be so secretive about his intentions.
Let me assure Mr Brons that we have a strategy, and also a "Plan B". What is it? Well, I could tell you, but I think it would be more judicious merely to quote Asquith, and say "Wait and see".
It is not true that "...the Eddy Butler programme is entirely negative propaganda about the BNP leadership..." Eddy's blog often presents what would be the positive antidote to the Griffin poison that is destroying the party. Even where his blog appears to be negative, it serves the necessary and desirable function of educating members about the reality which has been deceitfully hidden from them for so long. As the Holy Bible tells us "...he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow", Ecclesiastes 1:18.
But King Solomon did not, for that reason, advocate remaining in ignorance. There are some unpalatable truths with which it is absolutely necessary to come to grips.
Is this not what we urge the British people to do? To face the reality of their situation, in order the better to deal with it. And are we unwilling to do the same ourselves, as a political party? Does this not make us hypocrites?
Mr Brons' (or is it Mr Griffin's?) statement now follows.
Statement from Andrew Brons MEP
Wed, 23/03/2011 - 01:00 | Andrew Brons
March 23rd 2011: The unacknowledged complementarity that is destroying the British National Party.
I was going to use the term ‘Unholy Alliance’ but it would have been inaccurate for two reasons:
1. both sides see their own virtue to be as untarnished as the villainy of their opponents is unalloyed.
2. to call the two sides ‘an alliance’ would be to forget that they have a hatred for the other side that they have (unfortunately) never held for our real enemies.
Nevertheless, each responds to the other’s ratcheting-up of the conflict in a manner that could easily have been choreographed and scripted. Indeed the movements and language of one side seem to come from a script that was written in 1986.
We have moved on from attack websites to what each side sees as a final confrontation. Eddy Butler or his allies are holding a series of regional meetings, to which discontented BNP members and ex-members are invited and at which their version of the ‘unvarnished truth’ about Nick Griffin and his cronies is told.
People attending these meetings are filmed by the Party’s ‘security’ that sees its role as watching the Party’s members (at which it excels) rather than protecting the Party from its external enemies, at which it is less adept. The filmed members are then suspended from membership or at least some of them are – no nonsense here about the Rule of Law.
It is probable that those who take the decisions within the leadership see their suspensions as a ‘surgical strike’ at the ‘real troublemakers’. However, they do not realise that the suspension of (say) ten key popular people leads to the disaffection of perhaps two or three hundred others – most of them activists.
The suspensions in Yorkshire (the scene of the first Butler meeting) has deprived Yorkshire of its activists, apart from those connected with ‘the security’. The replication of these events in all of the Party’s other regions will see the disaffection of most of the Party’s activists throughout the country.
In 1986 a faction that held a knife edge majority on the National Front’s National Directorate used its majority to suspend and then expel the minority for the heinous offence of voting the wrong way at a Directorate meeting. They continued with their disciplinary ‘blitzkrieg’ until they had expelled or alienated nearly all the Party’s activists. The leadership of the ‘official party’ became an isolated and ignored rump. The opposition then became the leadership of a successor National Front. The ‘rump’ disappeared in a series of easily forgotten splinters.
The person who was the architect of using the disciplinary machinery as a weapon of mass destruction in 1986 re-emerged in the middle of 2010 to become a favoured adviser of our Chairman. He is rightly admired as a no-nonsense man who does not waste valuable time learning from his own mistakes.
However, before the Eddy Butler faction cheers too loudly and precipitately, there are important differences. The Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act 2000 provides party leaderships, however small and isolated they might be (or are imagined to be), with a monopoly over the use of the Party name. Furthermore, the opposition in 1986 was a cohesive party in waiting with its own magazine and activity programme.
The Eddy Butler programme is entirely negative propaganda about the BNP leadership and has the effect of leaving people exposed to it dispirited and alienated from political activity. Some left the Party to form a micro party and some others plan to seek membership of establishment safety valve parties that will do their reputations immense and undeserved damage in the eyes of serious nationalists. Most just hope that relentless pressure will somehow lead to Nick Griffin’s resignation. How this will be achieved is not explained.
There seems to be no serious attempt to keep in contact with the disaffected who leave politics in disgust. They will probably be lost to Nationalism for ever.
There is a question about whether attending a meeting disapproved of by the leadership of a party should be a disciplinary offence. Would it be a disciplinary offence in other parties? Does it tell us anything about a party leadership that sees disapproved meeting attendance as a disciplinary offence? Would such people, when entrusted with real political power, see disapproved meeting attendance as a criminal offence?
Furthermore, if all dissent is seen as treason, any dissenters become treasonable from necessity.
It would appear that we have a leadership that believes in keeping Nick Griffin as Chairman at any price in terms of lost membership and activists. It is better to have a small party with all of the membership besotted with the present leader than a larger party with a significant number of members who view him with scepticism or hostility. Most parties have significant proportions of their membership who are definitely out of love with their leaders. To want a 100% besotted membership is to want a small and very exclusive party.
The Opposition, on the other hand, wants to get rid of Nick Griffin as Chairman at any price in terms of lost membership and activists. However, it does not have a strategy for achieving its aim.
What is my position?
The autocratic constitution was, to a large extent, inherited by Nick Griffin from his predecessor, John Tyndall. John Tyndall was not one of nature’s autocrats, despite his earlier political leanings. I worked with him easily for six years on the democratically-elected National Directorate of the National Front. However, he left the NF (unwisely in my view) because he had been outvoted on the National Directorate and (unwisely in my view) invented a constitution for his new party (the BNP) that would prevent his being ever outvoted again.
I believe that that constitution corrupts leaders in the manner of a malevolent ring of power. It endows leaders with powers that it would be impossible for leaders to wield personally. They, therefore, pass those powers onto ostensibly sycophantic but, in reality, power-hungry advisers and stand-ins. It turns a leadership cult fantasy into a leader-led-by-the-nose reality. I believe that the heart of the problem is the autocratic constitution. If the Chairman were to share power with an elected executive, the other problems would solve themselves.
Our Chairman called for the Annual Conference in December to consider various proposals for constitutional reform. It opted for a proposal from Arthur Kemp, which was supported by our Chairman. This proposal involved the Chairman sharing power with an indirectly elected Executive comprising, mainly, regional organisers elected by branch organisers. The Annual Conference called for an EGM to consider this proposal but there has been an unaccountable delay in calling the EGM or even referring to it. It is rumoured that our Chairman has been overruled by his closest advisers, who have the final say on such matters. At the Annual Conference, the current Elections Officer opposed the idea of an elected Executive. His objection was put to the vote and his objection was defeated. However, it would appear that he can also overrule the Annual Conference.
I would like to see:
1. constitutional reform as agreed by the Annual Conference
2. an amnesty for those suspended and expelled during ‘the troubles’.
3. complete financial transparency for the future with the Executive being able to examine all future transactions but a line drawn under past transactions and undoubted mismanagement.
4. an end to all damaging websites and blogs with no more dirty linen being washed in public.
Is there any prospect of a truce being agreed along these lines? It would require statesmanship, restraint, humility and, above all, a decision to put the interests of the Party above private and petty concerns.
If there is no truce, the Party will come to an ignominious end before the end of this year. If it were not then to be followed by a credible successor, the British Nation would also come to an end. There would be no second chance to save it.
Things must be getting bad if Brons feels inclined to break his self-imposed rule of silence on something as critically important as the state of the BNP, tearing himself away from the fascinating minutiae of European 'parliament' legislation, in order to do so.
In fact, one is led to wonder whether matters have not now reached such a pass that the even more cryptic Mr Griffin has not put Mr Brons up to making this statement, as a ballon d'essai. Is the arch-manipulator, Griffin, using Brons as his sock puppet, dangling the delusive prospect of a genuine democratic reform of the BNP before the reformers in order to tempt some of them to break ranks and charge down the hill, as the English did at Senlac, only for the Norman cavalry to wheel around and pick them off in twos and threes?
It is noteworthy that Brons criticizes Pat Harrington, without actually mentioning him by name, by means of straight-faced irony, thus "He is rightly admired as a no-nonsense man who does not waste valuable time learning from his own mistakes". Unlike Mr Brons, presumably. Yet despite being aware of the rapid demise of the Political Soldiers under Griffin's and Harrington's factious leadership, and the impending demise of the BNP under that same factious leadership, he still believes that leaving Griffin in place as party leader is a feasible proposition, and a workable plan for the salvation of the party. Just remind me again, Mr Brons, who is it who "...does not waste valuable time learning from his own mistakes"?
Does the phrase "Too little, too late" mean anything to Mr Brons?
Napoleon also offered to negotiate with his enemies, in 1814, having previously spurned their reasonable and pacific offers, but only once it was clear to them that he had nothing left with which to negotiate.
I find Mr Brons' statement most encouraging. But not in the way that he would have intended. I am encouraged because I see it as a sign of the growing weakness of the Griffin camp, from whose dismal environs we now see almost daily defections.
Mr Griffin chooses to tear up the rule book (read party constitution) in order to play 'power politics', Machiavelli-style? Very well. Two can play at that game. If the constitution is only a worthless piece of paper in Mr Griffin's eyes, then if he lives by the sword, so may he expect to perish.
Mr Brons asserts that the reformers have no strategy to oust Mr Griffin. Why, has Eddy not taken you into his confidence? It is really most unlike him to be so secretive about his intentions.
Let me assure Mr Brons that we have a strategy, and also a "Plan B". What is it? Well, I could tell you, but I think it would be more judicious merely to quote Asquith, and say "Wait and see".
It is not true that "...the Eddy Butler programme is entirely negative propaganda about the BNP leadership..." Eddy's blog often presents what would be the positive antidote to the Griffin poison that is destroying the party. Even where his blog appears to be negative, it serves the necessary and desirable function of educating members about the reality which has been deceitfully hidden from them for so long. As the Holy Bible tells us "...he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow", Ecclesiastes 1:18.
But King Solomon did not, for that reason, advocate remaining in ignorance. There are some unpalatable truths with which it is absolutely necessary to come to grips.
Is this not what we urge the British people to do? To face the reality of their situation, in order the better to deal with it. And are we unwilling to do the same ourselves, as a political party? Does this not make us hypocrites?
Mr Brons' (or is it Mr Griffin's?) statement now follows.
Statement from Andrew Brons MEP
Wed, 23/03/2011 - 01:00 | Andrew Brons
March 23rd 2011: The unacknowledged complementarity that is destroying the British National Party.
I was going to use the term ‘Unholy Alliance’ but it would have been inaccurate for two reasons:
1. both sides see their own virtue to be as untarnished as the villainy of their opponents is unalloyed.
2. to call the two sides ‘an alliance’ would be to forget that they have a hatred for the other side that they have (unfortunately) never held for our real enemies.
Nevertheless, each responds to the other’s ratcheting-up of the conflict in a manner that could easily have been choreographed and scripted. Indeed the movements and language of one side seem to come from a script that was written in 1986.
We have moved on from attack websites to what each side sees as a final confrontation. Eddy Butler or his allies are holding a series of regional meetings, to which discontented BNP members and ex-members are invited and at which their version of the ‘unvarnished truth’ about Nick Griffin and his cronies is told.
People attending these meetings are filmed by the Party’s ‘security’ that sees its role as watching the Party’s members (at which it excels) rather than protecting the Party from its external enemies, at which it is less adept. The filmed members are then suspended from membership or at least some of them are – no nonsense here about the Rule of Law.
It is probable that those who take the decisions within the leadership see their suspensions as a ‘surgical strike’ at the ‘real troublemakers’. However, they do not realise that the suspension of (say) ten key popular people leads to the disaffection of perhaps two or three hundred others – most of them activists.
The suspensions in Yorkshire (the scene of the first Butler meeting) has deprived Yorkshire of its activists, apart from those connected with ‘the security’. The replication of these events in all of the Party’s other regions will see the disaffection of most of the Party’s activists throughout the country.
In 1986 a faction that held a knife edge majority on the National Front’s National Directorate used its majority to suspend and then expel the minority for the heinous offence of voting the wrong way at a Directorate meeting. They continued with their disciplinary ‘blitzkrieg’ until they had expelled or alienated nearly all the Party’s activists. The leadership of the ‘official party’ became an isolated and ignored rump. The opposition then became the leadership of a successor National Front. The ‘rump’ disappeared in a series of easily forgotten splinters.
The person who was the architect of using the disciplinary machinery as a weapon of mass destruction in 1986 re-emerged in the middle of 2010 to become a favoured adviser of our Chairman. He is rightly admired as a no-nonsense man who does not waste valuable time learning from his own mistakes.
However, before the Eddy Butler faction cheers too loudly and precipitately, there are important differences. The Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act 2000 provides party leaderships, however small and isolated they might be (or are imagined to be), with a monopoly over the use of the Party name. Furthermore, the opposition in 1986 was a cohesive party in waiting with its own magazine and activity programme.
The Eddy Butler programme is entirely negative propaganda about the BNP leadership and has the effect of leaving people exposed to it dispirited and alienated from political activity. Some left the Party to form a micro party and some others plan to seek membership of establishment safety valve parties that will do their reputations immense and undeserved damage in the eyes of serious nationalists. Most just hope that relentless pressure will somehow lead to Nick Griffin’s resignation. How this will be achieved is not explained.
There seems to be no serious attempt to keep in contact with the disaffected who leave politics in disgust. They will probably be lost to Nationalism for ever.
There is a question about whether attending a meeting disapproved of by the leadership of a party should be a disciplinary offence. Would it be a disciplinary offence in other parties? Does it tell us anything about a party leadership that sees disapproved meeting attendance as a disciplinary offence? Would such people, when entrusted with real political power, see disapproved meeting attendance as a criminal offence?
Furthermore, if all dissent is seen as treason, any dissenters become treasonable from necessity.
It would appear that we have a leadership that believes in keeping Nick Griffin as Chairman at any price in terms of lost membership and activists. It is better to have a small party with all of the membership besotted with the present leader than a larger party with a significant number of members who view him with scepticism or hostility. Most parties have significant proportions of their membership who are definitely out of love with their leaders. To want a 100% besotted membership is to want a small and very exclusive party.
The Opposition, on the other hand, wants to get rid of Nick Griffin as Chairman at any price in terms of lost membership and activists. However, it does not have a strategy for achieving its aim.
What is my position?
The autocratic constitution was, to a large extent, inherited by Nick Griffin from his predecessor, John Tyndall. John Tyndall was not one of nature’s autocrats, despite his earlier political leanings. I worked with him easily for six years on the democratically-elected National Directorate of the National Front. However, he left the NF (unwisely in my view) because he had been outvoted on the National Directorate and (unwisely in my view) invented a constitution for his new party (the BNP) that would prevent his being ever outvoted again.
I believe that that constitution corrupts leaders in the manner of a malevolent ring of power. It endows leaders with powers that it would be impossible for leaders to wield personally. They, therefore, pass those powers onto ostensibly sycophantic but, in reality, power-hungry advisers and stand-ins. It turns a leadership cult fantasy into a leader-led-by-the-nose reality. I believe that the heart of the problem is the autocratic constitution. If the Chairman were to share power with an elected executive, the other problems would solve themselves.
Our Chairman called for the Annual Conference in December to consider various proposals for constitutional reform. It opted for a proposal from Arthur Kemp, which was supported by our Chairman. This proposal involved the Chairman sharing power with an indirectly elected Executive comprising, mainly, regional organisers elected by branch organisers. The Annual Conference called for an EGM to consider this proposal but there has been an unaccountable delay in calling the EGM or even referring to it. It is rumoured that our Chairman has been overruled by his closest advisers, who have the final say on such matters. At the Annual Conference, the current Elections Officer opposed the idea of an elected Executive. His objection was put to the vote and his objection was defeated. However, it would appear that he can also overrule the Annual Conference.
I would like to see:
1. constitutional reform as agreed by the Annual Conference
2. an amnesty for those suspended and expelled during ‘the troubles’.
3. complete financial transparency for the future with the Executive being able to examine all future transactions but a line drawn under past transactions and undoubted mismanagement.
4. an end to all damaging websites and blogs with no more dirty linen being washed in public.
Is there any prospect of a truce being agreed along these lines? It would require statesmanship, restraint, humility and, above all, a decision to put the interests of the Party above private and petty concerns.
If there is no truce, the Party will come to an ignominious end before the end of this year. If it were not then to be followed by a credible successor, the British Nation would also come to an end. There would be no second chance to save it.
YOU are the BNP - only YOU can save our party
BNP Reform meeting: South East region
CALLING ALL NATIONALISTS
There will be a meeting of BNP Reform on Wednesday, 30 March 2011, starting at 7.30 pm.
The re-direction point for the meeting is:-
In the vicinity of Crawley. Contact 07952 942402 for the location.
The re-direction point will be manned from 6.45 pm to 7.30 pm. Please arrive early if possible.
All current and former members of the British National Party are entreated to make every effort to attend this historic meeting.
The meeting will be chaired by the former South East regional organizer, Roger Robertson.
Speakers will include: the EU researcher, 2010 leadership challenger, and former national organizer, Eddy Butler; the former Crawley and Horsham branch organizer, Richard Trower; the BNP's very own Sleazebuster, retired Metropolitan Police inspector, Michael Barnbrook; and the BNP Reform regional representative for the South East, Dr Andrew Emerson.
There will be a Question and Answer session. BNP Reform believes in free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly.
The general theme of the meeting will be LET'S FINISH WHAT WE STARTED!
With the BNP leadership collectively displaying all the symptoms of a general paralysis of the insane, how are the activists and members to respond?
Do we walk away and turn our backs on the party that we love, just when it needs us most?
Or do we behave pro-actively, and take control of the situation, rather than allow the stuation to control us?
With the BNP's best and bravest, the likes of Eddy Butler, Nick Cass and Chris Beverley, either unjustly expelled or unjustly suspended, in order to preclude them from exercising their democratic right as party members to mount a leadership challenge, Mr Griffin has effectively torn up the rule book, and declared war on the activists and members, on the back of whose selflessness he was elected as an MEP.
It is time that we, as activists and members of the BNP, asserted our democratic ownership of our party, and our will to liberate it from the clutches of the dishonourable usurper and avaricious petty tyrant, Griffin.
The BNP is not, and never has been, a one-man band. It rightfully belongs to all of its members, and its purpose is not to enrich one man, and his family, and hangers-on, but rather to save a nation, through the self-sacrifice of all who serve it, the leader more than any.
I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
Dr Andrew Emerson
BNP Reform regional representative for the South East
(e) draemerson@yahoo.co.uk
CALLING ALL NATIONALISTS
There will be a meeting of BNP Reform on Wednesday, 30 March 2011, starting at 7.30 pm.
The re-direction point for the meeting is:-
In the vicinity of Crawley. Contact 07952 942402 for the location.
The re-direction point will be manned from 6.45 pm to 7.30 pm. Please arrive early if possible.
All current and former members of the British National Party are entreated to make every effort to attend this historic meeting.
The meeting will be chaired by the former South East regional organizer, Roger Robertson.
Speakers will include: the EU researcher, 2010 leadership challenger, and former national organizer, Eddy Butler; the former Crawley and Horsham branch organizer, Richard Trower; the BNP's very own Sleazebuster, retired Metropolitan Police inspector, Michael Barnbrook; and the BNP Reform regional representative for the South East, Dr Andrew Emerson.
There will be a Question and Answer session. BNP Reform believes in free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly.
The general theme of the meeting will be LET'S FINISH WHAT WE STARTED!
With the BNP leadership collectively displaying all the symptoms of a general paralysis of the insane, how are the activists and members to respond?
Do we walk away and turn our backs on the party that we love, just when it needs us most?
Or do we behave pro-actively, and take control of the situation, rather than allow the stuation to control us?
With the BNP's best and bravest, the likes of Eddy Butler, Nick Cass and Chris Beverley, either unjustly expelled or unjustly suspended, in order to preclude them from exercising their democratic right as party members to mount a leadership challenge, Mr Griffin has effectively torn up the rule book, and declared war on the activists and members, on the back of whose selflessness he was elected as an MEP.
It is time that we, as activists and members of the BNP, asserted our democratic ownership of our party, and our will to liberate it from the clutches of the dishonourable usurper and avaricious petty tyrant, Griffin.
The BNP is not, and never has been, a one-man band. It rightfully belongs to all of its members, and its purpose is not to enrich one man, and his family, and hangers-on, but rather to save a nation, through the self-sacrifice of all who serve it, the leader more than any.
I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
Dr Andrew Emerson
BNP Reform regional representative for the South East
(e) draemerson@yahoo.co.uk
Friday 18 March 2011
John Tyndall points the way
This trenchant article, by John Tyndall, though first published in September 2004, is still so relevant to the situation in which the British National Party finds itself, that it might almost have been written yesterday.
It is not, of course, Holy Writ, and John Tyndall himself would have been the first to have acknowledged that, but it does speak a great deal of sense, something which has become a very precious commodity indeed, within the badly run lunatic asylum which the BNP has become, under the baleful eye of the money-grubbing gravy-train impresario, Nick Griffin.
Mr Tyndall percipiently (for things were to become much, much worse, after his demise, as we now know) draws attention to Griffin's penchant for surrounding himself with obsequious, damaged, creatures, who share his dubious ethics, and mercenary outlook, and are principally distinguishable from him by their inferior education and intelligence, shortcomings he is willing to condone, since their unquestioning slavishness flatters his fragile self-esteem, and their corruption conveniently complements his own. There is a good line in a Hollywood comedy film which Griffin may have said to himself on occasion with regard to his flunkeys, "Greedy and stupid - my favourite combination".
JT is also right to point out the deleterious effect which money can have on a party such as ours, something to which Steve Smith also drew attention around the same time. Who would have thought that anyone would enter nationalist politics in order to become rich? Yet the crew which Griffin has employed over the years he has been leader seem to have thought of little else but grabbing for themselves the biggest "piece of the pie" they could, regardless of whom they had to climb over in order to get it. There are always honourable exceptions, of course, but in the main, Griffin has set the example of base cupidity, and his minions have been only too eager to follow his bad example, on their smaller scale.
When the show-down comes, later this year, when the wounded griffin is finally tracked to its lair, and turns, fangs bared, to snarl at his hunters, surely JT's ghost will be with us, smiling approvingly as we deliver the coup de grace to the beast, and free our party once more to take up its historic mission: to restore our country to its rightful owners, the British people.
The Party I Want
John Tyndall sets out his vision for the future of the BNP
As reported in these pages last month, I have decided to throw down a challenge to Nick Griffin for the leadership of the British National Party. This challenge will probably be made in the summer of 2005, though a final decision on the timing will be made later.
The challenge will be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the BNP Constitution.
Many factors have brought me to this decision. I never had confidence that Nick Griffin would lead the BNP in the direction desired by its founders, nor that he would exercise prudent judgement in the making of decisions affecting the party, nor that he would be able to hold the party together as a unified force free of factions and internal quarrelling. His entire record prior to his assumption of the BNP leadership in 1999 made this very clear. The only question was how long it would take for these realities to become obvious to the membership of the party as a whole. I believe that this is beginning to happen. Hence my decision to stand against Mr. Griffin in a leadership election.
Whether people support my challenge or whether they support Mr Griffin, they have to admit one thing to be glaringly obvious. The BNP at the present time is a deeply divided party, with a great deal of controversy raging over leadership and policy. It is time for this controversy to be put to the vote of the whole membership. Which way do the members want the party to go? I want to give them the opportunity to decide.
Two things in particular have illustrated failures of leadership which portend disaster for the party if the situation is allowed to drift on unchanged.
First, there was the fiasco of the June elections. After months in which Mr. Griffin was repeatedly telling the party that we were on course to get four or five MEPs into the European Parliament, the final result was that not one single one was elected. In an election analysis in our July issue I condemned this failure, not because on the day we were faced, in UKIP, with a rival anti-EU party with far greater resources and with considerable media backing and we were therefore unable to compete, but because, knowing of this probability long beforehand, Mr Griffin made the decision to make a flat-out bid for seats in Europe in the first place. The correct strategy would have been to concentrate efforts on winnable seats in local government elections up and down the country, so many of which were up for grabs this year, and on the one winnable seat on the Greater London Assembly. The result of Mr. Griffin's decision to give overriding priority to his and others' campaigns to win unwinnable seats in Europe was that these other elections were grossly neglected in terms of active and financial input and leadership focus.
In other words, Mr. Griffin stands condemned, not for the party failing to win seats in Europe, but for targeting the impossible and wasting huge resources in so doing.
Aside from my own critique of this election strategy, an excellent analysis of the same shambles was provided in an article by Peter Rushmore [Rushton?] in the Autumn issue of Heritage and Destiny magazine, obtainable for £2.50 post-free from PO Box 331, Blackburn BB1 2WU.
Then when the ink was hardly dry on the June election ballot papers Mr. Griffin put forward a proposal that was certain, had it been carried through, to split the BNP in two. This was his crazy scheme to alter the party constitution to let in non-white members. He only backtracked after massive grass-roots opposition to the scheme had made itself manifest. In a declaration on the BNP website on the 23rd July he announced a complete about-turn, saying that the plan had been abandoned and that the membership rules would stay as they were, employing arguments in support of this that were an almost exact replica of those that I and several others had put forward against the change only a few days previously! This was not leadership; it amounted to a pathetic blowing with the wind.
Notwithstanding this volte face by Mr. Griffin, I am not convinced that we have seen the end of his ambition to bring non-Whites into our party. In statements to journalists he has been confessing his support for the idea for at least two years. I fear that we will witness a replay of the project before very long, albeit perhaps by means of different tactics.
These two recent developments have convinced me that a change of leadership in the BNP has become a matter of urgency.
What are my own qualifications for the job? I was founder of the party and, together with a solid core of colleagues (now mostly sidelined by Mr. Griffin), built it up gradually to the point at which, in 1993, it won its first council election seat in East London. From 1994 to 1996 the party's progress slowed, mainly due to internal subversion carried out by agents of Scotland Yard's Special Branch (a diagnosis incidentally concurred with by Nick Griffin in Patriot magazine, Issue No. 4, Spring 1999). After 1996 our progress picked up again, and in 1997 we fielded 54 candidates in the general election of that year, earning TV time. During the final two years of my time as leader BNP membership increased by nearly 90 per cent - and this before riots in certain northern towns in 2001 substantially changed the political climate in Britain to the advantage of the BNP.
I owe it to the members of the party whose support I am seeking to set out a vision of the future BNP as I see it and desire it. In what ways will I change the party and in what ways will I keep things as they are? Below I shall take the issues one by one and explain how I view them.
Articles of faith
I am pledged to maintain the BNP as a party of 100 per cent racial nationalism. That is to say that our aim must be an all-white Britain, with a population of British stock, varied only by the mingling of people of compatible and assimilable European ethnic groups.
This, it will not need stating, will involve a massive transfer of non-European populations to their ethnic homelands in the Third World. As far as possible, this should be achieved by negotiation, including the provision of generous financial aid and incentives to resettlement. This means that the process would start on a voluntary basis. However, it would be essential to hold in reserve the option of alternative means of resettlement, employing the force of law, should the first policy prove inadequate. This is in accordance with the terms on which I agreed to a change in the BNP's repatriation programme in 1999, and which were set out in Chapter 15 of my book The Eleventh Hour. In effect, and despite all protestations to the contrary, the change was merely one of presentation, not of substance.
Contrary to what Mr. Griffin has claimed, I do not believe that the distinction between voluntary or obligatory repatriation is of concern to the average voter. My experience of doorstep canvassing certainly confirms me in this view. For this very reason I do not believe that the party should go out of its way to 'talk up' the repatriation issue, either to emphasise the first (voluntary) phase or the contingency policy of enforcement by law if this fails. There will be times when we will be obliged by media questioning to address the issue, in which case we should stress the first as the first option, while not denying the second if asked but stressing it as being, at the moment, hypothetical.
What we must certainly not do is speak, as Mr. Griffin has done, of an all-white Britain being an unrealistic 'utopia' or of non-white immigration being "the salt in the soup", in other words a little is OK but not too much. This wins no friends in the media or among the public, while it demoralises many in our own party.
This principle of a White Britain is laid down as the core belief of our party entirely without hatred. We would continue, as in the past, to express our racial convictions reasonably, moderately and with strict avoidance of insults or abuse towards other ethnic groups, though maintaining the right to speak critically of these groups, or sections thereof, where called for and within the law.
This question aside, I see no reason for any substantial change in the party's political objectives as defined in Section 1 of the present Constitution, though I believe that some modifications of wording should be made in Sub-section (b) so as to make clear the objectives of an all-white Britain as previously outlined; and in Sub-section (c) so as to avoid the impression that the party is fully committed to a programme of Distributism, as defined in the doctrines of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc.
Membership
I am pledged to maintain the present rules of party membership as defined in Section 2 of the BNP Constitution. This means that membership would continue to be restricted to persons of British or kindred European ethnic origin.
The only event in which I would consent to an alteration of these rules would be if it were forced upon us by an act of law. This has not yet happened and unless and until it happens the rules should remain as they are.
I give this pledge concerning rules of membership confident that the members of the party will believe it to be a firm one. Unlike Mr Griffin, I do not change position politically from week to week according to the requirements of expediency.
Associated groups
The BNP should be willing to consider schemes of co-operation with non-white ethnic groups towards the achievement of our repatriation programme, but this should not involve granting them any special status with regard to the BNP, whether as party members or in any kind of formal association. I therefore would immediately dissociate the BNP from any groups that have been formed over the past five years which grant such association. This would include the so-called 'Ethnic Liaison Committee' and any others of its kind. If those comprising such groups wish to maintain them in operation, that is their affair. However, they would no longer be permitted any association with our party.
The party image
Contrary to widespread belief, fostered within the party by Mr. Griffin and his allies and outside it by some sections of the mass media, I am every bit as concerned and committed as he claims to be to maintain the best possible public image for the BNP, so as to achieve for it the maximum electability.
This was my policy before Mr. Griffin took over the party and it will be my policy in the future.
I am as strongly opposed as is anyone to the use of language, slogans, visual images or campaign tactics that connect the party with movements and ideologies rightly or wrongly considered alien by the majority of the British public. At the same time, I do not think it sensible or right to try to dictate to members what their private opinions should be on such matters.
I want to do more than has been done in the past to project for the BNP an image of smartness, tidiness, cleanliness, good behaviour and overall efficiency. I am committed never to permit again the appalling public relations failures that occurred in the making of the TV documentary Young, Nazi and Proud, broadcast in November 2002 - some of which could have been avoided by stricter supervision of interviewers and camera teams. I would introduce more rigid rules as to which members should be permitted to speak to media reporters, whether of press, TV or radio.
At the same time, I am opposed to the numerous gimmicks that have been employed by the Griffin leadership to convey an image of 'liberalisation' in the party. I include here: the selection of Jewish election candidates (who would not be permitted membership anyway); the featuring of ethnic minority group members on TV broadcasts and as writers of regular columns in party publications; and news items in these publications which might be taken to glorify racial intermarriage and cross-breeding. I oppose these things because they are utterly contrary to our principles as a party of racial nationalism; but I also oppose them for essentially practical reasons. I do not believe that they make an iota of difference to our support among the voters, while at the same time they cause a great deal of internal division, demoralisation and unrest. It seems that Mr. Griffin has yet to understand that a party's internal solidarity and morale are every bit as important as its external popularity.
The BNP and Islam
I have always been opposed to the current policy of Mr. Griffin of singling out Islam as a special enemy of Britain and concentrating most of the party's fire on that religious creed, rather than dealing with the overall threat of multi-racialism to our country, of which immigrant groups happening to adhere to the Islamic faith are only a part.
If the Middle Eastern and Asian ethnic communities which have brought organised Islam to Britain are repatriated to their ethnic homelands, the problems posed to the country by Islam will disappear. Putting it another way, these problems are not primarily religious but racial.
As long as the Islamic communities are confined to their native continents and countries and do not attempt to impose their religious customs on the people of the United Kingdom, we have no quarrel with them.
The Islamic terrorist threat is another matter. Obviously, as long as Britain contains large Muslim communities there is a large sea in this country in which would-be Islamic terrorists can swim. But what we also need to do is withdraw British support from the Zionist-inspired policy of President Bush leading to the occupation of Iraq and the incurring of the hatred of the Islamic world against the United States and Britain. The threat of Islamic terrorist attacks on Britain will be removed if the reasons for them are removed.
Mr. Griffin claims that we are menaced by a militant Islamic imperialism. I contend that by far the greatest menace is the imperialism of Zionism. I intend that in the future the BNP will focus its attention on this much more and on Islam much less.
Electoral strategy
As stated previously, the decision to make a major commitment of party resources to the contesting of Euro elections proved a disaster. I do not believe that the BNP should involve itself anymore in elections of this type for the foreseeable future.
Instead, our main focus should be on elections to local government, where up and down the country there are, as demonstrated, winnable seats. Here our branches should receive, much more than in the past, assistance and encouragement from the party leadership.
At times in the recent past, the party has been careless in its selection of council candidates, resulting in one or two of inferior calibre becoming elected. In the future we need to be much more rigid in our selection process, particularly in those areas where there is a good chance of the candidates winning.
And even where our elected councillors have comprised sound human material, they have often lacked guidance from above in the carrying out of their council duties. There must be much greater effort, not only to get councillors elected, but to assist them to become better councillors when elected. This an area where there needs to be close liaison and collaboration between branch, regional and national leadership.
Apart from local government elections, the party should of course participate in parliamentary elections, which offer the facility of free distribution of party literature through the postal service and are thus an excellent aid to recruitment. It should go without saying that where there has been intensive activity in local government elections in a particular area, with good results, that obviously enhances our prospects in a parliamentary election in the same area. Constituencies should, as far as possible, be selected in areas where this has been the case.
Personnel and discipline
Two features have characterised the BNP under Nick Griffin's leadership, which are interrelated. There have been many signs that appointments to positions of responsibility in the party have been decided not on merit but on subservience. I have seen people promoted to senior posts who bring with them very inadequate qualifications while others, more qualified, have been passed over or, as in some cases, driven out. It seems that Mr. Griffin wants to be surrounded by people who share his desire for an ideologically emasculated BNP and who will seldom, if ever, argue with him, rather than by those of strong convictions and independent minds.
A particular case in point here has been the treatment of the North West region of the party, in electoral and growth terms its most successful. A very able and well-respected organiser, Chris Jackson, suffered intolerable interference from people at party Headquarters and was driven to resign. His place was taken by a person clearly not up to the job, lacking the confidence and respect of large numbers of branch organisers and members, and prone to make decisions seemingly calculated to please the Griffin-Lecomber axis rather than to advance the party in the region. The consequence of this is that the level of morale and the rate of activity in the North West of England, which not long ago was very high, has declined depressingly over the past year.
Right now there is a very large amount of talent going to waste in the BNP, with people who could make tremendous contributions to the party being sidelined because they are not thought 'safe', whether through not having shown sufficient enthusiasm for Mr. Griffin's 'liberalisation' of the party or by demonstrating that they are strong characters who are not prepared to be lackeys.
There is much evidence that the same criteria of selectivity have been employed in the administration of party discipline. People who are thought to have 'incorrect' opinions on issues of party policy and leadership have been subjected to grossly excessive disciplinary punishments, sometimes excommunicated from the party, sometimes shunted to its margins, usually for quite trivial transgressions, if any at all. In the meantime others, apparently favourites of the ruling circle, seem to have been completely immune from any disciplinary action, though on occasions deserving it.
I am as strongly committed as anyone to the rule that a party must have discipline - perhaps the more essential in the BNP than in any other party because of the enemy trip-wires that are constantly placed in its path, as demonstrated by the recent Secret Agent TV documentary. But in an organisation of volunteers there are two essentials if discipline is to be maintained: (1) It must be enforced by people who command the necessary respect among the rank and file; (2) It must be seen at all times to be impartial and to fit the requirements of the case. Once an idea gets around that there is one law for one category of member and another law for another category, discipline is certain to collapse.
Party finances
In the time when I was previously head of the BNP party finances were run in a manner that was indisputably makeshift. This was because of the unavailability of personnel able to attend to the job properly and because the law as it stood then did not make more rigid procedures a matter of urgency as they became later. Recent legislation concerning the financing of political parties renders a return to that practice out of the question. Finances must be administered in a thoroughly professional way so as to comply with the requirements of the law as overseen by the Electoral Commission. This is something on which everyone in the BNP can agree.
Nevertheless, I am not happy that the present financial administration of the party is being run as effectively as it could and should.
I intend, if elected party leader, to look into the current highly centralised accounting system to see if and where it can be improved. It would be premature at this stage to make precise commitments as to change: a closer study of the system, together with consultation with organisers and fund-holders, would be necessary first. One aspect of the system which most certainly does require looking into is the lack of any regular statements which inform branch fund-holders as to the state of their finances. I will also examine the question of whether the keeping of party funds needs to be as centralised as it is at present - though again, precise pledges of change would be premature.
One thing can be stated with fair certainty, and this is that the system as it is at the moment is not working. The very fact that the party has defaulted in getting its accounts in to the Electoral Commission on time is evidence of this. Absence of an auditor willing to do the auditing does not sound a convincing explanation. There are many thousands of such people and companies up and down the country. Has any serious effort really been made to locate them?
The accounting system as it is has been defended, against much criticism within the party, as being necessary to comply with the Electoral Commission's rulings. And yet despite all this that has not been achieved!
Another area in which I am determined to see change is the presently grossly inflated payroll whereby some thirty-plus people in the party are currently receiving some kind of financial emoluments for their services. Some of these are employed on a full-time basis, while others work mainly in outside occupations but have their incomes 'topped up' in the way of hand-outs in reward for their services to the party.
This practice is bad from two viewpoints. First, it results in a crippling financial burden on a party the size of the BNP. To get an idea of comparisons, in the time of my leadership three people were paid by the party on a full-time basis, while one more was paid part-time. Even if we accept that the party and its workload have grown in the ensuing five years, I am quite sure that it has not done so to the extent that would warrant this huge increase in paid personnel.
Secondly, I believe that the tendency is not healthy. It creates the impression of a 'gravy train' which attracts people of mercenary mentality, would-be party officials lured by financial inducements rather than motivated by the desire to serve. It also fosters subservience - which I firmly believe is one of its purposes. Not least, it causes great resentment among those in the party who give up many of their spare hours entirely without payment but just out of dedication to race and nation - people who in many cases do just as much as their paid colleagues but get no remuneration because they do not belong to the 'magic circle'.
It is essential that in a party like the BNP some people are engaged full-time and paid. On this we can all be agreed. But the number currently paid has reached a quite unacceptable level. I am pledged to reform this whole system so as to reduce vastly both the number of paid personnel and the financial burden on the party resulting from this payroll.
Nationalist unity
This is a term that has been employed over many years, often more in idealism than out of a sense of sober political reality. People who are in agreement over essential principles of faith should be united in one single party. That is the way things ought to be; in the real world it is seldom that they are that way.
But I nevertheless have strong reason to believe that nationalists in Britain could be much more united than they are at present. A very strong reason - probably the main one - why they are now divided is the considerable opposition among many of them to the current BNP leadership.
I have made it a policy to keep up contacts with nationalists presently outside the BNP with a view to bringing at least some of them, eventually, into the party. Some of these were never in the BNP. Many were in it but left in disgust at what they believed to be the betrayal of nationalist principles by Mr. Griffin and his associates. A few were pushed out of the BNP in the numerous paranoid 'purges' that have taken place. One intended victim of these purges was - me! They tried to expel me last year but they were forced to back down by the promise of a court action which they most certainly would have lost. Other have been less fortunate - or perhaps just less determined!
Some of these nationalists outside the BNP are unsuitable for membership. They are of the wrong attitude and character. They lack self-discipline. They are too prone to political self-indulgence. A few are congenital misfits and trouble-makers. Some are plain loonies.
But the majority are good patriots who would be assets to the party if they were allowed to join or could be induced to join. By their joining we would have as near to a unification of nationalists in Britain as it is ever realistic to hope for.
I believe that I would be able to achieve this unification in a way that Mr. Griffin has not been able. Many nationalists now outside the BNP have declared their willingness to join if Mr. Griffin is removed and I am restored. I am pledged to work for this with all the means within my power.
A great future
Britain stands at the threshold of tremendous political events. The long-awaited popular backlash against immigration, the EU, political correctness and other evils is getting stronger every day. The mainstream parties are utterly discredited. In elections nowadays even minor nationalist parties, with a fraction of the resources of the BNP, are winning votes that would have been beyond their wildest dreams of just a few years ago. The future for nationalism is greater than ever.
Yet at this moment of supreme opportunity our own party is fragmented, beset by bitter internal quarrels and with morale low when it should be sky-high. We have a leader who has even been calling into question whether the BNP can go on existing as a political party! This need not be.
There is no doubt in my mind that our party has a great future - a future which indeed even some of the enemy media think is brighter than apparently does its own leadership!
I believe I can lead the BNP towards that great future, but I cannot do it alone. I need the help of all those who share my faith in what can and should be done. And I need it now! This means that those who support me should not just wait and quietly place a cross by my name in a coming leadership ballot; they should stand up and be counted without delay. Already I have a fine team of colleagues, ready and able to take things over when the moment comes. But we need more of you. Please contact me and pledge your support!
Spearhead Online
It is not, of course, Holy Writ, and John Tyndall himself would have been the first to have acknowledged that, but it does speak a great deal of sense, something which has become a very precious commodity indeed, within the badly run lunatic asylum which the BNP has become, under the baleful eye of the money-grubbing gravy-train impresario, Nick Griffin.
Mr Tyndall percipiently (for things were to become much, much worse, after his demise, as we now know) draws attention to Griffin's penchant for surrounding himself with obsequious, damaged, creatures, who share his dubious ethics, and mercenary outlook, and are principally distinguishable from him by their inferior education and intelligence, shortcomings he is willing to condone, since their unquestioning slavishness flatters his fragile self-esteem, and their corruption conveniently complements his own. There is a good line in a Hollywood comedy film which Griffin may have said to himself on occasion with regard to his flunkeys, "Greedy and stupid - my favourite combination".
JT is also right to point out the deleterious effect which money can have on a party such as ours, something to which Steve Smith also drew attention around the same time. Who would have thought that anyone would enter nationalist politics in order to become rich? Yet the crew which Griffin has employed over the years he has been leader seem to have thought of little else but grabbing for themselves the biggest "piece of the pie" they could, regardless of whom they had to climb over in order to get it. There are always honourable exceptions, of course, but in the main, Griffin has set the example of base cupidity, and his minions have been only too eager to follow his bad example, on their smaller scale.
When the show-down comes, later this year, when the wounded griffin is finally tracked to its lair, and turns, fangs bared, to snarl at his hunters, surely JT's ghost will be with us, smiling approvingly as we deliver the coup de grace to the beast, and free our party once more to take up its historic mission: to restore our country to its rightful owners, the British people.
The Party I Want
John Tyndall sets out his vision for the future of the BNP
As reported in these pages last month, I have decided to throw down a challenge to Nick Griffin for the leadership of the British National Party. This challenge will probably be made in the summer of 2005, though a final decision on the timing will be made later.
The challenge will be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the BNP Constitution.
Many factors have brought me to this decision. I never had confidence that Nick Griffin would lead the BNP in the direction desired by its founders, nor that he would exercise prudent judgement in the making of decisions affecting the party, nor that he would be able to hold the party together as a unified force free of factions and internal quarrelling. His entire record prior to his assumption of the BNP leadership in 1999 made this very clear. The only question was how long it would take for these realities to become obvious to the membership of the party as a whole. I believe that this is beginning to happen. Hence my decision to stand against Mr. Griffin in a leadership election.
Whether people support my challenge or whether they support Mr Griffin, they have to admit one thing to be glaringly obvious. The BNP at the present time is a deeply divided party, with a great deal of controversy raging over leadership and policy. It is time for this controversy to be put to the vote of the whole membership. Which way do the members want the party to go? I want to give them the opportunity to decide.
Two things in particular have illustrated failures of leadership which portend disaster for the party if the situation is allowed to drift on unchanged.
First, there was the fiasco of the June elections. After months in which Mr. Griffin was repeatedly telling the party that we were on course to get four or five MEPs into the European Parliament, the final result was that not one single one was elected. In an election analysis in our July issue I condemned this failure, not because on the day we were faced, in UKIP, with a rival anti-EU party with far greater resources and with considerable media backing and we were therefore unable to compete, but because, knowing of this probability long beforehand, Mr Griffin made the decision to make a flat-out bid for seats in Europe in the first place. The correct strategy would have been to concentrate efforts on winnable seats in local government elections up and down the country, so many of which were up for grabs this year, and on the one winnable seat on the Greater London Assembly. The result of Mr. Griffin's decision to give overriding priority to his and others' campaigns to win unwinnable seats in Europe was that these other elections were grossly neglected in terms of active and financial input and leadership focus.
In other words, Mr. Griffin stands condemned, not for the party failing to win seats in Europe, but for targeting the impossible and wasting huge resources in so doing.
Aside from my own critique of this election strategy, an excellent analysis of the same shambles was provided in an article by Peter Rushmore [Rushton?] in the Autumn issue of Heritage and Destiny magazine, obtainable for £2.50 post-free from PO Box 331, Blackburn BB1 2WU.
Then when the ink was hardly dry on the June election ballot papers Mr. Griffin put forward a proposal that was certain, had it been carried through, to split the BNP in two. This was his crazy scheme to alter the party constitution to let in non-white members. He only backtracked after massive grass-roots opposition to the scheme had made itself manifest. In a declaration on the BNP website on the 23rd July he announced a complete about-turn, saying that the plan had been abandoned and that the membership rules would stay as they were, employing arguments in support of this that were an almost exact replica of those that I and several others had put forward against the change only a few days previously! This was not leadership; it amounted to a pathetic blowing with the wind.
Notwithstanding this volte face by Mr. Griffin, I am not convinced that we have seen the end of his ambition to bring non-Whites into our party. In statements to journalists he has been confessing his support for the idea for at least two years. I fear that we will witness a replay of the project before very long, albeit perhaps by means of different tactics.
These two recent developments have convinced me that a change of leadership in the BNP has become a matter of urgency.
What are my own qualifications for the job? I was founder of the party and, together with a solid core of colleagues (now mostly sidelined by Mr. Griffin), built it up gradually to the point at which, in 1993, it won its first council election seat in East London. From 1994 to 1996 the party's progress slowed, mainly due to internal subversion carried out by agents of Scotland Yard's Special Branch (a diagnosis incidentally concurred with by Nick Griffin in Patriot magazine, Issue No. 4, Spring 1999). After 1996 our progress picked up again, and in 1997 we fielded 54 candidates in the general election of that year, earning TV time. During the final two years of my time as leader BNP membership increased by nearly 90 per cent - and this before riots in certain northern towns in 2001 substantially changed the political climate in Britain to the advantage of the BNP.
I owe it to the members of the party whose support I am seeking to set out a vision of the future BNP as I see it and desire it. In what ways will I change the party and in what ways will I keep things as they are? Below I shall take the issues one by one and explain how I view them.
Articles of faith
I am pledged to maintain the BNP as a party of 100 per cent racial nationalism. That is to say that our aim must be an all-white Britain, with a population of British stock, varied only by the mingling of people of compatible and assimilable European ethnic groups.
This, it will not need stating, will involve a massive transfer of non-European populations to their ethnic homelands in the Third World. As far as possible, this should be achieved by negotiation, including the provision of generous financial aid and incentives to resettlement. This means that the process would start on a voluntary basis. However, it would be essential to hold in reserve the option of alternative means of resettlement, employing the force of law, should the first policy prove inadequate. This is in accordance with the terms on which I agreed to a change in the BNP's repatriation programme in 1999, and which were set out in Chapter 15 of my book The Eleventh Hour. In effect, and despite all protestations to the contrary, the change was merely one of presentation, not of substance.
Contrary to what Mr. Griffin has claimed, I do not believe that the distinction between voluntary or obligatory repatriation is of concern to the average voter. My experience of doorstep canvassing certainly confirms me in this view. For this very reason I do not believe that the party should go out of its way to 'talk up' the repatriation issue, either to emphasise the first (voluntary) phase or the contingency policy of enforcement by law if this fails. There will be times when we will be obliged by media questioning to address the issue, in which case we should stress the first as the first option, while not denying the second if asked but stressing it as being, at the moment, hypothetical.
What we must certainly not do is speak, as Mr. Griffin has done, of an all-white Britain being an unrealistic 'utopia' or of non-white immigration being "the salt in the soup", in other words a little is OK but not too much. This wins no friends in the media or among the public, while it demoralises many in our own party.
This principle of a White Britain is laid down as the core belief of our party entirely without hatred. We would continue, as in the past, to express our racial convictions reasonably, moderately and with strict avoidance of insults or abuse towards other ethnic groups, though maintaining the right to speak critically of these groups, or sections thereof, where called for and within the law.
This question aside, I see no reason for any substantial change in the party's political objectives as defined in Section 1 of the present Constitution, though I believe that some modifications of wording should be made in Sub-section (b) so as to make clear the objectives of an all-white Britain as previously outlined; and in Sub-section (c) so as to avoid the impression that the party is fully committed to a programme of Distributism, as defined in the doctrines of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc.
Membership
I am pledged to maintain the present rules of party membership as defined in Section 2 of the BNP Constitution. This means that membership would continue to be restricted to persons of British or kindred European ethnic origin.
The only event in which I would consent to an alteration of these rules would be if it were forced upon us by an act of law. This has not yet happened and unless and until it happens the rules should remain as they are.
I give this pledge concerning rules of membership confident that the members of the party will believe it to be a firm one. Unlike Mr Griffin, I do not change position politically from week to week according to the requirements of expediency.
Associated groups
The BNP should be willing to consider schemes of co-operation with non-white ethnic groups towards the achievement of our repatriation programme, but this should not involve granting them any special status with regard to the BNP, whether as party members or in any kind of formal association. I therefore would immediately dissociate the BNP from any groups that have been formed over the past five years which grant such association. This would include the so-called 'Ethnic Liaison Committee' and any others of its kind. If those comprising such groups wish to maintain them in operation, that is their affair. However, they would no longer be permitted any association with our party.
The party image
Contrary to widespread belief, fostered within the party by Mr. Griffin and his allies and outside it by some sections of the mass media, I am every bit as concerned and committed as he claims to be to maintain the best possible public image for the BNP, so as to achieve for it the maximum electability.
This was my policy before Mr. Griffin took over the party and it will be my policy in the future.
I am as strongly opposed as is anyone to the use of language, slogans, visual images or campaign tactics that connect the party with movements and ideologies rightly or wrongly considered alien by the majority of the British public. At the same time, I do not think it sensible or right to try to dictate to members what their private opinions should be on such matters.
I want to do more than has been done in the past to project for the BNP an image of smartness, tidiness, cleanliness, good behaviour and overall efficiency. I am committed never to permit again the appalling public relations failures that occurred in the making of the TV documentary Young, Nazi and Proud, broadcast in November 2002 - some of which could have been avoided by stricter supervision of interviewers and camera teams. I would introduce more rigid rules as to which members should be permitted to speak to media reporters, whether of press, TV or radio.
At the same time, I am opposed to the numerous gimmicks that have been employed by the Griffin leadership to convey an image of 'liberalisation' in the party. I include here: the selection of Jewish election candidates (who would not be permitted membership anyway); the featuring of ethnic minority group members on TV broadcasts and as writers of regular columns in party publications; and news items in these publications which might be taken to glorify racial intermarriage and cross-breeding. I oppose these things because they are utterly contrary to our principles as a party of racial nationalism; but I also oppose them for essentially practical reasons. I do not believe that they make an iota of difference to our support among the voters, while at the same time they cause a great deal of internal division, demoralisation and unrest. It seems that Mr. Griffin has yet to understand that a party's internal solidarity and morale are every bit as important as its external popularity.
The BNP and Islam
I have always been opposed to the current policy of Mr. Griffin of singling out Islam as a special enemy of Britain and concentrating most of the party's fire on that religious creed, rather than dealing with the overall threat of multi-racialism to our country, of which immigrant groups happening to adhere to the Islamic faith are only a part.
If the Middle Eastern and Asian ethnic communities which have brought organised Islam to Britain are repatriated to their ethnic homelands, the problems posed to the country by Islam will disappear. Putting it another way, these problems are not primarily religious but racial.
As long as the Islamic communities are confined to their native continents and countries and do not attempt to impose their religious customs on the people of the United Kingdom, we have no quarrel with them.
The Islamic terrorist threat is another matter. Obviously, as long as Britain contains large Muslim communities there is a large sea in this country in which would-be Islamic terrorists can swim. But what we also need to do is withdraw British support from the Zionist-inspired policy of President Bush leading to the occupation of Iraq and the incurring of the hatred of the Islamic world against the United States and Britain. The threat of Islamic terrorist attacks on Britain will be removed if the reasons for them are removed.
Mr. Griffin claims that we are menaced by a militant Islamic imperialism. I contend that by far the greatest menace is the imperialism of Zionism. I intend that in the future the BNP will focus its attention on this much more and on Islam much less.
Electoral strategy
As stated previously, the decision to make a major commitment of party resources to the contesting of Euro elections proved a disaster. I do not believe that the BNP should involve itself anymore in elections of this type for the foreseeable future.
Instead, our main focus should be on elections to local government, where up and down the country there are, as demonstrated, winnable seats. Here our branches should receive, much more than in the past, assistance and encouragement from the party leadership.
At times in the recent past, the party has been careless in its selection of council candidates, resulting in one or two of inferior calibre becoming elected. In the future we need to be much more rigid in our selection process, particularly in those areas where there is a good chance of the candidates winning.
And even where our elected councillors have comprised sound human material, they have often lacked guidance from above in the carrying out of their council duties. There must be much greater effort, not only to get councillors elected, but to assist them to become better councillors when elected. This an area where there needs to be close liaison and collaboration between branch, regional and national leadership.
Apart from local government elections, the party should of course participate in parliamentary elections, which offer the facility of free distribution of party literature through the postal service and are thus an excellent aid to recruitment. It should go without saying that where there has been intensive activity in local government elections in a particular area, with good results, that obviously enhances our prospects in a parliamentary election in the same area. Constituencies should, as far as possible, be selected in areas where this has been the case.
Personnel and discipline
Two features have characterised the BNP under Nick Griffin's leadership, which are interrelated. There have been many signs that appointments to positions of responsibility in the party have been decided not on merit but on subservience. I have seen people promoted to senior posts who bring with them very inadequate qualifications while others, more qualified, have been passed over or, as in some cases, driven out. It seems that Mr. Griffin wants to be surrounded by people who share his desire for an ideologically emasculated BNP and who will seldom, if ever, argue with him, rather than by those of strong convictions and independent minds.
A particular case in point here has been the treatment of the North West region of the party, in electoral and growth terms its most successful. A very able and well-respected organiser, Chris Jackson, suffered intolerable interference from people at party Headquarters and was driven to resign. His place was taken by a person clearly not up to the job, lacking the confidence and respect of large numbers of branch organisers and members, and prone to make decisions seemingly calculated to please the Griffin-Lecomber axis rather than to advance the party in the region. The consequence of this is that the level of morale and the rate of activity in the North West of England, which not long ago was very high, has declined depressingly over the past year.
Right now there is a very large amount of talent going to waste in the BNP, with people who could make tremendous contributions to the party being sidelined because they are not thought 'safe', whether through not having shown sufficient enthusiasm for Mr. Griffin's 'liberalisation' of the party or by demonstrating that they are strong characters who are not prepared to be lackeys.
There is much evidence that the same criteria of selectivity have been employed in the administration of party discipline. People who are thought to have 'incorrect' opinions on issues of party policy and leadership have been subjected to grossly excessive disciplinary punishments, sometimes excommunicated from the party, sometimes shunted to its margins, usually for quite trivial transgressions, if any at all. In the meantime others, apparently favourites of the ruling circle, seem to have been completely immune from any disciplinary action, though on occasions deserving it.
I am as strongly committed as anyone to the rule that a party must have discipline - perhaps the more essential in the BNP than in any other party because of the enemy trip-wires that are constantly placed in its path, as demonstrated by the recent Secret Agent TV documentary. But in an organisation of volunteers there are two essentials if discipline is to be maintained: (1) It must be enforced by people who command the necessary respect among the rank and file; (2) It must be seen at all times to be impartial and to fit the requirements of the case. Once an idea gets around that there is one law for one category of member and another law for another category, discipline is certain to collapse.
Party finances
In the time when I was previously head of the BNP party finances were run in a manner that was indisputably makeshift. This was because of the unavailability of personnel able to attend to the job properly and because the law as it stood then did not make more rigid procedures a matter of urgency as they became later. Recent legislation concerning the financing of political parties renders a return to that practice out of the question. Finances must be administered in a thoroughly professional way so as to comply with the requirements of the law as overseen by the Electoral Commission. This is something on which everyone in the BNP can agree.
Nevertheless, I am not happy that the present financial administration of the party is being run as effectively as it could and should.
I intend, if elected party leader, to look into the current highly centralised accounting system to see if and where it can be improved. It would be premature at this stage to make precise commitments as to change: a closer study of the system, together with consultation with organisers and fund-holders, would be necessary first. One aspect of the system which most certainly does require looking into is the lack of any regular statements which inform branch fund-holders as to the state of their finances. I will also examine the question of whether the keeping of party funds needs to be as centralised as it is at present - though again, precise pledges of change would be premature.
One thing can be stated with fair certainty, and this is that the system as it is at the moment is not working. The very fact that the party has defaulted in getting its accounts in to the Electoral Commission on time is evidence of this. Absence of an auditor willing to do the auditing does not sound a convincing explanation. There are many thousands of such people and companies up and down the country. Has any serious effort really been made to locate them?
The accounting system as it is has been defended, against much criticism within the party, as being necessary to comply with the Electoral Commission's rulings. And yet despite all this that has not been achieved!
Another area in which I am determined to see change is the presently grossly inflated payroll whereby some thirty-plus people in the party are currently receiving some kind of financial emoluments for their services. Some of these are employed on a full-time basis, while others work mainly in outside occupations but have their incomes 'topped up' in the way of hand-outs in reward for their services to the party.
This practice is bad from two viewpoints. First, it results in a crippling financial burden on a party the size of the BNP. To get an idea of comparisons, in the time of my leadership three people were paid by the party on a full-time basis, while one more was paid part-time. Even if we accept that the party and its workload have grown in the ensuing five years, I am quite sure that it has not done so to the extent that would warrant this huge increase in paid personnel.
Secondly, I believe that the tendency is not healthy. It creates the impression of a 'gravy train' which attracts people of mercenary mentality, would-be party officials lured by financial inducements rather than motivated by the desire to serve. It also fosters subservience - which I firmly believe is one of its purposes. Not least, it causes great resentment among those in the party who give up many of their spare hours entirely without payment but just out of dedication to race and nation - people who in many cases do just as much as their paid colleagues but get no remuneration because they do not belong to the 'magic circle'.
It is essential that in a party like the BNP some people are engaged full-time and paid. On this we can all be agreed. But the number currently paid has reached a quite unacceptable level. I am pledged to reform this whole system so as to reduce vastly both the number of paid personnel and the financial burden on the party resulting from this payroll.
Nationalist unity
This is a term that has been employed over many years, often more in idealism than out of a sense of sober political reality. People who are in agreement over essential principles of faith should be united in one single party. That is the way things ought to be; in the real world it is seldom that they are that way.
But I nevertheless have strong reason to believe that nationalists in Britain could be much more united than they are at present. A very strong reason - probably the main one - why they are now divided is the considerable opposition among many of them to the current BNP leadership.
I have made it a policy to keep up contacts with nationalists presently outside the BNP with a view to bringing at least some of them, eventually, into the party. Some of these were never in the BNP. Many were in it but left in disgust at what they believed to be the betrayal of nationalist principles by Mr. Griffin and his associates. A few were pushed out of the BNP in the numerous paranoid 'purges' that have taken place. One intended victim of these purges was - me! They tried to expel me last year but they were forced to back down by the promise of a court action which they most certainly would have lost. Other have been less fortunate - or perhaps just less determined!
Some of these nationalists outside the BNP are unsuitable for membership. They are of the wrong attitude and character. They lack self-discipline. They are too prone to political self-indulgence. A few are congenital misfits and trouble-makers. Some are plain loonies.
But the majority are good patriots who would be assets to the party if they were allowed to join or could be induced to join. By their joining we would have as near to a unification of nationalists in Britain as it is ever realistic to hope for.
I believe that I would be able to achieve this unification in a way that Mr. Griffin has not been able. Many nationalists now outside the BNP have declared their willingness to join if Mr. Griffin is removed and I am restored. I am pledged to work for this with all the means within my power.
A great future
Britain stands at the threshold of tremendous political events. The long-awaited popular backlash against immigration, the EU, political correctness and other evils is getting stronger every day. The mainstream parties are utterly discredited. In elections nowadays even minor nationalist parties, with a fraction of the resources of the BNP, are winning votes that would have been beyond their wildest dreams of just a few years ago. The future for nationalism is greater than ever.
Yet at this moment of supreme opportunity our own party is fragmented, beset by bitter internal quarrels and with morale low when it should be sky-high. We have a leader who has even been calling into question whether the BNP can go on existing as a political party! This need not be.
There is no doubt in my mind that our party has a great future - a future which indeed even some of the enemy media think is brighter than apparently does its own leadership!
I believe I can lead the BNP towards that great future, but I cannot do it alone. I need the help of all those who share my faith in what can and should be done. And I need it now! This means that those who support me should not just wait and quietly place a cross by my name in a coming leadership ballot; they should stand up and be counted without delay. Already I have a fine team of colleagues, ready and able to take things over when the moment comes. But we need more of you. Please contact me and pledge your support!
Spearhead Online
Wednesday 16 March 2011
Where we Stand
Official Statement - BNP Reform 2011
By admin, on March 15th, 2011
Reform 2011 consists of concerned Party members who feel Nick Griffin’s subversion of last year’s wholly constitutional leadership challenge nomination process effectively stripped him of the democratic mandate hitherto bestowed upon him by the membership at the last leadership election (2007). Therefore, he no longer commands authority or credibility within the Party. His ill-considered actions have robbed us of our legitimate right to pass judgement on our Chairman’s stewardship of our Party.
We are first and foremost Party loyalists. We are totally committed to the British National Party as THE Nationalist vehicle in British politics. We passionately believe in the potential of the BNP to transform politics in Britain and by so doing save our Nation. Remember, our Party, despite all the obstacles placed in our way by a hostile Establishment and media polled c. 1 million votes in 2009 and pro-rata polled a similar number in last year’s General Election after what can only be described as a disastrous campaign. Our Party is emphatically not “finished” or “dead” and those using such language are defeatists who to a very large extent are making their own reality. It is the current Chairman who is finished and must be replaced.
We have come together primarily to lay the ground work for a leadership challenge this year, 2011, but also to mobilise and productively channel members' and activists’ disillusion into our quest to breathe new life and hope into the British National Party. We seek only to strengthen the Party.
Whilst many of us were supportive of, and sympathetic to, Eddy Butler’s leadership challenge last year, and are currently most grateful to him for his on-going critique of Nick Griffin’s Chairmanship, we are totally independent of Mr Butler. We do not act or speak on his behalf, nor does Eddy speak or act on behalf of us.
We have absolutely no interest in starting a new party nor are we interested in joining other parties such as UKIP, English Defence League or the English Democrats. We are committed to the British National Party.
Given the enormous power vested in the Chairman of the BNP our Constitution stipulates, as a counterbalance to that power, an annual leadership election. We believe a challenge this year is in the best interests of our Party – as indeed it was last year. Therefore, we are working to present the membership with an alternative future management team and a plausible leadership challenger for this year.
Our objectives are:
Internally
To restore the Party to its members, branches and regions.
To install effective administration, financial control and transparency with the express purpose of keeping the Party solvent, within the law and cohesive. Resources will be directed to, and kept as much as possible at, the front line. Branches and regions are to be encouraged and supported in delivering the BNP message in a manner most suited to the area/region. We wish to devolve power to the local activists. In short, Head Office serves the Party not the other way round. It is a matter of urgency that we build a party election machine capable of harnessing the discontent welling in the British electorate.
To re-energise the Party and enable local talent to flourish. We are confident the foregoing will bring this about.
Externally
To go on the offensive ideologically, enunciating clearly the moral rationale for Nationalism, and provide our people with a vision of a better future.
To re-affirm core Nationalist principles, and, in view of the unfolding economic crisis promote as Party policy the need to create an honest, sound, and therefore sustainable, fiscal, monetary and banking system as a matter of urgency.
Please register with our website to be kept informed of future developments.
http://www.bnpreform2011.co.uk
By admin, on March 15th, 2011
Reform 2011 consists of concerned Party members who feel Nick Griffin’s subversion of last year’s wholly constitutional leadership challenge nomination process effectively stripped him of the democratic mandate hitherto bestowed upon him by the membership at the last leadership election (2007). Therefore, he no longer commands authority or credibility within the Party. His ill-considered actions have robbed us of our legitimate right to pass judgement on our Chairman’s stewardship of our Party.
We are first and foremost Party loyalists. We are totally committed to the British National Party as THE Nationalist vehicle in British politics. We passionately believe in the potential of the BNP to transform politics in Britain and by so doing save our Nation. Remember, our Party, despite all the obstacles placed in our way by a hostile Establishment and media polled c. 1 million votes in 2009 and pro-rata polled a similar number in last year’s General Election after what can only be described as a disastrous campaign. Our Party is emphatically not “finished” or “dead” and those using such language are defeatists who to a very large extent are making their own reality. It is the current Chairman who is finished and must be replaced.
We have come together primarily to lay the ground work for a leadership challenge this year, 2011, but also to mobilise and productively channel members' and activists’ disillusion into our quest to breathe new life and hope into the British National Party. We seek only to strengthen the Party.
Whilst many of us were supportive of, and sympathetic to, Eddy Butler’s leadership challenge last year, and are currently most grateful to him for his on-going critique of Nick Griffin’s Chairmanship, we are totally independent of Mr Butler. We do not act or speak on his behalf, nor does Eddy speak or act on behalf of us.
We have absolutely no interest in starting a new party nor are we interested in joining other parties such as UKIP, English Defence League or the English Democrats. We are committed to the British National Party.
Given the enormous power vested in the Chairman of the BNP our Constitution stipulates, as a counterbalance to that power, an annual leadership election. We believe a challenge this year is in the best interests of our Party – as indeed it was last year. Therefore, we are working to present the membership with an alternative future management team and a plausible leadership challenger for this year.
Our objectives are:
Internally
To restore the Party to its members, branches and regions.
To install effective administration, financial control and transparency with the express purpose of keeping the Party solvent, within the law and cohesive. Resources will be directed to, and kept as much as possible at, the front line. Branches and regions are to be encouraged and supported in delivering the BNP message in a manner most suited to the area/region. We wish to devolve power to the local activists. In short, Head Office serves the Party not the other way round. It is a matter of urgency that we build a party election machine capable of harnessing the discontent welling in the British electorate.
To re-energise the Party and enable local talent to flourish. We are confident the foregoing will bring this about.
Externally
To go on the offensive ideologically, enunciating clearly the moral rationale for Nationalism, and provide our people with a vision of a better future.
To re-affirm core Nationalist principles, and, in view of the unfolding economic crisis promote as Party policy the need to create an honest, sound, and therefore sustainable, fiscal, monetary and banking system as a matter of urgency.
Please register with our website to be kept informed of future developments.
http://www.bnpreform2011.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
