BNP in Swansea

by Richard on April 6, 2008

Disturbing news that the BNP are to field 4 candidates in Swansea in next month’s local elections

As nominations for the May elections closed yesterday, the BNP had registered four candidates in Swansea and two in Carmarthenshire.

In Swansea, Sion Owens, of Caerphilly Avenue, is standing in Bonymaen and Susan Harwood, of Llanerch Crescent, Gorseinon, is standing in Landore.

Alan Bateman, of Lon Gwesyn, Birchgrove, is hoping to be elected in Morriston, while Clive Bennett, of Frederick Place, Llansamlet, is appearing on the Llansamlet ballot papers.

I’m sure they’ll get the response they deserve from the electorate.

{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }

1

Methodist Preacher 04.07.08 at 6:27 am

Don’t rely on it - go out and knock a few doors for the Labour Party. Don’t find out the hard way.

2

Richard 04.07.08 at 8:15 am

I’m not sure I agree with your assumption that canvassing for Labour is the best way to keep out the BNP, but I’ll bear it in mind.

3

Methodist Preacher 04.07.08 at 11:56 am

Don’t spend too much time bearing it in mind. Just get out on the streets and do it. You may be in for a shock on May 2nd

4

Kim 04.07.08 at 11:59 am

Given the districts involved, I think David (MP) is probably right that only Labour will keep out the BNP - and, if necessary, I’d support tactical voting to that end. The terrible irony is that by pandering to right wing sentiments, shamelessly on immigration and risibly on patriotism, Labour has actually strengthened the hand of the BNP. I’m afraid that Labour no longer has a moral centre.

5

DH 04.07.08 at 2:07 pm

I’m against the BNP, totally against the BNP. However, is there something wrong with limiting immigration? I also don’t believe that one should react in such a way to a problem that the reaction is bad as the problem being reacted from. Should one put some limits on immigration and one should be patriotic with their country if they aren’t a government who supports terrorists or communists or are terrorists and communists?

6

john russell 04.20.08 at 10:10 am

what’s wrong with you people? get off your knees and vote BNP. no one else will do anything for you and your families’ futures. the hatred for your own people that you spout has been fed to you by the old parties who know their cosy jobs are threatened by the rise of the BNP. join the party which is full of people just like you, except that they’re honest enough to stop pretending they don’t feel threatened by the tide of immigrants. go and take a look at London if you want to know what’s coming your way if you don’t take a stand. and if you don’t, you’ll look back and curse your stupidity as you endure more crime, more terror trials and attacks, more islamification of your way of life, more grooming of 12 year old white girls by asian gangs, more drugs, more trevor phillips speechifying in his beautifully tailored suits paid for by you, more mugabe style undermining of the electoral process both by asians and by the govt itself, and more of this govt’s wars and financial corruption. it’s your choice and on your heads be it.

7

Kim 04.20.08 at 1:14 pm

Great tirade, John. All hammer, no nail. And wherever did people get the idea that the BNP is racist?

8

Paul Martin 04.20.08 at 2:33 pm

I find it interesting that Master Russell shares a name with a particularly yappy breed of dog. His contribution represents a particularly ignorant form of yappinness whereas the dog can be rather loveable.

A vote for the BNP is incompatible with Christianity. Sadly, the Labour Party needs better reason to vote for it than not being the BNP. The party of war deserves all that comes its way on May 1st.

9

PamBG 04.20.08 at 3:09 pm

A vote for the BNP is incompatible with Christianity. Sadly, the Labour Party needs better reason to vote for it than not being the BNP. The party of war deserves all that comes its way on May 1st.

Hear, hear!

10

James 04.20.08 at 9:31 pm

Paul - insulting him personally probably isn’t the best policy.

11

Paul Martin 04.20.08 at 9:51 pm

James I used to be quite gentle but increasingly I think that when people display ignorance they need to be told. Otherwise they think their conduct is acceptable.

I doubt that anything I wrote would work with Master Russell. Still by my standards he got off light. The fact is that BNP members need to be reminded of their ignorance from time to time.

12

Olive Morgan 04.20.08 at 11:06 pm

There is a related post - on my blog, as highlighted by Allan Bevere in the current Best of the Methoblogosphere - in which the leaders of the main Free Churches urge responsible voting, excluding the BNP. I would have welcomed some of these comments there!

13

Matt Taylor 04.18.10 at 10:29 pm

It makes me that BNP supporters are called ignorant or racist.

This is meant to be a country of free speech but once anybody says they are for the BNP they are shot down in flames by people to ascared to admit there is a problem in this country.

Apparently if you support the BNP you are ignorant of the truth and other cultures…..what a joke. The people who are ignorant are the people who will back anybody apart from the BNP without actually understanding what they wanrt and why (not just listening to the propogande spouted off pn the news)

The BNP is not a racist oraganisation, if anything it is standing up for the true minority in this country…..hard working british people!

14

Richard 04.19.10 at 7:04 am

I do believe in free speech, and I’m glad you’ve taken the trouble to comment, Matt. But you’re wrong.

The BNP is a party built on racism and fear.

15

Kim 04.19.10 at 7:04 am

It makes me [mad? sick? look ridiculous to deny?] that BNP supporters are called ignorant or racist.

How about ultra-nationalist, xenophobic, odious, and mendacious then?

16

Paul Martin 04.19.10 at 10:15 am

Kim, it is an insult to odious people to compare them with the BNP.

Not only is the BP racist and homophobic, one of its leaders having called AIDS a friendly disease because it kills blacks, gay s and drug users but it is steeped in Nazism.

Both Euro MEPs have history of Nazi activity - I am not even bother with the word neo.

Matt you are on the side of evil - pure and simple! As a Christian I regard every vote for the BNp as tantamounts to spitting in the face of Christ. If you do so you are either a prize moron or an all together naty piece of work. Make your own mind up which applies to you!

17

Kim 04.19.10 at 11:09 am

Jeez, and I thought I was the bad cop around here! But Paul rightly raises a crucial point. To be an apologist for the BNP, let alone a voter for the BNP, let alone a member of the BNP - nothing short of the word “blasphemy” will do (the word “heresy” also applies, but it is not strong enough). Though go on, Matt, make our day and give us a theological defence of your position.

18

t. mcnamara 04.11.11 at 11:26 am

it’s about time people stood up to these religious fruitcakes, who value books more than life, if Mr Owen had blown up a tube station would these holy people be protesting so much?, I think not, as for our soldiers being put at risk? I think the politicians who send them to steal oil, and in Afghanistan’s case, their Heroin? should be jailed, not Mr Owen.

19

t. mcnamara 04.11.11 at 11:36 am

why is it taking so long to moderate? is it possible that only comments you can deal with are being allowed, confirms my beliefs about christian? values?.

20

Richard 04.11.11 at 11:56 am

I’m sorry that you think 20 minutes is too long to wait for a comment to be moderated. Learn patience, Grasshopper!

I wish I could work out what point you’re trying to make.

21

Richard 04.11.11 at 12:06 pm

OK, I get it. You’re referring to this story.

Presumably you think it is big and clever to burn books.

22

t. mcnamara 04.11.11 at 12:11 pm

me think’s master, you are being Ecumenical with the truth and also a wee bittie, patronising, I suppose God gave u your degree?, and us godless humans should keep our thoughts too ourselves, just because you hand out a bowl of soup, now and again, doesn’t make you Father Teresa, and please remember all those Moslems and civilian who just now are being bombed, because good Christians, are concerned about their electoral systems.

23

t. mcnamara 04.11.11 at 12:18 pm

what made you think I would burn a book, any book? the bnp have as much right as anyone else in this country to protest, and no i’m not a member, so get of that tact.

24

Richard 04.11.11 at 12:18 pm

Patronising? Not at all - I had no idea what you meant. I’ve since worked it out, and said so. If you’re assuming that I’m a supporter of the military action in Libya, you assume wrong. I’m glad to have a conversation with anyone (provided it can be kept civil) but it’s just a tad irritating to be accused of some kind of censorship just because a comment sits in the moderation queue for a few minutes.

25

Richard 04.11.11 at 12:23 pm

>> “the bnp have as much right as anyone else in this country to protest”

Yes, they do. They also have the same responsibility to abide by the law - and to face the consequences if they don’t.

But even when they remain within the law of the land, the BNP are peddling a toxic mixture of fear and hatred which it is the duty of every Christian to oppose.

What does “get of that tact” mean?

26

Alec Macph 04.11.11 at 12:29 pm

You think this is worrying? There are National Front candidates in at least one regional list for the Scottish elections! Blimey!

However, is there something wrong with limiting immigration?

No. The BNP are, however, knuckle-scraping Nazis. And they need a bath.

~alec

27

t. mcnamara 04.11.11 at 12:33 pm

I see your not a sailor, where is the law that says it is illegal to burn a book, as for peddling mixture and fear, they are in good company, all politicians do it, especially the incumbents.

28

TonyBuglass 04.11.11 at 2:03 pm

It isn’t illegal to burn a book. But incitement to religious hatred is an offence.

Would you smear a synagogue with pork fat? Organise a blood transfusion session in a Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall? The fact that I disagree with the teachings of each of those organisations, and many others besides, doesn’t mean that it is right for me to gratuitously offend them. It is well known that Muslims treat the Quran as particularly sacred, and their more extreme members are likely to respond with violence against those whom they perceive as being responsible - and that isn’t necessarily the idiot with the match, but other Christians. Why provoke a violent response?

Those who burn the Quran are stupid and doltish. And since most of them are out of reach of Muslims, and hide behind those whom they have put in danger’s way, they are cowards, too. I don’t see how anyone with a grain of sense can defend them.

29

Alec Macph 04.11.11 at 3:12 pm

Would you smear a synagogue with pork fat?

Criminal damage as well as an unambiguous display of what the individual thinks of Jews-as-Jews.

Organise a blood transfusion session in a Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall?

That would involve trespassing. I would, I admit, be quite tickled by the thought of a blood transfusion van parking _next_ to a JW Hall; in the same way I invite Mormons in for a cup of coffee.

And, as you know deep down, the JWs would not fire-bomb it, or the Mormon declare me tawfiq.

The fact that I disagree with the teachings of each of those organisations, and many others besides, doesn’t mean that it is right for me to gratuitously offend them. [...]

Yes it does. That is exactly what freedom of speech means.

We’re not talking about going out of one’s way to upset people, such as Fred Phelps invading soldiers’ funerals, we’re talking about one whackjob carrying out an act with an audience of 50 people in his own country, and others six thousand miles away taking violent objection to this happening _anywhere_ and then murdering random bystanders.

Plus, if this homogeneous blob you call Muslims were half as offended by destruction of copies of the Quran as you say, they’d display comcommitant outrage at the repeated bombings of mosques (which have the by-effect, of destroying human life).

It is well known that Muslims treat the Quran as particularly sacred,

So, I take it you believe Salman Rushdie shouldn’t have written The Satanic Verses.

~alec

30

Richard 04.11.11 at 4:48 pm

@t. mcnamara Not ‘your’. “You’re”

And if you intended a nautical reference, I think you meant “get off that tack”. Maybe you’re not a sailor either?

Yes. This time I am being patronizing.

@Alec — I agree with Tony. ‘Free speech’ might give you the right to cause offence. But that doesn’t make it right. I have a suspicion that you would take a dim view of someone offering a Jew a ham sandwich. What makes the sensibilities of JWs, Mormons or Muslims less worthy?

31

Francesco 04.11.11 at 4:57 pm

the JWs would not fire-bomb it, or the Mormon declare me tawfiq.

And what exactly do you think a “tawfiq” is?
It’s depressing to see people throwing in words without even knowing their meaning. Btw, “tawfiq” means “success”.

32

Alec Macph 04.11.11 at 5:37 pm

As I said above, any justified concerns about how far the right to offend goes would be better placed in a discussion about Fred Phelps. Terry Jones’ margional actions were cited as a reason for offence by forces looking for a reason to run amok on Mazar al Sharif.

As with the Motoons or Mohammed the Teddy Bear, it was entirely manufactured murderous outrage and wholly unrelated to what some wide-eyed Anglo thinks god-fearing Muslims believes.

But that doesn’t make it right.

Incorrect. It is neither right nor wrong, although it might not be something I would do myself.

I note you didn’t respond to my question concerning The Satanic Verses. If you would tolerate this, then why the different standards over Jones? If you’d take a anti-liberal, reactionary view on this as well, it would raise - never begs! - the question of if you’d change the subject similarly were a thuggish Christian to murder US Embassy staff ‘cos of the Piss Christ display.

I have a suspicion that you would take a dim view of someone offering a Jew a ham sandwich.

Au contraire! I was on the ‘phone to an Orthodox friend - and an evil Settler no less - last night, and conversation drifted to what she was planning for supper. Ham, I asked. No, tortoise, she suggested. What about locusts, I ventured. I’d prefer whale, she replied.

~alec

33

TonyBuglass 04.11.11 at 5:51 pm

“Yes it does. That is exactly what freedom of speech means.”

No, it isn’t. It’s half of what freedom of speech means - the other half is responsibility, and that means knowing when it is right and helpful to challenge someone, and when it would be gratuitously offensive.

“We’re not talking about going out of one’s way to upset people, such as Fred Phelps invading soldiers’ funerals, we’re talking about one whackjob carrying out an act with an audience of 50 people in his own country…”

Who then made sure it was publicised, so that it would be known by those he wished to offend. And of course he knew full well what consequences he would cause.

“… and others six thousand miles away taking violent objection to this happening _anywhere_ and then murdering random bystanders.”

Yup. I didn’t say I agreed with their response, but I would be pretty sure it would happen if I offended their sacred stuff and then pointed it out to them.

34

Alec Macph 04.11.11 at 6:11 pm

It’s half of what freedom of speech means - the other half is responsibility, [...]

Nope. Freedom of speech is all what I said, and none more. This doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be _balanced_ with reasonable concerns of what the outcome may be or human decency.

In Fred Phelps’ case, the latter - the thought of someone burying their child being heckled _at_ _the_ _burial_ _site_ - is the over-riding objection, although the thought of what would happen if an Army Rangers platoon decided to set-about Phelps. Not that I would image this would descend into a riot… it would be very quick, and very one-sided.

But, let’s look at whether Jones’ right to freedom of speech should have been balanced according to a reasonably anticipated outcome. He did not go to Mazar al Sharif; he didn’t even go to a mosque or Islamic community centre in Alachua County, if there are any Muslims there. He did not have a wide, or even any broadcast-base.

It was entirely manufactured. He did not incite _anyone_ to violence. That was done by those who gave the sermons in the Iranian-alligned, Shia mosque in Mazar al Sharif and, arguably, Hamid Karzai who kept the story alive.

If you’re looking for any third party to appropriate responsibility onto, what about Western media-outlets which made it a story? Or blogs like this?

The bottom-line is that it was as reasonable to expect this homicidal tantrum as it is to expect World Vision workers to be murdered because they believe in the Gospel and the Resurrection of Christ, in direct contradiction to Islamic belief.

I didn’t say I agreed with their response, but I would be pretty sure it would happen if I offended their sacred stuff and then pointed it out to them.

D’you feel an urge to kill US Embassy staff over the Piss Christ? I’m guessing not. So why d’you place lower standards on Muslims? And why d’you think this was respresentative of Muslim opinion and not a manufactured event which the barest relevance to Jones?

~alec

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>