British National Party?!? Sounds like ethnic British sticking up for themselves. Someone better put a stop to it immediately. We can’t have anyone throwing a wrench in NuLabour’s plans for shari’ah supremacy for Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
I have more. This is from BNPtv. This guy is telling it like it is. One very interesting part (5:20-45)is where he explains how in 1947 it was the Labour government of PM Attlee who gave a third of India unconditionally to fundamentalist, seperatist, intolerant Islam.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5313967073906592014
BNPtv interview Sikh community spokesman. Mr Singh discusses concerns felt by the Sikh community regarding the muslim cartoon depcitions. BNP Film.
…the BNP philosophy, if you can call it that, is a racist one. Their mission statement: http://bnp.org.uk/about-us/mission-statement/ only scratches the surface of the real intent of the party’s leaders: white supremacy. There’s no real difference between people who believe in white supremacy, and people who believe Islam should be the world’s only religion.
I mean, these people are ruled by emotion and shallow sentiments, and easily manipulated by men who are smarter and know when to say the things they want to hear. You may believe you’re all fighting for the same cause, but in the end you are ruled by just another despot…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the BNP philosophy, if you can call it that, is a racist one. Their mission statement: http://bnp.org.uk/about-us/mission-statement/ only scratches the surface of the real intent of the party’s leaders: white supremacy. [/quote]
LOL.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the BNP philosophy, if you can call it that, is a racist one. Their mission statement: http://bnp.org.uk/about-us/mission-statement/ only scratches the surface of the real intent of the party’s leaders: white supremacy. There’s no real difference between people who believe in white supremacy, and people who believe Islam should be the world’s only religion. [/quote]
You are exaggerating what the BNP is about. They are a nationalist party in a nation where the indigenous people are white. You are demonstrating the hypocrisy of the left. All the BNP are doing is standing up for their national identity which the left is trying to wipe out and they are called racists for it.
While the leftists who are deliberately trying to wipe out the national identities of the European peoples get a pass even though what they are doing is for all intents and purposes a genocide. The left are the true racists, not people who point out how the left are using third world immigrants as a weapon to weaken and disenfranchise them.
[quote]
I mean, these people are ruled by emotion and shallow sentiments, and easily manipulated by men who are smarter and know when to say the things they want to hear. You may believe you’re all fighting for the same cause, but in the end you are ruled by just another despot… [/quote]
When people get a raw deal from elected leaders who are supposed to be representing them they are going to get upset. This is normal human nature so quit making excuses.
I’ll show you. Unite is the biggest labor union in the UK. A labor union is supposed to stand up for the rights of the workers who belong to it. It is supposed to protect their jobs, pay and working conditions.
So look at these two articles that show the attitude of the leftists running Unite towards British workers.
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/02/mounting-workers-anger-aginst-union-lefitsts/
A senior official from the Unite union was ?lucky to escape with only being heckled? according to an eye-witness at a strike meeting in South Wales.
The overpaid far-left time-server was trying to persuade angry and workers worried about their jobs to call off or scale down their ?British Jobs? strike due for Monday.
Their refusal to do what he wanted made him lose his temper and he ended up screaming at them that ?you are all racist scum? and telling them they ?belong in the BNP?!
Yes indeed.
At other protest sites, more sensible Unite officials are being more careful what they say, and pretending to support both the strikers and their aims.
But anyone who thinks they mean it should look at the following example of Unite?s leftist bigwigs using their members? money and clout to persue an extremist pro-immigration, pro-asylum, pro-job theft agenda.
This is a press release from Unite in December - just weeks before the strikes started they held an event for migrant workers!
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=244351
Unite Bringing the Migrant Community Together
LONDON, December 5 /PRNewswire/ –
-
Date and Time: 6th December, 10:30am-4pm
-
Location: Ceramica, Burslem Town Hall, Stoke
Unite, the UK’s biggest union are together with Unionlearn hosting an event in Stoke on Trent on Saturday 6th December which will give information, advice and guidance to migrant workers working in the UK.
Workers and their families will be able to take advantage of free information about employment rights, family issues and local community benefits. Unite members and migrant workers will have access to translators, employment law solicitors and local college staff.
The Employment law solicitors will provide the migrant workers with any legal advice they may need and can offer them the time and assistance that our members would not usually be able to receive.
The event and entrance to the interactive venue is free, with families urged to come along and take part in the Unite play areas and workshops.
Local colleges are also supporting the event and are paying for the funding of ESOL (English Speaking for Other Languages).
Simon Wallace, Unite official said: "Bringing people together at times like these shows that we have so much in common as workers. This event is giving something back to the local community and will prove very useful as far as any legal or language work issues are concerned.
“Unite is committed to building in strong communities because we know this is the way to combat exploitation and division.”
Notes;
Unionlearn
Unionlearn aim to help unions to become learning organisations, with programmes for union reps and regional officers and strategic support for national officers.
It will also help unions to broker learning opportunities for their members, running phone and online advice services, securing the best courses to meet learners’ needs and kitemarking union academy provision to a quality standard.
Unionlearn will research union priorities on learning and skills, identify and share good practice, promote learning agreements, support union members on learning and skills bodies, and help shape sector skills agreements.
There will be a Santa Claus at the event giving gifts out to the children, along with a raffle draw. The event will be opened by Joan Walley MP The following will also be there;
ACAS-Jayne Willats
Focal Radio-Verity Hilton
Federation of Poles-Dr Jan Mokrzycki
St Josephs Catholic Church- Father Amaldos
Stoke MP- Joan Whalley
Ceramica-Karen Burgess
Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service
Ed Case-PCSO
Burslem Police-Hannah Mayer
Stoke Council-Sue Hill
Council Housing-Lucy Armstrong
NSPCC-Deborah
Stoke College-Sue Rigby
Rowley and Ashworth -Suki Hackett.
Union Learn-Paul Humphries
Stoke College-Sue Rigby
Stoke College-Sue Wilcox
Family Learning
Stoke College-David Johnson
Stoke LA-Karen Towers
Ethnic Minorities
Distributed by PR Newswire on behalf of Unite the Union
Then there is this article from today’s Telegraph.
Wildcat oil strikes: Europeans are finally waking up to the demise of democracy
Angry people across the EU are discovering the fine print in all the treaties signed by their leaders, says Janet Daley.
The peoples of Europe have finally discovered what they signed up to. I do mean “peoples” (plural) because however much political elites may deceive themselves, the populations of the member states of the EU are culturally, historically and economically separate and distinct. And a significant proportion of them are getting very, very angry.
What the strikers at the Lindsey oil refinery (and their brother supporters in Nottinghamshire and Kent) have discovered is the real meaning of the fine print in those treaties, and the significance of those European court judgments whose interpretation they left to EU obsessives: it is now illegal illegal for the government of an EU country to put the needs and concerns of its own population first. It would, for example, be against European law to do what Frank Field has sensibly suggested and reintroduce a system of “work permits” for EU nationals who wished to apply for jobs here.
Meanwhile, demonstrators in Paris and the recalcitrant electorate in Germany are waking up to the consequences of what two generations of European ideologues have thrust upon them: the burden not just of their own economic problems but also the obligation to accept the consequences of their neighbours’ debts and failures.
Each country is true to its own history in the way it expresses its rage: in France, they take to the streets and throw things at the police, in Germany they threaten the stability of the coalition government, and here, we revive the tradition of wildcat strikes.
But the response from the EU political class is the same to all of these varied manifestations of resistance. Those who protest are being smeared with accusations of foolhardy protectionism or racist nationalism when they are not (not yet, anyway) guilty of either.
It is not purblind nationalism, let alone racism, to resent the importation of cheap labour en masse when its conditions of employment (transport and accommodation provided, as seems to be the case at Lindsey) allow it to compete unfairly with indigenous workers.
The drafting in of low-wage work gangs has always been seen as unjust: exploitative of the foreign workers, and destructive of the social cohesion of existing communities which, incidentally, is something about which the Tories say they are much exercised. So can the protesters expect their support?
The US had a rule during its great period of immigration in the early years of the last century, that no one could enter the country with a pre-arranged job. This was designed precisely to prevent the unfairness and disruptive effect of the wholesale import of cheap labour.
An individual travelling to seek work, prepared to take his chances in fair competition with local workers is one thing: the organised recruitment of people from the poorest regions of the poorest countries in Europe in order to reduce employers’ wage costs in the more prosperous ones, is something else altogether.
Nor is it “protectionism” to argue that competition for employment should take place within a context of social responsibility and respect for the fabric of communities.
Genuine protectionism is setting up barriers to free trade: this is what Barack Obama is doing when he forbids the importation of foreign materials such as British steel, and urges his countrymen to restrict their purchases of goods not manufactured in the US (“Buy America!”) I eagerly await the condemnation of his proposal for US economic isolationism from all those European leaders who were so anxious to see him elected.
Free trade in goods, as opposed to unlimited open borders for transient labour, is absolutely essential to the recovery of the global economy (and for that matter, to the relief of poverty in the developing world).
I agree with those who fear that the US under President Obama may be about to do what it did under Franklin Roosevelt, whose protectionism and hard-nosed refusal to make concessions to international needs condemned the world to a depression (followed by a war).
But what the British strikers are demanding is not the same at all, and if their complaints are caricatured or defamed, the price in social disorder could be hideous. It is not an exaggeration to say that this could be the moment of justifiable anger that neo-fascist agitators have been waiting to exploit.
The protesters are simply demanding what they thought ? what all free people have been taught to think since the 18th-century enlightenment ? was their birthright.
That is to say, for the basic principle of modern democracy: the understanding between the state and its people that the proper function of a government is to represent the interests of those who elected it. And to be fair to both presidents, Obama and Roosevelt, this assumption is so deeply grounded in the American psyche that it is almost inconceivable for any US administration not to abide by it quite literally.
In the grand abstract terms of the enlightenment, the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed, and therefore no government should have the right to hand over its authority to some external body which is not democratically accountable to its own people.
So when the framers of the EU arranged for the nations of Europe to do exactly that, they were repudiating the two centuries old political struggle for the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens, of government “of the people, by the people and for the people”.
It has always been my view that this was a quite conscious decision by the EU founders who, in the wake of two world wars, came to believe that the infamous national crimes of the 20th century could be traced directly to the democratic revolutions of the 18th century, and that the only long-term solution to this was to replace democracy with oligarchy.
But there it is. And here we are, with a generation of European political leaders who almost all accept the terms in which their predecessors gave away the most important principle of that great democratic pact between a free people and its government.
While times were good and there was enough prosperity to keep everybody distracted and happy, the loss went almost unnoticed except by a few persistent and despairing critics. Well, not any more.
The American government may be committing itself to a policy that is economically unsound and even irresponsible, but its insistence on maintaining the compact with its own voters ? on putting their concerns first ? will at least ensure that democracy will survive there. I am not at all sure that will be true in Europe.
Here is the latest news.
A right-wing Dutch politician who has been banned from Britain said today he planned to defy the authorities and fly to the UK, stating ‘Let them put me in handcuffs’.
Geert Wilders had been invited by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) peer Lord Pearson to show his anti-Islam film ‘Fitna’ and hold a Q&A session in Parliament tomorrow.
The 17-minute documentary features verses from the Koran - which it brands a ‘fascist book’ - alongside images of the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks.
It equates Islam’s holy text with violence and ends with a call to Muslims to remove its ‘hate-preaching’ verses.
After being alerted to the private screening, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith barred Mr Wilders on the grounds that his visit was a threat to ‘community harmony and therefore public security’.
But Mr Wilders today said he planned to contravene the ban and defiantly announced his intention to arrive in the UK tomorrow.
He told Radio Netherlands today: ‘I’ll see what happens at the border. Let them put me in handcuffs.’
The ban brought a furious response from the Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen - a political opponent of Mr Wilders - who complained directly to the Foreign Secretary David Miliband in a ‘curt’ telephone call.
‘The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable,’ he said.
However, Britain is refusing to give way, even though Mr Wilders is a democratically-elected politician and the leader of a legitimate political party.
A defiant Mr Wilders, who claims to have visited the House of Lords in December, called the decision ‘cowardly’ and vowed last night to go ahead with his visit.
‘Let them try to detain me,’ he said. ‘I’ll see what happens at the border. Let them put me in handcuffs. We are talking here about a European Union country, one of the oldest democracies in the Western world.’
More…
* MELANIE PHILLIPS: Yes, Wilders is highly controversial but freedom dies if we ban him from addressing our Parliament
* Fury over 'stitch-up' as Jacqui Smith escapes sleaze investigation into £116,000 second home claim
While Mr Verhagen said the Dutch government would press Britain to reverse the ban, Lord Pearson said he was ‘very surprised’ to hear the news.
Under UK and EU immigration rules, a person can be refused entry to Britain, ‘if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.’
The Home Office refused to comment on the individual case of Mr Wilders.
But a spokesman said: 'The Government opposes extremism in all its forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.
'We endorse the original condemnation of the film ‘Fitna’ by the Dutch Government, and feel that it serves no constructive purpose.
'The British Government has absolutely no connection with any screening of this film that may take place in the House of Lords or anywhere else in the UK. It is a matter for the House of Lords or any other venue as to whether they choose to show it.
‘Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but one that must be used responsibly and not as a cover for causing offence and division. We fully appreciate the sensitivities around the portrayal of any religious figure or text.’
The film, which has been posted on the internet, was originally to have been shown last month but the screening was cancelled following fierce protests from the UK’s
Supporters of free sppech also condemned the move by Britain. Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said: 'It’s true that Geert Wilders is a controversialist, who takes pleasure in causing offence. I wouldn’t vote for him if I were Dutch.
'But what I think of him is neither here nor there. Freedom means the freedom to express any opinion, however eccentric, however offensive. The Dutch foreign minister, a political opponent of Mr Wilders, has complained to David Miliband. Good for him.
‘Whether our government is actuated by cowardice or authoritarianism, it’s equally ugly. We are a meaner country than we were this morning.’
A Foreign Office spokesman refused to comment on the diplonatic row, saying simply: ‘The two ministers spoke today.’
Mr Wilders has urged that the Dutch government to ban the Koran in the same way it did Adolf Hitler’s book ‘Mein Kampf’ and warned of a ‘tsunami’ of Islam swamping the Netherlands.
He is currently facing prosecution in Amsterdam for incitement to hatred and discrimination, a rarely punished crime in the generally liberal Netherlands which carries a maximum one-year prison term.
As a result of hs controversial views, he has lived for five years with round-the-clock security because of his fierce criticism of Islam.
His Freedom Party holds nine of the Dutch parliament’s 120 seats.