Laughter is the best medicine… part two

If you have not heard of Cassetteboy then you are missing out. From the Cassetteboy site comes another gem of a video, this time it is what Nick Griffin should of said (or more accurately, what he and very one else knew he was thinking). Please sit back and enjoy these 60 seconds of bliss:

This is how to protest the BNP, not through anger but through satire and with the intention of making them look like the clowns they are.

In the wake of fascism… part two

Whether you like it or not, the BNP have now been on Question Time; unfortunately, the reaction to the show after it was shown maybe a bit ill-judged and short-sighted.

Of course Griffin made a right idiot of himself. When asked about why he used to say what he said about the Holocaust he mentions that ‘I can’t explain why I used to those things’, when discussing with Jack Straw the Second World War and the different ethnic backgrounds fighting for Britain, Griffin launched into a personal family attack on Straw. The panel were dumbfounded by what is a schoolboy tactic by resorting to personal attacks when threatened by a tangible attack on your ideology. Nearly everybody on the panel and in the studio were prepared and firmly against Griffin. And this is the problem.

Griffin knew what he was going to be facing. Sure, he looked like a dimwit, but at the same time he has come across (in the eyes of BNP supporters at least) as misrepresented. The BNP will turn what happened and Question Time as a personal attack on Griffin, the BNP and the ‘indigenous’ British public. They will argue that Griffin never really got to represent what his party stood for. They will argue that he will look like a martyr. And looking back over the show you can see their point. For example, when asked a question not about race or immigration, Griffin said that the sight of two men kissing is ‘creepy’ – we could argue for days on end the extent to which this comment was homophobic, but as soon as he said that there was heckling from the audience. Now I understand this reaction to Griffin, but at the same time this plays into his hands.

What also play into his hands are the protests outside the BBC and the build up to the show. It has to be said that the BBC will, and did, exploit the publicity surrounding the show in order to increase its viewership (around 8 million according to the Guardian). This at the same time gives the BNP so much more publicity than they would of if it was just the show and nothing else. It does not matter that the publicity surrounding the show was opposition to the BNP, as the saying goes, any news is good news. The BNP grow support from exploiting the idea that politicians and elites are out of touch with the ‘common folk’ in Britain, and the strength of opposition will be used by the BNP as examples of how the BNP are the only party that stand for what the ‘common folk’ believe. This is not to say that the ‘common folk’ they are appealing to are racist as you’d notice from last night that issues of race stemmed fully from the panel and the people asking the questions – Griffin, as I have said previously, is a PR man, he knows focusing on race will not win him support. This is supported by a video from YouTube I posted on this blog a few months back which was quoted last night; talking with members of the KKK, Griffin explained that you have to focus your efforts on things such as security and democracy, that if you go out publicising your ideas on race then you will never gain mass support.

Now, I am not suggesting that protestors should stop. I like the idea of wherever the BNP are, UAF or some other group will be as well. However, there was a very interesting interview on BBC News 24 during the day yesterday from the President of YouGov. He suggested that protests should not be based around anger (despite anger being the obvious emotion in this case) but that protests should be based around showing people that Griffin is a pillock. They should be based around custard pies and eggs. They should satirise and embarrass Griffin. This he would argue will make it harder for the BNP to turn the protestors’ anger around to their advantage.

So whilst many of the Twitter and Facebook generations will rejoice at how ridiculous Griffin came across (Twitter and Facebook are not the BNPs target audience), we have to proceed with caution before declaring a victory. It’s too soon to say a battle has been won, but it is safe to say that the war is far from over.

A racist Spitfire?

After Military generals apparently had a go at the BNP’s use of military symbolism in their racist propaganda (i say apparently because they did not mention the BNP by name, although we all know who they meant), Griffin came out saying that “the Spitfire represents the British fighting spirit against Continental totalitarianism” and as such they would not stop using it.

Well, i was wondering whether the BNP would acknowledge pilots from these countries who fought for Britain during the Battle of  Britain; Australia – 32, Barbados – 1, Belgium – 28, Canada – 112, Czechoslovakia – 88, France – 13, Ireland – 10, Jamaica – 1, Newfoundland – 1, New Zealand – 127, Poland – 145, Rhodesia – 3, South Africa – 25, United States – 9.

Do they also acknowledge the effort of the Jamacian pilot who i blogged about a few months back? Or Pilot Officer Mahinder Singh Pujji who came from India to fight in the Battle of Britain who said:

there were other Sikh pilots who readily took off their turbans and put on helmets. But I told them that I didn’t want to because of my religion. So they allowed me to have a special headset with the oxygen mask and microphone that came over the turban.

All of these fought for Britain against a regime going on a racist crusade across Europe. But then it does not look like the BNP would denounce the Nazis as quickly as history and the majority of British people during 1939-1945 [and long afterwards] have:

Nick Griffin:

“Yes, Adolf went a bit too far. His legacy is the biggest problem that the British nationalist movement has to deal with. It just creates a bad image.”

“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lamp shades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat … I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie and latter witch-hysteria.”

Mark Collett (BNP Director of Publicity)

“Churchill was a fucking cunt who led us into a pointless war with other whites standing up for their race”.

[Reference for above quotes]

What’s interesting is that it appears that Collett believes it was Churchill who led us into war… You’d have thought the ‘defenders’ of the ‘indigenous’ British race would know British history.

…or

Howabout this picture of John Tyndall, the founder of the BNP: link.

A Legitimate BNP?

The BNP are going to be ‘legitimised’ next week when it’s leader, Nick Griffin, appears on Questiontime. Well, that’s the opinion of some people. In fact, the BNP have become legitimised the moment they started gaining more and more councillors and the moment just under 1,000,000 people voted two of their members into the European Parliament. Don’t get me wrong, the BNP make me sick, my loyal reader would have realised that of me.

But the point is, i actually think it is not a bad thing that Nick Griffin is to appear on Questiontime. My opinion is that everyone already has an opinion about the BNP. I also think that there is more scope for the Left to claw back those working class votes from the BNP than it is for the BNP to increase its vote. (Note how i have said working class; there is a debate, rightly so, over whether the BNP are fascistor not (and even left wing or not) and the fact that the BNP appeal to the working classes whilst fascists is traditionally based in middle class support is the pendulum in this debate). If the BNP was to be denied the opportunity to make a representation on Questiontime, then it will all but re-enforce their notion that the liberal, left-wing media are keeping them at bay in order to repress true ‘indigenous’ working class opinion.

The thing is with Griffin is that although he is a clever PR man, he is still an idiot (hint: his policies give this away). So he is likely to make a twit out of himself on national television. Well, that if there was a strong panel going against him.

And this is a debate that has been going on on LibCon. It seems a lot of on Left only see the inclusion of Sayeeda Warsi and to a lesser extent, Jack Straw, as the only ones on the panel who will effectively combat Griffin (if that is an issue at all considering his idiocy). However, a recent blog post on the Guardian website by Hugh Muir has suggested that his fellow MPs have warned Straw to not call him a racist or a fascist because it would anger the BNPs voters, many of them ex-Labour voters and as such diminish the possibility of Labour winning those voters back (as minimal chance they have in their current state).

In my opinion, i think there should be a more working class, socialist member on the panel, perhaps somebody associated with the movement to create a new workers party. It is the socialists who stand the best chance of beating the BNP, not by dismissing them as fascists, but by appealing to working class issues. We just have to see if the new workers party (already with some previous Labour supporting Trade Union backing) will work. Otherwise, bring in fellow MEP Caroline Lucas. Across the country in the recent European elections it was the Green Party who fought the BNP the closest (and got more votes than them), and it is the Green Party who are the most mainstream left-wing party in Britain at the moment. It would be magnificent to see Lucas ripping Griffin intellectually to shreds on national tv. But then i might be a bit bias….

Laughter is the best medicine

I have not seen a more true post than the one on a local bloggers website. After recent shootings in the US, she begs the question that you don’t see many shootings by far-left members.

One of the recent shooting was at a Holocaust Memorial in America by a 88-year old white supremacist called James von Brunn, interesting to note in one American article that:

Von Brunn sometimes spoke of having fought for the wrong side in World War II, Blodgett said, and the two men sometimes attended meetings in Arlington County of the American Friends of the British National Party, which raised funds for the British white supremacist group.

Interesting…. Nick Griffin has been known to speak at these meetings. Here is one such talk from youtube:

Note that he is talking about how to rebrand the BNP to get support, here’s the transcript:

There’s a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. And the British National Party isn’t about selling out it’s ideas, which are your ideas, but we are determined now to sell them. And that means basically to use these salable words.
As I say, ‘freedom’, ’security’, ‘identity’, ‘democracy’, nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas: they are salable. Perhaps one day, once by being rather more subtle, we got ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their minds and say, ‘Yes, every last one must go’. Perhaps they will one day, but if you offer that as your soul mate to start with, you’re going to get absolutely nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity.

As for the comment about von Brunn fighting on the wrong side in the war, my opinion of the BNP winning seats in the European Parliament is that every single person who voted them has raped the memoryof all those who fought for our country and the Allies against the Nazis in the Second World War. They talk about their nationalism, but it is obviously just plain rascism. How can these people who voted BNP call themselves fighting for Britain or being a proud national when they shit all over the memories of those who fought for our country and fought for our freedom against the German version of the BNP.

Anyway, i have been directed towards this twitter profile. Read it, follow it, love it! As one comment said, now that they have become ‘legitimised’ now they are open to satire. Forward to the front pages of a national tabloid and there are financial rewards going for anyone who can hit Griffin with an Indian takeaway!

Going back to the original sentiment, even in Reading we face the threat of nazi and far-right terrorism. Back in November 2008 a local man from my neck of the woods- Tilehurst- was charged under the Terrorism Act, he also owned Nazi propaganda… i bet he would had voted BNP if he were able to… and you don’t have to wonder why…

Please visit this facebook group for some really interesting BNP quotes and comparisons with the Nazis.

What’s Left; What’s Right

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” – J. Krishnamurti,

An interesting debate has ensued from the corners of the Liberal Conspiracy website and the BNP’s two European election successes that have led to me to question my presentation of political understanding. That is; what is left, what is right?

It is true that when talking about the BNP we (that includes me) correctly use the term far-right (ultra-nationalist, fascist and racist are also accurate). But then again, are they? Tim Montgomerie, a conservative, has written a letter to the BBC to ask them to properly reflect the BNP’s ‘true’ ideological position on the political spectrum. He argues that instead of being classed as far-right they should be considered far-left. And depending on which way you look at it and the level of your political ignorance, he could have a point. Economically the BNP are a party who believe in big state, in nationalisation, in government intervention and protectionism- traditional positions attributed to the left and socialism. (In essence, their ideology stems from Strasserist economics- that money and big companies are being controlled by the Jews, but then also remember that Karl Marx once wrote: “Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand… The God of the Jews has become secularised and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange”).

On the flipside, the left (including general liberalism) have been more open to encompass ideologies such as freedom of movement and expression, civil liberties, human rights. These are certainly not what the BNP stand for. Contrary to this we see New Labour who is considered as centre-left bringing about the destruction of civil liberties and the Tories have become the self-proclaimed vanguard of them. Is this left/right wing politics getting muddled? (Maybe the Tories are just fighting ‘big state’?).

One way of looking upon this is the humble evolution of the political compass. During the Cold War it was a case of you being left, right or centre. Now when you take a simple online quiz to find out what you are you have a Z axis, Y axis, X axis and the other one that no-one can remember the name. You still have the typical left/right wing axis, but now you also have the social axis – authoritarian and libertarian.

Perhaps this is a consequence of the troubles with Stalinism. He was supposed to be left wing, communist in fact, which places him traditionally on the far-left, but the repression he placed upon his people and even his own party members makes him extremely authoritarian. So socially links could be made between the BNP and Stalinism, but they can also begin to be made when it comes to economic policies. But if Stalin was indeed a communist (open to debate but I say no) then does that mean the BNP are?

The fact that the BNP are touted as pulling in a lot of the New Labour vote looks like it supports this idea. The left look towards the working class as the majority, they say the working classes represent the repressed majority. The BNP are directing policies towards the working classes and are also saying they are representing the repressed majority, albeit in a racist way by describing the ridiculous notion of the repressed ‘indigenous’ white majority.

Nick Griffin himself describes the BNP as being outside of left/right wing politics. They choose (sick) issues and (sick) policies that they believe in and to them they don’t fit anywhere on the spectrum.

However no-one wants to be associated with the BNP. Even though some of the centre-right are calling the BNP far-right they are much more in favour of pushing them off to the far-left like Montgomerie is trying to do. One example you can find on comment sections on blogs is by using the name ‘national socialism’ (Nazis) as an example of them being socialist (obviously the same way that the German Democratic Republic was indeed democratic…). In turn the left are pushing them to the far-right. Neither side want to be associated with them, but both sides want the other side to be. To have the BNP be on ‘your’ wing is to announce to the world that what you believe in is only a few doors away from them.

Perhaps Mr Griffin is actually right for a change. Perhaps they don’t belong on either side. Perhaps there is more to politics than left and right. Why is it that people are always classed as left/right/centre?

I personally do class myself as left wing, most things I believe in stem from the left wing ideology. I am proud of ‘belonging’ to the left. However, I don’t associate myself in anyway with New Labour, Stalinism or if they can be considered to be, the BNP- even though they are supposed to also be on the left. Perhaps what we need is this scraping of the left/right associations. The world and politics existed before left/right wing terminology was used, indeed the terminology first evolved with in France and then through Marxist ideology. It also stems from a Cold War positioning, us and them. A way to explain what is happening and what you believe. But why do things have to be so black and white? Even with the new direction political compasses’ are taking people still want to place you on either the left or right with the only alterations being ‘far-‘ and centre-‘.

Taking away these associations is not going to lead to the destruction of left/right ideology and everything in between. Instead it could lead to increased political freedom and understanding. If you are on the left and you like one specific policy from the right, you no longer need to try and ‘reclaim it for the left’. You won’t be bound by thinking ‘I can’t believe in that because it’s a right wing position and I’m on the left. In essence you can pick and choose policies that fit the world or your country best without fear of ‘selling out to the left/right’. These theoretical positions bind us down. Removing the word ‘left wing’ from my thinking is not going to mean that I don’t believe in nationalising the banks anymore, nor does it mean that I think we should tax the rich less, but what it does mean is that it takes away a mental wall that allows others in. Go round telling people you’re left wing then half the world won’t listen to you because they’re right wing, but tell people that your policies and beliefs develop to the needs and best interests of the people you serve then people are more likely to listen. As Krishnamurti said, “When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence”.

[this piece is intended for discussion, debate and evolution]

In the wake of fascism…

So now the dust has settled on a night labelled as ‘a punishment to the left in Europe’ and we find ourselves with two ultra-nationalist fascist salesmen ‘representing’ us in the European Parliament.

The first reactions from anyone on the left are going to be one of disbelief and shock; I am guilty to early morning bouts of hysteria. However, as the day has passed and the events of the previous night have sunk in my understanding of the future of British politics has developed into a new kind of comprehension and hope.

Let me start with the cons of having Brons and Griffin as MEP’s. The first is that they are there to represent us. Unlike UKIP who deliberately vote ‘no’ to every motion regardless of its benefit to the UK (including to EU plans to track child molesters), the BNP representatives in the name of indigenous British people (am I apart of this?) will happily vote on motions to put towards the European Commission that help bolster their racist message. On the upside, they are only two MEP’s out of a parliament of 736, but the diarrhoea will still be coming out of their mouths “on behalf of the indigenous British people”.

The most serious damage coming from the BNP result is that which is inflicted upon New Labour.  Their wins came at the expense of New Labour and their votes which will give New Labour the belief that they can win these voters back. New Labour Minister Andy Burnham has already said that “There are concerns about immigration… the Government have to get a response to those concerns”. As if the UK government’s immigration policy is not strict enough, it seems it will get ignorantly stricter to appease former New Labour voters.

Furthermore any hope of effective electoral reform is bound to be dashed now. Despite its flaws Proportional Representation is often touted as the best alternative to replace First Past the Post as the most commonly used system in the UK. However, as it was PR that allowed the BNP to win their seats the main parties can use this excuse to dismiss PR electoral reform. Here’s to the status quo, New Labour, Tory and LibDems leading the majorities in Westminster far into the future, all in the name of stopping the rise of fascism.

But then it is not all doom and gloom. Having two MEP’s is very much likely to destroy the BNP. By being forced more into the political mainstream their actions can be more widely scrutinised without the claims of ‘fringe party’ and ‘left-wing hysteria’ being thrown at them. During the BBC coverage of the EU election results Jeremy Vine suggested that current BNP councillors in places like Burnley had lost some of their support because the public could see how awful they were in local government. Times this with non-stop scrutiny throughout most of the major press for the next five years and we could well see the implosion of the BNP vote come 2014.

Importantly, it is a safe bet to suggest that a huge majority of those who thought about voting for BNP actually did so. The passion of racists who actually believe in the BNP’s message or those who just want to perform a serious protest vote would have voted. Any remaining votes the BNP would have got if everyone had voted will be small in number and so they will have to rely on selling their brand of racism even more effectively than they already have, unless the left are even better prepared.

Perhaps another plus point is that this could actually help destroy a part of the British public’s apathy. There are people I have spoken to who have accused me of hyping up the BNP threat, suggesting that people will not really vote for them to the extent to giving them any kind of serious representation. Well now that opinion will change, helped by the media hyping up the story. It may force people to go out and vote in the next elections because they are now recognised as a threat.

This could transcend to other ‘fringe’ parties who are considered too small to make a change, too small to vote for. Well now we see that the smaller parties do attract enough votes to win seats in elections. Granted this is a consequence of Proportional Representation, but it could offer that glimmer of hope, a glimmer that will benefit parties like the Greens. For too long the Greens have been pushed to the dark corners of the newspapers. Despite already having two MEP’s, their support ever increasing and the prospect of national electoral breakthrough in places like Brighton, the response of some mainstream media to the party is one of blankness. It is if they are too nice to really attract voters or of the ignorant belief that voters are bored of the ‘go green’ message, as if that is all the Green Party stands for. You can already see that the party to gain the biggest percentage increase in votes in the EU elections is the Green Party, going up 2.4%, much more than the Conservatives (+1%), UKIP (+0.3%) or the BNP (+1.3%).

The most important result of the BNP’s success is that this is going to re-energise the left and British politics. Brons and Griffin are now the biggest indication that ideology politics can still lead to success. The transparency between politicians, New Labour and the Tories has become so diluted that people are searching for an alternative and the only effectively marketed alternative has come from the far right. Well now is the chance for the left to learn from the BNP. Throughout the election campaign I heard nothing from any serious left-wing party (accept the Greens) without going out there to find out about parties myself. For those who are not interested in going to find these parties but still would vote then what chance do they have?

It is also a chance for the left to properly ‘unite’ against the BNP. Sure there are superb campaigns such as Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism that have helped to do this to some extent, but there were still those on the left who did not believe that the BNP were any sort of a threat.  It is going to force the left together, it will be a case of unite or die, especially if the left really did take the sort of pounding around Europe that the EU results have suggested. (Here is a good article that suggests that across Europe the left did score more votes, but because there is more apparent unity on the right the vote was split between the different leftist parties- already one anarchist commentator has suggested that the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party are looking at some kind of ‘agreement’).

The next 5 years are going to be exciting, especially if the BNP win a few MP’s as well (I’d rather they do not), as British politics is going to be revitalised- ideology is going to start to rule again. Come the next election when New Labour get kicked out they are going to go through some soul searching to rediscover their leftist routes, far right politics is going to be acknowledged (if not accepted), and the need for a serious alternative is going to allow space for the left to speak up and be counted again.

All you fascists (are bound to lose)

All You Fascists

I’m gonna tell you fascists
You may be surprised
The people in this world
Are getting organized
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose

Race hatred cannot stop us
This one thing we know
Your poll tax and Jim Crow
And greed has got to go
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose.

All of you fascists bound to lose:
I said, all of you fascists bound to lose:
Yes sir, all of you fascists bound to lose:
You’re bound to lose! You fascists:
Bound to lose!

People of every color
Marching side to side
Marching ‘cross these fields
Where a million fascists dies
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

I’m going into this battle
And take my union gun
We’ll end this world of slavery
Before this battle’s won
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

Song by Billy Bragg on Mermaid Avenue II, words by Woody Gunthrie

Vote Cock!

Are you feeling the Tory blues? Do New Labour make you turn red? Are the yellows way too mellow? Do the Greens make you queasy and do the BNP and UKIP actually make you spew? Well, have you ever considered writing ‘COCK’ across your European Election ballot paper?

With too many parties not representing what you believe and politicians becoming more distrustful by the day, it is an attractive option not to cast your democratic vote and to throw it into the bin out of a matter of protest.

But have you considered the damage you are doing to society?

Imagine today’s political landscape with New Labour in power and the Tories waiting outside Number 10 with a sledgehammer, the LibDems are far behind, with the Greens and ‘the others’ lurking nearby. You feel that none of these parties represent you, so you refuse to vote, or you feel a party like the Greens does, but you refuse to vote because ‘they are never going to get into power’. Well a refusal to vote is only going to strengthen the New Labour/Tory dominance of government and they will never ever represent you or do things in your interest. Why, I hear you ask.

Look at the situation like this, in this example there are 210 voters in total:

Party A have 100 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

Party B have 80 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

There are 30 voters who don’t know who to vote for, or are thinking of not voting.

Who are the party’s going to target policies towards? That’s right, the 30 voters. If parties already have their diehard voters then they are much more willing to create policies for the other 30 voters to encourage them to vote for them, either to get into power (Party B) or to consolidate power (Party A).

Now if the 30 didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like any of the parties or felt the party they wanted never will get into power then Party A will create policies that benefit their own diehard voters and Party B will have more policies like Party A in order to attract Party A’s voters and get into power. They become the same, and politics/democracy becomes diluted.

Let’s now say for example that Party A and Party B are both right-wing, both still with 100 diehards and 80 diehards respectively. A new party, Party C, comes along who are left-wing, and those 30 turn to Party C because they are different to Party A and B. In an attempt to win back those 30 votes, Party A and B will create a few more left-wing policies in order to turn those 30 towards them, but still keep policies that are right-wing in order to keep their diehards voting for them instead of switching between Parties A and B (because they are the same). There is therefore a lot more choice and parties are becoming more representative.

That is why it is important to vote.

But still you may argue there is no party that represents me!

That maybe true, but did you know that in the UK spoilt ballot papers are still considered as part of the voting turnout. That means if 100 people vote and a Party has 20 votes (diehards or not) that Party will look at winning over the other 80 voters- even if those 80 put in spoilt ballot papers because it is shown that 100 people will vote.

Party’s will only direct policies at those who do vote. Why should they worry about those who don’t vote, especially when things like SCOPA stop you protesting.

So even if there isn’t a party that tickles your fancy still cast your vote, but just make sure across the ballot paper in big bold letters you write ‘THE BNP ARE SICK DISGUSTING RACIST COCKS’

My favourite human right

There is one human right granted under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that people remember; freedom of speech, (or more specifically, Article 19, Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and express; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers).

This freedom is flouted time and time again, whether it be freedom to criticise religion, freedom to express any political opinion or freedom to write what you want in print among others.

Recently, there have been flickers of a debate into whether freedom of speech is held above other human rights, and whether this is actually to the detriment of these rights. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/apr/22/freedom-of-speech-human-rights The idea here is that if freedom of speech is put above any other human right, then human rights abusers can be let off, but only as long as we are allowed to moan about it.

I wish to add my own two pennies to this debate. I think freedom of speech is becoming too much the face as the human right, so much so people are misunderstanding what they believe is their God given right.

Let me throw this out there for debate; if it was not for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what is there that should guarantee international human rights?

The UDHM is over and over again used by people to defend their human rights, and quite rightly so. But does this mean they understand the declaration?

Let me introduce to you my favourite human right; Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms ser forth herein.

Let me put that in context. A facist saying that we should kick people of a certain race out of this country, even if they were born here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/bnp-black-asian-britons) would usually be defended by airing their views through ‘freedom of speech’. Well yes, take that one human right and they can be. But it does not work like that, there are another 29 rights, so now apply article 30, and this statement would breach articles 13, 14 and 15 rights of the groups this facist is attacking. S0, article 16 i.e. freedom of speech, does not count in this circumstance.

This could also apply to religion. Remember those pictures of Mohammed in some western newspapers. Well article 16 would definetly defend this, but, in steps article 30 and BOOM you are now breaching article 18. (Well open to debate).

The point i am trying to make is that to preach your human rights and the human rights of others, you really ought to know and understand them first.

But i feel i should clarify my own ideological positions on the two scenarios i raised.

The first concerning the facist(s), i am split, not between what they are saying is right or wrong; no, i firmly disagree with what they are preaching; but instead by how to deal with this situation. On the one hand i hold dearly the point i made about understanding human rights, but on the other, allowing these views to be aired, then offering the actual facts and a rebuttal would intellectually destroy the facists argument. So instead of pushing their ideas underground and making yourself look like a hypocrite you allow them to preach. However, perhaps instead of allowing them to preach the ‘kicking out’ you allow them to preach the issue of immigration, then allow a debate to commence- if they move towards saying ‘we’ll kick them out’  it is then in breach of human rights and they don’t have a human right to stand behind- then you could ban them from preaching.

The second point about western newspapers reprinting pictures of Mohammed. I am also split. We should not be afraid to upset people and we should be able to print these pictures, but, this should be done with regard to respect. We should respect that other people have these religious beliefs (but not respect when these beliefs are enforced upon others). This shouldn’t however stop criticism of religion.

There is a lot more debate that needs to be taken over human rights, about their place in society and what should be done when these rights are abused, but in my opinion, a greater understanding of these rights is fundamental for people to understand their place in the world and how much freedom they, and others, should have. That is why i am now calling for the preaching of article 30 whenever you encounter a facist trying to hide behind article 16. So go now minions, preach, preach!