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.

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!

English Fundamentalism

I have just been reading an interesting article on the Guardian website about the documentary film maker Sean Langan who has just recently been released by the Taliban after 3 months.

I would like to quote Langan in relation to his only glimpse of the outside world- a small hole in the wall of his ‘cell’ that was embraced with a view of an apricot tree; “It kept me going, thinking about the outside world and English values that could be lost, like tea and sympathy and tolerance and basic humanity.”

This is a man who has been locked up and psychologically tortured for 3 months, yet he still acknowledges basic English principles: sympathy, tolerance and basic humanity, and the fear that his situation could make him abandon them. It is a shame that a majority of English people are willing to throw these principles away when they are in the warmth, comfort and safety of their own homes and there is the slightest threat of a terrorist attack or they see a group of Polish workers on the way to work.

The article also led me to view the arrogance of those fighting the British in Afghanistan in their views of the West; “Mr C asked me once if it was true that western women married frogs. He had seen a children’s fairytale and believed that it was true.” This is not something confined to just a minority in Afghanistan. The rise in Islamophobia is fuelled by the fear and belief that all Muslim’s want to do is destroy ‘Western values’ and end British lives. [I put commas around Western values, as i believe a majority of those in power in both Britain and America have no dignified values at all]. In reality, this belief is the upside-down version of the truth. In reality, the majority of those who follow the Islamic faith pose no harm to the West at all. There is however a very small minority of Islamic Fundamentalists who appear to want to (i say appear because really the 9/11 attack was not against the West but an attempt to polarise the people in the Middle East into either fundamentalism or secularism- helped afterwards by America’s War on ‘Error).

Johann Hari wrote a brilliant piece on the latest Big Brother and how fundamental and secularist Islam is clashing within the Big Brother house. The point of the article is to explain the reality of the current situation. Islam is not about killing as many people who disagree with you as possible, but at the same time, there are fundamentalists who believe it is. This debate tends to be forgotten by the right-wing media, which wrongly portrays Muslims as a threat. Hari suggests that this clash is finally an example of proper reality television. There are many other aspects of Hari’s article that i could write on, yet to grasp the context of the debate you should read it yourself.

Judging by how some people are reacting to the threat posed by Fundamental Islam and their over the top reactions to immigration into this country, i would suggest that there is a growing sense of English (British) Fundamentalism growing. If they think that all Muslims are Fundamentalists, then it is safe to say that these English Fundamentalists are just as bad as the Islamic Fundamentalists they are afraid of.

To view the Guardian’s article on Langan, click here.

To view the Johann Hari article, click here.

***********************

On a completely separate topic, here is another Langan quote; “I am alive. And I’ve realised that freedom is the air we breathe.” Out of all the things i could say, all i will say is that if the air we breathe is true freedom, then irresponsible oil companies and Governments are clutching onto not only our freedoms, but the freedoms of the next generation, and the generation after that, and the generation after that, and on and on. Why, therefore, aren’t more people fighting for our own freedoms if not the freedoms of others?

Gaunty Watch 21/6/2008

It has been a couple of years since i first started becoming more aware of outside influences on how i live my life, and started to care about them.

I feel i can put this down to one person: Jon Gaunt.

For those of you who know about Jon Gaunt, can i just say, i do not like his politics, i do not agree with his debating style, and i think he is a scar on the face of the ‘White Van Man’ (TalkSPORT’s terminology for the white working classes).

For those who do not know who Jon Gaunt is, let me fill you in.

Jon Gaunt has been around the radio circuit for many years, working for several BBC stations including London 94.9 and BBC Coventry. However now we can find him on the popular TalkSPORT station where he hosts his own talk show between 10am-1pm every weekday. You can also find him writing for The Sun (i think on Tuesdays).

I would advise people to listen to him on TalkSPORT; it is fascinating.

The reason Gaunt (known affectionately as Gaunty) helped smash my apathy was because of his attitude with running debates, his views, and the way his views are shockingly being aired across national radio. To give an example of how shocking some of his views are, he has been accused in a few circles of helping the BNP gain support- although it should be pointed out that Gaunt is not a BNP supporter, and the BNP actually do not like Gaunt either.

There are two aspects of Jon Gaunt’s debating style that annoy me. Firstly it is his use of the phrase “Tom, Dick and Abdul”. He uses this in different contexts to refer to who can claim benefits, who can come into this country, who can get social housing ahead of British people etc. By putting Abdul into the phrase, he is seamlessly targeting men of Middle Eastern appearance (and/or Muslims). This is helping to ignite anti-Muslim feelings, in a time when there needs to be clarification on the issues surrounding terrorism and the Middle East. He claims that multi-culturalism has failed, but he does not give it a chance by deliberately highlighting (most of the time falsely) how the White Working Man is becoming a minority within this country by having a go at all foreigners, especially those who are Muslim.

The second point that really whines me up is his facilitation of debates. On many occasions when i have listened to his show he voices how listeners should contribute to the show to add to the debate that the Government are not having with the public. Okay, all good so far. However, at the same time, there have been callers who phone up, voice their opinion and either get cut off by Gaunt because he disagrees, or they get spoken over while in the middle of their piece by Gaunt who rouses anti-British and do-gooder statements about that person and then cuts them off. One example would be a debate on drugs that was held sometime last year. Gaunt’s view, i believe, was that anyone who takes drugs are the scum of society and should be jailed. However, there was a caller who started speaking about legalising all drugs and how this could control drug use. Well Gaunt cut him off while he was putting his view across and called him a “hippie” and “druggie”. He also cut of callers who voiced their opinion of greater help at rehabilitating drug users- oh no, he could not have that, they need to be locked up for good apparently…

Now to be fair, there are times when i do agree with what Gaunt says. It would be bitter of me to disagree with everything he says just because most things he says and does annoys me. One such example is how the welfare state should not be a lifestyle (as i believe it has become for some Britons) and should instead be a safety net. However, while Gaunt was arguing this in his Sun column a few weeks back, he notes how more British youngsters should be taught trades and pushed into plumbing and electrical work, and how we should get rid of the situation that immigrants take the jobs the British do not want and force British people to take these jobs. To note the trade work; it is good for youngsters to learn a trade and be efficient in a practical skill, but at the same time, we can not force more people into these trades when there is already high competition, not caused just by an influx of Eastern European workers, but also by a fall in demand in plumbers and electricians- there is not enough work out there. On the forcing British people into jobs that immigrants take, my fear here is that Gaunt did not say this to try and decrease unemployment, but to instead try and force out immigrants. This is an attempt to destroy the safety net of those preaching we need immigrants by saying they take the jobs we do not want, and to instead start preaching that we need to start kicking immigrants in this country out. It is easy to see why there are fears that Gaunt opens the door to fascist views.

My intention within this blog is to now create a ‘Gaunty Watch’, not in an attempt to belittle the man, his loyal listeners would say that is not physically possible, but to instead offer my opinion on the issues that Gaunt talks about. It is time to try and win back the ‘White Van Man’ from the clutches of the far right, and bring them back into where they belong in the left.