Thursday, 22 October 2009
So, Nick Griffin finally appeared on Question Time. Question Time is a formulaic programme. There are four guests; one is a Tory, one Labour, one black or Asian, one gay, one Liberal Democrat and one woman. Yes, I know that's more than four - sometimes the Tory is a woman, or the Labour spokesman is black. And always, always, that profoundly irritating, eminently slappable, boring, earnest, utterly useless waste of space, Shami Chakrabarti. I hardly ever watch Question Time, its radio equivalent Any Questions being far superior. I only watched it this time because Nick Griffin was on it, and I thought there might be fireworks.
Fireworks? Damp squib is more the size of it. Griffin wriggled and squirmed and denied his denial - of the Holocaust, that is:
“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. 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 day witch-hysteria”
Far from being a champion of the little man against the BBC/Guardian axis, he shares its contempt for the intelligence of the general public, who can watch his speeches on YouTube, and can see him sharing a platform with David Duke, or read about his meetings with Colonel Gadaffi.
So why has this utterly unoriginal man, and his nasty little party gained such support? Frank Field, one of the few Labour politicians with a brain, and Nicholas "Fatty" Soames, Conservative, come close to getting the right answer. From The Telegraph:
Nick Griffin does not owe his opportunity to peddle evil views on tonight's Question Time to some faulty judgment of the BBC. His vote in the European elections earned it for him. And that opportunity only arose because of the political cowardice and irresponsibility of the two main parties – but particularly of the Labour Party. Poll after poll shows BNP support coming from ex-Labour voters who believe their party has deserted them on immigration, and failed to represent their interests as underdogs in what until recently was a country characterised by unparalleled prosperity.
Social strains caused by immigration were all too obvious even during a period of record public spending increases. Immigration now accounts for 40 per cent of new households formed, just as the waiting list for social housing in England tops 1.8 million – an incredible 80 per cent increase in the past six years. We are now into a period of unparalleled austerity. The social tensions that are already present could be massively exacerbated, especially as yesterday's figures suggest the population will increase by a further two million over the next Parliament – and a further two million in the Parliament after that.
It was the dereliction of duty by Parliament to discuss a key voter priority that led us to establish last year the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration. All of our members readily testify to the advantages that immigration can bring to any country. But it is the scale of immigration, and its impact on our population, that have concerned us.
A key demand of our group has been for the Government to cut the link between people coming here to work and automatically gaining citizenship. Once a person has been in this country for four or five years they practically always gain citizenship. The present Home Secretary, to his credit, is consulting on our proposals of a two-stage entry to citizenship. Stage one would determine how many people are allowed into the country each year to work. A second and new set of procedures would then come into play, whereby people applying for citizenship would have to prove their worth. That status would no longer be automatically granted. Far from it.
If we are to reduce immigration sufficiently to prevent Britain crashing through the 70 million population barrier then the criteria for entry as well as for citizenship will have to be very tough.
Close, but no cigar. Yes, immigration in general is a problem, but Muslim immigration in particular is a catastrophe. Other immigrants of whatever race - racism is a red herring - have assimilated. Muslims, including white Muslims, have not - nor can they.
Nick Griffin has jumped on the anti-Muslim bandwagon to further his racist agenda. What he says about Islam is true, however, so why aren't the mainstream political parties saying it? Why should the devil - and the Holocaust denier - have the best tunes?
Update: British readers can watch the programme on BBC iPlayer here. It will doubtless be on YouTube before long.
Posted on 10/22/2009 5:33 PM by Mary Jackson
22 Oct 2009
I had business this evening but left in what I thought was good time for the start of Question Time - I had a journey of maybe 8 miles.
23 Oct 2009
Some sort of notion of 'free speech' survived the BBC 'Question Time' programme, which resembled a mass inquisition of one Nick Griffin, BNP.
In its report of its own proceedings, the BBC, which provided a predictably rigged audience dominated by the misnamed Unite Against Fascism (UAF), far left-Islamic alliance, leads with this headline:
"Griffin attacks Islam on BBC show"
There was no 'attack': the physical 'attack' came from the UAF which aimed to stop free speech, and any criticism of Islam.
The BBC is not really interested in free speech, and opposing the very real threats to free speech. The BBC does not report the activities of the Organization of Islamic Conference is trying to ban crfiticism of Islam worldwide.
I agree with Mary Jackson that the Nick Griffin phenomenon has to do largely with the impact of the liberal, open-door policy on immigration on British society.
The impact of Muslim immigration is proving to be a particular threat; the presence of dhimmi Jack Straw on the panel was a physical reminder of how Labour has speeded up Muslim immigration -his own constituency of Blackburn in Lancashire is well on the way to becoming a predominantly Muslim town.
23 Oct 2009
What a thoroughly sordid affair.
A repugnant holocaust denier up against an assortment of anti-Western civilisationists, in front of an ignorant, baying mob.
I comment not to point out the obvious though, but to draw attention to the 400 plus comments on the Telegraph article by Frank Field and Nicholas Soames.
90% seem to think we are in terrible trouble and that we are ignored.
This, of course, was not mentioned at all on last nights hate fest against Griffin.
An impartial, publicly funded organisation, made it's hatred and bias very obvious.
It is up to us to hate many things Griffin stands for, and not up to the BBC to tell us what or who to hate.
Last nights travesty should make people question the legality, never mind the morality, of paying the licence fee.
23 Oct 2009
<i> All of our members readily testify to the advantages that immigration can bring to any country.</i> The current levels of immigration can't possibly be of much benefit to ordinary people.
Canada's conservative Frasier Institute released the results of a sudy a few back that demonstrated that many of the positive aspects of immigration cited by the pro-immigration tenors turn out to be myths. One such myth is the line that immigration rejuvenates a country's population by bringing in young people. Yes, it does bring in young people, but then those young people bring in their parents and even grandparents completely cancelling any rejuvenation.
The massive levels of Third World immigration into Britian ( and Europe) is an unmitigated disaster. I can't think of a single example in recorded history where massive migrations haven't led to conflict, war and even civilisational collapse.
The politicians are like a bunch of clueless Romans cheering on the arrival of the Goths.
What many of them think are immigrants, and this particuarly in the case of Muslim migrants, are really colonists whose presence will ultimately lead to conflict and even chaos