Western Resistance

« Commentary: The Stunning Admission of the Next Speaker of the House | | US: Florida Congresswoman Stands up to CAIR »

November 10, 2006

UK: BNP Victory Could Lead To Islam Protection Bill

Today, Nick Griffin and Mark Collett were cleared of inciting racial hatred. This trial was in itself a retrial, brought because a jury were undecided on four of the six charges the pair had faced in February. They had been cleared on two charges in February. The retrial mounted by West Yorkshire Police was less about justice for the society and more about an exercise in touchy-feely political correctness.

Today, when Messrs Grriffin and Collett were cleared, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, spoke about amending Britain's race laws to outlaw any criticism of religion.

Should these politically correct lunatics get their way, Britain's freedom of speech will be eroded in one fell swoop. Brown expects to lead the party when Tony Blair steps down, yet is happy to return the party to its totalitarian left-wing roots.

Previous attempts to outlaw criticism of religion nearly became law, after the Labour Party, influenced by the Muslim Council of Britain, introduced a bill last year called the "Incitement to Religious Hatred Act". Instead of being thrown out, the House of Commons (the Lower House) passed this bill last summer. Fortunately, following a campaign led by comedian Rowan Atkinson and supported by George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, the bill was thrown out by the House of Lords (the Upper House). It had been defeated by a majority of 149.

On Tuesday October 26 2005, the controversial bill was re-written in such a way as to make its original intentions severely restricted. The bill, as it was originally formulated, would have basically outlawed "contempt" for a religion. This was in accordance with the motives of the Muslim Council of Britain, who sought to have Islamic "blasphemy" added to the controversial Blasphemy Act of 1697.

Joshua Rosenburg in the Telegraph of October 27 wrote: "As originally drafted, the Government's Bill would have made it an offence in England and Wales for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour if this was likely to stir up religious hatred.

Note that there was no need to prove that a defendant intended to stir up hatred: it was sufficient if this was merely likely. And note that there was no need to prove that the defendant used threatening words: all you needed to do to risk seven years' imprisonment was to use abusive or insulting words that were likely to stir up religious hatred."

When the House of Lords threw out the controversial "Incitement to Religious Hatred Act" they had argued that it undermined fundamental principles of freedom of speech. By allowing an assumption that comments were intended to incite religious hatred, without a need for proof, the law as proposed had defied basic principles of justice. Lord Hunt of Wirral argued: "It is the bedrock of any tolerant, liberal and free society that we must all learn to live according to certain first principles. One of the most fundamental of those is that, from time to time, we must tolerate other people expressing sentiments or engaging in activities that we ourselves find unappealing or even distasteful."

The rewritten law introduced a clause of "freedom of expression" in which it was made clear that any religion could be exposed to ridicule, abuse or insult, without constituting an offense.

At the time of the bill's tortuous path to ultimate defeat the MP for Henley, Boris Johnson, wrote in his Telegraph column that if any book should be banned for inciting religious hatred, then the first one to go would be the Koran.

The intentions of Gordon Brown and Lord Falconer are once again attempting to undermine a basic political freedom. When the BNP started, as Nick Griffin himself admitted during his recent court case, it was racist. He has worked hard to rebrand and realign the BNP, to the point that its main focus is to challenge and confront Islam, which he describes, rightly, as a "wicked, vicious faith".

Falconer and Brown are seeking, basically, to outlaw the British National Party. And in a democracy, such a measure is not only against democratic principles, it is the first move of a totalitarian regime.

The right to criticize a religion is a fundamental right of a free society. As Boris Johnson highlighted, the Koran (and Islam) is hardly a manual of peace and love for those who are not of the Islamic faith, and would be the first item to be outlawed under a "religious intolerance" bill.

To tamper with basic freedoms, merely because a jury of 12 citizens upheld existing laws and did not condemn two individuals that Brown and Falconer do not like, is not acceptable. Democratic principles evolved only over the last three hundred years because they had been freed from the shackles of religious tyranny. The freedom from religious tyranny has not been fully achieved - the 1697 Blasphemy Act remains in force, and has not been repealed.

Unfortunately, there is currently no freedom from Gordon Brown. He was never chosen by the electorate to be anything other than a Chancellor, ensuring the economy did not overheat. He has little personal charisma, and his views on policy have never been presented to the public. Yet he is likely to head the Labour Party during its current term of office. His ill-timed suggestion that the laws must be changed to accord with his own personal prejudice is a warning sign that he is not fit to run a government.

In a free society, one must accept the rights of others to express views that may offend one. If Gordon Brown does not understand this, Britain's liberties would not be safe in his hands.

Speaking on the BBC's News 24, Brown said: "I think any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes. And if that means we have got to look at the laws again, we will have to do so."

Lord Falconer of Thoroton states: "We should look at (the laws) in the light of what has happened because what is being said to young Muslim people of this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not."

Lord Falconer of Thoroton may not be against Islam, but if the country needs to have laws to reflect what he thinks, he should have faith in the electorate and put the matter to a referendum. It is almost certain that a referendum would not seek greater protection for "Islam"

Muslims are already protected as individuals as any other person is under British law. Their religion has led to suicide bombings on London Transport, but the Muslim individuals are free to act as any other citizen.

If Gordon Brown and Lord Falconer feel that the religious ideology of Islam, which is innately political, should be given further protection in Britain, then perhaps they should simultaneously campaign for non-Islamic faiths to be protected in countries such as Saudi Arabia. Here, no Bibles, crucifixes are allowed into the country, and holding a Christian religious service can land one in jail.

Niick Griffin, during his trial, said: "This isn't a racial thing. It's not an Asian thing. It's a cultural and religious thing." On the issue of Islam, he said: "It's the duty of someone who sees a fire in a crowded theatre to shout 'fire' and not so sit there analysing the properties of fire."

His trial was not based on comments made to the public. What he said was spoken to other members of his party at the Reservoir Tavern, Keighley, West Yorkshire, on January 19, 2004. A BBC reporter, acting as a BNP supporter, had infiltrated the meeting, and secretly recorded his words. The comments were then screened on "The Secret Agent", a documentary for the BBC. Following the trial, he today branded the BBC as "cockroaches".

The BBC had no objections to assisting West Yorkshire police in their securing evidence to place Nick Griffin and Mark Collett on trial. Yet last year, when the BBC Newsnight team had broadcast footage of members of the Saviour Sect and Al Ghurabaa which showed blatant treason, the BBC refused to hand over all of their footage to the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Guardian, in its "Comment is Free" section, invited a woman called Laura Smith to argue that there was somehow a double standard in Britain's laws. She said that the clearing of Griffin and Collett contrasted with that of Mizanur Rahman, a member of the Al Ghurabaa/Saviour Sect coalition. Rahman had been convicted of inciting racial hatred, when he called for Americans to be killed. Even though Rahman carried placards calling for the "annihilation" of people who insulted Islam, the jury remained undecided on a charge of incitement to murder.

Laura Smith's dishonest argument implied that Muslims were victimized by British Law. The reporting of Nick Griffin's acquittal, and the attempts by Brown, Lord Falconer, and potentially John Reid, the Home Secretary, assume one fundamental precept which defies logic and reason.

Brown and Falconer are attempting to change RACE laws to protect Islam. The Independent states: "Despite undercover evidence from a BBC documentary which showed Mr Griffin abusing and mocking Islam and the Koran, an all-white jury in Leeds yesterday cleared him and Mark Collett, his party's head of publicity, of stirring up racial hatred."

There is no "despite" about this. Islam is a religion. A religion is an ideology, which one can choose to ascribe to, or (in non-Muslim countries) one that a person can choose to abandon. A race is something one is born with, defined by one's DNA and genetic heritage, and cannot be changed (even if one is Michael Jackson).

If lawmakers cannot see that fundamental difference, they should not be allowed to tamper with existing race-hate laws. Islam is not, nor can it ever be a race. It is a political, and highly dangerous, religious ideology. The day when Islam becomes legally treated as a "race" is the day when common sense has finally abandoned British democracy.

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at November 10, 2006 9:57 PM

Comments

Posted by: Martell at November 11, 2006 5:33 AM

Posted by: Celsius at November 11, 2006 7:54 AM

Post a comment