Jump to content

Talk:British National Party/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Proportional Representation

The following sentence has now been edited three times to remove the bold words:

"Unlike some of its European analogues, it has no presence in the national Parliament, and a small number of councillors in local government; supporters claim that this is partially because the UK's first-past-the-post system makes it harder for small parties to achieve electoral success than the proportional representation systems used in most of the rest of Europe"

Removing these words presents the statement after the semicolon as uncontested fact, which is simply unacceptable -- the implication is that under a PR system, the BNP would have as much influence as some of its European counterparts, some of which form part of European governments. No evidence (i.e., no citation) is presented to support this claim. I've restored the couching language and will continue to do so until whoever keeps putting there (User:203.206.234.21) sufficiently backs it up. Dogville 08:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - although given that there is analysis being offered, that para should probably go in the main body of the article, not the 'intro'. Paulleake 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with that in general; problem being that the first part of the sentence quoted above helps mitigate the preceding mention that the BNP is the "largest party of the far-right" in the UK, which may overstate its influence on its own. Dogville 22:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Argument 1

The pro BNP appologist said earlier;

(in response to this statement) "Many opponents claim that it is racist, whilst some far left-wing fringe organisations go so far as to brand it fascist and/or neo-Nazi. "

No major national newpaper, broadcaster, etc. has refered to the BNP as "fascist" or "neo nazi". Only the far-left ANL do this. Hence the original statement is biased.

Perhaps you should look at today's (Tuesdays) issue of that left wing, oh so pro SWP/ANL newspaper The Daily Express which published a story concerning the BNP's recent tactic of recruiting children at school gates, unreservedly describing them as 'Nazis' 82.34.176.94 23:54, 7 Oct 2001 (UTC)


For American readers: the above writer is employing irony. The Daily Express is not noted for its left-wing views -- rather, it is a right-wing tabloid. -- Karada 23:59, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
All depends on your viewpoint of where "center" is (and indeed what "right wing" is). Express is a center-right, more center, imo. The Mail is center-right with right leanings. Paul Weaver 00:09, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Point is, it's hardly a mouthpiece for the ANL or Searchlight. Unlike of course that rabidly left wing establishment the BBC (ooops I'm being ironic again...). and I'm pretty sure even the Mail has called the BNP 'Nazi' before. So has the Mirror, the Sun probably can't spell 'Nazi' though 82.34.176.94 00:16, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hey I see you even work for them Paul (the BBC that is...)- clearly an ANL dupe. How's Stalin these days ;-) 82.34.176.94 00:23, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I dropped history at 14, but last I heard Stalin was dead. Perhaps he'll do a "Dirty Den". As for being an ANL/BNP fan, I hate them both, both of them are fascist commumists that want to control everyone's lives. I was, however, instrumental in getting Exeter University' student union to reject a motion banning the BNP from campus. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Captain Jean-Luc Picard Paul Weaver 23:29, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
captain picard didn't come up with that, he was quoting someone else. ambassador something-or-other. the father of the romulan-hating woman questioning him. Badanedwa 05:00, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
I largely agree with you Paul, my 'Stalin' comment was flippant- anybody who critisises the BNP is automatically a 'leftist Stalinist ANL/Serachlight supporter' according to our BNP appologist (as are the BBC, Gaurdian, etc) but call him a 'nazi fool' in response and he gets all het up and tetchy and cries about 'NPOV'. Typically fascist, free speech runs only one way... And whist I admire your stance re. Exter University & free speech, you have to ask yourself if it would run both ways were the BNP ever to get into a position of power. Personally the idea makes me shudder. 82.34.176.94 17:23, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yup, sadly we're no longer allowed guns (only criminals have them), so the only defence against political parties like the BNP is old fashioned democracy. Educate people about the truth and hopefully people will vote in an informed manner. There is truth in the fact that politicians are removed from the population - new ones are either fresh out of law school or fresh out of the unions, never done a hard days work in their life. It's the disillusionism, coupled with hysterical and somewhat innacurate reporting in the media, that makes people vote for the BNP. Fair play to the BNP, they've identified a niche and are widening it using tactics no worse then those of the Torys, Lib Dems and Labour.
I feel it's okay to label them as Nazi's, afterall, they are , Nazi was a short term for Nationalist, which is what they are, well, i assume that, tell the truth, i don't know what Nationalist means. I suppose i'll search for it...

Argument 2

194.165.163.106 wrote the following:

I don't think the BNP cares whether certain newspapers, left or right, occasionally call them 'nazis'. Their recent election results show that most people take very little notice of smear tactics and name calling, particularly when they themselves are routinely being branded as "institutionally racist". After a while, it becomes water off a ducks back! Besides, who should people vote for, a) the BNP activist who lives and works locally, regularly calls at your door to see if you have any issues, and campaigns week in week out on local issues for local people, or b) a middle-class/aged or spotty student SWP/ANL activist, who can't even spell 'social depravation', never mind understand it, who lives in 'Middle England', and who only ventures into 'poor areas' at election time and demands that people not vote for the nazis, but instead vote for the New Labour Champagne Socialist Party who treat them like shit and are the cause of all their problems!? Continually improving election results speak for themselves! It's no wonder that 'Red Action/AFA' despise the ANL, who they consider part of the problem, rather than the solution. Perhaps you should read some of their literature, it might enlighten you!

A recent joke, attributed to an AFA activist, goes thus:

What does an ANL activist say when he sees a BNP member? "Nazi scum, off our streets!"

What does an ANL activist say when asked to sort out anti-social behaviour? "Nazi scum, off our streets!"

How many ANL activists does it take to change a lightbulb? "Nazi scum, off our streets!"

I very much doubt that you, 82..., will understand the joke though, just like the ANL don't understand the real world, the real suffering that ordinary people have to put up with. Your bitch about 'The Sun' speaks volumes about you. You might think they are pathetic, but more people read that newspaper than any other. I suppose you think these are the ordinary poor people who should be told who to vote for because you think them too stupid to have minds of their own and should be grateful for their benevolent New Labour masters!

In summary, 82..., you're a fool. You just carry on with your pseudo-intellectual internet bitching though, if you think it makes you clever and brave. Meanwhile, real people will carry on living in the real world, with real problems, voting for real parties who actually bother to offer them real help.

Just to finish, a few quotes from the non-biased BBC:

"The BBC is hideously white." Greg Dyke, BBC Director General and donor to the Labour Party.

"Newspapers have to sell in order to live; so does commercial TV. That leaves the BBC as the only truly public service medium in this country disseminating information, entertainment, and, in the case of race relations, propaganda. We are unashamed to admit it is what we are doing." Gerry Hines, BBC Programme Organiser, in Race Today

After fretting over the lack of acceptance of the multi-racial society among white working class people,

"What then can be done? (Apart, of course, from wide-spread and vigorous miscegenation which is the best answer, but perhaps a bit tricky to arrange as public policy.) . . .

" . . . the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress . . . I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off." Andrew Marr, BBC Political Editor and former Runnymede Trust Member, writing in The Observer

That last quote from Marxist Marr is probably right up your street!

--83.146.51.163 01:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If some far-sighted people in proto-civilised societies hadn't had the sense to "stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs" - in particular the tendency to settle disputes with a protracted blood feud, or indeed the belief that rape and theft from the weak was acceptable so long as you could get away with it - then we all would continue to exist in a state of brutal animilistic anarchy. Unless you think laws addressing serious social problems such as rape, pillaging and revenge killing were always a horrendous violation of individual rights (and hence favour a sort of caveman social model), you would have to admit that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the statement "I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good." The question then of course turns to whether you think race-hate is a serious social problem.....

Stalinist Russia was quite impressive repressive, yet this seemed to be be quite compatible with "rape, pillaging and revenge killing" in ethnically German areas it over-ran in 1945. So perhaps the "repression" you advocate here does not always solve that particular problem.

wow 194 you're grasp on economics is startling, that's right a whole lot of people are living in bad conditions and you're correct that the only way to solve it is by electing a party that has along with it's predecessors before it rioted against poorer immigrants, yes we understand poverty and people trying to get out of it and make their way in the world because our parents where there to attack those poor people in the national front ralies in which we tried to murder them. yes you're completely correct that the only way to bring people out of poverty is to murder exile and generally live in fear of anyone who we don't see as british. yes we shall strive together to defeat all difference then people will be so busy hating they wont have time to worry about living conditions. cudos on you're undeniably water tight plan to defeat british poverty. (sarcasm)

The entry on the BNP is drivel

I am frankly disgusted by this apology for Nazis. I don't care how flash Griffin's suits are - his party still a Nazi party. He still stands convicted gang rapists for election.

I couldn't give a damn whether you happen to think the entry in "drivel" - you obviously live in a dream world where facts are about as important as the colour of your shoelaces. However, this is not the place for political debates. The object is the write an unbiased article on the BNP.
  • The background on the BNP which appears on this site is apparently lifted directly from the ¬Searchlight¬ web pages, without, I might add, any touble to verify the facts first. Maybe you are unaware that the people behind Searchlight are no angels. P.
However, since you mention the "rapist" issue, perhaps I ought to clarify this (not that you'll pay any attention to real facts, I expect!). The conviction of the rapist in question was utterly unknown to the BNP; once this was "revealed" (by a media source as I remember), the BNP immediately expelled him from the party and banned him from ever holding membership again, along with a strongly-worded statement that had he honestly stated this conviction to the party he wouldn't have been given the time of day.
Isn't it funny how the facts bear little resemblence to your rant! Perhaps you'd like to comment on Liberal Democrat paedophile councillors, who, even after their successful conviction, have not even been expelled from this party? Someone so concerned about criminal behaviour of electoral candidates as you would surely be up in arms about this, particularly as several incidents of this have occured in the lib dems, contrasting with the single "BNP rapist [sic.]"?
Finally, please stop jabbering inane rants about "nazis"; it is complete balderdash and you know it very well. List all the supposed "parallels" the current, modern BNP of today holds with the Nazi Party. You might like to write the out on the back of a postage stamp first, just to remind yourself...

80.255 21:38, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

yes i'm sure the fact that the bnp has an alarming number of criminal members with or without them knowing it is very badluck, do you really believe that a party can hire so many violent criminals by coincidence, even if they didn't know about said convictions it none the less proves the party is willing to hire people whose convictions would suggest they are thugs with serious personality disorders. this proves that the party is full of thugs and criminals. maybe the reason the more mainstreem parties don't hire so many criminals is because they aim to hire hard working decent people as their mps! and whatsmore the bnp members in question are only ever convicted when found out by newspapers etc. the bnp never claim to have found out in any cases and with all those convictions isn't that a bit suspicious?

Can you let us know a bit more about these Lib Dem councillors, with a citation if possible?

I've flagged this article up as an NPOV dispute. I'm doing some restructuring to let the different characterizations of "racist", "fascist" and "neo-Nazi" have subsections of their own. Note that although neo-Nazis are by definition fascist and racist, the reverse is not necessarily the case, so the points are separate. And yes, this probably does mean dragging out all the stuff about being photographed wearing swastika armbands... -- The Anome 14:58, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've deleted the empty subheading "Is the BNP fascist"; put it back if you have anything to say about it that isn't merely a repetition of the "racist" and "neonazi" blurb.
I also suggest that headings as questions are unsuitable here, because the questions themselves are not answered (and nor should they be, since to do so would not be NPOV). I suggest "Alledged connections between the BNP and racism/fascism/etc." would be better.
As for the "nazi armbands" and other ancient tyndall rubbish - I hardly think this relevant as it occured over 40 years ago, long before the BNP existed, to someone who is not a member of the party now, and who was not a member of the party when it occured. Perhaps you woud also like to detail all the ancient connections between the tory party and the slave trade? Such details are clearly irrelevant in the BNP article, although by all means put them into the John Tyndall (politician) article. I also think Griffin convictions are irrelevant to this, and should go in the article about Nick Griffin. 129.234.4.10 16:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lib dem councillor convictions

FOA the anome (and anyone else who has ever considered supporting the lib dems!). Here is "a little bit more" on some Lib-dem councillors. And this is undoubtably the tip of the iceberg...

  • <name removed> Charged with making indecent images of children, incitement to rape, incitement to murder, incitement to kidnap and incitement to torture. He lives with his homosexual partner <name removed>, who also happens to be a Lib Dem councillor!
  • <name removed> - Liberal Democrat Councillor in <name removed> councill. Charged with indecent assult of an underage boy and attempting to procure an act of gross indecency. He has been convicted and is on the Sex Offenders Register, but he is still a councillor!
  • <name removed> Arrested and charged with producing indecent images of children. Currently on bail. Still a lib dem councillor!
  • <name removed>. Chanrged with dangerous driving and unlawful wounding of a women.
  • <name removed> Struck off the nursing register after being found guilty of mistreating patients and abusive behaviour. Still a lib dem councillor, she has received the full support of her party!
  • <name removed> Exposed as viewing obscene websites using council money! <name removed> visited over 70 sites at a cost to the taxpayer of £466.89.
  • <name removed> Cautioned by police for kerb crawling.
  • <name removed> Cautioned for kerb crawling and chanrged with breach of the peace.

And it goes on! How many more would like me to list? Incidentally, feel free to google all these names to validate the information - all have been reported by local and national newspapers. I trust that you will want all this information to appear in the "liberal democrat" article, since you are so anxous to list long-ago convictions for BNP members... 129.234.4.10 17:10, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC) (80.255)

I have redacted the names from this list, since you didn't provide press report citations. However, several of these alleged offences, if true, are really nasty. I'm would be surprised if the Lib Dems wouldn't throw out members convicted of these alleged serious offences, even if only for the PR value. -- The Anome 00:22, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
As I stated, all these were taken from the mainstream press, and I will happily provide links/citations if requested to do so. I didn't when posting to avoid cluttering up the list with extraneous material and trying to keep the point I was making short. If you Googled any of the names listed you would have come across such press reports. I completely agree that many of the offences listed are very nasty indeed - considerably nastier, I would go so far as saying, than any of the supposed "BNP crimes" that took place decades ago as reported by Panorama. If I were to list all these offences (or even mention them) in the Liberal Democrat article (along with respective media references) I'm sure I would be accused of bias. Yet much is made of less serious offences by some people in the BNP article, and furthermore I would be accused of bias if I removed them!. Double stamdards, anyone?
80.255 00:39, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You said that you would happily provide links/citations if requested. I request it. 70.18.182.39 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's now December 2005, and the poster has still not provided a cite. I think that speaks for itself. -- The Anome 08:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
This only took about 5 minutes to research. There were more links but they were broken or would have involved a lot of my time.


02:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected Page

Two users requested this page be protected. I have done so. Now, what's all the fuss? --Uncle Ed 19:55, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)


To-and-fro edit/revert wars, with very little progress, with BNP supporters vs. BNP opponents. -- The Anome 20:02, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What's wrong with just labelling the pro-BNP point of view and anti-BNP point of view as representative the respective sides? Like BNP supporters say they are patriotically promoting purity or BNP opponents say they are a lot of raving racist rednecks (alliteration optional ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:59, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think that'll lead to a very long and verbose page Ed. Articles like this one just don't sit well with the traditional notion of an encyclopedia. Then again, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia, so perhaps a different approach could be taken. How about the main page leading to two articles, one each for the various pro- and anti-BNP sides. They can still be watched to ensure they don't turn into rants. -- 200.81.20.39 21:21, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You mean splitting into two articles like BNP supporter and BNP critics over the weekend, with each "side" polishing their arguments? Then merge 'em on Monday? Or what?

Well, I was initially thinking of keeping the two articles separate from now on, but maybe they could be merged after a week or so, a weekend being far too short. The only problem with merging them is that we'd probably end up having to re-edit both articles, adding all the 'opponents claim/party deny' stuff back in. Merging could have some positive benefits though, if there was a genuinely neutral third party on hand who had experience of editing articles to Wikipedia's NPOV 'standards'. That way, we could go through the articles point by point, merging as appropriate, with both sides learning about NPOV article writing and, hopefully, learning a bit more about each other's POV without SHOUTING! Of course, if by some miracle, a successfully merged article was created, I'd lay odds that it was ruined within the week!!

It might be better for each "side" to "argue for the enemy" -- that is, if you hate BNP then do nothing for the next 3 days but sympathetically describe all the reasons that BNP love them :-) -- and if you love BNP, write only about what BNP opponents have against them.

If each "side" will agree to do this, we can unlock the article right away. Otherwise, I'm going to leave it for another sysop to sort out. Meanwhile, I'm going to find a football game to watch (not the pointy-ended kind, the spherical kind). ^_^ Uncle Ed 22:31, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're asking a bit too much here! It's like asking Greenpeace to argue in favour of the French government's nuclear testing programme! ;-)
There's no reason why pro- and anti-BNP articles can't be temporarily created in the meantime though, to see how they go. Personally, I think the main BNP article should be unlocked again anyway; I just reread it and it doesn't seem that bad at the moment. -- 200.81.20.39 23:42, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The trouble with your last suggestion is that I would expect that both sides, intentionally or not, would tend to be rather half-hearted in their advocacy and condemnation respectively.

However, what I do suggest to resolve this dispute is the following: A list of points is agreed upon by both sides relating to various alleged (and debatable) statements regarding the BNP. For instance:

  • Alleged connections with racism
  • Alleged connection with "neo-fascism"
  • etc.

Two pages can initially be created which both sides can present their arguments and evidence for the truth of lack thereof of these allegations. Then they can be merged without change (provided basic factual accuracy is maintained) onto the main page; e.g. perhaps under the heading "Conflicting opinions on the BNP" with subsequent headings for each disputed allegation, both from the party itself and from its opponents.

I think basic factual information - statements about the party's current policies, when it was formed, structure, etc. - can be stated neutrally beforehand, in the main article. After all, it is with this infomation that the encyclopaedia should really be concerned; it is the opinionated opponents of the BNP who have consistently tried to bias the article with silly, obviously non-neutral statements ("The BNP is a nazi party of horrid nasty racists" and all that!). I don't understand why people can't simply confine themselves with facts for the whole article, rather than my having to continually resort to endless "However, the BNP reject this allegation..." paragraphs to try to balance the biased vitriole introduced into this article by so many people.

80.255 22:50, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Someone wrote: "List all the supposed "parallels" the current, modern BNP of today holds with the Nazi Party."

Well, for starters:

  • Racism and xenophobia.
  • Anti-Semitism. (BNP literature continues to make guarded remarks about the number of Jews there are in the mainstream political parties, that sort of thing. Continuing, albeit private, references to international Jewish conspiracies and denial of the Holocaust, mark the party out as neo-Nazi.)
  • Homophobia (commitment to the criminalisation of homosexuality, with aversion treatment [amounting to torture] and long prison sentences for those convicted; advocation of sterilisation of homosexuals, which contradicts the apparent belief in aversion treatment).
  • Eugenics. (The BNP manifesto at the last Gen. Election called for abortion to be denied to [white] women with healthy foetuses and enforced on those whose foetuses will be born disabled or with inherited diseases. Other material, under both Tyndall and Griffin, has advocated the sterliastion of certain individuals [the disabled, those with genetic diseases, homosexuals, racial minorities who refused to leave the country, certain social groups], and there were neatly-caged implications of this in the last GE manifesto. In combination with a driving racist ideology, this clearly presents a platform of eugenics. AFAIK, though many toyed with the idea, no political party has actively pursued such a platform except the Nazis.)
  • Anti-trade unionism (a long-running key manifesto commitment has been the radical overhaul of TU laws - either to ban unions altogether, or create one national trade union under state control).
  • Command capitalism. (Production, dsitribution, etc., remains in the hands of the [genetically acceptable members of the] elite, continuing to depend on proft-making and for the most part private investment, but with some investment and much legislation from the state under the direction of government officials. Removal of basic labour rights [see above], elements of forced or assigned labour. The instiutionalisation of unfair wealth distribution, enforced through the removal of liberties and the use of penal sanctions. No deference to workers, consumers, markets, democratic control or good sense - everything in the hands of the bosses and the party [essentially, allowing the party's newbie elite to sit at the same table as the old guard]. Ironically, on the investment side at least, the policies of New "Labour" are taking us in this direction anyway - the BNP would simply remove the checks and balances so far insisted upon to preserve liberal democracy.)
  • Agitation. (Despite its claims to the contrary, the BNP continues to pursue a policy of criminal action - intimidation, vandalism, harrasment and assault - to stir up racial tension, create instability, cause riots and criminal reaction, etc. And, as with the Nazis, certain elements in the state seem perfectly happy to overlook this, even when presented with direct evidence.)
  • Religious activity. (On the one hand, appeals to Christians and claims of preserving the Protestant faith. On the other, much use of pagan symbols and occassional tendencies towards pseudo-pagan rituals. This last is the most bizarre element of the BNP, and I often wonder if the very reason certain members have gone out of their way to learn about and introduce these motifs is purely to present the party in a Nazi context. It seems particularly un-British, or at least un-modern - all of the mainstream political parties in this country, going back to the 1850s, have been avowedly secular - but, given how a significant number of recent cabinet ministers, in contravention of political tradition, have avowed their belief and stressed the paramount importance of religion and of faith communities, it's one of those weird echoes between New "Labour" and the far-right.)
  • An interesting relationship with mainstream right-wing parties. (Like the Nazis with the Weimar equivalent, the BNP has membership cross-over with the Conservative party, and the earlier far-right parties had clear partisan links [BNP fore-runners policing meetings of the rabid right of the Tory party, senior and aged Tory figures helping to establish far-right groups for working-class youths, that kind of things]. More than that, there's a tendency of some more mainstream Tories [and Blairites] towards apologia - implicitly excusing the BNP's violence and mendacity by claiming it's an understandable reaction to an intolerable situation, blaming things [immigration, increased liberty, social mobility, etc.] that the Tories have always tended to oppose rather than the things they tend to [in action, at least] support [mass unemployment, extreme poverty, a divided working class, ghettoisation, etc.]. There is an element of paternalism towards a wayward child in the attitude of a few arch Tories and establishment figures to the BNP - much, much less so than there was between the German establishment and the Nazis in the 1920s, but it's still there.)

To put it in context: One could say that the BNP is, basically, what the Nazi party was in the early 1920s. It has the same core ideology, many of the same (entirely false) beliefs, many of the same policies (albeit modernised), and it now seems to be having the same effect on the wider political culture (though how much the BNP is responsible for that is debatable - for the most part, it's merely a useful tool for certain press barons to point at and say "told you so").

However, the BNP seems to lack a foreign policy. I'm not aware of it having ever presented any plans for the military, for international trade and diplomacy, or stated its belief of what Britain's place in the world should be. It certainly doesn't seem to be imperialistic (in the sense of wanting to conquer other countries - though a BNP government in Westminster would lead to Socltand and Wales seceeding from the Union, which might lead to an attempt at military conquest of those newly seperate countries). This is a clear difference between the BNP and the Nazis. But the party is still quite young, and, electorally, insignificant, so this could change if the party does grow.

Certainly, the party seems to have been built as a neo-Nazi movement under Tyndall. But under Griffin, a land-owning Cambridge graduate and (excepting his criminal record) about as perfect an example of Middle England as you can find, it is probably closest to the Tory party pre-Peel. But it should be noted that Nazism, like other fascists movements and Soviet Communism, is principally a system of non-heriditary monarchy/oligarchy, so has a natural link with conservative traditions.

And now, thanks to the party's derisory success in local politics, the party is operating in two different ways (like most parties do). They are united by racist assumptions, but BNP council candidates seem unaware of the philosophy of the ideologues at the centre, talking only about local issues and offering what they think are solutions. BNP locals are barely distinguishable (more honest about what they actually believe, less under the control of a centralised party machine) from hard-right Tory locals - exploitative, incompetent, indolent, hateful, bigoted and fundamentally wrong, but without the macro-political policies that parallel the Nazis.

Part of the problem here may be talk of Nazi parties and neo-Nazi movements, when, IMO, these factions should all be described as fascist. The Nazi Party was a specific party with specific policies, platforms, tactics and tendencies that resulted from the effect of socio-political events, the cultural and historical background, and many other factors, that surrounded its genesis and development. The same goes for the BNP, and for Mussolini's Fascist Party. But all of these groups can be adequately described as fascist.

Finally: nice to see Red Action name-checked. Now there was a bunch of lads who actually did keep the scum off our streets. Sadly missed.

Every single "point" here is at the very least highly contestable, and much of it is downright patent rubbish. I wonder why the (largely true) points by user:203.202.120.157 cannot be restored, minus the personal attacks? There is little point in my disporving all of these points when he has disproven many of them already. As for the anome's latest edit - as far as I can see it has simply restored this pseudo-intellectual anti-BNP vitriolic nonsense and included no comments against it; I hardly see how that will "make both sides happy"! 80.255 18:21, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The last three points in the list may be contestable, although I maintain they're an accurate record of the BNP's relevant activites. The rest of the points are based on what the BNP says it believes in, the policies set out in its manifesto at the last general election and/or in material circulated by or within the party (during Griffin's period as leader). It is a fact that the party is racist, it is a fact that it advocates a programme of eugenics, it is a fact that it wishes to ban trade unions, it is a fact that it wishes Britain's economy to be restructured to follow command capitalism, etc., etc., etc. (at least, all of these things were facts at the last general election). If it's your contention that the BNP doesn't really believe what it says it believes... well, more fool you. If you do belong to the BNP, I suggest you better acquaint yourselves with the policies put forward by your leaders - and don't fret too much, as you're certainly not the first person to be taken for a ride by fascists (or even by Nick Griffin).
I've just had a look at the BNP site to view their policies. I'm afraid that I can't find anything relating to forced sterilisation, forced abortions, abuse of disabled people, torture of homosexuals etc. etc. etc.
You appear to either be making the whole thing up or, more likely, reading someone elses propoganda. Either way, you don't seem to be able to cite any direct references. That does seem rather convenient. Just saying "trust me, I saw it somewhere" isn't really good enough!
As for it being patent rubbish... Absolutely, all the BNP's beliefs and policies are patent rubbish. At least we all seem to agree on that - can it be inserted into the article?
Well, it least here you explicitly admit that everything above is your POV. That should be good enough reason to have it removed from this page, even if it's only a talk page! -- 207.176.15.10 14:39, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just for the record I didn't write any of the above, some anonymous contributor did. In response to 80,202 Yes they shold be restored provided the personal attacks are removed G-Man 18:25, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Sorry, I'm way behind the times: what was it that user:203.202.120.157 said that was deleted? (less any personal attacks, of course) -- The Anome 19:55, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just for the record, and with reference to user 82.34.176.94's comments above regarding the Daily Express apparently calling the BNP 'nazis' in one of its recent articles, it is quite apparent that the Express is very comfortable with Blair's government and is hardly likely to be 'nice' about the BNP. The Express is owned by Richard Desmond, the extremely rich publisher of OK! magazine and a large range of pornographic titles. Desmond needed the nod from Steven Byers (then Labour's Trade Minister) before he was allowed to purchase the Express. By sheer coincidence, days after being given the 'okay', Desmond felt it necessary to contribute £100,000 to the Labour Party. Strange that! Not that it would have any influence on the Express's attitude towards the BNP of course. Perish the thought! 210.8.100.52 21:30, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Desmond is a millionaire porn baron who supports our corrupt, closet Tory government. So? That under Desmond's ownership that the Express has caught up with the rest of Britain in pointing out the BNP's political colours is not something affected by his personal circumstances. It's nice to see one of the bastions of rabid far-right lunacy discovering a little bit of the real world - and even nicer that Peter Hitchens (has he joined the BNP yet?) got all huffy about it.
I would say it has to do with casting doubt on the impartiality of the Express newspaper (along with most others papers, no doubt), so that anything they say, even calling people 'nazis', can be taken as not meaning very much! It's amazing that some people even bother quoting from the media, which is always running to its own agenda and has never been impartial in its entire existence!
The point is, the above comment that was being responded to was; No major national newpaper, broadcaster, etc. has refered to the BNP as "fascist" or "neo nazi". Only the far-left ANL do this. Hence the original statement is biased. Well, you may not agree with them, but major newspapers have obviously described the BNP as Nazi. That is a fact, not a biased comment. You can't keep shifting the goalposts to suit yourself. BTW, why is it everybody who says anything negative about the BNP is an 'ANL dupe', wheras everything that comes out of Nick Griffin's mouth or that appears on the squeaky-clean 'respectable' BNP website is obviously the undisputed truth? Was it Mandy Rice-Davies who once said "Well they would say that wouldn't they?" 82.34.176.114 18:01, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think there are several points. The first is whether certain newspapers have an in-place policy of calling the BNP 'fascist' or 'neo-nazi'. Fascist is a very dated word and is certainly not used regularly by the majority of reporters. It just isn't a word that people relate to these days. Neo-Nazi is used in some articles, (usually when a reporter wants to stress how very nasty he/she believes something to be), but, again, it is not used regularly by all reporters in any particular newspaper. You've shown that one article in the Express used the term recently. That does not make it a policy. If you can honestly say that every BNP-related article in the Express refers to them as neo-nazis, then your point will be taken! The second point is that all media is biased. Everybody knows that this is a fact. You know it, I know it, and everybody who reads these words knows it! As far as the truth is concerned, the press simply aren't interested. They're only interested in selling newspapers. If they can use some sensationalist words to sell a few more copies, they won't hesitate. So them calling the BNP 'nazis' doesn't really amount to much. When the newspaper in question, the Express, is controlled by a man who also publishes titles such as Asian Babes, then its moral credibility is easily called into doubt! The last point, which was forcefully put in 194.165.163.106's little rant above, is that the BNP probably don't care what the media call them, and that a public, who are so often branded as racist themselves, are becoming increasingly less likely to take notice when the media use the same, or harsher words, to brand someone else.
You said No major national newpaper, broadcaster, etc. has refered to the BNP as "fascist" or "neo nazi". Only the far-left ANL do this. Hence the original statement is biased. I have demonstated that at least one major national newspaper has described them thus. So have others. The issue isn't what you or I think of the Daily Depress or whethjer the media is honest or anything else. The point is you said No major national newpaper, broadcaster, etc. has refered to the BNP as "fascist" or "neo nazi". Only the far-left ANL do this. Hence the original statement is biased. Nothing else. 'NPOV' doesn't mean. 'License to rewrite history in keeping with the revisionist image Nick Griffin would like the BNP to present to the world nowadays'.82.34.176.114 20:15, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The term "newspaper" is usually taken to mean "broadsheet". I'm sure you would not agree that "Tony the Crony is a Phoney" should be included in the Tony Blair article, just because it was written in the Sun! 80.255 20:43, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
In case you're confusing me with another user, 82.34.176.114, the "No major national newpaper ..." statement was not mine! I was just arguing against your usage of one article, by one reporter, in one newspaper as justifying an inclusion in the main article that that newspaper, as a whole, calls the BNP 'nazis'. It's petty 'sound bite' journalism on your part. I can guarantee that the number of times the Express have referred to the BNP without calling them 'nazis', far outweighs the number of times they have called them 'nazis'! That being the case, the article would be more accurate if it mentioned such conveniently left out facts. Would you object to that change!? You're just point scoring with a single, trivial fact. Would you agree that no newspapers, broadsheet or tabloid, have a policy of always referring to the BNP as 'nazis'!? Would you also agree that the context in which newspapers sometimes call the BNP 'nazis' has nothing to do with ideological comparisions between the two organisations, but is just an expression used to label any group which is viewed as having far-right policies!? Once you understand these points, I believe you will be a better article writer. 213.185.113.67 22:33, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
As to why you get called an 'ANList', it's just people doing to you what you do to them. If you call people that support the BNP 'nazis', then those same people are simply going to call you names in return. If you don't like name-calling, you shouldn't participate in doing the same! As for the "Well they would say that wouldn't they?" quote, I suspect that millions of other people have used it besides Mandy Rice-Davies! 213.185.113.67 23:10, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
And snidey little comments about Stalin are perfectly acceptable and NPOV? As ever, the far right version of free speech works one way only 82.34.176.114 20:15, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
In which case I wonder why the BNP have consistently stated that, were they to be elected into government, they would ensure free speech to all groups, including those of the far left that would have the BNP banned! 80.255 20:43, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Again, 82.34.176.114, I have never referred to you, or anyone else, as Stalinist, so there's probably a case of mistaken identity here. The only reference I can see to Stalin, is your asking Paul Weaver "How's Stalin these days ;-)" 213.185.113.67 22:33, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Would it be possible to unprotect the article again? See how it goes for a couple of days; it's easy to revert if things don't go nicely! Does anybody else agree or not? 203.202.120.157 23:40, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Use of the term "neo-Nazi"

I suggest that this term be replaced with "fascist" or "neo-fascist". The "Is the BNP Neo-Nazi" section contains nothing linking the party to the Nazis, and all alleged connections are with organisation/people who could be described as "fascist" more accurately. I also suggest that the David Duke allegation be moved to the "Is the BNP racist" section, since the KKK have far more a connection with racism than with nazism. I haven't made these changes as yet, but I shall do if there are no objections. 80.255 23:18, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

While I agree that the use of 'neo-nazi' to describe the BNP is daft, I think the purpose for the section, 'Is the BNP a neo-Nazi organisation?', is to show that some opponents do use the term, and then to state why they do and why they are wrong. Perhaps the title should be 'Who Calls the BNP neo-Nazis, and Why?' Again though, I think it better to leave the section in, but to show how silly the 'neo-nazi' name tag is. I really don't think that those who call the BNP 'nazis' actually believe that there is an ideologic link between the BNP and the real nazis; it's more that they believe the BNP to be racist and, in their minds, that instantly makes them 'nazis' as well. It's handbags at 20 paces stuff, just like the same type of people used to (and probably still do) call the police fascist pigs! I'm not even sure if they realise that calling a white person a 'nazi' is roughly the equivalent of using the 'n' word to describe a black person, i.e. both are equally as repugnant! Anyway, perhaps some of those who think that the BNP are nazis will have a read of Griffin's stance on the subject [1] and give their response, preferably without quoting Mandy Rice-Davies! 213.185.113.67 01:18, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I quite agree that it's a daft name, although I'm trying to pose this question as a neutral observer. The point was mainly the fact that the alleged "evidence" in the neo-nazi section has really no connection to nazism at all, expect for one person (Dr.Pierce) whom some poster took it upon themselves to describe as "neo-nazi"! I hardly think this is sound grounds for the section to exist at all, regardless of my own opinions on the suitability of the label. "Alleged links to racism" - fine, all the "opponents allege... however the BNP claims..." type content can go there; but "links to neo-nazism" has so far been extremely unconvincing. Simply the fact that "some commentators have used the term" really does not justify a subheading, unless the "evidence" within in is considerably better than "it has been alleged the someone we'll call a "neo-nazi" was once in attendance at a BNP meeting almost ten years ago under a previous party leader who's since been expelled for extremism"! If the unsubstantiated use of the "neo-Nazi" term really must be mentioned, put it in context under the "opponents of the BNP" subheading. 80.255 02:02, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


The party has also stated that it does not regard non-ethnically British people' as being 'British', even if they have been born in the UK and are British citizens. Instead, the BNP has stated that such people living in the UK would be regarded as 'permanent guests
The replacemnt of the word white with ethnically British is disingenuous. There is no such thing as ethnically British, or if there is it is the ancient Britons. Ethnically European or Nordic or Celtic etc... but not ethnically British. Mintguy 11:27, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The point here is that the party uses the term "ethnically British" to define exactly who it is refering to. Using the term "non-white" is equally disingenous in that the BNP regards some whites (e.g. eastern europeans) as not being "ethnically British". 80.255 11:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I'm half Irish. Do I count? Morwen 11:30, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
yes! 80.255 11:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Cool. Is there a list somewhere? Morwen 11:33, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A list of what? The BNP decides its immigration policy on the grounds of cultural similarity and the most effective and least divisive incorporation into British culture - in order to avoid such regrettable events as the riots of recent years. If you read John Tyndall's book it is very clear that he considers the Irish to be as British as the English. Current BNP policy is eventually work towards a union of federal states including the now republic of Ireland, "should they want to join us". My gosh - deciding immigration on the grounds of who best accords with British culture - how racist, nazi, fascist, third reich, etc.! 80.255 11:46, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A list of ethnicities that are similar enough. From your phrasing above, where eastern europeans are specificially excluded, i would guess that at least some western europeans aren't? So, Danes, French, Germans, similar enough, and Poles, Russians and Albanians not? What about southern europeans like Italians and Spanish? Morwen 11:50, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm not a spokesman for the BNP; I can only tell what I know about its policies. My point is that "exclusion" is on the grounds of culture not specfically race. Ethnicity is a cultural measure, not a racial one, hence use of the term "non-whites" was misleading. Perhaps your question would be better directed at the BNP's webmaster in an email. 80.255 12:01, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dispute notice

Is anyone still disputing the neurality of this article. If not could the header be removed. G-Man 23:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I dispute that the article is neutral, assuming you continue to revert it back to your POV version. This contains a great number of highly POV statements which you keep trying to revert. You also keep reverting to a version which deleted a lot of highly relevant and informative text, and have yet to justify this. I shall continue to revert it back to the previous version until you state exactly which specific parts you believe are either inacurate or biased about it. I could certainly find plenty of such instances in 'your' version! 80.255 08:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate!

Hello there,

I'm new to this wikipedia lark, so please let me know if my first contribution meets (or fails to meet) any 'standards' that are laid down for editing articles. I'm writing a devil's advocate paper (as part of an assignment for college) called 'People in Glass Houses...', which deals with much of the hypocrisy that eminates from the three major political parties when they condemn the activities of smaller parties (e.g. BNP, UKIP, etc.). I didn't choose the assignment and I must admit to having little interest in politics until I was handed this piece of work, so I can honestly claim to be totally neutral, which I gather, from looking at the BNP article, is a bit of a rarity in this neck of the woods! ;-) Anyway, just thought I'd introduce myself and let you know that I'll be adding bits and bobs to the article as time permits.

James.

All seems fine

I don't see what the fuss is about i am a supporter of the BNP and I think the writer(s) of the current article on the BNP has provided arguments from both sides of the spectrum which as a person and as a BNP supporter i am glad that freedom of speech on both sides has been aloud and both views have been stated. (freedom of speech and democracy is a key BNP policy) A number of links to anti-BNP sites have been made but to make up for that some pro-BNP sites including their own site have also been including which is fine also, this is extremely pleasing as many other sites never provide a link to the BNP site including the Blair's Broadcasting Coorparation (BBC) site. Well done I enjoyed the read, i love hearing the leftwing arguments and accusations they are heliarious and so predictable. Regards, Louis

    • Having read the BNP website, I don't think we need any anti-BNP links, the pathetic arguments they use to defend their racist stance do enough damage, although it appears that there are some unfortunates stuck in the last century who support them regardless.
      • Being unfortunate to have been born in the last century (my father in the one before), I am better able to view the progress over the years of our now totally potty and illogical PC society and for that reason feel the BNP has a valid reason to be (If not mandatory). I look at the situation from a now point of view and suggest you all do the same. It`s no good harping back to the past - there`s no changing it - the future is there to improve, not to argue through.

First, my source of the European parliament statement and other quotes is this: [2].

Second, can we remove the dispute notice in light of the above statement?

Third, this article is a good example of where the 'factual' approach to encyclopedia articles would work. A lot of energy gets expended on whether we can, in the article, apply the label 'racist' or 'fascist'. We shouldn't need to worry about this. Suppose instead you simply report what the BNP policies are (or were), plus some authoritative quotes. The European parliament quote is a good example - we certainly can't investigate the claim as thoroughly as they did, so lets just quote their results. Likewise if we state that the party had a policy of compulsory repatriation of foreigners, we don't really need to add much commentary on this. It's pretty obvious to everybody what they mean.

(Incidentally there is a whole fruitful little research project for someone in that statement - what exactly did they mean by 'foreigners'; I'm prepared to bet they didn't mean denying citizenship to anyone not born here).

DJ Clayworth 14:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If no-one comes up with specific objections before (say) 12 July - that's one week - then take it off. Else we can work on those objections - David Gerard 16:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I have no position on the BNP as I'm an Aussie and it's the first I've heard of them. I can see several things that need to change, however:
  • "Opponents claim that this episode has left the party in crisis, with Tyndall's commenting that he may take Griffin to court although there is no outward evidence of this." Firstly, this sentence is unclear. Is there no outward evidence that Tyndall is going to take Griffin to court, or is there no outward evidence that the party is in crisis? Secondly, the sentence doesn't state who the opponents are. As an outside viewer who knows nothing about the BNP I would have no idea who these people are, so could we have this clarified?
  • "However, given the openly racist and/or violent history of a number of prominent BNP members, critics of the BNP have claimed that the changes made by Griffin are a superficial attempt to hide what they claim to be the BNP's "real character"." - which critics? Weasel term is in use here.
  • "It has been alleged that the BNP retains links to an openly violent neo-Nazi organisation called Combat 18" - who alleges this?
  • "A number of individuals from the established parties also sport such long-ago convictions, and the BNP is quick to point these out, accusing the aforesaid critics of selective disapproval over this matter." - which individuals? needs specific people as this is pretty general and as an outside reader who knows nothing about the subject matter I have no way of verifying this statement. Could we get this sentence clarified?
See the link to the BNP website in the reference following this: [3] for some individuals. 213.122.187.29 01:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • "Opponents answer the BNP's rebuttal by stating that the offences alleged are substantially more serious than the offences typically committed by the general population of minor criminals, and that the people named are leading members of the BNP." - again, which opponents? (see my reason for needing this info in my above point)
  • "However critics reply that the BNP is far smaller than any of those parties and so the proportion of BNP members with criminal convictions is far higher than in any of the major parties." - which critics?
  • "Some critics of the party claim that it endorses consideration of "forcible repatriation" for those foreigners who refuse to return, although no reference can be found to this on the BNP's website or in any other party literature." - which critics?
  • "The party has often been accused of exploiting and inflaming racial tensions for its own benefit in a number of areas" who is doing the accusing? Without saying who it's difficult for us to verify this info.
  • "One of the most interesting points about the Sunderland elections was how the different news media reported the outcome." And? Firstly, don't mention it's interesting. We can work this out for ourselves. Secondly, how did the different news media report the outcome? I'm not British, how am I meant to know how they covered it? Can we have a clarification of this issue?
Originally, this was stated, but at some point someone must have removed it for some reason. Look at the history when the comment was added. The interesting thing was that half of the media used to results to portray the BNP as having done very poorly ("BNP fails in Sunderland"/etc.), and the other half ran headlines about the "very high BNP vote"/huge increase in vote/victory for the BNP/etc.". 213.122.187.29 01:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • "Since this statement was made, one further defection to the party has taken place (as of April 2004)." - who defected again? Please clarify.
  • "The BNP is generally condemned by most liberal/left-wing sections of the media" I know this says generally, but can we clarify who condemns the organisation. We need to let the facts speak for themselves and not inject commentary into this article if we can help it - this is not really good NPOV writing.
I agree. The BNP is comdemned primarily by rival political parties - which isn't really surprising, given the nature of politics! This statement somehow changed into "generally condemned", which in my view is very POV. 213.122.187.29 01:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, this could be made stronger - the BNP is regularly condemned by the right-wing media too, for example the Sun and Daily Mail newspapers VoluntarySlave 10:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "It is thought that their strong anti-EU policies strike a chord with many disenchanted Conservative voters." It is thought by whom? Please clarify.
  • "Because of its lack of substantial electoral support across the country, but despite their high media profile, the BNP is still widely considered to be at the fringes of British politics" - this may be the case, but it's still a generalisation and appears to be a POV. Perhaps this could be rewritten?
  • "Both groups have held frequent protests against BNP events, some of which have ended in violent confrontation between ANL and BNP members." specific occurances of violence would be good to clarify this and make it look less like a POV. It also lets us verify factual authority of the statement.
Perhaps if these things could be clarified or modified by the authors then the NPOV tag could be removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page needs updating with Euro and Local elections 2004.

Exile

Quick Edits

I edited out a tenuous link - the BNP are strong in labour heartlands, thus it must be old Labout supporters who are turning to the BNP.

I also added a short sentence about UKIP in the European elections, however I think more mention needs to be made in this article about UKIP, who many would say are "the acceptable BNP" - they certainly appeared to provide an outlet for anti-European sentiment in the June 2004 elections, damaging the BNP vote immensely.

I am liberal politically, I personally hate the BNP, but I am trying to retain a NPOV and describe accurately the changes made. Cheers. Tom

Removal of dispute notice

I removed this notice as activity on this article seems to have decreased, suggesting that people don't feel too strongly about its contents any more. If you put it back it might be worth giving a brief justification here. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm putting it back as none of my comments were addressed. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the following:

The phrase "secure a future for white children" would probably be understood by white nationalists as an allusion to the 14 Words, a well-known white nationalist mantra derived from Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf. It is extremely unlikely that Griffin is unfamiliar with the phrase.

This is pure speculation and unworthy of a reputable encyclopedia. If the author can find an academic who has made this point I'll put it back.

"Neo-Nazi" category

I posted these comments at Talk:BNP, the new disambig page. They are equally applicable here: Describing the BNP as "neo-nazi" is inescapably POV and highly debatable and contentious. Such a term has no place in a matter-of-fact description. That some groups consider the party "neo-nazi" is covered in the article. Placing the article in category:neo-nazi parties, etc. is utterly unacceptable under the neutral point-of-view policy. The term is discussed in this article. The BNP clearly disapproves of the use of such terms to describe it, and that alone makes the label unusable as a straightforward factual statement. 80.255 16:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have filed them under Category:Right-wing_populists, a cetegory I think they would not dispute. (Note that a number of other parties in this category, such as the French Front National have also been described by their opponents as having neo-Fascist tendencies). I hope this satisfies both POVs. -- Karada 22:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your assertion that the BNP disapproving of the label means it can't be applied is entirely false. Wikipedia articles aren't public relations exercises - David Gerard 12:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David Gerard, I commend you; I couldn't have said it better myself! ---WGee 06:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned (reading through all of it takes some time!) but the BNP do not allow persons of mixed race to become a meber of the party. Not tht this is suprising, but it really hammers home the point of just how vile this so called 'political' organisation is.

Has anyone seen this? If multiple verification can be found, might be interesting as an example - David Gerard 12:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, OK, I should read the article ... I've put it in as a reference - David Gerard 12:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You might also like to read the BNP's response to this article, which it states is largely nonsense cooked up to sell papers... 62.253.64.12 03:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Again I have removed this POV and unacceptable category. Responding to the comment above, whether or not it be any given person's opinion that BNP policies are 'vile', these are not grounds for calling branding it the with the stupidly tabloidy, very inaccurate and factually unfounded term of 'neo-nazi'. Yes, the BNP does not accept members from certain ethnic groups; neither does the Black and Asian Police Association, is that "neo-nazi" too?
The BNP's policies are discussed in the article. The fact that the BNP itself categoricaly denies any similaries to or sympathies with Nazism establishes that use of the term is at best extremely questionable and disputed, and at worst, pure political propagandising --both of which are clearly in breach of wikipedia's NPOV policy. In short, the inclusion of the 'neo-nazi' category is biased and indefensible in an encyclopaedia. 62.253.64.12 03:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a Godwin's Law equivalent term coined...

All Nazis are racists but not all racists are Nazis. If they deny Naziism, then it's not right to include this article in Neo-Nazi Political Parties category. The BNP are idiots, but not Nazis, and using the phrase "Nazi" to describe their fundamental core is, as per the spirit of Godwin's Law, vocabularily and journalistically lazy. (lol, I know, if "vocabularily" is not a word, then this very sentence is ironic). --I run like a Welshman 05:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changes to the "Policies" section

I might be digging up old arguments here, but I think that including this quote might be a bad example of the POV running through this article:

""On current demographic trends, we, the native British people will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years." "They ignore the fact that immigration from Europe, and beyond, has always taken place and "native British people" is a fluid rather than fixed concept."

That's not a policy, that's their opinion. There's a difference. From what I remember, in terms of politics, an opinion is something that you believe in, whereas a policy is something that you intend to do with your beliefs. I think replacing this with a quote of their policy on voluntary repatriation (yes, they wouldn't make life easy for those who stayed, but...) would more appropriate. Without the POV comment. However, I can't see anything wrong with blandly quoting their policies on miscegenation - I think it's abhorrent (and genetically short-sighted), but they don't.

""The BNP pledges to restore corporal punishment for "petty criminals and vandals" and restore capital punishment for "paedophiles, terrorists and murderers". "Their beliefs on punishment are not backed by any scientific evidence."

... which indicates again that whoever is quoting these policies from the BNP is doing so with the intent of invalidating them. This is not our responsibility as Wikipedians - our responsibility is to summarise what we know, not give our opinions on it in an article which is supposedly a part of a high-quality encyclopaedia!

I've made a few more additions also (mentioning their wish to increase defence expenditure), and my command of grammar is good, but someone might want to internationalise the blatantly British variation of English if that's what Wikipedia demands. (I can't bring myself to say it... "color" "honor" "armor" NOOOOOO)

I hope this attempt at NPOV doesn't get shredded... --Dizcorp 07:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Edit) I may have worded my comment about miscegenation wrong. I personally believe that their policies on it are abhorrent - "miscegenation" is genetically a good idea (mongrels and hybrids being far healthier than inbred pedigrees, never understood why the word "mongrel" was such a bad thing!), whereas the BNP don't think so, they're advocates of racial purity... Silly me, that's what I get for an early morning edit. --Dizcorp 16:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the following line:

In practice, opponents of the BNP might argue that the page mainly includes minor politicians (some of whom have been absent from front-line politics for many years), people who were never charged and smears.

This is meant to be an encyclopaedia article; what opponents of the BNP might argue is purely speculative and strikes me as being solely the opinion of whoever wrote it. If someone wants to add a specific, notable opponent who actually does argue this, then by all means state it. 80.255 21:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


New statement: 

This entry is an atrocity of bias and appalling writing .it is clearly teh work of infantile extreme leftists and is more suited to the inside pages of one of their in house 'newspapers' than on the pages of wikipedia.

As  someone intersted in neither the BNP's position nor their far left detractors this whole entry stinks and should not be edited but completely rewritten by someone without bias.



Affiliated parties?

Where is the source for any of this? Neither the BNP website nor any of those parties states in any manner any affiliation, and the vague idea of "informal associations" with unionist parties is, in itself, totally without any basis. I have removed the unionist statement till such time as sources are provided, and unless evidence of 'affiliated parties' is provided I will remove that also.

THe BNP used to have a list of parties on its sight that it agreed with but these were removed when the site was revamped in about autumn 2005. There was a plan, had the BNP won Euro seats, to form an alliance with the Front National, the Vlaams Blok and the Austrian Freedom Party. This is on their site somewhere - probably about April 2004 - but I can't be bothered to go through it myself.

31 Jan 06 finnophile

Oh now, come on

I do not support the BNP, National Front, Third Way etc, etc but I can easily srick up for them here. In a democracy, a party is allowed views. If thast view was to completely extraodrinary, who are we to complain? They have their right to say that. Neo-Nazi? I won't even go into this. Read BNP policies, and read Nazi policies and then compare. The BNP is not affiliated with any other party, the three i mentioned hate each other. The National Front leavers are the BNP and the BNP leavers (one nobdy really wants) are in Third Way. We're in a Democracy, we are already in a state of hate, is more hate really your aim?

  • I quite agree with the statement of the wikipedian above. I say that anyone calling the BNP racist or Neo-Nazi are completly blind or just stupid. The British National Party are in fact trying to build a better Britain, one with affluent, moral and well tought people.

I believe that you will find it is taught and considering the BNP plan to deport all non-whites should they get the chance I believe you will find what they actually wish to achieve is crippling its economy by making a substantial fraction of our workforce vanish.

-Revamp

Anybody calling the BNP racist in blind? Please, you obviously haven't read their platform, blind one. Nick Griffen has said: "... while the BNP is not racist, it must not become multi-racist either. Our fundamental determination to secure a future for white children is restated, and an area of uncertainty is addressed and a position which is both principled and politically realistic is firmly established. We don't hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will." [11]

The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1966: 

   ...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. [1]

Therefore, the BNP is racist without question.

Far-Right?

This is taken fron the 'Nick Griffin' discussion page but I think it is relevent here also:

"Its very debateable as to whether the BNP is 'Far-Right' or not. Freedom of Speech, Proportional representation, distributism, Bill of Rights... To me that sounds very much like a centre-left standpoint. I wouldn't say they fit anywhere on the traditional Left-Right political spectrum. I have therefore removed the 'far Right' description, as I don't think this fits." 

         However, the fact he wants to move all foreigners out of the country and make gun ownership
              compulsory for anyone who has served in the army would push him more towards the right
me thinks!

                     No, 'he' or rather the party does not want to move all foreigners out of
the country at all, so removed again. I mean, with the Wikipedia article on the Labour party you
havn't used the term 'Neo-Marxist' have you?

This is ridiculous, whoever made this section and the preceding edits are very ignorant of both the BNP's policies and political science in general. Read the BNP's entire platform before making such absurd suggestions. This is reminiscent of the sort of ignorance and naiveness the German electorate displayed during the rise of Hitler. -- WGee 01:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Griffin on the IRA

According to the article, Griffin called the IRA "Marxist thugs who undermine true Irish nationalism". Can we get a source for this quote? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true, but it helps to be sourced as far as possible with articles like this. Agentsoo 20:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sure, Griffin stated this in the closing end of his speech at David Duke's European American Confrence 2005. See: [4] and scroll down to Sat afternoon. Also several simmilar references against the violence of the IRA are asserted in BNP news. See: [5] and [6]

Interesting that the IRA killed 3000 people but that does not matter anymore, yet somehow denouncing the BNP in the House of Commons is a priority post 7/7... anyways that's just my 'racist' POV - LOL.


Why can't information about BNP and Griffin's opposition to IRA be put on page again, I have given you refrences?????



The BNP supports democracy and opposes despotism and therefore simply cannot accurately be called fascist. I will therefore remove insinuations of fascism.

Whether the BNP can accurately be described as fascist is not as relevant as whether the BNP has, however inaccurately, been described as fascist, and it clearly has been by certain extreme left-wing groups. 80.255 21:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

redwatch

Paragraph - "Members of the BNP have been implicated in involvement with the Redwatch hate website..."

- which members? Implicated by whom? On what evidence? This is a weasel statement, intended to push a POV, that has not been substantiated. Unless someone can find some facts to put behind it, I shall remove it. 80.255 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark Collett, on the BBC documentary. From his own mouth in front of several million people my friend.

So, in other words, "One single member of the BNP have been implicated in involvement with the Redwatch hate website...".
Can you provide a reference to this quote from this single BNP member, and I'll amend the paragraph? 80.255 16:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Political Ideology

Next to the "Political Ideology" user 193.34.231.225 added "Racial Nationalism/Homophobic/Anti -Semtic/Islamaphobic/" to the previous "Nationalist" classification. This does not seem to meet with NPOV standing. I will change it back to "Nationalist."

---Yetiwriter

the bnp are fascist racist and cruel they are not patriotic and will be destroyed so stop changing it

brit pat

ps sorry for tthe page display muck up

Evidence?

I have yet to find evidence of the BNP saying they would reduce unemployment and disability benefits.

So from the sentence below that appears in the article, where is the evidence?

"Other policies include the promotion of organic farming, increasing defence spending and ending British foreign aid, also reducing unemployment benefits and disability benefits."

After 30 seconds Googling - we find the BNP manifesto from 2005 [7] - "We believe that it is absurd that 38% of voters are now recipients of meanstested benefits while public services languish. While we do not believe in cutting the welfare state as an end in itself, we will reduce the number of people receiving benefits and reallocate the funds to the truly needy (especially pensioners) and to public services like the NHS, schools, and public transport." - not specifically about who the targets of the benefit reduction will be though. Jooler 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

the bnp are against disabled people becouse they believe in a pure white race therefor disabled people are seen as a drain on society? This preceeding unsigned comment left by User:172.203.5.21

Where's the evidence? I've never seen any evidence that the BNP are against disabled people because they believe in the "pure white race".

Just sit down and talk to a member for five or ten minutes. When they start saying how gays and cripples should be sterilised, realise they aren't joking. Or, look at their manifesto from the 2001 (unforuntatley no longer on their website), in which they recommended the sterilisation of those with mental or physical disabilities and compulsory "treatment" for homosexuals.

Stoke Mayoral Election

During the Stoke Mayoral Election of 2000, the BNP came third under a Transferrable Vote system. The returning officer eliminated all parties other than those who came first and second, took into account the second preferences for those who voted for those two parties and declared the result. He should have taken all second preferences into account. If he had done so, the BNP would have won. But, amusingly, the BNP polling agents were too stupid to realise this! However, their subsequent allegation is not 'without any evidence' as somebody keeps writing. There is very clear evidence and, in the interests of accuracy, I will keep removing 'without any evidence' whenever I find it reinserted.

Finnophile, 1st Jan 06.

How do we know this? What is your source for the info? -Will Beback 17:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Small paragraph deleted

I deleted the following from the section "Opposition to the BNP". It didn't seem to have any relevance to the section and also seems like someones narrative opinion. Wikipedia isn't an outlet for the newspaper columnist in us!

"The BNP calls, in common with other far-right organisations, generally accepted terms to describe people who hate, such as "fascist", "racist", "Islamphobe" and "homophobe", 'politically correct buzzwords used to silence free speech'. On the other hand, how else can the victims of hate crimes, rightfully describe such evil occurrences, other than with terms such as racist or homophobic attacks, when the colour of one's skin, or the orientation of one's sexuality, is the only motive in a particular crime? "

HarryCharles 18:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

During the Stoke Mayoral Election of 2000, the BNP came third under a Transferrable Vote system. The returning officer eliminated all parties other than those who came first and second, took into account the second preferences for those who voted for those two parties and declared the result. He should have taken all second preferences into account. If he had done so, the BNP would have won. But, amusingly, the BNP polling agents were too stupid to realise this! However, their subsequent allegation is not 'without any evidence' as somebody keeps writing. There is very clear evidence and, in the interests of accuracy, I will keep removing 'without any evidence' whenever I find it reinserted.

Finnophile, 1st Jan 06.

Is the BNP fascist?

There seems to be dispute between whether to describe the BNP as ideology: fascist, alleged fascist or fascist (disputed). Who disputes this other than the BNP and sympathisers (cites etc)? Certainly what the BNP claims to stand for seems classic fascist even if, officially at least, it lacks the outright racialism / racism of Nazism and similar fascist groups. Paulleake 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you take the official party line on the matter? Check the official website, they explain how they have changed in the last decade.

By the way, I cleaned up the section "Electoral Strategy" - several misleading, unnecessary and opinionistic lines were removed, and some changed a little. 

81.153.50.183 23:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


BIAS EDIT -

'The organisation is yet, unquestionably racist, and indeed they do not deny this fact, they merely prefer softer-sounding terms for their beliefs. Since current chairman Nick Griffin took over in 2000, he claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing something he calls "ethno-nationalism". That is to say, he claims (disputed by his opponents) that his core ideology is "concern for the well-being of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnic nations that compose the United Kingdom", even though the Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom, and significant proportions of Irish people have harboured disdain for British Unionism since Oliver Cromwell's invasion of Ireland during the British Interregnum.'

This part has obviously been edited by a loon. Rather than being an informative non bias section it seems to be more of a rant. For instance it is obvious that the BNP refers to the Northern Irish members of the United Kingdom and furthermore many there do wish to stay within the United Kingdom. Also the BNP many times have denied being racist and it is not a 'fact' that they are racist. Although they seem to be racialist, the meanings if you do your research are different.

False Linking

The link named "Nationalism" in the info box was actaully linked to "National Socialism". I changed it to "Nationalism" for which an article already exists. The overt political bias permitted in Wikipedia is extraordinary.

Annette's Knickers

I've removed the 'Annette's Knickers' link from the list of pro-BNP articles, as while it was obviously coming from the same perspective as the BNP, it didn't specifically refer to them, thus making it not a 'pro-BNP article' in the sense used here. --Apeloverage 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Picture of Nick Griffin looking like a pig

I am removing this picture. There are numerous pictures of him on the internet. The only possible reason for posting looking ugly even by his standards is to discredit him. It's going too far.

Finnophile.

Edit of 00:13, 13 February 2006

I've started to try and pull this article into shape and edit out multiple redundancy (it's currently substantially over the recommended length). I don't believe I have made any substantial changes of POV or any substantial additions or deletions with this edit (apart from moving some detail on Griffin's history re anti-Semitism to his own page). Only the first sections have been properly edited; I've had to pause and file it now for reasons of time and because I was already in danger of losing track of concurrent edits like Apeloverage's (which I've incorporated). Dogville 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Position on the Political Spectrum, Why Are They Far Right...

I've re-added the paragraph, which I originally put in, about how the BNP being 'far-right' doesn't mean they're economically in favour of the free-market but that they're socially conservative.

I've put this in because I think it's highly relevant, given that a main source of contention about the BNP is whether they should be called 'far-right' or not, that the term 'far-right' is used in the article, and that the term is ambiguous.

I agree that the article is too long, but I think this particular element is worth keeping. My suggestion for reducing the length would be the list of crimes committed by BNP members - this could possibly be put into point form.--Apeloverage 11:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Think the addition of a section on BNP violence was also helpful. There's a lot of good stuff in here, it just needs more editing and structure.Dogville 11:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed this down - I figure with a clear link to the BBC's site people cna go look for themselves if they want a full list of every BNP-realted crime. I have, hwoever, kept some of the more violent incidents, or ones carried out by 'active' party members (e.g. councillors, candidates etc.) - rahter than anyone conencted to them Robdurbar 13:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Small" political party??

A party with over 7000 members, with this much written about it in the article and the discussion page can hardly be considered small.

They have no members of parliament. But very well, let's take out the word. 7000 members can be interpreted as the reader sees fit. Don't think that needed a POV tag; the article has been edited back-and-forth and there have been no major disputes recently. So will remove both "small" and POV. Dogville 09:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OTOH it can easily be both "small" and the "largest party of the far-right". Let's leave out both to avoid spin. Dogville 09:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How can that be called spin? Is anyone at all disputing the fact that the BNP is "the largest party of the far-right" in the UK? Whereas the statement of it being small is clearly opinion.

Because to a non-UK reader, coming from a country like say Austria where the large far-right parties play significant roles in parliamentary politics, it might give an undue impression of its influence. I've added a sentence but kept your "largest party" Dogville 09:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I'm a Liberal. However, I feel that the portrayal of the BNP in this article does not represent a NPOV. It seems to be skewed against the BNP and its obvious where the author(s)' sympathies lie. I would personally ask that we try and make it more NPOV.

Perhaps it would be useful to contact BNP and anti-BNP parties to see if they have evidence (and/or points) that is inconsistent, or should also be included along with, the current article. This would not be Original Research (it would just be expedited reserach); the parties would merely indicate to us where various evidence exists.

As much as I despise the BNP it is not in keeping with Wikipedia to produce clearly biased articles. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 19:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is regularly edited by apparently pro-BNP users. Some of these edits survive and others don't stand up to examination. I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to solicit feedback from the BNP. If you believe the article is skewed against the BNP, perhaps it would be more productive to give examples of what you think is unfair. If you want to get in touch with the BNP as part of this process, that's up to you. Dogville 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dogville's right - if you look through the history there have been edits that have been blatently pro BNP and blatently anti BNP. Most are unreferenced and get deleted. Sometimes just reporting the 'facts' doesn't paint a good picture of an organisation, and while the article isn't perfect (by a long way) it isn't blatant PoV either way. Make suggestions though! Paulleake 10:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


I agree that this article is heavily POV orientated. Rather than introduce the BNP as a British political party and have sections about their policies, electorial succsess and history, it breezes over these and focuses almost exclusivly on various negative media articles about them. In keeping with the articles for other British political parties (e.g. Labour and Conservative articles) a major rewrite is required to focus the article on the actual party - it's policies, beliefs and history etc. and not large sections of what are obviously user's opinions of the BNP. Canderra 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. The first two sections are precisely about the BNP's history and policies. I'm not sure what "electorial succsess", but the article certainly discusses electoral strategy and performance.

I agree that the second half of the article, from "electoral strategy" on, could in particular do with some decent editing, and the whole article has plenty of room for improvement, but pretty much all "user opinions" have by now been challenged and as stated above the first half at least is pretty extensively sourced. If you wish to claim POV, perhaps you could cite some instances instead of making sweeping statements. Documented links between eg the BNP's current leader and convicted members of terrorist groups or documented convictions on the part of the BNP's current leader for inciting racial hatred, are not "negative media articles", they are relevant facts.

I suggest you cite some instances of "large sections of user's opinions" if you want to defend your blanket NPOV tag. Dogville 17:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that whether we like it or not, the BNP are a registered political party and therefore one would expect their article not to be too dissimilar from other political parties. I'm not saying that Criticism of the party should not be included, but unlike any of the other articles on British political parties, only a small fraction of this article is actually on the British National Party, the vast majority of the article pertains to alleged links with racism, fascism, violence, public opposition to the party, anti-Semitism etc.
This is a fairly large article, however someone trying to read the article to find objective information about the actual party and not just other people's opinions of the BNP (regardless if they are from cited media) are left with very little useful information.
My suggestion, try reading the article on the United Kingdom Independence Party or the Labour Party (UK) and by the time you reach the end of the article you will have a pretty good idea of the history, policies, leadership and ambitions with a section at the end summarising criticism of the parties. Read this BNP article however and the exact reverse appears: a small section of a couple of paragraphs at the beginning summarising the parties history, policies, leadership, ambitions and then massive quantities of information on all sorts of controversies pertaining to the party and it's members.
While, as I have said, a section on criticism is defiantly warranted for a party such as the BNP, focusing the majority of the article (at least in terms of devoted article-space) on subjective controversies surrounding the party is extremely unencyclopedic. Such extensive detail belongs in a "criticism of the BNP" article, with a summary appearing in this article along with a much greater emphasis on the actual party rather than peoples opinions on it. Canderra 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on

A further ironic development is the conversion of David Myatt, the cultural guru of Combat 18(C18) to Islamism. Myatt continues to be respected by ex-C18 members, several of whom are now BNP candidates.

This is just bad writing "ironic development", "cultural guru". - FrancisTyers 18:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than that sentece - which I agree is very Journalese in style - is there any other reason that you have put the NPOV tag on the article? Robdurbar 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Despite this, the BNP arguably has some overlapping ideological convergences with Islamist extremism.
  • The two incidents however may not be connected.
  • although this has never been substantiated.

The page is full of speculation and weasel words, it could do with much better citation. If you wish I can go through and add {{fact}} tags to the bits that I think need citing... - FrancisTyers 19:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happier if you can be bothered; if you look at it there are already 52 references in the article body, so its not for a want of trying Robdurbar 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe tag sections as NPOV, rather than the whole article, to make it easier to improve.... Robdurbar 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added the tags, it might be worthwhile converting the article to Wikipedia:Footnotes as you have so many references... - FrancisTyers 19:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly much of what you've tagged is vague BNP apologia. On a quick scan through I've removed the tag against Fourteen Words; to see the allusion (direct quote) just go to the linked Wiki article on 14W and sourced a couple of others.

Added something

According to the BNP's website, the party's policies include: 

   * The repatriation of all illegal immigrants and the ending of all immigration.

I added the part in bold because the party states: "We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land's population burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home." [8] (Read point (1) under "Our Key Environment Policies")

They did a nice job of hiding this little tidbit in the environment section. Most people, I suspect, don't need an official party statement to realize that the BNP is opposed to all immigration; nonetheless, it's nice to know the party's official position on things.

WGee 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above quote, I also added:

*The use of firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home.

I'm not quite sure how an incentive can be "firm", but whatever.

That seems quite significant to me, as it indicates that the party not only wants immigrants to leave the country, but all ethnic minorities, regardless of citizenship status. Based on this, would anybody dare say that the BNP doesn't advocate an "ethnically pure" Britain , Nazi-style? That may be an oxymoron, but the point is clear. ---WGee 05:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep; though i think you're repeating yourself with the second policy, so I've merged them into one Robdurbar 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
OK WGee 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need this:

*The introduction of a system of voluntary, financially-aided repatriation for existing, legally-settled immigrants.

It means virtually the same thing as this:

*"Firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home"

I'm going to remove the former quote. The second one indicates that the BNP wants all ethnic minorities out of the country, which is evidently the truth and an important point in their policy. The first one doesn't.

WGee 17:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. The previous merging of policies had confused "encouraged" repatriation of legal immigrants "and their descendants" with the compulsory repatriation of illegal immigrants. In separating the two out I forgot to remove the (already partly redundant) line that you did. Thanks. Dogville 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


BNP = Racist?

"Multi-racialism – a recipe for disaster"

"We are further encouraged to see this as essential by two other factors. The first is the truly gruesome record of multi-ethnic societies breaking down into hatred and mass murder. From Bosnia to Rwanda, Indonesia to Northern Ireland, one only has to scratch most of the conflicts in the world – ranging from low-level loathing to outright genocide – to find that at the root of the problem is the juxtaposition by past migration or strategic decision by a ruling class of two or more different peoples in the same piece of territory." -- From the BNP's 2005 manifesto [9]

In other words, the BNP advocates racial segregation as a central point in its policy. Is racial segregation not racist? Here's Wiki's definition of it:

Racial segregation exists where governments have passed laws either allowing or requiring discrimination on the basis of race.

Here's Wikipedia's definition of racism:

Racism refers to the meme, beliefs, practices, and institutions that seperate and discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed "race". (i.e. racial segregation)

Here's the UN definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Thus, by all definitions of the word, the BNP is racist. However, some people may rightfully object to explicitly referring to the BNP as "racist" due to the vitriolic nature of the term. Therefore, in the "Alleged Racism" section, the first sentence should read:

The British National Party advocates racial segregation, a type of racist discrimination. [10]

The fact that the BNP denies it does not make it false; Wikipedia is not a front of the BNP and its manifesto. If an accused criminal stated that he was "not guilty", would we simply believe him and release him from custody without trial?

WGee 18:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Revision?

I suggest a major revision of this article:

I would like to see the BNP itself given the same article format as other ploitical parties but to also include the less pleasant information that would be useful to anyone wanting to know waht they are all about. At the moment, everything is mixed together and it just comes across as chaotic - it does noone any favours - the BNP or their opponents.

History Of The BNP sections 1.1&1.2 Policies and position Section 2 (This section could actually do with some padding) Electoral Achievements Section 7 Affiliated parties Sections: 10 9 Opposition To The BNP Sections: 8 3.1 –3.3 4 5.2, 5.3 (to include elements of section 6) BNP Uncovered Sections: 1.3 1.4 1.5 3.4 5.1 Count Of The Saxon Shore 20:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! The thing is, they are a non-significant English political party, with little if any support outside of England, and with no MPS in Westminster, compared to other smaller parties such as Respect, which do have national representation. If Wiki starts giving top priority to smaller unrepresented political parties (with or without dubious backgrounds), it should also give the same format to the Monter Raving Green Giant party, and such like.
I'd agree. The article needs more organisation, and also some quite severe trimming, eg. the depth of election results, criminality etc. The question I'd consider is what would an article on the BNP look like in a political encyclopedia I'd buy in the shops. Paulleake 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article could do with substantial editing. However, today's burst of activity seems to have been used as a cover for the wholesale deletion of the criminality section. I refuse to accept that, for example, the record of Tony Lecomber, the party's #2 for many years, is irrelevant to the article, or that its factual inclusion is inherently POV. I have restored the deleted section, which was removed without comment or explanation in its entirety by someone operating without a Wiki login. There are plenty of other POV interventions today that I haven't had time to deal with. Dogville 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the list of people with criminal convictions involved in the BNP there does seem to be different standards applied to the BNP article and other party articles. It clearly is relevant to the article where criminality has involved Lecomber, Griffin, Collett or other national figures or where the act casts light on BNP claims not to be a racist party. Some of the others wouldn't make it into an article on the LibDems, Greens or Tories (council candidate convictions etc). Paulleake 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The percentage of leading BNP "politicians" with convictions is at least ten to twentyfold more than other parties. Which top labour, liberal, or conservative front benchers for instance, have denied the Holocaust happened, handled explosives, or attempted to murder someone on a train for being Jewish? These are large scale convictions, and in today's climate of the War On Terror, they need to be aired.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I would however challenge if any other party article would include convictions of councillors and council candidates unless specifically significant to the party or its politics (ie. by the seniority of the offender, racist convictions, organising violence against political opponents or others that cast light on claims by the party to be non-racist, not anti-semitic and committed to democratic methods). Specifically I don't think Douglas and Turner would be listed in any article on the BNP in a published political encyclopedia - however odious they may be they are personally insignificant. The others on the list probably are significant enough in their seniority or nature of offence. Paulleake 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. If Wikimedia is to be impartial, it has to tell things as they are - that, as Michael Howard said, the "BNP are a bunch of thugs disguised as a small-time political party". However much fans of the extreme right want to argue to the contrary, the BNP have no MPs. They couldn't even hold on to a tiny little council seat in their stronghold of Keighley. They a non-significant force in UK politics, and should therefore be treated as such, if Wikimedia is to be more than a propaganda machine for nefarious non-entities hoping to win wider support.

I totally agree with the comment above. I'm tired of politcal correctness on Wikipedia and I've had enough with politics articles that merely mirror a party's manifesto. NPOV policy doesn't mean we have to satisfy radical right-wingers who wish to advance their cause. Like the person above said, we must tell it like it is. Therefore, we should objectively define the BNP as racist and anti-Semetic, based on the policies advocated and language used in its latest manifesto. ---WGee 00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Having been away for a week, I'm happy to see that this article is still being improved, tho dissapointed that the NPOV tag is there again, as I really feel that this page is as neutral as could be expected. Looking through I think the bits I'd have a problem with are:
  • the use of 'the far-right oragnization' to refer to it, rahter than 'the party'; though the description is accurate, its use clearly slanted.
  • the descrpiton of Mark Collet as 'hiding his real views'
  • 'However this was clearly not true' in the bit about the burnley riots - how about 'statistics suggest otherwise'

Oh, and I do think that the convictions list might be getting a bit long. Should we come up with criteria for inclusion? Robdurbar 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon complaint

Pertinent to the "Violence and Criminal Behaviour" section of this Article, I hereby request a MUCH CLOSER Examination of this wikipedia article. I officially cite the July 7, 2005 Bombings in London perpetrated by OPPONENTS of the British National Party. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Parham (talk • contribs)

This is not pertinent. We note the criminal activity of the July bombers on their pages. There is no need for it here. --Davril2020 11:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian-Greek candidate

Might be worth mentioning... [11] - FrancisTyers 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to do this, and provide it in context too. Robdurbar 22:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it is the right context though :( The BNP leaderhip have argued that his candidacy is acceptable because he IS white, even if of partly non-UK origin. Paulleake 08:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with intro

The party's numerous critics claim that it is racist and encourages hate. The BNP, of course, reject all such accusations, continually claiming that they are merely standing up for the white British working-class people, and describe their supporters as "patriots", not racists.

This paragraph is very misleading, implying that there is some doubt as to whether or not the BNP advocates racism. In fact, there is absolutely no doubt, for the BNP advocates racial segregation in its platform, which is a form of racism. Please see my previous entry: [12] and all of its accompanying links. Therefore, I am altering the paragraph and will only agree to its reversion if somebody can prove that either racial segregation is not racist or that the BNP does not advocate racial segregation. -- WGee 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The BNP advocates racial segregation [2] within the party and bars non-whites from becoming members [3].
Well, the respective editor has misinterpreted my original sentence, for the BNP advocates world-wide racial segregation and would like to start by removing all non-whites from the UK. Please read the BNP's manifesto before making changes regarding their policies. I'm reverting the paragraph to its former state. -- WGee 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That might have been me, or it might have been some anon at some point; if it was I didn't intend to edit it to read like that but there's so many dodgy edits going on that sometimes you miss one or two when correcting them, or re-word a decent bit. Robdurbar 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No problemo, but one should be especially keen when editing controversial articles such as this. Nonetheless, I commend you for your honesty and you're desire to improve the Wikipedia. -- WGee 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't you anyway, so no worries; it was IP 81.153.53.207. That IP also made a controversial edit to the infobox, changing the party's ideology from "ulta-right wing nationalism/neo-fascism/populism" to the rather vague ideology of "nationalism". And you're right about the dodgy edits; this article in particular, due to the controversiality of the BNP, has attracted much attention from anon readers who make some really poor or POV edits. -- WGee 01:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether leaving it as 'ultra right wing nationalism' alone would be best though. Is the term neo-fascist not a bit loaded? Robdurbar 07:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The label fascist is in itself pretty much useless for any serious political discussion. I'd be tempted to leave it as just "nationalism". Maybe it could be elucidated with one of the options from this list. - FrancisTyers 16:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term actually has significant meaning in academia (though I suppose even there its meaning is disputed). However, since the article is geared to the average reader, I would agree that the term "neo-fascist" is ambiguous and should not be used. "Radical right wing populism", on the other hand, is quite an accurate and specific description and difficult to dispute. Also, racial nationalism is a type of nationalism identified in the nationalism article, so I believe it should stay as well. Their occassional use of the term "white Britons", their frequent claims of anti-white racism, and their obsession with the destructiveness of "multi-racialism" denotes racial nationalism (as opposed to the more broad ideology of ethnnic nationalism). I want to stay away from vague terms such as "nationalism", for "nationalist" can be used to describe extremist parties, such as the National Democrats of Sweden, but also moderate parties, such as the Canadian Action Party. -- WGee 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, does it bother anybody that many anon IPs are frequently making controversial edits without any explanation or discussion of them. It makes it nearly impossible to build a consensus. -- WGee 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the edits because they are correct. They aren't fascist and aren't neo-Nazi, and they aren't authoritarian either. They advocate racial segregation within the party, just saying they advocate it everywhere sounds like they would make special shops for blacks, special buses for them etc etc. The phrase was too ambiguous. The person who wrote it did not say anything like world wide racial segregation either. 81.153.50.39 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That the BNP is not authoritarian is only your opinion. Any party that wishes to remove millions of people from the UK, ban homosexuality, and ban "non-traditional" culture is authoritarian. In addition, you can't say that the BNP is far-right yet not authoritarian; the two are mutually inclusive.
I also don't agree with your edits to the second paragraph in the intro. The words "patriots" and "realists" should be in quotations, as they are directly from the BNP's 2005 manifesto. However, I do agree that some earlier phrases were too dubious.
Moreover, in the third paragraph you wrote that Unite Against Fascism is far-left. This is clearly POV, as there is absolutely nothing to indicate this. Unite Against Fascism is supported by moderate trade unions and does not advocate any sort of revolution or violence. Also, I should remind you that the organisation's chairman is Labour Party London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
Here at Wikipedia, we do a thing called consensus building, especially in controversial articles. This involves much deliberation and the discussion of non-minor edits. I would encourage you to create a user account and begin to discuss you edits more thoroughly, especially since you have been a rather steady contributor to this article lately.
WGee 16:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, in terms of the "radical right" vs. "far right" disagreement, I feel that "radical right" is justified, as several academic research organizations use this term to describe the BNP ([13], [14], [15], [16]. And scholarly works are considered some of the best sources for controversial articles, according to Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles. Moreover, the numerous criminal acts of party members merit the use of the word "radical". -- WGee 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party/Archive_2&oldid=1058603815"