Talk:Nick Griffin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Searchlight Link

The link to Searchlight's page on Mr. Griffin should probably be removed, they are notoriously unreliable as a source, most of what Searchlight publishes in their rag is a pack of lies-Ted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.193.221 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat biased and completely untrue comment. Emeraude 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Emeraude just hates the BNP. It said the BNP was "fascist" (it's not, otherwise they'd want blind loyalty to Britain). Searchlight says it wants to stop the BNP, so 62.252.193.221 is right. As for Emeraude, I'm not at all surprised by it's typical actions. 206.113.132.130 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I don't hate anybody. I am anti-fascist, and because the BNP is fascist I am anti-BNP. That does not stop me being objective. Likewise, Searchlight is anti-fascist, and because the BNP is fascist Searchilght is anti-BNP and that does not stop it being objective. Along with Searchlight, I am against ALL fascist groups. User 206.113.132.130 can be judged by his personal attacks above and, more tellingly, by his edit to [[1]] and also here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere. He is clearly not fit to be an editor of this or any other encyclopaedia. Emeraude (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove to me that the BNP is fascist. Fascism is blind loyalty to the state and its leaders. Show me an example of how the BNP has advocated fascism since it has reformed.

Also, Searchlight (and UAF) is anti-free speech as they want to have a no-platform policy introduced so the BNP is silenced. Has the BNP ever advocated such nonsense that Searchlight has since it has reformed? No, therefore the BNP is not fascist, while Searchlight is. And Emeraude, if you're truly anti-fascist, please, protest Searchlist and UAF, because if you agree with their anti-free speech rhetoric, then you are indeed a fascist. Case closed. 206.113.137.3 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh,yeah, Emeraude, I use a public computer, so any one can use this. But of course, this is Emeraude, it seeks to defame those who disagree with it. So typical of Emeraude and the far left which it supports.206.113.137.3 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While I personally am not a fan of Searchlight, your personal attacks are not helping at all. If you could provide some evidence in the form of other reputable publications, etc. that the magazine is too biased for inclusion as proof of fascism, all the better. Still, the article says that Searchlight alleges fascism, not that the BNP is fascist. Please play nice. :) JRDarby (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(NOTE:Users 206.113.132.130 and 206.113.137.3 - apparently one and the same person - have been blocked from editing following a history of vandalism to articles and personal attacks. Emeraude (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Nonsense, Searchlight is internationally respected as sober source of information on the British far right. Its acceptable for citation in Academic research, so its acceptable for citation in Wikipedia. Just because a tiny minority of borderline-psychotics think its not true doesnt mean its not true , for the same reason that loonie creationists claiming evolution isnt a science doesnt make it not a science. 121.215.144.245 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The BNP has not "reformed" since Griffin replaced Tyndall, it merely has a new leader. --Streona (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments One the searchlight is run By Gerry Gable a long term member of the Communist party who has run for political office as a communist. Gable has a long history (see searchlightexposed.com) of writing fabricated tales about rightwing conspiracies Gable's publications and even the BBC who unwisely quoted him have had to pay out large sums at various times for liable. it is a complete fabrication to call any of Gable's publications as "Internationally respected" Second comment Common sense would prevent any so called neutral publications seeking factual portrayal of subject matter, which wikipedia alleges itself to be, from utilizing descriptive phrases especially derogatory descriptive phrases, from the avowed enemies of the subject in question as its primary source of facts, especially without containing balancing counter argument from supporters of said subject. For instance their are massive criticisms of the law of which Mr Griffin was convicted of violating as being a gross violation of free speech and also a violation of both the UN and the EU declarations on civil rights. Secondly while we see the quotation for which Mr Griffin was convicted prominently highlighted in the article we nowhere see Mr Griffins subsequent statements that he has since altered his belief and now believes that millions of Jews were deliberately massacred by Hitler. Thirdly the connotation "Far right" economically means laisse faire capitalism which was never the philosophy of either Griffin or the BNP, both favor socialist style civil protections, and The BNP Nationalism socially respects the rights of all other countries nationalism within their own boundaries and explicitly rejects Neo colonialism, Globalism and Imperialism, which is hardly a Fascist stance. Nowhere in your article is this stated. My considered opinion is that your articles were written deliberately to paint Griffin and the BNP as beyond the pale of rational discussion, in other words censorship of opinions by heaping thinly veiled scorn on those who hold them to prevent open discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.41.104 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is clearly written by someone from the extreme right, possibly a supporter of the BNP or a kindred group. I will not argue against the opinions expressed, but let us deal with just some of the inaccuracies in what this one-contribution anonymous author has to say. 1 Gable left the CP in 1962. 2 He has not edited Searchlight for more than 10 years. 3 searchlightexposed.com is a right wing front organisation. 4There are NOT massive critcisms of the laws under which Griffin and his friends were prosecuted. 5 There is no "UN on civil rights". 6 If these laws were violations of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (not "civil rights") there would have been a case by now. 7 There is no such thing as the "EU declarations on civil rights" - there is a European Convention on Human Rights which has nothing to do with the EU and predates it by several years. 8 Griffin's apparent conversion is adequately covered in the statement 'Griffin went on record in 2005 stating "This party has finally cast off the leg iron of anti-Semitism and not a moment too soon."' 9 "Far right" does not mean "laissez-faire capitalism" and never has. It encompasses the whole gamut of political issues and is not an economic term. 10 Rejection of neo-colonialism, globalism and imperialism do not prevent you being a fascist. (In fact, you could argue that every nationalist fascist is by definition anti-globalist!) Emeraude (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial about-face and outreach to ethnic and religious communities

A paragraph/section to do with Nick Griffins change of stance on the holocaust etc is probably a good idea but this one is poorly written and contains wrong information. Some sources/citations would be good as well as a rewrite.Sinthesizer 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You've made some good edits over the last few days. I wouldn't have agreed with all of them, but the general direction is right. Regarding the holococaust denial section, as it stands now, I don't think it adequately sets the ground, especially given that "Current stance" suggests some deep-seated major change in Griffin's attitude. The article used to contain the following paragraph (which you deleted) and which, suitably amended, could be re-used to expand the background:

In the same year he wrote a pamphlet, "Who Are The Mindbenders", which alleged that a cabal of Jews controlled the British media, "providing us with an endless diet of pro-multiracial, pro-homosexual, anti-British trash." [2] Emeraude 16:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Union debate

Two quick points about that section: Firstly it is a lie that the motion was narrowly carried. It was carried by a majority of 2 to 1, and here is the citation for it:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7110758.stm I would have entered this into the text if I knew how to! Secondly, the reason why it is important to state that OUSU is not affiliated with the Oxford Union is because few people out of Oxford understand the difference between the two. The Oxford Union is a private mebers' club that has nothing to do with the university, unlike OUSU which is an official university institution. It needs to be pointed out that the Oxford Union and Oxford University Students Union are different things, otherwise people are misled into thinking that it is the Union that has a no-platform policy.

Please discuss

129.67.137.129 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This whole section is over-detailed and probably unnecessary anyway. The Unin debate 'issue' is no more than a transitory news story. At most, the article should say that he was invited to speak by the Oxford Union, there was conroversy and he spoke (along with Irving). I believe he was also invited, but the inviatation withdrawn, to speak at another uni recently (Bristol? Bath?) so how about a short paragraph (not a section) just mentioning these? Incidentally, it is not the case that "few people out of Oxford understand the difference between the two". I do (and have no connection with Oxford) and I suspect a great many other people do. Besides, it is easy enough for any half-intelligent reader to follow the links to Oford Union and Oxford University Student Union if they want detail. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Convicted Racist" what the hell?

In 1980, Griffin launched Nationalism Today with the aid of Joe Pearce, a convicted racist and editor of Bulldog.

What is a convicted racist? What was the hate crime? (Unsigned by User_talk:24.255.11.149 05:50, 19 December 2007)

Pearce was twice convicted and imprisoned on charges of "incitement to racial hatred" (OK, so he wasn't charged with "racism") for his writings in Bulldog. Re-inserting these facts in article. Emeraude (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall attending a "Free Joe Pearce" Rally in Chatham. Of course our slogan was slightly different. "Hang Joe Pearce" as I recall. I believe that Pearce later went to the USA.--Streona (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is he still Holocaust denier

Alright, maybe once he WAS a holocaust denier. But given that he clearly has recanted his past anti-Semitism, as the article shows, it is reasonable to assume he has recanted his Holocaust denial, and the category should be removed if there isn't further proof that he is still a denier despite not being an anti-Semite.

By the way, I find it a double standard that wikipedia has someone like Mahmoud Abbas not being listed as a Holocaust denier while Nick Griffin is. It seems Holocaust denier seems to apply to anyone who is white and too "right wing".Comradesandalio (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Holocaust denier" is used when we have several reliable sources that say a person is. If you have such sources, you can use them add the category to the Mahmoud Abbas article. Its nothing to do with his color or political views, its only about what the sources say. Going from "he has recanted his anti-Semitism" to "he is not a holocaust denier" is original research and is not an adequate basis for removing the category from the article. Gwernol 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• It makes no difference whether he still is a holocaust denier or not. The fact that at some point he was is what puts him in that category, in the same way that a footballer who has an illustrious career with several teams will be categorised with each of them, not just his current team. Similarly, politicians who change parties will be categorised in the old as well as the new, and will remain in a category for a specific office after they have left that post. (See, for example, Winston Churchill's categories!) It is in the relevant articles that distinctions can be made between past and present. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He believes 20 million people died. Acording to a MSU video I saw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.0.182 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust evader.--Streona (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Manifesto

The article states that he put a reference to "coons, wogs and pakis" in his manifesto. Manifesto for what?--Streona (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No it dose not, and he did not. Weak try streona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.38.227 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What ignorance! It did say exactly that - see date of Streona's posting and go back in the history of the article. You can see it [[3]]. Now, whether he actually said it is a moot point; it was deleted for lack of a reference by myself, but that does not mean it is not true. Emeraude (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixed Race Relationships

If Griffin and the BNP disapprove of these, are there any means that a BNP led Government might seek to restrain us? Whilst it is interesting to know that Griffin anad his meiny sympathise with my son for being born, would he be firmly encouraged to leave the country or not ? Also, in what sense does Griffin believe in the scheme of things that his life or moral being is worth more than that of say a cockroach or other variety of vermin, such as, say, smallpox virus?--Streona (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The BNP only disaproves of them, they do not want to enforce or outlaw mixed relation laws or anything like that. Sevrel BNP members are in mixed relations, one of their counillors is half Turkish as well. :)-(Chris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.0.182 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who do they think they are to "disapprove"? What possible relevance is that - except to people to whom the BNP is a moral arbiter- unless it has some impact on policy ? Come the day that the BNP take power, will the non-white partners of the BNP activists be expected to leave the country? These are rhetorical questions, there is no need for an answer--Streona (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Streona you seem to be projecting your own fears on to this. I believe the BNP dissaproving with mixed relationships is non-promotional/propagating stance. Right now mixed marriages are being promoted and the idea is being propagated as morally right. For other cultures around the world this has been seen as evil for instance being forced to assimilate with whites. Why is it acceptable the other way round. It all depends on what the BNP do if they get into power. Streona if you have a problem with other peoples view points move to another country. It was your decision only a child would act like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia 58.168.3.132! I say this because you only signed on this morning from sunny "down under" in Sydney, Australia and yet you are telling me that I should leave England, which is my country, not yours. Perhaps there is a BNP branch nearby, but I doubt it. You are suggesting that there are equally valid views for and against mixed race marriages. If I were to suggest that same-race marriages were immoral, no doubt you would find that offensive. Your personal policy statement on this is that not only the "ethnic" spouse should leave Britain, but so should any British person married to them and their children. I doubt that you are in a postion to speak for the BNP from your vantage point 12,000 miles away, although my fear- as you put it- is that in practice it would be broadly similar. My worst fear is that come the glorious day I might be sharing a cattle truck with Mr.Rustem when he has outlived his usefulness, although, like the ancient Roman, I fear that I might see the Tiber foaming with blood before that happens.

So the question remains; what is the significance of Griffin, Barmbrook (I understand the weddings off now) and the BNPs position on "disapproving of mixed race relationships" ? Is it just a personal foible, such as disliking Marmite (or Vegemite for our antipodean readers) or does it have policy implications ? Should the leader of a legitimate political party express such views, people are going to ask this. If the leader of a squalid band of what Churchill would have termed "Nazzie Guttershnipesh" express such a view we would think him no better than he should be. Which of these definitions characterises the BNP continues to be a matter of debate.--Streona (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cat got your tongue, Sydney Calling?

Nick Griffin is strongly opposed to interracial sexual relationships. His party hold the same view. The main reason is to prevent the white race becoming extinct through increasingly widespread miscegenation, which is what will happen if current trends of mass non-white immigration and cross-breeding continue. The number of white babies being born is too low for long-term white survival. There are other legitimate concerns which motivate the desire to reduce miscegenation, such as the high rates of criminality and mental illness among mixed race people, particulary mulattoes. However, Party policies don't actually forbid interracial sex and marriage. Werdnawerdna (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assertions about criminality or mental illness among mixed-race people should be supported by some reference to a reliable source. I work in mental health and I cannot say that I have noticed any disproportionate rates amongst mixed-race people. The genetic predisposition for some forms of mental illness is increased by a shallower gene pool not a wider. Furthermore, what makes you judge that any concern for racial purity is legitimate? According to whose values? If BNP policies do not "forbid" miscegenation, just how do they propse to "discourage" it? (Like anyone gives a tinker's cuss)--Streona (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the above editor (Werdnawerdna (talk)) has been blocked indefinitely for persistently making racist and homophobic comments. --Rodhullandemu 18:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin clafied his position on the holocaust

It is quoted on the main BNP article and I added it to this one, but somebody took it off. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.193.145 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess from your other edits that you didn't cite a reliable source for it. If there's one in the BNP article, it can be used here, but you must take care to distinguish between his personal views and BNP party policy (assuming there's any difference). In other words, is he expressing his own views? --Rodhullandemu 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is quoted under the holocaust section of the BNP article. I though I'd add that quote to the current stance of this article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.154.234 (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I think I have referenced it properly now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.154.234 (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody REMOVED it yet again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.136.175 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)