Nick Griffin and Mark Collett

Today sees the beginning of the trial at Leeds Crown Court of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett. The charge against them is of using words and conduct likely to incite racial hatred, and it refers to remarks made to private meetings in West Yorkshire two years ago.

I firmly believe that the Home Office has this prosecution completely, utterly wrong. Yes, the verdict of the court is always a matter of deepest uncertainty and nobody can be confident that the two defendants will be acquitted. The liberal leanings of the judiciary are such that one must question whether a fair trial can be guaranteed at all.

But, for once, the effect of the trial on public opinion is surely NOT guaranteed for the Home Office. The left is so given to bellowing the “Racist! Fascist!” bugaboo everytime someone strays from the prescribed party line, it doesn’t seem ever to have considered whether this ploy might one day fail. That day is today. The English public is no longer much impressed by the lavish use of special Marxist epithets. These are steadily losing their power to shock, and just becoming rather predictable and, therefore, boring. Coincidentally - or perhaps not - New Labour is losing its power to command political affection. Public sympathy is all at sea.

This development, if I am not mistaken, pressages the possibility that people might actually begin to assess an argument on its merits. In the Griffin/Collett case that means that the Great Unwashed, who hate a bully and love an underdog, mightn’t swing so mechanically behind the ruling class. For never was the identity of the bully and the underdog more clear. In strategic-political terms there is much for Griffin to gain in the coming days.

One worry for him will be a determinedly disinterested or just plain disingenuous MSM, which is why such an energetic effort has been made by his Party to set-up ad hoc communication channels. Their reach beyond the Party faithful might not count for much in MSM terms. But it is the best they can do, and much more than has been done in any previous case in which the BNP has been on trial. It is a sign of a clear collective conscience, too.

The blogosphere ought to take a keen interest in what, after all, could turn out to be the biggest legal-political fiasco since Profumo. We shall be looking to see how our friends and enemies perform as well as commenting on proceedings ourselves.

I hope Nick and Mark will be restored to their respective families with all speed, cleared in name and bouyed by a great legal, moral and political victory. If not, the electoral outcome should still be favourable for their Party. But a Win-Win is clearly just.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, January 16, 2006 at 07:37 AM in Free Speech
Comments (6) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on January 16, 2006, 10:42 PM | #

The BBC - which was, via its Secret Agent programme, deeply complicit in the bringing of a prosecution against the BNP pair - plainly and unequivocally declared for the Crown in its coverage today.

The propaganda tone is all there in the headline, “BNP boss race case sparks protest”. The BNP does not have a leader, like a normal political party, but “a boss”. A political gangster, no doubt.

The protest which was “sparked” wasn’t sparked in any genuine, spontaneous way at all. It was organised by the vilely dishonest Marxist front, Unite Against Fascism. How many race industry workers, union activists and far left students they managed to attract we cannot know because the BBC under-reported the BNP demonstration by about 50%.

Most disgustingly of all, the UAF people were handing out propaganda leaftlets to potyential jurors, bearing the headline, “Guilty as Charged”. The judge expressed rather mild dissatisfaction, requesting the UAF to cease this interference. The BBC records the fact neutrally, not mentioning who handed out the leaflets and who, therefore, occurred the judge’s opprobrium.

Likewise the arrests - reported by the BBC at 5, the BNP at 7 - were of UAF rowdies. This fact the BBC also manages not to mention.

Posted by Tania on January 16, 2006, 10:43 PM | #

And yet those live in the Western world, speak out against it and incite much more hatred, are protected in the name of tolerating the minorities.

Not only should these two get off, they should never have been charged. Supressing our own free speach against these matters will only serve to weaken us.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 18, 2006, 03:24 AM | #

How many race industry workers, union activists and far left students they managed to attract we cannot know because the BBC under-reported the BNP demonstration by about 50%.

Anyone with a brain in his head would entertain that notion; only the pro-BNPers carrying signs get counted, passers-by get counted as anti-BNP, etc. That’s all par for the course with the mass media.

If that’s too sketchy for you, how about an out-and-out lie by omission?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1688388,00.html
BNP leader ‘warned of multiracial hell hole’

Yesterday some 600 rival protesters massed outside the courthouse; today there were only a handful of protesters.

Where have the “150” pro-BNP protestors gone? Poof! They vanished.

Note carefully the actual lie: the lie that underpins the mass media’s perceived legitimacy* - “we’re impartial reporters of the relevant facts.”

*a perception that is steadily declining in popularity, thank God.

Posted by ben tillman on January 18, 2006, 05:11 AM | #

How many race industry workers, union activists and far left students they managed to attract we cannot know....

Let’s not unfairly malign labor unions. No genuine union activist could support immigration, regardless of racial dynamics. They would try to restrict the labor market, as did Cesar Chavez in opposing the immigration of Mexican competitors. What you refer to as union activists are activists with another agenda.

Ostensible labor unions in Canada were similarly involved in effecting government policies designed to effect the genocide of the native white population:

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/47/03lamber.html

Posted by friedrich braun on January 20, 2006, 03:18 AM | #

It seems that the BBC is about as trustworthy a source of news as the Pravda was during the Brezhnew era.

Posted by Marc Ward on January 31, 2006, 10:15 PM | #

Bnp are only getting stronger with this bogus trial. Press has travelled around the globe, as this is cleary a violation of freedom of speach. Also questions about the BBC’s invlovement, as the BBC is a government run broadcasting company, ultimately governed by the Labour party.

Next entry: Samuel Francis on Martin Luther King Jr Day

Previous entry: Truth Machine to Ease Information Retrieval

Existential Issues

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa