BNP newpaper siezed, good or bad?

Bad

12.09.2005 12:09

The BNP maybe biggots and wherever you want, but we know how to deffend ourselves from them we dont need a bunch of thugs in blue doing that for us.
And the problem is that under the same rule of thumb any newspaper that the state does not like can be seized, the UK looks more and more like the "1984" film.

Uzi

Bad

12.09.2005 13:56

Freedem of speach should be for all, not just those we agree with. Whose publications will the police be banning next?

RVR800

Freedom of speech is an inalieable right.

12.09.2005 16:28

One of the reasons why we had the American revolution, because the British Governent Banned the Newspaper "Common Sense" which was written by the American patriot Thomas Paine.

American Anarchist

but the bnp insight racial hatred so GOOD

12.09.2005 17:33

The police have seized the entire printrun of the latest edition of the British National Party's newspaper The Voice of Freedom on grounds of incitement to racial hatred.

Kent Police seized the 60,000-run paper at Dover yesterday as it made its way into the country from Slovakia where it is printed, but the BNP went ahead and produced the edition on its website.

Under the strapline "Britain gets bombed but it's Islam that gets the sympathy" the paper ran the headline "What about showing some solidarity with the British people?".

Kent Police said they launched the raid because of fears over public order offences regarding the incitement of racial hatred. The force is liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service.

"They have been seized so we can see if any criminal offences have been committed," Kent Police said in a statement.

The far-right BNP accused the Labour government of being behind the attack and said it was an example of "New Labour's Zimbabwe Britain".

A spokesman for the BNP, Dr Phill Edwards, said the attack was "a serious attack by the state on freedom of speech".

The BNP has said that paper was on its way to its distribution centre in Leeds and following the seizure the party has published the paper on its website.

==

Do Nazis have Rights?

12.09.2005 19:05

Free speech is not something that floats above society like a God. The freedom to speak is something that is won in struggle against oppression. The BNP want to introduce the gas chamber to the 21st Century. They want to silence gays, jews, muslims, woman, trade unionists, anarchists, communists and anyone that does not conform to their master race fantasies. The suppression of an organisation like that is a victory for free speech. It is the defence of our society. The idea that we reduce our own freedom by banning the BNP or their publications displays a complete ignorance of how the limited freedoms we enjoy were won and defended against those who would abolish them.

Memory-Hole-Catchers-Mitt

Bad precedent

12.09.2005 19:12

I agree it sets a bad precedent. The timing worries me less than the (claimed) motivation.

IMO the idea that the government doesn't want to see the insightment of a certain amount of racial hatred is absurd. If it wasn't for casual racism and xenophobia, how could they get away with murdering so many non-white Muslims?

This action is most usefully for them, potential PR for a future censorship of dissent from the left at a time of crisis: "Look - we did the same thing to the BNP".

cornholio

Panic over!?

12.09.2005 20:49

Police hand back siezed copies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4236640.stm

Simba

Oh Alah, deliver us from liberal reasoning

12.09.2005 21:19

"This action is most usefully for them, potential PR for a future censorship of dissent from the left at a time of crisis: "Look - we did the same thing to the BNP".

So therefore we should OPPOSE censorship of the BNP because this will put the Left in a stronger position in the future?

You only have to say this out loud to appreciate the lunacy of such reasoning.

Memory-Hole-Catchers-Mitt

here comes the Dictatorship

12.09.2005 21:30

Why was the BNP paper seized- of course it was to set a precedent. Course 101 in how to become a successful dictator STATES that first you take illegal actions against those people that have least sympathy amongst the general population. You tell the population that some things are more important than the Rule of Law, and wait for them to agree. Then you tell them that since they have agreed to the END of the Rule of Law, then they have AGREED to the dictatorship of the man that ended the Rule of Law. It's an age old game, and has worked so many times before.

You will notice that one of Blair's goons immediately commented to praise this action in a way that you could have read a thousand times in the 30's praising similar actions by Hitler and his forces.

***
"They have been seized so we can see if any criminal offences have been committed," Kent Police said in a statement.
***

This statement of absolute wickedness is the most telling of all. Next Kent police will be rounding up black people to see if any of them are muggers, or rounding up muslims to see if any of them are terrorists!!! Biggest laugh of all is that the action taken against the BNP is EXACTLY the kind of action they (the BNP) most approve, and seek for the UK. The BNP must be cheering their mates in the Kent police to the rafters this week.

Remember, the BNP is just another of Blair's New Labour (New Reich) fronts. Now it is to used to prototype Blair's freedom destroying actions in the UK. Please compare with the USA, and discover what freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY political speech, actually means. The US is so bad in so many ways, but its written constitution (created by Britons, to fix EVERYTHING that was rotten in British politics at the time) stands as a shining beacon.

Anyway, isn't it time for Kent police to seize all of indymedia's servers, just in case there is anything illegal on them. Now that Kent police have decided that people are GUILTY until proven innocent, and that arrests occur BEFORE the crime, or any proof of one.

Hurrah, hurrah for Blair, the destroyer of all Man's moral achievements, and soon to be the destroyer of Mankind itself!

twilight

end game

13.09.2005 03:14

Picture a scene, six months forward in time...

Blair and Mugabe sharing a hot tub, bubble bath + a bottle of bollinger...

realist

Brits deserve what they got because they gave up their freedoms for "security".

13.09.2005 14:25

Anyone who wants to ban a newspaper because they don't like what the newspaper says is just as much a facist as this "BNP" group. I mean if you ban the KKK from publishing a newspaper, the next time around they will ban the newspapers of the communists, the animal rights activists, the gay-rights activists etc.
As I mentioned the freedom of speech is absolute, no speech should ever be banned unless you directly threaten the life of another person, or shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

American Anarchist

Ahem

13.09.2005 18:48

"One of the reasons why we had the American revolution, because the British Governent Banned the Newspaper "Common Sense" which was written by the American patriot Thomas Paine. "

Well I must say that this is one of the worst simplifications I've heard in a while. He'll be whittering on about the freedom to bear arms next...

Boab

Freedom of Speech

14.09.2005 12:51

Well, as much as I hate the whole ideology of the BNP it makes me think of freedom of speech.

How free do you want the speech?

And that is the proverbial Acid Test I suppose - when someone says/writes something that you disagree with, how do you act then?

Even though I have absolutely no time for those facists, freedom of speech is much more important. So I would have to say freedom of speech above censorship anyday.

Gary

I will say this slowly

14.09.2005 15:30

People are missing the point so I will say this slowly.

The idea that defence of an organisation like the BNP who want to erase free speech for everyone except the “master race” is defending freedom is a contradiction.

Let me put it this way. Either we succeed in suppressing the BNP by whatever means necessary or they succeed in suppressing free speech for everyone except the “master race”.

Either they win or we win. It cant be both at the same time. The idea that freedom of speech and the BNP’s desire to erase it can be reconciled under some sort of abstract umbrella of “freedom to express ones ideas” administered by a neutral state is cloud cuckoo land.

History does not work like that.

But I accept that things may look different if one is viewing the world on the screen of a power Mac in a Starbucks somewhere near Hampstead Heath. In that context it is normal to talk of abstract principles with a plum in one's mouth.

Memory-Hole-Catchers-Mitt

Good

14.09.2005 19:47

"So I would have to say freedom of speech above censorship anyday. "

Freedom of speech to incite religious hatred? Racial hatred? Homophobia? To incite idiots and yobs to discriminate against some of the most vulnerable parts of our communities? Get off your high horses and consider the realities.

Freedom of speech works both ways; not just the freedom of the speaker, but also the freedom of those being spoken about. If it incites racial, sexual, or religious hatred then it should be - and is - illegal in the UK.

20 years ago most of you would have been campaigning for just such legislation.

Paranoid Pete

why smear the bnp as if they are communists?

14.09.2005 19:48

But what you just said about the BNP you cannot back up, its obvious you havent read their stance on issues and policies, u just come out with the usual nazi Germany crap as usual...! So is it ok for me to view George Galloway and his duviously named 'respect' party in the same light as you see the BNP regarding free speech?

mark

Nazism and the BNP

14.09.2005 22:37

Mainly responding to Memory Hole because his points are (to me) the most cogent:

I agree but you're missing the point, the BNP aren't *overtly* fascist or nazi.

Obviously you can only censor people for what they say not for what they think.

I have read the newspaper in question (I found it on a bus) and while it's obvious that there's a fascist core agenda in the BNP, it's actually concealed. By censoring them, you'll only push the entire racist bloc into fascism (a useful side effect for the govt, perhaps). OTOH I do support anti bnp rallies / counter protests etc.

If an out-an-out Nazi party existed in this country (or the BNP became one) I would be in favour of censorship.

cornholio

The Dual Strategy

15.09.2005 08:44

Dear Cornholio

I will respond to you because unlike many people on here you are clearly not an anarchist sectarian nutter and you want to debate real issues.

The BNP is different to an organization like the National Front in so far as Nick Griffin, the Fuhrer of the BNP, has understood and digested the so called ‘Dual Strategy’ adopted by most of the continental Nazi parties. Disagreement over this strategy was the fundamental reason behind the split between the NF and the BNP in this country.

The Dual Strategy is the attempt to cultivate respectability in the media while retaining a core of committed fascists. The NF fundamentally reject this approach and prefer to walk down the street displaying the swass stika and yelling zig heil. The BNP, being slightly less insane, realize the holocaust is not a particularly good marketing pitch for their brand of politics so they wear Armani suits and don’t mention the war (much). The Dual strategy has worked fairly well for Le Pen in France but less well for the BNP here. Partly because the Left in Britain has not been hypnotized and demobilized by it like the Left in France has been.

In the recent Presidential elections when Le Pen made it to the final round against Chirac you will notice he was very careful with his words right up until the end when he was clear he had gone as far as he could. Once this sumit had been acheived his task was to consolidate the core membership of his party. He staged a rally at the statue of Joan of Arc and poored out the anti-semitism in bucket loads.

21st century Nazis are not going to come into a BBC studio during an election campaign with cropped moustaches and wearing Faberge leather uniforms. They have to be smarter than that if they aspire to take power.

Memory-Hole-Catchers-Mitt

are the BNP Nazis?

15.09.2005 11:05

Take a look at this picture of BNP founder John Tyndall and friends relaxing at home and see if you can spot any subtle clues:

http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/index.php?location=news&art=289

Unite Against Fascism:

http://www.uaf.org.uk

Stop the BNP (Searchlight):

http://www.stopthebnp.com

Mr Spoon

Dangerous Precedent? YES!

15.09.2005 13:50

I'm not in favour of State bans, and for a number of reasons.

State bans allow those who run the State, be it politicians or the rich and powerful vested interests behind them, to decide what is and isn't allowed to be said. THAT is in itself a dangerous precedent, and would almost certainly be abused, and widely abused at that. Does anyone with an ounce of sense trust the present shower of politicians not to use it to restrict free speech when they wish to cover up some misdemeanour, or to only allow news that will damage their enemies?

And it is a fair point that such measures may well be used against Anarchists, Socialists or anyone else the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping silent. Again, would anyone with an ounce of sense trust the powers that be not use such powers for that end?

Furthermore, what would those who espouse State bans on people and parties they disapprove of do, in the event that such a ban were imposed upon a group of which THEY were a member or supporter? Would they have any answer to such a ban, having previously supported its implementation on a rival group? It would be the height of hypocrisy to claim their right to freedom of speech, having previously denied that right to others.

I'm an anti-fascist, and have been for a number of years. I abhor the BNP and everything they stand for. In fact, my first political activism was to join the ANL, way back in the early 1990's. I don't like their vile beliefs any more than anyone else. But a State ban could rebound drastically upon other political groups. The risk is too great, and the potential price of such a move is too high.

Besides, I'd rather have the fash out in the open, where I can see them and track their activities, than have them hidden from public view and free to dream up whatever nasty little plots they have in mind.

Pilgrim

comment

15.09.2005 14:40

Free speech ;
you have it or you do not
free to say what you like to who you like when you like and if that offends then tough, start controling it and it gives the power to the listener to decide if you have offended them, any how as you have all called for it, Charlse Clark AKA communist leader 1974 is just about to pass a law which can see anyone showing sympathy say with Palastinian freedom fighter issues can be Jailed for LIFE.
Funny, you Don,t want free speech censoring when it is your free speech under threat.

You support the hammering down of the BNP, but when the goverment turn the searchlight on socalists then don't complain.

Rouge goverments always persecute un popular groups first, don't worry, the socialists will be next on the list and this site with it.

Dolly The sheeple

Sauce For The Goose?

15.09.2005 16:55

As I previously stated, I have nothing but contempt for the BNP and the vile policies they represent.

But, I am driven to ask one simple question:

What would be the reaction of those who advocate banning the BNP paper if, say, the next paper to be treated thus was Socialist Worker, or Solidarity, or Direct Action, or Class War or any other left/far left wing publication?

Pilgrim

Reality v Abstract Principles

15.09.2005 18:21

"What would be the reaction of those who advocate banning the BNP paper if, say, the next paper to be treated thus was Socialist Worker, or Solidarity, or Direct Action, or Class War or any other left/far left wing publication?"

The reaction would be that some people in society would resist such treatment. If we were successful that is good. If we fail that is bad. The opposite is true for the BNP. If they fail it is good. If they win it is bad.

Welcome to the class struggle.

I would call for the state to ban the BNP without the slightest doubt that the same state will try and do the same to left wing parties at some stage in the future. We will resist it and hopefully be successful. The BNP will resist it and hopefully be unsuccessful. I hope the BNP's resistance is not applauded by you.

Memory-Hole-Catchers-Mitt

Are You Implying...?

15.09.2005 19:45

I've already made perfectly clear that I don't "applaud" fascism in any way.

Unless that is you are trying imply that I am a fascist or racist, a common trick among Swappies when losing an argument. I've encountered it before.

And, given the way in which I've heard other Swappies (and to be fair, quite rightly) trumpeting their opposition to any curbs on their own civil liberties, I'd be surprised to say the least if the SWP Central Committee viewed a ban with anything other than horror.

In the interest of fairness, I wouldn't support a State ban on the SWP either.

Pilgrim

Ravings from the A-A-Anarchist echo chamber

15.09.2005 21:48

"you are trying imply that I am a fascist or racist"

You are paranoid.

"I've already made perfectly clear that I don't "applaud" fascism in any way"

Just as you have made it perfectly clear that you support the idea that the BNP should not be banned. SHAME ON YOU.

"a common trick among Swappies when losing an argument. I've encountered it before"

What does that have to do with me?

Memory-Hole-Catchers-Mitt

Shame On Me?

16.09.2005 00:07

Shame on me?

For what exactly?

Daring to disagree with the mighty 'memory hole catchers mitt'?

It may have escaped your attention, O Heckling One, but people are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours.

It's called freedom of speech and freedom of thought, you numbskull!

I don't agree with your stance on this issue, nor do others who have posted here. And with good reason.

You abhor the BNP and what they stand for.

I abhor the BNP and what they stand for.

In fact, chances are that any decent, right-thinking person in the country abhors what the BNP stand for.

Supporting the right of the State to censor what people write is playing directly into the hands of the vested interests who own the politicians who run the country. It would allow them to set the news and political agenda even more than they already do.

If you happen to fall prey to some State-sponsored campaign of censorship, in the unlikely event that you produce anything of enough substance to actually harm their interests, then you could find yourself being censored. And how would you like that?

Would you suddenly go whining to all and sundry about the sudden abuse of your human rights? Hard to do that, if you've previously supported the enforced removal of the rights of others.

Or would you retire to some attic somewhere, grumbling endlessly about having been put out to pasture, and occasionally resort to a bit of samizdat publishing that almost nobody ever even hears of, let alone actually reads?

State bans on parties and their publications simply DO NOT WORK. They drive such groups underground and make them harder to spot, and thus harder to deal with. I'd rather have the fash out in the open, and thus easier tospot and deal with, than have them living in the shadows free to dream up whatever nasty little scheme takes their fancy. Did it ever occur to you that an organisation being banned might actually ADD to its appeal?

The State bans on organised opposition didn't work in the former Soviet Union, they didn't work in Nazi Germany, and as far as I know they haven't worked anywhere else either, neither did the laws against sedition in Britain. And that was in states where there were infinitely more severe penalties for such activities than there are here.

Besides, what do you think the new and supposedly outwardly respectable BNP will do, in the event of their being offically proscribed? I'll tell you. They'll go running straight to the media and make themselves into martyrs. Then they'll go to the European Court of Human Rights, win a nice fat settlement and acres of free publicity, and then present themselves as the one true voice of the British people, being persecuted fortheir beliefs, however vile I personally consider those beliefs to be.

Pilgrim

Just talk for yourself, not anyone else

16.09.2005 08:15

"Would you suddenly go whining to all and sundry about the sudden abuse of your human rights? Hard to do that, if you've previously supported the enforced removal of the rights of others."

This is where we disagree. I do not believe that OPPOSING a ban on the BNP will make the left stronger in the future. The opposite is true.

When the State bans a left party or press, I will fight to resist it. Just like the BNP will fight to resist any bans on them. If I win that is good. If they win that is bad. The difference between you and me is that I am on the correct side in each case whereas you are on the correct side in one and the wrong side in the other.

When Royal Mail places bans on BNP election material, imagine the idiocy of this A-A-Anarchist NUT CASE getting up on a soap box in the workplace and arguing AGAINST the ban and in favour of distributing their Nazi lies. IMAGINE IT. Jesus Christ.

Memory-Hole--Catchers-Mitt (swatting AAAnarchist flies)

UK Indymedia

BNP newpaper siezed, good or bad?

Comments

Bad

Bad

Freedom of speech is an inalieable right.

but the bnp insight racial hatred so GOOD

Do Nazis have Rights?

Bad precedent

Panic over!?

Oh Alah, deliver us from liberal reasoning

here comes the Dictatorship

end game

Brits deserve what they got because they gave up their freedoms for "security".

Ahem

Freedom of Speech

I will say this slowly

Good

why smear the bnp as if they are communists?

Nazism and the BNP

The Dual Strategy

are the BNP Nazis?

Dangerous Precedent? YES!

comment

Sauce For The Goose?

Reality v Abstract Principles

Are You Implying...?

Ravings from the A-A-Anarchist echo chamber

Shame On Me?

Just talk for yourself, not anyone else

Global IMC Network