On Monday, 26 April, members of Unite Against Fascism, Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union (Bectu), the Muslim Council of Britain and Jewish Council for Racial Equality protested against the BBC’s recording of the British National Party’s (BNP) election broadcast, however if Britain is a racially tolerant country why do groups like this oppose the BNP’s public presence?
How many times have the media and politicans referred to Britain as a racially tolerant society? According to a report on the BBC website on Monday, 9 December 2002, “The British Social Attitudes survey which was carried out by NatCen…reveals that the we have become less racist…than in the past.”
On November 26 2008, Manchester Evening News reported “Britain is becoming a more racially tolerant society, according to a study by Manchester University. And it is the younger generations who are leading the way in the sharp decline of prejudice since the 1980s.”
The report goes on to say how younger people are less opposed to interracial relationships compared to the older generation.
If this is all correct then why is their a big fuss over the BBC allowing the BNP, a legal political party their election broadcast? Could it be that Britain is not as racially tolerant as the media and politicians have led us to believe?
It is interesting that when BNP leader Nick Griffin appeared on BBC1’s Question Time, he stated on the show that the Ku Klux Klan, an extreme white supremacist group in America was non violent. Despite this he won public support after a YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph indicated that 22% of voters would consider backing the BNP in a local, European or general election. (Daily Telegraph: 23 October, 2009)
In the BNP’s 2010 election manifesto it reads:
“At current immigration and birth rates, indigenous British people are set to become a minority well within 50 years. This will result in the extinction of the British people, culture, heritage and identity. The BNP will take all steps necessary to halt and reverse this process. These steps will include a halt to all further immigration, the deportation of all illegal immigrants, a halt to the “asylum” swindle and the promotion of the already existing voluntary repatriation scheme.”
Note that the last two lines refer to all non-whites who were born in this country. Considering this why are whites voting for this party one might reasonably ask? Is it really frustration and disillusionment with the other mainstream parties or something far more sinister?
Would it be acceptable for Muslims to side with extreme Islamic groups because they were frustrated and disillusioned with British foreign policy? I doubt the media or the government would accept this view.
Would it be acceptable for black people in this country to support Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe if he called for all whites to be repatriated to their lands of origin because they were frustrated and disillusioned with British foreign policy in Africa? Again, the media and the government would most likely reject this viewpoint.
So why is it when white Britons choose to vote for the BNP all kinds of excuses are offered to explain their behaviour? Why are they not seen as extremists as Muslims would if they supported an Islamic group with similar policies? The double standards reveals much about how white extremism is looked upon favourably in Britain and can explain why many groups fear the BNP being given a public platform.
The argument is simple if Britain is truly a multicultural and racially tolerant society then no amount of BNP broadcasts should change this outlook, if it is not then it explains why so many groups want to prevent them from a public platform because there is clearly a market for racism and the BNP.
For further Research: