Simster said:We're not arguing whether or not the BNP are nasty racist scumbags though are we?
looney said:My veiw is that Griffin will get of and Mamza will be aquitted of at least half the charges against him, could be wrong though.
looney said:Should jack Straw go on trial for calling whites mongrals? Or other labour mp's for their anti-semetic remarks(I am not including Ken livingstone here, his comments were stupid and inapropriate.)
enigma said:Doesnt work mate.
looney said:Or other labour mp's for their anti-semetic remarks
Oceanic said:Isn't it funny how when white victims get attacked and murdered, raped, mugged by ethnic minorities it isn't a racist attack but when it's the other way round it's a racist attack!!
The Labour party will go to any lengths to keep things out of the news unless it's a white attack.
How can they be tried for speaking the truth? It's the Labour party trying to silence the truth.
Timesonline..........
BNP ‘is vilified as witches were’
By Andrew Norfolk
TO BE called racist in 21st-century Britain is “the same as being branded a witch in the Middle Ages”, a senior member of the British National Party told a court yesterday.
Mark Collett, accused of seeking to stir up racial hatred, claimed that he and the BNP spoke the truth but were victims of “the political correctness that pervades every section of modern life”. Mr Collett, 24, and the party’s leader, Nick Griffin, face charges linked to campaign speeches made at BNP meetings in West Yorkshire during the 2004 local elections.
Giving evidence for the defence, Mr Collett told Leeds Crown Court that everything he had said was “100 per cent factual” and was supported by press cuttings, a television documentary and, in one case, a police tip-off. Claims that he stood by included allegations that Asian males were going to schools in Keighley and soliciting white children for sex; a firing range had been found under a Bradford mosque, where there was firearms training; asylum-seekers were given preferential housing treatment; and that no asylum-seekers were in Britain legitimately because they should have claimed asylum in the first peaceful country they reached.
Mr Collett, small and slight, in a grey suit with a pink shirt and tie, told the jury that “editors and reporters feel obliged to downplay criminal acts by members of ethnic minority communities. They don’t want to be branded racist.” The BNP, he said, sought to highlight the “grotesque media inequality” in the coverage of racist attacks, and his speeches aimed “to stir up political activity, not racial hatred”, to give people "a legal and democratic outlet for their opinions”.
Mr Collett said that he did not hate asylum-seekers or Asian people. He hated the white, liberal Establishment and particularly the Labour Party, who “allowed them to come here”. He said that, having stood as a BNP candidate in Leeds council elections, he had seen the “white victims” of multiculturalism. “The liberals who vilify the BNP, who say we’re racists, they never walk down these streets.
“When we say you’re reporting this wrong, the media, the Labour Party, say we’re racist. They try to shut the door on political debate by name-calling. There’s nothing worse today than being called racist. It’s the same as being branded a witch in the Middle Ages.”
Mr Collett said that his speeches had been heard only by party supporters. There were no Asian people in the audience “so there was no one there to be insulted, abused or threatened by what was being said”.
Mr Collett, of Rothley, Leicestershire, denies intending to stir up racial hatred and alternative charges of conduct likely to stir up racial hatred. Mr Griffin, 45, also denies the charges.
The trial continues.The Times online.
enigma said:Ah, another wanker crawls out of the woodwork. Sad bastard. Try and enjoy life rather than bitching about everything. Im sure your life isnt that bad, or maybe it is if you persistently whinge about all of this.
HampshireSeagulls said:Nick Griffin and his hordes of intelligentsia (see, insult them with big words, they don't understand it) are not the nicest people on the planet, but they are not the nastiest. And they have as much right to free speech as everyone else, as long as they stay within the laws of the land. Whether you like them or not is immaterial, it really doesn't matter. However, the rule has to apply evenly across all platforms. The speed with which Griffin can be tried in court is disproportionate to the speed with which Hamza was placed in court. There is a definite soft-shoe-shuffle taking place around perceived minorities which should not be happening. The head of the Muslim council claims that homosexuals are immoral, have no place in society, and are prone to catching diseases - if they have no place in society, how does he imagine they should be removed from society?
The rules of inflammatory speech are there for everyone, not just those that the courts decide they can go after without causing offence.
looney said:Has anyone here been paying attention to the trial?
I watched the documentry which precipitated the case and I did not hear anything that would be deemed to be incitement from Griffin.