Nick Griffin not guilty

[anotheoldgit]

Why was Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, hurled through the courts twice and each time found not guilty of inciting racial hatred? When he just using his right to freedom of speach when he called Islam "a wicked, vicious faith".

And subsequently because Nick Griffin was freed, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown state "the law needs to be changed"? Surely the law was changed to cover religous hatred, after Nick Grffin was initially charged? But apparently not to the satifaction of the Muslims, who say the present law only protects, Jews and Catholics.

Does anyone else feel that we are entering into dangerous territory when the state can freely alter or bring in new laws, when the judgement of a court of law does not fit in with their political agenda?

[jonnythebosh]

NH, if for one moment you could take the liberal, lefty goggles off you would see that people are justifiably expressing their view that Musilms have been treated as something special and allowed to behave accordingly for too long. Idiots like you immediatly playing the race/ religion card as soon as people point out the fact that they have been beyond criticism no matter what views they express or their behaviour are responsible for they mess we have now. Quite simply we are sick of free speech for the vocal minority whilst the silent majority have to accept it and not rock the boat. Thats the beauty of the left, so far up their own arses and obsessed with being right on they can't see the total hypocrisy they spout.

[johnizere]

spot on, johhny.

[sp1814]

jonnythebosh

Do you think that there would be no BNP if we had no Muslims in the UK?

If that were the case, could you please explain to me their policies on legal immigrants from the West Indies and Africa during the 1997 election..actually, no - I'm wrong. It wasn't the 1997 election...it must've been 1993/

Do you remember when they screened that party political broadcast?

It was the blacks then.

As far as I can recall, we weren't actually doing anything, other then being killed in Eltham, and latterly Liverpool.

C'mon - if it wasn't the Muslims, it'd be the Hindus, then the black population, then gays and Jews.

I'm going to pose this as a serious question, because for the life of me, I've never got a straight answer from any BNP supporter...

If the BNP came to power in the local elections in Islington where I live, do you think that my life as as working black man with a good job, in a stable relationship etc - be improved or do you think I would be treated worse than I am now?

Do you think that if the BNP came to power, the fact that I have lived here all my life (and my mother nearly</> all her life would make me less 'British'?

[beryllium]

Hi sp1814, The BNP won 11 seats in Dagenham recently, no idea how the people there are doing. Does anyone know? are they running the shop there?
Only curious tis all......

[jonnythebosh]

Forget the BNP high horse, i don't support them and never will, my point is that Muslims have been treated with kid gloves and indulged so much that a sizeable number thinkl that they are beyond reproach. I think that this prosecution was politically motivated by the left wing media (BBC) and government. Like i said, Griffin was just saying what he thought of islam just like countless imans and muslims have aired their views on what they think of Britain.
And to my knowledge black immigrants have never launched terrorist attacks on this country killing innocent civilians and advocated the destruction of britain and installing their own caliphate to rule the coountry. The majority of Racist attacks in this country are now commited on whites so don't make out it's a one way street. Like it or not we are just turning the corner and it is now being accepted that the silent majority, who for years have been shouted down as racist if they raise any objections to what is going on in their own country, can now discuss these matters. And it's about time.

[jump79]

anotheoldgit- freedom of speech is not the same as "hate speech" used deliberately to incite negative attitudes/violence against a certain group of people, which we all know was what Griffin set out to do.
It would still be wrong if it was some other minority group leader who targeted any other religion in a similar way.

So no it's not hypocrisy, being able to differentiate between free speech and hate speech is plain common sense.

[sp1814]

JTB

You wrote:

And to my knowledge black immigrants have never launched terrorist attacks on this country killing innocent civilians and advocated the destruction of britain and installing their own caliphate to rule the country

Agreed...we haven't - but the BNP would still be more than happy to send us home through a programme of 'voluntary repatriation'.

[jonnythebosh]

sp, all i have been trying to say is that if people are entitled to their point of view no matter how offensive people find it. That is free speech, Muslims have been allowed to publically speak about death to non-believers, destroy our country etc. Odious as he is Griffin didn't go as far as that so why was he in court? If it's all right for them to say these things it should be all right for us to criticise aspects of Islam.
As i said, i do not support the BNP and never will but they should be allowed their opinions just like anybody.

[anotheoldgit]

I couldn't have put it better than jonnythebosh, except to add it all goes back to colour, if Mick Griffin had got up and started insulting the Poles or anyother east european immigrant nobody would have battered an eyelid.

That is why it has suddenly been all right to have open debate on the influx of immmigrants from eastern europe. Something that would never have happened if these immigrants had a darker skin.

A prime example of this fact is that when there was a large influx of immigrants from Bosnia to a area of my city which has a mainly Asian & Black population, it was these residents who complained that they should be placed in any other area of the city, but theirs. Now if we had made the same demands against the present residents when they took up residence in that area way back in the 60's, we would have been classed as Racist, Nazis, or members of the National Front (as it was then).

So could it be that freedom of speach only becomes hate speach when it is focused on someone with a darker skin? In other words you can say what you like about anyone providing they have a pale skin colour.