02 November 2009

Simply racist

I was talking to a friend on Friday night and was astonished to find that she thought the BNP's definition of British is the same as hers. She considers herself British, and so does everyone else apart from the far right. The BNP has clearly failed to get its message across, so I have to do it for them.

Here's what the BNP's website says:

(a) The British National Party is a party of British Nationalism committed to the principle of national sovereignty in all British affairs. It is pledged to the restoration of the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It believes that the indigenous peoples of the entire British Isles, and their descendants overseas, form a single brotherhood of peoples, and is pledged therefore to adapt or create political, cultural, economic and military institutions with the aim of fostering the closest possible partnership between these peoples.
(b) The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white make up of the British population that existed prior to 1948.

It's hardly hidden away. There it is, in the statement of principles. The BNP wants to restore the overwhelmingly white make up of the British population, by 'legal changes, negotiation and consent'. That means, of course, that a lot of non-white people will have to stop living in Britain.

Someone always says, at this point, that if the government was willing to pay for them to go and live in the West Indies, they'd do it. But we would be talking about millions of people being paid to leave. And where would they go? My friend has no obvious place to go: her background is complicated, and her home is here. The cost of facilitating such a mass migration would be crippling - not just in the funding of the programme but in the consequences for the depopulated country left behind.

And what about mixed-race children? Presumably, they'll have to go too, as products of some 'form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples".

Basically, the aim of restoring the overwhelmingly white make up of the population by negotiation and consent is not a serious political proposal. It's an outright expression of racism.

And what happens when people don't agree to leave: when 'negotiation and consent' fail, what are the 'legal changes' that could be introduced? How can you possibly reduce the number of unwanted people in a country if they don't want to leave or there's nowhere for them to go? The answer's too horrible to consider. The BNP's constitution only offers protection to 'British people'. And that doesn't include my friend.

The BNP is founded on this simple racist principle: that white people are better and non-white people should have no rights in this country. We need to remember that. Beneath the sweaty, gross, slightly ridiculous public image, there's something much much worse.


a.hobley said...

I was wondering about this question only yesterday - how do they define "indigenous peoples of the entire British Isles"; thanks for providing the answer Brian, meaning I can avoid having to visit the BNP website.

I wonder how they would deal with the descendents of those non-whites who were living here before 1948, such as the descendents of freed black slaves in Bristol? And where does 'Europe' stop – Romanies/Gypsies live in Europe; is Turkey in Europe; what about Rumanians and so on and so on? The whole repulsive idea is tied up with contradictions. The truth is their policy is 'Non-whites out' and they more they are exposed the better

Anonymous said...

I'm not a racist, nor do I agree with 'sending people home' but I can't help feeling like we could be, maybe, not letting so many foreign citizens come into the UK to live.

There is no doubt that we are well on the way to overcrowing in the UK, particularly in certain areas. The education system and the NHS are at breaking point, we have a massive national debt, and we have insufficient jobs for the current population.

Again, I'm not saying we should be expelling people from the UK, but let's face it this is a relatively small island and we will eventually run out of resources. This coupled with the massive influx of immigrants is almost certainly going to lead to disaster.

As for 'How long do you have to live here before you become British?' this needs to be a point in time. Is the family that have been here six weeks living on benefits in a five bedroom house in Central London sufficiently British? Do you need to have lived here for a year, ten years or do you have to have been born here?

The truth is that despite 1949 being a long time ago there does need to be a definition of what makes someone British and therefore have the legal right to live in the UK. If it should be decided that someone is not British and, therefore, has no right to stay here they should be forced to leave.

Please note I have made no reference to race, colour or specific nationalities. Clearly there is a race issue as the British are a race and therefore if you are not British you are a different race.

Clearly, however, there has to be a discussion about immigration and it's benefits and drawbacks. Just because the BNP's views are not acceptable to some (me included) it doesn't mean that we have to open our arms to the whole world, or does it?

Brian said...

Andrew - thanks for dropping by. I felt like I was stating the bleedin obvious, but that sometimes gets overlooked.
Anonymous - again, thanks for your comments. I wasn't actually talking about current immigration policies. I don't know enough about the factual position to put an argument together. Maybe later. I'm glad you find the BNP's views unacceptable. That was entirely the point I was making - although I'd put it more strongly!