Far-right UK party to print Muslim cartoon

[Hatalles]

LONDON (Reuters) - The far-right British National Party (BNP) said on Wednesday it would distribute leaflets showing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad, a move Muslim groups said would provoke protests and was "playing with fire."

A spokesman for the tiny fringe party, which has no seats in parliament but a handful on local councils, said its use of the image was not intended to cause offence, but illustrated how Islam and Western values did not mix.

The party says it is not racist, but its leader Nick Griffin and another activist are due in court on race-hate charges in October.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060222/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_britain_bnp_dc

[Voice1]

1. Oh the BNP are a bunch of racists alright

"Mein Kampf is my Bible" - former BNP leader - John Tyndall
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,11375,1028498,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3894529.stm

In the documentary, footage recorded at a meeting in Keighley shows BNP leader Mr Griffin saying it was important to stand up and act for the party or "they (Muslims) will do for someone in your family". "For saying that, I tell you, I will get seven years if I said that outside." He calls Islam a "wicked, vicious faith" that "has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics" and "is now sweeping country after country". Another member, Stewart Williams, says he wants to "blow up" Bradford's mosques with a rocket launcher. BNP council candidate Dave Midgley is shown saying he squirted dog faeces through the letterbox of an Asian takeaway. In the film, Mr Barkham says he beat an Asian man during the Bradford riots. But, he says, he was not prosecuted as his victim was unable to identify him from police photographs.

And proving that they aren't only a bunch of racists, but also stupid:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=14947504&method=full&siteid=50143

Official Bob Garner said: "There was a bit of a cock-up. The chap who booked him didn't realise. The DJ sounded white on the phone." Labour MP Martin Salter said last night: "This just shows they'll never be a legitimate political party. "They're just poisonous bigots who think they can tell the colour of someone's skin from the other end of a phone line." Some members of the far right group were so outraged by the blunder they walked out of the hotel where their party was staged.

[fedsron2us]

3. They would be dangerous if they were not so thick

Griffin had actually received some vaguely sympathetic coverage from the UK press after the British governments dismal failure to convict him of inciting racial hatred at his recent trial. The hopeless performance by the Crown Prosecution Service had managed to allow the BNP to present itself as victims of a politically motivated prosecution. If they were smart they would keep their own counsel and allow events in the UK and the rest of the Muslim world to play out in their favour. Fortunately, Griffin and company are complete morons who can not resist making provocative gestures in their rush to become the next Fuhrer. This sort of action is not likely to play well with the media or most of the rest of the UK public. I am more than happy to see these Nazis so merrily piss away the political capital that they have built up with the general populace over the last month.

[Voice1]

11. I would hope they haven't built up any political capital

Unfortunately, I can see some extremist right wingers being drawn to them, from, say the extreme elements in the Tories (The Howardites who call for medical testing for all immigrants for example - I believe UKIP have now taken this policy on board).

[Irreverend IX]

46. Oh no, not Dog Faeces!

"BNP council candidate Dave Midgley is shown saying he squirted dog faeces through the letterbox of an Asian takeaway."

Woohoo Whitey! Man, these White Warriors are so bold, so daring, it makes you wonder what devastating blow they'll strike against the Melanin Hordes next.

[iverglas]

2. 2 + 2 = 4

its use of the image was not intended to cause offence
... illustrated how Islam and Western values did not mix.

Naaaah, never. Saying something false and vicious is never intended to cause offence.

Funny how these goons seem to think that the cartoons fit right in with their nasty little worldview, though, isn't it? I thought the cartoons didn't say anything negative about Islam at all, and here the goons seem to think something entirely different.

[KamaAina]

4. The BNP and Western values do not mix

illustrated how Islam and Western values did not mix.

Puh-leeze! A bunch of loutish neo-Nazi hooligans are going to tell us about Western values? I think not! :grr:

[Dutch]

8. They are defenders of western values...

If we take Hitler, Mussolini and Oswald Mosley as the chief embodiements of those values...

But for them to pose as defenders of democracy and enlightenment liberal values is laughable, to say the least, given the contempt they've repeatedly expressed for both during their ugly history.

[MisterP]

5. somebody has to say it: Griffin looks like doo with a hair weave

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Free speech for Nazis

Hooray!

[Dutch]

7. Free speech for ALL

Hooray!

The BNP are morons and crackpots who embarrass and bring derision upon themselves at almost every opportunity. Trying to silence them would be doing them a favour- in fact the recent ham-fisted prosecution against Griffin gave them the most positive publicity they've ever had.

[Voice1]

12. I can't believe those 2 were found not guilty of racism

Considering their blatent hatemongering. There are worrying mixed messages coming out of Britain's justice system at the moment.

ie Abu Hamza - Guilty, Nick Griffin - innocent.

The completely wrong signals are being sent out about the majority of people in this country.

[Azathoth]

9. There is a very easy solution to all this

The British government should put out a statement with the names and addresses of the BNP leaders publishing the cartoon, advising any Muslims who are offended to take the matter up with the publishers.

[iverglas]

10. not so easy

The British government should put out a statement with the names and addresses of the BNP leaders

The British government is, of course, prohibited from releasing personal information in any of its files without the consent of the individuals to whom it belongs. Brits and Europeans (and Canadians) take the protection of personal data quite seriously.

No easy fix. Nobody's really suggesting that the BNP or anyone else should have been prohibited from publishing these materials. And nobody's really suggesting that any formal or informal retaliation for publishing them is appropriate.

I'm just finding it very interesting that an outfit like the BNP would so readily see the materials as serving their purpose -- to stir up hatred of Muslims -- when all the other publishers of it (and many of their defenders hereabouts) protested so loudly that the materials weren't even capable of doing that, let alone designed to do it.

And how also very interesting that none of the ones hereabouts have had any comment on this story.

[meganmonkey]

13. No agenda here,

this is clearly about 'free-speech' :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

14. but where

are all DU's free speech afficionados telling us this???

Surely they should be all over it.

And don't forget -- those "cartoons" weren't about provoking hatred -- they were just funny little pictures of some guy doing funny things. How could anybody possibly have thought they might connect up with some racist right-wing political agenda???

And who could possibly have thought that right-wing racists might enjoy offending the people they hate?

Not us!

[Voice1]

16. Another victory for "free speech" in London

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200602/0229526a-8493-4f42-aa53-3bb78e824101.htm

Ken Livingstone suspended from office as the Mayor of London by an unelected body, for comparing a Jewish newspaper reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

[iverglas]

19. and look at the press being outraged

But Evening Standard editor Veronica Wadley stopped short of calling for the mayor's resignation after the judgement.

She welcomed the ruling and said there was "no question that he caused offence to many Londoners by his comments, and his stubborn refusal to say sorry aggravated the position".

Yup, the press is just the guardian of free speech and never has interests of its own to promote, eh?


Edit:

I've moved the rest of the post to a thread started about this particular story:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2129365&mesg_id=2129365

[Voice1]

20. Of course that newspaper group has a history

In regard to ties to fascism. Should the reporter concerned apologise for working for that newspaper group as well?

[iverglas]

21. one might think

that claiming outrage at being compared to a concentration camp guard ... when what one is doing is harassing people coming out of a gay/lesbian event ... while working for an outfit like that might fall under the rubric of "protesting too much". Or maybe glass houses and stones, motes and logs, pots and kettles ...

[Voice1]

22. Seems to be a lot of that around at the moment

Doesn't there, unfortunately.

[Englander]

15. BNP prints controversial cartoon

The British National Party has printed one of the controversial cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad on its website and in a campaign leaflet.

It is placed next to a photo of a cartoons-inspired protest in London showing placards urging violence against anyone who insulted Islam.

The BNP leaflet asks people which of the two "you find offensive".

Labour said the tactics were from the "Nazi textbook". Tories said the BNP had sunk to "despicable levels".

A BNP spokesman said: "We are a democratic party which wants a debate."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4739336.stm

[The Stranger]

17. If there was any question that Flemming Rose (Dan Pipes' buddy) did not

publish this as a caricature of hate (as opposed to some exercise of free speech, which it wasn't, because no one ever tried to prevent its publication), then that question has been put to rest.

It was never a question of free speech/prior restraint. It was always intended to incite violence, to denigrate and demonize.

[Voice1]

18. Indeed The Stranger

This Danish Newspaper has a history, in 2003, it refused to publish images of Jesus, saying that they did not want to offend Christians:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

In 2001, the paper allowed a right wing extremist party to publish a list of 5000 names in their paper, mostly Muslim:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1504457.stm

Denmark has been plagued in recent years by the right-wing's attempt to curry the favour of the electorate by drumming up an anti-immigration, anti-asylum seeker sentiment, particularly against Muslims.

Earlier this month, the editor in chief said that "in no circumstances will (Jyllands Posten) publish Holocaust cartoons from an Iranian newspaper."
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=203972006

Jyllands-Posten said on January 30 it regretted it had offended Muslims and apologised to them, but stood by its decision to print the cartoons, saying it was within Danish law. Two days later, Juste said he would not have printed the cartoons had he foreseen the consequences.

The newspaper knew exactly what it was doing, it was intending to incite.

[ousterbush]

27. Much stranger, indeed

Voice1: As the articles themselves point out, the Christ cartoons were unsolicited and the 5000 names were otherwise available. Holocaust cartoons, examples of which I've seen at iranian.com, were likely vicious in the way the J-P Muhammad cartoons were not.

In fact, the "cartoons" of Muhammad printed in Jyllands-Posten were simply designs and illustrations. Only two could really be called cartoonish. As we all know now, the most provocative cartoons were in fact produced by Danish imams and shopped around the ME months previous.

The Danish cartoons were a pretext for staged rioting.

Whose side are you on, anyway?

[DemExpat]

28. Indeed, ousterbush.

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

DemEx

[iverglas]

33. "indeed" ...

"Indeed" anything in particular?

You want to know which side Voice1 is on, too?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

31. oh yes, and btw

the 5000 names were otherwise available.

Say -- so are those Holocaust "cartoons". Will you make a contribution if I take up a collection to buy space in your local newspaper to publish them? I can think of lots of things that are otherwise available that don't seem to be in your local newspaper, and I think it's high time that was remedied. Pony up some cash, and we'll work on it together.

[Voice1]

48. See my previous messge.

Edited - Replied to wrong person.

[iverglas]

32. so, friend

Whose side are you on, anyway?

Why do you ask?

Further questions will follow, but I really really do want an answer to that one.

[Voice1]

47. My point is simple really

My point of view isn't from the simplistic perspective of "with us or against us" it's from the point of view that those behind these Mohammed cartoons were deliberately attempting provocation. I would agree that there is no excuse for violence, I personally object to that, just as much as anyone else does.

I was trying to highlight the fact that this newspaper is wary of offending some people, but, when confronted with things which could offend others is not so wary, I personally find that slightly hypocritical. As for "which side am I on", I think you'll find that I am not on any particular "side" in this cartoons row. Should I be on one side or another?

[iverglas]

23. and if there was ever any question

about how dedicated some folks are to that "I will defend to the death" business, I think it's been answered by their notable absence in this thread.

They'll defend it to the death only when it's nice and easy, methinks, and when they can pretend that they're talking about "free speech" and not about the spewings of racist scum.

I wanna see some defending, me.

Of course, I guess free speech doesn't actually need defending here, since nobody seems to have tried to suppress the speech in question by punishing anybody for it.

Hmm, funny, that's kinda exactly like how it was when the "cartoons" were published by those fine upstanding periodicals in the first place.

And yet the free speech über alles crowd seemed to think that those fine upstanding periodicals needed defending against something nobody was doing, while their victims don't seem to have been thought worthy of a moment's attention or two words of solidarity denouncing the EXERCISE of freedom of speech to denigrate innocent people and expose them to public contempt and the obviously foreseeable consequences of that contempt ...

I keep hoping that the thread will catch their eyes, and maybe we'll hear from them. They could denounce the obviously bigoted motivation for this publication, and maybe even muse on how that was the obvious motivation of the initial publication as well, and denounce things done with such motivation as any decent person would. And leave off the tilting at straw things and waving of the free speech banner, given as how nobody's trying to suppress speech.

It's a funny old world, eh?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. I don't see the "defend to the death free speech" people need say much

The BNP have said they're going to use the cartoons; various people have said "how awful". No-one has started a boycott of companies that are British, or withdrawn ambassadors from Britain, let alone had any destructive riots. There's some free speech going on. Why should people who say free speech is sacred bother looking at the thread, or responding to it?

[iverglas]

26. uh, I think that was my point

Why should people who say free speech is sacred bother looking at the thread, or responding to it?

What did all the screeching about free speech have to do with the initial event -- the publication of the "cartoons" in Denmark -- at all?

Sure didn't stop a lot of it from happening.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Because some people (not DUers) were demanding the newspaper be punished

and at that point, defenders of free speech spoke up. This is similar to the David Irving case - when someone known to be a nasty turd was jailed for lying about the Holocaust, a lot of DUers denounced it. I think they're being consistent.

[iverglas]

37. revisionism?

Because some people (not DUers) were demanding the newspaper be punished and at that point, defenders of free speech spoke up.

The "defenders of free speech" hit the ground running en masse, and certainly didn't limit themselves to addressing demands for punishment. Lordy, one doesn't see such brouhaha hereabouts over most things the Bush administration does; why anyone would have got so worked up about things as they stood when this all started here (no embassy burnings, no KFC trashing, no Holocaust denigration ...) is kinda beyond me. Well, not really, but y'know. The "defences" were very certainly not directed only against persons not present calling for the publication to be suppressed/punished.

In very large part, they weren't defences of free speech at all; they were denials of the offensiveness of the materials themselves, along with many loud protestations of not giving a shit if a few ignorant/obnoxious Muslims were offended.

I'd like to see such denials and protestations now. That is, of course: I think the denials were pretty hollow, and the protestations were, well, we all know what I think they were.

Let's see someone deny that the materials are offensive, despite how pleasing they seem to be to an outfit like the BNP. And let's see some more of those protestations about how these "offended" Muslims are just trying to impose their theology on us.

This is similar to the David Irving case - when someone known to be a nasty turd was jailed for lying about the Holocaust, a lot of DUers denounced it. I think they're being consistent.

The thing is, I don't see very many denouncing anything -- not like the hundreds of posts standing up for the Danish newspaper and denouncing its detractors, which was the case I was referring to. That's the analogous one: no one's freedom of speech was being threatened by any authority (only an authority can actually threaten or restrict freedom of speech), and yet a gazillion people were ready to rumble about free speech and defend the speech itself -- which has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

The Danish newspaper story was actually about publication and response to publication, not "free speech" -- not as the subject of debate here. Everybody under attack from the free speech brigade here was indeed portrayed as opposing free speech, but that's determinative of nada.

I realize my point may have been a little obscure, but that's the gist of it: when a respectable periodical prints despicable crud about Muslims, there is a chorus of support for its right to speak, even though its right to speak was never in jeopardy; and denials of the inappropriateness of its speech, even though the inappropriateness of its speech was obvious to a blindfolded two-year-old.

I just want to hear the same chorus of support and denial when a nasty little neo-Nazi (y'know, anti-Semitic) outfit does it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. I think you're ignoring the timetable of the Danish cartoons

I don't remember seeing anything about them on DU when they were originally published; if there was, it was low key. It became a big story here when the boycott of Danish products became news, Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador from Denmark, and then the street protests and riots started. That was when it became a free speech rallying cry here, because many Muslims weren't just saying they were offended, they were saying they wanted the paper punished, or laws passed in Europe against offending religions. And that's what I think is similar to the Irving case - it became a big thing here when there was someone saying he shouldn't be allowed to sayit - in his case, the Austrian courts with actual power, rather than Muslims without power to enforce their views.

That many people were also saying they didn't think the cartoons were offensive, or that it didn't matter if they were offensive (and in my opinion, it doesn't, as far as deciding if the paper should have been able to publish them), isn't relevant to whether the claims about free speech are consistently applied by its supporters here. In the case of the BNP, we're still in the first phase - they have stated their intention to print the leaflets, and people have said it's shameful etc. There's been no attempt to stop them - so their speech is still free. Hence no calls for freedom of speech to be respected.

The Danish newspaper story was actually about publication and response to publication, not "free speech" - that's confused me. Publication is exercising freedom of speech, and when the response is to call for the prevention of publication, that's denying the freedom. Why do you think they're different things?

[iverglas]

42. one more time

Hence no calls for freedom of speech to be respected.

Boycotts and withdrawals of ambassadors, and even riots, have absolutely nothing to do with FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

People here boycott Wal-Mart; are they seeking to get freedom of retail commerce denied?

"It" didn't become a free speech rallying cry here because of those things, even though it may have been contemporaneous with them, and I think we both know that perfectly well. And most of the discussion here had absolutely nothing to do with free speech, but was rather about the merits of the speech itself. People who want to be perceived as defenders of free speech might do well to stay away from the merits of the speech, else people like me become very suspicious of their true motives and purposes.

Sadly, I must now go order pizza and sleep, in order to be in shape to drive five hours to a noon wedding I don't want to go to in the morning ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. It is to do with freedom of speech

because the boycotts were not of the paper, they were of all things Danish, to put pressure on the Danish government to intervene. I disagree on what you claim we both know. Even if most of the discussion was not about free speech, that's irrelevant - you were asking why free speech defenders hadn't shown up in this thread.

[genie_weenie]

34. Wow, you are very angry.

What exactly is the problem with the BNP reprinting the pictures.

1) Are the images inherently wrong?
2) Is it that you disagree with their political viewpoint?
3) Is it their reasons for publishing them?
4) Is it the after effects of publishing them?

I admit I am confused by the issue.

[iverglas]

38. wow, I so love personal commentary

New rule: if you expect to get a response from me, you say something meaningful and straightforward to me, not something pointless and false about me.

typo fixed

[genie_weenie]

39. I didn't mean to offend you

If you think my post was a way to elicit a response, I apologize. However, from reading your posts, I get the sense that you have strong emotions concerning this issue. It wasn't pointless, the *tone* of your posts is quite clearly anger at those who you feel defended the issue of the images of the prohphet as "freedom of speech". Re-read them, your previous posts come across as full of anger.

Thanks for the snide remark. In your other posts to me as well...

[iverglas]

40. see previous post (n/t)

[Lucy - Claire]

25. They must be looking for big man points.........

The BNP is generally loathed by the British. The Muslims hopefully will understand that it is a deliberated attempt to stir trouble and does not represent British views on the whole. And hopefully there will not be riots in Bradford, Brick Lane, Birmingham, Leeds or anywhere else. This is also likely to be about baiting the government, with issues about free expression and inciting racial tension and hatred.

[Voice1]

49. Exactly Lucy Claire

The BNP are known to have deliberately incited hatred, for anyone who doesn't believe this, they should read the above article I posted a link to. The BNP have jumped on the so called "free speech" bandwagon, when to them, this isn't about free speech at all, merely trying to stir up hatred.

But of course, to some, the BNP is innocent, never mind the fact that some of their members have been whipped up into such a frenzy that they have shoved dog muck through asians letterboxes, and bragged about beating up people.

[gorbal]

36. You know they WANT to cause a riot

They just want a race war.

[fshrink]

43. Trying to ride the wave for

a bunch of idiots who usually prefer to target jews.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. No, Muslims have been their main target for some time now

The BNP leader was in court a few weeks ago on charges of inciting rate hatred. He was cleared on the charges to do with his comments about Stephen Lawrence, a black schoolboy who was murdered in a race hate crime; the jury couldn't reach a verdict on charges on a speech in which he claimed 'Muslims' were raping 'white girls' to get them pregnant with mixed race babies that would be rejected by whites. BY far the largest amount of BNP hatred is now aimed at Mulsims, since the British law against inciting racial hatred covers Jews and Sikhs, since they are recognised as ethnic groups, but not 'Muslims', since that is purely a religious group.