British National Party leader detained [arrested] after calling Islam 'wicked faith'

AFP via Yahoo ^ | 12/14/2004 | Staff

[sarah_f]

LONDON (AFP) - The leader of the rightwing British National Party(BNP), Nick Griffin, was arrested Tuesday after he called Islam a "vicious, wicked faith" in a television documentary.

Griffin, 45, was arrested on suspicion of "incitement to commit racial hatred" and held for questioning by police in northern England before he was released on bail several hours later.

When asked if he considered Islam a "vicious, wicked faith", Griffin urged reporters to study the Koran for themselves before saying: "There are aspects of that religion which are wicked."

He then condemned the treatment of women under Islam.

The BNP, which won 800,000 votes but no seats in the European elections in June, charged the arrest was part of a "crude" bid by Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s government to win back Muslim votes lost over his war in Iraq (news - web sites).

A BNP spokesman said four non-uniformed police officers raiding the family farmhouse in Wales "awoke the Griffin household from their sleep" early Tuesday.

Griffin was the 12th person arrested in connection with the investigation into the BBC documentary aired in July.

The BNP's founding chairman John Tyndall, 70, was arrested on suspicion of the same offense on Sunday following a speech he made in the northwestern city of Burnley in March.

[ArmyTeach]

Thanks for the clarification. However, whenever I hear Islam referred to as the religion of peace, I'm from Missouri. If that allusion evades you, think of Eliza in MY FAIR LADY declaring in song that she's "so sick of words -show me!"

[Fred Nerks]

Yes, I see the similarity. But what do you mean by " It's very easy to see where the line has been drawn in the past..."
Sorry for the delay in my response, due to time-difference. While you are 'up' I'm sleeping...

[rcocean]

Well, I've read that some British Schools and politicians have a different view on the "holiday"

As for "we think rights have responsibilities" I don't know what that means.

I just thank God the British Orwellian "let's chuck him into jail - he said something we don't like" attitude isn't allowed under our bill of rights.

[demecleze]

I cannot condemn their ideology just because I do not agree with it. Their racial views were the norm for most of European history and they may come back into vogue, but that is for the voters to decide.

If they did advocate violence then the arrests were valid. However, in the case of sending nonwhite people back to their homeland, I believe that is advocation of a proposed government policy(as abhorrent as it may be) rather than incitement of hate crimes. I was of the impression that incitement of hate crimes were the incitement of criminal acts within a society and it would not pertain to advocation of government policy.

For instance, Japan does not grant citizenship to anyone who is not of the Japanese race and most Japanese support this policy. This does not represent a hate crime as it is government policy.

Maybe I am wrong on this but where does the advocation of a policy end and a hate crime begin and who decides this?

I think that no entity should be acted against if it is working within the system. If Muslim scholars wish to decry the US then fine but many are actively trying to destroy it. That should be the criteria for acting against political entities.

[rcocean]

I'll help you out.

Speech liberals don't like = Hate Crime

Speech conservatives don't like = allowed under free speech

[EdReform]

When asked if he considered Islam a "vicious, wicked faith", Griffin urged reporters to study the Koran for themselves before saying: "There are aspects of that religion which are wicked."

Supplemental reading:

Prophet of Doom - Islam’s Terrorist Dogma, In Muhammad’s Own Words

Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories.
Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money.
He was a terrorist.

And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence at www.prophetofdoom.net.

[demecleze]

Some people hold the view that the Egyptians were helped by Aliens or that there were Europeans in North America First (I am not equating these two the second is much more likely). There are those that deny Stalin starved to death 7 million Ukrainians or that he killed millions making that canal.

History is dynamic and there are always those on the fringes of the 'what happened' gradient, that is the way it should be.

If I deny that the at the center of the Galaxy lies a black hole, this is against current consensus. Should I be jailed?

There is book called the bell curve that says Asians are superior to Whites and Whites are superior to Blacks. I am sure you could find people who believe the opposite or other permutations thereof. So what? That is their prerogative to state what they think is true! That is the point of free speech! So that people who have views that are likely to be suppressed can speak out! This is our buffer against tyranny.

This includes wackjobs, racists and pedophiles but it also includes clergymen, scientists and great political revolutionaries (the two groups are not completely mutually exclusive).

[MontanaBeth]

He'd be much happier if you wandered around the streets looking for a couple of blacks to attack. Perhaps you could send him a note stating that your 2005 membership fee for the K.K.K. was in his honour. Maybe you could daub the local synagogue with graffiti to laud his brave actions. He would be delighted with any of these actions.

Well I guess I should have known somehow, from this one article, that the man is known to be a bigot. Excuse me for commenting on UK politics, I must have lost my mind for a moment and will now stick to my side of the ocean. Thanks for your kind heads up.

[rogermellie]

OK, we agree to disagree on the parameters of 'hate speech'.

part of the problem with what griffen says is who he says it to, what could be a philosophical discussion in a university common room is something else in a room full of baying thugs with swastica tatoos on their foreheads.

i remain convinced that griffin was arrested for saying something other than the quote given in the article, as that would appear to be within the law as it stands.

he has a record - on tv - of saying very nasty things about pretty much everybody, so to try to pin it down on one speech would be difficult without the transcripts of the police interviews - of course it is in the BNP's political interest to say it was the Islam speech, but it may well not be (as islam, like any religion, is not given specific protection under UK law) and the police are very unlikely to comment on the specific nature of the arrest warrant.

i would urge you to take a look at the mentioned websites, decide for yourself.

[tjwmason]

Well, I've read that some British Schools and politicians have a different view on the "holiday"

Obviously there are some people who have differing views (we have more than our fair share of leftists), however if you can name for me the publicly funded American school which has daily prayers (mine did when I left in 1997, I'd guess still does). Which holds a Nativity play (my 4 year-old cousin is playing Mary in one this year). Which has a Christmas Carol Service (my old school has one next Monday in the local parish church). Which has the local parish Priest automatically as a governor of the school (my father fulfills such a role).

Whilst the British picture is not uniformly wonderful by any means, all of the above activities which are perfectly normal would be banned in the U.S., and would cause an immediate law-suit by the A.C.L.U. were any school board to develop the b*lls to try one.

[tjwmason]

Well I guess I should have known somehow, from this one article, that the man is known to be a bigot. Excuse me for commenting on UK politics, I must have lost my mind for a moment and will now stick to my side of the ocean.

My apologies if I was too harsh in my tone, but the British FReepers have been involved in a running battle for the past 24 hours over this issue. On the basis of a (in my opinion) misleading article (he could not have been arrested on the basis of what he said about Islam), many Americans have staunchly defended Griffen and have been telling us that this is the end of Britain as a free-state.

The immediate reaction to his arrest on the British message board was one of relief, we are unanimously opposed to his hateful and violent brand of politics; and meeting support for it from well-meaning but non-informed American conservatives (who would dislike him as much as we) has been somewhat tiring.

[rcocean]

Actually, we don't disagree on the "parameters" of hate speech. We disagree on the whole concept of "hate" speech. IMO, "hate" speech is simply a label people slap on someone or something they don't like.

It's just another name for censorship. People say a lot things I don't like and consider "hateful". But Thank God, I don't have the power under the 1st amendment to put them into jail for saying it.

As for the person involved, I don't doubt he's a nasty person, who says nasty thing. Why not simply point this out, and trust the majority of people to come to the same conclusion?

Of course, if someone inciting violence he can be arrested for disturbing the peace. As Holmes said, the 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

[deaconjim]

It is right that he is able to express his opinion, right or wrong. Every individual who hears him is responsible for his or her reaction to his opinion. If they develop hatred, it is their responsibility, not his. We are all given a choice to react as we see fit.

Should he be prevented from making true statements that might also incite hatred? If Islam is a 'wicked faith', (and I believe that it is), then it is entirely right to say it.

Would it be okay for some pointy headed KKK member to refer in public to Condoleezza Rice as a ------ ? (you know, the N word)

I do not believe that it is O.K. for anyone, even a "pointy headed KKK member, or an NAACP member for that matter, to refer to Condoleezza Rice, or anyone else, as a n-----. I will, however, defend their right to say it. It is helpful, after all, to know just who holds those opinions.

I am getting stroppy because it is not right for anyone to be jailed for expressing an honest opinion. It is not the government's place to decide what is acceptable to say and what is not.

[Rocky]

"you lot are getting stroppy"

Gee, do you think he's a Brit perhaps? And a bit unappreciative of what free speech constitutes, since his lot doesn't believe in it.

[deaconjim]

Might I also point out that, according to your standards, you could be arrested for inciting hatred against the KKK members that you refered to as "pointy headed". After all, is it fair to protect one group against hatred, but not another just because you disagree with them?

I would also like to point out that, here in America, we believe that our rights are given to us by God, and the proper role of government is to protect our freedom to exercise those rights. Government may have the power, but it does not have the authority to deny us that freedom. As long as we still have the freedom to exercise our right to keep and bear arms, we can defend our right to free speech.

[Peter Libra]

'Lo there deaconjim. Just have not done my homework well, but I cannot leave this thread. Now there is a law in my native country. Or if not, something like it. This law is to the effect that if a minority person perceives any comment or look as offensive to THEM, then the perpetrator can be taken to court. This is even if the said perpetrator was unintentionally doing that. I was unbelieving and still hope I have got it wrong.

Believe me and I have been back to the UK, the best way for many people to co-exist is to utterly deny truth. There may be some merit in this, because to be jumped on and make an example of, is an old English tactic. I know. The English school system used it a long time ago.

Better for most people to pick on someone like Griffin. Forget El Hamza. Orwell would have cried- or laughed, I don't know which. Edmund Burke must be turning over in his grave.

[stands2reason]

Used to be some classy Brits on this forum...

[BobL]

"Yes, I see the similarity. But what do you mean by 'It's very easy to see where the line has been drawn in the past...' Sorry for the delay in my response, due to time-difference. While you are 'up' I'm sleeping..."


Hi Fred,

All I meant is that we allow dialog if it is somewhat fact-based - no matter what the facts are. People in this country have said horrible things about the KKK and the German Nazis, but they don't get in trouble, since their statements are pretty much accurate.

To call Jews bloodsuckers has no truth in fact, so it is hate speech. But to say the Koran says "kill the infidels" is factual. To say all Muslims are bloodthirsty is hate speech, since that clearly is not true. To say the Koran incites violence and Mohamad was a pedeophile is accurate and should never be classified as hate speech.

Questioning the plan to exterminate the Jews was, in a way, considered hate speech in Nazi Germany (and could get you executed) - after all the Jews were subhuman - so of course they needed to be eliminated.

So the bottom line is: Once accurate criticism is termed "hate speech", then open debate is prohibited, and you start on a very nasty downward slope.

[Fred Nerks]

I understand. And I agree. "Once accurate criticism is classified as hate speech..." IMO we might as well be living under a dictatorship!
(And that is why I am so interested in the outcome of the trial of the lay-preachers who conducted the seminar in Victoria. I think this case has huge implications, and not just in this country.)
The submission made in their defence makes interesting reading I think, did you find it on the link?
Bottom of the page...
http://www.catchthefire.com.au/newsandinfo.html

[deaconjim]

The only reason why any government would deny a people their God given rights is if it fears the consequences of the free exercise of those rights. Any government that fears the exercise of free speech is not only weak, but has much to hide.