[rogermellie]

unfortunately we were held up my some other moron who likes the BNP, but don't worry, we're here now.

sadly, you have grasped not only the wrong, but the shitty end of the stick - while Griffin did say that islam is a wicked religion - as quoted above, he also makes comments about sending blacks back to africa - his goons (with him stood next to them) - were filmed saying "i want to get a great big line of paki's and mow them all down with a machine gun"

his goons regulary beat up pakistani shopkeepers - and steal the takings - in the name of our glorious white heritage.

the more observant - or indeed those who can read - will know that it is currently not against the law to incite religous hatred in the UK, but it is against the law to incite racial hatred - and that in the UK we do not coinsider Islam to be a 'race' any more than we do Christianity - therefore, those who remain sentient will work out for themselves that the lovely Mr Griffin was not arrested for saying anything about Islam, but for making a different comment deemed to be inciteful to RACIAL hatred.

once again my american friends, you have been spun a line and have swallowed it with aplomb - making you appear to the rest of the world like racist fools.

details of the public face of the BNP can be found at www.bnp.org, while its actual face and that of its supporters can be found at www.bnp.net

to aid you, john tyndall was the head of the BNP, nick griffen was the head of the National Front and they merged, nick griffen then kicked out tyndall and took over, internicene warfare has taken place ever since, but john tyndall remains a 'hero' to most in the BN, the stuff on his site is the kind of thing you'd see were you unfortunate to be caught in one of their rallies.

i would suggest that you do a little research, and then come back with your comments.

[ko_kyi]

"i would suggest that you do a little research, and then come back with your comments."

Hey, it's hard enough to read more than the headline.

;)

[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.