Ship of Fools: BNP Party Political Broadcast

Thread: BNP Party Political Broadcast Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027139

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

Why did we have to have this bile broadcast into our livingros by the BBC earlier this evening. These Euro elections are the cause. Utter shite.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Vile though it is, it has something to do with something called 'democracy', an important component of which is freedom of speech.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Do you have an topic for discussion - the content of the broadcast, the quality and mode of presentation, the importance of the election, the issue of free speech ... - or is this basically a rant at the BNP?

If the latter, it really belongs in Hell. If there is something that you would like to propose for serious discussion, then clarification is needed.

Eliab
Purgatory Host

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

Just a rant.

Happy to go to Hell.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Just a rant.

Happy to go to Hell.

ITTWACWS

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

What EtymologicalEvangelical said.

In addition. Free speech gives us the right to ridicule everything they say.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Just a rant.

Happy to go to Hell.

I thought so.

The BNP can go to Hell.

This thread is being moved.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

The BNP can go to Hell.

you enjoyed that.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Vile though it is, it has something to do with something called 'democracy', an important component of which is freedom of speech.

Free speech is not unconstrained in a democracy however. Certain things are not permitted such as incitement to violence, incitement to hatred, giving instructions on how to make a nail bomb, that kind of thing. People can say them in private conversation if they wish but the authorities would likely baulk at their being broadcast publicly.

In that context the idea of 'no platform for fascists' can be defended since the rise of fascism is always accompanied by a rise in violent acts against minorities and often also by terrorism. It may well be true that the ideas of fascism can be so exposed that they stand no chance of winning elections but that does not prevent a small minority of people from translating the fascist propaganda of words into the deeds of racist and 'queer bashing' violence or the bombing of mosques.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

The BNP can go to Hell.
you enjoyed that.

I did.

What I especially despise about the BNP (apart from the obvious bit about them being racist cunts) is their shitty and untrue insinuation that their obnoxious doctrines are in any significant sense "British". I'm looking out of my window in Stratford, and I reckon that if I threw six rocks onto the street, I'd hit five different ethnic groups. All of them with, in my view, a better claim to British identity than those fucking fascists.

Yes, they should be allowed their election broadcasts, because banning political speech is a dangerous precedent. They can still go to Hell, though.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Considering someone to be "unacceptable" and therefore barring them from political discourse is a dangerous step. There is a line between thinking someone is unacceptable based on skin colour or sexuality and thinking them unacceptable based on political views. If we start banning the BNP from standing for election because of their racist and homophobic views, then what ground do we have to stand on to reject calls for banning Muslims or Catholics from standing for election because others disagree with their views?

So, let the BNP have their few minutes of TV time. Let everyone see them for what they are, and be forthright in expressing our opinions of their vile message. Trust and pray that the electorate shows a wee bit of nous and they lose their deposits.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep
Free speech is not unconstrained in a democracy however. Certain things are not permitted such as incitement to violence, incitement to hatred, giving instructions on how to make a nail bomb, that kind of thing. People can say them in private conversation if they wish but the authorities would likely baulk at their being broadcast publicly.

Firstly, let me make clear that by no stretch of the imagination am I a supporter of or sympathetic to the BNP. However, I would like to ask you to provide evidence that the BNP are inciting people to violence, hatred or giving instructions on how to commit an atrocity.

The claim of "inciting to hatred" is a particularly controversial one, because 'hatred' is such a general concept, that it could be applied to all manner of legitimate issues. For example, the idea of clamping down on immigration is not necessarily an "incitement to hatred", just like the act of preventing strangers walking into your own home is not an incitement to hatred.

quote:
In that context the idea of 'no platform for fascists' can be defended since the rise of fascism is always accompanied by a rise in violent acts against minorities and often also by terrorism.

This is a spurious argument. "Always accompanied by a rise in violent acts" could be said of virtually every ideology. I would say that we ought to ban the Conservative Party, because there are Tories who seem hell bent on making life miserable for travellers, not to mention the poor generally. Reducing people to poverty is, in my view, an act of violence. The extreme left should also be banned, because their ideas constitute 'violence' towards those who wish to use their abilities to develop businesses.

Like you, I loathe fascism. Unlike you, I believe they have a right to express their concerns, and perhaps if some of their concerns were actually taken seriously, such as immigration, then maybe we would not have the problem of extremism that we do have! Surely you must know that banning and censorship simply creates sympathy for the proscribed cause. The most sensible approach is to intelligently refute their arguments. Banning a cause (other than for the reasons you have given in the first paragraph) suggests that their arguments are not being properly refuted.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

I didn't suggest banning the BNP. The 'no platform for fascists' idea is really based around two propositions. Democrats should refuse to share a debating platform with fascists because by agreeing to accept them into a forum it lends them a spurious patina of democratic legitimacy. Ordinary people should deny fascist control of the streets by out-mobilising them wherever they turn up. That is, communities, trades unionists political party members and concerned citizens should use their numbers to prevent fascists acting as if they were a normal political party.

There is a significant risk that increased fascist activity feeds through into actual physical attacks by fascists or those influenced by them upon targeted groups, like ethnic minorities, homosexuals or the disabled. And, indeed the nail bomber who attacked Brixton, Brick Lane and a gay pub in Soho was associated quite directly with the BNP. Therefore the fewer people who associate with them the safer our streets should be.

The State and the broadcasting authorities are of course constrained by the laws of the land and if these permit fascists to stand or to make broadcasts so long as they themselves do not break the law then so be it. That is no reason why others should not protest loud and long against them wherever they turn up.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

Just been reminded that some sort of dog-collared cleric appeared on the BNP broadcast extolling the party. Who was he and can't you religious boffins get him defrocked pronto?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Free speech is only one aspect of the debate. The Ship has an owner and if he doesn't want to provide a platform for racists, fascists or me for that matter, then abstract notions of freedom are irrelevant.

Many other "platforms", real and virtual, are in the same situation. Use of any of these is a privilege, not a right.

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

quote:
Just been reminded that some sort of dog-collared cleric appeared on the BNP broadcast extolling the party. Who was he and can't you religious boffins get him defrocked pronto?

If he is Church of England, he will be disciplined. We passed a regulation in General Synod which prohibits office holders from belonging to the BNP. This applies to Readers, churchwardens et al too.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I saw comment on Twitter that said that the clergyman is not recognised by any major denomination.

I just saw most of the broadcast. Parts were bleeped out and claimed to been censored. Was this the case or was this a clever ruse to get people to look at their website?

And the person who complained about a school in Leeds teaching English as a foreign language struck me as odd. They want people to learn English, but to be taught it?

Carys

Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :

I think the beeping-out was a piece of passive-aggressive self-censorship designed to imply something along the lines of "you're not allowed to say that".

I freely admit to being thoroughly biased against the racist bastards.

And I noted that the first party they openly attacked was UKIP who, they seemed to claim, are in favour of unrestricted immigration.

Sheesh.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Stephen the Stoned:
I think the beeping-out was a piece of passive-aggressive self-censorship designed to imply something along the lines of "you're not allowed to say that".

I freely admit to being thoroughly biased against the racist bastards.

And I noted that the first party they openly attacked was UKIP who, they seemed to claim, are in favour of unrestricted immigration.

Sheesh.

Looks like the Tories aren't the only party worried about their votes going elsewhere. Then with this being the EU elections, I suppose two-thirds of them probably won't go anywhere.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Was the clergyman a real clergyman or just an actor? Because I would be surprised if a minister from a non-recognised denomination would wear a dog collar, they're normally the lounge suit type. Unless he's from some kind of breakaway Anglican group - do we have any of those in the UK?

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Was the clergyman a real clergyman or just an actor? Because I would be surprised if a minister from a non-recognised denomination would wear a dog collar, they're normally the lounge suit type. Unless he's from some kind of breakaway Anglican group - do we have any of those in the UK?

If he wasn't a real clergyperson, I wonder if a rule of PPB's was broken is deliberate deceit of the audience by impersonation. The dog collar was presumably to give the guy a spurious "authority" to the audience.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I remember hearing something about a clergyman who supported the BNP. The dog collar sounds familiar.

Regardless of denomination the dog collar would obviously be worn for the purposes of recognition. I know a Baptist minister who never wears a dog collar in the pulpit, only when out on religious duties in public. This is because it gives him a degree of authority and a status that people recognise immediately. And for the BNP pastor playing at politics it serves the same role, I'm sure.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais
Free speech is only one aspect of the debate. The Ship has an owner and if he doesn't want to provide a platform for racists, fascists or me for that matter, then abstract notions of freedom are irrelevant.

Many other "platforms", real and virtual, are in the same situation. Use of any of these is a privilege, not a right.

Yeah, all very true. But I thought we were talking about the BBC.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Was the clergyman a real clergyman or just an actor? Because I would be surprised if a minister from a non-recognised denomination would wear a dog collar, they're normally the lounge suit type. Unless he's from some kind of breakaway Anglican group - do we have any of those in the UK?
If he wasn't a real clergyperson, I wonder if a rule of PPB's was broken is deliberate deceit of the audience by impersonation. The dog collar was presumably to give the guy a spurious "authority" to the audience.

Impersonation of 'a clerk in holy orders' is actually a criminal offence.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais
Free speech is only one aspect of the debate. The Ship has an owner and if he doesn't want to provide a platform for racists, fascists or me for that matter, then abstract notions of freedom are irrelevant.

Many other "platforms", real and virtual, are in the same situation. Use of any of these is a privilege, not a right.
Yeah, all very true. But I thought we were talking about the BBC.

Quite so, and the BBC has a long history of, let us say, editorial selectivity. Songs, films, plays, often mainstream ones including some it commissioned itself. Quite rightly it can choose what it broadcasts.

None of that prevents the BNP saying what they like.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

In re the clergyman in the broadcast it may be Robert West. I found this about him on an anti-fascist site from a few years back-

BNP finally reach the bottom of the barrel

quote:
For those who don’t know: The Reverend Robert West (or, to give him the full ecclesiastical styling to which he’s entitled, Robert West) is the strange little man who, over the past few years, has constructed a fantasy lifestyle for himself in which he dresses in robes and dog collars and regularly turns out to conduct his ersatz “services” at various BNP functions. He also heads up a similarly fake BNP front organisation, “The Christian Council of Britain”.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Bottom of the barrel? They've long ago broken through the bottom and have been digging in the foul muck beneath. That is where they found West. Amongst others.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

I'm going to report West to the police. He's impersonating a clergyman and that's an offence.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

If this PPB the one that features a weird cartoon and a song to the tune of All Things Bright and Beautiful? If so, I saw it on the BNP website (after someone had linked to it on Twitter) but I understand the broadcast version was edited.

I'm not sure the BNP are really worth worrying about, are they? I didn't realise that they have so few elected representatives (other than Nick Griffin, there are I think only two councillors in the entire country). Having had a quick look at Griffin's Twitter feed, his comments show what desperate financial straits the party is in. He goes out of his way to boast about raising £300 at a fundraiser. Hardly the sort of thing a leader of a national political party would usually talk about.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

Until relatively recently the BNP were on a rising curve, they had a whole bunch of councillors and piled up nearly a million votes in the last European election. They went into decline for various reasons-

-the success of groups like Hope not Hate in mobilising anti-fascist votes in places where the BNP had been winning.
-internal dissensions and splits in the party
-the fact that most of its councillors were totally rubbish and failed to represent their electors
-the rise of UKIP.

They remain worth bothering about because their activities provide a stimulus for racist and Anti-Muslim violence and also what went up and came down can also go up again as in Germany in the 1920's where the NSDAP had some terrible results but still found their way into power.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Anglicant wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If this PPB the one that features a weird cartoon and a song to the tune of All Things Bright and Beautiful? If so, I saw it on the BNP website (after someone had linked to it on Twitter) but I understand the broadcast version was edited.

The one I saw had the same music, with a bulldog running around, but the "censorship" was imposed by the makers of the video, as a comment on the supposed censorship of the BNP by the government.

Besides the usual anti-immigration stuff, the video did make the interesting claim that Griffin had gone to Syria as part of some peace mission, and was instrumental in preventing western intervention there.

If true, that would parallel the anti-war-in-Syria movement in the US, which had a hefty contingent of right-wing Republicans at the helm, some of whom(like Rand Paul) motivated by principled isolationism, but others likely just discovering how much they hate war now that it's not a Republican as warrior-in-chief.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Much as I despise the BNP, I find it hard to be as alarmed about them as I am about the French National Front.

At least the British proto-fascists still look a bit amateurish. Over here we have full blown professionals who have figured out how to tap into the disillusionment of people while covering up that whole inconvenient ‘racist bottom feeders’ thing. They are probably going to get more votes in the upcoming elections than the Socialists. Down South where my in-laws are, they do extremely well, because people are unemployed and fed up and they feel like finally someone is listening to them and wants to make it better.

Marine Le Pen is a very, very dangerous woman. She scares me.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I know UKIP aren't as bad as the BNP, but I saw this morning that a prominent member of the UKIP youth wing resigned saying "the direction in which the party is going is terrifying: UKIP has descended into a form of racist populism". I'm not sure about "has descended", I think UKIP were always there.

The BNP, on the other hand, doesn't even try for populism ... plain old simple racism is all they manage.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

One for la vie en rouge: does France have a party like UKIP, which also wants to restrict immigration but principally bring power back to Paris from Brussells?

If there isn't such a party, then does the National Front take much of their support from those who are opposed to the EU? I have always had the idea that France does pretty well out of the EU, but then the French may think the same about us! Perhaps racism is simply more acceptable in France?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Alan:

quote:
I know UKIP aren't as bad as the BNP, but I saw this morning that a prominent member of the UKIP youth wing resigned saying "the direction in which the party is going is terrifying: UKIP has descended into a form of racist populism".

And I see that the UKIP spokesMEN are improving the shining hour by belittling her and saying her opinion isn't worth much (now that she no longer agrees with them).

If they had ever been in danger of getting my vote, they'd have lost it then. I hope all the women who might have voted for them feel the same way...

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
One for la vie en rouge: does France have a party like UKIP, which also wants to restrict immigration but principally bring power back to Paris from Brussells?

If there isn't such a party, then does the National Front take much of their support from those who are opposed to the EU? I have always had the idea that France does pretty well out of the EU, but then the French may think the same about us! Perhaps racism is simply more acceptable in France?

Anti-EU sentiment definitely exists here, especially in regions which have high unemployment.

On this point, Marine Le Pen has been gaily inviting Nigel Farage to share a stage with her. It's part of her bid to make the party look respectable and improve its image. He has refused for obvious reasons and teamed up with a new little minor party that nobody is going to vote for.

BBC article here.

[ETA In my mind it remains to be seen whether Nigel Farage makes moves closer to Marine Le Pen when no one votes for DLR (as no one will).]

[ 14. May 2014, 13:07: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R

Alan:

quote:
I know UKIP aren't as bad as the BNP, but I saw this morning that a prominent member of the UKIP youth wing resigned saying "the direction in which the party is going is terrifying: UKIP has descended into a form of racist populism".
And I see that the UKIP spokesMEN are improving the shining hour by belittling her and saying her opinion isn't worth much (now that she no longer agrees with them).

If they had ever been in danger of getting my vote, they'd have lost it then. I hope all the women who might have voted for them feel the same way...

Well, I don't think we should try to counteract racist populism with sexist populism, which, judging by the tone of your post, you seem to be trying to do!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Etymological Evangelical:

quote:
Well, I don't think we should try to counteract racist populism with sexist populism, which, judging by the tone of your post, you seem to be trying to do!

Excuse me? I am complaining about the sexism of the UK Independence Party, who are busy attempting to trash the reputation of a young woman who has just left their party. Are we not allowed to do that any more?

I notice you are busy doing exactly the same as Nigel Farrago et al - trying to silence people who disagree with you. Would you have accused me of "sexist populism" if I had a neutral or "masculine" ship name?

Most of the mainstream parties have male spokespersons and (with the exception of the Greens) are led by men, but they do at least pretend to care about what women think. Acceptable (grown-up) reactions to this woman's announcement that she was leaving the party include, but are not limited to, the following:

"We regret Ms Thandi's decision to leave the Party; we will miss her and would like to thank her for her work in the past."

"Our policies on immigration are intended to benefit all UK citizens, whatever their colour* [eg....?]"

Of course they can't make too many reassuring noises about how much they value 'multicultural Britain' or they'd risk alienating their core Little Englander voters. But replying "Yah boo, sucks to you, you're only a girl" (which is basically what their response boils down to) is just stupid. Do you really want people like that representing our country? I am planning to vote for someone more intelligent. At the moment, finding someone with more intelligence than the UKIP candidate does not look like a challenging task; pond slime could qualify.

*I daresay they would find a non-PC way of saying this.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If you want a non-PC way of explaining populism, whether racist, sexist or plain anyone-but-me-ist, then the attached about Simon Hoggart (RIP) includes a passage about half-way down featuring Bill Stone and a couple of others in a Parliamentary bar.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Sioni: [Big Grin]

Etymological Evangelical, on further consideration you are right: I was being sexist in saying I hoped women wouldn't vote for UKIP. I don't want any men to vote for them either.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R
Excuse me? I am complaining about the sexism of the UK Independence Party, who are busy attempting to trash the reputation of a young woman who has just left their party. Are we not allowed to do that any more?

I notice you are busy doing exactly the same as Nigel Farrago et al - trying to silence people who disagree with you. Would you have accused me of "sexist populism" if I had a neutral or "masculine" ship name?

I am trying to silence people who disagree with me?

Funny, but I didn't realise that I was a host or administrator on this site, with the power to prevent you from commenting!!!

You can say what the hell you like, and I can't stop you. And furthermore I would not want to stop you, being a believer in freedom of speech. Happy now?

But I also have the right to have my say, whether you like it or not (with the permission of the owner of the Ship, of course, before "Johnny Englishman" pipes up again about that).

And I think the following has a pretty sexist feel about it:

quote:
And I see that the UKIP spokesMEN are improving the shining hour by belittling her and saying her opinion isn't worth much (now that she no longer agrees with them).

If they had ever been in danger of getting my vote, they'd have lost it then. I hope all the women who might have voted for them feel the same way...

Why "spokesMEN"? Is there something amiss with your keyboard?

And why the appeal only to women's votes? Are you assuming that male voters are not worth appealing to on this issue? Why? Don't you think men are capable of sympathising with the case of an oppressed woman?

(I just noticed the cross post after I posted this!)

[ 14. May 2014, 16:19: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

The emphasis on MEN in SpokesMEN is to point out UKIP are only represented by spokesmen. How is it sexist to point out underrepresentation of women?

Carys

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys
The emphasis on MEN in SpokesMEN is to point out UKIP are only represented by spokesmen. How is it sexist to point out underrepresentation of women?

No, the way Jane R expressed this does not make the point about representation, but about the behaviour of these spokesmen towards the UKIP member who resigned:

quote:
And I see that the UKIP spokesMEN are improving the shining hour by belittling her and saying her opinion isn't worth much (now that she no longer agrees with them).

The point is that UKIP could have had a woman as a spokesperson, who also engaged in belittling this former member. We just don't know. But the facts of the case are that this woman was belittled by a number of people who just happened to be men, but it doesn't follow that it was because they were men that they belittled her. Their gender is irrelevant, unless it can be proven that UKIP is an inherently sexist party. Clearly it isn't, otherwise why would the female UKIP candidate at the Eastleigh by-election - Diane James - be the 'spokesperson' for the party on Question Time on national television?

Thus the insinuation of Jane R's post comes across as unnecessarily sexist.

By the way... I am not a supporter of UKIP, in case you're wondering.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

EE:

quote:
Their gender is irrelevant, unless it can be proven that UKIP is an inherently sexist party. Clearly it isn't..

I don't think this is clear at all.

quote:
...otherwise why would the female UKIP candidate at the Eastleigh by-election - Diane James - be the 'spokesperson' for the party on Question Time on national television?

Because they have suddenly realised that only having men speaking on their behalf is likely to put some people off voting for them?

I can't imagine why they would think that... oh wait, their MEPs and councillors do have a habit of putting their feet in their mouths. I don't find the new emphasis on making sure candidates do not cause UKIP "embarrassment" particularly reassuring. It suggests they are more concerned with appearances than reality (I believe the Biblical term for this is 'whited sepulchres') and I notice sexism and homophobia are not explicitly identified as things that might cause embarrassment in the pledge for new candidates, which is odd after the fuss over that councillor who claimed that gay marriage had caused flooding and the MEP who called a bunch of female UKIP activists 'sluts'.

EE:

quote:
Thus the insinuation of Jane R's post comes across as unnecessarily sexist.

I already said I didn't want men to vote for them either. The fact that some women are (were) standing as UKIP candidates does not mean that the party as a whole is anti-sexist.

You may not be a UKIP supporter, but you are behaving like a UKIP apologist. I don't think there's much point in continuing to discuss this with you.

[ 11. June 2014, 10:21: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R
You may not be a UKIP supporter, but you are behaving like a UKIP apologist. I don't think there's much point in continuing to discuss this with you.

I am neither a UKIP supporter (how could I be as a member of the Lib Dems?!) and certainly I am not a UKIP apologist. I am simply pointing out the reality of the case: that UKIP as a party is not sexist (even though there are undoubtedly individual nutters in the party who are, and this is probably the case with all parties, albeit in a more subtle form). I am not out to defend UKIP. I am simply concerned that we get our facts right.

Being fair to one's opponents is not equivalent to promoting their point of view.

I would have thought that was glaringly obvious.

Apparently not to you, it seems...

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:

quote:
Just been reminded that some sort of dog-collared cleric appeared on the BNP broadcast extolling the party. Who was he and can't you religious boffins get him defrocked pronto?
If he is Church of England, he will be disciplined. We passed a regulation in General Synod which prohibits office holders from belonging to the BNP. This applies to Readers, churchwardens et al too.

As repugnant as the BNP is, I feel that the CoE is misguided here. Every political party supports policies that go against Christ's teachings, not just the BNP. The CoE either needs to forbid any kind of political affiliation or leave personal politics to individual conscience.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

There's a difference between having policies which go against Christian teaching, and one's entire raison d'etre as a political party being antithetical to Christian teaching.

Moreover, in the CofE the church exists for the entire parish. I'm not entirely sure how the ethnic minority and immigrant population of our parish would feel knowing their vicar believes they should all be rounded up and "repatriated". It would severely impair such a priest's mission to all his parish.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0