HOW TO COMBAT THE BNP
By Ger Francis
On Friday night I attended the London City Circle event entitled ‘The BNP – How should we deal with them?’. The speakers were Lib Dem councilor Fiyaz Mughal, Respect party Leader Salma Yaqoob, and blogger Sunny Hundal.
It was a disappointing evening. But it did highlight the way in which a narrative that seeks to blame Muslim communities for the appeal of the BNP has been taken up by some media friendly race commentators.
Sunny Hundal echoed BNP arguments about minority ethnic communities and asylum seekers getting preferential funding treatment. He then retracted the charge, only to later repeat it.
Fiyaz Mughal challenged this, pointing out that local government funding simply does not operate on the basis that money is ‘taken’ from what Sunny lazily described as ‘white community groups’ and given to asylum seekers or minority ethnic community groups instead.
Salma Yaqoob argued that funding should go to where the greatest need is, irrespective of race or religion. Considering the disproportionate numbers of people from minority ethnic communities living in areas with high deprivation indices, it is right that some of these areas will attract special funding. If Sunny is going to give oxygen to these allegations he needs to be able to substantiate them somewhat better than making a vague reference to a Hindu group in Leicester.
Asim Sadique, the chair of the City Circle, had a slightly different, but also mistaken approach. Quoting a Channel 4 YouGov opinion poll, Sadique relied on the interpretation of the results by Peter Kellner which plays down the racism of BNP supporters. YouGov claims that “depending on how the term ‘racist’ is precisely defined, our survey suggests that the label applies to only around a half of BNP voters”.
But if it is the case that the BNP vote is not primarily motivated by racism then we end up echoing false and self-defeating arguments about white British identity being ‘under siege’, the ‘failure’ of multiculturalism, and, at an extreme, sinister warnings about a growing ‘Islamisation of Britain’.
Martin O’Sullivan at Islamophobia Watch provides a useful corrective, claiming that the poll results contradict Kellner’s interpretation :
‘94% of BNP voters thought “all further immigration to the UK should be halted” – way ahead of supporters of other political parties, with the exception of UKIP. 79% of BNP voters agreed that “even in its milder [sic] forms, Islam is a danger to western civilisation” – again, far higher than Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or Green voters.
Kellner sees it as a positive result that “just 44 per cent” of BNP voters “agreed with the party in rejecting the view that non-white citizens are just as British as white citizens”. However the question didn’t concern all British citizens, but rather “British citizens who were born in this country”. If the question had included people born abroad who have come to the UK and subsequently acquired citizenship, the percentage of BNP voters denying that non-white citizens are “just as British as white citizens” would undoubtedly have been even higher.
In that connection, it’s worth noting that 81% of BNP voters disagreed with the proposition that “Britain has benefited from the arrival in recent decades of people from many different countries and cultures”. Only 8% of BNP voters agreed with this proposition, compared with 63% of Green voters, 55% of Lib Dem voters, 53% of Labour voters and even 31% of Tory voters.
What the poll reveals is that racist attitudes exist among supporters of all political parties (which is what you would expect, given the migrant-bashing, Muslim-hating propaganda that pervades the popular press) but that people who vote for the BNP are much more racist than those who vote for mainstream political parties.’
The idea that ‘white culture’ is ‘besieged’ by the non-white ‘other’ is paranoid nonsense. Any pandering to this argument flies dangerously close to a BNP narrative which blames the victims of racism for racism. As Salma has argued, this mantra ‘on the need to make others more “British”, rather than making ourselves less racist, has helped undermine concepts of national identity that celebrate pluralism and diversity.’
It appears Sunny came to the event more minded to attack Respect than the BNP, dragging George Galloway and Iran into the proceedings, despite its complete irrelevance to the topic at hand, and repeating the smear of Respect being ‘communalist’. This was substantiated by reference to a single anti-war leaflet produced by George Galloway aimed at Bengali voters.
Maybe for those blinded by hostility to Respect this stuff sounds impressive. But Fiyaz Mughal concurred that every political party produces literature aimed at specific sections of the community. What is communalist is when conscious attempts are made to counter pose one racial or religious grouping against another. It is only the BNP and similar fascist parties that practice this kind of politics.
Salma, Fiyaz and Labour GLA member Murad Qureshi, who spoke from the audience, strongly emphasized the need to address anger over social deprivation in white working class communities combined with an uncompromising anti-racist message. Murad reminded the audience that just as the BNP seeks to demonise the Muslim community today, the National Front in the 1970’s took a similar approach towards the Irish community.
Picking up on this point, Salma emphasized how fascists traditionally turn their fire on specific ethnic or religious groups as the cutting point of their wider racist agenda. Muslims bear the brunt of this today, but it is the modern day equivalent of earlier racist campaigns against Jews, the Irish, Black and Asian people.
She said the way to combat such racism is not to insist that victims of racism should be any less Jewish, black, Irish, or Muslim, but through a united anti-racist message.
Since 9/11 there has been a right-wing narrative which seeks to blame anti-war critics and Muslim organisations as being in some way responsible for the growth of anti-Muslim racism. By his obsession with the Muslim Council of Britain and George Galloway it appears that Sunny Hundal and friends have, to some degree, fallen for it.
It’s a curious remark stating that the NF sought to demonise the Irish community. If they did, it was only a small aspect of their propaganda - the overwhelming targets of their hatred were Black and Asian people.
It’s unfortunate that this meeting seemed to concentrate on seeing developments in terms of race and religion. Where is the class politics that should underpin any strategy to diminsh BNP influence? I guess if you don’t invite socialists you won’t get that approach.
Comment by Doug — 29 June, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Doug
You need to take very seriously the results of the You Gov poll of nearly 1000 BNP voters, as part of a much more comprehensive survey of some 32000 voters.
the social attitudes revealled show that the BNP vote is much harder than we were assuming. With almost half BNP voters thinking that black people are less intelligent than whites; and fully a third believing there is an international Jewish conspiracy of communists and bankers against the white race.
Simply presenting a left wing alternative to the BNP will not work. what is needed is both action by the mianstream political parties to undermone the social consditons that forment discontent and sense of betrayal, and also taking on the BNP over the politics of identity, race and religion.
To be honest I thought the Tories produced better and more relevent anti-BNP material than the far left groups during the euro-elections.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
#2 “Simply presenting a left wing alternative to the BNP will not work. what is needed is both action by the mainstream political parties to undermine the social conditons that forment discontent and sense of betrayal, and also taking on the BNP over the politics of identity, race and religion.”
Erm . . . but it is the mainstream political parties that have created the social conditions that is allowing the BNP to flourish now.
The presentation of a left wing alternative linked to defensive actions on the ground over job losses, pay cuts and lower public expenditure is exactly the way to defeat the Nazis in the coming period.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
‘It’s a curious remark stating that the NF sought to demonise the Irish community.’
Curious you may find it, but fact it is. As the conflict in the six counties spilled over onto the streets of cities like London and Birmingham, the NF sought to exploit public outrage with an anti-Irish message. Rather like what the BNP have tried to do post 7/7 in whipping up Islamphobia towards Muslims.
‘The presentation of a left wing alternative linked to defensive actions on the ground over job losses, pay cuts and lower public expenditure is exactly the way to defeat the Nazis in the coming period.’
It is delusional to think that just by planting a flag and announcing it as the (latest) ‘left wing alternative’ that somehow this will have any significant impact on the BNP appeal at the ballot box. It won’t. No new credible alternative is going to come into play this side of the General Election.
It is critical that there is a shift to the left in social policy. Unfortunately even Labour’s positive moves on council housing comes packaged in racism. As Salma Yaqoob has said in her response to Brown’s measures: ‘His promise of ‘local homes for local people’ is in danger of pressing the same racist buttons as the BNP do by pandering to the argument that it is asylum seekers and immigrants who are responsible for the housing shortage.’
Central to challenging the BNP has to be a more uncompromising opposition than in the past to the pernicious racism against asylum seekers, immigrants and the Muslim community that shapes so much media coverage and public discourse. And central to that is a rejection of a narrative which panders to a racist argument about a ‘besieged’ white community with its inference that if only Muslims were somehow a bit less Muslim, a bit less in everyone’s face, voters would be less attracted to the BNP.
Comment by Ger Francis — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Stockwell pete
The need for there to be a sustained fuifght by the trade unions and progressive political parties against social injustice is worth doing in its own right, and it will help to pull the mainstream poltical consensus to the left.
But the evidence of recent polling about BNP voters suggests that their voters are hardened racists, witha strng sense of betrayal. Their racism needs to be confronted head on by challenging the particular exclusionary narrative around identity that they have constructed, and instead building a persuasive inclusive politics of identity.
We also have to conduct a very serious dialogue with the political mainstream, not simply counterposing ourselves to it, but also seeking to persuade labour, and even the Lib Dems and Tories, of the need to provide answers to the social problems that the BNP are feeding off.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
It is just me or are other people getting really annoyed by the useless and often completely incorrect use of the word ‘narrative’.
It annoys me more than it is mainly used not for good reason but in the belief that it in someway makes you sound smart.
Comment by Havelock — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
#4 “It is delusional to think that just by planting a flag and announcing it as the (latest) ‘left wing alternative’ that somehow this will have any significant impact on the BNP appeal at the ballot box. It won’t. No new credible alternative is going to come into play this side of the General Election.”
The trouble is, I didn’t say anything about planting flags and making announcements, did I? Read the sentence again. If we want to stop the BNP then the labour movement has to start winning again.
What is delusional is expecting any sort of leftward shift from New Labour before the next General Election in the absence of “pressure from below”. You say that “It is critical that there is a shift to the left in social policy” - who is going to deliver it then?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
The recent poll also identified that the BNP vote was overwhelmingly from working class Tories. The type of voter who is never going to vote Labour and who have generally voted Tory in the past.
Trying to win over these voters to the left is very unlikely. The left needs to concentrate on exposing the BNP as nazis and building a left opposition to Brown among workers who stayed away from the polls or voted LibDem or Green. Doug and Stockwell Pete are correct in pointing out that it’s vital we have a class analysis of how to fight the BNP and use it to defeat them.
Comment by Ray — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
#5 “The need for there to be a sustained fight by the trade unions and progressive political parties against social injustice is worth doing in its own right, and it will help to pull the mainstream poltical consensus to the left.”
Yus.
“But the evidence of recent polling about BNP voters suggests that their voters are hardened racists, with a strong sense of betrayal. Their racism needs to be confronted head on by challenging the particular exclusionary narrative around identity that they have constructed, and instead building a persuasive inclusive politics of identity.”
Yes, I agree with your first sentence. What do you mean by “a persuasive inclusive politics of identity” in your second sentence though? Can’t many of these racist workers still be part of an increasingly militant and successful working class movement that includes all workers, regardless of so-called “race”, ethnicity, or nationality? Can’t their hardcore racism and sense of betrayal be confronted head on by successful socialist politics? If not, we’ve had it then, haven’t we?
“We also have to conduct a very serious dialogue with the political mainstream, not simply counterposing ourselves to it, but also seeking to persuade labour, and even the Lib Dems and Tories, of the need to provide answers to the social problems that the BNP are feeding off.”
Pass. Persuade the Tories?! Oh ffs! Anyway, that’s a job for you reformists, and not for heroic proletarians like me. The main job of revolutionaries is to conduct a very serious dialogue with working class people and try and get them to fight for their own interests (and, in the process, try to re-build revolutionary organisations). Please don’t scoff, I am trying to be serious. Ha-ha!
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
#6
No - “narrative” is a very useful word to describe simplified rationalisations of complex social phenomena and events. that is exactely what people do, especially those involved in a collective construction of an ideological explanation of what is happening politicaly - they create a story into which they then incorporate facts that support the conclusion they have already decided upon.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
What like Ger Francis?
Comment by bill j — 29 June, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Interesting commentary from Searchlight’s Nick Lowes about the Yougov survey on the views of BNP voters:
‘What is shocking is the depth of their racism and the alienation from mainstream politics. Support for the BNP goes far beyond being a protest, as some politicians would have us believe, and the racist attitudes will not disappear simply by improving economic conditions. We should be under no illusion that a long and hard struggle lies ahead.’
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=284
There has been an underestimation of the depth of racism among BNP voters. Any discussion about the need for anti-fascists to readjust accordingly should be welcomed.
Comment by Ger Francis — 29 June, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Just came across this . . .
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090629/tuk-racist-planned-tennis-ball-bomb-atta-45dbed5.html
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
[CONTENT DELETED - DON’T YOU THREATEN ME WITH VIOLENCE TERRY FITZ, YOU SAD LITTLE MAN. I AM MORE THAN ABLE TO COPE WITH YOU AND YOUR SAD RAMBO FANTASIES]
Comment by terryfitz — 29 June, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Thanks again for this writeup Ger. Analysis of the meeting across as many blogs as possible would have been helpful, but at least we can discuss it here.
I’m not going to re-iterate any of the points you have made above, you have provided a pretty accurate synopsis in my view. I would add however that it must be a source of great pleasure to the BNP to know that an opportunity such as Friday’s meeting was partly squandered on in-fighting.
As well as the questions that Sunny struggled with, there were a couple I thought Salma Yaqoob struggled with too (perhaps exposing weaknesses it would have been more productive for opponents to exploit, had they the wit). She floundered over the question of a hypothetical ‘White Council Of Britain’ despite her emphasis on the white working class as an identifiable, suffering minority. She can’t have it both ways and say that their misfortune as a minority group is somehow qualitatively different from that of any other minority.
It is precisely this kind of grudgingness among some ethnic minority figures to acknowledge the suffering of their fellow white wo/man that is causing the Left to lag so far behind the new public instinct about what race equality should mean.
The second one she struggled a bit with (if I may say so) was my question of whether mixed race marriages are acceptable. In fact she had to be prompted to answer that one- I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she had simply forgotten… Now this should be a very simple answer from a politician of her standing, but she floundered around with the cheesy trope that ‘you normally want to marry someone like you’. This is a code that all MixTogether members are familiar with- it is the oldest excuse in the book for discriminating against a partner of another race or religion. Perhaps now is a good time for her to update her repertoire to include a more graceful answer to such a simple question of equality. Her answer about racism amongst Asians more generally- when it eventually came- was heartfelt and touching.
I would be curious as to your feedback about those two questions.
Thanks again for providing this forum for continuing the discussion.
Comment by MixTogether — 29 June, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
In light of the above and other curious incidents in what has come to be SocialistUnity Space, SUSpace, I think this Blog should be re-named
Surrealist Unity
or even
Surrealist Challenge
to re-coin a phrase
Comment by ANiN — 29 June, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
fitz, i can only assume that you’ve been drinking. either that or you are a deranged individual attempting to live out some deranged east end kray twins-type fantasy.
i think this is a cry for help myself. in fact, i feel sure that what you need is a hug.
Comment by John Wight — 29 June, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
#15 I am not understanding something. How are the “white working class” (wretched term) defined as a minority?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
#stockwell pete
well would you describe them as a majority??
Comment by MixTogether — 29 June, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Ray’s point about the main base of the BNP’s working class vote being working class Tories is an important one I think. This is not at all to dismiss wider concerns about the unacknowledged depth of racism in society, but I’d be interested to know how others read the significance of this.
Comment by johng — 29 June, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
Yeah, the idea of “white working class” people like myself being somehow an ethnic minority is a bit ridiculous…
Comment by Charlie Marks — 29 June, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Re 15. On your specific questions I just gave Salma a ring to clarify. I am afraid you are not going to get the direct answers you want because it is clear some things got lost in translation on the night. Maybe too interjecting and background noise going on.
She has no recollection of being asked about ‘White Council of Britain’ (I do remember the question) but does remember something about whether she would support funding for ‘white communities’. Her position here is consistent. Where there is special need, of whatever community, resources should be allocated to address them. For example, she was the first person on Birmingham city council to raise the issue of the especially poor educational attainment of white boys from deprived working class backgrounds. Would she support special funding to help address this? If required, of course.
On your other question, she understood it to refer to interfaith marriages AND mixed marriages, with most of her reply was to the former rather than the latter, and the confusion about her replies stems from there. Her position is easy to clarify though: she believes people should be allowed to marry whoever they want, irrespective of race or indeed religion, because at the end of the day it is an issue of personal choice and freedom. And for those who say that interfaith marriage is forbidden, she would say that it is ultimately an issue only between the believer, their conscience and their god.
Hope that goes someway to answering your questions.
Comment by Ger Francis — 29 June, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
I am astonished to see Nick Lowles’ latest article in the July edition of Searchlight where he argues that the BNP vote is “… an increasingly hard and loyal vote which is based on political and economic insecurities and moulded by deep-rooted racial prejudice.”
This follows his recent blog ‘Reassessment’ http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/ about the Channel4/YouGov poll on the reasons why people voted BNP. Rather too late in the day he comes to the conclusion: “It is clear that BNP support goes well beyond a protest vote. Racial attitudes are also far more deeply ingrained than even I thought. A third of BNP voters believed that black people are intellectually inferior to whites and almost half agreed with the statement that black or Asian people can never be British.” He also reiterates his new discovery that, “the BNP vote is much harder and loyal than many people had thought.”
These comments stand in stark contrast to what Nick Lowles has written since 2005 and underline the extent to which Searchlight’s analysis has misled the anti fascist movement by failing to correctly identify the reasons for the growth of the BNP, and consequently wasted huge amounts of resources on a strategy which was based on a flawed explanation of the rise of the BNP.
In contrast to Nick Lowles’ and Searchight’s long held view that, “The appeal of the BNP is far beyond simple racism” http://nickcohen.net/2008/11/01/lets-talk-about-class-rather-than-colour/ it is necessary to emphasise that the main political cutting edge of the BNP’s campaigning today is racism – particularly directed today against Muslims, refugees and asylum seekers.
The Channel 4 / YouGov poll of more than 30,000 voters makes the centrality of racism amongst BNP voters very clear. On issues of race the BNP voters contrast starkly with supporters of other parties, though racism still permeates all parties.
However, only a year ago Nick Lowles’ http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=233 challenged the idea that racism was the dominant reason why people voted BNP in his article ‘Where Now?’ That article summarised the strategy of one section of the anti fascist movement.
He explained what he saw as the root of BNP support, arguing that the BNP’s “appeal goes far wider than the issue of race.”
He went on to say: “A cursory look at where the BNP is gaining support shows that race is not necessarily the dominant issue that it was in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford.”
In contrast, organisations such as Unite Against Fascism believe that to be effective, a campaign against fascists and the extreme right has to fully grasp the nature of these organisations and how they gain support.
The BNP tries to whip up and exploit whatever form of racial prejudice, bigotry or chauvinism happens to be widespread, or given legitimacy by the media or mainstream politicians. At the present time, Muslims are the favoured target of the BNP but they are not the only targets. In different places and times, African, Caribbean, Asian and Jewish people are also attacked.
In the recent Euro election Griffin understood that it was very important for the success of the BNP that he solidified his party’s racist message and appeal when he went out of his way to say that black and Asian people in this country should be classified as ‘racial foreigners’ to be ‘repatriated’. This was not an aberration, but expressed very precisely the views of BNP voters. It seems that Nick Griffin has had a much better understanding than Nick Lowles of why people vote BNP and join the party.
In his June 2008 article Nick Lowles said: “Unless we can understand why the BNP is growing we have little chance of defeating it.” I agree. Consequently, the least one should expect is some serious critical self analysis of the mistaken strategy and tactics which flowed from that faulty understanding.
We must put fighting racism at the heart of the fight against the BNP. We cannot afford to waste any more time and resources on an approach which admits it has failed to recognise the strength of racism in the minds of BNP voters and their loyalty to a fascist organisation.
Comment by Reissner — 29 June, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
#19 Well, I haven’t got exact figures, but the working class, as I would define it, certainly makes up the majority of the population of the UK, certainly over two-thirds, I would say. And then, within the working class itself, a very clear majority of people are white, again certainly over two-thirds. So I can’t see how they can be a minority and the idea of a “white council”, or whatever, that you referred to is not supportable in any way by me.
Of course, this can be a very difficult subject in terms of different definitions that people may be using but I actually do not think that it helps to “racialise” the working class and start talking about a “white working class” when dealing with the arguments of the BNP. Because to do so is to make an enormous concession to their wretched arguments before you have even started.
A further point. All working class people are exploited and oppressed under capitalism but black/Asian/foreign national working class people can/do face an extra burden of racist discrimination and antagonism from the state, the employers, and even their fellow workers, while the so-called “white working class” do not face such systematic discrimination.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
The whole idea of the ‘white working class’ as an ‘ethnic minority’ is surely a part of Griffen’s project of attempting to translate his overtly racist politics into respectable language to do with identity. Here he is coaching the KKK on this subject just a decade ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw
Comment by johng — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
For years Searchlight have failled to understand the centrality of combatting racism to the fight against the BNP.
In the 2005 Searchlight article ‘Tackling taboo issues’ makes concessions to the to the BNP’s claims against the black community. The issue that Searchlight raised of so-called ‘Asian-grooming’ in Keighley was proven to be a BNP fiction but nevertheless Searchlight took up the campaign of Ann Cryer MP against the asian community in Keighley and Bradford.
This is no small matter, the rise of the BNP is not just an electoral question. Racism always has its victims. The Mirror recently reported that Hate crimes have soared in nearly every part of the country over the last decade but that ugly incidents have increased by up to 27 times in regions with higher numbers of British National Party members. http://www.mirror.co.uk:80/news/top-stories/2009/06/27/hate-britain-115875-21475199/
“Yorkshire and Essex, where the racist BNP have spread, are among the worst
hit. The number of offences across Yorkshire shot up from 338 to 3,592.
North Yorks had a 2,767% rise. Essex saw a 949% increase - to 913 from only
87.London bucked the trend sharply. The Met police still handle the most hate
crimes but they almost halved from 13,850 to 7,353.”
What Searchlight fails to sufficiently realise is that the main political cutting edge of the BNP’s campaigning today is racism – particularly directed today against Muslims, refugees and asylum seekers. Again and again, we have seen the BNP gain a foothold in areas where mainstream institutions or politicians have legitimised racism.
Nick Cohen (http://nickcohen.net/2008/11/01/lets-talk-about-class-rather-than-colour/) quotes Nick Lowles of Searchlight: [he] told me he expected a resurgence of extremism as the white far right and Islamist far right fed off each other. ‘The appeal of the BNP is far beyond simple racism,’ he said.
Comment by Gorton Gruff — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Well here in the West Country, white people comprise 98% of the population - some minority (although Swindon tends to the national average of 91% white). Not only are white people not a minority, but the idea of a “white council” is completely alien to our culture and heritage.
There is no dominant historical or cultural tradition of defining Englishness or britishness by skin colour, or even ethnicity.
“white people” in England or Britain do not necessarily share any common but defining cultural signifiers as “white people” that are not shared by english or British people of other ethnic heritages.
England in particular has been characterised by constant immigration, and specifically in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries England was almost unique in developing national self-awaremess based not upon ethnicity but upon a conscious articulation of “mongrelism”, not only through the mythologised fusion of saxon and norman heritage,, but also the whig idealisation of England as a country that welcomed immigration of those escaping tyranny overseas, Hugenots in particular. As such the historical ideological conception of Britishness relied not upon ethnicity but upon adherence to the institutions of the constitutional monarchy and the union, and the ideological conception of Englishness within Britishness relied upon the twin pillars of Anglicanism (or alternatively protestant non-conformity) and a spirit of subaltern rebellion (exemplified by Robin Hood, tribune of the poor, but loyal to the true King Richard).
There is nothing English or British at all about the idea of a “white council”, and any definiton of Englishness that excludes Monty Panansar would be clearly silly.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Re. 22 Many thanks for your efforts, Ger.
1) The question of support for a specific body to represent white people is the critical one here. The simple idea of allocating money/resources to where need is perceived is common to all politicians I think. It is the existence of the MBPA/Muslim Council Of Britain etc. etc. that is causing people to question the prohibition on comparable white groups.
2) Ms Yaqoob answers with characteristic grace. It might help local Muslim councils hold on to the more moderate members of their flock if they thought the same way.
Comment by MixTogether — 30 June, 2009 @ 12:19 am
There is not a ‘white working class’. There are people who are working class and white, but the idea that there is a ‘white working class’ with differing interests from a ‘black working class’ is divisive and wrong.
The working class is made up of both black and white. Different sections of it suffer from differing forms of discrimination, whether racist or sexist or homophobic or religious discrimination. At the end of the day, the only people in society that benefit from division in the working class are the bosses.
Comment by DuncanB — 30 June, 2009 @ 12:30 am
Andy, I thought you’d exercise a bit more thought before you published drivel like this. Given it’s written by a sad excuse for a Respect lackey so I’m not surprised it misrepresents me so much though.
It’s funny to be accused of echoing BNP talking points though.
Comment by Sunny — 30 June, 2009 @ 1:33 am
“It is the existence of the MBPA/Muslim Council Of Britain etc. etc. that is causing people to question the prohibition on comparable white groups.”
No it isn’t! It’s the racist BNPs call for rights for whites that is fuelling the racist idea of separate white organisations. We need to do everything in our power to stop this happening. The best way is to expose the BNP as nazis and show that their rights for whites agenda is a bogus idea intended to divide and further weaken workers.
Comment by Ray — 30 June, 2009 @ 2:24 am
“Andy, I thought you’d exercise a bit more thought before you published drivel like this. Given it’s written by a sad excuse for a Respect lackey so I’m not surprised it misrepresents me so much though.”
If you did blame minorities for the rise of the BNP then you should be ashamed of yourself as you haven’t got a leg to stand on in criticising the author of this article.
You are no help to those of us who want to fight the BNP if you are parroting their racist rhetoric. Why not refute these accusations instead of posting some smart alec comment?
Comment by Ray — 30 June, 2009 @ 2:32 am
“it is the existence of the MBPA/Muslim Council Of Britain etc. etc. that is causing people to question the prohibition on comparable white groups”
Given the fact that for more then thirty years its been common for black organisations to exist concerned with issues of racism etc, I fail to understand why the existence of a single little known organisation amongst Muslims should prompt a mass vote for a party whose leader is a Nazi. The two things don’t quite equate really.
Comment by johng — 30 June, 2009 @ 2:54 am
Tell me Ray - when did you stop beating your wife? (if you don’t get the question, don’t bother asking)
I don’t need lessons on tackling the BNP thanks, I think I’ve built up enough credibility in the area to not really give a fuck for some internet warriors and their misrepresentations.
Comment by Sunny — 30 June, 2009 @ 3:06 am
Where was that then Sunny? Never heard of you.
Comment by johng — 30 June, 2009 @ 4:11 am
“That was the gist of my argument. In between, I also had a go at the Respect party (which I got bogged down into and drew heckles from the audience) and accused it of communalism. Apparently that isn’t true! Some Respect lackey sitting in the audience accused me of pandering to the BNP and accused me of trying to smear the Respect party. No honestly, these people do still exist. The fact that Respect is now a burnt-out train crash has apparently escaped their notice. Oh well.”
This is from Sunny’s blog. Sound familiar to anyone?
Comment by pop goes the bolshevik — 30 June, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Re 36. It does sound familiar. It’s an old smear. If you want a grown up discussion, try substantiate it. Or better still, try stay focused on the real issue, tackling the BNP.
Comment by Ger Francis — 30 June, 2009 @ 8:54 am
Sunny
I find your attitude here incomprehensible.
Ger Francis’s account of the meeting seems consistent with your own, and his account of the political arguments you put forward seems entirely consistent with the body of argument that you put forward on your blog.
I am also suprised at the high handed tone that you adopt about your anti-fascist credientals. I would have thought that the success of the BNP winning two MEPs means that we all need to rethink our assumptions on how to tackle the BNP, and take lessons from one another.
I am surprised that you present yourselves as someone with considerable credibility in combatting the BNP. For sure you are opposed to the BNP, aren’t we all, but apart from writing a couple of complacent blogs recycling the lazy consensus of the Guardian reading middle classes, what has your anti-facsist activity involved?
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 June, 2009 @ 8:57 am
The best way to tackle the BNP is to leave them alone… the more media the greater the vote
Comment by Graham — 30 June, 2009 @ 9:40 am
“Tell me Ray - when did you stop beating your wife? (if you don’t get the question, don’t bother asking)
I don’t need lessons on tackling the BNP thanks, I think I’ve built up enough credibility in the area to not really give a fuck for some internet warriors and their misrepresentations.”
All I’ve read so far is you whinging on about being misrepresented yet so far you haven’t refuted any of the accusations made about you. Having read your blog post you are arguing for minorities to take up “Britishness” and calling for equal treatment for white groups. The first point panders to racist notions of “Britishness” and the second point is pure BNP propaganda. Perhaps you should take a piece of your own advice and stop beating up minorities for the rise of the BNP. For someone who doesn’t care what others think you’ve sure as hell got a stick up your arse about Ger’s article. I’m not in Respect by the way.
Comment by Ray — 30 June, 2009 @ 10:04 am
#39 That seems to be what the left does anyway.
Comment by MC — 30 June, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Andy:
I would have thought that the success of the BNP winning two MEPs means that we all need to rethink our assumptions on how to tackle the BNP, and take lessons from one another.
Yes we do need to re-think our assumptions. Which is exactly what I’m trying to do. All you’re doing is publishing some crap by a lackey who’s upset that Respect have been criticised.
Tell me - how have you re-thought some of your assumptions?
For sure you are opposed to the BNP, aren’t we all, but apart from writing a couple of complacent blogs recycling the lazy consensus of the Guardian reading middle classes, what has your anti-facsist activity involved?
Are we playing a game of who works harder against the BNP? Even if I am just opposed to the BNP, though I’ve volunteered for Hope Not Hate several times, how does pointing out what the BNP voters think mean I’m pandering to the BNP?
No doubt you’d have accused Obama of being racist for acknowledging white concerns during his speech on race in Philadelphia. It’s the same old rubbish from you guys - anyone who doesn’t follow the party line is accused of pandering to the BNP. The idea that you’ve rethought some of your assumptions is really a joke isn’t it?
Comment by Sunny — 30 June, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Sunny, your contributions appear to show that you turned up to the London City Circle event purely to pick a fight with Respect.
Your blog trailed the event with “The big showdown is tonight”.
That wasn’t really what the event was about was it ?
The City Circle people clearly wanted a serious discussion about how to combat the BNP, not some self-indulgent exercise in point-scoring.
Ger has specifically taken you up on several points but your response has been to accuse people of being “internet warriors”.
Oh the irony.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 30 June, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Sunny
calm down.
Your comments directed at me are clearly wide of the mark, I am perpetually willing to question my assumptions, particularly over anti-fascism; and I am hardly a party-line sort of guy. I have also gone out on a limb several times to address issues of English identity, and the preceptions of grievence by white working class people.
In contrast, it is not at all clear to me what you are saying. Are you saying that BME and faith groups should not get any public money? Even though they may be using that money to overcome institutional racism and promote equality?
Are you just “pointing out what BNP voters think” or are you suggesting policy adjustments that need to be made to accomodate what BNP voters think? I genuinely don’t know, because you seem all bluff and bluster on this issue.
I am also mystified why you think that criticising Respect has any place in a serious discussion of how to combat fascism, especially rehashing right wing and semi-racist accusations of communalism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 June, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
I have also gone out on a limb several times to address issues of English identity, and the preceptions of grievence by white working class people.
Let’s see it Andy. What part of what I say in my PP article do you disagree with then?
Are you just “pointing out what BNP voters think” or are you suggesting policy adjustments that need to be made to accomodate what BNP voters think? I genuinely don’t know, because you seem all bluff and bluster on this issue.
Please tell me which of my ‘policy adjustments’ are racist, and how. If you guys can’t even properly engage with a left of centre Asian person without resorting to accusing him of pandering to the BNP, then I don’t really have any faith in that you’re willing to engage intelligently, to be honest.
Comment by Sunny — 30 June, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
It’s the first time I’ve every heard or come across this Sunny guy. He’s a bit of a child, isn’t he?
Meanwhile, there’s a very serious discussion to be had about how to deal with this pronounced popular racism in Britain.
Comment by ferrier — 30 June, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Sunny
I disagree with your priority of attacking Respect as part of a conversation about opposing the BNP. And the fact that this was your priority at a joint cross-party meeting against the BNP, and that you trailed your intention of doing so on your blog (showdown tonight) in advance suggests that your appeals now for “proper engagement” are a bit tongue in cheek.
I disagree with you about rehashing semi-racist accusations of communalism against a party with localised mass support from disadvanted south-Asians, predominantly muslims. Note here your own sleight of hand, I didn’t say that the policy adjustments you are suggesting are racist, I said that misleading accusations of communalism were rehashing semi-racist accusations from the right wing.
I disagree with you about removing funding from the most disadvanated communities, which would be the consequence in real politics of your specific proposal for removal of spending from BME and faith groups; and I disagree with any retreat from the concept that social spending should follow social need which would be involved in the idea of prioritising spending on “local” or indigenus people (that really would be communalism!), as opposed to providing for those with greatest need whether they are indigenous or migrants, and whatever their residency status.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 June, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
#46
Ferrier, i am suprised at you. Sunny is VERY IMPORTANT, and sometimes he writes analysis that is almost as profound and insightful as reading G2 in the Guardian.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 June, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
I disagree with your priority of attacking Respect as part of a conversation about opposing the BNP.
You would only come to that view if your primary source of info was a Respect lackey who was hurt by the accusations levelled at the party. I thought you would have learnt by now given the party’s record, but we can live in hope.
My point there was that Respect had been part of promoting a communalism that helped develop identity politics. It wasn’t my main point.
I said that misleading accusations of communalism were rehashing semi-racist accusations from the right wing.
Love the loop-holes you’re jumping through. So you think Asians and Muslims can never be accused of being communal?
I disagree with you about removing funding from the most disadvanated communities, which would be the consequence in real politics of your specific proposal for removal of spending from BME and faith groups
I said case by case. In case you’re not aware some BME communities in the UK are richer than whitea and there are WWC communities poorer than BME ones.
You’re like one of those people above who thinks that talking about Britishness is inherently racist because, like the BNP, you buy into the view that British = white.
Similarly, the patronising way that the far left treats minorities is plain to see here - all of them should be seen as poor and disadvantaged who can’t do anything to help themselves, and should be trated with kid gloves. And as soon as someone says different, then just accuse them of being racist. I don’t think I have to point out that I have far more experience of Asian communalism and racism than some internet warriors.
And lastly, you still haven’t told me how you’re re-evaluating your thoughts since the BNP got elected and doing things differently since before the BNP got elected. Perhaps egg-pelting is your brand new idea?
It may not have escaped your notice, but all the arguments you and your mates are rehashing here were around before the BNP got elected and frankly they’ve done nothing to stem the rise. The great vehicle that Respect was going to be to help the working classes was exposed as the sham it was.
So frankly, I don’t think I’m going to spend much time listening to people who keep repeating themselves endlessly without coming up with new ideas.
All the smears you’ve allowed to be published here don’t really bother me. It just exposes the lame thinking that envelops the far-left on issues of racism and identity.
Comment by Sunny — 30 June, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Sunny, your arrogance is truly breathtaking. Maybe, just maybe, people might think you are wrong for legitimate reasons. The fact is the only concrete policy you have suggested for your ‘Britishness agenda’ is to withdraw funding from certain community groups. Everything else is just bluster. Surely you can see why we might be sceptical of this, given it is something generally advocated by the right?
Comment by Dan — 30 June, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Sunny
My evidence that you used the platform to attack respect is not only this article by Ger, but your own confrimation of that fact on Pickeled Politics, and the fact that other people who attended the meeting have also confirmed Ger’s account as broadly accurate.
Your point that Respect has contributed to communal politics feeds into a sustained prejudice about South Asian communities, and is complete unfounded in fact. I have been on the dootsteps canvassing for Respect and talked with racist voters who use the code words of Respect’s “communalism” to justify what is basically prejudice against their Muslim neighbours.
of course Muslms and South Asians can be accused of communalism, when they are engaged in communalism. What is racist is to assume that all electoral activity by Muslims and South Asians MUST be communal, just becasue it gains mass support in that specific community, even when it is not communalist.
With regard to your “case by case” review of funding by the lottery or public bodies; this would have no purchase on the growth of the BNP. In fact all appliactions to the lottery or local authorities or private charitable institutions are already reviewed on a “case by case ” basis, against rigorous criteria for example to promote social inclusion and overcome quantifiable issues of disadvantage.
So either you are arguing that your “case by case” review is no change whatsoever from the existing situation (which doesn’t strike me as very radical thinking); or you are arguing that there should be a presumption against funding BME and faith related charities.
Now you argue that “some BME communities in the UK are richer than whitea and there are WWC communities poorer than BME ones”. Well generally that isn’t the case is it? when I was company secretary of the Millen Advice Centre I used to examine the social indicators in detail when making funding applications, and poverty, ill health, poor education and nearly every index of social disadvantage is greater among BME communities.
Now obvioulsy there are rich and privileged people with immigrant heritage backgrounds. No one is denying it. But funding applications to public bodies, lottery and private funding institutions would never succeed for the benefit of rich people, so you are creating a straw man. Are you saying that because there are some rich people of bengali heritage in the UK, then it is their responsibility to care for poor bengalis? If that is not what you are saying, then i struggle to understand the point you are making.
Now you may have great expereince of communalism. In which case it should be no hardship or difficulaty for you to producde the evidence you have been asked for that respect has promoted communalism. But you have been asked several times now, and have failed to do so.
Your argument that we are being excessivley mean to you personally, but that we have a patrinising attitude of treating Asian people with kid gloves seems a little internally inconsistent to me. Are we treating you with kid gloves?
What is most tedious is your coming here without checking what has actuually been said or argued and making lazy assumptions.
I am the last person who could be accused of the mistake of “talking about Britishness is inherently racist because, like the BNP, you buy into the view that British = white”. i have a sustained interst in the politics of national identity, and write about it often here.
Similarly you accuse me of supporting the egg throwing incident, when i regarded it as problematic.
And there has been a susatined and serious debate about the best tactics and strategy to combat the BNP on this blog for a very long time. And this includes sharp disagreements between different opinions for example we have debated the wisdom of No platform, we have debated whether or not to privately engage with fascists, we have debated the wisdom of standing left candidates against the BNp, we have discussed the wisdom of caling for a vote for anyone but the BNP. We have debated the strategic call by respect in key constituencies to vote Green to stop the BNP.
None of this is repeating ourselves endlessly without coming up with aany new ideas.
So are we smearing you? i don’t think so.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 June, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Who IS this Sunny guy anyway?
Comment by johng — 30 June, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
John
He is the editor of “Liberal conspiracy” the favourite blog spot of a group of particulrly self satisfied young Guardianistas.
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/
Full of “fresh thinking” and “originality” - you know the sort of thing.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 June, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
On the plus side Andy, it must make a nice change for you to be accused of being “far left” on here
Comment by Rory — 30 June, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
#53 Sunny’s original blog, Pickled Politics;
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/
is essential reading.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 30 June, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
I’m surprised that Sunny hasn’t yet been denounced over at the Spittoon for even agreeing to speak at Friday’s event. After all, they are on record as “exposing” the City Circle as a Wahhabi/Muslim Brotherhood front. “Have the British government’s counter-terrorism’s boffins done their due diligence on City Circle and its extremist connections?” the Spittoon demands. (Yes,really!)
Perhaps Sunny has been let off the hook because Faisal Gazi – formerly “Sid” of Pickled Politics – is centrally involved with the Spittoon. Mind you, it does raise further questions about Sunny’s political judgement that he was prepared to offer blog space to that demented David Toube wannabee in the first place.
Comment by Bob — 30 June, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
By the way i missed this gem from Sonny at #43
“Are we playing a game of who works harder against the BNP? Even if I am just opposed to the BNP, though I’ve volunteered for Hope Not Hate several times”
The numptie had been invited along to be a panel speaker at a serious meeting about how to combat the rise of the BNP within the Asian community.
because of his massivly infalted ego, based upon typing to an uncritical audience on the Interweb, Sunny thought that hs experience of delivery a few leaflets made him an expert, and accepted witout blushing.
He then trailed in advance on his Pickled Politics blog that he was going to make the eventing into the showdown of the century, and went aloong armed with the intention of attacking Respect.
He also did no research into the debate about different strategies to defeat the BNP, and assumed that ideas of the top of his head would be an amazing and challenging contribution to the discussion.
The main BIG IDEA that he had was to cut funding to BME and faith groups from pubic bodies; but when challenged on this he retreats to ensuring applicatins are evaluated on a “case by case” basis - which of course is the current situation.
then when we try to discuss with him what he actually said and challenge it, he goes into a huff and claims we are “smearing him”
What a balloon.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 June, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
I don’t know why the liberal warrior Sunny has been elevated to this position where his redundant neoliberal opinion matters. It’s the same old nonsense that the Tories used to bang on about in the past about multi-culturalism. The bogus claims that minorities are fiddling the equal opps system and that equal opportunities discriminates against whites. What a load of horse shit based on absolutely no evidence except the fabricated lies cooked up by the right.
The fact is that the liberals are so bereft of new ideas after buying neoliberalism wholesale that Sunny and his mates have to adopt the Tories old clothes. If it wasn’t for the neoliberalism of New Labour then support for the BNP wouldn’t have grown. Thank your Labour chums for that one Sunny. But it’s convenient for your social circle to blame Respect and the rest of the left because it lets New Labour off the hook.
At least throwing eggs stops Griffin while jaw jaw with your liberal mates just panders to his agenda. Anyone who listens to your New Labour spin is just handing more votes to the BNP. We’ve already seen how the bankrupt politics of New Labour has facilitated the BNP at the Euro elections. In the wake of the election Brown has agreed to let local councils prioritise so-called “local people” for housing. This is the logical outcome of your argument and one that those who want to stop the BNP must oppose. We need less of the pandering to racism and more confrontation with the BNP. It stopped the nazis in the 30’s, 70’s and 90’s in the UK and it’ll stop them this time.
Comment by Ray — 30 June, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
The best way to eradicate the BNP is to stop acting like unelectable looney left bampots, unite around sensible understandable, relatable policies and move on from there.
P.S, far to many intelectual arseholes who are unable to communicate with ordinary folks (snobs).
Comment by Hanz — 30 June, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
#59
Actually ray, I am prety sure that Sunny doesn’t support the labour party,
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 June, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
The BNP are laughing all the way to the electorate thanks to looney left squabbling, Arran jumpered, nose studding, sandles wearing cleek with a complete and inability to communicate with real, caring, warm, selfless, genuine left which is sick and tired of it’s pointless posturing.
Comment by hanz — 30 June, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
The last time I looked Sunny was advocating support for the Conservatives, on the grounds that they had a better line on civil liberties than Labour. See “It’s time for brown people to switch to Tory“. Mind you, that was a year ago.
Actually, I think we’re all being a bit mean to Sunny, who has his good points. He rather reminds me of Johann Hari, in that he gets some things dead right, and then loses the plot completely on others. This is probably something to do with journalists dealing in political ideas that aren’t linked to political practice, which makes them ideologically erratic.
But Sunny does produce some good stuff. Here he is attacking Geert Wilders and Douglas Murray. Here he is ridiculing the annual “Christmas in banned because it offends Muslms” stories in the tabloid press. Here he is opposing a ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir. And so on.
So let’s give the guy a break.
Comment by Bob — 30 June, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
May not have worded it the same way, but Hanz point does resonate with my own experience. I crave utopia but i’m happy to aim for something achievable.
Solidarity to all on the left.
Kenny.
Comment by kenny — 30 June, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Last response Andy:
1. Your point that Respect has contributed to communal politics feeds into a sustained prejudice about South Asian communities, and is complete unfounded in fact.
No it doesn’t. Who in their right minds associates all Muslims or South Asians with Respect? Even the Labour party has way more councillors and voters who are Muslims. Probably the Libdems do too.
Frankly, all your bluster comes down to the fact that you’re peeved, like your mate here, that I attacked Respect. I know tons of political Muslims who have no time for Respect or associate Muslims = Respect like you seem to. It’s a fucking failed political party. Attacking it is not equal to attacking Muslims.
2. So either you are arguing that your “case by case” review is no change whatsoever from the existing situation (which doesn’t strike me as very radical thinking); or you are arguing that there should be a presumption against funding BME and faith related charities.
Again, mis-representation. Arguing against funding for minority-only groups was only a small part of what I said. My main thrust was a focus on talking about identity and shared language. Just coz your mate here didn’t write that up doesn’t mean it’s not true. And even then, my point related to how funding in the past fuelled antagonism. I offered an example, when asked. As I said - it wasn’t my main thrust and frankly the way this idiot has written up the event mis-represents how the debate actually took place.
3. Now you argue that “some BME communities in the UK are richer than whitea and there are WWC communities poorer than BME ones”. Well generally that isn’t the case is it?
Well, you have to be pretty stupid to make “general” policy pronouncements without understanding how background, religion, nationality and class (most importantly) impact ethnic minorities differently. Since you don’t bother, I can’t say I take your analysis very seriously.
4. Your argument that we are being excessivley mean to you personally, but that we have a patrinising attitude of treating Asian people with kid gloves seems a little internally inconsistent to me. Are we treating you with kid gloves?
No, it’s the patronising way in which BME’s are all seen as poor, oppressed and frankly, not even British. One of your commenters actually said I was being like the BNP for bringing up racist notions of Britishness! So in other words just talking about being British makes you racist does it, especially if it concerns BMEs. That being because you and your chums think British = white. Isn’t that right?
5. I am the last person who could be accused of the mistake of “talking about Britishness is inherently racist because, like the BNP, you buy into the view that British = white”. i have a sustained interst in the politics of national identity, and write about it often here.
Which is also what the main thrust of my talk was. It was the fact that I attacked Respect that mhas made all you socialists get so annoyed.
Comment by Sunny — 1 July, 2009 @ 2:12 am
“and assumed that ideas of the top of his head would be an amazing and challenging contribution to the discussion”
This tends to be the way with liberal balloons.
Comment by johng — 1 July, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Sunny #65
The criticism of you is not that you said mean things about Respect, nor the bizarre claim you are now making that we think criticisng Respect is the same as criticisng all Muslims.
It was the specific nature of your claim, that Respect propmotes communalism. the only basis of your claim seesm to be that Respect attracts the electoral support of a lot of Muslims. This is why you are frankly intellectually lazy, and repeating the smears from the racists. Communalism has a specific meaning relating to the politics of the sub-continent around propmoting the interests of certain communities at the expense of others. It is appropriate to criticise communalism where it exists, it is highly inappropriate to accuse people of communalism who are both opposed to communalism in practice and on principle.
Respect has the support of many Muslims not on the basis of promoting Muslims at the expense of non-Muslims, but becasue Respect has taken up the issues of anti-imperialism and anti-racism, which has been disproportionately attractive to some Muslim voters who are strongly motivated by soolidarity with co-religionists in Iraq, Afghanistan and palestine. Added to which that becasue Respect has councillors in areas where there is a high concentration of people from with bengali and paksitani heritage, and because our councillors are good at case work, they have helped lots of Bengali and Pakistani people - in the same way that councillors for other parties in the same wards would have done.
the reason that people are animated about you criticisms of Resopect is twofold; i) the inaccurate way you have made unfounded claims of communalism againt Respect; but also ii) the fact that you have disrupted a serious cross-party discussion on how to combat fascism with your purile point-scoring. Purile point-scoring that you trailed in advance you would be doing by billing the event as “the showdown of the century”.
I also note that despite the fact that I have told you more than once now that I don’t associate Britishness with being white, and I have told you that I have written about the subject of identity several times on this blog, you simply repeat the ridiculous claim that I think talking about Britshness makes someone racist. It would hardly be difficult for you to substantiate my argument that i don’t think that by just searching for what i have written about the subject on this blog; or at least having the courtesy to listen to me when i tell you that is not my view. your persisting in accusing me of holding a political position that I am renowned for taking the opposite view on suggests that you are trying to blow up a smokescreen to avoid examination of your own actual argument.
I note that you also adopt the utterley discredited debating tactic of amalgamation. The fact that another commenter has made a claim her that you are talking like the BNP, you asscoiate with me, even though i personally have made no such claim, nor would i.
Your juvenile approach to this debate is shown by your ridiculous claim that you are offended by “the patronising way in which BME’s are all seen as poor, oppressed and frankly, not even British”. I have made no such claim. However, I do know from personal expereince and government statistics that BME groups often include amongst them a higher concentration of the poorest and most deprived. BME groups also often face issues of language exclusion, institutional racism and lack of cultural familiarity at accessing the levers to gain help. There are also issues for BME communities and faith groups of lack of parity of esteem, where subtle (and unsubtle!!) prejudices disadvantage them in the eyes of policy makers; and as such BME advocacy also has a role to play in promoting equality.
It seems that you wish to cut public funding for charities and NGOs that work in this area, and it is entirely reasonable to seek to question you and hold you to account for that. This is a far more substantive issue that your criticisms of Respect, and so far you have simply been unable to convince me that you are not simply pandering to a right wing agenda (indeed pandering to white communalism!)
the substantive issue is that it is still far from clear what you are arguing regarding funding for BME charities and faith groups. You say that you don’t take my arguments seriously on this, although I have already told you that I have been a company director of a lottery funded charity providing an advice service for BME clients, and in that context I had to reseach in detail the indeces of deprivation for BME communities in order to make funding application; and I have some insight into the funding criteria by which BME groups and faith groups can access funding.
I am not sure why you claim I “don’t bother” to try to understand how “how background, religion, nationality and class (most importantly) impact ethnic minorities differently.”. I have a reasnably good understanding, from my work for the charity, from decades of involvement in politics relating to immigrant and BME communities, and my more recent work as a trade unionist with migrant workers. What I have struggled to do is understand how the class and other differentiations within BME communities affects your argument. Are you arguing that becasue some black and Asian people are rich, then it is the responsibility of those black BME individuals to bear the cost? Or are you arguing that becasue many black and Asian people have succeeded in the current system that this proves there is no need to special social measures to overcome the general discriminaton and disadvanage that means that people from BME communities are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to suffer mental distress, more likely to have ppoor housing, their children are more likely to have special educational needs, etc, etc.
It is at this point, where you have been seriously but fraternally challenged to make yourself clear that you fail to clairify, aand instead retreat into bluff and bluster.
I am trying to take your argument seriously, but you seem thoroughly unable to sustain a debate.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 9:49 am
#65 inciently, Ii am sad that Sunny says that comment 65 is his last contribution to this debate.
I have tried to take seriously his advoccay of cutting funds fo BME and faith groups “on a case by case basis”, but he has simply not respsonded in a serious way. It seems that he is now intending to run away altogether.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Bob #63
Sunny “rather reminds me of Johann Hari”
That really is damning with faint praise!
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 9:56 am