New Labour vs the BNP: where's the politics?

Having failed to get the verdict it wanted in the BNP case - pesky juries - New Labour wants to change the law. In this, we see two of its less pleasant features.
One is its illiberalism:

Chancellor Mr Brown said: "Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country."

Tim calls this right - offending "mainstream opinion" (by which Brown means "opinions like mine") is no reason whatever to make something a crime.
Put it this way. In The God Delusion (ch9), Richard Dawkins likens religious education to child abuse. Is there really a clear difference between that and Griffin's description of Islam as a "wicked religion"? Any law against religious hatred would surely forbid both.
The second unpleasant feature of New Labour is that it favours management over politics. It thinks problems should be managed away, not debated. So it thinks it can combat the BNP with the law, not politics.
In a better world, it would fight the BNP by showing that it is a vicious gutter party, which no respectable person could support. Instead, New Labour panders to its nasty illiberal racism, by denouncing the veil and by pretending that the Stupid Party isn't tough enough on immigration.
What's more, a decent governing party would not have tolerated the vast chasm between the ruling class and the indigenous working class. The BNP is exploiting an alienation that New Labour's centralist managerialism encouraged.
Let's then be clear. The BNP is a party that's nasty, vicious and small. New Labour is nasty, vicious - and big.

Comments

[Shuggy]

Agree with practically all of that - except the difference between Dawkins view and Griffin's description of Islam is that the former's is an equal opportunities hostility to religion.

[dearieme]

Well said, young man.

[james higham]

You had it quite right and then somehow, fronm nowhere, you brought in "In The God Delusion (ch9), Richard Dawkins likens religious education to child abuse." What's that got to do with New Labour and the BNP, Chris?

[Paulie]

Nasty? I think there are few of your stock positions that you are discarding in order to reap the personal cathartic reward that we all get from being rude about establishment politicians.

And even here, you are missing a trick. If you have the choice between calling someone 'nasty' and calling them 'stupid' which is the more charitable? I'd suggest 'nasty' is a kindness they don't deserve here.

Why? Well...
1. Legislation as a symbol instead of an instrument. This makes them poor governors and it provides a clear example of why they are not a great government
2. Overestimation of the value that the public place on political positions when making electoral choices. If they understood the basis on which people make choices, they would know that Griffin's view aren't as important as the way that his character is perceived. And the public seem to attribute virtues to martyrs.

Legislating further on this matter is not nasty. It's stupid.

[Jeremycj]

One should read Rabbi Naftali Brawer's article on Dawkins book in the latest copy of the Jewish Chronicle.

[Dipper]

yes quite. Isn't it obvious that freedom means the freedom to say things the majority disagree with?

[Igor Belanov]

The BNP was on to a winner with that trial all along. They won and therefore claimed a triumph. Had they been convicted then the two would have achieved the status of martyrs. The law creates a situation where people like Griffin can hide their hatred and intolerance behind a screen of 'freedom of speech'. Plus, as Chris says, it isn't desirable to hide behind the law and in effect to stop campaigning vigorously against racists and their ilk.

[Dave Hill]

You are totally right that "New" Labour panders to the same fears and prejudices that the BNP exploits. Reid, Brown, Blair, Kelly, the whole bunch. Then, having endorsed them, it claims that it will legislate against them. Not good enough. Not BRAVE enough. Cruddas for Deputy, and so on.

[John Konop]

Open Border Chairman Martinez to lead GOP?

The GOP base was sent a shock wave by picking a pro-amnesty Mel Martinez as the Republican Party Chairman. It seems clear now, that President Bush will push his open border agenda with the help of Nancy Pelosi lead Congress. Mel Martinez job will be to control GOP Party decent from Congress, with the promise of new Hispanic voters.

Palm Beach Post

Signaling a new direction for the Republican Party, which had heavy losses in the Hispanic community in last week’s elections, Florida Sen. Mel Martinez appeared ready Monday to become the party’s new general chairman while retaining his Senate seat.

Martinez thrust himself into the contentious debate over immigration, helping craft the Senate version of a comprehensive immigration bill that would offer a route to eventual citizenship for longtime illegal residents while requiring others to leave the U.S.

Michele Waslin, director of immigration policy at the National Council of La Raza, is hopeful Martinez and his GOP allies will make the right moves.

Is the GOP selling-out the Base with pushing an open border agenda? Does anyone think that the GOP lost the election due to the immigration issue?