| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Even if the BNP had a much lower profile than it does currently, media coverage of the asylum and immigration issue would still stir the indignation of many people out of all proportion to the scale of the problem facing the country. According to the media portrayal, asylum seekers are an unbearable cost for the public, which if not checked, will bring the country to ruin. When people hear that the total cost of asylum support is just over £1bn, it seems an alarming and incredible figure that must be burdening the country. But how many people are aware that total government spending exceeds £400bn each year, making the previous figure comparatively small? No doubt the figure for asylum support would be much lower if asylum seekers were not prevented from working for two years after making initial applications.
For most people who will vote for the BNP, their vote is a way to register protest at the failures of government - local or national. To call on the party faithful of different colours to outvote the discontents is to fail to address why racial or ethnic politics is appealing to many people, at least in the short term. It also doesn't address the fact that xenophobia and racism as expressed by the media makes a much greater contribution to public attitudes towards race and asylum than the BNP could ever hope to achieve.
As well as using existing legislation and the proposed changes to employment law, the latest government move, ostensibly aimed at the activities of groups like the BNP, is the introduction of a law against inciting 'religious hatred'. The Home Secretary has been the driving force behind the proposal, which he claims will act to prevent the use of a gap in the law, which allows people of faith, Muslims in particular, to be vilified in a way that would be illegal if used in reference to racial groups.
A previous attempt to bring in very similar legislation in 2001 failed amidst claims that it would be unworkable in practice. As the law will not attempt to define religious beliefs or practices, it will not be clear who or what cannot be attacked. Judging by the Home Secretary's recent record, it is likely that the main usage of the legislation will not be against the far-right, but against people of different religions, Muslims in particular. As he said in a speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research, "This will help tackle extremists who use religion to stir up hatred in our society, including religious extremists who preach hate against other religions." He also stated, "It applies equally to far-right evangelical Christians as to extremists in the Islamic faith." The comparison between this proposal and existing race relations legislation is apposite. As has been pointed out by critics of the plan, laws against incitement to racial hatred have been used disproportionately to bring charges against minorities rather than protecting them. Therefore it seems likely, especially in the light of Blunkett's comments, that the primary use of this legislation will be against Muslims who express views that the home secretary finds unpalatable.
By changing their language and being more careful in public, the BNP have been able to maintain their agenda without fear of prosecution, while audiences in private venues are still receptive to the full-blown message. Likewise, while the religious hatred law may produce a tactical change, their underlying stance will be unaffected. The main result of the planned restrictions, if they are successfully brought into law, will be that they will limit people's ability to debate and discuss in an open way about their differing ideas.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 1 2 3 4 >
Page 3 of 4 pages
| |
|
|
