For those who want to keep tabs on where things stand, here’s a video (22 min. and 50 MB) of the speech by BNP leader Nick Griffin that’s getting him prosecuted for “using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.” The speech is more vehement than Enoch Powell’s so-called “rivers of blood” speech that got him canned from the shadow cabinet, but much milder than say the “revengeance” speech at issue in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a leading U.S. free speech case.
I can imagine that in very special circumstances it might be right to ban a speech like this, just as in special circumstances it might be right to set a curfew, forbid street gatherings, or impose martial law. What the British government has done, though, is create a situation, through an immigration and multiculturalism policy they treat as untouchable, in which they claim that banning such speeches under the threat of a long prison term is a permanent necessity. That is plainly criminal.
A major complaint Griffin makes in the speech is that the British press has been going on and on for years about the Stephen Lawrence case while blacking out reports of much worse crimes committed by Asians against native English and Scots and not pursued by the police. Is that reticence now required by English law? Griffin’s facts are rather strong, and if correct would likely stir up hatred in some people, especially if they’re told they should just shut up and live with it. Which last point is in fact part of what Griffin says: if you can’t talk about things or discuss what to do about them the problems don’t go away and people just get crazier. The mere fact that government policies that are still in effect have gratuitously created an extremely difficult situation should not mean that the government can forbid complaints about the policies and their consequences.