Airstrip One

Post Box

Yes, it's time to trawl through my inbox.

Hang on in there

A bit of reaction from my last article, which wasn't really on the death penalty, even if most responses were:

Very well put Emmanuel. That is roughly what I have come round to thinking, from a similar path. to the one you describe. Not that I would tolerate it for anything other than cold-blooded murder though - a life for a life.

and a Libertarian retort:

I used to be a mindless supporter of the death penalty, and have come to the conclusion that the _state_ could under no circumstances be trusted with it, as the state, being the demonstrated beyond any doubt a criminal enterprise, has always abused the power.

The _private_ death penalty, preferably administered at the moment of the attack on the intended victim by the intended victim - or later on by victim's friends, relatives, _private_ mediation services (such as security and insurance companies,) etc - is the only just solution to the problem of crime and punishment.

He was so annoyed he cancelled his subscription to my mailing list.

and this:

I wanted to congratulate you on your column (on death penalty) on Antiwar.com today - because that's how it is. And nobody seems to have had courage, nay, intelligence to take it up before? I live in Sweden as an emigrée and I see it every day. Anna Lindh and her Socialist Party colleagues are all the same - working-class and ignoramuses whatever matter in the government is concerned. Anna Lindh is really not liked here either by many people. The turn of the tide came of course with the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (which she and Prime Minister G. Persson supported whole-heartedly).

She is such an unrepresentable figure to be a Foreign Minister in the first place that it's unbelievable! If anybody should be taken as a
schoolgirl to be lectured up, it's her! By the way, if it came to voting on death penalty in Sweden, a lot of people would be in favour, too. The same goes about voting on the membership in the monetary union where a clear majority of Swedes would say no.

First: thank you for your contributions to Antiwar.com. I've been an ardent fan of the site since I found it about 6 months ago. In today's column you write of the EU's elitist moralizing re: the death penalty in the US. Given the European community's new found appetite for interference in sovereign states' internal affairs- think Yugoslavia, Austria, etc.- perhaps President Bush ought to avoid ever setting foot on European soil, lest he be bundled off to The Hague to stand trial for "crimes against humanity". By the standards of the EU, Bush is as big a criminal as is Milosevic. I wish that I was being facetious.

... think Pinochet.

There are a number of responses to this article in the Antiwar Forum. One correspondant wonders what "mandate" I have to apologise for our leaders treatment, irony is not really an issue here - obviously. There was also a little anti-English ramble from another correspondant and a challenge from another one to name an anti-death penalty type who supported the Gulf War (someone like Tony Blair, I suppose).

UKIP responds

The article on UKIP got a fairly anemic response. It seems that although I've increased my British readership (and correspondants), few are interested in British politics.

One UKIP reader was interested:

A good piece, but carrying several flaws or should I say, inaccuracies.

1) Nigel Farage is NOT General Secretary. He is an MEP.

2) Our vote at the euro elections was over 8% nationally and significantly higher locally.

3) We came within hundreds of votes of getting FIVE MEP's, but acknowledge that without PR we would have got NOTHING!

4) We LOVE Europe, its people as individuals, its customs, products, and some ideas! We do NOT want to be governed by them. We want what we were originally promised. A TRADING relationship, nothing more.

5) Thank you for voting for Damien. As you will of course know, London is a single EU region, just like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That they have 'Regional' governments is part of the EU plan. Why therefore are there no regional governments for the East of England? (six counties of Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Bedfordshire, Cambridge and Hertfordshire) or the South East Region - Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire. Probably because even the sharpest minds cannot yet concieve of reasons that will bind them together as a single unit! But if you wait long enough for the insidious, malicious machine to work it
possibly might.

6 A Eurosceptic or opponent of our membership can have NO legitimate place in any political party other than UKIP. The stated policy of the others is:-

LIB DEM: why has it taken so long to get this far? We MUST be in it whatever, no other option.

NU Labour: We want to be at the heart of Europe. Geographically that is almost a description of Berlin. Politically most European governments (maybe not their Presidents) are left leaning, pretending to be middle ground. Labour was for withdrawal until NU LAB came along. Both Blair and Kinnock campaigned for withdrawal. ( So what changed their minds except the promise of a fat pay check?)

TORY : Committed to British membership, of expanding the EU to 28 members. Will rule out joining the Euro for only 5 years, and would not offer a referendum. Hague is a Vice President of the London European Society, an EU sponsored promotional vehicle. Previous Tory leaders have signed:

1972 - Heath, The Treaty of Rome, who lied consistently about the real intent and gave away our fishing.

1986 - Thatcher The Single European Act, but commentators cannot yet work out why, unless she was deceived.

1992 - Major, Maastricht (his Chancellor, K Clarke, actually said he had never read it)

1997 - Blair, Amsterdam. Not available in English when signed by Ministers. ( OOH sorry, Blair isn't Tory, but see above.)
{ Tony Blair MP is an anagram of ' Plan B I'm Tory'}

Now which anti EU party were you talking about???

Are their candidates expected to toe the Party line? - The answer is yes. What part of yes do you not understand?

7) We want to harm no-one. That others lie through their teeth to get elected is apparantly par for the course. They should be exposed. If they believe as we do, the join us. 18 years of failing in attempted negotiation is hardly a recommendation. And what
do you do if others will simply NOT negotiate with you? You have to leave, but we are neither given a timescale for renegotiation nor what the plan in a 'worst case scenario' - ie LEAVE. We want eurosceptic Tories, Nu Labour, Liberals to join us, not utter platitudes and tell lies. Do you not condemn liars?

Brave I know, some would say naive, but honest. Strange in a politician.

8) You analysis of the Times story is fascinating but slightly off line. The story ran some time ago in the Telegraph and we thought it had died. Perhaps it is a Tory plot to discredit us. Perhaps it is a Labour plot to discredit the Tories. We have had more coverage in the last week than in the last six months. It gives us 'the oxygen of publicity' so far denied us - as the fourth biggest party - in the BBC. One appearance on Question Time in 21 months is hardly balanced broadcasting is it? Something else we have come to
live with!

9) You forgot to mention that Francis Maude also signed the Maastricht Treaty, so he ain't exactly eurosceptic is he?

If you want something, go and get it, work for it, accept not the words of false prophets.And let us remember, if you want a job done properly DO IT YOURSELF

Another was from a disgruntled sympathiser of the far-right BNP:

In your latest message you describe the BNP (British Nationalist Party) as fascist.

I suppose that its policy on race and immigration is the most likely one that someone might wish to accuse it of being fascist. The policy of the party on this subject is clearly stated on its literature and is as follows:

1. An end to further large scale immigration.
2. A family friendly programme that would encourage people to have children, thereby overcoming the low reproduction rates of the indigenous population.
3. Generous repatriation grants to the many immigrants who would like to return to their countries of origin but who cannot afford to do so.
4. Deportation of illegal immigrants.

What is fascist about that?

The party states that it would be tough on crime. I think that you will find that this is what most people in this country want. In any case, this in itself is not fascist. The party would like to reintroduce the death penalty for murder. Whilst I do not agree with this (because the UK legal system has shown itself to be extremely flawed), this does not make the party fascist. Many states in the USA retain the death penalty. Would you regard them as fascist?

The party is against globalism in industry. Again, whilst I think that it is impossible to reverse this trend and I am not sure that, in any case, I agree with this view, I do not see how such a policy can be regarded as fascist.

I have read much of the party's literature. The main organ, "The Voice of Freedom", is written in a style slightly higher than that of "The Daily Mirror" but lower than that of the "Daily Mail". It concerns itself mainly with reporting physical attacks and sometimes murder by people of ethnic minorities on people of the white indigenous population. Such crimes are usually labelled by the police as motiveless. Well, if they are indeed to be regarded as motiveless, then the murder of Stephen Lawrence is equally motiveless. If this latter murder is not motiveless and the former murders are, then it is clear that we are not all equal under the law in this country. To dare to say such a thing is hardly fascist but a true statement concerning the state of affairs in this country.

The newspaper also draws attention to facts that are not reported elsewhere in this country. For instance, the police have admitted that there are parts of Oldham where it is unsafe for white people to venture. If they do, they are likely to be attacked by Asian youths. If the "Voice of Freedom" did not publish such facts, who would? Is everyone not entitled to know what is going on in various parts of this country? The true reporting of facts can hardly be regarded as fascist. There are plenty of other newspapers that publish reports of equally deplorable attacks by white people on black and brown people.

There are two other organs: "Patriot", which is published by the BNP, and "Spearhead", which is published independently by a member of the BNP, John Tyndall, who was a one time leader of the party (I believe that he founded the party). I have read several editions of these.

The party is not a warmongering party and opposed the Kosovo war, as indeed I believe did you.

You can see what the party stands for by visiting its web site at www.bnp.org.uk

I wonder if you have inadvertently confused the BNP with the National Front

I still stand by my description of them as fascist, and I deplore most of their stances and regard them as a destructive presence on the right. Now I feel uneasy at being so p.c. - but these guys really are beyond the pale, and not for their position on the death penalty.

I also received a couple of pieces "in confidence" with interesting information. So although few nerves were struck, they seemed to be raw ones.