Turkish Forum

Category: Non-EU Countries

  • BNP on Question Time: Nick Griffin uses BBC to attack Islam and defend the Ku Klux Klan

    BNP on Question Time: Nick Griffin uses BBC to attack Islam and defend the Ku Klux Klan

    The BBC was under siege last night after the leader of the BNP used his appearance on Question Time to attack Muslims and homosexuals while defending the Ku Klux Klan.

    By Robert Winnett and Rosa Prince

    A10Nick Griffin said Islam was not compatible with life in Britain, while describing homosexuals as “creepy”.

    However, he admitted sharing a platform with the Ku Klux Klan, which has carried out racist attacks across America’s Deep South, and defended leaders in the organisation as “non-violent”.

    The remarks provoked indignation from other members of the BBC panel and hostile parts of the audience, some of whom booed, calling him “a disgrace”.

    The BNP leader said he could not explain for legal reasons why he had previously sought to play down the Holocaust and had now changed his mind. He was challenged by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary and a fellow panellist, who said there was no such law.

    Mr Griffin defended his use of Sir Winston Churchill on BNP literature on the basis that his father had fought in the Second World War. He claimed that Churchill would have been a member of the BNP and was “Islamophobic” by “today’s standard”.

    Asked whether he denied that millions of Jews and other minorities had been killed by the Nazis, Mr Griffin would only reply: “I do not have a conviction for Holocaust denial.”

    He was then chastised by David Dimbleby, the host of the programme, for smiling.

    The controversial statements were made in response to intense questioning by members of the audience from ethnic minorities.

    BBC Television Centre in west London came under siege as filming took place, with MPs joining hundreds of protesters behind lines of police. There were six arrests as dozens of protesters attempted to storm the studio.

    BBC studios in Hull, Scotland and Wales were also targeted by demonstrators. The cost of the police operation was estimated to have been more than £100,000.

    The BBC was certain to be questioned over why it allowed Mr Griffin to air such controversial views but executives were hoping that the intensive questioning that he faced would justify their decision to invite him on the Question Time panel for the first time.

    The BBC, which Mr Griffin denounced on the programme as “ultra-Leftist”, had claimed that impartiality rules meant that it had little choice but to invite him on to the programme after the BNP won seats in the European Parliament in elections this year.

    He was joined on the panel by Mr Straw, Baroness Warsi, the Tory spokesman on community cohesion, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, and Bonnie Greer, a black American playwright.

    Mr Griffin was seated next to Miss Greer.

    One of the most controversial moments came when Mr Dimbleby asked the BNP leader why he had been pictured with David Duke, the former leader of the Klan. Mr Griffin claimed that parts of the racist group, officially classed as a “hate organisation” in America, were “non-violent”.

    However, he insisted: “I’m not a Nazi and never have been.” He claimed that he was “the most loathed man in Britain” among British fascists.

    He was questioned over his views on Islam and said it had “good points” but “does not fit in with the fundamental values of British society”.

    He described white Britons as “aboriginals here”. “The indigenous people of these islands, the English, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, the people who have been here for the last 17,000 years, are the aboriginals. The majority of British people are descended from people who have been here since time immemorial.

    “You people wouldn’t allow us to have our name on the census form — that’s racism.”

    Amid angry scenes, one Asian member of the audience asked Mr Griffin where he would like him to be sent, and added: “You’d be surprised how many people would have a whip round to buy you and your supporters a ticket to go to the South Pole — that’s a colourless landscape, it’ll suit you fine.”

    Questioned over whether he believed that British people had suffered genocide at the hands of successive governments, Mr Griffin said: “That is the case. It’s about destroying a culture.”

    On the subject of homosexuality he said “a lot of people find the sight of two men kissing in public really creepy”. “That is how a lot of us feel, a lot of Christians, a lot of Muslims,” he said. “I don’t know why, that’s just the way it is.”

    Speaking after filming had finished, Mr Griffin claimed that he had been able to “land some punches” and acknowledged that his appearance would “polarise normal opinion” but expressed confidence that it would have an impact.

    “A huge swath of British people will remember some of the things I said and say to themselves they’ve never heard anyone on Question Time say that before,” he said. “Millions of people will think, ‘That man speaks what I feel.’ ”

    About one million people voted for the BNP at the European elections, leading to Mr Griffin taking up one of its two seats in the European Parliament. As a result, the BBC said impartiality rules effectively forced it to include the party in Question Time.

    Mark Thompson, the director-general, said the Government should ban the BNP if it felt that Mr Griffin should not have been allowed to take part in the broadcast.

    “If there is a case for censorship, it should be decided in Parliament,” he said. “Political censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC or anyone else.”

    He said the BNP had “demonstrated a level of support that would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time”.

    Politicians from minor parties, including George Galloway, the Respect MP, and Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green party, regularly appeared on Question Time.

    Mr Thompson insisted that Mr Griffin had been invited so that the public could challenge his views, rather than any “misguided desire to be controversial”.

    Speaking before the programme, Gordon Brown said the BNP’s appearance was a matter for the BBC and that he was confident that Mr Griffin would be exposed for his “unacceptable” views.

    “I hope that the exposure of the BNP will make people see what they are really like,” the Prime Minister said.

    However, there were fears that Mr Griffin’s appearance would lead to an increase in support. He had said he was hopeful his party would be propelled into “the big time” as a result of the broadcast.

    The Telegraph

  • ‘Bigoted’ BNP will be exposed on TV, says Gordon Brown

    ‘Bigoted’ BNP will be exposed on TV, says Gordon Brown

    British National Party leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time wil expose his “unacceptable” views, Gordon Brown said.A9

    The Prime Minister said the decision to invite Mr Griffin, who was elected as an MEP earlier this year, on to the show was a matter for the BBC and he did not want to interfere with it.

    But he described the party as “racist and bigoted,” and urged anyone tempted to cast a protest vote against the mainstream parties not to turn to the BNP.

    Speaking on Real Radio in Yorkshire before the recording of today’s episode of Question Time, Mr Brown said: “If on Question Time, they are asked about their racist and bigoted views that are damaging to good community relations, it will be a good opportunity to expose what they are about.

    “In a recession, people are tempted to vote against their traditional voting patterns like voting Labour, which we regret. But I want to persuade people that voting for the BNP is not the right thing to do.”

    Mr Brown also defended the decision to allow Justice Secretary Jack Straw to appear on the show alongside Mr Griffin, in contrast with Labour’s previous refusal to share a platform with the BNP.

    He said: “The issue is: should we have someone there? Jack Straw is a very experienced person who has had to deal with the BNP and their awful politics over a period of time.

    “At every point, I believe we have got a duty to expose the BNP for what are racist and sectarian politics.”

    Last week, the BNP was ordered by the courts to change its membership rules, which only allowed “indigenously Caucasian” people to join, said Mr Brown.

    He said: “For a political party to exclude people on the grounds of race is completely unacceptable.

    “Their views about mixed marriages and everything else are unacceptable for the modern world.”

    In a message to voters considering a protest vote in the forthcoming general election, Mr Brown asked: “Do you really want to vote for, support or give succour to a party that wanted to exclude people from their party on the grounds of race and colour in the way that they did for many years?

    “Do you want to support a party that has some of the most bigoted views in our country?”

    The Telegraph

  • Israel’s attacks will lead to its isolation

    Israel’s attacks will lead to its isolation

    By Gideon Levy

    A8Israel has been dealing one blow after another to the rest of the world. While China has still not recovered from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s absence from the reception at its Tel Aviv embassy – a serious punishment for China’s support for the Goldstone report – France is licking its wounds after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “vetoed” a visit by the French foreign minister to Gaza. And Israel has dealt another blow: Its ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren, will boycott the conference next week of the new Israel lobby J Street.

    China, France and J Street will somehow get by despite these boycotts, Turkey will also recover from the great vacationers’ revolt, and we can expect that even the Swedes and Norwegians will recover from Israel’s loud reprimands. But a country that attacks and boycotts everyone who does not exactly agree with its official positions will become isolated, forsaken and detestable: North Korea of today or Albania of yesterday. It’s actually quite strange for Israel to use this weapon, as it is about to turn into the victim of boycotts itself.

    Israel strikes and strikes again. It strikes its enemies, and now it strikes out at its friends who dare not fall exactly in line with its official policies. The J Street case is a particularly serious example. This Jewish organization rose in America along with Barack Obama. Its members want a fair and peace-seeking Israel.

    Advertisement
     

    That’s their sin, and their punishment is a boycott.

    Oren, meanwhile, is a devoted representative: He also is boycotting. After criticizing Israeli columnists, including this one, in an article in The New Republic for daring to criticize Netanyahu’s speech at the UN – an outrage in its own right – the ambassador-propagandist uses the boycott weapon against a new and refreshing Jewish and Zionist organization that is trying to battle the nationalistic and heavy-handed Jewish-American establishment.

    In whose name is Oren doing that? Not in the name of Israeli society, whose ambassador he supposedly is. The former ambassadors from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union would have acted the same way.

    Such aggressiveness is a bad sign. It will drive away our last true friends and deepen our isolation. “A nation alone” has turned into our goal, our isolation has become an aspiration. Whom will we have left after we attack and boycott everyone? Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League? Our propagandist-attorney Alan Dershowitz?

    Dividing the world up between absolute good and evil – our side and our enemies, with no middle ground – is a sign of despair and a complete loss of direction. It’s not just our ambassador in Washington, who knows nothing at all about democracy and pluralism and only wants to please his masters. Such behavior – kicking and barking crazily in every direction – is destroying Israel.

    Without giving us a chance to voice our opinion, Israel is falling to the status of an international pariah, the abomination of the nations. And whom can we thank for that? Operation Cast Lead, for example. Only the United States remains our automatic and blind ally for all our mistakes. Another democracy that saw its status deteriorating so much would ask itself first and foremost what mistakes it had made.

    In Israel our approach is exactly the opposite: The rest of the world is guilty. The Scandinavians are hostile and the Turks are enemies, the French and British hate Israel, the Chinese are only Chinese and the Indians can’t teach us anything.

    Any legitimate criticism is immediately labeled here as anti-Semitism, including Richard Goldstone, the Jewish Zionist. We are pushing everyone into a corner roughly and hope they will change their opinions and suddenly be filled with a deep understanding for the killing of children in Gaza. Now America too, even its Jews, are no longer immune to this aggressive Israel mad with grandeur.

    The damage is piling up from Beijing all the way to New York. After the J Street boycott even American Jews will know that Israel is not a tolerant, open-minded or liberal country, despite what they are being told.

    Now they will know that “the only democracy in the Middle East” is not exactly that, and whoever does not repeat and proclaim its propaganda messages will be considered an enemy – they may also be punished severely.

    They should just ask the billion Chinese who are licking their wounds from the mortal blow the Israeli Foreign Minster dealt them personally.

    Haaretz

  • Illegal Terrorist organisation PKK supporter BBC, now also supports BNP

    Illegal Terrorist organisation PKK supporter BBC, now also supports BNP

    BBC is right to allow BNP on Question Time, says Mark Thompson

    A7Censorship is decision for ministers not broadcasters, insists corporation chief

    The BBC‘s director general, Mark Thompson, today robustly defends the corporation’s decision to invite the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, on to Question Time, and challenges the government to change the law if it wants to censor the far-right group.

    Writing in the Guardian, Thompson says ministers would have to impose a broadcasting ban on the party – as Margaret Thatcher did with Sinn Féin in the 1980s – before the BBC would consider breaching its “central principle of impartiality”.

    Griffin was not asked on to the flagship current affairs show out of “some misguided desire to be controversial”, he says, but because it is the public’s right “to hear the full range of political perspectives”.

    He adds: “It is a straightforward matter of fact that … the BNP has demonstrated a level of support which would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time. It is for that reason alone … that the invitation has been extended.”

    In what appears a direct challenge to the cabinet – including the Wales secretary, Peter Hain, who has argued vociferously for Griffin’s invitation to be rescinded – Thompson says: “The case against inviting the BNP to appear on Question Time is a case for censorship … Democratic societies sometimes do decide that some parties and organisations are beyond the pale. As a result they proscribe them and/or ban them from the airwaves.”

    Referring to the ban on Sinn Féin in the 1980s, he says the BBC opposed the move by the Thatcher government, but abided by it. The corporation would similarly abide by a decision to proscribe the BNP.

    “My point is simply that the drastic steps of proscription and censorship can only be taken by government and parliament … It is unreasonable and inconsistent to take the position that a party like the BNP is acceptable enough for the public to vote for, but not acceptable enough to appear on democratic platforms like Question Time. If there is a case for censorship, it should be debated and decided in parliament. Political censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC or anyone else.”

    Thompson says the BNP will be challenged tenaciously on the programme.

    Hain described Thompson’s position as “plain wrong”. He said: “He is dodging the fact the BNP is a racist, fascist party in complete contradiction to the BBC’s own equal opportunities and anti-racist policies. The BBC are in total denial about their gifting of a massive early Christmas present to the BNP. This is probably the worst decision the BBC has made in recent times.”

    Following an emergency meeting last night, the BBC Trust rejected appeals against Griffin’s invitation to appear on the programme, saying it was “a question of editorial judgment”.

    Griffin, who is an MEP, arrived in London from Strasbourg and will begin preparations for the show at a secret location this morning before travelling to Television Centre by car in time for the planned 6pm recording. The BNP is so concerned about its leader’s security that it explored chartering a private helicopter to get him to the studio, but was told by the BBC there was nowhere for it to land. Anti-fascist protesters are planning a rally outside Television Centre with members of the broadcasting union Bectu.

    Griffin told the Guardian he admired Thompson’s “personal courage” by inviting him. He described one of his fellow panellists, the Conservative peer Lady Warsi, as “a token Asian Muslim woman” and, in a message to supporters, said the debate was his chance to “take on the corrupt, treacherous swine destroying our beautiful island nation”.

    He predicted it would be “political bloodsport” when he faces Warsi, Jack Straw, the justice secretary, Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, and Bonnie Greer, a black American playwright and critic who lives in Britain.

    Ben Bradshaw, the culture secretary, said: “I have always thought we have to take the BNP on. I have always thought they condemn themselves as soon as they open their mouths. In a democracy where they have elected representatives not just at European level but at local level it is very difficult for a broadcaster to exclude them … We should not give these people the opportunity to claim they are being gagged.”

    BBC
  • BNP debate ‘illegal’, Hain warns

    BNP debate ‘illegal’, Hain warns

    A4Cabinet minister Peter Hain has warned the BBC that it could face legal action unless it scraps the controversial appearance of far-right MEP Nick Griffin on Question Time.

    Peter Hain has written to BBC director general Mark Thompson demanding he suspend the “abhorrent” inclusion of the British National Party leader on the flagship political debate show.

    The Welsh Secretary argued that the BNP was at present “an unlawful body” after the party told a court last week it would amend its whites-only membership rules to meet discrimination legislation.

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission had issued county court proceedings over concerns the membership criteria were restrictive to those within certain ethnic groups.

    Mr Griffin is due to appear on Thursday’s edition of Question Time alongside Justice Secretary Jack Straw, representatives of the other main parties and black writer Bonnie Greer.

    But in his letter, Mr Hain said: “If you do not review the decision you may run the very serious risk of legal challenge in addition to the moral objections that I make. In my view, your approach is unreasonable, irrational and unlawful.”

    ITN

  • Iraq Oil Scandal Threatens Former U.S. Diplomat Galbraith

    Iraq Oil Scandal Threatens Former U.S. Diplomat Galbraith

    57F2B0A1 62B7 4601 993D 10C42562F032 w393 sPeter Galbraith says his business activities took place only when he was working in the private sector.
    October 15, 2009
    By Charles Recknagel
    There is little love lost between the top UN envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, and Peter Galbraith, his recently dismissed deputy.

    Galbraith was dismissed from the UN mission earlier this month after accusing the senior Norwegian diplomat of concealing information about the extent of fraud in the contested Afghan presidential election.

    Eide later responded with an angry defense of his reputation as an honest broker. He acknowledged there had been “significant” fraud but said that Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador, had no way to substantiate claims that as much as 30 percent of the vote count was influenced by fraud.

    Now, in an ironic twist to the story, Galbraith, too, has suddenly found himself at the center of alleged scandal that could damage his own reputation.

    That scandal is taking place in Norway, where Galbraith, the son of famed Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, lives in Bergen with his Norwegian wife.

    Norway’s largest financial newspaper, the “Dagens Naeringsliv,” reported last week that Galbraith acquired a 5 percent share in an oil field in the Iraqi Kurdish region at a time when he was a leading voice in the U.S. debate over the structure of post-Saddam Iraq.

    At the time, the former diplomat urged in meetings with U.S. officials and in articles in the “New York Review of Books” that the Kurds should be given maximum autonomy.

    And he helped draft Iraq’s 2005 constitution by advising Kurdish leaders on legal language they should seek to insert into it — including keeping future oil development in their region under their own control.

    The U.S. daily “The Boston Globe,” which picked up the story on October 15, reports that in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Galbraith worked as an adviser to then-U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

    Galbraith then left government service and in late 2003 and early 2004 worked as a paid consultant to Kurdish politicians. Later, in 2005, he advised them again on an unpaid basis.

    Conflict Of Interest?

    Galbraith’s dual role in Iraq appears to have broken no laws. But it does raise ethical questions, according to some analysts.

    “The dual role is problematic particularly in terms of the American policy debate that unfolded from around 2005 to 2007, in which Galbraith was the leading voice in shaping the so-called alternative to the Bush administration policy,” says Reider Visser, a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo and the editor of the Iraq-focused website historiae.org.

    “At the core of that alternative was the idea of some sort of radical decentralization for Iraq,” Visser says. “But when it now emerges that additionally he had an ownership interest, or a business interest, in an oil field whose political and economic status was directly governed by his policy recommendations, then I think we can speak of a conflict of interest.”

    Galbraith says in “The Boston Globe” that he sees no conflict of interest because he was working as a private citizen at the time.

    “The business interest, including my investment into Kurdistan, was consistent with my political views,” he told the paper. “These were all things that I was promoting, and in fact, have brought considerable benefit to the people of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan oil industry, and also to shareholders.”

    Rumors of Galbraith having financial dealings in Iraq have swirled around for years. But the Norwegian newspaper’s detailed account stems not from an investigation into Galbraith but into a Norwegian oil company, DNO.

    The investigation, as often happens in such cases, advanced in unanticipated ways, with one discovery leading surprisingly to another.

    The newspaper began by looking into a large, unexplained fine leveled on DNO by the Oslo Stock Exchange on June 18. DNO is the only Norwegian oil company active in northern Iraq and one of the first foreign companies to receive a drilling license from the Kurdistan regional government (KRG).

    The minutes of the stock exchange meeting showed only that the fine was to punish DNO for selling 5 percent of its shares to a publicly undisclosed buyer. “Dagens Naeringsliv” filed a Freedom of Information request with the stock exchange and learned that the undisclosed buyer of the shares was the KRG itself.

    When “Dagens Naeringsliv” published that news, the KRG reacted vehemently to being publicly named. It threatened to suspend DNO’s activities in Kurdistan and evict the company without compensation. It also set some conditions for continued cooperation with DNO, including one that was completely unexpected: for the company to clear up all conflicts with “third-party interests.”

    Again the newspaper’s interest was piqued. This time, the challenge was to find out the identity of the “third party,” which apparently had previously been part of an agreement with DNO and the KGR but which now was in a conflict so important it needed to be solved immediately.

    Unexpected Connections

    In the search, the paper learned of an arbitration case in London which started sometime after March of last year and pits DNO against two companies: one called Porcupine, the other belonging to a Yemeni businessman. Tracking down Porcupine led to Delaware, where it turned out the company’s incorporation document was signed by Peter Galbraith.

    The financial news editor of “Dagens Naeringsliv,” Terje Erikstad, says the discovery of Galbraith’s name was completely unanticipated.

    “We started out the investigation looking at the fine levied against a mid-sized Norwegian oil company, DNO,” Erikstad says. “It is often in the news because it was a pioneer in northern Iraq and its shares on the Oslo stock exchange go up and down with developments there. We were not looking for Galbraith’s name at all, so finding it on [Porcupine’s] founding documents in Delaware was quite a surprise for us.”

    Porcupine was established in Delaware on June 30, 2004 — one day after DNO signed a contract with KRG to begin drilling for oil in northern Iraq.

    Later, the relations between the partners — KRG, DNO, and the third party –soured for as yet unknown reasons. The contract between DNO and the KRG was renegotiated last year and the third party was dropped out of the agreement. That, in turn, appears to have sparked the arbitration case in which the third party — Porcupine and the Yemeni businessman — is asking compensation.

    The Norwegian newspaper reports that the compensation sought is equivalent to 10 percent of the total reserves and output of the Tawke field, where the DNO operates. The paper published a document from 2006 that lists the partners in the Tawke field and shows Porcupine as having a 5 percent interest in it.

    The paper estimates that the total amount of compensation being sought jointly by Porcupine and the Yemeni businessman is some $525 million. A ruling is expected in the first half of next year.

    DNO has the capacity currently to export roughly 43,000 barrels per day from Iraqi Kurdistan, worth approximately $30 million annually. However, exports are currently blocked as the KRG and Baghdad continue to dispute the same kind of issues Galbraith once tried to resolve.

    The current dispute is whether Baghdad, which handles the sale of all exported oil, should pay any of DNO’s operating costs when DNO is working under a contract awarded by the KRG but not recognized by the Baghdad government.

    Baghdad insists instead that the KRG pay the company out of the 17 percent of Iraqi oil revenues that the Kurdish region receives under Iraq’s current revenue-sharing agreement.

    A final Iraqi oil law to resolve such conflicts between Baghdad and the KRG has been under discussion ever since the signing of Iraq’s 2005 constitution, with no conclusion in sight.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/Iraq_Oil_Scandal_Threatens_Former_US_Diplomat_Galbraith/1852916.html