By Elizabeth M Marsh-Many commentators within the media are falling over themselves trying to outdo each other in their accusations against Nick Griffin of the BNP, in their enthusiasm in portraying him as A Very Bad Man.

Personally, I have always admired Mr Griffin, for his failing to flinch and for telling it like it is and what upsets me most is that it is the 'Establishment' and those who are encouraged by the establishment who criticises him, and his policies.

I remember, in the run-up to the 2010 General Election that the British National Party, as with a number of Political Parties, aired a 5 minute Party Political Broadcast and so my husband and I decided to watch it. All such broadcasts tend to be on just as people sit down for their evening meal and so it was with us.

We wanted to see for ourselves what all the fuss was about, or if any of it was warranted.
We were very surprised. In a good way.

The BNP's broadcast was very good indeed and rekindled all that made me once proud about this nation of ours. It was the same pride I felt when I served in HM Forces during the Falklands Campaign and what was puzzling to me is why it was the BNP who made me feel this way.

Weren't they the ones who are - if we are to believe what our government tells us - 'racist' and all sorts of other unspeakable, unmentionable and highly arrestable things?

The broadcast was professionally made and did not seek to put down its rivals - it simply said things as they are, not like how almost all other politicians would have us believe.

They certainly did not suggest or in any way indicate, let alone promote, any form of bigotry, racial or otherwise, that made me want to go out and attack or harm non-white people, or homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter.

If anything, the sheer clarity of their message was utterly refreshing and contrasted starkly with all that is so lacking from the majority of politicians in Whitehall.

So I was left feeling confused. Not by the BNP. But by all the other Parties and their broadcasts for being so seemingly vacuous and for their incessant point-scoring against each other, like schoolchildren in a playground 'he said, she said'.
I have long wanted to speak out in support of Mr Griffin and this is just such a chance to do so.

On Friday there was another story of a homosexual couple - whilst those concerned may wish to bastardise each other, for it is their legal right to do so - it is both my legal right and my moral duty to refrain from continually bastardising the English language and instead, to uphold it in refusing to refer to them as 'gay - and another couple who ran a B & B, who had refused to provide a double bed by way of accommodation to them, so the homosexual men sued the couple for 'discrimination' and won - and were awarded £1,800 for 'injury to their feelings'.

What about the feelings of those of us who consider homosexuality to be immoral and wrong?

Is the government and courts in this country going to lock each and every one of us up or fine each of us when we denounce or challenge such behaviour and laws - just as Gandhi recognised was not possible with regard to British rule and the salt marches in 1930's India?

Or, as Mr Griffin points out, our ability to “discriminate" - that it is our 'right' to do so?

That it was the homosexual men who used the law as a means to impose their views and behaviour on the rest of us, not the couple for their failure to provide a double bed by way of accommodation?

If such men wish to indulge in wrongful behaviour, I do not challenge their legal right to do so - I challenge only that they do not also accept that it is also remains my legal right to not accept their behaviour or to in any way endorse it.

That it is my legal right to question not only their sexual behaviour but their use of the law to impose their views on others - and I challenge any law that upholds 'minority' views, not if they conflict with mine, but when they oblige me to renounce mine altogether.

All religions challenge homosexuality - so the government has single-handedly managed to achieve something quite unique in uniting us in the condemnation of laws that promote homosexuality when it is at the expense of others, rather than with the support of others.

Tolerance and acceptance is NOT based on forcing everyone to comply with laws that support minority views - the whole purpose of laws is to protect those who may have minority views from being persecuted.

Refusing a homosexual couple a double bed is not only not discriminatory, it is the homosexual couple who discriminated by refusing to accept 'no' in the first place.

That, instead of being willing to acknowledge that people who do not share their beliefs are as entitled to their own beliefs as they are, instead seek to use the law with which to berate anyone who disagrees with them.

Nick Griffin is right.

Discrimination is not only right, it is how we should be teaching our children - that it is our innate ability to 'discriminate' that helps us to differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong'.

Yet it is now the lawmakers and those who insist on using the law to intimidate any who disagree with them - who use such laws in a manifestly unfair and discriminatory manner themselves, for their own ends with little consideration for other people's beliefs. The laws uphold that which is legal - they do NOT always also uphold that which is 'right'.

Tolerance cannot be imposed upon people; it is established through mutual understanding. Whilst I do not always accept the views of those who may disagree with me, if they are expressed well - for example, through people such as Sir Ian McKellen - then I have the utmost respect for him, and for his views.

I would not have the slightest problem debating issues of homosexuality with Sir Ian because I also know that he would respect me for my views, even though they are the opposite to his.

It is those who use the law as a means to impose their beliefs who are inherently at fault - not for their expression of their sexuality but for using the law to 'punish' those who disagree with them.

Tolerance cannot be established by using force - this simply breeds intolerance.
If homosexual people wish to indulge in homosexual acts in public places, they should first be willing to consider whether it is appropriate to do so, rather than use the law to suggest that any who refuse them a double bed is guilty.

Of what?

Of being decent, for upholding that which is right, instead of that which is legal?
I do not wish to witness the descent of my country into a cesspit of debauchery - and nor, I hope, does Sir Ian Mr McKellen.