Future of university immigration debate in doubt after opponent refuses to share platform with Nick Griffin MEP

Mon, 19/09/2011 - 15:02
Share this

A planned debate on immigration at Trinity College Dublin has hit the headlines after one of the panellists quit because of the organisers' decision to invite British National Party Chairman Nick Griffin MEP to take part. 

Former Guardian correspondent John Palmer has refused to speak at the event unless the invitation extended to Mr Griffin is revoked, saying it is “totally irresponsible” that the North West MEP will be present.

If the debate goes ahead, the participants will discuss the motion This House Believes Immigration Has Gone Too Far on 20th October.

British National Party Media Spokesman Simon Darby, who took part in a similar university event in 2007, gives his view.

By Simon Darby – Glancing at this morning's e Irish Times report on Nick's invite to debate "immigration" at Dublin's Trinity College next month, it would seem that my predictions have proved accurate. Expecting the traditional and trademark "liberal fascist assault against free speech", we now find participants dropping out like flies, and minority ethno-centric  groups positioning themselves to take advantage.

Odd that this bid to gag debate is being sold as a fight against racism, in that effectively it is a move to deny the Irish people an identity. Of course, we have seen it all in Britain time and again, but in recent times only one university, Oxford, in November 2007, has managed to stand up to the bully boys of the far left. If you have a few minutes, I'd like to take you back to that night, qualified by my usual habit of being slap bang in the middle of it all.

The invitation from the Oxford Union a few months earlier had followed similar university invitations from Cambridge, St Andrews, Bath and Durham, all of which succumbed to organised intimidation from anti-white groups. At the time, I remember thinking that part of the reasoning for inviting the British National Party in the first place was to generate publicity. Whether or not that was the case, we shall probably never know, but I do remember my disappointment at the apparent lack of resolve shown amongst students.

Right from the start, though, we knew that the Oxford debate was genuine. Although not on our political wavelength, Oxford Union President Luke Tryl (now a Conservative) was determined that the event should go ahead. As it later transpired, talking to other Oxford students involved in organising the event, several expressed total support for the British National Party.

On the night itself, with literally thousands of screaming IslamoMarxist automatons outside the boundaries of the university, there was a notable change for the worse once they realised they had been outflanked. Expecting to physically block our access, Nick, myself and the security had instead entered the facility hours earlier.

With the police abandoning their duty, it left hundreds of anti-free speech activists free to invade the building and swarm throughout the lower corridors. A flight of stairs above, we looked down on the ensuing riot as the rabble vented their frustration on the students themselves.

As it was, with a security team consisting of bodybuilders and former soldiers, those attempting to get near Nick would have paid a very high price. At the time even I, not known for a predisposition towards violence, had furnished myself suitably in order to repel the army of bigots.

Thankfully, it never came to that, and the debate took place once the police returned to clear up the mess. Almost as an anti-climax to what had just taken place, it was a very polite affair, with students clapping and asking questions in turn. They never showed any outward animosity to Nick, who had just exposed middle class hatred of the white working class in a previous exchange with some vile leftist.

I do remember the son of Benazir Bhutto, the President of Pakistan, asking Nick some rather futile questions about immigration into Britain. At the time I speculated as to what his response would be in his own country should someone suggest millions of Chinese people move to his homeland.

It's that kind of contrary thought which highlights the illogical and genocidal process of organised mass immigration that has the "liberals" so concerned. If you read the Irish Times report and witness them resorting to blackmail and intimidation in order to silence their political opponents, you realise just how weak their case is.

The fact that a straightforward debate, ostensibly critical of mass immigration, can cause such controversy should alert anyone with the capability of reasoned thought outside the box to the very crux of the matter. That being the undemocratic and totalitarian mind cancer packaged as liberal tolerance that has almost put the peoples of Western Europe, the Irish included, on the endangered list.

Please read our posting guidelines before posting a comment. *IF YOU SEE A COMMENT THAT YOU THINK BREAKS THE GUIDELINES / RULES - PLEASE FLAG THE COMMENT*

If you liked this news article, please donate online or by ringing 0844 8094581 to help with running costs and improvements of this website. If operators are busy, please try again.

Having trouble posting your comment? Do you want help or have feedback about the usability of this website? If so, then please visit http://www.bnp.org.uk/feedback/website

If you like what you read on this website, please join the British National Party, the party that will always put Britain First.

Join online by clicking here today


Join today from just £2.50 per month:

OAP - £2.50 per month
UNWAGED - £2.50 per month
STANDARD - £4.60 per month
FAMILY - £5.58 per month
GOLD - £8.75 per month
OVERSEAS - £8.75 per month
PLATINUM (GOLD + Newspaper)- £10.41 per month
OVERSEAS GOLD - £10.41 per month
OVERSEAS PLATINUM - £12.98 per month



First Name:

Last Name:


Phone No: