Four people are to appear at court next month on charges relating to an alleged attack on a Kurdish family in their takeaway shop.
The four were arrested on the afternoon of July 31 after police were called to the Istanbul Kebab shop in Exeter Street. The four, who were said to have previously been at the nearby Wild Coyote pub – which has since been renamed the East End Bar – returned to answer their bail yesterday when they were charged.
Hayley Well, aged 27, from Shell Close, Leigham has been charged with racially aggravated common assault by beating.
Kelly Watterson, aged 28, from St Peters Road in Manadon, is charged with racially aggravated affray and racially aggravated common assault by beating.
Michael Rafferty, aged 33, from Queen Street, Devonport has been charged with obstructing or resisting a constable in the execution of his duty.
Ricky Burley, aged 43, from High Street, Stonehouse has been charged with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour and obstructing or resisting a constable in the execution of his duty.
All four have been released on bail to reappear at Plymouth Magistrates Court on September 7. Until their appearance, they have been given conditions which include not going within 100 metres of the Istanbul Kebab Takeaway in Exeter Street.
This is Plymouth
Showing posts with label racial and religious hatred. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racial and religious hatred. Show all posts
August 27, 2011
May 14, 2011
Jail vow to tackle religious hate
Mr MacAskill said recent events had "scarred and shamed Scotland"Mr MacAskill said prison sentences of up to five years would be possible under legislation planned by the new Scottish government. The SNP minister said recent events had "scarred and shamed Scotland".
He said he would work to bring in the changes "as soon as possible". Mr MacAskill's comments came after weeks of turmoil in Scottish football. Celtic manager Neil Lennon has been the target of parcel bombs and an assault inside a football ground. These high-profile cases have been accompanied by online hate campaigns against Lennon, a prominent Roman Catholic, and other figures in Scottish football.
Currently people who cause disruption at matches can be charged with breach of the peace, with a maximum one-year sentence. However the new laws would include behaviour that is threatening, abusive, disorderly or offensive, with a maximum jail term of five years.
Mr MacAskill said: "It is unacceptable to carry out sectarian disorder at a football ground or indeed to peddle sectarian hate over the internet or by tweeting. Strong action will be taken. It will be enforced because we cannot go on as we are."
"This is not a victimless crime," Mr MacAskill added. "It does affect people and action has to be taken to protect, not just people, but to protect whole communities and to protect the good name of Scotland in the 21st century."
The justice secretary said the policy was being pursued by Scotland's Solicitor General Frank Mulholland. He said the Scottish Parliament would need to pass new legislation to enforce some of the new proposals, such as dealing with people who posted comments on Twitter or Facebook.
Mr MacAskill said some might consider the new laws "draconian" but action was required to "stamp out" the small minority who carried out this "reprehensible" behaviour. He added: "Within my lifetime we have seen changes where racial epithets have been seen as entirely unacceptable and there are tough laws to enforce it. We have got to make it clear in Scotland in the 21st century that religious epithets and slurs are equally unacceptable."
BBC Scotland
Labels:
Facebook,
racial and religious hatred,
sectarianism,
Twitter
June 22, 2010
BNP activist cleared in court
A BNP activist from Lancashire who wrote and distributed leaflets which blamed Muslims collectively for the heroin trade has been cleared of intending to incite religious hatred.
Anthony Bamber, 54, told a jury his intention was to create a debate about the "crime against humanity" that was the flow of the drug on to Britain's streets. He was responsible for heading a campaign which sent up to 30,000 of the leaflets by hand or post to targeted areas and individuals throughout the north of England over a 12-month period.
Bamber, of Greenbank Street, Preston pleaded not guilty to seven counts of distributing threatening written material intended to stir up religious hatred between March and November 2008. He was cleared by a jury at Preston Crown Court of all seven counts.
Representing himself, Bamber said there had been "no unpleasant incidents or social unrest" following the sending of the leaflets. Giving evidence last week, he explained they were targeted at educated professionals such as teachers, doctors, lawyers and clerics who were unlikely to take physical retribution against Muslims upon reading the literature. His aim was to create curiosity and interest which would then lead to a debate, he said.
The former part-time lecturer of politics and economics at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston said: "It was a desire to protest at what I say is a monstrous abomination. I believe I have the right to protest about the heroin trade.
"There are 400,000 heroin users in this country which is the equivalent of the size of a city like Liverpool. Half of these people are going to die. I wanted to scream out, I wanted society to pay much more attention to the heroin trade. It is ignored."
He added: "I do not want religious war, I do not want people to hate. I intended to do something about the heroin trade. I was not a monster stirring up religious hatred. I think it should be discussed and debated, and it will come (round) to my opinion that it is a crime against humanity. I believe I was doing a good thing."
Opening the case, David Perry QC, prosecuting, said the leaflets were filled with "hate speech" in which the obvious intention was to provoke hatred of Muslims.
Following the verdict, Detective Supt Neil Hunter, of Lancashire Constabulary's Force Major Investigation Team, said: "While we are disappointed with today's decision, we accept the decision of the court. We have worked very closely with the Crown Prosecution Service throughout this inquiry and careful consideration was given before any decision to charge was made."
Lancashire Evening Post
Anthony Bamber, 54, told a jury his intention was to create a debate about the "crime against humanity" that was the flow of the drug on to Britain's streets. He was responsible for heading a campaign which sent up to 30,000 of the leaflets by hand or post to targeted areas and individuals throughout the north of England over a 12-month period.
Bamber, of Greenbank Street, Preston pleaded not guilty to seven counts of distributing threatening written material intended to stir up religious hatred between March and November 2008. He was cleared by a jury at Preston Crown Court of all seven counts.
Representing himself, Bamber said there had been "no unpleasant incidents or social unrest" following the sending of the leaflets. Giving evidence last week, he explained they were targeted at educated professionals such as teachers, doctors, lawyers and clerics who were unlikely to take physical retribution against Muslims upon reading the literature. His aim was to create curiosity and interest which would then lead to a debate, he said.
The former part-time lecturer of politics and economics at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston said: "It was a desire to protest at what I say is a monstrous abomination. I believe I have the right to protest about the heroin trade.
"There are 400,000 heroin users in this country which is the equivalent of the size of a city like Liverpool. Half of these people are going to die. I wanted to scream out, I wanted society to pay much more attention to the heroin trade. It is ignored."
He added: "I do not want religious war, I do not want people to hate. I intended to do something about the heroin trade. I was not a monster stirring up religious hatred. I think it should be discussed and debated, and it will come (round) to my opinion that it is a crime against humanity. I believe I was doing a good thing."
Opening the case, David Perry QC, prosecuting, said the leaflets were filled with "hate speech" in which the obvious intention was to provoke hatred of Muslims.
Following the verdict, Detective Supt Neil Hunter, of Lancashire Constabulary's Force Major Investigation Team, said: "While we are disappointed with today's decision, we accept the decision of the court. We have worked very closely with the Crown Prosecution Service throughout this inquiry and careful consideration was given before any decision to charge was made."
Lancashire Evening Post
June 14, 2010
BNP activist 'delivered anti-Muslim leaflets'
A British National Party activist delivered leaflets of "hate speech" intended to stir up religious hatred of Muslims, a court heard today.
Anthony Bamber, 54, printed and then distributed documents entitled The Heroin Trade which allegedly claimed followers of Islam were responsible for the sale of the drug on Britain's streets. It said the trade was a "crime against humanity" and demanded that Muslims
"apologise and pay compensation" for the flow of heroin from Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Preston Crown Court was told Bamber, of Preston, Lancashire, targeted various people across the North West in his leaflet drops between March and November 2008, including a school in Sedbergh, Cumbria, two barristers in Manchester, and addresses in Harrogate.
David Perry QC, prosecuting, said: "The defendant distributed leaflets and letters by hand or by post which were threatening and he did so with the intention of creating or stirring up religious hatred, and the religion he directed the hatred towards was Islam. This case is about hate speech. That is speech designed to arouse hatred against members of a social group identified by a particular characteristic.
"In this case the social group is Muslims and the characteristic they share is religion, namely Islam. The objective of the letters and leaflets, the prosecution say, was to provoke hatred of Islam. The hatred was not directed just at the concept but at the followers of Islam - Muslims."
In March 2008, Bamber and another man visited Barnoldswick, Lancashire, where they delivered the leaflets by hand, the court heard. A householder in the area contacted the police, who arrived and spoke to the defendant, Mr Perry said.
"The defendant admitted he had been distributing the leaflets and he said his purpose was to promote an organisation known as the Preston Pals," the prosecutor said. The Preston Pals was a battalion which fought in the First World War which recruited its members from the city.
Mr Perry said: "They (the Preston Pals) have got nothing whatsoever to do with the BNP and nothing whatsoever to do with the hatred of Islam. Why that name was being used is not really known. The defendant also said that the leaflet was inspected by a lawyer who informed him that the material could not be interpreted as provoking religious or religious hatred."
The jury was told the leaflet said 95% of heroin traded in the UK came from the Pakistan and Afghanistan region and was a "crime against humanity". It continued: "Before the Islamic invasion it was impossible to find heroin in our land. Muslims are almost exclusively responsible for its production, transportation and sale. It is a crime against humanity because it has caused far more suffering than slavery ever did. It has led to millions of premature deaths."
Taxpayers were also victims due to the cost of policing and rehabilitation for which Muslims must compensate, the leaflet added. Muslims should be held to account with condemnation heaped upon them so that it would lead to the abolition of the trade, it concluded. The leaflet was labelled a Preston Pals publication which was "committed to non-violent democratic resistance" and was set up in honour of the soldiers in a "campaign on behalf of indigenous communities".
Mr Perry said the real intention of the leaflet was "obvious".
"It is no doubt intended to be dramatic. It is no doubt intended to capture the imagination and say 'look at what these people are doing, they are all criminals'," he said. "The crime of drug trafficking was the collective responsibility of all Muslims - according to the leaflet - and they were all being "tarred with the same brush".
He told the jury the tone of the leaflet could be seen as "militaristic and menacing" rather than promoting a non-violent and democratic cause.
"You may think it is intolerant, bigoted and intended to be divisive. It is blaming Islam with contestable and questionable assertions of facts and stoking resentment. The prosecution say that the overall message is that Muslims are killing British youths and they must themselves be made to pay and it is your duty to make them pay. They are 'the invader'."
In June 2008 the headteacher of Sedbergh School received a large brown envelope which contained a number of letters addressed to individual teachers. The letters were along similar lines to the leaflet and called for Muslims to be held to account for the heroin trade.
"We know we are asking a lot," it said. "There are many dangers with confronting the Muslim invader."
Mr Perry said: "The letter makes it clear that all Muslims are to be held to account and it makes it clear that all Muslims are culpable."
Similar material was also sent to two barristers in Manchester and addresses in Lytham and Eccleston, Lancashire, and Harrogate, North Yorkshire, the court was told. Bamber, of Greenbank Street, who is representing himself, denies seven counts of distributing threatening written material intended to stir up religious hatred.
The trial is expected to last up to two weeks.
Yorkshire Post
Anthony Bamber, 54, printed and then distributed documents entitled The Heroin Trade which allegedly claimed followers of Islam were responsible for the sale of the drug on Britain's streets. It said the trade was a "crime against humanity" and demanded that Muslims
"apologise and pay compensation" for the flow of heroin from Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Preston Crown Court was told Bamber, of Preston, Lancashire, targeted various people across the North West in his leaflet drops between March and November 2008, including a school in Sedbergh, Cumbria, two barristers in Manchester, and addresses in Harrogate.
David Perry QC, prosecuting, said: "The defendant distributed leaflets and letters by hand or by post which were threatening and he did so with the intention of creating or stirring up religious hatred, and the religion he directed the hatred towards was Islam. This case is about hate speech. That is speech designed to arouse hatred against members of a social group identified by a particular characteristic.
"In this case the social group is Muslims and the characteristic they share is religion, namely Islam. The objective of the letters and leaflets, the prosecution say, was to provoke hatred of Islam. The hatred was not directed just at the concept but at the followers of Islam - Muslims."
In March 2008, Bamber and another man visited Barnoldswick, Lancashire, where they delivered the leaflets by hand, the court heard. A householder in the area contacted the police, who arrived and spoke to the defendant, Mr Perry said.
"The defendant admitted he had been distributing the leaflets and he said his purpose was to promote an organisation known as the Preston Pals," the prosecutor said. The Preston Pals was a battalion which fought in the First World War which recruited its members from the city.
Mr Perry said: "They (the Preston Pals) have got nothing whatsoever to do with the BNP and nothing whatsoever to do with the hatred of Islam. Why that name was being used is not really known. The defendant also said that the leaflet was inspected by a lawyer who informed him that the material could not be interpreted as provoking religious or religious hatred."
The jury was told the leaflet said 95% of heroin traded in the UK came from the Pakistan and Afghanistan region and was a "crime against humanity". It continued: "Before the Islamic invasion it was impossible to find heroin in our land. Muslims are almost exclusively responsible for its production, transportation and sale. It is a crime against humanity because it has caused far more suffering than slavery ever did. It has led to millions of premature deaths."
Taxpayers were also victims due to the cost of policing and rehabilitation for which Muslims must compensate, the leaflet added. Muslims should be held to account with condemnation heaped upon them so that it would lead to the abolition of the trade, it concluded. The leaflet was labelled a Preston Pals publication which was "committed to non-violent democratic resistance" and was set up in honour of the soldiers in a "campaign on behalf of indigenous communities".
Mr Perry said the real intention of the leaflet was "obvious".
"It is no doubt intended to be dramatic. It is no doubt intended to capture the imagination and say 'look at what these people are doing, they are all criminals'," he said. "The crime of drug trafficking was the collective responsibility of all Muslims - according to the leaflet - and they were all being "tarred with the same brush".
He told the jury the tone of the leaflet could be seen as "militaristic and menacing" rather than promoting a non-violent and democratic cause.
"You may think it is intolerant, bigoted and intended to be divisive. It is blaming Islam with contestable and questionable assertions of facts and stoking resentment. The prosecution say that the overall message is that Muslims are killing British youths and they must themselves be made to pay and it is your duty to make them pay. They are 'the invader'."
In June 2008 the headteacher of Sedbergh School received a large brown envelope which contained a number of letters addressed to individual teachers. The letters were along similar lines to the leaflet and called for Muslims to be held to account for the heroin trade.
"We know we are asking a lot," it said. "There are many dangers with confronting the Muslim invader."
Mr Perry said: "The letter makes it clear that all Muslims are to be held to account and it makes it clear that all Muslims are culpable."
Similar material was also sent to two barristers in Manchester and addresses in Lytham and Eccleston, Lancashire, and Harrogate, North Yorkshire, the court was told. Bamber, of Greenbank Street, who is representing himself, denies seven counts of distributing threatening written material intended to stir up religious hatred.
The trial is expected to last up to two weeks.
Yorkshire Post
November 19, 2008
BNP supporters stage Burnley police station protest following arrests
BNP supporters were demonstrating outside a police station today after its members were arrested for stirring up racial hatred in a town riven by race riots. Four men were held this morning after a police investigation over the distribution of leaflets in Burnley, Lancashire, branding Muslims responsible for the heroin trade. Police would not say if the four were BNP members - the party said two were members in the local area.
Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right party, is visiting the town today, to protest outside Burnley Police station at the "persecution" of its members arrested after "Gestapo-like dawn raids" by police.
Today's arrests come after the publication of a list of more than 12,000 BNP supporters was leaked on the internet - which allegedly includes a serving police officer, a vicar and a prison officer.
Each of the leaflets features a harrowing photo of Rachel Whitear, 21, who was found dead at her flat in Exmouth, Devon, in May 2000, holding a syringe. The photo of Rachel made national headlines after her parents agreed for it to be released to warn other youngsters of the dangers of drugs.
Rachel's mother, Pauline Holcroft, 58, of Ledbury, Herefordshire, later said the leaflets were "insulting and offensive".
The leaflet was distributed to homes in Burnley - which suffered race riots in 2001 - and is also reportedly circulating in other parts of Lancashire, Cumbria and Yorkshire. It says people should "heap condemnation" on Muslims and that it is time for them to "apologise" as it claims they are responsible for 95% of the world's heroin trade. The leaflets, which first appeared around March, were first distributed by a former BNP candidate, according to the party's website.
Burnley has a high proportion of Asian residents. It also has four British National Party councillors sitting on the borough council.
A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: "A 41-year-old man from Burnley, a 43-year-old man from Blackburn, a 53-year-old man from Preston and a 57-year-old man from Nelson were all arrested today on suspicion of the publication and distribution of written material intended to stir up racial hatred and the possession of racially inflammatory material. They will be questioned by detectives at Burnley Police Station during the course of the day."
In a separate development, police called in independent investigators today to look into claims that a serving officer is on the list of leaked members of the BNP. The list was removed from the original blog where it was published but remains available on other websites.
According to the BNP, the published list is based on its 2007 membership list although a number of names of people who were not, or are not party members had allegedly been added. Earlier this year, the party obtained an injunction at the High Court in Manchester banning any publication of the list.
24dash
Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right party, is visiting the town today, to protest outside Burnley Police station at the "persecution" of its members arrested after "Gestapo-like dawn raids" by police.
Today's arrests come after the publication of a list of more than 12,000 BNP supporters was leaked on the internet - which allegedly includes a serving police officer, a vicar and a prison officer.
Each of the leaflets features a harrowing photo of Rachel Whitear, 21, who was found dead at her flat in Exmouth, Devon, in May 2000, holding a syringe. The photo of Rachel made national headlines after her parents agreed for it to be released to warn other youngsters of the dangers of drugs.
Rachel's mother, Pauline Holcroft, 58, of Ledbury, Herefordshire, later said the leaflets were "insulting and offensive".
The leaflet was distributed to homes in Burnley - which suffered race riots in 2001 - and is also reportedly circulating in other parts of Lancashire, Cumbria and Yorkshire. It says people should "heap condemnation" on Muslims and that it is time for them to "apologise" as it claims they are responsible for 95% of the world's heroin trade. The leaflets, which first appeared around March, were first distributed by a former BNP candidate, according to the party's website.
Burnley has a high proportion of Asian residents. It also has four British National Party councillors sitting on the borough council.
A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: "A 41-year-old man from Burnley, a 43-year-old man from Blackburn, a 53-year-old man from Preston and a 57-year-old man from Nelson were all arrested today on suspicion of the publication and distribution of written material intended to stir up racial hatred and the possession of racially inflammatory material. They will be questioned by detectives at Burnley Police Station during the course of the day."
In a separate development, police called in independent investigators today to look into claims that a serving officer is on the list of leaked members of the BNP. The list was removed from the original blog where it was published but remains available on other websites.
According to the BNP, the published list is based on its 2007 membership list although a number of names of people who were not, or are not party members had allegedly been added. Earlier this year, the party obtained an injunction at the High Court in Manchester banning any publication of the list.
24dash
April 14, 2007
Methodist Church publishes guidelines on BNP
Ahead of the May local elections, The Methodist Church has launched guidelines for churches that find themselves represented by a councillor from an extremist party. The guidelines address a series of questions, such as whether councillors from parties whose policies promote racism should be allowed to rent church rooms for surgeries and how churches should respond to requests for co-operation from extremist parties.
With 47 BNP councillors, they also address what to do if church schools find themselves with representatives from extremist parties appointed to their governing bodies by Local Authorities.
The guidelines are available free of charge from the Methodist Church web site in an easy to print form.
Anthea Cox, Methodist Coordinating Secretary for Public Life and Social Justice, says “The Methodist Church continues to oppose all forms of political extremism and racism. The existence of councillors from extremist parties that support racist policies in Britain raises difficult questions for churches that are active in their local communities. These guidelines will help churches and individuals to make the right decisions. The guidelines recommend that churches resist putting themselves in positions which could be seen as giving tacit support to parties or policies which promote racism.”
The guidelines were approved by the Methodist Council at its meeting on 30-31 March.
Ekklesia
We've reprinted the guidelines [below] but if you would rather download them to read another time, they're here (Word document).
Guidelines for churches dealing with extremist political parties
Introduction
The Methodist Church has urged people not to vote for candidates who promote racist policies. Now that a number of councillors from extremist parties have been elected, how should churches respond, and apply these principles to this new situation? These guidelines offer answers to some of the practical questions that churches are now facing.
Background
In February 2004, the Methodist Church stated that it:
1. Affirms that the Methodist Church is open to all in its worship, fellowship and service to the community. The policies and practices of those who promote racism and religious intolerance are incompatible with the Methodist Church’s social witness, biblical teaching and our understanding of the love of God for all people.
2. Encourages people to vote in local, national and European elections. While not endorsing any particular political party, we urge people not to vote for candidates who promote racist policies.
3. Expects members of the Methodist Church to practise and promote racial justice and inclusion, and reject any political parties that attempt to stir up racial and religious hatred and fear of asylum seekers.
In response, the Methodist Church set up a website - Countering Political Extremism - to resource people in advance of elections where extremist parties were standing. See www.methodist.org.uk for further information.
The Methodist statement and website were issued in advance of elections to urge people not to vote for councillors who promote racist policies. In May 2006, 33 British National Party councillors were elected, making a total of 47 BNP councillors in areas across Yorkshire, Lancashire, West Midlands, Essex and London. Many thousands of voters are now represented by councillors who actively promote racist policies.
The challenge for the Methodist Church and others is how we now apply the statement of our principles in this changing situation. These guidelines, in the form of Frequently Asked Questions, are to help churches to make often difficult decisions. They arise from conversations with ministers and lay people in areas where extremist parties are active, and where churches are facing new challenges about how they relate to local politics and politicians. The questions represent real situations faced by local churches.
For more information and resources about extremist parties, church statements, elections, and holding hustings meetings visit Countering Political Extremism at www.methodist.org.uk (via the A-Z index).
1. We have BNP councillors representing our ward. As they are democratically elected, shouldn’t we try to work with them, even if we disagree with their policies?
Churches may come under pressure to co-operate with local councillors from extremist parties who, after all, the argument goes, have been elected by local people. Indeed many churches will feel that they are under an obligation to work with our democratic system. However people are not obliged to do so if this is not in the interests of the common good.
• Policies proposed by extremist parties do not promote the well-being of all members of our society. Their beliefs are very different from the healthy sense of patriotism or love for their country felt by most people. Nationalistic parties such as the BNP advocate the superiority of white British people, and support their rights and well-being over people with an African, Asian or mixed heritage, many of whom are equally British and whose families have lived here for generations. Their publicity has particularly targeted asylum seekers, talking of “floods” or “invasions”, and blaming them for shortages of housing and jobs. The party has also singled out Muslims, using the word “Muslim” as a codeword for “Asian”, talking about the “Islamic Menace”, and arguing that Muslims threaten the British “way of life”. These policies, and the myths, half-truths, fear and hatred that extremist parties promote, “are incompatible with the Methodist Church’s social witness, biblical teaching and our understanding of the love of God for all people”. Christians are called to consider seriously for which party they vote; for the same reasons they are also called to consider with whom they are prepared to associate themselves.
• Co-operation can give extremist parties credibility. When the first BNP councillor was elected in the Isle of Dogs in 1993 the community and the churches mobilised to encourage voter registration and support for other parties. Now Britain has 47 BNP councillors and there is little vocal opposition. There is the danger of some local complacency creeping in: “we have a BNP councillor, we didn’t vote for them, but it’s not too bad, they’ve not tried to expel any Asians yet”. Yet any co-operation with extremist parties gives those parties credibility. People should be reminded of the reasons for the original objections to the party and its policies.
• Extremist parties are not democratic parties. Although councillors may be elected democratically, the BNP itself is not a democratic party. Not everyone can join the BNP – they are explicit that people who do not come from a white British background are not welcome in the party – and their racist policies mean that one person’s vote is valued more than another person’s.
Some people feel that it is only by debate that the falseness of policies can be exposed, whilst others argue that such extremists should not be given the “oxygen of publicity”. Churches face a dilemma of whether they should refuse to give extremists credibility by engaging with them, or take the risk of working to change people’s minds. There are great risks of being used by extremist parties, of appearing to give them credibility and of alienating those who are threatened by extremist policies, and churches have to guard against naivety. In most cases it is better to refuse to work with extremist politicians, and instead to build up broad community relations. Churches should not dismiss the grievances which lead people to vote for extremist parties, and work to tackle these. Churches should consider the issues very carefully, talk with others, and consider the impact on others, before deciding to work with extremist parties.
However there are some people for whom such policies of “non-engagement” are not possible. Many Christians are employed by local authorities and have to work regularly with local councillors, whether or not they agree with their policies. Some senior people will be prevented from joining in the alternative political activity open to others who wish to oppose extremism. Churches should be aware of the complex ethical dilemmas these people will face on a daily basis and be prepared to offer them pastoral support. This might include prayer, listening, offering opportunities to talk with other church members in similar situations, and having a sensitivity to how their employment commitments may force them to limit their participation in church activities.
2. We’ve been approached by our local councillor who is a member of an extremist party asking for our co-operation in a campaign to tackle litter. Shouldn’t we work with them to improve our community?
Extremist groups often use “community campaigns” on uncontroversial issues such as tackling litter or road safety to improve their credibility in the area. People who have felt neglected by mainstream politicians or are frustrated by local conditions often respond warmly to practical approaches, regardless of the politics which underpin them. Local politicians can often be seen in isolation from the policies of the national party - this can be particularly true if the extremist councillor is a likeable, apparently a-political local person. But churches should be extremely careful before giving their support to such campaigns.
Councillors may have their sights on re-election in the work they undertake. How can this action, this campaign, this photo opportunity be used to improve the candidate’s chances at the next election? For extremist parties, being able to demonstrate co-operation with local churches increases their respectability and gives credence to their racist analysis of local situations.
Party politics is to some extent always a compromise. In a democracy individuals cast their vote in the knowledge that they are not signing up wholeheartedly to every aspect of the package of policies in a party’s manifesto. They are choosing the party that has the closest “fit” to their personal outlook. As a result, some people may feel they are having to choose to compromise over deeply held beliefs, such as funding nuclear weapons, because there is no mainstream party offering an alternative policy. It may be argued that working with an extremist party is a similar compromise: you work together on the things you can agree on, but continue to reject their racist policies. The difference here, however, is that whilst some policies may appear indistinguishable from other mainstream parties, extremist parties base their whole ideologies on a racist strategy.
Therefore although a campaign might purportedly be on a topic with which most people would agree, such as tackling litter, it is not possible to separate out this policy from the policies which underpin parties such as the BNP. These are policies which demonise particular religions and people of different skin colour, and glorify an illusory white society of the past. Even an apparently uncontroversial policy on litter is underpinned by an agenda which blames asylum seekers and people of different races for changes and a deterioration in local communities.
If approached about a local campaign such as litter clearance, churches could even consider setting up their own event, working with faith groups or other community partners, and use the occasion for positive publicity. The fears and grievances which can lead people to support extremist parties should not be ignored. Instead churches can be very positive about what they are doing in local communities to help cohesion and tackle underlying concerns.
Some church leaders have found themselves in a difficult position when photographs taken at meetings with members of extremist parties are then later used for publicity purposes implying church support for candidates. Whilst this can be challenged as photos should not be used without permission, the damage will already have been done. Churches need to guard against naivety when dealing with such situations.
3. Should we offer pastoral support to a councillor from an extremist party? What about communion?
In November 2006 the chair of the Commission of Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, called on churches to refuse communion to supporters of the British National Party. The Methodist Church explained that Methodists understand communion to be a means of grace and a means of conversion. Communion is therefore offered to all who are looking for a deeper relationship with God. And, for all, taking Communion involves self-examination. In 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Paul suggests that if people come to communion and don't allow themselves to be challenged in this way, then it is God who will judge them. We welcome everybody into Methodist churches. However there is no room within the Church for racism under any circumstances. We will always challenge racist attitudes and behaviour but we will never turn people away unless their continuing actions puts the safety of the rest of the congregation at risk.
Similarly if a member of an extremist party approaches a minister for pastoral support, ministers will have to consider the nature of that support and how it can be offered without offering implicit backing for racist beliefs and thereby making others unwelcome in the church. God never gives up on people, and neither should we.
4. Our local BNP councillor says the party is “defending traditional Christianity”. What do they mean?
Some people who vote BNP do so because they feel that the country is facing frightening forces of change, citing immigration and the growing number of people from other faiths, particularly Islam. The BNP claims to offer a way of preserving “our past”, and this includes the preservation of a culture based on Christianity. But their claim that they are representing or defending “Christianity” is nonsense. Christianity is neither exclusively white nor British. Christianity in urban areas has experienced a revival from black Christians. Indeed our confidence that Christ speaks to all people is reflected in the fact that Christianity is the most multiracial, multicultural movement on the planet. All Christians should be deeply concerned that some people are now appropriating Christian language and symbols for policies that are the very opposite of Christian values.
The real agenda behind the claim is a cultural one – partly in opposition to a perceived secular liberal elite, and largely in an attempt to whip up opposition to Muslims and others of minority faiths. It also exploits the confusion between faith and race – extremist parties claim they are not being racist because they are opposing a religion rather than members of a particular race.
The BNP has recently been linked with a body calling itself the Christian Council of Britain. Although the BNP denies that the Council is a front organisation, it has clearly been involved in setting up and defending the Council.
The Methodist Church has made it clear that it is outrageous for extremist parties to use Christianity to further their agenda of segregation and division, and reaffirmed its earlier statements that Christian belief is incompatible with any political party or philosophy that is based on hatred or treats people as inferior because of their race, religion or for any other reason. It has consistently promoted inter faith dialogue as a means of promoting understanding between people of different faiths, clearly rejecting methods based on confrontation.
5. What if our church is approached by a BNP councillor seeking a venue for a surgery or meetings with constituents?
Many BNP councillors struggle to find meeting spaces as community organisations often refuse to allow them to rent their rooms. People who are unhappy with this situation argue that councillors are democratically elected and constituents should not be denied the right to meet with their representatives.
What is the role of the church in offering space to those with whom it disagrees? Some churches are currently having conversations about offering “radical hospitality” to people with different theological views or different faiths. Yet even this is within the context that these groups must be committed to building understanding between faiths and not discriminate against people on the grounds of race.
Churches are not obliged to rent rooms to a particular political party, even if other parties use the rooms, if it is felt that they represent values which are contrary to the purposes of the Methodist Church. Standing Orders of the Methodist Church warn churches against hosting meetings which “would have a detrimental effect on the peace and unity of the Church and its witness” (SO921(1)). The Charity Commission states that, although charities should not generally discriminate between organisations on the basis of the views they hold, “a charity may be justified in declining to allow a particular organisation or individual to use its premises because of the risk of public disorder or alienating the charity’s beneficiaries or supporters.” (CC9 – Political Activities and Campaigning by Charities)
There is a significant danger that, by allowing members of extremist parties to rent rooms, the church gives them credibility. There is a perception amongst many church members, and possibly many non-church goers, that the church approves of activities and groups held on church premises. Would you be comfortable if a local person with housing problems came to a surgery on Methodist premises to be told by their local councillor that they couldn’t get a new home because of the number of “foreigners” being housed locally?
The refusal to rent rooms to extremist councillors should not leave local people without access to support. Most wards are multi-member, and where the other members represent other parties, residents can attend their surgeries instead. In areas represented solely by a single party, the other parties can also hold surgeries, sometimes attended by councillors from other wards. The majority of case work undertaken by councillors now takes place via phone or email and it is always open to councillors to visit constituents in need of help in their own homes. People may approach their MP, or voluntary groups such as Citizens Advice with particular problems. Finally if people do want to meet with their councillors they can make appointments to see them at the Town Hall or council offices.
6. There is a joint Anglican-Methodist school in our area. The local authority nominates some of the governors from local political parties. What can we do if we are faced with a school governor who is a member of the BNP?
This may be a concerning prospect for parents, teachers and governors at all schools in areas with extremist councillors, but it will be of particular concern to faith-based schools where the governing body determines the religious ethos of the school. For Methodism, as for other denominations and faiths, these schools are an expression of ministry. Statements by the BNP, for example, are incompatible with our understanding of the Gospel, the purpose of education, diversity and inclusiveness. Governors who fundamentally disagree with schools’ equality or admission policies risk undermining the purpose of the school.
There is no provision for the governing body of a voluntary school to prevent the local authority appointment of a particular person as their representative, although if the person has already made public statements that would conflict with the school’s ethos, it would be wise for the promoters to point out that there could be difficulties. However, governing bodies have a specific duty to promote equality of opportunity and to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups. No single governor can take any action or promote any activity separately; governance is a corporate activity and governors can suspend a governor who "has acted in a way that is inconsistent with the school's ethos or with the religious character and has brought or is likely to bring the school or the governing body or his or her office of governor into disrepute" . This suspension can only be pursued as a last resort “after seeking to resolve any difficulties or disputes in more constructive ways". Going through these procedures will clearly be difficult for the school and for governors who will be required to act rigorously and in the face of opposition. Churches may look for ways to offer support to governing bodies which decide to proceed in this way.
7. Our minister is regularly contacted by local journalists for comments on BNP campaigns. Should we respond?
There are very valid concerns about giving groups such as the BNP more publicity by responding to requests for comments on their activities. However if journalists are seeking comments it is likely they will run stories anyway, and it may be worth taking the opportunity to speak out against racism, whilst bearing the following points in mind:
• Reference should be made to the Methodist Church’s stance on racism and extremist parties, as contained in the February 2004 statement
• Extremist parties are skilled at exploiting genuine local concerns. Whilst untruths should be carefully rebutted, you should not get pulled into a debate on the concerns themselves, or solutions to them. Rather keep the focus on the fact that the Methodist Church is opposed to racist parties because they are racist parties
• Similarly do not be drawn into commenting on the individuals involved. However “nice” and hard-working individual councillors may appear, the policies and practices of extremist parties are racist and intolerant and must be opposed on that basis.
Methodists may choose to support many different political parties or policies, and the Church does not endorse any particular choice: rather we are all urged to be wary of racism dressed up as "sensible politics," to speak out against racism wherever we see it and to challenge it in our communities. If you have particular questions regarding the media, contact the Methodist media office on 020-7467-5221 or enquiries@methodistchurch.org.uk
We hope you find these guidelines useful.
If you have any comments or would like further information, please contact nm31@methodistchurch.org.uk or write to The NM31 Group, Methodist Church House, 25 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5JR
Further resources
Countering Political Extremism – www.methodist.org.uk
Relating to Parties Promoting Racist Policies – www.cofe.anglican.org
With 47 BNP councillors, they also address what to do if church schools find themselves with representatives from extremist parties appointed to their governing bodies by Local Authorities.
The guidelines are available free of charge from the Methodist Church web site in an easy to print form.
Anthea Cox, Methodist Coordinating Secretary for Public Life and Social Justice, says “The Methodist Church continues to oppose all forms of political extremism and racism. The existence of councillors from extremist parties that support racist policies in Britain raises difficult questions for churches that are active in their local communities. These guidelines will help churches and individuals to make the right decisions. The guidelines recommend that churches resist putting themselves in positions which could be seen as giving tacit support to parties or policies which promote racism.”
The guidelines were approved by the Methodist Council at its meeting on 30-31 March.
Ekklesia
We've reprinted the guidelines [below] but if you would rather download them to read another time, they're here (Word document).
Guidelines for churches dealing with extremist political parties
Introduction
The Methodist Church has urged people not to vote for candidates who promote racist policies. Now that a number of councillors from extremist parties have been elected, how should churches respond, and apply these principles to this new situation? These guidelines offer answers to some of the practical questions that churches are now facing.
Background
In February 2004, the Methodist Church stated that it:
1. Affirms that the Methodist Church is open to all in its worship, fellowship and service to the community. The policies and practices of those who promote racism and religious intolerance are incompatible with the Methodist Church’s social witness, biblical teaching and our understanding of the love of God for all people.
2. Encourages people to vote in local, national and European elections. While not endorsing any particular political party, we urge people not to vote for candidates who promote racist policies.
3. Expects members of the Methodist Church to practise and promote racial justice and inclusion, and reject any political parties that attempt to stir up racial and religious hatred and fear of asylum seekers.
In response, the Methodist Church set up a website - Countering Political Extremism - to resource people in advance of elections where extremist parties were standing. See www.methodist.org.uk for further information.
The Methodist statement and website were issued in advance of elections to urge people not to vote for councillors who promote racist policies. In May 2006, 33 British National Party councillors were elected, making a total of 47 BNP councillors in areas across Yorkshire, Lancashire, West Midlands, Essex and London. Many thousands of voters are now represented by councillors who actively promote racist policies.
The challenge for the Methodist Church and others is how we now apply the statement of our principles in this changing situation. These guidelines, in the form of Frequently Asked Questions, are to help churches to make often difficult decisions. They arise from conversations with ministers and lay people in areas where extremist parties are active, and where churches are facing new challenges about how they relate to local politics and politicians. The questions represent real situations faced by local churches.
For more information and resources about extremist parties, church statements, elections, and holding hustings meetings visit Countering Political Extremism at www.methodist.org.uk (via the A-Z index).
1. We have BNP councillors representing our ward. As they are democratically elected, shouldn’t we try to work with them, even if we disagree with their policies?
Churches may come under pressure to co-operate with local councillors from extremist parties who, after all, the argument goes, have been elected by local people. Indeed many churches will feel that they are under an obligation to work with our democratic system. However people are not obliged to do so if this is not in the interests of the common good.
• Policies proposed by extremist parties do not promote the well-being of all members of our society. Their beliefs are very different from the healthy sense of patriotism or love for their country felt by most people. Nationalistic parties such as the BNP advocate the superiority of white British people, and support their rights and well-being over people with an African, Asian or mixed heritage, many of whom are equally British and whose families have lived here for generations. Their publicity has particularly targeted asylum seekers, talking of “floods” or “invasions”, and blaming them for shortages of housing and jobs. The party has also singled out Muslims, using the word “Muslim” as a codeword for “Asian”, talking about the “Islamic Menace”, and arguing that Muslims threaten the British “way of life”. These policies, and the myths, half-truths, fear and hatred that extremist parties promote, “are incompatible with the Methodist Church’s social witness, biblical teaching and our understanding of the love of God for all people”. Christians are called to consider seriously for which party they vote; for the same reasons they are also called to consider with whom they are prepared to associate themselves.
• Co-operation can give extremist parties credibility. When the first BNP councillor was elected in the Isle of Dogs in 1993 the community and the churches mobilised to encourage voter registration and support for other parties. Now Britain has 47 BNP councillors and there is little vocal opposition. There is the danger of some local complacency creeping in: “we have a BNP councillor, we didn’t vote for them, but it’s not too bad, they’ve not tried to expel any Asians yet”. Yet any co-operation with extremist parties gives those parties credibility. People should be reminded of the reasons for the original objections to the party and its policies.
• Extremist parties are not democratic parties. Although councillors may be elected democratically, the BNP itself is not a democratic party. Not everyone can join the BNP – they are explicit that people who do not come from a white British background are not welcome in the party – and their racist policies mean that one person’s vote is valued more than another person’s.
Some people feel that it is only by debate that the falseness of policies can be exposed, whilst others argue that such extremists should not be given the “oxygen of publicity”. Churches face a dilemma of whether they should refuse to give extremists credibility by engaging with them, or take the risk of working to change people’s minds. There are great risks of being used by extremist parties, of appearing to give them credibility and of alienating those who are threatened by extremist policies, and churches have to guard against naivety. In most cases it is better to refuse to work with extremist politicians, and instead to build up broad community relations. Churches should not dismiss the grievances which lead people to vote for extremist parties, and work to tackle these. Churches should consider the issues very carefully, talk with others, and consider the impact on others, before deciding to work with extremist parties.
However there are some people for whom such policies of “non-engagement” are not possible. Many Christians are employed by local authorities and have to work regularly with local councillors, whether or not they agree with their policies. Some senior people will be prevented from joining in the alternative political activity open to others who wish to oppose extremism. Churches should be aware of the complex ethical dilemmas these people will face on a daily basis and be prepared to offer them pastoral support. This might include prayer, listening, offering opportunities to talk with other church members in similar situations, and having a sensitivity to how their employment commitments may force them to limit their participation in church activities.
2. We’ve been approached by our local councillor who is a member of an extremist party asking for our co-operation in a campaign to tackle litter. Shouldn’t we work with them to improve our community?
Extremist groups often use “community campaigns” on uncontroversial issues such as tackling litter or road safety to improve their credibility in the area. People who have felt neglected by mainstream politicians or are frustrated by local conditions often respond warmly to practical approaches, regardless of the politics which underpin them. Local politicians can often be seen in isolation from the policies of the national party - this can be particularly true if the extremist councillor is a likeable, apparently a-political local person. But churches should be extremely careful before giving their support to such campaigns.
Councillors may have their sights on re-election in the work they undertake. How can this action, this campaign, this photo opportunity be used to improve the candidate’s chances at the next election? For extremist parties, being able to demonstrate co-operation with local churches increases their respectability and gives credence to their racist analysis of local situations.
Party politics is to some extent always a compromise. In a democracy individuals cast their vote in the knowledge that they are not signing up wholeheartedly to every aspect of the package of policies in a party’s manifesto. They are choosing the party that has the closest “fit” to their personal outlook. As a result, some people may feel they are having to choose to compromise over deeply held beliefs, such as funding nuclear weapons, because there is no mainstream party offering an alternative policy. It may be argued that working with an extremist party is a similar compromise: you work together on the things you can agree on, but continue to reject their racist policies. The difference here, however, is that whilst some policies may appear indistinguishable from other mainstream parties, extremist parties base their whole ideologies on a racist strategy.
Therefore although a campaign might purportedly be on a topic with which most people would agree, such as tackling litter, it is not possible to separate out this policy from the policies which underpin parties such as the BNP. These are policies which demonise particular religions and people of different skin colour, and glorify an illusory white society of the past. Even an apparently uncontroversial policy on litter is underpinned by an agenda which blames asylum seekers and people of different races for changes and a deterioration in local communities.
If approached about a local campaign such as litter clearance, churches could even consider setting up their own event, working with faith groups or other community partners, and use the occasion for positive publicity. The fears and grievances which can lead people to support extremist parties should not be ignored. Instead churches can be very positive about what they are doing in local communities to help cohesion and tackle underlying concerns.
Some church leaders have found themselves in a difficult position when photographs taken at meetings with members of extremist parties are then later used for publicity purposes implying church support for candidates. Whilst this can be challenged as photos should not be used without permission, the damage will already have been done. Churches need to guard against naivety when dealing with such situations.
3. Should we offer pastoral support to a councillor from an extremist party? What about communion?
In November 2006 the chair of the Commission of Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, called on churches to refuse communion to supporters of the British National Party. The Methodist Church explained that Methodists understand communion to be a means of grace and a means of conversion. Communion is therefore offered to all who are looking for a deeper relationship with God. And, for all, taking Communion involves self-examination. In 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Paul suggests that if people come to communion and don't allow themselves to be challenged in this way, then it is God who will judge them. We welcome everybody into Methodist churches. However there is no room within the Church for racism under any circumstances. We will always challenge racist attitudes and behaviour but we will never turn people away unless their continuing actions puts the safety of the rest of the congregation at risk.
Similarly if a member of an extremist party approaches a minister for pastoral support, ministers will have to consider the nature of that support and how it can be offered without offering implicit backing for racist beliefs and thereby making others unwelcome in the church. God never gives up on people, and neither should we.
4. Our local BNP councillor says the party is “defending traditional Christianity”. What do they mean?
Some people who vote BNP do so because they feel that the country is facing frightening forces of change, citing immigration and the growing number of people from other faiths, particularly Islam. The BNP claims to offer a way of preserving “our past”, and this includes the preservation of a culture based on Christianity. But their claim that they are representing or defending “Christianity” is nonsense. Christianity is neither exclusively white nor British. Christianity in urban areas has experienced a revival from black Christians. Indeed our confidence that Christ speaks to all people is reflected in the fact that Christianity is the most multiracial, multicultural movement on the planet. All Christians should be deeply concerned that some people are now appropriating Christian language and symbols for policies that are the very opposite of Christian values.
The real agenda behind the claim is a cultural one – partly in opposition to a perceived secular liberal elite, and largely in an attempt to whip up opposition to Muslims and others of minority faiths. It also exploits the confusion between faith and race – extremist parties claim they are not being racist because they are opposing a religion rather than members of a particular race.
The BNP has recently been linked with a body calling itself the Christian Council of Britain. Although the BNP denies that the Council is a front organisation, it has clearly been involved in setting up and defending the Council.
The Methodist Church has made it clear that it is outrageous for extremist parties to use Christianity to further their agenda of segregation and division, and reaffirmed its earlier statements that Christian belief is incompatible with any political party or philosophy that is based on hatred or treats people as inferior because of their race, religion or for any other reason. It has consistently promoted inter faith dialogue as a means of promoting understanding between people of different faiths, clearly rejecting methods based on confrontation.
5. What if our church is approached by a BNP councillor seeking a venue for a surgery or meetings with constituents?
Many BNP councillors struggle to find meeting spaces as community organisations often refuse to allow them to rent their rooms. People who are unhappy with this situation argue that councillors are democratically elected and constituents should not be denied the right to meet with their representatives.
What is the role of the church in offering space to those with whom it disagrees? Some churches are currently having conversations about offering “radical hospitality” to people with different theological views or different faiths. Yet even this is within the context that these groups must be committed to building understanding between faiths and not discriminate against people on the grounds of race.
Churches are not obliged to rent rooms to a particular political party, even if other parties use the rooms, if it is felt that they represent values which are contrary to the purposes of the Methodist Church. Standing Orders of the Methodist Church warn churches against hosting meetings which “would have a detrimental effect on the peace and unity of the Church and its witness” (SO921(1)). The Charity Commission states that, although charities should not generally discriminate between organisations on the basis of the views they hold, “a charity may be justified in declining to allow a particular organisation or individual to use its premises because of the risk of public disorder or alienating the charity’s beneficiaries or supporters.” (CC9 – Political Activities and Campaigning by Charities)
There is a significant danger that, by allowing members of extremist parties to rent rooms, the church gives them credibility. There is a perception amongst many church members, and possibly many non-church goers, that the church approves of activities and groups held on church premises. Would you be comfortable if a local person with housing problems came to a surgery on Methodist premises to be told by their local councillor that they couldn’t get a new home because of the number of “foreigners” being housed locally?
The refusal to rent rooms to extremist councillors should not leave local people without access to support. Most wards are multi-member, and where the other members represent other parties, residents can attend their surgeries instead. In areas represented solely by a single party, the other parties can also hold surgeries, sometimes attended by councillors from other wards. The majority of case work undertaken by councillors now takes place via phone or email and it is always open to councillors to visit constituents in need of help in their own homes. People may approach their MP, or voluntary groups such as Citizens Advice with particular problems. Finally if people do want to meet with their councillors they can make appointments to see them at the Town Hall or council offices.
6. There is a joint Anglican-Methodist school in our area. The local authority nominates some of the governors from local political parties. What can we do if we are faced with a school governor who is a member of the BNP?
This may be a concerning prospect for parents, teachers and governors at all schools in areas with extremist councillors, but it will be of particular concern to faith-based schools where the governing body determines the religious ethos of the school. For Methodism, as for other denominations and faiths, these schools are an expression of ministry. Statements by the BNP, for example, are incompatible with our understanding of the Gospel, the purpose of education, diversity and inclusiveness. Governors who fundamentally disagree with schools’ equality or admission policies risk undermining the purpose of the school.
There is no provision for the governing body of a voluntary school to prevent the local authority appointment of a particular person as their representative, although if the person has already made public statements that would conflict with the school’s ethos, it would be wise for the promoters to point out that there could be difficulties. However, governing bodies have a specific duty to promote equality of opportunity and to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups. No single governor can take any action or promote any activity separately; governance is a corporate activity and governors can suspend a governor who "has acted in a way that is inconsistent with the school's ethos or with the religious character and has brought or is likely to bring the school or the governing body or his or her office of governor into disrepute" . This suspension can only be pursued as a last resort “after seeking to resolve any difficulties or disputes in more constructive ways". Going through these procedures will clearly be difficult for the school and for governors who will be required to act rigorously and in the face of opposition. Churches may look for ways to offer support to governing bodies which decide to proceed in this way.
7. Our minister is regularly contacted by local journalists for comments on BNP campaigns. Should we respond?
There are very valid concerns about giving groups such as the BNP more publicity by responding to requests for comments on their activities. However if journalists are seeking comments it is likely they will run stories anyway, and it may be worth taking the opportunity to speak out against racism, whilst bearing the following points in mind:
• Reference should be made to the Methodist Church’s stance on racism and extremist parties, as contained in the February 2004 statement
• Extremist parties are skilled at exploiting genuine local concerns. Whilst untruths should be carefully rebutted, you should not get pulled into a debate on the concerns themselves, or solutions to them. Rather keep the focus on the fact that the Methodist Church is opposed to racist parties because they are racist parties
• Similarly do not be drawn into commenting on the individuals involved. However “nice” and hard-working individual councillors may appear, the policies and practices of extremist parties are racist and intolerant and must be opposed on that basis.
Methodists may choose to support many different political parties or policies, and the Church does not endorse any particular choice: rather we are all urged to be wary of racism dressed up as "sensible politics," to speak out against racism wherever we see it and to challenge it in our communities. If you have particular questions regarding the media, contact the Methodist media office on 020-7467-5221 or enquiries@methodistchurch.org.uk
We hope you find these guidelines useful.
If you have any comments or would like further information, please contact nm31@methodistchurch.org.uk or write to The NM31 Group, Methodist Church House, 25 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5JR
Further resources
Countering Political Extremism – www.methodist.org.uk
Relating to Parties Promoting Racist Policies – www.cofe.anglican.org
Labels:
BNP,
Ekklesia,
extremist,
guidelines,
Methodist,
racial and religious hatred,
racist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
