A Storm in a Teacup

The media are up in arms today over comments made by British National Party deputy leader Simon Darby with regard to the Ugandan-born Archbishop of York, the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr John Sentamu.

Darby wrote on his blog:

'As if the responsibilities of being the Archbishop of York were not enough, the ambitious African has apparently used his power and influence to kindly bestow upon the world the right to be English.'

He also described the archbishop as a 'professional anti-British zealot', and said he was 'derogatory, condescending and arrogant'.

He added: 'If I went to Uganda and I went to a Ugandan village and said that the people there were genetic mongrels and that they had no right to their Ugandan identity I would be picking out spears for days.'

The last part was certainly ill-advised. However, I was as yet unaware that referring to someone born in Africa as an 'African' was racist.

I'm not sure Darby's points about Sentamu are largely correct - he seems to see British identity as something to be cherished, and why not? He fled here from a tyrannical government and was not only given sanctuary, but worked his way up to become one of the most prominent members of the Church of England. He has also stood up for Christians persecuted in the workplace by political correctness and preached about the importance of Christianity to our culture, which is a lot more than many in his position have bothered to do.

Darby and I agree on two things, however; firstly, Sentamu's views about who can be British or English are no more valid than those espoused by the BNP, and secondly if an Englishman went to Uganda to preach Ugandan values and actually dictate who could call themselves a Ugandan, he would be laughed out of the country.

Also, Sentamu's demand that events such as St. George's Day take place but be 'inclusive' is quite hard to stomach; no other culture in this country feels the need to open its festivals and celebrations to all comers, despite they fact they chose to come here and be a part of this country.

Put into context, I don't think Darby's spear gaffe is particularly offensive; in fact, as he points out, there are two rather prominent spears contained in the Ugandan coat of arms.

Compare the outrage over Darby's statements to the way gay Shadow Home Secretary Alan Duncan was treated after joking about killing Miss California Carrie Prejean for her statement that she did not agree with homosexual marriage.

Far-Left group Searchlight said the following about Darby:

Anti-fascist campaign group Searchlight said the claims destroyed the 'mask of moderation' the Right-wing BNP has wanted to create. A Searchlight spokesman said: 'These disgusting threats and thinly veiled racism from its senior leadership exposes the real face of the BNP.

Searchlight weren't that interested in Duncan's obscene outburst of hate towards the Californian Christian community, so here's a quote from Mail writer Dan Newling:

The shadow Leader of the House of Commons was yesterday facing the bizarre prospect of being investigated by police after he suggested he might kill American model Carrie Prejean for being homophobic.

Although made in jest, the gay politician's comments on Have I Got News For You on Friday prompted viewers to complain to the BBC, the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom and even the police.

Right. Well Darby's comment about the spears was quite clearly in jest, wasn't it? Doesn't really seem to matter though.

Could we, quite possibly, have a double standard at play here? If Darby makes a joke he's evil and has let his 'mask of moderation' slip, etc etc.

If Duncan, a possible future Home Secretary, makes a joke about killing someone for their opinion, we're all supposed to see the funny side and not make a fuss.

For the record, here is the comment from Carrie Prejean which Duncan was referring to in his hilarious, satirical manner:

Asked whether every U.S. state should legalise gay marriage, she replied: 'I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be - between a man and a woman.'

Well, isn't she entitled to think that? She never asked anyone else to endorse her opinions, she was simply honest enough to present them when asked.

Much like Simon Darby. Like or loathe his politics, at least he has the audacity to say what many are thinking.

That's not how some see it, however. Tonight, Europe Minister Dennis MacShane (he of 'the internet is full of evil racists who must be atomised' fame) attacked the Tories for fostering the rise of the BNP through their 'xenophobic' attacks on the EU.

It's depressing, isn't it? Has this person ever had a thought that bore any relationship to reality? Dennis, let me spell it out clearly for you:

You and your party caused the rise of the BNP because you were more interested in calling people names and telling them what to think than listening to their legitimate concerns - which is your job, for which you are handsomely rewarded, I might add. This is still the case, despite your impending election wipe-out.

The Tories fostered the rise of the BNP because they moved so far to the Left that the country does not have a decent opposition anymore. Can someone give me a legitimate difference between any of the three main parties? Anyone? Can someone explain to me why Cameron can't wipe the floor with Brown at PMQs even in the current climate? Could it be because, er, they don't actually disagree on very much?

It's not rocket science, Dennis. This is a democracy, and one way or the other, people are going to be listened to. They don't necessarily want to vote for the BNP - they simply don't want to vote for you.

You've lied to them and betrayed them and let them down, because you're more concerned with what should be than what actually is.

The frightening part is, you still can't see it - or won't.