Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Interview with Paul Weston

Below is an interview with Paul Weston, the chairman of British Freedom, from European Son via Vlad Tepes.

Paul Weston: Britain now has a different kind of political party

Last month Britain’s Independent newspaper reported that the controversial English Defence League movement, which campaigns against radical Islam, had signed a “pact” with the relatively new British Freedom Party. The Independent’s headline suggested that, through the alliance, the EDL was preparing to “storm local elections.” According to the article in the Independent, “The English Defence League plans to field candidates for the first time in local elections after an alliance is finalised between the far-right group and the British Freedom Party, which was set up by disgruntled members of the British National Party.”

Paul WestonBeing associated with the EDL street protest movement has helped propel British Freedom into the spotlight. Several, largely critical, reports have been published by smaller British media outlets in the last day or two, and the party’s chairman, Paul Weston, was also recently interviewed on the Canadian Sun TV’s Michael Coren Show.

However, this may not be the only association. British Freedom’s name hints at the loose alliance of “freedom” parties in Europe, whose spiritual head is Dutch MP Geert Wilders.

Mr. Weston, a former member of the anti-EU United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), describes himself as a “classical liberal.” I wanted to ask him about these associations and alliances, and to find out how he sees British Freedom. My interview with Mr. Weston, which took place on December 10, is reproduced below.

ES: Congratulations on being on [Canada’s] Sun TV. That’s a pretty big achievement for such a new party. How do you feel the British Freedom Party is coming along?
PW: We’re getting our name out into the mainstream media. We had a piece in The Independent on us. It wasn’t very friendly of course, but it still gets your name out there. People are gradually starting to hear about us, so it’s not bad.
ES: And you’re getting quite a few people joining, I gather.
PW: Yes, yes, we are.
ES: I guess one complaint might be that there are just a lot of these parties out there. So, how is British Freedom different from say UKIP, the Conservatives, the BNP, etc.?
PW: Well, let’s start with the BNP. The BNP are still ethno-nationalists. The world has moved on. I don’t think they’re going to get anywhere with that sort of attitude. England, Britain is as it is; you are never going to turn it back to 1950. You can of course say ‘alright, we are going to be a multiracial country but we don’t have to be a multi-cultural country.’ And, of course you can’t have both of those; that’s a recipe for a disaster. Multiracial and British culture; that can work. So that’s the difference between us and the BNP.

The Conservatives obviously will not talk about Islam in particular. But they have said they are going to cut immigration back to the tens of thousands. That clearly isn’t the case. So, they are not going to be able to do very much about saving this country over the next few decades.

UKIP I think are good, and we are essentially UKIP but we will talk about Islam. But Mr. Farage has actually come out and said that he will not say anything about Islam because he will no longer be invited on to BBC television programs such Have I Got News for You. I think it’s terrible, so that’s really why I left UKIP.
ES: And when did he say that? Did he say it publicly?
PW: I don’t think so, no.
ES: On Sun TV you mentioned that people of any ethnicity can join if they love British culture, but I can just hear the “anti-fascists” going wild at that, saying that British culture is so oppressive, and evil, and fascist, and racist, and that this is just a thinly disguised racism. So what would be some things that ethnic minorities, and religious minorities even, might appreciate in British culture?”
PW: I think that nearly all of the grandparents — or however many generations you go back — really liked and appreciated British culture, which is why they came here. And their children or grandchildren are far more radical and fundamentalist than the grandparents are. We didn’t have the madrassas and the mosques and the imams spouting out Saudi-backed Wahhabist propaganda when the grandparents came in. So, I don’t see why they should not appreciate British culture.
ES: So, is it the freedom that they appreciated?
PW: Well, it certainly should be. We are of course a proper, tolerant, democracy. As I said on the Michael Coren Show, we were — perhaps we are not any more — but we were renowned around the world for our civilized, free, democratic society.
ES: So, what are British Freedom’s main issues?

PW: We want to counteract the spread of fundamentalist Islam. We want to stop immigration for a period of years. We want to repair the damage done to the education system. Tackle crime. And we want to promote British values and culture, and introduce a US style first amendment guaranteeing Free Speech.
ES: And that would be a total stop?
PW: I think for a five year period you have to say ‘listen, there is no immigration into this country.’ And the reason for that is we are in such a terrible state over here. We don’t know how many people come in a year; how many people leave a year; how many people are illegal immigrants; how many people are genuine [foreign] students. So, we need a period of time to really sort out exactly who’s here, and who shouldn’t be here.

And, after that, of course, you can have a civilized immigration system. [Which would mean] if you are coming from somewhere like India or Pakistan, then you have to be able to speak English, you have to be able to prove that you have a job waiting for you; you can’t just come in here and speak no English and expect to live on welfare. So, [our plan would be] good for us, and good for people who genuinely want to come here for the right reasons.
ES: What is British Freedom’s vision of a future Britain? Because obviously there’s a lot of problems in Britain at the moment, everything from out of control immigration to radical Islam to binge drinking among pretty young people.
PW: It’s a mark of the march through the institutions. If you abolish religion, and you adopt cultural relativism where there’s no right or wrong, and you get rid of the taboos, what you end up with is what you see on a Friday and Saturday night in all of our towns.

My long-term view is to, as much as we possibly can, assimilate Islam into British society. The ones that simply refuse to be assimilated will have the choice of leaving. No one is going to force them to leave, but we will make it quite obvious that if you really refuse to adapt to our society the state will not provide all of the amenities that you seek.
ES: Because at the moment you have a lot of very extreme and radical Muslims on welfare, and I guess you would put a stop to that?
PW: Yes, and one thing that would immediately have to go is this crazy idea of paying welfare to three or four Muslim wives. Providing they were married in an Islamic country they can come here and live on welfare. These things have to be stopped. And, that of course will slowly make a difference in how many people want to come here and stay here. You can’t have sharia courts here; we have our law. If you don’t like our law [then] go somewhere else.
ES: What is your background? You were a UKIP member and you ran for UKIP a couple of times.
PW: Just once. I joined because of Lord Pearson, who was the only person to speak about Islam. So, [after that] it was either start a new party myself, or give up totally.
ES: And, how would you describe your personal politics?
PW: I think of myself as a classical liberal. But of course it’s very hard to be a classical liberal when you’re threatened by the rising forces of Islam on the one hand and a totalitarian EU on the other.

I didn’t vote for Mr. Barroso [the EU President], and I certainly can’t vote him out, and these people seem to pass 70 to 80 percent of the laws in my country. So clearly one cannot remain a classical liberal, but that is how I view myself.
ES: There’s been a lot of stories coming out of Britain where the police have simply refused to prosecute cases where Muslim extremists have been the perpetrators of, frankly, some very serious crimes. And, some of the victims have been women; some have been gay people; and some have even been Muslim people. What would British Freedom do to address that?
PW: It is quite extraordinary the levels the police have stooped to in this country… we [also] had the girls being groomed up in the northern towns. The policeman involved in this he admitted that they did not do very much about it because they feared they would be accused of racism as a result. It really is quite simple. If people break the law, then the police prosecute them or they investigate them. The idea that some people have a get out of jail free card because their skin or religion is the correct color or ideology has simply has no place in our country. It’s quite unbelievable.
ES: So, British Freedom stands for equality before the law?
PW: Yes, exactly.
ES: One of the other issues is the EDL. What is the relationship between the EDL and British Freedom?
PW: British freedom supports the principles of the EDL — and that’s it from our side. From their side, they’ve said ‘look, this is a political party that will talk about Islam, so if you do vote, do so [for British Freedom].’ It’s a symbiotic relationship, but there’s no alliance or pact or anything that’s been signed. It’s just a gentlemen’s agreement that we will tacitly, quietly, support each other.
ES: The name implies that British Freedom ties in with Geert Wilders’s Europe-wide Freedom alliance. Have you had any contact with Wilders at all?
PW: I’ve met him several times. I was supposed to meet him the first time when he was turned back at Heathrow. I met him the second time, when he did manage to make it to the House of Lords. I bump into him [in Europe] sometimes, and I saw him at the launch of Die Freiheit in Berlin.
ES: And, what is the connection between British Freedom and the other Freedom parties in Europe? Is it just an idea?
PW: I think it was supposed to be more concrete. Die Freiheit is of course the German Freedom Party. Geert Wilders is involved with that, and supports it. He is aware that we are now going, and he’s aware that I am running it.
ES: Where do you see British Freedom going in the next the couple of years?
PW: The most important thing is to get ourselves out there into the public eye. I think if we can do that I think we have a very good chance of growing remarkably quickly.

Previous posts by Paul Weston:

2007 Jan 22 The Week Britain Died
    26 Britain’s Dystopian School Children
  Feb 2 Questioning the Sanity of Liberals
  Mar 1 Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits
    31 Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025?
  Jun 26 The Big Story That Isn’t
  Aug 10 An Open Letter to Fellow Europeans
    24 A Brussels Perspective
  Sep 12 Democratic Europe R.I.P.
  Nov 2 The Coming Third World War
    21 Cool War — Warm War — Hot War: Part 1
    29 Cool War — Warm War — Hot War: Part 2
2008 Mar 27 The Face of Moderate Islam in Britain
2009 Feb 9 Wilders in Wonderland
    13 Who is Lord Ahmed?
    25 Temporary Peace Trumps Freedom of Speech
  Jul 1 Muslims, Mosques and Mosquitoes
    2 Islam, the BBC, and Young Children
    8 Review of “A Bridge Too Far”
    17 Socialist Propaganda in British Education
  Oct 15 Multiculturalism Has Destroyed the British Police
2010 Mar 16 Ethnically Cleansing the English
  Oct 7 Banana Republic Britain
    30 “We Will Hold You to Account”
  Dec 5 The Metaphorical Front Line of Islam
    5 The West Needs to Wake Up
    7 Land for Peace — Or Land for a Terror State?
2011 May 20 Why Is This Not Treason?
  Jun 1 One Week in the Death of Britain
  Jul 11 The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain
    29 The BBC, Breivik, the EDL and Islam
  Aug 7 Down’s Syndrome Babies, Sarah Palin and the BBC
  Sep 5 Clone These Men!
  Nov 27 The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip
  Dec 6 One Rule for Them, One Rule for Us
    7 Muslim Misogyny, Feminist Indifference


Darrin Hodges said...

"Well, let’s start with the BNP. The BNP are still ethno-nationalists."

If the conversation isn't about race, then its about nothing it all and it doesn't matter how many Muslims or whatever are in any give Western country if it has no ethnic identity.

John McNeill said...

In absolute agreement, Darrin Hodges. I think it is far more constructive for nationalists to find ways for their ethnic identity and culture to survive, rather than wager everything on a fruitless crusade to turn immigrants into Westerners.

A monocultural, multiracial Britain will never exist. You can't have one without the other. Cultures are products of genes. They do not come out of nowhere.

Sagunto said...

"Mr. Weston, a former member of the anti-EU United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), describes himself as a “classical liberal.”..", the intro to the interview announces. Paul Weston himself repeats it.

Then, with the subject being the future of Britain, sure enough: no single question about the classical liberal ideas of the BFP.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

gsw said...

John McNeill said.. "A monocultural, multiracial Britain will never exist."

Actually, I am old enough to remember going to school in a multiracial England. When one hinu girl's father insisted his daughter wear trousers under her school uniform skirt, 650 females screamed 'unfair', cos we had to suffer cold knees in winter.
He was informed that "we don't do things that way here", and that was the end of it.

Looking at my daughters primary school photo, it could be a ad for Benetton, but they all spoke English, read English cultural books (Pooh and Nesbitt and C.S. Lewis), they learnt English History and Civics.

It is less a problem of ethnicity, or even of culture, rather the problem is the islamic ideology that says "we are the umma, we are superior, and we are taking over", while the political climate says humour them or they might hurt us, forgetting that this attitude hurts us far more permanently.
The rest is irrelevant.

Jolie Rouge said...

The British ballot paper is stressing from the weight of right of centre and right wing political parties. Left of centre in the U.K. is a political wilderness where no political party would dare to tread.

Hal K said...

The problem with cultural assimilation is that it can be deceptive. Racial or ethnic groups may act assimilated while still feeling resentment towards the host population. This is reflected in politics, certainly. The racial and ethnic groups will have more liberal views on immigration, in particular.

If the new British Freedom Party forbids or discourages expressions of British racial/ethnic solidarity by its members, then it is no better than UKIP in the long term. Why not split the difference and say that while membership is open to all, the party specifically supports the interests of the native British people?

Chiu said...

Ultimately, if the argument that cultural attitudes are significantly racially determined, such that people of another race simply cannot become acculturated to British social mores, then there is no need to talk about it. If you reinforce the British culture and insist that those unwilling or unable to adapt to it receive no special accommodation, then fairly soon you'll eliminate everyone who is genetically incapable of assimilation.

Thus the only reason to decide to adopt a strategy that is racially based is because there isn't a strong relationship between race and culture, and you were more concerned with racial purity than cultural preservation.

I do think that there may be a racial component to at least some of the cultural developments of Islam. But the way to discover and deal with it is to insist on holding everyone to exactly equal standards, and then see if certain groups simply can't measure up.

That makes talk of innate racial differences less than helpful to the program of sorting out those that are actually unable to become contributing members of a Western nation. Particularly as one of the "the interests of the native British people" has always been creating a society in which the worth of a person was measured by that individual's actions rather than complexion.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Egghead said...

"...then fairly soon you'll eliminate everyone who is genetically incapable of assimilation."

The devil is in the details....

Are we to expect that competent people will allow incompetents and their many many children to starve in the streets here - or 'there' - wherever 'there' is?

Are we to assume that starving people will be peaceful - or resort to terrible crimes and terrorism to 'feed' themselves - and their often profuse drug habits?

What's your EXACT vision, Chiu?

Chiu said...

My exact vision is impartial justice, to punish or reward individuals for what they actually do, not what they might do or what others "like" them have done.

Does this involve letting people do bad things before punishing them for them? Yes. Unambiguously. I do not seek, nor have the ability to desire, a world in which people are prevented from doing evil by anything other than their own good will and cognizance of the consequences of their actions.

This may seem unattractive to the modern, sensitive, liberal mind. But the only reason that civilization has advanced at all is because of the willingness of people to learn from experiment rather than trust existing dogma. In Koranic Islam we see the example of a society that locks in predetermined answers for everything without allowing them to be tested against reality. Do you imagine that you can follow the identical path and come to a different outcome?

Those who claim to not need to learn because they already know everything are either ridiculous or dangerous, and frequently both. I do not claim to have nothing to learn. I do not claim a perfect ability to predict which individuals will commit crimes and which will make meaningful contributions to the advance of civilization.

What I do claim is that holding people accountable for what they really do rather than what anyone predicted they would do is an essential component of a society that can learn and grow. It is the same principle that, applied to the natural world, has given us all the advances in science and technology we currently enjoy.

Is there a cost? Yes. To find out reliably what someone will do, you must let them do it. But holding people accountable for what they actually do is the only way to exert meaningful pressure on individuals to bend their own behavioral curve. If you punish or reward people for what you predicted they'd do without regard for their actual performance, you remove the incentive for the individual to strive to be better.

Some will fail, out of insufficient will or too great genetic and environmental barriers to civilization...I don't really care which. Nor is it necessary to know. The answer is the same in either case.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Sagunto said...

Two simple questions to find out whether the BFP is really committed to classical liberalism and property rights (i.e. fully free market).

(1) Is it the BFP's aim to abolish Central Banking?

(2) Is it the BFP's aim to abolish the income tax?

This of course, would only give us a basic indication of free market leanings. A lot more needs to be done to restore freedom, but it would be a start.
Until this matter is clear, my guess remains that the BFP won't get past this modest prelude to endorsing a genuine free market economy.

Most freedom parties are really based on old school renditions of the benign welfare state, as opposed to the updated globalist managerial state of the new left progressivists. That's why it is so often noted, even by MSM journo's that the populist "right" has adopted policies that used to be considered left-wing.

What freedom parties do is take the logical position that one can have a welfare state without falling for the cult of US-style Diversity(TM) and the destruction of time honoured institutions, like the traditional family unit. So what they then set out to do, is to in effect mix up cultural conservatism with political progressivism, when advocating the use of state power in order to protect traditional institutions (mirroring the progressivists who use state power to "emancipate" people from traditions). Freedom parties like the BFP seek to run the welfare state more "efficiently" (that's where the discussion is with open border globalists on the one hand and more collectivist commies on the other) and will therefore haphazardly apply free market measures within the overall context of an economy that is characterized by massive monetary planning. That's why among many, many other things, "privatization" never really has a chance to work. This is also why these parties only pose a moderate threat to the system.

Given the progressivist elites' extremely hostile reaction to these freedom parties, one can perhaps begin to understand the all out war that would be unleashed on actual representatives of freedom and prosperity, who really understand free market philosophy and the danger it presents to the interests of the financial fascism perpetrated by today's monetary planners.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Chiu said...

Creating a national policy that respects the fundamental laws of human action in response to needs and abilities is an important concern.

But I see it as a natural outgrowth of respect for the principles of equality before the law, personal accountability, and individual freedom. If these principles are successfully applied to resisting the present incursion of Jihad against the Western nations, then there will be momentum to apply those same principles more throughly in national economic policies.

Yes, the crisis brought about by years of communistic fiscal and financial policy is severe. But the threat posed by Jihad is existential. Europe can survive economic hardship. But it will not survive Jihad unless there is action taken to resist it.

Chiu Chun-Ling.