Here, taken directly from the UKIP website, is the sum total of how UKIP would deal with their muslim problem:

‘Britishness’ tests to encourage those settling here to acquire knowledge of our language and culture and to assimilate fully into our society.

Set our own criteria for determining those deemed to be refugees. No refugee status to be considered for asylum seekers who arrived via some other ‘safe’ country.

More rigour in deporting those who are refused the right to stay. Only one in five are currently removed.”

They promote leaving the European Union and have this to say about Multiculturalism:

THE MYTH of multiculturalism depends on the belief that completely different cultures, and indeed contradictory world views, can peacefully co-exist within the same geographic and political space.

The most disturbing manifestation of this is the so-called “alienation” of Muslims. An ICM poll recently stated that 40% of Muslims wanted Sharia law imposed in those areas where they are dominant, and that 20% have sympathy with the suicide bombers of July 2005. If those figures are true then in what century do these people think they are living, and where do they think they are living? Religion for most people is a matter of private belief. It should only manifest itself in outward behaviour towards others. That kind of multiculturalism is positive. But, for a very vocal minority of Muslims, their religion cannot be separated from the law and public life. They wish to change British society in the image of their religion, not to adapt themselves to our way of life. They have a mission to take us back to the dark ages.”

Now let’s look at the BNP website:

The British National Party is an ethno-nationalist party. We are very pleased to work closely with members of other ethnic groups who share our desire to preserve our separate racial and cultural identities. But separate identities are not preserved by building integrationist institutions, including political parties. (snip) For that reason (and because maintaining our stance as the defenders of an ethnically-defined British family of nations gives our members protection from unfair dismissal at work under Racial Discrimination Laws) we do not have, and will not have, any non-white or Muslim members.

Britain’s very existence today is threatened by immigration. As a nation we must rebuild trust in the immigration system amongst the British electorate whilst simultaneously ensuring that National Security is maintained in this era of global terrorism.

1. In any society claiming to be based on the rule of law, it must be beyond serious controversy that all illegal immigrants must be deported as soon as they are discovered. We will increase the funding and political will behind such operations by the police and the courts.

The present regime propagates the myth that such deportation could only be accomplished by authoritarian police tactics, alien to British values. This is obviously false, as even under the present unacceptably lax deportation policies, tens of thousands of people are deported from the UK annually without incident.

2. Every nation, no matter how open or closed its immigration policy may be, has the right and duty to maintain sovereign physical control of its borders. We will begin by increasing the funding of existing border controls by 500% and shall continue to increase budget and personnel until our borders are secure against significant intrusion. In particular, the first company of British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq on the day a BNP government assumes office would be redeployed to secure the Channel Tunnel and Kent ports against illegal immigration.

The regime propagates the myth that Britain cannot, in the face of modern international travel and trade, secure its borders at reasonable cost and convenience. This is also obviously untrue, as the border control example of other advanced nations (the most relevant being that other great island state, Japan) proves.

3. Under present circumstances we would abide by our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. We recognise the existence of legitimate international refugees from persecution and war, but point to the fact that international law provides that such persons must be given – and must seek – refuge in the nearest safe country. So, unless a flood of refugees from a civil war in France or Denmark shows up on our shores, these refugees are simply not Britain’s responsibility and have no right to refuge here.

This is not a position of callousness: it is a principled stand that all the problems of the world are neither Britain’s fault nor our responsibility – or even in our capacity – to solve. In order to further the proper handling of refugees in the appropriate place (not in the advanced Western societies to which they gravitate out of economic self-interest) we will be prepared to contribute funds to refugee relief programmes which respect these principles.

4. We will reform the laws and law enforcement of the UK so that, with respect to refugees and illegal immigrants, there are no blind eyes turned to violations, no amnesties to reward law-breaking, and no extensive appeals against legal decisions. We will place the burden of proof upon the claimant to prove his or her legitimate presence in this country. We will require persons whose cases are pending to be held in refugee centres, not at large in the community.

5. We will impose a permanent lifetime ban on re-entry into Britain for any reason on any person found guilty of having violated British entry or immigration laws, enforced by instant deportation.

On racism:

“1. We would repeal the Race Relations Acts and all other restrictions on free speech in Britain .

2. We would abolish all targets and quotas for ethnic representation in all areas of employment, public and private.

3. We would abolish all politically-correct indoctrination of the police, teachers, and other public employees.

4. We would abolish all government-sponsored ethnicity-specific professional bodies, housing associations, and other organisations.

5. We would abolish all departments, agencies, or other units of government whose sole and specific purpose is to deal with ethnic issues, grievances, or crimes. Such organisations deliberately seek out the maximum quantity of “racism” in order to justify their own existence and expand their power and budgets. The law is the law and must be enforced equally upon all without being politicised over ethnic differences.

6. We would abolish all laws against racial discrimination in employment and the government bodies associated with enforcing them.

7. Except for purposes of teaching foreign languages to native speakers of English, the only languages permitted in official documents, government business, and schools will be English, Scots, and Welsh. The use of other languages by ethnic minorities in their own homes, school and institutions will also be encouraged.

8. A Clause 28-style proscription against the promotion of racial integration in schools and the media would be introduced.

—–

11. While accepting the right of law-abiding minorities, in our country because they or their ancestors came here legally, to remain here and to enjoy the full protection of the law against any form of harassment or hostility, we will also seek to emphasise the importance of the prior status of the aboriginal people.” Which means to encourage non-native types to emigrate. Pay their way to the country of their ancestors.

The BNP wants to return England to something approximating the situation before Multiculturalism came along. Considering the devastation that mixed ethnic and racial immigration has brought to England, they can hardly be blamed for it. Nowhere do I see a Hitleresque desire to start building camps and ovens. I can see a wide range of benefits for not just England in this but for most of the world. For starters, the elimination of the terrorist cells there that are the center of Islamic terrorism plotting in Europe. The revitalization of all Europe, a massive blow against the global Islamic religious war.

Yes. This is a clearly racist approach. Undeniably. So? What they have now is far worse. Look at what’s happening to Great Britain with current policy.

Comparing UKIP to BNP is like comparing milk-sopped white bread to a Sicilian pizza. UKIPs leader, Nigel Farage, denies that hundreds of thousands of pounds donated to the UK Independence Party has failed to find its way into the party’s central accounts, as a senior Ukip official has confirmed. Farage just happens to be in charge of the collections that came in and has never given adequate accounting of it. The BNP leadership has never been accused of mishandling funds that I know of. So UKIP is showing signs of serious corruption early on.

Personally, I think the BNP carries racism too far. Considering the current plight of the UK, though, their much stronger attitude than UKIPs is needed. UKIP is just not the hard-hitter to fill the bill. The Honesty of the BNP is undeniable and how often do any of us get honesty from politicians? UKIP, on the other hand, has major accounting problems with a huge sum unaccounted for. The choice between the two is easy.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 18th, 2007 at 10:35 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.