it's not though, it's actually saying that that stuff is ok. that the reason that the bnp are wrong is because it's "foreign", because their brand of racism is foreign and linking it with the nazis and that, it's emotional blackmail from the establishment and far-right voters will probably see right through it. it doesn't explain why it's wrong or anything and it's also implying that the BNP and the far-right are not english, ie "foreign" and that's what's wrong with it.
When I parse that down to its nub I agree with the core sentiment - but the phrasing is different, and crucial. It's not about X being 'foreign', it's about anti-X being anti-British.
Sure, telling people that acceptance of diversity and difference, tolerance (I hate that usage of that word but please take it as it's popularly used), etc, are 'British' qualities may - to some - imply that those horrid foreigners lack those traits. But it's not
actually implicit.
All postboxes are red, but not everything red is a postbox. That kinda thing.
But if you can take a group of people that get misty-eyed at the mention of Nelson or Churchill, and put jump-leads between the bit of their brain that's patterned with the cross of St George and the bit that accepts difference, I can only see that as a good thing. As I said, it's not the end game. But it may be one less 'paki' or 'muzrat' getting a kicking or an earful. And the best case scenario is that it doesn't end there, and they eventually turn up on U75 giving me abuse for being so embarrassingly middle-class and naive about this sort of thing.
i think any anti-fascist campaign tho should engage with the actual politics of the thing though rather than say "it's not british" (ie it's something that's not done in this country, nazis, churchill and that sort of stuff) i also think that it's very hypocritical coming from a racist anti-immigrant party that's partially responsible for the growth of the far-right anyway.
Absolutely. But it wasn't an ant-fascist campaign. It was a PR stunt by the tories.
Caveat/clarification: I'm not defending a tory campaign (vomits). I'm commenting on your analysis of it, iyswim - although that may be an unfair description given that it was only a couple of sentences in a much larger article. And the only reason I picked out that bit was that my response to the rest would merely have been 'yep'.
