From UKIP's official website:
Sri Lankan-born Deva, who lost his Nottingham post office job for refusing to serve customers who wouldn't speak English, said he was shocked at the treatment of posties who had been threatened, chased and spat at as they tried to post the election material.
"Postman should always have the right to refuse to deliver something they find offensive," he said. "Particularly when the public are showing they too are offended.
"But if the Royal Mail decides to hire casual labour to help deliver the 29 million leaflets it will simply undermine the postal workers' position."
I know there is a legal obligation for the Royal Mail to deliver election material but this offensive literature is beyond the pale. I wouldn't deliver it and I certainly don't want it posted through my letterbox.
"If my two little girls see this BNP rubbish, how am I to explain to them that these people don't want them to live in the UK, where both my daughters were born?"
"It's simply disgusting."
End of quote
So would UKIP support a Muslim postman who refused to deliver leaflets advertising a Christian service? Would UKIP support a lawyer who refused to defend those he or she disagreed with politically?
A most strange policy. So UKIP is advocating that people be denied the right to see literature from a rival party. So UKIP's policy is now: "Freedom of speech, as long as we approve". Sounds like fascism to me!
UKIP quickly removed the article from their website after they realised what fools they had been.
Paul Wesson of the British Democracy Forum spoke for many when he said:
The fact that the article is off the UKIP site is irrelevant; UKIP put the article on the site as a projection of their policy. Only when the 'phones started ringing did they suddenly realise that the libertarian wing of the party is bigger than they thought despite the purges and defections. This means that UKIP is not a serious political contender, but will change policy on the hoof to win, or avoid losing, votes.
FACT: UKIP policy is to prevent the distribution of lawful political material in a democracy.
FACT: UKIP hasn't got the bottle to stick with its own policy for a few hours.
I'm very privileged to observe elections in other countries and to be allowed to comment on their democratic processes. In some countries people are gaoled or beaten up for trying to distribute leaflets. Restrictions on the freedom of opposition parties to campaign freely mean that election observers will not give a clean bill of health to an election. If we had international political observers at our elections we would fail to be declared 'free and fair' on this issue alone.
We have international obligations to allow free elections under the 1990 Copenhagen document. Restricting the distribution of obnoxious or offensive leaflets is a breach of those obligations.
UKIP has a candidate who is leaning in the direction of preventing free and fair elections. He opposes postmen delivering leaflets he dislikes, he opposes casual labour undermining the postmen. UKIP has a candidate who leans toward a totalitarian state.
What about the owners of the mines and the railways? Were they not offended by Labour's nationalisation policy? Should Labour have been allowed to distribute its leaflets in 1945?
WRT postal workers - they are paid to deliver the mail, not to decide whether they want to do so? The leaflet is open to view so it is obvious if it offends them. If they are allowed to succeed on this matter what is to stop them demanding the right to open and inspect mail to ensure there is no kiddy porn? Then they will decide not to deliver normal porn. Then they will refuse to deliver religious material. The posties don't know what is inside plain envelopes, but could open them to be on the safe side. I know of a Socialist government in Europe that opens all international mail to check that dissident material isn't getting into the country; there are people who would do that here if allowed.
The freedom of the BNP to campaign is critical for our democracy. Democracy is about having the opportunity to hear the alternate view, if only to dismiss it out of hand.
End of quote.
Clive Page- UKIP’s very own convicted benefit fraudster - claims that Deva's pathetic statement was not put on the website by UKIP’s press office. So presumably anyone can post what they like on there!
Pull the other one!