The Discriminating BNP
The Equality and Human Rights Commission seems to have clocked the blindingly fucking obvious - they've noticed that the BNP might discriminate:
"The BNP's membership criteria appear to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regards as particular 'ethnic groups' and those whose skin colour is white. This exclusion is contrary to the Race Relations Act.
"The commission believes the BNP's constitution and membership criteria are discriminatory and, further, that the continued publication of them on the BNP website is unlawful.
"It has therefore issued county court proceedings against party leader Nick Griffin and two other officials."
That the BNP is against particular ethnic groups should be beyond obvious. It is what they exist for. But it is difficult to work out quite what the Commission hopes to achieve in pursuing the BNP. They're not going to be able to stop the BNP from being ignorant and racist - after all, blatant racism is the BNP's reason for existing. Besides, are there really complaints from those who are affected by the BNP's membership criteria? Are there really people from ethnic minorities that want to join the simian knuckle-draggers in their little clique of hate?
This won't stop the BNP and won't get them to change their ways. All this will do is build on the BNP's persecution complex, and make shriek about their paranoid theories even more. These court proceedings are a stupid waste of time, and simply hide the fact that the way to defeat the BNP isn't by picking on them. Instead, their repugnant ideology needs to be taken head on, and thrown into the gutter where it rightly belongs.
Labels: BNP, Discrimination, Racism
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 9:01 pm
9 Comments
9 Comments:
Doesn't this also mean that they'll have to investigate organisations like the National Black Police Association?
Even if there's some clause or other that allows them to be hypocrites and apply laws their laws only against the likes of the BNP this is just going to be another own goal. More publicity for the BNP and more ammo for their claims of being persecuted by the PC state.
"This won't stop the BNP and won't get them to change their ways. All this will do is build on the BNP's persecution complex..."
It'll do worse than that. It'll give them what they crave - more publicity (seriously, does the BNP have a publicity officer? would they need one?) - and it will make a lot of the public believe they ARE being persecuted.
As far as I'm aware, the National Black Police Association doesn't ban non-blacks from joining - it merely works on the basis that they won't want to join (which I'm guessing works fairly well).
The BNP could just change a few words in their membership problem and the issue will evaporate.
simian knuckle-draggers? seems a bit harsh. should a political party be able to restrict membership to people who are likely to adhere to it's principles, or not? whether the BNP is right or wrong, the action against them has been instigated in a spirit of political opposition if not malice. no-one seemed to mind until they started winning seats.
i'm white. can i apply for a job using http://asianjobsite.co.uk/
to apply for a job? didn't think so.
what would happen if i set up a similar site with the title "caucasianjobsite"?
thought so....
dark-skinned human beings are "allowed" racist organisations by the State because they (dark-skinned human beings) are not numerous in the UK. the BNP potentially has a very large membership, has gained a couple of MEPs, and is therefore seen as a target.
NB the "black" organisations (black police chiefs, black head-teachers and so on) are described as racist in that their their membership is based on skin colour. i am not suggesting that individual members are racially prejudiced, or that the organisations themselves are "anti-white". also, there is nothing wrong or reprehensible about any ethnic group looking after the interests of that group by means of an organisation, society etc etc
Richard,
Whether you believe the BNP is right or wrong is supremely irrelevant in this instance. The question is whether they have broken the law or not. That is now a question for the justice system to deal with.
But to deal with a few of your points - I'd imagine you could apply for a job on Asian Jobsite - there doesn't appear to be anything on their website to stop you, and they talk of encouraging applications from ethnic minorities rather than requiring them. Whether you'd get the job or not is another question, but if it didn't work out you could complain to the authorities about racial discrimination and they'd make the choice. Which, I'm guessing, is what has happened to the BNP.
As Letters From A Tory point out, organisations like the National Black Police Association don't ban people from other ethnic backgrounds from joining; they just assume that they wouldn't want to. The BNP could change the wording of their membership criteria, and bob's your uncle - the problem is gone. The issue seems to be that they have chosen to be explicitly discriminatory in their membership criteria as well as in their rhetoric.
Now, if you go back and read the post (always a good thing to do if you plan to comment on a post) you'll see that I describe this particular action as a "stupid waste of time". I suspect that these actions have been taken by the state as a way of slapping the BNP, but not because has "potentially" a large membership (every organisation potentially has a large membership, FFS) or because they happen to have a couple of MEPs now. No, there's another reason why the government and the judiciary system might be singling about the BNP. Perhaps it is because they find the explicit racism and ignorance of the BNP abhorrent. Don't get me wrong, their actions aren't the best way to deal with the BNP. But I can understand why people would be appalled by that party and why they would want to stop it at any cost.
Oh, and "simian knuckle-draggers" isn't a bit harsh. It is spot on.
TNL
you are correct, up to a point. it is a stupid waste of time. the issue is, as you say, a matter of Law.
it is also counterproductive, if the Government hopes to marginalise the BNP. in Nick Griffin's last trial he was charged with "using words likely to stir up racial hatred"
in this, another matter of law, he was aquitted after two trials.
Gordon Brown didn't say something along the lines of "well, in a country that values free speech we must realise that we might hear some offensive rubbish from time to time. that's what freedom of speech means"
what he actually said was this:
"But if there is something that needs to be done to look at the law then I think we will have to do that."
in other words, he was prepared to change the law because the jury didn't produce a verdict - upholding the right of freedom of speech! - which suited him.
so an unelected prime minister is able to unilaterally change the law because he doesn't like an offensive person (his politial opponent) being aquitted on the grounds of freedom of speech? hmmm, smells like fascism to me.
as you say, the policy of persecution does indeed lead to a persecution complex - not very surprising. i would question the "paranoia" because the attacks are blatant, and counterproductive (except for the BNP)
now, back to the "simian knuckle-draggers" comment. is this a true statement?
"THE leaked British Nationalist Party (BNP) membership list "contains at least thirty convicted criminals" THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH has revealed today."
30 out of 10,000 names is a fair indication that the membership are generally law-abiding.
compare with this:
"The data, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, showed 1,063 officers with criminal records, including 59 for assault, 36 for theft and 96 for dishonesty. Other offences include battery, fraud, perverting the course of justice and forgery."
so, if "simian knuckle-draggers" are more prone to breaking the law, they seem to find a home in the police and not the BNP.
0.8% of policemen have criminal records, (140,000 officers) but 0.3% of BNP members. so a policeman is nearly 3 times more likely to have a criminal record than a BNP member!
both policemen and BNP members are very law-abiding as groups, however.
nevertheless, a quick review of the G20 protest videos will reveal plenty of simian knuckle-draggers, striking unarmed women and beating a man to death. point made?
please note that i'm not a BNP member. used to be, though. more of a libertarian these days.
sorry, i posted as anon, it's Richard again
Richard,
You'll get no disagreement from me on Gordon Brown. He is an unelected PM not suitable for high office and no friend of democracy or freedom.
It doesn't change the fact that the BNP are being targeted because of their appalling, racist views and because they won't amend their membership criteria to adhere to the law.
And you make a mistake about my description of the BNP being simian knuckle-draggers as meaning they are all criminal. That's not what I mean at all. In part, it is a physical description of some of the apelike members of the BNP and of the old National Front - you know who I mean, the thugs. I accept, though, that the modern BNP isn't just populated with people like that. But their views are those, in my humble opinion, of a simian knuckle-dragger. The racist, angry, hate-filled socialism of the BNP is the politics and ideals of the ignorant and the barely evolved. They are the simian knuckle draggers because their views should have no place in the UK in the 21st Century.
The BNP are perfectly entitled to their views, as far as I am concerned. Just as I am perfectly entitled to call them all sorts of names for those abhorrent views.
And BNP to Libertarian? That is one hell of a change.
TNL
"And BNP to Libertarian? That is one hell of a change."
yes indeed. it was initiated by listening to "statism is dead" by s. molyneaux. 4 parts on youtube. further investigation led to a greater understanding of the relationship between the individual and the State, and of the nature of political parties.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home