The UK’s equalities watchdog has begun legal action against the British National Party over concerns about ethnic restrictions on its membership.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission said limiting membership to those of an “ethnic origin” described as “indigenous Caucasian” was illegal.
It has issued proceedings against BNP leader Nick Griffin and two officials.
The party called this a “pathetic attempt” by the commission to divert attention from its own problems.
But equality minister Harriet Harman said: “No party should be allowed to have an apartheid constitution in 21st Century Britain. I welcome the action.”
I do agree with Harriet here – no party should have an apartheid constitution in 21st Century Britain, all that I have a slight quarm about is when she says ‘allows’. Should a group with an exclusive membership be told what rules they must follow? Surely showing to the public how awfully racist they are is bad enough – why force them through the courts to stop race discrimination?
No political party should have a rule that discriminates on age, sex, race, orientation but should we force this with law?
Popularity: 25% [?]
Should we support Nick Griffin or Harriet Harman?
You might want to attack this then.
http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/forceassociations/The%20Black%20Police%20Association/item3939.html
Harman’s authoritarian streak showing through there with her “allowed” comment. It is not for her to decide what parties are ‘allowed’. This is a free country (last time I checked) and people are entitled to their views no matter how vile and repulsive.
It’s just pure party political positioning on her part – most of the recent support for BNP has come from disillusioned Labour supporters. So naturally, Harman wants to ban them. Only the electorate can decide what parties will represent them and if there is the support there what right do we have to silence it? Instead we should defeat them through debate and show people that they are not the answer to this country’s problems.
Instead of trying to ban the BNP she should concentrate on what has made people turn to the BNP in the first place.
So to answer your post’s title – should be support Harman or Griffin – I say neither. I support freedom of expression.
BNP legal team and Griffin will probably produce members in Court of all races.He then wins publicity battle.It is too late to take action.Griffin is a schemer and a little cleverer I regret to say than the other parties think. I agree, let’s debate with them and take them on with Meerkats.
Didn’t she carry on to say that… if there was a party that only let women join there would be no discrimination in the world?
It’s a tricky issue, but ultimately I believe that any organisation should have to comply with the law as it stands at the time.
Otherwise you are claiming that some organisations are “above the law” and that undoes centuries of legal reform. Not even the Monarchy is above the law in this country.
The idea that Nick Griffin would be superior to Her Majesty is a thought likely to sway any doubters
More seriously, for the BNP, that does mean complying with the law on racial equality. They are perfectly free to campaign against that law, to seek high office and then overturn the law if they (and the electorate) so wish. But until they have that democratic mandate to change the law, they have to comply with it.
If only Harriet Harman wasn’t such a misandrist, herself not of a reasonable mindset, I would find her pronouncements so much easier to swallow. As it is, I abhor the BNP. And I don’t reckon her much, either. Two evils.
Some tit called Organised Chaos wrote:
“Instead of trying to ban the BNP she should concentrate on what has made people turn to the BNP in the first place.”
People turned to the BNP because they were, like the BNP, racist. It is, thankfully, against the law in this country to be openly racist. So if someone – or something (political party) is disregarding this law then they must be pursued in the courts.
And then Thomas Byrne has a snide attack on the Black Police Association. He’ll be banning Irish Clubs, Polish Clubs, Football supporters clubs next…
Are you all racist? Or is this just an exceptionally xenophobic Tory blog?
IanVisits, nobody is saying that the BNP should be above the law; the question is whether it is right to use the law in such a fashion against the BNP.
Willie, go away and use your brain before accusing everyone of being racist. Next you’ll say I’m an anti-semite.
Nobody denies that the BNP are a deeply unpleasant organisation, but the question is whether the appropriate manner of dealing with them is through the force of law. In short: no. You can’t legislate away all political problems and “bad things”. The appropriate arena is that of political action, not outsourcing your problems to the courts.
There is no way that this case will actually deal with the problem of racist parties gaining ground in the UK. The BNP’s membership criteria is one of the best arguments against them – it exposes them for who they are. Meanwhile attacking them in the courts for this plays into their hands with the persecution narrative. We’ve seen it in every unsuccessful court case taken against the BNP and its membership. If this case gets thrown out, as it may do because of its political motivations, then the BNP can turn round and say that, once again, they are not a racist party. How about that for an own goal?
It will be an interesting court fight, and the publicity surrounding it will no doubt kick of many questions, ideas and thoughts that Harman & Co will find rather difficult to stuff back in to the genie bottle again.
Indigenous people have indeed special provisions in international law and certain rights, and in that the indigenous Englishman and the Amazonian Rainforest Indian are equal in this case, and once it is said openly that they are not but that the Englishman has no rights to be English anymore… it will be officially the end of equality as we know it (or dream it to be, more like it)
The propaganda and exposure the BNP will get from this case will totally nix all other efforts to make them irrelevant PR wise, so this is really an epic own goal of Harman here.
Besides that, if the BNP lose it’s no big deal — there are enough immigrants who would join the BNP if they could and any party can be arranged in such a way that it cannot be hijacked. Remember, 2-3 years ago, many Sikhs and also Hindus wanted to join the BNP, and there are some older British Jamaicans who also would affiliate if it was possible.
Why? Because they match with so many of the BNP’s other issues that the ‘racism’ issue (which in itself is also somewhat tempered when you look at it) is very much the smaller evil.
And expect the prickly problem of non-white racism and fascism to be aired loudly too, because a lot of people believe in equality, but not of the kind that the immigrant Housing minister Shahid Malik espouses (where minorities have more rights to ‘balance’ things), no — folks want equality, it’s what has been drilled into them for years as worth standing up for, it’s about the only fighting spirit that modernity has left in them…
So yeah, the BNP is a good thing in a way, the bad thing is that Britain nowadays has to rely on the village idiot to point our the bleeding obvious because the sane adults of the government and opposition (if indeed they do exist?) are gagged by political correctness and career planning
The fundamental purpose of anti-discrimination legislation is to remove any barriers to jobs or careers and to normal social or civil activities: access to libraries, swimming baths etc.
In contrast political parties, at least half the time, are openly discriminatory. For example the purpose of the Labour Party for most of its existence has been to push the interests of the working class.
I conclude that Ubergruppenfuhrer Harman (the name even sounds German) is wrong.