BNP membership list forced closure

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-03-2010, 07:09 PM
-:Undertaker:-

BNP membership list forced closure

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...a-racist.html#

Quote:

The British National Party was today barred from taking new members after its amended rules of application were deemed to be still racist. Judge Paul Collins declared the far right group's membership rules illegal, and said the party was 'likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within the Race Relations Act'. The BNP had agreed to remove its whites-only policy following a legal challenge by the government's Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The party had previously stipulated that only 'indigenous caucasians' and people from ethnic groups 'emanating from that race' could join. But it scrapped that clause - after months of delay - at an extraordinary general meeting in February. However, the EHRC decided to challenge the new rules, claiming that they still amounted to indirect racism.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...91_468x312.jpg

Quote:

The party had previously stipulated that only 'indigenous caucasians' and people from ethnic groups 'emanating from that race' could join. But it scrapped that clause - after months of delay - at an extraordinary general meeting in February. However, the EHRC decided to challenge the new rules, claiming that they still amounted to indirect racism. Sitting at Central London County Court, Judge Collins issued an injunction ordering the group to comply with race equality laws. He said: 'The membership list will have to be closed until then.' The hearing had been told that, under the new rules, applicants would be subject to a two-hour home visit by BNP officials.

Robin Allen QC, representing the EHRC, said that could operate as a form of indirect discrimination. 'One way the provisions could operate would be to intimidate someone who wanted to join the party,' he said. Speaking after the judgment, BNP leader Nick Griffin said the decision had 'opened a very dangerous door'. 'It is a huge change to the unwritten constitution of Britain,' he said. 'They are claiming that they have been granted the right to interfere in what a party believes but the only people who have the right to judge are the electorate.' He said the ruling was 'more than symbolic', adding: 'It has given an organ of the state the power to interfere in the aims and objectives of any political party.'

The Lib/Lab/Con elite will stop at nothing to stop the British National Party, although if they an ounce of brain cells in them they would realise that the more they do things like this (state control), the BNP will just grow. They call the BNP rascist and the UAF calls the BNP fascist, yet the Lib/Lab/Con all have candidate shortlists based on race/gender/sexuality and the UAF wants the BNP to be banned as a political party. I would question who are the real rascists and fascists? - they are all just as bad as the BNP as they also have policies based on the colour of your skin/who you are.

Meanwhile they say 'indirect discrimination' yet the BPOA (Black Police Officers Association) has a name which does exactly that.

Thoughts?
12-03-2010, 07:36 PM
Jordy

Waste of money and time. No matter how you change the rules, these people are racists at the end of the day, and just because you change their membership policies, it won't make them more or any less racist. It's a complete waste of the judicial systems time and anyone who is complaining about them. Non-Caucasians don't want to join the party and never will.

The other political parties should sort themselves out and try to rival them, there is clearly a problem if the BNP are getting votes and it needs to be addressed.
14-03-2010, 12:50 AM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordy

Waste of money and time. No matter how you change the rules, these people are racists at the end of the day, and just because you change their membership policies, it won't make them more or any less racist. It's a complete waste of the judicial systems time and anyone who is complaining about them. Non-Caucasians don't want to join the party and never will.

The other political parties should sort themselves out and try to rival them, there is clearly a problem if the BNP are getting votes and it needs to be addressed.

They would never conform to popular opinion to prevent the British National Party from gaining ground. They would rather ban the BNP than actually conform to populist opinion. I believe Frank Field (a Labour MP) has actually come out now and said that our cities are like tinderboxes waiting to spark because of uncontrolled immigration we have experienced under this Labour government. A man with his head screwed on it seems which is a rarity in the field of Labour MPs.
15-03-2010, 05:52 AM
Black_Apalachi

Why don't they just say; 'Only people of 100% British decent may join'? This mentions nothing about race so surely can't be deemed racist. if anyone argues, they could just say; well black people can join, as long as they are 100% British. Obviously this would render their whole group pointless given that even within the white population of the UK, a very high proportion of it are of Irish descendancy.
15-03-2010, 04:37 PM
Catzsy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi

Why don't they just say; 'Only people of 100% British decent may join'? This mentions nothing about race so surely can't be deemed racist. if anyone argues, they could just say; well black people can join, as long as they are 100% British. Obviously this would render their whole group pointless given that even within the white population of the UK, a very high proportion of it are of Irish descendancy.

Okay so what is 100% British and how do you prove it? They either open their doors to all or they don't IMO.
Substituting a 2hour home visit is mindless and just shows them putting up two fingers to the law. Before you say anything, Dan, The Black Police Association has no bar to anyone joining apart from them being Policeman of course.
15-03-2010, 06:37 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Okay so what is 100% British and how do you prove it? They either open their doors to all or they don't IMO.
Substituting a 2hour home visit is mindless and just shows them putting up two fingers to the law. Before you say anything, Dan, The Black Police Association has no bar to anyone joining apart from them being Policeman of course.

Niehter does the BNP under its new rules, it simply states a 2 hour visit would be nessacery. They say the 2 hour visit is to put people off joining, well the word Black Police Officers Association puts white people off joining which is pretty damn obvious especially concerning the word Black is used. More to the point; the Conservatives and Labour both have candidate shortlist policies based on race/sexuality and gender. For one of the main parties to call the BNP rascist is quite frankly the height of hypocrisy.

One rule for the three main parties, another for the BNP - that is not fair or just, we are supposed to live in a democracy.
15-03-2010, 07:35 PM
Catzsy

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Niehter does the BNP under its new rules, it simply states a 2 hour visit would be nessacery. They say the 2 hour visit is to put people off joining, well the word Black Police Officers Association puts white people off joining which is pretty damn obvious especially concerning the word Black is used. More to the point; the Conservatives and Labour both have candidate shortlist policies based on race/sexuality and gender. For one of the main parties to call the BNP rascist is quite frankly the height of hypocrisy.

One rule for the three main parties, another for the BNP - that is not fair or just, we are supposed to live in a democracy.

LOL:) I agree the name puts people off joining but they can freely join the association. A 2 hour home visit is ludricrous and shows contempt for the law - they either have free entry or they don't. Having a shortlist for candidates has absolutely nothing to do with the argument as anybody is free to join all those parties which is the one and only issue here. The reason they have shortlists whether I agree with them or not is make parliament a bit more representative of society. That is the only reason. Your defence of the BNP amuses me tbh and please dont say that it will make them more appealing - yes probably to a few of the uninformed and ignorant but no one else.
15-03-2010, 08:42 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

LOL:) I agree the name puts people off joining but they can freely join the association. A 2 hour home visit is ludricrous and shows contempt for the law - they either have free entry or they don't. Having a shortlist for candidates has absolutely nothing to do with the argument as anybody is free to join all those parties which is the one and only issue here. The reason they have shortlists whether I agree with them or not is make parliament a bit more representative of society. That is the only reason. Your defence of the BNP amuses me tbh and please dont say that it will make them more appealing - yes probably to a few of the uninformed and ignorant but no one else.

Yes it does, just like they are saying that the BNP proposal for a 2 hour meeting is to put people off. You say its contempt for the law when it clearly is not - a two hour meeting to visit prospective BNP members is not avoiding the law in anyway. As for the candidate shortlists;- it has everything to do with this issue. Yourself, the Courts, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all say that the BNP is rascist for having a membership policy based on race (fair point) - but you convientley miss out the fact that your own party and the other two main parties also have policies which prevent people from running in an election to become a candidate because of the colour of their skin. You say it is to make parliament representative of the wider public (ethnic minorities) and fair point again (although I believe people should be picked based on what they've done, not who they are). The BNP point out on the other hand with exactly the same logic as your own that their party is to represent the 'native British people' (white people).

Quite honestly I will defend them to the hilt against people like yourself who totally ignore the hypocrisy of both your own party and of your own stance on the issue. You cant have it both ways; either you disagree with the concept of dividing/electing/choosing people by the colour of their skin/their sexuality or gender or you agree with it - which one is it then?

While I do not think any job/membership/position should be decided on race/seuxality or gender - I wont stand by while people like yourself support it within your own ranks yet when the British National Party do it, its outrage because I dislike hypocrisy if i'm quite honest. Instead of hiding behind party political banners, actually either come and and admit they are all as bad as eachother on this issue or at least admit that you agree with the idea of membership/elecotoral candidate selection based on the colour of somebodies skin (in which case you would have to explain why it is fine and dandy for discrimination to take place against white people but not black people).
16-03-2010, 04:44 AM
Black_Apalachi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Okay so what is 100% British and how do you prove it? They either open their doors to all or they don't IMO.
Substituting a 2hour home visit is mindless and just shows them putting up two fingers to the law. Before you say anything, Dan, The Black Police Association has no bar to anyone joining apart from them being Policeman of course.

Nationality of your (great-) grandparents. If they were all British-born then you're in. However what I meant about it rendering their group pointless was getting at the fact that a huge proportion (if not the majority) of British citizens have some Irish descendancy (even if it's just one great-grandparent). If they went this extreme about deportation, my parents are Limerick and Waterford so personally I'd be ******! :L
16-03-2010, 10:15 AM
Catzsy

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Yes it does, just like they are saying that the BNP proposal for a 2 hour meeting is to put people off. You say its contempt for the law when it clearly is not - a two hour meeting to visit prospective BNP members is not avoiding the law in anyway. As for the candidate shortlists;- it has everything to do with this issue. Yourself, the Courts, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all say that the BNP is rascist for having a membership policy based on race (fair point) - but you convientley miss out the fact that your own party and the other two main parties also have policies which prevent people from running in an election to become a candidate because of the colour of their skin. You say it is to make parliament representative of the wider public (ethnic minorities) and fair point again (although I believe people should be picked based on what they've done, not who they are). The BNP point out on the other hand with exactly the same logic as your own that their party is to represent the 'native British people' (white people).

Quite honestly I will defend them to the hilt against people like yourself who totally ignore the hypocrisy of both your own party and of your own stance on the issue. You cant have it both ways; either you disagree with the concept of dividing/electing/choosing people by the colour of their skin/their sexuality or gender or you agree with it - which one is it then?

While I do not think any job/membership/position should be decided on race/seuxality or gender - I wont stand by while people like yourself support it within your own ranks yet when the British National Party do it, its outrage because I dislike hypocrisy if i'm quite honest. Instead of hiding behind party political banners, actually either come and and admit they are all as bad as eachother on this issue or at least admit that you agree with the idea of membership/elecotoral candidate selection based on the colour of somebodies skin (in which case you would have to explain why it is fine and dandy for discrimination to take place against white people but not black people).

You cannot see the point between being free to join a party and having a shortlist. There is a great deal of difference. It is nothing to do with discrimination against white people as historically parliament has been made up of almost all white males which is not representative of our society. Shortlists are more commonly for females anyway so why you keep just mentioning 'black' people I don't know as it is more common for women to be on the shortlist. As I said before there is no bar to membership of the parties/associations which is the actual issue here.

Quote:

You say its contempt for the law when it clearly is not - a two hour meeting to visit prospective BNP members is not avoiding the law in anyway.

I think you will find that it is indeed unlawful as the Judge himself said it was indirectly racist which is against the law:

Quote:

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

The party also remains banned from signing up new recruits until it satisfies Collins it has changed the constitution, although it said last night that applications to join were being processed again.

You can defend the BNP stance all you like but the main political parties are only trying to redress the balance of decades of citizens who have, themselves, been discriminated against as they are not male and white to reflect a cross section of society. It is called positive discrimination for a reason.
How would you reflect a representative parliament? What's your answer to this age old problem?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page