Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:06 | #

The Guardian is quick out of the blocks:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/12/bnp-racist-membership-rules-outlawed

No word yet on the BNP website or Simon Darby’s blog.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:21 | #

The BBC website has further details:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8564742.stm

The party is expected to comply with the ruling and rewrite its constitution for the 12th time.

Judge Paul Collins ordered the party to pay costs and said its membership list must remain “closed” until it complied with race relations laws.

Delivering his ruling, he said: “I hold that the BNP are likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within section 1b Race Relations Act 1976 in the terms on which they are prepared to admit persons to membership under the 12th addition of their constitution.”

The party cannot resile from its advocacy of the natural rights and interests of the three peoples of this land.  How can it possibly profess a simple patriotism of the MultiCult in Britain, as is actually required, without tearing nationalism apart?  And there will be no fudging-point, no place where a few clever words will get around the Establishment’s objections.  They have the BNP on the run now, and they are not going to relent.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:49 | #

The Independent has more:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/judge-shuts-bnp-membership-list-over-race-bias-1920509.html

But today at Central London County Court, Judge Collins ruled: “I hold that the BNP are likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within section 1b Race Relations Act 1976 in the terms on which they are prepared to admit persons to membership under the 12th addition of their constitution.”

Today’s judgment found that, while it is not unlawful to hold discriminatory views, it is unlawful for such principles to be used for controlled entry to a political party, the EHRC said.

Susie Uppal, director of legal enforcement at the commission, said after the judgment: “The commission is glad that today’s judgment confirms our view that both the BNP’s 11th constitution and the amended 12th constitution are unlawful.

“Political parties, like any other organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people who wish to become members.

“The BNP will now have to take the necessary steps to ensure that it complies with the Race Relations Act.

“This matter could have been resolved last year by the BNP changing its constitution properly, rather than believing that it could find a way round discrimination laws so that it appeared to be open to members regardless of their ethnicity, while in practice continuing to prevent them from joining.”

Ms Uppal, whose ethnicity and sexual preferences are apparently not a matter of public record, confirms with that phrase “rather than believing that it could find a way round discrimination laws” that she thinks the EHRC is controlling the field, and can continue driving the prey all the way to the Court’s guns.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:18 | #

And the Times has the first reaction from Nick Griffin:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7059840.ece

Speaking before the ruling, Mr Griffin said: “The constitution was always legal.”

After the judgement he said: “It’s opened a very dangerous door and it is a huge change to the unwritten constitution of Britain.

“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”. “It has given an organ of the state the power to interfere in the aims and objectives of any political party,” he said.

Mr Griffin said there were about 7,000 people on the waiting list to join the party, including “a number of ethnic minorities”.

“It is only a couple of each,” he said, adding that there were two Chinese people on the list, several Sikhs and several West Indians.

He said that if the party was forced to pay £60,000 in costs it would have some effect on the general election campaign “but not a huge amount”.

So next I expect a move from the Establishment to disqualify the party from participating in the General Election on the grounds of the illegality of its constitution.  But not until it’s too late for the process of compliance to be completed in time.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:51 | #

It would be interesting to see exactly which part or parts of the 12th edition the court has found to be discriminatory. All reports so far are entirely vague on the matter, and the BNP has not made the proposed new constitution public.

The focus in all the reports has been on the entry process, and how that could be seen as being ‘intimidating’ to ethnics and therefore discriminatory. There has been no mention so far of the legality or otherwise of the two-tier membership proposal, which to my mind is of more importance in safeguarding the integrity of the party’s operation than flowery words in a constitution.

I don’t see any real likelihood of the BNP being banned since Griffin was given the powers at the recent EGM to make whatever changes he felt necessary to comply with the court’s eventual ruling, so compliance wouldn’t need to be a drawn-out affair.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:04 | #

Within minutes of submitting the above an email arrived from the BNP indicating that membership is now open again.

The BNP website has further detail, including an indication that Griffin has unilaterally removed the requirement for new members to sign up to their agreement to the Party’s principles, even as those principles (including a diluted version of the 1948 clause) remain in the constitution itself.

http://bnp.org.uk/2010/03/bnp-membership-reopens-despite-race-gestapo’s-attempt-to-subvert-democracy/

If Griffin gets away with this (ie the court lifts its injuction) it will have to be seen as a humiliating rebuff for the EHRC.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:12 | #

Dan: If Griffin gets away with this (ie the court lifts its injuction) it will have to be seen as a humiliating rebuff for the EHRC.”

Surely, the risk is that the BNP will be seen to be in contempt of court, having decided unilaterally (?) that it has satisfied the condition laid down by Judge Collins.  We will know very soon.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:30 | #

“We are still here to stop and reverse the tide of immigration but you don’t have to agree with that to be a member of the British National Party.”

Nick Griffin on the BBC.

That will not work.  The mere fact of being here to “reverse the tide of immigration” will incurr the wrath of Ms Upall & Co (I think she is mixed race, btw).

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:35 | #

Yes the same thought struck me, it’s a little hard to tell without having the detail of the judgment or the constitution itself, but this does seem a risky manoeuvre.

Griffin has appeared on both Sky and the BBC announcing that membership is now open, whether this is an appalling gaffe or a canny publicity stunt remains to be seen.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:17 | #

Of course, one explanation for the opening of the membership would be that it was precipitated by a desperate need for cash, greatly aggravated by the award today of £60,000 costs to the EHRC.  But that we will never know.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:27 | #

It’s hard to know how this will play out as it could go either way. As propaganda i think this is 100% playing into the BNP’s hands. It’s just a question of whether the practical problems caused outweigh that.

Still, it’s the way to do it i think - you have to provoke the state into what is percieved to be an over-reaction, dangerous as that may be.

Posted by FB on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:15 | #

I continue to be impressed by how far the Western Establishment (from the left of centre to the right of centre) is willing to go to achieve its multiculturalist objectives. No totalitarian stratagem is too crass or over-the-top for the system parties and their human rights apparatus and hand-picked, supine judiciary.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:14 | #

What is at issue here is “disparate impact”.  What the evil ones are claiming is that the BNP’s membership requirements will have a “disparate impact” on its membership.  What they don’t say is that the BNP’s membership requirement they object to is the BNP’s objection to “disparate impact” on Britons by the government’s policies.

The evil ones are simply saying that its ok for them to have disparate impact on good people, but if good people try to protect themselves, it will have a disparate impact on evil and that’s not ok.

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:09 | #

BNP needs I believe to take a long view and see this as a possible resource. If the EHRC had not succeeded in passing this injunction they would not have been better off. Even if BNP had the members to qualify for election to a parliament seat - they can only get so far playing a rigged game. Ultimately they need to project direct influence on events, whether or not the elites decide to allow it.
I think the BNP and other parties like it, and individuals such as ourselves, need to develop a long term strategy where we identify the ground we need to achieve and hold before we take the Keep.

The EHRC can make a monkey of Griffin because the BNP is relying on political procedure to advance their cause within the rules. It is apparent the entrenched kosher elite will simply change the rules as they see fit. We need to identify what factors we need to exploit so that we win, whether a gamble falls our way or not. We need to identify those small victories that lead to large victories. and complete those before we expect larger success. We need to extract victory from every stage of the game, whether or not others regard it a defeat. We need to be able to devise traps, ( this is most important) and steer our enemies into them.
  A setback such as this, had the ground been prepared - may have been a greater moral victory than a dismissal of the EHRC suit.
Socio-political guerilla warfare, as that employed by Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Ho-chi minh, etc. - notably Sun Tzu, would be most instructive at this stage in this unique conflict.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:27 | #

It is noticeable how still none of the quality papers are reporting the changes to the constitution made on the hoof by Nick Griffin early yesterday evening and the subsequent opening up of the membership list.  All the reports stop at the moment in time before this action was undertaken.

The BBC does not report it, yet begins a report with the words:

The court did not find anything illegal about the BNP’s beliefs, but it did rule the party could not use them to choose its members.

Even the Guardian, which is full of reports on the activities of the EHRC elsewhere, does not venture onto this ground.  The question is why.  Is it a blanket refusal to acknowledge that Griffin has executed a stratagem of the “And with the one bound he was free” type, or is it the caution before the law which Griffin has so singularly eschewed?

The two questions which perhaps need to be answered are:

1. Is it contempt of court for the BNP to open its membership without waiting for the formal lifting of Judge Collins’ injunction?

2. Though it does not break the law in itself, does the existence of a racial bias in the party’s beliefs constitute an indelible discrimination against ethnic minorities seeking to join the party?

I imagine that Wadham, Susie Uppal and the EHRC lawyers will be doing a good deal of thinking about both questions over the weekend.

James,

That is a perfect summation.  Question 2 is where the action will now take place, if the EHRC is to press its assault onward from simply causing a spot of pre-election bother for the BNP to striking at the very life of political nativism in this country.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:31 | #

2. Though it does not break the law in itself, does the existence of a racial bias in the party’s beliefs constitute an indelible discrimination against ethnic minorities seeking to join the party?

It actually goes even further than that GW.

Should the EHRC’s concept of indirect indiscrimination prevail in law, then it will be illegal for any political party to include within its platform anything that might be perceived as unwelcome by any member of a group which defines itself by any of the ‘protected characteristics’ as defined under the forthcoming Equalities Act 2010, to wit: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:25 | #

I’d got the gist of this on screen Saturday a.m. about the time GW was putting on his latest when everything went pear-shaped. Hope it wasn’t me:
Harry’s Place went down for a bit yesterday too, trouble in Tel Aviv I expect.

Griffin was interviewed on the BBC’s TODAY prog. at 8.10 this morning [that was Saturday 13th:].

The interviewer’s disapproval was palpable. NG came back fairly strongly and confidently. Pity he didn’t get in one about the UN-sponsored right to self determination.

There’s a means of hearing the encounter again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm and try Listen Again.

Try Saturday’s BBC news output for comment on attempts to get BNP members banned from the teaching profession, which at one point is conflated with the police and the prison service. (What an admission!)
NG should insist on a reciprocal right to ban infiltrators and stooges: he mentioned some rich Moslem who’s apparently insisting on a right of entry, with a publicly-proclaimed programme of destruction. What ‘s the truth abouyt Barbara Amiel the Chosen’s supposed overtures to NG?

Beginning (regretfully) to think GW is right, and that the BNP represents our only and last hope. It may be fighting with one hand tied behind its back, but individual, atomised and unconnected WNs are fighting with both theirs tied, despite the freedom this site gives to their tongues…

JB, DD, total agreement!

Posted by John on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:49 | #

One thing they could do is simply change their constitutional position to a ridiculous diametric opposite of what they really believe, something like, “on the immigration question, we believe that anyone from any country who lands in Britain should forthwith be granted British citizenship and eligibility for all government services, including council housing, a stipend and monthly dole payments, etc.”

Posted by John on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:05 | #

I’m really serious about the above. It would give them publicity and it would throw in everybody’s face how unfair they’ve been treated and make it difficult for the press to ignore, minimize, obfuscate or otherwise spin such unfair treatment. It would also advertise an only slighty hyperbolic version of other side’s actual desired policy.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:11 | #

Dan,

I am sure lawyers, as a breed, are sufficiently creative and human rights lawyers sufficiently motivated to tie in the meme of institutional racism to the semi-constitutional racism of the BNP, and effect the necessary degree of specificity that way.  I don’t believe their vanity will allow them to be seen as Michael Palin to Griffin’s John Cleese in a politico-legal version of the fish-slapping dance, fun for the rest of us though that would be.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:15 | #

The enemy wants our genocide but they can’t say it out loud yet. That means there’s a no man’s land of political terriotory where a nationalist party can stand which is within the range considered reasonable by a large segment of the population but outside the range that can be allowed by the enemy. The enemy will be desperate to attack but as long as the party stays just inside the realm of reasonable then those attacks seem unfair to the public and boost popular support.

Personally i think that’s the trick to radical political movements.  The aim is not to be as popular as possible as early as possible. The aim is to pick a position which is *just* within an acceptable range to potential voters, right on the edge, but which, if enacted, would prevent our genocide e.g a complete halt to immigration and a large-scale deportation of illegal immigrants. The enemy is guaranteed to attack that position and so you can let the state and media attacks recruit for you.

It seems we’re at one of those cusp points now where the enemy wants to go in for the kill but realise they might make things worse.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:36 | #

Wandrin: some of them have said it.
http://racetraitor.org/abolishthepoint.pdf
This is of course from Ignatiev.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:48 | #

More on EHRC:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7436480/Equality-chief-Trevor-Phillips-under-fire-in-parliamentary-report.html

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:38 | #

@Gorboduc
Yes, but the mainstream ones can’t say it in public yet. They cover the truth talking about refugees or the needs of the economy etc.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:43 | #

The BNP has published the original court order and it does seem that Griffin is correct in maintaining that removing the requirement for new members to agree to the principles in dispute, while retaining the principles themselves intact, will be sufficient for compliance.

It also appears that he is within the court’s order in re-opening membership since the closure is only required until the Constitution has been amended in compliance with the order, which Griffin has already done.

http://mybnp.co.uk/newsletter/ehrc.pdf

Being responsible for this kafkaesque nonsense only makes Wadham and the EHRC look even more ridiculous.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:40 | #

I’ve read that, Dan, and I agree that the wording on the membership requirement does allow re-opening.  It seems odd that none of the left-wing press have mentioned this latest twist in the affair.  I imagine that they were all, together with Wadham and Uppal, confidently expecting the party to have to call another EGM, then go back to the court.  They must be seething that the game has come to such an abrupt end.  Even so, one would have to say that the silence of the press does argue that the EHRC has grown mindful of not giving the BNP another easy propaganda victory with a risky and ill thought-out attempt to exploit the opportunities the prosecution has opened up, such as they are? It might be over for now.