 |
| spirifer |
|
The BNP is facing the threat of an injunction from the official body on race discrimination, in what is believed to be the first such action against a political party. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the independent watchdog on discrimination, wrote to the BNP today stating that it believes the party is in breach of the Race Relations Act on three counts.
|
|
Currently, BNP recruitment is open to members of the party who, according to its constitution, are of … "'indigenous Caucasian' and defined 'ethnic groups' emanating from that Race". "The commission thinks that this requirement is contrary to the Race Relations Act, which outlaws the refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation," a statement released by the commission says. "The commission is therefore concerned that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally." Other potential breaches of the law raised in the letter include concerns that the BNP's elected representatives may not intend to offer or provide services on an equal basis to all their constituents irrespective of race and their membership criteria.
|
|
The action by the commission is likely to have serious implications, and could lead to further measures, including an injunction against the party and possible legal challenges in court. "We await a response from the BNP to our letter before deciding what further action we may take, " Wadham said. "Litigation or enforcement action can be avoided by the BNP giving a satisfactory response to our letter."
|
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of utter c*nts, eh? 
| 15 Jul 09, 10:02 AM Filth_Wizard UK(RM), 8 yrs  |
Did you have to include the link? I didn't think a turd could smile, but now the Guardian have proof... | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 10:04 AM Mistress_Dragonfly UK(B), 4 yrs |
Good! Hate the bastards and that's putting it mildly...... | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 10:05 AM SimplySal 6 yrs |
I believe they have until July the 20th to come up with a response; it will be interesting to see which they value more, their existence or their basic ethos. Mind you, I bet Nickerless has got his lawyers and legal bods running round like headless chickens trying to wangle a way 'round things. I'm watching the proceedings with interest... | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 11:06 AM Tanos  UK(M), 14 yrs   |
I'm sure they'll value all the free publicity they will get by martyring themselves as they escalate this through the courts and the appeals processes. And all the while, they will be saying "what about the black and Asian police organisations?" Does anyone really think this is going to get them less votes from the white people who feel discriminated against by the liberal establishment?
Feeding them this kind of attention is a really stupid thing for the EHRC to be doing: it's exactly what they want Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk Edited 15 Jul 09, 11:08 AM by Tanos | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 11:45 AM Prunesquallor UK(RG), 7 yrs |
Yes, I agree. And if the ERC win their case, it won't do any good, because I can't see that there will be millions of non-caucasian people clamouring to join. | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 12:06 PM Max_Bedroom 5 yrs |
*waits for usual suspects to turn up and start defending the BNP, with a few more shots about the evils of immigrants* The easy part of life is playing by the rules. The fucking hard bit is working out what the rules are. | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 12:13 PM SimplySal 6 yrs |
The thing of it is, they neglect to point out that the Black Police Assoc. has no ethnicity or race bar. Funnily enough, they also neglect to use groups like the British Association for Women in Policing to illustrate their point; can't imagine why..... ....is the publicity bad publicity? Do all those who vote for the BNP know that ethnicity dictates mebership of the party? I'm not sure. In this case, I wonder whether the EHRC aren't actually shedding light on things? | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 12:17 PM stormywaters PT, 4 yrs |
Well I have a lot of sympathy with this. It is an old old dilemma. The other argument is that you have eventually to take a stand. Of course they will get publicity and milk the underdog, martydom line for all they can but the question is whether in the long run society is better and stronger for getting this out in the open and really facing what our rules are going to be about racial discrimination. There is a real world of law and policy behind the strange frothy world of spin and media minipulation. Politics is not in the end a matter of who is most skilled at presentation. The extreme form of the counter argument, I suppose, is to say that leaving them alone for fear of giving them publicity is like saying ignore them and they will go away. I think society is like an individul: if you do not confront what you are doing and the way you treat other people you will not change, you will not develop. So with societies. My object all sublime... | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 1:47 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
The approach of not engaging with the BNP or their issues has been tried and it hasn't worked especially well. If there's a not-too-draconian way of just killing the party off legally then I say go for it. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for Chuck Norris to change sides. | ||
| 15 Jul 09, 2:03 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs |
I'm not for a moment suggesting not debating with them on any platform that can get themselves on. That bit is essential IMO, and student-politics style boycotts do just give them a free ride. It's trying to shut them down with legal means that I believe is incredibly counter-productive, because it looks exactly like the kind of paternalistic, We Know Best attitude towards white working class voters that the BNP have tapped into.
That really is a suicidal option You can't use legal means to kill off groups that can get votes in a democratic society: they just change their name and start again. The internet, cellphones etc makes all of this worse, as it makes it cheaper and cheaper to organise and publicise what they're doing - look at all of the demonstrations in Iran recently, organised just with SMS and social networking sites despite living in a police state. That means you can't win with an NUM-style attack of catching them breaking a law and then sequestrating their funds to paralyse them. It's votes that matter. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk |
