Judge rules BNP's new constitution still discriminatory.

[H.R. Haldeman]

The reporting on this is very thin and kinda opaque at the moment. For example the PA says:

[The court] ordered the removal of the pledge to oppose immigration into the UK and maintain Britons as the "overwhelming majority" racial group.

The Press Association: Griffin reopens BNP recruitment

Hmmmm...I think that must be awkward wording by the PA reporter because surely a court cannot rule that members be obliged to agree with immigration. That could not conceivably discriminate against anyone since anyone, even an immigrant, could hold that belief. Indeed, it is a well known phenomenon in modern Britain that older, conservative (small c, but probably big C too) first generation Asians are very cool on immigration. I think the reporter is splitting a single concept in two needlessly, causing confusion.

Another interesting para from the Guardian, reporting on the Equality and HR Commission:

The commission welcomed the ruling, saying it proved 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.

BNP 'whites-only' membership rules outlawed | Politics | guardian.co.uk

I instinctively disagreed with this at first, but after thinking about it a while I actually think it does make sense. It's a pretty delicate moral and intellectual conundrum though.

[sondagefaux]

From the Equality and Human Rights Commission website.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has won its enforcement case against the BNP, after a ruling today that the party’s new revised constitution is indirectly racially discriminatory. The Commission had already told the court that the BNP needed to alter its previous constitution because it was directly racially discriminatory. Both kinds of discrimination are unlawful.

The Commission has a statutory duty, under the Equality Act 2006, to enforce the provisions of the Act and to work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination. On that basis, the Commission wrote to the BNP chairman, Nick Griffin in June 2009 regarding its 11th Constitution which the Commission considered unlawful as it permitted only white members.

The Commission asked Mr Griffin to agree to change the Constitution to ensure did not breach the Race Relations Act. He refused to do so and the Commission then applied to the Court for an order that the membership criteria be changed.

At a subsequent court hearing on 28 January 2010, Mr Griffin agreed to change the Constitution of the BNP to allow non-white members. On 14 February the BNP undertook the action requested by the Commission and voted on a new 12th Constitution which stated that membership of the party was open to members of any descent or origin. However it introduced new objectionable membership criteria.

The Commission was concerned that the new constitution now indirectly discriminated against ethnic minority people and prevented them from joining the party. Robin Allen QC argued on behalf of the Commission that prospective members would have to sign up to certain principles and statements that would require them to deny their ethnic and cultural identities.

These included clauses which indicated that prospective members must be against mixed race relationships and support the relocation of ethnic minorities either abroad or to different parts of the UK. The Commission was of the view that very few members of ethnic minorities would be able to sign up to these principles, making the membership criteria indirectly discriminatory.

The Commission was also concerned that the 12th Constitution forced prospective members to submit to a two hour home visit by two party members as part of their application process.

The Commission therefore asked the Court to rule on whether the revised constitution remained discriminatory and consequently unlawful.

Today's judgment has completely upheld the view of the Commission. The judge found that, while it is not unlawful to hold discriminatory views, it is unlawful for such principles to be used to control entry to a political party. Accordingly the BNP would be acting unlawfully if they operated membership criteria as set out in the 12th Constitution.

EHRC - Amended BNP constitution ruled indirectly discriminatory

[ivnryn]

Clearly for a political Party to function with a distinct identity in a Democracy it must be able to vet its potential members to ensure they are genuine about joining

Exactly. Of all organisations, political parties need to be able to decide on their own method of selecting members. Otherwise, it is impossible for groups of people to form parties.

[hmmm]

As much as I hate the BNP the use of a Quango to stifle democracy is not something I am comfortable with.

Tough one but I agree.

[FutureTaoiseach]

While the BNP's rules banning inter-racial marriage and assimilation are contemptible, this ruling plays into their hands by appearing not to respect their mandate as MEPs.

[The court] ordered the removal of the pledge to oppose immigration into the UK and maintain Britons as the "overwhelming majority" racial group

Wanting to restrict immigration and remain the majority in your own country - on the other hand - are not necessarily racist positions. That bit is PC gone mad.

[sondagefaux]

These are some of the clauses in the constitution that fell foul of the law.

Our party is a party of British Nationalism, both ethnic and civic, and we are committed to the principle of national sovereignty in all our British Homeland affairs and of self determination and sovereignty in all Indigenous British affairs.

We are pledged to the continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence of the unity and of the integrity of the Indigenous British and of the government of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and of Eire, which together, and as further expanded in Schedule 1 (“Interpretation Rules”), are referred to in this, our constitution, as our “British Homeland.”

Northern Ireland and 'Eire' are part of the 'British Homeland'?

Don't think so Nick.

Section 3.2.3 reads as follows:

We are pledged to stemming and reversing the immigration into our British Homeland that has, without the express consent of the Indigenous British, taken place since 1948, and to restoring and maintaining, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the Indigenous British as the overwhelming majority in the make-up of the population and expression of culture in each part of our British Homeland.

It used to read.

(b)The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.

These are the old membership rules.

SECTION 2: MEMBERSHIP
1)The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political,
Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous
Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as
closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the
European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined
within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal
ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic
groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of
Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL.
2)The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous
Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic
Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The
Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic
Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The
Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The
Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic
groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.

3)Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over
and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2

.

[idontgethangovers]

This discussion just shows the complete failure of so called "parlimentary democracy". The present system in the western world allows these sick xenophobes the right to spout their hatred to an uneducted audience. Until all people are given an equitable education and given the opportunity to reach their potential, there will allways be an audience for their bile.

[gnasher]

While the BNP's rules banning inter-racial marriage and assimilation are contemptible, this ruling plays into their hands by appearing not to respect their mandate as MEPs.Wanting to restrict immigration and remain the majority in your own country - on the other hand - are not necessarily racist positions. That bit is PC gone mad.

But until their recent constitutional adjustments they were - very specifically - committed to "stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population".

And when they talk about becoming a minority in their own country, they're counting millions of non-white British citizens (many second- and third-generation British-born) as being not British. If you think that's "PC gone mad" rather than straightforward racism then there's something wrong with you.

[hmmm]

This discussion just shows the complete failure of so called "parlimentary democracy". The present system in the western world allows these sick xenophobes the right to spout their hatred to an uneducted audience.

True, it would be much better if a central committee of our betters told us how we should think. We would also find it easier to eliminate those with thoughts that were unsuitable for our collective.

[idontgethangovers]

True, it would be much better if a central committee of our betters told us how we should think. We would also find it easier to eliminate those with thoughts that were unsuitable for our collective.

Obviously you dont agree with education or you would have read my comment instead of just looking at my banner. Typical of those who support the BNP.