The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

[stinka]

You're a dying breed. Bye bye

lol, how wrong you are

I'm like "him" and so are many people I know.

THIS IS OURS NOW

 

[semi-pro waster]

Yes the truth is that everyone should be up in arms about this. Even those who may utterly despise the BNP and everything they stand for, should nonetheless be united in opposition to this attack on DEMOCRACY.

They are essentially banning political views they do not like, and trying to kill off a political party which they see as a threat. God knows they may succeed because they hold all the cards. This is fascism, plain and simple.

If the BNP complied with the Race Relations Act which is a legal requirement for all organisations then this wouldn't be an issue. There may be a question of whether the Race Relations Act should exist (and I suspect we may differ on this point) but it isn't as if the Act has suddenly come into existence and the BNP are being forced to react in undue haste - it's over 30 years old now, I'd say that's a fair period of time to understand the nuances of it.

lol, how wrong you are

I'm like "him" and so are many people I know.

THIS IS OURS NOW

What is yours now? Who are you claiming it from and why?

 

[dirtydog]

Have you not seen This is England?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Have you not seen This is England?

Well, colour me embarrassed. I've seen the film a while back and didn't make the link. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[meghatronic]

If anyone is out in Manchester today, on Market Street there are the usual anti-BNP protestors/petitioners.

Their slogans this week:

"DOWN WITH THE BNP"

"SMASH FASCISM"

etc.

I didn't want to point out the hypocrisy.

 

[RDM]

If the BNP complied with the Race Relations Act which is a legal requirement for all organisations then this wouldn't be an issue.

But to do so goes against their core values, if we allow exemption from anti-discrimination legislation for other organisations then shouldn't the same be true of the BNP? What we are effectively doing is forcing them to change their core values, but it is OK because we don't agree with them? Basically we are saying "It is illegal for you to be racist, it is illegal for you to campaign for a white britain." I feel that there should either be exemption from parts of the legislation allowed (with full disclosure along side such exemption) or every organisation should have to fully comply with all parts of anti-discrimination legislation. Despite my abhorence for the BNPs views I think this is a very undemocratic move. Silencing voices you do not agree with is not a healthy thing in a democracy.

There may be a question of whether the Race Relations Act should exist (and I suspect we may differ on this point) but it isn't as if the Act has suddenly come into existence and the BNP are being forced to react in undue haste - it's over 30 years old now, I'd say that's a fair period of time to understand the nuances of it.

So if it has been around for so long, why has it taken so long for the BNP to end up in court? Lets be honest, it is political revenge for the fact that they managed to get a couple of MEPs.

 

[semi-pro waster]

But to do so goes against their core values, if we allow exemption from anti-discrimination legislation for other organisations then shouldn't the same be true of the BNP? What we are effectively doing is forcing them to change their core values, but it is OK because we don't agree with them? Basically we are saying "It is illegal for you to be racist, it is illegal for you to campaign for a white britain." I feel that there should either be exemption from parts of the legislation allowed (with full disclosure along side such exemption) or every organisation should have to fully comply with all parts of anti-discrimination legislation. Despite my abhorence for the BNPs views I think this is a very undemocratic move. Silencing voices you do not agree with is not a healthy thing in a democracy.

Which organisations are you thinking of that are exempt from anti-discrimination legislation (either explicitly or implicitly)?

However as a basic point then I'd say all should be expected to comply or none should which would negate the point of the legislation. If the latter option then that's equally fine, I'll be hoping that people will choose of their own volition not to subscribe to the BNP's views but I'll hardly be surprised if some will.

So if it has been around for so long, why has it taken so long for the BNP to end up in court? Lets be honest, it is political revenge for the fact that they managed to get a couple of MEPs.

I wondered if anyone would pick up that point. I don't know why it has taken so long, maybe it took this long to get up the required political will, maybe it's only because the BNP is now being viewed as an organisation of enough substance to make the case worthwhile, maybe it's retribution - although I'm not all that sure it matters much if the law is applied equally and fairly to all.

However as I pointed out it isn't as if the BNP can possibly claim to have been unaware of the Act or taken by surprise that it exists - they've had a substantial period of time to consider their position and make appropriate changes to their constitution.

 

[Tinders]

Hasnt it got something to do with the fact that once a party gets to a certain size (in terms of membership and power for the electorate) it has to comply with extra regulations.

 

[dirtydog]

Hasnt it got something to do with the fact that once a party gets to a certain size (in terms of membership and power for the electorate) it has to comply with extra regulations.

What a convenient way of maintaining the status quo. Outlaw any party whose policies differ from the mainstream. You want to vote for a party who champions the interests of indigenous British? SORRY THAT'S ILLEGAL

 

[mollymoo]

It does appear to be somewhat wrong really. I think the above post sort of says it all.

 

[No1newts]

What a convenient way of maintaining the status quo. Outlaw any party whose policies differ from the mainstream. You want to vote for a party who champions the interests of indigenous British? SORRY THAT'S ILLEGAL

Hate the BNP but well said

 

[RDM]

Which organisations are you thinking of that are exempt from anti-discrimination legislation (either explicitly or implicitly)?

Quite a few religions and possibly some charaties.

However as a basic point then I'd say all should be expected to comply or none should which would negate the point of the legislation. If the latter option then that's equally fine, I'll be hoping that people will choose of their own volition not to subscribe to the BNP's views but I'll hardly be surprised if some will.

If the legislation should exist (and generally I would say that it should, if not then some sort of disclosure information instead so people can make informed choices) then I think some exemptions should be allowed. For example churches are allowed in certain circumstances as far as gender and sexual orientation, political parties should be too in certain limited respects. Otherwise what we are basically doing is saying "these viewpoints are not allowed to be represented". Which from a democratic point of view I think is wrong. I too would hope that people would choose not to subscribe to the BNPs views, but just because they do I do not think they should not be allowed to participate in the political process.

 

[PermaBanned]

What a convenient way of maintaining the status quo. Outlaw any party whose policies differ from the mainstream. You want to vote for a party who champions the interests of indigenous British? SORRY THAT'S ILLEGAL

None of us then?

The problem of immigration is a complex one that requires a complex solution, not the idiotically simple one that the BNP are suggesting. After all of the work we've done for equality you really believe we should take is back to the 1800s?

 

[rypt]

I did love it how the judge somehow managed to make being a party for "indigenous Britons" (whatever that may be) illegal.

 

[Dolph]

Quite a few religions and possibly some charaties.]

Erm, no. Not with the race relations act (as used in this case).

There are only two meaningful categories of exemption from the race relations act.

(1) Genuine Occupational Qualification ( GOQ) - Section 5(2) of the Race Relations
Act provides that where being a member of a racial group is a genuine occupationalqualification for a job, it is lawful to discrimination on those grounds

For example, it is not illegal to exclude a white actor from applying to play a black character.

(2) Positive Action by employers, training bodies, trade unions and professional organisations for the purpose of promoting the entry of persons of a particular racial group into work where the group is underrepresented.

Pretty self explanatory (although I disagree with this provision myself).

Religious bodies and charities have exemption from other acts (especially those involving gender or sexuality equality) but not from the race relations act.

If the legislation should exist (and generally I would say that it should, if not then some sort of disclosure information instead so people can make informed choices) then I think some exemptions should be allowed. For example churches are allowed in certain circumstances as far as gender and sexual orientation, political parties should be too in certain limited respects. Otherwise what we are basically doing is saying "these viewpoints are not allowed to be represented". Which from a democratic point of view I think is wrong. I too would hope that people would choose not to subscribe to the BNPs views, but just because they do I do not think they should not be allowed to participate in the political process.

Given the above, I can't see why the BNP should be exempt from rules to prevent institutionally racist organisations from operating.

 

[RDM]

Erm, no. Not with the race relations act (as used in this case).

Which is why I have mentioned "anti-discrimination legislation" rather than the race relations act.

Religious bodies and charities have exemption from other acts (especially those involving gender or sexuality equality) but not from the race relations act.

Exactly. In some circumstances deeply held beliefs are allowed to trump anti-discrimination legislation. Why should a party that is inherently racist and wants a white Britain not therefore be allowed to have a party along those lines?

 

[Delvis]

I'll be hoping that people will choose of their own volition not to subscribe to the BNP's views but I'll hardly be surprised if some will.

But more and more people will join, because they are getting more and more sick of how things are going.

I wondered if anyone would pick up that point. I don't know why it has taken so long, maybe it took this long to get up the required political will, maybe it's only because the BNP is now being viewed as an organisation of enough substance to make the case worthwhile, maybe it's retribution - although I'm not all that sure it matters much if the law is applied equally and fairly to all.

However as I pointed out it isn't as if the BNP can possibly claim to have been unaware of the Act or taken by surprise that it exists - they've had a substantial period of time to consider their position and make appropriate changes to their constitution.

The reason is, because the BNP actually now has a 'decent' following (ie numbers), so theyre scared...end of basically. They finally have to bring up this act to try and get rid of them.

Quite funny really

 

[Delvis]

None of us then?

The problem of immigration is a complex one that requires a complex solution, not the idiotically simple one that the BNP are suggesting. After all of the work we've done for equality you really believe we should take is back to the 1800s?

You'd be surprised how many people on here actually voted for BNP

 

[Dolph]

Which is why I have mentioned "anti-discrimination legislation" rather than the race relations act.

Exactly. In some circumstances deeply held beliefs are allowed to trump anti-discrimination legislation. Why should a party that is inherently racist and wants a white Britain not therefore be allowed to have a party along those lines?

Only where other forms of rights could have been infringed (eg the right to freedom of religion conflicting with the right of non-discrimination). What part of the BNP's belief comes under a protected right?

 

[RDM]

Only where other forms of rights could have been infringed (eg the right to freedom of religion conflicting with the right of non-discrimination). What part of the BNP's belief comes under a protected right?

Right to political freedom? At the moment we are basically saying that they do not have the right to have their views represented.