General Question

RareDenver's avatar

Do you consider the current threat of legal action being taken against the British National Party (BNP) to be justifiable or is it political bullying?

Asked by RareDenver (13168points) June 24th, 2009

In its constitution, the BNP says it exists to represent 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”.

It says 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”.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said it had written to the party over possible breaches of the law in the BNP’s constitution and membership rules. It asked the BNP to pledge to comply with the Race Relations Act by 20 July or face a potential legal injunction.

The commission said the BNP’s constitution and membership criteria appeared to discriminate on the grounds of race and colour, in breach of the Race Relations Act as the party’s rules appeared to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regarded as particular “ethnic groups”.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

Jack79's avatar

So, you already have your answer. The BNP is illegal, and unless it specifically renounces racism, it should be banned and all of its members sent to jail. And personally, even if it did renounce racism (like most neo-nazi groups or parties in the world today), I still wouldn’t buy it.

RareDenver's avatar

@Jack79 I personally believe the actions threatened to be completely justifiable and I hope they are followed through but I have spoken to people who feel that they are being targeted for purely political motives.

Jack79's avatar

One does not deny the other. Recently a terrorist organisation was discovered and put to jail for a series of bombings and political assassinations. They insisted that they should be kept in the political prisoners ward, together with a group of former dictators and traitors. The government (wrongly in my opinion) decided to see them as common criminals. The motive for the terrorists was purely political (they had no other gain for their crimes), yet their actions were illegal. Similarly, it was out of political spite that the government refused to jail them in the political ward.

So yes, the BNP is targetted because of its ideology, but that’s only because its ideology is illegal. It would be safe in a society with a different legal system.

mammal's avatar

the British Nazi Party can rot
in their own blood flecked snot

bea2345's avatar

How can an ideology be illegal? does the UK have thought police? Don’t worry about the BNP; it can’t last long in a country where any three persons are a political party.

RareDenver's avatar


Sadly I can’t see the BNP disappearing any time soon, there has been a some sort of version of them since the 1940’s

benjaminlevi's avatar

@bea2345 but I would assume England has laws against preventing non-white people from joining your political party. If they received any tax money there is no way they could discriminate like that

mammal's avatar

@bea2345 well it is, if the ideology incites racial hatred, that would be the crudest transgression
we have domestic laws against that, not to mention European laws
no manner of thinking is illegal
obviously, but the public expression of that thought is subject to the law

Jack79's avatar

@mammal interesting point. I’ve always said that there are 3 levels to this (you identified 2)

1. Thinking (eg hating immigrants) which you probably can’t control anyway
2. Speaking (from rational arguments in newspapers on immigration laws to forming political parties and putting up posters saying “auslander raus”)
3. Acting (actually attacking immigrants, whether verbally or physically, firing them from your company, not allowing them to rent your apartment and so on)

The first one is obviously fine, the third one obviously not. I think the question here is where do we draw the line in the second one, and to what extend does “freedom of speech” violate someone else’s human rights? How vocal can people be in their opinions without being insulting to other members of a society? And when does protecting a group of people actually become an obstacle to the democratic rights of another group?

mammal's avatar

@Jack79 personally i am opposed to immigration, precisely because it empowers political movements like the BNP party, not to mention the fact that it is exploitative and undermines the lower payed indigenous worker economically, so the immigration issue is a legitimate political debate and political agenda, except when it carries with it the stench of fascism and xenophobia.

RareDenver's avatar

BNP to consider non-white members

It’s not like any non-whites would want to become members is it? But it’s a start I guess.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther