Judge closes BNP books over race bias

[hereward]

The BNP has been barred from taking new members after a judge ruled its constitution could discriminate against non-whites.

Judge Paul Collins issued an injunction ordering the far right group to comply with race equality laws.

He said: "The membership list will have to be closed until then."

Under the injunction, prospective party members will not in future have to be vetted at home before they are accepted.

Last month the BNP scrapped its whites-only policy in an attempt to avoid legal sanctions brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

But 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."
http://itn.co.uk/2891e6a846ead47db93ffe1edf536e09.html

[Loki]

BNP Membership Reopens Despite Race Gestapo’s Attempt to Subvert Democracy (http://bnp.org.uk/2010/03/bnp-membership-reopens-despite-race-gestapo%E2%80%99s-attempt-to-subvert-democracy/)

[Beorn]

...b..b..but we live in a democratic society....!

[RoyBatty]

...b..b..but we live in a democratic society....!

Guess nobody told our mainstream Corporate Sponsored politicians and judges! :rolleyes:

[Beorn]

Guess nobody told our mainstream Corporate Sponsored politicians and judges! :rolleyes:

What makes me angry is the truth, albeit of the overblown nature of the headline and the legal injuction.

What is wrong with the BNP accepting the presence of "non-whites" into their ranks? The BNP already have very staunch supporters which the media fail to regard. Jewish candidates, publically vocal Sikh supporters, etc, etc...

But some semblance of who and what can come through the doors and apply as a BNP member must be maintained. Otherwise you'd have hundreds of this...

"fight them from the inside" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8528921.stm)

In the words of what might have been the greatest Prime Minister Great Britain never had: "We must be mad, literally mad"

[Beorn]

BNP IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS TAKING THOUSANDS OF NEW MEMBERS BUT THE MEDIA WANT TO STILL TELL YOU LIES (http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/index.php/writers/others/1476-britain-bending-over-backwards-for-traitors-immigrants-and-liars)

SO WHAT'S NEW? (http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/index.php/writers/others/1476-britain-bending-over-backwards-for-traitors-immigrants-and-liars)



http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/plugins/content/fboxbot/thumbs/pretzel-man-large_320x311_d3860e97f35b852e515af363e288e127.jpg (http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/images/stories/pretzel-man-large.jpg)

(http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/images/stories/pretzel-man-large.jpg)
Well it seems Nick Griffin bending over backwards to protect the rights of British people in their own country to have the freedom to affiliate to a political view of their own was just not good enough for lawmakers.
Apparently, despite the British National Party having changed the party constitution 12 times, the 'Equal Opportunities Commissars', wanted blood as well, only it isn't 'our' blood they wanted, they want anyone's but.
Yet if this wasn't enough, the media frenzy in its efforts to hang Nick Griffin and the British people in public, led them to make a hue and cry about nothing in a blatant lie to propagandise to the British public that the party hadn't settled matters with the judge.


Here you have the BBC, stating a complete lie in its mad rush to misinform the British public in their millions

http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/images/stories/Snapshot_106.jpg
So sick are these Marxists, they simply can't wait to tell you yet another lie in saying that the BNP membership must remain "closed". I mean I can surely hear them giggling and cracking Champagne corks from Geordie Land here and I can imagine their pathetic faces turn 'white' with fright, that Party Chairman Mr Nick Griffin MEP, has confirmed that it is not.
As Mr Griffin said; We're Open, we're taking membership and we're going through the membership applications which amount to several thousands. He made a point that we won't be pushing ethnic applications on top like the government does but will instead be going through them in correct order.
They have since added in the truth about membership since Nick Griffin was interviewed

y4l35rCu-fY


It seems we indigenous British don't count when it comes to being offended, because we happen to have 'unfortunately' been born with the wrong colour skin pigment which is unsuitable to the establishment which wants rid of us all.
But as long as others who happen to not be our shade are happy then I guess 13 times for constitutional change may be 'lucky', and it may do the trick to get the party into a position where its members won't be discriminated against any longer.
We won't have hammers thrown at us, and will no longer be made the jape and scapegoats by the government and so called opposition who merely call us names to hide their own incompetence's and their own discrimination against the white British man and woman in this country.
Even the god damn hateful media will have to shut it or be seen by all and sundry, to be committing a hate crime against British people and their rights to political conscience.

Perhaps the media can turn its eye toward a real evil in our midst.
Perhaps it can now begin to tell the truth but I doubt it.
Perhaps it can look at stonings of rape victims, child brides, polygymy, female circumscissions, Rapes, Muggings and Murder, Christians being hacked to death, and to another political ideology which this Marxist Govt has brought here intentionally to support THEM in their never ending fight against the British people?
Maybe if all white British people jumped off Dover Cliffs then that might suit these scum better. Then they wouldn't have to worry about us not voting for them, gaining power in our own damn country, and ripping down the monstrous thing they did to us under the guise of 'fairness and equality', whilst they speak for no one but themselves when they explicitly state that this country belongs only to mongrels and ethnics.

[Anthropos]

It was not very clever to have a whites only policy in the first place, in my opinion.

[Kadu]

It was not very clever to have a whites only policy in the first place, in my opinion.

Indeed, they could've always refused applications based on other reasons, evaluating a membership's application is quite of a subjective matter.
It seems that the BNP is digging its own grave, they should have foreseen such situation and consulted a juridical advisor.

[lei.talk]

...b..b..but we live in a democratic society....!where is that bit of information published?
There has not been a government of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_of_England) since 1707 when the Kingdom of England ceased to exist as a sovereign state, as it merged with the Kingdom of Scotland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Both kingdoms had shared a single monarch since 1603 when James VI of Scotland also became James I of England (see Union of the Crowns).

Prior to the Acts of Union 1707, England was ruled by a monarch and the Parliament of England. Prior to 1707, the government of England was in fact the government of England and Wales since Wales was joined to England under the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 and from the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542, England and Wales formed a single legal system.

The Kingdom of Great Britain continued from 1707 until 1801 when it merged with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which itself became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922 upon independence for most of the island of Ireland. The UK since then has gone through significant change to its system of government, with devolved parliaments, assemblies and governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England, however, remains under the full jurisdiction, on all matters, of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the UK government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_United_Kingdom) as no devolved administration has been created for England within the new structure. This situation has led to the anomaly...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Democracyindex2.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)

[Baron Samedi]

LOL @ the BNP.

No one cares about Britain.... You fucks have let the hordes in.... Face your punishment as it's due.

[Imperivm]

LOL @ the BNP.

No one cares about Britain.... You fucks have let the hordes in.... Face your punishment as it's due.

How rude and unpleasant.

[British and Proud]

LOL @ the BNP.

No one cares about Britain.... You fucks have let the hordes in.... Face your punishment as it's due.

You are a brazen troll, and I am utterly shocked that your presence is tolerated on this forum.

As for the judge's decision, I am appalled!

It can no longer be claimed that Britain is a true Democracy. Today a government created quango effectively succeeded in determining the membership criteria and policies of an opposition party.

In a democracy ideologues gravitate together and form political parties, each party then formulates a manifesto which come election time is either rejected or endorsed by the electorate. When the ruling party starts interfering with and criminalising opposition parties, that is totalitarianism, not democracy!

[lei.talk]

Today a government created quango (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango) effectively succeeded in determining the membership criteria and policies of an opposition party.

In a democracy ideologues gravitate together and form political parties, each party then formulates a manifesto which come election time is either rejected or endorsed by the electorate. When the ruling party starts interfering with and criminalising opposition parties, that is totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism), not democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)!
a democracy? when (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=67619&highlight=cattle#post67619)?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Parliament_portcullis.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
It was not very clever to have a whites only policy in the first place, in my opinion.

Debatable, but that’s not really the issue is it?

In a supposed “democracy” that is supposedly “representative” the BNP are being forced to comply with an ideology that they don’t agree with and ostensibly were formed to fight against.

We now have a situation where extra-political, non accountable, tax funded institutions are enforcing a moral and ideological consensus in politics.


Originally Posted by British and Proud
It can no longer be claimed that Britain is a true Democracy.

With respect it never has been a true democracy and as a so called “representative democracy” the only people it has ever represented are the wealthy and powerful elite, and that reality is, and will be, the BNP’s undoing, they are fighting a battle on the ground chosen by their enemies and by their rules.

Some will argue, perhaps most, they had to give ground on their membership criteria, that may be correct…for party survival (although I hasten to add that the EHRC has no legal ground to stand on as the proposed Bill isn’t even law yet and some lawyers think the BNP would have had a good case to argue, however they didn't even try so that doesn't much matter). However the point still stands.

The reality is that the EHRC now dictates BNP policy. That is until the BNP are legislated out of existence….

[British and Proud]

Debatable, but that’s not really the issue is it?

In a supposed “democracy” that is supposedly “representative” the BNP are being forced to comply with an ideology that they don’t agree with and ostensibly were formed to fight against.

We now have a situation where extra-political, non accountable, tax funded institutions are enforcing a moral and ideological consensus in politics.



With respect it never has been a true democracy and as a so called “representative democracy” the only people it has ever represented are the wealthy and powerful elite, and that reality is, and will be, the BNP’s undoing, they are fighting a battle on the ground chosen by their enemies and by their rules.

Some will argue, perhaps most, they had to give ground on their membership criteria, that may be correct…for party survival (although I hasten to add that the EHRC has no legal ground to stand on as the proposed Bill isn’t even law yet and some lawyers think the BNP would have had a good case to argue, however they didn't even try so that doesn't much matter). However the point still stands.

The reality is that the EHRC now dictates BNP policy. That is until the BNP are legislated out of existence….

I believe the BNP was found to be in breach of the Race Relations Act, and not the proposed Equality Bill. The judge upheld the EHRC's allegation, which The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/23/bnp-discrimination-human-rights-commission) reports thus:


The Equality and Human Rights Commission wrote to the far-right party today saying that it believes the BNP is in breach of the Race Relations Act on three counts.

The EHRC was established by the current government and bestowed with considerable powers and funding. Bearing in mind that a top barrister can charge £5,000 per hour, and the EHRC is publicly funded, court action would have most likely bankrupted the party. I am sure of that. If the proposed Equality Bill is enacted, it would force the party to change its constitution regardless.

The EHRC has the power to investigate where it believes unlawful discrimination has taken place, and can ultimately bring about court proceedings. It will definitely monitor and harass the BNP, as that is arguably what it was established to do. I believe the Commission For Racial Equality, one of the bodies that was amalgamated to form the EHRC) tried to bring about such action some time ago, but hadn't the requisite powers. So yes, you're correct the EHRC will ensure the law is enforced, and a future government may well effectively legislate the BNP out of existence.

I will add that you're correct in your assertion that we haven never had a true democracy. In addition to your point, I would say that media bias would always prevent its existence, certainly in a society where it is as pervasive as 21st Century Britain. However at least when people could freely associate with their co-ideologues then there was was the possibility of change. When governments dictate their opponents' policies then there cannot be effective change.

We shall have to wait and see what effect, if any, this has on the BNP, however if you think the party really had a choice I would politely suggest you to think again.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by British and Proud
I believe the BNP was found to be in breach of the Race Relations Act, and not the proposed Equality Bill. The judge upheld the EHRC's allegation

My mistake, thanks.:)


We shall have to wait and see what effect, if any, this has on the BNP, however if you think the party really had a choice I would politely suggest you to think again.

Of course they didn’t have a choice (in any real sense) that was entirely the point of the exercise!

The BNP were given the choice of fighting a lengthy court battle, which they may or may not have won, but which would possibly have bankrupted the party and certainly tied them up for a time….or, effectively, abdicate…..

The people who run this country are ruthless, manipulative, devious, amoral, self interested bastards……that’s why they run the country. They will not let anyone stand in their way and words like democracy, law, justice, freedom are just that…..words.

It’s never been any different.

[Nationalitist]

Race doesn't exist anyway.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I'm a bit confused here. The link said that BNP now can't recruit new members. However on the BNP website it says it is now recruiting??

[Wulfhere]

I'm a bit confused here. The link said that BNP now can't recruit new members. However on the BNP website it says it is now recruiting??

Yes, that's because the ruling only focused on two specific points in the BNP constitution, which the chairman has the power to change. This may or may not go down well with the court, but whatever happens the BNP have played it very cleverly indeed, garnering untold free publicity. But why, oh why, are you so interested, if you dislike the British so much?

[SwordoftheVistula]

It was not very clever to have a whites only policy in the first place, in my opinion.


Indeed, they could've always refused applications based on other reasons, evaluating a membership's application is quite of a subjective matter.

That's illegal also, this is what the BNP was trying to do and was ruled illegal by the judge. It was ruled 'racial discrimination' to require members to support the following statements:

http://bnp.org.uk/2010/03/bnp-membership-reopens-despite-race-gestapo%E2%80%99s-attempt-to-subvert-democracy/

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.”

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.

[Baron Samedi]

Rude or not, it's the truth.

Your country fucked up, and now it's paying for it.

If you want to deny that, tough shit. I'm not here to powder your ass about the matter.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Yes, that's because the ruling only focused on two specific points in the BNP constitution, which the chairman has the power to change. This may or may not go down well with the court, but whatever happens the BNP have played it very cleverly indeed, garnering untold free publicity. But why, oh why, are you so interested, if you dislike the British so much?

I don't dislike the British people but rather you.

[Imperivm]

Rude or not, it's the truth.

Your country fucked up, and now it's paying for it.

If you want to deny that, tough shit. I'm not here to powder your ass about the matter.

Toy town is better? sirry americarn.

[Anthropos]

That's illegal also, this is what the BNP was trying to do and was ruled illegal by the judge. It was ruled 'racial discrimination' to require members to support the following statements:

http://bnp.org.uk/2010/03/bnp-membership-reopens-despite-race-gestapo%E2%80%99s-attempt-to-subvert-democracy/

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.”

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.
You intended to say that the BNP never had a whites only policy?

[SwordoftheVistula]

You intended to say that the BNP never had a whites only policy?

I was saying that the strategy of trying to have a 'whites only' policy without explicitly stating it as a policy would not work to defeat the ban, since 'discriminatory effect' is enough to find 'illegal discrimination'

[Baron Samedi]

Toy town is better? sirry americarn.

What you and Osweo fail to understand is that the same thing applies to my country as well.....

And we are suffering for it! :D

EDIT: I didn't clarify that, so give me some retard points....

[SwordoftheVistula]

http://vdare.com/gabb/100314_british.htm

Court Cripples British National Party For Being Too, Well, British

By Sean Gabb

On the most charitable view, Britain has, in recent years, become the world’s largest open air lunatic asylum. You only need open a newspaper to see the evidence—someone arrested for defending his life or home against attack; anti-terror laws used to stop the carrying of hairdryers in public; employers told not to advertise for “reliable” workers, so as not to discriminate against the unreliable.

And so it goes on. The stories almost jump off the page. Some of these may be touched up for a market that is greedy for them. Others may not bear much scrutiny. But enough are true to let people realize that this country has, over the past generation, become a very strange and perhaps a frightening place.

This strange and frightening quality, though, is not the product of insanity. The belief that our leaders have gone even barking mad, if worrying, is preferable to the truth—which is that, regardless of their party affiliations, they have, since at least 1960, been working for the total destruction of Britain as a country and the enslavement of its people.

As evidence for this, look at the way in which the British National Party has been treated.

For those unfamiliar with British politics, the BNP is this country’s most important white nationalist party. It denounces mass immigration and multi-culturalism, and the Politically Correct censorship and persecution that have been used to smother opposition. In the past few years, it has won elections to local representative bodies, and has two seats in the Parliament of the European Union. It may also, in the next few months, win a seat in the British Parliament.

The response of the British ruling class has been wholly rational. Given that these people want a police state and a population too Balkanized along racial and religious lines to offer any concerted resistance, they cannot tolerate a party like the BNP. Before 1999, when Nick Griffin became its leader, the BNP was broadly a national socialist organization. In those days, it had limited electoral appeal, and could safely be ignored, or sometimes held up for ridicule or execration. Now that Mr. Griffin has changed its core ideology, the party is an increasingly credible threat. Therefore, it must be destroyed.

During the past few years, it has been made illegal for members of the BNP to be policemen or prison workers. It is proposed that they should be prevented from working with children. Membership lists have been stolen. Many of those on the lists have come under pressure. Mr. Griffin himself was put on trial under our new hate crime laws for calling Islam—in a private meeting infiltrated by a media spy— “a wicked, vicious faith”. If convicted, he would have faced seven years in prison: after two trials, he was acquitted.

The main effort now is to destroy the BNP from within. Not surprisingly, its rules always confined membership to indigenous Caucasians. But a U.K. Government body called the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) decided in 2009 that this rule broke the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended), and took the party to court.

Needless to say, the EHRC had done nothing about, for example, the various black police organizations, which confined membership to black people. Indeed, the EHRC has never responded to one complaint of discrimination by these associations against white people. Then again, starting with its head, West Indian-descended Trevor Phillips, the EHRC is filled with supporters and nominees of the ruling Labour Party. Its whole function is to hound enemies of the “New Labour” ruling class through the courts.

Quite obviously, the prosecution of the BNP was not intended to promote “racial equality” as this might reasonably be defined. Its purpose was to destroy. According to the Blog of Operation Black Vote,

“Nic Careem, [Email him] a former Labour activist from Camden in north London, who is now with the Conservatives, said he originally argued that black and Asian people should join the BNP en mass [sic] to cause chaos and expose the extent of racism inside the party of Nick Griffin.”

In other words, the BNP is to be flooded with non-whites, who will then use further legal action—assuming the internal structures of the party are insufficient—to destroy it.

The courts forced Mr. Griffin to drop the restriction on membership. The BNP’s first non-white member was an elderly Sikh opponent of Islamic fundamentalism.

However, Mr. Griffin did impose two conditions on new members to block flooding attempts. First, he ruled that prospective members should be visited in their homes by BNP officials, to see if they were suitable for membership. Second, all members were required to declare support for “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race, and action towards “stemming and reversing” immigration.

This second rule seems to have been used to stop a rich Pakistani called Mo Chaudry from joining. He had said he would join the party to “fight them from the inside”. [Asian businessman fights to join BNP, Channel 4 News, March 12 2010]

This did not suit the EHRC. It took the BNP to court again, arguing that the requirement amounted to indirect racial discrimination.

Last Friday, 12th March 2010, Paul Collins, the most senior County Court Judge in London, agreed with the EHRC. He outlawed the requirement for home visits, saying that this might lead to intimidation—though admitting that there was no evidence it ever had. He also outlawed the requirement to declare support for party principle and policy. The Judge 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”. [New BNP membership rules judged to be biased, Manchester Evening News, March 12, 2010]

The basis for this reasoning, the Judge claimed, is that, while no BNP policy breaks the law, no non-white person could support these policies without compromising their “personal sense of self-worth and dignity as a member of their racial group”.

And so the BNP is now required to accept members regardless of whether they agree with BNP policy.

Nick Griffin was forced on the spot to change his party’s membership criteria, or face jail for himself and forfeiture of party assets.

Of course, this is a bizarre ruling. In the first place, the claim that non-whites cannot support the policies of the BNP is untrue in fact. Some do. It is also patronizing for any outsider to tell people how they should view their “personal sense of self-worth and dignity as a member of their racial group”. That is properly a matter for every individual to decide for himself.

In the second place, the principle stated by Judge Collins leads to absurdity. If I am a white supremacist, I will be deterred from joining Unite Against Fascism, because I shall be expected to support policies contrary to my own sense of my “self-worth” and “dignity”. If I am a devout Christian, I will be deterred from becoming a Moslem, because I shall be required to say that Mohammed is the Prophet of God. If I am a devout Moslem, I will be deterred from becoming a Christian, because I shall be required to believe that Christ was the Son of God. If the principle enunciated by Judge Collins is to be consistently applied, all these groups must be compelled to accept their opponents.

But the principle will not be consistently applied. As in Zimbabwe, the British courts are increasingly creatures of the ruling party. The Judge had no choice but to rule as he did.

Britain is no longer a free country. It is a police state, in which freedom of speech is being narrowed to allow nothing more than polite disagreement with the authorities over things not regarded as central to the 1997 New Labour Revolution—and in which freedom of association means nothing at all.

Within the next few years, it is likely that the BNP will be banned. This may be an honest ban, in the sense that the party is directly outlawed by Act of Parliament. But, more likely, all candidates will be forced to take an oath of loyalty to the established order before they can stand for election. Any candidate who does falsely swear support for the creation and fostering of “diversity”, and who is elected, will then face being unseated and prosecuted the moment he opens his mouth.

For the moment, however, the BNP can be flooded by its political opponents. This may be enough to finish the party as a threat. It will not happen in time to prevent the party from fighting its campaign in the general election that must be held within the next few months. But Mr. Griffin was presented the other day with a legal bill variously estimated at between £60,000 and £100,000—is it any coincidence that this money must be handed over just weeks before a general election, and by a party that is already short of money?

Of course, all of this scandalous.

What I also find scandalous is that so few people other than supporters of the BNP are prepared to speak out against it. I am a libertarian, not a white nationalist. I have never voted for the BNP or any similar party. And I seem to be the only person of my kind, and with any degree of prominence in my country, who is willing to complain.

What is being done to the BNP is unfair in itself, and sets a frightening precedent. We have now reached a point in Britain where no one can truly claim to believe in freedom of speech or freedom of association unless he is willing to stand up in public for the right of Nick Griffin and the British National Party to speak their minds and to organize in support of what they believe.

Dr. Sean Gabb [Email him] is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back is downloadable here.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Here is the actual court order. It forbids the BNP from requiring members to agree or 'not be opposed to' their policies on 'stemming or reversing' immigration:

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