PDA

View Full Version : Bill will ban 'white-only' BNP



Spaniard_Truth
06-15-2009, 04:01 PM
The British National Party will be forced to admit black and Jewish members under the Government's new Equalities Bill, ministers revealed today.

Commons leader Harriet Harman said the new legislation would make it illegal to have a "whites-only" political party in the UK.

Under the BNP's constitution, membership is "strictly defined" as "indigenous Caucasian".

Ms Harman said the bill will outlaw such restrictions in a bid to stop "apartheid-style" politics being imported to Britain.

She told the Commons: "We have all been shocked and horrified by the fact that two great regions of this country - the North-West and Yorkshire and Humberside - are represented by the British National Party - a party who have in their constitution a provision that you cannot be a member if you are not white.

"In the Equality Bill passing through this house, that constitution will be unlawful."

Ms Harman said she hoped the Tories would now stop opposing the bill because "it prevents us having an apartheid political party in this country".

She said: "I think all of us should agree there's no place for a party in this country to have an apartheid constitution."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23706702-details/Bill+will+ban+%27white-only%27+BNP/article.do

Beorn
06-15-2009, 04:21 PM
As terrible and unreasonable as this may sound at first glance, the positive of implementing this scheme upon the BNP could actually work towards the BNPs favour and blow-up in the faces of the establishment.

So the BNP already has Jewish members and Jewish candidates in some constituencies. This we know and acknowledge. I don't find this a problem as the tag is 'British' and not 'English' or specifically, not driven towards an ethnically pure population. The inclusion of blacks and Polish people as voters in the last EU elections goes to show that the BNP is breaking down racial doors and barriers, and rightly so.

As much as we would all like to live in this all White utopia in Hobbit houses and communal societies; the reality is that people who are not in the above dream are here to stay, and short of anything but genocide would remove them.

Let the government legally require the BNP to allow non-Whites into the BNP party. What will happen as the ranks swell with disaffected middle class black families mirroring the same concerns that White families have been saying for sometime?

What excuse will the establishment have when the BNP make further gains in the EU and at local and national level? That the BNP are racist?


As a side note, I have seen a few people make mention that this is wrong to enforce non-Whites into a White organisation on the grounds that there are organisations like the National Black Police Association (http://www.nationalbpa.com/), or some such other organisation; but these are not politically pushing for elections and rule. They are simply organisations that highlight plights and wants of minorities and often include Whites within their membership.

If these organisations were to enter the realm of contesting elections, then the ones with colour based entry requirements would also come under this law.

Lenny
06-15-2009, 04:24 PM
As much as we would all like to live in this all White utopia in Hobbit houses and communal societies; the reality is that people who are not in the above dream are here to stay, and short of anything but genocide would remove them.

Let the government legally require the BNP to allow non-Whites into the BNP party. What will happen as the ranks swell with disaffected middle class black families mirroring the same concerns that White families have been saying for sometime?

What excuse will the establishment have when the BNP make further gains in the EU and at local and national level? That the BNP are racist?
What is the BNP's "raison d'etre"? To advance itself as a political party?

Take three or four steps in that direction, and suddenly one day you wake up to find the Abyss staring back.

Beorn
06-15-2009, 04:36 PM
What is the BNP's "raison d'etre"? To advance itself as a political party?

At present it has no other choice. It has defined itself along the lines of a "racist" party in its past and has lost out.


Take three or four steps in that direction, and suddenly one day you wake up to find the Abyss staring back.

It could be argued we already are. It has positively cocked its eye squarely upon us.

Spaniard_Truth
06-15-2009, 04:41 PM
The inclusion of blacks and Polish people as voters in the last EU elections goes to show that the BNP is breaking down racial doors and barriers, and rightly so.

And once they've done that, would it even matter if they were voted in or not? They would just mirror every other party. I mean, what do they even stand for these days? 'Cultural integration'? That means nothing to nationalists. I'd rather minorities were segregated than integrated because I care about genes more than memes.


Let the government legally require the BNP to allow non-Whites into the BNP party. What will happen as the ranks swell with disaffected middle class black families mirroring the same concerns that White families have been saying for sometime?

Black people will be concerned that the country is filling up with too many black people :confused:

What will more likely occur is that cultural concerns will take a front seat. Issues of the day will focus on whether immigrants should wear burqas, whether affirmative action should be scrapped etc. just like every other centre-right party.


What excuse will the establishment have when the BNP make further gains in the EU and at local and national level? That the BNP are racist?

They still would. But regardless, what will their gains stand for if blacks and whoever else can relate to them and support them?


As a side note, I have seen a few people make mention that this is wrong to enforce non-Whites into a White organisation on the grounds that there are organisations like the National Black Police Association (http://www.nationalbpa.com/), or some such other organisation; but these are not politically pushing for elections and rule. They are simply organisations that highlight plights and wants of minorities and often include Whites within their membership.

If these organisations were to enter the realm of contesting elections, then the ones with colour based entry requirements would also come under this law.

Surely there must be something in the British constitution prohibiting an elected power from passing legislation against its political opposition. It defies everything the British enlightenment stood for. In America it would be a definite no-no. Not even conceivable. Yet isn't America founded on British ideals? To me the entire concept is repugnant.

Beorn
06-15-2009, 05:27 PM
And once they've done that, would it even matter if they were voted in or not?

Of course it would! They'd still be a political party which would have the interests of the White indigenous population of Britain before any other.


I'd rather minorities were segregated than integrated because I care about genes more than memes. So would I. And so do the BNP. It is one of the first to display the disparities of numerous cultures placed next to each other in the name of multiculturalism.


Black people will be concerned that the country is filling up with too many black people :confused:It isn't that clear cut though, is it? The "black people" coming into Britain are not the same as the black people already settled here. They have nothing in common in either language, culture or perception.

It's very telling when even black people you know start to sound like the typical white nationalist.


They still would. But regardless, what will their gains stand for if blacks and whoever else can relate to them and support them? A lot! Largely based around the clearance of immigrants and asylum seekers, law reforms, political reforms, etc...

Fortis in Arduis
06-15-2009, 06:16 PM
Indeed, Wat Tyler, but surely we do not want the BNP to go the way of the Front National?

In other words, a multi-racial fascist party.

Indigenous and closely kindred peoples should have the right to a certain exclusivity in associastion.

Although from what I understand, the Black Policemans' Association does admit non-whites as members.

Cato
06-15-2009, 09:46 PM
How many non-whites would have such a close connection to the UK that many whites do?

RoyBatty
06-15-2009, 09:53 PM
Although from what I understand, the Black Policemans' Association does admit non-whites as members.

In other words, they're racist as f*** but of course never get called for it in the Ziopress.

Reminds me of my time at Uni when I attempted to join a radical black consciousness movement only to be fobbed off by the racist female black militant who handled registrations. This incident seriously hurt my feelings and traumatised me for life (not).

It proved a point to me that the crying about apartheid and racial victimisation by blacks was all a load of bs and that they were as "bad" or worse than any "whiteys".

RoyBatty
06-15-2009, 09:55 PM
How many non-whites would have such a close connection to the UK that many whites do?

Many thanks to globalisation

Lahtari
06-15-2009, 10:18 PM
What's the point? Why would a black person even want to join the BPN, if it is such an evil racist party? :scratch:

Phlegethon
06-15-2009, 11:39 PM
It is one thing not to accept non-whites as members. It is a completely different thing to have a charter that totally unnecessarily restricts membership to "Caucasians". If you have no such stipulation in the charter you don't give your enemy extra ammunition and it is still up to the local chapter to accept applications or deny them.

This story only corroborates my view that the BNP leadership is a bunch of race-fantasizing nutcases. Using the term "Caucasian" in the 21st century puts them about on the same intellectual level as the 2nd era Ku Klux Klan. Just without the success of the latter.

SwordoftheVistula
06-16-2009, 10:07 AM
Of course it would! They'd still be a political party which would have the interests of the White indigenous population of Britain before any other.

Until they force the BNP to accept them as Voting Members, which would be the next step.

Another problem is that now that the BNP has the money to hire full time staff, this could open them up to employment discrimination claims (I am assuming the UK has some sort of employment anti-discrimination law). Right now that whole mess is avoided because they can just say they only hire or prefer party members.


It is one thing not to accept non-whites as members. It is a completely different thing to have a charter that totally unnecessarily restricts membership to "Caucasians". If you have no such stipulation in the charter you don't give your enemy extra ammunition and it is still up to the local chapter to accept applications or deny them.

The parties in the UK are organized along national lines, membership applications go to the central office instead of the local branch. It would become rather obvious anyways if all the members were white, might as well be obvious about it.

Also, I am unsure about the details of UK race laws, but they probably have some sort of 'pattern of discrimination' law, meaning that if for example in a certain year the party accepts 85% of white applicants but only 55% of black applicants, there would be found a 'pattern of discrimination' and the burden would shift to the BNP to explain in court why there is that discrepancy other than racial bias.

Again, this would present a problem with the employment laws. Say for example that Khalid Muhammad has an impressive CV, joins the BNP, and some years later applies for a job as regional organizer. Instead the job goes to Billy Jackson, an unemployed builder who joined the party around the same time as Khalid Muhammad. Khalid Muhammad brings a lawsuit or discrimination complaint with whichever body in the UK handles these, and again the BNP is on the hook to explain why exactly the position has gone to Billy Jackson instead of Khalid Muhammad and prove that racial bias was not a factor.


Using the term "Caucasian" in the 21st century puts them about on the same intellectual level as the 2nd era Ku Klux Klan.

Nice to know the US Census Bureau is controlled by the Ku Klux Klan, as that is the term they use, as do all other PC/government organizations. Apparently that is the case in the UK as well, which is why the term was chosen, it is the PC/governmental term for 'white'

http://bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf


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.

Beorn
06-16-2009, 10:16 AM
the BNP is on the hook to explain why exactly the position has gone to Billy Jackson instead of Khalid Muhammad and prove that racial bias was not a factor.

That's an easy one. Claim Billy is part of an affirmative action scheme to bring lowly paid, lowly educated minorities into high paying positions. :thumb001:

Loki
06-16-2009, 10:32 AM
This is a good thing. It's silly for the BNP to have this rule in their books ... it only makes them a target. Everybody knows what their policies are about by now. They should remove this, and then others will have less ammunition to attack them with. It could be an own-goal for the establishment if the BNP responded wisely.

Phlegethon
06-16-2009, 11:02 AM
Nice to know the US Census Bureau is controlled by the Ku Klux Klan


No, it is controlled by retards, which is pretty much the same as the KKK. The term Caucasian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race) is a 19th century one, first used by the German Johann Friedrich Blumenbach around 1800, but solely based of craniology, which isn't considered scientific at all. Ever been to the Caucasus? Go there and you'll know what I mean.

SwordoftheVistula
06-16-2009, 11:14 AM
I'm not the one who makes the Political Correctness rules, I'm just explaining what they are. The word 'white' is associated with such terms as 'white supremacy', so it is avoided, and instead other terms such as 'caucasian' are preferred. Usually they don't bother though, as 'white' is generally used in a derogatory fashion, 'white privilege', 'white flight', etc

Loki
06-16-2009, 11:20 AM
I'm not the one who makes the Political Correctness rules, I'm just explaining what they are. The word 'white' is associated with such terms as 'white supremacy', so it is avoided, and instead other terms such as 'caucasian' are preferred. Usually they don't bother though, as 'white' is generally used in a derogatory fashion, 'white privilege', 'white flight', etc

Caucasian is quite ambiguous though, as it includes Europeans, North Africans, Arabs, Iranians, Jews, and maybe even Pakistanis. It doesn't have any racial meaning, other than excluding mongoloids and black Africans.

Beorn
06-16-2009, 11:27 AM
In fairness to the BNP, they do stipulate 'indigenous Caucasians'.

Phlegethon
06-16-2009, 11:48 AM
That is people born in Caucasus? Like Stalin? Or Shamil Basayev? What happens if they're muslim? Sorry, but using the term Caucasian in connection with the word indigenous make them even more stupid than the KKK, actually.

SwordoftheVistula
06-16-2009, 12:07 PM
That is people born in Caucasus? Like Stalin? Or Shamil Basayev? What happens if they're muslim? Sorry, but using the term Caucasian in connection with the word indigenous make them even more stupid than the KKK, actually.

Perhaps you can join and submit a motion that they use the term 'aryan' instead :rolleyes:

Beorn
06-16-2009, 12:10 PM
You're reading too much into it, Phleg. When the BNP talk about 'indigenous Caucasians', they are not talking about the people of Georgia or Azerbaijan, but the people of the British Isles.

Phlegethon
06-16-2009, 12:14 PM
Hmm, they should say so then instead of using words they apparently don't fully comprehend. The British Isles are exactly on the other end of Europe, compared to the Caucasus region. And you can be indigenous there and still be a Paki, Jamaican or whatnot.

Phlegethon
06-16-2009, 12:19 PM
Perhaps you can join and submit a motion that they use the term 'aryan' instead :rolleyes:



http://www.attilahildmann.com/drinks/ayran/bilder/ayran_big.jpg

Join the White Ayran Resistance!

Cato
06-16-2009, 12:22 PM
Many thanks to globalisation

But something tells me that these non-whites aren't going to join the BNP in droves. Perhaps here and there, but I can't really envision too many blacks or east and south Asians joining the BNP unless they're very agreeable to the party's policies.

Beorn
06-16-2009, 12:22 PM
Hmm, they should say so then instead of using words they apparently don't fully comprehend.

Perhaps, but I as a voter understand exactly who they refer to when they say it.


And You can be indigenous there and still be a Paki, Jamaican or whatnot.In Britain? The fact that you have to mention the ancestral geographic location to describe them tells you that they are certainly not indigenous to Britain.

Phlegethon
06-16-2009, 12:31 PM
The term indigenous can be stretched like a rubber band as well, which makes the use of such terms in the parties charter (!) not only useless but silly. Better pull that stipulation completely and make it an unwritten rule that the applicant has to have 4 British grandparents (or 8 britih great-grandparents for the hardcore faction). Somewhere you have to draw the line, once you have made the step from racist sect to political party.

Loki
06-16-2009, 12:32 PM
I agree that the terminology of "indigenous Caucasian" should be scrapped in favour of something else. Alternatives could be:

- Indigenous Europeans
- Indigenous populations
- British nations (English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish)

... and, of course, a clause to include immigrants like myself, of kindred ancestry and culture. ;) :P

Beorn
06-16-2009, 12:37 PM
The term indigenous can be stretched like a rubber band as well

Just so I can understand your viewpoint, but how so?


Better pull that stipulation completely and make it an unwritten rule that the applicant has to have 4 British grandparents (or 8 britih great-grandparents for the hardcore faction). Somewhere you have to draw the line, once you have made the step from racist sect to political party.

If this new law currently being proposed comes into effect, then I'm sure such a rule would be implemented to some degree.

Treffie
06-16-2009, 12:39 PM
The term `Europid` can also be used to describe Caucasian. ;)

Loki
06-16-2009, 12:40 PM
Better even -- don't have any admission criteria! Just stipulate the fact that the party will work towards the benefit of the indigenous English, Scots, Welsh, ect, and will promote their interests. If non-whites want to support it, then it's up to them. Their support can't change the party's policies anyway.

Phlegethon
06-16-2009, 12:40 PM
... and, of course, a clause to include immigrants like myself, of kindred ancestry and culture. ;) :P

Sorry, no indigenous Africans, Kunta Kinte!

Loki
06-16-2009, 12:45 PM
Sorry, no indigenous Africans, Kunta Kinte!

:grumpy:

Phlegethon
06-16-2009, 12:55 PM
Another problem is that British is a political, not an ethnic term. You can become British by self-acclamation. Yet more explaining to do for the BNP.

Loki
06-16-2009, 01:02 PM
Aren't we overly critical of them though? They deserve some credit -- they're 100% better than the mainstream parties.

Phlegethon
06-16-2009, 01:07 PM
The BNP has never been in a position to do anything ass a party, and in those few municipal councils they got elected to most of them failed. That is a very common experience for smaller parties and hopefully they will eventually grow out of it. But from now on I will have a close look at what the BNP MEPs are doing in Strasbourg.

Loki
06-16-2009, 01:10 PM
The BNP has never been in a position to do anything ass a party, and in those few municipal councils they got elected to most of them failed. That is a very common experience for smaller parties and hopefully they will eventually grow out of it. But from now on I will have a close look at what the BNP MEPs are doing in Strasbourg.

Yes it's a learning curve for them, and people are involved who have little or no experience of politics ... which is probably why many trust them. They always stress it is a long-term project, which is the correct approach. There are no quick solutions. The BNP will evolve into something which is streamlined and effective, hopefully.

Freomæg
06-24-2009, 08:45 AM
The Equalities Commission hysteria over British National Party membership is nothing but a PR stunt which has no legal grounding whatsoever, said BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP.

Reacting to the news that the Equality and Human Rights Commission, headed up by black arch-racist Trevor Phillips, had written to the BNP demanding that it change its membership and employment criteria, Mr Griffin said it was obvious that the whole thing was just a publicity stunt engineered by the far left and Labour Party front organisations.

“It is all a bit of liberal hysteria couched in legal terms,” Mr Griffin told BNP News. “The fact that the letter was served on us through the mass media shows that it is actually not legal in intent at all.”

Mr Griffin said the BNP was an exempted organisation under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Race Relations Act which allow for exclusive ethnic organisations with a membership of 50 or more. “The BNP has never been in breach of any of the provisions of the law in terms of its membership and Mr Phillips knows this to be the case,” he said.

“It is a ridiculous PR stunt by Mr Phillips, who is yet another unelected member of the Labour Party who has been promoted beyond his capacity, just like his good friend Mr Peter Mandelson.

“Furthermore, Mr Phillips and the EHRC are on record as being utterly biased in favour of non-indigenous British groups and against the BNP,” Mr Griffin continued.

“Last year in May, for example, Mr Phillips told the Scottish Trade Union Congress that the ‘BNP should be treated as less than human.’ Anyone who suggests that the EHRC has an objective view on the BNP should have their head examined,” he said.

“In contrast, the BNP has a mandate from nearly a million British people who voted for us on June 4th. That is a real mandate, and we reject the EHRC’s grandstanding. We note that Mr Phillips refused to even comment on a ‘black children only’ school programme which specifically discriminated against white kids despite receiving direct funding from the government.

“Furthermore, it has not missed anyone’s attention that the EHRC’s staff is overwhelmingly of non-British origin. When it is considered that this organisation receives £70 million in public funds - more than the foreign aid budget to Zimbabwe - then it can be seen that the EHRC itself is open to question in terms of its objectivity and legality,” Mr Griffin continued.

“The EHRC has never objected to the thousands of organisations in receipt of public funding which exist solely for the interests of non-indigenous groups, such as Bangladeshis, Afghans or Somalis. Somehow the EHRC and Mr Phillips only spring into action when someone dares to speak up for the English, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh people of Britain.

“Mr Phillips is on record has having had a bust of Lenin on his desk and that should tell us all that we need to know about this vile anti-British organisation which he heads up at a huge salary,” Mr Griffin said.

“Nonetheless, we are taking this neo-Marxist assault seriously, and have already obtained the best possible legal advice. We will be responding to the EHRC’s impertinent and bullying letter in due course.

“We will also be asking them to explain their grotesque failure to address extremely serious problems such as the black rape gangs scandal which was highlighted with unusual courage and lack of self-censorship by Channel 4 last night.”

www.bnp.org.uk

Phlegethon
06-24-2009, 08:50 AM
They could have seen that coming. Doesn't the BNP have any decent lawyers that check such stuff beforehand?

SwordoftheVistula
06-24-2009, 08:56 AM
The BNP has never been in a position to do anything ass a party, and in those few municipal councils they got elected to most of them failed. That is a very common experience for smaller parties and hopefully they will eventually grow out of it. But from now on I will have a close look at what the BNP MEPs are doing in Strasbourg.


Yes it's a learning curve for them, and people are involved who have little or no experience of politics ... which is probably why many trust them. They always stress it is a long-term project, which is the correct approach. There are no quick solutions. The BNP will evolve into something which is streamlined and effective, hopefully.

As it was explained to me, the people behind the BNP's first electoral victories in Burnley and high results in Oldham were 'leftovers from the Tyndall years', 'neonazis', 'fat guys with shaved heads in union jack t-shirts' etc.

There was a huge fight a couple few years ago, a bunch of the 'old timers' quit/kicked out depending on who is telling the story, and the BNP is different today than it was 10-15 years ago or even 5 years ago.

Phlegethon
06-24-2009, 09:06 AM
At least with Tyndall (and John Peacock) you knew what you were getting. With Griffin you can only be sure that there's a lot of scheming, plotting and betraying going on.

Loki
06-24-2009, 09:29 AM
With Griffin you can only be sure that there's a lot of scheming, plotting and betraying going on.

How so? :)

The only thing about Griffin I don't like is his eye, but that's not his fault.

Phlegethon
06-24-2009, 09:35 AM
In a party of the blind the one-eyed is king. Until they find someone with two working eyes.

Freomæg
06-24-2009, 09:43 AM
In a party of the blind the one-eyed is king. Until they find someone with two working eyes.
Haha, whilst that was very clever, I'm interested to know whether you have any personal aversion to the BNP and for what reason. They're not perfect and I don't agree 100% with their policies, but they're head and shoulders above anything else we have and they're making significant gains at a very crucial time in the world's development. As far as I can see, they're the only hope Britain has and as such, I feel we should put our differences aside and be thankful for the good that they do.

Phlegethon
06-24-2009, 10:08 AM
I have absolutely no sympathy for the BNP anymore - since I knew their main protagonists in the pre-Griffin era. The NF of the early 80s still had more potential. Being better than the rest does not imply that they're any good.

Loki
06-24-2009, 10:49 AM
The NF of the early 80s still had more potential.

Certainly not electoral potential.

Phlegethon
06-24-2009, 11:17 AM
Party potential. Electoral potential is pretty irrelevant when you only have a handful of sociopathic air pumps to offer. Such an outfit won't fly in the long run.

SwordoftheVistula
06-25-2009, 10:02 AM
Party potential. Electoral potential is pretty irrelevant

What is is a political party for, if not winning elections?

Phlegethon
06-25-2009, 10:38 AM
Changing things for the better, maybe? Winning an election just to do nothing except grab the money I do not consider political but kleptocratic.

Loki
06-25-2009, 11:02 AM
Changing things for the better, maybe? Winning an election just to do nothing except grab the money I do not cosider political but kleptocratic.

A party which remains small, extremist and uncompromising is unlikely to be able to make any impact on society whatsoever, other than being a laughing stock in pub conversations.

Phlegethon
06-25-2009, 11:56 AM
A party which remains small, extremist and uncompromising is unlikely to be able to make any impact on society whatsoever, other than being a laughing stock in pub conversations.


A party which is small, wishy-washy, money-grabbing and doing nothing at all in the parliaments is even more unlikely to make any impact. And they usually do not get re-elected either.

Útrám
06-25-2009, 12:34 PM
This is unfair but how is it problematic? A bald man will not join the men's hair club any time soon.

SwordoftheVistula
06-25-2009, 02:23 PM
Changing things for the better, maybe? Winning an election just to do nothing

They can't change things for the better if they don't win elections. Also, they have said they stand in elections they know they can't win because the number of votes they get helps legitimize them in the eyes of the public.


This is unfair but how is it problematic? A bald man will not join the men's hair club any time soon.

UKIP/English Democrat types might join, or troublemakers intent on showing 'how discriminatory the BNP is' if they don't get promoted to leadership roles or selected as candidates.

Fortis in Arduis
06-25-2009, 08:11 PM
A party which is small, wishy-washy, money-grabbing and doing nothing at all in the parliaments is even more unlikely to make any impact. And they usually do not get re-elected either.

Oh, just shut your fish flaps... :rolleyes: