• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill will ban 'white only' BNP.

Laila

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
BNP faces challenge in equality legislation

The far-right British National Party's membership rules will be made illegal under the Government's new Equalities Bill, a cabinet minister has revealed.

Harriet Harman, the Commons leader and Labour deputy leader, spoke of her "shock and horror" that the North West was being represented in the European Parliament by BNP leader Nick Griffin.

However, she pledged that 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".
Click to expand...

In the Equality Bill passing through this House, that constitution will be unlawful."
Click to expand...

This is not good. Not good at all.
Is it only me having a bad feeling about this ...
 
Forgot link.

What exactly is the significance of such a party constitution? Does it have any power, or is it just a list of ideals the party is supposed to represent?

Although I dislike the government taking action that suppresses other parties, in this situation it seems necessary. Imagine if the BNP became a majority party in Britain and still kept the rule?
 
rathi said:
Forgot link.

What exactly is the significance of such a party constitution? Does it have any power, or is it just a list of ideals the party is supposed to represent?

Although I dislike the government taking action that suppresses other parties, in this situation it seems necessary. Imagine if the BNP became a majority party in Britain and still kept the rule?
Click to expand...

BNP faces challenge in equality legislation - Lancashire Evening Post

Equality Bill Will Outlaw Apartheid Constitution Of The Bnp (from The Herald )

Sorry.
Maybe but i am just concerned it will create a persecution mentality amongst some of the whites who voted BNP and BNP politicans themselves so they can point and say look what we are going through, we must be telling the truth and they want to suppress us.

Party membership, they may have to accept non whites by force into their party or be sued
 
Canadian-bloke said:
why should a racist party like this run for office?
Click to expand...

Because we live in a Democracy and shouldn't have the power to ban parties from running no matter how disgusting we find them?
 
It would be hypocritical of me to always criticize the Congressional Black Caucus and not point out from time to time what scumbags the BNP are.
 
Laila said:
Because we live in a Democracy and shouldn't have the power to ban parties from running no matter how disgusting we find them?
Click to expand...

I know my daughter could not believe they were allowed to stand when I told her they were hoping to get some seats...and I probably felt like that when I first heard.

I think this just should have been done before they had any seats and before they started making any progress.

They stand for things which contravene some of our laws. For that reason they should be unlawful.

The only thing is this should have been realised and something done about it before, not making new laws once someone gets elected.

I imagine that they will just change whatever it is via lip service and possibly get some more votes because people think as you said in another post that they are being persecuted.

I don't believe now they have any intention of going away unless they have no funds.

P.S The Guardian had an article about a week ago on the likelihood of them facing these sort of challenges. Here is the link BNP poll win brings cash and staff ? and legal challenges over racism | Politics | The Guardian
 
Last edited:
I hate them as much as any sane person does [especially taking into consideration i'd be one of those repatriated] but we cannot stop them as they are democratically elected. They have the right to speak.
 
Don't like 'em, don't vote for them.

If we can have things that are black-only, then organizations that are white-only should not be barred, unless they form a significant monopoly of access to something important.
 
Laila said:
I hate them as much as any sane person does [especially taking into consideration i'd be one of those repatriated] but we cannot stop them as they are democratically elected. They have the right to speak.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you don't like them. I don't quite understand why new laws are necessary.

They are not an equal opportunities employer. Possibly the problem is that it would require people to try and get jobs with them to prove that.

From the link I gave

"A black or Jewish candidate who applied and didn't get the job on grounds of their racial or religious background would have a claim in the employment tribunal," Millar said.

"If an individual challenges and they maintain a practice not employing any visible minority people, there is no doubt that like any employer who has such practices, they can be sued," said employment barrister and chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, Peter Herbert. "When they are in receipt of public funds they will have to be an equal opportunities employer. To do otherwise would be incompatible with public office.

"I can see the equality commission mounting an inquiry into how the BNP operate now. The office of public standards could also inquire."
Click to expand...

Anyway it is bolting the door after the horse is out and does sound wrong after people have been allowed to vote for them. I agree to that.

I would feel happier if it were done under existing laws - which would of course beg the question why they were allowed to stand.
 
Last edited:
alexa said:
I would feel happier if it were done under existing laws - which would of course beg the question why they were allowed to stand.
Click to expand...

No law exists in the books which deals with this. It just protects unfair dismissal. Probably why they are passing it through with the equality bill.
 
I don't find much difference between race and gender bias. Do the posters here throw a hissy fit when our own Sect'y of State makes nice nice with countries that curtail the rights of women?
 
Laila said:
No law exists in the books which deals with this. It just protects unfair dismissal. Probably why they are passing it through with the equality bill.
Click to expand...


That can only be because something like this happening must have been thought to not be possible.

There are laws about refusing people jobs based on their race, aren't there?

Their constitution could be found to go against some laws I would have thought.

If something new were needed it should have been brought in before. It is crazy that it was not.
 
Last edited:
Canadian-bloke said:
why should a racist party like this run for office?
Click to expand...

If you're living in a free society, any party can run for office; that's why. Why would you restrict it is the better question.
 
Making them admit non-whites does nothing. It won't prevent them from being racist, it won't change their minds on things. It'll just give them fuel for their hatred if anything.

So by making them change the stated rules, the same racists will be in power, but they'll just be a smidgen less openly racist than before. Why make them hide their ignorance?
 
Laila said:
I hate them as much as any sane person does [especially taking into consideration i'd be one of those repatriated] but we cannot stop them as they are democratically elected. They have the right to speak.
Click to expand...
This is wrong and this is why European democracy is so screwed up.
Real democracy has the right to defend itself from elements that might lead to anti-democratic policies.
If there's a party that doesn't support one of the major values of democracy, you ban it from partaking in the elections.
And if the BNP supports inequality, then their place is out of the politics ground.
I really can't understand what sane democracy would allow an anti-democratic party to be a part of its government.
 
Apocalypse said:
If there's a party that doesn't support one of the major values of democracy, you ban it from partaking in the elections.
Click to expand...

No party should ever be banned unless it breaks our laws, and even then it should be a last resort.
Living in a democracy and accepting it means you should also accept those you disagree with. No Government should ever have the ability to ban parties, such a thing inevitably leads aways from democracy
 
Laila said:
No party should ever be banned unless it breaks our laws, and even then it should be a last resort.
Living in a democracy and accepting it means you should also accept those you disagree with. No Government should ever have the ability to ban parties, such a thing inevitably leads aways from democracy
Click to expand...
I can understand from this that you also support hate speech then, right Laila?
 
Apocalypse said:
I can understand from this that you also support hate speech then, right Laila?
Click to expand...

Many of us support "hate speech" if by supporting the right of idiotic racists to speak, we also support the right of free people, EVERYWHERE, to speak. It's part and parcel. You can't curtail someone else's free speech without endangering your own.
 
Tucker Case said:
Making them admit non-whites does nothing. It won't prevent them from being racist, it won't change their minds on things. It'll just give them fuel for their hatred if anything.

So by making them change the stated rules, the same racists will be in power, but they'll just be a smidgen less openly racist than before. Why make them hide their ignorance?
Click to expand...


I agree.

They already allow the odd Jew and Indian in
 
alexa said:
I would feel happier if it were done under existing laws - which would of course beg the question why they were allowed to stand.
Click to expand...

Because in free countries people are allowed to make their own clubs with their own membership rules and to hire the people they want to hire and to not hire the people they don't want to hire.

This is a basic human freedom.
 
Laila said:
No party should ever be banned unless it breaks our laws, and even then it should be a last resort.
Living in a democracy and accepting it means you should also accept those you disagree with. No Government should ever have the ability to ban parties, such a thing inevitably leads aways from democracy
Click to expand...

very true. I was thinking the same myself.

I also think that it would take no time at all for the BNP to be found breaking some of our laws - whether that matters as they are off to Europe I do not know.

You don't get elected to Parliament with the kind of share of the vote they had.
 
Apocalypse said:
Real democracy has the right to defend itself from elements that might lead to anti-democratic policies.
Click to expand...

No, actually, it doesn't.

You either allow the people the freedom to choose, or you deny them that freedom.

There's no middle ground.

Apocalypse said:
If there's a party that doesn't support one of the major values of democracy, you ban it from partaking in the elections.
Click to expand...

You should spend some time in a corner thinking about this. You're saying the majority has the right to stifle the minority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom