not surprised by this. Given Britain’s systematic anti-discrimination laws, which even bar a Catholic adoption agency from discriminating in favor of heterosexual married couples, how could we imagine that the BNP membership rules, which limit party membership to those descended from the British isles and closely related European groups, could be maintained? Also, as Nick Griffin points out in the below article, a new equality bill is in the works which will specifically ban ethnic parties in any case.
Just as I’m not surprised by this, I don’t see it as a serious defeat for the BNP.
While I have always supported BNP’s right to define and limit membership as they choose, I never felt that their membership rules were crucial to their mission of saving Britain for the British. Besides, who will want to join BNP, other than those who support BNP’s mission of saving Britain for the British? And why would BNP admit anyone—and how could BNP be forced to admit anyone—who didn’t believe in its mission? So this outcome doesn’t seem like a big deal. In fact it will help BNP, by removing the single biggest objection to it, the one thing about the party that more than any other freaks out the Chicken Littles—excuse me, the Peter Hitchenses—of the world.
A further thought on the question of discriminatory membership rules. I am of Jewish ethnic background. Perhaps if I were a British subject the BNP under its present rules wouldn’t admit me. Though there are Jewish BNP members, such as Patricia Richardson who spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference in February, the issue as I understand it is ambiguous. But let’s say, just for the sake of discussion, that I were excluded. While I wouldn’t be particularly happy about that, it wouldn’t particularly bother me either, because I would understand that if Britain is to survive, the historic British people and culture must survive, which requires, at a minimum, that it be able to express itself as a people and culture and maintain its demographic dominance. And if the BNP felt that an ethnically limited membership were necessary to carry out that mission, I would support their right to make that choice. And by the way, this is not about supporting anti-Semitism. I have spoken favorably of BNP in recent years because of its rejection of anti-Semitism. But being ethnically exclusive is not the same as being anti-anything.. If you believe that, then you believe that an all gentile country club has no moral right to exist. As an ethnic Jew, I support the right of a gentile club not to admit Jews. That might create some socially uncomfortable moments for me. But far better are some uncomfortable moments for me, than the destruction of the most fundamental human freedom, the freedom of association, under a tyrannical egalitarian state.
Thus, if I were a British Jew, I would support the BNP whether I were allowed to be a member or not, in the same way that I believe that a patriotic American Jew ought to support and defend America’s majority Christian religion and culture, even though he himself is not a Christian. Liberalism tells us that minorities must come first. This gets reality backward. For a country to thrive and survive, its majority must come first.
The BNP Will Have to Adapt or Die, Warns Party Leader
September 2, 2009 by BNP News
Filed under National News
The British National Party will have to adapt to the undemocratic Orwellian ‘equality laws’ with regards to party membership criteria, or it will die, party leader Nick Griffin warned in reaction to today’s court hearing brought by the Commission for Equality & Human Rights (CEHR).
“The CEHR move is a deadly serious threat to our very existence,” Mr Griffin said in a statement this evening. He pointed out that the severe danger to the party was illustrated by the fact that the court ordered the BNP to pay the costs of today’s hearing—which amount to thousands of pounds—and yet nothing had been decided.
To pursue the case all the way to an appeal in the House of Lords could cost the party more than a million pounds, he continued. This would effectively strip the party of its ability to fight the next general election.
Even though the outcome of the case is still undecided, Mr Griffin said that whatever the court might decide, “the forthcoming Equality Bill will, in any case, simply and unavoidably ban any political party from discriminating on grounds of ethnicity.”
The entire court case is therefore pointless even from the CEHR’s position, and is clearly designed only to bleed the party of its funding.
Mr Griffin said any decision on amending the BNP’s constitution in this matter would “stick in the craw of all dedicated nationalists” but that it was a choice of “evolving and living to fight another day or going down in a blaze of glory.”
Mr Griffin said the starting point for any debate had to be “an understanding that the new law will shortly ban ethnically defined parties anyway. This makes the CEHR`s waste of public money so disgraceful and their attempt to bleed us to death by a totally unnecessary legal action so cynical and despicable.
“We could still fight it all the way on a point of stubborn principle—I think that most party old hands have worked out some time ago that I can be pretty damn stubborn when the time is right. The decision is not just mine to make,” he said, adding that it was a decision which must be taken by the party as a collective whole.
Mr Griffin said that if the party wanted to fight the case all the way, it would need to raise an extra £80,000 in the next four weeks. Some £20,000 would be needed this week to buy in more top lawyers’ time to triple check and hone to perfection the changes the party would have to make in its constitution and organisation.
“I have no doubt that it is possible to redraft our constitution so as to ensure we comply with the new law while at the same time holding true to our core principles and most importantly of all, to our purpose—which is to secure a future for the true children of our islands,” Mr Griffin said.
“By taking this as far as a court hearing, we have ensured that party unity will be maintained, because whatever steps we take, it is now crystal clear to all concerned that we simply do not have a choice.
“Adapt or die is the only decision left to make, for failure to adapt would lead either to our being bled white through the courts or crushed by new criminal laws. Party unity is priceless, because a party of brothers standing shoulder to shoulder can be persecuted, but it can never be beaten or broken.”
Mr Griffin concluded with a promise that once the party had moved to a “truly defensible position, we will go on the attack. Not just politically, so that our enemies quickly rue the day when they broke the very stick with which they have beaten us for so long, but also legally.
“We will be going into legal battle against Trevor Phillips and the rest of the ‘curs’, but it will be fought on ground that we choose, at the time that we appoint, and with our maximum strength directed against their weakest point. Our time will come—and sooner than they think.”
Mr Griffin’s full statement is as follows: [see statement here]]
Statement from BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP on the Commission for Equality & Human Rights (CEHR) Case
02 September 2009
The barrister representing the party was at court on our behalf and got what we wanted—a seven week adjournment. This gives us the time and space we need to continue the urgent debate which opened with the very constructive and mature discussion meeting at the Red, White and Blue.
But most important of all, we have established two crucial points that had to be made, and could only be made by taking this as far as court, despite the inevitable cost.
The first is that the CEHR move, although motivated by their own internal political feuds as much as anything else, is a deadly serious threat to our very existence.
This is neither a game nor a phantom concern conjured up in order to push through changes to the constitution—which might well be electorally advantageous—but would stick in the craw of us dedicated nationalists.
Either we shift our position or we will be utterly crushed. That fact was established beyond any possible doubt when the judge ruled that we must pay the thousands of pounds of costs of today’s hearing.
How much that bill will be, we cannot tell, because part of the grotesque unfairness of this is that we will be forced to hire the services of a very good legal firm simply to argue that the figure which will be proposed by Trevor Phillips and co will be far too high and has to be reduced to something sensible and proportionate.
For us to take this case to the next hearing would mean raising and risking at least £80,000. To take it all the way to the House of Lords would swallow up well over a million Pounds.
Even if we were likely to win, we could only afford this with a super human effort which would involve, among other sacrifices, virtually abandoning the next general election.
What makes that course of action even more of a Charge of the Light Brigade gesture is, that whatever the court decides in October, the forthcoming Equality Bill will, in any case, simply and unavoidably ban any political party from discriminating on grounds of ethnicity.
By taking this as far as a court hearing, we have ensured that party unity will be maintained, because whatever steps we take, it is now crystal clear to all concerned that we simply do not have a choice.
Adapt or die is the only decision left to make, for failure to adapt would lead either to our being bled white through the courts or crushed by new criminal laws.
Party unity is priceless, because a party of brothers standing shoulder to shoulder can be persecuted, but it can never be beaten or broken.
The second vital point we’ve made clear by letting this get all the way to court is that traditional British justice—indeed, the very essence of Britishness—is dead, murdered as part of New Labour´s creeping coup d’état.
Two of the great and ancient cornerstones of our true British identity are fairness and the unbreakable rule that institutions of the state must be bound by the rule of law.
The creation of CEHR and this persecution shattered both of those cornerstones. It is grotesquely unfair that a state-funded bureaucracy with 70 top lawyers and £70 million to burn, can decide, without showing a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing, to persecute a group of twelve and a half thousand mainly working class volunteers.
When the CEHR was established, it was originally intended to be bound by the kind of restrictions that are rightly imposed on all state bodies. The Labour government and the political elite have scrapped the safeguards.
The CEHR is an autocratic power block which can go before any court and follow the maxim of Humpty Dumpty in Alice through the Looking Glass that “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Our lawyers’ highly compelling argument that the principle of Equality of Arms means that CEHR should fund our defence (as they would indeed assist any organisation representing literally any other ethnic group) was simply brushed aside by CEHR’s own lawyers, and thus not even considered by the court.
The shocking truth is that not even the Inland Revenue has this amount of power. The tax-grabbers are at least required to be, and to show, that they are fair.
The CEHR are empowered to do whatever they think fit. This is not British; it isn’t cricket. It is a fundamental change not just in our law but in our entire culture.
The scale of CEHR’s power and monstrous arrogance is best shown by the fact that their lawyers seriously proposed to the court to settle in a mere two hours the fundamental question raised by this case: namely whether indigenous groups recognised in law as having their ethnic origins in these islands (Eilias v MoD) and covered by the liberal-left’s own Race Relations Act are entitled to form associations of their own kind.
“Of course, they know perfectly well that we are. They know that we are, hence the brutal use of their legal steamroller to ensure that we cannot afford to make this particular case the Cause Celebre that would bring the point home to untold numbers more who are at present in blissful ignorance of our rights and duties as the first peoples of these, our islands.
So where do we go from here? The starting point for the debate has to be an understanding that the new law will shortly ban ethnically defined parties anyway, which makes CEHR`s waste of public money so disgraceful, and their attempt to bleed us to death by a totally unnecessary legal action, so cynical and despicable.
We could still fight it all the way on a point of stubborn principle—I think that most party old hands have worked out some time ago that I can be pretty damn stubborn when the time is right. The decision as to whether this is the right time to stand and go down in a blaze of glory, or to evolve and live to fight another day, is one that is not just mine to make. It is yours as well.
If the party collectively wants to fight, then we have to raise £80,000 extra in the next four weeks. If the party collectively wants to guarantee its survival, then we need £20,000 this week to buy in more top lawyers’ time to triple check and hone to perfection the changes we would have to make to our constitution and organisation.
We have already identified these, but our rough diamonds have to be cut and polished, and our iron tempered into the brightest steel.
I have no doubt that it is possible to redraft our constitution so as to ensure we comply with the new law while at the same time holding true to our core principles and most important of all to our purpose—to secure a future for the true children of our islands.
And I promise you one thing beyond this: That once we have moved to a truly defensible position we will go on the attack.
Not just politically, so that our enemies quickly rue the day when they broke the very stick with which they have beaten us for so long, but also legally.
We will be going into legal battle against Trevor Phillips and the rest of the ‘curs’, but it will be fought on ground that we choose, at the time that we appoint, and with our maximum strength directed against their weakest point. Our time will come—and sooner than they think.